A Cognitive Theory of Language. Semantic
Theory and Analysis.

von:Michael Obenaus

Introduction 2

PART ONE 3

1. Linguistic Categorisation 3

1.1 John R. Taylor: Prototype Theory and Basic Level Terms 4
1.2 George Lakoff: Radial Categories, Metonymic Models 5

2. Lakoff’s (et al.) Cognitive Theory of Language  6

2.1 ICM: Image-Schema, Metonymy and Metaphor  6

3. Implications for Semantic Analysis 12

PART TWO  13

4. Case Study 13

4.1 Analysis 14
4.2 The Semantics of Metaphor 17

5. Conclusion 18

References  20

Introduction

This paper will be concerned with cognitive-linguistic approaches to semantics and their practical application to semantic analysis. Part one will review and discuss semantic theory: Cognitive Semanticists base their theories on the assumption that language is part of general cognitive processes rather than an autonomous module independent of general cognition. This assumption entails an approach towards meaning which takes into account world knowledge and language use (what is otherwise distinguished as ”pragmatics”). Evidence for this approach as given for the question of linguistic categorisation by John R. Taylor1 will be reviewed, and discussed with reference to George Lakoff’s (et al.)2 Cognitive Theory of language. The notion of Conceptual Metaphors as structuring everyday language is developed into a theory of basic metaphoricity of thought, as reflected by its surface expressions in language. In part two I will apply Lakoff and Johnson’s theory of Conceptual Metaphoricity to a case study: I want to discuss and assess the potential, and the limits, of this approach in the analysis of short poetic text.

PART ONE

1. Linguistic Categorisation

”Classical” approaches to categorisation, as called by Taylor (1989, 21 ff.) and Lakoff (1987, 6 ff.), can be characterised by an understanding of linguistic categories as clearly bounded sets of members which have certain essential features in common. These categories are taken to reflect existing categories in the world which are defined by, as Aristotle called it, necessary and sufficient features. These features are binary, i.e. they determine or rule out membership and thereby establish clear boundaries. This understanding of categorisation is manifested in traditional philosophical and scientific thought as well as in ”common sense” theories about language and the world. Lakoff calls this approach ”objectivism” and identifies the following assumptions: ‘OBJECTIVIST METAPHYSICS: All of reality consists of entities, which have fixed properties and relations holding among them at any instant. [...] OBJECTIVIST ESSENTIALISM: Among the properties that things have, some are essential; that is, they are those properties that make a thing what it is, and without which it would not be that kind of thing. Other properties are accidental – that is, they are properties that things happen to have, not properties that capture the essence of the thing. [...] THE DOCTRINE OF OBJECTIVE CATEGORIES: The entities in the world form objectively existing categories based on their shared objective properties.’ (Lakoff 1987, 158-161; emphasis in the original)

Cognitive scientists have set out to prove these assumptions wrong. Categorisation, in their view, is an operation of human cognition which is determined by experiences of physiological and physical characteristics of the human body and bodily interactions with the environment. Categorisations and their realisations, however, can provide the basis for human experience once they are firmly established, so that conceptual categories can work back upon human perception. Language categories, they maintain, are reflections of conceptual categories. Thus, they disclaim the autonomy of language which is presupposed by most formalist and generative linguistic theories (cf. Lakoff 1987, ch. 9), as well as a metaphysical notion of reality which is reflected in human perception and categorisation. Rather, reality is made meaning of through these cognitive processes, which in turn are predominantly structured by bodily experiences and interactions. Therefore, cognitive semantics take empirical evidence about language as the basis for understanding human cognition. Prototype theory has developed from empirical studies of linguistic categorisation, and it is taken as evidence for processes of conceptual categorisation.

1.1 John R. Taylor: Prototype Theory and Basic Level Terms

[...]

1 Taylor (1989)
2 Lakoff/ Johnson 1980, Lakoff 1987, 1989, 1990, 1992