· Web viewPrototype theory (Eleanor Rosch) and its relevance for CL. Idealized Cognitive Models (George Lakoff). FrameNet (Charles Fillmore). CL and Lexical Typology (further LT):

National Research University Higher School of Economics Syllabus for the course «Cognitive Linguistics» for 37.04.01 «Cognitive sciences and technologies:

from neuron to cognition», Master of Science

Government of Russian Federation

Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of High Professional Education

«National Research University Higher School of Economics»

Faculty of Psychology

Syllabus for the course«Cognitive Linguistics»

37.04.01 «Cognitive sciences and technologies: from neuron to cognition», Master of Science

Author: Ekaterina V. Rakhilina, D.Sc. in linguistics, professor, e-mail: [email protected] Zevakhina, PhD in linguistics, lecturer, e-mail: [email protected]

Approved by Faculty of psychology «___»____________ 20 гHead of department [_____________] Recommended by the section of Teaching Council «___»____________ 20 гChairperson of Teaching Council [______________] Approved by teaching council of Faculty of psychology «___»_____________20 г.Secretary [________________]

Moscow, 2014

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.hse.ru/text/image/4011945.html



1. Scope of Use

The present program establishes minimum demands of students’ knowledge and skills, and determines content of the course.

The present syllabus is aimed at department teaching the course, their teaching assistants, and students of the Master of Science program 37.04.01 «Cognitive sciences and technologies: from neuron to cognition».

This syllabus meets the standards required by: Educational standards of National Research University Higher School of Economics; Educational program «Psychology» of Federal Master’s Degree Program 37.04.01,

2014; University curriculum of the Master’s program in psychology (37.04.01) for 2014.

2. Learning Objectives

Learning objectives of the course «Cognitive Linguistics» are to introduce students to:

theoretical apparatus, key notions, history, heritage and main principles of cognitive linguistics;

the mainstream branches and schools of cognitive linguistics relevant to cognitive psychologists;

methodological aspects of cognitive linguistics; critical thinking and reasoning within cognitive linguistics; the most salient papers (in English) on various aspects of cognitive linguistics; running a case study (as a presentation in English) on one of the given topics of cognitive

linguistics.

3. Learning outcomes

After completing the study of the discipline «Cognitive Linguistics» the student should:

understand the subject of cognitive linguistics, its fields, connections with other (cognitive) sciences;

understand main conceptions of the most significant scientific cognitive linguistics schools; be able to understand, interpret and discuss papers (in English) on various aspects of

cognitive linguistics; be able to critically analyze various theoretical points of cognitive linguistics; be able to collect empirical data and apply methodological principles to various theoretical

tasks; be able to make empirical observations and theoretical generalizations; be able to make inferences based on collected data relying on theoretical principles of

cognitive linguistics;




be able to present results of an undertaken study both in written and oral form.

After completing the study of the discipline «Cognitive Linguistics» the student should have the following competences:

Competence Code Code (UC)Descriptors (indicators of achievement of the result)

Educative forms and methods aimed at generation and development of the competence

The ability to reflect developed methods of activity.

SC-1 SC-М1 The student is able to reflect developed methods of activity based on main cognitive linguistics fields and approaches.

Lectures and tutorials, group discussions, tests.

The ability to independently improve and develop knowledge of cognitive linguistics.

SC-3 SC-M3 The student is able to independently acquire novel research methods, to change scientific profile of their activity.

Lectures, group discussions, projects in mini-groups, tests, presentations, homework exercises.

The ability to communicate with international academia.

SC-8 SC-M8 The student is able to communicate and do research on the professional level in cognitive linguistics international academia.

Lectures, group discussions, case study, projects in mini-groups, presentations.

The ability to represent results of research studies.

PC-3 IK-М3.1_3.2_2.4.1_2.4.2_2.5.1_2.5.2_4.2

The student is able to form and represent results of their activity as a report or a paper as well as a presentation in Russian or second language with help of modern modes of IKT.

Discussion and analysis of the results of the home tasks, projects in mini-groups, presentations.

4. Place of the discipline in the Master’s program structure

The course «Cognitive Linguistics» is a course taught in the first year of Master’s program «Cognitive sciences and technologies». The course is based on the knowledge in General Psychology, Introduction to cognitive science, Cognitive psychology: fundamental and applied methods.

The following knowledge and competence are required to study the discipline:




A good command of the English language. A basic knowledge of cognitive psychology and cognitive science.

Main competences developed after completing the study of this discipline can be used in studying of the following disciplines:

Qualitative and quantitative methods in psychology. Practical training in cognitive studies. Visual perception and attention. Emotional Modulation of Cognition. Cognitive development and evolution. Cognitive neuroscience. Psycholinguistics.

5. Course Plan

№ TopicTotal hours

Contact hoursIndependent students’ workLecture

sSeminars

1. Introduction into Cognitive Linguistics 12 2 2 82. Main theoretical notions of CL 12 2 2 83. Metaphor and metonymy 12 2 2 8

4.Language categorization and conceptualization of various cognitive domains

24 6 6 12

5. Construction Grammar 14 4 2 86. Beyond (spoken) language 14 4 2 8

7.Students’ projects: discussion of students’ presentations

20 2 2 16

Total: 108

20 20 68

6. Requirements and Grading

Type of grading

Type of workCharacteristics3 4

Continuous

Home assigned reading

Х X Reading of materials for seminars.

Home assigned exercises

Х XHomework training of key notions and aspects of cognitive linguistics.

5-minute mini-tests on reading in class

Х X Tests on home reading papers.

Class participation

XX

X Discussion of home reading papers.




Final Exam X Oral presentation of group projects.

6.1. Course Grade Criteria

Continuous assessment: students have to demonstrate their acquaintance with basic facts, concepts, notions, and theories in cognitive linguistics. By the end of the course the students are expected to be able to apply their knowledge in their independent work on topics connected with the discipline.

All presentations will be checked for plagiarism. The students should upload their presentations in LMS (http://lms.hse.ru).

Final assessment: students have to demonstrate the knowledge of basic facts, their command of methodology of analysing the problems connected with cognitive linguistics, and their ability to understand and interpret these problems.

6.2. The cumulative grade formulae:

Cumulative grade (Gc) for the student’s work during the module(s) consists of lecturer’s assessment of the student’s work at seminars and lectures (presence, participation, quality and quantity of answers) (Gp), home exercises (Gh), and the mini-tests mean scores (Gt).

Gc = Gp + Ge + Gt,

where Gp = 0.33, Gt = 0.33 and Gh = 0.33.

The finale grade (Gf) is the sum of cumulative grade (Gc) and the final assessment (exam) mark (Ge):

Gf = Gc + Ge

where Gc = 0.6 and Ge = 0.4.

The grades are rounded in favour of the student.

Table of Grade Accordance

Ten-pointGrading Scale Five-point

Grading Scale

1 - very bad2 – bad3 – no pass

no pass – 2 FAIL

4 – pass5 – highly pass pass – 3

PASS

6 – good

http://exchange.hse.ru/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://lms.hse.ru




7 – very good good – 4

8 – almost excellent9 – excellent10 – perfect

excellent – 5

During the re-examination, the student has no option to obtain additional mark to heighten the grade for current or intermediate controls.

The resultant grade for the course, goes to the certificate of Master’s degree.

7. Course Description

1. Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics (further CL)Interaction between language and cognition as a fundamental principle of CL. History of CL. CL in the context of main trends in modern linguistics (structuralism, functionalism, cognitive grammar, generative grammar) and their brief overview. Main principles of CL: cognitive principles and mechanisms not specific to language; anthropocentricity; language in use (usage-based model); non-autonomy of syntax; meaning as a primary focus of linguistic study; synchronous (not sequential) analysis of a linguistic unit on various language levels; lack of synchronic vs. diachronic dichotomy. CL and Linguistic Typology: language universals and variations. CL with respect to sociolinguistic and anthropologic aspects of language. Hypothesis of linguistic relativity (Edward Sapir, Benjamin Whorf). CL and culture studies. Basic methods of collecting empirical data in general linguistics and in CL: introspection, observation (that leads to corpus research), and experiment (that leads to experimental linguistics). Experimental linguistics and CL. Corpus linguistics and CL. Role of statistics in corpus linguistics and in CL. (4 hours, 2 classes)

Basic ReadingCroft, W. 1990/2003. Typology and Universals. Cambridge University Press. Pp. 1-3, 280-285.Evans, V., Bergen, B. and J. Zinken. 2007. The cognitive linguistics enterprise: an overview // Evans, V., Bergen, B. and Zinken, J. (eds.) The Cognitive Linguistics Reader.Everett, D. 2005. Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã // Current Anthropology 46 (4).Geeraerts, D. 2006. Introduction: A Rough Guide to Cognitive Linguistics // Geeraerts, D. (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton De Gruyter.Geeraerts, D. and H. Cuyckens. 2007. Introducing Cognitive Linguistics // Geeraerts, D. and H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press.Gibbs, R. 2007. Why Cognitive Linguists Should Care More About Empirical Methods // Evans, V., Bergen, B. and Zinken, J. (eds.) The Cognitive Linguistics Reader.Kemmer, S. About Cognitive Linguistics (URL http://www.cognitivelinguistics.org/cl.shtml)Palmer, G. 2007. Cognitive Linguistics and Anthropological Linguistics // Geeraerts, D. and H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press.Pederson, E. 2007. Cognitive Linguistics and Linguistic Relativity // Geeraerts, D. and H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press.

http://www.cognitivelinguistics.org/cl.shtml




Van der Auwera, J. and J. Nuyts. 2007. Cognitive Linguistics and Linguistic Typology // Geeraerts, D. and H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press.

Recommended ReadingBickel, B. 2001. What is typology? – Short note. Ms.

http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~bickel/research/papers/manifesto.pdf Boroditsky, L. (in press). Linguistic Relativity // Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. MacMillan Press. http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/ECS-proofs.pdfEvans, V. & S. Levinson. The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science // Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FBBS%2FBBS32_05%2FS0140525X09990525a.pdf&code=022e01f33b8143d0cc1b3917051f9ad5Janda, L. (ed.) 2013. Cognitive Linguistics — The Quantitative Turn. The Essential Reader.Langacker, R. 2007. An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar // Evans, V., Bergen, B. and Zinken, J. (eds.) The Cognitive Linguistics Reader.(in Russian) Скребцова, Т.Г. 2011. Когнитивная лингвистика: Курс лекций. СПбГУ. Глава 1.

Internet ResourcesStudy Cognitive Linguistics — http://www.cognitivelinguistics.org/study.shtmlDavid Lee’s for Corpus-based Linguists — http://tiny.cc/corporaGries, Stefan Th. 2009. What is corpus linguistics? Language and Linguistics Compass 3, 1-17 — http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/research/2009_STG_CorpLing_LangLingCompass.pdf Some links to learn more about the Pirahã language — http://edge.org/conversation/recursion-and-human-thought, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/mar/25/daniel-everett-human-language-piraha (in Russian) Лингвистическая типология — http://krugosvet.ru/enc/gumanitarnye_nauki/lingvistika/TIPOLOGIYA_LINGVISTICHESKAYA.html

2. Heritage of CLEvolution of the main theoretical notions of CL: walkthrough past and modern theories. Principal role of semantics in CL. Semantic roles, proto-roles, hyper-roles and frame semantics. Causatives vs. force dynamics. Presupposition and assertion vs. figure and ground (landmark and trajector). Deixis and absolute/relative orientation in space. Ambiguity: implicature and scope vs. semantic networks; language modules vs. constructions; etc. (4 hours, 2 classes)

Basic ReadingFillmore, C. 2006. Frame semantics // Geeraerts, D. (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton De Gruyter.Fortis, J.-M. 2010. Space in language. Lepzig Summer School. http://htl.linguist.univ-paris-diderot.fr/fortis/leipzig/1.FIGURE_GROUND_FRAMES.pdf

http://htl.linguist.univ-paris-diderot.fr/fortis/leipzig/1.FIGURE_GROUND_FRAMES.pdf


http://krugosvet.ru/enc/gumanitarnye_nauki/lingvistika/TIPOLOGIYA_LINGVISTICHESKAYA.html


http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/mar/25/daniel-everett-human-language-piraha


http://edge.org/conversation/recursion-and-human-thought


http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/research/2009_STG_CorpLing_LangLingCompass.pdf


http://tiny.cc/corpora

http://www.cognitivelinguistics.org/study.shtml

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FBBS%2FBBS32_05%2FS0140525X09990525a.pdf&code=022e01f33b8143d0cc1b3917051f9ad5


http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/ECS-proofs.pdf

http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~bickel/research/papers/manifesto.pdf




Geeraerts, D. and H. Cuyckens. 2007. Introducing Cognitive Linguistics // Geeraerts, D. and H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press.Goldberg, A. 2007. Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language // Evans, V., Bergen, B. and Zinken, J. (eds.) The Cognitive Linguistics Reader.Hoffmann, T. and G. Trousdale. 2013. Construction Grammar: Introduction // Hoffmann, T. and G. Trousdale (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press.Langacker R. 2006. Concept, image and symbol // Geeraerts, D. (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings.Talmy, L. 2007. How Language Structures Space // Evans, V., Bergen, B. and Zinken, J. (eds.) The Cognitive Linguistics Reader.

Recommended ReadingLangacker R. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction.Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. & S. Levinson 2004. Can language restructure cognition? The case for space // Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(3), pp. 108-114. http://silccenter.org/bibliography_pdfs/the_case_for_space.pdfTalmy, L. 2006. The relation of grammar to cognition // Geeraerts, D. (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton De Gruyter.Talmy, L. 2010. Force dynamics in language and cognition // Cognitive Science 12, pp. 49-100.(in Russian) Скребцова, Т.Г. 2011. Когнитивная лингвистика: Курс лекций. СПбГУ. Глава 1.

Internet Resourceshttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/ — Presupposition. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophyhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts/ — Speech Acts. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophyhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/ — Implicature. Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyInternet Resourceshttp://www.constructiongrammar.org/ — Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics approach to linguistic analysis

3. Ambiguity, metaphor and metonymyAmbiguity as an inherent property of language. Metaphor and metonymy as the main cognitive processes (George Lakoff). Metaphor and metonymy in terms of image schemas (Ronald Langacker). Source-target model. Across-domain vs. within-domain mapping. Cross-linguistic universals of metaphorical extensions: embodiment, time and space, quantity and space, уес. (4 hours, 2 classes)

Basic ReadingBrugman, C. & G. Lakoff. 2006. Cognitive topology and lexical networks // Geeraerts, D. (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton De Gruyter.Geeraerts, D. 2006. Prospects and problems of prototype theory // Geeraerts, D. (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton De Gruyter.Gibbs, R. & H. Colston. 2006. The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations // Geeraerts, D. (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton De Gruyter.

http://www.constructiongrammar.org/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/

http://silccenter.org/bibliography_pdfs/the_case_for_space.pdf




Lakoff, G. 2006. The contemporary theory of metaphor // Geeraerts, D. (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton de Gruyter.

Recommended ReadingJakobson, R. 1971. Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances // Selected Writings II.Johnson, M. and G. Lakoff. 1980. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. University of Chicago Press. [See also its translation into Russian](in Russian) Скребцова, Т.Г. 2011. Когнитивная лингвистика: Курс лекций. СПбГУ. Главы 2-4.

4. Language categorization and conceptualization of cognitive domainsPrototype theory (Eleanor Rosch) and its relevance for CL. Idealized Cognitive Models (George Lakoff). FrameNet (Charles Fillmore). CL and Lexical Typology (further LT): cross-linguistic universals and variations in language categorization of various conceptual lexical domains. Main principles, research problems, prerequisites and methodology of LT: Denotation-based semantics and experimental approach to LT, Natural Semantic Metalanguage, Combinatorial approach to LT. Accomplished and ongoing studies and projects of LT: color perception project, breaking and cutting project, eating and drinking study, motion studies (Aquamotion, rotation, etc), position project, temperature perception project, etc. LT semantic maps as visualization of universal semantic parameters. Metaphors in LT: pain and emotions. (12 hours, 2 classes)

Basic ReadingAtkins, S. and C. Fillmore. 2000. Describing polysemy: the case of crawl // Ravin, Y. and C. Leacock (eds.), Polysemy: Linguistic and Computational Approaches. Oxford University Press.Geeraerts, D. 2006. Prospects and problems of prototype theory // Geeraerts, D. (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton De Gruyter.Goddard, C. 2001. Lexico-semantic universals: a critical overview // Linguistic typology 5(1), pp. 1-65.Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. University of Chicago Press. [See also its translation into Russian]Levinson, S. & D. Wilkins. 2006. Background to the study of the language of space // Levinson, S. & D. Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. CUP.Majid, A., Enfield, N.J. and van Staden, M. (eds.). 2006. Parts of the body: Cross-linguistic categorisation. [Special issue]. Language Sciences, 28(2-3).Majid, A., & Bowerman, M. (eds.). 2007. Cutting and breaking events: A cross-linguistic perspective [Special Issue]. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(2).Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., Rakhilina, E. and Vanhove, M. (in press). The semantics of lexical typology // Rimer, N. (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Semantics.Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. & E. Rakhilina. 2006. "Some like it hot": on semantics of temperature adjectives in Russian and Swedish // Giannoulopoulou, G. & T. Leuschner, STUF (Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung), a special issue on Lexicon in a Typological and Contrastive Perspective 59(2), pp. 253-269.




Rosch, E., Mervis, C., Gray, W., Johnson, D. and Boyes-Braem, P. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories // Cognitive Psychology 6, pp. 382-439.Vanhove, M. 2008. Semantic associations between sensory modalities, prehension and mental perceptions: A cross-linguistic perspective // Vanhove Martine (ed.), From polysemy to semantic change. John Benjamins.Wierzbicka, A. 2008. Why there are no ‘colour universals’ in language and thought // Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 14 (2).

Recommended ReadingBerlin, B. and P. Kay. 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution.Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., D. Divjak & E. Rakhilina. 2010. Aquamotion verbs in Slavic and Germanic: A case study in lexical typology. In Driagina-Hasko, V. & R. Perelmutter (eds.), New approaches to Slavic verbs of motion. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pp. 315-341.Newman, J. (ed.) 1998. The Linguistics of Giving. [Studies in Typological Linguistics 36]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Newman, J. (ed.) 2002. The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing, and Lying. [Studies in Typological Linguistics 51]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Newman, J. (ed.) 2009. The Linguistics of Eating and Drinking. [Studies in Typological Linguistics 84]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Rakhilina, E., 2010. Verbs of rotation in Russian and Polish // V. Hasko and R. Perelmutter (eds.), New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pp. 291-314.T. Reznikova, Rakhilina, E. and A. Bonch-Osmolovskaya. 2012. Towards a typology of pain predicates // Linguistics 50(3), pp. 421-465.Rosch, E. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192-233.Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization // E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd (eds.) Cognition and categorization. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Pp. 27-48.Senft, G., A. Majid and S. Levinson. 2007. The language of taste // Majid, A. (ed.), Field Manual 10. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Pp. 42-45.Viberg, Å., 1984. The verbs of perception: A typological study // B. Butterworth, B. Comrie and Ö. Dahl (eds.) Explanations for Language Universals, Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton. Pp. 123-162.

Internet Resourceshttp://temperature.ling.su.se/index.php/Main_Page — A lexical typology research project into the fascinating world of temperature terms in the world's languages http://aquamotion.narod.ru/index-eng.html — Lexical typology of predicates denoting motion in a liquid mediumhttps://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/ — FrameNet

5. Non-compositionality of language semantics. Construction GrammarNon-compositionality vs. compositionality of language semantics. Non-compositionality as a main principle of Construction Grammar (further CG). Construction Grammar as one of the leading

https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/

http://aquamotion.narod.ru/index-eng.html

http://temperature.ling.su.se/index.php/Main_Page




theories in CL. Brief history and basic goals, tenets, and methods of CG. Construction as a linguistic unit. CG and Lexical Typology. CG and first and second language acquisition: usage-based model. (4 hours, 2 classes)

Basic ReadingBybee, J. 2013. Usage-based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions // T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press.Hoffmann, T. and G. Trousdale. 2013. Construction Grammar: Introduction // T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press.Goldberg, A. 2007. Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language // Evans, V., Bergen, B. and Zinken, J. (eds.) The Cognitive Linguistics Reader.Tomasello, M. 2006. First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition // Geeraerts, D. (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton De Gruyter.http://www.eva.mpg.de/psycho/staff/moll/pdf/Tomasello_et_alll.pdfM. Tomasello. 2007. Cognitive Linguistics and First Language Acquisition // Geeraerts, D. and H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press.

Recommended ReadingGoldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure.University of Chicago Press.Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford University Press.Papers by Bod, Borsley, Crain et al, Croft, Goldberg, Langacker, Lidz, Lieven. 2009. In Cognitive linguistics 20 (1). [Polemics about Construction Grammar]Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press.

Internet Resourceshttp://www.constructiongrammar.org/ — Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics approach to linguistic analysis

6. Beyond (spoken) languageSign language and sign languages. Nonverbal communication and multimodal approach to language. Human language and animal communication. (6 hours, 2 classes)

Basic ReadingCroft, W. 2007. Linguistic selection: an utterance-based evolutionary theory of language change // Evans, V., Bergen, B. and Zinken, J. (eds.) The Cognitive Linguistics Reader.

Recommended ReadingTomasello, M. 2008. Origins of Human Communication. MIT Press.

7. Discussion of students’ projects. (4 hours, 2 classes)


http://www.eva.mpg.de/psycho/staff/moll/pdf/Tomasello_et_alll.pdf




Students prepare group projects, make presentations basing on them and receive peer assessment of their work.

8. Educational Technology

The following educational technologies are used in the study process: group preparation of presentations; group discussion and analysis of the results of home exercises and home reading; group projects; demonstration of cognitive linguistics effects and phenomena in a classroom; case studies.

8.1. Recommendations for course lecturer

Course lecturer is advised to use interactive learning methods, which allow participation of the students, such as discussions, case studies, analysis of scientific papers. It is also expected that PowerPoint presentations (on a par with audio and video materials) are used for the study process. The course should be based on scientific papers, case studies, internet resources and current academic events.

9. Grading

9.1. Provisional Topics for continuous assessment (mini-tests):

Define and give examples to basic terms (e.g., “semantic role”, “prototype”, “landmark”) According to an assigned homework paper, how does the author define metaphors? How

common and how distinct are metaphors and metonymy? Describe how lexical typology works. Give arguments and counter-arguments for the hypothesis of linguistic relativity.

9.2. Provisional questions for final assessment:

Present a schema of conceptualization of jumping in your native language (or your classmate’s language) and justify it.

Present a schema of temperature perception in your native language (or your classmate’s language) and justify it.

10. Reading and Materials

10.1. Basic reading:




Atkins, S. and C. Fillmore. Describing polysemy: the case of crawl. In Polysemy: Linguistic and Computational Approaches, (eds.) Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Boroditsky, L. (in press). Linguistic Relativity. Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. MacMillan Press. http :// www - psych . stanford . edu /~ lera / papers / ECS - proofs . pdf Brugman, C. & G. Lakoff. 2006. Cognitive topology and lexical networks // Geeraerts, Dirk (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton De Gruyter. Chapter 3.Bybee, Joan. Usage-based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions // In Thomas Hoffmann; Graeme Trousdale (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press, 2013.Croft, W. 1990/2003. Typology and Universals. Cambridge University Press. Pp. 1-3, 280-285.Croft, W. 2007. Linguistic selection: an utterance-based evolutionary theory of language change. In The Cognitive Linguistics Reader.Evans, V., Bergen, B. and J. Zinken. 2007. The cognitive linguistics enterprise: an overview. In The Cognitive Linguistics Reader.Fillmore, Charles J. 2006. Frame semantics. In Geeraerts, Dirk (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton De Gruyter. Chapter 10.Fortis, J.-M. 2010. Space in language. Lepzig Summer School. http://htl.linguist.univ-paris-diderot.fr/fortis/leipzig/1.FIGURE_GROUND_FRAMES.pdfGeeraerts, D. 2006. Introduction: A Rough Guide to Cognitive Linguistics // Geeraerts, Dirk (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton De Gruyter.Geeraerts, D. 2006. Prospects and problems of prototype theory // Geeraerts, Dirk (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton De Gruyter. Chapter 4.Everett, D. 2005. Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã // Current Anthropology 46 (4).Geeraerts, D. and H. Cuyckens. 2007. Introducing Cognitive Linguistics // Geeraerts, D. and H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press.Geeraerts, D. Prospects and problems of prototype theory // Geeraerts, Dirk (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton De Gruyter, 2006. Chapter 4.Gibbs, R. 2007. Why Cognitive Linguists Should Care More About Empirical Methods. The cognitive linguistics enterprise: an overview. In The Cognitive Linguistics Reader.Gibbs, R. & H. Colston. 2006. The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations // Geeraerts, Dirk (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton De Gruyter. Chapter 7.Goddard, Cliff. 2001. Lexico-semantic universals: a critical overview // Linguistic typology. 5.1, 1—65.Goldberg, A. 2007. Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language // Evans, V., Bergen, B. and Zinken, J. (eds.) The Cognitive Linguistics Reader.Hoffmann, T. and G. Trousdale. Construction Grammar: Introduction. In Thomas Hoffmann; Graeme Trousdale (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press, 2013.Kemmer, S. About Cognitive Linguistics (URL http://www.cognitivelinguistics.org/cl.shtml)Goldberg, A. 2007. Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language // Evans, V., Bergen, B. and Zinken, J. (eds.) The Cognitive Linguistics Reader.

http://www.cognitivelinguistics.org/cl.shtml



http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/ECS-proofs.pdf




Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., Rakhilina, E. and Vanhove, M. The semantics of lexical typology. To appear in Rimer, Nick (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Semantics.Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. & E. Rakhilina. 2006. "Some like it hot": on semantics of temperature adjectives in Russian and Swedish. STUF (Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung), a special issue on Lexicon in a Typological and Contrastive Perspective, ed. by Giannoulopoulou, G. & T. Leuschner, 59-2: 253 – 269.Levinson, Stephen C. & David P. Wilkins. 2006. Background to the study of the language of space // Levinson, Stephen C. & David P. Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. CUP.Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. University of Chicago Press. [See also its translation into Russian]Lakoff, G. 2006. The contemporary theory of metaphor // Geeraerts, Dirk (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton de Gruyter. Chapter 6.Langacker R. 2006. Concept, image and symbol // Geeraerts, Dirk (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings.Majid, A., Enfield, N.J. and van Staden, M. eds., 2006. Parts of the body: Cross-linguistic categorisation. [Special issue]. Language Sciences, 28(2-3).Majid, A., & Bowerman, M. (eds.). 2007. Cutting and breaking events: A crosslinguistic perspective [Special Issue]. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(2).Rosch, E., Mervis, C., Gray, W., Johnson, D. and Boyes-Braem, P. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 382-439.Talmy, L. 2007. How Language Structures Space // Evans, V., Bergen, B. and Zinken, J. (eds.) The Cognitive Linguistics Reader.Tomasello, M. First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition // Geeraerts, Dirk (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton De Gruyter, 2006. Chapter 12.http://www.eva.mpg.de/psycho/staff/moll/pdf/Tomasello_et_alll.pdfM. Tomasello. 2007. Cognitive Linguistics and First Language Acquisition // Geeraerts, D. and H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press.Vanhove, M. 2008. Semantic associations between sensory modalities, prehension and mental perceptions: A cross-linguistic perspective // Vanhove Martine (ed.), From polysemy to semantic change. John Benjamins.Wierzbicka, A. 2008. Why there are no ‘colour universals’ in language and thought // Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 14 (2).

10.2. Recommended reading:Berlin, B. and P. Kay. 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution.Bickel, B. 2001. What is typology? – Short note. Ms. http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~bickel/research/papers/manifesto.pdf Cognitive linguistics 20 (1). 2009. Papers by Bod, Borsley, Crain et al, Croft, Goldberg, Langacker, Lidz, Lieven. [Polemics about Construction Grammar]Evans, V. & S. Levinson. The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. + discussion. http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FBBS%2FBBS32_05%2FS0140525X09990525a.pdf&code=022e01f33b8143d0cc1b3917051f9ad5



http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~bickel/research/papers/manifesto.pdf

http://www.eva.mpg.de/psycho/staff/moll/pdf/Tomasello_et_alll.pdf




Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Jakobson, R. 1971. Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances. In Selected Writings II.Janda, L. (ed.) 2013. Cognitive Linguistics — The Quantitative Turn. The Essential Reader.Johnson, M. and G. Lakoff. 1980. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., D. Divjak & E. Rakhilina. 2010. Aquamotion verbs in Slavic and Germanic: A case study in lexical typology. In Driagina-Hasko, V. & R. Perelmutter (eds.), New approaches to Slavic verbs of motion. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 315–341.Langacker, R. 2007. An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar. In The Cognitive Linguistics Reader.Langacker R. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. 2008.Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. & S. Levinson (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(3), 108-114.http :// silccenter . org / bibliography _ pdfs / the _ case _ for _ space . pdf Newman, J. (ed.) 1998. The Linguistics of Giving. [Studies in Typological Linguistics 36]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Newman, J. (ed.) 2002. The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing, and Lying. [Studies in Typological Linguistics 51]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Newman, J. (ed.) 2009. The Linguistics of Eating and Drinking. [Studies in Typological Linguistics 84]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Palmer, G. 2007. Cognitive Linguistics and Anthropological Linguistics // Geeraerts, D. and H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press.Pederson, E. 2007. Cognitive Linguistics and Linguistic Relativity // Geeraerts, D. and H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press.Rakhilina, E., 2010. Verbs of rotation in Russian and Polish. In: V. Hasko and R. Perelmutter (eds.), New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 291-314.T. Reznikova, Rakhilina, E. and A. Bonch-Osmolovskaya. 2012. Towards a typology of pain predicates. In Linguistics 50–3, 421–465.Rosch, E. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192-233.Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd (eds.) Cognition and categorization. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 27-48.Senft, Gunter, Asifa Majid & Stephen C. Levinson. 2007. The language of taste // Asifa Majid (ed.), Field Manual Volume 10. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, pp. 42-45.Talmy, L. 2006. The relation of grammar to cognition // Geeraerts, Dirk (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton De Gruyter. Chapter 2.Talmy, L. 2010. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12:49-100.Tomasello, M. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition, Harvard University Press, 2003.Tomasello, M. Origins of Human Communication. MIT Press, 2008.

http://silccenter.org/bibliography_pdfs/the_case_for_space.pdf




Van der Auwera, J. and J. Nuyts. 2007. Cognitive Linguistics and Linguistic Typology // Geeraerts, D. and H. Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press.Viberg, Å., 1984. The verbs of perception: A typological study. In: B. Butterworth, B. Comrie and Ö. Dahl, eds., 1984. Explanations for Language Universals, Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton, pp. 123-162.

(in Russian) Скребцова, Т.Г. Когнитивная лингвистика: Курс лекций. СПбГУ, 2011. Главы 1-4.

10.3. Useful Internet resources (including corpora):Study Cognitive Linguistics — http://www.cognitivelinguistics.org/study.shtmlDavid Lee’s for Corpus-based Linguists — http://tiny.cc/corporaGries, Stefan Th. 2009. What is corpus linguistics? Language and Linguistics Compass 3, 1-17 — http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/research/2009_STG_CorpLing_LangLingCompass.pdf Some links to learn more about the Pirahã language — http://edge.org/conversation/recursion-and-human-thought, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/mar/25/daniel-everett-human-language-piraha http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/ — Presupposition. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophyhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts/ — Speech Acts. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophyhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/ — Implicature. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophyhttp://www.constructiongrammar.org/ — Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics approach to linguistic analysishttp://temperature.ling.su.se/index.php/Main_Page — A lexical typology research project into the fascinating world of temperature terms in the world's languages http://aquamotion.narod.ru/index-eng.html — Lexical typology of predicates denoting motion in a liquid mediumhttps://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/ — FrameNethttp://www.constructiongrammar.org/ — Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics approach to linguistic analysishttp://corpus.byu.edu/coca/ — Corpus of Contemporary American (COCA)http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/ — British National Corpushttp://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/index.html — Russian National Corpus

(in Russian) Лингвистическая типология — http://krugosvet.ru/enc/gumanitarnye_nauki/lingvistika/TIPOLOGIYA_LINGVISTICHESKAYA.html

10.4. Course telemaintenance



http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en/index.html

http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/

http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/


https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/

http://aquamotion.narod.ru/index-eng.html

http://temperature.ling.su.se/index.php/Main_Page


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/







http://tiny.cc/corpora

http://www.cognitivelinguistics.org/study.shtml




All material of the discipline are posted in informational educational milieu of NRU HSE LMS (http://lms.hse.ru). Students are provided with links to recourses, tests, electronic books, papers, etc.

11.Equipment

The course requires a laptop, projector, and acoustic systems.

http://exchange.hse.ru/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://lms.hse.ru


Documents

· Web viewPrototype theory (Eleanor Rosch) and its relevance for CL. Idealized Cognitive Models (George Lakoff). FrameNet (Charles Fillmore). CL and Lexical Typology (further LT):