Cognitive-Functional Linguistics Some Basic Tenets II Rolf

Cognitive-Functional Linguistics – Some Basic Tenets II Rolf Theil Bergen, June 19, 2006 RT/CFL

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 subscribe to the general strategy in cognitive and functional linguistics of deriving language 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) June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 2

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) June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 3

Six Theses About Grammar In “The English Passive”, chapter 4 in Concept, Image, and Symbol (1991), R. W. Langacker compares six theses about grammar – “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. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 4

The Seven Theses Descriptive Minimalism Maximalism Self-Contained Continuum Components Autonomous Syntax Universal Semantics Meaningless Morphemes Abstract Syntax June 19, 2006 Symbolic Syntax Language-Spec. Semantics Meaningful Morphemes Overt Grammar RT/CFL 5

Descriptive Economy The Descriptive Minimalism Thesis The Descriptive Maximalism Thesis Economy is to be sought in linguistic description. Specifically, particular statements are to be excluded if the grammar contains a general statement (rule) that fully subsumes them. June 19, 2006 Economy must be consistent with psychological reality. The grammar of a language represents conventional linguistic knowledge and includes all linguistic structures learned as established “units”. “Content units” coexist in the grammar with subsuming “schemas”. RT/CFL 6

Rules and Lists – 1 Cognitive grammar seeks an accurate characterization of the structure and organization 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 subsumed by them is a factual rather than a methodological issue. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 7

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 description of their linguistic knowledge must contain both the lists and the rules. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 8

Components of Grammar The Self-Contained Components Thesis The Continuum Thesis Linguistic structure can be resolved into nume-rous separate, essential-ly selfcontained compo-nents. June 19, 2006 Only semantic, phonological, and bipolar symbolic units are posited. Sharp dichotomies are usually found only by arbitrarily selecting examples from opposite endpoints of a continuum. RT/CFL 9

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. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 10

Examples of Constructions – Varying in Size and Complexity Morpheme Word Complex word (partially filled) Idiom (partially filled) Ditransitive June 19, 2006 pre-, -ing Avocado, and daredevil [N-s] (for regular plurals) going great guns jog <someone’s> memory Subj V Obj 1 Obj 2 RT/CFL 11

Autonomy of Syntax The Autonomous Syntax Thesis The Symbolic 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. Syntax is not autonomous, but symbolic, forming a continuum with lexicon and morphology. Syntactic units are bipolar, with semantic and phonological poles. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 12

Universality of Semantics The Universal Thesis Semantics Supporting the autonomy of syntax thesis, it can be presumed that semantic struc-ture is universal, while gram-matical structure varies greatly from language to language. June 19, 2006 The Language-Specific Semantics Thesis Semantic structure is language specific, involving layers of conventional imagery. Semantic structure is conventionalized conceptual structure, and grammar is the conventional symbolization of semantic structure. RT/CFL 13

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, 265– 94. (Cited in Evans & Green 2006: 62) June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 14

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 experience, and thus what is possible to express in language. P. 63 -64 in V. Evans and M. Green (2006): Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 15

From Embodiment To Conceptual Structure June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 16

Meaningless Morphemes The Meaningful Morphemes Thesis The Meaningless Morphemes Thesis In accordance with the autonomy 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. June 19, 2006 Grammatical morphemes are meaningful, and are present because of their semantic contribution. RT/CFL 17

Meaningful Grammatical Morphemes – 1 [T]he claim [in autonomous syntax] that grammatical morphemes are for the most part meaningless, being inserted for purely formal or grammatical purposes, is almost a necessary one, since the autonomy of syntax would appear very dubious if we admitted that grammatical markers are meaningful, and that their syntactic use is determined by the meanings they convey. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 18

Meaningful Grammatical Morphemes 2 The distinction between lexical and grammatical morphemes represents an artifactual dichotomization based on sharp differences between examples selected from the endpoints of what is really a continuum. In reality, however, both lexical and grammatical morphemes vary along a continuum in regard to such parameters as the complexity and abstractness of their semantic specifications. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 19

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 ostrich–bird–animal–thing. So-called grammatical morphemes tend to cluster near the simple/abstract end of the continuum, but here too we observe a gradation: above–may–have–of. The scales clearly overlap. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 20

Abstract Syntactic Structure The Overt Grammatical Structure Thesis 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. June 19, 2006 Grammatical structure is entirely overt. No underlying structures or derivations are posited. RT/CFL 21

The Content Requirement The only units permitted in the grammar of a language are: (i) semantic, phonological, and symbolic structures that occur overtly in linguistic expressions; (ii) structures that are schematic for those in (i). June 19, 2006 This requirement rules out all arbitrary descriptive devices, i. e. those with no direct grounding in phonetic or semantic reality: (a) contentless features or diacritics; (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 character. RT/CFL 22

The Generality of Syntax The Syntax-Lexicon Dichotomy Thesis The Non-Generality of Syntax Thesis Syntax consists primarily of general rules. It is to be distinguished sharply from lexicon, the repository for irregularity and idiosyncrasy. Lexicon and grammar form a continuum of symbolic structures. This continuum contains no sharp dichotomies based on generality, regularity, or analyzability. June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 23

Grammar versus Lexicon A Classical Generative Solution June 19, 2006 RT/CFL

Grammar versus Lexicon – 1 Lexicon hopar / JUMP, PRES hopa / JUMP, PAST dansar / DANCE, PRES dansa / DANCE, PAST spe: lar / PLAY, PRES spe: la / PLAY, PAST se: r / SEE, PRES so: g / SEE, PAST June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 25

Grammar versus Lexicon – 2 Lexicon Grammar hopar / JUMP, PRES hopa / JUMP, PAST dansar / DANCE, PRES dansa / DANCE, PAST spe: lar / PLAY, PRES spe: la / PLAY, PAST se: r / SEE, PRES so: g / SEE, PAST June 19, 2006 1. 2. RT/CFL [V, PRES] → [V, PRES] +ar [V, PAST] → [V, PAST] +a 26

Grammar versus Lexicon – 3 Lexicon Grammar hopar / JUMP, PRES hopa / JUMP, PAST dansar / DANCE, PRES dansa / DANCE, PAST spe: lar / PLAY, PRES spe: la / PLAY, PAST se: r / SEE, PRES so: g / SEE, PAST June 19, 2006 1. 2. RT/CFL [V, PRES] → [V, PRES] +ar [V, PAST] → [V, PAST] +a 27

Grammar versus Lexicon – 4 Lexicon Grammar hopar / JUMP, PRES hopa / JUMP, PAST dansar / DANCE, PRES dansa / DANCE, PAST spe: lar / PLAY, PRES spe: la / PLAY, PAST se: r / SEE, PRES so: g / SEE, PAST June 19, 2006 1. 2. RT/CFL [V, PRES] → [V, PRES] +ar [V, PAST] → [V, PAST] +a 28

Grammar versus Lexicon – 5 Lexicon hop / JUMP dans / DANCE spe: l / PLAY se: r / SEE, PRES so: g / SEE, PAST kvi: ler / REST, PRES kvi: lte / REST, PAST de: ler / DIVIDE, PRES de: lte / DIVIDE, PAST June 19, 2006 Grammar 1. 2. 3. 4. RT/CFL [V, PRES] → [V, PRES] +ar [V, PAST] → [V, PAST] +a [V, PRES] → [V, PRES] +er [V, PAST] → [V, PAST] +te 29

Grammar versus Lexicon – 6 Lexicon hop / JUMP dans / DANCE spe: l / PLAY se: r / SEE, PRES so: g / SEE, PAST kvi: ler / REST, PRES kvi: lte / REST, PAST de: ler / DIVIDE, PRES de: lte / DIVIDE, PAST June 19, 2006 Grammar 1. 2. 3. 4. RT/CFL [V, PRES] → [V, PRES] +ar [V, PAST] → [V, PAST] +a [V, PRES] → [V, PRES] +er [V, PAST] → [V, PAST] +te 30

Grammar versus Lexicon – 7 Lexicon hop / JUMP dans / DANCE spe: l / PLAY se: r / SEE, PRES so: g / SEE, PAST kvi: ler/ REST, PRES kvi: lte / REST, PAST de: ler / DIVIDE, PRES de: lte / DIVIDE, PAST June 19, 2006 Grammar 1. 2. 3. 4. RT/CFL [V, PRES] → [V, PRES] +ar [V, PAST] → [V, PAST] +a [V, PRES] → [V, PRES] +er [V, PAST] → [V, PAST] +te 31

Grammar versus Lexicon – 8 Lexicon hopα / JUMP dansα / DANCE spe: lα / PLAY kvi: lβ / REST de: lβ / DIVIDE se: r / SEE, PRES so: g / SEE, PAST June 19, 2006 Grammar 1. 2. 3. 4. RT/CFL [Vα, PRES] → [Vα, PRES] +ar [Vα, PAST] → [Vα, PAST] +a [Vβ, PRES] → [Vβ, PRES] +er [Vβ, PAST] → [Vβ, PAST] +te 32

Grammar versus Lexicon – 9 Lexicon hopα / JUMP dansα / DANCE spe: lα / PLAY kvi: lβ / REST de: lβ / DIVIDE se: r / SEE, PRES so: g / SEE, PAST le: r / LAUGH, PRES lu: / LAUGH, PAST June 19, 2006 Grammar 1. 2. 3. 4. RT/CFL [Vα, PRES] → [Vα, PRES] +ar [Vα, PAST] → [Vα, PAST] +a [Vβ, PRES] → [Vβ, PRES] +er [Vβ, PAST] → [Vβ, PAST] +te 33

The Emergent Grammar A Cognitive Solution June 19, 2006 RT/CFL

The Emergent Grammar Predictable features need not be excluded from representation 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 June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 35

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 general statements (rules) can be established that subsumes them. P. 492 in R. W. Langacker (1987): Foundations of Cognitive Grammar June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 36

The Rule/List Fallacy 2 If all the regularity is factored out of a linguistic structure, the residue is seldom if ever recognizable as a coherent entity plausibly attributed to cognitive autonomy. P. 393 in Langacker (1987): Foundations of Cognitive Grammar June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 37

The Cheshire Dog That is to say, if our memories for dogs excluded 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 June 19, 2006 RT/CFL 38

The Emergent Grammar 1 hopar / JUMP, PRES June 19, 2006 RT/CFL hopa / JUMP, PAST 39

The Emergent Grammar 2 hopa. . . / JUMP, TNS hopar / JUMP, PRES June 19, 2006 RT/CFL hopa / JUMP, PAST 40

The Emergent Grammar 3 hopa. . . / JUMP, TNS dansar / DANCE, PRES June 19, 2006 hopar / JUMP, PRES RT/CFL hopa / JUMP, PAST 41

The Emergent Grammar 4 σ…ar / VERB, PRES dansar / DANCE, PRES June 19, 2006 hopa. . . / JUMP, TNS hopar / JUMP, PRES RT/CFL hopa / JUMP, PAST 42

The Emergent Grammar 5 dansa / DANCE, PAST σ…ar / VERB, PRES dansar / DANCE, PRES June 19, 2006 hopa. . . / JUMP, TNS hopar / JUMP, PRES RT/CFL hopa / JUMP, PAST 43

The Emergent Grammar 6 dansa. . . / DANCE, TNS dansa / DANCE, PAST σ…ar / VERB, PRES dansar / DANCE, PRES June 19, 2006 hopa. . . / JUMP, TNS hopar / JUMP, PRES RT/CFL hopa / JUMP, PAST 44

The Emergent Grammar 7 dansa. . . / DANCE, TNS dansa / DANCE, PAST σ…ar / VERB, PRES dansar / DANCE, PRES June 19, 2006 σ…a / VERB, PAST hopa. . . / JUMP, TNS hopar / JUMP, PRES RT/CFL hopa / JUMP, PAST 45

The Emergent Grammar 8 kvi: ler / REST, PRES dansa. . . / DANCE, TNS dansa / DANCE, PAST σ…ar / VERB, PRES dansar / DANCE, PRES June 19, 2006 σ…a / VERB, PAST hopa. . . / JUMP, TNS hopar / JUMP, PRES RT/CFL hopa / JUMP, PAST 46

The Emergent Grammar 9 kvi: ler / REST, PRES σ…Vr / VERB, PRES dansa. . . / DANCE, TNS dansa / DANCE, PAST σ…ar / VERB, PRES dansar / DANCE, PRES June 19, 2006 σ…a / VERB, PAST hopa. . . / JUMP, TNS hopar / JUMP, PRES RT/CFL hopa / JUMP, PAST 47

The Emergent Grammar 10 kvi: lte / REST, PAST kvi: ler / REST, PRES σ…Vr / VERB, PRES dansa. . . / DANCE, TNS dansa / DANCE, PAST σ…ar / VERB, PRES dansar / DANCE, PRES June 19, 2006 σ…a / VERB, PAST hopa. . . / JUMP, TNS hopar / JUMP, PRES RT/CFL hopa / JUMP, PAST 48

The Emergent Grammar 11 kvi: lte / REST, PAST kvi: l…e… / REST, TNS kvi: ler / REST, PRES σ…Vr / VERB, PRES dansa. . . / DANCE, TNS dansa / DANCE, PAST σ…ar / VERB, PRES dansar / DANCE, PRES June 19, 2006 σ…a / VERB, PAST hopa. . . / JUMP, TNS hopar / JUMP, PRES RT/CFL hopa / JUMP, PAST 49

The Emergent Grammar 12 de: ler / DIVIDE, PRES kvi: lte / REST, PAST kvi: l…e… / REST, TNS kvi: ler / REST, PRES σ…Vr / VERB, PRES dansa. . . / DANCE, TNS dansa / DANCE, PAST σ…ar / VERB, PRES dansar / DANCE, PRES June 19, 2006 σ…a / VERB, PAST hopa. . . / JUMP, TNS hopar / JUMP, PRES RT/CFL hopa / JUMP, PAST 50

The Emergent Grammar 13 de: ler / DIVIDE, PRES kvi: lte / REST, PAST kvi: l…e… / REST, TNS kvi: ler / REST, PRES σ…er / VERB, PRES σ…Vr / VERB, PRES dansa. . . / DANCE, TNS dansa / DANCE, PAST σ…ar / VERB, PRES dansar / DANCE, PRES June 19, 2006 σ…a / VERB, PAST hopa. . . / JUMP, TNS hopar / JUMP, PRES RT/CFL hopa / JUMP, PAST 51

The Emergent Grammar 14 de: ler / DIVIDE, PRES kvi: lte / REST, PAST kvi: l…e… / REST, TNS kvi: ler / REST, PRES σ…er / VERB, PRES σ…Vr / VERB, PRES dansa. . . / DANCE, TNS dansa / DANCE, PAST σ…ar / VERB, PRES dansar / DANCE, PRES June 19, 2006 σ…a / VERB, PAST hopa. . . / JUMP, TNS hopar / JUMP, PRES RT/CFL hopa / JUMP, PAST 52

The Emergent Grammar 15 de: ler / DIVIDE, PRES kvi: lte / REST, PAST kvi: l…e… / REST, TNS kvi: ler / REST, PRES σ…er / VERB, PRES σ…Vr / VERB, PRES dansa. . . / DANCE, TNS dansa / DANCE, PAST June 19, 2006 σ…a / VERB, PAST σ…ar / VERB, PRES dansar / DANCE, PRES se: r / SEE, PRES hopa. . . / JUMP, TNS hopar / JUMP, PRES RT/CFL hopa / JUMP, PAST 53

The Emergent Grammar 16 de: ler / DIVIDE, PRES kvi: lte / REST, PAST kvi: l…e… / REST, TNS kvi: ler / REST, PRES σ…er / VERB, PRES σ…Vr / VERB, PRES dansa. . . / DANCE, TNS dansa / DANCE, PAST June 19, 2006 σ…a / VERB, PAST σ…ar / VERB, PRES dansar / DANCE, PRES se: r / SEE, PRES hopa. . . / JUMP, TNS hopar / JUMP, PRES RT/CFL … and then? hopa / JUMP, PAST 54