gn iv
ui
cs
Editors
Rene Rene Dirv Dirven en Rona Ronald ld W. Lang Langac acke ke
es
Rona Ronald ld W. Lang Langac acke ke
'1
61 C E N T R O D £ N V E S T G A C IO IO N E S Y E S T U D IO I O S S U P E R IO IO R E S E N A N T R O P O L O G I S O C IA IA L
81 BL.IOTEC~
1991
Preface
Chapte
1. Introduction
phonologically) the construals thus effected. Th twelve hapter have al appeared (o been submitte el ewhere in on form or another. However, they ar no just reprinte here withou modification redundanc and to make them fi together as single coherent work Ther is no denyin th th till read more like collection of articles th mono raph written d e n ov o give th original materials it coul hardly be otherwise. Henc fo th most part th chapters do retain thei textua an thematic cohesiveness an coul if desire be read independently. believe th book does howeve constitute unified oeuvre whos components ar neithe disjoint no unduly repetitive, bu are instea complementar and mutually supporting. Th most obviou change have been mechanical Thes includ updating th references an assembling them in single bibliography converting everything to common format avoiding th repetition of identica or equivalent diagrams an adjusting as needed the numbering of diagrams, examples, sections, and footnotes. Modifications to th text it el rang from minima to fairly su stanti l. he consis primaril in th deletion or compre sion of pa sage that overla to extensivel with materia presente elsewhere. Othe change have been made to provid continuity, and to lesser extent by wa of updating an refinement ro in contribute in on wa or anothe to this volume They includ th family wh supporte my research fo so many years; th professional scholars wh offere ri re li seriousl an worked to appl them an no least, thos wh helped on countles oc asions--fo ot th origin papers an th presen olume--i matter of publication, editing, technica advice an clerical assistance Al of them have my ful and war appreciation
Despit the diversity of contemporary linguisti theory certai fundamental views ar widely accepted withou seriou question Points of widespread agreemen includ th following: (i) language is elf- ontained sy te am nabl to algorithmi characterization with sufficien autonomy to be studie in essentia isolation fro broade cognitive concerns; (ii) gramma (synta in particular is an independent aspect of linguisti structure distinct from bot lexico and semantics an (iii) if meanin fall within th purvie of linguistic analysis it is properly describe by some type formal logi ba ed on trut conditions Individual th orists woul doubtl ssly qu lify thei as en in variou ays, bu (i)-(in) certainly com closer tha their denial to representing majority opinion. it radicall from thes assumptions. Called "cognitive grammar" (alias "space grammar"), this mode ssumes that langua is neithe elf-containe no describabl withou essentia referenc to cognitiv processing (regardles of whethe on posits specia f ac ul te : d e l an ga ge ) Grammatica structures do no onstitut an utonomou formal sy te or leve of representation they ar laimed instea to be inherently symbolic providin fo th structurin an conventional symbolizatio of conceptual conten Lexicon, morphology an syntax form continuu of symbolic units, divide only arbitraril into separate components it is ultimately as pointles to analyz grammatica unit withou referenc to thei semantic valu as to writ dictionary whic omit th meanings of it lexica item oreover, formal semantic ba ed on trut conditions is deemed inadequate fo describing th meanin of linguistic expressions. On reason is that semantic structures ar characterize relative to knowledg system whos scop is essentiall open-ended second is that thei valu reflects no only th conten of conceive situation, bu also ho this conten is structured and construed. Cognitiv gramma is therefor quit distinct from an versio of generative r, fr ri ti ll ry (1983) by equating meanin with conceptualizatio (or cognitiv processing). It agrees in this regard with th "procedura semantics" of Miller an Johnson-Lair (1976) an Johnson-Lair (1983) an with th linguistic theories of Chaf (1970) ry ff re ro conception of grammatica organization an it specific proposal concerning semantic structure. Although cognitiv gramma is no direct outgrowt or varian of an othe linguistic theory do consider it compatible with variet of
Linguisti
lntroduction cl
ea am
ca as l ev e s ch e
c on ce pt io n o f r a
semantics
e ma n i c
e rz b c ka ' i n g ht fu l i nv e t ig at io n n t dy m ag e s ch e a s J oh n o n 1 98 7 L ak of f Johnso 1980 Lakoff T u n e 1 98 9 S we e s e 1 98 4 1 98 7) ; e ce n t ud ie s o f g ra m a t c iz a i o ( By be e 1 98 8 em er 1 98 8 w ee t e r 1 98 8 r au go t 1 98 2 1 98 6 1 98 8) ; a n h e i ch , m u t if ac e e d w o er al to Giv6 [1979, 1984 1989 must certainl be mentioned)
ar ul co pa ib
1 98 2
ak et
ei on w it h h e e n i r n et wo rk , n o
w it h h e p ec if ic at io n if u c s t u ct u ar al it an
o f e ve r n od e i n t h n et wo r p os it ed , m o e ov er , t he r i s
ex
em
ed u s be equated
i ng l n od e
R OU P O F E O L E O PE RA T IN G T OG ET H E
---~
( C I. A N DE S T IN E L Y
er
ki
ap F ig ur e 1 .
1 98 1 1 98 6 1 98 8 1 98 9 V an de lo i
1 98 4 n di v d ua l n od e
1. Linguistic e an in g
ha
e qu i e d
a de qu a e l
c ha ra c e r z e a n p a t ic ul a
semantic e qu at e
Katz it
c on ce pt ua li za t o n L in gu i t i e ma n i c m u h er e o r al h ou gh t a n c on ce pt s T h e r c on ce pt ua li za ti o i s n te rp re te d q u t e b ro ad ly : i t e nc o p as se s n ov e c on ce p i on s a s w e a s f ix e c on ce pt s e n o ry , k in e t he ti c a n on an i ng u s ti c a n s o o n e ca u c on ce p u al iz at io n e si de s i n c og n t iv e p ro ce s n g o u u lt im a o b e c i v m u b e t o c ha ra ct e i z h e t yp e o f c og n t iv e e ve n w ho s cu ce al em no v a i d a rg u e n o r d en yi n h e c on ce p u a b a i s o f e an in g o s e x c a i te m h av e c on s d e a b a r a y o f i n e r e la te d e n e s h ic h d e i n
n et wo r a s o c a te d i t h e n ou n ring. C er ta i e ns e a r c he ma ti c o th e a s i nd ic at e b y h e s o i d a r o w So e pr e e n " ex te ns io n
e la ti v f ro m o th e
zi ps er d eg re e o f e n r en ch me n a n c og ni ti v a li en ce -- fo r i n a nc e t h h ea vy -l in e b o i n i gu r c o e sp on d t o h e c a e go r p ro to ty pe . T h p re c s e c on f g ur a i o o f u c
en Fodor
er o f e ma nt i p ri mi ti ve s I t c la im e n st ea d t ha t e ma nt i r uc tu re s w h c h c al l. "p re d c at io ns " a r c ha ra ct e i ze d r e a t v e t o " co gn it iv e d om a n s he an al pe en co es an cy o b e rv a i o u pp o t in g t h p o i ti o i s h a c e a i c on ce pt io n p re su pp o o th er s fo thei characterization We ca thus posi hierarchie of conceptual complexity ar op di di ev cogrutive such hierarchies. o~ de h er e o r elbow
o m e xa mp le s
Th no io
hypotenuse is readil
characterize give righ triangle
u nc t o n a s h e c og n t iv e d o a i o r hypotenuse. h e p o i ti o o f h e d e i gn at e e nt it y r e a t v e t h o ve ra l c on f g ur a i o
of
Introduction
of year meaningful descriptio of shortstop or s a cr if ic e f l is possible only ra ru implications of this position ar apparent th full an definitive characterization of semantic structur must incorporat comparable description of it domain an ultimately of th entire hierarch of more fundamenta conception on whic it depends. Pushin things to thei lo ic on lu ion, must re og iz th linguistic semantic is no an autonomous enterprise an that complete analysis of meanin is tantamoun to complete accoun of developmenta cognition Thi ri autono ou form ystems bu th is no legiti at rgum nt ag in it validity. What occupies th lowest leve in conceptual hierarchies? am neutra as to th possible existenc of innately specifie conceptual primitives It is howeve necessary to posi number of ba ic om ins" .e co nitively irreduci le re resent tion spac or fi ld of conceptual potential. mo thes ba ic domain re th ex erie ce time an ur ca acit fo dealin it two- an three-dimensional spatia configurations. There are basic domain associate wit the variou senses color space (an array of possible color sensations), coordinated temp rature ensation (coordinat with positi ns on th body); nd so on Emotiv do ains us ls assume It is os ible th certai lingui ti predications are characterize solely in relation to on or more basi domains, e.g. time fo before, colo spac fo red, or time an th pitc scal fo beep. However most expression pertai to presuppose nonbasic domains for their semantic characterization. Most predications also requir more than on domain fo thei full description in whic as refe th se as comple matrix", illu tr te fo knife in Figure ne dimensio of it ch ra terization is hape pe ific tion (o family of such pe ifications). An ther is th cano ic role of knif in th proces of cutting. Additional properties ar it inclusio in typica plac settin it ot er iece ilverware; pe ific tion of si e, ei ht nd material informatio abou th manufactur of knives th existenc of knife-throwing acts in circuses an so on indefinitely Obviousl thes specifications ar no al on par. They diffe greatl in thei degree of ••centrality", i.e. th likelihood of thei probably incorporated as components of others--fo instance Figure plausibl ugge ts th hape pe ific tion is typi ally included in th on eption "encyclopedic" view of semantic (Haima 1980). Ther is no shar dividing line such that al specification on on side ar linguistically relevant an al thos on th othe id clearl irrele ant. ny fa et of ou knowledg of entity is
Linguistic semantic
other expressions).
-' · · · ~ · · f SILVERWARE
_ _ ; ,; ~
D OM A
D OM A
DOMAIN C O M P IE X
M A ' ff iI X
F ig ur e 2 . If we su ceed in identifyin nd escribin th do ai ompl matrix invoke by linguistic predication, we have no ye finished it characterization Equall significan fo semantic structur is th "conventiona imagery" inherent in th meanin of an expression By imagery, do no mean sensor images dl -a conceptualization--ar quite important for semantic analysis. refer instea to our manifest capacity to tructure constr th ontent of do ai in lternate ways This multifaceted abilit is fa to ofte neglecte in semantic studies. Le us explor its dimension and briefl not their grammatical significance
2. Dimension of imager Th firs dimensio of imagery, observed in ever linguistic predication, is th impositionof "profile on "base" Th base of predicatio isits domain (o each do ai in co plex matrix). It rofile is ub tructure el vate to specia leve of prominenre within th base namely that substructure whic th ex re sion desi nates" Some xample ar sket he in Figure 3, it th profil gi en in eavy li es he base (o domain fo th haract rization of hypotenuse is th conception of righ triangle fo tip, th base is th conception uncle, rela~ons. The bas is obvio~sly essential to the semantic value of eac predication, ~ut.I does no pe se constitute that value: hypotenuse is no righ triangle tip 18 no an elongate object an an uncl is no kinshi network. Th meanin of h yp o te n us e t ip , and uncle particula substructure within the bas for the distinctive prominenc characteristic of profile. An expression's semantic valu does no reside in either th base or
Introduction
Dimensions ofimagery (b) r ,
(a)
Observ
no
go: that th participle gone p ro f l e gone
h i a m e la ti on s i p ut it oe away i s m p t h p at ia l d o a in , go--something gone
participial inflection I S t r e r ic t t h p ro fi l Ego R IG H
E ID NG A T E
m IA N GL E
OB EC
K IN SH I
TIP
HYPOTE.."ruSE
N ET WO R
state. Gone thus differ its base.
situation
UNCLE
sentence Figure 3.
b. That defensiv player is over 6' tall. c. That linebacker is abou tall. d. That middle linebacker isprecisely
in (1):
go e.
o n i de r i r h e p a i cu la r e n o f go relational rather than nomina predication, i.e. it profiles th "interconnections" a mo n c on ce iv e e n i ti e he n te rc on ne c o n a r n d c at e i gu r by he ar m e o n n d v id ua l e fe r e d he as he a je c o r ( t ) , o ve s f ro m p os i i o
e xp l c i y , b u
h e r ep re se n
identical) as do th landmarks.
c on t n uo u
e ri e
Away profiles
(b
(a)
T h d ot te d i ne s n d c at e h a t h relationship that is identica to th
c ha ra ct e i ze d w i
f a g re at e
p ec i c i y .
O n o f h e c o p on en t e xp re s i on s
hu
grammatical construction ed
.........
;"
~~
AWAY
tall.
ac of he e n e nc e ca whic elaborates it specifications an confines thei possible values to narrowe; a ng ~ ! t w e k no w t ha t e xi ca l t e o r h ie ra rc hi e i t r e p ec t to leve of specificity, e.g. el o r g ra m a t c a r uc tu re , also m po r a n break and h e c u to form th composit expression C on s d e t h c o b in at io n break makes c he ma ti c e fe re nc e w o c e t ra l p a i c p an ts . T h c o b in at io n o f break and the cup
(c)
O··~·
GO
in (2):
(2) a. That player is tall
ca specific senses of go away and gone, namely thos illustrate (1) a. h in k y o s ho u g o n ow . b. C h n a i s v er y f a a wa y c. When a rr iv ed , w a a lr ea d
th e m i n t h case go, to it fina i rt u o f i t p ro f e , a n o m away b y v i u e o f
from go
00 GONE
md ca ed lOdica.ted
bu
h e c on s r uc t
n on e h el e o f c on si de ra b island with respec
r uc tu ra l
g ni f c an c c op e
to h e v a i ou s
to
10
is ex
of as an
a nd )
S i i la rl y
h e i ng e o f l an d p r j ec ti n
ou nt
he
a te r q ua l f ie s
Dimensions
Introduction
ca se that predications ofte impl particular scal by noting th infelicity of using island to design te handfu of mu lyin in th iddl of puddle In my ow speech bay and cove ar quit comp rabl in me ning ex ep that bay specifie th requisit configuratio of land an wate on larger scale.
~-------.,
WAT ER
LAND
(a)
L_(~ Figure 5.
Body-par term illustrate th semantic an structural significance of thes constructs. Essential to the characterizatio of terms lik head arm, and leg is th position of th profiled entity relative to th body as whole, whos conception thus function as thei domain an immediat scop of predication Each of thes designated entities function in turn as immediat scop of predicatio fo othe body-par term define on smalle scale, e.g. hand, elbow, and forearm in th ca of then furnishe th immediat scop of predicatio fo palm, till maller scale, nd finger for knuckle, fingertip and thumb, and finger, on fingernail. hi hierarchical organi atio as structural conseque ce Fo have pertains to part-whole relation hips ar most feli itou (other things bein equal) he th ubje th te th (c Rosenbaum 1970; Cruse 1979). (3) a. n ge r h a knuckles an nail. nails. b. ? ? a r h a 14 knuckles an c. ? ?? A b od y h a 56 k nu ck le s a n 2 0 n ai ls . simila restrictio ca be observed with noun compounds. We find numerous terms lik fingertip, fingernail toenail, eyelash, and eyelid, wher th first eleme~ of th compound constitute th immediat scop of predication fo th second *bodytip, r e t hi s "armnail "footnail, "facelash, and *headlid to designate the sam entities.
of imager
in (4). (4) a.
rs behind th boxes.
se
b. Each locative expressi confin th su ject to pecifi se rc domain", whic then constitute th scop of predicatio fo th locative that follows. Thus in (4a th locative upstairs confinesthe quil to an uppe story, an in th bedroo is construed relative to this restricte region--only an upstairs bedroo need be considered Th search domain impose by this second locativ function in turn relationship are handle by positing correspondence betwee the searc domai of ea locative an th scop of redication of it su ce sor. Ap rt from th abstractness of th entities concerned, this correspondence isjust like that foun in an instance of grammatica combinatio (e.g betwee th landmark of break and thyprofile of t h c u in brea th cup) he relative sali nc of predication' substructure onstitut fourth descriptiv significance depend on ou abilit to sort ou th various contributin factors. One factor is the specia prominenc associate wit profiling (considered previously). number of others ca be discerned, bu only tw will be discussed: th relative prominence of relational participants an th enhanced salience of elements tha are explicitl mentioned Relational predications normally manifest an asymmetry in th portraya of th relational participants. This asymmetr is no strictly dependen on th conten of th predication, an is consequently observable even fo expression designatin symmetrical relationships, e.g resemble. and se resembles ar emanticall di tinc (eve gr ntin th ir truth-conditiona fo ra re to describes with referenc to X. We ca similarl employ eitherX is abov Yor to describe precisel th same conceive situation, bu they differ in is belo ru reference--a kind of landmark--fo locating X, wherea th latter reverses thes roles. Th subtlety of th contrast with predication like thes hardly diminishes its significance for linguistic semantics and grammatical structure The asymmetry is more apparent in case like go hit, enter, and approach, where one participant concerned) bu it characterization must be abstract enough to accommodate the fullrange of relationa expressions. attribute thi inherent asymmetry to figure/groun organization (fo discussion,
10 Introduction
Dimensions of imager
othe sali nt participants re referr to as landmarks" hi terminolog is inspired by prototypical action verbs, wher th trajecto is usuall th initia or primar mover, bu th definition make no specific referenc to motion an ar la asymmetry underlie th subject/objec distinction, bu th former notion have considerably broade application. In particular, schematic trajector and landmark ar impute to relational predication's internal structure regardless of whethe thes entities receiv (o ar capabl of receiving) separate expression Th verb read consequently ha trajecto an landmark in al th sentence of (5), despit th fact that both ar made explicit (b elaborativ noun phrases) only in (5a) (5) a. D av i ea ne bo b. David is reading.
c. h e b e
wa
ea
ad
Th term subjec an object ar generall reserved fo over noun phrase that elabor te relation traj ctor nd primar landmark th cl usal level. contrast, trajector/landmark asymmetry is characteristic of relationa predications at an leve of organization, even if left implicit The enhanced salience of explicitl mentioned elements can be illustrate by the semantic contrast betwee pairs of expressions lik the following father vs. male p a re n t p o r vs. me a k vs. o a k t re e ; t ri an g l vs. t h re e -s i de d p o ly g o n and sink vs. p as s v e d es ce n h ro ug h m ed iu m u nd e h e f o c e o f g ra v concerned her wit differences in connotation or information content--for sak of discussion le us accept th member of each pair as equivalent in thes respects My clai is that th paired expression nevertheless contrast semantically because components an thereb render them more prominen than they woul otherwis be ve fo sp ak ho know perfectl well that pork come from pigs th expression p i m e render this provenience more salien than does pork, simply becaus th former incorporates symbolic unit that specifically designates this source In simila fashion, th inclusio of th designated entit in broader clas of geometrica figure is highlighte by t h re e -s id e d p o ly g o n bu remain latent in th case of triangle. linguistically appropriat characterization of meanin should accommodat suc differences. Cognitive gramma define the meanin of comple expressio as includin no only th semantic structure that represents it composit sense, bu also its "compositiona path": th hierarch of semantic structure reflectin it progressiv as embl fr th meanings of ompone xpressions Le us assume fo example, that th composit semantic values of pork and p i m ea t are identical. As an unanalyzable morpheme pork symbolize thi notion directly, so
11
componen morphemes. Th meanin of p i m ea t therefore incorporates not onl the composite structure [PORK] but als the individually symbolize component [pIG an [MEAT] together with th relationship that each of them bear to th composit value. Th tw expression arrive at th same composit valu through diff rent compositiona path (a degenerate path in th case pork), with th consequence tha the differ in meaning. Beside accounting fo th semantic contrast betwee simple an composit expressions, this conception of meanin ha th advantag of resolvin classi proble of truth-conditiona semantics. Th proble is pose by semantically anomalous expressions, e.g " p e rs p ic a c io u s n e u tr i n and " tr u cu le n t s po o n which
incorrectly--the semantic anomal of sentence like thos in (6), whic contai anomalous constituents. no uc (6) a. T he r m ea n n g e s b.
h in g a s p er sp ic ac io u n eu tr in o s pe a o f r uc u e n s po on .
In th presen framework anomalou expression ar indeed both meaningful an nonsynonymous. Though coherent composite conceptualizatio fail to emerge for " p er s pi c ac i ou s n e u tr in o , it ha semantic value, consisting of th meanings of it components together with thei specified mode of combinatio (a determined by th gr mmatical onstruction) Th same is true fo * tr uc u le n t s po o n and becaus its components ar differen fro thos of * p e rs p ic a c io u s n e u tr in o , it emanti valu acking coherent composit sens thes me ning ar defective, bu they ar meanings nonetheless. Sentence like (6) ar semantically well-formed precisely becaus the commen on the anomal of constituent. will mentio tw more dimensions of imager only in passing, though each is multifaceted an merits extended discussion On is th construa of situatio relative to differen background assumption an expectations To take just on example, either (7a) or (7b) migh be used to describe th same stat of affairs r ie nd s (7) a. H e h a a f e b. H e h as f e w r ie nd s
h ig h p la ce s h ig h p la ce s c. F e p eo p h av e a n e nd s h ig h p la ce s e w p eo p h av e a ny f r e nd s h ig h p la ce s d.
Intuitively, the differenc betwee fe and e w is th th form is omeh negative an th latter more positive This is corroborated by (7c) an (7d) any, whic require negative contex (cf. Klim 1964), is compatible withfew, bu no with sugges that fe construes th specified quantit as e w Analytically
12 Iruroduction
from an implicit referenc poin in negative vs positive direction. Th fina dimensio of imager is perspective, whic subsumes number of mor specific factors: orientation, assume vantag point, directionality, and how objectivel an entity is construed. Orientatio an vantag poin ar well know from th ambiguit sentence like (8a) Th co tr betwee (8 an (8 show th importanc of directionality even fo situations that appear to involv no motion (8) a. B r a n
ng he ef of Sa y. b. T h h i l f a g en t h e b an k o f h e v er . c. T h h i s e g en t o m h e b an k o f h e v er . d. T h e b a ll oo n r os e s w if tl y
suggest, though that (8b)-(8d al involv motion in an abstract sens of th term
conceptualization, maximall differentiated from th conceptualizer (i.e th speake and/or hearer). Motion alon simila trajectory is implie in (8c), ut in this case th movement is abstract an th move is construe "subjectively" th move is none othe than th conceptualizer in hi role as th agen (rathe than the object of conceptualization. Gradation betwee physical and abstract motion on th on hand an betwee objectiv an subjective construa of conceive e~tities on the other, are important to theanalysis of numerous linguisti phenomena
Gram ar as imag xico an gramma form continuu of ym olic lement ik lexi on gramma provides for the structuring and symbolizatio of conceptua content, and is thus imagic in character. When we us particular construction or grammatica fo grammatica stru ture they differ in th imag ry that spea er mplo he conforming to linguistic convention This relativistic view does no pe se impl tha lexicogrammatical structure impose any significant constraints on our though processes--i fact suspec it impact to be rather superficia (cf. Langacke 1976). Th symbolic resource of language generall provid an arra of alternativ images fo describing give scene, an we shif from on to anothe with grea facility ofte within th confines of single sentence Th conventional imager in fi constrain the contents of our thoughts.
Gramma
as imag
13
profil on thei composit semantic value. When head combines with modifier fo ex mple it is th profil of th head that pr vail th composit tructure simple situatio in whic lamp is suspende over table. level, Consider Starting fro suc simple expressions as t h a m p t h t ab le , a bo ve , and below, we ca combin them in alternat ways to form composit expression that profil differen facets of th scene. mp naturally designate the he ab prepositiona phrase modifier, we obtain instea h e a b b e o w a m which profil th ta le Anot er option is to be prepositiona phrase converting it into proces predicatio designatin th extensio of th locative relationship throug span of conceive time e.g. is a bo v t h t ab le . When subjec is the supplied. the resulting sentence T h a m a bo v h e a b also profiles the temporally extended locative relationship. us furt er explor th en in whic gramma em odie co ventiona imager by considering the semantic contrast betwee (9a and (9b). o yc e (9) a. B i s en t w a r u b. B i s en t J oy c w a r us .
re common deep structure; dependin on th to transformationally an th nonsubject nominals ar permuted in th course of deriving th surfac form of either (9a) or (9b) Cognitiv gramma does no posi abstract dee structures, and neithe sentence typ is derive fro the other--they re im rn Examples (9a) an (9b) differ in meanin becaus they employ subtly differen images to structure the sam conceived situation Th essentials of th analysis ar sketched in Figure 6, wher th smal circle represen Bill Joyce, an th walrus th larg circle stan fo th region over whic Bill an Joyc exercise dominion an heav line indicate certai degree of relative prominence Up to poin th sentence ar semantically equivalent Each symbolizes conception in whic walrus originates in th domain unde Bill's contro and--a Bill's instigation--follows path that result in it eventual location within th region unde Joyce' control. Th semantic contrast reside in th relative salience of certai facets of this comple scene. In (9a) th morpheme to specifically designates th path followed by th walrus, thereb renderin this aspect of th conceptualizatio more prominen than it woul otherwis be as ), to juxtapositio of tw unmarked nominals (Joyce and wa us symbolizes possessive relationship betwee th firs nomina an th second synonymous an derive them from
14 Introduction
possession, as indicated in Figure 6(b).
(13 a. b. ? I m o we d h e (b)
(a)
Figure 6. Al th ontent pr sent in on conception ma be presumed to figure in th othe as well--what differ is th relative salience of substructures. This subtle differenc in imager ha an impact on th felicity of usin to or the double-objec construction for certai types of situations. Consider th data in (10)
(10) a. s en t w a lr u t o A n ta rc ti ca . w al ru s b. ? I s e n A n a rc t c a
c.
en
he zo
wa us
Exampl (lOa is full acceptable becaus to emphasizes th path traverse by th walrus an continen ca perfectl well be construe as th endpoint of path However, it is harder to construe continen as possesso exercising contro over othe entities so (lOb), whic specifically places Antarctic in possesso role is felt to be marginal Th status of (lOc depend on th construa of zoo. If th zo is simply construe as place, it is difficul to view it as possessor, an (10e is questionable fo th same reason as (lOb). Bu zo is also an institution, an it is conventiona in Englis to treat institution as bein analogou to people whic allows them to function linguistically as agents possessors an so forth. Exampl (lOc is consequently well formed to th extent that this second construa prevails As viewed in th presen framework, then judgment of well-formednes ofte hing on th interpla an compatibilit of images an ar influenced by subtle shifts in context, intended meaning, or ho peak choo es to tructure nd interpret situation The examples in (11)-(13) provid furthe illustration (11) a. 1 g a
efe
b.
(12) a. cleared the f lo o f o B il l b. ? I c le ar e B i t h l oo r c. c le a e d B i p la c e e o n h e f o or .
e. h e a wn .
It is conventi na in En li to employ possessive locution fo part-whole fe i nt , manner of (lla), is uite natural. It is more difficul to nvis ge co of pain movingalon path to th fence; (LIb) is thus bi less natural, ~use to renders th path more prominen than th eventual possessive relationship Th sentence in (12)-(13 brin ou anothe conseque ce of th analysis ecau th tw construction are claime to be parallel (i.e, neithe is derive from th other) an semantically distinct it is to be expected that th double-objec construction-having no intrin ic conn ctio with to--migh serv as alternativ to othe prepositions also. It is well know fro transformationa studie (where th fact ha long been problematic) that th double-objec constructio alternates withfo aswel as to With fo als the double-objec construction is restricted to instances wher th firs obje is plau ibly construe as wi ding up in os es io of th second In (12), fo example, Bill does no come to posses th floo just becaus clea it fo him, so (12b is peculiar (l2c is perfectl acceptable however, sinc th additional contex provided by th second nomina floor) make it apparent that th spot in question effectivel come unde Bill's contro an lies at hi disposal by virtue of th ac of clearing it Th data in (13) is disposal bu mowing circumstances.
lawn ca hardly have
comparable effect unde normal
4. Grammatical organization Th ultimate goal of lingui ti de cription is to ch racteriz in ognitively realisti fashion, thos structures an abilities that constitute speaker' gras of linguistic convention speaker' linguistic knowledg is procedura rather than declarative, an th internalize gramma representin this knowledg is simply structured inventor of co ventiona li guisti units" he term "unit" is employed in technica sens to indicate thoroughly mastered structure, i.e. on that peaker ca ctivat reas embl whol withou attendin to th specific of it internal omposition unit ca rd cognitiv routine. Th inventor of conventional unit is "structured in th sens that some unit functio as components of others (i.e, they constitute subroutines). spea of an inventory" of onventiona unit to indicate that gramma is nongenerativ an nonconstructive. That is, gramma is properly conceive as an algorithmi device giving well-defined
16 Introduction
scope of linguisti structure and makes gratuitou assumptions about its character It is co monl assumed, fo ex mple that ju gments of grammaticality ar categorica rather than matter of degree that figurative language is properly excluded fro the domain of linguisti description; and tha motivated distinction ca be ma betwee semantic nd ragmatics. lthoug uc assumption suppor th notion that language is self-contained an cognitivel autonomous there is little factua basis for their adoption. Instead, conceive th gramma of language as merely providin th speake with invent ry symbolic re ourc s, mong th ch mati template representing established patterns in the assembly of comple symbolic structures. Speakers employ thes symbolic unit as standard of comparison in assessin th conventionality of nove expression an usages whethe of thei ow creation or upplie by othe pe kers he nove ymboli tr ctures evaluate in this fashio ar no well-defined se an cannot be algorithmicall derive by th limite mech nism of an utonomou grammar. athe th ir construction is attribute to problem-solving activity on the part of th language user wh brings to bear appreciation of the context, his communicativ objectives, his esthetic sensibilities, an an aspect of hi genera knowledg that migh prov relevant Th resultin symbolic structures ar generall more specifi than anything computable from linguistic unit alone, an ofte conflict with conventional expectations (e.g in metaphor an semantic extension) Assessin thei conventionalit (o "wellformedness") is matter of categorization: categorizing judgments either sanction them el boration chem ti unit recogniz th departin from linguistic convention as currently established. it ic symbolic symbolic unit is said to be "bipolar", consisting of semantic unit defining on pole an phonological unit defining th other: [[SEM]![PHON]] ha lexi al unit have this bipola haracter is un ontrover ial; pencil, for example, ha th form [[PENCIL]/[pencil]], wher capita letter abbreviate semantic structure (of indefinit internal complexity), and phonological structure is re resented orth gr phically pivota cl im of cognitiv gram ar is that grammatica unit ar also intrinsicall symbolic maintain in othe words, that gr mmatical morp em s, ateg ri s, nd co structio ll take th form of symbolic units, an that nothin else is required for th descriptio of grammatical structure. Symbolic unit vary alon th parameters of complexity an specificity With re pect to th former ni is minima (a morphe e" if it cont in no othe symbolic units as components. For instance, despit its internal complexit at bot th semantic an th phonological poles, th morpheme sharp is minima from th symbolic standpoint wherea sharpen, sharpener, and pencil sharpene are
Grammatical
organization
17
ring depicted in Figure 1,for example, combines with th phonological unit [ring]
to co stitut ymboli unit Some thes senses ar ch mati relative to ther so th ymboli unit in questi vary in th ir leve of pe ificit at th semantic pole Basi grammatica categories (e.g noun verb adjective, adverb ar represente in th gramma by symbolic unit that ar maximall schemati at both th semantic an the phonological poles. noun fo instance is claime to instantiat th schema [[THING]/[X]], an verb th schema [[PROCESS)![Y]], wher [THING an [PROCESS ar abstract notion to be describe later, an [X an [V ar highly schemati phonological structures (i.e they specif little mor tha the presence of "some phonological content") grammatica rule or constructio is represented in th gramma by symbolic unit that is both comple nd schematic. Fo exampl th morphologica rule illustrated by the deverbal nominalizations e ac he r h e p er , h ik er , h in ke r d iv er , etc. consists in comple unit that incorporates as components th verb schema [[PROCESS]/[Y]] an th grammatica morpheme [[ER]/[er] (i.e th suffix -er, whic is attributed substantia though schemati semantic content) This unit furthe specifie ho th componen structures ar integrated conceptually an phonologically to form composit symbolic structure Using" -" to indicate this integratio (examine later) we ca writ th constructiona schema as follows: [[[PROCESS]/[Y]]-[[ER]/[er]]]. Its internal structur is exactl parallel to that of an instantiatin expression e.g. [[[TEACH]/[teach]]-[[ER]/[er]]]. except that in lieuof specifi verb stem it contains th schema fo th verb-ste category On constructional schema ca be incorporated as componen of another. In th to portio of Figure 7(a) th schema just describe combines with th noun schema [[THING]/[X] to form higher-order constructional schema whic speakers presumably extrac to represen th commonalit of pencil sharpener, la
mo er
o un ta i
c l m be r b ac k s cr a c he r
a x d ri ve r
portio of 7(a) represents th lexica unit pencil sharpener whic conforms to th sp cification of this schema bu el borate it gr atly he rrow labele (a indicate that th uppe structur as whol is judged schemati fo th overal expression this categorizing relationshi is what specifie th membership of th expression in th clas that th schema characterizes. This global categorizing relationship is base on loca categorization betwee componen structures relationship (b) identifies pencil as member of th noun cl ss (c categorize as deverbal nominalization derived by -er; an (d classe sharpen as sharpe rb rt expression's "structura description" Observ that pencil sharpene conventional meanin which is considerably mor specific tha anything derivable compositionall from th meanings of it parts--a pencil sharpene is no simply 'something that sharpens pencils' Give th nonconstructiv nature of th presen model, we ca nevertheless accept th expression as vali instantiatio of th
Grammatical organization
18 Insroduction
" co n e n e qu i e me n a n c on si de r i t b e i n r in si ca ll y m o e s r ic t v e a t l ea s in certain, possibly nontechnical sense) than th constraint generall impose on a lg o i th m m od el s E ss en ti a l y i t r u e s o u a l a rb it ra r d e c r p t v e d ev ic e .e ho i t n o d i e c g ro un di n i n p ho ne ti c o r e ma nt i r ea l y . m on g t h d ev ic e e xc lu de d a r c on te nt le s e a u re s o r a rb it ra r d ia c t ic s y nt ac t d um mi e w it h n e t he r e ma n i c n o p ho no lo gi ca l c on te nt , n t o du ce d o le l d r v e h e o rm a a ch in e o f a ut on o o u y nt a c f e r m u t e 1 97 8) ; a n h e d e i va ti o o f o ve r structures from abstract underlying structures of substantiall differen characte actives-see er account).
categorization. (b
(a)
5. Grammatica i gu r A l o f h e t ru ct u e s a n c at eg o i z n g
e la ti on sh ip s i n F ig u
chalk
p ea ke r e mp lo y
classe
7. 7 (a ) h av e h e s ta tu s chal
categorization of chalk expression chal sharpener
19
and
sharpener ed
Its
sharpener,
at
h e e x t in g u ni t t o c on s r uc t o r i mp l t o u nd er s a n th novel e la ti on sh ip s 7 (b ) g ur e i n t s t ru ct u a l d e c r p t o n a n i n e i h e c as e t s c on te x u a m ea ni n p ec i i ca ti on s t ha t a r o bv io u f ro m h e i tu a o n b ei n d e c r b e as th do ai o r h e c om po si t e xp re s o n b u a r n o u pp li e
T h c on te n e qu i e me n p ro sc r b e t h u s o f d ia cr it i e a u re s o w h en , d oe s g ra m a r n di ca t t h b eh av io r a n c la s e mb e h i o f c on ve n i on a u n s ? S om e ch an ph c on te nt . I n t h e ve n s ch e a t u ni t i s e xt ra ct e t o e pr e e n t h h ar e c on te n a n c la s e mb e h i n di ca te d b y c a e go r z in g u n t s e f e c i n t h u dg me n c la ss e a s h ig h v ow e b y v i t u o f h e c a e go r z in g u n [ H G H Y O E L [ i ] , h er e H I Y OW EL ] s ch e a t p ho no lo g c a s tr uc tu r h ic h n eu t a l z e h e p ro pe r i e h a d i t in gu i o n h ig h v o e l f ro m a no th er . S im il a y , a mo n t h c a e go r z in g u n t s d ep ic te d i n F ig u 7 (a ) e la ti on sh ip s b ) a n ( d d en ti f pencil and sharpen a s n ou n a n ve e sp ec ti ve ly , w he re a r e a t o n h i a ) i de n i f e s pencil sharpener a s a n i n t an c o f t h g ra mm at ic a c on s r uc ti o c ha ra c e r z e by
expression-In e i h e c a e , a l o f t h s tr uc tu re s a n c om po si ti o an a y n co rp o a t w h c h u nc t o n
a s t he y a r
am at as al cl n ou n t ha t v o c e to (leaf/leaves, but reef/reefs), verb that conventionally occu in th double-objec construction describe earlie c f r ee n 1 97 4 e h 1 97 7) . T h a c t ha t o rp ho lo gi ca l a n y n a c b eh av io r o ft e n o f u l y p re di c a bl e g en er a l y t ak e a s e s a b s h n g t h i nd ep en de nc e o f g ra m a r a s d is t n c a sp ec t o f l in gu i i c t ru ct u e . H ow ev e h i c on c u s o n d oe s observation-the taci reasonin behind it confound ct
an symbolic structures that occu overtl
accommodates unpredictabl behavior withou positing arbitrar diacritics or rule at a t leaf (but no reef) voices to that th composit symbolic structur leaves (but no reeves) i s n cl ud e a mo n t h
mower, etc. If s o i t c on te xt ua l m ea n n g
pe i n a n a pp ro p i at e
c om po s t io na l t y
o f e it he r n ov e e xp re s o n
i s h e e fo r
no
phonological content figure in thes relationships.
h al lm a
sh r, s ch e a t z e
or
conventionalization.
language ar (i semantic
phonological
20
Introduction
21
Grammatical classe
NP Pl he he ve is pe if bu th wo ou h ra se s r e c ha ra c e ri ze d o n c he ma t c a l y h e n o o cc u e nc e o f transfer in this construction is reftec~i h e g ra m a r b y h e n on ex i e nc e o f t h p a a l e l s ym b l i u n ra fe P] u ci a t o h e c la i ha ra a ti ca l u ct ur e e s d e y mb o i c u n t s a lo n i s
o n i de r h e a r u me n b a e d o n v e b /n ou n p a hi e fe r t o t h a m p ro ce s e.g. extract and extraction. Such pair demonstrat th impossibilit of notional d e i ni ti o o n o n a s u me s h a t he y a r e ma n c al l i de nt ic al , y e h i no n ec e a r a s u mp ti o h e m ea ni n i s t re a e d a s u b e c i v p he no me no n It is
ax al g e e ra l w a a n u b u me s a ny th in g w e i g h av e o cc a o n t o o r a na ly ti c p ur po se s h i g s e la ti on s b ou n a r e s oi ts on c al e a n n t r co nn ec t o n c a b e r eg ar d a s c og n t iv e o pe ra t o n ha as es he el position of entities within th scop of predication. It p ec u a t t ha t n l
e fe r on t iv e ou
de ni
a jo r
e la t o na l c o c ep t o n c o
on
as oc at
e n t ie s o th e
ha
facets of thes participants rather than treating them as undifferentiated
includin
an implicit referenc
he wholes
an horizonta dimensions, (the vertical origin). Th majo relational
poin
extract c on ce p u a
r e i ca t o n
h e d e g na te d p ro ce s
i .e . h e v e
a n n ou n c on s r u
it
the case of nouns, fo instance discussion of notional definition generall focu p hy s c a o bj ec t o r p e h ap s " pe r o ns , p la ce s a n h in g ) , w h c h ar clearly p ro to ty p c al ; h e e xi s e nc e o f n ou n l ik e extraction,
specifications of all If p ro to ty p e p e se n i n t y i ca l n s a nc e p o i bl e a t a l i t u s b e q u a b t ra c a c o m o d t in g many othe sort of entities as specia cases.
specifications of this predicat trajecto (h v t e mp lo ye d h e h e o ri zo nt a
p hy si ca l o b e ct s a n
above is optimall p ro je c i on s o f h e t ra je c o r a n
moment paragraph ( a e l i te d p o t io n o f
it en
o rk ) a n B-fiat (a minimal, point-lik
t h o t e r h an d vertical dimension, u s n o c o n c d e - th e p ec i i ca t o n S E v ~ o b g at o y . T h p iv o a l p ec if ic a i o o f A BO VE ] p ro vi de d b y a n o ~r at io n n te rc on ne c n g t w e n t ie s h a a r t il l o r a bs t a c e t [0 b e h e o pe ra ti o h ic h e g t e
e rt ic .h l o ri ~ n , a n to, I ] th a o f h e resides 10 h ig he r o rd e o pe ra t o n assessin th relative magnitudes of th componen operations [( o, VI)]· of h. ra ec
om
question
~tr
_+-Qlm lit
hl
HORIZ
Figure 8. it
o b e ct iv e a c o r d o n o midriff b eg i o r e nd ?
u gg e
a n d e a rc a i on .
he e, fo
n s a nc e d oe s o ne '
co nc de
thei projections
'" ro ed eg on u rt he r p ec i e d a s b e n g b ou n e d B ec au s p h s ic a o b e c occupy bounde region in three-dimensiona space, expression whic designat u c o b e ct s q ua l f y a s c ou n n ou n b u t h d e n it io n o e n o p ec i i ca l e fe r t he m he pa ia do ai p a t ic u a r E xa m l e c ou n n ou n c ha ra c e ri z
a nd ma r
an~ther: [h
h e d i p la ce me n
bo
ar
22
Introduction
consistent configuration. We must also recogniz "complex atempora relations, h e s uc h i s n o h e c as e C on s d e t h c on t a s b et we e ( 14 a a n 1 4b )
Distinct senses of across
matter of conventional imagery.
p ro fi le s h e i n e rc on ne ct io n
be ee
w o or more conceive
n te rc on ne ct e e nt it ie s w il l b e a ke n a s t h r a e c o r u nl e t he rw i i nd ic a e d. ) c o p le x a te mp or a r e a ti o c on s s t o f e qu en c o f a t v e r e a ti on s c an ne d
9 (b ) o n h e o th e h an d t h
t il l o cc up ie s a l h e p o n t o n h e p at h e ad in g es profiled relationship involves indefinitely many distinct configurations
across is consequently
activation--
o r t a i ve ) e la ti o
b r d g a c o s h e r iv e 1 4 a . T he r b. h ik e w ad e a c o s h e r iv e
time Th
23
Grammatical classe
r a e ct o
comple
atempora relation
profilin sequence of relational configurations bu ha certai othe properties as e ll : i ) h e c o p on en t t a e s a r c on ce iv e a s b ei n d is t i bu te d h ro ug h i me ; i ) an ed h e h ea vy - i n b a a lo n t h a r o w n di ca te s t ha t t h c om po ne n t a e s a r c an ne d sequentially throug processing time
(a)
{]8··B·B~ ....
...a.
:....
(e)
(a) E N T I T Y
p ro ce s e s
REIATION
D t r )
DOD
__.
ODD
DOD h ic h
e f n e t h c la s
PROCESS
ATEMPORAL
F ig ur e 9 . t e p o a l r e a ti on s c on t a s w i
(e)
MP
STATIVE REIATION
F ig ur e 1 0
e rb s
6. Grammatical construction Gramma
reside
in patterns fo th successive combinatio
of symbolic structures It
u cc e o r i s i n l i t ed ; e ss e t ia l y , w e o l o w a lo n
om on
a t t o h e n ex t a s t h
s t u ct u e d
n ve nt or y o f g ra m a t c a
c on st ru c i o s "
~tructur resultin from thei integration. Th essentia n a g ra m a ti ca l c on s u ct io n a r p e l e o u F ig u c o p on en t
a te s a r
a c i va te d
u cc e s iv e
b u c um u a ti ve l
i .e , o nc e a ct iv a e d
m u a ne ou sl y a cc es s b l h o e . T h d i e re nc e e t e e c o p le x a te mp o a l relation (lik across) an th correspondin verb (cross) is therefor attributed no
IS
[SEM /PHON /PHON 11(b) IS ex structures separately at each pole
e ac h
h ic h
p ec i i e
he
structures an relationship 11 he [S /PHON
24 Introduction
Grammatica construction (b)
es
25
ee
g re a e r d e a i w it h r e p ec t t o n u e r u s d o n ai n p ur e y . o r . sa k o f g ra m i c c on ve ni en ce , i s r ep re se nt e b y ne om h ap e p ec if ic at io n T h n te g a ti o b e w ee n t h l an d a r
,X
symbolization integration X3
composition
B OV E
c o e sp on d n g s ub s u ct u e s a n o bt a h e c om po s t e p re d c a i o
comoonent c o mp o si t e
of
correspondence(s
F ig ur e 1 1
n te g a ti o
o f c o p on en t
s e a n i c s t u ct u e . h e f ou r r e a t o n h ip , is u ct u e s a t t h p h n ol og ic a p o e rv e
r e u lt s
linkin
" ve r i ca l
ul
c om po s t e n ot io n c an no t b e f o
P-NP
.p--~",/_/""!iot:/ .... ... ..,..
TABLE
_;NP::::.....,
) /
:_../ .~~.
p re di ca te d o f
. . . . . . .
F ig ur e 1 2
p ho no lo g c a r uc tu r e r e - n st ea d a s o ci a e s tw semantic an tw phonological structures
c on si s e n
b e w ee n e le me nt s o f
th components
(b)
BOVE
at er s ug ge s t ha t h e n te g a ti o o f w o c om po ne n t ru ct ur e a lw ay s n vo lv e c o e sp o d en ce s b ei n e s a bl i h e b e w ee n c e t a o f h ei r s u s t u ct u e s Th co p re d c at io n w h c h a r n ec e a r c oh er en t c o p o i t c on ce p i o t o e me rg e
h ei r p ec i i ca ti o s , at restrictions").
( co r e sp on de nc e
y r n bo hz e
-s to wall, an a dj us t e nt s I t p re c e l t h a c t ha t -s suffixes to wall n ou n t e h ic h y mb ol iz e h e a c t ha t t h p lu ra l t y e xp re s e s th notion wall er es
c o r e p on de nc e
~ ve a
walls.
h o b e w ee n e ma nt i a n th RELATIONSHIP betwee
of TA LE
a do pt in g t h r e a t o na l p ro fi l o f A BO VE ] w e B OV E T AB LE ) h ic h d e g na te s s ta t v e
(a)
th co po it
h e p ro fi l
s tr u ct u r
c om po s t io na l p ro ce s
y mb o z e
an
ed an
th
o ri en ta ti o
o f h e a bl e t ha t a r n o p re d c ta b
ed at o m h e c o p on en t
u ct u e s o r
arbitrary to nevertheless conventional patterns of compositio that determin centra aspect of za constructional schemas, whos internal structur is parallel to h a o f h e p ec if i expression whic instantiat them Fo example, th gramma of Englis includes schema fo th prepositional-phrase construction It phonological pole specifie h e c on t g u t y a n i ne a o rd e n g o f h e p re po si t o n a n i t n ou n p hr a o bj ec t
26
Introduction
componen is schemati for th clas of prepositions Basically, it is identifiedonly as stativ relation whos trajecto an primar landmark ar both things Th th il additional conten (labeled X) bu does no itself specif th nature of this content. As in th specifi structur 12(a),a correspondence hold betwee th landmark of an th profil of NP an th composit structur is formed by superimposin the specifications of these correspondents (an adopting the relationa profil of P). Speakers can employ thi constructional schema in the computation and evaluatio of nove expressions. It serves as th structural descriptio of an expression which it categorizes whe so employed. This construction ha variou properties that ca be regarded as prototypical here ar just tw omponent struct res, on of th relational an th othe nominal. correspondence hold betwee tw highly prominen substructures: th profil of th nomina predication, an th primar landmark (one face of th profile) of the relationa predication. Moreover, there is substantial asymmetry in th degree of specificit at whic th predications characterize th corresponding elements--th landmark of [ABOVE is quit schematic, wherea by comparison th profil of [TABLE is specifie in considerable detail have indicate this diagramaticall by an arro (standin fo relationship of schematicity betwee io Fi relationa predication whic lend it profile to th composit structur (i.e above th tabl de ignate tative relation no thing) thus refe to [A OV in 12(a as th construction's "profile determinant" an make this role explicit by puttin the box enclosing thi predication in heavy lines. None of th properties just cite is invarian except th existenc of at leas on correspondenc betwee substructures of th components By recognizin thes propertie as prototypical rather than imposing the as absolute requirements we obtain the flexibility needed to accommodate the ful range of attested construction componen structures at particular leve of constituency (e.g fo coordinate expression such as X, Y, and Z). structur is relational an th othe nominal--i fact ther need be no relational component at all Appositional construction involving two nomina predications e.g. my go friend Olli orth ar straightforwardl accommodated in this fr me or by mean of corresponden st blis ed etween th nomina profiles In al th examples cite so far, th correspondin elements have been things that either constitute or ar included within th profil of th componen structure. Often, however, th correspondents ar relational substructures an they ee no be in profil Consid once more th sens of gone diagramed in Figure 4(c) Th componen structures ar [GO] whic designates process, an on particular semantic varian of th past-participial morpheme This particular
Grammatical constructions
27
quit ch mati ally only in combinatio with verb te is th nature th proces made specific. Thei integratio is effected by correspondenc betwee th specific proces profiled by [GO] an th schemati proces functionin as th bas within the participial predication. By superimposin their specifications, and doptin th pr file contribute by th grammatica morp eme, we obtain composite structure tha profilesjust the final state of the proces [GO]. fact we have no ye on idered is "c nstitu nc ", whic ertain to th orde in whic symbolic structures ar progressivel assemble into larger an larger composit expressions. Clearly, th composit structure resultin from th integratio of omponent stru ture at on leve of organi atio an it el be employed as componen structur at th next higher level, an so on indefinitely. 12(a function as componen structure combinin with [LAMP] to derive th composit semantic valu of th noun phrase th lamp abov th table. At this it predication; moreover it is this latter whic function as th construction's profil determinant Th composit structur (LAMP-ABOVE-TABLE) consequently designates th lamp no it locative relationship vis-a-vi th table, though this relationshi is included as prominen face of it base
LAMP-ABOVE-TABLE
/.*".....
lJ=rti .
··...·
Figure 13. Some grammaticall significan observations ca be made on th basi of thes examples Fo on thing, we se that either relational or nomina predicatio is capabl of servin as th profil determinan in construction In Figure 12 it is
28
Grammatica construction
Introduction
nit fu damental grammati al notion
th
av
long be
proble atic na el
construction's hea can be identifie wit its profil determinant. Above is thus th head within th prepositiona phrase a bo v t h a b e , whereas lamp within th noun phrase t h l a b ov e t h a b e . In appositional expressions lik g oo d r ie n l li e o rt h ther is no real basi fo singling ou either componen profile correspond, and eac corresponds to the profil of the composite structure component structure (as oppose to the other) To th extent that on componen structure, take as whole, serves to elaborat salien substructure within th other, will spea of th elaboratin componen as "con eptu ll depe dent In Figure 12(a), th n, [T BL is co ce tually autonomous with respec to [ABOVE becaus it elaborates th latter's schemati landmark In Figure 13 similarly, [LAMP] is autonomous by virtue of elaboratin th schemati trajecto of th dependen predicatio (ABOVE-TABLE). Th notion modifier an complement ca no be characterize explicitly in wa that re "complement" is conceptually autonomous predicatio that combines with head. Th tabl is consequently complement (o "argument" of above in above th table, and thi entire prepositiona phrase functions as modifier of lamp in the a m a bo v h e a bl e Wha about appositional constructions? Becaus there is no re ru ft autonomous/dependent asymmetry) th definition ar correctl foun to be inapplicable In neither m y g oo d f r e n nor Ollie North is considered modifieror complement of th other. Thi conceptio of grammatical structure has numerous descriptive advantages, only fe of whic will be note at thisjuncture On advantag is that it readil accommodates variabilit of constituency whic is in fact quit common Th presen framework does no posi phrase tree of th sort familiar fro generative studies, no does it rely on phrase structur configurations fo th definition of grammatica relations. Constituency is simply th sequence in whic componen symbolic structures ar progressivel assemble into more an more elaborat composit expressions. Though specific orde of assembly commonly become conventionalized as th sole or default-case sequence th choice is no inherently critical in this odel ec us alternat co stituencie ofte permit th am composit structur to be derived. Moreover becaus grammatica relation ar no defined in configurationa terms, unique constituency is no essential. What
29
constituency happen to be invarian in this case th critical factor in defining th prepositional-object relation is th correspondence establishe betwee th landmark of th prepositio an th profil of th noun phrase We ca better appreciate thes points with regard to sentence like th ones in (15). (15 a. Alic like liver. b. Live Alic likes. c. A l c e i ke s b u m os t p eo p
r ea l
h a e , b ra is e
v er .
Sentence (15a) exhibits the normal default-case NP VP constituency of Englis clauses: liver elaborates th schemati landmark of likes constituency yielding processual predicatio with specifie landmark an schematic trajector; Alice then elaborates th trajecto of like live at th second leve to derive roce predicatio whos traj ctor an landmark ar both specific. It should be apparent however, that th same composit structur will result if th constituents combin in th opposite order, with Alice elaborating the schematic trajector of likes, an then liver th schemati landmark of Alic likes. hi lternative on tituen is availa le fo ex loitatio with effe on grammatica relations, whenever specia factor motivate departur from th default-case arrang ment wo such fact rs ar illustrate here In (1 b) we observ the topicalization of the direct-objec nou phrase normally described as moveme transformation Ther is need in this fr me or to eriv this sentence type by transfonnation--it can be assembled directly throug the alternate compositiona path Th second type of situatio arises in conjoine structures whentwo verb have differen subjects bu shar th same object as in (15c). In lieu of th transformational proces of "Right Node Raising" whic supposedly derive this type VP constituency we ca once agai assemble th over structur directly Th tw subject-ver constituents ar pu together firs an then combined in coordinate simultaneously with each conjunct throug andthe conjunct' relationa landmark.
correspondence betwee it profil
transfonnational accounts (e.g Keyser Post betwee subjec an an auxiliar verb as in (16) ( 16 ) T h l a
a bo v
th
1976 to
andl
agre me
a bl e
Th rational fo raisin rule goes somethin like this (i verb is assume to agre with it ow subject; (ii) th lamp is no th logica subjec of be, which--if
30
Introduction
Grammatical construction
31
be. be 1S
be, First, be a l h e c om p n en t
a te s o f h e d e i gn a e d p ro ce s a r c on s r ue d a s e in g d en ti ca l LAM P
three s pe ci f h a t h a je c o r he am om on at h e n ex t a s i s h e a nd ma rk ) T h r d a pa r r o t h p ec i i ca ti o o f i de nt i y , h e r o l e p ro ce s m ax i a l schematic. Be others includ h av e r es e b le . l ik e k no w c on ta in . s lo pe . e x s t abstract away from th specific conten that distinguishe thes predications from
furthe specifie (excep fo it relational character) A n i ng l c o p on en t a t o f B E c on st it ut e
c he ma t
ta iv
r e a ti on . A t
B O E -T AB LE ) pu c o e s o nd en c w it h e p e se nt at iv e at of BE he a t e r e r i n a s p ro fi l d e e r n an t h e r e u l i s h e c o p o i t p re di ca t o n B E O VE -T AB LE ) h ic h i s i k [ BE ] e xc ep t t ha t a l t h s pe ci f c at io n i n e r e d
BE
ABOVE-TABLE
Figure 14 c om p s i e an in g o f h e u l e n e nc e ro le he ex en io h ro ug h i m o f ab i tu a i o h ic h h e a m a n h e t ab l p a i c p a i n p a i cu la r l oc a v e relationship. O bs e v e h a h e e nt en c a s e mb le d d i e ct ly , a cc o d an c it ts ur ac constituency. In th
et ee
h a t ra je ct o a n
c la u e ) a n
r e a ti on a
am
be, as thei agreemen
w n p ro fi le .
p ar t c ip a t .
o re ov e
t h e sp ec t t o F ig u [ BE l' s
14
ot fi
ha
a je ct o d oe s c or re sp on d t o
B E- AB O E -T AB LE )
h ic h i n turn be ha no nonclausal
ub ec or ha he am apparatus, th analysis establishe relationship betwee perfectl adequate as basi fo agreement. 1 7b ) i n w h c h a n a ux i a r
ve
(17) a. Q: ha is ab ve th b. A: Th am is
hi
u nc t o n
as
th lamp and be whic
is
pr fo
a bl e
hi hl c he ma t p r c es s p re di ca ti on s a ux i a r e rb s a r p e e ct l ui ed o le , a n e n e nc e o f t h y p a r d e i va b w it ho u a n d e e ti o o pe ra t o n
32
Introduction
( 17 b j us t b y c om b in in g t h a m an be we h e r of i h e f or me r n d p ro fi l d et er m in an t s o t h c om po si t e vo l o n bl ua io hr ug t h l am p , t hi s s it ua ti o i s c ha r ac te ri ze d
c or r es po nd en c i s e st ab li sh e be d i re ct ly . h e c he m i c r a c t the latter. Be i s t h s tr uc tu r d e i gn a e s p ro ce s i nv o v in g t h im A p ar t f ro m i t r a e c r , i de n i fi e a s o nl y s ch em a ti ca ll y
7 . C o n c lu si o n T h i ni ti a r e n t o n o f o gn i i v g ra mm a h a i t e l e e ui ch ma ic do h ow ev e h o ha h ow n h a u rr en t p re do mi na n i ng ui s i c h eo ri e d o n o r ep re se n h e o n p os si b w a o f c on ce iv in g t h n at ur e o f a ng ua g t ru c u r a n i ng ui s i c i nv e t ig a i on . B y a ki n r ad ic a d if fe re n p er sp ec ti v o n q ue st io n o f m ea ni n a n g ra mm ar , i t i s p os si b t o f or m u a t c oh er en t d es cr ip ti v f ra me wo r w hi c p ro mi se s t o b e b ot h c og ni ti ve l r ea li s i c a n i ng ui st ic a w e - m o i va te d ha wi m ew or k The r em a re nd de Le Ch wi dy ra t h c og ni ti v g ra m m a c on ce pt io n o f i n gu is ti c s em a nt ic s
Co mm B e si de s p os tp os i i on s t he s d ev ic e i nc lu d o ca ti v rb xe C en t hi c on tr as t s ym b ol iz e r es pe ct iv el y b y t h m o rp he m e in ir ua e ve r p ar ti c n d p re fi x o m i n i o ( 1 a r t yp ic a e xa m pl es .
m-a-a
(1) a. ka-pu=a-iY e ' - n Y e e ri '
n o t - i t= o ut si d e i n :m i d d le - be :v i si b l T h e r iv e i s m ud dy ' b.
ns d ow n- b n -D U R T h e c an d i s b ur ni ng ' Th
ma p ar ti c e s a n a n e la bo ra t s e de an a, o n o f w h c h i s f ou n he ys m. Th n te nc e
ART
M E D - o ut si d e f o oc o fr s lo p e
haa-ta w a te r - i
kantiira dl
ur
o f h i c ha p i s p re se n n d x p i ca t me of he ub et es he a s w e a s t o i l u st ra t c er ta i c on st ru ct s a n f un da me nt a p ri nc ip le s o f cognitive semantics. O n i r e xa mi na ti on , u ni f e d a n o he r n t a cc ou n o f an do no ee be he re i n i ne xp li c b le , i nc on si s e n re n tr a ry wa Th nt 2) ns ha he me t ra ns la ti o a n c a be e m pl oy e t o d es cr i b p re ci se l t h s am e o bj ec ti v s it ua ti on . ula c on tr as t
(2) a. u-h-k{-iY a-pu
i ns id e- f ac e: of :s lo pe -s ho rt -i n :m i dd le -p la nt e I t [ do g' s t ai l i s c ho pp e h or t b. a-h-kt-iY - pu '
outside- face:of: slope-short -in:middle-planted 'I d og 's ] t ai l i s c ho pp e h or t Ex mp c a ll e f o r
wh
(3 ad e- in :m i ' Th e w a e r i s p ou ri n
i nt o t h b as in /p an '
