Cognitive Linguistics with TG Grammar as Comparison1
Yongzhi，Liu
College of Foreign Languages and Cultures
Chengdu University of Technology
Chengdu, P. R. China 610059
lyzhi@cdut.edu
Abstract
This paper, with TG Grammar as comparison, is a study of the philosophical foundations, psychological hypothesis, linguistic propositions, especially the main claims in cognitive mantics. The study shows that cognitive linguistics, a methodology of linguistics
rather than a school, explores language nature jointly from the perspective of objectivism
and subjectivism, but it is neither of them, hence revolutionary in linguistic studies. Keywords: cognitiv
e linguistics，TG Grammar，cognitive mantics，embodied philosophy
With the inspiration from gestalt psychology (Max Wertheimer, 1880-1943), developmental psychology (Jean Piaget, 1896-1980), and post-analytical philosophy (Hilary Putnam, 1926-), cognitive linguistics, as the reprentative of cond-generation cognitive science, took shape in 1970s, and expanded at a fascinating speed in 1980s and 1990s with its outstanding reprentatives like R. Lakoff and M. Johson who have made profound studies of metaphor and embodied philosophy, R. W. Langacker who has laid the foundation of cognitive grammar, C. Fillmore who has put forth his cognitive frames theory, J. Taylor who has summarized theories of categorization and made a thorough rearch on prototype effects, to name just a few. Cognitive linguistics, cognition as its rearch instrument, has tremendous impact on prent language studies. As Saussure and Chomsky have revolutionized the linguistic studies, its advocates are bringing the same kind of reformation to language studies.
1 Hypothes of cognitive linguistics
Generally speaking, cognitive linguistics is delegated by three main approaches: the experiential view, the prominence view and the attentional view. The experiential view assumes that the meaning
of a word is not logical rules and the objective definitions on the basis of theoretical considerations and introspection, but the communal and personal
1 Support by the Social Science Rearch Fund of Chengdu University of Technology.
experience. Take “car” as an example. The meaning of a car derives not from a description like “a car has a box-like shapes, wheels, doors, and windows; a car is driven by an engine and equipped with a steering wheel; it has an accelerator and brakes, and ats for the driver and pasngers”, but from people’s experience of a car by riding it or driving it. Moreover, a car may point to people’s association with “comfort”, “speed”, “mobility”, and “independence”. As to an individual, he may add more association to a car, e.g. his first love affair, or injury if he was once involved in an accident. [1] Prominence view is bad on the assumption that in a given context, something certainly stands out to be prominent in our minds, and as the result, the prominent thing in the given context foregrounds itlf cognitively. “The car” stands out as the subject in the ntence “The car crashed into the tree” becau the moving car is the most prominent thing in the event. In comparison, “The tree was hit by the car” sounds awkward becau the tree is stresd when it is not prominent in the event.
Attentional view works when applied to the explanation of the ntence “The car crashed into the tre
e”, which lects only a small ction of the event that we probably conjure up in our minds: how the car started to swerve, how it skidded across the road and rumbled onto the verge. All this happened before the car hit the tree, but it is not mentioned becau “crash” is the thing that is the crucial point that draws our attention.
[2]
Cognitive linguistics establishes itlf on the criticism of both empiricism (knowledge is gained through experiences)and rationalism (knowledge is gained through man’s innate capacity and reason), and it is, therefore, revolutionary in methodology and distinct among the empiricist linguistic genres such as traditional philology, comparative linguistics, structural linguistics, descriptive linguistics, and such rational linguistics divisions as universal grammar, dialectical grammar, and TG grammar.
Lakoff and Johnson pointed out that the philosophical foundation of cognitive linguistics is neither empiricist nor rationalist. [3][4] Cognitive linguistics is founded on embodied philosophy, or philosophy in the flesh, or embodied realism, or the philosophy of embodied realism, or simply experientialism, which holds the position that while we
certainly live within an objective real world which shapes and constrains our experience, that experience is also shaped and constrained very significantly by our perceptual faculties, anatomical structure, and patterns of neurological activity, both learned and innate. This is totally in agreement with gestalt theory that the human world of experience is the only immediately given reality；human beings are open systems in active interaction with their environment；it is the interaction of the individual and the situation in the n of a dynamic field which determines experience and behavior, and not only drives (psychoanalysis, ethology) or external stimuli (behaviorism developed by Skinner) or static personality traits (classical personality theory).
The philosophy of cognitive linguistics distinguishes itlf from objectivism advocated by TG Grammar in that language knowledge is part of man’s cognitive power; knowledge is gained first through the experience of our body and then through conceptual structuring or conceptualization; language knowledge is neither objective nor subjective; language knowledge is obtained through the connectional operation of mental activities. Lakoff once called his philosophy experientialist realism or embodied realism that is an extension and development of internal realism who establisher Hilary Putnam, an American philosopher and the reprentative of Post-Analytic philosophy, is in strong opposition to any dichotomies including subjectivism and objectivism. He suggests that how t
o understand rationality has a bearing on the prosperity and happiness of human beings, while the scientism, as the main ideology of our time, makes people fall into a dilemma when they choo what is true and rational. Internal realism tries to indicate to us that mind and world are a whole rather than two things. Truth is people’s truth and world is people’s world.
Cognitive linguistics has got established in its strong opposition to TG Grammar. To sum up, cognitive linguistics contrasts TG Grammar in the following aspects:
TG Grammar Cognitive Linguistics
Objectivism, rationalism, and symbolism: Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts,
independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. Reason is man's only means of perceiving
reality, his only source of
knowledge, his only guide to action,
and his basic means of survival.
打野仗(Ayn Rand, 1905-1982)
Internal experientialism or embodied philosophy: “The mind is inherently
embodied. Thought is mostly unconscious. Abstract concepts
are largely metaphorical.” [5]
Philos
ophy
Dichotomy/dualism/duality: Mind and body are entities that can be isolated from each other. Mind with its esnce of thought can exist with the abnce of body. The physical and the mental are two different sorts of things and thus that the mind is non-physical, and exists in a different metaphysical category and realm. (Descartes, 1596-1650) Physicalism (物理主义) and
internal realism:
Physicalism about the mental is a
position in philosophy of mind
which holds that the mind is a
physical thing in some n.
Physicalism identifies the mental
with the physical. That is, it
makes the claim that the mental
simply is the physical. Internal
realism stands in strong
opposition to dichotomy.
Mentalism: Linguistic competence is innate. Mental process are autonomous, can explain but not be explained by an organism's behavior. Mentalism is in opposition to behaviorism. Connectionism:
“The mind is viewed as a network of neurons, all engaged in reciprocal interactions via their
connections with neighboring
neurons and neuronal layers. A
怎么制作酸菜
node in the network may take its
input either from another node or
from the environment, or from
both.” [6]
Psycho logical hypoth esis Innatism and predeterminism: Innate knowledge is inborn knowledge which is universal, 100% certain, and logical. Innate knowledge is already within a person at birth. Innate knowledge is universal. ○1 Constructivism and interactionism:
By reflecting on our experiences,
we construct our own understanding of the world we
live in. Each of us generates our
own "rules" and "mental models,"幼儿园大班数学练习题
which we u to make n of手工灯笼图片
our experiences. Learning,
therefore, is simply the process of
adjusting our mental models to
accommodate new experiences.
○
2 Language is a lf-sufficient cognitive system. Man’s linguistic capacity is independent of other human cognitive power. Language is not a lf-sufficient formal system. Man’s linguistic capacity is part of human cognitive power. Lingui
stic错失爱情
propos
itions
Syntax is an autonomously sufficient system independent of mantics. Syntax is a system dependent on
mantics. Meaning derives from
man’s encyclopedic knowledge.
Language can be logically formalized in condition of its truth value. Formalization is not enough when
taking mantics into consideration, which means a
more open knowledge system.
Language should be studied analytically. Language should be studied synthetically. Language studies are static.经络养生
Language studies are dynamic. Formalization emphasizes the analysis of symbolic combination rules, the knowledge of linguistic structures, which are hypothesized
to form autonomous modules,
independent of other mental
process of attention, memory, and
reasoning.
修鞋匠
Functionalism emphasizes the language usage that embodies general cognitive principles.
Language is arbitrary. Language is not merely arbitrary.
It is mantically motivated, and
礼物的英语单词to some extent formally motivated
too.
Emphasis is on structural analysis. Grammar is viewed as a system independent of mantics. Emphasis is on mantic analysis. Syntax is viewed as an integral part of mantics, or part of
conceptualization or mantic
structure.
