Network models have been under development in theoretical linguistics
for about two decades now. They are found in both cognitive/functional
(anti-Chomsky) and formal (Chomskyan) linguistic theories. Scholars in
the former are Dick Hudson, Ron Langacker, and Joan Bybee, and in the
latter folks like Steve Pinker (see his book "Words and Rules").
I'll speak with regard to vocabulary only for the moment. The idea is
that our mental stock of roots, suffixes, prefixes, and other memorized
items is arranged in a huge network in our minds. Each item consists of,
first of all, a connection between its pronunciation and its meaning.
Then, each item is also connected to many other items by virtue of
similarities in form, meaning, or the fact that the concepts occur
together in experience. Both its meaning and its pronunciation are
connected to other items. So you have a big network of items (like nodes
in a network, or knots in a net) connected to each other somehow (as
rope in a net reaches from knot to knot).
Let's take an example: "ring", the jewelry item. We know how it is
pronounced; we also know it is a noun. Its basic meaning is the round
metal band worn on a finger, but this meaning is embedded in something
much richer: first, numerous kinds of rings (engagement, friendship,
papal, wedding, signet, etc.), and then, the contexts in which these
different types appear. Hearing the term "wedding ring" can cause us,
depending on the context, to call up rich information about weddings and
/ or marriage. Hearing "papal ring" calls up a very different domain of
knowledge, probably including rituals like kissing the Pope's ring, etc.
You can think of the meaning of a single word as having layers: the
simplest layer is the characteristics that carry across most items in
the class (most rings, in this case). As we "zoom in" on the category,
we have the different types of rings. In order to understand these
types, we have to have rich "background" knowledge of each domain:
weddings, friendship, Popes (I put "background" in quotes because many
network theorists believe that the rich detail of this knowledge is what
defines the word; it is not merely background).
"Ring" shares its pronunciation with another word: the verb "to ring",
as what a bell does. Jewelry "ring" and bell "ring" are very likely
connected to each other because of this sameness. Various studies show
that people activate or subconsciously "notice" ambiguous words, even
when the context resolves the ambiguity. They wouldn't do this unless
the word they hear activates both meanings. Another bit of evidence is a
certain type of speech error: the speaker retrieves, not the intended
word, but a word from the same meaning domain. Thus someone might say
"aunt" instead of "cousin", or "moose" instead of "caribou". People also
often choose the word from the wrong end of the scale they are talking
about -- saying "hot" for "cold" or "low" for "high".
Speech errors would be random if there weren't psychological connections
between the intended words and the actual words. The errors aren't
random. People are not very likely to say "winesap" when they mean
"caribou".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba Associate Professor, Linguistics
English Department, California Polytechnic State University
One Grand Avenue • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. (805)-756-2184 • Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone. 756-2596
• E-mail: [log in to unmask] • Home page:
http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
