Cognitive linguistics

Cognitive linguistics is a field of science that attempts to explain the relationship between language and the mind. It is not a single uniform theory but is instead a flexible framework that can change over time as more research is conducted and new theories are proposed. Cognitive linguistics as a field descended from the work of researchers in the 1970s who were dissatisfied with the existing approaches to language acquisition study. Cognitive linguistics has evolved so that it has three central premises: the purpose of language is to convey meaning; theories about language should be in line with what is generally known about the brain from other disciplines; and grammar emerges from usage. Most cognitive linguists in the twenty-first century believe that humans are born with strata, or structures, in their brain that prepare them to use language. Many scholars study cognitive linguistics to develop a better understanding of syntax and semantics than the broader field of linguistics provides. Others hope that by studying cognitive linguistics they will find a better connection between the study of language and the study of the brain.

Overview

Linguistics is the study of language, and those who study language are called linguists. While recognized as an area of specialization within the field of linguistics in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, cognitive linguistics has been a subject of controversy. Cognitive linguists have been criticized for using primarily introspection in their work instead of testing their theories on subjects. They have also been criticized for relying on their initial hypotheses instead of testing them and revising them accordingly. The field has also been criticized for ignoring and setting aside individual differences to focus on common trends and not considering cultural influences of language.

Language acquisition refers to learning language. Many psychologists, including the famous American behaviorist B.F. Skinner, studied language acquisition and concluded that language is learned and not evolutionary in any way. In 1957, Skinner and others announced their theory that children learned language through observation and imitation. Positive reinforcement also played a role. For example, a child might mispronounce a word. A parent might say the word correctly. When the child says the word correctly, he or she receives praise from the parent. According to the behaviorists, children learn language—even higher-level language—this way.

Then in 1957, Noam Chomsky (1928—), called the father of linguistics, published the book Syntactic Structures. In it, he asserts that children are genetically predisposed to learn language. According to Chomsky, when children are born, they have a general understanding of syntax, which refers to sentence structure. They are programmed with this framework for syntax, which he refers to as a universal grammar. This enables them to quickly learn and master a language. The language they learn, however, depends on the language spoken by their parents and caregivers. After this, those in the emerging field of cognitive linguistics attempted to determine how human beings learn to communicate at a high level. Some animal species can also communicate. For example, birds make sounds to warn others of danger, to attract a mate, or to defend a territory. Dolphins communicate with one another through clicks and whistles. However, this communication is simple. It is unlike that of human beings who are capable of grouping sounds into words and arranging words into sentences that convey an infinite number of messages. The receiver of these messages can usually easily decipher them, which is referred to as semantics.

Early cognitive linguists disagreed as to whether universal grammar exists. Some agreed with Skinner and thought this knowledge was gained behaviorally through learning. Others agreed with Chomsky, contending that it was innate. Supporting the latter was the theory of evolution. Homo sapiens, or early humans, were limited as to the sounds they could make, just like animals. However, over time, early humans evolved and their brains became more capable of conveying and interpreting information. In time evolution enabled them to use a universal grammar, making them predisposed to learning language.

Generative Grammar Approach

In the 1970s, Chomsky called his work the theory of generative grammar. His findings became one approach to cognitive linguistics. According to Chomsky, some sentences are so complex that a child could not learn their structure simply by listening to others speaking. It is more likely that this sentence structure is embedded in the child’s mind.

According to the theory of generative grammar, language is shaped by a set of basic principles that are innate, or part of the human brain. These principles are even present in the brains of young children. Generative grammar accepts that native speakers of a language will identify sentences as either grammatical or ungrammatical. These rules give insight into the use of that language. Chomsky, and other linguists who study generative grammar, are not interested in uncovering or inventing new grammatical rules. Their focus is instead on uncovering the foundation for how language is produced.

Cognitive Linguistic Approach

Another approach to cognitive linguistics is called Cognitive Linguistic (with both words capitalized). This approach is generally considered to be the opposite of generative grammar. While generative grammar contends that language is acquired autonomously, meaning on its own in the brain, Cognitive Linguistics argues that it is acquired non-autonomously and interacts with other cognitive processes. Generative grammar is interested in knowledge of the language while Cognitive Linguistics is interested in knowledge through the language.

Fathers of Cognitive Linguistics

Research into cognitive linguistics in the late 1970s was mainly conducted by American linguists Ronald Langacker, George Lakoff, and Leonard Talmy, who have been dubbed the fathers of cognitive linguistics. They had each developed a theory supporting the idea that human beings have an innate framework for language. Their theories had one common thread, however, that set them apart from Chomsky’s theory: They believed that cognitive linguistics should focus on meaning (semantics) rather than structure (syntax). This puts the focus more on the listener to decipher messages than the speaker to convey them.

Three major hypotheses have stemmed from cognitive linguistic research during this time:

1. Language is not an autonomous cognitive faculty.
2. Grammar is conceptualization.
3. Knowledge of language emerges from language use.

The first hypothesis goes against Chomsky’s belief that language is autonomous. Chomsky asserted that linguistic knowledge occurs in a different way than other cognitive processes that do not have to do with language. These linguists hypothesized that the opposite is true: Language is gained and used in the same way as other cognitive abilities. This hypothesis also posits that linguistic knowledge is entirely conceptual, meaning it takes place in the mind. It asserts that utterances, sounds, words, and syntax are conceptual. They are the input and output of the mental processes responsible for speech and interpretation.

According to these linguists, the organization and retrieval of language occur in much the same way as other cognitive functions such as sight and motor skills. They do not believe, as Chomsky does, that an autonomous special-purpose part of the brain exists, is dedicated to language, and works differently than other cognitive processes. They instead contend that the learning and processing of language can be illustrated by models used in cognitive psychology, particularly the models of memory, perception, attention, and categorization.

The second hypothesis relates to Langacker’s assertion that “grammar is conceptualization.” This hypothesis more specifically relates to conceptualization than the first one. According to this hypothesis, language processing is not logical or objective. It has to do with space and time, meaning the conditions under which a sentence is true. In other words, the conceptualization of the experience being communicated influences the words and grammar chosen in communication.

The third hypothesis is “knowledge of language emerges from language use.” In other words, the structures and categories of language, including syntax and semantics, are built up or expanded upon from previous cognitive recollections.

Commitments

Cognitive linguistics is described as a framework or a movement instead of a specific theory. It is an area of study that has adopted guiding principles and theories related to the field to help cognitive linguists continue their study of language and the brain. It is expected that cognitive linguists will assume that these principles and theories are true and move forward with additional research. Cognitive linguistics is characterized by two key commitments: the generalization commitment and the cognitive commitment.

The generalization commitment refers to theories that are believed to be true across various aspects of language. For example, cognitive linguists are to assume that the study of language can be broken down into distinct areas such as phonetics (sound production); phonology (sound patterns); syntax (sentence structure); and semantics (meaning of words and sentences). They should base their research on these theories.

The cognitive commitment is similar except that it deals with language as it is related to cognition. Cognitive linguists are to assume to be true theories regarding linguistic structure that reflect what is known about human cognition. These theories typically come from cognitive sciences such as psychology and neuroscience. These theories, too, should be relied upon and referred to in research.

Growth

During the 1980s, the field of cognitive linguistics started to become well-known and the work of Lakoff and Langacker began to gain supporters. Lakoff became well-known for his work in metaphor and metonymy (a figure of speech in which a thing is known by a name of something closely related to it, such as calling a king a “crown” or referring to a businessperson as a “suit”). Langacker became well-known for his theory of space grammar, which is the study of how human beings experience space and its effect on sentence structure. Both linguists published influential books about cognitive linguistics in 1987. Lakoff published Women, Fire and Dangerous Things, which is about the effects of categories on the mind, while Langacker published the first volume of Foundations of Cognitive Grammar.

In 1989 the first conference on cognitive linguistics was held in Duisburg, Germany. This conference was later named the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. It resulted in the formation of the International Linguistic Association. The journal Cognitive Linguistics appeared for the first time in 1990. Volume 2 of Langacker’s Foundations of Cognitive Grammar was published the following year.

The field continued to grow in the early twenty-first century. Conferences about cognitive linguistics began to be organized throughout the world. The journal Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics began publication in 2003. As of 2021, the International Cognitive Linguists Association (ICLA) had scheduled conferences into 2023.

Controversies

Cognitive linguists have made enormous progress since the 1970s when the field began to emerge. In the twenty-first century, they have a better understanding of how language is processed and meaning is constructed. However, scholars contend that some serious issues need to be addressed within the field if it is to continue to grow.

For starters, researchers believe that cognitive linguists rely too heavily on introspection, which is the observation of one’s own mental processes. While this might have been necessary when the field first emerged, other research methods exist in the twenty-first century. According to researchers, cognitive linguists too often rely on their own intuitions and make assumptions that cannot be tested and proven. The reason for this may be that many cognitive linguists do not have the technical knowledge required to use other research methods.

Some cognitive linguists have been criticized for making hypotheses but not testing them. This means that their linguistic theories have not been proven or disproven. If they test their hypotheses, they can either prove their ideas to be true or revise their hypotheses based on their findings.

Cognitive linguists must abide by the generalization and cognitive commitments when conducting their research. Scholars have asserted that while cognitive linguists uphold their cognitive commitment by assuming that the stated principles are true, they do not thoroughly relate these principles and theories to their own research. For example, while they might claim that language relies on cognitive processes, they do not explain how this occurs.

Research conducted by cognitive linguists tends to ignore individual differences in the subjects they test and instead focuses on general trends. Critics contend that cognitive linguists need to consider that individuals may not all process language in the same way. By dismissing test subjects who do not fit the norm, cognitive linguists are missing a chance to discover and study these differences.

Lastly, the field has been heavily criticized for ignoring the social and cultural influences on language and focusing only on cognitive processes and language. Scholars point out that social interactions influence language including word choice, syntax, and semantics.

Despite these criticisms, experts see future promise in the field of cultural linguistics. They note cognitive linguists are beginning to rely more heavily on empirical research and less on introspection and intuition. They theorize that in the future, cognitive linguists will rely more on technology such as brain imaging methods. They believe that the field will become more interdisciplinary, relying more on fields such as neuroscience and psychology. Some cognitive linguists have expressed an interest in conducting research in areas such as language impairment and the social dimension of language.

About the Author

Adrienne Kennedy holds bachelor’s degrees in communications and secondary education from King’s College and a master’s degree in English from the University of Scranton. She is a former college instructor and has worked in educational publishing for more than twenty years. She is also a published author of both nonfiction and fiction.

Bibliography

Coldwell-Harris, C. (2019, January 15). Our language affects what we see. Scientific American. www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-language-affects-what-we-see/

Evans, V. (2019, July 12). What is cognitive linguistics? Psychology Today. www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/language-in-the-mind/201907/what-is-cognitive-linguistics

Hakim, A. (2018, June 25). Definition of language by different scholars and linguists. English Finders. englishfinders.com/definition-of-language-by-scholars/

Hakim, A. (2018, June 29). Characteristics of language: 10 characteristics of human language. English Finders. englishfinders.com/characteristics-of-language/

History of language. History World. Retrieved October 28, 2021, from www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/plaintexthistories.asp?historyid=ab13

Lemetyinen, H. (2012). Language acquisition. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/language.html

McLeod, Dr. S. (2020, December 7). Piaget’s stages of cognitive development. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html

McWhorter, J. (2016, January 19). What’s a language, anyway? The Atlantic. www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/difference-between-language-dialect/424704/

Sharifian, Farzard. (2017). Cultural linguistics. John Benjamins Publishing.

Sturdy, C. B., & Nicoladis, E. (2017). How much of language acquisition does operant conditioning explain? Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1918. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01918

Xu, W. & Taylor, J. R. (2021). The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Routledge.