Dimensions of Language:
Linear text is one dimensional, but thought is three dimensional, how is this reconciled? Stemmatic syntax is the two dimensional link between the two. A funnel like effect happens; thought is 3D, structured in a 2D way, stemmaticly bound, then expressed in a 1D way, text. The opposite is proposed for understanding text.
It is like an extraction process, expanding out some data from one dimension to three, through the medium of stemma. Text is like compressed thought, almost like compressing a file, winzip is needed to extract information from this file, likewise, cognitive schemas are used to understand what is going on in the text; to extract the information, uncompress it into an intelligible format.
Five Level Model of Language :
|
Level 1
|
Form
|
Strict form, the words as they appear on the page, replacing C.G's form
|
|
|
Level 2
|
Stemma
|
A mediation between form and thought, a structuring mechanism built from common cognitive operations
|
Syntax |
|
Level 3
|
Semantic
|
Truth conditional meaning, representation of a factual situation, framing
|
Morphological Transformations, closed class features |
|
Level 4
|
Domain Semantics
|
Possible things to think, filling the representation with categorical knowledge
|
Lexicology, encyclopedia of information |
|
Level 5
|
Pragmatic Semantics
|
The problemathique, we think when we have a problem, this is the situation that forces thought. Conceptual integration happens in this step.
|
Mental spaces, anchored in reality |
Goldberg Discussion:
Ex 8) He sneezed the napkin off the table.
Goldberg wants to get away from different sense of the verb because she realizes that this would ultimately lead to infinite different definitions for the same verb, which is a problem. She posits that " we can understand aspects of the final interpretation involving caused motion, intended transfer, or caused result to be contributed by the respective constructions. That is, we can understyand skeletal constructions to be capable of contributing these arguments."
So, the verb is acting differently in the different constructions in which it appears. However, there seems to be no limit to the constructions that can be proposed. Stemmatic analysis may give some insight.
EX 8)
EX10)
Both of these cases show an intransitive verb taking an object, which is peculiar. In 8, a blend was proposed with the 4-5 branches. caused motion and co-agent, catalyzed by the transitivization of the verb. This blend gives an emphatic result.
There was also a discussion of composite prepositions, such as into, onto, within, without. Into with as 4-4, so it was proposed that this double four contributed to the grouping of these morphemes into one.
Little red riding hood was stemmatized:
After this last sentence, the enunciation tree was discussed.
This is an interesting parallel stemmatic tree that will be elaborated upon in later classes.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.