Constructional Approaches to Syntax
-
Upload
carlos-molina-vital -
Category
Documents
-
view
229 -
download
0
Transcript of Constructional Approaches to Syntax
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
1/50
Cognitive-Functional Approaches
to Syntax
Constructions in a Usage-Based
Model of Language
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
2/50
DeLancey (2001): Functionalism and Syntax
... there is no such thing as "functionalist syntax" in thesense that there is "generative syntax", since a generativistassumes ex-hypothesi that there is a distinct syntacticcomponent in Universal Grammar for "syntax" to be thestudy of.
Functionalists ... find explanations in function, and inrecurrent diachronic processes which are for the most partfunction-driven. ... they see language as ... a set of tools,whose forms are adapted to their functions, and thus canbe explained only in terms of those functions.
Formal principles can be no more than generalizations overdata, so that most Generative explanation seems tofunctionalists to proceed on the dormitive principle.
Why does opium makes you sleep? Because it
contains a substance with a dormitive principle
Why do nouns move? Because they need to get case.
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
3/50
Introducing Constructions as the
Objects of Grammar
Constructions are linguistic units that necessarilyhave some non-compositional semantics:
They are learned pairings of formwith semantic or
discourse function. In other words, constructions have some aspect
of meaning that is not reducible or predictablefrom its component parts or other constructions
Constructions are argued to be the central notionin any theory of grammar.
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
4/50
Examples of English Constructions
Morphemes e.g. pre-, -ingWord e.g. avocado, anaconda
Complex word e.g. daredevil, shoo-in
Complex word (partially filled) e.g. [N-s] (for regular plurals)
Idiom (filled) e.g. going great guns, give the Devilhis due
Idiom (partially filled) e.g. jog memory,send to the cleaners
Covariational conditional The Xer the Yer (e.g. the more youthink about it, the less you understand)
Passive Subj aux VPpp (PPby)
(e.g. the armadillo was hit by a car)
Constructions are patterns that occur
frequently and are predictable and patterns
that are infrequent and unpredictable.
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
5/50
Construction Grammar and Generative
Grammar commonalities
The idea that language is a cognitive (mental)
system
The idea that there must be a way to combine
structures to create novel utterances
(generative power)
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
6/50
Construction Grammar and Generative
Grammar differences
Constructionist approaches say when you studyformal structures, you must take their semantic anddiscourse functions into consideration.
Constructionist approaches do not dismiss semi-regular and cross-linguistically unusual patterns asperipheral Generative approaches look only at the core language
(AKA I-language)
Constructionist approaches say people are born withgeneral cognitive processes that can be used to helpthem learn languagenot knowledge that is specificto language (rejection of UG hypothesis)
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
7/50
Generative Grammar View of Constructions
Constructions are epiphenomenal They are the result of an interacting set of universal, fixed
principles with parameters selected on a language-particular basis (Chomsky, 2000).
Grammatical constructions are taxonomic artifacts,useful for informal description perhaps but with notheoretical standing" (Chomsky, 2000).
According to Chomsky, "the search for explanatory
adequacy requires that language structure must beinvariant, except at the margins" (Chomsky, 2000,emphasis added).
What does Generative Grammar want to explain?
What does Construction Grammar want to explain?
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
8/50
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
9/50
Constructions Override Lexical Meaning
Constructions fill in semantic substance and overcomesemantic incompatibility of component parts throughcoercion
I slept my way across the Atlantic.
Sleep: lack of motion specification
Sentence as a whole: describes motion with concomitantsleeping
pit the cherries, dust the furniture, bone the filet
conventionalized semantic elements added: motion,directionality
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
10/50
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
11/50
Problems With That Assumption
Verbs can have more than oneargument structure construction.He sneezed.
He sneezedhis tooth right across town.
We laughed.
We laughedour conversation to an end.Cognitive Linguistics assumes that every
semantic element is organize in a network of
knowkledge, and that produces massive
polysemy effects.
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
12/50
Polysemy again: to slice
He slicedthe bread (transitive) Pat slicedthe carrots into the salad. (caused
motion)
Pat slicedChris a piece of pie. (ditransitive)
Emeril slicedand diced his way to stardom. (wayconstruction)
Pat slicedthe box open. (resultative)
In all of these, the meaning of the verb slicedoes not
change. The argument structure constructions
provide the direct link between surface form and
general aspects of the interpretation.
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
13/50
RAISING AND TRANSPARENCY
A Cognitive Grammar Analysis of
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
14/50
Types of Raising Constructions
Subject to Object Raising (SOR)
I expect [Davidcriticize this plan].
I expect David[to criticize this plan].
Subject to Subject Raising (SSR) [Davidcriticize this plan] is likely.
Davidis likely [to criticize this plan].
Object to Subject Raising (OSR) [David criticize this plan] is easy.
This plan is easy [for David to criticize].
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
15/50
Constituency in Cognitive Grammar
Constituency is observed in symbolic assemblies(constructions) when a composite structure atone level of organization functions in turn ascomponent structure with respect to a higher
level. Syntactic trees represent:
Constituency (hierarchical grouping)
Grammatical categories
Linear expression Levels of grammatical representation (through
movement operations)
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
16/50
Relational predications
(V, ADJ, P, ADV) are
inherently hierarchical.
Grounding relations are
different, but they are
represented through the
same kind of syntactic
constituency. Symbolic Assemblies are is more accurate andincorporate the same information as tree
structures:
(i) Hierarchical relations (via trajector/landmark
pairing)
(ii) Grammatical categories (via domain profiling)
(iii) Linear expression (via phonological pole)
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
17/50
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
18/50
Active Zones
This form of metonymical construal is used when amore cognitively salient entity is referred instead of
the one more objectively involved in the situation
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
19/50
Active Zone Analysis of SSR
The key is that the profile/Active
Zone discrepancy is that both
conceptual representations need to
be present in order to understand
the sentence.
Parallel with controlverbs
1. The printeris fast (to print).
2. The surgeonis fast (to givestitches).
3. She began (to read) the novel.
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
20/50
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
21/50
Raising or Control?
Causative verbs She caused a specialist to examine her mother
She caused her mother to be examined by a specialist.
Raising verbs that form a tight conceptual unitwith the raised object
I believe the report to be true.
? I believe the rain to be falling.
I believe Jennifer to be telling {the truth / ? A lie} We confirmed the rumor to be essentially {true/?false}
The key difference between raising and
control is the way in which participants
relate to the main event.
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
22/50
Participant Involvement is a Continuum
Prototypical raising verbs (to be likely):
1. They are predicates for which the raised participanthas a low degree of involvement.
2. The subordinate construction (to verb) is required inorder to characterize the raised participants
involvement, and also the main predicate. Prototypical control verbs (To be reluctant):
1. They are predicates for which the controllingparticipant has a high degree of involvement.
2. The subordinate construction (to verb) is required inorder to, first, characterize the main predicate, and thenthe controlling participant.
In both cases to verb gives supplementary
information. However, there is no need for it to
be always present (adjunct nature).
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
23/50
Examples
1. A war is likely.
2. * Carlos is likely.
3. Carlos is likely to sing today.
4. ? Carlos is reluctant.5. Carlos is happy.
6. Carlos is happy to teach syntax.
7. Carlos is reluctant to teach syntax.
8. The happysyntactician taught the class.
9. The reluctantsyntactician taught the class.
There is no possible way
to clearly delimit the
behavior of control and
raising verbs: each
predicate has specific
requirements in order tobe properly construed.
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
24/50
Explanation for Raising and Control
Formal Explanation
Raising takes place because ofarguments needing to fulfillvery precise grammatical
constraints (case filter) Control is required to satisfy a
thematic restriction in anyNP/DP (they can have only onesemantic role).
Explanation is opportunisticin nature and theory driven.
Functional Explanation
Raising and control share the sameformal structure because both arecases of participants construed ascentral in a predicate (adjective) for
which a process that also involvesthem is assumed (active zone).
The difference between verbs inthat construction becomes evidentwhen the participant is activelyengaged in the main predicate(control) and when it is onlyenabling it (raising).
Explanation assumes linear order asmeaningful, while differences arenot derivational, but functional (i.e.conceptual).
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
25/50
Whats the Fuss About Logical Grammatical
Relations?
If you remember well, thematic/semantic rolesare not the
same as grammatical relations.
The term argumentas a required participant in an event
comes from logical calculus.
Thus logical grammatical relation = Thematic role
The most amazing thing has been that no one has really asked
what does it mean agent, patient, experiencer, etc. etc.
It is just blindly assumed that those notions are well-defined primitives
and they are not.
Think of this:A 5k is easy to run. Is it a control or
raising verb? What is the role of 5k?
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
26/50
What is Transparency Doing?
Transparency is the property of doing things ingrammar without any semantic consequence. Raising from one structural position to another is a
case of transparency.
Langackers article wants to show how there is noreal transparency in raising. SSR (be likely to), SOR (expect to),and OSR (be hard
to) are all of them motivated through semantic
factors that make the raised position the most naturalone for presenting an argument and somesupplementary predication that precise how thefocused element will be construed.
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
27/50
Construction type Traditional name Example
Complex, and (mostly
schematic)
syntax [SBJ be-TNS VERB-
enbyNP]passive
Complex, substantive
verb
subcategorization
frame
[SBJ consumeOBJ]
transitive
Complex, and (mostly)
substantive
idiom [kick-TNS the bucket]
die
Complex but bound morphology [NOUN-s]plural,
[VERB-TNS] tenseAtomic and
schematic
syntactic category [DEM], [ADJ]
Atomic and
substantive
word/lexicon [this], [green]
The syntax-lexicon continuum
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
28/50
The Autonomy Issue
If something in grammar cant be fullypredictable from its meaning or otherindependent factors, then grammar is definedseparate from meaning.
Type/Predictability Fallacy
What type of linguistic units are there available?
How can we predict their grammatical behavior?
If units are meaningful (semantics-based) then everygrammatical form needs to be explained through itsmeaning.
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
29/50
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
30/50
What is Language Like?
1. Different structures will make use of different grammaticalstrategies (ranging from lexical to morpho-syntactic ones),but there is no guarantee that every language is doing atsome deep level the same kind of structuring.
This assumes linguistic diversity not as a problem that needs to
be explained away, but as the result of the continous nature ofpotential structures available and the semantic variationinherent to conventional arrangements.
2. The difference between constructions is the level ofabstraction (i.e. generality) with which they can be used.
Syntax is nothing but the conventional pairing of the mostabstract conceptual relations with the broadest range ofparticipants
Cognitive and functional, opposed to formal
theories of syntax have their focus on
languages, not the so-called language faculty.
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
31/50
What is Syntax?
Constructional (sub-)schemas of higher levelof abstractness and correspondence between
meaning of the units.
Conventional pairing of increasingly complexconceptual structures with phonological forms
(non-generative).
This means that every syntactic assembly ismeaningful, even if redundant (e.g.
agreement) or non-fully predictable (e.g.
paradigms, agreement, word order, case)
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
32/50
Conventionality and Variation
The symbolic nature of grammar looks for
semantic and external motivation for
structures.
Motivation is not the same as predictability!
Conventionality is gradient between pure
motivation and pure arbitrariness.
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
33/50
What a Great Linguist Once Said
Were a language ever completely
grammatical, it would be a perfect engine of
conceptual expression. Unfortunately, or
luckily, no language is tyrannically consistent.All grammars leak (Sapir, Language, 1921,
p.38; italics added)
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
34/50
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
35/50
Bidirectional links
Langacker (2003) points out that there are many verbs thathave a strong associative link to a particular construction. giveis extremely frequent in the ditransitive compared to other verbs
The ditransitive construction is extremely frequent with give.
The usage-based model predicts, based on frequency, that there is a
highly conventionalized link to the ditransitive that is part of ourknowledge of give.
If so,give is an access point to the ditransitive construction and itsassociated frame
Hypothesis: The links between lexical item and constructionsreach in both directions We posit both nodes as units if both are conventionalized. Givemay
activate the ditransitive just as the construction primes the word.
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
36/50
The usage-based model
In the usage-based model, links in a linguisticknowledge network are viewed as activationpathways with potentially bidirectionalactivation flows (cf. Lamb 2000) Predicts that strongly entrenched links could
potentially go in either direction.
Converges with findings from neurologysuggesting that links between neurons and
between cortical columns have physically distinctpathways that can have differential activationstrength.
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
37/50
Most construction grammars these days
are usage-based
knowing *idiomatic expressions+ is part of knowing
a language, and clearly their specifics are not
determined by universal principles but must be
learned on an item-by-item basisExamples
1. English black eye = German blue eye
2. English sleep like a log = German sleep like
a woodchuck or marmot3. English think of oneself as Gods gift to the world= Frenchbelieve oneself sprung from Jupiters thigh
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
38/50
Most construction grammars these days
are usage-based contd
Since every linguist agrees that the peripheral,
difficult cases must be learned inductively on the
basis of the input, constructionists point out that
there is no reason to assume that the more general,
regular, frequent cases cannot possibly be. (p. 14)
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
39/50
Constructions with no verbs
In many languages the construction cues theargument interpretation even if there is no verb.
Russian1. Kirill v magazin
Kirill-NOM to store-ACCKirill goes/will go to thestore
2. Kirill iz magazinaKirill-NOMfrom store-GEN
Kirill just got back from thestore
German
1. Larry und Arzt?!
Larry and doctorLarry, a doctor?!
French
1. Foc[tout le monde qui
part en weekend]all the world who leaves
in weekend
Everyone is leaving for
the weekend.
Taken from Goldberg, Adele. 2006.
Constructions at work, p. 8
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
40/50
Examples of argument structure
constructions
1. Transitive
2. Intransitive
3. Ditransitive (double object)Subj V Obj1 Obj2
He gave her a flower.
She bought him a book.
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
41/50
The Power of Surface Generalizations
The recipient in the
ditransitive is not a good
argument to ask about.
But in the equivalent
paraphrases is just fine to
ask about.
No room for
adverbs to interruptthe ditransitive
construction.
Construction Grammar assumption: No derivation is required, surface
structure is a specific coding of semantic /pragmatic function
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
42/50
Ditransitive Constructions: A Fully
Semantic Account
Semantic properties ofgive
Complete transfer of anobject.
There is intention fromthe giver.
Animate recipient.
Transfer of control over
object.
Extensions from theprototype
Mina bought Mel abook.
Mina sent Mel a book.
Minaguaranteed/offered Mela book.
Mina refused Mel abook.
Mina cost Mel his job.Notice that understanding is the conection of
different units of knowledge . Thus, certain
elements can be assumed to be valid
characterization of a category despite not
fulfilling each and every knowledge unit.
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
43/50
Ditransitive Construction + hand
Pat handed Bill the keys.
cf. *Pat handed [] the keys. (not an instance of this
construction)
CAUSE-RECEIVE < agent recipient theme>
Verb Subject Object Object2
HAND < hander handee handed>
Instance,
means
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
44/50
Ditransitive Construction + kick
Joe kicked Billthe ball.
CAUSE-RECEIVE < agent recipient theme>
Verb Subject Object Object2
KICK < kicker kicked>
Means
Role can be contributed by
construction (dashed line)
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
45/50
Ditransitive Construction + send
Joe sent Leonard a letter.
"send.goal" role must be recipient and therefore animate
Closest object to verb is prototypically associated with
higher degree of affectation.
CAUSE-RECEIVE < agent recipient theme>
Verb Subject Object Object2
SEND < sender send.goal sent >
Instance
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
46/50
*Ditransitive Construction + anger
*Joe angered Bob the pink slip.
("Joe gave Bob a pink slip, causing Bob to become angry.")
CAUSE-RECEIVE < agent recipient theme>
Verb Subject Object Object2
ANGER < angerer anger.goal >
Instance?
Means?
bl i i i
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
47/50
Problematic cases: inanimate
participant in ditransitive construction
1. ?? Mina sent that place a box
2. Mina sent a box to that place.
3. Mina sent Washingtona box.
4. The paint job gave the car a higher
price sale.
5. Those cars sell like hotcakes.
Causation is not only a volitional notion (agentive), but also a logical one
(what causes something). The latter is found in the inherent properties of
an object.
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
48/50
48
Problematic cases: Ditransitive
Construction + Steal
*Robin Hood stole the rich their money.
But: You stole me my happiness; I stole her a kiss.
CAUSE-RECEIVE < agent recipient patient>
Verb Subject Object Object2
STEAL < thief target goods >
Instance?
Means?
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
49/50
-
8/10/2019 Constructional Approaches to Syntax
50/50
Blending Constructions
(4) You stole me my
happiness.(5) I stole her a kiss.
Active zone for
happiness and its
immediate domain.
Active zone for kiss
and its immediatedomain.
(i) Input 1: Stealing
(ii) Input 2: Ditransitive construction
(iii) Conection of commonalities: Affected
participant and extracted good are equated
(iv) Meaning: Extracting something a non-harmful
way that necessarily affects the owner