You are on page 1of 6

# Dynamics - Forces

Definition: Dynamics - the study of why objects move -causes of acceleration were first studied by Sir Isaac Newton & he developed Newton's Laws of Motion Definition: Force -a push or a pull -an agent that results in accelerating or deforming an object 4 Types of Forces: 1. Gravitational Force -an attractive force that exists between objects 2. Electromagnetic Force -force due to electric charges, both static & moving 3. Strong Nuclear Force -force that holds the particles in the nucleus together -stronger than electromagnetic force -acts over distances the size of a nucleus 4. Weak Nuclear Force -form of electromagnetic force -involved in radioactive decay of certain elements -physicists try to form GUT (Grand Unified Theory) of all forces (maybe String Theory?) ***All forces are vectors  have both magnitude & direction Newton's 1st Law of Motion (Law of Inertia): "an object with no force acting on it remains at rest or moves with a constant velocity in a straight line" -objects at rest tend to stay at rest ("rest" is a special case of v = 0 m/s) Newton's 2nd Law of Motion: "the acceleration of a body is directly proportional to the net force on it and inversely proportional to its mass" -as force increases, rate of velocity increases, therefore acceleration increases -acceleration depends on mass -as mass increases, acceleration increases (if net force is constant) -acceleration is always in the same direction as the net force causing it Definition: Inertia -tendency of an object not to change its motion -mass is a measure of inertia -unit of Force: F = m • a = (kg )(m / s 2 ) = Newton or N -method for finding net force ---> vector sum of all forces, keeping tracks of signs Newton's 3rd Law: "when one object exerts a force on a 2nd object, the 2nd object exerts a force on the 1st that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction" -action-reaction forces *Remember, net force and action-reaction forces are not the same thing! Mass & Weight: Weight is defined as...
Fnet m = m•a

a= Fnet

Fw = m • g 2 -in a negative direction g = −9.81m / s
-minus sign means “down”

a.k. Always draw a picture of object. The Fall of Bodies in the Air: Definition: Air Resistance -force of air on objects moving through it -a.: dropping a ping-pong ball -as v increases. system is stationary (regardless of position of masses) -practical applications of Atwood’s Machine include FN counterbalance in elevator that relieves the motor from the load of holding the elevator car. Label each force with its cause. one must apply a force equal & opposite to force of friction -friction depends on: force pushing the surfaces together (FN or 'normal' force) AND nature of contact surfaces ("µ"---> mu stands for coefficient of friction) Ff = µFN Problem-Solving Strategy for Problems Involving More Than One Force: 1. after time. railway cars on incline railway tracks (like a tram car) F m1 FII 2) Incline Plane m2 Fw θ . _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Two common types of problems associated with dynamics: 1) Atwood’s Machine – invented in 1784 by George Atwood to analyze uniform accelerated motion -consists of two masses. speed of motion Ex. (FBFD) 3. 2. Be specific. no acceleration and velocity becomes constant ---> terminal velocity Definition: Terminal Velocity -velocity of a falling object reached when force of air resistance equals Fw (weight).Two Kinds of Mass: Definition: Inertial Mass -the ratio of net force on an object and its acceleration Fnet = m • a Fnet = m • g Definition: Gravitational Mass -ratio of gravitational force to an object's acceleration -both "masses" are valid ways of describing mass Friction: Definition: Friction (Ff)-force that opposes motion between two surfaces that are in contact Definition: Static Friction -force that opposes the start of motion Definition: Sliding (Kinetic) Friction -force between surfaces in relative motion -sliding friction < static friction -to keep an object moving with constant velocity. connected by an inelastic massless string over an ideal massless pulley -when m1 = m2. Draw arrows representing all forces acting on object. density of air. m1 and m2. drag force -a friction-like force -depends on: size and shape of object. drag force = Fw (weight of ping-pong ball) -net force on ball is 0 N. drag force increases.

but it also plays an important role in expressions involving psychological forces (e. In his view.1 Basic concepts o 2. Steven Pinker (1997) and Ray Jackendoff (1990) (see Deane 1996 for a critical review of Jackendoff’s version of Force Dynamics). and evidentiality. the concept of force dynamics can be extended to discourse. while other categories are excluded from this function. Aspects of force dynamics have been incorporated into the theoretical frameworks of Mark Johnson (1987). The semantic category of force dynamics pervades language on several levels. Talmy remarks that many languages mark the number of nouns in a systematic way. hindering. Achard 1996. Boye 2001. together with such generally recognized categories as number.1 Primary sources o 4. This distinction is motivated by the fact that language uses certain categories of notions to structure and organize meaning. a general idea underlying this discipline is the existence of a fundamental distinction in language between closed-class (grammatical) and open-class (lexical) categories. wanting or being urged). after which speaker A gives in to speaker B. 1988 and 2000 works. the situation in which speakers A and B argue.g. mood. For example. force dynamics started out as a generalization of the traditional notion of the causative.2 Secondary sources 5 External links •  Context Introduced by cognitive linguist Leonard Talmy in 1981. Contents [hide] • • • • 1 Context 2 Theoretical outline o 2. Da Silva 2003) and morphosyntactical analysis (Chun & Zubin 1990. aspect. Other applications of force dynamics include use in discourse analysis (Talmy 1988. 2000). exhibits a force dynamic pattern.2 More complexity o 2. Langacker 1999:352-4). and Vandenberghe 2002). .3 Psychological basis 3 Limitations and criticism 4 References o 4. Talmy further developed the field in his 1985. Not only does it apply to expressions in the physical domain like leaning on or dragging. Furthermore. 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. lexical semantics (Deane 1992. For example.Force dynamics is a semantic category that describes the way in which entities interact with reference to force. Force dynamics plays an important role in several recent accounts of modal verbs in various languages (including Brandt 1992. dividing causation into finer primitives and considering the notions of letting. Talmy places force dynamics within the broader context of cognitive semantics. 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. and helping.

figure 1).. One force is therefore stronger or weaker than the other. exhibits a force dynamic pattern: apparently the door has some tendency toward opening. it may be jammed). A basic feature of a force-dynamic expression is the presence of two force-exerting elements. Theoretical outline  Basic concepts Figure 1 – Basic elements of the diagrammatic system commonly used to represent Force Dynamic patterns. Force entities have an intrinsic force tendency. Expressions can exhibit a force dynamic pattern or can be force-dynamically neutral. the Antagonist is stronger. since it actually holds back the door. The force entity that is in focus is called the agonist and the force entity opposing it is the Antagonist (see a. A third relevant factor is the balance between the two forces. . A sentence like The door is closed is force-dynamically neutral. The forces are out of balance by definition. because there are no forces opposing each other. In the example. a weaker force with a minus sign (c.g. Languages make a distinction between these two forces based on their roles. figure 1). on the other hand. A stronger force is marked with a plus sign. For the agonist. the situation is not interesting from a force-dynamic point of view. either toward action or toward rest. it need not be marked. the door has a tendency toward action. Since the antagonist by definition has an opposing tendency. In the example. this tendency is marked with an arrowhead (action) or with a large dot (rest) (see b. In the example. if the two forces are equally strong. figure 1). the door is the agonist and the force preventing the door from being opened is the Antagonist. but there is some other force preventing it from being opened (e. The sentence The door cannot open.

The following sentences are examples for these patterns: a.  More complexity Figure 2 – force dynamic diagrams with a shifting Antagonist. c. a form of causation that Talmy termed extended causation is captured. In the example. figure 1). A gust of wind made the pages of my book turn. This variable is exemplified by such expressions as A gust of wind made the pages of my book turn. this motion (‘change over time’) of the Antagonist is represented by an arrow. In force dynamic diagrams. 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. The abating of the wind let the sailboat slow down. Using these basic concepts. Force dynamics is directly applicable to terms involving psychological forces like to persuade and to urge. The line has an arrowhead if the outcome is action and a large dot if the outcome is rest (d. In the latter. by the same diagram).The outcome of the Force-Dynamic scenario depends on both the intrinsic tendency and the balance between the forces. It should be noted that force entities do not have to be physical entities. More possibilities arise when another variable is introduced: change over time. the door stays closed. several generalizations can be made. a basic relationship between the concepts of ‘causing something to happen’ and ‘letting something happen’ emerges. The diagrams in Figure 2 to the right combine a shifting antagonist with agonists of varying force tendencies. various kinds of causation are described. The result is represented by a line beneath Agonist and Antagonist. The appearance of the headmaster made the pupils calm down. In this series of scenarios. The force dynamic situations in which the Agonist is stronger are expressed in sentences like ‘X happened despite Y’. definable in terms of the balance between the force entities and the resultants of the interaction. In force dynamic terms. incidentally. The breaking of the dam let the water flow from the storage lake. d. the Antagonist succeeds in preventing it from being opened. . 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). Furthermore. The sentence 'The door cannot open' can be ForceDynamically represented by the diagram at the top of this page. while situations in which the Antagonist is stronger are expressed in the form of ‘X happened because of Y’. b.

claiming that it is circular and obscure. some people have argued that force dynamics fails to be explanatory. and calculate the probable outcome when that force is exerted against an object in the outside world.  Psychological basis The key elements of force dynamics are very basic to human cognition. Its key elements are such concepts as the (amount of) force exerted by an entity. Furthermore. has proposed a reconfiguration of some of its basic notions. Deane (1996:56) commented that “[f]rom a cognitive perspective. in the process of incorporating aspects of force dynamics into his theory of conceptual semantics. However. the balance between two such forces. but rather to better understand the cognitive basis of language (cf. 1996:120–3). Jackendoff (1990. even though Chet is one person. his will and his body are conceptualized separately. In Jackendoff’s view. For example. of how different representational devices are supposed to interact with one another. Talmy’s theory is a striking example of a psychologically plausible theory of causation. raised by Goddard (1998:81). 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. However. As the field of cognitive linguistics is still in a state of theoretical flux. whether these are explicit or implied. 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. expressions involving psychological forces reflect an extension of the category of force dynamics from the physical domain to the psychological domain. Another objection regarding force dynamics is the question." He goes on to attack the verbal definition of causation Talmy provides. . a diagram never stands alone. Thus. and the force vector which results from their interaction. In this view. it is an objection many cognitive linguists are aware of. this reconfiguration "conforms better to the syntax of force-dynamic verbs" (1996:121). no systematic account addresses this issue as of yet. 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). A case in point is reflexive force dynamic constructions of the type Chet was dragging himself instead of walking. (…) From a semiotic point of view. Goddard objects to the use of the "semantically obscure concept of force". force entities do not have to be physically separate.In addition. it always depends on a system of verbal captions.” In cognitive linguistic terms. Such concepts have an obvious base in ordinary motor activities: the brain must be able to calculate the force vector produced by muscular exertion. Newman 1996:xii). Goddard (1998:262–266) raised the objection that "a visual representation cannot — in and of itself — convey a meaning.  Limitations and criticism From the perspective of lexical semantics. force dynamic expressions reflect a conceptual archetype because of their conceptual basality (Langacker 1999:24).