On the Adequacy of Grammatical Description: A Case of Shaanxi - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

On the Adequacy of Grammatical Description: A Case of ‘肉夹馍’

王立永 张韧 Shaanxi Normal University wang_ly@snnu.edu.cn

1

Content

 1. The issue  2. Disputes on structural analysis  3. Cognitive Grammar account of linguistic

knowledge

 4. A CG account of ‘肉夹馍’  5. Conclusions

2

Content

 1. The issue  2. Disputes on structural analysis  3. Cognitive Grammar account of linguistic

knowledge

 4. A CG account of ‘肉夹馍’  5. Conclusions

3

The grammatical nature of compounds

 Lexical approach

◼ Syntactical rules and lexical rules are independent

(Selkirk 1982; DiScilullo & Williams 1987)

 Syntactic approach

◼ Syntax all the way down (Marantz 1984; Baker 1988)

4

The case of Chinese deverbal compounds

 Some examples

◼ (1) a. 汽车修理工（car repair worker ‘car mechanic’）

• b. 纸张粉碎机（paper shred machine ‘paper shredder’）
• c. 论文指导教师(thesis supervise teacher ‘thesis superviser’)

5

Structural derivations

6

顾阳&沈阳 (2001)

7

程工&周光磊 (2015)

Objections to structural derivations

 Two objections

◼ 1. Structural knowledge is always required in the

processing of compounds

◼ 2. Speakers have different perceptions of compounds

with identical structures

 In a nutshell, structural derivations fail to

capture the speakers’ linguistic knowledge, a violation of descriptive adequacy (Chomksy 1965)

8

The present analysis

 Based on the structural disputes centered

around the compound ‘肉夹馍’, the present paper argues for a Cognitive Grammar account of the nature of linguistic knowledge

◼ Linguistic knowledge consists in networks of

constructions stored in the brain

◼ The licensing of linguistic expressions are not mere

computation of rules but involve the motivation of constructions in the network

9

Content

 1. The issue  2. Disputes on structural analysis  3. Cognitive Grammar account of linguistic

knowledge

 4. A CG account of ‘肉夹馍’  5. Conclusions

10

‘肉夹馍’（meat sandwich pancake）

 “Oddness” of this word

◼ What one sees: pancakes sandwiches the meat (馍

夹肉)

◼ What the surface structure of the word tells: the meat

sandwiches the pancake (肉夹馍)

11

Folk explanations

 Preposition omission analysis

◼ ‘肉夹(于)馍’（meat sandwich prep. pancake ‘meat is

sandwiched in pancake’）

 Objections

◼ 1. Does not observe the naming habit ◼ 2. The hypothesized full name never appears

12

Folk explanations

 The avoidance of homonymy hypothesis

◼ ‘馍夹肉’（pancake sandwich meat）sounds like ‘没夹

肉’ (no sandwich meat) in Shaanxi dialect

 Objection

◼ Cannot be extended to compounds with identical

structures, e.g. 油条卷饼 (‘oil stick roll pie’)

13

The right structural analysis

 ‘肉夹馍’ as ‘N+VN’ compound（e.g. 李晋霞

2008;杨锡彭2012）

◼ (2) 菜（vegetable）夹馍, 鸡蛋(egg)夹馍, 辣子

(pepper)夹馍, 土豆(potato)夹馍…

14

N N V N 肉 夹 馍 肉夹馍

The right structural analysis

 This makes ‘肉夹馍’ no different from the

following compounds with the pattern ‘X 炒饭(stir-fried rice)’

◼ (3) 蛋(egg)炒饭, 肉(meat)炒饭, 香菇(mushroom)炒饭,

火腿(ham)炒饭

15

N N V N 蛋 炒 饭 蛋炒饭

Two neglected observations

 First, no structural knowledge is required in

• rder for speakers to understand and use the

compound ‘肉夹馍’

 Second, of the two types of compounds

represented by ‘肉夹馍’ and ‘蛋炒饭’, only the former arouses structural confusion

16

 Any descriptively adequate account of

compounds accurately should reflect the above observations!

17

Content

 1. The issue  2. Disputes on structural analysis  3. Cognitive Grammar account of linguistic

knowledge

 4. 肉夹馍 in the network of constructions  5. Conclusions

18

Constructions

 Constructions as basic elements of

linguistic knowledge

◼ “A construction is defined as either an expression (of

any size), or else a schema abstracted from expressions to capture their commonality (at any level

• f specificity)…… They [expressions and schemas]

constitute established units” (Langacker 2003: 43)

19

Constructional networks

 Linguistic knowledge is organized in the

form of networks of constructions

20

Langacker 2008：226

Content

 1. The issue  2. Disputes on structural analysis  3. Cognitive Grammar account of linguistic

knowledge

 4. A CG account of ‘肉夹馍’  5. Conclusions

21

‘肉夹馍’ as an established linguistic unit

 1. ‘肉夹馍’ stored as an independent

construction

22

‘肉夹馍’ as an established linguistic unit

 2. Shows low degree of analyzability, like

many constructions

◼ flinger > complainer > computer > propeller >drawer

(Langacker 2009: 27)

23

‘肉夹馍’ in the network of constructions

 1. Confusion of ‘肉夹馍’ with ‘馍夹肉’

24

The actual situation, coupled with the conceptual meaning

• f the verb ‘夹’, gives rise to

the structural confusion.

‘肉夹馍’ in the network of constructions

 2. Difference between’肉夹馍’ and ‘蛋炒饭’

◼ Why does only the former arouse structural

confusion?

◼ Hypothesis: related to the conceptual nature of

relevant verbs

25

 Meanings of the verb ‘夹’ (sandwich)

◼ (4) a. 父亲轻轻地叹了口气，然后又夹了块肉送到我的碗里，声音

有些喑哑地说：“吃吧，过年哩。”（国家语委语料库）

• b. 那女孩望着他，红红的指头夹着一个便士，向他高高举起。

26

Ag. 肉 馍

 Meanings of the verb ‘炒’ (stir-fry）

◼ (5) a. 王家斌的老伴不能亲自做饭，便躺在炕上指挥着女儿，为我

炒了盘鸡蛋，砸了蒜末，炸了辣椒油，下了挂面。

• b. 一看，原来都在猪身上打滚--豆牙炒肉丝，荸荠炒腰花，莴

苣 烧肚片，萝菔炖肉。

27

Ag.

豆 芽 肉 丝

‘肉夹馍’ in the network of constructions

 3. ‘肉夹馍’ in the constructional network

28

Merits of the present analysis

 Compared with previous rule-based

accounts, the present analysis not only

◼ Explains the structural composition of compound

words

 But also

◼ Captures the speakers’ knowledge of compound

words

29

Content

 1. The issue  2. Disputes on structural analysis  3. Cognitive Grammar account of linguistic

knowledge

 4. A CG account of ‘肉夹馍’  5. Conclusions

30

Conclusions

 Rule-based accounts cannot fully describe

the speakers’ knowledge of linguistic expressions

 The licensing of linguistic expressions

involve the motivation by a complex network of constructions (Taylor 2004)

31

References

 Omitted

32

Thanks!

33