The Emergence of Grammar from Perspective

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499968.009

9 - The Emergence of Grammar from Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 July 2009

Brian MacWhinney

Edited by

Diane Pecher and

Rolf A. Zwaan

Show author details

Brian MacWhinney: Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Diane Pecher: Affiliation:
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Rolf A. Zwaan: Affiliation:
Florida State University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Successful communication rests not just on shared knowledge and reference (Clark & Marshall, 1981), but also on a process of mutual perspective taking. By giving clear cues to our listeners about which perspectives they should assume and how they should move from one perspective to the next, we maximize the extent to which they can share our perceptions and ideas. When language is rich in cues for perspective taking and perspective shifting, it awakens the imagination of the listener and leads to successful sharing of ideas, impressions, attitudes, and narratives. When the process of perspective sharing is disrupted by interruptions, monotony, excessive complexity, or lack of shared knowledge, communication can break down.

Although we understand intuitively that perspective taking is central to communication, few psycholinguistic or cognitive models assign it more than a peripheral role. Linguistic theory typically views perspective as a secondary pragmatic filter (Kuno, 1986; O'Grady, in press) that operates only after hard linguistic constraints have been fulfilled. This paper explores the hypothesis that, far from being peripheral or secondary, perspective taking is at the very core of language structure and higher-level cognition. This approach, which I call the Perspective Hypothesis, makes the following basic claims:

Perspective taking operates online using images created in five systems: direct experience, space/time deixis, plans, social roles, and mental acts.
Language uses perspective taking to bind together these five imagery subsystems.
Grammar emerges from conversation as a method for supporting accurate tracking and switching of perspective.
By tracing perspective shifts in language, children are able to learn the cognitive pathways and mental models sanctioned by their culture.

Type: Chapter
Information: Grounding Cognition
The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking
, pp. 198 - 223

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499968.009 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 577–660Google Scholar PubMed

Bartsch, K., & Wellman, H. (1995). Children Talk about the Mind. New York: Oxford University Press

Bryant, D. J., Tversky, B., & Franklin, N. (1992). Internal and external spatial frameworks for representing described scenes. Journal of Memory and Language 31, 74–98CrossRef Google Scholar

Burgess, C., & Lund, K. (1997). Modelling parsing constraints with high-dimension context space. Language and Cognitive Processes 12, 177–210CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Cinnaminson, NJ: Foris

Chomsky, N. (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Clark, H., & Marshall, C. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In B. W. A. Joshi & I. Sag (Eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press

Clark, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive Development and Language Acquisition (pp. 28–63). New York: Academic Press

Cohen, M. S., Kosslyn, S. M., Breiter, H. C., DiGirolamo, G. J., Thompson, W. L., Anderson, A. K., et al. (1996). Changes in cortical activity during mental rotation. A mapping study using functional MRI. Brain 119, 89–100CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Damasio, A. (1999). The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace

Duchan, J. F., Bruder, G. A., & Hewitt, L. E. (1995). Deixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Franks, S. L., & Connell, P. J. (1996). Knowledge of binding in normal and SLI children. Journal of Child Language 23, 431–464Google Scholar PubMed

Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language Comprehension as Structure Building. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. E. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Givón, T. (1976). Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic (pp. 149–188). New York: Academic Press

Grodzinsky, J., & Reinhart, T. (1993). The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 187–222Google Scholar

Hausser, R. (1999). Foundations of Computational Linguistics: Man–machine Communication in Natural Language. Berlin: Springer

Haviland, J. (1996). Projections, transpositions, and relativity. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking Linguistics Relativity (pp. 271–323). New York: Cambridge University Press

Hawkins, J. A. (1999). Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language 75, 244–285CrossRef Google Scholar

Hudson, R. (1984). Word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell

Jeannerod, M. (1997). The Cognitive Neuroscience of Action. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell

Kakei, S., Hoffman, D. S., & Strick, P. L. (1999). Muscle and movement representations in the primary motor cortex. Science 285, 2136–2139CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalization: The “what's X doing Y?” construction. Language 75, 1–33Google Scholar

Kuno, S. (1986). Functional Syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Lakoff, G. (1974). Syntactic amalgams. In R. F. M. LaGaly & A. Bruck (Eds.), Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society

Langacker, R. (1995). Viewing in grammar and cognition. In P. W. Davis (Ed.), Alternative Linguistics: Descriptive and Theoretical Models (pp. 153–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins

MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 1014, 676–703CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

McDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Maximum likelihood models for sentence processing research. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing (pp. 397–421). New York: Cambridge University Press

McDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. J. (1995). The time course of anaphor resolution: Effects of implicit verb causality and gender. Journal of Memory and Language 34, 543–566CrossRef Google Scholar

MacWhinney, B. (1977). Starting points. Language 53, 152–168CrossRef Google Scholar

MacWhinney, B. (1982). Basic syntactic processes. In S. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language Acquisition: Vol. 1. Syntax and Semantics (pp. 73–136). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

MacWhinney, B. (1987). Toward a psycholinguistically plausible parser. In S. Thomason (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus: Ohio State University

MacWhinney, B. (1988). Competition and teachability. In R. Schiefelbusch & M. Rice (Eds.), The Teachability of Language (pp. 63–104). New York: Cambridge University Press

MacWhinney, B. (ed.), (1999b). The Emergence of Language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

MacWhinney, B. (1999a). The emergence of language from embodiment. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The Emergence of Language (pp. 213–256). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

MacWhinney, B. (2002). Language emergence. In P. Burmeister, T. Piske & A. Rohde (Eds.), An Integrated View of Language Development – Papers in Honor of Henning Wode (pp. 17–42). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier

MacWhinney, B. (2003). The gradual evolution of language. In B. Malle & T. Givón (Eds.), The Evolution of Language. Philadelphia: Benjamins

MacWhinney, B., & Pléh, C. (1988). The processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian. Cognition 29, 95–141CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. T. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition 8, 1–71Google Scholar PubMed

Martin, A., Wiggs, C. L., Ungerleider, L. G., & Haxby, J. V. (1996). Neural correlates of category-specific knowledge. Nature 379, 649–652CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Mitchell, D. C. (1994). Sentence parsing. In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press

Narayanan, S. (1997). Talking the talk is like walking the walk. Proceedings of the 19th Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society55–59Google Scholar

O' Grady, W. (in press). Syntactic carpentry. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and Verbal Processes. New York: Rinehart and Winston

Parsons, L. M., Fox, P. T., Downs, J. H., Glass, T., Hirsch, T. B., Martin, C. C., et al. (1995). Use of implicit motor imagery for visual shape discrimination as revealed by PET. Nature 375, 54–58CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Postal, P. (1971). Cross-Over Phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston

Reinhart, T. (1981). Definite NP anaphora and c-command domains. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 605–635Google Scholar

Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V., & Fogassi, L. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research 3, 131–141CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Sacerdoti, E. (1977). A Structure for Plans and Behavior. New York: Elsevier Computer Science Library

Smyth, R. (1995). Conceptual perspective-taking and children's interpretation of pronouns in reported speech. Journal of Child Language 22, 171–187Google Scholar PubMed

Stanfield, R. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science 12, 153–156CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Tabachneck-Schijf, H. J. M., Leonardo, A. M., & Simon, H. A. (1997). CaMeRa: A computational model of multiple representations. Cognitive Science 21, 305–350CrossRef Google Scholar

Tenny, C., & Speas, P. (2002). Configurational properties of point of view roles. In A. DiSciullo (Ed.), Asymmetry in Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

van Hoek, K. (1997). Anaphora and Conceptual Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. Philosophical Review 56, 143–160CrossRef Google Scholar

Zribi-Hertz, A. (1989). Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language 654, 695–727CrossRef Google Scholar

Zwaan, R. A. (1996). Processing narrative time shifts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition 22, 1196–1207Google Scholar