Aspects_of_cognitive_linguistics.PDF

Aspects of cognitive linguistics and

neurolinguistics: conceptual structure

and category-specific semantic deficits

Ana Laura R ODRÍGUEZ R EDONDO

Universidad Complutense de Madrid - Departamento de Filología Inglesa I

analaura@filol.ucm.es

Recibido: junio 2003

Aceptado: noviembre 2003

ABSTRACT

The goal of this paper is to establish certain links between basic assumptions of Lexical Category

Structure in Cognitive Linguistics, and aspects of the organization of semantic memory resulting from

the theoretical and experimental work carried out in Cognitive Neuropsychology, through cases of

Category Specific Semantic Deficits. These studies highlight the relevance of distinctiveness against

that of similarity, which has been mainly focused by Cognitive Linguistics as one of the main parameters

for conceptual organization. Also, these deficits evidence the need to consider different conceptual

structures according to domains. Moreover, research on these cases contributes to a more specific

account of schematization processes for each domain here focused on, the domains of living and that

of non-living things.

Key words: neurolinguistics, cognitive linguistics, conceptual structure, categorization, domain, living

and non-living things, category specific semantic deficits.

Aspectos de lingüística cognitiva y neurolingüística:

estructura conceptual y déficit semánticos de categoría específicos

RESUMEN

El objetivo de este artículo es establecer una cierta relación entre supuestos básicos de la estructura ca-

tegorial léxica de la Lingüística Cognitiva y ciertos aspectos de la organización de la memoria semánti-

ca, según los resultados de la investigación teórica y experimental realizada en el campo de la Neuro-

psicología Cognitiva, a través del estudio de casos de Déficits Semánticos de Categoría Específica. Estos

estudios ponen de manifiesto la relevancia de lo distintivo frente a lo similar. Esto último ha sido, hasta

ahora, el parámetro más importante sobre el cual se ha centrado principalmente el estudio de la organi-

zación conceptual, en Lingüística Cognitiva. Igualmente, estos déficits evidencian la necesidad de con-

siderar las diferencias de estructura conceptual según diferencias de dominio. Asimismo, la investiga-

ción de este tipo de déficits contribuye a una interpretación más específica de los procesos de esquematización

según el dominio, en este caso, en los dominios de cosas vivas y no vivas.

Palabras clave: neurolingüística, lingüística cognitiva, estructura conceptual, categorización, dominio,

cosas vivas y no vivas, déficits semánticos de categoría específicos.

S UMARIO : 1. Introduction. 2. Conceptual organization and types of information in cognitive linguistics.

3. Neuropsychological research: category specific semantic deficits. 4. CSSD and categorization in

cognitive linguistics. 5. Conclusion. 6. References.

Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense

2004, vol. 12 43-62

ISSN: 1133-0392

Ana Laura Rodríguez Redondo

Aspects of cognitive linguistics and neurolinguistics...

1. INTRODUCTION

The contribution of neuropsychological research to theoretical linguistics is not

new, and it has always proved to be an essential source of information that contributes

to the study of lexical categorization in linguistics, since the work of E. Rosch (1976,

1978). However, neuropsychological studies are difficult to approach for a non-specialist,

because they are usually addressed to psychologists or neuropsychologists, as the

ultimate goal of this research is the understanding of the semantic system for clinical

purposes, such as the diagnosis and recovery of brain damaged people. Therefore, this

paper attempts, on the one hand, to approximate linguists to the new account of

differences of conceptual domain organization that steam out of experimental research

on Category Specific Semantic Deficits (CSSD) and, on the other hand, it aims at

relating these findings to some of the underlying principles of two proposals that

account for lexical conceptualization within Cognitive Linguistics (CL), namely, the

hierarchical model developed from Rosch’s work and Langacker’s (1987, 1990, 1994,

1998) schematization processes.

Conceptual domain differentiation in CSSD research has generally been observed

between the large domains of living and non-living things. In CL this differentiation

was acknowledged, but it was recognized on the basis of the sensory-functional theory

supported by the work of Warrington and his colleagues (Warrington 1975; Warrington

and Shallice 1984; Warrington and McCarthy 1983; McCarthy and Warrington 1988).

However, later research, mainly based on distributed accounts of semantic memory,

provides the bases for an approach to categorization which, we believe, presents a

deeper and more detailed insight into the structure of semantic domains, and contributes

to the specification of the structure and processes of categorization dealt with in

Cognitive Linguistics. We think that these findings, opposite to the main perspective

of Lexical Cognitive Semantics, enhance the approach to distinctiveness rather than

to sameness of structure. This approach leads to the need not to establish a unique

conceptual structure, but to be able to accept and describe different conceptual structures

across domains.

We will see that specific parameters of domain differentiation become relevant for

lexical categorization theory if understood within an open and dynamic framework,

such as that of Langacker’s schematization strategies. On the contrary, it becomes clear

that closed-framed models that impose the same structure to all concepts, such as the

hierarchical model, are not suitable enough to take charge of these new findings

regarding differential conceptual architecture.

In the first part of the paper, we briefly review basic ideas about conceptual

organization in the hierarchical model, and the schematization processes established

by Langacker. Then, we summarize the literature on CSSD that focused on the

establishment of conceptual domain differentiations, and we end up with a commentary

on the possible contribution of CSSD findings within the two cognitive linguistics

proposals for conceptual structure.

Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense

2004, vol. 12 43-62

Ana Laura Rodríguez Redondo

Aspects of cognitive linguistics and neurolinguistics...

2. CONCEPTUALORGANIZATION AND TYPES OFINFORMATION

IN COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

Here we deal with two types of conceptual organization that offer two different

perspectives on conceptual structure. On the one hand, we present the basic tenets of

a shaped hierarchical structure mainly derived from the work of Rosch and her colleagues

in the 70s and, on the other hand, a conceptual organization based on strategies of

processing.

2.1. HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE

The best known image of the organization of the conceptual structure is the

hierarchical model, which consists of three levels, the basic, the superordinate and the

subordinate one.

According to this model, our knowledge is mainly organized at the basic level.

Here we conceptualise things around us, as functional and perceptual gestalts

(Rosch et al. 1976). This is the level of imaginability (Lakoff 1987), where all concepts

possess many describable features, both functional and perceptual, and where the

mental images that reflect the whole category are formed. At this level, the members

of a category are identified as functionally and perceptually similar among themselves,

but they minimize the similarity with other categories (Neisser 1987:14; Taylor 1990:51).

That is, intra-category distinctions are blurred, but inter-category distinctions are

enhanced.

Superordinate concepts highlight the most relevant and general features of the

category, which are mainly of a functional type. Concepts at this level have few

describable features and therefore, they are not characterized by their imaginability.

Categorical features found at this level are few and of great scope and therefore, they

are found in elements at a lower level (Wierzbicka 1985; Ungerer and Schmid

1997:78).

At the subordinate level, on the one hand, concepts within a category share many

common features which overlap and thus, the differentiation among the members of

the category is lower (Rosch 1978:31; Taylor 1990:51). However, a bundle of specific

and highly distinctive features are added (Ungerer and Schmid 1997), and this is what

makes it possible to distinguish, for example, the features of a kitchen chair from those

of a living-room chair .

The most important level is the basic one in which the gestaltic image is formed

mainly from perceptual features. This image at the upper and the lower levels coincides

with that at the basic level.

This hierarchical structure is posed theoretically for any category that belongs to

any domain thus, the category of furniture that belongs to the domain of non-living

things is structured in the same way as the category of birds that belongs to the domain

of living things. There is no distinction of domain. In both, inter-category differentiation

benefits from basic level conceptualization, whereas intra-category distinctions take

advantage of subordinate concepts.

Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense

2004, vol. 12 43-62

Ana Laura Rodríguez Redondo

Aspects of cognitive linguistics and neurolinguistics...

2.2. SCHEMATIZATION PROCESSES

Another form of conceptual organization proposed from Cognitive Linguistics is

the Schematization processes proposed by Langacker (1987, 1990, 1994, 1998).

Schematization refers to the process by means of which speakers form a conceptual

image which includes all those features that different referents, experienced by

individuals, have in common. This results in a conceptual image called schema.

The schema is formed from the observation of specific and common features, both

functional and perceptual. The higher level schema derives from features that are

considered common to all items which are believed to belong to a certain category,

whereas the lower level schema is formed with features that are distinctive for each

member of the category. The level of activation of the schema depends on the task

(Langacker 1987:378). For example, when categorizing an element, such as a Persian

cat , the activation of a high level schema will be used to enable us to include a Persian

cat within the category of cats . However, if we are to identify a particular cat as a

Persian cat , a lower level schema will be activated.

In addition, according to Langacker (1987), the schema of a category can be

modified either by processes of Extension or Elaboration. On the one hand, Elaboration

processes imply the construction of a schema according to degrees of specification,

for example, in the case of the mental image of a Persian cat, this will be developed

from specifications on the more global image of a cat . On the other hand, Extension

depends on degrees of perceptual similitude in relation to a prototype (1987:371), as

in the case of the categorization of a lion within the category in which cat is the basic

level concept, and where the use of higher levels of abstraction would be necessary.

That is, Elaboration relies on contrastive processes, whereas Extension relies on

comparison processes.

As it can be observed, neither the hierarchical model nor the schematization

processes account for differentiations of domain. However, from our point of view,

the open and dynamic nature of the schematization model allows to relate these strategies

to the findings of CSSD in relation to the conceptual structure, in order to fit the

differentiation in conceptual structure across domains.

2.3. ATTRIBUTES IN COGNITIVE SEMANTICS

Attributes are considered as dimensions to account for the similarity between

entities. They are variable according to their contribution to the establishment of the

inclusion of a concept within a category (Taylor 1990:93). Also, attributes are perceived

by speakers as integrated units that can be relatively schematic, depending on the

specificity or generality of the information activated (Langacker 1987:22).

The types of attributes that are considered within the topic of categorization in

Cognitive Linguistics are interactional (Labov 1973; Lakoff 1987:57), cultural

(Wierzbicka 1985:177), shared, specific, functional and perceptual. Those that are

shared are essential, as they support the inclusion of an object within a category, since

they are used as parameters of reference, whereas specific attributes make possible the

Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense

2004, vol. 12 43-62

Ana Laura Rodríguez Redondo

Aspects of cognitive linguistics and neurolinguistics...

differentiation among concepts (Langacker 1987:22). Functional attributes are those

related to the use of the object (Lakoff 1987:57), and perceptual features are related

to the sensorial experience of the object.

Moreover, perceptual features have critical importance in Cognitive Linguistics

categorization, since they are the attributes that constitute the basis of the prototype.

The prototype is formed at the basic level by perceptual resemblance among objects.

Prototypical members have the largest number of common attributes with other members

of the category, but the smallest number of attributes shared with members of other

categories (Ungerer and Schmid, 1997:29). The prototype represents the best example

of the category, and it is mainly used as a referent for concept inclusion within a category.

Furthermore, Cognitive Linguistics deals with bundles of correlated attributes, that

is, those that occurred together. Both functional and perceptual features form part of

those bundles of correlated attributes, which are further characterized as being generic,

specific or not shared. In addition, the nature of functional and perceptual bunches of

attributes determines the level of conceptualization of an object, within the hierarchical

structure of the category. What is more, the relative saliency of functional or perceptual

information becomes relevant for the description of the conceptual level. In this way,

the characteristics of bunches of features at each level can be summarized as

follows: At the Superordinate level there are few number of features, mostly shared

by all members of the category and basically functional in nature. To these, salient

generic attributes are added. At the Basic level we find many correlated attributes, that

is, they usually occur together. These are both shared and specific, and both functional

and perceptual. However, there are a lot of shared perceptual features which result in

an overlap of shapes. At the Subordinate level, there are many shared and specific

attributes, basically perceptual to which salient specific attributes are added

(Ungerer and Schmid, 1997: 60-113).

Here, once more, we observe that, even when dealing with types of attributes, there

is no differentiation across domains. Moreover, the idea of correlation of attributes

refers to bundles of features that usually occur together. Only graded amounts and

types of features are described for each level, but there are no established patterns of

links between the different types of features that occur at each level. In addition,

perceptual properties become salient features for categories of any domain, since they

constitute the basic mortar to build up the prototype of a category. This means, for

example, that the prototypes of a category in the biological domain and in the man-

made domain, such as robin and chair , will be equally based on bunches of perceptual

features forming a gestaltic image at the basic level, that is, both at the same level of

conceptualization. As we will discuss later, this sameness of levels of conceptualization

cannot longer be maintained, and neuropsychological findings on CSSD provide

experimental support for this differentiation.

2.4. THE RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION OF TYPES OF INFORMATION IN CL

The relevance of the distribution of different types of features in the formation of

the conceptual categories was an important part of the work developed by Wierzbicka

Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense

2004, vol. 12 43-62

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: