Power points at
www.sil.org/~tuggyd
Crash Course in CG—Review
A language is
a structured
inventory
of conventional
linguistic
units
Review
Association: Two concepts occur together in
the mind.
All established cognitive relationships,
besides whatever else they may be, are
associations.
Review
Correspondence: two concepts are taken to
be the same.
A
B
Review
A - -  B = Partial schematicity: The
standard is recognized in distorted form in
the target.
A
B
Review
A  B = Full schematicity: the standard is
recognized without distortion in the target.
We are wired to like it when we find
schematicity, especially full schematicity.
A
B
Review
A schema can have multiple subcases.
A subcase may instantiate multiple schemas.
Multiple relationships of these kinds show up
E
in large and complex networks.
E3
E5
Z
A
Q
E2
d
E1
c
Y
A
g
e
P
a
X
E6
E4
f
j
k
h
i
b
Review
Concepts in such
networks typically
differ in salience
(cognitive
prominence)
Relationships
involving a
prominent concept
are more prominent.
E
E3
E2
E
E1
E4
E3
d
E5
E6
E5
E2
c
d
E1
E6
e
E4
P
g
a
f
c
j
a
k
h
P
b
g
e
i
f
j
k
h
i
b
Review
Classical categories,
taxonomies, “family
resemblances”,
prototypes, radial
categories, etc., can be
read off such networks.
They are impoverishments of the richer
network structure.
E
E3
E2
d
E5
E1
E4
E6
e
c
P
g
a
f
b
j
k
h
i
Review
You have a classical
category when the
prototype (most
prominent member)
and highest schema
coincide.
Schema
Mass of subcases
none exceptionally
prominent
Review
Most human categories are much more
complex than classical categories.
Complex categories are ubiquitous in
language.
End of Review
New stuff coming up …
Basic semantic structures:
profile and base
CG claims that most (if not all) semantic
structures consist of a profile (designatum,
named entity) which “stands out in bas-relief”
against the base (cognitive background).
This is doubtless related (if not in some sense
identical) to the “figure/ground” phenomenon.
The meaning does not consist in either the
profile alone or the base alone, but both, and
each in relation to the other.
Profile and Base
The concept CIRCLE designates a simple closed
curve in (2-d) space.
2-d space is the base.
The closed curve is
profiled (designated)
The profile stands out
as figure against the ground.
• (It’s diagrammed with the thick
red line.)
This constitutes the semantic
pole of the word circle.
2-d space
semantic
space
phonologic
al space
ˈs
Profile and Base
Any established concept can function as the base
for other concepts.
2-D Space
CIRCLE functions
as the base for ARC.
ARC in turn functions
as the base for
CHORD.
semantic
space
phonological
space
aɹk
ˈskoɹd
Profile and Base
Sometimes the base is relatively simple.
The base for CIRCLE is the basic domain of space.
Basic domains have to do with very general areas of our
perception of the world:
•
•
•
•
•
•
vision and perception of space
hearing
touch
smell
the passing of time
etc.
Profile and Base
The vast majority of concepts do not have only
basic domains in their bases.
E.g. arc and chord, as we saw, have CIRCLE and ARC
in their bases. CIRCLE and ARC function as nonbasic domains in these cases.
It is normal to have many levels of non-basic
domains in the base of a concept.
Consider how to define BATTING AVERAGE
starting from basic domains. Good luck!
Profile and Base
It would be a bit like trying to define an albatross
in terms of quarks.
Some domains can be more important (salient,
prominent) for a meaning than others.
You can’t always identify a “most-important”
domain.
In fact adjusting the prominences of domains is
one of the things that different contexts do for/to
you.
Profile and Base
The concept EM designates a letter in the (nonbasic) domain of the alphabet (which is a sequence
of letters.)
The letter is
associated with
M mm
... J K L __ N O P ...
a family of
semantic
orthographic
space
forms.
phonological
reading/writing
alphabet
2-d space
etc.
space
Profile and Base
The letter is also associated with the sound [m] and
the articulation that produces it.
This concept
is linked to the phonological pole [ˈem].
M mm
... J K L __ N O P ...
reading/writing
alphabet
2-d space
etc.
semantic
space
phonological
space
articulation
lips closed, vocal
cords vibrate,
nasal air
causa
sound
ˈem
Profile and Base
(The meaning is iconic to this phonological pole: to
pronounce the phonological pole you must activate
the articulation and sound designated in the
meaning.)
reading/writing
alphabet
2d space
... J K L __ N O P ...
M mm
etc.
semantic
space
articulation
closed lips
voice
nasal air
causa
phonological
space
ˈem
sound
Profile and Base
It is not clear that any of these domains is most
prominent.
Obviously the phonological domains are very
prominent.
But so is the domain of
M mm
... J K L __ N O P ...
the alphabet.
semantic
And so is the
space
domain of
phonological
writing, and
space
the 2-d shape(s)
ˈem
of the letter.
reading/writing
alphabet
2d space
etc.
articulation
closed lips
voice
nasal air
causa
sound
Profile and Base
Not everything in the base is equally prominent.
In the word abuela,
kinship
the base includes
prominently the
domain of kinship.
Less prominent, but
etc.
also relevant, are
domains of age,
human relations
and attitudes, etc.
aˈbʷela
age
attitudes
Profile and Base
In the primary domain of kinship, a configuration of
two generations is singled out for special
prominence.
kinship
Within that configuration, a person in the
second descending
E
etc.
generation has a
special degree of
prominence.
age
attitudes
aˈbʷela
Profile and Base
That person —the “ego”— functions as a point of
reference for the
designated entity.
kinship
age
attitudes
E
etc.
aˈbʷela
Profile and Base
The designated entity is a female two generations above ego.
In the secondary domains there are specifications such as
affection for grandchildren, kinship
or expectation of age
over 50 years or so.
All of this, with the
likely to spoil
grandkids
differences in promiE
etc.
nence involved,
functions as base for
the profiled person.
age
usually over 50
years old
attitudes
aˈbʷela
Profile and Base
In all these cases, the meaning is not the profile without the
base, much less the base without the profile. It is the profile
in relation to the base.
2-d space
2-d space
reading/writing
alphabet
kinship
usually over
50 yrs. old
2-d space
... J K L __ N O P ...
M etcm m
likely to spoil
grandkids
.
articulation
sound
E
lips closed
voice
air through nose
ˈs
aɹk
ˈem
aˈbʷela
etc.
Profile and Base
The same base may be used for more than one
profile.
kinship
age
likely to be over
50 yrs. old
GRANDPA has
much the same
base as does
GRANDMA.
It just designates
a different person.
attitudes
likely to spoil
grandkids
E
etc.
aˈbʷelo
Profile and Base
GRAND-DAUGHTER has basically the same base as
GRANDMA
but it interchanges the
profile and the “ego”
roles,
and it has different
specifications in the
minor domains.
kinship
age
likely to be
young
E
attitudes
likely to take
advantage of
grandparents
etc.
aˈbʷela
ˈnʲeta
Expectations
and Instructions
Classical semantics didn’t want to mess with
specifications that were not absolute.
It sought “necessary and sufficient” requirements
for its categories.
But the fact is that you find tendencies or
expectations in human categories, rather than
absolute requirements.
They are defeasible, i.e. they can be contradicted or
annulled, with differing degrees of difficulty.
Expectations
and Instructions
It is possible, as a limiting case, for specifications to
be absolute and indefeasible, but they are by far the
minority among semantic specifications.
And they are by no means necessarily the most
prominent or important to the meanings in ordinary
humans’ minds.
It is better to think of all semantic specifications as
expectations, but bear in mind that in a given usage
any of them may be downplayed or even
contradicted.
Expectations
and Instructions
All the structures we are talking about are cognitive
“routines” that are “run”, not static “things” you can
find in the brain (or elsewhere).
When you communicate such a structure to
someone else, you are implicitly instructing that
person to run the appropriate routines.
There is a sense in which any meaning can be
viewed as an instruction.
Process terminology (of certain types) fits in the model
very well.
Encyclopedic meaning
The question arises: what is the extent of the base of
a concept?
The answer CG (and CL generally) gives is: it
includes whatever is conventionally known about
the profiled element.
Encyclopedic meaning
Various lines of argument support this, including:
The impossibility of drawing consistent, motivated lines
between “denotations” and “connotations”
• This includes the very common cases where a “connotation”
becomes a “denotation” over time, and vice versa.
The syntactic use of connections to very remotely
connected pieces of meaning
• The following is one example of this.
Encyclopedic meaning
We know many things about FIRE; some are central,
others less so.
used to burn
garbage and other
undesirables
produces
light, used
for lighting
hurts if
touches your
body
needs fuel
wood, paper,
gases, oil, etc. turns the fuel into
ash and smoke
used to heat,
especially to cook
can be
quenched, usu.
with water
can destroy
buildings, kill
people
etc.
Encyclopedic meaning
We also know many things about TRUCK; some are
central, others less so.
One thing we know about FIRE is that it can be
dangerous, to people and forests and buildings.
used to burn
garbage and other
undesirables
produces
light, used
for lighting
hurts if
touches your
body
needs fuel
wood, paper,
gases, oil, etc. turns the fuel into
ash and smoke
used to heat,
especially to cook
can be
quenched, usu.
with water
can destroy
buildings, kill
people
etc.
dangerous to crash with
because heavy,
cumbersome
etc.
motor
different kinds
adapted to
different usages
has a driver,
perhaps others
also riding
tires
used to transport
heavy loads
Encyclopedic meaning
We also know that people especially in urban areas
where there are many buildings, have special
organizations responsible to prepare for the threat of
fire and combat it if it happens.
used to burn
garbage and other
undesirables
produces
light, used
for lighting
hurts if
touches your
body
needs fuel
wood, paper,
gases, oil, etc. turns the fuel into
ash and smoke
used to heat,
especially to cook
etc.
can be
quenched, usu.
with water
etc.
motor
different kinds
adapted to
different usages
can destroy
buildings, kill
people
water
dangerous to crash with
because heavy,
cumbersome
firemen
has a driver,
perhaps others
also riding
tires
used to transport
heavy loads
Encyclopedic meaning
We know that the firepersons  have many kinds of
special equipment that they use in combatting fires.
We know that among those things are trucks that
they use to carry them and their equipment to a fire.
used to burn
garbage and other
undesirables
produces
light, used
for lighting
hurts if
touches your
body
needs fuel
wood, paper,
gases, oil, etc. turns the fuel into
ash and smoke
used to heat,
especially to cook
etc.
can be
quenched, usu.
with water
etc.
motor
different kinds
adapted to
different usages
can destroy
buildings, kill
people
water
dangerous to crash with
because heavy,
cumbersome
firemen
has a driver,
perhaps others
also riding
tires
used to transport
heavy loads
Encyclopedic meaning
It is not until you have gotten this far away from the
central meanings of fire that you find a
correspondence link to the profiled element of
TRUCK.
used to burn
garbage and other
undesirables
produces
light, used
for lighting
hurts if
touches your
body
needs fuel
wood, paper,
gases, oil, etc. turns the fuel into
ash and smoke
used to heat,
especially to cook
etc.
can be
quenched, usu.
with water
etc.
motor
different kinds
adapted to
different usages
can destroy
buildings, kill
people
water
dangerous to crash with
because heavy,
cumbersome
firemen
has a driver,
perhaps others
also riding
tires
used to transport
heavy loads
Encyclopedic meaning
Such links are, on the CG view, the one essential
component of syntactic linkages.
used to burn
garbage and other
undesirables
produces
light, used
for lighting
hurts if
touches your
body
needs fuel
wood, paper,
gases, oil, etc. turns the fuel into
ash and smoke
used to heat,
especially to cook
etc.
can be
quenched, usu.
with water
etc.
motor
different kinds
adapted to
different usages
can destroy
buildings, kill
people
water
dangerous to crash with
because heavy,
cumbersome
firemen
has a driver,
perhaps others
also riding
tires
used to transport
heavy loads
Encyclopedic meaning
Clearly, in this case, if you don’t get this
correspondence, you don’t understand what FIRE
TRUCK means.
used to burn
garbage and other
undesirables
produces
light, used
for lighting
hurts if
touches your
body
needs fuel
wood, paper,
gases, oil, etc. turns the fuel into
ash and smoke
used to heat,
especially to cook
etc.
can be
quenched, usu.
with water
etc.
motor
different kinds
adapted to
different usages
can destroy
buildings, kill
people
water
dangerous to crash with
because heavy,
cumbersome
firemen
has a driver,
perhaps others
also riding
tires
used to transport
heavy loads
Encyclopedic meaning
And of course, if the meaning FIRE excludes access
to the fire-fighting scenario, the linkage cannot be
made.
used to burn
garbage and other
undesirables
produces
light, used
for lighting
hurts if
touches your
body
needs fuel
wood, paper,
gases, oil, etc. turns the fuel into
ash and smoke
used to heat,
especially to cook
etc.
can be
quenched, usu.
with water
etc.
motor
different kinds
adapted to
different usages
can destroy
buildings, kill
people
water
dangerous to crash with
because heavy,
cumbersome
firemen
has a driver,
perhaps others
also riding
tires
used to transport
heavy loads
Encyclopedic meaning
Coming from the other side, TRUCK includes the
information that there are specialized kinds of
trucks used for particular purposes.
used to burn
garbage and other
undesirables
produces
light, used
for lighting
hurts if
touches your
body
needs fuel
wood, paper,
gases, oil, etc. turns the fuel into
ash and smoke
used to heat,
especially to cook
etc.
can be
quenched, usu.
with water
etc.
motor
different kinds
adapted to
different usages
can destroy
buildings, kill
people
water
dangerous to crash with
because heavy,
cumbersome
firemen
has a driver,
perhaps others
also riding
tires
used to transport
heavy loads
Encyclopedic meaning
Coming from the other side, a thing we know about
TRUCKs is that there are specialized kinds of them
used for particular purposes.
used to burn
garbage and other
undesirables
produces
light, used
for lighting
hurts if
touches your
body
needs fuel
wood, paper,
gases, oil, etc. turns the fuel into
ash and smoke
used to heat,
especially to cook
etc.
can be
quenched, usu.
with water
etc.
motor
different kinds
adapted to
different usages
can destroy
buildings, kill
people
water
dangerous to crash with
because heavy,
cumbersome
firemen
has a driver,
perhaps others
also riding
tires
used to transport
heavy loads
Encyclopedic meaning
Among those specialized trucks are those used for
fighting fires. (There are actually several kinds of
them.)
used to burn
garbage and other
undesirables
produces
light, used
for lighting
hurts if
touches your
body
needs fuel
wood, paper,
gases, oil, etc. turns the fuel into
ash and smoke
used to heat,
especially to cook
etc.
can be
quenched, usu.
with water
etc.
motor
different kinds
adapted to
different usages
can destroy
buildings, kill
people
water
dangerous to crash with
because heavy,
cumbersome
firemen
fire
water
firemen
has a driver,
perhaps others
also riding
tires
used to transport
heavy loads
Encyclopedic meaning
It is only at this level of detail that a link is found
for the profiled element of FIRE.
Actually, at this level there is are obvious correspondences between other specifications as well.
used to burn
garbage and other
undesirables
produces
light, used
for lighting
hurts if
touches your
body
needs fuel
wood, paper,
gases, oil, etc. turns the fuel into
ash and smoke
used to heat,
especially to cook
etc.
can be
quenched, usu.
with water
etc.
motor
different kinds
adapted to
different usages
can destroy
buildings, kill
people
water
dangerous to crash with
because heavy,
cumbersome
firemen
fire
water
firemen
has a driver,
perhaps others
also riding
tires
used to transport
heavy loads
Encyclopedic meaning
The whole fire-fighting scenario corresponds
between the two meanings.
This implies correspondences between the
participants in the scenario.
used to burn
garbage and other
undesirables
produces
light, used
for lighting
hurts if
touches your
body
needs fuel
wood, paper,
gases, oil, etc. turns the fuel into
ash and smoke
used to heat,
especially to cook
etc.
can be
quenched, usu.
with water
etc.
motor
different kinds
adapted to
different usages
can destroy
buildings, kill
people
water
dangerous to crash with
because heavy,
cumbersome
firemen
fire
water
firemen
has a driver,
perhaps others
also riding
tires
used to transport
heavy loads
Encyclopedic meaning
In any case, the point here is that you can’t describe
what people understand when they join FIRE and
TRUCK syntagmatically, without going a long way
beyond what a dictionary entry would give you.
used to burn
garbage and other
undesirables
produces
light, used
for lighting
hurts if
touches your
body
needs fuel
wood, paper,
gases, oil, etc. turns the fuel into
ash and smoke
used to heat,
especially to cook
etc.
can be
quenched, usu.
with water
etc.
motor
different kinds
adapted to
different usages
can destroy
buildings, kill
people
water
dangerous to crash with
because heavy,
cumbersome
firemen
fire
water
firemen
has a driver,
perhaps others
also riding
tires
used to transport
heavy loads
Encyclopedic meaning
Fwiw, if the redundancy of this analysis bothers you
(the same semantic structures being part of both
meanings), don’t worry too much.
Under CG, these are the same structures, not
separate ones.
used to burn
garbage and other
undesirables
produces
light, used
for lighting
hurts if
touches your
body
needs fuel
wood, paper,
gases, oil, etc. turns the fuel into
ash and smoke
used to heat,
especially to cook
etc.
can be
quenched, usu.
with water
etc.
motor
different kinds
adapted to
different usages
can destroy
buildings, kill
people
water
dangerous to crash with
because heavy,
cumbersome
firemen
fire
water
firemen
has a driver,
perhaps others
also riding
tires
used to transport
heavy loads
Encyclopedic meaning
This kind of argument leads to the conclusion that
the base of a meaning is encyclopedic.
You needn’t always activate everything in it, but
everything is available for activation as needed.
used to burn
garbage and other
undesirables
produces
light, used
for lighting
hurts if
touches your
body
needs fuel
wood, paper,
gases, oil, etc. turns the fuel into
ash and smoke
used to heat,
especially to cook
etc.
can be
quenched, usu.
with water
etc.
motor
different kinds
adapted to
different usages
can destroy
buildings, kill
people
water
dangerous to crash with
because heavy,
cumbersome
firemen
fire
water
firemen
has a driver,
perhaps others
also riding
tires
used to transport
heavy loads
Kinds of profiles
Profiles can be categorized into different types.
Some of these correspond at least roughly (and very
importantly) to traditional “Parts of speech”.
This amounts to a claim that the “Parts of speech”
have a conceptual, “semantic” basis. Which of
course has been roundly denied by many linguists.
It has been a central pillar of the “autonomy of
syntax” hypothesis.
Kinds of profiles: Nouns
The traditional definition of a noun as a word
denoting a “person, place, or thing” has been widely
denounced.
The proof is that many nouns clearly do not denote
people, places, or things, but things (!) like
processes, or qualities, or relations.
In fact, process, quality, and relation are nouns.
This proves (supposedly) that the parts of speech
can have no conceptual/semantic basis: they must
be something else, namely syntactic.
Kinds of profiles: Nouns
A noun, for example, is simply a word that does
nouny things. It is the type of word that comes
after an article, to which you can suffix an -’s,
and so forth.
(± —Pinker 1994)
Which leads to the following general
conclusion:
A syntactic category, then, is not a kind of
meaning; it is a kind of counter or mathematical
symbol that obeys certain formal rules.
Wrong.
Kinds of profiles: Nouns
What’s most clearly wrong is Pinker’s use of
the word “simply”, and the notion that
something that “obeys certain formal rules” is
thereby proven to be “not a kind of meaning”.
A noun, for example, is simply a word that does nouny things.
It is the type of word that comes after an article, to which you
can suffix an -’s, and so forth. […] A syntactic category, then,
is not a kind of meaning; it is a kind of counter or
mathematical symbol that obeys certain formal rules.
Kinds of profiles: Nouns
First point: Note that Pinker’s “obedience to
formal rules” doesn’t give you necessary and sufficient conditions either. He resorts to “tendencies”,
possibilities and defeasible characteristics.
So why can’t you do the same thing with semantic
characteristics as with “syntactic” ones, and give a
definition using tendencies? A noun “tends to be” a
word designating a person, place or thing.
In essence, you can say “PERSON, PLACE and
PHYSICAL OBJECT are prototypes for the category
‘noun’.
Kinds of profiles: Nouns
This will say, “A noun (prototypically) obeys certain
formal rules, but it also (prototypically) designates a
certain kind of semantic entity.”
Kinds of profiles: Nouns
Second point: Who says that specification of what
you occur next to (your syntagmatic partner) is
outside the province of semantics?
Can the egg white and shell not be part of the base
(background meaning) of YOLK? The expectation of
them is automatically awakened when you activate YOLK.
Can the door not be part of the meaning of KNOB?
Can your toe not be part of the meaning of STUB?
Can the word toe not be part of the meaning of stub? The
expectation of it is automatically awakened when you
activate stub.
CG says, they can.
Kinds of profiles: Nouns
Meanings can be extrinsic as well as intrinsic.
Neighboring symbols (morphemes, words, etc.) are
a commonly referenced kind of extrinsic
specifications.
Whether or not this is specifically “semantic” or just part
of the grammar probably depends on definitions. In any
case, it fits easily in the CG model of language.
“Distributional classes” are not a problem for the model
which is a good thing, because they certainly exist.
Kinds of profiles: Nouns
So even if Pinker et al. are right, the specifications
they rely on fit just fine in CG without any special
syntactic component.
They do require a sort of “family resemblances”
category to characterize them.
This can coexist fine with a traditional prototype.
Kinds of profiles: Nouns
a.
THING whose
symbol can appear
with a definite article
PLACE
PHYSICAL
OBJECT
tolerance
problem
Kenya
INANIMATE
PHYSICAL
OBJECT
ANIMATE
BEING
ammonia
HUMAN
BEING
ANIMAL
cat
house
yak
meteoroid
tree
baby
linguist
house
semantic pole of
the word [
aʷs]
St. Jerome
b.
THING whose symbol can be numbered
and pluralized
Kinds of profiles: Nouns
Langacker claims the prototype common across languages
that unifies the category “noun” is the conception of a
physical object.
He also claims there is an overarching schema which unites
them all.
This in effect claims that a classical category can be defined
for nominal entities. (This is of course controversial.)
He calls the schema THING; it is close to, if not equivalent to,
the meaning of thing in the phrase anything at all.
He defines it as the cognitive product of our capacity to
mentally form a single entity by grouping elements.
Kinds of profiles: Nouns
Such a grouping is virtually automatic and almost
unavoidable in the case of a physical object.
It is very difficult to see a stone as a process or even as a
static relation.
But this grouping ability (=“reification”) can be
applied to many other kinds of Things, including
processes, etc.
When we do this we nominalize them.
So a Thing is a concept which we have produced by
grouping related Entities.
Kinds of profiles: Nouns
Those same Entities may well be construable in
other ways as well.
It is ultimately a matter of cognitive structuring
rather than real-world identity that determines if
something is a noun, a verb, an adjective, or what
have you.
Kinds of profiles
There is not time to discuss this at length here, but:
A distinction is posited between
Things (=nominal entities, profiling a group of
interconnected entities) and
Relations (profiling the interconnections between entities)
The schema Entity (= concept) neutralizes the
Thing/Relation distinction.
Among Relations, some are viewed as they develop
through time, much as a movie. These are Processes,
and they comprise the category of verbal elements.
Kinds of profiles
Non-processual relations include adjectives,
adverbs, and prepositions.
They and nouns form a category of non-processual
or atemporal concepts.
Verbs by definition involve a period of time during
which they evolve.
Relations often have at least two very salient
participants, which are typically Things.
Kinds of profiles
These different kinds of profiles can be imposed on
very similar situations, thus used to talk about them.
This is why e.g. love can be a noun and also a verb,
even when designating the same scenario, or why
tall and height can refer to the same quality.
For CG, the change in profile is a semantic
change—the noun and the verb do not mean the
same thing.
They may designate the same real-world instance of
the same type, but they construe it differently.
Construal
This notion of differences in construal is very
important to CG.
In effect, meaning is not just a matter of what is
referred to, but of how it is viewed or construed,
from what perspective, under what guise, etc.
Half-full and half-empty designate the same relative
amount, but differ in their construal.
A before B and B after A designate the same relative
precedence, but differ in their construal.
Most of “grammar” consists of mechanisms for
adjusting construals.
Kinds of profiles
ENTITY
RELATION
ATEMPORAL
ENTITY
THING
ATEMPORAL
RELATION
(processual
relation =)
PROCESS
Kinds of Profiles: Atemporals
ATEMPORAL
RELATION
THING
…
ˈkantɛnt
…
ɪnˈtɪɹj
en
nteˈɾʲor
aˈðentɾo
Kinds of Profiles: Processes
ɪn
ˈentɹ̩
iˈmɹ̩ dʒ
ˈbiˈɪn
Trajector and Landmark
Langacker claims that it is not possible to profile a
Relation without profiling the participant(s) in that
Relation.
You cannot make the Relation UNDER the center of
your attention (= figure = profile) without thinking
of someThing being under someThing else.
Those participants are understood to form part of
the profile of the Relation.
Trajector and Landmark
= Subject and Object
Especially at lexical levels there is almost always an
asymmetry of prominence between them.
The most salient/prominent participant in a relation
Langacker calls its Trajector.
I dislike the term and will instead use“(internal)
Subject”
If there is a second salient participant this is called
the Landmark.
I will call it the “(internal) Object”.
There actually may be several object/landmarks of
varying degrees of salience.
Subject and Object
Typically, then, a Relation has a structure of nested
saliences, somewhat as indicated in the following
diagram:
Starting with the general level of cognitive
activation,
greater
activation
(prominence)
lesser
activation
General cognitive background
Subject and Object
The structures constituting the base are more highly
activated.
The profile of the relationship is (by definition)
more highly activated than the base.
greater
activation
(prominence)
lesser
activation
Relational profile
Base of the profiled Relation
General cognitive background
Subject and Object
The participants in the relation are particularly
highly activated.
The Subject is (by definition) the most prominent
participant in a Relation.
(Internal)
Subject
greater
activation
(prominence)
lesser
activation
(Trajector)
Relational profile
Base of the profiled Relation
General cognitive background
Subject and Object
The Object is (by definition) a participant of lesser
prominence within the Relation.
(Internal)
greater
activation
(prominence)
lesser
activation
Subject
(Internal)
(Trajector)
Object
(Landmark)
Relational profile
Base of the profiled Relation
General cognitive background
Subject and Object
(We will mark the subject and object in Relations by
the red and brown colors.)
(Internal)
greater
activation
(prominence)
lesser
activation
Subject
(Internal)
(Trajector)
Object
(Landmark)
Relational profile
Base of the profiled Relation
General cognitive background
Subject and Object
For instance, the difference in meaning between
ABOVE and BELOW can be seen as a choice of
subject and object within an otherwise identical
Relation.
ABOVE
oriented
space
vertical
vertical
oriented
space
BELOW