Every time I search UA-cam for an excellent explanation of any linguistic topic, it takes me directly to your videos, Martin. Thanks for being so amazing!
In the Labov 1973 example, I actually categorized nr 4 as a portable swimming pool and not a bowl, but maybe that is because it is so warm where I live right now.
7:40 Of course, Wittgenstein's games! I've been thinking for some time that the battle between generative and cognitive linguistics mirrors the contrast between the early and later Wittgenstein, would you agree?
Thank you so much for introducing me to this fascinating arena of science. As a teacher, I am in persuit of any knowledge that make me better at what I do...
Prototypicality looks like the 80:20 rule. When 80% of the language can be explained by 20% of the rules and the remaining 20% of the language requires a massive 80% of the rules to explain it.
Absolutely excellent. I only clicked on the introduction video to find a summary of the Cognitive vs Generative debate, but ended up staying and will watch the whole set of videos (and the other playlist you have on CxG). But while I'm writing this, I may as well ask a question I had. I think it was in the previous video you talked about the functional vs formal methods (where I think the point was that the semantics had the main role to play and not the formal structure). How would Cognitive LX therefore respond to the "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously" sentence, i.e. a demonstration of semantically-nonsensical well-formed (formal?) structure, given its total absence from anything related to any sort of embodied or holistic approach to language/meaning? I'm very open to the ideas presented so far but if I were to argue the main tenets of this branch of linguistics, and then someone threw that question at me I wouldn't have a clue how to respond. The lack of a clear answer is what I think is holding me back from being totally on board with the embodied approach to language.
algrmu Sorry about the late reply. Here's how I would respond: Our experience with actual language use allows us to draw very broad generalizations. For instance, we hear many utterances that contain strings of the form ADJ ADJ N (big fat lie, tall dark stranger, long dark night, etc.) or strings of the form V ADV (weep silently, tread cautiously, laugh heartily, etc.). Thus, we arrive at generalizations that look a lot like 'phrase structure rules' in formalist approaches: V and ADV can combine to form a VP, even when the two words 'clash' semantically. I agree with formalists that phrase structure schemas exist in speakers' minds. I just don't agree that these schemas are there apriori, independently of experience with language.
I think it would be great if you start using the last slide of the presentations for your references and recommended literature (e.g. well-written introductory level books, advanced level books etc.). Then people who are interested in a certain topic may dig deeper. And yes, this is a good video!
Thank you so much! Your lectures are really captivating, I'm not sure whether watching them will help me write my thesis, but I feel so inspired now! It seems easier and much more enjoyable than before :)
What's interesting is that neither classical categories, nor prototypical ones, exist in reality, there are only constructions of our brains in order to manage with the world. BTW, it's interesting to note that, for example, scientists denied the platypus the right to exist (at the time it was discovered), because it didn't match their categories ; and also, that many plants or animals that once were categorized in one category were later moved into another one, insofar the category itself wasn't completely suppressed. This proves that it is all artificial and can evolute at any time. But to come back to "women, fire and dangerous things", and even if I personally think that this might be reasonable, I suppose that it is rather a random evolution of language, perhaps it meant something at one time but it doesn't anymore, and people don't understand it anymore. I can't see why one should say "der Mond und die Sonne" in German, when most people think at the Sun as something male, bright, dry, hot, and at the Moon as something female, weaker, wet and cold : LE Soleil et LA Lune. Even the ancient Chinese thought so.
Hi sir! I'm thinking to work on professor Eleanor Rosch theory of "Categorization" in my master thesis. Have you any suggestions of narrowed topics related to this theory, please? Thank you.
What if a robin is a bird that in our experience satisfies the necessary criteria of the category more often? Wouldn't that explanation account for the priming effects as well? Isn't a cat more like the prototypical dog than, say, a poodle or Shih Tzu? I think it is - except it doesn't satisfy certain necessary criteria.
+Pawel Wysocki The prototype theory is actually paradoxical. So far I've not come across a clear definition of "prototype" - but the theory insists that there isn't one. The theory shoots itself in the foot because according to what it claims it's not able to provide clear-cut definitions of what it aims to describe. What's the prototype of a prototype?
+Pawel Wysocki Here's what I think - categories are sets of necessary criteria. Prototypes are collections of similar experiences that satisfy the necessary criteria.
+Pawel Wysocki I'm sorry about the number of comments and the general chaos I've left here - I've read somewhere that communicating new ideas helps us understand them. Speaking of which! In a fairly similar way - through communication - we probably acquire our understanding of what categories are, what criteria must be met, through a process of elimination. Language with categories defined by criteria that we can communicate probably facilitates exchange of information better, because speakers can agree on the meaning of the words they use.
I couldn't help thinking about it. A game is an activity where participants (one or more) must behave according to the rules of the game. The goal is to follow the rules or else the goal is defined by the rules. The outcome must depend on the sucessful adherence or exploitation of the rules, and not on e.x. physical strength or agility. Any outcome other than success or failure defined by the rules of the game must be optional.
+Pawel Wysocki The point I was trying to make is that language has precise categories of meaning and that it's just that we can't decipher them, but things always either do or do not belong in a given category. That's obviously not the case and whether a platypus is a bird or not is hard to tell for speakers of the language. But the criterion here is not that we can't come up with a definition encompassing all uses of a word. My main area of interest is actually grammar so I probably shouldn't comment on other issues.
"John gave her it" is a phonological error, I think, more than anything. We hear it as: John "gaverit," which renders it more unmeaningful than placing the preposition - in this case like the Japanese go or ga - in front of her.
Hi Mr. Hilpert, Is it possible for you to share the slide deck from the videos? Slides will be very handy to refer concepts from previous videos and also for a quick review/refresher of the subject matter at a later time. Thanks.
I find this classical definition or prototype unideal since a prototype in most other fields typically refers to an early or primitive model, while an archetype will refer to the "ideal" concept or model of a category.
I was thinking the same thing. I've been listening while doing something else, but I had to do a double-take when I heard that. But then again ... that IS a good example. Bats are not birds so they should be at the very low end of the list of how good they represent birds.... unless there were a lot of peoples who missed the fact that this was a trick question of sorts...
Every time I search UA-cam for an excellent explanation of any linguistic topic, it takes me directly to your videos, Martin. Thanks for being so amazing!
I'm flattered, thank you!
Better than the lecture I had at my uni! Thank you for this! Maybe I will pass my cog. lin. course :)
In the Labov 1973 example, I actually categorized nr 4 as a portable swimming pool and not a bowl, but maybe that is because it is so warm where I live right now.
@Daniel P - haha!! I saw no 5 as an old tin bath!!
7:40 Of course, Wittgenstein's games!
I've been thinking for some time that the battle between generative and cognitive linguistics mirrors the contrast between the early and later Wittgenstein, would you agree?
Thank you so much for introducing me to this fascinating arena of science. As a teacher, I am in persuit of any knowledge that make me better at what I do...
A very good, clear and occasionally humorous overview!
Prototypicality looks like the 80:20 rule. When 80% of the language can be explained by 20% of the rules and the remaining 20% of the language requires a massive 80% of the rules to explain it.
Absolutely excellent. I only clicked on the introduction video to find a summary of the Cognitive vs Generative debate, but ended up staying and will watch the whole set of videos (and the other playlist you have on CxG). But while I'm writing this, I may as well ask a question I had. I think it was in the previous video you talked about the functional vs formal methods (where I think the point was that the semantics had the main role to play and not the formal structure). How would Cognitive LX therefore respond to the "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously" sentence, i.e. a demonstration of semantically-nonsensical well-formed (formal?) structure, given its total absence from anything related to any sort of embodied or holistic approach to language/meaning? I'm very open to the ideas presented so far but if I were to argue the main tenets of this branch of linguistics, and then someone threw that question at me I wouldn't have a clue how to respond. The lack of a clear answer is what I think is holding me back from being totally on board with the embodied approach to language.
algrmu Sorry about the late reply. Here's how I would respond: Our experience with actual language use allows us to draw very broad generalizations. For instance, we hear many utterances that contain strings of the form ADJ ADJ N (big fat lie, tall dark stranger, long dark night, etc.) or strings of the form V ADV (weep silently, tread cautiously, laugh heartily, etc.). Thus, we arrive at generalizations that look a lot like 'phrase structure rules' in formalist approaches: V and ADV can combine to form a VP, even when the two words 'clash' semantically. I agree with formalists that phrase structure schemas exist in speakers' minds. I just don't agree that these schemas are there apriori, independently of experience with language.
I think it would be great if you start using the last slide of the presentations for your references and recommended literature (e.g. well-written introductory level books, advanced level books etc.). Then people who are interested in a certain topic may dig deeper.
And yes, this is a good video!
Good idea, Andriy! I think I'll do that. And for the existing videos I can put a few references and links in the description.
+Martin Hilpert Thanks for the great class. Could you please tell the reference for the priming experiments? Best regards.
Thank you so much! Your lectures are really captivating, I'm not sure whether watching them will help me write my thesis, but I feel so inspired now! It seems easier and much more enjoyable than before :)
What's interesting is that neither classical categories, nor prototypical ones, exist in reality, there are only constructions of our brains in order to manage with the world. BTW, it's interesting to note that, for example, scientists denied the platypus the right to exist (at the time it was discovered), because it didn't match their categories ; and also, that many plants or animals that once were categorized in one category were later moved into another one, insofar the category itself wasn't completely suppressed. This proves that it is all artificial and can evolute at any time. But to come back to "women, fire and dangerous things", and even if I personally think that this might be reasonable, I suppose that it is rather a random evolution of language, perhaps it meant something at one time but it doesn't anymore, and people don't understand it anymore. I can't see why one should say "der Mond und die Sonne" in German, when most people think at the Sun as something male, bright, dry, hot, and at the Moon as something female, weaker, wet and cold : LE Soleil et LA Lune. Even the ancient Chinese thought so.
i can’t even understand the cognitive linguistics in Chinese but i tease out it through this English course❤🎉really helpful and impressive !!!!!!!!
It was really good, thank you for the nice lecture❤
Really wonderful program, when would you go for phonetics and phonology?
yes, please do!
Enjoyed it a lot. Thanks 😊
where do you teach....id like to study this subject
Hi sir! I'm thinking to work on professor Eleanor Rosch theory of "Categorization" in my master thesis. Have you any suggestions of narrowed topics related to this theory, please? Thank you.
What if a robin is a bird that in our experience satisfies the necessary criteria of the category more often? Wouldn't that explanation account for the priming effects as well? Isn't a cat more like the prototypical dog than, say, a poodle or Shih Tzu? I think it is - except it doesn't satisfy certain necessary criteria.
+Pawel Wysocki The prototype theory is actually paradoxical. So far I've not come across a clear definition of "prototype" - but the theory insists that there isn't one. The theory shoots itself in the foot because according to what it claims it's not able to provide clear-cut definitions of what it aims to describe. What's the prototype of a prototype?
+Pawel Wysocki Here's what I think - categories are sets of necessary criteria. Prototypes are collections of similar experiences that satisfy the necessary criteria.
+Pawel Wysocki I'm sorry about the number of comments and the general chaos I've left here - I've read somewhere that communicating new ideas helps us understand them. Speaking of which! In a fairly similar way - through communication - we probably acquire our understanding of what categories are, what criteria must be met, through a process of elimination. Language with categories defined by criteria that we can communicate probably facilitates exchange of information better, because speakers can agree on the meaning of the words they use.
I couldn't help thinking about it. A game is an activity where participants (one or more) must behave according to the rules of the game. The goal is to follow the rules or else the goal is defined by the rules. The outcome must depend on the sucessful adherence or exploitation of the rules, and not on e.x. physical strength or agility. Any outcome other than success or failure defined by the rules of the game must be optional.
+Pawel Wysocki The point I was trying to make is that language has precise categories of meaning and that it's just that we can't decipher them, but things always either do or do not belong in a given category. That's obviously not the case and whether a platypus is a bird or not is hard to tell for speakers of the language. But the criterion here is not that we can't come up with a definition encompassing all uses of a word. My main area of interest is actually grammar so I probably shouldn't comment on other issues.
"John gave her it" is a phonological error, I think, more than anything. We hear it as: John "gaverit," which renders it more unmeaningful than placing the preposition - in this case like the Japanese go or ga - in front of her.
Hi Mr. Hilpert,
Is it possible for you to share the slide deck from the videos? Slides will be very handy to refer concepts from previous videos and also for a quick review/refresher of the subject matter at a later time.
Thanks.
You could do screenshots..
@@elizabethman7313 Yes, that is an option -a tedious one at that, though.
Can you provide a source where I can learn more about discouse active-ness?
Thanks, Martin.
Thank you for saving my grades on the Cognitive Linguistics module!
I hope these will save mine too
I find this classical definition or prototype unideal since a prototype in most other fields typically refers to an early or primitive model, while an archetype will refer to the "ideal" concept or model of a category.
is cognitive linguistics different from cognitive semantics? if so, how?
17:34 Or you get a sparrow or a chicken: still dinosaurs, but not very typical dinosaurs. ;)
A bat is NOT a bird. You might as well say a helicopter is bird since they both fly.
I was thinking the same thing. I've been listening while doing something else, but I had to do a double-take when I heard that.
But then again ... that IS a good example. Bats are not birds so they should be at the very low end of the list of how good they represent birds.... unless there were a lot of peoples who missed the fact that this was a trick question of sorts...
Hello man]