Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics

Class 2

Dylan Glynn dglynn@univ-paris8.fr

www.dsglynn.univ-paris8.fr

The usage-based model It is what is common to both Cognitive and Functional Linguistics a nice idea, but what does it entail?

The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics

Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987

Theoretical Proposal In contrast to Structuralism and Generativism which hold that usage (parole / performance) is based on rules (langue / competence) Cognitive Linguists and Functional Linguistics argue that grammar is a result of usage!

Structure is ever ‘emergent’ epiphenomenal generalisation across usage at any given time and place

but... Analytical Implication Given this model of language, variation is inherent to the system. At any moment in time, each speaker has a slightly different competence Regional and diachronic variation is inherent to the system The system is negotiated interpersonally

The grammar of a language is only a generalisation across the individual competences of native speakers at a given time.

Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Meaning (concept-function) driven Grammar

Bondarko (1971), Dik (1978), Givón (1979), Halliday (1978), Fillmore (1978), Lakoff (1978), Langacker (1978), Talmy (1977)

“Language is an integrated system, where everything 'conspires' to convey meaning - words, grammatical constructions, and illocutionary devices (including intonation)” (Wierzbicka 1988)

The child is hungry/ thankful; the silly tourist is hungry / thankful –

intention / conception results in communication

Leaving aside structure and convention (for the moment),

it is this intention / conception that drives langauge and then, in turn, the emergence of its conventions

Meaning (concept-function) driven Grammar

Language form is ‘merely’ a vehicle for expression

Analytical Implication Regularities result from “underlying” conceptual and functional structures (Bondarko 1971, Talmy 1977 etc.)

Therefore, explanations for structure must be pragmatic-semantic! The structuring forces of language reside in the signifié - not the significant (à la Harris 1951, Chomsky 1957 etc.)

Fluff? So, we have no rules.... only usage-patterns and These patterns are a result of a process we cannot observe Perhaps the Generativists and Structuralists were right, this is a bunch of hippy-fluff!!

This is where we need to speak about Cognitive and Functional linguistics separately

Cognitive Linguistics Holistic (non-modular) model of language structure

(Langacker 1987, Lakoff 1987) Theoretical Proposal

i. No meaning modules: no semantics, no pragmatics etc. ii. No form modules: no syntax, no lexicon etc.

No Formal Grammar

Holistic (Non-Modular) Model of Language Structure Form is any form and it is always composite

Analytical Implication It is one thing to say that the distinctions between syntax morphology and lexis are ultimately arbitrary or that these kinds of structure form continua, it is another to deal with the analytical implications of this claim... One must always account for any form in its constructional context in other words:

All forms are always composite! We can no longer analyse a tone, a word, a morpheme or a construction in

isolation!

No Referential Semantics

Holistic (non-modular) model of language structure Meaning is encyclopaedic, that is everything we know about the world

Analytical Implication

Linguistic semantics permits truth conditional tests and the notion of necessary and sufficient conditions to establish meaning structure If meaning includes pragmatics, all of context and socio-cultural structure (norms) is integral to the meaning that drives langauge

Meaning is everything we know about the world! We can no longer restrict semantic analysis to referential, truth-based meaning

What a mess!

No rules – Inherently varied and dynamic system – every speaker at every time with a slightly different competence – grammatical knowledge

No linguistic semantics – meanings is world knowledge – meaning includes ‘context’ - gender, age, register – pragmatics No independent formal structure – all forms inherently interdependent – every form is composite with no independent structures like lexis, syntax, prosody

Homework

But I want you all to look for and write down 2 utterances.

They can be anything.

Something someone says to you

Something you hear on the radio

Something you read on an advert in the metro

Anything!

Think about 2 things – What does the utterance mean?

What is the motivation for the utternece

How Do Humans Manage this Complicated Multidimensional set of interdependent Structures?

A whole bunch of theories....

Entrenchment – Langacker 1987

Categorisation – Lakoff 1987 and Fillmore 1985

Image Schemata – Johnson 1987 and Lakoff 1987

Construal – Talmy 1988, Langacker 1987, Fillmore 1985 and Lakoff 1987

Let’s take these ideas step by step...

The two most important theories were formally identified in 1987 by the two founders of Cognitive Linguistics

These two theories are about grammaticality and categorisation

The first is called

Theory of Entrenchment

The second is called Theory of Prototype Categorisation

Both have their origins in psychology and is why it is called Cognitive Linguistics

Entrenchment

Entrenchment: A theory of grammaticality (Langacker 1987)

Arguably the most important and contentious theory of Cognitive Linguistics

Learning and automisation

E.g.: learning

z vs. s

the zebra runs vs. the zebra run

No underlying rule – just a learnt pattern

Entrenchment: A theory of grammaticality

What are the implications of this?

How do we explain the fact that things sound wrong?

The streets were lighted

How do we explain novel sentences?

The puppy run under the table next to the sofa rolled on it’s side and got the ball

Let’s invent a new word torp Ok everybody, that’s enough, please torp. The baby is sleeping, so torp when you are in the living room please. Man, I’m watching a film, just torp please! It was a torp night, the fog and mist lay heavy over the land.

Categorisation – a theory of grammar

Structure in language is motivated by meaning

Structure in meaning is motivated by categorisation

ergo

how we categorise our world is

grammar....

What is it?

What are they?

What are they?

Exercise

In groups of two, try to identify some meaning, anything at all, without categorising....

Categorisation

If it is true that everything we know, think, even perhaps feel, in the world is a category, that makes the study of categories basic to all social science.

This is so simple it sounds like good news

but

There are two basic problems

Black Box and Fuzzy World

Black Box : categories only exist in your head, there is no known way of directly studying them!

Fuzzy World

The world is not discrete There are continua everywhere

we are small...

Some revision The form-meaning pair and the arbitrary nature of the sign (de Saussure 1916)

Any symbol is necessarily a pairing between the sign and what the sign signifies. This is not only the basis of language, it is the basis of semiosis (symbolic communication).

Birds are easy....

So let’s define bird !

Work in groups Make a list of features / charactersitics which allow you to distinguish birds

from everything else in the world!!

Prototype Set Theory

It is here Lakoff’s work comes to the fore

Based on research in anthropology and psychology, he realized that this theory could allow us to make generalizations about semantic structure – the intangible and varied thing that he believes drives language

Remember the bird example?

Let’s go through it again....

Homework Read Reading 1 on the website