All presentations

If Levi-Strauss met Langacker: Constructional foundations of cultural patterns

Slide 1: If Levi-Strauss met Langacker: Constructional foundations of cultural patterns

If Levi-Strauss met Langacker: Constructional foundations of cultural patterns

Dominik Lukeš

@techczech

http://metaphorhacker.net

Original slide 1 (image)

Slide 2: Preliminaries

Preliminaries

Original slide 2 (image)

Slide 3: Preliminaries

Can culture be taught the same way that language can?

Culture is more like language than we assume in that language is more like culture than we assume.

Original slide 3 (image)

Slide 4: Preliminaries

Portraits and labels compare Jakobson’s voiced / unvoiced distinction with Lévi-Strauss’s cooked / raw distinction.

  • Jakobson
  • voiced / unvoiced
  • cooked / raw
  • Lévi-Strauss

Original slide 4 (image)

Slide 5: Preliminaries

“I saw a guy at a party wearing a leather jacket and I thought, ‘That is cool.’ But then I saw another guy wearing a leather vest and I thought, ‘That is not cool’. Then I figured it out: ‘Cool’ is all about leather sleeves.”

– Demetri Martin

Original slide 5 (image)

Slide 6: Preliminaries

Two portraits accompany the labels Langacker, construction inventory, Levi-Strauss and question marks.

  • Langacker
  • construction inventory
  • ??????
  • Levi-Strauss

Original slide 6 (image)

Slide 7: Preliminaries

Caveat

We need more than just using terms from one field to label phenomena in another without providing a benefit.

Original slide 7 (image)

Slide 8: (Radical) Constructional view of language

(Radical) Constructional view of language

Original slide 8 (image)

Slide 9: (Radical) Constructional view of language

Book cover: Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective, William Croft, Oxford.

Original slide 9 (image)

Slide 10: (Radical) Constructional view of language

Language = Constructions (meaning/form pairs) + Integration (blending)

Original slide 10 (image)

Slide 11: (Radical) Constructional view of language

  • Language is a structured inventory of symbolic units
  • Units are best described as constructions linking form and meaning
  • Formal and semantic compositionality is the process of conceptual integration

Original slide 11 (image)

Slide 12: (Radical) Constructional view of language

Everything we know as words and rules are just constructions.

Original slide 12 (image)

Slide 13: (Radical) Constructional view of language

Knowledge of linguistic units is the same kind of knowledge as other kinds of knowledge (encyclopedic) and exhibits the same kinds of organizational, cognitive and social properties (incl. basic-level hierarchies, prototype category effects, underspecification, redundancy, conventionalization, culture/language-specificity, explication, negotiation)

Original slide 13 (image)

Slide 14: (Radical) Constructional view of language

Knowledge is structured by frames (cognitive models).

(See talk on Frames.)

Original slide 14 (image)

Slide 15: (Radical) Constructional view of language

conceptual integration is constrained, underspecified, opportunistic, dynamic, conventionalized

Original slide 15 (image)

Slide 16: (Radical) Constructional view of language

Meaning of constructions can be very rich (encyclopedic/lexical – ‘horse’) or very schematic (grammatical ‘N’, ‘N+pl’)

Original slide 16 (image)

Slide 17: (Radical) Constructional view of language

meaning/ dog /
form[ d ɔ g ]

Original slide 17 (image)

Slide 18: (Radical) Constructional view of language

/ dog // plural s/z/ɪz /
[ d ɔ g ][ z ]

Original slide 18 (image)

Slide 19: (Radical) Constructional view of language

Six photographs of dogs on boats or at the wheel surround the pairs / dogs / above d ɔ g z and / sail / above s aɪ l, each pair separated by a horizontal line.

/ dogs // sail /
[ d ɔ g z ][ s aɪ l ]

Original slide 19 (image)

Slide 20: (Radical) Constructional view of language

Constructions are of different degrees of schematicity (e.g. style is a construction) and their working is available for introspection to various degrees (cf. Talmy)

Original slide 20 (image)

Slide 21: (Radical) Constructional view of language

  • because construction
    • meaning:
      • profile logical cause in the discourse space;
      • activate logical prosody of causation
    • form: [because] clause-initial (stressed) position + collocational patterns

Original slide 21 (image)

Slide 22: (Radical) Constructional view of language

  • English causal cohesive harmony construction
    • meaning: profile necessary (logical) causal coherence links through connectives plus direction and/or semantic prosody of logical inference
    • form: zero, for, because, so, therefore, thus, which is why, then plus English elegant variation

Original slide 22 (image)

Slide 23: (Radical) Constructional view of language

  • introduction construction
    • meaning:
      • identify genre; activate conceptual spaces for blending; hypostasize entrenched blends and activate gaps; establish credibility of author
    • form:
      • local grammars of introduction: opening statement, definition, anecdote (it is said, when I), analogy (just like), name-drop (it is Lakoff’s claim), statement of generality (language is one of the most complex systems), statement of agreement (the concensus is)

Original slide 23 (image)

Slide 24: (Radical) Constructional view of language

Construction inventory (Croft and Cruse 2004)

Three construction diagrams appear. The first links constructions to word, NP VP and Quant N boxes, with a grammar arrow. The second links Sbj IntrVerb and Sbj Aux-n’t Verb to “I didn’t sleep”. The third branches from Clause through Sbj IntrVerb and Sbj TrVerb Obj to examples including Sbj sleep, Sbj run, Sbj kiss Obj, Sbj kick the bucket and Sbj kick the habit.

Original slide 24 (image)

Slide 25: (Radical) Constructional view of language

Constructions are organized in a patterned inventory that is subject to both collective convergence and individual divergence.

Original slide 25 (image)

Slide 26: (Radical) Constructional view of language

The inventory is collectively negotiated both implicitly through imitation and explicitly.

Original slide 26 (image)

Slide 27: Culture as inventory of constructions

Culture as inventory of constructions

Original slide 27 (image)

Slide 28: Culture as inventory of constructions

Behaviours, beliefs, social hierarchies, forms of speech = patterned inventory of form / meaning pairs

Original slide 28 (image)

Slide 29: Culture as inventory of constructions

Culture cannot be summarized by general principles. There are regularities and patterns of motivation but no determination.

Original slide 29 (image)

Slide 30: Examples of cultural constructions

Examples of cultural constructions

Original slide 30 (image)

Slide 31: Examples of cultural constructions

An open palm has a smiling face drawn on it.

Original slide 31 (image)

Slide 32: Examples of cultural constructions

A kitten with narrowed eyes and a smiling baby accompany the question “The universal smile?”.

The universal smile?

Original slide 32 (image)

Slide 33: Examples of cultural constructions

A photograph shows a shopkeeper and customers across a shop counter, with the caption “Russian shopkeepers should be more friendly”.

Russian shopkeepers should be more friendly

Original slide 33 (image)

Slide 34: Examples of cultural constructions

A photograph of Hillary Clinton smiling broadly accompanies the caption “Americans are insincere”.

Americans are insincere

Original slide 34 (image)

Slide 35: Examples of cultural constructions

SMILE

  • Person you know
  • Express happiness
  • Confirm emotional relationship

Original slide 35 (image)

Slide 36: Examples of cultural constructions

SMILE

  • Person you meet
  • Express general connection/acknowledgement

Original slide 36 (image)

Slide 37: Examples of cultural constructions

IMAGES OF SMILE / SAYINGS ABOUT SMILING / …

  • Smiling means friendliness
  • Smiling is better when sincere
  • More people should smile
  • …

Original slide 37 (image)

Slide 38: Examples of cultural constructions

Collectivist / Individualist cultures

(Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences, 1983)

http://geert-hofstede.com/dimensions.html

Original slide 38 (image)

Slide 39: Examples of cultural constructions

Individualist

“a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only”

Original slide 39 (image)

Slide 40: Examples of cultural constructions

Collectivist

“a tightly-knit framework in society in which individuals can expect their relatives or members of a particular in-group to look after them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty”

Original slide 40 (image)

Slide 41: Examples of cultural constructions

A grouped bar chart compares United States, Russia and China across PDI, IDV, MAS, UAI and LTO. The IDV group is outlined: United States 91, Russia 39, China 20. Source printed on the slide: geert-hofstede.com/countries.html.

http://geert-hofstede.com/countries.html

Original slide 41 (image)

Slide 42: Examples of cultural constructions

United States

  • Chamber of Commerce
  • Teams, organizations, etc.
  • “No ‘I’ in team”
  • “Friends”

Original slide 42 (image)

Slide 43: Examples of cultural constructions

China / Russia

  • Local government individualistic
  • Individuals in teams
  • Family is the individual
  • “Friends”

Original slide 43 (image)

Slide 44: Examples of cultural constructions

Book cover: Understanding Cultures Through Their Key Words: English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese, Anna Wierzbicka. The slide labels it Wierzbicka, 1997.

Wierzbicka

1997

Original slide 44 (image)

Slide 45: Examples of cultural constructions

“I hate the prostitution of the word friendship to signify modish and worldly alliances.” (Emerson cited by Wierzbicka, p. 48)

Original slide 45 (image)

Slide 46: Examples of cultural constructions

“By contrast, the modern expression close friend is not meant to have the same range of referents as the word friend; it is indeed intended to stand for a different category of people, linked to the target person by a different kind of relationship.”

Wierzbicka, p. 49

Original slide 46 (image)

Slide 47: Examples of cultural constructions

FRIEND (forms)

FRIEND (meanings)

Original slide 47 (image)

Slide 48: Examples of cultural constructions

“I'll be there for you

When the rain starts to pour

I'll be there for you

Like I've been there before

I'll be there for you

'Cuz you're there for me too...”

“V nouzi poznáš přítele.”

Friendship is important

Czech friend, American friend

Original slide 48 (image)

Slide 49: Examples of cultural constructions

“How much money do you make now?”

Knowledge of earnings of a person

Czech friend, American spouse, Albanian acquaintance

Original slide 49 (image)

Slide 50: Examples of cultural constructions

Book cover: The Little Czech and the Great Czech Nation: National Identity and the Post-Communist Social Transformation. The slide labels it Ladislav Holý, 1996.

Ladislav Holý

1996

Original slide 50 (image)

Slide 51: Examples of cultural constructions

A scanned table titled “Traits ascribed by Czechs to themselves (percentages), 1990 and 1992” groups negative and positive traits into two year columns.

Original slide 51 (image)

Slide 52: Examples of cultural constructions

“ [Czechs] see themselves as petty-minded, intellectually limited, and mediocre, and yet consider the Czech nation highly cultured and well educated. The coexistence of the two images poses constant dilemmas.” (p. 77)

Original slide 52 (image)

Slide 53: Examples of cultural constructions

Little England

“Little Englander is also, colloquially speaking, an epithet applied in criticisms of English people who are regarded asxenophobic and/or overly nationalistic and are often accused of being "ignorant" and "boorish".”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Englander

Original slide 53 (image)

Slide 54: Conclusion

Conclusion

Original slide 54 (image)

Slide 55: Conclusion

Non-reductionist view of culture is possible. Research needs to focus on form/meaning pairings of different generality not the identification of general principles.

Original slide 55 (image)