Power points at www.sil.org/~tuggyd

1. Power points at www.sil.org/~tuggyd

2. Crash Course in CG—Review A language isa structured inventoryof conventionallinguisticunits

3. Review • Association: two concepts coocur together in the mind. • Correspondence: two concepts are taken to be the same.

4. Review • A - -  B = Partial schematicity: A and B are similar but not identical.

5. Review • A  B = Full schematicity: B is a (kind of) A. • We are wired to like it when we find schematicity, especially full schematicity.

6. Review • Concepts typically occur in very complex categories, describable as networks of schematic and partially-schematic relationships. • These are ubiquitous in language

7. Review • You have a classical category when the prototype (most prominent member) and highest schema coincide. • But most categories are not classical.

8. Review • Semantic structures feature a profile which stands out as figure against a base (cognitive background). • The base is encyclopedic: it contains everything conventionally known about the profiled entity.

9. Review • Profiles can be classified into categories somewhat similar to traditional parts of speech: Things, Processes, Atemporal Relations. (= Nominal entities, Verbal entities, adj/adv/adpositions).

10. Syntactic Structures: Valence • Let’s talk about what happens when symbols are joined together. • We already pointed the way in discussing the example of FIRE TRUCK. • The only thing that shows up in all valences (= all types of joinings) is that there is at least one correspondence between a subpart of one symbol’s semantic pole and a subpart of the other’s.

11. Valence: Correspondence • The profiled Thing of FIRE links to a peripheral (far-fetched) subpart of TRUCK. • The profiled Thing of TRUCK links to a peripheral part of FIRE.

12. Valence: Correspondence • The fire-fighting scenario, peripheral to both meanings, links between them. • As is typical, there is more than just correspondence.

13. Valence: Correspondence • It is somewhat atypical (though by no means really rare) that only peripheral elements are linked in this case, however.

14. Valence: Correspondence • More typically the profile of one element is put in correspondence with a very central part of the other. • In the most typical case, it is the profile of a Thing that is put into correspondence with one of the participants in a Relation.

15. Valence: Correspondence • For instance, consider the phrase (THE) LAMP ABOVE (THE) TABLE. • ABOVE we have already characterized.

16. Valence: Correspondence • (THE) LAMP is put in correspondence with the (internal) Subject of above. • This makes it its (external) subject.

17. Valence: Correspondence • (THE) TABLE is put in correspondence with the (internal) Object of above. • This makes it its (external) object.

18. Valence: Correspondence • Although such “predicate-argument” correspondences are typical, they are by no means the only type.

19. Valence: Correspondence • (Some syntactic theories have acted as if they were the only type.)

20. Valence: Dependence • The participants in the Relation ABOVE are only characterized schematically: one physical Thing is above another.

21. Valence: Dependence • THE LAMP and THE TABLE elaborate those schemas. • This configuration is also typical.

22. Valence: Dependence • In this case ABOVE is said to depend on THELAMP and THE TABLE.

23. Valence: Dependence • It needs them; it is not complete without them. • We want to know what is ABOVE what.

24. Valence: Dependence • The schematic structure in one meaning which is elaborated by the other meaning is called an “elaboration site”.

25. Valence: Dependence • Elaboration sites (e-sites for short) are often cross-hatched in diagrams.

26. Valence: Dependence • So, the (internal) subject and object of ABOVE function, in this construction, as e-sites.

27. Valence: Dependence • Dependence is measured by two factors: • How prominent is the e-site? • How “schematically distant” from it is its elaboration?

28. Valence: Dependence • Think of the e-site as a hole, and the elaboration a peg that fits into the hole, and fills it more or less completely.

29. Valence: Dependence • Dependence is measured by two factors: • How big/important is the hole? • How completely does the peg fill it?

30. Valence: Dependence • Sometimes there is no strong dependence. • (FIRE and TRUCK do not depend on each other in FIRETRUCK.) • Dependence often runs in both directions, with each member of a syntagmatic pair depending on the other. • But typically there is an imbalance, with one member more strongly dependent on the other than vice versa.

31. Valence: Review • So we have seen two factors in semantic valences: • Correspondence — there is always some correspondence between subpart(s) of one and of the other. • Dependence — Prototypically one depends on (needs) the other more than vice versa.

32. Valence: the Composite Structure • These relationships are “horizontal”, i.e. they hold between components of a complex structure. • The overall result of the complex structure we will call the composite structure. • The composite is typically “more than the sum of the parts”, and must be represented separately. • Relations from the components to the composite we may call “vertical” relationships.

33. Valence: “Vertical” relationships • It will be obvious from the examples that there are vertical, as well as horizontal, correspondences. • (Dependence does not operate vertically.)

34. Valence: Headship • The third element of valence is headship. • It is a vertical, not a horizontal, relationship, having to do with with the relationship of the components to the composite. • Essentially, the component that contributes the most (and the most important) specifications to the composite is the head of the construction. • This is a product of Profile determinance coupled with Semantic weight.

35. Valence: Profile Determinance • The Profile Determinant is the component whose profile is adopted in the composite structure. • It can be recognized because it is schematic for the composite structure. • In FIRETRUCK, TRUCK is clearly the profile determinant. • (A FIRETRUCK is a TRUCK, not a FIRE.)

36. Valence: Profile Determinance

37. Valence: Headship • In THE LAMP ABOVE THE TABLE, THE LAMP is profile determinant. • The composite is a lamp (which is above the table), not a table, nor a specific kind of ABOVE relationship.

38. Valence: Headship

39. Valence: Headship • However, in THE LAMP IS ABOVE THE TABLE, IS ABOVE would be profile determinant. • The composite is not a lamp, nor a table, but a specific kind of IS ABOVE imperfective process.

40. Valence: Headship

41. Valence: Headship • Specifying the profile is the most central specification a component can contribute. • Usually, as in the two cases we have just seen, the profile determinant contributes a reasonable proportion of other specifications as well. • In such cases it is also semantic heavyweight, and thus clearly head.

42. Valence: Headship • Sometimes, however, a structure contributes nothing but the profile, and the other structure is relatively heavy. • E.g. in sensationally, -ly is profile determinant. • In collapsing, -ing is profile determinant. • In such cases, headship is less clear, and linguists argue about it.

43. Valence: Headship • It is not uncommon to have more than one profile determinant or head. • E.g. stir-fry • E.g. neighbor lady • It is also not terribly uncommon to have none. • E.g. scarecrow • But prototypically one element clearly outranks the other(s) as head.

44. Valence: Headship • Headship is independent of dependence • Either the relatively dependent element may be head, • Or the relatively autonomous element may be. • We already saw this in the cases of THE LAMP ABOVE THE TABLE (where an autonomous element is head) vs. THE LAMP IS ABOVE THE TABLE, where the dependent element is head.

45. Valence: Headship • Popōkatepētl can mean two different things. • In both meanings tepētl ‘mountain’ is (external) subject of the verb popōka ‘it smokes’. • In both, popōka depends on tepētl, not vice versa.

46. Valence: Headship • In one meaning, popōka is the profile determinant.

47. Valence: Headship • Popōka is a process, and so is popōka-tepētl; in fact a more specific versionof the sameprocess.

48. Valence: Headship • The schematicity relationship of course subsumes a number of correspondences.

49. Valence: Headship • Every specification of the schema must by definition cor-respond to something in the elaboration.

50. Valence: Headship • There is also correspondence from the non-head to part of the composite structure.