Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Introduction
Conclusions
References

A BROAD VIEW OF COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

Profile image of Zoltan KovecsesZoltan Kovecses

Abstract

Cognitive linguistics can offer an account not only of linguistic structure but also of a wide variety of social and cultural phenomena. The comprehensive account presented in this paper is crucially based and dependent on cognitive capacities that human understanders and producers of language possess quite independently of their ability to use language. By discussing the cognitive processes and the various linguistic, social and cultural issues they help us describe and explain, the author demonstrates that cognitive linguistics is far more than a theory of language; one can think of it as a theory of " meaning-making " in general in its innumerable linguistic, social and cultural facets.

Figures (3)
The line with into Africa. T an arrow image-schematically represents the literal journey he circles image-schematically represent Europe and Africa, respectively. | Europe is an “out-space” and Africa is an “in-space”. Su- perimposed on the image schemas of container and source—path-—goal, we find a force-dynamic schema represented by opposing bold arrows. Mar- low is both metaphorically driven and attracted by certain forces: the forces of intellectual curiosity and knowledge, on the one hand, and the forces of sensuality and passion, on the other. Kimmel suggests that “the most fundamental macrostructural function of image schemas is the creation by readers of a condensed representation for use in plot recall.” That is to say, as we read the text, we try to construct a network of image schemas that are based on the description of the literal journey, the various force metaphors used, and the many symbolic meanings that transpire from the novel. Kimmel proposes a diagrammatic representation of our global understanding of the text as in Fig. 1.
The line with into Africa. T an arrow image-schematically represents the literal journey he circles image-schematically represent Europe and Africa, respectively. | Europe is an “out-space” and Africa is an “in-space”. Su- perimposed on the image schemas of container and source—path-—goal, we find a force-dynamic schema represented by opposing bold arrows. Mar- low is both metaphorically driven and attracted by certain forces: the forces of intellectual curiosity and knowledge, on the one hand, and the forces of sensuality and passion, on the other. Kimmel suggests that “the most fundamental macrostructural function of image schemas is the creation by readers of a condensed representation for use in plot recall.” That is to say, as we read the text, we try to construct a network of image schemas that are based on the description of the literal journey, the various force metaphors used, and the many symbolic meanings that transpire from the novel. Kimmel proposes a diagrammatic representation of our global understanding of the text as in Fig. 1.
basketball into the wastebasket in the blended game. This action would be too easy for the purposes of playing the game. In other words, as soon as we begin to play the new game that is based on some of the mappings between the inputs, new structure emerges. This is called “emergent structure” in the blend. In this particular example, a certain move that has counterparts in the inputs is lef t out of the game. In other examples, the players in the blend will learn that they have to adjust the nature, intensity, etc. of their movements due t o the physical environment and the social interaction in the blend. For example, because of the lightness of the “new ball” in the blend, they have to adjust the strength of their arm movements in throwing the “ball” into the “basket”. The structure of the network can be given as in Fi in preparation). g. 3 (taken from Kévecses, The main point of this example is that blends are not esoteric abstract structures. They can be found in how we make sense of our emotions and the structure of the sentences we use but also in how we construct mun- dane activities such as trashcan basketball. The conceptual apparatus we structures. ‘hey can be found in how we make sense of our emotions and
basketball into the wastebasket in the blended game. This action would be too easy for the purposes of playing the game. In other words, as soon as we begin to play the new game that is based on some of the mappings between the inputs, new structure emerges. This is called “emergent structure” in the blend. In this particular example, a certain move that has counterparts in the inputs is lef t out of the game. In other examples, the players in the blend will learn that they have to adjust the nature, intensity, etc. of their movements due t o the physical environment and the social interaction in the blend. For example, because of the lightness of the “new ball” in the blend, they have to adjust the strength of their arm movements in throwing the “ball” into the “basket”. The structure of the network can be given as in Fi in preparation). g. 3 (taken from Kévecses, The main point of this example is that blends are not esoteric abstract structures. They can be found in how we make sense of our emotions and the structure of the sentences we use but also in how we construct mun- dane activities such as trashcan basketball. The conceptual apparatus we structures. ‘hey can be found in how we make sense of our emotions and

Related papers

An Overview of Cognitive Linguistics
Javier Valenzuela, Antonio Barcelona
View PDFchevron_right
Cognitive linguistics: An introduction
LI WEI

2006

View PDFchevron_right
Cognitive Linguistics: Looking Back, Looking Forward
Dagmar Divjak, Jane Klavan

Since its conception, Cognitive Linguistics as a theory of language has been enjoying ever increasing success worldwide. With quantitative growth has come qualitative diversification, and within a now heterogeneous field, different – and at times opposing – views on theoretical and methodological matters have emerged. The historical " prototype " of Cognitive Linguistics may be described as predominantly of mentalist persuasion, based on introspection, specialized in analysing language from a synchronic point of view, focused on West-European data (English in particular), and showing limited interest in the social and multimodal aspects of communication. Over the past years, many promising extensions from this prototype have emerged. The contributions selected for the Special Issue take stock of these extensions along the cognitive, social and methodological axes that expand the cognitive linguistic object of inquiry across time, space and modality.

View PDFchevron_right
Editors' Introduction to Approaches to Language, Culture and Cognition: The Intersection of Cognitive Linguistics and Linguistic Anthropology
Masataka Yamaguchi, Dennis Tay, Benjamin Blount
View PDFchevron_right
Approaches to Language, Culture and Cognition: The Intersection of Cognitive Linguistics and Linguistic Anthropology
Masataka Yamaguchi, Dennis Tay, Benjamin Blount

2014

The study of language, culture, and cognition has become increasingly fragmented into separate disciplines and paradigms. This volume aims to re-establish dialogue between cognitive linguists and linguistic anthropologists with 11 original papers on language, culture and cognition, and an editorial introduction. It demonstrates that cognitively-informed perspectives can contribute to a better understanding of social, cultural, and historical phenomena, and argues that cognitive theories are relevant to linguistic anthropology.

View PDFchevron_right
Cognitive Linguistics as a Methodological Paradigm
Alexander V Kravchenko
View PDFchevron_right
Cognitive Linguistics in Action
ALpha Agricultural
View PDFchevron_right
Cognitive Linguistics: a usable approach
Antonio Barcelona

This inrroducrion firsr jusrifies [he uriliry of rhis special issue for English srudies and offers a brief overview of rhe srare of [he a n in cognirive linguisrics. Ir rhen commenrs briefív on each of [he arricles in rhis collecrion, discussing rheir conrriburion ro each of rhe major rrends in [he field. and ro English srudies in general.. The conclusion highlighrs [he usefulness of rhis approach for a variery of concerns.

View PDFchevron_right
William Croft, David A. Cruse: Cognitive linguistics, Cambridge [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004, pp. 356, ISBN 0-521-66770-4
Beata Kopecka

2007

View PDFchevron_right
A broad view of cognitive linguistics 2010
Zoltan Kovecses
View PDFchevron_right

References (44)

  1. Andor, József 1985. On the psychological relevance of frames. In: Quaderni di Seman- tica 6 : 212-21.
  2. Barcelona, Antonio (ed.) 2000. Metaphor and at the crossroads. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
  3. Brdar, Mario -Rita Brdar-Szabó 2003. Metonymic coding of linguistic action in Eng- lish, Croatian and Hungarian. In: Panther -Thornburg (2003, 241-6).
  4. Brdar-Szabó, Rita -Mario Brdar 2003. The manner for activity metonymy across domains and languages. In: Jezikoslovlje 4 : 43-69.
  5. Coulson, Seana 2000. Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in mean- ing construction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  6. Croft, William -Alan Cruse 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  7. Dirven, René -Ralph Pörings 2002. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and con- trast. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
  8. Encyclopedia Britannica Ready Reference 2003. Version on Dell computers. Fauconnier, Gilles 1997. Mappings in language and thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  9. Fauconnier, Gilles -Mark Turner 2002. The way we think. Basic Books, New York.
  10. Fillmore, Charles 1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In: C. Cogen (ed.): Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 123-31. BLS, Berkeley, CA.
  11. Fillmore, Charles 1982. Frame semantics. In: I-S. Yang (ed.): Linguistics in the morn- ing calm, 111-37. The Linguistic Society of Korea, Hanshin.
  12. Gallese, Vittorio -George Lakoff 2003. The brain's concepts: The role of the sensory- motor system in conceptual structure. Paper submitted to Cognitive Neuropsy- chology.
  13. Gentner, Dedre 1983. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. In: Cognitive Science 7 : 155-70.
  14. Gibbs, Raymond -Dinara Beitel -Michael Harrington -Paul Sanders 1995. Taking a stand on the meanings of stand: bodily experience as motivation for polysemy. In: Journal of Semantics 11 : 231-51.
  15. Glucksberg, Sam -Boaz Keysar 1993. How metaphors work. In: A. Ortony (ed.): Metaphor and thought (Second edition), 401-24. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  16. Goldberg, Adele 1995. Constructions. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  17. Grady, Joseph 1997. theories are building revisited. In: Cognitive Linguistics 8 : 267-90.
  18. Holyoak, Keith -Paul Thagard 1996. Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
  19. Johnson, Mark 1987. The body in the mind. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  20. Kimmel, Michael 2001. Metaphor, imagery, and Spatialized ontologies, mental tools, and multimedia in the making. Doctoral dissertation, University of Vienna.
  21. Kövecses, Zoltán 1986. Metaphors of anger, pride, and love. John Benjamins, Amster- dam.
  22. Kövecses, Zoltán 1990. Emotion concepts. Springer-Verlag, Berlin & New York.
  23. Kövecses, Zoltán 2000. Metaphor and emotion. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge.
  24. Kövecses, Zoltán 2002. Metaphor. A practical introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  25. Kövecses, Zoltán 2005. Metaphor in culture. Universality and variation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  26. Kövecses, Zoltán in preparation. Language, mind, and culture: An introduction. Ox- ford University Press, Oxford.
  27. Kövecses, Zoltán -Günter Radden 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. In: Cognitive Linguistics 9-7 : 37-77.
  28. Lakoff, George 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
  29. Lakoff, George 1996. Moral politics. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
  30. Lakoff, George -Mark Johnson 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
  31. Lakoff, George -Zoltán Kövecses 1987. The cognitive model of anger inherent in Amer- ican English. In: D. Holland -N. Quinn (eds): Cultural models in language and thought, 195-221. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  32. Langacker, Ronald 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Theoretical prerequisites. Vol. 1. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
  33. Panther, Uwe-Klaus -Günter Radden (eds) 1999. Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
  34. Panther, Uwe-Klaus -Linda Thornburg (eds) 2003. Metonymy and pragmatic infer- encing. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
  35. Radden, Günter -Zoltán Kövecses 1999. Towards a theory of metonymy. In: Panther - Radden (1999, 17-59).
  36. Rosch, Eleanor 1978. Principles of categorization. In: Eleanor Rosch -B.B. Lloyd (eds): Cognition and categorization, 27-48. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
  37. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francesco 2000. The role of mappings and domains in un- derstanding metonymy. In: Barcelona (2000, 109-32).
  38. Schank, Robert -Robert Abelson 1977. Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
  39. Talmy, Leonard 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. In: Cognitive Science 12 : 49-100. zoltán kövecses
  40. Talmy, Leonard 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1. MIT Press, Cam- bridge MA.
  41. Taylor, John 1989. Linguistic categorization. Clarendon Press, Taylor, John 1989.
  42. Taylor, John 2003. Cognitive grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  43. Turner, Mark 2001. Cognitive dimensions of social science. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Address of the author: Zoltán Kövecses Department of American Studies Eötvös Loránd University Ajtósi Dürer sor 19-21.
  44. H-1146 Budapest Hungary zkovecses@ludens.elte.hu

Related papers

Cognitive Linguistics: An Approach to the Study of Language and Thought
JRSP-ELT - Journal for Research Scholars and Professionals of English Language Teaching

Journal for Research Scholars and Professionals of English Language Teaching, 2021

The present paper is an attempt to simplify and comprehend what Cognitive Linguistics deals. It helps the learners, students of linguistics and teachers of ELT understand the characteristics and phenomena of Cognitive Linguistics, providing a succinct overview of Cognitive Linguistics. It is an interdisciplinary branch of linguistics and a cluster of overlapping approaches to the study of language as a mental phenomenon. Linguistics basically focuses on the sounds, words, grammar rules and rules of a language consisting of phonology (the sound system), morphology (the structure of words), syntax (the arrangement of words into sentences) and semantics (meanings). Cognitive linguistics is an integrated model-a collection of comprehensive investigations of a wide range of cognitive and linguistic phenomena.

View PDFchevron_right
Review of Geeraerts, Dirk ed. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics. Basic Readings
Paloma Tejada Caller

Cognitive Linguistics (CL) is not only a scientific approach to the study of language, but undoubtedly one of the most rapidly expanding schools in linguistics nowadays. As a dynamic and attractive framework within theoretical and descriptive linguistics, it proves to be one of the most exciting areas of research within the interdisciplinary project of cognitive science. Part of its seductiveness arises from the fact that CL aims at an integrated model of language and thought, at the building of a sharp theory of linguistic meaning that reflects the human construal of external reality, taking into account the way in which human beings experience reality, both culturally and psychologically (27). In its description of natural language, CL attempts to bridge "the distance between the social and the psychological, between the community and the individual, between the system and the application of the system, between the code and the actual use of the code" (26).

View PDFchevron_right
Cognitive linguistics INTRODUCTION
Tam Pham

Cognitive linguistics is one of the fastest growing and influential perspectives on the nature of language, the mind, and their relationship with sociophysical (embodied) experience. It is a broad theoretical and methodological enterprise, rather than a single, closely articulated theory. Its primary commitments are outlined. These are the Cognitive Commitment-a commitment to providing a characterization of language that accords with what is known about the mind and brain from other disciplines-and the Generalization Commitment-which represents a dedication to characterizing general principles that apply to all aspects of human language. The article also outlines the assumptions and worldview which arises from these commitments, as represented in the work of leading cognitive linguists.

View PDFchevron_right
Overview Cognitive linguistics
Miglar Solenova

Cognitive linguistics is one of the fastest growing and influential perspectives on the nature of language, the mind, and their relationship with sociophysical (embodied) experience. It is a broad theoretical and methodological enterprise, rather than a single, closely articulated theory. Its primary commitments are outlined. These are the Cognitive Commitment-a commitment to providing a characterization of language that accords with what is known about the mind and brain from other disciplines-and the Generalization Commitment-which represents a dedication to characterizing general principles that apply to all aspects of human language. The article also outlines the assumptions and worldview which arises from these commitments, as represented in the work of leading cognitive linguists.

View PDFchevron_right
Cognitive Linguistics (Review)
Laura A Michaelis

Cognitive linguistics is the joint product of largely independent research programs begun in the late 1970s and early 1980s by scholars who shared the general goal of making grammatical and semantic theory responsible to the facts of usage and the flexibility of the human conceptual capacity. But what kind of product is it? To those outside the immediate spheres of influence of its major proponents (George Lakoff, Ronald Langacker, Gilles Fauconnier, Leonard Talmy, among others), it might appear to be nothing more than an inventory of disparate constructs (prototype-based categories, semantic frames, mental spaces, metaphorical mappings) or even a set of case studies of linguistic idiosyncrasies. It doesn’t seem to DO anything, or at least it does not provide a uniform grammatical or semantic formalism. Instead, cognitive linguistics is a worldview, in which words, rather than denoting things in the world, are points of entry into conceptual networks (Langacker 1987, 1991), and syntactic patterns, rather than merely grouping symbols together, are cognitive and even motor routines of varying degrees of entrenchment and internal complexity (Bybee 2001).

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Cognitive Linguistics
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved