# part (ASK-QUESTION is directed toward chin; GIVE is directed

tải về 302.24 Kb.
 trang 6/10 Chuyển đổi dữ liệu 11.06.2018 Kích 302.24 Kb.
 part (ASK-QUESTION is directed toward chin; GIVE is directed toward chest).  Location of the hand is not fixed: depends on where referent is. Morphemic solutions: unlimited number of lexical units But there is no way to list them because their number is indeterminate. (if there were 10 different referents in discourse, PRO could refer to any of the 10 by pointing to 10 distinct locations). one lexically fixed element with indepterminate form But, Liddell claims this is inconsistent with our conception of what morphemes are.  Comparison with replicative morpheme of Thai pg 25. Location, unlike reduplication, is not dependent on any linguistic features or category. Liddell's soln: handshapes, certain aspects of the hand's orientation and movement are lexically specified, but there are no linguistic features specifying the location the hands are directed toward. "the hands are directed toward the speicif part of the referent's body in Real Space by non-discrete gestural means.  An indicating verb that moves betwen its subject nd object is produced from a verb root combined with two nondiscrete locations to account for the direction of the movement." pg 26 Note that aspects of the verb's use are clearly grammatically specified: see chin vs chest above; Padden notes that only subject may be left unspecified in subj-obj "agreement" verbs; also certain lexical idiosyncracies: BAWL-OUT and FLIRT can be directed twoard addressee, but only BAWL-OUT can be directed toward signer to indicate signer is the object of the verb. Therefore PRO directed at addressee is not grammatical "you," but is just PRO without specifying the location in Real Space to which the sign is directed. So, indicating verbs  do not demonstrate "agreement" as Padden 1988 had proposed., according to L. L. follows Klima and Bellugi (1982) who argue that when a person is phyically present, grammatical reference to that person is deictic not anaphoric. (deixis: those features of language which refer directly to the personal, temporal or locational characteristics of the situation within which an utterance takes palce, whose meaning is thus relative to that situation." pg 27) \subsection{Surrogate Space surrogate: full-sized invisible entity used during "role-shifting" Surrogate Space: a mental space in which aspects of  events are grounded in the physical space that includes the signer. \medskip Ex: PRO-1, WHat? I went, "what?" \medskip Ex: Sue, What? Sue went, "what?" \medskip During PRO-1, signer's head position and eyegaze are straight ahead. During question, signer's head position and eyegaze directed upward and to the right toward an imaginary addressee. Two surragotes:  the invisible one that the signer directs eyegaze at; but ALSO, the signer herself imagining either herself at a different time and place or Sue at a different time and place. The pure memory of what happened is a non-grounded mental space: a memory or recollection. But the surrogate space itself, which is directly responsible for the signing above is grounded: the surrogate is treated as physicallly present. "It is the location of the surrogate itself, notsome aspect of linguistic elements within the clause containing either PRO or an indicating verb that serves as the basis of the way the sign is directed." pg 31. \subsection{Token Space establishing an index (creating a 3-D token): BOY LOC-ATx (there is a boy at this place) GIRL LOC-ATx (there is a girl at that palce) Ty-Kick-Tx (She kicked him) (LOC-ATx: short downward movement of 1 hadnshape twoard and held at location x) Liddell: it is a token, not an abstract spatial locus that is pointed to. \medskip ! Token space is also grounded.  Differs from Surrogate space in that: token is not normally sized, involves a featureless region, appears within the smaller domain of signing space and plays only a 3rd person role in discourse. (pg 34) \subsection{discussion Real space is our conception of our currrent, perceivalbe phsyical environment.  NO one would accept a propsal that the physical entities around us are part of English, ASL or any other language." pg 34 Surrogate Space and Token Space are similar. Liddell concludes: neither Token Space, Surrogate Space nor Real Space contains any linguistic elements. \subsection{Abstract Space C classifer, expaiining that it shows her language and culture; holds it near chest. Describes two people approaching one another, with 1-cl handshapes, one near the chest and one to the right; handshapes are then replaced with C classifier handshapes representing two containers of cultural behaviors facing one another. Abstract concepts are therefore treated as if they occupy grounded space. Signers can look at different sides of an abstract concept, pick it up, etc. "the signer is directly referring to elements within Surrogate Space or Token Space in a way which parallels reference to elements within Real Space." pg 39. Signers are not only apble to point to the conceptual entities in space but are able to manipulate them. *!*Liddell, Scott K. 1995. Spatial Reprsentations in Discourse: comparing spoken and signed languages. Ms. Gallaudet U. Liddell argues agains the view that spatial reprsentations are part of sytnax; instead, he argues that spatial representations are part of a topographically organized space.  Spatial representations contain no linguistic elements and "thus are not part of what linguists typically mean by the grammar of a language." Analogy is made to the use of props in spoken language: \begin{quote Ok, the coffee cup is my house.  The sugar boal is the apt building next door and the knife is Fla street. There is a bicycle right about here. {quote { "This side of my house gets direct sunlight in the morning" (can be said while pointing to coffee cup) Notice that although pointing to the coffee cup identifies the house, mentioning the cup does not: { *This spring we plan to add a new bedroom to the coffee cup. Signers do not use props like that, but they almost always use a spatial representation to describe spatial relationships. \begin{quote 1-cl ato-b F-L-A   S-T Right along here (a to b)  is Fla St. MY HOME hooked-5-cl:CONTACT-ROOTx My home is located here. Not far from and to the side of the house is a (much taller) apt building located here(y). pg 6 Bicycle there(z) {quote \subsection{Mental Spaces mental spaces are distinct from linguistic structures: they are structured sets with elements and relations holding between those elements. What is remarkable about the spatial representations in signed languages is that they are 3-D and can be directly pointed at and manipulated. trigger (linguistic entity), target(entity in mental space) \subsection{Analyzing the use of props in spoken lng Does the sugar boal itself represent the apt building? Liddell: no the sugar boal is a landmark showing us where the conceptual apt building is, but the physical sugar boal is not the same as the conceptual apt building in the spatial representation.  (It just picks out a 3-D location). pg 16. Placing props on the table creates a distinct conceptual representation. The speaker can point to a location high above the top ofthe sugar bowl and say "from up here on top of the apt building" Three mental spaces: 1) R: speaker's conception of the neighborhood being described (non-grounded), 2) M spatial representation of conceptual houses and apt building, resulting from playing the coffee cup in position while uttering "this is my house" (grounded), 3) RS the conception of the physical table and objects on it. The elements of M and RS both occupy parts of the same physical space. The ID principle does not work straightforwardly (in either direction): (missing "not" page 17) \eenumsentence{ *The coffee cup was just remodeled last year. *Bill lives on the 3rd floor of the sugar bowl *My house has a lipstick stain on its rim. *Please put the spoon back in the apt building. "There is no reason to believe that the 3 mental spaces in FIgure 5 contain any elemnts of the English language." pg 22. \subsection{Analyzing ASL discourse Classifier predicates place conceptual entities called tokens in the space in front of the signer. It is clear that the tokens are conceptual entities, since they exist even when the classifiers are not overtly identifying (they can be referred to again in subsequent discourse). ! Conclusion:"This paper argues that the 'use of space' in a sign language such as ASL is not conceptually different from the 'use of space" in a spoken language such as English....[They differ in that] SIgn languages hav extensiev parts of their grammars devoted to the construction and use of spatial represntations, while spoken langauages typcailly do not." pg 26 *!*MacWhinney, Brian. 1982.   Basic Syntactic Processes. In Language Development, Syntax and SEmantics Vol 1. Stan A Kuczaj II editor. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ! BASIC Strategies: ! Rote : memorized string (word or phrase): semantic analysis serves as a stimuls to morphological analaysis Brown, cazden and Bellugi (1968): I'm, that-a, drop-it, put-it, get-it, want-to, have-to, another-one, what-that learned by rote: single intonational contour, acquired as wholes. other evidence suggestsed (some better than others): incorrect imitation ('init" to refer to "elephant" after hearing that's an elephant, isn't it?: R. Clark; rituals: some formula restricted to contexts Pronoun errors: I carry you as request to be carried. Production of whole before its parts: cant', won't, don't before can, will, do Production of contraction before expansion Precocious strings: open the door at 14 months with only 6-10 word vocab: Peters (1977); Macwhinney: No, Mommy, I don't want to go to bed; I like it; I love it before other 2 word utterances. PHonlogical structure: Peters (1977): some children learn the tune beofre the words. Superfluity in Context Presence of an Unusual Element Redundancy: have it egg; have it milk, miss it garage \subsection{ Analogy Rote cannot explain neologisms, errors, nonce forms; too many sentence swould have to be memorized, these sentences would be too long. this is my wug produced by analogy with this is my bear my book analogized to my toy \subsection{ Combination The pattern develops a life of its own apart form the lexical items from which it developed: no sharp line bewteen analogy and combination my book and my toy abstracted to my X \subsection{Evidence for Item Based Patterns ! Ordering in short strings Ingram (1979): most of the sentences in his two corpora seemed to use some fom of item based pattern: here, my , hi, a, that, want, its, what before object words. this, it used after action words I before action words ! Children's failure toogeneralize: Kuczaj and Brannick (1979): aux aplies to wat before how long (what are you doing? how long you (are) staying? Bowerman (1976): want +X; more +X, but didn't generalize to open +X, close+X, bite+X, etc. Control of disontinuous morphemes Item-phrase orderings Competitive orderings: A+B and C+B: what's a child to do?  In fact, children learn order of adjectives relatively late. Strings not atributable tonalogy The nonoccurence of certain types of errors \subsection{Combination Simple analogy is not enough: novel operators  acn be extended Evidence for general actor action schema Across the board changes in gruops of lexcal items: Bellugi 1971: movement of aux to sentence initial position in Y/N Qs occurs around teh same time for all auxs *!*MacWHinney, Brian. 1997 April. Phone conversation item based patterns = MIke's verb islands believes strongly in verb by verb learning for argument structures, but he doesn't assume Wh- constructions are verb based confirmed core of word: things that are known to be true of a word Competition Model was basically designed to account for subject facts as a test case for Grammatical Relations (but assumed all verbs act the same which he now thinks is an oversimplification). He shares Bill M's view of how GRs are acquired, sounds like. *!*Mandelblit, Nili. 1997.  Creativity and Schematicity in Grammar and Translation: The Cognitive Operation of Blending.  UCSD Diss. A single blending schema is associated with each binyan to characterize a large percentage of teh verbs that occur in the binyan. from Berman (1975): nif'al: passive, middle, basic (and a few reciprocals) pu'al: pssive huf'al: passive hitpa'el: middle reflexive (and a fe reciprocal, inchoative, iterative and basic Innovative forms from Berman and Sagi (1981) \eenumsentence{ hisxi: hif'il form of saxa ('to swim'): the child refers to her father who is helping or teaching her to swim. heshin an hif'il form of yashan "to sleep": teh child refers to the event of putting someone to sleep. Other novel examples come from slang. Hebrew double object construction: NP N et NP et NP: rec is volitional, transfer is successful. Rubinstein (1976): discusses examples of 2 arg tansitive verbs in Biblilical Heb whos semantics "shifts" when they appear in the Acc-Dative argument structure: a component of "causation of possession" is added to the core meaning of the verb: \eenumsentence{   leharim "to lift" means contribute or offer when used in teh Acc-Dative syntactic pattern (same form of the verb). To Nili: I wanted to send you a follow up message about my questions during your defense.  I'd like to stress that I really like the idea of treating the Hebrew binyanim as blends. It also makes a lot of sense that each binyanim offers a different perspective on the scene.  Your slide with the blue and orange lines is really nice (although I would interpret it a little differently-see below) My question really concerns the nature of the two input spaces. I would have thought that the Hebrew verbs were a blend of the root with the binyan, each with its own conceptual semantics.  Or, given that the phrasal construction plays a role, a blend of the root (with its arguments) with the binyan+phrasal construction. It's still not entirely clear to me what the nature of the two input spaces you propose is.  On the one hand, you say that Input 2 is the very abstract: Event1 causes Event2, but at the same time, you'd like Input2 to have the specific lexical items in it. Are there lexical items associated with act1, act2, CAUSE and all of the participants even if they don't end up getting expressed? I wouldn't think so, but if not, isn't there a sense in which what you are blending is really the conceptual structure associated with the binyan+construction with the conceptual structure of the verb that is expressed and its arguements? If so, then it's really exactly parallel to the way I analyzed the English caused-motion and I guess F&T's analysis is really the same as mine. I think the diagram you had of the various binyanim with blue and orange lines to various partipants and events is an elegant way of capturing the *binyanim*'s semantics (or binyan+ phrasal construction's semantics).  Each binyanim offers a different perspective on a causative scene. The binyanim gives instructions as to what relation the verb root can bear, just like the English cases (the ditransitive allows instance, means, but *not* result; the transitive allows result, instance, instrument, means, etc etc). "Event1 CAUSES Event2" allows for a nice way of specifying the binyanim's perspective, since it shows what is common across binyanim, and therefore allows you to highlight was is different among the binyanim. But is it clear that speakers have absracted out this generalization and in any real sense conceptualize this most abstract causation event without perspective (the perspective is attached to particular binyanim). Then, I would say, the binyanim gets integrated (blended) with a verb root yielding the richer semantics. --"NP V et NP" looks like V, et, and NP are all sisters.  You want to make it clear that "et" is part of the NP.  "NPet"  (like "PPto") may be better --the inventories of constructions *are* definitely different cross-linguistically i.  E.g. there 's no ditrans in Fr and no impersonal passive in English. --I also was after the basic means of expression.  The sneeze examples were useful to make the point, but I was arguing that more ordinary cases like put and throw work the same way. The reason I didn't use the transitive construction was that it is MUCh harder to make the point: since the construction itself has such a huge range of meanings, the verb really does seem to play the determinate role in choosing a meaning.  When you give the example of S. kissed D, all the spaces are isomorphic: given that, it's not clear that you *need* a blend.  I understand you want to say a blend is involved, and I agree, but it's not a good case to make the point with. Also if you want to claim NP V NP is associated with "agent acts-on patient" you have to address how it is that "It rained cats and dogs" "It is a stone" and "She became a movie star" fit. (if you instead use Subj V Obj those particular problems go away--you are still left with "A saw B" but that is arguably based onthe active semantics). --I think John's question was in part why it was that lines should go to act1 for "kill" since "kill" (unlike "strangle") doesn't specify what the agent's activity is. More generally, I was a little unclear about what the meaning of pa'al is.  At one point you seem to  say that it codes lexical causatives (like kill), but isn't it also the form used to code simple, non-causative wash (requiring the hifil for causative meaning)? *!*Matsumoto, Yo. 1996.  On the Nature of Compound Verbal Nouns in Japanese.  Presentation at Stanford U July 17, 1996. Considers cases like: Lexical compounds: functionally monoclausal { Taro wa Eigo o KENKYUU-KAISHI suru \\ Taro top English acc research-beginning do \\ Taro will begin research on English. Syntactic compounds: functionally bi-clausal: { Taro ga Seebu e  RYOKOO-KAISHI-go\\ Taro nom West goal trip-beginning-after \\ After Taro began his trip to the West *!*Murphy, Gregory L.  1991 Meaning and Concepts In The Psychology of Word Meanings ed by Paula J Schwanenflugel. Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum Meaning: semantic components of words Concepts: mental representations of coherent classes of entities. Putnam (1973, 1975, 1988): meanings are not necessarily in the head: certain lemons" could in actuality turn out to be oranges. glass snakes" are really a kind of lizard. Twin-Earth gold" Linguistic division of labor: we delegate some responsibility to experts Are there meanings to words in dead languages? Murhpy: let's look at what is in the head. Possibility 1: meanings are strictly internal to the linguistic system, they arenot part of general language of thought used to think about the world. Feature theory of meaning (e.g. Katz and Fodor 1963) But in order to relate words to real objects, we need to interpret each of the features.  But if we need an interpretation for each feature, why not allow the features to refer directly to the interpretations or concepts? Concepts with no corresponding meaning?  things to do at teh beach when it's raining"; children's prelinguistic concepts; meanings that involve more than one concept (democracy). Meanings are built out of concepts: word's meaning is constructed by mapping conepts onto the semantic component of the lexicon. How to account for the stability of meanings?  Language is a social convention. Barselou (1987, 1989): meanings (concepts) are not so stable.  Various according to person's knowledge, recent experience and current context. *!*Murphy, Gregory L and Jane M ANdrew. 1993.  The Conceptual Basis of Antonymy and Synonmy in Adjectives.  Journal of Memory and Language 32, 301-319. comparison with Miller et al. WordNet: anyonymy is relation of associations, not conceptualizalion (whereas synonymy is a conceptual relation) ascend/descend imply a certain elegance and control not in rise/fall. Adjectival interpretation differs depending on what N is modified: red hair, pen, book, orange The changing significance of the adj. is a produtive part of the intepretation processes." pg 306. Subjects were queried for antonym of adj in various contexts: found that subjects would provide different antonyms. Does the polysemy exist independently of the combination?  Are the various senses stored? Polsyemy view: interaction is a matter of selecting a previously existing sense, to whihc an antonym is already associated. Conceptual combination view: interpretation of hte adjective is modified when it is integrated with the N meaning.  Antonym is computed by following rule: \begin{quote Anyonyms are gradable adjectives that differ solely in one conceptual dimension, such as that the values of the two adjectives on that dimension are equal distances in opposite directions from a neutral point. {quote *!*Ninio, Anat. 1997. MS. Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity. Hewbrew University, Jeruselem Israel. to appear in Linguistics? presented at the 7th Int'l Congress for the Study of CHild Language, Istanbul, Turkey July 1996 Longitudinal languge of 15 Hebrew speaking children and 1 English speaking child were considered.  Also corss-sectional sample of 84 18 month old Hebrew speakers. Children learn SVO and VO patterns initally in an item by item way, with a long time lag between first and 2nd verbs. They soon begin transferring some more general and abstract

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

Quê hương