ebook img

Discourse in Cognitive Grammar PDF

46 Pages·2.962 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Discourse in Cognitive Grammar

Discourse in Cognitive Grammar* RONALD W. LANGACKER Abstract Cognitive Grammar presupposes an inherent and intimate relation between linguistic structures and discourse. Linguistic units are abstracted from usage events, retaining as part of their value any recurring facet of the interactive and discourse context. Linguistic structures thus incorporate discourse expectations and are interpretable as instructions to modify the current discourse state. There are multiple channels of conceptualization and vocalization, including the symbolization of attentional framing by intona¬ tion groups. An expression is produced and understood with respect to a presupposed discourse context, which shapes and supports its interpreta¬ tion. Particular contextual applications of linguistic units become entrenched and conventionalized as new, augmented units. As discourse proceeds, conceptual structures are progressively built and modified in accordance with the semantic poles of the expressions employed. While initially mani¬ festing the specific conceptual structuring imposed by these expressions, the structures assembled undergo consolidation to reflect the intrinsic conceptual organization of the situations described. This conceptual organization has to be distinguished from grammatical constituency, which is flexible, variable, and in no small measure determined by discourse considerations. Keywords: discourse; Cognitive Grammar; intonation unit; grounding; structure building; constituency. 1. Introduction The grounding of language in discourse and social interaction is a central if not a defining notion within the functionalist tradition. This is no less true for cognitive linguistics than for other strains of functionalism where the concern is often more visible. My objective here is to elucidate the Cognitive Linguistics 12-2 (2001), 143—188 0936-5907/01/0012-0143 © Walter de Gruyter 144 Ronald W. Langacker connection between the expressions in a discourse, on the one hand, and their structures as described in Cognitive Grammar, on the other. The goal is necessarily modest, since I cannot claim any serious expertise in regard to discourse, nor any extensive familiarity with the vast literature in this area. I will not be presenting any actual discourse data or any detailed analysis. My concern is rather to articulate how Cognitive Grammar and discourse might be brought together, as a matter of principle. I would be very pleased if this were a catalyst for scholars with the proper expertise to investigate their relationship more systematically. 2. Abstraction from usage events Most fundamentally, Cognitive Grammar makes contact with discourse through the basic claim that all linguistic units are abstracted from usage events, i.e., actual instances of language use. Each such event consists of 1 a comprehensive conceptualization, comprising an expression’s full con¬ textual understanding, paired with an elaborate vocalization, in all its phonetic detail. The conceptualization inherent in a usage event includes the inter¬ locutors’ apprehension of their interactive circumstances and the very discourse they are engaged in. It thus incorporates their apprehension of the ground (G) and the current discourse space (CDS). The ground consists of the speech event, the speaker (S) and hearer (H), their interaction, and the immediate circumstances (notably the time and place of speech). The CDS is defined as the mental space comprising those elements and relations construed as being shared by the speaker and hearer as a basis for communication at a given moment in the flow of discourse. The ground and the CDS are among the cognitive domains capable of being evoked as the conceptual base for the meanings of linguistic elements. The various facets of a usage event are spelled out more fully in Figure 1. A usage event is an action carried out by the speaker and hearer. 2 The speaker (S) acts in an initiative capacity, the hearer (H) being responsive; but whether their role is active or reactive, each has to deal with both a conceptualization and a vocalization, the two basic “poles” of an utterance. The speaker’s and hearer’s action involves the directing and focusing of attention (--->). In successful communication, they manage to coordinate this action and focus attention on the same conceived entity. Of course, we can only conceive of so much at any one time. We have a limited visual field, taking in only so much of the world at any given instant. Analogously, we have a limited “conceptual field”, delimiting how much we can conceptualize or hold in mind at any given instant. Discourse in Cognitive Grammar 145 Figure 1. Metaphorically, it is as if we are “looking at” the world through a window, or viewing frame. The immediate scope of our conception at any one moment is limited to what appears in this frame, and the focus of attention—what an expression profiles (i.e. designates)—is included in that scope. A usage event takes place in an immediate context of speech, inter¬ preted broadly as including the physical, mental, social, and cultural circumstances. The ground is at the center of the context of speech, and one element of this context is the very fact that the speaker and hearer are engaged in a coordinated viewing of some facet of the world. In this sense the “window” they are looking through is part of the speech context. Crucially, however, what appears in this window—the content of their coordinated conception—can be anything at all. We are able to conceive and talk about situations in any world (real or imagined), at any time, in any place. The viewing frame can be directed anywhere. The circumstance in which it is directed at the context of speed itself (e.g., This cup is cracked) is just a special (though privileged) case. Besides the context of speech, the CDS includes a body of knowledge presumed to be shared and reasonably accessible. It also includes the speaker’s and hearer’s apprehension of the ongoing discourse itself: a series of previous usage events, as well as subsequent events that might be anticipated. Any facet of this can be drawn upon or alluded to in the current utterance. Usage events are bipolar, comprising both conceptualizing and vocalizing activity.3 Moreover, as shown in Figure 2, at each pole we can reasonably posit multiple channels, which have a certain amount of independence but are nonetheless coordinated in complex ways. Under information 146 Ronald W. Langacker Figure 2. structure, I include such factors as emphasis, discourse topic, and status of information as given versus new. Speech management pertains to such matters as turn taking and holding or relinquishing the floor. The various conceptualization and vocalization channels are shown as occur¬ ring within the viewing frame. This is, however, a matter of degree if we understand the viewing frame as delimiting the general locus of atten¬ tion (the “onstage” region, so to speak). At the conceptualization pole, the objective situation is generally more substantive, more concrete, and more at the center of our attention than the other channels. At the vocalization pole, segmental content is comparably salient. I have so far talked only about usage events, i.e., actual utterances in an actual discourse context. What about a language and the individual linguistic units of which it consists? To think about linguistic units in isolation from usage events is at best an analytical convenience, and at worst a serious distortion. All linguistic units are abstracted from usage events. Conversely, they are applied to and manifested in usage events. They are best thought of as schematized patterns of action that are immanent in usage events rather than distinct entities. A unit emerges by the reinforcing and progressive “entrenchment” of a commonality (apparent at some level of abstraction) that recurs in a sufficient number of events. A linguistic unit is thus a multifaceted cognitive routine which can be activated and carried out when occasion arises (like the ability to shoot a free throw or to sign one’s name). What kinds of elements are capable of being abstracted from usage events and conventionalized as linguistic units? Cognitive Grammar takes the straightforward position that any aspect of a usage event, or even a sequence of usage events in a discourse, is capable of emerging as a linguistic unit, should it be a recurrent commonality. A unit can thus incorporate specifications concerning any portion(s) of the overall Discourse in Cognitive Grammar 147 configuration sketched in Figure 1, including any of the channels detailed in Figure 2. Precisely the same cognitive process— the progressive entrenchment of recurrent commonalities—is therefore held responsi¬ ble for the emergence of linguistic units of diverse sorts, including those pertaining to pragmatics and discourse. To the extent that such units are conventional in a speech community, excluding them from a “language” or “linguistic system” is arbitrary. Maximally, therefore, a linguistic unit can correspond to an entire series of usage events constituting a discourse sequence. Figure 3 shows a recurring discourse configuration coalescing as an established unit, thereby being incorporated as part of the linguistic system (i.e., the inventory of schematized patterns of actions controlled by speakers). Since units always originate in this way, in principle they contain all the sectors depicted. However, most units are highly schematic with respect to many or most of these sectors, so that for all practical purposes we can ignore Figure 3. 148 Ronald W. Langacker them. Typically, only certain sectors are characterized with any degree of specificity. Let us consider a few examples. Figure 4 represents the filler uh in English. By means of this device, the speaker can briefly pause while 4 signaling the intent to hold thefloorand keep talking. Its relatively specific content is limited to just two channels: the conceptualization channel of speech management, and the vocalization channel of segmental content. Most sectors of the overall structure are highly or fully schematic. Figure 5 represents the familiar form of the pronoun you, in a language like Spanish with a familiar/formal distinction. Conceptually, it profiles the hearer as the focused element in the objective situation. Hence the viewing frame is directed at the ground itself, i.e., a facet of the ground appears onstage as the focus of attention. The hearer’s dual role is indicated by a dotted correspondence line connecting the mani¬ festations of H in two different sectors. In regard to vocalization, this unit specifies the sequence tu as its segmental content. Beyond this, as part Figure 5. Discourse in Cognitive Grammar 149 of the speaker/hearer interaction in the ground, the unit conveys a rela¬ tionship of familiarity or solidarity (represented diagrammatically by a double line connecting S and H). All other channels and sectors are fully schematic. Consider next the sentence-initial use of therefore, as in (1). (1) He’s very rich and powerful. Therefore I like him. As shown in Figure 6, therefore introduces and profiles a relationship in which one proposition, labeled P2, follows from another, P1. Moreover, P1 is identified as the proposition expressed in the previous usage event, just earlier in the flow of discourse. For a last example, consider a strong demonstrative use accompanied by a pointing gesture as in (2). (2) I want THAT $ one. Besides segmental content, the vocalization (broadly construed, as including all channels of symbolization) includes a pointing gesture on the part of the speaker. Observe, however, that the pointing is not merely a facet of the vocalization, but also part of the expression’s conceptual content— an essential part of its conceptual meaning is that the speaker is pointing and that the intended referent is the entity the speaker is pointing to, typically selected from other contextually available alter¬ natives (given as circles in Figure 7). Hence the speaker has a role in three sectors: as part of the ground, and as the individual pointing in both the gesture channel and the objective situation. Likewise, the entity pointed to functions as such in two sectors.5 What about a typical lexical item, e.g., tree? I have often described it as a symbolic unit, as shown in Figure 8a. Phonologically it comprises a particular segment sequence. Semantically it profiles a thing which has Figure 6. 150 Ronald W. Langacker Figure 7. Figure 8. various properties abbreviated as T. Yet a fuller description would show these as merely the nonschematic facets of a much more elaborate over¬ all structure, as shown in Figure 8b. Minimally, it shares with other kinds of units the very notion that the expression is being employed by the speaker and hearer, in the context of speech, as part of a discourse. Because this much is common across usage events, the abstracted value of every Discourse in Cognitive Grammar 151 unit includes the full schematic framing depicted in these diagrams, even if only a few sectors are specified in any detail. 3. Discourse expectations Any aspect of a single usage event or a sequence of them in a discourse is capable of being abstracted as a conventional linguistic unit. Thus many units make detailed specifications in regard to multiple events within a sequence. Such units embody established discourse patterns and depen¬ dencies. When associated with particular elements, e.g., therefore in Figure 6, they amount to discourse expectations engendered by those elements. We can find regularities in discourse sequences of any size, viewed at any level of organization. What level we examine determines the scope of the patterns and dependencies described, and what counts as a single usage event for this purpose. It is equally a matter of discourse expectation that a preamble will be followed by a main body of text, that a conditional protasis will be followed by an apodosis, and that a prefix will be followed by a stem. A unified approach is thus adopted for lexical items, grammatical constructions, and discourse patterns of any size. Following a suggestion by Harder (1996), we might think of linguistic structures (of whatever size) as instructions to modify the current dis¬ course space in particular ways. Each instruction involves the focusing of attention within a viewing frame. A discourse comprises a succession of frames each representing the scene being “viewed” and acted on by the speaker and hearer at a given instant. A sequence of frames in a dis¬ course, each corresponding to one updating of the CDS, can be repre¬ sented as in Figure 9. Heavy lines enclose the frame currently being acted on, which might be called the focus frame. I will also call this the zero frame, preceded by a minus frame and followed by a plus frame. Reference to a sequence of frames is incorporated as part of linguistic units. A particular linguistic element can be retrospective, in the sense of making a specification concerning the prior discourse, and/or prospective, by virtue of evoking the subsequent discourse. Illustrating a retrospec¬ tive element, making a specification in its minus frame, is therefore, as Figure 9. 152 Ronald W. Langacker seen in Figure 6. Illustrating a prospective element, making a specification in its plus frame, would be a topic marker (e.g., Japanese wa), diagrammed in Figure 10. A topic marker refers schematically to the thing profiled by the noun phrase with which it combines; this nominal referent is represented as a circle in the focus frame. Such a marker is prospective by virtue of signaling that the profiled entity will function as a conceptual reference point for purposes of interpreting a subsequent proposition, as shown in the plus frame. But it is also retrospective, in the sense that the 6 topic needs to be an entity already accessible in the prior discourse. Thus the profile is shown as corresponding to a thing present in the minus frame. The size and nature of these discourse frames depends on what level and dimension of linguistic organization we examine. There are discourse dependencies of one sort or another at every level, from the most local to the most global, and to one extent or another we attend to them all, more or less concurrently, when engaging in coherent discourse. Moreover, the same structural element can carry discourse expectations at multiple levels. Figure 6, for instance, shows therefore as inducing the expecta¬ tion of a proposition that would normally be expressed in the previous sentence, as in (1). But at a lower level of organization, therefore also carries the expectation of a following clause, which it serves to introduce. Each of these expectations is a schematized remnant of the discourse contexts—at different levels of structure— from which the element in question is abstracted by the reinforcing of recurring commonalities. Each constitutes a structural frame (or constructional schema) which the element participates in and evokes as part of its conventional linguistic value. Consider the constructional schema for if ... then sentences, sketched in Figure 11. If is taken as designating the selection of one proposition, P , on a hypothetical basis, from a range of possible alternatives— i.e., it 1 evokes a hypothetical mental space. It further induces the expectation that another proposition (P ) will be valid in that space. Then designates 2 the relationship wherein one proposition, P , follows from another, P 2 1 (cf. Dancygier and Sweetser 1997). At the lowest level of constituency, if combines with afiniteclause, which expresses a proposition and profiles Figure 10.

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.