Nominal versus relational predications
Turning to relational predications, recall our discussion of examples (1) and (2) above, which related to the extent to which a semantic characterisation of word classes is possible given the existence of pairs like love (V) and love (N) or destroy and destruction. The semantic similarity of pairs like these forms part of the argument by formal linguists against the possibility of a semantic characterisation of word classes. According to Langacker, however, the difference between destroy and destruction does not lie in their specific or content meaning. In this respect, Langacker’s view is consistent with the formal view. Instead, Langacker argues that the difference lies in how each member of the pair construes and profiles that content meaning. Langacker summarises the difference between nominal and relational predications as follows:
A nominal predication presupposes the interconnections among a set of conceived entities, and profiles the region thus established. On the other hand, a relational predication presupposes a set of entities, and profiles the interconnections among these entities. (Langacker 2002: 74–5)
Langacker illustrates this distinction by comparing the noun group with the adverb together. These expressions share the same conceptual content, which is represented in Figure 16.3(a). The circles represent the entities and the lines the interconnections. The noun group profiles the entities and the whole that they comprise (the region occupied). This is indicated by the bold type in Figure 16.3(b). In contrast, the adverb together profiles the interconnections between the entities and is thus a relational predication (Figure 16.3(c)).
It follows from this characterisation of nominal versus relational predications that while nominal predications designate a region, relational profiles designate an interconnection, which typically involves two or more entities. According to Langacker, there is always an asymmetry between the interconnected entities, and this asymmetry relates to prominence, which in turn relates to the TR-LM organisation. This idea was discussed in the Chapter 15. Langacker describes relations as conceptually dependent because they profile interconnections which cannot be conceived independently of the entities they connect. Furthermore, relational predications bring with them the schematic representation of the entities that they interconnect, which display a TR-LM asymmetry. Langacker (1987: 219) states that there are four possible patterns in terms of TR-LM combinations, which are summarised in Table 16.1. We illustrate the four possibilities in example (11).
With the exception of (11b), these examples are self-explanatory. According to Langacker, the adverb fast in (11b) profiles a relation between a PROCESS (writes) and a THING, where the region on a scale of speed profiled by fast is construed as a THING and is implicit in the relational predication itself. We revisit the idea that adjectives and adverbs are characterised by implicit TRs below (section 16.4.2). As we saw in Chapter 15, Langacker divides relational predications into two subcategories: temporal relations and atemporal relations. We now look at each of these in more detail.
