conceptual archetype

第４講記号的文法観１：文法と意味
As its name implies, Cognitive Grammar is first
and foremost a theory of grammar. Rather
surprising, therefore, are the statement to the
effect that “Langacker doesn’t believe in
grammar – everything is semantics.” Rest
assured that CG neither threatens nor denies
the existence of grammar. Grammar exists. The
issue is rather the nature of grammar and its
relation to other dimensions of linguistic
structure. (Langacker 2008:5)
(1) my conception of language as symbolic
in nature extends beyond lexicon to
grammar. […] I contend that grammar
itself, i.e. patterns for grouping
morphemes into progressively larger
configurations, is inherently symbolic and
hence meaningful. (Langacker 1987:12)
２つの統語論の自律性
(2a) Strong Autonomy: Grammar is distinct from
both lexicon and semantics, constituting a separate
level of representation whose description requires a
special set of irreducible grammatical primitives.
 No
(2b) Weak Autonomy: Grammar cannot be fully
predicted from meaning and other independent
factors (e.g. communicative constraints).
 Yes
(Langacker 2005:103)
2. 記号的文法観と使用依拠モデルの関
係
a. 記号的文法観  使用依拠モデル
(3) For one thing, language is seen as an
integral part of cognition, not a separate
“module” (hence cognitive linguistics). Moreover,
the pivotal factor is meaning, rather than
abstract form (hence the symbolic view of
grammar). And from these considerations it
follows that language is learned through
meaningful use, rather than being innate (hence
the usage-based approach).
(Langacker
2009b: 628)
b. 使用依拠モデル 記号的文法観
(4) 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 a comprehensive
conceptualization, comprising an expression’s
full contextual understanding, paired with an
elaborate vocalization, in all its phonetic detail.
(Langacker 2001: 144)
3. 文法研究のストラテジー
(5) (i) a particular construct is shown necessary for the
adequate semantic description of multiple phenomena in
various languages;
意味＝概念内容×把握、把握＝認知能力
意味を記述するのにどのような「把握」のタイプが必要
か？
(ii) this construct is related to an independently observable
cognitive ability;
= 理論外・言語外基準、Cognitive Commitment
(iii) this same construct proves critical for the explicit
characterization of varied grammatical phenomena.
(Langacker 2003:242)
(i)の道具立てが(ii)にも適用可能
道具立ての有効性、概念的統合、記号的文法観
(6) The description of grammatical structure
does not, however, require a substantially
different approach or a battery of unrelated
constructs, but merely elaboration and further
application of notions already introduced in
regard to lexicon. (Langacker 1999:20)
(5i)は語彙の意味記述のことを言っている。
(7) a meaning consists of both conceptual content
and a particular way of construing that content.
(Langacker 2008a: 43)
(8) construalのタイプ
① specificity (e.g. thing  object  vehicle 
truck  pick-up truck  battered old pick-up truck)
② perspective (e.g. Come/Go on up into the attic!)
③ prominence
prominence 1: profile
hub, spoke, rim wheel (Langacker 2008a:67)の意
味の違いを記述するのに何が必要か？
=> 同じもののどの部分を指しているかが違うの
では？
=>それを表わす道具立てが必要 = (5i)
(9) Every expression evokes some conception –
simple or complex – as the basis for its meaning.
Within its conceptual base, an expression
singles out a particular substructure as a kind of
focus of attention. This substructure, called the
profile, is the one the expression designates (its
conceptual referent). (Langacker 2009: 7)
• Cf. profiling is the intersubjective focusing of
attention induced by symbolization: through
the directive force of symbolic expression, the
interlocutors momentarily attend to the same
entity in the objective scene. An expression’s
profile is thus its conceptual referent […]
(Langacker 2015: 128)  (5ii)
prominence 2: trajector/landmark
(11) The lamp is above the table. vs. The table is
below the lamp.
profileは同じだが、意味は違う
別な道具立てが必要 = (5i)
tr/lm
(10) Crucially, an expression can profile either a thing or a
relationship. […] With expressions that profile
relationships, a second kind of prominence comes into
play. It consists in the degree of prominence conferred on
the participants in the profiled relation. There is generally
a primary focal participant, called the trajector (tr). This
is the participant the expression is concerned with
locating or characterizing. Often there is also a secondary
focal participant, called a landmark (lm). Metaphorically,
we can think in terms of primary and secondary
spotlights, which can be directed at different elements
within the scene onstage. (Langacker 2009: 7-9)
tr/lmの認知的基盤
(12) I suggest that the relative prominence
accorded to relational participants is very much
akin to the FIGURE/GROUND ORGANIZATION observed in
gestalt psychology, with alternate choices of figure
being analogous to FIGURE/GROUND REVERSAL. But can
we speak of two degrees of figure status, a ‘primary
figure’ and a ‘secondary figure’, corresponding to
the constructs trajector and landmark? I believe so.
[…] I therefore posit trajector/landmark alignment
for purposes of viable semantic description, and
would argue for its psychological validity.
(Langacker 2003: 250)  (5ii)
4. 文法の意味 = (5iii)の試み
(13) 名詞・動詞、主語・目的語といった文法概念は
高度に普遍的なのはなぜか？
It is suggested that each such notion can be
characterized semantically in terms of both a prototype,
valid for central instances, and a schema instantiated
by all instances. The prototype is an experientially
grounded conceptual archetype […]. The schema
resides in basic cognitive abilities […]. (Langacker 2015:
55)
＝身体経験、基本的認知能力の共通性 普遍性
概念的原型
(14) conceptual archetypes: experientially
grounded concepts so frequent and fundamental in
our everyday life […]. Here are some examples: a
physical object, an object in a location, an object
moving through space, the human body, the human
face, a whole and its parts, a physical container and
its contents, seeing something, holding something,
handing something to someone, exerting force to
effect a desired change, a face-to-face social
encounter. (Langacker 2008a: 33-4)
ビリヤード・ボールモデル
(15) billiard-ball model: A fundamental
cognitive model that conceives the world as
being populated by discrete physical objects
that move about and interact energetically
when they come into contact. (Langacker
1991:545)
4.1. 文法関係：主語、目的語
(16)
a. Floyd broke the glass with a hammer.
AGs => INSTR => PATo 
b. A hammer broke the glass.
AG => INSTRs => PATo 
c. The glass broke.
AG => INSTR => PATs 
 subject 1 = the head of an action chain
(⊂conceptual archetypes)
(17)
a. I remember my childhood very well.
b. We can’t see Mars tonight because of the
haze.
 subject 2 = active participant in an
asymmetrical relationship
(18)
a. A fence surrounds his property (not active)
b. Line A intersects line B. Joshua resembles
Jonathan. (not symmetrical)
 subject 3 = the trajector of a profiled
relationship
subject 3 (schema)
subject 2
subject 1
(18)
(17)
agent (prototype subject)
(16a)
(16b,c)
TREE” (most schematic)
TREE’
TREE
(prototype)
PALM
PINE
(19) If subjects are properly characterized in
terms of primary focal prominence, for objects
the evident basis is secondary prominence.
(Langacker 2008a: 370)
 prominence, trajector/landmarkが主語、目
的語という文法概念を規定する上で有効＝
(5iii)
(20) the grammatical behavior used to identify
subject and object do not serve to characterize
these notions but are merely symptomatic of
their conceptual import. (Langacker 2008a: 364)
例：Xは尊敬語化を引き起こすから主語だ vs.
主語は際立ちを与えられているので、敬意を示
すことができる
4.2. 品詞：名詞、動詞
伝統的な考え方
(21) Something exploded. vs. There was an
explosion.
品詞は意味的に規定できない Cf. 統語論の
自律性
非伝統的考え１
(22) We imagine […] that all “verbs” are inherently concerned with action
as such, that a “noun” is the name of some definite object or personality
that can be pictured by the mind, that all qualities are necessarily
expressed by a definite group of words to which we may appropriately
apply the term “adjective”. As soon as we test our vocabulary, we discover
that the parts of speech are far from corresponding to so simple an
analysis of reality. […] The upshot of such an examination would be to feel
convinced that the ‘part of speech’ reflects not so much our intuitive
analysis of reality as our ability to compose that reality into a variety of
formal patterns. […] It is well to remember that speech consists of a
series of propositions. There must be something to talk about and
something must be said about this subject of discourse once it is selected.
[…] As the most common subject of discourse is either a person or a thing,
the noun clusters about concrete concepts of that order. As the thing
predicated of a subject is generally an activity in the widest sense of the
word, […] the verb clusters about concepts of activity. (Sapir 1921:119)
非伝統的考え２
(23) おおまかな言い方をすれば、動詞のkissと
名詞のkiss、 kindとkindnessの間に見られるよう
な多分「意味的」と呼んでよいと思われるある種
の差は、同一の意味特徴が違った形で「提示」
されている点にあると言えそうである。つまり、
何らかの「意味特徴」における差ではなくて、そ
れらの「提示」の仕方に差があるのではないか
ということである。（池上 1975:156）
品詞のプロトタイプ
(25) For nouns, the archetype functioning as
category prototype is the conception of a
physical object. For verbs, it is the conception of
participants interacting energetically in a “forcedynamic” event […]. Both figure prominently in
a more elaborate conceptual archetype which I
refer to as the billiard-ball model. (Langacker
2008a: 103)
(26) a noun profiles a thing, where a thing is
defined abstractly on the basis of its unitary
nature, or “oneness”: it is conceived as a single
entity, either inherently or because of grouping
[=in which a set of connected entities are
conceived as a single entity for higher-level
purposes]. (Langacker 2015: 58, 47)
Consider a recipe, for example. Though it may be
written down, a recipe per se does not exist in
space. By our abstract definition, however, a recipe
is a thing whose constitutive entities are the
successive steps involved in preparing some dish.
These steps are interconnected and established as a
group just by virtue of being conceived as occurring
in a certain sequence. They are reified by being
conceptualized as a single, unified procedure with
the overall goal of eating the dish. (Langacker 2008:
106)
(28) a verb profiles a process [= a complex
relationship that develops through conceived
time and is scanned sequentially along this axis].
(Langacker 2008a: 112)
(24) what determines an expression’s
grammatical category is not its overall
conceptual content, but the nature of its profile
in particular. (Langacker 2008a: 98)
profileが品詞という文法概念を規定する上で
必要 = (5iii)
まとめ
名詞
動詞
プロトタイプ
physical object
asymmetrical energetic
interaction
スキーマ
thing
process
基本的認知能力
(cf. (13))
conceptual reification
The capacity to establish
relationships and to scan
sequentially through a
complex structure
(30) ニューマイヤーによる批判
a. What insures that inherently relational words
like parent […] or temporal processes like explosion
[…] will surface as nouns and non-temporal, nonprocess words like die […] will surface as verbs?
(Newmeyer 2003:275)
b. It is hard to imagine how the bold-faced NPs […]
could be ‘trajectors’: There are 12 people in the
room; It is likely that Tom will be late; The jig is up;
Mary regrets that somebody left a hostile message
on her machine (ibid., p.276)
--> どう応えるか？

Download Report