sheela  +  75490 Mon, 21 Feb 05 10:01 AM The language system allows to express a perceived events in different ways using different linguistic resources. Currently I am doing a research based on ideas from Langacker's Cognitive Grammar. Basically Langacker explains sentences through schemas or diagrams such identifying the subject as trajector(tr) and the object as landmark(lm). Based on this, I would like to know what are the differences between: a) The vase was smashed b) The vase smashed c) The vase is smashed I am also having problem in displaying it in a diagram form. Please help. sheela Joined on Sat, Dec 18 2004 New Member 03 Grammar

	CalifJim  +  75658 Tue, 22 Feb 05 02:01 AM Sounds rather violent for grammar -- all those vases smashed and so on! I'm not familiar with Langacker nor with his trajectories and landmarks, sorry. And unfortunately, the format of the forum does not lend itself well to displaying diagrams. Maybe someone else on the forum will be able to help. I hope so because I'd love to hear more about it myself. Here's something I Googled up, however: Try this. It has some "John hit the ball" / "The ball was hit by John" diagrams that seem to be the sort of thing you need for those smashed vases. CJ CalifJim Joined on Mon, Aug 2 2004 California Veteran Member 22,389 "There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche Grammar

	LanguageLover  +  76648 Fri, 25 Feb 05 11:55 PM Dear Sheela, I also do not know the answer to your question. But there are some linguistic blogs, some of them belong to PhD students. Try them, you may get an answer. Here is my favarite blog, though the material is usually too difficult for me, but you can find lots of lonks to other linguistic blogs: http://semantics-online.org/blog/ . I can recommend you to do write to one of the experts on cognitive grammar and ask him, but it's better to look for the answer yourself before turning to them. I did it once, and to my surprise, I got the answer! Good luck, LanguageLover Joined on Fri, Feb 25 2005 Contributing Member 1,507 The similarities among the languages are more than their differences! Grammar

	equivocal  +  77685 Wed, 02 Mar 05 02:20 AM Hmm.. I'm not all that familiar but I think it might be like this: a) The vase was smashed This is a passive construction, so the grammatical subject becomes the trajector, O represents null semantic subject: O -> Vase(TR) b) The vase smashed Here there is no overt or implied cause. I would take it to mean "the vase smashed (on its own)" kind of syntactically like an unaccusative but semantically like a reflexive construction: Vase(TR) -> Vase(LM) c) The vase is smashed Here it seems like you see a smashed vase and you are declaring its state: O -> Vase(TR) I hope this helps, cognitive grammar really isn't my area of specialisation. All errors are my own. eq equivocal Joined on Tue, Mar 1 2005 Junior Member 58 Constructions, Grammar, Accusative

	LanguageLover  +  77909 Wed, 02 Mar 05 10:31 PM Dear Sheela, Have you tried google scholar search for finding the articles in which the words "cognitive grammar, trajector, landmark" are mentioned? Give it a try, you'll definitely find something. scholar.google.com Good luck LanguageLover Grammar, Articles

	korin  +  78199 Thu, 03 Mar 05 11:26 PM Hallo Sheela, Perhaps, you can help me work out the conceptual intergration network of the following blend: The thermometre of success is the jelaousy of others (S. Dali) I have come up with a few versions, but all of them seem wrong. At first I thought it can just be illustrated by 2 input spaces + a generic space (a measuring tool or the indicator of the level of body temperature/success), and the blend (an entity combining the features from both input spaces), however, according to my lecturer, it is not that simple. I was told my mappings were not accurate, and I still need one more input space. Moreover, I failed to illustrate properly the idea of fictive motion (trajector/landmark). So, if you have some time (if anyone has some time), I would really appreciate any help. Thank you, Korin korin Joined on Thu, Feb 17 2005 New Member 16

	Casi  +  78322 Fri, 04 Mar 05 10:30 AM I failed to illustrate properly the idea of fictive motion (trajector/landmark). I can't help with the mapping but here's something that might help you with fictive motion: “The mountain range goes all the way from Mexico to Canada,” presents a static scene using motion. The static object, the horizontal, is a trajector that moves in time along the trajectory, from Mexico to Canada. The grammatical construction that evokes this cognitive representation normally assigns the trajector to the subject position and the movement to the verb (“Marie goes to the store”). But in this case the construction uses the label for the trajectory in the subject position: “The mountain range goes from Mexico to Canada.” Source: http://markturner.org/talmyreview.html Casi Constructions, Verbs

	korin  +  78932 Sun, 06 Mar 05 03:59 PM Thanks, Casi I have also found some articles concerning this issue. Hopefully, I will sort it out quickly Korin korin Articles