1 / 40

Cognitive-Functional Linguistics

June 19, 2006. RT/CFL. 2. The Emergent Grammar 1. Grammatical structure

armen
Télécharger la présentation

Cognitive-Functional Linguistics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Cognitive-Functional Linguistics Some Basic Tenets III Rolf Theil Bergen, June 19, 2006

    2. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 2 The Emergent Grammar 1 Grammatical structure grows upwards from instances. There is no sharp boundary between lexicon and grammar. They are different aspects of the same network of extension and instantiation relations.

    3. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 3 The Emergent Grammar 2 Grammar and lexicon constitute construc-tions with varying degrees of schematicity. Grammatical constructions are more schematic than lexical constructions. Grammar cannot be neatly divided into syntax and morphology. Syntax and morphology constitute construc-tions of varying size and complexity. Syntactic constructions are bigger and more complex than morphological constructions.

    4. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 4 The Emergent Grammar 3 Common structural principles hold across phonology, semantics, pragmatics, morpho-logy, syntax, and other aspects of language. The morphological network illustrated earlier is governed by exactly the same principles as those governing the syntactic aspects of the lexicon-morphology-syntax continuum.

    5. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 5 The Emergent Grammar 4 In our presentation of The Emergent Grammar, we left out some aspects that we shall take a look at now: Entrenchment Composition Categorization

    6. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 6 Entrenchment 1 Usage affects grammatical represen-tation in the mind. Frequency of use correlates with entrenchment. Constructions that are more frequently processed become more entrenched in the language system. Entrenchment may be interpreted as resting activity.

    7. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 7 Entrenchment 2 There are two main types of frequency: Token frequency Type frequency Token frequency gives rise to the entrenchment of instances. Type frequency gives rise to the entrenchment of more abstract schemas.

    8. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 8 Entrenchment 3 Token frequency gives rise to the entrenchment of instances. Example Each time the constructions (or words) [[dansa] / [DANCE, PAST]] and [[so:g] / [SEE, PAST]] are used, their mental representations are strengthened. [[so:g] / [SEE, PAST]] is much more frequent than [[dansa] / [DANCE, PAST]]. A subsequent reduction in use weakens the entrenchment.

    9. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 9 Entrenchment 4 Assuming that [[so:g] / [SEE, PAST]] as well as [[dansa] / [DANCE, PAST]] have unit status, we can represent the differences in entrench-ment by letting the degree of entrenchment correlate with the thickness of the lines used to draw the unit boxes:

    10. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 10 Entrenchment 5 Type frequency gives rise to the entrenchment of more abstract schemas. Example [[so:g] / [SEE, PAST]] and [[lo:g] / [LIE, PAST]] are the only instances of the schema [[Co:g] / [VERB, PAST]]. [[dansa] / [DANCE, PAST]] and thousands of other verbs instantiate the schema [[a] / [VERB, PAST]]. The entrenchment of a schema is governed by its number of instances. This is illustrated on the next slide.

    11. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 11 Entrenchment 6 A weakly entrenched schema with a few strongly entrenched instances. A strongly entrenched schema with many weakly entrenched instances.

    12. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 12 Entrenchment 7 Productivity is a matter of degree. Productivity is a matter of how available a pattern is for the sanction of novel expressions. Sanction: the motivation afforded a novel structure by the conventional units of the language. Productivity amounts to likelihood of being selected as the active structure used to categorize a novel expression. Strongly entrenched schemas are more easily activated (they have a higher resting activity) than weakly entrenched schemas.

    13. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 13 Composition 1 Composition: The relation between component structures and the composite structure that derives from them. A composite structure is a structure that results when two or more component structures combine. [[hopa] / [JUMP, PAST]] is a composite structure. The component structures are: [[hopa] / [JUMP, TNS]] [[sa] / VERB, PAST]] The relationship between the structures is shown on the next slide.

    14. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 14 Composition 2 hopa / JUMP, PAST

    15. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 15 Composition 3 Composition between two structures is only possible if at least one of them is partly schematic, like the red, outlined parts of the structures to the right.

    16. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 16 Composition 4 A schematic part of a structure is called an elaboration site. To elaborate: to instantiate a schema. An elaboration site: those facets of one component structure that another component structure serves to elaborate.

    17. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 17 Composition 5 The component structures of a composite structure (= a complex construction) are not like classical morphemes that are stacked together to form more complex edifices, where form and meaning are parts of the individual building blocks, e.g. as in: {/dans/dance}+{/a/past}

    18. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 18 Composition 6 The component structures are more or less schematic structures that are integrated with each other. The structure below, which is the CFL counterpart of the classical morpheme {/a/past}, is a schematic word:

    19. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 19 Composition 7 Classical morphemes are assumed to predict the form and meaning of a complex word. CFL component structures motivate the form and meaning of a composite structure. Example on the next slide.

    20. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 20 Composition 8 The morphemic analysis of fireman is: {/fa???/fire} + {/mn/man} Fireman has two related meanings: person whose job is putting out fires person who looks after the fire in a steam engine or furnace Neither meaning is predictable from the morphemic representation.

    21. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 21 Composition 9 CFL analysis of fireman

    22. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 22 Composition 10 A grammar is not a generative description, providing a formal enumeration of all and only the well-formed sentences of a language. Nor is the grammar a device that carries out a series of operations and gives well-formed sentences as its output.

    23. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 23 Composition 11 Putting together novel expressions is some-thing that speakers, not grammars. It is a problem-solving activity that demands a constructive effort and occurs when linguistic convention is put to use in specific circumstances. Creating a novel expression is not necessari-ly different in fundamental character from problem-solving activity in general.

    24. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 24 Categorization 1 Linguists are gradually coming to appreciate the critical significance of categorization to linguistic structure. The role of categorization is especially prominent in cognitive grammar, which invokes it for several basic functions. P. 369 in R. W. Langacker: Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1.

    25. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 25 Categorization 2 There are different models of categorization. The strict Criterial-Attribute Model (the Aristotelian model), despite its dominance in the Western intellectual tradition, cannot be accepted unquestioningly as the basis for language structure and behavior.

    26. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 26 Categorization 3 The Criterial-Attribute Model A class is characterized by means of a list of defining features. All members of the class fully possess every property on the list; no nonmembers possess all of the listed properties. Class membership is an all-or-nothing affair; a sharp distinction is drawn between those entities that are in the class and those that are not.

    27. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 27 Categorization 4 Well-known problems with the Criterial-Attribute Model A It often happens that certain class members lack a property so fundamental (on intuitive grounds) that it can hardly be denied criterial status: Flightless birds and egg-laying mammals are familiar illustrations.

    28. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 28 Categorization 5 Well-known problems with the Criterial-Attribute Model B A set of properties sufficient to pick out all and only the members of a class might still be incomplete and inadequate as a characterization of that class. If the semantic specifications [FEATHERLESS] and [BIPED] were in fact adequate as criterial features for the class of humans, we would nevertheless hesitate to accept these features as a comprehensive or revealing description of our species.

    29. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 29 Categorization 6 Well-known problems with the Criterial-Attribute Model C Yet another problem is that speakers do not adhere rigidly to criterial attributes in judging class membership: Ive never seen an orange baseball before! Look at that giant baseball! This tennis ball is a good baseball. Who tore the cover off my baseball? My baseball just exploded! More on the next slide

    30. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 30 Categorization 7 Well-known problems with the Criterial-Attribute Model C Speakers do not adhere rigidly to criterial attributes in judging class membership: A speaker will not hesitate to call something a baseball even if it happens to be the wrong color (yellow) to be the wrong size (giant) to be wrong in virtually all criterial properties (tennis ball) to be drastically deformed (without cover) to have ceased to exist (exploded)

    31. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 31 Categorization 8 Two other models, more directly grounded in cognitive concerns, appear to offer more revelatory and empirical-ly adequate accounts of linguistic cate-gorization: The Prototype Model The Schema Model

    32. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 32 Categorization 9 The Prototype Model A prototype is a typical instance of a category, and other elements are assimi-lated to the category on the basis of their perceived resemblance to the prototype; there are degrees of membership based on degrees of similarity.

    33. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 33 Categorization 10 The Prototype Model The category plus the extensions constitute the category.

    34. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 34 Categorization 11 The Schema Model A schema is an abstract characterization that is fully compatible with all the members of the category it defines (so membership is not a matter of degree). It is an integrated structure that embodies the commonality of its members, which are conceptions of great specificity and detail that elaborate the schema in contrasting ways.

    35. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 35 Categorization 12 The Schema Model The schema plus the instances constitute the category

    36. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 36 Categorization 13 The Prototype Model and the Schema Model are intimately associated and are describable as aspects of a unified phenomenon. Categorization by extension typically presupposes and incorporates schematic relationships. A schema expresses the commonalities between a prototype and an extension.

    37. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 37 Categorization 14 Categories are networks containing prototypes and extensions, schemas and instances:

    38. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 38 Categorization 15: Baby BABY She had a baby Baby carrots Hey, baby! Baby / babe Hes such a baby. Mr Platt is the baby in his family P. 169 in Goldberg (2006): Constructions at work. A human, B infant, C small, D cute, E emotionally immature, F youngest in a family C small (and cute?) A human, D cute A human, D cute, G sexy, H female, I adult A human, E emotionally immature A human, F youngest in the family

    39. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 39 Categorization 16: Baby A human, B infant, C small, D cute, E emotionally immature, F youngest in a family, G sexy, H female, I adult

    40. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 40 Categorization 17: Norw. /p/

More Related