CognitiveFunctional Linguistics Some Basic Tenets II

1
Cognitive-Functional Linguistics Some Basic
Tenets II

• Rolf Theil
• Bergen, June 19, 2006

2
Why did we introduce the terms entrenchment,
abstraction, comparison, composition, and
association?

• The first answer
• Regarding the issue of innate specification I
  make no a priori claims. I do however sub-scribe
  to the general strategy in cognitive and
  functional linguistics of deriving lan-guage
  structure insofar as possible from the more
  general psychological capacities (e.g.
  perception, memory, categorization), positing
  inborn language-specific structures only as a
  last resort.
• R. W. Langacker (2000 2)

3
Why did we introduce the terms entrenchment,
abstraction, comparison, composition, and
association?

• The second answer
• The usage-based model is applicable to all
  domains of language structure semantics,
  phonology, lexicon, morphology, syntax. A
  linguistic system comprises large numbers of
  conventional units in each domain A few basic
  psychological phenomena apply repeatedly in
  all domains and at many levels of organization
  .
• R. W. Langacker (2000 2)

4
Six Theses About Grammar

• In The English Passive, chapter 4 in Con-cept,
  Image, and Symbol (1991), R. W. Langacker
  compares six theses about gram-mar accepted
  virtually without question by many theorists
  (e.g. generativists) with the corresponding
  cognitive view.
• They are listed on the next slide.
• Afterwards, we shall look at each of them in
  detail.

5
The Seven Theses
6
Descriptive Economy

• The Descriptive Minimalism Thesis
• Economy is to be sought in linguistic
  description. Specifically, particular statements
  are to be ex-cluded if the grammar contains a
  general state-ment (rule) that fully subsumes
  them.

• The Descriptive Maximalism Thesis
• Economy must be consistent with psychological
  reality. The grammar of a language repre-sents
  conventional linguistic knowledge and includes
  all linguistic structures learned as established
  units. Content units coexist in the grammar
  with subsuming schemas.

7
Rules and Lists 1

• Cognitive grammar seeks an accurate
  characterization of the structure and
  orga-nization of linguistic knowledge as an
  integral part of human cognition. The question
  whether the grammar of a language should include
  both general statements and particular statements
  sub-sumed by them is a factual rather than a
  methodological issue.

8
Rules and Lists 2

• If speakers in fact master and manipulate both
  lists (particular statements) and rules (general
  statements) from which these lists could be
  predicted, a truthful descrip-tion of their
  linguistic knowledge must contain both the lists
  and the rules.

9
Components of Grammar

• The Self-Contained Components Thesis
• Linguistic structure can be resolved into
  nume-rous separate, essential-ly self-contained
  compo-nents.

• The Continuum Thesis
• Only semantic, phonologi-cal, and bipolar
  symbolic units are posited. Sharp dichotomies are
  usually found only by arbitrarily selecting
  examples from opposite endpoints of a continuum.

10
Bipolar Symbolic Units Constructions

• All levels of grammatical analysis involve
  constructions
• learned pairings of form with semantic or
  discourse function
• including morphemes or words, idioms, partially
  lexically filled and fully general phrasal
  patterns.
• P. 5 in Adele E. Goldberg (2006)
• Constructions at Work. The Nature of
  Generalization in Language.

11
Examples of Constructions Varying in Size and
Complexity

• Morpheme
• Word
• Complex word
• Complex word (partially filled)
• Idiom (filled)
• Idiom (partially filled)
• Ditransitive

• pre-, -ing
• Avocado, and
• daredevil
• N-s (for regular plurals)
• going great guns
• jog ltsomeonesgt memory
• Subj V Obj1 Obj2

12
Autonomy of Syntax

• The Autonomous Syntax Thesis
• As a special case of the modularity of grammar,
  syntax is an autono-mous component dis-tinct from
  both seman-tics and lexicon.

• The Symbolic
• Syntax Thesis
• Syntax is not autonomous, but symbolic, forming a
  continuum with lexicon and morphology. Syntactic
  units are bipolar, with semantic and phonological
  poles.

13
Universality of Semantics

• The Universal Semantics Thesis
• Supporting the autonomy of syntax thesis, it can
  be pre-sumed that semantic struc-ture is
  universal, while gram-matical structure varies
  greatly from language to language.

• The Language-Specific Semantics Thesis
• Semantic structure is language specific,
  involving layers of con-ventional imagery.
  Semantic structure is conventionalized conceptual
  structure, and gram-mar is the conventional
  sym-bolization of semantic structure.

14
Universal Semantics

• Language has means for making reference to the
  objects, relations, properties and events that
  popu-late our everyday world. It is possible to
  suppose that these linguistic categories and
  structures are more or less straightforward
  mappings from a pre-existing conceptual space,
  programmed into our biological nature. Humans
  invent words that label their concepts.
• P. 266 in Li and Gleitman (2002)
• Turning the tables language and spatial
  reasoning. Cognition, 83, 26594. (Cited in
  Evans Green 2006 62)

15
Conventionalized Conceptual Structure

• Cognitive linguists argue against the view that
  language is pre-specified in the sense that
  semantic organization is mapped out by a set of
  primitives. Instead linguistic organization is
  held to reflect embodied cognition , which serve
  to constrain what is possible to experi-ence, and
  thus what is possible to express in language.
• P. 63-64 in V. Evans and M. Green (2006)
• Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction.

16
From Embodiment To Conceptual Structure
17
Meaningless Morphemes

• The Meaningless Morphemes Thesis
• In accordance with the auto-nomy of syntax thesis
  and the universality of semantics thesis,
  syntactic structure relies crucially on
  gramma-tical morphemes, which are often
  meaningless and serve purely formal purposes.

• The Meaningful
• Morphemes Thesis
• Grammatical morphemes are meaningful, and are
  present be-cause of their semantic contri-bution.

18
Meaningful Grammatical Morphemes 1

• The claim in autonomous syntax that
  gram-matical morphemes are for the most part
  mean-ingless, being inserted for purely formal or
  grammatical purposes, is almost a necessary one,
  since the autonomy of syntax would ap-pear very
  dubious if we admitted that gram-matical markers
  are meaningful, and that their syntactic use is
  determined by the meanings they convey.

19
Meaningful Grammatical Morphemes 2

• The distinction between lexical and gramma-tical
  morphemes represents an artifactual
  dichotomization based on sharp differences
  between examples selected from the end-points of
  what is really a continuum.
• In reality, however, both lexical and
  gramma-tical morphemes vary along a continuum in
  regard to such parameters as the complexity and
  abstractness of their semantic specifi-cations.

20
Meaningful Grammatical Morphemes 3

• While so-called lexical morphemes tend to cluster
  near the complex/concrete end of the continuum,
  we see a clear gradation in series like
  ostrichbirdanimalthing.
• So-called grammatical morphemes tend to cluster
  near the simple/abstract end of the continuum,
  but here too we observe a gradation
  abovemayhaveof.
• The scales clearly overlap.

21
Abstract Syntactic Structure

• The Abstract Syntactic Structure Thesis
• Syntactic structure is ab-stract. Surface
  structures often derive from deep struc-tures
  which are significantly different in character,
  and contain elements (grammati-cal morphemes)
  that have no place in underlying struc-ture.

• The Overt Grammatical Structure Thesis
• Grammatical structure is entire-ly overt. No
  underlying struc-tures or derivations are posited.

22
The Content Requirement

• The only units permitted in the grammar of a
  language are
• semantic, phonologi-cal, and symbolic structures
  that occur overtly in linguistic expressions
• (ii) structures that are schematic for those in
  (i).

• This requirement rules out all arbi-trary
  descriptive devices, i.e. those with no direct
  grounding in phonetic or semantic reality
• (a) contentless features or dia-critics
• (b) syntactic dummies with neither semantic nor
  phonological content, introduced solely to drive
  the formal machinery of autonomous syntax
• (c) the derivation of overt structures from
  abstract, underlying structures of a
  substantially different charac-ter.

23
The Generality of Syntax

• The Syntax-Lexicon Dichotomy Thesis
• Syntax consists primarily of general rules. It is
  to be distinguished sharply from lexicon, the
  repository for ir-regularity and idiosyncrasy.

• The Non-Generality of Syntax Thesis
• Lexicon and grammar form a continuum of symbolic
  struc-tures. This continuum contains no sharp
  dichotomies based on generality, regularity, or
  analy-zability.

24
Grammar versus Lexicon

• A Classical Generative Solution

25
Grammar versus Lexicon 1

• Lexicon
• hopar / JUMP, PRES
• hopa / JUMP, PAST
• dansar / DANCE, PRES
• dansa / DANCE, PAST
• spelar / PLAY, PRES
• spela / PLAY, PAST
• ser / SEE, PRES
• sog / SEE, PAST

26
Grammar versus Lexicon 2

• Lexicon
• hopar / JUMP, PRES
• hopa / JUMP, PAST
• dansar / DANCE, PRES
• dansa / DANCE, PAST
• spelar / PLAY, PRES
• spela / PLAY, PAST
• ser / SEE, PRES
• sog / SEE, PAST

• Grammar
• V, PRES ? V, PRES ar
• V, PAST ? V, PAST a

27
Grammar versus Lexicon 3

• Lexicon
• hopar / JUMP, PRES
• hopa / JUMP, PAST
• dansar / DANCE, PRES
• dansa / DANCE, PAST
• spelar / PLAY, PRES
• spela / PLAY, PAST
• ser / SEE, PRES
• sog / SEE, PAST

• Grammar
• V, PRES ? V, PRES ar
• V, PAST ? V, PAST a

28
Grammar versus Lexicon 4

• Lexicon
• hopar / JUMP, PRES
• hopa / JUMP, PAST
• dansar / DANCE, PRES
• dansa / DANCE, PAST
• spelar / PLAY, PRES
• spela / PLAY, PAST
• ser / SEE, PRES
• sog / SEE, PAST

• Grammar
• V, PRES ? V, PRES ar
• V, PAST ? V, PAST a

29
Grammar versus Lexicon 5

• Lexicon
• hop / JUMP
• dans / DANCE
• spel / PLAY
• ser / SEE, PRES
• sog / SEE, PAST
• kviler / REST, PRES
• kvilte / REST, PAST
• deler / DIVIDE, PRES
• delte / DIVIDE, PAST

• Grammar
• V, PRES ? V, PRES ar
• V, PAST ? V, PAST a
• V, PRES ? V, PRES er
• V, PAST ? V, PAST te

30
Grammar versus Lexicon 6

• Lexicon
• hop / JUMP
• dans / DANCE
• spel / PLAY
• ser / SEE, PRES
• sog / SEE, PAST
• kviler / REST, PRES
• kvilte / REST, PAST
• deler / DIVIDE, PRES
• delte / DIVIDE, PAST

• Grammar
• V, PRES ? V, PRES ar
• V, PAST ? V, PAST a
• V, PRES ? V, PRES er
• V, PAST ? V, PAST te

31
Grammar versus Lexicon 7

• Lexicon
• hop / JUMP
• dans / DANCE
• spel / PLAY
• ser / SEE, PRES
• sog / SEE, PAST
• kviler/ REST, PRES
• kvilte / REST, PAST
• deler / DIVIDE, PRES
• delte / DIVIDE, PAST

• Grammar
• V, PRES ? V, PRES ar
• V, PAST ? V, PAST a
• V, PRES ? V, PRES er
• V, PAST ? V, PAST te

32
Grammar versus Lexicon 8

• Lexicon
• hopa / JUMP
• dansa / DANCE
• spela / PLAY
• kvilß / REST
• delß / DIVIDE
• ser / SEE, PRES
• sog / SEE, PAST

• Grammar
• Va, PRES ? Va, PRES ar
• Va, PAST ? Va, PAST a
• Vß, PRES ? Vß, PRES er
• Vß, PAST ? Vß, PAST te

33
Grammar versus Lexicon 9

• Lexicon
• hopa / JUMP
• dansa / DANCE
• spela / PLAY
• kvilß / REST
• delß / DIVIDE
• ser / SEE, PRES
• sog / SEE, PAST
• ler / LAUGH, PRES
• lu / LAUGH, PAST

• Grammar
• Va, PRES ? Va, PRES ar
• Va, PAST ? Va, PAST a
• Vß, PRES ? Vß, PRES er
• Vß, PAST ? Vß, PAST te

34
The Emergent Grammar

• A Cognitive Solution

35
The Emergent Grammar

• Predictable features need not be excluded from
  repre-sentation in individual items. The presence
  of a feature on a list does not exclude it from
  being predictable by rule. Rather the notion of
  rule takes a very different form. Linguistic
  regularities are not expressed as cogni-tive
  entities or operations that are independent of
  the forms to which they apply, but rather as
  schemas or organizational patterns that emerge
  from the way that forms are associated with one
  another in a vast network of phonological,
  semantic, and sequential relations.
• P. 21 in Joan Bybee (2001)
• Phonology and Language Use

36
The Rule/List Fallacy 1

• The exclusionary fallacy holding, on grounds of
  simplicity, that particular statements (lists)
  are to be excised from the grammar of a language
  if gen-eral statements (rules) can be
  estab-lished that subsumes them.
• P. 492 in R. W. Langacker (1987)
• Foundations of Cognitive Grammar

37
The Rule/List Fallacy 2

• If all the regularity is factored out of a
  linguistic structure, the residue is sel-dom if
  ever recognizable as a coherent entity plausibly
  attributed to cognitive autonomy.
• P. 393 in Langacker (1987)
• Foundations of Cognitive Grammar

38
The Cheshire Dog

• That is to say, if our memories for dogs
  ex-cluded all the predictable features (two ears,
  a muzzle, fur, a tail, wet nose, etc.), what is
  left would not be a recognizable or coherent
  entity. Similarly, if all predictable features
  are removed from a word, it would not be
  recognizable as an English word, or as a
  linguistic object at all.
• P. 21 in Joan Bybee (2001)
• Phonology and Language Use

39
The Emergent Grammar 1
hopar / JUMP, PRES
hopa / JUMP, PAST
40
The Emergent Grammar 2
hopa... / JUMP, TNS
hopar / JUMP, PRES
hopa / JUMP, PAST
41
The Emergent Grammar 3
hopa... / JUMP, TNS
hopar / JUMP, PRES
hopa / JUMP, PAST
dansar / DANCE, PRES
42
The Emergent Grammar 4
hopa... / JUMP, TNS
sar / VERB, PRES
hopar / JUMP, PRES
hopa / JUMP, PAST
dansar / DANCE, PRES
43
The Emergent Grammar 5
hopa... / JUMP, TNS
sar / VERB, PRES
dansa / DANCE, PAST
hopar / JUMP, PRES
hopa / JUMP, PAST
dansar / DANCE, PRES
44
The Emergent Grammar 6
dansa... / DANCE, TNS
hopa... / JUMP, TNS
sar / VERB, PRES
dansa / DANCE, PAST
hopar / JUMP, PRES
hopa / JUMP, PAST
dansar / DANCE, PRES
45
The Emergent Grammar 7
dansa... / DANCE, TNS
sa / VERB, PAST
hopa... / JUMP, TNS
sar / VERB, PRES
dansa / DANCE, PAST
hopar / JUMP, PRES
hopa / JUMP, PAST
dansar / DANCE, PRES
46
The Emergent Grammar 8
kviler / REST, PRES
dansa... / DANCE, TNS
sa / VERB, PAST
hopa... / JUMP, TNS
sar / VERB, PRES
dansa / DANCE, PAST
hopar / JUMP, PRES
hopa / JUMP, PAST
dansar / DANCE, PRES
47
The Emergent Grammar 9
kviler / REST, PRES
sVr / VERB, PRES
dansa... / DANCE, TNS
sa / VERB, PAST
hopa... / JUMP, TNS
sar / VERB, PRES
dansa / DANCE, PAST
hopar / JUMP, PRES
hopa / JUMP, PAST
dansar / DANCE, PRES
48
The Emergent Grammar 10
kvilte / REST, PAST
kviler / REST, PRES
sVr / VERB, PRES
dansa... / DANCE, TNS
sa / VERB, PAST
hopa... / JUMP, TNS
sar / VERB, PRES
dansa / DANCE, PAST
hopar / JUMP, PRES
hopa / JUMP, PAST
dansar / DANCE, PRES
49
The Emergent Grammar 11
kvilte / REST, PAST
kvile / REST, TNS
kviler / REST, PRES
sVr / VERB, PRES
dansa... / DANCE, TNS
sa / VERB, PAST
hopa... / JUMP, TNS
sar / VERB, PRES
dansa / DANCE, PAST
hopar / JUMP, PRES
hopa / JUMP, PAST
dansar / DANCE, PRES
50
The Emergent Grammar 12
deler / DIVIDE, PRES
kvilte / REST, PAST
kvile / REST, TNS
kviler / REST, PRES
sVr / VERB, PRES
dansa... / DANCE, TNS
sa / VERB, PAST
hopa... / JUMP, TNS
sar / VERB, PRES
dansa / DANCE, PAST
hopar / JUMP, PRES
hopa / JUMP, PAST
dansar / DANCE, PRES
51
The Emergent Grammar 13
deler / DIVIDE, PRES
ser / VERB, PRES
kvilte / REST, PAST
kvile / REST, TNS
kviler / REST, PRES
sVr / VERB, PRES
dansa... / DANCE, TNS
sa / VERB, PAST
hopa... / JUMP, TNS
sar / VERB, PRES
dansa / DANCE, PAST
hopar / JUMP, PRES
hopa / JUMP, PAST
dansar / DANCE, PRES
52
The Emergent Grammar 14
deler / DIVIDE, PRES
ser / VERB, PRES
kvilte / REST, PAST
kvile / REST, TNS
kviler / REST, PRES
sVr / VERB, PRES
dansa... / DANCE, TNS
sa / VERB, PAST
hopa... / JUMP, TNS
sar / VERB, PRES
dansa / DANCE, PAST
hopar / JUMP, PRES
hopa / JUMP, PAST
dansar / DANCE, PRES
53
The Emergent Grammar 15
deler / DIVIDE, PRES
ser / VERB, PRES
kvilte / REST, PAST
kvile / REST, TNS
kviler / REST, PRES
sVr / VERB, PRES
ser / SEE, PRES
dansa... / DANCE, TNS
sa / VERB, PAST
hopa... / JUMP, TNS
sar / VERB, PRES
dansa / DANCE, PAST
hopar / JUMP, PRES
hopa / JUMP, PAST
dansar / DANCE, PRES
54
The Emergent Grammar 16
deler / DIVIDE, PRES
ser / VERB, PRES
kvilte / REST, PAST
kvile / REST, TNS
kviler / REST, PRES
sVr / VERB, PRES
ser / SEE, PRES
dansa... / DANCE, TNS
sa / VERB, PAST
and then?
hopa... / JUMP, TNS
sar / VERB, PRES
dansa / DANCE, PAST
hopar / JUMP, PRES
hopa / JUMP, PAST
dansar / DANCE, PRES