Cognitive Linguistics and FLT

nullCognitive Linguistics and FLT Cognitive Linguistics and FLT Shu Dingfang Journal of Foreign Languages Shanghai International Studies University“Cognitive” has become a fashionable term“Cognitive” has become a fashionable termCognitive anthropology Cognitive psychology Cognitive grammar Cognitive semanticsWhat is “cognition”?What is “cognition”?Cognition: The mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.(New Oxford)Cognitive linguistics:Cognitive linguistics:Cognitive linguistics is not a single theory but is rather best characterized as a paradigm within linguistics, subsuming a number of distinct theories and research programs. It is characterized by an emphasis on explicating the intimate interrelationship between language and other cognitive faculties. Major theories in CLMajor theories in CLCognitive Grammar (Langacker,R.) Cognitive Semantics (Talmy, L., Jackendoff, R.) Construction Grammar (Goldberg, A.) Metaphor (Lakoff, G& M. Johnson.) Mental Space Theory (Fauconnier, G.)Major referencesMajor referencesFauconnier, G. 1985. Mental spaces. Cambridge University Press. Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge University Press. Frawley, W. 1992. Linguistic semantics. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Gibbs, R. Jr. & Steen, G. 1997. Metaphor in cognitive linguistics. John Benjamins Publishing CompanynullLakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.nullLangacker, R. 1989. Foundations of cognitive grammar: descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, R. 1991. Concepts, image and symbol: the cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter Langacker, R. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. nullLevinson, S. 2000. Presumptive meanings. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press. Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press. Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. 2. Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press. null程琪龙 《认知语言学概论》 外语教学与研究出版社，2001 沈家煊 《不对称与标记论》 江西教育出版社，1999 石毓智 《语法的形式与理据》 江西教育出版社，2001 束定芳 《隐喻学研究》 上海外语教育出版社，2000null熊学亮 《认知语用学概论》 上海外语教育出版社，1999 张敏 《认知语言学与汉语名词短语》中国社会科学出版社，1998 赵艳芳 《认知语言学概论》 上海外语教育出版社，2000 袁毓林 《语言的认知研究和计算》 北京大学出版社，1998 Key principles of the cognitive linguistic paradigm:Key principles of the cognitive linguistic paradigm:Conceptual (subjectivist) semantics Encyclopedic as opposed to dictionary semantics Structured categories Gradient grammaticality judgements Intimate relationship of language and other cognitive faculties The non-autonomy of syntaxConceptual (subjectivist) semantics.Conceptual (subjectivist) semantics. Meaning is characterized as conceptualization: the meaning of an expression is the concepts that are activated in the hearer’s mind. In this view, meaning is characterized as involving a relationship between words and the mind, not directly between words and the world. e.g. The car hit a man. The man was hit by a car.Encyclopedic as opposed to dictionary semanticsEncyclopedic as opposed to dictionary semanticsEncyclopedic as opposed to dictionary semantics. Words and large expressions are viewed as entry points for accessing open-ended knowledge networks. Fully explicating the meaning of an expression frequently requires taking into account imagery, metaphorical associations, mental models, and folk understandings of the world. Structured categories.Structured categories.Structured categories. Categories are not defined in terms if criteria-attribute models or membership determined by necessary and sufficient features. Rather categories are organized around prototypes, family resemblances, and subjective relationships between items in the category.Gradient grammaticality judgementsGradient grammaticality judgementsGradient grammaticality judgements. Grammaticality judgements involve a kind of categorization, inasmuch as a speaker judges an utterance to be a more or less acceptable exemplar of an established linguistic pattern. Grammaticality judgements are therefore gradient rather than binary, and depend upon subtleties of context and meaning as well as conformity to grammatical conventions.Intimate relationship of language and other cognitive facultiesIntimate relationship of language and other cognitive facultiesIntimate relationship of language and other cognitive faculties. Cognitive linguists search for analogues for linguistic phenomena in general cognition. Findings from psychology about the nature of human categorization, attention, memory, etc. are taken to inform linguistic theory directly.The non-autonomy of syntaxThe non-autonomy of syntaxThe non-autonomy of syntax. Syntax is understood to be the conventional patterns by which sounds convey meanings. Syntax therefore does not require its own special primitives and theoretical constructs. Grammatical knowledge is captured by positing conventionalized or “entrenched” symbolic patterns that speakers acquire through exposure to actually occurring expressions. The relationship between linguistics and FLTThe relationship between linguistics and FLTApplication? Implication? Linguists --Applied linguists---Language teachers MediatorWhat can language teachers draw from cognitive linguistics?What can language teachers draw from cognitive linguistics?What is language? What is the relationship between words and the world? What does it mean to know a language? What does it involve to learn a second language? Some widely-agreed fundamental views of contemporary linguistics:Some widely-agreed fundamental views of contemporary linguistics:1)language is a self-contained system amenable to algorithmic characterization, with sufficient autonomy to be studied in essential isolation from broader cognitive concerns; 2)grammar (syntax in particular) is an independent aspect of linguistic structure distinct from both lexicon and semantics; null3)if meaning falls within the purview of linguistic analysis, it is properly described by some type of formal logic based on truth conditions. (Langacker, R. 1991)Implications to draw from CGImplications to draw from CG1)language is neither self-contained nor describable without essential reference to cognitive processing; 2)grammatical structures do not constitute an autonomous formal system or level of representation: they are claimed instead to be inherently symbolic, providing for the structuring and conventional symbolization of conceptual content.null3) A formal semantics based on truth conditions is deemed inadequate for describing the meaning of linguistic expressions. One reason is that semantic structures are characterized relative to knowledge systems whose scope is essentially open-ended. A second is that their value reflects not only the content of a conceived situation, but also how this content is structured and construed.Cognitive view of meaning:Cognitive view of meaning: The conventional meaning of a lexical item must be equated with the entire network, not with any single node. Ring: Group of people ----Circular object---Arena Operating together (clandestinely) Circular mark ---Circular object ---Circular piece of jewelryApplications of Metaphor TheoryApplications of Metaphor TheoryLakoff(1987:271) discusses the possibility that many areas of experience are metaphorically structured by means of a rather small number of image schemas. Among these image schemas are the following: containment: empty words, the content of an essay; a journey and its component parts: He’s ahead of his time. proximity: a close friend, to keep one’s distance; nulllinkage and separation: keep in touch, break relations; front-back orientation: look forward to the future, look back on the past; the part-whole relationship: split up=divorce linear order: first, second; up-down orientation: high building, high spirits UpUpHigh: (1) more is up: price, speed, blood pressure, technology, (2) positive evaluation: quality, standards, opinion, hopes, expectations, spirits, (3) power is up: high society, high class, high class, high born, high position, high-handednullhigh number high temperature high price high speed high blood pressure high pulse rate high forms of life nullhigh quality high opinion high standards high moral values high hopes high expectations high spirits high lifenullhigh technology higher mathematics higher education high forms of life nullhigh society high born high status high command high positionMetaphor of seeing as understandingMetaphor of seeing as understandingNot seeing: non-understanding Being blind: inability to understand Shut one’s eyes: avoiding understanding Illuminate: explaining Darken: making information inaccessible Light: knowledge Darkness: ignorancevisual perceptioncognitionvisual perceptioncognitionseeingunderstanding see, realize, understand, comprehend, grasp, consider, watch not seeingnot understanding avoiding seeingavoiding information shut one’s eyes to,nullseeing activelyseeking information see if, look through, scrutinize intentionally not looking at an objectdisregarding certain facts disregard, irrespective of way of seeingway of understanding view of, overview, perspective, point of viewnullseeing beyond one’s ordinary field of visioninterpreting as possibilities or having hopes prospects, vision, keep a look-out seeing backwardsremembering retrospect, flashback, review, seeing past an objectoverlooking something overlooknullseeing in a definite directionhaving a special intention aim, refer to, intend keeping an object in the visual fieldcontrolling that object supervise, oversee, see to, survey, pick out seeing into or through an object understanding that object glimpse, discrimination, observation, discovery, insight, look through, knowledgenull looking forward predicting, expecting foresee, anticipate, expect, look forwardproperties of perceiverproperties of perceiverbeing blind, unable to seeunable to understand blind, one-sided, biased, wearing blinkers being enlightened being gifted enlightened, with spiritual horizon, brilliant reflecting light thinking, meditating reflect, meditatenullnot reflecting light having poor general understanding unreflecting having good eyesight having good understanding be clear-sighted, sharp-eyed, have a penetrating eye seeing what others cannot seehaving supernatural knowledge prophetnullhaving a vast field of visionplanning well far-seeing, tolerant having a limited field of visionplanning badly shortsighted, near-sighted having a special way of seeing having a special talent have an eye fornulllooking forwardbeing cautious farsighted being large-eyedshowing wonder large-eyed, round-eyed being a friend of darknessbeing hostile to knowledge osbscurantproperties of the perceived objectproperties of the perceived objectbeing visiblegiving evidnece of visible, evidently, lucid, clear, obvious, conspicuous, open, being visually more perceptibledominating outshine, outshadow, block, dim, obscure lightknowledge light, illuminationnullbeing lightbeing comprehensible dawn being transparentbeing easily comprehensible clear, transparent darknessignorance darkness, mist, haze, dusk, gloom being opaquebeing obstruse diffuse, smoke-screen, blurrednullbeing darkbeing incomprehensible dark, cloudy, obscure, enigmatic glarefallacy apparent, illusion, mirage the observed partthe understood part aspect, outlook, attentionCauses of perceptioncauses of understandingCauses of perceptioncauses of understandingmaking something visibleconveying information make clear, shine, enlighten, throw light on, mirror, give notice making something invisiblemaking certain information inaccessible darken cause blindnesspreventing from understanding turn somebody’s sight, throw sand into the eyes of creating glarecreating a fallacy make pretense of, make a show ofnullIt is my hope that a comparative study comprising languages such as Chinese (culturally and linguistically remote), Finnish and English can further our knowledge of universals in this area of semantics and pragmatics.nullSweetser, E.E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. Root and epistemic use of modals: John may go. (John is not barred by authority from going.) John may be there. (I am not barred by my premise from the conclusion that he is there.)nullYou must come home by ten. (Mom said so.) You must have been home last night.(The available evidence compels to the conclusion that you were home.) Speech act use of modals: He may be a university professor, but he sure is dumb.  I do not bar from our conversational world the statement that he is a university professor, but…nullthe content of the sentence: the real-world event must or may take place; the epistemic entity represented by the sentence: the speaker is forced to, or (not) barred from, concluding the truth of the sentence; the speech act represented by the sentence: the speaker (or people in general) is forced, or (not) barred from, saying what the sentence says.nullThe same analysis can be extended to conjunction, coordination, and subordination: a. John came back because he loved her. (content domain) b. John loved her because he came back.(epistemic domain) c. What are you doing tonight, because there’s a good movie on.(speech act domain)nullSince John wasn’t here, we decided to leave a note for him. Since John isn’t here, he has evidently gone home. Since we are on the subject, when was George Washington born?Condtionals:Condtionals:If you get me some coffee, I’ll give a cookie. If she is divorced, she’s been married. If it will amuse you, I’ll tell you a joke. Case study: the metonymy of angerCase study: the metonymy of angerThe physiological effects of an emotion stand for the emotion. Body heat: Don’t get hot under the collar. Billy’s a hothead. They were having a heated argument. When the cop gave her a ticket, she got all hot and bothered and started cursing. nullInternal pressure: Don’t get hernia! When I found out, I almost had a hemorrhage. Redness in face and neck area: She was scarlet with rage. He got red with anger. He was flushed with anger. Agitation:Agitation:She was shaking with anger. I was hopping mad. He’s all worked up. He was quivering with rage. There is no need to get so excited about it. She is all wrought up! You look upset. Interference with accurate perception:Interference with accurate perception:She was blind with rage. I was beginning to see red. I was so mad I couldn’t see straight. The body is a container for the emotions:The body is a container for the emotions:He was filled with anger. She couldn't contain her joy. Anger is the heat of a fluid in a container:Anger is the heat of a fluid in a container:You make my blood boil. Simmer down. I had reached the boiling point. When the intensity of anger increases, the fluid rises:When the intensity of anger increases, the fluid rises:His pent-up anger welled up in him. My anger kept building up inside me. Intense anger produces steam:Intense anger produces steam:She got all steamed up. Billy’s just blowing off steam. I was fuming. Intense anger produces pressure on the container:Intense anger produces pressure on the container:He was bursting with anger. I could barely contain my rage. I suppressed my anger. He kept his anger bottled up inside him. When anger becomes too intense, the person explodes:When anger becomes too intense, the person explodes:When I told him, he just exploded. She blew up at me. She erupted. I blew a fuse. That really set me off. When a person explodes, parts of him go up in the air:When a person explodes, parts of him go up in the air:I blew my stack. I blew my top. She flipped her lid. He hit the ceiling. I went through the roof. She was having kittens. My mother will have a cow when I tell her. Anger is fire:Anger is fire:Those are inflammatory remarks. She was doing a slow burn. He was breathing fire. Your insincere apology just added fuel to the fire. After the argument, John was smoldering for days. That kindled my ire. Boy, am I burned up! He was consumed by his anger. Anger is insanity:Anger is insanity:He went crazy. One more complaint and I’ll go berserk. When he get angry, he goes honkers. He got hysterical. If your mother finds out, she will have a fit (throw a tantrum). Violent frustrated behavior stands for anger:Violent frustrated behavior stands for anger:He is tearing his hair out! If one more thing goes wrong, I’ll start banging my head against the wall. Aggressive verbal behavior stands for anger:Aggressive verbal behavior stands for anger:She gave him a tongue-lashing. Aggressive visual behavior stands for anger:Aggressive visual behavior stands for anger:She was looking daggers at me. He was glowering at me. ICMICM“Mother” involves 5 domains: genetic, birth, nurturance, genealogical, marrital Perspectivization: birth mother, working mother; Stepmother, surrogate mother, foster mother, adoptive mother, biological mother, donor mother, unwed mother, natural mother(birth mother), etc. --Necessity is the mother of invention. -He wants his girlfriend to mother him.Semantic leaps and pragmatic inferencesSemantic leaps and pragmatic inferencese.g. topless girl, topless bar, topless district, topless judge,