Lecture 5

Cognitive semantics

3 Oct, 2016

1
 Recap on the last lecture
Metaphor and metonymy as processes of semantic
extension
Metaphor vs. metonymy
Different types of metaphor
Structural metaphor
Orientational metaphor
Different types of metonymic concepts
Metonymy vs. personification
The systematicity of metaphorical and metonymic
concepts
The idea of conventionalization
2
 Outline of this lecture
The cognitive view to language
Word meaning and category structure
Conceptual structures to be discussed in this lecture:
Image schemas
Radial category
Mental spaces
Saeed Ch. 11.4 and Ch. 11.6

3
 Cognitive Semantics
Cognitive Semantics puts emphasis on cognition
Semanticists (in general) believe that meanings are
grounded in human experience
Cognitive semanticists particularly pay attention to the
observation that meaning comes about as a result of
mental cognitive processes
the study of language + the study of meaning
a part of the study of cognition.
Thus, there is no separation of linguistic knowledge
from general thinking/cognition.

4
 Objectivist view vs. Cognitive view
Two views to deal with how our language is related to
our world:
1/ the objectivist view (related to the reality)
2/ the cognitive view (related to our cognition)
In the objectivist view:
linguistic meaning only deals with reality (i.e. linguistic
meaning is objective and given, it is out there in the
world and independent of cognition).
In the cognitive view:
linguistic meaning has to do with ones experience and
cognition (i.e. linguistic meaning is not that objective,
there is always a human element/participation in it)
5
 Objectivist view
In the objectivist view, everything (including objects,
feelings, etc.) are given in the world. All these things
together make up the reality.
What is pain?
It is hard to define/give a meaning to pain!
chair
its meaning can be grounded in the reality
we can just understand it as an object out there
Again, what is pain?
It is difficult to ground in reality the meaning of pain!
HOWEVER, we just know what it is and we just know what
people feel when they feel painful.
WHY?
6
 Cognitive view
We understand what pain is probably because we
have experienced it before!
The reality out there alone is not enough; it is often
linked up with how we experience the world.
Human beings often play a role in the conception of
meaning; there must be human elements in it.
The elements of human intervention/human
experience are essential to the opposing view of
objectivism the cognitive view.

7
 Cognitive view
Cognitive semanticists would simply reject the objectivist
view
they believe that reality is not independent of human
experience and cognition.
Meanings are grounded in human experience, and serve as
the results of mental cognitive processes.
In the cognitive view, the structure of reality as reflected in
language is perceived as a product of the human mind.
Now, what is pain?
The meaning of pain is derived from our personal
experience (i.e. the meaning is grounded on our experience).
We establish an association between the word and the kind
of experience. If you take away this human experience, it
becomes a lot harder to explain what pain is.
8
 Conceptual structures
In the cognitive view, meaning depends on its conceptual
structure in our mind.
These conceptual structures are formed from our
experience (as language users) of growing up and acting in
the world.
Conceptual structures are embodied (i.e. The nature of
conceptual organization arises from bodily experience)
A number of conceptual structures are identified and
discussed in the literature. A few of them are discussed in
this lecture:
Image schemas
Radial category
Mental spaces
9
 Image schemas
Image schemas = conceptual structures derived from perception
and bodily experience.
From these basic conceptual structures, we then use them to
organize thought across a range of more abstract domains.
Image schemas are closely related to George Lakoff and Mark
Johnsons metaphor theory.
Complicated situations can be conceptualized by these image
schemas, which are learnt from daily experience.
E.g. Im getting there!
Meeting a friend
Doing your assignment
Here, the same conceptual structure is used to explain the 2
different situations (i.e. both situations involve the same path
schema with a starting point, a path, and an end point) 10
 Path schema
(Saeed 11.4.2)
Often a schema can be represented visually.
A path schema:
A path B
This schema reflects our everyday experience of moving around
and experiencing the movements of other entities.
Our journeys (as we experience them) typically have a beginning
and an end, a sequence of places on the way and direction. Based
on such experiences the path schema thus contains:
A starting point (A)
An end point (B)
A sequence of contiguous locations connecting them (arrow)
[the movement is directional]
11
 Path schema
A path schema: path
A B
Some associated implications(listed in Saeed 11.18):
1/Since A and B are connected by a series of contiguous
locations, getting from A to B implies passing through the
intermediate points.
2/Path tend to be associated with directional movement along
them, say from A to B.
3/There is an association with time. Since a person traversing a
path takes time to do so, points on the path are readily
associated with temporal sequence. Thus an implication is that
the further along the path an entity is, the more time ahs
elapsed. 12
 Path schema
With the conceptualization of a path schema in our mind,
we can thus understand:
Im on the way doing my assignment 1 and Im nearly there.
We use our real world experience of a path to understand
something more abstract.

13
 Containment schema
(Saeed 11.4.1)
A containment schema is derived:
1/from our experience of the human body itself as a container;
2/from experience of being physically located ourselves within
bounded locations like rooms, beds, etc.;
3/and also of putting objects into containers.
A containment schema:

[an entity within a bounded location]

14
 Containment schema
Similar to the path schema, the containment schema also
has some associated implications(listed in Saeed 11.16):
1/Experience of containment typically involves
protection from outside force.
2/Containment limits forces, such as movement, within
the container.
3/The contained entity experiences relative fixity of
location.
4/The containment affects an observers view of the
contained entity, either improving such a view or
blocking it (containers may hide or display).
15
 Containment schema
We use our real world experience of what a container is to
understand something more abstract.
With the conceptualization of a containment schema in
our mind, we can thus understand:
- Hes out of sight now. (visual field as container)
- Ive put a lot of effort into doing this assignment. (activity
as container)
- Mary is in love with John. (state as container)

16
 Force schema
(Saeed 11.4.3)
The basic force schema is compulsion:
A force vector F acts on an entity u then results in a
movement along a trajectory.

F u

It is suggested that the meaning of must is derived from

the COMPULSION schema.
E.g. you must work hard in order to graduate.

17
 Force schema
The Force schema actually consists of a series of related
image schemas. For example:
Blockage
Removal of resistant
enablement, etc.
(Blockage and removal of resistant are discussed in
Saeed)
Like other image schemas, the group of force schemas are
also derived from our everyday experience. For most of the
time, it includes:
A source and target of the force
A direction and intensity of the force
A path of motion of the source and/or target 18
 Force schema
The BLOCKAGE schema is often used to symbolize obstacles
and challenges that people are confronted with.
E.g. It is difficult for them to move forward as they are in a
dilemma.
The REMOVAL OF RESISTNAT schema is often related to the
permission meaning of may.
E.g. You may now kiss the bride.
[no parental, social or institutional barrier now prevents the
bride from being kissed by the groom]
The ENABLEMENT schema is often used to express the physical
capacity as denoted by the modal verb can.
E.g. John can finish 400M in 50 secs.
19
 Polysemy and radial category
Polysemy a word has more than one, but related, senses
Radial category a way to represent the internal categorical
structure of a polysemous word
George Lakoff hypothesizes that the different meanings of a
polysemous word are connected to each other in a kind of
network to form a large category called a radial category
(or family resemblance category).

20
 Polysemy and radial category
The concept of radial category is employed to deal with
cases of polysemy.
A radial category does not require that all members be
similar to a single prototype.
(consider the polysemous word mouth i. mouth of a person
ii. mouth of a jar
iii. mouth of a river)
The only requirement is that each member must be similar
to at least one other member.
Similar members are chained to form a kind of network. E.g.,
member A may be similar to B, and B to C, but A may not be
similar to C at all. Member D may be similar to B and C, but
not A, etc. 21
 Radial category
Within a radial category, some members may be more
central, or salient, than others.
A central idea about a radial category is that if we already
have a central concept, we can define other related
concepts like a radiation.
In a radial category:
a central member branching out to less-central and non-
central cases
degrees of membership, with extendable boundary
A typical category of example:
Prepositions!
22
 Prepositions on
Example: on
Often we define the meaning of a preposition in terms of
its relative position.
As an immediate resource, we can understand the
meaning of on from our immediate experience
sitting on the chair.
The meaning get extended:
The bird is on the tree.
[notice here, it is not necessary that the bird is sitting on the tree]
Still, here, we can understand the meaning of on in terms
of relative position, or some kind of spatial orientation.

23
 Prepositions on
Further extended meanings:
You can rely on me.
Let me sleep on it.
the sense of attachment

Table
(mind)
(me)
There must be a connection between one sense and
the other.

24
 Prepositions on
With a radial structure we can explain why a polysemous
word would have different senses
they are all extended form the core sense.
[i.e. it is not an accident that we use on in those other cases]

Basic
sense
[often via metaphorical extensions]

With this structure, abstract senses can be traced back to the

more concrete, experiential sense.

25
 Prepositions over
Brugman and Lakoff (c.f. Brugman 1988) have presented a
description of the preposition over.
From this study, it is observed that the relationship between
the various senses is not arbitrary but systematic and natural.
They use the TR/LM notion to denote the relative position as
expressed by over:
Trajector (TR) object being located
Landmark (LM) reference object

26
 Prepositions over
The polysemous nature of over can be shown by these
examples:
a. The painting is over the mantel.
b. The plane is flying over the hill.
c. Sam walked over the hill.
d. She spread the table cloth over the table.
e. The board is over the hole.
f. The bird flew over the wall.
g. The bird flew over the yard.

27
 Prepositions over
a. The painting is over the mantel.

TR

LM

28
 Prepositions over
b. The plane is flying over the hill.

TR

LM

29
 Prepositions over
c. Sam walked over the hill.

TR

LM

30
 Prepositions over
How about:
d. She spread the table cloth over the table.
e. The board is over the hole.
f. The bird flew over the wall.
g. The bird flew over the yard.
Go home and draw the schematic diagrams for d-g. Discuss
them with your tutor in the next tutorial.
John Taylor in his book Linguistic Categorization has done a
very good job in describing how the various senses of over
are linked with one another (Ch. 6.3).
The relevant section has been uploaded onto the OLE.
31
 Mental spaces
A notion introduced by Gilles Fauconnier
Mental spaces are mental structures which speakers set up
to manipulate reference to entities.
They can be used to represent beliefs and hypothetical
situations.
Fauconnier proposed the idea of mental space to deal with
the semantic phenomenon of referential expressions.
A simple case:
The speaker uses a referential expression, and a particular
referent could be picked up in the real world, and the
hearer can understand what is being referred to by the
speaker.
However, many a time, it is not that simple. The referential
expression that the speaker uses might be vague.
e.g. Can I have my Saeed back when youre done with it? 32
 Mental spaces
E.g. Can I have my Saeed back when youre done with it?
Here, I am using the NP Saeed to refer to at least 2 things
the author/the book
How is it possible that we use a persons name to refer to his work?
There must be some kind of relationship between the person and
the book. Maybe
the person wrote the book
the person published the book
the person owned the book, etc.
In order to understand what the referent was, the hearer must
have some specific information in his mind. This is the pre-
condition of interpreting the referential expression successfully.
Again, this piece of information is based on our world experience. 33
 Mental spaces
Saeed does not inherently mean book (i.e. it is not in the
dictionary!). How come we understand the sentence:
Can I have my Saeed back when youre done with it?
The hearer is actively constructing the meaning.
Obviously, some kind of cognitive processes are set to work in our
mind the concepts of trigger and target.
Saeed book
(person) (product)
trigger target
This cognitive process here is what Fauconnier call the
CONNECTOR.
Saeed is the trigger, via the person-product connector, we arrive
at the target.
There is a shifting from one mental space to another
(here, mental spaces could be understood as different frames of
mind) 34
 Mental spaces
For Fauconnier, the meaning of a linguistic expression is
not objectively defined for the hearer. Rather, the hearer
needs to build it up by himself via the cognitive process
which takes the linguistic expression as the trigger.
The linguistic expression (the trigger) is the starting point.
It starts a cognitive process which results in a certain
meaning at the end of the process (i.e. the target).

35
 Mental spaces
An extensively cited example from Fauconnier:
In Lens painting, the girl with blue eyes has green
eyes.
Two mental spaces are being set up here:

p person-image relationship
blue green
eyes eyes

real world painting

36
 Spacebuilders
Linguistic elements which serve as triggers for setting up
mental spaces are called spacebuilders by Fauconnier.
In other words, they are linguistic expressions that build
links between base space (the present reality) and other
mental spaces.
Examples of spacebuilders are adverbials of location and
time:
Johns painting
Saeeds book
When I was in university, etc.

37
 Summary
Objectivist view vs. Cognitive view
The importance of human experience (in particular
bodily experience) in understanding meaning
How conceptual structures are used to represent the
meaning of a word
A number of conceptual structures have been
discussed in this lecture:
Image schemas
Radial category
Mental spaces
38
 Reference
BRUGMAN, CLAUDIA M. 1988. Outstanding
Dissertations in Linguistics the story of over:
polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon.
New York: Garland.

39
 Quiz Arrangement
Date: 24 Oct (Monday) [study break]
Time: 4-6 pm
Venue: Groups 1-2 C0618
Groups 3-5 C0518
Things to revise: Materials covered in Lectures 1-5
Format:
Section A (36%)
Definitions [3 pairs out of 4]
Section B (24%)
Short questions
Section C (40%)
Problem-based/discussion questions [2 out of 3]
40
 Checklist
Semantics vs. Semiotics
Sentence meaning vs. utterance meaning
Lexical semantics vs. sentence (compositional) semantics
Sense, reference, denotation
Denotation, connotation, collocation
Literal vs. non-literal meanings

41
 Checklist
2 theoretical approaches to meaning
representational approach to meaning
referential (or denotational) approach to meaning
2 approaches to define the conceptual component of a word
The necessary and sufficient conditions approach
The prototype approach
2 opposing views to deal with the relationship between our
language and our world
Linguistic relativity
Language of thought

42
 Checklist
The complicated notion of word
Lexical item vs. grammatical item
Lexical relations:
Homonymy
Polysemy
Synonymy
Antonymy
The notion of markedness
Different types of antonyms
Hyponymy
The notion of transitivity
Meronymy
43
 Checklist
Metaphor and metonymy as processes of semantic extension
Metaphor vs. metonymy
Different types of metaphor
Structural metaphor
Orientational metaphor
Different types of metonymic concepts
The systematicity of metaphorical and metonymic concepts

44
 Checklist
Two views to language:
1/ the objectivist view (related to the reality)
2/ the cognitive view (related to our cognition)
The notions of:
Image schemas
Radial category
Mental spaces

45
 Next lecture
Componential analysis

46