clover view

8/6/2019 Clover View

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/clover-view 1/36

1

Section I

Overview



2

1 The cognitive linguistics enterprise: an

overview1

Vyvyan Evans, Benjamin K. Bergen and Jörg Zinken

1 Introduction

C m . I -d w vsgg sp w m gg, md d

- x. I m 1970 (Fm, 1975; L &Tm, 1975; R, 1975) m gg w w dm, m, dsps gss d

. W , , ,

m 1960 1970, .2

N m z, C Fm 1970 (.., Fm, 1975) G L

1980s (.g., Lk, 1987). As mp v ds ss Gs psygy, s ppd y y Ld my (.g., 2000) d Rd

L (.., 1987). F,

,

(K & MD,

1978) m N T L (G& L, 2005). I , m

m m .E m 1970 1980 m

m , m ( x) - U S.3 D 1980,

E, Bm, H Gm.B 1990,

E N Am, --d gp ss w dd msvs s ‘gv gss’. Ts d,

1989, mj D, Gm, m I C L A, , , -

j Cognitive Linguistics. I

, R L (1991, . x), ‘m , mm.’



the cognitive linguistics enterprise: an overview 3

C ‘mm’ ‘’, - . I,

mm mmm , , ( )

s. T pps s s sm mj ssmps dmmm m . W j

z , m m , x m m .4

2 Two key commitments o cognitive linguistics

T z m mmm(L, 1990). T - , m m m m : cognitive semantics, cognitive

approaches to grammar , .

2.1 The Generalization Commitment

T Generalization Commitment (L, 1990). I

dd zg g pps ppy sps mgg. Ts g s js sp ss sdd mmm s

sk ds gzs pss. I s gv gss

, -y ds s s s pgy (sd), sms (wd d s

m), m (m x), m ( ),x ( ), . A , z , . T ormal linguistics.

Fm gss mps md gg y psg xp m

m mm . S m ,

. Fm m m Nm Cm (.., 1965, 1981, 1995) G G,

Fm Sm, R M(1970, 1973; C, 1993, ).

W ,

d syx sgy d kds sg pps pg

m. F , x ‘m’ md w sg wds ss, ws pgy ‘md’ s



4 the cognitive linguistics reader

m , . T

j

s-dsps, y gds py, s mps

, , m z, mm.Cgv gss kwdg my s s s

s syx, sms d pgy s g y ds. Hwv, gv

Gz Cmmm, gv gss d s w ssmp

‘mds’ ‘ssysms’ gg gzd sgy dvg

wys, dd wy ds mds v xs. Ts, Gz

Cmmm pss mmm py vsgg w vs sps

gs kwdg mg m mm s m gv s p

w y dw, ssmg y pdd psd mds

md.T Gz C .

F, mm m , - x . F ,

j m – xm , – m z m (.., , 2003), x (..,G, 1995), (.., J & O, 1984). Gz x ’ j –

; x ,

d dvpm mss. Sd, gv gs pps k ‘’, ‘z’ . L m z – , m , , . I x m ( ), m z, – j z . V

, , m, x, m . A m mx m z – x –

x m m z, m .

2.2 The Cognitive Commitment

T sd mmm s md Cgv Cmmm (Lk, 1990). I

pss mmm pvdg z g pps

gg d w w s kw md d m

. I mmm m , m .




Js s Gz Cmmm ds s pps

gg s d ss sps gg, d m,

Cgv Cmmm pss vw pps gs s

sd w s kw m g m gv d

ss, py psygy, g, gv s,d pspy. I wds, Cgv Cmmm sss mds

gg d gs gz ppsd sd w s kw

m md, py s ds s s s p

kds msms my ps (s C, 1998, dsss

s s p).

T C C . F,

s d ss psss v kw pps

m m. F ,

m m , m j. S, m , x m x m m m m m m. F xm, m z-, d y ds wd mg sm msms sps

gz gv dms s smp ypszs

sp sysm pg x sms. Fy, s m p

m m x – (G, / m).

3 Cognitive semantics and cognitive approaches to grammar

H mmm , m , , .

Cgv gss p gy dvdd w m s

s: gv sms d gv (pps ) gmm. T

sdy kw s gv sms s d w vsgg sp

w xp, p sysm, d sm s dd y -

gg. I sp ms, ss wkg gv sms vsg kwdg

ps (conceptual structure), d mg s (conceptualization).

Cgv smss v mpyd gg s s g w s g-

v pm vsgd. Csqy, s gv sms

ds sd mdg m md s m s s d w

vsgg gs sms. A gv pp gmm s d

w mdg gg sysm ( m ‘gmm’),

md p s. Hwv, ds s y kg s s sg p ss

wk gv sms. Ts ws s mg s gv pps

gmm.5

I s g sdy gv sms dgv pps gmm sy sp p, s y




ms mps dms qy yg gy kd –ms

wk gv gss ds ssy vsg x sms

d gmm gz jy.

A m, mm

. S R L (.., 1987,1991, 1991, 1999) z

z. I Cognitive Grammar , L

mm, .

T sd v vsg, psd y ss dg Fm

d Ky (Fm ., 1988; Ky & Fm, 1998), Lk (Lk & Tmps,

1975; L, 1987) G (1995, 2003/ m) m B C (2005/ m) C (2002), m m

m m .T - ,

m mm , m, , s, mps psss, d s. Rss w v psd

construction grammars. T

- symbolic

assembly, construction ( mm , , ..,G, 1995, ).

4 Cognitive semantics: guiding principles

I m - . C m, , m. T m . H,

m z m. I ( m). IS 5 x j

‘’ m.T m :

) C m ( ‘m ’).

) Sm .

) M .

) M z.




4.1 Conceptual structure is embodied

D , - ,

- . I , ‘’ ,

, . O x x . W

(.., ),

(V ., 1991). F , -

, , , ,

, . H

x

. S ,

,

. H . T – – x.

T w mdd g d gs mg

s s. I s vd mdm dsps w ms

p gg w v, d w spks gv gg w

‘’ (S, 1995; Wz, 1996). H,

m m m m (.., Núñz & Fm, 1999).

T x – ,

z – .I , ‘’

. W

,

x. F ,

x. T , ,

. T ( )

.

4.2 Semantic structure is conceptual structure

T m , , j x. I , semantic structure (

) conceptual structure (.., ).

Ts ‘ps’ vw s dy dds w ‘d’ pspv

m mm objectivist semantics, xm m m m.




H,

. I,

, x,

. A , ,

. F x, L (1987) ,

. W

moustache. H, E

( - ).

I lexical concepts,

( E, 2004, 2006; E & G, 2006)

-. 6

4.3 Meaning representation is encyclopaedic

T d gdg pp ds sm s s encyclopaedic .

T m x m( - dictionary view, Hm, 1980, ). R, ‘ ’ m (.., L, 1987).

O s, m x ps ‘ps ss’ ypd

m m m.

T x (1) x (2) m sad happy.

(1) James is sad.

(2) James is happy.

N,

m ‘m’ meaning construction: ‘’ x .

B x sae. T ,

m x . , xm (3), F (2002), x .

(3) a. The child is sae.

b. The beach is sae.

c. The shovel is sae.

I x, (3) m m.H, (3) . I,




z.

Sm, (3) m m m, m . T xm x sae child , beach shovel . I

, , , . W ‘’

m ‘’ m x .

4.4 Meaning construction is conceptualization

T . I,

, ( ) ‘’

. A, . M - z,

.

M ‘’ ‘’ .

5 Cognitive semantics: major theories and approaches

I m m m, xm m

.

5.1 Image schema theory

T s image schema ws dvpd p y Mk

J. I 1987 , Te Body in the Mind , J x

mg sms. Ts dmy ps k contact, container d

balance, pre-

conceptual experience. T x m . T - ,

, m, m - x m .

T dvpm psygs J Md (.g. 1992, 1996, 2004) s md

m ppss g w mg sms mg s m mdd

x. S j

m. M x, m x, m

. F , container - . I ‘’




. I , container m m m x.

L (1987, 1990, 1993/ m) J (1987) -

m m m mpx ps, d sysmy xdd pvd s

m m. A , in (4) love m container. I , m-m m mx .

(4) a. James is in love.

b. Susan is in trouble.c. The government is in a deep crisis.

A J, m z power - love crisis

container m.Md (2004) dss pss mg mg sms ms

x perceptual meaning analysis.A , ‘[O] z msm, w sp s s mppd p s’ (Md,

1992, p. 591). S sggss ‘Bs, xps w wdm ’ m , ’ (M, 1992, . 597). I , x, m mm, m m m m . A, m , m ( Bm &C, 2003/ m). N, m m mmp p s mdm. Ts, ms

m , m m.

5.2 Encyclopaedic semantics

T d vw m gss ds mg dvdd

m m. A , m lexical semantics:

m m. I , - x , m

‘ ’. O , m m , m .




I , m . T -

, .

) T m m.) E .) E m m x.) Lx m . ) E m.

i) There is no principled distinction between semantics and pragmatics

F, j

‘’ mg d, d pgm, s mg

. T m m m m m . K m ‘m’ .

Cgv smss d ps ms m x w -

m m ( -). I ypd kwdg: s y ypd kwdg, w ssms

m .

ii) Encyclopaedic knowledge is structured

T z m. C m vw ypd kwdg s sd sysm kwdg, gzd s

. M, , , . F xm, mango m , , m, x . T m, .

iii) Encyclopaedic meaning emerges in context

E x() , ‘’

m m x . F xm, sae

. W m x . Sae ‘ ’ x

. A sae ‘ ’,

x m m .Cmpd w dy vw mg, w sps mg

(m) m - m (m), m . N ,

‘’ x. F, ‘’

x m. Fm , - - x,




kwdg, w s d semantic potential (Evs, 2006) purport (C &

C, 2004; C, 2000) x m.

iv) Lexical items are points of access to encyclopaedic knowledge

T ypd pp vws x ms s points o access ypd (L, 1987). A, - m. I, - .

v) Encyclopaedic knowledge is dynamic

F, m , - . C x

car. O

w s, qs kwdg gdg s, d s (sB, .., 1999).T m. T

m m, CFm (.., 1975, 1977, 1982, 1985; Fm & A, 1992). A m R L (.., 1987).

Fm ppss semantic rame s smz xp (

), , -m mm. T m m x. T,

m .Lgk’s (.g., 1987) y dms (k Fm’s y Fm

Sm), m m , x . L

domains.

5.3 Categorization and Idealized Cognitive Models (ICMs)

A d mp dvpm gv sms s Gg

Lk’s y Idzd Cgv Mds (ICMs), dvpd s w ss

1987 k Women, Fire and Dangerous Tings. Lk Fm’s sm

m, d Lgk’s dms, ICMs vy s kgd kwdg

ss w sp w x ps vzd. Hwv, Lk’s

m w ddssg sss gz w mgd m dvpms

.I 1970s classical theory m gz – s d s d

dd s m Gk psps– ws d qs.

T w ds d s dvpm mgd m s E Rs d gs pyps d s v gy s (.g.,




Rs, 1975, 1977, 1978; Rs & Mvs, 1975; Rs ., 1976). Rs’s wk

gz, kw s pyp y, ws, , ss y kwdg

ps ss dgs w pvdd w sgs m

gz. I s s dgs d y, Rs ppsd ms

gz y ms necessary and sucient conditions ssy w pyp, vy s m ps

ssms ky s s s ps ss gv

gy.

T m , , m xm . mskg my gs pp v zzy ds,

. I m zz, furniture. W table chair ,

carpet . R ds s pdd y ss vw, m sjs pp v

j . M, x, j m.

A typicality eects. F xm,w pp jdg table chair s ‘gd xmps’ gy furniture,

carpet j x. T

.D R’ m zz

, m .‘T -

m m ’. (R, 1978: 261).

I , ‘’ m, ‘’ w gs psd m md. Lk (1987) pss

x

R .L z idealized cognitive models (ICMs). T

vy s m pss ps ‘s’ wd.

Mv, ICMs gd gv psss k gz d sg. Lk

m m . O mm ICM .

C ICM bachelor . T ICM m m, m- . I ICM, L , bachelor . F, ICM z,

m m m. T .




C P bachelor. W ’ ‘ ’ , marriage, P, ,

s jdgd p xmp s p gy. Lk ’s y s

. T pope m ICM catholic church, m.C, mm m. I ICM bachelor , P ‘ ’ , m. H, P P m catholic church ICM m C .

T m , L, s, y v ss ICMs pp v ss . F s, ypy

exemplar ( ) .T metonymy,

. T, L metonymic ICMs.

A x ICM housewife-mother,

,

. T housewife-mother

, , mother .

x mother. A

housewife-mother , ,

. A working mother, , j,

. H, housewife-mother ,

mother ,

working mother, - .

L’ ICM . F , -

mmm : Gz Cmmmd Cgv Cmmm. Lk k w ws vy w s

dgs m gv psygy d sg dvp md gg

m . I m m , L

,

m .

5.4 Cognitive lexical semantics

O mp sq Lk’s y ICMs ws mps p- vdd gv sm m wd-mg, kw s

cognitive lexical semantics. Cgv x sms ks ps




lexical items (wds) conceptual categories; wd pss gy ds y d mgs x ypy s. Ts, Lk gd,wds gs mdd d vsgd sg y ICMs. I p, Lk gd x ms ps yp mpx

gs s radial categories. A d gy s sd w sp pyp, d vs gy mms d pypy v, g ‘gd’ y pd s. As s, wdmgs sd m x s gy mpx sd gs

mgs senses.I , L’ over ,

x . L’

’ C B,

. T L ’ x over -

() . F, , , j ()

(). T x .

F above over x (5) j

E ‘’ x over control x

(5). W above over ,

control .

(5) a. The picture is over the mantelpiece.

b. Jane has a strange power over him.

T sp mgs smw pyp d Bgm d

L (1988), L (1987) control over m m m m over .

W L’ x , -

.

F , L’ - ‘-’ z

x (.., S, 1998).

F x, L’ over , , z

. A per se,

. H,

. M

(.., & E, 2001/ , 2003)

L ’ x-

x . W

( C ., 1997/ ),

(.., G, 2005), x

x .




5.5 Conceptual metaphor theory

C

. F

( E, 2004; E & Z, ; H, 2005; Lz, 2001; M,

1996; S, 2000; Z, H, & N, ),

.

T m L J’ 1980 m Metaphors we live by, m m m , . A ,

s s gzd y cross domain mappings spds w

m mm. Sm m - m

x x m m mx . F , quality m vertical elevation, (6):

(6) She got a really high mark in the test.

high m.A C M T, m

quality -

m vertical elevation. T m m m

L J m. T m , m .

I m dvpm, p mps d dvd

m m ‘-m’ primary

metaphors (G, 1997; L & J, 1999). O , m -m theories are buildings xm (7):

(7) a. Is that the foundation or your theory?

b. The theory needs more support .

c. The argument is shaky .

dvd m m dm, d gy vs p mppgs

-m mm. T m m m m mx compound metaphors conceptual blending (G ., 1999/ m), . T

m m m -m m, L

J (1999).




5.6 Conceptual metonymy

I Metaphors We Live By, L J , m-, mm m

: conceptual metonymy. L m, mm ysd s p: py gs dv. Hwv, Lk d Js gd

, , . I ,

m mm. I, m mm m m m z m (.., , 2003; R, 2001), m m m mm (B, 2001).

x

m E G (2006):

(8) The ham sandwich has wandering hands.

Img s (8) s d y wss s.

Ts s xpss ham sandwich pss s mymy: w

s ssd s y ( m sm dd) sds

( sm). As s xmp dmss, mymy s reerential . I s s xpsss ‘pp’ s d k

m. Ts sws mymy s dy m mp. F (8)

mp w wd d dsd ham sandwich s xpss

g sm w dd , ms d m w mqs. As s w q ds ps sw, w mymy s

p ‘X sds Y’, mp s p ‘X dsd

ms Y’.

A mm L J m . , x m . T .T x x the ham sandwich m; x m m .

A d wy vwg mymy s mymy s contingent

x. W x, vehicle highlights target (C, 1993).

Fy, Lk d (1989) ddd mp gv

. T , ,

- ,

-x m m. T x mm - ‘xm’. T ham sandwich (8) mm ( m)

( m ) m restaurant m.




5.7 Mental spaces theory

M S T . G F

m Mental Spaces ([1985] 1994),

Mappings in Tought and Language (1997). M , F, M 2002 , Te way we think, x

, Conceptual Blending Teory.

m . Fm M S By, gg pvds dspd pmps s mg,

w ks p p v. Adgy, s w s xmpy

gdg pps gv sms pp. W y

m m M S T x

m C B T.Adg F, mg s vvs w psss: (1)

mental spaces; (2) m mappings msps. Mv, mppg s gdd y dss x,

m m x-. F m ‘ , -gd pg dss d kwdg ss.’ (F,

1997, . 11). T

m ‘’, .M -

. T z , m. H, m ‘ ’, y s q d mpy ‘pks’ p s, -

. T m m m m m m.

As gs xpsss s s ddmd pmps psss

m , x meaning potential . R ‘’ , x building instructions, -

m . O , m m x , m x x.

M sps s p y space builders, w gs s

m m , m . S x (in 1966 , at the shop, in Fred’s mind’s eye), (really, probably,

possibly), j- m m (Fred believes [ Mary likes sausages], Mary hopes…, Susan states…), m .

S ‘ ’ ‘ ’,




, ,

, , .M sps element s, w s sd ,

p-xsg s p sysm. M sps s internally

structured y xsg kwdg ss, dg ms d ICMs. T sp, m m , m , recruit -x . O m , m .A , m , m .O M S , m m m m .

5.8 Conceptual blending theory

I ms s d ms s s, Bdg Ty s

M S T. T dynamic m , m m . H, B T m M S T ( C M T) . M, B

T .T sg Bdg Ty s mg s ypy

m m , emergent

structure: m m . B conceptual integration blending , .

O ,

, ,

. T G F

M , B T. B T

, ‘’ ,

, . H, B T

,

,

, , , ,

. F

x .

T , , , .




T - , -

F , m , . I ( ) input mental spaces, generic

space , blended space,

m . T m dd sp vvs pss md compression w ds p

‘’ m .F , xm m J (2002):

(9) In France, Bill Clinton wouldn’t have been harmed by his afair with Monica Lewinsky.

T mx .

T US x A

, x F

ds. Y, s dsgy s vd y ssg s,

x , ,

A F x . C , ,

m m m m m--, x M S . I -, , xm, m mm m (L & Núñz, 2000).

6 Cognitive approaches to grammar: guiding principles

J m, mm . Sm m

mm, R L Cognitive Grammar , L m m. O z -

mm; construction grammars.Fy, gv gss w s gmm g s xp

grammaticalization, - m m - . T

ssmps, w w vy y s s s. W s dy w

mm ( m).C ,

gs kwdg (‘gmm’) w s ss w ssmps d

m. I ,

mm :




) T m .) T - .

6.1 The symbolic thesis

T sym ss ds dm gmm s m-m-

g pg, linguistic unit (d ‘sym ssmy’ Lgk’s Cgv

Gmm, ‘s’ s gmm pps). I Lgk’s

, : ( )

( ). T m , m mm m , F S’ (1857–1913) . C S’

m m x (sign) m (signied ) (signier ), . W m S’ , S . I

‘’, ‘’. T ‘ ’ m m ( ‘mm’) m .7

I mm , ,

m . I, mm m m-m . T m (x

John baked Mary a cake) m ( kick the bucket ), mm –er x, . T ‘-m’ gg mgy pd w gv gss, w

m mm . I, m mm m mm. mm , .

m m m, m x.

T m m . B , -

. T , mm m , m m. T mm, m , m , x . F x,

mm m (schematic) m

m cat m (content )

m.




T d gmm s y mg s mp m

mm, lexicon-grammar

continuum, w wds k cat d gmm ss k

,

m m.

6.2 The usage-based thesis

T - ( -

)

. A m -

(m m,

m), is . T - j -v pps gmm pps gg g d gg

, m (2000/ m) C (1996/ m).

7 Major theories and approaches

I j

(‘’). T j -

, Gz C . F

, .

7.1 Talmy’s grammatical vs. lexical sub-systems approach

T md gmm dvpd y Ld my (.g., my, 2000, Cp 1/

s vm), ssms sym ss d, k gv pps

mm, mm m. H, m’ ms dsgsd y s mpss qv ds w gmm

(-) x (-) m. I, m ms gs xpss ps w ds p ssysms, w

d qvy ds sps m p sysm. Ts

grammatical subsystem lexical subsystem. F , -

m m, - m m m . I m m




z . I ,

m, m.F my s ss s py sg s pp, gg d

w x p sysm . T ggs m m w ssysms dg d xzg gv ps(s)

. B m m m m, m mm m - m - m.

A , -

structuring unction, -

.

- , number, colour. F

x, x -s E, -

x , , redness. F,

. F x,

number singular, plural paucal

( ‘ ’) millions twenty-seven.

topological Euclidean . I ,

- x z,

. F x, that x that book in your hand that city distance from the speaker

x . A x , /

- ‘-’ .

T ‘’ ‘’ x/

- .

my gs w vy ps xpss y p-ss ms

v spd (s s m m xp, kwdg d

dsdg), s sd vy ps xpss y sd-ss

ms. E dvd gg s ss s vy, ds w

y gv gg w xp v psss. Ts,

mj mpss d my’s wk s pvd dspvy dq

mj sm ssd w gmm ssysm. H ds

s y dyg w s s sm sysms w w sd-ss

ms pp s. Ts sysms d ( s) g sysm,

sysm, pspv sysm d -dyms sysm. Ts, my’s

pp pss mp z sp gv ps-

s dd y sd-ss ssysm, d ds w sysm

s gzd.




7.2 Cognitive Grammar

C Gmm m m R L m 1970, Foundations

o Cognitive Grammar m 1987 1991. T m m mm , m .

L’ m m mm m m m mx. L m, L mm - m. U m, m - - m.

I, L

z m . A, L’ m mm m’.

F L, ( m mm) (L, 1987, . 73). I

x m entrenched

( cognitive routine) m unit . Fm , m m m . Fm, m - ’ conventional . T conventionality

x m mm . T

. F , x dog (

E- ) x allophone,

E . T m m gmm mg m sg-sd ss (s Lgk, 2000, dd

; E & G, 2006, C 4, ).Sym s simplex complex ms sym s.

F xm, mx m mm m mx m , mx m m sm sym s s sps. T wd dog d p mk -s

xm mx m . Cmx x, ( x, dogs) ( x, John’s brown dog )

w ss ( xmp, Geof kicked the dog ). Lgk s mpx

m constructions.T L

vy. Y, s s vy sd dm wy. T

,

. F xm, m m m ( xm, mm m m




‘’

( m mm) ‘’ .

Fillmore et al.’s Construction Grammar

I 1988 pp (s vm), Fm, Ky d O’C g v md w, k x m, mpx gmm s (

), m m . xm m m, mx x x mx . I , m m m . D , - m m . F , m m ‘ ’m mm. T -,

‘’ mm. Fm . mlet alone .I let alone , F .

‘ ’ ( ‘m’ ) mm, x m m mx m m j pgm pssg. I wds, y g gs md vw

m. I m , m, pgm kwdg s psd psd ssysms, s

,

.I , x K F (1999), F, K -

C G . T monostratal:

kd y sms, zs sm gv

mds k Pps d Pms Ty. Fm, pss

Cs Gmm y sy m s sm

m m m m.

Goldberg’s Construction Grammar

T Fm . (1988) K Fm (1999) C G . T

‘ ’ ,

, , -

. T x , ,

m x .T x sg dvpg s pspv ws ppy s

pp w s g gmm. Pps ms mp dvp-

m A G’ , m m 1995k, Constructions (s s Gdg, 2003/s vm). I s wk Gdg




mm x m ‘’ m ‘’ . I , verb argument constructions. I , xm‘’ , ,

mm m . O G’ m, m m - , ‘-’

x m m m m x.

Radical Construction Grammar

T R C Gmm m C (1996/ m,2001), x .

L x -

. A

, - , x

unctional . Functional typology

m m , C x m m m- m .

C mm universals ’ - m m

gmm ( m pp), w sd sd k gmm diversity s m v. C gs s pp s s pd pvd s

m, arbitrary

, m m m generalization.

W mks C’s s pp ’d’ mgs s sq

. I C’ , x m . A m, , , , mm j j m. I , x, , m .

Embodied Construction Grammar

Emdd Cs Gmm (ECG) s y s gmm

dvpd y Bjm Bg d Ny Cg, g w vs -

s. I s md, mpss s gg pssg, py gg

mps dsdg. I wds, w pps w v

dsssd s p mpss mdg gs kwdg

- pssg, ECG md ks gd ss m ss gs kwdg, d ss xpg w ss




pssd - dynamic gg mps. Mv, ECG s -

y d w dsg w ss gv gg

mdd kwdg pss gg dsdg. T m

s d ECG s sd dvpg m ‘gg’

ds ss gg k Egs; s m gg s ds ds mdd ps s ss gv s

dym gg mps. F ds s Bg d Cg (2005/

s vm).

7.4 Cognitive approaches to grammaticalization

T m, ,

grammaticalization: -m m - m. B , mmz m -. Gmmz ( C, 1996/ m), m x . A

, x z-

. S H . (1991), S (1990) D (2002).

8 Empirical approaches in cognitive linguistics

A sm s vd gs gv gss, py y

m , m .T m m d gv sms. F xmp, w vy ppg,

x m ( Bm & L, 1988) s p mps (Lk & Js, 1980) ws gy sd

spk d p. T sds over y Bgm ([1981] 1988;

Bm & L, 1988) L (1987), , z m ( S, 1998), m m x m m s (s Sd & R, 1995, vw). I ys,

mp ds gv gss v m sg. F xmp,

xpm s (.g., Gs, 1994; Bdsky, 2000) d dss y

(.., M, 2004; Z ., )

m. R S C(.. C & V P, 2002/ m) m




. R S

R (1995) C . (1997/ m), G (2005) mss gv pps x sms, d s y y d Evs

(.. 2001/ m), m , m x m. F, xm m m (Z ., 2002; G & K, 2002; B, ) xm m m m -s s mg. W sp gv pps gmm,

Wm C’ (.. 1996/ m, 2001) ypg mds w gv gs y s sgd mp

mm.I, m

mds m gg dsps p gv gss, dg -sg qs m xpm psygy. T sd w

m m Gz-Mz . ( ), pps mgg m wksp d ‘Emp Mds Cgv

L’.D , m. F xm, G (2000,

. 349) m m m ‘ m m ’.I wds, psygss v gd gv gs s

.

F xm, B T m x. I ,

m m (m , xm). T ,

. F

. A, v ss yd dgy, w ssy m

m m .

9 Achievements o the cognitive linguistics enterprise

I m m m , m.




9.1 An integrated view o language and thought

T Gz C C C, -

,

z. T ,

. O , ,gv pps pgms d pps gv gss s

,

, m .

9.2 Re-examination o the empiricist thesis

T m . A m gss ps s s s mps pspv, d

m mm, x m m mm .

9.3 Focus on conceptual phenomena

C x

. F x, j ‘-

’, C M T, M

S T C B T,

x . U ,

. T

,

.

9.4 Integration o ormalist and unctionalist concerns

A -

. W -

,

x

. C , , .




9.5 A fnal caveat

Dsp s vms, m, s, kds gs

. I,

d ps ms md y gv gss p gz, .g., , ,

m , . U m m md , s ms sg v y y mps md

.

Notes

1 W M I, G L C S mm

.2 F N C (

).

3 T E- m. I m ‘m’ m mmm m m m , .., R (, xm,Bmń, 1993).

4 C , - mm (.., , ()), ( , /), , m. C- , m m . F , m , E G (2006).

5 T m - ‘’, m (2000).

6 O j m m m (L, 1997, ). A S (1999) , , , m. R , Lx C C M, E (.., 2006) m , ‘x ’, m .

7 N - m m , - . I , m ‘’ m m m -

j (.., S, ).




Reerences

A, J. (2003). M x: Sm m. I H. C, R. D & J. (),Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics (. 29–66). B: M

G.B, A. (2001). O m mm m

m. I A. B (.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the

Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective (. 31–58). B: M G.B, L. (1999). P m m. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22,

577–609.Bmń, J. (.) (1993). Prolowanie pojęć [C ]. L:

W UMCS.B, B ( ). Exm m m m. I M.

Gzz-Mz, I. M, S. C & M. J. S (), Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics. Amm: J Bjm.B, B. & C, N. (2005). Em Gmm m-

. I J.-O. Öm & M. F (), Construction

Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Teoretical Extensions (. 147–190).Amm: J Bjm.

B, L. (2000). M : U m m. Cognition, 75(1), 1–28.

Bm, M. & C, S. (2003). S : L- z . I D. G & S. G-

M () , Language in Mind: Advances in the Study o Language and Tought (. 387–428). Cm, MA: MI P.

Bm, C. (1981) Te Story o ‘over’; Polysemy, Semantics and the Structure o the

Lexicon. MA , U C, B. P N Y:G, 1988.

Bm, C. & L, G. (1988). C x . I S.Sm, G. C & M. (), Lexical Ambiguity Resolution (.477–507). S M, CA: M Km.

C, R. (1993). Formal Semantics. Cm: Cm U P.Cm, N. (1965). Aspects o the Teory o Syntax. Cm, MA: MI P.Cm, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding . D: F.Cm, N. (1995). Te Minimalist Program. Cm, MA: MI P.C, S. & V P, C. (2002). C m: A

- . Memory and Cognition, 30(6), 958–968.C, W. (1993). T m m m-

m. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 335–370.C, W. (1996). L : A -

. Nordic Journal o Linguistics, 19, 99–139.C, W. (1998). M . Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 151–174.

C, W. (2002). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Teory in ypological Perspective. Ox: Ox U P.




Mz, I. M, S. C & M. J. S (), Empirical Methods in

Cognitive Linguistics. Amm: J Bjm.G, A. & K, M. (2002). G . Psychonomic

Bulletin & Review, 9, 558–565

G, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. C: C U P.

G, A. (2003). C: A . rends

in Cognitive Science, 7 (5), 219–224.Gzz-Mz, M., M, I., C, S., & S, M. J. () ( ).

Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics: Ithaca. Amm: J Bjm.G, J (1997). theories are buildings . Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4),

267–290.G, J., O, ., & C, S. (1999). B m. I R. W. G

& G. S (), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (. 101–124). Amm:

J Bjm.G, S. T. (2005). T m run. I S. T. G & A. S (),

Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. B: M G.Hm, J. (1980). D . Lingua, 50, 329–357.H, V. (2005). Metaphor, Metonymy, and Experientialist Philosophy: Challenging

Cognitive Semantics. B: M G.H, B., C, U., & Hüm, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A Conceptual

Framework. C: C U P.J, J. & O, J. (1984). O . Proceedings o

the 10th Annual Meeting o the Berkeley Linguistics Society (. 15–26). B,CA.: B L S.J, M. (1987). Te Body in the Mind. Te Bodily Basis o Meaning, Imagination,

and Reason. C: U C P.K, P. & Fm, C. (1999). Gmm z-

: T What’s X doing Y . Language, 75, 1–34.K, P. & MD, C. (1978). T m

m. Language, 54(3), 610–646.L, G. (1977). L . Chicago Linguistics Society, 13, 236–87L, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Tings: What Categories Reveal About

the Mind . C: U C P.L, G. (1990). T : I m-

m? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74.L, G. (1993), T m m. I A. O (.),

Metaphor and Tought . Second edition (. 202–251). Cm: CmU P.

L, G. & J, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. C: U C P.

L, G. & J, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: Te Embodied Mind and its

Challenge or Western Tought . N Y: B B.L, G. & Núñz, R. (2000). Where Mathematics Comes From. N Y: B

B.




L, G. & Tm, H. (1975). I mm. Proceedings

o the 1st Annual Meeting o the Berkeley Linguistics Society (. 295–313).B, CA.: B L S.

L, G. & , M. (1989). More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic

Metaphor. C: U C P.L, R. (1987). Foundations o Cognitive Grammar, Volume I . S:S U P.

L, R. (1991). Foundations o Cognitive Grammar, Volume II . S:S U P.

L, R. (1991). Concept, Image, Symbol: Te Cognitive Basis o Grammar.

Second edition. B: M G.L, R. (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. B: M G.L, R. (2000). A m - m. I M. B & S. Kmm

(), Usage-based Models o Language (. 1–64). S, CA.: CSLI

P.Lz, M. (2001). Contexts o Metaphor . Ox: E.M, J. (1992). H II. C m. Psychological

Review, 99, 567–604.M, J. (1996). P . I P. Bm, M. A.

P, L. N, & M. F. G (), Language and Space (. 365–384).Cm, MA: MI P.

M, J. (2004). Te Foundations o Mind: Origins o Conceptual Tought . Ox:Ox U P.

M, R. (1970). U mm. Teoria, 36 , 373–398.M, R. (1973). T m E. IK. H, E. M, & P. S (), Approaches to Natural Language (. 221–242). D: R.

M, G. (1996), O m . Cognition, 60, 173–204.M, A. (2004). Metaphor and Political Discourse. Analogical Reasoning in Debates

about Europe. B: P Mm.N, B. & C, D. D. (I ). C -

. I D. G & H. C (), Handbook o Cognitive Linguistics.Ox: Ox U P.

Núñz, R. & Fm, W. J. () (1999). Reclaiming Cognition: Te Primacy o Action, Intention and Emotion. T: Im Am.

R, G. (2001). H mm m? I A. B (.), Metaphor

and Metonymy at the Crossroads (. 93–108). B: M G.R, E. (1975). C m . Journal o

Experimental Psychology: General , 104, 192–233.R, E. (1977). Hm z. I N. W (.), Studies in Cross-

linguistic Psychology (. 1–49). L: Am P.R, E. ([1978] 1999). P z. I B. L & E. R () ,

Cognition and Categorization (. 27–48). H, NJ: Em. R E. M & S. L (), (1999), Concepts: Core Readings (. 189–206).Cm, MA: MI P.




R, E. & M, C. (1975). Fm m: S . Cognitive Psychology, 7 , 573–605.

R, E., M, C., G, W., J, D., & B-Bm, P. (1976). B j . Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439.

S, D. (1998). W ’ m m: A C. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(4), 361–478.S, D. & R, S. (1995). N m: M

m– ’ ’? Cognitive Linguistics, 6 (1),89–130.

S, B. (1995). D Basic Color erms. A m m. History o the Human Sciences, 8 (4), 19–38.

S, C. (I ). C , . I D.G & H. C (), Handbook o Cognitive Linguistics. Ox,Ox U P.

S, C. (1999). G, m m. I . J & G.R (), Cognitive Linguistics, Foundations, Scope and Methodology (.223–256), B: M G.

S, J. (2000). Metaphor in Context . Cm, MA: MI P.S, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects

o Semantic Structure. Cm: Cm U P.m, L. (2000). oward a Cognitive Semantics (2 volumes). Cm, MA: MI

P., J. (2002). Cognitive Grammar . Ox: Ox U P.

, J. (2003). Linguistic Categorization. Tird edition. Ox: Ox U P.m, M. (2000). A - .

Proceedings o the Berkeley Linguistics Society (. 305–319). B: B L S.

, E. C. & D, R. (2002), Regularity in Semantic Change. Cm:Cm U P.

, A. & E, V. (2001). R m : T over. Language, 77 (4), 724–65.

, A. & E, V. (2003). Te Semantics o English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes,

Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cm: Cm U P.V, F., Tm, E., & R, E. (1991). Te Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science

and Human Experience. Cm, MA: MI P.Wz, A. (1996). T m m . I

Semantics. Primes and Universals, Chapter 10 (. 287–334). Ox. OxU P.

Z, J., H, I., & N, B. (I ). D m. I E.Bz, R. D, R. F, & . Zm (), Body, Language, and Mind.

Vol. 2: Sociocultural Situatedness. B: M.Z, R., S, R., & Yx, R. (2002). L m m

j. Psychological Science, 13, 168–171.

clover view

Documents