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


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.


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.


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.


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)


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)


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?


8/50


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


10/50


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.


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.


13/50

RAISING AND TRANSPARENCY

A Cognitive Grammar Analysis of


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].


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)


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)


17/50


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


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.


20/50


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.


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).


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.


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).


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?


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.


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


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.


29/50


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.


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)


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.


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)


34/50


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.


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.


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


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)


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


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.


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


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.


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


44/50

Ditransitive Construction + kick

Joe kicked Billthe ball.



KICK < kicker kicked>

Means

Role can be contributed by

construction (dashed line)


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.



SEND < sender send.goal sent >

Instance


46/50

*Ditransitive Construction + anger

*Joe angered Bob the pink slip.

("Joe gave Bob a pink slip, causing Bob to become angry.")



ANGER < angerer anger.goal >

Instance?

Means?

bl i i i


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.


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>


STEAL < thief target goods >

Instance?

Means?


49/50


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

constructional approaches to syntax

Documents