Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, volume 1. Stanford University Press, Stanford.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....n miles; the frequency adverbials twice and n times; and finally the temporal adverbials for and in. Trajectory of motion events are modeled as continuous constant rate changes of location in one di mension of the TRAJEGTOR relative to one or more LANDMARKS (following Regier 1992 in his use of Langacker s 1987 terminology) Briefly, the system takes a set of landmark loca tions (which are assumed to remain constant) and an input string from which it derives all possible logical forms for the given sentences; it then extracts a set of constraint equations from the derived logical forms and solves them ....

Ronald Langacker. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press, 1987.

....a perceptually grounded semantics of natural language spatial terms . Within the framework of Cognitive Linguistics, each lexeme describes a locative relationship between a special (potentially mobile) object known as the trajector (TR) and a static reference object known as the landmark (LM) [9]. In essence, spatial semantics de nes a partitioning of the set of object pictures into classes prescribed by the underlying natural language. The task of the model system is then to learn this classi cation from positive examples of each category, forming a recognition system for each class ....

Langacker, R., \Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I: Theoretical Prerequisites". Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, (1987).

....n miles; the frequency adverbials twice and n times; and finally the temporal adverbials for and in. Trajectory of motion events are modeled as continuous constant rate changes of location in one di mension of the TRAJECTOR relative to one or more LADMAaKS (following Regier 1992 in his use of Langacker s 1987 terminology) Briefly, the system takes a set of landmark loca tions (which are assumed to remain constant) and an input string from which it derives all possible logical forms for the given sentences; it then extracts a set of constraint equations from the derived logical forms and solves them ....

Ronald Langacker. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press, 1987.

....M. Hogan, Joachim Diederich and Gerard D. Finn NeuroComputing Research Centre, QUT, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, Q, 4001. fhogan,joachim,gerryg fit.qut.edu.au Abstract The acquisition of the semantics of natural language spatial terms is considered within the cognitive framework introduced by (Langacker, 1987), and the computational framework of the Berkeley L0 project (Feldman et al. 1990) We describe a computational model which incorporates selective attention mechanisms to facilitate the identification of significant objects within the visual field, and their consequent binding to ....

....concepts such as the English above, below and in is discussed, as are extensions to dynamic concepts. 1 Introduction This paper is concerned with the acquisition of natural language spatial semantics by a neurally plausible connectionist system. Within the cognitive framework introduced by (Langacker, 1987), elementary spatial concepts (such as the English above) are characterised by locative relations between a potentially mobile object called the trajector (TR) and a static reference object called the landmark (LM) Previous computational investigations of this problem (Regier, 1992) have relied ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Langacker, R. 1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA., Stanford University Press.

....memory. The syntactic and semantic structure of a sentence can therefore be expected to contain re exes of the underlying perceptual process. This hypothesis places the paper within a broad tradition in linguistics, encompassing the school of cognitive linguistics on the one hand (see e.g. Langacker, 1987) and the work of Jackendo and colleagues on the other (see e.g. Jackendo , 1983) The hypothesis under investigation can be studied in its most concrete form by concentrating on the structure of sentences which express simple spatiotemporal eventualities, apprehendable directly by visual ....

Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.

....X schema is a weighted, bipartite graph that consists of Places and Transitions. Input Arcs connect Places to Transitions, Output Arcs connect Transitions to Places. The bi partite nature of the X schema naturally captures the well known state#event distinction that pervades linguistic analysis #Langacker 1987#. In X schemas, both states and events are distributed over the entire net. A speci#c state of the schema corresponds to a marking. Formally a marking is a function that assigns either 0 or a positiveinteger to each place. The state of the X schema is thus described byanM vector, where the i th ....

....abstraction from the controller where the process is not monitored, only starts and #nishes are. In this case, through a well de#ned net transformation #Murata 1989#, we get a a simpli #ed controller that #see Figure 9# corresponds to the the perfective perspective present in many languages #Langacker 1987#. Note that a perfective allows iteration but not interruption since there is no internal structure. Ready Start Process Finish Result interrupt resume iterate Cancel Suspend Ready Start Finish Result iterate Imperfectivize Perfectivize Figure 9: Perfectiving and Imperfectivizing ....

Langacker, R. #1987#. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

....how to perceive simple spatial relations, both static and dynamic, so as to name them as a speaker of a particular language would. The movie shown in Figure 2 was one of many used in training the system described here. Each movie contains a static object here referred to as the landmark,orLM #Langacker 1987#; this is the reference object with respect to which other objects are located. In this movie, it is the horizontally extended rectangle in the middle of the scene. Eachmovie also contains another object, referred to as the trajector,orTR; this is the object located relative to the landmark. In ....

....in origin. This use of non linguistic structures in a linguistic model is very muchin the spirit of cognitive linguistics generally.From the point of view of cognitive linguistics, language is #inextricably bound up with psychological phenomena that are not speci#cally linguistic in character #Langacker 1987:12#. In the case of the model, it is very clear exactly which non linguistic psychological elements are involved: those neurobiologically and psychophysically motivated visual structures whichhave been adopted as part of the overall design. 5 The Model Figure 4 presents the model s ....

Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I: Theoretical Prerequisites . Stanford: Stanford University Press.

....how to perceive simple spatial relations, both static and dynamic, so as to name them as a speaker of a particular language would. The movie shown in Figure 2 was one of many used in training the system described here. Each movie contains a static object here referred to as the landmark, or LM (Langacker 1987); this is the reference object with respect to which other objects are located. In this movie, it is the horizontally extended rectangle in the middle of the scene. Each movie also contains another object, referred to as the trajector, or TR; this is the object located relative to the landmark. In ....

....in origin. This use of non linguistic structures in a linguistic model is very much in the spirit of cognitive linguistics generally. From the point of view of cognitive linguistics, language is inextricably bound up with psychological phenomena that are not specifically linguistic in character (Langacker 1987:12) In the case of the model, it is very clear exactly which non linguistic psychological elements are involved: those neurobiologically and psychophysically motivated visual structures which have been adopted as part of the overall design. 5 The Model Figure 4 presents the model s ....

Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I: Theoretical Prerequisites . Stanford: Stanford University Press.

....from newspaper articles in these domains. When presented with a pre parsed version of these narratives as input, the system described is able to generate commonsense inferences consistent with the input. Work in Cognitive Semantics (Lakoff Johnson 1980; Talmy 1987; Sweetser 1990; Johnson 1987; Langacker 1987; Lakoff 1994) suggests that the structure of abstract actions (such as states, causes, purposes, means) are characterized cognitively in terms of image schemas which are schematized recurring patterns from the embodied domains of force, motion, and space. However, the work in Cognitive Semantics ....

Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

....X schema is a weighted, bipartite graph that consists of Places and Transitions. Input Arcs connect Places to Transitions, Output Arcs connect Transitions to Places. The bi partite nature of the X schema naturally captures the well known state event distinction that pervades linguistic analysis (Langacker 1987). In X schemas, both states and events are distributed over the entire net. A specific state of the schema corresponds to a marking. Formally a marking is a function that assigns either 0 or a positive integer to each place. The state of the X schema is thus described by an M vector, where the i ....

....abstraction from the controller where the process is not monitored, only starts and finishes are. In this case, through a well defined net transformation (Murata 1989) we get a a simplified controller that (see Figure 9) corresponds to the the perfective perspective present in many languages (Langacker 1987). Note that a perfective allows iteration but not interruption since there is no internal structure. Ready Start Process Finish Result interrupt resume iterate Cancel Suspend Ready Start Finish Result iterate Imperfectivize Perfectivize Figure 9: Perfectiving and Imperfectivizing ....

Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

....(Wechsler 1997:313, 15) 47) a. John danced mazurkas across the room. b. John walked the dog to the store. c. The children played leapfrog across the park. Verspoor 1997:151, 4. 102) Studies of transitivity from an event structure perspective (Croft 1991; DeLancey 1984; Lako 1977; Langacker 1987; Talmy 1976) point out that the type of event prototypically denoted by transitive verbs what is sometimes called the prototypical model of a transitive event involves the transmission of a force from one entity to a second and a change of state in the second entity, which as Croft (1991:173) ....

Langacker, R.W. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I: Theoretical Prerequisites, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

....be seen as naturally breaking things into the figure and the ground. Things that we perceive, such as scenes, sentences, and sounds, fall into two pieces: the figure and the ground (see early gestalt psychologists Rubin, 1915, and Wertheimer, 1923, or more recent linguists Talmy, 1983, and Langacker, 1987). The figure of an image is defined to be the area that has our focus of attention, and the ground is everything else. Being able to attend to a voice at a noisy cocktail party is a related figure ground segregation ability (at which most humans do quite well) Descriptive sentences are often ....

Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar I: theoretical prerequisites, Stanford University Press, Stanford.

....a green mouse , is as good an instance of ABOVE as an angry sky ABOVE a calm sea ) What is really essential to know is just which segments of the picture correspond to different objects. Also, if we re just concerned with relations between two objects, which we ll call Trajector and Landmark (Langacker, 1987), the essential location information needed for specifying the spatial relationship, is position of the Trajector relative to the Landmark. The exact location of the Landmark in the picture is irrelevant ( a book (Trajector) is ON the table (Landmark) no matter where the table is located in the ....

Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

....within which the current work takes place. On a more specific level, the purpose is to present a number of issues that cognitive linguists have concerned themselves with, and which are dealt with in this thesis, mostly as extensions to the central architecture, in Chapter 7. 2.4. 1 An Overview [Langacker, 1987], in introducing the field of cognitive linguistics, begins by stating that [l]anguage is an integral part of human cognition. An account of linguistic structure should therefore articulate with what is known about cognitive processing in general, regardless of whether one posits a special ....

....a number of non Western spatial systems, as recounted above, these and other researchers have addressed a cluster of issues which impinge on the work described here. These are described below. 2.4. 2 Trajectors and Landmarks The terms trajector and landmark, introduced in Chapter 1, are drawn from [Langacker, 1987], who characterizes these two roles that entities may play in a relation as follows: In virtually every relational predication, an asymmetry can be observed between the profiled participants. One of them, called the trajector (tr) has special status . The term trajector suggests motion, and in ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Ronald Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I: Theoretical Prerequisites, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1987.

....cutting. Polysemy has been a phenomenon about which the formalist approach has had practically nothing to say, with its insistence on well defined, and disambiguated meanings. However, a recent school within linguistics with unmistakably anti formalist leanings, namely cognitive linguistics (cf. [Langacker, 1987; Lakoff, 1987] has taken polysemy and the phenomenon of metaphor with which it is closely related as an important indicator of the nature of language and meaning. After all, polysemy is usually characterized as the property of certain lexical items to have a number of distinct, but ....

....which his system performs. A fully comprehensive exposition of this and more is [Regier, 1992] warmly recommended for both linguists and connectionists. Some more details will be given along the way, as they become relevant. 6 The terms trajector and landmark where originally proposed in [Langacker, 1987]. Second, and importantly for the work reported in this paper, Regier s system can be said to learn spatial relations or concepts , that are expressed in different languages, but (in my opinion) can not be said to perceptually ground the spatial terms of the language, unless the sentences of ....

Ronald Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I: Theoretical Prerequisites, Stanford University Press, 1987.

.... (under a single event interpretation) while a 1 Leisi,1953; Allen, 1966:197 200; Leech,1969:141, 143 44; Taylor,1977:210 211; Mourelatos,1978:425 426, 429 30; Mourelatos, 1981; Bach,1981:67, 70; 1986: 5, 8, 14; Carlson,1981; Talmy,1978, 1985, 1986, 1988; Hinrichs,1985; Krifka, 1986; Talmy, 1986; Langacker,1987; Jackendoff,1987, 1990:27; Zucchi, 1993, among others. Hana Filip, Quantification, Aspect and Lexicon 8 cumulative Incremental Theme, such as wine in (24b) yields a cumulative atelic complex verbal predicate. Krifka s and Dowty s account of telicity amounts to the claim that the different ....

Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

No context found.

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, volume 1. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

No context found.

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, volume 1. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

No context found.

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, volume 1. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

No context found.

R. Langacker. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar : Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 1987.

No context found.

Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar I: theoretical prerequisites, Stanford University Press, Stanford.

No context found.

Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC