Cognitive linguistics

Cognitive linguistics is an interdisciplinary branch of linguistics, combining knowledge and research from cognitive psychology, neuropsychology and linguistics.[1] Models and theoretical accounts of cognitive linguistics are considered as psychologically real, and research in cognitive linguistics aims to help understand cognition in general and is seen as a road into the human mind.

Part of a series on
Linguistics
Subfields
Grammatical theories
Topics
Portal

There has been scientific and terminological controversy around the label 'cognitive linguistics'; there is no consensus on what specifically is meant with the term.[2][3]

Background

The roots of cognitive linguistics are in Noam Chomsky’s 1959 critical review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Chomsky's rejection of behavioural psychology and his subsequent anti-behaviourist activity helped bring about a shift of focus from empiricism to mentalism in psychology under the new concepts of cognitive psychology and cognitive science.[4]

Chomsky considered linguistics as a subfield of cognitive science in the 1970s but called his model transformational or generative grammar. Having been engaged with Chomsky in the linguistic wars,[5] George Lakoff united in the early 1980s with Ronald Langacker and other advocates of neo-Darwinian linguistics in a so-called ”Lakoff—Langacker agreement”. It is suggested that they picked the name ”cognitive linguistics” for their new framework to undermine the reputation of generative grammar as a cognitive science.[6]

Consequently, there are three competing approaches that today consider themselves as true representatives of cognitive linguistics. One is the Lakoffian—Langackerian brand with capitalised initials (Cognitive Linguistics). The second is generative grammar, while the third approach is proposed by scholars whose work falls outside the scope of the other two. They argue that cognitive linguistics should not be taken as the name of a specific selective framework, but as a whole field of scientific research that is assessed by its evidential rather than theoretical value.[3]

Approaches

Generative Grammar

Generative grammar functions as a source of hypotheses about language computation in the mind and brain. It is argued to be the study of 'the cognitive neuroscience of language'.[7] Generative grammar studies behavioural instincts and the biological nature of cognitive-linguistic algorithms, providing a computational–representational theory of mind.[8]

This in practice means that sentence analysis by linguists is taken as a way to uncover cognitive structures. It is argued that a random genetic mutation in humans has caused syntactic structures to appear in the mind. Therefore, the fact that people have language does not rely on its communicative purposes.[9][10]

For a famous example, it was argued by linguist Noam Chomsky that sentences of the type "Is the man who is hungry ordering dinner" are so rare that it is unlikely that children will have heard them. Since they can nonetheless produce them, it was further argued that the structure is not learned but acquired from an innate cognitive language component. Generative grammarians then took as their task to find out all about innate structures through introspection in order to form a picture of the hypothesised language faculty.[11][12]

Generative grammar promotes a modular view of the mind, considering language as an autonomous mind module. Thus, language is separated from mathematical logic to the extent that inference plays no role in language acquisition.[13] Other than in linguistics, Chomsky's ideas have been influential in cognitive psychology, computer science[14] and socialist libertarian thinking.

Cognitive Linguistics (linguistics framework)

One of the approaches to cognitive linguistics is called Cognitive Linguistics, with capital initials, but it is also often spelled cognitive linguistics with all lowercase letters. This movement saw its beginning in early 1980s when George Lakoff's metaphor theory was united with Ronald Langacker's Cognitive Grammar, with subsequent models of Construction Grammar following from various authors. The union entails two different approaches to linguistic and cultural evolution: that of the conceptual metaphor, and the construction.

Cognitive Linguistics defines itself in opposition to generative grammar, arguing that language functions in the brain according to general cognitive principles.[15] Lakoff's and Langacker's ideas are applied across sciences. In addition to linguistics and translation theory, Cognitive Linguistics is influential in literary studies,[16] education,[17] sociology,[18] musicology,[19] computer science[20] and theology.[21]

A. Conceptual metaphor theory

According to American linguist George Lakoff, metaphors are not just figures of speech, but modes of thought. Lakoff hypothesises that principles of abstract reasoning may have evolved from visual thinking and mechanisms for representing spatial relations that are present in lower animals.[22] Conceptualisation is regarded as being based on the embodiment of knowledge, building on physical experience of vision and motion. For example, the 'metaphor' of emotion builds on downward motion while the metaphor of reason builds on upward motion, as in saying “The discussion fell to the emotional level, but I raised it back up to the rational plane."[23] It is argued that language is not a cognitive capacity, but instead relies on other cognitive skills which include perception, attention, motor skills, and visual and spatial processing.[15] Same is said of other cognitive phenomena such as the sense of time:

"In our visual systems, we have detectors for motion and detectors for objects/locations. We do not have detectors for time (whatever that could mean). Thus, it makes good biological sense that time should be understood in terms of things and motion." —George Lakoff

In Cognitive Linguistics, thinking is argued to be mainly automatic and unconscious.[24]

B. Cognitive and construction grammar

Constructions, as the basic units of grammar, are conventionalised form–meaning pairings which are comparable to memes as units of linguistic evolution.[25][26][27][28] These are considered multi-layered. For example, idioms are higher-level constructions which contain words as middle-level constructions, and these may contain morphemes as lower-level constructions. It is argued that humans do not only share the same body type, allowing a common ground for embodied representations; but constructions provide common ground for uniform expressions within a speech community.[29] Like biological organisms, constructions have a life cycles which are studied by linguists.[25]

According to the cognitive and constructionist view, there is no grammar in the traditional sense of the word. What is commonly perceived as grammar is an inventory of constructions; a complex adaptive system;[30] or a population of constructions.[31] Constructions are studied in all fields of language research from language acquisition to corpus linguistics.[30]

Integrative cognitive linguistics

There is also a third approach to cognitive linguistics which neither directly supports the modular (Generative Grammar) nor the anti-modular (Cognitive Linguistics) view of the mind. Proponents of the third view argue that, according to brain research, language processing is specialised although not autonomous from other types of information processing. Language is thought of as one of human cognitive abilities alongside with perception, attention, memory, motor skills, and visual and spatial processing, rather than being subordinate to them. Emphasis is laid on a cognitive semantics that studies the contextual–conceptual nature of meaning.[32]

Controversy

The specific meaning of cognitive linguistics, the proper address of the name, and the scientific status of the enterprise have been called into question. It is claimed that much of so-called cognitive linguistics fails to live up to its name.[6]

"It would seem to me that [cognitive linguistics] is the sort of linguistics that uses findings from cognitive psychology and neurobiology and the like to explore how the human brain produces and interprets language. In other words, cognitive linguistics is a cognitive science, whereas Cognitive Linguistics is not. Most of generative linguistics, to my mind, is not truly cognitive either."[2]

— Bert Peeters

It is suggested that the aforementioned frameworks, which make use of the label ’cognitive’, are pseudoscience because their views of the mind and brain defy basic modern understanding of neuroscience, and are instead based on scientifically unjustified guru teachings. Members of such frameworks are also said to have used other researchers’ findings to present them as their own work.[3] While this criticism is accepted for most part, it is claimed that some of the research has nonetheless produced useful insights.[33]

See also

References
  1. Robinson, Peter (2008). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Routledge. pp. 3–8. ISBN 978-0-805-85352-0.
  2. Peeters, Bert (1998). "Cognitive musings". Word. 49 (2): 225–237. doi:10.1080/00437956.1998.11673884.
  3. Schwarz-Friesel, Monika (2012). "On the status of external evidence in the theories of cognitive linguistics". Language Sciences. 34 (6): 656–664. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.007.
  4. Greenwood, John D (1999). "Understanding the 'cognitive revolution' in psychology". Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences. 35 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6696(199924)35:1<1::AID-JHBS1>3.0.CO;2-4. Retrieved 2020-02-22.
  5. Harris, Randy Allen (1995). The Linguistics Wars. Oxford: OUP. ISBN 9780199839063.
  6. Peeters, Bert (2001). "Does cognitive linguistics live up to its name?". In Dirven, René (ed.). Language and Ideology, Vol.1: Theoretical Cognitive Approaches. John Benjamins. pp. 83–106. ISBN 9789027299543.
  7. Marantz, Alec (2005). "Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language". The Linguistic Review. 22 (2–4): 492–445. doi:10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.429. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
  8. Boeckx, Cedric (2005). "Generative Grammar and modern cognitive science" (PDF). Journal of Cognitive Science. 6: 45–54. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
  9. Hauser, Mark D.; Yang, Charles; Berwick, Robert C.; Tattersall, Ian; Ryan, Michael J.; Watumull, Jeffrey; Chomsky, Noam; Lewontin, Richard C. (2014). "The mystery of language evolution". Frontiers in Psychology. 5: 401. PMC 4019876. PMID 24847300.
  10. Berwick, Robert C.; Chomsky, Noam (2015). Why Only Us: Language and Evolution. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262034241.
  11. Pullum, Geoffrey; Scholz, Barbara (2002). "Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments" (PDF). The Linguistic Review. 18 (1–2): 9–50. doi:10.1515/tlir.19.1-2.9. Retrieved 2020-02-28.
  12. Prefors, Amy; Tenenbaum, Joshua; Regier, Terry (2006). "Poverty of the stimulus? A rational approach" (PDF). Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. 28. ISSN 1069-7977. Retrieved 2020-02-28.
  13. Smith, Neil (2002). Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0 521 47517 1.
  14. Sudkamp, Thomas A. (1997). Languages and machines: an Introduction to the Theory of Computer Science. Addison-Wesley Longman. p. 569. ISBN 978-0-201-82136-9. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
  15. Croft, William; Cruse, Alan (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780511803864.
  16. Harrison, Chloe; Nuttall, Louise; Stockwell, Peter; Yuan, Wenjuan (2014). "Introduction". In Harrison, Chloe; Nuttall, Louise; Stockwell, Peter; Yuan, Wenjuan (eds.). Cognitive Grammar in Literature. John Benjamins. pp. 1–16. ISBN 9789027270566.
  17. Corni, F; Fuchs, H U; Dumont, E (2019). "Conceptual metaphor in physics education: roots of analogy, visual metaphors, and a primary physics course for student teachers". Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 1286 (GIREP-ICPE-EPEC 2017 Conference 3–7 July 2017). doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1286/1/012059. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
  18. Cerulo, Karen A. (2019). "Embodied cognition: sociologgy's role in bridging mind, brain, and body". In Brekhus, Wayne H.; Ignatow, Gabe (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Sociology. Oxford University Press. pp. 81–100. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190273385.013.5. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
  19. Spitzer, Michael (2004). Metaphor and Musical Thought. University of Chicago Press Press. ISBN 0-226-769720.
  20. Mondal, Prakash (2009). "How language processing constrains (computational) natural language processing: a cognitive perspective" (PDF). 23rd Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation: 365–374. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
  21. Feyaerts, Kurt; Boeve, Lieven (2018). "Religious metaphors at the crossroads between apophatical theology and Cognitive Linguistics: an interdisciplinary study". In Chilton, Paul; Kopytowska, Monika (eds.). Religion, Language, and the Human Mind. Oxford University Press Press. ISBN 9780190636647.
  22. Lakoff, George (1990). "Invariance hypothesis: is abstract reasoning based on image-schemas?". Cognitive Linguistics. 1 (1): 39–74. doi:10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39.
  23. Lakoff, George; Johnson, Mark (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-46801-3.
  24. Lakoff, George; Johnson, Mark (1999). Philosophy in the flesh : the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Basic Books. ISBN 0465056733.
  25. Dahl, Östen (2001). "Grammaticalization and the life cycles of constructions". RASK – Internationalt tidsskrift for sprog og kommunikation. 14: 91–134.
  26. Kirby, Simon (2013). "Transitions: the evolution of linguistic replicators". In Binder; Smith (eds.). The Language Phenomenon (PDF). Springer. pp. 121–138. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36086-2_6. Retrieved 2020-03-04.
  27. Zehentner, Eva (2019). Competition in Language Change: the Rise of the English Dative Alternation. De Gruyter Mouton. ISBN 978-3-11-063385-6.
  28. MacWhinney, Brian (2015). "Introduction – language emergence". In MacWhinney, Brian; O'Grady, William (eds.). Handbook of Language Emergence. Wiley. pp. 1–31. ISBN 9781118346136.
  29. Clark, Eve (2015). "Common ground". In MacWhinney, Brian; O'Grady, William (eds.). Handbook of Language Emergence. Wiley. pp. 1–31. ISBN 9781118346136.
  30. Ellis, Nick C. (2011). "The emergence of language as a Complex Adaptive System". In Simpson, James (ed.). Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics. pp. 666–679. ISBN 9780203835654. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
  31. Arbib, Michael A. (2008). "Holophrasis and the protolanguage spectrum". In Arbib, Michael A.; Bickerton, Derek (eds.). The Emergence of Protolanguage. pp. 666–679. ISBN 9789027287823.
  32. Schwarz-Friesel, Monika (2008). Einführung in die Kognitive Linguistik. Dritte, aktualisierte und erweiterte Auflage. Francke. ISBN 3825216365.
  33. Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. (2013). "The real complexities of psycholinguistic research on metaphor". Language Sciences. 40: 45–52. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2013.03.001.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.