Article published in:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 1:2 (2014) ► pp. 155–170

Cognitive Linguistics

Retrospect and prospect

| School of Foreign Languages, Southwest University (China)
As a new paradigm of linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics has made great achievements over the past 30 years or so. In order to make the latest trends of Cognitive Linguistic research known, this paper presents the outstanding achievements and prominent characteristics of Cognitive Linguistics in various dimensions. In contrast to some other linguistic theories, Cognitive Linguistics has more conspicuous advantages in its theories and other aspects. Cognitive linguistics can offer not only an account of linguistic phenomena but also that of a wide variety of social and cultural phenomena. Therefore, Cognitive Linguistics is not only a school of linguistics but a cognitive social science or a cognitive semiotics, which has lots of implications for various fields or disciplines in the age of big data.
Keywords: cognitive grammar, construction grammar, metaphor, Cognitive Linguistics, subjectification, constructionalization, metonymy, image schema, grammaticalization
Published online: 03 April 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.1.2.01wen
References
Achard, M., & Niemeier, S
(Eds.) (2004) Cognitive10.2307/1414531 linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bielak, J., & Pawlak M
(2013) Applying cognitive grammar in the foreign language classroom. Heidelberg: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brône, G., & Vandaele, J
(Eds.) (2009) Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caballero, R
(2005) Reviewing space: Figurative language in architects’ assessment of built space. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., & Verspoor, M
(2004) Cognitive explorations in language and linguistics (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V
(2007) A glossary of cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M
(2006) Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V., Bergen, B., & Zinken, J
(Eds.) (2007) The cognitive linguistics reader. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 64(3),501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gavins, J., & Steen, G
(Eds.) (2003) Cognitive poetics in practice. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D
(1997) Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
(2006a) Words and other wonders. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2006b) Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y
(Eds.) (2010) Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R
(1994) The Poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goatly, A
(2007) Washing the brain: Metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marquez, G.M., Mittelberg, I., Coulson, S., & Spivey, M
(Eds.) (2007) Methods in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S., & Stefanowitsch, A
(Eds.) (2006) Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holme, R
(2004) Mind, metaphor and language teaching. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z
(2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Knop S. De, & Rycker T. De
(Eds.) (2008) Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, G., Achard, M., Dirven, R., & Ruiz, F
(Eds.) (2006) Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990) The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Don’t think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
(2008) The political mind: Why you can’t understand 21st century American politics with an 18th-century brain. New York: Viking Penguin.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M
(1989) More than cool reason :A field guide topoetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R
(1987/1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar (2 vols.1). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008).Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, D
(2001) Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J
(2009) Applied cognitive linguistics to language teaching and learning. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nathan, G
(2008) Phonology: A cognitive grammar introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oakley, T., & Hougaard, A
(Eds.) (2008) Mental spaces in discourse and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pütz, M., Niemeier, S., & Dirven, R
(Eds.) (2001) Applied cognitive linguistics (2 vols1). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R
(2007) Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N
(Eds.) (2008) Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. New York & London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sag, I.A., Boas, H.C., & Kay, P
(2012) Introducing sign-based construction grammar. In H.C. Boas, & I.A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Stockwell, P
(2002) Cognitive poetics: An introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tabakowska, E
(1993) Cognitive linguistics and poetics of translation. Tbingen: Gunter NarrVerlag.Google Scholar
Talmy, L
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
(2007) Foreword. In M. Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, & M. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J
(2002) Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M
(2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C., & Dasher, R
(2002) Regularities in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C
(2010) Ten lectures on constuctionalization. Manuscript. Chongqing, Southwest University.
(2014) Toward a constructional framework for research on language change. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 1(1), 3–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C., & Trousdale, G
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M
(1996) The literary mind: The origins of thought and language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., Takada, M., Kim, Y., & Marinova, D
(Eds) (2005) Language in use: Cognitive and discourse perspectives on language and language learning. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H
(2006) An introduction to cognitive linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A
(2005) Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Violi, P
(2001) Meaning and experience. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Yu, N
(2009) The Chinese HEART in a cognitive perspective: Culture, body, and language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J., Racine, T., Sinha, C., & Itkonen, E
(Eds.) (2008) The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Nikolaev, Sergey, Emil Sarkisov, D. Rudoy, A. Olshevskaya & N. Ugrekhelidze
2021. The dynamic specificity of interlingual interference within the context of virtual space: towards the theoretical framework of the phenomenon (by the example of political discourse). E3S Web of Conferences 273 ► pp. 11011 ff. Crossref logo
Szcześniak, Konrad
2019. Meaning hides in the confusion of the construction. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 6:1 ► pp. 58 ff. Crossref logo
Yang, Xu & Jin Liu
2017. Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale. Constructionalization and constructional changes . Cognitive Linguistic Studies 4:1 ► pp. 159 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.