Approaches to Language, Culture, and Cognition

Home , Cognitive anthropology

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Selection, introduction and editorial content © Masataka Yamaguchi, Dennis Tay, and Benjamin Blount 2014 Remaining chapters © Contributors 2014 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2014 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN 978–1–137–27481–6 This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Approaches to language, culture, and cognition : the intersection of cognitive linguistics and linguistic anthropology / edited by Masataka Yamaguchi, University of Queensland, Australia ; Dennis Tay, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China ; Benjamin Blount, SocioEcological Informatics, US. pages cm “This book developed out of an international symposium titled “Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition: Towards an Integration of Language, Culture and Cognition” at the University of Otago, New Zealand, 21-22 January 2011.” Summary: “The study of language, culture, and cognition has become increasingly fragmented into separate disciplines and paradigms. This volume aims to re-establish dialogue between cognitive linguists and linguistic anthropologists with 11 original papers on language, culture and cognition, and an editorial introduction. It demonstrates that cognitively-informed perspectives can contribute to a better understanding of social, cultural, and historical phenomena, and argues that cognitive theories are relevant to linguistic anthropology. “— Provided by publisher. ISBN 978–1–137–27481–6 (hardback) 1. Cognitive grammar. 2. Psycholinguistics. 3. Language and culture. 4. Anthropological linguistics. I. Yamaguchi, Masataka, 1968- editor. II. Tay, Dennis, editor. III. Blount, Ben G., 1940- editor. IV. University of Otago. Department of Languages and Cultures. P165.A68 2014 306.44—dc23 2014024391

Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India. Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

Contents

List of Figures and Tables vii Acknowledgments ix Notes on Contributors x

1 Introduction: Approaches to Language, Culture, and Cognition 1 Masataka Yamaguchi, Dennis Tay, and Benjamin Blount Part I Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Language and Culture 2 Culture and Cognition, Lexicon and Grammar 27 Ronald W. Langacker 3 Deliteralization and the Birth of ‘Emotion’ 50 Dirk Geeraerts 4 ‘Overthrowing’ Yesterday’s ICM: (Re)focusing of Meaning in a Hong Kong Chinese (Cantonese) Constructional Idiom 68 Kam-yiu S. Pang Part II Cultural Linguistic Approaches to Language and Culture 5 Advances in Cultural Linguistics 99 Farzad Sharifian 6 Sloppy Selfhood: Metaphor, Embodiment, Animism, and Anthropomorphization in Japanese Language and Culture 124 Debra J. Occhi 7 The Ceremonial Origins of Language 145 Gary B. Palmer, Jennifer Thompson, Jeffrey Parkin, and Elizabeth Harmon

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 vi Contents

Part III Intersection of Cognitive Linguistics and Linguistic Anthropology 8 On Intersubjective Co- construction of Virtual Space through Multimodal Means: A Case of Japanese Route- Finding Discourse 181 Kuniyoshi Kataoka 9 Discovering Shared Understandings in Discourse: Prototypes and Stereotypes 217 Masataka Yamaguchi 10 Experiences as Resources: Metaphor and Life in Late Modernity 234 Lionel Wee 11 An Analysis of Metaphor Hedging in Psychotherapeutic Talk 251 Dennis Tay Part IV Summary and Future Directions 12 Situating Cultural Models in History and Cognition 271 Benjamin Blount

Glossary 299 Index 303

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

1 Introduction: Approaches to Language, Culture, and Cognition Masataka Yamaguchi, Dennis Tay, and Benjamin Blount

1.1 Why language, culture, and cognition now?

By recognizing that the study of language, culture, and cognition has been fragmented into separate disciplines and paradigms (see Beller, Bender, and Medin, 2012; Kronenfeld, Bennardo, de Munck, and Fischer, 2011), we aim to re- establish dialogue between cognitive linguistics and linguistic anthropology in order to advance our understanding of the relationship among language, culture, and cognition (see Blount, 1995[1974]; Blount and Sanches, 1977; Casson, 1981; Dougherty, 1985; Giglioli, 1972; Gumperz and Hymes, 1972; Sanches and Blount, 1975 for earlier attempts). This volume particularly highlights the ways in which cognitive linguistics can contribute to a better understanding of cultural and social phenomena. In so doing, it aims to provide insights into the theory and practice of linguistic anthropology, which has been mainly concerned with ‘the cultural contextualization and social uses of language, and … the acquisition of communicative competence’ (Keesing, 1992: 604; also see Duranti, 2001, 2009). In linguistic anthropology, however, ‘[t]here is much work to be done on exploring languages as conceptual systems’, as Roger M. Keesing (1992: 605) points out. We take this suggestion seriously, even after more than two decades has passed since 1992 (and we will come back to this point at the end of this chapter). At the same time we also draw explicit attention to the reciprocal contributions that cognitive linguistics and linguistic anthropology can make toward each other in both conceptual and empirical terms, which we hope will provoke further thought and discussions. For these purposes, the volume collects empirical papers that demonstrate ways of integrating language, culture, and cognition through actual analyses of discourse, as well as

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

2 Approaches to Language, Culture, and Cognition showcasing the ways in which cognitive linguistic approaches to grammar, semantics, and metaphor are useful for investigating sociocultural and historical issues (see Section 1.3). As noted, this collection draws on cognitive linguistics and other cognitive theories, including cognitive anthropology (e.g., Brown, 2006; D’Andrade, 1995; Shore, 1996; Strauss and Quinn, 1997) while covering diverse topics. The eleven chapters that follow are arranged in terms of theoretical orientations: Part I (Cognitive Linguistic Approaches) consists of three chapters that represent foundational cognitive linguistic approaches (Langacker; Geeraerts; Pang); Part II (Cultural Linguistic Approaches) contains three chapters that intro- duce what Cultural Linguistics is (Sharifian) and illustrate the field by two case studies (Occhi and Palmer et al.); Part III (Intersections of Cognitive Linguistics and Linguistic Anthropology) collects four chapters (Kataoka; Yamaguchi; Wee; Tay) that are located at the intersections of cognitive linguistics and linguistic anthropology. All of the authors in Part III show commitment to empirical analyses of discourse data. The volume concludes with a historical overview, current trends, and future directions for integrating language, culture and cognition (Blount). For the rest of this introductory chapter, we list existing significant collections as precursors, which point to both uniqueness and continuity of this collection (see Section 1.2). We then present an overview of this volume and the connections and cross- readings of the chapters. Finally we conclude with a call for further investigations of language, culture, and cognition against the backdrop of the current trend in linguistic anthropology (see Section 1.3).

1.2 Language, culture, and cognition: precursors

Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter to review the vast amount of the literature on this topic, which necessarily makes our selection highly selective, we should recognize several collections as significant contributions in the history of the field of language, culture, and cognition. We only list edited collections that are directly relevant to this volume. First of all, Language, Culture, and Society: A Book of Readings, edited by Ben G. Blount (1995), should be noted as a synthetic volume that has implications for framing the study of cognition in the history of linguistic anthropology. It is an expanded version of his earlier collection (1974), which divides the study of language, culture, and society into three historical periods (cf. Duranti, 2003): the 1910–1940s as the formative period, in which Boas, Sapir, and Whorf played a major

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

Introduction 3 role; the 1950s–1970s as the period of paradigm development; and 1980s–1990s as the period of new directions (Blount, 1995). Among the ten selected articles published between the 1950s and 1970s, three papers fall within the category of cognitive anthropology and linguistics (Charles O. Frake’s ‘The Ethnographic Study of Cognitive Systems’ in 1962, and his ‘How to Enter a Yakan House’ in 1975[1964], and Brent Berlin’s ‘Speculations on the Growth of Ethnobotanical Nomenclature’ in 1972). A foundational linguistic/semiotic anthropological paper, ‘Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description’ (Silverstein, 1976), occupies a prominent place by synthesizing the cognitive papers with the other sociocultural and sociolinguistic articles (see Blount, 1995: 106–107, for an explication). Blount’s collection is also notable in that he selects cognitive anthropological/linguistic papers, which were published after 1980s (Eugene Hunn’s ‘Ethnoecology: The Relevance of Cognitive Anthropology for Human Ecology’ in 1989, and Paul Kay, Brent Berlin, and William Merrifield’s ‘Biocultural Implications of Systems of Color Naming’ in 1991), as well as a linguistic anthropological paper ‘Whorf’s View of the Linguistic Mediation of Thought’ by John A. Lucy in 1985. If we follow Duranti’s (2003) vision of the three paradigms, the period of paradigm development between 1950s and 1970s should have no ‘classic’ cognitive papers. However, cognitive lines of inquiry in linguistic anthropology were alive and well throughout the 1970s, into the 1980s–1990s (Berlin, 1992), and at present (Beller and Bender, 2011; Hunn, 2006; Kronenfeld, 2008; Strauss, 2006; cf. Silverstein, 2004, 2007). Thus, we might question the statement ‘language was no longer a window on the human mind … Rather it was primarily a social phenomenon, to be studied … in the midst of speech events or speech activities’ in 1970s and 1980s (Duranti, 2003: 329, italics in the original). We agree, of course, that language is fundamentally social, but to say that it is not a ‘window on the human mind’ seems unnecessarily restrictive. Social activity cannot occur in the absence of a coordinated nervous system, even among eusocial animals. Among humans, language has to be cognitively based and, moreover, is a major avenue of inquiry into how social and cultural phenomena are processed and integrated in the brain. Marginalization of cognition within linguistic anthropology, however, has been an unfortunate trend for several decades. Cognition in linguistics has not been subject to the same marginalization. In linguistic anthropology, views about its marginal status are related to developments in the 1970s (see Blount, 2011; Quinn, 2011). Decomposition of lexical items within domains, e.g., kinship,

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

4 Approaches to Language, Culture, and Cognition was pursued from the late 1960s as a way of searching for underlying features of organization. The arrangement of underlying features, or components, was originally thought to have psychological validity. The components upon which classification was based were considered to be units upon which cognition operated, but by the late 1970s that view was known to be inadequate, requiring modification. As in linguistics (Fillmore, 1975; Taylor, 2003[1989]), feature analyses gave way to prototype perspectives (Rosch, 1973), producing new directions in cognitive anthropology. An early success was in color term research (Berlin and Kay, 1969), but other successes followed, in particular the concept of cultural models. Marginalization of cognition in linguistic anthropology came about, in part, through an erroneous equation of lexical classificational analyses (componential analysis) to cognition in language in general. Cognitive approaches in linguistic anthropology have been portrayed, incorrectly, as a continuation of the formal lexical analyses, thereby rendering them as deficient and marginal. That point of view unfor- tunately became widespread. The incorrect reading of cognition and language within linguistic anthropology has been previously noted and discussed in a number of publications. Strauss and Quinn (1997), for example, addressed the problem in detail and serves as a good source for historical contextualization of the issue. We return to this topic at the end of this chapter. Among the most widely known topics in the study of language, culture, and cognition is the linguistic relativity hypothesis also known as the ‘Whorfian Hypothesis’. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, edited by John J. Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson (1996), is an authoritative and com- prehensive collection of publications since the late 1960s and early 1970s, in which the idea of linguistic relativity was ignored at best and dismissed at worst. Known as the ‘neo- Whorfian movement’ (Lucy, 1992; Silverstein, 1979), the theory and methods for investigating the issue of linguistic relativity is refined by taking typological universals into account. The Gumperz and Levinson volume points to the necessity to study language, culture, and cognition from a broadly ethnographic perspective of observing and recording ordinary usages (‘fashions of speaking’) in cultural context, com- bined with psychological experiments for testing the relativity hypothesis. Some of the findings from the neo- Whorfian approach to spatial cognition (Levinson, 1996, 2006a) are utilized by Kataoka (Chapter 8),who combines them with multimodal discourse analysis in this volume. Naomi Quinn’s discourse- oriented approach to cultural models is entitled Finding Culture in Talk: A Collection of Methods (2005), a volume

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

Introduction 5 mainly written for graduate students in cultural anthropology. Technical details in linguistics are not explored in depth, although the linguistically sophisticated analyses made by Jane Hill (2005a) and by Claudia Strauss (2005) are informative even for seasoned cognitive linguists. In relation to this current volume, Yamaguchi and Blount are particularly inspired by the cognitive anthropological notion of ‘culture’ as ‘shared knowledge’ among a socio- culturally defined group of people, which was proposed by Goodenough (1957). In Chapter 4, Sharifian also describes the recent conceptual developments of Cultural Linguistics, which are partly influenced by cognitive anthropology. Furthermore, in Chapter 12, Blount refines the meaning of ‘sharing’ from a cognitive anthropological perspective (see Section 1.3). Another volume that makes strong contributions to linguistic relativity is Language, Culture, and Society: Key Topics in Linguistic Anthropology, edited by Christine Jourdan and Kevin Tuite (2006). The publication is from the Cambridge University Press series of ‘Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language’, and it contains four chapters written by notable experts (John Leavitt, Regna Darnell, Penny Brown, and Paul Kay). This volume also features eminent linguistic anthropologists such as Monica Heller, Elinor Ochs, Bambi Schieffelin, and Paul Friedrich. The editors, however, did not intend to integrate the contributions in either conceptual or empirical terms. They did not, in other words, make an effort to bring cognitive consideration into play. One of the chapters in the current volume, however, shows how important an integration can be in those terms. In Chapter 6, Occhi draws on Friedrich’s conceptualization of ‘ethnopoetics’ in her cognitive linguistic analysis of metaphors in lyrics (cf. Lakoff, 1993). By this combination, she confronts and manages ‘the dilemma of poetic nuance versus universals, the role of tropes or figures, [and] the harmonization of verbal art and scientific approaches’ (Friedrich, 2006: 207). In linguistic anthropology, Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction, edited by N. J. Enfield and Stephen C. Levinson (2006), needs to be acknowledged. It covers the diverse topics of ‘Properties of Human Interaction’, ‘Psychological Foundations’, ‘Culture and Sociality’, ‘Cognition in Interaction’, and ‘Evolutionary Perspectives’ in a well- balanced and synthetic manner. The collection shows not only depth and breadth but the continuity of the study of cognition in linguistic anthropology and related disciplines, including psychology. With reference to this present collection, Kataoka develops some of the conceptual tools for analyzing interaction, proposed by such contributors as Schegloff, C. Goodwin, Hutchins, and Enfield, in Enfield and

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

6 Approaches to Language, Culture, and Cognition

Levinson (2006). Also, in Chapter 12, Blount places his proposal for ‘neurocultural cognitive models’ within an evolutionary framework (see Sperber, 2006). Calls for greater attention on culture and interaction have also resounded across cognitive linguistics, with many upholding the posi- tion that these variables should, or have always occupied a central place in cognitive linguistic theorization (e.g., Geeraerts and Grondelaers, 1995; Kövecses, 2005; Lakoff and Johnson, 1999). An early collection, Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics (1997), edited by Wolf-Andreas Liebert, Gisela Redeker, and Linda Waugh, examined how interactional phenomena such as modal expressions, focus particles, and tag questions are both sites of application and enrichment for cognitive linguistic constructs including metaphor and Cognitive Grammar. Sociocultural and interactional perspectives are also prominent within what are traditionally regarded as independent branches of cognitive linguistics. Langacker (2001), for instance, demonstrated that the seem- ingly abstract analytic units of Cognitive Grammar are able to provide a coherent framework for contextually driven discourse analysis. Within the province of conceptual metaphor theory, the study of how context, culture, and interaction shape the characteristics and use of metaphors is a programmatic and ongoing strand of research (Cameron, Maslen, Todd, Maule, Stratton and Stanley, 2009; Gibbs, 1999; Kövecses, 2009; Steen, 2011, among others), which exemplifies the presently envisioned intersection between cognitive linguistics and linguistic anthropology. A recent series of collections which include Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics, edited by Dirk Geeraerts, Gitte Kristiansen, and Yves Peirsman (2010), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Vyvyan Evans and Stéphanie Pourcel (2009), and Body, Language, and Mind, edited by Roslyn Frank, René Dirven, Tom Ziemke, and Enrique Bernárdez (2008), have gone on to articulate how this intersection is realizable in different ways. The papers in Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics explore the ‘interplay between conceptual meaning and variationist factors’ (Geeraerts, Kristiansen, and Peirsman, 2010: 1). On the one hand, the notion of sociolinguistic variation should inhere in cognitive linguistic constructs, if the latter claims to be derived from abstractions over socially situated instances of language use. On the other hand, cognitive linguistics may enrich sociolinguistic inquiry by providing insights into the ‘meaningfulness’ of linguistic variation; i.e., how speakers them- selves construe and make sense of the fact of variation. The papers in New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics survey state- of-the- art research and propose new frontiers in different branches

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

Introduction 7 of cognitive linguistics such as metaphor, blending, embodiment, and grammar. Among the proposed new frontiers, Croft’s (2009) argument for a ‘social cognitive linguistics’ reinforces the point that cognitive linguists must ‘go outside the head and incorporate a social- interactional perspective on the nature of language’ (Croft, 2009: 395). The papers in Body, Language, and Mind span two volumes and elaborate on the notions of embodiment, together with what is referred to as ‘sociocultural situatedness’. This is defined as ‘the ways in which individual minds and cognitive processes are shaped by their interaction with sociocultural structures and practices’ (Frank, 2008: 1). The traditional char- acterization of cognitive structures and schemas residing in individual minds, and their corresponding relations with linguistic structure and use, is thus broadened to, and examined at, the collective sociocultural level. Taken together, these collections reaffirm the complex interplay between language, culture, and cognition, and provide some concrete directions for future research from the cognitive linguistic perspective. Against the background of these collections, this volume is a new and unique attempt to reconcile linguistics and anthropology in such a way that cognitive linguistic theories, concepts, and methods are applied to linguistic anthropological concerns, while some of the chapters sug- gest that more discourse- oriented analyses be incorporated into cognitive linguistic research in order to strengthen its empirical basis (see Kataoka, Yamaguchi, Wee, Tay, and Blount). 1 However, our goal is modest in that we can only indicate several points of intersection between cognitive linguistics and linguistic anthropology. Furthermore, the scope and the diversity of data should be qualified. This volume has no chapter that directly addresses, empirically tests, or conceptually refines the linguistic relativity hypothesis (see Gumperz and Levinson, 1996; Hill and Manheim, 1992; Jourdan and Tuite, 2006; Leavitt, forthcoming; Lucy, 1992, 1996; Silverstein, 1979). Furthermore, our data sources are not linguistically diverse as anthropologically oriented language studies should be. Only Cantonese (Pang), Japanese (Occhi and Kataoka), and Persian are examined in depth, and Australian aboriginal languages and cultures are mentioned (Sharifian), among the non- Western languages.

1.3 Overview and cross- references among the chapters

Part I (Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Language and Culture) consists of three chapters that represent foundational cognitive linguistic approaches. First, Ronald Langacker, in his ‘Culture and Cognition,

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

8 Approaches to Language, Culture, and Cognition

Lexicon and Grammar’ (Chapter 2), firmly rejects the traditional stance that the dividing line between lexicon and grammar reflects its corresponding dichotomy between culture and cognition. Drawing on the notions of embodied cognition (Wilson, 2002) and usage events (Tummers, Heylin, and Geeraerts, 2005), he elaborates on a balance between ‘bodily embodiment’ and ‘cultural embeddedness’ in human cognition, from the perspective of the usage- based theory of grammar. Furthermore, he situates Cognitive Grammar broadly in cognitive science (Beller, Bender, and Medin, 2012; also see Ross and Medin, 2011). In assuming that cognition is universally embodied and culturally embedded, he argues that ‘lexicon and grammar form a continuum of meaningful structure’. From this perspective, he points towards direct avenues for closer col- laboration between cognitive linguists and linguistic anthropologists. In conclusion, he argues that ‘[o]n the one hand, linguists need anthropology in order to properly assess and characterize the cultural basis of linguistic meanings. On the other hand, linguistic analysis … reveals the details of the mental constructions constitutive of culture’ (this volume: 47). The rest of the contributions in this volume elaborates and develops his insights by providing detailed linguistic analyses in diverse sociocultural and historical contexts. Dirk Geeraerts (Chapter 3) takes a case study approach to diachronic prototype semantics (Geeraerts, 1997) in his ‘Deliteralizaiton and the Birth of “Emotion”’, further exploring a delicate balance between cultural factors and embodied experience. Specifically, he empirically examines the historical changes in the domain of emotion and the cultural influences of the humoral theory (also see Blount, this volume) by critically engaging with the tenet of embodiment in cognitive linguistics. Building upon his influential paper (Geeraerts and Grondelaers, 1995), which shows the ways in which the concept of anger is also a cultural artefact of the humoral theory, as much as a product of embodied cognition, he adds another cultural layer to the early ‘universalist’ accounts (Lakoff and Kövecses, 1987). In this chapter, Geeraerts demonstrates how the word ‘emotion’ itself has its etymological roots in the humoral theory. However, it should be noted that he by no means denies embodied cognitive mechanisms. In his corpus analysis, he demonstrates that metaphorical and metonymic interpretations played a significant role in the specialization of the meanings of émouvoir (which is the verbal form of émotion in Old French) from spatial to purely psychological readings. By making a conceptual distinction between ‘semasiology’ and ‘onomasiology’ (Geeraerts, Grondelaers, and Bakema, 1994), he proposes

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

Introduction 9 a functional explanation of the ‘birth of emotion’ as the ‘conceptual onomasiological salience’ or ‘entrenchment’: there was a ‘diachroni- cally growing need for concepts referring exclusively to psychological phenomena’ between the middle of the 14th century and the 16th century (this volume: 61).2 Interestingly, his findings provide empirical evidence for the philosophical speculation on the rise of individualism after the Renaissance (C. Taylor, 1989), which deserves the attention of linguistic anthropologists. In sum, Geeraerts offers a more nuanced picture of the domain of emotion from cognitively informed historical and cultural perspectives. Kam-yiu S. Pang (Chapter 4) is also concerned with diachronic changes, by examining the meanings of a popular proverb in Cantonese in his ‘“Overthrowing” yesterday’s ICM: (Re)focusing of meaning in a Hong Kong Chinese (Cantonese) constructional idiom’. He takes a semasiological viewpoint by historically tracing the ways in which a particular proverb is used to denote distinct states of affairs. For this purpose, proverbs are conceptualized as ‘constructional idioms’ (Taylor, 2002, 2012) within the framework of cognitive linguistics. Through analyzing the data taken from the Internet periodically, he demonstrates that the Cantonese proverb on ‘overthrowing the today’s self’, which was predominantly used for ‘praising’, has been changing in the direction of negative or ‘censuring’ uses, particularly in the domain of political discourse. Empirically, this chapter shows the semasiological transformations of the proverb as a constructional idiom. In order to illuminate a ‘conceptual integration of the two selves’, Pang uses the ‘blending theory’ (Fauconnier and Turner, 2002). Moreover, central to his conceptual framework is the ‘idealized cognitive model’ (ICM) (Lakoff, 1987), which is also referred to as ‘cultural model’ (Holland and Quinn, 1987) or ‘cultural cognitive model’ (Blount, this volume; also see Sharifian; Yamaguchi, this volume). He constructs ICMs by discerning the ‘worldview’ (Hill and Manheim, 1992) in the contextual uses of a proverb. The new proverbial uses also contribute to the renewal of the culturally constructed self in the Hong Kong Chinese context (also see Occhi, this volume, for the cultural construction of self). Seen this way, language is inseparable from culture, and thus a proverbial phenomenon instantiates ‘languaculture’ (Agar, 1994; Friedrich, 1986), by which it is assumed that each language represents a unique worldview. The topic of proverb has been studied in language and culture (e.g., Briggs, 1985; White, 1987), and more recently under the rubric of ‘ritual communication’ (Senft and Basso, 2009), by highlighting the

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

10 Approaches to Language, Culture, and Cognition notion of ‘interdiscursivity’ or connectivity across discourses, in the uses of proverbs (Goddard, 2009). From this ‘languaculture’ perspective, Pang illustrates one of the ways in which cognitive linguistics and linguistic anthropology meaningfully intersect. Taking the notion of ‘languaculture’ as a fundamental assumption, the three chapters in Part II (Cultural Linguistic Approaches to Language and Culture) squarely address linguistic anthropological concerns by apply- ing cognitive linguistic insights. In Chapter 5 (‘Advances in Cultural Linguistics’), Farzad Sharifian defines the field of Cultural Linguistics as a multidisciplinary area which ‘explores the interface between language, culture, and conceptualization’ (this volume: 99). The notion of ‘conceptualization’ is placed at the nexus of language and culture. By the notion of ‘conceptualization’, he denotes the cultural aspects of cognition or what he calls ‘cultural conceptualizations’, which include schemas, categories (prototypes), and metaphors. It should be noted, however, that he emphasizes socially distributed cognition (see Hutchins, 1995; Kataoka this volume), as well as culturally shared cognition. His chapter usefully indicates several connections among other chapters in this volume. In his overview of Cultural Linguistics, we see that it intersects with cultural model theory (Pang; Yamaguchi; Blount this volume); conceptual metaphor theory (Occhi; Wee; Tay, this volume); cultural categorization (Yamaguchi, this volume); and cultural metaphor (Geeraerts, this volume), among others. Toward the end, Sharifian illustrates the current research agendas with sample analyses: World Englishes, intercultural (mis)communication, and political discourse. In his attempt to incorporate a contextually sensitive (or ‘indexical’) perspective into his analysis, he draws on the notion of ‘contextualization cue’ (Gumperz, 1982) in analyzing the cases of intercultural miscommunication. However, his focus is on the denota- tionally explicit aspects of communication and lexicalized information in particular. Thus, he will benefit from ‘keyword analysis’, which has been developed by Blount (this volume; also see Quinn, 2005; Strauss, 2005; Wierzbicka, 1996), who systematically and rigorosly analyzes discourse. The other two chapters in Part II are in- depth case studies. Chapter 6 is entitled ‘Sloppy Selfhood: Metaphor, Embodiment, Animism, and Anthropomorphization in Japanese Language and Culture’, in which Debra J. Occhi addresses herself to the issue of the cultural construction of the self (Duranti, 1997) in the Japanese context. She starts with observing the phenomena of animism and anthropomorphization across the domains of religion, traditional art forms (such as poetry and

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

Introduction 11 paintings), and contemporary public discourses, including visual media. Based on her insightful observations, she conceptualizes the Japanese self as a ‘sloppy self’, by which she means that the self is closely con- nected with or even inseparable from nature. Among the data taken from her fieldwork, Japanese popular media, and historical- literary documents, she particularly makes an in- depth analysis of enka lyrics or traditional Japanese love songs. Her conceptual tools derive from ‘ethnopoetics’ (Friedrich, 2006) in linguistic anthropology, and the blending theory in cognitive linguistics (see Pang, this volume), which is applied to the Japanese language as HUMANS ARE NATURE/ NATURE IS HUMAN (Hiraga, 1999). Analytically focusing on the co- occurrences of the first- and second- person pronouns (and other indexical features such as address terms and reported speech) with body- part synecdoche and metaphor, she reveals gendered patterns as ‘schemas’ (see Blount, this volume), in which the Japanese self is constructed in the sentimen- tal scenarios for romance. In doing so, she rejects the Cartesian dichotomy of mind and body, and instead argues for embodiment by positing the schemas that blend human beings and natural phenomena. One of the implications of her analysis for linguistic anthropology is the existence of close connections between metaphor and ideology, which is underexplored in the field of language ideologies (Woolard, Schieffelin, and Kroskrity, 1998; see Wee, this volume). As Occhi argues, ‘[u]nderstanding the ideological basis for Japanese human- nature metaphor is crucial to understanding its force and endurance’ (this volume: 125). By taking an ethnopoetic approach to performance (see Yamaguchi, this volume), she illuminates the ways in which the ‘sloppy’ Japanese self is metaphorically and metonymically embodied in verbal and visual images, which should appeal to linguistic anthropologists. To wrap up Part II, Gary Palmer, Jennifer Thompson, Jeffery Parkin, and Elizabeth Harmon (Chapter 7) propose a hypothesis on the genesis of language in their ‘The Ceremonial Origins of Language’. The first author is known for founding the field of Cultural Linguistics (see Sharifian; Occhi, this volume) as a synthesis of cognitive linguistics and linguistic anthropology (Palmer, 1996). The arguments they make for supporting the hypothesis take into account evidence from archeology and physical anthropology, as well as linguistic and other semiotic data. In brief, their hypothesis is that Homo heidelbergensis, who originated in Africa in the Middle Pleistocene period (between 800K and 130K ya) is the first hominine species who possesses the anatomical and brain characteristics that would have allowed the use of a proto- language comparable to the language used by Homo sapiens.3 Palmer

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

12 Approaches to Language, Culture, and Cognition et al. speculate that Homo heidelbergensis engaged in mimetic performances in (proto) events and ceremonies, which provided ample opportunities for vocalizations in intersubjective spaces. The contex- tualized vocalizations could, then, in time, be conventionalized and come to ‘stand for’ the performances. Eventually the vocalizations could become symbols, replacing the mimetic- contextualization as the message. It should be noted that the fundamental insight from which they formulate their hypothesis derives from the idea of the ‘emergence of symbolization’ (Sinha, 2007). By ‘symbolization’ Palmer et al. mean the normative conventionalization of communicative signs, which is the sine qua non of ‘language’ in their view. If they are right, the first hominine species with proto- language(s) were ‘capable of conceptual metaphor, conceptual metonymy, conceptual blending, and iconic sound symbolism’ (this volume: 169). An interested reader is referred to the rich background literature they provide on the alternative theories of the origins of language (such as the ‘song theories’, the ‘naming theory’, and the ‘gesture theory’, to name just a few). In this chapter, Palmer et al. further attempt to integrate the alternatives into their ceremonial origin hypothesis. In relation to other chapters, this chapter particularly emphasizes the significance of ‘intersubjectivity’ (Kataoka, this volume) by situating the origins of language in the evolutionary- biological framework (Blount, this volume). The general point that Palmer et al. make is that language use (or the emergence of language- in-use) presupposes the basic cognitive linguistic mechanisms, including conceptual metaphor, conceptual metonymy, cultural categorization, spatial orientation, schema and cultural model, among others, as all the contributions in this volume amply demonstrate. Part III (Intersections of Cognitive Linguistics and Linguistic Anthropology) collects four chapters at the several intersected areas of cognitive linguistics and linguistic anthropology. The common thread that unites the four authors is their commitment to the analysis of empirical discourse data in social contexts, from cognitively informed perspectives. First, Kuniyoshi Kataoka (Chapter 8) takes a thoroughly intersubjective stance to better understand the domain of space, in his ‘On Intersubjective Co- construction of Virtual Space through Multimodal Means: A Case of Japanese Route- finding Discourse’. Specifically, he analyzes an interaction among nine Japanese rock climbers by focusing on the spatial relations in an accident story, which is collaboratively recalled by the rock climbers. By making painstakingly elaborate analyses, his aim is to show a ‘shared mental map’ or a discursively constructed

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

Introduction 13 mutual understanding of the accident, which emerges intersubjectively. In doing so, he critiques the traditional studies of perspective- taking in the spatial domain, which often underestimate the variability of knowledge and experience among interlocutors. In practice, perspective- taking is interactionally negotiated, which is strongly influenced by the background of each contributor, as he argues. In conceptual terms, Kataoka is inspired by the Husserlian notion of intersubjectivity (Cicourel, 1973; Duranti, 2010; Sacks, 1992), discussed also in 1968 by Blount, which has been recently reinvigorated both in cognitive linguistics (Zlatev, Racine, Sinha, and Itkonen, 2008) and linguistic anthropology (Danziger and Rumsey, 2013). Kataoka analytically highlights the ‘properties of the system of interaction’, which are ‘distributed across brains, bodies, and a culturally constituted world’ (Hutchins, 1995: 353–354, 2006: 376). In other words, he takes seriously the argument for the distinctness of the properties of the emergent system from the individual properties, although he does not deny the existence of the latter. The point of Kataoka’s chapter is to argue that we need to holistically look at gaze, gesture, and posture in order to reveal cognitive processes in situ. Simultaneously we need to take into account various degrees of knowledge and experience that each person brings to interaction. In his formulation, ‘intersubjectivity will only be adequately investigated by incorporating multiple facets of bodily and environmental affordances, but it will provide us with a focalized porthole into the workings of the embodied coordination of distributed cognition’ (this volume: 209–210). This chapter connects with Sharifian (Chapter 5) in his emphasis on distributed cognition, and with Occhi (Chapter 6) and Yamaguchi (Chapter 9) in his analytic focus on ‘indexical’ or situationally contingent aspects of language use (such as the Japanese deictic verbs that correspond to ‘come’ and ‘go’ and other deictic terms, and pointing gestures, etc.), as well as on revealing the ‘poetic’ or repetitive patterns of discourse. In this volume, Kataoka is most broadly ‘multimodal’ in analyzing all the relevant semiotic cues in context, which also represents the recent trend in linguistic anthropology. Masataka Yamaguchi (Chapter 9) focuses on individual- level cognition in his ‘Discovering Shared Understandings in Discourse: Prototypes and Stereotypes’, while taking an intersubjective stance to discourse. Hutchins’ (1995: 353) rejection of the cognitive definitions of the concept of ‘culture’ notwithstanding, Yamaguchi defines it cognitively as shared understandings, and attempts to uncover the cognitive properties of an individual in an intersubjective process. Through analysis,

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

14 Approaches to Language, Culture, and Cognition he hypothesizes ‘racial’ taxonomic structures (‘x is a kind of y’) in the repetitive or ‘poetic’ patterns of discourse. The taxonomic structures are presumptively shared among a group of people (and in his case ‘New Zealanders’), which needs to be empirically investigated, using cognitive anthropological elicitation techniques and methods. His goal is to hypothesize ‘cultural models’ (Pang; Blount, this volume) in the domain of ethnic and racial categories, based on the ‘poetic’ structures (Occhi, this volume). In the process of analysis, he goes back and forth between the ‘indexical’ at the token level and the ‘symbolic’ at the type- level, by mainly drawing on linguistic anthropology for the former and cognitive anthropology for the latter. He also critically compares the notions of ‘stereotype’ and ‘prototype’, drawing on Taylor (2003[1989]), Geeraerts (2008), and others in cognitive linguistics. By the comparison, he synthesizes them as ‘cultural’ concepts in discourse (Silverstein, 2004). By drawing out the implications, he summarizes commonalities and differences among linguistic anthropology, cognitive anthropology, and cognitive linguistics. He proposes that the three paradigms can be synthesized in an empirical cycle of research, which consists of the formulation of hypotheses, operationalization, falsification, and the generation of new hypotheses. He concludes by suggesting that Cognitive Grammar (Langacker, this volume; Taylor, 2002) be incorporated into discourse analysis. The next two chapters apply conceptual metaphor theory (Lakoff, 1993) to empirical discourse analysis. Chapter 10 is entitled ‘Experiences as Resources: Metaphor and Life in Late Modernity’, in which Lionel Wee adroitly bridges the gap between the social and the cognitive in the analysis of a contemporary metaphor. Specifically, he focuses on the metaphor ‘Experiences as Resources’, by which the sharing of the success stories of an entrepreneur or a celebrity who overcame her post- partum depression is conceptualized as ‘resources’ in politico- economic terms. By this conceptualization, he points to the recent trends of the study of the commodification of discourse in linguistic anthropology (Agha, 2011; cf. Tay, this volume) and a turn to ‘small stories’ in narrative studies (Bamberg, 2006). One of the original aspects of this chapter is to situate the discourse of sharing in the sociological theory of ‘reflexive modernity’ (Beck, 1994), which theorizes contingent and uncertain life styles in ‘late modernity’ (Giddens, 1991). His synthesis may be a precursor in the study of language, culture, and cognition, in which the issue of ‘language and globalization’ (Coupland, 2010) has been under- studied, presumably due to the relative lack of interest in social theory

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

Introduction 15 among cognitive scientists (Keesing, 1987). From this perspective, Wee responds to the critique of ‘asocial cognitive linguistics’ by bringing ‘society’ to cognitive linguistic research. In methodological terms, the data in Chapter 10 are all taken from the Internet, which perhaps epitomizes the contemporary world char- acterized as late modernity. Wee shares this data collection technique with Pang (Chapter 4) and Tay (Chapter 11) in this volume. In general, systematic uses of the Internet for data collection can enhance research outcomes, and search engines represented by Google offer a conveni- ent and reasonably reliable corpus, which can be applied in linguistic anthropology (see Hill, 2005b), in combination with the traditional fieldwork methods. Dennis Tay (Chapter 11) is also concerned with metaphors in context (Wee, this volume), and specifically with the contextual modulation of metaphoric meanings, in his ‘An Analysis of Metaphoric Hedging in Psychotherapeutic Talk’. While much has been written about how the cognitive import of metaphors help patients to understand and change their views on the issues for which they seek help, Tay draws attention to the ‘pragmatic tension’ between wanting to use metaphor, and the need in professional counselling to maintain a semblance of ‘objective truth’. He illustrates how this tension is negotiated with the use of hedging expressions (Lakoff, 1975), such as ‘in a way’ or ‘sort of’, in the data taken from psychotherapeutic sessions. Particularly noteworthy is his observation that the ‘inferential potential of metaphors’ can be ben- eficially exploited for psychotherapeutic purposes. His analytic point is that metaphors are ‘non- factual approximations’ of the patients’ circumstances, which can facilitate further exploration of alternative metaphoric representations in psychotherapy. By recognizing the ideological, context- creating, or constitutive aspects of metaphors in use (Occhi; Wee, this volume), Tay suggests the complementarity and par- tial convergence of cognitive linguistics and linguistic anthropology in the analysis of psychotherapeutic discourse. In sum, Part III illustrates multiple methods for integrating language, culture, and cognition through empirical analyses of discourse, from social, cultural and cognitive perspectives. As a summary of this collection, Benjamin Blount (Chapter 12), in his ‘Situating Cultural Models in History and Cognition’, provides an overview of the history of the study of language, culture, and cognition, while noting the current theoretical developments and the future directions, from social, cultural, linguistic, and neuro- biological perspectives. Although he anchors his theoretical discussion in the framework of

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

16 Approaches to Language, Culture, and Cognition cultural model (or ‘cultural cognitive model’) in cognitive anthropology, the scope of his chapter is far- reaching and covers the issues discussed in the other chapters of this volume. He proposes a ‘new cognitive paradigm’ that synthesizes cognitive linguistics (Langacker; Geeraerts; Pang; Sharifian; Wee, Tay, this volume), interactional approaches to discourse and conversation (Kataoka; Yamaguchi; Tay, this volume), and cultural models theory (Pang; Occhi; Yamaguchi, this volume), within a biological- evolutionary framework (cf. Palmer et al., this volume). From this perspective, he argues that a cultural cognitive model is a type of cognitive model, environmentally adaptive, and subject to evolutionary frameworks. In his theoretical discussion of cultural models, Blount argues against a ‘distributed- cognition model’ (Kronenfeld, 2008), which conceptualizes cultural models as psychologically ‘shallow’. In contrast, he proposes an ‘enriched lexicon model’, which theorizes cultural models as ‘deeply internalized’ (cf. Sperber, 2006), by synthesizing cognitive anthropology (Strauss and Quinn, 1997), cognitive linguistics (Taylor, 2012), interactional sociolinguistics (Gumperz, 2006), and neuro- biological studies. The enriched lexicon model also resonates with Langacker’s (Chapter 2) view of lexical items as ‘points of access to extensive bodies of knowledge that are not specifically or even primarily linguistic’ (this volume: 28). In empirical terms, his case study argues for the ‘cognitive depth’ of cultural models, by showing the historical endurance of the cultural models of ‘soul’. Blount illustrates the continuity of the humoral theory as a cultural model (Geeraerts, this volume) within the historical- cultural cognitive models of the cosmos and the soul that persisted from the Greek period until the 18th century (Zimmer, 2004). Interestingly, the historical reconstruction of the cultural models shows that the ‘scientific’ versus the ‘humanistic’ is a false dichotomy by deconstructing erroneous stereotypes about cognitive science as ‘non- humanistic’. In the end, Blount notes the controversial issue of the relationship between the mind (or the brain) and the external environment in cognitive processes. The polar positions are noted: one argues that cognition is exclusively ‘internal’ and the environment is irrel- evant. The other puts priority on the external in cognitive processes (cf. Hutchins, 1995). In this volume, Kataoka (Chapter 8) and Yamaguchi (Chapter 9) manifest the tension between a distributed- cognition perspective and an individual- cognition perspective. As Ross and Medin (2011) note, scholars working in the ‘situated cognition’ paradigm

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

Introduction 17

(e.g., Hutchins, 1995, 2006) ‘explicitly deny that cognition is a property of individuals’ (Ross and Medin, 2011: 359). They thus look at ‘activities’ by only recognizing cognition at the intersubjective level. In light of the debate between the ‘internalism’ and the ‘externalism’, Blount concludes by commenting that anthropologists have been rejecting psychological- cognitive explanations as ‘reductionist’ for more than a century, despite ample evidence for supporting psychological explanations in cognitive science. To sum up, the eleven papers we collected in this volume, all of which are written from cognitive perspectives, will be able to inform the theory and practice of linguistic anthropology in meaningful ways. By way of conclusion, we thus argue for more cognitively informed research, while recognizing the current dominant trend, which is counter-posed to our attempted renewal of the relation between cognitive linguistics and linguistic anthropology. As noted, the general point is provided by Blount (Chapter 12) as the debate over ‘the internal versus the external’ in cognitive science, as well as the protest against psychological explanations as ‘reductionism’ in anthropology and social sciences, which have been particularly influenced by phenomenological perspectives (see Blount, 1968; Cicourel, 1973 for earlier explications). We briefly discuss this problem of regarding cognitive theorization as ‘reductionism’ in linguistic anthropology by describing the current trend. It is not difficult to observe the dominant anti- cognitive ethos in linguistic anthropology. For example, as Stephen C. Levinson (2006b) points out, there is a widely held ‘misconception’ among some linguistic anthropologists, and discourse and conversation analysts, who mistakenly think that: ‘There are serious differences between theories of discourse that turn on the role of cognition in the theory’ (2006b: 85). In a similar vein, Teun A. van Dijk comments, ‘there is another, even more fundamental form of exclusion, [which is] the study of cognition. There is a widespread misunderstanding … that identifies cognition with an individual and therefore nonsocial approach to language and discourse’ (2003: 340, italics added). His comments are made on the current trend in linguistic anthropology (Duranti, 2003) and related areas in discourse studies (see van Dijk, 2014, for a synthetic sociocognitive approach). 4 It remains to be seen that the assumption of individual- level cognition in cognitive linguistics can be reconciled with the anti- cognitive view held by linguistic anthropologists. The latter are often agnostic or indifferent to cognition, and generally not interested in cognitive

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

18 Approaches to Language, Culture, and Cognition definitions of ‘culture’ and in the notion of ‘internalization’. The relatively new generation of linguistic anthropologists have been ‘on postmodern holiday’ since the 1980s and have not come back to cognition yet (Levinson, 2012), which also accelerates anti- cognitivism and anti- scientism. In light of the dominant trend in linguistic anthropology, we propose that more conscious, sustained, and systematic efforts are required in order to integrate language, culture and cognition in the 21st century. Our sincere hope is that this volume offers a new point of departure and directions for future endeavors toward that goal, by indicating that a point does exist at the intersection of cognitive linguistics and linguistic anthropology, a point made clear by Keesing (1992), among others, more than two decades ago.

Notes

1. There are notable exceptions among linguistic anthropologists (e.g., William F. Hanks, James M. Wilce, Richard Parmentier, and Paul Kockelman). For example, Hanks (1996) draws on the cognitive notions of ‘frame’ and ‘schema’ in order to conceptualize the background knowledge that Maya participants assume, in his studies of the Maya deictic system. However, Wilce (2009: 70) critiques the cognitive linguistic approach to emotion, which ‘largely overlooks the complex interactions of iconicity and indexicality in emergent, entextualized discourse’, although there is nothing inherent in those phenomena that would preclude cognitive analyses. His critique is, nonetheless, valuable and thus Kataoka (Chapter 8) and Yamaguchi (Chapter 9) carefully consider iconic and indexical aspects of language in this volume. Also Tay (Chapter 11) takes a ‘phenomenological’ or interactional approach to conceptual metaphor by examining the emergent aspects of discourse. 2. The ‘onomasiological’ perspective ‘asks, for any given entity or state of affairs, what range of linguistic expressions may be used to denote it’ while the ‘semasiological’ perspective is the converse (Taylor, 2003: 54). In Geeraerts’ chapter, the increasing need for words to refer to particular psychological phenomena (i.e. emotions) in the particular historical periods is at issue, so that ‘onomasiological salience’ is at the center of attention. 3. 100K ya means 100,000 years ago. 4. One of the important ‘origins’ of anti- cognitivism in linguistic anthropology goes back to a critique of speech act theory (Searle, 1969) by Michelle Rosaldo (1982). She argues that John Searle ignores the external environment by exclusively focusing on the speaker’s intentions. Her point has been sup- ported by linguistic anthropologists, and perhaps most notably developed by Duranti, who critiques the Western view of language as the ‘personalist language ideology’ (Duranti, 1993). In short, linguistic anthropology developed an anti- intentionalist approach to meaning, which contributed to anti- cognitivism by erasing the speaker as an individual from the picture.

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

Introduction 19

References

Agar, M. (1994) ‘The Intercultural Frame’. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(2): 221–237. Agha, A. (2011) ‘Commodity Registers’. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 21(1): 22–53. Bamberg, M. (2006) ‘Stories: Big or Small? Why Do We Care?’ Narrative Inquiry, 16: 147–155. Beck, U. (1994) ‘The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory of Reflexive Modernization’, in U. Beck, A. Giddens and S. Lash (eds), Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order (Cambridge: Polity), pp. 1–55. Beller, S. and Bender, A. (2011) ‘Numerical Categories and Ethnomathematics’, in D. Kronenfeld, G. Bennardo, V. de Munck and M. Fischer (eds), A Companion to Cognitive Anthropology (New York: Wiley- Blackwell), pp. 270–289. Beller, S., Bender, A., and Medin, D.L. (2012) ‘Should Anthropology Be Part of Cognitive Science?’ Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(3): 342–353. Berlin, B. (1972) ‘Speculations on the Growth of Ethnobotanical Nomenclature’. Language in Society, 1: 51–86. Berlin, B. (1992) Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Berlin, B. and Kay, P. (1969) Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. (Berkeley: University of California Press) (2nd ed., 1991). Blount, B. (1968) ‘Some Contributions of Phenomenology to Social Science’. Kroeber Anthropology Society Papers, 38: 82–105. Blount, B. (ed.) (1995[1974]) Language, Culture, and Society: A Book of Readings (Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers) (reissued in 1995 by Waveland Press). Blount, B. (2011) ‘A History of Cognitive Anthropology’, in D. Kronenfeld, G. Bennardo, V. de Munck and M. Fischer (eds), A Companion to Cognitive Anthropology (New York: Wiley- Blackwell), pp. 11–29. Blount, B. and Sanches, M. (eds) (1977) Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Change (New York: Academic Press). Briggs, C. L. (1985) ‘The Pragmatics of Proverb Performances in New Mexican Spanish’. American Anthropologist, 87(4): 793–810. Brown, P. (2006) ‘Cognitive Anthropology’, in C. Jourdan and K. Tuite (eds), Language, Culture, and Society: Key Topics in Linguistic Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 96–114. Cameron, L., Maslen, R., Todd, Z., Maule, J. Stratton, P., and Stanley, N. (2009) ‘The Discourse Dynamics Approach to Metaphor and Metaphor- led Discourse Analysis’. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(2): 63–89. Casson, R. W. (ed.) (1981) Language, Culture, and Cognition: Anthropological Perspectives (New York: Macmillan). Cicourel, A. (1973) Cognitive Sociology (Harmondsworth: Penguin). Coupland, N. (2010) ‘Introduction: Sociolinguistics in the Global Era’, in N. Coupland (ed.), The Handbook of Language and Globalization (Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell), pp. 1–28. Croft, W. (2009) ‘Towards a Social Cognitive Linguistics’, in V. Evans and S. Pourcel (eds), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins), pp. 395–420.

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

20 Approaches to Language, Culture, and Cognition

D’Andrade, R. (1995) The Development of Cognitive Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Danziger, E. and Rumsey, A. (eds) (2013) Intersubjectivity Across Languages and Cultures. Special Issue of Language & Communication, 33(3): 247–343. Dougherty, J. (ed.) (1985) Directions in Cognitive Anthropology (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press). Duranti, A. (1993) ‘Intentions, Self, and Responsibility: An Essay in Samoan Ethnopragmatics’, in J. H. Hill, and J. T. Irvine (eds), Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 24–47. Duranti, A. (1997) Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duranti, A. (2001) ‘Linguistic Anthropology: History, Ideas, and Issues’, in A. Duranti (ed.), Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader (Malden, MA: Blackwell), pp. 1–38. Duranti, A. (2003) ‘Language as Culture in US Anthropology: Three Paradigms’. Current Anthropology, 44(3): 323–347. Duranti, A. (2009) ‘Linguistic Anthropology: History, Ideas, and Issues’, in A. Duranti (ed.), Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader, 2nd ed. (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell), pp. 1–59. Duranti, A. (2010) ‘Husserl, Intersubjectivity and Anthropology’. Anthropological Theory, 10(1–2): 16–35. Enfield, N. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds) (2006) Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction (Oxford: Berg). Evans, V. and Pourcel, S. (eds) (2009) New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins). Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (2002) The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities (New York: Basic Books). Fillmore, C. (1975) ‘An Alterntive to Check- list Theories of Meaning’, in C. Cogen, H. Thompson, G. Thurgood, K. Whister and J. Wright (eds), Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Berkeley: University of California Press), pp. 123–131. Frake, C. (1962) ‘The Ethnographic Study of Cognitive Systems’, in T. Gladwin and W. Sturtevant (eds), Anthropology and Human Behavior (Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington), pp. 28–41. Frake, C. (1975[1964]) ‘How to Enter a Yakan House’, in M. Sanches and B. Blount (eds), Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use (New York: Academic Press), pp. 25–40. Frank, R. M. (2008) ‘Introduction: Sociocultural Situatedness’, in R. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke and E. Bernárdez (eds), Body, Language and Mind. Volume 2: Sociocultural Situatedness (Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 1–18. Frank, R. M., Dirven, R., Ziemke, T., and Bernárdez, E. (eds) (2008) Body, Language and Mind. Volume 2: Sociocultural Situatedness (Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter). Friedrich, P. (1986) The Language Parallax: Linguistic Relativism and Poetic Indeterminancy (Austin: University of Texas Press). Friedrich, P. (2006) ‘Maximizing Ethnopoetics: Fine- tuning Anthropological Experience’, in C. Jourdan and K. Tuite (eds), Language, Culture, and Society: Key Topics in Linguistic Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 207–228.

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

Introduction 21

Geeraerts, D. (1997) Diachronic Prototype Semantics: A Contribution to Historical Lexicology (Oxford: Clarendon). Geeraerts, D. (2008) ‘Prototypes, Stereotypes, and Semantic Norms’, in G. Kristiansen and R. Dirven (eds), Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems (Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 21–44. Geeraerts, D. and Grondelaers, S. (1995) ‘Looking Back at Anger: Cultural Traditions and Metaphorical Patterns’, in J. R. Taylor and R. E. MacLaury (eds), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World (Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 153–180. Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., and Bakema, P. (1994) The Structure of Lexical Variation: Meaning, Naming, and Context, Vol. 5 (Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter). Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., and Peirsman, Y. (eds) (2010) Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter). Gibbs, R. W. (1999) ‘Taking Metaphor Out of Our Heads and Putting It into the Cultural World’, in R. W. Gibbs and G. J. Steen (eds), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins), pp. 145–166. Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self- Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (Stanford: Stanford University Press). Gigioli, P. P. (1972) (ed.) Language and Social Context: Selected Readings (Harmondsworth: Penguin). Goddard, C. (2009) ‘“Like a Crab Teaching Its Young to Walk Straight”: Proverbiality, Semantics, and Indexicality in English and Malay’, in G. Senft and E. B. Basso (eds), Ritual Communication (Oxford and New York: Berg), pp. 103–126. Goodenough, W. (1957) ‘Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics’, in P. Garvin (ed.), Report of the Seventh Annual Roundtable on Linguistis and Language Study (Washington, DC: Georgetown University), pp. 167–173. Gumperz, J. (2006) ‘Interactional Sociolinguistics’, in K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Volume 5. 2nd ed. (Oxford: Elsevier), pp. 724–729. Gumperz, J. J. (1982) Discourse Strategies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds) (1996) Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Gumperz, J. and Hymes, D. (eds) (1972) Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnnography of Communication (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston). Hanks, W. F. (1996) ‘Language Form and Communicative Practices’, in J. J. Gumperz and S. C. Levinson (eds), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 232–270. Hill, J. H. (2005a) ‘Finding Culture in Talk’, in N. Quinn (ed.), Finding Culture in Talk: A Collection of Methods (New York: Palgrave), pp. 157–202. Hill, J. H. (2005b) ‘Intertextuality as Source and Evidence for Indirect Indexical Meanings’. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(1): 113–124. Hill, J. H. and Mannheim, B. (1992) ‘Language and World View’. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21: 381–406. Hiraga, M. (1999) ‘“Blending” and Interpretation of Haiku: A Cognitive Approach’. Poetics Today, 20(3): 461–481. Holland, D. and Quinn, N. (eds) (1987) Cultural Models in Language & Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

22 Approaches to Language, Culture, and Cognition

Hunn, E. (1989) ‘Ethnoecology: The Relevance of Cognitive Anthropology for Human Ecology’, in M. Freilich (ed.), The Relevance of Culture (Westport, CT: Greenwood), pp. 143–160. Hunn, E. (2006) ‘Ethnoscience’, in K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, Volume 5. 2nd ed. (Oxford: Elsevier), pp. 258–260. Hutchins, E. (1995) Cognition in the Wild (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Hutchins, E. (2006) ‘The Distributed Cognition Perspective on Human Interaction’, in N. J. Enfield and S. C. Levinson (eds), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction (Oxford: Berg), pp. 375–398. Jourdan, C. and Tuite, K. (eds) (2006) Language, Culture, and Society: Key Topics in Linguistic Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Kay, P., Berlin, B., and Merrifield, W. (1991) ‘Biocultural Implications of Systems of Color Naming’. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 1(1): 12–25. Keesing, R. M. (1987) ‘Models, “Folk” and “Cultural”: Paradigms Regained?’ in D. Holland and N. Quinn (eds), Cultural Models in Language and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 369–394. Keesing, R. M. (1992) ‘Anthropology and Linguistics’, in M. Pütz (ed.), Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution: Studies in Honour of René Dirven on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), pp. 593–609. Kövecses, Z. (2005) Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Kövecses, Z. (2009) ‘The Effect of Context on the Use of Metaphor in Discourse’. Iberica, 17: 11–23. Kronenfeld, D. (2008) Culture, Society, and Cognition: Collective Goals, Values, Action, and Knowledge (Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter). Kronenfeld, D., Bennardo G., de Munck, V., and Fischer, M. (eds) (2011) A Companion to Cognitive Anthropology (New York: Wiley- Blackwell). Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press). Lakoff, G. (1993) ‘The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor’, in A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 202–251. Lakoff, G. and Kövecses, Z. (1987) ‘The Cognitive Model of Anger Inherent in American English’, in D. Holland and N. Quinn (eds), Cultural Models in Language and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 195–221. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1999) Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought (New York: Basic Books). Lakoff, R. (1975) Language and Women’s Place (New York: Harper and Row). Langacker, R. W. (2001) ‘Discourse in Cognitive Grammar’. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2): 143–188. Leavitt, J. (forthcoming) ‘Reviewing the History of Linguistic Relativity: From Boas to Whorf/Lucy’, in F. Sharifian (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture (New York/London: Routeldege). Levinson, S. C. (1996) ‘Relativity in Spatial Conception and Description’, in J. J. Gumperz and S. C. Levinson (eds), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 177–202. Levinson, S. C. (2006a). ‘On the Human “Interaction Engine”’, in N. J. Enfield and S. C. Levinson (eds), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction (Oxford: Berg), pp. 39–69.

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

Introduction 23

Levinson, S. C. (2006b) ‘Cognition at the Heart of Human Interaction’. Discoures Studies, 8(1): 85–93. Levinson, S. C. (2012) ‘The Original Sin of Cognitive Science’. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(3): 396–403. Liebert, W.-A., Redeker, G., and Waugh, L. (eds) (1997) Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins). Lucy, J. A. (1985) ‘Whorf’s View of the Linguistic Mediation of Thought’, in E. Mertz and R. J. Parmentier (eds), Semiotic Mediation: Sociocultural and Psychological Perspectives (New York: Academic Press), pp. 73–97. Lucy, J. A. (1992) Grammatical Categories and Cognition: A Case Study of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Lucy, J. A. (1996) ‘The Scope of Linguistic Relativity: An Analysis and Review of Empirical Research’, in J. J. Gumperz and S. C. Levinson (eds), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 37–69. Palmer, G. B. (1996) Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics (Austin: University of Texas Press). Quinn, N. (ed.) (2005) Finding Culture in Talk: A Collection of Methods (New York: Palgrave). Quinn, N. (2011) ‘The History of the Cultural Models School Reconsidered: A Paradigm Shift in Cognitive Anthropology’, in D. Kronenfeld, G. Bennardo, V. de Munck, and M. Fischer (eds), A Companion to Cognitive Anthropology (New York: Wiley-Blackwell), pp. 30–46. Rosaldo, M. Z. (1982) ‘The Things We Do with Words: Ilongot Speech Acts and Speech Act Theory in Philosophy’. Language in Society, 11(2): 203–237. Rosch, E. (1973) ‘Natural Categories’. Cognitive Psychology, 4: 328–350. Ross, N. and Medin, D. (2011) ‘Culture and Cognition: The Role of Cognitive Anthropology in Anthropology and the Cognitive Sciences’, in D. Kronenfeld, G. Bennardo, V. de Munck, and M. Fischer (eds), A Companion to Cognitive Anthropology (New York: Wiley- Blackwell), pp. 357–375. Sacks, H. (1992) Lectures on Conversation, 2 Vols, G. Jefferson (ed.) with Introductions by E. A. Schegloff (Oxford: Basil Blackwell). Sanches, M. and Blount, B. G. (eds) (1975) Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use (New York: Academic Press). Searle, J. (1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Senft, G. and Basso, E. B. (eds) (2009) Ritual Communication (Oxford and New York: Berg). Shore, B. (1996) Culture in Mind: Meaning Construction and Cultural Cognition (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Silverstein, M. (1976) ‘Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description’, in K. Basso and H. Selby (eds), Meaning in Anthropology (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press), pp. 11–56. Silverstein, M. (1979) ‘Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology’, in P. Clyne, W. Hanks, and C. Hofbauer (eds), The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels (Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society), pp. 193–247. Silverstein, M. (2004) ‘“Cultural” Concepts and the Language- Culture Nexus’. Current Anthropology, 5(5): 621–652.

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

24 Approaches to Language, Culture, and Cognition

Silverstein, M. (2007) ‘How Knowledge Begets Communication Begets Knowledge: Textuality and Contextuality in Knowing and Learning’. Intercultural Communication Review, 5: 31–60. Sinha, C. (2004) ‘The Evolution of Language from Signals to Symbols to System’, in D. K. Oller and U. Griegbel (eds), Evolution of Communication Systems: A Comparative Approach, Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 217–236. Sperber, D. (2006) ‘Why a Deep Understanding of Cultural Evolution is Incompatible with Shallow Psychology’, in N. J. Enfield and S. C. Levinson (eds), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction (Oxford: Berg), pp. 431–449. Strauss, C. (2005) ‘Analyzing Discourse for Cultural Complexity’, in N. Quinn (ed.), Finding Culture in Talk (New York: Palgrave), pp. 203–242. Strauss, C. (2006) ‘Cognitive Anthropology’, in K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Elsevier), pp. 529–532. Strauss, C. and Quinn, N. (1997) A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Steen, G. J. (2011) ‘The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor— Now New and Improved!’ Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1): 26–64. Taylor, C. (1989) Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Taylor, J. R.(2002) Cognitive Grammar (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press). Taylor, J. R.(2003[1989]) Linguistic Categorization, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Taylor, J. R. (2012) The Mental Corpus: How Language Is Represented in the Mind (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Tummers, J., Heylen, K., and Geeraerts, D. (2005) ‘Usage- based Approaches in Cognitive Linguistics: A Technical State of the Art’. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(2): 225–261. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/ inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-34248712140&partnerID=40&md5=7e38e11bac 603628da48ab2bbe3ddbd6. van Dijk, T. A. (2003) ‘Commentary on A. Duranti’s “Language as Culture in U.S. Anthropology: Three Paradigms”’. Current Anthropology, 44(3): 340–341. van Dijk, T.A. (2014) Discourse and Knowledge: A Sociocognitive Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). White, G. M. (1987) ‘Proverbs and Cultural Models’, in D. Holland and N. Quinn (eds), Cultural Models in Language and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 151–172. Wierzbicka, A. (1996) Semantics: Primes and Universals (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Wilce, J. M. (2009) Language and Emotion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Wilson, M. (2002) ‘Six View of Embodied Cognition’. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(4): 625–636. Woolard, K., Schieffelin, B., and Kroskrity, P. (eds) (1998) Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory (New York: Oxford University Press). Zimmer, K. (2004) Soul Made Flesh: The Discovery of the Brain—and How It Changed the World (New York: Simon & Schuster). Zlatev, J., Racine, T. P., Sinha, C., and Itkonen, E. (2008) ‘Intersubjectivity: What Makes us Human?’ in J. Zlatev, T. P. Racine, C. Sinha, and E. Itkonen (eds), The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), pp. 1–14.

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

Index

A Australian Aboriginal languages and Abelson, R. P., 276 cultures, 7, 108 Aboriginal cultural spiritual conceptu- Avdi, E., 253 alisations, 114 Avruch, K., 118 Aboriginal English speakers, 112 absolute, absolutive, 131, 158, 160, B 186, 231, 257 back/foregrounding, 87 Abu-Lughod, L., 129 Bakema, P., 8, 61 Acheulian, 151–2 Bamberg, M., 14, 247 action chain and scenarios, 157, Bartlett, F. C., 102 159–60 basic cognitive ability, 30, 34, 39 activity type, 237 basic domain, 30 Adams, M., 235, 249n1 Basso, E. B., 9 adaptive, 16, 157, 169 Basso, K. H., 159, 181 Agar, M., 9, 69, 146 Bauman, Z., 236 Agha, A., 14, 245, 246 Beck, U., 14, 234, 236 Aguirre, E., 149 Becker, A. L., 141 Aiello, L. C., 149, 160, 168 Beller, S., 1, 3, 8 anger, concept of, 8, 56–9, 62, 64 Bender, A., 1, 3, 8 Angus, L. E., 253, 257, 262 Bennardo, G., 1, 181, 274, 280 animism, 10, 126–8, 142 Berlin, B., 3, 4, 102 anthropological linguistics, 101, 118 Bernárdez, E., 6, 7 anthropological research on space, 181 Bickerton, D., 147, 160, 161, 168, 169 anthropology, 46 blending theory, 7, 9, 11–12 cognitive anthropology (CA), Blenkiron, P., 252, 253, 254, 260 see cognitive anthropology (CA) Bloem, A., 50, 51, 60, 62, 63 linguistic anthropology (LA), Blount, B. G., 1–3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, see linguistic anthropology (LA) 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 101, 102, anthropomorphism, 126, 128, 142 106, 211n1, 217, 218, 221, 223, anti-cognitivism, 18 226, 227, 228, 230, 231n4, 271, Aoki, H., 211n3 273, 274, 275, 284, 289 Aquinas, T., 290 Boas, Franz, 3, 101 Arbib, M., 148, 164 Bodo, 149–51 Aristotle and Greek cosmos, 291 body, 183, 186, 272, 287, 290 Armstrong, D. F., 147, 160, 164, 165, holistic treatment of, 210 168 and language, 194 Arthur, J. M., 115 parts, 11, 103, 110–11, 137–9, Ascher, R., 147, 163 199, 209 attention, 35, 36, 46, 293 Bourdieu, P., 181 joint attentional frame, 162, 169 brain Auel, J. M., 143n4 as a mapping mechanism, 272, Australian Aboriginal English, 111 287–8

303

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

304 Index brain - continued Cognitive Grammar (CG), 6, 8, 14, out-of-awareness functions, 286–7 27–8, 30, 219, 229 brain functions, 30, 272 cognitive linguistics, 1–2, 5–18, 29, mapping mechanisms, 272, 287–8 47, 50, 53, 62, 64, 69, 99, out of awareness, 272, 276–7, 100–3, 109, 111, 117, 118, 124, 286–7, 292–3 145, 146, 157, 185, 217, 230n1, Briggs, C. L., 9, 248 265 Brooks, A., 246, 249n1 cognitive linguistics (CL) approach, Brown, P., 2, 5, 181 1–2, 7, 10, 13–15, 50, 99, Brugman, C., 160 145–6, 217, 227–8, 230n1 Buddhism, 124, 126 and conceptual metaphor, 111 Bühler, K., 208 mechanisms of, 12 Burling, R., 154, 155, 168, 170, social contexts, 218–19 171n12 traditional approaches, 101 Bybee, J., 171n17 cognitive science, 8, 16–17, 46–7, 102, 182, 294 C Cognitive Sociolinguistics, 218–19, call system, 154–5, 170 227, 228 Cameron, L., 6, 251, 252, 253, 262 cognitive utility (of metaphor), 254 Campbell, B. G., 148, 149, 151 commodification of experiences, 14, Cantonese, 7, 9, 68–92 235, 242–7 Casson, R. W. 1 commodity discourse, 245 catastrophists, 168–9 communicative competence, notion ceremonial, 145–70 of, 1, 102 character-internal perspective, 188, communicative dynamics, 255 192, 195–201, 204–5 communicative event, 218, 220, 221, character viewpoints (VPTs), 186, 193, 227 198, 207 Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS), 103–4 Observer-external, 193 Comrie, B., 160 Observer-internal, 198, 199, 200 conceptual archetypes, 31, 40–1 Cicourel, A., 13, 17, 183 conceptual blending, 12, 157, 169, classifier, 40–1, 108–9, 158 171n14 class-inclusion model, 240, 241, 244, conceptual content, 28–9, 34, 36, 246, 247 37–40 cognition, 2–8, 16–18, 27–8, 31, 64–6, and construal, 34 103 conceptualization cultural, 10, 99, 103–5 cognitive, 103 culturally embedded, 33 cultural, 104–11, 114–15, 117 distributed, 104, 282–3 conceptual metaphor, 6, 10, 12, 14, embodied, 33, 37–9, 42, 46 50, 53–4, 103, 105, 109–12, cognitive anthropology (CA), 2–5, 117, 147, 157–8, 169 14, 16, 99, 106, 119n1, 182, conceptual metaphor theory, 6, 10, 217–18, 225, 227–8, 230n1, 14, 50, 53 272, 282, 295 conceptual metonymy(ies), 12, 157–9, cognitive depth, 16, 285–92 169 cognitive development, 31, 107, concordance analysis, 256 294 consonants, 154–6, 161 cognitive domains, 28–30, 32–4, 36, construal phenomena, 34–7 219, 231n5 definition of, 34

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

Index 305 constructional idioms (CIs), 9, 91, and political discourse analysis, 93n5 117–18 lexico-grammatical characteristics, and research into varieties of 75–7 English, 111–13 proto-, 84–5 see also cultural schemas consumption, 243, 246, 248 cultural metaphors, 10, 104, 110–11 contextualization cue, notion of, 10, cultural models, 4, 9–10, 12, 14–16, 231n6 99, 106, 111, 117, 157–9, 169, conversation analysis, 211n2 217, 271–95 Cooley, D. R., 274, 275 cognitive depth and, 16 correspondence models, 240–1, of the cosmos and the soul, 289 244 of Galen, 289–90 Craw, M. J., 253, 254, 260, 261, 262 historical reconstruction of, 16 Croft, W., 7 and methods, case studies, 273–4 cultural categorization/category(ies), as psychologically shallow, 16 10, 12, 104 see also idealized cognitive models and language, 107–9 (ICMs) cultural cognition, notion of, 99, cultural schemas, 104, 281 103–5, 110–11 Aboriginal, 115 cultural cognitive models (CCMs), intercultural communication, 115 notion of, 9, 16, 99, 217–18, and language, 105–7 221, 224–6, 271, 278–9, 285, culture, 1, 13, 100, 101, 103, 106, 294–5 142, 277, 280, 293 biocultural framework, 272 computational models, 283 culture-in-talk models, 272–3 definition of, 5 definitions, 217, 224 distributed cognition, 13, 16, 99, lexicon and, 284–5 104, 282–3 methods, 227 embodiment and, 29–34 out-of-awareness brain functions in-talk models, 272–3 and, 286–7 and sharing, 237, 280–2 of pre-modern Western medicine, Cuyckens, H., 183 288–92 schemas and, 276–8 D social network analysis and, 284 Damasio, A., 287 see also idealized cognitive models D’Andrade, R. G., 2, 106, 227, 273, (ICMs) 277 cultural concept/conceptualisations, Davis, B. L., 154, 156 notion of, 10, 104–5, 107, 114, decontextualization, 227, 228, 248 117, 219 deictic gesture, 201, 212n11 cultural consonance, 273, 275 deictic motion verbs (DMVs), 182, cultural knowledge, 31, 33, 36, 38, 184, 186, 191, 193, 195, 201, 100, 104, 279 204, 207 cultural linguistics, 2, 5, 10–11, 15, Deignan, A., 251, 252 106, 113, 118–19, 145–6 deliteralization, 50–66 aim of, 111 de Munck, V., 1 applications of, 99 diachronic prototype semantics, 8 framework of, 103 dialectics of culture and cognition, and intercultural communication, 64–6 114–17 Diller, H.-J., 62, 64

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

306 Index directive force, 273, 295 Enfield, N. J., 5, 186 direct metaphoric communication, enka lyrics (traditional Japanese love 254, 258, 261, 265 songs), 11, 125–6, 128–30 direct metaphorization, 52 enriched lexicon model, 16, 226, Dirven, R., 6, 7, 183, 218, 219, 280 283 discourse markers, 251, 255 enterprise culture, 235, 246 distributed cognition model, 10, entrenchment, 9, 61–2, 105, 169 13, 16, 99, 104, 184, 208, environmental sustainability, 235 210, 283 epistemic control cycle, 45–6 distributed knowledge, notion of, 104 ergative, 160 Dixon, R. M. W., 38 ethical regimes, 235–6 domain matrix, 87, 219, 230n2 ethnoecology, 273 domain(s), 8, 28, 230n2, 231n5, 240, ethnography of speaking/ 273, 275, 277, 280, 282 communication, 99, 101, 102 cognitive, 28–9, 30, 34, 36 ethnopoetics, 5, 11 conceptual, 251 ethnosemanticists, 102 cultural, 146 ethnosemantics (ethoscience), matrix, 219 101–2 Donald, M., 162, 163 Evans, V., 6 Dougherty, J., 1 excellence, 246–7 Dressler, W., 273, 274, 275 externalism, 17, 220 Du Gay, P., 235, 246 external language (E-language), 284 Dunbar, R., 147, 166 Duranti, A., 1, 2, 3, 10, 13, 17, 18n4, F 102, 145, 182, 183, 188, 192, Falk, D., 148, 165, 166 209, 210 Fauconnier, G., 9, 33, 81, 125, 157 Durkheim, E., 126 Feld, S., 181 Feldman, J. A., 271, 277, 294 E Ferrara, K. W., 253, 255 Eagleman, D., 286, 287 fictive motion, 36 E-language, 284 Fillmore, C. J., 4, 28, 185 embodied cognition, 8, 31–3, 34, 37, Fischer, M., 1 39, 42 focus embodiment, 8, 10, 37, 39, 50, 124–42, shift of, 70, 89 201 focusing, 11–12, 18, 34–6, 39, 43, 46, and culture, 29–34 68–92, 131, 139, 210 notion of, 7, 11, 29–34, 45 Foley, W. A., 171n10 embodiment hypothesis, 50 folk models, 106, 226 emotion (émouvoir), 4, 8, 18n1, 35, see also cultural cognitive models 50–66, 103, 110–11, 125, 129, (CCMs) 132–3, 146–7, 164, 167, 291 Frake, C., 3, 221 birth of, 50–7 frames, see idealized cognitive models Japanese conceptualizations of, 125 (ICMs) metaphorical interpretation of, 65 frames of reference (FOR), 185–6, 202, psychological readings of, 57 208 specialization of, 57–64 framing, 2, 246, 248 empirical cycle, 14, 218–19, 227 Frank, B., 184 encyclopedic knowledge, 226, 228, Frank, R. M., 6, 7, 117, 184, 218 278–9, 281, 293–4 Frederick, R. E., 181

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

Index 307

French granularity, 34 Middle, 51, 57, 60 perceptual manifestation of, 35 Old, 8, 51, 55, 57, 63–4 Grondelaers, S., 6, 8, 50, 57, 61, 64 Friedrich, P., 5, 9, 11, 129 grounding in CG, 43–5 Gumperz, J. J., 1, 4, 7, 10, 16, 102, G 114, 217, 218, 231n6 Galen’s cultural model, 289–90 gyaku ‘opposite’, 205, 206 changes in, 290–2 Galen’s model of medicine, 289–92 H Garcia-Quijano, C., 274, 275 H., see Homo Garfinkel, H., 183 Habermas, J., 183 Garro, L. C., 274 Hanks, W. F., 18n1, 181 Gatewood, J. B., 280, 281 Haviland, J. B., 181 gaze, 13, 31, 36, 149, 162–3, 186, hearts, 54–5, 71, 103, 138, 140–2, 195–7, 199–200, 208 289–92 Gazzaniga, M. S., 286 hedged metaphoric communication, Geeraerts, D., 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 18, 261 50, 57, 61, 62, 64, 66, 218, 219, hedges, 251, 254, 256–7, 260–2, 265 220, 227, 228, 271, 280 Heine, B., 160, 161 gender, 129, 143n1, 230n1, 235, 245 Heller, M., 5 Georgakopoulou, A., 247, 248 Hewes, G., 147, 165 gesture, 13, 146–7, 154, 164–5, 186, 195 Hill, J. H., 5, 7, 9, 15 Gevaert, C., 50, 62 Hiraga, M., 11, 124 Gibbs, R. W., 6, 251 Hockett, C. F., 147, 163 Giddens, A., 14, 234, 236 holding gesture, 186, 195, 207 globalization, 14–15 Holland, D., 9, 69, 104, 106, 218, 224, Glucksberg, S., 240 272, 276 Goatly, A., 251, 262 holophrases, 164 Goddard, C., 10, 69 hominine, 11–12, 146–9 Goffman, E., 183 Homo Goldberg, A. E., 37 erectus, 148–9, 163, 168 Goodenough, W., 5, 225 ergaster, 148, 153, 168 Goodwin, C., 184, 189, 197, 200 heidelbergensis, 11–12, 145–55, Google, 15, 71–2 157–62, 166, 169–70 gradualists vs catastrophists, 168–9 sapiens, 11, 148–9, 153, 163, 168–9, grammar, 2, 7, 27–47, 100, 148, 155, 170n2 157, 165, 169, 171n11 Hopper, P., 160 categories imposed by, 42 humoral theory, 8, 16, 50, 54, 64 cognitive linguistics (CL) approach humors, 50, 53–5, 58, 64, 290–2 to, 1–2 Hunn, E., 3 evolution of, 148 Hutchins, E., 10, 13, 16, 17, 104, 184 lexicon and, 27 Hymes, D., 1, 102, 217, 218, 223 networks of constructions, 37 hyponymy, 35 usage-based theory of, 8 see also Cognitive Grammar (CG) I grammaticalization, 157, 160, 168, iconic gesture, 162, 164, 193, 195, 169, 183 200–1, 212n11 grammaticalize, 147, 160–1 iconicity, 127, 129, 157, 171n19 grammatical meaning, 37–42 and phonological networks, 161–2

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

308 Index idealized cognitive models (ICMs), 9, intersubjectivity, 12, 13, 146, 148, 28, 86, 87 162, 165, 169, 182–4, 188–9, ‘consistency’, 85, 88–9, 91 209–10, 241, 281, 282 in English-speaking culture, 69 intersubjectivity/intersubjective, and idiomatic expressions, 68–70 concept of, 148, 169 as normative sociocultural beliefs, Husserlian notion of, 13 69 mimesis for, 162 person split into identical ‘self at Itkonen, E., 13 time t’ and ‘self at time t–n’, 86 ‘progress’, 83–6, 88–9, 91, 93n4 J ‘single self’, 83, 85, 88 Jackendoff, R., 38 see also cultural cognitive models Japanese human-nature metaphors, (CCMs); constructional idioms 11, 125–6, 128, 142 (CIs); cultural models Japanese language and culture, 11 ideology, 11, 18n4, 126, 129, 230n1 Japanese onomatopoeia, 198 idiomatic expressions, 68–70, 77 Jespersen, O., 147, 166, 167, 168 see also constructional idioms (CIs) Jin, Y., 83, 84 Ikegami, Y., 41 Johansson, S., 147, 170n4 iku ‘go’, 182, 184–5, 193, 204 Johnson, M., 6, 30, 32, 47, 81, 103, I-language, 284 109, 157, 158, 182, 239, 251, imagery, notion of, 100, 124–5, 128– 253, 271 9, 145–6, 148, 159, 162–4, 169 joint attention frames, 162, 169, 184 image schemas, 30, 100, 102–3, 157 Jourdan, C., 5, 7 immanence, 34 immediate scope, 36 K incredulity response construction, 70 Kabwe, 149–51 indexical, 13–14, 130, 133, 227, 245 Kataoka, K., 2, 7, 10, 12, 186, 189, indexical pronouns, 223 193, 201 individual cognition perspective, 16, Kay, P., 3, 4, 5 181 Keesing, R. M., 1, 15, 18, 106, 275 inferential potential (of metaphor), Kempton, W., 274 15, 252, 257, 262, 264 Kendon, A., 197, 200, 209, 211n8 inspiration, 55, 217, 237, 244, 247 keywords, 10, 219, 223–4, 228, 274, instantiation, 55, 104, 240, 277–9, 276, 278–9, 281, 285, 293 293–4 Kimmel, M., 262, 263 intention reading, 164, 169 kinship, 3–4, 41, 109 Interactional Sociolinguistics, 16, Kita, S., 148, 162, 164, 186 231n6 Kitner, K., 274, 275 interaction(s), 6–7, 13, 18n1, 27, 30, Klein, R. G., 148, 151, 152, 153 183 Knight, C., 147, 148, 162, 166 embodied, 184 Kockelman, P., 217 social, 103, 160, 220, 227, 229, Kopp, R. R., 253, 254, 260, 261, 262 236–7, 278, 284 Kornreich, M., 252, 264 intercultural miscommunication, 10 Kövecses, Z., 6, 8, 50, 70 interdiscursivity, notion of, 10 Kripke, S., 217 internalism, 17 Kristiansen, G., 6, 183, 218, 219, 280 internalization, notion of, 18, 285–6 Kronenfeld, D., 1, 3, 16, 279–80, internal language (I-language), 284 282–3, 296 Internet data, 70–2 Kroskrity, P., 11, 249n3

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

Index 309

Kuno, S., 204 and cultural cognitive models, kuru ‘come’, 182, 184 284–5 and grammar, 8, 27–8, 37, 38, 42, L 45 Labov, W., 186 language-specific nature of, 27 Lakoff, G., 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 28, 30, 32, meaning of, 27 47, 50, 69, 81, 103, 109, 157, networks of constructions, 37 158, 160, 236, 239, 240, 251, Li, C., 147 253, 297 Liang, Q., 72, 83, 84, 85 Lakoff, R., 15, 255 Linde, C., 186 landmark, 36, 189, 197–9, 210, 211n7 linguistic anthropologists, 17–18, 217, Langacker, R. W., 2, 6, 7, 14, 16, 28, 221 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, linguistic anthropology (LA), 1–18, 43, 45, 47, 87, 100, 102, 157, 99, 100, 102, 114, 124, 145, 159, 160, 161, 171n11, 183, 181, 183, 217–20, 221, 227–9, 219, 229, 271 230n1, 249n3, 265 languaculture, notion of, 9–10, 69, anti-cognitivism in, 18n4 91, 146 anti-intentionalist approach to language(s), 2–7, 14–15, 170n2, meaning, 18n4 230n1 connections between metaphor and -acquisition, 171n19, 183–4 ideology, 11 central aspect of cultural cognition, cultural concepts in, 221 104 marginalization of cognition history, 15 within, 4 ideologies, 11 sociocentric cognition, 227 origin in evolutionary-biological token-level analyses in, 228 framework, 12 linguistic categorization, 217 proto-, 11–12, 145–6, 148, 156–62, linguistic diversity, 27–8, 28 170 linguistic relativity hypothesis, 4, 7 as social phenomena, 3 linguistic variation, 6, 45 socio-cultural grounding of, 102 Livingstone, F. B., 147, 167 verbal, see verbal language Locke, J., 148, 165, 166, 168 late modernity, 14–15, 234–7, 247–8 love, 11, 65, 110, 112, 115, 125, Lawrence, D., 181 127–41 Leach, E., 226 overt address, 130–5 Leavitt, J., 5, 7 Low, G., 252, 265 Levinson, S. C., 4, 5, 6, 7, 17, 18, 158, Low, S., 181 181, 185, 186, 187, 237 Loy, J. D., 148, 149, 151 lexical items, 28, 36, 38 Lucy, J. A., 3, 4, 7, 40, 181 in Aboriginal English, 114 decomposition of, 3–4 M lexical/lexemes meaning MacNeilage, P. F., 154, 155, 156 case study, 42–6 ‘macro-metaphor’, 125 conceptual content, 28–9 Mandler, J., 32 construal, 34–7 Mandler, J. M., 30, 42 embodiment and culture, 29–34 Mannheim, B., 7, 9, 141 lexico-grammatical characteristics, 75–7 map lexicon, 8, 16, 27, 37, 38, 44, 62, 156, cognitive, 158–9, 171n15 229 macro, 159

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

310 Index

Marwick, B., 147, 151, 158, 161 metrical positions, 221, 223, McGlone, M., 240 223–4 McMullen, L. M., 253, 265 Middle Pleistocene period, 11, 154 McNeill, D., 186, 192, 198, 212n11 proto language of, 145–6 meaning conjunction, 262 genesis of verbal symbols in, 146 medical anthropology, 273–4 proto speakers living in, 145 Medin, D. L., 1, 8, 16, 17, 280 migi ‘right’, 182, 184, 202, 208–9 Meltzoff, J., 252, 264 mimesis, mimetic, 12, 129, 146–7, mental corpus, 271, 285, 293, 294 159, 162–4, 166–7, 169, 189, mental imagery, 145, 148, 162 210 Merleau-Ponty, M., 182 mimetic skill, see mimesis Mertz, E., 221, 230n1 mimetic theories, 148 metaphor, 6, 7 mind-body split, 202, 205 cognitive linguistics (CL) approach modal, 6, 38, 42–4, 71 to, 1–2 modality, 44, 74 metaphorical patterns model construction, 273, 279 CHANGE OF STATE IS CHANGE OF Mondada, L., 255 LOCATION, 53–6 monomorphemic lexemes, 37 STATES ARE PLACES, 53–4 moral grounding, 235–6 metaphorical solution, 55 morphemes, 154, 155 metaphoric conceptualization, 253, morphology, 146, 148, 157, 160–1, 262 168–9 metaphoric hedging, 15 Moshi, L., 161 metaphors/metaphorization, 6–7, motherese, 148, 165–6 10–11, 32–3, 52, 126, 163, 237, motion verbs, 53 239–42, 244, 246–8 motivation, 42, 62, 65, 147, 164, 237, ‘A Purposeful Life is a Journey’, 240 255, 261 cognitive import of, 15 motivational speakers, 243–7, 247 conceptual, see conceptual motor schemas, 156 metaphor mouvoir, 8, 50–64 experiences as resources, 14 onomasiological proportions for, 61 hedging raw frequencies of, 59 analysis of, 259–64 reasons for dissolution of, 62–3 as a common phenomenon, 255–9 semasiological proportions for, 60 psychotherapeutic talk, 252, 255 movement, concept of, 64–5 ideological nature of, 249n3 multimodal(ity), 4, 12, 13, 181–210 inferential potential of, 15 discourse analysis, 4 integration network, 125 resources, 199 in Japanese language and culture, semiosis, 189 124 Murray, S. O., 218 meaning of, 251 non-factual approximations, 15 N psychotherapists’ interest in, 253 Nagy, E., 184 in psychotherapy, 252–5 naming theory, 12, 147 role of, 236 narration, 130, 189, 197, 198 metasemiotic practices, 246 narratives, 14, 100, 126, 129–30, metonymy, 12, 129, 156, 158–9, 163, 140–1, 146, 148, 151, 159, 166, 169 169–70, 247 see also conceptual metonymy Nelson, K., 165, 169

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

Index 311 neo-Whorfian approach/movement, perspective, 4–10, 12, 15–17, 18n2, 31, 4, 181 34, 36–7, 62, 76, 99, 103, 111, 114, networks 116–17, 169, 182, 185–9, 192–210 conceptual, 157–8 perspective-taking, 13, 181–2, 187–8, semantic, 160–1 192, 201, 210 neural models, 293 phonemes, 100 neuro-cultural cognitive models, 294 phonological networks, 157, 161–2 neurolinguistics, research in, 287 Platzwechsel, notion of, 183 neuroscience, 271–2, 286, 293–4 plausibility shields, 257 Nichols, J., 168 Pleistocene, Middle, 11, 145–7, 151, non-homogeneous speech commu- 153–4, 158, 165, 168–9 nity, 227 ‘poetic’ structures, 14, 223, 228, 229 see also linguistic anthropology (LA) pointing, 13, 62, 146, 162, 186, 202, non-Western languages, 7 204–5, 207–9, 219 noun, 39 political discourse analysis, 10 classifiers, 108, 109, 158 and cultural linguistics, 117–18 class markers, 108–9 political metaphors, 117 polycentric conceptual networks, 157, 158 O polysemy, polysemous, 156–7, 160–1 observer-internal perspective, 192, post-partum depression, 238, 240–1 195–201 Pourcel, S., 6 observer’s external perspective, 188, Power, C., 147, 163 193–5, 204–5 pragmatic characteristics (of meta- observer viewpoints (VPTs), 186, 193 phor), 251 Occhi, D. J., 2, 7, 10, 124, 126, 128, pragmatic tension, 15, 261 138, 139, 142 PRC linguistic communities, 93n5 Ochs, E., 5 prelinguistic vocalization Ohnuki-Tierney, E., 124 primates, vocal symbolization and Old French data, 8, 51, 55, 57, 63–4 protosyntax in, 154–5 Ong, A.-H., 235 proto frames, 155–7 onomasiology, 8–9, 60–1, 63–4 pre-modern Western medicine, cultural -onomic knowledge, 221, 223, 226, cognitive models of, 288–92 231n5 primate Origo (origin of perception), 184–5, bonobo, 154–5 193, 195–7, 199, 200–2, 204–5, chimpanzee, 154–5 207–8, 210 gibbon, 154–5 Oxford English Dictionary, 64, 68 primate call system, 154 Prince, E., 257 P probing strategy, 261 Palmer, G. B., 2, 11, 12, 16, 47, Prochaska, J. O., 255 99–104, 106, 110, 119, 145, profile, 36, 39–40, 43–4, 84, 133, 135, 157, 158, 159, 160, 171n15, 146, 285 171n18, 183, 185, 218 propositional attitude predicate, 42–3, Pang, K.-Y. S., 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 79, 83, 87 45–6 partonomies, 221, 230n3 proto-grammar, 155, 169 Pederson, E., 181 proto-language, 11–12, 145–6, 148, performance, 11–12, 125, 128, 146–7, 153, 161 162, 164–7, 169, 171n18, 191, prelinguistic vocalization transition 193, 197, 199, 202, 285 to, 154–7

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

312 Index proto-semantics, 157–62 Rennie, D. L., 262 proto-sign, 164–5 reported speech, 11, 133–5, 139 proto-speakers, 145–7, 154–5, 157–8, representational gesture, 186 161–2 ritual speech, 166 proto-speech, 146, 155, 162, 165, 167, Rizzolatti, G., 164 169, 170n2 Rogoff, B., 184 proto-syntax, 154–5 Rosaldo, M. Z., 18n4 prototype, notion of, 14, 41, 217–18, Rosch, E., 4, 219 221, 231n4 Ross, C. F., 154 cultural, 104 Ross, N., 8, 16, 17, 154, 280 culturally constructed, 108 Ruhlen, M., 156 vs stereotypes, 219–20 Rumsey, A., 13, 222, 223 proto-words, 154 Rymes, B., 217 proverb, 9–10 meaning of, 68–9 S psychology, 5, 181, 280 Sacks, H., 13 psychotherapeutic discourse, 15, 258, salience, salient, 9, 29, 35, 51, 60–1, 265 64, 69, 87, 146–7, 158, 160, psychotherapeutic talk, 252–3, 255 164, 169, 189, 219, 236–7, 246, psychotherapy, 15, 249n4, 265 275, 280 metaphor in, 252–5 Sanches, M., 1, 218 see also metaphors/metaphorization Sapir, E., 3 Public Opinion Programme (Hong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, 145 Kong), 90 scenario, 11, 84, 86, 100, 128, 147, Putnam, H., 217, 219, 220, 221, 223, 157–60, 169, 283 225, 227 Schank, R., 276 Pütz, M., 218 Schegloff, E. A., 209, 211n2 schemas, concept of, 7, 10–11, 30, Q 39, 100, 102, 105–8, 110–11, Quiatt, D., 158, 168 114–15, 147, 156–7, 275–9, Quinn, N., 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 16, 69, 106, 283–5, 293 218, 224, 226, 262, 271, 272, abstract representations, 102 273, 275, 276, 282 bio-behavioral bases of, 293 as a building block of cultural cog- R nitive models, 276 ‘racial’ taxonomic structures, 14 cultural, see cultural schemas Racine, T. P., 13 and cultural cognitive models recontextualization, 248 (CCMs), 276–8 Rampton, B., 234 image, see image schemas recontextualization, 248 versus instance, 277 Reddy, M. J., 28 instantiation, 279 reduplication, 156, 161–2, see also cultural models 171n12 Schieffelin, B., 5, 11, 249n3 reflexive modernity, 14 Schieffelin, E. L., 159 reflexivity, notion of, 171n18, 235, Schiffrin, D., 255 237–9, 248, 249n1 Searle, J., 18n4 religion, metaphor’s role selfhood, 124–42 in, 126 self-improvement, notion of, 70, 83, Renaissance, 9, 59–62 84–6

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

Index 313 self-reference, 130, 202 social network analysis and cultural self-reliance, 234–6 cognitive models, 284 semantic sociocultural situatedness, 7 deference, 220 socio-empirical conceptual knowl- externalism, 220 edge, 218 network, 160–1 sociosemantics, 220 norms, 219 song, 11–12, 109, 125–6, 128–32, primitives, 28 134–9, 141–2, 147, 154–5, 159, proto, 157–62 166–8, 170, 222, 224 specialization, 60 song theories, 12, 147, 166–8 semantics, cognitive linguistics (CL) soul approach to, 1–2 Galen’s expanded model of, 292 semasiology, 8–9, 18, 60 historical-cultural cognitive models Semino, E., 251 of, 16, 289–90 semiotic, 3, 11, 13, 192, 201, 210, space, anthropological research on, 181 221, 227, 231n6, 246 spatial cognition, 4 anthropology, 3 spatial cognitive maps, 159 pragmatism, 221 spatial deixis Senft, G., 9 analysis of, 192–3 serial structures, 221 and frames of reference, 184–93 shared intentionality, 184 linguistic theories of, 185 shared mental map, 12–13 spatial orientation, 12, 157, 158–9 shared mind, 184 spatial perspectives, 169, 185–6, 189, Sharifian, F., 2, 5, 7, 9–11, 13, 16, 50, 201, 210 99–119, 145, 159, 218 spatial readings, 54 sharing, culture and, 280–2 specificity, 35, 37–8, 41 sharmandegi ‘being ashamed’, 115 speech, 109, 116, 154 Shen Bao (⭣๡), 72 act of greeting, 107 Shi Wu Bao (ᱲउ๡), 72 adolescent, 148 Shona noun classifier, 158 capabilities, 154 Shore, B., 2, 106, 281–2 community(ies), 104, 118, 278 sign, 147, 149, 164–5, 187, 197, 205, genesis of, 147–8, 158 238, 246 juvenile, 147, 165, 169 Silverstein, M., 3, 4, 7, 14, 217, 218, metaphorical, 65 219, 220, 221, 223, 226, 228, primitive, 166–7 230n3, 231n5, 248 ritual, 166 Sima de los Huesos, 150, 154 sexual selection for, 166 Sinha, C., 12, 13, 32, 148, 163, 165, speech act functions, 72–4, 78, 170, 170n5 81, 86 Skeggs, B., 236 Sperber, D., 6, 16 sloppy selfhood, concept of, 126 stance, 8, 12–13, 43, 70, 72–3, 81, emergence of, 128, 129 86–9, 91, 118, 183, 262 small stories, 14, 247–8 Steen, G. J., 6 social cognitive linguistics, 7 stereotype, notion of, 13–14, 16, 87, social identity, 234–5 217–30 social interactions, 31, 103, politician’s, 87 160, 220, 227, 229, 236–7, prototype versus, 219–20 278, 284 in traditions of CL and philosophy socially distributed cognition, 10 of language, 221

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

314 Index

Stokoe, W. C., 147, 160, 164, 165, Tomasello, M., 31, 154, 157, 162, 164, 168 165, 171n19, 184 Strauss, C., 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 16, 106, 228, ‘trading places’, 182–3, 192, 208, 210 230n1, 273, 282 trajector, 36 Sturtevant, W. C., 221 Traugott, E., 160, 183 subjectification, 161 Trevarthen, C., 184 superordinate category, 240–1 trope, 5, 129–30 Sweetser, E., 44 Tuggy, D., 161 syllable, syllabic, 154–6, 161, 167–8, Tuite, K., 5, 7 170 Tummers, J., 8 symbol, symbolization, 12, 14, 34, 37, Turner, M., 9, 33, 69, 81, 125, 157 100, 126, 154–5, 166, 168–70, Tversky, B., 181 171n11, 171n19, 281 Tyler, S., 221 symbolic assembly, 37 symbolic speech, emergence of, U 163 Újhelyi, M., 154, 155 symbolic thesis, 229 Urban, G., 248 symbolism, emergence of, 148, 164 usage events, 8, 29–30, 229 symbolization, 12 vocal, 154–5 V symbols, genesis of, 148, 169 van Dijk, T. A., 17 synecdoche, 137, 139, 140 verb, 36–7, 39, 53–4 synonymy, 59, 61–3, 156 motion, 53 syntactic parallelism, 223 verbal language, 145 syntax, 154–5, 168, 171n11 vital relations identity, 81, 85 T non-identity, 81, 85 Talmy, L., 35, 37, 38, 39, 44 vocalizations, 12, 146, 148, 154–7, Tambiah, S., 231n5 162–70 target-domain, 110 vowels, 154–6, 161, 167–8 taxonomy, 35, 221, 225, 230n3, 279 W Tay, D., 2, 7, 10, 251, 255, 265 Waugh, L., 6 Taylor, C., 9 Wee, L., 2, 7, 10, 11, 236, 237, 240, Taylor, J. R., 4, 9, 14, 18n2, 41, 70, 241, 246, 247, 249n1 71, 79, 217, 218, 219, 220, 226, White, D. R., 280, 284 228, 229, 230n1, 271, 279, White, G. M., 9, 69 284–5, 293 Whorf, B., 3 Teasdale, J. D., 253, 265 Whorfian Hypothesis, 4 thematic roles, 160 Wierzbicka, A., 10, 28, 45 (theory of) humors, 50, 64 Wilce, J. M., 18n1 therapeutic significance (of meta- Wilcox, S. E., 147, 160, 164, phor), 253, 257 165, 168 therapeutic talk, 252–4, 262, 265 Willis’s model of medicine, 290–2 therapist Woolard, K., 11 third-order mentality, 184, 192 word meaning, 285 Thompson, J. L., 11, 170n3 World Englishes, 10 Todd, Z., 6 Wortham, S., 217, 229

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6 Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6

Index 315

X Z ‘X mind’, 184 Zhi Xin Bao (⸕ᯠ๡), 72 Ziemke, T., 6, 7 Y Zimmer, C., 289, 290, 291 Yamaguchi, M., 2, 5, 7, 10, 222, 227 Zlatev, J., 13, 148, 162, 166, 170n4, Yucatec Maya, 40 182, 184, 189, 192, 210