认知语言学课程教学大纲
课程名称：认知语言学
英文名称：Cognitive Linguistics
总学时：32 理论学时： 实验学时：32 总学分：2
教学目的：
通过课堂讲授、专题研讨和课程论文相结合等方式让学生掌握认知语言学的研究对象、基本概念和理论，了解认知语言学这一领域和相关学科中已有的研究成果，掌握其研究方法。本课程要求学生阅读参考书目，写出读书报告及课程论文。
课程内容、教学方式、教学要求及学时分配：
Week 1
1 Introducing the study of the human mind and language ( 3 hours)
Introduction to Cognitive Science and Cognitive Linguistics. Outline of earlier thought, leading to Rosch’s work on categorization. Notions of family resemblances, basic-level categories, prototypes.
1.1 Cognitive Science and Cognitive Linguistics: an introduction
1.2 A brief history of what has been thought and written about language, thought, and conceptualization (to the 1970s). (Women, Fire, Dangerous Things 1-46)
1.3 Basic-level categories and Prototypes. (Women, Fire, Dangerous Things 46-90)
{Assign: Homework 1: “Categories vs prototypes”}
Discussion sections: (1hours)
Week 2
2 Categorization ( 3 hours)
More on categorization: the organisation of concepts. Getting familiar with hedges, frames, radial categories, contested concepts. Beyond semantics: the value of these notions in analysing socio-cultural phenomena.
2.1 Frames (Fillmore 1982, {+}Petruck 1996)
2.2 Frames, folk theories, cognitive models. (Women, Fire, Dangerous Things 91-135; {Due: Homework 1: “Categories vs prototypes”}
2.3 Image-schematic cognitive models, force dynamics. (Talmy 1988)
{Assign: Homework 2: “Frames”}
2.4 ICMs, radial categories. (review Women, Fire, Dangerous Things 91-135). Contested concepts ({+}Gallie 1956)
Discussion sections: (1hours)
Week 3
3 Metonymy and metaphor ( 3 hours)
Introduction to metonymy and metaphor. Are metaphors linguistic or conceptual? What is metonymy? The relation between metaphor and metonymy, and its significance beyond linguistics.
3.1 Introduction to Metaphor. (Metaphors we live by 1-40)
{Due: Home assignment 2: “Frames”}
3.2 Metonymy. (Kövecses and Radden 1998; review Women, Fire, Dangerous Things, chapter 5)
{Assign: Home assignm. 3: “Metaphor/Metonymy”}
3.3 Metaphor: a few more complexities. (Metaphors we live by 41-106). Discussion of case study 1 in Women, Fire, Dangerous Things, 380-415
Discussion sections: (1hours)
Week 4
4 How does our improved understanding concern grammar? ( 3 hours)
The basic notions concerning the mechanisms of categorization and conceptualization may appear to apply most easily to lexical semantics. Their far more general relevance for language will be illustrated in several domains: topologies, perceptions, semantic change.
4.1 Topologies: Conceptualizing Space. (Women, Fire, Dangerous Things 416-461 )
4.2 Polysemy and diachronic change. (Sweetser 1988)
4.3 Perceptions. (Evans and Wilkins 2000)
{Due: Home assignment 3: “Metaphor/Metonymy”}
4.4 Mappings. (chapters 2-4: The Way We Think, 17-73) How do mappings come into existence? What is the relationship between metonymy & metaphor?
{Assign: Homework 4: “Mental Spaces”}
Discussion sections: (1hours)
Week 5
5 Mental Spaces and Blending: The way we think ( 3 hours)
Familiarization with more recent research on mental spaces, blendings and compression as relevant notions in different areas: from space-building and mapping as a core-linguistic process to its significance in literature and the social sciences.
5.1 Mappings. (Chapter 1, Mappings in Thought and Language)
5.2 Blends. (Chapters 6-7: The Way We Think, 89-137; Chapter 6, Mappings in Thought and Language)
5.3 Compression. (Sweetser 1999)
5.4 Beyond linguistics. (Chapters 14-15: The Way We Think, 279-308)
Discussion sections: (1hours)
Week 6
6 Space ( 3 hours)
The grammar of space. Acquisition of spatial notions: experiential basis. Observable variation across languages and cultures: Illustrate the (potential) tension between embodiment and linguistic relativism.
{Due: Homework 4: “Mental Spaces”}
6.1 Spatial concepts in language acquisition. (Bowerman, Melissa 1996; {+}Casad and Langacker 1985, {+}Bowerman and Choi 2003)
{Assign: Homework 5: “Space in conceptualisation and cognition”}
6.2 Experiential bases of spatial notions. (Vandeloise 1999)
6.3 Spatial orientation. (Levinson: Space in Language and Cognition, chapters 1 and 2)
6.4 Linguistic diversity as a challenge for cognitivists. The example of space. (Chapter 3 in Levinson, Space in Language and Cognition; chapter 4 {+})
Discussion sections: (1hours)
Week 7
7 Commonalities and variation across languages ( 3 hours)
Coming back to the question of the relation of thought, language and culture: linguistic relativism in more detail. Methodological issues.
{Due: Homework 5: “Space in conceptualisation and cognition”}
7.1 Interdependence of language and thought: a methodological dilemma. (Chapter 5 Space in Language and Cognition; Boroditsky 2001)
{Assign: Final}
7.2 Linguistic relativity and mental processing, memory, translation. (Slobin 2003)
7.3 Experientialists on linguistic relativism. (Women, Fire, Dangerous Things, 304-337)
7.4 Language and thought. (Chapter 7 Space in Language and Cognition)
Discussion sections: (1hours)
Week 8
8 Synopsis ( 3 hours)
Focussing on synopsis. Where do we stand in terms of relativism? The achievement of having a realistic way to deal with semantics. And, finally, how is language construed in folk models and scientific theories?
8.1 Linguistic relativism in view of recent insights by cognitive linguists. (Clark 2003. ‘Languages and Representations’; Levinson 2003: ‘Language and Mind: Let’s get the issues straight!’; Tomasello 2003. ‘The key is social cognition’)
8.2 Cognitively realistic semantics. (Langacker 1997)
8.3 Folk theories and the scientific models of language. (Love 1995)
{Due: Final}
Week 9 (3hours)
8.4 Final Project Presentations#1 (1.5hours)
8.5 Final Project Presentations#2 (1.5hours)
Discussion sessions (total 5hours)
Lectures (32hours)
Assessment
The course assessment constitutes two parts: a written examination with the aim of assessing the students’ mastery of the basic concepts and models discussed in the course, and a 4000-word paper with the aim of assessing the learner’s competence of conducting practical cognitive analysis. The paper can be an experiment proposal, a description of empirical work you've done (i.e. an experiment or a modeling project), or a review paper. Papers are due at the beginning of the exam period, and each student will give a brief presentation of her or his paper (approximately 10 minutes). Both the paper and exam should be completed by the end of the course. The grading will take into account your lecture and section attendance and participation. (5 homeworks: 40%; take-home final: 30%; attendance/participation 10%；final exam 20%)
Assignments
There will be five written homework assignments. They will be announced in class and will be posted on the course website. The due dates are fixed—this is absolutely necessary in the summer session due to time constraints. Homeworks must be handed in at the beginning of the lecture of the due date. Assignments handed in later cannot be accepted.
Working groups
This course is cooperative, not competitive. You will not be graded on a curve. It has proved helpful to form small working groups and discuss home works. However, homeworks have to be written up individually. When you form your groups, make sure they are diverse. It is very helpful to have fellow students from disciplines other than your own in your group. Each written assignment that you hand in should have the names of the people you cooperate with in the header. It is important to quote not only the written sources that you may consult, but also the important input of others in your working group.
适用专业：英语语言文学
先修课程：普通语言学
教 材：自编讲义，董剑桥，
参考 书：
Texts
1. Dedre Gentner and Susan Goldin-Meadow (eds.) 2003. Language in Mind. Advances in the Study of Language and Thought.
2. Dirven, R. and M. Verspoor (eds.) 1998. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics.
3. Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner 2002. The Way We Think. The mind’s hidden complexities.
4. Lakoff, George 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things.
5. Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity.
Course reader
(Recommended reading marked with {+}; the rest is required!)
6. Boroditsky, Lera 2001. Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers conception of time. Cognitive Psychology 43: 1-22.
7. Bowerman, Melissa 1996. ‘Learning how to structure space for language: A crosslinguistic perspective. Chapter 10 of Language and Space eds. Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel, and Merrill F. Garrett.
8. Bowerman, Melissa & Soonja Choi 2003. Space under Construction. Language-specific spatial categorization in First Language acquisition. In: Dedre Gentner and Susan Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in Mind. Advances in the Study of Language and Thought.
9. Casad, Eugene & Ronald W. Langacker 1985. ‘“Inside” and “Outside” in Cora Grammar. International Journal of American Linguistics 51(3): 247-281. {+}
10. Clark, Eve V. 2003. ‘Languages and Representations’. In: D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in Mind. Advances in the Study of Language and Thought.
11. Evans, Nicholas & David Wilkins 2000. ‘In the mind’s ear: the semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages’. Language 76(3): 546-592.
12. Fauconnier, Gilles 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language.
13. Fillmore, Charles 1982. ‘Frame semantics’. In: Linguistics in the Morning Calm.
14. Gallie, W. B. 1956. ‘Essentially contested concepts’. Proceedings of the Philosophical Society, vol. 51.
15. Heine, Bernd 1995. ‘Conceptual grammaticalization and prediction’. In: J. R. Taylor & R.E. MacLaury (eds.), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World, 119-135. {+}
16. Kay, Paul & Luisa Maffi 2000. ‘Color appearance and the emergence and evolution of basic color lexicons’. American Anthropologist 101(4): 743-760. {+}
17. Kövecses, Zoltán & Günter Radden 1998 ‘Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic view’ Cognitive Linguistics 9(1): 37-77.
18. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago/London:
19. Langacker, Ronald W. 1997. ‘The contextual basis of cognitive semantics’. In: Jan Nuyts & Eric Pederson (eds.), Language and conceptualization, 229-252.
20. Levinson, Stephen C. 2003: ‘Language and Mind: Let’s get the issues straight!’ In: Dedre Gentner and Susan Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in Mind. Advances in the Study of Language and Thought.
21. Love, Nigel 1995. ‘On construing the world of language’. In: J.R. Taylor & R. MacLaury (eds.), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World, 377-389.
22. Mervis, Carolyn & Eleanor Rosch 1981. ‘Categorization of natural objects’. Annual Review of Psychology 32: 89-115.
23. Petruck, Miriam R. L. 1996. ‘Frame semantics’. In: J. Verschueren, J.-O. Ostman, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. {+}
24. Radden, Günter 1997: ‘Time is space’. In: B. Smieja & M. Tasch (eds.), Human Contact through Language and Linguistics. Frankfurt etc.: Lang, 147-166. {+}
25. Slobin, Dan 2003: Language and thought online. Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In: D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in Mind. Advances in the Study of Language and Thought.
26. Sweetser, Eve 1987 ‘The definition of Lie’ In
27. Sweetser, Eve 1988. ‘Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching’. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the BLS.
28. Sweetser, Eve 1999. ‘Compositionality and blending: semantic composition in a cognitively realistic framework. Theo Janssen and Gisela Redeker (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology.
29. Talmy, Leonard 1988. ‘Force dynamics in language and thought’. Cognitive Science 12: 49-100.
30. Tomasello, Michael 2003. ‘The key is social cognition’. In: Dedre Gentner and Susan Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in Mind. Advances in the Study of Language and Thought.
31. Vandeloise, Claude 1999. Containment, support, and linguistic relativity’. In: Hubert Cuyckens, René Dirven, John R. Taylor (eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics.
32. 程琪龙，《认知语言学概论—语言的神经认知基础》，北京，外语教学与研究出版社，2001
Some Cognitive Linguistics Related Web Sites:
International Cognitive Linguistics Association (ICLA)
Mark Turner (Cognitive Linguistics, Blending, Metaphor)
Gilles Fauconnier (Cognitive Linguistics, Blending, Mental Spaces, Metaphor)
William Croft (Cognitive Linguistics, Radical Construction Grammar)
Laura Janda (Cognitive Linguistics, Slavic Linguistics)
Anna Wierzbicka and Cliff Goddard (Natural Semantic Metalanguage)
Charles Fillmore(FrameNet)
Paul Kay (color research, frame semantics, construction grammar)
Adele Goldberg (Construction grammar)
Antonio Damasio (Neuroscience)
Michael Tomasello (child language acquisition)
Christopher Johnson (Construction Grammar, FrameNet)
Steven L. Small (Neurology and Brain Research Imaging Center)
Lawrence Zbikowski (Music and Cognitive Science)
Seana Coulson (Cognitive Linguistics, Blending)
Last updated
考核方式：书面测试，课程论文
考试权重：课程论文30 %；课末考试 70 %
大纲撰写人：董剑桥
