# Describing link behaviour - character: syntacto-pragmatic?



## ThomasK

Last week I thought of how one can describe the link between behaviour (and other "external" features) and character in various ways, but I wonder what linguistic term one could use for the link or description of the link, or what branch of linguistics discusses/ examines/... such links.

I had thought of :
_(1) That behaviour *betrays* a particular character.
(2) That behaviour *shows that* you have a particular character.
(3) *From* that behaviour you can *conclude that* a person has a ...
(4) *People who* have (show up?) that behaviour *must have* that character*/ must be* ... (ADJ)
(5) *If* people have (show up?) that behaviour they *must be/ are* ...
(6) ..._​
I welcome any additions, but my main point is:
- do you know other similar abstract links? (_I think cause and consequence can be expressed in various ways too for example)_
- what is a linguistic term for describing the [ description of] the link?
- what branch of linguistics discusses/ explores such links? is this about pragmatics _(it is more than syntactics)_ or ...? --- Any reference to websites dealing with similar links is welcome!


I think it is a be useful in foreign-language analysis and in stylistics.


----------



## bearded

Hello
I do not know anything about the relevent branch of linguistics, but - based on my language - in (1) I would say ''that behaviour *reveals* a particular character'' (_tale comportamento rivela un carattere particolare_).


----------



## ThomasK

You're right: another possibility. If you can think of other (and simple) syntactic structures to express that link, even specifically Italian, please tell me.

BY the way: case grammar might help, if there were a FEATURE case and a MEANING case, but I don't think there is...


----------



## bearded

All 5 possibilities listed in your opening message exist in my language, too. No further ones are occurring to me at the moment, with following exception (similar to no.3): _Da come si comporta, deve avere un carattere particolare_ = (literally) 'from how he behaves, he must have a particular character' (meaning: from the way he behaves, he must...).


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks. in my view that is an extra possibility resembling (4) and (5). I think one could say something similar in English:

(6) ? *Based on* what I see, he *must have* a particular character./ _*Da* come si comporta, *deve avere* un carattere particolare. [_(literally) 'from how he behaves, he must have a particular character' (meaning: from the way he behaves, he must...).

As an alternative for (1):
(1b) That behaviour is *typical of* that character.


----------



## bearded

ThomasK said:


> (6) ? *Based on* what I see, he *must have* a particular character


 In Italian we can also construct a no.6 similar to that (you are stimulating my memory):  _In base al suo comportamento/a come si comporta,... _(lit. on the basis of his behaviour/on the basis of how he behaves, meaning: based on his behaviour/based on the way he behaves..).


----------



## ThomasK

In the meantime I found a very interesting list of similar links, "didacticised" (I had those in mind but had not "didacticised" them that well) by Jack Kimball.

the most interesting ones are: contrast (_although, yet_, ...), *similarity* (_like, resemble_, ... - but he has forgotten about conjunctions or semi-conj. such as _in the same way as_ ...[X does it], _as_, ...), *classifications* (one I had not thought of yet) and he also mentions *'transitions'* (markers (adv.), indicating steps in a reasoning, *examples*, but those links seem different from the first ones, I think.  I generally add *time relations* (after, before, ...), *purpose* (what is your aim/ objective ?). *co*ndition, ...

ONe hint in this respect might be: in the above ones one often uses so-called sentence adverbs... That might be an indication...


----------



## bearded

Interesting.  I hope that speakers of other languages will show up anyhow.


----------



## ThomasK

So do I. But maybe it is too specific or too technical... In the meantime I found out that maybe this could be dealt with when assuming every verb has arguments (as part of its valency - if I have understood well). But I prefer not to focus on verbs but on basic concepts, such as perhaps "(LET) X SEE" for 'reveal', and then describing the features as AGENT, RECIPIENT (not realised in these cases) and RESULT...

Then you could read
_That behaviour/ *betrays* [to us] a particular character.
AGENT/ LET, FORCE // (not realised) RECIPIENT // SEE / THEME (?). _[Mind you, I might be quite mistaken...]

But I cannot visualise the link with for example (4) in that way. I'd need something more abstract, I suppose, for the AGENT (more like EVENT or FEATURE, as AGENT seems to refer to syntax too much) and I suppose the above FORCE would need to analysed as 'CAUSE' so that the 'must' can be analysed as a passive FORCE...

Anyone still following - or am I just rambling?


----------



## bearded

One further Italian example (very idiomatic):  ''_A giudicare dal suo comportamento, deve.._.''(lit. At judging from his behaviour, he must.... Meaning ''Judging by his behaviour, he must...). It interesting to note that in both languages the subject of the secondary clause or 'gerund' is not expressed, and is anyway different from that of the main clause (he).


----------



## ThomasK

YOu are right and that is what connects this sentence to the other one you suggested, (6) - but it is implicitly present, I'd say, or presupposed. In some languages it might not be considered correct for that reason, because a present participle (_I would not call it a gerund, as I could never translate or transliterate it as an inf.)_ generally requires that both subjects are identical and because an _ablativus absolutus_ (if that is the term) required a realized subject [_Us judging from ..., it must be ._...].

For example:
- "Flying the eagle caught the ball" should be OK (but I am afraid English speakers will not produce such a stence) vs.
- *"Flying he saw the eagle" [except if the 'he' is flying])


----------



## bearded

You are right, it is rather a present participle. And its subject might be an implicit 'we' ..(?), like in ''if we judge by his behaviour''.


----------



## ThomasK

Quite right. By the way: in the meantime I have been looking into construction grammar, and there are certainly indications that it might help to suggest an underlying structure.

It reminds me of that abstract level that I sometimes miss at language classes: something in-between the sentence level and the text-level, the level of speech acts, you might call it, I guess, and esp. illucutionary acts. In my case for example I am just using all those sentence types to describe the link between observations and a judgment. I suppose the act here is a description of judgments.


----------



## berndf

ThomasK said:


> For example:
> - "Flying the eagle caught the ball" should be OK (but I am afraid English speakers will not produce such a stence) vs.
> - *"Flying he saw the eagle" [except if the 'he' is flying])


Ignoring idiomaticity and concentrating on grammar, in the first sentence _flying _(_flying the eagle _is the subject of the sentence) is a gerund and in the second sentence it is a present participle (some grammarians understand _flying _as an adjectival use and some as an adverbial use of the present participle).


----------



## ThomasK

Wait, you would be right if that was what I meant, but my awkward sentence meant something like: _while flying, in his flight, the eagle... _But I do admit my sentence was not well-chosen...


----------



## berndf

ThomasK said:


> Wait, you would be right if that was what I meant, but my awkward sentence meant something like: _while flying, in his flight, the eagle... _But I do admit my sentence was not well-chosen...


Then you meant:
_Flying, the eagle caught the ball._
but you wrote:
_Flying the eagle caught the ball.
_
In this case it is a participle. The discussion is again, if it is an adverb or an adjective.


----------



## ThomasK

Yes, yes, had not considered it necessary to use a comma, but indeed, in that way it would have been quite clear. Sorry for the mistake!


----------



## 810senior

Your example reminds me of this phrase: 名は体を表す_na wa tai wo arawasu_(the name expresses its body).
Maybe I'd express this idea like in Italian: that behaviour *shows *a particular character (あの行動は、特定の性格を示している).


----------



## ThomasK

But I guess you can also say things like :
-_ if someone behaves like this, s/he is .../ must be ...
- a person who behave like this, must be ...
_
I just thought: the only addition I can see to my original list, would be minor, namely:
_(1b) That behaviour *refers to* _(V + Prep)_ that kind of personality. [Not so sure English speakers would say things like that, or at least use that V + PREP]_


----------



## rusita preciosa

Another possibility from Russian:
That behavior testifies/attests/bears witness of a particular character trait
(это поведение свидетельствует об определенной черте характера)


----------



## ThomasK

You are quite right, that is different. Thanks! In this case the result is the focus (i.c. the subject- - but I now realize that is in part what 810sr also suggested:

(1b/3b - though not quite)_ His character shines through/ appears from/ is visible from his behaviour._ [The sentences might not be really idiomatic in English though...]


----------



## irinet

You can refer to in/consistencies with someone's behaviour or personality like, using 'in character' versus 'out of character' idioms.

_It is out of character for her to refuse that daily assignment. 
Your behaviour is affected by  your personal choices/attitude.

See also this: 1.Differences in behaviour and attitude (WR thread)_


2. From WR post:
MillkyBarKidSenior Member
*British English

'action' is simply the fact of 'doing something', typically to achieve an aim.

'behaviour' is the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially in company/society. It carries with it the idea of what is expected and accepted in the way one comports oneself in relation to others.

e.g.Tom killed the guy who tried to steal his car. Tom's action cannot be justified .

The law allows a citizen to protect his property/forcefully remove trespassers. BUT ...this force should not be excessive, but commensurate with the threat to property or life. Tom acted to protect his property but his action placed property above human life.
His action cannot be justified.

e.g."Mary is strange. Her behaviour makes us embarrassed."

Mary's behaviour in company/society breaches the expected standards of normal, acceptable


----------



## ThomasK

This might be interesting but I cannot open your link because it is incomplete... Can you correct it? In the meantime I see it is about the distinction action/ behaviour, but I do not think this is particularly relevant to this thread, the main focus being inference (be it from actions or behaviour) - or is it?

But here we have something new, I guess Now we predict behaviour on the basis of character - and that is different from what I meant, I think.


----------



## bearded

In German I would say _Mit Ruecksicht auf sein Benehmen/Verhalten  _or _In Anbetracht seines Benehmens/Verhaltens..._
I am sure that native German speakers will suggest more idiomatic expressions.


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks for "thinking along". But then I think we have the opposite attitude: we start from one's behaviour, and then deduce the attitude  expected. So that is different, I am afraid. But could you complete the sentence ?

I may be allowed to repeat: I would also like to find some word to refer to that and other underlying semantic relationships, and somehow (semantic !) _*causative*_ is useful, but it is too broad, but a combination might be OK: _cause to conclude/ see _or something the like. (It is way more than a grammatical causative, as I'd like to include the wide variety of structures to "realize" it.  It is not really a *hypernym*, I now think, I am looking for a link that is much broader than a hypernym...


----------



## bearded

_Mit Ruecksicht auf sein Benehmen/in Anbetracht seines Benehmens /seinem Benehmen nach - muss er einen besonderen Charakter haben/besitzen.
Durch sein Benehmen zeigt er eine besondere/sonderliche Natur.
_
I think those correspond to the original question and the proposed texts: first we see the behaviour, then we deduce the character.


----------



## ThomasK

You're right, I was too quick!!!

If you can think of other such links, I'd be grateful. I have thought of cause/consequence, contrast (using _although, despite, but,_ ....), but I still need a name for the link I suggested at the beginning. Deduction? Conclusion?


----------



## irinet

You can also read scholarly articles for cognitive component of behaviour if that helps.


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks, but that is not what I need, I think. My core business is (cognitive ?) linguistics, I think. My focus is not on behaviour as such, but on expressing the link between observations and conclusions, such as the link between certain economic figures and the interpretation (e.g. inflation pointing at a crisis ahead, etc.), something like inference. You see?

I suddenly come across discourse markers, and of course I should have thought of that:
(7) _He is Always nagging. *Therefore* he obviously is/must be jealous. _


----------



## ThomasK

I have just bumped into a PhD thesis on evaluation. That is the kind of information I am looking for: exploring all the ways in which evaluation can be "realized" (which is a term I like: it implies that there is an underlying concept that is being ex-pressed - whereas I suppose a lot of people might consider this too... platonic)...

I think in my sentences we have been exploring different ways of realizing a ... [link between features and character].


----------

