<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="T78-1003">
  <Title>The Relation of Grammar to Cognition--a Synopsis</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="21" end_page="21" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3. Further Cognitive Connections
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Grammatically specified structuring appears to be similar, in certain of its characteristics and functions, to the structuring in other cognitive domains, notably that of visual perception. In particular, the characteristic of being quasi-topological can be pointed to, and three major functions can be identified: classification, synoptics, and continuity.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The thinking here is not equally far along on all i; these matters, but something of its directions can be indicated.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Grammatical specifications can be seen to constitute a classification with regard to the vast variety of learned, conceived, and perceived material. They gather different portions of the material together into subdivisions distinct from each other. By this, any particular currently cognized element is associated with its implicit &amp;quot;subdivision-mates&amp;quot;. An illustrative case here are the twenty-odd motionrelated p~epositions in English, such as through and into, which together subdivide the domain of 'paths considered with respect to reference-objects' This domain covers a great and varied range, but any par s ticular &amp;quot;path&amp;quot; falls within the purvue of one or an other preposition, associated there with other &amp;quot;paths&amp;quot;. The associations are often language-specific and sometimes seem arbitrary or idiosynchratic. Thus, as s~en earlier, classed together by through are such dissimilar cases as a straightforward liquid-parting course (walking through water) and a zig&lt;zag obstacle-avoiding course (walking through timber). The question arises why such distinctions should be effaced by the grammatical system, while they are observed by the lexical and other cognitive systems. Why are grammatical elements--say, such prepostions--not a large and open class marking indefinitely many dis~i tinctions? One may speculate that the cognitive function of such classification lies in rendering contentful material manipulable--i.e., amenable to transmission, storage, and processing--and that its lack would render content an ineffective agglomeration.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> The original assumption made in this paper about grammatical specification involved the synoptic function. That is, the grammatical elements of any particular sentence together specify the structure of the cognitive representati6n evoked by that sentence.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Their specifications act as a scaffolding or framework across which contentful material can be splayed or draped. It can be speculated that such structure is necessary for a disparate quanti~y of contentful material to cohere in any sensible way or to be simultaneously cognized as a gestalt.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> In the course of discourse, a great welter of notions pass in rapid succession. But there are several ways in which a cognitive continuity is maintained through this flux and a coherent gestalt is summated over time. For one, there are cognitive processes whereby the successive notions generally can be sensibly connected together or fit into a conceptual matrix. For another, rhetorical specifications --all the yes, buts, on the other hands, and a number of subtler elements not generally recognized for this--direct the illocutionary flow and make up the &amp;quot;logical&amp;quot; tissue of the discourse. Through this, grammatical elements appear to play a determinative role.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> Their specifications establish a structural level with greater temporal constancy amidst more fleeting aspects of content.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> These forms of grammatically specified structuring seem to parallel forms discernable in the operation of visual perception. 24 First, the perception of any particular object is mediated by its association with related objects in a classificatory schema.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> Secondly, the welter of visual sensations cognized at any given moment for some whole scene is rendered coherent by the perception of structural delineations running through it. One specialized form of this is discernable when one intends to move through a space, say, from one to the opposite corner of a restaurant.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> The sensations of tables, chairs,etc, are, in effect, perceived in simplified spatial arrangements as if from an aerial view, and the plot of a course one could follow through that is sensed.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> Thirdly, in the course of motion through space over time, there is a great flux of visual sensations rushing past, but a sense of continuity is maintained by the perception of structure running through the successive scenes. Two levels of &amp;quot;scene-structure constancy&amp;quot; are maintained. In the first, the perceived delineations afford greater permanence than the sensory flux, but do slowly shift. This is the level where, say, in walking past a table, its perceived outline is maintained but shifts gradually from a quadrilateral to a trapezoid and back to a quadrilateral. A deeper level of greater constancy is also maintained, from which the table continues to be perceived as a rect~ angle no matter where one is in relation to it. For a final parallel with grammatical specification, the topology-like nature of visual perception is evident here. For certain abstract characteristics of a scene and its contents are maintained constant while other, more metrical and Euclidean characteristics are free to vary without relevance thereto.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="21" end_page="22" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
4. Notes
1. The word &amp;quot;evoke&amp;quot; is used because the relationship
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> is not direct. The CR is an emergent, compounded by ~arious cognitive processes out of the sentence elements' referential meanings, understanding of the present situation, general knowledge, etc.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Our term &amp;quot;cognitive representation&amp;quot; is similar in purport to Fillmore's (1975)&amp;quot;scene&amp;quot; but is chosen over that more specifically visual term. The linguistically evoked somplex can have much from other sense modalities (notably som/kinesthetic and auditory) as well as meta-modal aspects.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> 2. Comprehension, rather than production, is the direction we limit ourselves to inthe initial endeavor.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> This direction would seem to yield more immediately reliable findings, since its starting point is with more overtly manifest, hence handleable, forms like grammatical elements rather than with meanings and experiential complexes, which rely more on introspection and reports of introspection. Nevertheless, each direction does involve both the manifest and the experiential sides of language.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> 3. This is a classical linguistic distinction. A class in which morphemes are formally gathered is considered open if it is quite large and easily augment- null able relative to other classes. A class is considered closed if it is relatively small and fixed in membership. null 4. Also includable here are &amp;quot;lexical complexes&amp;quot; like lodge a complaint or zero in on. Excluded are adverbs, which seem in all languages to derive from the other three open classes rather than from any open class of specifically adverbial stems.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> 5. Since the term &amp;quot;structure&amp;quot; has broad usage, we can help focus in on the intended sense with alternative terms: &amp;quot;principles of organization&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;pattern of delineations&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;schematic framework&amp;quot;.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="22" end_page="23" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
6. The fact of dual lexical specifications that can
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> lead to conflict is a mojor issue that will be treated below under shifts. Some grammatical elements also cross the line and makecontentful specifications along with structural ones. This is a more tangential issue that can be touched on here. The crossing ranges from the incorporation of a single contentful notion to the orderly interweaving of contentful and sturctural notions. Thus, upon.in We rode/sailed/rushed upon the enemy incorporates the notion of 'attack', seemingly equivalent to the paraphrase 'into attack upon' The closed-class adverb tomorrow is equivalent to the phrase 'during the day that occurs next after the day during which I am now speaking', an example of an organized interlacing.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> 7. One can note, for example, the effect on one's internal cognitive representation in considering first the sentence I looked at the dog and then I looked at the dogs. The addition of the grammatical element -s has a major effect on the delineational breakup of-tp ~ut it vis~ally--the scene before the mind's eye.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> 8. For example, augmentative and diminutive inflections, insofar as they refer to actual size, seem to specify size relatively greater or lesser than the norm for an object. And grammatical elements specifying distance (like English way and just appearing, e.g., before up there) appear to specify notions of 'far' and 'near' that are relative to the current ': situation.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> 9. It is true that there are the traditional terms &amp;quot;semelfactive&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;iterative&amp;quot; referring, respectively, to one and more than one instantiation of an event. But there is no real equivalent tonumber: &amp;quot;aspect&amp;quot; includes too much else about the temporal structure of action. And in any case, none of the traditional terms refer generally to both the dimensions.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> 10. The mechanism actually resorted to by both English and French in many such cases, including that of tear, is the use of the plural, as in: (i) TearLflowed through that channel in Hades.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> There seems t6 be a sequence of cognitiye operations here in getting from a bounded to an unbounded quantity. Speculatively, the bounded quantity is first treated as a uniplex entity, it is then multiplexed, the resultant entities are conceived as spatially juxtaposed, and their boundaries are lastly effaced.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> 11. The present category may be prone to confusion with the preceding one. Contributory here is the normal meaning range of continuous, which as easily covers 'boundlessness' as it does 'internal seamlessness' However, the two categories can vary independently. Thus, in the preceding section, the lexical examples given for unboundedness, water and sleep, happened also to be internally continuous; but the same demonstration of unboundedness could have been made with internally discrete examples like timber and breathe 12. Theredo exist certain mechanisms for such reversal.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> Thus, taking an unbounded case, the continuity-specifying word water can be shifted toward being cognized as discrete by the locution particles of water, as in: (i) Water/Particles of water filled the vessel.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> However, the grammatical complex used here does not directly specify the shift but, like the one in Note I0, seems to involve a several-atage route of cognitive operations.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> 13. For schematizing action along the one-dimensional time axis, an adaptation of the two-dimensional A, B, A, and B diagrams would be necessary--and can be readily visual~zed.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> 14. The lexical types for several of these intersections, it should be noted, do have traditional terms. Thus, nominal forms of the a, A, and B types, respectively, have been called count nouns, collective nouns, and mass nouns. And verbal forms of the a and B types, respectively, have been called punctual and durative verbs. The matrix presented here augments, systematizes, and generalizes the traditional notions.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> 15. It may be considered an extension of the category of state-of-boundedness via the incorporation of the notion of uniplexity.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> 16. This category might be considered an extension Or generalization of the &amp;quot;disposition of a quantity&amp;quot;. Clearly, this category and the preceding five all belong together in treating the greater disposition 6f a quantity, but the relationships have not yet all been worked out.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="13"> 17. Our main purpose here is to note the shift in structure type. The shift in content, which will doubtless prove to have some regula~tv is not clearly understood at this point.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="14"> 18. A major function of perfect forms in language indeed appears to be the one involved here. More particularly, the perfect seems able to specify the temp oral counterpart of matter located within a bounded extent of space, as in (i). That is, a sentence containing the perfect, as in (ii), suggests a paraphrase like that in (iii), which is homologous with (i): (i) There were 5 aspirins on the table.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="15"> (ii) I have taken 5 aspirins in the last hour.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="16"> (iii) There were 5 aspirin-takings in the last hour.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="17"> (In support of this interpretation, as pointed~.out to me by Peyton Todd, the perfect can be noted always to involve a temporal span bounded at both ends.) 19. All three notion--identity of a quantity, portiontaking of a quantity, configuration of the portion-are generally specified simultaneously.(or, &amp;quot;conflatedly&amp;quot; --see Talmy (1975)) by lexical items that would fit in the A/B row of (20). For example, (a) tear specifies not only a certain shape of Quantum, but also the  material involved: lachrymal fluid. Such words generally do not participate in an &amp;quot;NP of NP&amp;quot; construction --like *a tear of milk--unless they in fact accede to a shift toward the type of word represented in drop.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="18"> 20. There is a foursome of apt terms that can be applied to the two levels of synthesis in the two directions of shift, as indicated in (i). Employed here is the term &amp;quot;Figure&amp;quot; as it is used in my other work (Talmy 1978, 1976): (i) cluster: &amp;quot;composite Figure&amp;quot; trees: &amp;quot;multiple Figures&amp;quot; iceberg: &amp;quot;meta-</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="7" start_page="23" end_page="23" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
Figure&amp;quot;
2 halves: &amp;quot;component
Figures&amp;quot;
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> 21. For the plural form oysters, the plural form siphons is ambiguous as to whether there are one or more siphons per oyster. All the other combinations unambiguously indicate the number of siphons per oyster.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Thus, the exemplar form is always unambiguous in this reagard--one of its advantages over the full-complement form. This same arrangement holds through the list.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> 22. I have long wondered what the differences between each and ev__ve~Tmight be. One apparent difference shows u-phere. Each seems to be the exemplar counterpart of all the but not of all without the (*Each oyster.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> has a siphon makes a poor generic assertion).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Ts not constrained in this way, though it does strike me as more comfortably the counterpar t of all without the.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> 23. One more pair can be added to this list by adjoining two complementary unpaired forms from two different languages. The English form some, as in some friends of mine, requires the plural and has no singular counterpart. The Italian form ~ualque, as in qualque amico mio, requires the singular and lacks a plural.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> 24. It seems likely that the language-related portions of the brain could have evolved to their present functions only in the presence of these already existing cognitive mechanisms and have incorporated their operation. null</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>