Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
1.2.Rejection
13
othersfairlyschematicandopentobefilledwithlexicalmaterial.Such
avariedsetoflexico-syntacticformssprawlsastridethedivision,which
canbetakenasanargumentforquestioningitspurposeorevenvery
existence.Oneindicationofthefuzzinessproblemisthatsomecategories
aretreateddiferentlybydiferentscholars.Forexample,prepositionsare
consideredclosed-classitemsbysome(e.g.,Talmy,2001;Tyler&Evans,
2003;Langacker,2008),othersplacethembetweenopenandclosed-class
categories(Zelinsky-Wibbelt,1993;Saint-Dizier,2006).Thisisnodoubt
duetothetransitionalstatusofprepositionswhichcannotbegrouped
unequivocallywitheitherofthetwo.
Thishasmadeitreasonableenoughtoeitherdownplayoropenlyreject
thenotionofalexico-syntacticdivision,adecisionmadebyscholars
representingmanymodelsofgrammar.Amongthemainassumptionsof
Hudson’sWordGrammaristheclaimthatH[n]odistinctionisassumed
(orfound)betweenIrules’andIlexicalitems.’”(Holmes&Hudson,
2005,p.243).ThedistinctionisalsosuspendedinHPSG(Pollard&Sag,
1994),wherelexicalitemscomewithdetailedinformationonboththeir
semanticandsyntacticproperties.Culicover&Jackendof(2005,p.26)
claimthatHthetraditionaldistinctionbetweenlexiconandgrammar
ismistaken.”Inanotherwork,Jackendofalsoreferstothelexicon
grammardistinctionasaHfundamentalmistake”(Jackendof,2007
,p.53).
Thefuzzinessofthelexicon-syntaxdivideistakenasanexampleof
amoregeneraltendencyformentalcomponentstotransitionsmoothly
ratherthanexhibitsharpdivisions;apositionassumedinLewandowska-
-Tomaszczyk’s(2007)analysisofpolysemy,whichHasunderstoodincog‑
nitiveterms,isanexponentoftheabsenceofclearboundariesbetween
semanticsandpragmatics(asitisanexponentoftheabsenceofclear
boundariesbetweenlexiconandsyntax…)”(2007
,p.154).Theboundary
isalsoquestionedinGoldberg’sConstructionGrammar(1995;2006)
andLangacker’sCognitiveGrammar(2008).Theobjectionsputforthby
cognitivescholarscanbesummedupasthebeliefthatthedistinction
isatoddswiththesymbolicthesis,whichtreatssyntacticconstructions
asinherentlymeaningful.Briefly,becausethedistinctionpresupposes
semanticausterityofclosed-classforms,includingsyntacticpaterns
whichclearlyandunequivocallydohavemeanings,itdoesnotseem
anexaggerationtoconcludethatobservingthedistinctionmaybean
obstacleforresearchfocusingonthemeaningcontentofconstructions.
Inlightofthat,itseemsonlyreasonabletoignorethedistinction.Thus,
thecognitivelinguisticskepticismoftheseparationoflexiconand
grammarhasbeenmotivatedbytheveryviewoflanguagewhichis
nowseeninitsentiretytoconsistofmeaning-formpairings.Inshort,
suspendingtherestrictionagainstmeaningsinclosed-classformsmeant
