Transcript BeReEm - Wydział Anglistyki UAM :: AMU Faculty of English

Thinking about THINK ABOUT:
Convergences and divergences
between the English and Polish
predicate
Iwona Kokorniak and Karolina Krawczak
[email protected]
[email protected]
Presentation outline
1. Cognitive grammar assumptions
2. Aim of the study
3. Corpus data
4. Results
5. Observations
Cognitive Grammar (CG) assumptions:
Construal vs. coding
•
•
•
the unpredictability of grammar arises from
the objectivist approach to semantics
cognitive grammar finds “semantic value in
every one of its uses” (Langacker 1991:
294)
event can be construed in many ways; a
number of lexical items and grammatical
constructions can be used to convey these
construals
Construal vs. coding in CG
•
•
“ construal is partly a matter of linguistic
convention and partly of the speaker ’ s
communicative objectives” (Dąbrowska 1997:
115)
it bears objective as well as subjective
meaning: it refers to the role of a substantive; it
encodes the speaker ’ s interpretation of that
role
CG assumptions about construals
•
•
•
“every verb defines a distinct set of participant roles
that reflects its own unique semantic properties ”
(Langacker 1991: 284)
characteristics of the entities designated to interact with
one another in the relations contribute to the construal
of the event
the meaning assigned by the verbs is distributed
across the sentence, which is concordant with the
Langackerian conceptualisation of the whole event,
and also with the theory of ‘distributed semantics’ by
Shina and Kuteva (1995)
Construal of mental verbs
•
•
•
mental verbs represent what originates in the subject’s
mind, the ‘internal reality’ (Shinzato 2004: 862)
THINK treated as one of semantic primes (Wierzbicka
1996)
Danielewiczowa (2002: 35-38) warns against putting all
mental verb uses into one category:
X myśli, że…’X thinks that…’, X myśli, co/kto/kiedy…’ ‘X thinks wh-’, X
myśli o…’X thinks about’, X myśli coś zrobić ’intend to do sth’, X myśli.
‘X thinks’, etc.
•
•
formal linguistic differences reflect semantic differences,
i.e. each verb use refers to a different mental state
each epistemic verb constitutes part
(Danielewiczowa 2000a, 2000b, 2002)
of
a
whole
Object of study:
think about vs. myśleć o
•
•
two equivalents of the mental process:
examination of grammatical constructions with
the English mental verb think about and its
Polish equivalent myśleć o
belong to two languages of the same IndoEuropean family
•
•
•
•
•
Aim of the study
should the constructions they appear in yield
the same “patterns of usage features” (Glynn
2009), or “behavioural profiles” (Gries 2006,
Divjak and Gries 2006)?
What are the convergences and divergences
between myśleć o & think about?
possible with the advent of statistical software
such as R (http://cran.r-project.org)
Statistics: Correspondence Analysis (Glynn
2009, in press), Logistic Regression Analysis
(Grondelaers et al. 2008; Glynn 2010)
can analyze the structure of complex data
Corpus data
• The National Corpus of Polish Language
(NKJP) (http://nkjp.pl/), with over 250
million words
• the
British National Corpus (BNC)
(http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/), with over
100 million words
• Both with advanced search capacities
• 240 random hits of myśleć o
• 240 random hits of think about
Formal variables
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tense: Pr, Pt, Ft
Verb form: Finite, Infinite
Mood: Conditional, Indicative, Imperative
Interrogative: Interrogative, Noninterrogative
Negation: Negative, Positive
Aspect: English: Simple, Progessive,
Progressive; Polish: Imperfect, Perfect;
Perfect
Simple,
Perfect
Impersonal Constructions: Personal Constructions, Impersonal
Person: 1st Person, 2nd Person, 3rd Person, Person N/A (e.g.
należałoby się domyślać)
Number: Singular, Plural
Adverb Semantics: Manner, Intensifier, Addition, Contrast, Location,
Temporal, Frequency, Hypothetical
Subject form and semantics
•
Form: NP, Pronoun, Numeral, Adjective, Proper name
Krawiec, On, Sześciu, Niewidomi, Adam
•
Visibility: Overt, Nonovert
Sołtys myślał chwilę o swojej córce i nagle ożywił się…
myślał wtedy o znaku krzyża…
•
Semantics: Human, Metonymic,
Dyrektor vs. Ministerstwo Finansów
Object form and semantics
•
•
•
•
Form: NP, Proper name, Pronoun, Clause,
Gerund
Person: 1st Person, 2nd Person, 3rd Person
Number: Singular, Plural
Semantics
* NP: Human, Thing, Abstract, Event
* Clause: Accomplishment, Achievement,
State, Activity, Hypothetical, Event
Correspondence Analysis for Polish: Object Semantics,
Adverb Semantics & Person
Correspondence Analysis for Polish: Exemplification
!
(1)
Nad niezgłębioną przepaścią … nie podobna
było myśleć o ustawianiu rusztowania. (Polish
Person N/A & Object Activity)
‘Over the fathomless chasm, one wouldn’t have
thought about putting up scaffolding.’
rd
(2)
Myślał o tej zabawce. (Polish 3 Person &
Object Thing)
‘He was thinking about that toy.’
st
(3)
Ale wolę myśleć o matce. (Polish 1 Person &
Object Human)
‘But I prefer to think about mother.’
st
(4)
Myślę o byłym ZSRR i USA. (Polish1 person
and Object Place)
‘I’m thinking about the former USSR and the USA.’
(5)
Też tak myślę o sobie. (1st Person & adverb of
addition)
‘I also think so about myself.’
Correspondence Analysis for English: Object Semantics,
Adverb Semantics & Person
Correspondence Analysis for English: Exemplification
(1)
If not dismissive in this way it is likely to be
considered unimportant and never thought about
again. (English Person N/A & Adverb of
Frequency)
(2)
We don't want to work hard … that I've
st
thought about very seriously… (English 1 Person
& Adverb of Manner)
(3)
You know some of the ways we think about the
Holy Spirit and some of the ways in which the Holy
st
Spirit helps us. (English 1 person and Object
Abstract)
!
Correspondence Analysis for English: Exemplification
!
People don't realize that that the lord's coming
(1)
back, and they'll be a day of judgement. They don't
do they? They never think about it? (English 3rd
Person & Object Event)
So far as I can see, he only thinks about
(2)
rd
snooker, his girlfriend and pop music. (English 3
Person & Intensifying Adverbs)
Now the choices, I mean you'll have to look at,
(3)
nd
think about your house. (English 2 Person &
Object Place)
Think about the lock. You want privacy, but
(4)
you don't want your child to lock himself in.
nd
(English 2 Person & Object Thing)
Correspondence Analysis for Polish & English:
Language, Person, Adverb Semx & Object Semx
Correspondence Analysis for Polish & English:
Exemplification
!
(1)
Filozoficznie można myśleć o czymkolwiek.
(Polish Person N/A & Adverb of Manner)
‘Philosophically one can think about anything.’
rd
(2)
Cały czas myślał o tym ogródku, (Polish 3
Person & Object Place)
He was thinking about the little garden all the time.
(3)
The more she thinks about being depressed the
more she'll get depressed. (English 3rd Person &
Object State)
(4)
About the homework bit er I thought about it
the other day. (English 1st Person & Temporal
Adverbs)
nd
(5)
Think about the lock. (English 2 Person &
Object Thing)
Logistic Regression Analysis for English vs. Polish
use of THINK ABOUT
Deviance Residuals:
Min
1Q Median
-2.281 -0.908
0.000
3Q
1.015
Max
1.598
Coefficients:
Estimate
2.82696
-1.14736
-1.20056
0.08131
1.11255
-18.48631
-18.90885
-0.23059
-19.21141
0.72270
Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
1.20177
2.352 0.01866 *
0.37518 -3.058 0.00223 **
0.38086 -3.152 0.00162 **
0.24112
0.337 0.73596
0.47876
2.324 0.02013 *
2965.76468 -0.006 0.99503
3002.62643 -0.006 0.99498
0.41421 -0.557 0.57774
1616.58431 -0.012 0.99052
0.29175
2.477 0.01324 *
(Intercept)
NegationPos
V_PersV2
V_PersV3
V_PersVPersNA
Obj_SemanticsObjAccomplishment
Obj_SemanticsObjAchievement
Obj_SemanticsObjActivity
Obj_SemanticsObjEvent
Obj_SemanticsObjHuman
(…)
AdverbINTENS
-2.31274
1.21466 -1.904 0.05691 .
AdverbLOC
13.05619 821.14483
0.016 0.98731
AdverbMANNER
-1.26970
1.18072 -1.075 0.28222
AdverbTEMP
-2.36623
1.16856 -2.025 0.04288 *
--Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
(Dispersion parameter for binomial family taken to be 1)
Null deviance: 665.39
Residual deviance: 492.19
AIC: 538.19
on 479
on 457
degrees of freedom
degrees of freedom
Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 17
P: 0
C: 0.795
R2: 0.398
Observations
The results of the Correspondence Analysis show the following
correlations:
•
•
•
•
•
Polish myśleć o & English think about form two distinct groups
relative to Person, Adverb Semantics and Object Semantics
Polish 1st Person & Object Human vs. English 1st Person &
Temporal Adverbs
English 2nd Person & Object Thing vs. Nondescript Polish 2nd
Person
Polish 3rd Person & Object Place vs. English 3rd Person & Object
Event
Polish Impersonal & Adverb of Manner vs. nondescript English
Impersonal
Observations
The results of the Logistic Regression Analysis for think
about vs. myśleć o reveal the following predictors:
•
•
For English: temporal and intensifying adverbs,
the use of positive sentences, and second person
uses
For Polish: impersonal uses
References
Danielewiczowa, Magdalena. 2000a. “Główne problemy opisu i podziału czasownikowych
predykatów mentalnych” [Main problems in the description and classification of mental verb
predicates], in: Renata Grzegorczykowa – Krystyna Waszakowa (eds.), 227-247.
Danielewiczowa, Magdalena. 2000b. “W związku z artykułem Galiny Kustovej ‘Niektóre problemy
opisu predykatów mentalnych’ głos polemiczny” [On Galina Kustova’s ‘Some problems in
description of mental predicates], in: Renata Grzegorczykowa – Krystyna Waszakowa (eds.),
265-273.
Danielewiczowa, Magdalena. 2002. Wiedza i niewiedza: Studium
epistemicznych. Warszawa: Katedra Lingwistyki Formalnej UW.
polskich
czasowników
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 1997. Cognitive semantics and the Polish dative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Glynn, Dylan. 2009. Polysemy, Syntax, and Variation. A usage-based method for Cognitive
Semantics. In: New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, V. Evans & S. Pourcel (eds), pp. 77-106.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Glynn, Dylan. 2010. Testing the hypothesis. Objectivity and verification in usage-based Cognitive
Semantics. In: Quantitative Cognitive Semantics. Corpus-driven approaches. D. Glynn & K.
Fischer (eds.), 239-269. Berlin: Mouton.
Glynn, Dylan. In press. Correspondence Analysis. Identifying usage patterns. In: Polysemy and
Synonymy. Corpus methods and applications in Cognitive Semantics. D. Glynn & J. Robinson
(eds.). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Glynn, Dylan, Kerstin Fischer (eds.), 2010. Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpusdriven approaches. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
References
Glynn, Dylan & Justyna Robinson (eds.). In press. Polysemy and Synonymy. Corpus methods and
applications in Cognitive Semantics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Grondelaers, Stefan, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts. 2008. National variation in the use of er
“there”. Regional and diachronic constraints on cognitive explanations. Gitte Kristiansen & René
Dirven (eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation ,cultural models, social systems.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grzegorczykowa, Renata & Krystyna Waszakowa (eds.). 2000. Studia z semantyki porównawczej
[Studies in comparative semantics] Vol. 1. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo UW.
Janda, Laura. 1993. A geography of case semantics: The Czech dative and the Russian
instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Descriptive application. Vol. 2.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Radden, Günter &René Dirven. 2007. Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sinha, Chris and Tania Kuteva. 1995. “Distributed spatial semantics”, Nordic Journal of Linguistics
18: 167-199.
Shinzato, Rumiko. 2004. “Some observations concerning mental verbs and speech act verbs”,
Journal of Pragmatics 36: 861-882.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics, primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
THANK YOU!

[email protected]
[email protected]