Glottopedia - User contributions [en]

Profile (in Cognitive Grammar)

2008-05-27T17:16:27Z

Rulavi: section header

In [[Cognitive Grammar]] [[semantics | semantic]] structures generally are expected to consist in a [[designatum]] which "stands out in bas-relief" (Lindner 1981) against a background of related cognitive structures which are collectively referred to as the [[base (in Cognitive Grammar)|base]] of the particular semantic structure. This designatum is called the '''profile''', and is said to be "profiled" against the base. ("Profile" is, accordingly, used as both a noun and a verb.)

This distinction of profile vs. base is taken to be a manifestation of figure/ground organization: the profiled element (designatum) is the figure and the base is the ground against which it is construed. There may be additional layers of figure-ground organization involved: in particular the [[trajector (in Cognitive Grammar)|trajector]] within a relational profile is understood as a kind of figure with respect to the rest of the relational profile.

===Profile Types===

Langacker claims (e.g. 2007:438-441) that the most basic grammatical categories (including [[noun]] and [[verb]] and their major subclasses, along with [[adjective]], [[adverb]] and [[adposition]]) differ semantically in the kind of entity they profile. Nouns (and other nominal entities such as [[pronoun]]s, [[NP]]s, etc.) profile a Thing, which is defined as a reified group. Adjectives, adverbs and adpositions profile (non-processual) relations of various sorts (adjectives have a Thing as trajector while adverbs have a relational trajector: adpositions, whether adjectival or adverbial, are [[transitive]], expecting to be accompanied by an [[object]].) Verbs (and other verbal structures such as [[VP]]s, [[clause]]s, etc.) profile a process, that is a temporally evolving relation sequentially scanned through time.

For example, the English semantic structure CIRCLE profiles a closed curve on a base consisting of two-dimensional space; ARC profiles a curved segment on a base consisting of a circle; CHORD profiles a straight line segment on a base consisting of an arc (and therefore, further in the cognitive background, of circle and two-dimensional space). These are all Things. BISECT, however, is a verb: it profiles a process in which a trajector divides a landmark into two equal parts.

The bases of most semantic structures are considerably more complex than these (see [[base (in Cognitive Grammar)|base (in Cognitive Grammar)]]). For instance, AUNT profiles a female human being against a base centrally involving kinship relations and especially the relation of the profiled person to a sibling’s child (the [[ego (kinship)|ego]]). ACE profiles a particular kind of card against the complex base of a pack of cards in their different suits, with the relative values of each card, typical card games and how the aces function in each, etc. SURRENDER profiles an action (a kind of process) of allowing an antagonist to win, against a base involving some sort of contest or conflict, including the expectation (denied by the profiled process) that both agonists will continue contesting each other's supremacy, and so forth.

The differences among the basic kinds of profiles, in the last analysis, are matters of [[construal (in Cognitive Grammar)|construal]] rather than necessarily reflecting differences in the objective situation referred to. COMPLAIN, COMPLAINT, and COMPLAINER may be seen as all involving the same process. COMPLAIN profiles the process itself, COMPLAINT reifies that process and profiles it as a Thing, and COMPLAINER relegates the process to the base by profiling its most prominent participant (its trajector).

In any relationship of full [[schema (in Cognitive Grammar)|schematicity]], the profiles of schema and elaboration must match. In a sequence such as DO → ACT → MOVE → RUN → LOPE the profile (that of a process) matches all the way down; in other kinds of sequences (e.g. a constructional sequence such as COMPUTE > COMPUTER > COMPUTER EXPERT, or an associational sequence such as CAT > MOUSE > CHEESE) the elements are not schematic for each other and the profiles do not match.

===Profile determinance===

When [[symbol (in Cognitive Grammar)|symbolic]] structures such as morphemes or words are joined together syntagmatically, it is usual for the composite semantic structure (the meaning of the complex symbolic structure) to inherit its profile from one of its components. That semantic component is [[schema (in Cognitive Grammar)|schematic]] for the composite structure, and it (or, derivatively, the symbol in which it serves as the semantic pole) may be called the '''profile determinant''' of the structure. In clear cases, the notion of a profile determinant is equivalent to the traditional notion of a [[head]]. The profile determinant is thus schematic for the composite structure: in the count noun ''football'' BALL (or, derivatively, ''ball'') is head of the compound because the profiled element of FOOTBALL is the same as that of BALL: a football is a ball and not a foot.

There is nothing, however, that says there must always be a profile determinant, or that there will only be one. Often there is a relationship of only partial schematicity between the most head-like component and the composite structure, e.g. in ''French toast'' the overall designatum is like TOAST, but is not a straightforward example of the category. A non-prototypical headship relationship can be recognized here: ''toast'' is certainly closer to being head than is ''French''. In a word like ''eavesdrop'' the relationship is more tenuous, but one would still want to say that DROP, being a process, has a profile more like that of EAVESDROP than does EAVES. In ''neighbor lady'' or ''slam-dunk'' it makes sense to say that both components are profile determinant, and in ''spitfire'' or ''yellow-jacket'' or ''holdup'' that neither is.

Sometimes the profile determinant element contributes little besides the profiling, and the vast majority of the semantic specifications (the bulk of the semantic "weight") is contributed by the other element. The profile determinant element in such cases has sometimes been termed a [[transformation (in Cognitive Grammar)|transformational]] element. Such cases have traditionally been problematic as far as "headship" is concerned. For instance, in ''assignment'' is ''assign'' or is ''ment'' the head? Clearly '''ment''' is profile determinant (the complex structure designates a Thing, as -MENT but not ASSIGN specifies), but ''assign'' contributes the vast majority of the semantic specifications and is in that sense the "main" element.

=== References ===

*Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. ''Foundations of Cognitive grammar. Volume I, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

*Langacker, Ronald W. 2007. “Cognitive Grammar.” In Geeraerts, Dirk, and Hubert Cuyckens, eds. ''The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics'', pp. 421-462. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

{{dc}}
[[Category:Cognitive Grammar]]
[[Category:Semantics]]

Main Page

2008-05-15T04:45:52Z

Rulavi: omitted word

'''Welcome to [[Glottopedia:About Glottopedia|Glottopedia]], the free encyclopedia of linguistics.'''

[[Glottopedia:About Glottopedia|Introduction]]  -  [[Glottopedia:Frequently asked questions|Frequently asked questions]]  -  [[Glottopedia:Contact|Contact]]  -  [[Special:Allpages|All articles A–Z]]  -  Number of articles: [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]]  -  [[Glottopedia:Hauptseite|Glottopedia in German]]


[[Portal:Phonetics and phonology|Phonetics and phonology]] | [[Portal:Morphology|Morphology]] | [[Portal:Syntax|Syntax]] | [[Portal:Psycholinguistics|Psycholinguistics]] | [[Portal:List of portals|other thematic areas]] | [[Portal:Biography|Biography]] | [[Portal:Linguistic research|Linguistic research]] | [[Portal:Linguists|Linguists]]


{|
|- valign="top"
|colspan="2" width="50%" class="toc" style="font-size:100%;"|

[[Glottopedia:About Glottopedia|Glottopedia]] is a freely editable encyclopedia for linguists by linguists that is currently being built up. It will contain [[Glottopedia:Dictionary articles|dictionary articles]] on all technical terms of linguistics and is [[Glottopedia:Multilingual|multilingual]]. In addition, there are [[Glottopedia:Survey articles|survey articles]], [[Glottopedia:Biographical articles|biographical articles]] and [[Glottopedia:Language articles|language articles]], potentially on all linguists and all languages.

Glottopedia articles also exist in [[Glottopedia:Über Glottopedia|German]], and in the future hopefully also in [[Glottopedia:Benvenuto|Italian]], [[Glottopedia:Bienvenidos|Spanish]], [[Glottopedia:Accueil des nouveaux arrivants|French]], [[Glottopedia:про Глоттопедию|Russian]], [[Glottopedia:Velkommen|Danish]], Swedish, [[Glottopedia:欢迎，新来者|Chinese]], and Japanese.

Glottopedia needs your '''[[Glottopedia:How to contribute|contribution]]'''!

=Glottopedia Team=

Editors-in-Chief: [[Martin Haspelmath]], [[Sven Naumann]]

Technical Editors: [[Götz Burger]], [[Hans-Jörg Bibiko]]

Scientific Advisory Council: [[Gabriel Altmann]], [[Pier Marco Bertinetto]], [[Greville G. Corbett]], [[Östen Dahl]], [[Martin Haase]], [[Reinhard Köhler]], [[John McWhorter]], [[Paul Newman]], [[Jürgen Wedekind]]

=Sample dictionary articles=

===Syntax===
(see also [[Portal:Syntax]])

[[alliterative agreement]], [[applicative]], [[apposition]], [[argument structure]], [[attribute]], [[case]], [[complement]], [[contact clause]], [[core argument]], [[c-structure]], [[dative transformation]], [[dependency grammar]], [[ellipsis]], [[ergativity]], [[free state]], [[full verb]], [[gapping]], [[infinitive]], [[internal argument]], [[negative concord]], [[nonconfigurationality]], [[noun]], [[part of speech]], [[phrase structure grammar]], [[pied piping]], [[prepositional phrase]], [[pro]], [[PRO]], [[rich agreement]], [[semantic macrorole]], [[subject]], [[subordinator]], [[subcomparative construction]], [[syntactic function]], [[X-bar theory]], [[Θ-role]]

===Morphology===
(see also [[Portal:Morphology]])

[[accusative case]], [[adfix]], [[affix]], [[allocutive]], [[base]], [[category-system]], [[deadjectival]], [[derivation]], [[dimension]], [[Distributed Morphology]], [[expletive infixation]], [[fission]], [[flag]], [[impoverishment]], [[infinitive]], [[inflection]], [[lexeme]], [[macroparadigm]], [[morpheme]], [[morphophonemics]], [[morphosyntactic category]], [[oblique case]], [[plurale tantum]], [[prefix]], [[reduplicant]], [[simplex]], [[supine]], [[suspended affixation]], [[syncretism]]

===Phonetics and Phonology===
(see also [[Portal:Phonetics and phonology]])

[[affricate]], [[apocope]], [[apicodental]], [[appendix (in syllable structure)]], [[approximant]], [[breathy voice]], [[coda]], [[compensatory lengthening]], [[Contrastive Specification Theory]], [[dactyl]], [[declarative phonology]], [[degenerate foot]], [[dependency phonology]], [[extrametricality]], [[fricative]], [[labiodental]], [[laryngeal]], [[lateral]], [[liquid]], [[manner of articulation]], [[Maximal Onset Principle]], [[metrical phonology]], [[minimal word constraint]], [[nasal]], [[natural class]], [[pitch accent (lexical)]], [[prependix]], [[stop]], [[stress]], [[stress-timed and syllable-timed]], [[uvular]], [[velar]], [[velarization]], [[vowel]]

===Semantics===
(see also [[Portal:Semantics]])

[[agent]], [[ambiguity]], [[antonym]], [[aspect]], [[commissive]], [[collective noun]], [[connotation]], [[de dicto and de re]], [[denotation]], [[directive]], [[echo question]], [[face]], [[hedge]], [[holonym]], [[hyperonym]], [[hyponym]], [[idiom]], [[illocution]], [[implicature]], [[indirect speech act]], [[internally caused situation]], [[meaning]], [[modality]], [[Natural Semantic Metalanguage]], [[performative verb]], [[perlocutionary act]], [[proposition]], [[protasis]], [[semantic marker]], [[semantic role]], [[sense]], [[specificity]], [[speech act]], [[vagueness]]

===Computational Linguistics===
(see also [[Portal:Computational Linguistics]])

[[Brill-Tagger]], [[feature logic]], [[finite-state automata]], [[Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar|GPSG]], [[HPSG]], [[Lexical-Functional Grammar|LFG]], [[ID/LP rules]], [[KWIC concordance]], [[parser]], [[shallow parsing]], [[subsumption]], [[tagger]], [[Two-level morphology]], [[unification]], [[unification-based grammars]], [[machine translation]], [[chunking]]

===Quantitative Linguistics===
(see also [[Portal:Quantitative Linguistics]])

[[aims and methods of quantitative linguistics]], [[history of quantitative linguistics ]],
[[property]], [[unit]], [[entropy]], [[frequency]], [[function]], [[law]], [[graph theory]], [[hypothesis]],
[[index]], [[information]], [[information theory]], [[numeric classification]], [[length]], [[measure]],
[[metrics]], [[model (building)]], [[economy]], [[process]], [[scale]], [[language law]], [[statistics]],
[[structure]], [[synergetic linguistics]], [[system]], [[system requirement]], [[text]], [[text statistics]],
[[theory]], [[distribution]], [[repetition]], [[properties of the word]], [[interrelation]], [[polysemy]], [[polytextuality]], [[neighbours]], [[Ngram frequency]]

=Sample biographical articles=
(see also: [[Portal:Biography]])

[[Karl Ferdinand Becker]] · [[Johannes Benzing]] · [[Simon C. Dik]] · [[Dionysius Thrax]] · [[Stefan Elders]] · [[H. Allan Gleason Jr.]] · [[Einar Haugen]] · [[Marco Haverkort]] · [[Karl Erich Heidolph]] · [[Boris Isaakovič Jarcho]] · [[Georg Friedrich Meier]] · [[Harry L. Shorto]] · [[John Sinclair]] · [[Sergej A. Starostin]] · [[Jost Winteler]]

[[Category:En]]
[[Category:Glottopedia]]

=Other Languages=
* German [[Glottopedia:Hauptseite|Hauptseite]]

Applicative

2008-05-04T14:19:47Z

Rulavi: /* The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives */ wording

An '''applicative''' is a [[Derivation (morphology)|derived]] [[verb]] [[stem]] denoting an action with an additional [[participant]] which is not an [[actor]]-like [[argument]]. If the non-applicative verb is already [[transitive]] the old [[direct object]] can be replaced by the new argument and is then pushed into an [[adjunct]] or [[secondary object]] position.

=== Examples ===

[[German]] (with replacement of the direct object):

{|
|-
| ''Horst'' || ''be-läd-t'' || ''den'' || ''Wagen'' || ''mit'' || ''Heu''
|-
| PN || APPL-load-3s || DEF.ACC.ms || trolley || with || hay
|-
| colspan='6' | ‘Horst loads hay on the trolley.’
|-
|}

[[Hakha Lai]] (Peterson 2002) (without replacement):

{|
|-
| ''ʔa-law'' || ''ʔa-kan-thloʔ-taak''
|-
| 3s.POSS-field || 3s.A-1p.P-hoe-RELINQUITIVE.APPL
|-
| colspan='2' | ‘He left us and hoed his field.’
|-
|}

=== Comments ===

Many languages with applicative constructions have different applicative morphemes depending on the former role of the attached argument. Hakha Lai, for instance, has different suffixes for [[Comitative]], [[Instrumental]], [[Allative]]/[[Malefactive]], [[Benefactive]]/Malefactive, [[Additional Benefactive]], [[Prioritive]] and [[Relinquitive]].

Other languages may have a number of different suffixes but not systematically link particular suffixes with particular usages. Nahuatl generally works this way. For instance, it is not predictable in [[Tetelcingo Nahuatl]], but must be learned, that ''kōw-ia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy for (s.o.)’ whereas ''kōwi-lia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy from (s.o.)’.

=== The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives ===

Applicatives and [[causatives]] are closely related in a number of languages. Both introduce a new nominal [[argument]] to derive a new transitive verb from a more basic verb (whether transitive or intransitive). Causatives, however, introduce a new subject rather than a new object.

Nahuatl suffixes which are usually used as causatives (e.g. ''-tia'' or ''-ltia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are applicatives, and applicative suffixes (e.g. ''-ia'' or ''-lia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are causative.

Some cases show aspects of causative meaning along with aspects of applicative meaning. Thus in Tetelcingo Nahuatl when the (normally causative) suffix ''-tia'' is affixed to the stem ''čōka'' ‘cry’, the resultant stem (''čōkītia'') does not mean ‘cause (s.o.) to cry’ (causative), nor ‘cry out to (s.o.)’ (perhaps the most-expected applicative meaning). Rather it means ‘mourn (s.o.)’. A person’s death (in the typical case) causes someone to cry: this is clearly like a causative. However, the person who causes the crying (the new nominal argument) is not taken as the [[subject]] of the complex verb stem, but as its [[object]]. This is like the applicative pattern. However, in the typical applicative pattern the crying would be viewed as causing an effect on the new object; here it is caused by the new object.

Where a causing and a caused process are of the same kind, either a causative or an applicative construal of the same event may be possible. Thus the German ''be-atmen'' (applicative-breathe) ‘give artificial respiration mouth-to-mouth’ could be construed as causing the object to breathe or as breathing (in)to or for the object. The more extensive usage of ''be-'' as an applicative than as a causative would favor the second construal.

Causative and applicative affixes may also be used for verbalizing non-verbal stems, usually producing a transitive verb, as they do when affixed to verb stems. Many of these usages can be seen as tending towards a causative meaning (when the designatum is associated with the subject) and others towards an applicative meaning (when the designatum is associated with the object.) However, the analysis is not straightforward, and most cases can be seen as in some degree mixed. For instance, in [[Orizaba Nawatl]] ''ama-tia'' (paper-causative) ‘provide (s.o.) with documents’, one could see the idea as ''the subject causing [the object to have papers]'', or as ''[the subject preparing or issuing papers] to/for the object''. The first would be a causative-tending construal, and the second an applicative-tending construal.

Somewhat similarly, the German verb ''beenden'' 'finish (s.t.)' can be taken as a derivative of the verb ''enden'' ‘come to an end’. (Unusually for ''be-'', this would be a causative.) Otherwise, it can be taken as a verbalization (with ''be- -en'') of the noun ''end'', meaning either ''the subject cause [the object to have an end]'' or ''[the subject bring/put an end] to the object''.

=== Origin ===

The name “applicative” is of [[Latin]] origin (''applicātum'' ‘attached’). The first linguistic researchers who made use of this term in today’s sense were missionaries in MesoAmerica in the 16th and 17th centuries. They found applicative constructions in [[Nahuatl]] and other [[Uto-Aztecan languages]] and called them ''verbos aplicativos'' (e.g. Rincón 1595:45, Carochi 1645:63ff).

=== See also ===

*[[Verbal morphology]]
*[[Causative]]
*[[Valence change]]

=== References ===

*Bußmann, Hadumod (2002) ''Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft.'' Stuttgart: Kröner. ISBN 3-520-45203-0.
*Carochi, Horacio. 1645. ''Arte de la Lengva Mexicana con la Declaración de los Adverbios della.'' México: Iuan Ruyz. Edición facsimilar, 1983. México: UNAM.
*[[Peterson, David A.]] 2007. ''Applicative constructions''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
*Rincón, Antonio del. 1595. ''Arte mexicana compuesta por el padre Antonio del Rincón.'' Reprint: México 1885

=== Other languages ===

*German [[Applikativ]]
*Russian [[аппликатив]]

{{dc}}
[[Category:Syntax]]
[[Category:Valence]]
[[Category:Verbal morphology]]
[[Category:Derivation]]

Profile (in Cognitive Grammar)

2008-05-04T14:17:05Z

Rulavi: /* Profile determinance */ wording

In [[Cognitive Grammar]] [[semantics | semantic]] structures generally are expected to consist in a [[designatum]] which "stands out in bas-relief" (Lindner 1981) against a background of related cognitive structures which are collectively referred to as the [[base (in Cognitive Grammar)|base]] of the particular semantic structure. This designatum is called the '''profile''', and is said to be "profiled" against the base. ("Profile" is, accordingly, used as both a noun and a verb.)

This distinction of profile vs. base is taken to be a manifestation of figure/ground organization: the profiled element (designatum) is the figure and the base is the ground against which it is construed. There may be additional layers of figure-ground organization involved: in particular the [[trajector (in Cognitive Grammar)|trajector]] within a relational profile is understood as a kind of figure with respect to the rest of the relational profile.

Langacker claims (e.g. 2007:438-441) that the most basic grammatical categories (including [[noun]] and [[verb]] and their major subclasses, along with [[adjective]], [[adverb]] and [[adposition]]) differ semantically in the kind of entity they profile. Nouns (and other nominal entities such as [[pronoun]]s, [[NP]]s, etc.) profile a Thing, which is defined as a reified group. Adjectives, adverbs and adpositions profile (non-processual) relations of various sorts (adjectives have a Thing as trajector while adverbs have a relational trajector: adpositions, whether adjectival or adverbial, are [[transitive]], expecting to be accompanied by an [[object]].) Verbs (and other verbal structures such as [[VP]]s, [[clause]]s, etc.) profile a process, that is a temporally evolving relation sequentially scanned through time.

For example, the English semantic structure CIRCLE profiles a closed curve on a base consisting of two-dimensional space; ARC profiles a curved segment on a base consisting of a circle; CHORD profiles a straight line segment on a base consisting of an arc (and therefore, further in the cognitive background, of circle and two-dimensional space). These are all Things. BISECT, however, is a verb: it profiles a process in which a trajector divides a landmark into two equal parts.

The bases of most semantic structures are considerably more complex than these (see [[base (in Cognitive Grammar)|base (in Cognitive Grammar)]]). For instance, AUNT profiles a female human being against a base centrally involving kinship relations and especially the relation of the profiled person to a sibling’s child (the [[ego (kinship)|ego]]). ACE profiles a particular kind of card against the complex base of a pack of cards in their different suits, with the relative values of each card, typical card games and how the aces function in each, etc. SURRENDER profiles an action (a kind of process) of allowing an antagonist to win, against a base involving some sort of contest or conflict, including the expectation (denied by the profiled process) that both agonists will continue contesting each other's supremacy, and so forth.

The differences among the basic kinds of profiles, in the last analysis, are matters of [[construal (in Cognitive Grammar)|construal]] rather than necessarily reflecting differences in the objective situation referred to. COMPLAIN, COMPLAINT, and COMPLAINER may be seen as all involving the same process. COMPLAIN profiles the process itself, COMPLAINT reifies that process and profiles it as a Thing, and COMPLAINER relegates the process to the base by profiling its most prominent participant (its trajector).

In any relationship of full [[schema (in Cognitive Grammar)|schematicity]], the profiles of schema and elaboration must match. In a sequence such as DO → ACT → MOVE → RUN → LOPE the profile (that of a process) matches all the way down; in other kinds of sequences (e.g. a constructional sequence such as COMPUTE > COMPUTER > COMPUTER EXPERT, or an associational sequence such as CAT > MOUSE > CHEESE) the elements are not schematic for each other and the profiles do not match.

===Profile determinance===

When [[symbol (in Cognitive Grammar)|symbolic]] structures such as morphemes or words are joined together syntagmatically, it is usual for the composite semantic structure (the meaning of the complex symbolic structure) to inherit its profile from one of its components. That semantic component is [[schema (in Cognitive Grammar)|schematic]] for the composite structure, and it (or, derivatively, the symbol in which it serves as the semantic pole) may be called the '''profile determinant''' of the structure. In clear cases, the notion of a profile determinant is equivalent to the traditional notion of a [[head]]. The profile determinant is thus schematic for the composite structure: in the count noun ''football'' BALL (or, derivatively, ''ball'') is head of the compound because the profiled element of FOOTBALL is the same as that of BALL: a football is a ball and not a foot.

There is nothing, however, that says there must always be a profile determinant, or that there will only be one. Often there is a relationship of only partial schematicity between the most head-like component and the composite structure, e.g. in ''French toast'' the overall designatum is like TOAST, but is not a straightforward example of the category. A non-prototypical headship relationship can be recognized here: ''toast'' is certainly closer to being head than is ''French''. In a word like ''eavesdrop'' the relationship is more tenuous, but one would still want to say that DROP, being a process, has a profile more like that of EAVESDROP than does EAVES. In ''neighbor lady'' or ''slam-dunk'' it makes sense to say that both components are profile determinant, and in ''spitfire'' or ''yellow-jacket'' or ''holdup'' that neither is.

Sometimes the profile determinant element contributes little besides the profiling, and the vast majority of the semantic specifications (the bulk of the semantic "weight") is contributed by the other element. The profile determinant element in such cases has sometimes been termed a [[transformation (in Cognitive Grammar)|transformational]] element. Such cases have traditionally been problematic as far as "headship" is concerned. For instance, in ''assignment'' is ''assign'' or is ''ment'' the head? Clearly '''ment''' is profile determinant (the complex structure designates a Thing, as -MENT but not ASSIGN specifies), but ''assign'' contributes the vast majority of the semantic specifications and is in that sense the "main" element.

=== References ===

*Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. ''Foundations of Cognitive grammar. Volume I, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

*Langacker, Ronald W. 2007. “Cognitive Grammar.” In Geeraerts, Dirk, and Hubert Cuyckens, eds. ''The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics'', pp. 421-462. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

{{dc}}
[[Category:Cognitive Grammar]]
[[Category:Semantics]]

Profile (in Cognitive Grammar)

2008-05-04T14:12:56Z

Rulavi:

In [[Cognitive Grammar]] [[semantics | semantic]] structures generally are expected to consist in a [[designatum]] which "stands out in bas-relief" (Lindner 1981) against a background of related cognitive structures which are collectively referred to as the [[base (in Cognitive Grammar)|base]] of the particular semantic structure. This designatum is called the '''profile''', and is said to be "profiled" against the base. ("Profile" is, accordingly, used as both a noun and a verb.)

This distinction of profile vs. base is taken to be a manifestation of figure/ground organization: the profiled element (designatum) is the figure and the base is the ground against which it is construed. There may be additional layers of figure-ground organization involved: in particular the [[trajector (in Cognitive Grammar)|trajector]] within a relational profile is understood as a kind of figure with respect to the rest of the relational profile.

Langacker claims (e.g. 2007:438-441) that the most basic grammatical categories (including [[noun]] and [[verb]] and their major subclasses, along with [[adjective]], [[adverb]] and [[adposition]]) differ semantically in the kind of entity they profile. Nouns (and other nominal entities such as [[pronoun]]s, [[NP]]s, etc.) profile a Thing, which is defined as a reified group. Adjectives, adverbs and adpositions profile (non-processual) relations of various sorts (adjectives have a Thing as trajector while adverbs have a relational trajector: adpositions, whether adjectival or adverbial, are [[transitive]], expecting to be accompanied by an [[object]].) Verbs (and other verbal structures such as [[VP]]s, [[clause]]s, etc.) profile a process, that is a temporally evolving relation sequentially scanned through time.

For example, the English semantic structure CIRCLE profiles a closed curve on a base consisting of two-dimensional space; ARC profiles a curved segment on a base consisting of a circle; CHORD profiles a straight line segment on a base consisting of an arc (and therefore, further in the cognitive background, of circle and two-dimensional space). These are all Things. BISECT, however, is a verb: it profiles a process in which a trajector divides a landmark into two equal parts.

The bases of most semantic structures are considerably more complex than these (see [[base (in Cognitive Grammar)|base (in Cognitive Grammar)]]). For instance, AUNT profiles a female human being against a base centrally involving kinship relations and especially the relation of the profiled person to a sibling’s child (the [[ego (kinship)|ego]]). ACE profiles a particular kind of card against the complex base of a pack of cards in their different suits, with the relative values of each card, typical card games and how the aces function in each, etc. SURRENDER profiles an action (a kind of process) of allowing an antagonist to win, against a base involving some sort of contest or conflict, including the expectation (denied by the profiled process) that both agonists will continue contesting each other's supremacy, and so forth.

The differences among the basic kinds of profiles, in the last analysis, are matters of [[construal (in Cognitive Grammar)|construal]] rather than necessarily reflecting differences in the objective situation referred to. COMPLAIN, COMPLAINT, and COMPLAINER may be seen as all involving the same process. COMPLAIN profiles the process itself, COMPLAINT reifies that process and profiles it as a Thing, and COMPLAINER relegates the process to the base by profiling its most prominent participant (its trajector).

In any relationship of full [[schema (in Cognitive Grammar)|schematicity]], the profiles of schema and elaboration must match. In a sequence such as DO → ACT → MOVE → RUN → LOPE the profile (that of a process) matches all the way down; in other kinds of sequences (e.g. a constructional sequence such as COMPUTE > COMPUTER > COMPUTER EXPERT, or an associational sequence such as CAT > MOUSE > CHEESE) the elements are not schematic for each other and the profiles do not match.

===Profile determinance===

When [[symbol (in Cognitive Grammar)|symbolic]] structures such as morphemes or words are joined together syntagmatically, it is usual for the composite semantic structure (the meaning of the complex symbolic structure) to inherit its profile from one of its components. That semantic component is [[schema (in Cognitive Grammar)|schematic]] for the composite structure, and it (or, derivatively, the symbol in which it serves as the semantic pole) may be called the '''profile determinant''' of the structure. In clear cases, the notion of a profile determinant is equivalent to the tradition notion of a [[head]]. The profile determinant is thus schematic for the composite structure: in the count noun ''football'' BALL (or, derivatively, ''ball'') is head of the compound because the profiled element of FOOTBALL is the same as that of BALL: a football is a ball and not a foot.

There is nothing, however, that says there must always be a profile determinant, or that there will only be one. Often there is a relationship of only partial schematicity between the most head-like component and the composite structure, e.g. in ''French toast'' the overall designatum is like TOAST, but is not a straightforward example of the category. A non-prototypical headship relationship can be recognized here: ''toast'' is certainly closer to being head than is ''French''. In a word like ''eavesdrop'' the relationship is more tenuous, but one would still want to say that DROP, being a process, has a profile more like that of EAVESDROP than does EAVES. In ''neighbor lady'' or ''slam-dunk'' it makes sense to say that both components are profile determinant, and in ''spitfire'' or ''yellow-jacket'' or ''holdup'' that neither is.

Sometimes the profile determinant element contributes little besides the profiling, and the vast majority of the semantic specifications (the bulk of the semantic "weight") is contributed by the other element. The profile determinant element in such cases has sometimes been termed a [[transformation (in Cognitive Grammar)|transformational]] element. Such cases have traditionally been problematic as far as "headship" is concerned. For instance, in ''assignment'' is ''assign'' or is ''ment'' the head? Clearly '''ment''' is profile determinant (the complex structure designates a Thing, as -MENT but not ASSIGN specifies), but ''assign'' contributes the vast majority of the semantic specifications and is in that sense the "main" element.

=== References ===

*Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. ''Foundations of Cognitive grammar. Volume I, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

*Langacker, Ronald W. 2007. “Cognitive Grammar.” In Geeraerts, Dirk, and Hubert Cuyckens, eds. ''The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics'', pp. 421-462. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

{{dc}}
[[Category:Cognitive Grammar]]
[[Category:Semantics]]

Applicative

2008-03-14T23:58:56Z

Rulavi: /* References */

An '''applicative''' is a [[Derivation (morphology)|derived]] [[verb]] [[stem]] denoting an action with an additional [[participant]] which is not an [[actor]]-like [[argument]]. If the non-applicative verb is already [[transitive]] the old [[direct object]] can be replaced by the new argument and is then pushed into an [[adjunct]] or [[secondary object]] position.

=== Examples ===

[[German]] (with replacement of the direct object):

{|
|-
| ''Horst'' || ''be-läd-t'' || ''den'' || ''Wagen'' || ''mit'' || ''Heu''
|-
| PN || APPL-load-3s || DEF.ACC.ms || trolley || with || hay
|-
| colspan='6' | ‘Horst loads hay on the trolley.’
|-
|}

[[Hakha Lai]] (Peterson 2002) (without replacement):

{|
|-
| ''ʔa-law'' || ''ʔa-kan-thloʔ-taak''
|-
| 3s.POSS-field || 3s.A-1p.P-hoe-RELINQUITIVE.APPL
|-
| colspan='2' | ‘He left us and hoed his field.’
|-
|}

=== Comments ===

Many languages with applicative constructions have different applicative morphemes depending on the former role of the attached argument. Hakha Lai, for instance, has different suffixes for [[Comitative]], [[Instrumental]], [[Allative]]/[[Malefactive]], [[Benefactive]]/Malefactive, [[Additional Benefactive]], [[Prioritive]] and [[Relinquitive]].

Other languages may have a number of different suffixes but not systematically link particular suffixes with particular usages. Nahuatl generally works this way. For instance, it is not predictable in [[Tetelcingo Nahuatl]], but must be learned, that ''kōw-ia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy for (s.o.)’ whereas ''kōwi-lia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy from (s.o.)’.

=== The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives ===

Applicatives and [[causatives]] are closely related in a number of languages. Both introduce a new nominal [[argument]] to derive a new transitive verb from a more basic verb (whether transitive or intransitive). Causatives, however, introduce a new subject rather than a new object.

Nahuatl suffixes which are usually used as causatives (e.g. ''-tia'' or ''-ltia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are applicatives, and applicative suffixes (e.g. ''-ia'' or ''-lia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are causative.

Some cases show aspects of causative meaning along with aspects of applicative meaning. Thus in Tetelcingo Nahuatl when the (normally causative) suffix ''-tia'', when affixed to the stem ''čōka'' ‘cry’, the resultant stem (''čōkītia'') does not mean ‘cause (s.o.) to cry’ (causative), nor ‘cry out to (s.o.)’ (perhaps the most-expected applicative meaning). Rather it means ‘mourn (s.o.)’. A person’s death (in the typical case) causes someone to cry: this is clearly like a causative. However, the person who causes the crying (the new nominal argument) is not taken as the [[subject]] of the complex verb stem, but as its [[object]]. This is like the applicative pattern. However, in the typical applicative pattern the crying would be viewed as causing an effect on the new object; here it is caused by the new object.

Where a causing and a caused process are of the same kind, either a causative or an applicative construal of the same event may be possible. Thus the German ''be-atmen'' (applicative-breathe) ‘give artificial respiration mouth-to-mouth’ could be construed as causing the object to breathe or as breathing (in)to or for the object. The more extensive usage of ''be-'' as an applicative than as a causative would favor the second construal.

Causative and applicative affixes may also be used for verbalizing non-verbal stems, usually producing a transitive verb, as they do when affixed to verb stems. Many of these usages can be seen as tending towards a causative meaning (when the designatum is associated with the subject) and others towards an applicative meaning (when the designatum is associated with the object.) However, the analysis is not straightforward, and most cases can be seen as in some degree mixed. For instance, in [[Orizaba Nawatl]] ''ama-tia'' (paper-causative) ‘provide (s.o.) with documents’, one could see the idea as ''the subject causing [the object to have papers]'', or as ''[the subject preparing or issuing papers] to/for the object''. The first would be a causative-tending construal, and the second an applicative-tending construal.

Somewhat similarly, the German verb ''beenden'' 'finish (s.t.)' can be taken as a derivative of the verb ''enden'' ‘come to an end’. (Unusually for ''be-'', this would be a causative.) Otherwise, it can be taken as a verbalization (with ''be- -en'') of the noun ''end'', meaning either ''the subject cause [the object to have an end]'' or ''[the subject bring/put an end] to the object''.

=== Origin ===

The name “applicative” is of [[Latin]] origin (''applicātum'' ‘attached’). The first linguistic researchers who made use of this term in today’s sense were missionaries in MesoAmerica in the 16th and 17th centuries. They found applicative constructions in [[Nahuatl]] and other [[Uto-Aztecan languages]] and called them ''verbos aplicativos'' (e.g. Rincón 1595:45, Carochi 1645:63ff).

=== See also ===

*[[Verbal morphology]]
*[[Causative]]
*[[Valence change]]

=== References ===

*Bußmann, Hadumod (2002) ''Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft.'' Stuttgart: Kröner. ISBN 3-520-45203-0.
*Carochi, Horacio. 1645. ''Arte de la Lengva Mexicana con la Declaración de los Adverbios della.'' México: Iuan Ruyz. Edición facsimilar, 1983. México: UNAM.
*[[Peterson, David A.]] 2007. ''Applicative constructions''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
*Rincón, Antonio del. 1595. ''Arte mexicana compuesta por el padre Antonio del Rincón.'' Reprint: México 1885

=== Other languages ===

*German [[Applikativ]]
*Russian [[аппликатив]]

{{dc}}
[[Category:Syntax]]
[[Category:Valence]]
[[Category:Verbal morphology]]
[[Category:Derivation]]

Applicative

2008-03-14T23:47:33Z

Rulavi: /* Origin */ Earlier reference

An '''applicative''' is a [[Derivation (morphology)|derived]] [[verb]] [[stem]] denoting an action with an additional [[participant]] which is not an [[actor]]-like [[argument]]. If the non-applicative verb is already [[transitive]] the old [[direct object]] can be replaced by the new argument and is then pushed into an [[adjunct]] or [[secondary object]] position.

=== Examples ===

[[German]] (with replacement of the direct object):

{|
|-
| ''Horst'' || ''be-läd-t'' || ''den'' || ''Wagen'' || ''mit'' || ''Heu''
|-
| PN || APPL-load-3s || DEF.ACC.ms || trolley || with || hay
|-
| colspan='6' | ‘Horst loads hay on the trolley.’
|-
|}

[[Hakha Lai]] (Peterson 2002) (without replacement):

{|
|-
| ''ʔa-law'' || ''ʔa-kan-thloʔ-taak''
|-
| 3s.POSS-field || 3s.A-1p.P-hoe-RELINQUITIVE.APPL
|-
| colspan='2' | ‘He left us and hoed his field.’
|-
|}

=== Comments ===

Many languages with applicative constructions have different applicative morphemes depending on the former role of the attached argument. Hakha Lai, for instance, has different suffixes for [[Comitative]], [[Instrumental]], [[Allative]]/[[Malefactive]], [[Benefactive]]/Malefactive, [[Additional Benefactive]], [[Prioritive]] and [[Relinquitive]].

Other languages may have a number of different suffixes but not systematically link particular suffixes with particular usages. Nahuatl generally works this way. For instance, it is not predictable in [[Tetelcingo Nahuatl]], but must be learned, that ''kōw-ia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy for (s.o.)’ whereas ''kōwi-lia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy from (s.o.)’.

=== The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives ===

Applicatives and [[causatives]] are closely related in a number of languages. Both introduce a new nominal [[argument]] to derive a new transitive verb from a more basic verb (whether transitive or intransitive). Causatives, however, introduce a new subject rather than a new object.

Nahuatl suffixes which are usually used as causatives (e.g. ''-tia'' or ''-ltia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are applicatives, and applicative suffixes (e.g. ''-ia'' or ''-lia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are causative.

Some cases show aspects of causative meaning along with aspects of applicative meaning. Thus in Tetelcingo Nahuatl when the (normally causative) suffix ''-tia'', when affixed to the stem ''čōka'' ‘cry’, the resultant stem (''čōkītia'') does not mean ‘cause (s.o.) to cry’ (causative), nor ‘cry out to (s.o.)’ (perhaps the most-expected applicative meaning). Rather it means ‘mourn (s.o.)’. A person’s death (in the typical case) causes someone to cry: this is clearly like a causative. However, the person who causes the crying (the new nominal argument) is not taken as the [[subject]] of the complex verb stem, but as its [[object]]. This is like the applicative pattern. However, in the typical applicative pattern the crying would be viewed as causing an effect on the new object; here it is caused by the new object.

Where a causing and a caused process are of the same kind, either a causative or an applicative construal of the same event may be possible. Thus the German ''be-atmen'' (applicative-breathe) ‘give artificial respiration mouth-to-mouth’ could be construed as causing the object to breathe or as breathing (in)to or for the object. The more extensive usage of ''be-'' as an applicative than as a causative would favor the second construal.

Causative and applicative affixes may also be used for verbalizing non-verbal stems, usually producing a transitive verb, as they do when affixed to verb stems. Many of these usages can be seen as tending towards a causative meaning (when the designatum is associated with the subject) and others towards an applicative meaning (when the designatum is associated with the object.) However, the analysis is not straightforward, and most cases can be seen as in some degree mixed. For instance, in [[Orizaba Nawatl]] ''ama-tia'' (paper-causative) ‘provide (s.o.) with documents’, one could see the idea as ''the subject causing [the object to have papers]'', or as ''[the subject preparing or issuing papers] to/for the object''. The first would be a causative-tending construal, and the second an applicative-tending construal.

Somewhat similarly, the German verb ''beenden'' 'finish (s.t.)' can be taken as a derivative of the verb ''enden'' ‘come to an end’. (Unusually for ''be-'', this would be a causative.) Otherwise, it can be taken as a verbalization (with ''be- -en'') of the noun ''end'', meaning either ''the subject cause [the object to have an end]'' or ''[the subject bring/put an end] to the object''.

=== Origin ===

The name “applicative” is of [[Latin]] origin (''applicātum'' ‘attached’). The first linguistic researchers who made use of this term in today’s sense were missionaries in MesoAmerica in the 16th and 17th centuries. They found applicative constructions in [[Nahuatl]] and other [[Uto-Aztecan languages]] and called them ''verbos aplicativos'' (e.g. Rincón 1595:45, Carochi 1645:63ff).

=== See also ===

*[[Verbal morphology]]
*[[Causative]]
*[[Valence change]]

=== References ===

*Bußmann, Hadumod (2002) ''Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft.'' Stuttgart: Kröner. ISBN 3-520-45203-0.
*Carochi, Horacio. 1645. ''Arte de la Lengva Mexicana con la Declaración de los Adverbios della.'' México: Iuan Ruyz. Edición facsimilar, 1983. México: UNAM.
*[[Peterson, David A.]] 2007. ''Applicative constructions''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

=== Other languages ===

*German [[Applikativ]]
*Russian [[аппликатив]]

{{dc}}
[[Category:Syntax]]
[[Category:Valence]]
[[Category:Verbal morphology]]
[[Category:Derivation]]

Applicative

2008-03-14T23:44:11Z

Rulavi: /* The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives */ clarify forms

An '''applicative''' is a [[Derivation (morphology)|derived]] [[verb]] [[stem]] denoting an action with an additional [[participant]] which is not an [[actor]]-like [[argument]]. If the non-applicative verb is already [[transitive]] the old [[direct object]] can be replaced by the new argument and is then pushed into an [[adjunct]] or [[secondary object]] position.

=== Examples ===

[[German]] (with replacement of the direct object):

{|
|-
| ''Horst'' || ''be-läd-t'' || ''den'' || ''Wagen'' || ''mit'' || ''Heu''
|-
| PN || APPL-load-3s || DEF.ACC.ms || trolley || with || hay
|-
| colspan='6' | ‘Horst loads hay on the trolley.’
|-
|}

[[Hakha Lai]] (Peterson 2002) (without replacement):

{|
|-
| ''ʔa-law'' || ''ʔa-kan-thloʔ-taak''
|-
| 3s.POSS-field || 3s.A-1p.P-hoe-RELINQUITIVE.APPL
|-
| colspan='2' | ‘He left us and hoed his field.’
|-
|}

=== Comments ===

Many languages with applicative constructions have different applicative morphemes depending on the former role of the attached argument. Hakha Lai, for instance, has different suffixes for [[Comitative]], [[Instrumental]], [[Allative]]/[[Malefactive]], [[Benefactive]]/Malefactive, [[Additional Benefactive]], [[Prioritive]] and [[Relinquitive]].

Other languages may have a number of different suffixes but not systematically link particular suffixes with particular usages. Nahuatl generally works this way. For instance, it is not predictable in [[Tetelcingo Nahuatl]], but must be learned, that ''kōw-ia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy for (s.o.)’ whereas ''kōwi-lia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy from (s.o.)’.

=== The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives ===

Applicatives and [[causatives]] are closely related in a number of languages. Both introduce a new nominal [[argument]] to derive a new transitive verb from a more basic verb (whether transitive or intransitive). Causatives, however, introduce a new subject rather than a new object.

Nahuatl suffixes which are usually used as causatives (e.g. ''-tia'' or ''-ltia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are applicatives, and applicative suffixes (e.g. ''-ia'' or ''-lia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are causative.

Some cases show aspects of causative meaning along with aspects of applicative meaning. Thus in Tetelcingo Nahuatl when the (normally causative) suffix ''-tia'', when affixed to the stem ''čōka'' ‘cry’, the resultant stem (''čōkītia'') does not mean ‘cause (s.o.) to cry’ (causative), nor ‘cry out to (s.o.)’ (perhaps the most-expected applicative meaning). Rather it means ‘mourn (s.o.)’. A person’s death (in the typical case) causes someone to cry: this is clearly like a causative. However, the person who causes the crying (the new nominal argument) is not taken as the [[subject]] of the complex verb stem, but as its [[object]]. This is like the applicative pattern. However, in the typical applicative pattern the crying would be viewed as causing an effect on the new object; here it is caused by the new object.

Where a causing and a caused process are of the same kind, either a causative or an applicative construal of the same event may be possible. Thus the German ''be-atmen'' (applicative-breathe) ‘give artificial respiration mouth-to-mouth’ could be construed as causing the object to breathe or as breathing (in)to or for the object. The more extensive usage of ''be-'' as an applicative than as a causative would favor the second construal.

Causative and applicative affixes may also be used for verbalizing non-verbal stems, usually producing a transitive verb, as they do when affixed to verb stems. Many of these usages can be seen as tending towards a causative meaning (when the designatum is associated with the subject) and others towards an applicative meaning (when the designatum is associated with the object.) However, the analysis is not straightforward, and most cases can be seen as in some degree mixed. For instance, in [[Orizaba Nawatl]] ''ama-tia'' (paper-causative) ‘provide (s.o.) with documents’, one could see the idea as ''the subject causing [the object to have papers]'', or as ''[the subject preparing or issuing papers] to/for the object''. The first would be a causative-tending construal, and the second an applicative-tending construal.

Somewhat similarly, the German verb ''beenden'' 'finish (s.t.)' can be taken as a derivative of the verb ''enden'' ‘come to an end’. (Unusually for ''be-'', this would be a causative.) Otherwise, it can be taken as a verbalization (with ''be- -en'') of the noun ''end'', meaning either ''the subject cause [the object to have an end]'' or ''[the subject bring/put an end] to the object''.

=== Origin ===

The name “applicative” is of [[Latin]] origin (''applicātum'' ‘attached’). The first linguistic researchers who made use of this term in today’s sense were missionaries in Meso America in the 17th century. They found applicative constructions in [[Nahuatl]] and other [[Uto-Aztecan languages]] and called them ''verbos aplicativos'' (e.g. Carochi 1645: 63ff).

=== See also ===

*[[Verbal morphology]]
*[[Causative]]
*[[Valence change]]

=== References ===

*Bußmann, Hadumod (2002) ''Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft.'' Stuttgart: Kröner. ISBN 3-520-45203-0.
*Carochi, Horacio. 1645. ''Arte de la Lengva Mexicana con la Declaración de los Adverbios della.'' México: Iuan Ruyz. Edición facsimilar, 1983. México: UNAM.
*[[Peterson, David A.]] 2007. ''Applicative constructions''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

=== Other languages ===

*German [[Applikativ]]
*Russian [[аппликатив]]

{{dc}}
[[Category:Syntax]]
[[Category:Valence]]
[[Category:Verbal morphology]]
[[Category:Derivation]]

Profile (in Cognitive Grammar)

2008-02-21T20:57:26Z

Rulavi: Added more examples

In [[Cognitive Grammar]] [[semantics | semantic]] structures generally are expected to consist in a [[designatum]] which "stands out in bas-relief" (Lindner 1981) against a background of related cognitive structures which are collectively referred to as the [[base (in Cognitive Grammar)|base]] of the particular semantic structure. This designatum is called the '''profile''', and is said to be "profiled" against the base. ("Profile" is, accordingly, used as both a noun and a verb.)

This distinction of profile vs. base is taken to be a manifestation of figure/ground organization: the profiled element (designatum) is the figure and the base is the ground against which it is construed. There may be additional layers of figure-ground organization involved: in particular the [[trajector (in Cognitive Grammar)|trajector]] within a relational profile is understood as a kind of figure with respect to the rest of the relational profile.

Langacker claims (e.g. 2007:438-441) that the most basic grammatical categories (including [[noun]] and [[verb]] and their major subclasses, along with [[adjective]], [[adverb]] and [[adposition]]) differ semantically in the kind of entity they profile. Nouns (and other nominal entities such as [[pronoun]]s, [[NP]]s, etc.) profile a Thing, which is defined as a reified group. Adjectives, adverbs and adpositions profile (non-processual) relations of various sorts (adjectives have a Thing as trajector while adverbs have a relational trajector: adpositions, whether adjectival or adverbial, are [[transitive]], expecting to be accompanied by an [[object]].) Verbs (and other verbal structures such as [[VP]]s, [[clause]]s, etc.) profile a process, that is a temporally evolving relation sequentially scanned through time.

For example, the English semantic structure CIRCLE profiles a closed curve on a base consisting of two-dimensional space; ARC profiles a curved segment on a base consisting of a circle; CHORD profiles a straight line segment on a base consisting of an arc (and therefore, further in the cognitive background, of circle and two-dimensional space). These are all Things. BISECT, however, is a verb: it profiles a process in which a trajector divides a landmark into two equal parts.

The bases of most semantic structures are considerably more complex than these (see [[base (in Cognitive Grammar)|base (in Cognitive Grammar)]]). For instance, AUNT profiles a female human being against a base centrally involving kinship relations and especially the relation of the profiled person to a sibling’s child (the [[ego (kinship)|ego]]). ACE profiles a particular kind of card against the complex base of a pack of cards in their different suits, with the relative values of each card, typical card games, etc. SURRENDER profiles an action (a kind of process) of allowing an antagonist to win, against a base involving some sort of contest or conflict, including the expectation (denied by the profiled process) that both agonists will continue contesting each other's supremacy, and so forth.

The differences among the basic kinds of profiles, in the last analysis, are matters of [[construal (in Cognitive Grammar)|construal]] rather than necessarily reflecting differences in the objective situation referred to. COMPLAIN, COMPLAINT, and COMPLAINER may be seen as all involving the same process. COMPLAIN profiles the process itself, COMPLAINT reifies that process and profiles it as a Thing, and COMPLAINER relegates the process to the base by profiling its most prominent participant (its trajector).

In any relationship of full [[schema (in Cognitive Grammar)|schematicity]], the profiles of schema and elaboration must match. In a sequence such as DO → ACT → MOVE → RUN → LOPE the profile (that of a process) matches all the way down; in other kinds of sequences (e.g. a constructional sequence such as COMPUTE > COMPUTER > COMPUTER EXPERT, or an associational sequence such as CAT > MOUSE > CHEESE) the elements are not schematic for each other and the profiles do not match.

===Profile determinance===

When [[symbol (in Cognitive Grammar)|symbolic]] structures such as morphemes or words are joined together syntagmatically, it is usual for the composite semantic structure (the meaning of the complex symbolic structure) to inherit its profile from one of its components. That semantic component is [[schema (in Cognitive Grammar)|schematic]] for the composite structure, and it (or, derivatively, the symbol in which it serves as the semantic pole) may be called the '''profile determinant''' of the structure. In clear cases, the notion of a profile determinant is equivalent to the tradition notion of a [[head]]. The profile determinant is thus schematic for the composite structure: in the count noun ''football'' BALL (or, derivatively, ''ball'') is head of the compound because the profiled element of FOOTBALL is the same as that of BALL: a football is a ball and not a foot.

There is nothing, however, that says there must always be a profile determinant, or that there will only be one. Often there is a relationship of only partial schematicity between the most head-like component and the composite structure, e.g. in ''French toast'' the overall designatum is like TOAST, but is not a straightforward example of the category. A non-prototypical headship relationship can be recognized here: ''toast'' is certainly closer to being head than is ''French''. In a word like ''eavesdrop'' the relationship is more tenuous, but one would still want to say that DROP, being a process, has a profile more like that of EAVESDROP than does EAVES. In ''neighbor lady'' or ''slam-dunk'' it makes sense to say that both components are profile determinant, and in ''spitfire'' or ''yellow-jacket'' or ''holdup'' that neither is.

Sometimes the profile determinant element contributes little besides the profiling, and the vast majority of the semantic specifications (the bulk of the semantic "weight") is contributed by the other element. The profile determinant element in such cases has sometimes been termed a [[transformation (in Cognitive Grammar)|transformational]] element. Such cases have traditionally been problematic as far as "headship" is concerned. For instance, in ''assignment'' is ''assign'' or is ''ment'' the head? Clearly '''ment''' is profile determinant (the complex structure designates a Thing, as -MENT but not ASSIGN specifies), but ''assign'' contributes the vast majority of the semantic specifications and is in that sense the "main" element.

=== References ===

*Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. ''Foundations of Cognitive grammar. Volume I, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

*Langacker, Ronald W. 2007. “Cognitive Grammar.” In Geeraerts, Dirk, and Hubert Cuyckens, eds. ''The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics'', pp. 421-462. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

{{dc}}
[[Category:Cognitive Grammar]]
[[Category:Semantics]]

Profile (in Cognitive Grammar)

2008-02-18T18:13:28Z

Rulavi: arrows

In [[Cognitive Grammar]] [[semantics | semantic]] structures generally are expected to consist in a [[designatum]] which "stands out in bas-relief" (Lindner 1981) against a background of related cognitive structures which are collectively referred to as the [[base (in Cognitive Grammar)|base]] of the particular semantic structure. This designatum is called the '''profile''', and is said to be "profiled" against the base. ("Profile" is, accordingly, used as both a noun and a verb.)

This distinction of profile vs. base is taken to be a manifestation of figure/ground organization: the profiled element (designatum) is the figure and the base is the ground against which it is construed. There may be additional layers of figure-ground organization involved: in particular the [[trajector (in Cognitive Grammar)|trajector]] within a relational profile is understood as a kind of figure with respect to the rest of the relational profile.

Langacker claims (e.g. 2007:438-441) that the most basic grammatical categories (including [[noun]] and [[verb]] and their major subclasses, along with [[adjective]], [[adverb]] and [[adposition]]) differ semantically in the kind of entity they profile. Nouns (and other nominal entities such as [[pronoun]]s, [[NP]]s, etc.) profile a Thing, which is defined as a reified group. Adjectives, adverbs and adpositions profile (non-processual) relations of various sorts (adjectives have a Thing as trajector while adverbs have a relational trajector: adpositions, whether adjectival or adverbial, are [[transitive]], expecting to be accompanied by an [[object]].) Verbs (and other verbal structures such as [[VP]]s, [[clause]]s, etc.) profile a process, that is a temporally evolving relation sequentially scanned through time.

For example, the semantic structure AUNT profiles a female human being against a base centrally involving kinship relations and especially the relation of the profiled person to a sibling’s child (the [[ego (kinship)|ego]]). ACE profiles a particular kind of card against the complex base of a pack of cards in their different suits, with the relative values of each card, typical card games, etc. SURRENDER profiles an action (a kind of process) of allowing an antagonist to win, against a base involving some sort of contest or conflict, including the expectation (denied by the profiled process) that both agonists will continue contesting each other's supremacy, and so forth.

The differences among the basic kinds of profiles, in the last analysis, are matters of [[construal (in Cognitive Grammar)|construal]] rather than necessarily reflecting differences in the objective situation referred to. COMPLAIN, COMPLAINT, and COMPLAINER may be seen as all involving the same process. COMPLAIN profiles the process itself, COMPLAINT reifies that process and profiles it as a Thing, and COMPLAINER relegates the process to the base by profiling its most prominent participant (its trajector).

In any relationship of full [[schema (in Cognitive Grammar)|schematicity]], the profiles of schema and elaboration must match. In a sequence such as DO → ACT → MOVE → RUN → LOPE the profile (that of a process) matches all the way down; in other kinds of sequences (e.g. a constructional sequence such as COMPUTE > COMPUTER > COMPUTER EXPERT, or an associational sequence such as CAT > MOUSE > CHEESE) the elements are not schematic for each other and the profiles do not match.

===Profile determinance===

When [[symbol (in Cognitive Grammar)|symbolic]] structures such as morphemes or words are joined together syntagmatically, it is usual for the composite semantic structure (the meaning of the complex symbolic structure) to inherit its profile from one of its components. That semantic component is [[schema (in Cognitive Grammar)|schematic]] for the composite structure, and it (or, derivatively, the symbol in which it serves as the semantic pole) may be called the '''profile determinant''' of the structure. In clear cases, the notion of a profile determinant is equivalent to the tradition notion of a [[head]]. The profile determinant is thus schematic for the composite structure: in the count noun ''football'' BALL (or, derivatively, ''ball'') is head of the compound because the profiled element of FOOTBALL is the same as that of BALL: a football is a ball and not a foot.

There is nothing, however, that says there must always be a profile determinant, or that there will only be one. Often there is a relationship of only partial schematicity between the most head-like component and the composite structure, e.g. in ''French toast'' the overall designatum is like TOAST, but is not a straightforward example of the category. A non-prototypical headship relationship can be recognized here: ''toast'' is certainly closer to being head than is ''French''. In a word like ''eavesdrop'' the relationship is more tenuous, but one would still want to say that DROP, being a process, has a profile more like that of EAVESDROP than does EAVES. In ''neighbor lady'' or ''slam-dunk'' it makes sense to say that both components are profile determinant, and in ''spitfire'' or ''yellow-jacket'' or ''holdup'' that neither is.

Sometimes the profile determinant element contributes little besides the profiling, and the vast majority of the semantic specifications (the bulk of the semantic "weight") is contributed by the other element. The profile determinant element in such cases has sometimes been termed a [[transformation (in Cognitive Grammar)|transformational]] element. Such cases have traditionally been problematic as far as "headship" is concerned. For instance, in ''assignment'' is ''assign'' or is ''ment'' the head? Clearly '''ment''' is profile determinant (the complex structure designates a Thing, as -MENT but not ASSIGN specifies), but ''assign'' contributes the vast majority of the semantic specifications and is in that sense the "main" element.

=== References ===

*Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. ''Foundations of Cognitive grammar. Volume I, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

*Langacker, Ronald W. 2007. “Cognitive Grammar.” In Geeraerts, Dirk, and Hubert Cuyckens, eds. ''The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics'', pp. 421-462. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

{{dc}}
[[Category:Cognitive Grammar]]
[[Category:Semantics]]

Profile (in Cognitive Grammar)

2008-02-18T18:08:31Z

Rulavi: slight expansion

In [[Cognitive Grammar]] [[semantics | semantic]] structures generally are expected to consist in a [[designatum]] which "stands out in bas-relief" (Lindner 1981) against a background of related cognitive structures which are collectively referred to as the [[base (in Cognitive Grammar)|base]] of the particular semantic structure. This designatum is called the '''profile''', and is said to be "profiled" against the base. ("Profile" is, accordingly, used as both a noun and a verb.)

This distinction of profile vs. base is taken to be a manifestation of figure/ground organization: the profiled element (designatum) is the figure and the base is the ground against which it is construed. There may be additional layers of figure-ground organization involved: in particular the [[trajector (in Cognitive Grammar)|trajector]] within a relational profile is understood as a kind of figure with respect to the rest of the relational profile.

Langacker claims (e.g. 2007:438-441) that the most basic grammatical categories (including [[noun]] and [[verb]] and their major subclasses, along with [[adjective]], [[adverb]] and [[adposition]]) differ semantically in the kind of entity they profile. Nouns (and other nominal entities such as [[pronoun]]s, [[NP]]s, etc.) profile a Thing, which is defined as a reified group. Adjectives, adverbs and adpositions profile (non-processual) relations of various sorts (adjectives have a Thing as trajector while adverbs have a relational trajector: adpositions, whether adjectival or adverbial, are [[transitive]], expecting to be accompanied by an [[object]].) Verbs (and other verbal structures such as [[VP]]s, [[clause]]s, etc.) profile a process, that is a temporally evolving relation sequentially scanned through time.

For example, the semantic structure AUNT profiles a female human being against a base centrally involving kinship relations and especially the relation of the profiled person to a sibling’s child (the [[ego (kinship)|ego]]). ACE profiles a particular kind of card against the complex base of a pack of cards in their different suits, with the relative values of each card, typical card games, etc. SURRENDER profiles an action (a kind of process) of allowing an antagonist to win, against a base involving some sort of contest or conflict, including the expectation (denied by the profiled process) that both agonists will continue contesting each other's supremacy, and so forth.

The differences among the basic kinds of profiles, in the last analysis, are matters of [[construal (in Cognitive Grammar)|construal]] rather than necessarily reflecting differences in the objective situation referred to. COMPLAIN, COMPLAINT, and COMPLAINER may be seen as all involving the same process. COMPLAIN profiles the process itself, COMPLAINT reifies that process and profiles it as a Thing, and COMPLAINER relegates the process to the base by profiling its most prominent participant (its trajector).

In any relationship of full [[schema (in Cognitive Grammar)|schematicity]], the profiles of schema and elaboration must match. In a sequence such as DO -> ACT -> MOVE -> RUN -> LOPE the profile (that of a process) matches all the way down; in other kinds of sequences (e.g. a constructional sequence such as COMPUTE > COMPUTER > COMPUTER EXPERT, or an associational sequence such as CAT > MOUSE > CHEESE) the elements are not schematic for each other and the profiles do not match.

===Profile determinance===

When [[symbol (in Cognitive Grammar)|symbolic]] structures such as morphemes or words are joined together syntagmatically, it is usual for the composite semantic structure (the meaning of the complex symbolic structure) to inherit its profile from one of its components. That semantic component is [[schema (in Cognitive Grammar)|schematic]] for the composite structure, and it (or, derivatively, the symbol in which it serves as the semantic pole) may be called the '''profile determinant''' of the structure. In clear cases, the notion of a profile determinant is equivalent to the tradition notion of a [[head]]. The profile determinant is thus schematic for the composite structure: in the count noun ''football'' BALL (or, derivatively, ''ball'') is head of the compound because the profiled element of FOOTBALL is the same as that of BALL: a football is a ball and not a foot.

There is nothing, however, that says there must always be a profile determinant, or that there will only be one. Often there is a relationship of only partial schematicity between the most head-like component and the composite structure, e.g. in ''French toast'' the overall designatum is like TOAST, but is not a straightforward example of the category. A non-prototypical headship relationship can be recognized here: ''toast'' is certainly closer to being head than is ''French''. In a word like ''eavesdrop'' the relationship is more tenuous, but one would still want to say that DROP, being a process, has a profile more like that of EAVESDROP than does EAVES. In ''neighbor lady'' or ''slam-dunk'' it makes sense to say that both components are profile determinant, and in ''spitfire'' or ''yellow-jacket'' or ''holdup'' that neither is.

Sometimes the profile determinant element contributes little besides the profiling, and the vast majority of the semantic specifications (the bulk of the semantic "weight") is contributed by the other element. The profile determinant element in such cases has sometimes been termed a [[transformation (in Cognitive Grammar)|transformational]] element. Such cases have traditionally been problematic as far as "headship" is concerned. For instance, in ''assignment'' is ''assign'' or is ''ment'' the head? Clearly '''ment''' is profile determinant (the complex structure designates a Thing, as -MENT but not ASSIGN specifies), but ''assign'' contributes the vast majority of the semantic specifications and is in that sense the "main" element.

=== References ===

*Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. ''Foundations of Cognitive grammar. Volume I, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

*Langacker, Ronald W. 2007. “Cognitive Grammar.” In Geeraerts, Dirk, and Hubert Cuyckens, eds. ''The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics'', pp. 421-462. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

{{dc}}
[[Category:Cognitive Grammar]]
[[Category:Semantics]]

Profile (in Cognitive Grammar)

2008-02-14T04:44:36Z

Rulavi: fix link

In [[Cognitive Grammar]] [[semantics | semantic]] structures generally are expected to consist in a [[designatum]] which "stands out in bas-relief" (Lindner 1981) against a background of related cognitive structures which are collectively referred to as the [[base (in Cognitive Grammar)|base]] of the particular semantic structure. This designatum is called the '''profile''', and is said to be "profiled" against the base. ("Profile" is, accordingly, used as both a noun and a verb.)

This distinction of profile vs. base is taken to be a manifestation of figure/ground organization: the profiled element (designatum) is the figure and the base is the ground against which it is construed. There may be additional layers of figure-ground organization involved: in particular the [[trajector (in Cognitive Grammar)|trajector]] within a relational profile is understood as a kind of figure with respect to the rest of the relational profile.

Langacker claims (e.g. 2007:438-441) that the most basic grammatical categories (including [[noun]] and [[verb]] and their major subclasses, along with [[adjective]], [[adverb]] and [[adposition]]) differ semantically in the kind of entity they profile. Nouns (and other nominal entities such as [[pronoun]]s, [[NP]]s, etc.) profile a Thing, which is defined as a reified group. Adjectives, adverbs and adpositions profile (non-processual) relations of various sorts (adjectives have a Thing as trajector while adverbs have a relational trajector: adpositions, whether adjectival or adverbial, are [[transitive]], expecting to be accompanied by an [[object]].) Verbs (and other verbal structures such as [[VP]]s, [[clause]]s, etc.) profile a process, that is a temporally evolving relation sequentially scanned through time.

For example, the semantic structure AUNT profiles a female human being against a base centrally involving kinship relations and especially the relation of the profiled person to a sibling’s child (the [[ego (kinship)|ego]]). ACE profiles a particular kind of card against the complex base of a pack of cards in their different suits, with the relative values of each card, typical card games, etc. SURRENDER profiles an action (a kind of process) of allowing an antagonist to win, against a base involving some sort of contest or conflict, including the expectation (denied by the profiled process) that both agonists will continue contesting each other's supremacy, and so forth.

The differences among the basic kinds of profiles, in the last analysis, are matters of [[construal (in Cognitive Grammar)|construal]] rather than necessarily reflecting differences in the objective situation referred to. COMPLAIN, COMPLAINT, and COMPLAINER may be seen as all involving the same process. COMPLAIN profiles the process itself, COMPLAINT reifies that process and profiles it as a Thing, and COMPLAINER relegates the process to the base by profiling its most prominent participant (its trajector).

In any relationship of full [[schema (in Cognitive Grammar)|schematicity]], the profiles of schema and elaboration must match. In a sequence such as DO -> ACT -> MOVE -> RUN -> LOPE the profile (that of a process) matches all the way down; in a constructional sequence such COMPUTE > COMPUTER > COMPUTER EXPERT the elements are not schematic for each other and the profiles do not match.

===Profile determinance===

When [[symbol (in Cognitive Grammar)|symbolic]] structures such as morphemes or words are joined together syntagmatically, it is usual for the composite semantic structure (the meaning of the complex symbolic structure) to inherit its profile from one of its components. That semantic component is [[schema (in Cognitive Grammar)|schematic]] for the composite structure, and it (or, derivatively, the symbol in which it serves as the semantic pole) may be called the '''profile determinant''' of the structure. In clear cases, the notion of a profile determinant is equivalent to the tradition notion of a [[head]]. The profile determinant is thus schematic for the composite structure: in the count noun ''football'' BALL (or, derivatively, ''ball'') is head of the compound because the profiled element of FOOTBALL is the same as that of BALL: a football is a ball and not a foot.

There is nothing, however, that says there must always be a profile determinant, or that there will only be one. Often there is a relationship of only partial schematicity between the most head-like component and the composite structure, e.g. in ''French toast'' the overall designatum is like TOAST, but is not a straightforward example of the category. A non-prototypical headship relationship can be recognized here: ''toast'' is certainly closer to being head than is ''French''. In a word like ''eavesdrop'' the relationship is more tenuous, but one would still want to say that DROP, being a process, has a profile more like that of EAVESDROP than does EAVES. In ''neighbor lady'' or ''slam-dunk'' it makes sense to say that both components are profile determinant, and in ''spitfire'' or ''yellow-jacket'' or ''holdup'' that neither is.

Sometimes the profile determinant element contributes little besides the profiling, and the vast majority of the semantic specifications (the bulk of the semantic "weight") is contributed by the other element. The profile determinant element in such cases has sometimes been termed a [[transformation (in Cognitive Grammar)|transformational]] element. Such cases have traditionally been problematic as far as "headship" is concerned. For instance, in ''assignment'' is ''assign'' or is ''ment'' the head? Clearly '''ment''' is profile determinant (the complex structure designates a Thing, as -MENT but not ASSIGN specifies), but ''assign'' contributes the vast majority of the semantic specifications and is in that sense the "main" element.

=== References ===

*Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. ''Foundations of Cognitive grammar. Volume I, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

*Langacker, Ronald W. 2007. “Cognitive Grammar.” In Geeraerts, Dirk, and Hubert Cuyckens, eds. ''The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics'', pp. 421-462. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

{{dc}}
[[Category:Cognitive Grammar]]
[[Category:Semantics]]

Profile (in Cognitive Grammar)

2008-02-14T04:43:51Z

Rulavi: omitted word

In [[Cognitive Grammar]] [[semantics | semantic]] structures generally are expected to consist in a [[designatum]] which "stands out in bas-relief" (Lindner 1981) against a background of related cognitive structures which are collectively referred to as the [[base (in Cognitive Grammar)|base]] of the particular semantic structure. This designatum is called the '''profile''', and is said to be "profiled" against the base. ("Profile" is, accordingly, used as both a noun and a verb.)

This distinction of profile vs. base is taken to be a manifestation of figure/ground organization: the profiled element (designatum) is the figure and the base is the ground against which it is construed. There may be additional layers of figure-ground organization involved: in particular the [[trajector (in Cognitive Grammar)|trajector]] within a relational profile is understood as a kind of figure with respect to the rest of the relational profile.

Langacker claims (e.g. 2007:438-441) that the most basic grammatical categories (including [[noun]] and [[verb]] and their major subclasses, along with [[adjective]], [[adverb]] and [[adposition]]) differ semantically in the kind of entity they profile. Nouns (and other nominal entities such as [[pronoun]]s, [[NP]]s, etc.) profile a Thing, which is defined as a reified group. Adjectives, adverbs and adpositions profile (non-processual) relations of various sorts (adjectives have a Thing as trajector while adverbs have a relational trajector: adpositions, whether adjectival or adverbial, are [[transitive]], expecting to be accompanied by an [[object]].) Verbs (and other verbal structures such as [[VP]]s, [[clauses]], etc.) profile a process, that is a temporally evolving relation sequentially scanned through time.

For example, the semantic structure AUNT profiles a female human being against a base centrally involving kinship relations and especially the relation of the profiled person to a sibling’s child (the [[ego (kinship)|ego]]). ACE profiles a particular kind of card against the complex base of a pack of cards in their different suits, with the relative values of each card, typical card games, etc. SURRENDER profiles an action (a kind of process) of allowing an antagonist to win, against a base involving some sort of contest or conflict, including the expectation (denied by the profiled process) that both agonists will continue contesting each other's supremacy, and so forth.

The differences among the basic kinds of profiles, in the last analysis, are matters of [[construal (in Cognitive Grammar)|construal]] rather than necessarily reflecting differences in the objective situation referred to. COMPLAIN, COMPLAINT, and COMPLAINER may be seen as all involving the same process. COMPLAIN profiles the process itself, COMPLAINT reifies that process and profiles it as a Thing, and COMPLAINER relegates the process to the base by profiling its most prominent participant (its trajector).

In any relationship of full [[schema (in Cognitive Grammar)|schematicity]], the profiles of schema and elaboration must match. In a sequence such as DO -> ACT -> MOVE -> RUN -> LOPE the profile (that of a process) matches all the way down; in a constructional sequence such COMPUTE > COMPUTER > COMPUTER EXPERT the elements are not schematic for each other and the profiles do not match.

===Profile determinance===

When [[symbol (in Cognitive Grammar)|symbolic]] structures such as morphemes or words are joined together syntagmatically, it is usual for the composite semantic structure (the meaning of the complex symbolic structure) to inherit its profile from one of its components. That semantic component is [[schema (in Cognitive Grammar)|schematic]] for the composite structure, and it (or, derivatively, the symbol in which it serves as the semantic pole) may be called the '''profile determinant''' of the structure. In clear cases, the notion of a profile determinant is equivalent to the tradition notion of a [[head]]. The profile determinant is thus schematic for the composite structure: in the count noun ''football'' BALL (or, derivatively, ''ball'') is head of the compound because the profiled element of FOOTBALL is the same as that of BALL: a football is a ball and not a foot.

There is nothing, however, that says there must always be a profile determinant, or that there will only be one. Often there is a relationship of only partial schematicity between the most head-like component and the composite structure, e.g. in ''French toast'' the overall designatum is like TOAST, but is not a straightforward example of the category. A non-prototypical headship relationship can be recognized here: ''toast'' is certainly closer to being head than is ''French''. In a word like ''eavesdrop'' the relationship is more tenuous, but one would still want to say that DROP, being a process, has a profile more like that of EAVESDROP than does EAVES. In ''neighbor lady'' or ''slam-dunk'' it makes sense to say that both components are profile determinant, and in ''spitfire'' or ''yellow-jacket'' or ''holdup'' that neither is.

Sometimes the profile determinant element contributes little besides the profiling, and the vast majority of the semantic specifications (the bulk of the semantic "weight") is contributed by the other element. The profile determinant element in such cases has sometimes been termed a [[transformation (in Cognitive Grammar)|transformational]] element. Such cases have traditionally been problematic as far as "headship" is concerned. For instance, in ''assignment'' is ''assign'' or is ''ment'' the head? Clearly '''ment''' is profile determinant (the complex structure designates a Thing, as -MENT but not ASSIGN specifies), but ''assign'' contributes the vast majority of the semantic specifications and is in that sense the "main" element.

=== References ===

*Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. ''Foundations of Cognitive grammar. Volume I, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

*Langacker, Ronald W. 2007. “Cognitive Grammar.” In Geeraerts, Dirk, and Hubert Cuyckens, eds. ''The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics'', pp. 421-462. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

{{dc}}
[[Category:Cognitive Grammar]]
[[Category:Semantics]]

Profile (in Cognitive Grammar)

2008-02-14T04:42:36Z

Rulavi: Add refce section

In [[Cognitive Grammar]] [[semantics | semantic]] structures generally are expected to consist in a [[designatum]] which "stands out in bas-relief" (Lindner 1981) against a background of related cognitive structures which are collectively referred to as the [[base (in Cognitive Grammar)|base]] of the particular semantic structure. This designatum is called the '''profile''', and is said to be "profiled" against the base. ("Profile" is, accordingly, used as both a noun and a verb.)

This distinction of profile vs. base is taken to be a manifestation of figure/ground organization: the profiled element (designatum) is the figure and the base is the ground against which it is construed. There may be additional layers of figure-ground organization involved: in particular the [[trajector (in Cognitive Grammar)|trajector]] within a relational profile is understood as a kind of figure with respect to the rest of the relational profile.

Langacker claims (e.g. 2007:438-441) that the most basic grammatical categories (including [[noun]] and [[verb]] and their major subclasses, along with [[adjective]], [[adverb]] and [[adposition]]) differ semantically in the kind of entity they profile. Nouns (and other nominal entities such as [[pronoun]]s, [[NP]]s, etc.) profile a Thing, which is defined as a reified group. Adjectives, adverbs and adpositions profile (non-processual) relations of various sorts (adjectives have a Thing as trajector while adverbs have a relational trajector: adpositions, whether adjectival or adverbial, are [[transitive]], expecting to be accompanied by an [[object]].) Verbs (and other verbal structures such as [[VP]]s, [[clauses]], etc.) profile a process, that is a temporally evolving relation sequentially scanned through time.

For example, the semantic structure AUNT profiles a female human being against a base centrally involving kinship relations and especially the relation of the profiled person to a sibling’s child (the [[ego (kinship)|ego]]). ACE profiles a particular kind of card against the complex base of a pack of cards in their different suits, with the relative values of each card, typical card games, etc. SURRENDER profiles an action (a kind of process) of allowing an antagonist to win, against a base involving some sort of contest or conflict, including the expectation (denied by the profiled process) that both agonists will continue contesting each other's supremacy, and so forth.

The differences among the basic kinds of profiles, in the last analysis, matters of [[construal (in Cognitive Grammar)|construal]] rather than necessarily reflecting differences in the objective situation referred to. COMPLAIN, COMPLAINT, and COMPLAINER may be seen as all involving the same process. COMPLAIN profiles the process itself, COMPLAINT reifies that process and profiles it as a Thing, and COMPLAINER relegates the process to the base by profiling its most prominent participant (its trajector).

In any relationship of full [[schema (in Cognitive Grammar)|schematicity]], the profiles of schema and elaboration must match. In a sequence such as DO -> ACT -> MOVE -> RUN -> LOPE the profile (that of a process) matches all the way down; in a constructional sequence such COMPUTE > COMPUTER > COMPUTER EXPERT the elements are not schematic for each other and the profiles do not match.

===Profile determinance===

When [[symbol (in Cognitive Grammar)|symbolic]] structures such as morphemes or words are joined together syntagmatically, it is usual for the composite semantic structure (the meaning of the complex symbolic structure) to inherit its profile from one of its components. That semantic component is [[schema (in Cognitive Grammar)|schematic]] for the composite structure, and it (or, derivatively, the symbol in which it serves as the semantic pole) may be called the '''profile determinant''' of the structure. In clear cases, the notion of a profile determinant is equivalent to the tradition notion of a [[head]]. The profile determinant is thus schematic for the composite structure: in the count noun ''football'' BALL (or, derivatively, ''ball'') is head of the compound because the profiled element of FOOTBALL is the same as that of BALL: a football is a ball and not a foot.

There is nothing, however, that says there must always be a profile determinant, or that there will only be one. Often there is a relationship of only partial schematicity between the most head-like component and the composite structure, e.g. in ''French toast'' the overall designatum is like TOAST, but is not a straightforward example of the category. A non-prototypical headship relationship can be recognized here: ''toast'' is certainly closer to being head than is ''French''. In a word like ''eavesdrop'' the relationship is more tenuous, but one would still want to say that DROP, being a process, has a profile more like that of EAVESDROP than does EAVES. In ''neighbor lady'' or ''slam-dunk'' it makes sense to say that both components are profile determinant, and in ''spitfire'' or ''yellow-jacket'' or ''holdup'' that neither is.

Sometimes the profile determinant element contributes little besides the profiling, and the vast majority of the semantic specifications (the bulk of the semantic "weight") is contributed by the other element. The profile determinant element in such cases has sometimes been termed a [[transformation (in Cognitive Grammar)|transformational]] element. Such cases have traditionally been problematic as far as "headship" is concerned. For instance, in ''assignment'' is ''assign'' or is ''ment'' the head? Clearly '''ment''' is profile determinant (the complex structure designates a Thing, as -MENT but not ASSIGN specifies), but ''assign'' contributes the vast majority of the semantic specifications and is in that sense the "main" element.

=== References ===

*Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. ''Foundations of Cognitive grammar. Volume I, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

*Langacker, Ronald W. 2007. “Cognitive Grammar.” In Geeraerts, Dirk, and Hubert Cuyckens, eds. ''The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics'', pp. 421-462. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

{{dc}}
[[Category:Cognitive Grammar]]
[[Category:Semantics]]

Profile (in Cognitive Grammar)

2008-02-14T04:38:10Z

Rulavi: first stab

In [[Cognitive Grammar]] [[semantics | semantic]] structures generally are expected to consist in a [[designatum]] which "stands out in bas-relief" (Lindner 1981) against a background of related cognitive structures which are collectively referred to as the [[base (in Cognitive Grammar)|base]] of the particular semantic structure. This designatum is called the '''profile''', and is said to be "profiled" against the base. ("Profile" is, accordingly, used as both a noun and a verb.)

This distinction of profile vs. base is taken to be a manifestation of figure/ground organization: the profiled element (designatum) is the figure and the base is the ground against which it is construed. There may be additional layers of figure-ground organization involved: in particular the [[trajector (in Cognitive Grammar)|trajector]] within a relational profile is understood as a kind of figure with respect to the rest of the relational profile.

Langacker claims (e.g. 2007:438-441) that the most basic grammatical categories (including [[noun]] and [[verb]] and their major subclasses, along with [[adjective]], [[adverb]] and [[adposition]]) differ semantically in the kind of entity they profile. Nouns (and other nominal entities such as [[pronoun]]s, [[NP]]s, etc.) profile a Thing, which is defined as a reified group. Adjectives, adverbs and adpositions profile (non-processual) relations of various sorts (adjectives have a Thing as trajector while adverbs have a relational trajector: adpositions, whether adjectival or adverbial, are [[transitive]], expecting to be accompanied by an [[object]].) Verbs (and other verbal structures such as [[VP]]s, [[clauses]], etc.) profile a process, that is a temporally evolving relation sequentially scanned through time.

For example, the semantic structure AUNT profiles a female human being against a base centrally involving kinship relations and especially the relation of the profiled person to a sibling’s child (the [[ego (kinship)|ego]]). ACE profiles a particular kind of card against the complex base of a pack of cards in their different suits, with the relative values of each card, typical card games, etc. SURRENDER profiles an action (a kind of process) of allowing an antagonist to win, against a base involving some sort of contest or conflict, including the expectation (denied by the profiled process) that both agonists will continue contesting each other's supremacy, and so forth.

The differences among the basic kinds of profiles, in the last analysis, matters of [[construal (in Cognitive Grammar)|construal]] rather than necessarily reflecting differences in the objective situation referred to. COMPLAIN, COMPLAINT, and COMPLAINER may be seen as all involving the same process. COMPLAIN profiles the process itself, COMPLAINT reifies that process and profiles it as a Thing, and COMPLAINER relegates the process to the base by profiling its most prominent participant (its trajector).

In any relationship of full [[schema (in Cognitive Grammar)|schematicity]], the profiles of schema and elaboration must match. In a sequence such as DO -> ACT -> MOVE -> RUN -> LOPE the profile (that of a process) matches all the way down; in a constructional sequence such COMPUTE > COMPUTER > COMPUTER EXPERT the elements are not schematic for each other and the profiles do not match.

===Profile determinance===

When [[symbol (in Cognitive Grammar)|symbolic]] structures such as morphemes or words are joined together syntagmatically, it is usual for the composite semantic structure (the meaning of the complex symbolic structure) to inherit its profile from one of its components. That semantic component is [[schema (in Cognitive Grammar)|schematic]] for the composite structure, and it (or, derivatively, the symbol in which it serves as the semantic pole) may be called the '''profile determinant''' of the structure. In clear cases, the notion of a profile determinant is equivalent to the tradition notion of a [[head]]. The profile determinant is thus schematic for the composite structure: in the count noun ''football'' BALL (or, derivatively, ''ball'') is head of the compound because the profiled element of FOOTBALL is the same as that of BALL: a football is a ball and not a foot.

There is nothing, however, that says there must always be a profile determinant, or that there will only be one. Often there is a relationship of only partial schematicity between the most head-like component and the composite structure, e.g. in ''French toast'' the overall designatum is like TOAST, but is not a straightforward example of the category. A non-prototypical headship relationship can be recognized here: ''toast'' is certainly closer to being head than is ''French''. In a word like ''eavesdrop'' the relationship is more tenuous, but one would still want to say that DROP, being a process, has a profile more like that of EAVESDROP than does EAVES. In ''neighbor lady'' or ''slam-dunk'' it makes sense to say that both components are profile determinant, and in ''spitfire'' or ''yellow-jacket'' or ''holdup'' that neither is.

Sometimes the profile determinant element contributes little besides the profiling, and the vast majority of the semantic specifications (the bulk of the semantic "weight") is contributed by the other element. The profile determinant element in such cases has sometimes been termed a [[transformation (in Cognitive Grammar)|transformational]] element. Such cases have traditionally been problematic as far as "headship" is concerned. For instance, in ''assignment'' is ''assign'' or is ''ment'' the head? Clearly '''ment''' is profile determinant (the complex structure designates a Thing, as -MENT but not ASSIGN specifies), but ''assign'' contributes the vast majority of the semantic specifications and is in that sense the "main" element.

Base (in Cognitive Grammar)

2008-02-14T03:31:27Z

Rulavi: link

In [[Cognitive Grammar]] [[semantics | semantic]] structures generally are expected to consist in a [[designatum]] which is [[profile (in Cognitive Grammar)|profiled]] against a background of related cognitive structures. These related cognitive structures collectively constitute the '''base''' of the particular semantic structure.

This distinction of profile vs. base is taken to be a manifestation of figure/ground organization: the profiled element (designatum) is the figure and the base is the ground against which it is construed.

===Comments===

Given the assumption of [[encyclopedic meaning]], everything that is conventionally associated with the designatum is, at least potentially and in its degree, part of the base. Thus for a word like ''book'', the semantic structure BOOK will designate (profile) the [[Thing (in Cognitive Grammar) | Thing]] we know as a book against an extremely complex background including knowledge of reading and writing, printing, bookmaking, authoring, libraries, bookstores, bookshelves, indexes and tables of contents, Bibles and Qur'ans, textbooks and cookbooks, etc. virtually ''ad infinitum''.

This might seem at first to lead to massive problems of duplication of meanings and [[inclusion paradox | inclusion paradoxes]]. Thus AUTHOR and BOOKSELLER are included in the meaning BOOK, and BOOK in each of them, and BOOKSTORE and LIBRARY in each of them and vice versa. This paradoxical duplication is the same as was classically recognized for cases like PARENT and CHILD, each of which is needed to define the other, so this is not a new problem. It is recognized in Cognitive Grammar as a pseudo-issue engendered by the [[container metaphor]], our thinking of lexical structures as “containers” for meaning, coupled with our knowledge that physical containers cannot interpenetrate each other. If one conceives instead of a vast network of conventionally established and multiply-related concepts, one can see a lexical item as opening a window on or point of access for a portion of that network. Words like BOOK, AUTHOR, PUBLISH, LIBRARY, and so forth, open windows on the same corner of the network, and naturally the structures in that corner, albeit with different perspectives and different prominences, are accessible from the different windows. There is no duplication because it is in fact the same structures that are accessed. Similarly, PARENT and CHILD both access the same base structure of the generational relationship: one profiles one participant in that relationship and the other profiles the other participant. The designatum of CHILD is part of the base of PARENT, and vice versa, but it is not designated when viewed from that window.

Often one can describe different parts of the base as pertaining to different [[domain (in Cognitive Grammar) | cognitive domains]]. Within any domain some specifications will usually be more central (i.e. more relevant, more likely to be activated on any particular occasion of use) than others. And some domains will be more central than others.

For instance, for the English word ''uncle'', the domain of kinship is primary, while domains such as 3-dimensional space, socially-approved attitudes towards people, or age, are clearly less central. Within the kinship domain, the relationship between the male person profiled (designated) and the child of a sibling is clearly the most central specification. The sibling's child (the “ego”) and his or her relationship to the profiled person are so central as to be activated on virtually every occasion of use of the concept UNCLE (thus part of what other theories would call the "denotation"), but they are not profiled (not part of the designatum), but are rather part of the base, the background against which the profiled person is construed.

=== References ===

*Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. ''Foundations of Cognitive grammar. Volume I, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. pp. 183-189.

{{dc}}
[[Category:Cognitive Grammar]]
[[Category:Semantics]]

Base (in Cognitive Grammar)

2008-01-16T18:09:18Z

Rulavi: /* Comments */

In [[Cognitive Grammar]] [[semantics | semantic]] structures generally are expected to consist in a [[designatum]] which is [[profiled]] against a background of related cognitive structures. These related cognitive structures collectively constitute the '''base''' of the particular semantic structure.

This distinction of profile vs. base is taken to be a manifestation of figure/ground organization: the profiled element (designatum) is the figure and the base is the ground against which it is construed.

===Comments===

Given the assumption of [[encyclopedic meaning]], everything that is conventionally associated with the designatum is, at least potentially and in its degree, part of the base. Thus for a word like ''book'', the semantic structure BOOK will designate (profile) the [[Thing (in Cognitive Grammar) | Thing]] we know as a book against an extremely complex background including knowledge of reading and writing, printing, bookmaking, authoring, libraries, bookstores, bookshelves, indexes and tables of contents, Bibles and Qur'ans, textbooks and cookbooks, etc. virtually ''ad infinitum''.

This might seem at first to lead to massive problems of duplication of meanings and [[inclusion paradox | inclusion paradoxes]]. Thus AUTHOR and BOOKSELLER are included in the meaning BOOK, and BOOK in each of them, and BOOKSTORE and LIBRARY in each of them and vice versa. This paradoxical duplication is the same as was classically recognized for cases like PARENT and CHILD, each of which is needed to define the other, so this is not a new problem. It is recognized in Cognitive Grammar as a pseudo-issue engendered by the [[container metaphor]], our thinking of lexical structures as “containers” for meaning, coupled with our knowledge that physical containers cannot interpenetrate each other. If one conceives instead of a vast network of conventionally established and multiply-related concepts, one can see a lexical item as opening a window on or point of access for a portion of that network. Words like BOOK, AUTHOR, PUBLISH, LIBRARY, and so forth, open windows on the same corner of the network, and naturally the structures in that corner, albeit with different perspectives and different prominences, are accessible from the different windows. There is no duplication because it is in fact the same structures that are accessed. Similarly, PARENT and CHILD both access the same base structure of the generational relationship: one profiles one participant in that relationship and the other profiles the other participant. The designatum of CHILD is part of the base of PARENT, and vice versa, but it is not designated when viewed from that window.

Often one can describe different parts of the base as pertaining to different [[domain (in Cognitive Grammar) | cognitive domains]]. Within any domain some specifications will usually be more central (i.e. more relevant, more likely to be activated on any particular occasion of use) than others. And some domains will be more central than others.

For instance, for the English word ''uncle'', the domain of kinship is primary, while domains such as 3-dimensional space, socially-approved attitudes towards people, or age, are clearly less central. Within the kinship domain, the relationship between the male person profiled (designated) and the child of a sibling is clearly the most central specification. The sibling's child (the “ego”) and his or her relationship to the profiled person are so central as to be activated on virtually every occasion of use of the concept UNCLE (thus part of what other theories would call the "denotation"), but they are not profiled (not part of the designatum), but are rather part of the base, the background against which the profiled person is construed.

=== References ===

*Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. ''Foundations of Cognitive grammar. Volume I, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. pp. 183-189.

{{dc}}
[[Category:Cognitive Grammar]]
[[Category:Semantics]]

Base (in Cognitive Grammar)

2008-01-13T01:46:11Z

Rulavi: /* Comments */

In [[Cognitive Grammar]] [[semantics | semantic]] structures generally are expected to consist in a [[designatum]] which is [[profiled]] against a background of related cognitive structures. These related cognitive structures collectively constitute the '''base''' of the particular semantic structure.

This distinction of profile vs. base is taken to be a manifestation of figure/ground organization: the profiled element (designatum) is the figure and the base is the ground against which it is construed.

===Comments===

Given the assumption of [[encyclopedic meaning]], everything that is conventionally associated with the designatum is, at least potentially and in its degree, part of the base. Thus for a word like ''book'', the semantic structure BOOK will designate (profile) the [[Thing (in Cognitive Grammar) | Thing]] we know as a book against an extremely complex background including knowledge of reading and writing, printing, bookmaking, authoring, libraries, bookstores, bookshelves, indexes and tables of contents, Bibles and Qur'ans, textbooks and cookbooks, etc. virtually ''ad infinitum''.

This might seem at first to lead to massive problems of duplication of meanings and [[inclusion paradox | inclusion paradoxes]]. Thus AUTHOR and BOOKSELLER are included in the meaning BOOK, and BOOK in each of them, and BOOKSTORE and LIBRARY in each of them and vice versa. This paradoxical duplication is the same as was classically recognized for cases like PARENT and CHILD, each of which is needed to define the other, so this is not a new problem. It is recognized in Cognitive Grammar as a pseudo-issue engendered by the [[container metaphor]], our thinking of lexical structures as “containers” for meaning, coupled with our knowledge that physical containers cannot interpenetrate each other. If one conceives instead of a vast network of conventionally established and multiply-related concepts, one can see a lexical item as opening a window on or point of access for a portion of that network. Words like BOOK, AUTHOR, PUBLISH, LIBRARY, and so forth, open windows on the same corner of the network, and naturally the structures in that corner, albeit with different perspectives and different prominences, are accessible from the different windows. There is no duplication because it is in fact the same structures that are accessed. Similarly, PARENT and CHILD both access the same base structure of the generational relationship: one profiles one participant in that relationship and the other profiles the other participant. The designatum of CHILD is part of the base of PARENT, and vice versa, but it is not designated when viewed from that window.

Often one can describe different parts of the base as pertaining to different [[domain (in Cognitive Grammar) | cognitive domains]]. Within any domain some specifications will usually be more central (i.e. more relevant, more likely to be activated on any particular occasion of use) than others. And some domains will be more central than others.

For instance, for the English word ''uncle'', the domain of kinship is primary, while domains such as socially-approved attitudes towards people, or age, are clearly less central. Within the kinship domain, the relationship between the male person profiled (designated) and the child of a sibling is clearly the most central specification. The sibling's child (the “ego”) and his or her relationship to the profiled person are so central as to be activated on virtually every occasion of use of the concept UNCLE, but they are not profiled (not part of the designatum), but are rather part of the base, the background against which the profiled person is construed.

=== References ===

*Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. ''Foundations of Cognitive grammar. Volume I, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. pp. 183-189.

{{dc}}
[[Category:Cognitive Grammar]]
[[Category:Semantics]]

Base (in Cognitive Grammar)

2008-01-11T18:34:32Z

Rulavi:

In [[Cognitive Grammar]] [[semantics | semantic]] structures generally are expected to consist in a [[designatum]] which is [[profiled]] against a background of related cognitive structures. These related cognitive structures collectively constitute the '''base''' of the particular semantic structure.

This distinction of profile vs. base is taken to be a manifestation of figure/ground organization: the profiled element (designatum) is the figure and the base is the ground against which it is construed.

===Comments===

Given the assumption of [[encyclopedic meaning]], everything that is conventionally associated with the designatum is, at least potentially and in its degree, part of the base. Thus for a word like ''book'', the semantic structure BOOK will designate (profile) the [[Thing (in Cognitive Grammar) | Thing]] we know as a book against an extremely complex background including knowledge of reading and writing, printing, bookmaking, authoring, libraries, bookstores, bookshelves, indexes and tables of contents, Bibles and Qur'ans, textbooks and cookbooks, etc. virtually ''ad infinitum''.

This might seem at first to lead to massive problems of duplication of meanings and [[inclusion paradox | inclusion paradoxes]]. Thus AUTHOR and BOOKSELLER are included in the meaning BOOK, and BOOK in each of them, and BOOKSTORE and LIBRARY in each of them and vice versa. This paradoxical duplication is the same as was classically recognized for cases like PARENT and CHILD, each of which is needed to define the other, so this is not a new problem. It is recognized in Cognitive Grammar as a pseudo-issue engendered by the [[container metaphor]], our thinking of lexical structures as “containers” for meaning, coupled with our knowledge that physical containers cannot interpenetrate each other. If one conceives instead of a vast network of conventionally established and multiply-related concepts, one can see a lexical item as opening a window on or point of access for a portion of that network. Words like BOOK, AUTHOR, PUBLISH, LIBRARY, and so forth, open windows on the same corner of the network, and naturally the structures in that corner, albeit with different perspectives and different prominences, are accessible from the different windows. There is no duplication because it is in fact the same structures that are accessed. Similarly, PARENT and CHILD both access the same base structure of the generational relationship: one profiles one participant in that relationship and the other profiles the other participant. The designatum of CHILD is part of the base of PARENT, and vice versa, but it is not designated when viewed from that window.

=== References ===

*Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. ''Foundations of Cognitive grammar. Volume I, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. pp. 183-189.

{{dc}}
[[Category:Cognitive Grammar]]
[[Category:Semantics]]

Base (in Cognitive Grammar)

2008-01-11T02:44:28Z

Rulavi: Begin stub.

In [[Cognitive Grammar]] [[semantic]] structures generally are expected to consist in a [[designatum]] which is [[profiled]] against a background of related cognitive structures. These related cognitive structures collectively constitute the '''base''' of the particular semantic structure.

This distinction of profile vs. base is taken to be a manifestation of figure/ground organization: the profiled element (designatum) is the figure and the base is the ground against which it is construed.

Given the assumption of [[encyclopedic meaning]], everything that is conventionally associated with the designatum is, at least potentially and in its degree, part of the base. Thus for a word like ''book'', the semantic structure BOOK will designate (profile) the [[Thing (in Cognitive Grammar) | Thing]] we know as a book against an extremely complex background including knowledge of reading and writing, printing, bookmaking, authoring, libraries, bookstores, bookshelves, indexes and tables of contents, Bibles and Qur'ans, textbooks and cookbooks, etc. virtually ''ad infinitum''.

This might seem at first to lead to massive problems of duplication of meanings and [[inclusion paradox | inclusion paradoxes]]. Thus AUTHOR and BOOKSELLER are included in the meaning BOOK, and BOOK in each of them, and BOOKSTORE and LIBRARY in each of them and vice versa. This paradoxical duplication is the same as was classically recognized for cases like PARENT and CHILD, each of which is needed to define the other, so this is not a new problem. It is recognized in Cognitive Grammar as a pseudo-issue engendered by the [[container metaphor]], our thinking of lexical structures as “containers” for meaning, coupled with our knowledge that physical containers cannot interpenetrate each other. If one conceives instead of a vast network of conventionally established and multiply-related concepts, one can see a lexical item as opening a window on or point of access for a portion of that network. Words like BOOK, AUTHOR, PUBLISH, LIBRARY, and so forth, open windows on the same corner of the network, and naturally the structures in that corner, albeit with different perspectives and different prominences, are accessible from the different windows. There is no duplication because it is in fact the same structures that are accessed. Similarly, PARENT and CHILD both access the same base structure of the generational relationship: one profiles one participant in that relationship and the other profiles the other participant. The designatum of CHILD is part of the base of PARENT, and vice versa, but it is not designated when viewed from that window.

=== References ===

*Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. ''Foundations of Cognitive grammar. Volume I, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. pp. 183-189.

Causative

2008-01-10T15:54:04Z

Rulavi: /* Other languages */

A '''causative''' is a [[Morphology |morphological]] or [[Syntax |syntactic]] structure in which a [[Derivation | derived]] [[verb |verbal]] structure (e.g. a derived verb [[stem]] or a verbal [[phrase]]) denotes the same process as its underived counterpart, with the addition of an active [[participant]] which causes that process to occur.

Typically the new participant is [[subject]] of the causative structure, and the "old" subject (subject of the underived verbal structure) is demoted to direct or indirect [[object]] or [[adjunct]] status. In some languages (e.g. [[French]]), the old subject of intransitives becomes a [[direct object]] ([[accusative]]) while the old subject of transitives becomes an [[indirect object]] ([[dative]]) (the old direct object retaining its accusative status), but other patterns also occur.

=== Examples ===

[[Spanish]] (verb phrase in which the "old" verb is an infinitive and the "old" subject a dative):
{|
|-
| ''El'' || ''padre'' || ''le'' || ''hizo'' || ''com-er'' || ''las'' || ''papas.''
|-
| the || father || 3s:DAT || 3s:made || eat-INF || the || potatoes
|-
| colspan='7' | ‘His father made him eat the potatoes’
|-
|}

Classical [[Nahuatl]] (from Carochi 1645:61, who terms these “verbos compulẛiuos”)
{|
|-
| ''ni-''||''mitz-''||''cochī''||''-tia''
|-
|1s:Subj-||2s:Obj-||sleep||-CAUS
|-
| colspan='6' | ‘I put you to sleep, make you sleep’
|-
|}

=== The relationship of Causatives and Applicatives ===

[[Applicative | Applicatives]] and causatives are closely related in a number of languages. Both introduce a new nominal argument to derive a new transitive verb from a more basic verb (whether transitive or intransitive). Applicatives however, rather than introducing a new subject, introduce a new object. (See further discussion of this relationship in the article on [[applicative | applicatives]].)

=== Origin ===

The name “causative” is in English a transparent combination of the verb ''cause'' or the noun ''causation'' with the productive ''-(at)ive'' adjectivizing suffix.

=== See also ===

* [[Verbal morphology]]
* [[Applicative]]
* [[Valence change]]

=== References ===

*Carochi, Horacio. 1645. ''Arte de la Lengva Mexicana con la Declaración de los Adverbios della.'' México: Iuan Ruyz. Edición facsimilar, 1983. México: UNAM.

=== Other languages ===

* Spanish [[causativo]]

{{dc}}
[[Category:Syntax]]
[[Category:Valence]]
[[Category:Verbal morphology]]
[[Category:Derivation]]

Applicative

2008-01-10T15:52:56Z

Rulavi: /* See also */ Missing brackets

An '''applicative''' is a [[Derivation (morphology)|derived]] [[verb]] [[stem]] denoting an action with an additional [[participant]] which is not an [[actor]]-like [[argument]]. If the non-applicative verb is already [[transitive]] the old [[direct object]] can be replaced by the new argument and is then pushed into an [[adjunct]] or [[secondary object]] position.

=== Examples ===

[[German]] (with replacement of the direct object):

{|
|-
| ''Horst'' || ''be-läd-t'' || ''den'' || ''Wagen'' || ''mit'' || ''Heu''
|-
| PN || APPL-load-3s || DEF.ACC.ms || trolley || with || hay
|-
| colspan='6' | ‘Horst loads hay on the trolley.’
|-
|}

[[Hakha Lai]] (Peterson 2002) (without replacement):

{|
|-
| ''ʔa-law'' || ''ʔa-kan-thloʔ-taak''
|-
| 3s.POSS-field || 3s.A-1p.P-hoe-RELINQUITIVE.APPL
|-
| colspan='2' | ‘He left us and hoed his field.’
|-
|}

=== Comments ===

Many languages with applicative constructions have different applicative morphemes depending on the former role of the attached argument. Hakha Lai, for instance, has different suffixes for [[Comitative]], [[Instrumental]], [[Allative]]/[[Malefactive]], [[Benefactive]]/Malefactive, [[Additional Benefactive]], [[Prioritive]] and [[Relinquitive]].

Other languages may have a number of different suffixes but not systematically link particular suffixes with particular usages. Nahuatl generally works this way. For instance, it is not predictable in [[Tetelcingo Nahuatl]], but must be learned, that ''kōw-ia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy for (s.o.)’ whereas ''kōwi-lia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy from (s.o.)’.

=== The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives ===

Applicatives and [[causatives]] are closely related in a number of languages. Both introduce a new nominal [[argument]] to derive a new transitive verb from a more basic verb (whether transitive or intransitive). Causatives, however, introduce a new subject rather than a new object.

Nahuatl suffixes which are usually used as causatives (e.g. ''-tia'' or ''-ltia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are applicatives, and applicative suffixes (e.g. ''-ia'' or ''-lia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are causative.

Some cases show aspects of causative meaning along with aspects of applicative meaning. Thus in Tetelcingo Nahuatl the (normally causative) suffix ''-tia'', when affixed to the stem ''čōk'' ‘cry’, does not mean ‘cause (s.o.) to cry’ (causative), nor ‘cry out to (s.o.)’ (perhaps the most-expected applicative meaning). Rather it means ‘mourn (s.o.)’. A person’s death (in the typical case) causes someone to cry: this is clearly like a causative. However, the person who causes the crying (the new nominal argument) is not taken as the [[subject]] of the complex verb stem, but as its [[object]]. This is like the applicative pattern. However, in the typical applicative pattern the crying would be viewed as causing an effect on the new object; here it is caused by the new object.

Where a causing and a caused process are of the same kind, either a causative or an applicative construal of the same event may be possible. Thus the German ''be-atmen'' (applicative-breathe) ‘give artificial respiration mouth-to-mouth’ could be construed as causing the object to breathe or as breathing (in)to or for the object. The more extensive usage of ''be-'' as an applicative than as a causative would favor the second construal.

Causative and applicative affixes may also be used for verbalizing non-verbal stems, usually producing a transitive verb, as they do when affixed to verb stems. Many of these usages can be seen as tending towards a causative meaning (when the designatum is associated with the subject) and others towards an applicative meaning (when the designatum is associated with the object.) However, the analysis is not straightforward, and most cases can be seen as in some degree mixed. For instance, in [[Orizaba Nawatl]] ''ama-tia'' (paper-causative) ‘provide (s.o.) with documents’, one could see the idea as ''the subject causing [the object to have papers]'', or as ''[the subject preparing or issuing papers] to/for the object''. The first would be a causative-tending construal, and the second an applicative-tending construal.

Somewhat similarly, the German verb ''beenden'' 'finish (s.t.)' can be taken as a derivative of the verb ''enden'' ‘come to an end’. (Unusually for ''be-'', this would be a causative.) Otherwise, it can be taken as a verbalization (with ''be- -en'') of the noun ''end'', meaning either ''the subject cause [the object to have an end]'' or ''[the subject bring/put an end] to the object''.

=== Origin ===

The name “applicative” is of [[Latin]] origin (''applicātum'' ‘attached’). The first linguistic researchers who made use of this term in today’s sense were missionaries in Meso America in the 17th century. They found applicative constructions in [[Nahuatl]] and other [[Uto-Aztecan languages]] and called them ''verbos aplicativos'' (e.g. Carochi 1645: 63ff).

=== See also ===

*[[Verbal morphology]]
*[[Causative]]
*[[Valence change]]

=== References ===

*Bußmann, Hadumod (2002) ''Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft.'' Stuttgart: Kröner. ISBN 3-520-45203-0.
*Carochi, Horacio. 1645. ''Arte de la Lengva Mexicana con la Declaración de los Adverbios della.'' México: Iuan Ruyz. Edición facsimilar, 1983. México: UNAM.
*[[Peterson, David A.]] 2007. ''Applicative constructions''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

=== Other languages ===

*German [[Applikativ]]
*Russian [[аппликатив]]

{{dc}}
[[Category:Syntax]]
[[Category:Valence]]
[[Category:Verbal morphology]]
[[Category:Derivation]]

Causative

2008-01-10T15:50:45Z

Rulavi: Not clearly true for much of Spanish

Causative

2008-01-09T21:54:03Z

Rulavi: /* References */

A '''causative''' is a [[Morphology |morphological]] or [[Syntax |syntactic]] structure in which a [[Derivation | derived]] [[verb |verbal]] structure (e.g. a derived verb [[stem]] or a verbal [[phrase]]) denotes the same process as its underived counterpart, with the addition of an active [[participant]] which causes that process to occur.

Typically the new participant is [[subject]] of the causative structure, and the "old" subject (subject of the underived verbal structure) is demoted to direct or indirect [[object]] or [[adjunct]] status. In some languages (e.g. [[French]], [[Spanish]]), the old subject of intransitives becomes a [[direct object]] ([[accusative]]) while the old subject of transitives becomes an [[indirect object]] ([[dative]]) (the old direct object retaining its accusative status), but other patterns also occur.

=== Examples ===

[[Spanish]] (verb phrase in which the "old" verb is an infinitive and the "old" subject a dative):
{|
|-
| ''El'' || ''padre'' || ''le'' || ''hizo'' || ''com-er'' || ''las'' || ''papas.''
|-
| the || father || 3s:DAT || 3s:made || eat-INF || the || potatoes
|-
| colspan='7' | ‘His father made him eat the potatoes’
|-
|}

Classical [[Nahuatl]] (from Carochi 1645:61, who terms these “verbos compulẛiuos”)
{|
|-
| ''ni-''||''mitz-''||''cochī''||''-tia''
|-
|1s:Subj-||2s:Obj-||sleep||-CAUS
|-
| colspan='6' | ‘I put you to sleep, make you sleep’
|-
|}

=== The relationship of Causatives and Applicatives ===

[[Applicative | Applicatives]] and causatives are closely related in a number of languages. Both introduce a new nominal argument to derive a new transitive verb from a more basic verb (whether transitive or intransitive). Applicatives however, rather than introducing a new subject, introduce a new object. (See further discussion of this relationship in the article on [[applicative | applicatives]].)

=== Origin ===

The name “causative” is in English a transparent combination of the verb ''cause'' or the noun ''causation'' with the productive ''-(at)ive'' adjectivizing suffix.

=== See also ===

* [[Verbal morphology]]
* [[Applicative]]
* [[Valence change]]

=== References ===

*Carochi, Horacio. 1645. ''Arte de la Lengva Mexicana con la Declaración de los Adverbios della.'' México: Iuan Ruyz. Edición facsimilar, 1983. México: UNAM.

=== Other languages ===

* Spanish Causativo

Applicative

2008-01-09T21:53:26Z

Rulavi: /* References */

An '''applicative''' is a [[Derivation (morphology)|derived]] [[verb]] [[stem]] denoting an action with an additional [[participant]] which is not an [[actor]]-like [[argument]]. If the non-applicative verb is already [[transitive]] the old [[direct object]] can be replaced by the new argument and is then pushed into an [[adjunct]] or [[secondary object]] position.

=== Examples ===

[[German]] (with replacement of the direct object):

{|
|-
| ''Horst'' || ''be-läd-t'' || ''den'' || ''Wagen'' || ''mit'' || ''Heu''
|-
| PN || APPL-load-3s || DEF.ACC.ms || trolley || with || hay
|-
| colspan='6' | ‘Horst loads hay on the trolley.’
|-
|}

[[Hakha Lai]] (Peterson 2002) (without replacement):

{|
|-
| ''ʔa-law'' || ''ʔa-kan-thloʔ-taak''
|-
| 3s.POSS-field || 3s.A-1p.P-hoe-RELINQUITIVE.APPL
|-
| colspan='2' | ‘He left us and hoed his field.’
|-
|}

=== Comments ===

Many languages with applicative constructions have different applicative morphemes depending on the former role of the attached argument. Hakha Lai, for instance, has different suffixes for [[Comitative]], [[Instrumental]], [[Allative]]/[[Malefactive]], [[Benefactive]]/Malefactive, [[Additional Benefactive]], [[Prioritive]] and [[Relinquitive]].

Other languages may have a number of different suffixes but not systematically link particular suffixes with particular usages. Nahuatl generally works this way. For instance, it is not predictable in [[Tetelcingo Nahuatl]], but must be learned, that ''kōw-ia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy for (s.o.)’ whereas ''kōwi-lia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy from (s.o.)’.

=== The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives ===

Applicatives and [[causatives]] are closely related in a number of languages. Both introduce a new nominal [[argument]] to derive a new transitive verb from a more basic verb (whether transitive or intransitive). Causatives, however, introduce a new subject rather than a new object.

Nahuatl suffixes which are usually used as causatives (e.g. ''-tia'' or ''-ltia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are applicatives, and applicative suffixes (e.g. ''-ia'' or ''-lia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are causative.

Some cases show aspects of causative meaning along with aspects of applicative meaning. Thus in Tetelcingo Nahuatl the (normally causative) suffix ''-tia'', when affixed to the stem ''čōk'' ‘cry’, does not mean ‘cause (s.o.) to cry’ (causative), nor ‘cry out to (s.o.)’ (perhaps the most-expected applicative meaning). Rather it means ‘mourn (s.o.)’. A person’s death (in the typical case) causes someone to cry: this is clearly like a causative. However, the person who causes the crying (the new nominal argument) is not taken as the [[subject]] of the complex verb stem, but as its [[object]]. This is like the applicative pattern. However, in the typical applicative pattern the crying would be viewed as causing an effect on the new object; here it is caused by the new object.

Where a causing and a caused process are of the same kind, either a causative or an applicative construal of the same event may be possible. Thus the German ''be-atmen'' (applicative-breathe) ‘give artificial respiration mouth-to-mouth’ could be construed as causing the object to breathe or as breathing (in)to or for the object. The more extensive usage of ''be-'' as an applicative than as a causative would favor the second construal.

Causative and applicative affixes may also be used for verbalizing non-verbal stems, usually producing a transitive verb, as they do when affixed to verb stems. Many of these usages can be seen as tending towards a causative meaning (when the designatum is associated with the subject) and others towards an applicative meaning (when the designatum is associated with the object.) However, the analysis is not straightforward, and most cases can be seen as in some degree mixed. For instance, in [[Orizaba Nawatl]] ''ama-tia'' (paper-causative) ‘provide (s.o.) with documents’, one could see the idea as ''the subject causing [the object to have papers]'', or as ''[the subject preparing or issuing papers] to/for the object''. The first would be a causative-tending construal, and the second an applicative-tending construal.

Somewhat similarly, the German verb ''beenden'' 'finish (s.t.)' can be taken as a derivative of the verb ''enden'' ‘come to an end’. (Unusually for ''be-'', this would be a causative.) Otherwise, it can be taken as a verbalization (with ''be- -en'') of the noun ''end'', meaning either ''the subject cause [the object to have an end]'' or ''[the subject bring/put an end] to the object''.

=== Origin ===

The name “applicative” is of [[Latin]] origin (''applicātum'' ‘attached’). The first linguistic researchers who made use of this term in today’s sense were missionaries in Meso America in the 17th century. They found applicative constructions in [[Nahuatl]] and other [[Uto-Aztecan languages]] and called them ''verbos aplicativos'' (e.g. Carochi 1645: 63ff).

=== See also ===

*[[Verbal morphology
*[[Causative]]
*[[Valence change]]

=== References ===

*Bußmann, Hadumod (2002) ''Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft.'' Stuttgart: Kröner. ISBN 3-520-45203-0.
*Carochi, Horacio. 1645. ''Arte de la Lengva Mexicana con la Declaración de los Adverbios della.'' México: Iuan Ruyz. Edición facsimilar, 1983. México: UNAM.
*[[Peterson, David A.]] 2007. ''Applicative constructions''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

=== Other languages ===

*German [[Applikativ]]
*Russian [[аппликатив]]

{{dc}}
[[Category:Syntax]]
[[Category:Valence]]
[[Category:Verbal morphology]]
[[Category:Derivation]]

Applicative

2008-01-09T21:49:57Z

Rulavi: /* Origin */

An '''applicative''' is a [[Derivation (morphology)|derived]] [[verb]] [[stem]] denoting an action with an additional [[participant]] which is not an [[actor]]-like [[argument]]. If the non-applicative verb is already [[transitive]] the old [[direct object]] can be replaced by the new argument and is then pushed into an [[adjunct]] or [[secondary object]] position.

=== Examples ===

[[German]] (with replacement of the direct object):

{|
|-
| ''Horst'' || ''be-läd-t'' || ''den'' || ''Wagen'' || ''mit'' || ''Heu''
|-
| PN || APPL-load-3s || DEF.ACC.ms || trolley || with || hay
|-
| colspan='6' | ‘Horst loads hay on the trolley.’
|-
|}

[[Hakha Lai]] (Peterson 2002) (without replacement):

{|
|-
| ''ʔa-law'' || ''ʔa-kan-thloʔ-taak''
|-
| 3s.POSS-field || 3s.A-1p.P-hoe-RELINQUITIVE.APPL
|-
| colspan='2' | ‘He left us and hoed his field.’
|-
|}

=== Comments ===

Many languages with applicative constructions have different applicative morphemes depending on the former role of the attached argument. Hakha Lai, for instance, has different suffixes for [[Comitative]], [[Instrumental]], [[Allative]]/[[Malefactive]], [[Benefactive]]/Malefactive, [[Additional Benefactive]], [[Prioritive]] and [[Relinquitive]].

Other languages may have a number of different suffixes but not systematically link particular suffixes with particular usages. Nahuatl generally works this way. For instance, it is not predictable in [[Tetelcingo Nahuatl]], but must be learned, that ''kōw-ia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy for (s.o.)’ whereas ''kōwi-lia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy from (s.o.)’.

=== The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives ===

Applicatives and [[causatives]] are closely related in a number of languages. Both introduce a new nominal [[argument]] to derive a new transitive verb from a more basic verb (whether transitive or intransitive). Causatives, however, introduce a new subject rather than a new object.

Nahuatl suffixes which are usually used as causatives (e.g. ''-tia'' or ''-ltia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are applicatives, and applicative suffixes (e.g. ''-ia'' or ''-lia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are causative.

Some cases show aspects of causative meaning along with aspects of applicative meaning. Thus in Tetelcingo Nahuatl the (normally causative) suffix ''-tia'', when affixed to the stem ''čōk'' ‘cry’, does not mean ‘cause (s.o.) to cry’ (causative), nor ‘cry out to (s.o.)’ (perhaps the most-expected applicative meaning). Rather it means ‘mourn (s.o.)’. A person’s death (in the typical case) causes someone to cry: this is clearly like a causative. However, the person who causes the crying (the new nominal argument) is not taken as the [[subject]] of the complex verb stem, but as its [[object]]. This is like the applicative pattern. However, in the typical applicative pattern the crying would be viewed as causing an effect on the new object; here it is caused by the new object.

Where a causing and a caused process are of the same kind, either a causative or an applicative construal of the same event may be possible. Thus the German ''be-atmen'' (applicative-breathe) ‘give artificial respiration mouth-to-mouth’ could be construed as causing the object to breathe or as breathing (in)to or for the object. The more extensive usage of ''be-'' as an applicative than as a causative would favor the second construal.

Causative and applicative affixes may also be used for verbalizing non-verbal stems, usually producing a transitive verb, as they do when affixed to verb stems. Many of these usages can be seen as tending towards a causative meaning (when the designatum is associated with the subject) and others towards an applicative meaning (when the designatum is associated with the object.) However, the analysis is not straightforward, and most cases can be seen as in some degree mixed. For instance, in [[Orizaba Nawatl]] ''ama-tia'' (paper-causative) ‘provide (s.o.) with documents’, one could see the idea as ''the subject causing [the object to have papers]'', or as ''[the subject preparing or issuing papers] to/for the object''. The first would be a causative-tending construal, and the second an applicative-tending construal.

Somewhat similarly, the German verb ''beenden'' 'finish (s.t.)' can be taken as a derivative of the verb ''enden'' ‘come to an end’. (Unusually for ''be-'', this would be a causative.) Otherwise, it can be taken as a verbalization (with ''be- -en'') of the noun ''end'', meaning either ''the subject cause [the object to have an end]'' or ''[the subject bring/put an end] to the object''.

=== Origin ===

The name “applicative” is of [[Latin]] origin (''applicātum'' ‘attached’). The first linguistic researchers who made use of this term in today’s sense were missionaries in Meso America in the 17th century. They found applicative constructions in [[Nahuatl]] and other [[Uto-Aztecan languages]] and called them ''verbos aplicativos'' (e.g. Carochi 1645: 63ff).

=== See also ===

*[[Verbal morphology
*[[Causative]]
*[[Valence change]]

=== References ===

*Bußmann, Hadumod (2002) ''Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft.'' Stuttgart: Kröner. ISBN 3-520-45203-0.
*[[Peterson, David A.]] 2007. ''Applicative constructions''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

=== Other languages ===

*German [[Applikativ]]
*Russian [[аппликатив]]

{{dc}}
[[Category:Syntax]]
[[Category:Valence]]
[[Category:Verbal morphology]]
[[Category:Derivation]]

Applicative

2008-01-09T21:36:34Z

Rulavi: /* The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives */ more tweaks

An '''applicative''' is a [[Derivation (morphology)|derived]] [[verb]] [[stem]] denoting an action with an additional [[participant]] which is not an [[actor]]-like [[argument]]. If the non-applicative verb is already [[transitive]] the old [[direct object]] can be replaced by the new argument and is then pushed into an [[adjunct]] or [[secondary object]] position.

=== Examples ===

[[German]] (with replacement of the direct object):

{|
|-
| ''Horst'' || ''be-läd-t'' || ''den'' || ''Wagen'' || ''mit'' || ''Heu''
|-
| PN || APPL-load-3s || DEF.ACC.ms || trolley || with || hay
|-
| colspan='6' | ‘Horst loads hay on the trolley.’
|-
|}

[[Hakha Lai]] (Peterson 2002) (without replacement):

{|
|-
| ''ʔa-law'' || ''ʔa-kan-thloʔ-taak''
|-
| 3s.POSS-field || 3s.A-1p.P-hoe-RELINQUITIVE.APPL
|-
| colspan='2' | ‘He left us and hoed his field.’
|-
|}

=== Comments ===

Many languages with applicative constructions have different applicative morphemes depending on the former role of the attached argument. Hakha Lai, for instance, has different suffixes for [[Comitative]], [[Instrumental]], [[Allative]]/[[Malefactive]], [[Benefactive]]/Malefactive, [[Additional Benefactive]], [[Prioritive]] and [[Relinquitive]].

Other languages may have a number of different suffixes but not systematically link particular suffixes with particular usages. Nahuatl generally works this way. For instance, it is not predictable in [[Tetelcingo Nahuatl]], but must be learned, that ''kōw-ia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy for (s.o.)’ whereas ''kōwi-lia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy from (s.o.)’.

=== The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives ===

Applicatives and [[causatives]] are closely related in a number of languages. Both introduce a new nominal [[argument]] to derive a new transitive verb from a more basic verb (whether transitive or intransitive). Causatives, however, introduce a new subject rather than a new object.

Nahuatl suffixes which are usually used as causatives (e.g. ''-tia'' or ''-ltia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are applicatives, and applicative suffixes (e.g. ''-ia'' or ''-lia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are causative.

Some cases show aspects of causative meaning along with aspects of applicative meaning. Thus in Tetelcingo Nahuatl the (normally causative) suffix ''-tia'', when affixed to the stem ''čōk'' ‘cry’, does not mean ‘cause (s.o.) to cry’ (causative), nor ‘cry out to (s.o.)’ (perhaps the most-expected applicative meaning). Rather it means ‘mourn (s.o.)’. A person’s death (in the typical case) causes someone to cry: this is clearly like a causative. However, the person who causes the crying (the new nominal argument) is not taken as the [[subject]] of the complex verb stem, but as its [[object]]. This is like the applicative pattern. However, in the typical applicative pattern the crying would be viewed as causing an effect on the new object; here it is caused by the new object.

Where a causing and a caused process are of the same kind, either a causative or an applicative construal of the same event may be possible. Thus the German ''be-atmen'' (applicative-breathe) ‘give artificial respiration mouth-to-mouth’ could be construed as causing the object to breathe or as breathing (in)to or for the object. The more extensive usage of ''be-'' as an applicative than as a causative would favor the second construal.

Causative and applicative affixes may also be used for verbalizing non-verbal stems, usually producing a transitive verb, as they do when affixed to verb stems. Many of these usages can be seen as tending towards a causative meaning (when the designatum is associated with the subject) and others towards an applicative meaning (when the designatum is associated with the object.) However, the analysis is not straightforward, and most cases can be seen as in some degree mixed. For instance, in [[Orizaba Nawatl]] ''ama-tia'' (paper-causative) ‘provide (s.o.) with documents’, one could see the idea as ''the subject causing [the object to have papers]'', or as ''[the subject preparing or issuing papers] to/for the object''. The first would be a causative-tending construal, and the second an applicative-tending construal.

Somewhat similarly, the German verb ''beenden'' 'finish (s.t.)' can be taken as a derivative of the verb ''enden'' ‘come to an end’. (Unusually for ''be-'', this would be a causative.) Otherwise, it can be taken as a verbalization (with ''be- -en'') of the noun ''end'', meaning either ''the subject cause [the object to have an end]'' or ''[the subject bring/put an end] to the object''.

=== Origin ===

The name “applicative” is of [[Latin]] origin (''applicātum'' ‘attached’). The first linguistic researchers who made use of this term in today’s sense were missionaries in Meso America in the 17th century. They found applicative constructions in [[Nahuatl]] and other [[Uto-Aztecan languages]] and called them ''verbos applicativos''.

=== See also ===

*[[Verbal morphology
*[[Causative]]
*[[Valence change]]

=== References ===

*Bußmann, Hadumod (2002) ''Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft.'' Stuttgart: Kröner. ISBN 3-520-45203-0.
*[[Peterson, David A.]] 2007. ''Applicative constructions''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

=== Other languages ===

*German [[Applikativ]]
*Russian [[аппликатив]]

{{dc}}
[[Category:Syntax]]
[[Category:Valence]]
[[Category:Verbal morphology]]
[[Category:Derivation]]

Applicative

2008-01-09T21:19:49Z

Rulavi: /* The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives */ tweaks

An '''applicative''' is a [[Derivation (morphology)|derived]] [[verb]] [[stem]] denoting an action with an additional [[participant]] which is not an [[actor]]-like [[argument]]. If the non-applicative verb is already [[transitive]] the old [[direct object]] can be replaced by the new argument and is then pushed into an [[adjunct]] or [[secondary object]] position.

=== Examples ===

[[German]] (with replacement of the direct object):

{|
|-
| ''Horst'' || ''be-läd-t'' || ''den'' || ''Wagen'' || ''mit'' || ''Heu''
|-
| PN || APPL-load-3s || DEF.ACC.ms || trolley || with || hay
|-
| colspan='6' | ‘Horst loads hay on the trolley.’
|-
|}

[[Hakha Lai]] (Peterson 2002) (without replacement):

{|
|-
| ''ʔa-law'' || ''ʔa-kan-thloʔ-taak''
|-
| 3s.POSS-field || 3s.A-1p.P-hoe-RELINQUITIVE.APPL
|-
| colspan='2' | ‘He left us and hoed his field.’
|-
|}

=== Comments ===

Many languages with applicative constructions have different applicative morphemes depending on the former role of the attached argument. Hakha Lai, for instance, has different suffixes for [[Comitative]], [[Instrumental]], [[Allative]]/[[Malefactive]], [[Benefactive]]/Malefactive, [[Additional Benefactive]], [[Prioritive]] and [[Relinquitive]].

Other languages may have a number of different suffixes but not systematically link particular suffixes with particular usages. Nahuatl generally works this way. For instance, it is not predictable in [[Tetelcingo Nahuatl]], but must be learned, that ''kōw-ia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy for (s.o.)’ whereas ''kōwi-lia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy from (s.o.)’.

=== The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives ===

Applicatives and [[causatives]] are closely related in a number of languages. Both introduce a new nominal [[argument]] to derive a new transitive verb from a more basic verb (whether transitive or intransitive). Causatives, however, introduce a new subject rather than a new object.

Nahuatl suffixes which are usually used as causatives (e.g. ''-tia'' or ''-ltia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are applicatives, and applicative suffixes (e.g. ''-ia'' or ''-lia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are causative.

Some cases show aspects of causative meaning along with aspects of applicative meaning. Thus in Tetelcingo Nahuatl the (normally causative) suffix ''-tia'', when affixed to the stem ''čōk'' ‘cry’, does not mean ‘cause (s.o.) to cry’ (causative), nor ‘cry out to (s.o.)’ (perhaps the most-expected applicative meaning). Rather it means ‘mourn (s.o.)’. A person’s death (in the typical case) causes someone to cry: this is clearly like a causative. However, the person who causes the crying (the new nominal argument) is not taken as the [[subject]] of the complex verb stem, but as its [[object]]. This is like the applicative pattern. However, in the typical applicative pattern the crying would be viewed as causing an effect on the new object; here it is caused by the new object.

Where a causing and a caused process are of the same kind, either a causative or an applicative construal of the same event may be possible. Thus the German ''be-atmen'' (applicative-breathe) ‘give artificial respiration mouth-to-mouth’ could be construed as causing the object to breathe or as breathing in or for the object. The more extensive usage of ''be-'' as an applicative than as a causative would favor the second construal.

Causative and applicative affixes may also be used for verbalizing non-verbal stems, usually producing a transitive verb, as they do when affixed to verb stems. Many of these usages can be seen as tending towards a causative meaning and others towards an applicative meaning, but the analysis is not straightforward, and most cases can be seen as in some degree mixed. For instance, in [[Orizaba Nawatl]] ''ama-tia'' (paper-causative) ‘provide (s.o.) with documents’, one could see the idea as ''the subject causing [the object to have papers]'', or as ''[the subject preparing or issuing papers] to/for the object''. The first would be a causative-tending construal, and the second an applicative-tending construal. Somewhat similarly, the German verb ''beenden'' 'finish (s.t.)' can be taken as a (causative, unusually for ''be-'') derivative of the verb ''enden'' ‘come to an end’, or as a verbalization (with ''be- -en'') of the noun ''end'', meaning either ''the subject cause [the object to have an end]'' or ''[the subject bring/put an end] to the object''.

=== Origin ===

The name “applicative” is of [[Latin]] origin (''applicātum'' ‘attached’). The first linguistic researchers who made use of this term in today’s sense were missionaries in Meso America in the 17th century. They found applicative constructions in [[Nahuatl]] and other [[Uto-Aztecan languages]] and called them ''verbos applicativos''.

=== See also ===

*[[Verbal morphology
*[[Causative]]
*[[Valence change]]

=== References ===

*Bußmann, Hadumod (2002) ''Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft.'' Stuttgart: Kröner. ISBN 3-520-45203-0.
*[[Peterson, David A.]] 2007. ''Applicative constructions''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

=== Other languages ===

*German [[Applikativ]]
*Russian [[аппликатив]]

{{dc}}
[[Category:Syntax]]
[[Category:Valence]]
[[Category:Verbal morphology]]
[[Category:Derivation]]

Causative

2008-01-09T21:17:33Z

Rulavi: Began stub.

A '''causative''' is a [[Morphology |morphological]] or [[Syntax |syntactic]] structure in which a [[Derivation | derived]] [[verb |verbal]] structure (e.g. a derived verb [[stem]] or a verbal [[phrase]]) denotes the same process as its underived counterpart, with the addition of an active [[participant]] which causes that process to occur.

Typically the new participant is [[subject]] of the causative structure, and the "old" subject (subject of the underived verbal structure) is demoted to direct or indirect [[object]] or [[adjunct]] status. In some languages (e.g. [[French]], [[Spanish]]), the old subject of intransitives becomes a [[direct object]] ([[accusative]]) while the old subject of transitives becomes an [[indirect object]] ([[dative]]) (the old direct object retaining its accusative status), but other patterns also occur.

=== Examples ===

[[Spanish]] (verb phrase in which the "old" verb is an infinitive and the "old" subject a dative):
{|
|-
| ''El'' || ''padre'' || ''le'' || ''hizo'' || ''com-er'' || ''las'' || ''papas.''
|-
| the || father || 3s:DAT || 3s:made || eat-INF || the || potatoes
|-
| colspan='7' | ‘His father made him eat the potatoes’
|-
|}

Classical [[Nahuatl]] (from Carochi 1645:61, who terms these “verbos compulẛiuos”)
{|
|-
| ''ni-''||''mitz-''||''cochī''||''-tia''
|-
|1s:Subj-||2s:Obj-||sleep||-CAUS
|-
| colspan='6' | ‘I put you to sleep, make you sleep’
|-
|}

=== The relationship of Causatives and Applicatives ===

[[Applicative | Applicatives]] and causatives are closely related in a number of languages. Both introduce a new nominal argument to derive a new transitive verb from a more basic verb (whether transitive or intransitive). Applicatives however, rather than introducing a new subject, introduce a new object. (See further discussion of this relationship in the article on [[applicative | applicatives]].)

=== Origin ===

The name “causative” is in English a transparent combination of the verb ''cause'' or the noun ''causation'' with the productive ''-(at)ive'' adjectivizing suffix.

=== See also ===

* [[Verbal morphology]]
* [[Applicative]]
* [[Valence change]]

=== References ===

=== Other languages ===

* Spanish Causativo

Applicative

2008-01-08T17:30:37Z

Rulavi: /* The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives */ typo

An '''applicative''' is a [[Derivation (morphology)|derived]] [[verb]] [[stem]] denoting an action with an additional [[participant]] which is not an [[actor]]-like [[argument]]. If the non-applicative verb is already [[transitive]] the old [[direct object]] can be replaced by the new argument and is then pushed into an [[adjunct]] or [[secondary object]] position.

=== Examples ===

[[German]] (with replacement of the direct object):

{|
|-
| ''Horst'' || ''be-läd-t'' || ''den'' || ''Wagen'' || ''mit'' || ''Heu''
|-
| PN || APPL-load-3s || DEF.ACC.ms || trolley || with || hay
|-
| colspan='6' | ‘Horst loads hay on the trolley.’
|-
|}

[[Hakha Lai]] (Peterson 2002) (without replacement):

{|
|-
| ''ʔa-law'' || ''ʔa-kan-thloʔ-taak''
|-
| 3s.POSS-field || 3s.A-1p.P-hoe-RELINQUITIVE.APPL
|-
| colspan='2' | ‘He left us and hoed his field.’
|-
|}

=== Comments ===

Many languages with applicative constructions have different applicative morphemes depending on the former role of the attached argument. Hakha Lai, for instance, has different suffixes for [[Comitative]], [[Instrumental]], [[Allative]]/[[Malefactive]], [[Benefactive]]/Malefactive, [[Additional Benefactive]], [[Prioritive]] and [[Relinquitive]].

Other languages may have a number of different suffixes but not systematically link particular suffixes with particular usages. Nahuatl generally works this way. For instance, it is not predictable in [[Tetelcingo Nahuatl]], but must be learned, that ''kōw-ia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy for (s.o.)’ whereas ''kōwi-lia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy from (s.o.)’.

=== The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives ===

Applicatives and [[causatives]] are closely related in a number of languages. Both introduce a new nominal [[argument]] to derive a new transitive verb from a more basic verb (whether transitive or intransitive). Nahuatl suffixes which are usually used as causatives (e.g. ''-tia'' or ''-ltia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are applicatives, and applicative suffixes (e.g. ''-ia'' or ''-lia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are causative.

Some cases show aspects of causative meaning along with aspects of applicative meaning. Thus in Tetelcingo Nahuatl the (normally causative) suffix ''-tia'', when affixed to the stem ''čōk'' ‘cry’, does not mean ‘cause (s.o.) to cry’ (causative), nor ‘cry out to (s.o.)’ (perhaps the most-expected applicative meaning). Rather it means ‘mourn (s.o.)’. A person’s death (in the typical case) causes someone to cry: this is clearly like a causative. However, the person who causes the crying (the new nominal argument) is not taken as the [[subject]] of the complex verb stem, but as its [[object]]. This is like the applicative pattern. However, in the typical applicative pattern the crying would be viewed as causing an effect on the new object; here it is caused by the new object.

Where a causing and a caused process are of the same kind, either a causative or an applicative construal of the same event may be possible. Thus the German ''be-atmen'' (applicative-breathe) ‘give artificial respiration mouth-to-mouth’ could be construed as causing the object to breathe or as breathing in or for the object. The more extensive usage of ''be-'' as an applicative than as a causative would favor the second construal.

Causative and applicative affixes may also be used for verbalizing non-verbal stems, usually producing a transitive verb, as they do when affixed to verb stems. Many of these usages can be seen as tending towards a causative meaning and others towards an applicative meaning, but the analysis is not straightforward, and most cases can be seen as in some degree mixed. For instance, in [[Orizaba Nawatl]] ''ama-tia'' (paper-causative) ‘provide (s.o.) with documents’, one could see the idea as ''the subject causing [the object to have papers]'', or as ''[the subject preparing or issuing papers] to/for the object''. The first would be a causative-tending construal, and the second an applicative-tending construal. Somewhat similarly, the German verb ''beenden'' 'finish (s.t.)' can be taken as a (causative, unusually for ''be-'') derivative of ''enden'' ‘come to an end’, or as a verbalization (with ''be- -en'') of the noun ''end'', meaning either ''the subject cause [the object to have an end]'' or ''[the subject bring/put an end] to the object''.

=== Origin ===

The name “applicative” is of [[Latin]] origin (''applicātum'' ‘attached’). The first linguistic researchers who made use of this term in today’s sense were missionaries in Meso America in the 17th century. They found applicative constructions in [[Nahuatl]] and other [[Uto-Aztecan languages]] and called them ''verbos applicativos''.

=== See also ===

*[[Verbal morphology
*[[Causative]]
*[[Valence change]]

=== References ===

*Bußmann, Hadumod (2002) ''Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft.'' Stuttgart: Kröner. ISBN 3-520-45203-0.
*[[Peterson, David A.]] 2007. ''Applicative constructions''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

=== Other languages ===

*German [[Applikativ]]
*Russian [[аппликатив]]

{{dc}}
[[Category:Syntax]]
[[Category:Valence]]
[[Category:Verbal morphology]]
[[Category:Derivation]]

Applicative

2008-01-08T17:29:06Z

Rulavi: /* The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives */

An '''applicative''' is a [[Derivation (morphology)|derived]] [[verb]] [[stem]] denoting an action with an additional [[participant]] which is not an [[actor]]-like [[argument]]. If the non-applicative verb is already [[transitive]] the old [[direct object]] can be replaced by the new argument and is then pushed into an [[adjunct]] or [[secondary object]] position.

=== Examples ===

[[German]] (with replacement of the direct object):

{|
|-
| ''Horst'' || ''be-läd-t'' || ''den'' || ''Wagen'' || ''mit'' || ''Heu''
|-
| PN || APPL-load-3s || DEF.ACC.ms || trolley || with || hay
|-
| colspan='6' | ‘Horst loads hay on the trolley.’
|-
|}

[[Hakha Lai]] (Peterson 2002) (without replacement):

{|
|-
| ''ʔa-law'' || ''ʔa-kan-thloʔ-taak''
|-
| 3s.POSS-field || 3s.A-1p.P-hoe-RELINQUITIVE.APPL
|-
| colspan='2' | ‘He left us and hoed his field.’
|-
|}

=== Comments ===

Many languages with applicative constructions have different applicative morphemes depending on the former role of the attached argument. Hakha Lai, for instance, has different suffixes for [[Comitative]], [[Instrumental]], [[Allative]]/[[Malefactive]], [[Benefactive]]/Malefactive, [[Additional Benefactive]], [[Prioritive]] and [[Relinquitive]].

Other languages may have a number of different suffixes but not systematically link particular suffixes with particular usages. Nahuatl generally works this way. For instance, it is not predictable in [[Tetelcingo Nahuatl]], but must be learned, that ''kōw-ia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy for (s.o.)’ whereas ''kōwi-lia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy from (s.o.)’.

=== The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives ===

Applicatives and [[causatives]] are closely related in a number of languages. Both introduce a new nominal [[argument]] to derive a new transitive verb from a more basic verb (whether transitive or intransitive. Nahuatl suffixes which are usually used as causatives (e.g. ''-tia'' or ''-ltia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are applicatives, and applicative suffixes (e.g. ''-ia'' or ''-lia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are causative.

Some cases show aspects of causative meaning along with aspects of applicative meaning. Thus in Tetelcingo Nahuatl the (normally causative) suffix ''-tia'', when affixed to the stem ''čōk'' ‘cry’, does not mean ‘cause (s.o.) to cry’ (causative), nor ‘cry out to (s.o.)’ (perhaps the most-expected applicative meaning). Rather it means ‘mourn (s.o.)’. A person’s death (in the typical case) causes someone to cry: this is clearly like a causative. However, the person who causes the crying (the new nominal argument) is not taken as the [[subject]] of the complex verb stem, but as its [[object]]. This is like the applicative pattern. However, in the typical applicative pattern the crying would be viewed as causing an effect on the new object; here it is caused by the new object.

Where a causing and a caused process are of the same kind, either a causative or an applicative construal of the same event may be possible. Thus the German ''be-atmen'' (applicative-breathe) ‘give artificial respiration mouth-to-mouth’ could be construed as causing the object to breathe or as breathing in or for the object. The more extensive usage of ''be-'' as an applicative than as a causative would favor the second construal.

Causative and applicative affixes may also be used for verbalizing non-verbal stems, usually producing a transitive verb, as they do when affixed to verb stems. Many of these usages can be seen as tending towards a causative meaning and others towards an applicative meaning, but the analysis is not straightforward, and most cases can be seen as in some degree mixed. For instance, in [[Orizaba Nawatl]] ''ama-tia'' (paper-causative) ‘provide (s.o.) with documents’, one could see the idea as ''the subject causing [the object to have papers]'', or as ''[the subject preparing or issuing papers] to/for the object''. The first would be a causative-tending construal, and the second an applicative-tending construal. Somewhat similarly, the German verb ''beenden'' 'finish (s.t.)' can be taken as a (causative, unusually for ''be-'') derivative of ''enden'' ‘come to an end’, or as a verbalization (with ''be- -en'') of the noun ''end'', meaning either ''the subject cause [the object to have an end]'' or ''[the subject bring/put an end] to the object''.

=== Origin ===

The name “applicative” is of [[Latin]] origin (''applicātum'' ‘attached’). The first linguistic researchers who made use of this term in today’s sense were missionaries in Meso America in the 17th century. They found applicative constructions in [[Nahuatl]] and other [[Uto-Aztecan languages]] and called them ''verbos applicativos''.

=== See also ===

*[[Verbal morphology
*[[Causative]]
*[[Valence change]]

=== References ===

*Bußmann, Hadumod (2002) ''Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft.'' Stuttgart: Kröner. ISBN 3-520-45203-0.
*[[Peterson, David A.]] 2007. ''Applicative constructions''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

=== Other languages ===

*German [[Applikativ]]
*Russian [[аппликатив]]

{{dc}}
[[Category:Syntax]]
[[Category:Valence]]
[[Category:Verbal morphology]]
[[Category:Derivation]]

Applicative

2008-01-08T17:26:33Z

Rulavi: /* The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives */ wrong suffix

An '''applicative''' is a [[Derivation (morphology)|derived]] [[verb]] [[stem]] denoting an action with an additional [[participant]] which is not an [[actor]]-like [[argument]]. If the non-applicative verb is already [[transitive]] the old [[direct object]] can be replaced by the new argument and is then pushed into an [[adjunct]] or [[secondary object]] position.

=== Examples ===

[[German]] (with replacement of the direct object):

{|
|-
| ''Horst'' || ''be-läd-t'' || ''den'' || ''Wagen'' || ''mit'' || ''Heu''
|-
| PN || APPL-load-3s || DEF.ACC.ms || trolley || with || hay
|-
| colspan='6' | ‘Horst loads hay on the trolley.’
|-
|}

[[Hakha Lai]] (Peterson 2002) (without replacement):

{|
|-
| ''ʔa-law'' || ''ʔa-kan-thloʔ-taak''
|-
| 3s.POSS-field || 3s.A-1p.P-hoe-RELINQUITIVE.APPL
|-
| colspan='2' | ‘He left us and hoed his field.’
|-
|}

=== Comments ===

Many languages with applicative constructions have different applicative morphemes depending on the former role of the attached argument. Hakha Lai, for instance, has different suffixes for [[Comitative]], [[Instrumental]], [[Allative]]/[[Malefactive]], [[Benefactive]]/Malefactive, [[Additional Benefactive]], [[Prioritive]] and [[Relinquitive]].

Other languages may have a number of different suffixes but not systematically link particular suffixes with particular usages. Nahuatl generally works this way. For instance, it is not predictable in [[Tetelcingo Nahuatl]], but must be learned, that ''kōw-ia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy for (s.o.)’ whereas ''kōwi-lia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy from (s.o.)’.

=== The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives ===

Applicatives and [[causatives]] are closely related in a number of languages. Both introduce a new nominal [[argument]] to derive a new transitive verb from a more basic verb (whether transitive or intransitive. Nahuatl suffixes which are usually used as causatives (e.g. ''-tia'' or ''-ltia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are applicatives, and applicative suffixes (e.g. ''-ia'' or ''-lia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are causative.

Some cases show aspects of causative meaning along with aspects of applicative meaning. Thus in Tetelcingo Nahuatl the (normally causative) suffix ''-tia'', when affixed to the stem ''čōk'' ‘cry’, does not mean ‘cause (s.o.) to cry’ (causative), nor ‘cry out to (s.o.)’ (perhaps the most-expected applicative meaning). Rather it means ‘mourn (s.o.)’. A person’s death (in the typical case) causes someone to cry: this is clearly like a causative. However, the person who causes the crying (the new nominal argument) is not taken as the [[subject]] of the complex verb stem, but as its [[object]]. This is like the applicative pattern. However, in the typical applicative pattern the crying would be viewed as causing an effect on the new object; here it is caused by the new object.

Where a causing and a caused process are of the same kind, either a causative or an applicative construal of the same event may be possible. Thus the German ''be-atmen'' (applicative-breathe) ‘give artificial respiration mouth-to-mouth’ could be construed as causing the object to breathe or as breathing in or for the object. The more extensive usage of ''be-'' as an applicative than as a causative would favor the second construal.

Causative and applicative affixes may also be used for verbalizing non-verbal stems, usually producing a transitive verb, as they do when affixed to verb stems. Many of these usages can be seen as tending towards a causative meaning and others towards an applicative meaning, but the analysis is not straightforward, and most cases can be seen as in some degree mixed. For instance, in [[Orizaba Nawatl]] ''ama-tia'' (paper-causative) ‘provide (s.o.) with documents’, one could see the idea as the subject causing [the object to have papers], or as [the subject preparing papers] to/for the object. The first would be a causative-tending construal, and the second an applicative-tending construal. Somewhat similarly, the German verb ''beenden'' 'finish (s.t.)' can be taken as a (causative, unusually for ''be-'') derivative of ''enden'' ‘come to an end’, or as a verbalization (with ''be- -en'') of the noun ''end'', meaning either ''the subject cause [the object to have an end]'' or ''[the subject bring/put an end] to the object''.

=== Origin ===

The name “applicative” is of [[Latin]] origin (''applicātum'' ‘attached’). The first linguistic researchers who made use of this term in today’s sense were missionaries in Meso America in the 17th century. They found applicative constructions in [[Nahuatl]] and other [[Uto-Aztecan languages]] and called them ''verbos applicativos''.

=== See also ===

*[[Verbal morphology
*[[Causative]]
*[[Valence change]]

=== References ===

*Bußmann, Hadumod (2002) ''Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft.'' Stuttgart: Kröner. ISBN 3-520-45203-0.
*[[Peterson, David A.]] 2007. ''Applicative constructions''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

=== Other languages ===

*German [[Applikativ]]
*Russian [[аппликатив]]

{{dc}}
[[Category:Syntax]]
[[Category:Valence]]
[[Category:Verbal morphology]]
[[Category:Derivation]]

Applicative

2008-01-08T17:25:37Z

Rulavi: /* The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives */ German example

An '''applicative''' is a [[Derivation (morphology)|derived]] [[verb]] [[stem]] denoting an action with an additional [[participant]] which is not an [[actor]]-like [[argument]]. If the non-applicative verb is already [[transitive]] the old [[direct object]] can be replaced by the new argument and is then pushed into an [[adjunct]] or [[secondary object]] position.

=== Examples ===

[[German]] (with replacement of the direct object):

{|
|-
| ''Horst'' || ''be-läd-t'' || ''den'' || ''Wagen'' || ''mit'' || ''Heu''
|-
| PN || APPL-load-3s || DEF.ACC.ms || trolley || with || hay
|-
| colspan='6' | ‘Horst loads hay on the trolley.’
|-
|}

[[Hakha Lai]] (Peterson 2002) (without replacement):

{|
|-
| ''ʔa-law'' || ''ʔa-kan-thloʔ-taak''
|-
| 3s.POSS-field || 3s.A-1p.P-hoe-RELINQUITIVE.APPL
|-
| colspan='2' | ‘He left us and hoed his field.’
|-
|}

=== Comments ===

Many languages with applicative constructions have different applicative morphemes depending on the former role of the attached argument. Hakha Lai, for instance, has different suffixes for [[Comitative]], [[Instrumental]], [[Allative]]/[[Malefactive]], [[Benefactive]]/Malefactive, [[Additional Benefactive]], [[Prioritive]] and [[Relinquitive]].

Other languages may have a number of different suffixes but not systematically link particular suffixes with particular usages. Nahuatl generally works this way. For instance, it is not predictable in [[Tetelcingo Nahuatl]], but must be learned, that ''kōw-ia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy for (s.o.)’ whereas ''kōwi-lia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy from (s.o.)’.

=== The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives ===

Applicatives and [[causatives]] are closely related in a number of languages. Both introduce a new nominal [[argument]] to derive a new transitive verb from a more basic verb (whether transitive or intransitive. Nahuatl suffixes which are usually used as causatives (e.g. ''-tia'' or ''-ltia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are applicatives, and applicative suffixes (e.g. ''-ia'' or ''-lia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are causative.

Some cases show aspects of causative meaning along with aspects of applicative meaning. Thus in Tetelcingo Nahuatl the (normally causative) suffix ''-tia'', when affixed to the stem ''čōk'' ‘cry’, does not mean ‘cause (s.o.) to cry’ (causative), nor ‘cry out to (s.o.)’ (perhaps the most-expected applicative meaning). Rather it means ‘mourn (s.o.)’. A person’s death (in the typical case) causes someone to cry: this is clearly like a causative. However, the person who causes the crying (the new nominal argument) is not taken as the [[subject]] of the complex verb stem, but as its [[object]]. This is like the applicative pattern. However, in the typical applicative pattern the crying would be viewed as causing an effect on the new object; here it is caused by the new object.

Where a causing and a caused process are of the same kind, either a causative or an applicative construal of the same event may be possible. Thus the German ''be-atmen'' (applicative-breathe) ‘give artificial respiration mouth-to-mouth’ could be construed as causing the object to breathe or as breathing in or for the object. The more extensive usage of ''be-'' as an applicative than as a causative would favor the second construal.

Causative and applicative affixes may also be used for verbalizing non-verbal stems, usually producing a transitive verb, as they do when affixed to verb stems. Many of these usages can be seen as tending towards a causative meaning and others towards an applicative meaning, but the analysis is not straightforward, and most cases can be seen as in some degree mixed. For instance, in [[Orizaba Nawatl]] ''ama-tia'' (paper-causative) ‘provide (s.o.) with documents’, one could see the idea as the subject causing [the object to have papers], or as [the subject preparing papers] to/for the object. The first would be a causative-tending construal, and the second an applicative-tending construal. Somewhat similarly, the German verb ''beenden'' 'finish (s.t.)' can be taken as a (causative, unusually for ''be-'') derivating of ''enden'' ‘come to an end’, or as a verbalization (with ''be- -en'') of the noun ''end'', meaning either ''the subject cause [the object to have an end]'' or ''[the subject bring/put an end] to the object''.

=== Origin ===

The name “applicative” is of [[Latin]] origin (''applicātum'' ‘attached’). The first linguistic researchers who made use of this term in today’s sense were missionaries in Meso America in the 17th century. They found applicative constructions in [[Nahuatl]] and other [[Uto-Aztecan languages]] and called them ''verbos applicativos''.

=== See also ===

*[[Verbal morphology
*[[Causative]]
*[[Valence change]]

=== References ===

*Bußmann, Hadumod (2002) ''Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft.'' Stuttgart: Kröner. ISBN 3-520-45203-0.
*[[Peterson, David A.]] 2007. ''Applicative constructions''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

=== Other languages ===

*German [[Applikativ]]
*Russian [[аппликатив]]

{{dc}}
[[Category:Syntax]]
[[Category:Valence]]
[[Category:Verbal morphology]]
[[Category:Derivation]]

Applicative

2008-01-07T04:33:22Z

Rulavi: Links: see earlier edits

An '''applicative''' is a [[Derivation (morphology)|derived]] [[verb]] [[stem]] denoting an action with an additional [[participant]] which is not an [[actor]]-like [[argument]]. If the non-applicative verb is already [[transitive]] the old [[direct object]] can be replaced by the new argument and is then pushed into an [[adjunct]] or [[secondary object]] position.

=== Examples ===

[[German]] (with replacement of the direct object):

{|
|-
| ''Horst'' || ''be-läd-t'' || ''den'' || ''Wagen'' || ''mit'' || ''Heu''
|-
| PN || APPL-load-3s || DEF.ACC.ms || trolley || with || hay
|-
| colspan='6' | ‘Horst loads hay on the trolley.’
|-
|}

[[Hakha Lai]] (Peterson 2002) (without replacement):

{|
|-
| ''ʔa-law'' || ''ʔa-kan-thloʔ-taak''
|-
| 3s.POSS-field || 3s.A-1p.P-hoe-RELINQUITIVE.APPL
|-
| colspan='2' | ‘He left us and hoed his field.’
|-
|}

=== Comments ===

Many languages with applicative constructions have different applicative morphemes depending on the former role of the attached argument. Hakha Lai, for instance, has different suffixes for [[Comitative]], [[Instrumental]], [[Allative]]/[[Malefactive]], [[Benefactive]]/Malefactive, [[Additional Benefactive]], [[Prioritive]] and [[Relinquitive]].

Other languages may have a number of different suffixes but not systematically link particular suffixes with particular usages. Nahuatl generally works this way. For instance, it is not predictable in [[Tetelcingo Nahuatl]], but must be learned, that ''kōw-ia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy for (s.o.)’ whereas ''kōwi-lia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy from (s.o.)’.

=== The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives ===

Applicatives and [[causatives]] are closely related in a number of languages. Both introduce a new nominal [[argument]] to derive a new transitive verb from a more basic verb (whether transitive or intransitive. Nahuatl suffixes which are usually used as causatives (e.g. ''-tia'' or ''-ltia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are applicatives, and applicative suffixes (e.g. ''-ia'' or ''-lia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are causative.

Some cases show aspects of causative meaning along with aspects of applicative meaning. Thus in Tetelcingo Nahuatl the (normally causative) suffix ''-tia'', when affixed to the stem ''čōk'' ‘cry’, does not mean ‘cause (s.o.) to cry’ (causative), nor ‘cry out to (s.o.)’ (perhaps the most-expected applicative meaning). Rather it means ‘mourn (s.o.)’. A person’s death (in the typical case) causes someone to cry: this is clearly like a causative. However, the person who causes the crying (the new nominal argument) is not taken as the [[subject]] of the complex verb stem, but as its [[object]]. This is like the applicative pattern. However, in the typical applicative pattern the crying would be viewed as causing an effect on the new object; here it is caused by the new object.

Where a causing and a caused process are of the same kind, either a causative or an applicative construal of the same event may be possible. Thus the German ''be-atmen'' (applicative-breathe) ‘give artificial respiration mouth-to-mouth’ could be construed as causing the object to breathe or as breathing in or for the object. The more extensive usage of ''be-'' as an applicative than as a causative would favor the second construal.

Causative and applicative affixes may also be used for verbalizing non-verbal stems (usually producing a transitive verb, as they do when affixed to verb stems). Many of these usages can be seen as tending towards a causative meaning and others towards an applicative meaning, but the analysis is not straightforward, and most cases can be seen as in some degree mixed. For instance, in [[Orizaba Nawatl]] ''ama-tia'' (paper-causative) ‘provide (s.o.) with documents’, one could see the idea as the subject causing [the object to have papers], or as [the subject preparing papers] to/for the object. The first would be a causative-tending construal, and the second an applicative-tending construal.

=== Origin ===

The name “applicative” is of [[Latin]] origin (''applicātum'' ‘attached’). The first linguistic researchers who made use of this term in today’s sense were missionaries in Meso America in the 17th century. They found applicative constructions in [[Nahuatl]] and other [[Uto-Aztecan languages]] and called them ''verbos applicativos''.

=== See also ===

*[[Verbal morphology
*[[Causative]]
*[[Valence change]]

=== References ===

*Bußmann, Hadumod (2002) ''Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft.'' Stuttgart: Kröner. ISBN 3-520-45203-0.
*[[Peterson, David A.]] 2007. ''Applicative constructions''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

=== Other languages ===

*German [[Applikativ]]
*Russian [[аппликатив]]

{{dc}}
[[Category:Syntax]]
[[Category:Valence]]
[[Category:Verbal morphology]]
[[Category:Derivation]]

Applicative

2008-01-07T04:28:31Z

Rulavi: /* The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives */ typo - but se previous edit

An '''applicative''' is a [[Derivation (morphology)|derived]] [[verb]] [[stem]] denoting an action with an additional [[participant]] which is not an [[actor]]-like [[argument]]. If the non-applicative verb is already [[transitive]] the old [[direct object]] can be replaced by the new argument and is then pushed into an [[adjunct]] or [[secondary object]] position.

=== Examples ===

[[German]] (with replacement of the direct object):

{|
|-
| ''Horst'' || ''be-läd-t'' || ''den'' || ''Wagen'' || ''mit'' || ''Heu''
|-
| PN || APPL-load-3s || DEF.ACC.ms || trolley || with || hay
|-
| colspan='6' | ‘Horst loads hay on the trolley.’
|-
|}

[[Hakha Lai]] (Peterson 2002) (without replacement):

{|
|-
| ''ʔa-law'' || ''ʔa-kan-thloʔ-taak''
|-
| 3s.POSS-field || 3s.A-1p.P-hoe-RELINQUITIVE.APPL
|-
| colspan='2' | ‘He left us and hoed his field.’
|-
|}

=== Comments ===

Many languages with applicative constructions have different applicative morphemes depending on the former role of the attached argument. Hakha Lai, for instance, has different suffixes for [[Comitative]], [[Instrumental]], [[Allative]]/[[Malefactive]], [[Benefactive]]/Malefactive, [[Additional Benefactive]], [[Prioritive]] and [[Relinquitive]].

Other languages may have a number of different suffixes but not systematically link particular suffixes with particular usages. Nahuatl generally works this way. For instance, it is not predictable in Tetelcingo Nahuatl, but must be learned, that ''kōw-ia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy for (s.o.)’ whereas ''kōwi-lia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy from (s.o.)’.

=== The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives ===

Applicatives and [[causatives]] are closely related in a number of languages. Both introduce a new nominal [[argument]] to derive a new transitive verb from a more basic verb (whether transitive or intransitive. Nahuatl suffixes which are usually used as causatives (e.g. ''-tia'' or ''-ltia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are applicatives, and applicative suffixes (e.g. ''-ia'' or ''-lia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are causative.

Some cases show aspects of causative meaning along with aspects of applicative meaning. Thus in Tetelcingo Nahuatl the (normally causative) suffix ''-tia'', when affixed to the stem ''čōk'' ‘cry’, does not mean ‘cause (s.o.) to cry’ (causative), nor ‘cry out to (s.o.)’ (perhaps the most-expected applicative meaning). Rather it means ‘mourn (s.o.)’. A person’s death (in the typical case) causes someone to cry: this is clearly like a causative. However, the person who causes the crying (the new nominal argument) is not taken as the [[subject]] of the complex verb stem, but as its [[object]]. This is like the applicative pattern. However, in the typical applicative pattern the crying would be viewed as causing an effect on the new object; here it is caused by the new object.

Where a causing and a caused process are of the same kind, either a causative or an applicative construal of the same event may be possible. Thus the German ''be-atmen'' (applicative-breathe) ‘give artificial respiration mouth-to-mouth’ could be construed as causing the object to breathe or as breathing in or for the object. The more extensive usage of ''be-'' as an applicative than as a causative would favor the second construal.

Causative and applicative affixes may also be used for verbalizing non-verbal stems (usually producing a transitive verb, as they do when affixed to verb stems). Many of these usages can be seen as tending towards a causative meaning and others towards an applicative meaning, but the analysis is not straightforward, and most cases can be seen as in some degree mixed. For instance, in Orizaba Nawatl ''ama-tia'' (paper-causative) ‘provide (s.o.) with documents’, one could see the idea as the subject causing [the object to have papers], or as [the subject preparing papers] to/for the object. The first would be a causative-tending construal, and the second an applicative-tending construal.

=== Origin ===

The name “applicative” is of [[Latin]] origin (''applicātum'' ‘attached’). The first linguistic researchers who made use of this term in today’s sense were missionaries in Meso America in the 17th century. They found applicative constructions in some [[Uto-Aztecan languages]] and called them ''verbos applicativos''.

=== See also ===

*[[Verbal morphology]]
*[[Causative]]
*[[Valence change]]

=== References ===

*Bußmann, Hadumod (2002) ''Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft.'' Stuttgart: Kröner. ISBN 3-520-45203-0.
*[[Peterson, David A.]] 2007. ''Applicative constructions''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

=== Other languages ===

*German [[Applikativ]]
*Russian [[аппликатив]]

{{dc}}
[[Category:Syntax]]
[[Category:Valence]]
[[Category:Verbal morphology]]
[[Category:Derivation]]

Applicative

2008-01-07T04:24:50Z

Rulavi: /* Comments */ Expand one section, begin another.

An '''applicative''' is a [[Derivation (morphology)|derived]] [[verb]] [[stem]] denoting an action with an additional [[participant]] which is not an [[actor]]-like [[argument]]. If the non-applicative verb is already [[transitive]] the old [[direct object]] can be replaced by the new argument and is then pushed into an [[adjunct]] or [[secondary object]] position.

=== Examples ===

[[German]] (with replacement of the direct object):

{|
|-
| ''Horst'' || ''be-läd-t'' || ''den'' || ''Wagen'' || ''mit'' || ''Heu''
|-
| PN || APPL-load-3s || DEF.ACC.ms || trolley || with || hay
|-
| colspan='6' | ‘Horst loads hay on the trolley.’
|-
|}

[[Hakha Lai]] (Peterson 2002) (without replacement):

{|
|-
| ''ʔa-law'' || ''ʔa-kan-thloʔ-taak''
|-
| 3s.POSS-field || 3s.A-1p.P-hoe-RELINQUITIVE.APPL
|-
| colspan='2' | ‘He left us and hoed his field.’
|-
|}

=== Comments ===

Many languages with applicative constructions have different applicative morphemes depending on the former role of the attached argument. Hakha Lai, for instance, has different suffixes for [[Comitative]], [[Instrumental]], [[Allative]]/[[Malefactive]], [[Benefactive]]/Malefactive, [[Additional Benefactive]], [[Prioritive]] and [[Relinquitive]].

Other languages may have a number of different suffixes but not systematically link particular suffixes with particular usages. Nahuatl generally works this way. For instance, it is not predictable in Tetelcingo Nahuatl, but must be learned, that ''kōw-ia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy for (s.o.)’ whereas ''kōwi-lia'' [buy-applicative] means ‘buy from (s.o.)’.

=== The relationship of Applicatives and Causatives ===

Applicatives and [[causatives]] are closely related in a number of languages. Both introduce a new nominal [[argument]] to derive a new transitive verb from a more basic verb (whether transitive or intransitive. Nahuatl suffixes which are usually used as causatives (e.g. ''-tia'' or ''-ltia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are applicatives, and applicative suffixes (e.g. ''-ia'' or ''-lia'') nearly always have a few usages in which they are causative.

Some cases show aspects of causative meaning along with aspects of applicative meaning. Thus in Tetelcingo Nahuatl the (normally causative) suffix ''-tia'', when affixed to the stem ''čōk'' ‘cry’, does not mean ‘cause (s.o.) to cry’ (causative), nor ‘cry out to (s.o.)’ (perhaps the most-expected applicative meaning). Rather it means ‘mourn (s.o.)’. A person’s death (in the typical case) causes someone to cry: this is clearly like a causative. However, the person who causes the crying (the new nominal argument) is not taken as the [[subject]] of the complex verb stem, but as its [[object]]. This is like the applicative pattern. However, in the typical applicative pattern the crying would be viewed as causing an effect on the new object; here it is caused by the new object.

Where a causing and a caused process are of the same kind, either a causative or an applicative construal of the same event may be possible. Thus the German ''be-atmen'' (applicative-breathe) ‘give artificial respiration mouth-to-mouth’ could be construed as causing the object to breathe or as breathing in or for the object. The more extensive usage of ''be-'' as an applicative than as a causative would favor the second construal.

Causative and applicative affixes may also be used for verbalizing non-verbal stems (usually producing a transitive verb, as they do when affixed to verb stems. Many of these usages can be seen as tending towards a causative meaning and others towards an applicative meaning, but the analysis is not straightforward, and most cases can be seen as in some degree mixed. For instance, in Orizaba Nawatl ''ama-tia'' (paper-causative) ‘provide (s.o.) with documents’, one could see the idea as the subject causing [the object to have papers], or as [the subject preparing papers] to/for the object. The first would be a causative-tending construal, and the second an applicative-tending construal.

=== Origin ===

The name “applicative” is of [[Latin]] origin (''applicātum'' ‘attached’). The first linguistic researchers who made use of this term in today’s sense were missionaries in Meso America in the 17th century. They found applicative constructions in some [[Uto-Aztecan languages]] and called them ''verbos applicativos''.

=== See also ===

*[[Verbal morphology]]
*[[Causative]]
*[[Valence change]]

=== References ===

*Bußmann, Hadumod (2002) ''Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft.'' Stuttgart: Kröner. ISBN 3-520-45203-0.
*[[Peterson, David A.]] 2007. ''Applicative constructions''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

=== Other languages ===

*German [[Applikativ]]
*Russian [[аппликатив]]

{{dc}}
[[Category:Syntax]]
[[Category:Valence]]
[[Category:Verbal morphology]]
[[Category:Derivation]]

Index old

2007-08-07T17:38:59Z

Rulavi: Wrong content NEEDS FIXING

FIX ME! THIS IS A COPY OF WHAT IS ON THE INFINITIVE PAGE, NOT CONTENT ABOUT INDICES.

An '''infinitive''' is a verb form whose [[subject]] slot is blocked so that it does not function as the [[main verb]] of an [[independent clause]]. However, it does designate a [[situation core]], so it may function as the head of a (non-finite) [[dependent clause]]. Morphologically, it is a non-finite form which is crucially not specified for [[person]], [[number]] and [[mood]]. Other categories which may or may not be absent include [[tense]], [[aspect]] and [[voice]].

The infinitive is a kind of [[non-finite verb]].

The infinitive is a kind of [[verbal noun]].

===Comments===
[[Portuguese]] and [[Old Neapolitan]] have an infinitive that inflects for person and number.

===Subtypes===
*[[adverbial infinitive]]
*[[historic infinitive]]
*[[conjugated infinitive]]
*[[inflected infinitive]]

===See also===
*[[infinitive construction]]

===Link===
[http://www.uni-erfurt.de/sprachwissenschaft/proxy.php?port=8080&file=lido/servlet/Lido_Servlet Linguistic Documentation, Universität Erfurt]

===References===
*Askedal, John Ole 1988, „Über den Infinitiv als Subjekt im Deutschen. Eine empirische Untersuchung anhand des Erzählwerks von Thomas Mann.“ ''Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik'' 16: 1-25.
*Steube, Anita & Zybatow, Gerhild (eds.) 1994, Zur Satzwertigkeit von Infinitiven und Small Clauses. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer (Linguistische Arbeiten, 315).
*Bech, Gunnar 1983, Studien über das deutsche Verbum infinitum. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer.
*Calboli, Gualtiero 1981, „Le frasi interrogativo-esclamative latine e l’infinito.“ Geckeler, Horst et al. (eds.), Logos semantikos. Studia linguistica in honorem Eugenio Coseriu, 1921-1981. 5 Bde. Berlin & New York: W. de Gruyter; Madrid: Gredos; 4: 133-153.
*Chierchia, Gennaro 1984, Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds. Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts (GSLA).
*Disterheft, Dorothy 1980, The syntactic development of the infinitive in Indo-European. Columbus, OH: Slavica.
*Haspelmath, Martin 1989, „From purposive to infinitive - a universal path of grammaticization.“ Folia Linguistica Historica 10: 287-310. excerpt
*Humboldt, Wilhelm von 1853, „Über den Infinitiv.“ Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 2: 242-251.
*Joseph, Brian D. 1985, The synchrony and diachrony of the Balkan infinitive. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Supplementary Volume).
*Leumann, Manu 1973, „Zum lateinischen Infin. fut. akt. auf -turum esse.“ Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 31: 129-132.

===Other languages===
*French [[infinitif]]
*German [[Infinitiv]]
*Portuguese [[infinitivo (pt)]]
*Spanish [[infinitivo (es)]]

[[Category:En]]
[[Category:Syntax]]

Approximant

2007-08-07T15:21:40Z

Rulavi: spelling

An '''approximant''' is a sound that is produced by a slight narrowing of the [[vocal tract]], but not enough to cause noise or a complete [[obstruction]].

===Examples===
The [[semivowel]]s [j], [w] and the English ''r''.

===Origin===
Approximants are so called because in their production, the active articulator approximates (=comes close to) the passive articulator.

===Other languages===
German [[Approximant (de)]]

{{dc}}
[[Category:Phonetics]]

User:Rulavi

2007-07-08T19:17:33Z

Rulavi: link

Hello, everyone.

I am David Tuggy, and if you're interested in more about me you can check out [[http://www.sil.org/~tuggyd www.sil.org/~tuggyd]]

User:Rulavi

2007-07-08T19:13:10Z

Rulavi: Start page

Hello, everyone.

I am David Tuggy, and if you're interested in more about me you can check out www.sil.org/~tuggyd.