Cognitive-Functional Linguistics

1. Cognitive-Functional Linguistics – Some Basic Tenets III Rolf Theil Bergen, June 19, 2006

2. The Emergent Grammar 1 • Grammatical structure “grows upwards” from instances. • There is no sharp boundary between lexicon and grammar. • They are different aspects of the same network of extension and instantiation relations. RT/CFL

3. The Emergent Grammar 2 • Grammar and lexicon constitute construc-tions with varying degrees of schematicity. • “Grammatical constructions” are more schematic than “lexical constructions”. • Grammar cannot be neatly divided into syntax and morphology. • Syntax and morphology constitute construc-tions of varying size and complexity. • “Syntactic constructions” are bigger and more complex than “morphological constructions”. RT/CFL

4. The Emergent Grammar 3 • Common structural principles hold across phonology, semantics, pragmatics, morpho-logy, syntax, and other aspects of language. • The morphological network illustrated earlier is governed by exactly the same principles as those governing the syntactic aspects of the lexicon-morphology-syntax continuum. RT/CFL

5. The Emergent Grammar 4 • In our presentation of The Emergent Grammar, we left out some aspects that we shall take a look at now: • Entrenchment • Composition • Categorization RT/CFL

6. Entrenchment 1 • Usage affects grammatical representation in the mind. • Frequency of use correlates with entrenchment. • Constructions that are more frequently processed become more entrenched in the language system. • Entrenchment may be interpreted as resting activity. RT/CFL

7. Entrenchment 2 • There are two main types of frequency: • Token frequency • Type frequency • Token frequency gives rise to the entrenchment of instances. • Type frequency gives rise to the entrenchment of more abstract schemas. RT/CFL

8. Entrenchment 3 • Token frequency gives rise to the entrenchment of instances. • Example • Each time the constructions (or words) [[dansa] / [DANCE, PAST]] and [[so:g] / [SEE, PAST]] are used, their mental representations are strengthened. • [[so:g] / [SEE, PAST]] is much more frequent than [[dansa] / [DANCE, PAST]]. • A subsequent reduction in use weakens the entrenchment. RT/CFL

9. Entrenchment 4 • Assuming that [[so:g] / [SEE, PAST]] as well as [[dansa] / [DANCE, PAST]] have unit status, we can represent the differences in entrench-ment by letting the degree of entrenchment correlate with the thickness of the lines used to draw the “unit boxes”: so:g / SEE, PAST dansa / DANCE, PAST RT/CFL

10. Entrenchment 5 • Type frequency gives rise to the entrenchment of more abstract schemas. • Example • [[so:g] / [SEE, PAST]] and [[lo:g] / [LIE, PAST]] are the only instances of the schema [[Co:g] / [VERB, PAST]]. • [[dansa] / [DANCE, PAST]] and thousands of other verbs instantiate the schema [[…a] / [VERB, PAST]]. • The entrenchment of a schema is governed by its number of instances. • This is illustrated on the next slide. RT/CFL

11. Entrenchment 6 • A weakly entrenched schema with a few strongly entrenched instances. • A strongly entrenched schema with many weakly entrenched instances. σ…a / VERB, PAST Co:g / VERB, PAST hopa / JUMP, PAST joba / WORK, PAST so:g / SEE, PAST lo:g / LIE, PAST dansa / DANCE, PAST kasta / THROW, PAST spe:la / PLAY, PAST RT/CFL

12. Entrenchment 7 • Productivity is a matter of degree. • Productivity is a matter of how available a pattern is for the sanction of novel expressions. • Sanction: the motivation afforded a novel structure by the conventional units of the language. • Productivity amounts to likelihood of being selected as the active structure used to categorize a novel expression. • Strongly entrenched schemas are more easily activated (they have a higher ‘resting activity’) than weakly entrenched schemas. RT/CFL

13. Composition 1 • Composition: The relation between component structures and the composite structure that derives from them. • A composite structure is a structure that results when two or more component structures combine. • [[hopa] / [JUMP, PAST]] is a composite structure. • The component structures are: • [[hopa…] / [JUMP, TNS]] • [[σ…a] / VERB, PAST]] • The relationship between the structures is shown on the next slide. RT/CFL

14. Composition 2 Component structure Component structure hopa / JUMP, PAST hopa… / JUMP, TNS σ…a / VERB, PAST Composite structure RT/CFL

15. Composition between two structures is only possible if at least one of them is partly schematic, like the red, outlined parts of the structures to the right. Composition 3 hopa… / JUMP, TNS σ…a / VERB, PAST RT/CFL

16. A schematic part of a structure is called an elaboration site. To elaborate: to instantiate a schema. An elaboration site: those facets of one component structure that another component structure serves to elaborate. Composition 4 hopa … / JUMP , TNS σ…a / VERB , PAST RT/CFL

17. Composition 5 • The component structures of a composite structure (= a complex construction) are not like classical morphemes that are stacked together to form more complex edifices, where form and meaning are parts of the individual “building blocks”, e.g. as in: • {/dans/‘dance’}+{/a/‘past’} RT/CFL

18. Composition 6 • The component structures are more or less schematic structures that are integrated with each other. • The structure below, which is the CFL counterpart of the classical morpheme {/a/‘past’}, is a schematic word: σ…a / VERB, PAST RT/CFL

19. Composition 7 • Classical morphemes are assumed to predict the form and meaning of a complex word. • CFL component structures motivate the form and meaning of a composite structure. • Example on the next slide. RT/CFL

20. Composition 8 • The morphemic analysis of fireman is: • {/faɪəɹ/‘fire’} + {/mæn/‘man’} • Fireman has two related meanings: • ‘person whose job is putting out fires’ • ‘person who looks after the fire in a steam engine or furnace’ • Neither meaning is predictable from the morphemic representation. RT/CFL

21. Composition 9 • CFL analysis of fireman …mVn / PERSON faɪəɹ / FIRE σ…mən / PERSON ASSOCIATED WITH ‘THING’ mæn / MAN faɪəɹmən / PERSON WHOSE JOB IS PUTTING OUT FIRES faɪəɹmən / PERSON WHO LOOKS AFTER THE FIRE IN A STEAM ENGINE faɪəɹmən / PERSON ASSOCIATED WITH FIRE RT/CFL

22. Composition 10 • A grammar is not a “generative” description, providing a formal enumeration of all and only the well-formed sentences of a language. • Nor is the grammar a device that carries out a series of operations and gives well-formed sentences as its output. RT/CFL

23. Composition 11 • Putting together novel expressions is some-thing that speakers, not grammars, do. • It is a problem-solving activity that demands a constructive effort and occurs when linguistic convention is put to use in specific circumstances. • Creating a novel expression is not necessari-ly different in fundamental character from problem-solving activity in general. RT/CFL

24. Categorization 1 • Linguists are gradually coming to appreciate the critical significance of categorization to linguistic structure. • The role of categorization is especially prominent in cognitive grammar, which invokes it for several basic functions. • P. 369 in R. W. Langacker: • Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. RT/CFL

25. Categorization 2 • There are different models of categorization. • The strict Criterial-Attribute Model (the “Aristotelian model”), despite its dominance in the Western intellectual tradition, cannot be accepted unquestioningly as the basis for language structure and behavior. RT/CFL

26. Categorization 3 • The Criterial-Attribute Model • A class is characterized by means of a list of defining features. • All members of the class fully possess every property on the list; no nonmembers possess all of the listed properties. • Class membership is an all-or-nothing affair; a sharp distinction is drawn between those entities that are in the class and those that are not. RT/CFL

27. Categorization 4 • Well-known problems with the Criterial-Attribute Model – A • It often happens that certain class members lack a property so fundamental (on intuitive grounds) that it can hardly be denied criterial status: • Flightless birds and egg-laying mammals are familiar illustrations. RT/CFL

28. Categorization 5 • Well-known problems with the Criterial-Attribute Model – B • A set of properties sufficient to pick out all and only the members of a class might still be incomplete and inadequate as a characterization of that class. • If the semantic specifications [FEATHERLESS] and [BIPED] were in fact adequate as criterial features for the class of humans, we would nevertheless hesitate to accept these features as a comprehensive or revealing description of our species. RT/CFL

29. Categorization 6 • Well-known problems with the Criterial-Attribute Model – C • Yet another problem is that speakers do not adhere rigidly to criterial attributes in judging class membership: • I’ve never seen an orange baseball before! • Look at that giant baseball! • This tennis ball is a good baseball. • Who tore the cover off my baseball? • My baseball just exploded! • More on the next slide RT/CFL

30. Categorization 7 • Well-known problems with the Criterial-Attribute Model – C • Speakers do not adhere rigidly to criterial attributes in judging class membership: • A speaker will not hesitate to call something a baseball even if it happens — • to be the wrong color (yellow) • to be the wrong size (giant) • to be wrong in virtually all criterial properties (tennis ball) • to be drastically deformed (without cover) • to have ceased to exist (exploded) RT/CFL

31. Categorization 8 • Two other models, more directly grounded in cognitive concerns, appear to offer more revelatory and empirical-ly adequate accounts of linguistic cate-gorization: • The Prototype Model • The Schema Model RT/CFL

32. Categorization 9 • The Prototype Model • A prototype is a typical instance of a category, and other elements are assimi-lated to the category on the basis of their perceived resemblance to the prototype; there are degrees of membership based on degrees of similarity. RT/CFL

33. Categorization 10 • The Prototype Model • The category plus the extensions constitute the category. EXTENSION EXTENSION EXTENSION / PROTOTYPE PROTOTYPE EXTENSION EXTENSION RT/CFL

34. Categorization 11 • The Schema Model • A schema is an abstract characterization that is fully compatible with all the members of the category it defines (so membership is not a matter of degree). • It is an integrated structure that embodies the commonality of its members, which are conceptions of great specificity and detail that elaborate the schema in contrasting ways. RT/CFL

35. Categorization 12 • The Schema Model • The schema plus the instances constitute the category SCHEMA INSTANCE/SCHEMA INSTANCE INSTANCE INSTANCE RT/CFL

36. Categorization 13 • The Prototype Model and the Schema Model are intimately associated and are describable as aspects of a unified phenomenon. • Categorization by extension typically presupposes and incorporates schematic relationships. • A schema expresses the commonalities between a prototype and an extension. RT/CFL

37. Categorization 14 • Categories are networks containing prototypes and extensions, schemas and instances: SCHEMA INSTANCE/SCHEMA INSTANCE / EXTENSION INSTANCE / PROTOTYPE INSTANCE / EXTENSION RT/CFL

38. BABY She had a baby Baby carrots Hey, baby! Baby / babe He’s such a baby. Mr Platt is the baby in his family P. 169 in Goldberg (2006): Constructions at work. A human, B infant, C small, D cute, E emotionally immature, F youngest in a family C small (and cute?) A human, D cute A human, D cute, G sexy, H female, I adult A human, E emotionally immature A human, F youngest in the family Categorization 15: Baby RT/CFL

39. Categorization 16: Baby A human, B infant, C small, D cute, E emotionally immature, F youngest in a family, G sexy, H female, I adult baby/A baby/AF 5. baby/ AE 6. baby/AFI 1. baby/ABCDEF 3. baby/AD 4. baby/ADGHI 2. baby/C (D?) RT/CFL

40. Categorization 17: Norw. /p/ unvcd, bilab, plos unvcd, asp, bilab, plos unvcd, unasp, bilab, plos unvcd, unasp, bilab, plos, long unvcd, bilab, plos, short unvcd, bilab, plos, unrnd unvcd, bilab, plos, rnd [pˑʷ] [pˑ] [pʷʰ] [pʰ] [p] [pʷ] RT/CFL