Skip to Content

Cognitive Linguistics

Edited by Adele Goldberg

Routledge – 2011 – 2,168 pages

Series: Critical Concepts in Linguistics

Purchasing Options:

  • Add to CartHardback: $2,165.00
    978-0-415-57493-8
    June 14th 2011

Description

This new addition to Routledge’s Major Works series, Critical Concepts in Linguistics, brings together the very best and most influential scholarly research on cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics is a broad approach to language that places psychological reality at the top of the list of theoretical desiderata. Both experimental and theoretical work will be included in each volume. The fact that language is a system of communication is emphasized, so that explanations that rely on the functions of linguistic elements are preferred over purely syntactic accounts. The label, "Cognitive Linguistics," arose in the 1980s with Langacker, Lakoff, Fillmore, and Talmy laying the semantic/pragmatic foundations for the approach. Volume I will be dedicated to key works by these authors and others. Volume II further explores semantic foundations with papers on metaphor, blending and embodiment. Cognitive Linguistics encompasses approaches to phonology, morphology, grammar, and discourse, but the emphasis has been on morphology and grammar. Work has coalesced around the idea that form-function pairings (constructions, schemata) are the basic units of language. Volumes III and IV include seminal works in this area. A strength of Cognitive Linguistics is that it interfaces naturally with a great deal of work in language acquisition, language evolution, and language change. Selected papers from these topics that make explicit use of key ideas in Cognitive Linguistics will be included in Volume V. With a new introduction by the editor and a comprehensive index, this five volume collection will be a convenient and authoritative reference resource on cognitive linguistics for both student and scholar.

Contents

PROVISIONAL CONTENTS LIST

Volume I

1. George Lakoff, Women, Fire and Dangerous Things (University of Chicago Press, 1987), pp. 91–114.

2. Ray Jackendoff, Semantics and Cognition (MIT Press, 1983), pp. 3–22.

3. Gregory Murphy, The Big Book of Concepts (MIT Press, 2002), pp. 11–40.

4. Miriam R. L. Petruck, ‘Frame Semantics’, in J.-O. Östman, J Blommaert, and C. Bulcaen (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics (John Benjamins, 2007).

5. Charles J. Fillmore, ‘Frame Semantics’, in Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (Hanshin Publishing Company, 1982), pp. 111–37.

6. Ronald W. Langacker, Concept, Image, and Symbol (Walter de Gruyter, 1991), pp. 1–32.

7. Leonard Talmy, ‘Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition’, Cognitive Science, 1988, 12, 49–100.

8. Mira Ariel, ‘Referring and Accessibility’, Journal of Linguistics, 1988, 24, 1, 65–87.

9. Herbert H. Clark, ‘Language Use’, Using Language (Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 3–25.

10. Ronald W. Langacker, ‘A Dynamic Usage-Based Model’, in M. Barlow and S. Kemmer (eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language (CSLI Publications, 2000), pp. 1–63.

11. Joan L. Bybee, ‘From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition’, Language, 2006, 82, 4, 711–33.

12. David Tuggy, ‘Ambiguity, Polysemy, and Vagueness’, Cognitive Linguistics, 1993, 4, 3, 273–90.

13. A. Tyler and V. Evans, ‘Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Networks: The Case of Over’, Language, 2001, 77, 4, 724–65.

14. E. Klepousniotou and S. R. Baum, ‘Clarifying Further the Ambiguity Advantage Effect in Word Recognition’, Brain and Language, 2007, 103, 148–9.

15. A. Beretta, R. Fiorentino, and D. Poeppel, ‘The Effects of Homonymy and Polysemy on Lexical Access: An MEG Study’, Cognitive Brain Research, 2005, 24, 57–65.

16. H. Cuyckens, S. Dominiek, and S. Rice, ‘Towards an Empirical Lexical Semantics’, in B. Smeija and M. Tasch (eds.), Human Contact Through Language and Linguistics (Peter Lang, 1999), pp. 35–54.

17. John R. Taylor, Linguistic Categorization (Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 222–38.

Volume II

18. G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, ‘Conceptual Metaphor in Everyday Language’, Journal of Philosophy, 1980, 77, 8, 453–86.

19. J. Grady, S. Taub, and P. Morgan, ‘Primitive and Compound Metaphors’, in A. E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language (CSLI Publications, 1996), pp. 177–88.

20. Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr., ‘Metaphor Interpretation as Embodied Simulation’, Mind and Language, 2006, 21, 3, 434–58.

21. D. Casasanto and L. Boroditsky, ‘Time in the Mind: Using Space to Think about Time’, Cognition, 2008, 579–93.

22. S. Coulson and C. Van Petten, ‘Conceptual Integration and Metaphor: An Event Related Potential Study’, Memory and Cognition, 2002, 39, 6, 958–68.

23. Gilles Fauconnier, ‘Introduction to Methods and Generalizations’, in T. Janssen and G. Redeker (eds.), Scope and Foundation of Cognitive Linguistics (Mouton De Gruyter, 1999).

24. S. Coulson and T. Oakley, ‘Blending Basics’, Cognitive Linguistics, 2000, 11, 3–4, 175–96.

25. L. W. Barsalou et al., ‘Grounding Conceptual Knowledge in Modality-Specific Systems’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2003, 7, 2, 84–91.

26. V. Gallese and G. Lakoff, ‘The Brain’s Concepts: The Role of the Sensory-Motor System in Conceptual Knowledge’, Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2005, 22, 3, 455–79.

27. D. C. Richardson et al., ‘Spatial Representations Activated During Real-Time Comprehension of Verbs’, Cognitive Science, 2003, 27, 767–80.

28. K. Wheeler and B. K. Bergen, ‘Meaning in the Palm of Your Hand’, in S. Rice and J. Newman (eds.), Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research (CSLI Publications, 2006), pp. 1–14.

29. Dan I. Slobin, ‘Language and Thought Online: Cognitive Consequences of Linguistic Relativity’, in D. Gentner and S. Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought (MIT Press, 2003), pp. 157–92.

30. Teenie Matlock, ‘Fictive Motion as Cognitive Simulation’, Memory and Cognition, 2004, 32, 8, 1389–400.

31. M. Bowerman and S. Choi, Shaping meanings for Language: Universal and Language-Specific in the Acquisition of Spatial Semantic Categories’, in M. Bowerman and S. Levinson (eds.), Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development (Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 475–94.

32. Dan I. Slobin, ‘Two Ways to Travel: Verbs of Motion in English and Spanish’, in M. Shibatani and S. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical Constructions (Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 195–219.

33. S. A. Hockema and L. B. Smith, ‘Learning your Language, Outside-In and Inside-Out’, Linguistics, 2009, 47, 2, 453–79.

Volume III

34. Ronald W. Langacker, Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 1–26.

35. Adele E. Goldberg, ‘Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2003, 7, 5, 219–24.

36. C. J. Fillmore, P. Kay, and M. C. O’Connor, ‘Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone’, Language, 1988, 64, 3, 501–38.

37. Adele E. Goldberg, ‘Introduction’, Constructions (University of Chicago Press, 1995), pp. 1–23.

38. B. K. Bergen and N. Chang, ‘Embodied Construction Grammar in Simulation-Based Language Understanding’, in J.-O. Östman and M. Fried (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions (John Benjamins, 2005), pp. 147–90.

39. P. W. Culicover and R. Jackendoff, ‘Why Simpler Syntax?’, Simpler Syntax (Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 3–43.

40. William Croft, ‘The Voice Conituum’, Radical Construction Grammar (Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 283–319.

41. Joan L. Bybee, Morphology (John Benjamins, 1985), pp. 111–25.

42. Ronald W. Langacker, ‘Nouns and Verbs’, Language, 1987, 63, 1, 53–94.

43. Knud Lambrecht, ‘Introduction’, Information Structure and Sentence Form (Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 1–35.

44. Ewa Dabrowska, ‘On Rules and Regularity’, Language, Mind and Brain (Georgetown University Press, 2004), pp. 116–58.

45. Daniel L Everett, ‘Recursion: Language as a Matrioshka Doll’, Don’t Sleep There Are Snakes (Pantheon Books, 2008), pp. 224–43.

46. Yo Matsumoto, ‘Typologies of Lexicalization Patterns and Event Integration’, in S. Chiba et al. (eds.), Empirical and Theoretical Investigations into Language (Kaitakusha, 2003), pp. 403–18.

47. Martin Haspelmath, ‘Parametric Versus Functional Explanations of Syntactic Universals’, in T. Biberauer (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation (John Benjamins, 2008), pp. 75–107.

48. William Croft, ‘Parts of Speech’, Radical Construction Grammar (Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 63–107.

Volume IV

49. Geert Booij, ‘Constructional Idioms, Morphology and the Dutch Lexicon’, Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 2002, 14, 4, 301–29.

50. Masayoshi Shibatani, ‘Passive and Related Constructions: A Prototype Analysis’, Language, 1985, 61, 4, 821–48.

51. G. Webelhuth and C. J. Dannenberg, ‘Southern American English Personal Datives: The Theoretical Significance of Dialectal Variation’, American Speech, 2006, 81, 1, 31–55.

52. B. Ambridge and A. E. Goldberg, ‘The Island Status of Clausal Complements’, Cognitive Linguistics, 2008, 19, 349–81.

53. P. W. Culicover and R. Jackendoff, ‘Mme Tussaud Meets the Binding Theory’, Simpler Syntax (Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 355–88.

54. Ronald W. Langacker, ‘Day After Day After Day’, Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, 2008, 9.

55. Laura A. Michaelis, ‘Complementation by Construction’, in M. Hauser (ed.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Berkeley Linguistics Society, 2010), pp. 247–51.

56. A. Stefanowitsch and S. T. Gries, ‘Collostructions: Investigating the Interaction of Words and Constructions’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 2003, 8, 2, 209–43.

57. S. T. Gries and A. Stefanowitsch, ‘Extending Collostructional Analysis’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 2004, 9, 1, 97–129.

58. Michael Israel, ‘Polarity Sensitivity as Lexical Semantics’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 1996, 19, 619–66.

59. Yoshiko Matsumoto, ‘Interaction of Factors in Construal’, in M. Shibatani and S. A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical Constructions (Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 103–214.

60. S. Kemmer and A. Verhagen, ‘The Grammar of Causatives and the Conceptual Structure of Events’, Cognitive Linguistics, 1994, 5, 2, 115–56.

61. M. L. Gregory and L. A. Michaelis, ‘Topicalization and Left-Dislocation’, Journal of Pragmatics, 2001, 33, 1665–706.

Volume V

62. E. V. M. Lieven, J. M. Pine, and G. Baldwin, ‘Lexically-Based Learning and Early Grammatical Development’, Journal of Child Language, 1997, 24, 187–219.

63. J. R. Saffran, R. N. Aslin, and E. L. Newport, ‘Statistical Learning by 8-Month Olds’, Science, 1996, 274, 1926–8.

64. N. Chater, F. Reali, and M. H. Christiansen, ‘Restrictions on Biological Adaptation in Language Evolution’, PNAS, 2009, 106, 4, 1015–20.

65. Jeffrey Elman et al., ‘New Perspectives on Development’, Rethinking Innateness (MIT Press, 1996), pp. 1–46.

66. Eve V. Clark, ‘Conventionality and Contrast’, The Lexicon in Acquisition (Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 67–83.

67. Elizabeth Bates, ‘Modularity, Domain Specificity and the Development of Language’, Discussions in Neuroscience, 1994, 10, 1–2, 136–56.

68. J. B. Tenenbaum, T. L. Griffiths, and C. Kemp, ‘Theory-Based Bayesian Models of Inductive Learning and Reasoning’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2006, 10, 7, 309–18.

69. Michael Tomasello, ‘The Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition’, in E. L. Bavin (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Child Language (Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 69–88.

70. Joan L. Bybee, ‘The Phonology of the Lexicon: Evidence from Lexical Diffusion’, in M. Barlow and S. Kemmer (eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language (CSLI Publications, 2000), pp. 65–87.

71. Eve Sweetser, ‘Semantic Structure and Semantic Change: English Perception-Verbs in an Indo-European Context’, From Etymology to Pragmatics (Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 22–48.

72. J. P. Blevins and J. Blevins, ‘Introduction’, Analogy in Grammar (Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 1–12.

73. P. J. Hopper and E. C. Traugott, ‘Some Preliminaries’, Grammaticalization (Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 1–17.

74. M. H. Christiansen and N. Chater, ‘Language as Shaped by the Brain’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2008, 31, 489–558.

75. Michael Tomasello, ‘A Focus on Infrastructure’, Origins of Human Communication (MIT Press, 2008), pp. 1–12.

Name: Cognitive Linguistics (Hardback)Routledge 
Description: Edited by Adele Goldberg. This new addition to Routledge’s Major Works series, Critical Concepts in Linguistics, brings together the very best and most influential scholarly research on cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics is a broad approach to language that...
Categories: Cognitive Linguistics, Theoretical Linguistics, General Reference