Cognitive-communicative linguistics: in search of basic principles and tools of analysis
Keywords:
attention focus, cognitive-communicative linguistics, dynamic meaning construal, emotional state, encyclopaedic knowledge, immediate perceptive experience, inference prediction analysis, volitional attitudes
Abstract
The article focuses on methodology and tools of the cognitive approach to the study
of communication. Its central assumption is that analysis of interpersonal communication as a cognitive process needs to be based on the theory of dynamic meaning construal but, besides the impact of encyclopaedic knowledge, it should also take into account other psychological factors that influence constructive processes – emotional, perceptive, volitional and attentional. The article offers a tool of a cognitive linguistic study of interpersonal communication, i.e. inference prediction analysis. The inference is viewed as a product of the socioculturally situated cognitive process of constructing meaning. Inference prediction analysis takes into account linguistic and non-linguistic (psychological) factors that govern construction of meaning and are objectified in verbal/non-verbal utterances of the communicants. The non-linguistic (psychological) factors accounted for in the inference prediction analysis include encyclopaedic knowledge, emotional state, immediate perceptive experience, volitional attitudes motivated by social and biological needs and the focus of attention patterns of the communicants.Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Anderson, J. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Anderson, J.A., & Bower, G.H. (1973). Human associative memory. Washington, DC: Winston and Sons.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness and time: the flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Chesnokov, I.I. (2009). Mest' kak jemocional'nyj povedencheskij koncept (opyt kognitivno-kommunikativnogo opisanija v kontekste russkoj lingvokul'tury. Neopubl. avtoref. diss. doct. filol. nauk [Revenge as an emotional behavioural concept (a case of cognitive-communicative description in the context of Russian culture. Unpublished dr. philol. sci. diss. synopsis]. Volgograd (in Russian).
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.
Coulthard, M. (1977). An Introduction to discourse analysis. London: Longman.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D.A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fauconnier, G. (1994). Conceptual projection and middle spaces (University of California Department of Cognitive Science Technical Report No. 9401). Available at: http://www.blending.stanford.edu
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fillmore, Ch. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–253.
Fillmore, Ch. (1982). Frame semantics. Linguistics in the morning calm: Selected papers from the SICOL, Seoul, 111–137.
Fodor, J.A., & Lepor, E. (1996). The red herring and the pet fish: why concepts still can’t be prototypes. Cognition, 58, 253–270.
Frank, D. (1985). Sem' grehov pragmatiki: tezisy o teorii rechevyh aktov, analize rechevogo obshhenija, lingvistike i ritorike [Seven sins of pragmatics: theses on speech act theory, conversational analysis, linguistics and rhetoric]. Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike. – New trends in linguistics abroad, 17, 363–373 (in Russian).
Frolova, I.Ye. (2009). Stratehiya konfrontatsiyi v anhlomovnomu dyskursi [Strategy
of confrontation in the English discourse]. Kharkiv: KhNU imeni V.N. Karazina Publ.
(in Ukrainian).
Hardy, C. (1998). Networks of meaning: A bridge between mind and matter. Wesport, Connecticut; London: Praeger.
Harris, R. (1997). From an integrational point of view. In: G. Wolf, & N. Love (Eds.). Linguistics inside out: Roy Harris and his critics (pp. 229–310). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Issers, O.S. (2002). Kommunikativnye strategii i taktiki russkoj rechi [Communicative strategies and tactics of Russian speech]. Moscow: URSS Publ. (in Russian).
Järvilehto, T. (1999). The theory of the organism-environment system: III. Role of efferent influences on receptors in the formation of knowledge. Integrative Psychological and Behavioural Science, 34, 90–100.
Kibrik, A.E. (1983). Lingvisticheskie postulaty [Linguistic postulates]. Uchenye zapiski Tartuskogo universiteta. – Scientific papers of Tartu University, 621, 24–39 (in Russian).
Kravchenko, A.V. (2006). Javljaetsja li jazyk reprezentativnoj sistemoj? [Is language a system of representation?]. Studia Linguistica Cognitiva, 1, 135–156 (in Russian).
Kravchenko, A.V. (2009). O tradicijah, jazykoznanii i kognitivnom podhode [About traditions, linguistics and cognitive approach]. In: Gorizonty sovremennoj lingvistiki: Tradicii i novatorstvo [Horizons of modern linguistics: Traditions and novelty] (pp. 51–65). M.: Jazyki slavjanskih kul'tur Publ.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and other dangerous things. What categories reveal about mind. Chicago and London: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Sweetser, E. (1994). Foreword. In: G. Fauconnier. Mental Spaces (pp. ix–xvi). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. (2001). Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2), 143–188.
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Mamardashvili, M.K. (1999). Simvol i soznanie. Metafizicheskie rassuzhdenija o soznanii, simvolike i jazyke [Symbol and conscience. Metaphysical discussion about conscience, symbols and language]. M.: Shkola: «Jazyki russkoj kul'tury» Publ.
Martynjuk, A.P. (2015). Strategija kak bazovyj instrument kognitivnogo analiza kommunikacii [Strategy as a basic instrument of cognitive analysis of communication]. Zapysky z romano-hermans'koyi filolohiyi. – Notes in Romance and Germanic philology, 1(34), 80–90 (in Russian).
Martynyuk, A.P. (2004). Konstruyuvannya henderu v anhlomovnomu dyskursi [Constructionof gender in the English discourse]. Kharkiv: Konstanta Publ.
Martynyuk, A.P. (2012). Slovnyk osnovnykh terminiv kohnityvno-dyskursyvnoyi linhvistyky [A dictionary of terms of cognitive-discursive linguistics]. Kharkiv: KhNU imeni V.N. Karazina Publ.
McClelland, J.L., Rumelhart, D.E., & Hilton, G.E. (1986). The appeal of parallel distributed processing. Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, 1, 3–44.
Moore, T., & Carling, Ch. (1982). Understanding language: towards a post-Chomskyan linguistics. London: Macmillan.
Shhedrovickij, G.P. (2005). Myshlenie. Ponimanie. Refleksija [Thought. Understanding. Reflection]. M.: Nasledie MMK Publ.
Zalevskaja, A.A. (2005). Psiholingvisticheskie issledovanija. Slovo. Tekst. [Psychological studies. Word. Text]. Moscow: Gnozis Publ.
Anderson, J.A., & Bower, G.H. (1973). Human associative memory. Washington, DC: Winston and Sons.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness and time: the flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Chesnokov, I.I. (2009). Mest' kak jemocional'nyj povedencheskij koncept (opyt kognitivno-kommunikativnogo opisanija v kontekste russkoj lingvokul'tury. Neopubl. avtoref. diss. doct. filol. nauk [Revenge as an emotional behavioural concept (a case of cognitive-communicative description in the context of Russian culture. Unpublished dr. philol. sci. diss. synopsis]. Volgograd (in Russian).
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.
Coulthard, M. (1977). An Introduction to discourse analysis. London: Longman.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D.A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fauconnier, G. (1994). Conceptual projection and middle spaces (University of California Department of Cognitive Science Technical Report No. 9401). Available at: http://www.blending.stanford.edu
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fillmore, Ch. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–253.
Fillmore, Ch. (1982). Frame semantics. Linguistics in the morning calm: Selected papers from the SICOL, Seoul, 111–137.
Fodor, J.A., & Lepor, E. (1996). The red herring and the pet fish: why concepts still can’t be prototypes. Cognition, 58, 253–270.
Frank, D. (1985). Sem' grehov pragmatiki: tezisy o teorii rechevyh aktov, analize rechevogo obshhenija, lingvistike i ritorike [Seven sins of pragmatics: theses on speech act theory, conversational analysis, linguistics and rhetoric]. Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike. – New trends in linguistics abroad, 17, 363–373 (in Russian).
Frolova, I.Ye. (2009). Stratehiya konfrontatsiyi v anhlomovnomu dyskursi [Strategy
of confrontation in the English discourse]. Kharkiv: KhNU imeni V.N. Karazina Publ.
(in Ukrainian).
Hardy, C. (1998). Networks of meaning: A bridge between mind and matter. Wesport, Connecticut; London: Praeger.
Harris, R. (1997). From an integrational point of view. In: G. Wolf, & N. Love (Eds.). Linguistics inside out: Roy Harris and his critics (pp. 229–310). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Issers, O.S. (2002). Kommunikativnye strategii i taktiki russkoj rechi [Communicative strategies and tactics of Russian speech]. Moscow: URSS Publ. (in Russian).
Järvilehto, T. (1999). The theory of the organism-environment system: III. Role of efferent influences on receptors in the formation of knowledge. Integrative Psychological and Behavioural Science, 34, 90–100.
Kibrik, A.E. (1983). Lingvisticheskie postulaty [Linguistic postulates]. Uchenye zapiski Tartuskogo universiteta. – Scientific papers of Tartu University, 621, 24–39 (in Russian).
Kravchenko, A.V. (2006). Javljaetsja li jazyk reprezentativnoj sistemoj? [Is language a system of representation?]. Studia Linguistica Cognitiva, 1, 135–156 (in Russian).
Kravchenko, A.V. (2009). O tradicijah, jazykoznanii i kognitivnom podhode [About traditions, linguistics and cognitive approach]. In: Gorizonty sovremennoj lingvistiki: Tradicii i novatorstvo [Horizons of modern linguistics: Traditions and novelty] (pp. 51–65). M.: Jazyki slavjanskih kul'tur Publ.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and other dangerous things. What categories reveal about mind. Chicago and London: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Sweetser, E. (1994). Foreword. In: G. Fauconnier. Mental Spaces (pp. ix–xvi). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. (2001). Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2), 143–188.
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Mamardashvili, M.K. (1999). Simvol i soznanie. Metafizicheskie rassuzhdenija o soznanii, simvolike i jazyke [Symbol and conscience. Metaphysical discussion about conscience, symbols and language]. M.: Shkola: «Jazyki russkoj kul'tury» Publ.
Martynjuk, A.P. (2015). Strategija kak bazovyj instrument kognitivnogo analiza kommunikacii [Strategy as a basic instrument of cognitive analysis of communication]. Zapysky z romano-hermans'koyi filolohiyi. – Notes in Romance and Germanic philology, 1(34), 80–90 (in Russian).
Martynyuk, A.P. (2004). Konstruyuvannya henderu v anhlomovnomu dyskursi [Constructionof gender in the English discourse]. Kharkiv: Konstanta Publ.
Martynyuk, A.P. (2012). Slovnyk osnovnykh terminiv kohnityvno-dyskursyvnoyi linhvistyky [A dictionary of terms of cognitive-discursive linguistics]. Kharkiv: KhNU imeni V.N. Karazina Publ.
McClelland, J.L., Rumelhart, D.E., & Hilton, G.E. (1986). The appeal of parallel distributed processing. Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, 1, 3–44.
Moore, T., & Carling, Ch. (1982). Understanding language: towards a post-Chomskyan linguistics. London: Macmillan.
Shhedrovickij, G.P. (2005). Myshlenie. Ponimanie. Refleksija [Thought. Understanding. Reflection]. M.: Nasledie MMK Publ.
Zalevskaja, A.A. (2005). Psiholingvisticheskie issledovanija. Slovo. Tekst. [Psychological studies. Word. Text]. Moscow: Gnozis Publ.
Published
2016-11-27
How to Cite
Мартынюк, А. (2016). Cognitive-communicative linguistics: in search of basic principles and tools of analysis. Cognition, Communication, Discourse, (12), 17-35. https://doi.org/10.26565/2218-2926-2016-12-02
Section
Articles
Authors, who publish with this journal, accept the following conditions:
The authors reserve the copyright of their work and transfer to the journal the right of the first publication of this work under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Non-Derivs License (CC BY-NC-ND), which allows other persons to freely distribute a published work with mandatory reference to the authors of the original work and the first publication of the work in this journal.
Authors have the right to enter into separate additional agreements for the non-exclusive dissemination of the work in the form in which it was published by this journal (for example, to post the work in the electronic institutions' repository or to publish as part of a monograph), provided that the link to the first publication of the work in this journal is given.
The journal policy allows and encourages the authors to place the manuscripts on the Internet (for example, in the institutions' repositories or on personal websites), both before the presentation of this manuscript to the editorial board and during review procedure, as it contributes to the creation of productive scientific discussion and positively affects the efficiency and dynamics of citing the published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
