How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models, and Meaning Construction

ISBN 978-0-19-923467-7 llhI!ilHh!I 111111! 11111 uhf

How Words Mean

••I

How How Words Words Mean Mean -

Edith For Edith For for my my English •Fhank you Thank you for for English words. words. Thank

Lexical Lexical concepts, Lexical concepts, cognitive cognitive models, models, models, and and meaning meaning construction construction

VYVYAN EVANS EVAN EVANS

OXFORD OXFORD O XFORD UNIVERSITY PREss UNIV) RsIIV L'NIVt "'\11 V PREss I'RI \,

OXFORD OXFORD

Contents Contents

UNIVERSITY PRESS NIVI:;RSITV PRESS PRE'S 1JNIVI-RSITY MU 6nr 61)r GreatCbmWon tiarendon Street, Oxford 01.1 ozi Street. ()xk,rd (JI'~.t !"Ilrm, Odurd fu." (,rca( Oxford tnlYnllly University Press Presali departmentof ofthe theUni%ersutv University department of Oxford. Oxford. Oxford Pr of ttl< l'nI"",,,'ly of of Oxford. University isisa..ackpanlMnl It further. the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship. excellence m in rtW.mh, rrsrirch. schoLarship. furthtn the tM University's llmvtrllty', ob,atl kh...,bnlll J'. itII furthers objectivepf it n...dlnkt and education by publishing worldwide in .nd m and «Ilk.1ll"n education by by ruhh~lIni publishing W\lri.Jwuk worldwide in Oxford New New York Oxford I'<W York \ork Auckland UJ't Town 1)ar cx Karachi Kong CapeTown Town Dar Salaam tHong Hong Alk.kbnd Oar nes ~m I nl Kong Knns Karachi K.lr~hl Kualalumpur 1lumpur umpurMadrid MadridMelbourne Melbourne Mexico City "Nairobi Nainki Mub 1.adnd 1dhtlutnC' Mexico klk.O Cii'. (.Jly m..tM KuaLa New Delhi Shanghai 'lawn loronto Mw {)rlh. h.tncN1 T'I",", rvn.tnlO Nss Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto

Acknowledgement Acknowledgements Acknowledgements p",fac I'reface Preface List Li of Listt of of Figures Figures List Tab I list Listofof ofTables Tables Abbreviations Abbreviations

v ii viii ix IX

xiv XIV xvi XVI XVII

Withoffices offices in in With oftktt In Republic France (rreic ArgentinaAustria Austria Brailll(bile Chile • iechRepublic _ ArJtntlfu Au Irt.1 8rl.1I1 hlk ('zcth c:u...h RtruhL IFiance r,lI'''..:' Greece (.r('(t..t Argentina Guatemala Itunllry Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore Guatemala hungary Italy (.lUlnn.a1.l lI.aly Japan J'l"n Poland PoLlnd Portugal I\.nupl Singapore 'm..Pllr.:' South Korea Switterland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam South ~'lzn1.lnd ThaiL1ind Tlu.u.nd Turkey lurlry l'mu,," VIt1rwm South Korc. korca Switzerland Ukraine Vietnam registered I~ trade muk markpf of (Oxfmd Oxford University Press Oxfordis isaaa registered ()xford trade mark of )stord ('nisrrsuty Oxfllrd li rtploltrN L'mwnlly Press Prna in the UK and in certain other countries m the 1M UK .nd and m in t.:n1.ln (11M lounlnn in Published In in the the United United States Published in Publi.haJ 1M UmlN States !"lU.I by Oxford University Press Inc.. Press Inc..New New York by Oxford Umvnslty PrftI Inc.. 'f:W York .... ork Lw

Part Part1II Introduction I. Word and meaning meamng i. Words of 2. meaning Towards a new 2. Toward Towards .1 new account account of of word word meaning linguisti.s 3. 3. Cognitiv~ Cognitive linguistics 3. in 4. in 1.( LC( ;M M Theory Th ry 4. Word Word meaning meaning in LCCM 4.

I

33 27 27

47 65

Vyvyan Evans VlO9 moo Evans Vyvyan ,• • Vyvy n fun The moral rights of the author have TM mUr'. Let me sometimes sometimes danLe dance Let me dance With YOU, you. With you, Or climb, by ofthe the ings which whi h can can he interpreted in in context-dependent context·dependent ways virtue of of the ings in context-dependent interpretation maxims. application of of various variou principles principles of ofinterpretation, interpretation.e.g., e.g.•the theGricean Griceanmaxims. maxim. e.g., For aa contemporary contemporary account .tcount of "neo.( ;ricean I'or ofthis th. "nen-Gricean" "neo-Gri can" perspective, per pective. see seeLevinson I.evinson perspective. see Lcvinson (2000). Thi perspective, whichRecanati Recanati(2004) (uo;) refers (2000). (1000). per pective. which Recanati (1004) refersto literallSlI/. This general perspective, refers totoasas literalism, enshrines as asaxiomatic axiomaticaaaprincipled principled distinction distinction semantics andpragpragenshrines principled di tinctionbetween betweensemantics scmanticsand between ni.itks.. The one which is is in keeping keeping mati The position position that that IIIdevelop develop in in this thi book, book. one one which i in keeping with with matics. that pages which which follow. takes takesthe theview viewthat that much recent recent research research discussed discussed in in the pages pages which follow, takes discussed the the distinction between between semanticsand andpragmatics pragmaticsis notprincipled. principled.Rather, Rather, pragmatics i isnot not principled. Rather.itit between semanti semantics is is artificial. Mv approach for the the inherent inherent variation in word meaning inherent variation variation in inword meaningisis i My approach to accounting accounting for between the the linguistic sy.tem-the linguistic principled separation separation between Iingui ticsystem—the linguistic system—thelinguistic linguistic to posit aa principled knowledge words encode--and encode—and the conceptual system systeni—the non-linguisthe non-linguisnon Iinguis knowledge that that words system—the knowledge that facilitate access to. to. This this distinction distinction tIC knowledge that words word facilitate fa ilitate access ace This distinctionI IImodel tern. modelininterms terms tic instructs the theoretical theoretical constructs con truct of of the the lexical lexical concept concept and cognit.ve model. mode/. of the concept and the the cognitive model. 'these two These two constructs construct central to to the the theory theorydeveloped developed in in these thesepages. pages. onstructs are central pages. These central the theory developed hence, II refer to the the approach approach as the 71.eo'1 Hence. as the of LexicalConcepts Collcep" allli Cogllit.ve ( ouceptsand andCog Cognitive Hence, of Lexical Theory of ► itive Models (or LC('.\I Theory for short). Briefly, Models Models LCeM Theory Theory hort). Briefly, Brieny. aa lexical lexical concept iis aa bundle of bundle of LCCM concept is varying sorts of knowledg~=ribcd in detail in Chapters and 7—which 7which knowledge—described in detail in Chapters 66 and 7—Which sorts knowledge—described are pcialiied for in language. language. In In contrast, contrast.cognitive cognitivemodels model encodedin language. contrast, cognitive models are specialized specialized for being encoded body of of coherent and structured non-linguistic knowledge— ofcoherent coherentand andstructured tructured non-linguistic non-linguisticknowledge— knowledge-constitute aa body constitute (hapters in. described in detail onsist of d=nbed in detail ininChapters Chapter 999 and and 10. '0. Cognitive .ognitive models modeh consist consist of models perceptual and subjectivestates statesincluding derived "recorded" subjective inincluding luding information information derived derived recorded" per«ptual and subjective motorperception, percept Iofl,proprioception, proprioception,and andintrospective introspective from sensorysensory-motor perception. proprioception. introspectivestates, states. states, from sensory-motor sense, cognitivestates, states, andso soforth. forth. In In including emotions, emotion. the the visceral visceral sense, vense. cognitive cngnitive tat .... and and '>0 forth. In including emotions, addition, rehearsals of perceptual ofperceptual perceptual and and subjective .ubJectivestates, "ates. addition.II) tohe beable Jbletotoproduce producerehearsals rehearsalsof states, addition, to be subjective svmhtils form. the the perceptual perceptual symbols ymbols can can he be combined providing can becombined combinedproviding providing albeit in attenuated form, the novel conceptualizations. conceptualiiat ions.The ihe re-enact mentsofofperceptual perceptual and (onccptualiz.ltion\. The rt·cn3ltmcnts pcn:cptuJIand andsubjective SUh;Cdivc novel re-enactments states and and the the novel conceptualizations states Slales and the novel novel conceptualizations coru;cptualil.llions are are referred refcrrctl to as J~ simulations. 5;IIIlIlnt'O"5. referred as 4

xii XII Xii

-------------------------

PRFFA(:F PREFACE PREFACE

modelsprovide provideaaalevel levelof ofnon-linguistic non· linguistic linguisticknowledge knowledge whkhisis lienee. cognitive models models provide level of non knowledgewhich which is Hence, cognitive Hence, specialized for being being accessed accessed via via lexical concepts. lexical concepts. concepts. specialized for specialized corecontent, contentthe the LC( LC 'M M approach approach works as follows. Words Words encode encode aa core core content. the The LCCM The approach works works as as follows. follows. Words encode lexical concept, concept,which whichrelates relates tohighly highlyschematic schematic information: 1;lIgll/$';( lexical (oncept. which relatel. to to schematICinformation: information: linguisiti linguistic lexical represents thecore coreinformation information associated associated withaagiven givenword. word. (Olllml. Thi represents the the core information associated with with contCflt. This This represents content. non-linguistic of non"lingui ticcontent: content: In addition, addition. words word facilitate facilitateaccess access to to aa large body of large body of non-linguistic In addition, words facilitate access f.ieilitating content. This This is achievedby byvirtue Virtue of of aaalexical lexical co/lccpruai cOII'errl. Thi iis achieved achieved by virtue of lexkalconcept conceptfacilitating facilitating conct'ptual content. conceptual cognitive models, models, which IIIrefer access body of ofcognitive models. which refer to toas as aaa word's word's semantic semantic xCSsto to aaa body semantic refer to as word's access to all of moddstoto which wordfacilitates facilitates po,ell,wl. Not all ofthe the cognitive cognitivemodels model towhich whichaaaword facilitatesaccess acces are are poteutial. Not all potential. word meaning meaningarises arise. actIvated in any any given given utterance. lienee. the variability activated in givenutterance. utterance.Hence, Hence,the thevariability variability in in word word meaning arises activated the partial partial activation of the semantic potentialtoto towhich whichaaaword wordfacilifrom the actIvation of of the the semantic semantic potential potential which word facilifrom activation tates access. access. tates In L( CM Theory. range of presenting LCCM LCCM develop account of the range range of of In presenting presenting Theory,IIIdevelop develop aa unified unified account account of of the the phenomena presented presentedinin in examples examples (i) above.That That is, is, treatthe the phenomena (4) above. above. That is. I II treat treat the phenomena presented examples(I) (i) to to (4) phenomenaabove. above,while while distinct, distinct, as being continuous and and hence being phenomena distinct. a being being continuous and hence hence being being phenomena above, while as explainable in set ofrepresentational representational andcompositional compositional explainable term of common set set of of representational and and compositional explainable in terms terms of aa common mechanisms.This Thisdoes doesnot notmean, mean,however, however,that thatIIprovide I provide provideidentical explanmechanisms. does not mean. however. that identicalexplanmechanisms. at ions for for each of the ations for of the phenomena phenomenaIIIaddress, address.as aswe weshall hallsee. sec. ations each of the phenomena address, as we shall see. Iinally, L(CM Theory isisis an Finally. LCCM Theory an attempt todevelop developaaacognitive cognitivelinguistics linguistiCS Finally, LCCM Theory anattempt attempttoto develop cognitive linguistics account of lexical representation and meaning meaningconstruction. construction. One impulsein in of lexical lexical representation representation and meaning construction. Oneimpulse in account account and ofmeaning meaningconstruction construction cognitive lingui tics has has been to to develop develop accounts accounts of develop accounts meaning construction cognitive linguistics linguistics has been been which privilege I his is true both both of Conceptual which priVIlege non-linguistic non"lingui ticprocesses. processes. This iis true both of ofConceptual Conceptual which privilege non-linguistic processes. This Blending Metaphor Theory Theory (Lakoff (Lakoffand and Johnson 19&). 1980. 1999) 1999) and Conceptual Conceptual Blending (Lakoff andJohnson Johnson 198o, and Turner Turner 2002), Indeed, these approaches 2002). for example. example. Indeed, Indeed. these these approaches Theory Turner Theory (Fauconnier (Fauconnier and 2001), for remain important important in the present present work.Any Anylinguistically linguisticallycentred centredaccount .iw'unt of in the present work. work. Any linguistically centred account of remain remain important language understanding, such such asLCCM LCCM Theory, Theory, must must interface interface language uch as as LCCM Theory. interface with withthese, these.as as as language understanding. understanding, with these, discussed later in my main is to to integrate integrate and rntegrate and discussed book. Neverthel • my concern is discussed later later in the the book. book. Nevertheless, Nevertheless, main concern concern on many of ofthe the important importantadvances advances in interms term of ofresearch research on on linguistic linguistic build linguistic build on on many many of the important advances in terms of research semantics andgrammar grammarevident evidentin in cognitive cognitive linguistics, linguistics, and and to to incorporate incorporate semantics linguistics. and to semantics and and grammar evident in cognitive these with recent recent advancesin philosophyand andcognitive cognitivepsychology, psychology, whkh these recent advances advances ininphilosophy philosophy and psychology. which which these with with have provided fresh fresh impetus impetus for an have fresh impetu for an approach to toknowledge knowledge an"empiricist" "empiricist" approach to knowledge have provided provided approach representation .• Barsalou Barsalou 1999. 2008; Prinz 2002; 2002; sec also Gallagher representation (e.g zooS; also Gallagher Gallagher 2002; see sec also representation (e.g., (e.g., 2008; Prinz Barsalou 1999, 2006; 2006; 2007). 2006; Johnson Johnson 2007). 1007)•

book for? for? Who iis the for? Who is the book The beenwritten written with The has with aaa number number of of ditTerent readers readers in rn mrnd. ThIs of different different readers in mind. mind. This This The book book has has been been written inevitably brings with in terms terms of coverage, number of ofchallenges, challenges. in in terms of ofcoverage, coverage. inevitably inevitablybrings bringswith with ititaaa number number of challenges, for general linguists accessibility, and so soon. on. rirstly. Firstly, the the book attempts to cater for accessibility. linguist Firstly, thebook hook attemp" attempts to general linguists on. accessibility, and and so be familiar familiar with to situate who with cognitive linguistic;.IIIhave ha"e attempted attempted to to situate situate who may may not not be be familiar with cognitive cognitive linguistics. linguistics. have attempted LC(M of lexical semanlics semantic and and compositionality, compositionality,in in LCCM Theory. asasan an account lexical and compositionality. in LCCMTheory, Theory,as anaccount account of of lexical semantics cognitive linguistics. linguistics. have terms of assumptions umptions and and approaches approaches of of linguistics. III have have term termsof of the the core core a assumptions of cognitive included discussion of many nuny included many of ofthe thebackground ba after aft r refercihe, reference. nor northat >entenl meaning meanmgshould houldbe truth semantics patterns after reference, thatsentence sentence meaning semantics patterns (5« th discussion disco ion below). evaluable the (see the evaluable (see of word .. r. th hallmark of account. and and the view view of of word word Ilowe accounts, andthe However, the the hallmark hallmark of of componential accounts, However, assumed to be meamng under literalism, lit rali m. is i that that word w rdmeanings 01 .nings are ar assumed a umed to to be be meaning adopted is that word meanings literalism, meaning adopted under under which relalively fixed and table. Put way. the manti primitives primitiv which whi h relatively fixed fixedand and stable. stable. Put another another way, way, the semantic semantic primitives relatively ofcontext. ontext. make up a given given word identified independently independently of make up up a word meaning can he be identified independently of context. make word meaning Onle Idenlified. word word meanings meanings are are integrated, mtegrated. by by applying Iherules rules of ofthe the integrated1 byapplying applyingthe the rules of the Once identified, word meanings Once identified, are that provide sentence nlemantilunits unil> nature, positing principles which ensure ensure that that the nature, which resull are are unable chang or tbe meanings meanings of of tbeunits unitswhich whichare are the meanings ofthe the which are result are unable unable 10 to change change which result to or delete dekte the This restriction restriction to conjomed 10 form form aaa larger larger semantic sernanli< unit umt or orexpression. exp ion. This Thi restrictionserves ~ to 10 conjoined to semantic or expression. serves conjoined to form larger unit make a larger larger exp=,i n. for nOlonicwith withrespect respecl to10 II> monotonic with respect toits its make a larger expression, for instance instance aa >cotenc sentence,• m monotonic sentence for make componenl parts. where where lerm "monotonic" has to 10 do dowith withthe theview viewthat thaithe the component parts1 parts, has "monotonic" has do with the view that the component where the the term term "monotonic" componenl pari> rrlain their onginal meanings l11eanings in the lhe larger larger expression exp"'" ion (e.g., (e.g.• expression meanings in the larger ,- omponent parts component parts retain retain their their original original Cann '"word rd meanings meanmgsdo donot notalter allertheir theirmeaning meamngin10 lbe Thus, alter meaning inthe the (*Ann 1993). 1993).Thus,lhe Thus,the theindividual individual word meanings Cann they form part. larger manli units larger ofofwhich Largersemantic semantic unitsof whichthey theyform formpart. part. meaning.Under Onl itionhas ha occurred, occurred. thi giVe. ri to tosentence nten emeaning. meaning. Under Once compo composition this gives to sentence occurred, this gives rise truth tru th Iiterali m. >entence propo ition. isiistruth literalism, sentence meaning. meaning, technically known literalism, sentence meaning,t",hnically technicallyknown known aas as aaproposition, proposition That is, evaluabl although thi i ue isiispotentially problematic.>2 That That is. aa sennevaluable—although this evaluable—although this issue issue potentially problematic. problematic.2 formed gral11matical word - —Is i held held "carry" tenl a well grammaticalstring string of of words—is words heldtototo"carry" "carry"aaa tence—a well-formed grammatical string tence—-a ofaa meanmg which patterns patterns after after reference: reference: the th onv nllonal assignment ignment of meaning which after reference: the conventional conventional assignment of affair complexlinguistic lingui ticexpression e pr ionresultrresultull worldly and state tate of entity and worldly entity of affairs affairs to the the complex linguistic expression ing ilion of ofthe the individual mdlvldualelements el ment in informing formingaasentence. ~nten e.The The ing from from compo composition elements sentence. individual in forming that is, is, it Ion. that that is. the the meaning sociated with ntence constitutes onstitutes the propo with meaning aassociated associated with the the sentence sentence constitutes theproposition, proposition, ~nten e meaning. the following example ntence: sentence meaning. Thus, example sentence: sentence: sentence meaning.Thus. Thus,ininthe thefollowing followingexample J A khubn lh.! PnpNtk. InJlltOn Cr .... Bach 8.kh 1'#970 nt(ln iuoz; JOOl;Recanati R«.ln.JU Bach1997:(:orston $997;( (arston 2(X)1 kec.anata number of of scholars WOrlonlln working A numbn' otscholaxs working in tothe thePragmatic Pragmatictradition tradition(e.g.. byan an uticrcdby formuttered lUI"") tu\'t tlul "uoften (,hm ft" u~,.) 1M \:.ut thaithe Itwlinguistic Imgul heform (nrm uuntd by o1n zoo4) have observed that haveot'twnni obtten'ed thatIIititis otten(or (orusuallyi usually)the thecase cuethat that the iittcrSflCCS are often propositional. tntnt,."Ulnr III " meaning. mc.mma.. "Th.It I utterances unt'l'alkn aIT vitro n..not tpropositional. rn'P' Ih.. ruJ. interlekutor underdetermines the are often not the sentence sentente nwaning.Thai Thatis. underdc'ternun&s lhtinirriotulor PolnJrnktnml thatinferential inferentialpro. but ttmW'd J'RPMIK ",IN"",". WI. hthat lh., mt.'ftntw rn"nift but have to hewmrAttnJ completed by has~ ten termed esses intrusion,such such been termedpragmatic pragmaticintrusion. but h.aw have Id to bt be s.ompletedbr"'NI by what what hol, ewaluable. I 4rMon.for for ;t~ In rtndcr tM ullft'lIkC propositional rrop,lISJlk)f\M and btrk.c trulh ~nlwtW :Arston. Cntence in In (3). (3). The The literal meaning meaningofof ofthis thi sentence relates to a state of affairs in the world referenced by the proposition sentence ntence relates rdat to a state tate of ofaffairs affair in the world w rid referenced referen ed by by the the proposition propo ition expressed 1w this sentence. Ilowever, the proposition expressed is independexpressed this sentence. e.pr sed by thi ntence. However, 1I0wev r. the proposition propo Ition expressed e.pr~ is i independindepend . as partof ofan an ent of any given context 1)1 use. lo illustrate, flOW consider part ent of of any any given giv n context lontext of ofuse. u .To To illustrate, Illu trate. now now consider con ider (3) (3) as'part of an exchangebetween betweentwo twointerlocutors interlocutorsinin(4) (4who who are driving to to Brighton, are exchange between exchange interlocutors (4) whoare are driving driving toBrighton, Brighton.are are just north hovering just empty. just north of London, and whose petrol gauge isishovering above jU\l north of oflondon, I.ondon.and andwhose who petrol petrolgauge gaugeis hoveringjust ju tabove aboveempty. empty.

l)o you think we can make toBrighton Brighton without tilling up? (.) A:A:Do (41 Doyou youthink thinkwe wecan canmake m.keititittoto Brightonwithout withoutfilling fillingup? up? (4) B: Brighton Brighton is miles south south of of London London B: is B: i 50 miles of l.ondon According to by B B means meanswhat whatititItdoes: does: According to literalism, literalism, the sentence expressed by According to Iiterali m. the thesentence ntence expressed e pr BOlan what d Brighton is miles south of london, which is truth evaluabk independent iii Brighton iis 50 50 mile. miles 'iOuth south ofl.ondon. of London, which is independent of IIrighton i truth evaluable ind pendent of any given given "lOtext context itIt can byvirtue yin Lieof ofaacontext-independcontext-independgiven context because because can he be assessed any bc..au\e it be assessed a'~ by of. context independ . ent state of affairs: in the world, Brighton really is 50 miLes south of London. in the world. world, Brighton really 5o miles of affairs: affairs: in really is So mil south uth of ofLondon. London. ent state tate of However,in in th thecontext contextassociated with the the exchangein (i), itititmeans means more However, in the mean more more Ilowever. aassoiated sociatcnl..!" IIldud an array thatcan canbe be"opened" havejust just seen, seen, agents.As As we

IIII

Jitierent dlllerent 'iOrt. of ofphysical phy;i al entities ntlti and and abstract ab tract events—which event - which is is related related to to difkrentsorts sorts of physical entities and abstract events—which is related to (6) ~Jrlc'. notion of "background':' Understanding Understand 109the the exampl in and (6) (6) Searle'snotion notionof of "background".4 Understanding theexamples examplesin in (s) and and detailed knowledge about the sorts of scenarios that nvolves complex and (lIves complex and detailcd knowledge knowlcdg about about the the sorts son of ofscenarios enario that that In' involves and detailed to in each example and, thus, the specifit way in which open relates 1'/,90; ) "or fauctmnici (

WORDS WORDSAND ANDMEANING MEANING

13 13

The I'hc challenge, challenge,then, then,that thatawaits awaitsan anaccount accountofOflexical kxicalrepresentation representationand andthe the le of wordsin in meaning meaningconstruction constructionisistotowork workout outthe thedifference, difference,ififany, ro role of words any, the role role and andfunction function of of literal literal and and figurative figurative word use be tween the useininmeaningmeaningToTo illustrate processes. illustratethe thenature natureofofthe thechallenge, challenge,let's let'sconsider consider c onstruction processes. the the following tOIl()Wingexample: example: (7) -)

John's boss is a pussycat Johns boss pussycat

Presumably utterance doesn't doesn't mean that John's boSs boss isisaapussycat, presumably this utterance that John's pussycat,ininthe the sense of a four-legged organism, with a tail and pointy ears that utters sense of a four-legged organism, with a tail and pointy ears that utters "miaow." Rather,the themeanings meaningsassociated associated with with the the phrases phrases John's John'sboss boss and "miaow." Rather, have to to be beintegrated integratedwith with the the predicate predicatenominative nominative construction, construction, pussycat have which ordinarily carries aa class-inclusion class-inclusion meaning. 6 Informally, ordinarily carries meaning.6 Informally, this construcconstruction has has the thefollowing following syntax: syntax:"SUBJECT "SJ.'RJI( 1' is an an NP," NP," and and means, means,again againinforinformally: "The "The subject subject k is aa type of the the entity entity specified." specified." To Toillustrate, illustrate, consider considerthe the following: 8. (8)

hoss is is aapianist pianist John's boss

The meaning meaning that that aa language languageuser userwould wouldordinarily ordinarilyderive, derive,for for an anexample example such such as this, would he be that John's boss boss isisincluded includedin in the the category category of of those who play the piano and thus constitutes aapianist, p1w pianist, and andthat that this this situation situation persists persists through time, time. But, But,the thesame same construction construction does does not through not provide provide aa class-inclusion class-inclusion for the the previous example example in The challenge challenge then, reading for in (7). (i). The then, for for our our account account of the variation in in word word meaning, meaning, is to be able to provide an explanation as to to be able to provide an explanation .15 to why why (7) means something other than what it literally says, while (8) means means something other than what it literally says, means what it does literally does literally appear appear to say.

The nature of context II suggested above that that the fundamental fundamental problem suggested above problem with with literalism literalism is is that that itit divorce meaning meaning from context of of use. Before proceedattempts to artificially artificially divorce ing with ing with an attempt to identify identify the ingredients of aa theory theory of of word word meaning meaning and meaning construction, we sense of we must must first first get get an an initial initial sense ofthe thedifferent different sorts of context which serve serveto tonarrow narrow the the meaning meaningof ofaaword. word. Accordingly, Accordingly, we we will willbegin begin to to see seethat that the thenotion nOtionoflitcontext contextisisaacomplex complexand andmultifaceted multifaceted phenomenon crucial for for language phenomenon crucial language use useand andlanguage languageunderstanding. understanding. AccordAccordIngly, notion of of context ingly, the the notion is fundamental to the development of LCCM context is fundamental to the development of LCCM Theory I heory that II begin begin to to sketch in the next next chapter, chapter, and and develop developinin detail detail in the Ihe nominative " The nominative predicative verb be predh.atIve construction involves the fie which which it'm com• the copular topular or or "linking" linking" verb as the with a nominal. nominal, e.g.. pine. with thee%'ential mentirl part e.g.. "a "a pianist." The nominal fu n ctions as The nominal part of the the cI4USaI Pftdkate-: Predicate:"is is a pianist." t4flgJtIt'r 1.ang.s. ker twou in tt.th.sts ot of the the nonunalive n ► nuttateve pretts‘ ate lion inhis his aanalysis argues that be t ierucci only as stablesSILMIK)fl situation chma he cn(odci entoties the the -cunt tnudtt tonthrough throughtime tune of of .iastable argu-s ..ontinuation tharaLlcriie.d as aa stative st.itive relation relation" (find. ibid. 6%. 65).

14

1-1 '4

I ItO1)ICI ION

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTIO.

restof book.' I knce the the account ofword wordmeaning meaning providedisiisdiametdiamet7 Hence, re'>I Ihthebtx)k. book.' Ilen«. the account de ount of of word m ningprovided pmvidw diamel rest ofofthe ricallyoppoS«! opposed10 thatoffered offered byliteralism. literalism. rically opposed totothat rically Ihal oU rw by by lileralism. AsIhe theapproa approach take iis is uusage-based, usagebased, I use termutterance, utterance, ratherthan than As the approach take I uuse thetheterm Ihe lem. utteran e. rather ralher Ihan A h II lake ge' ba5Cd. seknce, word meaning. meaning. I hisreflects reflects my assumption thatitilitisiis sentence, in discussing discussing my assumption hat in di u ing word meaning. This Thi refllxl my umptiont thaI nlenee. in by laking takingaaccount account oflanguage languagein thatwe wecan canhope hope fullyunderstand understand onlyby taking to10to fully counl of oflanguage ininuse uusethat Ihal we can ho~ fully under land only of word meaning. It the nature also follows from the position that sentences, the ndlure nature of of word word meanong. meaning. It also follows follow from the Ihe position po ilionthat Ihalsentences, nlenc •asaas Ihe understood inlinguistic linguistit. theory,are areartificial artitiual theoretical theoretical constructs, understood lictheory, Iheory. ar artlfidallheor lilalconstructs, (on Irllct abstracted •abstracted ab Irallw under lood in in lingui from actual usage events, which is to say, utterances. I will have more tosay say from actual actual usag usage ev~ events, from 1 • which whi h isi to 10say, say. utterances. utterane . IIwill will have have more moreto10 y about the distinction between sentences and utterances in Chapter about the distinction aboullhe di IInClion between belw nsentences nlen and andutterances utteranc ininChapter .hapler 44. Utterancecontext context Utterance context

with the examples relating to to France As we we saw and Of>t:1I above, the the utterance ot*'n above. above, open France and As with the A w w,lh Ihe examples exampl relating relallng 10 Frallcr Ihe utterJIK elements which occur in a given utterance contribute, in part, to determining elements which occur in 10 a a given utterance utterance contribute, conlribule. in in part, part. to 10determining delerminlOg the meaning of the word. That is, and as suggested above, the utterance the meaning Ihe word. word. That ThaI is, i and and as a suggested ugs IW abve, above.the Iheutterance utteran e Ihe mcanlOg of the provides a context which assists in narrowing the meaning of the word in provides aa wnle.1 context whilh which aassists in narrowing the meaning 1\1 on narrowlOg Ihe meaning of the Ihe word word in in pmvides question. To illustrate, consider the following examples: question. qu lion. To 10 illustrate, illu lral • consider con ider the the following foUowingexamples: exampl

a. May 1st grandfather expired (9) a.a. OnOn May 1st (9) On ~by , my I my mygrandfather grandfalh rexpired PIrW b. On May 1st my driving licence expired b. On b. On May May'1stI my driving licence licence expired expired

The in each each exampleis functionof ofthe the utterance expired in The meaning m meaning meaning of of expired rxplml in a 'h example eumpl Iisaaafunction function of Iheutterance utterance inin in which it is embedded. In the first example. expired relates to an event expired relates to an which it whICh il isi embedded. embWdw. In In the Ih first fir Iexample, example. rxp"ed relal 10 an event 'enl involving death, while in the second, expired relates term involving ddeath, while in the involving alh. whil Ihe second, second. expired! expirrd relates relal to 10 expiry p'ry of of the Ihe term I rm for which an individual's right to drive public for whkh which an individual's to drive on on the the highway was sanctioned for individual' right righllo Ih public public highway highwaywJs wa; sanctioned '>3nclionw or licensed. or "licensed." "lie nS«!." Now consider another example involving verb. Thisinvolves involves the follow Now ow consider con ider another anolher example ample involving involvingaaaverb. verb. This Thi involv _the Ihefollowfollow. ing well-known context-dependent alternation associated with the verb alternation associated ing well-known w II known context-dependent wnle I-dependenlaitemalion a '>tlCrv", to 10 encapsulale the lbe various variou components compon~" and and complex complexideas idea;contained contained serves serves to encapsulate encapsulate the components and complex ideas various contained in Iheidea ideaas ingle.relatively relativelystable, slable.albeit albeil temporary, lemporary. concept. concept.It doesso so inthe the idea asa aaasingle, concept. does single, relatively stable, albeit temporary, ItItdoes so hby by casting ca"ing "this "Ihi complex mmpl of information informalion into inlo one onesingle inglenoun nounphrase" phrasc" casting "this complexxpiece piece of one single noun phrase" 10 ((11", ibid.7). 7). 7).Evidence !'videncefor forthi unOlycomes com from fmmthe Ihenext nl'Xlsentence senll'll'"presented pr nledin ('2): (ibid. this Evidence for this unity unity comes from the next sentence (12): presented in10(22): (12) (11) The Thr overnm.:nt'aim aimisisItoto to m.lke (,Pmore mnrefinancially finJnliall.raccountable, (countable.in (12) Government's make GPs The Government's aim make CPs more financially accountable, inIn

cha e of oftheir theorown bud ct>. as a, well well as as to 10extend exlend the Ih choice (hoiccof ofthe Ihe charge their ownbudgets, budgets, as well as to extend the choice of the doCnsc> asthe thenumber numberof ofdistinct distinct word number as senses required, e'en for a single word, would need r;(Xiated WIth it sdectional !>C1cOme usage-ba;cd approa -h . to to Thomp"on 2~2; Croft roft and and some usage-based usage basedapproaches approaches to language language (e.g., (e.g.,Thompson otending up in the see Harder ending Cruse ruse 2004; 2004; 2009 for d ription of of the the risk of endong up up in on the the (;ruse ioo4 see Harder 2009 for a description risk of fundamentalism"),isis hardto10 tomaintain. maintain.After extreme eextreme treme position po,itoonhe hecalls (all "usage "usagefundamentalism"), fundamentali,m"), i hard hard maontaln. After position he calls "usage distilht readings all, all,. pointed out outby bySweetser Sweetser(1999), (1999),the thevery verydistinct d"tonetreadings reading,typically typoCnlallons language and Ihose thaI rclale 10 human concepncepencoded by to the human conceprepresentations encoded in LCCM LCCM Theory that the representations LC Theoryis thaIthe therepresentations represenlations lual not not prompt for for quile the the same ... me kind kmd of the other two examples, in does does not prompt prompt the vase, it partly partly relationship. rel.tion hIp. In In (9h) (9b)the theflower nowerisis i;not notfully fullyenclosed endo ....'(\bybythe thevase, v. since , since inleit ilpartly relationship. (9b) the flower not fully enclosed ,cntencC(and (and word) meaning. ("lark uses vrord I meaning. " (lark meining to refer to sentence uses the term term"signal meaning"

"

'night refer refer to asthe theexperiential experiential complex v'kcd, the forms give rnlght refer to to.1' the xpcrientialcomplex omplexevoked, evokc..~, theopen-class 0llCn -dJ ,forms form\give give might as the open-class

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

42 42

stenes risetotodetailed detailed informatkm information concerning concerning the nature nature of the participants, participants. scenes involving the the participants, and and the the states states and and relationships relationships that that bold. hold. involving present in The distinction in types of semantic representation isis also in also present The 107). As we saw Langacker above, Lingacker Cognitive (e.g.,Langacker Langacker 1987). saw above, ognitive Grammar trammar (e.g., argues that lexical classes such as nouns and verbs encode schematic: meanargues that lexical classes such as nouns and verbs encode schematic Another distinction distinction claimed claimed to to hold between nouns do has to to do verbs has nouns and and verbs ing. 15Another ing.'' withwhether whetherthere there isis aa temporal temporal dimension encoded. Langacker Langacker maintains with evolution of of aa thatverbs verbs (but (butnot not nouns) nouns) relate to time, time, and and encode encode the the evolution that particular eventororstate statethrough throughtime.'4 time." AA further furtherschematic schematic aspect aspect of meanofmeanpart kular event ing h1is has to encodes aa schematic (1K) and/or and/or schematictrajector trajector (TR) whether a a form form encodes ing to do do with with whether landmark (LM). ( LM ).For Forexample, example,Langackcr Langackerargues argues that that relational relationallexical lexicalJ1isses, classes, landmark such as as prepositions, schematicTR TRand andLM I NIas aspart partof oftheir their such prepositions1 encode encodeaahighly highly schematic as: under under the instance, in terms of of an an expression expression such such as: tile' 15 For semantic structure. semantic structure.IS For instance, in terms encoding aa schematic under encoding is by of under phrase (NP) (NP) sofa, itit is schematicLM LM that a noun phrase sofa, by virtue virtue of under, giving giving rise rise to to the can he be integrated the complex integratedwith with the the preposition preposition under, can 1^ expression: under the the'sofa. sofa." expression: In addition additionto to schematic schematic meanings also assumes assumes that this sort, sort, Langacker Langacker also that In meaningsofofthis words encode encode "rich" semanticcontent. content.As As we we saw saw earlier earlier in inthe the discussion discussion of words "rich" semantic profile/base encyclopaedicsemantics, semantics, this this Is is conceived conceived of of in in terms terms of of aJ prohie/base complex, in profilesaagiven givensubstructure substructure in which which aa given given form form designates designatesororprofiles withinaa base. base. within The distinction distinctionbetween between schematic schematic versus versus rich also The rich aspects of meaning can also be seen ;oldberg Recallthat thatGoldberg be seenininGoldberg's Goldberg'swork workon onConstruction ConstructionGrammar. Grammar.Recall argues sentence-level constructions, such such as asthe theditransitivc, ditransitivc, have haveaahighly highly argues that that sentence-level rules. schematic meaning associated schematk meaning associatedwith with them, them, serving serving to to encode encodeargument argument roles. In contrast, individual individualwords wordssuch such as as the populatethese theseconconIn contrast, the verbs verbswhich which populate structions, e.g., bake, bake, are associatedwith withrich rich frames framesand andparticipant participant roles. roles. are associated structiuns, e.g.. In ionbetween betweenschematic schematicversus versusrich rich In this this book book II argue arguethat thatthe thedistinction meaning reflectsaa meaningidentified identified by LwTa!my, Talmy.Langacker, langacker, and and Goldberg Goldberg actually actuallyreflects distinction in types types of of meaning meaning representation, distinct distinction in representation1and andthat thatthe thetwo twodistinct types systems. Schematic Schematicmeaning meaningrelates relates typesof ofrepresentation representation relate relate to to distinct distinct systems. to bylanguage. language.That Thatis, to representations representations that that are are specialized specializedfor for being being encoded encodedby such representations take a form that isis highly highly schematic schematicin in nature, nature, specialspecialized being encoded iied for for being encodedin inthe theauditory auditory (or (or signed) signed)medium mediumthat thatisislanguage. language. Representations The Representationsofofthis thissort sortare arewhat whatI Irefer referto toas assemantic semantkstructure. structure.The

" Ihe

" The distinction verb% being profiled: region thenature natureofofwhat whatis is being profiled:a a region I verbs and and nouns flOUflSconcerns the d*stinitionbetween in a domain. in the caw of nouns. and the relations that hold between such regions. in the of in a domasn. in the case of nouns, and the relations that hold between such regions. in the case of

eli)'.. '• I angacker refers to to this way inin which the way whichverbs encode encode scanning.lieliedistinguishes the this as .issequential sequential scanning lexical classes, such as adiectives, adverbs, time from the way time is encoded by other relational such a. advrfbs.and and tinw from the wa'. time is encoded b'. other 'rdaiii,nal kxical irecti 21,04s for aareview). see Evans and I prepositions (see Langacker 59117, 199th, 1999, :ANA; (rcen 21)0(1 review). 200$; see Evans and 1991b, prrpos,tu'r,s (we 1 .rngacker .r.111Inut 'I Indeed. notion importantfor forconstituency c.,ttstitUrn'yinIflt (iT%flitIYC' Indeed.this *hi% m)tionisisimportant I* In I angacker's terms, the NI' elaborates the conceptually dependent dijiendenipreposition PftPI)SItft)nunder. wide,.II will will terms, the N I' elaborates the In discuss what it means to be conceptually dependent in more detail in Part II of the honk. The issue of detail UI P.irt II of the book. The issue of dee ient an more be at ►4,4 ► Ic. elaboration. in the sense of Langacker. will he discussed in more detail in Part III 44 the 1 detail in Part Ill of the book. in more be elaboration. in the sense of langaLker. 1

''

OF MI ANINt; M(i1t TOWARI)5 TOWARDSAANEW NEW ACCOUNT OF WORI) WORD MEANING

43 43

that of of the the theoreticalconstruct constructI Idevelop developtotomodel modelsemantic semantic structure structure is is that associatedwith with In contrast, contrast, the the rich rich representations representations are are associated lex ica l concept. In Lwlanguage—although language—although and are are not not directly directly encoded system. and encoded by the conc eptual system1 level. Representations Representationsofofthis this sort sort are are what what languagefacilitates facilitatesaccess access to to this this level. to modd conceptual structure. The theoretical I refertotoasas conceptual structure. The theoretical construct 1 develop to model I1.'tcr involve aa structure is that of the cognitive model. Cognitive models models involve o mceptual structure is that of the cognitive model. Cognitiveintroduced, simuframe,,,id andsimulations simulations deriving deriving from from the the frame. frame. As As briefly briefly introduced, simufIJmC motor, cognitive, reactivations of ofsensory sensory-motor, cognitive,and andsubjective subjective states, states, are reactivations lat ions are lations that identical to based on, on, hut but not not identical to the the perceptual perceptual and and subjective subjective experiences experiences that k,sed arcstored storedinin the the conceptual conceptual system. system. conceptual in this structure and Partofofmy myargument argument in thisbook book isis that that semantic semantic structure and conceptual Part representation and they structureform formtwo twodistinct distinct levels levels of representation, and do do so so because because they 5trtiULlre systems:the thelinguistic Iinguisti system and the the inhere in in two two distilht distinct representational representational systems: system and presentedby byBarsalou flarsalou et et al. a!. (forth(forthFollowing arguments presented conceptual system. system. Following evolved,ininpart, part,by byfacilitating facilitating that the linguistic system coming), 1I suggest suggest that system evolved, sys in the the conceptual sysmore effective effective control control of of the the extant extant representations representations in more for providing providing aa linguisticrepresentations representations are arc specialized is, linguistic l'hat is, specialized for tern.' tem. 17 That therebyfacilitating facilitating "5caftolding "scaffolding" to to structure structureconceptual conceptual representations, thereby theconceptual conceptualsystem systemevolved evolvedfor foraction action While the communication. While their use in their in communication. language theemergence emergenceofoflanguage purposes1the i.e., for for non-linguistic non-Linguistic purposes, perceptions i.e., and and perception, representationsininlinguistically linguistically mediated mediated conceptual representations of conceptual facilitated facilitated the the use use of with aa cognitivdy modern meaning meaning construction, thereby providing providing cognitively modern humans humans with and linguistic and of linguistic significant significant evolutionary evolutionaryadvantage. advantage. With Withthe theassociation association of advanced in the theadvanced Lonceptual representations,humans conceptual humans were were able able to to engage engage in ritualpractice, practice, symbolic behaviours behaviours that that led led to to the the explosion explosion of of sophisticated sophist icatedritual symbolic agoduring duringthe thelater later scars ago material culture, material culture,art, art,and andscience science around around 50,000 5o,000 years Paeleolithic StoneAge, Age,the theperiod periodthat that archeologists archeologistsrefer referto toas asthe theUpper UpperPaeleolithic Stone alsoRenfrew Renfrew 2007). 2007). ((Nlithen Mithen 1996; see see also of the the book book isis In essence, essence,the theargument argumentIIshall shallbe bemaking making during during the In the course course of that semantic semantic structure structure and and conceptual conceptualstructure structureinvolve involvefundamentally fundamentallydisdisthat is this distinctiveness that tinct sorts representations. Moreover, Moreover, itIt is this distinctiveness that facilitinct sorts of representations. facilitating tatesmeaning meaningconstruction. construction.ItItisisby byvirtue virtueof ofsemantic semanticstructure structurefacilitating tates That accesstotoconceptual conceptualstructure structurethat thatwords wordsappear appeartotohe beprotean proteanininnature. nature.That access is,what whatwe wemight mightinformally informallyrefer referto toas asthe the"meaning "meaningshifting" shifting"properties, properties.soso is, to speak, speak,associated associatedwith withwords wordsisisaasymptom symptomofofthere therebeing beingtwo twodistinct distincttypes types to of representation representationimplicated implicated in in meaning meaningconstruction. construction. of representationalsystems systems involvedinin Rut to toclaim claimthat that there thereare aretwo twodistinct distinctrepresentational But involved meaningconstruction construction isisnot notto toadopt adoptaamodular modular perspective perspective(e.g., (e.g.,Fodor Fodor meaning Modularity holds holdsthat that the the mind mind consists consistsof ofdomain-specific domain-specificencapsuencapsu1 1983). 983). Modularity modules,which which work work by by virtue virtue of module working working on I)Ut lated modules, of one one module on the the out output meaningarises arisesbybyvirtue virtueofof of another. another. As As we weshall shallsee, see,ininLLCM LCCMTheory Theorymeaning of dynamic exchange exchangetaking takingplace placebetween betweenthe thelinguistic linguistic and conceptual aadynamic and conceptual baptcr detailin a hapter moredetail Thisisisdiscussed ininmore "" This in

INl"ROOl'CTION INTRODU(.IION INTRODUCTION

44

disinterplayinvolving involvingdis\yMcm\. M aning construction (on IrU(lion involves IOvol ..., aaacontinual Cnlalion ()f lexical "rUllur., Ihe ubjClIofof provides diagrammatic Part II of the book. Part II of the book. In between thelexical lexicalconcept conceptin Pari oflhe In Figure rigure 2.41h d. hed line between belween the Ihe lexical concepl in In Figure2.4 2.4the the dashed dashed the model—represented thecircle—in circle—in Ihe linguistic svstim y,lem and Ihe cognitive cognilive model—represented model- repro nled by bythe Ihe irdc- on system and the the conceptual system represents the two. two. conceptual which associates a path of (OI1l.:cptual system ,y,tclll represents rCJlr~nb a of .14.:4..C"" d''''k:iJt the two. access whilh Figure representation in IA( !-igur. Ihe nalure of 'manlic representation rcpre",nl.lionininLCCM LC M attempts to the nature nature of of semantic Figure 2.5 2.5 allempls attempts 10 to convey convey the notion 1,1 I I11W hc nelll(," ol ilrili1011 III 01 a a ~Up'll 'I Ihr .. il m<Jl.ld I hascd battJ I'I'W) ""Iton III a.. .14111111410r. Imul~lor flatrrC'\br modd on f\.lruJuu Iiarsalou' II144411 is ilignitivr Ft% t‘c model ,% Kiwi" un n tdih s(up.rd simuLator, IS relmiolishir conktruit %irimi.ii411. u ri.1 iIn fl)Udd.and and IIit% Its rN rrtatsonship withthe ihc tunsirulni ni n.dW t 0of1 a•a cognitive '-''lUUhu' model, Ulgnlllon ha\e had, longlong. Finally the neural standing influence on the character and content of cognitive linguistic the'landing influence on the Ih character character and and content conlenl of ofcognitive cognlli\e linguistic hngul IIC theIh standing influence on ories,• from from early early work work on on how how visual biologyttinst constrains colour-termsystems systems orie vi ual biology biology con'lrain coIOl~r'lerm y,lems rains colour-term work on how visual ories, from earls ( Kay and McDaniel 1978) to more more recent recent under the (t;ayand 1C these aaspects. For 10 instance, justI as prototype a cross examples of reft rents of given are better and worse ' -Ihere arc wor~ examples example of of referents referent of of given givenwords, word,. are hetter better and and worse words, llectsi—there e«cd' applied the same prinvarious studies have particular related in

Ihe he (.enerali'duon ludies (If I The Generalization C.ommilmenl Commitment ha has lonuele concrete consequenles consequences for for studies of

,.IJI«I "" vvarious riou studies ludi have Ih same same prinprin . related10 in parlicular particular wa ways—so have applied applied the (e.g., organization of morphology (e.g.1 'taylor i o), syntax ,pic> to lU Ihe organization organilJlion of of morphology morphology (e.g., (e.g .•Taylor 'Jylor 2003), 2(lO). syntax ynlax (e.g.. (e.g .• ciples tothe the and Ohala 1984). 1995), and phonology (e.g., Jaeger (, hlhe rg I99S ). and (e.g .•Jaeger Jaeger and Ohala Oh"'a 1984). 1984). 1995), and phonology phonology (e.g., Goldberg (Lakoff 1990). This commitment is the Cognitive Commitment Ihe h "second 'ond (Ommilmenl i the Ihe Cognitive COSOltiv Commitment Commllmenl(Lakoff (Lakoff1990). 1990).This Thi, The commitment is haracterization 1)1 the general printo nrepresents I'r,,,,,n" aaa",mmllmenl 10providing pnlVldingaaacharacterization chara ·Ieri/.llion of ofthe Ihegeneral gener'"prinprin commitment to providing cognition from that accord with what is known about human for language gntlive brain sciences, does so meaning is central to cognitive cognitive approaches as cognitive semantics. This follows meaning is central to cognillve follow a~ i ognitiv. approaches approach I his follows as cognitive semanti . Thi forthe the to grammar. Indeed, il it that the centrality of meaning meaning for to grammar. Indeed. iis worth worth observing observing that lhallhe centrality of for Ihe it is to grammar. are study of of grammar iis anolher another way in which which cognitive cognitiveapproaches approaches togrammar grammar are study way in whi h cognitive approa h to to grammar are study of grammar grammar is another way fundamentally cognitive. cognitive, as (2000). observed by by Talmy lalmy (zooo). as a~ observed observed by T.llmy (2000). fundamentally fundamentally cognitiveapproaches approachesto to Although the cognitivesemantics semanticsand and cognitive Although tudy of ofcognitive cognitive semanti cognilive approaches to Although the the study study ot implies that grammar are occasionally separate in practice, this by no means implies that no means grammar arc o(c. ionally separate parale in in practice1 pra Ii e. this Ihi Lw by no mean impli Ihal occasionally grammar arc Linked—most workin in their domains of enquiry are anything but tightly linked—most anything bUI but tightly Iheir domains domains of of enquiry enquiry are arc anylhing lighlly linked mOSI work work in their both meaning and gramcognitive investigate cognilive linguistics Iingui li finds find nee ry to to investigate inv tigate both both meaning meaningand andgramgram cognitive linguistics hnds ititit necessary necessary matical simultaneously. malicalorgani7.ation imultaneou Iy. mat icalorganization organization simultaneously. approaches togrammar grammar As with research in cognitive As with research In manllCS. cognitive cognitiveapproaches approa he toto grammar cognitive semantics, semantics, As with research in cognilive Ronald Scholars such as have also typically one of have also typically typically adopted adopted two foci. foci.Scholars holars such ueh as asRonald Ronald adopted one one of two two foci. have also 2oo8) have emphasized the study of the study of emphasized Langacker (e.g., 1987, 1991a, iy9tb, 1999, Langacker (e.g .•1987, '987. '99w. 2008) have empha ized Ihe tudyof 1991!'. '999. zooS) 1991a, '99,11. langacker (e.g., organization. In his theory the give rise to to linguistic linguistic the cognilive prin ipl that th.t give rise ri 10 Iingui tic organization. organization. In In his histheory theory the cognitive cognitiveprinciples principles that give delineate the principles of Cognitive Grammar, Langacker has attempted to delineate the principles Langacker has attempted attempted to delineate lhe prin iples of Cognitive Grammar. ker has of Cognitive Grammar, Lang. that structure a grammar, and to relate these ofgeneral generalcognition. cognition. to aspects that Irueture aa grammar. grammar. and to 10 relate relate these these to 10aspects aspects of of general cognilion. that structure researchersincluding including The investigation, pursued by The second avenue av nue of ofinvestigation, inv IIg.tion.pursued pur uedby byresearchers researcher including The second second avenue of a!. (Fillmore et Bergen and Chang (2005), Croft (2oo2), Fillmore and Kay (Fillmore Bergen Chang (2oo5), (2005). Croft roft (2002), (2002). Fillmore Fillmor and Kay (Fillmore a tt al. al. Bergen and and Chang Lakoff (lakoff and Goldberg (1995, 2006), Lakoff (Lakoff and Kay and Fillmore 1988; 1999), '988 ; Kay Hllmore 1999), '999). Goldberg (199s. ('995. 2006). Lakoff (Lakoff and Kay and and lillmore (1996), aims Thompson 1975; Lakoff 1987), and Michaelis aims and Lambrecht Thomp,,"n '975; Lakoff L.lkoff1987). '987). and dnd Michaclis Mkhaelb and .... mhrc..hl (1996), ('996) •• imsto10 Thompson 197s; the linguistic detailedaccount of provide provide moredescriptively d riplivelyand andformally formallydetailed deta.led •account count of ofthe Ih linguistic Iingui lic formally provideaaamore more descriptively resear.hers attempt to units that comprise a particular language. These researchers attempt language. These unil Ihal comprise parlicular language. The. researcher attempl to to iimprisc aa particular units that of language, from morphemes provide a broad-ranging inventory of the units of language, from morphemes units oflJnguag ,from morphcl11 provide .ranging inventory inventory of the unil~ provide aa broad broad-ranging oftheir theirstructure, structure, and seek accounts to words, idioms, and phrasal patterns, and seek t words, words, idioms, idiom.s, and phrasal phrasal patterns, pattcrn~, ~kaccounts Jt:.t:.ount~ofof their truc.:turc. to hers who have pursued this compositional possibilities, and relations. Researchers who have pursued relations. Resca «lmpo"lional po ibilill • and rcla,inn . Re..carcher who have pur uedthis Ihi compositional possibilities,

51 .£. 51

investigation are are developing set Iinc IIlH'>lIgalion Iheories that Ihal are aretollectively coli lively arc developing developingaaa sel set of of theories theories that are collectively li ne "ofI investigation construction grammars. approach takes known lruction grammars. grammars. This Thi g neral approach lak itits name name as known J' as con construction This general general approach takes its name that Ihe the bask Iro'" linguistic unil of language is iis the Ihe the the new view in in cognilive cognitive linguistics linguistics Ih.1 that the basic basic unit unitof of language language the fro mIhe (roifl units "n,I)(,II( IIllroduced above. ·ulh symbolic ymbolic uni arc aiM> known. III unit, si.mbolicUIllI. unit,as asintroduced introducedatx)ve. above. Such Such symbolic units are are also also known, known, in in \.oll,(rudion grammars, aasconstruction.' ruct ion grammars1 grammars,as constructions.' co nstruction

LCCM Antecedents ofLCCM LCCM Theory Theory Antecedents of compøsut tonality to rtprestnt4ition IIThe he 10 lexical toLw be he "I'Pro'lh approach approachto to lexical lexical rcprc.entalion representation and and semanlic semantic compo;itionalily compositionality to be and "r,'..cnled rCSI book ha feet fcct in in both both cognitive cognilive semantics, semantics, and and rrL.sCnted in the presentedm inthe therest restof of the the book book has has feet in both cognitive semantics, approaches ,o~llI li vc .pproaches 10 ItItconstitutes con lilulCS aaacognitive cognitive scmanti theory Iheory Lognitivt cognitive approachesto to grammar. grammar.It constitutes cognitive semantic semantic theory oncerned w,lh with meaning-construction mcaning-construuiun proesses. and nonJ' meanmg-con IrUllion processes, proce.ses. figurative figuralive and and nonnon .1.. as it.1it "is conaspects aspeet of oft~e The lat later development of creativity associassodarchitectureof ofMental MentalSpaces Spaces Theory in in order order to model the architecture of Mental Spa Clo Theory model the thecreativity creatiVIty a,;(ICIarchitecture ated with with meaning construction and the the use use of language language in in meaning ~eaningconstrucc?n tru ated tru tion and u of oflanguage ated with meaning meaning con construction own. theoretical machinery of tion as well as developing significant theoretical machinery of tion as a, well well a.is developing developong iglllficant theoretical machm ry of its ,tits own. own. lion conprimary both theories is that their However, what is common to both theories is that their primary focus conthemi i that primary focu, con However. However,what what i,iscommon common to the conceptual rather than than cerns compo mechanisms compositional that operate at the eptu~1rather ~ther ~hanat ..att cern itional mechanisms me hani m that thatoperate operateat theconceptual con primarily words,neither neither of of these theories the the lingu"tic level. In In other words, words. .ofthese t~ . theories theone isIisprimarily pru"anly the linguistic linguistic level. level. In other knowledge. including focused contribution focu!>Cd the nature of or contribution contnbutlon of oflinguistic \ongu"tlcknowledge, knowledge.including mdudmg focused on onthe thenature natureof of or processes—whatFauconnier Fauconnier refers refers to to as as words, word. meaning-con tructi n processes—what processes-what Fauconnier refer as words, to to meaning-construction meaning-construction ofboth both these theories important concern concern backstage cognition. instance, theories ba kstage cognition. I-or instance, in,tante. an an important illlponant concernof of boththese thcsc.'heon backstage cognition. For For in meaning conconis of in meaning i, mclage and backslage of labour that The of cognilion cognition can can be be theory of of frontstage frontstage cognitionn of be delineated delinealed as a follows. follow. A theory Ihtory o~ fronlslage cognition cognili delineated as follows. A A of cognition can (e.g., LCCM Theory) involves an of the of the following: .• I.e counl of Ihe following: followmg: (e.g 1 heory)involv involvesan anaaccount .iwnint (e.g.. I ('( .M \1 Theory)

ideas,• set •• aaa model model dynamicand and temporary of discoursemeaning: meaning: aadynamic dynami andtemporary lemporary set sel of ofideas, idea mod Iof ofdiscourse discourse meaning: represented which an emergent represenled and partilioned in conceptual conceplualspace, pace.which whi hisis i an anemergent emergenl representedand andpartitioned partitioned in in conceptual space and communication, and mediated, ()fsituated ilualed communication, communicalion. and andmediated, medialed.inin In and evolving properly of andevolving evolvingproperty property of situated part, part. by language. language. part, by by language.

The between frontstage backstagetheories theoriesof ofcognition cognitionisiis The inleractionbetween belween frontst.Lge fronl lage and and backstage oockslag Iheorie of cognolion the interaction interaction and summarized 3.3. sum mariiedinin hgure summarized mFigure !'igure3.3. 3.3.

Lexical Lexicalrepresentation representation LeXICal representation frontstage cognition One frontstage cognition withan an account One ofthe Ihekey keyaspects aspecl associated a socia ledwith wilh anaccount accountofof of fronl5lage cognilion Oneof of the key aspects associated Part of the book. As relates isthe thesubject subject 10 lexical represenlalion. whichisis Ihe ubjcciofof ofPart PartIIII\Iof ofthe Ihehook. book.AN A relal relatesto tolexical lexicalrepresentation, representation,which we saw ininthe previous chapter, lexical representation constitutes (i) the representation (i) the we \.3W the previou\ ,hdpter. Icxi(dl rcprc\Cntdlion umstitute (i) the we saw in the previous chapter, lesical language users (symbolic inventory available language users (symbol i, knowledge as'ailahktoto inv nlory of oflinguistic linguisticknowledge knowledge available 10 langu.ge u~rs ( ymbolic inventory linguistic

55

AA model of cognition: model01 ofbackstage backstage eognltoon: cognition the the processes and principles principles pnncoples of 01 processes and of conceptualization concepluallzation prompled for conceptualization prompted prompted for by by cognItion processes of frontstage frontstage cognition cognition processes of

I cognrtoon: the A cognition: A model model of of frontstage frontstage cognition: the nature linguistic knowledge, nalure of IIngUlsbc knowledge. conlext. nature of linguistic knowledge. context, context. lexical activation of of nonnonlexocallnlegraloon. actovaloon lexical integration, integration, and and activation linguistic knowledge, in ci IIngulslic knowledge. In service of linguistic knowledge. in service of prompting prompllng 01 promptingfor forprocesses processes of of backstage backstage cognition cognltoon cognition

Theory.Mental Mental Theories of of backstage backstage cognition (e.g.1Conceptual Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Theori of ba kslage cognilion (e.g.. nceplual Metaphor Melaphor Theory., Menial Theories cognition (e.g., Spaces Theory, and and Conceptual Conceptual Blending Theory) the following: following: Blending Theoryl Theory) involve involve the eplual Blending Ihe followms: Spaccs SpacesThcc)ry. Theory, and Con

The both andbackstage backstage approaches tocognition cognition isIis ofbolh fronl lag and 00 kslage approaches approa h to 10 cognolion Th ult,male aim aIm of the ultimate ultimate aim of both frontstage frontstage to 10 achieve Ihe following: to achieve .i.hicve the thefollowing:

55 55

AAmodel mealllng model ofdiscourse discourse meaning J model01of discourse meaning

the relalion relationship between lexical lexical forms forms and and semantic structure, ••• the Ihe hip between belween manti structure, IruClure. . relationship lexical the nalur nature of Ihe the relationship relationship holding between between semanticstructure structure (inrelallon hip holding belween semantic ~manll IruClure (in(m ••• the Ihe nature of the (inhering in hering in inthe the Linguistk linguistic system) and conceptual structure in and con conceptual structure henng Ihe lingui II system) y leml and eplual Mru 'IUre (inhering in the Ihe hering in conceptual system), conceptual system), conceplual y lem I. . ' the principles principles of of lexical lexical composition composition that that serve serve tointegrate integrate lexical con• •• the Ih composllion Ihal ~rve to 10 mlegrale lexical lexl(al concon cepts and facilitate facilitate theselective selective activation of of conceptual conceptual structure, fa ililale the Ihe sel hve aCnses associated aialed with wllh over, over. lance. serves to can be be criticized criticized on similar similar grounds to of lexical semantics that can CTilicized on imilar grounds grounds 10 models model of oflexical lexical semantics mantics that Ihal can constitute Sense Enumerative Lexicons, discussed in Chapter I. Indeed, this discussed in ( hapter i. Indeed, con~lilUI Lcxkons. discussed in 'hapler I. Indeed. this thi, coflstitUtCSen SenseEnumerative Inumcrative Lexicons, is the tack I will take in the next chapter, where I the model briefly review of is k I will where II briefly review Ih model of is Ihe the la tack will lake take III in Ihe the nexl next chapler. thapter, where word meaning word Brugman.Lakoff, lakofT. and and olhers. word meaning proposed proposed by by Brugman, Brugman, Lakoff, and others. others. Tyler and 1, in the earlier phase of research on Principled Polysemy adTyler in the Ihe earlier phase pha of rcsearCrve ddetermine lennine what whal counts ounl as as dislin I sense n (i.e., (i.e,. aa lexical concept—a time lexicalcon concept—a term that that was was used used for for the the first firstI lime time in in the the context context of of lelCical epl-a term lerm Ihal wa for the fir in conlext Principled loo4a), and Polysemyin Ivans 2oo4a). 2004a). and and thus bePrin ipled Polysemy Poly""my ininEvans [van thu should hould distinguish di lingui h bebe tween senses stored in semantic memory, and context-dependent meancontext-dependent meanIween sen lored m senses stored in semanlic semantic memory. memory, and conlelCl-dependenl ings ing constructed constructed "online," ings "online," and and •• they they should prototypical or sense associated with Ihcy should hould establish lablish the Ihe prototypical prolotypical or orcentral cenlral sense sen associated a ialed with wilhaaa the particular This poinl point isi important particular semantic manli nelw rk. Thl Importanl because because cognitive cognilive network. important cognitive semanticists semanticists have not not always alwaysagreed agreedabout about the the central central senses senses of semantic manlicisl have have nOI always agreed aboul Ihe ofsemantic semanlic categories. '987) argued categories.For for example, c\.Lmpk, whileLakoff Laloff arguedthat thatthe thecentral central sense sense calegories. For example. while lakoff((1987) (1987) argued thai sen'" for over ABOVE-ACROSS hasargued arguedmore more the -A( ROSS meaning,Kreitzer l(reitzcr (1997) for over o.'rr is iis the Ih AHOVI ABOVE-ACRO S meaning, meaning. Kreilzer (1997) has has recently recently that that it itil is is an ABOVE recenlly Ihal i an ABOVE meaning. meaning. In our ofof 3e'marstus olEnglish EnglishPrepositions, Prepositions1Tyler Tylerand andIIIsought sought In OUI our 2003 2003 book Tilt Selllall"cs Englisll PreposillOllS, ughl use Semantics 2003hook book The to provide decision principles that could be applied to the entire class of principles that that could could be applied to provide provide decision deci ion principl applied to the the entire entire class cia of English Engli h prepositions. prepo itlon . Here Ilere III will will briefly briefly oUlline the principles pnnClpleswe proposedinin in Fnglish prepositions. Here will brieflyoutline outlinethe principles weproposed that work for the first of these issues: how to determine what counts as that work for the fir t of th issues: that issues: how to determine determine what what counts counts as a distinct lexical concept associated with a given prepositional form. concept aassociated with aa given given prrpo prepositional form. distinct lexical lexi al concept iated with itional form. We provided two criteria for determining whether a particular ided two criteria for determining whether sense ofaa We provided two criteria whether.a particular sense n of preposition counts as a distinct lexical tont:L.1n: lexical (om.:ept: concept: preposition prcpo Ilion counts (ounb as a aJ diMinlt lexical i.I.i. For ror ~n~ to lounl a distinct, di\tmc..t. ititmust must involve m"'(llve aa meaning meaning that that isis not not For aa sense senseto tocount countas as

purely spatial configuration holding holding between purely.spatial patial in in nature, nature. and/or and/or aa spatial ,p.lt ..1configuration holdlllgbetween

57 57 57

from the (I) Ihe I·igure and Referen e Object Ob,e.! (RO) that distllllt from from the the the hgure Figure(n (F)and andReference Reference Object(RU) (RO) that thatisiis distinct distinct the with that preposition; preposition; and other n conventionally aassociated iated with prepo ition; and other senses senses conventionally associated with "n., There There that arc are context-independent: instances of of the the sense sense that are context-independent: context-independent: must also also be be instance There must the distinct sense could not be interred lI"tanc in which di tmct sen ould inferred anoth 1istancCs in which he inferredfrom from another anotherr instances which the distinct sense .. "''' and ontext in in which which itil occurs. oc urs. sense and the context 5CUSC

,

consider theutterances utterances in in((I) (t) and (2): (2): 1 involved. also -uggested that LC Theoryserves ~rves a aaacorrective mrrecti,-e servesas corrective processes that on previous approaches to relationship between semantic approach. to the rdation hlp betweell ~mantic tructure and nil previou, structureand on previous approaches to the relationship between semantic structure conceptual structure in cognitive con eptual structure tructure in cognitive linguistics, linguisti •an anissue i u addressed addressed ininfurther further linguistics, an issue further conceptual detail in in Chapter Chapter partitular, in this chapter detail Chapter 9. 9- In In particular, particular. thi chapter II argued argued for for aaprincipled principled argued principled in this betweensemantic semantic the di>tlllonal the language language user seek interpersonal functions that the language an tnt ,c an' ,se 1,InSuaSe ",ullil. that language users rcason ,or this thl...is , that languageto toexpress express and andfulfil. fulfil. One One reason reason for for this is language users 'anguage i„ u evolving. No two continually ~ ,n io physical matrix 'hat.i hiftin.g and 0 two two ::: sociophysical matrix that thatis is continuallr continually shifting shifting and e~olving. evolving. No live i n a "IC given point in in time, are exactly ,uall un'. feehngs. relallon hIp. at any POlllt 10 time, lime.are areexactly exa t1y situations, feelings,or orrelationships1 relationships, atany any g,ven given point meanings1 about continually express unique meanings, "lIkC. We arc language to expr . unique meanings. about about We arc are contlllually continually using using language language to express a like . We While language has a nique relallonship uniqu ways. way. While While language languag has ha nique states states of of affairs affairsand andrelationships1 relationships,• in in unique unique u combined schcmas, or symbolic units which can be ~a r.uo~e made schema • or ymboli h can an be to rangeuf Ofready· ready-made schemas, symbolic unitswhi which be combined combined to to of ready-made a and the scenarios we may wish to refer to of and eexPfC" ntative range represefltatise press aa rcpr representative rangeof of th the !>Cenario scenarios we we may may wish wish to refer to and of human experiunderdetermine ,k",ribe. these nce rily und rdet rmine the human experiexpen describe,these these necessarily necessarily underdetermine the mutability mutability of of human tiestribe, language users can only by symbolic unit by language language users u r can can only only cnle ence. AClordongly. Accordingly,the thesymbolic symbolic units units employed employed by they Langackcrs e,er partiJll y sanction nction (in Langacker' s terms) ternlS) the situated SItuated way way in in which whi hthey they ever partially partially sanction (in Langacker terms) the the situated way in which ever coordinJre ((1996) 1996) observes, observ • language involves are used. As As Clark Clark(1996) observes, languageuse useinvolves involves solving solving aa coordincoordinused. ire u,ed. employ non-conventional ation problem. which language uscrs must non onventional in whkh language users must ation problem, 1ition problems in which language users must employ non-conventional typically employ strategies That is, is,•language language users users """Jonatlon trategies and devic . That That, u r typically typiGlllyemploy coordination strategies and devices. devices. employ units, including patterns of assem,he repertoire of of lingui ti units, units, including in ludong patterns pattern of ofassema mthe (on\'entional conventional repertoire of linguistic linguistic the which are themselves as word-order conventions, hling linguistic unit ((such u h as a word-order word order conventions, conv nti n •which whi hare themselves themselves linguistic units units (such bling meaning. which this siew, ways.'' On Onthis view, Iingui\li' non -conventional ways." ways." Vil~. meaning, meaning,which whichisis i~ linguistic unih), units), in non-conventional non-conventional isa consequence of combining a,,,,,ia,ed (or u ge event), event). is aa consequence consequen e of ofcombining associated with with th the utterance utterance (or (or usage usage event), is coordination in order to solve solvethe unit in in novel novel ways ways in order to theparticular particular coordination coordination the ,ymboli symbolic units communication. pruhlcm Jt hand. th reby facilitating facilitating communi ation. rrohlem ,,t problem at hand, hand, thereby thereby facilitating communication. of that one one reason reason for the protean nature We >aw previou section section that reason for for the the protean protean nature nature of of in the We saw in in the previous semantic potential potential to which "",J meaning arises ari from the the non-linguistic non ·lingui tic semantic semantic potential to towhich which word meaning meaning arises from from word arise, in range simulations tan arise. lex ical con epts ,,ftord afford access, a«ess. and th range r.lIIge of of simulations imulationsthat thatcan can arise.In In lexical concepts afford and the the concepts—the semantic semantic pole pole of "addition, Motion. aa second second reason reason arises arises as as lexical lexical concepts—the concepts--the semanti pole of of addition, second reason arises as lexical Utter,ymbo lic units—are units-are only ever ever realized reali,ed as as part of oflinguistic lingui ti utterances. utteran es.UtterUttersymbolic units—are only realized aspart of linguistic utterances. symbolic of an act definition) situated, and thus form part .• by . ituated. and thus thu,form part ofofan Inact ance. are arc necessarily nnecessarily ' rily (i.e., (i.e 1w ances (i.e., by definition) situated, give rise to of communication. communi ation. But in being being so sorealized, realized. lexical lexi .1 concepts con epts give give rise rise to to communication. But in realized, of in being so lexical concepts the linsee in in Part Part shall semantic contributions; a we weshall hall see see in Part II, II. the the linlin ontext. indu ed semantic .ontext-induccd contributions; as as we II, context-induced consists of'"bundles" bundles""of of different gu "tic content «(lIItent bylexical lex".ll concepts con iSIS of of"bundl different guistic content encoded encoded by by lexical conceptsconsists of different guistic this knowledge t}'f'C> oflingui tic knowledge. knowledge. Accordingly. different a peel of ofthis thi knowledge knowledg types of of linguistic linguistic knowledge.Accordingly, Accordingly,different ditkrent aspects types aspects of thisisis that lexical can become beeome active in in different different contexts. onte.ts.The consequen eofof ofthis i that thatlexical Ie ical contexts. The consequence consequence become active can Rather, the contextually contextually ill tow. 10/0. Rather, Rather. it only the contextually w nccpt are are never neveractually actuallyrealized re.li,ed in concepts realized in it is is only concepts languageuse. use. relevant aspects aspects which aspect which whi h surface unace in inlanguage u . relevant distincBorrowing an analogy from phonological theory, wecan canliken likenthe thedistincdi tinc. Borrowing Bo rrowing an an analogy analogy from from phonological theory, theory.we contextualized instantonceptson onehand, hand, andtheir theircontextualized instanloo n between lexical concepts concep" onone hand.and instan tlotì between lexical tion and on other as as akin akin to th distinction distinctionbetween betweenphonemes phonemesand and tiallon tiations on on the the other other as akin totothe the distinction between phonemes tiations representamental lexical concepts qua ju,t as phonemes.lexical lexicalconcepts concep" qua 'I'm mental representarepr nta aliophones. .tllophones. lust Just aswith with phonemes, allophones. based on tlofls never actually actually perceived. perceived. Rather, their existence existence inferred tlon, arc are never actuJlly pcr<elVc'tl. Rather, Rath r. their exi"ence isis i,inferred inferrc'tl based basedon on tions variability, and and commonalities, commonalities,•inin inword wordmeaning meaning across(situated) the variability, variability. and commonaloti word m aningacross aero (.(situated) ituated usage ) usage u>ag the this, then, the job of the event,. as a as Judged over many in"anc u . In In this, this. then, then. the the job jobofofthe the CVCflts, judgedover overmany nuns instances instances of of use. use. In events, judged of

-,d:

I

11

■

77

711

0 This 11 Th aaissue t uc is 11discussed dl wtNfurther lurthc-r l h.irll."fILii. IL This issuc is dmHusscd furtherinIn inChapter

"

I

72

72

INTRODUCTION lION INTRODUCTION

kxical semanticist semanticist toemploy lexical ",mantid t isis i to employ thesituated Ituatl.,)semantic manticcontribution contributionofof gIVen employthe situated semantic ofa aagiven given lexical by analogy word, word. analogy akin to allophone. in order to onfer the exi ten e of Ihe allophones,ininorder orderto infer inferthe theexistence cxistclkeofofthe the word, by analogy akin to allophones, underlying lexical lexical .oncepts—stored mental underlying lexical concepts—stored concept $lored mental mental schemas—akin hema -akin totophonemes. phonem • schemas—akin phonemes, underlying sanctionthe thesemantic semantic contributionswhich which which partially partially sanction '>Jnction the '>Cmanticcontributions contribution. whichsurface. surface. In In view surface. In view view which ofthis this distinction, in the remainder of the book of Ihisdistinction, di tinction.in inthe theremainder remaonderof ofthe th book bookI II will will refrain refraon from u ingthe the refrainfrom from using using the of term"word "word meaning." meaning." Rather, will refer refereither "word meaning."Rather, Rather. IIwill refer eilher theconstruct con tructofof ofthe th lexical lexic.1 either to to the the construct the lexical term —when I am referring to the underlying conccpt - when IIam amreferring referring to the underlying semantic '>Cmantic 'tru tur r.toto to semanticstructure—or, structure—or, concept—when the semantic contribution of the semantic ;em.ntic contribution ontributionof ofaaagiven given lingui ticform—when form - whenIIIam am referringtoto to givenlinguistic linguistic form—when amreferring referring the a situated instance of a lexical concept. in tance of ofa lexical concept. concept. ituated instance aa situated In view of the foregoing, In view view of of the the foregoing, foregOIng. we we are now III po ition totoprovide some ba Il weare arenow flowin inaaaposition position providesome somebask In distinctions with respect to meaning meaning and di tinctIon with rCl>pcct to meaning and and use uusethat that arecentral c nlraltoto lCe 1 thatare are central toLCCM LCCI.I distinctions respect Theory. Fir Firstt of Theory. of all. we weneed needtoto toprovide provid aa definition definitionof anutterance. utterance. Thi definition This is is" Theory. First of all, all, we need provide ofofan an utterance. This straightforward Ilessstraightforward traightfon>..d aa t. k than might assume. a ume. As ,I will defone U\dge task than one onemight assume. As willdefine defineit,it. it,aaausage usage less a task than one I Iwill eventor orutterance utterancehas hasaaaunit-like unit-like statusin inthat thatititrepresents event or utteranc ha unit like status Matus in that reprC5Cnts Ihe expr ionof of representsthe theexpression expression of event a coherent idea, making (at least partial) coherent idea, idea. making making (at Cat least lea\t partial) partial) use uuse e of of the conventions convention ofofthe the ofthe the conventions the aa coherent language—-inforinally, the languag informally. Ihe norm lingui lic behaviour behaviour in in aa aparticular particular behaviour in particular language—informally, the norms norms of of linguistic linguistic communit but see Croft (2o00). Iingui lic community, communily. but bUI \ee Croft Crofl Cl000). olher word.an an utteranceisis i otherwords, words, anutterance utterance linguistic see (boo). InInother somewhat discrete entity.However, However, om<whal discrete di rele entity. enlily. However. III use 05e Ih expr ion "unit-like" "unil.like" usethe the expressions expressions "unit-like" and and aaa somewhat "somewhat •"somewhat ...omewhat discrete" d,\(rele"because beeau", an an utterance nol ab",lulely di ·rele.nor nor anutterance utteranceisiisnot notan anabsolutely absolutchdiscrete, discrete, noraaa discrete" because precisely identifiable identifiable unit. unit. This This follows preci;ely identiliabl unit. Thi follows folloW5 as aasutterances utteran e5involve involvegrammatical grammalical utterances grammatical precisely forms such word order order forms uch as a word order and and lexical lexical items, ilem lexical concepts, concepl •speech speechsounds, sound,. items,•lexical lexical concepts, speech sounds, forms such and patterns of intonation such pattern, ,uch as a pitch pilch COnIOuf\.slight 'lighlpauses, pau~ and accelerallon as pitch contours, contours, slight and accelerations accelerations patterns of of inlonalion intonation such pauses, and decderations, and soforth. While these properties and and so so forth. While Whil these IhC5Cproperties pr perti converge convergeon ondiscretedi\(releon discreteand deceleralions. decelerations, and ness and units, they do not nand Ihey do nOI co-occur co·occur fixedpatterns, patterns.and Ihereforedo donot nol co-occurin infixed fixed patterns, andtherefore therefore not ness and unily. unity, they do not Provide a set of criteria for provide a ",I of crileria for colleclively idenlifying an utteran«. In thi. identifying anutterance. utterance.In Inthis this provide a set of criteria for collectively identifying an utterances differ the related rrespect, peel. utteranc differ from Ihe r laled nOlion of a ntence. notion of a sentence. respect, utterances differ from the related notion of a sentence. A sentence, asdefined definedinin parti particular A ular by by formal formallingui t •isis i an an abstract abstract entily. formal linguists, linguists, an abstract entity. entity. A <entence. sentence, as as defined in particular In other words, it is an ideali,jtion that has In olher word,. It i an id.ali1.Jlion Ihal has delermimle properti .... often determinateproperties, properties, often often In other words, it is an idealization that has determinate stated in terms of taled in grammallC.1 structure. tructure. For For example. example. definition of(an Can structure. one definition definition of of (an stated in ternl terms of of grammatical For example, one one Inglish) might con Engli h) sentence sentence i t of Ihe c>NPPVP. VI'. ofofthe SS S English) sentencemighl mightconsist consist theformula: formula: The notion notion of of aa sentence, whilebased basedon onprototypical prototypical patterns The ",nlenee. while while b.l\l.,) on prolotypical patterns found found in patterns found in in The notion of a sentence, utterances, is not the same asan anutterance. utterance. Utterances typically typically occur utterance. an utteran e. Utterances Utteranc typically OCcur sponponutterances,i,is not not the the same same aas taneously, and often do not to the laneou Iy. and conform to 10 the Ih grammaticality grammaticality requirements requiremenl of of. requirements taneously, andoften often do do nol not conform aa well-formed sentence as understood in formal linguistic ~ell formed ",ntence a, undef\l(xld in formallingui\lic thl'ory. I'or example. theory. For For example, well-formed sentence as understood in formal linguistic theory. in terms of structure, an utterance on lerm, of 'Iructure. an utterance may con i t of a ingle word C H;.~. may consist of a single word (Hi!), in terms of structure, an utterance may consist of a single word (Hi!), aaa phra phrase phrase (No way!), an incomplite sentence C(No '0 Imy!). an incomplete ",ntence C Did YOII pilI l/or , .. n. or a ntenee you put the... way!), an incomplete sentence (Did you put the... ?), or that oraasentence sentence thai that contains errors" of pronunciation (onlJin "error,," of pronunciation or grammar btxau\e the peakcr 1\ tirl'ti. grammar because the speaker speaker isistired, tired, contains "errors" of pronunciation or grammar because the distracted, or eXClled. excited, and so on. While much of di;tracted. and so on. While much of formailingui ti has been formal linguistics has been been distracted, or excited, and so on. While much of formal concerned with modelling the concerned the properties properti offangu,'ge Ihat enable enable us uus to to proxluce properties of language that to produce produce concerned wilh with modelling modelling the of language that well formed grammatically well formed \Cntencl .... utterance "ftcn exhihll grad d gramsentences, utterances often exhibit graded grammatically well-formed sentences, utterances often exhibit graded gramgrammatic&litv (see Langacker malicality .ngocker 1987:;ee al", han and (,rcen 1(06). In short, hort. whil 1987; see also Ivans and (ren 20()6). maticality (( seeILangacker while 1987; see also Evans and Green 20 o6). In short, while can be precisely and narrowly defined, aaa sentence <enlence can be preci>ely and defined. an ullerance cannot be. an utterance annot sentence can be precisely and narrowly defined, an utterance cannot be. be. \Vhik sentelhes represent the structure with \Vhilc 'nl Ihe \(xiJll'll With uttcr. While\Cntcnu,\ sentences repr pical uttertitterrepresent the\tru(turc structureJassociated withaaa prntntypkal prototypical ance, utterantes represent specific md unique instances of language JnlC. UtlcranlC rcpn."\Cnt pt.*f,;ifil and uniqu in\tJI1'-l: of IJnguage u~. Once ance, utterances represent specific and unique instances of languageUsc. use.On(e Once

sentence is given meaning, context, and phonetic realization, it becomes a WORD WORDMEANING 1EANINGININLCCM LeeMTHEORY TIIEORY LCCM THEORY

7373

is given meaning, meanmg, context, and phonetic realization, realization. ititbecomes lltxome aa a Il h..'.H:e i\ ken) utterance. Accordingly, as I am concerned with an account lexical .... ,kcn ) utterance. utterance. Accordingly. I amconcerned concerned with withan an account accounlofof oflexica] \wrdingly, asasI am lexical ( •,po n h i · 1'1" d · . h sentation and meaning construction that reflects how language is used, it• itIt repre lrl''ot,.' ntJtioll and In meaning me.mmg (on\trw,:tlon tthat at reflects rc lXl\ how ow language .1nguage is I used, u\CtI· is::IU ultimately the utterance, rather then thenthe idealized notionofof the ltllll,ltcly the Ihe utterance, utterance. rather ~ather Ihen the idealized idealoled notion nOllon ofthe Ihesentence, \entence. sentence, ith which I am concerned in the present work. I am concerned in the present work. ,,'th IIhith J 111 the prC5Cnt work. w ith }wing provided (qualified) definition ofof ananutterance, provided this (qualified) definition of IIJ' 1118 prnvidedthis this (qualofied) definilion utterance.we weare arenow nowinIfl inaaa Living utterance, we are flOW position distinguish meaning from lexical representation. My claim that I"",tion totodistinguish di ~ingui hmeaning meaningfrom fro~lexical lexicalrepresentation. repre ntJlion.My Myclaim d~imisis "that that distinction between lexical representation and meaning is that the th,' n..ential distinction dl linctlon between between lexical leXIcal representation repr.... ntatlon and meanons is I that Ihat and meaning the essential while meaning is a property of the utterance, lexical representations consist while meaning IIhlk meaning isI aa property of oflhe utterance. lexical representations repre..entation, c(1n,i,1 of the utterance, uiflsistof of the mental abstractions which we infer must be stored as part of the language mental abstractions h we Ih,' Illenlal abstra tio", whit which we infer infermust mu tbe bestored ,toredas aspart partofofthe thelaliguago.' language user's knowledge of language: symbolic units, together with the range knowledge of of language: language:symbolic symbolic unit. units, logether together with with the uusers a\ knowledge the range range of of of cognitive models, the semantic potential, to which a lexical concept affords Lognutivemodels. models,Ihe the\emanlic semanticpot potential, to which a lexical "'~I1II1VC ntial. to lexical concept coneept affords affords lexical representation involves structures of distinct access. IlIen( knce,• lexical structures of distinct types .I"e" . Hence, lexical representation represenlalion involves involVe!> )!ructur ... of dislincttypes 1ype5 which system inhere in two two distinct representational systems: thelinguistic linguistic II hich inhere inhere in IWOdistinct di tinctrepresentational representationalsystems: YSlem:the lingui tic. y lem system and the conceptual system. The interaction of these distinct types of struc.ind the conceptual 'Y'tem. system.Th The interaction interaction of these distinct types .11ll1 Ihe coneeptual Ihe di\linct t)'PC' of structru tures gives rise to meaning associated with an utterance. The meaning assotures gives ri\e rise to to mcaning meaning associated with an utterance. Ill .." gIve, a sociated with utterance. The The meaning 01 aning assoa~) ­ conception. will refer to as a with an utterance I ciated lOa ted wilh an utterance utterance II will will refer refer to to as a a conception. conception. 1

I

,

for An architecture the role An architecture architecture for for the role of of words words meaning meaning in mea ning construction construction

The conclusions emerge from the (ondu conclusions rhe ion to to emerge from the the previous previou discussion di u ion suggest ugse5t aaa number of suggest number of of We require requirements for a theory of lexical and compositional semantics. r'(luirements for a theory oflexi(al lexical and requiremenl andcompositional compo,ilional ",manlics. require semantics. We We require both an account of lexical representation and a theory of semantic composboth an hOlh an account of of lexical lexical representation reprC'>Cntatlon and a theory of ofsemantit >emantic compos(ompo ition, which which together ition, contribute to ltiun. which together togelher should hould contribute toaaadescriptively d riplivelyadequate adequate and and descriptively adequate and require We realistic of meaning psychologically reali realisti.. account of I',ychologically tic aecounl cun;truction. We require require aaa meaning construction. construction. theory of lexical thc~lry lexical representation repre>ent.ltlon which which providCl> aaadescriptively dC!>er appear appear users appear to

4. 1

possess. We also require an account which provides aJa means means of of possess. Weal", alsorequire requirean anaccounl accountwhich which provide. provides I'" \C". We meam undef\\.nding of understanding understanding how lexical lexical representations interface with conceptual knowledge, how representations le"ical rep ...... ntation interface inlerfalC with conceptual conceplu,li knowledge, knowledge. which which whichisi, isto10 to their semantic potential. That is, we require a theory that shows how the say, say,their their ;emanlic semantic potenlial. potential. That is, \dy. i • we we require a theory that shows how how the Ihe

linguisticand andconceptual conceptual systems interact in to produce semantic linguistic and conceplual .systems y tem interact 10 produce proldULC semantic \emantic interact in in order order to representations. We also require an account of how lexical representations, representations repre..entatiun . We al'>. of how together wilh with Ihe the informational together informational characterizations together informational characterization derived from the thesemantic semanti characterizationsderived derivedfrom the semantic potentialavailable, available,combine combine in in order order 10 to provide provide situated meanings, is, potential combine in I'otential available, provide situated situated meanings, meaning. that thai is, is. to that conceptions. Finally, Finally, as Ihe the .. semantic contributions '-onteptions. the semantic contributions associated "'nccplion,. J.inally. as a, mantic c"nlrihuli,,", a""x:iated with word,are arc assotiatedwith with words words are functionof ofspecific specific utterances, and thus thus usage aaa function fun, and Ihu aa consequence consequence of ofdiscrete discrele usage usage consequence of discrete events,the theaccount accountdeveloped developed of of lexical c\cIils, event. the d(c.:ouni dcveloped or lexical Ie iedl representation rcprc ntJtion and and semantic 'Cl1lJntic com(om representation semantic As the two aspects of the thoroughlyusage-based usage-based in in nature. positionmust musthe bethoroughly Position p,"ition mu,t be Ihtlroughly u\Jge·ba\Cd nature. As A, the two IWO aspects a,pec" of Ih of the presentaaa summary summary of the the architecarchitectheoryIIIpresent presentare are relalively relativelycomplex. complex. II present theory prc;enl pre;ent ummary of the archilecare relatively complex, of arc argued for in detail in Parts II turebelow. below.All Alloflhe thecomtru," constructs inlroduced introduced are ture below. All ofofthe constructs introduced lure Part II are argued argued for for in tlet,liI detail in Parts andIII IIIof ofthe thehook. book. and Ill and of Ihe Il<xll..

_4

- ---

INTROI)t(:TII'N INTRODUCTION

THEORY WORD MiANIN(, IN IN LCCM t(( M THEORY WORD MEANING

75

concept integration

LCCM LCCM theory

representation (symbolic (symbolic LCCM theory theory consists consists of (I) (1)an an account account of lexical representation and cognitive tognitive models) and and (ii) (ii) an an account account of of semantic semanticcomposition: composition: units and units or, in in my my terms, terms, activates, or, integration of of lexical concepts in a way which activates, integration through the cognitive models modelsto towhich which aagiven givenlexical lexical provides anaccess access route through provides an s..onceptaffords affordsaccess. acCCSS. This serve to highlight particularattributes— attributes— concept This cancan serve to highlight particular u)gmtsvemodel, model,such suchasasproperties—and properties—andstructural structuralinvariinvariaspects of a cognitive ants—relations holding attributes—of a given cognitive model. model. holding between attributes—of As noted above, above,the thefundamental fundamental assumption assumptionisisthat thatmeaning—more conception—is aa property property of an utterance—a utterance—a situated situated instance instance technically a conception—is in part, part, by cognitive cognitive operations operationswhich which apply apply to to of language use—which arises, in kxkal concepts to the lexical lexical representations representations—lexical conceptsand andthe the cognitive cognitive models models to which lexical sites—deployed by by language language users. users. which lexical concepts concepts provkle provide.iccess access sites—deployed Thus, meaning meaning arises arisesby byvirtue virtueof oflanguage languageusers usersforming forminginterpretations interpretations based on on the the lexical lexical concepts conceptsemployed, employed,the theway waylexical lexical concepts conceptsare arecomcombased bined, and the access routesthrough through the the sets setsof ofcognitive cognitive models—the models—the bined, access routes cognitive model protilc—accessed by aa given given lexical lexical concept. concept. Moreover, Moreover, profile—accessed by theseinterpretations interpretations are are always alwaysguided guidedby bylinguistic linguisticand andextra-linguistic extra-linguistic these t()IltCXt.14 context."

meaning construction construction process takes takes place place by by gnreadtiiaotned meaning txic he :tic:::if: at :11; t e'rmediated

11W

scmantk composition. This process involves Iwo component pro-

1tuc of semantic composition. This process involves two component proselectionand and(ii) (ii) fusion. fusion. Lexical Lexkal concept sekct ion i) lexical lexical concept concept selection concept selection cs ((I) cvei rs,Isue: with each the most most appropriate appropriate lexical lexical concepts concepts associated associated with each invo lves selecting the

1wutterance, utterance, discourse, discourse,and andextra-linguistic cxtra-linguistii. vehicle in an utterance, utterance guided by appropriateness or of the selected lexical concept is a c ontext. The appropriateness or otherwise of the selected lexical concept is a of aaconception. conception.This Thisisis semanticacceptability acceptability of function of semanticality—the semantic of discussed in ('h1ipter Chapter u. 13.Fusion, Fusion,the thesecond secondcompositional compositionalprocess, process, consists consists of in tandem: tandem:(i) (i) further constituent which are held to occur in two further constituentprocesses processes which the lexical concept integration and (ii) interpretation. Integration Integration involves involves the lexical concept driven by Lwlinguistic linguistic knowledge knowledge(lexical (lexical construction construction of larger lexical entities, driven units, which which 1I term units, are are concepts). term lexical lexical conceptual conceptual units, coIKcpts). These These larger larger lexical units, That is, is, the thelarger larger unit unit receives receiveswhat whatI Iearlier earlierreferred referredto toas as then interpreted. then interpreted. That nformational characterization. parts of of the the cognitive cognitive model model an informational characterization..",s As such, such, those those parts thelarger larger profiles potential) associated with each eachlexical lexicalconcept conceptininthe profiles (semantic (semantic potential) associated with in keeping keeping with with the the larger larger unit. unit. Put Put unit are interpreted interpreted in inaa way that that is is in unit are which serve serve to to another way, way, integration integration provides provides (linguistic) (linguistic) instructions instructions which •,,uiihcr interpreted,and and various lexical lexical concepts concepts are collectively determine how the various coUectively interpreted,

representation Lexical representation LCCM Theory

LCCM Theory languageincludes includes(i) (i)symbolic symbolicunits, units, LCCM Theory holds holds that that knowledge knowledge of language and (ii) 'svmbolk units (ii) cognitive cognitive models. models. Symbolic unitsconsist consist of of bipolar bipolarassemblies assemblies of form, what, noted in in the previous previous chapter, chapter, 1I refer refer to to as asaaphonological phonologic.il form, what, as as noted vehicle (or (or vehicle), vehicle),and andaalexical lexicalconcept. concept.Lexical Icxkal concepts conceptsconstitute constitutelinguis linguisvehicle ticaHy encoded encoded concepts—that concepts—that is, is,highly highly schematic schematic knowledge knowledge encoded encodedin in aa tically form that can form that externali,cd via Lexical concepts conceptsare areconventionally conventionally can Lw he externalized via language. language. Lexical associated with vehicles vehiclesofofall allkinds kindsincluding including words—the words—the focus focusininthis thisbook— book— associated with bound idiomatic phrases, and grammatical grammatical constructions. constructions. AcAchound morphemes. morphemes, idiomatic phrases, and cordingly, by definition, definition, concern concern purely purely linguistic linguistic knowledge, cordingly, lexical lexical concepts, concepts, by as discussed discussed in in Chapters 66 and important part part of the lexical lexical and 7. 7. A second second important notion of the cognitive model, model, which which is aa large-scale large-scale representation is the notion non-linguisik knowledge provide coherent body of non-linguistic knowledge which which lexical lexical concepts concepts provide access sitesto. to.The Therange rangeof ofcognitive cognitive models modelswhich which are are accessed, accessed,either eitherdirectly directly access sites or indirecti by a lexical as noted notedabove, above,IIrefer refer to to as asaacognitive cognitivemodel model or indirectly by a lexical concept, as Individual cognitive consistofofattributes attributesand andstructural structuralinvariinvariprofile. Individual cognitive models models consist ants. ants."15These are developed developedininmore moredetail detailin in Chapters Chapters 99 and to. lo. These ideas ideas are

symbolic units

'' The rotc of of context in an The role

18

,crn.anh,j scrturitic

‘.ortipo‘ii n t%

.

'' See Ste Bamilou lanaloultyyzu. winbl; Bars( mu

85

I 1993). a al- 0993)-

it Various ;'osnts wo∎ril In nun(' tleJil at remit 1 in Part in Kul

composition

cognitive models

• •

•

lexical concept selection

I

I

I

tusan

I

•

vehicles

Ill III of of the hook. book

Semantic

Lexical representation

".

lexical concepts

/ •

lexical concept integration

semantic representaton semantic representation

overview 01 of the the architecture :M Theory l'ItiLlte 4.1. An overview architectureof of l(.( LCCM

interpretation

76 7t'

---------------

FRODUCTION INTROOUCTION I INTRODUCTION

thus, th ace route rout that ~ach indly,du,ll lexical wnceptaffords afIords thro ugh thus, the the access access routethat thateach eachindividual individuallexical lexkal((incept concept atIordsthrough model profile. wordwill willprovide pro profile. Ihe result result is that given itits cognitive cogniti\e model profil . The Th r""ult is i that that any any given given word word will provide cognitive unique activation activation of part OcCasU)fl aaa unique unique a semantic '>Cmanticpotential pot ntialononevery every occa ion of of part its semantic potential every occasion is every every utterance, and thus thus the resulting uCmantic potential- the cognitive cognitive model model the semanticpotential—the potential—the cognitive profile—to which afford prolile-to aflord access, ac<e ,which t the ene for for thedetailed detailed the scene scene forthe the detailed profile—to which they they afford which sets sets developmentof of the the theoretical theoretical constructs of of the the lexical lexical concept and the development the theoretical constructs constructs lexical concept concept and and the the development of ((1gl1ltive model in in the next part of the the book. book. cognitive model the next next part of book. lo begin, the following following four four utterances first discussed Chapter begin, con consider To be'llin, ider the the following fourutterances utteran .",first fi"tdiscussed di ussedininChapter hapter1:I:J. (2) 2)

a. Irance isis countryof ofoutstanding outstanding natural beauty h,m« i aaacountry country of oUl>tandingnatural natural beauty OC,lUty a. France h. !-rJnce I rance i, is one OOC theleading leadingnations nationsin theEuropean European Union Union b. nation ininthe the European Union France one ofofthe c. France beat New New Zealand in in the the 2007 2007Rugby RugbyWorld World Cup Cup 'ew Zealand th 2007 Rugby World France beat beat Zealand againstthe the EU constitution 2005 referendum dd.. !-rance EEU«In tllution in in the the2oo5 200Sreferendum referendum France votl'" voted agaimt against the constitution

of th theseexampl examplesthe thesemantic semanticcontribution contributionassociated withthe the form form In each these examples In each of <emantic contribution aassociated iated with with the France is France slightly distinct. distinct. That is, the semantic semantic contribution /-rlll'ff slightly i ,the mantic contribution (ontribution provided provided by is slightly the pros idedby France varies /-mllff va ric> across aero, the..,. didistitit lJJlct utterances. utterance,. The key ininsight 'ght of ofof LCCM varies distinct acrossthese thcse utterances. Thekey keyinsight I ((Ni LCCM Theory is that the reason for this variation is due Theory is that reason for for this thi variation isis due totodifferential differentialactivation activation reason differential activation non ·lingui,tic linguist i. knowledge structures, the cognitive cognitive model modelprofile, profile, to of non-linguistic knowledge structures, ,truttur , the th cognitive model prolile, whith to which which the lexical concept associated with affords a«"". concept associated a\Sotiate'" with WIth /-rlll,er and access. Thelinguistic linguistk and France afford, affords access. The non-linguistic that give non · linguistic processes proce give rise rise to tothis thi differential differential activation, non-linguistic processes that activation, which rise this relate, In part. to the diffcrcnc.: differences in in the the four tour linguistic linguistic contexts relate. hngUl til contexts (nnlcxt in In which /:,cmu in part, differences in which which France France is embedded represents programmatic Theory Theor highly complex. complex.LCCM ILCe ( iis emocdded are are highly 1 '1 hl,(lry represents repr< 'n" aaa programmatic attempt to identity the sorts of mechanisms involved in this activation attempt to identify id ntify the the son ofmechanisms methano m involved IIlvolved in this thisactivation activation :

process. thelexical lexical these examples concept (om" with the 4. In lhc~ cx.lmplc ulOlcrnoo with wilh thc Icxi.,;.)1 \.om.cpt cntionally examples II am these conventio,i.illy am concerned onventionally and as as shall with the vehide associated with aassociated SOliated wllh A, noted above, .bc,,·e, and a we we shall hall see vehicle Frtll'ff. in detail France. As see 111 prcXC~\.

SIEANING IN IN 1.CCM Ii ( 51 THEORY WORD MEANING 'EMORY

77

constitutes aaarelatively relatively complex complex body Ilater 'r ct hapters, h.lpte'" a lexical lexical concept «Incept constitutes ((lnstitute, relatively comple. body of of lexical in 101 '11'tit knowledg whkh foml aaarepresentational repr~ntJtional unit. identify these the identify these inowkdge linguistic knowledgewhich whichforms forms representational unit. III identify long""-ntational . 'd' I bel . concept). byproviding providing label in small '01tational units, units, I XI al concept), can ept), by by proVI JOg aaa label a in 111small ma II units, (the (the lexical rer rest within square brackets. concept associated with the the rel"'1a.1 1\ "'uare br.lket . Thus, Thu I..ical J>><xiJted with with ls within square brackets. Thus,, the lexical capit .al" ..... . «Ineept associated ! th as appears in in the the examples in (2) [FRANCE].. In In ."mn' which which appears appear exampl.", in 111 glo as ~ ffRAN:iJ. ['RANt' (i) III gloss /jrWht fo rm France horm . II property is potentiallyy addition, is that lexical concept concept affords affords access a,I.I,IO" n, aaJ key property i that thataaa lexical concept afford access ace"", to toaapotentially potentIa 1jd,t jon. cognitive models:its itscognitive cognitivemodel modelprofile. profile. Arobust robust finding e set of "",t of cognitive cognitive models: model" Its cOllnltne model pro hIe. AA robust finding findll1g Ilarg .,. led " h work in on knowledge representation that in cognitive cognitive psychology psychology 'nml co~niti~e psyc~ologyon onknowledge know gerepresentation reprco;entatlonisis I that t at recent work roW «<ent from representations which inhere inhere in while conceptual system, .h< representations whICh II1h re in 111 the can eptual system, . y tem, while whIle extremely extremely the which the conceptual the representations unstructured assembiage.16 Indeed recent research proan unstructured unstructured assemblage." a '>Cmblage.'·Indeed Indet'"recent relent r.",.arch proare not an co mplex, ,~)I 111,le'\ • arc . research .pro. evidence that rather knowledge being organized in vides compelling evidence that rather than knowledge being organized in tompelling evid nee that rather than knowledge bell1g o.'ganlzed 111 5jdes knowledge representation involves attributes, key aspect Iterms "''' "of lim of of attributes, attributes,aa key key aspect peet of ofknowledge knowledgerepresentation representationinvolves II1volves off lists aspects knowledge(e.g., (e.g., llarsalou th, rd.It,on> that oct ween discrete di"rete aspects .>peel of ofknowledge (e.g.,Barsalou Bar",lou the relations relations that hold hold between between kxkal to 1992a). My ~umption, assumption, concept provides access IQ~ld). i> that a lexical I~xicalconcept c.onceptprovides provid.",access ~""'>to toaaa it)921i). \ly N%v assumption, therefore, is 'ophisticated and and structured structured of non non-linguistic This body body of of sophisticated knowledge. "'l'hi\licated truClured body of .hngul tIC knowledge. knowl: th hench (2C), and in (2d) fifteen players who who make up rugby team in that proportion proportion of electorate whovoted voted"non" "non when Ihat ofthe the French Fren h electorate electorate who who voted "non" whenpresented, presented,inin in of the when presented, to endorse endorse constitutionfor forthe the recent referendum, WIth with rete nt referendum, referendul11, the prul"'~ll to endorse aaaconstitution constllution the a recent with the the proposal distinct this Iluropean uro pean Union. Union. In order orderto toprovide providethese thesedistinct di>!in"interpretations1 II1terpretation •this thi European Union.In In order to provide these interpretations, lexical as an an access foraaacognitive cognitivemodel model profile Ie ical concept concept must rve aas an aaccess ces site itsitefor for cognitive model profile profile lexical conceptmust must serve that, tha t, al very least, lea t, includes II1dud.", the von of infornlatlon IndICatedininFigure !-igure least, includesthe thesort sortof ofinformation informationindicated indicated Figure that, at the the very 4. .t. This 4.2. an attempt attempt to to indicate indicate the of knowledge that 4!. IIhis hi, figure figure represents repre nt an indicat the th sort sort of ofknowledge knowledgethat figure represents an attempt must have have access access whenspeaking speaking andthinking thinkingabout about France. language users u\Cr. must hav ac "'" totowhen peaking and and thinking aboutFrance. France. 4.2, the lexical lexical concept (FRANt provides access toaaapotentially potentially In ligure 4.2, Ihe lexical concept (oncept!FRANCE' [I RANG !provide" actC\s to t(1 potentially In Figure Figure 4.z, the access number of large number large of knowledge knowledge structures. tructur.",. As each ea h cognitive cognitiv model consists can i t of of aa cognitive model consists each access toother other complex and and structured structured of knowledge provides cllmplex stru tured body of ofknowledge knowledge which which provides provides access a "" toto other complex sorts of knowledge. we can candistinguish distinguish between models whicharc arc ,ur" knowlt"'ge, we we can di t,ngui h between oct ween cognitive cognitivemodels model which are sorts IIf of knowledge, diretI accessed .I " etll y all"""'" cognitivemodels, mod I ,and Iho concept: primary primary coVlitive and those those directly accessed via via the lexical lexical concept: concept: models, cognitive models lirectlv mod I which which ub tructure of those tho which which are arcdirectly directly models which form form substructures those which are .tcccssed: secondarycognitiv cognitivemodels. models.These Ihese secondary cognitive models aetC ,,"': secondary model. rhl..,. secondary "",ondary cognitive mgni"\C models model accessed: secondary cognitive are indirectly Me IcxkJI are mdircltly indirectly al'~'\.Cti accessed via via the the lexical lexical (onccpt." concept." I

,It'"

I

• Sire ItarsAlkiu R.ir,jk,u for a• review. 8.u 'nu t(mina) lIN"" ) tot fUf ft't M"W

17

"

II'RhIighling indetail dri..iiinIn nChapter Chaptrr H , hghhn,lI!.. 11 U inIn Jrl.lll C "It" Iii~ Highlighting isisdiscussed

cw

I mAke rnér thendary cognitivemodds 1rinlJry And and 1 ° 1I in. the UIK casetot kw*1w thedl-.tln..hun dioinokin lietween nimbi.,in in ampler ux t. ~ kl, ltv hd'ftftnprimary r"nwv 1J icciindAry

7

INTROIX' INTRO lll'( 'ION INTRODUCTION CONS CONSTITUTIONAL TITUTIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM

NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL SPORTS SPOR TS SPORTS

GEOG GE OGRAPHICAL RAPHICAL GEOGRAPHICAL LANDMASS LANDMASS LANDMASS

I

WORD MEANING IN LCCM THEORY WORD MEANINC; MEAN IN(i IN WORD IN 1l ( 51 M TtIEO ThEORY RY

L

I

POLITICAL POUTICAL POLITICAL SYSTE SYSTEM M SYSTEM

the fundi funding ng structures stru tur these sports apply to to these th sports port in"'France, respect to these particular I r.onle.France's fran " international lr.IIKt', France's internatu)nal standing with mtern ation al standing tandi ngwith with respect r peet to these these particular partic ular sports themselves including the r"rt" and and andfurther further knowledge about the furth er knowledge s ports, knowledge about about the the sports port themselves them Iv including incl~ding the rules soso,on. is derived from rul," that th •• tgovern govern their that their prictke, and th orpractice, praCtIce,and and" on.This Thlknowledge This knowledge knowledg is• derived derived from direct experience and through cultural lar~e number numb er of number of sources including direct ofsources .1 J,,large soure including large indud ong dir"'t experience experience and and through throu gh cultural cultural

~n'l

social and economic andand constraints that apply to il and economic conditions 3 0111(1 ""iJI and onomconditions ic condi tion and on Iraint that apply constraints

CUISINE CUISINE CUISINE

NATION NATION NATION STATE STATE STATE

HOLIDAY HOliD AY HOLIDAY DEST DESTINATION INATION DESTINATION

I

FFRANCEJ (FRAN CEI [FRANCE]

FIGURE 4.2. Pania F,G .... 4." Partiall within ent types differ of rul rules of different the assembly of complex strings sounds. a m rules govern govern assemth assemn the gover rul SyntacII rules of sounds..Syntactic tring of lex strings comp complex of wund a ;emb ly of the assembly of bly of words into grammatical structures such as sentences, while wh,1 sent n •while phrases and md sentences, and phra a phrases ueh as trudu r such grammatical matic al structures gram mto word bly of of words into semantic rules assign a semantic cordi ngtoto thesentence, sentence, aaccording nten e.according to the retati on to interp interpretation mant , interpretation ign aa semantic ntic rules assign sema semantic the principle of compositionality as in 10 w in we saw literalism. saw A we lit rali m. As by literalism. advocated by as advocated compositionality advocated o Itionahty as comp ipl of princ th the principle of Chapter t, this gives rise to propo propositional meaning, ing semantic meaning mean mant ic meaning Iy semantic pur purely meaning. aa purely llIonalmeaning1 giv nrise to ter i,I.thi Chap Chapter this gives to propositional that is independent of context. rules,, rul mant icrules, andsemantic syntactic semantic yntacticand ion to addit In context. In Inaddition addition tosyntactic indep enden t of context. i independent that is speakers also have knowledge itional propo map thatmap mappropositional propositional that prineipl that pragm ati principles of ledg of of pragmatic pragmatic principles peake ... also speakers also hav haveknow knowledge meaning unto context, and inferinferrelevantinferdrawing therelevant relevant ingthe draw heare rin10 th hearer guidethe xt. and andguide the hearer indrawing ing onto mean meaning onto conte context, ences. Crucially, this approach semantics, and nti •and sema yntax.semantics, thatsyntax, in that lar in modular that syntax, modu i modular appro ach is this approach is enc ences.. rucially. thi phonology are encapsulated one communicate onC with one unica le with comm only that subsystems that only only communicate ub y,tem that encap "Iated subsystems arc encapsulated ology arc' phon phonology another via linking rules.. This words repr ntl-d i,represented modelIisis represented mod of type rul plu s plus words plusrules rulestype typeof ofmodel rul Thi er via anoth another via linkin linkingg rules. This word by the diagram in Figure 5.1. Figur 5.1. am in by by the the diagr diagram in Figure 5.'. This model of speakerr knowledge whatisiisregular regular in regularin10 what for what accou nts for onlyaccounts ledg only knowledge accounts peake of l mode Thi This model of spe.Lker know He kicked the bucket), language, and leaves aside expressions (e.g., bucket), l), He l"I.L, kickedIII,,' the bllcle (e.g .• He e pr ion (e.g.1 allcexpressions idiomatic id,om ide idiomatic age. and langu Language, and leaves leaves aaside which, according to Fillmore et ndix "appe ofan an"appendix "appendix tatu ofoCan th ..the ha 504). (1988: 504),have have thestatus status (1988: 504), al. (1988: 'aL or. .eta!. to hllm Fillmore h, a ordm g to whi which, to the grammar." In other words, only only model.the plusrule rulemodel, model, theonly rul plu word plus Ihe words in , in other other words words, in the the words gram mar." In the grammar." to to the In complex units that are canno properties cannottbebe rtiescannot pmpe whoseproperties tho whose uethose whol wholeare are those whose tored whole ar<stored lex unit comp complex units that are stored predicted on the basis ofofthe ofof the According to rdingto10 Acco gram mar.According thegrammar. regular rules of the grammar. rules arrules regul theregular ba i of the ted on predi predicted on th the basis large, Fillmore a al., this appendix Ihoumanythouthoumany igningmany aassigning cfTl',ion, (4). to to lilt. on 0" tl,cfloor, floor. and 1/1 tilt gartlgc. are common The in (4), phrasesthat that probably probably have have fur speakers of English. phrase that probably have unit unit status tatu for for most mo tspeakers pakersof ofEnglish. Engli h.InInother other phrases status most words, they they are arc symbolic symbolic units. However, there is another schema related to word. are, ymbolic units. unit. However, However. there there is i another another schema hema related related to words, th ... symbolic ,ymbolic unit.. which ha the highly, hematl vehicle vehi Ie"P "I'"P P"and andthe the these symbolicunits, units,which whichhas hasthe thehighly highlyschematic schematic vehicle NI' and the these NP" highly schematic IDIRECTION highly hemati semantic semanti structure tructurewhich whl hI gloss glo asas as (OIREt;TIONOR ORLOCALOCA[DIRECTION OR LOCA highly schematic semantic structure which IIgloss TION WITII RESPECT TO TO SOMf PIIYSI AL ENTITY]. ENTITY). Th The ,ymboli units min(4) (4) WITH RESPECT RESPECT TO SOME PHYSICAL ENTITYJ. symbolicunits unitsin The symbolic TION WITH SOME PHYSICAL are thu, thus specific spt't.itk instances ofthis thismore moreabstract abstract symbolicunit. unit.This This isis isillusillusarc paine instances in tances of thi more ab tract ,ymbolic lInlt. Thi, Illu are thus of symbolic which on their vehicles. trated h identifies identifies the symbolic ymbolic units unitsbased basedon ontheir theirvehicles. vehid trated in in Figure Figure 5.3 5.3 whi which identifies the the symbolic units based This view of the the linguistic is non-reductive in the the following way. Thi of the linguistic lingui ti system y tern is i non-reductive n n·reductiv in thefollowing followingway. way. This view of system The ymbolic unit (4) can an be be predicted by the the more more general gen ralhema of can bepredicted predicted by the more general schema of of The symbolic symbolic units in The units in (4) schema However, the the fact factt that they can bepredicted predicted does which they are are instances. instances. However, However. the fa that they they can can be predi ted does d which they they are instances. that thes' can be beeliminated eliminated from from the the linguistic linguistic mental not they can can be eliminated from Iingui tic system—the sy t m--- themental mental not mean mean that they system—the repository repo itory of of symbolic unit. On Onthe thecontrary, wntrary. thefact fact that thatexpressions expres ion of ofth" expressions of this this contrary,the the fact that repository of symbolic symbolic units. units. On the that they retain unit unit as distinct kind are occurring ensur unit status statu as as distinct di tinct kind are arc frequently frequently occurring occurringensures ensures that that they retain status symbolic units. Moreover, Moreover, that fact fact that shareaaasimilar similar and aaa ymbolic units. unit. Moreover. that fact that that they they share shar imilar structure structure and symbolic common abstract structure that the the more abstract schema wmmon ab tra t semantic manti structure tru ture ensures en ure, that th more moreabstract ab tra t schema s.ch ma common abstract semantic ensures also co-existswith with them them in in the the linguistic also them th linguistic Iinguisti system. system. also co-exist co-exists with system. Thi non·reductive model tand in direct to the the words words plus plu This in direct direct oppo,ition opposition words plus This non-reductive non-reductive model model stands stands in opposition to to the rules the words words plus plus rules rules model thatthe therapid rllles Thi, is because becau the words plu model assumes aassumes sum that that th rapid rules model. model. This This is is because the

97 97 97

acquisition acquisition of an an infinitely infinitely acqui itlon of of infinitelycreative creativ system 'y tem of oflanguage languagecan can onlybe beplausibly pIau Ibly system language canonly be accounted for accounted ofofprin principles. small andefficient efficientset set of principles. Inparticular, particular,the accountedfor forby byaasmall malland and efficient set iples.InIn partIcular. thewords words the words plus rules model seeks to eliminate redundancy: the same information plus rules model seeks to eliminate redundancy: plu rllles model <eeks to redllndan1 A A dOlen ro~.Nina inasent sent her mOl her!

iJ. Thi This symbolk unit, by by virtue of lexical IHLAN( the lexical lexical concept on epl IIIgloss glo as a (FRANCO. IFRAN el. ymbolic unit, unit. by virtue vinu of the concept gloss as This symbolic of phonetically overt schicle, is lexicallv filled. concepts con i ling of ofaa phonetically phonelically overt oven vehicle, vehi Ie. is i lexically lexically filled. filled. Lexical Lexi alconcepts con epls consisting lexical paired wilh with lance. hape. siu. concerning substance, shape, size, and so forth. This distinction is summarized in Figure 6.2. 1iiid 0,(' 54)fonh. forth.Thi Thisdidistinction ,,,1Cnlal.onal system consisting of flOt equipped not equipped to directly encode the rich, multimodal character of senseto directly nUl equipped 10 dlrcclly encode ~ncodc the Ihe rich, rich. multiinodiJ muhm,odal character charJller of of sen sense-_ perceptory andsubjective subjective experience.While Whilelexical lexicalcon concepts do nol not encod encode lerceptory and and ubjcchv experience. lexical epl do perceplory experience. While concepts do not encode multimodalinformation information of this this sort, sort, as as suggested in in Part IIof of thebook hook Ihey they do do 'nultimodal muhimodal informal ion of of Ihis '>t,n. as ,ugge\led suggested in I'ar! Part I of Ihe the they do provide provided((C access10 to(Olltent contentof of this this sort. sort. provide thi, ,orl. access to content of contrast, schematiccontent contentdiscussed InIncontrast, byTalmy Talmyis notan ananalogu analogue In COnira I. the Ihtheschematic cOnlenl didiscussed ussed by i isnot nOI an analogue representation representationof ofmulti multimodal experience. Rather, it rcpre represents anJh,trdl.tion abstraction modal experience. representation muhimod.11 cxpericn( . Rather, R.:lthcr, cnl an an it represents ract ion the mult onceptual contentiiis not an exact record statesth.at that arc captured. Rather. it is ofofthethc rnuhnnodai %latcs , (.(In..q'tu.d (.onlml u. nut .In n.a...1 r«unJ (.1 mUhlll14oJ..J t.ln that Art' art urtuk'd IYthrr. itII ._ is rewhat attenuated. See Barsalou i t999) for dis.ussion. "mcwhat .illenuiicd. Scr Hjrsalou ·rnrwtut ,mmWlh"\J ~ B..ruktu (I"",) Inr dl WQon for .14 )

SEMANTI(. sTRU(:TukE SEMANTIC STRUCTURE

REPRESENTATION ILEXICAL EXI( At RI!PRESI NTATION

106 io6

over multiniodal multimodal content content of of various various sorts, sorts, provided providedin inaa form that can be over of this this kind kind directly encoded encoded in in language, language, i.e., i.e., by kxk.Il lexicalconcepts. concepts. Content Content of directly part of of the the forms part constituteswhat whatI I refer refer to as linguistic and forms content, and linguistic content, information encoded encoded by by a a lexical concept. information of the the cognitive cognitive While the distinction between rich rich and and schematic aspects of representationprovides providesevidence evidence for for the the distinction distinction in in linguistic and conceprcprescntatli)tl tual content content just just outlined, outlined, the distinction in in open-class open-c Lissand andclosed-class closed-class tual the distinction vehicles provides provides evidence evidence for foraaclosely closely related related distinction in the nature nature of vehicles typesprovides provides the associated associated lexical concepts. concepts.'3 The The distinction distinction in in vehicle types the (Josed-class evidence that lexical concepts distinctcategories. Closed-class concepts fall tall into into two two distinct which are are specialized specialized for for encodencodvehicles are vehicles are associated associated with with lexical lexical concepts concepts which ing linguistic content. Lexical concepts of this sort I refer to as closed-class I refer to .is closed-class content. Lexical concepts of ing Open-class vehicles, vehicles, while while also also encoding linguistic linguistic content, content, lexical concepts. Open-class lexical arc, in in addition, addition, specialized specialized for for serving serving as as access accesssites sitesto toconceptual conceptualcontent. content. arc, concepts(if of this this sort sort II refer referto toas as open-class open-class lexical lexical concepts. ILexical exical concepts In sum, sum, the the distinction distinction between lexicalconcepts conceptsversus versusclosedclosedIn between open-class open classlexical class lexical lexical concepts embodies the lexical concepts the bipartite organization of lexical concepts class introduced at at the the outset outsetof ofthe thechapter, chapter,asascaptured capturedininFigure ligure6.3. 6.3.To loreiterate, reiterate, encode linguistic content, I hypothesize I hypothesiie while concepts encode linguistic while both both types typesof oflexical kxkil concepts afford access that access to to conceptual content. The that only open-class lexical lexical concepts concepts afford distinction between and "afford "afford access" access" is critical distinction between"encode" "encode and critical here. here. Linguistic Linguistic content is encoded encoded by by lexical lexical concepts preciselybecause becausethis thisisisthe thecontent content content is s.oncepts precisely which makes up lexical lexical concepts. concepts. However, However,conceptual conceptualcontent, content,as aswe wehave have begun see above, above, and as we will md .is will see seein inmore more detail detail in in the the next next section, is begun to to see associated with cognitive model, with aa different different representational representational type, the cognitive model,which whichisis non-linguistic non-linguistic in in nature. nature. Thus, Thus, conceptual conceptual content content isisnot notdirectly directlyencoded encodedinin language, although the linguistic system has developed developed the the means means to to access access

kcy terms terms in in 1.CCM it M Theory of key Theory rAst t 6.3. A summary of icrm

paired with closed-class vehicle vehde

encodes encodes linguistic content content

paired with wth open-class vehicle vehde

provides access access site sde to to conceptual conceptual content cor4ent

associated with FIGURE distinction in in content content associated with lexical lexicalconcepts concepts FIGURF6.3. i.;. The The distinction

thethr .1%uktJ1ed lexeLAI whichNcrve ..t•flt•is.1%veht, le, tut101 h is %%inbuilt unéu kxical wish Air irc nhidc made up up01 ol forms fiirrnswhich Recall tthat ,orkepts corn eI't

ICs&flptiofl Description

The comprising aa language, language, The collection collection of Ofsymbolic symbolic Units units comprising and and the the various various relationships relationships holding holding between between them. them. Ic A conventional pairing of a phonological form or A conventional pairing of a phonological form or vehk vehicle tivnibolic unit and and aa semantic semantic element. element. The The semantic element that that is is paired paired with with aa phonologicai phonological semantic element Ilexical concept unit. a svniholi vehicle in vehicle in a symbolic unit. 1 he typcofofcontent contentencoded encodedbybya alexical kxkalconcept. oncept. 1This his content The type iiigulstiC Linguistic bedirectly directly content a highly highly schematic schematic type type that that can be content is is of of a encoded encoded in in language. language. knowledgecaptured captured from from The eptual system The body body of of non-linguistic knowledge Conceptual system multimodal derives from from multimodal experience. experience. This This knowledge knowledge derives sensory-motor experience, proprioception, propnoceptson, and and sensory-motor experience, subjective experience. subjective experience. The in the the ognitive model The representational representational form form that that knowledge knowledge in .ognitive conceptual system takes, as modelled in l.( (Ni Theory. Theory. conceptual system takes, as modelled in LCCM Consists ol frames frames which give rise rise to to aa potentially potentially Consists of which give unlimited set simulations. unlimited set of of simulations. knowledge encoded encoded by by aa cognitive cognitive The nature (it ( :oI'keptual ► nceptual content The nature of the the knowledge model. model. The primary substrate linguistically mediated mediated representation inital representation The primary substrate deployed deployed in in linguistically meaning construction, and and modelled modelled in in terms terms of of meaning construction, symbolic units units and and cognitive models. cognitive models. symbolic Thesemantic semantic dimension dimension of representations, Semantic represefltatK)fl Semanti. representation The of lexical lexical representations, consisting of semantic structure and conceptualstructure. structure. consisting of semantic structure and conceptual That part part of representation encoded encoded by by the the Semantic structure structure Semantic That of semantic semantic representation linguistic system. system. Semantic Semanticstructure structure is is modelled, modelled,in in linguistic system L i ngu ist k.svStCffl

1

•

I

structure Conceptual structure

LEXICAL LEXICAL CONCEPT CONCEPT

107 107

-

by lexical IA CM llieory, LCCM Theory, by lexical concepts. That part part of the semantic semantic representation representation encoded encodedby bythe the That of the conceptual system. (ionccptual structure is modelled, in conceptual system. Conceptual structure is modelled, in L( CM Theory, models. LCCM Theory, by by cognitive cognitive models.

conceptual content content via via association associationareas, areas,discussed discussed in in more more detail detail in in Chapter Chapter conceptual lu. Table Table 6.3 provides a summary summary of the way way some someofofthe thekey keyterms termsintroduced introduced to. provides a of the so far arc used in i( ( M Theory. so far are used in LCCM Theory. Before concluding of the the important to Before concluding this thissection, section,itit is is important to spell spell out out one of consequences of of the the distinction distinction between between lexical lexicalconcepts conceptstypes typesidentified. identified. consequences As pointed pointed out thebifurcation bifurcationbetween betweenopenopen-and andclosedclosedout by by Croft Croft (2007), As (l0°7), the classvehicles vehiclesand andhence hencethe thecontent contentversus versusstructuring structuringdistinction, distinction,as.Isprepreclass sented by byTalmy, Talmy,isisproblematic problematicififwe weassume assumethat thatthere thereisisa asharp sharp distinction distinction sented vehicles. Rather, Rather, the between openbetween open-and and closed-class closed classvehicles. between the distinction between the lexical lexicaland andgrammatical grammaticalsubsystems subsystemsshould shouldbebethought thoughtof ofmore moreas asaa the

108 io$ 108

SEMANTIC TRUCTUR£ SEMANTU SEMANTIC STRUCTURE

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION LEXI AL REPRE ENTATION LEXICAL

distinction continuum.' Hence, while while IImake make sharp distinctionbetween between dosed- and SOCi.ted le~ lexical associatedwith with thevehi the vehicles class lexical lexical concepts concepts suPPER I and lexical concepts, concepts, designating ,I'pprr these lexical oncepts, designating dipper and champagne respectively. respectively. Both Both these these and c/Jampaglle slipper physicalentlti entities, relateto to the thedomain domain of of space. sptce. so doing,they they facilitate ph)",ical • relate of pace. In In so sodoing, theyfacilitate fa ilitatr physical entities, relate to the domain relates to knOW(si IPPFRJ Jiccess .. e ,to complex conceptual content.I SLI IsIIPP' inMance. relates rd.tes to to knowtocomplex complexconceptual conceptualcontent. for instance, knowPPERRII for access to ledgehaving havingto to do dowith with aa type type ot footwear, worn in restricted context ledge do with. typeof offootwear, footwear, worn worn in inaaarestricted restri ted context context ledge having to and typically, typically, is based on of theday. day. Such Su h knowledge knowledge is i based based on Jnd typically, at at particular times times and at particular particular timesof ofthe the day. Such knowledge personal experiencesthat is, i is, •experience experience which i personal per",n.1 Jh tr.cting acro. abstracting acrossepi'>Odic episodicexperiences—that experiences—that experience whihisis abstracting across episodic which md situated, situated, including personal observation—as well well as cultural experience— experience— and ituated. including including per n.lobscrvation-a wellas ascultural cultural e perienceand personal observation—as knowledge gleaned through through narrative, narrative, knowledge knowledge gleaned through narrativ. story, tory. and and so on. As A such, uch, knowledge knowledge knowledge gleaned story, andso so on. on. As such, (II thi sort ~rt is i~ extremely extremelyrich III nature, nature. and and hence hene< is is conc ptual-that is, i , nonof this this sort is rich in is conceptual—that conceptual—that is, non of in nature, and hence lingui tic-innature. natur.Similarly, imilarly.the thelexical lexicalconcept conceptLCHAMPAGNEI, ICHAMPAGNE). relates relates to linguistic—in to !CHAMPAGNE', linguistic—in nature. Similarly, the lexical concept relates concerning an an alcoholic beverage, of part icular type, type, served and ofaaaparticular particular type,served rvedand and knowledge concerning concerning an alcoholic alcoholi beverage, beverage.of knowledge drunk in III a particul.rway, w.y. for forparticular particularreasons, reason. and and in IIIparticular particularvenues. venu .. particular reasons, and in particular venues. drunk in a• particular particular way, for ~lIniiariy. thi of knowledg constitutes constitutesconceptual conceptualcontent. content. Similarly, this conceptual content. Similarly, this sort sort of of knowledge knowledge constitutes onicpts also also encode linguistic content. For In addition. both both lexical le.ical concepts concept also encode en ode linguistic linguistic content. content.For For In In addition, addition, both lexical ., hall see sec below, below. they are both nominal lexical lexi .1concepts, can epts. in'tance. and Instance, and as is we shall see below,they theyare areboth both nominal nominal lexical instance, and we shall concepts, entity whichisis whICh mean they they thing(cf. (d.Langacker Langaeker19871—an 1987)-3n entity which i which means means theyrefer refer to to aaathing thing (cf. Langacker 1987)—an which Langacker's terms)— III some conceptual domain Langa ker' terms)— term )held to to relate to a•a region region relate to region in in some someconceptual conceptualdomain domain( (in held in Langacker's r.ther than encoding ncodlllg aaarelation, relation •• nd hence henc constituting constituting rel.tionallexical lexical rather than than encoding relation, and hence constitutingaarelational relational lexical rather and concept.This This distinction distinction isi discussed discussed later. Thi di tin lionis di ussedlater. later. concept. Moreover,both both 'SLIPPER! IslippEki aspects Moreover. both IsIIPPfR)and andI(IIAMPA6NI-I (UIA IP"';NI)encode encode different different. peet of of Moreover, and ICIIAMI•AGNE1 encode different aspects iooo).Plexity I'kxity the the category plexity plexity (Talmy ('IJlmy woo). 20()(»). 1'leXltyisisiaa•category c.tegorythat thatrelates rdat (C) th the category category the category that relates totothe although as is and domain ofboth 11M •• nd SPACE, \PA( l. although although a~ it conlongui hlllg additionally addilionally Remote Remote Past Pasl from Irom Recent Recenl Past, Pa I. for for instance. in Ian e.The Th African language: anguage with the most parameters thus tar reported is an lIJllg"ag a nguage with wilh the Ihe most moslparameters param ler thus Ihu far farreported reportedisi,an anAfrican Africanlanguage: language: with eleven. Crucially, parameters are encoded by mileke-1)schaing lia ke () hang with wllh eleven. eI en. Crucially, ruoall. parameters f,arameter> are encoded enu>Crvev to 10 encode. hente part oflhe hence part of the bundle of of information lexical concept serves to encode. hence part of the bundle of information that .' of expressions expressions that III trale Ihi con ider the Ihe complex comple range range of of expre "on that Ihalaaa To illu this nOhon. notion, consider complex range To illustrate illustrate this notion, consider the in order orderto 10"locate" "Iexale" Ih mselv with wilh language uuserr might mighl employ, employ. in in English, Engli h. in "locate" themselves themselves with language user might employ1 in English1 in order to lim. thereby Iherroy facilitating fatllilJling time lime reference. reference. Anyone of Ihe following following r Jlam ar as of n'Ory mOlor cortex Ihal pnx n ry. (PulvermUller 2003). motor experience experienc (Pulvermuller1999, 1999, Zoo;). 100.\). experience (PulvermUller 1999, argue that that hngui linguistic content is is so highlyschematic schematicinin innature nature In tOnlra,l. In contrast, III .rgue In Ihal lie content (Onlenl i\ so \(, highly hlghlyhemalic nalure argue linguistic that it is non-analogue. it takes a tormat that is not analogous to the multi-. that it is n n.analogu : itII takes lak.. a format formal that Ihal isi not nOI analogous analogou to 10 the Ihe multimuhi Ihal II I non-analogue: modal experiene experiencesIhallll that itit is isaaa.. schematization of.Hence, Hence,due dueto thereduction reductionof of modal experiences that schematization of m.>.this Ihi gives gi,evrise ri • to a qualitatively very different type of information from the kind captured by to a qualilati,dy qualitatively very different Iype type of of information 10. ,cry dillerent informal Ionfrom from the Ih kind kond captured caplured by by conceptual structure. To illustrate, take the parameters Past and Non past conceptual conceplual structure. lruclure. To To illustrate, illu Irale, take lak< the Ih parameters param I r> Past Pa I and and Non-past . 'on ' pa I above. These parameters are highly disuissed with respect to example discussed with respect .I, .... " ....'11 with re petl to 10 example example (6) «(0 )above. above.These 'I hevcparameters parameler> are Jrc highly highly schematic abstractionsdrawn drawnfrom fromthe complex rangeof of temporalrelationrelation-. "schematic hcmallc abstractions ab;traClion front Ihthecomplex compl xrange rang of temporal relalion temporal ofnow: now:our our ships that hold hold hclwccn between our our experience experienceof ofpast, past, andour our experience experience that between h,p, Ihal our experience of pa I. and ourexperi nce of of now: our ,ships temporal location location as asexperiencing centresof oftonstiousness. Temporalexperiexperi-. temporal consciousness. Temporal Icmfltlrall,,,alion a,. eexperiencing perientlng centres tenlr of (on IOU nt> ,1cmporalexperi ence, formof ofsubjective subjettive experience,isi,isextremely extremelyrich richinin inperceptual perceptual ence, • a• aform fom. of ubleeli,c experience, experience. eXlremely rich perceplualterms Iterms rm encc (Ivans Yet the parameters Past and Non past are not rich at all. (Evans 2oo4a). Yet the parameters and Non-past (h an 10(411). Y Ilhe paramelers Past Pa I and 'on ' pa I are are not not rich rich at al all. all, of the observation that linguistic An important An important consequence n import,]"t lonM."tluc'."nlc of the the observation ob 'r"\'Jtlun that thJI linguistic Iingul\lk content luntent isiis non-analogue natureis thefollowing. following.II1claim claimthat thatlinguistic linguistic contentdoes non-analogue non' analogue ininnature nalure iisthe Ihe following. daim Ihal lingui IIC content COnlenl .Idoes notgive giverise, directly.to tosimulations. simulations. Rythis this II I do do not not mean mean thatlingulingu-. not n01 give ririse, • directly, directl)'. 10 imulation , By Ily.'hi not m an that Ihal lingu to simulations, for instance, as part ofan an istic content cannot cannot contribute content Iistic li t: (ontent (d"nnt ulOtnhule to simulations, 1n'IUI.lhnn . for lor instance, in Idnf.:c. as J\ part pdrl of of ;jill utterance."The meaningfr—coflccpt ions—which arisefrom fromutterances utterances are utterance. uttcrancl:. IThe he meanings—conceptions—which mt.·anin~ ~unu·pllun whi{..h arise n from utt rJIu,c are ilrc

114 1 14

114

-------

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

LEX1CM

SIMAN1U SIRUCTURF SEMANTIC STRUCTURE

"

provides the pc the the totality totalityof o(our ourexperiences ex~rien of our experiences totality potential in present terms—which "comprises the The degree of diffuseness will depend With ntllyor orevent" event"((Iblil. 39). The degree of o(diffuseness diffu!>en will depend depend ibid. 39). with a certain entity with a certain entity or event" (ibid. representations ofthe the rang of o(issues i u including in ludingthe thefrequency (requ neyof o(the therepresentations repr ntation ofo( the upon a0 range upon a range of issues including the frequency of the entity, thi case c redness, rron ,aero relevant cognitive models model in inthe th language languag~ in language entity, in this across relevant models entity, in this case redness, across relevant u~r's y tem, recency receney of o(our our interaction interactionwith withthe thegiven givenreferent, re(erent. user's conceptual conceptual system, the given referent, of our interaction system, recency user's utterance context hay seen, n, in the the examples exampl in in (s) (s)aaspecific peeifi utterance unerancecontext context and so on. As we have and so on. As we have seen, in the examples in (5) a discrete rv to con train the the diffuse diffu activation activationof o( thereferent referent giving giving riseto toaadiscrete di -rete serves constrain ofthe giving rise rise to serves to constrain the diffuse activation semantic o(semantic mantic imulation. This Thi narrowing narrowingprocess pro.: involves involv different processes priX simulation. This narrowing process processes of involves different different of simulation. essence, Pan III III o(the the book."' book.'· InesseflCC, nee, the inability mability of ompo ition, discussed di ussed in composition, of In book.'° In in Part Part Ill of the composition1 discussed in directlyevoke evoke lingui tic content—and content-and hence hence closed-class do~-cI lexi al concepts—to con epts--todirectly directly evoke linguistic content—and closed-classlexical lexical concepts—to linguistic hence concepts not .simulations Imulatiom is i\ anothcr way o( dosro ·da lexical lexical concepts con epts do do not closed-class saying that that closed-class simulations is another another way way of of saying (aeilital< aCd·classlexical lexical concepts con cpt provide providetopological topological longui,tic content and thus thu closed-class reference. In contrast, the open-class lexical concepts facilitate aciess to reference. In contrast, ontrast. the the open-class o~n-da lexical I xi,.1 concepts con epts facilitate (a ilitat access a ces to to rckrcnce. In colkeptual content, and hence can be employed to express metric details of conceptual llCrbeams, beam.as a accessed ac<e>sed via via open on laser beams, as accessed cia lexical concept conceptILASER (LA lR HEAMI. REA t]. class lexical (LASER BEAM]. class concept linguistic to encode encode of the domain of of TIME, TIMF. linguistic Iingui tic content content also rve> to encooe In terms term of the domain domain also serves serves In terms Theory tense systems are reference. As As we we saw above, in LCCM A5 w saw ~w above, abov •in LCC 1 Theory Thcory tense ten systems y,temsare arc reference. topological reference.

After all, the the reduction reduction does \Her all, all. th redu tion to to content content that that does d(\C not notdirectly gIVerise risetotosimula;imula . directly give give rise siinula results in a reduction that, for tions results in a reduction that, for some domains such as lion; a reduction that. some domains domain such uch as as COLOUR, OLO R. may may Lions r ult some COlOIR, eliminate the essential essential characterof ofthe theinformation information thereby d ll"IOate the th ntial character character of the information thereby making making unin thereby makingititituninuninterpretable. A second second that ""me some domains terpretable. A -ond reason rea""n is i that domain do do not relate in ubiqui . domains not relate relate in aaubiquiubiquitous way to humank relevant tous lU u, way way to the the humanly humanly relevant scenes scenes that that language serves to encooe. scenes thatlanguage languageserves servesto toencode. encode.For For instance, categories to 1nstance,cOItcgori categoriesthat thatrelate relate10 to the the domain domain of 51(5k 11l,1.lIlee. thai rciate Ihe domain orMFI)IAFVAL MflllAfVAl M 1t'\ICOL()(iY, or MEDIAEVAL USICOL(X1Y, or 01 wen to 1ess less e%eI) p1irametersthat that relate relate to esoteric domains domains such e, cn parameters parameter rclate Ie ; esoteric domain uchas a\IAWI LOVlor orJOURNEYS 10 RNEY LOVE Or JOURNEYS are as experience arc not as a ubiquitous ubiquitou in in human humanexperience experienceas as parameters parameters relating to domain as parametersrelating relatingto to domains domains SPACE, Js TIME, MOTION, such and \lH. h as 3~ SPACE, PAC-f, TI~n. tOTION, and JndMFNTAI. IENTAI STATES. STATI:". MENTAL STATES. range of •Fhc range encoded The of domains by linguistic linguistic domain encoded encooed by lingui;tic content content appears appears to to behighly highly appears tobe be restricted. already intimated. intimated, domains encoded encoded As already intimated, domains linguistic re\tncted. A encooed in in linguistic lingui tic content contentinininTIME, SPACE, MOTION, and Jude I IMI. SPACE, MENTAl. clude MENTAL du deTIMF. PM F. MOTION, MOTION. MLNTAl STATES. . TAT! s.ln tothe therestricted rC\tricted InInaddition addition STATES. additionto restricted sCt of domains set encoded, linguistic content also features onlyaasmall domain encoded, ncooed. linguistic IingUl ti content contentalso alsofeatures fcatur only only smallnumber number ,,·t number otcategones within each each domain.To in illustrate, illustrate, consider of categories of categories within within ea h domain. domain. To illu trate. consider con ideraafew few of categorfewof ofthe thecategor1ltegork's ,issOt iated withthe domainTIME: iisii ie, associated .1,-"",iated ththedomain domain TIME: ies with (

conceived terms of paramcterization. In English there arc two such parameived in in terms term of ofparameterization. parameterization.In In English English there there are are two two such uch paramparamcon conceived Theseparameters parametersarc aretime-neutral time-neutralwith withrespect eter : Past Pa t ve"u on -past. These These paramete" are time-neutral with respecttoto versus Non-past. Non-past. eters: versus I udidean reference, reference. Indeed, precise [udidean reference. and hence hence provide topological topological reference. reference. Indeed, Indeed.precise preci'C Euclidean reference, metric details, we saw earlier, can can only be be expressed expressed byvirtue virtue of of open-class metri detail. as a we we saw w earlier, earlier. expr sed by by virtu ofopen-class open-cia metric details, as lexial concepts to conceptual conceptual structure, as illustrated lexical concept whkh whichfacilitate fa ilitateaccess acee ~ to con eptual structure, tructure. as asillustrated illu trated concepts which facilitate access by following e ampl tthe hefollowing followingexamples: exampks by the

l)omain: TIME Domain: TIME TIME Category: Time reference reference Category: Time referen e a. He Hekkkedthcball lie kicked kicked the the ball ball a. h. h. He Hekicks kicks the the ball ball b. ball

(11 ) a.•a..Two Twodays da days ago ago ((ii) it) I heday div before yesterday b. The day before yesterday y terday The before b. c. Forty-eight hours ago ago Forty-eight hours hours ago c. Fern-eight

(12)

and categories A restrided set of of domains and andcategories categories A restricted

Category: Boundedness Roundedness (:ategory: Category: Boundedn a. 1I0lly Hollyha.s has Holly (13) a. (13) ha left len th party left the the party h. leaving the b. Holly b. Hollyisi leaving leaving the the party party

ofparameterization parametenzationi,is isthat that the the range range of of domains, domains, and and the the A on<equence of parameteri/ in (13) imperfective aspect. Some examples of Some examples of categories Some e,ampl of categories and para mete" associated •associated iated with wllh other domains domain .ategories and and parameters parameters with other other domains encoded in linguistic linguistic content encoded Iingui"i, wntent provided below: cn« lded in content arc ire areprovided below:

118

SEMANTI( SEMANTIC slRl.JCTt'RE STRUCTURE

REPRESENTATION ILEXICAL EXI(AI RFPRFSENTATION DOMAIN: SPACE SPAtI 1)OMAIN:

1)9 119

thespeaker's speaker'sbelief beliefthat that aa situation situation is counterfactual countcrtactual yet which encodes encodes the yet pos pos-

Parameter: Category: Number Category: Singular lostaaslipper slipper ( 1i) a.a.Holly Hollylost (is) Hollylost lostboth bothher herslippers slippers Plural Plural b. Holly

sihic. as in in aa language language such such as as Russian. s ible, as

Parameter: Parameter: (16) Category: Category:Unitizahility Unitizahility(or (orcountability) Unit t'nit slippers for for his his birthday birthday gave him slippers She gave a. She a. \lass She gave gave him himchampagne champagne for forhis hisbirthday birthday Mass b. She h. MOTION Domain:MOTION Domain: notion of 2000 not path(cf. (ct.Talmy's Falmys 2000 ion of (17) Category: Windowing of motion path (i7) Parameter: of attention) the "windowing" "windowing" of windowing plane Initial Initial windowing The crate crate fell tell out of the plane a. 11w Medialwindowing windowing The crate crate tell fellthrough throughthe theair air Medial b. b. The Final windowing fell into into the the ocean ocean c. The crate fell c.

bifurcation between between oflinguistic linguistic content content is is that that itit encodes aabifurcation aspect of Another aspect

ofthe thesort sortdiagrammed diagrammedin in Figure Figure 6.4, Withrespect respect to to a1 path path of of motion motion of With different portions of asevidenced evidenced linguistic content serves to of the paths path, as linguistl4. content serves to encode encodedifferent prepositional phrases headed, headed, respectrespectby lexical concepts associated .il s..onccpts associatedwith with the the prepositional Lw into. and iHtO. ively, Lw by out of, through, and ively.

Domain: MENTAL STATE STAll l)omiin: Parameter: Parameter: (18) Category:Mood Mood (iS) Category: Indicative a. She slippers Indicative She bought bought him him slippers Imperative h. Buy him slippers! mentalstate. state.English English The category category Mood Mood relates relatesto tothe thespeaker's speakersintention intentionor or mental

includingIndicative, Indicative, exhibits only three parameters parameters in in linguistic linguistic content: including ofparamparamImperative, Imperative1 and andSubjunctive. Subjunctive. However, However,cross-linguistically cross-linguistically aavariety variety of theAdmirative Admirative in languages languagessuch such eters eters belong belongtotothis thiscategory, category,ranging rangingfrom fromthe surprise,totothe theHypothetical, as as Bulgarian Bulgarian and Ukrainian, Ukrainian, which encodes surprise,

FIGURE F,(,URF6.4. 6.4. The path

fatling out out til of aa plane plane associated with with an object falling associated

versus relational \(r711fl(Jl versus Nominal relational

lexical relations ((Lingacker nominals and relations Langacker 1987). the Thedistinction distinction in in type type of lexical follows. Nominal lexical concepts are conceptually conceptually autonoautonoconcepts is as as follows. concepts arc arc independently identifiable, such as as mous: they relate to entities which are nious dependent:they they "chair",oror "shoe".In Incontrast, contrast,relations relations arc are conceptually conceptually dependent: thus"dependent" "dependent" are thus constitute a relation holding holding between between other entities, and are thoseother otherentities entitiesininorder orderto tofully fully determine determinethe thenature natureofofthe the relationon those ship. such as .isthe thefollowing: following: instance, in in an an utterance such ship. For instante, Max hid hid the the mobile mobile telephone telephone under the bed bed iv) Max iii)) shall gloss as the lexical assos.iatedwith withthe thevehicle vehicle hid, hid, which which II shall The lexical concept concept associated gloss as 1111)1, relates conceptuallyautonomous autonomouslexical lexicalconcepts wn&.cptsassociated .issociatedwith with ittoi, relates thethe conceptually establishing aa relationship relationship inintelqhone, and bed, establishing the mobi• telephone, the vehicles Max, mobile volving "hiding" autonomousparticipants participantsin in the the "hiding"between between the the conceptually conceptually autonomous conception: namely namelyI(MAXI kxkal concept conception: mAx Jand and (aEnJ. I isEni.Analogously, Analogously, the lexical concept assoassowith the lexical underestablishes establishes a spatial relation between between lexical ciated with the vehicle vehicle under with mobile , n ubileteleplst'ne concepts associated with telephone and and bed. bed. conceptually dependent dependentstructure structure of of relational relational lexical kxical concepts is The conceptually concepts is participantrole role(Gold(toldnk'delled,in inLCCM 1;CM Theory, modelled, Theory, in in terms terms of aa schematic participant exemplified in in (19) encodes encodesthree three as exemplified berg berg 1995). 1995). The The lexical lexicalconcept concept(HiDJ Imp) as sthcniatic participant roles.1' Therich richcontent contentrelating relatingtotothe theparticipant partkipant schematic roles." The concepnot specified specifiedin in linguistic linguisik content. roles isis not content. This This arises arises from from access access totoconcepstructure encodes encodesrich richcontent contentrelating relatingtoto tual structure. That That is, is, conceptual conceptual structure hiding: that who does doesthe thehiding hidingfor forparticular particular reasons, hiding: that ititinvolves involves someone someone who reasons, particular sort, hidden. NonNonand that an entity of a particular sort, often often an an object, is hidden. linguistic knowledge also also includes includes what what facilitates facilitates something somethingbeing beinghidden, hidden, linguistic such as asperceptual perceptualinaccessibility inaccessibilityofofthe theobject ohjetibring beinghidden hiddenand/or andlorits itsbeing being such placed in in aa novel novellocation. location.Conceptual (ouceptual structure also encodesinformation information placed also encodes relating to the motor involvedin inhiding, hiding, which which involves involvesmoving movingthe the motor processes processes involved object from from one location to to another. another. The The participant participant roles encodedas aspart partofof object one location roles encoded the the linguistic linguistic content notencode encodesuch suchdetails. details.Rather, Rather,what whatisis contentfor for(1111)1 (tool dodonot encodedisisaahighly highlyabstract abstractrepresentation, representation,derived derivedfrom fromthe therich richperceptual perceptual encoded serveto to details of of aa hiding hiding scenario. scenario.'2 As such such we we have have three that serve details 12 As three rides roles that \4)tkr that hid is assouated rdleziie" emma For with the the "ft-fictive that the hid is polysemous. " Noose is aIsd the vehick vehisk hid For instanse, hid also a+.04.isted with hides oneself, as in: Jnh,, hid,., It al 11th ksk cuntept. which .11 ticqit in in which ni en* irni utv it hide% oneself. is in blur had t ► i the wardrobe. This lettkal on, co. whi. lettkal cotkept whkh an h I ,.&hcnlatk emodes twi) slois as UVI partittpant rules I Om 45 I Itt-t Ittuvo. mid CM Mk% [WI) St bertha IIL ' Thescschematic 'nt cUt derived derived from from uinseptual moncrptual part asipani roksare arcnut-grated intcgrated with withthe therich rich sttititern 'pant roles I The hematic 11.1111‘ h.aptev structure in in aa process process referred retàrcd to dis& usedininc :hapter to as as interpretation. interpretation, discusses! structure

ii.

uo

lEXICAL

SEMANTIC SI-MANTIISTRUCTURE STRL;rURE

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

120

distinguish between betweenthe thethree threeentities entitiesinvolved involved at at the the most mostgeneral generallevel levelofof distinguish participant roles detail. These These participant roles are: are:Hider, Hider, Object, Object, and and Location." detail. just as as the the bifurcation in in lexical lexical concepts concepts discussed above—that above—thatholding holding lust between lexical lexical concepts soklv encode encodelinguistic Iinguistk content content and andthose those between concepts which solely which additionally additionally facilitate to conceptual conceptualcontent—corresponds content—correspondstotoa a which facilitate access access to distinction in in the the formal formal en&oding o lexical lexical concepts—the concepts—thedistinction distinctionbebedistinction encoding of tween openopen-and andclosed-class closed-classvehicles—so vehicles-- sotoo toothe thedistinction distinctionbetween betweennomnomtween inal and and relational relational lexical lexical concepts conceptshas hasaaformal formalreflex reflexininterms termsofoflinguistic linguistic inal vehicles. In In a for instance, instance,this thisdistinction distinction relates relatesto to vehicles. a language language such such as as English, for lexical concepts conceptsassociated associatedwith withwhat whatare arecommonly commonlyreferred referred to to as .*snouns nounsand and lexical

noun phrases phrases (nominals) (nominals) on on the the one one hand, hand, and and lexical lexical concepts associated noun concepts associated with other adverbs, with other lexical lexical forms. forms, including includingverbs, verbs, prepositions. prepositions, adjectives, adjectives, adverbs, verb forms forms such and non-finite non-finiteverb suchasasinfinitives infinitivesand andparticiples participks((relations) onthe the and relations) on other (see Langacker 19$7 for details). details). other (see Langacker 1987 for I ( CM Theory In view Iheory assumes every externally open In view of of the the foregoing, LCCM assumesthat that every externally open lexical concept, concept, i.e., i.e.,aalexical lexicalconcept conceptwhich, which,informally, informally, holds holdsat atthe thelevel levelofof lexical the encodeseither eithernominal nominalstructure structureororrelational relationalstrucstructhe phrase phrase or or below" encodes ture. suggestthat thatthis thisbifurcation bifurcation in in linguistic linguistic content content emerges emergesfrom fromperperture. II suggest ceptual experience, and hence relates to highlysalient, salient,humanly humanlyrelevant, relevant, ceptual experience, and hence relates to aahighly dimension of embodied experience. dimension of embodied experience. The idea idea is is as asfollows. tillows. In In seminal work, Rnsih argued that that aspects .Ispettsofof The seminal work, Rosch (1978) (1978) argued perceptual giverise riseto toinevitable inevitable conflations conflations due dueto tocorrelations correlations or or perceptual experience experience give clumping of of the the perceptual perceptualarray. array.Building Building on Ofl this thisinsight, insight,Gentner Gentner(1982; (198Z see see clumping also C,entner and and lioroditsky Boroditskv 2001) 2001) posits posits that that objects and andanimate animate beings beingsare arc also Gentner thus as being beingindividuated individuated on on the the basis basisof ofperceptual perceptualexperience. experience.That that thus perceived perceived as is, ciltities such as these are non-relational, in that they emerge as coherent and is, entities such as these are non-relational, in that they emerge as coherent and discrete conceptual entities entities from from the discrete conceptual the perceptual-cognitive perceptual-cognitive sphere. sphere. (;entner refers to the claim that embodied experience to the the Gentner refers to the claim that embodied experiencegives gives rise rise to distinction between nominal versusrelational relational notions notionsas asthe theNatural NaturalPartiPartidistinction between nominal versus tions This states statesthat that"there "there are are in in the the experiential flow flow certain certain tions Hypothesis. Hypothesis. This highly cohesive of percepts perceptsthat thatare arcuniversally universallyconceptualized conceptualiied highly cohesive collections of .is objects, and . . . these tend to he lexicalized as nouns across languages" as objects, and... these tend to be lexicalized as nouns across languages" (Gentner i24). (Gentner 1982: 1982: 324). Given Natural Partitions it follows that certain certain notions notions Given the the Natural Partitions Hypothesis. Hypothesis, it follows that encoded by language language in in the the form form of of lexical conceptswill will arise arise from from distincdistincencoded by lexical concepts (ions apparent in of physical phvskal experience. rhose notions which notions which tions apparent in the the stream stream of experience. Those are likely to emerge most easily in the perceptual stream are those which are are likely to emerge most easily in the perceptual stream are those which are individuable. of individuation individuation is function of individuable.Hence, Hence,apparent apparentease ease of is a a function of percepperceptual coherence. According to Gentner and Boroditsky (iooi) there are two two tual coherence. According to Gentner and Boroditsky (20ot) there are factors which contribute to ease of individuation. The first factor relates to factors which contribute to ease of individuation. The first factor relates to

"objecthood." This relates relates to a stable "objecthood." This to the the maintenance maintenanceofofa stableperceppercepstructure l tual tru cture moving against a background. Hence, entities which tual structure moving against a background. hence, entities which can can rgo motion are likely to be highly individuable. Accordingly, animate 11ntkrgo motion are likely to be highly individuahk. n ei iitIt cuo animate ntities arc likely to be more easily individuated based on this criterion. eCfltIti&s are likely to be more easily individuated based on this criterion. The The second secondfactor factorrelates relatestotowhat whatGentner Gentncrand andBoroditsky Borodutskyrefer refertotoasasperceppercepThat is, i's. "[hi ighly coherent tual tual coherence. That coherent objects objects have havedensely denselyinterconnected interconnected representations" ► id. 222). 222). This representations (i (ibigL This means meansthat that the therange rangeand andnumber numberofofinternal internal links a given ve terms, greater links between betweencomponent componentparts partsofofa givenobject objectis,is,ininrelati relative terms, greater than than the with thenumber numberof ofcomponents componentsthat thatmake makeup upthe theobject. object.For forinstance, instance,aastool stool withaa seat legs has scat and and 'bur four legs has multiple multiple connections between between each eachcomponent, component,and andthese these are ire greater than the the total total number number of component componentparts. parts.AAsecond secondcontributing contributing issue to perceptual coherence concerns the well-forniedness of the issUC to perceptual coherence concerns the well-ft)rmedness of theoverall overall structure. instance, aasymmetrical structure. For instance, symmetricalstructure structure isismore morelikely likely to to be beperceived perceived as as perceptually perceptually coherent coherent than than one onewhich whichisisasymmetric. asymmetric. While many entities are based on are pre-individuated pre-individuatcd based onperceptual perceptual experience, experience, individuation constitutes aa continuum. For instance, animate individuation itself constitutes continuum. For instance, animateentities, entities, like inanimate entities, exhibit However, exhibit strong perceptual coherence. coherence. However,by 1w virtue of remaining perceptually stable entities are stable during during motion, motion, animate animate entities are more easily individuated. Conversely, amorphous objects easily individuated. objects such suchas assubstances substances are likely to be less easily individuated than discrete objects because likely to be less easily individuated becausethey theyare are lcss perceptually coherent. Figure Figure6.s less perceptually 6.5presents presentsthese these conclusions in the form of in the of Continuumas as applied applied to to physical physical entities. an lndividuability Individuahility Continuum By encoding a given entity entity as as aa nominal nominal lexical lexical concept, concept,linguistic linguistic content content serves to to provide a particular construal, one one which particular construal, which relates relatestotoindividuahility. individuahility. t.angacker Langacker (1987), in in his his Cognitive Grammar framework, framework, argues a similar cognitive (;ramniar arguesfor for a similar perspective. perspective. He He claims that that what whathe he refers refers to to as as nominal predications (nomnominal predications (nominal inal lexical lexical concepts concepts in present terms) terms) serve to designate designate aaregion: region:aadelimited delimited portion, portion, in in sonic some domain: aa coherent body of conceptual knowledge. coherent body of conceptual knowledge. This This very very general definition definition serves serves to distinguish the construal provided by nomto distinguish the construal provided by nominals from those of inals from those of relations, relations, which which are are concerned concerned with with the the relationships relationships between between regions of domains, rather thanthe theregions regions themselves. themselves. rather than Individuability Indivlduablifty

SELF-MOVING I SELF-MOVING

READILY READILY MOVED MOVED

in thi Uttefiute in (sy) rriuhs from the ont c pt. in the kith-Tame in tail) mull% loon the to

ii (or further dct.aik. 14 Sec Chapter u for further details. See

tonal ► p ► sitional

humans humans animals animals vehicles vehicles

STATIONARY STATIONARY

smallmobde mobile smail objects

complex complex structurally structurally cohesive cohesive

objects

diiui,ed

in Part Part III III ui mechanism. disused in of

44

I

" The the part'. ipant role, integrated with other kziial lexical with other [bc way in in whkh whkh the rolescntoded cntoJnl1w by ( int'l ► til arc integrated

lI(NIIL the the hook.

121 121

large amorphous large amorphous simple objects simple

objects —s

Il(iL'ILE FIGURE b.5. 6.5. The The Individuability Individuability("ontinuurn Continuumasasapplied applied to to physical physical enhitics entities (Adapted (Adapted 2001: 20) 230) from (entner Gentnerand andBoroditsky Boroditsky zoot: from

-

122 122 IU

lIXICAL KEPRFSFNTATION

-

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

instance, while [ ARJ and lorinstance, verydiffer different sor' of For in and FA prostoN different ('or Ian,•• while while (CAR) I( ul and II XPI 0"0, I represent rrepresent pr nl very nl sorts sort of

'I""

(it)

(21)

The darn exploded

a. His car was making a funny a. His noise a. IIi car '!!! was w making making aa funny funny!LL b. The galaxy is made up on more than one solar system b. Th more than than one onesolar solarsystem yslem The galaxy galaxy iis made up on more c. She sent a letter to her lover c. ,he nl a letter letter to 10 her her lover lover She sent d. His uncle was a kind man His uncle d. IIi un Ie was a kind kond man man e. Fred- tried to teach Holly the Arabic alphabet e. Fred lea h Holly HoUy the theArabic Arabi alphabet alphabel Fred Iried tried 10 to teach f. The explosion in her made her latefor forwork work f.1. The The explosion ex 10 ion in inher herengine en inemade madeher herlate lale for work g. Holly's love for Fred began on a luesday g. lIolly' IQv!, for for Fred I red began begdn on on aaTuesday Tuesday Holly's love h. The team played appallingly The team h. Th learn played played appallingly appallingly

--

Nevertheless, there is commonality in terms of the linguistic content that each Nevertheless, there iis commonalily commonality in terms of the linguistic that each everthel .Ihere mlerm oflhe lingui Ii content onlcnllhal each nominal lexical concept encodes. Each nominal is construed as encoding

nominal laical concepl en od . Each Ea h nominal n minal isicon Irued as encoding n oding nominal lexical concept encodes. construed content that has to do with individuability. In contrast, lexical concepts conlenl Ihal has ha to 10 do dowith wllhindividuahility. ondividuabililY. In Incontrast, onlra I. lexical lexical concepts cOnlepl content that which are conceptually dependent, such as those associated with verbal yewhich ar conceptually elw n those Iho lexical I xical concepts mncepl which whICh linguistic content, for exhibit concept u.l autonomy and those that exhibit dependency. exhibit «lIl Summary the nature nature of of been concerned ,in account account of This has been concerned with developing an Thi' hapter has ofthe th~ naturenf chapter This chapter andcontrasting contrasting with It with with semanti tructurrIllal ...Icclional tendency the (REAlIzEOllexical by exhibited by by same vehicle: the same \Jme vehicle: vehicle:

ii

( R) $) (8)

•

El

135 135 135

,I. Jane Jane found found the the cat cat a. Jane b. Jane found that that h. b. Jane Jane found thai the the cat cat was wa mi ing was missing missing

[LOCATED] It U(ATIflJ (LOUTEDI

(REAlIZEDI

REAIIZEDJ I[REALIZED]

The lexical conceptselects selects fora object, All nJ lexical concept aa direct whilstthe the II REALIZED) I h~ (LOCATED) (I ()('ATfOllexical concept I t for for direct ohpect, object, whilst whilst REAlIlEDI REAIIZI l)j lexical leXIcal con ept selects lects for for a sentential ntential complement. complement. lexical concept concept selects complement. Thus far II have primarily Thus addressed the selectional tendencies J'hu far have primarily primarilyaddressed addressed the the selectional lectional tendencies tenden irs associated a 'Iated associated with lexical concepts with lexical lexical concepts on epts associated wllh vehi I that that have have overt phoneti iated with with vehicles vehicles have overt phonetic phonetic content. content. II now now briefly brieflyconsider consider the lexical profile associated con iderthe thelexical lexical profile profileassociated a iated with withlexical lexicalconcepts conceptsthat with lexical concepts that are ~nternally internally open. Recall that internally internally open internally open. Recall open arc Recall that open lexical lexical concepts concept are are paired with concepts arepaired pairedwith with vehicles which have have impliCIt implicit phonetic vehicles whICh which have implicit phonetic vehicles phonetic content, such su h as a the lexi 31 concept concept as the lexical lexical concept y TO I[THING [HUNGXxXCAUSES CAL Sis THING TIIIN THING Y ro RECEIVE RECEIVI llllNG CAUSE TO RECEIVE THING Z] zl conventionally conventionally paired paired with wilh zj the dltran ditransitive ditransitive vehicle. The The lexical lexical of such lexical concepts itive vehicle. vehide. Th Ie .. al profile profile of ofsuch u 'h lexical lexicalconcepts concept relates relates to to profile relates what what II refer refer to to aas as internal internalselect selectional whall refer to lectional tendencies.That 'J1lat is,as ajs the Ihelexical lexicalconcept concept internal lonal tendencies. Thatis, the lexical internally it can integrated with with other abstract is Iinternally open, it be integrated other less Iis .nternally open, can he oth rless I abstract ab traet lexical lexical concepts concept concepts paired with vehicles that do have with vehldes vehicles that do have phonetically paired With phonetically explicit explicit phonetic phonetICcontent. content.Yet, Yet, phonetic such lexical constrained in in certain ways, ,uch concept are constrained constrained incertain certainways, way,as aasspecified specified bythe Ihe such lexical concepts concepts are specifiedby thelexical lexical profile that forms profile that form forms part part of the linguistic content encoded pr file that pari of the the linguistic lingui ticcontent contenlencoded encoded by by the Ihe ITHING (TilING x the [THING X X (:A(sIs l111N; RI( CAUSES THINGYY I IVF THING 1 IIIN 7.1 (Al'"S TIliNG YTO TO RECEIVE Rf(flVE TIliNG lllexi an analytical .malytical challenge challenge for the Ilngui begin be'Son (and end). end). Laterinin inthe th chapter hapter alway clear not always always cktr where

-

ILEXICAL EXICAL CONCEPTS CON EPTS

137 137 137

how IiI will illustrate the lexical lexical profile profil (an he he applied applied in In adducing addUCing distinct di tonct profile can be applied in adducing willillustrate illustrate.how how the the polysemous lexical concepts.In thenext nextchapter chapterIII will, polysemous a! concept. InInthe th next chapter will, among things, among other other things, things, polysemous lexl lexical concepts. A pply thl applY this Jpply methodologyto toaaacase ca study tudy of ofpolysemy. poly, my. this methodology to case of polysemy. Lexical concepts conceptscan can be be combined combined iLexical

One of Icxi al concepts concept, encodingaaalexical Ie italprofile profile a, part of their )nc ~on'iC(juence consequenceof oflexical lexical onceptsencoding lexical profileas aspart partof oftheir consequence linguistic Ionguts.tlC knowledge bundle bundle is i that that lexical lexicalt.oncepts oncept can can be ombined.While linguistic knowledge is that lexical concepts becombined. combined. While die lexl lexical schematictendencie, tendencies,Ilexical lexical concept combination the profileexpresses expresses .. i al con cpt combination combination lexicalI profile expresses schemati schematic tendencies, concept of Involv"" th ontegraltonof ofactual actual instances .on tan~ of ofspecific pe.:ili'lexical concept inin inaaaway way involves the the integration integration of actual instances lexical concepts concepts way tocombone combine both both the the linguistic linguistic by lexical that rYes to hngul tl content content encoded en odedby bylexical lexical concepts concept that serves serves to combine content encoded concepts and a subset the cognitive model profiles that each open-dass lexical ~ub ,t, of the cogoitive model profile that each open-class lexical and and a subset of the cognitive model profiles that each open-class lexical ionccpt .kcess to. The 'I'he general generalprocess processof wmhination of of fa Illlat ,ace general proc ofofcombination combination ofboth both lIUlcept concept facilitates facilitates access to. to. linguistic content isis referred to, in in LCCM and conceptual lingui tic and con eptual content i referred ..ferred to, L 'CM Theory, Theory, as fu ion. 1'heory,as asfusion. fusion. conceptual are There There are two two mechanisms mechanisms whichrelate relateto tothe thedifferent difkrent sorts mechani m which which rclate to the ditTerent ~rts of content sortsof ofcontent content associated with 1i xical concept: lingui>!ic concepts associated that give rise to !>ed Ih proce~ that thai give gi~e rise rise to chapter also briefly briefly addr addressed compositional processes chapter also briefly addressed the compo~ilional compositional the combination of in service service ofmeaning meaning construction. This Ihe oflexical lexical concepts concept in ",rvice of of me.ningconstruction. con lructlon.This Th" concepts particular issue is .ddr addressed detaillater, later,ininPart PartIII of the the book. book.Finally, Finally, it parlicular iissue ,ue i, sed inindetail del.ill.ler. P.rI IIIIll of Ihe book. I-in.lly, itil particular is addressed contribute, in in part, part, lexical coIKcpts concepts contribute. contribute, in simulations wa ,uggr ted that tholt lexical COllt.:cpt part, to to simulations ImuiJtiull\ was that dS as was suggested suggested as lexical to be he stored as as part of of conceptual structure, which can come to 10 be stored a part pari ofconceptual conceplual structure, lructure, they they thus thu have ha\e which can relativistic for non linguisticknowledge knowledgerepresentation. representation. relJtivj\tif.:" (nn\C"ll1cnu~\ 110n -lingui\tic rcprc\Cnt.uion. relativisticconsequences consequences for non-linguistic '

of polysemy: polysemy: the phenomenon whereby In this Ihi, chapter chapler 1I address address the i_issue ue of of poIY"'lllY: the th phenomenon ph nomen n whereby whereby aa In chapter the issue vehicle has hasmultiple multiple related sense-units associated withit. it. Polvsemy vehicle ha mulliple related sense-units nse·units associated a iated with with it.Polysemy Polysemy s.ingle iIIlltle ngle vehicle an important important topic language science. lraditionally,lexical lexial lexicalsernanseman· """lItUles important lopicininlanguage languagescience. science. Traditionally, constitutes an Traditionally, semanhave taken taken th the view view that polysemy a"surface" "surface" phenomenon: conseIKi'I' have that polysemy poly.emy isis i aa" urface" phenomenon: phenomenon:aaaconsecon ticists have taken the underlying mental to relatively abstract mente three including "state" which the kxical thrcc prepo.itional vehi I ,in ludingthe th way wayininwhich whi hthe the "state" tate"lexical lexical threeprepositional prepositionalvehicles, vehicles, including the concept( s) associated with one prepositional vehicle are distinct prepositional vehick are distinct from concept(s) a iated with concept(s) associated with one prepo itional ..hi Ie are di tin tfrom with other other prepositional prqxmitional the vehicles; lexie.11 ","<eptC a "xidtedwith prepo,itionalvehicles; vehide ; tate lexical the state state lexical concept(s) concept(s))associated •• aaarevealing revealing of the range of "state" lexical concepts within aaagiven of"state" lexit.il concepts within given revealing account a count of the rdogc or"\talc"lexical (OnceplS within given range account of distinct; that that is, some preposition somevehicles, vehicles, notably prepo ilion showing , howll1l1how howthey theyare arcdistinct; ~islinct:.that so!"e vehi Ics,notably notably preposition showing how they are than one distinct "state" distinct st.ite in lexical concept; ", and on Oil C:\hlhlt more l110re tate lexical lexl(.ll (ollf.:ept; more thJl1 than one niw cJl\l1m.1 on exhibit inand

!,'

POLYSEMY POLY EMY POLYSEMY

155 155 155

functional ••• an In count of of the spatio-geometric patio geometric and and functional fun tional knowledge knowledge encoded en oded an ajcc0Uflt account ofthe the spatio-geometric and knowledge encoded and a:, "spatial" lexical concepts associated with in, by the core" patial" I xical concepts iated with m, aI, o,r, 1w on; core "spatial" lexical concepts associated with in, at, and on; by the core of how each of the "state" kxical of this, arevealing revealing account aaccount count of ofhow each eo h of ofthe the" tate" lexical lexi al and in in view view of of this this,aa revealing "state" ••• and involved andrelated relatedto, to,the thecore core "spatial" by, and and related to, the core" patial" concept motivated Lw, concepts involved involved iis is motivated motivated by, "spatial" prepositional vehicle. lexical con eptsassociated aassociated iated with with each prepo itional vehicle. vehi Ie. kxkal concepts lexical concepts witheach each prepositional

"

and on on medIate mediate aa relation between human experienin, at, at, and relation between Inthese these exampl~ examples, II~ mediate In these all bct~ccn hU~lan cxi experien In exampks cer( s) and a particular state. While some of these expressions, for instance, to be for instance, Whik some these cer( ular state. tat. While some of oftheseexp .Ions,forms~~ e,t~be cer(s)) andaparti and a particular drawn"are areclearly clearlyidiomati idiomatic, thecontention contention of of cognitive cognitive clearly idiomatic, , Tersdrawn" "atdaggers (144, "at daggers , the the contentIon of cognttl~e lexical le ..",1 arc "at drawn" semantics is that while such expressions may he highly conventionalized, expressions may may be be hIghly highly conventionalized, and semantics onventlonahzed, and semantics isis that that whIle while such exprCMion thesource sourceof of the idiom accessible contemporary language be accessihk to contemporary contemporary language the m may may not not be beacc ible to to languageusers, users, the the source of the theidl idiom employed, is, at least, at is fact that at is. diachronically diachroniially fact iis employed, is, dia hronicallyat at least, I t, motivated. motivated. fact If th theperspective perspective ofTered offered by by cognitive cognitive lingui linguistics ti is is correct, correct, namely namely that that the the If perspective lithe and on on is sanctioned aa" "state" concept, then then there there is is one at, and use of of in, usc tioned by by a tate" Ilexical xi al concept, one sanctioned by is san on is use of IrI, in, at, importantissue that awaits awaits each lexical concepts of the the "state" "state" of ", t~te~ lexical I~xical concepts concep'\ Important iissue ue that await explanation: explanation: each ea h of important associated with the prepositional vehicles in (4)—(6) exhibit distinct patterns (4)—(h) exhibit distinct patterns in a~~iated ition.1 vehicles vehicles in (4),-(6) exhIbIt dl tinct patte"" in III associatedwith with the the prepo prepositional terms of their semantic selectional tendencies. For instance, the "state" lexical selectional tendencies. tendencies. For For in instance, the "state" term their semantic sem.ntic selection.1 tanee, the" tate" lexical terms of of their concept associated with in selects for co-occurring open-class lexical fur co-occurring co-occurring open-class concepts con cpt aassodatcd iated with open-cia lexical lexical concepts concept' selects for concept with IrI in select which access conceptual structure concerning emotional or psychological psychological conceptual structure con concerning emotional or psychologICal which a (eM con eptual structure ming emohon.1 which "force"such such as being being "in "in love", love","in "inpain", pain', and and so so on. on. and so on. In In contrast, open"force" uch as as contrast, the the openopcn~ being "in class lexical lexical concepts which co-occur with to have to to do, do,not notwith emotional class at have do, not with emotional class lexicalconcept conceptswhich whichco-occur co-occurwith with at a: have force but, with relations,such such as force rather, mutual (or (or interpersonal) interpersonal) relations, uchas asbeing being"at "at force but, but, rather, rather, with with mutual (or interpersonal) has selects concepts that war". Meanwhile, Meanwhile, on on select for lexical that relate relate to content content thathas ,var': all lexical concepts relate to cont ntthat ha selects for to activities, wellas as actionswhich which involve being to do do with with time-restricted tim -restri ted activities, activities, as aas well well a actions action whi hinvolve invol..being being tirne-rcstrkted currently active. These include being "on alert", "on duty', and so forth. That "on duty", and so forth. That currently achve. These lude being duty", and That currently active. These in include being "on "on alert", is, the types of co-occurring lexical concepts selected by each of the "state" each of the Iis,, the types of co-occurringlexical lexi alconcepts concepts selected selected by ea h of th "state" "tate" the types of co-occurring senses for these prepositions is of a quite different kind. This suggests, of aa quite as senses position is i of quite different difTerent kind. kind.This Thi suggests, ugg t.,as .. sensesfor for these these pr prepositions predicted by LCCM Theory, that each of the prepositional vehicles is associvehi. Ics predicted Theory, that that each each of of the the prepositional prepo~ition.1 vehi I i JssOCia\,\/,XI predicted by by lI ('(' .M M Theory, ated distinct lexical distinct lexical ated with tmct lexical whichaccordingly accordinglyexhibits exhibitsaaadistinct di tin tl xical ated with with aa di distinct lexical concept, concept, which accordingly exhibits profile, as manifested usage have' hitherto profil ,a manifested in u age patterns. pattern. Hence, Hence, although although hav hitherto hitherto profile, as manifested in usage patterns. Hence, althoughIIIhave applied to refer refer to the lexical concepts underpinthe the applied th label label "state" ""state" tate" to refer to to the th lexical lexi al concepts concept which whi h underpin underpin th.e applied the the label which specific in, at, on, itit at, and pecific instance in tanee of of th di tinctprepositional prepo itional vehicles, ,ehicl ,IrI, and on, all, It isis " specific instance ofthe thedistinct distinct prepositional vehicles, in, important to recognize that the so-called "state" lexical concepts are distinct, lexical concepts are distinct, recogniu that that the the so o;o-called tate" lexi al con cpt ar di tinct, Important to recogniie important to called ""state" as evidenced by their distinct selectional tendencies. tendencies.. ~ ed hy tm,t selectional . as eVlden evidenced bytheir theirdi distinct sekctional tenden" In view of this, in what follows 1 employ linguistic data in order to provide order to providc w I employ linguistic data in proVIdeaaa In view ofthi of this,, in what foil follows linguistic data reasonably detailed theory accounts reasonablydetailed detailedillustration illustration ofhow howLCCM M theory for the the Coinreasonably illu tration of of how 1L(( _eM theoryaccounts a count for th comcom· suggest suggest in, at, on. i and plexity of the closed-class "state" lexical concepts for I and a:, plexlty of ofthe the closed-class dosed ,da ""state" tate"lexic.1 ItI, aI, all. I ugge,t plexity lexical concept. .onccpts for for in, that LCCM theory facilitates the following: lCCM theory facilitates fa ilitates the following: that LCCM

I

-

I I XICAL REPRESENTATION _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ lEX) At REPKFSINTATION REPRESEN::..T~A::..T~I~O::::N~ LFXI(AL

of I here are claIms make, the findonSS presented There arc number that III make, There areaaanumber number of of claims claims that make,and and which whichthe the findings findingspresented presented -cTVe substantiate: serve to to substantiate:

■

the levelof of semantic semantic structure: •• I'olysemy I'olyscmy iis aaa phenomenon holds at at the th level of semanll structure: tru ture: that holds holds at Polysemy is phenomenon that As such such not aa "surface" "surface" phenomenon: of uch it iis not not "surface" phenom non: at the level at at the the level level of of lexical lexical concepts. concepts. As As itit is phenomenon: words. variation in in the the contribution aa matter of cont xtual variation the semantic semanti ntributi n of of words. word. semantic ccontribution of matter of of contextual contextual lexical concepts described, both within and We hall sec tate" lexi al concept described, both both within WIthin and and \Ve see that the" the "state" "state" We shall shall see that that the lexical concepts described, of their linguistic content: betwccn itional vehicles, vehicles, vary vary in terms of of their linguistic Iingui ti content: content: between prepositional in terms between prepo prepositional vehicles, terms polysemy parameters and their lexical profiles. Hence, Hen e, polysemy polysemy the their the nature nature of of their their parameters parameters and their lexical profiles. profiles. Hence, knowledge encoded encoded Lw lexical concepts relates tabl linguistic lingui ti knowledge en oded by bylexical Ie i al concepts con epts relates to the stable linguistic relates to to the stable prior prior to language use. u , . priorto tolanguage language use. lexical of new lexical con cpt arises from leXIcal concepts •• The The derivation of new lexical concepts arises from extant concepts The derivation of new lexical concepts arises from extant lexical concepts relating to situated instances of language of inferential processes, proc relatong to to situated ituated instances in tan es oflanguage by virtue of of language virtue of inferential inferential relating by virtu (2003) refer to such a mechanism as pragmatic use. Hopper Traugott uch a mechanism mechani m as a pragmatic use. Hopper and Traugoti (2003) use. Hopper and Traugott ( 2003) refer to such semanticunit unit is is strengthening: an an inferential inferential whereby strmgthening: an inferential process proc whereby new semantic semanti unit i strengthening process whereby aa new new bridging context abstractedfrom from an an extant extant semantic semantic unit,arising arising in aa• bridging context abstracted extant manti unit, unit, ari ing in on context abstracted from an which the new lexical concept concept (Evan 1000): a context ofuse u in in which which the the new newlexical (Evans and and Wilkins Wilkins zooo): context (Evans and Wilkins 2000): aa context of of use inference (oran an"invited inference:' Traugottand and emerg , as aasaaasituated ituated inference inferen e (or (or an "invitedinference," inferen e,"Traugott and emerges situated emerges holdsbetween between theextant extant Da her 2004). A polysemous polyvemou relationship relationshipthereby therebyholds betwccnthe extant I )asher 20th) A relationship thereby Dasher 2004). A polysemous LCCM Theory, theperspective perspectiveofof LC MTheory, Theory,aaa and the the derived derived lexical lexical concept. concept.From From the the perspective ofLCCM and of two two reasons: (i) due due to reanalysis of new lexical lexi concept arises for for one of two reasons: reasons: (i) (i) dueto toaaareanalysis reanalysisof of lexicalI concept tontept ,irises new arises one of site' toaaacognitive cognitivemodel model IInguisti ontent and/or and/or (ii). hift in a ite to to cognitiv model linguistic content content and/or (ii) (ii) aa shift shift in the theaccess a.. linguistic site profile lexical concept provides. profile that that the thederived derivedopen-class open-cia lexical lexical concept conceptprovides. provid , profile that the derived open-class lexical concepts associated withthe the prepInthe thecast caseofof ofthe theclosed-class c1osed - ]a lexical lexi al concepts concept associated associated with with theprepprep •• In In the case the closed-class ositional vehicles addressedin thischapter, chapter,the thederived derivedlexical kxi.al al concepts concepts osillonal vehicles vchi I addressed addressed ininthis thi chapter, the derived lexi ositional concepts encoded, from change in the nature of the Iingui tic content beingencoded, arise from from a a change changein in the thenature nature of of the thelinguistic linguistic content being being arise polysemous than aaa shift shift in inaccess ac ite. Specifically, pecifi ally, II argue argu that the polyscmou rather than site. Specifically, arguethat the polysemous rather than shift in access site. lexi.1 on epts arise arise due to parameters being beingencoded, en oded,giving giving lexical concepts concepts arisedue dueto tonew newparameters parameters encoded, givingrise rise lexical thefunctional duetotothe functional di tinctlexical lexicalconcepts. concepts.These Theseparameters parametersarise to distinct distinct These parameters arisedue to lexical concepts. propertiesin in situated language use. consequen es of of patio-typologi alproperties insituated situatedlanguage languageuse. u . consequences ofspatio-typological spatio-typological consequences and as a we w shall hallsee, sec,functional funcllonal parameter arise ari inferentially, That is, is, and is, and as we shall see, functionalparameters parameters arise inkrentially,aaa That inferentially, lexicalconcepts. concepts.Hence, Hence, the derivation antecedentspatial patiallexicaI concepts. Hen e,the the derivation consequ neeofof consequence ofantecedent spatial consequence lexical derivation of new new lexical lexical conceptsisiismotivated motivatedrather arbitrary.. of lexi al concepts concepts motivated rather than thanarbitrary. arbItrary of

Thefunctional nature of spatial semantics The functional nature natureof ofspatial spatialsemantics semantics The foraaa functional My purpose in 111 thi section ~tlon isis i toto tobriefly hriefly make make the the case CJSC fur funeket as ., illustrated ill"'trat in Figure Ilgure 8.1 8.1 above; .hove; Figure 8.i above; only the and enclosed only the stem, tem •• nd not not the the whole flower, Jl(lWer. is is enclosed endo\Cd by the vase vase (see ("'" hgure 8 3)' vase (seeFigure Figure 8.3); 8.3); by the hand (see Figure umbrella handle isi enclosed enclosed and only the the umbrella umbrella handle handleis en losed by bythe thehand hand(see (seeFigure rigure8.4). 8.4).Indeed. Ind~: 8.4). —

- J'

162

.62 1(52

POLYSEMY POLYSEMY POLYSEMY

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION ILEXI( EXI AL REPRESENTATION

163 .63 163

partially cap——although ~\ endosed by the capalthough aaccess c to its contents con~ents are. are. bs, I",ong be i ng pa~iall~ partiallyenclosed enclosedby bythe the cap—although to its losure applies, but location with surety Ikn , in a situation .tualoon where whe .. partial part.al en 10 ure apphes, but locat.on w.lh urety Hence LC ,in aa situation where partial enclosure applies, but location with surety NctOSUREI lexicalconcept conceptassociated associatedwith with in ,,(lC' th. (ENCLO uRFI lellical associated with", cannot bc the lexical concept I [ENCLOSURE] in cannot cannot be be not, the doe s not, with Surety paramThis reveals that the absence of the al'l'lol..J rhi reveal that in th ab n e of th Location with ·urety param d. This reveals that in the absence of the Location with Surety paramapp lie involving only etc 4

r.

FIGURE 8.3. FIGl'R &). $3.

is i" in the the The jlO-"'yr flower IS vase is in The flower n,~ tilt vast ""1st'

pear the basket (Is) Thepear pcarisis i inin inthe thebasket ba kel (is) I's) The

06 0,° 1 ,

6 0

o

, 01 60 o0 6I _--,I J 84. The FIGURE FIGURB ... mbrtlla isIS The umbrella umbrella FIGVRE &4. nit

in in his his hand ", lu.s hand Ilaml

image—is not enclosed by In thi example, ellJmpl., the the pear—in pear-in lh. erntre of of the image—is image-i not not.n losod by by In this this pear—in the the centre centre of the the enclosed fruit are ba ket, aas iis supported upported by by other fruit; tho supporting supportingfruit fruit arc arc the by other otherfruit; fruit; although the the basket, basket, as itit is supported although the enclosedby by the the basket. basket. Yet,the theform form in in can be to this cndo<ed by the ba ket. Yet, form 11/ bc applied applied to to this thi spatial patia]scene, seene, as as enclosed Yet, the can be spatial scene, as is due due to to WITHSURETY] sL'RErYI lexical i, in (15). ('5). 1II argue thi duo to aaa [LOCATION (LOCAT.ON WITH WITI. UR£TVIIlexical xical is evident argue that that this evident in (15). argue that this is [LOCATION which sanctions sanctions thisparticular particular usage. usage. Whilethe the (ENCLOSURE] IFN,.osuRFI lex","n Iiasto I"towhether .... hed"'tthis thll luh,..;a] Ulrk.C'J'1 WI" ~ulvt'such u..h remains an nnr1nuJquestion FnJosurc. It I'r'nYlfu.In due III to Fnd,~uft' contexts. . hat it can he employed in a wider range ot gth.al wider raneC' range cll ot .. unl I It (.In 1M •a wlJI"T ernplwed in he nnr1uyN can bethat it 7

I

In ion to ional tendencIes, the ••addition ddition to evidence based on semanti selectional tendencie ,the po ilion Inaddfl toevidence evidencebased basedon onsemantic semanticselect selectional tendencies, theI')OSitiOfl position that there mustI he he aaanumber numberof distinct lexicalconcepts concepts Ih.1t be number ofdistinct distinct" late" lexical concep ..associated associated that there there mu must "state" Wllh ill, along the lines lin captured caplured by by the the examples examples in (17) (17) to to (20) indu iv associated with an utteran e of of ,II also lw demonstrated of the following following kind: kind: Ihe followong the (2 1) 121) (21)

She' She's in milk milk She\ in

(21) potentiallybe be interpreted interpreted as as relating relating to to aaa woman woman The F heutterance utterancein (ii) could relating The utterance inin(21) could potentially potentially be interpreted as to woman who is nursing baby, and thus thus lactating, lactating, or as relating to to aa woman who who iis nursing nur ing aa a baby, baby, and and Ihu la tating, or aasrelating relaling to a woman woman who who who or works in the the dairy industry. That given an appropriate extra-linguistic works 111 the dairy dairy industry. II1dustry. That Thai is. i ,given givenan anappropriate approprialeextra-linguistic eXIra linguist I works in is, an example such such thiscan canbe beinterpreted in at least two ways. The context, an .n example su h as aasthis this can be interpretedin inat atleast leasttwo twoways. way.The Th context, l"'lentlal for divergenl interpretations interpretation is iis aa consequence, in ininpart, part, of consequence, part,of ofour our potential for divergent divergent interpretations a consequence, knowledge that in knowledge that that ill has has aaa number numberof ofdistinct di tin lexical tlexical le"i alconcepts concept associated associaled knowledge has number of distinct concepts associated with the distinction between WIth it: it: what what isis is relevant relevant for for this thi example exampl is thedistinction di tinctionbetween betweenaaaI IPHYIPHYPHYwith it: what relevant for this example isi the sIoIo(;IcAL lexical and '''"o(;ICAL 5TATEJ STATE) lexical lexical concept concept and and aaaIIPROFISSIONAI 1,'ROF£SSlONAL STATII STATE)I lexical lexical SIOLOGICAL STATE) concept raorEssioNAL STATE lexical concept. Moreover, generated even when relatively mn«pt. Moreover, ambiguities ambiguilies can be generated generaled even even when when aaarelatively relatively concept. ambiguities can he he well-entrenched example e"ample employed. For For instance, in tance, even even examples e,,"mpl of ofthe the employed. For even examples of the well-entrenched example is is employed. instance, following kind: kind: f()lIowing following ((22) 22 ) (22)

he is iisin in lahour She in labour labour She

(23 ) (23)

lie" on love I()ve lie is in love He is in

canhe beinterpreted interpreted in alternate can be interpreted in alternate alternate ways. way. For in tance, (22) beinterpreted interpreted ways.For for instance, instance, (22)could couldbe he interpreted can asrelating relating to to childbirth childbirth or or to relallng 10 childbirth to aaaprofessional I'ro~ ional activity, a tlVily, e.g., the Ihe trade ity, e.g., the trade union union as to professional e.g., movement. Similarly, (23) (23) could could be be interpreted as as relating toan movement. Similarly, SImilarly, (23) could be interpreted as relating relatong to emolional anemotional emotional movement. stateor oraaaprofessional prokssional activity, 'late or pro~ ionalactivity, activity,e.g., e.g.,marriage-guidance marriage-guidan counselling. coun \ling.The e.g., marriage-guidance counselling. The state former reading possible byvirtue virtue of of assuming something akinto to forn.er reading is i\ pe."ihle by hy virlue of. uming something something akin akon 10 former reading is only possible assuming aa IIOSOMATIC sTAn-i tonceptwhich whichisisisdistinct distinctfrom from • IIPSY( IP\y(1I0'OMAT!( TAT! J lexical I lexical ,i al concept con«pt which distll1ct fromaaI[PRO) (PROI [IsPSYCHOSOMATIC STATE] PROFF.SSTAt I lexical lexical concept. concept. That is, bothlexical lexical concepts must ~'ONAL STATE) STATE lexical con cpt. That That iis., both holh lexical concepts concept must mu t exist eexist .. tifif SIONAL love" in this example. can be be interpreted in I(.ve" can C.1I1 be interpreted in 111 these Ih •ways way'in111this Ihl example. eumple. "love" these

J,

-

LEXICAL REPRESENTATION

iIXIAIREFYTION

·M -Derivation of the "state" lexical concepts 166

DerivatIon of t~ "state" lexical concepts Derivation of the "state" lexical concepts InIhi this section II(On"der consider how how the the "state" lexical concepts for for in exemplified In Ihc" laic"lexical Ie kalconcepts conlept for in //Iexemplified , emplifiedin in(17) (,7) "state" I consider how In thi" [ENCLOSURE] to (2o) inclusive may have been extended from the prototypical (i '. prototypkal 10 (20) inclu.sive indu IV. may may have h.. been Ix",n extended extended from frum the th pmlolypKaI (. Nt "hl"l to (20) concept. lexical concept. lexical lexical conCept. above that in previous work, Tyler and I (2003) argued that observed I1 ob'oCrved above Ihal in previous previou work, and II(ioo3) (200~)arguct arg~ed Ihal work, Tier Iykr and .mbove that in I observed polysemy derives from regular processes of semantic change, which in whkh poly.emyd ri, from from regular rrgular prtxe "', of ofsemantic ",manticchange chang, In whICh situIIU derises ated implicatures associated with a particular context can become reanalysed .ontext can ated impli aturr associated a sociated w.,h part •.ular conlext canbecome becomerean1 r anal .I with aa particular ated implicatures as .Ii distinct concepts present terms. That is, TTyler lrr and in "' IIncl sense-units—lexical 'n · uml Ie ical concepts concepl in 10 present pre nl terms. Icrm . That Thaiis, '. 'Tylc and distinct as argued for for aa ulder spatial bridging contexts. expressions: bridging onl xl . To To illustrate, illu Irale, consider con iderthe thefollowing ~following Uowingexpressions: expr ion: illustrate, consider bridging contexts. To

"",,,it,"

(24) a. in10 the (24) thedust du in the dustI (i4) a.a. in b. the sand

b. the sand sand in Ihe h. in

the snow c. c. in in sflOW in the the snow they While dust, "enclose," "enclose," While du I, sand, nd, and and snow noware arephysical phy i alentities enlili which whichcan can" ndo ...they they While dust, sand, and snoW are physical entities which can containers. cannot by,for in lance,containers. (~nla llle .... cannol normally normally fulfil Ihefunctions funclinn provided provided providedby, by, forinstance, instance, normallyfulfil fulfil the the functions cannot That is, they do not typically serve to locate with surety, exceptional exceptionalciri~ Ihey do lypKally serve rve 10 ur 'y, exeeptlllllal ur· Thai locate wilh with surety, do nOi not typkally to local That is. dust, cumstances such as quicksand and avalanches excepted. For instance, dust, For 10 instance, cum Ian uch as ksand and and avalanches , ..Ian h eexcepted. cepled. For lance, du I, quicksand cumstances such as qui structural sand, and snow, by virtue of enclosing, do not normally have the normally have thestructural ;and, nnw, by lo,ing, do have Ihe IruclUral of en enclosing, do nOl not normally sand,and and snow, by virlue virtue of transported (ci.a •a attributes that allow an entity to be supported and thus transported allribul UPP0rled and Ihu, Iran I'Oried(cf. (d. he supported and thus attributesIhal thatallow allowan anenllly entity III to be for bucket), do they normally theway wayaaaprison prisoncell does,for bu kel), nor nor r Iriel access acc in in Ihe way prison celldoes, doc for normallyrestrict restrict access inthe bucket), nor do do Ihey they normaUy instance. III tJnt:~. instance. Nevertheless, these examples exhibit patio topologicalpropprop'everthcl ,Ih"'" ,onle 01 Ihe 'palio'lopologicJI propexhibit some someof ofthe thespatio-topological Nevertheless, theseexampl examples emib., erties associated with the (ENCLOSURE! lexical concept. This is a consequence concept.Thi his isa xical concepl. • aconsequence con""!uenee erli a ialed wilh Ihe (.Ncd aas a core (ore component (omponenl of nf rarallldcr Affecling parameter AffectingCondil.on Umditions 10 to be re-analysed and wind are much less independent lexical concept. Clearly a storm independ nl lexical lexical con cpl. Clearly 'I r1y aa storm lorm and and wind wind are are much muchless I an an independent concept. provide prevailing conditions prototypically prn""ypically enclosures, endo ur • and and more salientl 'l3lienlly provide provide prevailing prevailingconditions (ondilion prototypically enclosures, and more more saliently such, As "hllh Ihereby constitute con ,,'u,e an an envimnmenl which which affects .ffecl us. u. As As such, uth,spatial palial which therciw thereby constitute an environment environment which affects us. prototypical enclosures have given rise to the funk scenes involvrng more given rise ri to 10 the Ih funcfunc-ene involving more prototypical prololypical enclosures en 10 ur have given scenes involving to the the formation of tional category Affecting lilln.11 cal (!lory Affecting Condilion which ha 10 Ihe formation formal ion of ofaaa tional category Affecting Conditions, Conditions,• which whichhas has led led to Conditions parameter in semantic memory. The distinct Affe ling Conditions Condil.on parameter parameler in in semantic manliememory. 01 mory.The Theexistence e i lenlC .1I,lInel Affecting distinct lexical concept, as evidenced by ot a• distinct coNnhlloNsI "' di linct (PREVAILIN( (PREVAII.NG CONDITIONS] co, O.T'ON ) lexical I xical concept, concepl. as as evidenced evidenced by by of [PREVAILING provides suggestive evidence that such a distinct in (25), eexamples ample in (l5). provides provide suggestive suggellive evidence evidence that Ihal such uch aadistinct di\linct Affecting Affecling examples ( ions parameter parameter C\ists. (nnditum parameterexists. c i\1 . Conditions associatedwilh with in eviargue that the the distinct "state" I argue argue that thai Ihe distinct di lin I"state" • lale"lexical lexi al concepts concept>associated aialed //I evi.lexical concepts with in than the parameter Atlccting Conditions, rather dencedin (17) to to (20) (20) denccd in (17) ('7) 10 (lO)encode encodethe Iheparameter paramelerAffecting AffeclingConditions, Condilion rather ,ralherthan Ihan denced "state" lexical concepts are what have referred to as nd ure.Indeed, Ind,,,,d.these Ih lexical lexicalconcepts conccpl are arcwhat whalIIIhave havereferred referredto 10as a "state" "we" IIntlosure. Enclosure. Indeed, these lexical (on concepts. asthe thestates statcs invokedall all provides in some sense, luical cpt , . Ih lal invoked invoked II provide, provide, in insome mesense, n affecting • affecting affecling lexical concepts, as and 10 nditions. Moreover, Moreover, all these "state" lexical concepts are wndilion" 10rrovcr, all all these Ihese"state" " lale" lexical lexical concepts conC that Ihal are non-spatial non· pali.,1in nalUre.such uch. lal . affecting such as to the the development of new lexical concepts. hi, leads leads 10 Ihe ddevelopment 'elopmenl of ofnew n lexical lexicalconcepts. con epl . IIbis Phis to Ihe first such "state" lexical concept relates thephysical physical condition of an The first firs! such uch" laiC" lexical lexical concept con el" relates relale; to 10tothe Ihe phy icalcondition condilion The "state" ofof anan organismwhich whichthus thusprovides providesan anaffecting affectingcondition. condition..Such Suchphysical physical conditions urgani,m whICh Ihu pmvid an aff,,,,'ing mndllion Such phy ical conditions cond.ti n organism includegood/ill good/ill health, health, pregnancy, and any any salient salient physical aspect otthe the indud goodJill heallh, pregnancy, pregnane),. and and any sallenl physical ph .caI aspect aspROIlS"O. Al STATI) ilL relalion hip between bel ween with in. glossed STATE) a~ialed associated WIth with in. The The relationship relationship between the Affecting Conditions functional category and the the range range of ofnon non-spatial - paliallexical the function Jcategory egory and the range lexical theAffecting AffectingCondition Conditions functional of non-spatial lexical .I)ncepts in discussed is ill d,\(u to as 3 an character. , aswell wellaasasquantilative quantitativeinformation. information.This This !'a."plual symbol, ode qualitative qualttallVe informalion. Thi symbols encode as quantitative lollows as someneurons neuronsare arespecialized specialized forencoding encodingqualitative qualitativeinformation. information. lullow. a some ncuron are pecialized for for encoding qualilalive informallon. follows lor aaqualitative presence ofan anentity entitywithout without nrexample, eO to speak, peak. of of con truction on titute aaa the bread bread and so to speak, ofmeaning meaningconstruction—constitute construction—constitute the and butter, butter, to wmputation which arises ari from aa different different representational repre:.entational type that type than than that that computation which arises from found language.Language1 Language. they they uggest. serves rYes to to index index and and prompt for index andprompt for foundin inlanguage. language. Language, theysuggest, suggest, serves found II1lUlation •but bUI does docs not not directly dir t1yencode n odethe theperceptual perceptualrecords, records. perceprecords,the theperceppercepsimulations, but does encode simulations, directly the perceptual tual ymbol. upon whi h simulations imulation arc re based. based. In ding. plac what tual symbols1 symbols, based. In so so doing, doing, they they place place what upon which which simulations the"ri h content" content" iatrd with wilhlanguage language II referred referrrd to. in earlier chapters. as referredto, to,in inearlier earlierchapters, chapters,as as the the "rich "rich content"associated associated with language in (one ptual system. y tern. So So far far so SO good. Ilowever. semantic manticrepresentation reprC>entatlon in the the conceptual conceptual good.However, However, semantic representation So far so hematIC content." ont nt." A have argued, .rgurd. of the .Iso Involves""schematic also involves involves content." As II have have As argued, one oneof ofthe theimportant important also finding emerge from from empirical empirical work work on onlinguistic linguisti semantics manti by byscholars h lars emerge work on linguistic semantics findings to emerge scholars Ititsown own right.'"' u h as ningful in in Talmy and Langacker islhat thatgrammar grammariisism meaningful inits own right.20 right." such asTalmy I1tlmyand andLangackerl Lmgacker is that grammar meaningful Thal to the th "rich "rich conlent"that thatlanguage languageprompts promptsfor, ~ r.languag That is. is, III in addition to language language rich content" content" prompts for, language to the hemallc content—recall content-recall the discu ion of ofTalmy' nOlion encod •alevel encodes a of encodes levelof ofschematic schematic content—recallthe thediscussion discussion ofTalmy's Talmy'snotion notion in the way the Cognitive Representation is represented of the bifurcation bifurcation III th way the og"'tiv Repr nlatlon i r pr nted vi. bifurcation in the way the Cognitive Representation represented via via language. my claim iisthat lhat while LAS . Thoory iis correct orrect to language, in Hence, Theory 6. language, in Chapter Chapter 6. 6. Ilence. Hence,my myclaim claim is that while while LASS LASS Theory is correct e the ontenl" in th conceptual lem. and in terms lerm of of pia place the "rich content" inthe the conceptual conceptual system, place the"rich "rich content" system, andidentify identifyitit in terms of record tates-for example, eumpl •the Ituatrdperceptual perceptualexperience e peri nlC records of (it perceptual states—for example, the situated situated perceptual experience aiated the vvehicle hide red reJ ar not frfrom m linguistic IIngul tICrepresentation, represenlallon. but but associated associatedwith with the thevehicle ret!arises arisesnot notfrom linguistic representation, hut representation-thi iisnot not the thewhole lory. rather rather is based based on rather is i5 basedon onconceptual conceptualrepresentation—this representation—thisis wholestory. story. A 'u.,w ininprevious previou chapters. there Iisan an additional Ilevel el of of As discussed As di discussed previouschapters, chapters,there thereis anadditional additionallevel ofrelatively relatively of multifacetrd. knowledge knowledg directly directlyencoded encodrd by bylanguage. languag . nrich, h. in the th sense nsc of the sense encoded language. rich, of multifaceted, multifaceted, directly qua lheoretical truct represents rrp"""n an auempt to charcharThe theoretical construct represents anattempt attempt to theoretical con The lexical concept concept qua aeterile knowledg . The Th lingui tic content cont nt that thal mak up up the acterize this level acterizethi this level levelof ofknowledge. knowledge. Thelinguistic linguistic content thatmakes makes upthe the lexi al concept I highly 'h malic. and h n e i non-analogue. in the sen lexical concept is highly schematic, schematic, and hence hence is non-analogue, in in the the sense sense il i hYPOlh ized not lO directly prompl ~ r imulalion . Another way of that that it is hypothesized hypothesized nottotodirectly directlyprompt promptfor for simulations. simulations.Another way of of

on then, thethe thesis ofof encyclopaedic Onmy my,Iwunt ."ount then. the lh.,i ofencyclopaedic encydopal',hsemantics, 'mantiu,discussed dl 'u;cd On my account then, thesis semantics, discussed .above, oversimplifiesmatters. matters. It between linguistic and al>ove.oversimplifi matters. ItIt blurs blurs the boundari between between linguistic lingui tic and and above, oversimplifies the boundaries boundaries conceptual While marking ","ceptual knowledge. knowledge. While m.uklngsuch uchboundaries boundari.,may maynot nothe benecessary neces .... ry conceptual knowledge. marking such boundaries may not be necessary Grammar, which ultimately with in Cognitive for instance, instance, is concerned III Cognilive Grammar, Grammar. for in".nce. which which is i ultimately ultimately concerned concerned with with such a situation accounting for formal properties of linguistic organization1 IingUi li organization, organizallon. such uch aa situation Ituation a(Counling formal properties properti of linguistic accounting for formal role of language in is unsatisfactory when attempting to account for the i, unyti factory when .(((lunt for the the role role ofoflanguage languagein in is unsatisfactory when attempting attempting to to account meaning construction, and specifically, the apparent variation in word meaning (on truction. and peeifically. the the apparent apparent variation vuiation in in word word meaning construction, and specifically, la "meanings" aero contexts contexl ofuse. u . " meanings" meanll1g ..across across contexts of of use. 11wc!.Jim claimat atthe theheart heartofleC ofLCCM IA ( M Theory, and one enshrined in in the thedistinction distinction claim of Theory, and and one one enshrined The allhe heart 1 Thoory. d~tinclion between two foundational foundational theoretical construus—the lcxkal and h.:tween itits two lWO foundational theoretical theoretical constructs—the con truct the lexical I xical concept conceptand and between its concept been treated as two cognitive that what in cognitive cognitive linguistics, has, linguistics, cognitiv model—is mod I-i that that what what has, ha in cognitivelingui ti been beentreated trratrd as 3!> two lwo of semantic sttructure--schemati rod urc—schcmatic qualitatively distinct, albeit related, aspects of of geststhat thatthe the lingui linguistic system mayIxheles lesswell wellconnected onnected to types gl'\t tic system tem may may be gests linguistic less well conceptual representations ",neeptual repr=ntations than Indeed. point made made by by conceptual representationsthan thanothers. others.Indeed, Indeed,thi this is this is a point point made by Jackendoff It conceivable that some some aspects conceptual 'ackendolT (e.g .• 1992). 1992). i conceivable conceivabl that some aspects aspect ofof ofconceptual conceptual Iackendoff(e.g., (e.g., 1992). It It is structure may only be be partially ,truclme partially accessible ace . ible or even inaccessible to the lingui tic inaccessibleto tothe thelinguistic linguistic even inaccessible system. II introduce the the theoretical theoretical construct Onstruct cognitive model, then, 'y'lem. theoretical con trull of of the th cognitive cognttive model, model.then, then.toto system. distinguish thosesimulators simulators '

,.,..

Frame for CAR CAR (adapted (adapted from Frame Barsalou Ffilme fnr from Barsalou B.lf\Jlou 1992a: 1992'" 3o). 301. 30).

also subtypes. For instance, PETROL IS to the the more specific al\O have subtypes. ubtypes. For instance, PETROL PfTROL i an an attribute attribut the more more specific pecifi is attribute to concepts UNLEADED PETROL LEADEDPETROL, PETROL, Of PETROL. IN IlAfli 0 PETROL (oncepts lJNlFAD[O PETROl and and liADFo LEAmD P£TROL, which whi h are are values value of ofPETROl.. values Attributes and.. values Attributes and values therefore superordinate superordinateand andsUbordinate subordinate concepts Attributl'> and alues are are supcmrdinate ;ubordinate concepts concepts arc therefore

within an attribute ithin ", thm 1in allrlbute taxonomy: taxonomy: subordinate ubordinate concepts, concept, or values,which whichare are concepts,or orvalues, values, are more specific, inherit properties from the superordinate concepts, or attriinherit prope"i from the superordinate concepts, more specific, pecific, Inherit concepts, or or attri attri-butes, which are more general. hute" whllh arc more general. In In addition, addition, attributes within aa frame In attribute within fram can can be be associated so the phenomenon phenomenon III Another way way in which occurs Another chaining models ffllr of cognitive transcenden e. Thi relat situated natur of cognlllve models mooels transcendenc. This to transcendence. This relates relatesto to the the situated situated nature nature of cognitive of this kind individuals and and types. Recall Recall that cognitive models models of ofthis thi kind kindare are things: individuals individual things: and types. types. Recall that cognitive cognitive models things models "llxated" , ituation . In In other other words, words, cognitive cogmllve models model, for forthings thlllS'arc arc "located" in "located" in situations. situations. In other words, cognitive encoun whichthey they are located in the world mooel at at the thepoints point atat atwhich theyare areencountered. ncountered. located in in the theworld world model model at the points located episodicand andgeneric genericsituations situations indudc lienee, cognitive mod I for for episodic episodic and senerk iluationsinclude include.'epre I lena', cognitive cognitive models models Hence, repr types. The greater the number of situations scntalillns for ondividual and types. The greater the number of Ituallo", III sentationsfor for individuals individuals and types. The greater the number of situations to serrations their transcendence transcendence which individual and andtypes typesare arclinked, linked,the th greater great rtheir their transcendenceisis i held held individuals are linked, the greater which individuals and types c is aaafunction functionof how to be. be. Hence, Ilence, transcendence Iran 'endence is i, function ofhow howinterconnected interconnectedcognitive cogniti,e he. Hence, transcendent' to the evenV models for for things things arc with for models lor thins' are tho for for situations, situalion , and and hence hence the events even" with with models with those those situations, and hence which they are are connected. which they they are connected. coinponential nature nature due to the the componential componential na ture of 01 Another molivallon forchaining chainingarises ari due motivation Another motivationfor for chaining arises due to to the arecomprised comprisedof ofsets models the onlon 'tlVe hue hu throughout throughoutthe the its own distinctive distinctive hue throughout the onceptual system. system. All the conceptual the areas collectively form "lIllC~tUaJ. y t m. All All the association aassociation soclatlon areas areas collectively collectively form the the access acc site ite the access site for this lexkal for this lexical concept. concept. Yet gives rise rise to considerable considerable complexity, lor thl leXICal con ept. Yet Vet this thi gives ri to complexity.providprovid . complexity, providing atoess, ing access, as we shall see, see,to toaaalarge largesemantic semanticpotential. IIlg ace .... as as we shall shall large potential. The purpose of an an access site tofacilitate facilitate integration The of site J he purpose purpo of a? access a ite isiisto to integration of oflinguistic lingui ti and and integration of linguistic and rntent in order to provide conceptual content an integrated simulation. An intelIlnccpwal co~ten~ ,n order to proVIde an integrated simulation. im ulatio n. An inteintean integrated grated simulation is grated simulation is what I have referred to earlier grJ ted slmulallon I what II have hav referred referred to earlier in th book book as a aaa o.oncepcon ep' in the the concepas tion. Hence, the evolutionary tion. Hence, lIon. Hen e. the evolutionary evolutIonary motivation, motivation. on on this this account, account, for for the th linguistic lingui ti on this ,Icount, for the linguistic and conceptual to interact interactt iis in and conceptual conceptual svste.'ms systems to order to to make make use u ofof (onceptual and tem to intera in order order use ofconceptual conceptual inhering in the conceptual structure inhering in the system in ,truclure inh ring in the conceptual system sy.tem service linguistICally medimedi . in service of linguistically service of medilinguistically ated communication. ated communi communication. mechanism whereby i'he mechanism aled ation. The meehani, m whereby whereby composite compo ite semantic semantic structru. composite semantic strucIlIre;~ hi'linguistic " . from tures from the system to as interact with with conceptual conceptual y,tem interact onteract WIth ,"nceptual structure truu joint activity rol activityroles. joll1tactivity theirjoint about their including ,ump lions about aassumptions and assumptions ledge and know dingknowledge about knowledge II1du including activity, given point in a ,oint joint Ktivity AtAtany activity. j(11l11 a in state of the point givm any tivity: ••• Current a jomt the of laic of Current joint activity: At of any given point in arelates joint activity, nt state Curre to knowthe activity. This to knowrdat to Thi relates activity. This Ihe activity. participants of the tate of currentstate th current represmt the lpant represent participants represent the current state partl it is knowat. progressing md what stage how the activity is al. i it tage what and ing progr i llvity a the ledge how rning how the activity is progressing andthe concerning what stageevents it is at. ledge conce that various Participants also represent that nl tv u vario th nt events so tar: repr Iso ipanl •• Public Partl far: Participants 'ents so tar: Public events alsothe represent the various events that Publi joint activity. in realizing activity. joint activity. the joint have thus thus far far taken realizing the in realizing pIa e in thu have taken place place

the shop purchase event, and imagine

4

Imagll1 lets reconsider and imagine ev nt. and purcha event, hop purchase the shop of illustration, illustration, recon ider the let' ration. let's illust By way way of reconsider At the buy a pair of boots. shoe shop in order to the Atthe .At boots of pair a buy to order in p h that the customer enters a hot s enter r 10m cu Ihe that the customer enters a shoe shop in order to buy a pair of boots. Ihal order to enquire the customer, in approaches enquire ordertotoenquire ustomer. ininorder th customer, moment the shop approach the i tant approaches aassistant _hopassistant th shop moment ent the mom both the customer her purchase1 in effecting h r pur hase. both the cu lome r whether requires in i tance in aassistance requir assistance sh requires er she whether she effecting her purchase, both the knowledge customer wheth involves knowledge. This involv ledge large body of know Thi . ledge know and sales assistant hold a of body large hold a i tant hold a large body of knowledge. ..1 assistant and sales Thisofinvolves knowledge and about purchase footwear, involved in making about andabout footw ar.and purcha ofoffootwear, makingaaapurchase about the the procedures in ed in involv procedur involved Ihe procedures about making aboui sales assistant assumes For instance, the a um assl tantassumes I assistant Ihesales in tance.the eachother, other, including assumptions. I-or a umpt ion.For ding assumptions. II1du r. including oth each instance, each and the items of footwear, purchase anitem item or or items of footwear. and the an that the the customer wishes topurchase ase an purch 10 wishes to tome r wishes cu the customer that item or items of footwear, and the Ihal and otirs, assistaflu' available fur, and off< rlo m~r indicating them customer feet,felchi fetching boots and th cu lome r trying Ihem measuring thecustomer's bool ngboots feet. ,~tomer' feet, the measuring fetching and the customer trying themfor u"?g the meas confirming on pri price, payment the boots required1 for entfor paym e. on a decision on rming confi on, red. making requi boot the on decl Ionon the boots required, confirming on, on price, payment makll1gaadecision on.making of these the transaction. Each purchase1 anddo,in closing the:.e _ Fa hofof tran-'JclionEach Ih transaction. gthe theboots, boots, wrapping thepurchase, and a •and pURh the pingthe wrap •wrapping the closing these boot !he hierarchical of ways, and constitutes a proceed rangeoforways, hicrar,hi .11 (on lItut a hierarchical and constitutes way,and range joint tdininina..arange proct canproceed joint athon scan int actions JO ground the comfllofl current state of described above. The groun on comm th of lal nt sequence. as curre The . above rihtd d sequence, above. The current state reached, of the common ground d ~uen e. as described while participants which stage has been participant whileparticipants ,,:ached.while includesknowledge knowledge towhich htcnreached, hasbeen \lag has whichstage aastoto ledge as kn()w II1dud includes

226

226 226

—

AalYllyroles rolN: In In aa joint jOintactivity, .ctivny.each ~achparticipant partk'panttakes tak on onparticular partkul •o Actn'it;' Activity In rO!t'S eath partidpant takes on par publi roles. rol .These Th determine d~t~rmin how howeach ~ hparticipant parti ipantproceeds proc~inininservice rvt' public roles. These public determine how each participant proceeds offacilitating facih~ahng th~ joint jointactivity. actIVity. Iiir I'or in tJnc~.in commer"alevent~~ For instance, inina acommercial ilitating the joint instance, commercial of tranSOlctlOn such uch as purcha in 10 aJ shop, hop.one oneparticipant partiCipantassumt a um the the transaction such as aa purchase assumes transaction in shop, one participant rol~ of ofseller, lIer. the th~ other otherofofcustomer. eu tom r. role of role customer. Publicgoals: go,./" These Th are r~ the the mutually mutuallyknown knowngoals goal which whichresult r ultfrom fro mthe th Public •o public These known goals mutually jointactivity1 a tlVlty.such uthas tTeetingaJpurchase. purch.;e. • joint activity, such as effecting joint Pri,·atrgoals: goals: In In addition, addition. participants participant in in aaajoint jointactivity aClivitymay mayharbou ha rbourr •o Private In goals participants in joint activity oth rparticipants(s). participants( ). prlvat goals goals. which whl h are Jre unknown unknown to to the th other privategols,whcunktoehrpaicns(). private /01111 actions: aaiollS: lomnt /Oint activities achviti are comprised of. and advanc~ through.joint JOIOt •o Joint 'flint activities are arc comprised comprisedof, of,and andadvance advantethrough, through achon . These These are aare .. the Ihe. di rct~ action action component tha tmake makeup upaaajoint joint actions. These the discrete discrete action components componentsthat that make up joint 10 tance.in 10making makIOgaaapurchase purch inin inaaashop, hop.the thesales cu ion involved.I divide I dividethe thediscussion involved, the involved, as afollows: • •

linguistic context, •• factors fa tor\ .s>eleclion (If selected for for in the lexical lexicalway. concept facilitated FORTHRIGHT ASSERTION] lexical concepts arc facilitated two uncept is ASSFRTION1 lexical can epl i fa( ihlalc-d Ihe (fORTHRIGHT INFORMATIONAL ASSERTloNjle"ical FORMfollows A TIONAL by context. as "my genius" is a property being IN This the linguistic I FORTHRIGHT beingascribed ascribed geniUS" is a property by linguislic conI xl. Thi follows as "my geniu .. i a property hcing ascribc'(\ This as "flY to an individual, namely Oscar Wilde, by Oscar Wilde. Accordingly, this by linguistic context. this Wilde. Oscar 10 an individual. namely OSCIr Wilde. by ar Wilde. Accordingly. Ihl counts as an informational assertion, and therefore guides the selection ofof to an individual, namely guides the selection and therefore of counts a an infonnalional assertion. and Iher fore guides Ihe selection assertion, the (FORTHRIGHT INFORMATIONAL ASSERTION J lexical concept associated counts as an informational lexical concept Ihe (IORTIIRIGIIT INfOR tATIONAL ERTIONj lexi al concepl associated INFORMATIONAL with both linguisticASand extra-linguistic context the declare. However, contextserve servetoto and hngu"ti, extra hngui. li( (onlexl \CrveAT10 wilh dedart. lIowever. bolh both linguistic select for theHowever, lexical concept: (ANNOUNCEMENT OF DUTIABLE GOODS with bxlorc. DUTIABLE GOODS AT MEN1 OF selecl Iheterms lexical con epl: context, (ANNOUNCl tENT Of DUTIABLE GOO'" AI CUSTOMS!. lexical In of concept: linguistic the (ANNOUNCEMENT OF DUTIABLE select for for the DUTIABLE fl'N(IMENT OF the LAN CUSTOMS(. In ,onlexl. Ihe (ANNOUN(:£ tENT Of DUTIABLf linguistic context, have GOODS AT CUSTOMS( concept collocates with the expression In lenll terms ofhnguisti oflexical expressionI I have with the (;()()l" AT (.U'TOM,j le"iwl concepl (ollocal~ wilh Ihe expr~ ion I cusIt)MSI nothing formslexical part ofconcept the lexical profile associated with lexical AT which lexical GOOL)S to, .isso,iated withthis this lexkal profile not/,,"g 10, which forms part of the lexical proftl a socialed wilh Ihi, \exical of the concept. In addition, the extra-linguistic context, a US customs post, serves nothing to, which posts servestoto aU US cu customs e'lralingui lie conleXI. a loms po. I. rv~ 10 concepl. In add ilion, Ihe linguistic facilitate of this this the lexical concept. The humour that derives from concept.selection In addition, from this that derives Theofhumour faeihlale sel«lion Ihi'on lexical conlep\. The Ihal lexical derin>eleclion, forFhis short. Selection involves the identification of the lexical concepts associchapter has been concepts identitic.Itutm of of the for with hurt. Selection Scll~tion involvc~ the idcntifit..Jtion the lexical Icxit:al COl1(('pt ated vehicle in a given utterance. Selection is is thus one of J~\()ll the involves for short.each of the Selection thus one given utterance. aled wilh each vehidecentral in aa given ult ranconstruction e. Seleclioninb LCCM Ihu~ one or Ihe compositional processes to meaning Theory. 'CM Theory.

meaning construction u)mll() itiono1tprocesses pnx c,c\ c('ntrat to 01 aning constru tion in in LC M Th('()ry· compositional

—-

-

SEMANTIC COM PoSITIoNALITY

t

llX1CAL (:ON( 111'! vT SU I ( "TION (ONt sit f.(TION II LEXICAL CONCEPT SELECTION

235 135 235

.-oncepts selection, whi whichh is Indeed. the Ihe oulpul of selection, I to 10 say , for I cI comtr en word betwe between word-level constructions, for =mp structions: verb-argument constructions. what what betweenwhat distinguish between bngdistinguishes Gold Goldberg distinguishes between tructions.Goldberg argument con : verbn to tructlO structions: verb-argument constructions. she refers as argument roles--the schematic the 'licall y phonl by edby encod thephonetically phoneticallY lot encoded hematicslots slots encoded by the c'llt rol h ref,· she refersto toJ:asargum argument roles— the the schematic implicit verb-argument constructions6—and participant hema hemattiit. theschematic rol ipant roles—the participant roles—argument Ulmt ructi om"- and partic verb·argument cit verb Impli implicit slots encoded by the schematic verb-argument o;itionality CompositioflaittY Comp ructIo n.Compositionality const constructions. rb-argumentconstructions. hematic vverb-argument the ed by encod lot slots encoded by the schematic arises from the integration—( ;01(11)cl-it uS\! uses the the term "fusion"—of the argumentrgumentfu ion"- (lfth thee argument term" erguses term "fusion"—of ation (;'lldb integr the from ari arises from the integration—-( oldberg level and participant-level roles. While this level of integration for count>for accounts for integratl(lnaccounts role'>. While 'While thi this 1",,1 level of of integration opmt · level roles. parti and level level and participant-level linguistic or grammatical information, this doesn't account for the rich level of rich level level of of nt for n't accou this ddoesn't account for the the rich atlon, thi atical mform gramm tic or Iingui linguistic or grammatical information, multimodal information which I refer totoasa\conceptual content. nt. l'lUaJ conte refer to as ((lncC conceptual content. which II refer nallo n whit.h l,ldal infon multimodal information multm ' Recall the discussion of the distinction between nominal and relational lexical

•'

hvlet

the

k omrpts in in the distinction between nominal and relational kxital concepts

.. ,luptn notion of domains WA.. discussed in Chapten 3 and Ho. See also h..i os and 6 mm • Lanitacker's (;haplcr 6. • IQ I Ihans .n..t 10. md ,rccn also (haptetsI 3J âfld U was dUc:lbWd Inin n"'rlCT ..n ,.1 • noCt ' I...anc;u. I't do.m.J'f I006: 4. h. -1 tor an flOIk'fl introductory livers sew. W ,'V('ntn .... 7)') 1uI.an dt the 1006 ((Zoo(,: introdIKIolY overview. • Recall discussion oflokl the..ry ditransilive construction in Chapter 3. tor anInln ( haptet,. wndru lVC' dltr..wf tlllh.: nn d","usu w•* RtuIlIt the ditransdsve (flfl ctJon Inm Uurtn Recall ihc discussion of

-

II xICAL

:ON(I-PT IN I I.GRATU)N

LEXICAL CONCEPT INTEGRATION

2j9 239

239

appealal thi ,appe for this, a coun t for an dopa edi account enencyclopaedic ananencyclopaedic hahas erghas (;oldb ,ker, (;oldbcrg WIth ,\As appealwith withwngJ Langacker, Goldberg account for this, to GoldsemanticsGold notionnofofframe ordin g to mant i' . Ac. , 191\5) or" (191\1 rillm totoFillmore" 1I1g ingto Fillmore's (1982, 1985)notio notion offram frame semantics. According to Golding construction is relativized relallYlzed tructl on I relativized a verb-argument argum ent con with fufuseswith each fuses that rb that vverb each berg, berg, eachverb that with aa verb· verb-argument construction isknowledge berg. of conceptual knowledge conce ptual knowledge body a body fram mant ic frame—a rich semantic totoaaa rich With peet to rrespect '\lth withrespect rich semantic frame—a body of of conceptual associated with the various qu lion. in question. yerb in varlou verbs latro with detail ptualdetails perce the totothe gto rdatin relating theperceptual perceptual detailsaassociated with th the various verbs in question. this is not clear how of I ,I of Langacker's account, itit i not dear how thi level nt, accou ker's langa with as with a ver, IInwc is not cleargrammatical how this level of i However, as with Langacker's account, itlinguistic Level, or al level, interfaces with the matic gram or ti lingui the WIth a inten n representation ntatio repr ledg knnw knowledge representation interfaces with the linguistic or grammatical level, rich the perceptually whereby structure from rich y ptuall perce the from r trultu by mechanisms are where are 01 am mech th what and and andwhat whatthe the mechanisms are whereby structure from the perceptually rich grammatical structures. incorporated tructu r . gram mati al structures. fused grammatical withfused orpor atro with bcxom fram ti frames semantic ,eman semantic framesbecomes becomes in incorporated with fused and Goldberg1 mode l th models Langacker ,oldb erg, the langa ker and hy oped by devel count developed aaccounts ththeaccounts totothe fair be ro lii Tohe hefair fairto developed by Langacker and ( ;oldbcrg, the models semantic with the details of mant I( of primarily concerned tail d the with emro eon rily developed were not prima not I ped wer a h deY theye theyeach each developed were not primarily concerned with the detailstoofdevelop semantic they attempting primarily exercised by all mplin g to d . lopaa by isrti exerc rily prima Rather, they were re w they r, Rathe ition. o cllmp cOfilPOSltIOfl. composition. Rather, they were primarily exercised byand attempting to develop a structure "gram linguistic organization (a "gramre (a tructu and n izatIo organ tie based account of gui oflin nt accou ba'ird ly ntieal 'Cllla semantically based account of linguistic organization and structure (a "gram, and the combinasuch as con constituent. the comb ina and ey, tituen could account for issues uch u i for nt accou could which , mJr) mar"), mar"),whit.h which could account for issues such as constituency, and the combinaTheory can then be of language. LC('M th n be can ry Theo M LC . guag oflan of the formal aspects peet a l forma the of rli prope tllrtal torial torialproperties properties of the formal aspects of language. LCCM Theory can then be perspectives procomplementing pro rescarch per pcctivco; protheresearch comp lem Illingthe re:.pcct ,a certam respects viewed, as d, in "CWe viewed, in certain certain respects, as complementing the research perspectives I ( CM1 of grammatical organutation. Lee organiTAtlon.LCCM gram matic alorganization. constructional ofgrammatical a count of con tructi onal accounts u'h constructional by such vided ,ided vided by by such accounts Cognitive Gram Con tructi on Gramitiv Construction and ,ramm ar and itiye Grammar Cogn s from differ Theory I heory differs Theory differs from Cognitive Cognitive Grammar and Cogn Cognitive Construction Gramrepresentation 'f semantic precisely with the nature repr ntatio n mant i representation tureo thena ith the pr isclyw nlern ed precisely ititlSlo isis t.oncerned that it Illar mar concerned with nature offsemanticits mar in in that that Moreover, given found ation al given it foundational over, More ition. o of semantic composition. comp I( mant of hani 01 th and the mechanics and the mechanics of semantic composition. Moreover, given itsconstitute foundational and conceptual structure di con titute distru ture constitute con cptua l structure semantic structure and conceptual ture and struc mant i structure .tssumptiOfl that semantic ~umpllon that Jassumption disof two distinct of proces itit follows that II posit di tinltprocesses two it po that follow n, ntallo repr of kind tinct kinds of tinct kinds of representation, it follows that I posit two distinct processes of of linguistit which relates to fusion fu. ion of lingO! IIc to fusion relates to which relates integ ration , which lexical concept conc pt integration, lexical concept compositIon: comp o ition: lexical composition: linguistic conceptual fusion of con eptua lofcontent. nt. conte of interpretations which concerns ion fu rn conce h whi on, retati interp and (lInte nt, and interpretation, which concerns fusion of conceptual content. content,

Fusion n Fusio Fusion

the of fusion, and the provide an overview and ion, fu of rview ov an d this section is to proyi i n sectio thi in purpo in this section is to provide an overview My My purpose purpose My of fusion,as and the interpretation specific integration and peeitic interp r tallonasa~specific andinterpretation rationand concept integ con cptintegration xical concept Ilexical of rol rolesof oflexical peetive roles rrespective respective of the chapter1 in the rema inder of the chapter, beforee proceeding1 the remainder prO fully ininsuch lexical concept integration. Such a context X CAUSES THING Y TO RECEIVE THING zJ, ternally open lexical concept (THING I IIIN(a X CAUSES THINt. Y TO kI(EIVI TIIIN( tI, f ternally OpCfl kxlLal in which relates to the semantic pole of the ditransitive vehicle, as represented in whkh relates to the ScflUfltIC pole of the ditransitive vehick, as represented can potenpoten(5) above. In the "ditransitive"lexical lexicalconcept concept in in (5b), FRANCE' can (c) above. In the lexical conupts conceptswhkh whichmake make up up the the T IIING I kxical tially he integrated with with any any of of the the 1(IIIINGI lie integrated tially larger lexical concept. That is, the lexical concept in (5h) is internally complex internally complex larger kxkal concept. That is, the lexical concept in and is comprised of three distinct (THING] lexical concepts: [THING X I, [THING and is comprised of three distinct (THINGI lexical concepts: (TIIIN(; xl, illustratehow how integration integration occurs, occurs, consider the (THING Z1. To better v 1. and [THIN( ii. lb betterillustrate and utterance below which which relates relates to to abstract abstract transfer: transfer:

utterance below

(i1) The 1940 armistice gave Germany France The 194() armistice gave (ermany France

(ii)

zJ. Bvvirtueofbeing [FRANCO is integrated with THING zj. By virtue of being In the example in ( 11 ), IIRAN('FI isintegratedwith In theeLimplein (ii). semantic integrated with this lexical concept, (FRAN( receivesaaparticular particular semantic integrated with this lexical concept1 [FRANCOEl receives value: namely, an entity which is subject to being transferred to (THING Y1. In value: namely, an entity which is subject to being transferred to ITHING Yl. in other words, while interpretation—discussed in the next chapter—is necessary other words, while interpretation—discussed in the next chapter—is necessary in order to understand that the entity designated by the vehicle France relates in order to understand that the entity designated by the vehicle France relates to a European nation state with all the complex knowledge a language user usermay may he be a European nation state with all the complex knowledge a language able to draw upon relating to this particular nation, in the context of the the able to draw upon relating to this particular nation, in the context of utterance in (ii),the thesemantic semanticvalue valueassociated associated with France relates useof of France the use with the utterance in (ii), to an entity which is the object abstracttransfer. transfer. to an entity which is the objectofofabstract It is also important to note that the Principle of Linguistic Coherence can It is also important to note that the Principle of Linguistic Coherence can occur recursively. This applies until allinternally internally open openlexical lexical prindpk applies until all occur recursively. This principle concepts have undergone lexical concept integration such that they have integration such that they have concepts have undergone lexical achieved integration with a lexical concept associated with a phonetically achieved integration with a lexical concept associated with a phonetically overt vehicle. closed, and andthus thuscannot, cannot,by by As such such they they become becomeinternally internally closed, overt vehicle. As definition, undergo further internal lexical concept integration. definition, undergo further internal lexical concept integration. The of Linguistic LinguisticCoherence Coherence does does not random proceedin in a arandom The Principle Principle of not proceed fashion. proceeds in simpkr occurringinininternally internallysimpler anordered ordered way, way, occurring inan fashion. Rather Rather it it proceeds lexical complexlexical lexical Iexk1il concepts conceptsprior priortototaking takingplace placeininmore moreinternally internallycomplex concepts. is guaranteed guaranteed by thePrinciple Principleof ofOrdered Ordered Integration Integration inin by the concepts. This This is Internally Open Lexical LexicalConcepts: Concepts:

Internally Open

fp3) Principle of Ordered Integration in Internally Open Lexical Concepts: (p3) Principle of Ordered Integration in Internally Open Lexical concepts: Lexical internallysimsiniapplying totointernally integration takes takesplace plate by by applying conu.pt integration lexical concept pler lexical concepts before applying to internally more complex lexical concepts before applying to internally more complex lexical pIer concepts. concepts. What this integratedand and contentisisintegrated linguisticcontent ensurethat thatlinguistic doesisisensure principle does What thisprinciple hence unpacked "outwards," applying to internally simpler lexical concepts concepts hence unpacked "outwards," applying to internally simpler lexical first. For instance, in the that principleinin(p3) that (p3)ensures ensures (ii).the theprinciple first. lor instance, in theutterance inin(ii), individual lexical concepts thatpreserves preservesthe thepartpartintegratedinina away that conceptsare arcintegrated individual whole structure of internally concepts.That lexicalconcepts. i'hatis, is,the thelexical lexical internallycomplex complexlexical

whole structure of

247

247

the "ditransitive" "ditransitive" lexical in (5b) (sh) concepts concepts which which collectively collectively comprise comprise the lexical concept concept in lexical concepts internally open are areintegrated integratedasas follows. follows. The The simplest internally open lexical concepts the vehicle undergo undergointegration integrationfirst firstuntil untilthey they become become dosed. closed. l'or Forinstance, instance, the vehicle

associatedwith withthe thehighly highly abstract abstract lexical lexical inin(sa) (5a)consists consists of of three three NPs, NPs, associated concept IFIII) THING]: [SPECIFIED concept(SPFA

a.vehicle vehicle (Il) (ii) a.

"NI" "NP"

(SPECIFILD THIN(;l b. THING! h. lexical lexical concept concept (SPECIFIED

and can be tilled by a Vetthe the lexical concept in in (ii) (12)isisitself itselfextremely extremely abstract, abstract, and can be filled by a is provided1 range range of of more more specific specific lexical lexicalconcepts. concepts. One One such such lexical lexical concept concept is provided, together together with withits itsvehicle, vehicle, in in (13): (13): (13)

"DElI RMINER MO1)ilIER "DETERMINER MODIFIERNOUN" NOUN" ATTRIBUTEI lED TIIIN(; WITh A PARTU:LIIAR (SPIII concept [SPECIFIED THING WITH A PARTICULAR ATTRIBUTE] lexical concept b. b. lexical a. a. vehicle

three more ofthree consistingof itself internally internally complex, cornpkx, consisting (13) is in (13) The The lexical lexical concept concept in is itself more the internally 1-lence, vehicles. with distinct speciti. lexical concepts associated specific lexical concepts associated with distinct vehicles. Hence, the internally iatedwith with internally internally concept in in (13b) (13b) is is associated and abstract complex complex and abstract lexical lexical concept conceptsgiven givenin in (14): (14): but still simpler simpler but still abstract abstract lexical concepts (14)

a. i.

ii. h. i. 1. ii. ii. c. i. ii. ii.

vehicle vehicle lexical lexical concept concept vehicle vehicle lexical concept concept lexical vehicle vehicle concept lexical concept lexical

1)1.1 DETERMINER

(SPECIFICATION SPECIFICATION 1I

M()DIFII.R MODIFIER (Al II4I1tUTEI [ATTRIBUTE] NOUN NOUN

ITnINtI 'THING]

be integrated lexical concepts, concepts1and andsymbolic symbolitunits, units,can canhe turn, each In turn, In each of these these lexical integrated (11) For instance, given the utterance with a range of of other other lexical lexical concepts. concepts.For instance, given the utterance inin(it) with a range are thevehicles: vehicks: the', and armistice armistice are the lexical lexical concepts conceptsassociated associatedwith withthe the the, 1940, :sm and (5PEcIHcATI0NI,IATTRI(ArrkIintegrated. respectively, respectively,with with the the lexical lexical concepts concepts (SPECIFICATION], integrated, BUThI,and and(TitING1. (I nuTEI, 19 linguistic principlein in((p3) stipulatesthat thatthe thelinguistic Oncethis thishas hastaken takenplace, place,the theprinciple Once p3) stipulates lexical concepts eachofofthese thesenow nowinternally internally closed closedlexical content associated associatedwith with each content concepts of which these are with the more complex lexical concept can Lw integrated can be integrated with the more complex lexical concept of which these are giveninin(12), (iz), (sPF(IFIF.n THINIl, constituents, namely namely the the lexical lexical concept concept given constituents, (SPECIFIED THING', ofthis thisisisthat thatonce oncethe thelinguistic linguistic which has has the the form form NP. which NP. The The consequence consequence of unpacked1 the theselexical lexicalconcepts conceptshas hasbeen beenunpacked, contentassociated associatedwith witheach eachofofthese content the to OflC related individual lexical conccpts are result of the principle in (pi), the result of the principle in (p1), the individual lexical concepts are related to one 11)1 temporal cntitv

withtlw the%Thick vehidctwo typically relates to a tamp orAl entity. thoit thelexical corkro fated with i• Note that the with the rniern..lIy open I k'u&aI cnnccpl wtm.h 1w virtue .1 undergurng 4111Ulldentiving • InegrAIHM With owevcr.by virtue lowever, the internally open ATTRIllt ► TP I km al concept whit h king is iii that mults 1mm value gwen in ut, the kziaI largerkmal partofolthe thelarger tonuspart forms concept given in 113). the semantic value that results In rill 1111111416; king is of the value is attribute sort. Put .rnothct way. an attributeofof wtut.hisisananattnbutc entitywhich aninentity some sort. Put another way, an attribute semantic vallic is.oerced for the ocr ion). kw rrLited disussson it Mkhaetis with iq.o (sce onteptassociated with mu 4 we Michaelis 21roa tor related discussion iii (ix-noon). lexical concept

kr

kital

248 248

SEMAN ...:T.:.I=======:.:.. sEMANTIC (O\IPOSITIONALITY _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ SEMANTIC COMPOS1TIONALITY

tuhcrent unit. Put another way, theI I SPECIFIED sI'E( ii ill) anolher ,uch that Ihalthcy form coh renl unit. UOiI.Put Pulanother anotherway, way,lhe p[('Imll they form Iotm aa coherent that they another such the another concepts associated that the concept lexical concept ensures TiliNG I leu .1 con eplensures en ur that Ihal th lexical I xical concepts con epts associated associated with withthe the lexical THING] i IIIPJGI armistice function function as whole, serving serving to to provide provide the the vehid.", 1940, and amliSliet a aa whole, servrng 10 provid function armistice the, the 1940, vehicles lire, question, and that there is and "h mall content: eonlenl: that Ihalthere is a specific pccific thing in rn question, question, and that thai following following schematic quality with it-although it—although the the details detailsof ofthe thething thing itit has has aaa particular associated details of the thing particular quality associated associated with it—although particular qualily until the theapplication application and the the nature nature of 'ii the particular particular and Ihe parti ular quality quality are are pccified until unlillhe applicallon of are not not specified of interpretalion. of interpretation. Once process hastaken takenplace placefor for each eachof ofthe thelexical lexical concepts that make of the le"i al concepts con eptsthat that n e this thi process proc has has taken place for (:AU5ES V To TORECEIVE KI:EIvE THING THING 4 up the internally internally complex ITIiING x CAUSES CAU [ TiliNG Y TO REeElv. TIIIN(i Z] II [THING X THING Y complex ITHIN(; conceptswhich which make make up the concept given in in (5b), (sh), then then the lexical lexical (sb), then the lexi I concepts concept which make up the the lexical concept concept given given in lexical concept concept areintO .,) 1wvirtue virtue of of the the of IFKAN:EI ISPI is by It i, rIIINGI nominative"lexical part of of Ihe "predicate "prodic.le nominalive" lexical lexl al concepl whi h forms part kxici coCOn. lexical concept which part of the the "predicate nominative n_ lexical cept. receives asThem Themeor orSubject Subjectof ofaapredicatin pred ceps, that ]FRANCE] receivesilits its status Theme cepl, Ihal [FRANCEj I.MAN FI receives latu aas Subjecl of prodicallngg just .is that (THING] lexical presslon. Put concepts that PUI another anolher way, way, jusl as the Ih IITlIlNGllexi al concepts concepl Ihal form form exprsion.Putahwy,js e expressIon. the larger "ditransitive" concept (sb) encode dith part of the larger larger "ditransitive" "ditran ilive" lexical Ie ical concept concept in in(5b) (Sb)encode encodedifferential differenlial part of' of the content,ensuring ensuring that each ITIIINGI slot distinct, toe. by virtue conlenl, en uringthat Ihaleach ea h[THING] ITIIING] 101 js iis di linct, so so too, 100, by virtue lingul lie content, linguistic slot distinct, occupying the slot does in(16), (i6), achieves of II RANCEI Ihe P slot 101 it ilit does does in in (16), itilitachieves a hieves aaadistinct dlsllncl occupying the NP RAN( i J occupying [FRANCE] Ii semanik value achieved bythe the lexical vi -a-vis the Ihe semantic semanticvalue valueachieved achievodby thelexical lexicalconcept concepi semanlic semantic value, value, vis-à-vis vis-à-vis IGfOGRAPlIlCAL UGION]J in the same same utterance. ullerance. in the (GEOGRAPHICAL REGION] REGION Now consider slightly more complex example external ow let's lei' consider con ider aaa slightly lighlly more more complex compl..example exampleofof ofexternal eXlemalle .. cal lexical Thi concerns the integration inlegralion of of an an inlernally open open concepl inlegralion. This concept integration. integration. aninternally internally open Thisconcerns concerns lexical concept which, via internal internal concept integration, become lexi al con ept which. which, inlernal lexical lexical concept con epl integration, inlegralion, has ha becom becomee internally closed. involves Ihe "ditransitive" Th example involves "dilran ilive" lexical lexical concept concepl interalycosd.Thxmpe inlernally closed. The the "ditransitive" lexical concept given in (5b) (Sb) abov . (sb) above. above. To illuslrale, illustrate, con consider the following utterance To ider the Ihe following utterance: ulleran e: consider

e first, distinguished. distinguished. The first, e1islingul hed. Th The fir I, internal inlernal lexical leXICal con epl integration, inlegrallon, applies appli to 10 lexical concept integration, applies to internal Inlernally open lexical concepts, con pts, while while the the second, ond, external external lexical lexical concept con cpl internally open external lexical concept internally open lexical lexical concepts. while second, integration, involves integration ofan an internally inlernally closed closed lexical lexi al concept. on epl. Inlegralion, involves the Ihe integration inlegralion of internally lexical concept. integration, closed is influenced inOuenced by by the the lexical lexical profile profileof oflhe lexi alprofile profileassociated associalod Inlegralion is Integration lexkal the profile Integration profile of the lexical associated with concepts. Bothsorts sortsofof ofintegration integrationare inlernallyopen openand closed lexical lexical concepts. con epl .Both Both sorts inlegralion are with internally internally and closed closed 1w Principles Principles of governed by of Lexical Lexical Concept Concepl Inlegralion, of ofwhich whi hthree Ihreewere were governed Lexical (1rnceptIntegration, Integration, of which three were presented in the the chapter. chapter. Finally, as lexicalconcept concept integrationinvolves involves inteoncepl integration inlegralion involv inteinle presenlod in Ihe hapler. Finally, Finally, a.islexical presented of linguistic lingui lie content, conlenl, ititil isi primarily primarilyconcerned con ernod with wilh utterance ullerancecontext. conlext. gralion primarily utterance context. gration of content, concerned

gave Marya aabracelet bracelet (19) John gave Mary braceleland andhehegave gave Jane neeldace. gaveJane laneaanecklace. necklace. (19) John gave Mary

"ditransitive" being coordinated coordinatedby by In Ihi xampl two IWO "ditransitive" "duran iti,e"lexical concepts are are being coordinaled by In this this example lexicalconcepts concepts arc WITH Z Z I ION WITH OFY] yJ lexical lexical con concept ONJUNCTION ZBY BY ADDITION ADDITION OF OF Y] ept associated associatod with wilh the f(ONJUN( [[CONJUNCTION with lexical the vehicle atilt. and: (2o) (20)

a. vehi Ie "aud" a. vehicle "and" b. lexical kacal b. Ie .. alconcept concepl[CONJUNCTION I( ONJLNCTION WITII WITH Z BYADDITION AI)I)II'i( IN OF OFY] vi [. Theoutoul kinds—for to produce come, then, language non-linguistic understanding, involvesthe theactivation activationof ofnon-linguistic com oflanguage under landing.involves involv the actIValion of non -lingui lie come,.Ihen. then, of of language understanding, representations, which arise due to prompts of the kind provided by lexkal represenlation Ih kind provided provided by bylexical lexical representations.which which arise arisedu due 10 to prompls prompts of the concept selection and integration, as described in the previous two chapters. Ihe previous two Iwo chapters. chaplers. coneepl seleclion as described de",ribt.-d in the concept select ion and and inlegrall(lIl. integration, as Before proceeding with the description of interpretation below, I reiterate interpretation below, II reiterate Befor riplion of inlerpr lalion below. reilerale Before proceeding proceedingwilh with Ih the ddescription the following. Once lexical concept integration has taken place, each has laken taken place, lexical Ihe following. Once Once lexk le.ic.ll place. each eachlexical the following. ml concepl concept inlegration integration ha concept receives a semantic value as part of an integrated lexical conceptual of an kxi..iI conceptual concept rC\:civt..~ aJ semantic \emanlic value v.lluc as 0'1\ part p.ut of .In integrated inlcgratl-d lexilJI (om:eptu.ll coniept receives unit. Interpretation proceeds by subjecting each open-class lexical each open open-class lexicalconcept concept Ullll. InlerpretJIIOn proceeds proceed by -da lexieal conccpl unit. Interpretation by subjecllllg subjeting each in a given lexical conceptual unit to the operation known as matching: the operation known as matching: in gi\'cn kxkal Ie kJI conceptual (om:cptual unit in a given unit to the operation known a matching: the cognitive model profiles of tonccpts model prohles two (or more) open Ihe profiles oftwo Iwo(or (ormore) more)open-class openclass da lexical , lexical lexkalconcepts con epl the dated with them. namely open -clas lexical lexi with them, them, namelyopen-class open-class lexical colkepts)' tic potential potential associated associated in (i) (I)and and (2), the relevant lexical concepts tenm of of the the examples exampl and(a), (2).the therelevant relevantlexical Ie icalconcepts oncept are arc In examples in In terms IFRANCEI.ILANDMAS ). and [NATION). involv establishing tablishing aa [NATION]. Interpretation involves [FRAN(;El, ILANnMAS5J, and LNATI0NI. [FRANCE], [LANDMASS], models in the cognitive model match between one one (or mor ) cognitive cognitive models mod I intnthe thecognitive cognitivemodel model match bctwccn match between OflC (or more) more) cognitive

Iheon pmlkh bleaching (or (or O(iC1fl.*fltiC thAt hit sequence«11th of this thatI.t Theory predicts that the the %mural,. ('hw .. Itistholt 111l:Ch4 ( M1 Thc .. ry J'l'nh .. t thu tNt the- process pn'fll..& of tlf kfn.lnlk. bleaching blc.kh1na (,r One \.{lR5C'qunKC I ()nr *1

IS

profiles with the the relevant profiles associated associated with a-'5OCi.ted with the relevant relevant lexical I Xlcal concept. This process proc serves serves to to serves lexical concepts. This For mod I . For ror instance, instiln e. in in the the example example in in (1), (I). aaa activate the the matched cognitive models. models. instance, (i), match i established tabli hed between between the primary cognitive model modelprofile profileassociated a iated match is established betweenthe theprimary primary cognitive model profile 1issotiated with I[LANDMASS], one of the cognitive andone oneof ofthe thecognitive cognitive models models to with ILANDMA5SJ,and LANOMAS I. and model to which whi h(IIFRANCE] rRANCEI affords afford RANCEJ of access. This of of course is aaccess. c . This i the cognitivemodel modelGFOIKAPHICAL GEOGRAPlllCAlREGION REGION which which is the cognitive cognitive model GEOGRAPHICAL REGION becomes activated. In example, the match place between ond example, e ample. the thematch matchtakes takesplace placebetween between beeom activated. lx-comes activated. In the the second primary Lognitive modelprofile profile to which .itlords cognitive model the primary cognittve profileto towhich whi hIINATIONI INATIoNI afford access a cess and the and the NATION I affords access NATION STATE NATiON STATE cognitivemodel to which IL'RAN(:EJ NATION TATE cognitive model to towhich whi h[FRANCE] IFRANce) affords aff< rd access. access. Hence, Hen • affords access. the reason reason for different difkrent readings of i.J in (i) the reason for for differentreadings readings of ofIFRAN IFRANUI (I)and and(2) (2)is becau the the 'FRANCE] the (1) and (2) isisbecause because concept in each each utterance receives distinctinformational informational charactercharacter lexical con concept lexical cpt in ea h utterance utteran e receives receives aaadistinct distinct tnfOml.tlonal chara ter· ization. In (i) an informational characterization ization. In (1) (I) interpretation interpretationresults result in in an aninformational tnformationalcharacterization characterizationfor for interpretation results [FRANCE] [FMANIJ landmass.. In In (z) (2) IFRAN EI relating relatingtotoFrance rran eas a geographical gcographicallandma (2)interpretation interpretation relating France as geographical landmass. resLilts in an informational characterization of rresults ul in informational characterizatIOn ofaaapolitical entity:France Fran ethe the politicalentity: entity: France the in an informational nation state. tate.

~

[NATION) "NATION' "'GCR. I).). Parll.1 Partial Partial Fu;URE FIGURE 13.3.

255

access to the loss of cognitive modd model profile profik. to a cognitive model tttTI\UlII~ll\ ~ in In lVamnlA1Ik:aJJD1Iun InH,h 1M" tl, k.. to. U,,"IIIW proli~. grirninatscalii.atu'n involves Jitenuation/ the in grarnmaticalitation

Governing Principles Principlesof ofInterpretation Interpretation Governing Principles of Interpretation analysis presentedfor forthe theinterpretation interpretation of of 'FRANC:El The analysis The analy is presented presented the interpretation of I. RANn) the previous previou Ej in previotis in the section exhibited asymmetry in th process proc s of of matching: While Whileall the section exhibited an an asymmetry asymmetry in in the the process ofmatching: matching: allthe the section exhibited primary listed for (LANIMASSJ and INATIONI cognitivemodels model listed Ii tedfor for ILANDMAS Iand and[NATION] INATION) are are activated activated primary cognitive cognitive models 'LANDMASS] in the interpretations interpretation presented presented to account for the semantic variationexhibexhlb to account accountfor thesemantic semanticvariation exhibited ited by by France, France, the primary Ited Frallce. cognitivemodels model toto towhich whichIFRANCEI "Iaffords a ess primarycognitive models which IIrRAN ERANCEI affordsaccess access undergo selectiveactivation—although activation—although as as wewill undergo selective activation-although as we we willsee see below ituation isi seebelow below the the situation slightly more complexthan than this. this. That is, is, the claimmade made byLCCM I.( Theiirv is is lightly more more complex this.That is.the theclaim madeby L ;CM eM Theory Theory I lightly that interpretation IFRAN( ii in that interpretation interpretati n of of[FRANCE] IrRANcelon (I) theGEOGRAPHICAL GEOGRAPlIlCAl REGION REGION in (i) (1)results results in the in the GEOGRAPHICAL REGION model being being activated activatedwhile while in in (2) (2) aaadifferent different model cognitive modd activated different cognitive cognitive model model cognitive model while receives what III refer receives what receives refer to as primary primaryactivation, activation.namely namelythe th NATION NATIONSTATI STA1£ refer to as as primary activation, namely the NATION STATE model. Simply Simply put, put, primary presented cognitive Simply put.not notall all of ofthe the primary primarycognitive ogmtivemodels model presented presented cognitive model. cognitive models are receive primary activation. activation. In In 13.1which which areaccessed accessed by by IFRAN(:EJ IFRAN el receive in Figure Figure ij.i 13.1 which by 'FRANCE] receive primary primary informal terms, the referent identified informal term.this thi follows follow as a the thereferent referentidentified id.ntifiedby byFrance' rmllceis terms, this follows France is the Theme or Subject of the expression: purpose of of the expression, which, ubject of expr ion: the th purpose purpo ofthe th expression, expr ion.which, whi h.more tech moretechtechnically, appositive in nature, is to identify aspect thereferent referent nieally. iis appo itive in nature. is to identify identify which whi h aspect a peet of ofthe referent of of appositive Franc( France Frallce we are concerned then does doc> the the process pro TilING WITII AAPARTICULAR PARTI( nAR ATTRIBUTE] ATTRIBI'Tf) lexical concon cept associated with the vehicle an cept associated MODIFIERNOUN NOUN (i.e., the vehicle vehide DETERMINER DFll RMI I R \IOI)IFIER MOl>IIIl-R OU (i.e., (i,e., an an cept a ""iated with the NP), prior to being integrated with the more complex lexical concept associated NP), associated 1'), prior prior to to being being integrated integrated with the th more more complex om 1'1 lexical I ",cal concept con .ptaiated with the predicate nominative vehicle which compnses the entire utterance. with the predicate predicale nominative nominative vehicle vehide which whi hcomprises compri the theentire entireutterance. utterance. The rekvaiit concepts for interpretation in are The relevant lexical concepts for interpretation in (3) are !FRANCE], BEAUTII-1rdl"ant lexical wn«l1t; for interpn:tallon 10 (3) arc (FRA '( 1). IRLAUI (81AU1 FULl, and ICOUNTRYJ.2 The principle in (p4) ensures, 1BI•.AUTIFULJ and FUL I, and (COUNTRy).l [COUNTRY ]. 2 Th The principle then, that I(BEAIlTIFI!L) fULl. principle in in (P4) (P4) ensures, ensUfC>,then, then.that that BEAUTIFUL] and ((ouNTRyj arc in order to build an informational characIcauwritY] are subject matching «-OI'NTRY) ub)C the landmass ?John. th a. ?John, a. h. ?John, the nation

nation th~ nation h. ?John. the b. ?John,

interpretable, signalled (6) are not straightforwardly The utterances in ((s) bby the interpretable1 ignallrd by rpretable. signalled tralghtforwardlyant are not not straightforwardly ulleranc an The utterances in (6) or Th question marks, precisely because an inform informational characterization cterizatIon isIis not chara ational characteri,ation >«au an marks,. precisely because pr iscly! qu tion marks question possible for (LANDMASS) or(NATION whenmakhed matched withthe the primary th~ primary rd with match when INATIONI when or (NATION ANImIASSI IA s] (11 pcl Ibl for (illANO cognitive model profile associated with the the lexical lexical concept (INDIVIDUAL vml'AI I,NIlI concept (INi1 I xicalCOfleCpt wIth rnudci ass!l(iated with profil associated l profik tive mode cognI cognitive in NAMED JOHN!. This is due to a clash profil model profiles cognitive model ry cognitive prima the h in This is due to a cia clash in the the primary primary i due i 101lNI. Thi NA 1m concept on the one NAMED JOHN)llexia associated with the [INDIVIDUAL lin the on the 4)11e pt on conce l concept IOIlN lexical AMIII IOHN1 I,NOIVIIll'AI NAMEI th (INDIvIOUAI with the ",xlatl'd WIth aassociated and (NATIONI (NATION) other. Thisis notto tosay, say, of hand and (LANDMASS(] and >Jr, to not i,isnot Thi . This other and ononthe ththeother. loNI on INAT ILANO"A hand and ILANI hand course, that matching is impossible, clash. clash cia h Howev~r. clash avoiding However, clash. However, ing aaa clash. avoid thereby avoiding matching thereby impo ible. thereby ing isi impossible1 e. that match course, cours resolution requires recourse to what in to as the Of I dill th level the level of rcferrrd to 10 Chapter in 1I referred Chapter to an Chapter rcquor rClOU"" to what in resolution resolution reqLiires level is the hallmark of figurasecondary cognitive models: activation at this ligura ark of figura. the hallm hallmark level iis th~ thi!. level tion at this I : actIva secondary cognitive models: activation tIve mod dary cognI S model ((Igni xond ary cognitive domain the secondary Clotabli,hed in i established in isis doma domain established in the the profile. The ofsecthe ba i of the basis rding on proce n. proceeding f""hio ed fashion, search proceeds in order c~ in searonan e and and give rise 10 Ihemeaning-construction meaning·con Iruclionprocess. proc Thi, tothe the meamngconstrtktion resonance and give levelI of II referred to as as primarY primary activalion. activation. In In addilion, addition, other models which 10 as primary other cognitive cognitive models modelswhich whi h activation. referred to Thi. form of the search region achieve a more diffuse level of activation. This level activation. a diffuse form part pari of Ihe search rCSton achIeve a more ditTuse level of aclivalion. Thi region part the is activationisis ofactivation Fhismore morediffuse ditluselevel level iis guaranteed guaranlt ...'\! by by the Ih principle principle m (pIO). Thi more dinu levelofof acllvation j, principle in in(pio). (pio).This guaranteed the levels of what positing two rationale for activation. The The rationale whal refer to 10 as a secondary secondary activation. activalion. Th ralionale for positing po ilmg two Iwolevels 1C\c1 of of to as what1I refer entail aa a activation region will necessarily entail search JLtlVoltlOIl (HnlC from from the the view viewthat thai aa search an:h region willnecessarily n«cs1klrily entail the that activation comes minimal whether match available. to establish establish mimmal level of of .ellv.llon morder orderto 10 I.bl"h whether whelheraa match m.lehisis i,available. Jv.,IJblc. of activation activationin in minimal level level Hence, this searched cognitivemodels lIen. of. livalion may m.ymake make the Ihe searched searched cognitive cognilive modelsmore more ofactivation activation may make this level level of Hence,,Ihl

267 267

INIFRPkETAI1ON INTERPRETATION INTERPRETATION

,

:"

Input: ! Input an UII ranee (a (a input an anutterance utterance (a !

situated !• Sltualad """"I) situatedusage usage event) event) ! •

· ..... ---

-" 4

SEUCTIOH by SEUCTION: SELECTION driven drivenby by utterance UIIeranee extra· utterance and and extraextralinguistic Iongu,slOC conlext linguisticcontext context

1.

·

rr-

........

output: oulput stong o. :' stnng of of output: stnng lexical leXICal concepts lexical concepts ~-.--.---- ............ -_ ..... ..

i

I

FUSION production 01 of FUSION FUSION productoon production of a a concepIion (Sllualad conception conception (situated (situated meaning with mean'ng aSSOClalad WIth meaning associated associated with utterance) an UIIeranee) an utterance)

NTERPRETATION:actlVabOn activation of IHT£RPRETATtON INTERPRETATION activation of

•

INTEGRATiONInlegraloon integration ~_.j the semantic INT£GAATlON integration INTEGRATION potential the semanbc semantic polenll8l potential accessed accessed of lexical lexical concepts oIlexlcal of concepts 1118 a go_ lexocal concepl via given lexical concept via a given lexical concept constrained by the the lexical lexical constraJllad by leXICal constrained conceptual unit of which it~ is is aa conceplual unol o. whICh conceptual unit of which it

part pan part

·! output lexical conceplual I'! , ·,,• ...• '"

.n

'"

' output: lexical conceptual ' : units units : unitS

.'

output: i output. output informational Informattonal informational

.i

characterization with ! characterization charact8r1zalion associated associaladwith W1Ih ! associated lexical conceptual units !t lexical leXICal COnceptual conceplual units un,ts _______ J! t

.

'

or output: (a'meaning' i output oulput aaaconception conceploon(a 'meanong'or or i conception associatedwith withthe theinput input reading' associated i 'reading' 'readlng' aSsoClalad WIth Input i

.: utt ranee) utterance) utterance)

L.

:,

..!

Theory 13.7. con%truclion inLCCM i(;(;M Theory FIGURE 13.7. 1'}.7. Meaning Meaning construction con lruc.lloninIn LCCM Thtory FIGURE achieve diffuselevel levelof ofactivation activationwhich, which,in in hence they readily accessible, acc""ible,and dnd hen« Iheyachieve .1ent present aasummary. summary, in in J-igure Figure ').7. 13.7, of meaning *onst ruct 01 meaning meamngconstruction roUIr is Ihal language users uscr~ will )udg aa particula parlil ularr routc Ihe the more likely ilitit is figurative, wilh with greater length correlaling correlating with with a ullerance a being figuralive, grealer lenglh menl uterancsbigftve,whralngcoetiwhasmn, utterance as of greater greater figuralivily. figurativity. of grealer of tigurativity.

Highlighting Highlighting now lurn turn to to the the phenomenon results fromdifferential ditt II now 10 Ihe phenomenon ph nomenon of ofhighlighting. hlghhghling.This Thl results muh from from ditTerenllal turn highlighting. This activation of allribules attributes internal internalto toaaagiven given cognitive cognitive model, model, as see attributes we will in achvallon inlernal 10 given cognilive mod I, as a we we will will see ":e in a. tivation of of the di discussion of the examples (8) and and (9) (9) below, below, which relate relateto tothe thelexical kxjtal Ih~ ussion 1)1 oflhe in below, which which relale 10 Ihe lexilal the discussion theexampl examplesin in (8) (8) concept for this this lexical concept BooK partialcognitive cognitive model model onlepl I(Boma DOOKI.1.AAApartial partial cognilive Illodel profile profile for Ihis lexical lexical concept cOnlepl is "is provided in Figure 13.10. igure 13.io. provided in in IFigure 1).10. (8) (8)

a. That's heavy a. That's Thai's .iaa heavy heavy hook book a. b. That antiquarian hook is illegibl h. That illegible Thai antiquarian antiquarian book book is i illegible b.

(9) (t,) (9)

a. That's a long Thal'_ a a. That's long hook book a. b. That's an interesting book Thai's an an interesting onler tong book b. That's b.

Let's consider Ihe the cognillv cognitive models models accessed 1. As As illustrated It1'S a«cssed via via loom: IDoo~). illu traled in the Ihe Let's consider consider the cognitive partial cognitive model profile given in Figure 13.1o, the knowledge accessed partial cognitive parllal cognilive model model profile profile given given ininFigure Figure13.10, I.PO, the Ihe knowledge knowledge acce ......J by [Komi includes, at the very least, that a book is a physical by IBooki entity and isi~ by IBOOK) includes, includes, at al the Ihe very very least, leasl, that aa book book isi aa physical phy ical entity enlity and and is interacted with via a process of reading. These two distinct sorts of knowledge— interacted wilh with via a proc~ processof ofreading. reading.Th Theselwo twodislincl distinctwrts sortsofknowledg,~ o(knowkdge— interaclN knowledge relating to an artefact, and the process of reading—are of reading—arc captured knowledge rrelating to an arietact, knowledge blong to art fact, and the the pro.:css of reading-arecaptured captured in Figure 13.10 by the two cognitive models (BOOK) PHYSICAL STRUCTURE PIIYsI(;AL STRUCTURE Iwocognitive cognillvemodels model (BooK) (BOOK) .IlYSICAl STRt:CTl;RF and and in Figure Figure 1).10 by the two

TOME

TOME

PHYSICAL PlfYSICAI. STRUCTURE

STRUCTURE

TEXT

LEVEL LEVEl OF OF

DURATION OURATlON

TEXT

HI ADE" H 1 4 - - -REAOER--I>!

(BooR1 IBOOK)

INTEREST MEREST

READING READING ACTIVITY ACTMTY

Aftribules Attributl

Cognitive mod/ill modis

Lexical Lexacalconcept concaç*

.on,epts. nitive nuxlel, models, andattrialtriIU.l at 13.m. 1\.10 The Thc rel.lllOn hlrbetween bchH'C1l It"kxsaI u. ..1I..:um . ept .Lcognitive ..:ognlll\C model and Jnd .Jun iherelationship reLitionship between II(.(KI

FIGURE

butes

hutt"

,

-

INTfRPRETA nON INI ERPRETATR)N INTERPRETATION

271 271 271

~IREADING ADING AerlVITY re:.~lVely. models are related related by The two cognitive A( TIVIT•Y respectively. respectively.The Thetwo twocognilive cognitivemodels models are are related by virtue virtue ACTIVITY Ki

by virtLic physical artefact with the the physical "f READE~-Ihe tru tural invariant—who invariant-who inleracts with wilh phy icalartefact ota structural invariant—who interacts interacts artefact READER—the structural of aaREADER—thC between cognitive bv of reading Ihe prinled text. Thi relation holds holds between between cognitive cognitive virtueof ofreading reading the the printed printed text. text. This This relation relation holds 1w virtue by virtue I capture the structural Chapter io. n;"dels ,"ributes, as di«:msed 10. I capture caplur the Ihe structural Slructural models models and/or and/orattributes, attributes,as asdiscussed discussed in in Chapter to. relation 1).10 arrow, the specific pecifi relation relation IIlvariant in Figure invariant invariantin inFigure Figure13.10 13.10by byaaa double-headed double-headed arrow1 arrow, and and the the specific addition, cognitive IIwolved mnemoni RPADrR. models signalled by addition, cognilive cognitivemodels models READER.In In addilion, involved iis is signalled signalled by by the the mnemonic mnemonic REAI)IR. structured, body of knowledge. ligure of a large, delalled, bUI lructured, of knowledge. Figure 1).10 cun i I ,.onsist of a large, large, detailed, detailed, but but structured, body of knowledge. Figure 13.10 consist of 13.10 provides models which I BOOK allribules for each ofofthe the cognitive model which IIsom] BOOK)I provides provides provides providestwo twoattributes attributesfor foreach eachof thecognitive cognitive models which relates to the the physical phvskal J(C model PIIY ICAl sIRUCTIRI STRuerURE Ihe physical access to. The The relates 10 to PHYSICAL STRUCTURE relat The cognitive cognitive model model PIIYSI(AL access 10. to. least, knowledge knowledge as asto tothe thephysical physical structure Jrtefa t, con i ling of, al th very least, least, knowkdge as 10 Ihe physical structure Iru ture artefact, consisting of, artefact, consisting of, at at the the very concerning .nd of giv n book. book. indud ddetailed tailed knowledge knowledge concerning and organization and organizalion organizationof ofaaa given given book. This This indudcs includes detailed knowledge weight, binding artefact, Ihe malerial aaspects peets of ititsdimensions, dimensions. weighl, binding binding the of the material materialaspects of the the artefact, artefact, including includingits dimensions, weight, knowledge ,ibout books books refer forth. This aaspect ped of of our knowledge about aboul booksIIIrefer refer (pa per or Soforth. forth. This This aspect ofour our knowledge (paper (paper or cloth), cloth), and and w so ion and construc10 aas the Ihe TOMh atlribul In addilion Ihephysical phy i aI organizat organizalion and and construccon trueto I attribute. attribute.. In Inaddition additionto10 tothe the physical organization TOME to as theTOM the process of text text interactedwith withthrough of book, booksconsiSt consisl of of lex I which which isiisinteracted inleracted wilh through the Iheprocess proc lion tion tion of ofaaa book, hook, books books consist attribute. of reading. refer to to aas the Ihe TEXT of This attribute.. -rEx -r atlribut reading. Thi This III refer refer toas the of reading. involved in relates to Th~ READING ACTIVITY cognitive model relales to 10 the the process process involved involved in on The ACI IVITY cognitive cognitive model relates the process READING ACTIVITY The READING the text the nature of of the the interaction with the onleracting with books, especially nature Ihe interaction with wilh the text lext interacting interactingwith withbooks, hooks,especially especially the the nature of period of interaction that up a period liseif. of Ihi interaction inleraction is Ihatreading readingtakes lakes up up, period of of of this this itself. One One consequence consequence of isi that reading takes a that on the lime, whichI IIrefer refertoto 10 asthe IheDURA DURATION allribute. iis,depending depending on on the the time, asas i ION attribute. attribute. That Thatis, depending DURATION time, which which refer the of time. reading can can take take lesser or greater amounts of .mounl involved, reading take lesser I r or or greater amounts amount oftime. time. amount of of text text involved, involved, that with isI the the level of interest Another consequen e of interaction with wilh books books is the level level of ofinterest interest that that aaa Another ot interaction Another consequence consequence of books This refer to as the vii OF given book holds holds for for the the reader. read r. This Thi III refer refer to to as as the the iiLEVEL LEVEL OF INTEREST given hook holds for OFINTL INTEREST given the reader. might judge judge the book book to be interesting, .nribut That iis,, while while the the reader reader might judg the book to tobe beinteresting, interesling, .ittrihutc.. That attribute. Thatis, while the reader and so so on. on. another might might be be judged judged to to be be boring1 boring, and another might be judged to be boring, highlighting. of the utterances in (8) (8) ow let's let's return return to the issue i ue of of highlighting. Each Ea h of ofthe the utterances ullerances in (8) Now let's ofhighlighting. Now to the the issue Each characterization and (9) (9) involves involves aaadistinct di lin tinformational informalional characterization characterization for for the theLBOOKI IBooKI involves distinct informational and and for the (nom] being achievedby 1w virtueofof each instance IBOOKI lex I I concept. con ept. This Thi isachieved achieved by virtue of ea hinstance on tan of e of of IBooKII being beong concept. Thisisis lexical virtue each (BOOK such that a slightly con i tent with with the theutterance ullerancecontext contextsuch suchthat that, lightly in aaa way way consistent interpreted in with the utterance context interpreted in way consistent a slightly through the cognitive model profile through the thecognitive cognitivemodel modelprofile profile ditTerent a c i established established through different access route is different access route is established ",,,-.sed via via IIDooK). accessed accessed BOOK I. from(8) (8)have have todo dowith withprimary primary For instance, the conceptionsthat that result rresult uh from from havetoto do with primary instance, the the conceptions For instance, For cognitive model. However, each conactIVation ofthe thePHYSICAL PIIYSICAlSTRL'CI TRuerURF cognitive model. mndel.However, lIowever,each ea h conconactivation of tRE cognitive PHYSICAL STRUCTURE activation of the attributes associated withthis this cogception involves Inmlv differential ditTerenlial activalionofof ofattributes allribultsassociated a -ialedwith with thi cogcog involves differential activation activation ception informational the ofhighlighting. highlighting. nitive model-the process proc highlighting. While Whilethe theinformational informational nitive model—the nitive model—the process of involveshighlighting highlightingofof ofthe the IBOOKI inin(8a) (8a)involves involves highlighting the chara terizalion associated aassociated iated with characterization with BOOKJ (8a) characterization with (Book' in .tssociated with I rOMI allribul informati nalcharacterization characterilalionassociated a sociatedwith wilhIBooK IBooKI informational I OMEattribute, attribute,,Ihe the informational the I inin TOME involves highlighting of of the attribute. ofthe IheTEXT TEXT attribute. allribute. (8b) involves involv highlighting highlighting TEXT (8b) have from the the utterances in (9) contra t, the the conceptions conception Ihatresult r ult from theutterances ullerancesin (9)have hav toto 10 In contrast, contrast, the onceptions that that result In model accessed EVENT cognitive dowith withprimary primaryactivation a livallonof of theREAI)1N R.AOIN.; EVENT fV'NT cognitive cognitivemodel modelaccessed ac cssed with primary the READING do activation of the associated with IB(X)KI Theinformational informationalcharacterization characterizalionassociated a ialedwith withI Board IBOOK)inin on via IBooK).The via(Book]. IRooKI. The informational characterization via attribute. The informational (9a) resuh from highlighllng of IlURATION attribute. anribule. The Theinformational informational (9a)results resultsfrom fromhighlighting highlightingof ofthe the DURATION (9a) the in (9h) results from highlighting iatedwith with!BOOK] lharallerilJlion associated ''''''''Ialed Wllh InooKI in (9b) (9b)results r "Ihsfrom fromhighlighting the Ihe characterization characterization attribute. LEVEL OPINTEREST INTf.Mf~Tattribute. .ltlribule. I IVEI OF INTEKF5I LEVEL OF

272 2 272 27

ION INTI RPRf.TATI()S IN I FIIPRETAl INTERPRETATION

SEMANTIC COMPOSITIONALITY EMANTlic ICCOMP()SITIONALITY OMPOS'~'.!.T!! ' O:!!N~A~L:!'.!.T!.Y_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

of matching matching Types of Types of Types now turn turn to to aa of the process of Matching Iis tthe of matching. matching. IInOW now con ideration of th process proc of match inS. Matching a consideration consideration turn centralmechanism mechanism in interpretation1 interpretation, simultaneous primary pril (cntral m hani\m in interpretation, and Jnd involves involves simultaneous \imultancou primary central activationof ofcognitive cognitivemodels models accessed arising from, distinct distinct lexical a{tiv.tion of cognitive model,accessed accessed via, via. or arising ari ing from, from. lexical activation via, or concepts andlor and/or lexical lexicalconceptual conceptual units in in order order to produce lexiid units concept con eptual unit ord r to to produce produ e aa complex compl x concepts and/or informational characterization. characterization. informational characterintlon. Matching takes twodistinct distinctforms. This of broad the distinct is Iaisconsequence ~forms. rms.This Thi aa consequence con;equenof the of the broad broad Matching Matching takes two distinction which holds between nominal versus relational lexical concepts distinction which which holds hold between between nominal nominalversus ver u relational lexical lexical concepts concep" 6, and hence, the sorts of cognitive model first discussed in Chapter profiles fir di 'u;;cd in Chapter ( hapter 6, 6, and and hence, hence. th sort of cognitive model profiles prolik." firstt discussed that, in broad terms, these two types of lexical concepts facilitate access of lexical LonCepIs that. broad terms, t rms. these th two types type oflexical onceph fa ilit.te access to. to. Put Put that, in broad another way. way, notonly only is the linguistic distinction in the nature only iis there th re aaa distinction distinction in the the nature nature of ofthe thelinguistic lingui tic another there another wa, not content that nominal, e.g., (To) EXix versus rdational, e.g., e.g.1 ((io) content that nominal, nominal. e.g., e.g.• (ExpLostoNI, (>XPIO ION(. versus versu relational, relational. e.g.• (bo) IX content lexicalconcepts concepts encode, butas each PLODE]lexical lexical concept concept has unique PLOOl) lexical onccpt encode, en ode. hut but aas each ea h lexical lexical con cpt has ha aaaunique unique pwtml access site, the cognitive models accessed accessed viaeach eachlexical lexical conceptwill will be it • the cognitive models models accessed via via each lexi al concept concept will be acc access site, slightly distinct. With respect to matching, the claim in I.CCM Theory isi, is Theory slightly di distinct. With respect to matching. matching, the the claim claim in in 1(1 NI slightly tin t. With respect to teeM that the the distinctive distinctive nature of these these classes classes of hence ofthese da oflexical concept-and hence hencetheir their that nature of of lexical lexical concept—and associated cognitive model profiles—entails a differential contribution to aassociated iated cognitive cognitivemodel modelprofiles-entail profiles—entailsaadifferential differentialcontribution contribution to the the construction of a complex informational characterization—the interpretation characterization—the interpretation con tructlon of the interpretatinn construction of aa complex complex informational informational characterilatlonthat ari arises from from integration lexical conceptual arises from integration integration of conceptual unit—due to to differences that of a lexical onceptual unit—due unit-IANTMlEi ADVANTAGE/ WEU·BEING WELL-BEING

273 173

273

PROVISION PROVISION Of OF PlEASURE PLEASURE

(0000) (GOOD) [GOOD] model profile for F,GUR. 1).11. Parli.1 Goool Partial II(itJRF cognitive modd model profile for (60001 (Goon) Partial cogni"" FIGURE13.11. 13.11.

I(;(x)L)1isiisof ofaaa profile proc thtcognitive profil accessed accessed via via [Goon) (Gooo) of process as itit it appli applies process as applies to to the the cognitive cognitive model model profile accessed via cognitive model profile profile for for distin t kind. con ider the partial cognitive model profile for illustrate consider distinct distinct kind. To To illustrate consider the partial partial cognitive model presentedin in Hgurc (1Goonl ;OOIl( as a, presentl'tl inFigure l'igure13.11. 1).11. as presented 13.11. iated with "good The complex informational characterization associated associated with "good "good nun", man". informal ional characterization characterization The complex informational honour, such Js physical beaut for in tance. might relate to notion such uch as as physical physi al beauty, beauty.. honour, honour. being being for instance, instance, might relate relate to notions notions being family, and so on, depending upon up'tanding. providing for one", on. depending upon morally morallyupstanding, upstanding,providing providingfor foroflC'S one's famIly. family, and Ou«. serve to structure present tcrtm-that in heory is concerned domains. That That is. Conceptual Theory domain. iis, Conceptual Conceptual Metaphor Metaphor 'ITheory i a theory th ry concerned concerned with with domains. of how how language backstagecognition. cognition. What addition, addition, isiis aaatheory is required, required, in addition. backstage required. theory of of howlanguage language \\1iat is backstage wgnitiofl. What deploys and and with these these non-linguistic knowkdgc structures— deplo and interfaces mterfac with with th non-linguistic non Iingul tICknowledge knowledgestructures— trueture deploys understanding. the conceptual serviceof offigurative figurative language language th metaphors-in service service of languag understanding. understanding. the conceptual metaphors—in metaphors—in frontstagecognition. cognition.In this chapter, That is. require a theory addresses frontstage cognition. That iis, we requ addr fron~tage In this thi chapter, chapter. ire aa theory that addresses LCCM Theory.' ofof such anaccount fromthe the perspective U ( \lTheory.1 lheory.l attempt to to provide provide perspective provid such uch an aaccount count from from the perspec1iv of l.CCM II auempt attempt Phenomena in in Phenomena in need need of of explanation explanation Phenomena explanation account figurative language order to to be providean an IIJ( ( .M In order he able able to provide anLCCM Maccount a countofof offigurative figurativelanguage language In order able toprovide be addressed. In phenomena to be addressed. identify the phenomena understandingswe wemust must first identify understanding, understanding. mu t first first phenomena to he addr sed. In particular IIIaddress address the the the following: tollowing particular addr~ foil wmg:

283 283

the andthe thecognitive cognitivemodel model profileto which ont nt encoded encoded and the cognItIve mod Iprofile profile to which whi hititIt the hnguistie linguistic content encoded and affords glossed as IurwAKn MOTION atTord aaccess, c , might mighthe beglossed glossedas a (UPWARD IUPWARDVERTIcAL VERTI AL lOTIONBEFORE BEFORE NOW). affordsaccess, be VERTICAL MOTION BEFORENOWJ. NOW). (i) entity In the expression itali went "went ..m up, liP. relat which can undergo undergo In (.) ( t)the theexpression expression in italics, up.relates relatestotoan anentity entitywhich whichcan veridical n. Hence, llence. the an tlllerpret veridi...al actual) moti motion. sanctionsan aninterpretinterpretveridical (i.e., ((i.e., i.e.,actual) motion. Hence, the lexical lexical concept concept sanction sanctions

aflon to upward ation ""m up relates relates upward motion on the the vertical verti aI axis. axis. In the ation in in which which went went up up relates to motion on vertical axis. In the the second example in in (2) the As second th expr ion ""III lip relates the student's tudent' grades. grad As As we'flt second example expression went up relates to to the student's grades. grade's file' students grades II", slud"m's g",des refers nphy ical entity thus cannot an not undergo undergo the student's refers to to aan a non-physical non-physical entity which which thus veridical up would ..mllp would appear appear not veridi motion. expr ion went "went veridicalI motion, motion,the theexpression expression not to to apply apply ininthe thesame same way aas doesin (i). In way (.). "went ..III up lip refrrs refers to an improvement in inthe thestudent's tud nt' as ititit does does inin(1). In (2) (2) went refersto toan animprovement in the student's grades. Giventhat that ""III went up iis not being wemight might being used used in in its itsspatial spatialsense, sense. we might grades. that grades. Given Given went up spatial sense, informally its asbeing beingnon-literal non-literalor orfigurative figurative in nature. nature. informally describe uusage ge aas being non-literal or figurative in nature. informallydescribe describeits its usage Hence, oneof ofthe thechallenges challenges this chapter present Ilence. of the challeng ininthis thi chapter present anan LClf( .M account account of Hence, one in chapter isi is tototo present an ',CCM of figurative meaning construction construction whichcaptures c.ptur the th different ditTerentconceptions on eption assoasso figurativemeaning construction which captures the different conceptions assodated with in (1) and (i), and doing so while accounting for ciated with the two utterances ulleran III (.) and (2). and doing so while a counting for the two utterances in ( t) and (2), doing so while accounting for the quite different thesame sameexpression: expr ion: went lip. ditTerent contributionsofof differentcontributions ofthe expression: went up.

""m

Metaphor versus versus Metaphor veflUSmetonymy metonymy

literal and figurativeLanguage, language, between literal the distinction distinction hetween and figurative language. •• the th distlllClion the distinction distinction between betweenmetaphor metaphorand andmetonymy. metonymy. • the metaphor and th hetween

for these stakeinin inaccounting accounting II daborate elaborate belowon on54)I1IC some of on some of the the issues i u at .t stake stake ac ountmg for for these th elaborate below helow the issues at distinctions. distinct iOflS. di tinction. versus figurative versus figurativelanguage language Literal veflUS figurative language

ofmaking making principled While (;ihhs Gibbs warns against the possibility possibility Whil Gibb (t994) ('994) warns warn against again t the the po ibility of making aaaprincipled principled distinction between the two, pointing to the range of often contradictory the two. two, pointing pointing to the di tinction between hetween th the range range of of often often contradictory and cognitive scientists have defined ways ways linguist. philosophers, phtlosophers. and cognitive cognitivescientists ientimhave havedefined defined ways in in which linguists, for reasonable grounds are these assume there th will assume a ume for now that thatthere therearc arereasonable r sonable grounds ground for these notions, notions, II will will for now that supposing for intuition uppo 109 that there iissome basi for the intuition that there di tinction supposing that there there is soffiCbasis basis forthe the intuitionthat thatthere thereisIisaJadistinction distinetion between betweenliteral literal and andfigurative language, even drawing aa hard hard and and fast fast hetween literal figurative language, languag. even en ifif drawing hard and fa~t line line lb make make this point clear, between hetween the two may not notbe bestraightforward. traightforward. To To make this this point pointclear, clear, betweenthe thetwo twomay may not be straightforward. the consider went examples of 1)1 thefollowing followingkind: ""III up, liP. and examples eXJmpl~ of the following kind: con ider the the expression e pr . ion went expression up, went up (t) (s)) The rocket we'nt (. Therocket ""III lip (in (in the the sky) ky) course of of the the semester) (2) Thestudent's tudent'.grades grades went ..... ", up up (during the the course cour of the semester) mester) (1) student's grades wrist (z) The nativespeakers speakers ofEnglish I nglish informally Without aaaspecific cont xt, native natIVe peake ... of of rngli hinformally mformally pexific utterance uUeran e context, specific utterance context, (i.e., actual) actual)motion motionin in an upwards define went define Wc.'''' up relating 10 veridical veridical (i.e., Jlrated the Ihe distinction dislin(lion between belweenliteral hleral and andfigurative figuraliveconcepconcepHaving just the distinction between lion, nowprovide provideaaasketch kel hof ofthe themeaning-construction meaning-con IruCiionprocesses proce Ihal give give tions,! that give tions, IInow now provide sketch of the meaning-construction processes that first of all consider metaphoric conceptions rise to metaphoric metaphoric conceptions. 'onceptions. IIIfirst rise melaphoric conceplion,. fiN of ofall all consider con ider metaphoric melaphoric conceptions con iours of pussycats alsoexhib.t exhibitsocial socialbehaviour, behaviour,including includingbehaviour behaviour towards towards other yeat also «xial behaviour. including toward, other other pu pussycats also exhibit conspecifics, and towards human~. Ilence. social SO. and behaviour towards toward humans. humans. Hence, Hence, those of cognitive mod I related related to at at least lea t two two primary primary...ognitive cognitive models: model: those tho of of cognitive model primary cognitive PATTII RNS RNS OF 01111 IIAVIOUR and HOl: itousi111010 11011)PET. PIT. PAll 81lfAVIOliR PIT. PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOUR HOUSEHOLD arisesdue dueto toaaafailure failure to to in (3a), In e.. mple in ( 1J). aaafigurative ligurative conception conception arises ari to failure tu figurative In the the example cognitive model model profiles associated establish match in in the the tablish aaa match match the primary primary cognitive cognitive model profiles profiles associated associated with with establish conceptsrelevant relevantfor forinterpretation. interpretation. the thetwo two lexic.1 lexical concepts [80s [Pl" weATI., the relevant for interpr tation. I Boss[ iiossjI and and (PUSSYCAT], IPLssy(:Al cognitive model model I lence,aaaclash clash ours leading lIen..:c. dol h tKlUr ICJding to to aJ search \Cdn..h in in aaa secondary «ondJry cognitive logniti\'c mtxlcl Hence, occurs leading profile.. In partkular fur clash profil In LCCM 1eeM Theory. th particular particularlexical lexicalconcept con ept selected ... Ietted for for clash clash profile. Theory, the lexical concept selected resolution, and and hence. hence, for primary primary activation cognitive for activation inthe the secondary rC"Allutinn. activJtion in thesecondary ondary cognitive cognitive resolution, hence, (or m ..del profile* pmlik. Iis ",ntextually 'J'l'his hi, isi, formalil a, the model profile, is contextually determined. This isformalized formaliiedd as as thePrinciple Principle model Clash Resolution. This states thefollowing: of Context-induced Context ·induced Clash d. h Resolution. R oJution.This Thisstates tatl">the the following: [

METONYMY METAPHOR AND METONYMY METAPHOR

293 193 293

Principle Clash Resolution ( I'" Prin iple of ofContextContext induced inducedClash Cia h Resolution Re,olution 'I1 of context-induced i)) ) Principle where clashresolution resolutionisiisrequired, the lexical ea re clash required. the con eptwhose who In concept whose lexical concept In cases cases wh where clash secondary i searched arched to resolve the theclash cia hisis i profile is to resolve resolve the clash secondary cognitive cognitive model profile searched context. This This isi achieved achieved byestablishing establishing determined Th. is achieved by establishingaaafigurative figurative determined by context. offcontext. conlext.The Th lexical lexical target and and aa figurative figurative vehicle, vehide. on on the th basis ba i of figurative context. The lexical target vehicle, basis that isi.is established asthe thefigurative figurative vehicle vehicle isis subject to clash clash concept that eestablished tahli hed as as the figurative i subject ubject to cia h resolut ion. resolullon. resolution. lhe utterance in ()3) II am am assuming a uming aaadiscourse discourse context in which th In assuming discoursecontext contextin inwhich whichthe the In the the utterance utterance in (3a) speaker has been been di discussing their boss. such acontext, context the figurative target ,pe.ker has u ing their their 00 . In In such u h aa, ntext.the thefigurative figurativetarget target been discussing target for for short) short)isis I~the theboss, 00 • as a this thi iis the topic or or theme themeof ofthe theutterance. utterante. (or target this is the topic theme of the uflerance. the boss, as Informally, the something "about" boss. Infom.ally. lhe point ofthe theutterance utterance isis to to say saysomething something"about" "aoout" the theboss. 00 . Informally, the point pointof of the utterance say 6 hom this thi it follow that that the th figurative figurativ vehicle vehide (or (orvehicle vehidefor forshort"), h rt ).isIs i the lh it follows figurative (or vehicle for short6), the From pussycat. ( ruciaHy,ititit is is the the secondary secondary cognitivemodel niodd profile profile vehicle, pu y at. Crucially. 'ondary cognitive model profile of ofthe thevehicle, vehicle. pussycat. Crucially, is the here [PUSSYCAT], I I'tssYcATI, searchin inorder orderto here Ipus YCATI. rather lhe target. undergoes order to ratherthan thanthe thetarget, target,which whichundergoes undergoes search facilitate resolution. In fa ililat clash lash resolution. other w rd • the the prin ipleinin(p11) (pit)serves serves to to facilitate clash In other otherwords, words, the principle principle (pH) serves determine which secondary cognitive cognitive model profiles ofthe the lexical lexi al concepts' concepts' secondary cognitive modelprofiles profile isis i detem.ine which of of subject search. subject to search. Retore discussion of the the example examplein (3a), consider '.ontext Before con luding the discussion di u ion of of in (3a), ()3).consider con ideraacontext conlext Before concluding actually speaker. in making making the the utterance utterance provided in in (3a) in utteran e provided provided tn ()3) isIs isactually actually in which whi h the the speaker, peaker. in talking about bemoaning the the fact that, that, due due to to an an extremely lalking aooutlheir pu yeal and bemoaning lhe fact lhat. anextremely talking about their theirpussycat pussycat fussy and and awkward awkward pet. pet, the speaker's speaker's life is, in certain respects. constrained by (on trained by fussy awkward peaker's life iis,• in respects. constrained respects, the "demands" "demands" of of on. In In such the at for food. affection. attention. In such u h. "demands" of their their cat cat forfood, food, affection, affection, attention, attention, and and so so on. aa the cat cat owner owner might might enario. the lhe eat owoer mightsay: y: Mv Myboss boss isis PUSS}'Cat. Thi interpretation. scenario, say: My boss is aaa pussycat. pussycat.This This interpretation, interpretation, which III refer cat" interpretation for by a~ the the "bossy "00 y cat" by the the r fer to to as refer as interpretationisisalso also accounted accounted for Principle 1110551 Prin iple of of .on text inducedClash la hResolution. Resolution.InIn Inthis thicase, a it• it itis isithe the 180s I Principle ofContext-induced Context-induced Clash Resolution. this case, the [Boss} rather than lexical concept the figurative figurative SYCAT] lexical becomes lhe figurative rather lhan the the (PUSSY;ATJ rather than [ [pu PUSSYCAT] lexicalconcept conceptwhich whichbecomes becomes the vehicle, hence whosesecondary secondarycognitive cognitivemodel modelprofile profileisiissubject subject vehicle. and hen e whose who secondary cognilive model profile ubject toto and hence search and hence henceclash clash resolution.Moreover, Moreover,the the [PUSSYCAT] IN'SSY;ATI lexical ... arch and lash resolution. resolution. Moreover.th [pu sYcATllexical con cpt search and lexical concept concept becomes thefigurative figurative target target as theinterpretation interpretation represents represents anattempt attempt to to becom lhe figurative largel aasthe the interprelation represent an attempt becomes the somequality quality to aascribe ribe some quality 10 "pu sycat". to the "pussycat". Ihe interpretation clash between theprimary primary la h between between the th primary The interpretationarises ari aas follows. follows. i aa clash interpretation arisesas follows. There There is is cognitive in the the cognilive profilesassociated associatedwith withI ROSS! [80 I and andI PUSSYCATj [pu Y ATI as aasin in cognitive model modelprofiles profiles associated with [Boss] [PUSSYCAT' canonical interpretation describedearlier. earlicr.With Withthe the "bossy interpret"00 ycat" cat"interpretinterprel canonical interpret.ti n described described earlier. With the "bossy canonical interpretation ation, arisesdue dueto tocontext: the speaker their pet at ion. the the difference difference arises ari du to context:the thespeaker peak risiisdescribing describingtheir theirpet pet hence, theutterance utteranceis "about"their their pet pet their boss. Theprinciple principle 00 .The The prin iple hence. utterance i is"about" "aoout" their pet rather rather than than their lheirboss. hence, the given in (pit) (pu) that the litoss! concept treated as the figura[00 Ilexical lexicalconcept conceptisisi treated treatedas a the lhefigurafigura given (pit)ensures ensures that that the the [Boss] ensures tive vehicle. That is, receives an informationalcharacterization characteri,ationthat that loosslreceives r eivesan an informallonal charactemation that vchide. i •!Rossi informational relates not to an adult human in a workplace scenario, but rather any relates an adult adult human human inina aworkplace workplacescenario, scenario. but rather rath r any any relates not not to an organism organism that exhibits that toconstrain andthus thus restrict a th.t serves rve to to constrainand and lhu restrict serves organi,m exhibit behaviour behaviour that given human's freedom in certain respects. This is achieved by conducting .n certain (in (in cerls cepts (in (in the the linguistic system),

303 303

the con eplual system) yslem) also also bear on crucial melhodologicalissue. i ue.That Thai system) alsohears hearson onaaacrucial crucialmethodological methodological issue. That the conceptual predicated on branch of cognitive cogoili .. linguistics Iongul ti known ascognitive cognitivesemantics1 manli Iisis i predicated predi aled on branch of cognitive linguistics knownas as cognitive semantics' Ihe a umplion that Ihal language language can be employed employed 10 onv ligalethe Iheconceptual con eplual can he he employedto toinvestigate investigate the conceptual the assumption ith concepsystem. Langacker for instance, language equated with sy lem. For For Lingacker Langa ker ((1987), (1987). in~lan •language language isjs is equated wilh on epsystem. t987), for structure. In 11131 Iructure. For ForLakoff Lakoff(1987), (0987).language language reflects reflects conceptual conceplual structure. lructure. In tual structure. structure. For Lakoff (1987), language LC( M1 Theory, meansof ofinteracting interactingwith with L Theory. linguistic represenlation provide aa means mean of inleracting wilh LCCM Theory, linguistic linguisticrepresentations representations Ih. conceplual system, yslem. bUI ar equaled Ih m (in (on Ihe sense n of of the conceptual conceptual sstem, hut not with them but are arc nol not equated equated wilh with them (in the the sense Langacker), anddo do not not directly directly reflect them either. This follows as the Langa ker). and not directly reflect reflect them them either. either. This Thi follows follow as a the the Langacker), and do linguistic by lexical concepts schematk, and takes linguislic conlenl encoded by by lexical lexi al concepts con eplsisishighly highlyschematic, schemali •and andtakes lakes linguistic content content encoded encoded attenuated form, form, in shape ofparameterization, parameteri7ation,with sith respect respect tothe the ril.h an allenualed form. in the Ihe shape hape of of paramelerizallon. wllh respecllO Iherich ri h attenuated to conceplual lent encoded by cognitiv. models. L 11.1 Theory po its disencodedby bycognitive cognitivemodels. models.LCCM LCCM Theory posits disconceptual con content tinct structure and conceplual conceptualstructure structure inthe theformation of linct rol for manli structure tructure and tru lure in Ihe ~formation rmalion of of tinct roles roles for semantic semantic conceptual is to he expected that the parameters by conceptions,• hence concepllon hence IIit is I to 10 be beexpected expecledthat Ihalthe Iheparameters paramelers encoded en oded by by conceptions, hence it encoded semantic structure bUI pale reflection reflection of ofconceptual conceplualstructure. IruClure.As Aswe we semantic structure are hut a pale pale reflection conceptual structure. As we semantic structure are but shall see,the thenature natureof ofthe the linguistic content encoded bytemporal temporal lexical hall see. Ihe nalure of Ihe linguistic linguislic content onl nl encoded encodedby lemporallexical Ie ieal see, from the of level concepts con el'l is i~ quile dislincl from Ihe rich rich spatial palial content conlenl provided prOVIded by by the Ih level I vel of concepts is quite quite distinct conceptual associated withconceptual conceptual structure. con eplual metaphors, metaphor. associated a ialed with wilh con eplualstructure. Iructure. Beforeproceeding proceedingwith withthe theLCCM analysis ofTime, lime, II[begin, next two wilh Ihe LL(CNI 11.1 analysis analy is of of Time. begin. in in the Ih.next nexllwo Before begin, two sections byproviding providing some someof of the the context context the study presented in this this lions by by providing Ihe onleXI for for the Ihe study ludy presented presenled in in Ihi sections some the linguistic evidence chapler. The firsl ofthese Ihese two two sections seclion briefly briefly reviews review the Ihe linguistic lingui licevidence evidence chapter. briefly The first firstof these sections held view view that that Time isis asymmetrically structured interms termsof of for Ih widely widely held Ihal Time i asymmetrically a ymmelri ally structured slru lured in in lerms of for the pa e. Th ond section seclion lakes i issue u with wilh Ihe view adopled Lakoffand and Space. The second second sectiontakes takesissue withthe theview viewadopted adoptedby byLakoff Lakoff and Space. The Johnson, basedprimarily primarily on on the the linguistic linguistic evidence, thatTime iimneisis isprimarily primarily lohn n. based Ihe Iingui Ii evidence, eviden e. that Ihal Time primarily Johnson, based primarily on structured little(if (ifany) any) inherent Iru lured in lerm ofmotion mOlionevents, events. and and possesses pos lillie (if any)inherent inherenl structured interms termsof motion events, possesses little structure of its own. Indeed, Indeed, argue that, that, on thecontrary, contrary, an an important important aspect aspect lruclur.ofit Indeed. III argue Ihal. on the Ih conlrary. importalll a peel structure representation of Time Time inherently temporaL2 of our our conceptual conceplual representation represenlation of of Tim.isisi inherently inherenllytemporal. lemporal.>2 The The sububof conceptual sequent section section provides provides an an overview overview of of some someof ofthe thetemporal temporal lexical lexical concepts sequenl provide an of some of Ihe temporal lexi al concepts concepl sequent encoded in English. 1. nglish.The Thefinal finaltwo twosections sections providedetails detailsof ofhow temporal n oded in in English. final IWO -lion provide provide delails of howtemporal lemporal encoded concepts interface with with temporal which strucIlexical ical concept interface temporal cognitive cognilive models, models, which which are arestrucslru concepts interface with models, tured, lured. in part. by virtu of ofconceptual concel'lual metaphors. melaphor . in part, part, by virtue virtue of conceptual

The spatialization spatialization of of Time Time The of Ihe ke key findings III cognitive cognillVe linguistics Iongul II and and cognitive ogmlive psychology I' ychologyisisi One of the findings in in cognitive linguistics and psychology ()ne of that Time. Time, a putatively putatively domain, appears appears torecruit recruit conceptual conceptualstrucstrucIhat putalively abstract abSlract domain, domain. appears to to Iructure from domains of motion and three-dimensional lure from the Ihe more more concrete conuele domains domains of ofmotion mOl ionand andthree-dimensional Ihree-dimen ion.1 ture from the more space.Evidence Evidence for Ihi this recruitment recruitment often of language space. Eviden • for for recrullm nl most mo lofl ari on onthe Ihebasis ba i of oflanguage this most oftennarises arises language 2004b, data Alverson Evans zoo4a,20041', etal. al.2005; Clark 1973; data (e.g., 1954; Bender dala (e.g .• Alverson Alverson1994; '994; Bender Benderet./ 2005;Clark Clark1973; 1973;Isans Evan2004(1, 2oo4a. 200411. 2005;Fauconnier Fauconnier and Turner 200$; Fleischman *982;Gentner (;t'ntmier a!. lOOS; rau onnier .lnd Turner zoo8; 2008; Fleischman Hci ohman 1982; 1982; Jcntn r et ..ti, al. (II. zooz; 1002; and 2001; zoos; Ljkoff and 1990, Lakoff and Johnson 148o, 1999; 1993; Moore20(H), 2000, (rady 1997; Lakoff 1990, Grady '997; Lakofl andJohnson John~n*980, 1980.1999; 1999; [*kofl 1990.1993; '993; Moore Moore 2000. -' Rt'\..l1J the:In (I h.apta h.apc('r .\. the tI. u ..n rn that . :: l Iell:::;11:. t , +Ii i-II L 1 :n 1 11 iistimed by mun' inoir rnrnt rctrnl ss. i'n the the ie naniks arnc fh" It'' P'"ltl,.n. UkIJ.ll, .. lh, ttutlt .1,,0 uma.! by ,"",urk on 'lR the-...vaunt It'nl.lnlk. (IfI IIme:' m is also also Asuitricd In' more retent work ics01 .i pisitIOn. ta llp4 ")1 : eitu ihiz cATime Thu mCtaphl)r iradstuin(e.p... \Ioore .lIM)fl the con‘c-ptuAl tr.adlitiort Within the:U'lfktpt~ metAphot mn.arho)r tr..J.hun (~.8-0 Nioore M'M'''-'' ). 204161. within the 'I

J

04

FI(,UKATIVF LAN(,UAGE 1 FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE ANt) AND TIIO(.'(.H THOUGHT

kadden 2003; .moj; Traugott Traug( 41 Nüñcz and and Sweetser Sweetser2oo6; zooô;Shinohara Shinohara 1999; Radden zoo6; Nunez as exemplified exemplified by by the the following: tollowing: Yu Zinken forthcoming), forthcoming), as Vu 1998;Zinken Saturday onSaturday arrivedon She 1) a.a. She arrived h. aa short time short time b. Christmas is is approaching approaching c. Christmas c.

underlined. Indeed, while Time often has are underlined. The putative putative spatial has The spatial Words words arc Indeed, while Time often spatial ideas ideasascribed ascribedtotoit—and it—andwe wemay mayfind findititdifficult difficultto toconceptualize conceptualiic spatial to spatial patial notions—the lendsnot not and lexicalize lexicaliic Time Time without without recourse to and notions—the reverse reverse tends the case. case.That 1'hatisis,we weare arefar tarless less inclinedtotoinvoke invoketemporal temporalnotions notionsto to be the to be inclined understand Space. In other other words, words, the the structuring structuring of is understand Space. In of Time Time in in terms terms of of Space Space is asymmetric. asymmetric.) A of the the asymmetric asymmetricstructuring structuringof ofTime Timeinin A particularly particularly influential influentialaccount account of terms of of Space Spaceisisthat thatprovided providedby byConceptual (onceptualMetaphor MetaphorTheory Theory(e.g., (e.g.,Lakoff Ltkoff Moreover, recent reLent behavioural behavioural studies studieshave haveprovided provided and Johnson 1980, 1999). Moreover, empirical evidence for the the psychological psychologicalreality reality of of conceptual conceptualmetaphors metaphorsfor for empirical evidence for Time: the position position that that space spaceisisindeed indeedrecruited recruitedto tostructure structure time time in in asymmetric asymmetric lime: the (kntner etel a!. looz; Nunez fashion (e.g., Boroditsky liorodit sky 2000; Nüñe, et a aL 2006). More 2000; Gentner tashion (e.g., recently, it has additionally been beenestablished esttblishedthat thatthis thisrecruitment recruitmentisisinvoluntary involuntary has additionally (Casasanto and Boroditsky l3oroditsky ioo8). iooS).Further Further converging converging evidence evidencefor for the the concepconcep(Casasanto and tual from gestural tual metaphor metaphoraccount account conies comes from gestural studies studies (e.g. (e.g., NuAei Nunezand andSweetser Sweetser 2006) and from from signed languages (e.g., (e.g.,Engberg-Pederson Engberg-Pederson1993). '993). 2006) and signed languages

for the asymmetric structuring structuring of of the the Various reason reasonshave havebeen been1posited for the asymmetric domain ofTime lime in in terms ofofSpace. Sp1ice.Some Somescholars scholarshave haveargued arguedfor forshared shared domain of neurological For instance, Walsh (2003) (2003) argues arguesthat that aacommon common neurological resources. resources. For instance, Walsh magnitude underpins spatial spatial and and temporal temporal processing. processing.While Whileaadrawdrawmagnitude system system underpins back Walsh's account account is is that that itit fails fails to to account account for for the the asymmetric asymmetric strucstrucback of of Walsh's turing other accounts Ju.oufltS have haveargued, argued,ininvarious variousways, turingof ofTime Timein interms termsof ofSpace, Space, other that to structure structure Timc Time is is aa consequence consequenceofofexaptaexaptathat the the recruitment recruitment of of Space Space to lion: for new new lion: the the re-usc, re-use, in in evolutionary evolutionary terms, terms, of of pre-existing pre-existing mechanisms mechanisms for purposes. different accounts have been been argued argued for for purposes. Somewhat Somewhat different accounts along along these these lines lines have by, the discussion discussion by, for forexample, example,lackendotT(1983) lackendoff (1983)and and(YKeefe O'Keefe(1996). (1996).1see See also also the in in Casasanto (forthcoming). (forthcoming). The explanation provided provided by Metaphor Theory the The explanation by Conceptual Conceptual Metaphor Theory emphasizes emphasizes the role rather than than an an evolutionary evolutionary role of of embodiment embodiment in in ontogenctic ontogenetic development, development, rather motivation. by the theground-breaking ground breaking motivation.Lakoff Lakoffand andJohnson Johnson(1999), (1999), influenced by It islos 14141114. ions in son'wtimes spatial in the to exprc..., pawl n notion. In terms term, 01 44 tcniporal tenTotrl idc.as, as 111114r1 possibk 11 ► •Alble to the following .y.111 hangr r KhanKtA.1. 1Now low far r iso lianNer trom 4 )ndon? I ILondon It. hours by trim. train. K Thrte Italf hours 'Three and and a4A half

strucluring&5 fiat Is. oh,,.voloi•trot symnictri5 Yet. ihr llowcvcr. llw tact fatt that that is. the thr %inkhorns I. not 11 41 ► 41UttlVe. That is by by no nomeans nicaos priidutiivr. I 10WeVe this this is to structure iiruOurr Spate agaaiisi posItKsn lime argue. Agrinsithe 1114• positionthat that the au- sirutturing mtut Wrong is i. unidirri unidirecrime eafl can tie he deployed to Spaceargue' the rrIrtionship relstionilup appears awnonetrit tional. tobe beasymmetric. Appearsto tional. !fence, the

THE SEMANTICS OfUI LIME TIME Till sFSIANTICS

305 305

work of ofGraclv Grady (1997), argue that conceptual metaphors arise as as an 1ininevitable inevitable consequence consequenceofofhumans humansacting actingininthe theworld, world,such suchthat thattight tightcorrelations correlationsin in pre-linguistic experience pre-linguistic experience serve serveto toestablish establishconnections connectionsbetween betweenconcepts conceptsthat that have,what whatGrady Grady refers have refers to to as, as, image content, i.e., source concepts, concepts, and and those those concepts which which have have response responsecontent, content, i.e., i.e.,target concepts targetconcepts. concepts.Grady Grady posits posits what he he terms terms primary primary scenes: what scenes: recurrent recurrenthumanly humanlyrelevant relevantscenarios scenariosinin which the relevant relevant experiences experiences co-occur. These Theseprimary primary scenes, scents, he heargues, argues, facilitate the establishment establishment of of conceptual conceptualmetaphors metaphors(see facilitate Grady and Johnson (see (rad and Johnson 2000). 4 Lakoff 2ooo).4 Lakoft and and Johnson Johnson (1999) couch Grady's notion of experiential couch (.radv's notion of experiential correlation and primary in neurological terms. correlation primaryscenes scenes in terms.Lakoff Lakoff (personal (personal comcommunication) argues, argues,for for instance, instance,that thatthe theconsequence ofof tight consequence tightand andrecurring recurring correlations in correlations inexperience experience types. types, gives gives rise to the the notion notion of of Hebbian Hebhianneuroncurological learning: learning: "what 'what tires wires together." together." logical fires together together wires

The temporal temporal nature nature of of Time Time l)espite the success of Conceptual Metaphor Despite success of Metaphor Theory Theory in in highlighting highlighting the the .Isymmetr asymmetric structuring structuringofofdomains domainssuch suchas as Time Time in interms termsof ofSpace Space, one one of of the consequences, has been been to neglect the study of the consequences,and and II argue, drawbacks, drawbacks, has of the inherent temporal structure that that is is part part and and parcel of our conceptual system our system TimesPart for lime.' Partofofthe thereason reasonfor forthis thishas has been been that l.akoff Lakoffand and Johnson Johnson have, have, for the the most most part, part,successfully successfully focused focused the study of of Time Time on for on the the nature nature of of spatial structure that is recruited. Indeed, Indeed, they theyhave haveexplicitly explicitlyargued arguedthat thatvery very little little of of our our understanding understanding of Time is suggest, in is purely purely temporal. temporal. They Thtv suggest, in fact, fact, that most of our our understanding understanding of of time time isisaametaphorical metaphoricalversion versionof ofour our motion in in space. space. The understanding of motion The premise premisefrom from which which the the Lakoff Lakoff and eeds is that that we Johnson account of Time Time prot proceeds even we cannot cannot observe observetime, time, ifif it it even exists as as aathing thing unto unto itself. itself. Rather, what can can be be observed observedare are events eventsof ofvarious various including motion motionevents events such as objects in motion. Moreover, kinds, including events as ohpects in motion. \loreover, events can be compared. Hence, I lcnce, for for Lakoff andJohnson Johnson our our conceptualii4ition conceptualization of I goft and 'lime is of events. Time is grounded in our direct direct experience experience of events.That That is, Is, the the properties properties associated with in terms associated with Time Time arise arise from from understanding Time in terms of of events events which, unlike Time, are are directly directly perceived. perceived.InInparticular: particular: Timeisisdirectional directionaland andirreversible, irreversible,because because events events are. • Time are. In In other words, words, events cannot events annot "unhappen." Timeisisongoing ongoingbecause because events events are experienced as • Time as being being ongoing. ongoing. • 'fime as having having beginnings beginnings and and Timejsisdivisible divisiblebecause becausewe weperceive perceive events events as enti end points. Timecan canbe bemeasured measuredbecause because instances instances of event types can be • Time be counted. counted.

• 5

See Moorcs Moores (1oo4 I related relatednotion notoott4olaatin)undrng ttttt sittingSscnario. %tenni° concept of the telniertual For For aa critique t't metaphor tnetaishobr atproat h to to Tinir I unt- see seehans EvansI (lo ► aa). approach

306

;oô -

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT AND TIIO GifT LA G AGE ANI)THOU(dIl. FIGUR ATIVE1AN(;UAGE 11(1!RATIVE

I1111:. HI SEMANI ICSS01 or TI if LMAN TI(

THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

-

Nevertheless, while it is incontrovertible that that structure fromnonnonnlln (rom rulled from rrecruited trullu r recruited III ontm vertib le that structure incontrovertible whil it11, heleM, while 'evert is temporal domains, such as Space,~form part of the conceptual content contenl con eptua l content the conceptual ofthe part of rm part pace, form a Space1 u h as oral dom ain, such temp encoded domains, by temporal cognitive models, itit iis increasingly clear that a signifitemporal ign,lithataasignifi d ar that onerea ingly clear cognitlV mode l. it is increasingly oral cognitiVe temp by ed encod temporal ncoded liv cant portion of conceptual structureinin Ih the doma domain of Time is inherently inherently lime isi inherently o( Time in of tructu re in the domain of con eplua l structule porti on canl of pw temporal, rather than spatial. In particular,there thereare are two twogeneral general criticisms cant i m crilic parti ular, there are two g n raI criticisms In particular1 than pahal. In r than rathe ral. Irmpo temporaL rather that can be levelled against the perspective that Time is primarily (or solely) solely ) (orsolely) primarily(or Timeis,s primarily Ihal Time pers" ",ti, that Ihe perspective again I the I.. elled against be levelled that can be constituted of non-temporal content, what I will dub the Time-is-Space that lime-Is-Space ime-I - pa e th T dub the will dub what I I will onlen t, what non .lemporal content, of non-temporal IItuted of ,on constitUtCd perspective. These relate to the following two is issues, which outline here here outlin here h III outline u ,whi which two following two the following to the issues, relate to Th perspective. These relate perspective. and elaborate on further below:

below: (urth rbelow: on further elaborale on and elaborate and Structure Issue: • The Inherent 1lI/,.r rlll SlruC llIrt 1 ur:

nit Issur. Inherent •• The Lakoff and Johnson (e.g., 1999) sometimes sometimes appear to assume Ihat assume that a um that 10 r to appea t,m appear 1999) 'i(,mc and lohn

(e.g.•

LakofTt and Johnson (e.g., L.akof Time has limited, if any, inherent structure ofits itsoWfl. own. On On this TimeTi ml' thi. Time On this own. it!. of truelu re of inh rent structure any, inherent ifany, d, limite ha Time limited1 if Time has account, the function of conceptual metaphor Is-Space is to structure truet ure to structure i to meta phor is con eptual metaphor funetion of the function coun l. the I ·Spa e aaccount, of conceptual Is-Space the target domain, Time, in terms of structure derived from the source p Space . ·1 Tim perspective that The Time IsSp.Ke The to entire domains: Space and Time..The difficulty here is that this leads lead this leads i Ihal here is ulty here difficulty that Ih, in: Space and andTime lime. The I'he diffic nllre doma to to entire domains: to the position that Time, and indeed intern Terentiatedinternundifferentiated intern-undif areundifferentiated I' e,are indeedSpace, . and Time ion thaI poSit the to that Time, and indeed to the position ally homogenous bodies of knowledge—a 100ft by byMoore Moore mad by .Isomade malso criticism also made critici acriticism knowl dg of genoll bodi homo ally of knowledge——a ally homogenous bodies (e.g., 2oo6) in his analysis of space-to-time metaphors. tapho r;. metaphors. naly t; of hi••analysis .• 2006) (e.g of 'I" e· tll-t,m e m ioo6) in his (e.g., i. The inherent structure issue u struc ture iissue inh rent structure Th are i.i. The inherent There two objections that can and have of viewofof at lied at It", levelled atthe theview View bttn levelled have been and have been ()b)eclion Ih.t two re ar Th that ,an and [here are two objections inherent structure for Time, often Lakoff The The lohl1>on.The and Tand uted toto Lakoff andJohnson. Johnson. attrib nattributed , oft Time truetu re (or often attributed to Lakof ent structure inher inherent for Time, first relates to the kind of generalalcriticism presented in Murphy (1996). ). (1996). hy ('996 nted inin Murp presented Murphy rilici m pr gener criticism kind of 10 Ii", of general first relal relates to Ih the Murphy argues such as Time have little or no thatkind if abstract domains no havehili little or or no , TIIl,e ""h"as in such domains Time h.ve ab tract dom. s thaI hy .rgue Murp Murphy argues that ifif abstract inherent structure of their own, thereby requiring conceptual projection ction cptua l proje conceptual projection ring con by requi own. Ihere thereby requiring lruet ur. o( Iheir renl structure inh inherent their own, from source domains of to provide structure, then it is not clear what motivates at motivates n itit iis nol not clear clear what what l110liv IrU(lUrc. th de structure, lin to provide then mru."cJnmo from from source dot to prOVi the projection innains the first place. That is, it is not clear what motivates the the m()lIvatt'" the ar wh.lI ", not dclear what motivates _ Th., it is nol Ii", llOn III first pla,e place. [hat iis,•such Ih the pro)ec projection in Ihe the structuring of Time in terms ofo(domains as Motion and Space rather r Sp.,. rathe rather n and uolita d inon place placed a adarkened, and would stimuli they are exposed to,hence would 10, ed expos are of sensory Ihey i timul n'>t elapseof of tim. time. ThaI That iis. we hav 10 nevertheless stillperceive perceive theelapse eJap the Ve the perceI "ill theless still never nevertheless of time. That is, we do not have to first experience time— contra conceptualiie and Ihu thus cxpc: onlra tll11 ricn(ctime—contra inorder orderto10 toconceptualize ancJ pluJlilCand (on\;c eventsin urder in evenh ive events pcr\;cetve perceive thusthere experience of neuroare a range perspective. Indeed, the fact Ihere arc. range of neum Ihe d.the Indee '\:lIve. Indeed, per;pt the lime-h · Is Spa, perspective. Time the the Time-Is-Space fact there arc a range neurobe centrall of whi which appear toofbe cenlra to for prikessing time, some r appea h of some lim. ong prtX (or logical mechanisms mha ", m for processing time, some of which appear logicalmechanisms logical to be central perception of events that ralh rather thdn than Ihc the pcr(c evcnt\ plion uf ingeneral. general. Ih.lt usgc t that al.suggests genn pcr\;eplinninin forperception for for rather rthan the perception of events

08

being the precursorof oftemporal temporal experience, temporal temporal experience experience is necessary in order to perceive events in the first place. in order to perceive events in the first place. A range of behavioural studies conducted by psvi.hologists psychologists reveal reveal that that time time A range of behavioural studies conducted by is directly experienced by human subjects,and and moreover, moreover, the nature of our is directly experienced by human subjects. experience of time is often independent of of the the nature of events events in in question. question. nature of experience of time is often independent is For instance, Ornstein (119691/1997) foundthat that our our perception perception of duration duration is lor instance, ()rnstein (119(i9111997) found particularly corna function of stimulus complexity, while with a a particularly comwhile familiarity familiarity with a function of stimulus and plex stimulus array can impact on on our our perception perception of of duration. duration. Zachay and pkx stimUlUS array can Block (1997)found found that that temporal temporal perception perception was was influenced by by how how interestinterestthat ing subjects found a particular activity to he, while Flaherty (1999) found that ing subjects found a particular activity to be, while Flaherty perception of duration is a function of how much we attend to a particular perception of duration is a function of how much we attend to a particular stimulus array, and how familiar with particular activitiesand andevents events we we are. (liar activities stimulus array1 and how t.imiliar with In short, a range of studies reveal that our experience of of duration, duration, rather rather than than In short, a range of studies reveal tILLI our experience Time-Is-Space being a function of event comparison, asassumed assumedby bythe theTime-Is-Space being a function of event comparisonsas perspective, is is aa consequenc consequence of evaluations of stimuli stimuli types, types, of subjective subjective evaluations and of how we process particular types of stimuli on particular occasions. and of how we process particular types of stimuli on particular temporal Evidence of this sort sort makes makes a a persuasive persuasivecase casefor forthinking thinking that that temporal Evidence of this subjectexperience is rather than external in in origin, origins constituting constituting aasubjectexperience is internal internal rather themselves, ively-drivenresponse response to to events, events, rather events themselves, rather than emerging from from events ively-driven an abstract mental achievement. an abstract mental achievement. magnitude Other research research reveals reveals that thatthe the human human ability ability to to judge judge temporal magnitude Other function of mechanisms, and varies varies in in (i.e., duration) of physiological physiological mechanisms, (i.e., duration) isis aj function predictable ways. ways. IFor instance, vital functions functions are accelerated,for forinstance instance instane, ifif vital areaccelerated, predictable amphetamines, this by thisresults results suchas asamphetamines, or stimulants stimulantssuch by the the consumption consumption of of coffee or in Fraisse 1963). protractedduration duration 1963).This This isis known known as as protracted in overestimation overestimation of ot time time ((Fraissc subjects and phenomenologicallvreal realexperience experiencewhereby wherebysubjects and constitutes constitutes the the phenomenologically theperperperceive as being beingof ofgreater greatermagnitude: magnitude: the perceive standard standard units units of of duration duration as ception "slowly" than usual and and hence hencethere thereisis ception that that time time is is proceeding proceedingmore more"slowly" more whenthe thebody bodytemperatemperaOverestimation of of duration duration also also occurs occurswhen more of of it. it. Overestimation and (see Wearden \Vardcn and ture whensuffering sufferingfrom from fever (ever (see ture is is raised, raised, for (or instance instance when Penton-Voak for a a review). oxideand andother other anaesanaesreview),In in contrast, ontrast, nitrous nitrous oxide Penton-Voak 1995 for thetic havethe theopposite opposite slowdown downthe thebody's body'svital vital functions functions have gaseswhich which slow theti gases effect, thephenomenologically phenomenologkallyreal real effect,giving givingrise riseto toan anunderestimation underestimationof oftime, time,the experience .° Raddeley temporalcompression compression.' Raddeley experiencethat thatthere thereisisless lesstime, time,known knownasastemporal risetotoan an (1966) lowtemperatures temperatures also alsogives givesrise (1966)showed showedthat thatexposing exposingthe thebody bodytotolow underestimation underestimation of of time.' time.7

being the

" The notions of protracted duration and temporal introduced the were inirodutcdearlier inmthe duration md temporalcompression were of • The for instance. hook—recall the discussion inint Chapter . hapter 7. , tor the biiok—rra11 &thieved by exposing scuba divers to to old water diversestimated estimatedtime timebyby C The Thedivert ' 'this WAS water14t4l'1. Ibis was achieved by exposing suba rate oft numeral per second. The Count ing took i numeral per icti,nd. ihe countingtook ounting from t to t.tio the rate iii whatthey theypresumed presumedtotohebethe ountiflg trim I to Atatwhat ediately following the dive onte the divers' body temperatures had been been had the dive once the diveri' body temperaturel ► place before the dive. and im 1Li4.c before the dive, and mnunediatetv towered.

lowered

I

IKE SIMAN1 1(15 OF TIME THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

LANGUAGEANI) ANDTHOUGHT THOUGHT I FIGURATIVE I(.( RATIVE LAP4Gt'A(l

309

309

ii.ii. The Thecomplexity complexityissue: issue:

As Aswith withthe theinherent inherentstructure structureissue, issue,there thereare aretwo two objections objections that thatcan can be be first levelled against the view of Time as an undifferentiated domain. The levelled against the view of Time as an undifferentiated domain. The first holds is highly highly differentiated. differentiated. That i'hat is. holds that that temporal temporal experience experience is is, itit is is tar far more more complex than Lakoft and Johnson appear to acknowledge. For instance, complex than Lakoff and Johnson appear to acknowledge. For instance, experiences." Poppel haspointed pointedto towhat whathe heterms terms"elementary "elementarytime timeexperiences." Poppel (1978) (1978) has

There Ihese constitute distinct yet of temporal temporal experience. These constitute distinct yet fundamental fundamental types types of experience. There point to, to, all all of of which which are areaa number numberof ofelementary elementary time time experienes experiences that that we we can can point are are fundamental fundamentalto toaarange range of of human human behaviours, behaviours, including including perception perception and and sUcCsslUl (inter action in the world. These include: (i) the ability to successful ( inter)action in the world. These include: (i) the ability to perceive the ability ability to to perceive perceivesimultaneity, simultaneity.(iii) (iii) the theability ability an of duration, duration, (ii) (ii) the an elapse elapse of in), to simultaneity, (iv) to perceive perceive nonnon-simultaneity, (iv) the the ability abilityto toperceive perceiveorder order(or (orsticcessii succession). past and and present, present, and and (vi) (v) (v) past (vi) cli.inge. change. encodes temtemThe second objection relates to the the way way in in which The second objection relates to which language language encodes of aa single single poral in previous on aa detailed detailedexamination examinationof poral experience. experience. In previous work work based based on of distinct distinct language, II found found that that there range of vehicle, time, in in aa single single language, there are are a a range the discussion discussionof of time temporal temporallexical lexicalconcepts concepts(Evans (Evans 2oo4a)—see also also the time in in and language Chapter 7 and below. Thus, both phcnomenological experience Chapter 7 and below. Thus, both phenomenological experience and language differentiated domain domain (or (or domains), domains), more more suggest that Time Time is is aa highly highly differentiated suggest that internally by Lakoff Lakoff and internally complex complex than than allowed allowed by and Johnson. Johnson. hasdeveloped developedaarevised revised In In more more recent recent work, work, Kevin KevinMoore Moore(zooo, ( zoo°, 2006) 2oo6) has criticisms. conceptual metaphor metaphor account exactly these these criticisms. conceptual account of of Time Time 1w by addressing addressing exactly Firstly.he heassumes assumesthat that Moore (2006) makesthe thefollowing following two two assumptions. assumptions.Firstly, Moore (2oo6) makes metaphorsthat thatserve servetoto Time has inherent structure structure independently independently of of the the metaphors Time has inherent analv singspace-to-time spa c ti-time mappings, mappings, we we structure it. he posits posits that, that, in in analysing structure it. Secondly, Secondly, he and homogenous homogenous domains domains such such as as Space Spaceand and are not not dealing dealing with with distinct distinct and are generalassumpassunipTime, but hut with with a complex array array of of experience experiencetypes. types.Moore's Mooresgeneral Time, a complex adoptedhere. here. tions are are consonant consonantwith with the the ones onesbeing beingadopted tions

Conceptual metaphors metaphors for for time time in in LCCM LCCMTheory: Theory:aafirst first look Conceptual look metaphor in I((N In view view of of the the above, above, what what then then is is the the status statusof ofconceptual conceptualmetaphor In in LCCM cognitive Theory? Conceptual Conceptual metaphors metaphorsprovide provide aameans meansofofstructuring structuring cognitive Theory?

modelsin interms termsof ofstructure structure recruited recruited from trt)m cognitive cognitive models modelsassociated .Issot iated models [hat is, is,conceptual conceptualmetaphors metaphorsserve servetoto with other other domains domainsofofexperience. That with cognitive provide one oneof of(probably) (probably) many mans types typesof oflinks linkswhich which connect connectcognitive provide provide models,allowing allowingthem themtotoinherit inheritstructure. structure.Conceptual Conceptualmetaphors metaphorsprovide models, stable,long-term long-termlinks linkswhich whichallow allowthe theautomatic automaticand andunconscious unconscious recruitstable, recruitpart, mentof ofstructure structure in in asymmetric asymmetric fashion. fashion. They They serve servetotostructure, structure,ininpart, ment within attributes and andvalues, values,providing providingmassive massiveredundancy redundanyacross .iross concepts attributes concepts within linksare are theconceptual conceptualsystem. system.Conceptual (onceptualmetaphors metaphorsarise arisewhen whenstable stablelinks the sencorim' establishedbetween betweencognitive cogndivemodels niodelsencoding encodingexperience experiencethat thatisissensorimoestablished cineptual content that is torin in nature, nature,and and cognitive cognitivemodels modelswhich whichencode en odeconceptual tor content that is the subjectiveininnature. nature.InInterms termsofotthe thesemantics semanticsofo(Timc thisamounts amountsto tothe subjective Time this representation following.Much Much of of the the structure structure associated withtemporal temporalrepresentation isis following. associated with

310

-

1 IlL si MANTI(S 01 TIME

1l(t'RATIVI I AN(L'AGE

311

THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

THOUGHT

inherently temporal. However, conceptualmetaphors metaphors facilitate facilitatethe the recruitrecruittemporal. l-Iowever, inherentlY ment of structure from cognitive modelsderived derivedfrom fromthe thedomain domainofofSpace. Space. cognitive models structure from ment of Nevertheless, this structure is but one way inwhich whichtemporal temporalknowledge knowledgeisis this structure is hut ofle way in organized and understood. understood. organized and I return to the relationship between conceptualmetaphors metaphorsand andknowledge knowledge the relationship between I return to representation later in the chapter once we have have discussed discussed temporal lexical temporal lexical later in the chapter once we ,oncepts in more detail.

concepts ifl more detail.

lexical .oncept—which sanctions expresThe Thesymbolic symbolicunit—vehicle unit—vehicleand and lexical concept—which sanctions expresSbuS sionssuch suchasasthose thoseinin (2)isisprovided providedinin(3): (3): "PREP (3) a.a. vehicle vehicle "PREPNP" NP" Ix SITL'Al It) Willi KFSPI( 1 II) TISIE I'ERIOI)I b.b.lexical concept lexical concept (x SITUATED WI Ili RESPECT TO TIME PERIOD( (3h) CIK odes a highly schematic temporal relation, The Thelexical lexicalconcept conceptglossed glossedinin (3b) encodes a highly schematic temporal relation, such as an event, glossed as X, occurs with respect to ininwhich whichaaparticular particularentity entity such as an event, glossed as X, occurs with respect to by the expression in (3): aaparticular particulartime timeperiods period,as asexemplified exemplified by the expression in (3):

Temporal lexical concepts

Temporal lexical concepts

(4)

now turn to an overview of some of the main types of temporal temporal lexical lexical Of SOfl1C of the main types of Iconcepts. flOW turnI illustrate to .tfl with examples from English. The challenge for future examples from Fnglish. 11w challenge for future illustrate with I concepts. research is to identify the nature and range of of the the temporal temporal lexical lexical concepts concepts the nature and range research is to identify for other languages. Indeed, preliminaryfindings findingssuggest suggest that that the range range of of Indeed, preliminary for other languages. lexical concepts available to a language such such as quite as English English may may vary vary quite available to a language lexkal concepts suggest that the methodology c onsiderably in other languages.' II suggest for identiidentithat the methodologyfor considerably in other fying lexical concepts, introduced earlier in the book, may provide a systemintroduced earlier in the book, may provide a systemfying lexical .oncepts, atic and insightful way of cataloguing the within and and the range range of of lexical lexical concepts concepts within

atic andspecific insightful way of in a range of domains including Time. across languages specific languages in a range of domains including Time. The overview below is meant to be illustrative rather than exhaustive. is meant to be illustrative rather than exhaustive. The overvieW below I divide the discussion into the following types of lexical concepts: into the following types of lcxkal concepts:

I divide the disussion

• Lexical concepts for temporal relations .oncepts for temporal relations •• Lexical Lexical concepts that encode aspect that encode aspett Icxkal concepts •• Nominal lexical concepts lexical concepts reference (TFoRs) •• \ominal Lexical concepts that encode temporal frames of of reference (TFoRs)

• I c\ica) concepts that encode temporal frames

311

The Theexam exam took tookplace place in in March March

is internally open, and in (.i) is integrated with The Thelexical lexical conceptin in (3b) is internally open, and in (4) is integrated with lexical concepts which are The internally internallyclosed closedlexical lexical concepts. The specific lexical concepts which are lexical concept selection, as described integrated integrated are are derived derived by by virtue virtueot of lexical concept selection, as described in Chapter ii. For instance, there are a great many lexical concepts conven-

in Chapter it. For instance, there are a great many lexical concepts conveninclude a spatial kxk.tI contionally tionally associated with with the the vehicle vehicle in. in. l'bese These include a spatial lexical condescribed of "state" lexical concepts the range cept cept such such as as (ENCLOSURE', the range of "state" lexical concepts described "temporal lexical concepts1 evidenced distinct "temporal" in in (:hapter Chapter 8, and and several several distinct lexical concepts, evidenced in (5): in (5):

(s) (5)

completedthe theexam examininMarch March a. Hecompleted a. He

in one hour b. He b. He completed completed the the exam exam in one hour in one hour I-Ic will will take c. He c. take the the exam exam in one hour

(PIkIOD OF TEMPORAL ENCLOSURE 10k xl

(PERIOD OF TEMPORAL ENCLOSURE FOR XI

I PERIOD OF CON I INLOUS

(PERIOD OF CONTINUOUS

01 xl

DURATION OF X1

IPERIOD AFTER

(PERIOD AFTER WHICH

X (XCURSI

X OCCURS(

associated with in is in

Lexical concepts for temporal relations Lexical concepts for temporal relations One way in which temporal experience is encoded in language relates to temporal experience is encoded in language relates to One way in which closed-class lexical concepts that encode what I I will refer to as temporal that encode what will refer to is temporal closed-class lexical concepts relations. In a language such as English, these asso.-i.ttcd theselexical lexicalconcepts conceptsare areassociated relations. In a language such as with an adverbial vehicle introduced, typically, by theexexbyprepositions, prepositions1as asthe introduced, with .in adverbial vehicle amples below illustrate. amples below illustrate. (z) a. in March in Saturday March (2) b..t. on on2 Saturday pm c.b. at c. at forfor Time in in • Findings presented in Silva Sirihr a al. (forthcoming, on the temporal representation Time representation %snh.a et aL (forthcoming) (in tb klnporal ► minity of around 'so speakers • Findinp ► ndawa languagein the Am until relatively recently An isolated sim tommunity of around I%O %pcak(Plin in .ifl from r i the Amondjwa Ammonia provides evidence until of a Language which encodes lime in a startlingly different way from differentway tune in a whkh cvidcntc Ill a Anwoni.i —provides language such as English. ‘1 he challenge that awaits linguists is to describe the semantics ofof Time in in lime that assails linguists is to describe tb. as .English. st ud ie d The languages of th e world whic h. at present. virtually nothing mime of the %uih less well is is known. langu.tge known. nothing

sonw of the kis well- i;udicd Languagesi'f

the world about which, at present. virtually

examplesaadistinct distinctlexical kxkal concept conceptassociated with in is in In each each of of these these examples, In (PERIOD OF TEMPORAL thelexical lexicalconcept conceptglossed glossed as evidence. In In (5a) the evidence, as (PERIOD OF TEMPORAL temporal relation between a particular event, xl mediates I Ni tostRi fOR ENCLOSURE FOR XI mediates aa temporal relation between a particular event, which the event oftime, time,March, March, at at some somepoint pointininwhich theexam, exam,and andthe theperiod periodof the the event gloss as LPERIOD OF the lexical concept I occurs. In In (5h), the lexical concept I gloss as (PERIOD OF CONTINUOUS occurs. between a particular event, mediatesaatemporal temporalrelation relationbetween InRAIION OF OFX1xl mediates DURATION a particular event,in continues. Finally, period for which the exam theexam, exam,and andthe thetemporal temporalperiod for which the exam continues. Finally, in the IPERIOD AFrER wInCH x o:cuRsl mediates a tem(ic), the thelexical lexical concept concept (5c), (PERIOD AFTER WHICH X OCCURS' mediates a temthe exam, and the period after which the poralrelation relation between between an an event, event, the poral exam, and the period after which the conceptions associated with the In other words, the distinctconceptions exam takes place. exam takes place. In other words, the distinct associated with the in part, of distinct lexical concepts for in utterances in (s) are a consequence1 utterances in (5) are a consequence, in part. of distinct lexical concepts for in position to see that the conception which beingselected. selected.We Weare arealso alsonow nowinina aposition being to see that the conception which is a conseqilelKe of the (ii- Riot) OF of the utterance in arises as a result arises as a result of the utterance in (4) is a consequence of the (PERIOD OF FOR being selected and integrated with the TEMPORALENCLOSURE EN' I I)S(JRIFOR TEMPORAL xl xJ forforininbeing selected and integrated with the lexicalconcept conceptgiven given internallyopen openlexical internally inin (3h).

____ liii sIMANI l(S OF I IME 112 312

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

FIGURA TIV£ LANGUACE FIGURATIVE

AN!) IUOL(.H1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

AN~D!..!.T~II~O~U~G~II:..:T

Lexical concepts that encode aspect Lexical concepts concepu that encode encode aspect Lexical Another way in which temporal experience getsencoded encoded interms terms oflinguistic linguistic Anolher way 10 which experience gets gets encoded in in term of of lingUlsti which temporal expencnce way in Another linguistic phenomena often referred referredto, to,variously, variously, content relates to the range oflinguistic content relates tic phenomena often referred to. variously. of relates to to the the range oflingm as aspect. In general terms, aspect relates tothe thehighly highly schematicencoding encoding ofthe the a aspect. In general aspeet relates to highly schcrnatk hematic n oding of of the terms, aspect general terms. aspect. In distribution of action through time. Nevertheless, aspectisisnot not ahomogenous homogenous aspect di'tribution of action a tion through time. tim.. Ncverthckss. 'e,erthel a peet i not aa homogenou distribution ('if category, and even an individual language (such as as Lnglish English,for for instance),has has language ((such category. and even an individual language uch as l.ngli,h. for instance), in lance). has and even an individual a range of ways in which aspectual phenomena areencoded.. encoded.Two Two examplesof of way in which aspeetual arc encoded. Two examples of aa range range of aspectual phenomena are ot ways aspectual categories encoded by English are given below: below: are given encoded by English a'llCClual Engli h are given below: aspect ual categori .ncoded Category: Boundedness

Category: Boundedn Boundedness Category: 6) a. He is drinking the beer [UNBOUNDED EVENT) EVENT] IUNDOU ORO EVENTI I i'NKOtNI)II) is drinking the beer He i drinking a.b.He (6) a. He has drunk the beer [BOUNDED EVENT) (80uN11 I) I-Vt NI EVENTI b. ha drunk the the beer beer IBOliNOW lie has b. lie These examples relate, respectively, to what is traditionally referred to as

traditionally referred referred to to as respectively,toto what what is These examples relat • respectively. i traditionally a examples relate, These imperfective aspect (6a) and perfective aspect (6b). What What II gloss as the the gloss as and perfective imperfeCC(ueneedearlier Ihan another. anolher. That Thai is, i ,there thereisis i one temporal event isI sequenced sequenced earlierthan which 1, whkh is prior as oneevent, evenl,event evenl E, L. which whi(.h ~lucnu"dprior priorto toaaasecond set:ondevent, evenl,which whichserves rYesas ~ which serves event, isi~sequenced sequenced to second event, one Nlureiser, is the relation is one of being earlier, the the reference reference point polOl (RP). Moreover, Moreover, as as the th~ relation relation isisone oneofofbeing beingearlier, earlier,the th~ reference point (RP). (1(P). the

__________________

Till. SIMANTICS OFT IMF. THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT FIGURATIVE 1.AN(.tAGI AND I IIOL (jilT

320

321

321

PP PP

perspective point (PP) is fixed event. Hence, this TFoR TFo lexical at the the earlier earlier event. Hence, this perspective point (PP) fIxed at concept encodes what I refer to as a prospective relation. It says nothing concept encodes what I refer to as a prospective relation. It says aboutthe thenature natureof ofthe the temporal temporal event event ininquestion, question,nor norabout aboutthe theaegrev degree of about two events temporalproximity proximityofofthe thetwo events nor norabout aboutphenomenologkal phenomenologicalaspects aspects of temporal temporalexperience. experience. In In short, short, the the content content encoded encoded is islinguistic linguistic in in nature nature and and temporal hence highly schematic. The The phenomenologically rich details are derived from rich details are derived from hence highly schematk. interpretation of the open-class lexical concepts which are integrated integrated with with the the arc interpretation of the open-class lexical concepts closed-class internally open lexical lexical concept concept in The symbolic symbolic unit in (19b). (9b). The unit in in (19) closed-class internally open ..anctions an example such as (20): sanctions an example such as (zo): (20)

(20)

time time 4—

InFrance, France,cheese cheese comes comes before before dessert dessert In

RP RP

conception that typical conceptlt)n (2o) is The typical is that inFrance, France,cheese cheese is is that in that arises arisesfrom from (zo) The sequenced prior to dessert dessert in happens to meal—which happens to contrast contrast sequenced prior to in a a four-course four-course meal—which with the convention in the United Kingdom where cheese follows dessert. The with the convention in the United Kingdom where cheese fi)llows dessert. The TFoR lexicalconcept concept described described here here can diagrammed as asin in Figure Figure 15.3. 15.3. UoK lexical can be bediagrammed In Figure 15.3, Time is represented by the directed arrow, so as to signify In Figure 15.3, Time is represented by the directed arrow, so as to signify the earlier/later relation. The black circles labelled F. and RP represent and RP represent the the the earlier/later relation. The black circles labelled two events events (X cirde labelled labelled PP PP signals signals which which event event is is two (X and and Y), 1), while while the the circle the perspective fromthe thePP PP to to the events the two two events the perspective point. point. The The arrows arrows leading kading from (F. and and KP) RP) signal signal the the prospective prospective relation. I helexical lexicalprofile profile associated associated (E relation. The with this lexical concept stipulates the following. NPs and NP2 he with this lexical concept stipulates the following. NPi and N1'2 must must be temporal events, there of come, come, and and an an obligatory obligatory element, element, temporal events, thereisisaafinite finiteform form of l► efore. before.

E

E

XIS by the the TFoR IFoR kxical FIGUIF Retrospective relation relation encoded by lexicalconcept: concept: [EVENT X IS FIGURE154. 114. Retrospective EVE?sI 1.1) LATFR SEQUENCED LATERtHAN THAN EVENT Ifl

relation in in (21b) (zib) encodes schematic relation In Inthis thisexample, example, the the lexical lexical concept concept in encodes a a schematic in there is rne sequenced later than another. That is, which temporal event is sequenced later than another. That is, there is one which one one temporal event is second event, and the which is sequenced subsequent to to a event, event 1. E, which is sequenced subsequent a second event, and the the relation is referencepoint point (RP). (RP). Moreover, Moreover, as second event event serves as as the the reference as the relation is fixedatatthe thelater later event. event.Hence, Hence, later, the the perspective perspective point point (PP) (P1')isisfixed one of of being being later, one retrospective relation. encodeswhat whatI Irefer rckr to to as as aaretrospective this TFoR lexical concept encodes relation. temporal event in question, about the nature of the As before, it says nothing says nothing about the nature of the temporal event in question,

the two events nor about

The concept II consider consider is is given given below below as as second event-based event-based TFoR TFoR lexical concept The second part of the symbolic unit of which it is a component: part of the symbolic unit of which it is a component: (it) a. vehicle "NP1 COME after NP2" N P2" "NP COME (zi) a. vehicle b. lexical concept (x ISSEQUEN(;lD SEQUENCEDLATER LATER THAN THAN YI h. lexical concept (x is

degreeofoftemporal temporal proximity proximity of nor about nor about the the degree of the two events nor about The content encoded is phenomcnological aspects of temporal experielke. phenomenological aspects of temporal experience. The content encoded is unit in in (21) highly schematic. schematic.The Thesymbolic symbolic unit linguistic in (21) linguistic in nature nature and and hence hence highly sanctions an an example example such such as as (22): (22): sanctions

(ii) (u)

after cheese cheese In France, France, dessert comes after In dessert comes

signify the the the two circles labelled I. and RP represent earlier/later relation. earlier/later relation. The The black black circles labelled E and RP represent the two the labelledPP P1'signals signalswhich whichevent eventisis the while thecircle labelled events(X (Xand andY), Y), while the events (E and from the the PP PP to to the thetwo twoevents events(F. perspectivepoint. point.The l'he arrows arrows leading from and perspective associated with this relation. The lexical profile RP)signal signalthe theretrospective retrospectiverelation. The lexical profile associated with this RP) temporal following. NPi NPt and andNP2 NP2must musthebetemporal lexical concept concept stipulates stipulates the lexical the following. element,after. andan anobligatory obligatoryelement, events, there is a finitc form of tOUIC,and representedby bythe thedirected directedarrow, arrow, so soas astotosignify in Figure Time is In Figure 15.4, 15.4, Time is represented

•. PP

PP

events, there is a finite form of come,

time time44— E FIGURE

Ifl.UKI

1s3.

RP RP

Prospective relation 4 R Ic.ical l x(xISisSErelationencoded encodedbybythe theTITEoR lexicalconcept: concept: si -

QUENCED EARLIER THAN Y

I ARt ER THAN

I

andtemporal temporal roleof oftemporal temporallinguistic linguistic content contentand The role The construction conceptualcontent contentin inmeaning meaningconstruction conceptual content associated ofthe thelevel levelof of schematic schematic linguistic content Providing an account of Providing associated is only part of the story, however. 'lemporal lexical with TFoR TFoR lexical concepts is only part of the story, however. Temporal with

lIME Til SeMANTICS OF TIMl. TUE sIMANII(.S 01 THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

FIGURATIVELANGUAGE LANGUAGEAND ANDTHOU(tHT THOUGHT ANI) FIGURATIVE TltOUGUT

conceptionsalso also involve involve the the IIItegration integration of open open-class temporal lexical con contemporal lexical (Onception da temporal lexi,al also involve the integration of of ceptswith with the dosed-class closed-class TF TFoR lexical concepts, and and hence hence access to access cogni. concepts1 cept R lexical lexi al concepts. hen cae to cogni_ cogni . TFoR cepts with the closed-cia live model profiles and so structure recruited via conceptual metaphor. That t.ve tructure recruited via v.a conceptual con eptual metaphor. That so structure model profiles and so tave model is, we need need to con consider the content conceptual ik. • we we .der the way in which which linguistic hngui tic and and conceptual (oneeptual Content ,ontent thc way way in linguistic need to to consider interactinin givingrise rise to temporal conceptions, the subject of section. To subject of of this this To interact lhi section. interact giving rise to temporal conceptions. the subject do this. this, II consider consider an an example example to the the first of the experiencer-based relating to the first first of ofthe theexperiencer-bascd experiencer.ba<ed do exam pi relating do this. TFoRs discussed: the lexical concept provided in (15b), which sanctions the t he which sanctions concept prov.ded provkled in III ('5b). TI'oRs di ussed: the lexical (oncept TFoRs discussed: following example: example: following following example (23) Christmas (:hristin.ts is is approaching (2J) C.hristmas i approaching approa hing On the the face face of it, the takenliterally. literally.After the utterance utterance in in (23) (23)isis isdistinctly distinctly On utterance in (2J) di tinctlyodd oddifitiftaken taken literally. After On the face of of it. it, th all,Chri Christmas temporalevent, event, whi which usually lasts lasts for which for aaa determined determined period. period, all. tma isisaaatemporal event. h usually u~ually la t for all, Christmas temporal and as. as such cannot undergo motion of of the veridical motion sort indicated by the and uch cannot undergo veridical veridical of the the sort sort indicated indicated by by the the and as such cannot undergo approaching. Yet, this utterance is straightforwardly understood expression straightforwardly understood by by utteran e iisstraightforwardly expr .on "pprolmas. while located the future. fu ture utterance, and secondly, is relatively imminent. To see that this is so, we can contrast the utterance in is imminent.To Tosee S« that lhat this lhi isi so, so. we can contrast contra t the utterancein i~ is relatively imminent. (23) with that in (24): (23) with with that in (24): (2J) (24): (24) (24) (14)

OBJECT IN MOTION MOTION OBJECT IN ALONG A PATH PATH ALONG A

Before these spatial firstconsider consider theway way inwhich which Before acwunting f?rthese these,issues, i ue;.I II first first con iderthe .he way inIII whi hspatial patial Before accounting accounting for for issues, conceptual content is recruited, via conceptual metaphor, to structure temmetaphor, to to structure conceptual I recruited, recruited. via via conceptual conceptual metaphor, tru ture temtern· conceptual content content is poral cognitive models. I do so by considering the cognitive model profile the cognitive model profile poral (()g~'lIv models. m~e1. I do so by comidering the cognitive model poral cognitive accessed via the lexical concept aCl< '" vvia •• the lexical leXICalconcept ( ncel" (CHRIsTMAsl. (tIIlKisi •• I\.MA I·

SYNCHRONOUS DURATION

I'AOTAACT£D

TEMPORAL

PROTRACTED DURATION DURATION

In (24), while also while Christmas Christmas is al alsolocated locatedin thefuture, future,it isnot not imminent. imminent. wh.le 'hri tmas is is located ininthe the future. itit is is not .mminent. In (24). Accordingly, there are three specific issues that need to be accounted accountedfor for in lherr arc are three specific peeific issues i ues that need to be accounted for in Accordingly. Accordingly, there that need terms of explaining how LCCM Theory models the conception which arises models the conception temlS of .M Theory Theory model con eption which which arises ari terms of explaining explaining how how LC LC(M for the utterance in (23). These are summarized below: for the the utterance utterance inin(23). (2J). These These 1ire are summarized ummarized below:

motion. motion. mohon. •• Issue with The temporal temporal eventof ofChristmas Christmas locatedinin inthe the futurewith The temporal event esent of Chmtma isiislocated located thefuture with • /SSIl' Issue 2:z The respect implicit1although although rrespect peel to totoour our under tanding of ofthe present which which implicit. ourunderstanding understanding thepresent present whichisiisimplicit, not explicitly mentioned, in the utterance in (23). not exphCltly mentioned, mentioned. in in the the utterance utterance inin(2%). (2J). •• Issue y The future event of Christmas is interpreted relatively beingrelatively event of of Christmas Chri tmas is is interpreted interpretedasas asbeing relatively The future event • /SSllf Issue•.I: ;: The imminent with respect to the present. imminent with .mmlllent w.threspect r peet to to the the present. present.

323

ilkisi The "0' 1 MA,I cognitive ThecognitIVe cognitivemodel modelprofile profilefor for Ie!CHRISTMAS' The that aassume ume in 1 Theory. keeplllg wilh Lakoff and that IIIassume in lCCNI in LC LCCM Theory,ininkeeping keepingwith withLakoff Lakoffand andJohnson Johnson('999). 0999), that unconscious con eptual metaphors metaphor and uncon iou recruitment recruitment facilitate conceptual metaphors facilitate facilitate the the automatic automatic and and unconscious domains, in in the of on eptual content model from distinct di tinct domains, domain,. the of content ofconceptual conceptual content from from cognitive cognitive models models from distinct in the recruitment spatial ca from pace. Thi thereby facilitates fa ilitates the th recruitment of of pati.1 This thereby case of Time. Time, caseof Time, from fromSpace. Space. This thereby facilitates the recruitment of spatial temporal cognitive models. That model.That That con eptual content which 'iervcs to tru ture temporal temporal cognitive cogmtive models. conceptual to structure structure conceptual content which which serves serves to cognitive models to metaphors. in effect, provide the the is. is, conceptual is, conceptual conceptual metaphor. metaphors, in in effect. effect, provide provide the primary primary cognitive cognitive models models to to To (CHRISTMASI affords access, with additional structure. (CHO.STMAS) afford acc • with additional tructure. To which. for in tance. which, which, for for instance, instance, (CHRISTMAS) affords access, with additional structure. To ilkusustAsi, promodel profile for for t(CIIR.STMAS). .lIu trate. con ider aa partial cognitive profile illustrate, pro'CHRISTMAS', proillustrate,consider consider partial cognitive cognitive model model profile vided in !'igure is.s. '5.5. vided t5.5. vided III in ligure Figure of primary to number (CII R. TMA I facilitates access primary The lexical concept The facilitatesaccess accessto toaaa number number of of primary -rmAs1 The lexical lexicalconcept conceptL:HRIsTMASI IcHms Christmas cuiinclude knowledge relating to to Christmas cognitive model. Th= III lude knowledge knowledge relating hri tm. as aasaaa CUL.u, cognitive models. models. 'Ihese These include other cultural cultural TURAL FEST.VAL. in ludingthe the exchange of gift; and and other cultural practice, practi e. i ukAl. lEst IVAL, including including theexchange exchange of of gifts gifts and practice, TURAL FESTIVAL, together in, including food con umed. activities activiti engaged th coming together together ot of includingfood foodconsumed, consumed, activitiesengaged engagedin. in, the the coming coming of of knowledge relates to Christmas as family. SO forth. The The ond type type of ofknowledg relatestotoChristmas hristma asa aaa family, type family,and and so so forth. forth. The second second knowledge relates temporal knowledge, includes whole host TEMPORA' EVENT. Thi, in Iud aaa whole wh Ie host ho,t of of knowledge. aas i. This IVIN as of temporal TEMPORAL This includes TEMPORAL EVENT. with the TEMPORAL EVENT iIIu trated by the attributes and valu associated with the TEMPORAL EVENT values illustrated illustrated by the attributes and values associated with the TEMPORAL EVENT temporal of our relating to cognitive model. For in,tan e. part part of of our our knowledge knowledge relating relating to to aaatemporal t mporal cognitive model. For Ior instance, part cognitive model. instance, knowledge EU1URI. A further further situated in Ni, and is that can be be situated ituated in in the th PASt, PAST. PRESENT. and further event A event is that that it itit can FUTURE. A and H;TUR>. PAST,PIIESI PRESENT, event is can be the

Christmas is approaching. approaching, but is Christmas approaching, but but is is still still way off off till aaa long long way way off Chri tma iis

•• Issue interpreted as as relatingto toaatemporal temporal scene stene /e IIf I: The The utteran e in inin(23) (2J)' IIIterpreted asrelating relating scene utterance (it isisinterpreted Issue,: the utterance rather than a spatial scene. That is, the utterance is interpreted is, the utterance is interpreted as rather than aa spatial patial scene. ene. That a that i • lh utteran, i interpreted as rather than concerning a temporal scenario rather than one involving veridical veridical concemlllg temporal scenario scenario rather one involving involving concerning aa temporal rather than than one

323 J2J

I

I

I S

S

PAST PAST PAST

( A MPRE SSION

0

0

I I

0I I

(. •I

PRESENT PRESENT

S.

FUTURE FUTlM'IE FUTURE

DURATION DURATION DURATION

RELIGIOUS

CULTlM'IALFESTIVAL FESTIVAL CULTURAL

TEMPORALEVENT EVENT TEMPORAL

RELIGIOUS FESTIVAL FESTIVAL

[CHRISTMASI [CHRISTMAS) [CHRISTMAS]

tiir modelprofile profilefor FIGUaf IS-S. P.lfti,, -IIprimary pnm.Jry l.(lg"'t1\'~model profile (or'CHRISTMAS' Itl(:UKISTMASI ItRI\TMAS) Partial primarycognitive IIt.UkFISS. irs. MAW FIGURE

-324

TIlL sI MANTI(S OE TISIE TILE SEMANTICS OF TIME

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT FI(t K S I --IVE LANGUAC;E ANI) TlIOt't,U

the attribute relates to the natureofofthe the durational durationalelapse elapse associated associated with with the attribute rdates to the nature hasaanumber numberofofvalues values DURATION. Thisattribute event,which whichisistotosJV sayitsitsDURAI This attributehas event, TEMPORAL( COMPRESassociated with it. Moving from right righttotoleft, left,the thefirst firstisisTFMPOKAL OMPRESwith it. Moving from underestimationofoftime, time,which whichisistotosay, say,the the experience experience that timc time SION—theunderestimation sIoN—thC SYNCHRONOUS is proceeding more "quickly"than thanusual. usual.The Thesecønd secondis isSYNCHRONOUS DUE• more proceeding isA-rtoN—the normative estimation of time, which is to say, the the experience experience normative estimation of time, which is to sjV, PROTRACTED time unfolding at its its standard standard or or equable equable rate. The final is PROTRACI value is ,u rate. The final value time unfolding at ofduration, duration,which whichisistotoSJV say the the DURATION. This relates to an overestimationof This relates to an overestimation felt experiencethat thattime timeisisproceeding proceeding more more "slowly" than usual. usual. "slowly" than kit esperience The sorts of experiences experiences that give rise to the range of different attributes that give rise to the range of different attributes The sorts of and valuesrepresented representedininthe theconceptual conceptualsystem systemininthe the domain domain of of Time Time are are of and values myriad kinds. For instance, we experience the past in terms of of the the range of myriad kinds. For instance, we experience the past in terms measures we deploy to record temporal temporal "distance" "distance" from fromnow, now, such such as time lime deploy to record measures we lines, calendars,diaries, diaries,and andso soon. on.We We also also experience the past past in terms terms of of experience the lines, calendars, biological ageing, photographic photographic records records of of past past events, events, narrative narrative and and story story biological ageing, which recount past happenings, as well as personal personaland andautobiographical autobiographical happenings. as well as which recount past memory, and so on. The present isisexperienced by virtue of direct perceptual of direct perceptual and so on. The present experienced by virtue processing, the phenomenologically real perceptual moment briefly briefly described described the phenomenologicallY real perceptual moment above." The future is apprehended in terms of our experiences of intentionexperiences of intentionabove.0 (he future is apprehended in terms of our ality and the realization of of intentions, intentions, as as well experienceofofwaiting waitingand and well as as our our experience ality and the realization the subsequent occurrence of events. Moreover, it is apprehended apprehendedin interms termsof of the subsequent occurrence of events. Moreover, it is our experience and interaction with the recording deploy recording mechanisms mechanismsthat that we wedeploy our experience and interaction with the in order to gauge the relative imminence of future events such suchas ascalendars, calendars1 in order to gauge the relative imminence of future events timetables, schedules, time plans, and time-reckoning systems and anddevices deviceson on timetables, schedules, time plans1 and time-reckoning systems a daily basis. Finally, we also have detailed knowledge of the range of phebasis. Finally, we also have detailed knowledge of the range of phe a daily nomenologically real aspects of duration which we experience throughout our nomenologically real aspects of duration which we experience throughout oU lives. lives. The final primary cognitive model diagrammed in Figure 15.5 isisthat thatofof The final primary cognitive model diagrammed in Figure is.s This relates to knowledge concerning the Christmas as a RELIGIOUS FESTIVAL. ii STIVAL.. This relates to knowledge concerning the Christmas as a nature and status of Christmas as a Christian event, and the way in which this this nature tnd status of Christmas as a Christian event, and the way in which festival is enacted and celebrated. festival is enacted and celebrated. In addition, the primary cognitive models for IciiiusmiAsi recruit recruitstrucstrUCIn addition, the primary cognitive models for IcHRIsTStAsI ture from other cognitive models metaphor.That Thatis, is,as .ISopermodelsvia viaconceptual conceptualmetaphor. lure from other ationalized in LCCM Theory, a conceptual metaphor link metaphorprovides providesaastable stablelink ationaliicd in LC( NI Theory a that allows aspects of conceptual content encoded by one cognitive model modeltoto that allows aspects of conceptual content encoded by one cognitive he imported so as to form part of thethe permanent knowledge representation knowledge representation permanent be imported so as to form part of encoded by another. For instance, the primary cognitive model I IMPOKAI the primary cognitive model TEMPORAL encoded by another. For in terms of a stable, long-term EVENT is structured via conceptual metaphor structured via conceptual metaphor in terms of a stable, long-term EVENT link holding between it and witucr ININ modelrelating relating to to an an 01111(1 andthe thecognitive cognitivemodel link holding bctwctn it As IN MOTION such, the cognitive model, OBJECTr IN MOTION ALONG A PATH. MOTION MOTION ALON(i A PATH. As such, tht cognitive model, onpi ALONG A PATH, which is represented, ininFigure byvirtue virtueofofaacircle circle Ligure15.5, by ALONG A PATH, which is located on a path, with the arrow indicating direction of motion, provides provides indicating direction of motion, '

lotated on a path, with the arrow

I' See Evans (sonsit) furtherdetail• details. (aoo4a)for forfurther Is

325 325

relating to the EVENT thei EMPORAL TEMPORAL EVENTcognitive cognitivemodel model with with inkrentlal inferentialstructure structure relating to

The our ourknowledge knowledgeofofobjects objectsundergoing undergoingmotion motionalong along aa path. path. The conceptual indicated by the dashed lines. content contentrecruited recruitedvia viaconceptual conceptualmetaphor metaphorisis indicated byisthe dashed lines. inherited by the inferential structure from this cognitive nu)del Specifically, inferential structure from this cognitive model is inherited by the relating to the URI- attributes, such that content I'ASI', PAST, PRI PRESENT, and and i ui FUTURE attributes, such that content relatingexperito the behind the ohiect serves to structure, in part1 our region of the path region of the path behind the object serves to structure, in part, ourlocation expericonceptual content relating to the objects present ence of paStflcs.S, ence of pastness, conceptual content relating to the object's present location serves to structure, in part, our experience of the presents and content relating

serves to structure, in part, our experience of the present, and content relating

to structure structure our our to to that thatportion portion of of the the path path in in front frontofofthe theobject object serves serves to

dashed lines which map the experience of futurity. futurity. This experience of This is is indkatcd indicated by by the the dashed lines which map the 1 IN MOIION ALONG A relevant relevantportft)flS portions of of the the path path of of motion motion from from the the011J1( OBJECT IN MOTION ALONG A PRISINT, PAST. pAul PATHcognitive cognitive model model onto onto the the relevant relevantattributes: attributes:tUIURE, FUTURE, PRESENT, PAST. inherited by the In Inaddition, addition, content relating relatingto to the the nature nature of of motion motion is is inherited by the DURATION attribute. .\gain this is captured by the dashed arrow, which links DURATION

attribute. Again this is captured by the dashed arrow, which links

the InRATION attribute. the the arrow—signifying arrow—signifying motion—with motion—with the DURATION attribute. system—-the I discussed chaining within the conceptual In Chapter In Chapter to, I discussed chaining within the conceptual system—the associations are established such that a web phenomenon whereby links links and and associations phenomenon whereby are established such that a web

models. Hence1 cognitive models are of to relate relate cognitive cognitive models. of connections connections serves serves to Hence, cognitive models are of knowledge as it is required, related to one another, facilitating activation related to one another, facilitating activation of knowledge as it is required,

mediated communication, in LCCM Theory1 for by linguistically linguistically mediated for instance, instance, by communication. In LCCM Theory, in which cognitive models conceptual metaphors provide one of the conceptual metaphors provide one of the ways ways in which cognitive models become linked with cognitive from other regions of the conceptual sVstcfl) can from other regions of the conceptual system can become linked with cognitive given lexical concept. By virtue of models site of of a a given models belonging belonging to to the theaccess access site lexical concept. By virtue of reoccurring correlations serve to establish humans acting in the world, tight humans acting in the world, tight reoccurring correlations serve to establish models associated with distinct domains in connections between between cognitive cognitive models connections associated with distinct domains (see in infants prior to the onset of language the conceptual systems of human the conceptual systems of human infants prior to the onset of language (see powerful The establishing establishing of of these theselinks linksprovides providesaapowerful Lakoff and Lakoff and Johnson Johnson 1999). The and re-use of multi organizational device device that that ijs. ilitates the organizational facilitates the deployment deployment and re-us• of multimodal knowledge in order to structure other (less easily apprehended)

modal knowledge in order to structure other (less easily apprehended) domains of of experience.' experience.'22 domains eptual metaphors serve l'heory then, then, as asconceptual From the theperspective perspectiveofofLCCM UI From Theory metaphors serve between specific cognitise models that may belong to to establish stable links to establish stable links between specific cognitive models that may belong to —for example, Faster, Spring, the the access accesssites sitesofofmany manylexical lexicalconcepts—for the example, Easter, Spring, the of spatial forth—this leads to massive t'm iTt, his prinse, and so concert, his prime, and so forth—this leads to massive redundancy of spatial That is, conceptual mct.m conceptualcontent contentsubserving suhservingtemporal temporalconcepts. concepts.That conceptual is, conceptual metamechanism of the human concepphors provide a fundamental structuring phors provide a fundamental structuring mechanism of the human conceptualsystem. tual

meuphor—4hc cstjsbtishment of linked

models

note itut It is important " It is important toto note that sonteptual metaphor—the establishment of linked sognitive models models domains of espenente —is but one wis in which which derive from which derive from unrelated domains of expetiente is but one way in which cognitive models attriliiite system is well intlude thc phcni'1uen4'n of tr.rnsrndCn(e. as inhens%truth's-v. strutturt. ethers 'niters' others insludr the ► hen ►► menon isanssentlence. as well is ♦ phenonwiis .&ISO senc to establish links hetwern so. hapter aRk dsMussed in ( alit Rees, discussed in Chapter 10. These pin ilia also serve to essaslish links bvissern tisimitivr models. models.

Nf.

26

THE SEMANII(5 OF TIME THE SEMANTICS OF TIME

FIGURATIVELANGUAGE LANGUAGEAND AND THOUGht THOUGHT

Meaning construction in Christmas is approaching

Meaning construction in Christmas is approaching

now return to aconsideration considerationofofhow howthe thevarious various interpretations interpretations(issue (issues 1- 3 I now return to a

above). assouated with (ii), arise.

discueabov), tdwih(23arse.

Issue I

Issue $

Firstly, how is it that the utterance in (23) is interpreted as relating to a Firstly1 how is it that the utter,Ino..e in (23) is interpreted as relating to temporal scenariorather ratherthan thanaaspatial spatialone? one?The Theanswer answer is is as follows. Th e temporal TFoRlexicanpthsoeurancswholevafrm TIoR lexital concept that sanctions the utterance as a whole serves as for interpreting the open-class lexical concepts—those associated with the for interpreting the opcn-dass lexical concepts—those associated with approaching allowing them them to to achieve an informavehicles Christmas and approach:ng—allowing achieve an informavehicles Christmii" and —

tional characterization relating to a temporal scene. That is, the linguistic tional charactcrii.itiofl relating to a temporal scene. That is, the linguistic content encoded by this TFoR lexical concept, as described above, ensures content encoded by this FEoR lexical concept1 as described that the interpretations that arise for the lexical concepts paired with Christthat the interpretations that arise for the lexical concepts paired with Christ ► as and {approaching are a consequence of these lexical concepts undergoing of these lexical concepts undergoing a urns and integration in the context of schematic temporal, as asopposed opposedto tospatial, spatial. integration in the context of schematictemporal, content. Put another way, as the overarching internally open TFoR lexical content. Put another way, as the overarching internally open TEoRlexical concept relates to a temporal scene, this provides a schematic framework concept reLites to a temporal scene, this provides schematic framework which constrains constrainsthe theprocess process of of interpretation1 interpretation,as as it it applies applies to to the the open-class open-class which lexical concepts concepts that TFoR lexical lexical concept. concept. lexical that populate populate the the larger larger TFoR

i ssue 2 Issue I Secondly, relatingto toaatemporal temporal Secondly1how howisisititthat that the the utterance utterance is is understood understood as as relating event which is "located" in the future? After all, as we saw above the experievent whkh is located" in the future? After all, as we saw above the experiencer-based TFoR lexical concept which licenses the utterance as a whole does encer-hascd TFoR lexical concept which licenses the utterance as a wholedoes not event isissituated situatedininthe thepast pastororfuture. future. not encode encode whether whether aa given given temporal temporal event The suggest, relates matching that that involves involvesthe the The answer, answer, II suggest, relatesto toaaspecial specialkind kind of of matching spatial whichstructures structuresthe the spatial content content recruited recruited via via conceptual conceptual metaphor, metaphor, which cognitive and the the primary primary cognitive cognitive model model cognitivemodel modelprofile profileofof[CHRISTMAS] IcuRisi MAS) and profile accessed via [APPROACHING]. This refer to to as as typeof ofmatching matching II refer profile accessed via IAPPR0ACHINIl. This type conceptual is constrained thePrinciple Principleof of conceptualmetaphor metaphor matching, matching, which which is constrained by by the Conceptual Metaphor Matching, summarized below: Matching, summarized below: Conceptual (p12) Principle ofof Conceptual Metaphor Conceptual MetaphorMatching NI.it hing (p12) Principle During interpretation, (an) open-class structuredinin I )uring interpretation. (an) open-classlexical lexk.dconcept(s) concept(s)structured terms subjecttotomatching, matching,whenever whenever termsof ofconceptual conceptualmetaphor(s) metaphor(s)are aresubject possible, in the primary cognitive model profile of relevant lexical possible, in the primary cognitive model profile of relevantlexical concepts in the same lexical conceptual unit. Conceptual metaphor concepts in the same lexi ii conceptual unit. (:o)thcptual metaphor matching matching. matching does doesnot notpreclude precluderegular regularmatching. This principle does two things. Firstly, (ii)the the Firstly,ititensures ensuresthat thatin'nthe thecase ofof(23) This prinuple does two access in spatial content to which lciikisTmAsl has its primary cognitive in its primary cognitive FMASI has

spatial content to which

327

327

conceptual metaphor is matched model model profile p rofile by by virtue virtueof ofr&truitment recruitmentvia via conceptual metaphor is matched model profile of with s) inin the withrelevant relevantcognitive cognitivernodel( model(s) the primary primarycognitive cognitive model profile of does not interfere with, LAII)ROAcHINGI. this matching I APPROACHING]. Secondly, Secondly, this matching operation operation does not interfere with, takes place on and andhence hencedoes does not not prevent prevent regular regular matching. matching, matching matching that that takes place on conceptual metaphor. .onceptual conceptual content content which which is is not not recruited recruited via via conceptual metaphor. 1(TIIRISTMAsI the spatial spatial content contentto towhich whichiciiRISTMASI In Interms termsof ofthe the utterance utterance in in (23), (23), the from the motion tacilit ales access hastotodo dowith withinferential inferential structure structure derived facilitates access has derived from the motion

kind of scenario scenario involving involvingan anobject objectin inmotion. motion. This Thisis is matched matched with withthe the kind of Fhe cognitive model profile terminal accessed terminalmotion motion accessedvia viaLAPPROA(IIIN(;I. (APPROACHING]. The cognitive model profile involves motion towards an entity, and associated associated with with [APPROACHING' involves motion towards an entity, and which it in front front of to which hence, the object object in hence, the in motion motion is is in of the the entity entity with with respect respect to it

attribute of the TIMPORAL IvFNT cognitive is AsAsthe FUTURE attribute of the TEMPORAL EVENT cognitive is "approaching" "approaching". theFUTURE I1RI5TMASJ is structured in terms of that part of the model via (CHRISTMAS( is structured in terms of that part of the model accessed via involves an interpretin front, front, the resulting match match involves motion motion trajectory trajectory that that is is in the resulting an interpret"located" in the future. In temporal event of Christmas is ation ation in in which which the the temporal event of Christmas is "located" in the future. In special type interpretation is other this particular particular interpretation consequence of of the the special type other words, words, this is a a consequelke metaphor matching. matching. of of matching matching II refer referto toas as conceptual conceptual metaphor

Issue 3 0)1 interpretation that to the The final issue issue relates relates to the interpretation that the the temporal temporalevent event of The final This interbeingrelatively relativelyimminent. imminent. This (;hristmas in (23) (ij) isisinterpreted Christmas in interpreted as as being inter-

described

the regular regular process of matching matching as as described pretation arises, argue due to the pretation arises, I1 argue, due to process of introduced guided by by the the previously previouslY introduced in earlier in earlier chapters. chapters.Matching1 Matching, as as guided informational characterattemptsto tobuild buildan aninformational Principles of of Interpretation, attempts Principles characterby first searching the primary ization for [CHRISTMASI and [APPROACHING] by first searching the primary ization for (CHRISTMAS' As Christmas is both these open-class lexical concepts. cognitive models models of of both concepts. As Christmas is these open class lexical cognitive hence something that cannot cultural, and religious event, a temporal, temporal, cultural, and hence something that cannot event, and a and religious implicatedby bythe theprimary primarycognitive cognitive undergo the thesort sortof ofveridical veridical motion motion implicated undergo I his necessia clash arises. model profile profile associated associatedwith with (Ai'PKOA(:HINGI, APPROACHING 1, a clash arises. This necessimodel Context-induced (lash Duetotothe thePrinciple PrincipleofofContext-induced tates clash clash resolution. resolution. Due tates Clash designated chapter, 1° IIKI5IMASj is Resolution,introduced introducedin inthe theprevious previouschapter, [CHRISTMAS] is designated Resolution, vehicle. This and (APPROACHINGI thefigurative figurative vehicle. as the the figurative figurative target, target, and [APPROACHING' the This as Christmas, and specifically serves followsas asthe theutterance utteranceisis"about" "about"Christmas, and specifically serves toto follows of the foregoing is that "locate" Christmas "locate" Christmas "in" "in"time. time.The Theconsequence consequence of the foregoing is that modelprofile profileofof inthe the secondary secondary cognitive cognitive model established in search isisestablished aa search I APPKOA( H ING is modelfor for (APPROACHING' (APPROACIIIN; I. verypartial partial cognitive cognitive model is AA very (APPROACHING]. provided in Figure provided in Figure 15.6. IIIN(1 includes primary cogThecognitive cognitive model model profile profile for The for(APPROA( (APPROACHING] includes primary cogI 00 ATION, the D$RI( III) MOTION OF AN nitive models models for for aa tARGET nitive TARGET LOCATION, the DIRECTED MOTION OF AN iii. AAconsequence andthe the IMSIINI NCEof of ARRIVAL ARRiVAl OF ANENTITY. consequence ENTITY, and OF AN IMMINENCE entity is the IMMINEN( I- OF of the relative imminence of arrival of an of the relative imminence of arrival of an entity is the IMMINENCE OF cognitive model.As Asaa secondarycognitive IVEN1',which whith isisa asecondary 01 EVENT, 0)(:URRENO I OF model. OCCURRENCE hutnot not(literally) (literally)arrive, arrive, temporal event event such suchas asChristmas Christmas can canoccur, but temporal -

______________

;28

FIGURATIVE LAN6UA(;E LANGUAGE AND T"OU:::G~ · ::".:.T_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ FIGURATIVE THOL(;HT FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

IMMINENCE OF IMMINENCt OF LW IMMINENCE OCCURRENCE OF OCCURRENCE OF CVFNT EVENT EVENT

TARGET TARGET TARGET LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION

DIRECTED DIRECTEO DIRECTED OF AN AN MOTION MOTION OF ENTITY ENTITY

IMMINENCE OF OF IMMINENCE ARRIVAL OF ARRIVAL OF ENTITY ENTITY

(APPROACHING (APPROACHING! [APPROACHING]

iso. Partial FIG"Rf 1~6. P,nl.l iognhtive ognlli, model profile fi)r for (APPROA "'~G! IAPPROACIIIN6J 1- 1GURF 156. Partial cognitive model profile for [APPROACHING]

there is is aaa match betweenthe thesecondary setondary cognitive cognitive there match between between the ;econdary cognili.e model model IMMINE U OlUF model IMMINI-N(;E IMMINENCE OF there o((:UKRIN(I oc XRRENCE Of EVFNT the primary cognitive model profile of EVEN'rand andthe theprimary primarycognitive cognitivemodel modelprofile profile of OCCURRENCE OF EVENT and Ie((:IIRISTMAsI. IIRI\T tA\I. Ilence, mterpretation the imminence ofthe theoccurO« lor Hence,the theinterpretation interpretationof of the theimminence imminenceof the occurHence, the of (CHRISTMAS!. rence of Christmas Christmas iis is due due to metaphoric conception arising, alongthe the renee Christm. to aa metaphoric metaphoric conception coneeplion arising, ari ing. along the rence of of due lines line discu sed in in more more detail in the previous previou chapter. moredetail lines discussed discussed in the the previous chapter. chapter.

The status of of conceptual conceptualmetaphors The of conceptual metaphorsininLCCM LCCM Theory Theory LCCM Theory The status status cOIklude this III condude by conSidering or conteptual metaphor; in hapter by considering status of of conceptual conceptual metaphors metaphors ill in conclude this considering the the statu status this chapter chapter LCCM Theory. I do asking, and attempting LCC 1 Theory. to answer, answer. tour four questions: question: LCCM Theory. I do so so by by asking. asking, and and attemptmg attempting to to answer, four questions:

metaphorsin inI.CCM IA CM Theory? Iheory? •• What What the .status tatus of of ",nceptual metaphors in tecM Theory? Whatisis isthe thestatus of conceptual conceptual metaphors •• What What the distinctive roleofof oflexical lellicalconcepts con ept and and cognitive models? models? Whatisis isthe thedistirKtive distinctiverole role lexical concepts andcognitive cognitive models? ••• What What isisthe the motivation motivation for for TIoR TI'oRlexical Ie i(al conepis conceptstoto todeploy deployvehicles vehide Whatis the motivation for TFoR lexical concepts deploy vehicles language? relating literal patiallanguage? relatingto toliteral literalspatial spatial language? does this show about utility •• What What d this how th utility utilityof ofusing u ingsemantic semantic structure tru ture in on structure in What does this show about the the of using semantic language as lensfor for investigating investigating conceptual conceptual language investigating (on eptual structure? tructure? structure? language a, as aaalen lens for

I.i.i. What iisthe the tatu of of conceptual m t.phors? Whatis thestatus status ofconceptual conceptualmetaphors? metaphors? metaphors, in teeM I.CC\l Theory, theory, proVIde (onleptual structurmg provide meansof ofstructuring struturing Conceptualmetaphor, metaphors,in in LCCM Theory, provide aa a Illean, means of cognitive models in terms of conceptual "'gmti .. model, term of of conceptual conceptual content content recruited recruited from cognitive content recruited from cognitive cognitive cognitive models in terms models a.ssociated model SOemployed, em pili cd, reflect—again indirectly—thenature natureof of the the simulations serve indirectly—the reOectagain indirectly-the the imulation that that they they serve serve as a t—again as Inother otherwords, words, symbolic partial prompts constructing. partial prompt for for constructing. con. tructing. In In word, symbolic ymbolic units unit (lexical (lexical naIl zedprompts promptsfor are conventionalized conventlonalizcd prompt for buildbuild concepts vehi 'Ies) are )ncepts and and phonological phonological vehicles) convent ing complex (conceptions). Asthinking thinking and ing complex simulations imulations (conceptions). (conception ). As As and communicating communicating about temporal temporal relationships is central to the way we coordinate our We coordinate our ouractions actilln relation hip i the way we and with with oursociophysical sociophysical environment, and hence hence with one one another with the sociophy.ical environment, environment, and hence the another and and with our sorts of of complex complex simulations simulations we (seekto) to)evoke, evoke,itititisiis(perhaps) (perhaps)natural naturalthat that sorts imulations we we (seek (seek to) evoke, (perhap) naturalth.t the nature make-up of of TFoR lexical concepts reflect aspects of ofTFoR TFoR lexical lexical concepts con cpt should hould reflect rene" aspects a pect of IIf th nature and make-up that thes they evoke. conceptual structure Mru lUre that they serve, serve, in in part, part, to toevoke. evoke. iv. What does this the of What does this show show about the the utility semantic structure in iv. doe this how about utility of ofusing using semantic semanti structure tructure in in language as a lensfor forinvestigating investigating conceptual structure? structure? I alens len for inv tigating conceptual tructurel language aas At the outset of chapter II1alluded alludedto the assumption assumption made by At of the the chapter chapter alluded to the a umption made madeby by cognitive cognitive linguistics language can can be bedeployed deployedin inorder investigate IinguiMi ' that language be deployed in ordertoto toinvestigate investigateconceptual conceptu •• 1 some sense, structure as, sense, languagereflects reflects conceptualstructure—although structure—although n, language language rtfl t conceptual conceptual stru tur~although structure aas,, in some som authors take take different differentviews views different authors precise way in which language authOr> view on on the the precise pr ise way way in inwhich whichlanguage language reflects conceptual ofof LCCM reflects conceptual conceptualorganization. organization.From Fromthe theperspective perspective of lA' :Nl Theory, Theory, Irom the perspective LCCM Thtigatingconceptual conceptual can he structure. \tru ture.

Summary 1 his chapter chapter has detailed examination examination of This reas)nably detailed provided a reasonably Th" chaptcr has ha provided prov.ded reasonably of aa range range of of lexical lime, and sdeciion the cognitive models which lC'xi4..al ..concepts onu·ph for for Time, Time, Jnd aJ selection c..clt"t..llon of ofthe thecognitive (ognitivemodels mod Iwhich whkh lexical concepts populate populate the thedomain domainof ofTime lime at level of conceptual structure. particuI'pulate domain ofTlln at the thelevel level of ofconceptual conccl,tualstructure. tructur. In Inparticuparticu lar, examined the theoretical ofconceptual con eptual lar, have cxamined lar. I have cxamined the theway wayininwhich whichthe thetheoretical theoretk.il construct construct of of conceptual

—-

TIlE THE EMANTICS OF or TIME THESEMANTICS SEMANTICS oi TIME I IME

331 33' 331

metaphor. III orporated IIIto LCCM of Time. The metaphor incorporated intoLCCM L(CNl Theory, Theory. in in the the domain domainof ofTime. lime. The The metaphor isis incorporated into Theory, in i that thattemporal temporalrepresentation representationhas hasreflexes reflexes in central of the hapter isis in central argument argument of the chapter representation has reflexes ill language, temporal lexical concepts, toIKcptS, which encode term lanlluage, temporal con cpt, which whichencode en ode terms of of direct direct encoding encoding in language, and perceptually highly hematIC parameteriz,ltion, of temporal experience, parameteri/at ions of temporal experience, and perceptually highly schematic schematic parameterizations and ally rich The temporal temporal cogcogand phenomenologi phenornenologically rich temporal phenomenologically temporal cognitive cognitive models. models. The nitive much that that is purely temporal ininnature. I For or instance, instance, ispurely purelytemporal temporalin nature.For in tan e, that is nitive models models include much as phcnomenologically rich phenomenolog. ally rich telllporal relate notion such uth as as phenomenologically richtemporal temporal experienCe> experiences relate relate to to notions notions such sequentiality, imultaneity, temporal ion, protracted our temporal compres compression, protractedduration, duration, our sequentiality, simultaneity1 simultaneity, temporal compression, experience of pa pastness. futurity, the soon. on.In In addition, addition, such sut.h experien e of tness, futurity, In uch experience of pastness, futurity, the present, present,and and so so notions are are systematically structured interms termsofofstructure structure notion arc systematically ystemallcally structured Iructured in in terllls "ructurerecruited recrUited from experiofperceptual perceptual expericognitive models model which relate to non-temporalaspects a peets of models which relate relate of to non-temporal non-temporal aspects This is is achieved via conceptual conceptual is achieved a hieved via onceptual metameta ence such uch as aas motion motion pace. This Thi through space. ence motion through to phors. provide phors, which serve serve uncon"iou and and automatic automatic level level of ofaccess ace ,to serve to provid provide an an unconscious to structurefrom from cognitive non-temporal knowledge allowing allowing inferential inferential structure structure from cognitive cognitive non-temporal inferential non-temporal knowledge models associatedwith with the the domain domain of of Space Space fiirm part part of llIodel associated of Spa e totoform form ofour ourconceptual conceptual associated with our conceptual representations for temporal concepts. In terms terms of linguistically mediated tenn of oflinguistically Iingui Ii allymediated mediated representation In representations for for temporal concepts. concepts. In simulations, this conceptions which are are not tigurativc1 in the .mulation ,thi can lead lead to conceptions conceptions which which are not n t figurative, figurative, in the this can .1 sense, sense, Chapler '4 1I0wever, canoni allyfigurative canoni canonical asdefined defined in in Chapter However, canonically figurative canonical sense, aas defined in Chapter14. However, canonically in the temporal conception conceptionsare arealso ako po possihk temporal ible in tandem, as a in the case case of of the the the case temporal are also possible in tandem, tandem, risimasisis C/lri5lmas i5 approaching. approacllll'g. example: Cu Christmas

Part V V Conclusion L(( situates chaptersituates Thechapter Thi oflh~ book consists con i I of ofone chapler.The TheLCCM 1. 'M onechapter. chapter. consists This final part part of of the the hook book cognitive linguisticswhich which Th~ry respecl to 10 the Ihe various variou theories Ih~ries within withincognitive cogniliv~linguistics linguistic Theory with with respect respect theories serves to contextualize contcxtualiic ilit ynth ile!> and build A~ such, uch. this Ihl final part ""rves to 10 conlexlualile it syntheslies synthesises and builds builds upon. upon. As As such, thisfinal part serves ofLCCM LCCM Theory. Ih developmenl of of LC M Theory. Theory. the development

16 16 LCCM LCCM Theory in in context context LCCM Theory Theory in context In "theory' In as Thi hort chapter consIder the th status tatu of ofLCCM LCCM Theoryas a aaa"theory." "theory." st.itus of ICc NI Theory This This short chapter considers all.After Afterall, all,itit newtheory theoryatatall. certain respects, of course, course, LCCM LC M Theory Theory isiisnot notaanew n~ theory certun certainrespects1 respects, of conceiVscholars examines · tudled phenomena phenom na that that countless countl=scholars holar ofofevery everyconceivcon eiv· examines countless examines well well-studied phenomena theoretical have examined examinedbefore beforeme. me.ItItItalso also incorporates abl penua i n have me. alsoincorporates in orporates able able theoretical theoretical persuasion persuasion have examined linguistics and cognitive cognitive linguistics seminal idea lingui tics and cognitive seminal ideas ideas developed developed by by others, others, in in both both cognitive the core insights r,iics and psy hology, and in orporat synthesizes many of the the core coreinsights in ights incorp psychology, psychology, and incorporates andsynthesiies synthesizes many of of semanticsand andgrammar in the th best~known approach semanti and grammar developed in the best-known best-known approaches approaches to to linguistic linguisticsemantics developed by other oth r cognitive cognitiv linguists. linguist. other cognitive yet theory to My the preceding preceding pages, pag ,has not been to add add yet yet another another theory pages, hasnot to My aim, in the has Neverthekss. there ire the mix, so to peak, simply for the ke of doing so. everthel , there are of doing doing so. so.Nevertheless, there are mix, so to speak, simply for the sake of the mix, the preceding pages, which thr aspects of LC Theory, a presented presented in in the preceding precedingpages, pages,which whichI II three aspectsof ofLCCM l. NIMTheory, aspects Theory,as as presented and,IIhope, hope,elegant elegantaccount which provide aaccount ount believe arc noteworthy, provide aa new newand, believe arc are noteworthy, and, which book. the during the course of oflingui ti phenomena phenom na discussed dl ussed during during the the course course of ofthe book. of the range range of of linguistk. linguistic the hook. has reached a point in its its movement has ha reached a point in its I also also believe believe that that the cognitive linguistics linguistics movement believe that the cognitive linguistics Theory.The Thethree three development where require (something (something like) LC CNI M Theory. Theory. Th thrtt development where whereitititrequires requires (somethinglike) like)LCCM U development are detailed below. notabl aspects aspect arc detailed below. below. notable key provides self-tonsdous attempt to to svntlwsiic I. LCCM llCCM M Theory iou attempt to synthesize ynthesi7ekey Theory provides provides aaa selfcon self-conscious i.1. andcognitive cognitive development relating relating to to cognitive cognitivelexical lexi 31semantics, semanti ,and cognitive relating lexical semantics, developments and distinct theories and to grammar grammar from across across of distinct a ro aa number number of di tinct theories theoriesand and approaches to linguistks thereby providing a single joinedapproa h within cognitive (ognitlve linguistics Iingui ti sthereby thereby providing providingaasingle inglejoinedJOined · approaches semantics. theory of oflinguistic Iinguisti semantics. mantic. up theory linguistic thatitititconstitutes ..onstitutes anapproach approach ne of of tthe hallmarks of ofcognitive cognitivelingui tI isis i that con titutesan One linguistics hallmarks of cognitive linguistics he hallmarks relationship between language.the tudy of oflanguage and the relationship relation hip between betwttnlanguage, language, themind, mind,and and to the the study study of languageand and the language to distinct,complecomplesociophysical experien e. Hence, Hence, itit comprises comprises aa number numberof ofdistinct, souophysical experience. experience. Hence, number sociophysical theoretical frameworks approaches, m ntary and and sometimes sometime:.competing competingtheoretical theoreti alframeworks frameworksand andapproaches, mentary sometimes mentary perspective1 one which often addr overlapping overlapping phenomena. hom thi perspective, per pective, one one whichoften oftenaddress address overlappingphenomena. phenomena.From Irom this this which and challenge for cognitive cognitivelinguists linguists istoto tointegrate integratethe therange range of perspedives challenge for cognitive lingui t isis rang of ofperspectives perspective and and challenge more focused attempt to account frameworks on in order to provide aa more morefocused focusedattempt attempttotoaccount ac ount frameworks on offer offer in in order to provide provide frameworks As I noted earlier, for the the object object of ofanalysis, analy is,whatever whatever that that happen to tobe. be.AsAI noted noted earlier, for the object of analysis, whatever thathappens happens to be. for earlier, cognitive Ilngui ticscan can be notionally divided into two ub-branch cognicognitivelinguistics linguistics canbe benotionally notionallydivided dividedinto twosub sub-branches: branches::cognicognitive within tive semantic. and cognitive approolche to grammar. One concern within livesemantics semanticsand andcognitive cognitiveapproaches approachestotogrammar. grammar.One concern concernwithin tive cognitively from (ognilivc b>CmJntic~has hd\been beentoto%tudv \tuoylexical Icxic.Urepresentation rrepresentation pr~ntalionfrom frol11aa3cognitively (ogniliv Iy cognitivesemantics semantics has lexical cognitive study realistic framework.This Thiswork work hasassumed thatsemantic semanticstructure structure rcali tic framework. framework. Thi w rk has h~ aassumed umedthat tholt scl11anlk ~trU(. : turereflects reneeLS realistic -

______________ _______________________________

336

—

(.ONCLUSION CONCLUSION

partiularly the concognitIVe particularly the mbodied nature nature of ofthe con cognitive organization. organization, theembodied embodied nature the human human contognitivc organi/nion. particularly (Lakott1987 thesis ofembodied the thesis ceptual system, ceplUal y tern. as en hrined in in the th is of of embodiedcognition ognition(Lakoff (Lakoff t987;; as enshrined enshrined Evansand and Green 2006 for for an an overview), John'>On t987; 5CCe [van ,rcen 2006 overview). .is a well well as a other oth rJohns1987;ecEvadGrnzo6faveiw),slothr Johnson 1987; of human cognition as categorizationand md attenaflen organizing cognition such ~uch as a categorization categorization and atten organizing principl~ principles of addition, cognitive have made tional mechanisms. In addition, tional mechani m . In addition. cognitive semantic mantic accounts a count have have made made lexical representation, as in exemcxcm"gnificant tride in moddling lexical lexiCilI representation, representation. i evident in exem significant strides in modelling as is signifi.ant strides (1994), Tyler and Evans Evans (2u03),and andthe the (;eeraerts (1994), (1987), Geeraerts pia" Lakoff (1987), ('987). Geeraert> (t994). Tyler Tyler Evan (2003), (2003). the plars as Lakoff tlars such .is coUection ofpapers papers in inCuyckens Cuyckens ci tI al. (20433). (2003). Some me of of the notions notion apparent apparent in collection of (2003). et a!. aL of in Cuyckens beenimportant important in the development dcvdopment of of cognitive cognitive >;emantic have hay' also hern in the .he development ofcognitive cogni tive cognitive semantics semantics have also been approaches to grammar, grammar1""pce Talmy and (e.g., 1987, use distinct of terms for some—arguably much—of the same di tin(\ sets \Ct of ofterms term for forcovering coveringsome—arguably wme-arguably much—of much f the thesame \.1me distinct sets conceptual territory. Moreover, wnteptu •• 1 territory. More'owr, Langacker Langaeker (e.g .• 1987) '987) and (e.g.• l.angacker (e.g., 1987) and Goldberg Goldberg (e.g., (e.g., (e.g., 1995) differ differ quite significantly they define theterm "construction," '995) antly in they ddefine fine the the tterm rm"construction," "con tru tion," aa differ quite signifi in how they fundamental theoretical construct construct in their respective Thus,not notonly theories. Thus, fundamental in their rc pcemantic memory. From cognitive cognitive approaches approaches to to gramgram storage in essential insights. mar. LC M Theory Theory has two essential ntial insights. insight . mar, LCCM mar, has taken two Firstly, cognltivel)' cognitively oriented have argued that that grammar grammar is is Firstly. grammarian have argued lhat grammar i Firstly, cognitively oriented oriented grammarians have argued meaningful, aa position position that until until was marginal viewin in meaningful. po ition that until relatively relallvely recently recently was wa aamarginal marginal view in nmainstream linguistics. Inparticular, particular,scholars scholars such lalmyand and Langacker main tream linguistics. linguisti . In In particular. -holar such u hasaasTalmy Talmy andLangacker Langa k r mainstream have successfully su..esstully demonstrated that although although grammatical grammatical meaning meaning is highly u c fully ddemonstrated mon trated that meaningi5 i highly highly have schematic in in nature, nature. when when compared compared to to the relatively associated ssc of of cogniliv. ""lnanli~,as a~aaa sub-branch ,ub branch of of of the the outstanding outstandingsuccesses role of of embodiment embodiment in cognitive linguistics, has cognillve Linguistics, lingui lie, ha been 10 empha ile the Ih of embodimenl in in hasbeen beento toemphasize emphasize the role demonstrate the cognitive and in language. has and in inlanguage. language. Another Another has has been been to 10demonstrate d mon Irate the the cognillve function funclion and function Another been to However, one of the importance of of imagination in meaning construction. Importance imagination in in meaning meaning construction. (on truction. However, Ilowevcr. one one of ofthe the imagination downplay the the significance of language consequences language consequence of Ihi move has ha been been 10 downplay Ihesignificance ignoficanceof oflanguage consequencesof ofthis this move has beento todownplay Thisisisapparent apparentin perhaps thetwo twocognitive itself meaning it If in meaning meaning construction. con Iruction.This Thi apparent inperhaps perhap the Ihe IwO cognitive itself profiles beyond beyondthe theconfines confines of linguistic theoriesthat thathave have the highest lingul\11( Ihemic Ihat have the Ihe highest high.,' profiles profile, beyond Ihe confine. ofof linguistk theories ConceptualMetaphor MetaphorTheory, theory, pioneered pioneered cognitive are Conceptual cognilive lingui lie. itself. ilself. These Th are Conceptual Melaphor Theory, pioneered cogmtivc linguistics linguistics itself. and Conceptual Blending Theory, by and Johnson, George Lakoff l.ak"ff and Mark MarkJohnson, Johnson, and andConceptual onceptllalBlending BlendingTheory, Theory, by George George lakoff and Mark developed by Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner. This not to say, of course, Mark Turner. rhas is hOt to say, of dc\ei"l"oJ and Mark Tlimer.lhi. i, not 10 'lay, of course, cou,""" developed hy hy("lie (,illes humnnicr Iauconnier and language. or explicitly attempts to that either of these theories ignores language, or explicitly attempts to reduce Ihal Ihe . Iheori .. ignores ignMe. languagc, or explkilly allempl 10 reduce redu, that cllher either of of these theorks constfliction. The IS5UC is more one (it focus. its significance in meaning construction. The issue is more one of focus. ih ignificolm:r in meaning meaning con truction. Tht i ur i mort ant of focu . its sigflifkancc

—

_ _ _ __ _.....;l~C::!C ~.1 THEORY ONTEXT L(M1HEORY IN'N CONTEXT LCCM THEORY IN CONTEXT -

339 JJ9 339

lor is primarily a ror "itspart, part, Con cplllal Metaphor M taphor Theory pnmarily aa theory know· of knowknowForits part,Conceptual Conceptual Metaphor Theory is is primarily theory of of ledge representation. Although it on language languag to to ledg representallon. Although has traditionally relied on traditionally relied to ledge representation. Although it has relied on language provide evidence provide e for for conceptual conceplual m taphors, and and seeks seeks to account for foraaasubset subset to account for provide eviden evidence conceptual metaphors. metaphors, and seeks of exhibited of scmanll ompo ilion exhibited exhibitedby byfigurative figurali ..language, language, itit i not not aaa theory Iheory theory of of of semantic semantic composition composition by figurative language, it is is not of languag rstanding nor of melaphor comprehen ion. II1have have assumed assumed language understanding in language und understanding nor of of metaphor metaphorcomprehension. comprehension. have assumed in this Metaphor Ihi thai Conceptual ,onceptual Metaphor ietaphor Theory Theoryis i correct correel ~II /igll($. Thai en gralll/~j graisdes That this book book that that Conceptual Theory is correct grandes ligises. That is, there is is compelling compelling evidence evidencefrom from behavioural behavioural studies studies demonstrating, ~s, evidenl< from behavioural tudi demonstrating, demon trating, for for is, there there is is truelured in terms of ofconceptual conceptual Instance, knowledge repr ntation is instance, that knowledge knowledge representation representation isstructured structured in terms terms of conceptual instance, that that ub trate taken con eptllal representation, repr ntalion, in in the n substrate taken from from other other domains of conceptual conceptual representation, the sense sense substrate taken from other domain domains of of predicted predICted Con epl"al Metaphor Theory, However, Ilowever, III believe believe that Ihat Concepn«pMetaphor Theory. that Conceppredicted by Conceptual Conceptual Theory. However, supplemented intwo two ways. ietaphor 'Iheory Theory needJ be supplemented upplemented in in way>. tual ways. tual Metaphor Metaphor Theoryneeds needs to to be be rir Ily, Con eptual Metaphor 'l11eory ha traditionally traditionallybeen beenconcerned con erned Firstly, Conceptual Metaphor Theory theory has Firstly, Conceptual Metaphor has traditionally been concerned with sensory· motorexperience e perience and and how howthis Ihi gives givC\rise riseto 10abstract ab lractconcepts. on«plS. with withsensory-motor sensory-motor experience and how this gives rise to abstract concepts. For i.akoff that notions notions such ror in tan e, Lakoff Lakoff and and Johnson have have emphasized empha ized that that notion such uch asas For instance, instance, andJohnson Johnson have emphasized and Quantityare, are,inin insonic som sense, n , subjective ubjective and and hence, h nce,inincertain Anger, lime, and hence, certain Anger, Tim, Time,and andQuantity arc, some sense, subjective abstract notions. Much of of the theimpetus impetusbehind Conceptual Metaphor Ii n . Much of Ihe impetu behindConceptual Con eplualMetaphor Metaphor rrespects peclS ab Ira t nnotions. respects abstract been to to show showhow these moreabstract abstractnotions notionsare arestructured structured Theory has has been been show how these thesemore more abstrael notion ar truelured in in has terms referred to dimensionsof of experience, term of what have hav been been referred 10 a concrete dimensions d,men.ion ofexperience, experience,for for terms of of what have to as as instance, 'time in in terms terms of Motion Anger in terms ut Heat. t rm of of Motion Motionthrough throughspace. pa e. Anger Anger in in terms termsof ofHeat, lleat. in tan< model profile profile accessed accessed bya a*relational 'relationallexical lexicalconcept. concept. Thiscontrasts contrasts with*per'permodel accessed by by. °rel.tionallexical con epl.This Thi contra ISwith WIth 'per· spectivitat pofitivil,J,1 ion. ion.

metonymy.AA Alignment Relatesto thedistinction distinction between 'metaphor and AUgoment Rel.t totothe the di tinctIon between between 'metaphor 'md.phor and and 'metonymy. 'mdonymy. A Alignment Relates judged as as being being metonymic inetonyniic (as opposed 'figurative 'figurat" conception that I judged judged ... mdonymi (a opposed opposed to metaOld. · 'figurative conception that that is (as phoric) exhibits in cases ofmetonymy metonymythe the*cognitive 'cognitive model phont:) co hibit alignment. alignm nl. That Thai iis•in Incases (,1 of metonymy th -,ognlll\'(model moot! phoric) exhibits alignment. That is, of withthe the*figurative 'figurative target 'figurative and the profile associated a i.ted with with the 'figuratIVe t.rgd and .nd *figurative 'figu .. tovevehicle vct of v.hid conventionally The subset of 'phonological vc+iicks (losed-dass losed ,cia vehicles • vehicles h icl Closed-class The subset of 'phonological vehicles conventionally paired lexical (on cpt . with -class WI th 'closed 'closed· cI lexical with 'closed-class lexicalconcepts. concepts. Cognitive model ... multlm,,,bl knowledge knowled~e of ofany any kind kind to to which whkh aa coherent "oJy body of of multimodal Cognitive Cognitivemodel model AAwherent coherent body of mutt imodal knowledgerise of any kind to which a to aa 'simulation. at concept con ept can facilitate access olc," and can give gi\·e riK to ' Imulation. 'Iexi and which can 'lexical •lexical concept can facilitate access and which can give rise a 'simulation. be and toan one more 'fram I and be classified cI lfitd Cogllltlve model arc compn\Cd of one or more 'frames, ognitive models are comprised Cognitive models are comprised of one or more 'frames, and can be classified 'episodic situations, to 'ind,vldu.1 'individuals., 'types. 'epIsodic Ituatlon., based rewte to basedon on the the way way in in whitual onceptual knowledge knowledge whkh Is conceptspro providing an... 'access of conceptual knowledge Whllh which is often often complex and inforrnationallv function diffu . Encapsulation Encap ulation iis di tinct complex complexand and informauonally informationallydiffuse. diffuse. Encapsulation isI.aafundion function of of two two distinct distinct !oy tern hting lalro such uc.;h thai ·lingul II( y lem provides pro...id aa means m~.. n of of inler· systems being that is. system provides means of interintersystems being rrelated related such that the the 'linguist `linguistic system with the s.onccptual system. facing paifil points, roint\, known Jas an .In' 01(,,: point, paint. 50 I m . facing.ll facingat atspecific specific points,known knownas an 'access 'access point, wllh with Ihe the 'colKeptual 'conceptual system.

type of'cognitive 'cognitive model ininwhich which mental representation is Episodic itullion AAtype Iypeof of 'cogniti\emodel modelin whllhaaamental mentalrepresentation rcpro-rntation is i Fpisodis. Episodic situations situations l.lbli~hcd for lIuJtion that tholt is i\ act a(tuJlly cl('leflem.cd. £-pi\oOllk situations ituJt!on\ established for aaa uniqu~ unique situation tially experienced. csperienied. Episodic Episodic situations established for unique situation that is actually contrast contrast 'generk ituation. contrast with with 'generic 'generic situations. situations.

Experiencer-based temporal frame ofofreference EX!",rien er·bascd lemporal rrame or ..reference rerence (TFoR) (TFoR) 'Iemporal frame rrame of or Experiencer-based temporal frame (TFoR) A A 'temporal 'temporal frame of rc(erenLC tJk ren(e point tin expericnl.lI1g con iou n ,referred refi rrtd reference which as its reference point referred reference whllh which takes takes .1.) as Ib its rt'fi reference pointan an experiencing experiencings.onsciousness, consciousness, to TFoRs en(ode encode relative relative lexltion location in as the the experiencer. aperiencer. Such u h TFoRs TFoRs roative time (e.g., (e.g.• past. p t. to as as the experiencer. Such encode location in time time (e.g., past, present, and future). future). pr 'nl, .nd rUlurel. present, and

process whereby 'internally Exlernal concepl inlegralion 'lnlegrallon pro.: whereby whereby 'internally 'lnl1 A A °ltxil.al (onl.tpt whkh concenlSa a..relation, rclJtlon ...and ndwhich whilhisis i

Relational lexical concept not witha aa theentities entities thatititItrelates. relates. contrasts not identifiable identifiableindependently IIldtptndentlyofofthe tnllU that relat This . This Thi contrasts contra twith With independent 'nominal lexical concept. • nominal lexical "nominallexi 011 concept. Restricted some kind l'hcspecification specihcation ofrestrictions 1otSoniC R tridtd selectional Icctional tendencies tend n ies The The pttlhution of of rrestritiOns tndlon of wmekind kind Restricted sckctional tendencies which the the 'selectional thenature natureofof whu.:h impostrelatively rtl.. tivelysevere K\o·tre limit with rrespect r«ttoto the"selectional " I tional whichimpose impose relatively severelimits limitswith withrespect tothe tendencies encoded by a lexical concept. This contrasts with 'non-restricted with 'non-restricted onccpt. This contrasts temlcnl.lc I xk..ll ulIll.ept. Thi contra.\t with "oon r tril.ttd by a kxital tendenties enuxled by select ion tendencies. tendencies.. ')nunn tcnd('nu select i Retrospective schematic temporal relation encoded byby anan based relation encoded by an'event 'event-based Retro ('tdiv relation ftlation Th hematic; temporal rel.Jllon en(odtd "('Vent based The Retrospective relation The A retrospective relation temporal frame of reference lexical concept. is one relation lone is oneinin Icmrur I (rdme of ref' renc..e Icxiul UlO\.('l't. A retrospective r('lro f"C\,tIV(, rtl.;atlon III -

temporal frame of rctcrent:e lexical t.t)ncept.

455 355

Semantic potential The entire set of cognitive models to which an 'open-class includes both primary cognitive I('x.il-alconcept u'Ull.ept potcnudltyfacilitates faulitolt 'access. ".JU:. This . This Thiincludes indud both hoth pnmJry «lgOilive lexical conept potentially potcnti.dly facilitates '.KtesS. lexical primary cognitive potential is kxial ..lticcpt's semantic modd "nd ond.1fYcognitive ulltOltlvemodels. mod I A .AAlexical Ie Il.ollconcept's l.onl.ep" semantic ·m.Jnti4..potential pOI nl1a1l\ modelsand andsecondary siondary models. is models cognitive

_________- ______________

GLOSSARY ()SS A GLO ARY

3 56

model modelled, in •LCCMThtOry, Theory,ininterms termsof theconstruct construct ofthe the 'cognitive 'cognitive model of ofofthe mod.Uro, term the (On trutd·d. complex units, involving 'vehicle internally complex symbolic aa *vehicle and an open "closed class lexical concept. The TEoR lexical concept serves to encode highly schematic lexical t:on(cpt. T~oR lexiul UlOt:Cpt \en to eocooe highly hem.llll lexical concept. The TFoR lexical concept serves to encode highly schematic aspects of temporal temporal reference. a5pt'\.1 temporal rcferen(e. aspects of of reference. -

Part therepresentation representation that participantsmaintain maintainin in the Tcxtual ~prC'SC:ntation Partofofthe rqu nt.llionthat th .. ,participants partidp.mt m~int,Jin inthe the Textual Textual representation representation Part service of'discourse 'discourse representation.During l)uring aaa •"JOint 'joint activity, rvke of "di OUf\e representation. reprncntation [)urang .l(:tivily.participants p.1rtlllp.Jnhkeep k«p service of ioint activity, participants keep tralk of of.U the utt.ranc iissued uro and and oth.r ignai>,such uchas a accompanying ac ompanylnggestures1 S tur... track track ofall allthe theutterances utterancesissued andother othersignals, signals, such as accompanying gestures, prosody, and M> soon. on.This Thisconstitutes constitutes thetextual textualrepresentation. representation. addition, partipro xly. and on. 1111 con tltut the the textual repr ntation. In InInaddition, ddllion. partiparti prosody, and so cipants maintain maintain aa 'satuational representation. c.:ip.Jnl m.1IOI,JIO;J· ilu.1tion.J1 representation. rcpr nt.1t1on. cipants 'situational Transcrndence ncerns the the and range range of oflocations 1000Jtion at al which whi h and andwhen when Concerns thenumber number and and range of Locations at which and when Transcendence Concerns Transcendence 'individuals, 'generic situations are represented "individu,JI •'types, "typo.'episodic 'C'pi\Odksituations, ItuJtion~.and olnd'generic "gen ricsituations _itu.Jtion are .lrerepresented repr nted 'individuals, 'types, 'episodic situations, and I liegreater greater thenumber and range in our our mental mental representation rcprC'Knt.Jtion of ofthe world. The grealer the Ihe numberand olndrange rang of of our mental representation theworld. worki. The in location. Ihe more troln endent the the 'cognitive "cogniti\:emodel modelin qu lion.Transcendence TranS(cndrm;e locations, the the more transcendent transcendent 'cognitive model ininquestion. question. Transcendence locations, detached. can toaaiicognitive cognitivemodel modelbecoming becoming'functionally 'functionallydetached. un lead Ilead ad to to l.ogniti\t model h«omlllg "fun'-'Ionally dC'I,Jl.het.l. can abstractare mentalrepresentations representations based TyptS A kind of'cognitive mod.1. TyptS art mtotal r.p""'nwlonbased basttrall'cognitivemodel. model. Types A kind Types of of *cognitive Types are mental thus ing.1c.:m partKuln" andividualsin orderto toleave I .)\'Cpoints POint of imiLuily.AAAtype tyreisis ithus thu aaa ing acrossparticular particular'individuals 'individuals ininorder order to leave pointsofof similarity. type ing across similarity.

generic representation representation based basedon onaaaset set rdatedindividuals. individuals.. gentn( reprnent.Jtion ~ on tof ofofrelated related iooivldu.tl generic

Th.process, pro< central ,c.ntral '1«lealconcept conceptintegration, integration,whereby wh rtbylinguistic lingul tic The process, central to'lexical 'lexical concept integration1 whereby linguistic Unpacking The I`npacking toto integrated inthe the way content encoded encoded bylexical lexical concepts inan an utterance (ontenl enuxied by hy Icxiul concepts con(ept\ in 10 .lOutterance utter.1nt:e isis I~integrated Intege-ollN in in theway woly content (on tralnN by thethree thr« prinlipl of integration. constrained bythe the' threeprinciples principlesof ofintegration. constrained

somewhat discreteentity entitythat has unit-like status in that represents tltrance AA somewhat somC"Whal discrete disc.:rtte tntlty that has h.1 unit unll like status taW in inthat thatitititrepresents reprncnt Utterance Utterance like theexpression upr ion of of ioglccoherent (:oherent ide.J.making makang(at (.1least I ol~tpartial) p.utl.ll)use uscof c.,fthe thenorms nonn expression ofaaasingle single oherentidea, idea, making (at least partial) use of the normS the community. An andconventions conventions oflinguistic linguistic behaviourinin aaa particular particular i community. comenlloo ofof lingul licbehaviour partkular linguist linguislic c.:ommunaty.An An and linguistic ontextualized, and .iiid unique ofoflanguage Language ulleran(e repr nl aaaspecific, ~ifi(. contextualited, c.:ontcxtualiltd. olndunique uniqueinstance in tJn(eof I. mgu.lge utterancerepresents represents speitic, utterance instance particular communiuse, perlormedby bya,Jalanguage languageuser inservice scrvieof of signalling u •performed performed hy IJngu.Jgc uuser 'r in 10 !J.Crvke ufsignalling Ignollhng,J p.1rti(:ul.Jrcommuniulmmuni use, aaparticular discrete usage event. cative inlention. HC'n(e.an ulteran(econstitutes (:on tllul a adiscrete dl ·reteusage u geevent. C'\'cnt. cativeintention. intention.Hence, Hence, anutterance utterance cative -

Sec 'Attributesets. Valu See Set" unhult value v.Jluesets. '1 . Value Value •Attribute-value

See• "Phonulogil..aI 'phonologicalvehicle. veliick. Hhldc. Vehicle See Phonological Vehicle

KEFEkENCE REFERENCES

359 359

L%arsalou, Lawrence.and andWiener-Hastings, Wienwr Hastings,Katja. K.atpa.( zoos). (2005).Situating Situatingabstract abstractconcepts. concept..In In Barsalou, Lawrence. 1). Pecher and K. Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception Action Pecher and R. Zwaan Zwaan (eels), (eds), Grounding The Role of Per andand Action

References References

-

Oxford: Blackwell.

inthe' the Mind. Oxford: Blackwdl. Aitchison, Jean. Jean. (1996). Wards Words ,n Aitl.hisofl, In Aliport,1). D.A. A.(1985). (1985). Distributed l)istrihulcd memory, modular subsystems and dysphasia. In Ailport. 207-44. l)ysphassa, 20'-44. Current Perspectives ininDysphasia, S. K. Newman and R. Epstein Epstein (eds), (eds), Current

S. K. Newman and K. Edinburgh: Churchill Churchill Livingstone. Edinburgh: for the the Allwood,Jens. Jens. (2oo3)• Meaning Meaning potentials potentials and and context: context:Some Some consequences for Allwood l)irven, and i. I. Taylor Taylor (eels), analysis of of variation in in meaning. meaning. In In H. H. Cuyckcns. Cuyckens, K. R. Dirven, (eds), dcGruyter. (ruyter. —66.Berlin: Berlin: Mouton de Cognitive Approaches Approaches totoLexical (ognitive LexicalSemantics, 29-66. forTime in in Semantics and ('n:vcrsa! Metaphors for and Experience: Universal Alverson. Hoyt. Hoyt. (1994). (1994). Semantics A)verson, Baltimore, MA: Johns IIopkin% Hopkins University MA: Johns University English, Mandarin, Hindi Hindi gird and Sesotho. Sesotho. Baltimore,

Press. Press.

The senses. In The

dictionary senses. In Atkins,B. B.T. T. S.S. (1987 ).Semantic-fl) Semantic-ID tags: tags: corpu. corpus evidence evidence for dictionary Atkins, of the New Uses of of large Large Text Databases: Annual Conference of the New l)atabasec Proceedings Proceedingsofofthe the'Third Thi rd W.itcrluo. 17- 36. Canada: OED Centre, Centre, 17—36. Canada: University of Waterloo. (JEt) and why whyitit Bach, Kent. Kent. (1997). (1997). The The semantics-pragmatics distinction:What Whatitit is and scrnantics-pragmaticS distinction: Bach, SpecialIssue Issue on on Pragmatics, Pragmatics, 33 33 -So. lerichtc 8, Special -50. matters. ILinguistiche Berichte matters. reducedbody bodytemperature. i&mperature. American Baddeley, Alan Alan 1). D. (1966). Raddeky, (1966). Time Time estimation estimation atat reduced

79 (3): (3):475—9. 475-9. Journal Journal of ofPsychology, Psychology,79 Berlin: MouMetaphor '.fetonymyatatthe theCrossroads. Crossroads. Berlin: Barcelona, Antonio. ((moo). z000). Metaphor and andMetonymy ton ton de de Gruyter. Gruyter. (eel.), goals.In In(i. (. H. Bower Rower (cd.), Barsalou, (1991). Deriving Deriving categories to to achieve achieve goals. Lawrence. (1991). Rarsalou, Lawrence. in Research Theory, The Advances andand Theory, andMotivation: \ lorivat ion: Ad;w:t in Research I d'arning and The Psychology Psychology of of Learning Press. voL 27, 1-64. ('A: Academic Press. vol. 27, 1-64. San SanDiego, l)iego. CA: InA. A.Lehrer Lehrcrand andE.E.F.I.Kittay Kittay (1992a). fields. In conceptual fields. (1992a). Frames, Frames, concepts, concepts, and and conceptual Orguni:aFrames. Fields. inin Lexical and Semantic OrganizaEssays Lexical and Semantic (eds), NewEssays (ontrasts:New and Contrasts: Field', and (eds), Frgi,,uc, Hillsdale, tion, Iiillsdalc, NJ: NJ: Lawrence Lawrcntc Erlhaum. Erihaum. non, 11-74. iiHillsdale, Cognitive Psychology: An Scientists. Hillstble, Cognitive Overviewfor Cognitive - - (1992b). (1992b). Cognitive Psytltology: An Overview NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Erlhaum. \J: lawrence 22:577—660. 577-66 ► . Bras,.Sciences, Sciences, 22: - — (1999). Perceptual symbol symbol systems. systems. Behavioral Behavioraland andBrain (*999). Perceptual Language and conceptualsystem. system. Language and (2003). Situated simulation simulation in in the thehuman humanconceptual (zoo3). Situated Cognitive Processes, 18: (;ognitiw Processes, *8: 513-62. 5*3-62. Thuds in in Cognitive Cognitive acrosSspecies. species. Trends (2oos). theconceptual system across (zoos).Continuity Continuityofofthe Sciences, 9: 309-11. 9: 309—11. 617—45. ssl: 617-45. (ioo8). Reviewof ofPsychology, Psychology. 59: tunded cognition. cognition. Annual Review (ioo8).Grounded ambiguity.InInD.1). (orand (1989). Systematicity Gorandsemantic st-inantstambiguity. md Billman. fliLlman, I)orrit. I )orrit. (19$9). Svstctnat ityand NewYork: York:Springer-Verlag. springer-Verlag. fein (ed.), SetnanticAmbiguity, 146-203. New (cd.), Resolving Semantic 1cm and (forthcoming). Languageand Simmons, Kyle, and Wilson, C. D. (forthcoming). Language - - Santos, Santos,Ava, Ma, Simmons, Kyle, and Wilson, (. I). I )c Vcgmi. A. (knberg,and andA.A.Graesser (raesser simulation Vega, A. Glenberg. processing.InInM. De simulation ininconceptual processing. UnisersitvPress. Press. OxfordUniversity (),lord: Oxford (eds), (eels),Symbols, Sy,nbols,Embodiment, imbodament,and and Meaning. Oxford:

in andThought, Thought, 129-63. New in Memory, languag•, and New York: York:Cambridge CambridgeUniversity UniversityPress. Press. Yeh, Luka, Barbara, Barbara. Olseth, ()lseth, Karen, Karen.Mix Mix Kelly, Kelly, and andWu, Wu,Ling-Ling. Ling- ling. (1993). Ych, Wenchi, Wenchi, Luka,

Concepts meaning.In In K. K. Beals, Reals,G. (i. Cooke, Cooke,D. I).Kathman, Kathman, K. K. E. 1. McCullough, Concepts and meaning. S. Socici* 9: Iisrasccsions S.Kita, Kita,and andI). D.Testen Testen (ed.), (eds), Chicago Chicago Linguistics Linguistics Society 9:Papers Papers from from the the Parasessions on omiceptual Representations, vol. vol. z 23—61. ChicagoLinguistics Linguistics Society. on (Conceptual 23-61. Chicago Society. Bender, Andrea, Bennardo, Giovanni, and (zoo5). Belier, Sieghard. Spatial frames frames of it Bender, Andrea, Bennardo, Giovanni, and Beller, Sieghard. (zoos). Spatial reference A conceptual onceptual analysis in English, and reference for for temporal temporal relations: relations: A analysis in English, German, German, and Tongan. Barsalou, and and M. M. Bucciarelli Bucciarelli (eds), (eels). Proc eethngsof of the the Tongan. In InB. B. C. G. tiara, Bara, L. L Barsalou, Proceedings Twenty-Seventh AnnualConference ofofthe theCognitive CognitiveScience Science Society, 220-5. Mahwah, Mahwah, Twenty-Seventh Annual Society, NJ: Lawrence Erihaum. NJ: Lawrence Erlhaum. Bennett, )avid. (1975). ( 'se's EnglishPrepositions. London: Spatial ( Bennett, IDavid. Spatial ass! ism, Temporal Uses of of English London: Longman. Longman.

Bergen, Benjamin K. Nancy.(zoos). (zoos).Embodied Embodiedconstruction constructiongrammar grammar in in Bergen, Benjamin K. and and Chang. :hang, Nancy. simulation-based understanding. In In J.-O. ('ktman and and M. M. Fried Fried (eds), simulation-based language language understanding. I.-0. Ostman (eds), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretic -al Extensions, 147-9o. Amsterdam: Amsterdam: John John Beniamins. Policy, Carl, Kathryn. (torthcorning). Polley, Carl, and and Wheeler, Wheeler, Kathryn. (forthcoming). Language language and andinner innerspace. space. In Space:The TheState Stateofofthe tht'Art Art In V. V.Evans Evans and and P. P. Chilton Chilton(eels), (eds), Language, Language, Cognition Cognition and and Space:

NewDirections. I),rei' ions. London: Equinox Publishing. Publishing. and New London: Equinox Metaphoricstructuring: structuring: Understanding Understanding time time through through spaspaRoroditskv, Boroditsky,Lera. Lera.(iooo). (woo). Metaphoric tial metaphors. tial metaphors.Cognition, Cognition,7575(1): (1):1—28. 1-28. (2001). l)ocs language shape thought? Mandarin and and English English speakers' speakers' concepconcep(zom). Does language shape thought? Mandarin

tions of of time. time. Cognitive Cognitive Psychology Psychology, 43: 43:1—22. 1 - 22. and Prin,, Jesse. (forthcoming). What thoughts are are made madeof. of.In InG. C. Semin Seminand and and Prinz, Jesse. (forthcoming). What thoughts Smith ((eds), Cognitive. lffective.and and Grounding:Social, Social,Cognitive. E. Smith E. eds), Embodied Embodied Grounding: Affective. Neuroscientilic Approaches. Cambridge: ( ambridge: Cambridge University Press. Approathes. Cambridge University Press. areer of ot metaphor. metaphor. Psychological Bowdle,Brian Brianand andGentner, Gentner, I)edre. The career Boodle, Dedre. (zoos). The Psychological Review, iii: 193—216. Review, 193-216. (aoo3).Space Space under e)nstruttion:LanguagelanguageBowerman, Melissa Melissa and and Choi, Choi, Soonja. (2oo3). Bowerman, under construction: specific spatial spatial categorization categorizationin in first first language languageacquisition. acquisition.In In D. 1).Gentner (,entncr and and specific in Mind: .%l:nd:Advances Advances the Study language S. Goldin-Meadow (eds), (eels), Language in S. ininthe Study of of Language Thought, 387-428. -428.Cambridge, Cambridge.MA: MA:MIT MIl Press. andThought, and Press. ainalvia syntactic amalOptimization via Slichaelis, Brenier, and Laura A. Jason M. Brenier, Jason M. and Michaelis, Laura A. (2o05). Optimization andLinLi,,gam: Syntax-prosody Syntax-prosody mismatch mismatch and and copula copula doubling. doubling. Corpus Linguisticsand gam: Corpus Linguistics guist:t Theory, I:I:45—88. guistic 45-88. Brugman, Claudia. (*988). of "over": "over": Polyserny, Polysemy,Semantics Semanticsand andthe theStructure Structureofof Brugman, Claudia. (1988). The The Story Story of New York: York: Garland. Garland. theLexicon. leue'n. New the andLakoff, takoff, George. (1y88).Cognitive Cognitivetopology topologyand and kilcalnetworks. networks.InInS.S.Small. Small, and George. (1988). lexical C. Cottrell, (:ourell, and AmbiguityResolution, Resolution,477 477-si7. Sin G. and M. M. Tannenhaus Tannenhaus (eds), (eds), Lexical Lexical Ambiguity -507. San Slatco,CA: CA:Morgan Morgati Kaufman. Kaufman. Mateo, Rurling. Robbins. howlanguage Lat.gui.ge It'olvel.Oxford: oxford: Oxford Oxford Burling, Robbins. (2007). (2oo7). The The Naked Naked Ape: How Evolved. Press. UniversityPress. University —

-

REFERENCES REFERENCIS

360

360

Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity University Press. Cann, Ronnie (1993). Formal Semantics.Camhridgc Cambndgc lor,r:al Se,,,antws. Cann, Ronnie andUtterances: Utterances:The The Pragmatics Pragmatics of Explicit CopmnuCarston, Robyn. (2002). Thoughtsand Lxpheit Commu(zooz). Thoughts (arstofl, Robyn. nication. Oxford: Blackwell. ,matiofl. Oxford Rlackweli. Casasanto, Daniel. (forthcoming). Space forthinking. thinking.InInV.V.Evans Evans and and P. l'. Chilton (hilton Ca',JsjfltO, L)aniel. (forthcoming). Sp.he 11)1 and New Directions. Art Cognition and Space: The The State (eds). Language,Cognition State of ofthe the Art and New' Direction'. and Space: Language. (eds), London: Equinox Publishing. London: Equinox Publishing. Time in the mind: t\ing space to to think thinkabout ab(nit - and Boroditsky, Um. (2008).Time in the mind: Usingspace — and Boroditsky, Lcra. (2008). time. Cognition, 106: 579 93. io6: 579-93. time. Time:The TheFlow Flow and and IDisplacement andTime: )isplacem'nt Chafe, Wallace. (1994 ). Discourse. COnStiOUSlIeSS, pisciousness, and (ihafe, Wallace. (1994). 1)iscourW Chicago:University University of Chicago Chicago of Conscious Experience in Speaking and 4Vriting. Chicago: Experwnce in Snaking and (1 Press. Press. in Choi, Soonja and Bowerman, Melissa. 0990. Learning express motion Learning to to express motion events evenh in Soon5a .irid Bowcrman, Choi, English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalitation lexicalization patterns. of language-specific English and Korean: The influence -

Cognition, 41: 83-121. 41: 83—111.

(

The Hague: Hague: Mouton. Structures. The Chomsky, Noam. (1957). Syntactic Structures. Mouton. Noam. (1957). Syntactic Cambridge, MA: MA: MIT MITPress. Press. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge ol the Theory of — — (1981). (i'*s). Aspects Foris. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. (iqSs). Lectures on Gowrnment and Binding. L)ordrecht: (0991). Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In InR. R.Freidin Freidin Some notes on economy of derivation and representa' ion. — 54. Cambridge, 417 (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, Grammar,

—

(ed.). Principles and Parameters in Cornparatiw MA: MIT Press. MA: MIT Press. MITPress. Press. Program. Cambridge, MA: 1199s). The Minimalist MA: MIT The Minimalist Program. Cambridge — Language Evolution. OxfOrd: Christiansen, Morten H. and Kirby, Simon. (2003). Evolution. Oxford: (2n03). Language Chnstiansefl, Morten U. and Kirby, Simon. -

Oxford University Press. Oxford I.. Tniversity Press. A 4 gain. ..wf. 1 ler Again. Together Clark, Andy. (1998). Being There: Putting Brain. Body Bodyand and World .1;

(lark. Andy. (1998). Being There: Putting Brain, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cambridge1 MA: MIT Press. the child. In T. Moore (ed.), (ed.), Clark, Herbert. (0973). Space, time, semantics, and Space1 time, semantics, and the child. In T. Moore (lark. Herbert. Cognitive IleveIopment and the Acquisition of Language, 27 63. New NewYork: York: Academic Academic (ognitive lkvelopnicvit and theAcquisition of Language. -

Press.

Press.

Jarvella (1983). Making sense of nonce sense. In G. Flores I. larvella FloresD'Arcais l)'Areais and R. J. (1983). Making sense of nonce sense. In Chichester: John john Wiley. (eds), The Process of Language I !nilerstatrifing, 297-332. •332. Chichestcr (eds), The Process of Language Cambridge: Cambridge (1996). Using Language. CambridgeUniversity University Press. Press. (-'sing Language. Cambridge: Corhallis, Michael. (2003). From Hand to Mouth: The Origins of Language. Language.Princeton: Princeton: -

(T.orballis, Michael. (2003). From Hand to Mouth: The Origins oJ Princeton University Press. Princeton University Press. Cambridge: Cambridge Coulson, Seana. (2000). Semantic Leaps. CambridgeUniversity University Press. Press. (:oulM)n, Seana. (zooo). Sesisantic Leaps. Cambridge: PsychoP!.vhoCoventry, Kenny and Garrod, Simon. ( 2004). Saying, Seeing The Seeingand andActing: Acting:The Coventry. Kenny and Garrod, Simon. (1004). Saying. Hove: Psychology Press. logical Semantics of Spatial Prepositions. Press. logical Semantics of Spatial Prepositions. Croft, William. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation metaphorsand and interpretationofofmetaphors Croft, William. (1993). The role of domains in the metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4: 335 70. mctonym*es. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 335—7°. ic,i-74(1998). Mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics. 74. Linguistics.9 (2): 1 51 — (1998). Mental representations. Cognitnr ► gman. lALongrnan. (2000). Explaining Language Change An Evolutionary Approik•. London: London: (1(K)0). Explanung Language Changç An

— (1o07). The origins of grammar Linguistics, 18 (3): 339-82. Linguistics

18

(3):

361

Linguistics. Cambridge: Cam(2004). Croft, Croft,William Williamand and(ruse, Cruse,I).D.Alan. Alan. ( 2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge Press. bridgeUniversity University Press. of the micro-structure of word meanings. In Y. Ravin Cruse, I). Alan. (zooz). Cruse, D. Alan. (2002).Aspects Aspects of the micro-structure of word meanings. In Y. Ravin (eds), Polyseiny Theoretical uu! Computational Approaches, ;o—5i. and andC.C. Leocock (eds), Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches, 30-51. Oxford University Press. Oxford: Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cuyckens. Hubert, I)irven, Renc, and Taylor. John (2003). Cognitive Approaches to Cuyckens, Hubert, I)irven, Rene, and Taylor, John (2oo3). Cognitive Approaches to Mouton de Gruyter. Lexical LexicalSemantics. Semantics. Berlin: Berlin: Mouton de Gruytcr. Iowards an empirical lexical semanSandra, I)ominiek, and Rice, Sally. Sandra, Dominick, and Rice, Sally. (1997). Thwards an empirical lexical semanTaach (eds). Human Contact through Language and tics. tics.In InB. B.Smieja Smiejaand and M. M. Tasch (eds), Human Contact through Language and Frankfurt: Peter Lang. l.inguistics. 35 54. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. I ► nguistics,35-54. l)4hrowska, Ewa. (zoo9). Words as constructions. In V. Evans and S. Pourcd (eds), Dabrowska, Ewa. (2oo9). Words as constructions. In V. Evans and S. Pourcel (ads), Cognitive Linguistics. 201—24.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. New New Dircctio'i' Directions in in Cognitive Linguistics, 201-24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Time—locked multiregional ret road i' .ition: A systemsIDamasio, )amasio, Antonio. (1989). Antonio. (1989). Time-locked multiregional retroactivation: A systemslevel proposal for the neural substrates of recall and re(Ogflitil)fl. Cognition. -

level proposal for the neural substrates of recall and recognition. Cognition, 33: 25-62. 25 62. Frror: Emotion, Reason and the I lis,,sa's l3rasn. I ondt.n: Vintage. — - (1994). (1994). L),.scartcs' Descartes' Error: Emotion. Reason arid the Human Bnain. London: Vintage. Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Eve. (2ooS). IDancygier, )ancygier. Barbara Barbaraand andSweetser, Sweetscr, Eve. (2005). Alental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional University Press. Constructions. ainhridge: Cambridge Constructions. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. t,:linislu'd Revolution. London: Penguin. Time: I)avies, Paul. ((2oo6). Davies, Paul. 2006). About About Time: Einstein's Unfinished Revolution. London: Penguin. The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolutso's of Language and the L)eacon, Terrenle. Deacon, Terrence. (1997 ). The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the -

W. W. Norton and Co. York, NY: Brain. Brain. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Co. (2005). Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of Paul. (2oo5). Deane, Deane, Paul. Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of Perception tO Meaning: Image .Sthensas in "over. In B. Hampe over." In B. Hampe(ed.), (ed.), From From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Berlin: Mouton tie (;ruyter. linguistics. 235—82. 235-82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Linguistics, L)ijk, Teun van and Kintsth. Walter. (1983). Strategies of I)iscour'i (iomprehe?ISWn. Dijk, Teun van and Kintsdi, Walter. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension.

York, NY: NY: Academic New York, New Academic Press. Press.

Origins oJ the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution Harvard University Press. (:ulturcand andCognition. Cognition. Harvard: Harvard: Harvard Culture University Press. Language. London: ( roonsirsg. (;ossip anti the Evolution of Dunbar, Robin. (1996). Dunbar, Robin. ( 0996). Grooming. Gossip and the Evolution of Language. London:

l)onald, Merlin. Merlin. (1991). (*991). Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Donald,

Faber&& Faber. Faber. Faber

Space

in Danish Sign Language: Ihe Meaning and

Engberg-I'ederM)n. IIisabeth.(1993). Space in hinish Sign I anguage: The Meaning and EngbergPederson, Elisabeth. Hamburg: signum-Verlag. Morphosyntactic ('.se' of Space in a Visual Language. Hamburg: Signum-Verlag.

Morphosyntactic Use of Space in a Visual Language. In the mind's ear: The semantic extenDavid. Evans, Nicholasand andWilkins, Wilkins, David. Evans. Nicholas (2oo0). In the mind's car: The(3): semantic 546 92.extenverbs in Australian languages. Language. sions of perception sions of perception verbs in Australian languages. l angua ige, 76 (3): 546-92. and Cognition. Isimse; Lamsguage. The Structure ofofTime: Evans, Vyvyan. (zoo4a). The Language. Meaning and Cognition.

Evans, Vyvyan. (20040). ins. JohnBenjamins. Amsterdam:John Amsterdam:

I-low we conceptualiSe time.

an Ar: and Sciences. 33

(z): 13—44.

13 44(2oo4h). How we conceptualise time. Essays in Arts and Sciences. 33 (2):structure. Polysemy, the lexicon and (zoos). The meaning Polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. iru meaning (1):"time": 33 -

-

Theory in Typological Perspec(2002). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Radical Construction Grammar: v's tat Theory in 1)pological Perspec(zoo Oxford University Press. tive. Oxford: ()xturd: Oxford University Press. tiw. Cognitive (2007). The origins of grammar in in the verbalization of of experience. verbalization experience. (agn.tiw the

REFERI REFERENCES

of linguistiCs. Journal Jour 2 Sof nal h Linguistics, Th

-

4' 0):

- 75. Cognitive models and toilCepts. cognitive i ; (449 ion. Cognitive c01-s. cognitive models and meaning-const ruction. (20 06). LLexical concepts, (4): 491—534. linguist i Linguistics to the non-spatial: The "state" lexical

--- (forthcoming a). From the spatial to the non-spatial: The "state" lexical Evans and P. Chilton (eds), Language. onand andin.at. InIn V.V.Evans concepts in, on concepts ofofin, and P. Chilton fetish I anguage, -

Equinox ondon: Equinox Cognitionand andSpate: Space:The TheState Stateofi of the the Art Art and and New Directions. l)irections. ILondon: Publishing. Publishing. In Theperceptual perceptualbasis basis of of spatial spatial rcprescfltatiofl. representation. In b).The Evans,Vyvyan. Vyvyan.(tinihcoming (forthcomingb). Evans, Stateof ofthe theArt Art Vail.: The The State Language. (ogr:ition Cognition and goldSpace: Evans and Chilton(eds), (eds), language. \'V.Evan and P.P.Chilton London: Equinox Equinox Publishing. Publishing. and New New Directions. l),rectwns. London: and Language,Cognition Cognition and and Space: Space: The The and t:hiIu)n, Chilton,Paul Paul(eds). (eds). (forthcoming). (forthcoming). Language. and

—

London: Equinox Equinox Publishing. Publishing. Stateofofthe theArt Art and and New New IDirections. ):ret Ho?l. London: State Edinburgh: Cognitive Linguistics: Linguistics: An An Introduction. Introduction. Edinburgh: and (,reen, Green,Melanie. Melanie.(2oo6). (2oo6). Cognitive and EdinburghUniversity UniversityPress. Press. Idinhurgh

and Tyler, Rethinking Inglish English'prepositions "prepositionsot of movement": movement": The The Tyler1Andrea. Andrea.( 2004). (2xl Rethinking —— and Mortelmans (eds), In H. H. Cuyckens, Cuyckens, W. Dc De Mulder, and T. T. Mortelmans through. In and through. to and Mulder. and case of to ase of t8:2-s--7u. 245-70. Amsterdam: Amsterdam: Adpositions of of Movement. Belgian BelgianJournal Journalof ofLinguistics, linguistics, *8: Adpositions John Bcnjamins. Benjamins. John

Press. Mental Spaces. Fauconnier, Gdles. Gilles. (1994). Mental Spaces.Cambridge: Cambridge:Cambridge Cambridge University University Press. Fauconnier, Cambridge: Cambridge University in Thought Thought am! and language. Language. Cambridge: (1997). Mappings in —

Press. Press.

Cognitive Science, Science, and Turner. Mark. (1998). Conceptual Conceptual integration integration networks. networks. Cognitne and Turner. Mark. 22 (2): 33-187. 22 (2): Theb%ay iVily *ve we Think Conceptual the Mind's Mind's Hidden Hidden Conceptual Blending Blending and and the (2002). The (2002). New York: Basic Books. Books. Complexities. New York: Basic Complexities. The Cambridge Cambridge11am!Hand(loos). W. Gibbs Gibbs (ed.). (ed.), The (zooS).Rethinking Rethinkingmetaphor. metaphor.In In R. R. W. Cambridge: Cambridge University University Press. Press. book of Metaphor Metaphor and and Thought. Thought. Cambridge: lwk of andpsycholinguistic psycholinguistic in and Feist, fypological and and on: Typological torthcoming).Inside Inside in Feist, Michele. Michde. (forthcoming). Language, Cognition (ognstion and am! Space: Space: perspectives. V. Evans Evans and and P. P. Chilton (eds), (ed'), Language. perspectives. In In V. The of the the Art EqUinoXPublishing. Publishing. Directigp,:s.London: London:Equinox Art and and New New Directions. The State of age. Molecule to Metaphor: ThoryofofLanguage. Feldman, Metaphor: AANeural NeuralTheory From Molecule Feldman, Jerome. Jerome. (2oo6). (zoo6). From Cambridge, Press. Cambridge.MA: MA:MIT Ml] Pre's.

neural theory theory of Lanand lanandNarayanan, Narayanan.Srini. Srini. (29o4). (2004). Embodied Embodied meaning meaning in in aa neural 89: 385-92. 385-92. guage. and Language, Language, 89: guage. Brain Brain and Proceedings Fillmore, theories of of meaning. meaning. Proceethnszs Charles. (1975). (1975).An Analternative alternative to to checklist ihesklist theories lillmore, Charles. 123-31. Odle Linguistics Society, Society, 123—31. First Annual AnnualMeeting Meetingofofthe theBerkeley Linguistics of the First

-

Seoul: 111—37. Seoul: (1982). Linguistics in Cain:. 111-37. the Morning Calm, in the semantics.In In Linguistics Frame semantics. (1982). Frame Hanshin Company. Publishing Company. Hanshin Publishing

di Seniantica, Semanticu, 6: 6: (1985). Quaderns di Frames and andthe thesemantics scmantksof ofunderstanding. understanding.Quaderni (*98s). Frames 222-54. 222—54.

-

REFERENCES

REFERENCES REFERENCES

362 362

(1997). CA: (*.MI (S1 I. Stanford: CA: I)e:ss. Stanford: or: Deixis. (1997). lectures Lectures on Kay, Mary Catherine. Catherine. (1988). ReguLarityand andidiomaticity idiomaikity Kay, Paul, Paul,and andO'Connor, O(onnor, Mary (*988). Regularity

64:501—%8. 501-38. alone. Language, Language. 64: in The case caseof ot let let alone. grammatical constructions: constructions: The in grammatical Press. %fentalImagery. Imagery.Cambridge, Cambridge,MA: MA:MIT MIT Press. l'inke, Ronald of Mental Principles of Ronald A. A. (1989). Principles

Finke, How We We Experience York. NY: NY: Experierwe Time. New York, Flaherty, Wathed Pot-. Pot How Flahertv. Michael. Michael. (1999). AA Watched New Press. NewYork York University Press. thefuture: future:Are Arethey theycoming coming or or going? Fleischman, Suzanne. (1982). Fleisthinan, Su,anne. (1982). The The past past and and the 8: 322— 322-34. Berkeley Society 8: .4. LinguisticsSociety, BerkeleyLinguistics

363

anibridge. MA: Press. Fodor, Fodor,Jerry JerryA. A.(*98;). 09831.The The Modularity of MA:MEl MIT Press. of Mind. Mind. ((:ambridge,

IFraisse, raisse. Paul. Paul. (1963) . The New York Harper Harperand and Row. Row. The Psychology Psychology of of Time. Time. New Gainotti, Guido, Silveri, Maria (atcrina, I)aniek, Antonio, and Giustolisi, Laura. Gainotti, Guido, Silveri, Maria Caterina, Daniele, Antonio, and Giustolisi, Laura.

semanti. disorders: disorders: A A critcrit(1995).Neuroanatomital Neuroanatomicalcorrelate, correlatesof ofcategory.speciiic category-specific semantic ical ical survey. survey. ,%fe ► ory, 3:3: 247-64. Gallagher. Gallagher,Shaun. Shaun. (1006). (2006). how Oxford: Oxford Oxford University University How the the Body BodyShapes Shapesthe the Mind. Oxford: Press. I'ress.

and Lakoff, Thebrain's brains concepts: The role role of (;a!kse, Gallese,Vittorio Vittorio and lakolf,George. George.(2005). zoos). The concepts: The of the the 79. sensory-motor sensory-motor system system in in reason reason and and language. language. Cognitive Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12 22: 45545s-79.

Garner, W R. Selective Garner, W. R. (ir$). (1978). Selectiveattention attentionto to attribute" attributesand and to to stimuli. stimuli. Journal Journalof of Experimental Psychology: Psychology General. 287—308. General, 107 107 (3): ( 3 ): 287-308. Semantics. Oxford: Geeraerts, l)irk. 0994). l)iachronic Geeraerts, Dirk. Diachronic Prototype Prototype Semantics. Oxford: Oxford Oxford University University Press. I nguistk relativity (,entner, before verbs: verbs: Linguistic Gentner,Dedre. Dedre. (*982). (1982). Why Why nouns nouns are are learned learned before relativity lTkveloprnent: 2. versus natural partitioning. In A. Kuczaj (ed.) versus natural partitioning. In S. A. Kuczaj (ed.), Language Development: '.ol. Vol. 2.

II illsdale, NJ: NJ: Lawrence Frihaum. Language. Culture, 30' Language, Thought and Culture, 301-34. Hillsdale, lawrence Erlhaum. (1988). Metaphor as asstructure structuremapping: mapping:Tlw Therelational relationalshift. shift. Child (hild Development, (1988). Metaphor Development, 59: 59: 447- 59. 59.

andearly earlyword word relativityand Boroditsky,Lera. Ltra. (29m). (iuoi). Individuation, lndividuation. relational relationalrelativity and and Boroditsky, learning. learning. In In M. M.Bowerman Bowermanand andS. S. Lcvinson Levinson (cdi), (eds), Language Language Acquisition Acquisition and and ConConceptual Development, 215-56. (.amhridge: Cambridge: Cambridge Cambridge University University Press. Press.

Bowdle,Brian. Brian,%Vial', Wolff, Phillip. (200*). Metaphor Metaphor isislike like Bowdle, Phillip,and andRoronat, Boronat,Consuelo. Consuclo. (2001).

analogy. In D. I). Gentncr, analogy. In Gentner, K. K. J. 1. llolyoak. Holyoak,and andB. B.N. N.Kokinov Kokinov(eds), (eds), The TheAnalogical AntilOgiCal Cambridge, MA: MIT Cognitive &it'ntz Mini!: Perspectives front Mind: from Cognitive Science, 199-253. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Press. of the Study of in Mind: Advances in and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. (zoo3). Language and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. (2003). Language in Mind: Advances in the Study Thought. Cambridge, Cambridge.MA: MA: MIT MIT Press. Language and Thought. Press. lmai, Mutsum.i, and Boroditsky, lera. (zooa). Evidencefor for [mai. Mutsumi, and Boroditsky, Lera. (2oo2).As Astime timegoes goes by: by Evidence Proeesses, two systems systems in in processing processing space spacetime time metaphors. metaphors. Language two Language eaand se! Cognitive (:ognitive Processes,

(i): 537-65. 537—65. 17 (5): 17 Cambridge University University Cambridge: Cambridge The Poetics Poetics of of Mind. Mind. Cambridge: Gibbs, Raymond Raymond W. W. (1994). The Gibbs, Press. Press. Cambridge University University Press. StserM.e Cambridge: Cambridge andCognitive ( s5',ntiwScience. Embodunentand ((2006). woo). Embodiment Press. Understandingfigurative figurativeand andliteral literal language: language:The Thegraded graded (;iora, Rachel. Giora, Rachel. (1997). Understanding salience hypothesis. hypothesis. Cognitive :m:guistics. 88 (i): salience CognitiveI linguistics. (3):183— 183-206. -

Mind:Salience, Salience,Context, Context,and andFigurative Figurative Language. Language. New New York: (zooj). On On our ourMind: (2003). York: Press. Oxford University UniversityPress. Oxford

20:1—55. BrainSciences, 20: Behavioraland andBrain for. Behavioral What memory memoryisisfor. Glenbcrg, Arthur. (1997). What ;lenberg, Arthur. 1-55. action. in language Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Michael. (2002). and Kaschak, Kaschak, Michael. and (2002). Grounding

Bulletin,and andReview, Review, 9: q: 558-85. Bulletin

Oxford NewYork: York: Oxford FigurativeLanguage. New (;lucksbcTg, Sam.( (ioo,). Aucksberg. Sam. 2001). ('uderstanding Understanding Figurative University Press. Press. University 92—6. (2003).The Thepsycholinguistics psycholinguistics of of metaphor. itive Science, Siience,7: 92-6. (2003). meta pho r. Trends Trends in in (ogn: Cognitive (iciiio.Understanding Understandingmetaphorical metaphoricalcomparisons: companions:Beyond Beyond - and and Keysar, Keysar, Boaz. Boa,. two). -iS. similarity. Psychological Review, 97: 3-; 18. similarity. Psychological Review,

Philadelphia:University UniversityofofPennsylvania PennsylvaniaPress. Press. of Talk. Talk. Philadelphia: ( ;otinian. Erving. Erving. (s98s). (19811. Forms Forms of

Construction Grammar Grammar Approach ApproachtotoArguArguConstructions. AA Construction ( ;oldberg,Adele. Adele. ('99s). (1995). Constnictions. Goldberg.

University of of Chkago ChicagoPress. Press. tStructure. Structure. Chicago: (hit.lgo: University anguage. Constructions at (;cncralizationi us► i ILanguagr. - (2006). at Work WorkThe TheNature \4uureofofGeneralization (zo(*). Constructiotu ►

REIERENCES

REFERENCES

;64

e►

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. and Spivey, Michael Seam, and Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica, Mittelherg, Irene, Coulson, Seana, Irene, (.oulson, (,oniaki-MarqueZ1 John Bciijaniins. Benjamin,. Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John in (ognitivc 1. (2007). Methods us J. (2007). Grady, Joseph E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and Primary metaphors and primary primary (grady, Joseph E. (1997). Foundations of meaninw scenes. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Linguistics Dept.. Berkeley. lkpt., LIC U(' Berkeley. seenes. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Linguistics Journalof of (2oos). Primary metaphors as as inputs uiiceptual integration. integration. Fournal Primary metaphors inputs to to conceptual

— (ioos).

17-10:1595—614. 1595 -614. Pragmatics. r—lo: PragmatitS1 of 2000). Converging evidence for the notions of - and Johnson, Christopher. and Johnson, Christopher. (zooo). Converging evidence for the notions scene. Proceedings of the .\tcetingofofthe .%.nnualMeeting "subscene" and and "primary of the the23rd Annual "primary sc Berkeley, CA: BerkeleyLinguistics Linguistics Society. Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, A: Bcrkckv Berkdey, Society. 123-36. I! -

Berkeley Linguist

Grier, Paul Paul H. (1989). (;rice. II. (tq$q).

Harvard University Studies in of Words. in the theWay Wayof Words. Cambridge, Cambridge. MA: MA: Harvard

Press. The many many (;vies, Stefan Th. (2006). Corpus-based Corpus-based methods methods and and cognitive cognitive semantics: The Press.

Gries,

Th.

Corpora in (eds), Corpora in meanings lit of to S. Th. 'torun." run." In In S. Tb. Grits Criesand andA. A.Stefanowitsch (eds), meanings Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based Approaches toto Syntax and Lexis, Approaches Syntax and Lexis, 57 -99. Berlin: (ognstive Linguistics: Corpus-based

Mouton de Mouton de Gruyter. and Diviak, Dagmar. (2009). (2009). Behavioral profiles: A A corpus-based corpus-basedapproach approachto to and I)ivjak, l)agmar. Behavioral profiles: Directions in New cognitive semantic Evans and and S. S. Pourcel analysis.In In V. V Evans Pourcel (eds), (eds), N'ew I)irectior.s in semantk analysis. cogniti'.c - 76. Amsterdam: Cognitive Linguistics, 57—76. Amsterdam: John John Benjamins. Benjamins. l.mgaastics 57 Press. University Press. ((;umperi. ;umperz,John. John. (1982). Discourse I)iscourseStrategies. Strategies.Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge Cambridge University Cambridge: and RethinkingLinguistic l.ingussf:cRelativity. Relativity. Cambridge: and Levinson, Levinson, Stephen. Stephen. (19961. Rethinking Cambridge Press. Cambridge University University Press. so: ;29-57. 329-57. Haiman, John (1980). (1980). Dictionaries encyclopedias. Lingua, lingua, 50: lijiman, John l)ktionarics and and encyclopedias. Journal international Journal Hanks, Patrick. 0996). andlexical lexicalsets. stis. International ILinks, Patrick.. (1)96).Contextual ( ontextualdependency and of 75 -98. (i) 75—98. of Corpus Corpus Linguistics,' 1(t): perspective. In instructional perspective. In V. Evans Harder, Peter. (2009). (zooq).Meaning Meaning as asinput: input: The The instructional harder, Peter. 15-26. Amsterdam: and Linguistics, 15—26. Amsterdam: and S. S.Pourcel Pourcel (eds), (eds), New New Directions Directionsin inCognitive Linguistics, Johns Johns Benjamins. Benjamins.

The Psychology Psychology ofofLanguage: Harley, Trevor. I )a to tu Theory, to Theory,3rd ird edition. edition. Trevor. (2oo8). (zooS). The Language:From FromData II a Hove: Psychology Press. lltivc Psychology l'rcss.

(urtial Harrington, Deborah IL, andKnight, Knight.Robert RobertT. T.(1998). (1998).Cortical Harrington. I)eborah ...Haaland, hlaaland,Kathleen KathleenY., Y.,and networks lournal of Neuroscience, Neuroscwnte, networks underlying underlying mechanisms mechanism'.ofoftime timeperception. perception. Journal to85 -95. 18iS (3): (i): ioS5—95.

Reconstruction. The Genesis Heine, GrrsesisofofGrammar: Grammar:A Reconstruction. Heine,Bernd Berndand andKuteva, Kuteva,Tania. lania. (2007). (2007). The Oxford: Oxford University University Press. Press. (htord: Oxford Herskovits, SpinalCognition. Cognition.Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge Cambridge andSpatial Herskovits,Annette. Annettc.(1986). (*986).Language languageand University University Press. Press. (1988). plasti.itv of of meaning. meaning.In In B. B.Rudzka-Ostyn Rudzka-Ostyn (i98S). Spatial Spatial expressions expressionsand and the the plasticity 9$. Amsterdam: John Benjamin'.. (ed.), Topics in Cognitive (;ogneriw I ingvitks. 271 - -9$. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

(ed.). Topics in

IIupper, Paid and Traugott,I Iizabcih Ili/abeth( (loss. (2003). (2oo3). Cambridge: Cambridge Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

365

edition. Grammaticalization, and and edition.

Oxford University Press. Hurford, Hurford,James. James.(2007). (2107). Origins Originsof of Meaning. Oxford: Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2004).The Theneural neural representation representation of of time. time. lvry, Ivry, RichardB.B.and andSpencer, Spencer,Rebecca Rebecca M. M. C.. C. (2oo4). ('urrcnt Current Opinion Opinionin in Neurobiology; 14 14(2): (2):225—32. 225-32. MA: MIT Press. Semantics and ( )ackendoff, Ray. lackendoff, Ray. (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

(iwo). Structures. Cambridge, (1990). Semantic Semantic Structures. Cambridge,

MITPress. Press. MA: MIT

onMental MentalRepresentation. Cambridge, (1992). of the the Mind: Mind: Essays on (1992). Languages Languages of Cambridge, MA: Press. MA:MIT MITPress. Grans,nar, I volulion.Oxford ()tord (2002). (mu). hiundations FoundationsofofLanguage: Language:Bras,,, Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Yoric Oxford and and New York: OxfordUniversity UniversityPress. Press. phonetic categories. ProceedJaeger, Jeri and Ohala, John. (ir$4). On the the structure structure of of phonetic Jaeger, leri and Ohala, John. 0984). On categories. ProceedRcrkdey, ings of the ioth Annual 1.1 erring of the Berkeley Linguistics Socset;. 26. Berkeley, ings of the loth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, *5— 15-26. (:A: CA:Berkeley BerkeleyLinguistics LinguisticsSociety. Society. (II$9o1 1950). of Psychology. Psychology. New New York: York: Dover. \Villiam. James, James, William. ( 118901 195o). The The Principle, Principles of Dover. for the linguistic evidente and Kako, Edward. (loo7). Re-evaluating January, January,I)avid David and Kako, Edward. ( 2007). Re-evaluating evidence for the reLativity toBoroditsky Ik)roditsky (2o01). (ognition, relativity hypothesis: hypothesis: Response Response to Cognition, io4: 4)7 417-26.

MA term paper, Jasmin, Kyle.(2oo8). (zooS).Declaring DeclaringGenius (eniw at atCustoms. Unpublished lasmin, Kyle. Unpublished MA term paper, University of Brighton. Brighton. University of Origins of on Hypotheses. Hypotheses. AmsterJohansson, Svcrker. ( 2005). Origins lohansson, Sverker. ofLanguage: Language: Constraints Constraints on dam: Benjamins. ImagintheBodily BodilyBasis Ba'.:sofofMeaning, Imaginin the the Mind The Johnson, Mark. (1987). The Body in

ation and and Reason. Reason.Chicago: Chicago: University University of ation of Chicago Chicago Press. Press. Chicago: Cnderstaneling. Chicago: ' of I-furman (2007). The Meaning of the Body: — (um). The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding. (;hkago Press. University of Chicago Press.

Cambridge, MA: Ilarvird Universit

Johnson-Laird, Philip Philip N. N. (1983). (1983). Mental MentalModels. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Johnson-Laird, Press. Press.

Abstract Nouns a' ( .onceptual Shells: Iror,s ( orpus lorg-Sthmid. Ihat,'.. )(Kg-Schmid, LIM. ((zooo). 20X0). English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus

to Cognition. Cognition. Berlin: Berlin: Mouton Mouton de deGruyter. Gruyter. to The role of Kaschak, Michael Michael and andGlenberg, Gknberg. Arthur. Arthur. (zoon). Constructing meaning: mcaninw The Kaschak, (2000). Constructing role of .omprehcnsion. Journal of

atlordances and and grammatical grammatical constructions constructions in in sentence sentence comprehension. Journal of affordances Memory and Language. 43: 5011—29. Memory and Language, 43: 508-29. and Row. NY:Harper Harper and SemanticTheory. Theory.New NewYork, \ork, NY: Kat,. Jerrold Jerrold J. Katz, J. (1972). Semantic Row. theory. Fodor, Jerry A. (1963). The structure of a semantic and Fodor, Jerry A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language, Language, and 39: 170—210. 39: 170-210.

t)estriptiofls. An Integrated TheoryofojLinguistic LinguisticDescriptions. and Postal, Post.iI,Paul PaulM. M.(19641. At: and Integrated Theory Cambridge,MA: MA: MIT MIT Press. Press. Cambridge, Grammaticalconstructions constructionsand andlinguistic linguistic Charles. (1999). Grammatical Fillmore, Charles. Kay. Paul Paul and and Fillmore, Kay, generaliiations: The The What's What's XX doing doing V I construction, generalizations: 75: I - .4. Language, 75: construction. language, the meanings of basic andMcDaniel, McDaniel,Chad. Chad.(1978). (irS). The 11wlinguistic Iingui'.tit significance signih.anceofofthe meanings and of basic color terms. terms. Language, 610-46. Language, 54—3 54-3: 610 color - 46. meaningand andcomposicomposi andMichaelis, Stichaelis,Laura lauraA..\.(forthcoming). (forthcoming). Constructional Constructional meaning and An (eds), Semantics: An In C. C.Maietth Maienborn, K. von von lieusinger, Heusinger.and andP.P.Portlier Portiier(eds), ► rn. K. tionality. In of .\g,izugsl language Meaning. Berlin: Miuton de (;ruyter. ► ternati ► nal Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. I Int.r,sutioual

gir 366

RIIERFN(:Fs REFERENCES

RI I 1 RI REFERENCES

betweenlinguistic linguistic Kemmerer, Daniel. ((iooo). 21mo). AA double double dissociation disvociation between and Tranel, Trand t)aniet. Kern merer, David and Cognitive Neuropsychology, of spatial spatial relationships. replescfltatR)flS of and perceptual representations relationships. Cognitive 93—414 17: 393414. 17:

Cambridge: Cambridge ActionasasUtterance. Cambridge: Gesture:Visible V,'.l'Ie Action Kendon, Kendon, Adam. Adam.(2004 (2oo4). Gesture: University Press. University Press. cognitive I )evdoping a (jUnter. (1998). Isietonymy: Developing Kovecses, Zoltan Zoltan and and Radden, a cognitive Radden. Gunter. 37-77. (ogmtnY Linguistics, Linguist its, q-1:i: 37—77. view. Cognitive linguistic view. Multiple levels ot schematization: schematization: AA study study in in the theconceptuconceptuKreitzer,Anatol. Anatol. (1997). (1997). Multiple levels of Kreitzcr, $—4 291325. 291-325. Cognitive Linguistics, 8-4: 01space. space. Cognitive alization ali,.ation of Reveal Fire and andDangerous I)angerousThings: Things.What WhatCategories Reveal Lakotf, George. (1987). Women. Eire Lakoff, Chicago University University Press. Press. Mind. Chicago: Chicago the Mind. about the based on image-schemas? hypothesis: Is Is abstract reason based (1990). The invariance invariance hypothesis: (iwo). The Ci): 39-74. Cognitive Linguistics, ii (I): 39— Metaphor A. Ortony Ortony (ed.), (ed.), Metaphor of metaphor. metaphor. In In A. contemporary theory of - — (1993). The u)ntcrnporarY mi—si. Cambridge: Cambridgr Cambridge 2nd edition, zoz--st. Cambridge University University Press. Press. Thought, znd and Thought, niversity Think (hkago: IUniversity and Conservatives ( onservatiws Think Liberals and How Liberals Chicago: Politics: How (1996). Moral Politics: Press, of of Chicago Press. and Frame. Frame the the'Debate. Ikbare. Values and yourValues (zoo6). Know your Thinkofofan an Elephant: Elephant: Know Don't Think (2.006). l)on's Publishing. Vermont: (:helsca Chelsea Green Publishing. hicago: University of WeLive LiveBy. By. (Chicago: and Johnson, Johnson,Mark. Mark.(1980). ('98°). Metaphors We (:hicago Press. Chicago Press. Flesh. New New York: York: Basic Basic Books. inthe theFlesh. Philosophy in (1999). Philosophy Proceedings and Thompson, Thompson,Henry. I-Ienrs.(1975). ('rs. Introduction Introductiontotocognitive cognitivegrammar. grammar. Proaedings 295—313.Berkeley, Berkcky, CA: CA: of the of of thethe Berkeley Linguistics Society, 295-313. the1st i's:Annual AnnualAlerting Meeting lkrkdey I Berkeley Berkeley ILinguistics Society. than Cool fool Reason: FieldGuide GuidetotoPoetic Poetic Reason: AAField Turner, Mark. (1989). More than and Turner, University of Chicago Metaphor. Chicago: University Metaphor. ( :hicago Press. Press. lk'ssalcgn. Banchianilack, BanchiamLick,and andGoldberg, Goldberg,And AnelMiah. Landau, Barbara, Dessalegn, Micah. (forthcoming). (eds), Language and and space: space:Momentary Momentary interactions. interactions. In In V. Evans and and P. P. Chilton Chilton (eds), Language I)irections. London: london: Coguitio'iand andSpace: Spacr The ofthe the Art and New Ihrectiems. State of The State Lanuage, Cognition Iquinox Publishing. PuNishing. Equinox Volume I Theoretical Langacker. Ronald Ronald W. W. (1987). (1987). Foundations FoundationsofofCognitive CognitiveGrammar: Grammar: Volume I flieoretictal Langacker, Press. Stanford University University Press. Stanford: Stanford Prerequisites. Stanford: Volume Theoretical Prerequisites. Cogniti;eGrammar: Volume 11 IITheoretical Prerequisites. Foundations of Cognitive (19914). Foundations Stanford: Stanford: Stanford University Press. Press. Mi,u Berlin: MouBasisofof ( 'ntept. Image, Image,Symbol: Symbol:The The (ognitive Cognitive Basis Grammar. Berlin: (199110. Concept, ton de Gruyter. and Coriceptuakation. ( ontceptuahzaf:on.Berlin: Berlin:Mouton Moutonde dcGruyter. Gruytcr. (1999). Grammar and model. In In M. N. Barlow Usagedynaiiiikuc-age-baicd usage-haled model. Barlowand andS.S.Kemmer Kemnier(eds). (eds),Usage( zixxi). A dynamic

(A:(:SL1 (SI) Publications. Stanford, CA: ba.w.'tI M*kls of Language, Language,1-64. Stanford, based Models Introduction. Oxford: Oxford: Oxford University Univtrsitv Press. Press. BasicIntroduction. Cogn:trveGrammar: Grammar: AABasic 4(zooS). 2008). Cognitive

OxtOrd:llsevier ElsevierScience. Science. \Ikhiel. ((iooi). Contextsolof.'tteraphor. Metaphor. Oxford: ILce2!enbcrg. eezenherg, Michael. zoos). (ontexts Press. l.cviuson, Stephen. ( .ambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Levinson, Stephen. (1983). Pragrnutics. t'f Generalized (onversational 1mphGeneralized Conversational Theory of ImpliThe Theory (iooo). Presumptive Meanings: The (woo). Presumptive. ,uturc. Cambridge, cambridge, MA: MA: MIT MITPress. Press. cature.

367

Levinson, Stephen. Space in Stephen.(2003), (ioo;). Space Explorationsinii:Linguistic Cognition: Explorations in Language Language and Cognition: Diversity Diversity. Cambric* CambridgrCambridge Press. Cambridge University Press. Livingstone, Livingstone, Margaret Margaret and of form, form, color, color, movemoveand lIubd, Hubei,David. David.(198$). 0988). Segregation Segregation of 111e111 and 240: ;'40—9. ment Science, 240: and depth: depth:Anatomy, Anatomy,physiology physiologyand andperception. perception.ScienCe, 740-9. Lucy, John. (1982. Language I):vrrs,tv Lucy, (1982). Language Diversity and Thought:AAReformulation Reformulation Linguistic of of thethe Linguistic andThought: Relatiistl Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Press. Cambridge: Cambridge Cambridge University UniversityPress. Martin, Alex. Alex.((iuoa). Eunitiond neuroimaging neuroirnagingot semantic memor. (abeza and and 2001). Functional of semantic memory. InInk. R. Cabez_a A. Kingstone (eds), (cdi), Handbook of Functional Neuroimaging Neuroimagingof Cognition, Cognition, 153—86. Handbook of 153-86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Cambridge, MA: MITPrcss. Press. (.zoo7).The Therepresentation representation of object concepts in in the thebrain. brain. Annual (2007). Annual Review Review ol of

25-45. Psychology, 58: 25—45. Mauk, Michael I). I). and Buonomano, Boonomano,I)ean DeanV. V.(2004). (zoos). The Theneural neuralbasis basis of temporal processing. The Annual Review of Neuroscience, Neuroscience, 27: 307 Review of 30 40. NkNeilI, David. (1992). andMind: What McNeill, (1992). Hand and %%liat Ge'stures Reveal about Thought. ChiChiGestures Reveal about Thought. cago: University University of of Chicago Chicago Press. Press. Michaelis, Word meaning. meaning. and and syntactic meanMichaelis, Laura. Laura.A.A.(zoo)). (mu). Word meaning, sentence sentence meaning, meanLexical ing. In H. H. (:uyckens, Cuyckens,R. R. 1)irven, t)irven, and I.J.Taylor Taylor(eds). (eds), Cognitive Cognitive Approaches Approaches totoLexical Snnantu%, 163- 210.Berlin: Berlin:Mouton Mouton de dieGruyter. Gruytcr. Semantics, 163-210. (2004 Type lype shifting in construction grammar: grammar An to (2004). An integrated integrated approach approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, is: Cognitive Linguistics, is:'—h;'. 1-67. and Lambrecht, larnhrecht, Knud. Toward aa construction-based model Knud. (1996). Toward model of of language language function: The Ihe case of nominal Lamiguage, function: nominalextraposition. extraposition. Language,72: 72:215—47. 215 47. and Johnson-Laird, Johnson-Laird. Philip. Philip. (1976). Language Languageand andPerception. Perception. Harvard: Harvard: Miller, George George and Harvard University Harvard UniversityPress. Press. Mithen, (19i$i). The Prehistory the Mind: Mind: A Search Search /or Art. Mithen, Steven. Steven. (1996). Prehistory of the forthe theOrigins Origins ofolArt, Religion andScience. science.London: London: Orion Orion Books. Religion and Moore, Kevin Ezra. Ezra. (200o). Spatialexperience experienceand andtemporal temporalmetaphors metaphorsininWolof: Wolof: (wooi. Spatial of view, conceptual Point of conceptualmapping mappingand andlinguistic linguisticpractice. practice.Unpublished Unpublisheddoctoral doctoral Point thesis, University of of California, ( alitornia, Berkeley. thesis, University Space-to timemappings mappingsand andtemporal temporal concepts. concepts.Cognitive Cognitive Linguistics - — (zoo6). Space-to-time Linguistics, -

-

17-2 199-144. 17-2: 199-244.

Spatial Munnich, Edward, Edward,Landau, Landau,Barbara, Barbara,and and l)oshcr. Dosher, Barbara Barbara Anne. Anne. (morn). (2001). Spatial language and spatial spatial representation: representation: A A cross-linguistic comparison. comparison. Cognition. language and Si 81 (;): (3):171—207. 171-207.

The Murphy, Gregory. In P. Schwanentlugel(ed.) (ed.) The Murphy, Gregory. (1991). Meaning Meaning and and concepts. concepts. In P. J. I. Schwanenflugel Psychology WordMeanings, Meanings,11-35. Hillsdale, Ilillsdale, NJ: Iribaum. Psychology ofofWord NJ: Lawrence Lawrence Erlbaum. 204. (1996). On metaphoric representation. representation. Cognition, Cognition.60, 6o,173173-204. II). (5.007). (200;'). Cognitive Cognitive linguistics linguisticsand andthe thehistory historyofof Nerlich, Brigitte and Clarke, David 13. CognitiveLinguisLinguislinguistics. InD. I).Geeraerts (krracrts and and H. II. Cuyckens (eds), of Cognitive (eds),Handbook handbook of linguistics. In tics, 589—607.Oxford: Oxford:Oxford Oxford Univcrsut', tics, 589-607. Press. University Press. Nuñcz, Rafael, Moats, Motz, Benjamin, Time after after time: The Nlinel, Benjamin,and and Tcuschcr, Truscher, Ursina. (2006). (2oo6). Time psychologital Ego- and andTime-Reference-Point Time-Reference-Pointdistinction distinitionininmetapsychological reality of the Egophorical onstruals construalsofoftunic. time. Metaphor and andSymbol, Symbol, 2* 133—46. 21: 133-46. (2006). Sviretser. Eve. and and Sweetscr, Eve. (2006).With Withthe the future future behind them: evidence them: convergent Convergent evidence from Aymara language .iski and gesture in the from Aymara language rosslinguistic comparison omparison of spatial crusslinguistic C‘ignitive Science, 3o: construals of time. (ogn:tnr ScIenIA 30: 401 -SO. ► nstruals Of time. c4 401-50.

O'Keefe, John. (1996). Thespatial spatialprepositions prepositions in in English. English, vector grammar. grammar,and and the the John. (1996). The cognitive map theory. In P. P. Bloom, Bloom, M. M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, and Garrett A. Peterson, L Nadel, and M. M. EF.Garrett

cognitive map theory. In Cambridge,MA: MA: MIT Press. Press. andSpace, Space, 277-316. (amhndge. (cds), La ► guaxeand (eds), Ornstein, Robert. 019691/1997). On On the the cxperien1e experience of (0: Westview Westview of time. time. Boulder, Boulder, CO: Robert. (11969111997). Press.

Press.

2ndedition. edition. Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge Metaphor and gindThought. Thought, md ()finny, Andrew. (1993). Metaphor ('anibridgt

Vrtofly. Andrew.

University Press.

University Press.

New York: York:Holt, Holt,Rinehart Rinehartand and and Verbal Paivio, Allan. (1979). Imagery and WriralProcesses. Pnxesses. New Paivio, Allan. (1979). Imagery \\Winston. instofl. Oxford:Oxford OxfordUniUniMental Representations: Dual Coding (1986). Mental Coding Approach. Approach. Oxford: Representations: AA t)ual — (1986). versity Press. versity Press. Poppet, Ernst. (1994). Temporal mechanisms in perception. In 0. and Poppd. Ernst. (1994). temporal mechanisms in perception. In 0. Sporns and theBrain: Brain: International international Review Review of Selectionion and and the (cds), Sekctsonist,i ofNeurobiology,

(. Tononi (eds),

37: 185-201. y: Perception. In InR. R.11C141, Held, H.II.W. Teuber (eds). (cds), - (1978). Time Perception. H.-L Teuber W.Leibowitz, Lcibowiti, and H.-L. (1978). Time -—

713-29. Heidelberg: Springer. I landbookof ofSensory SensoryPhysiology, Physiology,7*3—29. Heidelberg: Springer. Handbook Praggleiaz Group. (2007). MIP MIP: A A method method for foridentifying identifying metaphorically metaphorically used usedwords words Pragglciaz Symbol, 22 (1): Metaphor and in discourse. Metaphor 1-39. (i): 1—39. arid Symbol. in Mind: Concepts Perceptual Basis. CamPrinz, Jesse. (2002). Furnishing the Prinz, Jesse. (mom). Furnishing the Mind: ( oncep(s and their Perceptual Basis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. bridge. MA: MIT Press. Pulvermtiller, Friedmann. (1999).L Words language. Behavioral Behavioral and thebrain's brains Language. Words ininthe Pulvernuilki, Friedemann. Brain Sciences, 22: 253 - 336. 253—3%t. Brain

Brain Circuits Circuits of Serial The Neuroscience of Language: On Brain of Words Words and and Serial uros se's c of I.anguage: On (2oo3). The Order. Cambridge: Press. Unives\Ii\ Press. ambridge University Order. Cambridge: (Cambridge The Generative Pustejovsky, lames (1995). Press. IA: MIT MEl Press. Generative Lexicon. Lexicon.Cambridge, Cambridge, MA: Pusteovsky, James (1995). The across languages. Radden, (2003). The The metaphor metaphor TIME TIME ASSPACE SPACE across languages.In In N. N. Raddcn. GUnter. Gunter. (mooj). AS Interkulturelk Baumgarten, C. BOttger, M. Niot,. Isloti, and tlbcrsr.t:eu, Interkulturelle Probsi (eds), (edsL Ubersetzen, and I.J.Probst Baumgarten. C. Bottgcr. ► el:wren kom In unskation, Spracherwerh Spracherwerbuisd and SprachSprach-vermittliing--clas Lebenmit mit ,nehrercn ver,n:ttluni,'—das Leber: Kommunikation, Sprachen. Festschrift fur Juliane House :um 6o Geburtstag. leitschrift Jive fur InterkulInterkulSprat hen. Festschrift flu Julsanc House zion tSo Geburistag. Zeit.schrift (2003).

II relief: Fremdsprachenunterric -ht (online), - 14. Frc,ndpruthcnunterr:cht lonlinel,8S(2/3): (ii.;):1I—14 turellen Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Literal Language. Recanati, Francois. (2004). Recanati. Francois. (1004). Literal Language'. Cambridge: Cambridge I.'niversity Press. Making of Renfrew, Cohn. (2007). Prehistory: The Londorn of the the Human Human Mind. Mind. London: Renfrew, Cohn. (2007). Prehistory: The Making Weidentield and Nicolson. Weidenlield and Rosch, Eleanor. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Rosch(eds), (eds). InB. B.Lloyd lloyd and andF. I Rosch

Rosch, Eleanor. (1978). Principles of Cognition and Categorization, 27-48. Erlbaum.Reprinted Reprinted inin NI: Erlhaum. Hillsdale. NJ: 27—48. Hillsdale, (i'ognition and Concepts: Core Readings, *8—2)6. E. Margolis and S. Laurence (eds), (1999), Concepts: Readings. 189-206. E. Margolis and S. Laurence (eds),

Cambridge, MA:MIT MITPress. Press. ('anthrsdge. MA: On Monosemy: AAStudy NewYork, York, Ruhl, Charles. (1989). StudyininLinguistic LinguisticSemantics. Semantics. New

kuhi. Chades. (i98q). On

NY: State University University of ofNew NewYork York Press. Press. NY: Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel, and simplestsystematics Jeftcrson.Gail. Gail.(1974). AAsimplest Sacks, Harvey Schtgloft. Emanuel, andJefferson, Language, for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Laisguw..'eso: 50:696-735.

for the organisit ion of turn-taking for

Grammar. An InfOrmal Synopsis. UnpubSag. Ivan. (2007). Sign-based Construction Sag. han. (zoo7). Sign-based (0,s%truCtlOfl (rii,?i?,Iar. An Informal Synopsis. (Inpublished online at:at: .

I

RFIIKE\(1%

REFERENCES FS K El F HF

368

REFERENCES

369

369

t tell OU about the human Sandra, Sandra,I)ominsek. Dominick.(1998). (1998).What Whatlinguists linguistscan canand and can't tell you about the human Linguistics. 9 (4): 361—478. mind: mind:AAreply replyto to(rutt. Croft.Cognitive Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (4): 361 -478. Processing. New York: I isevier. Schank, Schank, Roger. Roger.(1975). (1975). Conceptual Information Information Processing. New York: Elsevier. and 011(1 learning in - (*982). (1982). l)ynamic Dynamic Memory:AATheory Reminding and learning in Computers and Theoryof ofRetn:nd'ng People'. People. Cambridge: Cambridge:Cambridge CambridgeUniversity UniversityPress. Press. An Inquiry and Abelson, Robert. Scripts. Plans. Goals. and and Abelson, Robert. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals. and Understanding: An inquiry ErIh.ium. illsd.ak, NJ: into KnowledgeStructures. Structures. IIHillsdale, intoHuman Milian Knowledge NJ: Lawrence Erlbauni.

people and machines. In and andKass, Kass, Alex. Alex.(1988). (1988). Knowledge Knowledge representation representationIn in people and machines. In and Mental Representations. (eds), U. U. Eco, M. M.Santamhrogio. Santanibrogio,and andP.P.Violi Violi (cds),4rtteaning Meaning and Mental Representations, 181—zoo. 181-200. Bloomington. Bloomington, IN: IN:Indiana IndianaUniversity UniversityPress. Press. to Discourse: as Social Interaction. (pprt'athes Schiffrin, Deborah. Schiffrin, Deborah. (1994). Approaches to Discourse:Language Language as Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford: Blackwell. Blackwell. Cambridge: Searle, John. Searle, John. (1969). Speech SpeechAct': Acts:An AnEssay Essayininthe thePhilosophy PhilosophyofofLanguage. anguag•. ( 'Ambridge: Cambridge Cambridge University UniversityPress. Press.

t amhridge I. Tniversity Press. (1983). intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - (1983). and Thought, 2nd Metaphor. In In A. A. Ortony Ortonv (ed.), (ed). Metaphor (1197911993). 1993). Metaphor. Metaphor and Thought, 2nd

edition, edition, 83—Ill. 83-111. Cambridge: Cambridge:Cambridge CambridgeUnsversnv UniversityPress. Press.

Images and their Transform\lental Images Shepard, RogerN. N.and andCooper, (ooper, Lynn Lynn A. A. (1982). (i982). Mental Shepard, Roger !mil their TransformCambridge University I'rcss. atwns. Cambridge: ations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. of Space and Time. Kwansei. Japan: Gakuin Kazuko. ( '999). Epistemology Shinohara, Kazuko. Epistemology of Space and Time.

Kwansci, Japan: Gakuin

University Press. University Press. and Sampaio, \Vanv. Silva Sinha, Vera dii. Sinha, Sinha, Chris, Chris, Zinken, Silva Sinha, Vera da, Zinken, Jorg. Jorg, and Sampaio, Wany. (forthcoming). linguistic construction of time intervals in When Time The social social and and linguistic When Time is is not not Space: Space: The construction of time intervals in of Pragmatics. culture. Journal an an Amazonian culture. Journal of Pragmatics. Journsaloj I)istributed spatial scmantks. Chrisand Sinha, Sinha, Chris and Kutcva, Kuteva, Tania. Tania. (1995). Distributed spatial semantics. Nordic Journal of iS: 167-99. Linguistics, 18:

Rekvance ( ommunication and Cognition.

Dan and and Wilson, Wilson, Deidre. Deidre. (1995). (1995). Relevance: C0111 nicatiom and Cognition, Sperber. Dan Sperber,

edition.Oxford: Oxford:Blackwell. 2nd edition. 2nd

and Semantics 9

Cole (ed.).

Stalnaker, Richard. Stalnaker, Richard. (1978). (1978). Assertion. Assertion. In In P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: NewYork: York: Academic Academic Press. Press 315—%2.New Pragnsatses 3ts-32. Pragmatics,

MA:

II Press.

Context.Cambridge, Cambridge. MA: MIT Press. Stern,Josef. Josef.(2000). (woo).Metaphor \Ietaphor ininContext. Stern, compositiofl in a Sweetser, Eve. Sweetser, Eve. ( '999). Compositionality Compositionality and and blending: blending: Semantic Semantic composition, in a

('ogniti*e Redeker (eds). CognitiveJanssenand andC. C.Redeker In T.1. Janssen ci'gnhti% clvrealistic realisticframework. framework. In cognitively (eds), Berlin: Mouton dc Cruyter.

Lingu:tics: Foundations, Foundations, Scope Linguistics: Scope andand fethodology, 129-62. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 129—62.

a Cognitiit' Semantics (2 volumes). (ambridge.

Leonard.(2000). (woo). Toward Talmy. Leonard. Talmy, Toward a Cognitive Semantics (2 volumes). (:ambridge, MA: MIT MIT Press. Press. MA:

v Press. (htord University I. (,rammar.Oxford: ()stord:Oxford Iaylor, John. Cognitive Grammar, Taylor, John. (zoom). (wo2). Cognitive Press.

Press. edition. Oxford: Oxford cognition: The .JSC of Taylor, lawrence lawrenceI.J.and andZwaan, Zwaan,Rolf RolfA.A.(2o09). (2ooi).Action Attion in in cognition: Taylor, The case of and Cognition. I (i): 4S language. language language. Language and Cognition, a (t): 45-18. Studies in Thompson, SandraA.A.(zoos). (iooz)."Object "Objectcomplements" complements" and andconversation. Studies in Thompson, Sandra 125-64. (i): language 26 Language 26 (i): I25-64. Neuroimagingstudies studies of semantic memt'rv: InferSharon.(2003). Neuroimaging Thompson-Schill. ThoMps00-Sihill, Sharon. of se:multi.. memory: InferNeuropsyihologsa, 41: from"where". Neuropsychoiopii, ring- how" from ring 41: 280--92.

Categorization.3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2003). Linguistic Linguistst Categorization, (2003).

REIF.K1N(ES REFERENCES

REFERENCES REFFRENCES

37t) 70

The Cultural Origins Harvard: OriginsofofHuman humanCognition. Il.irvard: l ► masello, Michael. (1999). (1999). The To,nascllo, I larvardUniversity University Press. Harvard 711eary01 of Language Language At Acquisition. based Theory - (2003). Allsage-based t language: A onstructing a Language: (loo3). (Constructing Harvard University University Press. H arvard: Harvard Press. Harvard: locative oflocative Trancl,I)anid Danieland andKemmerer, Kemmerer, I)avid. David. (aoo4). (2004). Neuroanatomical correlates correlates of Tranel, —

\

Cognitive Neuropsychology, prepositions. t4rOpsEchOlOgy,21: 21: 719-49. ions. Cognitiw (mg). On in Iratigott,lliiabeth Elizabeth (l ► ss. patio-temporal relations in iraugott, ( loss. (19714). On the the expression expression ofofspatio-temporal Universals of Human Language, 369—400. language. In In J. I. Greenberg Greenberg (ed.), (ed.), (Jnn'ersals 369-400. Stanford, Stanford, language. CA: Stanford University I. 'niversitv Press. Press. CA: Semantic Change. Change. Cambridge: Cambridge: Re gidarity in Seniantic and Dasher, (2oo4). Regularity Rihard. (1004). and I)uher Richard.

—-

Cambridge University Press. Press. Cambridge Turner, Frcdcrick Frederickand andPöppel, Piippel, Ernst. Ernst. (1983). (.983). The meter,the thebrain brain Poetic meter, lyre: Poetic neural lyre: The neural Turner, and time. 277—309. 142 (5): 277-309. time. /Wiry, 142 and Study ol of English English in the Age Age of ot Cognitive ( 'ognitive Turner, Mark. Mark.. (1991). Reading Minds: The Stuth Turner, Princeton ttniversitv University Press. Press. Science. Princeton, NI: Princeton Science. Princeton, NJ: polysemy Tyler, Andrea and and Evans, Evans, Vyvyan. (aooi). (zoo.). Reconsidering Tyler, Andrea Reconsideringprepositional prepositional polvscmy

():

networks: The The case case of of over. over. Language, 724—65. Language, 77 (4): 724-65. networks:

(zoo;). ofof English Semantics EnglishPrepositions: Prepositions:Spatial SpatialScenes, Scenes,Embodied Enibodied (loo3).The TheSemantics Meaning and Cognition. University Press. Press. Cognition.Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge Univerioty Vandeloise, Claude. Claude. (1990). (1990).Representation, Representation,prototypes, prototypes.and andcentrality. centrality. In In S. Tsohatand Prototypes: Studies zidis (ed.), (ed.), Meanings and StudiesininLinguistic LinguisticCategorization, Categorization, 403-37. zidis London: Routledge. London: Routledge. (1991). A Case Study from French Spatial Prepositions: Prepositions A Stuih from French (trans. (trans. Anna R. K. Bosch). (1991). Spatial Chicago: (Thicago Press. Press. (:hk.Igo: University of Chicago -

in. Cognitive CognitiveLinguistics, Linguistics, and analyses analysesof ofthe thepreposition preposition us. Methodology and — (1994). (199$). Methodology 55 (2): *57-84. (a): 157$4.

Varela, Francisco, Thompson, Thompson, Evan, Evan, and and Rosch, Roach, Eleanor. Eleanor. (199.). The Embodied Mind: Embodied Minds Var Ia, Francisco.

C ognitive Science Press. MA: MIT MIT tress. enceand andHuman humanExperience. Cambridge, MA: (;ogniteve Vigliocco, and Kousta, Stavroula. (2o09). Gabriella, Meteyard, Meteyard, Lotte, Andrews, Mark, Mark, and (2009). Vigliocco, Gabriella. Toward Language and Cognition,' I (z). (i). Toward aa theory theory of of semantic semanti. representation. representation, language Walsh, Vincent. (2oo3). A theory of magnitude: Common Common cortical cortical metrics metrics of of time, time, Walsh, Vincent. (It):483—8. 483-8. space Science, 77 (ii): in Cognitive Cognitive science, spaceand andquantity. quantity. TRENDS in Wearden, John and and Penton-Voak, Penton-Voak, lan. Ian. (1995). (199s). Feeling \V',irden, John Feelingthe theheat: beat:Body Bodytemperature temperatureand and the rate of subjective time, revisited. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, the rate of subjective time, revisited. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48B: 480: 129-41. 12(1—41. Whitney, Mifflin. Houghton MifThn. MA: Houghton (1998). The The Psychology Psychology of of language. Language. Roston. Boston, MA: Whitney, Paul. Paul. (1998). Wierzbicka, Renjamins. of Grammar. Grammar. Amsterdam: Amsterdam: John John Benjamins. (*988). The The Semantics of Wicrzbicka, Anna. Anna. (1988). Press. Oxford University University Press. Primesand andUniversals. (muiversals.Oxford: Oxford: Oxford — ——(1996). (*996). Semantics: Semantics: Primes ► no ► Psych a,igl ic Bulletin Bullersis and Wilson, Margaret. (low). Six views of embodied cognition. cognition.Psychono,nsc Plargaret. (iooz). Review, (4): 625-36. Review,99(4): Yu, The Contemporary ContemporaryTheory IIseorvofofMetaphor: Metaphor:AAPerspective Perspecuwfrom fromChinese. Chinese. Yu, Ning. Ning. (1998). (1998). The Amsterdam: John Iknjamins. \msierdam: John Renjamins. I tan (:urrentDirections and Block, (.997). Temporal l)srettso,:sinus Zakay, Tenipotal cognition. Current Richard A. (1997). Zakay. I)an and Block, Richard

Psychological 6: 12-16. Psychological Science, Science, 6:12—16.

371

371

Zeki Scientific American, 267 (3): (3): Loki Sesnir Semir 11992). flu' image in inmind mind.intI andbrain. brain.Scientific The visual ‘11.tial image 68-76. 68-76. Ihe functional and and Shipp, Shipp, Stewart. (1988). (1988). The functional logic logic of of cortical cortical connections. connections. \ature. Nature, 335: 335: 311—17. 311-17.

Ziemke, Proceedings of of the the25th, 25th Ziemke, Tom. Tom. (iooj). (2oo3).What's What'sthat thatthing thingcalled calledembodiment? embodiment?InInProceedings NJ: Lawrence lawrence C.'t71:tzW Science Annual the Cognitive 1134-9. Mahwah, Mahwah, NJ: Annual Meeting off the Science.Society, Society,1134—9. IErlbaum. ribaum. andP. P.Chilton (;hilton Zinken, In V. Zinken, Jorg. Jorg. (forthcoming). (forthcoming). Temporal Temporalframes frames of of reference. reference. In V. Evans Evans and

'ognstiorsarid and Space: Space:The TheState Stateofofthe the Art l)irettions. Art and New New Directions. (eds), Language. (Cognition (eds), languags'. Equinox Publishing. Publishing. London: London: Equinox theEmergence lnst'rgenteof if Spatial Studies ininthe en:bod:me"st: Studies Zlatev, Jordan. (*997). (1997). Situated Situated embodiment: Zlatev, Jordan. Spatial Meaning. Meaning. Stockholm: Stockholm: (,otah. Gout). Taylor (2u03). Polysemyor or generality? generality? Mu. Mu. In In II. uyckcns, R. K. Dirven, I)irven, and (2oo3). Polysemy H.C Cuyckens, and J. I. Taylor Gruyter. Berlin: MOUIOfl deGruyter. Lexical Semantics, (eds), Cognitiw Approaches 447-94. Berlin: Mouton de Approaches totoLexical Semantics, (eds), Cognitive lmbodied cognition, cognition, perceptual perceptual symbols, symbols,and andsituation situation A. (1999). Embodied Roif A. Zwaan, iwaan, Rolf models. l)iscourseProcesses, 28: 28: Si-S. 81-8. models. Discourse language The immersed expericncer: toward an an embodied embodiedtheory theoryof oflanguage (2004). The immersed experiencer: toward ofLearning learning and Motivation, comprehension. In B. (ed.) The Psychology of The Psychology comprehension. In B. H. H. Ross Ross (ed.) NY: Academic York, NY: Academic I'ress. Press. 35-62). New York, (ioo8). Language in the the brain, brain, body body and and world. world. In In and Kaschak, and Kaschak, Michael P. P. (2oo8). Language in .Ssrua:eti Cognition. of Situated Cognition, (eds), The P. The Cambridge Cambridge Handbook Handbook of P. Robbins Robbins and and M. M. Aydede Aydede (eds), -$1.Cambridge: Cambridge:Cambridge CambridgeUniversity University Press. .08-81. Updatingsituation situationmodels. modek. Jounsa!ofExmrntal andMadden, Madden, Carol. Carol. (2004). Updating Journal of Experimental and .th3—8. Psychology: Learning,Memory, Meniny,and andCognition, ('ogni:ion.Jo: 283-8 Psychology: Learning, . and memory and Radvansky, (abriel A. (*998). Situation models memory. and Radvansky, Gabriel A. (1998). Situation models in in language language and

Bulletin, 1123: 162—85. 162-85. Psychological Bulletin,