I am grateful for the explanations. I don't know
anything about cognitive grammar but I occassionally receive
forwarded messages from CogLing that are always interesting.
Isn't CogLing associated with Anthropological linguistics?
I have also found Silverstein (in one or two pieces) and those
who have studied with him (far more often) to be extrememly
helpful.
It does certainly seem that cognitive linguistics has affinity with
SFL. Can you provide the full citation for Hopper & Thompson? Are
there other references you would recommend for a newbie to the
theory?
Thank you.
Judy
At 09:31 PM 2/10/99 -0800, you wrote:
>In response to Judy's message: Each linguistic theory 'cuts up' the
>content to be analyzed -- language -- in different ways. Sometimes these
>lead to fundamental differences in the way language is viewed, and
>sometimes they easily translate into one another. I am not totally clear
>yet on SFG's way of 'cutting up' language. I am finding a lot that is
>useful, but in many matters I prefer the way Cognitive Grammar, my 'home'
>theory, does things. An awful lot is in semantics in Cog. Gr. Not only
>individual morphemes have semantics; constructions do as well (a similar
>theory, but one less radically different from Chomskyan generative
>theories, is Construction Grammar).
>
>I think SFG and cognitive theories like Cog. Gr. can cross-feed; I think
>each handles specific aspects of language with strength and clarity that
>the other lacks. Cog. Gr. (at least so far as I have studied it; I'm a bit
>more out of touch with syntax and discourse studies in it than with
>morphology, my specialty) does morpheme and construction level semantics
>very well, but has been short on the text function. There is more
>crossover in terminology than you might think (so 'process' is the
>technical term for 'verb' in CG and 'thing' is the technical term for
>'noun'; each is described semantically. I know there are also
>discourse-based definitions, which I want to review in Hopper and
>Thompson's 'The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal
>grammar'.)
>
>As to langue/parole, I don't know how clear an understanding we have of
>Saussure's intentions on this -- he didn't publish; his students gathered
>notes from his lectures, published them in French, and they have been
>translated into English. So the messages are indirect. Generativists have
>based their competence/performance distinction on the langue/parole
>distinction. I am not comfortable with this distinction; generative
>linguistics has used it to exclude pragmatics and the ability to use a
>language in socially appropriate fashion from the domain of linguistics;
>also to exclude socially motivated variation from serious study.
>
>I am comfortable with a difference between our latent knowledge of
>language vs. the occasions on which we actually activate and use parts of
>that knowledge in communication. The knowlege we have is potential -- it
>is there, ready to serve. When it is applied in real time and in
>communication other factors do come into play. But I don't see this as
>terribly important in studying language. Generativists have found it
>important because it is a way of enabling a view of language as a 'formal
>system' like mathematics -- I would say like logic, too, but logic is a
>human-invented system. Mathematics certainly seems to model stuff that
>goes on in the physical universe. But physicists and mathematicians will
>be the first to tell you that the models are incomplete and inconsistent
>in important ways. It has been a way of taking language out of the mind,
>or at least segregating parts of it into modules, and studying them apart
>from other systems of thought and of communication. This approach has its
>benefits, but I believe the drawbacks are very serious. I think it is also
>fruitful to explore the idea that language is bound up with other systems,
>at least as a working hypothesis.
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Johanna Rubba Assistant Professor, Linguistics ~
>English Department, California Polytechnic State University ~
>San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 ~
>Tel. (805)-756-2184 Fax: (805)-756-6374 ~
>E-mail: [log in to unmask] ~
>Office hours Winter 1999: Mon/Wed 10:10-11am Thurs 2:10-3pm ~
>Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba ~
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183
Eternity is in love with the productions of time - Wm Blake
|
