SUBSTITUTE句型之認知釋解與訊息結構：以語料庫為本 - 政大學術集成

全文

(1)國立政治大學英國語文學系碩士班英語教學組碩士論文. 指導教授：鍾曉芳博士 Advisor：Siaw-Fong Chung. 立. 政治大. ‧ 國. 學. SUBSTITUTE 句型之認知釋解與訊息結構：以語料庫為本. ‧. Construals and Information Structure of SUBSTITUTE: A Corpus-based Study. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 研究生:蕭閔駿撰 Name: Min-Chun Hsiao 中華民國一〇八年六月 June, 2019. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(2) Acknowledgements. The completion of this thesis represents the end of an arduous journey and the outset of my academic career in linguistics. This journey, without the people helping me overcome the obstacles, may never come to an end. Here, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the following people who have accompanied me along this journey. First and foremost, my sincerest gratitude goes to my advisor, Prof. Siaw-Fong. 政治大 data and showed me what makes a good linguist. Importantly, with great patience, 立. Chung, who was always open-minded to my analyses and interpretations of language. Prof. Chung guided me through the structure of this thesis, specifically literature. ‧ 國. 學. review and the results. Each time of the revision represented a further step toward my. ‧. destination as a linguist, and Prof. Chung had witnessed my every step and growth in. y. Nat. this journey. In addition, Prof. Chung always encouraged me to step outside of my. er. io. sit. comfort zone in Taiwan and attend the conferences overseas. We have presented three conference papers in Hong Kong and Singapore. Prof. Siaw-Fong Chung is the one. al. n. v i n who showed me the fascinating C world of linguistics and h e n g c h i Uguided me all along this journey.. My gratitude also goes to my committee members, Dr. Huei-Ling Lai, Dr. HsunHuei Chang, and Dr. Michael Tanangkingsing, for the time and effort they spent on providing insightful comments on my thesis. Their detailed revision suggestions made this thesis more complete and covered the topics worth further investigation in future studies. In addition, I would like to thank all the professors in the Department of English at National Chengchi University for their instructions. Then, I would like to express my eternal gratitude to my beloved family, especially my parents, for supporting me financially and spiritually to accomplish my I. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(3) MA degree with little worries. They are always there for me, no matter what happens. It is an honor to be part of the family and be their son. In addition, I would like to thank my former roommate, Yi-Tao Xu, for giving me the topic of this thesis at midnight. I still remembered the effort we spent at that night to figure out how SUBSTITUTE is used in your field of Public Administration. This thesis is my answer to your question at that night. Some take-home messages of this thesis could help you identify the use of SUBSTITUTE in the future. Lastly, I would like to show my gratitude to my learning partners in Prof.. 政治大 complete this challenging journey alone but with their companion. In my memory, 立 Chung’s corpus-based research groups at National Chengchi University. I did not. every lab meeting was reminding me that we have each other and that we did not need. ‧ 國. 學. to face the challenges alone.. n. al. er. io. sit. y. Nat. care matters.. ‧. The completion of this thesis is credited to every one of you. Your effort and. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. II. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(4) Table of Content 中文摘要………………………………………………………………………. III English Abstract………………………………………………………. ………. V Chapter 1. Introduction……………………………………………….……………… 01 1.1 Background and Motivation of the Study …………….……………… 01 1.2 Research Questions of the Study……………………….…………….. 09 2. Literature Review…………………………………………….………….. 11. 政治大 2.1.1 Frame Semantics…………………………………………………. 11 立. 2.1 Conceptual Approach to Clause Structure……………………………. 11. 2.1.2 Construal in Cognitive Grammar………………………………… 17. ‧ 國. 學. 2.1.3 Construal and Event Coding……………………………………... 25. ‧. 2.1.4 The Approach of the Thesis ……………………………………… 35. y. Nat. 2.2 Information Structure and Constructions……………………………... 39. er. io. sit. 2.2.1 Prince’s (1992) Taxonomy of Old/New Information…………….. 40 2.2.2 Preferred Argument Structure…………………………………….. 46. al. n. v i n Ch 2.3 Summary of the Chapter………………………………………………. 51 engchi U. 3. Methodology………………………………………………………………… 53 3.1 The Corpus…………………………………………………………….. 53 3.2 The Method for Extracting Data………………………………………. 53 3.3 Data Analysis………………………………………………………….. 54 3.3.1 Recognition of Sentence Patterns………………………………… 55 3.3.2 Annotation of the Profiled Participants…………………………... 56 3.3.3 Annotation of Trajector-Landmark Alignment…………………… 59 3.3.4 Diagram as the Representation of Construal……………………... 60 3.3.5 Annotation of Information Status in Information Structure……… 63 III. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(5) 4. Results of Sentence Patterns and Construal……………………………… 67 4.1 Distribution of the Conceptualized Action Chains of SUBSTITUTE… 67 4.2 Construals and Sentence Patterns in the ‘AGENT-IN action chain’…….. 69 4.2.1 The Construal of ‘TR (AGENT) + LM (IN)’………………………... 70 4.2.2 The Construal of ‘TR (IN)’………………………............................ 73 4.3 Construals and Sentence Patterns in the ‘AGENT-OUT action chain’...… 86 4.3.1 The Construal of ‘TR (AGENT) + LM (OUT)’……………………… 88 4.3.2 The Construal of ‘TR (IN) + LM (OUT)’…………………………... 90. 政治大 4.4 Distribution of Profiled Participants and their Realizations…………... 99 立 4.3.3 The Construal of ‘TR (OUT)’ ……………………………................ 92. 4.5 The Comparison of the Sentence Patterns in Different Action Chains... 102. ‧ 國. 學. 4.5.1 [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN] and [NPAGENT + Verb + NPOUT].............. 103. ‧. 4.5.2 [NPIN + be + Verb-pp] and [NPOUT + be + Verb-pp]………………. 104. y. Nat. 4.5.3 [NPIN + Verb + for NPOUT] and [NPIN + Verb + NPOUT]………….. 106. er. io. sit. 4.6 Summary of the Chapter……………………………………………….. 108 5. Results of Information Structure in Sentence Patterns…………………... 111. al. n. v i n C hStatus in the Sentence 5.1 Distribution of Information Patterns…………... 112 engchi U 5.2 ‘Discourse-new’ NP in the Sentence Patterns…………...……………... 115 5.3 ‘Discourse-old’ NP in the Sentence Patterns…………...…………….... 117 5.4 The Impact of Information Structure on Sentence Patterns……………. 119. 5.5 Summary of the Chapter……………………………………………….. 120 6. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………… 122 6.1 Overall Summary of the Thesis………………………………………... 122 6.2 Pedagogical Implications of SUBSTITUTE…………………………... 125 6.3 Limitations and Future Studies……………………………………….... 126 References………………………………………………………………………. 127 IV. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(6) 摘要. SUBSTITUTE 的特殊語言現象讓英語學習者無法依賴句法結構來判斷其意義。首先，即便使用相同的句法結構，其被動句型（NPIN/OUT + be + Verb-pp）的主詞可理解為 NPIN（取代其他的人事物）或 NPOUT（被取代的人事物）。相同地，主動句型（NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN/OUT）中的直接受詞（Direct Object）亦可能為 NPIN 或 NPOUT。本研究的目的為探討 SUBSTITUTE 的語意及句法結構，藉此幫助英語學習者判斷句中的 NPIN 及 NPOUT，以減少理解的困難。. 政治大 SUBSTITUTE 作為動詞的語料。語料分析分為三個面向：（一）探究立. 本研究的研究工具為英國國家語料庫（British National Corpus），從中蒐集. ‧ 國. 學. SUBSTITUTE 所表現出的句型種類（sentence pattern）及其在語料庫中的分布、（二）分析造成語意混淆句型的原因、（三）檢測句型的訊息結構. ‧. （information structure）能否協助判斷該名詞片語為 NPIN 或 NPOUT 的語意。. sit. y. Nat. 本研究採用 Fillmore（1982, 1992, 2006）所提出之框架語意學（Frame. al. er. io. Semantics）為基礎，並融入 Langacker（1991, 1999, 2008）在認知語法. v. n. （Cognitive Grammar）中的研究模式所提出，如何以語言結構反映出人類對世. Ch. engchi. 界的認知釋解（construal）」，進行語料分析。. i n U. 研究分析顯示 SUBSTITUTE 具備不同種類的句型，其中以 [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN + for NPOUT] 最高頻，反映出 SUBSTITUTE 最常以‘TR (AGENT) + LM (IN)’之認知模式呈現，其中 ‘AGENT’ 與 ‘IN’ 的互動為該句型的焦點；而 ‘TR (AGENT) + LM (IN)’ 則反映出語言使用者經常將替換事件（event of substituting）概念化為動作鍊（‘AGENT-IN action chain’）的現象。另一方面，較為少用的句型，如 NPAGENT + Verb + NPOUT，反映出截然不同的認知方式 ‘TR (AGENT) + LM (OUT)’，並顯示出替換事件（event of substitution）被概念化為另一種動作鍊（‘AGENT-OUT action chain’）。研究發現，對於相同的替換事件， V. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(7) 不同的動作鍊被語言使用者使用，進而造成 SUBSTITUTE 在句法結構中產生混淆的現象。當 ‘AGENT’ 或 ‘IN’ 被語言使用者聚焦，‘AGENT-IN action chain’ 動作鍊會被生成，而當 ‘OUT’ 被聚焦時，‘AGENT-OUT action chain’ 動作鍊會被生成。根據語料庫的分析結果顯示，在 SUBSTITUTE 的使用中，因為 ‘AGENT’ 或 ‘IN’ 最常被視為焦點，因此 ‘AGENT-IN action chain’ 動作鍊是為 SUBSTITUTE 中替代事件概念化的典型。另一方面，研究發現在句型的訊息結構（information structure）中特定名詞片語的訊息狀態與 NPIN 及 NPOUT 有密切關聯。當名詞片語為新訊息（‘new’. 政治大（‘old’ information）的時候，該名詞片語為 NP 或 NP 立. information）的時候，該名詞經片語經常為 NPIN；而當名詞片語為舊訊息 IN. OUT 在語料庫中呈現接近. 的比例。因此英語學習者可以透過檢視特定名詞片語的訊息狀態來判斷是否為. ‧ 國. 學. NPIN 或 NPOUT。. ‧. 本研究透過分析 SUBSTITUTE 的句型及其反映出的認知方式，找出造成語. y. Nat. 義混淆的原因，另一方面，訊息結構中的新/舊訊息也可以幫助英語學習者理解. er. io. sit. SUBSTITUTE 的使用與判斷。本研究提供英語學習者在 SUBSTITUTE 的理解以及使用上的建議，並提供英語教學者在 SUBSTITUTE 的教學上有更深入的了. n. al. 解。. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 關鍵字：substitute、語料庫、框架語義學、認知釋解、訊息結構、句法結構. VI. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(8) Abstract. This thesis carried out a corpus analysis of the verbal SUBSTITUTE aiming to investigate the reason for the ambiguous role of the NP in the post-verbal position of [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN/OUT] and the pre-verbal position of [NPIN/OUT + be + Verbpp]. To be more precise, the NP in question bore two opposite roles: the entity to replace others (NPIN) and the replaced entity (NPOUT). In addition, whether the information status of the NP could predict its role was also investigated. To. 政治大 SUBSTITUTE by adopting Fillmore’s (1982, 1985, 2006) Frame Semantics and 立 investigate the ambiguous role of the NP, we analyzed the sentence patterns of. Langacker’s (1991, 1999, 2008) Conceptual construal. Specifically, the {REPLACING}. ‧ 國. 學. frame comprised of the ‘AGENT’, ‘IN’, and ‘OUT’ participants was evoked as the. ‧. conceptual knowledge base of SUBSTITUTE. Then, the ‘profiling’ and the varying. y. Nat. prominence conferred on the participants gave rise to different construals of. er. io. sit. SUBSTITUTE, which in turn were realized in different sentence patterns. For example, [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN] reflects the ‘TR (AGENT) + LM (IN)’ construal in. al. n. v i n C h conferred on the U which the prominence was primarily ‘AGENT’ and ‘IN’ participants. engchi In this thesis, we consulted the British National Corpus to extract the verbal. SUBSTITUTE for analysis. The analysis focused on three aspects, including (a) the types and distribution of sentence patterns in the corpus; (b) the reason for the ambiguous roles in the NP in the corpus; (c) the information structure of the sentence patterns. Some findings were suggested according to the corpus results. First, the different primary focus of the construals may give rise to two distinct conceptualizations of action chain: the ‘AGENT-IN action chain’ and the ‘AGENT-OUT action chain’. The distinct action chains were argued to be the cause for the ambiguous role of NP in the VII. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(9) sentence patterns. While [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN] represented the ‘TR (AGENT) + LM (IN)’ construal in the ‘AGENT-IN action chain’, [NPAGENT + Verb + NPOUT] represented the ‘TR (AGENT) + LM (OUT)’ construal in the ‘AGENT-OUT action chain’ instead. Then, the corpus results suggested that the use of SUBSTITUTE predominantly conceptualizes the ‘AGENT-IN action chain’, in which the ‘TR (AGENT) + LM (IN)’ construal is the typical construal encoding the typical sentence pattern of SUBSTITUTE, [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN + for NPOUT]. In contrast, [NPAGENT + Verb + NPOUT] reflecting the ‘TR (AGENT) + LM (OUT)’ construal in the ‘AGENT-OUT action. 政治大 As for the information structure in sentence patterns, the ‘discourse-new’ NP 立. chain’ is peripheral in SUBSTITUTE.. prefers to be the NPIN. In contrast, the ‘discourse-old’ NP shows the neutral. ‧ 國. 學. preference to either NPIN or NPOUT. In addition, conforming to the ‘old-before-new. ‧. principle’, the ‘discourse-new’ NP prefers to occur in the direct object of [NPAGENT +. y. sit. io. er. Verb-pp].. Nat. Verb + NPIN] while the ‘discourse-old’ NP prefers the subject of [NPIN/OUT + be +. This thesis concluded that SUBSTITUTE tends to conceptualize the ‘AGENT-IN. al. n. v i n Ch action chain’, in which the ‘AGENT ’ and ‘IN’ are focused. However, it is the engchi U. availability of the other action chain that causes the ambiguous roles of the NP in the sentence patterns. The information status of being ‘discourse-new’ could help interpret the role of the NP in question. The pedagogical implications of teaching and learning SUBSTITUTE were suggested in this thesis.. Keywords: substitute, corpus, construal, information structure, Frame Semantics. VIII. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(10) CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION. 1.1 Background and Motivation of the Study SUBSTITUTE is an intriguing verb with two opposite meanings1. On the one hand, in (1.1a), SUBSTITUTE means ‘to replace someone or something’ with a replaced entity him (termed as NPOUT in this thesis). On the other hand, the verb could be comprehended in ‘to use someone or something new to replace the old ones’ when. 政治大 NPs (i.e., him and new goals) occur as the direct object of SUBSTITUTE but play 立. it precedes an entity new goals (NPIN) in (1.1b). In both cases, we can see that both. opposite roles if we understand as an entity replacing others (NPIN) and an entity. ‧ 國. 學. being replaced (NPOUT).. If a player’s fitness falls below 75% his performance is impaired - you. io. y. sit. They can modify or substitute new goals (NPIN) which are more readily obtainable.(CE1-1112). al. er. b.. Nat. may need to substitute him (NPOUT). (EB6-234). ‧. (1.1) a.. n. v i n Cishfound in the passive Likewise, a similar situation use of SUBSTITUTE that engchi U. the NP as the syntactic subject can be either NPIN or NPOUT. In (1.2a), Speed (NPOUT) was replaced in a soccer game, while in (1.2b) the poor churches use painted frescoes (NPIN) to replace the more expensive mosaic. (1.2) a.. Couldn’t see why Speed (NPOUT) was substituted but he wasn’t playing well. (J1J-765). b.. …in poorer churches painted frescoes (NPIN ) were substituted. (HWB-1097). 1. SUBSTITUTE is in capitals, serving as a lemma which includes the word forms of substitute, substitutes, substituted, and substituting. 1. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(11) In this thesis, we used ‘syntactic pattern’ for the pattern at the syntactic level, as in [NPSUBJ + Verb + NPOBJ], and ‘sentence pattern’ for the pattern where the NPs bear the roles at the semantic level, as in [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN]. The phenomenon demonstrated above suggests that, in the same syntactic pattern, either NPIN or NPOUT is plausible in the same syntactic position, which in turn gives rise to two distinct sentence patterns. More precisely, in the syntactic pattern [NPSUBJ + Verb + NPOBJ], the direct object NP (NPOBJ) could play the role as either the NPIN or the NPOUT in the two distinct sentence patterns [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN] and [NPAGENT + Verb +. 政治大 patterns, readers need to count on the clues in the contexts to figure out the exact role 立 NPOUT]. Since the syntactic position cannot predict the role of the NP in the syntactic. of NP.. ‧ 國. 學. To have some initial understanding of SUBSTITUTE, four dictionaries (the. ‧. Oxford Learner’s Dictionary, the Cambridge Dictionary, the Collins Dictionary, and. y. Nat. the Merriam-Webster Dictionary) were consulted and the syntactic patterns were. er. io. sit. summarized below2.. First, in (1.3a), we found that the preposition for precedes the NPOUT butter and. al. n. v i n C hof SUBSTITUTE.UTaken together, they form the oil is the direct object engchi. that the NPIN. sentence pattern [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN + for NPOUT] in (1.3a).. (1.3) a. b.. You can substitute oil (NPIN) for butter (NPOUT) in this recipe. Gas-fired power stations (NPIN) will substitute for less efficient coal-fired equipment (NPOUT).. 2. c.. Butter (NPOUT) can be substituted with/by margarine (NPIN) in this recipe.. d.. Ronaldo (NPOUT) was substituted in the second half after a knee injury.. We changed the entities which represent NP in the syntactic patterns into NPIN and NPOUT. For example, [SUBSTITUTE + A + for + B] is replaced by [SUBSTITUTE + NPIN + for + NPOUT]. 2. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(12) Similarly, (1.3b) contains the preposition for preceding the NPOUT (less efficient coalfired equipment); however, the NPIN (gas-fired power stations) is the syntactic subject which differs from that of (1.3a) in the direct object. Thus, (1.3b) demonstrates the second sentence pattern [NPIN + Verb + for NPOUT]. Then, in (1.3c), two distinct prepositions with and by precede the NPIN margarine. Although (1.3c) is expressed in passive voice, we followed the entry of the dictionary and formed [NPAGENT + Verb + NPOUT + with/by + NPIN]. Lastly, in (1.3d), Ronald is the NPOUT due to a knee injury. However, as indicated above, the NP could be either NPIN or NPOUT, (1.3d) is. 政治大 In addition to these sentence patterns, the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 立. presented in [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN/OUT].. (OALD) importantly makes the observation below.. ‧ 國. 學 ‧. When for, with or by are not used, it can be difficult to tell whether the person or. y. Nat. thing ‘discourse-old’ is being used, or has been replaced by somebody or. al. er. io. sit. something else. The context will usually make this clear.3. n. v i n C h with our observation The statement in the OALD is consistent that the preposition for engchi U precedes NPOUT and that both with and by precede NPIN. These prepositions capable. of predicting the role of NP are termed the ‘role-predicting prepositions’ in this thesis. Aside from the observation made by the dictionaries, the syntactic behaviors of SUBSTITUTE are also delineated in Levin (1993) and Croft (1991). Holding the view that “knowing the meaning of a verb can be a key to knowing its behavior” (p. 5), Levin (1993) proposed that “predictions about verb behavior are feasible because particular syntactic properties are associated with verbs of a certain. 3. URL: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/substitute_2 3. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(13) semantic type” (p. 5). In other words, the verbs with a shared meaning may have certain syntactic behaviors in common. With the shared meaning of “exchanging one thing for another” (p.143), SUBSTITUTE was classified into ‘Verbs of Exchange’ with other semantically related verbs like barter, change, exchange, swap, and trade. It follows that SUBSTITUTE should share some syntactic behaviors with the verbs in ‘Verbs of Exchange’. They will be explained below, mostly summarized from Croft (1991) and Levin (1993). Firstly, the ‘Verbs of Exchange’ do not show the dative alternation where the to-. 政治大 (Murphy & Koskela, 2010:150), as in (1.4a). Likewise, SUBSTITUTE, as a member 立. phrase indicates the ‘goal’ as “the location or entity toward which something moves”. in the verb category, is not compatible with the dative alternation either (see 1.4b).. ‧ 國. 學. (1.4) a.. *Gwen exchanged/changed/bartered/swapped/traded the dress to Mary.. *Gwen substituted the dress to Mary.. y. Nat. b.. ‧. (Levin, 1993:143). er. io. sit. Secondly, the for-phrases were found as one of the syntactic behaviors of the verbs, referring to “the object that the agent receives as part of the exchange” (Levin,. al. n. v i n 1993:144) (see 1.5). Every verbC in ‘Verbs of Exchange’ h e n g c h i Uexcept SUBSTITUTE. demonstrates this syntactic behavior. In (1.5a), a shirt (i.e. NPIN) was received by Gwen (the agent) as the result of the exchange. However, according to the sentence patterns in the dictionaries, we found that the NP of the for-phrase in SUBSTITUTE refers to the NPOUT rather than the NPIN. In (1.5b), the NPAGENT (they) uses violence (NPIN) to replace dialogue (NPOUT). Unlike other verbs in the ‘Verbs of Exchange’, for SUBSTITUTE, the NP in the for-phrase is NPOUT rather than NPIN. (1.5) a.. Gwen exchanged/changed/bartered/swapped/traded the dress for a shirt (NPIN).. b.. (Levin, 1993:143). They were substituting violence for dialogue (NPOUT). (Collins Dictionary) 4. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(14) Old Agent New Figure 1.1 Representation of substitution events (Croft, 1991, 225) The discrepancy of the for-phrases between SUBSTITUTE and other semantically related verbs was discovered and explained in Croft (1991). Croft (1991:225) suggested that SUBSTITUTE belongs to another lexical set, distinct from that of exchange and trade. The difference between these two lexical sets, Croft. 政治大 (p.225). The variation is illustrated in more detail below. 立. (1991) argued, resides in “a variation in the linguistic expression of old-new relation”. Croft (1991:225) argued that the variation derives from a more fundamental. ‧ 國. 學. representation of substitution events (see Figure 1.1). As demonstrated in Figure 1.1,. ‧. Croft (1991) explained that “the substitution situation consists of an initiator (i.e. the. y. Nat. agent), the old entity, and a new entity” (p. 225). The ‘old entity’ and the ‘new entity’. er. io. sit. correspond to the NPOUT and the NPIN of our terminology in this thesis, respectively. In Figure 1.1, the agent could choose to initiate the action of substituting either to the. al. n. v i n C hCroft (1991:225) argued old entity or to the new entity first. that the two lexical sets engchi U choose differently by adopting two opposite “strategies” (p. 225). The “strategy” is. the interaction between the entities (i.e. agent, new, and old), and it may be reflected in the linguistic expressions below. In SUBSTITUTE, Croft (1991) argued that it chooses the new entity first by adopting the “new-first strategy” (p. 225) (see 1.6). The adoption of the “new-first strategy” is directly reflected in (1.6) that the direct object (Cindy) comes first as the new entity (NPIN), and thus the Jane in the for-phrase is the old entity (NPOUT). (1.6). The director substituted Cindy for Jane in the Virgin’s part. (agent). (new). (old). (Croft, 1991:225). 5. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(15) In contrast, the lexical set consisting of exchange and trade adopts the “old-first strategy” (p. 226) where the agent firstly chooses the old entity first in the representation of substitution events, which in turn is reflected in the linguistic expression that the old entity comes first as the direct object of the predicate. In (1.7), the direct object my Volvo comes first as the old entity (NPOUT), and a Datsun in the for-phrase is the new entity (NPIN). (1.7). I exchanged/traded my Volvo for a Datsun. (agent). (old). (new). (Croft, 1991:226). 政治大 reflected in their corresponding linguistic expressions, which in turn led to the 立. In Croft’s point of view, the different strategies adopted by distinct verbs was. semantic discrepancy in the role of NPs between SUBSTITUTE and other. ‧ 國. 學. semantically related verbs (i.e. exchange and trade). More precisely, SUBSTITUTE. ‧. was argued to adopt the “new-first strategy”, in which the for-phrase represented the. io. er. designated the for-phrase to be a new entity.. sit. y. Nat. old entity. In contrast, exchange and trade adopted the “old-first strategy”, which. Croft’s explanation of the distinct strategies adopted by verbs may account for. al. n. v i n some of the sentence patterns ofC SUBSTITUTE in which h e n g c h i U the direct object NP refers to NPIN, as in [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN + for NPOUT]. However, the explanation may not be compatible with other sentence patterns (e.g., [NPAGENT + Verb + NPOUT + with/by + NPIN]) in which the old entity (NPOUT) comes first. The occurrence of [NPAGENT + Verb + NPOUT + with/by + NPIN] suggests that not only the “new-first strategy” but the “old-first strategy” is adopted by SUBSTITUTE. Therefore, Croft’s explanation concerning the role discrepancy of the for-phrases between SUBSTITUTE and the lexical set of exchange and trade cannot account for the phenomenon in SUBSTITUTE, that is, the compatibility of both “new-first” and “old-first” strategies in the substitution events. 6. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(16) Although Croft’s (1991) explanation only accounted for part of the event of substituting, it demonstrated that linguistic expressions are related to the conceptual representation of the event. For example, the linguistic expression that the verb substitute selects the new entity (NPIN) as its direct object reflects the event of substituting in which the new entity is selected firstly in the conceptual structure. The variation of linguistic expressions of the verbs (for here, the verbs in ‘Verbs of Exchange’) may reflect the distinct conceptual representations of the event adopted by the verbs, respectively. Yet, Croft (1991) is not the only scholar putting forward this. 政治大 Specifically, Fillmore and Baker (2010:330) used the term “perspective” in which 立. argument. Fillmore and Baker (2010) and Langacker (2008) shared the similar notion.. “different lexical items (e.g., buy and sell) evoke frames with different perspectives. ‧ 國. 學. on an abstract event (commercial transaction)” (p. 330). As for Langacker (2008:43),. ‧. the different selection of the event in the conceptual structure was one of the. y. Nat. manifestations of “construal” which represents “our manifest ability to conceive or. er. io. sit. portray the same situation in alternate ways” (p. 43).. In this thesis, we adopted the notion of “construal” (Langacker, 2008:43) and. al. n. v i n Ch investigated the construals that SUBSTITUTE possesses through examining the engchi U sentence patterns of SUBSTITUTE in natural language use.. We briefly summarized the knowledge of SUBSTITUTE that we have so far and indicated the gap for research in this thesis as follows. First, four distinct sentence patterns were collected from the dictionaries, namely: [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN + for NPOUT], [NPIN + Verb + for + NPOUT], [NPAGENT + Verb + NPOUT + with/by NPIN], and [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN/OUT]. Possibly, some others could be uncovered in natural-occurring language. Second, although the role-predicting prepositions are able to predict the role of their following NPs, the proportion of these role-predicting prepositions in the 7. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(17) sentence patterns of SUBSTITUTE remains unknown in natural-occurring language. This knowledge matters in that the distribution of the prepositions reflects the proportion which the readers (or hearers) could rely on to distinguish the role of NPs. Another question relates to the ambiguous role of the NP in the sentence patterns without the ‘role-predicting preposition’, as in [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN/OUT]. Although the OALD indicated that “the context will usually make this clear”, it remains unclear how the context could help the identification of the role. In this thesis, the management of information structure in the context is argued to be helpful. 政治大 structure that “[h]uman languages are organized in ways that reflect the content and 立. in predicting the ambiguous role of the NP. Arnold et al. (2013) defined information. purpose of utterances – that is, the information that is contained in the words and. ‧ 國. 學. structures that make up sentences. This organization is called information structure”. ‧. (p. 403). In the information structure, the entity (usually NP) which represents the. y. sit. io. er. Prince (1992:298).. Nat. reader’s/hearer’s degree of familiarity to the NP was termed “information status” by. In this thesis, information structure is argued to be helpful due to the two. al. n. v i n hypothesis of ours. First, the lessCfamiliar informationU h e n g c h i (i.e. new information) is. predicted to show the preference for NPIN. What motivates this hypothesis is based on live experience that we seldom remove something which is newly introduced in the discourse context. For example, in (1.8) the NP thick oil is firstly mentioned in the context as new information. Being new information, the NP (thick oil) is the NPIN used to reach the goal (to prevent further leakage) as a new method or alternative. (1.8). I own a 1976 SWB Series III which is leaking oil from the seal round the offside swivel pin housing. As the housing is not pitted I cleaned it and replaced the seal, however it is still leaking some oil. Can I avoid renewing the housing by substituting thick oil to prevent further leakage? (AN2-652) 8. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(18) The opposite interpretation of being the removed entity (i.e. NPOUT) can be hardly accepted because new information is seldom introduced to be the replaced entity (NPOUT) in our live experience. In addition, we hypothesized that if the NP is old information, it would show the neutral preference for either NPIN or NPOUT. This hypothesis was based on the intuition that something discussed or mentioned in the prior context could be reasonable to be either NPIN or NPOUT. The two hypotheses demonstrate the potential of old/new information to. 政治大 particular, the first hypothesis that new information prefers NP 立. distinguish the role of NP if both of them were attested in the natural language use. In IN. may help distinguish. the ambiguous role of the NP in the sentence patterns without the role-predicting. ‧ 國. 學. preposition, e.g., [NPAGENT + Verb + NPIN/OUT].. ‧. Lastly, since linguistic expressions may reflect the variant construals (Langacker,. y. Nat. 2008) of the event in conceptual representation, we will uncover the different. SUBSTITUTE in natural-occurring language.. n. al. Ch. engchi. er. io. sit. construals of the substitution event by examining the sentence patterns of. i n U. v. 1.2 Research Questions of the Study. In this thesis, four research questions will be addressed for investigation: 1.. What sentence patterns of SUBSTITUTE are displayed in natural language use?. 2.. What is the distribution of each sentence pattern in natural language use, especially the sentence patterns with and without the role-predicting prepositions?. 3.. What is the tendency between ‘old/new’ information in the information structure and the role of the NP in the sentence patterns of SUBSTITUTE?. 4.. What construals does SUBSTITUTE possess in the event of substitute? 9. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(19) The present thesis is structured as follows. In Chapter Two, we will review the related literature of (a) construal and its relation to linguistic expressions in conceptual approach and (b) the impact of the information structure on sentence patterns in discourse. In Chapter Three, we will present the methodology, specifically the annotation of the participants in the event of substitution and the information status of the NPs in sentence patterns. In Chapter Four and Five, we will present the results of the conceptual analysis of the sentence patterns and the relation between information status and sentence patterns, respectively. Lastly, in Chapter Six we will. 政治大 addition, according to the findings, we will propose the pedagogical implications and 立 conclude the findings of the thesis by answering the four research questions. In. indicate the limitations of the thesis.. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 10. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(20) CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW. To tackle the issue pertaining to the configuration of grammatical structure, we review the linguistic theories explaining the configuration of simple clause structure, defined as “a sentence with one main clause” in Carter & McCarthy (2006:488). The chapter is structured as follows. In section 2.1, we will introduce the conceptual approach to simple clause structure in Langacker (1991, 1999, 2008).. 政治大. Fillmore’s (1982, 1985, 2006) Frame Semantics will be introduced as well. Then, in. 立. section 2.2, the scope is extended beyond the boundary of clauses and information. ‧ 國. 學. structure will be reviewed. In section 2.3, we will summarize this chapter.. ‧. 2.1 Conceptual Approach to Clause Structures. y. Nat. sit. In this section, we present two notions advocating that humans describe their. n. al. er. io. experience of events by means of conceptual structure. First, we introduce the notion. i n U. v. of ‘Frame Semantics’ (Fillmore, 1982, 1985, 2006) as the foundation of conceptual. Ch. engchi. approach in section 2.1.1. Then, on the ground of ‘Frame Semantics’, we review Langacker’s (1991, 1999, 2008) proposals of ‘construal’ in section 2.1.2 and demonstrate the influence of ‘construal’ in the encoding of clause structure in section 2.1.3. Lastly, in section 2.1.4 we will present the approach adopted in this thesis.. 2.1.1 Frame Semantics The theory of Frame Semantics was proposed to respond the criticisms and limitations of semantic roles (Fillmore, 1982, cited in Fillmore, 2006). Specifically, Fillmore acknowledged that semantic roles fail to offer detailed semantic description: 11. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(21) This theory of semantic roles fell short of providing the detail needed for semantic description; it came more and more to seem that another independent level of role structure was needed for the semantic description of verbs in particular limited domains. (Fillmore, 1982:377). Fillmore (1982:115) proposed the abstract ‘scenes’ as the basis in Frame Semantics (‘scene’ was later replaced by ‘frame’ in Fillmore (1985), we use ‘frame’. 政治大 study of how, as a part of our knowledge of the language, we associate linguistic 立. hereafter). As explained in Fillmore and Baker (2010:314), Frame Semantics is “the. forms (words, fixed phrases, grammatical patterns) with the cognitive structures—the. ‧ 國. 學. frames” (p. 314). In other words, Frame Semantics advocated the continuities between. ‧. language and our experience or encyclopedic knowledge in conceptual structure.4. sit. y. Nat. The ‘frame’ is the schematic and conceptual representation which entails the. io. er. necessary properties, experiences, and knowledge as the basis and premise to understand the semantic structures and meanings of the verb. That is, frames are the. al. n. v i n C h to understandUthe meanings of a word. For presupposed knowledge and experience engchi example, the meanings of a set of semantically related verbs, including buy, sell, spend, etc. can be understood by knowing what takes place in a commercial transaction in the {COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION} frame (Fillmore & Atkins, 1992:78).5. The {COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION} frame is the knowledge base comprising our experiences in a commercial transaction event, for example, buying books in a bookstore. Progressively, the experience of commercial transaction events establishes. 4 5. In this thesis, we used ‘conceptual structure’ and ‘cognitive structure’ interchangeably. Note that the name of frames is presented in lower capital embedded in curly brackets. 12. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(22) the required knowledge and concepts in the {COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION} frame. For instance, as indicated by Fillmore and Atkins (1992:78), there is a ‘BUYER’ purchasing ‘GOODS’ and a ‘SELLER’ selling the ‘GOODS’ in exchange of the ‘MONEY’ from the ‘BUYER’.6 These four elements were termed the ‘frame elements’ (FEs) (Fillmore & Baker, 2010:321) of the {COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION} frame. Since the lack of each element may cause the commercial transaction event incomplete (the ‘BUYER’ cannot buy the ‘GOODS’ without paying ‘MONEY’), these elements are the ‘core FEs’ of the {COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION} frame. In contrast, the ‘TIME’ in. 政治大 ‘Time’ is the non-core (or peripheral) FE of the {C 立. which the commercial transaction event occurs is negligible in the frame, and thus OMMERCIAL TRANSACTION} frame.. In a different point of view, Petruck (1996) indicated that “the words, that is, the. ‧ 國. 學. linguistic material, evoke the frame (in the mind of a speaker or hearer); the. ‧. interpreter (of an utterance or a text in which the words occur) invokes the frame”. sit. y. Nat. (Petruck, 1996:1). In other words, the verbs, e.g. buy, sell, and spend, are the. io. er. linguistic prompts which activate our knowledge base of the {COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION} frame to encode or interpret the event of commercial transaction.. al. n. v i n Cthe It is important to clarify that of core FEs in a frame does not h erequirement ngchi U. mean their realization in a sentence is required as well. While all the core FEs could be realized (see 2.13a), oftentimes not every core FE is realized, as in (2.1b).7. (2.1). a.. [BUYER Carla] bought [GOODS the computer] [SELLER from Sally] [MONEY for $100].. b.. (Petruck, 1996:3). [SELLER Sally] sold [GOODS the computer] yesterday.. 6. In this thesis, the frame elements are presented in lower capitals within single quotations, for example, ‘BUYER’, in order to be distinguished from the semantic roles (e.g., ‘Agent’). 7 In this study, we only annotated the core FEs in the sentence. Since yesterday refers to the non-core FE ‘Time’, we did not label its frame element in (2.13b). 13. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(23) Therefore, the core FEs are necessary in the sense that none of the core FEs could be deleted in the knowledge base of the frame. For example, the {COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION} frame would be incomplete if one of the core-FEs (e.g., ‘SELLER’) is not part of the frame. Another important concept in Frame Semantics is ‘perspective’. Fillmore and Baker (2010) proposed that “different lexical items (e.g., buy and sell) evoke frames with different perspectives on an abstract event (commercial transaction)” (p. 330). Consider (2.1) again. On the one hand, in (2.1a) the verb buy takes the perspective of. 政治大 in (2.1b), the verb sell takes the perspective of the ‘ ’, and thus the ‘ 立. the ‘BUYER’, so that the ‘BUYER’ is realized as the subject of buy. On the other hand, SELLER. SELLER’. is. realized as the subject of sell. While (2.1a) and (2.1b) describe the same event that. ‧ 國. 學. ‘Sandy sold the computer to Carla’, the two verbs take different perspectives on the. ‧. event, and thus give rise to different realizations of core FEs in the sentences.. sit. y. Nat. Using Frame Semantics as the basis, the Berkeley FrameNet project has. io. er. developed an online lexical resource with corpus evidence. The aim of the project is “to document the range of semantic and syntactic combinatory possibilities of each. al. n. v i n C h et al., 2016:7). word in each of its senses” (Ruppenhofer In other words, based on the engchi U frames evoked by a word (usually a verb), the FrameNet aims to capture how the frame elements can be realized in the syntactic structure of the verb in natural occurring language. For example, in the verb sell, the ‘SELLER’ is realized as the subject while the ‘GOODS’ is realized as the direct object (see 2.1b). At the same time, the verb sell can also be expressed in Sally sold Carla a computer where the direct object Carla is the ‘BUYER’ rather than the ‘GOODS’, and the ‘GOODS’ (a computer) is realized in the indirect object. These combinatory possibilities of the verb sell have been documented as such in the lexical source of the FrameNet. 14. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(24) Then, we consulted the FrameNet for the frames presupposed by SUBSTITUTE (https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/framenet_search). SUBSTITUTE, as indicated in the FrameNet, evokes two different frames as its conceptual knowledge base: one is the {REPLACING} frame and the other is the {TAKE PLACE OF} frame. The definition of each frame and its core FEs are provided in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2. In the {REPLACING} frame, ‘AGENT’, ‘NEW’, and ‘OLD’ were identified as the core FEs. The definition of this frame suggests the knowledge and experience that an ‘AGENT’ uses the ‘NEW’ to take the place of the ‘OLD’.. 治政 } frame and大 its core FEs. Table 2.1 The definitions of the {REPLACING. 立. (https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Replacing). REPLACING. Definition. An ‘AGENT’ changes the filler of a role by placing an ‘NEW’ filler in the position after the ‘OLD’ filler ceases to occupy the position.. Core FEs. ‘AGENT’ The conscious entity, generally a person, that performs actions resulting in the ‘NEW’ entity occupying the position.. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. Frame. n. al. er. sit. The ‘NEW’ entity is the person or thing that the ‘AGENT’ sets to fill a role. io ‘OLD’. y. Nat. ‘NEW’. v. The entity that formerly occupied the position.. Ch. engchi. i n U. The {REPLACING} frame could be exemplified as in (2.2). The ‘AGENT’ Wilkinson could be a coach or a manager who instigates the action of substituting by introducing the ‘IN’ (David R.) as the new player to take the place of the ‘OUT’ (Frank Strandli). As for with 8 minutes remaining, it is not annotated with a frame element in this thesis due to its status as a non-core frame element, ‘Time’.. (2.2). [AGENT Wilkinson] substituted [NEW Frank Strandli] [OLD with David R.] with 8 minutes remaining. (FrameNet) 15. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(25) According to FrameNet, the other frame evoked by SUBSTITUTE is the {TAKE PLACE OF}. frame, in which three core FEs are displayed in Table 2.2. The first two are. the ‘NEW’ and the ‘OLD’, and the third core FE could be either ‘FUNCTION’ or ‘ROLE’. In general, this frame describes the knowledge and experience that a ‘NEW’ takes the place of an ‘OLD’ by occupying the former ‘ROLE’ or ‘FUNCTION’ of the ‘OLD’.. Table 2.2 The definitions of the {TAKE PLACE OF} frame and its core FEs (https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frameIndex.xml?frame=Take_place_of). TAKE PLACE OF. Definition. 立. 學. Core FEs. 政治大. A ‘NEW’ filler occupies a ‘ROLE’ or serves a ‘FUNCTION’ after the ‘OLD’ filler ceases to occupy the position. In many cases, the ‘ROLE’ or ‘FUNCTION’ is implicit.. ‧ 國. Frame. The new filler of the ‘ROLE’ that was previously occupied by the ‘OLD’ filler.. ‘OLD’. The entity that occupied the ‘ROLE’ or served the ‘FUNCTION’ before the ‘IN’ filler.. ‧. ‘NEW’. y. sit. io. ‘ROLE’. The category that the ‘NEW’ and ‘OLD’ entities fit into as a result of the ‘FUNCTION’ they serve.. n. al. er. Nat. ‘FUNCTION’ The (generally desirable) state of affairs that the ‘NEW’ and ‘OLD’ entities are involved in bringing about.. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. The {TAKE PLACE OF} frame could be exemplified as in (2.3).. (2.3). [NEW Charcoal] can also substitute [OLD for fossil fuels], which in some places is an urgent need. (FrameNet). In (2.3), Charcoal is the ‘NEW’ realized as the subject of SUBSTITUTE and takes the place of the ‘OLD’ which is realized as the oblique, for fossil fuels. As for the third core-FE, either ‘ROLE’ or ‘FUNCTION’, is absent in (2.3). 16. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(26) This section has presented the point of view of Frame Semantics which emphasizes that linguistic expressions relate to the evoked knowledge structure or experience of the words (i.e. frames) and that different linguistic expressions are the results of the realizations of the frame elements in the frames. For here, the realizations of the core FEs of SUBSTITUTE was exemplified to illustrate this notion. In general, Frame Semantics hold the tenet that the use of language reflects the experience and knowledge embedded in the frame underlying the words. In the next section, we will introduce Langacker’s (1991, 1999, 2008) notions. 政治大. that language is the conceptual symbolization providing different devices for us to encode the experience of events.. 學. ‧ 國. 立. 2.1.2 Construal in Cognitive Grammar. ‧. On the ground of cognitive approach, Langacker (1991, 1999, 2008) developed. y. Nat. the linguistic theory known as Cognitive Grammar. The basic tenet of Cognitive. er. io. sit. Grammar is that language is “symbolic in nature” (Langacker, 2008:5). To be more specific, language is structured by symbols, that is, the symbolic assemblies which are. al. n. v i n the form-meaning pair in natureC (Langacker, 2008). For h e n g c h i Uexample, a simple lexical. item, for example, cat, is symbolic in that its alphabetically structured form (cat) or its phonological structure /kæ t/ is paired with its meaning. Furthermore, even the grammar of a language, known as the system which combines elements into complex expressions, is considered symbolic. As indicated by Langacker (2008), “lexicon and grammar form a gradation consisting solely in assemblies of symbolic structures” (p. 5). For instance, the grammatical categories (e.g., ‘nouns’) are symbolic because they carry the more schematic meaning of ‘things’. In this regard, Cognitive Grammar rejects the ‘autonomous’ nature of syntax, that is, the separation of syntax and semantics, in Generative Grammars (Chomsky, 1986). 17. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(27) As indicated above, a symbolic assembly contains a form-meaning pairing. Then, a question arises: where does the meaning come from? Evans & Green (2006) explained that “[t]he meaning associated with a linguistic symbol is linked to a particular mental representation termed a concept. Concepts, in turn, derive from percepts” (p. 7). Consider the meaning of cat again. We interact with cats in the physical world through our sensory perceptions, such as vision and touch. Through vision, we know the appearances and colors of cats, and through touch we feel the fluffy furs of cats. All these are our ‘percepts’ of cats. Then, progressively, these. 政治大 in turn, forms the ‘concepts’ of cats. Imagine a scenario in which you are directing 立. percepts of cats are integrated into the mental (or conceptual) representation, which,. your friend’s attention to a cute cat on the street by Look at the cat! In your utterance. ‧ 國. 學. the cat derives from your concept of cat in the conceptual representation. This. ‧. scenario demonstrates that the meaning of the symbolic assembly cat comes from the. y. Nat. conceptual representation of cat rather than any specific cat in the physical world.. er. io. sit. With this understanding, Langacker proposed that “a meaning consists of both conceptual content and a particular way of construing that content” (p. 43). While the. al. n. v i n Cexample, ‘conceptual content’ refers to, for of cat in the conceptual h e n gthecconcept hi U. representation, the term ‘construal’ is defined as “our manifest ability to conceive or portray the same situation in alternate ways” (p. 43). Langacker adduced a half-full glass of water for illustration (see Figure 2.1). At the conceptual level, the conceptual content is in the “neutral manner” without any imposed construals on it, as the left-most diagram in Figure 2.1. Then, as we encode the conceptual content into language, inevitably, different construals may be imposed on the conceptual content. In (2.4), Langacker displayed the encoded sentences corresponding to the four possible construals in Figure 2.1. 18. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(28) Figure 2.1 Construals in conceptual content (adapted from Langacker, 2008:44). (2.4) a.. the glass with water in it. (Langacker, 2008:43). 政治大. the water in the glass. c.. the glass is half-full. d.. the glass is half-empty. (ibid) (ibid). ‧. ‧ 國. 立. (ibid). 學. b.. Sentence (2.4a) represents the first construal which designates the container, the glass;. sit. y. Nat. (2.4b) takes the second construal designating the liquid, the water, in the container;. al. er. io. (2.4c) designates the relationship between the container (the glass) and the half-filled. v. n. water; (2.4d) designates the relationship between the container and the half-void space. Ch. engchi. i n U. in the container. Sentences in (2.4) demonstrate how the identical conceptual content can be construed differently in language from (2.4a) to (2.4d), respectively. As demonstrated in (2.4), different locus of the conceptual content could be selected in these four construals. In (2.4a), the container is selected; in (2.4b), the liquid is selected; in (2.4c), the relationship between the container and the liquid is selected; in (2.4d), the relationship between the container and the void is selected. The selection of locus of the conceptual content, as proposed by Langacker (2008), reflects the mechanism of “prominence” (p. 66) in construal. In this thesis, among others, we concentrate on two kinds of prominence in language structure: the 19. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(29) ‘profiling’ and the ‘trajector-landmark alignment’, the two main notions used in this thesis later.. 2.1.2.1 Profiling Within the conceptual structure, the conceptual content, as the glass of water in Figure 2.1, is considered the conceptual ‘base’ as “the immediate scope in active domains” (Langacker, 2008:66). The proposal of the conceptual ‘base’ is akin to the ‘frame’ in the Frame Semantics, that is, the encyclopedic knowledge or experience.. 政治大 the conceptual ‘base’. Taken together, ‘profiling’ is defined in Langacker (2008) as 立. For ‘profiling’, it refers to the “the specific focus of attention” (Langacker, 1999:7) in. follows.. ‧ 國. 學 ‧. Within this onstage region, attention is directed to a particular substructure,. y. Nat. called the profile. Thus an expression’s profile stands out as the specific focus of. n. er. io. al. sit. attention within its immediate scope.. Ch. n U engchi. iv. (Langacker, 2008:66). In the example of the half-full glass of water, the integrity of the whole conceptual content, including the container, water, and the void, is the conceptual ‘base’ for selection. Then, the selected locus (i.e. the particular substructure) of the ‘base’ is the ‘profile’ of a certain construal. For instance, in the glass with water in it, the ‘profile’ is the container encoded by the noun phrase, the glass; then, the whole conceptual content in Figure 2.1 is the ‘base’ of the ‘profile’. Furthermore, in the same base, the profile could be either a ‘thing’ or a ‘relationship’ (Langacker, 2008:67). In the glass with water, the expression profiles 20. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(30) the ‘thing’ in the glass.8 In contrast, the preposition with profiles the ‘relationship’ between the glass and the water. The fundamental distinction between the ‘thing’ and the ‘relationship’, as indicated by Langacker (1991), lies in whether the conception can be conceptualized independently. While the ‘thing’ can be conceptualized independently, the ‘relationship’ “does not exist independently of its participants” (Langacker, 1991:14). For example, in John broke the glass, we can independently form the conceptions of ‘thing’, such as John and the glass. However, we cannot conceptualize the verb break without referring to its participants, John and the glass.. 政治大 autonomous” (p. 14) and that a ‘relationship’ is “conceptually dependent” (p. 14). 立 Therefore, Langacker argued that the profiling of a ‘thing’ is “conceptually. On top of that, Langacker (2008:369) applied profiling to the force-dynamic. ‧ 國. 學. event of glass breaking, as in Floyd broke the glass with a hammer. As a mechanism. ‧. directing attention to a certain portion of the conceptual base, Langacker (2008:369). y. Nat. argued that different linguistic expressions demonstrate the varying profiled portion of. er. io. sit. the event. For instance, the sentence A hammer broke the glass shows that the attention directed to the interaction between the hammer and the glass, and another. al. n. v i n expression The glass broke onlyC focuses on the result U h e n g c h i of the glass. These three. expressions show that language allows us to focus on different portion of an event, and ‘profiling’ is the cognitive mechanism underlying these expressions. This sub-section illustrates the notion of profiling which represents the highlighted part of a given conceptual content as part of the story of prominence. In the next sub-section, the other kind of prominence, ‘trajector-landmark alignment’, will be introduced.. 8. Note that the term ‘profile’ can be used verbally with the meaning of selecting a locus in the ‘base’. 21. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(31) 2.1.2.2 Trajector-landmark alignment In the previous section, ‘profiling’ has been introduced as a kind of prominence in which language users impose different construals on the same conceptual content (i.e. base) by selecting different elements in it. It allows language users to focus on the profiled ones while others remain part of the base. However, these profiled participants do not receive equivalent prominence. As indicated by Langacker (2008), “[w]hen a relationship is profiled, varying degrees of prominence are conferred on its participants” (p.70). The varying degrees of prominence between the profiled. 政治大. participants are the second kind of prominence: the “trajector-landmark alignment” (Langacker, 2008:70).. 立. It is not uncommon to find different expressions to describe an identical scene in. ‧ 國. 學. the physical world. For example, in Figure 2.2, Langacker (2008:71) adduced the. ‧. relative spatial location of a lamp (X) in the higher position and a table (Y) beneath. sit. a.. [The lamp]TR is above [the table]LM.. b.. [The table]TR is under [the lamp]LM.. n. al. Ch. er. io. (2.5). y. Nat. the lamp in the physical world. Two expressions describe the scene in (2.5).. n U engchi. (Langacker, 2008:71). iv. (ibid). Figure 2.2 Trajector-landmark alignment in table and lamp (Langacker, 2008:71). 22. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(32) Truth-conditionally, both (2.5a) and (2.5b) have the same proposition referring to the identical scene in the physical world. However, despite being identical in the physical world, as argued by Langacker, (2.5a) and (2.5b) are semantically distinct in that “[t]he semantic contrast resides in the degree of prominence conferred to the relational participants” (p. 71). In other words, although both participants (i.e. the lamp and the table) are profiled in (2.5a) and (2.5b), the degree of prominence conferred on the profiled participants varies in each sentence. Specifically, among the profiled participants, Langacker proposed that the most. 政治大 located, evaluated, or described” (Langacker, 2008:70), and which in turn is “the 立 prominent participants is the ‘trajector’ defined as “the entity construed as being. primary focus within the profiled relationship” (p. 70). Then, the other participant is. ‧ 國. 學. the ‘landmark’ (LM) made prominent as a “secondary focus” (p.70). Therefore, in. ‧. (2.5a), we identify the location of the lamp as the ‘trajector’ in reference to the other. y. Nat. prominent participant, the table, as the ‘landmark’. On the contrary, in (2.5b), the. er. io. sit. table is located as the most prominent participant (the ‘trajector’) in reference to the lamp (the ‘landmark’). Therefore, in Langacker’s (2008) account, the identical scene. al. n. v i n with different meaning in (2.5a)C and (2.5b) comes from h e n g c h i Uthe different selection of. ‘trajector’ and ‘landmark’. In a nutshell, the varying degrees of prominence in the profiled participants reflect the different construals of the scene, which in turn result in the variation of meaning. The two participants selected as the ‘trajector’ and ‘landmark’ are called “focal participants” (Langacker, 1991:301). Based on this, Taylor (2003:214) further proposed that, in some cases, more than one landmark is needed in a profiled relation. The more prominent landmark is the ‘primary landmark’, while the other is the ‘secondary landmark’. In this thesis, we used the ‘LM’ in the upper case as the abbreviation for the ‘primary landmark’ and the ‘lm’ in the lower case for the ‘secondary landmark’. 23. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(33) In (2.6), Taylor (2003:214) compared the two verbs, rob and steal, with the same knowledge base: “a person illegally takes a thing away from its rightful owner”.. (2.6). a.. [The thieves]TR robbed [the Princess]LM [of her diamonds]lm. (Taylor, 2003:214). b.. [The thieves]TR stole [the diamonds]LM [from the Princess]lm.. (ibid). The three participants in the base are: the person who takes the thing, the thing to be. 政治大 interaction between the thieves (TR) and the Princess (LM), that is, the act of robbing 立 taken, and the rightful owner of the thing. In (2.6a), the verb rob emphasizes the. initiated by the thieves affects the Princess. Then, the oblique (of her diamonds) is the. ‧ 國. 學. secondary landmark (lm) specifying the way the Princess was affected. In contrast, in. ‧. (2.6b), the verb steal highlights the interaction between the thieves (TR) and the. io. er. affected in being taken away from its rightful owner.. sit. y. Nat. diamonds (LM). The oblique (from the Princess) describes that the diamonds are. By the comparison between rob and steal, Taylor (2003) demonstrated the value. al. n. v i n C h (lm) in prominence of identifying the secondary landmark distribution. Specifically, engchi U aside from the trajector, it presents different selections of primary and secondary. landmarks in verbs. The different prominence distribution in participants of the two verbs reflects different construals in each verb. Taylor’s observation, in fact, echoes with the notion of ‘perspective’ (Fillmore & Baker, 2010:330) in Frame Semantics. Indeed, as indicated in section 2.1.1, Frame Semantics proposes that different verbs present variant perspectives of the frame, for instance, the verb buy presents the perspective of ‘BUYER’ while sell presents the perspective of ‘SELLER’ instead. The ‘perspective’ resembles the ‘construal’ in Cognitive Grammar, which is accounted for by the different prominence distribution of participants in verbs. 24. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(34) In section 2.2, we have illustrated ‘prominence’ as a crucial cognitive mechanism of construal in conceptual structure. The ‘profile’ of the conceptual content demonstrates the highlighted portion of the ‘base’. Then, the varying degrees of prominence conferred on the profiled participants form the ‘trajector-landmark alignment’, reflecting the different construals imposed on the conceptual content. In the next section, we focus on how the cognitive mechanism of prominence is manipulated and manifested in event coding at the clause level.. 政治大 In the previous section, we have illustrated how different construals impose 立. 2.1.3 Construal and event coding. prominence on the profiled participants in varying degrees, which in turn influences. ‧ 國. 學. the encoding of event in language. However, the underlying mechanism which poses. ‧. the trajector to the subject and the landmark to the direct object remains unclear.. y. Nat. Answering this question, Langacker (2008) indicated that clause structure is. er. io. sit. “grounded in basic human experience” (p. 355), and one of the ubiquitous experience is the interaction between entities through force and energy. Specifically, Langacker. al. n. v i n C h (p. 13) to describe (1991) use the ‘billiard-ball’ metaphor this kind of experience in engchi U our conceptual structure:. We think of our world as being populated by discrete physical objects. These objects are capable of moving about through space and making contact with one another. Motion is driven by energy, which some objects draw from internal resources and others receive from the exterior. When motion results in forceful physical contact, energy is transmitted from the mover to the impacted object, which may thereby be set in motion to participate in further interactions. (Langacker, 1991:13) 25. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(35) The fundamental nature of the ‘billiard-ball’ metaphor is the force-dynamic interaction between objects. The transmission of energy starts from the physical object which exerts its force to another, and the object receiving the energy, in turn, transmits the energy to the other. This force-dynamic interaction continues until one object receives the energy and ceases to affect others. The “action chain” (also known as the “causal chain” in Croft (1991, 2012)) was proposed by Langacker (1991:283)) in Figure 2.3.. 立. ‧ 國. 學. Head. 政治大 Tail. Figure 2.3 Action Chain (adapted from Langacker, 2008:356). ‧ y. Nat. sit. In Figure 2.3, each circle represents an object, the solid arrow represents the. n. al. er. io. transmission of energy, and the dashed arrow represents the potential change of. i n U. v. location or state of the last object. The objects are ordered in the direction of the. Ch. engchi. transmission of force from the ‘head’, which initiates the force, to the ‘tail’, which ceases to transmit the force, of the action chain. Also noted by Langacker (2008), an action chain can be of any length. Minimally, it could be a “degenerate action chain in which the same participant is both the source of energy and the locus of its manifestation: a one-participant action” (p. 356), as in she jumped. An event of breaking, as in Floyd broke the glass with a hammer, was used to illustrate its representation in the action chain (Langacker, 2008:369).. 26. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(36) hammer. Floyd. glass. Head. Tail. Figure 2.4 The action chain of the event of breaking. In Figure 2.4, Floyd is the ‘head’ of the action chain. It exerts the force onto the second object (hammer), and the hammer transmits the force to the glass, which. 政治大. ceases to transmit the force as the ‘tail’ of the action chain. The relations between the. 立. objects in the event of breaking are force-dynamic in nature.. ‧ 國. 學. Using the notion of action chain, in an event of force-dynamic interaction,. ‧. Langacker (2008) argued that “[i]n the default coding of canonical events, primary focal prominence is conferred on the head of an action chain, the agent who initiates. y. Nat. sit. the chain of interactions constituting the profiled occurrence” (p. 367). This is because. n. al. er. io. the agent is an active participant which exerts the force, and thus it strongly receives. i n U. v. attention. Since English is the language well-known for this ‘agent orientation’. Ch. engchi. tendency, Langacker (2008:369) further indicated that, in addition to the agent, the trajector can be even conferred on the most agent-like profiled participant, namely the object closest to the profiled action chain. For example, the event of breaking in (2.7) is represented in the action chain in which Floyd is the agent who uses hammer as an instrument to break the entity (the glass). Each sentence profiles the different portion of the action chain in which the profiled participant closest to the source of energy (i.e. ‘head’) varies, and thereby the realization of the subject in the clause structure differs.. 27. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(37) (2.7). a.. Floyd broke the glass with a hammer. Floyd. b.. hammer. glass. A hammer broke the glass. Floyd. c.. (Langacker, 2008:369). (ibid). hammer. glass. The glass broke. Floyd. (ibid). hammer. glass. Specifically, in (2.7a), the entire action chain is profiled, and thus the agent Floyd is. 政治大 participants in the action chain. We can observe that when the agent Floyd is not 立 the subject of the clause. In (2.7b), both hammer and glass are the profiled. profiled, the most agent-like participant (hammer) is realized as the clausal subject.. ‧ 國. 學. This observation also holds in (2.7c) where only the tail of the action chain (the glass). ‧. is profiled. The glass is the clausal subject which denotes the result of losing the. y. Nat. structured integrity. Therefore, we conclude that, in the default encoding of events, the. er. io. sit. clausal subject receives the most prominence since it corresponds to the participant closest to the ‘head’ of the action chain.. al. n. v i n The participant as the ‘tail’C of the action chain also h e n g c h i Ureceives different degrees of. prominence and has its consequence to grammatical behaviors. For clauses which select the most agent-like participant as the trajector, as in (2.7a) and (2.7b), the. participant glass is the ‘tail’ which receives the secondary focus (i.e. landmark) in the position of direct object. Then, what makes the glass the landmark instead of the hammer? This is because each verb profiles a particular relationship or interaction between participants in alignment with trajector and landmark. For example, in (2.7a), the verb break profiles the interaction between Floyd and the glass, and thus Floyd receives the primary focus and the glass is the landmark in the clause. In contrast, in Floyd used the hammer to break the glass, the verb use particularly profiles the 28. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.

(38) interaction between Floyd and the hammer. The primary focus is given to Floyd and the secondary focus to the hammer, and as predicted the landmark (the hammer) is the direct object of the clause. In addition to the landmark, the participant glass in (2.7c) could be the trajector in the one-participant clause. The occurrence of the one-participant clause, Langacker (2008) argued, comes from two kinds of source. One is that the agentive participant is the source of energy of the action; for example, in She laughed, the participant she is the energy source conducting the action of laughing. Since the verb is used. 政治大 2008:374). In contrast, in The glass broke, Langacker (2008) termed it the ‘thematic 立 intransitively, the process is termed ‘agentive intransitive process’ (Langacker,. process’ defined as “a minimal single-participant process in which the theme’s role is. ‧ 國. 學. passive (i.e. it is not construed as a source of energy)” (p. 370). In other words, the. ‧. glass is the theme which cannot be construed as the source of energy but the. y. Nat. consequence of the force-dynamic interaction. Due to the several occurrences of the. er. io. introduced in detail below.. sit. ‘thematic process’ in SUBSTITTUE, as in The medicine substitutes poorly, it will be. al. n. v i n C h cannot be the source Although the ‘thematic process’ of energy, it is selfengchi U. contained and conceptually autonomous in itself; for example, we can easily imagine a scene where a glass is broken without the reference to other participants. Langacker (2008) illustrated it by indicating that “the profiled occurrence can be apprehended without explicitly invoking an agent or an energy source. When conceived autonomously in this fashion, its construal is said to be absolute” (p. 371). In other words, we can construe a particular portion of the action chain as an autonomous one detached from the whole. Importantly, Langacker noted that this is not to say the force-dynamic interaction does not exist. Instead, other participants in the action chain 29. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900159.