Upload
jonathan-donahue
View
213
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Word Grammar and other cognitive theories
Richard Hudson
Budapest March 2012
2
Cognitive linguistics
3
Cognitive theories of grammar
CgG
CnG
WG
4
Shared assumption
• 'the formal structures of language are studied not as if they were autonomous, but as reflections of general conceptual organisation, categorization principles, processing mechanisms and experiential and environmental influences'– Geeraerts and Cuyckens 2007:3
5
The Cognitive Principle
• 'Knowledge of language is knowledge'– Goldberg 1995:5
• Contrast Modularity– Language is a separate 'module' of the mind.
• Let's call this the Cognitive Principle.
6
Different notations
• CgG– e.g. Langacker 2007
• CnG– e.g. Croft 2007, Goldberg 1995
• WG– e.g. Hudson 1980, 1990, 2007, 2010
7
CnG: Heather sings.
(Croft 2007: 476)
8
WG: Heather sings.
Heather
subject
Heather
meaning
singer
• No 'symbolic units'.
• Just a network of related concepts.
semantics
syntax
meaning
sings.
singing
9
CgG: (the) table near (the) door
(Langacker 2007: 442)
10
WG: the table near the door
the
doornear door
table near door
landmark
comp compcomp adjunctmeaning
• Just words and other concepts in a network.
table near the door
position
11
Some agreements
• grammar-lexicon continuum– no separate lexicon
• language is learned from experience (usage)– not innate and 'triggered'
• network organisation of language– but what are the nodes?
12
Some disagreements
• Does language consist of symbols?– CgG, CnG: yes WG: no
• Is morphology independent of syntax?– CgG, CnG: no WG: yes
• What is syntactic structure like?– CgG, CnG: phrases WG: dependencies
13
Is language 100% symbolic?
• "…the pivotal claim of Cognitive Grammar that all valid grammatical constructs have a conceptual characterization" – (Langacker 2007:422)
• But: "The CG claim that basic grammatical classes can be characterized semantically … applies to a limited set of categories … – contrast "… idiosyncratic classes … Semantically, the
members of such a class may be totally arbitrary." (ibid: 439)
14
… and Construction Grammar
• "In Construction Grammar, the basic linguistic units are symbolic and are organized as symbolic units"– Croft 2007:473
• But: Some constructions have no meaning, e.g. Subject-Auxiliary Inversion– ibid: 484
• So some units are not symbolic.
15
Against symbols
• Meanings and forms do not match.
• Some forms or classes have no meaning– e.g. 'irregular verb'
• Some 'meanings' cannot be expressed– e.g. 'sibling', German fahren
• Some forms express complex meanings– e.g. verbs like GIVE, LEND, MAKE …
16
CnG: the Benefactive-Ditransitive construction
(Goldberg 1995: 77)
17
The Goldberg analysis
• Semantics and syntax are totally in step:– one verb, e.g. give, lend– one predicate, e.g. CAUSE-RECEIVE– three arguments for one predicate:
• agent
• recipient
• patient
18
But:
John lent Mary his car.
• = 'John caused Mary to receive his car'
• two predicates, with separate arguments:– Pred1: John caused Pred2
– Pred2: Mary received his car.
• Pred1 is an action (John lent … at noon)
• Pred2 is a state (John lent … for two days)
19
Semantics and syntax are independent
• So we need an analysis which allows semantics and syntax not to be in step.
• e.g. 'Benefactive ditransitive construction'– John made Mary a cake.
• Syntax: one verb, three dependents• Semantics: at least two predicates:
– Pred1: John made a cake in order for Pred2
– Pred2: Mary had the cake.
20
WG: the Benefactive-Ditransitive construction
transitive
ditransitive
benefactive ditransitive
verb
subject
object
ind obj
ind obj
beneficiary
•
•
• No constructions.
• Just words and other concepts
• Default inheritance applies to words.
•
•
•
•result
having
•purpose
•
'rec'•
'is-a'
21
Morphology is independent of syntax too
• Homonyms: two words, one morph– e.g. STICKn or STICKv = {stick}
– learner must recognise {stick} before STICK
• Clitics: two words, one morph– e.g. YOU + BE:pres = {your} = /jɔ:/
• Fusion: many functions, one morph– e.g. Latin: present, singular, 1st-person = {o}
22
The architecture of language in WG
semantics
syntax
morphology
phonology graphology
meaning
realisation
realisation
23
Syntactic structures
• "… a construction … is made up of parts, and those parts are themselves independent constructions." – Croft 2007: 495
• But: "In Cognitive Grammar … grammatical constituency is … variable, nonessential and nonfundamental." – Langacker 2007: 442
24
Phrase structure in CgG, CnG
• Very simple phrase structure• The only relations possible in syntax are:
– part-whole (sub-classified for function)– left-right
• A very odd assumption for cognitive linguists– because we easily handle many other relations
outside language, e.g. between people.
25
For example, a kinship network
me ColinGaynor
Gretta
Lucy
brother
brother
mother
son
husband
wife
Peter
daughterdaughter
son
grandson
26
WG syntax
• Dependency structure– like school grammar– but much richer
• Dependencies:– are asymmetrical– link single words– can be sub-classified eg. as 'subject', 'adjunct'
27
A simple example
English visitors generally like Budapest
subject
adjunct adjunct object
28
A richer example
Where do they tend to stay?
extractee subject
pred
s
compx
pred pred
comp
29
Conclusion
• Language-knowledge is just knowledge.
• It's a network of nodes (not of boxes).
• Semantics is independent of syntax.
• So is morphology.
• Syntax is a network of dependency relations among words.
30
Thank you
• This talk can be downloaded:
www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/talks.htm
• More on Word Grammar:
www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/wg.htm