Notes on Methodology

  • Mário A. Perini


This chapter deals with some questions having to do with methodology—in particular, with the kinds of empirical evidence that can be used to support analyses. The main topics are: literal meaning, as distinct from directly observed cognitive representations; the relation between literal meaning and semantic roles; fuzzy and discrete meaning distinctions; the empirical status of elaborations; the construction of empirically valid hyponymic tracks. These tracks must be established between readily accessible elaborate relations (ETRs), such as “eater,” and schematic relations (semantic roles) such as Agent. It is argued that in this task the use of introspective data in linguistic analysis is inevitable; some contrary views are discussed and rejected.


Empirical evidence Hyponymic tracks Introspection Literal meaning 


  1. Blanche-Benveniste, C., Deulofeu, J., Stéfanini, J., & van den Eynde, K. (1984). Pronom et syntaxe. L’approche pronominale et son application au français [Pronoun and syntax. The pronominal approach and its application to French]. Paris: SELAF.Google Scholar
  2. Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  3. Cançado, M. (2003). Um estatuto teórico para os papéis temáticos [A theoretical status for thematic roles]. In A. L. Müller, E. Negrão, & M. J. Foltran (Eds.), Semântica Formal [Formal semantics]. São Paulo: Contexto.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, H. H., & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 56–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dascal, M. (1987). Defending literal meaning. Cognitive Science, 11, 259–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Faulhaber, S. (2011). Verb valency patterns. A challenge for semantic-based accounts. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fónagy, I. (1982). ‘He is only joking’. Joke, metaphor and language development. In F. Kiefer (Ed.), Hungarian linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  9. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3—Speech acts. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  10. Gross, M. (1975). Méthodes en syntaxe. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
  11. Hartshorne, J. K., & Snedeker, J. (2012). Verb argument structure predicts implicit causality: The advantages of finer-grained semantics. Language and Cognitive Processes, iFirst, 1–35.Google Scholar
  12. Haspelmath, M., & Hartmann, I. (2015). Comparing verbal valency across languages. In A. Malchukov & B. Comrie (Eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  13. Jackendoff, R. S. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! White River Junction: Chelsea Green.Google Scholar
  15. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Langacker, R. W. (1991a). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol. II. Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Langacker, R. W. (1991b). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar—A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levin, B., & Hovav, M. R. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moura, H. (2012). Frames e alternâncias sintáticas: como o metafórico depende do literal [Frames and syntactic alternations: How metaphorical depends on literal]. In H. Moura et al. (Eds.), Cognição, léxico e gramática. Florianópolis: Editora Insular.Google Scholar
  21. Norrick, N. R. (1981). Semiotic principles in semantic theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Perek, F. (2015). Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Perini, M. A. (2015). Describing verb valencies: Practical and theoretical issues. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Postal, P. M. (1968). Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  25. Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rumelhart, D. E. (1979). Some problems with the notion of literal meanings. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 71–82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Ruppenhofer, J., et al. (2006). Framenet II: Extended theory and practice. Retrieved from
  28. Sadock, J. M. (1979). Figurative speech and linguistics. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Schank, R. C. (1981). Language and memory. In D. A. Norman (Ed.), Perspectives in cognitive science. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  30. Schlesinger, I. M. (1995). Cognitive space and linguistic case: Semantic and syntactic categories in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Straňáková-Lopatková, M., Reznckova, V., & Zabokrtský, Z. (internet). Valency Lexicon for Czech: From verbs to nouns. Prague: Center for Computational Linguistics, Charles University. Retrieved from
  32. Talmy, L. (2007). Foreword. In M. González-Márquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, & M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  33. van den Eynde, K., & Mertens, P. (2003). La valence: l’approche pronominale et son application au lexique verbal [Valency: The pronominal approach and its application to the verb lexicon]. In French language studies (Vol. 13, pp. 63–104). Cambridge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mário A. Perini
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidade Federal de Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil

Personalised recommendations