1 word grammar and other cognitive theories richard hudson budapest march 2012

1

Word Grammar and other cognitive theories

Richard Hudson

Budapest March 2012

2

Cognitive linguistics

3

Cognitive theories of grammar

CgG

CnG

WG

4

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

5

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.

6

Different notations

• CgG– e.g. Langacker 2007

• CnG– e.g. Croft 2007, Goldberg 1995

• WG– e.g. Hudson 1980, 1990, 2007, 2010

7

CnG: Heather sings.

(Croft 2007: 476)

8

WG: Heather sings.

Heather

subject

Heather

meaning

singer

• No 'symbolic units'.

• Just a network of related concepts.

semantics

syntax

meaning

sings.

singing

9

CgG: (the) table near (the) door

(Langacker 2007: 442)

10

WG: the table near the door

the

doornear door

table near door

landmark

comp compcomp adjunctmeaning

• Just words and other concepts in a network.

table near the door

position

11

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?

12

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

13

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)

14

… 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.

15

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 …

16

CnG: the Benefactive-Ditransitive construction

(Goldberg 1995: 77)

17

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

18

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)

19

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.

20

WG: the Benefactive-Ditransitive construction

transitive

ditransitive

benefactive ditransitive

verb

subject

object

ind obj

ind obj

beneficiary

•

•

• No constructions.

• Just words and other concepts

• Default inheritance applies to words.

•

•

•

•result

having

•purpose

•

'rec'•

'is-a'

21

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}

22

The architecture of language in WG

semantics

syntax

morphology

phonology graphology

meaning

realisation

realisation

23

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

24

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.

25

For example, a kinship network

me ColinGaynor

Gretta

Lucy

brother

brother

mother

son

husband

wife

Peter

daughterdaughter

son

grandson

26

WG syntax

• Dependency structure– like school grammar– but much richer

• Dependencies:– are asymmetrical– link single words– can be sub-classified eg. as 'subject', 'adjunct'

27

A simple example

English visitors generally like Budapest

subject

adjunct adjunct object

28

A richer example

Where do they tend to stay?

extractee subject

pred

s

compx

pred pred

comp

29

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.

30

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