For a new semiotics in Construction Grammar: A statistical analysis of the relationship between transitive syntax and semantics
-
Marcus Lepesqueur
Dr Marcus Lepesqueur is a bachelor in psychology, a master and a Ph.D. in theoretical and descriptive linguistics and is a specialist in statistics. He has experience in linguistics and cognitive semiotics research with an emphasis on language in use. His long-term special interests include corpus quantitative analysis, natural language processing, and cognitive models of enunciation and discourse. He is a professor of psychology at the University of Life Sciences in Minas Gerais-Brazil.
and
Adriana Maria Tenuta
Dr Adriana Maria Tenuta is an associate professor at the Faculty of Letters and at the Graduate Program of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at the Federal University of Minas Gerais in Brazil. She has done research in functional and cognitive linguistics and has special interest in studies of narrative, cognition, and grammar.
Abstract
By extending the notion of constructions beyond “irregular” structures, Goldberg (1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press) made possible the analysis of clause units as a global pattern associating syntax to principles for semantic interpretation. Despite this theoretical advance, Construction Grammar’s pairing of syntactic structure and conceptual form reflects Saussure’s signifier/signified semiotic model, which poses some issues. Problems arise when a single formal structure expresses distinct semantic patterns or, conversely, when semantics persists notwithstanding formal variation. In order to approach this unstable syntax/semantics interface, this work proposes a statistical methodology to capture the correlation between syntax and Hopper and Thompson's (1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299) parameters of transitivity. In a corpus of 7,939 clauses from 23 oral interviews, 690 randomly sampled clause units were analyzed using Generalized Estimating Equation. The data suggests that, in Brazilian Portuguese, most of those parameters are not particularly related to the prototypical transitive syntax and might be specified outside the scope of this clausal structure. Nonetheless, Affectedness is a syntax/semantic interface point that is, first, largely independent of lexical items and, second, capable of distinguishing transitive syntax from other clausal patterns. Based on this analysis, we conceive the Transitive Construction as a superordinate rule that acts upon the formal organization of a language, establishing clausal patterns both synchronically and diachronically.
About the authors
Dr Marcus Lepesqueur is a bachelor in psychology, a master and a Ph.D. in theoretical and descriptive linguistics and is a specialist in statistics. He has experience in linguistics and cognitive semiotics research with an emphasis on language in use. His long-term special interests include corpus quantitative analysis, natural language processing, and cognitive models of enunciation and discourse. He is a professor of psychology at the University of Life Sciences in Minas Gerais-Brazil.
Dr Adriana Maria Tenuta is an associate professor at the Faculty of Letters and at the Graduate Program of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at the Federal University of Minas Gerais in Brazil. She has done research in functional and cognitive linguistics and has special interest in studies of narrative, cognition, and grammar.
References
Bossong, G. 1998. Le marquage de l’expérient dans les langues d’Europe. In J. Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, 259–294. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110804485.259Search in Google Scholar
Brandt, P. A. 2004a. Dynamic schematism and the cognitive semantics of language. http://www.case.edu/artsci/dmll/larcs/documents/Dynamicschematismandthecognitivesemanticsoflanguage.pdf (accessed 11 June 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Brandt, P. A. 2004b. Semio-linguistics and stemmatic syntax. In P. A. Brandt (ed.), Spaces, domains, and meaning: Essays in cognitive semiotics, 125–131. Bern: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Brandt, P. A.. 2016a. Linguistic theory in the framework of a cognitive semiotics: The role of semio-syntax. In J. Zlatev, G. Sonesson, and P. Konderak (eds.), Meaning, mind, and communication: Explorations in cognitive semiotics, 393–410. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang VerlagSearch in Google Scholar
Brandt, P. A. 2016b. Word, language, and thought: A new linguistic model. https://www.academia.edu/26465142/Per_Aage_Brandt_Word_ Language_and_Thought_a_New_Linguistic_Model (accessed 11 June 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1990. Possible verbs and the structure of events. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization, 48–73. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2007. Construction grammar. In H. Cuyckens & D. Geeraerts (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 463–508. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. & R. Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Delancey, S. 1987. Transitivity in grammar and cognition. In R. Tomlin (ed.), Discourse relations and cognitive units, 53–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.11.04delSearch in Google Scholar
Dormann, C. F., J. Elith, S. Bacher, C. Buchmann, G. Carl, G. Carré, J. R. G. Marquéz, B. Gruber, B. Lafourcade, P. J. Leitão, T. Münkemüller, C. McClean, P. E. Osborne, B. Reineking, B. Schröder, A. K. Skidmore, D. Zurell & S. Lautenbach. 2013. Collinearity: A review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36. 27–46.10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07348.xSearch in Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1997. Construction grammar lecture notes. http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/bcg/lec02.html (accessed 11 June 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., P. Kay & M. C. O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3). 501–538.10.2307/414531Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin & R. E. Anderson. 2009. Multivariate data analysis, 7th edn. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Search in Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & S. A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299.10.1353/lan.1980.0017Search in Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & S. A. Thompson. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In J. Bybee & P. J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 27–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45.03thoSearch in Google Scholar
Kay, P. 2013. The limits of (Construction) Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 32–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0003Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110800524Search in Google Scholar
Lepesqueur, M. 2017. Transitividade na esquizofrenia: Comparação dos relatos orais de eventos psicóticos entre grupos clínico e não clínic. (Transitivity in schizophrenia: Comparison of oral reports of psychotic events between a clinical and a nonclinical group.). Belo Horiozonte: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais Ph. D. dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Lima, L. C. O. 2013. A transitividade na conversação: Uma abordagem cognitivo-funcional. (Transitivity in conversation: A cognitive-functional approach.). Natal: Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Madureira, E. D. 2002. Variação nas construções pronominais dos verbos psicológicos: Uma decorrência de diferentes percursos históricos. (Variation in pronominal constructions of psychological verbs: A result from different historical paths). In M. A. Cohen & J. M. Ramos (eds.), Dialeto mineiro e o outras falas: Estudos de variação e mudança linguística, 109–130. Belo Horizonte: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.Search in Google Scholar
Næss, A. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.10.1075/tsl.72Search in Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2012. The R project for statistical computing. http://www.r-project.org (accessed 11 June 2018).Search in Google Scholar
Rozas, V. V. 2004. Transitividad prototípica y uso. Boletín de Lingüistica 21. 92–115.Search in Google Scholar
Shahrokhi, M. & A. R. Lotfi. 2012. Manifestation of transitivity parameters in persian conversations: A comparative study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 46. 635–642.10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.176Search in Google Scholar
Silva, Augusto Soares. 1997. A linguística cognitiva: Uma breve introduçao a um novo paradigma em linguística. (Cognitive linguistics: A brief introduction to a new paradigm in linguistics.). Revista portuguesa de humanidades 1(1). 59–101.Search in Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 1985. Introduction: Why study language acquisition crosslinguistically. In D. I. Slobin (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Volume 1, 3–24. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.10.4324/9781315802541-1Search in Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, volume 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Articles
- What is up and down in embodied language processing? An experimental study on semantic priming of visual perception
- Chronillogicalities : Déjà vus and hallucinations in the digital semiosphere
- For a new semiotics in Construction Grammar: A statistical analysis of the relationship between transitive syntax and semantics
- “You know it, how I feel, I mean you just did it:” The emergence of we-ness through re-enactment in psychotherapy
- From subjectivity to subjunctivity in children’s performatives: Peirce’s endoporeutic principle
- Book Review
- Browse, Sam. 2018. Cognitive Rhetoric: The Cognitive Poetics of Political Discourse
Articles in the same Issue
- Articles
- What is up and down in embodied language processing? An experimental study on semantic priming of visual perception
- Chronillogicalities : Déjà vus and hallucinations in the digital semiosphere
- For a new semiotics in Construction Grammar: A statistical analysis of the relationship between transitive syntax and semantics
- “You know it, how I feel, I mean you just did it:” The emergence of we-ness through re-enactment in psychotherapy
- From subjectivity to subjunctivity in children’s performatives: Peirce’s endoporeutic principle
- Book Review
- Browse, Sam. 2018. Cognitive Rhetoric: The Cognitive Poetics of Political Discourse
