John R. Taylor (2002) Cognitive Grammar. Oxford University Press.

10 CHAPTER

base, domain and Profile, Meaning:

to ro.r Approaches the studyof meaning and ro.z Profile base 10.3 Domains ro.4 Some examptes
t86 792 795

r98
207

and ro.5 Designation connotation Studyquestions reading Further

203 204

Meaning is a difficult topic to addressin a systematicway. In the recentpast, to semantics be simplytoo hard to handleat all and many linguistsconsidered As topicsin syntaxand phonology. a directedtheir attentionto more tractable a good deal of linguistics,both in the Bloomfieldianand the consequence, Howeveqif we take the Chomskyantraditions, has simply ignored semantics. semanticrepresentaidea of languageas a symbolic systemat all seriously, tions are going to haveto play a central role. In fact, it is probably fair to say of that one of the major achievements CognitiveGrammar to datehasbeenin motivation of and in elucidatingthe semantic the area of semanticanalysis, and morphologicalstructure. syntactic This chapter introduces some basic notions involved in the study of on meaning.I begin, however,with some generalobservations the ways in which this topic can be approached.

10.1

of to the Approaches study meaning

to We can distinguishthreegeneralapproaches the study of meaning: (i) The language-world approach.Meaning is studiedas the relationship and of linguisticexpressions states affairsin the world. between

Meaning: Profile, base, anddomain

t87

(ii) The language-internal approach.Meaning is studiedin terms of relations between expressions within a language. . (iii) The conceptualist approach.The meaningof an expression equated is with a conceptualization the mind of a language in user. Let us consider these turn. in

10.1.1 language-world The approach

The language-world approachconsidersthe kinds of situationsto which a linguisticexpression be applied.Suppose areinterested the meanings can we in of cup andmug (and in the difference meaningbetween two words).It is in the evidentthat the meanings the two words are rathercloselytied up with the of kinds of things in the world that can be appropriately calledcups and mugs, and that knowing the meanings involves being able to apply the words appropriatelyto the things. We can distinguish two perspectives, according to the direction of the relation betweenlanguageand the world: . the semasiological' perspective goesfrom languageto the world, and asks: 'For this expression,what kinds of situations can be appropriately designated it?' by . the onomasiological'perspectivegoes from the world to language, and asks: 'For this state of affairs, what range of linguistic expressions can appropriately describe it?' With respect the cups and the mugs,the semasiological to perspective might involve asking English-speaking consultantsto point to items that could appropriatelybe namedby eachof the two words.Taking the onomasiological perspective, could presentour consultants we with an arrayof objects(comprising,obviously, thingsthat we suspect might count as cupsand mugs),and askthem what theywould call them. It would certainlybe a good startingpoint, if you weretrying to explicate the meaningsof, say,cup and mug, to considerthe kinds of things in the world to which the words may be applied.Or suppose you were studyingthe prepositionsover and above, and were interested the differences in betweenthe prepositions well as the extent of overlapbetweenthem. A natural startas ing point, again, would be to considerwhich spatial configurationscan be appropriatelynamed by the two prepositions. dare say that everylinguist, I when investigating the meaningsof expressions least, the meaningsof (at 'concrete'expressions) judgements to what the expressions will invite as can potentially refer to.
' From Greek selmasia'meaning'.'signi fication'. ' From Greek onoma'name'. 'Onomasiological'is being used here in a slightly non-traditional sense. Traditionally, onomasticsis the study of proper names (especially place names), while onomasiolog7 is often used to reler to the study ofsemantic relations between words within a semantic field.

188

grammar Cognitive

Onomasiology and semasiology domains are bettersuitedto the language-world approach than Somesemantic We whattheywouldcallit; equally, others. can pointto an objectand ask people We we canaskpeople pickout objects to thatcouldbe named a 'concrete'word. by entities, or couldnot applythis methodotogy abstract to suchas emotions betiefs. We could hardlyask a person pick out, from an arrayof mentalphenomena, to 'betiefs', opposed nor thosethatcount as as to'thoughts' or'knowledge', couldwe p o i n t o a n e m o t i o n a lt a t e n da s kp e o p l e h a tt h e yw o u t d a t i t . s a w c l p te i an O n es e m a n t ifc e t dt h a tl e n d s t s e t f a r t i c u l a rwy l lt o t h e o n o m a s i o l o g i c a ld i perspectives colour. mightbeginby presenting is We consultants semasiological Thisis the with a series coloursamples of and asking themto namethe colours. (fromworldto language) perspective to which serves elicitthe onomasiological we rangeof wordsthat a person habitualty usesto namecolours. Subsequently, with a colourchart, whichcolours arranged on accordmightpresent subjects are n e s i n g t o h u ea n d b r i g h t n e sa n da s k s u b j e c t s tio d i c a t w h i c h f t h e c o t o u r c o u l d s, o b h id b e n a m e d y e a c h f t h e c o l o u r w o r dts e yh a dv o l u n t e e r e n t h e f i r s tp a r to f t h e o (fromlanguage world). perspective to investigation. is the semasiotogical This Both perspectives weresystematically employed Maclauryin his investigaby in His are of tionsof colourterminology a wide range languages. results especially thatthe two perspectives not always mirror eachother. interesting the extent to do Thefactthat colour wordrycan be applied colour to sample doesnot entailthat c (1982) givesa brief word w. MacLaury coloursamplec wilt be namedby cotour and discusses overview the methodology of some of his findings;for more see advanced accounts, Maclaury see a GggSa, ry95b).For briefsummary Taylor i995a:28-4). perspectives were ingeniously The onomasiologicaI and semasiological terminology, already employed Geeraerts al. (t99Q in theirstudyof ctothing by et in madeit referred in Ch.t,p. ry6. Thedatacollected the course the research to of possible enquire, a givenclothing to to for term,the properties the garments of it for was apptied; conversely, was possible enquire, garments to whichthe term given the garments. whichnames weretypicatty to with a certain of properties, set perspectives the notionsof prototype and basicGeeraerts relates two the to apptied an entityof a certain to level.A basic-level term is one that is habituatty in salience. termscanbe characterizedtermsof onomasiological kind;basic-level prototypes is is apptied; Theprototype the entityto whichan expression typicatly salience. in of canbe characterizedterms semasiological

This said, there are several reasons why an approach which focuses and statesof affairs exclusivelyon the relation betweenlinguistic expressions in the world is inadequate: (i) A first, and obviouslimitation is that the approachis applicable only to 'concrete' entities. would not getvery far if we We which designate expressions

Meaning: Profile, base, domain and

189

tried to explicate the meanings of soul and spirit by asking our language consultants point to entities to that could be namedby these words. (ii) As waspointed out in section4.5, it is an error to suppose that linguistic expressions refer directly to the world at all; rather, linguistic expressions refer to entities in a mental space.The mental spacemay be taken to be veridical, in which casean expression's referentmay be assumed really exist to in the world. Equally,the mental spacecould be hypothetical,imagined,or fictional.Presumably, Martians existonly in fictionalmentalspaces. would we not get very far by trying to explicate meaningof Martian by linking up the the word with things that existin the world (or evenwith things that exist on Mars). (iii) Even if we restrict ourselvesto expressions which potential referfor ents can be identified, the language-worldapproach offers a less than completeaccountof meaning.Thereis more to the meaningof an expression than the relation between the expressionand its referents.To know the word carburettor involves more than simply being able to identify the carburettor under the bonnetof a car.At the very least,we would expectknowledge the of word to includesomenotion of the role of a carburettorwithin the functioning of an internal combustionengine;indeed,it is precisely this knowledge which enablesa person to identify the carburettor in the first place. The approach also fails in the case of expressions which involve the speaker's assessment a situation. The words stingy and thrifty have to do not only of with how a person handlestheir expenditures also with how a speaker but assesses behaviour. the And to return to our earlierexample cupsand mugs, of whethersomething to be calleda cup or mug might dependon factorsthat is areextrinsicto the objectassuch,for example, situations which it might the in be used,the kinds of substances with which it might be filled, and eventhe priceonepaidfor it. (iv) It is often the casethat one and the same state of affairs can be linguistically encoded in different ways. The sentencesin (r) are truthconditionallyequivalent;if one of the sentences truly appliesto a situation, then sowill eachof the others. (r) a. Someone stoleher diamondsfrom the Princess. b. Someone robbedthe Princess her diamonds. of c. Her diamonds werestolen from thePrincess. d. The Princess robbedof her diamonds. was The sentences differ with respectto how they construethe describedsituation. Construal is a matter of how a situation is conceptualized, cannot be it reduced the observable to features a situation.Matchingthe situationto the of expressions not likely to reveal the semanticdifferencebetweenactive and is passive sentences, the difference nor betweenthe verbsrob andsteal.

79o

grammar Cognitive

'

In spite of the above critical remarks, I do not wish to deny the value of in approaches semantic both the onomasiologicaland the semasiological with states affairsin the world-for those studies. Matching up expressions of for expressions which the procedureis applicable-is a valid techniqueof relationscannot be the whole story. semanticenquiry. But language-world regularlymatchesup with Even if we can establish that a given expression a certain kind of situation, this is at best $)mptomaticof the expression's meaning, language-worldrelations are not to be equatedwith the meaning. The meaning, I would claim, is to be identified with the conceptualization It symbolizedby the expression. is in virtue of the conceptualizationthat the can expression be usedto referto entitiesin the world.

approach ro.r.2 Thelanguage-internaI

A secondapproach to the study of meaning focuseson the relations between Again, we can distinguishtwo ways linguisticexpressions within a language. of implementing approach: this . we can focus on paradigmatic relations, that is to say, on the relations differentexpressions; between . we can focus on syntagmatic relations, that is to say, on the relations within an expression. itemswhichco-occur between Paradigmatic relations include relations such as synonymy, hyponymy, (of the opposites various kinds), and entailment.Perhaps most fundamental I of theseis entailment.I entailsB, rf B is true whenever is true. The senin tences example(z) illustratethe relation.If it is the casethat the terrorists died. then it hasto be the case that the President assassinated President, the (z) The terroristsassassinated President. the entails The President died. Entailment is fundamental becauseit underlies other paradigmatic relaare two expressions it tions.For example, may be invokedto definesynonymy: (they havethe samemeaning)if eachentailsthe other. As we saw synonymous in Chapter 7 (p. tz;), we can appealto entailmentin order to definethe relation betweena superordinateterm and its hyponyms.Entailment is also relevant Complementaryoppositesfor distinguishing different kinds of opposites. (3) aresuchthat,4 entailsnot-B,while B entailsnot-A'. (3) a. The cat is alive. entails The cat is not dead. b. The cat is dead. entails The cat is not alive.

;!

{ { t! .{
'ti

Meaning: Profile, base, domain and Gradableopposites, suchas tall and short, aremore complex: (4) a. John is taller than Mary. entails Mary is shorterthan John. b. Johnis taller than Mary. doesnot entail Johnis tall. c. Mary is shorter than John. doesnot entail Mary is short.

191

Converses, such as husbandand wife, buy and sel/, exhibit a slightly different pattern: $) a. Fred is Martha's husband. entails Martha is Fred's wife. b. Jim soldthecar to Agatha. entails Agatha bought the car from Jim. A different implementation of the language-internalapproach focuseson a word'scollocations, is, on the kinds of wordsthat a word typicallyoccurs that togetherwith, or in the neighbourhoodof. It is evident that (to) bark collocates with (typically occursin the vicinity of) dog, but not at all with cat. Oneaspect of heavy is that it collocateswith drinker and smoker (heavy drinker, heavy (*heavyeater,*heavyspender). but smoker), not wiLheateror spender Studies of collocationsbasedon the analysisof large text corpora often throw up interestingand unexpected tendencies. Stubbs(rqqS) found that cause(both noun and verb) tendsto be usedof unpleasant events; would talk of 'the we 'the cause the problem'ratherthan of cause my happiness'. of Linguists who have been scepticalof conceptualist have somesemantics times opted to analyse meaningsolelyin terms of language-internal relations. JohnLyons(see section 4.1)wasone such: Acceptance the structuralistapproachin semantics the advantage of has that it enables the linguist to avoid commitmenton the controversial questionof the philosophical and psychological statusof 'concepts' 'ideas'.As far as the or empirical investigation the structure a language concerned, sense a of of is the of lexicalitemmaybedefined be,not onlydependent to upon, identical with,thesetof but relations which hold between item in question otheritemsin thesame the and lexical (Lyonsry68: 443;emphasis system. added) Cruse(t986)took a similarline:3
3 Subsequently, Cruse(t992: 289)moderated views:'It is not sufficient, my opinion, to treat his in wordmeaning exclusively termsof relations in between lexicalitems.'

t92

grammar Cognitive

of It is takenas axiomaticin this book that everyaspect the meaning a word is of pattern of semanticnormality (and abnormality)in reflected a characteristic in grammatically contexts. That which is not mirroredin this way is not, appropriate in for us, a questionof meaning;and, conversely, everydifference the semantic (Cruse in r986: normalityprofilebetween itemsbetokens difference meaning. two a r5-r6) It is interesting to note that severalintroductory linguistics textbooks treat word meaninglargelyin suchterms.This is just as true of the well-established textbook by Fromkin and Rodman (first published 1974, and still going strong),asit is of the very recentintroductionby Radfordet al. (t99$. To be sure, every linguist, when pursuing a semanticinvestigation,will collect information about collocations and will elicit judgements about antonyms, and other meaningrelations. Therecan be no doubt as entailments, to the value of investigating meaning from the perspective of languageinternal relations. Indeed,in a very important sense, aspectof knowing a one word is to know how that word is usedin relationto otherwords. problematic,however,if meaning The language-internal approachbecomes On this is equatedwith sets of relations between linguistic expressions. approach, the semantic structure of a languagebecomesa vast calculus of language-internalrelations, which makes no contact at all with the way speakersconceptualizethe world. The question then becomes,how does a learnerbootstrap4 conceptualcontent of linguistic expressions? the language Observationof the semanticrelationsbetweendeadand alive,betweentall and short, betweenbuy and sell, actually tells us very little about the conceptual relations must be content of these words. Once again, language-internal not regarded symptomalic meaning, asmeaningitself. as of

10.1.3 Theconceptualist approach

I argued in Chapter 4 for the viability of a conceptualistapproach to semantics. It is time, now, to begin to fill in the details and to seehow such an approachcan work. In this chapter,I focus on three basic notions in the profile,base, of and domain. CognitiveGrammaranalysis meaning:

1o.2 Profite base and

The notions of profile and basecan best be introduced by way of an example. How can we characterizethe semantic unit Consider the word hypotenuse. A symbolized this word?What rs a hypotenuse? minimal definition might by go as follows:A hypotenuse the longestsideof a right-angledtriangle,the is the sidethat is opposite right angle.5
a How, in other words, does the learner gain a toe-hold into the conceptual system? 5 ThehypotenuseexamplehasbeenusedbyLangacker(r988b:59)andFillmore(I985).

Meaning: Profile, base, domain and

r93

There are two components this definition.First, thereis the notion of a to right-angledtriangle. Second,one of the sidesof the triangle is called the hypotenuse. personwho did not know what a right-angled A triangleis could not know what a hypotenuse An understanding what a hypotenuse is. of is restson a prior understanding what a right-angled of triangleis. So, what is a hypotenuse? a sense, hypotenuse nothing more than a In a is straight line. The straight line is what the word profiles,or designates. The straight line, however,is one which functions as one side of a right-angled triangle.The right-angledtriangle constitutesthe base.The triangle itself is not profiled;the profile picks out one facet of the baseand rendersit particularly prominent.The distinctionis represented Figure r o.r . The expression's in profileis represented bold. by Thereis a simplelinguistictest for identifyingthe profile in contrastto the base.Although the notion of the triangle is crucial to an understanding of hypotenuse,any statement about a hypotenuse is a statement about the profile it is about the hypotenuse qua straight line, it is not about any aspect ofthe base. (6) a. The hypotenuse 3 cm long. is b. *The hypotenuse right-angled. is c. xThehypotenuse threesides. has d. *The hypotenuse an areaof ro cm'. has How can we characterizethe concept [nvrornuusE]? Earlier (in section 3.r.2), I proposeda preliminary definition of a concept as a principle of categorization-to havea conceptis to be able to recognize instances. Noq it is clear that the concept[nvrorENusn]cannot be equatedwith the word's profile;the profile,as we haveseen, nothing more than a straightline. (As a is matter of fact, we should have to say that the expressionslrypotenuse and straight line profile exactly the same entity.) Although a hypotenuse rs a

"1j,iii:/Vair: prafile; right-angtrd tfr*botd:linCirpres*r*r word's the the triangte thebaie, is

i:1il

?\i:it,:,

794

grammar ..,' i Cognitive straight line, the expressions hypotenuse and straight line are not synonymous. Rather, the concept consists in knowledge of the profile against the appropriate base: 'stands out in Perceived intuitively, the profile (in the words of Susan Lindner) bas-relief' against the base.The semantic value of an expressionresidesin neither the base nor the profile alone, but in their combination; it derivesfrom the desigby entity identifiedand characterized its position within a larger nation of a specific configuration.(FCGI : I 83),

Profile and referent referent. is withthe expression's of Theprofite an expression notto be equated literature. is in expression' well established the semantics Theterm 'referring an that exists whichdesignate entity Thetermis traditionalty usedof nounphrases 'Do w l i n t h e r e a lo r a n i m a g i n a r yo r t d . f I a s kt h e q u e s t i o n , y o u s e et h a tt r e et h e r e growing theyard?', a situation whichthereis indeed treein the yard,and I a in in in i i r a m e n q u i r i nw h e t h ey o us e et h a tt r e eo r n o t ,t h e r e s a s e n s en w h i c hI a m u s i n g g that the expression treetheregrowingin theyardIo referto the tree;the tree is the is expression. referent, the nounphrase a referring and expression's (section does expression that evena referring I havealready emphasized +.:.r) by referto a thing in the world but to a thing as conceptualized a not actually . i , b l l a n g u a gu s e r n dw h i c h n h a b i t sn o tt h e r e a l w o r l d , u ta m e n t as p a c eW i t ht h i s e a proviso mind,thereis, I daresay,no greatharmin claiming of that the referent in the noun phrasefhot tree theregrowingin the yard, when utteredin appropriate profile. to circumstances, corresponds the expression's otherthan referis in Expressions Butthe notionof profile muchbroader scope. (ln phrases Grammarthat in havea profile. fact,it is axiomatic Cognitive ringnoun profilesomething other.) clauseprofiles situation a or A expressions all tinguistic profites kindof relation. profiles process, preposition Clauses, a a a or event, verb a 'referring prepositions to would not normaltybe considered be verbs, and expressions'. 'bare'nouns but Moreover, shallwantto saythat not onlynounphrases, also we just as muchas the referring noun Thenounfreeprofiles entity, an havea profile. phrasefhaf tree.fhe difference that the bare noun profiles type of entity, is a profiles particular instance thetype. of a whereas futlnounphrase the the of in ro.r in that Note, thisconnection, the diagram Figure displays profile the conceived a type of entity,it doesnot profilefhe hypotenuse as nounhypotenuse, ro.r in Consequently, triangle the depicted Figure is triangle. of aspecificright-angled you maythinkof it as a schematic rightas alsoto be interpreted a typeof entity; triangles, awayfrom particularities individuat of whichabstracts angledtriangle, , , s u c h st h e i rs i z e s h a p ea n do r i e n t a t i o n . a

-i

Meaning: Profile, base, anddomain

t95

1o.3 Domains
It is usefulto makea distinctionbetween base'against the which an entity is profiled and the domain, or domains,againstwhich concepts take shape. The baseof an expression the conceptual is contentthat is inherently, intrinsically, and obligatorily invoked by the expression. domainis a more generalized A 'background' knowledgeconfiguration against which conceptualization is achieved. be sure,the distinctionbetweenbaseand domain is not always To clear-cut.Essentially, distinctionhas to do with how intrinsic the broader the conceptualization to the semanticunit, how immediatelyrelevant it is, is and to what extent aspects the broader conceptualization specifically of are elaborated. A couple of examples will clarify the distinction. The notion of a rightangledtriangle is intrinsic to the concept[uvrornuuse], in the sense that a hypotenuse cannot be conceptualized without referenceto a right-angled triangle. There exists, however, a whole cluster of concepts, including [HvrorrNusn], [rnu.Ncrn], [nrcur-,nNcrn], and even [srnalcHr uNn], which can only be understoodagainstgeneralnotions of planar geometryand of geometrical figures; these turn reston evenmore general in conceptualizations of space. Planar geometry, or, more generally still, space,constitutes the domainagainst which triangles and their properties conceptualized. are Take,as another example,the concept[nernnn].The word/a ther profilesan adult male human. (I ignorethe useof the word to refer to a Catholicpriest.) Any statementabout a father is a statementabout the father qua male human adult (the contentof the profile).The word invokes, its base, notion of a as the relationbetween profiledindividual and one or more individualswho count a as the father'soffspring.If thereare no offspring,a personcannot be calleda father; a father is necessarily father alfsomeone. a However,the very notion of the father-childrelation the conceptual content of the base-rests on more general notionsof kinship and genealogy, and, more generally still, in notions of gender and procreation.The idea of a kinship network constitutesthe domain againstwhich a whole clusterof concepts characterized: are [rarHrn], [soN],[ruNr], [cousrN],etc. For another example, consider the concept [rrruun-uln[ Thumb-nail profiles entitythat is part of a thumb;the conception a thumbconstian of tutes the baseagainstwhich [rnurun-Nerr]is profiled. A thumb, in turn, is conceptualized one offive fingersu as that protrude from a hand. The conception of a hand, with its fingers,constitutesthe baseagainstwhich [rHuun] is profiled. [uaNo], in turn, is understoodagainstthe conceptionof an arm,
6 Actually.finger a bit more complicated. is On the one hand. we can usethe word to designate each of the five protuberances on a hand. Alternatively, we can distinguish between the thumb and the remaining iour fingers.

'w'

t96

grammar Cognitive

'

while [enu] is understoodagainstthe conceptionof a human body. Here we witnessa kind of Russiandoll situation, in which the base of one term is againstthe baseof anotherterm, and so on. The conceptof a conceptualized invoked to conceptualize thumb-nail, while thumb is the basespecifically a the human body is the domain againstwhich a host of body-part terms are conceptualized.

to . 3. t M ul t i p t e o m a i n s d
A domain may be definedas any knowledgeconfiguration which provideslhe contextfor the conceptualization a semantic of unit. ' More often than not, a semanticunit needsto be conceptualized against more than one domain. Moreover, it would be an error to supposethat domainsconstitutestrictly separated configurations knowledge;typically, of

Ofandhave Thedistinction between baseand domain, thoughnot always cle4r-cut, doeshave repercussions. of the functions the preposition is to prqfi_lg-qn linguistic One of of intrinsic relation entities. between Since baseis intrinsic a concept, is not the it to surprisingthatof oftenbe usedto refertotherelation can between profiled a entity and an entityin the base. the otherhand,the relation 0n entity between profited a , a n d a d o m a i ni s a m o r ed i s t a n tr e t a t i o na n d o f i s o f t e ni n a p p r o p r i a i n s u c h te circum ces. stan Thus, the hypotenuse the triongle is a perfectlyacceptable of expression; of establishes relation the between hypotenuse an entity the in and that is intrinsic its base.Thetriangle two-dimensional of space, the otherhand,is decidedly on odd. it Likewise, wouldbe normaltospeak the thumbof my lefthand,butveryodd to of speakof the thumbof my leftarm. Theverbhave ofteninvokes intrinsicrelation.Thetrionglehas a hypotenuse an is acceptable, whereas has triangles very peculiar. is as if the Geometry is lt 'h e' l c o n c e p t u ai ln k b e t w e e n y p o t e n u s a n d ' t r i a n g l e s m u c hc l o s e t h a nt h e c o n i' r 'triangte' 'geometry'. similar ceptuaI between link and For reasons,4 handhosfive (or-see footnote6-four fingers and thumb) is normahwe would not, fingers however, An arm has five fingers.An arm is invokedonty at a distance, to say so speak,in the conceptualizationa thumb.We needto be cautious, of however, in possibitity saying havea broken the I apptying havetest.The of thumbnail, even or I havea missing thumbnail, doesnot entitleus to saythatthe concept a person of i s t h eb a s e g a i n s t h i c h t h u m b n a i s c o n c e p t u a l i z e d . w a a l Finatty, very expressions the thumbnail and fingernail show that noun coqp o u n d i n i s s e n s i t i vte t h e p r o f i l e - b a s es t i n c t i o n .h ec o m p o u n d s k e , s t h e i r g o di T ta a *handfirstelement, baseagainstwhich nailis profiled. do not speakof the the We *arm-noil, nail,or eventhough, strictly speaking, nailsarea partof a handand the a na r m .

Meaning: Profile, anddomain base,

t97

domainsoverlapand interactin numerous and complexways.Consideragain the concept [rarnnn]. I stated that the concept is understood against the domain of a kinship network.While this aspectcertainlycaptures imporan tant facet of the concept,other domainsare involvedas well. For example, a fatheris a physical being,with weightand dimensions; is a living thing, who he was born, grew up, ages,and will die; he has a characteristic role within a family unit, and is expectedto display a certain behaviour towards other members the unit; and so on. Physical of object,living thing, and family unit each constitutesa domain againstwhich [rlrnrn] is conceptualized. we If examineany one of thesedomains,we typically find that it relates with other {omains. The notion of kinship, for example,rests on notions of gender, procreation,and family units; gender, turn, is the domain againstwhich a in fatheris characterized male. as Langacker(FCGI: t47) has used the term matrix to refer to the set of domainswhich provide the context for the full understanding a semantic of In Figure ro.2, the threedomainsd', d", d"'constitutethe domain matrix ,Unit. against which the profile-baserelation is conceptualized. With respectto profile P is identifiedwith'adult male human'; the baseB might [rnrunn],the be the relationbetween profiledentity and a child/children; the while'kinship', 'family unit', 'living and thing' might constitutethree partially overlapping domainsagainst which profilingtakesplace. From the above remarks, it is evident that Cognitive Grammar takes an essentially encyclopaedic view of meaning.Ultimately, eventhe meaningof
{.f;..:

Fig.ro.z, Profile, base, domain, and

#ii: iE:l "i::

.::}

:?.
.t;g

i;i *t:.

:.:;)

EE;'' ?:?::
ii;

:::i1
;,.i! ";?j

#;?':

'::1

t v o t e A l i n g u i s t i c u n i t p r o f i l e s a n e n t i t y P ( r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e b o l d c i r c l e ) ; p r o f i l i n g t a k e s p l a c;:ti8lg a i n s t a : ea b a s eB ( r e p r e s e n t e d t h eb o x ) : h e p r o f i l e - b a se l a t i o n c o n c e p t u a l i za g a i n so v e r l a p p i n g by t r is ed t ( c, c o n f l g u r d t i oo fsk n o w l e d g e a l l e d o m a i n sr e p r e s e n t e dt h e o v e r t a p p i n gr c l e s ) . n d by ci u!:is

198

grammar Cognitive common, everyday terms is supported by a vast network of interrelated knowledge.I take up this aspectagain in Chapter 22, whereI examinemore closelyits ramifications.

to . 3 . 2 'l t ' s o m a i n al l th ew a yd o w n ' d s

Domains vary in terms of their internal complexity. The notion of a kinship (thedomainagainst network which'a hosto[kinshipwordsareunderstood) is quite complex,and is itself understoodin terms of such notions as gender, procreation, and the sharingof rights and responsibilities within a family unit. The questionarises, whethertheremight be somedomainswhich are obasic', in the sense that they cannotbe understood againstother domains.Langacker (FCGI: I48-9) has proposed,as candidates basicdomains,such notions for as space,time, pitch, weight, temperature,colour, taste,and smell. The claim is that the phenomenological experience temperature, of time, pitch, and so on, arequalitatively unique;they cannotbe'reduced'to any other domains. It would be an erroq however, understandbasicdomainsas conceptual to primitives,on whoseback more complexconcepts In emerge. the first place, eventhe basicdomainsmay be understood metaphorically terms of other in domains.Time can be conceptualized metaphorically terms of space, in while pitch and temperature can be thought of in terms of 'high' and 'low'. Moreover, even though the phenomenological experience the basic domains of may be irreducible,the domains are structuredby the role they play in the understanding other domains.Temperature conceptualized just as of is not a primitive physical sensation,our conceptualizationof temperature is structured by the role it plays in our conceptualization more complex of domains,suchas climaticconditions,the cycleof the seasons, clotheswe the wear,our physicalwell-being,our emotional states, and so on. As Barsalou (1992:4o) it, 'It's domainsall the way down'. put

1o.4 Some examples

profile It is axiomatic, in Cognitive Grammar, that all linguistic expressions something or other, and that profiling takes place against background The conceptualizations. backgroundknowledgecan be more or lessintrinsic to the profile, but there is probably no such thing as an expression whose semantic valueresides solelyin the profile. Here are somemore examples intendedto illustratethese notions: (i) Island. An islandis a massof land completely by surrounded water.The the word designatesT land mass,it does not designate the water. However,
7 As technical terms in Cognitive Grammar, the verbs desrgzateand profile are roughly equivalentat least, with respect to what they profile! The verbs do differ slightly with respect to their base.Profil| focuses more on the contrast between highlighted and backgrounded entities; designate focuses more on the processofpicking out an entity.

Meaning: Profile, base, anddomain

199

Austin cricket on
The philosopher JohnAustinis well knownto linguists his ground-breaking for workon speech acts.In addition his bookHowto do Things to with Words GSSo), Austinalsowrotemanyshorter pieces whichaddress problems linguistic in semantics, and his observations often prefigure some important themesin Cognitive Linguistics. passage Consider following the fromhisessay'The meaning a word': of Take sense which talkof a cricket anda cricket anda cricket the in I bat balt umoire. The reason thatall called are bythe same name perhaps is thateach itspart-itsown has specia! 'used part-to playin theactivity called cricketing:is nogood saythatcricket it to means in cricket': we cannot for explain whatwe mean 'cricket' by except exptaining special by the parts played cricketingthebat, in by ball, (Austin, Z3; etc. 1979: author's emphasis) Here, Austinis claiming that you can only understand what a cricket bat, cricket b a l t ,a n d c r i c k eu m p i r e r ea g a i n stth e k n o w l e d go f t h e r u l e s n d a c t i v i t i ets a t t a e a h m a k e p ' c r i c k e t i n gn;t u r n ,c r i c k e t i n g n n ob e u n d e r s t o oi d d e p e n d e n t tfyt h e u i' ca t n o roleplayed the bat,batl,and umpire. ourterms, by In cricket the domain is against whichcricketbat, cricketboll,and cricket umpireare understood. Eachterm picks out and profiles entity an that plays partin the complex a activity. the same At time, t h e d o m a i n f c r i c k e t i nig c o n s t i t u t eb y t h e v e r ye n t i t i e t h a tc a no n l yb e u n d e r o s d s s t o o di n t e r m so f t h e d o m a i nT h ed o m a i nd o e sn o t e x i s ti n d e p e n d e n toy t h e . lf entities thatareprofiled against it.

the notion of the surrgu4gliqgwater is intrinsic to the concept; if there were no surroundingwater, there would be no island. While the notion of the surroundingwateris in the baseof the semantic unit [rsr-tNo], profile-base the relation itself presupposes broader domain of the Earth's geophysical the features. There is probably more to the semantic structure of [rsraNo] than this. A pieceof land surrounded a moat would probablynot be calledan island.It by would also be odd to talk about North and SouthAmerica,takentogether, as an island, or claim that the Panama Canal separates island of North the America from the island of South America. The actual sizeof the land mass (and perhaps evenits shape), well asthe extentof the surrounding as water,are further facetsof the word'smeaning. (ii) Peninsula.The profile of peninsulais very similar to that of island.The differenceis that the land massprofiled by peninsulais attached,by a narrow land strip, to somelarger land mass.Neither the surroundingwater,nor the larger land mass,are profiled by peninsula; nevertheless, theseare intrinsic to the very concept[rnNtNsuu]. (iii) Saturday.The word profiles a z4-hotr period, i.e. a'day', against the

2Oo

grammar Cognitive

Background' Searle and'the

for is who is wel[ knownto linguists his work JohnSearte anotherphilosopher A recurring topic in Searte's work has been the on speechacts (Searle ry6). knowledge the understanding eventhe most in role of fundamental of background (e.g. prosaic expressions Searle of a statement that 'Thecat is on the ry7).fake matterto ascertain whether this statement mat'. lt seemslike a straightforward r m i g h tb e t r u eo f a g i v e ns i t u a t i o n - w en e e do n l yl o o ka n d s e ew h e t h et h e r ei s f m a t .B u t w o u l d e b e s o c o n f i d e n f c a ta n dm a t w e r el o a t i n g w it i n d e e d c a to n t h e a Probably not-for in the absence a gravitational fietd of aroundin outerspace? mat,underit, whether cat wason the the therewouldbe no basisfor determining Whereas profilesa relationof contactand support on againstit, or whatever. higher two one of whichis typicalty located than the other,the between entities, fietd,which prois against domainof a gravitational the retation conceptualized The for of videsthe context the verynotions supportand verticality. gravitational Searlehas field and its effectsare part of what Searlecalls'the Background'. d, e m p h a s i z e d e ' n o n - p r o p o s i t i o n a l ' n a t u r h e B a c k g r o u na s w e l la s t h e f a c t th of te I. ca t o c t h a t t h eB a c k g r o u n d n n ob e ' r e d u c e d ' ta s e to f s i m p l e o n c e p t sn o u r t e r m s , and betiefs is by of knowledge the Background constituted a network unprofiled for whichformthe context anyconceptualization. illustrations the Background: Here another morerecent Searle's is and of of I to a Network other of beliefs desires. and Tohave belief desire.have have whole one or restaurant, to have large I have a for if I want eata good to meal a local at Thus, example, now in the of beliefs desires, as the beliefs there restaurants and such that are number other meals thesort are restaurants thesort establishment meals served, are of where are vicinity, restaurants for and inside atcertain times theday certain of ofthing can bought eaten that be or indefi nitely-on.(Searle t76) amounts money, so- more less of and ry92:

week. The concept presupposes rich network of a base of the seven-day knowledge, including: domain-based . the practiceof designatingthe day-night cycle as a'day', which is conventionallytakento beginat a point ('midnight') which is mid-waybetween high successive points of the sun; . the convention of grouping days, as characterized above,into a seven-unit cycle going back, ultimately, to the Biblical cycle,the idea of the seven-day cfgqtigrrstory; . the conventionof naming the componentunits of the cycle; . the idea that differentunits of the cyclemay be suitablefor differentkinds suchaswork, recreation, devotion. or of activities, Ultimately, the domain matrix against which Saturday profiles a 24-hour history,religion, period reaches into many aspects our culture:astronomy, of practices. recreational The word nicely illusdevices, work, time-measuring natureof linguisticmeaning. tratesthe encyclopaedic

Meaning: Profile, base, domain and

2O7

(iv) Vacation.This is another word which has to be understoodagainst a rich backgroundof cultural knowledge. a preliminary to attemptinga As definition of the word, you might consider(a) the criteria by which you would evaluate vacationas good or bad; (b) the frequencyand the duration of a a person's (c) vacations; the criteriaby which certaindestinations considered are to be suitablefor a vacation;(d) the kinds of things that peopletypically do, or want to do, on avacation; (e) the way peopletypically behaveon a vacation; (0 the reasonswhy (some)peopleconsiderit necessary take a vacation; to (g) whether the taking of vacationsis a universalpractice,or whether it is limited to certainhistoricalperiodsand certaincultural conditions.Answers to thesequestions likely to activatenumerousfacetsof the domain-based are knowledge against which the concept[vacruoN]is understood. (v) Anger. Although this word designates internal state,we understand an anger not just as an internal state.Anger is a reactionto some offence-if a person is angry, there must have been somepreviousproyoration (or the personbelieves therehasbeena provocation). Angei is rianifestedby characteristicbehaviour-angry persons displayexaggerated bodily movements, they raisetheir voices, they do unpredictable things.Moreover,a personin a state of angermay be expected act in the future in certainways-they may seek to revenge, they may bear a permanentgrudge. What this means, is,thatanger, as 'scenario', an internal state,is understoodagainsta typical comprisinginitial provocation, anger, and retribution.The scenario the baseagainst is which the emotionis conceptualized. The angerscenario and its role in the conceptualization the emotionhave of been studied by Kovecses(t986, I99o). Austin also drew attention to the He scenario. (t979: Io9) remarkedthat anger should not be identifiedwith the feelingalone;ratheqit is madeup of 'a whole pattern of events, including occasion,symptoms,feeling and manifestation,and possibly other factors besides'.There would be little point in asking what anger itself really is, divorcedfrom theseaspects.

1o.5 Designation connotation and

profileand the baseor domain against The distinctionbetween expression's an profiling takesplace is able to accommodatethe traditional notions of which and designation connotation. It is traditional to recognize two componentsof a word's meaning:one is for component(its'designation') responsible what a word refersto, the other (its 'connotation')for usageaspects the word, suchas whetherthe word is of formal or vulgar,whetherits useimpliesan attitudeof contemptor approval, Also whetherthe word is typical of a particularregionaldialect,and suchlike. 'associations' includedunder connotationare various that a word misht have.

2o2

grammar Cognitive

Crystal, in his dictionary of linguisticterms (r98o: 8z), suggests the entry in for 'connotation' that December might have connotationsof 'bad weather', 'dark evenings','parties', and'Christmas'. On the view presentedhere,all theseaspects handled straightforwardly are in terms of domainsagainstwhich an entity is profiled.Metalinguisticawarenessof degrees formality, dialectaldiversity,and sociolinguistic of variation are all candidates conceptual for domainsagainstwhich profiling takesplace, 'associations' a word. We should also bear in mind that as are the various of different speakersmay understand a concept against slightly different configurationsof domain-based knowledge. Not everybody associates December (somepeople live in the Southernhemisphere) with with dark evenings or parties,nor, for that matter, with Christmas (not all English speakers are Christians). On the Cognitive Grammar view, 'connotation' is not a distinct (and levelof meaning,but is fully incorporated secondary) into the semantic structure of a word. Moreoveqdiscussion connotationin terms of domainscan of often lead to greaterinsight.Comparethe wordsbachelorand spinster. These words profile,respectively, unmarriedadult male and an unmarried adult an female. Spinster, however, is a decidedly derogatory term; it implies that the woman is unmarried becauseno man wants her. Bachelor,on the other hand, tends to havea more favourable connotation;the man has remained he unmarriedbecause haschosen do so. to Theseconnotationsare not just arbitrary facts of usage, but fall out from knowledgeagainstwhich bachelorand spinsterare underthe domain-based stood (Taylor rggsa: 95-1.).First, it has to be noted that the notions of 'adulthood' and'unmarried' (and perhaps even'male'and'female')are themselves complexconcepts which needto be understoodagainstthe appropriate domain matrixes.Moreoveqconcerningbachelor, is not the casethat any it adult unmarriedmale can be appropriatelycalleda bachelor.We would not call the Popea bachelor, an unmarriedman in an established nor relationship, whether the relationshipbe a heterosexual a homosexualone. What is or involved,in characterizinga bacheloras unmarried,is a somewhat idealized, and perhapseven outdated view of marriage practices,in particular, the idea that people above a certain age are expectedto be married, that men and womencanpassthe marriageable without marryingbut that they do so for age he no differentreasons a man, because chooses a woman, because man to, (Iq8Z) refersin this connectionto an 'Idealized wants to marry her. Lakoff 'connotations' Cognitive Model', or ICM, of marriage.Given the ICM, the of bachelor and spinster fall out naturally from the broader matrix against which thesewords are understood.(The questionwhy the Popeis not called a bachelor is also easily answered: the Pope simply is not coveredby the idealized model.)

Meaning: Profile, base, anddomain

2o3

Frames, scripts, scenarios, lCMs and

In this chapterI have used the term 'domain'to refer, very generally, backto g r o u n d n o w l e d gn e c e s s a f o rt h e u n d e r s t a n d i o f s e m a n t iu n i t s . n p r i n c i p l e , k e ry ng c I a domainmay be any knowledge configuration, ranging from 'basic'notionsof time, space, colour, and temperature, complex to and ratherspecific knowledge, suchas the rutes cricket. Equally, domainmayconsist knowledge typical of a in of s c e n a r i o sc u t t u r a c o n v e n t i o n s ,n d m e t a l i n g u i s t n o t i o n so f d i a l e c t a a n d , l a ic l variation. stylistic Otherwritershaveuseda variety termsto referto domains, to particular of or (rg8S),a 'frame' is a rathertighttyorganized kinds of domains.For Filtmore configuration, as the notionof a 'commercialtransaction', provides such which the background the characterization termssuch as buy, sell,price,cost, etc. for of (e.g.Schank Workers artificialintettigence in and Abelsonry77) often referto typical,or expected sequences eventsas 'scripts'; of the restaurant script,for provides context understanding example, for the such activities ordering as the mealand paying it. Manywriters for haveused'scenario' this sense(G.Palmer in 1996:7). Lakoff(rg8Z)introduced term 'ldealized the Cognitive Modet'(lCM), whichfocuses configurations conventionatized on of knowledge. While someterminological distinction may well be justified-it is often confor venient, example, talk of expected to eventsequences 'scenarios', as thereby f o c u s i n g n t h e d y n a m i c s p e c t s f t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l i zk n o w t e d g e - l s h a l l o a o ed in general use the word 'domain'as a cover-term any aspectof (unprofited) for knowledge against whichprofi[ing takesptace.

questions Study
1. What do the followingwords profile?What is the base againstwhich profiling t a k e s p l a c e ?W h a t .a r e t h e b r o a d e r d o m a i n s a g a i n s tw h i c h t h e w o r d s a r e A u n d e r s t o o d ? s s u f n et h a t t h e w o r d s a r e n o u n s . F o r s o m e o f t h e w o r d s , y o u m i g h t t r y t o r e p r e s e n t h e c o n c e p t sd i a g r a m m a t i c a l l yn t h e m a n n e ro f i, F i g u r e o . r , d r a w i n gt h e p r o f i l e s n b o t d . r i lid gap hole spot corner crack arc(ofa circle) drawer portrait patch edge tear(asin a tornpiece ofctoth) ftash(of light) orphan

z. lt could be argued that on land and on the ground profile exactly the s a m e k i n d o f l o c a t i o n T h e e x p r e s s i o n d i f f e r ,h o w e v e r i,n h o w t h e l o c a t i o ni s . s

2o4

grammar Cognitive (Fillmore is. conceptuatized what the difference (lt may be ry79). Explain is to whatthe expressions mightcontrast with.lf something useful consider not 'on the ground', wheremightit be?lf it is not 'on land',wheremightit be?) knowledge oftencontributes the coherence an utterance. of to 3. Domain-based Compare: (i) | lefttherestaurant paying bill. without the (ii) ? | teft cinema paying bill. without the the (i) is easilyinterpreted, the sincethe mentionof a restaurant activates associated with restaurants, component whichis that the one of scenario having eaten, presented the bittand is expected payit. is with to customer, nounphrase billrefers to Notice thatthe definite the specificatly the bittthat (ii) paying bilt ptays rolein the no features the scenario. is odd because in a s c i n e m ac e n a r i o . pairs sentences. witlprobably thatthose find Consider fotlowing the of You the in (iii) are relatively easyto makesenseol thosein (iv)tessso. Explain the in that for difference termsof the scenarios arenecessary understanding pairs,and the easewith whichthesescenarios activated are by sentence words phrases. or specific (iii)I'msorry late. couldn't mycarkeys. I find I'm I'mafraid beer warm. is There a oower was failure. the (iv)I'msorry tate. I'm There a power was failure. find I'mafraid beer warm.coutdn't mycarkeys. is I the as domains that lendthemcolour and clothing two conceptual 4. I mentioned well to both the onomasiologicaI semasiological and selvesparticularly perspectives. Another domain thatof spatial is relations. (and,resources permitting, Design carry out) an experiment investigate to etc. from both the such as [tru], spatialconcepts [ott], [neove], [ovrn], perspectives. and onomasiological semasiological

Further reading
(tggl), (FCGr: +),Taylor (995a: ch.S),Croft ch. On domains and profi[ing, Langacker see a s , , C r o f a n dC l a u s n e r g g g ) . 0 nd o m a i n s ,c r i p t sa n d s c e n a r i o s e eU n g e r e rn dS c h m i d t G (tgg6),esp.chs.4 and 5. Forthe semasiological onomasiological perspectives, see vs. (zooo). account, Geeraerts see Geeraerts al. Q99Q.For concise et a