210 likes | 394 Views
Subjectivity in causal connectives: similarities and differences between Dutch and German. Ninke Stukker and Ted Sanders Universiteit Utrecht. Meaning and use of causal connectives: Cross-linguistic unity …?. Outline: Cross-linguistic perspective on CC
E N D
Subjectivity in causal connectives: similarities and differences between Dutch and German Ninke Stukker and Ted Sanders Universiteit Utrecht
Meaning and use of causal connectives:Cross-linguistic unity …? Outline: • Cross-linguistic perspective on CC • Cognitive categorization hypothesis on CC • Pilot corpus analysis of: Dus/ ?Also – Daarom/ ?Deshalb – Daardoor/ ?Dadurch
Meaning and use of causal connectives:Cross-linguistic unity …? (Cf. Pit, 2003; Pander Maat & Degand, 2001; Degand & Pander Maat, 2003; Pander Maat & Sanders, 1995; 2000; Frohning, 2007, Stukker, Sanders & Verhagen, 2008; Sanders, 2005)
What unity & diversity must we expect? Findings from linguistic typology: • Grammatical patterns are essentially language-specific; • BUT variation is constrained by: -function -processing -synchronic intra-linguistic variation -diachronic development -cognitive structure
Causal connectives & cognition • Research Project Causality and subjectivity as cognitive principles of discourse representation: Converging evidence from language use (Sanders, 2005: NWO vici project) • The linguistic project: evidence from language use “Connectives provide a window on human cognition”, BUT usage patterns vary across: …modalities …genres …languages
Causal connectives & cognition • Categorization function Lexical category ≈ conceptual category (cf. Lakoff, 1987; Taylor, 1995; Geeraerts, 1997) • Categorization hypothesis: When selecting one of the causal connectives available in a language, the language user assigns the causal coherence relation expressed to a specific conceptual type of causality • Categorization in Dutch CC: subjectivity
Categorization in Dutch: subjectivity • Subjectivity: the degree of speaker responsibility expressed in the causal relation (Pander Maat & Sanders, 2000; cf. Langacker, 1990; Traugott, 1989) • Various dimensions of subjectivity. By way of illustration: • Domains of use (Sweetser, 1990; relation to subjectivity by Pander Maat & Sanders, 2000; Pander Maat & Degand, 2001; Pit,2003)
Why a cross-linguistic perspective? • Aims: -Generalization over languages -Filter out language specific factors • Current state of affairs: -Similarities -Differences …but what do they look like exactly? Where do they come from? • In this talk exploration of: -Cognitive perspective on cross-ling ‘unity’ -Empirical data …Work in progress…!
Subjectivity cline = Conceptual space? ‘Cognitive typology’ (e.g. Heine, 1997; Croft, 2001; Kemmer, 2003) • Aim: identify cognitive structure as basis for universals • Method: relate conceptual map with semantic map Hypothesis Categories of subjectivity = conceptual space that cross-linguistically constrains meaning and use of causal connectives • Cognitively plausible • Scalar concept (Pander Maat & Degand, 2001; Pit, 2003)
Contrastive corpus analysis Dutch-German • Dus, daarom, daardoor vs. Also, deshalb, dadurch • Subjectivity: domains of use • Method of analysis: paraphrase test (Sanders, 1997)
Contrastive corpus analysis Dutch-German • Analytical perspectives: -Onomasiological: naming -Semasiological: meaning (cf. Geeraerts, 1997) • Corpora: -pilot D-Coi, commentaries and opinion pieces (74.415 wds; Oostdijk, 2006) -Potsdam Commentary Corpus (33.209 wds; Stede, 2004) • Statistical analysis: typical and less typical patterns established with contrast analysis (Van den Bergh, 1989)
Unity and diversity in Dutch and German: semasiological perspective • Unity -Daarom/ deshalb have general function -Dus / also strongly specialize in SUBJ Epistemic -Daardoor / dadurch strongly specialize in OBJ Non-volitional • Diversity -Frequency Also,dadurch < dus, daardoor -Deshalb is more subjective than daarom
Unity and diversity in Dutch and German: onomasiological perspective • Unity -Content volitional expressed with daarom / deshalb -No specific ‘name’ for subjective causality • Diversity -Dutch has a specific ‘name’ for non-vol caus; Geman doesn’t
Discussion (If our small samples may be generalized) • Cognitive perspective: Conceptual space/ semantic map • Usage-based methodology: Frequency of use, distribution from onomas/semas perspective specify ‘unity and diversity’ between Dutch-German… BUT many questions remain…
Further research • Impact of communicative context? (Intra-language variation) • Subdistinctions of subjectivity (volitionality, but also: accessibility, attention –Frohning, 2007) • Meaning differences between typically and non-typically marked causal contexts (Stukker, Sanders & Verhagen, 2008) • More languages • More dimensions of subjectivity
THANK YOU! Acknowledgement This study was enabled by The Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research, NWO, through NWO Vici-grant 277-70 003, awarded to Ted Sanders.
References • Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: OUP. • Degand, L., Pander Maat, H. (2003). A contrastive study of Dutch and French causal connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale. In A. Verhagen & J. van de Weijer, eds., Usage based approaches to Dutch, Utrecht, LOT: 175-199 • Frohning, D. (2007). Kausalmarker zwischen Pragmatik und Kognition. Korpusbasierte Analysen zur Variation im Deutschen. Tuebingen: Niemeyer. • Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics. A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford, Clarendon Press. • Heine, B. (1997). Cognitive foundations of grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. • Langacker, R.W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5–38. • Kemmer, S. (2003). Human cognition and the elaboration of events: Some universal conceptual categories. In: M. Tomasello (ed.) The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure 2, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 89-118. • Oostdijk, N. (2006). A reference corpus of written Dutch: corpus design. Dutch language corpus initiative: Technical report D-COI-06-01. • Pit, M. (2003). How to express yourself with a causal connective? Subjectivity and causal connectives in Dutch, German and French. Dissertation Utrecht University. Amsterdam: Rodopi. • Pander Maat, H., Degand, L. (2001). Scaling causal relations and connectives in terms of speaker involvement. Cognitive Linguistics 12: 211-245. • Pander Maat, H., Sanders, T. (1995). Nederlandse causale connectieven en het onderscheid tussen inhoudelijke en epistemische relaties (“Dutch causal connectives and the distinction between content and epistemic relations”). Leuvense Bijdragen 3: 349-374. • Pander Maat, H., Sanders, T. (2000). Domains of use or subjectivity: The distribution of three Dutch causal connectives explained. In: E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann Cause, condition, concession, and contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter: 57-82. • Sanders, T. (2005). Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. In: M. Aurnague, M. Bras, A. Le Draoulec, L. Vieu (eds.) Proceedings/actes SEM-05 First international symposium on the exploration and modeling of meaning, 105-114. • Stede, M. (2004). The Potsdam Commentary Corpus. Proceedings of the ACL workshop on discourse annotation, Barcelona, July 25-26, 2004. • Stukker, N. (2005). Causality marking across levels of language structure. A cognitive semantic analysis of causal verbs and causal connectives in Dutch.Dissertation Utrecht University, Utrecht: LOT. • Stukker, N., Sanders, T., Verhagen A. (2008). Causality in verbs and in discourse connectives. Converging evidence of cross-level parallels in Dutch linguistic categorization. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1296-1322. • Sweetser, E.E. (1990) From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. • Taylor, J.R. (1995). Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. • Traugott, E.C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 57: 33-65. • Van den Bergh, H. (1989). Examens geëxamineerd. Den Haag: SVO.