Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T14:58:29.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Converging on a theory of language through multiple methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2017

Mónica González-Márquez ,
Michele I. Feist  and
Liane Ströbel
Mónica González-Márquez
Affiliation:
Institute for English, American and Romance Studies, RWTH-Aachen University, 52056 Aachen, Germany. [email protected]@ifaar.rwth-aachen.de
Michele I. Feist
Affiliation:
Department of English, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA 70504. [email protected]
Liane Ströbel
Affiliation:
Institute for English, American and Romance Studies, RWTH-Aachen University, 52056 Aachen, Germany. [email protected]@ifaar.rwth-aachen.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Assuming that linguistic representation has been studied only by linguists using grammaticality judgments, Branigan & Pickering (B&P) present structural priming as a novel alternative. We show that their assumptions are incorrect for cognitive-functional linguistics, exposing converging perspectives on form/meaning pairings between generativists and cognitive-functional linguists that we hope will spark the cross-disciplinary discussion necessary to produce a cognitively plausible model of linguistic representation.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e290
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bergen, B. & Coulson, S. (2006) Frame-shifting humor in simulation-based language understanding. IEEE Intelligent Systems 21(2):59–62.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (1994) A view of phonology from a cognitive and functional perspective. Cognitive Linguistics 5(4):285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. & Moder, C. L. (1983) Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59:251–89.Google Scholar
Coulson, S. & Van Petten, C. (2002) Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related potential study. Memory & Cognition 30:958–68.Google Scholar
Croft, W. & Poole, K. T. (2008) Inferring universals from grammatical variation: Multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical Linguistics 34:1–37.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2014) Words that go together: Measuring individual differences in native speakers' knowledge of collocations. The Mental Lexicon 9(3):401–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D. S. & Arppe, A. (2013) Extracting prototypes from exemplars What can corpus data tell us about concept representation? Cognitive Linguistics 24(2):221–74.Google Scholar
Feist, M. I. (2008) Space between languages. Cognitive Science 32(7):1177–99.Google Scholar
Feist, M. I. (2010) Inside in and on: Typological and psycholinguistic perspectives. In: Language, Cognition, and Space, ed. Evans, V. & Chilton, P., pp. 95–114. Equinox.Google Scholar
Feist, M. I. (2013) Codability and cost in the naming of motion events. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio 7(3):45–61.Google Scholar
Feist, M. I. & Duffy, S. E. (2015) Moving beyond “Next Wednesday”: The interplay of lexical semantics and constructional meaning in an ambiguous metaphoric statement. Cognitive Linguistics 26(4):633–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1976) Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 280:20–32.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P. & O'Connor, M. C. (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language 64(3):501–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5):219–24. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2008) Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19:1–33.Google Scholar
Heim, I. & Kratzer, A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Huette, S., Winter, B., Matlock, T., Ardell, D. & Spivey, M. J. (2014) Eye movements during listening reveal spontaneous grammatical processing. Frontiers in Psychology 5:410. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00410.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002) Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1990) The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics 1(1):39–74.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. & Meira, S. (2003) “Natural concepts” in the spatial topological domain – Adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language 79:485–516.Google Scholar
Liu, N. & Bergen, B. (2016) When do language comprehenders mentally simulate locations? Cognitive Linguistics 27(2):181–203.Google Scholar
Lupyan, G. (2012) Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: The label feedback hypothesis. Frontiers in Cognition 3(54):1–13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00054.Google Scholar
Lupyan, G. & Casasanto, D. (2015) Meaningless words promote meaningful categorization. Language and Cognition 7(2):167–93.Google Scholar
Núñez, R. & Sweetser, E. (2006) With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science 30(3):401–50.Google Scholar
Perry, L. & Lupyan, G. (2014) The role of language in multi-dimensional categorization: Evidence from transcranial direct current stimulation and exposure to verbal labels. Brain and Language 135:66–72.Google Scholar
Saj, A., Fuhrman, O., Vuilleumier, P. & Boroditsky, L. (2014) Patients with left spatial neglect also neglect the “left side” of time. Psychological Science 25(1):207–14.Google Scholar
Schiffer, S. (2015) Meaning and formal semantics in generative grammar. Erkenntnis 80(1):61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spivey, M. & González-Márquez, M. (2003) Rescuing generative linguistics: Too little, too late? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26(06):690–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spivey, M., Richardson, D. & Gonzalez-Marquez, M. (2004) On the perceptual-motor and image-schematic underpinnings of real-time language processing. In: The grounding of cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking, ed. Zwaan, R. & Pecher, D., pp. 246–81. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ströbel, L., ed. (2016) Sensory-motor concepts in language & cognition. Duesseldorf University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1998) The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol. 1. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003b) The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol. 2. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Van Petten, C., Coulson, S., Plante, E., Rubin, S. & Parks, M. (1999) Timecourse of word identification and semantic integration in spoken language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 25(2):394–417.Google Scholar
Walker, E., Bergen, B. & Núñez, R. (2013) Investigating spatial axis recruitment in temporal reckoning through acoustic stimuli and non-spatial responses. Center for Research in Language Technical Report, University of California, San Diego 25:1–10.Google Scholar
Winawer, J., Huk, A. & Boroditsky, L. (2008) A motion aftereffect from still photographs depicting motion. Psychological Science 19(3):276–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winter, B. & Matlock, T. (2013) Making judgments based on similarity and proximity. Metaphor & Symbol 28:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, J. & Gries, S. Th., eds. (2016) Corpus-based approaches to construction grammar. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar