Рабочие листы
к вашим урокам
Скачать
1 слайд
1
Agreement in cognition,
discourse, and syntax
Bamberg,
February 1, 2013
Andrej A. Kibrik
(Institute of Linguistics RAN
and Lomonosov Moscow State University)
aakibrik@gmail.com
2 слайд
2
Strangeness of agreement
Does this resemble the common linguistic understanding of the term “agreement”?
3 слайд
3
Agreement as formal control
“There is <…> a strong intuition, captured in the controller-target terminology, that agreement is asymmetric” (Corbett 2006: 115)
Psycholinguistics: inflectional or control theory of agreement
4 слайд
4
Origin of the dominant linguistic usage
Hermann Paul, 1880
Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte,
chapter “On concord”
“die Tendenz Wörter, die in einer Beziehung zueinander stehen <…> in formelle Übereinstimmung miteinander zu setzen. Hierher gehört die Kongruenz in Genus, Numerus, Kasus, Person, wie sie zwischen einem Subst. und einem dazu gehörigen Präd. oder Attribut oder einem dasselbe vertretenden Pron. oder Adj. besteht <…> ”
Principles of the
history of language,
edition 1891
“There exists a tendency to place words related in a way <…> in formal correspondence with each other. Thus is explained the concord in gender, number, case, and person, which subsists between a substantive and its predicate or attribute, or a pronoun or adjective representing the latter <…>”
5 слайд
5
Formal control agreement is derivative from parallel agreement
”Den Ausgangspunkt für die Entstehung der Kongruenz haben solche Fälle gebildet, in denen die formelle Übereinstimmung eines Wortes mit einem andern nicht durch Rücksichtnahme auf dasselbe herbeigeführt, sondern nur durch die Gleichheit der Beziehung bedingt ist.”
“The starting-point for the origin of concord was afforded by cases in which the formal correspondence of a word with another was produced not by any regard for the latter, but merely by the identity of their relation.”
6 слайд
6
Formal control agreement terminology in Paul 1880
”Namentlich entsteht eine Verlegenheit des Sprechenden da, wo eine grammatische Kongruenz zwischen zwei Satzteilen dem Sinne nach nicht möglich ist und dazu ein dritter Satzteil tritt, von dem man gewohnt ist, dass er mit beiden kongruiert. Man muss sich für einen von den beiden entscheiden <…>”
“The speaker is especially apt to feel perplexity in cases where a grammatical concord is from the sense impossible, and a third clause comes in which custom has led us to expect to agree with both. We have to decide in favor of one or the other <…>”
It was my orders
Das sind zwei verschiedene Dinge.”
7 слайд
7
Formal control-style understanding of agreement
Formal control-style understanding dominates in modern linguistics and psycholinguistics
This has a consequence: desire to narrow down the notion of agreement
Kibrik 2011 – narrow, syntactic understanding of agreement
In the domain of argument-predicate agreement, primarily the Germanic pattern, most remote from discourse reference
However, in the context of this workshop I allow a broader, discourse-oriented understanding of the term “agreement”
In order to do that we will need to lift the formal-control requirement towards agreement
8 слайд
8
Agreement and reference
Agreement has much in common with reduced reference
Person agreement on the verb goes back to reduced reference (pronouns) (Paul 1880/1891: 348-349; Siewierska 2004)
The same often applies to attributive agreement
Russian
bel-yj < běl-ъ=jь lit. ‘white he’
white-M.Sg.Nomwhite-M.Sg.Nom=3M.Sg.Nom
bel-aja < běl-a=ja lit. ‘white she’
white-F.Sg.Nomwhite-F.Sg.Nom=3F.Sg.Nom
Classic agreement features are all referential: person, number, gender
9 слайд
9
Terminology
(person agreement)
broader agreement
broadest agreement
10 слайд
10
Terminology
(person agreement)
reduced reference
extended reduced reference
11 слайд
11
Reduced reference and agreement
In the broadest understanding of both, the extent of the included phenomena may almost coincide
There are some unusual agreement features (see Corbett 2006 on tense agreement, also cf. Paul 1880), but let us focus on major features
But the notions still remain distinct
Reduced reference is a functional notion: the process of rendering activated referents in discourse
Agreement is a linguist’s observation about the covariance of discourse constituents
12 слайд
12
Reference: the process of mentioning mental entities (referents) in discourse by means of referential expressions
The Victorian house that Ms. Johnson is inspecting has been deemed unsafe by town officials. But she asks a workman toting the bricks from the lawn to give her a boost through an open first-floor window. Once inside, she spends nearly four hours Ø measuring and diagramming each room in the 80-year-old house, Ø gathering enough information to Ø estimate what it would cost to rebuild it. She snaps photos of the buckled floors and the plaster that has fallen away from the walls.
13 слайд
13
Referential choice
Activation in working memory => reduced referential device. Else use a full device
E.g. if the referent ‘Ms. Johnson’ is highly activated, use a pronoun
How are different referential expressions, such as the eight mentions of ‘Ms. Johnson’, related to each other?
Clearly no formal control (different syntactic domains)
One can speak about agreement between them (in person, number, gender), but
such agreement is clearly an epiphenomenon of the individual mappings “referent referential expression”
referential expressions just happen to be in agreement or concord with each other
14 слайд
14
Syntactic anaphora?
Reference and referential choice are fundamentally discourse-based, cognitively-driven processes
Is there something like syntactic anaphora?
A mother and her childNP
I gave John his ticketClause
I promised John to give him his ticketClosely connected clauses
To account for such syntactic usages, one can still employ a full-scale cognitively based explanation
But it may be sometimes more economical to account for syntactic usages with the help of simple and automatic rules
Including in terms of formal control from the antecedent
Antecedent functions as a placeholder, formal representative of the usual cognitive controller
Syntactic anaphora is grammaticalization or routinization of the more general process of discourse-based reduced reference
15 слайд
15
Discourse use of broader agreement (bound pronouns)
Latin (Horace, Satires 1.5: 65 ff.)
Cicirrus, Sarmentus
rogaba-tdeniquecurumquamfugisse-t,
ask.Impf-3Sgfinallywhysometimeflee.Plpf.Conj-3Sg
cui satisunafarr-islibrafore-t,
who.Datenoughoneflour-Gen.Sgpoundbe.Impf.Conj-
3Sg
‘Finally he [=Cicirrus] asked why he [= Sarmentus] had ever fled, to whom one pound of flour would have been enough’
Bound tenacious pronouns
16 слайд
16
Polypersonal broader agreement (Navajo)
wónáásóó shį́į́ bimáhadah ha-b-í-ˀ-ch’-íí-yil
finally Ptclhis.motherdown up.out-3.Obl-against-
Pref-4.Nom-Pfv-push
‘Finally, it appears, his mother pushed him out (of the nest)’
ts’ídá shį́į́ naˀahóóhai b-a-ˀ-í-ltsood
just Ptcl chicken 3.Obl-to-Indef.Acc-Pfv-were.fed
‘Probably at that time the chickens were fed’ (lit. ‘ something
was fed to the chickens’)
The more a language has of broad agreement, the less that looks like narrow agreement
17 слайд
17
Broader agreement
Clearly the same principles of operation as in more familiar reduced reference by free pronouns
Control from the cognitive system
Formal control treatment is ruled out (distinct syntactic domains)
Parallel referential mapping leads to parallel agreement
Related approaches
Agreement and anaphora – Bosch 1983, Barlow 1992
Semantic agreement – Dowty and Jacobson 1989
Constraint approach – Pollard and Sag 1994, Vigliocco et al. 1996, Vigliocco and Hartsuiker 2005
Important terms: unification, reconciliation of features, maximalism, notional agreement
18 слайд
18
Cooccurrence does not mean cause-effect or control relationship
Controller-target relationship?
19 слайд
19
Narrow agreement
Such as Germanic verbal person agreement
Clearly related to broad agreement
Cf. German 3Sg present –t still identical to Latin (cognate)
Can be viewed as grammaticalization of the discourse pattern (both diachronic and synchronic)
The narrower the domain, the more appropriate is the formal control approach
Agreement Hierarchy (Corbett 1979, 2006; cf. Eberhard et al. 2006)
attributive > predicate > relative pronoun > personal pronoun
increasing contribution of semantic factors
20 слайд
20
Formal control view of agreement
CONTROLLERTARGET
art nouveau
siekommen
?? ???rogabat
person number gender ………
21 слайд
21
Discourse-based, parallel agreement
R
art nouveau
siekommen
quaerebatrogabat
person number gender ………
22 слайд
22
Grammaticalization of discourse-based agreement
R
CONTROLLERTARGET
art nouveau
siekommen
rogabat
person number gender ………
23 слайд
23
Disagreement
But even in the narrow agreement there are multiple difficulties and mismatches
Because of parallel, independent mapping from the cognitive structure?
Errors (?)
In a conversational corpus I says occurs up to 50% of the time (Biber et al. 1999: 191)
Attraction or proximity effect
the key to the cabinets were missing (Bock and Middleton 2011)
“Committee contexts”
![24InconsistencyTurkic person agreement
Tuvan
[men] keldim
I comePast1...](https://documents.infourok.ru/778d4b8b-7819-4927-a815-e1de09f4217c/slide_24.jpg "24InconsistencyTurkic person agreement
Tuvan
[men] keldim
I comePast1...")
24 слайд
24
Inconsistency
Turkic person agreement
Tuvan
[men]keldim
IcomePast1Sg
‘I came’
[men]kelgen=men
IcomePf=1Sg
‘I have come’
25 слайд
25
Absence of explicit controller
Russian
Javoz’m-ukrasn-uju
I.Nomtake.Pfv-Nonpast.1Sgred-F.Acc.Sg
‘I will take the red one’
mašina
(Fem.)
‘car’
26 слайд
26
Pulaar-Fulfulde
Detailed gender system allows easy substantivization of adjectives and participles into nouns (Koval 2006)
agreement suffix
gender suffix
on noun
27 слайд
27
First and second person problem
Even hard-core syntacticians usually do not consider 1, 2 person reference a case of anaphora (formal control from the antecedent)
John lost his walletANAPHORA
I lost my walletDEIXIS
John lost my walletDEIXIS
Are we more inclined to see agreement in Germanic 1, 2 person verbal inflection?
Ich sprech-eAGREEMENT OR DEIXIS?
Could this be an intuitive borderline between “reference as such” and “agreement as such”?
Each pronominal element is produced independently
28 слайд
28
Multiple agreement marking
Persistent indication of an activated referent in a clause
Particularly gender, sometimes in unexpected loci
Tariana (Aikhenvald 2000: 204 )
ha-dapana pa-dapana na-tape-dapana na-ya-dapana
Dem.Inan-Cl_house one-Cl_house 3Pl-medicine-Cl_house 3Pl-Poss-Cl_house
hanu-dapanahekuna-ni-ni-dapana-mahka
big-Cl_housewood3Pl-make-Topadv-Cl_house-Recpast.Nvis
‘This one big hospital of theirs has been made of wood’
Possibly, the overprotective strategy of reference (Kibrik 2011) entrenched in grammar
Or “spreading activation”
29 слайд
29
Conclusions
In terms of the extent of relevant evidence, broadly understood agreement is close to broadly understood reduced reference
The broad understanding of agreement makes us lift the formal control view
Manifestation of referential features in discourse is controlled by the cognitive structure: mapping
Observed identity of features on constituents is a result of this cognitive mapping: parallel agreement
30 слайд
30
Conclusions
Syntactic (narrow) agreement, compatible with the formal control view, is grammaticalization of the more general discourse-cognitive process
The tighter the constituent, the more likely is such grammaticalization, and this explains the Agreement Hierarchy
Frequent mismatches can be explained by independent mapping onto different constituents
These mismatches and difficulties betray the derivative character of agreement
Agreement phenomena are a periphery of the underlying process of discourse reference
31 слайд
31
Acknowledgements
Mira Bergelson
Olga Fedorova
Diana Forker
Geoffrey Haig
Antonina Koval
Hermann Paul
32 слайд
32
Thank you for your attention
33 слайд
33
References
Barlow 1992
Biber et al. 1999
Bock and Middleton 2011
Bosch 1983
Corbett 1979
Corbett 2006
Dowty and Jacobson 1989
Eberhard et al. 2006
Kibrik 2011
Koval 2006
Paul 1880/1891
Pollard and Sag 1994
Siewierska 2004
Vigliocco et al. 1996
Vigliocco and Hartsuiker 2005
Рабочие листы
к вашим урокам
Скачать
6 656 299 материалов в базе
Настоящий материал опубликован пользователем Кузьмина Ольга Юрьевна. Инфоурок является информационным посредником и предоставляет пользователям возможность размещать на сайте методические материалы. Всю ответственность за опубликованные материалы, содержащиеся в них сведения, а также за соблюдение авторских прав несут пользователи, загрузившие материал на сайт
Если Вы считаете, что материал нарушает авторские права либо по каким-то другим причинам должен быть удален с сайта, Вы можете оставить жалобу на материал.
Удалить материал
Ваша скидка на курсы
40%
Курс профессиональной переподготовки
300/600 ч.
Курс профессиональной переподготовки
600 ч.
Курс профессиональной переподготовки
300/600 ч.
Мини-курс
3 ч.
Мини-курс
10 ч.
Оставьте свой комментарий
Авторизуйтесь, чтобы задавать вопросы.