View
36
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Normal human communication via oral language. A speaker has an idea he wishes to communicate. In order to do so, he moves the parts of his articulatory system, producing an acoustic signal. speaker. Articulator movements. Communication via oral language. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Normal human communication via oral language
A speaker has an idea he wishes to communicate.
speaker
Articulator movements
signal
In order to do so, he moves the parts of his articulatory system, producing an acoustic signal.
Communication via oral language
The signal reaches the ears of a hearer.
speaker
Articulator movements
signal
The hearer perceives and interprets the signal.
Reception of the signal by the audio-perceptive system
This stimulates in his mind the idea that the speaker intended.
hearer
This is how humans normally communicate
speaker
Articulatory movements
signal
Audio-perceptive routines
hearer
Terminology
The idea the speaker wants to communicate is the meaning (signifié).
The meaning which the speaker intends is often a bit different from what the hearer comes up with. Thus we can distinguish the meanings from the meaningh.
Terminology
The phonological structure which the speaker activates is often a bit different from what the hearer gets. Thus we can distinguish the phonological structures from the phonological structureh.
The cognitive routines of production, perception and interpretation of the signal symbolize the meaning. They constitute the phonological structure (signifiant).
Terminology
The mental (cognitive) association between a phonological structure and a meaning is a symbolic link.
The structure formed by the association of a meaning and a phonological structure is a symbol.
Applying the terminology to the model of communication:
speaker
signal
hearer
meaninghmeanings
phonological structures
symbolic link
phonological structureh
symbol
A specific example(from Mixe)
speaker
signal
hearersymbolic
link
symbol
t hkv t hkvaudio-perceptive routines
neuro-muscular routines
audio-perceptive
routines
Important points
They include a productive (neuromuscular) aspect, and a receptive (audio-perceptive) aspect.
Phonological structures are cognitive structures (=routines).
The signal does not “have” or “carry” meaning. The meaning is in the minds of the speaker and hearer.
Important points
In normal conversation the speaker and hearer constantly switch roles.
They do not have two separate sets of symbols in their minds, one for speaking with and the other for hearing.
The symbols in the minds of the speaker and hearer must be quite similar.
Otherwise comunication will be very difficult.
Important points
For those two reasons,The similarities between symbols in the minds of different people, andThe unity of the symbols in each person’s mind,
We often get away with speaking of meanings and phonological structures without distinguishing between the production and the perception of a symbol,though sometimes we do well to distinguish.
Terminology
The study of meanings is Semantics. The meaning is the semantic pole of a symbol.
The study of phonological structures is (of course) Phonology.
We also speak of the phonological pole of a symbol.
Terminology
Symbols are bipolar
semantic pole
phonolo-gical pole
symbolic link
symbol
Other types of signals
There are other types of signalsGestures and bodily movements (sign languages)Writing (of many types)Morse code, Braille, etc.
Anything that a communicator controls, and a “communicatee” perceives, can function as a signal.
Spoken language is prototypical
Much of what is said of the speaker and hearer is true, mutatis mutandis, in the case of communication via other kinds of signals.
In many contexts, as a result,
Speaker = communicator
Hearer = communicatee
Phonological structure = signifiant of whatever kind
The symbolic link
The symbolic link is at the heart of language.
semantic pole
phonolo-gical pole
symbolic link
symbol
The symbolic link
What is its basic character?It is a mental association
semantic pole
phonolo-gical pole
mental association
The symbolic link
What is its basic character?It is a mental association
that works in both directions
semantic pole
phonolo-gical pole
mental association
The symbolic link
It works in both directions
semantic pole
phonolo-gical pole
the link facilitates the activation of the phonological pole
If you activate the semantic pole,
mental association
The symbolic link
It works in both directions
semantic pole
phonolo-gical pole
the link facilitates the activation of the semantic pole
On the other hand, if you first activate the phonological pole,
mental association
The arbitrariness of the symbolic link
The great Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure said that the symbolic link is “arbitrary”.
Many understand him to have meant that there is no reason for associating any particular semantic pole with its particular phonological pole.
semantic pole
phonolo-gical pole
unmotivated mental
association
This is not always or necessarily true, however.
Types of symbolic links
Symbolic linka conventional mental (cognitive) association between a meaning
(signifié) and a signifiant.
Iconic symbolic linka conventional mental (cognitive)
association between a meaning and a signifiant which is parallel to it in
some way. The parallelism motivates the association.
Arbitrary Symbolic Linka conventional mental (cognitive)
association between a meaning and a signifiant, with no reason for the association other than convention
Phonological and semantic “spaces”
Symbolic links cross the boundary between the semantic and phonological “spaces”.
symbolic links
semantic structure
phonological structure
semantic space
phonological space
ɻústdɔŋki
Semantic and phonological spaces
Phonological space is also part of semantic space
symbolic links
semantic space
phonological spaceha sʷ
kàkədùdldú
hghghg
Structuring of symbols by integration and composition
The rooster and its crow are components of a more inclusive structure that includes both of them.a. and b. are equivalent: a. is “compacted” and b. is “exploded”
b.
ɻúst
semantic space
phonological space
ɻúst
a.
kàkədù dú kàkədù dú
From morpheme to discourse: the cline of complexity
simplecomplex
at a high level of complexity
units more likely to be highly specific (lexical)
units more likely to be highly abstract patterns
little flexibility: either it is correct, or it’s incorrect
lots of flexibility
morpheme
com
plex
st
em discourse
wor
d
phra
se
clau
se
com
plex
se
nten
cepa
ragr
aph
sect
ion
— — — — — — — —
Unipolar vs. bipolar complexityPopocatépetl is complex phonologically and semantically, but (in English or Spanish) simple in bipolar terms.
popokatépetɬ
Unipolar vs. bipolar complexity
Tumbaburros is simpler in its phonology, but much more complex in bipolar terms.
atumb sobur
Relative predominance of lexical vs. “grammatical” structures
Lexical structures predominate at the morpheme and word levels, and practically disappear at the discourse level.
detailed
highly schematic pattern
morpheme
com
plex
st
em discourse
wor
d
phra
se
clau
se
com
plex
se
nten
cepa
ragr
aph
sect
ion
— — — — — — — —
Relative predominance of lexical vs. “grammatical” structures
How should we classify or categorize these kinds of structures.
detailed
highly schematic pattern
morpheme
com
plex
st
em discourse
wor
d
phra
se
clau
se
com
plex
se
nten
cepa
ragr
aph
sect
ion
— — — — — — — —
Relative predominance of lexical vs. “grammatical” structures
Traditionally they are separated into different “modules”, run according to different rules, by different mechanisms.
detailed
highly schematic pattern
morpheme
com
plex
st
em discourse
wor
d
phra
se
clau
se
com
plex
se
nten
cepa
ragr
aph
sect
ion
— — — — — — — —
Relative predominance of lexical vs. “grammatical” structures
CG takes this to be wrong-headed.
(Empirically it is problematical.)
detailed
highly schematic pattern
morpheme
com
plex
st
em discourse
wor
d
phra
se
clau
se
com
plex
se
nten
cepa
ragr
aph
sect
ion
— — — — — — — —
Imposing categories on a cline
—
childhood youth maturity
minor adult
minimum chrono-logical age
maximum age
highly dependent independent dependent
weak strong less strong
ignorant wise
baby
little
chi
ld
old personch
ildad
oles
cent
youn
g ad
ult
mat
ure
adul
t
mid
dle-
aged
adu
ltol
der a
dult
— — — — — — — —
embr
yo?
—
dece
ased
?
senile?
Think of other kinds of gradual or scalar phenomena that we categorize: e.g. age.
Moral:
Binary divisions on such a cline oversimplify the reality.
detailed
highly schematic pattern
morpheme
com
plex
st
em discourse
wor
d
phra
se
clau
se
com
plex
se
nten
cepa
ragr
aph
sect
ion
— — — — — — — —
—
childhood youth maturity
minor adult
minimum chrono-logical age
maximum age
highly dependent independent dependent
weak strong less strong
ignorant wise
baby
little
chi
ld
old personch
ildad
oles
cent
youn
g ad
ult
mat
ure
adul
t
mid
dle-
aged
adu
ltol
der a
dult
— — — — — — — —
embr
yo?
—
dece
ased
?
senile?
Moral:
Describing it with fixed boundaries between categories, different rules for categories, and no differences within categories, inevitably distorts it.
detailed
highly schematic pattern
morpheme
com
plex
st
em discourse
wor
d
phra
se
clau
se
com
plex
se
nten
cepa
ragr
aph
sect
ion
— — — — — — — —
LE
XIC
ON
Mo
rph
olo
gy
SY
NT
AX
DIS
CO
UR
SE
Moral:
This does not mean that CG cannot distinguish between lexicon, morphology, syntax, etc.
detailed
highly schematic pattern
morpheme
com
plex
st
em discourse
wor
d
phra
se
clau
se
com
plex
se
nten
cepa
ragr
aph
sect
ion
— — — — — — — —
LE
XIC
ON
Mo
rph
olo
gy
SY
NT
AX
DIS
CO
UR
SE
Moral:
It does mean (a) that there will not be fixed boundaries between them.
detailed
highly schematic pattern
morpheme
com
plex
st
em discourse
wor
d
phra
se
clau
se
com
plex
se
nten
cepa
ragr
aph
sect
ion
— — — — — — — —
LE
XIC
ON
Mo
rph
olo
gy
SY
NT
AX
DIS
CO
UR
SE
Moral:
detailed
highly schematic pattern
morpheme
com
plex
st
em discourse
wor
d
phra
se
clau
se
com
plex
se
nten
cepa
ragr
aph
sect
ion
— — — — — — — —
LE
XIC
ON
Mo
rph
olo
gy
SY
NT
AX
DIS
CO
UR
SE
It will also mean (b) that they will be governed by similar rules and mechanisms, so that they can grade easily into each other.
Association
Perhaps the most basic kind of relationship between structures is association.
Association reduces ultimately to some kind of co-occurrence in the mind.
“Neurons that fire together wire together”
Association is pretty much the same mechanism at a higher level: concepts that occur together get associated.
Association
Often two concepts occur together because they are parts of a third, more inclusive concept.
E.g. TREE and /tɹi/ are associated because they occur together as parts of the word tree.
E.g. chalk and blackboards are associated because they occur together in a classroom scenario.
Other relationships can be thought of as adding something to an association.
Association
Thus the brute association of chalk and blackboard also involves physical touching, the piece of chalk leaving part of itself behind on the board as a mark, that mark being the result intended by the teacher wielding the chalk, etc.
Association
You cannot relate two structures in your mind without their coocurring there. As such coocurrence is entrenched (becomes a unit) an association is established
Association
Bottom line: all cognitive relationships are associations, whatever else they may be besides. This includes identifications (correspondences) and schematicity relations (see ahead)We generally talk about associations only when other aspects of the relationships are less prominent / less germane to our purposes
CorrespondenceTwo conceived entities correspond when they are
taken as identical.
This is expressed in diagrams by a dashed line of correspondence. A and B, in the diagram, are understood to be the same thing.
A B
Correspondence
Correspondence is a bit of a tricky notion, however, in a couple of ways.
In the first place, it is inherently paradoxical.
Although two concepts are understood to be one, they nevertheless are two concepts.
A B
Correspondence
(That’s not as weird as it sounds, actually. We do it all the time. The changing visual impressions of somebody’s face are understood to be views of the same person, for instance.)
A B
Correspondence
What is recognized is that all aspects of A are present in B as well, and vice versa.
We thus see A and B simultaneously as two concepts, and yet as the same one.
The two concepts may actually differ very significantly in their emphases or in which facets of the understood unity are most in view.
This is related to the second kind of oddness.
Correspondence
Lines of correspondence are often (almost inevitably, it seems) used in practice in a less strict sense to mean (strict) correspondence of one aspect (an “Active Zone”) of one concept with some aspect of another.
Sloppy use of correspondence lines
The sound and the rooster’s mouth are not the same thing.
Rather the place the sound comes from is the one defined by the rooster’s mouth.
kàkədù dú
Strictly speaking, correspondence is identity
But when correspondences are used strictly the connected entities are being represented as being identical.
ɻúst
kàkədù dú
Correspondence
The experience of recognition or identification is very important to us.
Especially this is true of the identification of part of one entity with part of another.
This is absolutely central to our ability to link concepts together to form more complex concepts.
Correspondence
Correspondence lines are like the lines on a mechanics’ or a carpenter’s drawings.They can be seen as the record of distortion caused by pulling a unified structure apart.
Correspondence
Alternatively they are the instructions telling you how to join the pieces up when putting a complex concept together.
Correspondence
Our ability to recognize and establish correspondences is also basic to our (extremely basic ) ability to compare concepts.
Recommended