VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:16:00 05/27/07 Sun
Author: Matheus Corrêa
Subject: Task 3

[This is a classification essay, because I wrote a process analysis essay for task 2]

Lexicon and Syntax in Cognitive Grammar

In Generative Grammar, syntax consists of rules that allows us to combine different words into phrases and sentences. It is considered an autonomous system totally distinct from the lexicon. But, however widespread, the perspective that human language is composed of discrete modules is not shared by all linguists. An important critic of this view is Ronald W. Langacker, the creator of Cognitive Grammar, who argues that lexicon and grammar are part of the same continuum.

According to Langacker, "lexicon and grammar form a gradation fully describable as assemblies of symbolic structures." (1) This means that he denies the modularity of language, claiming that all its structures can be described in terms of symbols, much like molecules can be described as the sum of atoms. Lexicon and syntax, then, wouldn't be sui generis structures, but simply different levels of organization.

Here a symbol is defined as the pairing of a semantic structure and a phonological structure. The least complex symbols are named morphemes; examples of which include "hair", "less" and "head". The lexicon, in its turn, is defined as the set of fixed expressions in any given language. That way, words such as "hairless" are part of the lexicon, even though they are formed by two morphemes.

Langacker notices that, through the observation of reoccurring patterns in a language, we can create schemes to describe it. Upon observing lexical items such as "hairless", "moonless" and "penniless", for example, we might arrive at "X-less". Then, with that scheme, we are able to create novel words by inserting different morphemes into the X slot.

We arrive at grammatical rules through the exact same process. For example, "he parked the car," "he bought the car" and "he drove the car" can all be described as "he X the car." The same way, "John X the car," "Mary X the car" and "Ronald X the car" can be described as "Y X the car." Notice that each sentence is formed exclusively by combinations of symbols whose patterns can be expressed in a higher level of abstraction.

All this validates Langacker's previous claim that grammar and lexicon are made of the same building blocks. According to him, "the reduction of grammar to symbolic assemblies achieves an important conceptual unification." (2) His efforts have not come uncriticized, but even those who disagree with his position have admitted that he "makes a surprisingly good case for it" (Hudson 1992: 508).

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.