Transcript Document

Word Grammar and other
cognitive theories
Richard Hudson
Budapest March 2012
1
Cognitive linguistics
2
Cognitive theories of grammar
CgG
CnG
WG
3
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
4
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.
5
Different notations
• CgG
– e.g. Langacker 2007
• CnG
– e.g. Croft 2007, Goldberg 1995
• WG
– e.g. Hudson 1980, 1990, 2007, 2010
6
CnG: Heather sings.
(Croft 2007: 476)
7
WG: Heather sings.
singer
semantics
singing
Heather
meaning
Heather
subject
meaning
sings.
syntax
• No 'symbolic units'.
• Just a network of related concepts.
8
CgG: (the) table near (the) door
(Langacker 2007: 442)
9
WG: the table near the door
table position
near door
comp
the
landmark
meaning
comp
adjunct
table
door
near door
near
comp
the
door
• Just words and other concepts in a network.
10
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?
11
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
12
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)
13
… 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.
14
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 …
15
CnG: the Benefactive-Ditransitive
construction
(Goldberg 1995:
77)
16
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
17
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)
18
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.
19
WG: the Benefactive-Ditransitive
construction
'is-a'
• No constructions.
subject
verb
•
• Just words and other
concepts
object
•
transitive
•
result
having
'rec'
•
• Default inheritance applies
to words.
ind obj
•
ditransitive
•
benefactive
ditransitive
purpose
•
beneficiary
•
ind obj
•
20
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}
21
The architecture of language in WG
semantics
meaning
syntax
realisation
morphology
realisation
phonology
graphology
22
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
23
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.
24
For example, a kinship network
Gretta
son
brother
mother
husband
Colin
me
Gaynor
brother
wife
daughter
daughter
grandson
Lucy
son
Peter
25
WG syntax
• Dependency structure
– like school grammar
– but much richer
• Dependencies:
– are asymmetrical
– link single words
– can be sub-classified eg. as 'subject', 'adjunct'
26
A simple example
subject
adjunct
adjunct
object
English visitors generally like Budapest
27
A richer example
comp
pred
extractee
Where
subject
do
they
x
pred
pred
tend
to
stay?
s
comp
28
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.
29
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
30