1/22 where is the counterintuitive agent in judaism? tamás biró aclc, university of amsterdam...

1/22

Where is the counterintuitive agent in Judaism?

Tamás Biró

ACLC,University of Amsterdam

Groningen Centre for Religion & Cognition

Summer Course in Culture and CognitionCEU, Budapest, Hungary, July 6, 2007

2/22Tamás BIRÓ

E. Thomas Lawson & Robert N. McCauley

Lawson & McCauley, 1990.: Rethinking Religion, Connecting Cognition and Culture– Foundations of the Cognitive Science of Religion– Model of rituals, based on Chomskyan syntax

McCauley & Lawson, 2002: Bringing Ritual to Mind, Psychological Foundations of Cultural Forms– Which predicts better the arousal connected to

rituals? Ritual form (L&McC, 1990) or frequency (Whitehouse, 1995)?


3/22Tamás BIRÓ

The fate of a scientific model

Prediction corroboration/falsification/improvement

Can L&McC 1990 / McC&L 2002 be applied to Judaism?

… I am afraid: not very much Open question: what about other religions?

Fritz Staal’s ritual structures; Mikhail on UMG


4/22Tamás BIRÓ

Overview

Introduction to / own reading of / elaboration on Lawson&McCauley’s model of ritual form– Back to the linguistic model– Introducing new roles, new structures, negation

L&McC: Implementation to religious rituals Implementation to Judaism


5/22Tamás BIRÓ

Linguistics: syntax–semantics interface

John broke the window.

The hammer broke the window.

The window was broken by John.

The window was broken by the hammer.

The window broke.


6/22Tamás BIRÓ


subject verb object by-phrase





The window broke.


7/22Tamás BIRÓ


subject verb object by-phrase





The window broke.


8/22Tamás BIRÓ

Thematic roles (Theta-roles)

Semantic arguments of the action:– Agent: (“logical subject”)– Patient: (“logical direct object”)– Instrument

Further semantic roles:– Recipient: (“logical indirect/dative object”; L&McC p125)– Location, time– Experiencer– Etc.


9/22Tamás BIRÓ

Frequent confusion: ontological categories – thematic roles

human

(incl. CIA)

agent

natural force agentive categories

agentive roles

natural force

animalpatient

plant recipientlocation

artefactnatural object

instrument


10/22Tamás BIRÓ

Thematic roles for action representation

So far: linguistic arguments to introduce them (arguments from specific languages and from cross-linguistic comparison).

My hypothesis: Linguistic observations reflect a deeper cognitive phenomenon: the mental representation of actions and states-of-affair in the world.

Need to be demonstrated even beyond religion.


11/22Tamás BIRÓ

Axioms of Human Cognition 1

Axiom AHC 1:

(1a) (Object Agency Filter) Agentive roles can be filled only by (some!) agentive categories.

(1a’) Only agentive categories can bring about changes in the world.

(1b) (Agent Overdetection) Agentive roles are preferably filled by ontological agents (humans and CIAs, but not by natural forces).


12/22Tamás BIRÓ

Action representation formalism

(Lawson&McCauley, mixture of different linguistic formalisms.)


J o hn

agent

broke

A

the wi ndow

patient

A C T I O N


13/22Tamás BIRÓ

Axioms of Human Cognition 2

The hammer broke the window.The window was broken by the hammer.John broke the window using the hammer.

Axiom AHC 2:

(2a) Agentive categories being able to perform action X can enable other categories to act as instrument, or as secondary agents in performing action X.(2b) Otherwise, non-agentive categories cannot act as instruments.


14/22Tamás BIRÓ

Action representation formalism


The hammer

instrument

enabled by...

Quality

agent

br oke

A

the window

patient

A C T I O N


15/22Tamás BIRÓ

Enabling an instrument

Presupposition (explicit or implicit):

The hammer was moved:

– by John (an agent)– by folk-gravitation (an agentive natural force)– by a robot: an object acting as a secondary agent

Because the robot was – designed by a human (an agent)– activated by folk-electricity (an agentive natural force)


16/22Tamás BIRÓ

Enabling an instrument

The hammer moved by John broke the window.

J ohn

agent

mov ed

A

the hammer

patient

A C T I O N The hammer

instrument

agent

br oke

A

the window

patient

A C T I O N


17/22Tamás BIRÓ

Lawson & McCauley on religious rituals

– Religious ritual if and only if at least one slot is filled by a counterintuitive agent (CIA)…

– …or an agent/instrument enabled by a CIA.– The shortest chain of enabling counts (PSI).– “Special agent rituals” vs. others (PSA).– Balanced ritual systems need both.– Tedium if no special agent rituals.


18/22Tamás BIRÓ

Application to post-Temple Judaism

Special agent rituals in Judaism?– Circumcision?– Bar mitzvah?– Wedding?

Special patient rituals?– Ritual bath?

What about most commandments?– Positive vs. negative commandments


19/22Tamás BIRÓ

New thematic relations + negation

Presupposed enabling action:

Cf: Mum told us to take a coat whenever it’s cold.

C I Arabbi s

tradi ti on

agent

commanded

A

any X that i s ...

agent

Y / not Y

action

any I , T, L that i s ...

ins trumenttime

location

propos ition

A C T I O N


20/22Tamás BIRÓ

Co-indexing and predication

Don’t light fire on Shabbat!

C I A

agent

commanded

A

any J ew

agent

not l i ght

action

any fi re

patient

any s habbat

time

propos ition

A C T I O N

M os he

J ewi sh

Quality

agent

not l i ght

A

the l amp

patient

tomorrow

time

A C T I O N


21/22Tamás BIRÓ

Summary

An overview of Lawson & McCauley 1990 from a different perspective:– Thematic roles as elements of action

representation system.– Axioms of cognition

Implementing L & McC 1990 to Judaism: need to improve the model (what about other religions?)

– New thematic roles– Negation, co-indexing…

22/22

Thank you

for your attention!

Tamás Biró

http://www.birot.hu

Download this presentation from the Archive for Religion & Cognition:

http://www.csr-arc.com

1/22 where is the counterintuitive agent in judaism? tamás biró aclc, university of amsterdam...

Documents