View
227
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
1/168
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
2/168
Outline
PART I (Introduction)- Traditional lexical semantics
- Cognitive semantics (prototypes, conceptualisation,metaphors, conceptual spaces and frames)
PART II
- Lexical classes and cognitive abilities
PART III
- Simultaneity constructions (while, as)
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
3/168
PART I
Introduction
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
4/168
Some (apparently) very simple questions involvingmeaning:
What is a cat?
What is beauty?
What is a red pen?
Is the Pope a bachelor?
How do we distinguish betweenmosquito net and butterfly net?
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
5/168
Traditionally:
lexical semantics
sentence semantics
text/discourse semantics
Two underlying assumptions:
it is possible to identify lexical items
it is possible to isolate lexical meanings
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
6/168
Some basic notions:
- homonymy (e.g. bank)
- polysemy (e.g. mouse)
- monosemy:
Theres some fruit in the bowl.
Theres a crack in the bowl.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
7/168
Major approaches:
- Structural semantics- Semantic features
- Cognitive semantics
More recently also:
Interaction between
constructions and lexical items
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
8/168
Some naive conceptions about meaning
the meaning of an utterance consists of the sum of themeaning of its parts (the building block metaphor):
red pen
mosquito net
butterfly net
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
9/168
Referential theory of meaning:
a word means what it refers to (e.g. we maypoint to a cat to understand cat)
Some problems:
- abstract concepts (e.g. beauty)
- Hesperus and Phosphorus (different intensionsor senses but same extension or meaning, i.e.Venus), the British Prime Minister(differentextensions but same intension)
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
10/168
Ogden and Richards (1923) semiotic triangle
e.g. word meaning
sense
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
11/168
The systemic (i.e. NETWORK) nature of meaning
Words enter into various sense relationships with one another:
deictic verbs
Ok. Ill bringthe book tomorrow.
Ok. Ill takethe book back to the library tomorrow.
towards away
intransitive come gotransitive bring take
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
12/168
by chance willful act
longer duration see look (stare, gawk)
shorter duration glimpse glance
vision verbs (semantic field of vision)
Well come/go back to networks later!
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
13/168
Structual semantics (see Lyons)
Three major types of relationship:
synonymy hyponymy
oppositeness
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
14/168
Synonymy (same denotation)
unhappy/sad
present/gift
prisoner/convict
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
15/168
Context dependency:
pedigree animals
ancestry/genealogy/lineage [ln id] human beings
descent both
The {peel/skin} of the orange is thick.
The girls {skin/*peel} is sunburned.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
16/168
Many synomyms differ in respect to their
connotations:
horse/steed/nag
cavallo/destriero/ronzino
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
17/168
Register, social and geographical variation
What do you call this?
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
18/168
toilet(BrE)
lavatory(BrE), lav(informal)
WC(BrE, used especially on signs in public places)
the gentsand the ladies (BrE, used forpublic conveniences)
loo(BrE informal)
bath/rest/washroom (AmE, cf. Italian bagno) = BrE toilet
john (AmE informal)
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
19/168
Hyponymy(i.e. category membership)
It may be problematic to identify the superordinate terms:
brother& sister< sibling(formal)uncle & aunt< ?
cow& bull< cow/cattle (collective)/bovine (technical)
human being& animal< animal(vs. vegetable, mineral)
fish
snapper trout bass [bs] sole salmon [ sm n]
chinook [( )t nuk] spring coho [ k h] king sockeye [ sk a]
hypernym
(co)hyponyms
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
20/168
Semantic networks
e.g. natural kind terms
attributes
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
21/168
But there are various problems with this model (apartfrom the obvious fact that not all information is easilyrepresented in hierarchical form):
(1) A cow is an animal.
(2) A cow is a mammal.
Reaction time is faster in (1) than in (2) even thoughanimal is higher in the hierarchy than mammal!
(3) A pine is a church.
(4) A pine is flower.
Reaction time is faster in (3) than in (4) even though theyare both equally untrue (relatedness effect).
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
22/168
(5) A robin is a bird.
(6) A penguin is a bird.
Reaction time is faster in (5) than in (6)even though both involve one semantic
link (prototypicality effect).
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
23/168
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
24/168
Complementarity
either X or Y, not bothnon gradable concepts
single vs. married
deadvs. alive
legalvs. illegal
asleep vs. awake
true vs. false
male vs. female
pregnantvs. not pregnant
on vs. off
pass vs. fail
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
25/168
However we can sometimes think of
intermediate cases:
divorced(cf. single vs. married)
hermaphrodite (cf. male vs. female)
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
26/168
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
27/168
The reference value is context dependent:
A small elephant is a large animal.
A large mouse is a small animal.
A warm beerand a coldcoffee may be the
same temperature.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
28/168
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
29/168
With scalarpairs, one is usually
unmarked:
Howoldare you?
Howtallare you?
Context dependency:
in summer: Howhotis it?
in winter: Howcoldis it?
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
30/168
Converseness
relational opposites
verbs of transfer:
buy/sell, lend/borrow, give/receive
FRAMES
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
31/168
More examples
kinship terms and professional relationships:
husband/wife, brother/sister
teacher/student, employer/employee, host/guest, lawyer/client
time and space:
in front of/behind, outside/inside, north of/south of
Apparent cases of converseness:
ask/answer
command/obeyseek/find
try/succeed
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
32/168
What was often referred to as context
before can be related to what is also
traditionally called the syntagmatic axis:
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
33/168
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
34/168
Semantic features
(decompositional theories)
Semantic features are assumed to be
universal, part of our cognitive system.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
35/168
Attempts have been made at reducing the
number of features to a few semantic
primitives, see e.g. Wierzbickas work.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
36/168
But there are various problems with thesemodels.
For example, there are categories whichdo not have any obvious defining features
that are common to all their members, e.g.Wittgensteins (1958) game example(game is a category based on familyresemblance).
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
37/168
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
38/168
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
39/168
Further, many categories have fuzzy
boundaries. For many people it is unclear
whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable,
or both.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
40/168
(from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#Fruit_or_vegetable.3F)
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
41/168
Cup, vase or bowl?
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
42/168
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
43/168
Semantic features or primitives might not
have linguistic counterparts (i.e. they might
be non-verbal).
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
44/168
Still, it seems likely that we (at least sometimes)represent the meanings of words ascombinations of semantic features.
For example, we remember better sentenceslike
Pat sold the wand to Harry
than
Pat gave the wand to Harry
Sellis more complex than give.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
45/168
Cogntive semantics
1970s as a reaction against truth-
conditional semantics
research on prototypes (Rosch)
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
46/168
Prototypes
best example of a category: e.g. blackbirdvs.penguinfor the category bird. But notice that the prototype may
be abstract.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
47/168
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
48/168
Category membership is culture-dependent:
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
49/168
More on prototypes
- not necessarily incompatible with
feature theories
- fuzzy boundaries
- family resemblance
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
50/168
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
51/168
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
52/168
Levels of categorization (e.g. furniture vs. chairvs. armchair)
In general, the closer an item is to the prototype, the easier weprocess it. Further, basic level categories are easier to learn andretrieve.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
53/168
Prepositions(Lakoff 1987, Sandra and Rice 1995, Tyler &Evans 2001)
reconciliation between
monosemists, homonymists and
polysemists?
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
54/168
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
55/168
2)continuum between lexical items and
constructions (cf. kick the bucket)
Construction type Traditional name Examples
Complex and (mostly) schematic syntax noun verb noun (i.e. transitive construction),
adjective noun (i.e. noun phrase)
Complex and (mostly) specific idiom I love you,
black catComplex but bound morphology noun-s
Atomic and schematic word class verb, adjective, noun, pronoun
Atomic and specific word/lexicon love, black, cat,I,you
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
56/168
NB. On this view, plurals is actually a
schematic noun:
[[PLURAL]/[...s]]
semantic pole
phonological pole
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
57/168
Grammar and lexicon in Cognitive Grammar
(cf. Langacker 2008)
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
58/168
Different senses (lexical meanings)?
a. He sliced1
the bread.
b. Pat sliced2 the carrots into the salad.
c. Pat sliced3
Chris a piece of pie.
d. Pat sliced4
and diced his way to stardom.
e. Pat sliced5
the box open.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
59/168
An alternative, constructionist solution(which minimizes lexical polysemy):
one lexical meaning vs. various different constructions
a. He sliced the bread.(transitive)
b. Pat sliced the carrots into the salad.(caused motion)
c. Pat sliced Chris a piece of pie.(ditransitive)
d. Pat sliced and diced his way to stardom.(way- construction)
d. Pat sliced the box open.(resultative)
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
60/168
a. b.
CAUSED MOTION CONSTRUCTION
Sem CAUSE-MOVE < cause goal theme >
PRED < >
Syn V SUBJ OBL OBJ
Sem CAUSE-MOVE < cause goal theme >
SLICE < slicer sliced >
Syn V SUBJ OBL OBJ
Construction Grammar(Goldberg 1995, 2006)
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
61/168
But is this sharp distinction always possible?
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
62/168
Some evidence (from resultative constructions):
(1) She named the baby *(Sally).(2) He cut the bread (thin).
(3) He painted the door (red).
(4) He wiped the table (clean).
(5) He talked himself hoarse.(6) He ran his sneakers threadbare.
(7) She ate herself healthy.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
63/168
event (E) change (C)component component
(Sarah) (kissed) KEITH (the anxiety) (away from) (Keith)
Figure 25. The FCS forSarah kissed the anxiety away from Keith
S T
TH
P
FM
tr lm
m
Incidentally, RCs are probably motivated by the metaphor
ACTIONS ARE FORCES
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
64/168
Important assumptions in cognitive
semantics:
1) The embodied cognition thesis
2) Meaning as conceptualization
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
65/168
1) The relation between conceptual structureand the external world (embodiment)
a. Shes in love.
b. Shes slowly getting into shape.
c. She fell into depression.
The CONTAINER image schema is projectedonto the abstract conceptual domain of
STATES. (metaphorical mapping)
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
66/168
More on metaphors
Th f d t l t f l
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
67/168
The fundamental roots of language arefigurative (Carter 2004);
metaphors are everywhere;
metaphors are systematic and culture-specific;
to stress the fact that metaphors are notjust literary devices but are pervasive, theterm conceptual metaphoris now used;
metaphors can be described as mappingsfrom a source domain to a target domain.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
68/168
TIME IS MONEY (culture-specific)
source domain: money
target domain: time
How do you spend your time?
Youre wasting my time.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
69/168
These are conventionalised (also known
as dead) metaphors: we are notconsciously aware of the metaphorical
nature.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
70/168
AN ARGUMENT IS A WAR
source domain: war
target domain: argument
She attacked every point in my argument.
She tried to buttress her argument.
He withdrew his offensive remarks.
I hit backat his criticisms.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
71/168
AN ARGUMENT IS A JOURNEY
We have set out to prove that our theory iscorrect.
Should we move on to the next point?
We have arrived at a disturbing conclusion.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
72/168
AN ARGUMENT IS A BUILDING
If you dont support your argument with
solid facts, its whole structure will collapse.
He showed her argument to be without
foundation.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
73/168
AN ARGUMENT IS A CONTAINER
Im tired of yourempty arguments.
Your argument doesnt have muchcontent.
That argument has holes in it.
HAPPY IS UP SAD IS DOWN
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
74/168
HAPPY IS UP, SAD IS DOWN
Im feeling up.
That gives me a lift.
vs.
Im down/low.
My spirits sank.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
75/168
Of course, UP is not always positive and
DOWN negative:
Hes screwed up.
Depth of understanding.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
76/168
Conventionalised metaphors involving
upper body parts:
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
77/168
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
78/168
lean mapping highlighting specific
aspects of the target concept
rich mapping supplying a tangible
conceptual structure for abstract target
concepts
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
79/168
The mountains are sleeping.
Metaphor (personification): mountains
(target) are human beings (source)
but an alternative possibility is:
the mountains stands forthe peopleliving in the mountains
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
80/168
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
81/168
All hands on deck
used to say that everyone is needed tohelp in a particular situation
With only half an hour to get everythingready, it was all hands on deck.
Is all hands on deckjust a metonymicexpression?
M t i l b d ib d i
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
82/168
Metonymies can also be described as mappingsfrom a source to a target but they involve onecognitive domain while metaphors involve two.
Metonymies typically have a referential function(e.g. the White House stands for or givesmental access to the President of the US);
but they may have a highlighting function, as inIm all ears. (Remember that metaphors can alsohave a highlighting function; hence, some
researchers claim that metaphor and metonymyshould be seen as a cline of cognitiveoperations.)
Metaphor and metonymy have been used to
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
83/168
Metaphor and metonymy have been used toinvestigate the conceptual structure ofemotions(sadness, anger, disgust/hate, fear,
joy/happiness, desire/love).
Metaphors are also routinely used in science(e.g. when we speak of a computer virus) and
politics(e.g. when we say that a country is ill).
Metaphors are also used in linguistics:
e.g. complex expressions (red pen) are usuallyanalysed in terms of the BUILDING BLOCKmetaphor
B h BUILDING BLOCK h i
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
84/168
But the BUILDING BLOCK metaphor is
hardly correct, cf. ice cream, newspaper,
wheelchair.
An alternative metaphor for complex
expressions is the SCAFFOLDINGMETAPHOR (the constituents are merely
the scaffolding for the construction job at
hand).
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
85/168
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
86/168
2a) linguistic units as conceptualization
Morphemes, words (open-class and closedclass), constructions (e.g. active vs. passive) allhave meaning and refer to concepts in the mind(vs. objectivism).
However, such concepts relate to our interactionwith the external world (vs. subjectivism), cf.bachelorunmarried adult male.
Such concepts may be difficult to define (vs.dictionary view).
2b) enc clopedic meaming
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
87/168
2b) encyclopedic meaming
Words as points of access
Watch out jane, your husbands a right
bachelor!
(a) The child is safe.
(b) The beach is safe.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
88/168
2c) meaning construction as
conceptualisation
The dynamic nature of meaning
construction has been explored in
Fauconnier and Turners Conceptual
Blending Theory (e.g. 2002).
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
89/168
Benetton family fancies a quick bite at Little Chef.
Italy's super-rich Benetton family has
made approach to buy Little Chef, thechain of roadside restaurants
Mental spaces are small concept al packets
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
90/168
Mental spaces are small conceptual packets
constructed as we think and talk, for purposes
of local understanding and action. [They]operate in working memory but are built up
partly by activating structures available from
long-term memory. (Fauconnier and Turner
2002: 40, 102)
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
91/168
AGENT: BenettonPROCESS: want to buy
PATIENT: Little Chef
input space 1
(buying space)
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
92/168
EXPERIENCER: hungry personPROCESS: fancy
PATIENT: food
input space 2
(eating space)
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
93/168
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
94/168
What triggers input space 2 (the eating
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
95/168
What triggers input space 2 (the eating
space)?
The name Little Chef.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
96/168
Conceptual integration is quite a feat!
It is very difficult to spell out the various
conceptual operations we are so good atperforming quickly and unconsciously!
The blending approach differs from the
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
97/168
The blending approach differs from themetaphor/metonymy approach in that the former
uses mental spaces constructed during onlineprocessing while the latter operates with storedcognitive models (e.g. BUYING A COMPANY ISEATING).
That is, mental spaces are context-dependent.
Metaphor/metonymy involves unidirectional
mappings from source to target, while blending(typically) involves mappings from two inputspaces to the blended space.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
98/168
The clipper ship Northern Light sailed in
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
99/168
The clipper ship Northern Lightsailed in
1853 from San Francisco to Boston in 76
days, 8 hours. That time was still thefastest on record in 1993, when a modern
catamaran, Great American II, set out on
the same course. A few days before thecatamaran reached Boston, observers
were able to say: at this point Great
American IIis 4.5 days ahead ofNorthern
Light.
Blending unlike metaphor theory
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
100/168
Blending, unlike metaphor theory,
underlines the importance of
context dependent, on-line
conceptualization (mental spaces are
different from cognitive models)
open-endedness (cf. red pen)
Blending is everywhere:
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
101/168
Blending is everywhere:
morphology:brunch
WASP (acronym with prop word)
jokes and riddles
What did the beach say when the tidecame in? Long time no sea.
Input 1: Input 2:
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
102/168
p p
THEME: sea/tide THEME: person A
PROCESS: move PROCESS: meet
GOAL: beach PATIENT: person B
CAUSE
AGENT: person A
PROCESS: sayRECIPIENT: person B
CREATED OBJECT:
Long time no see
C l i
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
103/168
Conclusion:
conceptualisation (dynamic, context dependent,
dependent on points of access)
continuum nature of linguistic units (seen asmeaningful)
embodiment
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
104/168
PART II
Cognitive abilities and lexical items
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
105/168
Cognitive linguistics vs. Chomskyan linguistics
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
106/168
g g y g
Chomskyan approach:
- Language Faculty independent of general cognitive abilities;
- modular (i.e. separate modules as e.g. in computer science);
- language as a lexicon (i.e. a store of words) + a grammar (i.e.
rules to combine words);
- minimalist (e.g. reduce stored forms to a minimum, as in the caseof regular plurals like house houses, which can be captured byrule).
Cognitive linguistics (in particularLangackers Cognitive Grammar):
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
107/168
- language is not independent of general cognition;
- language is not necessarily a (separate) module;
- language is a a structured inventory of conventional linguisticunits (e.g. it includes strings which can be derived by rule such as Ilove you, What are your doing tonight?, etc. importance ofconstructions);
- redundancy is part and parcel of the linguistic system (cf. rule/listfallacy);
- language is embodied (I take this as meaning: you can speak a
human language iff you are human).
Figure/ground organization:
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
108/168
Figure/ground organization:
a. Tom is near John.
b. John is near Tom.
c. The bike is near the house.
d. ?? The house is near the bike.
A
B
Sequential scanning (SEQ)
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
109/168
q g ( )
vs.
summary scanning (SUM):
- watching a ball fall (SEQ), as in a film
vs.
- looking at various positions of the ball at thesame time (SUM), as in a multiple exposure
picture
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
110/168
SUM vs SEQ used in grammar as well
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
111/168
SUM vs. SEQ used in grammar as well.
Problem: how do you define word classes
(i.e. how do you distinguish e.g. verbs
from nouns)?
Two approaches:
distributional
meaning-based
Distributional:
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
112/168
I _______ chocolate.
(love, hate, adore, dislike, etc. verbs)
My hair is very __________.
(long, short, etc. adjectives)
Meaning-based (i.e. semantic or notional
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
113/168
g (
definitions):
cf. what you are (were?) usually taught at
school, e.g. a noun refers to a thing or a
person
Obvious problem: beauty, love, happiness,
etc.
However, Cognitive Grammartakes the
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
114/168
, g
notional approach to word classes
seriously.
E.g. it defines a noun as a thing, which is a
technical term for a set of interconnectedentities (cf. team)
ENTITIES
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
115/168
The Cognitive Grammar analysis of word classes
PROCESSESATEMPORAL
RELATIONS
THINGS
STATIVE
RELATIONS
COMPLEX
ATEMPORAL
RELATIONS
RELATIONS
Schematic representations of things (a), relations (b) and processes (b)
e1 e2
a. thing b. relation c. process
Problem: how to distinguish notionally
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
116/168
Problem: how to distinguish notionally
between e.g. the verb enterand the
preposition into?
Intuitively, they are pretty similar (i.e.
something ends up in a place).
Langackers solution: we should appeal to
SUM vs. SEQ.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
117/168
SPACE
ENTER
TIME
tr
lm
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
118/168
INTO
TIME
tr
lm
The rationale here is that differences in form mustl i l diff i i (i d
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
119/168
always imply differences in meaning (i.e. wordsbelonging to different classes must be represented
differently in terms of our cognitive abilities).
I call this semantic atomism: every form (in aconstruction) has meaning.
SUM vs. SEQ also used to distinguish between:
bare infinitives: She saw the ship sink. (SEQ)
to-infinitives: To eat chocolate is good for your health. (SUM)
-ingforms: She likes eatingchocolate. (SUM)
Intuitively, the distinction is sometimes
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
120/168
problematic (see e.g. Duffley 2005):
The woman strolling down the beach is mymother.
I found my little brothertearing my photo albumto pieces in my bedroom.
(We intuitively play the events of strolling and
tearing as motion pictures.)
Langacker himself is aware of the
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
121/168
g
somewhat speculative nature of his
analysis (1987: 235-254), see also (1999:223)
Nonetheless, Langacker (1987) defendshis analysis by claiming that SUM and
SEQ are needed in order to achieve
theory-internal coherence:
A hard-nosed linguist will doubtless ask for evidence to supportthese claims How can one prove that the conception of a process
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
122/168
these claims. How can one prove that the conception of a process(hence the meaning of every verb) requires sequential scanning[]? The request for justification is certainly legitimate, but we must
take some care that the form of the request does not embodymethodologically unreasonable expectations. In particular, onecannot reasonably expect or demand the existence of directempirical evidence that bears on this question alone considered inisolation from the overall descriptive context in which the analysis of
processes is embedded[emphasis ours]: I can no more substantiatethe claim that verbs imply sequential scanningdirectly, and without
regard to how the total descriptive system meshes together[emphasis ours]than the proponent of a more fashionable modelcan prove that movement rules leave traces without explicating thefunction of these constructs as part of a much larger theoretical anddescriptive framework. The absence of direct and conclusiveempirical support is unfortunate, but no linguistic theory can providesuch motivation for all its constructs taken individually. (Langacker1987: 253)
This position cannot be accepted: all
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
123/168
linguistically relevant cognitive abilities
postulated by Cognitive Grammar must besupported by (direct or indirect)
independent evidence, or at the very least
be in principle amenable to experimental
verification.
So far, no psycholinguistic evidence hasb id d hi h fi th
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
124/168
been provided which confirms theexistence ofSUM and SEQ.
E.g. Matlocks research (2004, 2005) onlyshows that mentally simulated motion is
involved in fictive motion processing (e.g.The path rises quickly near the top.)
But the question of how we actually do thishasnt been answered yet.
The postulation of SUM and SEQ may be an
i t f th t h t h f ll
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
125/168
instance of thepost hoc propter hocfallacy:
SEQ implies that an element X can be inflected
but we know that X involves SEQ because X can
be inflected.
And what about languages that have verbs not
inflected for tense? (Remember that
Langackers characterization is meant to beuniversal.)
The issue ofpsychological plausibility shouldb t k i l
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
126/168
be taken seriously.
Consider:
I may very well havebeenbeingfollowed.
In Langackers analysis, this sentence involvescyclical applications of SUM and SEQ:
(have (PERF4 (be1 (-ing(be2 (PERF3 (V)))))))
SEQSUMSEQSUMSEQSUMSEQ
But if much in grammar is accessed as a
it (li i ti h li ) th i d t
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
127/168
unit (linguistic holism), there is no need to
go through the generative procedureillustrated before.
Further, what we know about languagecomprehension and production casts
doubt on this analysis.
Lets suppose Langackers analysis capturescomprehension:
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
128/168
comprehension:
(have (PERF4 (be1 (-ing(be2 (PERF3 (V)))))))
How can followed(PERF3+ V) be scannedsummarily if we havent processed any of the
preceding material?
Followedcould be a simple past (and simplepast forms are taken to be scanned
sequentially).
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
129/168
What about language production?
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
130/168
g g p
It doesnt seem to the case that speakers
start out at the lowest level of
constituency, and then work their way up,
step by step, in the tree or hierarchy.
(E.g. the passive schema may be
activated relatively early on.)
We conclude that Langackers analysis islik l t b t
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
131/168
unlikely to be correct.
The postulation of SUM and SEQ may actuallyblur the distinction between:
language as an object of investigation on thepart of the professional linguist and
language as a cognitive representation in thespeakers mind (see e.g. Sandra and Rice 1995and Croft 1998).
We thus fully subscribe to Taylors (2002) view:
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
132/168
As was the case with vowels and consonants,there is an important sense in which thecategories of adjective and noun (and indeedthe other word classes) must be understood withrespect to the constructional schemas in which
they occur(Croft 1999). This is not to deny thepossibility of entertaining construction-independent characterizations of the word-classes, in terms of the nature of the conceptsthat the words designate, for example (Chapter
9). Ultimately, however, a word class emergesas a function of its role within a constructionalschema. (Taylor 2002: 563)
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
133/168
On the one hand, Cognitive Grammar is ai ti d l ( l T l 2003b)
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
134/168
semiotic model (see also Taylor 2003b)
where all elements are said to bemeaningful.
On the other, grammar is viewed asemergent: it emerges out of concreteforms which an individual is exposed toand can manipulate. ( usage-based
model, cf. construction grammars, see e.g.Goldberg 1995, 2006)
The usage-basedperspective doesnt
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
135/168
require maximum parcelling of meaning
(i.e. semantic atomism).
But if we dont accept SUM and SEQ, how
can we distinguish between e.g. enterandinto?
We should recognise the centrality of
di t ib ti l f t
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
136/168
distributional facts.
But the fact that enterand into are
distributionally different doesnt mean that
they are identical semantically (evenwithout recourse to SUM and SEQ):
into the cinema
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
137/168
She walked
a. disintegrated b. integrated
Schematic representation ofShe walked into the cinema
into enter
a. b.
The semantic poles ofinto and enter
Support for this analysis comes e.g. from
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
138/168
varieties where prepositions (not only into)
can be left unexpressed:
a. I needin the house.
b. And you wantintohis knickers, headded a little laugh to put Gerry at ease.
(BNC BN1 1071)
Some concluding remarks:
SUM and SEQ needed to achie e internal coherence ithin a
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
139/168
SUM and SEQ needed to achieve internal coherence within alexicalist, semantics-driven theory;
but we lack experimental support; further, the evidence we havedoesnt seem to support SUM and SEQ (at least as they are used inCognitive Grammar);
in order to develop a truly cognitive grammar, all allegedly
linguistically relevant cognitive abilities must be amenable toexperimental verification;
grammar as a semantics-driven model and grammar as a usage-based (corpus) model can coexist provided that lexical semantics isgrounded in constructions;
it is also conceivable that some structures
b i d ll d fi d i
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
140/168
cant be assigned a well-defined meaning
on their own:
[s]peakers do not necessarily make the
relevant generalizations, even if cleverlinguists can (Croft 1998: 168)
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
141/168
PART III
The lexical meaning of simultaneity
subordinators
Analysis of simultaneity as and while-clauses:
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
142/168
Analysis of simultaneity as and while clauses:
as and while are represented differently in our
mental lexicon, i.e. are associated with
different simultaneity constructional schemas;
different types of simultaneity clauses can be
recognised (they define a network);
Explicit coding of simultaneity
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
143/168
Various explicit devices can be used to codesimultaneity, i.e. total or partial temporal overlap,between two events:
(1)
a. An armed robber was mugged of his loot as hemade his getaway. (BNC)
b. She said that the pain was a little better after thepethidine she had been given and she was able torest quietly while she waited to be taken to theatre.(BNC)
c. When he was in the airforce he flew Tornado jets.(LDCE)
Simultaneity (or temporal) as and while-clauses
are often compatible with additional semantic
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
144/168
are often compatible with additional semantic
roles:
(2)
a. She kept her head down as she spotted the
newsmen. (BNC) [causality]
b. Schools in the north tend to be better
equipped, while those in the south are
relatively poor. (BNC) [contrast]
Very little research on simultaneity.
Dynamic (multiphase) and stative (monophase) events
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
145/168
Morris (1996):
temporality vs. pure causality depends on
multiphase event (see (3)) vs. monophase event (see (4))
(3) As she grew older,
(4)
a. As you are here
b. As you knowc. As he wore a red sweater
In fact, as-clauses do occur with monophase events:
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
146/168
(5) The wind whips round us as we stand on the seafront. (Morrall 2003:281)
(6) He says it in a whisper, with his eyes upon her, as she sits at thewindow bent over her work. (Waters 2002: 237)
(7) The company commander then moves in as Iman lies wounded andhelpless. (The Guardian, 24.11.2004, p.2)
(8) The bottle of Sylvaner from the cellar was cool and sweet. It remindedhim even more of Heidi. [] Her slow smile as she watched him. Thequivering strength of her grip as she held him to her. (Millar 2004: 197).
(9) a day after eight blinging pieces of jewellery were snatched from hisbedroom as he slept with his wife, Sharon, in their Buckinghamshire
mansion. (The Guardian, 24.11.2004, p.3)
(10) My pager went offas I was on the train on Nov. 3.
(www.suntimes.com/special_sections/ transplant/cst-nws-liverone26.html)
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
147/168
A genuine counterexample?
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
148/168
(14) As he was in the hospital, though, hisfamily, all the survivors from Sete, learned
that it was the Pirahs who had attacked
them (Everett 2008: 147)
monophase events are compatible with a temporalreading (contra Morris 1996, Silva 1991);
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
149/168
g ( , );
still, truly stative be examples seem very, very rare;
the availability of causality (alongside temporality) iscontext-dependent:
(15) An embarrassment of produce becomes available toCaroline as she walkstowards The Mothers Finest [].(Faber 2003: 22)
(16) Could it be Williams? she says as they walk upthe Rackham path together. (Faber 2003: 187)
If both as and while-clauses refer to temporaryconfigurations (hence, the impossibility of (17b)=(4b)),then why do we have the contrast in (17a)?
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
150/168
then why do we have the contrast in (17a)?
(17)a. {*As/While} you are here
b. {*As/*While} you know
Analysis of the first 443 pages (out of a total of 833) ofFabers novel The Crimson Petal and the White:
- 255 as-clauses vs. 64 while-clauses;
- while-clauses occur in contexts where either a
(relatively) long action is evoked or states/properties,expressed through the verb be (or a modal verb), areprofiled.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
151/168
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
152/168
while-clauses (leisure): 131 examples
in the spoken language the use of the verb be is much more
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
153/168
in the spoken language, the use of the verb be is much morefrequent than in the written language (47.7% vs. 19.5%). By
contrast, the use of change verbs is approximately constant (20.3%spoken vs. 20.7% written);
the percentage of same subject cases is higher than in the writtendata, amounting to around 34% (also including 3ingcases).
as-clauses (leisure): 27 examples
in the spoken language, change verbs account for about 89% of thedata (24 tokens out of 27). One third of them are change-of-stateverbs and most change-of-place verbs (11 out of 18) are instancesofgo;
the percentage of same subject cases is higher than in the writtendata, amounting to around 63%.
Conclusions:
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
154/168
As-clauses often involve change verbs (especially in the
spoken language; but remember that stative verbs arealso possible).
While-clauses do not show a strong preference forchange verbs. They seem to evoke more stable/static
configurations (especially in the spoken language).
As-clauses show a stronger preference forsubjectidentity (i.e. the degree of semantic integration between
the as-event and the main event is stronger in as-clauses, see also Silva 1991 on this point).
Different lexical entries
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
155/168
Simultaneity while can occur with be, modals,and negated verbs:
Instead, he eats his sausage {while/*as}its still
warm.
Because I must do something{while/*as} I stillcan. [] (=(20))
Fat lot of use Id be to any girl {while/*as} Idont have a job. (BNC: FRR 572)
While and as are associated with two
diff t t ti l h
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
156/168
different constructional schemas:
Temporal while: [while NP VP]
Temporal as: [as NP VPchange]
That is, temporal as is more construction-dependent than while.
You could also say that, in lexical semantics
terms while evokes temporality (i e
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
157/168
terms, while evokes temporality (i.e.
susceptibility to change in the sense ofWilliams 2002) on its own (cf. also the noun
while) because, not relying on any specific verb
types, its temporal interpretation can be
detached from the construction in which itoccurs.
Temporal as, by contrast, needs a temporal
exponent by way of the VP it occurs with.
In other words, temporality cannot be retrieved
from the verb be, modals, and negated VPs if as
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
158/168
from the verb be, modals, and negated VPs ifas
is used.
But what about stative verbs (e.g. verbs of
posture) occurring with as?
Sit, stand, and lie, for example, have a high
degree of susceptibility to change (when they
apply to animate referents).
As-clauses construe path events.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
159/168
as-clause
as-path event
main clause event(s)
Figure 1
The motion analogue of the conceptual notion of patheasily explains the emergence of the causal meaning for
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
160/168
easily explains the emergence of the causal meaning foras-clauses (i.e. our perception of objects and events is
made possible by motion itself).
The fact that the notion of path is not intrinsic to while-clauses accounts for their more static character and the
lack of purely causal while. While-clauses can becompared to the perception of external reality in theabsence of motion (e.g. when we look out of a window).
Further, immobility enhances the potential for anadversative construal. Hence, the contrastive meaning ofmany while-clauses.
Schematic variation in simultaneity as-clauses
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
161/168
A. The temporal expanse of the main clause and that ofthe as-clause are usually either comparable or thetemporal expanse of the as-clause contains that of themain clause:
(29) As she unfolded the pages this time, looking for thepicture of Harriet Shakespeare with her son, Jinnyshands were trembling.
(30) Once, as they were walkingdown St Martins Lanetogether [] she caught a glimpse of their ripplingreflection in a shop window. (Heller 2003: 118)
B. In some cases (e.g. news reports, especially headlines), bothevents are construed punctually:
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
162/168
(31) Five resign as police chiefs promise action agaisnt [sic] racism.
(The Wrap, 23.10.03)
(32) Tim Yeo became the latest senior Tory to rule himself out forthe leadership today as party heavyweights gave their support toMichael Howard, who is expected to announce his candidacy thisafternoon. (The Wrap, 30.10.03)
(33) Praise for management as postal voters reject strike (TheWrap, 18.09.03)
(34) Among the broadsheets, only the Independent chooses to leadwith something other than the Hutton inquiry, [] Washington
suffered a double blow in its plans for Iraq yesterday as France andGermany balkedat proposals for an international force, []. (TheWrap, 05.09.03)
C. Sometimes the temporal expanse of the mainclause is larger than that of the as-clause, whichcan be either punctual or extended:
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
163/168
can be either punctual or extended:
(35) The Telegraph highlights a row over theMission accomplished banner which hungbehind George Bush on May 1 as he declaredvictory from the USS Abraham Lincoln. (TheWrap, 30.10.03)
(36) The fog hung low on a brisk January dawnin 2001, as several dozen police agents silently
rolled into position in the rugged hills aroundMezzojuso, a sleepy town 40km south ofPalermo. (Time Magazine, 2004, no.36, p.50)
temporal extension of main clause event (e.g. resign)is equal to
temporal extension ofas-clause event (e.g.promise);
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
164/168
a.
b.
c.
p ( g p )
see (31)-(34) (e.g.Five resign as police promise action)
temporal extension of main clause event (e.g. hang)is larger than
see (36) (e.g. The fog hung low as the police rolled into
position)
temporal extension ofas-clause event (e.g. move);
temporal extension of main clause event (e.g. hang)
is greater than
see (35) (e.g.A banner hung behind him as he declaredvictory)
temporal extension ofas-clause event (e.g. declare);
Figure 2
The schemas in Figure 2 can be analysed as extensionsof Figure 1 obtained via the principle offamily
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
165/168
resemblance.
The schema in Figure 2a arises from the compression ofthe path arrow of Figure 1 into a single time point. [N.B.The temporal equivalence between main clause and as-clause is construed. In objective time, the event of e.g.promising is antecedent to that of resigning (as well asthe cause for the latter).]
Figure 2b involves temporal compression andfigure-
ground reversal: The backgrounding functionprototypically assigned to the as-clause is carried out bythe main clause. Figure 2c only involves figure-groundreversal.
Conclusion
As and while-clauses are not identical despite what is usually reported indictionaries (see entry below from Longman Dictionary of Contemporary
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
166/168
( y g y p yEnglish, CD-Version; observe that the examples are all path events!):
4 while or when
I saw Peter as I was getting off the bus.
As time passed, things seemed to get worse.
Just as the two men were leaving, a message arrived.
As and while-clauses form a simultaneity network:
as-clauses code path events. Unlike while-clauses, they are not compatiblewith stative be, modals or negated VPs because temporality could nototherwise be retrieved;
while-clauses are more stative than as-clauses: change verbs are notpeculiar to them. By considering while as a default temporal subordinator,
we can motivate its wider use compared to as; at least two more types ofas-clause (see Figure 2a and Figures 2b-c) have
been recognised (alongside the prototype in Figure 1), depending on therelation between the construed temporal expansions of the as and mainclause events.
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
167/168
7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics
168/168
Grazie!
Recommended