757:, some people have argued that force dynamics fails to be explanatory. For example, Goddard (1998:262â266) raised the objection that "a visual representation cannot â in and of itself â convey a meaning. (âŚ) From a semiotic point of view, a diagram never stands alone; it always depends on a system of verbal captions, whether these are explicit or implied." He goes on to attack the verbal definition of causation Talmy provides, claiming that it is circular and obscure. Furthermore, Goddard objects to the use of the "semantically obscure concept of force". However, Goddard's objections lose some of their strength in light of the fact that Force Dynamics does not present itself as a complete semantic description of the constructions involving Force Dynamic concepts.
731:. Deane (1996:56) commented that ârom a cognitive perspective, Talmyâs theory is a striking example of a psychologically plausible theory of causation. Its key elements are such concepts as the (amount of) force exerted by an entity, the balance between two such forces, and the force vector which results from their interaction. Such concepts have an obvious base in ordinary motor activities: the brain must be able to calculate the force vector produced by muscular exertion, and calculate the probable outcome when that force is exerted against an object in the outside world.â
652:. In force dynamic terms, the situation can be described as the entering of an antagonist (the wind) that is stronger in force than the agonist (the pages) and changes the force tendency of the pages from a state of rest to a state of action (turning). In force dynamic diagrams, this motion (âchange over timeâ) of the Antagonist is represented by an arrow.
507:(1990) (see Deane 1996 for a critical review of Jackendoffâs version of Force Dynamics). Force dynamics plays an important role in several recent accounts of modal verbs in various languages (including Brandt 1992, Achard 1996, Boye 2001, and Vandenberghe 2002). Other applications of force dynamics include use in
634:
585:
A third relevant factor is the balance between the two forces. The forces are out of balance by definition; if the two forces are equally strong, the situation is not interesting from a force-dynamic point of view. One force is therefore stronger or weaker than the other. A stronger force is marked
688:
In this series of scenarios, various kinds of causation are described. Furthermore, a basic relationship between the concepts of âcausing something to happenâ and âletting something happenâ emerges, definable in terms of the balance between the force entities and the resultants of the interaction.
764:
is still in a state of theoretical flux, no systematic account addresses this issue yet. However, it is an objection many cognitive linguists are aware of. Some cognitive linguists have replied to such objections by pointing out that the goal of
Cognitive Linguistics is not to construct a
601:
The outcome of the Force-Dynamic scenario depends on both the intrinsic tendency and the balance between the forces. The result is represented by a line beneath
Agonist and Antagonist. The line has an arrowhead if the outcome is action and a large dot if the outcome is rest
719:. It is perfectly possible to represent this in a Force Dynamic diagram (representing Chetâs will as the Agonist keeping the body â the Antagonist â in motion). Thus, even though Chet is one person, his will and his body are conceptualized separately.
468:) categories. This distinction is motivated by the fact that language uses certain categories of notions to structure and organize meaning, while other categories are excluded from this function. For example, Talmy remarks that many languages mark the
533:
744:
because of their conceptual basality (Langacker 1999:24). In this view, expressions involving psychological forces reflect an extension of the category of force dynamics from the physical domain to the psychological domain.
554:
A basic feature of a force-dynamic expression is the presence of two force-exerting elements. Languages make a distinction between these two forces based on their roles. The force entity that is in focus is called the
606:). In the example, the door stays closed; the Antagonist succeeds in preventing it from being opened. The sentence 'The door cannot open' can be Force-Dynamically represented by the diagram at the top of this page.
933:
Sweetser, Eve (1984) âSemantic structure and semantic change: A cognitive linguistic study of modality, perception, speech acts, and logical relations. Doctoral dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley.
551:, on the other hand, exhibits a force dynamic pattern: apparently the door has some tendency toward opening, but there is some other force preventing it from being opened (e.g., it may be jammed).
760:
Another objection regarding force dynamics is the question, raised by
Goddard (1998:81), of how different representational devices are supposed to interact with one another. As the field of
397:
due to its claims of psychological plausibility and the elegance with which it generalizes ideas not usually considered in the same context. The semantic category of force dynamics pervades
780:, has proposed a reconfiguration of some of its basic notions. In Jackendoffâs view, this reconfiguration "conforms better to the syntax of force-dynamic verbs" (1996:121).
609:
Using these basic concepts, several generalizations can be made. The force dynamic situations in which the
Agonist is stronger are expressed in sentences like âX happened
843:(1989) 'Agonistique et analyse dynamique catastrophiste du modal et de lâaspectuel: quelques remarques sur la linguistique cognitive de L. Talmyâ In
947:
Talmy, Leonard (1981) âForce
Dynamicsâ. Paper presented at conference on Language and Mental Imagery. May 1981, University of California, Berkeley.
480:. Force Dynamics is considered to be one of the closed-class notional categories, together with such generally recognized categories as number,
17:
659:
to the right combine a shifting antagonist with agonists of varying force tendencies. The following sentences are examples for these patterns:
270:
582:). Since the antagonist by definition has an opposing tendency, it need not be marked. In the example, the door has a tendency toward action.
421:. For example, the situation in which speakers A and B argue, after which speaker A gives in to speaker B, exhibits a force dynamic pattern.
578:, either toward action or toward rest. For the agonist, this tendency is marked with an arrowhead (action) or with a large dot (rest) (see
173:
460:. In his view, a general idea underlying this discipline is the existence of a fundamental distinction in language between closed-class (
373:
692:
Force entities do not have to be physical entities. Force dynamics is directly applicable to terms involving psychological forces like
393:
category that describes the way in which entities interact with reference to force. Force
Dynamics gained a good deal of attention in
168:
305:
105:
37:
881:
Goddard, Cliff (1998) ââSemantic
Analysis: A Practical Introductionââ New York: Oxford University Press. (esp p 262-266)
244:
919:
Silva, Augusto Soares da (2003) âImage schemas and category coherence: the Case of the
Portuguese Verb deixarâ. In
957:
Vandenberghe, Wim (2002) âInstigative
Setting-Constructions: Force Dynamic Research on âNewâ Types of Agencyâ In
516:
163:
42:
776:
Jackendoff (1990, 1996:120â3), in the process of incorporating aspects of force dynamics into his theory of
366:
327:
322:
64:
860:
Chun, Soon Ae & David A Zubin (1990) âExperiential vs. Agentive Constructions in Korean Narrativeâ. In
867:
Deane, Paul D (1992) 'Polysemy as the consequence of internal conceptual complexity: the case of overâ In
290:
146:
115:
761:
735:
394:
300:
285:
83:
633:
777:
543:
Expressions can exhibit a force dynamic pattern or can be force-dynamically neutral. A sentence like
481:
190:
88:
457:
275:
210:
73:
613:
Yâ, while situations in which the Antagonist is stronger are expressed in the form of âX happened
1005:
989:
469:
359:
769:
in which theorems are proved, but rather to better understand the cognitive basis of language (
754:
539:â Basic elements of the diagrammatic system commonly used to represent Force Dynamic patterns.
512:
280:
200:
69:
547:
is force-dynamically neutral, because there are no forces opposing each other. The sentence
485:
265:
205:
195:
136:
123:
110:
850:
840:
409:, but it also plays an important role in expressions involving psychological forces (e.g.
16:
433:
in 1981, force dynamics started out as a generalization of the traditional notion of the
977:
504:
295:
215:
711:
In addition, force entities do not have to be physically separate. A case in point is
598:). In the example, the Antagonist is stronger, since it actually holds back the door.
571:
is the agonist and the force preventing the door from being opened is the Antagonist.
999:
855:
La charpente modale du sens: Pour une simio-linguistique morphogenitique et dynamique
794:
Talmy, Leonard (2000) âForce Dynamics in Language and Cognitionâ Chapter 7 of Talmy,
766:
500:
489:
430:
401:
on several levels. Not only does it apply to expressions in the physical domain like
228:
826:
Achard, Michel (1996) âFrench modals and speaker controlâ In Goldberg, Adele (ed.),
495:
Aspects of force dynamics have been incorporated into the theoretical frameworks of
496:
223:
141:
347:
950:
Talmy, Leonard (1985b) âForce Dynamics as a generalization over causativeâ In
926:
Sweetser, Eve (1982) âA proposal for uniting deontic and epistemic modals. In
833:
Boye, Kasper (2001) âThe Force-Dynamic core meaning of Danish modal verbsâ In
77:
928:
Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society
891:
Jackendoff, Ray (1996) 'Conceptual semantics and cognitive linguisticsâ. In
740:
728:
618:
532:
508:
434:
418:
27:
971:
909:
Cognitive Linguistics Research vol. 14. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
992:â direct link to the chapter on Force Dynamics on the above webpage (PDF).
900:
The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason
704:
can be graphically represented as easily as the earlier example sentence
398:
390:
342:
476:
in a systematic way, but that nouns are not marked in the same way for
465:
461:
453:. Talmy further developed the field in his 1985, 1988 and 2000 works.
936:
Talmy, Leonard (1976a) âSemantic causative typesâ In Shibatani (ed.),
805:
Talmy, Leonard (1988a) âForce Dynamics in language and cognitionâ In
869:
Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL)
812:
Talmy, Leonard (1985a) âForce Dynamics in language and thoughtâ In
632:
473:
417:). Furthermore, the concept of force dynamics can be extended to
15:
677:
The breaking of the dam let the water flow from the storage lake.
874:
Deane, Paul D (1996) âOn Jackendoffâs conceptual semanticsâ In
702:
Herbie did not succeed in persuading Diana to sing another song
952:
Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics
770:
644:
More possibilities arise when another variable is introduced:
814:
Papers from the Regional Meetings, Chicago Linguistic Society
671:
The appearance of the headmaster made the pupils calm down.
456:
Talmy places force dynamics within the broader context of
648:. This variable is exemplified by such expressions as
930:. Berkeley, California: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
727:
The key elements of force dynamics are very basic to
441:
into finer primitives and considering the notions of
923:, Cuyckens & Dirve & Taylor (eds.), 281â322.
640:â force dynamic diagrams with a shifting Antagonist.
683:
The abating of the wind let the sailboat slow down.
862:Proceedings of the Berkeley linguistics Society
519:(Chun & Zubin 1990, Langacker 1999:352-4).
665:A gust of wind made the pages of my book turn.
650:A gust of wind made the pages of my book turn
367:
8:
828:Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language
717:Chet was dragging himself instead of walking
982:â read-only online version of Talmy (2000)
738:terms, force dynamic expressions reflect a
700:. The force dynamic aspect of the sentence
708:(and, incidentally, by the same diagram).
374:
360:
253:
52:
23:
921:Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics
990:Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition
715:force dynamic constructions of the type
559:and the force entity opposing it is the
531:
314:
256:
243:
182:
154:
97:
55:
33:
26:
942:The grammar of causative constructions
7:
20:Example of a force dynamics diagram
14:
429:Introduced by cognitive linguist
515:(Deane 1992, Da Silva 2003) and
972:Presentation of Force Dynamics
907:Grammar and Conceptualization.
888:. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
1:
796:Toward a cognitive semantics
617:Yâ. In the latter, a form of
984:Toward a Cognitive Semantics
979:Toward a Cognitive Semantics
905:Langacker, Ronald W. (1999)
857:. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
590:sign, a weaker force with a
944:. New York: Academic Press.
835:Acta Linguistica Hafniensia
830:. Stanford, CA.: CSL&I.
800:Concept structuring systems
1022:
517:morphosyntactical analysis
306:Predicate transformational
749:Limitations and criticism
902:, University of Chicago.
802:. Cambridge: MIT Press.
753:From the perspective of
576:intrinsic force tendency
898:Johnson, Mark (1987).
884:Jackendoff, Ray (1990)
574:Force entities have an
567:). In the example, the
328:Abstract semantic graph
323:Abstract interpretation
912:Pinker, Steven. 1997.
641:
540:
147:Theory of descriptions
116:Context (language use)
21:
938:Syntax and semantics
893:Cognitive Linguistics
876:Cognitive Linguistics
762:cognitive linguistics
636:
535:
395:cognitive linguistics
247:programming languages
19:
974:on the CogSci index.
778:conceptual semantics
773:Newman 1996:xii).
741:conceptual archetype
736:cognitive linguistic
706:The door cannot open
549:The door cannot open
511:(Talmy 1988, 2000),
191:Semantic file system
916:. New York: Norton.
886:Semantic Structures
847:, 77, 1â3, 151â162.
723:Psychological basis
523:Theoretical outline
458:cognitive semantics
211:Semantic similarity
959:Leuvense Bijdragen
914:How the mind works
642:
623:extended causation
621:that Talmy termed
545:The door is closed
541:
509:discourse analysis
464:) and open-class (
22:
961:, 90, 4, 365â390.
821:Secondary sources
809:, 12, 1, 49â100.
807:Cognitive Science
755:lexical semantics
513:lexical semantics
384:
383:
335:
334:
239:
238:
201:Semantic matching
1013:
851:Brandt, Per Aage
841:Brandt, Per Aage
655:The diagrams in
646:change over time
376:
369:
362:
254:
206:Semantic parsing
196:Semantic desktop
174:Machine-learning
137:Semantic feature
124:Prototype theory
111:Compositionality
53:
24:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1012:
1011:
1010:
996:
995:
968:
940:(vol 6) :
895:, 7, 1, 93â129.
823:
791:
789:Primary sources
786:
751:
729:human cognition
725:
631:
629:More complexity
530:
525:
427:
380:
310:
246:
233:
178:
133:
93:
47:
12:
11:
5:
1019:
1017:
1009:
1008:
998:
997:
994:
993:
987:
975:
967:
966:External links
964:
963:
962:
955:
948:
945:
934:
931:
924:
917:
910:
903:
896:
889:
882:
879:
878:, 7, 1, 35â91.
872:
865:
858:
848:
838:
831:
822:
819:
818:
817:
816:, 21, 293â337.
810:
803:
790:
787:
785:
782:
750:
747:
724:
721:
686:
685:
679:
673:
667:
630:
627:
529:
528:Basic concepts
526:
524:
521:
505:Ray Jackendoff
426:
423:
387:Force dynamics
382:
381:
379:
378:
371:
364:
356:
353:
352:
351:
350:
345:
337:
336:
333:
332:
331:
330:
325:
317:
316:
312:
311:
309:
308:
303:
298:
293:
288:
283:
278:
273:
268:
262:
259:
258:
250:
249:
241:
240:
237:
236:
235:
234:
232:
231:
226:
220:
218:
216:Semantic query
213:
208:
203:
198:
193:
185:
184:
180:
179:
177:
176:
171:
166:
160:
157:
156:
152:
151:
150:
149:
144:
139:
134:
132:
131:
129:Force dynamics
126:
120:
118:
113:
108:
100:
99:
95:
94:
92:
91:
86:
81:
67:
61:
58:
57:
49:
48:
46:
45:
40:
34:
31:
30:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1018:
1007:
1004:
1003:
1001:
991:
988:
985:
981:
980:
976:
973:
970:
969:
965:
960:
956:
953:
949:
946:
943:
939:
935:
932:
929:
925:
922:
918:
915:
911:
908:
904:
901:
897:
894:
890:
887:
883:
880:
877:
873:
870:
866:
863:
859:
856:
852:
849:
846:
842:
839:
836:
832:
829:
825:
824:
820:
815:
811:
808:
804:
801:
797:
793:
792:
788:
783:
781:
779:
774:
772:
768:
767:formal system
763:
758:
756:
748:
746:
743:
742:
737:
732:
730:
722:
720:
718:
714:
709:
707:
703:
699:
695:
690:
684:
680:
678:
674:
672:
668:
666:
662:
661:
660:
658:
653:
651:
647:
639:
635:
628:
626:
625:is captured.
624:
620:
616:
612:
607:
605:
599:
597:
593:
589:
583:
581:
577:
572:
570:
566:
562:
558:
552:
550:
546:
538:
534:
527:
522:
520:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
501:Steven Pinker
498:
493:
491:
490:evidentiality
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
459:
454:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
431:Leonard Talmy
424:
422:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
377:
372:
370:
365:
363:
358:
357:
355:
354:
349:
346:
344:
341:
340:
339:
338:
329:
326:
324:
321:
320:
319:
318:
313:
307:
304:
302:
299:
297:
294:
292:
289:
287:
284:
282:
279:
277:
274:
272:
269:
267:
264:
263:
261:
260:
255:
252:
251:
248:
242:
230:
229:Semantic wiki
227:
225:
222:
221:
219:
217:
214:
212:
209:
207:
204:
202:
199:
197:
194:
192:
189:
188:
187:
186:
181:
175:
172:
170:
169:Computational
167:
165:
162:
161:
159:
158:
153:
148:
145:
143:
140:
138:
135:
130:
127:
125:
122:
121:
119:
117:
114:
112:
109:
107:
104:
103:
102:
101:
96:
90:
87:
85:
82:
79:
75:
71:
68:
66:
65:Computational
63:
62:
60:
59:
54:
51:
50:
44:
41:
39:
36:
35:
32:
29:
25:
18:
983:
978:
958:
951:
941:
937:
927:
920:
913:
906:
899:
892:
885:
875:
868:
861:
854:
844:
837:, 33, 19â66.
834:
827:
813:
806:
799:
795:
775:
759:
752:
739:
733:
726:
716:
712:
710:
705:
701:
697:
693:
691:
687:
682:
676:
670:
664:
656:
654:
649:
645:
643:
637:
622:
614:
610:
608:
603:
600:
595:
591:
587:
584:
579:
575:
573:
568:
564:
560:
556:
553:
548:
544:
542:
536:
497:Mark Johnson
494:
477:
455:
450:
446:
442:
438:
428:
414:
410:
406:
402:
386:
385:
291:Denotational
245:Semantics of
224:Semantic Web
183:Applications
142:Semantic gap
128:
871:, 9, 32â43.
694:to persuade
604:d, figure 1
596:c, figure 1
580:b, figure 1
565:a, figure 1
503:(1997) and
462:grammatical
437:, dividing
415:being urged
348:Linguistics
301:Operational
286:Concurrency
281:Categorical
84:Statistical
864:16, 81â93.
784:References
615:because of
561:Antagonist
403:leaning on
89:Structural
78:lexicology
38:Linguistic
1006:Semantics
845:Semiotica
713:reflexive
619:causation
447:hindering
439:causation
435:causative
419:discourse
276:Axiomatic
271:Algebraic
56:Subfields
28:Semantics
1000:Category
954:, 67â85.
657:Figure 2
638:Figure 2
537:Figure 1
499:(1987),
407:dragging
399:language
391:semantic
343:Language
155:Analysis
106:Analysis
853:(1992)
798:vol I:
698:to urge
611:despite
586:with a
557:agonist
466:lexical
451:helping
443:letting
425:Context
411:wanting
70:Lexical
43:Logical
594:sign (
488:, and
482:aspect
470:number
449:, and
315:Theory
266:Action
164:Latent
98:Topics
592:minus
563:(see
478:color
474:nouns
389:is a
257:Types
74:lexis
696:and
588:plus
569:door
486:mood
296:Game
771:cf.
734:In
681:d.
675:c.
669:b.
663:a.
472:of
413:or
405:or
1002::
492:.
484:,
445:,
76:,
986:.
602:(
375:e
368:t
361:v
80:)
72:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
