Introduction to the journal

Cognitive Semantics, a peer-reviewed international journal,  takes the relationship between meaning and mind as its central concern. It welcomes submission of unpublished research from all theoretical orientations in linguistics. It is also intended to be a forum for scholars in related fields--such as psychology, anthropology, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, philosophy, and education--to disseminate their work studying the many and varied aspects of human cognition.

eISSN: 2352-6416

Print ISSN: 2352-6408

Publisher: Brill, The Netherlands

Journal homepage

https://www.editorialmanager.com/COSEBRILL/default.aspx

COGNITIVE SEMANTICS

Volume 6, Number 2, 2020

Table of Contens

■ FIRST

Semantic Unilocality

Leonard Talmy (Department of Linguistics and Center for Cognitive Science, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, USA)

Pages: 131-169

Abstract

    If a language regularly places a particular closed class in syntactic construction with an open class—for example, nominal affixes with noun roots, or satellites with verbs— any conceptual category expressed by the closed class tends not to be expressed by the open class. This proposed tendency is here called “semantic unilocality”.

     Cognitively, semantic unilocality in language may arise from several more general tendencies, including one to avoid redundancy and one to segregate the representa­tion of different conceptual categories. Both of these may in turn arise from a still more general tendency toward communicative efficiency.

   Historically, the rise, extended presence, decline, or extended absence of a closed class that expresses a particular conceptual category may foster certain diachronic processes in a syntactically associated open class. These processes include leaching, culling, shift, filtering, and abstention.

■  SECOND 

Diffferences in Sameness: A Semantic Account of Ambiguity and Argument Structure of Predicate Same

Syelle Graves (Department of Linguistics, Graduate Center of the City University of New York, USA)

Pages: 170-187

Abstract

     This article is an investigation and analysis of the word same. It focuses first on the ambiguous nature of same, in that the same x can be (i) one entity seen on different occasions, or (ii) two different entities of the same kind. I discuss the empirical differ¬ences associated with these two readings, and hypothesize that they can be explained in terms of the formal semantic concepts of extension and intension: Reading (i) is extensional while reading (ii) is intensional (a “kind of” reading). In addition, I suggest that the two readings do not mean that there are two completely different meanings to same, but rather that the reading of same is determined by context and the nouns be¬ing modified by it; indeed, this polysemy exists largely below the speaker’s conscious awareness. I then provide a formal representation of the syntax and semantics of same as a two-place predicate. I show that when either of the two arguments we expect to be obligatory is not overt, it is because same has undergone a derivation to license this null argument—one derivation type in extensional cases of same, and a different deri¬vation in intensional cases.

■ THIRD 

An Event Conflation Model based on the Realization Event

Xinyan Kou and Jill Hohenstein (Beijing Royal School, Beijing, China; King’s College London, London, England)

Pages: 188-213

Abstract

    In this theoretical analysis, we first identify four event components essential to the conceptualization of Realization – manner salience, agentivity, the intended result and the real-world result. We move on to establish an event conflation model which reflects their interplay in an attempt to outline the speech generation mechanisms behind different lexicalization patterns. By offering alternative interpretations for some well-established findings in the Motion domain from the Realization perspec¬tive, we also explore the possibility of applying unified analysis to different macro-event types.

■ FOURTH 

‘Changing’ and ‘Becoming’: New Perspectives from Cross-Linguistic Cognitive Semantics

Gian Marco Farese (Researcher in Linguistics, School of Literature, Languages and Linguistics, Australian National University, 110 Ellery Crescent, 2601 Canberra, Australia; Research Associate in Linguistics, The Smith Institute for Political Economy and Philosophy, Chapman University, 92866 Orange (CA), USA)

Pages: 214-242

Abstract

   This paper examines the conceptual and semantic relation between ‘changing’ and ‘becoming’ in cross-linguistic perspective to demonstrate that: (i) the assumption that ‘becoming’ is conceptually and semantically related to ‘changing’ is invalidated in at least two cases in which the meaning of ‘becoming’ does not encompass ‘changing’; (ii) the main verbs of ‘becoming’ in different languages are highly polysemous and therefore are not cross-translatable in all contexts of use; (iii) differences in meaning reflect different conceptualizations of ‘becoming’ across languages. These results emerge from a contrastive semantic analysis between the main verbs of ‘changing’ and ‘becoming’ in English, Italian and Japanese made adopting the methodology of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage. This paper also makes a strong case for the epistemic nature of the predicative complements licensed by verbs of ‘becoming’ by showing that a semantic component ‘it is like this, I know it’ emerges consistently from cross-linguistic comparison.

■ FIFTH

Mathematics in Language

Richard Hudson (University College London, London, England)

Pages: 243-278

Abstract

    Elementary mathematics is deeply rooted in ordinary language, which in some respects anticipates and supports the learning of mathematics, but which in other re¬spects hinders this learning. This paper explores a number of areas of arithmetic and other elementary areas of mathematics, considering for each area whether it helps or hinders the young learner: counting and larger numbers, sets and brackets, algebra and variables, zero and negation, approximation, scales and relationships, and probability. The conclusion is that ordinary language anticipates the mathematics of counting, arithmetic, algebra, variables and brackets, zero and probability; but that negation, approximation and probability are particularly problematic because mathematics de¬mands a different way of thinking, and different mental capacity, compared with ordi¬nary language. School teachers should be aware of the mathematics already built into language so as to build on it; and they should also be able to offer special help in the conflict zones.