Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Force-dynamic cultural models in a scalar adjectival construction The 5 th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Force-dynamic cultural models in a scalar adjectival construction The 5 th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference."— Presentation transcript:

1 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Force-dynamic cultural models in a scalar adjectival construction The 5 th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference Lancaster University 29-31 July, 2014

2 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Introduction Semantic coherence: The tatty furniture betrayed elegant lines, and the windows, too grimy to see through, stretched up ten feet. (COCA 2011 FIC Bk:NeverGentleman) They're too slow to catch a seal in open water. (COCA 2011 MAG NationalGeographic) If the making of a revolution is drama, punctuated with tragedies too numerous to count, making peace is long-form prose requiring iterations of conversation between people. (COCA 2011 MAG TechReview) More culturally based semantic coherence: I'm too young to get married. (COCA 2011 FIC Callaloo) I'm in a certain group that's almost too old to hire. (COCA 2011 NEWS Denver) Mr. Turman insisted he was too busy to meet at any other time. (COCA 2011 NEWS NYTimes)

3 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Introduction In discourse, do speakers use the [too ADJ to V]- construction in such a way that it is reflective of, or draws on, force-dynamic cultural models? Are corpus data and methods useful as a means of inferring cultural models from verbal behavior?

4 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Outline Theory Constructions Cultural models Data and method The [too ADJ to V]-construction Three examples of covarying collexemes in the construction Covarying collexemes in [too young to V] Covarying collexemes in [too polite to V] Covarying collexemes in [too busy to V] Including co-text and the current discourse space

5 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Constructions

6 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Usage-based construction grammar (e.g. Croft 2003, 2005; Tomasello 2003; Goldberg 2006) Construction: "an entrenched routine..., that is generally used in the speech community... and involves a pairing of form and meaning" (Croft 2005: 274)

7 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Cultural models

8 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Some 'typical' definitions Cultural models are "presupposed, taken for granted models of the world that are widely shared … by members of a society and that play an enormous role in their understanding of the world and their behavior in it” (Quinn & Holland 1987:4). Cultural models "provide scenarios or action plans for how to behave in some given situation or how to interpret the behavior of others in one or another situation" (Kronenfeld 2008: 69). Cultural models are behavior-mediating and -regulating "taken-for- granted patterns of ideas and practices" which are derived from previous experiences. Cultural models thus cover "cultural assumptions and meanings that are available in particular contexts" (Fryberg & Markus 2007: 215). "A cultural model is a cognitive schema that is intersubjectively shared by a social group" (D'Andrade 1987: 112).

9 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Cultural specificity and cognitive universality "Cognitive models are of course not universal but depend on the culture in which a person grows up and lives. The culture provides the background for all the situations that we have to experience in order to be able to form a cognitive model. A Russian or German may not have formed a cognitive model of cricket simply because it is not part of the culture of his own country to play that game. So, cognitive models for particular domains ultimately depend on so-called cultural models. In reverse, cultural models can be seen as cognitive models that are shared by people belonging to a social group or subgroup." (Ungerer & Schmid 2006: 51 - boldface in original) "On the continuum between the universal and the idiosynchratic lie the culturally derived schemata. Like the idiosynchratic ones, they are experientially developed. But they have in common with universal schemata a wider distribution. It is these cultural schemata, these socially-given perceptual modes, which operate to produce a recognizable "weltanschauung," or worldview. A theory which views comprehension as based on assimilation to mental schemata proceeds on the assumption that the cognitive processes involved are universal... It is certain kinds of component of schemata which are culturally specific." (Rice 1980: 154).

10 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Cultural specificity and cognitive universality "Essentially, cognitive models and cultural models are just two sides of the same coin. While the term 'cognitive model' stresses the psychological nature of these cognitive entities and allows for inter-individual differences, the term 'cultural model' emphasizes the uniting aspect of its being shared by many people. Although 'cognitive models' are related to cognitive linguistics and psycholinguistics while 'cultural models' belong to socio- linguistics and anthropological linguistics, researchers in all of these fields should be, and usually are, aware of both dimen- sions of their object of study." (Ungerer & Schmid 2006: 52)

11 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Force-dynamic cultural models are cultural models, of varying degree of complexity, which involve force-dynamic schemata and relations (for more on force-dynamics in language and cognition, see Johnson [1987: 42-48] and Talmy [2000: 409-549]).

12 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Force-dynamic cultural models are cultural models, of varying degree of complexity, which involve force-dynamic schemata and relations (for more on force-dynamics in language and cognition, see Johnson [1987: 42-48] and Talmy [2000: 409-549]). Examples: superstitions (which are often based on relations of causality), such as...

13 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Force-dynamic cultural models are cultural models, of varying degree of complexity, which involve force-dynamic schemata and relations (for more on force-dynamics in language and cognition, see Johnson [1987: 42-48] and Talmy [2000: 409-549]). Examples: superstitions (which are often based on relations of causality), such as... the belief that A BLACK CAT CAUSES BAD LUCK.

14 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Data and method

15 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) (Davies 2014) Time period: 1990-2012 Genres: spoken, fiction, magazines, newspapers, academic journals Size: 464,020,256 words Retrieval of [too ADJ to V] Primary verbs not included Non-instances weeded out 19525 instances Data

16 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Covarying collexeme analysis (Stefanowitsch & Gries 2004b, 2005) Variant of collostructional analysis (Stefanowitsch & Gries 2003, 2005; Gries & Stefanowitsch 2004a, 2004b) Basic principles Principle of semantic compatibility: “words can (or are likely to) occur with a given construction if (or to the degree that) their meanings are compatible” (Stefanowitsch & Gries 2005: 4) Principle of semantic coherence states that, “since a word in any slot of a construction must be compatible with the semantics provided by the construction for that slot, there should be an overall coherence among all slots” (Stefanowitsch & Gries 2005: 11). Gries (2007) was used to calculate collostruction strengths 10187 ADJ-V pairs established Method

17 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University The [too ADJ to V]-construction* *Based on Jensen (2013, 2014)

18 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Scalar adjectival construction: Adjectival construction: construction in which an adjectival element plays a semantically/functionally pivotal part. Scalar adjectival construction: adjectival construction which draws on the scalarity of gradable, or gradably construed, adjectives. General structure: [too ADJ]: Booster premodifier (Paradis 2000: 149) too specifies high degree of ADJ NESS ADJ-position: scalar ADJ NESS [to V]: proposition/scenario/event/state Implied force-dynamic relation between [too ADJ] and [to V], such that the scenario is force-dynamically dependent on degree of ADJ NESS (cf. Bergen & Binsted's [2004] notion of an implied pragmatic relationship). Variants (possibly subconstructions or more independent constructions): Two force-dynamically based variants: Prevention (implied force-dynamic relation based on BLOCKAGE [Johnson 1987: 46]) Enablement (implied force-dynamic relation based on ENABLEMENT [Johnson 1987: 47]) Three text/discourse-deictically based variants

19 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Table 1: Top 50 co-attracted collexemes RankADJVColl.strengthRankADJVColl.strength 1EARLYTELL1528.3843569816726HEAVYCARRY124.3755261225 2BIGFAIL1402.6778006816827EARLYSTART117.768042298989 3EARLYSAY673.74965147234728BRIGHTLOOK117.390507556761 4DARKSEE633.71228014726229EARLYJUDGE115.433514626678 5YOUNGREMEMBER531.61670893341930QUICKDISMISS114.717496452921 6GOODPASS472.13527502749731DRUNKDRIVE110.023133085789 7YOUNGUNDERSTAND382.36743093017532POORBUY109.593957847202 8LATESAVE347.58121489525933POORPAY107.296055875141 9POORAFFORD298.95384598804634YOUNGDIE104.082372063773 10NUMEROUSMENTION257.67822658458635NERVOUSEAT101.74693979917 11HOTHANDLE252.43907472069436WILLINGCOMPROMISE98.2819850184592 12YOUNGKNOW236.3478577460237HAPPYOBLIGE96.7323055289143 13NUMEROUSLIST196.97214894343938PROUDBEG94.4930655943287 14NUMEROUSCOUNT191.25862864158739GOODLAST93.4881306758162 15LATESTOP182.12797056358940LATEPREVENT90.9142499207819 16BIGFIT160.69610439152341EARLYDECLARE89.3289490607868 17LONGWAIT157.28115924408242PROUDADMIT89.3281331956656 18LATECHANGE148.37517342950843BUSYHATE85.9966045271147 19HEAVYLIFT142.09894741731644STUPIDKNOW85.8915891668518 20EARLYPREDICT139.51951868133545EARLYDRAW85.8044242609496 21EMBARRASSEDASK136.58453611985646OLDPLAY84.8966595204195 22HOTTOUCH136.10556288737647LARGEFIT84.6157631272607 23SHYASK132.64742640427948BUSYNOTICE84.3978141577957 24EARLYDETERMINE129.61526882268349EXCITEDSLEEP83.1571745295513 25COMPLICATEDEXPLAIN125.32099083900850LATESTART82.4649826421847

20 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Covarying collexemes of young in [too young to V]

21 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

22 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University VOTE (49.93990537)

23 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University DRIVE (22.68409458)

24 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University ENLIST (19.98820554)

25 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University TESTIFY (3.70316302)

26 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University MARRY (10.29361926)

27 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University DRINK (17.65245442)

28 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University DIE (104.0823721)

29 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University REMEMBER( 531.6167089) UNDERSTAND (382.3674309) KNOW (236.3478577) RECALL (38.87954057) REALIZE (20.50292109) COMPREHEND (11.61753256) RECOLLECT (6.051196951) GRASP (3.053685983) PROCESS (1.44497627)

30 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University REMEMBER( 531.6167089) UNDERSTAND (382.3674309) KNOW (236.3478577) RECALL (38.87954057) REALIZE (20.50292109) COMPREHEND (11.61753256) RECOLLECT (6.051196951) GRASP (3.053685983) PROCESS (1.44497627) APPRECIATE (23,4409880659) QUESTION (3,2651856734) EVALUATE (2,2845753382) WORRY (0,4668891661)

31 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Covarying collexemes of polite in [too polite to V]

32 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Table: 2: Collexemes of polite RankV-collexemeColl.strengthRankV-collexemeColl.strength 187POINT30.56722716415035343QUESTION4.74521109119079 689ASK15.68588433935495660PRESS4.33883183955905 1586ADD11.58276690455955885COMPLAIN4.00654115581295 1788DISAGREE10.95765723775185999EXPRESS3.86086299741675 1789INQUIRE10.95765723775186112CHALLENGE3.72620463388153 1790INTRUDE10.95765723775186405HANG3.37493993098503 1791MOB10.95765723775186462PROTEST3.27209380810244 1792PANHANDLE10.95765723775186550LAUGH3.17510464070332 1793PROD10.95765723775186607CUT3.08338600227585 2634SHOW9.223776637379377770ANSWER1.62749963798727 2675COMMENT9.084474799303148121TELL1.18680979036716 3341MENTION7.593084417163418416CALL0.847704293794656 3740SPIT7.155202561197458438HEAR0.831361544987574 3741STARE7.155202561197458568WALK0.697028011213217 4186SHUT6.483922220877318687LEAVE0.559520689139443 4451BARGAIN5.986895376206318711TURN0.537211747809936 4452INTERRUPT5.986895376206318944STOP0.320858221431116 4453LAUNCH5.986895376206319022USE0.247437918538486 5154END4.987548294507259057GIVE0.223994004176158 5342OBJECT4.745211091190799292SPEAK0.0459091639384382

33 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Table: 2: Collexemes of polite RankV-collexemeColl.strengthRankV-collexemeColl.strength 187POINT30.56722716415035343QUESTION4.74521109119079 689ASK15.68588433935495660PRESS4.33883183955905 1586ADD11.58276690455955885COMPLAIN4.00654115581295 1788DISAGREE10.95765723775185999EXPRESS3.86086299741675 1789INQUIRE10.95765723775186112CHALLENGE3.72620463388153 1790INTRUDE10.95765723775186405HANG3.37493993098503 1791MOB10.95765723775186462PROTEST3.27209380810244 1792PANHANDLE10.95765723775186550LAUGH3.17510464070332 1793PROD10.95765723775186607CUT3.08338600227585 2634SHOW9.223776637379377770ANSWER1.62749963798727 2675COMMENT9.084474799303148121TELL1.18680979036716 3341MENTION7.593084417163418416CALL0.847704293794656 3740SPIT7.155202561197458438HEAR0.831361544987574 3741STARE7.155202561197458568WALK0.697028011213217 4186SHUT6.483922220877318687LEAVE0.559520689139443 4451BARGAIN5.986895376206318711TURN0.537211747809936 4452INTERRUPT5.986895376206318944STOP0.320858221431116 4453LAUNCH5.986895376206319022USE0.247437918538486 5154END4.987548294507259057GIVE0.223994004176158 5342OBJECT4.745211091190799292SPEAK0.0459091639384382

34 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Table: 2: Collexemes of polite RankV-collexemeColl.strengthRankV-collexemeColl.strength 187POINT30.56722716415035343QUESTION4.74521109119079 689ASK15.68588433935495660PRESS4.33883183955905 1586ADD11.58276690455955885COMPLAIN4.00654115581295 1788DISAGREE10.95765723775185999EXPRESS3.86086299741675 1789INQUIRE10.95765723775186112CHALLENGE3.72620463388153 1790INTRUDE10.95765723775186405HANG3.37493993098503 1791MOB10.95765723775186462PROTEST3.27209380810244 1792PANHANDLE10.95765723775186550LAUGH3.17510464070332 1793PROD10.95765723775186607CUT3.08338600227585 2634SHOW9.223776637379377770ANSWER1.62749963798727 2675COMMENT9.084474799303148121TELL1.18680979036716 3341MENTION7.593084417163418416CALL0.847704293794656 3740SPIT7.155202561197458438HEAR0.831361544987574 3741STARE7.155202561197458568WALK0.697028011213217 4186SHUT6.483922220877318687LEAVE0.559520689139443 4451BARGAIN5.986895376206318711TURN0.537211747809936 4452INTERRUPT5.986895376206318944STOP0.320858221431116 4453LAUNCH5.986895376206319022USE0.247437918538486 5154END4.987548294507259057GIVE0.223994004176158 5342OBJECT4.745211091190799292SPEAK0.0459091639384382

35 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Covarying collexemes of busy in [too busy to V]

36 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

37 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University TALK (34.9331750227291) ATTEND (23.1190672003599) CHAT(14.2852074721406) ANSWER (9.10524774602001) MEET(8.30860501654914) VISIT (6.72980875859453) HANG (0.386885659655392) DISCUSS (0.279968757280103) SPEAK (0.0715854375353524) SEE (0.0317144087183965) PLAY (0.000372906165337764)

38 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Co-text and the current discourse space

39 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Co-text: "items in the text which accompany the item under discussion" (Catford 1965: 31fn2). Current discourse space: "the mental space comprising those elements and relations con- strued as being shared by the speaker and hearer as a basis for communication at a given moment in the flow of discourse" (Langacker 2001: 144)

40 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University They called them crazy when they started out. Said, 'Seventeen's too young to know what love's about.' (COCA 2011 SPOK NBC_TODAY) This couldn't be happening. Amanda was much too young to die. Why, she was only 16! (COCA 2001 FIC Listen)

41 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Can [too ADJ to V] be linked up with cultural models? It would seem so, as we saw potential evidence of the following cutural information surfacing in the usage of the construction: Relations of BLOCKAGE in a complex model of AGE A number of primarily verbal and interactional actions considered impolite in a model of POLITENESS. Social interaction appearing to be considered a primary sacrifice of BEING BUSY. Are corpus data and methods usable in the inference of cultural models? Yes... and this was already shown in Stefanowitch & Gries (2004b: 323-324). Only partial inference though. Corpus data would be useful addition to a triangulatory approach, combining methods used in cognitive anthropology and other cognitive sciences. Why make use of corpus data? Corpus documents verbal behavior in more or less natural surroundings, and cultural models are generally reflected in behavior - verbal and otherwise. Concluding remarks

42 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Bergen, B. K., & Binsted, K. (2004). The cognitive linguistics of scalar humor. In M. Achard, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp. 79-91). Chicago: Chicago University Press. Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press. Croft, W. A. (2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Günter Radden (pp. 49-68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Croft, W. A. (2005). Logical and typological arguments for radical construction grammar. In J. Östman (Ed.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 273-314). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. D’Andrade, R. G. (1987). A folk model of mind. In Dorothy Holland & Naomi Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 112- 148). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davies, M. (2014). Corpus.byu.edu. http://corpus.byu.edu/ Fryberg, S. A. & H. R. Markus (2007). Cultural models of education in American Indian, Asian American and European American contexts. Social Psychology of Education 10(2): 213-246. Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gries, S. Th. (2007). Coll.analysis 3.2: A program for R for Windows 2.x Gries, S. Th. & A. Stefanowitsch (2004). Covarying collexemes in the into-causative.In Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (Eds.), Language, Culture and Mind (pp.225-236). Stanford, CA: CSLI. Jensen, K. E. (2013). This construction is too hot to handle: A corpus study of an adjectival construction. Paper presented at 14th Annual Meeting of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association. Kyoto: September 21, 2013. Jensen, K. E. (2014). Too female to be ruthless and too pregnant to argue: Semantic conflict and resolution in the [too ADJ to V]-construction. Suvremena Lingvistika 40(77): 1-26. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Oxford: University of Chicago Press. Kronenfeld, D. (2008). Cultural models. Intercultural Pragmatics 5(1): 67-74. Langacker, R. W. (2001). Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2): 143–188. Paradis, C. (2000). It's well weird: Degree modifiers of adjectives revisited: The nineties. In J. M. Kirk (Ed.), Corpora galore: Analyses and techniques in describing English (pp. 147-160). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Quinn, N. & D. Holland (1987). Culture and cognition. In Dorothy Holland & Naomi Quinn (Eds.), Cultural Models in Language Thought (pp. 3- 40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rice, E.G. (1980). On cultural schemata. American Ethnologist 7(1): 152-171. Stefanowitsch, A. & S. Th. Gries (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 2-43. Stefanowitsch, A. & S. Th. Gries (2005). Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1-43. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Ungerer, F. & H.-J. Schmid (2006). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics, 2nd ed. London: Pearson-Longman. References


Download ppt "Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University Force-dynamic cultural models in a scalar adjectival construction The 5 th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google