A Glossary of Cognitive Linguisticstextosenlinea.com.ar/libros/Evans - A Glossary of... · 2012. 11. 24. · two best developed areas of cognitive linguistics: cognitive semantics

Cognitive linguistics is one of the most rapidly expanding schools in linguisticswith, by now, an impressive and complex technical vocabulary. This alphabeticguide gives an up-to-date introduction to the key terms in cognitive linguistics,covering all the major theories, approaches, ideas and many of the relevant theoretical constructs. The Glossary also features a brief introduction to cognitive linguistics, a detailed annotated reading list and a listing of some ofthe key researchers in cognitive linguistics. The Glossary can be used as a companion volume to Cognitive Linguistics, by Vyvyan Evans and MelanieGreen, or as a stand-alone introduction to cognitive linguistics and its two hitherto best developed sub-branches: cognitive semantics, and cognitiveapproaches to grammar.

Key features

• A handy and easily understandable pocket guide for anyone embarking on courses in cognitive linguistics, and language and mind.

• Supplies numerous cross-references to related terms.

• Includes coverage of newer areas such as Radical Construction Grammar,Embodied Construction Grammar, Primary Metaphor Theory and PrincipledPolysemy.

Vyvyan Evans is Professor of Cognitive Linguistics at the University of Brightonand author and editor of numerous books relating to cognitive linguistics. Theseinclude: The Structure of Time: The Semantics of English Prepositions (withAndrea Tyler); Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction (with Melanie Green); and The Cognitive Linguistics Reader (co-edited with Benjamin Bergen and Jörg Zinken). His research relates to cognitive lexical semantics, meaning-construction, conceptual structure and figurative language.

Cover design: River Design, Edinburgh

Edinburgh University Press22 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LF

ISBN 978 0 7486 2280 1

www.eup.ed.ac.uk

Edinb ur gh

barcode

A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics VYVYAN EVANS

A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics VYVYAN EVANS

AG

lossar yof

Cognitive

LinguisticsVYVYA

NEVA

NS

‘This Glossary is impressively exhaustive in its coverage. Itwill be an indispensable aid to students in linguistics andother disciplines who need to understand a theory whichis now coming of age, and advanced researchers will alsofind it a useful companion both for reference and forhelping to access original texts.’

Professor Chris Sinha, University of Portsmouth

‘Cognitive Linguistics is now developing rapidly, and, likeall new fields, this one has developed its own technicalmeta-language. Anyone needing a jargon-free guidethrough this fascinating new terrain will find exactly whatis needed in Vyv Evans’ joined-up explanations of thelandmark concepts and theories. The Glossary is far morethan an alphabetical list – it gives unity and coherence tothe Cognitive Linguistics project.’

Professor Paul Chilton, University of Lancaster

TITLES IN THE SERIES INCLUDE

Peter TrudgillA Glossary of Sociolinguistics978 0 7486 1623 7

Jean AitchisonA Glossary of Language and Mind978 0 7486 1824 8

Laurie BauerA Glossary of Morphology978 0 7486 1853 8

Alan DaviesA Glossary of Applied Linguistics978 0 7486 1854 5

Geoffrey LeechA Glossary of English Grammar978 0 7486 1729 6

Paul Baker, Andrew Hardie and Tony McEneryA Glossary of Corpus Linguistics978 0 7486 2018 0

Alan CruseA Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics978 0 7486 2111 8

Philip CarrA Glossary of Phonology978 0 7486 2234 4

Lyle Campbell and Mauricio J. MixcoA Glossary of Historical Linguistics978 0 7486 2379 2

A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics

Vyvyan Evans

Edinburgh University Press

This book is dedicated to Max and Isabella

© Vyvyan Evans, 2007

Edinburgh University Press Ltd22 George Square, Edinburgh

Typeset in Sabonby Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Manchester, and

printed and bound in Great Britain by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham, Wilts

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978 0 7486 2279 5 (hardback)ISBN 978 0 7486 2280 1 (paperback)

The right of Vyvyan Evansto be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with

the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Contents

Preface vi

Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics 1

Annotated Further Reading 225

Authors Mentioned 234

Preface

About cognitive linguisticsCognitive linguistics is a modern school of linguisticthought that originally emerged in the early 1970s. It is alsofirmly rooted in the emergence of modern cognitive sciencein the 1960s and 1970s, particularly in work relating tohuman categorisation, and in earlier traditions such asGestalt psychology. Cognitive linguistics is primarily con-cerned with investigating the relationship between lan-guage, the mind and socio-physical experience. The earliestpioneers in cognitive linguistics were responding, in part, todissatisfaction with formal approaches to language. Earlyresearch, especially in the 1970s, was dominated by a rela-tively small group of scholars based on the westernseaboard of the United States. During the 1980s, cognitivelinguistic research began to take root in northern continen-tal Europe, particularly in Belgium, Holland and Germany.By the early 1990s, there was a growing proliferation ofresearch in cognitive linguistics throughout Europe andNorth America, and a relatively large internationally dis-tributed group of researchers who identified themselvesas ‘cognitive linguists’. In 1989/1990, the InternationalCognitive Linguistics Society was established, together withthe journal Cognitive Linguistics. In the words of RonaldLangacker ([1991] 2002: xv), this ‘marked the birth ofcognitive linguistics as a broadly grounded, self conscious

intellectual movement.’ Today, cognitive linguistics is oneof the most rapidly expanding schools of theoretical lin-guistics with a flourishing international cognitive linguisticscommunity and national cognitive linguistics associationsin many countries throughout the world. Due to its inter-disciplinary nature, it is also one of the most exciting areasof study within cognitive science.

Further details about cognitive linguistics, including itshistorical development, its founding principles and assump-tions, and some of the main theoretical approaches whichpopulate it, are provided in an article length overview: seeEvans, Bergen and Zinken (2007). For a comprehensivebook-length introduction see Evans and Green (2006).

About this GlossaryThis Glossary represents an introduction to the hithertotwo best developed areas of cognitive linguistics: cognitivesemantics and cognitive approaches to grammar. That is,this Glossary represents an introduction to terms that havea special status in cognitive linguistics. Hence, it is not aGlossary of terms in general linguistics nor in cognitivescience. Accordingly, it does not include entries for termsthat have currency outside cognitive linguistics, unlesssuch terms have a ‘special’ status or interpretation withincognitive linguistics.

One of the difficulties in compiling a book of this sort liesin the fact that cognitive linguistics (and its two significantsub-branches) represents an approach to the study of lan-guage, the mind and embodied experience, rather than asingle closely articulated theory. The consequence of this isthat now, after nearly three decades since the publication ofLakoff and Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By in 1980, thereis a wide range of distinctive theoretical frameworks whichare cognitive linguistic in nature, and which each have theirown specialist terms and vocabulary.

A GLOSSARY OF COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS vii

To be sure, there are many terms employed in cognitivelinguistics that enjoy wide currency within the field.Nevertheless, there are many others which are primarilyused within the context of one of the two main sub-branches. There are also other terms that are only used inthe context of a specific approach or theory. Hence thereare inherent difficulties in selecting the terms to be coveredso as to avoid a volume of this sort becoming toounwieldy.

In order to constrain the nature and scope of termscovered in this volume, the selection has been based on theterms used in Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction,authored by Vyvyan Evans and Melanie Green. For themost part I have selected from the terms used in that bookas the basis for this volume, with a few additions. This hasnecessarily meant that some relatively important terms arenot covered in this volume. However, this would havebeen the case even with a volume twice the size of thepresent one. The rationale behind selecting terms based onthe Evans and Green book is that the present volume,while it could indeed be used as a stand-alone work of ref-erence, can also be employed by instructors and studentsas a companion volume to the Evans and Green textbook.This, I hope, will bring with it more advantages than dis-advantages, not least in that it provides a handy listing inA–Z format of many of the key terms featured in the Evansand Green textbook.

The entries provided in this Glossary have been writtenin a way so that related terms from within the same theorycan be read in conjunction with one another, providing auseable characterisation of a related and overlapping setof ideas rather than merely providing ‘dictionary-like’ def-initions. Entries contain items in bold-face, which lead tofurther entries. By following items in bold-face throughthe Glossary, it is envisaged that the reader should be able

viii A GLOSSARY OF COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

to get a basic grasp of the key theories, approaches, prin-ciples and other ideas in cognitive linguistics and some ofthe key theoretical constructs within each of the theoriesand approaches covered. The reader can then refer to theEvans and Green textbook introduction for more detailedexplication and examples.

Alternatively, the interested reader can use the Glossaryas a means of delving deeper into the by now voluminousliterature in cognitive linguistics. In order to aid thisprocess, the Glossary features an annotated list of furtherreading at the end of the book. This includes textbooks,works of reference and essential ‘primary literature’addressing all the areas of cognitive linguistics covered inthe Glossary. In addition, key researchers associated witheach of the constructs and/or theories are identified. Thefirst mention of a key researcher in cognitive linguistics ineach entry is italicised. There is a listing of all such namedscholars at the end of the Glossary, together with key-words relating to the areas of investigation with whichthey are associated. It is envisaged that this listing can beused as a means of further identifying and narrowingtopics and scholars of interest for further reading.

Cognitive linguistics offers exciting glimpses into hith-erto hidden aspects of the human mind, human experienceand, by consequence, what it is to be human. I hope thatby making the technical language associated with cogni-tive linguistics more readily accessible, students, interestedlay-readers and scholars from neighbouring disciplinesmay thus be able to get a glimpse into what it is that makesthose of us engaged in cognitive linguistics research soexcited.

Vyvyan EvansBrighton, September 2006www.vyvevans.net

A GLOSSARY OF COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS ix

ReferencesEvans, Vyvyan and Melanie Green (2006) Cognitive

Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ andEdinburgh: Edinburgh University Press/LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Evans, Vyvyan, Benjamin Bergen and Jörg Zinken (2007)‘The Cognitive Linguistics Enterprise: An Overview’, inV. Evans, B. Bergen and J. Zinken (eds), The CognitiveLinguistics Reader. London: Equinox.

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson (1980) Metaphors WeLive By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Langacker, Ronald ([1991] 2002) Concept, Image,Symbol, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

x A GLOSSARY OF COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

abstract domain A domain (1) which is not directlygrounded in embodied experience and thus stands incontrast to a basic domain. Abstract domains includemarriage, love or medieval musicology. Althoughsuch domains are ultimately derived from embodiedexperience, they are more complex in nature. Forinstance, our knowledge of love may involve knowl-edge relating to basic domains, such as directly emb-odied experiences like touch, sexual relations andphysical proximity, and may also involve knowledgerelating to abstract domains, such as experience ofcomplex social activities like marriage ceremonies,hosting dinner parties and so on. (See also CognitiveGrammar.)

abstraction (1) In a usage-based model of language, theprocess whereby structure emerges as the result ofthe generalisation of patterns across instances of lan-guage use. For example, a speaker acquiring Englishwill, as the result of frequent exposure, ‘discover’recurring words, phrases and sentences in the utter-ances they hear, together with the range of meaningsassociated with those units. A special kind of abstrac-tion is schematisation. (See also usage-based thesis,utterance.)

A

abstraction (2) One of the three parameters of focaladjustment. Relates to how specific or detailed thedescription of a scene is. This also has consequencesfor the type of construction selected. Consider the fol-lowing examples:

1. Isabella threw a rattle at the TV and smashed it2. Isabella smashed the TV

The example in (2) is more abstract (less detailed)than the example in (1). In this way, abstraction relatesto the level of attention paid to a scene, in terms of levelof detail. (See also construal, focal adjustment, per-spective, selection.)

access Refers to the phenomenon in LCCM Theorywhereby the selection of a given lexical concept makesa particular cognitive model profile accessible for acti-vation. In practice only a small part of a cognitivemodel profile is ever activated in the construction ofany given conception. (See also access site, cognitivemodel, lexical concept selection.)

Access Principle (also ID Principle) Captures one ofthe central structuring properties associated withmental space formation and their proliferation interms of a mental spaces lattice. The Access Principleholds that any linguistic expression that names ordescribes a particular element in a given mentalspace may be employed in order to access an elementin a distinct mental space that is linked to it via aconnector. In other words, the Access Principle cap-tures the insight that an element in one mental spacecan be accessed by its counterpart element in anotherby virtue of the counterparts being related by con-nectors.

2 A GLOSSARY OF COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

To illustrate, consider the following example: JamesBond is a top British spy. In the film, Sean Connery getsto kiss Pussy Galore. In this example, each sentence setsup its own mental space, involving the elements JamesBond in the first, and Sean Connery and Pussy Galorein the second. As James Bond and Sean Connery (theactor who played James Bond in the movie Goldfinger)are counterparts linked by a connector, the expression

A GLOSSARY OF COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS 3

a1

a1: NAME: JAMES BOND

Base

NAME: SEANCONNERY

NAME: PUSSYGALORE

a2 b

MOVIE

a2:

b:

Figure 1. Illustration of the Access Principle

Sean Connery can be used to access or identify the char-acter he plays: we are meant to understand that in themovie it is James Bond (rather than Sean Connery whois not in fact a spy) who does the kissing. This is set indiagrammatic form in Figure 1 where the circles repre-sent distinct mental spaces and the elements in each,James Bond (a1) and Sean Connery (a2) are linked by aconnector, signalled by the line relating a1 and a2. (Seealso Mental Spaces Theory, Optimisation Principle.)

access route The path of activation through a cognitivemodel profile afforded by a lexical concept given theparticular linguistic and extralinguistic context inwhich it is embedded. (See also access, access site,LCCM Theory.)

access site The point in a cognitive model profile where alexical concept affords access. (See also access route,LCCM Theory.)

action chain A model proposed in Cognitive Grammarwhich serves as the conceptual basis for the semanticnotions of agent and patient. An action chaininvolves an active ‘energy source’ that transfers energyto an ‘energy sink’. The ‘prototypical action’ is char-acterised in terms of the transfer of energy from agentto patient, resulting in a change of state of thepatient, as in the following sentence: Isabella smashedthe TV. This is illustrated in Figure 2, where A repre-sents agent and P represents patient.

activation The process, in LCCM Theory, whereby partof the semantic potential to which a lexical conceptaffords access is recruited for purposes of local com-munication in a given utterance.


active zone That part of an entity which is cognitivelyactivated, and thus ‘active’, by virtue of linguisticcontext. For instance, in examples such as the fol-lowing:

1. Max heard the trumpet2. Max saw the trumpet

the verbs hear and saw serve to activate differentaspects of our knowledge associated with trumpets. In(1), the active zone relates to knowledge concerningthe kind of sound emitted by trumpets, while in (2) theactive zone concerns the visual properties associatedwith trumpets, such as their shape and colour. Thenotion of an active zone is an important construct inCognitive Grammar.

altered replication The process of language changewhereby innovation occurs. Altered replication takesplace when a replicator is altered slightly in an utter-ance. For an innovation to give rise to languagechange, the lingueme which has been subject to alteredreplication must undergo propagation through alanguage community. Altered replication can involveboth an innovation with respect to form, for inst-ance the sound pattern of a given word, or use, forexample the meaning associated with a given word.(See also usage-based thesis, Utterance SelectionTheory.)


Figure 2. The prototypical action chain model

A P

argument roles In Construction Grammar (2), a semantic‘slot’ associated with sentence-level constructionssuch as verb argument constructions. Argument rolesinclude agent and patient and contrast with the morespecific construct of participant roles. (See also con-structional profiling, fusion (1).)

argument structure (also valence) The number of argu-ments, that is participants or entities, that a word-levelrelational predication such as a verb may be combinedwith. For instance, a verb like die only involves a singleparticipant: She died, while a verb such as loveinvolves two: I love you, and a verb like put involvesthree: He put the butter on the table. The notion ofargument structure is central to the verb argumentconstructions studied in Construction Grammar (2).

Atemporal relations A sub-category of the larger categoryrelational predication. Atemporal relations includeprepositions, adjectives, adverbs and non-finite verbforms (infinitives and participles), and contrast withtemporal relations. The domain of time underlies thedistinction between temporal and atemporal relations.Atemporal relations are accessed via summary scan-ning. Atemporal relations can be divided into twotypes: simple atemporal relations and complex atem-poral relations. (See also conceived time, processingtime, sequential scanning.)

attentional system One of the four schematic systemswhich form part of the conceptual structuring system.The attentional system governs the distribution ofattention over matter and action (scenes and their par-ticipants), and is governed by three main factors:strength, pattern, and mapping. (See also Conceptual


Structuring System Approach, configurational system,force-dynamics system, perspectival system, schematiccategories.)

autonomy A termed coined by Alan Cruse in hisapproach to lexical semantics. Refers to the degree ofconventionalisation associated with a word-meaningthat secures relative context-independence and thusidentifies a distinct sense. Examples of word senseswhich are not fully autonomous include a sub-senseand a facet.

axiality One of the schematic categories in the configura-tional system. Axiality relates to the way a quantity ofspace or time is structured according to a directed axis.For example, the adjectives well and sick are points onan axis relating to health. On the axis, well is the end-point, whereas sick is the remainder of the axis. Thisexplains the different distribution of the closed classdegree modifiers like almost and slightly. While it ispossible to be slightly sick or almost well, it is not pos-sible to be *slightly well or *almost sick. This followsfrom the axiality model because it is not possible to be‘slightly’ at an endpoint, nor ‘almost’ on the journeytowards that endpoint. This is illustrated in Figure 3.(See also boundedness, Conceptual Structuring SystemApproach, degree of extension, dividedness, pattern ofdistribution, plexity, schematic systems.)

axial properties In a spatial scene the figure is located byvirtue of the axial properties associated with a givenreference object. For instance, in a sentence of the fol-lowing kind: The bike is in front of the house, the bikecan be located by virtue of ‘searching’ for the bike, thefigure, in the region in front of the house. However,


this process occurs by virtue of the reference object, thehouse, having a number of ‘axial’ divisions: front, backand side areas. These areas of the reference object con-stitute axial properties and are employed in the estab-lishment of a spatial relation. Some reference objectsare symmetric and thus fail to manifest intrinsic axialproperties. In such situations a secondary referenceobject is required in order to provide the (primary) ref-erence object with axial properties. (See also referenceframe, figure-ground organisation.)

Aymara An indigenous language of South America,spoken in the Andean region of Peru, Chile andBolivia. Aymara is notable for the way in which itstructures time. Rafael Núñez and Eve Sweetser reportthat while Aymara features variants of both an ego-based cognitive model for time and a time-based cog-nitive model for time, in the ego-based model, Aymaraspeakers conceptualise the future as being locatedbehind the ego, while past is conceptualised as beingin front of the ego. (See also cognitive models for time,moving ego model, moving time model.)

backstage cognition A term coined by Gilles Fauconnier.Refers to the observation that much of what goes on in

B


Figure 3. The axiality model

sick

well

the construction of meaning occurs ‘behind the scenes’.Fauconnier argues that language does not encodethought in its complex entirety but encodes rudimen-tary instructions for the creation of rich and elaborateideas. Fauconnier gives the label ‘backstage cognition’to these ‘behind-the-scenes’ conceptualisation processesthat are involved in meaning construction.

backward projection A consequence of conceptual inte-gration. As the input spaces in an integration networkremain connected to the blended space, they can bemodified as a result of emergent structure in theblended space: the process of backward projection.For instance, consider the clinton as french presi-dent blend discussed in the entry for conceptualintegration, and which arises due to the followingutterance: In France, Clinton would not have beenharmed by his affair Monica Lewinsky. The structurethat emerges in the blended space is projected back tothe input spaces. This is the process that gives rise tothe disanalogy between the USA and France. In otherwords, a contrast is established between the nature ofFrench and American moral attitudes governing thebehaviour of politicians. (See also Blending Theory.)

base That part of the domain matrix necessary for under-standing the profile of a linguistic unit. For instance,the lexical item hypotenuse profiles the longest side ofa right-angled triangle. The base constitutes the largerstructure, the right-angled triangle, of which thehypotenuse constitutes a sub-structure. The largerstructure, the base, is essential for understanding thenotion hypotenuse. (See also Cognitive Grammar,scope of predication.)


base space The mental space which represents the startingpoint for a particular stage in discourse, such as thebeginning of a conversation. The base space serves toset up the discourse; it is with respect to the base spacethat a mental spaces lattice is anchored. In ongoing dis-course, the base space is the mental space to which theconversation can return at any time. (See also eventspace, focus space, Mental Spaces Theory, viewpointspace.)

basic domain A domain (1) which derives directly fromhuman embodied experience, and which stands in con-trast to an abstract domain. Basic domains are derivedfrom both sensory experience and subjective experience.A non-exhaustive list of basic domains, and their expe-riential basis, is given in Table 1. (See also CognitiveGrammar.)

basic level According to Prototype Theory, the level ofcategory formation which is held to be optimal forhuman beings in terms of cognitive economy. Thislevel of categorisation provides a level of informationat the mid-level of detail, between the most inclusiveand least inclusive levels: the superordinate and thesubordinate levels respectively. The basic level is asso-ciated with categories like car, dog and chair. Thesuperordinate level (more inclusive) is associated withcategories such as vehicle, animal and furniture. Thesubordinate level (less inclusive) is associated with cat-egories such as sportscar, collie and rockingchair, respectively. The basic level also maximises dif-ferences between categories at the same level. Forinstance, a car is extremely distinct from a dog (bothare at the basic level), whereas a collie is relativelyless distinct from an Alsatian (both at the subordinate


level). It has been claimed by Eleanor Rosch that cate-gories formed at the basic level tend to emerge firstboth developmentally and in language acquisition, andcategories at this level are most easily recognised andidentified. (See also cue validity, prototype, prototypestructure.)

blend see blended space

blended space (also blend) In an integration network, themental space which results from conceptual integra-tion, giving rise to emergent structure. (See alsoBlending Theory.)

blending see conceptual integration


Table 1. Basic domains

Basic domain Pre-conceptual basis

space Visual system; motion and position(proprioceptive) sensors in skin, musclesand joints; vestibular system (located inthe auditory canal; detects motion andbalance)

colour Visual system

pitch Auditory system

temperature Tactile (touch) system

pressure Pressure sensors in the skin, muscles andjoints

pain Detection of tissue damage by nervesunder the skin

odour Olfactory (smell) system

time Temporal awareness

emotion Affective (emotion) system

Blending Theory (also known as Conceptual BlendingTheory, Conceptual Integration Theory, Many SpaceModel) Developed by Gilles Fauconnier and MarkTurner, Blending Theory derives from two traditionswithin cognitive semantics: Conceptual MetaphorTheory and Mental Spaces Theory. Blending Theoryholds that meaning construction involves integration ofstructure that gives rise to more than the sum of itsparts. The mechanism that facilitates this, known asconceptual integration or ‘blending’, is held to be ageneral and basic cognitive operation which is centralto the way we think. In terms of its architecture, and interms of its central concerns, Blending Theory is mostclosely related to Mental Spaces Theory, not least dueto its use of mental spaces and mental space construc-tion as a key part of its architecture. However, BlendingTheory is a distinct theory that has been developed toaccount for phenomena that Mental Spaces Theory,and indeed Conceptual Metaphor Theory, cannot ade-quately account for. Moreover, Blending Theory addssignificant theoretical sophistication of its own.

Blending Theory was originally developed in orderto account for the role of language in meaning con-struction, particularly ‘creative’ aspects of meaningconstruction like novel metaphors, counterfactualsand so on. However, recent research has given rise tothe view that conceptual blending is central to humanthought and imagination, and that evidence for thiscan be found not only in human language, but also ina wide range of other areas of human activity. In par-ticular, Fauconnier and Turner argue that the ability toperform conceptual integration or blending may havebeen the key mechanism in facilitating the develop-ment of advanced human behaviours that rely oncomplex symbolic abilities. These include rituals, art,


tool manufacture and use, and the development of lan-guage. (See also constitutive processes, goals of blend-ing, governing principles, integration network.)

bodily mimesis see mimesis

boundedness One of the schematic categories in the con-figurational system. Boundedness relates to whether aquantity is understood as having inherent boundaries(bounded) or not (unbounded). In the domain ofspace, this is the basis of the count/mass noun distinc-tion. For example, count nouns like nightdress andblouse have bounded structure, in that each designatesan entity with inherent ‘edges’, which can thus be indi-viduated and counted. On the other hand, mass nounslike champagne and money do not have inherent‘edges’ and therefore cannot be individuated andcounted. In the domain of time, boundedness is thebasis of the distinction between perfect and imperfectgrammatical aspect, as illustrated below:

1. Max has left the toy shop [Perfect]2. Max is leaving the toy shop [Imperfect]

Example (1) is grammatically marked for perfect aspectby the presence of the perfect auxiliary have followedby the past participle left. Perfect aspect encodes anevent that is completed and can thus be thought of asbounded. Example (2) is grammatically marked forimperfect (progressive) aspect by the progressive auxil-iary be, followed by the progressive participle leaving.Imperfect aspect encodes an event that is ‘ongoing’and can thus be thought of as unbounded. (See alsoConceptual Structuring System Approach, degree ofextension, dividedness, pattern of distribution, plexity,schematic systems.)


building block metaphor A term coined by RonaldLangacker. Relates to the view, held by scholars informal linguistics, that the meaning of a complexexpression is the result of compositionally adding themeaning of the individual units, the ‘principle of com-positionality’. For Langacker, and others in cognitivelinguistics, this principle is erroneous.

caused motion construction One of the verb argumentconstructions studied by Adele Goldberg in the devel-opment of her theory of Construction Grammar (2).This construction (1) has the syntax [subj [v objobl]], where obl (which is short for ‘oblique’ object)denotes a directional PP. The construction has thesemantics X causes Y to move Z, where Z desig-nates a path of motion expressed by the directionalPP. The construction is illustrated by the followingexample: Max sneezed the birthday cards off thetable. Like several of the constructions studied byGoldberg, the caused motion construction exhibitsconstructional polysemy. The properties of the con-struction are summarised in Table 2. (See also argu-ment roles.)

C


Table 2. Properties of the English caused motionconstruction

The English caused-motion construction: X causes Y to move Z

Contributes caused motion semantics that cannot be attributed to the lexical verb

Contributes caused motion semantics that cannot be attributed to the preposition

The causer argument role cannot be an instrument

chaining A phenomenon exhibited in a radial categorybetween distinct senses (or lexical concepts) associatedwith a given word. Chaining relates to the situationwhereby new senses emerge that are intermediate withrespect to the prototype (or ideal meaning) and theperipheral senses. Chaining is therefore the phenome-non whereby the central and peripheral senses are con-nected by virtue of intermediate senses. The range ofmechanisms that have been proposed within the cog-nitive lexical semantics literature as giving rise tochaining include metaphor, metonymy, image schematransformation and pragmatic strengthening.

classical category A category, so called because it is possi-ble to provide necessary and jointly sufficient condi-tions for determining that an entity belongs to aparticular category. Examples of such categoriesinclude the categories bachelor and odd number.Nevertheless, since the advent of Eleanor Rosch’swork on Prototype Theory it has become clear thateven classical categories exhibit typicality effects. Forinstance, some members of the odd number categorysuch as 1, 3, 5 and 9 are typically judged as being betterexamples of the category than high odd numbers suchas 1001. (See also Classical Theory.)

Classical Theory The widely accepted account of the wayhumans categorise that was the prevalent model fromthe time of Aristotle until the early 1970s. This theoryholds that conceptual and linguistic categories have‘definitional structure’. This means that an entity repre-sents a category member by virtue of fulfilling a set ofnecessary and (jointly) sufficient conditions for categorymembership. These conditions are called ‘necessaryand sufficient’ because they are individually necessary


but only collectively sufficient to define a category.Traditionally, the conditions were thought to be sensoryor perceptual in nature. To illustrate, consider the cate-gory bachelor. For an entity to belong to this category,it must adhere to the following conditions: ‘is notmarried’; ‘is male’; ‘is an adult’. Each of these condi-tions is necessary for defining the category, but none ofthem is individually sufficient, because ‘is not married’could equally hold for spinster, while ‘is male’ couldequally hold for husband, and so on. During the 1970sexperimental findings which emerged under the bannerof Prototype Theory showed the Classical Theory ofcategorisation to be implausible as a model of humancategorisation.

closed class forms A set of linguistic forms to which it istypically more difficult for a language to add newmembers. Closed class forms are normally taken toinclude the ‘grammatical’ or ‘function’ words of a lan-guage. In English these include articles, prepositions,pronouns, inflectional morphemes and so forth. Interms of the meaning contributed by the closed classelements they provide schematic meaning. They con-tribute to the interpretation of an utterance in impor-tant but often subtle ways, providing a kind of‘scaffolding’ which supports and structures the contentmeaning provided by open class forms. (See also con-ceptual structuring system, implicit closed class form,overt closed class form.)

cluster model Consists of a number of converging ICMswhich collectively give rise to a complex cluster whichthus forms a stable large-scale model. The clustermodel is held to be psychologically more complex thanthe individual ICMs which comprise it. According to


George Lakoff who developed the notion of ICMs, thecategory mother is an instance of cluster model.Lakoff suggests that the mother cluster model is madeup of the following ICMs:

1. the birth model: a mother is the person whogives birth to the child.

2. the genetic model: a mother is the person whoprovides the genetic material for the child.

3. the nurturance model: a mother is the personwho brings up and looks after the child.

4. the marital model: a mother is married to thechild’s father.

5. the genealogical model: a mother is a particu-lar female ancestor.

coding In Cognitive Grammar, the process whereby aspeaker searches for a linguistic expression in order toexpress a concept. If the symbolic assembly the speakerarrives at matches symbolic assemblies existing in hisor her inventory, this represents a case of sanction andthus well-formedness.

cognition Relates to all aspects of conscious and uncon-scious mental function. In particular, cognition consti-tutes the mental events (mechanisms and processes)and knowledge involved in a whole host of tasksranging from ‘low-level’ object perception to ‘high-level’ decision-making tasks.

cognitive approaches to grammar A cognitive approach togrammar is concerned with modelling the languagesystem (the mental ‘grammar’) in ways which are con-sistent with the generalisation commitment and the cog-nitive commitment associated with the larger cognitive


linguistics enterprise. Cognitive approaches also adhereto the two guiding principles of cognitive approaches togrammar. These are the symbolic thesis and the usage-based thesis. In addition, cognitive approaches take astheir starting point the conclusions of work in cognitivesemantics. This follows as meaning is central to cogni-tive approaches to grammar; although the study of cog-nitive semantics and cognitive approaches to grammarare occasionally separate in practice, this by no meansimplies that their domains of enquiry are anything buttightly linked. Indeed, most work in cognitive linguisticsfinds it necessary to investigate both semantics andgrammar in tandem.

Researchers who adopt a cognitive approach togrammar have typically adopted one of two foci.Scholars such as Ronald Langacker have emphasisedthe study of the cognitive principles that give rise tolinguistic organisation. In his theory of CognitiveGrammar, Langacker has attempted to delineate theprinciples that structure a grammar and to relate theseto aspects of general cognition.

The second avenue of investigation, pursued byresearchers including William Croft, Charles Fillmoreand Paul Kay, Adele Goldberg, George Lakoff, LauraMichaelis and others, and more recently BenjaminBergen and Nancy Chang, aims to provide a moredescriptively and formally detailed account of the lin-guistic units that comprise a particular language. Theseresearchers attempt to provide a broad-ranging inven-tory of the units of language, from morphemes towords, idiomatic expressions and phrasal patterns,and seek accounts of their structure, compositionalpossibilities and relations. Researchers who havepursued this line of investigation are developing a setof theories that are collectively known as construction


grammars. This general approach takes its name fromthe view in cognitive linguistics that the basic unit oflanguage is a form-meaning pairing known as a con-struction (1). (See also linguistic unit.)

cognitive commitment One of the two foundational com-mitments of cognitive linguistics. Represents the viewthat the principles of linguistic structure should reflectwhat is known about human cognition from otherdisciplines, particularly the other cognitive sciences(philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence and neu-roscience). It follows from the cognitive commitmentthat language and linguistic organisation should reflectgeneral cognitive principles rather than cognitive prin-ciples that are specific to language. This commitment,central to and definitional of cognitive linguistics, leadsto the generalisation commitment and the rejection bycognitive linguists of the modular approach to languageand the mind adopted in formal linguistics.

cognitive economy Relates to the way in which humancategorisation works so as to provide a maximallyefficient way of representing information about fre-quently encountered objects. Cognitive economy isoften stated in terms of the probabilistic notion cuevalidity. Cue validity is maximised at the basic level,because basic level categories share the largest numberof attributes possible while minimising the extent towhich these features are shared by other categories.This means that basic level categories simultaneouslymaximise the amount of detail they include in theirrepresentations (their ‘level of inclusiveness’), whilemaximising their distinctiveness from other categories.This results in optimal cognitive conomy. (See also pro-totype, Prototype Theory.)


Cognitive Grammar The theoretical framework associ-ated with Ronald Langacker which has been underdevelopment since the mid-1970s and is best repre-sented in his two Foundations of Cognitive Grammarvolumes published in 1987 and 1991 respectively. Thisis also the most detailed and comprehensive theory ofgrammar to have been developed within cognitive lin-guistics, and to date has been the most influential of thecognitive approaches to grammar.

Cognitive Grammar attempts to model the cognitivemechanisms and principles that motivate and licensethe formation and use of linguistic units of varyingdegrees of complexity. Like the Conceptual StructuringSystem Approach developed by Leonard Talmy andthe group of theories known as construction gram-mars, Langacker argues that grammatical or closedclass forms are inherently meaningful. Unlike Talmy,he does not assume that open class forms and closedclass forms represent distinct conceptual subsystems.

Instead, Langacker argues that both types of unitbelong within a single structured inventory of conven-tionalised linguistic units which represents knowledgeof language in the mind of the speaker, giving rise to alexicon-grammar continuum. For Langacker, knowl-edge of language (the mental grammar) is represented inthe mind of the speaker as an inventory of symbolicassemblies. The symbolic assembly, which can besimplex or complex, is the basic unit of grammar.Accordingly, Cognitive Grammar subscribes to the sym-bolic thesis. It is only once an expression has been usedsufficiently frequently and has undergone entrench-ment: acquiring the status of a habit or a ‘cognitiveroutine’, that it achieves the status of a linguistic unit.From this perspective, a linguistic unit is a symbolicentity that is not built compositionally by the lang-


uage system but is stored and accessed as a whole.Furthermore, the linguistic units represented in thespeaker’s grammar reflect usage conventions. The con-ventionality of a linguistic unit relates to the idea thatlinguistic expressions become part of the grammar of alanguage by virtue of being shared among members ofa speech community. Thus conventionality is a matterof degree. For instance, an expression like dog is moreconventional (shared by more members of the English-speaking community) than an expression like allo-phone, which is shared only by a subset of Englishspeakers with specialist knowledge relating to the studyof linguistics. The roles of entrenchment and conven-tionality in this model of grammar emerge from theusage-based thesis. Accordingly, Cognitive Grammar issometimes referred to as the usage-based model ofgrammar.

The repository of entrenched symbolic assemblies isconceived in Cognitive Grammar as a mental inventory.Yet the contents of this inventory are not stored in arandom way. The inventory is structured, and this struc-ture lies in the relationships between symbolic assem-blies. For example, some units form sub-parts of otherunits which in turn form sub-parts of other units (forexample, morphemes make up words and words makeup phrases which in turn make up sentences). This set ofinterlinking and overlapping relationships is conceivedas a structured network, and Langacker presents this interms of a network model. The entities which populatethe network of symbolic assemblies are constrained bywhat Langacker refers to as the content requirement.

cognitive lexical semantics An approach to lexical seman-tics (word-meaning) that assumes the guiding princi-ples of cognitive semantics. Key contributors to this


approach include Claudia Brugman, Hubert Cuyckens,Paul Deane, Vyvyan Evans, Dirk Geeraerts, AnetteHerskovits, George Lakoff, Andrea Tyler and ClaudeVandeloise. (See also chaining, cognitive semantics,over, semantic network.)

cognitive linguistics (also cognitive linguistics enterprise)A school of linguistics and cognitive science whichemerged from the early 1980s onwards. Places centralimportance on the role of meaning, conceptualprocesses and embodied experience in the study of lan-guage and the mind and the way in which they intersect.Cognitive linguistics is an enterprise or an approach tothe study of language and the mind rather than a singlearticulated theoretical framework. It is informed by twooverarching principles or commitments: the generalisa-tion commitment and the cognitive commitment. Thetwo best developed sub-branches of cognitive linguisticsare cognitive semantics and cognitive approaches togrammar. While cognitive linguistics began to emerge inthe 1980s as a broadly grounded intellectual movement,it traces its roots to work that was taking place in the1970s, particularly in the United States, which wasreacting to formal linguistics. Early pioneers in the1970s who were instrumental in formulating this newapproach include Gilles Fauconnier, Charles Fillmore,George Lakoff, Ronald Langacker and Leonard Talmy.

cognitive linguistics enterprise see cognitive linguistics

cognitive model A central construct in LCCM Theory.Cognitive models, while related to the notion of frame,semantic frame and domain (1), are distinct from allthree. The distinct notion of cognitive model is necessaryfor understanding the way lexical concepts contribute to


meaning construction. The main claim is that a givenlexical concept provides an access site to cognitivemodels and are relativised with respect to them. A cog-nitive model is a coherent, in large-part non-linguistic,knowledge structure. That is, it is a richly specified con-ceptual entity which represents an interface betweenrichly specified conceptual knowledge and nodes ofaccess at particular points in the cognitive model pro-vided by specific lexical concepts. Thus lexical conceptsprovide particular established (i.e. conventional) per-spectives or construals with respect to the set of cogni-tive models: the cognitive model profile, accessed via agiven lexical concept.

Cognitive models relate to coherent bodies ofknowledge of any kind, being multi-modal conceptualentities, which can be used as a basis for perceptualsimulation. For instance, they include knowledge relat-ing to specific entities, such as the complex knowledgeassociated with a ‘car’, or a more specific entity suchas ‘my car’. They include information such as whetherthe car needs filling up and when I last cleaned its inte-rior. Cognitive models can relate to ‘procedural’ bodiesof knowledge such as ‘cultural scripts’ which formtemplates for how to interact in restaurants in order tobe seated and secure a meal, for instance. Cognitivemodels also include bodies of knowledge relating tomore abstract entities such as containment, love andphysics. They operate at varying levels of detail andwhile stable, are dynamic, being in a perpetual state ofmodification and renewal by virtue of ongoing experi-ence, mediated both by linguistic and non-linguisticinteraction with others and one’s environment.

cognitive model profile A theoretical construct in LCCMTheory. Refers to the set of cognitive models to which


a given lexical concept affords access. The cognitivemodel profile serves to provide the semantic potentialfrom which, in conjunction with processes of lexicalconcept integration, conceptual structure is selected,contributing to the emergence of a conception.

By way of illustrating the relationship between alexical concept and its cognitive model profile, considerthe lexical concept [france]; note that a lexicalconcept is glossed using small capitals in square brack-ets. This lexical concept provides access to a largenumber of cognitive models – its cognitive modelprofile – at a particular access site, which is to say a par-ticular point in the cognitive model profile. A verypartial cognitive model profile for this lexical conceptis provided in Figure 4. In Figure 4, the lexical concept[france] provides access to a potentially large numberof knowledge structures. As each cognitive model con-sists of structured knowledge providing access to othersorts of knowledge, we can distinguish between cogni-tive models which are directly accessed via the lexicalconcept and those cognitive models which form sub-structures of the directly accessed cognitive models.That is, such ‘secondary’ models are indirectly accessedvia the lexical concept. Accordingly, a cognitive modelprofile is a structured inventory of knowledge whichlexical concepts afford access to.

For instance, the directly accessed cognitive modelsinclude (at the very least) the following: geographi-cal landmass, nation state and holiday destina-tion. Each of these cognitive models provides accessto a sophisticated and large body of knowledge.In Figure 4 a flavour of this is given by virtue ofthe various ‘secondary’ cognitive models which areaccessed via the nation state cognitive model. Theseinclude national sports, political system and


cuisine. For instance, we may know that in France,the French engage in national sports of particulartypes, for instance football, rugby, athletics and so on,and take part in competitions of various kinds includ-ing the FIFA football World Cup, the Six Nationsrugby competition and the Rugby World Cup, theOlympics and so on. That is, we may have access to alarge body of knowledge concerning the sorts of sportsFrench people engage in. We may also have someknowledge of the funding structures and social andeconomic conditions and constraints that apply tothese sports in France, France’s international standingin these particular sports and further knowledge aboutthe sports themselves including the rules that governtheir practice, and so on. This knowledge is derivedfrom a large number of sources.


GEOGRAPHICALLANDMASS

NATIONSTATE

CONSTITUTIONALSYSTEM

POLITICALSYSTEM

[FRANCE]

ELECTORATE

HOLIDAYDESTINATION

HEAD OFSTATE

NATIONALSPORTS

CUISINE

Figure 4. Partial cognitive model profile for [france]

With respect to the indirectly accessed cognitivemodel of political system, Figure 4 illustrates asample of further cognitive models which are accessedvia this cognitive model. In other words, each ‘sec-ondary’ cognitive model has further secondary cogni-tive models which it provides access to. For instance,(french) electorate is a cognitive model accessedvia the cognitive model (french) political system.In turn the cognitive model (french) politicalsystem is accessed via the cognitive model nationstate.

cognitive poetics An approach to the study of literaturewhich applies ideas, constructs and methodology fromcognitive linguistics. One of the most influential pio-neers in cognitive poetics is Mark Turner.

cognitive representation (also CR) A term coined byLeonard Talmy, similar in nature to the notion of theconceptual system. In Talmy’s Conceptual StructuringSystem Approach the language user employs linguisticresources specialised for encoding and externalisinghis/her cognitive representation.

cognitive semantics The area of study known as cognitivesemantics is concerned with investigating the relation-ship between experience, the conceptual system andthe semantic structure encoded by language. In spe-cific terms, scholars working in cognitive semanticsinvestigate conceptual structure (knowledge represen-tation) and conceptualisation (meaning construction).Cognitive semanticists have employed language as thelens through which these cognitive phenomena canbe investigated. Consequently, research in cognitivesemantics tends to be interested in modelling the


human mind as much as it is concerned with investi-gating linguistic semantics.

Like the larger enterprise of cognitive linguistics ofwhich it forms a subset, cognitive semantics representsan approach rather than a single articulated theory.There are four guiding principles of cognitive seman-tics that characterise the approach. Some examples oftheories in cognitive semantics include BlendingTheory, Conceptual Metaphor Theory, FrameSemantics, Mental Spaces Theory, LCCM Theory,Principled Polysemy and approaches to linguisticsemantics such as cognitive lexical semantics and ency-clopaedic semantics.

communicative intention The second important aspect ofthe human intention-reading ability, central to firstlanguage acquisition, involves the recognition of com-municative intention. This happens when the childrecognises that others are intentional agents and thatlanguage represents a special kind of intention: theintention to communicate. For example, when theadult says rubber duck, the adult is identifying the toythat is the joint focus of attention and is employingthis linguistic symbol to express the intention that thechild follow the attention of the adult. (See also jointattention frame, pattern-finding ability, role reversalimitation, socio-cognitive mechanisms in languageacquisition.)

completion (also known as pattern completion) InBlending Theory, one of the three component processesthat give rise to emergent structure. Completion invol-ves schema induction: the recruitment of backgroundframes. These complete the composition. For instance,in the clinton as french president integration


network, which is prompted by the utterance: In France,Clinton wouldn’t have been harmed by his affair withMonica Lewinsky, the process of completion introducesthe frames for french politics and french moralattitudes. (For discussion of this blend see the entry forconceptual integration.) Without the structure providedby these frames, we would lose the central inferenceemerging from the blend, which is that Clinton’s affairwith Lewinsky would not harm Clinton in France. Thisprocess of schema induction is called ‘completion’because structure is recruited to ‘fill out’ or complete theinformation projected from the inputs in order to derivethe emergent structure in the blended space. (See alsocompletion, constitutive principles, elaboration (1),frame.)

complex Refers to a symbolic assembly which containssmaller symbolic assemblies as subparts. Complexsymbolic assemblies vary according to the level ofcomplexity, from words (for example, dogs) andphrases (for example, John’s brown dog) to whole sen-tences (for example, Geoff kicked the dog). (See alsoCognitive Grammar, construction (2), simplex.)

complex atemporal relations A sub-category of atempo-ral relations. A complex atemporal relation encodes acomplex static scene, as in the following example: thesand all over the floor. What makes this scene‘complex’ is that it involves a multiplex trajector. (Seealso simple atemporal relations.)

complex metaphor see compound metaphor

complex temporal relations A sub-category of temporalrelations. Complex temporal relations like simple


temporal relations involve a process, and hence a tem-poral relation, because they construe scenes that holdover a given span of time. However, a complex tem-poral relation designates a dynamic process involvingchange over time, as illustrated by the followingexample: Max is eating the chocolate.

composite prototype A prototype derived from two ormore ICMs providing highly schematic information. Acomposite prototype can give rise to further variantsestablished via convention, and thus provides proto-type structure for a radial category. The composite pro-totype for the category mother, for instance, includesa female who gave birth to the child, was supplier of 50per cent of the genetic material, stayed at home in orderto nurture the child, is married to the child’s father, isone generation older than the child and is also thechild’s legal guardian. Thus the composite prototypedraws upon information from a number of distinctICMs associated with the cluster model for motherincluding: the birth model, the genetic model,the nurturance model, the marital model, thegenealogical model and the housewife-mothermodel.

composition In Blending Theory, one of the three com-ponent processes that give rise to emergent structure.For instance, in the clinton as french presidentintegration network, due to the utterance: In France,Clinton wouldn’t have been harmed by his affair withMonica Lewinsky, composition brings together thevalue bill clinton with the role french presidentin the blended space, resulting in the emergent struc-ture: clinton as french president. See the entry forconceptual integration where this blend is described in


detail. (See also completion, constitutive principles,elaboration (1).)

compound metaphor (also known as complex metaphor)In Primary Metaphor Theory, a compound meta-phor is a metaphor formed by unification of moreprimitive primary metaphors. In other words, while aprimary metaphor relates two ‘simple’ concepts fromdistinct domains, in contrast, compound metaphorsrelate entire complex domains of experience. A cele-brated example of a compound metaphor is theo-ries are buildings, as evidenced by an examplesuch as: Your theory lacks a solid foundation. Sinceboth theories and arguments are relatively com-plex and rich in detail, they do not qualify as aprimary target concept nor a primary source conceptrespectively.

compression In an integration network, the processwhich operates on a vital relation. Compression con-stitutes the process whereby an outer-space relationholding between counterparts in distinct input spacesis ‘shortened’ so as to ‘tighten’ the connection betweencounterparts. This results in emergent structure, aninner-space relation in the blended space. (See alsoBlending Theory, decompression.)

conceived time A term coined by Ronald Langacker torefer to the cognitive representation of time, wheretime is an object of conceptualisation. Conceivedtime contrasts with the notion of processing time.Langacker argues that there are two types of conceivedtime, depending upon how events are accessed orprocessed: these are sequential scanning and summaryscanning.


concept (also representation) The fundamental unit ofknowledge central to categorisation and conceptuali-sation. Concepts inhere in the conceptual system, andfrom early in infancy are redescribed from perceptualexperience through a process termed perceptualmeaning analysis. This process gives rise to the mostrudimentary of concepts known as an image schema.Concepts can be encoded in a language-specific formatknow as the lexical concept. While concepts are rela-tively stable cognitive entities they are modified byongoing episodic and recurrent experiences. (See alsoconceptualising capacity, conceptual structure.)

conception In LCCM Theory, the meaning associatedwith an utterance. A conception emerges due to theprocesses of lexical concept integration guided bycontext and the processes of backstage cognition.

conceptual alternativity A term coined by LeonardTalmy. Relates to the ability to conceptualise amember of one domain, for instance time, in terms ofanother, for instance space. Conceptual alternativity isfacilitated by a conceptual conversion operation and isencoded by a given linguistic unit such as closed classforms.

conceptual archetype A term employed in CognitiveGrammar. Refers to a concept that has a direct expe-riential basis but which constitutes an abstraction rep-resenting commonalities over ubiquitous everydayexperiences. Conceptual archetypes include conceptssuch as the following: the human body, the humanface, a discrete physical object, an object movingthrough space, the use of one instrument to affectanother, one person giving an object to a recipient and


so on. Conceptual archetypes form the basis for thecategory prototype of grammatical notions of variouskinds. For instance, while the grammatical subject ischaracterised as the clause-level trajector in a profiledrelationship, the conceptual archetype of agentdefines the category prototype.

Conceptual Blending Theory see Blending Theory

conceptual content system One of two systems withinLeonard Talmy’s Conceptual Structuring SystemApproach. The conceptual content system provides therich meaning supported by the conceptual structuringsystem. The meaning associated with the conceptualcontent system is content meaning, which is encodedby open class forms.

conceptual conversion operation The mechanism wherebythe phenomenon of conceptual alternativity is achievedin homologous categories. One kind of conceptual con-version operation is reification.

conceptual domain see domain (2)

conceptual integration (also known as blending) Theprocess that results in the formation of a blended spacein an integration network, giving rise to emergentstructure.

To illustrate, consider the following utterance: InFrance Clinton wouldn’t have been harmed by hisaffair with Monica Lewinsky. This utterance promptsfor a blended space in which we understand that asPresident of France, Clinton would not have beenharmed politically by his relationship with Lewinsky.The integration network for this expression includes


two input spaces. One input space contains clinton,lewinsky and their relationship. This space is struc-tured by the frame american politics. In this frame,there is a role for american president together withcertain attributes associated with this role such asmoral virtue, a symbol of which is marital fidelity. Inthis space, marital infidelity causes political harm. Inthe second input space, which is structured by theframe french politics, there is a role for frenchpresident. In this frame, it is an accepted part ofFrench public life that the President sometimes has amistress. In this space, marital infidelity does notresult in political harm. The two inputs are related byvirtue of a generic space which contains the genericroles country, head of state, sexual partner andcitizens. The generic space establishes cross-spacecounterparts in the input spaces. The blended spacecontains bill clinton and monica lewinsky, as wellas the roles french president and mistress offrench president, with which Clinton and Lewinskyare respectively associated. Crucially, the frame thatstructures the blend is french politics rather thanamerican politics. It follows that in the blend,Clinton is not politically harmed by his marital infi-delity. The integration network for this blend is repre-sented in Figure 5.

Conceptual integration has a number of constitutiveprinciples, goals of blending and governing principlesthat govern the way in which the process of integrationoccurs. (See also Blending Theory.)

Conceptual Integration Theory see Blending Theory

Conceptual Metaphor Theory A theoretical frameworkdeveloped by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, but


also associated with other influential scholars includingZoltán Kövecses, Raymond Gibbs, Eve Sweetser andMark Turner. Conceptual Metaphor Theory was firstpresented by Lakoff and Johnson in their 1980 volumeMetaphors We Live By. Conceptual Metaphor Theorywas one of the earliest theoretical frameworks to bedeveloped in cognitive semantics and provided much ofthe early theoretical impetus for this approach to therelationship between language, mind and embodiedexperience. The basic premise of Conceptual MetaphorTheory is that metaphor is not simply a stylistic featureof language but that thought itself is fundamentally


USCLINTON

AMERICANSLEWINSKY

FRANCEPRESIDENT

THE FRENCHMISTRESS

Input 2Input 1

COUNTRYPRESIDENTCITIZENS

SEXUAL PARTNER

Generic space

FRANCECLINTON/PRESIDENT

FRENCH VOTERSLEWINSKY/MISTRESS

CLINTON UNHARMED

Blend

Figure 5. The integration network for clinton as frenchpresident blend

metaphorical in nature. According to this view, concep-tual structure is organised by cross-domain mappings orcorrespondences between conceptual domains. Some ofthese mappings are due to pre-conceptual embodiedexperiences while others build on these experiences inorder to form more complex conceptual structures. Forinstance, we can think and talk about the concept ofquantity in terms of the concept of vertical eleva-tion, as in She got a really high mark in the test, wherehigh relates not literally to physical height but to a goodmark. According to Conceptual Metaphor Theory, thisis because the conceptual domain (2) quantity is con-ventionally structured and therefore understood interms of the conceptual domain vertical elevation.Conceptual operations involving mappings, such asconceptual metaphor, are known more generally asconceptual projection. (See also Primary MetaphorTheory.)

conceptual metonymy see metonymy

conceptual projection Relates to conceptual operationsinvolving mappings, such as conceptual metaphor,conceptual metonymy, connectors holding betweenone mental space and another, and processes central toconceptual integration such as the matching of coun-terparts across input spaces and the compression of anouter-space relation into a inner-space relation.

conceptual structure Pertains to knowledge representa-tion, including the structure and organisation of con-cepts in the human conceptual system. Can relate tostable or temporary knowledge structures assembledfor purposes of local meaning construction. Cognitivelinguists have modelled conceptual structure in terms


of relatively stable knowledge structures such as adomain (1), a cognitive model, a semantic frame, anidealised cognitive model and different kinds of con-ceptual projection including cross-domain mappingssuch as metaphor. Conceptual structure has also beenmodelled in terms of mental space formation, theestablishment of a mental spaces lattice and the for-mation of a conceptual integration network. (See alsoconcept, conceptualisaton, lexical concept.)

conceptual structuring system One of two systemswithin Leonard Talmy’s Conceptual Structuring SystemApproach. The conceptual structuring system providesthe structure, skeleton or ‘scaffolding’ for a given scene,across which the rich substantive detail provided by theconceptual content system can be ‘draped’. It followsfrom this that the meaning associated with the con-ceptual structuring system is schematic meaning, asencoded by closed class forms. The conceptual struc-turing system is organised into a number of distinctschematic systems, each of which are further dividedinto schematic categories. The four schematic systemsare: configurational system, attentional system, per-spectival system and force-dynamics system, a summaryof which is presented in Figure 6.

Conceptual Structuring System Approach The approachto grammar developed by Leonard Talmy. Like othercognitive approaches to grammar Talmy assumes thesymbolic thesis and thus treats grammatical unitsas being inherently meaningful. However, Talmy’smodel is distinguished by its emphasis on the qualit-ative distinction between closed class forms (gram-matical subsystem) and open class forms (lexicalsubsystem). Talmy argues that these two forms of


linguistic expression represent two distinct conceptualsubsystems which encode qualitatively distinct aspectsof the human conceptual system. These are the con-ceptual structuring system and the conceptual contentsystem. While closed class forms encode schematicmeaning and constitute the conceptual structuringsystem, open class elements encode meanings that arefar richer in terms of content, content meaning, andthus constitute the conceptual content system. In hisresearch, Talmy is primarily interested in delineatingthe nature and organisation of the conceptual structur-ing system. In particular, Talmy is concerned withestablishing the nature and function of the conceptualstructuring system as encoded by closed class elements.For Talmy this issue is a particularly fascinating one asin principle, language could function with a lexical orconceptual content system alone. The fact that lan-guages do not makes establishing the distinction interms of the respective contributions of the two sub-systems in encoding and externalising our cognitiverepresentation a particularly intriguing one. (See alsoschematic systems.)


CONCEPTUALSTRUCTURING

SYSTEM

CONFIGURATIONALSYSTEM

ATTENTIONALSYSTEM

PERSPECTIVALSYSTEM

FORCE-DYNAMICS

SYSTEM

Figure 6. The Conceptual Structuring System

conceptual system The repository of concepts available toa human being. The repository constitutes a structuredand organised inventory which facilitates categorisa-tion and conceptualisation. Each concept in the con-ceptual system can, in principle, be encoded andexternalised via language. Concepts encoded in lan-guage take a modality-specific format known as alexical concept. Cognitive linguists assume that lan-guage reflects the conceptual system and thus can beemployed in order to investigate conceptual organisa-tion; they also assume that linguistic organisationwhich is modified due to use can influence the natureand make-up of the conceptual system. (See alsoconceptual structure, conceptualising capacity, usage-based model.)

conceptualisation The process of meaning construction towhich language contributes. It does so by provid-ing access to rich encyclopaedic knowledge and byprompting for complex processes of conceptual integra-tion. Conceptualisation relates to the nature of dynamicthought to which language can contribute. From theperspective of cognitive linguistics, linguistic units suchas words do not ‘carry’ meaning(s), but contribute to theprocess of meaning construction which takes place atthe conceptual level. (See also conceptual structure, con-ceptual system, conceptualising capacity, level C.)

conceptualising capacity A common capacity, shared byall humans, to generate concepts, which derives fromfundamental and shared aspects of human cognition.Rather than positing universal linguistic principles,cognitive linguists posit a common set of cognitiveabilities which serve to both facilitate and constrainthe development of our conceptual system.


conceptually autonomous The property of being inde-pendently meaningful which is associated with nom-inal predications. For instance, expressions such as bedor slipper invoke concepts that are independentlymeaningful. The property of being conceptuallyautonomous contrasts with concepts which are con-ceptually dependent.

conceptually dependent The property associated withrelational predications which rely on other concepts inorder to have their meaning completed. For example,in a sentence such as: Max hid his mum’s mobile phoneunder the bed, the verb hid relates the conceptuallyautonomous entities Max, mum’s mobile phone andbed, establishing a relationship involving ‘hiding’between them. Similarly, under establishes a spatialrelation between mum’s mobile phone and bed.

configurational system One of the four schematic systemswhich form part of the conceptual structuring system.The configurational system imposes structure upon thecontents of the domains of space and time. This isachieved by virtue of six schematic categories: plexity,dividedness, boundedness, degree of extension, patternof distribution, axiality. These categories structurethe scenes encoded by language and the participantsthat interact within these scenes. (See also attentionalsystem, Conceptual Structuring System Approach,force-dynamics system, perspectival system, schematiccategories.)

connectors In Mental Spaces Theory, the cognitive linkthat holds between elements in distinct mental spacesthat are counterparts. Connectors represent a specialkind of conceptual projection.


For instance, elements in different mental spacesthat are coreferential, which is to say are related byidentity, are linked by an ‘identity’ connector. To illus-trate, consider the following example: James Bond is atop British spy. In the war, 007 was an officer in theRoyal Navy. In this example, each sentence sets up itsown mental space. In the first sentence the expressionJames Bond prompts for the assignment of an elementrelating to James Bond. In the second sentence theexpression 007 prompts for the assignment of theelement 007 in the second mental space. Backgroundknowledge tells us that 007 is the code name conven-tionally assigned to James Bond. This knowledgeserves to establish an identity connector linking theelements in the two distinct mental spaces. This is setout in diagrammatic form in Figure 7 where the circlesrepresent distinct mental spaces and the elements ineach, James Bond (a1) and 007 (a2), are linked by anidentity connector, signalled by the line relating a1 anda2. (See also element, property.)

constitutive processes The processes which together giverise to the formation of an integration network andconsequently a blended space. These include: (1) theconstruction of a generic space; (2) the matching ofcounterparts in input spaces; (3) selective projection ofstructure from the input spaces; (4) conceptual inte-gration in order to form a blended space; (5) whichinvolves the development of emergent structure due tothe processes of composition, completion and elabora-tion (1). (See also Blending Theory.)

construal An idea central to Cognitive Grammar. Relatesto the way a language user chooses to ‘package’ and‘present’ a conceptual representation as encoded in


language, which in turn has consequences for the con-ceptual representation that the utterance evokes in themind of the hearer. This is achieved by choosing a par-ticular focal adjustment and thus linguistically ‘organ-ising’ a scene in a specific way. In so doing, the speakerimposes a unique construal upon that scene. Forexample, the active construction focuses attentionupon the agent of an action (e.g. Max hid Angela’s


a1

a1: NAME: JAMES BONDPROPERTY : TOP BRITISHSPY

Base

PROPERTY : OFFICERIN THE ROYAL NAVY

a2

WAR

a2 : 007

Figure 7. A cross-space connector

keys), while the passive construction focuses attentionupon the patient (e.g. Angela’s keys were hidden byMax). Each of these constructions conventionallyencodes a distinct construal. (See also objective con-strual, subjective construal.)

constructicon The term given to the mental inventoryof constructions in Adele Goldberg’s theory ofConstruction Grammar (2). As Goldberg makes no dis-tinction between simplex and complex symbolic assem-blies (since either kind may count as a construction (1)in her theory, in contrast to Cognitive Grammar), theconstructicon is her term for the lexicon-grammar con-tinuum. (See also construction (2), symbolic assembly.)

construction (1) A unit of language and the central theo-retical construct in construction grammars. A con-struction constitutes a conventional unit pairing formand meaning. Form typically concerns a particularphonological string of sound segments conventional ina particular language, e.g. [kaet] in English. Meaningrelates to a mental representation, namely a lexicalconcept, conventionally associated with a form.Hence, [kaet] is conventionally associated with theconcept of a kind of animal which is often treated as adomesticated pet in many parts of the world. Thus thelinguistic unit cat constitutes a construction, beingcomprised of a conventional pairing of form andmeaning.

In addition to whole words, constructions may be ameaningful sub-part of a word, or morpheme (anti-dis-establish. . . .), a string of words that ‘belong’together, as in an idiom such as: He kicked the bucket,or ‘syntactic constructions’ which have more schem-atic meaning associated with them. For instance, the


ditransitive construction has the following syntax: NP1VERB NP2 NP3, and the schematic meaning: X causesY to receive Z. Such constructions are not lexi-cally filled, but represent a grammatical schema whichcan be instantiated with particular words as in thefollowing sentence: John gave Mary the flowers. (Seealso construction grammars, constructional meaning,constructional polysemy, constructional profiling,lexicon-grammar continuum, relationships betweenconstructions, symbolic assembly.)

Construction (2) In Cognitive Grammar, a constructionrefers to a symbolic assembly which is complex asopposed to simplex in nature.

Construction Grammar (1) A theory of grammar devel-oped by Charles Fillmore, Paul Kay and their collabo-rators. While this theory is broadly generative inorientation, it set the scene for the development of cog-nitively realistic theories of construction grammarwhich adopted the central thesis of Fillmore and Kay’sapproach. This thesis is the position that grammar canbe modelled in terms of constructions rather than‘words and rules’. Thus Fillmore and Kay developedthe symbolic thesis as the basis for a theory ofgrammar. In particular, Construction Grammar ismotivated by the fact that certain complex grammati-cal constructions, in particular idiomatic expressionssuch as kick the bucket or throw in the towel, havemeaning that cannot be predicted on the basis of theirsub-parts and might therefore be ‘stored whole’ ratherthan ‘built from scratch’. Fillmore and Kay authoredtwo classic Construction Grammar papers which pre-sented case studies of the let alone construction and theWhat’s X doing Y construction.


One of the notable features of ConstructionGrammar is that this model is ‘monostratal’: contain-ing only one level of syntactic representation ratherthan a sequence of structures linked by transfor-mations: a feature that characterises theories ofgrammar in formal linguistics such as generativemodels of grammar. Furthermore, the representationsin Construction Grammar contain not only syntacticinformation but also semantic information relating toargument structure as well as pragmatic information.(See also construction grammars.)

Construction Grammar (2) A theory of ConstructionGrammar developed by Adele Goldberg which has itsroots in the theory of Construction Grammar (1) devel-oped by Charles Fillmore, Paul Kay and their variouscollaborators, and is also influenced by the work ofGeorge Lakoff. In her model, Goldberg developedthe constructional approach of Fillmore and Kay byextending it from ‘irregular’ idiomatic expressions to‘regular’ constructions. In order to do this, she focusedon verb argument constructions. In other words, sheexamined ‘ordinary’ sentences, such as ones with tran-sitive or ditransitive structure, and built a theory ofconstruction grammar to account for the argumentstructure patterns she found there. In so doing, one ofGoldberg’s notable achievements was to apply receivedideas from cognitive semantics, such as polysemy andmetaphor, and incorporate them in a new theory ofConstruction Grammar. Thus her approach revealsthat grammar exhibits the same sorts of phenomena asother linguistic units such as words. Accordingly,Goldberg’s Construction Grammar posited a lexicon-grammar continuum, which she refers to as the con-structicon. (See also construction grammars.)


construction grammars A set of cognitive approaches togrammar which assume that the construction (1) is thefundamental unit of grammar. There are several dis-tinct varieties of construction grammars including:Fillmore and Kay’s Construction Grammar (1),Goldberg’s Construction Grammar (2), EmbodiedConstruction Grammar and Radical ConstructionGrammar. (See also guiding principles of cognitiveapproaches to grammar.)

constructional meaning The idea, associated with thefamily of construction grammars, that a construction(1) has a conventional meaning associated with it. (Seealso caused motion construction, intransitive con-struction, let alone construction, resultative construc-tion, What’s X doing Y? construction.)

constructional polysemy The view in ConstructionGrammar (2) that a construction (1), just like a word,exhibits polysemy. Consider the following examples ofthe ditransitive construction:

1. Max gave Bella a biscuit2. Angela knitted Bella a jumper3. John owes me a fiver

While each of these examples has to do with transfer,they each differ in subtle but important ways. Example(1) implies successful transfer of a biscuit to Bellawhile example (2) only implies intended transfer(it’s possible that Angela may never complete thejumper). In (3), we have transfer which dependson certain satisfaction conditions being met:for instance, it depends on John being able to, willingto and/or intending to repay the money. Thus examplessuch as these are held to provide evidence that the


ditransitive construction exhibits polysemy. (See alsoScene Encoding Hypothesis.)

constructional profiling In Construction Grammar (2),the realisation of argument roles in terms of core gram-matical relations (subject, direct object or indirectobject). Other argument roles may optionally bepresent in the sentence but represented as prepositionalphrases, sometimes called ‘oblique’ objects. Forinstance, in the example: The thief opened the windowwith the crowbar, the argument roles agent andpatient lexicalised by the thief and the windowrespectively are constructionally profiled as they areassociated with a ‘direct’ grammatical relation: subjectand object. However, the argument role instrumentlexicalised by the crowbar is not constructionally pro-filed as it is not associated with a ‘direct’ grammaticalrelational but rather is introduced by a preposition andthus constitutes an ‘oblique’ object.

content function see content meaning

content meaning (also content function) The kind ofmeaning associated with elements in the conceptualcontent system, as encoded by open class forms.Meaning of this kind is rich in nature and thus con-trasts with the meaning associated with elements in theconceptual structuring system as encoded by closedclass forms. Content meaning relates to conceptshaving to do with things, people, places, events, prop-erties of things and so on. For instance, compare thefollowing two sentences:

1. The movie star kissed the directors.2. The sunbeam illuminated the rooftops.


The grammatical structure of these two sentences isidentical (the closed class or ‘grammatical’ wordsare highlighted in bold). For instance, both partici-pants in the events described by these sentences caneasily be identified by the hearer; the event tookplace before now; there’s only one movie star/sunbeam but more than one director/rooftop. Yet thesentences differ in a rather dramatic way. They nolonger describe the same kind of event at all. This isbecause the open class forms (unbolded in thesesentences) prompt for certain kinds of concepts thatare richer and less schematic in nature. That is, theunbolded elements are associated with contentmeaning.

content requirement A constraint proposed by RonaldLangacker which places limits on how the theory ofCognitive Grammar operates. This requirement holdsthat the only entities permissible within the grammarof a language are: (1) phonological, semantic and sym-bolic units; (2) the relations that hold between them;and (3) the schemas that represent these units. Thisrequirement excludes abstract rules from the model, incontrast to theories of grammar in formal linguistics.Instead, knowledge of any given linguistic pattern isconceived in terms of a schema. (See also symbolicassembly, symbolic thesis.)

contextual modulation A term coined by Alan Cruse.Relates to the fact that in ordinary speech the meaningassociated with a lexical item undergoes ‘modulation’as a result of the context in which it is used. Forinstance, in the following examples, the semantic con-tribution of fast is adjusted as a consequence of thecontext in which it is embedded:


1. That parked BMW is a fast car2. That BMW is travelling fast3. That’s the fast lane of the motorway

In the example in (1), fast relates to the potential forrapid locomotion. In (2) fast relates to rapid locomo-tion. In (3) fast relates to a venue for rapid locomotion.

contrast set A notion developed within the theory ofPrincipled Polysemy as applied to prepositions.Certain clusters of prepositions appear to pattern as asystem serving to divide up various spatial dimen-sions. For example, above, over, under and belowform a contrast set that divides the vertical dimensionof space into four related subspaces, as illustrated inFigure 8.

As Figure 8 shows, over and under tend to refer tothose subspaces along the vertical axis that are physi-cally closer to the landmark, while above and belowtend to designate relations in which the trajector isfurther away from the landmark. In the figure, the boldhorizontal line represents the landmark, while thedotted lines refer to areas of vertical space higher andlower than the landmark which count as proximal.The dark circles represent trajectors in each subspace,corresponding to the prepositions listed on the left ofthe diagram.

conventional blend A cognitive entity that whilehaving emerged via the dynamic processes of concep-tual integration has nevertheless become relativelywell established in a particular linguistic community.Consequently, the blend is not reconstructed eachtime it is prompted for but is conventionalised asa ‘pre-assembled’ cognitive routine. An example of


a conventional blend is the grim reaper blend dis-cussed in the entry for megablend. (See also BlendingTheory.)

conventional mappings see cross-domain mappings

conventions The ‘norms’ of linguistic behaviour in a par-ticular linguistic community. These include, among

A GLOSSARY OF COGNITIVE LING

A Glossary of Cognitive Linguisticstextosenlinea.com.ar/libros/Evans - A Glossary of... · 2012. 11. 24. · two best developed areas of cognitive linguistics: cognitive semantics

Documents