1º Encontro do Grupo de Estudos COGNIDIN

Neste encontro histórico, em que iniciamos "oficialmente" os trabalhos do COGNIDIN do ano de 2011, sentimos muito as ausências de Jaqueline Costa , Monique Marques, Débora e Adriana Yokoyana que, por motivos pessoais, não puderam estar presentes ao encontro. O próximo encontro foi marcaddo para o dia 20 de maio, às 16h, no CAIC ( Sala de leitura).  Essas fotos  registram a primeira reunião do grupo. Estiveram presentes: Mário Eduardo ( 1º período), Lucas (2 º período),  Monique ( 3º período), Patrícia ( 4º período) e Gisele ( 5º período), além das professoras Roza e Rosário. Agora só falta você!

ATENÇÃO! EIS O PRIMEIRO CAPÍTULO A SER ESTUDADO NO PRÓXIMO ENCONTRO, DIA 6/5

LIVRO: Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings ( AUTORES DIVERSOS)

 

Introduction

A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics

Dirk Geeraerts

So this is the first time you visit the field of Cognitive Linguistics, no? You may

need a guide then. Sure, when you move through the following chapters of this

volume, you get to see a top twelve of sights that you should not miss: a delightful

dozen of articles written by authorities in the field that each introduce one of the

conceptual cornerstones of the theoretical framework of Cognitive Linguistics.

Still, to give you a firm reference point for your tour, you may need some initiation

to what Cognitive Linguistics is about. That’s what the present chapter is for:

it provides you with a roadmap and a travel book to Cognitive Linguistics. It’s

only a rough guide, to be sure: it gives you the minimal amount of background

that you need to figure out the steps to be taken and to make sure that you are

not recognized as a total foreigner or a naïve apprentice, but it does not pretend

to supply more than that.

To understand what you may expect to find in this brief travel guide, we need

to introduce one of the characteristic ideas of Cognitive Linguistics first – the

idea, that is, that we should not just describe concepts and categories by means

of an abstract definition, but that we should also take into account the things that

the definition is about, if we are to achieve an adequate level of knowledge. Take

birds: you can define birds as a certain type of animal with certain characteristics

(like having wings, being able to fly, and being born from eggs), but if you want

to get a good cognitive grip on what birds are, you will want to have a look at

some typical birds like robins and sparrows and doves, and then maybe also at

some less typical ones, like chickens and ostriches.

It’s no different when you are dealing with linguistic theories. You have to

know about the scientific content of the theory, that is to say, the abstract definition

of the approach: the topics it deals with, the specific perspective it takes,

and the observations it makes. But you also have to know about the sociology

of the theory: the people it involves, the conferences where they meet, the channels

in which they publish. Introductions to linguistics tend to focus on the first

perspective only, but the present guide will take the second into account just as

much as the first.

2

Dirk Geeraerts

1. What is so special about this place?

Theories in linguistics tend to be fairly insular affairs: each theoretical framework

tends to constitute a conceptual and sociological entity in its own right, with

only a limited number of bridges, market places or even battlegrounds shared

with other approaches. Cognitive Linguistics, when considered in the light of

this metaphor, takes the form of an archipelago rather than an island. It is not

one clearly delimited large territory, but rather a conglomerate of more or less

extensive, more or less active centers of linguistic research that are closely knit

together by a shared perspective, but that are not (yet) brought together under

the common rule of a well-defined theory. The present volume contains an introduction

to twelve fundamental parts of that theoretical conglomerate – a tour of

twelve central islands, if you wish: Cognitive Grammar, grammatical construal,

radial network, prototype theory, schematic network, conceptual metaphor, image

schema, metonymy, mental spaces, frame semantics, construction grammar, and

usage-based linguistics.

We will define in a moment what links hold these concepts together and why

each of them separately is important, but at this point, the chief thing is to realize

that there is no single, uniform theoretical doctrine according to which these

research topics belong together: Cognitive Linguistics is a flexible framework rather

than a single theory of language. From the point of view of category structure (one

of the standard topics for analysis in Cognitive Linguistics), this recognition is

again one way in which Cognitive Linguistics illustrates its own concepts. As we

mentioned a moment ago, Cognitive Linguistics emphasizes the fact that defining

a category may involve describing some of its principal members rather than

just giving an abstract definition. But it also stresses that the abstract definition

need not consist of a single set of defining characteristics that belong uniquely

and distinctively to that category. Think of birds again: when we describe the

features of birds, we soon notice that the features we would like to think of as

definitional for birds are not shared by all members of the species: we may even

find birds like the penguin or the kiwi, that have no wings to speak of, cannot

fly, and don’t have feathers but that are rather covered with some kind of fluff. In

such cases, we say that a category has a family resemblance structure: different

types of birds resemble each other like the members of a family would, but there

is no single set of attributes that necessarily shows up in all the members of the

family. Again, it is no different with a linguistic framework like Cognitive Linguistics:

it constitutes a cluster of many partially overlapping approaches rather

than a single well-defined theory that identifies in an all-or-none fashion whether

something belongs to Cognitive Linguistics or not.

Then again, the recognition that Cognitive Linguistics has not yet stabilized

into a single uniform theory should not prevent us from looking for fundamental

Introduction: A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics

3

common features and shared perspectives among the many forms of research that

come together under the label of Cognitive Linguistics. An obvious question to

start from relates to the ‘cognitive’ aspect of Cognitive Linguistics: in what sense

exactly is Cognitive Linguistics a cognitive approach to the study of language?

Terminologically speaking, we now need to make a distinction between Cognitive

Linguistics (the approach represented in this reader), and uncapitalized

cognitive linguistics – referring to all approaches in which natural language is

studied as a mental phenomenon. Cognitive Linguistics is but one form of cognitive

linguistics, to be distinguished from, for instance, generative grammar and

many other forms of linguistic research within the field of cognitive science.

What, then, determines the specificity of Cognitive Linguistics within cognitive

linguistics?

There are a number of characteristics that need to be mentioned: one basic

principle that is really, really foundational, and four tenets that spell out this

fundamental notion. The foundational point is simply that language is all about

meaning. As it says in the Editorial Statement of the very first issue of the journal

Cognitive Linguistics, published in 1990, this approach sees language ‘as an

instrument for organizing, processing, and conveying information’ – as something

primarily semantic, in other words. Now, it may seem self-evident to you that

a ‘cognitive’ approach to language focuses on meaning, but if you are familiar

with generative grammar (i.e. Chomskyan linguistics), you will know that this

is a theory that thinks of language primarily in formal terms: as a collection of

formal, syntactic structures and rules (or constraints on such structures and rules).

And generative grammar is definitely also a ‘cognitive’ conception of language,

one that attributes a mental status to the language. So we have to be careful with

the term

is a psychologically real phenomenon (and that linguistics is part of the cognitive

sciences), but also that the processing and storage of information is a crucial

design feature of language. Linguistics is not just about knowledge of the language

(that’s the focus of generative grammar), but language itself is a form of knowledge

– and has to be analyzed accordingly, with a focus on meaning.

Conversely, Cognitive Linguistics is not the only linguistic approach focusing

on meaning: there are diverse forms of functional approaches to language that

go in the same direction. And further, formal semantics is clearly a semantically

oriented approach as well. It lies beyond the scope of this introduction to provide a

systematic comparison with these other semantic approaches, but you will certainly

be interested in what is particular about the way in which Cognitive Linguistics

deals with meaning. So that brings us to the four specific characteristics that we

announced earlier: each of them says something specific about the way Cognitive

Linguistics thinks about meaning. (By the way, the captions we use to introduce

the features may sound formidable, but don’t worry: an explanation follows.)

cognitive in Cognitive Linguistics. It does not only signal that language

4

Dirk Geeraerts

􀁌􀁉􀁎􀁇􀁕􀁉􀁓􀁔􀁉􀁃􀂬􀁍􀁅􀁁􀁎􀁉􀁎􀁇􀂬􀁉􀁓􀂬􀁐􀁅􀁒􀁓􀁐􀁅􀁃􀁔􀁉􀁖􀁁􀁌

Meaning is not just an objective reflection of the outside world, it is a way of shaping

that world. You might say that it construes the world in a particular way, that it

embodies a perspective onto the world. The easiest way to understand the point is

to think of spatial perspectives showing up in linguistic expressions, and the way

in which the same objective situation can be construed linguistically in different

ways. Think of a situation in which you are standing in your back garden and you

want to express where you left your bicycle. You could then both say

the house

statements, except that they embody different perspectives.

In the first expression, the perspective is determined by the way you look: the

object that is situated in the direction of your gaze is in front of you, but if there

is an obstacle along that direction, the thing is behind that obstacle. In this case,

you’re looking in the direction of your bicycle from the back garden, but the house

blocks the view, and so the bike is behind the house.

In the second expression, however, the point of view is that of the house: a

house has a canonical direction, with a front that is similar to the face of a person.

The way a house is facing, then, is determined by its front, and the second

expression takes the point of view of the house rather than the speaker, as if the

house were a person looking in a certain direction. Such multiple perspectivizations

(and not just spatial ones!) are everywhere in the language, and Cognitive

Linguistics attempts to analyze them.

It’s behindand It’s in front of the house. These would seem to be contradictory

􀁌􀁉􀁎􀁇􀁕􀁉􀁓􀁔􀁉􀁃􀂬􀁍􀁅􀁁􀁎􀁉􀁎􀁇􀂬􀁉􀁓􀂬􀁄􀁙􀁎􀁁􀁍􀁉􀁃􀂬􀁁􀁎􀁄􀂬􀁭􀁅􀁘􀁉􀁂􀁌􀁅

Meanings change, and there is a good reason for that: meaning has to do with

shaping our world, but we have to deal with a changing world. New experiences

and changes in our environment require that we adapt our semantic categories

to transformations of the circumstances, and that we leave room for nuances and

slightly deviant cases. For a theory of language, this means that we cannot just

think of language as a more or less rigid and stable structure – a tendency that is

quite outspoken in twentieth century linguistics. If meaning is the hallmark of

linguistic structure, then we should think of those structures as flexible. Again,

we don’t have to look far for an example. Think back to what we said about birds:

there is no single, rigid set of defining features that applies to all and only birds,

but we have a flexible family resemblance structure that is able to deal with marginal

cases.

􀁌􀁉􀁎􀁇􀁕􀁉􀁓􀁔􀁉􀁃􀂬􀁍􀁅􀁁􀁎􀁉􀁎􀁇􀂬􀁉􀁓􀂬􀁅􀁎􀁃􀁙􀁃􀁌􀁏􀁐􀁅􀁄􀁉􀁃􀂬􀁁􀁎􀁄􀂬􀁎􀁏􀁎􀀍􀁁􀁕􀁔􀁏􀁎􀁏􀁍􀁏􀁕􀁓

If meaning has to do with the way in which we interact with the world, it is natural

to assume that our whole person is involved. The meaning we construct in

Introduction: A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics

5

and through the language is not a separate and independent module of the mind,

but it reflects our overall experience as human beings. Linguistic meaning is not

separate from other forms of knowledge of the world that we have, and in that

sense it is encyclopedic and non-autonomous: it involves knowledge of the world

that is integrated with our other cognitive capacities. There are at least two main

aspects to this broader experiential grounding of linguistic meaning.

First, we are embodied beings, not pure minds. Our organic nature influences

our experience of the world, and this experience is reflected in the language we

use. The

the perspectives we use to conceptualize the scene derive from the fact that our

bodies and our gaze have a natural orientation, an orientation that defines what

is in front of us and that we can project onto other entities, like houses.

Second, however, we are not just biological entities: we also have a cultural

and social identity, and our language may reveal that identity, i.e. languages may

embody the historical and cultural experience of groups of speakers (and individuals).

Again, think of birds. The encyclopedic nature of language implies that

we have to take into account the actual familiarity that people have with birds: it

is not just the general definition of

sparrows and penguins and ostriches etc. But these experiences will differ from

culture to culture: the typical, most familiar birds in one culture will be different

from those in another, and that will affect the knowledge people associate with

a category like ‘bird’.

behind/in front of example again provides a clear and simple illustration:bird that counts, but also what we know about

􀁌􀁉􀁎􀁇􀁕􀁉􀁓􀁔􀁉􀁃􀂬􀁍􀁅􀁁􀁎􀁉􀁎􀁇􀂬􀁉􀁓􀂬􀁂􀁁􀁓􀁅􀁄􀂬􀁏􀁎􀂬􀁕􀁓􀁁􀁇􀁅􀂬􀁁􀁎􀁄􀂬􀁅􀁘􀁐􀁅􀁒􀁉􀁅􀁎􀁃􀁅

The idea that linguistic meaning is non-autonomously integrated with the rest

of experience is sometimes formulated by saying that meaning is experientially

grounded – rooted in experience. The experiential nature of linguistic knowledge

can be specified in yet another way, by pointing to the importance of language

use for our knowledge of a language.

Note that there is a lot of abstract structure in a language: think for instance

of the pattern Subject – Verb – Direct Object – Indirect Object that you find in a

sentence like

not directly observable: what we do observe, i.e. what constitutes the experiential

basis for our knowledge of the language, is merely a succession of words (and even

that is not entirely without problems, but let’s pass over those). So the question

arises: how does this more concrete level of words relate to the abstract level where

you find functional categories like Subject and Direct Object? In more traditional

terms, the question reads: how does the lexicon relate to the syntax?

But if we think of grammatical patterns as having an experiential basis in

concrete, observable strings of words, there is yet another step we have to take:

the ‘observable strings of words’ do not exist in the abstract; they are always part

Mary sent Peter a message. In many languages, such structures are

6

Dirk Geeraerts

of actual utterances and actual conversations. The experience of language is an

experience of actual language use, not of words like you would find them in a

dictionary or sentence patterns like you would find them in a grammar. That is

why we say that Cognitive Linguistics is a usage-based model of grammar: if

we take the experiential nature of grammar seriously, we will have to take the

actual experience of language seriously, and that is experience of actual language

use. Again, from the point of view of mainstream twentieth century linguistics,

that is a fairly revolutionary approach. An existing tradition tended to impose

a distinction between the level of language structure and the level of language

use – in the terms of Ferdinand de Saussure (generally known as the founder of

modern linguistics), between

the tradition of generative grammar),

structural level would be essential, the usage level epiphenomenal. In a usagebased

model that considers the knowledge of language to be experientially based

in actual speech, that hierarchy of values is obviously rejected.

langue and parole. Generally (and specifically inparole would be relatively unimportant: the

2. What does the tour include?

You are right, of course: the first exploration of Cognitive Linguistics in the previous

section remains somewhat superficial and abstract. You now have a general

idea of what type of scenery to expect in the Cognitive Linguistics archipelago,

but you would like to get acquainted with the specific islands, i.e. you now know

what the overall perspective of Cognitive Linguistics entails, but you hardly

know how it is put into practice. In this section, we will have a look at the twelve

basic concepts that are introduced by the dozen articles in this collection, and

we will show how these concepts relate to the overall picture that was drawn in

the previous pages.

As a preliminary step, let us observe that each of the characteristics that we

discussed earlier defines a number of specific questions for Cognitive Linguistics.

The

of construal present in a language: what kinds of semantic construal, imagery,

conceptual perspectivization do languages implement? The

meaning raises questions about the process of meaning extension: what are the

mechanisms of semantic flexibility, and how do the various readings of a linguistic

expression relate to each other? The

about the interdisciplinary links of language to the other cognitive capacities:

to what extent are the cognitive mechanisms at work in natural language shared

by other cognitive systems? And the

about the relationship between syntax and lexicon, and the acquisition of

language: what kind of experience do children need to learn a language?

perspectival nature of meaning raises questions about the specific mechanismsdynamic nature ofencyclopedic nature of meaning raises questionsusage-based nature of meaning raises questions

Introduction: A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics

7

These questions are illustrated in various ways by the articles in the collection,

but before we can make that explicit, we need to introduce the articles separately,

and say something about the way in which they are grouped together. Roughly,

there are four groups of concepts and articles, corresponding to the four features

that we identified before. The following pages pay specific attention to the logic

behind the basic concepts that we introduce: why is it that these concepts are so

important to Cognitive Linguistics? What you should see, in particular, is how

they turn the fundamental features that we discussed in the previous section, into

a concrete practice of linguistic description. Reading through the following pages

will give you an initial idea of what you can expect in the volume, but of course,

until you get there yourself, you will never really know what it is about.

2.1. The perspectival nature of grammar

The first two concepts,

illustrate the overall organization of a grammar that focuses on meaning. If conceptual

perspectivization is the central function of a grammar, the typical formal

categories of grammatical description (like word classes or inflection) will have to

be reinterpreted from a semantic point of view. In the context of Cognitive Linguistics,

two authorities in particular are systematically exploring these phenomena:

Ronald W. Langacker, and Len Talmy. The two initial papers in the volume will

introduce you to the thought of these two major thinkers – towering figures in

the context of Cognitive Linguistics, who have both provided the approach with

some of its basic vocabulary.

􀁃􀁏􀁇􀁎􀁉􀁔􀁉􀁖􀁅􀂬􀁇􀁒􀁁􀁍􀁍􀁁􀁒 and 􀁇􀁒􀁁􀁍􀁍􀁁􀁔􀁉􀁃􀁁􀁌􀂬􀁃􀁏􀁎􀁓􀁔􀁒􀁕􀁁􀁌,

􀁃􀁏􀁇􀁎􀁉􀁔􀁉􀁖􀁅􀂬􀁇􀁒􀁁􀁍􀁍􀁁􀁒

Cognitive Grammar is the specific name that Langacker uses for his theory of

language. The paper included in the present volume originates from 1986, but is

here reprinted in the form in which it was published in 1990. It specifies a number

of basic features of Cognitive Grammar that are still valid, and that form an

interesting backdrop for the rest of the articles in the present collection. Langacker

starts off with the very idea of a perspectival grammar – although he uses a slightly

different terminology: he talks about grammar as conceptualization and imagery.

He introduces a number of high level general features of grammatical ‘imagery’

(profiling, specificity, scope, salience) and then tackles the key question how to

build a descriptive framework for a grammar that starts from the assumption,

simplistically, that language is meaning and that meaning is conceptualization.

Central to his answer is the idea that a grammar is not built up out of grammatical

rules on the one hand and a lexicon on the other (the idea that you traditionally

find in generative grammar). Rather, a grammar consists of ‘symbolic

8

Dirk Geeraerts

units’, where a symbolical unit is a conventional pairing of a form and a meaning.

You can obviously think of lexical items here, but symbolic units can be more

abstract than that, like when nouns are claimed to instantiate the abstract notion

‘thing’, and verbs the abstract notion ‘process’. Given that you take the notion of

symbolic unit as the basis for a grammar, there are two questions that immediately

crop up, and Langacker does not fail to address them.

First, what could be the notional, conceptual characterization of abstract entities

like word classes? What do we mean when we say that the meaning of nouns

is ‘thing’ and that of verb is ‘process’? On conceptual grounds, Langacker distinguishes

between a number of basic classes of predications: entities and things

versus relations, and within the relational predicates, stative relations, complex

atemporal relations, and processes. The formal word classes of a language will

typically express a basic type of predication. For instance, while nouns express

the notion of ‘thing’ (a bounded entity in some domain), adjectives will typically

be stative relational predicates.

Second, if you have a grammar with no rules but only symbolic units, how

do you achieve compositionality, i.e. how do you ensure that different symbolic

units may be combined to build larger units, like phrases or sentences? Here,

the trick is to recognize that many predicates have open slots. If, for instance,

the meaning of

Langacker calls a ‘trajector’ and a ‘landmark’, the trajector and the landmark are

only included schematically, as an open slot, in the meaning of

out the slots with other predicates then compositionally yields phrases like

lamp above the table

In the course of Langacker’s paper, you will come across a number of concepts

that will play a central role in some of the other chapters included in the present

collection: the schematic network idea (which will come to the fore in Chapter

5), the notion of domain matrix (which will play an essential role in Chapter 8),

and the concept of a construction and a continuum between lexicon and grammar

(which will constitute the focus of Chapter 11 and Chapter 12).

above is defined in terms of a stative relationship between whatabove. Fillingthe.

􀁇􀁒􀁁􀁍􀁍􀁁􀁔􀁉􀁃􀁁􀁌􀂬􀁃􀁏􀁎􀁓􀁔􀁒􀁕􀁁􀁌

Talmy never suggested a specific label for his approach to grammatical description,

but the label

the forms and patterns of construal (in the sense of conceptual perspectivization

through language) that are realized by the grammatical structure of a language?

This adjective

types of conceptual construal that are expressed by those aspects of natural

language that have to do with syntax and morphology, rather than the lexicon. In

Langacker’s article, we noticed a specific interest in the relationship between the

grammatical construal captures very well what he is doing: what aregrammatical is quite important here: Talmy focuses on the specific

Introduction: A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics

9

lexical dimension of the language, and the structural dimension – the syntax and

the morphology. Talmy notes that there are some forms of conceptual construal

that are hardly ever expressed by the grammatical structure (like color), whereas

others (like the distinction between singular and plural) are typically expressed by

syntax and morphology. The bulk of Talmy’s paper, then, provides an overview of

different types of conceptual construal systems that are typical for the structural,

grammatical rather than the lexical subsystem of natural languages.

2.2. The dynamic nature of grammar

If natural language signs are flexible, we will need a model to describe how the

different readings of the expressions relate to each other. Several such models

for the polysemic architecture of expressions have been proposed by Cognitive

Linguistics, and the three concepts in this group describe the most important of

them.

􀁒􀁁􀁄􀁉􀁁􀁌􀂬􀁎􀁅􀁔􀁗􀁏􀁒􀁋

The radial network model describes a category structure in which a central case

of the category radiates towards novel instances: less central category uses are

extended from the center. The paper featured in this collection, ‘Cognitive topology

and lexical networks’ by Claudia Brugman and George Lakoff is based on

Brugman’s seminal analysis of the preposition

just in the sense that it popularized the radial network model, but also because

it spawned a whole literature on the analysis of prepositions (more on this in

the

of

readings extend from the central case. These can be concrete extensions, as in a

‘coverage’ reading (

temporal uses (

over. The study was seminal notFurther reading chapter). Brugman suggests the ‘above and across’ readingover (as in the plane flew over) as central, and then shows how less centralthe board is over the hole), but also metaphorical ones, as inover a period of time).

􀁐􀁒􀁏􀁔􀁏􀁔􀁙􀁐􀁅􀂬􀁔􀁈􀁅􀁏􀁒􀁙

Radial categories constitute but one type of a broader set of models that fall under

the heading of

in the category structure of

belongs in the same set of phenomena as the radial set idea. The paper ‘Prospects

and problems of prototype theory’ by Dirk Geeraerts presents a systematic

overview of the different prototype-theoretical phenomena that are mentioned in

the literature. Specific attention is paid to the mutual relations that exist among

these phenomena: it is argued that

prototype theory. For instance, the importance of specific birdsbird (this is a point we drew the attention to before)prototype is itself a prototypically structured

10

Dirk Geeraerts

concept, i.e. that there is no single definition that captures all and only the diverse

forms of ‘prototypicality’ that linguists have been talking about.

􀁓􀁃􀁈􀁅􀁍􀁁􀁔􀁉􀁃􀂬􀁎􀁅􀁔􀁗􀁏􀁒􀁋

Prototype theory as described in the previous article is a generalization over

the radial network model. But there is another generalization to introduce: the

schematic network model. What this adds to the radial network and prototype

models is the idea that the dynamism of meaning may also involve a shift along

a taxonomical dimension. This may need some explanation. Note that we can

think of birds at different levels of conceptual abstraction (or schematicity, as it

is also called). At one level, we have a prototypical idea of birds as living beings

that have feathers and wings and that can fly. If we stay on this level, we can move

from the central prototype cases (the ones that correspond to the central concept)

to peripheral cases, like birds without feathers and wings (we mentioned penguins

and kiwis before). But there are other levels at which you can think of birds: more

specific ones (as when you think about individual birds, like your great-uncle’s

parrot) and more general ones (like when you group bird species into categories

like ‘fowl’, ‘birds of prey’, ‘water birds’ etc.).

Moving from a more specific to a more general level is called ‘schematization’,

and the resulting model of readings for an expression is called a schematic

network. The idea of schematic networks is implicit in prototype theory, but it

has been made most explicit by Ronald W. Langacker. The concept plays an

important role in construction grammar (see below), but here, in David Tuggy’s

paper ‘Ambiguity, polysemy and vagueness’, it is applied to a crucial question

about meaning: the relationship between vagueness and polysemy: in a schematic

network, you accept that what is polysemy (different meanings) at one level is

vagueness (a less specified meaning potential) at an other, more schematic level.

In a very clear and graphical way, Tuggy shows how this shift between levels is a

contextual effect: in one situation we may use an expression rather more vaguely,

in another we use it at a more specific, polysemous level.

The consequences for our conception of semantic dynamism are tremendous.

The dynamism of meaning does not just imply that it is easy to add new meanings

to the semantic inventory of an expression, but also that we should not think of

this overall structure of meanings as stable. The semantics of lexical and constructional

units is not a bag of meanings, but is a (prototypically and schematically)

structured meaning potential that is sensitive to contextual effects.

Introduction: A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics

11

2.3. The non-autonomy of grammar

If meaning is non-autonomous and encyclopedic, it is important to investigate

the way in which different types of experience interact with each other. How

for instance does our bodily experience of a sensory or motor kind relate to our

more abstract thought, and are there any conceptual mechanisms that cut across

the sensorimotor and the abstract mode of human knowledge? The four papers

brought together in this group show how Cognitive Linguistics deals with the

encyclopedic entrenchment of linguistic meaning, from both perspectives: what

is the role of general cognitive mechanisms, and how do specific domains of

experience interact?

Two of the four concepts that will be introduced are not specific for Cognitive

Linguistics: metaphor and metonymy are traditional concepts in natural language

semantics. Cognitive Linguistics has however brought new perspectives to the

study of both metaphor and metonymy, and we will see in what sense. The other

two concepts were newly introduced by Cognitive Linguistics. Incidentally, the fact

that metaphor and metonymy are traditionally known as mechanisms of semantic

change, makes clear that there is a certain degree of overlap between the present

group of concepts and the previous one: some of the concepts mentioned here

may also be seen as illustrations of the dynamic nature of meaning.

􀁃􀁏􀁎􀁃􀁅􀁐􀁔􀁕􀁁􀁌􀂬􀁍􀁅􀁔􀁁􀁐􀁈􀁏􀁒

Conceptual metaphor is probably the best known aspect of Cognitive Linguistics:

if you’ve heard only vaguely about Cognitive Linguistics, conceptual metaphor

is likely to be the notion that you’ve come across. You will have learnt by now

that there is much more to Cognitive Linguistics, but still, Conceptual Metaphor

Theory occupies a major place in the cognitive linguistic research program. Conceptual

Metaphor Theory rests on the recognition that a given metaphor need not

be restricted to a single lexical item, but may generalize over different expressions.

Such general patterns may then be summarized in an overall statement like

􀁉􀁓􀂬􀁗􀁁􀁒

􀁌􀁏􀁖􀁅􀂬, a pattern that ranges over expressions like the following:

He is known for his many rapid

conquests. She fought for him, but his mistress

won out

. He fled from her advances. She pursued him relentlessly. He is slowly

gaining ground

is

He

with her. He won her hand in marriage. He overpowered her. Shebesieged by suitors. He has to fend them off. He enlisted the aid of her friends.made an ally of her mother. Theirs is a misalliance if I’ve ever seen one.

This way of thinking about metaphor was introduced in George Lakoff’s and

Mark Johnson’s book

something of a bestseller status. The article included here, Lakoff’s ‘The contem

Metaphors we live by of 1980, a book that has achieved12

Dirk Geeraerts

porary theory of metaphors’ gives a systematic overview of the theoretical and

practical features of Conceptual Metaphor Theory.

You will notice how the two aspects of non-autonomy that were mentioned

earlier show up in conceptual metaphor theory. First, metaphor is treated as a

general cognitive mechanism, not as a specifically linguistic one that works on

the level of individual expressions. Second, metaphor involves the interaction

between different domains of experience: a source domain (in the example, war)

and a target domain (love). This notion of domain will turn out to be crucially

important for the other concepts in this group as well.

􀁉􀁍􀁁􀁇􀁅􀂬􀁓􀁃􀁈􀁅􀁍􀁁

An image schema is a regular pattern that recurs as a source domain (or a structuring

part of a source domain) for different target domains. Typical image schema’s

include containment, path, scales, verticality, and center-periphery. The recurrence

of image schemas may be illustrated by a closer look at the containment

schema. It occurs in conceptual metaphors in which containment is the source

domain for widely diverse target domains like the visual field (

in sight, out of

sight, go

out of view, inside someone’s field of vision), time (in two hours, he’s

into

(get yourself

be

the first year of his retirement, do something in a short period), difficultiesinto difficulties, we’re in this together, how do we get out of this, toin a mess), obligations (what are you getting into, no way out, can he get out

of it), and the self as contained in the body (withdraw

into oneself, a young man

in

Characteristically, image schemas involve some form of sensory or motor

experience, like a spatial configuration in the case of containment. In that sense,

the appearance of image schemas in metaphors is typical for the encyclopedic,

non-autonomous nature of meaning: prelinguistic domains, like the sensorimotor

or spatial ones are mapped onto more abstract domains, providing them with

structure. The notion of image schema, like the notion of conceptual metaphor,

was introduced into Cognitive Linguistics by George Lakoff in his collaboration

with the philosopher Mark Johnson. The paper included here, ‘The cognitive

psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations’ by Ray Gibbs

and Herb Colston, examines the psychological reality of image schemas: how can

you prove, by means of experimental methods, that image schemas do indeed

have a psychological reality?

In this sense, the paper is not just important as an illustration of the notion of

image schema, but also for methodological reasons. The particular theoretical

perspective of Cognitive Linguistics has a number of far-reaching methodological

consequences. For one thing, treating meaning as a mental phenomenon and

focusing on language as a cognitive tool implies that a rapprochement with the

methodology of psychological research is obvious: experimental methods should

an old man’s body, there’s an insecure person inside).

Introduction: A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics

13

bear fruit in Cognitive Linguistics just like they do in psychology. For another,

the idea that grammar is usage-based implies that the analysis of actual usage

data (as in corpora, specifically) should play an important role in Cognitive Linguistics.

The paper by Gibbs and Colston is an example of such an experimental

approach. An example of a corpus-based methodology is presented in Tomasello’s

paper in this volume.

However, neither the use of an experimental method nor the use of corpus

data is as yet a dominant methodology in Cognitive Linguistics. They constitute

emerging tendencies that are likely to gain in importance in the course of the

following years, but a lot of the work done in Cognitive Linguistics is still based

on a more traditional analytic methodology.

􀁍􀁅􀁔􀁏􀁎􀁙􀁍􀁙

There is yet another way in which thinking in terms of domains plays a role in

Cognitive Linguistics, viz. in the analysis of metonymy. In the tradition of lexical

semantics, metaphor and metonymy are distinguished on the basis of the type of

semantic association they involve. Metaphor is supposed to be based on similarity

(if love is war, it is

to be based on contiguity – a somewhat vague notion that could be clarified in

terms of ‘actual proximity or association’. For instance, when you fill up your car,

you don’t fill the entire vehicle with fuel, but only the gas tank. The name of the

whole comes to stand for the part, and part and whole are associated in reality.

Now, metonymy research in Cognitive Linguistics received an important impetus

from the recognition that metonymy could receive a definition that is nicely

complementary to that of metaphor. If metaphor is seen as a mapping from one

domain to the other, metonymy can be seen as a mapping

The shift from whole to part in

This view on the relationship between metaphor and metonymy was already made

in Lakoff and Johnson’s

in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies’ by William Croft adds an

innovative perspective. The relevant shift, Croft argues, is not necessarily one

within a single domain, but it may be a shift within a domain matrix.

The domain matrix is a notion introduced by Ronald W. Langacker: it captures

the idea that a concept may be simultaneously defined in various domains.

For instance, Shakespeare is not only defined as a physical person, but also in

the literary domain, as an author. So, when you say that you have read the whole

of Shakespeare, you metonymically mean the entirety of his literary production,

rather than the person. What Croft suggests, then, is to define metonymy overall

in terms of such a domain matrix.

like war in a number of respects), whereas metonymy is saidwithin a single domain.car is a shift within the physical, spatial domain.Metaphors we live by, but the article ‘The role of domains

14

Dirk Geeraerts

􀁍􀁅􀁎􀁔􀁁􀁌􀂬􀁓􀁐􀁁􀁃􀁅􀁓

If metaphor is analyzed as a mapping from one domain to another, the question

arises how such mappings take place: how does the structure of the source

domain get mapped onto the target domain? The notion of conceptual integration

developed by Gilles Fauconnier, and represented here by the paper ‘Conceptual

integration networks’ by Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, provides a descriptive

framework to answer that question. It distinguishes between four spaces: a

source input space, a target input space, a blend between both, and a so-called

generic space. For instance (to use an example first described by Seana Coulson),

you can think of ‘trashcan basketball’ as a game in which you throw crumpled

pieces of paper into a trashcan, as you might do in an office environment or in

a student dorm. The game of basketball is one input space, and the office or the

dorm situation the other. The mapping between the two spaces associates the ball

with the piece of paper, the basket with the trashcan, the players with the students

or the office people, and further elaborations are possible. This mapping creates a

blended space, and the relevant features of the blend are not just directly derived

from the original input spaces. On the contrary, you may find emergent structure

that is specific to the blended space: the fact that the trashcan would normally be

placed on the ground, in contrast with a basketball ring, would certainly influence

the way the game is played. The fourth type of space, the generic space, contains

the common structure of the input spaces; in this case, it would be the space of

someone throwing an object into a container.

The description of the four spaces may also explain some of the alternative

names that the conceptual integration approach is known by: the

the

clearly links up with the analysis of metaphor as mapping across domains: one

might say that the trashcan example elaborates the metaphor ‘a trashcan is a

basketball ring’. However, the blending analysis is more general than the study

of metaphor. Conceptual integration has proved to be useful in a wide variety of

phenomena, many of which are not even remotely associated with metaphorical

processes. Counterfactuals are a case in point.

use a synthesizer

and the historical space of Beethoven as an innovative composer, but you

cannot really say that the conceptual process is a metaphorical one.

2.4. The experiential grounding of grammar

You will remember that the experiential nature of language raised the question

of the relationship between lexicon and syntax. Cognitive Linguistics provides a

specific answer to that question that links up with what we said about prototype

blending ormental spaces approach. As mentioned, the conceptual integration approachIf Beethoven were alive, he wouldcreates a blended space between the present-day musical situation

Introduction: A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics

15

theory and schematic networks: we can think of a grammar as a schematic network

with abstract patterns at the schematic level, and the lexicalized instantiations

of those patterns (the words and strings of words that fill the patterns) at a more

specific level. From the point of view of mainstream twentieth century linguistics,

this is a bit of a strange idea. If you assume (as generative grammar so vehemently

stressed) that grammar is a set of rules, the lexical items instantiating those roles

are not all that important: you basically need an inventory of items, but the real

work is done by the rules.

However, Ronald W. Langacker has pointed out that there is a fallacy here: the

so-called rule/list fallacy, i.e. the idea that what can be handled by rules should

not be listed. If you start from that assumption, you get a strict separation between

lexicon and syntax. But if you think in terms of schematic networks, such a separation

is not necessary at all: you can both describe abstract patterns and their

concrete lexicalizations. In fact, you

effects that you may need to describe. An indirect object construction of the type

Subject – Verb – Direct Object – Indirect Object is typically filled by verbs like

have to, because there are prototypicality

give

knowledge that we recognize those typicalities (just like we recognize blackbirds

as more typical birds than ostriches).

The specific form in which this idea is realized in Cognitive Linguistics, is

in the form of construction grammars. The plural is deliberate here: since there

are various forms of construction grammar, Construction Grammar is a family

of theories rather than a single well-defined approach. The three papers in this

group all involve Construction Grammar, but it is the paper by Goldberg (Chapter

11, the second one in the group) that introduces the approach most directly. The

first paper in the group presents frame semantics, which is one of the important

sources for Construction Grammar. The final paper show how the principles of

Construction Grammar can be applied in language acquisition research.

or tell, and less typically so by verbs like envy. It is part of our grammatical

􀁆􀁒􀁁􀁍􀁅􀂬􀁓􀁅􀁍􀁁􀁎􀁔􀁉􀁃􀁓

Frame semantics is the specific approach to natural language semantics developed

by Charles Fillmore. The article included here, ‘Frame semantics’, sets out

the basics of the theory. One essential starting-point is the idea that one cannot

understand the meaning of a word (or a linguistic expression in general) without

access to all the encyclopedic knowledge that relates to that word. This obviously

ties in with the non-autonomous nature of natural language semantics: that meaning

in natural language is not separated from other forms of knowledge implies

that it is not very useful to maintain a strict separation between world knowledge

and knowledge of linguistic meaning. While this recognition would be shared

by all forms of semantics in Cognitive Linguistics, the individual identity of

16

Dirk Geeraerts

frame semantics involves the specific structures of encyclopedic knowledge that

it invokes. Basically, these ‘frames’ are things happening and occurring together

in reality. For example, in order to understand the word

world knowledge about the situation of commercial transfer. This comprises, apart

from the act of selling, a person who sells, a person who buys, goods to be sold,

money or another form of payment, and so on.

A semantic frame of this type is a coherent structure of related concepts where

the relations have to do with the way the concepts co-occur in real world situations.

Knowledge of the frame is necessary for an adequate knowledge of the

words referring to the concepts in the frame: a word activates the frame, highlights

individual concepts within the frame, and often determines a certain perspective

in which the frame is viewed. In the standard commercial transaction example,

for instance,

sell, you need to havesell construes the situation from the perspective of the seller and buy

from the perspective of the buyer.

Although frame semantics was originally applied predominantly to the semantic

description of words, there is a close relationship with Construction Grammar.

Words like

someone

reflect different ways in which the frame can be highlighted. In this way, frame

semantics can be integrated with Construction Grammar as one way of specifying

the semantics of constructions. Overall, we can now see that frame semantics

occupies a transitional position in our grouping of concepts. On the one hand, if

we focus on the way in which it uses structured encyclopedic knowledge as the

background for the description of meanings in natural language, it belongs with

the previous group of papers: it describes one of the ways in which conceptual

knowledge of an encyclopedic (i.e. not specifically linguistic) nature is structured.

On the other hand, if we concentrate on the input that frame semantics provides

for the description of construction types, it links up with the present group of

articles.

sell come with their own set of constructions (like sell something toor sell something for a certain price), and the different constructions

􀁃􀁏􀁎􀁓􀁔􀁒􀁕􀁃􀁔􀁉􀁏􀁎􀂬􀁇􀁒􀁁􀁍􀁍􀁁􀁒

Simplistically, a grammatical construction is any string of words or morphemes

exhibiting a coherent pattern, whether it be an entire sentence or a clause or a

phrase (like a noun phrase or a verb phrase) or a complex lexeme (like a phrasal

verb). And of course, the abstract pattern itself may also be called a ‘construction’.

In classical contemporary grammars, an indirect object pattern of the type Subject

– Predicate – Indirect Object – Direct Object would be considered a derived

structure, built up from the functional classes Subject, Predicate etc. That is to

say, the rules of the grammar would be defined in such a way that a grammatical

pattern of the form Subject – Predicate – Indirect Object – Direct Object could

Introduction: A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics

17

be assembled on the basis of the relevant functional building blocks. In Cognitive

Linguistics, a pattern of this type is considered to be non-derived, i.e. is taken to be

a sign of the language, or, if you wish, an (abstract) expression in its own right.

As you can read in Adele Goldberg’s paper ‘The inherent semantics of argument

structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction’, there are a number

of advantages to such an approach, two of which may be mentioned here, to give

you a first idea of why thinking in terms of constructions may be interesting.

First, if a construction is treated as an entity in its own right, it is possible that

the whole has characteristics that cannot be straightforwardly derived from the

constituent components. This is a property known as non-compositionality: the

meaning of the whole is not necessarily a compositional function of the meaning

of the parts. Second, if any construction is a distinct element of the inventory of

linguistic signs for a given language, you can treat constructions like any other

category – according to the usual practice of Cognitive Linguistics. That is to say,

it will then be quite normal to describe not just the meaning and the form of the

category, but also its salient members. In the case of constructions, we may then

think primarily of the lexical elements that can fill the slots of the construction

(like the verbs that occupy the predicate role in the indirect object construction).

Or in other words: describing grammar as a schematic network with lexical elements

at the bottom and more abstract patterns higher up in the network is completely

congenial to a construction grammar approach.

􀁕􀁓􀁁􀁇􀁅􀀍􀁂􀁁􀁓􀁅􀁄􀂬􀁌􀁉􀁎􀁇􀁕􀁉􀁓􀁔􀁉􀁃􀁓

Defining Cognitive Linguistics as a usage-based model of language has a number

of consequences, like the straightforward methodological conclusion that cognitive

linguists will have to invest in the analysis of real language use if they are to

live up to their self-declared status. You would expect a lot of corpus research in

Cognitive Linguistics, then, but to be honest, this is a trend that is clearly emerging,

but that has not yet gained as prominent a status as one would expect.

Using corpora of observed speech is natural in language acquisition research,

though: if you wish to study how children acquire their language, you will obviously

want to observe and analyze their developing language. Also, language

acquisition is a domain par excellence to test a usage-based model of language

that believes that our experience of actual speech determines how we come by

more abstract patterns. In fact, if our more schematic knowledge is based on our

more concrete knowledge of lexical instantiations of such patterns, you should

be able to observe ‘lexical bootstrapping’ effects: the specific words in which we

begin to learn certain constructions, determine how we learn the construction.

That is exactly what Michael Tomasello investigates in his paper ‘First Steps

toward a Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition’, which is part of a long

18

Dirk Geeraerts

term research effort to develop a theory of language acquisition that ties in with

Cognitive Linguistics and Construction Grammar.

If you are familiar with the history of contemporary linguistics, you will

appreciate how important such an attempt is. The generative grammar idea that

language is a separate module of the mind is very much based on an argument

from language acquisition: if we do not assume that language is genetically wired

in, the argument goes, we couldn’t explain at all how the acquisition of language

proceeds so quickly as it actually does. This is particularly the case, the argument

continues, because the input children get (the language they are exposed

to) is not sufficient to explain how they could learn all the intricacies of natural

language syntax. This is the ‘poverty of stimulus’ argument. Obviously, if Tomasello

succeeds in his attempt to explain how children can learn language through

abstraction from the actual input they get, a central tenet of generative grammar

will be overturned.

2.5. A conceptual map

Let us summarize. What we have shown in this (somewhat detailed) introduction

to the tour of twelve papers is how they introduce, discuss, illustrate concepts

that follow logically from the central characteristics of Cognitive Linguistics

that we learned about in the previous section. It will not come as a surprise to

you that these twelve concepts are far from being the only relevant or interesting

ones that have been developed in the context of Cognitive Linguistics – but they

are certainly among the most basic ones. When you read the individual papers,

it may be wise to refer back once in a while to the characterizations that you find

in the foregoing pages: they will help you not to lose track and to interpret the

conspicuous features of the papers.

In Figure 1, the relations between the various papers are graphically represented.

The fundamental features of Cognitive Linguistics (the perspectival,

dynamic, non-autonomous, experiential nature of natural language) are mentioned

in the corners of the figure. Intermediate between these cornerstones and the

twelve central concepts, you will find six fields of research that emerged in the

foregoing discussion as the logical link between the fundamental features and the

central concepts: the conceptual characterization of the grammar, the search for

models of polysemy, the analysis of mechanisms of polysemy, the importance of

thinking in terms of domains of experience, the relationship between grammar

and lexicon, and the relationship between structure and usage. The arrows in the

figure indicate how each more specific concept is motivated by a more general one

for instance: looking at mechanisms of categorial polysemy is one way of getting

a grip on the dynamic nature of linguistic meaning, and in a next step, conceptual

metaphor is one of the specific mechanisms of categorial polysemy.

Introduction: A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics

19

Figure 1.

A conceptual map of Cognitive Linguistics

20

Dirk Geeraerts

Adding the intermediate level with the six fields of research brings in extra subtlety

in the overview. We can now make clear, for instance, that Langacker’s paper

with which the collection opens, not only illustrates the perspectival nature of

grammar, but also deals with the relationship between lexical structure and morpho-

syntax. In the same way, the figure illustrates how the experiential nature

of the grammar does not only involve questions about the acquisition and the

architecture of the grammar, but also links up with thinking in terms of domains

and their mutual relations.

3. Where do you go next?

Let us assume that, after roaming the present introductory volume, you really

like the look and feel of Cognitive Linguistics. It’s a safe assumption, in fact: you

are bound to be drawn in by an intellectual climate that is both hospitable and

inspiring, open-minded and exciting, wide-ranging and innovative. But where do

you go after the initial tour d’horizon that has won your heart? Let’s go over a

few trajectories that might cater to your personal interests.

A first thing to do would be to complete your initiation by reading the companion

volume to the present collection. In several ways,

Current Applications and Future Perspectives

Achard, René Dirven and Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza) is deliberately complementary

to the book that you are holding in your hands: it does not focus on Cognitive

Linguistics basics, but rather describes the contemporary state of affairs in

the main fields of application of Cognitive Linguistics. Also, it does not consist

of existing papers, but only contains newly written articles that have the explicit

purpose of presenting current discussions and domains. Taken together, the two

volumes will thoroughly familiarize you with Cognitive Linguistics, way beyond

the fragmented and uncertain knowledge that an incidental visit would impart.

From that point on, you may want to go beyond the level of introductions,

and you may, with the acquired confidence of the experienced traveler, do some

journeying on your own. However, in case your self-assurance has not reached an

optimal level and you would want to boost it with an additional round of introductory

reading, there are some good book-length introductions to Cognitive

Linguistics that may help you. Here’s a list of commendable texts.

Friedrich Ungerer and Hans-Jörg Schmid. 1996.

Linguistics

Violi, Patrizia. 2001.

Press.

John R. Taylor. 2003.

Oxford University Press.

•

•

•

Cognitive Linguistics:(edited by Gitte Kristiansen, MichelAn Introduction to Cognitive. London/New York: Longman.Meaning and Experience. Bloomington: Indiana UniversityLinguistic Categorization. Third Edition. Oxford:

Introduction: A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics

21

René Dirven and Marjolijn Verspoor. 2004.

and Linguistics.

John Benjamins.

William Croft and D. Alan Cruse. 2004.

Cambridge University Press.

Vyvian Evans and Melanie Green. 2006.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Once you are ready to leave the introductory level, there are basically two things

to do: deepen your understanding of the existing body of work in Cognitive Linguistics,

and keep aware of current developments. With regard to the former, a

first set of routes to explore is provided by the present volume itself: accompanying

each of the chapters included in the collection, you find a broadly conceived

set of suggestions for further reading in the

elaborations and discussions of the basic concepts that are presented here – and

to some of the less basic (but no less important) concepts developed in the field

of Cognitive Linguistics. Alternatively (or in parallel), you could have a look at

the forthcoming

and Hubert Cuyckens and published by Oxford University Press. It’s a collection

of some fifty commissioned articles that each offer an in-depth treatment of one

of the manifold aspects of Cognitive Linguistics.

To keep in touch with new work, you would certainly want to be aware of

new publications. So, what are the journals and the book series that you need to

keep an eye on? Note that a lot of studies in Cognitive Linguistics are now being

published in general publication channels and by a wide variety of international

publishers. Here, only journals and book series that are specifically dedicated to

Cognitive Linguistics are mentioned.

Two journals need to be cited:

of Cognitive Linguistics

official journal of the International Cognitive Linguistics Association (more about

which in the next section). The journal was founded by Dirk Geeraerts in 1990.

Consecutive editors-in-chief so far were Arie Verhagen and Adele Goldberg.

The latter journal, published by the John Benjamins Publishing Company under

the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association, first appeared in

2003. It is led by Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza. The journal

Cognitive Exploration of LanguageSecond Revised Edition. Amsterdam, Philadelphia:Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge:Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction.Epilogue. They will direct you toHandbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Dirk GeeraertsCognitive Linguistics, and the Annual Review. The former, published by Mouton De Gruyter, is theCognitive Linguistics

is not only the most reputable journal in the field, it also comes with a considerable

bonus. A subscription to

Cognitive Linguistics includes a copy of the digital

Bibliography of Cognitive Linguistics

compiled through the relentless efforts René Dirven (undoubtedly the major

organizational force behind the entire Cognitive Linguistics enterprise). The

bibliography now covers 7000 publications (no, you won’t have to read them all

•

•

•

– and indispensable bibliographical tool

22

Dirk Geeraerts

to be recognized as an accomplished cognitive linguist), and it will be regularly

updated in the following years.

Five book series specifically dedicated to work in Cognitive Linguistics need

to be mentioned.

complete series. Published by Mouton de Gruyter of Berlin, it was launched at the

same time as the journal

Recently,

editor) has received a companion series in the form of

Linguistics

the descriptive applications of Cognitive Linguistics, while

Research

for Cognitive Linguistics, the John Benjamins Publishing Company of Amsterdam,

features three specifically relevant (but as yet less extensive) series. While

Cognitive Linguistic Research or CLR is the oldest and mostCognitive Linguistics, and now numbers over thirty volumes.Cognitive Linguistic Research (with Dirk Geeraerts as managingApplications of Cognitiveor ACL (managed by Gitte Kristiansen) – a series that will focus onCognitive Linguisticharbors the more theoretically relevant studies. The other main publisher

Human Cognitive Processing

and Jan Nuyts) has a broad cognitive orientation, the two other series are more

specific:

field from a textbook oriented perspective, and

Language

Construction Grammar.

If you are interested in following what is going on in Cognitive Linguistics,

note that the book series are not just monograph series. A lot of what is being

published in the series consists of collective volumes with thematically interconnected

articles. In many cases, these constitute selections of papers presented at

Cognitive Linguistics conferences. Because quite a lot of relevant work is being

published in such collective volumes, you will profit from keeping an eye on them

once you’ve become a Cognitive Linguistics aficionado.

When you’ve reached this stage, you will be ready to take a step into the world

and take part in some real life Cognitive Linguistics activities. Where would you

go? All self-respecting cities and countries have their own festivals and fiesta,

and becoming part of the crowd involves participating in the celebrations. In

Cognitive Linguistics, the main community event is without any doubt the biannual

ICLC or Cognitive Linguistics Conference. The first ICLC took place in

1989 in Duisburg, Germany. It was one of the so-called LAUD symposia (where

LAUD stands for Linguistic Agency of the University of Duisburg) that had been

organized by René Dirven since 1977 and where some of the world’s most distinguished

linguists were invited to present their work. The Duisburg conference was

of crucial importance for the institutionalization and the international expansion

of Cognitive Linguistics: it was there and then that the International Cognitive

Linguistics Association or ICLA was founded (the conference was accordingly

rebaptized as the First International Cognitive Linguistics Conference), that plans

were made to launch the journal

(edited by Marcelo Dascal, Raymond W. GibbsCognitive Linguistics in Practice (edited by Günter Radden) covers theConstructional Approaches to(edited by Mirjam Fried and Jan-Ola Östman) specifically deals withCognitive Linguistics, and that the monograph

Introduction: A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics

23

series

an intellectual movement is too self-critical to recognize any historical sites or

places of pilgrimage, but if ever a commemorative plate were to be considered,

Duisburg would be a likely candidate.

The following ICLC conferences were consecutively held in Santa Cruz, US

(1991, organized by Gene Casad), Leuven, Belgium (1993, organized by Dirk

Geeraerts), Albuquerque, US (1995, organized by Sherman Wilcox), Amsterdam,

The Netherlands (1997, organized by Theo Jansen and Gisela Redeker), Stockholm,

Sweden (1999, organized by Erling Wande), Santa Barbara, US (2001, organized

by Ronald W. Langacker), Logroño, Spain (2003, organized by Francisco J. Ruiz

De Mendoza), and Seoul, South Korea (2005, organized by Hyon-Sook Shin).

The tenth ICLC in 2007, organized by Elzbieta Tabakowska, has its venue at the

Jagiellonian University of Krakow in Poland.

Next to the ICLC’s, there are a number of local events that you may consider

attending. The LAUD conferences are now being organized bi-annually in Landau,

Germany, in the year between the ICLC conferences. That holds for a number

of other regular meetings, like the US-based Cognitive Structure, Discourse and

Language conference, which reached its eighth edition in 2006; or the International

Conference on Construction Grammar, which had its fourth edition in 2006.

An important part in the organization of workshops and symposia in Cognitive

Linguistics is currently played by the ICLA affiliates. These are ICLA branches

defined by region or country (and occasionally by language). The first one to be

founded was the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association, whose affiliation

was formally approved at the 1999 ICLC. The year 2001 saw the affiliation of

the Finnish, the Polish, and the Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Associations. Further

affiliates include the Russian Association of Cognitive Linguists (2004), the

German Cognitive Linguistics Association (2005), the Discourse and Cognitive

Linguistics Association of Korea (2005), the Association Française de Linguistique

Cognitive (2005), the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association (2005),

the Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language Association (2005), and the

UK Cognitive Linguistics Association (2006). Further local branches are likely

to emerge, and all of them are likely to organize regular meetings. If you are

interested in following what is on the agenda, you may want to consult the ICLA

website: it contains a calendar of Cognitive Linguistics events, and supplies links

to the individual websites of the ICLA affiliates. This is the ICLA address: http://

www.cognitivelinguistics.org/

Meetings, lectures, workshops, symposia, and conferences are also announced

on Cogling, a mailing list for disseminating ICLA news, queries, and discussions

of interest to cognitive linguists. Again, details about subscribing may be

found on the ICLA website. Incidentally, the website also offers an overview of

Cognitive Linguistics Research was announced. Cognitive Linguistics as

24

Dirk Geeraerts

the courses or programs in Cognitive Linguistics that are offered at many places

around the globe.

Once you get to one of the conferences, who would you be likely and/or eager

to meet? Thinking in terms of people, the key figures of Cognitive Linguistics

are George Lakoff, Ronald W. Langacker, and Leonard Talmy. Round this core

of founding fathers, who originated Cognitive Linguistics in the late 1970s and

the early 1980s, two chronologically widening circles of cognitive linguists may

be discerned. (The lists that follow are obviously indicative only: they are not

meant to exclude anyone, but only to give you an idea of the different ‘generations’

of cognitive linguists.)

A first wave, coming to the fore in the second half of the 1980s and the beginning

of the 1990s, consists of the early collaborators and colleagues of the key figures,

together with a first generation of students. Names that come to mind include those

of Gilles Fauconnier, Eve Sweetser, Mark Johnson, Mark Turner, Raymond W.

Gibbs, William Croft, Adele Goldberg, Dave Tuggy, Gene Casad, Laura Janda,

Suzanne Kemmer, Sally Rice, Ricardo Maldonado, Karen Van Hoek, Geoff Nathan,

Margaret Winters, Sherman and Phyllis Wilcox, Margaret Freeman.

Simultaneously, a number of people in mostly Western and Central Europe took

up the ideas of Cognitive Linguistics and contributed to their international dissemination.

Names include those of René Dirven (to repeat: his instrumental role in the

expansion of Cognitive Linguistics can hardly be overestimated), Brygida Rudzka-

Ostyn, John Taylor, Zoltan Kövecses, Chris Sinha, Brigitte Nerlich, Arie Verhagen,

Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Elzbieta Tabakowska, Peter Harder, Günter

Radden, Susanne Niemeier, Martin Pütz, Hans-Jörg Schmid, Hubert Cuyckens

and the author of the present introduction.

The mid 1990s and later witnessed a second wave of expansion, with second

generation students and a further geographical spread directed largely towards Asia

and the rest of Europe. Names include those of Alan Cienki, Michel Achard, Joe

Grady, Tim Rohrer, Seana Coulson, Todd Oakley, Gary Palmer, Jose M. Garcia-

Miguel, Antonio Barcelona, Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza, Carlos Inchaurralde,

Andrej Kibrik, Ekaterina Rakhilina, Michael Tomasello, Ted Sanders, Wilbert

Spooren, Gerard Steen, Stefan Grondelaers, Stefan Gries, Anatol Stefanowitsch,

Yo Matsumoto.

In addition, you might profit from the occasion to rub elbows with people

who would perhaps not describe themselves unreservedly as cognitive linguists

(coming as they do from other theoretical families or other disciplines, or simply

because they like their independence), but who would show up at the Cognitive

Linguistics conferences because they have relevant things to say: linguists like

Charles Fillmore, Joan Bybee, Elizabeth Traugott, Östen Dahl, Jan Nuyts, or

psychologists like Melissa Bowerman, Dedre Gentner, and Dan Slobin.

Introduction: A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics

25

4. Why would you want to come back?

So now you know your way around in Cognitive Linguistics. You can walk the

walk and talk the talk, and there’s no way that you’d be exposed as a novice. But

why would you be coming back? What would be a good reason to become a permanent

resident? An obvious but relatively superficial motivation would be the

diversity of the panorama: there’s a lot to be found in the Cognitive Linguistics

archipelago, and the framework is not so strict as to stifle creativity. It’s a lively,

colorful, varied environment, and you’re likely to find some corner of special

significance to you, where you can do your thing and meet people with similar

interests. But beyond that? What would be the long-term importance of Cognitive

Linguistics?

Let us try to take a bird’s eye view of the history of linguistics, and see exactly

where Cognitive Linguistics fits in, and why it could be important for the future

of linguistics. Agreed, you can only achieve this sort of extreme synthesis if you

allow for massive simplification: let us try to keep that in mind as a proviso when

we do the exercise.

The development of linguistics in the twentieth century, then, is characterized

by a succession of two dominant approaches: the structuralist one, and the

generativist one. Currently, in the first decade of the 21st century, the generativist

paradigm is no longer the principal framework, but there clearly is no new central

approach yet. If one looks at Cognitive Linguistics from this perspective, there are

indications that Cognitive Linguistics combines a number of tendencies that may

also be found in other contemporary developments in theoretical linguistics – viz.

in the broad range of functionalist approaches to linguistics. By combining these

tendencies, Cognitive Linguistics taps directly into the undercurrent of contemporary

developments. Specifically, if we recognize that

fundamental underlying characteristic of the development of grammatical theory

in twentieth century linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics strongly embodies the

decontextualization is a

recontextualizing

The logic behind the decontextualization of twentieth century grammar may

be grasped if we take our starting-point in De Saussure, the founding father of the

structuralist approach. The Saussurean distinction between

system) and

internally divided grammar, a conception of language with, so to speak, a hole

in the middle. On the one hand,

system, a set of collective conventions, a common code shared by a community.

On the other hand,

producing specific combinations from the elements that are present in the code.

When

is the factor that bridges the distance between the social and the psychological,

tendency that is shared by most functionalist approaches.langue (the languageparole (the use of the language system in actual usage) creates anlangue is defined by De Saussure as a socialparole is an individual, psychological activity that consists oflangue and parole are defined in this way, there is a gap between both: what

26

Dirk Geeraerts

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?

The father of generative grammar, Noam Chomsky, provided an answer by

introducing a distinction between competence and performance: the missing link

between social code and individual usage is the individual’s knowledge of the

code. Performance, in the Chomskyan sense, is basically equivalent with Saussurean

parole

Competence is the internal grammar of the language user, the knowledge that

the language user has of the linguistic system and that he or she puts to use in

actual performance.

Remarkably, however, Chomsky introduces a new gap into the system. Rather

than the threefold classification that one might expect, he restricts his conception

of language to a new dichotomy: the social aspects of language are largely ignored.

In comparison with a ternary distinction distinguishing between

and

of the system, and individual use of the system), the binary distinction between

competence and performance creates a new empty slot, leaving the social aspects

of language largely out of sight.

This apparent lack of interest for language as a social sign system links up

logically with the Chomskyan emphasis on the genetic nature of natural language.

Where, in fact, does the individual knowledge of the language come from? If the

source of linguistic knowledge is not social, what else can it be than an innate and

universal endowment? If the language is not learned through acculturation in a

linguistic community, what other source could there be for linguistic knowledge

except genetics?

Further restrictions follow. Meanings constitute the variable, contextual, cultural

aspects of language par excellence. Because social interaction, the exchange

of ideas, changing conceptions of the world are primarily reflected in the meaning

of linguistic expressions, meanings are less interesting from a genetic point of

view. Also, if the lexicon is the main repository of linguistically encoded meaning,

studying the lexicon is of secondary importance: the focus will fall on the abstract

syntactic patterns. And finally, if linguistics focuses on formal rule systems, the

application of the rule systems in actual usage is relatively uninteresting. If the

rules define the grammar, it is hard to see what added value could be derived from

studying the way in which the rules are actually put to use. The study of performance,

in other words, is just as secondary as research into the lexicon.

In short, generative grammar led to a severe decontextualization of the grammar,

separating the autonomous grammatical module from different forms of context:

through the basic Chomskyan shift from

separated from the social context of language as a social code; through the focus

on the genetic aspects of the language, linguistics is separated from the cognitive

, but competence interiorizes the notion of the linguistic system.langue, competence,parole/performance (between social system, individual knowledgelangue to competence, linguistics is

Introduction: A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics

27

context of lived individual experience; through the focus on formal rule systems,

linguistics is separated from the situational context of actual language use.

Compared to this, Cognitive Linguistics is very much a recontextualizing

approach. First, it is an outspoken attempt to give meaning a central position in

the architecture of the grammar. Second, in contrast with formal semantics, the

conception of meaning that lies at the basis of this approach is not restricted to

a referential, truth-functional type of meaning – the type of meaning that you

could express in logical terms. Linguistic structures are thought to express conceptualizations,

and conceptualization goes further than mere reference. As we

have seen, it involves imagery in the broadest sense of the word: ways of making

sense, of imposing meaning. Also, the conceptualizations that are expressed

in natural language have an experiential basis, i.e., they link up with the way in

which human beings experience reality, both culturally and physiologically. In

this sense, Cognitive Linguistics embodies a fully contextualized conception of

meaning. Third, the link between linguistic performance and grammar is reestablished

by the view that language is usage-based, i.e. that there is a dialectic

relationship between

We can observe, then, that the various characteristics of Cognitive Linguistics

that you learned about in the first section of this introductory chapter and that

were further spelled out in twelve crucial concepts, can be summarized under

one general denominator: the

next, that this recontextualizing tendency is an underlying trend in contemporary

cognitive-functionalist linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics is probably one of the

most outspoken representatives of this tendency. Surely, it is not the only one,

and there are whole disciplines in linguistics that are devoted to the exploration

of specific forms of context, like sociolinguistics dealing with the social context,

or pragmatics and text linguistics dealing with the level of

Linguistics is specific in the extent to which it tries to integrate these different

tendencies into an overall model of language.

All of this does not mean, however, that Cognitive Linguistics has reached its

goal yet. To begin with, because it is far from being alone in pursuing a recontextualized

line of linguistic research, one of the major tasks for its future development

will be to systematically confront similar approaches within the broad cognitivefunctionalist

domain and see to what extent theoretical and empirical convergences

are possible. That is not going to be self-evident, given that Cognitive Linguistics

is not even a theoretically uniform framework on its own account.

Further, we cannot say that Cognitive Linguistics has already realized all the

consequences of the decontextualizing stance. For one thing, seeing language in the

context of the mind at large would seem to imply a lively interdisciplinary interaction

with the other sciences of the mind, but that is a trend that is only gradually

emerging in mainstream cognitive linguistic circles. For an other, recontextual

langue and parole.recontextualization of grammar. If we assume,parole. But Cognitive28

Dirk Geeraerts

izing language in its social context implies an awareness of the variation that is

inherent in the social life of language. Here again, sociolinguistically oriented

studies inspired by Cognitive Linguistics are only beginning to come into view.

In short, there is still a quite a lot to be done. Ultimately, that may well be

the best reason for coming back: not what has already been achieved, but what

still has to be done – all the exciting, inviting paths for further exploration. So

we will meet there, right?