entrepreneur
FROM USAGE TO GRAMMAR:THE MIND’S RESPONSE TO REPETITION
J OAN B YBEE
University of New Mexico
A usage-bad view takes grammar to be the cognitive organization of one’s experience with
language.Aspects of that experience,for instance,the frequency of u of certain constructions
挽回男人
or particular instances of constructions,have an impact on reprentation that is evidenced in
speaker knowledge of conventionalized phras and in language variation and change.It is shown
色度
that particular instances of constructions can acquire their own pragmatic,mantic,and phonolog-
ical characteristics.In addition,it is argued that high-frequency instances of constructions undergo
grammaticization process(which produce further change),function as the central members of
categories formed by constructions,and retain their old forms longer than lower-frequency in-
stances under the pressure of newer formations.An exemplar model that accommodates both
phonological and mantic reprentation is elaborated to describe the data considered.*
西南财经大学自考1.U SAGE-BASED GRAMMAR.The obrvance of a paration between the u of lan-guage and its internalized structure can be traced back to de Saussure’s well-known distinction between LANGUE and PAROLE(1915[1966]:6–17),which was adhered to by American structuralists and which made its way into generative grammar via Chomsky’s distinction between competence and performance(Chomsky1965).In American struc-turalism and in generative grammar,the goal of studying langue/competence was given highest priority and the study of language u in context has
been considered to be less relevant to the understanding of grammar.Other goals for linguistic rearch which do not isolate the study of language structure from language u,however,have been pursued through the last few decades by a number of functionalist rearchers(for instance,Greenberg1966,Givo´n1979,Hopper&Thompson1980,Bybee1985)and more recently by cognitive linguists as well,all working to create a broad rearch paradigm under the heading of USAGE-BASED THEORY(Barlow&Kemmer2000,Lan-gacker2000,Bybee2001).
our什么意思While all linguists are likely to agree that grammar is the cognitive organization of language,a usage-bad theorist would make the more specific proposal that grammar is the cognitive organization of one’s experience with language.As is shown here, certain facets of linguistic experience,such as the frequency of u of particular in-stances of constructions,have an impact on reprentation that we can e evidenced in various ways,for example,in speakers’recognition of what is conventionalized and what is not,and even more strikingly in the nature of language change.The proposal prented here is that the general cognitive capabilities of the human brain,which allow it to categorize and sort for identity,similarity,and difference,go to work on the language events a person encounters,categorizing and entering in memory the experi-ences.The result is a cognitive reprentation that can be called a grammar.This grammar,while it may be abstract,since all cognitive categories are,is strongly tied to the experience that a speaker has had with language.gemstones of the world
In addition to prenting evidence that specific usage events affect reprentation,I also address the issue of the type of cognitive reprentation that is necessary to accom-*This article is an expanded version of the Presidential Address of January8,2005,prented at the annual meeting of the LSA in Oakland,California.I am grateful to Sandra Thompson and Rena Torres-Cacoullos for many discussions of the phenomena treated here.In addition,the questions and comments after the prentation in Oakland in2005from Ray Jackendoff,Mark Baker,Larry Horn,and Janet Pierrehumbert stimulated improvements in the article.
711
712
LANGUAGE,VOLUME82,NUMBER4(2006)
modate the facts that are brought to light in this usage-bad perspective.I argue for morphosyntax,as I have for phonology,that one needs an exemplar reprentation for language experience,and that constructions provide an appropriate vehicle for this type of reprentation.
2.C ONVERGING TRENDS IN LINGUISTIC THEORY.In recentyears many rearchers have moved
toward a consideration of the effect that usage might have on reprentation. One practice that unites many of the rearchers is a methodological one:it is common now to address theoretical issues through the examination of bodies of naturally occur-ring language u.This practice has been in place for decades in the work of tho who examine the u of grammar in discour with an eye toward determining how discour u shapes grammar,notably Givo´n,Thompson,Hopper,and DuBois1985,Givo´n1979,H opper&Thompson1980,Ono etal.2000,Thompson& Hopper2001).In addition,rearchers in sociolinguistic variation,such as Labov, Sankoff,and Labov1972,Poplack2001,Poplack&Tagliamonte1999, 2001,Sankoff&Brown1976),have always relied on natural discour to study the inherentvariat ion in language u.
The importance of usage-and text-bad rearch,always important to traditional historical linguistics,is especially emphasized in functionalist work on grammaticiza-tion,for example,Bybee2003a,b,Hopper&Traugott1993,and Poplack&Tagliamonte 1999.In fact,the study of grammaticization has played a central role in emphasizing the point that both grammatical meaning and grammatical form come into being through repeated instances of language u.This line of rearch along with the discour rearch mentioned above indeed eks to explain the nature of g
rammar through an examination of how grammar is created over time,thus tting a higher goal for linguis-tic explanation than that held in more synchronically oriented theory,which requires only that an explanatory theory provide the means for adequate synchronic description (Chomsky1957).
Of cour,one major impetus for the shift to analysis of natural language u is the recent availability of large electronic corpora and means of accessing particular items and patterns in such corpora.Through the work of corpus linguists,such as John Sinclair (1991),computational linguists,such as Dan Jurafsky and Jurafsky et al.2001,Gregory et al.1999),and tho who are proposing probabilistic or stochastic grammar,such as Janet 2001)and Rens Bod(1998),access to the nature and range of experience an average speaker has with language is now within our grasp.Studies of words,phras,and constructions in such large corpora prent a varying topography of distribution and frequency that can be quite different from what our intuitions have suggested.In addition,the u of large corpora for phonetic analysis provides a better understanding of the role of token frequency and specific words and collocations in phonetic variation.
At the same time a compatible view of language acquisition has been developing. The uneven distribution of words and constructions in speech to children is mirrored somewhat in the cour of a
cquisition:children often produce their first instances of grammatical constructions only in the context of specific lexical items and later general-ize them to other lexical items,leading eventually to productive u by the child;e work by Tomallo,Lieven,and their Lieven et al.2003,Savage et al.2003,Tomallo2003).
设计图英文3.F INDINGS.As linguists turn their attention to natural language u,they find a fascinating new source of insights about language.One finding that ems to hold
FROM USAGE TO GRAMMAR:THE MIND’S RESPONSE TO REPETITION713 across many studies and has captured the interest of rearchers is that both written and spoken discour are characterized by the high u of conventionalized word quences, which include quences t hatwe mightcall formulaic language and idioms,butalso conventionalized collocations(sometimes called‘prefabs’;Erman&Warren2000). Idioms are conventionalized word quences that usually contain ordinary words and predictable morphosyntax,but have extended meaning(usually of a metaphorical na-ture),as in the examples:pull strings,level playing field,too many irons in the fire. Idioms are acknowledged to need lexical reprentation becau of the unpredictable aspects of their meaning,but as Nunberg and colleagues(1994)point out,they are not completely isolated from related words and constructions since many aspects of their meaning and form derive from more ge
neral constructions and the meaning of the component words in other contexts.Idioms provide evidence for organized storage in which quences of words can have lexical reprentation while still being associated with other occurrences of the same words,as schematized in this diagram from Bybee 1
1998.
F IGURE1.The relation of an idiom to its lexical components.
Idioms have a venerable history in linguistic study,but prefabs or collocations have attracted less attention through recent decades(but e Bolinger1961,Pawley&Syder 1983,Sinclair1991,Biber etal.1999,Erman&Warren2000,and Wray2002).Prefabs are word quences that are conventionalized,but predictable in other ways,for exam-ple,word quences like prominent role,mix
ed message,beyond repair,and to need help.In addition,phrasal verbs(finish up,burn down)and verb-preposition pairings (interested in,think of,think about),which are pervasive in English as well as other languages,can be considered prefabs,though in some cas their mantic predictability could be called into question.The conventional collocations occur repeatedly in dis-cour and are known to reprent the conventional way of expressing certain notions (Erman&Warren2000,Sinclair1991,Wray2002).Erman and Warren(2000)found that what they call prefabricated word combinations constitute about55%of both spoken and written discour.Speakers recognize prefabs as familiar,which indicates that the quences of words are stored in memory despite being largely predictable in form and meaning.
The line between idiom and prefab is not always clear since many prefabs require a metaphorical stretch for their interpretation.The following may be intermediate exam-ples,where at least one of the words requires a more abstract interpretation:break a habit,change hands,take charge of,give(someone/something)plenty of time,drive 1See Barlow2000for an interesting discussion of the way a conventionalized expression can undergo permutations that demonstrate that its compositionality is also maintained.
714
思想汇报的格式
LANGUAGE,VOLUME82,NUMBER4(2006)
(someone)crazy.I bring up the intermediate cas to demonstrate the gradient nature of the phenomena;the lack of a clear boundary between idioms and prefabs would also suggest that both types of expression are stored in memory.
What we e instantiated in language u is not so much abstract structures as specific instances of such structure that are ud and reud to create novel utterances.This point has led Hopper(1987)to propo grammar as emergent from experience,mutable, and ever coming into being rather than static,categorical,and fixed.Viewed in this way,language is a complex dynamic system similar to complex systems that have been identified,for instance,in biology(Lindblom et al.1984,Larn-Freeman1997).It does not have structure a priori,but rather the apparent structure emerges from the repetition of many local events(in this ca speech events).I describe here some data that help us understand what some of the properties of an emergent,usage-bad gram-mar mightbe.
4.G OALS OF THE ARTICLE.There are a number of important conquences of the fact that speakers are familiar with certain multiword units.For the prent article I focus on the implications of
the fact that the u of language is lexically particular; certain words tend to be ud in certain collocations or constructions.My goal is to explore the implications of this fact for cognitive reprentation.I discuss a ries of cas in which there is evidence that lexically particular instances of constructions or word quences are stored in memory and accesd as a unit.I further discuss facts that show that the frequency of u of such lexically particular collocations must also be a part of the cognitive reprentation becau frequency is a factor in certain types of change.I argue that in order to reprent the facts of usage,as well as the facts of change that eventually emerge from this usage,we need to conceive of grammar as bad on constructions and as having an exemplar reprentation in which specific instances of u affect reprentation.The model to be propod,then,us a type of exemplar reprentation with constructions as the basic unit of morphosyntax(e §§6–9and13).
After discussing further aspects of the approach taken,five types of evidence are discusd.First,evidence for the importance of frequency in the developing autonomy of new constructions in grammaticization is prented.Second,I discuss the effects of context and frequency of u on the development of conventionalized collocations and grammatical constructions.Third,I briefly treat phonological reduction in high-frequency phras.Fourth,I turn to the organization of cate
gories within constructions where it is en that in some cas high-frequency exemplars rve as the central members of categories.Finally,the fact that high-frequency exemplars of constructions can resist change is taken as evidence that such exemplars have cognitive reprentation.
5.F REQUENCY EFFECTS ON PROCESSING AND STORAGE.Before turning to the evidence,
I briefly review three effects of token frequency that have been established in recent literature.ntences是什么意思>西安英孚教育招聘
First,high-frequency words and phras undergo phonetic reduction at a faster rate than low-and mid-frequency quences(Schuchardt1885,Fidelholtz1975,Hooper 1976,Bybee&Scheibman1999,Bybee2000b,2001).This REDUCING EFFECT applies to phras of extreme high frequency like I don’t know,which shows the highest rate of don’t reduction(Bybee&Scheibman1999),and also to words of all frequency levels undergoing gradual sound change,such as English final t/d deletion or Spanish [L]deletion,both of which affect high-frequency words earlier than low-frequency words(Bybee2001,2002,Gregory et al.1999).The explanation for this effect is that the
