Construal and its representative forms in cognitive linguistics
DALAT UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE Volume 11, Issue 3, 2021 3-27
CONSTRUAL AND ITS REPRESENTATIVE FORMS
IN COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS
Duong Huu Biena*
aThe Faculty of Literatures and History, Dalat University, Lam Dong, Vietnam
*Corresponding author: Email: [email protected]
Article history
Received: April 7th, 2020 | Accepted: May 4th, 2020
Available online: April 25th, 2021
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine construal as a basic human cognitive operation
and its representative forms in Cognitive Linguistics. To achieve this purpose, the paper
focuses on two main points: (a) a brief introduction to construal and some of its
classification models; (b) an examination of the representative forms of construal which we
often see in the literature of Cognitive Linguistics.
Keywords: Construal; Fictive motion; Mental scanning; Profile; Viewpoint; Windowing of
attention.
Article type: (peer-reviewed) Full-length research article
Copyright © 2021 The author(s).
Licensing: This article is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0
3
DALAT UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE [SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES]
INTRODUCTION
1.
Construal is one of the central concepts of Cognitive Linguistics. This concept
denotes one of the basic human cognitive operations; it relates to the way a language
user chooses to “package” or “present” a conceptual representation as encoded in
language, which in turn “has consequences for the conceptual representation that the
utterance evokes in the mind of the hearer” (Evans, 2007, p. 40). In other words,
construal is the basic cognitive operation that helps to choose the appropriate structural
possibility among different alternatives, which are different ways of seeing a particular
situation or scene, thereby deciding how language is used. For example, when “a
speaker who accurately observes the spatial distribution of certain stars can describe
them in many distinct fashions: as a constellation, as a cluster of stars, as specks of light
in the sky, etc. Such expressions are semantically distinct; they reflect the speaker’s
alternate construals of the scene, each compatible with its objectively given properties”
(Langacker, 1991, p. 61). This shows that the user of language “is assumed to have the
ability of construing one and the same situation in a number of alternate ways and of
making different senses of it” (Langacker, 1991, p. 61).
The purpose of this paper is to examine construal as the basic human cognitive
operation and its representative forms in Cognitive Linguistics. To achieve this purpose,
the paper focuses on two main points: the first is a brief introduction to construal and
some of its classification models, and the second is an examination of the representative
forms of construal which we often see in the literature of Cognitive Linguistics.
2.
SOME CLASSIFICATION MODELS OF CONSTRUAL IN COGNITIVE
LINGUISTICS
2.1.
Langacker's classification model
In his 1987 classic work, Langacker (1987, pp. 116-137) classified construal
operations into three components, which he called “focal adjustments.”1
•
•
•
1. Selection
2. Perspective
3. Abstraction
1 Focus adjustment is a kernel concept in Langacker's Cognitive Grammar. This concept signifies how the
speaker focuses attention on a particular facet of a given scene. In language, this is gain by making focal
adjustments of any given scene's particular aspect using different linguistic expressions or grammatical
constructions to describe that scene. For example, the visual metaphor is the focal adjustment expression
that shows visual perception is fundamental to how we focus attention on aspects of the experience. “By
choosing a particular focal adjustment and thus linguistically 'organizing' a scene in a specific way, the
speaker imposes a unique construal upon that scene.” (Evans 2007, pp. 81-82).
4
Duong Huu Bien
The component selection is understood as language users’ capacity to attend
selectively to these facets of a conceptualization while neglecting others. The
components perspective involves linguistic exhibitions of the position from which an
observed situation and this component comprise four subtypes: (a) Figure/Ground
alignment, (b) viewpoint, (c) deixis, and (d) objectivity/subjectivity. Abstraction is the
component that describes our ability to set commonalities among distinct phenomena
and abstract from differences, and therefore to organize concepts into classes and
categories.
However, in 1993, in Universals of Construal, Langacker revised his 1987
classification into the following four components:2
•
•
•
•
1. Specificity
2. Prominence
3. Perspective
4. Dynamicity
It is easy to see that the specificity component approximately corresponds to the
previous abstraction component. The prominence is a new component that includes
notably Figure/Ground phenomena and the phenomena previously classified under
the selection label. Perspective is not modified, excluding the Figure/Ground subtype
now has to be placed in the prominence component. Dynamicity is an additional
component. This component is related to a conceptualization's development by
processing time (rather than by conceived time). It is the first component of four ones
related to the inherently temporal nature of utterances: Presenting a conceptualization's
elements in different order results in differences of meaning. Besides, a dynamic and
sequential concept can also lead to a dynamic concept's application to an object of
conceptualization that is not itself inherently dynamic (as in Con đường này uốn lượn
qua Thung lũng Tình yêu [The road winds through the Valley of Love]).
2.2.
Talmy’s classification model
Initially, in his 1988 work, Talmy offered to classify the following “imaging
systems” as the main components of construal operation:
•
•
1. Schematization
2. Perspective
2 However, Langacker (1993, p. 448) also pointed out that if only for expository purposes, can classify
construal into the following five general components: specificity, scope, prominence, backGround,
and perspective.
5
DALAT UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE [SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES]
•
•
3. Attention
4. Force Dynamics
It is easy to see the considerable overlap between Talmy’s and Langacker’s
classifications. Talmy’s schematization mostly corresponds to Langacker’s specificity;
they both have a perspective component containing similar phenomena, and “Talmy’s
attention component overlaps with Langacker’s prominence”. Force Dynamics does not
appear in Langacker’s classification.
However, in 2000, Talmy (pp. 40-84) revised and adjusted his 1988
classification, so that now the main construal components are as follows:
•
•
•
•
1. Configurational structure
2. Perspective
3. Distribution of attention
4. Force Dynamics
Talmy (2000) called the main construal components schematic systems. A
schematic category that cuts across these four schematic systems is called domain. This
domain category involves only two major construal dimensions, namely space
and time.3
Therefore, a particular construal form from the configurational structure
schematic system (e.g., [±boundedness]) may apply to some domains. For example,
concepts may be construed both in the space domain and the time domain as continuous
(as masses in space or activities in time) or as discrete (as objects in space or actions in
time). These construal forms' cross-combination may be provided by linguistic evidence
from nominalization (which “transforms concepts from the time domain to the space
domain) by the construe acts as objects and activities as masses.”) Observe the
following pairs of sentences in (1) and (2) from Talmy (1988, 2000, p. 43):
(1)
(2)
John called me. – John gave me a call.
John helped me. – John gave me some help.
3
Talmy (2000, p. 47) views “domain as a schematic category perpendicular to his four schematic
systems”, and Croft and Cruse (2004, chapter 3) consider domain as an additional system. Besides, Talmy
introduces identificational space as a complementing member for the domain category “to accommodate
such differences as ones between you and they in their vague uses (you indicating identification with the
speaker, and they nonidentification).”
6
Duong Huu Bien
According to Talmy's analysis, call in the first clause in (1) is an act, and in the
second clause of (1) it is reified as an object. While help in the first clause in (2) is an
activity, and in the second clause of (2) it is reified as a mass.
Compared with Langacker’s approach, we see that Talmy’s space and time
domains match Langacker’s noun-verb distinction. In particular, Langacker (1987,
2005a) views “nouns as things, read as a construal emerging from conceptual grouping
and reification, and verbs as processes, understood as a construal rising from sequential
scanning of a temporally displayed relationship”. Besides, Langacker does not handle
the noun-verb distinction as reflecting a fundamental schematic kind but as a particular
case of Figure/Ground organization (in particular, the profile-based organization) and
categorization organization. For example, Langacker (2005a) illustrated that “the
English noun and verb cook shared the same conceptual content. But in one construction
class (the cook, etc.,) this content is profiled, and in another construction class (to cook,
etc.,) encoded a processual construal”. Because of these patterns, cook can be explained
as having a schematic understanding, which does not impose a particular profile, thus it
serves as a superordinate kind for the specific nominal and verbal uses of cook
(Langacker, 2005a).
From the mentioned points above, it is easy to see that while the concepts
deployed in Langacker’s and Talmy’s analyses play a slightly different role than that in
their respective frameworks, but basically, their approaches achieve the same insights.
Besides, both Langacker and Talmy keep the idea that some construal components can
be involved in the meaning of a single linguistic expression. The common of these two
approaches is that, at least to some extent, any classification of construal phenomena in
a particular language is arbitrary because linguistic units often participate in more than a
single construal kind.
Croft and Cruse (2004, pp 43-46) also point out, to some extent, “the
classification of construal phenomena is arbitrary or cannot be entirely motivated. They
remark that the classification models proposed by Langacker and Talmy share many
features, but it is difficult to reconcile their differences.” They note that in both
Langacker’s and Talmy’s models, some construal components are still missing. Their
integration into the two proposed models is not evident.
2.3.
Croft and Cruse’s classification model
Based on an earlier comparison of Langacker's and Talmy's construal
classification models, Croft and Wood (2000, p. 45) state that the main components in
such a classification “should correspond to psychological processes and capacities”.
Therefore, there is no surprise when Croft and Cruse's (2004) proposed classification
model overlaps with Langacker’s and Talmy’s classification models. Aside from some
trivial reassignments of specific construal kinds to other major components, the main
difference between Croft and Cruse’s classification model and Langacker’s and Talmy’s
classification model is that the former is more comprehensive than the two latter ones.
In Croft and Cruse's (2004) model, the main components are:
7
DALAT UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE [SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES]
1. Attention/Salience
•
•
•
•
2. Judgment/Comparison
3. Perspective/Situatedness
4. Constitution/Gestalt
It is easy to see that the components of attention/salience comprise the same
construal types as “the ones subsumed under Talmy’s attention component and
Langacker’s prominence. But it also contains–as subcomponents–certain construal
phenomena that had the status of primary construals in Langacker’s and Talmy’s
models.” Specifically, it includes Langacker’s abstraction and dynamicity and Talmy’s
schematization. Furthermore, it contains the subcomponent scope, a component that both
Langacker and Talmy not discussed explicitly (for details, see: Croft & Cruse, 2004).
The component of judgment/comparison contains the metaphor, categorization,
and Figure/Ground as its subcomponents. Figure/Ground reassigned from
attention/prominence in Talmy’s and Langacker’s models. And categorization is not
seen as a schematization phenomenon, as Talmy did, although there is a close
connection between the two. The addition of metaphor in construal phenomena gives
this classification model more comprehensive than the two previous classification
models.
Perspective is the component most similar to the other offers. Finally,
constitution/gestalt overlaps with Talmy’s (2000) configurational structure and also
contains force dynamics.
2.4.
Some remarks on construal classification models
From consideration of the three construal classification models above, can be
drawn the following remarks:
Firstly, although all three classification models mentioned above share “the
requirement that they should reflect general and well-established psychological
capacities”, they are still considerably different. Indeed, despite being the formulators of
this requirement most emphatically, Croft and Cruse's (2004) proposal raises the same
kind of questions as those raised by the others. For example, why should the fictive
motion be grouped under attention/salience but not under constitution/gestalt? This fact
shows that the group, assignment, or arrangement of particular construal operations
under one rubric rather than another cannot always be motivated transparently. Besides,
the increase in coverage of construal operations in Croft and Cruse's (2004) model goes
hand in hand with a further decrease in its clearness. Moreover, it looks as if the
development of any new construal operation requires its newly specific component.
This reality tells us that construal operations may vary in many aspects and that efforts
for an exhaustive classification necessarily have a significant degree of arbitrariness.
8
Duong Huu Bien
Secondly, from a cognitive perspective, it is reasonable that one should not
expect that a complete and comprehensive classification model of construal operations
can be possible. Therefore, from this perspective, the most suitable approach is to
present the well-studied construal operation and its most key representative forms
systematically.
Capture a complete and comprehensive classification model for construal
operations is infeasible because some construal operation subsets share more features
than others. For example, “the entire set of construal phenomena is related to a structure
containing some general rubrics under which construal operations can be grouped based
on their recurrent or shared features”. This reality is not surprising since the construal is
the concept function as a theoretical entity to capture some cognitive aspects of
conceptualization. These aspects cannot be analyzed adequately in terms of the object of
conceptualization but require reference to a subject’s perception, choice, or point of
view.
Finally, in Cognitive Linguistics literature, there are many representation forms
of construal operation, and several of those forms sometimes overlap each other. Hence,
we may count the general rubrics under which the grouping representative types of
construal operation can be satisfactory as establishing a conceptual space kind for
construal. In principle, a linguistic element conventionally conveying a specific
construal kind may hold any position in this space. If any element sharing features then
can be thought of as close together, forming “clusters” in this space, regardless of
whether it belongs to bounded, pre-established regions or not. Based on such a view of
the construal phenomenon, the remainder of this paper will survey representation forms
of construal operation in terms of the common concepts for characterizing those forms
and can be seen as an alternative to the discussed classification models. Note that here
not proposing or presenting a new and complete exhaustive classification. It only hopes
to share with us a relatively coherent and systematic picture of representative forms of
construal so that we can construe most subtly and authentically a situation or a scene.
3.
REPRESENTATIVE FORMS OF CONSTRUAL OPERATION IN
COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS
3.1.
Window of attention
In Talmy's theory of Cognitive Semantics (2000), window of attention refers to a
model which is used to govern the attention distribution in the attention system as one
of his conceptual structuring systems4. The model of attention window involves explicit
mentioning, i.e., some part of an event is windowed, while other parts can be ignored.
4 Note also that the model of attention window should not be confused with the model of attentional focus
in Talmy's conceptual structuring system. The model of attention window differs from the model of
attentional focus in that the model of attentional focus focuses attention on the participants. For details,
see: Talmy (2000, chapter 4); Dương (2016, p. 479).
9
DALAT UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE [SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES]
For example, a moving route consists of a starting point, a middle point and an
endpoint, as in (3):
(3)
a. This bus goes from Da Lat, through Dinh An, to Lien Khuong.
b. This bus goes from Da Lat.
c. This bus goes through Dinh An.
d. This bus goes to Lien Khuong.
[starting point]
[middle point]
[endpoint]
We see the whole moving route is windowed in (3a), while in examples (3b-d)
only the starting point, the middle point, or the endpoint of the route is windowed.
In reality, we cannot cover all stimuli that occur around us, so our brain
subconsciously selects salient or important stimuli for our attention5 Accordingly, our
attention focusing is a cognitive operation that locates our attention on selected elements
and downplays others of a situation. The language use practices show that something is
mentioned explicitly in the discourse means that we direct some attention to it. Thus, in
this sense, the language may be considered as “an inventory of attention-directing
devices”.
To a certain extent, language provides us with the capabilities to open our
attention. For example, in the sentence (3a) above, we window attention to the whole
route, including the bus journey's starting point and endpoint. We may also window the
journey's final stretch to its endpoint, as in (3d), or window the starting point, as in
(3b).6
We can describe a single situation in several different ways by windowing our
attention to its determinant parts. A well-known example that clearly illustrates this
point is the commercial transaction situation, given by Fillmore in his Frame Semantics
framework. According to Fillmore (1982, pp. 116-117), to understand the word-group
that is related to the commercial event frame, such as buy, sell, pay, spend, charge, cost,
and so on, we need access to a commercial event frame that is to provide “the
background and motivation for the categories which these words represent.” The
commercial event frame four key participants: a buyer, a seller, goods, and money; and
the exchange of goods and money, as illustrated in Figure 1.
5 A well-known example is the “party phenomenon.” At a party, there may be different conversations
happening at the same time around you. But you can only understand what the interlocutor is talking
directly to you, or you can hear your name mentioned by someone else at the opposite table, and you
cannot hear and understand all conversations. This fact is because you filter out mentally all irrelevant
bits of conversations.
6 According to Radden and Dirven (2007), English does not accept the use alone “the starting point from
another viewpoint”, i.e., we cannot say This bus goes from Da Lat.
10
Duong Huu Bien
Figure 1. Elements and relations of the “commercial event” frame
Note: Adapted from Radden (1992, p. 522, Figure 2).
We can imagine a scenario for the commercial event frame as follows:
•
•
Participants: The buyer, the seller
Other entities: The goods, the money
(a) Scenario:
•
Initial state:
The buyer: has the money and wants the goods.
The seller: has the goods and wants the money.
•
Exchange:
The buyer: gives the money to the seller.
The seller: gives the goods to the buyer.
•
Final state:
The seller: has the money.
The buyer: has the goods.
(b) Definitions
•
•
Buy indicates the buyer gives the money to the seller and profiles the buyer
and the goods (and optionally profiles the money and the seller).
Sell indicates the seller gives the goods to the buyer and profiles the seller
and the goods (and optionally profiles the money and the buyer).
11
DALAT UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE [SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES]
•
•
Price indicates the amount of money, and profiles the money and the goods.
Cost indicates the money from the perspective of the buyer and profiles the
goods (and optionally profiles the buyer).
When we want to describe a commercial transaction situation, we can focus on
any of these elements by using different verbs: mua (buy), bán (sell), trả tiền (pay), chi
tiêu (spend), tính phí (charge) and chi phí (cost). “Each verb evokes the commercial
event frame but in different ways”. By selecting a particular verb, we focused our
attention on the frame's one element while downplayed others, i.e., “they are not
mentioned, or their inclusion is optional. In the examples in (4), the optional participants
in parentheses” (Radden & Dirven, 2007).
(4)
a. Bác nông dân mua một máy tuốt lúa (từ anh kỹ sư) (với giá 20 triệu).
(The farmer bought a thresher [from the engineer] [for 20 million].)
b. Anh kỹ sư bán (bác nông dân) máy tuốt lúa (với giá 20 triệu).
(The engineer sold [the farmer] the thresher [for 20 million].)
c. Bác nông dân trả (anh kỹ sư) 20 triệu (cho máy tuốt lúa).
(The farmer paid [the engineer] 20 million [for the thresher].)
d. Bác nông dân chi phí 20 triệu (cho máy tuốt lúa).
(The farmer spent 20 million [on the thresher].)
e. Anh kỹ sư tính giá (bác nông dân) 20 triệu (cho máy tuốt lúa).
(The engineer charged [the farmer] 20 million [for the thresher].)
f. Máy tuốt lúa tính giá (bác nông dân) 20 triệu.
(The thresher cost [the farmer] 20 million.)
g. 20 triệu mua (the farmer) một máy tuốt lúa tốt.
(20 million buys [the farmer] a good thresher.)
In each case, we directed mainly attention towards the entity expressed by the
subject and secondarily attention towards the entity indicated by the object. Here we can
witness how a verb's semantics interacts with a sentence's grammatical structure. In pair
of sentences in (5), the situation viewed from the person's perspective who expressed as
the sentence's subject:
(5)
a. Bác nông dân mua máy tuốt lúa với giá hời.
12
Duong Huu Bien
(The farmer bought the thresher for a good price.)
b. Anh kỹ sư bán máy tuốt lúa với giá hời.
(The engineer sold the thresher for a good price.)
What are the meanings of giá hời understood depends on the subject participant.
It means that the buyer pays very little money in (5a), whereas, in (5b), it means the
seller makes a lot of money. “Thus, if we want to draw mainly attention to the buyer
and secondarily to the goods, we use mua (buy) as in (4a) and (5a); if we want to draw
mainly attention to the seller and secondarily to the goods, we use bán (sell) as in (4b)
and (5b)” (Radden & Dirven, 2007). As illustrated in Figure 1, the Vietnamese
language has many verbs for expressing any of the relations which may contain a
commercial situation's four key participants and so that they may become our attention
focus.
However, there are still restrictions on the organizations of participants that can
be windowed in a sentence. For example, the verbs of chi tiêu (spend) and chi
phí (cost) not accept windowing on the seller–although a seller, of course, is present in a
commercial situation. Thus, we cannot say Bác nông dân chi tiêu 20 triệu cho anh kỹ sư
(The farmer spent 20 million to the engineer) and Anh kỹ sư chi phí 20 triệu cho máy
tuốt lúa. (The engineer cost 20 million from the thresher).
3.2.
Figure and Ground
According to Talmy (1978, 2000), human perception appears to automatically
segregate any given spatial scene into two parts: a Figure and a Ground.7 A Figure is an
entity that has a dominant shape due to a definite contour or prominent coloring, and the
Ground is the part of a scene that is relegated to “background.” The Figure stands out
against the Ground. In other words, when we focus our attention on a scene, we
7 Figure/Ground originated as a pair of concepts in Gestalt psychology in which the Figure is the most
prominent element, and the Ground is the less prominent element in the Figure-Ground organization. The
Figure-Ground organization was conceived by the Danish psychologist Edgar Rubin (1958) in 1915. He
proposed “a number of perceptual differences between the Figure and the Ground. For instance, a Figure
is thing-like, closer to the viewer, and in front of the Ground; it is more dominant and better remembered.
In contrast, the Ground is substance-like, relatively formless, broader, and extends behind the Figure”. It
is less dominant and less well remembered. Figure-Ground organization was adopted by Talmy who was
the first to apply it to Cognitive Linguistics. It has been generalized to language by Talmy with his
notions of Figure and Ground through a conceptual structuring system approach within his framework of
Cognitive Semantics, and by Langacker with his pair of theoretical constructs, trajector and landmark.
Also note that it should not be confused with the concept of Ground as used by Talmy and Langacker.
Within Talmy’s framework of Cognitive Semantics, as we see, Ground is the less-prominent element in
Figure-Ground organization (also known as the reference object), and in Langacker’s Cognitive
Grammar, Ground relates to any utterance and includes the participants, the immediate physical context,
and the time of speaking. Therefore, in Langacker's conception, both the subjective construal and the
objective construal are understood relative to the notion of Ground.
13
DALAT UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE [SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES]
automatically assign prominence to a scene's this element and downplay that scene's
others. As Gestalt psychology has demonstrated, we automatically organize and arrange
the elements of a visual scene into a salient Figure and a non-salient Ground. For
example, when we look at a lighthouse tower, as illustrated in Figure 2, we may see the
lighthouse tower silhouetted against the sky. Here, the lighthouse tower is the Figure,
and the sky (made up of the gray horizontal lines) is the Ground.
Figure 2. Figure-Ground organization
Note: Adapted from Evans and Green (2006, p. 66, Figure 3.1).
Besides Figure/Ground organization, Figure/Ground alignment also applies to
language. Observe the following scenario: when a seagull comes flying by and perches
on the lighthouse tower's top, the seagull becomes the Figure, and the lighthouse tower's
top is the Ground. The Figure tends to be more conspicuous, more mobile, better
delineated, and smaller in size than the Ground; therefore, it attracts our particular
attention and interest. Besides, just as there is a preferred way of seeing the seagull's
spatial location relative to the lighthouse tower's top, “there is a preferred way of
construing and describing this situation” (Radden & Dirven, 2007). Thus, it is more
natural to say Con hải âu ở trên đỉnh tháp hải đăng (The seagull is on the lighthouse
tower's top) than ?Đỉnh tháp hải đăng ở dưới con hải âu (?The lighthouse tower's top is
under the seagull).
Furthermore, “if the two entities are equal in size and prominence, we can
reverse Figure and Ground. The Figure and Ground reversal is a well-known perception
phenomenon” (Radden & Dirven, 2007). For example, Figure 3 may be seen as a white
vase at one moment and as two black faces at the other, but we never see both a vase
and faces simultaneously. Likewise, in language, we can speak of either trường học gần
bệnh viện (the school is near the hospital) or bệnh viện gần trường học (the hospital is
near the school). Here either the school or the hospital serves as the Ground for locating
the Figure entity. In such spatial situations, Vietnamese, like many other languages,
expresses the Ground using prepositional phrases.
Figure 3. Reversal of Figure and Ground
Note: Adapted from Rubin (1958, p. 201, Figure 3).
14
Duong Huu Bien
According to Talmy (2000, chapter 5), in a simple transitive sentence's structure,
the entity expressed by the subject is the Figure, and the entity described by the direct
object is the Ground. In the commercial transaction situation considered in example (4),
the human participant, i.e., the buyer or seller, almost always functions as the Figure,
and the non-human participant, i.e., the money or the goods, often plays as the Ground.
If human participants do not have attention windows, it is often the goods that are more
prominent than money and are selected to become the Figure, as shown in (4f).
However, “we may reverse Figure and Ground to yield more prominence to the money
and express it as the Figure” (Radden & Dirven, 2007), as shown in (4g).
Talmy (1978, 2000) has proposed that “in linguistic terms, smaller and more
mobile objects are typically interpreted as Figures, while larger, more immovable
objects are typically interpreted as the Ground”. This observation accounts for the
asymmetric behavior of linguistically encoded spatial scenes. For instance, the two
following utterances (6) and (7) are essentially reversals of one another, and the
utterance (6) is acceptable, while the utterance (7) is normally judged as being
semantically anomalous.
(6)
(7)
Chiếc xe đạp gần [ngôi nhà]. (The bike is near [the house])
[Ngôi nhà] gần chiếc xe đạp. ([The house] is near the bike)
This indicates that “the grammatical organization of linguistically encoded
spatial scenes reflects Figure-Ground organization: the subject position corresponds to
the Figure, and the object position corresponds to the Ground” Talmy (1978). Sentence
(7) seems odd because an entity that would normally serve as the Ground in a spatial
relationship serves instead as the Figure.
Similarly, in complex sentences, the described events are also divided into
Figure and Ground. Consider the pair of sentences in (8):
(8)
Figure
Ground
a. Chúng tôi kết hôn sau khi
có con.
[sự kiện2 – sự kiện1]
[event2 – event1]
(We got married
b. Chúng tôi có con trước khi
(We had children before
after
we had children.)
kết hôn.
[sự kiện1 – sự kiện2]
[event 1 – event 2]
we got married.)
Both sentences in (8) describe the same sequence of events. And each event is
indicated by the subscripted number: first, we had children and then we got married.
According to Talmy (1978, 2000), a subordinate clause's function is to provide the
Ground for the Figure event described in the main clause. Analyzing the sentences as in
15
DALAT UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE [SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES]
(8), Radden and Dirven (2007, p. 29) show that in the sentence (8a), children-having is
the Ground event, that “Figure event of married-getting is located in time relative to
which”. While in the sentence (8b), married-getting is the Ground event that the Figure
event of children–having is positioned in time relative to which. “These sentences so
display Figure/Ground reversal, and concomitantly, mean different things”. Our
knowledge of the marriage and children–having frame allows us to read more than a
purely temporal meaning into the sentence (8a): “we tend to understand it in the sense
that we got married because we had children”. The sentence (8b), by contrast, only can
be explained in a temporal sense. And a causal interpretation is removed because our
children–having–the Figure event–occurred earlier than our married–getting–the Ground
event–and thus cannot possibly have been caused by the latter.
3.3.
Profiling
Profiling is a special kind of Figure/Ground relation that lives between an
expression and its conceptual base. Profiling8 is the indicating conceptualization using
“a linguistic form, and a base is the immediate broader conceptual content
characterizing it” (Radden
&
Dirven, 2007). For example, when you
mentioned Sunday, you profile this particular day relative to the base week. Likewise,
the elbow profiles the connection between the upper and lower arm and evokes the
conception arm as its base, and the arm profiles one of the two upper limbs and evokes
the conception human body as its base. Can illustrate this as in Figure 4:
Figure 4. Profiling of elbow
Note: Adapted from Evans and Green (2006, p. 538, Figure 15.12).
8 In Langacker's Cognitive Grammar, the profile represents the conceptual highlighting of some aspect of
a domain. The domain is a concept entity; it creates a coherent knowledge structure, in principle, having
any complexity or organization level. For instance, a domain can make a semantic frame, a concept, or
some other representational space or conceptual complex. It is a coherent knowledge representation kind
against which characterized other conceptual units. For example, the words hot, cold, and lukewarm relate
to different lexical concept kinds that only can be understood fully concerning the temperature domain.
So principal function of the domain is to provide a relatively stable knowledge context against which to
understand other conceptual unit kinds. According to Evans and Green (2006), profiling is the selective
process of the base's some aspect. For instance, the elbow profiles a substructure within the larger
structure is arm, as illustrated by Figure 4 above.
16
Duong Huu Bien
To know a conceptual unit is an immediate base or not, we can use the tests part
of- or kind of- relation, such as: the nail is part of the finger; the finger is part of the
hand; a rectangle is a kind of a quadrilateral, .... This explains why (9a) and (10a) are
natural, while (9b) and (10b) are not acceptable:
(9)
a. Bàn tay năm ngón em vẫn kiêu sa. (Ngô Thụy Miên)
(Rough translation: She is still lovely with her five-finger hand.)
b Cánh tay năm ngón em vẫn kiêu sa.
(Rough translation: She is still lovely with her five-finger arm.)
(10) a. Bàn tay em năm ngón ru trên ngàn năm. (Trịnh Công Sơn)
(She still lulls over a thousand years with her five-finger hand.)
b. Cánh tay em năm ngón ru trên ngàn năm.
(She still lulls over a thousand years with her five-finger arm.)
Viewing frame
3.4.
According to Langacker (2007, p. 425), the viewing-frame is the subject space
within which an expressed conceptualization. This space delineates the general locus of
visual attention (it can be metaphorically called the “onstage” region). Any aspect of the
communicants’ conceptual world can appear in this frame, and in that scope, they focus
their attention. In other words, a viewing-frame is a situation view or its part that the
observer is accessible immediately.
In viewing a situation, you may take a more distant or a closer location. That
helps to give you a broader or more restricted viewing-frame. Observe the described
situation in (11):
(11) Xe buýt này đi từ Đà Lạt tới Liên Khương.
(This bus goes from Da Lat to Lien Khuong.)
If you–as an observer–are looking at the situation from an airplane, then you
have a maximal viewing-frame: the whole bus route, including both its starting point
and endpoint in the two towns and the surrounding areas, are in your viewing. You also
have the bus route's maximal viewing-frame when you consider a road traffic network
map of Đà Lạt and trace the connection between the two towns by dragging your finger
over that map. However, when sitting on the bus, the view from your window seat only
allows you to see the route's part that you are passing at any given moment. The bus
route's starting point and the endpoint outside the viewing-frame, even though, of
17
DALAT UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE [SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES]
course, you know that the bus journey has its a starting and an end. You now have
a restricted viewing-frame.
3.5.
Viewpoint
The concept of viewpoint was introduced into Cognitive Linguistics by
Langacker (1987, 2007), Talmy (2000), MacLaury (1995), and many others under the
phenomenological influence of Leibniz, Nietzsche, Husserl, and Merleau-Ponty. It is the
process of describing an object from the speaker's point of view. In Cognitive
Linguistics, viewpoint is considered as a cognitive mechanism or operation of the
construal of an object in discourse from the point of view of the speaker (the
conceptualizer). A construal act performed by the speaker will affect the hearer’s
cognitive state.
In visual perception, you always view a situation from your viewpoint or vantage
point, i.e., from the point anywhere you are located as the observer. In cognition, you
may also borrow or select another person’s viewpoint. For example, the same newly
published book but maybe uttered or as a phát hành mới (a new release) or as a hàng
mới về (an arrival newly.) The difference between these two expressions resides in the
adopted different viewpoints. In utilizing the expression bản phát hành mới, you use the
publisher’s point of view, whereas in using the expression hàng mới về, you take the
bookseller’s point of view. In this way, the publisher might say (12a) and the bookseller
(12b):
(12) a. Người xuất bản: “Phòng xuất bản đã gửi phát hành mới đi chưa?”
(Publisher: “Has the publishing department sent out new releases yet?”)
b. Người bán sách: “Cậu đã trưng bày hàng mới về chưa?”
(Bookseller: “Have you displayed new arrivals yet?”)
We often look at the world and describe it from our viewpoint. A good
illustration of this is found in arguments such as in the following conversation in which
two children give their own versions of the same event:
(13) a. Tý: “Mẹ ơi! Anh Tèo đạp con.”
(Tý: “Mom! Tèo tripped me up with his foot.”
b. Tèo: “Không có đâu mẹ ơi! Cu Tý vấp phải chân con đó chứ!”
(Tèo: “No I didn’t, Mom! Tý just tripped over my foot.)
According to Langacker (1991, p. 117), there are many modes of viewing the
same experience, so speakers are often forced to decide how to describe or
conceptualize a particular object or scene (see also Croft & Cruse, 2004, §3). Besides, in
18
Duong Huu Bien
language, some expressions have a built-in viewpoint on a situation. Typical of which is
the system of deictic verbs. Following Fillmore (1997), deictic verbs are the verbs
whose interpretation relies on the spatial and temporal location of the speech
participants. These are verbs whose usage depends on the speech situation. For
example, in the Vietnamese language, the deictic verbs đến (come) and (go) essentially
select the speaker’s viewpoint and indicate motion towards or away from the speaker
(S), respectively. Compare the sentences in (14) below:
(14) a. Bố đến dự lễ tốt nghiệp của tôi.
(My father is coming to my graduation.)
b. Tôi đi dự lễ tốt nghiệp của chị gái.
(I’m going to my sister’s graduation.)
When S is the goal motion towards, as in (14a), the verb đến used to describe S's
viewpoint. When S is not the motion goal, but away from S, as in (14b), the verb
of đi used. S is the deictic center because these two sentences use the point of view of S.
When the mentioned hearer (H), we have two options: by using đi as in sentence
(15a), S keeps her viewpoint relative to the H; however, S may also mentally change
this viewpoint as in sentence (15b).
(15) a. Tôi đi dự lễ tốt nghiệp của anh. (I’m going to your graduation.)
b. Tôi đến dự lễ tốt nghiệp của anh. (I’m coming to your graduation.)
With using come in the sentence (15b), S accepts H’s viewpoint, i.e., H
becomes the deictic center. We also usually use our point of view. However, in our
perception of a situation and its language expression, we may place ourselves in
someone else’s position. And we do so mainly because this has sympathetic and polite
effects.
The two construals of viewpoint - S-centered and H-centered - are diagramed in
Figure 5, where the bold-printed circles indicate the deictic centers.
Figure 5. Construals of the two Vietnamese deictic verbs đến (come) and đi (go)
Besides, also there is another viewpoint form. This form is has seen in authority
relations, as the relations between parents and children, between doctors and patients, or
between traffic-policemen and drivers. Parents or doctors often express their patronizing
sympathy towards their children or patients, and traffic-policemen may feign empathy
19
DALAT UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE [SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES]
with a traffic offender by identifying with the offender, by sympathizing with the
hearer’s viewpoint, as examples in (16) shown:
(16) a. Mẹ nói với con: “Bây giờ chúng ta cùng nhau đi ngủ.”
(Mother to child: “And now we’re going to sleep.”)
b. Y tá nói với bệnh nhân: “Chúng ta lại phải uống thuốc rồi.”
(Nurse to patient: “We must take our tablets again.”
c. Cảnh sát giao thông nói với tài xế: “Chúng ta đâu muốn đậu ở đây đâu.”
(Traffic policeman to driver: “We don’t want to park here, do we?”)
3.6.
Objectivity and subjectivity
We often think that we perceive the world objectively as it is. However, as a part
of the world, we perceive and build our relation to this world. Therefore, we may also
construe a situation more objectively or subjectively. Objectivity indicates a situation's
construal as detached from us as the speakers; subjectivity means a situation's construal
in which we are involved. Compare the following socio-political statements:
(17) a. Thủ tướng quyết định tuyên chiến chống đại dịch Covid-19.
(The Prime Minister decided to declare war against the Covid-19
pandemic.)
b. Tôi sẽ truy tìm kẻ tung thông tin thất thiệt gây hoang mang dư luận.
(I will track down the person who released the false information, causing
public confusion.)
c. Vẫn còn những kẻ đầu cơ và trục lợi khẩu trang trong mùa đại dịch.
(There may still be persons who are speculating and profiting from face
masks during the pandemic.)
The spokesman for Government Office might use the sentence (17a) when he
describes Prime Minister’s policy objectively. In this case, the speaker is not part of the
described situation. And Prime Minister might also use that same sentence when he
speaks of himself as Prime Minister. In doing so, he presents “an objectified view of
himself as the institutionalized representative of the country. By using the
pronoun Tôi (I) in the sentence (17b), the speaker includes himself as a participant of
the described situation–in this case, the construal is subjective” (Radden & Dirven,
2007). At the same time, the speaker can depict his role like that of any other participant
in that situation–in this respect is the objective construal. Sentence (17c) involves a
20
Duong Huu Bien
maximally subjective construal of this situation: “the speaker presents his view
subjectively of the described event without mentioning himself overtly. And this is
obtained by using the modal verb có thể (may), which expresses the speaker’s
assessment of the situation as being potential” (Radden & Dirven, 2007).
In summary, a subjective construal is a construal form in which there is
implicit dependence on the ground. Thus, the utterance context, including participants,
time of the speech event, etc., are not mentioned explicitly. For instance, both speaker
and hearer are usually construed subjectively, or “off stage,” and only become construed
objectively or “on stage” when profiled linguistically by expressions such
as tôi (I) or anh (you). Conversely, an objective construal is a construal form in which
there is explicit dependence on the ground. Thus, the utterance context, including
participants, time of the speech event, etc., are mentioned explicitly. Both speaker and
hearer are usually construed subjectively or “off-stage” and only become construed
objectively or “on-stage” when profiled linguistically by expressions such
as tôi or anh. For example, if Nam uses the first person pronoun tôi (I), he places
himself in the foreground as an object of perception. In this way, the speaker is
objectified, giving rise to objective construal. These two construal forms can be
illustrated as in Figure 6 (where bold circles denote the conceptualization's object and
subject.)
(a)
(b)
Figure 6. Relations of objective construal (a) and subjective construal (b)
Generality and specificity
3.7.
According to Langacker (2008, p. 55), the notions of generality and specificity
are valenced to “the level of precision and detail at which a situation is characterized”
(Talmy (2000, pp. 82-84) called specificity a level of particularity). These notions
denote the precision degree thanks to which a situation is seen or perceived. A distant
view often gives us a general impression of that situation, while “a close view enables
us to discern in-depth details of that situation”. In language and cognition, taxonomic
21
DALAT UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE [SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES]
hierarchies reflect different generality and specificity levels. Thereby, when using
higher-level terms, the speaker construes this situation in a more general fashion, known
as a generality. And using lower-level words, the speaker construes that situation in a
more specific style called specificity, or granularity. Can illustrate this point with
examples from (18): in (18a), car types denoted by the superordinate term phương
tiện (vehicle), the basic-level term xe (car) in (18b), the more specific term Inova in
(18c), the even more specific term Ford Ranger Wildtrak 2.0 in (18d), and the still more
specific term Honda Civic 2020 bạc in (18e), in which the specification obtained by
using the adjective bạc:
(18) a. Một số phương tiện đã va chạm nhau trên đường cao tốc đêm qua.
(Some vehicles collided on High Street last night.)
b. Hầu hết các xe đều lái quá nhanh.
(Most of the cars drove way too fast.)
c. Chiếc Inova đâm vào một chiếc xe khác.
(A Inova struck another car.)
d. Chiếc Ford Ranger Wildtrak 2.0 do một tài xế say rượu lái.
(The Ford Ranger Wildtrak 2.0 was driven by a drunk driver.)
e. Chiếc Honda Civic 2020 bạc bị kẹp giữa hai xe tải.
(The silver Honda Civic 2020 was sandwiched between two lorries.)
Each of these alternative expression modes has its specific contextual meaning.
For example, the superordinate term phương tiện in (18a) might use in the Departments
for Transport or traffic reports. The basic-level term xe is used to describe situations in
the most usual and general style, such as in (18b). Car enthusiasts can use subordinate
words like Inova or Ford Ranger Wildtrak 2.0. “The same thing may thus be seen in
different detail by different people in different situations” (Radden & Dirven, 2007).
As Langacker (1987) and Talmy (2000) demonstrated, and as already pointed
out, we can use lexical categories to make specific differences, while “using
grammatical categories is tended to express very abstract or schematic notions, like
those of the present, past, and future time”. And grammar also allows us to distinguish
different specificity levels.
3.8.
Mental scanning
In Langacker’s Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (1987), mental scanning
means the construal of a situation concerning its phasing in time (T). In other words, in
22
Tải về để xem bản đầy đủ
25 trang
13080
Free
Bạn đang xem 20 trang mẫu của tài liệu "Construal and its representative forms in cognitive linguistics", để tải tài liệu gốc về máy hãy click vào nút Download ở trên
File đính kèm:
- construal_and_its_representative_forms_in_cognitive_linguist.pdf
