您好,欢迎访问三七文档
当前位置:首页 > 商业/管理/HR > 质量控制/管理 > An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar
COGNITIVESCIENCE10,l-40(1986)AnIntroductiontoCognitiveGrammarRONALDW.LANGACKERUniversityofCalifornia,SanDiegoCognitivegrammartakesanonstandardviewoflinguisticsemanticsandgrammaticalstructure.Meaningisequatedwithconceptualization.Semanticstructuresarecharacterizedrelativetocognitivedomains,andderivetheirvaluebyconstruingthecontentofthesedomainsinaspecificfashion.Gram-marisnotadistinctleveloflinguisticrepresentation,butreducesinsteadtothestructuringandsymbolizationofconceptualcontent.Allgrammaticalunitsaresymbolic:Basiccategories(e.g.,nounondverb)areheldtobenotionallydefinable,andgrammaticalrulesareanalyzedassymbolicunitsthatarebothcomplexondschematic.Theseconceptspermitarevealingaccountofgram-maticolcompositionwithnotabledescriptiveadvantages.Despitethediversityofcontemporarylinguistictheory,certainfundamentalviewsenjoyaroughconsensusandarewidelyacceptedwithoutseriousquestion.Pointsofgeneralagreementincludethefollowing:(a)languageisaself-containedsystemamenabletoalgorithmiccharacterization,withsuf-ficientautonomytobestudiedinessentialisolationfrombroadercognitiveconcerns;(b)grammar(syntaxinparticular)isanindependentaspectoflin-guisticstructuredistinctfrombothlexiconandsemantics;and(c)ifmean-ingfallswithinthepurviewoflinguisticanalysis,itisproperlydescribedbysometypeofformallogicbasedontruthconditions.Individualtheoristswoulddoubtlesslyqualifytheirassentinvariousways,but(a)-(c)certainlycomemuchcloserthantheirdenialstorepresentingmajorityopinion.Whatfollowsisaminorityreport.Since1976,Ihavebeendevelopingalinguistictheorythatdepartsquiteradicallyfromtheassumptionsofthecurrentlypredominantparadigm.Called“cognitivegrammar”(alias“spacegrammar”),thismodelassumesthatlanguageisneitherself-containednordescribablewithoutessentialreferencetocognitiveprocessing(regardlessofwhetheronepositsaspecialfacultddelangage).Grammaticalstructuresdonotconstituteanautonomousformalsystemorlevelofrepresentation:CorrespondenceandrequestsforreprintsshouldbesenttotheauthorattheDepart-mentofLinguistics,C-008,UniversityofCalifornia,SanDiego,LaJolla,CA92093.2LANGACKERTheyareclaimedinsteadtobeinherentlysymbolic,providingforthestruc-turingandconventionalsymbolizationofconceptualcontent.Lexicon,morphology,andsyntaxformacontinuumofsymbolicunits,dividedonlyarbitrarilyintoseparate‘components’-itisultimatelyaspointlesstoana-lyzegrammaticalunitswithoutreferencetotheirsemanticvalueastowriteadictionarywhichomitsthemeaningsofitslexicalitems.Moreover,afor-malsemanticsbasedontruthconditionsisdeemedinadequatefordescribingthemeaningoflinguisticexpressions.Onereasonisthatsemanticstructuresarecharacterizedrelativetoknowledgesystemswhosescopeisessentiallyopen-ended.Asecondisthattheirvaluereflectsnotonlythecontentofaconceivedsituation,butalsohowthiscontentisstructuredandconstrued.Intheconfinesofashortarticle,Icanneitherarticulatethisframe-workincarefuldetailnorpresentthefullrationaleforitsadoption.Myob-jectivesarenecessarilymorelimited:tomakeitsexistenceknowntoscholarswithoverlappingconcerns;toaffordanoverviewofitsbasicconceptsandorganizingassumptions;and,inrestrictedareas,togivesomebriefindica-tionofitsdescriptivepotential.Thediscussionisthereforeaimedatpresent-ingthesenotionsconcisely,notatofferingdefinitivejustificationorarguingagainstconceivablealternatives.Forextensiveexpositionandillustration,Irefertheinterestedreadertothefollowingworks:CasadandLangacker(1985),Hawkins(1984),Langacker(1982a,1982b,1984,1985,inpress),Lindner(1981,1982),Tuggy(1981),andVandeloise(1984).Cognitivescientistswillnotemanysimilaritiestotheirownconceptsandapproaches;Iwillnotattempttopointthemallout.Cognitivegrammardepartsfrommostvarietiesoftraditionalandformalsemantics,aswellasthenewer‘situationsemantics’ofBarwiseandPerry(1983),byequatingmean-ingwithconceptualization(orcognitiveprocessing).Itagreesinthisregardwiththe‘proceduralsemantics’ofMillerandJohnson-Laud(1976)andJohnson-Laird(1983)andthelinguistictheoriesofChafe(1970)andJack-endoff(1983),howeveritisquitedifferentfromalloftheseinitsconceptionofgrammaticalorganizationanditsspecificproposalsconcerningsemanticstructure.Althoughcognitivegrammarisnotadirectoutgrowthoravariantofanyotherlinguistictheory,Idoconsideritcompatiblewithavarietyofongoingresearchprograms.AmongtheseareworkofLakoff(inpress)andLakoffandJohnson(1980)oncategorizationandmetaphor,Fauconnier’s(1985)studyof‘mentalspaces’,Haiman’s(1980,1983)ideasoniconicityandencyclopedicsemantics,Talmy’s(1975,1977,1978,1983)researchonspatialtermsandrelatedproblems,theproposalsofMooreandCarling(1982)concerningthenonautonomyoflinguisticstructure,Fillmore’s(1982)conceptionofframesemantics,andthemultifacetedinvestigationsbyscholarsofthe‘functional’school,toonumeroustociteindividually(thoughGiven[1979,1984)mustcertainlybementioned).COGNITIVEGRAMMAR3LINGUISTICSEMANTICSMeaningisequatedwithconceptualization.Linguisticsemanticsmustthere-foreattemptthestructuralanalysisandexplicitdescriptionofabstracten-titieslikethoughtsandconcepts.Thetermconceptualizationisinterpretedquitebroadly:itencompasses
本文标题:An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar
链接地址:https://www.777doc.com/doc-6447481 .html