*!*Ghomeshi, Jila and Diane Massam. 1994. To Appear, Linguistic Analysis



tải về 302.24 Kb.
trang2/10
Chuyển đổi dữ liệu11.06.2018
Kích302.24 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10
This film was developed in Geneva/by Fred/on Tues/too quickly
This film has been developed
This film is being developed.
They note that design seems to require an obligatory adjunct
even in the perfect, ``a fact for which we have no explanation."

Following Bach 1981, perfect and progressive turn the entire


accomplishment into a state which has a simple event structure.

Participles as Prenominal Modifiers:

Constructive accomplishments require an adjunct when prenominal:
{*a built house, a rebuilt house, a recently built house
{*a designed house, an architect-designed house, a carefully
designed house.
They claim that a written paper is fine because written
has a state interpretation.
``These predicates retain their complex event structure even when
they are prenominal, hence they require adjuncts unless they
ave state interpretations." (pg 153).

``However,...What has been said so far would lead us to


expect that no obligatory adjunct should be required [for non-constructive
accomplishments]..yet the data in (25) suggest that this is not the case:
\eenumsentence{ the ruined shirt, the arrested man, the hidden
solution, ?the destroyed hose, ?the killed chicken
the newly destroyed house, the freshly killed chicken, the
deliberately destoyed house, the machine-killed chicken.

They suggest possible solns: 1) ``the character of the violation


[may be] like that for non-constructuve accomplishments in (5)
and (6) above [The boat was destroyed. The burglar was arrested.
I don't understand this--these are noted to be GOOD.]
and that a context comparable to the one used in (7) would
show the expected sharp contrast between constructive accomplishments
and other events.  Other possibilities include the
existence of a difference in event-structure between the adjectival
form and the verbal form, for these verb types, or a difference
in the identification possibilities in the adjectival
and verbal forms, perhaps linked to differneces in the argument
structure between verbs and adjectives." pg 153)/

Conclusion: ``...it is possible to predict the pattern of distrubution


of obligatory adjuncts, in a way which is aspectual, rather than
strictly grammatical...Many questions remain open, a particularly
important one being the behavior of paossives of state predicates...
the stative hold behaves like constructive accomplishments
in requiring an obligatory adjunct, alhtough the range of
passible adjuncts is rather different, due to the general diffrence
in event type between accomplishments and states."
``...it has been suggested that the obligatory adjunct
phenomenon is just a matter of meeting a requirement that one "say
something
D. Pesetsky (p.c)."

Footnote 1: Some verb classes remain problematic, however. The


``locatives", for instance, including verbs like hide,
cover, box, uncover, crate, shell.

*!*Gordon, David and George Lakoff. 1971. CLS 7.

Given a class of contexts (CON$_i$), a set of conversational postulates, CP,
and some logical representation,L, of a linguistic expression:
L conversationally implies P in CONi iff CONi U CP U {L entails P.

\begin{quote


One can convey a request by a) asserting a speaker-based sincerity condition or b) questioning a hearer-based sincerity condition.
{quote

* notation is defined on page 87: speaker says something iwth


a preformative verb,a nd doesn't intend what he says.

Reasonableness conditions are given on page 90. 


Why are you painting your house purple?

vs.

Why paint your house purple?:  Can you use this


form iff letting L be the lotical
structure of the sentence,  "Why are you x," CONi U CP U {L entail
"unless you have some good reaons for doing x, you should not do
x"

This is a transderivational constraint. (can perform the transformation


of deleting you + TENSE, iff the above derivation holds.

Other transderivational rules:

 L entails L'

 L is equivalent to L'

 L presupposes L'

 L assumes L'

\medskip

Sadock: In initial position, please goes with any sentence


that conversationally conveys a request in the given context, regardless
of the superficial grammatical form of the sentence.

Sadock: TEll me cannot go with imperatives:


\eenumsentence{ *Tell me, give me a drink.
*Tell me, would you give me a drink
Lakoff describes use of initial Here.

>From Newmeyer:

Phenomenon P has been consdiered to be simly pragmatic: part
of performace and hence not requiring treatment within formal
grammar
But P is reflected both in morpheme distribution and in the grammaticality judgements that speakers are able to provide
If anything is the task of the grammarian, it is the explanation of
native-speaker judgments and the distribution of morphemes in a lng.
Therefore, P must be handled in the grammar.
But the grammtical devices now availbe are insufficient for
this task. Therefore new devices of greater power must be added

Ross proposed the performative hypthesis

Sadock and Green argued against Lakoff's move of converstaional
postulates on the grounds that it undermined the principles of
generative grammar and lead one toward interpretivism.

*!*Gropen, Jess, Trina Epstein, and Lisa Schumacher.


ms 1996 to appear. Context Sensitive Verb Learning: CHildren's ability to
associate conceptual and semantic information with the
argument of the verb. Cognitive Linguistics

*!*Haiman, John. Iconic and Economic Motivation.


1983. Language 59 4. 781-819.

The linguistic distance between X and Y dimishes along the following


scale (\# word boundary, + morpheme boundary):

X \# A \# Y


X \# Y
  X + Y
Z

\begin{quote


If two causatives contrast within a given language, such
that they correspond to structures given above, and
they contrast sematnically with respect to the conceptual distance between
 cause and result, thenthe conceptual distance between cause and result
will correspond to the formal distnace between cause and result (783)
{quote
English: kill vs cause to die

Japanese: koros(kill) vs sin + sase (die+ cause)

Indirect causation often requires that the causee be human and
conscious.

S1 and S2

S1 S2

In (1), S1 and S2 are in some way dissassociated:


may be a) separated in time (see Haiman 788),
or b)separated by having a different (non-expressed)
subject: ! switch reference or c) the two clauses
have a different topic (as for NP)

V + `and' (DS: different subject, switch reference)

V + 0 (SS: same subject, non-switch reference)

Clauses separated by "and" denote separate events: different


times, different subject or topic.

\bigskip


\noindent ! DO vs IO

\eenumsentence{ contestar la pregunta (answer the question)


contestar a la pregunta (contribute an (unsatisfactory) answer)

In Ergative lngs, Antipassive demotes the O, making it an oblique:


\eenumsentence{ I shoot the kangaroo
I shoot at the kangaroo

! Causees in direct case

E.g. in French
``I made him prepare the mayonnaise":
causation is more direct, may involve force or pressure

! vs.


! Causees in indirect case
``I had him prepare the mayonnaise"

\begin{quote


In no lng will the phonological expression of a direct case e
bulkier than that of the corresponding indirect case. (pg 792)
{quote
(This is motivated iconically as long as the case marker
is between the V and the O, which Greenberg notes it usually is).

\begin{quote


In no lng will the linguistic distance between X and Y be greater
insignalling inalienable possession in expressions like X's Y,
than it is in signally alienable possession(attributed
to Greenberg p.c.)
{quote
Not as clear (see discussion page 795)

! AXB and AYB reduced to AX and YB

{Red clothes and white clothes \\
Red and white clothes
{We can do it quickly and we can do it well.\\
We can do it quickly and well.

{Frank Osterflood had the build of a professional


wrestler and the mentality of a professional wrestler.
(funny because you expect a contrast, which doesn't occur.

! Competing motivations:  Cases of conflict between two iconic principles

NI:

THe linguistic distance between expressions corresponds


to the conceptual distance between them.
The linguistic separateness of an expression corresponds
to the conceptual independence of the object or event which it
represents (814)

In NI, by (1) the conceptual distance between N and V should


decrease ??? (unclear page 14).

*!*Haiman, John. 1980. Dictionaries and Encyclopedias.


Lingua 50. 329-257.
Rejects many possible ways to distinguish them: "Dictionaries are
encyclopedias" pg 331.

Traditional:

dictionary: "cognitive meaning": independent of experience with world
(Saussure: valeur (sign): relation to other words; cf. also "sense");
dictionaries relate words to other words.

encyclopedia: emotive or referential meaning: culturally and experientially


conditioned (Saussure: signification tied to the world; cf. also "denotation")
encyclopedias relate words to external facts.

\begin{quote


"Given the three OOga Booga words nooze, thung, slimp, and the information that nooze is the converse of thung, which, in its turn,
is a hyponym of slimp, we clearly know nothing about any ofthem." pg 333
{quote

Structural semanticists believed in a small set of primitives:cf.


Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, Locke, Wierzbicka.  But if such primitives
exist then:

1) they are chosen by the analyst for practical reasons of simplicity


(but this makes them non-dictionary like, since they crucially involve
the analyst, a non-linguistic entity)

2)the are rooted in common human experience of the world


(this undercuts the distinction even more directly)

3)they are rooted incomman human "internal experience": they are innate.


(the only argument against his comes from Genie and "wolf children" who
apparently coldn't master "I" and "you" which are 2 of Wierz.'s primitives.
Haiman, "Without expereince, there is no thought and certainly no language."
pg 336.  [Claims and counter claims about innatness seem to be a red herring.]

"There are no hard facts, and all of science is ethnoscience." blah blah..

Bloomfield and logical positivists[also behaviorists]:
dictionaries and encyclopedias are both
objective facts; subjective facts are not interesting.

Leech, Kripke, Wierzbicka and enthoscience: encyclopedias are objective


facts; dictionaries are subjective facts.

Popper and Haiman: objective facts cannot be known; both dictionaries


and encyclopedias are subjective.

\medskip


Another possible propsed dichotomy: essence vs. accidence (here he
cites Aristotle as saying that man is essentially rational, accidentally
featherleses and bipedal.: I can't find that in Aristotle.  I only
found essence: two-footed animal in Metaphysics.

Haiman: but what is essential to one community may be accidental to


another. So what? Could say the meanings of the words are different.
Long stupid discussion of breasts: essence IS the same here:
the two cultures differ in how they evaluate breasts.

There exist good arguments against essences, but this is a lousy


example.

Semantics vs. pragmatics? Morris: semantics: relationship between


signs and their meanings; pragmatics: the relationship between
signs and their users (and non-linguistic context).

But, Haiman argued that sense is derivative from denotation.

\noindent: what his his point in what follows?

Fast and loose discussion of R. Lakoff pg 344-345 who argued that


use of "and" bewtween clauses requires a common topic:
{*My grandmother wrote me a letter two days ago
and 6 men can fit into the back seat of a Ford.
Kempson cooked up a context for this and claimed (and Haiman agrees!)
that it proves Lakoff wrong.  It proves her right.  Thee context provides
a common topic.

There follows a discussion of whether context can save anything


(Makkai).   discussion of Morgan's Kissinger conjectures poached.

Makkai (1971): beliefs about the world are subject to


the contextual adaptability principle.

H: "..semantic constraints and beliefs about the world are not


to be distinguished." pg 345.

"...laws of form, no less than the laws of meaning, may alwyas be broken


for special effect: witness the poetry of ee cummings." pg 346
[BUT, you're admiting that there are laws which are broken!]

*!*Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and


Grammaticalization.  New York: Oxford
University Press.

More abstract concepts are understood by means of more concrete concepts


(Lakoff & Johnson 1980; Stolz 1991)
grammatical concepts are fairly abstract, but they develop from
Ns and Vs.

Auxs express conepts related to temporal state (tense),


temporal contours (aspect), type of reality (modality) and
are derived from Vs such as:

Location ``be at," ``stay at," ``live at," ``remain at", etc


Motion: ``go, come move pass" etc
Activity ``do, take, continue, begin, finish, seize, put, keep"
Desire ``want wish "
Posture ``sit stand lie"
relation ``be (like), be (part of), be accompanied by, be with"
Possession ``get, own, have" etc

These verbs are part of more complex concepts: event schemas,


which involve arguments as well as verbal meanings.

Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1992:5): general level verbs are


used becuase they apply to a wider range of arguments, and therefore
are relevnat in a wider range of contexts and are most frequent.

Kuteva (1991) argues that these verbs are direct encodings of a limited


number of kinesthetic image
schemas such as source-ptah-goal, contact, part-whole, etc.

Main event schemas: pg 31

X is at Y: location  (often used to mark progressive)
  X moves to/from Y: motion (often sued to mark tense, esp future)
X does Y: action (often used to mark perfect aspect or negation)
X wants Y: volition (often used to mark future tense)
X becomes Y: change of state (very rarely used to mark tense or aspe ct)
X is (like) a Y: equation (perfect in French)
X is with Y: accompaniement  (should be merged with possession?)
X has Y: possession (e.g. have perfect)
X stays in a Y manner: Manner (periphrastic perfect in Diyari)

(the first three may be more basic)


Complex Schemas:

Serial schema (both aux and main verb are finite: usually used to mark aspectual categories)
the evaluative schema
the purpose schema

``The moment a verb is given an infinitive complement, that


verb starts down the road of auxiliariness" Bolinger 1980:297

[There is a remarkable overlap bewteen the verbs that become


auxiliaries cross-linguistically and the meanings of basic
constructions.  The root cause of these two divergent paths
may be that they are frequent, and that in turn may be because
they code basic scenes of expereince in a way that puts very
few constraints on argument slots.(see above).

Since the constructions I looked at DO NOT involve a second verb,


I don't think there's any reason to claim that the grammaticalization
as constructions and hte grammaticalization as auxiliaries is
more directly related.]

*!*Heine, Bernd.  1992. Grammaticalization Chains.


Studies in Language 16-2. 335-368.

Chamus: dialect of Maa, Eastern Nilotic Language of the Nilo-Saharan family,


spoken in Kenya and Tanzania.

VSO


-yy\'e\'u

Main verb ``want", taking OBJ or V

When followed by a V, ``want" is more like an auxiliary

Subject can follow


-yy\'e\'u or follow the main verb:

\shortex{4


{ k-a\'-yy\'e\'u & n\'anU & n-a-l\'o & n-kang
{ k-ist- & I.nom & nar-1sg-go & f-home.abs
{I want to go home.

\shortex{4


{ k-a\'-yy\'e\'u &  n-a-l\'o & n\'anU & n-kang
{ k-ist- & nar-1sg-go & I.nom & f-home.abs
{I want to go home.

yy\'e\'u can be used to mean "nearly":

yy\'e\'u elder fall

``The old man nearly fell"

Grammaticaliation chains:

leftmost member represents the earliest stage


leftmost member represents the most concrete conceptual
content, the rightmost the most abstract one
Leftmostmember has the hightest degree of paradigmatic
and syntacmatic variability. ("defective" paradigms and/or
fixed placement)
Lehmann 1982, Heine & Reh 1984: 67 [AG: use this
idea to motivate why xAxam tends to stay in one place]

One source can give rise to more than one chain


(example le ``be at" $>$ preposition ``within";
``be at" $>$ progressive marker

Third person personal pronouns and definite articles often


have similar forms (Harris 1980 suggests that they have the
same abstract meaning; Postal 1966 argued that personal pronouns
derive from definite articles)

H: Both pronouns and definite articles tend to be derived


from the same source: distal demonstratives

``bleaching": deomonstrative can be used both pronominally and


adjectivally: pronoun cannot be used adjectivally, the
article cannot be used as a pronoun.

HETEROSEMY: multiple meanings deriving from the same


historical source.

Sweetser 1990: no historical shift of meaning can take


place without an intervening stage of polysemy.

H: can grammaticalization chains be treated as polysemous


structures?  Polysemy requires:

two distinct but reltaed senses


one form
linguistic form belongs to the same category

(In cognitive linguistics, these are made flexible)

3) is not satisfied; 2) is not satisfied if there is
any erosion 1)the chain may be a continuum

Table 3: Meaning drives form change

Page 353: Family Resemblances is better than prototype
because the "most basic meaning" if that means anything,
is peripheral.

*!*Henry, Alison. 1993. Variability and Language Acquisition.


In The Proceedings of hte Twenty-fifth Anual Child Language Research
Forum. ed by Eve Clark. CSLI Publications.

``the task facing the learner is in fact even more complex..because of the systematic variablity of language and the need to


acquire probabilistically weighted forms and rules.  However, it will
be argued that such variability is restrited to certain aspects
of language, and in particular is not present in core syntax...which we
argue, involves the setting of parameters which are categorical
rather than probabilistic." pg 280

*!*Hirsh-Pasek, Kathy, Roberta M Golinkoff and Letitia Naigles 1996.


Young Children's Use of Syntactic Frames to Derive Meaning.
In K. Hirsh-Pasek and R. M. Golinkoff, The Origins of
Grammar: Evidence from Early Language Comprehension.
123-158.  Cambridge MA: MIT Press

>From morris@ling.ucsd.edu Tue Jan  6 18:20:38 1998


I've been looking at my notes of the experiments shown in H-P & G, the


chapter with Naigles.  And I've been looking at the book, too.

Here is what emerges in my mind:

First, they did an experiment in the spirit of the old Naigles' experiments
involving four words: turn, bend, squat, flex.  They hold that the first two
of these are "known" to the children, the last two are "unknown."

They perform preferential-looking experiments with kids at 19, 24, and 28


months of age.  And they seem to get rather different results for males than
for females.

And they seem to get very different results from the transitive frame


experiments than from the intransitive frames.  Furthermore, whereas Naigles
(1990) got better frame compliance with intransitive frames (if memory
serves me correctly), in this experiment H-P, G, & N got better frame
compliance with the transitive.

Here is a thumbnail sketch of several of the outcomes:

The transitive sentence frame:
Known verbs:
At 19 mo, boys look as often at the nonmatch scene as
at the match.  They get progressively better as time goes on,
i.e., at 24 and 28 mo.
At 19 mo, girls look at the match scene more than at
the nonmatch, but not by much.  They peak at 24 mo,
and get worse at 28 mo.

Unknown verbs:


Both boys and girls look more at the NONmatch scene
at both 19 and 24 months.  At 28 months they both look
a LOT more at the match than at the nonmatch scene.

My conclusion:


At 19 months, they don't have a clue.  At 24 months, they
understand the verbs & frames they are familiar with, but
they don't have any abstract knowledge of the verb frame.
At 28 months, they've got the abstract frame.

The intransitive frame (these results are AWFUL).  And


H-P, G, & N say that none of these results reach significance:

Known verbs:


At 19 mo, the boys look essentially the same amount
of time (2.58 sec. vs 2.62 sec.) at the match scene as
at the nonmatch scene.  At 24 mo, almost identical
results.  At 28 mo, they are looking at the NONmatch
scene much more than at the match scene.  (3.41 to 2.69)
At 19 mo, the girls are looking at the match scene more
than at the nonmatch scene.  (3.28 to 2.52).  At 24 mo.,
this has turned around: they are looking at the NONmatch
scene more than the match scene (match 2.30, nonmatch 2.96). 
By 28 months they have reversed again (3.23 to 2.78).

Unknown verbs:


At 19 months, boys are looking at the match scene more than
the nonmatch scene, at 24 they've reversed, at 28 mo they've
returned to the proper orientation stronger than ever.
The girls always look at the match scene more than the nonmatch
scene, but they peak at 24 months.

My interpretation:


This is actually VERY interesting.  I believe that HPG&N have made
a fundamental mistake here, and it runs smack dab into a point that
you have made, Eve Clark has made, and that I am trying to make.

Verbs are learned in and with argument frames.  Verbs come with


argument frames. 

HPG&N have implicitly assumed that the verbs turn, bend, squat,


and flex all appear in either transitive or intransitive argument frames.
This is true for 3 of them in adult speech ("John squatted Fred"??
I don't think so), but it does not follow that children would be
equally familiar with these verbs as both transitive and intransitive.

The issue only concerns the first two, though; turn and bend are the


"known" verbs.  I believe that bend, in particular, would not be known
to a 2 year old as an intransitive verb.  Turn, maybe, but it is more
likely to be known as a transitive verb.  I think the children expect
that these verbs are transitive verbs (hence the good results in the


1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10


Cơ sở dữ liệu được bảo vệ bởi bản quyền ©hocday.com 2019
được sử dụng cho việc quản lý

    Quê hương