Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics

Tutorials Handout 3

patterns; the argument for mental grammar; elements of communicative situation; expressive variety and
consequences; grammar vs. mental grammar; the tip of the iceberg metaphor

The Argument for Mental Grammar: The expressive variety of language use implies that a language user’s
brain contains a set of unconscious principles.
The Argument for Innate Knowledge: The way children learn to talk implies that the human brain contains a
genetically determined specialization for language.
The Argument for the Construction of Experience: Our experience of the world is actively constructed by the
unconscious principles that operate in the brain.

I Pinker Cloze Test 2

Once you begin to look at language not as the ineffable essence of human uniqueness but as a
biological adaptation to communicate information, it is no longer as tempting to see language as an insidious
_____________ of thought, and, we shall see, it is not. Moreover, seeing language as one of nature’s engineering
marvels – an organ with “that perfection of structure and co-adaptation which justly excites our admiration,” in
Darwin’s words – gives us a new respect for your ordinary Joe and the much-maligned English language (or
any language). The complexity of language, from the _____________ point of view, is part of our biological
_____________; it is not something that parents teach their children or something that must be elaborated in
school – as Oscar Wilde said, “Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that
nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.” A preschooler’s tacit knowledge of grammar is more
sophisticated than the thickest style manual or the most state-of-the-art computer _____________ system, and
the same applies to all healthy human beings, even the notorious syntax-fracturing professional athlete and
the, you know, like, inarticulate teenage skateboarder. Finally, since language is the product of a well-
engineered biological _____________, we shall see that it is not the nutty barrel of monkeys that entertainer-
columnists make it out to be.

II Using the existing cartoons, please try to complete the drawing so that it contains the basic elements of
communicative situation

II Consider the following groups of sentences:

1. John likes Mary. 1. An octopus is not a book.

2. Mary likes John. 2. A book is not a curtain.
3. Like johns Mary. 3. A curtain is not a pancake.
4. John maries Like. 4. A pancake is not a shotgun.

Which of these “make sense”? What does “to make sense” really mean? Which of these are grammatical?
Which are not? What is so peculiar about some of them? How many sentences of the similar kind do you think
you can create? Are they all stored somewhere in your mind?
Try to create some more sentences, so as to continue the logical order. Discuss whether or not they are
“normal” English sentences (and state what you mean by “normal”!)
III Write as many meaningful sentences as possible using the words: tree, bird, like, swarm, fly, branch, wing,
leaf, mate, fall (inflections are allowed).

How many meaningful sentences have you produced? How many nonsensical ones? Are they meaningless?
Are they grammatical?

IV Give the patterns of the following sentences.

Mary says that John is ready.

Mary says that Harry believes that John is ready.
Mary says that Harry believes that Jack has told him that John is ready.
Mary says that Harry believes that Jack has told him that Martha knows that John is ready.

V Give some meaningful and some nonsensical examples for the following patterns:

X Verbs that Y is a Z.
Since an A is not a B, a B is not a C.
If A had B-ed, C would not have D-ed.

VI You will agree that the following sentences are not quite acceptable. But there is a difference. Can you
detect it?

Amy two ate peanuts. The two peanuts ate Amy.

Bill that thinks Bet is a genius. A genius bets that Bill is a think.
Bill Bet thinks genius is a that. A think Bill bets a Bet that.

VII Grammar vs. mental grammar.

The myth that nonstandard dialects of English are grammatically deficient is widespread. In the 1960s
some well-meaning educational psychologists announced that American black children had been so
culturally deprived that they lacked true language and were confined instead to a “non-logical mode of
expressive behavior”. The conclusions were based on the students’ shy or sullen reactions to batteries of
standardized tests. If the psychologists had listened to spontaneous conversations, they would have
rediscovered the commonplace fact that American black culture is everywhere highly verbal; the subculture
of street youths in particular is famous in the annals of anthropology for the value placed on linguistic virtuosity.
Here is an example from an interview conducted by the linguist William Labov on a stoop in Harlem. The
interviewee is Larry, the roughest member of a teenage gang called the Jets. (Labov observes for his scholarly
article that “for most readers of this paper, first contact with Larry would produce some fairly negative
reactions on both sides.”)

“You know, like some people say if you’re good an’ shit, your spirit goin’ t’ heaven… ‘n’ if you bad,
your spirit goin’ to hell. Well, bullshit! Your spirit goin’ t’ hell anyway, good or bad.
[Why?]
Why? I’ll tell you why? ‘Cause you see, doesn’ nobody really know that it’s a God, y’know, ‘cause I
mean I have seen black gods, white gods, all color gods, and don’t nobody know it’s really a God. An’ when
they be sayin’ if you good, you goin’ t’heaven, tha’s bullshit, ‘cause you ain’t goin’ t’ no heaven, ‘cause it
ain’t no heaven for you to go to.
[… just suppose there is a God, would he be white or black?]
He’d be white, man.
[Why?]
Why? I’ll tell you why. ‘Cause the average whitey out here got everything, you dig? And the nigger
ain’t got shit, y’ know? Y’ understan’? So – um – for in order for that to happen, you know it ain’t no black God
that’s doin’ that bullshit.” (Pinker, The Language Instinct)

VIII Compare the following:

Кво си работил? vs. Шта си радио?

страота vs. страхота
дошьл са снају vs. дошао са снахом
разговара од дете vs. разговара о детету
Which of these are grammatical and why is this so? Can you trace any “systems” underlying all of them or not?