Advertisement

Internally-Structured Conceptual Models in Cognitive Semantics

  • Rebecca Green
Part of the Information Science and Knowledge Management book series (ISKM, volume 3)

Abstract

The basic conceptual units of cognitive semantics—image schemata, basic level concepts, and frames—are internally structured, with meaningful relationships existing between components of those units. In metonymy, metaphor, and blended spaces, such internal conceptual structure is complemented by external referential structure, based on mappings between elements of underlying conceptual spaces.

Keywords

Input Space Conceptual Structure Target Domain Image Schema Source Domain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barsalou, L. W. (1992). Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization, 21–74. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, R. (1958). How shall a thing be called? Psychological Review, 65, 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clausner, T., & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fauconnier, G. (1996). Analogical counterfactuals. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar, 57–90. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22, 133–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. In S. Harnard, H. Steklis, & J. Lancaster (Eds.), Origins and Evolution of Language and Speech, 20–32. New York: New York Academy of Science.Google Scholar
  9. Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
  10. Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization, 75–102. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. FrameNet. (n.d.). Available: < http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~framenet/ > [2001, October 9].Google Scholar
  12. Gardner, M. (1961, June). Mathematical games. Scientific American, 204, 166–176.Google Scholar
  13. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, 199–241. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grady, J. E. (1997). THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 267–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grady, J., Taub, S., & Morgan, P. (1996). Primitive and compound metaphors. In Goldberg, A. E. (Ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, 177–187. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  17. Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krzeszowski, T. P. (1993). The axiological parameter in preconceptional image schemata. In R. A. Geiger & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds.), Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language, 307–329. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.), 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lakoff, G. (1994). Conceptual metaphor home page. Available: <http://cogsci.berkeley.edu> [2001, October 9] .Google Scholar
  23. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Langacker, R. W. (1991). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lindner, S. (1981). A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of Verb-Particle Constructions with UP and OUT. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
  27. Lindner, S. (1982). What goes up doesn’t necessarily come down: The ins and outs of opposites. Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 18, 305–323.Google Scholar
  28. Mill, J. S. (1973). A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation (J. M. Robson, Ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. (Original work published 1843).Google Scholar
  29. Rosch, E., Mervis, C., Gray, W., Johnson, D., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sweetser, E., & Fauconnier, G. (1996). Cognitive links and domains: Basic aspects of mental space theory. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar, 1–28. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Turner, M. (1993). An image-schematic constraint on metaphor. In R. A. Geiger & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds.), Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language, 291–306. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  32. Turner, M. (n.d.). Blending and conceptual integration. Available: < http://www.wam.umd.edu/~mturn/WWW/blending.html > [2001, October 9].Google Scholar
  33. Tversky, B. (1986). Components and categorization. In C. Craig (Ed.), Categorization and Noun Classification, 63–76. Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  34. Tversky, B., & Hemenway, K. (1984). Objects, parts, and categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 169–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca Green
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Information StudiesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations