Power points at tuggyd. Crash Course in CG—Review A language is a structured inventory of...

Power points at

www.sil.org/~tuggyd

Crash Course in CG—Review

A language isa structured

inventoryof conventional

linguisticunits

Review

Association: two concepts coocur together in the mind.

Correspondence: two concepts are taken to be the same.

A B

Review

A - - B = Partial schematicity: A and B are similar but not identical.

A B

Review

A B = Full schematicity: B is a (kind of) A.

We are wired to like it when we find schematicity, especially full schematicity.

A B

Review

Concepts typically occur in very complex categories, describable as networks of schematic and partially-schematic relationships.These are ubiquitous in language

P

b

a

h i

e

f

j k

d

c

E1E2 E4

E3

E

E5

g

E6

Review

You have a classical category when the prototype (most prominent member) and highest schema coincide.

But most categories are not classical.

Schema

Mass of subcases none exceptionally

prominent

Review

Semantic structures feature a profile which stands out as figure against a base (cognitive background).

The base is encyclopedic: it contains everything conventionally known about the profiled entity.

Review

Profiles can be classified into categories somewhat similar to traditional parts of speech: Things, Processes, Atemporal Relations. (= Nominal entities, Verbal entities, adj/adv/adpositions).

Syntactic Structures: Valence

Let’s talk about what happens when symbols are joined together.

We already pointed the way in discussing the example of FIRE TRUCK.

The only thing that shows up in all valences (= all types of joinings) is that there is at least one correspondence between a subpart of one symbol’s semantic pole and a subpart of the other’s.

Valence: Correspondence

The profiled Thing of FIRE links to a peripheral (far-fetched) subpart of TRUCK. The profiled Thing of TRUCK links to a peripheral part of FIRE.

can destroy buildings, kill

people

can be quenched, usu.

with water

used to burn garbage and other

undesirables

needs fuelwood, paper,

gases, oil, etc.

produces light, used for lighting

turns the fuel into ash and smoke

etc.used to heat,

especially to cook

hurts if touches your

body

different kinds adapted to

different usages

used to transport heavy loads

has a driver, perhaps others

also riding tires

motor

etc.dangerous to crash with because heavy,

cumbersome

firemenwater water firemenfire


The fire-fighting scenario, peripheral to both meanings, links between them.

As is typical, there is more than just correspondence.


people


with water


undesirables


gases, oil, etc.



etc.used to heat,

especially to cook


body


different usages



also riding tires

motor


cumbersome



It is somewhat atypical (though by no means really rare) that only peripheral elements are linked in this case, however.


people


with water


undesirables


gases, oil, etc.



etc.used to heat,

especially to cook


body


different usages



also riding tires

motor


cumbersome



More typically the profile of one element is put in correspondence with a very central part of the other.

In the most typical case, it is the profile of a Thing that is put into correspondence with one of the participants in a Relation.


For instance, consider the phrase (THE) LAMP

ABOVE (THE) TABLE.ABOVE we have already characterized.

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ical

Subj

Obj

ə̍bəv

Valence: Correspondence(THE) LAMP is put in correspondence with the (internal) Subject of above.

This makes it its (external) subject.

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ical

Subj

Obj

ə̍bəvðə̍læmp

Valence: Correspondence(THE) TABLE is put in correspondence with the (internal) Object of above.

This makes it its (external) object.

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ical

Subj

Obj

ə̍bəvðə̍læmp ðə̍te̡

Valence: CorrespondenceAlthough such “predicate-argument” correspondences are typical, they are by no means the only type.

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ical

Subj

Obj


Valence: Correspondence(Some syntactic theories have acted as if they were the only type.)

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ical

Subj

Obj


Valence: DependenceThe participants in the Relation ABOVE are only characterized schematically: one physical Thing is above another.

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ical

Subj

Obj


Valence: DependenceTHE LAMP and THE TABLE elaborate those schemas.

This configuration is also typical.

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ical

Subj

Obj


Valence: DependenceIn this case ABOVE is said to depend on THE LAMP and THE TABLE.

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ical

Subj

Obj


Valence: DependenceIt needs them; it is not complete without them.

We want to know what is ABOVE what.

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ical

Subj

Obj


Valence: DependenceThe schematic structure in one meaning which is elaborated by the other meaning is called an “elaboration site”.

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ical

Subj

Obj


Valence: DependenceElaboration sites (e-sites for short) are often cross-hatched in diagrams.

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ical

Subj

Obj


Valence: DependenceSo, the (internal) subject and object of ABOVE function, in this construction, as e-sites.

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ical

Subj

Obj


Valence: DependenceDependence is measured by two factors:

How prominent is the e-site?

How “schematically distant” from it is its elaboration?

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ical

Subj

Obj


Valence: DependenceThink of the e-site as a hole, and the elaboration a peg that fits into the hole, and fills it more or less completely.

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ical

Subj

Obj


Valence: DependenceDependence is measured by two factors:

How big/important is the hole?

How completely does the peg fill it?

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ical

Subj

Obj


Valence: DependenceSometimes there is no strong dependence.

(FIRE and TRUCK do not depend on each other in FIRETRUCK.)

Dependence often runs in both directions, with each member of a syntagmatic pair depending on the other.

But typically there is an imbalance, with one member more strongly dependent on the other than vice versa.

Valence: ReviewSo we have seen two factors in semantic valences:

Correspondence — there is always some correspondence between subpart(s) of one and of the other.

Dependence — Prototypically one depends on (needs) the other more than vice versa.

Valence: the Composite StructureThese relationships are “horizontal”, i.e. they hold between components of a complex structure.The overall result of the complex structure we will call the composite structure. The composite is typically “more than the sum of the parts”, and must be represented separately.Relations from the components to the composite we may call “vertical” relationships.

Valence: “Vertical” relationshipsIt will be obvious from the examples that there are vertical, as well as horizontal, correspondences.

(Dependence does not operate vertically.)

Valence: HeadshipThe third element of valence is headship.

It is a vertical, not a horizontal, relationship, having to do with with the relationship of the components to the composite.

Essentially, the component that contributes the most (and the most important) specifications to the composite is the head of the construction.

This is a product of Profile determinance coupled with Semantic weight.

Valence: Profile Determinance

The Profile Determinant is the component whose profile is adopted in the composite structure.

It can be recognized because it is schematic for the composite structure.

In FIRETRUCK, TRUCK is clearly the profile determinant.

(A FIRETRUCK is a TRUCK, not a FIRE.)

Valence: Profile Determinance

truck

house fire

different types adapted to

different uses

carries heavy loads

driver

motor

etc.

water

etc.

hotgives light

burns fues

water firemenfirefiremen

waterfiremen

carries firemen, ladders, hoses, water, etc. for combatting fires has siren,

loud horn, flashing

lights

colored red or other

bright color

Valence: Headship

In THE LAMP ABOVE THE TABLE, THE LAMP is profile determinant.

The composite is a lamp (which is above the table), not a table, nor a specific kind of ABOVE relationship.

Valence: Headship

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ical

Subj

Obj

oriented spacehorizontal

vert

ica

l

Valence: Headship

However, in THE LAMP IS ABOVE THE TABLE, IS ABOVE would be profile determinant.

The composite is not a lamp, nor a table, but a specific kind of IS ABOVE imperfective process.

Valence: Headship

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ical

Subj

Obj

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ica

l

Valence: Headship

Specifying the profile is the most central specification a component can contribute.

Usually, as in the two cases we have just seen, the profile determinant contributes a reasonable proportion of other specifications as well.

In such cases it is also semantic heavyweight, and thus clearly head.

Valence: Headship

Sometimes, however, a structure contributes nothing but the profile, and the other structure is relatively heavy.

E.g. in sensationally, -ly is profile determinant.

In collapsing, -ing is profile determinant.

In such cases, headship is less clear, and linguists argue about it.

Valence: Headship

It is not uncommon to have more than one profile determinant or head.

E.g. stir-fry

E.g. neighbor lady

It is also not terribly uncommon to have none.E.g. scarecrow

But prototypically one element clearly outranks the other(s) as head.

Valence: Headship

Headship is independent of dependenceEither the relatively dependent element may be head,

Or the relatively autonomous element may be.

We already saw this in the cases of THE LAMP ABOVE THE TABLE (where an autonomous element is head) vs. THE LAMP IS ABOVE THE TABLE, where the dependent element is head.

Valence: Headship

Popōkatepētl can mean two different things.

In both meanings tepētl ‘mountain’ is (external) subject of the verb popōka ‘it smokes’.

In both, popōka depends on tepētl, not vice versa.

smoke

heat/fire......

POPŌKA

hard to climb

change of climate, plants

wild animals

etc.peak

TEPĒTL

Valence: Headship

In one meaning, popōka is the profile determinant.

smoke

heat/fire......

POPŌKA

hard to climb


wild animals

etc.peak

TEPĒTL

smoke

......

POPŌKATEPĒTL

Valence: Headship

Popōka is a process, and so is popōka-tepētl; in fact a more specific versionof the sameprocess.

smoke

heat/fire......

POPŌKA

hard to climb


wild animals

etc.peak

TEPĒTL

smoke

......

POPŌKATEPĒTL

Valence: Headship

The schematicity relationship of course subsumes a number of correspondences.

smoke

heat/fire......

POPŌKA

hard to climb


wild animals

etc.peak

TEPĒTL

smoke

......

POPŌKATEPĒTL

Valence: Headship

Every specification of the schema must by definition cor-respond to something in the elaboration.

smoke

heat/fire......

POPŌKA

hard to climb


wild animals

etc.peak

TEPĒTL

smoke

......

POPŌKATEPĒTL

Valence: Headship

There is also correspondence from the non-head to part of the composite structure.

smoke

heat/fire......

POPŌKA

hard to climb


wild animals

etc.peak

TEPĒTL

smoke

......

POPŌKATEPĒTL

Valence: Headship

In the second meaning, it is tepētl that determines the profile of the composite structure. smoke

heat/fire......

POPŌKA

hard to climb


wild animals

etc.peak

TEPĒTL

smoke

......

POPŌKATEPĒTLPOPŌKATEPĒTL

Valence: Headship

Tepētl profiles a mountain, and the composite structure also profiles a quite specific mountain. smoke

heat/fire......

POPŌKA

hard to climb


wild animals

etc.peak

TEPĒTL

POPŌKATEPĒTL

Valence: Complements and modifiers

Where one element is clearly head, and one is clearly dependent, we can insightfully characterize two other important traditional notions.If the head is dependent on its companion, that companion is a complement, and you have a head-complement valence.This makes sense: the head by definition needs the complement, and the complement satisfies or completes that need.


If the head is relatively autonomous, and its companion depends on it, that companion is a modifier, and you have a head-modifier valence.

The modifier adds extra (likely very interesting, but not required) information.

The first meaning we saw for popōkatepētl is a head-complement construction.


The head means something smokes, and you want to know what.The complement supplies that infor-mation—it’s amountain.

smoke

heat/fire......

POPŌKA

hard to climb


wild animals

etc.peak

TEPĒTL

smoke

......

POPŌKATEPĒTL


The second meaning we saw for popōkatepētl is a head-modifier construction.


The head means a mountain.

You don’t im-mediately think to ask “What does it do?”

But the modifier tells youanyway.

smoke

heat/fire......

POPŌKA

hard to climb


wild animals

etc.peak

TEPĒTL

POPŌKATEPĒTL

Four elements of valence

We have named three elements of valence:Correspondence (horizontal and vertical)

Dependence (horizontal)

Headship (vertical)

A fourth element is constituency.

This comes into play when there are more than two constituents being joined.

It has to do with the order in which they are joined to each other (or separated in analysis).

Valence:Constituency

Given A, B, and C, you can first join A with B, then add C, or B with C and then add A, or all three together, or perhaps other possibilities.

This is traditionally expressed by brackets: [A B] C vs. A [B C] vs. [A B C], and so forth.

In traditional theories of grammar this was very important.

It was also fixed.


It was important that it be fixed, in at least some theories, because it was the basis for characterizing subjects vs. objects, etc.

A result of it being fixed was that when things were clearly not in the specified constituency, some sort of adjustment (“transformation”, “movement”) had to be posited to fix things up.


CG claims it is the most variable and least essential aspect of valence.(External) subjecthood and objecthood are defined on the basis of correspondence with the (internal) subject and object of a Relation; i.e. by what participant is most prominent and which is secondary (or tertiary, etc.)As long as those correspondences, and headship relations, are maintained, the order of assembly (/analysis) doesn’t matter all that much.


vert

ical


For instance, you can join ABOVE with THE TABLE to make a composite “prepositional phrase” structure:ABOVE THE TABLE.

oriented space

horizontalve

rtic

al


vert

ical


THE LAMP would then be joined to it, to make a composite noun-modifier structure.This is the traditional analysis.CG says it is perfectly possible, and there are even reasons to treat it as the default.

oriented space

horizontalve

rtic

al


vert

ical


But it is not the only possible one.

It also works to first join THE LAMP to ABOVE, then add in THE TABLE.


vert

ical

oriented space

horizontalve

rtic

al


vert

ical


vert

ica

l

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ica

l


The same overall composite structure is produced by eitherconsti-tuency.

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ical


vert

ical

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ical


vert

ical


It is also produced by the tripartite “all-at-once” constituency we saw first.

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ica

l


vert

ica

l


The meanings are not identical, but they are close enough for differences to pass un-noticedfor mostpurposes.


vert

ica

l

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ica

l

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ical


vert

ical

oriented space

horizontal

vert

ical


vert

ical


This proves true in many other cases.

Using different constituencies seems to be one of the common ways we differ from one another or from one occasion to another, in our speech.

Sometimes slight timing or intonational differences will signal a change of constituency—CG allows the analysis to be responsive to such subtle clues.

Grounding

Another HUGE topic I cannot pass by without mentioning:

Languages provide many ways to link semantic structures to the “Ground”, i.e. the Speaker and Hearer and the knowledge they share.

Thing entities when grounded are called “Nominals” (=“NP” in older traditions.)

Grounded processual entities are called “Verbals” (= “VP” or “S”.)

GroundingNominal grounding elements include definite and indefinite articles, demonstratives, possessives, certain kinds of quantifiers, etc.Pronouns and proper names are (by definition) already grounded.Verbals often require that their participants (usually nominal) be grounded, i.e. they require Nominal participants.Apart from participant grounding, verbal grounding focuses on the time specification of the profiled Process.Verbal grounding forms include (especially) tense and modal specifications.

A family of constructions

Just to give a picture of how complex structures fit into a network of categories, I would like to take an example in Nawatl.

The word mowan is a combination of mo- ‘you’ + -wan ‘with’. It is a doubly dependent structure, with each member depending strongly on the other.

The composite structure means, essentially, ‘with you’.


(I will be ignoring the polysemy of -wan, though it does have other meanings.)

Here is a diagram of mowan(I’m using the following representation for the Speech Situation: Speaker communicating with Hearer.)

S H


Mowan can be more compactly represented as in the second diagram.

YOU WITH

WITH YOU

mo wan

ˈmowan

=space (and other domains?)

mo wan

ˈmowanS H

close vicinity

of the object

close vicinity

of the Hearer

S Hsemantic

space

phonological space


Mopan means “on you” (ignoring a lot of polysemy here).

YOU WITH

WITH YOU

mo wan

ˈmowan

=space (and other domains?)

mo wan

ˈmowanS H

close vicinity

of the object

close vicinity

of the Hearer

S Hsemantic

space

phonological spacespace

mo pan

ˈmopanS H vert

ical

S Hsemantic

space

phonological space

vert

ical = YOU ON

ON YOU

mo pan

ˈmopan


Comparing the two naturally gives rise to a schema (mo-P) subsuming them.

This schema also sanctions quite a few other well- established structures (motech, monāwak, etc.)

YOU WITH

WITH YOU

mo wan

ˈmowan YOU ON

ON YOU

mo pan

ˈmopan

YOU ATEMP RELN

ATEMP RELN TO YOU

mo …

ˈmo…

YOU AT

AT YOU

mo teč

ˈmoteč

YOU INSIDE

INSIDE YOU

mo ihtik

ˈmoihtik

YOU NEAR

NEAR YOU

mo nāwak

mo̍nāwak

ETC.


It may also sanction a very few non-established structures: e.g. ?mo-tzallan ‘between you’, i.e. ‘between your feet/legs’.

YOU WITH

WITH YOU

mo wan

ˈmowan YOU ON

ON YOU

mo pan

ˈmopan

YOU ATEMP RELN

ATEMP RELN TO YOU

mo …

ˈmo…

YOU AT

AT YOU

mo teč

ˈmoteč

YOU INSIDE

INSIDE YOU

mo ihtik

ˈmoihtik

YOU NEAR

NEAR YOU

mo nāwak

mo̍nāwak

YOU BETWEEN

BETWEEN YOU

mo āllān

mo̍ āllān

??ETC.


Returning to mowan ‘with you’, there are a bunch of related structures like towan ‘with us’, nowan ‘with me’, amowan ‘with you pl.’, and īwan ‘with him/her/it’.

YOU WITH

WITH YOU

mo wan

ˈmowan ME WITH

WITH ME

no wan

ˈnowan

3rd ps WITH

WITH 3rdps

ī wan

ī̍wan

US WITH

WITH US

to wan

ˈtowan

ETC.


These structures are naturally compared with each other.

Doing so gives rise to a schema, PnObj-wan.

YOU WITH

WITH YOU

mo wan

ˈmowan ME WITH

WITH ME

no wan

ˈnowan

3rd ps WITH

WITH 3rdps

ī wan

ī̍wan

US WITH

WITH US

to wan

ˈtowan

ETC.

Pn WITH

WITH Pn

… wan

…̍..wan


In similar ways, no-P, to-P, ī-P and other similar “half-lexical” schemas are extracted from specific forms that are also learned.

YOU WITH

WITH YOU

mo wan

ˈmowan ME WITH

WITH ME

no wan

ˈnowan

3rd ps WITH

WITH 3rdps

ī wan

ī̍wan

US WITH

WITH US

to wan

ˈtowan

ETC.

Pn WITH

WITH Pn

… wan

…̍..wan


They are naturally compared among themselves and give rise to a PnObj-P schema. This is clearly a morphological or syntactic rule.

YOU WITH

WITH YOU

mo wan

ˈmowan

Pn ATEMPRln

ATEMP Rln Pn

… …

……

ETC.

YOU ATEMP RELN

ATEMP RELN TO YOU

mo …

ˈmo…

YOU AT

AT YOU

mo teč

ˈmoteč

ME ATEMP RELN

ATEMP RELN TO ME

no …

no…

US ATEMP RELN

ATEMP RELN TO US

to …

to…

3rd ps ATEMP RELN

ATEMP RELN TO 3rd ps

ī …

ī…

3rd ps AT

AT 3rd ps

ī teč

ī̍teč


Similarly, the PnObj-pan, PnObj-ihtik and PnObj-nāwak schemas are compared to each other.

The schema that gets extracted turns out to be the same as the PnObj-P schema that is extracted from no-P, mo-P et al.

None of this means that the specific fully lexical combinations are forgotten or expunged from the language.


There is ample reason to claim that they must be retained.

In particular, the form īwan is very exceptional in a number of ways.

It is among the most common words in the language, occurring hundreds of times more often than any of the other forms (which are by no means all equally common with each other.)


It also shows an impressive array of polysemous meanings, beyond those of other Pn-wan constructions.

These include a number which are not clearly subcases, but rather partial elaborations, of the Pn-wan schema.

Its most common meaning is ‘and’.

Many cases are ambiguous between an ‘and’ and a ‘with him/her/it’ meaning.


The PnObj-P family of constructions is part of a larger Obj-P family.

Some P’s take noun-stem objects besides or instead of Pn objects.

–wan does not,

-pan does,

-ko must

A family of constructionsIt does not work to simply have a rule Obj + P, a list of pronouns and noun stems, and a machine to mindlessly apply the potential objects to the prepositions.You will get a lot of really strange forms that way.

Just as one example, a rarely combined noun stem would show up as often as the extremely common prefix ī- ‘3rd person singular object’.You would get noun stems on postpositions that don’t like or even forbid them, and pronouns where they shouldn’t go.


The PnObj prefixes are actually polysemous / homonymous with possessor prefixes.

So whole families of Possr-N structures tie in.

Some postpositions are rather noun-like, and vice-versa.

By the time you are finished even a reasonably complete description of the Pn-P family of constructions, you have described a very significant chunk of Nawatl grammar.


Two final points:

1. The proliferation and exuberant interconnection of kinds of constructions really turns some people off. This seems more an esthetic than a defensible theoretical reaction, though some invoke simplicity as a theoretical argument, or supposed unlearnability.


Responses:Even if it’s ugly, it’s true. There are arguments for its necessity.

Remembering the immanence of schemas, the cloud metaphor (we are looking at droplets in the cloud, and of course it’s complicated!), etc., helps me see it as less onerous to learn, more beautiful, and so forth.


2. Half-lexical structures are hugely important. Traditionally linguists eschewed them in favor of a combination of lexical items + fully schematic rules.

Though in essence they admitted some as “case-frames”, etc.

If you needed to chose, I’d rather know the half-lexical structures of a language than lexical items and/or syntactic rules without them.

Fortunately, of course, it is not either/or: we have “all of the above”.

Power points at tuggyd. Crash Course in CG—Review A language is a structured inventory of...

Documents

Transcript of Power points at tuggyd. Crash Course in CG—Review A language is a structured inventory of...