Tag Archives: Cognitive Linguistics

Perpetual Epicentral Density Sphere

Dandelion seeds (achenes) can be carried long ...

Image via Wikipedia

The Perpetual Epicentral Density Sphere is a unpublished model of cognition that I began developing in the late ninety’s and early years of 2000 as a result of my training in linguistics and anthropology.  I worked on it before I knew what Cognitive Linguistics actually was and, in fact, it was part of my conversion to CogLing.  With a nod to remix culture and assemblage theory, this model tried to blend together several validated models of discourse and culture in a super feeble attempt to bridge the epistemological gulf between realism and relativism and explain the complete communication picture in a systematic and procedurally elegant way (read: quasi-arbitrary).  This was the early days of my interest in systems theory, but I was really naive about the complexity of complexity.  Basically, the more that I worked on the model the more I came to see that Cognitive Linguistics already had working solutions to a lot of the questions I was addressing.  In fact, when I read back through my notes now, I see that it is actually a model of attention and dynamic construal.  I won’t tell you anything more about the mechanics right now, but I expect that one day I will pull it back off the shelf and show it to the world; in the mean time, here is an analogy from my original manuscript (part of which is in this book) for you to chew on:

“Pick the white puff of seeds on a dandelion clock, pick the stem and hold it in your hand, and meticulously and decidedly, remove every single floating seed, one-by-one until there is only one remaining.  This is what the first thought does when it moves to the second thought.  You have deselected every seed, ignored them all but one, the one you highlighted, the one you lit up – the one you selected.  This, the lone seed on the stem, a sphere at the base, the rod line of the seed body, and the end of the seed a circle of tiny white hairs that extend radially from the stem in many many directions, this seed is a snapshot. You are holding in your hand the most natural visible representation of how your thoughts live and travel.  Now put that last seed up to your mouth and do the wind’s job and send that seed floating.  Where it lands it either develops or dies, just like your thought.”

“If you can take a line of thought and follow it to every dead-end, out every open door and window, to every destination – and catch it resting – you will see simply and plain how lawless and unruly even simple thoughts are in their brief lives.”

You can view images from my portfolio that were inspired through this process at: RyanDewey.org

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Primitive Modals in Child Language (Hafta, Wanna, Gonna) As Functionally Equivalent to Auxiliary Modals

Modals represent a perspective of force in relation to the participatory elements of a construction.  In fact, they represent an encoding of force in the relation between subject, verb, and object.

Children acquire modals by way of constructions that employ notions of speaker attitudes like intention, volition, and compulsion (245, Tomasello: 2003), and the constructions that they use are form-meaning pairings of these attitudes to a class of non-modal verbs including: want, have, need, among others.  Through use of these constructions, children begin to use reduced forms to communicate their understanding of internal volition (wanna), external compulsion (hafta), internal compulsion (needta) where the verb is coupled with a reduced form of “to” (indicating direction toward) (246, Tomasello: 2003).

These quasi-modal constructions are aligned functionally with auxiliary modals which direct degrees of compulsion and force of purpose.  This is seen in the deontic modal function of hafta which equates with must (Tomasello, 262).  In a way, these can both be understood to represent a requirement on the part of the grammatical subject.

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sample Sentences Using Spradley’s Nine Semantic Relations from The Ethnographic Interview

Cover of "The Ethnographic Interview"

Cover of The Ethnographic Interview

I love James Spradley’s work on ethnographic interviews, componential analysis, taxonomic analysis, and participant observation, but Spradley’s work on semantic analysis has been the most thought-provoking for me theoretically.  Here I list out his nine semantic relationships and give some sample descriptive sentences to show you how the semantic relation describes the two elements in the relationship.  I have to say, however, that none of these sentences are very natural in a natural language kind of way.  In fact, the one concern that I have with Spradley’s view of semantics (from my usage-based cognitive view of language) is that it does not adequately lend itself to a straightforward modeling of the semantics of a natural language sentence.  Instead, if you want to use this for natural language, it has to be on a propositional level.

These semantics are best for modeling culture and the dynamics of a culture.  After all, they were drawn up in a methodology for ethnography.  In the sentences I present below you will find that they have a rigid and non-human sound to them; in fact, I think (and this is my opinion), that if you want to use Spradley’s semantics for anything other than modeling culture, that they are best used in formal system modeling, such as an expert system. Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Correction about the Goldberg Book in CogLing 100 book list…

I got a comment today on the CogLing 100 Book List page from a person with a slightly suspicious email address that I didn’t want to publish, but the content of the comment was very appropriate and I wanted to post that comment content and my response:

Hi,

Great list! It’s very balanced across different approaches and viewpoints.

I just wanted to point out a few corrections:

1. Lexical Semantics (#8) was written by Cruse, not Croft.
2. Adele Goldberg did not write a book called Cognitive Linguistics (#17). I think you mean Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure.
3. Taylor’s Linguistic Categorization is listed twice (#19 and #57).

Also, I think Croft’s Radical Construction Grammar should be on this list.

My response:

Thank you! I did some of this list from memory, which explains the Croft/Cruse mix-up…also, according to Routledge.com, Adele Goldberg is the editor for a series volume called Cognitive Linguistics [http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415574938/] due out June 2011. Although I haven’t read it, I included it because the length of the book suggests that it will be a definitive work…not to mention the fact that it is full of primary readings from major theorists in CogLing.

Thanks for catching the duplicate Taylor entry, I changed #57 to the Goldberg book you suggested.

As for Croft’s Radical Construction Grammar, I have added it as #101.

Thanks for helping me make these corrections!

– R

Tagged , , , ,

My Analysis of the Blend in “My Karma Ran Over My Dogma”

So I wanted to share my analysis of a blend that occurs on a bumper sticker.  This is a past homework assignment of mine, so keep that in mind as you read it. Anyway, it is not a complete blending analysis, but it was sufficient to cover the basics.  Enjoy.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CogDef #1 (cognitive definitions)

I have several friends who are strict Generativists/Formalists and I want to start a little series that summarizes information about topics that sometimes get muddled up in cross-theoretical discussions.  This is the first in the series.

In the Cognitive Enterprise semantics drives the modeling in grammar (which is why it is a functional model). Grammar does not strictly mean syntax, as formal theories assume, but entails the entire package of language. Here is how we break down the approaches to semantics and syntax:

  1. Cognitive Semantics is used as a lens to view the conceptual structure and conceptualization
  2. Cognitive Grammar is used to view the cognitive principles that give rise to linguistic orientation
  3. Construction Grammar is used to view the units that emerge from cognitive semantics & comprise the grammar.

Going back through Evans & Green I found that I had written these definitions in the margin of page 49, hopefully they are clear.

Bibliography

Evans. V. & Green. M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics, an introduction, LEA

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cognitive Mindfulness #14

This comes from the introduction to a book edited by Dirk Geeraerts:

If conceptual perspectivization is the central function of a grammar, the typical formal categories of grammatical description (like word classes or inflection) will have to be reinterpreted from a semantic point of view. [7 Geeraerts, 2006]

It made me think twice…especially since syntax has been the normal focus of grammar in the last 50-70 years; a meaning based grammar makes a lot more sense to me than a rewrite rule based grammar.

Bibliography:

Geeraerts, Dirk, editor, (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, Mouton de Gruyter

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cognitive Mindfulness #12

We face the future; the past is behind us.

In English we talk about the future being ahead of us, forward in time, in front of us, what lies ahead, what is to come, what we are facing, what our week looks like, what we see approaching.

We talk about the past as being behind us, something that we look back on, something we have passed through (and as such is behind us), what our year looked like.

This is the way that we use our body and our experience to shape our understanding of the sequence of events in our life, to make sense out of TIME in terms of SPACE. Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,