Cognitive semantics
| Semantics | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||
|
Semantics of programming languages | ||||||||
|
||||||||
Cognitive semantics is an approach to linguistic meaning within cognitive linguistics. It investigates the relationship between language, conceptual knowledge, and processes such as categorization, attention, and perspective. Major research topics include prototype effects, semantic frames, polysemy, conceptual metaphor, and the construction of meaning in discourse.[1]
Cognitive semantic approaches developed from the 1980s as part of the broader cognitive linguistics movement. They examine both the organization of conceptual knowledge and the ways speakers use linguistic expressions to construct and communicate interpretations.[1] Their scope extends beyond individual word meanings: Leonard Talmy's framework, for example, examines how language structures concepts involving space, time, motion, causation, attention, and viewpoint.[2]
Scope and assumptions
[edit]Cognitive semantics treats language as drawing on general cognitive abilities rather than on an autonomous, special-purpose language module. William Croft and D. Alan Cruse identify three guiding hypotheses of cognitive linguistics: linguistic abilities are connected to other cognitive abilities, grammar involves conceptualization, and linguistic knowledge emerges from language use. These hypotheses inform cognitive analyses of both lexical and grammatical meaning.[3]
An associated assumption is that lexical meaning is encyclopedic: understanding an expression can involve knowledge extending beyond a dictionary-style definition. In Ronald Langacker's account, linguistic meaning has both a conceptual and a social-interactive basis, without a sharp boundary between linguistic knowledge and knowledge of the world.[4]
Conceptual knowledge
[edit]Frame semantics
[edit]Charles J. Fillmore developed frame semantics as an account of how expressions evoke structured background knowledge. A frame is a system of related concepts through which an expression is understood. The approach examines how words categorize experience and how their interpretation depends on the situations and practices with which they are associated.[5]
For example, understanding a restaurant involves knowledge of customers, staff, ordering, eating, and payment. These concepts are connected through experience of a common situation, rather than solely through lexical relations such as hyponymy or antonymy.[3]
A commercial transaction provides another example. Its participants include a buyer, a seller, goods, and money. The verbs buy and sell describe aspects of this shared situation but differ in how they organize its participants: buy typically takes the buyer as its subject, whereas sell typically takes the seller.[6]
Fillmore described his approach as empirical and descriptive. His emphasis on understanding and background knowledge was intended to identify phenomena requiring semantic explanation, rather than to rule out formal analysis.[5]
Domains, profiles, and bases
[edit]In Langacker's cognitive grammar, a domain is conceptual content against which an expression is characterized. The base supplies the content necessary to understand an expression, while its profile is the entity or relationship it designates. For example, radius profiles a line segment, but understanding it requires the conception of a circle. Different expressions may profile different elements within shared conceptual content.[4]
Idealized cognitive models
[edit]George Lakoff uses the term idealized cognitive model for a structured organization of knowledge that supports categorization and inference. Such models can incorporate conventional cultural assumptions.[7]
In his analysis of bachelor, Lakoff argues that ordinary interpretation depends on a cultural model of marriage and eligibility for marriage, rather than solely on the properties adult, male, and unmarried. The example illustrates how background assumptions can affect judgments about the applicability and typicality of a category.[7]
Categorization and polysemy
[edit]Research by Eleanor Rosch and Carolyn B. Mervis investigated differences in the perceived typicality of category members. Their experiments examined the relationship between typicality and family resemblance: members judged more prototypical tended to share more attributes with other members of their category and fewer with members of contrasting categories.[8]
Prototype effects concern differences in representativeness among category members. They do not, by themselves, establish a particular account of how categories are mentally represented or processed. Rosch emphasized that acknowledging such effects constrains theories of categorization without determining a unique model of representation, learning, or processing.[9]
Cognitive semantic analyses also apply categorization models to polysemy, the association of a linguistic expression with multiple related senses. In radial and schematic network models, senses are connected through relationships such as specialization, similarity, metaphor, and metonymy. Some senses may be more central than others, while more peripheral senses can be connected through intermediate extensions.[10]
These models describe the organization and interpretation of related senses; they do not identify prototype effects as a general cause of polysemy.[10]
Conceptual metaphor
[edit]Conceptual metaphor theory examines how one area of experience is understood in terms of another. In their account, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson argue that conventional metaphorical expressions reflect patterns in everyday conceptualization, rather than functioning only as literary or rhetorical devices.[11]
For example, expressions about defending positions or attacking arguments connect discussion with conflict. Lakoff and Johnson propose that such correspondences can influence how an activity is understood and conducted. Their account relates metaphorical organization to physical experience and to cultural practices and assumptions.[11]
Mental spaces
[edit]Gilles Fauconnier developed mental space theory to describe the conceptual structures constructed and connected during discourse. Mental spaces are partial representations of situations, including those involving beliefs, hypothetical events, past circumstances, or fictional scenarios. They are distinguished from the linguistic expressions that guide their construction.[12]
Space-builders are expressions that introduce a mental space or direct attention to one already established. They include temporal phrases, expressions of viewpoint or belief, and conditional constructions. For example, a phrase such as in 1929 can establish a temporal space in which information is interpreted. A space-builder is therefore a linguistic expression, not a type of mental space.[12]
Connections between spaces allow discourse participants to identify counterparts across different situations. A person described by a present-day property can consequently be discussed in relation to an earlier situation in which that property did not hold. Fauconnier applies these connections to questions involving reference, beliefs, presuppositions, and counterfactual interpretation.[12]
Construal and contextual interpretation
[edit]Construal concerns how conceptual content is presented. Langacker distinguishes dimensions including specificity, focusing, prominence, and perspective. Expressions can invoke similar content while differing in the detail supplied, the elements highlighted, or the viewpoint adopted.[4]
Cognitive accounts also examine the relationship between conventional meaning and contextual interpretation. Croft and Cruse's dynamic construal approach describes how established meaning potentials are interpreted and elaborated in particular contexts, rather than treating interpretation as the retrieval of a single invariant sense.[3]
The role assigned to context has implications for compositionality. In Langacker's account, constituent meanings and their combination contribute to interpretation, but do not fully determine it: the resulting meaning can also depend on background knowledge and the way the expression is construed.[4]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- 1 2 Geeraerts, Dirk (2010). "Cognitive Semantics". Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford University Press.
- ↑ Talmy, Leonard (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262201209.
- 1 2 3 Croft, William; Cruse, D. Alan (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapters 1–4. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511803864. ISBN 9780521667708.
- 1 2 3 4 Langacker, Ronald W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford University Press. Chapters 2–3.
- 1 2 Fillmore, Charles J. (2006) [1982]. "Frame semantics". In Geeraerts, Dirk (ed.). Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 373–400. doi:10.1515/9783110199901.373.
- ↑ "Commercial_transaction". Spanish FrameNet. Retrieved 6 November 2026.
- 1 2 Lakoff, George (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press. pp. 68–76. ISBN 9780226468037.
- ↑ Rosch, Eleanor; Mervis, Carolyn B. (1975). "Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories". Cognitive Psychology. 7 (4): 573–605. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9.
- ↑ Rosch, Eleanor (1978). "Principles of categorization". In Rosch, Eleanor; Lloyd, Barbara B. (eds.). Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 27–48.
- 1 2 Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara (2007). "Polysemy, Prototypes, and Radial Categories". In Geeraerts, Dirk; Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press. pp. 139–169.
- 1 2 Lakoff, George; Johnson, Mark (1980). "Conceptual metaphor in everyday language". The Journal of Philosophy. 77 (8): 453–486. doi:10.2307/2025464.
- 1 2 3 Fauconnier, Gilles (1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511624582.