ICLC-14 Book of Abstracts Theme sessions PHONOLOGY IN COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS Geoffrey S. Nathan & Jose A. Mompean* Wayne State University, University of Murcia* [email protected], [email protected]* Phonology is in no way less conceptual than other areas of linguistic reseach such as semantics or grammar. Yet it has been much neglected in cognitive linguistics, although a few researchers have explored various ways of rethinking phonology within cognitive linguistics (see e.g. Mompean, 2014; Mompean & Mompean-Guillamón, 2012; Nathan, 2008, 2015; Nesset, 2008; Taylor, 2002). In order to foster discussion and work on phonology within the cognitive linguistic framework, the proposed theme session aims to bring together contributions dealing with the role of phonology in specific languages or language (spoken/sign) in general as well as phonological issues from a cognitive/functional linguistic perspective. These include, among others, categorization and prototype effects, the phonology of symbolic units and constructions, usage-based aspects of phonology, phonetic, sociolinguistic and cultural motivation of phonological units, iconicity in phonology, relationships between phonology and other gestural and non-verbal communication, etc. References Mompean, J.A. (2014). Cognitive Linguistics and Phonology. In J.R. Taylor & J. Littlemore (eds), The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 253–276). London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Mompean, J. A., & Mompean-Guillamón, P. (2012). La fonología cognitiva. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano & J. Valenzuela (eds.), Lingüística Cognitiva (pp. 307–326). Barcelona: Anthropos. Nathan, G.S. (2008). Phonology: A Cognitive Grammar Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nathan, G. S. (2015). Phonology. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (eds), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 253–273). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Nesset, T. (2008). Abstract Phonology in a Concrete Model. Cognitive Linguistics and the Morphology- Phonology Interface (Series Cognitive Linguistics Research [CLR]). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton de Gruyter. Taylor, J.R. (2002). Phonological Structure in Cognitive Grammar. In Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ICLC-14 Book of Abstracts Theme sessions EXPRESSIVE GGEMINATION IN THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE Nadežda Christopher SOAS [email protected] Keywords: geminate, gemination, reduplication, double consonants, sound symbolism The matter of geminates in the Russian language is a fairly straightforward one as far as Russian grammar books are concerned (Lopatin, 2009). Dvoinie soglasnie (double consonants) mainly occur due to affixation or word compounding. However, a lot of these double consonants [CC] do not have the phonological extra length quality of a true geminate [C:]. In this paper I examine the previously undescribed Russian expressive geminates, and juxtapose them with the double consonants. I propose that the expressive geminates are the true geminates in Russian, arising from reduplication of phonological material. I also propose that further research can lead to the discovery of new linguistic universals, which expose the complex cognitive nature of many phonological phenomena cross- linguistically. Russian double (long) consonants are usually correspondent to two letters in orthography, however, two consonants in writing do not always indicate a phonological double consonant, as the examples in (1) show. The Russian words are followed by their transcription and meaning; stress is marked by the accent mark. (1) Россия – [rasíja] – ‘Russia’; кристалл – [kristál] – crystal; коррозия – [karózija] – ‘corrosion’). The examples in (2) contain words with double consonants that arose due to the morphological processes of affixation or compounding (the morpheme boundaries are indicated by a dash ‘-‘). (2) Без-закон-ный – [bezzakónnyj] – ‘unlawful’; глав-врач [glavvráč] – ‘head physician’. We can see here that the orthographic double consonants are reflected in the pronunciation of these words and are realised as [CC]. I argue that these are not the true Russian geminates as each of the two consonants in a cluster is pronounced somewhat separately, accentuating the orthographic double representation, whereas in the case of gemination, one consonantal sound is prolonged, and would be represented as [C:], as in the example in (3). (3) Original form Meaning Geminated form Meaning хороший ‘good’ [har:óshij] ‘very/extremely good!’; can also be used [haróshij] sarcastically to mean ‘not good at all’ or ‘silly’ (of a person) As well as the change in the quality of the sound, we observe the change in meaning, which can be characterized as expressive colouring or intensification (verified with ten native speakers of Russian). The next step is to consider gemination as an instance of reduplication within the wider context of reduplication in Russian, which can be full or partial and predominantly has ‘an expressive connotation’ (Israeli, 1997:588). I propose that Russian expressive gemination is, in fact, an instance of full reduplication of a phonological segment (in our case, a consonant), which results in intensification of meaning. What is especially interesting about this observation and proposal is that in cases of expressive gemination, the meaning of the whole word is intensified as the result of reduplication of only one of its consonantal constituents, which leads to further questions regarding the underlying cognitive nature of consonants and their sound symbolic characteristics. Further investigation into the nature of the expressive geminates in the Russian and other languages can lead to discovering new cognitive phonological universals, which would not be restricted to a single realm of linguistic knowledge, but rather demonstrate their interconnectedness. References Israeli, A., 1997. Syntactic Reduplication in Russian: A Cooperative Principle Device in Dialogues. In: Journal of Pragmatics, 27, pp. 587-609 [online]. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216696000288 [Accessed 6 August 2016]. Lopatin, V.V. ed., 2009. Pravila Russkoi Orfografii i Punktuacii. Polnii Akademicheskii Spavochnik. Moscow: Eksmo. ICLC-14 Book of Abstracts Theme sessions THEORY OF THE PHONEME IN THE RUSSIAN LINGUISTIC TRADITION Natalia Kuznetsova Institute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences [email protected] Keywords: cognitive phonology, functionalism, theory of phoneme, sign systems, Russian linguistics The concept of the phoneme was born inside the Russian-speaking linguistic tradition (Baudouin de Courtenay, Kruszewski, Scherba) and was directly related to the neurological science of the time. Baudouin de Courtenay defined the phoneme as a “homogenous, linguistically indivisible anthropophonic impression, emerging in the soul by the psychic merge of the impressions from pronunciations of the same sound” (1899: 355). Moreover, the word “psychic” appears to be used as synonymous to “cerebral” and “central nervous” in his writings (ibid.: 196, 354). His views were based on the contemporary revolutionary ideas by Sechenov that the central nervous system keeps the traces of the previous impressions. The more the impression is reiterated, the clearer the trace becomes and the longer it is kept by the nervous system (1866: 62). These ideas sound very modern and can be traced in contemporary works in the framework of functional (cognitive, usage-based) phonology (viz. Bybee 2001: 33, 52, Langacker 2008: 220). Later, the Russian phonology was divided into the so-called Scherba’s school (which followed these original anthropocentric ideas) and the more lingvocentric Moscow and Prague schools. Modern conceptions within the Scherba’s school will be discussed in the paper. They are based both on the functional theoretical ideas and the ongoing experimental research in psycholinguistics, speech production and perception. For example, on the question of whether phonemes are basic operational mental categories (cf. Nathan 2006: 189), it is believed that “the codes of mostly supraphonemic levels are used” in speech perception, a phonemic string being a collateral product of speech recognition. However, the phonemic code remains available, otherwise both the language system and the perceptive mechanism would be deprived of openness (Zinder and Kasevič 1989: 36-37). In speech production and perception, both top-down and bottom-up analyses (from phonemes to morphological units and the reverse) are therefore used according to the needs. As for the nature of the phoneme, a coherent application of the phenomenological method, essential for cognitive linguistics (Langacker 2008: 31), brings Kuznetsova (2014) to the conclusion that phonemes are no less abstract symbolic units than other kinds of language signs. In the original semiotic conception by de Saussure the “signifiant”, an acoustic image of the word, was also an “entirely psychic” rather than physical phenomenon (1919: 29). For the phoneme, one can further distinguish the functional dimensions similar to those of other language signs: “semantics” (a structure of the mental acoustic image), “syntax” (rules of distribution with other units of the same phonemic system under various conditions set by phonotactics, word prosody, morphology), and “pragmatics” (interfaces with any other entities outside the phonemic system in question, e.g. morphological units as wholes, graphic and orthographic correlates, phonemes of earlier diachronic stages or different regional variants of the same language,