Summary 1
We use language for life.
+ Language has two functions:
Symbolic: Form + meaning
Interactive: speaker >< hearer: understand each other
+ The systematic structure of language
how to model the inventory of linguistic units
Morpheme > sentence: figurative = construction: a whole single unit literal = not construction: unifying the smaller units
The properties of the construction relate not only to the individual words that make it up, as in (6), but also to the grammatical form, or word order.
An ungrammatical sentence
A construction may have both literal and figurative meanings.
+ The systematic structure of thought
Domains: time, quantity, affection, etc. (motion, elevation, proximity)
+ What do linguists do?
Descriptive adequacy:
What: to model
Why: to understand human cognition, or how the human mind works
How: Linguists describe language, and on the basis of its properties, formulate hypotheses about how language is represented in the mind.
Speaker intuitions: strong intuitions about what combinations of sounds or words are possible in their language
Converging evidence: explain linguistic knowledge + consistent with what cognitive scientists know about other areas of cognition
Figure: object >< ground: background
+ What it means to know a language
Cognitive representation = lexical and grammatical subsystems
Lexical> open
Grammatical > close


Exercises
1.1 Linguistic encoding
Consider the following examples in the light of our discussion of example (1).
Using the diagrams in Figure 1.3 as a starting point, try to draw similar diagrams that capture the path of motion involved in each example. In each case, how much of this information is explicitly encoded within the meanings of the words themselves? How much seems to depend on what you know about the world?
(a) The baby threw the rattle out of the buggy.
(b) I threw the cat out of the back door.
(c) I tore up the letter and threw it out of the window.
(d) I threw the tennis ball out of the house.
(e) I threw the flowers out of the vase.
1.2 Constructions
The examples below contain idiomatic constructions. If you are a non-native speaker of English, you may need to consult a native speaker or a dictionary of idioms to find out the idiomatic meaning. In the light of our discussion of example (6), try changing certain aspects of each sentence to see whether these examples pattern in the same way. For instance, what happens if you change the subject of the sentence (for example, the presidential candidate in the first sentence)? What happens if you change the object (for example, the towel)? It’s not always possible to make a sentence passive, but what happens to the meaning here if you can?
(a) The presidential candidate threw in the towel.
(b) Before the exam, Mary got cold feet.
(c) She’s been giving me the cold shoulder lately.
(d) You are the apple of my eye.
(e) She’s banging her head against a brick wall.
What do your findings suggest about an individual’s knowledge of such constructions as opposed to sentences containing literal leaning? Do any of these examples also have a literal meaning?

1.3 Word order
Take example (b) from exercise 1.2 above. Believe it or not, a sentence like this with seven words has 5,040 mathematically possible word order permutations!
Try to work out how many of these permutations result in a grammatical sentence. What do your findings suggest?

1.4 Concepts and conceptual domains
The examples below contain linguistic expressions that express abstract concepts. In the light of our discussion of the examples in (11), identify the relevant conceptual domain that the concept might relate to. Do these abstract concepts appear to be understood in terms of concrete physical experiences? What is the
evidence for your conclusions?
(a) You’ve just given me a really good idea.
(b) How much time did you spend on this essay?
(c) He fell into a deep depression.
(d) The Stock Market crashed on Black Wednesday.
(e) Unfortunately, your argument lacks a solid foundation.


Now come up with other sentences which illustrate similar patterns for the following conceptual domains:
(f) THEORIES
(g) LOVE
(h) ARGUMENT
(i) ANGER
(j) KNOWING/UNDERSTANDING
1.5 Figure and ground
Consider the scenes in Figure 1.6. For each one, state the sentence that springs first to mind as the most natural way of describing the scene. For example, for
the scene in (a), you might come up with The goldfish is in the bowl. What happens if you change the sentence around as we did for example (15)? What do your findings suggest about the figure/ground distinction?

1.6 Open-class or closed-class?
Consider the example below in the light of our discussion of examples (15)–(16).
First, try to identify the open-class words/morphemes and the closed-class words/morphemes by referring to the properties described in Table 1.1. Next, come up with a set of examples in which only the closed-class words/morphemes have been altered. What kinds of differences do these changes make to the sentence? Finally, try changing the open-class words/morphemes. What kinds of differences do these changes make to the sentence?
The supermodel was putting on her lipstick.

Summary 2
+ Two key commitments: ‘Generalization Commitment’ and the ‘Cognitive Commitment’
+ Two main branches of the cognitive linguistics enterprise: cognitive semantics and cognitive approaches to grammar.
+ The embodied cognition thesis holds that the human mind and conceptual organization are functions of the ways in which our species-specific bodies interact with the environment we inhabit.
+ The ‘Generalization Commitment’: formal approaches: approaches to modelling language (Phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, etc.)
Cognitive linguistics acknowledges the properties of three areas of language: (1) categorization, (2) polysemy and (3) metaphor.
- Categorization: (fuzzy) centrality >< peripheral - Categorization in morphology: the diminutive in Italian – parts of speech – Tag questions – phonology, etc.
- Polysemy: A word has many meanings >< Homonymy (different words)
Cognitive linguists argue that polysemy is not restricted to word meaning but is a fundamental feature of human language.
- Metaphor: (Meaning extension) Metaphor in the lexicon - Metaphor in the syntax
+ The ‘Cognitive Commitment’: The ‘Cognitive Commitment’ represents the view that principles of linguistic structure should reflect what is known about human cognition.
+ The embodied mind
Attention: profiling
We have a species-specific view of the world due to the unique nature of our physical bodies.
+ Embodied cognition: our experience is embodied.
We embody our experiences which are affected by realism.
+ Cognitive semantics and cognitive approaches to grammar
Grammar is not based on functions, but meanings (constructions).
Exercises
2.1 Categorisation and family resemblance
The philosopher Wittgenstein famously argued that the category GAME exhibits family resemblance. To test this, first make a list of as many different kinds of games as you can think of. Now see if there is a limited set of conditions that is common to this entire list (‘necessary’ conditions) and sufficient to distinguish this category from other related categories (‘sufficient’ conditions) like competitions, amusement activities and so on. Do your conclusions support or refute Wittgenstein’s claim?
Now see if you can identify the ways in which the different games you list share family resemblance ‘traits’. Try to construct a ‘radial’ network showing
the degrees of family resemblance holding between games of different kinds. A radial network is a diagram in which the most/more prototypical game(s) is/are placed at the centre and less prototypical games are less central, radiating out from the centre.

2.2 Polysemy
Consider the word head. Try and come up with as many different meanings for this word as possible. You may find it helpful to collect or create sentences
involving the word.
Now consider the closed-class word you. Cognitive linguists assume that even closed-class words exhibit polysemy. Collect as many sentences as you can
involving you and try and identify differences in how this word is used. Do your findings support the view that this word exhibits polysemy?
2.3 Metaphor
Reconsider the different meanings for head that you uncovered in the previous exercise. Would you class any of these distinct meanings as metaphorical?
Explain your reasoning. Now try and give an account of what motivated the extension from the ‘core’ meaning of head to the metaphoric usage(s).
2.4 Image schemas
The spatial meanings associated with prepositions present a clear case of the way in which image schemas underpin language. In view of this, what sets of image schemas might underpin the semantic distinction between the prepositions up/down and above/under?
Now consider the metaphoric use of the prepositions on and in in the following sentences:
(a) The guard is on duty.
(a´) The shoes are on sale.
(b) Munch’s painting The Scream portrays a figure in despair.
(b´) Sven is in trouble with Nancy.
What might be the experiential basis for the fact that states like SALES and DUTY are described in terms of ON, while states like DESPAIR and TROUBLE are
described in terms of IN? We saw in this chapter that the CONTAINER image schema plausibly underpins IN. What might be the image schema underpinning ON?
Summary 3
some semantic primes or primitives: [THING], [PLACE], [DIRECTION], [ACTION], [EVENT], [MANNER] and [AMOUNT].
Gestalt principles
Perception: figure-ground segregation
Perception: principle of proximity
Perception: principle of similarity
Perception: principle of closure
Perception: principle of continuity
Perception: principle of smallness
Primary and secondary reference object
There are two terms primary reference object and secondary reference object.
Relative proximity: contact
Relative proximity: adjacency
Relative proximity: at some distance


Reference frames
Primary reference object alone: a ground-based reference frame.
Secondary reference object includes three reference frames of this kind: field-based, guidepost-based and projector-based.
Reference frames: ground-based
Reference frames: field-based
Reference frames: guidepost-based
Reference frames: projector-based
Lexical concepts for TIME
The lexical concepts we will address are DURATION, MOMENT, EVENT and INSTANCE.
Lexical concept: DURATION (Protracted >< temporal compression
Lexical concept: MOMENT
Lexical concept: EVENT
Lexical concept: INSTANCE



Crosslinguistic evidence suggests that there are three main cognitive models for TIME.
Cognitive model: moving time
Cognitive model: moving ego
Cognitive model: temporal sequence
The third model relates to the concepts EARLIER and LATER.
Variation in the conceptualization of space
Categorising spatial scenes in English and Korean
Variation in the conceptualization of time
We consider two languages that conceptualize time in very different ways from English: Aymara and Mandarin.
Linguistic relativity and cognitive linguistics
Whorf and the Linguistic Relativity Principle
Language as a shaper of thought
Language facilitates conceptualization
The cognitive linguistics position
Exercises
3.1 Cognitive linguistics vs. formal linguistics
How does cognitive linguistics differ from formalist approaches in terms of its approach to universals? Summarise the key points of each position. Is there any shared ground?
3.2 The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
Summarise the cognitive linguistics position with respect to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. What is the evidence for this position?

3.3 Space: reference frames
Classify the following examples based on the taxonomy of reference frames provided in section 3.2. Give your reasoning for each, and provide as much detail as possible.
(a) St Paul’s cathedral is to the south of the Thames.
(b) St Paul’s is left of the Thames.
(c) St Paul’s is on the Bank of England side of the Thames.
(d) St Paul’s is in the City of London.
(e) St Paul’s is near the London Monument.


3.4 Time
Consider the following examples:
(a) Time passed.
(b) Christmas has vanished.
(c) We’ve got through the most difficult period of the project.
(d) They have a lot of important decisions coming up.
(e) The general meeting came after we made the decision to liquidate all assets.
(f) The top premiership clubs have three games in the space of five days.
In view of the discussion of the lexical concepts and three cognitive models for TIME presented in this chapter (section 3.2.2), identify which cognitive model each of these utterances is most likely to be motivated by. What problems did you have in identifying the relevant cognitive model? How might these problems be resolved?
3.5 Time: Wolof
Wolof has a number of words that relate to some of the lexical concepts for time found in English. For instance, dirr corresponds to the English DURATION concept lexicalised by time. In the following examples (drawn from Moore 2000) we’ll consider the Wolof word jot (‘time’). The examples suggest that jot is comparable to the English concept of COMMODITY, in which time is conceptualised as a resource that can be possessed, bought or wasted (e.g. I have all the time in the world).
(a) Dama nàkk jot rekk
SFOC.1 lack time only
“It’s just that I don’t have time!”
(b) Q: Am nga jot
have PERF.2 time
“Do you have (any) time?”
A: Fi ma tolu dama nàkk jot
where 1.SUBJ be.at.a.point.equivalent.to SFROC.1 lack time
“At this point I don’t have (any) time.”


(c) Su nu am-ee jot nu saafal la
When we have-ANT time we roast.BEN 2.OBJ
‘When we have time we will roast [peanuts] for you.’

However, unlike the English concept COMMODITY as lexicalised by time, jot cannot be transferred to another person (e.g. can you give/spare me some time?), nor can it be made, wasted or spent (e.g. we’ve made/wasted/spent some time for/on each other). What does this imply regarding the similarities and differences between the English COMMODITY concept associated with time, and the lexical concept for COMMODITY encoded in Wolof by the word jot? What might this suggest about how Wolof and English speakers conceptualize time as a resource or commodity? In view of this, is it appropriate to label the meaning associated with jot COMMODITY, or can you think of another more appropriate term?
3.6 Kay and Kempton’s color naming experiment
Kay and Kempton (1984) compared English speakers with Tarahumara (Mexican Indian) speakers on naming triads of color (blue, blue-green, green). Tarahumara has a word for ‘blue-green’, but not separate words for ‘blue’ and ‘green’. The task was to state whether blue-green color was closer to blue or green. English speakers sharply distinguished blue and green, but Tarahumara speakers did not. In a subsequent study, English speakers were induced to call the intermediate colors blue-green, and the effect disappeared. How might we
interpret these findings in the light of the ideas discussed in this chapter?
Good luck!