Cognitive derivation of verbs in French



This article deals with the derivational potential of atomic and latent predicates “être”, “avoir”, “aller”, “mettre”, “faire” in the propositional structure. Proposition is considered as all-purpose mental structure which is realized on the syntax level. As the research has shown, all predicates above-listed have the highest pitch of abstractedness and are used as predicates of the first sequence to form more specific propositional structures. The main property of such atomic predicates is the fact that they can encompass actants of different origins.

Introduction

In understanding the ontology of the language system, the idea of the double nature of thought and language interaction is of fundamental importance. On the one hand, we can observe a strong and profound interconnection between the cognitive level and the language level, but on the other hand, such connection is relative and both levels are interdependent.

The purpose of the study is to give theoretical justification to the notion of «cognitive derivatology», comprising the totality of the derivational processes of the verbs at conceptual and linguistic levels. Hence, in our opinion, cognitive derivatology can be divided into two broad classes: specifically cognitive and cognitive-linguistic.

Theoretical background of the study of cognitive linguistic

Cognitive science is aimed at studying the way how different cognitive processes work and what channels are involved in coding and transformation of knowledge about the world. It is proved that the language has the highest degree of incoming information categorisation. In a simplified way, categorization is a rank-ordered hierarchy of concepts which allows the speakers to get, identify and classify the incoming flow of information about the surrounding world [16, P. 25; 17, P. 194]. All the information that is partially represented in the language is almost completely displayed in the mental space of a human. Cognitologists stated that a very rich world of mental representations comes down to the limited number of cognitive formats and concepts which can be interpreted first of all as units, separated by a linguist, and secondly as markers of the collective consciousness. Thirdly, it can be interpreted as basic universal semantic categories, reflected in a human consciousness and verbalized by a word of this or that language.

The complexity of the concept emphasises its ontological nature as well as its universal and double character in relation to the language level. Thus, A. Chenki, basing on the statements, made by M. Turner and G. Fauconnier and studying the blending of grammar concepts, writes that the concept is «a dynamic process, during which a speaker draws elements from different mental spaces (or «inputs») into the unified integrated so-called blended space» [7; 8; 14].

Research in the field of word-formation in terms of the onomasiological approach is adopted by the «propositional» form. Scientists pointed out that the basis and the indication are derived from the illation «scribe is one who writes». It is obvious that the modern discursive-cognitive paradigm has embraced the conclusions of the onomasiological approach and in the description, it has arranged the conceptual characteristics in the three-term structure.

Therefore, the study of cognitive foundations of the language change is reduced to understanding the functionality which the predicate bears, more precisely as conceptual characteristics influence each other through a specific function. Generally, H. Fillmore’s case grammar of is the basis for such studies [11].

Currently, in Russian linguistics there is a huge number of works related to the issues of secondary meaning and derivation on cognitive and linguistic levels. Russian cognitive science studies the formats of knowledge, the distinguishing feature of which is the generalized character of the semantic and cognitive analysis. Methods of analysis of derivational bases of linguistic and conceptual elements were elaborated.

Russian methodology of the study of derivational processes with constant reference to the conceptual level brings research to a higher level, forming a separate branch of linguistics — cognitive derivatology. As the whole paradigm of linguistics, cognitive derivatology has a typical dichotomy which is based on the contraposition of general and concepts belonging to a purely cognitive sphere: «diachrony/synchrony», «syntagmatic/paradigmatic», «primary/secondary», etc. In general, cognitive derivatology aims to study the principles of emergence of new conceptual structures and cognitive bases of formation at different language levels.

As shown by the analysis of theoretical and factual material, all research in cognitive linguistics is held in two directions: on a purely cognitive level when considering the development of conceptual structures, and, on the grounds of interconnection of conceptual and linguistic levels. Both areas have no clear boundaries, as in considering the derivation of conceptual units the authors use the language material as source of examples. Therefore, in our view, it is expedient to divide cognitive derivatology into two broad classes: specifically cognitive and cognitive-linguistic.

Giving the definition for both of the designated classes it’s possible to say that, the specifically cognitive class includes processes of forming or developing the conceptual framework and various concepts at the mental level. The main object of study of the specifically cognitive class is the concept. In this case, the concept is examined not in statics, but in retrospective dynamics, i.e., the specifically cognitive class is formed by the «historical» study of the elements of the conceptual system of one or another national culture.

The core concept of the specifically cognitive class can be the «derived concept», or «secondary concept». Derived concepts, in the definition of L. V. Babina, are formed on the basis of certain cognitive mechanisms and the emergence or restructuring of conceptual features, which are absent in original concepts [3, P. 39]. In the analysis of interrelations between cognitive and linguistic concepts the scientist uses the term «secondary representation», classifying it as «linguistic representations of the known, but to some extent modified conceptual content in a consequential form, i.e. through the use of a secondary language means» [3, P. 54]. The author highlights conceptual characteristics that constitute mental space of the language. In accordance, these concepts play a double role: they serve as donors and as recipients. The newly created conceptual formations become an integral part of the general conceptual space [3, P. 13].

Theoretical justification for the introduction of the term «cognitive derivatology»

The investigations of recent years, conducted by cognitologists, prove that in the process of speech production and word formation an important role is played by the conceptual tripartite concepts which reflect subject-object and functionally-predicative relations, studied, depending on the aim of investigation, in the form of a syntactical, word-formational or speech-productive structure, that represents logical connections of the surrounding world [3; 6]. The synonym «propositional structure» is, in our opinion, the universal one and combines all the above mentioned concepts. Such structure can be represented by different methods and depends on the investigator's goal, and the choice between sub-types of the subject-object relations. The first notices of such relations can be found in ancient times. Thus classical Greek philosopher Aristotle pointed out ten fundamental categories of relations such as nature, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action and endurance [1]. In the course of time and being under the pressure of certain philosophic norms, logical categories of relations underwent changes, developed and came a long way from severe scholastic dogmatics of the Ancient Times and Middle Ages to the Wittgenstein category which has no clear boundaries [18].

Derivational processes also take place on the basis of general capabilities and properties of the conceptual system. In the analysis of specific language discursive formations such properties of conceptual systems were identified as fractality, informational content, minimization, syncretism on the basis of anthropocentric properties of the language system and striving of the conceptual system to conservation.

Syncretism is inextricably linked with the process of frame propositionalization. Accordingly, the propositional frame consists of elements, that are genetically related to other elements of the conceptual structure or attached to another part of the frame, i.e. if necessary, the elements use appropriate area for an adequate conceptualization of the extralinguistic world. The same predicate can combine several subjects and objects; the role of the subject and the object being interchangeable: each subject can play the role of the object and vice versa.

Under the pressure of the verbal-centric theory of speech production the categories of the subject-object relations have the concept of the predicate as a central notion. In this case we consider the predicate as a function, which determines semantic roles of subjects and objects or actants and connects them into one tripartite propositional structure. The role of the predicate is usually performed by an actional unit, which is verbalized by a verbal word form. The concept of the predicate is a linguistic universal, which is studied both on the language and cognitive levels. In the core of structural linguistics it was stated that the inner form of the verb has not one but at least two predicates: the main predicate which identifies the predicate in the state of a categorial-lexical seme, and the auxiliary one which is presented in the form of a differential seme. Both the main and the auxiliary predicates are usually connected by the logical relations of purpose, result, consequence, manner etc. [2].

Cognitive science, which has a broad interpretation of the concept of the predicate, was able to prove the fact that the predicate has the verb and the whole phrase [4]. As a result the predicate is a kind of an integrating element which has both its own aspects of categorisation and conceptualization and certain lexical meaning peculiar for the given language which allows or forbids the connection with this or that number of arguments, or actants, and regulate the distribution of «roles» among them [5]. The authors point out the following roles of actant relations: transformation relation, creative relation, addressing relation, factitive relation, perceptional relation, cognitive relation, emotive relation, instrumental relation, privative relation [10].

The profound case grammar by Ch. Fillmore shows that all the actant roles come down to the final set of main abstract typical events without additional functions. These are causation, perception, movement, being in a certain state, possession, changes of state (location), endurance, influence [5]. In such a way the propositional structure consists of a minimum of three elements — actants — and a predicate-function, which connects them. The character of actants depends on conceptual, functionally-categorical peculiarities of the predicate. All the actants can come down to two main roles: the role of the subject and the role of the object [15; 10].

G. Lakoff, R. Langacker and some other investigators prefer to use the terms the agent and the patient. R. Langacker points out the prototypical agent (or proto-agent) and prototypical patient (or proto-patient). The agent performs some action, it is the directed and controllable action, therefore the agent is its «energy source». The patient suffers some change («performs the transfer to the new state») [13]. According to A. Goldberg, who develops the ideas of G. Lakoff, the main difference between the proto-patient and the proto-agent is the fact that the proto-patient is dependent and not free. According to A. Goldberg such proto-patient suffers the changes of state, increments, broadens, overcomes causative development of the other participant, is stable in relation to the movement of the proto-agent, exists in dependence on the event or is absent at all [12; 9].

The research methodology of cognitive-linguistic class

According to the results of the investigation, predicates can have the highest degree of abstractiveness and express the simplest relations between the actants. Such predicates are the functions of the first sequence and can be included in the structure of predicates of the second and following sequence.

Thus, the simplest predicate of the first sequence in the French linguistic culture is “être”, which expresses the conceptual characteristic of «being in a definite state». The predicate “avoir” is more complicated since it is formed by means of the predicate “être” and consists of the characteristic of «possession» along with the above mentioned one. Compare: avoir ← *être en possession, en jouissance.

The more actants are able to make connections with the predicate, the more abstract and latent it is. Accordingly, the derivational abilities of predicates of the second and following sequences directly depend on the character of the predicate of the first sequence and on the actants which it can connect in its structure. For example, avoisinner ← *être dans le voisinage. Predicates of the first sequence acquire the feature of atomicity. Under the atomicity we understand the highest ability of the predicate to form the tripartite structure of proposition, connecting actants of several categories which have a different origin. Atomicity has an inseparable connection with the predicative latence which is characterised by the ability of the predicate of the first sequence to come into the structure of predicates of higher sequences which have functional-categorical and conceptual characteristics of atomic predicates.

Let us consider the evolution of some predicates basing on the information given in such dictionaries as Dictionnaire Unversel, Le Robert: Dictionnaire étymologique du français and Le nouveau Petit Robert de la langue française.

Abstract predicative relation «movement», the main conceptual feature of which is «forward direction», is represented by the French predicate “aller”. The structure of the predicate “aller” has a general form, which, as a rule, combines two semantic roles of who performs the action and who suffers this action. In addition, this predicative structure can include different indicators.

In the course of evolution the predicate “aller” transferred from the sphere of the concrete to the abstract one. This process was accompanied by gradual losing of concrete actants. Compare: aller ← ambulare (Latin) = marcher au pas ← se promener ← faire un tour. Now the predicate “aller” has the meaning of «movement of the subject/object in space» and the presence of the conceptual feature «forward movement» gives the actants the character of an action: aller à pied, aller en train, aller par mer, aller à trot, aller seul etc.

The indirect proof of this fact is the evolution of other predicates of movement, which also tend to abstractiveness. For example, the predicate “arriver”, which meant the arrival from the other shore (side), has in modern French the meaning of moving of the subject from the initial point to the final destination. Compare: arriver ← arripare (Latin) = arriver d’une autre côté (from Latin ripa — shore).

The increase of the degree of abstractiveness is also accompanied by the process of grammaticalisation. Thus, the French predicate “aller” can express future due to its conceptual characteristic of «moving to the definite point».

Due to abstractiveness the genetic or elementary predicate acquires latency and can be actualized in different predicates of movement while actualizing one of the indicators of locativity. Compare: partir ← s’en *aller; rendre ← *aller (en ayant une direction); passer ← *aller d’un lieu à un autre; avancer ← aller en avant.

Due to the increase of conceptual features of a higher sequence the elementary pedicate acquires a more latent character. For example, sortir (3rd sequence) ← *passer du dedans au dehors (2nd sequence) ← *aller d’un lieu à un autre (1st sequence); traverser (3rd sequence) ← *passer à travers, d’un côté à l’autre (2nd sequence) ← *aller d'un lieu à un autre (1st sequence).

So according to the results of the investigation, the latent predicate of the first sequence, being the basis for the propositional structure, bears the functional and categorical load of the whole proposition, which reflects the «signs» of the latent predicate structure. Thus the propositional structure, formed for account of a definite predicate, displays, according to V. A. Zvegintsev, the linguistic gene which contains the «genetic information» about the methods of sentence evolution [5]. The «genetics» of the latent predicate consists in its ability to participate in the formation of more definite predicative forms for account of one or several meanings. According to N. N. Boldyrev, each of such meanings can be actualized and modified on the sub-categorical level [4]. These indicators are realized in speech according to the integrative principle, i.e. the meaning of the phrase is not realized in every indicator separately, but in their totality [9].

The predicate «causation» shows the way how the subject induces the object to perform some definite actions. This predicate, from the viewpoint of formal logic, is the most widespread category. The most abstract, elementary and latent predicates in the French laguage are the predicates “mettre” and “faire” which are the bases for formation of predicates of the second and following sequences. For example, the predicate “mettre” participates in the formation of the following predicates of the second sequence: pourvoir ← *mettre en possession; blouser ← *mettre dans la blouse; armer ← *mettre en état d’une armature; musiquer ← *mettre en musique; donner ← *mettre en possession de.

The predicate “mettre” also has the conceptual characteristic of «locative in its structure». This characteristic determines the position of the object in space, defining its location. This characteristic enhances the derivational potential of this elementary predicate of the first sequence. Compare: placer ← *mettre à une place, en un lieu déterminé; poser = mettre en un endroit qui peut naturellement la recevoir et la porter.

As well as the predicate of movement “aller”, the predicate “mettre” can be more latent and can form predicates of the second and following sequences. For example, аccoucher (3rd sequence) ← *donner la naissance (2nd sequence) ← *mettre en possession de (1st sequence); еssayer (3rd sequence) ← *soumettre à une ou des opérations pour voir si elle répond aux caractères qu’elle doit avoir (2nd sequence) ← *mettre dans un état de dépendance, ramener à l’obéissance (1st sequence); boxer (3rd sequence) ← *pratiquer la boxer (2nd sequence) ← *mettre à exécution (en pratique); рousser (3rd sequence) ← *soumettre à une force agissant par pression ou par choc et permettent de mettre en mouvement et de déplacer dans une direction (2nd sequence) ← *mettre en possession de (1st sequence).

The predicate “faire” also has the highest degree of abstractiveness. This predicate has the ability to connect actants of different categories thanks to its functional-categorical peculiarities both on language and conceptual levels. For example, danser — *faire un mouvement vers l’avant; débarqer — *faire sortir d’un navir;

The predicate “faire” on the propositional level has the main feature of giving to the substantivised and static actants the status of action, which is expressed in the language with the help of a unique verbal form, the language «envelope» of which, according to the investigation, depends on the category and semantics of the object. For example: сulbuter ← *faire une culbute; muser ← *faire un bruit sourd à bouche fermée; arquer ← *courber en arc ← *rendre courbe; commercer — *faire du commerce; cachemarder — *faire des cauchemars.

Conclusion

Thus, the case grammar, developed by Ch. Fillmore within the framework of cognitive linguistics, allowed us to point out elementary predicates which have no additional semantics. To our mind, this methodology turned out to be very effective since it allows to reveal the predicates of the first sequence and trace their development and their influence on the change of the propositional structure in different lingual cultures. As the results of the investigation show, the development of the predicative structure of the French language is of a double character. On the one hand, the predicate tends to a more abstract form which is expressed in the gradual loss of definite actants of the propositional structure. This leads to gradual abstracting of the predicate and turns it to the predicate of the first sequence in relation to more concrete predicates. Predicates of the first sequence possess the atomicity and latency and, from the viewpoint of the case grammar, go up to the highest degree of subject-object relations. Among elementary predicates of the first sequence in the French language one can point out the following: “être”, “aller”, “mettre”, “faire”. They are the bases for the formation of the predicate of the second and following sequences. The investigation, which had been conducted within the framework of the cognitive linguistics in the sphere of development of the French language predicative system, proved that the development of predicates tended to the increase of their degree of abstractiveness. This process is characterised by a gradual loss of concrete actants in the propositional structure. Predicates, which have the highest degree of abstractiveness, have the feature of atomicity and latency. The atomicity of the predicate is revealed in the highest degree of freedom to connect actants of different categories. Latency of the predicate is revealed in its ability to participate in the formation and development of more concrete predicates which already have a limited number of actants. Latent predicates in this case are predicates of the first sequence; they bear cultural and cognitive gene of predicates and propositional structures of the second sequence. Cognitive-linguistic class includes the processes of interaction of conceptual structures with language units and explores the cognitive causes of semantic, synthetic, syntactic, discursive, etc. derivations. The most popular methods of cognitive derivatology research are the method of frame semantics, propositional and cognitive matrix methods.

References:

1. Аристотель. Собрание сочинений в 4 т. Т. 3 / Аристотель. — М.: Изд-во «Мысль», 1981. — 613 с.
2. Бабенко Л. Г. Глаголы комплексной полипропозитивной семантики / Л. Г. Бабенко // Русская глагольная лексика: пересекаемость парадигм: Памяти Э. В. Кузнецовой / под общ. ред. Л. Г. Бабенко. –Екатеринбург, 1997. — С. 30–45.
3. Бабина Л. В. Когнитивные основы вторичных явлений в языке и речи: монография / Л. В. Бабина. — Тамбов-М.: Изд-во ТГУ им. Г. Р. Державина, 2003b. — 246 с.
4. Болдырев Н. Н. Функциональная категоризация английского глагола: монография / Н. Н. Болдырев. — СПб, 1995. — 139 c.
5. Звегинцев В. А. Мысли о лингвистике / В. А. Звегинцев. — М.: Изд-во МГУ, 1996. — 336 с.
6. Кубрякова Е. С. Типы языковых значений: cемантика производного слова / Е. С. Кубрякова. — М.: Изд-во ЛКИ, 2008. — 208 с.
7. Ченки А. Конструкции, метафоры и слияние концептов / А. Ченки / Когнитивная семантика: м-лы 2-й Международн. научн. шк.: В 2 ч. Ч. 2. — Тамбов: Изд-во ТГУ им. Г. Р. Державина, 2000. — С. 6–8.
8. Coulson S. and Fauconnier G. Fake Guns and Stone Lions: Conceptual Blending and Privative Adjectives / S. Coulson and G.Fauconnier // URL: www.cogisci.uscd.edu/~coulson/Fake/fakeguns.htm (01.08.2014).
9. Croft W. and Alan D. Cognitive Linguistics / W. Croft and D. Alan. — Cambridge: University Press, 2004. — 356 p.
10. Fillmore Ch. Scenes and Frames Semantics in Linguistic Structures / Ch. Fillmore. — Amsterdam: Processing Hrsg. Antonio Zampolli, N. Holland, 1977. — P. 55–88.
11. Fillmore Ch. The Case for Case. Universal in linguistic theory / Ch. Fillmore. — L., 1968. — P. 3–88.
12. Goldberg A. Constructions: Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure / A. Goldberg. — Chicago, London: The University of Chicago, 1995. — 271 p.
13. Langacker W. R. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar / W. R. Langacker. — Berlin-N.-Y.: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991. — 395 p.
14. Langacker W. R. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites / W. R. Langacker. — Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987. — 540 p.
15. Palmer F. R. Grammatical roles and relations / F. R. Palmer. — Cambridge: University Press, 1994. — 276 p.
16. Rosch E. N. Principles of Categorization. Cognition and Categorization / E. N. Rosch. — Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. — 1978. — P. 27–48.
17. Rosch E. H. Natural Categories / E. H. Rosch // Cognitive Psychology 104(3), 1973. — P. 192–233.
18. Wittgenstein L. Philosophical Investigations / L. Wittgenstein. –Oxford: Basic Blackwell, 1954. — 250 p.