Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

human being, language and mind; an introduction to cognitive linguistics

No description
by

Hatice Sak

on 27 May 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of human being, language and mind; an introduction to cognitive linguistics

human being, language and mind an introduction to cognitive linguistics historical background cognitive linguistics is a modern branch of linguistics. it emerged in the early 1970s. conducted by a small number of researchers including; Ronald Langacker Charles Fillmore Leonard Talmy George Lakoff it is a growing field with the contributions of other scientists including their collegues and students. This research arose out of dissatisfaction with formal approaches that were dominant in the disciplines of linguistics and philosophy. The goal of cognitive linguistics is to understand how human beings think, especially through the study of language. what makes it different
from the other linguistic sciences? its concern with investigating the relationship between human language, the mind, and sociophysical experience. Langacker explains it ; Consider the glasses I normally wear. If I take them off, hold them in front of me, and examine them, their construal is maximally objective ... they function solely and completely
as the object of perception, and not at all
as part of the perceptual apparatus itself. By contrast, my construal of the glasses is maximally subjective when I am wearing them and examining another object, so that they fade from my conscious awareness despite their role in determining the nature of my perceptual experience. The glasses then function exclusively as part of the subject of perception—they are one component of the perceiving apparatus, but are not themselves perceived....Of course, such extreme polarization represents an ideal that may seldom be achieved in practice. To some extent, for example, I can perceive my glasses even while wearing them while looking at something else, and to that extent their perceptual construal is slightly objective and less than fully subjective. Subjectivity/objectivity is often variable or a matter of degree, and it is precisely such cases that hold the greatest interest linguistically. (Langacker 1990: 316) In Cognitive Linguistics, we examine how our ‘‘glasses’’
—that is, our physical, cognitive, and social embodiment—
ground our linguistic conceptualizations embodiment (hypothesis) The embodied-mind hypothesis undercuts the perception/ conception distinction. according to this hypotheses ;In an embodied mind, it is conceivable that the same neural system engaged in perception plays a central role in conception.

That is, it is possible that the very mechanisms responsible for perception, movements, and object manipulation could be responsible for conceptualization and reasoning.
(Lakoff and Johnson 1999: 37–38) çay (tea) confusion while Lakoff and Johnson press onward with attempts to ask what embodiment means in its physiological and neural senses
(Lakoff and Johnson 1999).

some theorists have argued for a return to a more culturally situated theory of embodiment (Zlatev 1997; Sinha 1999) linguistic relativity Sapir-Whorf hypothesis 1 language
relative 2 linguistic expressions they vary in the expression
of concepts the expressions has some degree of influence over the conceptualization in cognitive domains the commitments cognitive commitment generative
commitment 1 2 cognitive approaches to grammer Construction Grammar Most thought is unconscious. It doesn’t work by mathematical logic. You can’t reason directly about the world—because you can only conceptualize what your brain and body allow, and because ideas are structured using frames As Charles Fillmore has shown, all words are defined in terms of conceptual frames, not in terms of some putative objective, mind-free world. " " views of the cognitive approach it sprang in the era of the ‘‘linguistics wars’’between Generative Semantics and Interpretive Semantics. they are distinguished by the notion that properly describing language from the communicative/interactive perspective requires an explicit description of the conceptual structures involved. cognitive grammer it was developed by Ronald Langacker it represents a family of (related) theories developed by Lakoff, Goldberg, Langacker and Talmy. The fundamental principle behind construction grammar is that the basic form of a syntactic structure is a construction—a pairing of a complex grammatical structure with its meaning—and that constructions are organized in a network.
Full transcript