Introduction to
Cognitive & Functional Linguistics
Class 2
Dylan Glynn
[email protected]
www.dsglynn.univ-paris8.fr
The usage-based model
It is what is common to both Cognitive and Functional Linguistics
a nice idea, but what does it entail?
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!
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.
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
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.)
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!!
This is where we need to speak about
Cognitive and Functional linguistics separately
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.
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!
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
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
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
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
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
Entrenchment
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
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
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.
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....
What is it?
What are they?
What are they?
Exercise
In groups of two,
try to identify some meaning, anything at all, without categorising....
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
Black Box :
categories only exist in your head,
there is no known way of directly studying them!
Fuzzy World
we are
small...
The world is not discrete
There are continua everywhere
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).
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!!
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....
Homework
Read Reading 1
on the website