Volume 23, Issue 3

Cognitive linguistic analyses of the relationship between ambiguity and vagueness suggest that these categories are gradable. That is, whether a given distinction in lexical meaning amounts to ambiguity can vary across contexts. A computational model of the representation of lexical polysemy was applied to three nouns, and the verb paint . The model, based on a neuropsychologically inspired framework, Adaptive Resonance Theory, was applied to judgements and property ratings from 120 participants. Model results were compared to an independent usage-based analysis, and in the case of paint to an earlier cognitive linguistic analysis. Good correspondence was found, with the model reproducing specific features of those analyses, such as the extraction of similar schemata, as well as the key general feature of the gradability of ambiguity and vagueness. At the same time, the analysis revealed substantial interpersonal variability. Additional modelling demonstrated that the availability of specific aspects of conceptual knowledge could be contextually modified, leading to predicted changes in the pattern of ambiguity. Because Adaptive Resonance Theory uses elementary neural processing, previously used to successfully model cognitive phenomena, the gradability of ambiguity can be explained as a consequence of these general properties of memory and cognition.

Usage-based models of language propose that the acceptability of an element in a constructional slot is determined by its similarity to attested fillers of that slot (Bybee 2010, ch. 4). However, Ambridge and Goldberg (2008) find that the acceptability of a long-distance-dependency (LDD) question does not correlate with the judged similarity of the matrix verb to think and say , which are by far the most frequently attested fillers of this slot. They propose instead that the acceptability of LDD questions is determined by the degree of fit between the information-structure properties of the matrix verb and those specified by the construction—specifically, the degree to which the matrix verb foregrounds its complement clause. This paper explores the possibility of reconciling this explanation with one based on similarity by suggesting that in this case the relevant aspect of similarity is precisely the verb’s foregrounding of its complement. Evidence for this suggestion comes from psychological research showing that in a categorization task, the similarity of an item to the exemplars of a category is judged primarily with respect to the features common to all category members, as well as from the observation that virtually all attested matrix verbs in LDD questions strongly tend to foreground their complements.

Proposals are made to expand and refine previous analyses of coordination in Cognitive Grammar. The account presupposes a number of general notions established independently: (i) flexible symbolic assemblies (rather than constituency) as the basis for describing grammar; (ii) a dynamic view of structure (as patterns of activity occurring in windows of attention on different time scales); (iii) a metaphor involving access , activation , and conceptual overlap (to complement the standard compositional metaphor); and (iv) various kinds of abstraction (including schematicity, the type/instance distinction, and the invocation of virtual entities). Coordination is characterized as the mental juxtaposition of entities conceived as being analogous. These notions are first employed to describe the conjoining of constituents, including clauses. Non-constituent coordination is analyzed in the context of other sorts of clausal “reduction”, including the accentual reduction of unfocused elements in English as well as ellipsis, where overlapping content is left unexpressed. A pivotal descriptive notion is the differential , i.e. the content appearing in one clausal window that does not appear in the prior window. The anti-differential consists of any previously active content that the differential conflicts with and suppresses. Non-constituent coordination is a special case of ellipsis where the differential and anti-differential function as conjuncts.

According to constructional approaches, grammar consists of an inventory of symbolic pairings of a syntactic form with an abstract meaning. Many of such so-called constructions can be perceived as having highly similar meanings: such pairs have been discussed under the name of alternations, especially in the domain of argument structure, for example the widely documented dative alternation (e.g. John gave Mary a book vs. John gave a book to Mary ). This paper explores what status such pairs of constructions can be given in construction grammar, on the basis of a sorting task experiment. Construction grammar traditionally recognizes generalizations of a common syntactic form over semantically similar sentences, but the status of higher-level generalizations of a common meaning over syntactically different forms is rarely discussed. In our study, we devised a sorting task that subjects could resolve by relying on generalizations of either of these two kinds. We find that subjects rely on alternation-based generalizations more often than purely constructional ones in their sorting behavior. We suggest these results show that generalizations of a common meaning between formally different constructions are plausible categories stored by speakers and should be given more attention in construction grammar research.