Fall 2009
Cognitive
Linguistics
Linguistics
423/640G
Tu, Th 9:00-10:15; Moore 111
Ben Bergen
Cognitive Linguistics
is the study of the mind through language and the study of language as a
cognitive function. Cognitive Linguistics has two main goals: (1) to study how
cognitive mechanisms like memory, categorization, attention, and imagery are
used during language behavior; and (2) to develop psychologically viable models
of language that cover broad ranges of linguistic phenomena, everything form
the mundane, run-of-the mill uses of language you see in grammar classes,
through idioms and figurative language. Research in Cognitive Linguistics is
multi-disciplinary; evidence is drawn from text analysis, language acquisition,
language change, psycholinguistic experimentation, and brain imaging, among
other sources. The purpose of this course is to provide a general orientation
in Cognitive Linguistics, an understanding of its central themes and
assumptions, and exposure to its empirical methods. The semester will culminate
in student research projects – empirical studies that address outstanding
questions about the mind and language.
An undergrad introduction to linguistics and upper division
or graduate status, or instructor consent.
Students
enrolled for full credit will be expected to complete three homework
assignments and a research project, to present one reading to the class, and to
participate in class meetings. All assignments are to be turned in at the
beginning of class on the day they are due.
?
Homework
assignments: evaluate student
understanding of course materials through new work related to course topics.
?
Research
project: a novel piece of independent
research on any topic related to the course, negotiated beforehand with me. I
encourage group projects. A term paper proposal will be submitted about halfway
through the semester.
?
Reading
presentations: students will select a
reading at the beginning of the term to present.
?
Participation: All enrolled students are expected to attend and
participate in every class meeting, having read
assigned readings for that meeting. For each reading, students should write
down one or two questions or points of confusion that they would like addressed
in class.
Grades
are assigned according to the following distribution:
|
Homework
assignments (3) |
30% |
|
Term
paper proposal |
10% |
|
Term
paper |
40% |
|
Reading
presentation |
10% |
|
Class
participation |
10% |
Office hours M 10-11, Tu 1:30-2:30,
in Moore Hall 581. You can also email me: bergen@hawaii.edu.
Lecture
notes, an up-to-date course schedule, links to online versions of course
readings, and links to relevant resources will appear at: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bergen/ling640G/
Review
& Lab Tutorial Sessions
Carl Polley
(Linguistics Ph.D. student) is the teaching assistant. He?ll coordinate review
and lab tutorial sessions. He will also be available for class-related
questions by appointment or over e-mail.
?
Review sessions will be informal
discussions of the readings and topics covered in class. Lab tutorial sessions
will cover experimental methods and the use of lab equipment and software.
?
These sessions will be scheduled so as to
accommodate as many students as possible. They will take place in the Language
Analysis and Experimentation (LAE) General Lab, TP 107 (map). Once a time has been
selected (by ballot), it will be announced in class and by e-mail.
Contact information for Carl Polley: Burns Hall, Room #3067, (808) 944-7217; polley@hawaii.edu
Lecture,
reading, and assignment schedule (provisional)
|
Date |
Topic |
Reading |
Work |
|
8.25 |
|
|
|
|
8.27 |
Reading day – no class |
[1] |
|
|
9.1 |
[2] |
|
|
|
9.3 |
[3] |
|
|
|
9.8 |
[4] |
|
|
|
9.10 |
[5] |
|
|
|
9.15 |
[6] |
Hw#1
Distributed |
|
|
9.17 |
[7] |
|
|
|
9.22 |
[8] |
Hw #1 Due |
|
|
9.24 |
[9] |
|
|
|
9.29 |
[10] |
|
|
|
10.1 |
[11] |
|
|
|
10.6 |
[12] |
|
|
|
10.8 |
[13] |
Hw#2
Distributed |
|
|
10.13 |
Linguistic relativism III |
[14] |
|
|
10.15 |
Linguistic relativism IV |
[15] |
Hw #2
Due |
|
10.20 |
Linguistic relativism V
|
[16] |
|
|
10.22 |
Linguistic relativism
VI
|
[17] |
Pick a term paper topic |
|
10.27 |
[18] |
|
|
|
10.29 |
Empirical
methods II |
[19] |
|
|
11.3 |
Language learning I |
[20] |
Term Paper Proposal Due |
|
11.5 |
Language learning II |
[21] |
|
|
11.10 |
Language learning III |
[22] |
|
|
11.12 |
[23] |
Hw#3
Distributed |
|
|
11.17 |
Inferential statistics II |
|
|
|
11.19 |
Construal and coercion |
[24] |
Hw #3
Due |
|
11.24 |
Language and categorization |
[25] |
|
|
11.26 |
Thanksgiving – no class |
|
|
|
12.1 |
Homonymy and polysemy |
[26] |
|
|
12.3 |
Embodied construction grammar |
[27] |
|
|
12.8 |
Last class |
|
|
|
12.10 |
Student mini-conference |
|
Term Paper Due |
Readings
(Some
papers require a login and password, available from the instructor.)
[1]
Bergen, Benjamin. In prep. Mental simulation and language
understanding. Ch. 1. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bergen/ling750M/book/ch1.pdf
(optional: Evans, Vyvyan, Benjamin
K. Bergen and J?rg Zinken.
2006. The Cognitive Linguistics Enterprise: An Overview. In The Cognitive
Linguistics Reader, London: Equinox. http://www.vyvevans.net/CLoverview.pdf)
[2]
Zwaan, R.A. &
Madden, C.J. (2005). Embodied sentence comprehension. In Pecher,
D. & Zwaan, R.A. (Eds.) Grounding cognition: The
role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. (pp 224-245). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. http://www.brain-cognition.eu/publications//Zwaan%20&%20Madden%20Embodiment%20Chapter.pdf
[3]
Zwaan, R.A.,
Stanfield, R.A., Yaxley, R.H. 2002. Do language comprehenders routinely represent the shapes of objects?
Psychological Science, 13, 168-171. http://www.brain-cognition.eu/publications//shapes.pdf
[4]
Benjamin Bergen. 2007. Experimental methods for simulation
semantics. In M.
Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, and M. J. Spivey (eds.) Methods in Cognitive
Linguistics. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bergen/papers/BergenEMCLchapter.pdf
[5]
Goldberg, Adele. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical
approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science. http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/cogreading/goldbergtrends_constructions_11_21_03.pdf
[6]
Kaschak, Michael P.
and Arthur M. Glenberg 2000, Constructing
meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence
comprehension, Journal of Memory and Language 43: 508-529. http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~kaschaklab/ConstructingMeaning.pdf
[7]
Kaschak, M. P., Loney, R. A., & Borreggine,
K. (2006). Recent experience affects the strength of
structural priming. Cognition. http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~kaschaklab/RecentExperience.pdf
[8]
Lakoff, George. 1993.
The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony
(Ed.) Metaphor and thought (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge. http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~israel/lakoff-ConTheorMetaphor.pdf
[9]
Gibbs, R., J. Bogdanovich, J.
Sykes, and D. Barr. (1997).
Metaphor in Idiom Comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 37, 141
– 154 (1997) http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~coulson/203/gibbs.pdf
[10]
Casasanto, D. & Boroditsky, L. (2008). Time in the Mind:
Using space to think about time. Cognition (106), 579–593. http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/duration-cognition-2008.pdf
[11]
Matlock, T. (2004). Fictive motion as cognitive simulation.
Memory & Cognition, 32, 1389-1400. http://faculty.ucmerced.edu/tmatlock/papers/memcog-final.pdf
[12]
Boroditsky, L. (in press). Linguistic Relativity. Encyclopedia
of Cognitive Science. MacMillan Press. http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/ECS-proofs.pdf
[13]
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D.
& S. Levinson (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for
space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(3), 108-114. http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~lera/273/9-levinson.pdf
[14]
Boroditsky, L.
(2001). Does language shape thought? English and
Mandarin speakers' conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology,
43(1), 1-22. http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/mandarin.pdf
[15]
Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L., & Phillips, W. (in press).
Sex, Syntax, and Semantics. To appear in Gentner
& Goldin-Meadow (Eds.,)
Language in Mind: Advances in the study of Language and Cognition. http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/gender.pdf
[16]
McDonough, L., Choi, S., Mandler, J. (2003) Understanding spatial relations:
Flexible infants, lexical adults. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 229-259. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bergen/ling640G/papers/koreanenglish.pdf
[17]
Maass, A., &
Russo, A. (2003). Directional bias in the mental representation of spatial
events: Nature or culture? Psychological Science, 14, 296 –301 http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bergen/ling640G/papers/writingdirectionMaasRusso.pdf
Ting
Ting Chan and Benjamin Bergen. 2005. Writing
Direction Influences Spatial Cognition. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh
Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bergen/papers/f895-chan.pdf
[18]
Gibbs, Raymond W. (2008). ?Just why should cognitive
linguists care about empirical evidence, much less want to go to the trouble of
gathering it??.
In M. Gonzalez-Marquez (ed.).
Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bergen/ling750M/papers/gibbs.pdf
[19]
Gonz?lez-M?rquez, M?nica, Raymond B. Becker, and James Cutting. (2008). An
Introduction to Experimental Methods for Language Researchers. In M.
Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, and M. J. Spivey (eds.) Methods in Cognitive
Linguistics: Ithaca. http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~jec7/pubs/gonzalezetal.pdf
[20]
Tomasello, M. (2006).
Acquiring linguistic constructions. In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler
(Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology. New York: Wiley. http://email.eva.mpg.de/~tomas/pdf/tomasello_HoCP2005.pdf
[21]
Adele E. Goldberg, Devin Casenhiser
and Nitya Sethuraman. 2004.
Learning Argument Structure Generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15,
289-316. http://www.princeton.edu/~adele/Princeton_Construction_Site/Publications_files/goldberg%20et%20al.%202004%20learning%20argument%20structure%20generalizations.pdf
[22]
Choi, Soonja. 2000. Caregiver input in English and Korean: use of
nouns and verbs in book-reading and toy-play contexts. J. Child Lang. 27:69-96.
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bergen/ling640G/papers/choi2000.pdf
[23]
N??ez, Rafael.
(2008). Inferential Statistics in the Context of Empirical Cognitive
Linguistics. In Monica Gonzalez-Marquez, Irene Mittelberg,
Seana Coulson, and Michael
J. Spivey (eds.) Methods in Cognitive Linguistics: Ithaca. http://emcl4.2008.googlepages.com/4_Nunez-watermarked.pdf
[24]
Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse. 2006. Cognitive
Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Ch. 3. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bergen/ling640G/papers/cog03.pdf
[25]
Rosch, Eleanor.
1978. Principles of categorization. In: E. Rosch, B.
Lloyd (eds.): Cognition and categorization. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bergen/ling640G/papers/rosch1b.doc
[26]
Wikipedia entries for Polysemy and Homonyms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonyms
Klepousniotou, E. 2002. The processing
of lexical ambiguity: homonymy and polysemy in the
mental lexicon. Brain Lang. Apr-Jun;81(1-3):205-23. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bergen/ling640G/papers/klepousniotou.pdf
[27]
Benjamin Bergen, Nancy Chang, and Shweta
Narayan. 2004. Simulated Action in an Embodied
Construction Grammar. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Conference of the
Cognitive Science Society. http://www2.hawaii.edu/%7Ebergen/papers/BCN04.pdf