session 2: descriptive framework i gerhard van huyssteen 21-22 july 2010 csir

Session 2: Descriptive Framework I

Gerhard van Huyssteen

21-22 July 2010CSIR

ContextPreliminaries

Primitives: DomainsConstructs: Conceptual Archetypes

[Overview]

•

12

43



Context

•

1

Object of StudyField of StudyDescription FrameworkOutput

•

Object of Study




Object of Study• What do we want to describe? (i.e. what is our

object of study?) – Language, specifically grammar, in accordance

with what is known about the mind and brain from other disciplines• Cf. Cognitive Commitment

• What is grammar?– Grammar is the structured inventory of

conventional linguistic units (Langacker, 1987: ch 2)




What is Grammar?Grammar is the structured inventory of conventional linguistic units

– Structures that a speaker has mastered thoroughly, to the extent that s/he can employ it in largely automatic fashion, without having to focus on its individual parts or their arrangement• Prepackaged assemblies that don’t demand constructive

effort• Automatization/habit has occurred

– Content requirement specifies permissible structures to describe:• Phonological, semantic and symbolic structures




Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Langacker 1987: 57

What is grammar?

Grammar is the structured inventory of conventional linguistic units

Symbolic structure

Phonological structure

Semantic structure





Gerhard B van Huyssteen2008/06/11Semantic pole


Gerhard B van Huyssteen2008/06/11symbolic association between semantic and phonological structure that gets unit status (Langacker 1987: 58)


Phonological pole

What is grammar?


– Conventionality implies that something is shared (and recognised as such) by a substantial number of individuals

– Matter of degree• Idiolects, dialects, natiolects

– Scope of description depends on one’s objectives





Gerhard B van Huyssteen2008/06/11Langacker 1987: 62

What is grammar?


– A collection of linguistic resources• Therefore constructive, rather than generative

– Sanctions expressions of the language, rather than generating expressions

• Low-level instantiations as important (if not more) than abstractions

• Inclusion in inventory depends on conventionality/usage

– Structured via relations between components• Symbolisation (see later)• Categorisation (see later)• Integration (see later)





Gerhard B van Huyssteen2008/06/11Langacker 1987: 64


Gerhard B van Huyssteen2008/06/11Similar to Memory-based learning


Langacker 1999: 92-93

•

Field of Study




Where do we fit in?

• Discipline:– Linguistics

• Paradigm/Enterprise/School/Movement/Tradition:– Cognitive Linguistics

• Theory:– Cognitive Grammar




•

Description Framework




Description Framework• Description framework – Provide

• Aims • Methodologies• Methods• Primitives• Constructs• Conceptualisations• Heuristic devices

to construct models (i.e. the output)• All descriptive theories should have such

frameworks




•

Output




Description Framework and Context VIII

• Output/result of process is a language model– Schemas– Networks– Diagrams– Constituency trees

• These models should contribute to our better understanding of cognition/the human mind– Should contribute to converging evidence

• Similar to other disciplines (e.g. AI)




Description Framework and Context VIII

•

Artificial Intelligence

Machine Learning

Memory-based Learning

TiMBLComputational Models



Object of StudyField of StudyDescription FrameworkOutputs



Context

•

1




AimMethodology & Methods

Preliminaries

•

2




Preliminaries: Aim

• What do we want to do?– To give a natural, conceptually unified and theoretically

austere characterisation (i.e. description) of the systematicity, structure and function of grammar

– Task of linguist• to uncover the systematicity behind and within language• to model these systems• to relate systematicity directly to the way the mind is patterned and

structured, particularly to conceptual structure and organisation, in order to understand human cognition


Gerhard B van Huyssteen2008/06/11Langacker (2008: 14-15; 161)Bespreek hier ook piramide (Langacker 2008: 8-9)


Gerhard B van Huyssteen2008/06/11Evans and Green - pp 5, 15-16, 18




Preliminaries: Methodology & Methods

• How do we want to do it?• Methodology– Maximalist: Economy is not necessarily a virtue– Non-reductive: Specific instantions vs schematic ones– Bottom-up: Schemas emerge from usage events

• Methods– Mostly inductive reasoning (based on converging evidence)– Corpus studies, common sense observations and

intuition/introspection – Also psycholinguistic experiments; neurological imaging;

clinical research; computer modelling


Gerhard B van Huyssteen2008/06/11Langacker 1999: 91-92



Basic DomainsNonbasic DomainsExample

•

3




[Reminder]

• Meaning is a function of content AND construal

• Content ≈ Concepts/conceptions/conceptual structures– Described as domain matrixes

• Construal ≈ Conceptualisation processes– Described in terms of cognitive abilities

• No sharp distinction between content and construal

Domains

• An expression invokes a set of cognitive domains (i.e. a complex domain matrix) as the basis for its meaning (i.e. as the content to be construed)

• Definition: any kind of conception or realm of experience

• Two kinds of domains:– Basic domains– Nonbasic domains









Domains: Basic Domains

• Most fundamental domains: cognitively irreducible, neither derivable from nor analyzable into other conceptions– Spatial domain (space)– Temporal domain (time)– Sensory domains (senses)

• See (e.g. colour space)• Hear (e.g. pitch scale)• Taste• Smell• Feel (e.g. temperature scale, pressure)

• Not concepts – rather realms of experiential potential, within which conceptualisation can occur and specific concepts can emerge






Domains: Nonbasic Domains

• Any conceptualisation capable of being exploited for semantic purposes– Immediate sensory experience (e.g. wet)– Oriented spatial domain (e.g. above)– Quality domain (e.g. tall vs. short)– Quantity domain (e.g. three)– Emotive experience (e.g. fright)– Motor/kinesthetic experience (e.g. drunk)– Abstracted products of intellectual operation (e.g. JUSTICE)– Conceptions at level of conscious awareness (e.g. image of a circle)– Scenarios/scripts (e.g. steps in a recipe)– Frames (e.g. BUY frame)– Idealised Cognitive Models (e.g. FAMILY)


Langacker 2008: 45




Domains: Example




Domains: Example

– Basic domain: space– Shape: sphere– Function1: aesthetic

– Function2: predict future– Material: glass | quartz crystal | other– Size: easily held in one hand– Other: domains pertaining to divination, fortunetelling,

prediction, gypsies, carnival, [Tintin]• Important: NOT necessary and sufficient (distinctive)

feature set; rather open-ended, overlapping, complex matrix


Langacker 2008: 47



GeneralRelevant HereExample

Conceptual Archetypes

•

4




Conceptual Archetypes: General• Definition:

– Frequent, fundamental and experientially grounded concepts that are readily apprehended as coherent conceptual gestalts at an early developmental stage

• Examples:– Physical object– Object in location– Object moving through space– Human body– Human face– Whole and its parts– Container and contents– Exerting force to effect change






Conceptual Archetypes: Relevant Here

• Conceptual archetypes appropriate as prototypes for linguistic categories:


Langacker 2008: 94





• Shouldn’t create impression that archetypes are arranged in binary, either-or trees– Don’t forget: multiple domains can be part of a

conceptualisation• e.g. [[VLIEG]/[vlieg]] ‘insect’





• Added unbounded thing (not originally in Langacker’s taxonomy)– Pertains to conceptions of boundedness• Also in temporal domain

– Atelic verbs (e.g. speel) profile unboundedness, telic verbs (e.g. knipoog) profile boundedness

– Imperfect aspect (e.g. is playing) profiles unboundedness, perfect aspect (e.g. has played) profiles boundedness

– Mass nouns (e.g. goud) and abstract nouns (e.g. love) profiles unbounded things




Conceptual Archetypes: Example•




[Summary & Next Session]• Now focused more on the content level– Primitives: Domains– Constructs: Conceptual archetypes– For description of concepts/conceptions, this is mostly

the appropriate level of focus• Next Session: focus on construal level– Primitives: Cognitive abilities

• Tomorrow: focus on construal level– Constructs: Aspects of construal and composition

session 2: descriptive framework i gerhard van huyssteen 21-22 july 2010 csir

Documents

conceptual archetypes

domains constructs

descriptive framework

conceptual archetypes

scope of description

csir slide

later categorisation

later integration