Cover not available
Part of
Analogy and Contrast in Language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics
Edited by Karolina Krawczak, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Marcin Grygiel
[Human Cognitive Processing 73] 2022
► pp. 61–82

Chapter 3
Analogy in action

Space-time, perspectival frames, cultural models

| UMCS, Lublin
Analogy as structural similarity is assumed to play a fundamental role in human cognition. This study is concerned with analogies between spatiotemporal orientation, linguistically-coded perspectival frames, and cultural experience. Two major types of orientational frames, and thus of cultural perspectival frames, are postulated: egocentric and allocentric. Those, however, may also be combined into complex hybrid configurations. A case study of a sample of press discourse is offered, where the egocentric, allocentric, and hybrid perspectival frames are shown to be interwoven. Ultimately, it is hypothesised that the frames can be extrapolated onto the level of conventionalised, communal perspectives, i.e. cultural models. Analogy is thus shown to be a powerful, robust cognitive mechanism operating across a variety of domains.
Keywords: analogy, hybrid, immigrant, migrant, press discourse, perspectival frames
Article outline
  • 1.Analogy: Definition and background
  • 2.From orientation in space-time to linguistically coded conceptualisation
    • 2.1Space-time = conceptualisation analogy in Vantage Theory
    • 2.2Perspectives in linguistically-coded spatial orientation
  • 3.Egocentric vs. allocentric perspectives
  • 4.Cultural models and individual minds
  • 5.Case study: migrant/immigrant in press discourse
  • 6.Conclusions and challenges
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 October 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.73.03gla
References (61)
References
Adorno, T. W. 1998 [1963]. Quasi unafantasia. Essays on modern music. Transl. Rodney Livingstone. London & New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Antilla, R. 1989 [1972]. Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartha, P. 2016. Analogy and analogical reasoning. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. [URL] (accessed 10 Jan, 2018)Google Scholar
Bennardo, G., & de Munck, V. 2014. Cultural models: Genesis, methods, and experiences. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blount, B. 2014. Situating cultural models in history and cognition. In M. Yamaguchi, D. Tay, & B. Blount (Eds.), Approaches to language, culture, and cognition: The intersection of Cognitive Linguistics and linguistic anthropology (271–298). Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bühler, K. 1990 [1934]. Theory of language: The representational function of language. Trans. D. F. Goodwin. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. 2007. Diachronic linguistics. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (945–987). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. 1994. Past, space and self. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cap, P. 2013. Proximization: The pragmatics of symbolic distance crossing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Andrade, R. G. 1981. The cultural part of cognition. Cognitive Science, 5, 179–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Andrade, R., & Strauss, C. (Eds.) 1995. Human motives and cultural models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
de Jongste, H. 2017. Mental models, communication and culture. Paper at Culture – Cognition – Communication. (Inter)cultural Perspectives on Language and the Mind. UMCS, Lublin, Poland, 14–15 Sept 2017.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., Wolf, H.-G., & Polzenhagen, F. 2007. Cognitive Linguistics and cultural studies. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (1203–1221). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dokulil, M. 1962. Tvoření slov v češtině 1. Teorie odvozování slov. Praha: Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd.Google Scholar
Durkheim, É. 1915 [1912]. The elementary forms of the religious life. Trans. J. Ward Swain. London: G. Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
1982 [1895]. The rules of the sociological method. New York & London: The Free Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Einstein, A. 1920. Relativity: The special and general theory. Trans. R. W. Lawson. New York: Henry Holt. [published in 2000 by Bartleby.com. [URL]; access: 5 Sep, 2017]Google Scholar
Everett, D. L. 2008. Don’t sleep, there are snakes. Life and language in the Amazonian jungle. New York: Vintage Departures.Google Scholar
Fabiszak, M. 2017. Contesting memories in text and image: Discursive representation and cognitive construal. In D. M. Seymour, & M. Camino (Eds.), The Holocaust in the twenty-first century. Contesting/contested memories (108–131). New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. 1983. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Głaz, A. 2017. Promoting dialogue. Two traditions in language and culture research. In J. Ziobro-Strzępek, & W. Chłopicki (Eds.), Across borders 6. The West looks East (41–58). Krosno: Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Zawodowa im. Stanisława Pigonia.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. 2012. Towards a systematic table of semantic elements. In C. Goddard (Ed.), Cross-linguistic semantics (59–81). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grush, R. 2000. Self, world and space: The meaning and mechanisms of ego- and allocentric spatial representation. Brain and Mind, 1, 59–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1966. The state of the art. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, D. 1995. Fluid concepts and creative analogies: Computer models of the fundamental mechanisms of thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
2001. Epilogue: analogy as the core of cognition. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind. Perspectives from cognitive science (499–538). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, D., & Sander, E. 2013. Surfaces and essences. Analogy as the fuel and fire of thinking. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Holland, D., & Quinn, N. (Eds.). 1987. Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R., Bloom, P., & Wynn, K. (Eds.). 1999. Language, logic, and concepts. Essays in memory of John Macnamara. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Janda, L. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (632–649). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1992. Analogy. In W. Bright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, vol. 1. (56–61). New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kronenfeld, D. B. 2018. Culture as a system. How we know the meaning and significance of what we do and say. Abingdon & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. 2000. Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1994. Culture, cognition, and grammar. In M. Pütz (Ed.), Language contact and language conflict (25–53). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016a. Baseline and elaboration. Cognitive Linguistics, 27, 405–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016b. Nominal structure in Cognitive Grammar: The Lublin lectures. Ed. A. Głaz, H. Kowalewski, & P. Łozowski. Lublin: Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press.Google Scholar
This volume. What could be more fundamental?
Levinson, S. C., & Wilkins, D. P. 2006. Patterns in the data: Towards a semantic typology of spatial description. In S. C. Levinson, & D. P. Wilkins (Eds.), Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity (512–552). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lévy-Bruhl, L. 1926 [1910]. How natives think. London: G. Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
LJS. The Online Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon at Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. stephanus.tlg.uci.edu (accessed 4 Sept, 2017)
Lu, Y. 2017. Cultural conceptualisations of collective self-representation among Chinese immigrants. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), Advances in cultural linguistics (89–110). Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacLaury, R. E. 1997. Color and cognition in Mesoamerica: Constructing categories as vantages. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
2002. Introducing vantage theory. Language Sciences, 24(5–6), 493–536. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Categorization as space-time analogy. In A. Głaz, M. L. Moist, & E. Tribushinina (Eds.), Vantage Theory: A view on language, cognition and categorization (137–181). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. B. M., & Levinson, S. C. 2004. Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(3), 108–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Musolff, A. 2015. Dehumanizing metaphors in UK immigrant debates in press and online media. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 3(1), 41–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nishida, H. 2005. Cultural schema theory. In W. B. Gudynkunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (401–418). London & New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Quinn, N. 2011. The history of the cultural models school reconsidered: A paradigm shift in cognitive anthropology. In D. B. Kronenfeld, G. Bennardo, V. C. de Munck, & M. D. Fischer (Eds.), A companion to cognitive anthropology (31–46). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharifian, F. 2017. Cultural Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shore, B. 1996. Culture in mind: Cognition, culture, and the problem of meaning. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2012. Egocentric and allocentric perspectives in cultural models. In Ron Sun (Ed.), Grounding social sciences in cognitive sciences (89–123). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sowa, J. F. 2005. Categorization in cognitive computer science. In H. Cohen, & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (141–164). Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strauss, C. & Quinn, N. 1995. A cognitive theory of cultural meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M. 2007. Conceptual integration. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (377–393). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wexler, M. 2003. Voluntary head movement and allocentric perception of space. Psychological Science, 14, 340–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar