cognitive lexical semantics

7/27/2019 Cognitive Lexical Semantics

1/168


2/168

Outline

PART I (Introduction)- Traditional lexical semantics

- Cognitive semantics (prototypes, conceptualisation,metaphors, conceptual spaces and frames)

PART II

- Lexical classes and cognitive abilities

PART III

- Simultaneity constructions (while, as)


3/168

PART I

Introduction


4/168

Some (apparently) very simple questions involvingmeaning:

What is a cat?

What is beauty?

What is a red pen?

Is the Pope a bachelor?

How do we distinguish betweenmosquito net and butterfly net?


5/168

Traditionally:

lexical semantics

sentence semantics

text/discourse semantics

Two underlying assumptions:

it is possible to identify lexical items

it is possible to isolate lexical meanings


6/168

Some basic notions:

- homonymy (e.g. bank)

- polysemy (e.g. mouse)

- monosemy:

Theres some fruit in the bowl.

Theres a crack in the bowl.


7/168

Major approaches:

- Structural semantics- Semantic features

- Cognitive semantics

More recently also:

Interaction between

constructions and lexical items


8/168

Some naive conceptions about meaning

the meaning of an utterance consists of the sum of themeaning of its parts (the building block metaphor):

red pen

mosquito net

butterfly net


9/168

Referential theory of meaning:

a word means what it refers to (e.g. we maypoint to a cat to understand cat)

Some problems:

- abstract concepts (e.g. beauty)

- Hesperus and Phosphorus (different intensionsor senses but same extension or meaning, i.e.Venus), the British Prime Minister(differentextensions but same intension)


10/168

Ogden and Richards (1923) semiotic triangle

e.g. word meaning

sense


11/168

The systemic (i.e. NETWORK) nature of meaning

Words enter into various sense relationships with one another:

deictic verbs

Ok. Ill bringthe book tomorrow.

Ok. Ill takethe book back to the library tomorrow.

towards away

intransitive come gotransitive bring take


12/168

by chance willful act

longer duration see look (stare, gawk)

shorter duration glimpse glance

vision verbs (semantic field of vision)

Well come/go back to networks later!


13/168

Structual semantics (see Lyons)

Three major types of relationship:

synonymy hyponymy

oppositeness


14/168

Synonymy (same denotation)

unhappy/sad

present/gift

prisoner/convict


15/168

Context dependency:

pedigree animals

ancestry/genealogy/lineage [ln id] human beings

descent both

The {peel/skin} of the orange is thick.

The girls {skin/*peel} is sunburned.


16/168

Many synomyms differ in respect to their

connotations:

horse/steed/nag

cavallo/destriero/ronzino


17/168

Register, social and geographical variation

What do you call this?


18/168

toilet(BrE)

lavatory(BrE), lav(informal)

WC(BrE, used especially on signs in public places)

the gentsand the ladies (BrE, used forpublic conveniences)

loo(BrE informal)

bath/rest/washroom (AmE, cf. Italian bagno) = BrE toilet

john (AmE informal)


19/168

Hyponymy(i.e. category membership)

It may be problematic to identify the superordinate terms:

brother& sister< sibling(formal)uncle & aunt< ?

cow& bull< cow/cattle (collective)/bovine (technical)

human being& animal< animal(vs. vegetable, mineral)

fish

snapper trout bass [bs] sole salmon [ sm n]

chinook [( )t nuk] spring coho [ k h] king sockeye [ sk a]

hypernym

(co)hyponyms


20/168

Semantic networks

e.g. natural kind terms

attributes


21/168

But there are various problems with this model (apartfrom the obvious fact that not all information is easilyrepresented in hierarchical form):

(1) A cow is an animal.

(2) A cow is a mammal.

Reaction time is faster in (1) than in (2) even thoughanimal is higher in the hierarchy than mammal!

(3) A pine is a church.

(4) A pine is flower.

Reaction time is faster in (3) than in (4) even though theyare both equally untrue (relatedness effect).


22/168

(5) A robin is a bird.

(6) A penguin is a bird.

Reaction time is faster in (5) than in (6)even though both involve one semantic

link (prototypicality effect).


23/168


24/168

Complementarity

either X or Y, not bothnon gradable concepts

single vs. married

deadvs. alive

legalvs. illegal

asleep vs. awake

true vs. false

male vs. female

pregnantvs. not pregnant

on vs. off

pass vs. fail


25/168

However we can sometimes think of

intermediate cases:

divorced(cf. single vs. married)

hermaphrodite (cf. male vs. female)


26/168


27/168

The reference value is context dependent:

A small elephant is a large animal.

A large mouse is a small animal.

A warm beerand a coldcoffee may be the

same temperature.


28/168


29/168

With scalarpairs, one is usually

unmarked:

Howoldare you?

Howtallare you?

Context dependency:

in summer: Howhotis it?

in winter: Howcoldis it?


30/168

Converseness

relational opposites

verbs of transfer:

buy/sell, lend/borrow, give/receive

FRAMES


31/168

More examples

kinship terms and professional relationships:

husband/wife, brother/sister

teacher/student, employer/employee, host/guest, lawyer/client

time and space:

in front of/behind, outside/inside, north of/south of

Apparent cases of converseness:

ask/answer

command/obeyseek/find

try/succeed


32/168

What was often referred to as context

before can be related to what is also

traditionally called the syntagmatic axis:


33/168


34/168

Semantic features

(decompositional theories)

Semantic features are assumed to be

universal, part of our cognitive system.


35/168

Attempts have been made at reducing the

number of features to a few semantic

primitives, see e.g. Wierzbickas work.


36/168

But there are various problems with thesemodels.

For example, there are categories whichdo not have any obvious defining features

that are common to all their members, e.g.Wittgensteins (1958) game example(game is a category based on familyresemblance).


37/168


38/168


39/168

Further, many categories have fuzzy

boundaries. For many people it is unclear

whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable,

or both.


40/168

(from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#Fruit_or_vegetable.3F)


41/168

Cup, vase or bowl?


42/168


43/168

Semantic features or primitives might not

have linguistic counterparts (i.e. they might

be non-verbal).


44/168

Still, it seems likely that we (at least sometimes)represent the meanings of words ascombinations of semantic features.

For example, we remember better sentenceslike

Pat sold the wand to Harry

than

Pat gave the wand to Harry

Sellis more complex than give.


45/168

Cogntive semantics

1970s as a reaction against truth-

conditional semantics

research on prototypes (Rosch)


46/168

Prototypes

best example of a category: e.g. blackbirdvs.penguinfor the category bird. But notice that the prototype may

be abstract.


47/168


48/168

Category membership is culture-dependent:


49/168

More on prototypes

- not necessarily incompatible with

feature theories

- fuzzy boundaries

- family resemblance


50/168


51/168


52/168

Levels of categorization (e.g. furniture vs. chairvs. armchair)

In general, the closer an item is to the prototype, the easier weprocess it. Further, basic level categories are easier to learn andretrieve.


53/168

Prepositions(Lakoff 1987, Sandra and Rice 1995, Tyler &Evans 2001)

reconciliation between

monosemists, homonymists and

polysemists?


54/168


55/168

2)continuum between lexical items and

constructions (cf. kick the bucket)

Construction type Traditional name Examples

Complex and (mostly) schematic syntax noun verb noun (i.e. transitive construction),

adjective noun (i.e. noun phrase)

Complex and (mostly) specific idiom I love you,

black catComplex but bound morphology noun-s

Atomic and schematic word class verb, adjective, noun, pronoun

Atomic and specific word/lexicon love, black, cat,I,you


56/168

NB. On this view, plurals is actually a

schematic noun:

[[PLURAL]/[...s]]

semantic pole

phonological pole


57/168

Grammar and lexicon in Cognitive Grammar

(cf. Langacker 2008)


58/168

Different senses (lexical meanings)?

a. He sliced1

the bread.

b. Pat sliced2 the carrots into the salad.

c. Pat sliced3

Chris a piece of pie.

d. Pat sliced4

and diced his way to stardom.

e. Pat sliced5

the box open.


59/168

An alternative, constructionist solution(which minimizes lexical polysemy):

one lexical meaning vs. various different constructions

a. He sliced the bread.(transitive)

b. Pat sliced the carrots into the salad.(caused motion)

c. Pat sliced Chris a piece of pie.(ditransitive)

d. Pat sliced and diced his way to stardom.(way- construction)

d. Pat sliced the box open.(resultative)


60/168

a. b.

CAUSED MOTION CONSTRUCTION

Sem CAUSE-MOVE < cause goal theme >

PRED < >

Syn V SUBJ OBL OBJ

Sem CAUSE-MOVE < cause goal theme >

SLICE < slicer sliced >

Syn V SUBJ OBL OBJ

Construction Grammar(Goldberg 1995, 2006)


61/168

But is this sharp distinction always possible?


62/168

Some evidence (from resultative constructions):

(1) She named the baby *(Sally).(2) He cut the bread (thin).

(3) He painted the door (red).

(4) He wiped the table (clean).

(5) He talked himself hoarse.(6) He ran his sneakers threadbare.

(7) She ate herself healthy.


63/168

event (E) change (C)component component

(Sarah) (kissed) KEITH (the anxiety) (away from) (Keith)

Figure 25. The FCS forSarah kissed the anxiety away from Keith

S T

TH

P

FM

tr lm

m

Incidentally, RCs are probably motivated by the metaphor

ACTIONS ARE FORCES


64/168

Important assumptions in cognitive

semantics:

1) The embodied cognition thesis

2) Meaning as conceptualization


65/168

1) The relation between conceptual structureand the external world (embodiment)

a. Shes in love.

b. Shes slowly getting into shape.

c. She fell into depression.

The CONTAINER image schema is projectedonto the abstract conceptual domain of

STATES. (metaphorical mapping)


66/168

More on metaphors

Th f d t l t f l


67/168

The fundamental roots of language arefigurative (Carter 2004);

metaphors are everywhere;

metaphors are systematic and culture-specific;

to stress the fact that metaphors are notjust literary devices but are pervasive, theterm conceptual metaphoris now used;

metaphors can be described as mappingsfrom a source domain to a target domain.


68/168

TIME IS MONEY (culture-specific)

source domain: money

target domain: time

How do you spend your time?

Youre wasting my time.


69/168

These are conventionalised (also known

as dead) metaphors: we are notconsciously aware of the metaphorical

nature.


70/168

AN ARGUMENT IS A WAR

source domain: war

target domain: argument

She attacked every point in my argument.

She tried to buttress her argument.

He withdrew his offensive remarks.

I hit backat his criticisms.


71/168

AN ARGUMENT IS A JOURNEY

We have set out to prove that our theory iscorrect.

Should we move on to the next point?

We have arrived at a disturbing conclusion.


72/168

AN ARGUMENT IS A BUILDING

If you dont support your argument with

solid facts, its whole structure will collapse.

He showed her argument to be without

foundation.


73/168

AN ARGUMENT IS A CONTAINER

Im tired of yourempty arguments.

Your argument doesnt have muchcontent.

That argument has holes in it.

HAPPY IS UP SAD IS DOWN


74/168

HAPPY IS UP, SAD IS DOWN

Im feeling up.

That gives me a lift.

vs.

Im down/low.

My spirits sank.


75/168

Of course, UP is not always positive and

DOWN negative:

Hes screwed up.

Depth of understanding.


76/168

Conventionalised metaphors involving

upper body parts:


77/168


78/168

lean mapping highlighting specific

aspects of the target concept

rich mapping supplying a tangible

conceptual structure for abstract target

concepts


79/168

The mountains are sleeping.

Metaphor (personification): mountains

(target) are human beings (source)

but an alternative possibility is:

the mountains stands forthe peopleliving in the mountains


80/168


81/168

All hands on deck

used to say that everyone is needed tohelp in a particular situation

With only half an hour to get everythingready, it was all hands on deck.

Is all hands on deckjust a metonymicexpression?

M t i l b d ib d i


82/168

Metonymies can also be described as mappingsfrom a source to a target but they involve onecognitive domain while metaphors involve two.

Metonymies typically have a referential function(e.g. the White House stands for or givesmental access to the President of the US);

but they may have a highlighting function, as inIm all ears. (Remember that metaphors can alsohave a highlighting function; hence, some

researchers claim that metaphor and metonymyshould be seen as a cline of cognitiveoperations.)

Metaphor and metonymy have been used to


83/168

Metaphor and metonymy have been used toinvestigate the conceptual structure ofemotions(sadness, anger, disgust/hate, fear,

joy/happiness, desire/love).

Metaphors are also routinely used in science(e.g. when we speak of a computer virus) and

politics(e.g. when we say that a country is ill).

Metaphors are also used in linguistics:

e.g. complex expressions (red pen) are usuallyanalysed in terms of the BUILDING BLOCKmetaphor

B h BUILDING BLOCK h i


84/168

But the BUILDING BLOCK metaphor is

hardly correct, cf. ice cream, newspaper,

wheelchair.

An alternative metaphor for complex

expressions is the SCAFFOLDINGMETAPHOR (the constituents are merely

the scaffolding for the construction job at

hand).


85/168


86/168

2a) linguistic units as conceptualization

Morphemes, words (open-class and closedclass), constructions (e.g. active vs. passive) allhave meaning and refer to concepts in the mind(vs. objectivism).

However, such concepts relate to our interactionwith the external world (vs. subjectivism), cf.bachelorunmarried adult male.

Such concepts may be difficult to define (vs.dictionary view).

2b) enc clopedic meaming


87/168

2b) encyclopedic meaming

Words as points of access

Watch out jane, your husbands a right

bachelor!

(a) The child is safe.

(b) The beach is safe.


88/168

2c) meaning construction as

conceptualisation

The dynamic nature of meaning

construction has been explored in

Fauconnier and Turners Conceptual

Blending Theory (e.g. 2002).


89/168

Benetton family fancies a quick bite at Little Chef.

Italy's super-rich Benetton family has

made approach to buy Little Chef, thechain of roadside restaurants

Mental spaces are small concept al packets


90/168

Mental spaces are small conceptual packets

constructed as we think and talk, for purposes

of local understanding and action. [They]operate in working memory but are built up

partly by activating structures available from

long-term memory. (Fauconnier and Turner

2002: 40, 102)


91/168

AGENT: BenettonPROCESS: want to buy

PATIENT: Little Chef

input space 1

(buying space)


92/168

EXPERIENCER: hungry personPROCESS: fancy

PATIENT: food

input space 2

(eating space)


93/168


94/168

What triggers input space 2 (the eating


95/168

What triggers input space 2 (the eating

space)?

The name Little Chef.


96/168

Conceptual integration is quite a feat!

It is very difficult to spell out the various

conceptual operations we are so good atperforming quickly and unconsciously!

The blending approach differs from the


97/168

The blending approach differs from themetaphor/metonymy approach in that the former

uses mental spaces constructed during onlineprocessing while the latter operates with storedcognitive models (e.g. BUYING A COMPANY ISEATING).

That is, mental spaces are context-dependent.

Metaphor/metonymy involves unidirectional

mappings from source to target, while blending(typically) involves mappings from two inputspaces to the blended space.


98/168

The clipper ship Northern Light sailed in


99/168

The clipper ship Northern Lightsailed in

1853 from San Francisco to Boston in 76

days, 8 hours. That time was still thefastest on record in 1993, when a modern

catamaran, Great American II, set out on

the same course. A few days before thecatamaran reached Boston, observers

were able to say: at this point Great

American IIis 4.5 days ahead ofNorthern

Light.

Blending unlike metaphor theory


100/168

Blending, unlike metaphor theory,

underlines the importance of

context dependent, on-line

conceptualization (mental spaces are

different from cognitive models)

open-endedness (cf. red pen)

Blending is everywhere:


101/168

Blending is everywhere:

morphology:brunch

WASP (acronym with prop word)

jokes and riddles

What did the beach say when the tidecame in? Long time no sea.

Input 1: Input 2:


102/168

p p

THEME: sea/tide THEME: person A

PROCESS: move PROCESS: meet

GOAL: beach PATIENT: person B

CAUSE

AGENT: person A

PROCESS: sayRECIPIENT: person B

CREATED OBJECT:

Long time no see

C l i


103/168

Conclusion:

conceptualisation (dynamic, context dependent,

dependent on points of access)

continuum nature of linguistic units (seen asmeaningful)

embodiment


104/168

PART II

Cognitive abilities and lexical items


105/168

Cognitive linguistics vs. Chomskyan linguistics


106/168

g g y g

Chomskyan approach:

- Language Faculty independent of general cognitive abilities;

- modular (i.e. separate modules as e.g. in computer science);

- language as a lexicon (i.e. a store of words) + a grammar (i.e.

rules to combine words);

- minimalist (e.g. reduce stored forms to a minimum, as in the caseof regular plurals like house houses, which can be captured byrule).

Cognitive linguistics (in particularLangackers Cognitive Grammar):


107/168

- language is not independent of general cognition;

- language is not necessarily a (separate) module;

- language is a a structured inventory of conventional linguisticunits (e.g. it includes strings which can be derived by rule such as Ilove you, What are your doing tonight?, etc. importance ofconstructions);

- redundancy is part and parcel of the linguistic system (cf. rule/listfallacy);

- language is embodied (I take this as meaning: you can speak a

human language iff you are human).

Figure/ground organization:


108/168

Figure/ground organization:

a. Tom is near John.

b. John is near Tom.

c. The bike is near the house.

d. ?? The house is near the bike.

A

B

Sequential scanning (SEQ)


109/168

q g ( )

vs.

summary scanning (SUM):

- watching a ball fall (SEQ), as in a film

vs.

- looking at various positions of the ball at thesame time (SUM), as in a multiple exposure

picture


110/168

SUM vs SEQ used in grammar as well


111/168

SUM vs. SEQ used in grammar as well.

Problem: how do you define word classes

(i.e. how do you distinguish e.g. verbs

from nouns)?

Two approaches:

distributional

meaning-based

Distributional:


112/168

I _______ chocolate.

(love, hate, adore, dislike, etc. verbs)

My hair is very __________.

(long, short, etc. adjectives)

Meaning-based (i.e. semantic or notional


113/168

g (

definitions):

cf. what you are (were?) usually taught at

school, e.g. a noun refers to a thing or a

person

Obvious problem: beauty, love, happiness,

etc.

However, Cognitive Grammartakes the


114/168

, g

notional approach to word classes

seriously.

E.g. it defines a noun as a thing, which is a

technical term for a set of interconnectedentities (cf. team)

ENTITIES


115/168

The Cognitive Grammar analysis of word classes

PROCESSESATEMPORAL

RELATIONS

THINGS

STATIVE

RELATIONS

COMPLEX

ATEMPORAL

RELATIONS

RELATIONS

Schematic representations of things (a), relations (b) and processes (b)

e1 e2

a. thing b. relation c. process

Problem: how to distinguish notionally


116/168

Problem: how to distinguish notionally

between e.g. the verb enterand the

preposition into?

Intuitively, they are pretty similar (i.e.

something ends up in a place).

Langackers solution: we should appeal to

SUM vs. SEQ.


117/168

SPACE

ENTER

TIME

tr

lm


118/168

INTO

TIME

tr

lm

The rationale here is that differences in form mustl i l diff i i (i d


119/168

always imply differences in meaning (i.e. wordsbelonging to different classes must be represented

differently in terms of our cognitive abilities).

I call this semantic atomism: every form (in aconstruction) has meaning.

SUM vs. SEQ also used to distinguish between:

bare infinitives: She saw the ship sink. (SEQ)

to-infinitives: To eat chocolate is good for your health. (SUM)

-ingforms: She likes eatingchocolate. (SUM)

Intuitively, the distinction is sometimes


120/168

problematic (see e.g. Duffley 2005):

The woman strolling down the beach is mymother.

I found my little brothertearing my photo albumto pieces in my bedroom.

(We intuitively play the events of strolling and

tearing as motion pictures.)

Langacker himself is aware of the


121/168

g

somewhat speculative nature of his

analysis (1987: 235-254), see also (1999:223)

Nonetheless, Langacker (1987) defendshis analysis by claiming that SUM and

SEQ are needed in order to achieve

theory-internal coherence:

A hard-nosed linguist will doubtless ask for evidence to supportthese claims How can one prove that the conception of a process


122/168

these claims. How can one prove that the conception of a process(hence the meaning of every verb) requires sequential scanning[]? The request for justification is certainly legitimate, but we must

take some care that the form of the request does not embodymethodologically unreasonable expectations. In particular, onecannot reasonably expect or demand the existence of directempirical evidence that bears on this question alone considered inisolation from the overall descriptive context in which the analysis of

processes is embedded[emphasis ours]: I can no more substantiatethe claim that verbs imply sequential scanningdirectly, and without

regard to how the total descriptive system meshes together[emphasis ours]than the proponent of a more fashionable modelcan prove that movement rules leave traces without explicating thefunction of these constructs as part of a much larger theoretical anddescriptive framework. The absence of direct and conclusiveempirical support is unfortunate, but no linguistic theory can providesuch motivation for all its constructs taken individually. (Langacker1987: 253)

This position cannot be accepted: all


123/168

linguistically relevant cognitive abilities

postulated by Cognitive Grammar must besupported by (direct or indirect)

independent evidence, or at the very least

be in principle amenable to experimental

verification.

So far, no psycholinguistic evidence hasb id d hi h fi th


124/168

been provided which confirms theexistence ofSUM and SEQ.

E.g. Matlocks research (2004, 2005) onlyshows that mentally simulated motion is

involved in fictive motion processing (e.g.The path rises quickly near the top.)

But the question of how we actually do thishasnt been answered yet.

The postulation of SUM and SEQ may be an

i t f th t h t h f ll


125/168

instance of thepost hoc propter hocfallacy:

SEQ implies that an element X can be inflected

but we know that X involves SEQ because X can

be inflected.

And what about languages that have verbs not

inflected for tense? (Remember that

Langackers characterization is meant to beuniversal.)

The issue ofpsychological plausibility shouldb t k i l


126/168

be taken seriously.

Consider:

I may very well havebeenbeingfollowed.

In Langackers analysis, this sentence involvescyclical applications of SUM and SEQ:

(have (PERF4 (be1 (-ing(be2 (PERF3 (V)))))))

SEQSUMSEQSUMSEQSUMSEQ

But if much in grammar is accessed as a

it (li i ti h li ) th i d t


127/168

unit (linguistic holism), there is no need to

go through the generative procedureillustrated before.

Further, what we know about languagecomprehension and production casts

doubt on this analysis.

Lets suppose Langackers analysis capturescomprehension:


128/168

comprehension:

(have (PERF4 (be1 (-ing(be2 (PERF3 (V)))))))

How can followed(PERF3+ V) be scannedsummarily if we havent processed any of the

preceding material?

Followedcould be a simple past (and simplepast forms are taken to be scanned

sequentially).


129/168

What about language production?


130/168

g g p

It doesnt seem to the case that speakers

start out at the lowest level of

constituency, and then work their way up,

step by step, in the tree or hierarchy.

(E.g. the passive schema may be

activated relatively early on.)

We conclude that Langackers analysis islik l t b t


131/168

unlikely to be correct.

The postulation of SUM and SEQ may actuallyblur the distinction between:

language as an object of investigation on thepart of the professional linguist and

language as a cognitive representation in thespeakers mind (see e.g. Sandra and Rice 1995and Croft 1998).

We thus fully subscribe to Taylors (2002) view:


132/168

As was the case with vowels and consonants,there is an important sense in which thecategories of adjective and noun (and indeedthe other word classes) must be understood withrespect to the constructional schemas in which

they occur(Croft 1999). This is not to deny thepossibility of entertaining construction-independent characterizations of the word-classes, in terms of the nature of the conceptsthat the words designate, for example (Chapter

9). Ultimately, however, a word class emergesas a function of its role within a constructionalschema. (Taylor 2002: 563)


133/168

On the one hand, Cognitive Grammar is ai ti d l ( l T l 2003b)


134/168

semiotic model (see also Taylor 2003b)

where all elements are said to bemeaningful.

On the other, grammar is viewed asemergent: it emerges out of concreteforms which an individual is exposed toand can manipulate. ( usage-based

model, cf. construction grammars, see e.g.Goldberg 1995, 2006)

The usage-basedperspective doesnt


135/168

require maximum parcelling of meaning

(i.e. semantic atomism).

But if we dont accept SUM and SEQ, how

can we distinguish between e.g. enterandinto?

We should recognise the centrality of

di t ib ti l f t


136/168

distributional facts.

But the fact that enterand into are

distributionally different doesnt mean that

they are identical semantically (evenwithout recourse to SUM and SEQ):

into the cinema


137/168

She walked

a. disintegrated b. integrated

Schematic representation ofShe walked into the cinema

into enter

a. b.

The semantic poles ofinto and enter

Support for this analysis comes e.g. from


138/168

varieties where prepositions (not only into)

can be left unexpressed:

a. I needin the house.

b. And you wantintohis knickers, headded a little laugh to put Gerry at ease.

(BNC BN1 1071)

Some concluding remarks:

SUM and SEQ needed to achie e internal coherence ithin a


139/168

SUM and SEQ needed to achieve internal coherence within alexicalist, semantics-driven theory;

but we lack experimental support; further, the evidence we havedoesnt seem to support SUM and SEQ (at least as they are used inCognitive Grammar);

in order to develop a truly cognitive grammar, all allegedly

linguistically relevant cognitive abilities must be amenable toexperimental verification;

grammar as a semantics-driven model and grammar as a usage-based (corpus) model can coexist provided that lexical semantics isgrounded in constructions;

it is also conceivable that some structures

b i d ll d fi d i


140/168

cant be assigned a well-defined meaning

on their own:

[s]peakers do not necessarily make the

relevant generalizations, even if cleverlinguists can (Croft 1998: 168)


141/168

PART III

The lexical meaning of simultaneity

subordinators

Analysis of simultaneity as and while-clauses:


142/168

Analysis of simultaneity as and while clauses:

as and while are represented differently in our

mental lexicon, i.e. are associated with

different simultaneity constructional schemas;

different types of simultaneity clauses can be

recognised (they define a network);

Explicit coding of simultaneity


143/168

Various explicit devices can be used to codesimultaneity, i.e. total or partial temporal overlap,between two events:

(1)

a. An armed robber was mugged of his loot as hemade his getaway. (BNC)

b. She said that the pain was a little better after thepethidine she had been given and she was able torest quietly while she waited to be taken to theatre.(BNC)

c. When he was in the airforce he flew Tornado jets.(LDCE)

Simultaneity (or temporal) as and while-clauses

are often compatible with additional semantic


144/168

are often compatible with additional semantic

roles:

(2)

a. She kept her head down as she spotted the

newsmen. (BNC) [causality]

b. Schools in the north tend to be better

equipped, while those in the south are

relatively poor. (BNC) [contrast]

Very little research on simultaneity.

Dynamic (multiphase) and stative (monophase) events


145/168

Morris (1996):

temporality vs. pure causality depends on

multiphase event (see (3)) vs. monophase event (see (4))

(3) As she grew older,

(4)

a. As you are here

b. As you knowc. As he wore a red sweater

In fact, as-clauses do occur with monophase events:


146/168

(5) The wind whips round us as we stand on the seafront. (Morrall 2003:281)

(6) He says it in a whisper, with his eyes upon her, as she sits at thewindow bent over her work. (Waters 2002: 237)

(7) The company commander then moves in as Iman lies wounded andhelpless. (The Guardian, 24.11.2004, p.2)

(8) The bottle of Sylvaner from the cellar was cool and sweet. It remindedhim even more of Heidi. [] Her slow smile as she watched him. Thequivering strength of her grip as she held him to her. (Millar 2004: 197).

(9) a day after eight blinging pieces of jewellery were snatched from hisbedroom as he slept with his wife, Sharon, in their Buckinghamshire

mansion. (The Guardian, 24.11.2004, p.3)

(10) My pager went offas I was on the train on Nov. 3.

(www.suntimes.com/special_sections/ transplant/cst-nws-liverone26.html)


147/168

A genuine counterexample?


148/168

(14) As he was in the hospital, though, hisfamily, all the survivors from Sete, learned

that it was the Pirahs who had attacked

them (Everett 2008: 147)

monophase events are compatible with a temporalreading (contra Morris 1996, Silva 1991);


149/168

g ( , );

still, truly stative be examples seem very, very rare;

the availability of causality (alongside temporality) iscontext-dependent:

(15) An embarrassment of produce becomes available toCaroline as she walkstowards The Mothers Finest [].(Faber 2003: 22)

(16) Could it be Williams? she says as they walk upthe Rackham path together. (Faber 2003: 187)

If both as and while-clauses refer to temporaryconfigurations (hence, the impossibility of (17b)=(4b)),then why do we have the contrast in (17a)?


150/168

then why do we have the contrast in (17a)?

(17)a. {*As/While} you are here

b. {*As/*While} you know

Analysis of the first 443 pages (out of a total of 833) ofFabers novel The Crimson Petal and the White:

- 255 as-clauses vs. 64 while-clauses;

- while-clauses occur in contexts where either a

(relatively) long action is evoked or states/properties,expressed through the verb be (or a modal verb), areprofiled.


151/168


152/168

while-clauses (leisure): 131 examples

in the spoken language the use of the verb be is much more


153/168

in the spoken language, the use of the verb be is much morefrequent than in the written language (47.7% vs. 19.5%). By

contrast, the use of change verbs is approximately constant (20.3%spoken vs. 20.7% written);

the percentage of same subject cases is higher than in the writtendata, amounting to around 34% (also including 3ingcases).

as-clauses (leisure): 27 examples

in the spoken language, change verbs account for about 89% of thedata (24 tokens out of 27). One third of them are change-of-stateverbs and most change-of-place verbs (11 out of 18) are instancesofgo;

the percentage of same subject cases is higher than in the writtendata, amounting to around 63%.

Conclusions:


154/168

As-clauses often involve change verbs (especially in the

spoken language; but remember that stative verbs arealso possible).

While-clauses do not show a strong preference forchange verbs. They seem to evoke more stable/static

configurations (especially in the spoken language).

As-clauses show a stronger preference forsubjectidentity (i.e. the degree of semantic integration between

the as-event and the main event is stronger in as-clauses, see also Silva 1991 on this point).

Different lexical entries


155/168

Simultaneity while can occur with be, modals,and negated verbs:

Instead, he eats his sausage {while/*as}its still

warm.

Because I must do something{while/*as} I stillcan. [] (=(20))

Fat lot of use Id be to any girl {while/*as} Idont have a job. (BNC: FRR 572)

While and as are associated with two

diff t t ti l h


156/168

different constructional schemas:

Temporal while: [while NP VP]

Temporal as: [as NP VPchange]

That is, temporal as is more construction-dependent than while.

You could also say that, in lexical semantics

terms while evokes temporality (i e


157/168

terms, while evokes temporality (i.e.

susceptibility to change in the sense ofWilliams 2002) on its own (cf. also the noun

while) because, not relying on any specific verb

types, its temporal interpretation can be

detached from the construction in which itoccurs.

Temporal as, by contrast, needs a temporal

exponent by way of the VP it occurs with.

In other words, temporality cannot be retrieved

from the verb be, modals, and negated VPs if as


158/168

from the verb be, modals, and negated VPs ifas

is used.

But what about stative verbs (e.g. verbs of

posture) occurring with as?

Sit, stand, and lie, for example, have a high

degree of susceptibility to change (when they

apply to animate referents).

As-clauses construe path events.


159/168

as-clause

as-path event

main clause event(s)

Figure 1

The motion analogue of the conceptual notion of patheasily explains the emergence of the causal meaning for


160/168

easily explains the emergence of the causal meaning foras-clauses (i.e. our perception of objects and events is

made possible by motion itself).

The fact that the notion of path is not intrinsic to while-clauses accounts for their more static character and the

lack of purely causal while. While-clauses can becompared to the perception of external reality in theabsence of motion (e.g. when we look out of a window).

Further, immobility enhances the potential for anadversative construal. Hence, the contrastive meaning ofmany while-clauses.

Schematic variation in simultaneity as-clauses


161/168

A. The temporal expanse of the main clause and that ofthe as-clause are usually either comparable or thetemporal expanse of the as-clause contains that of themain clause:

(29) As she unfolded the pages this time, looking for thepicture of Harriet Shakespeare with her son, Jinnyshands were trembling.

(30) Once, as they were walkingdown St Martins Lanetogether [] she caught a glimpse of their ripplingreflection in a shop window. (Heller 2003: 118)

B. In some cases (e.g. news reports, especially headlines), bothevents are construed punctually:


162/168

(31) Five resign as police chiefs promise action agaisnt [sic] racism.

(The Wrap, 23.10.03)

(32) Tim Yeo became the latest senior Tory to rule himself out forthe leadership today as party heavyweights gave their support toMichael Howard, who is expected to announce his candidacy thisafternoon. (The Wrap, 30.10.03)

(33) Praise for management as postal voters reject strike (TheWrap, 18.09.03)

(34) Among the broadsheets, only the Independent chooses to leadwith something other than the Hutton inquiry, [] Washington

suffered a double blow in its plans for Iraq yesterday as France andGermany balkedat proposals for an international force, []. (TheWrap, 05.09.03)

C. Sometimes the temporal expanse of the mainclause is larger than that of the as-clause, whichcan be either punctual or extended:


163/168

can be either punctual or extended:

(35) The Telegraph highlights a row over theMission accomplished banner which hungbehind George Bush on May 1 as he declaredvictory from the USS Abraham Lincoln. (TheWrap, 30.10.03)

(36) The fog hung low on a brisk January dawnin 2001, as several dozen police agents silently

rolled into position in the rugged hills aroundMezzojuso, a sleepy town 40km south ofPalermo. (Time Magazine, 2004, no.36, p.50)

temporal extension of main clause event (e.g. resign)is equal to

temporal extension ofas-clause event (e.g.promise);


164/168

a.

b.

c.

p ( g p )

see (31)-(34) (e.g.Five resign as police promise action)

temporal extension of main clause event (e.g. hang)is larger than

see (36) (e.g. The fog hung low as the police rolled into

position)

temporal extension ofas-clause event (e.g. move);

temporal extension of main clause event (e.g. hang)

is greater than

see (35) (e.g.A banner hung behind him as he declaredvictory)

temporal extension ofas-clause event (e.g. declare);

Figure 2

The schemas in Figure 2 can be analysed as extensionsof Figure 1 obtained via the principle offamily


165/168

resemblance.

The schema in Figure 2a arises from the compression ofthe path arrow of Figure 1 into a single time point. [N.B.The temporal equivalence between main clause and as-clause is construed. In objective time, the event of e.g.promising is antecedent to that of resigning (as well asthe cause for the latter).]

Figure 2b involves temporal compression andfigure-

ground reversal: The backgrounding functionprototypically assigned to the as-clause is carried out bythe main clause. Figure 2c only involves figure-groundreversal.

Conclusion

As and while-clauses are not identical despite what is usually reported indictionaries (see entry below from Longman Dictionary of Contemporary


166/168

( y g y p yEnglish, CD-Version; observe that the examples are all path events!):

4 while or when

I saw Peter as I was getting off the bus.

As time passed, things seemed to get worse.

Just as the two men were leaving, a message arrived.

As and while-clauses form a simultaneity network:

as-clauses code path events. Unlike while-clauses, they are not compatiblewith stative be, modals or negated VPs because temporality could nototherwise be retrieved;

while-clauses are more stative than as-clauses: change verbs are notpeculiar to them. By considering while as a default temporal subordinator,

we can motivate its wider use compared to as; at least two more types ofas-clause (see Figure 2a and Figures 2b-c) have

been recognised (alongside the prototype in Figure 1), depending on therelation between the construed temporal expansions of the as and mainclause events.


167/168


168/168

Grazie!

cognitive lexical semantics

Documents