UNIVERSITY OF SULAIMANI COLLEGE OF LANGUAGES DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
NOMINAL GROUNDING: A COGNITIVE GRAMMAR APPROACH A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL OF THE COLLEGE OF LANGUAGES, ENGLISH DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY OF SULAIMANI, IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS BY KOBEEN RA’UF MUSTAFA SUPERVISED BY DR. AZAD HASAN FATAH (PhD in Cognitive Linguistics)
2016 A.D.
2716 KURDISH
Supervisor’s report I certify that this thesis entitled “Nominal Grounding: A Cognitive Grammar Approach” was prepared by (Kobeen Ra’uf Mustafa) under my supervision at the university of Sulaimany as a partial requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in English Language and Linguistics.
Signature: Supervisor: Dr. Azad Hasan Fatah Date:
/
/ 2016
In view of available recommendation, I forward this thesis for debate by the Examining Committee.
Signature: Name: Dr. Azad Hasan Fatah Head of English Department Date:
/
/ 2016
Examining Committee Certification We certify that we have read this thesis entitled “Nominal Grounding: A Cognitive Grammar Approach” was prepared by (Kobeen Ra’uf Mustafa), and as Examining Committee, examined the student in its content and in what is connected with it, and in our opinion it meets the basic requirements of the degree of Master of Arts in English Language and Linguistics.
Signature:
Signature:
Name:
Name:
Date: /
/ 2016
Date:
Chairman:
Member:
Signature:
Signature:
Name:
Name:
Date: /
/ 2016
Member:
Date: Member and supervisor:
Approved by the council of the college of languages/ Sulaimani Signature: Name: Dean of the college of Languages
Dedication
This is dedicated To the soul of my late father and My lovely daughter Patra who gives meaning to my life
I
Acknowledgements
First, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the Kurdistan Regional Government, Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Ministry of Education, the Presidency of Sulaimany University, college of Languages and the Department of English, for giving me the opportunity to obtain my MA in English linguistics. I would like to direct my words of appreciation especially towards my supervisor Dr. Azad Hasan Fatah for his countless help, continuous advice, and perspicacious remarks. In addition, my gratitude goes to my mentor Dr. Zeki Hamawand for answering all my queries with a friendly spirit. I deeply express my appreciation to my dear uncle Salar Rasheed for providing me with every need during the years of my study. Also, special thanks are due to my colleagues and intimate friends Dr. Rezhin Haroon, Awder Tahir and Zryan Abubakir for their friendly support throughout the whole process. Finally, I owe the greatest credit and respect to my beloved mother Kazhal Rashid and my wife Suzan Ahmed for their endless encouragement, love, and everlasting support throughout my life.
II
List of Figures Figure 1. The semantic network of the demonstratives this/these
24
Figure 2. The semantic network of the demonstratives that/those
26
Figure 3. The semantic network of the article the
33
Figure 4. The semantic network of the article a/n
40
Figure 5. The semantic network of the zero article
42
Figure 6. The semantic network of the quantifier all
47
Figure 7. The Semantic network of the quantifier most
50
Figure 8. The semantic network of the quantifier some
55
Figure 9. The semantic network of the quantifier no
58
Figure 10. The semantic network of the quantifier every
62
Figure 11. The semantic network of the quantifier each
65
Figure 12. The semantic network of the quantifier any
69
Figure 13. The domain of reference
119
Figure 14. The domain of identification
119
Figure 15. The (sub)domains of quantification
119
III
List of Tables Table 1. The domain and facets of reference
78
Table 2. The domain and facets of identification
81
Table 3. The (sub)domains and facets of quantification
93
Table 4. A summary of the semantic structures of nominal grounding
114
elements. Table 5. A summary of the semantic distinctions displayed by pairs of nominal grounding elements
IV
120
Abstract
This study deals with the notion of grounding in English, using Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar framework. Grounding refers to the process of establishing an entity or event in reality. This study is confined to Nominal Grounding in the language is realized by means of grammatical elements such as demonstratives, articles and quantifiers. The problem facing language users resides in the misuse of such elements in discourse, neglecting semantic principles which guide their use. To solve the problem, the study hypothesizes that each grounding element has its own function which distinguishes it from the others and adds to the sentence a specific meaning. The aim of the study, therefore, is to present a thorough account of the grounding elements in the language. The main conclusion of the study is that nominal grounding elements fall into different categories and stand in contrast to one another when they share the same environment, with each grounding element serving a different communicative purpose.
V
Contents Subjects
page
Dedication
I
Acknowledgements
II
List of Figures
III
List of Tables
IV
Abstract
V
Contents
VI
Chapter One: Introduction
1
1.1 Outline
1
1.1.1 The problem
1
1.1.2 The hypotheses
1
1.1.3 The objectives
2
1.1.4 The scope
2
1.1.5 The procedures
2
1.2 Review of literature
3
Chapter Two: Theoretical background
4
2.1 Introduction
4
2.2 Cognitive Linguistics
8
2.2.1 Commitments of Cognitive Linguistics
9
2.2.2 General assumptions of Cognitive Linguistics
11
VI
2.3 Cognitive Grammar
12
2.3.1 Linguistic assumptions
13
2.3.2 Semantic assumptions
14
Chapter Three: Categorization of nominal grounding elements
16
3.1 Introduction
16
3.2 Theories of categorization
17
3.2.1 The classical theory
17
3.2.2 The prototype theory
19
3.3 Categorization of demonstratives
21
3.3.1 This / these
21
3.3.2 That / those
24
3.4 Categorization of articles
26
3.4.1 The
27
3.4.2 A / An
34
3.4.3 Zero article
41
3.5 Categorization of quantifiers
42
3.5.1 All
43
3.5.2 Most
48
3.5.3 Some
51
3.5.4 No
56
VII
3.5.5 Every
59
3.5.6 Each
62
3.5.7 Any
65
Chapter Four: Configuration of nominal grounding elements
70
4.1 Introduction
70
4.2 Theories of configuration
70
4.2.1 The semantic field theory
70
4.2.2 The cognitive domain theory
72
4.3 The domain of reference
74
4.3.1 The facet of proximity
75
4.3.2 The facet of distance
77
4.4 The domain of identification
78
4.4.1 The facet of definiteness
78
4.4.2 The facet of indefiniteness
79
4.4.3 The facet of genericity
80
4.5 The domain of quantification
81
4.5.1 The subdomain of proportion
82
4.5.1.1 The facet of entirety
82
4.5.1.2 The facet of majority
85
4.5.1.3 The facet of indeterminacy
86
VIII
4.5.1.4 The facet of emptiness
87
4.5.2 The subdomain of representation
87
4.5.2.1 The facet of simultaneity
88
4.5.2.2 The facet of sequentiality
89
4.5.2.3 The facet of randomness
91
Chapter Five: Conceptualization of nominal grounding elements
94
5.1 Introduction
94
5.2 Theories of interpretation
94
5.2.1 The reference theory
94
5.2.2 The construal theory
95
5.3 Semantic distinctions within the domain of reference
96
5.3.1 Proximity vs. Distality: this/these vs. that/those
97
5.3.2 Present vs. Past: this vs. that
98
5.3.3 Verbal pointing vs. Physical pointing: this vs. that
98
5.3.4 Functionality vs. Non-functionality: this vs. that
99
5.4 Semantic distinctions within the domain of identification
99
5.4.1 Definiteness vs. Indefiniteness: the vs. a/an
100
5.4.2 Genericity vs. Specificity: zero article vs. the
100
5.4.3 Non-specificity vs. Specificity: a/an vs. the
101
5.4.4 Unfamiliarity vs. Familiarity: a/ an vs. the
101
IX
5.4.5 Uncertainty vs. Certainty: a/an vs. zero article
102
5.4.6 Indefinite genericity vs. Definite genericity: a/an vs. the
102
5.4.7 Genericity vs. (Non) Specificity: a/an vs. the
103
5.4.8 Multiplicity vs. Uniqueness: a/an vs. the
104
5.5 Semantic distinctions within the domain of quantification
104
5.5.1 Entirety vs. Majority: all vs. most
104
5.5.2 Collectivity vs. Approximation: all vs. most
105
5.5.3 Entirety vs. Indeterminacy: all vs. some
106
5.5.4 Inexactness vs. Emptiness: some vs. no
106
5.5.5 Simultaneity vs. Sequentiality: every vs. each
106
5.5.6 Randomness vs. Distributivity: any vs. every
107
5.5.7 Selectivity vs. Distributivity: any vs. each
108
5.5.8 Universality vs. Restricted universality: every vs. each
108
5.6 Semantic distinctions between different (sub) domains
109
5.6.1 Genericity vs. Universality: zero article vs. all
109
5.6.2 Virtuality vs. Actuality: most vs. a/an
110
5.6.3 Neutrality vs. Proximity: the vs. this
110
5.6.4 Physical pointing vs. Mental pointing: that vs. the
111
5.6.5 Explicitness vs. Inexplicitness: this vs. the
111
X
5.6.6 Collectivity vs. Distributivity: all vs. every
112
5.6.7 Specificity vs. Non-specificity: all vs. any
113
Chapter Six: Summary and Conclusion
114
References
123
XI
Chapter One Introduction
1.1 Outline Grounding is the speaker’s act of entrenching or anchoring an object or process in reality. It serves to direct the listener’s attention to the intended referent by the speaker. 1.1.1 The problem The problem facing language users is the misuse of such elements, without paying any regard to the semantic principles which condition their uses. In addition, they fail to grasp the distinctions in meaning between pairs of grounding elements, especially when the context allows their occurrence. 1.1.2 The hypotheses The study makes the following three hypotheses: 1. A grounding element is polysemous. It forms a category of distinct but related senses gathering around a central sense, which is the most prominent one. The remaining senses which are linked to the central sense display some, not all, of its properties 2. Grounding elements can be placed in domains implying general concepts, within which they represent different facets. 3. Two or more pairs of grounding elements, which tend to occur in the same position, represent different construals.
1
1.1.3 The objectives The objectives of the current study are: 1. Presenting a detailed description of each grounding element, by detecting the senses, which it has together with the definitions. 2. Putting the grounding elements into groups that share the same concepts, and identifying the specific facet, which each one stands for in the shared concept. 3. Accounting for the pairs of grounding elements, which represent distinct construals, and showing the semantic distinctions that set them apart. 1.1.4 The scope The grounding elements are of two types: nominal and clausal. The present study is confined to the analysis of the nominal grounding elements. 1.1.5 The procedures The study fulfills the analysis of the English nominal grounding elements within the framework of Cognitive Grammar. To achieve the objectives, the study adopts the following steps: 1. Presenting a categorial description of each grounding element, and discovering the central and marginal senses. 2. Placing the grounding elements in domains, in which each grounding element represents a different facet. 3. Proposing different semantic distinctions, which set apart the grounding elements when they compete in the same environment.
2
1.2
Review of literature In general, little has been written on the topic of grounding. This is so because a cognitive term used within Cognitive Linguistics which is in turn developing. The new few studies contribute to our understanding of the topic, but they do not treat in minute details. In his books on Cognitive Grammar, Langacker (1990, 1991, 2008, and 2009) devotes a few pages to grounding in general. However his treatment is not exhaustive. No details are given as to how grounding elements are categorized, how they group into domains and how they contrast when they share the same environment. Evans and Green (2006) generally mention grounding and briefly highlight the nominal grounding elements without covering comprehensively. Radden and Dirven (2007) also clarify grounding but, they pay more attention to quantifiers in general in which they are part of nominal grounding elements. This study tries to focus on nominal grounding elements by applying three theories
of
meaning
which
are
conceptualization.
3
categorization,
configuration
and
Chapter Two Theoretical background 2.1 Introduction The notion of grounding is a concept used in Cognitive Grammar to refer to the relationship of the designated entity to the ground. Grounding is a semantic function not a grammatical category like a verb, noun or preposition. Grounding is the process whereby the speaker locates the profiled instance from the perspective of the speech event. It establishes a basic relation between the interlocutors and the content evoked by a nominal or a finite clause. According to Langacker (2008:264), the primary function of a nominal is to direct the interlocutor’s attention to the particular thing in relation to the ground. Langacker (1987:126) metaphorically uses the concept of ground to indicate the speech event, its participants (speaker and hearer) and its settings. According to Taylor (2002:346), the term ground refers to the context of speech event that includes participants, time and place, situational context, previous discourse and shared knowledge of the participants. Grounding is of two types: nominal and clausal. Langacker (1990:122) believes that nominal grounding pertains to questions of identification: to what degree the participants can locate the thing referred to within the mass of objects populating their conceptual universe. Clausal grounding pertains to questions of time and reality. In both types, some grammatical elements serve grounding functions. For English nominals, grounding elements are the demonstratives this, that, these, and those, articles the, a, an, zero article, and relative quantifiers such as all, most, some, no, every, each and any. Langacker (2002a:7) stresses that one aspect of the grounding relationship is to express either definiteness or indefiniteness, where definiteness implies the success of the interlocutors in establishing mental contact with the grounded 4
instance. For English, clauses, grounding elements are tense (present or past) and modals such as may, will, shall, can, must and the distal forms might, could, should, would. In general, grounding elements are obligatory grammatical elements needed to shift nouns into full nominals, and verbs into finite clauses. In both nominal and clausal fields, grounding elements separate into two groups: definite and quantificational. For nominals, the definite grounding elements include the definite article the, and the demonstratives this, that, and their plural forms. For finite clauses, definiteness is revealed by the presence of a modal. Clauses without a modal show a proximal or distal contrast which is manifested as present versus past tense. The quantificational nominal grounding include the indefinite articles, and zero article a/an, as in She drank 0/ a beer), along with quantifiers all, most, some, no, any, each, every. For clauses, the quantificational grounding elements are the modals, which except for must show a contrast between their proximal forms may, will, can and shall, and the distal forms might, would, could and should. Moreover, Langacker (2008:259) argues that a grounding element specifies the status in relation to the ground of the referent profiled by a nominal or the process profiled by a finite clause. Furthermore, Langacker (2002a:8-15) believes that grounding elements are deictic in nature since they identify a relationship between some facet of the ground and the nominal or processual profile. He also suggests that a true grounding element is grammatical rather than lexical. These elements possess some grammatical properties that distinguish them from other expressions. 1. As grounding elements, quantifiers cannot serve as clausal heads. 2. Many grounding elements (demonstratives, quantifiers, modals) can function as nominal or clausal proforms; this means they can stand alone as full nominal or finite clause. 3. Grounding elements are not atemporal expressions, and they do not profile atemporal relations. 5
4. A grounding element does not specifically mention the ground, despite invoking as a reference point. It does not specifically refer to any facet of the ground. 5. A grounding element profiles only the grounded entity, not the grounded relationship. The grounded entity is a thing or process that corresponds to the profile of the nominal or clausal head. Radden and Dirven (2007: 49-50) summarize the important characteristics of grounding elements in two points. The first is subjectivity. The subjective nature of grounding elements arises from the point of view taken by the speaker. The speaker assesses whether the situation is described as real or potential and whether the hearer can or cannot identify the participants talked about. The second is having nucleus. Grounding elements are obligatory grammatical forms linked to the nouns and the verbs in the sentence and are tightly intertwined with the grammatical core of the sentence. The term nucleus is used here to encompass both the grammatical core and grounding elements. According to Brisard (2002:xv-xvi), the aim of a grounding element is to establish mental contact with, or direct someone's attention to, a referent which discourse participants are presumably able to determine. Radden and Dirven (2007:49) believe that grounding is very important in successful communication in that the grammar of English forces its speakers to use grounding elements in every sentence to enable the hearer to identify the intended referent. This research is limited to deal with nominal grounding elements in English language. First, it is better to distinguish between simple nouns comparing to nominal. Taylor (2002:343-46) mentions that Langacker terminologically uses a noun as a cover term for any expression that profiles a thing without considering if the expression designates a type or an instance. Moreover, his noun category includes the traditional category of lexical nouns, noun phrases, proper names, 6
and pronouns. Technically, in Langacker’s perspective a nominal is grounded noun corresponding to the traditional noun phrase, but also comprises pronouns and proper names. In this way, Langacker (1990:122) defines nominal as a grounded expression that profiles a thing. Furthermore, Langacker (2002a:6-8) clarifies the semantic distinction between a simple noun and a full nominal. A simple noun merely specifies a type, while a full nominal designates a grounded instance of that type. A type is different from an instance. Langacker (1991:537) states that a type specifies the basis for identifying various entities as being representation of the same class but it is not tied to a particular instance of that class. An instance particular is thought of having a particular location in the domain of instantiation. In order to establish an instance, a nominal needs grounding elements. Langacker (2008:272-73) argues that in English language, the nominal grounding function can be fulfilled through various means. Certain overt, covert, intrinsic and indirect elements can serve grounding functions. Zero article is one example of covert element serving as a grounding element. Grounding can also be intrinsic, as with personal pronouns (we, you, they, and proper names (John Kennedy, California). Since the very meanings of such expressions imply the identifiability of their referents, they do not require a separate grounding element. Another option is for grounding to be indirect, most notably with possessives. In Karwan’s camera, for example, the profiled instance of camera is related to the ground indirectly, via the intrinsic grounding of Karwan. In English, overt elements directly serve nominal grounding functions. They include the articles (the, a), demonstratives (this, that, these, those), and certain quantifiers (all, most, some, no, every, each, any). These expressions vary considerably in their specific grammatical properties and even in their strategy for singling out a nominal referent. To present a full account of nominal grounding, the present study adopts Cognitive Linguistics in general and Cognitive Grammar in particular. 7
2.2 Cognitive Linguistics Cognitive linguistics is a broad contemporary movement within modern linguistics. It comprises a variety of approaches, theories, and emphases. It initially appeared in the mid-seventies and has been operative since the early eighties in the work of Lakoff, Langacker, and Talmy. Evans and Green (2006:3-4) mention that the reason behind emerging cognitive linguistics as a modern school of thought was to react against the dominance of formal approaches to language, especially Generative Linguistics. Furthermore, Croft and Cruse (2004:1-4) clarify that Cognitive Linguistics approach to language that has been put forward by the prominent characters as a reply to the methods of syntax and semantics, namely generative grammar and truth-conditional (logical) interpretation that were dominant at that time. According to Taylor (2002:8), Cognitive linguistic approaches deal with the relation between language and cognition. In other words, language is not regarded as a self-governing part of the human mind. Instead, it plays as integration between them. In this respect, Cognitive Linguistics does not go in line with Generative Linguistics because Chomskyan tradition was entirely different from this view and treated language as an autonomous component of mind. According to Lee (2001:1), place of meaning is the central feature that distinguishes Cognitive Linguistics from Generative approach. In Generative model, the structure of the linguistic expression is thought to be determined by a formal rule system that is widely independent of meaning. By contrast, the Cognitivists maintain that linguistic structure is a direct reflex of cognition in the sense that a particular linguistic expression is connected with a particular way of conceptualizing a given situation. As Hamawand (2008:17) mentions, Cognitive Linguistics is founded on the idea that language represents elemental attributes and cognitive capabilities of the human mind. He also shows that Cognitive Linguistics pays attention to 8
language as an implement for organizing, processing, and conveying information. It considerably gives importance to meaning, the role of mental action and the embodiment of experience. Linguistic phenomena are motivated by conceptual knowledge, which is grounded in experience. The aim of Cognitive Linguistics is to characterize how human mind comprehends and encodes that comprehending in language. 2.2.1 Commitments of Cognitive Linguistics Cognitive Linguistics has two essential commitments that recognize a distinction between other earlier schools of linguistics especially both formalists and functionalists. As Evans (2011:71-73) makes clear, first Cognitive linguists support a cognitive commitment: a commitment that endeavors to depict language given convergent evidence from other cognitive and brain sciences. Second, cognitive linguists support a generalization commitment: a commitment that describes the nature and principles to account for linguistic knowledge as a result of general cognitive abilities. The cognitive involvement provides a characterization of language that matches the mind and brain with other disciplines. This commitment makes cognitive linguistics cognitive, and thus an approach that is fundamentally interdisciplinary in nature. The commitment represents the idea that principles of the linguistic structure should mirror the human mind comparing to other cognitive and brain sciences, particularly psychology, artificial intelligence, cognitive neuroscience, and philosophy. For Evans and Green (2006:27-8), the cognitive commitment has some specific consequences. First, linguistic theories contain structures that obey human cognition. Second, models that employ established cognitive properties to explain language phenomena are closer than those built from simple knowledge criterrion . Third, cognitive researcher is responsible for developing collective evidence for the cognitive reality of components of any model proposed whether or not the cognitive linguist conducts this research. 9
The second commitment is generalization commitment indicates an effort to mark general principles that apply to all aspects of human language. This aim reflects the shared commitment to science to find the broadest generalizations possible. In contrast, Generative Linguistics often separates language faculty into unconnected domains such as phonology (sound), semantics (meaning), pragmatics (meaning in use), morphology (word structure), syntax (sentence structure). Generative linguistics attempts to model language by postulating obvious statistical procedures operating on theoretical primitives to generate all the feasible grammatical sentences of a given language. In generative grammar tradition, it is often supposed that areas such as phonology, semantics, and syntax involve significantly different kinds of structuring principles operating over various types of primitives. For instance, the syntax concerns a particular kind of knowledge that assumed to specialize in organizing words into wellformed sentences, while a phonology module is unique for arranging sounds into patterns allowed by a given language regulations, and by human language in general. This view strengthens the idea that modern linguistics separates the study of language into distinct subfields, practically, and also because of different types of knowledge that make up language regarding their primitives and organizational principles, incommensurable. While cognitive linguists admit that it can be useful to regard areas such as syntax, semantics, and phonology as being theoretically discrete, cognitive linguists do not start with the assumption to see the facets of language as organized in dissimilar ways. For this reason, the generalization commitment represents a commitment to frankly investigating how the different aspects of linguistic knowledge arise from a common set of human cognitive abilities on which they draw, rather than supposing that they are produced in an enclosed unit of the mind, including of distinct knowledge types, or subsystems. The generalization commitment has concrete consequences for language studies. 10
First, cognitive linguistic focuses attention on the common sides of language, trying to repeat successful methods and clarifications throughout these sides. For instance, just as the meaning of a word displays prototype effects, there are different examples of given word referents, related in particular ways, so various studies have applied the same principles to the organization of morphology, syntax, and phonology. 2.2.2 General assumptions of Cognitive Linguistics Croft and Cruse (2004:1-4), Geeraerts and Cuyckens (2007:5) and Taylor (2007:567) draw attention to some hypotheses of Cognitive Linguistics: 1. Language is nonautonomous and linguistic cognition is not separate from human perception. In contrast to generative approaches, the cognitivists view language as a component that is dependent upon other cognitive capabilities. Cognitive Linguistics looks at language, mind and meaning as integrated. 2. Grammar is conceptualization. In opposition to the truth-conditional semantics,
Cognitive
linguistics
assumes
that
grammar
is
conceptualization and refuses the belief that meaning (semantics) is assessed concerning its truth and untruth in the real world. In this respect, Cognitive Linguistics rejects those theories that regard grammatical constructions as having no meaning. 3. In Cognitive Linguistics conceptual and empirical basis of semantics are given importance, in contrast to the belief that language represents simple propositions about the world. One basic attribute that can be obtained within Cognitive Linguistics is the primacy of semantics in the linguistic analysis that implies the importance of meaning as the primary function of language. 4. Cognitive Linguistics asserts that language knowledge arises from the context of use; this notion is the rejection of both generative grammar and 11
truth-conditional semantics that are mostly abstract in respects of meaning and grammatical structure. 5. Another attribute of Cognitive Linguistics is the encyclopedic nature of linguistic meaning which views language as a system for categorizing the world and rejects a linguistic meaning that is distinct from the level where world knowledge is associated with linguistic forms. 6. The perspectival nature of linguistic meaning indicates that the world is not objectively mirrored in the language; language is seen as a way of organizing knowledge that reflects the needs, interests, and experiences of individuals and cultures. Due to the prime mentioned characteristics, Cognitive Linguistics can departsitself from other linguistic approaches. 2.3 Cognitive Grammar Cognitive Grammar is the name of a theory of language that has been proposed by Ronald Langacker (1987, 1991) as a reaction to Chomsky’ tradition called (Generative Grammar). Taylor (2002:121) states that Cognitive Grammar is based on the view that language is inherently and quintessentially symbolic in nature Evans and Green (2006:114-15) show that Cognitive Grammar affirms an effort to comprehend language as the consequence of general cognitive procedures and processes not as a result of the specialized language faculty. According to Langacker (1987:1-2), cognitive grammar rejects the belief that views syntax and semantics separately. Instead, it claims the indivisibility of syntax and semantics. It also disagrees to consider grammar as an autonomous component independent of other facets in which accepted by most theorists as recognized fact at that time. By contrast, cognitive grammar looks at various aspects of linguistic structure as interrelated and integrated. It also presents up to 12
date concepts, notions, notations, terms, which need some time to be familiar with. As Langacker (1991:1-3) states, cognitive grammar does consider language to be indissociable from other facets of human cognition. It arises organically from the interaction of varied inherent and primary factors such as physical, biological, behavioral, psychological, cultural and communicative- each the source of constraints and formative pressures. Cognitive grammar ascribes to language an organization that is both natural and minimal granted its communicative function of allowing conceptualizations to symbolize correct sequences. It claims that linguistic system comprises just three kinds of structure: semantic, phonological and symbolic. A central tenet of this theory is that grammar reduces to symbolic relationships between semantic and phonological structure. In contrast to the generative approach that grammar or at least syntax represents an autonomous component distinct from both semantic and lexicon, it maintains that lexicon, morphology, and syntax form a continuum of meaningful structure. Langacker (2013:3-4) refuses the belief that sees grammar as purely formal system. Instead, he argues that grammar is based on meaning, and also elements of grammar like vocabulary items have their meanings. To him, grammar allows human beings to construct and symbolize the most precise meanings of complex expressions like phrases, clauses, and sentences since grammar is not only an integral part of human cognition but also a core of understanding it. 2.3.1 Linguistic assumptions Taylor (2002:27-30) sheds light on some linguistic characteristics of Cognitive Grammar: 1. Grammar is usage based, and it is based on usage events. A usage event is an actual instance; a symbolic expression is performed on a particular for 13
a particular purpose. Knowledge of language is based on knowledge of actual usage events. According to Radden and Dirven (2007: xii), the grammar of a language is usage-based in that respect, the speakers optionally express their view of a given scene in different structures. For instance, one might describe the same scene in different structure as I’m running out of time or Time is running out. 2. Grammar is a symbolic linguistic unit; symbolic units include two aspects phonological (form) and semantic (meaning). Every linguistic structure is meaningful whether being a preposition, an affix, a word, a sentence has phonological structure, semantic structure, and symbolic relations bridge them together. For example, pen has two aspects phonological [pen] and Semantic (a tool for writing), and symbolic structure that bridges them together. 3. Grammar is meaningful; all language structures are a carrier of meaning, knowledge of a linguistic pattern conceived in terms of a schema which is specified in general terms and elaborated by its instances in detailed ways. For instance, on the basis of examples such as classmate, playmate, workmate, etc. One can abstract the schema through frequent use which is [mate]. 2.3.2 Semantic assumptions According to Hamawand (2016:73-80) Cognitive Grammar is constructed upon some semantic assumptions. 1. Meaning is dynamic; meaning emerges and develops in the context of use and or in discourse. Any linguistic unit is polysemous, having more than one meaning. For example, the word head has different but related meanings such as body, position and rank. 2. Meaning is encyclopedic or the meaning of a linguistic unit is very broad. Encyclopedic meaning arises in the context of use. In Cognitive 14
Linguistic, one should depend on both linguistic and nonlinguistic meaning. For example, I do not like night. The concept of night is the dark part of each 24- hour period but has different connotations such as calmness, fear and darkness and so on. 3. Meaning is conceptualized. The meaning has two equally significant sides, conceptual content and construal. Radden and Dirven (2007:xi-xii) argue that forms of grammar like lexical items, in essence, are based on meaning and never meaningless, as often supposed in structural models of grammar. For example, the element to of a to-infinitive as in she’d like to hear from you indicates that her wishes are directed towards a goal.
15
Chapter Three Categorization of nominal grounding elements 3.1 Introduction For Hamawand (2007:28) and (2011:42), categorization refers to the process of grouping together conceptual experiences or linguistic expressions into a category. A category is a network of distinct but related senses of a given linguistic item. The central sense which serves as the best example is called the prototype, and the extended senses are termed periphery. Langacker (2008:17) and (2013:17) defines categorization as the reflection of experience with reference to concepts. He considers a category as a group of units judged equivalent to some intentions; for instance, the alternative senses of a lexical item constitute a category, comparable to having the same phonological realization. Cohen and Lefebvre (2005:1) give a description of the concept of categorization as the classification of objects and events by brain through a mental operation. The construction of our knowledge of the world is based upon this operation. Categorization is the most central phenomenon of cognition, and consequently the most crucial matter of cognitive science. In Radden and Dirven’s view (2007:3-5), a category is the conceptual set of similar experiences that have to mean and directly relate to humans. Categorization is the process of establishing categories within an ecological system; it means drawing conceptual boundaries and giving structure to an unstructured world around us. Lakoff (1987:5-6) clarifies the significance of Categorization and believes that it is crucial to any understanding of how one thinks, functions, and also important to an understanding of what makes us human. Without having the 16
ability to categorize, one may not function at all, either in the physical world or in social and intellectual lives. 3.2 Theories of categorization People normally differ in respect of how they categorize relying on their empirical experiences. One can assume that distinct categorizations of things may be originated from different cultures and knowledge of the world. In general, the concept of categorization is looked at in the light of two perspectives: the classical theory, the prototype theory. 3.2.1 The classical theory The classical theory of categorization traces back to the Greek antiquity, especially Aristotelian tradition. According to Lakoff (1987: xi-xiii), categories are characterized merely by the attributes which their members share. They are characterized separately and literally with no regard to any mental experience of the speaker. Hamawand (2009:51) argues that the crux of this theory is to describe a category in terms of features. The features are individually essential and mutually sufficient for an entity to be a member of a category, and any feature is equally necessary for membership in the category. If a unit bears all of the required features, it is included in the category. If a unit does not have one or more of these features, it is excluded from the category. The boundaries are sharply is determined, so membership in a category is clear-cut. In this way, each member is by the same degree representative of the category. For example, an item refers to the category X if and only if it has all the features which define the category. The deficiency of any of the defining features excludes the item from the category. Features are either present or absent; they cannot be applied only to some degree. An entity is either a member or not a member of a category. 17
Taylor (1989: 23-24) abridges the principles of the classical theory on four particular assumptions. First, categories are described with regard to an acceptance of obligatory and adequate features; these features should be a matter of all or nothing. Any member of a category has to carry all describing features or else it should be excluded from the category.
Second, features are binary;
features are a subject of all or nothing. A feature is either included in the definition of a category, or it is not; an entity either holds this feature or it does not. Third, categories have obvious boundaries and once a category is set up, it separates the world into two groups of entities: those that are members of the category, and those that are not. There are no medium cases allowing some entities in some way belong to the category but in another way do not. Fourth, All elements of a category have equal status. Any entity which exhibits all the defining features of a category is a full member of that category. Any entity which does not exhibit all the defining features is not a member. Membership in a category are not based on degrees; there are no entities which are better members of the category than others. For instance, if the category of fruits has includes some features like smoothness, having seeds and sweetness. These features are necessary and sufficient for a member to be included in the category. Fruits like apples, pears and apricots are included in the category because of having the defining features. While, fruits like lemons, bananas and avocados are excluded in the category because they lack one or some features. In brief, the classical approach suffers from some shortcomings. On the one hand, people may find it uneasy especially to judge which features to designate as fundamental and sufficient. On the other hand, some categories have a vague dividing line. Therefore, some categories may belong to entities that are connected to each other.
18
3.2.2 The Prototype theory The modern approach to categorization is termed the prototype theory which comes as a response to the classical tradition. From this viewpoint, categories are determined in respect of the prototype which is the best and ideal instance that first comes to the mind, is recognized more rapidly and the easiest to learn. The periphery is extended from the prototype. As Rosch (1978:29- 35) points out, a category is given a description by converging properties. The member that has all of the properties is the prototype, i.e. the perfect or central member. Other units that have some, but not all, of the properties, are peripheral. The distinct elements of a category are not equal and non-identical. They are integrated into the category or not, according to what extent they bear a resemblance to the prototype. Geeraerts (1988: 654-5) summarizes the main assumptions of the prototype theory. First, categories are not described by a bundle of essential characteristics. Some of the supposedly necessary characteristics of the ideal instance may seem to be optional at the periphery. Second, units of a category are not in an equal status and properties within a category have different degrees of importance. Third, boundaries of a category are unclear. A category includes slight instantiations that do not obey firmly to the conceptual center. Fourth, being a member of a category is defined by similarity rather than identity. Category membership is clear-cut but a matter of degree. Thus, not every member is equally representative of a category. Regarding the question that one may ask how can one determine or designate the most perfect and prototypical sense of a category? To elucidate and answer this question three mutual ways can help one to decide which sense of a category is the most central or prototypical. Dirven and Verspoor (2004:30) assert that one can establish the prototypical sense by thinking what special sense comes to the mind first. Second, one can make a statistical count as to 19
which use is the most repeated. Third, one can consider which sense is the more fundamental in its complement to make easier the other senses. Moreover, Hamawand (2011:42) mentions that the peripheral senses are the remaining senses which are joined to the prototype through semantic extensions. They are graded in relation to conceptual distance from the prototype on the basis of the degree of similarity. Thus peripheral senses are those members of a category which do not have all the properties. Instead, they possess only a few ones and are less important than the central member. And also, they are in different status surrounding the prototype. One can take the category chair as an example to explicate the two concepts of prototype and periphery. The category chair subsumes several sorts of its type such as kitchen chair, armchair, highchair, wheelchair, rocking chair and swivel chair. In this respect, kitchen chair can be regarded as the prototypical example due to possessing approximately all its properties, whereas the other members are viewed as periphery since they comprise merely some of those properties. This cognitive approach of categorization possesses some particular advantages, as they are explained by Hamawand (2007:48-49). First, it symbolizes the idea of gradation in the representation of a lexical item. The senses of a lexical item gradually perform slight dissimilarities rather than plusor-minus qualities. Thus, there is no space for extensive predictability. Second, it has the conforming as well as the non-conforming senses in the characterization of a lexical item. In this way, it assists to portray all the distinctive senses, displaying the degrees where they converge and where they diverge. Third, it permits the human to participate in organizing the world and allows for the mental capacities to shape language.
20
3.3 Categorization of demonstratives In drawing the semantic networks of the demonstratives and detecting their meanings, the researcher relied on dictionaries such as MERRIAM WEBSTER (2003), COBUILD (2006), CALD (2008), OALD (2010), LDOCE (2011) and English grammar books such as Quirk et al (1985), Thomson and Martinet (2001), Leech et al. (2001), Biber et al (2003), Radford (2004), Downing and Locke (2006), Crystal (2008) and Langacker (2008).
3.3.1 This / These In general, the demonstratives this and its plural form these, that and its plural form those can function as a determiner, pronoun, and adverb. As determiners, they can serve as nominal grounding elements because they can shift nouns into full nominals. Prototypically, the singular demonstrative determiner this and its plural form these denote the following senses: a. Proximity in space This sense emerges when the demonstratives this and its plural form these are used to refer to a specific person or object that is closer to the speaker. Consider the following examples: (1)
(a) This guy is going to buy my car. (b) These clothes are dirty. In (1a- b), the demonstratives this and these imply closeness, referring to a
specific person and thing that are close to the hearers. In (1a), the speaker uses the demonstrative this to direct the interlocutor’s attention to the intended referent that is near in space. In (1b), the demonstrative these refer to the proximity of things. It designates the referent (clothes) as being close to the 21
listener. In each example, the speaker wants to draw the hearer’s awareness by using the demonstrative this/ these. b. Specificity This meaning arises particularly in conversation when the demonstrative determiners this / these are used to point out a specific person or object especially when the speaker doesn’t know their name exactly. Consider the following examples: (2)
(a) This pot is made of clay. (b) When is he going to carry these things?
In (2a-b), the speakers make specific reference to the referents through using the demonstrative determiners this and these due to the fact that the speakers are not absolutely sure about their names and do not know them. Peripherally, the demonstratives this / these convey the following senses: a. Proximity in time This meaning emerges when the demonstrative determiners this /these are used especially with periods of time related to present time or time that is close to present. Consider the following examples: (3)
(a) I saw Zryan this morning. (b) Karzan seems to be in a hurry these days.
In (3a-b), the demonstrative determiners this / these denote proximity in time. They combine with the periods which are near in time. In (3a), the speaker uses the demonstrative this to profile the referent as being near in time to the listener. In, (3b), the demonstrative these designates the referent (days) within the weeks as being near in time.
22
b. Current situation This sense results when the demonstrative determiners this and these are deployed to describe the present situations. Consider the examples below: (4)
(a) Lana hates this weather. (b) We have never experienced these crises of economy and fuel.
In (4a-b), the demonstratives this and these refer to current situations and actual circumstances where both the speaker and hearer feel or encounter. c. Already mentioned This sense is conceived when the demonstrative determiners this and these are used to refer to someone or something that has recently been mentioned. Consider the following examples: (5)
(a) If she continues to improve at this rate, she will be in A team. (b) Is there any way of solving these problems.
In (5a-b) the demonstrative determiners this and these are used to make reference to the particular ideas and troubles that have already been mentioned and recognized by both reader and listener d. Emphasis This sense emerges especially when the demonstrative determiners this and these are used instead of the possessive pronouns her, your, his. etc. Consider the following example: (6)
(a) This diet of yours is not having much effect. (b) These books of him are usually unorganized.
In (6a-b) the demonstrative determiners this and these are used to emphasize and draw the hearer’s attention to the things or objects the speaker intends to point. They are used instead of possessive pronouns. 23
A graphical representation of the multiple senses of the demonstrative determiners this / these is depicted in Figure 1. Note that the solid arrows represent the prototypical sense, whereas the dashed arrows represent the semantic extension. This / These
Prototype
Periphery
Specificity
Proximity in space
Proximity in time
Current situation
Emphasis
Already mentioned
Figure 1.The semantic network of the demonstratives this /these.
3.3.2 That / Those The demonstrative that and its plural form those can function as a demonstrative determiner, pronoun, and adverb. However, only in determinative cases can play the role of nominal grounding elements. Prototypically, the demonstrative that / those convey the following senses. a. Distance in space This sense arises when the demonstratives that and those are used to make reference and point to a person or object which is farther from the speaker. Consider the following examples: 24
(7)
(a) That wall is made of mud. (b) Look at those men in that car.
In (7a-7b), the demonstrative determiners that and those imply remoteness in relation to the speaker. In each example, the speaker wants to direct the listener’s awareness to the entities that are far with reference to the speaker. b. Specificity This meaning emerges when the demonstraticves that and those are used for referring to a specific person or entity especially the speaker does not know their names well. Consider the following examples. (8)
(a) Ara will choose that coat which suits him. (b) I want to invite those friends of Alan.
In (8a- b), the demonstratives that and those imply specificity. In (8a), the speaker uses the demonstrative that to profle the referent (coat) which he is not sure which coat but the specific one that suits well. In (8b), those makes reference to the specific referent that the speaker does not know them well or does not know their name exactly. Peripherally, the demonstrative determiners that and those convey the sense of distance in time. They make make reference to somebody or something that is newly or recently mentioned This sense realizes when the demonstrative determiners that and those are deployed to refer to a person, thing, idea, and location which has already been known and mentioned with reference to the interlocutors. Conside the following examples: (9)
(a) That incident changed her life. (b) Ako still remembers those pains in his chest.
25
In (9a-b), the demonstratives that and those denote the sense of distane in time. In (9a), the spekers uses the demonstrative that to describe an event which has already been mention and identifiable to the interlocutors. In (9b), the demonstrative those refers to something which has already been mentioned or experienced. A a graphical representation of the multiple senses of the demonstrative determiners that / those. is depicted in Figure 2.
That / Those
Prototype
Distance in space
Periphery
Distance in time
Specificity
Figure 2. The semantic network of the demonstratives that / those.
3.4 Categorization of Articles In drawing the semantic networks of the definite, indefinite and zero articles and detecting their meanings, the researcher relied on dictionaries such as MERRIAM WEBSTER (2003), COBUILD (2006), CALD (2008), OALD (2010), LDOCE (2011), and English reference grammars such as Quirk et al (1985), Langacker (1991), Leech et al (2001), Thomson and Martinent (2001), Biber et al (2003), Halliday (2004), Radford (2004), Downing and Locke (2006), Evan and Green (2006), Crystal (2008), Langacker (2008) and (2009). 26
3.4.1 The Prototypically, the article the as a grounding element conveys the following senses. a. Definiteness This sense emerges when the article the is deployed to specify and identify the particular object, person or event that the speaker refers to. Consider the following examples: (10)
(a) The boy clapped and cheered. (b) The burger was delicious but the coke was hot. (c) Do you remember the seminar she delivered last week?
In (10a-c), the article the denotes the meaning of definiteness. In (10a), the article the refers to someone who is identifiable and known by the interlocutors. In (10b), the speaker uses the article the to make reference the referents (burger and coke) as two identified entities. In (10c), the speaker uses the article the to profile the intended referent, referring to it as an identifiable event by both the reader and listener. b. Genericity This meaning arises when the article the makes reference to an object or entity that represents a class of the same kind. Consider the following examples: (11)
(a) The bat flies at night. (b) The ginger grows underground. (c) The Falcon hunts birds.
In (11a-c), the article the implies generalization. The sentences are interpreted as generic statements. Each referent (bat, ginger and falcon) refers to a class of its type. 27
c. Specificity This meaning results in the following cases. Family title In one case, specificity meaning appears when the definite article the is deployed before the last name of a person or a married couple in plural form referring to the whole members of that family. Consider the following examples: (12)
(a) The Johnsons lived in this house for nearly twenty years. (b) Don’t forget to invite the Smiths.
In (12a), the definite article the implies specificity. It makes reference to the whole members of Jonson’s family as being specific. In (12b), the is attached to the surname Smith referring to Mr. Smith, Mrs. Smith, and their children. Possessor of the body parts In another case, specificity comes into view when the definite article is used in reference to the body parts of humans especially instead of possessive pronouns his, her, your etc. Consider the examples below: (13)
(a) Corporal John was wounded in the knee. (b) Karzan banged himself on the forehead.
In (13a-b), the article the conveys the meaning of specificity. In both examples, the speaker refers to human organs or body parts knee and forehead as specific referents. Introducing an illness Specificity appears when the definite article the comes before names to specify certain common but not very serious diseases. Consider the following examples: 28
(14)
(a) She got the chicken pox from her sister. (b) The child got the measles.
In (14a-b), the definite article the is combined with the names of certain illnesses by the speaker to identify them in front of the hearer. Musical instruments and sport type In another case, the sense of specificity comes into view when the definite article the is used to identify a type of musical instruments someone plays or a type of sport or a sport event, particularly in Athletics or swimming. Consider the following examples: (15)
(a) Maria is learning the flute. (b) Who won the long jump?
In (15a), the definite article the is used to specify a kind of musical instrument while, in (15b), the refers to a type sport. Changes and actions In another case, specificity results when the article the is used before nouns to refer to actions and changes especially when they are followed by the possessive of. Consider the following examples: (16)
(a) The growth of the dairy products has been increased. (b) The arrival of our visitors will make us happy.
In (16a), the precedes the word growth due to its denotation of changing while in (16b), the comes before the word arrival implying an action. Choice In another case, specificity emerges when the definite article the comes before the superlative form of adjectives or adverbs to stress that something or 29
someone is bigger and better than all others in many respects. Below are some examples: (17)
(a) Carol had the worst toothache yesterday. (b) Aryan is the cleverest student in his class.
In (17a), the definite article the is combined with the superlative adjective worst to describe the incomparable type of toothache someone has. In (17b), the precedes the superlative adjective cleverest to stress on a person’s intelligence among his classmates. d. Uniqueness This meaning comes to attention when the definite article the is used for referring to an object or someone that is regarded to be unique or is only obvious one of their type. Consider the following examples: (18)
(a) The sun sets in the west. (b) The Nile is popular among people.
In (18a-b), the definite article the makes reference to the entities or things which are easily understood or recognized by most people due to their uniqueness and clarity of their types. e. Known things This meaning emerges when the definite article the is used to point to things, types of institution, system, animate beings or places that are generally recognized by everyone rather than particular because they are parts of human daily life or natural phenomena in the environment. Consider the following examples: (19)
(a) What will the weather be like tomorrow? (b) I heard it on the radio. (c) You can buy it in the Pharmacy. 30
In (19a-c), the definite article the refers to the phenomenon, establishment or place which is known by the majority of people in general. In (19a-b), the comes before a singular noun and makes it general especially when the speaker talks about a public place, a kind of institution or system, etc. Peripherally, the article the conveys the following senses: a. Time This sense arises in some cases, particularly when the definite article is used to mention time. Date mention This meaning comes to attention when the definite article the comes before dates to indicate a specific date. Consider the following examples: (20)
(a) The third of November is a nice date for me. (b) Shall we meet on the eleventh of September?
In the sentences (20a-b), the dates are mentioned and specified by the speakers by using the definite article the. Period This meaning realizes when the definite article the is used to show a period of time, specifically, one that lasts ten or a hundred years. As illustrated in the following examples: (21)
(a) His great-grandfather had lived in the late 1800s. (b) In the thirties unemployment was widespread.
In (21a- b) the definite article the is used to make reference to display periods of time.
31
b. Measurement This sense comes to attention when the definite article the is deployed especially with a unit of measurement denoting the sense of every. Consider the example (22). (22)
His car does thirty-five miles for the gallon.
In (22), the definite article the implies the meaning of measurement. It shows that the car can go thirty-five miles with every gallon need to be used per hour. c. Quantification This meaning arises when the definite article the is used to imply enough of something especially in negative sentences that are to show an amount or degree needed for a particular intention. Consider the following examples: (23)
(a) Aram wanted to buy it but he didn’t have the money. (b) I like to go hiking this evening, but I haven’t got the energy.
In (23a), the expresses enough amount of money that needed for buying a thing. In (23b), the means enough amount of energy. d. Collectivity This sense comes out when the definite article the comes before an adjective to change it into a plural noun i.e. ellipted head noun particularly when the reader makes reference to all the people that the adjective describes. Consider the following examples: (24)
(a) They devoted their life to helping the poor. (b) The elderly should be respected by the young.
In (24a-b), the definite article the combined with the adjectives poor, and young, shifting them into a plural collective noun to represent a class of persons.
32
A graphical representation of the multiple senses of the definite article the is depicted in Figure 3.
The
Periphery
33
Prototype
Definiteness
Genericity
Specificity
Uniqueness
Known things
Time
Measurement
Quantification
Figure 3. The semantic network of the definite article the.
Collectivity
3.2.1 A (An) Prototypically, the article a/an conveys the following senses: a. Indefiniteness This sense arises when the articles a / an is used with reference to a person, thing or object for the first time or typically the referent has not been mentioned before, or the hearer does not know about. Consider the following examples: (1) (a) I heard a child crying. (b) There is an umbrella in the car. In (25a- b), the article a / an implies indefiniteness. It makes reference to a person or an object which is mentioned and said for the first time or at least, and assumed to be unfamiliar to the listener. b. Genericity This meaning results when the article a / an denotes the sense of genericity. It refers to something which has the representation of the whole group in general, rather than in specific sense. Consider the following examples: (2) (a) A tiger is the largest cat species. (b) An elephant belongs to the family Elephantidae. In (26a-b), the indefinite article a / an comes before the words tiger, and elephant to imply the sense of genericity. In each example, one instance is designated as a representative to the whole class. c. Truths This sense comes to attention when the article a / an precedes singular nouns denoting all things of a particular sort of something. Consider the following examples:
34
(3) (a) A square has four sides. (b) A spider has eight legs. In (27a-b), the indefinite article a is used to belong to all things or the general truths about something or creature through designating a singular one to represent the whole. d. Unknown This sense arises when the article a / an is used before a surname of unknown person particularly when the speaker does not know who they are. Consider the following examples: (4) (a) There is a Mrs. Brown to see you. (b) There is a Mr. Smith on the phone. In (28a-b), the speaker uses the article a before the name or surname of persons because the he does not have information about them. e. Non-specificity This meaning comes out in the following cases. Possessor of body parts In one case, this sense emerges when the article a / an is used instead of the possessive pronouns such as your, his, her etc., pointing to human body parts that are pairs or more than one part. Consider the following examples: (5) (a) He has broken a leg. (b) Lilly has sprained an ankle. In the examples (29a-b) the article a / an is used in reference to point to human body parts. In the first example, an ankle denotes her ankle and in the second one a leg means his leg.
35
Non-specific entities This sense becomes visible when the indefinite article a / an sometimes makes no reference to a particular person or entity it precedes. Consider the following examples: (6) (a) Carlos wants to marry a lady who speaks five languages. (b) He likes to buy a car that it is faster than any others. In (30a- b), the indefinite a may not belong to a specific known person or anything in reality, and it may refer to a person or thing in fantasy at all. So one cannot be sure whether Carol knows a certain lady speaking five languages or not and is there a car like this or not. Peripherally, the article a / an conveys the following senses: a. Membership This meaning appears when the article a / an is used in reference to someone who is a member of a religious group or bearing a specific ideology relating to a political party. Consider the following examples: (7)
(a) Awat is a Zoroastrian. (b) When she was young, she was a communist.
In (31a- b), the indefinite article a is used before names of divine and earthly creed or belief denoting the sense of membership. b. Profession This sense arises when the article a / an precedes names of career and occupations to imply that someone is a member of a particular group or class. Consider the following examples: (8) (a) Zewar likes to be a tailor. (b) Hozan is an accountant. 36
In (32a-b), the article a / an comes before professional titles and careers indicating the type of job, qualification and career that one has. c. Measurement This sense emerges in the following cases. One This meaning arises when the articles a / an is used instead of number one. Consider the following examples: (9) (a) He needs a thousand dollars for his travel. (b) Wait a minute. (c) He’ll have to wait an hour. In (33a-b), the indefinite article a/an refers to number one denoting one thousand and one minute. In (33c), an implies one hour Each or per This sense emerges when the indefinite article a / an is deployed to mean each or per especially when stating, quantities, prices, speeds or rates in phrases of measuring or frequency. Consider the following examples: (10)
(a) He gets paid once a month. (b) The eggs cost 3$ a dozen. (c) Aras can type 60 words a minute. (d) She was driving at 70 miles an hour.
In (34a- b), the article a / an implies per or each denoting each month and each dozen. in (33a - b), the e article a /an means per denoting per minute and per hour.
37
Quantification This sense emerges when the article a / an is used in some phrases and certain expressions that say how much of something there is or belonging to a quantity such as a few, a great many, a couple, a lot, a little, etc. consider the following instances: (11)
(a) There were a lot of people at the concert. (b) I bought a dozen eggs. (c) A few weeks from now we’ll be in Sulaimany.
In (35a-c), the article a / an is combined with lot, dozen and few to imply and point to the number and amount of persons or things that belong to quantity. Part / Number This sense arises when the indefinite article a / an comes before a partitive expression to convey part nouns or nouns of type. Consider the following examples: (12)
(a) He ate a piece of cake. (b) Only a handful of people signed against the new article. (c) She found a box of jewelry.
In (36a-c), the article a is used in combination with part nouns or partitive expressions to compose and imply particular measurement or types of things. Single unit This sense arises when the articles a / an is used before two nouns that are customarily mentioned together, or they are seen as a single unit. Consider the following examples: (13)
(a) Do you need a knife and fork? (b) She fetched me a cup and saucer. 38
In (37a- b), the article a is deployed in front of two count nouns which are viewed as a single unit but originally they are two entities. d. Descriptive exclamation This sense appears when the indefinite article a/ an is used in some exclamatory expressions to denote surprise, anger, pain or strong emotion. Consider the following examples: (14)
(a) What a girl she is! (b) What a fool he is!
In (38a-b), the article a is used in reference to describe someone in an exclamatory expression.
39
A graphical representation of the multiple senses of the indefinite article a / an is depicted in Figure 4.
A /An
Periphery
40
Prototype
Indefiniteness
Genericity
Truths
Unknown
Non-specificity
Time
Profession
Measurement
Figure 4. The semantic network of the indefinite article a / an.
Descriptive exclamation
3.2.1 Zero article In general, the zero article refers to nominals that contains no articles. Zero article does not exist in reality or there is no correspondence to the definite article the or indefinite article a / an. The situation where the indefinite article a / an and definite article the do not occur with plural count nouns and noncount nouns, instead, the term zero article is used. Prototypically, zero article conveys the sense of genericity. This sense comes to attention particularly when no articles come before plural count nouns and mass nouns. Consider the following examples: (1) (a) Cars have accelerators. (b) Dogs are grateful. (c) Coffee contains caffeine. (d) Water freezes at zero Celsius degree. The examples in (39a- d) are interpreted as generic references. In (39a-b), the speaker uses no article preceding the plural nouns, referring to them as class of things in general. In (39c-d), the mass nouns receive no article since they are used in general not in specific. Peripherally, the zero article conveys the sense of specificity. This meaning comes into view when no articles precede proper nouns, names, names of institutions, meals, days, weeks, months, seasons, holidays, games, sports, activities, restaurants, places with possessive’s or certain geographical names and planets. Consider the following examples: (2) (a) Yesterday I saw Mahir Hassan. (b) Uncle Barzan visited us last Tuesday. (c) Jeep is my favorite vehicle. (d) They climbed on Piramagroun peak. (e) Karo will have graduated in March. 41
(f) He was sentenced to 4 years in prison. The sentences in (40a-f) are interpreted as specific reference, containing zero article invisibly. No articles come before proper name, day, car brand, geographical place, month of year and certain place. The zero article implies specificity, preceding each of the mentioned names invisibly. A graphical representation of the multiple senses of the Zero article is depicted in Figure 5.
Zero article
Peripher
Prototype
Genericity
Specificity
Figure 5. The semantic network of the Zero article.
3.3 Categorization of quantifiers In drawing the semantic networks of the quantifiers and detecting their meanings, the researcher relied on dictionaries such as MERRIAM WEBSTER(2003), COBUILD (2006), CALD (2008), OALD (2010), LDOC (2011), , and English reference grammars such Langacker (1987, 1990, 1991), Thomson and Martinent (2001).Taylor (2002), Langacker (2002), Biber et al (2003) Evan and Green (2006), Radden and Dirven (2007) and Langacker (2008 and 2009). Quantification is the act of specifying the quantity of an instance by means of quantifiers. The Quantifiers are expressions that denote a quantity which are 42
generally divided into two types, relative quantifiers and scalar (absolute) quantifiers. The study deals with the relative quantifiers only because they act as nominal grounding elements. The grounding quantifiers include all, most, some, no, every, each and any. 3.3.1 All Prototypically, the quantifier all implies entirety, concerning the entire amount or proportion or the whole number of something. Consider the following examples: (3) (a) All examiners should be paid on time. (b) I have done all homework. (c) All whisky damages your health. In (41a-c), the quantifier all implies entirety. In (41a), all refers to the entire or the whole number of examiners. In (41b-c), all means the whole amount or proportion of the mass nouns (homework and whisky). Peripherally, the quantifier all demonstrates the following senses: a. Universality This meaning comes to attention when the quantifier all is used to refer to objects or entities as a class of things. Consider the following examples: (4) (a) All diamond is valuable. (b) All Kurds dream to be independent. (c) All fishes live in water. The examples (42a-c) are understood as universal statements, denoting universality. In (42a), all implies universality, referring to the referent as being valuable over the world. In (42b), all means the individuals of the Kurdish nation even the ones living abroad. In (42c), all refers to all kinds of fish family everywhere. 43
b. Collectivity This sense becomes visible when the quantifier all concerns to every one of people or things or everything of a particular kind. Consider the following examples: (5) (a) All kids should be taught to swim. (b) The ants were coming from all directions. In (43a- b), the quantifier all implies collectivity. It makes reference to every kid and every direction. c. Multiplicity This sense emerges when the quantifier all is used in reference to mention about many different types of something. Consider the following examples: (6) (a) Psychologists have to deal with all kinds of problems. (b) Teachers should treat all types of pupils equally. In (44a-b), the quantifier all conveys the sense of multiplicity. It refers to many different sorts of pupils and many various types of problems respectively. d. Specificity This sense arises when the quantifier all is deployed to make reference to a specific group of people or things. Consider the following examples. (7) (a) All passengers are now abroad. (b) The teacher scrutinized all pupils in room 12. The quantifier all in (45a- b) refers to a specific set of people or it designates a particular group of people.
44
e. Alot This sense comes to attention when the quantifier all is used to mean a lot of certain things. Consider the following examples: (8) (a) The magazine is all advertisements. (b) Lara was all smiles. In (46a), the quantifier all means only one thing, and the sentence means the magazine includes a lot of advertisement. In (46b), all denotes a lot. The sentence means Lara smiles a lot. f. The greatest possible amount of This sense arises when the quantifier all is mostly used before abstract nouns relating to virtues and good deeds. All emphasizes the greatest possible amount of quality in some specific contexts or situations. Consider the following examples: (9) (a) In all honesty I can’t agree. (b) With all respect, I cannot agree with you. In (47a-b), the quantifier all is used to mean the greatest possible amount of honesty and respect that someone has. g. The whole period or duration of time This sense emerges when the quantifier all is used in some contexts with singular nouns, relating to the period of time. It shows that something has been happening for a whole period of a specific time. Consider the following examples: (10)
(a) The children played video games all day. (b) The baby didn’t sleep a wink all night. (c) They were here all the winter. 45
In (48a-c), the quantifier all refers to the whole period of time or during the whole duration of time that something has been continuously happening. It refers to the whole period of day, night and winter. h. Very often This meaning comes to attention when the quantifier all is used to mention something that occurs very often especially in a way that is annoying. In this situation, the quantifier all is followed by the time. Consider the following examples: (11)
(a) They are quarreling all the time. (b) It rains all the time we are on vacation.
In (49a- b), the quantifier all means very often, the first sentence means it snows very often and in the second one denoting they are quarreling very often. i. Concession This sense arises when the quantifier all is used to mean in spite of a particular fact, quality or situation especially when all is preceded by the word for rather in spoken phrases. As illustrated in (50). (12)
For all Lania’s carelessness, she is still a clever student.
In (50), all expresses in spite of and the sentence means in spite the fact that one has shortages in her lesson but she is a clever student.
46
A graphical representation of the multiple senses of the quantifier all is depicted in Figure 6.
All
Periphery
47
Prototype
Entirety
Universality
Collectivity
Multiplicity
Specificity
A lot
The greatest possible amount of
The whole period or duration of time
Figure 6. The semantic network of the quantifier all.
Very often
Concession
3.2.1 Most The quantifier most can function as an adverb, determiner, pronoun and also suffix to form certain adjectives as in northmost. Here it is merely analyzed and detected its senses in terms of serving as nominal grounding predications. Prototypically, the quantifier most is used to indicate the majority of something but not all that is to denote nearly all or almost all or more than half of a particular group of people or things. Consider the following examples: (1) (a) Most children hate hospital. (b) On Fridays most shops are closed. (c) Most crimes remained unsolved. In in the sentences (51a-c), the quantifier most expresses the sense of majority. In (51a), most denotes the majority of students, in (50b), most refers to nearly all shops and in (51c), It makes reference to almost all crimes. Peripherally, the quantifier most conveys the following senses: a. Generality This meaning emerges when the quantifier most implies generalization. It refers to something or an entity in general not in particular. Consider the following examples: (2) (a) Most package systems have two cassette decks. (b) Most pollution could be avoided. (c) Most people want a quiet life. The quantifier most in (52a-c) conveys the meaning of generality. It profiles the referents in general terms and valid in all places and situation.
48
b. All most all or more than half This sense comes to attention when the quantifier most is used to show that more than half of something or almost all of something or somebody. Consider the following examples: (3) (a) My daughter likes most vegetables. (b) Most folk music sends me to fall asleep. In (53a), the quantifier most is deployed to denote more than half of vegetables, and in (53b), most means almost all folk music. c. The largest number or possible amount This sense emerges when the quantifier most is used to imply to what the largest extent, number, amount or the degree of something. Consider the following examples: (4) (a) Television commercials reach most people. (b) How can we get the most power from the engine? (c) Most benefit can be obtained from the new treatment. In (54a), the quantifier most refers to the largest number or quantity of people. In (54b-c), most means the largest or possible amount or degree of power and benefit. d. Larger in quantity This sense comes into view when the quantifier most is used to show that something or someone possesses a larger quantity or number of something than anyone or anything else. Consider the following examples: (5)
(a) Which class has the most kids? (b) Which candidate has received the most votes? (c) It is the best stadium in town, and it also has the most halls. 49
In the examples (55a-c), the quantifier most refers to a larger amount or number of kids, votes and halls. In all of them, most refers to the quantity of things. e. Approximately not completely This meaning results when the quantifier most is used in the expression, for the most part, to mean that a statement, idea or fact is approximately or generally true or acceptable, but not completely. Consider the following examples: (6)
(a) For the most part, people looked pretty friendly. (b) For the most part, the relationship between people and government is not bad.
In (56a-b), the quantifier most makes reference to something or idea which is generally but not completely true or acceptable. A graphical representation of the multiple senses of the quantifier most is depicted in Figure 7. Most
Prototype
Periphery
Majority
Generality
The largest number or possible amount
Almost all or more than half
Larger in quantity
possible
Figure 7. The semantic network of the quantifier most.
50
Approximately not completely
3.2.2 Some In general, the quantifier some can function as a quantifier, determiner, indefinite article, pronoun, and adverb and also suffix to form a certain type of adjectives as in troublesome. Here its meanings and senses are only detected in respect to serving as nominal grounding elements. Prototypically, the quantifier some implies indeterminacy or inexactness in a number or amount of the modified noun. It refers to unspecified amount or number of something or somebody. This sense emerges when the quantifier some is used to make reference to a number of things or people or an amount of something especially when the exact number or amount is not stated or given. Consider the following examples: (7) (a) I need some screws to fix the drawer. (b) Ara got some offers to buy her tableau. (c) There is some yoghurt in the refrigerator. (d) He wants a worker with some experience. In (57a-d), the quantifier some implies indeterminacy. In (57ab), most refers the amount or quantity of screws and offers indeterminately. In (57c-d), most designates the referents yoghurt and experience as an inexact amount or proportion. Peripherally, the quantifier some conveys the following senses. a. Not all or Not completely This sense comes into view when the quantifier some is used in general to make reference to certain members of a set or certain kinds of a thing but not completely or not all of them. Consider the following examples: (8) (a) Some people do not believe in life after death. (b) In some cases, the damage could not be repaired. 51
(c) Some students find taking exam difficult. In (58a), the quantifier some refers to a part of people not all people, and in the example (58b) some refers to certain kinds of cases not all cases. In (57c) some denotes certain members of students not all student. b. Fairly large in quantity and quality This sense appears when the quantifier some is used particularly in formal style conveying a fairly large number of a quantity or a fairly large amount of quality. Consider the following examples: (9)
(a) They have known each other for some years now. (b) The teachers are going to be working for some time. (c) She is still some distance away.
In (59a), the quantifier some implies a fairly large number of a quantity of years. In (58b-c), some refers to a fairly large amount of quality of time and distance. c. Non-specificity or Indefiniteness This sense occurs when the quantifier some functions as a determiner making reference of someone or something indefinitely when the speaker is not certain about it. As shown in the following examples: (10)
(a) I have heard about him in some programs. (b) Please, can you tell me some idea about the budget? (c) There must be some reason for his behaviour.
In (60a-c), the quantifier some conveys the meaning of non-specificity or uncertainty. It makes reference to the referents programs, idea and reason without identifying them specifically or definitely.
52
d. Uncertainty This sense comes to attention especially in informal speech when the quantifier some is used to demonstrate that one is not certain or does not know and remember exactly which person, thing or place. As shown in the following examples: (11)
(a) Some guys called for you while you were outside. (b) She was always talking to some boys or other. (c) Everyone will need to visit a doctor at some time or another.
In (61a-b), the quantifier some is denotes the sense of uncertainty about persons that one does not know and remember exactly or one indirectly mentions them. In (61c), some expresses the sense of indirectness or uncertainty, or one thinks no matter which time. e. Small amount This meaning comes to attention when the quantifier some is used to refer to a small amount of quality of something. As shown in (61). (12)
There is some hope that things will recover and improve.
In (62), the quantifier some means a small amount of hope, and the sentence means, there is still a small amount of hope for the things to be recovered and improved f. Appreciation or Praise This sense comes into view when the quantifier some is used to say that something is very good or very impressive, or to express a positive or negative opinion about somebody or something. Consider the following examples: (13)
(a) Some expert you are! (b) That was some party last night! 53
(c) Some speech you made last evening Tom! (d) He is some skier! Remarkable In the examples (63a- d), the quantifier some refers to praise and express that something or somebody is very good or his/her doings is highly appreciated. g. Expressing annoyance This sense emerges when the quantifier some is deployed especially in spoken with certain expressions to show that a person has not been friendly, helpful and disappointing you or not acted as has been expected from him/her. Consider the following examples: (14)
(a) You do not lend me the money? Some friend you are! (b) Jeff’s wife ran off with his best friend, some friend!
In the examples (64a-b), the quantifier some expresses annoyance in an ironic way that someone is not much helpful or friendly as expected.
54
A graphical representation of the multiple senses of the quantifier some is depicted in Figure 8. Some
Periphery
55
Prototype
Indeterminacy
Not all or Not completely
Fairly large in quantity or quality
Non-specificity or Indefiniteness
Uncertainty
Small amount
Figure 8. The semantic network of the quantifier some.
Appreciation or Praise
Expressing annoyance
3.2.1 No No can function as a determiner, adverb and noun, but here it is merely analyzed and detected its senses when functioning as a grounding quantifier on the basis of serving as nominal grounding. Prototypically, the quantifier no conveys the sense of emptiness. It refers to designate its referents as empty. No can precede singular count nouns, plural nouns, and noncount nouns to express not one or not any. Consider the following examples: (1)
(a) I have no cigarette left. (b) There are no buses after midnight. (c) No butter left in the refrigerator. (d) We received no help from government
In (65a-d), the quantifier no implies emptiness. In (65a-b), no profiles a singular count noun and plural count noun as zero in quantity. In (65c-b), no profiles the mass nouns as empty set. Peripherally, the quantifier no expresses the following senses: a. Very soon or very quickly This sense comes to attention when the quantifier no is used with the expression in no time denoting quickness. Consider the following examples: (2)
(a) They’ll be home in no time. (b) He promised to be here in no time.
In (66a), the quantifier no denote the meaning of very quickly, and in (66b), no means very soon.
56
b. Forbidden or Impermissibility or Cancelation This sense becomes visible when the quantifier no is used on signs, posts or notice boards to show that a process is forbidden or not allowed particularly in public places. This special kind of language is called block language. consider the following examples: (3)
(a) No parking. (b) No smoking. (c) No fishing. (d) No flash photography.
In the examples (67a-d) the quantifier no makes reference to express the sense of impermissibility or cancelation of doing an action. No implies that it is not allowed to do something or expressing that a particular action or process is forbidden especially in public places. c. Impossibility or Lack of knowledge This sense arises when the quantifier no is deployed to state or mean that it is not possible to predict do something. Consider the following examples: (4)
(a) There is no knowing what this lunatic will do next. (b) There is no telling what will happen next. (c) There is no denying the suffering of these families. (d) There is no pleasing some people.
In (68a- b), the quantifier no means that one cannot predicts what something will happen due to having lack of knowledge. In (68c- d), no denotes the sense of cancelation or impossibility in doing something.
57
d. Opposite of what it is stated This sense comes to attention when the quantifier no is used to state and emphasize that the opposite of what is mentioned or stated is true. Consider the following examples: (5)
(a) He is no fool. (b) It was no easy matter. (c) It will be no bad thing if she has to do it all herself.
In the example (69a), quantifier no implies that one is not fool but intelligent, and in (69b), no refers to the opposite of easy which is difficult. In (69c), no is used to shift the meaning of bad into good. A graphical representation of the multiple senses of the quantifier no is depicted in Figure 9. No
Prototype
Periphery
Emptiness
Very soon or very quickly
Impossibility or Lack of knowledge
Forbidden or Impermissibility or Cancelation
Opposite of what it is stated
Figure 9. The semantic network of the quantifier no.
58
3.2.2 Every Prototypically, the quantifier every conveys the sense of simultaneity. It refers to how an instance is selected simultaneously to be a specimen to all the instances of a type. Consider the following examples: (6)
(a) You can see every parachute in the sky this afternoon. (b) Mina knows every student in school. (c) The contractor met every worker before starting the project. In (70a- c), the quantifier every conveys the sense of simultaneity, looking
the entities at the same time at once. It simultaneously profiles the referents without specifying any specific one, but selects one of them to be valid for all the instances. Peripherally, the quantifier every expresses the following senses: a. Universality This sense emerges when the quantifier every makes reference to something or idea which is universal and applies all instances in the world. Consider the following examples: (7)
(a) Every person is free how to see the world. (b) Every freedom needs toiling and struggling.
In (71a- b), the quantifier every implies universality, and each sentence has a universal interpretation. The instances designated by every can be applied to all the instances of the same category. b. Distributivity This sense emerges when the quantifier every selects and concentrates on the individual items of a particular class and connects them together. Consider the following examples: 59
(8)
(a) Every participant has to fill in the questionnaire. (b) Every winner was given a valuable award.
As a distributive quantifier, every in (72a-b) implies distributivity. In each example, every focuses on the single elements to be included in the set until they reach the whole set. c. Collectivity or Wholeness This sense appears when the quantifier every is used to emphasize the whole number or amount of something or someone equally. Considered the following examples: (9)
(a) Maria ate every bit of her meal. (b) Lona knows every word of my songs by heart. (c) I enjoyed every minute of the movie.
In (73a-c), the quantifier conveys the sense of collectivity. In (73a), every refers to the whole amount of meal, and in (73b), it refers to the whole amount of quantity or number of songs. In (73c), it makes reference to whole period or duration of the movie. d. Distance This sense comes to attention when the quantifier every demonstrates how much distance there is between the things in a line or to show that something happens and repeats regularly. Consider the following examples: (10)
(a) There were traffic lights every two miles. (b) She had to stop to relax every hundred meters. (c) You should change your car oil every thousand miles.
In (74a-c), the quantifier every makes reference to show how much the amount of space or distance is there between the places and things. 60
e. The greatest possibility or As much as possible This sense comes into view when the quantifier every is deployed to make reference to all the possibilities someone will face or expect. Consider the following examples: (11)
(a) She has every chance of success. (b) He has every reason to be unhappy. (c) She has every right to be proud herself. (d) He has every opportunity to make a complaint.
In (75a), the quantifier every makes reference to imply the greatest possibility of chance. However, in the last three sentences, every means as possible reason, right and opportunity. f. Frequency This sense emerges when the quantifier every is followed by time expressions and used to show that an action or something repeats at regular periods of time, or referring to say how often something frequently happens. Consider the following examples: (12)
(a) Shilan sees her baby every day. (b) Kamo visits his grandfather every week. (c) He drinks a cup of tea every morning.
In (76a-c) the quantifier every comes before time expression conveying the meaning of frequency or repetition of time at regular periods of time. g. Whenever or Each time This sense emerges when the quantifier every is used especially with the expression every time to emphasize that each time one thing happens or making reference to a particular occasion or event something happens or repeats in. consider the following examples: 61
(13)
(a) The roof leaks every time it rains. (b) It seems like every time I play football, I get hurt.
In (77a), the quantifier every means whenever or each time and the sentence means the roof leaks whenever or each time it rains. In (77b), every means the each time or whenever, and the sentence means one gets hurt whenever or each time he/she plays football. A graphical representation of the multiple senses of the quantifier every is depicted in Figure 10.
Every
Periphery
Prototype
Simultaneity
Universality
Distributivity
Collectivity
Distance
Frequency
Whenever or Each time
The greatest possibility or as much as possible
Figure 10. The semantic network of the quantifier every.
3.2.3 Each In general the quantifier each can act as a determiner, pronoun, and adverb but, here its senses are detected and analyzed in terms of functioning as a nominal grounding element. 62
Prototypically, the quantifier each denotes the sense of sequentiality. This meaning appears when the quantifier each is used to choose the items of a category one by one in sequence. Consider the following examples: (14)
(a) I counted each marble in the sack quickly. (d) The doctor saw each patient in turn. (c) The teacher read each name alphabetically.
In (78a-c), the quantifier each conveys the meaning of sequentiality. It selects the elements marble, patients and name sequentially one by one. In all examples, each views all items of a category in sequence separately. Peripherally, the quantifier each expresses the following meanings. a. Distributivity This sense arises when the quantifier each selects a single item as a representative to all the items a category. Consider the following examples: (15)
(a) Each child was given a dole. (b) Each question receives 10 points. (c) Lift each leg six times.
In (79a-c), the quantifier each conveys the meaning of distributivity. It picks out an individual member to represent all the members of the set. In this respect, all members are distributively participated which are singled out by each. . b. Universality This sense emerges when the quantifier each is used to select an instance to be a specimen to others especially when it is culturally and socially true or valid in the world or a specific part in the world. Consider the following examples: (16)
(a) Each finger is different in size. (b) Each coach has a special technic. 63
(c) For each problem, there is a solution. In (80a-c), the quantifier each represents the sense of universality. In each statement, each selects a single instance then applies to all instances as a representative. c. Individuality This sense comes to attention when the quantifier each in some contexts is used instead of number one. Consider the following examples: (17)
(a) Each ticket costs 3000 IQD. (b) Each bottle of milk was sold for 2$.
In (81a), the quantifier each implies number one, profiling one single element, and the sentence mean one ticket costs 3000 IQD. In (81b), each also means one and the sentence means one bottle was sold for 2$. d. Per This sense emerges when the quantifier each is used with time unit denoting the meaning of per. Consider the following examples: (18)
(a) The generator burns a gallon of gas each hour. (b) The park attracts three million visitors each year. (c) Each month he receives 800$.
In (82a-c), the quantifier each denotes per. The phrase in (82a) means per hour, in (82b) implies per year, and in (82c) means per month. A graphical representation of the multiple senses of the quantifier each is depicted in Figure 11.
64
Each
Periphery
Prototype
Sequentially
Distributivity
Universality
Individuality
Per
Figure 11. The semantic network of the quantifier each.
3.2.4 Any The quantifier any can function as a determiner, pronoun, and adverb but, here it is merely detected its senses in favor of serving as a nominal grounding element. Prototypically, the quantifier any conveys the meaning of randomness. This sense emerges when it picks out a single instance randomly as a representative to all instances of the same category. Consider the following examples: (19)
(a) Any person who breaks the rules will be punished. (b) These bricks are an ideal choice for any house. (c) Read the details before you sign any agreement. (d)Take any magazine you like.
In (83a- d), the quantifier any conveys the meaning of randomness. In each statement, any makes reference to each one of a class without selecting a particular one but referring to them one to one haphazardly.
65
Peripherally, the quantifier any expresses the following senses: a. Universality This meaning comes to attention when the quantifier any refers to an idea or something which is universal or true over the world. Consider the following examples: (20)
(a) Any country has its own flag. (b) Any idea has positive and negative sides. (c) Any story can teach us a lesson.
The statements in (84a- c) are understood as universal interpretations. In each sentences, any denotes the sense of universality, because it designates a representative instance which is confirmed to be valid to the rest of the instances in the world. b. Some This sense arises when the quantifier any is deployed to demonstrate some amount or number of quantity or quality. Consider the following examples: (21)
(a) Have you got any money? (b) Are there any photos in that drawer? (c) Does he need any information about the novel?
In (85a- b), the quantifier any refers to some amount of quantity of money and photos, while in (83c), any refers to some amount of quality of information. c. Even the smallest amount of something This sense comes to attention when the quantifier any is used in negative or positive statements to imply the smallest amount or number of something. Consider the following examples
66
(22)
(a) She hasn’t shown any interest in my presentation. (b) Few of students had any knowledge about history. (c) I didn’t eat any meat yesterday.
In (86a- c), the quantifier any makes reference to denote even the smallest amount of interest, knowledge, and meat. d. Possible amount or degree This sense emerges when the quantifier any is used to refer to a possible small amount of quantity or quality of something either small or great. (23)
(a) We will take any help we can get. (b) I have got hardly any money.
In (87a), the quantifier any refers a small possible degree of help while in the example (87b), any denotes a small possible amount of money. e. More than expected or stated This sense becomes visible when the quantifier any is used to praise a person or thing or showing that someone or something is special and is more than expected. Consider the following examples: (24)
(a) He is not just any actor; he is one of the best. (b) It is not just any day; it is my daughter’s birthday. (c) It is not just any watch; it is Breitling.
In (88a), the quantifier any implies that one is not only a normal actor but he is more than that. In (88b), any refers to a special day different from any usual days. In (88c) any refers to special watch which is more than others. f. Anyway This sense arises when the quantifier any is used in the idiomatic expression at any rate, to state no matter whatever happens or to give more exact 67
information about something, or introducing a statement or something that is more significant than what was said before. Consider the following examples: (25)
(a) At any rate, she has learnt something. (b) Well, I am not going home on foot, at any rate. (c) At any rate, the next meeting will be on Saturday. (d) They had technical problems, at any rate, that’s what they told me.
In (89a-b), the quantifier any refers to denote anyway, expressing no matter what happens or anyway, and in (89c-d), any denotes the meaning of anyway or anyhow. g. Also or Anyway or Whatever happens This sense comes to attention when the quantifier any is used especially in the idiomatic expression in any case. Consider the following examples: (26)
(a) I don’t want to go and in any case, I haven’t been invited. (b) I have decided to go in any case. (c) She didn’t say anything at the meeting and in any case, it is too late now. (b) In any case, I am going to try again.
In (90a), the quantifier any means also, and (90b- c), any means whatever happens, and in (90d), any denotes anyway. A graphical representation of the multiple senses of the quantifier any is depicted in Figure 13.
68
Any
Periphery
Prototype
Randomness
Universality
Some
Even the smallest amount of something
Possible amount or degree
More than expected or stated
Anyway
Figure 12. The semantic network of the quantifier any.
69
Also or Anyway or Whatever happens
Chapter Four Configuration of grounding elements
4.1 Introduction On the conceptual level, Configuration is the process of arranging and sorting out things or entities together into cognitive domains. On the linguistic level, Hamawand (2007:30, 2011:46) and (2016:141) believes that the concept of configuration refers to ‘the mental act of grouping together a number of the linguistic items, be they lexical or grammatical into a cognitive domain’. A domain can be understood as the background of knowledge against which linguistic elements are characterized. Linguistically, a domain is a context which provides the basis for characterizing linguistic elements. A domain consists of facets; a facet is a portion which represents an experience. Knowledge is encyclopedic; it is organized into cognitive domains and grounded in our experience of the world. Domains play a role in grouping and characterizing the nominal grounding elements. It also explores how they are arranged and grouped under specific domains and the facets they refer to. 4.2 Theories of configuration People normally differ with regard to how they group things relying on their empirical experiences. In linguistics, there are two main theories of configuration: the Semantic Field theory, and the Cognitive Domain theory. 4.2.1 The Semantic Field theory The Semantic Field theory, also called lexical field, is a theory of meaning which traces back to the 1930s. According to this theory, the meaning of any item of a language is acquired not by its own but by putting it in connection with its other neighboring items within the same lexical field. From this perspective, the vocabulary of a language is not seen as an independent element as the head 70
lexemes in a dictionary, but it is arranged into fields in which the lexical elements define each other in different ways. The words which are part of a semantic field enter into meaning relationships with one another. Each word affects the sense of the next word in the field and marks off an area within the semantic domain. As clarified by Bussuman (1996:673-4), Trier (1931) was the first to introduce the term semantic field to signify a bunch of semantically affiliated words whose meanings are affected by one another. The precise sense of any individual word can be understood through its relationships with the rest of the related words in the same lexical field. The words in a semantic field share a common semantic property. Thus, it refuses to comprehend the single word meaning independently. Instead, it sees a word meaning is defined relying on the meaning of the bundle of the interrelated words within the same semantic field. In this respect, any individual lexical field is formed like a mosaic fitting neatly with no spaces; the entire set of lexemes of a language mirrors a self-contained image of reality. Therefore, any change in meaning to a single word results in a change in the complete structure of the lexical field. Examples of semantic field subsume plants, fruit, vision, and so on. For, example the field of vision is divided up into peer, gaze, stare, gape and gawk. Although the Semantic Field theory has often been advocated by some linguists in their analysis of various languages, it has been under criticism by other linguists. Some shortcomings of the semantic field theory have been observed by Lehrer (1974) and Lyons (1977) (cited in Hamawand 2009:92-4). One shortcoming is that the theory does not precisely distinguish lexemes from one another within the lexical fields. Therefore, it is not clear what place a particular lexeme holds in the lexical field. Another shortcoming is that not all lexical items are adaptable to semantic field analysis; this means not all sides of experience are exactly distributed into semantic fields. A further shortcoming is that the theory concentrates merely on paradigmatic relations; it neglects the 71
contributions made to meaning by syntagmatic information. A further shortcoming is that it does not take into consideration the role of contextual use in ascribing a lexical item to a field. That is, it does not put forward any criterion for determining whether or not a particular lexeme belongs to a lexical field. As a response, a new theory called the Cognitive Domain theory has emerged. 4.2.2 The Cognitive Domain theory The cognitive domain theory goes back to the 1980s, a theory that has been proposed and developed by Langacker, especially to stand against the semantic field theory. The theory is built on the belief that the meaning of a lexical element can best be defined with respect to the domain to which it refers. According to Langacker (1987:147), ‘Domains are necessarily cognitive entities: mental experiences, representational spaces, concepts, or conceptual complexes’. Taylor (2002:439-40) mentions that a domain can be referred to any knowledge configuration which provides the context for the conceptualization of a semantic unit. Hamawand (2008:21-3) gives reasons for initiating the cognitive domain theory within the frame of Cognitive Semantics. Accordingly, he accentuates that most language dictionaries define the lexicon by merely providing the lexical units of separate entries, information about meaning, usage, or register without displaying that many of these units share mutual properties as well as an element of difference. As a result, dictionaries fail to demonstrate how the elements are related to one another. Evans (2007:61) asserts that the principal function or role of a domain is to give a specific sort of coherent fixed knowledge context against which other conceptual elements can be understood or characterized. For instance, linguistic elements such as cold, hot and lukewarm cannot be entirely portrayed without referring to the domain of temperature.
72
Hamawand (2007:30-1) believes that concepts do not come into existence as isolated units in the mind, but can only be apprehended in a context of background knowledge referred to as a domain. In this way, any concept either complex or not can serve as a domain for another concept. According to Hamawand (2009:94, 2011:46, 2016:146), a domain refers to a context of knowledge background based on mental experiences. Domain is built on the idea that meaning is encyclopedic in the sense it covers a large collection of knowledge in great detail. The structure of a domain generally possesses some facets. Any facet is a partition of a domain which is related to a specific concept. Each facet is expounded by a suitable form of language. Lexical concepts cannot be understood independently of the cognitive domains in which they are embedded. For instance, lexemes like foresee, foretell, and forecast assign distinct lexical concepts in the domain of prediction. Without understanding the domain of prediction, one would not be able to use these terms properly. Foresee implies predication that as a consequence of normal reasoning and experience, as in Economists should have foreseen the recession. Foretell implies predication that is made by using religious or magical powers, especially in literature or stories, as in The prophet had the gift of foretelling the future. Forecast implies prediction that is based on technical or scientific knowledge, as in They forecast a large drop in unemployment over the next three year. The cognitive domain theory possesses some advantages or merits that are shown by Hamawand (2009:94-5).
First, it provides for each lexeme a
particular role, concentrates on its actual utilization, and selects the criteria for being a member of the domain. Second, it allows the speaker to depict a situation in various ways, using each time a distinct lexical unit.
73
4.3 The domain of reference The domain of reference is a conceptual background referring to something or somebody either close or far from the interlocutors. In language, it is realized by the demonstratives this, these, that and those. As stated by Quirk et al (1985:372), demonstratives have definite meaning like the definite article and the personal pronouns; therefore their reference depends on the context shared by the speaker and hearer. Traditionally, Radford (2004:227) describes demonstratives as words which indicate a location closer to or further from the speaker. Radford (2009:4) clarifies that the demonstratives are called determiners because they determine specific semantic properties of the noun expression that they introduce, marking it as a definite referring expression. Radford (2004:23) shows that the demonstratives are traditionally known as referential determiners because they determine the referential properties of the noun expression which follows them. However, Hawkins (1978:156) points out that demonstratives contrast with the article by lacking the supposition of uniqueness. Cognitively, Langacker (2009:121) points out that demonstratives constitute a kind of mental pointing often accompanied by a physical pointing gesture. Therefore, the speaker performs the act of singling out the grounded referent by using the demonstratives in terms of proximity and distance. Downing and Locke (2006:424) believe that the demonstratives particularize the nominal group referent by indicating whether it is near (this, these), or far away from the reader (that, those), in space or time. Eastwood (2006: 216) clarifies that the demonstratives can be pronouns or determiners. As determiners, sometimes called demonstrative adjectives, they precede a noun. The concept of reference is defined as the act of mentioning something in speech or writing. Crystal (2008:407) describes the word reference as a term used in grammatical analysis to state a relationship of identity which exists 74
between grammatical units. Diessel (1999:2) argues that almost all languages have at least two demonstratives that are deictically contrastive: a proximal demonstrative referring to an entity near the deictic center and a distal demonstrative denoting a referent that is located at some distance from the deictic center. Leech (2006:32) stresses that in very general terms the proximal demonstrative determiners this and these have immediate or nearby reference, while the distal determiners that and those have non-immediate or more distant reference. From this viewpoint, demonstratives can be subsumed under the domain of reference, which is divided into two facets. One is the facet of proximity represented by the demonstrative this and its plural form these. The other is the facet of distance which is represented by the demonstrative that and its plural form those. 4.3.1 The facet of proximity: this / these The facet of proximity denotes nearness in place or. Linguistically, this facet is expressed by this and these. Both act as nominal grounding elements. The demonstrative this denotes singularity. It is used to make reference to a single entity, person or something that is near to the speaker. It grounds the referent noun as near. The demonstrative determiner these denotes plurality. It functions like its singular form this, but it only occurs with plural entities. The singular demonstrative this is used with both count and non-count nouns denoting proximity, while the plural demonstrative these is only used with plural nouns referring to near things. Consider the following examples: (1)
(a) This room is too hot. (b) This water is lukewarm. (c) These chairs are nice.
75
In (1a), the demonstrative this is combined with a singular count noun referring to a near single entity. In (1b), the demonstrative this is used with noncount substance as a near referent, water in the example. In (1c), the plural demonstrative these has a proximal reference by occurring with a plural noun, which is chairs. Langacker (1987:126) states that the demonstrative this is deictic because it contributes predications definiteness and proximity to the speaker. Consider the following examples: (2)
(a) This talk is a waste of time. (b) This car is so luxurious. (c) These words had to nowhere.
In (2a- 2b), this functions as a demonstrative and denotes definiteness. In (2a), it makes reference to something that is near and known by the speaker and hearer. In (2b), it denotes proximity of a referent which is near for both the speaker and hearer. In (2c), the plural demonstrative determiner these denotes definiteness and proximity by referring to things which are near and identifiable to the interlocutors. Moreover Janssen (1995:247) maintains that the proximity coded by the demonstrative this may not only be spatial but may be temporal, functional or attitudinal, as illustrated in (3). (3)
I really like this pencil.
The sentence in (3) might be spatial (the speaker is holding the pencil), temporal (the speaker is holding it now), functional (the speaker is using it), attitudinal (the speaker likes it), or any combination of these.
76
4.3.2 The facet of distance: that/ those The facet of distance denotes remoteness in place or time. Linguistically, this facet is expressed by that and those. Both act as nominal grounding elements. Distal demonstratives are used to point that something or someone is spatially remote from the speaker or hearer. The singular demonstrative that is deployed to designate a count or nonplural mass noun, an animate or inanimate object which is farther away from the interlocutors. It grounds the referent noun as distant. The demonstrative those denotes plurality and modifies plural items. Consider the following examples: (4)
(a) That argument was fruitless. (b) That milk contains no fat. (c) Those moments are embarrassing.
In (4a), the distal demonstrative that precedes the count noun argument, pointing to it as distant. In (4b) that precedes the non-count noun milk pointing to it as distant. In (4c) those precedes a plural noun, pointing to it as a distant in time. The demonstrative determiner that and its plural form have definite reference like the definite article the. In this respect, they point to the entities which are known by both speaker and hearer. Examples are given below: (5)
(a) That horse is so beautiful. (b) The horse is so beautiful.
In (5a) the demonstrative that designates a single item referring to it as a definite referent to the speaker or hearer. In (5b) the definite article the designates a single item an identifiable to the interlocutors. The difference is that the demonstrative that refers to something seen, unlike the definite article the refers to something not necessarily seen at the moment of speaking.
77
Table (1) The domain and facets of reference Domain
Facets
Demonstratives
Examples
Proximal Proximity
Singular: this
This car is made in Germany.
Plural:
These carpets are original.
these
Distal Reference
Distance
Singular: that
That boy speaks four languages.
Plural:
Those men helped me last night.
those
4.4 The domain of identification The domain of identification is a knowledge background referring to the act of identifying something or somebody. Identification can be achieved through definite, indefinite and generic reference. In language, this is realized by means of the articles the, a / an and zero. These act as nominal grounding elements. Definite identification emerges when the article the is used to ground an entity or person as being identifiable by the speaker and hearer. The indefinite identification is realized when the article a or an are used to an entity or something or as being unidentifiable to the speaker and hearer. The generic identification is used in generalizing about a class in that it describes an item or items as referring to a group in general. A class includes a mixture of similar items that have a name. Accordingly, three facets can activate the domain of identification. The first is the facet of definiteness which is expressed by the definite article the. The second is the facet of indefiniteness which is expressed by the indefinite a or an. The third is the facet of genericity which is expressed by the zero article. 4.4.1 The facet of definiteness: the The facet of definiteness implies designating an entity as being identifiable in discourse. Linguistically, this facet is expressed by the definite article the. In 78
using the article the, both the speaker and hearer make mental contact with the intended referent because of having prior or shared knowledge of it. The functions as a grounding element. It is deployed to definitely profile and establish the referent in reality. The definite article the is used by the speaker to attract the hearer’s attention to the intended or grounded referent. The can designate count, non-count and plural nouns. Consider the following examples: (6)
(a) Aso gave the book to his sister. (c) The cheese is salty. (d) The birds are drinking.
In (6a), the definite article the profiles the referent noun book as being identifiable to both the speaker and hear. Both share knowledge of the referent. The speaker presupposes that the hearer can identify the grounded referent. In (6b), the definite article the profiles plural items, referring to a set of identified birds that are known to the speaker and hearer. In (6c), the article the designates a mass noun as an intended referent known by the interlocutors. 4.4.2 The facet of indefiniteness: a / an The facet of indefiniteness refers to an entity as being unidentifiable in discourse. Linguistically, this facet is expressed by the articles a and an. The articles profile a single referent and identify the intended or grounded referent as being indefinite. Taylor (2002:354) maintains that in contrast to the definite article the, in using the indefinite article a / an, the hearer is not expected to have the ability to uniquely identify the referent. Indefiniteness can be divided into specific and non-specific. In the case of a specific reading, the speaker may have a specific referent in the mind. In the case of indefinite reading or interpretation, an arbitrary referent is conjured up for immediate purpose. Consider the following examples:
79
(7)
(a) There was a man walking in the park. (b) I need an egg for this recipe. (c) Amanj wants to marry a blonde.
In (7a), the article a profiles a specific instance indefinitely. The grounded instance man is understood as specific in the mind of the speaker. In (7b), the article an profiles an instance which is not in the mind of the speaker. The intended referent egg is an arbitrary instance which is non-specific. In (7c), the sentence may convey both specific and non-specific interpretations. As Langacker (1991:103-4) states, on a specific reading Amanj may have a particular blonde in his mind that he wishes to marry, whereas on a non-specific interpretation he does not have a particular blonde in mind. 4.4.3 The facet of genericity: zero article The facet of genericity refers to a class or group of things in general. Linguistically, this facet is mostly expressed by the zero article or sometimes by the definite and indefinite articles. Zero article is a grammatical device that does not exist in reality like the other articles. Phonetically, it has zero realization. This term is commonly used for an article that is omitted before plural and noncount nouns. Consider the following examples: (8)
(a) Cows give milk. (b) Water freezes at 100 Centigrade. (c) A computer is a machine (d) The computer has changed modern life.
The generic reference can be realized in the examples (8a-d). In (8a), the generic reference is realized by the presence of the zero article before a plural noun. In (8b), the generic reference is conceived by the co-occurrence of the zero article with a mass noun. In (8c) and (8d), the generic interpretation is
80
revealed by the use of the indefinite and the definite articles. Since both articles denote generalization either in discourse or in conversation. Table (2) The domain and facets of identification Domain
Identification
Facets
Articles
Examples
Definiteness
The
She bought the necklace.
Indefiniteness
A(An)
Genericity
Specific
A man was looking for him.
Non-specific
He wants a book.
Zero article
Leopards are mammals.
Non-count noun
Milk contains fat.
A(an)
A snake is a reptile.
The
The mobile is a machine.
4.5 The domain of quantification Quantification is understood as the act of quantifying things and situations referring to the designation of a certain magnitude to an instance of a thing. Quantification is divided into two subdomains, namely proportion and representation. The subdomain of proportion is a knowledge area that designates the profiled entity as some proportion. This subdomain contains four facets: entirety which is represented by all, majority which is represented by most, indeterminacy which is represented by some, and emptiness which is represented by no. the subdomain of representation is an area of knowledge referring to a single instance to represent all instances of a type. This subdomain contains three facets: simultaneity which is expressed by every, sequentiality which is expressed by each and randomness which is expressed by any. 81
4.5.1 The subdomain of proportion The subdomain of proportion is a knowledge background referring to a part, share or number regarded in comparative relation to a whole. It implies singling out some proportions of the designated entity by means of using proportional quantifiers. Since the entity is a mass, and the profile constitutes some proportion of it. It is expected that proportional quantifiers occur with mass nouns. Langacker (1991:107-8) states that the proportional quantifiers all, most, some and no do not involve a similar kind of mental operation but they involve some kind of comparison of the profiled mass and the reference mass with respect to their magnitudes. However, the relation between the quantifiers all and most is closer to a large extent than other grounding elements some and no. In general, the proportional quantifiers consist of four quantificational elements henceforth which they form four facets: the facet of entirety represented by all, the facet of majority represented by most, the facet of (indeterminacy) inexactness represented by some, and the facet of emptiness represented by no. 4.5.1.1 The facet of entirety: all As a grounding element, the proportional quantifier all represents the facet of entirety referring to the total or entire proportion of the grounded mass. In Langacker (2009:180) view, the quantifier all like other grounding quantifiers does not directly identify the profiled entity. Instead, it characterizes the referent as a large proportion of the designated mass. Consider the following examples: (9)
(a) All birds survived the forest fire. (b) All hot beverages are good for your health. (c) All tea is beneficial for losing weight.
In (9a), all characterizes the referent only as an entire proportion of the specified type without identifying any specific individuals. In (9b), all indirectly
82
profiles a large proportion of the grounded mass.
In (9c), all has a total
reference designating the mass as portion in a large amount indefinitely. Furthermore, Langacker (1991:111) believes that all can be construed as a universal quantifier, as shown below: (10)
(a) All nations have economic difficulties. (b) All cows are vegetarian.
In (10a) all has a universal interpretation profiling the noun nations to mean any proportion of the grounded mass which is specified to coincide with the reference mass. In (10b) all implies universality in designating the mass noun cows as a total proportion of the type. Among the proportional quantifiers, all is one which considered as a full-set quantifier. This is due to the fact that, as Radden and Dirven (2007:121) point out all may be realized as a collective quantifier. It concentrates on the collection of its items, on each individual item, or on chosen items that are representative of the full set. Let us consider some examples: (11)
(a) All physicians have taken the Hippocratic Oath. (b) All foxes are cunning. (c) All the players left the stadium together.
In (11a), one can refer to all as a collective quantifier and imagine a collection of individuals which is identical to the full set. In (11b), all subsumes the notion of collectivity of its individual members in general. In (11c) all explicitly expresses the collectivity with the collective adverb together. Concerning the quantifier all, Taylor (2002:358-9) clarifies that all can be rather odd if putting in comparison with generic statements. Consider the following examples:
83
(12)
(a) Wolves are carnivores. (b) All wolves are carnivores.
(13)
(a) Unicorns have one horn. (b) All unicorns have one horn
In (12a) and (13a), the plural nouns wolves and unicorns designate the plurality of instances having the feature of generic statements about wolves and unicorns especially this reveals that there is a hypothetical world. However, in (12b), the use of all renders the sentence untrue especially by the existence of a vegetarian or toothless wolf. In (13b), all may be rather odd since unicorns do not exist in the real world and all specifically invokes a reference mass denoting the totality of instances. Additionally, Radden and Dirven (2007:123) provide comments about the universality expressed by the quantifier all as compared to the generic reference and give reason that generic and universal statements involve different conceptualizations of their sets. Examples are provided below: (14)
(a) Indians speak Indian.
[ generic reference]
(b) All Indians speak Indian.
[universal quantification ]
In (14a), the generic reference is revealed based on the reality that so many or almost all Indians speak Indian, approximately 90% of the population. This generalization refers to the whole class of Indians. The universal quantification in (14b) is realized that 100% of the populations speak Indian without exception of those Indians who grew up in another country, or foreigners who have an Indian passport and live in India but speak another language. For this reason, Radden and Dirven believe that this universal claim is not valid or well grounded.
84
It is not untrue to say that the quantifier all can have more than one meaning. That is why Radden and Dirven (2007:122) argue that all is a polysemous quantifier used not only with a collective adverb to denote a collective aspect but with a distributive adverb to focus on distributiveness. Consider the example below: (15)
(a) All the actors arrived separately. (b) All the actors arrived together.
In (15a), the quantifier all concentrates on its distributive aspect of meaning in conjunction with the distributive adverb separately. In (15b), all focuses on its collective aspect of meaning by cooccurring with the collective adverb together. 4.5.1.2 The facet of majority: most As a grounding element, the proportional quantifier most represents the facet of majority. The quantifier most indefinitely designates a larger or major proportion of the grounded mass. Most as a proportional quantifier denotes the majority with reference to a larger set. This facet implies the greater part amount or number, or larger than half of the total. It can be considered as a subset of a set or full set including more than half of the set’s constituents. According to Taylor (2002:56), ‘the larger set, or reference mass, against which relative quantifiers are understood, could be constituted by all the possible instances of the type and contextual factor, however may suggest a more restricted set’. Consider the following examples: (16)
(a) Most men help with the household. (b) Most men in this quarter own bicycles.
In (16a), most implies the larger part or number of men who help at home. In (16b), the number of men has been explicitly delimited by the modifying phrase in this quarter. With respect to the type specification ‘men in this quarter’, the sentence probably would be interpreted as an assertion about the majority of 85
members of this set. Furthermore Langacker, (1991:108-109, 2002b: 35, 2008: 292, and 2009:181) states that the proportional quantifier most designates a large proportion of a set of all instances without specifying particular sets, as shown below: (17)
(a) Shilan likes most ducks. (b) Most doves survived the air pollution. (c) Most students pass the exam.
In (17a), the proportional quantifier most profiles a set of ducks characterized only as a large proportion of the set of all instances. Here, no particular ducks are singled out. So, no specific ducks are involved. In (17b), most implies the majority of doves. According to Langacker (2009:181), most ducks profiles its referent as a large proportion of the contextually relevant extension of the specified type. It does not directly identify any specific individual. One does not know which specific doves are still alive. In (16c) , most designates more than half of the students indirectly with no specific details about their names. 4.5.1.3 The facet of indeterminacy: some As a grounding element, the proportional quantifier some represents the facet of indeterminacy. This facet implies something has the quality or characteristic of being indeterminate, lack of accuracy or certainty. Indeterminacy denotes the impossibility to know about something exactly and definitely. Like other proportional quantifiers, the quantifier some designates the grounded mass or its referent as some proportion inexactly. However the proportional quantifier some is deployed for smaller proportion. Consider the following examples: (18)
(a) Some whales survived the sea pollution. (b) Some fruity drinks are not beneficial for diabetes.
In the sentence (18a) the quantifier some characterizes its referent only as some proportion. Some does not directly identify any particular individual 86
(whale). Even if one knows that some whales survived the sea pollution, one does not exactly know which specific whales are still alive. In (18b), the quantifier some describes the grounded mass fruity drinks as some proportion, giving no identified or exact kind of drinks. 4.5.1.4 The facet of emptiness: no The facet of emptiness refers to the state of containing nothing. This facet is expressed by the proportional quantifier no. The quantifier no designates the profiled mass as some proportion, characterizing an empty set. Langacker (2008: 292) contends that the proportional quantifier no possesses a mental operation of cancelation: though evoked as a virtual entity, this makes it belong to the facet of emptiness. According to Radden and Dirven (2007: 130), one cannot think of an absent thing without imagining a state of affairs in which the thing is present so that it may be conceived of as missing. The subset quantifier no also evokes the set. Consider the following examples: (19)
(a) No senator was pleased with the vote. (b) No whiskey is good for his health.
In (22a) an empty set is described by the quantifier no. the quantifier no profiles its referent as some proportion denoting a mental operation of cancellation. In (22b), no characterizes the grounded mass as an empty set. 4.5.2 The subdomain of representation The subdomain of representation is a knowledge background referring to the act or state of representing an instance as a representative pertaining to all instances of a type. This domain is evoked by representative instance quantifiers such as every, each and any which can only occur with singular count nouns, every, each, any/ man. Langacker (2009:181) believes that the representative instance quantifiers describe distinct strategies for accomplishing a measure of epistemic control. This may be either stronger or weaker relying on how one 87
views it. It is stronger in the sense that the statement pertains to all elements of an open-ended set, not just a single element. It is weaker in the sense that nothing is definitively and directly specified regarding any specific element. Each quantifier evokes a distinct facet: every represents the facet of simultaneity, each represents the facet of sequentiality, and any represents the facet of randomness. 4.5.2.1 The facet simultaneity: every The facet of simultaneity refers to the state or quality of being simultaneous. It belongs to how an instance is selected simultaneously to represent and mean all the instances of a type. Linguistically, this facet is expressed by the quantifier every. Every views group members all at once but still perceiving them as individuals. According to Langacker (2009:181), the quantifier every has a virtual referent rather than an actual. Every profile a fictive entity conceived as being representative of some type. Consider the following examples: (20)
(a) Every person survived the market fire. (b) Every member was invited for the party.
In (20a), the quantifier every designates a virtual instance as being a representative of all members of the relevant extension (person). It simultaneously profiles an entity without identifying any specific or actual person. In (20b), every designates a virtual referent in a simultaneous way applying to all instances of the type (member). Despite the fact that the quantifier every only designates a single instance but it can also function as a universal quantifier. In this respect, Langacker (2008:293) argues that the instance which is designated by the quantifier every is construed as being representative. Due to this fact, anything ascribed to this designated instance is thus assumed to be valid for all the instances. Consider the following examples: 88
(21)
(a) Every nation has its own culture. (b) Every society has social problems.
In (21a), the quantifier every denotes universality. It profiles an instance to represent all instances of the type. In (21b), every has a universal interpretation. The expression every society is applicable to all societies in the world. In describing the quantifier every, Radden and Dirven (2007: 125) consider every as a distributive set quantifier, implying the sense of distributiveness. Since it picks out a single instance of a set and invokes the full set. Every bridges the single items to each other until ultimately reaching the complete, collective set. Consider the following examples: (22)
(a) Every child has to hold hands with another child. (b) Every room in this hotel has two bulbs.
In (22a), every child indicates that the collective set is focused on. In a situation like this one may want to be sure that every child is included in the place or room. In (22b), the quantifier every implies distributivity in singling out one instance as an individual items and linking them until reaching the complete set. 4.5.2.2 The facet sequentiality: each The facet of sequentiality refers to the state or quality of being sequential. Linguistically, this facet is expressed by the quantifier each. The quantifier each only occurs with single entity. It profiles an individual instance considered as being representative for all the instances of the type. Langacker (2008:294) argues that each reflects the strategy of examining members sequentially, one by one, until they have all been looked at. Consider the following examples: (23)
(a) Each participant filled the questionnaire on time. (b) He examined each one in turn. 89
In (23a), the quantifier each denotes sequentiality and views the participants sequentially one by one. The statement in (23b) has a sequential reference in that each designates one to one entity in sequence. The quantifier each can also function as a distributive set quantifier. Radden and Dirven (2007:125) argue that each like every is a distributive quantifier in that it selects a single representative instance of a set and then invokes the full set. Each concentrates on each individual element of the set by examining it individually. Consider the following examples: (24)
(a) Each pupil has to hold hands with another pupil. (b) Each kid was vaccinated. (c) There is one computer for each learner.
In (24a), the quantifier each expresses distributivity this is shown by singling out an instance of a set of (pupil) and then invoking the full set. One may want to make sure that she pays attention to the pupil’s individual interactions. In (24b), each implies distributivity, expressing one to one relation among the individuals. In (24c), each denotes the sense of individuality, selecting a single element (learner) of a set and then invokes the full set. On the other hand, the quantifier each can serve as a universal quantifier. Here a question arises, the question is that how can the quantifier each function as a universal quantifier if it merely profiles a single instance? According to Langacker (2008: 293), each can function as a universal quantifier because the profiled instance by each is conceived as being representative. Anything attributed to this profiled instance is thus inferred to be valid for all instances. Consider the following example: (25)
(a) Each tiger has stripes. (b) Each family has its own regulations. (c) Each cat is a carnivore. 90
In (25a), the quantifier each denotes universality and function as a universal quantifier. According to Langacker (1991:114), the quantifier each implies a restricted universality. The property of stripedness may attribute to a restricted or examined set of tigers not to all tigers. Stripedness is universal within the subset or a particular set. In (25b), each also denotes a restricted universality in the sense the expression each family refers to a particular set or a restricted subset among all families. Taylor (2002: 357) states that a statement like (25c) would be odd to construe as having a universal reference because there is no way to inspect all cats one by one to ascertain their carnivorous habit. 4.5.2.3 The facet of randomness: any The facet of randomness refers to a single arbitrary representative instance pertaining to all the instances of the same type without any specific identification. Linguistically, this facet is expressed by the quantifier any. The quantifier any randomly designates a representative instance to represent all instances of the type. Any is unlike the two mentioned quantifiers every and each since it occurs with both plural and nonplural mass nouns. Langacker (2008: 294-95, 2009: 181) states that the quantifier any is based on random selection. Although the quantifier any only profiles one representative instance randomly, but all elements have the potential to be chosen. Consider the following examples: (26)
(a) Any student can solve this question. (b) Any actor whatsoever can play this role.
In (26a), the quantifier any randomly designates an arbitrary instance, i.e. student to denote that all students are expected to be selected. According to Radden and Dirven (2007:122) the quantifier any in (26b) conveys the meaning of randomness. Any highlights the meaning of random selection.
91
The quantifier any like the other quantifiers, can function as a universal quantifier. Langacker (2008:293) asserts that the quantifier any profiles an arbitrary instance which is construed as being a valid representative for all instances. Consider the following examples: (27)
Any nation has cultural ceremonies.
In (27), any denotes universality because the designated instance is construed to represent all instances of the type nation, which is here. Radden and Dirven (2007: 127) argue that the quantifier any is a selective quantifier. In this respect any makes reference to a randomly selected item of a set and thereby invokes the set as a whole. Unlike all and every, any is largely restricted to non-factual situations, while all and every might be used in both non-factual and factual situations. The restriction of any to non-factual situations follows from its meaning of selectivity. Consider the following examples: (28)
(a) Any trespasser will be prosecuted. (b) *Any trespasser was prosecuted.
In (28a), any implies selectivity and is largely restricted to non-factual situations. The restriction of any to non-factual situations follows from its meaning of selectivity. One can, of course, only select an element from a set if we have a choice. In (28b), any can no longer be used since any is only limited to occur with non-factuality not factuality. Langacker (2008: 295) mentions an additional property of the quantifier any which distinguishes it from every and each. Any can occur with both plural and nonplural mass nouns. Besides it can be used in interrogative, negative, modal, or conditional contexts. Consider the following examples: (29)
(a) I don’t see any water in the fridge. (b) Any child can assemble this toy. 92
In (29a), the quantifier any as a determiner is used with a negative statement, designating a mass noun. In (29b), any profiles the referent randomly in a positive statement. Table (3) The domain, subdomains and facets of quantification Domain
Subdomains
Proportion
Quantification
Representation
Facets
Quantifiers
Examples
Entirety
All
All students can assume this question.
Majority
Most
Most students can assume this question.
Indeterminacy
Some
Some students can assume this question.
Emptiness
No
No students can assume this question.
Simultaneity
Every
Every student can assume this question.
Sequentiality
Each
Each student can assume this question.
Randomness
Any
Any student can assume this question.
93
Chapter Five Conceptualization of nominal grounding elements 5.1 Introduction Pairs of nominal grounding elements including demonstratives, articles and quantifiers can appear in the same position in the sentence, but they differ in meaning. In previous theories of languages, the occurrence of such pairs is deemed synonymous. In the cognitive approach the difference in meaning resides in the construal which the speaker imposes on a situation. Before going into the semantic distinctions let us first see how they are treated. 5.2 Theories of Interpretation Two main theories of interpretation exist. One is the reference theory. The other is construal theory. 5.2.1 The Reference theory The reference theory of meaning claims that the meaning of a word or expression directly resides in what it refers to in the world. According to Hamawand (2016:13), this opinion develops as the result of the objectivist theory, which looks at the meaning in terms of relation between what is said and what is seen. Bussman (1996:991) mentions that as a language external discipline, referential semantics deals with the conditions that govern the way language is tied to the external world. As Hamawand (2009:124) and (2016:13) clarifies, this theory concentrates merely on the referential properties of language. From this perspective, the lexical meaning is guessed based on belonging to an entity in the world. Another version of this theory has emerged, referred to as truth-conditional theory. According to Cruse (2006:185), the basic tenet of this model is that knowing the meaning of an item is equivalent to knowing the conditions under which it is true or false. 94
Despite the fact that the reference theory has been used by linguists, it has suffered a number of limitations. Some of them are pointed out by Goddard (1998: 5), Taylor (2002: 188-89), Saeed (2009:30-33), Hamawand (2009:124) and (2016:13). First, this approach is applicable only to expressions which refer to concrete objects and neglects abstract entities. For instance, words such as soul, beauty, and bravery and so on will have no referent in the real world. Second, some entities will share the same referent in reality while they are different in their meaning, for example, pupil and student share the same referent. Third it is not easy to find a real world referent for words like no, of, on, but, very and so on. Fourth, some nominal expressions are used by speakers that have no referent in the physical world such as third world war, unicorn, and Father Christmas. Fifth, the property of making reference does not only refer to the entities themselves, but rather to their uses on particular occasions. For example, words like here, I, now and this can belong to many things based on context. Finally, not all expressions have truth conditions. Expressions types such as imperatives or interrogatives are, unlike declaratives, neither true nor false. As a reaction to this model, Cognitive Linguistics in general and Cognitive Grammar in particular posit the Construal theory. 5.2.2 The Construal theory Construal is a theory central to Cognitive grammar that is posited by Langacker (1987, 1991). It is a language strategy referring to the capability of the speaker to conceptualize a situation in different ways. Hamawand (2011:49) explains that conceptualization is a mental operation of construing a given situation in more than one way. Construal implies the speaker’s ability to view a situation differently and use different linguistic utterances to represent them in discourse. The meaning of a linguistic element does not only locate in its conceptual content, but includes the particular way of conceptualizing that content. One aspect of construal is perspective, the viewpoint the speaker takes on a situation which differs relative to communicative needs. Two lexical items 95
may share the same content but differ in terms of the viewpoint the speaker imposes on their common content. Consider the following examples given by Lee (2001:2). (1)
(a) John gave the book to Marry. (b) John gave Marry the book.
In generative terms, the sentences in (1a - b) express the same meaning and the syntactic difference has no correspondence in semantics. Generativists believe that the difference between them relates to form rather than substance. By contrast, in cognitive terms the two constructions in (1a - b) involve different ways of construing. Consider the example below that is provided by Hamawand (2016:176). (2)
(a) A few people can afford to buy a house. (b) Few people can afford to buy a house.
In (2a-b), both quantifiers A few and Few involve different construals, they are not alike in meaning. The quantifier a few in (2a) expresses a small number of people, by contrast the quantifier few in (2b) means not many people. In this way, the speakers may construe a given situation in different ways. The nominal with the quantifier a few denotes specific referents, while the nominal with the quantifier few denotes non-specific referents. The construal theory is applied in various areas of language. In this study, it is applied to English nominal grounding elements including the demonstratives, articles and relative quantifiers. 5.3 Semantic distinctions within the domain of reference Demonstratives belonging to the domain of reference can form pairs but with differences in meaning. As it is mentioned, the domain of reference subsumes two facets: The first is the facet of proximity which contains the proximal demonstratives represented by the singular determiner this and its plural form 96
these. The second is the facet of distance which includes the distal demonstratives represented by that and its plural form those. In spite of sharing the same domain, the demonstratives do not convey the same meaning. In each case, the speaker imposes a different construal on the content, and so selects a different demonstrative. In Cognitive Grammar, altered ways of expressing a situation result in distinct conceptualizations. Below are the semantic distinctions within the domain of reference. 5.3.1 Proximity vs. Distality: this/these vs. that/those Proximity means nearness in time, place or space. Distality means remoteness. The singular demonstrative this and its plural form these represent the facet of proximity. Prototypically, the singular demonstrative this and its plural form these imply closeness, referring to a specific person and object that is closer to the speaker. The singular demonstrative that and its plural form those represent the facet of distality. Prototypically, the demonstrative that / those are used for pointing to a person or object which is farther from the speaker. Consider the following examples: (3)
(a) This carpet is made of silk. (b) That carpet is made of silk.
(c) These men are our neighbors. (d) Those men are our neighbors The speaker in the example (3a) uses the proximal demonstrative this because he wants to refer a single near object. In (3b) the distal demonstrative that makes reference to a single distant object. In (3c), the speaker uses the proximal demonstrative these to refer to a near group of persons. In (3c), the distal demonstrative determiner those refers to a group of persons which are far from the speaker. 97
5.3.2 Present vs. Past: this vs. that Present refers to current time of speaking. It describes something that is happening and existing now or at the moment of discourse. Past refers to the time that existed before now or the moment of speaking. Consider the following examples: (4)
(a) This problem should be solved. (b) That problem should be solved.
In (4a), the demonstrative this is used to refer to something that is mentioning at the time of speech. In (4b), the demonstrative that makes reference to something that occurred in the past. 5.3.3 Verbal pointing vs. Physical pointing: this vs. that Verbal pointing emerges in discourse through speaking orally without using a physical gesture to point out the intended referent. Physical pointing arises in discourse when the speaker uses a physical gesture to point out the intended referent. Consider the following examples: (5)
(a) I really like this restaurant. (b) I really like that restaurant.
The sentences in (5a) and (5b) are construed in different ways. In (5a), the speaker wants to direct the hearer’s attention and establish a mental contact to the intended referent without using a physical gesture. It may be that the speaker and hearer are sitting and interacting in the restaurant. According to Kirsner (1993:94-95), the demonstrative this still has directive force, constituting an instruction to seek out the intended referent, especially if the interlocutors have just been discussing various eating places. In (5b), the speaker wants to draw the hearer’s awareness by pointing to the intended referent by using a physical gesture. 98
5.3.4 Functionality vs. Non-functionality: this vs. that Functionality is the property of being functional. It emerges in contextual speech or discourse by the existence of the demonstrative this. Non-functionality refers to the state of being not function or practical. It arises in context by the presence of the demonstrative that. As grounding elements, the two demonstratives this and that belong to the domain of reference, but they convey different construals. Consider the following examples: (6)
(a) I really like this marker. (b) I really like that marker.
In (6a), the speaker uses the demonstrative this to profile the referent as proximal to the interlocutors. But, the sentence may imply different construals based on the context of use or discourse. In this respect, when someone says I really like this marker, the proximity realized by this seems to be functional (the speaker is using it). In (6b), the speaker uses the demonstrative that to direct the hearer’s attention to the object without practically or functionally using it. 5.4 Semantic distinctions within the domain of identification Articles belonging to the domain of identification can form pairs but with differences in meaning. As it is mentioned, the domain of identification can be divided into three facets. The first is the facet of definiteness which contains the definite article the. The second is the facet of indefiniteness which includes the indefinite article a / an. The third is the facet of genericity which can be constituted mostly by zero article and also by the definite and indefinite article the, a / an. In spite of sharing the same domain, the articles do not make reference to the same identity. In each case, the speaker imposes a different construal on the content, and so selects a different article. Below are the semantic distinctions within the domain of identification.
99
5.4.1 Definiteness vs. Indefiniteness: the vs. a/an Definiteness implies designating an identified or immediately identifiable person or entity. Definiteness is represented by the. The definite article the can come before singular and plural entities. Prototypically, the definite article the is deployed to show and talk about a specific object, person or event that has already been mentioned and everyone knows which thing or person the speaker is talking about. Indefiniteness denotes the quality or state of being indefinite. It refers to the act of identifying something or someone indefinitely. Indefiniteness is represented by a / an. The indefinite articles a / an represent the facet of indefiniteness. The indefinite article a and its phonological variant an precede only a singular entity. Prototypically, they convey the meaning of indefiniteness and are used in reference to a person, thing or object for the first time or typically the referent has not been mentioned before, or the hearer does not know about. Consider the following examples: (7)
(a) The boy came and sat in front of me. (b) A boy came and sat in front of me.
In (7a), the definite article the conveys the meaning of definiteness. The speaker uses the to make reference to someone that is already identifiable by both the speaker and hearer. In (7b), the indefinite article a conveys the meaning of indefiniteness. The speaker uses a to refer to a person that is not previously a topic between the speaker and hearer. In this case, the speaker wants to give new information about someone that the hearer does not know about. 5.4.2 Genericity vs. Specificity: zero article vs. the Genericity refers to a nominal (noun phrase) which carries the meaning of generality. In general, a generic nominal is interpreted as referring to a whole class of entities rather than to a specific instance of that category. It can be definite, indefinite or with no article. Specificity implies designating a particular 100
or a group of things which are specific among other larger sets. Specificity arises in discourse with the existence of the definite article the. Consider the following examples: (8)
(a) Kittens are nice. (b) The kittens are nice.
The sentence in (8a) is understood as generic. The speaker uses zero article in referring to a whole class of kittens without specification. In (8b), the speaker combines the definite article the with kittens to identify a certain and specific group or set of kittens. 5.4.3 Non-specificity vs. Specificity: a/an vs. the Non-specificity denotes something in general, not in particular. It arises in the context of use through the existence of indefinite article a /an. Specificity denotes a specific or particular entity that the interlocutors may already have information about it. Specificity is realized in the speech event by the presence of the definite article the. Consider the following examples: (9)
(a) Lawand needs a phone. (b) Lawand needs the phone.
In (9a), the speaker uses no article to refer to an object (phone) without specifying which kind of phone. The speaker talks about any kind of (phone) not a particular one. In (9b), the speaker uses the definite article the to refer to a specific object (phone). Thus, the hearer is expected to have information about the object the speaker singles out. 5.4.4 Unfamiliarity vs. Familiarity: a/an vs. the Unfamiliarity implies the quality of being unknown. It refers to someone or something unfamiliar to the listener or not introduced before. It can be realized when the indefinite article is used in the discourse. Familiarity denotes the state 101
of being familiar. It makes reference to an animate or inanimate object that the listener is familiar with or has been introduced before. Consider the following examples: (10)
(a) Banu is an anchor. (b) Banu is the anchor.
In (10a), the speaker uses the indefinite article an, introducing a job (anchor) for the first time which is not familiar to the hearer. In (10b), the speaker uses the definite article the, referring to the job which is familiar to the hearer or has been already discussed by both. 5.4.5 Uncertainty vs. Certainty: a/an vs. zero article Uncertainty is the state of being uncertain. It makes reference to something or someone that the listener is not expected to know about exactly. Uncertainty emerges in conversation by the use of the indefinite article a / an. In contrast to uncertainty, certainty is the quality of being certain. It refers to an entity or a person that the interlocutors may have information about or are certain about it. Certainty arises in context when no articles are used. Consider the following examples: (11)
(a) I saw a Mr. Paul. (b) I saw Mr. Paul.
In (11a), the speaker uses the indefinite article a, referring to someone who is not the exact one he/she intends to see even the one carries the same name. In (11b), the speaker uses no article since he is certain that the person he saw is the exact one he intends to see. 5.4.6 Indefinite genericity vs. Definite genericity: a/an vs. the Indefinite genericity means unidentified generalization. In English, it is realized when the indefinite article a combines with a noun to make an 102
indefinite generic reference. Definite genericity means specified or identified generalization. In language, it is realized when the definite article the precedes a noun referring to a thing or a person as a representative to the whole class. Consider the following examples: (12)
(a) A computer has developed human life. (b) The computer has developed human life.
The example in (12a) implies an indefinite generic reference. It is a single instance that represents the whole category. The example in (12b) is construed as a generic reference. The definite generic nominal (the computer) denotes generalization. One single definite instance represents any example of the type of the category. 5.4.7 Genericity vs. (Non) Specificity: a/an vs. the Genericity denotes generalization, making reference to a whole class of a category. This interpretation emerges in a sentence that contains a generic construal. Non-specificity refers to designate an unidentified entity or person. This interpretation arises in context when the indefinite article a exists. Consider the following examples: (13)
(a) A boy proposes to a girl. (b) The boy proposes to a girl. (c) The boy proposes to the girl.
The example in (13a) is interpreted as a generic reference, referring to a customary, cultural and social practice which is common in the world. The example in (13b) can be construed on two levels. The specific, the boy may have one specific girl in mind which is not identified to the reader. On non-specific level, the boy may ask the hand of any girl. In (13c), the boy and the girl refer to a particular couple, naming persons known by the interlocutors.
103
5.4.8 Multiplicity vs. Uniqueness: a/an vs. the Multiplicity is the quality of being multiple. It refers to more than one quantity of its type. It emerges in discourse by the indefinite article a/an. Uniqueness is the property or quality of being unique, referring to the only one of its kinds. It arises in discourse by the definite article the. The two articles a and the belong to the domain of identification, but they convey different construals. Consider the following examples: (14)
(a) Be aware not to step on a needle. (b) Be aware not to step on the needle.
The sentences in (14a-b) involve different construals. In (14a), the indefinite article a designates an arbitrary instance among other numerous instances. In (14b), the definite article the profiles only one instance construed to be unique. 5.5 Semantic distinctions within the domain of quantification Quantifiers belonging to the domain of relative quantification can form pairs but with differences in meaning. This domain has two subdomains. One is the subdomain of proportion which contains four facets: the facet of entirety represented by all, the facet of majority represented by most, the facet of (indeterminacy) inexactness represented by some, and the facet of emptiness represented by no. The other is the subdomain of representation, which includes three facets: simultaneity which is expressed by every, sequentiality which is expressed by each, and randomness which is expressed by any. Below are the semantic distinctions within the domain of quantification. 5.5.1 Entirety vs. Majority: all vs. most Entirety is the property of the proportional quantifier all referring to the entire proportion of the designated mass. In language, it is realized by the quantifier all. Majority denotes more than half or greater amount of a total set. It refers to a larger proportion of the reference mass of a set. This is represented by 104
the quantifier most. Despite the fact, these two proportional quantifiers share the same subdomain of proportion, but they involve different construals. Consider the following examples: (15)
(a) All competitors will participate in the race. (b) Most competitors will participate in the race.
In (15a), the quantifier all refers to the entire proportion of the designated set of competitors. The quantifier all characterizes its referent as a large proportion. In (15b), the quantifier most implies more than half of the profiled entity in the larger set. It characterizes the grounded entity as a major proportion. 5.5.2 Collectivity vs. Approximation: all vs. most Collectivity makes reference to a collection of individuals that are equivalent to the full. In language, it is realized by the quantifier all. All focuses on the collection of its elements as a whole amount or number of quantity. Approximation implies approximately the greatest amount or number of the full. In language, it is represented by the quantifier most. Most profiles the decreasing amount or number of the subset. Consider the following examples: (16)
(a) All learners are in the class. (b) Most learners are in the class.
In (16a), the quantifier all denotes collectivity and characterizes the whole set of learners. In (16b), the quantifier most represents a subset and does not characterize the total or entire set of learners. It approximately profiles a quantity of learners relative to all but not the whole set. 5.5.3 Entirety vs. Indeterminacy: all vs. some Entirety is the property of the proportional quantifier all referring to the whole amount of the grounded mass. In the English language, it is realized by the quantifier all. The quantifier all signifies the facet of entirety and focuses on 105
the total proportion of quantity. Indeterminacy is the condition of being indeterminate. In English, it is realized by the quantifier some. The quantifier some refers to the facet of indeterminacy and profiles a smaller proportion or amount of quantity. All and some belong to the subdomain of proportion, but they represent different construals. Consider the following examples: (17)
(a) All nuts are good for diet. (b) Some nuts are good for diet.
In (17a), the quantifier all profiles the grounded referent as a total amount or proportion of nuts without exception. In (17b), some characterizes the referent as a smaller amount of quantity. It denotes indeterminacy in quantity. The phrase some nuts refers to less than half proportion of the total amount. 5.5.4 Inexactness vs. Emptiness: some vs. no Inexactness is the quality of being inexact, referring to designate the grounded number only as a small proportion inaccurately and inaccurately. In language, it is realized by the quantifier some. The quantifier some profiles the grounded number as in exact. Emptiness refers to the quality of containing nothing. This is realized by the quantifier no. The quantifier no profiles the grounded number as empty. Consider the following examples: (18)
(a) Some women took a driving license. (b) No women took a driving license.
In (18a), the quantifier some inexactly characterizes the profiled entity only as a small proportion. In (18b), no profiles the grounded entity as empty. 5.5.5 Simultaneity vs. Sequentiality: every vs. each Simultaneity is the property of the quantifier every. It shows how an instance is selected simultaneously to represent all the instances of a type. In language, it is represented by the quantifier every. Every views group members all at once 106
but still perceiving them as individuals.
Sequentiality means viewing the
individuals singly in sequence. In language, it is realized by the quantifier each. Each designates a single instance considered as being representative for all the instances of the type. Each examines all members of the set sequentially, one by one, until they have all been looked at. Consider the following examples: (19)
(a) Tonight you can see every star in the sky. (b) Tonight you can see each star in the sky.
According to Langacker (1991: 115, 2008: 295), the statement in (19a), suggests simultaneous visibility. One can imagine the possibility of seeing all the stars simultaneously. In (19b), each characterizes the profiled referent sequentially. It gives the sense of sequentiality, evoking the image of the viewer shifting his gaze from one star to another. 5.5.6 Randomness vs. Distributivity: any vs. every Randomness implies the selection of an unidentified instance as a representative applying to all the instances of the same type randomly. It arises in discourse by the presence of the quantifier any. Distributivity implies the selection or sharing of individuals to mean the instances of the whole set. In language, it arises in discourse by the quantifier every.
Every relates the
individual items to each other distributively until reaching the complete set. Consider the following examples: (20)
(a) Any monkey survived the zoo fire. (b) Every monkey survived the zoo fire.
In (20a), the quantifier any randomly picks out one arbitrary instance to represent all instance of the set. In (20b), every conveys the sense of distributivity. It distributively selects a group of monkeys considered as a whole set without exception.
107
5.5.7 Selectivity vs. Distributivity: any vs. each Both any and each belong to the subdomain of representation, but they convey different construals. Any has the sense of selectivity. It selects an instance without giving importance as to which instance is selected. Each conveys the sense of distributiveness. Each individually chooses the single elements one by one until they all have been seen. Consider the following examples: (21)
(a) Chro can see any learner if she stands in the class. (b) Chro can see each learner if she stands in the class.
The examples in (21a-b) involve two different construals. In (22a), any selects a single learner arbitrarily. In (22b), the quantifier each selects each learner one by one until they all have been seen. 5.5.8 Universality vs. Restricted universality: every vs. each Universality is the condition of being universal. It shows the sense of availability for every member or remains true at all time or in all places. In language, it emerges in discourse by the quantifiers every and each. Every and each belong to the subdomain of representation. Every refers to the facet of simultaneity and each refers to the facet of sequentiality. They can denote the sense of universality but they involve different construals. Consider the following examples: (22)
(a) Every vehicle has an air conditioner. (b) Each vehicle has an air conditioner.
The example in (22a) is construed as a universal statement implying genericity. The quantifier every conveys the sense of universality by designating an instance as a representative which is valid for all instances of the type (vehicle). In (22b), the quantifier each implies universality by designating a single instance to mean and represent all instances of the same type. In this 108
context, each conveys the sense of a restricted or partial universality in that the grounded referent may refer to a restricted or examined set of (vehicle) not to the whole set. 5.6 Semantic distinctions between different (sub) domains In the previous section, most of the grounding elements were set in comparison within their referring domains and subdomains. In this section, I try to draw comparison between different domains and subdomains 5.6.1 Genericity vs. Universality: zero article vs. all Genericity is the property of being generic. It implies generalization, referring to the whole group not a particular class. In language, it arises in discourse by the zero article. Universality is the character of being existence or prevalence everywhere. The quantifier all can convey this sense. Consider the following examples: (23)
(a) Brazilians speak Portuguese. (b) All Brazilians speak Portuguese.
The sentence in (24a) refers to the whole class of Brazilians. It means that all Brazilians speak Portuguese, approximately 90% of the population. The sentence in (24b) implies that 100% of the populations speak Portuguese without regarding those Brazilians who grew up in another country, or foreigners who have Brazilian passports and live in Brazil but speak another language. 5.6.2 Virtuality vs. Actuality: most vs. a/an Virtuality is the character of being virtual, denoting fictive entity. In language, it is represented by the quantifier most. Actuality is the state of being actual, referring to something which actually exists. This sense is realized by the indefinite article a. Most belongs to the subdomain of proportion, and a refers to 109
the domain of identification. The two grounding elements share one thing in common which is indefiniteness, but they convey different construals. Consider the following examples: (24)
(a) Most students failed in the test. (b) A student failed in the test.
In (24a), the quantifier most profiles a fictive (virtual) entity as some proportion without directly identifying any specific one. Although one knows most students failed, but one does not know which one succeeded, the exact number of the succeeded and the failed students. In (24b), the indefinite article a designates an actual entity, a student refers to one actual and specific student that failed and the speaker knows how many failed and how many succeeded. 5.6.3 Neutrality vs. Proximity: the vs. this Neutrality is the state of being neutral in respect of showing no contrast between proximity and distance. In language, it emerges in speech by the definite article the. Proximity is the quality of being proximal in the sense of denoting nearness to the speaker. The demonstrative this can convey this sense. The two grounding elements share one reciprocal point, which is definiteness. But, they convey different construals. Consider the following examples: (25)
(a) The aim of the project is to increase production. (b) The aim of this project is to increase production.
In (25a), the definite article the profiles the referent as identifiable to the interlocutors. In this respect, the can be construed as a neutral element. It neutralizes the proximal / distal distinction. In (25b), the demonstrative the profiles the referent as being near to the interlocutors or shows the proximity of discourse.
110
5.6.4 Physical pointing vs. Mental pointing: that vs. the Physical pointing is the act of directing someone’s attention towards something by using physical gesture or extending one’s hand. In language, it is revealed by the existence of the demonstrative that. That refers to the domain of reference. Mental pointing is the act of directing someone’s awareness towards something without using physical gestures. This is conceived in discourse by the presence of the definite article the. The belongs to the domain of identification. These two grounding elements share one thing in common which is definiteness. But, they involve different construals Consider the following examples: (26)
(a) That house is so luxurious. (b) The house is so luxurious.
In (27a), the speaker uses the demonstrative that to ground the referent to be more accessible to the hearer by physical gesture, pointing or nod. In (27b), the speaker profiles the referent by using the definite article the without any physical. In this case, there is only one referent that cannot be distinguished it with other instances by physical pointing. In this respect, Langacker (2008: 285) argues that the does not have the quality of physical pointing, and it only specifies the type is sufficient to achieve the correlated mental reference. 5.6.5 Explicitness vs. Inexplicitness: this vs. the Explicitness is the property of being explicit. It shows how an instance is profiled explicitly without ambiguity. In language, it arises in context of use by the presence of the demonstrative this. By contrast, inexplicitness is the state of being inexplicit, referring to the lack of obviousness in speech or expression. It emerges in context of speech by the existence of the definite article the. Consider the following examples: (27)
(a) This air conditioner has just stopped working. (b) The air conditioner has just stopped working. 111
In (27a), the demonstrative this explicitly profiles the referent (air conditioner) and the interlocutors know what referent the speaker talks about. This is based on the prior information or shared knowledge. In (27b), the definite article the may convey a vague interpretation since the interlocutors may not have information the referent. They are probably unaware of the air conditioner prior to its malfunctioning. So in this discourse, the may denote inexplicitness. 5.6.6 Collectivity vs. Distributivity: all vs. every Collectiveness refers to a collection of individuals which are equivalent to the full set. Distributivity picks out and focuses on the individual elements in relation to the full set. The quantifier all represents the facet of entirety; it combines the notions of collectivity and distributivity of its individual elements. All expresses the sense of collectiveness, referring to the whole or amount of something. The quantifier every represents the facet of simultaneity. Every conveys the sense of distributivity, referring to every item in a group of people or things considered together. Every links the single elements to each other until one ultimately reaches the complete set. For illustrating, consider the following examples: (28)
(a) All students will take the test. (b) Every student will take the test.
The speaker in example (28a) uses the collective quantifier all because he wants to refer to the whole number of students; all refers to the full set of students considered as a group. In example (28b), the speaker chooses and focuses on the students in relation to the set. Every helps one to see each of the items of a set individually, which accounts for the singular form of the following noun student.
112
5.6.7 Specificity vs. Non-specificity: all vs. any The two quantifiers all and any indicate two different subdomains and they belong to two different facets, with differences in meaning. The quantifier all refers to the facet of entirety, and concentrates on the collection or totality of its entities, which are equivalent to the whole or complete set. By contrast, the quantifier any makes reference to a randomly selected entity of a set without specification and invokes the set as a whole. However, Radden and Dirven (2007:127) claim that the quantifier all can be used in both specific and nonspecific situations as in (29a). Specific refers to one thing and not others, but nonspecific refers to general and not particular. The quantifier any is mainly restricted to non-specific situations as in (29b). This property, the restriction of non-specific situations, shadows from the selective meaning of any. (29)
a) All bikes can be assembled here. (b) Any bike can be assembled here.
One can see that any and all have different construals. Once the speaker has designated an entity, he can no longer use the quantifier any. The speaker in (29a) uses the quantifier all as a set quantifier and any is dismissed, because he has already selected an entity.
113
Chapter Six Summary and Conclusion This study is particularly concerned with nominal grounding by means of nominal grounding elements. In language, grounding is a process that locates an entity with respect to the ground. Grounding enables the conceptualizers (speech- act participants) to conceptualize and establish mental contact with the profiled (grounded) entity. Grounding elements are obligatory grammatical elements that serve this function. For nominals, grounding elements are the demonstratives, articles and certain quantifiers. These grounding elements are sufficient to turn nouns into full nominals. Within nominal grounding, the study covered all the grounding elements. The linguistic theory in which the study is rooted is Cognitive Grammar, a new approach to language analysis, which mainly concentrates on meaning. Adopting the main assumptions of Cognitive Grammar, the study has reached the following findings: 1. According to the theory of categorization, the study has found that each grounding element has more than one meaning. The semantic network of any grounding element consists of both a prototype and the remaining senses derived from it by semantic extensions, as shown in Table 4. Table 4. A summary of the semantic structures of nominal grounding elements. Elements
Prototype
This/these
Periphery
‘Proximity in space’, as in This computer is nice. Take these books with you. ‘Specificity’, as in This boy always wear gray shirt. These women are our neighbors.
114
‘Proximity in time’, as in I saw Amaj this Saturday. These days seem to be very cold.
‘Current situation’, as in I like this weather. These crises drive me angry.
‘Already mentioned’, as in This sorrow affected him deeply. These successes made us happy.
That/those
‘Specificity’, as in She usually chooses that color which suits her face. I like know those fiends of him.
‘Definiteness’, as in The question was difficult
The
‘Distance in space’, as in That door is locked. Those picture are nice
‘Uniqueness’, as in The moon shining.
‘Known things’, as in Tonight is our program on the Television. ‘Indefiniteness’, as in I heard a lady screaming. He found an onion weighs one kilo. ‘Genericity’, as in A computer is a modern device. An elephant has four knees.
‘Truths’, as in A bat is a mammal. An elephant has four knees
‘Unknown’, as in There is a Mr. John on the phone.
a/an
the the
‘Distance in time’, as in That event was terrible. Those memories brought me happiness
‘Time’ as in I met him on the sixth of August. In the seventies fuel crises was widespread.
‘Measurement’, as in My vehicle does forty-five miles for the gallon.
‘Quantification’, as in I like to buy it but I do not have the money.
‘Genericity’, as in The computer has changed human life. ‘Specificity’, as in He forgot to invite the Smiths. She wounded in the head. The baby got the measles. Sewa is learning the keyboard. I was happy to the arrival of your parents. Aryan is the smartest.
‘Emphasis’, as in This greed of him destroyed friendship. This greed of him destroyed friendship.
115
‘Collectivity’, as in He always helped the disabled.
‘Membership’, as in He is a Christian
‘Profession’, as in Aro is a mechanic. She is an accountant.
‘Measurement’, as in He waited for an hour. She can write 70 words a minute. I bought a dozen eggs. She ate a piece of pizza. I need a knife and fork.
‘Descriptive exclamation’, as in What a girl she is!
Zero article
All
'Non-specificity’, as in She has broken a leg. He likes to have a car that no one has. ‘Genericity’, as in Ships are means of transportation. Water boils at 100 Celsius degree.
‘Entirety’, as in All applicants have to pass the test. All homework should be done on time.
‘Specificity’, as in She adores Celine Dion. Yesterday we climbed on Goizha Mountain. We will come back on December. Uncle Nariman visited us last Monday.
‘Universality’, as in All Arabs speak Arabic. All sugar is bad for diabetes.
‘Collectivity’, as in All workers should take their food.
‘Multiplicity’, as in Teachers conduct with all kinds of pupils.
‘Specificity’, as in All winners are having lunch now.
‘A lot’, as in The magazine is all commercials.
‘The greatest possible amount of’ as in In all honesty I cannot come this evening. ‘The whole period or duration of time’, as in My daughter was reading all night
Most
‘Majority’, as in Most men hate talking a lot.
‘Very often’, as in It rains all time when I am on duty. ‘concession, as in For all Karzan’s anger with me, I still love him.
‘Generality’, as in Most Kurds drink tea in the morning.
‘Almost all or more than half’, as in Karwan ate most nuts.
‘The largest number or possible amount’, as in Nowadays internet reach most people. Most benefit can be used in the project.
116
‘Larger in quantity, as in Which car has the most options? ‘Approximately not completely’, as in For the most part, Kurdish people are hospitable.
Some
‘Indeterminacy’, as in I need some nails to hold the picture. The dog ate some meat.
‘Not all or not completely’ as in Some people do not believe doomsday.
‘Fairly large in quantity or quality’, as in I’ve known him for some years. It is going to broadcast for some time.
.
‘Non-specificity or indefiniteness’ as in I heard some news on the project. There are some programs on your topic. ‘Uncertainty' as in
No
‘Emptiness’, as in No visitors stayed in the hotel. I had no cheese for breakfast.
Every person should deliver a seminar at some time. Some clients ask about the price.
‘Small amount’, as in There is some hope that he will be cured.
‘Appreciation or praise’, as in Some expert you are!
‘Expressing annoyance’, as in He did not help me? Some friend he is!
‘very soon or very quickly’, as in I will be there in no time
‘Forbidden or impermissibility or cancelation’, as in No parking. No swimming.
‘Impossibility or lack of knowledge’, as in There is no knowing what he will do later. ‘Opposite of what is stated’, as in She is no fool. Every
‘Simultaneity’, as in You can see every flower in the garden.
‘Universality’, as in You can see every flower in the garden. ‘Distributivity’, as in
Every physician uses a different method.
‘Collectivity or wholeness’, as in I saw every player in the hall.
‘Distance’, as in She had to drink every hundred meters.
‘The greatest possibility or as much as possible’, as in I have every chance to succeed.
117
Each
Any
‘Sequentiality’, as in I can see each flower in the garden.
‘Randomness’, as in Choose any shirt you like.
‘Frequency’, as in I go to Bazar every Sunday. ‘Whenever or each time’, as in The door creaks every time it gets wet. ‘Distributivity’, as in Each brick has to be put around the larger one.
‘Universality’, as in Each animal has a distinct life span.
‘Individuality’, as in Each room costs 500$
‘Per’, as in He gets 8000 IQD. Each day.
‘Universality’, as in Any event can teach as a lesson.
‘Some’, as in Is there any egg on the table?
‘Even the smallest amount of sth’, as in She did not drink any water for lunch.
‘Possible amount or degree’, as in Any support will be highly appreciated. ‘More than expected or stated’, as in It is not just any day; it is feast. ‘Anyway’, as in At any rate, I will see you on Tuesday.
‘Also or anyway or whatever happens’, as in I have decided not to go in any case. I don’t want to participate and in any case, I haven’t been told.
2. According to the theory of configuration, the study has found that the best way to characterize nominal grounding elements is by placing them in domains in which they show relationships of similarity and contras.
Figure 13, 14 and 15 sum up the domains into which nominal grounding elements are embedded.
118
Domain of reference
Distance That / Those
Proximity This / These
Figure 13. The domain of reference
Domain of identification
Definiteness The
Genericity Zero article
Indefiniteness A/An
Figure 14. The domain of identification
Domain of quantification
Subdomain of representation
Subdomain of proportion
Entirety
Majority
Indeterminacy
Emptiness
Simultaneity
Sequentiality
Randomness
All
Most
Some
No
Every
Each
Any
Figure 15. The sub (domains) of identification
119
3. According to the theory of conceptualization, the study has found that two nominal grounding elements sharing the same position are different in meaning. Each adds to the sentence a special meaning which is different from the meaning added by its counterpart, as shown in Table 5. Table 5. A summary of the Semantic distinctions displayed by pairs of nominal grounding elements. Semantic distinctions
Elements
Examples This carpet is made of silk. That carpet is made of silk. These men are our neighbors. Those men are our neighbors
Proximity vs. Distality
this/these vs. that/those
Present vs. Past
this vs. that
This problem should be solved. That problem should be solved.
Verbal pointing vs. physical pointing
this vs. that
I really like this restaurant. I really like that restaurant
Functionality vs. Non-functionality
this vs. that
I really like this marker. I really like that marker.
Definiteness vs. Indefiniteness
the vs. a/an
The boy came and sat in front of me. A boy came and sat in front of me.
Genericity vs. Specificity
zero article vs. the
Kittens are nice. The kittens are nice
Non-specificity vs. Specificity
a vs. the
Lawand needs a phone. Lawand needs the phone.
Unfamiliarity vs. Familiarity
a/ an vs. the
Banu is an anchor. Banu is the anchor.
Uncertainty vs. Certainty
a vs. zero
I saw a Mr. Paul. I saw Mr. Paul.
Indefinite genericity vs. Definite genericity
a vs. the
A computer has developed human life. The computer has developed human life.
120
Genericity vs. (Non) Specificity
a vs. the
A boy proposes to a girl. The boy proposes to a girl.
Multiplicity vs. Uniqueness
a vs. the
Be aware not to step on a needle Be aware not to step on the needle.
Entirety vs. Majority
all vs. most
All competitors participate in the race. Most competitors participate in the race.
Collectivity vs. Approximation
all vs. most
All learners are in the class. Most learners are in the class.
Entirety vs. Indeterminacy
all vs. some
All nuts are good for diet. Some nuts are good for diet.
Inexactness vs. Emptiness
some vs. no
Some women took driving license. No women took driving license
Simultaneity vs. Sequentiality
very vs. each
Tonight you can see every star in the sky. Tonight you can see each star in the sky.
Randomness vs. Distributivity
any vs. every
Any monkey survived the zoo fire. Every monkey survived the zoo fire. Chro can see any learner if she stands in the class.
Selectivity vs. Distributivity
any vs. each Chro can see each learner if she stand in the class.
Universality vs. Restricted universality
every vs. each
Every vehicle has air conditioner. Each vehicle has air conditioner.
Genericity vs. Universality
zero article vs. all
Brazilians speak Portuguese. All Brazilians speak Portuguese.
Virtuality vs. Actuality
most vs. a
Most students failed in the test. A student failed in the test. The aim of the project is to increase production.
Neutrality vs. Proximity
the vs. this The aim of this project is to increase production.
Physical pointing vs. Mental pointing
That house is so luxurious. The house is so luxurious.
that vs. the
121
Explicitness vs. Inexplicitness
this vs. the
This air conditioner just stopped working. The air conditioner just stopped working.
Collectivity vs. Distributivity
all vs. every
Specificity vs. Non-specificity
all vs. any
All students will take the test. Every student will take the test
All bikes can be assembled here. Any bike can be assembled here
122
References Biber, D., Johansson, S. and Leech, G. (2003) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. 4th edn. New York: Pearson ESL. Brisard, F. (2002) ‘The Epistemic Basis of Deixis and Reference’, in Brisard, F. (ed.) Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference (Cognitive Linguistic Research). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. XI–XXXIV. Bussmann, H., Trauth, G. and Kazzazi, K. (1996) Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. New York: Routledge. CALD. (2008) Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, H. and Lefebvre, C. (eds.) (2005) Handbook of categorization in cognitive science. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Croft, W. and Cruse, A. (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. CAMBRIDGE: Cambridge University Press. Cruse, A. (2006) Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. Crystal, D. (2008) A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell (an imprint of John Wiley & Sons Ltd). Diessel, H. (1999) Demonstratives Form, Function, and Grammaticalization. Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Dirven, R. and Verspoor, M. (eds.) (2004) Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Downing, A. and Locke, P. (2006) English grammar: A University Course. London: Routledge. 123
Eastwood, J. (2002) Oxford Practice Grammar. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Eastwood, J. (2006) Oxford Guide to English Grammar. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Evans, V. (2007) A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Evans, V. (2011) ‘Language and Cognition the View from Cognitive Linguistics’, in Cook, V. and Bassetti, B. (eds.) Language and Bilingual Cognition. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 69–107. Evans, V. and Green, M. (2006) Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. United States: Edinburgh University Press. Geeraerts, D. (1988) ‘Cognitive Grammar and the History of Lexical Semantics’, in Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (ed.) Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 647–677. Geeraerts, D. and Cuyckens, H. (2007) ‘Introducing Cognitive Linguistics’, in Geeraerts, D. and Cuyckens, H. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–21. Goddard, C. (1998) Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Greenbaum, S. and Quirk, R. (1991) A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. India: Pearson Education (Singapore) PTE. Halliday, M.A.K. (2004) An introduction to functional grammar. London: Hodder Arnold. Hamawand, Z. (2007) Suffixal Rivalry in Adjective Formation: A CognitiveCorpus Analysis. United Kingdom: Equinox Publishing. 124
Hamawand, Z. (2008) Morpho-Lexical Alternation in Noun Formation. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire [England]: Palgrave Macmillan. Hamawand, Z. (2009) The Semantics of English Negative Prefixes. London: Equinox Publishing. Hamawand, Z. (2011) Morphology in English: Word Formation in Cognitive Grammar. London: Continuum International Pub. Group. Hamawand, Z. (2016) Semantics: A Cognitive Account of Linguistic Meaning. London: Equinox Publishing Limited. Hawkins, J.A. (1978) Definiteness and indefiniteness: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm. Janssen, T. (1995) ‘Deixis from a Cognitive Point of View’, in Contini-Morava, E. and Goldberg, B.S. (eds.) Meaning as Explanation: Advances in linguistic Sign Theory. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter, . Kirsner, R.S. (1993) ‘From Meaning to Message in two Theories Cognitive and Saussurean Views of the Modern Dutch Demonstratives’, in Geiger, R.A. and Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (eds.) Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in language. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, . Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Langacker, R.W. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. (1st Vols). United States: Stanford University Press. Langacker, R.W. (1990) Concept, Image, and Symbol: The cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, R.W. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. (2nd Vols). United States: Stanford University Press. 125
Langacker, R.W. (2002a) ‘Deixis and Subjectivity’, in Brisard, F. (ed.) Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–28. Langacker, R.W. (2002b) ‘Remarks on the English Grounding System’, in Brisard, F. (ed.) Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 29–38. Langacker, R.W. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Langacker, R.W. (2009) Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter,. Langacker, R.W. (2013) Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University press. Lee, D. (2001) Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. Melbourne: OUP Australia and New Zealand. Leech, G. (2006) Glossary of English Grammar. United States: Edinburgh University Press. Leech, G.N., Cruikshank, B., Ivanič, R. and Ivanic, R. (2001) An A-Z of English Grammar and Usage. London: Edward Arnold. Merriam-Webster, I. (2003) Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. United States: Merriam-Webster, Inc. OALD Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2010) 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pearson Longman (2011) Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English: For Advanced Learners. London: Longman. Quirk, R., Leech, G., Greenbaum, S. and Crystal, D. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. 126
Radden, G. and Dirven, R. (2007) Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins (John) North America Inc.,US. Radford, A. (2004) An Introduction to English Sentence Structure International Student Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Radford, A. (2009) English syntax: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rosch, E. (1978) ‘Principles of Categorization’, in Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B.B. (eds.) Cognition and categorization. United States: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 27–47. Saeed, J.I. (2009) Semantics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Sinclair, J. (2006) Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary. Glasgow. HarperCollins. Taylor, J.R. (1989) Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Taylor, J.R. (2002) Cognitive Grammar. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Taylor, J.R. (2007) ‘Cognitive Linguistics And Autonomous Linguistics’, in Geeraerts, D. and Cuyckens, H. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, pp. 566– 88. Thomson, A.J. and Martinet, A.V. (2001) Practical English Grammar. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
127
انًهخص حخُبول ْزِ انذساست فكشة حشسَخ انعببسة اإلسًَت فٌ انهغت األَكهَزٍت ورنك بإسخخذاو َظشٍت انُحو اإلدساكٌ (انًعشفٌ) نشوَبنذ الَككش .انخشسَخ ُْب ٍشَش اني عًهَت حثبَج أو سبط انكَبٌ أو انحذد ببنواقعٍ .خى حشسَخ انعببسة اإلسًَت فٌ انهغت اإلَكهَزٍت بواسطت انعُبصش انُحوٍت كأسًبء اإلشبسة و أدواث انخعشٍف ببألضبفت اني يجًوعت يٍ انًحذوداث انُحوٍت. انًشكهت انخٌ حواجّ يسخعًهٌ او َبطقٌ انهغت حكًٍ فٌ سوء اسخعًبل ْزِ انعُبصش ورنك بأًْبل انعوايم انذالنَت .نزنك حفخشض انذساست إٌ اً عُصش حشسَخ نهعببسة اإلسًَت نّ وظَفت خبصت بّ وانخٌ ًٍَزِ عٍ انبقَتْ .ذف انبحذ ْو حقذٍى عشضب شبيال نعُبصش حشسَخ انعببسة األسًَت فٌ انهغت األَكهَزٍت .ويٍ أْى إسخُخبجبث انذساست ٌْ اٌ عُبصش انخشسَخ نهعببسة اإلسًَت حقع فٌ فئبث يخخهفت بحَذ حخخهف انواحذة عٍ االخشى حًَُب ٍشخشكوٌ فٌ َفس انسَبق انهغوً.
جامعة السلٌمانٌة كلٌة اللغات قسم اللغة االنكلٌزٌة
ترسيخ العبارة اإلمسية: بإستخدام الهحو اإلدراكي يف اللغة االنكليزية رسالة مقدمة الى كلٌة اللغات /قسم اللغة االنكلٌزٌة فً جامعة السلٌمانٌة كجزء من متطلبات نٌل درجة الماجستٌر فً اللغة االنكلٌزٌة وعلم اللغة. تقدمت بها كوبٌن رؤوف مصطفى بأشراف د.ئازاد حسن فتاح
6172كردي
6172مٌالدى
ثوختة ئةم ليَكؤلَيهةوةية تايبةتة بة بريؤكة و ضةمكى ضةضثاندنى فسةيصى ناوى لة شمانى ئيهطميصيدا .بة ثشت بةضنت لةضوازضيَوةى زِيَصمانى يؤشةكى ( ئيدزاكى ) النطةكةز ،ضةضثاندى بسييت ية لة ثيواذؤى دامةشزاندى و ضةضثاندنى يةز كيانيَك ( قةوازةيةك) ياى زِووداويَك لة ذيانى زِاضتةقيهةدا .ضةضثاندنى فسةيصى ناوى لة شماندا بة يؤى زِةطةشة زِيَصمانيةكانةوة دةييَهسيَتة دى يةزوةك ئامساشةكانى نيشانة و ناضاندى لةطةلَ ئامسِاشةكانى زِادة ( بسِ) دا. ئةو كيَشةيةى كة زِووبةزووى بةكازييَهةزانى شماى دةبيَتةوة لةوةداية كة بة يةلَة ئةم زِةطةشانة بةكازدةييَهو لة كاتى ئاخاوتهدا ئةويش بة زِةضاو نةكسدنى دؤخة واتاييةكاى .بة ثيَى ئةم تويَريهةوةية ئةو طسميانةية دانساوة كة يةز زِةطةشيَك ئةزكيَكى خؤى يةية كة جياى دةكاتةوة لةوانى تس .ئاماجنى ئةم ليَكؤليهةوةية ئةوةية كة باضيَكى ضسِ و ثِسِى (طشتطري) ئةم زِةطةشانةى ضةضثاندنى فسةيصى ناوى بكا لة شمانى ئيهطميصيدا .وة طسنطيريو دةزئةجنامى ئةم ليَكؤلَيهةوةية ئةوةية كة زِةطةشةكانى ضةضثاندنى فسةيصى ناوى دةبو بة ضةند ضةشهيَكى جياواشةوة وة يةز يةكيَكياى بةزامبةز ئةوى تسياى دةوةضتيَت لة كاتيَكدا لة يةماى يةلومةزجى زِيَصماني دا دةبو و يةز زِةطةشيَكى ضةضثاندى مةبةضتيَكى طةياندنى جياواشى يةية.
سانكؤى صميَمانى كؤليَذى سمان بةشى ئينطميشى
ضةشثاندنى فرةيسى ناوي: بة ث َيرِةويَكى رِيَسمانى هؤشةكى لة زمانى ئينطليسيدا
نامةيةكة ثيَشكةش بة ئةجنومةنى كؤليَذى سمان بةشى ئينطميشى ، سانكؤى صميَمانى كزاوة وةك بةشيَك لة ثيَداويضتيةكانى بةدةصت هيَنانى ثمةى ماصتةر لة سمانى ئينطميشى و سانضتى سماندا. لة اليةن كؤبني رؤوف مصطفى بة صةرثةرشتى د.ئاساد حضن فتاح
6172كوردى
6172سايينى
