COGNITIVE APPROACH IN LANGUAGE MEANING CONSTRUCTION: CRUSE AND CROFT’S MODEL

Chnur Ibrahim Mheallddin; Kawa Abdulkareem Rasul; Ali Mahmood Jukil

doi:10.25212/lfu.qzj.9.3.47

Authors

Chnur Ibrahim Mheallddin Department of English, College of Basic Education, Salahaddin University, Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
Kawa Abdulkareem Rasul Department of Media Technical, Erbil Technical College of Administration, Polytechnic University, Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
Ali Mahmood Jukil Department of English, College of Basic Education, Salahaddin University, Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25212/lfu.qzj.9.3.47

Keywords:

Cognitive Linguistics, Cognitive theory, conceptualization, encyclopaedic view, and Experiential view

Abstract

This paper aims to provide a comprehensive study of the role of the encyclopaedic view and experiential view in meaning construction within the cognitive framework of studying the language. The analysis is based on the three hypotheses of meaning construction proposed by Cruse and Croft; first, Language is not an autonomous cognitive faculty. Second, Knowledge of languages emerges from language use. And thirdly, Grammar is conceptualization. The three hypotheses are verified. To achieve the aim of this article, Cruse and Croft’s three models of language meaning are studied. The examples are taken from books and articles corpus. This study concludes that possessing encyclopedic view, which encompasses general knowledge and sufficient information about the words, are essential to truly understanding the meaning of the words. The encyclopedic background can attain through the experiential view; it is gaining by experience in words from various situations and activities encountered in daily life. Also, the cognitive approach suggests that ruling in all elements of language is crucial for the interpretation of meaning.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press.

CARR, P. (2002). Noam Chomsky, New Horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. pp. XVI+230. Journal of Linguistics, 38(01). https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226702231370

Choi, E., Palomaki, J., Lamm, M., Kwiatkowski, T., Das, D., & Collins, M. (2021). Decontextualization: Making sentences stand-alone. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9, 447–461.

Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press.

Dąbrowska, E. (2015). What exactly is Universal Grammar, and has anyone seen it?. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 852.

Evans, V. (2006). Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction.

Evans, V. (2009). How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford University Press on Demand.

Evans, V., Bergen, B., & Zinken, J. (2007). The cognitive linguistics reader. Equinox Publishing Ltd.

Evans, V. ( 2019). What Is Cognitive Linguistics? A new paradigm in the study of language and the mind. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/language-in-the-mind/201907/what-is-cognitive-linguistics

Fauconnier, G. (2018). Mental spaces. In Ten Lectures on Cognitive Construction of Meaning (pp. 1-23). Brill.

Hamm, F. (2009). Frame semantics . The Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences. https://www.sfb732.uni stuttgart.de/documents/files/hamm_framesemantics.pdf

Kiefer, F. (1988). Linguistic, conceptual and encyclopedic knowledge: some implications for lexicography. International Journal of LexicographyIn Proceedings of the 3rd Euralex International Congress. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó , 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/1.2.159-s

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. (1990). Cognitive versus generative linguistics: How commitments influence results. Language & Communication, 11(1–2), 53–62.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). In Metaphors we live by. essay, University of Chicago Press.

Langacker, R. W. (1987). foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. I). Stanford university press.

Langacker, R. W. (2003). Constructions in cognitive grammar. ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, 20(1), 41–83. https://doi.org/10.9793/elsj1984.20.41

Langacker, Ronald W. (2012). Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford University Press, USA.

Lemmens, M. (2015). cognitive semantics. In The Routledge handbook of semantics (pp. 90-105). Routledge.

Partridge, E. (2006). Origins: A short etymological dictionary of modern english. Routledge.

Rao, V. C. S. (2021, April 15). Cognitive linguistics: An approach to the study of language and thought. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3817460

Sussex Publishers. (n.d.). What is Cognitive Linguistics?. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/language-in-the-mind/201907/what-is-cognitive-linguistics

Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. mit Press.

Varpe, G. M. (2017). The traditional, structural and cognitive approach to linguistics. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 22(12), 39-43.