1、1Inversions in English： from the Perspective of FigureGround TheoryAbstract. Traditionally， when people analyze inversions， they do their research mainly from the level of rhetoric， syntax， pragmatics or discourse. This paper， however， from the Figure-Ground Theory of cognitive linguistics， argues t
2、hat inversions are a kind of device that the speakers change the cognitive structure “Figure-Ground” into “Ground-Figure”. The realization of this cognitive process is that the speakers change the natural sentence order “subject （figure）-predicate-complement （ground） ” as “complement （ground）-predic
3、ate-Subject （figure） ”. The speakers subjective change can direct the hearers attention to the marked figure. Key words： figure， ground， inversion 1. Introduction The interface study of syntax-semantics is one of the important approaches in modern linguistics. As one of the syntactic structures， inv
4、ersion is a good example. In the pass research， most of the linguists did their studies about inversions from the perspective of syntax， rhetoric， 2pragmatics， or discourse. Among them， Dorgeloh （1997） ， Chen Rong （2003 ） and etc. are the desirable ones. This paper， with the frame of cognitive lingu
5、istics， from the Figure-Ground Theory， analyzes English inversions and expects to discover their cognitive features and laws. 2. The basic thoughts of Figure-Ground Theory Figure-Ground Theory is a cognitive view which was first introduced into psychology by the Danish psychologist Rubin and later w
6、as borrowed by the gestalt psychologists to describe visual and hearing perceptions and the way of organization which describes space. When we observe an object around us， we single it out as a perceptually prominent figure standing out from the ground， which is called perceptual prominent principle
7、. The perception of figure-ground is the direct result of human experience and the ground is the cognitive reference of the figure. After they study the sentences “The book （figure） is on the desk （ground）.” and “The balloon （figure） is flying the roof （ground）.” Ungerer & Schmid （1996） point out wh
8、at these two sentences show is that the relationship between figure and ground can be seen in terms of locative relations， which are usually rendered by preposition， or put it the other way round， the propositional 3meanings of locative relations can be understood as a figure-ground relationship. Be
9、cause the figure-ground theory can be used to study the semantics of clauses and prepositions such as on and over， it has caught the attention of cognitive linguists. 3. The analysis of inversions from the perspective of Figure-Ground Theory 3.1 Review the definition of inversions As far as word ord
10、er is concerned， SVO constitutes the basic form of Modern English， while there are a few semantically equivalent alternatives. Among them， the reversal of the subject and the verb is called an inversion. As for the variety of the canonical word order， inversions have their own functions， which can b
11、e divided into two types： full inversion （FI） and subject-auxiliary/ semi-inversion （SAI）. Green （1982） once defined inversions as those declarative constructions where the subject follows part or all of its verb phrase. This is a broad definition， which includes not only SAI， but also there-be， rig
12、ht-dislocation， extraposition and so on. The traditional study of inversions can be summarized as the following three views. （） Inversion is the concept of word order in syntax. The judgment of inversion is only from the word order of the 4construction of syntax not from the clause of SV， SVO， SVC，
13、SVA， SVOO， SVOC and SVOA， because each kind of clauses has its own inversion. （） Inversion is the variant compared to the basic word order of English not the inversion of the seven types of the clauses. （） Inversion， as a marked sentence， is compared with natural order or canonical order， which is f
14、irmed by language typology. During the recent years， some linguists began to study the inversions from cognitive linguistics. In the linguistic analysis， figure-ground is one cognitive structure or cognitive pattern. Figure is the object which will be described and it is more salient in cognition， w
15、hile ground is the environment， which is less salient in cognition. For a simple sentence which is formed by a transitive verb， the subject is the figure， and the complement is the ground while the predicative is used to connect these two parts as Figure1 as follows. From the language structure to s
16、ee， the preverbal constituent of inversion is complement， while the postverbal constituent is subject； from the figure-ground theory to see， 5the preverbal constituent is figure， while the postverbal constituent is ground. Through such a linear order， inversion directs the hearers attention to the g
17、round first， in which the hearers establish a cognitive referent point in the discourse. When the figure eventually appears， it is placed in the focus of attention of the hearers. For example， （1） is a full inversion. On my left is ground， while Tom is figure. （1） On my left was Tom. The cognitive m
18、odel of “Figure-Ground” tells us that， in inversion， when the ground appears first， it will attract the hearers attention， but， after the figure finally appears， it will attract hearers more attention because the hearers spend more time and energy in noticing figure. Compare the hearers attention to
19、 figure with ground， figure gets more obvious and longer attention： after all， figure is the one which the speakers want the hearers to know and also they want to put the hearers focus attention on figure. 3.2 The motivation of inversions 3.2.1 Analysis of the construction of the English itself Engl
20、ish as a linearization， its word order and alternatives follow a universal principle： speakers can only produce one word at a time and it also obeys a natural 6principle that a starting-point always influences the interpretation of everything followed. From perspective of figure-ground theory， inver
21、sions completely follow this principle. When the speakers change the subject1+predicativ+complement1 into complement2+predicative+subject2， the complement2 which appears first， of course， influences the pragmatic understanding of subject2， and the hearers surely get Ground2linkage figure2 but not fi
22、gure1linkageground1. 3.2.2 Analysis from the attribution of information Dorgeloh（1997： 2）thinks that “the present study of Modern English inversion has two main goals： on the one hand， it is concerned with the ultimate， including a non-propositional meaning that a speaker licenses a hearer to infer
23、word order system. One the other， this is a corpus study which analyzes the patterns of use of inverted forms over various kinds of natural text.” We think that all inversions have the elements of subjectivity， because the inversions are understood by the hearers as the cognitive procedure. As the a
24、lternative of the canonical order，inversion must have its subjective meaning of the speakers， which of course receives the much attention of the hearers. For the semantics of the 7inversion in discourse， FI is basically a device： through the change of the location of common word order， speakers dire
25、ct hearers focus of attention so we argue that inversion is a carrier of personal meaning. Inversion， in essence， is a re-building of information， but the preposed element in as inversion must not be newer in the discourse than the postposed element （Birner 1994）. For the traditional grammar， at the
26、 level of syntax， the focus information is usually placed at the beginning of the sentence because it carries the most important or salient information. Givn （1985） argues that the starting place of the sentence is the cognitive salience and attends first to the most urgent task. So Envist （1980 ： 3
27、4） thinks that “the starting of the sentence is marked behavior while the end of the sentence is unmarked behavior”. We think that the traditional analysis is questionable. Whether the focus information is at the beginning of one sentence is decided by the speakers purpose. Inversion is the typical
28、case. It defocuses the traditional starting-sentence focus information to the end to get a salience. Dorgeloh （1997：16） thinks that the so-called typological status of English provides two crucial prerequisites for analysis of inversion： “first， word order is largely 8determined syntax function， and
29、 second， reording options， though possibly following pragmatic principles， at the same time bear an additional meaning of deviation or markedness”. So， FI is considered as focus construction （Rochement & Culicover 1990）. There are two opposite views， the people as Rochement （1986） thinks that FI is
30、focusing device； Erdman（1990） ， however， argues FI is defocusing. We think that FI is both of focusing and defocusing device Cognitive linguistics thinks that for a concept construction， it contains quite a few cognitive entities and cognitive elements. The cognitive subject usually perceptualizes o
31、ne entity or element among them and then takes it as the cognitive reference point to understand the other entities and elements based on the comparison and location. When one expresses a proposition， the speakers may change the cognitive reference point because of familiarity， comparison， salience
32、or information. Langacher （1990； 1991） once explains the unmarked SVO making use of figure-ground segregation. He argues that in a simple transitive clause， S（subject） can be the figure， while O（object ） can be the ground. Figure1 is the realization of this view. The element of influencing the figur
33、e-ground is the asystemary structure， the following two 9sentences are as cases. （4） Susan resembles my sister. （5） My sister resembles Susan. This is same as the famous Rubins face/ vase illusion. For （4） ， if one chooses Susan as figure， then my sister as ground，otherwise it is （5）. Whether it is
34、（4） or （5） in most degree， it is determined by the speakers personal taste. What one should notice is that， if one chooses some part as figure， it is not to mean the ground is not important. It only means that it is not the focus， if it is absent， it is not plausible： on the one hand， the sentence d
35、oes not own the gestalt element， on the other hand， the figure can not be salient. Here we use （3） to analyze and explain it（It is repeated as 6a here）. （6） a. Tom was on my left. b. On my left was Tom. c. On my left Tom Lopez was. d. Tom， on my left was. （6c） and （6d） are beyond discussion here. Fr
36、om the above graph（we regard it as a dynamic process）. One can find that the subject of （6a） is still the subject of （6b） ； the figure of （6a） is still the figure of （6b） ； the ground of 10（6a） is still the ground of （6b） and there is no change about the predicative and linkage. What happens is that
37、 the figure of （6a） becomes the figure2 of （6b）. The reason is that from the dynamic process of （6a） to （6b） ， the variant of （6b） attaches the speakers subjective meaning and then get the hearers further focus attention on the marked figure2 . One can test it through the following situation： John a
38、nd Mary are good friends. John did not know that Tom was on the left of Mary， so John said to Mary as follows： “Tom performance was excellent just now”. Mary may answer as （6a） ， that is， Tom was on my left. This is a common agreement or a simple response. But if John said to Mary： “Tom s performanc
39、e was so bad！” Mary may answered John as （6b） ， that is On my left was Tom. Obviously， Mary does not only to state the fact that Tom is her left， but show her subjective meaning， which is to warn John not to say Tom like that. 4. Conclusion The study of the syntax is becoming as the core of the modern grammatical theory. The cognitive study from the perspective of the syntax-semantics is one important way to discover the universal grammar and the ability of human language. The word order of the constituents reflects the concept of word order of all human languages. The discovery of
