Microgenesis of Semantic Forms and Cognitive Linguistics
Résumé
Cognitive linguistics builds upon the idea of constitutive analogy between language, topology (or spatial structure), and, more generally, perception. Although this approach has proven to be very fruitful, its underlying principles may be open to question or at least call for further examination both with respect to linguistic description and to the way it conceptualizes perception, subjective experience and embodiment.
As an entry to this matter, consider the fact that many descriptive frameworks tend to dissociate topological/schematic aspects from other aspects of various kinds of structural “interactions” (ranging from energy transmission chains to case roles structures, passing through telicity or agentivity). Similar dichotomy is at the root of the (contestable) typological distinction between verb-framed and satellite-framed languages. In our view, this distinction creates a strong bias in the analysis of units presumably dedicated to the expression of spatial relations and of their interactions.
The case of verbs of movement (courir, marcher, tomber, ramper, surfer, nager, passer, plonger: ‘to run, walk, fall, crawl, surf, swim, pass, plunge') will illustrate this proposal. These verbs manifest a permanent (though variable) interweaving of space with qualitative, perceptual, and praxeological dimensions. It is true that these qualitative and praxeological dimensions are more easily perceivable in “functional”, “abstract”, or “figurative” uses. But actually, they are also at work in a number of uses commonly characterized as spatial. More importantly, it is these very same dimensions that play an essential role in the natural propensity of these verbs to be transposed into a variety of fields where neither space nor movement play a significant role. This may be amply sufficient to dismiss the idea that the above dimensions can await “later” semantic or pragmatic analyses, and to consider that, on the contrary, they are central to the semantics of motion verbs. For example, the semantic core of marcher ‘to walk' involves displacement/motion, but more basically regularity, mechanicity, and correct operation: le moteur marche ‘the engine is running', ça marche bien, ton affaire ? ‘is your business going well?', il nous a fait marcher ! ‘he put us on!'. Similarly, tomber ‘to fall' involves verticality, supervening, suddenness, but also surprise, non-control, along with gradations between spatiality, agentivity, evenementiality, metaphoricity: la pluie tombe ‘the rain falls', tomber la veste ‘to take off one's jacket', la température tombe ‘the temperature drops', la nouvelle tombe ‘the news just came through', ça tombe bien ‘it comes at the right moment', tomber dans les pommes ‘to pass out', tomber amoureux ‘to fall in love'.
It is sometimes suggested (e.g. Langacker, Talmy) that the analysis should nevertheless be centered on a purely topological/cinematic core meaning which is granted a grammatical status. Thus, for instance, the semantics of the French verb monter (often referring to an ascent) would of necessity be centered on a generic ascension schema. But this occurs at the cost of providing a specious ad hoc account of other more ‘functional' uses (which nonetheless remain related to space), like in Paul monte une maquette (‘Paul puts together a model'), where the notions of increment, internal fitting, and achievement are central (Lebas and Cadiot 2003). In fact it is difficult to see how we can attribute a secondary status to the quality of motion, given that motion does not refer here to displacement, in the sense of change of position (even in topological space), but rather to a transition or transformation affecting one and only one place.
Topological/cinematic descriptions are sometimes supplemented by resorting to a model of force and/or transmission of energy understood in a fairly physicalist way. However, this can hardly account for a host of phenomena ranging from the bodily involvement to the practical structure of action. An alternative tactics based on discrete (grammatical) repertories of case-roles constraining thematic roles (in the core of each lexical unit) does not fare any better: for only uses complying with certain restricted ontologies can be analysed in this manner. In our view, the main reason of these difficulties resides in disregarding the fact that linguistic expression of action goes hand in hand with the grasp of the stylistic/physiognomic character of (bodily) movements and of “internal” accompanying qualia. In actuality, the most generic dimensions of meaning build precisely on these singular properties of experience, intrinsically shaped by language and culture. Failure to recognize this leads one to treat as secondary or derived the “functional” or “metaphorical” uses of the same words (e.g. monter un projet: ‘to set up a project', monter un complot: ‘to hatch a plot'). If indeed polysemy is to be viewed as a fundamental property of language and a primary challenge for linguistics, it becomes obvious that it corresponds to intrinsically transposable, flexible, qualitative schemas.
In our view, semantic analysis of all parts of speech should, in cognitive linguistics, take a better motivated theoretical apparatus, especially with respect to its underlying theory of perception (both from sensory and semantic point of view). Accordingly, grammatical, lexical and textual studies should be more tightly connected. We believe that the theory of Semantic Forms, outlined in Cadiot & Visetti (2001), provides such an apparatus. In this presentation we shall deal with the following issues:
1. The necessity of a semiotic and ‘transactional' theory of immediate experience, characterized by the simultaneous grasp of practical, qualitative, inter-subjective and axiological values (praxis, ethics, esthetics). As earlier noted, spatially and/or topologically grounded schemas capture only a few isolated aspects of meaning (which are equated in some theories to a grammatical core of meaning). Recognizing bodily experience as the proper model for a generic level of meaning and language activity leads us to focus on the self-centering, synesthetic, and anticipatory character of that experience (exemplified by qualitative terms, such as: resistance/yielding, holding tight, rupture, softness, roughness, bury, block, insert, get rid of, drown, touch...).
2. Socio-semiotic constitution of linguistic values and human conduct. The constitution of language depends on our social and cultural world of life (Lebenswelt) which includes bodily experience in relation to the practical and interpersonal environment. One should not imagine here a “body” that functions as a “symbol” for semantics and is independent of language. The bodily experience in question cannot merely refer to an independent causal predetermination but to a sensitive, practical (and already linguistically shaped) agent and/or patient of socio-semiotic practices that give rise to meaning. Thus, the semantic concept of embodiment makes a sense only if the body in question does not amount to a pre-linguistic basis, but is a cultural construction, a ‘fictive' body shaped by social practices – mainly at semiotic level.
3. The necessity to take into account the existence of different phases in the process of differentiation/stabilization of meaning. These phases come along with various types of anticipation (more or less generic and/or unstable) afforded by linguistic units, the meaning of which should be viewed as a deployment across multiple phases. This is crucial for the proper treatment of polysemy and for the proper thematic analysis of discourse and texts. The import of phenomenological tradition (Husserl, Gurwitsch, Merleau-Ponty), and of the Berliner Gestalt school extended by microgenetic theories (Rosenthal 2004) appears here to be fundamental. Microgenetic theories are particularly suited to the integration in a single framework of physiognomic, social and cultural dimensions of meaning. It then becomes possible to describe the construction of semantic forms as a micro-developmental process, which involves more or less stable ‘phases'. At its core, instead of schematic devices, one would find what we call linguistic motifs that may be viewed as unstable germs of form.
Cadiot, P., Visetti, Y.-M. (2001). Pour une théorie des formes sémantiques – motifs, profils, thèmes. Paris, Presses universitaires de France.
Cadiot, P. (2002). Schemas and Motifs in the Semantics of Prepositions. In Prepositions in their syntactic, semantic and pragmatic context. S. Feigenbaum and D.Kurzon (eds), 41-57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cadiot, P., Lebas, F. and Visetti, Y.M. (2004). Verbes de mouvement, espace et dynamiques de constitution. Histoire, épistémologie, langage 26 (1): 7-42.
Lebas, F. and Cadiot, P. (2003). Monter et la constitution extrinsèque du référent. Langages 150: 9-30.
Rosenthal, V. (2004). Microgenesis, immediate experience and visual processes in reading. In A. Carsetti (ed.), Seeing, Thinking and Knowing – Meaning and Self-Organisation in Visual Cognition and Thought, (pp. 221-243). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Rosenthal, V., Visetti, Y.-M. (2003). Köhler. Paris, Les Belles Lettres.
Visetti, Y.-M. (2004). Language, Space and the theory of Semantic Forms . In A. Carsetti (ed.), Seeing, Thinking, and Knowing – Meaning and Self-Organisation in Visual Cognition and Thought, (pp. 245-275). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Visetti, Y.-M., Cadiot, P. (2002). Instability and Theory of Semantic Forms. Dans Prepositions in their syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Context, S. Feigenbaum and D. Kurzon (eds), (pp. 9-39). Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
As an entry to this matter, consider the fact that many descriptive frameworks tend to dissociate topological/schematic aspects from other aspects of various kinds of structural “interactions” (ranging from energy transmission chains to case roles structures, passing through telicity or agentivity). Similar dichotomy is at the root of the (contestable) typological distinction between verb-framed and satellite-framed languages. In our view, this distinction creates a strong bias in the analysis of units presumably dedicated to the expression of spatial relations and of their interactions.
The case of verbs of movement (courir, marcher, tomber, ramper, surfer, nager, passer, plonger: ‘to run, walk, fall, crawl, surf, swim, pass, plunge') will illustrate this proposal. These verbs manifest a permanent (though variable) interweaving of space with qualitative, perceptual, and praxeological dimensions. It is true that these qualitative and praxeological dimensions are more easily perceivable in “functional”, “abstract”, or “figurative” uses. But actually, they are also at work in a number of uses commonly characterized as spatial. More importantly, it is these very same dimensions that play an essential role in the natural propensity of these verbs to be transposed into a variety of fields where neither space nor movement play a significant role. This may be amply sufficient to dismiss the idea that the above dimensions can await “later” semantic or pragmatic analyses, and to consider that, on the contrary, they are central to the semantics of motion verbs. For example, the semantic core of marcher ‘to walk' involves displacement/motion, but more basically regularity, mechanicity, and correct operation: le moteur marche ‘the engine is running', ça marche bien, ton affaire ? ‘is your business going well?', il nous a fait marcher ! ‘he put us on!'. Similarly, tomber ‘to fall' involves verticality, supervening, suddenness, but also surprise, non-control, along with gradations between spatiality, agentivity, evenementiality, metaphoricity: la pluie tombe ‘the rain falls', tomber la veste ‘to take off one's jacket', la température tombe ‘the temperature drops', la nouvelle tombe ‘the news just came through', ça tombe bien ‘it comes at the right moment', tomber dans les pommes ‘to pass out', tomber amoureux ‘to fall in love'.
It is sometimes suggested (e.g. Langacker, Talmy) that the analysis should nevertheless be centered on a purely topological/cinematic core meaning which is granted a grammatical status. Thus, for instance, the semantics of the French verb monter (often referring to an ascent) would of necessity be centered on a generic ascension schema. But this occurs at the cost of providing a specious ad hoc account of other more ‘functional' uses (which nonetheless remain related to space), like in Paul monte une maquette (‘Paul puts together a model'), where the notions of increment, internal fitting, and achievement are central (Lebas and Cadiot 2003). In fact it is difficult to see how we can attribute a secondary status to the quality of motion, given that motion does not refer here to displacement, in the sense of change of position (even in topological space), but rather to a transition or transformation affecting one and only one place.
Topological/cinematic descriptions are sometimes supplemented by resorting to a model of force and/or transmission of energy understood in a fairly physicalist way. However, this can hardly account for a host of phenomena ranging from the bodily involvement to the practical structure of action. An alternative tactics based on discrete (grammatical) repertories of case-roles constraining thematic roles (in the core of each lexical unit) does not fare any better: for only uses complying with certain restricted ontologies can be analysed in this manner. In our view, the main reason of these difficulties resides in disregarding the fact that linguistic expression of action goes hand in hand with the grasp of the stylistic/physiognomic character of (bodily) movements and of “internal” accompanying qualia. In actuality, the most generic dimensions of meaning build precisely on these singular properties of experience, intrinsically shaped by language and culture. Failure to recognize this leads one to treat as secondary or derived the “functional” or “metaphorical” uses of the same words (e.g. monter un projet: ‘to set up a project', monter un complot: ‘to hatch a plot'). If indeed polysemy is to be viewed as a fundamental property of language and a primary challenge for linguistics, it becomes obvious that it corresponds to intrinsically transposable, flexible, qualitative schemas.
In our view, semantic analysis of all parts of speech should, in cognitive linguistics, take a better motivated theoretical apparatus, especially with respect to its underlying theory of perception (both from sensory and semantic point of view). Accordingly, grammatical, lexical and textual studies should be more tightly connected. We believe that the theory of Semantic Forms, outlined in Cadiot & Visetti (2001), provides such an apparatus. In this presentation we shall deal with the following issues:
1. The necessity of a semiotic and ‘transactional' theory of immediate experience, characterized by the simultaneous grasp of practical, qualitative, inter-subjective and axiological values (praxis, ethics, esthetics). As earlier noted, spatially and/or topologically grounded schemas capture only a few isolated aspects of meaning (which are equated in some theories to a grammatical core of meaning). Recognizing bodily experience as the proper model for a generic level of meaning and language activity leads us to focus on the self-centering, synesthetic, and anticipatory character of that experience (exemplified by qualitative terms, such as: resistance/yielding, holding tight, rupture, softness, roughness, bury, block, insert, get rid of, drown, touch...).
2. Socio-semiotic constitution of linguistic values and human conduct. The constitution of language depends on our social and cultural world of life (Lebenswelt) which includes bodily experience in relation to the practical and interpersonal environment. One should not imagine here a “body” that functions as a “symbol” for semantics and is independent of language. The bodily experience in question cannot merely refer to an independent causal predetermination but to a sensitive, practical (and already linguistically shaped) agent and/or patient of socio-semiotic practices that give rise to meaning. Thus, the semantic concept of embodiment makes a sense only if the body in question does not amount to a pre-linguistic basis, but is a cultural construction, a ‘fictive' body shaped by social practices – mainly at semiotic level.
3. The necessity to take into account the existence of different phases in the process of differentiation/stabilization of meaning. These phases come along with various types of anticipation (more or less generic and/or unstable) afforded by linguistic units, the meaning of which should be viewed as a deployment across multiple phases. This is crucial for the proper treatment of polysemy and for the proper thematic analysis of discourse and texts. The import of phenomenological tradition (Husserl, Gurwitsch, Merleau-Ponty), and of the Berliner Gestalt school extended by microgenetic theories (Rosenthal 2004) appears here to be fundamental. Microgenetic theories are particularly suited to the integration in a single framework of physiognomic, social and cultural dimensions of meaning. It then becomes possible to describe the construction of semantic forms as a micro-developmental process, which involves more or less stable ‘phases'. At its core, instead of schematic devices, one would find what we call linguistic motifs that may be viewed as unstable germs of form.
Cadiot, P., Visetti, Y.-M. (2001). Pour une théorie des formes sémantiques – motifs, profils, thèmes. Paris, Presses universitaires de France.
Cadiot, P. (2002). Schemas and Motifs in the Semantics of Prepositions. In Prepositions in their syntactic, semantic and pragmatic context. S. Feigenbaum and D.Kurzon (eds), 41-57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cadiot, P., Lebas, F. and Visetti, Y.M. (2004). Verbes de mouvement, espace et dynamiques de constitution. Histoire, épistémologie, langage 26 (1): 7-42.
Lebas, F. and Cadiot, P. (2003). Monter et la constitution extrinsèque du référent. Langages 150: 9-30.
Rosenthal, V. (2004). Microgenesis, immediate experience and visual processes in reading. In A. Carsetti (ed.), Seeing, Thinking and Knowing – Meaning and Self-Organisation in Visual Cognition and Thought, (pp. 221-243). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Rosenthal, V., Visetti, Y.-M. (2003). Köhler. Paris, Les Belles Lettres.
Visetti, Y.-M. (2004). Language, Space and the theory of Semantic Forms . In A. Carsetti (ed.), Seeing, Thinking, and Knowing – Meaning and Self-Organisation in Visual Cognition and Thought, (pp. 245-275). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Visetti, Y.-M., Cadiot, P. (2002). Instability and Theory of Semantic Forms. Dans Prepositions in their syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Context, S. Feigenbaum and D. Kurzon (eds), (pp. 9-39). Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
Loading...