![Page 1: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks
Ling 411 – 15
![Page 2: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Linguistic Evidence: Relational Networks
As we have seen, evidence from neuroscience shows that linguistic structure is a network
Since the whole human information system is a network Evidence from
• Neuroanatomy• Perceptual neuroscience (Mountcastle)
And the linguistic system is part of the overall information system
The same conclusion can be reached from purely linguistic evidence
![Page 3: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Language vs linguistic system
What is a language?• Set of texts?• A system underlying texts?• A set or system of processes?• A propensity for learning to speak? Language vs. dialect vs. idiolect Conclusion: the term language is too
abstract to allow for a clear definition
![Page 4: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Alternative: The linguistic system
Easily definable (in contrast to language) Must be defined in terms of the individual The linguistic system of an individual
• An information system• A neurological system, since it is contained in the brain• Hence, a physical system• Varies from one individual to the next• Can include multiple registers, dialects, languages
![Page 5: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Linguistic science and neuroscience
Adopting the view that a linguistic system is a neurological system allows us to build bridges• From neuroscience to linguistic science
We can use the findings of Mountcastle And findings from neuroanatomy, aphasiology, etc.
• From linguistic science to neuroscience We can provide hypotheses of how the brain works
more generally for information processing
![Page 6: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Starting from purely linguistic evidence
The structure of the linguistic system of an individual The system is able to operate
• Hence, a fundamental requirement for any theory of linguistic structure: Operational plausibility
• For example, it is obvious that the system can process, e.g., words Comprehension: from speech sounds to meaning Production: from meaning to speech sounds Learning: new words can be learned
![Page 7: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Operational Plausibility
To understand how language operates, we need to have the linguistic information represented in such a way that it can be used for speaking and understanding
(A “competence model” that is not competence to perform is unrealistic)
![Page 8: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Morpheme as item and its phonemic representation
boy
b - o - y
Symbols?Objects?
What are these?
![Page 9: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Morpheme and phoneme as objectsHow related?
Morpheme
Phoneme
Problem: the morpheme “has” a meaning; the phoneme doesn’t
![Page 10: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Alternative view: morpheme and phoneme on different levels
boy As a morpheme, it is just one unit
Three phonemes, in sequence
b o y
![Page 11: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
This “morphemic unit” also has meaning and grammatical function
BOY Noun
b o y
boy Morpheme
![Page 12: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
The morpheme as purely relational
BOY Noun
b o y
We can remove the symbol with no loss of information. Therefore, it is a connection, not an object
boy
![Page 13: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Another way of looking at it
BOY Noun
b o y
boy
![Page 14: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Another way of looking at it
BOY Noun
b o y
![Page 15: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
A closer look at the segments
b
boy
y
Phonologicalfeatures
o The phonological segments also are just locations in the network – not objects
(Bob) (toy)
![Page 16: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Structure vs. labels
BOY Noun
b o y
boy Just labels – not part of the structure
![Page 17: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Objection I
If there are no symbols, how does the system distinguish this morpheme from others?
Answer: Other morphemes necessarily have different connections
Another node with the same connections would be another (redundant) representation of the same morpheme
![Page 18: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Objection II
If there are no symbols, how does the system know which morpheme it is?
Answer: If there were symbols, what would read them? Miniature eyes inside the brain?
![Page 19: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Objects in the mind?
When the relationships are fully identified, the objects as such disappear, since they have no existence apart from those relationships
![Page 20: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
The postulation of objects as some- thing different from the terms of relationships is a superfluous axiom and consequently a metaphysical hypothesis from which linguistic science will have to be freed.
Louis Hjelmslev (1943/61)
Quotation from Hjelmslev
![Page 21: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Upward and Downward
Expression (phonetic or graphic) is at the bottom
Therefore, downward is toward expression
Upward is toward meaning (or other function) – more abstract
network
meaning
expression
![Page 22: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Neurological interpretation of up/down
At the bottom are the interfaces to the world outside the brain:• Sense organs on the input side• Muscles on the output side
‘Up’ is more abstract
![Page 23: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Syntax is also purely relational:Example: The Actor-Goal Construcion
CLAUSE DO-SMTHG
Vt Nom
Material process (type 2)
Syntactic function
Semantic function
Variable expression
![Page 24: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Syntax is also purely relational:Example: The Actor-Goal Construcion
CLAUSE DO-SMTHG
Vt Nom
Material process (type 2)
Syntactic function
Semantic function
For example, eat an apple
![Page 25: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Narrow and abstract network notation
Narrow notation Closer to neurological structure Nodes represent cortical columns Links represent neural fibers (or
bundles of fibers) Uni-directional
Abstract notation Nodes show type of relationship (OR,
AND) Easier for representing linguistic
relationships Bidirectional Not as close to neurological
structure
eat apple
eat apple
eat apple
eat apple
![Page 26: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Narrow and abstract network notation
Narrow notation Closer to neurological structure Nodes represent cortical columns Links represent neural fibers (or
bundles of fibers) Uni-directional
Abstract notation Nodes show type of relationship (OR,
AND) Easier for representing linguistic
relationships Bidirectional Not as close to neurological
structure
pin
pi- -in
pin
pi- -in
![Page 27: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
More on the two network notations
The lines and nodes of the abstract notation represent abbreviations – hence the designation ‘abstract’
Compare the representation of a divided highway on a highway map• In a more compact notation it is
shown as a single line• In a narrow notation it is shown as
two parallel lines of opposite direction
![Page 28: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Abstract and narrow notation
Having two notations available is like being able to draw a highway map to different scales
Narrow notation shows greater detail and greater precision
Narrow notation is closer to the actual neural structures
www.ruf.rice.edu/~lngbrain/shipman
![Page 29: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Syntax: Linked constructions
CL
Nom
DO--SMTHG
Vt Nom
Material process (type 2)
TOPIC-COMMENT
![Page 30: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Add another type of process
CL
DO-TO-SMTHG
THING-DESCR
BE-SMTHG
be
Nom
Vt
AdjLoc
![Page 31: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
More of the English Clause
DO-TO-SMTHGBE-SMTHG
be Vt
Vi
to
<V>-ing
CL
Subj Pred
Conc
Past Mod
Predicator
FINITE
![Page 32: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
The downward ordered or
a b
marked choice unmarked choice (a.k.a. default )
The unmarked choice is the line that goes right through. The marked choice is off to the side – either side
![Page 33: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
The downward ordered or
a b
unmarked choice marked choice(a.k.a. default )
The unmarked choice is the one that goes right through. The marked choice is off to the side – either side
![Page 34: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
OptionalitySometimes the unmarked choice is nothing
b
unmarked choice marked choice
In other words, the marked choice is an optional constituent
![Page 35: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Relations all the way
Claim: all of linguistic structure is relational
It’s not relationships among linguistic items; it is relations to other relations to other relations, all the way to the top – at one end – and to the bottom – at the other
In that case the linguistic system is a network of interconnected nodes
![Page 36: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Relationships all the way to..What is at the bottom?
Introductory view: it is phonetics In the system of the speaker, we have
relational network structure all the way down to the points at which muscles of the speech-producing mechanism are activated• At that interface we leave the purely relational
system and send activation to a different kind of physical system
For the hearer, the bottom is the cochlea, which receives activation from the sound waves of the speech hitting the ear
![Page 37: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Relational networks and operational plausibility
Language users are able to use their languages. Such operation takes the form of activation of
lines and nodes The nodes can be defined on the basis of how
they treat incoming activation
![Page 38: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Lines and Nodes in Abstract andNarrow Network Notation
As each line of abstract notation is bidirectional – it can be analyzed into a pair of one-way lines
Likewise, the simple nodes of abstract notation can be analyzed as pairs of one-way nodes
![Page 39: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Two different network notations
Narrow notation
ab
a b
b
a b
Abstract notation Bidirectional
ab
a b f
Upward Downward
![Page 40: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Example: A syllable and its demisyllables:narrow notation, upward direction
kin
ki- -in
Node for syllable
Nodes for demisyllables
Auditory features
![Page 41: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Local Representation: kin(narrow notation, upward direction)
ki- -is -in shi-
kin shin kiss
This node is unique to kin
![Page 42: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
The Two Directions
1
2
ww
![Page 43: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
The Two Directions
ww
Two Questions:
1. Are they really next to each other?
2. How do they “communicate” with each other?
1
2
![Page 44: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Separate but in touch
ww
1
2
Down UpIn phonology, we know from aphasiology and neuroscience that they are in different parts of the cerebral cortex
![Page 45: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Phonological nodes in the cortex
ww
1
2
Arcuate fasciculus
Frontal lobe
Temporal lobe
![Page 46: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
The ‘Wait’ Element
wKeeps the activation alive
A B
Activation continues to B after A has been activated
Downward AND, downward direction
a b
![Page 47: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Structure of the ‘Wait’ Element
W
1
2
www.ruf.rice.edu/~lngbrain/neel
![Page 48: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Paradigmatic contrast: Competition
a b2 2
For example, /p/ vs. /k/
A structural detail not shown in abstract notation
![Page 49: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Paradigmatic contrast: Competition
a b
a
b
![Page 50: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Paradigmatic contrast: Competition
a b2 2
a
b
![Page 51: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Levels of precision in network notation:How related?
They operate at different levels of precision Compare chemistry and physics
• Chemistry for molecules• Physics for atoms
Both are valuable for their purposes
![Page 52: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Levels of precision
(E.g.) Systemic networks (Halliday) Abstract relational network notation Narrow relational network notation
![Page 53: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Three levels of precision
a b2 2
a
b
Systemic Relational Networks Networks
Abstract Narrow (downward)
![Page 54: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Levels of Precision
Advantages of description at a level of greater precision:• Greater precision• Shows relationships to other areas
Disadvantages of description at a level of greater precision:• More difficult to accomplish
Therefore, can’t cover as much ground• More difficult for consumer to grasp
Too many trees, not enough forest
![Page 55: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Different Levels of Precision: The Study of Living Beings
Systems Biology Cellular Biology Molecular Biology Chemistry Physics
![Page 56: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Levels of precision
Systemic networks (Halliday) Abstract relational network notation Narrow relational network notation Cortical columns and neural fibers Neurons, axons, dendrites, neurotransmitters Intraneural structures
• Pre-/post-synaptic terminals• Microtubules• Ion channels• Etc.
![Page 57: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Levels of precision
Informal functional descriptions Semi-formal functional descriptions Systemic networks Abstract relational network notation Narrow relational network notation Cortical columns and neural fibers Neurons, axons, dendrites Intraneural structures and processes
![Page 58: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Precision vis-à-vis variability
Description at a level of greater precision encourages observation of variability
At the level of the forest, we are aware of the trees, but we tend to overlook the differences among them
At the level of the trees we clearly see the differences among them
But describing the forest at the level of detail used in describing trees would be very cumbersome
At the level of the trees we tend to overlook the differences among the leaves
At the level of the leaves we tend to overlook the differences among their component cells
![Page 59: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Linguistic examples
At the cognitive level we clearly see that every person’s linguistic system is different from that of everyone else
We also see variation within the single person’s system from day to day
At the level of narrow notation we can treat • Variation in connection strengths• Variation in threshold strength• Variation in levels of activation
We are thus able to explain• prototypicality phenomena• learning• etc.
![Page 60: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
More linguistic evidence for network structure: Complex lexemes
m r s i l e s
MERCILESS MERCY -LESS concepts*
phonemes*
* Actually, the diagram shows just labels for cardinal nodes
![Page 61: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Complex lexemes
b o w l f u l
BOWLFUL BOWL -FUL concepts
phonemes
![Page 62: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Question: do we get representations for all words?
Rephrase the question:• Do we get cardinal nodes for all words?
Answer: • No – only for those that have been learned• i.e., for words that have occurred often enough to get
their own distinctive representations Words and phases that have been learned as units:
• merciless, hamburger, unfinished, underprivileged• Rice University, after dinner, over my dead body
Words that most people have not learned as units:• undeconstructable, overprivileged
![Page 63: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Shadow meanings
hotdog• Shadow meaning: “hot dog”• Not a hot dog, but:
It is typically hot Has the body shape of a dachshund
zhongguo “China”• Shadow meaning: “middle kingdom”
zhong “middle” guo “kingdom”
![Page 64: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
hotdog
HOTHOTDOG
DOG
hot dog
![Page 65: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
ZhongGuo
MIDDLE
CHINAKINGDOM
zhong guo
![Page 66: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Alternative analyses
hamburger —ham - burger or hamburg - er ?
Which is the correct analysis?
![Page 67: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
hamburger as ham - burger
hamburger
burger cheese
burg-er
ham
![Page 68: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
hamburger as hamburg - er
hamburger
burg-er
ham
Hamburg
![Page 69: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
Coexisting Parallel Structures
hamburger
burgercheese
burg-er
ham
Hamburg
N.B. : Heavier lines for more entrenched
The network allows the two analyses to exist together and to operate in parallel (Lamb 1999: 233ff)
![Page 70: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
Degrees of entrenchment
Accounted for as varying strengths of connections Similarly, the gradualness of learning is accounted for by
gradual strengthening of connections with repeated use
![Page 71: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
Variation in Connection Strength
Connections get stronger with use• Every time the linguistic system is used,
it changes Can be indicated roughly by
• Thickness of connecting lines in diagrams or by• Little numbers written next to lines
![Page 72: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
The representation of words:Functional webs and cardinal nodes
hamburger
burger cheese
burg-er
ham
Hamburg
(label for) cardinal node for hamburger
Functional web for hamburger
![Page 73: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
Operations in relational networks
Relational networks are dynamic Activation moves along lines and through nodes The difference between AND and OR
• The AND requires activation on both or all incoming lines
• The OR requires activation on just one line www.ruf.rice.edu/~lngbrain/struan
![Page 74: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
Denotation and Connotation
Alternative statements• The acid corroded the pipe• The acid attacked the pipe• The acid ate the pipe
Same denotation, different connotations How to account for the difference in connotation?
![Page 75: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
Polysemy
Lexeme
Meanings
![Page 76: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
Polysemy: e.g., attack
attack
Meanings
![Page 77: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
Denotation and connotation
attack
Connotation
The denotation in this context
CORRODE
The acid attacked the pipe
![Page 78: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
Denotation and connotation
Lexeme
Connotation
The denotation in this context
![Page 79: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
Denotation and connotationBroadcasting and integration
Lexeme
Broadcasting
Integration
![Page 80: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
The pun: Both meanings supported by context
A talking duck goes into a bar, orders a drink, and says, “Put it on my bill”.
bill
BILL-1 BILL-2
![Page 81: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
More Linguistic Evidence: Recurring semantic components
DIE as a component/feature of the meanings of
diekillmurderassassinateterminally illwitheretc.
![Page 82: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
How do you describe the situation without using network structure?
die kill murder assassinate
DIE DIE DIE DIE CAUSE CAUSE CAUSE
HUMAN PAT. HUMAN PAT. POLITICALLY IMPORTANT
(etc., etc.)But isn’t it all the same element DIE?
![Page 83: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
With network
DIE
KILL
CAUSE
MURDER
PATIENTHUMAN
PATIENTPOLITICALLYIMPORTANT
ASSASSINATE
die kill murderassassinate
![Page 84: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
Quantitative evidence:How many columns in Wernicke’s area?
Size of area: about 20 sq cm (3 x 7)• Temporal plane• Superior temporal gyrus• Superior temporal sulcus
Minicolumns per sq cm: 140,000 Maxicolumns per sq cm: 1,400 Minicolumns in Wernicke’s area: 2,800,000 Maxicolumns in Wernicke’s area: 28,000 Functional columns: say, about 280,000
![Page 85: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
Quantitative evidence:Capacity of Wernicke’s area
Requirement• About 50,000 nodes for native language• Thousands more for each additional language
Capacity• Size of area: about 20 sq cm (3 cm x 7 cm)• Minicolumns in Wernicke’s area: 2,800,000• Maxicolumns in Wernicke’s area: 28,000• Hypothetical functional columns: 280,000
At avg 10 minicolumns per functional column, 10 functional columns per maxicolumn
![Page 86: Linguistic Evidence for Relational Networks Ling 411 – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/5697c0041a28abf838cc4482/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
end