第２講 使用依拠モデル1：言語知
識の心的表示
1. 基本的な考え
Generative model: Dictionary plus grammar book
model：
knowledge of a language can be partitioned into two
components. One component is the dictionary (or
lexicon), which lists the basic building blocks of the
language (typically, the words). The other component is
a set of rules (the grammar, or syntax) for combining
words into sentences. Some of the rules are recursive,
that is, the rules can apply to their own outputs. In
virtue of this property the rules are able to generate an
infinite set of sentences, thus accounting for the
creativity of language use. (Taylor 2012:8)
(3) 古典的生成文法の性格
(Langacker 1988: 127)
a. Economy (= minimalist):
• A grammar should account for the widest
possible array of data with the fewest possible
statements.
b. Reductionism (= reductive):
• If the rules of a grammar fully describe the
composition of a particular structure, that
structure is not itself individually listed in the
grammar.
c. Generativity (= top-down):
• A grammar is a set of statements specifying in
full and explicit detail how expressions are
constructed; it gives a well-defined set of
expressions as “output”.
(1) Discourse is in fact the very basis for language
structure and is thus essential for understanding
grammar. […] Discourse is where structure, use,
and acquisition come together. Language is learned
through its interactive use in social contexts. Its
emergence from usage and social interaction is thus
a key factor in describing linguistic structure.
(Langacker 2008a: 457)
• Cf. language is learned through meaningful use,
rather than being innate (hence the usage-based
approach). (Langacker 2009b: 628)
(4) 使用依拠モデルの性格 (Langacker 1988:
131-133)
a. maximalist:
the maximalist conception views the linguistic
system as a massive, highly redundant
inventory of conventional units. These units
run the gamut from full generality to complete
idiosyncrasy, and no special significance
attaches to any distinctions one might draw
along this scale.
b. non-reductive:
Cognitive grammar is non-reductive by virtue
of recognizing both rules or patterns and the
individual knowledge of specific structures that
conform to them. A schema and its
instantiations represent different facets of
linguistic knowledge, and if they have the
status of units, both are included in the
grammar of a language.
c. bottom-up:
we must also give substantial weight to their arrays of
conventional instantiations, investigating the actual
extension of the patterns in question and the factors that
influence it. Furthermore, since patterns are abstracted
from specific instances, we need to investigate the
schematization process. […] Though regularities are
obviously noted and employed in the computation of
novel expressions, it is quite conceivable that low-level
schemas are more important for this purpose than highlyabstract schemas representing the broadest
generalizations possible.
(5) 非生成的、人格的
It is not the linguistic system per se that
constructs and understands novel expressions,
but rather the language user, who marshals for
this purpose the full panoply of available
resources. In addition to linguistic units, these
resources include such factors as memory,
planning, problem-solving ability, general
knowledge, short- and longer-term goals, as
well as full apprehension of the physical, social,
cultural, and linguistic context. (Langacker
1999:99)
a structured inventory of conventional
linguistic units
The present model identifies this “internal”
grammar as its object of description,
conceiving it dynamically, as a constantly
evolving set of cognitive routines that are
shaped, maintained, and modified by language
use. […] It (=the grammar of a language) can
be characterized as a structured inventory of
conventional linguistic units. (Langacker 1987:
57)
•
•
•
•
•
units
linguistic units
conventional linguistic units
an inventory of conventional linguistic units
a structured inventory of conventional
linguistic units
unit
A unit is a structure that a speaker has mastered
quite thoroughly, to the extent that he can
employ it in largely automatic fashion, without
having to focus his attention specifically on its
individual parts or their arrangement.
(Langacker 1987: 57)
entrenched
Every use of a structure has a positive impact
on its degree of entrenchment, whereas
extended periods of disuse have a negative
impact. With repeated use, a novel structure
becomes progressively entrenched, to the
point of becoming a unit; moreover, units are
variably entrenched depending on the
frequency of their occurrence (driven, for
example, is more entrenched than thriven).
(Langacker 1987: 59)
conventional
Conventionality implies that
something is shared – and further, that
it is recognized as being shared – by a
substantial number of individuals.
(Langacker 1987: 62)
structured
(9) The inventory must be seen
instead as structured, in the sense that
some units function as components of
others. (Langacker 1987: 73)
ネットワークとしての言語知識
(6) 使用依拠モデルの望ましさ
a. 自然さ：定着 (entrenchment)、抽象化・
スキーマ化、比較・カテゴリー化、合成
(composition)、連合・符合化、といった基
本的な認知能力のみを仮定
b. 概念的統合：意味、音韻、語彙、形態
論、統語論に適用可能
c. 簡素さ：意味、音韻、記号構造のみか
ら言語知識が構成される
内容要件 (Langacker 1987:53-54)
(i) 言語表現に実際現れる音韻的、意
味的、記号的構造、
(ii)それらをスキーマ化した構造、
(iii) (i)と(ii)の間で成り立つカテゴリー
化関係
(2) 認知文法はどんな点において使用依
拠的か？ (Langacker 2008a: 220, 458)
(i) usage events are the source of all linguistic units
(ii) the importance ascribed to lower-level schemas
(iii) their coexistence with higher-level schemas
they instantiate
(iv) the role of usage in driving language change
(i)-(iii)：言語知識の心的表示（の獲得、性格、運
用の）問題（本日のテーマ）
(iv)：言語使用の言語構造（の変化）に対する影
響の問題（明日のテーマ）
2.1. 言語知識の表示がmaximalistで
ある証拠
(8) 言語知識＝「辞書＋文法書」モデ
ルの問題点１：過剰生成
a.
b.
c.
d.
What is your age?
How long ago were you born?
How many years ago were you born?
How many years ago is it since you were
born?
e. How much time has elapsed since the
moment of your birth? (Taylor 2012:100)
f. What age do you have?
(cf. Quel age avez-vous?)
(9) 問題点２：過小生成
a. [HELP] You cannot say ‘explain me, him,
her, etc.’ (OALD8)
b. You explain something to someone: He
explained the system to me (NOT explained
me the syste) (LDCE5)
c. ［語法］O2が代名詞の場合explain O1 to O2
の代りに《略式》ではexplain O2 O1となることも
あるが《非標準的》（ジーニアス英和大辞典）
d. She explained {him/?Marion} her behavior.
(Green 1974:89)
?He explained me his plan.
(Quirk et al. 1985:59)
e. We explained him our behavior. (使用率2%
(USA), 10% (UK))
We explained John our behavior.（使用率2%
(USA), 7% (UK)）
「explainをSVOOの構文で用いる (b)の使用率
は低い。使用される場合があるという回答も
見られるが、米英ともに非標準的用法と考え
られていることがわかる」（鷹家・林 2004:124）
f. Can someone explain me how PHP interacts
with Java?
Thank you for your replies. They’ve explained
me what I wanted to know. (Taylor 2012: 29)
g. Can {someone/anyone/you} (please) explain
me wh-S? (ibid., p.31)
(11) 絶対複数 (pluralia tantum)
groceries
a. These groceries were expensive.
b. Groceries are getting more expensive.
c. *This grocery was expensive. {*a/*one/*the} grocery
d. We need {*three/?several/?numerous} groceries
premises
a. live on the premises
b. The police searched his premises.
c. He acquired a new premises.
d. He bought {several/a number of/three new} premises.
(Taylor 2012: 376)
there are no hard and fast rules, and there is a
certain amount of unpredictable variation in what
native speakers accept as grammatical:
• Bring as few valuables as possible with you, […]
• Many natural resources have been depleted in
the past century.
• ?The city doesn’t have many outskirts.
• *His many remains were cast into the ocean.
(Depraetere and Langford 2012:88)
(12) In fact, as we delve more deeply into the
distributional properties of individual words, it
becomes apparent that broad generalizations
about the syntactic properties of plural mass
nouns are inadequate for predicting a noun’s
acceptable range of uses. […] But at a sufficient
fine level of analysis, and taking into account a
noun’s preferred distributional patterns, each
word may well turn out to have a unique
distribution.
(Taylor 2012: 376)
(10) It will be my contention that the linguistic
evidence, if properly evaluated, leads to the
conclusion that speakers have recorded very
specific facts of usage, pertaining to such
matters as the frequency with which items have
been encountered and the contexts in which
they have been used. A further claim is that
memory traces, linked by patterns of similarity
and related by emergent generalizations, are all
there is to knowing a language.
(Taylor 2012: 3-4)
定着度を計るものとしての頻度
(13) in principle the degree of
entrenchment can be determined
empirically. Observed frequency provides
one basis for estimating it. (Langacker
2008a: 238)
(14a) The trip was a total failure.
(14b) The trip was a total success.
(Taylor 2012:2)
cf. The military operation was a total
success.（新編英和活用大辞典）
(17) Frequency thus belongs firmly in the
system of knowledge which constitutes Ilanguage. To know a language involves,
inter alia, knowing the relative frequency
of the various elements which comprise
the language. (ibid.,:148)
(15) a. In the foreseeable …
b. It was an unmitigated …
c. It was an unqualified …
d. It was a foregone … (Taylor 2012:106)
a. future
b. disaster
c. success
d. conclusion
(16) unmitigated (Taylor 2012: 159)
disaster
success
failure
joy
catastrophe
tragedy
calamity
158,000
19,400
15,100
8,450
4,310
3,900
1,400
misfortune
fiasco
happiness
accident
debacle
cataclysm
mishap
895
809
627
341
201
7
1
(18)
a. scare the shit out of someone 11
scare the life out of someone 9
scare the pants off someone 7
scare the living daylights out of someone
6
b. frighten the life out of someone
23
frighten the living daylights out of someone 2
c. terrify the life out of someone
1
terrify the wits out of someone
1
terrify the living daylights out of someone 1
2.2. 言語知識の表示がnon-reductive
である証拠
(19) t/dの長さ (Losiewicz 1992)
• morphemic [t] or [d] (e.g. swayed) > nonmorphemic [t] or [d] (e.g. suede)
• -ed on low-frequency verbs > -ed on highfrequency verbs
e.g. mauled, hovered, kneaded, inspected vs. called,
covered, needed, expected
high-frequency multimorphemic verbs are
represented as unitary wholes in the lexicon, while
low-frequency multimorphemic verbs are
processed as stem + affix. (Bybee 2007: 209)
(20) t/d 削除 (Bybee 2007: Ch.9)
Rate of deletion for regular past tense compared
to all other words of comparable frequency
All words
-ed verbs
%Deletion
45.8%
22.6%
The effects of word frequency on t/d
deletion in regular past tense verbs
Deletion Non%Deletion
deletion
44
67
39.6%
High
frequency
Low
11
frequency
47
18.9%
regular verbs of higher frequency have
lexical listing. If the –ed suffix were always
added to the verb by morphological rules,
there would be no reason for the length of
the suffix to be affected by the token
frequency of the whole unit, that is, the
past-tense verb form. (Bybee 2007: 209)
2.3. 言語知識の表示がbottom-upである
証拠
(21) Linguistic units are limited by the content
requirement to schematized representations of
configurations inherent in usage events. Since
schemas are the reinforced commonalities of
occurring expressions, they amount to positive
characterizations of what actually occurs in
language use. This direct relation between
structure and use offers an account of language
acquisition that in principle is quite
straightforward. (Langacker 2008a:221)
(22) In the current approach, the human
capacity for language is best seen as a
conspiracy of many different cognitive,
social-cognitive, information-processing,
and learning skills, some of which human
beings share with other primates and some
of which are unique products of human
evolution. (Tomasello 2003:321)
(23)・intention-reading and cultural
learning
・schematization and analogy
・entrenchment and competition
・functionally based distributional
(Tomasello 2003:295-6)
(24)
holophrases (e.g. I-wanna-do-it; Lemmesee; Where-the-bottle)
> pivot schemas (e.g. More ; gone)
> item-based constructions (e.g. Throw ;
running; kick )
> abstract constructions (e.g. TRANS-SUBJ
TRANS-VERB TRANS-OBJ)
(25) Diessel and Tomasello (2000:142)
Presentational Relative Construction (PRCs)
Amalgam Construction ⇒ Regular PRC
⇒ Other Relative Constructions
(26)
Amalgam Construction: That’s doggy turn
around; Here’s a mouse go sleep.
Regular PRC: That is the sugar that goes in
there. (ibid., p.136, p.139)
生成文法の言語習得観
(27) おとなの文法＝f (UG, E)
ただし、f: 文法獲得関数、E: 経験
「生得的に与えられたUGに対し、経験が
与えられれば、両者間の一定の相互作用
により、瞬時にして文法が獲得される。」
（大津 1989: 203, 207）
(28) 現実の文法獲得にあっては言語経験
の提示順や提示時期が獲得の最終産物
であるおとなの文法の性質に影響を与え
ないということを前提とするならば、文法
獲得は本質的に①内包的であり、②連続
性仮説に従うものと考えることができる。
（大津 1989:210）
(29) 連続性仮説：the nongrammatical
cognitive mechanisms, grammatical primitives,
and manner of grammatical realization for
children are qualitatively (though not
necessarily quantitatively) the same as those for
adults. (Pinker 1984:10)
= インプットはアウトプットに影響を与えず、子供
の文法と大人の文法は（量的な違いはあって
も）質的な違いはない
(30) The conclusion in the case of the issue of
individual differences and the language acquisition
process is thus that input does matter […]. Children
learn what they hear, and different children hear
different things and in different quantities. What
this suggests is that language acquisition is not just
triggered by the linguistic environment, as
proposed by generative grammarians, but rather
the linguistic environment provides the raw
materials out of which young children construct
their linguistic inventories. (Tomasello 2003:110)
(31) There is not one shred of evidence for the
continuity assumption. The reason children’s language
does not look like adult language is that it is not like it
in terms of the underlying representations involved;
children’s language is structured by much weaker and
more local linguistic abstractions. Perhaps, then, we
should abandon the continuity assumption and instead
adopt the developmental assumption that whereas the
processes working at different developmental stages
are constant, the actual structures and representations
involved are different at these different stages.
(Tomasello 2003:323-4)
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc
