LINGUIST List 15.2245

Fri Aug 6 2004

Review: Ling Theories/Cog Sci: Ibanez (2003)

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomilinguistlist.org>


What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially invited to join in.

If you are interested in leading a book discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley Collberg at collberglinguistlist.org.

Directory

  • Suzie Bartsch, Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, Volume 1

    Message 1: Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, Volume 1

    Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 21:55:13 -0400 (EDT)
    From: Suzie Bartsch <suzie.bartscht-online.de>
    Subject: Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, Volume 1


    EDITOR: Ruiz de Mendoza Ib��ez, Francisco Jos� TITLE: Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics SUBTITLE: Volume 1 PUBLISHER: John Benjamins Publishing Company YEAR: 2003 Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-561.html

    Suzie Bartsch, unaffiliated

    INTRODUCTION

    This first issue (iv+288 pages) of the "Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics" (henceforth ARCL issue) is a collection of 11 fascinating papers, an interesting interview with George Lakoff, and 2 enlightening book reviews, including methodological (Gries), empirical (Gries, Caballero, Ortigosa Pastor, Porto Requejo, Vall�s, S�nchez Garc�a, Nerlich & Chamizo Dom�nguez) and 'pseudo-empirical' or 'semi-empirical' (Ibarretxe-Antu�ano, Hamawand, Paradis), as well as theoretical (Paradis, Kravchenko's paper and the review of his book by Shakovsky) approaches to Cognitive Linguistics (CL).

    The contributions address issues which proved to be, or are becoming, crucial within CL, such as:

    * metaphor theory (Caballero, Porto Requejo, S�nchez Garc�a, Lakoff's interview by S�nchez), * prototype theory and conceptual networks (Gries, Ibarretxe- Antu�ano, Hamawand, Porto Requejo, Vall�s), * polysemy (Hamawand, Nerlich & Chamizo Dom�nguez, Paradis), * metonymy (review of Ruiz de Mendoza Ib��ez et al. 2002 by Panther), * Neural Theory of Language (NTL) (Lakoff's interview), * image schemas (Ibarretxe-Antu�ano, Lakoff's interview), * constructionist approaches (Gries, Ibarretxe-Antu�ano, Hamawand, Ortigosa Pastor, Lakoff's interview), * lexical creativity (Vall�s), * language change (Nerlich & Chamizo Dom�nguez), * non-modularity of cognition and language and criticism of the Chomskyan paradigm (Kravchenko's paper and the review of his book, Paradis, Hamawand, Vall�s), * evolutionary biology (Kravchenko's paper and the review of his book), * applied CL (Caballero, Porto Requejo, S�nchez Garc�a, Lakoff's interview), amongst others.

    In the next section, the contributions are summarized. The summaries are intentionally rather detailed, since this review is, amongst others, meant to be a contribution to the diffusion of CL in broader circles within the linguistics community. In the discussion section, I discuss some of the merits and shortcomings of the edition as a whole, and of the papers in particular. As to the late, the discussion is centered on the issue of methodologies, going beyond the scope of the volume under review since it is intended to summarize the main tenets of the CL enterprise and of the methodological desiderata which should be met in order to improve its descriptive and explanatory powers, which by the way are not small. Two other relevant points are concerned with cross- disciplinarity and application of CL, which are nevertheless not fully discussed here.

    I would like to thank the following people, including some of the authors of the volume under review, for stimulating discussions, fascinating papers, and valuable clarifications, by means of personal communications and/or contributions to the Cogling discussion list (I am particularly obliged to the people who responded to my query (Jul 04 2004) to the Cogling concerning the methodologies used in CL): Dmitry G. Bogushevich, Per Aage Brandt, Giancarlo Buoiano, Rosario Caballero, Israel "izzy" Cohen, Phillip Elliott, Dirk Geeraerts, Zeki Hamawand, Stefan Gries, Tarik Hadzibeganovic, John Hewson, Joe Hilferty, Priscilla Hill, Anders Hougaard, Iraide Ibarretxe-Antu�ano, Rembrandt Klopper, Manfred Krifka, George Lakoff, Sydney Lamb, Adam E. Leeds, Robert "Beau" Link, Ana Ortigosa Pastor, Ma. Dolores Porto Requejo, Oren Sadeh- Leicht, Chris Sinha, and Robin Turner. I am sorry if I have forgotten anyone. And I am sorry that, for limitations of time and space, I could not include all their contributions and references in this review.

    SUMMARY OF CONTENTS

    1. "Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions" by Stefan Th. Gries (Soenderborg, Denmark) (pp. 1-27)

    "The scope of [this] paper is [...] mainly methodological in nature", as Gries announces (p. 5). Taking as example the analysis of the so- called 'dative alternation' constructions in English from the perspective of the prototype theory of categorization (e.g. Rosch 1973), Gries presents a method which includes three phases:

    (a) The analyst prepares an inventory of semantic, formal, and pragmatic features which, according to a large number of studies, determine the speaker's choice of construction.

    (b) Then she analyzes a relatively representative corpus, quantifying her findings so that she can identify the features with high cue validity for prototypical instances of the constructions involved, which enables predictions about the speakers' choices of construction.

    (c) Finally, she backs up her findings by means of natives' judgments.

    In the case of the study in question, these phases looked like follows:

    (a) Gries' inventory of features which, according to other studies dealing with the so-called 'dative alternation', determine the speaker's choice of construction (ditransitive or prepositional construction--DK and PK, respectively), includes features such as the "process described by the utterance", length and (pronominal or lexical) kind of NPs realizing referents, animacy or discourse newness of referents, amongst others (pp. 8f.).

    (b) From files of the British National Corpus (BNC) Gries extracted then 60 cases of DK and 57 cases of PK; by means of a linear discriminant analysis (LDA) he could identify the features with high cue validity for DK and PK, which enabled him to characterize prototypical instances of each of both constructions; the LDA has a high predictive power (88.9%) (pp. 8ff.).

    (c) Finally, to back up his claims he conducted a questionnaire experiment with English native speakers (p. 16f.).

    2. "Entering in Spanish: Conceptual and semantic properties of entrar en/a" by Iraide Ibarretxe-Antu�ano (then Bilbao, now Saragosa, Spain) (pp. 29-58)

    Also this paper deals with alternative constructions, namely with the Spanish constructions 'entrar en' ('enter in') (in these review called 'locative construction' or LK) and 'entrar a' (in some cases + dative pronoun) ('enter to') (in these review called 'allative construction' or AK) used to express entering events.

    In the first part of the paper, Ibarretxe-Antu�ano characterizes entering events by means of the "semantic primitive of motion" (pp. 29f., 43) and "image schemas" (e.g. Johnson 1987, Lakoff 1987), viz. "Source-Path-Goal (SPG)" and "Boundary (BND)" (pp. 35f.). The choice of construction is explained in terms of "force dynamics" (Talmy 1988), "profiling of events" (Langacker e.g. 1987) conveyed by the prepositions 'a' ("dynamic") and 'en' ("static"), and the "polysemous character of the verb 'entrar'" conveying a "dynamic" ('to enter into') and a "static sense" ('to fit') (pp. 34ff.).

    Ibarretxe-Antu�ano concludes the first part by stating that, while the "primitive of motion" is not irrelevant, the "key factors" are "the nature of the boundary crossing itself and the force dynamic relation between the two entities" involved (p. 43). Thus, a LK can, for instance, convey a "neutral force dynamic relation" between trajector and landmark, whereas an AK can convey a "negative force dynamic relation" between trajector and landmark which have the roles of agonist and antagonist, respectively (pp. 39f.).

    In the second part, Ibarretxe-Antu�ano analyzes situations in which she explains the choice of construction in terms of metonymy, deixis, and scope. Thus, the LK can, for instance, convey a concrete entering event (into a building), whereas the AK can convey a metonymical understanding of the event (metonymy "ACTIVITY FOR PLACE") (p. 47).

    3. "The construal of atemporalisation in complement clauses in English" by Zeki Hamawand (Hamburg, Germany) (pp. 59-85)

    Starting from notions as "temporal profile", "sequential scanning", and "summary scanning" amongst others, used to characterize "atemporalisers" (Langacker e.g. 1987, 1991, 2000) (pp. 59ff.), Hamawand investigates the conceptualizations of following atemporalizing complementizers:

    * "the zero complementiser": e.g. 'She made him clean the floor'; * 'to': e.g. 'He decides to take early retirement'; * 'for-to': e.g. 'I want for Anna to meet the deadline'; and * '-ing': e.g. "Kate enjoys dancing the tango'.

    After a critical review on the status of complementisers in some other frameworks (pp. 62-64), Hamawand presents the cognitive account which ascribes complementizers "semantic values"(p. 64), such as (1) "conceptual distance" (e.g. Haiman 1983) between main and complement events (pp. 66ff.); (2) "temporal reference" relating "the time of a complement clause to the time of the utterance" (p. 61, pp. 68f.); as well as (3) a polysemous character leading to conceptual networks based on "prototypicality and schemacity" (Langacker 1987) (pp. 70f.).

    Thus, the example of "zero complementiser" above is explained in terms of simultaneity of both events (pp.71ff.), whereas the 'to' construction expresses posteriority of the complement event, which is its "schematic meaning" that can have the "extend meaning[s]" of "subsequent potentiality" (e.g. 'They hoped to climb the Mount Everest') and "subsequent actualization" (e.g. 'She forced him to reconsider his position') (pp. 73ff.). The complementizer 'for-to' has the prototypical sense of "subsequent potentiality" as in the example above, and the "convoluted" sense of "coincident actuality" (e.g. 'It is wonderful for her to be in high spirits') (p. 78).

    In a sense, also this paper deals with alternative constructions and their conceptualizations, since Hamawand is concerned with both the speaker's "conceptual flexibility to construe a complex scene either temporally or atemporally" (p. 61) ... see the definition of "construal" as the "ability of the speaker to conceive and express a situation in alternate ways" (p. 59, abstract) -, and his choice of complementizer depending upon semantic features of complementizers and predicates (p. 65).

    4. "Talking about space: Image metaphor in architectural discourse" by Rosario Caballero (Spain) (pp. 87-105)

    Caballero analyzes the occurrence of image metaphors in 95 building reviews selected from six magazines specialized in architectural design. For this genre-based and corpus-driven study, she developed a procedure in which the metaphors are identified and analyzed semantic- conceptually according to the respective underlying "metaphorical mapping" and lexicogrammatically according to their recurrence in the rhetorical structure. The aims of the study are "to show (a) the importance of image metaphors against commonly held views on them in cognitive approaches and (b) point to the difficulties of classifying metaphors into conceptual or image types without any other consideration to their discourse instantiation and function" (the author in personal communication).

    Caballero found that the analyzed metaphors convey mainly knowledge "associations about the target based upon the source", such as FORM IS MOTION (e.g. 'meander'); others are related to visually perceptible aspects (e.g. 'skeleton' or "membrane") (p. 92). The instances inform mainly nouns in distinct "types of pre-modification patterns" (e.g. 'supermarket box' and 'pinwheel plan') (pp. 92f.). Verbs - conveying a "complex metaphorical transfer" according to conceptual metaphors such as BUILDINGS ARE ANIMATE BEINGS (e.g. '[...] conservatories [...] which clamber up the crags [...]') (p. 95) - and adjectives ... whose interpretation is mostly contextually determined (e.g. 'reptilian' for the color 'green' (p. 96) - are also very productive (p. 93).

    While the primary function of image metaphors in the building reviews is informational, they also be used for evaluative purposes. The informational role is a consequence of the descriptive character of the genre. While metaphors can be used referentially, replacing then the target term, they "primarily work as extra-specification device", with co- occurrence of target and source terms. "Image metaphor clusters" are used mainly to indicate different perspectivizations of the buildings being described ("spatial" or "perspectival deixis"). (pp. 97ff.).

    5. "Temporal deictic adverbs: A constructionist approach" by Ana Ortigosa Pastor (La Rioja, Spain) (pp. 107-118)

    Following "the main tenets [sic] of Construction Grammar, namely that each grammatical construction should specify semantic, pragmatic and syntactic information", Ortigosa Pastor argues that a correlation of some notions posited in Construction Grammar (CG) (Fillmore 2001), Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997), Functional Grammar (FG) (Dik 1989/1997), and Lambrecht (1994) can be fruitful for "an accurate description" of the temporal deictic adverbs 'yesterday', 'today', and 'tomorrow' as "constructional templates" (pp. 107f.).

    Ortigosa Pastor expands (i) Fillmore's lexical-semantic analysis of temporal adverbs (by means of a "vector construction" with a "temporal TARGET", a "temporal LANDMARK", and, for deictic adverbs, an "anchoring landmark", pp. 108- 111) by discussing (ii) the RRG's syntactic approach ("temporal adjuncts are [...] modifiers of the core (and sometimes of the clause - e.g. Yesterday, he went to the store and bought some cheese), although similarly to operators they take part in the operator projection", the author in personal communication); and (iii) the pragmatic perspective proposed by Lambrecht and Dik : Ortigosa Pastor partially disagrees "with Lambrecht's (1994) view, arguing that they often may be part of the focus information (e.g. "Secretary Pena is also on his way out there. He was in Birmingham today'); in other cases, they "are the main focus of an utterance", and ... following "Dik's (1989) typology of focus" - convey "some contrastive information" (e.g. 'We will start briefings for you all perhaps as early as tomorrow, but definitely by Wednesday') (pp. 113- 116).

    6. "Del significado de la palabra a la interpretaci�n del texto: �Qu� es la magia?" by Ma. Dolores Porto Requejo (Madrid, Spain) (pp. 119- 135) (Note: I quote passages from this Spanish text translating them into English)

    Porto Requejo examines the metaphors that constitute the conceptualization of MAGIC in the Fantasy novel "Forging the Darksword" (Weis & Hickman 1988) which presents a world, 'Thimhallan', whose inhabitants are born with magic powers ... referred to in the novel as "Magic", "Life", or "Life force" - , using them in their daily lives. Some are born without them, being forced to make use of the "Ninth Mystery", "Death", "Dark Art", or "Technology'", i.e., their own hands and hand- made tools.

    Relying on Gibbs' (1998) notion that a concept is not a monolithic entity, but a dynamic one which can be approached from several perspectives, Porto Requejo argues that, for the investigation of the concept of MAGIC in the mentioned novel, its distinct "metaphorical projections" must be considered (p. 121), since they make up a "complex network of metaphors, absolutely structured and hierarchically organized that provides us with a global mental image of MAGIC" (p. 119, abstract, p. 122, pp. 130ff.). This "global mental image" is based on a "megametaphor" (Werth 1994) or "master metaphor" (K�vecses 2000), as the "central metaphorical projection" from which the others are derived (p. 119, pp. 132ff.).

    In the novel under study, the concepts of MAGIC and TECHNOLOGY are presented in an opposition by means of metaphors such MAGIC IS LIFE/NATURAL ORDER and TECHNOLOGY IS DEATH/CHAOS (pp. 126-129). This opposition result in a "'positive-negative' evaluation system" very common in many concepts in real life (K�vecses 2000) and also in the epic fantasy genre. For the novel under study, these specific metaphors may be reduced to two generic metaphors: MAGIC IS THE GOOD and TECHNOLOGY IS THE EVIL (pp. 129f.). The underlying "megametaphor" reads ORDER IS THE GOOD, CHAOS IS THE EVIL. Relying on Lakoff's & Turner's (1989) notion of "persuasive force" of "poetic metaphors" as extensions of "daily metaphors" (p. 121), Porto Requejo argues that the mentioned "megametaphor" is that which confers credibility on the novel since it is common for both the real and the fictional world (pp. 133f.).

    7. "Lexical creativity and the organization of the lexicon" by Teresa Vall�s (Spain) (pp. 137-160)

    Partially on the basis of corpus data, Vall�s investigates Catalan neologisms, combining Bybee's (1988) "conception of morphology as a _lexical organization_" (p. 155, original emphasis) and a reformulated version of van Marle's (1985) theory on morphological paradigmatic relations framing the lexicon as start point for the study of lexical creativity (pp. 137, 141, 150, 155), as well as adapting Bybee's (2001) network model to the study of lexical morphology processes of derivation and analogy (pp. 137, 138, 141, 143).

    Discussing critically generative "models of possible words" (pp. 137f., 139-141, 150, 155), Vall�s presents "a usage-based model of actual words" (pp. 138f., 140, 141f.), aiming to demonstrate that the study of neologisms provides insights into the morphological organization of the lexicon, and that the study of the lexicon's morphological organization "constitutes an enriching approach to lexical creativity" (pp. 137, 138, 141, 145ff., 146, 150, 153, 154). The interrelation between lexicon and neology is explained in terms of networks based on paradigmatic relations among words sharing morphemes, "articulated over two main axes: relations among words with common affixes (derivational categories) and relations among words sharing the same stem (word families)" (p. 141). Contrarily to the common view that considers affixes (and, consequently, derivation) "as the key to lexical creativity" since they are more productive than stems, Vall�s argues that neologisms (e.g. _autoeditor_ 'self-publisher') comprise both stems and affixes, and are therefore the result of the productivity of both (p. 151).

    The paradigmatic relations are "expressed by means of morphological rules or _patterns emerging from the intrinsic organization of the lexicon_" (p. 146, original emphasis). For instance, relations between derivational categories by means of affix attachment are based on "low- level patterns" (Langacker, e.g. 1987) specifying, for instance, that the adjectival suffix _-ble_ always appears after the basal thematic vowel (e.g. _agradable_ 'pleasant') (pp. 146-150). Vall�s discusses the distinction traditionally made between "rule-based derivational process" (affix attachment) and analogy (affix replacement, e.g. words with the semantically related prefixes _macro-_ and _micro-_), arguing with Motsch (1988) for a rather "fuzzy boundary between derivation and analogy" (p. 139, 156).

    8. "Amor y met�fora conceptual: Aproximaci�n a los sonetos 153 y 154 de Shakespeare desde la ling��stica cognitiva" by Manuel S�nchez Garc�a (C�ceres, Spain) (pp. 161-177) (Note: I quote passages from this Spanish paper translating them into English)

    Basing the investigation on (a) the distinction between "conceptual metaphor" and "metaphorical expression" (Lakoff and Turner 1989) (pp.162-164); (b) the partial nature of metaphorical projections with the concepts of "highlighting" and "metaphorical utilization" (K�vecses 2002) (pp. 164f.); and (c) the assumption that Shakespeare wrote the mentioned poems as poetic exercises (two distinct sonnets on the same theme), S�nchez Garc�a aims at showing that in these poems Shakespeare used distinct "metaphorical expressions" to express a reduced number of "conceptual metaphors" (pp. 167, 172).

    The conceptual metaphors are LOVE IS FIRE, LOVE IS A SICKNESS, LOVE IS HEAT, and LOVE IS SLAVERY, in which distinct aspects of the target domain are highlighted in that some characteristics of the source domains are metaphorically utilized (p. 168). Shakespeare used, amongst others, following "metaphorical expressions": "his [Cupid's] heart- inflaming brand", or "against strange maladies a sovereign cure" (pp. 169-171).

    While analyzing literary texts, S�nchez Garc�a emphasizes the notion that metaphors are not simply a literary figure of speech, but a pervasive tool used in human thought and present in both plain and poetic discourse (Lakoff & Johnson 1980) (pp. 162, 166, 172, 173). In the case of Shakespeare's metaphors, these were/are common in plain discourse (p. 172). Accordingly, the author ultimately aims at providing a practical example of application of cognitive linguistic theory of metaphor (p. 168, 172).

    9. "The ontology of signs as linguistic and non-linguistic entities: A cognitive perspective" by Alexander V. Kravchenko (Irkutsk, Russia) (pp. 179-191)

    Relying on Maturana (e.g. 1987) Kravchenko outlines his "biocognitive philosophy of language" (p. 187), presented in Kravchenko (2001) (see section 13 below) within the framework of "autopoiesis as a new epistemology of the living" which "is founded on a biological concept of cognition and language" (p. 180). This approach provides "an effective alternative" to the "traditional philosophical/linguistic analysis of semiotic phenomena" which is based on "false epistemological assumption[s]", such as that linguistic and non- linguistic "entities" are ontologically distinct (pp. 179f., 182, 185, 188). According to Kravchenko, this view offers "a genuinely scientific (naturalist) angle and is a giant step toward understanding consciousness and cognitive (mental) processes" (p. 181).

    In autopoiesis, cognition "serves an active organism in its adaptation to its experiential world" (p. 180). Communication takes place by means of both coded and non-coded signs, as gestures or smells (p. 182), it "is an operational cognitive domain of interactions in which the interacting organisms cause orientational modifications in each other's behaviors" (p. 183), whereas language is "just one among many possible domains of orientational interactions" (p. 183). Semiotic relationships are based on "mutual causality", i.e., "_a word may function as a sign of some entity, an entity may function as a sign of the word_" (p. 184, original emphasis). Both linguistic and non-linguistic "entities" are (a) equally "empirical objects", "natural constituents" which, "on the grounds of their ostensibility/perceptibility", belong to the "environmental niche" or "interactional domain" of the Homo sapiens "as living organisms" (b) "contribute to the formation of a single concept on equal epistemic grounds" (c) resulting in mental representations (pp. 184, 185), conceived of as "relative neuronal activities characterizing the state of an organism's nervous system as a structure-determined system" (p. 181, 185).

    10. "The use of 'literally': Vice or virtue?" by Brigitte Nerlich (Nottingham, UK) and Pedro J. Chamizo Dom�nguez (M�laga, Spain) (pp. 193-206)

    Starting from the polysemous and/or ambiguous use of the word 'literally' in present-day English as both 'unfigurative' and 'figurative' (pp. 196, 198), as in the example "It's literally freezing out there" (p. 194), Nerlich & Chamizo Dom�nguez analyze the use of the word 'literally' from three perspectives - diachronic, normative, and synchronic -, basing the investigation on the "Oxford English Dictionary", public texts as web articles, the normative "New Fowler Modern English Usage" (1968), and texts from the "Bank of English".

    Normatively, the figurative sense is often dismissed in public debates in terms of "destruction" of the English language. The authors reject such attitudes by arguing "that the English language [not only] is tougher than purists [...] give it credit for", but "has even profited from" "such semantic onslaughts" (pp. 193f., 195, 198ff.)

    Diachronically, the unfigurative sense is the oldest (emerged in the early 16th century) and the "prototypical" meaning, whereas the figurative sense emerged only in the late 19th in the USA and became ever since very common (pp. 195, 198). What some call "deterioration" is rather "the natural result of various well-known mechanisms of semantic and pragmatic change, such as subjectification, bleaching, and a gradual strengthening of the rhetorical stance in the uses of 'literally'" (p. 198).

    Synchronically, 'literally' can modify the meaning of the expression within its scope in three main ways: (a) 'in the literal sense' as synonymous to 'faithfully' or 'precisely' or 'really'; (b) "a gradual shift in meaning" when used for "rhetorical purposes" with the "intersubjective function" of "emphasiz[ing] the literal meaning of an almost 'dead' metaphor", i.e., of an idiom; and (c) a "metaphorically hyperbolical" meaning, with a "complete shift in meaning", being synonymous with 'virtually' (pp. 194, 195f., 201ff.).

    11. "Is the notion of 'linguistic competence' relevant in Cognitive Linguistics?" by Carita Paradis (Lund) (pp. 207-231)

    In this paper, "meant to be a philosophical contribution to linguistic theorizing", Paradis argues "that the question of the relevance of linguistic competence [as posited by Chomsky] is a non-question" from the Cognitive Linguistic (CL) perspective, since it is a "theoretical construct" based on the "empirically arbitrary" assumption about the modularity of cognition and language, whereas in CL "[l]inguistic and non- linguistic (encyclopaedic) knowledge" lie on a continuum and semantic and conceptual aspects are crucial (pp. 207f., 225f.).

    Paradis reviews critically the generative "narrow view of language", qualifying its assumptions and methodology as "counter-productive for the development of the theory" since they reduce the aimed descriptive and explanatory adequacy (pp. 209-211, 225ff.).

    In opposition, in the CL approach human cognition is conceived of as a network, and [l]anguage as an integral part of" it; the study of language is therefore connected to psychology, cognitive science, and neurology (p. 212). Perceptions and bodily experience are crucial for the formation of conceptual structures and, consequently, for both language acquisition and language use, and the linguistic input is "extensive and highly redundant" (p. 213, 214).

    Since there is no divide between linguistic and encyclopaedic meanings/knowledge (p. 212, 215), natural languages exhibit a great "combinatorial complexity", as demonstrated in studies on polysemy "using real data" (pp. 219ff.). In this respect, Paradis adheres to Pustejovsky's (1998b) and Langacker's (1999) "weak polymorphism" according to which polysemy is both lexically and pragmatically determined, but "[w]ords in context are prone to evoke more meaning specifications" (p. 221). Relying on Murphy (2000) for the analysis of the "nature of lexical knowledge", Paradis posits a "two-level model of lexical knowledge" which includes for every lexical item: (i) a "conceptual knowledge _of/about_ the words", and (ii) a "conceptual knowledge _of/about_ the world", in which linguistic and encyclopaedic knowledge are inseparable (pp. 222-225), original emphasis).

    Paradis concludes that competence in CL includes resources as linguistic and encyclopaedic knowledge, as well as memory, intentionality, and skills of abstraction (p. 226).

    12. "Interview: Language and cognition: George Lakoff on some internal and external complexities" by Jes�s S�nchez (C�rdoba, Spain) (pp. 233- 267)

    In this interview from 2000/2001, Lakoff addresses several issues crucial for the CL framework, as Neural Theory of Language (NTL), Construction Grammar (CG), metaphor theory, language acquisition, embodiment, amongst others. I chose to collect some statements about the NTL since it is the thread of the interview.

    One of "the current challenges" for CL is the necessity of "an integrated theory"; NTL is conceived of as "to create such an integrated theory" (pp. 233, 260, 263). The central question in NTL is: "How is it possible for a physical structure, like the brain, which has just neurons that are connected, and fire and work by chemistry ... how can chemistry produce ideas and languages"? (p. 239). "[...] we can model, via computational means, how those electric chemical connections work" and "we also, through the study of the embodiment of mind, have been able to get some ideas about what parts of the brain are computing ... are characterizing certain concepts" (pp. 239, 262). "Regier, in his [...] model of image schemas, hypothesized [...] that [...] parts of the visual system [...] can compute image schemas [...]. It's a theory that explains how perception and reason can be linked" (pp. 239f., 245). "[...] we were able to [...] ground our cognitive linguistics in these computational neural models, which are models of the actual chemical system and ... as a result, the neural computation gives us a bridge between the linguistics and the chemistry" (p. 240). "But [...] it is not the case that the brain is a general computational mechanism. [...] The brain puts constraints on what concepts can be [and w]hat connections there can be [...]. [T]he brain puts constraints on [...] image schemas in general, and [...] on the possibility of metaphor and the learning of metaphors via the neural learning mechanisms, namely recruitment" ... this is the "theory of neural learning" (pp. 240, 245). "[W]e are discovering that the properties of neural systems are also properties of linguistic systems" (pp. 240f.).

    13. Book Reviews. I will not, of course, review reviews, but I will give at least a short account on what the books reviewed are about.

    Review of Kravchenko (2001) by Victor I. Shakovsky (Volgograd, Russia) (pp. 269-276). This book discusses several issues in semiotics, linguistics, and linguist semiotics from the perspective of Maturana- Varela's (1980) "autopoietic theory", claiming "that the problem of cognition in philosophy cannot be resolved without the resolution of the problem of linguistic meaning" (see summary of Kravchenko's paper in section 9 above).

    Review of Ruiz de Mendoza Ib��ez et al. (2002) by Klaus-Uwe Panther (Hamburg, Germany) (pp. 276-288). This book provides an evaluative review of the research on metonymy done up to date, develops a "conceptual apparatus" (in which metaphor and metonymy "form a conceptual continuum"), and applies this apparatus to grammar.

    DISCUSSION

    The Methodological Question

    The CL approach is essentially a usage-based approach, which means that it refuses some central axioms of the generative paradigm, such as poverty of stimulus, innate Universal Grammar (UG), modularity of human cognition and of language knowledge, as explicitly or implicitly, and by all means correctly, shown in the papers by Kravchenko and, above all, Paradis. Paradis in her highly stimulating paper shows how central and how "counter-productive for the development of the theory" the methodological separation of linguistic and encyclopaedic knowledge dictated by theoretical axioms is, since it deprives the theory of its descriptive and explanatory power (p. 211). Moreover, Paradis points out that this separation is "empirically arbitrary" (pp. 207f., 225f.), with which she means that the contextualized study of language provides pieces of evidence for both the network nature of human cognition and the assumption about linguistic forms being the result of semantic, conceptual, and pragmatic functions or structures, and not of (innate) algebraic rules. The Chomskyan notion of "linguistic competence" has, as properly demonstrated by Paradis, no utility in the CL framework.

    The implicit contention is that CL reinstates the social and psychological dimensions of language which the decontextualized study of the modular generative grammar had disregarded. This is the reason why Geeraerts (2003) distinguish "decontextualizing and recontextualizing tendencies in 20th century linguistics and literary theory": because the Chomskyan notion of competence ignores lectal variations. This is also the reason why CL is assigned by Harr�'s & Gillett's (1994) and Sinha (to appear) to what they call "second cognitive revolution" and "second generation cognitive science", respectively: because the notion of modularity of human cognition has 'depsychologized' the cognitive sciences. (Incidentally, I warmly recommend the reading of Sinha's and Geeraert's papers because of their high epistemological value and because they discuss the basic tenets of CL from a historical perspective.)

    The logical consequence of such a view would be a methodology of contextualization in which the native speaker abstraction and the introspective/intuitive method are dismissed. And indeed, Paradis argues that, for instance, meanings can be "generalized by abstracting away from contextual variants", but that "[c]ontextual variants are more fundamental" (p. 222), since "[w]ords in context are prone to evoke more meaning specifications" (p. 221). That is the reason why she defends the use of "real data", of contextualized data in context, in the analysis of, for instance, polysemy (p. 219).

    But the question is: "What are real data? What are contextualized data?" Paradis (p. 219) compares the decontextualized and the contextualized analysis of the uses of the adjective 'old'. The decontextualized meaning is 'having long duration of time'. The contextualized meanings or interpretations of 'old' are, paraphrasing Paradis' expressions: (i) 'long in use' or 'not new' (e.g. 'an old car'); (ii) 'long-lasting' (e.g. 'an old friend'); and (iii) 'former' or 'ex-' (e.g. 'an old boyfriend'). At the first sight, there is nothing to be said against this analysis, excepting perhaps that the adjective 'old' in 'an old friend' seems to be related rather to the friendship than to the friend, but this is not the point here. The point is: "What is the source of these data?" Since information concerning the source of the data is not given, it seems reasonable to suppose that these are Paradis' own data, i.e., _self- generated_ data. But can self-generated data be considered as "_real_ data"? Does contextualization mean that the analyst devices some situations in which the analyzed constructions can be used?

    To my mind, there is to these questions only one answer possible: "No". And the reason is that self-generated data are too near to the ideal speaker abstraction and the introspective methode. And this might be dangerous, since the analyst is in such situations more prone to ignore lectal variation, even if she concentrates her analysis on conceptual structures, as Paradis in her paper, which apart from that is really inspiring, does.

    But the problem is that this sort of introspective work seems to be pervasive in CL. George Lakoff, for instance, who is one of the founders of CL and one of the most deserving cognitive linguists, responded to my timid query (Jul 04 2004) to the discussion list "Cogling" concerning the methodologies used in CL in the following terms: "Since you have have [sic] a better idea of what _you_ mean than you can have of what other people mean, your semantic introspection is more likely to be accurate when you are working on your own "corpus" than when when [sic] you are working with other people's utterances" (Jul 04 2004, original emphasis).

    What would be the alternative to self-generated or pseudo- empirical data? The alternative is: _really_ real data, really _empirical_ data, as corpus data. Lakoff himself works with corpus data, in his analyses of political texts (e.g. Lakoff 1996). Nevertheless, in his message (Jul 04 2004) to "Cogling", he considers: "Corpus linguistics can only provide you with utterances (or written letter sequences or character sequences or sign assemblages). To do cognitive linguistics with corpus data, you need to interpret the data -- to give it meaning. The meaning doesn't occur in the corpus data. [...] [t]his [i.e. corpus linguistics] must be done with the recognition of the special difficulties imposed by having to assign meanings to other people's utterances."

    To my mind, the meaning _does_ occur in the corpus data, this is the work the cognitive linguist has to do: to find the meaning in the empirical data. And in my view, the "difficulties imposed by having to assign meanings to other people's utterances" should not be used as justification to work introspectively (in the sense of non- empirically). What we need are methods "to assign meanings to other people's utterances", and this is exactly the point where the volume under review gives some answers.

    First of all, the great majority of the papers analyzing linguistic data rely on corpus data or otherwise authentic data, and merit to be called 'empirical papers', whereas the 'pseudo-empirical' or 'semi- empirical' papers are only three: Ibarretxe-Antu�ano's, Hamawand's, and Paradis' papers. Paradis' paper was discussed above and I would like to stress again the high quality of her analyses despite her introspectivity. Hamawand's analysis of atemporalizers in English is also very compelling (even though in some cases other interpretations would be possible), but he analyzes self-generated sentences only, and the "evidences" for his interpretations are searched in grammaticality tests devised by him, but not tested with native speakers, relying thus only in his own intuitions.

    Ibarretxe-Antu�ano's analyses of constructions used to express entering events in Spanish are also persuasive. To her credit, it should be said that the data "has been tested with Spanish speakers from Northern Spain" and the author points out that dialectal studies are necessary to confirm her hypotheses (p. 55, n. 26). But: (i) Her first examples are very artificial, which the author herself admits but does use for expository reasons (e.g. 'El cuadrado entra en el tri�ngulo', 'The square enters the triangle') (pp. 33f.). (ii) Some other examples were extracted from the 'Diccionario de la Lengua Espa�ola' published by the 'Real Academia de la Lengua Espa�ola' (pp. 43-45) about which one might assume it is a rather conservative, normative work. (iii) Other examples, again, are self-generated. (iv) The author often uses expressions such as 'the construction xyz _triggers_ a different interpretation or conceptualization' (pp. 29, 50, 51, 52, 53). To my mind, this is an expression which reverses a main tenet of functional- cognitive approaches, namely that constructions are the result of (intended) meanings ... the author's expressions give the idea that the meanings are the result of the constructions.

    Kravchenko's philosophical paper is decidedly introspective. Consider his supposition: "If we try to conjecture an organism's domain of interaction (its niche) as some physical space constituted by a set of perceptible objects, the proportion of linguistic objects found in it may turn out to be negligible small if not zero" (p. 185). Even if this is a highly plausible conjecture, without empirical basis it remains speculation only. I do not know if there is work dealing with, say, input in children's daily life not only concerned with child-directed speech, but also with non- linguistic stimuli. But I would check it before I posit such a hypothesis. Or I would write some lines on the necessity of empirical evidence, even if I could not present any. As for his speculations on categorization of linguistic and non- linguistic "objects" ("What happens in the course of this human's perception of (cognitive interaction with) these objects?" p. 185), there is abundant empirical literature on it (see e.g. Tomasello 2003 for a review), but Kravchenko does not mention any reference.

    The truly empirical papers are: Gries (British National Corpus), Caballero (architectural magazines), Ortigosa Pastor (British National Corpus, Corpus of Spoken Professional American English), Porto Requejo (Weis' & Hickman's fantasy novel "Forging the Darksword"), Vall�s (the IEC [Institute for Catalan Studies] Contemporaneous Catalan Corpus), S�nchez Garc�a (Shakespeare's sonnets 153 and 154), Nerlich & Chamizo Dom�nguez (Bank of English, web). And out of all of them, Gries' paper is the most exemplary because of his efforts to develop a method that aims at objectivizing the analysis.

    Before discussing Gries' technique, let us consider the extreme introspective method. The analyst:

    (a) uses self-generated and decontextualized data (or data from normative sources), (b) analyzes these data introspectively, and (c) without confronting his conclusions with native speaker's opinions.

    These are, to my view, urgent problems which must be solved by means of methodologies as empirical as possible. The situation in (b) might be, in a sense, unavoidable, since some degree of introspection is always required -- as Geeraerts (1999) in his fascinating 'platonic' dialogue on "idealist and empiricist tendencies in cognitive semantics" points out: in scientifical work, regardless of whether the data are collected more empirically or more introspectively, the interpretative aspect is in the data analysis often, if not always, present and decisive, and this hermeneutic job is not seldom strongly influenced by the respective theoretical assumptions --, nevertheless quantifying methods could reduce the degree of introspection. And the situations in (a) and (c) could be changed: (a) by means of naturalistic and/or experimental data, and (c) by means of new methods.

    In this context, Gries' study is really refreshing, because he suggests some possible solutions to the three problems listed above, even, partially, for (b):

    (a) he uses naturalistic data and a large number of studies in order to prepare an inventory of semantic, formal, and pragmatic features determining the speaker's choice of the constructions to be analyzed; (b) he developed a quantitative method with a high predictive power (this quantitative aspect mentioned in can also be found in the work of Dirk Geeraerts' research group in Leuven who also defends a more empirical approach; see e.g. Geeraerts 1999). (c) he confronts his conclusions with native speaker's judgments.

    There are some problems in Gries' method: (i) it can be dismissed as "number-crunching" as Gries himself said in a personal communication; (ii) at least in the paper reviewed on dative alternation, the method and its presentation seem to thrust the analysis itself into the background; (iii) Gries, perhaps wisely, departs from the view that his characterization of prototypical constructions should be interpreted as the na�ve native speaker's mental representations or conceptualizations of such constructions, and the ideal case would be that the linguist's interpretations could be confronted with na�ve native speaker's judgments also in terms of mental representations. However, Gries' work can be considered as highly significant in the field of CL. His paper is, to my mind, also the most relevant of the volume under review, followed by Paradis' paper due to the methodological and the philosophical effort of these respective authors to sharpen the contours of the CL enterprise.

    The ARCL -- Edition and Aims

    First of all, I would like to make some remarks on the edition as a whole. It should be said that, to my mind, the issue is not sufficiently accurately edited. Firstly, the quantity of misprints and 'ungrammaticalities' is high, reflecting perhaps imprecisions of the original manuscripts which remained unnoticed by the editors, Shakovsky's review of Kravchenko (2001) being here a case in point (some 15 such inaccuracies in 6 pages). Also, the presentation of some papers partially lacks coherence, simplicity and precision; thus in some texts, the authors fails to provide references (e.g. in Caballero's paper, p. 91, it reads: "Given the assumption in genre research that [...]" without to provide references); in Ortigosa Pastor's paper, it is difficult to distinguish her own contentions from the ones posited by the researchers she cites; in this same paper, p. 113, the author discusses an example "(2f)" that is not available; several passages in Kravchenko's paper are somewhat obscure and perhaps also contradictory). Secondly, the structure of the papers does not always correspond to the ARCL guidelines. Thus, although "[c]ontributions should be in English", there are 2 articles in Spanish; several papers are not "accompanied by a biographical note" (e.g. Caballero, Vall�s); in some articles, the examples are not "set apart from the main body of the text" (e.g. Hamawand); in some texts the notes are not "kept to a minimum", Ibarretxe-Antu�ano's paper being here a case in point (33 notes); in some articles some central keywords are missing (e.g. 'categorization' in Gries' paper), in others there are no keywords (e.g. Ibarretxe-Antu�ano). Thirdly, the position of the notes at the end of the main text is unpractical and some figures are not adequately placed (e.g. Ibarretxe-Antu�ano, Hamawand). Finally, the articles could have been accompanied by the date of reception/production, and the volume could have been completed by an index of names and subjects.

    Apart from these rather 'microstructural' deficiencies, the (macro)structure and presentation of the volume are very satisfactory. Thus, the edition opens with considerations on methodologies (Gries) and ends with a philosophical reflection (Paradis) which are both central for CL, as it is discussed below. To my mind, to judge by the quality and relevance of the contributions of this first issue, the ARCL has by all means the prospect of achieving the aim of "establish[ing] itself as an international forum for the publication of high- quality original research on all areas of linguistic enquiry from a cognitive perspective", as it reads in the description on the publisher's web site http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_seriesview.cgi?series=ARCL and of achieving a position in the CL community similar to that occupied by another high qualitative periodical, namely "Cognitive Linguistics" of the International Cognitive Linguistics Association (ICLA) edited by Adele Goldberg, one of the leading researchers in CL (see e.g. Goldberg 1995).

    The ARCL, "published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association" (AELCO/SCOLA), which is incidentally affiliated to the ICLA, can be seen as the result of the increasing interest in CL in Spain. The editorial board consists of Spanish scholars under the direction of Francisco Jos� Ruiz de Mendoza Ib��ez, one of the leading cognitive linguists in Spain (see, for instance, his book (2002) on metonymy reviewed in this first issue). In this respect, in order to become "an international forum", it would be desirable that the next issues of the ARCL renounces to the predominance of Spanish authors which sets the tone of this first issue (8 or 9 out of 15 authors).

    Also, in order to achieve its second aim, namely to support "[f]ruitful debate [...] with neighboring academic disciplines as well as with other approaches to language study, particularly functionally-oriented ones", it would be good if next issues contained more papers from cross-disciplinary perspectives. For sure, Kravchenko's "bio-cognitive philosophy of language" (p. 187) relies partially on evolutionary biology, there are some papers in which CL is applied to poetics (Porto Requejo, S�nchez Garc�a) and to the study of genres (Caballero), and in S�nchez' interview Lakoff makes some comments on the application of CL to cognitive therapy (p. 266), and his own work on both NTL (see previous section) and application of CL to "social policy and to politics" (pp. 264f.). It would be, nevertheless, very constructive to have papers discussing CL tenets from the perspective of, for instance, (i) developmental psychology (see, e.g., the work on language acquisition and cognition done by Michael Tomasello (e.g. 1997, 1999, 2003), Elena Lieven (e.g. Abbot-Smith et al. 2004), and associates in Leipzig; (ii) psychotherapy and psychoanalysis (see, for instance, Barkfelt's 2003 study on the therapeutic use of metaphors in the treatment of depressions); (iii) brain research and evolutionary biology (see, for instance, the paper by Crow 2000 ... admittedly based on a generative conception of language - on the relations between schizophrenia and language in the Homo sapiens); (iv) neurolinguistics (see, for instance, Lamb 2003), to mention some examples. Incidentally, this issue on cross- disciplinarity and application of CL findings to both other fields of scientifical work and spheres of human life is highly relevant not only for the ARCL, but for the whole field of CL.

    CONCLUSION

    I think that the next issues of the ARCL has some desiderata to meet of which some may be extended to the whole field of CL. But all in all, this first issue can be seen as a successful first step in the direction of the aimed objectives: to "establish itself as an international forum for the publication of high-quality original research on all areas of linguistic enquiry from a cognitive perspective", and to support "[f]ruitful debate [...] with neighboring academic disciplines as well as with other approaches to language study, particularly functionally-oriented ones". Moreover, it is very recommendable for both readers with and without knowledge in CL. For the late, the issue can even serve as a sort of introduction into the field, since the majority of the papers includes good explanations of the underlying notions and common terminologies, even though parallel readings would be by all means advisable.

    The volume under review contains much more interesting and relevant issues than the ones discussed in this review, e.g. prototype theory, metaphor theory, alternate constructions, to cite only some examples. I chose to concentrate the discussion on the methodological issue since it is crucial for the field. In this respect, I can conclude that, given the pervasiveness of the extreme introspective method as described above, the development of objectivizing methodologies is of central relevance for the field of cognitive-functional linguistics, in order to avoid that Paradis' criticisms to the generative program concerning its restricted descriptive and explanatory powers be applied to CL.

    REFERENCES

    [Note: The references cited in the reviewed papers are not included below; they can be provided on demand to the reviewer.]

    Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2004): Training 2;6-year- olds to produce the transitive construction: The role of frequency, semantic similarity and shared syntactic distribution. Developmental Science, 7,1, 48 - 55.

    Barkfelt, Judith (2003): Bilder (aus) der Depression. Metaphorische Episoden �ber depressive Episoden: Szenarien des Depressionserlebens. Konstanz: Hartung-Gorre.

    Crow, T.J. (2000): Schizophrenia as the price that Homo sapiens pays for language: A resolution of the central paradox in the origin of the species. In: Brain Research Reviews, 31, 118-129.

    Geeraerts, Dirk (1999): Idealist and empiricist tendencies in cognitive semantics. In: Janssen & Redeker (eds.), pp. 163- 194.

    Geeraerts, Dirk (2003): Decontextualizing and recontextualizing tendencies in 20th century linguistics and literary theory. In: Mengel, E., Schmid, H.-J. & Steppat, M. (eds.): Anglistentag 2002 Bayreuth, pp. 369-379. Trier: Wiss. Verlag.

    Goldber, Adele (1995): Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: The Univ. of Chicago Press.

    Harr�, R. & Gillett, G. (1994): The Discursive Mind. London: Sage.

    Janssen, Theo & Redeker, Gisela (eds.) (1999): Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Lakoff, George (1996): Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don't.

    Lamb, Sydney (2003): Neurolinguistics and General Linguistics: The importance of the microscopic level. Logos and Language 4, 1-16.

    Kravchenko, Alexander (2001): Sign, Meaning, Knowledge: An essay in the cognitive philosophy of language. Irkutsk, Russia.

    Ruiz de Mendoza Ib��ez, Francisco Jos� & Otal Campo, Jos� Luis (2002): Metonymy, Grammar, and Communication. Albolote: Ed. Comares.

    Sinha, Chris (to appear): Cognitive linguistics, psychology and cognitive science. In: Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (eds.): Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics.

    Tomasello, M. & Call, J. (1997): Primate Cognition. Oxford University Press.

    Tomasello, M. (1999). The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Harvard University Press.

    Tomasello, M. (2003): Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard Univ. Press.

    ABOUT THE REVIEWER

    The reviewer is currently working on her M. A. thesis on the acquisition of argument constructions in a bilingual child within a usage-based framework. Her research interests include first language acquisition, multilingualism, cognitive science, developmental psychology, as well as history of linguistics.