pa-eat Nom. mother Obl papaya 1Pl.Obl.
“Mother feeds us papaya(s)”
3. pa-ka'en kaku tu kulong pa-eat 1Sg.Nom. Obl. cow
“I herd the cow(s).”
4. pa-tarakar kaku i lutuk tu fafuy
pa-trap 1Sg.Nom. Loc. mountain Obl. pig
“I set up traps in the mountain for pig(s).”
(tarakar “trap”: Noun)
5. pa-asik kaku tu mi-asik-ay tu ruma'
pa-clean 1Sg.Nom. Obl. sweeper Obl. house
“I make the sweeper clean the house.”
6. pa-to'or ci Ofad tu pa-kimad ni Panay
pa-follow Nom. Ofad Obl. speech Gen. Panay
“Ofad supplements Panay's speech.”
7. pa-suwal kaku tu demak ni Aki ci-Mayaw-an
pa-talk 1Sg.Nom. Obl. behavior Gen. Aki Obl. Mayaw
“I tell Mayaw about Aki's behaviors.”
PF: pa-…-en
8. pa-laup-en aku ku wacu tu safa aku
pa-chase-PF 1Sg.Gen. Nom. dog. Obl. brother 1Sg.Gen.
“I make the dog chase my little brother.”
PF: paka-…-en
9. paka-tangtang-en ku hemay paka-cook-PF Nom. rice
“Cook the rice thoroughly.”
10. paka-uta'-en cingra
paka-vomit-PF 3Sg.Nom.
“Let him vomit up.”
11. paka-uta'-en ni Aki ci Ofad i paputal
paka-vomit-PF Gen. Aki Nom. Ofad Loc. outside
“Aki brings Ofad to vomit outside.”
12. paka-uta'-en ni Aki ci Ofad i paputal
paka-vomit-PF Gen. Aki Nom. Ofad Loc. outside
“Aki brings Ofad to throw up outside.”
[State & Intr.]
13. paka-culah-en ku asisiw a mi-culah paka-burn-PF Nom. straw Link mi-burn
“Burn up the straw when ” Note:
ma-culah: (naturally) burn; mi-curah “set sth. on fire”
14. paka-culah tu luma ci Aki
“Aki
(mi-curah ci Aki tu ruma' =Aki?
[Act. &Intr.]
AF: paka-
15. paka-(sa)-kero' tu arumanay ci Aki paka-(sa)-dance Obl. a lot Nom. Aki
“Aki makes everyone dance.”
16. paka-cacijaw cingra tu arumanay paka-language 3Sg.Nom. Obl. a lot
“He makes everyone gossip endlessly.”
PF: paka-…-en
17. paka-cacijaw-en ita cingra
paka-language-PF 1Pl.Gen.Inc. 3Sg.Nom.
“We let him talk.”
[St. & Tr.]
AF: pa- (only example of such coding) 18. pa-tala kaku ci-Panay-an tu sa-ka-lafi
pa-wait 1Sg.Nom. Obl.Panay Obl. lunch
“I prepare dinner for Panay.”
[Em. & Intr.]
AF: papi-…
19. papi-keter
ci Mayaw ci-Aki-an takuwanan papi-angry Nom. Mayaw Obl.Aki 1Sg.Obl.“Mayaw makes me scold Aki.”
Note: (“papi-pa-keter” is not allowed) 20. papi-adada (saca) tu falucul ku demak kisu
papi-ache (Link) Obl. heart Nom. behavior 2Sg.Gen.
“Your behavior saddens (my) heart.”
PF: papi-…-en
21. papi-(pa)-keter-en ni Panay ci Ofad ci-Aki-an
papi-(pa)-angry-PF Gen. Panay Nom. Ofad Obl. Aki“Panay makes Ofad scold Aki”
22. papi-adada-en ku tiad ni Mayaw
papi-ache-PF Nom. stomach Gen. Mayaw
“Make sure Mayaw's stomach aches”
(Note: used as an appeal to the wizard to curse Mayaw)
PF: pa- (only example)
23. pa-cekok kaku tura takula' pa-frighten 1Sg.Nom. that frog
“That frog frightens me.”
[Em. & Tr.]
AF: papi-…
24. papi-olah
ku ina aku ci-Ofad-an papi-like Nom. mother Gen. Obl. Ofad“My mother makes (me) like Ofad.” (causee is absent)
PF: papi-…-en
25. papi-olah-en ni Lakaw ci Ofad i takuwanan
papi-like-PF Gen. Lakaw Nom. Ofad Loc.(Link?) 1Sg.Obl.
“Lakaw makes Ofad like me.”
AF: paka- (causative meaning usually only occurs with PF “paka-…-en”)
26. paka-ruray ci Panay takuwanan
paka-tired Nom. Panay 1Sg.Obl.
“Panay makes me tired”
A Report on ICLC -10 Aug 2,2007 黃宣範
台灣大學語言所
The 10th International cognitive linguistics conference (ICLC-10 第十屆國際認知 語言學會) was held in Krakow, Poland from July 16-20 on the campuses of both Jagaellonian University and AGH university. It was the largest conference I had ever attended in terms of the number of speakers and papers presented. There were in addition to six keynote lectures, a total of 284 regular papers in the general sessions, 20 special theme sessions, each consisting of a minimum of 10 presentations in some themes and a max of 20 or more presentations in other theme sessions. There were also about 20 poster papers on the second day of the conference. Judging from the size and the scope of the conference and the topics covered by the papers it seems quite clear that cognitive linguistics as a research area is thriving and is here to stay for a long time.
Cognitive linguistics has been around for about 30 years, and is now in the midst of period of fast international expansion. The various stages in the development of cognitive linguistics involve a gradual recovery of the various types of context that were discarded by generative grammar. These involve embodied context of meaning in language; the pragmatic context of actual language use; the social and cultural context of language as a shared code. The recovery of a recontexetualized grammar requires a methodology that goes beyond the traditional reliance on introspection, and an advancedquantitative analysis that is able to capture the multivariate nature of language use. We can say that most of the papers presented at the conference are directed toward these goals. The following papers are some of the interesting presentations that I went to during the conference.
Evans gave a paper on ‘ Is time structured in terms of space? In which she argues that figurative language acts as a function of integration of lexical concepts that provides access to non-linguistic simulators (ie. cognitive models). While spatial information is activated when reasoning about durational experiences, the reason for activating spatial structures is in order to provide access to experiences relating to affordances associated with motion events of particular kinds. In other words, we reason about time using the affordances rather than spatial content per se.
Work on the structure of motion events has shown that this domain can be described by a limited set of underlying universal patterns. In spite of the important distinction between verb-framed and satellite-framed languages made by Talmy (2000),
Ibarretxe- Antunano ( Lexicalization patters in motion events) argues that a cline of
path salience can be distinguished that cuts across languages between two ends of high path-salient languages and low-path salient languages.
Keenan and Comrie’s (1977) NP accessibility has been known to be a good example of a typological universal. Fox (1987) suggested an amendment to the AH, arguing that all languages with relativization should relativize on at least S and P. This
amendment naturally captures Du Bois ‘s preferred argument structure constraint, and therefore argued for a discourse-based treatment of relativization. Recently Gordon and Hendrick (2005) argued against this discourse-based treatment, suggesting robust subject-object asymmetry in both adult and child corpora, and concluded that the AR reflected a cognitive constraint that is insensitive to discourse factors. Evan Kidd et all in their paper present results from two corpus studies of child acquisition and two experimental studies testing children aged 3-4 years that suggest Gordon and Hendrick’s conclusion may be premature.
Cognitive grammar explains much of its structure in perceptually motivated terms. On e important example of this is how different grammatical classes may construe
different lexical categories in different ways. It is usually argued that the semantics of the grammatical class are based on generalization of perceptual experience. D . Glynn argues in his paper ( Perception and grammatical profiling) seeks to understand the constraints on the perceptual motivation for grammatical class-lexeme pairing. In many instances where one would expect as given class to profile a given lexical concept, productivity is in fact limited or impossible. Inspection of the exceptions shows the need to underline the importance of genetic motivation within the cognitive paradigm.
Spatial representation and reasoning is an issue of interest to many disciplines The inherent complexity of space explains the difficulty of reducing it all to a small number of primitive spatial concepts. M. Mioduszeska in his paper (On perceptual space) tries to show that language structure is motivated by perception. It is true that non-linguistic cognition, even perception, involves conceptualization in the same way as linguistic cognition does.
Slobin(1997) gives evidence of thinking for speaking. We need more evidence for perceiving for speaking since using language involves some kind of visual cognition beyond basic processes of vision. In those cases, perception and conception are not clearly distinguishable.
As pointed above, an important new strand of research is quantitative approach to cognitive sematnics. Corpus data respect the complexity of language, and enable
generalizations about language structure that other methods cannot. An important feature of this approach is that it facilitates attempts to reveal the interaction between different parameters of language simultaneously. D .Glynn and K. Fisher show in their paper ( Usage-based cognitive semantics) that the study of lexical semantic structures includes their collocational behavior. This approach also concerns itself with
extralinguistic factors as they surface in register and dialect an the role of contextual information. An interesting application of this line of research is the idea that
frequency must have some relevance for cognition ( the so-called From corpus to cognition principle). Some recent studies have emphasized the discrepancy between frequently attested items and cognitively salient ones. Thus G. Guilquin in his paper ( The cognitive reality of frequent verb-noun combinations) showed that the most frequent senses of a word does not necessarily correspond to the sense that comes first to mind when prompted for this word. Similarly highly polysemous verbs such as take or give are mostly used in their delexical sense in a corpus of spontaneous
conversation. Lemmens also argues in his paper ( A collostructional analysis of the causative alternations in English) that the alignment of specific lexemes and
constructions is much stronger than is often assumed in the literature, which is taken in suppor t of the ‘surface generalization’ approach as an alternative to an approach based on alternations..