Beatriz Bermejo Villamarín

SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION TO COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

This introduction to Cognitive Linguistics in Dirk Geeraerts A Rough Guide to Cognitive

Linguistics seems to explain some of the main points in this new perspective into the world of

language, more specifically under the scope of contextualizing grammar. It also states the importance

of meaning for this new linguistic field, conversely with what traditional Linguistics has advocated

for years. Authors are also highlighted (like Lakoff and Langacker) and lots of sources are listed in

order for readers to feel free to introduce themselves in the new linguistic scope.

First of all, Geeraerts explains that Cognitive Linguistics cannot be analyzed as a single field,

but as a conglomeration of different frameworks that shape the same perspective. In saying that, he

states that its flexibility is one of its best characteristics, since theories and methods from other

linguistic fields can conform what is now called Cognitive Linguistics. Then a crucial point is

clarified by the author: Cognitive Linguistics covers the gaps incidentally created by Saussure and

Chomsky’s linguistic theories (langue/parole and competence/performance accordingly) that were

lack in terms of psychology, sociology and the importance of meaning in the formation of a

Grammar. Because of that, Cognitive Linguistics is presented as the answer to all those incongruities

and blanks that Linguistic could not explain by itself when the first language theoreticians started to

speak about it as a science.

Having clarified its main target, Geeraerts names twelve fundamental parts within Cognitive

Linguistics: Cognitive Grammar, grammatical construal, radial network, prototype theory, schematic

network, conceptual metaphor, image schema, metonymy, mental spaces, frame semantics,

construction grammar, and usage-based linguistics. Although I did not understand some of these

concepts, Cognitive Linguistics is built on four pillars or characteristics which sounded familiar to

me and that I could understand with no much effort. First of all, linguistic meaning is perspectival,
 Bermejo Villamarín |2

that is to say, the same way the world can be described one way or another according to perspective,

words also show different perspectives when describing it (e.g. the perspectival implications of

prepositions behind and in front of). Secondly, linguistic meaning is dynamic and flexible, which

means that meaning change the same way the world and our perspectives do. In third place, linguistic

meaning is encyclopedic and non-autonomous: “it involves knowledge of the world that is integrated

with our other cognitive capacities” (Geeraerts, 5) and basically has to do with how our culture and

our organic nature influence the way we shape our world. Finally, linguistic meaning is based on

usage and experience, in other words, a language cannot be acquired without experience, and that

experience can only be achieved by using that language.

Important linguists are named, being Langacker and Lakoff addressed as the most important

ones who first talked about something which would be later called Cognitive Linguistics. Other

authors are mentioned, as well as dozens of events, workshops, symposia, websites, associations,

conferences and disseminations are pointed out. What attracted my attention was that one of the first

international Cognitive Linguistics association was the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association,

which was formally approved at the 1999 ICLC (Geeraerts, 23).

At the end of this introduction, Geeraerts states what I could infer from the whole text, which

is that Saussure and Chomsky forgot to give some room to society, psychology, the community, the

individual, the application of the system and the actual use of the code when creating a scientific

definition of the word language. Some examples (like those with birds) were kind of forced in some

explanations, up to the point that they became the opposite of their initial function, which was

making easier for the reader to understand some ideas. Language was sometimes distracting too, for

too many technicalities made the text incomprehensible in some areas, and that is why I could

understand some of its twelve points, but not all of them. However, taking into account that language

is not a touchable concept, and that it is not a precise science, I can see a better definition of language

as a linguistic process from the perspective of Cognitive Linguistics.