introduction to cognitive & functional linguistics · the usage-based model of language...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics
Class 2
Dylan Glynn [email protected]
www.dsglynn.univ-paris8.fr
![Page 2: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
The usage-based model It is what is common to both Cognitive and Functional Linguistics a nice idea, but what does it entail?
![Page 3: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics
Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987
Theoretical Proposal In contrast to Structuralism and Generativism which hold that usage (parole / performance) is based on rules (langue / competence) Cognitive Linguists and Functional Linguistics argue that grammar is a result of usage!
![Page 4: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Structure is ever ‘emergent’ epiphenomenal generalisation across usage at any given time and place
but... Analytical Implication Given this model of language, variation is inherent to the system. At any moment in time, each speaker has a slightly different competence Regional and diachronic variation is inherent to the system The system is negotiated interpersonally
The grammar of a language is only a generalisation across the individual competences of native speakers at a given time.
![Page 5: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Meaning (concept-function) driven Grammar
Bondarko (1971), Dik (1978), Givón (1979), Halliday (1978), Fillmore (1978), Lakoff (1978), Langacker (1978), Talmy (1977)
“Language is an integrated system, where everything 'conspires' to convey meaning - words, grammatical constructions, and illocutionary devices (including intonation)” (Wierzbicka 1988)
The child is hungry/ thankful; the silly tourist is hungry / thankful –
intention / conception results in communication
Leaving aside structure and convention (for the moment),
it is this intention / conception that drives langauge and then, in turn, the emergence of its conventions
![Page 6: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Meaning (concept-function) driven Grammar
Language form is ‘merely’ a vehicle for expression
Analytical Implication Regularities result from “underlying” conceptual and functional structures (Bondarko 1971, Talmy 1977 etc.)
Therefore, explanations for structure must be pragmatic-semantic! The structuring forces of language reside in the signifié - not the significant (à la Harris 1951, Chomsky 1957 etc.)
![Page 7: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Fluff? So, we have no rules.... only usage-patterns and These patterns are a result of a process we cannot observe Perhaps the Generativists and Structuralists were right, this is a bunch of hippy-fluff!!
![Page 8: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
This is where we need to speak about Cognitive and Functional linguistics separately
![Page 9: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Cognitive Linguistics Holistic (non-modular) model of language structure
(Langacker 1987, Lakoff 1987) Theoretical Proposal
i. No meaning modules: no semantics, no pragmatics etc. ii. No form modules: no syntax, no lexicon etc.
![Page 10: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
No Formal Grammar
Holistic (Non-Modular) Model of Language Structure Form is any form and it is always composite
Analytical Implication It is one thing to say that the distinctions between syntax morphology and lexis are ultimately arbitrary or that these kinds of structure form continua, it is another to deal with the analytical implications of this claim... One must always account for any form in its constructional context in other words:
All forms are always composite! We can no longer analyse a tone, a word, a morpheme or a construction in
isolation!
![Page 11: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
No Referential Semantics
Holistic (non-modular) model of language structure Meaning is encyclopaedic, that is everything we know about the world
Analytical Implication
Linguistic semantics permits truth conditional tests and the notion of necessary and sufficient conditions to establish meaning structure If meaning includes pragmatics, all of context and socio-cultural structure (norms) is integral to the meaning that drives langauge
Meaning is everything we know about the world! We can no longer restrict semantic analysis to referential, truth-based meaning
![Page 12: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
What a mess!
No rules – Inherently varied and dynamic system – every speaker at every time with a slightly different competence – grammatical knowledge
No linguistic semantics – meanings is world knowledge – meaning includes ‘context’ - gender, age, register – pragmatics No independent formal structure – all forms inherently interdependent – every form is composite with no independent structures like lexis, syntax, prosody
![Page 13: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Homework
But I want you all to look for and write down 2 utterances.
They can be anything.
Something someone says to you
Something you hear on the radio
Something you read on an advert in the metro
Anything!
Think about 2 things – What does the utterance mean?
What is the motivation for the utternece
![Page 14: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
How Do Humans Manage this Complicated Multidimensional set of interdependent Structures?
A whole bunch of theories....
Entrenchment – Langacker 1987
Categorisation – Lakoff 1987 and Fillmore 1985
Image Schemata – Johnson 1987 and Lakoff 1987
Construal – Talmy 1988, Langacker 1987, Fillmore 1985 and Lakoff 1987
![Page 15: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Let’s take these ideas step by step...
The two most important theories were formally identified in 1987 by the two founders of Cognitive Linguistics
These two theories are about grammaticality and categorisation
The first is called
Theory of Entrenchment
The second is called Theory of Prototype Categorisation
Both have their origins in psychology and is why it is called Cognitive Linguistics
![Page 16: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Entrenchment
![Page 17: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Entrenchment: A theory of grammaticality (Langacker 1987)
Arguably the most important and contentious theory of Cognitive Linguistics
Learning and automisation
E.g.: learning
z vs. s
the zebra runs vs. the zebra run
No underlying rule – just a learnt pattern
![Page 18: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Entrenchment: A theory of grammaticality
What are the implications of this?
How do we explain the fact that things sound wrong?
The streets were lighted
How do we explain novel sentences?
The puppy run under the table next to the sofa rolled on it’s side and got the ball
![Page 19: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Let’s invent a new word torp Ok everybody, that’s enough, please torp. The baby is sleeping, so torp when you are in the living room please. Man, I’m watching a film, just torp please! It was a torp night, the fog and mist lay heavy over the land.
![Page 20: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Categorisation – a theory of grammar
Structure in language is motivated by meaning
Structure in meaning is motivated by categorisation
ergo
how we categorise our world is
grammar....
![Page 21: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
What is it?
![Page 22: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
What are they?
![Page 23: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
What are they?
![Page 24: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Exercise
In groups of two, try to identify some meaning, anything at all, without categorising....
![Page 25: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Categorisation
If it is true that everything we know, think, even perhaps feel, in the world is a category, that makes the study of categories basic to all social science.
This is so simple it sounds like good news
but
There are two basic problems
Black Box and Fuzzy World
![Page 26: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Black Box : categories only exist in your head, there is no known way of directly studying them!
![Page 27: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Fuzzy World
The world is not discrete There are continua everywhere
we are small...
![Page 28: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Some revision The form-meaning pair and the arbitrary nature of the sign (de Saussure 1916)
Any symbol is necessarily a pairing between the sign and what the sign signifies. This is not only the basis of language, it is the basis of semiosis (symbolic communication).
![Page 29: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Birds are easy....
So let’s define bird !
Work in groups Make a list of features / charactersitics which allow you to distinguish birds
from everything else in the world!!
![Page 30: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Prototype Set Theory
It is here Lakoff’s work comes to the fore
Based on research in anthropology and psychology, he realized that this theory could allow us to make generalizations about semantic structure – the intangible and varied thing that he believes drives language
Remember the bird example?
Let’s go through it again....
![Page 31: Introduction to Cognitive & Functional Linguistics · The Usage-Based Model of Language Cognitive and Functional Linguistics Langacker 1987, Hopper 1987 Theoretical Proposal In contrast](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022021508/5b098a327f8b9a404d8dfa89/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Homework Read Reading 1 on the website