======================================================================
= Force dynamics =
======================================================================
Introduction
======================================================================
Force dynamics is a semantic category that describes the way in which
entities interact with reference to force. Force Dynamics gained a
good deal of attention in cognitive linguistics 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 language on several
levels. Not only does it apply to expressions in the physical domain
like 'leaning on' or 'dragging', but it also plays an important role
in expressions involving psychological forces (e.g. 'wanting' or
'being urged').
Furthermore, the concept of force dynamics can be extended to
discourse. 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.
Context
======================================================================
Introduced by cognitive linguist Leonard Talmy in 1981, force dynamics
started out as a generalization of the traditional notion of the
causative, dividing 'causation' into finer primitives and considering
the notions of 'letting', 'hindering', and 'helping'. Talmy further
developed the field in his 1985, 1988 and 2000 works.
Talmy places force dynamics within the broader context of cognitive
semantics. In his view, a general idea underlying this discipline is
the existence of a fundamental distinction in language between
closed-class (grammatical) and open-class (lexical) 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 number of nouns in a systematic way, but
that nouns are not marked in the same way for 'color'. Force Dynamics
is considered to be one of the closed-class notional categories,
together with such generally recognized categories as number, aspect,
mood, and evidentiality.
Aspects of force dynamics have been incorporated into the theoretical
frameworks of Mark Johnson (1987), Steven Pinker (1997) and Ray
Jackendoff (1990) (see Deane 1996 for a critical review of
Jackendoff�s 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 discourse analysis (Talmy 1988, 2000), lexical semantics (Deane
1992, Da Silva 2003) and morphosyntactical analysis (Chun & Zubin
1990, Langacker 1999:352-4).
Basic concepts
================
Expressions can exhibit a force dynamic pattern or can be
force-dynamically neutral. A sentence like 'The door is closed' is
force-dynamically neutral, because there are no forces opposing each
other. The sentence 'The door cannot open', 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).
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 'agonist' and the force entity opposing it is the
'Antagonist' (see 'a, figure 1'). In the example, the 'door' is the
agonist and the force preventing the door from being opened is the
Antagonist.
Force entities have an 'intrinsic force tendency', either toward
action or toward rest. For the agonist, this tendency is marked with
an arrowhead (action) or with a large dot (rest) (see 'b, figure 1').
Since the antagonist by definition has an opposing tendency, it need
not be marked. In the example, the door has a tendency toward action.
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 with a 'plus' sign, a weaker force with a
'minus' sign ('c, figure 1'). In the example, the Antagonist is
stronger, since it actually holds back the door.
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 ('d, figure 1'). 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.
Using these basic concepts, several generalizations can be made. The
force dynamic situations in which the Agonist is stronger are
expressed in sentences like �X happened 'despite' Y�, while situations
in which the Antagonist is stronger are expressed in the form of �X
happened 'because of' Y�. In the latter, a form of causation that
Talmy termed 'extended causation' is captured.
More complexity
=================
More possibilities arise when another variable is introduced: 'change
over time'. This variable is exemplified by such expressions as 'A
gust of wind made the pages of my book turn'. 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
(�change over time�) of the Antagonist is represented by an arrow.
The diagrams in 'Figure 2' to the right combine a shifting antagonist
with agonists of varying force tendencies. The following sentences are
examples for these patterns:
:a. 'A gust of wind made the pages of my book turn.'
:b. 'The appearance of the headmaster made the pupils calm down.'
:c. 'The breaking of the dam let the water flow from the storage
lake.'
:d. 'The abating of the wind let the sailboat slow down.'
In this series of scenarios, various kinds of causation are described.
Furthermore, a basic relationship between the concepts of �causing
something to happen� and �letting something happen� emerges, definable
in terms of the balance between the force entities and the resultants
of the interaction.
Force entities do not have to be physical entities. Force dynamics is
directly applicable to terms involving psychological forces like 'to
persuade' and 'to urge'. The force dynamic aspect of the sentence
'Herbie did not succeed in persuading Diana to sing another song' can
be graphically represented as easily as the earlier example sentence
'The door cannot open' (and, incidentally, by the same diagram).
In addition, force entities do not have to be physically separate. A
case in point is 'reflexive' force dynamic constructions of the type
'Chet was dragging himself instead of walking'. It is perfectly
possible to represent this in a Force Dynamic diagram (representing
Chet�s will as the Agonist keeping the body � the Antagonist � in
motion). Thus, even though Chet is one person, his will and his body
are conceptualized separately.
Psychological basis
=====================
The key elements of force dynamics are very basic to human cognition.
Deane (1996:56) commented that �[f]rom a cognitive perspective,
Talmy�s 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.�
In cognitive linguistic terms, force dynamic expressions reflect a
'conceptual archetype' 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.
Limitations and criticism
======================================================================
From the perspective of lexical semantics, some people have argued
that force dynamics fails to be explanatory. For example, Goddard
(1998:262-266) raised the objection that "a visual representation
cannot � in and of itself � convey a meaning. (�) 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.
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 cognitive
linguistics 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 formal system in which theorems are
proved, but rather to better understand the cognitive basis of
language (cf. Newman 1996:xii).
Jackendoff (1990, 1996:120-3), in the process of incorporating aspects
of force dynamics into his theory of conceptual semantics, has
proposed a reconfiguration of some of its basic notions. In
Jackendoff�s view, this reconfiguration "conforms better to the syntax
of force-dynamic verbs" (1996:121).
Primary sources
=================
* Talmy, Leonard (2000) �Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition�
Chapter 7 of Talmy, 'Toward a cognitive semantics 'vol I: ' Concept
structuring systems'. Cambridge: MIT Press. ['This chapter is a
modestly rewritten version of':]
* Talmy, Leonard (1988a) �Force Dynamics in language and cognition� In
'Cognitive Science', 12, 1, 49-100. ['This article is a moderately
rewritten version of':]
* Talmy, Leonard (1985a) �Force Dynamics in language and thought� In
'Papers from the Regional Meetings, Chicago Linguistic Society', 21,
293-337.
Secondary sources
===================
* Achard, Michel (1996) �French modals and speaker control� In
Goldberg, Adele (ed.), 'Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language'.
Stanford, CA.: CSL&I.
* Boye, Kasper (2001) �The Force-Dynamic core meaning of Danish modal
verbs� In 'Acta Linguistica Hafniensia', 33, 19-66.
* Brandt, Per Aage (1989) 'Agonistique et analyse dynamique
catastrophiste du modal et de l�aspectuel: quelques remarques sur la
linguistique cognitive de L. Talmy� In 'Semiotica', 77, 1-3, 151-162.
* Brandt, Per Aage (1992) 'La charpente modale du sens: Pour une
simio-linguistique morphogenitique et dynamique'. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
* Chun, Soon Ae & David A Zubin (1990) �Experiential vs. Agentive
Constructions in Korean Narrative�. In 'Proceedings of the Berkeley
linguistics Society' 16, 81-93.
* Deane, Paul D (1992) 'Polysemy as the consequence of internal
conceptual complexity: the case of over� In 'Proceedings of the
Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) ', 9, 32-43.
* Deane, Paul D (1996) �On Jackendoff�s conceptual semantics� In
'Cognitive Linguistics', 7, 1, 35-91.
* Goddard, Cliff (1998) ��Semantic Analysis: A Practical
Introduction�� New York: Oxford University Press. (esp p 262-266)
* Jackendoff, Ray (1990) 'Semantic Structures'. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
* Jackendoff, Ray (1996) 'Conceptual semantics and cognitive
linguistics�. In 'Cognitive Linguistics', 7, 1, 93-129.
* Johnson, Mark (1987). 'The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of
Meaning, Imagination, and Reason', University of Chicago.
* Langacker, Ronald W. (1999) 'Grammar and Conceptualization.'
Cognitive Linguistics Research vol. 14. Berlin/New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
* Pinker, Steven. 1997. 'How the mind works'. New York: Norton.
* Silva, Augusto Soares da (2003) �Image schemas and category
coherence: the Case of the Portuguese Verb deixar�. In 'Cognitive
Approaches to Lexical Semantics', Cuyckens & Dirve & Taylor
(eds.), 281-322.
* Sweetser, Eve (1982) �A proposal for uniting deontic and epistemic
modals. In 'Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society'. Berkeley, California: Berkeley Linguistics
Society.
* Sweetser, Eve (1984) �Semantic structure and semantic change: A
cognitive linguistic study of modality, perception, speech acts, and
logical relations. Doctoral dissertation, University of California,
Berkeley.
* Talmy, Leonard (1976a) �Semantic causative types� In Shibatani
(ed.), 'Syntax and semantics ' (vol 6) : ' The grammar of causative
constructions'. New York: Academic Press.
* Talmy, Leonard (1981) �Force Dynamics�. Paper presented at
conference on Language and Mental Imagery. May 1981, University of
California, Berkeley.
* Talmy, Leonard (1985b) �Force Dynamics as a generalization over
causative� In 'Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and
Linguistics', 67-85.
* Vandenberghe, Wim (2002) �Instigative Setting-Constructions: Force
Dynamic Research on �New� Types of Agency� In 'Leuvense Bijdragen',
90, 4, 365-390.
External links
======================================================================
* [
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/CogSci/Talmy.html Presentation of Force
Dynamics] on the CogSci index.
*
[
http://wings.buffalo.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/talmy/talmyweb/TCS.html
'Toward a Cognitive Semantics'] � read-only online version of Talmy
(2000) 'Toward a Cognitive Semantics'.
*
[
http://wings.buffalo.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/talmy/talmyweb/Volume1/chap
7.pdf
Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition] � direct link to the chapter
on Force Dynamics on the above webpage (PDF).
License
=========
All content on Gopherpedia comes from Wikipedia, and is licensed under CC-BY-SA
License URL:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Original Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_dynamics
