Dynamicity, Fictivity, and Scanning: The Imaginative Basis of Logic and Linguistic Meaning

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499968.008

8 - Dynamicity, Fictivity, and Scanning: The Imaginative Basis of Logic and Linguistic Meaning

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 July 2009

Ronald W. Langacker

Edited by

Diane Pecher and

Rolf A. Zwaan

Show author details

Ronald W. Langacker: Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego, California, USA
Diane Pecher: Affiliation:
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Rolf A. Zwaan: Affiliation:
Florida State University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

COGNITIVE SEMANTICS

The last quarter century has seen the emergence of what has come to be known as cognitive semantics. This collective endeavor has vastly expanded and profoundly altered our view of both meaning and its relation to grammar. It offers new solutions to classic problems. More fundamentally, it reshapes the entire conceptual landscape within which the problems themselves are posed and formulated.

The most basic development is simply the unequivocal identification of meaning with conceptualization, i.e., the cognitive activity constituting our apprehension of the world (Langacker, 1987a, 2000; Talmy, 2000a, 2000b). Since the mind is part of the loop, linguistic semantics does not just reflect the external situations described, but inescapably incorporates particular ways of construing those situations and portraying them for linguistic purposes. It thus involves the full range of our mental capacities, as well as the elaborate conceptual structures we construct and manipulate. Included – being absolutely fundamental to cognition and language – are capacities reasonably called imaginative: metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 1999), metonymy (Kövecses & Radden, 1998), fictivity (Matsumoto, 1996a, 1996b; Talmy, 1996; Langacker, 1999b), mental space construction (Fauconnier, 1985; Fauconnier & Sweetser, 1996), and conceptual blending (Fauconnier, 1997; Fauconnier & Turner, 1998a, 1998b, 2002). These capacities are however grounded in everyday bodily experience: motion, perception, muscular exertion, etc. Basic experience of this sort is projected metaphorically onto other domains, and in abstracted form provides the skeletal organization of conceptual structure in general. This of course is embodiment (Johnson, 1987; Lakoff, 1987).

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Grounding Cognition
The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking
, pp. 164 - 197

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499968.008 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 577–660Google Scholar PubMed

Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (1997). Then in conditional constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 8, 109–136CrossRef Google Scholar

Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press/Bradford

Fauconnier, G. (1996). Analogical counterfactuals. In G. Fauconnier and E. Sweetser, Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar (pp. 57–90). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press

Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Fauconnier, G., & Sweetser, E. (Eds.), (1996). Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press

Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998a). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science 22, 133–187CrossRef Google Scholar

Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998b). Principles of conceptual integration. In J. P. Koenig (Ed.), Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar (pp. 269–283). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press

Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books

Goldberg, A. E. (Ed.), (1996). Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications

Goldsmith, J., & Woisetschlaeger, E. (1982). The logic of the English progressive. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 79–89Google Scholar

Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press

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

Koenig, J. P. (Ed.), (1998). Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press

Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9, 33–77Google Scholar

Kumashiro, T. (2000). The Conceptual Basis of Grammar: A Cognitive Approach to Japanese Clausal Structure. San Diego: University of California doctoral dissertation

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press

Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas?Cognitive Linguistics 1, 39–74CrossRef Google Scholar

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books

Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (1998). Conceptual metaphor in mathematics. In J. P. Koenig (Ed.), Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar (pp. 219–237). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press

Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (2000). Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being. New York: Basic Books

Langacker, R. W. (1986). Abstract motion. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 12, 455–471CrossRef Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (1987a). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press

Langacker, R. W. (1987b). Nouns and verbs. Language 63, 53–94CrossRef Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1, 5–38

Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press

Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4, 1–38Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (1995). Possession and possessive constructions. In J. R. Taylor and R. E. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World (pp. 51–79). Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 82. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterCrossRef

Langacker, R. W. (1996a). Conceptual grouping and pronominal anaphora. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora (pp. 333–378). Typological Studies in Language 33. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Langacker, R. W. (1996b). A constraint on progressive generics. In Goldberg, A. E. (Ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language (pp. 289–302). Stanford: CSLI Publications

Langacker, R. W. (1997a). A dynamic account of grammatical function. In J. Bybee, J. Haiman, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type Dedicated to T. Givón (pp. 249–273). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Langacker, R. W. (1997b). Generics and habituals. In A. Athanasiadou and R. Dirven (Eds.), On Conditionals Again (pp. 191–222). Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 143. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Langacker, R. W. (1999a). Grammar and Conceptualization. Cognitive Linguistics Research 14. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter

Langacker, R. W. (1999b). Virtual reality. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29, 2, 77–103Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (1999c). Double-subject constructions. In Sung-Yun Bak (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm 4 (pp. 83–104). Seoul: Hanshin

Langacker, R. W. (1999d). Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In T. Janssen and G. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology (pp. 13–59). Cognitive Linguistics Research 15. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter

Langacker, R. W. (1999e). Losing control: Grammaticization, subjectification, and transparency. In A. Blank and P. Koch (Eds.), Historical Semantics and Cognition (pp. 147–175). Cognitive Linguistics Research 13. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter

Langacker, R. W. (2000). Why a mind is necessary: Conceptualization, grammar and linguistic semantics. In L. Albertazzi (Ed.), Meaning and Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Approach (pp. 25–38). Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 2. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John BenjaminsCrossRef

Langacker, R. W. (2001a). Dynamicity in grammar. Axiomathes 12, 7–33CrossRef Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (2001b). Topic, subject, and possessor. In H. G. Simonsen and R. T. Endresen (Eds.), A Cognitive Approach to the Verb: Morphological and Constructional Perspectives (pp. 11–48). Cognitive Linguistics Research 16. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter

Langacker, R. W. (2003). Dynamicity, fictivity, and scanning: The imaginative basis of logic and linguistic meaning. Korean Linguistics 18, 1–64Google Scholar

Matsumoto, Y. (1996a). How abstract is subjective motion? A comparison of coverage path expressions and access path expressions. In Goldberg, A. E. (Ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. (pp. 359–373). Stanford: CSLI Publications

Matsumoto, Y. (1996b). Subjective-change expressions in Japanese and their cognitive and linguistic bases. In G. Fauconnier and E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar (pp. 124–156). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press

Michaelis, L. A. (1991). Temporal priority and pragmatic ambiguity: The case of already. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 17, 426–438CrossRef Google Scholar

Michaelis, L A. (1993). “Continuity” within three scalar models: The polysemy of adverbial still. Journal of Semantics 10, 193–237CrossRef Google Scholar

Michaelis, L. A. (1996). Cross-world continuity and the polysemy of adverbial still. In G. Fauconnier and E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar (pp. 179–226). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press

Sweetser, E. (1982). Root and epistemic modals: Causality in two worlds. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 8, 484–507Google Scholar

Sweetser, E. (1996). Mental spaces and the grammar of conditional constructions. In G. Fauconnier and E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar (pp. 318–333). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press

Sweetser, E. (1997). Role and individual interpretations of change predicates. In J. Nuyts and E. Pederson (Eds.), Language and Conceptualization (pp. 116–136). Language, Culture and Cognition 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRef

Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12, 49–100CrossRef Google Scholar

Talmy, L. (1996). Fictive motion in language and “ception.” In P. Bloom et al. (Eds.), Language and Space (pp. 211–276). Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press/Bradford

Talmy, L. (2000a). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 1, Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford

Talmy, L. (2000b). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 2, Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Hoek, K. (1995). Conceptual reference points: A cognitive grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language 71, 310–340CrossRef Google Scholar

van Hoek, K. (1997). Anaphora and Conceptual Structure. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.