Non-discrete effects in language

Non-discrete effects in language, or the Critique of Pure Reason 2 Andrej A. Kibrik (Institute of Linguistics RAN and Lomonosov Moscow State University) [email protected]

The problem We tend to think about language as a system of discrete elements (phonemes, morphemes, words, sentences) But this view does not survive an encounter with reality

Simple example: morpheme fusion детский det-sk-ij ‘children’s, childish’ Root-Suffix-Ending [deckij] suffix deck-ij root

Similar exampes abound on all lingustic levels Phonemes: coarticulation cat keep cool Words: clitics iz mašiny ‘from the car’ iz ... mašiny ‘from ... the car’ iz taksi [is taksi] ‘from the taxi’ Clauses: parcellation I’ll come, in a minute These are primarily syntagmatic examples: non-discrete boundaries between linearly arranged units

Paradigmatics The same problem applies to paradigmatic boundaries, that is boundaries between classes, types, or categories in an inventory Questionable phonemes Russian жюри žjuri ‘jury’ [ž’ur’i] even though supposedly there is no palatalized [ž’] in Russian (in this position) Questionable words and clauses I want [to go] particle infinitival clause I wan[na go] ?? cf. жури žuri ‘rebuke’

Semantics X said smth (Zaliznjak 2006: 186) ‘X uttered a sequence of sounds’ ‘X meant smth’ ‘X expressed his belief in smth’ ‘X wanted Y to know smth’ ‘X wanted Y to perform smth’ ................. Some of these meanings are shared by X told smth, but some are not

Diachronic change Russian писать pisat’ ‘write’ Funny slangish use: popisal nozhom ‘cut/slashed someone with a knife’, lit. ‘wrote with a knife’ One of the Indo-European etymologies of the root pis- is ‘create image by cutting’ Apparently the ancient meaning of the root, several millennia old, is still present in a marginal usage of the modern verb

Language contact The Baltic language Prussian, spoken in this area until the 16th – 17th century Vladimir N. Toporov In the existing texts Prussian syntax is almost fully copied from German (Luther’s Catechism) In the 18th century, when Prussian was extinct, German-speaking peasants of the area used many Prussian words

Intermediate conclusion Language simultaneously longs for discrete, segmented structure tries to avoid it Non-discrete effects permeate every single aspect of language This problem is in the core of theoretical debates about language

Possible reactions “Digital” linguistics (de Saussure, Bloomfield, Chomsky...): More inclusive (“analog”) linguistics: often a mere statement of continuous boundaries and countless intermediate/borderline cases ignore non-discrete phenomena or dismiss them as minor Ferdinand de Saussure: language only consists of identities and differences the discreteness delusion a bit too simple-minded appeal of scientific rigor but extreme reductionism

Cognitive science Rosch: prototype theory Lakoff: radial categories A is the prototypical phoneme/word/clause/ meaning... B, C, and D are less prototypical representatives We still need a theory for: boundaries between related categories boundaries in the syntagmatic structure

My main suggestion In the case of language we see the structure that combines the properties of discrete and non-discrete: focal structure Focal phenomena are simultaneously distinct and related Focal structure is a special kind of structure found in linguistic phenomena, alternative to the discrete structure It is the hallmark of linguistic and, possibly, cognitive phenomena, in constrast to simpler kinds of matter

Various kinds of structures discrete structure ▐ focal point 1 focal point 2 ▐ continuous structure focal structure 1 2 1 2

Still more realistic: amoeba structure

Examples det sk said told *pis- pis- Prussian German ▐ focal point 1 focal point 2 Syntagm. Paradigm. Diachr. Lg.contact etc., etc.

Peripheral status of non-discrete phenomena Where does it stem from? Objective properties of language? I don’t think so Or, perhaps, properties of the observing human mind? This directly relates to one of the key issues in The Critique of Pure Reason

Kant’s puzzle The role of observer, or cognizer, crucially affects the knowledge of the world “The schematicism by which our understanding deals with the phenomenal world ... is a skill so deeply hidden in the human soul that we shall hardly guess the secret trick that Nature here employs.” NB: Standards of scientific thought have developed on the basis of physical, rather than cognitive, reality Physical reality is much more prone to the discrete approach Compared to physical world, in the case of language and other cognitive processes Kant’s problem is much more acute because mind here functions both as an observer and an object of observation, so making the distinction between the two is difficult

Recapitulation: A paradoxical state of affairs Science is based on categorization (Aristotelian, “rationality”, “left-hemispheric”, etc.) The scientific approach is inherently biased to noticing only the fitting phenomena It is like eyeglasses filtering out a part of reality Addressing another part of it is perceived as pseudo-science, or quasi-science at best Language is unknowable, a Ding an sich?

What to do? We need to develop a more embracing linguistics and cognitive science that address non-discrete phenomena: not as exceptions or periphery of language and cognition but rather as their core Can we outwit our mind? Several avenues towards this goal

1. Start with prosody Prosody is the aspect of sound code that is obviously non-discrete Example: Sandro V. Kodzasov’s analysis of formal quantity iconically depicting mental quantity It was lo-ong ago. Oh, tha-at’s the reason. He just left. That’s clear. Develop new approaches on the basis of prosody, then apply them to traditional, “segmental” language

2. Explore gesticulation In addition to sound code, there is a visual code: gesticulation and generally “body language” Michael Tomasello: in order to “understand how humans communicate with one another using a language we must first understand how humans communicate with one another using natural gestures” Когда он ехал по дорo ге, он поравнялся с дe вочкой, (From the materials of Julia Nikolaeva) Simultaneously: iconic gestures and pointing gestures

3. Employ mathematics appropriate for the “cognitive matter” Methodological point 1960s: a fashion of “mathematical methods” in linguistics This did not bring much fruit, primarily because of the non-discreteness effects Time for another attempt of bringing in more useful kinds of mathematics Ongoing project: study of non-categorical referential choice When we mention a person/object, we choose from a set of options, such as a proper name (Kant), a common name (the philosopher), or a reduced form (he) This choice is not always deterministic: sometimes both Kant and he are appropriate Probabilistic modelling and machine learning techniques used to simulate human behavior in non-categorical situations

Conclusion Just as we invoke scientific thinking, we tend to immediately turn to discrete analysis This is why discrete linguistics is so popular, in spite of the omnipresence and obviousness of non-discrete effects This may be our inherent bias, or a habit developed in natural sciences, or a cultural preference But in the case of language and other cognitive processes we do see the limits of the traditional discrete approach It remains an open question if cognitive scientists are able to eventually overcome the strong bias towards “pure reason” and discrete analysis, or language will remain a Ding an sich But it is worth trying to circumvent this bias and to seriously explore the focal, non-discrete structure that is in the very core of language and cognition

The reason why this talk was so philosophical must be due to Kant’s Geist Immanuel Kant, lecturing to Russian officers