Pokaż uproszczony rekord

dc.contributor.authorMazurkiewicz-Sokołowska, Jolanta
dc.date.accessioned2024-01-03T09:42:25Z
dc.date.available2024-01-03T09:42:25Z
dc.date.issued2023-12-21
dc.identifier.issn1731-7533
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/49021
dc.description.abstractThe paper takes up the issue of creating meanings, focusing the dynamic relation between lexicalization and conceptualization on the example of prepositions. By providing a systematic view of the specific meanings of the Contact Sense of the German preposition an (on, at) and its Polish, Spanish and English counterparts, the interface between the given real spatial relation of two objects, its lexicalization and the emerging conceptualization is highlighted. Special attention is paid to the role of the particular pieces of knowledge and experience being activated in creating these meanings in order to look closely at the concept of context as this context is usually interpreted differently by different researchers. The attempt to show what happens step by step when conceptualizing a real spatial relation and its linguistic expression fixed in the lexicalization pattern is motivated by the finding that the difficulty with clear determination and separation of the context information from the information actually creating the meaning is one of the reasons why studies on the cognitive aspects of the semantics of prepositions have been abandoned over time. The paper aims to contribute to the elaboration of an authoritative method of establishing and identifying meanings of prepositions, and to contribute to the discussion about the language-thought relation providing arguments supporting the view of language as a trigger for conceptualizations provided by the embodied cognition rather than as a tool shaping thoughts.en
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl
dc.relation.ispartofseriesResearch in Language;1en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
dc.subjectcognitive linguisticsen
dc.subjectlexicalizationen
dc.subjectconceptualizationen
dc.subjectGerman prepositionen
dc.subjectlexicologyen
dc.titleThe interface of real world, lexicalization and conceptualization on the example of the Contact Sense of the German preposition an (on, at) and its Polish Spanish and English counterpartsen
dc.typeArticle
dc.page.number89-116
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationUniversity of Szczecinen
dc.referencesBoroditksy, L. 2000. Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75, 1-28.en
dc.referencesBoroditsky, L. 2001a. Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0748en
dc.referencesBoroditsky, L. 2001b. How does our language shape the way we think. Retrieved from: https://www.edge.org/conversation/lera_boroditsky-how-does-our-language-shape-the-way-we-thinken
dc.referencesBoroditsky, L., Schmidt, L., Phillips, W. 2003. Sex, syntax and semantics. In: D. Gentner, S. Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 61-78.en
dc.referencesBorghi, A., Binkofski, F. 2014. Words as Social Tools: An Embodied View on Abstract Concepts. New York: Springer.en
dc.referencesBrenda, M. 2014. The cognitive perspective on the polysemy of the English spatial preposition “over”. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.en
dc.referencesBrenda, M., Mazurkiewicz-Sokołowska, J. 2022. A cognitive Perspective on Spatial Prepositions. Intertwining networks. John Benjamins Publishing Company.en
dc.referencesDe Cuypere, L. 2013. Debiasing semantic analysis: the case of the English preposition to. Language Sciences 37, 122–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.12.002en
dc.referencesDyke, H. 2022. Weak neo-Whorfianism and the philosophy of time. Mind & Language 37(4), 605-618.en
dc.referencesFodorenko, E., Varley, R. 2016. Language and thought are not the same thing: evidence from neuroimaging and neurological patients. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1369, 132-153.en
dc.referencesGomila, A. 2015. Language and Thought. The Neo-Whorfian Hypothesis. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304194517_Language_and_Thought_The_Neo-Whorfian_Hypothesisen
dc.referencesKay, P., Kempton, W. 1984. What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1984.86.1.02a000en
dc.referencesLakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001en
dc.referencesLakoff, G., Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.en
dc.referencesLangacker, R. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I. Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.en
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. 2000. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.en
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001en
dc.referencesLevinson, S. 1997. From outer to inner space: Linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking. In: J. Nuyts, E. Pederson (eds.), Language and conceptualization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 13-45. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139086677.002en
dc.referencesMahon, B., Kemmerer, D. 2020. Interactions between language, thought, and perception: Cognitive and neural perspectives. Cognitive Neuropsychology 37, NOS. 5-6, 235-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2020.1829578en
dc.referencesMalt, B. 2020. Words, thoughts, and brains. Cognitive Neuropsychology 37, NOS. 5-6, 241-253 https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2019.1599335en
dc.referencesMazurkiewicz-Sokołowska, J., Safranow, K. 2020. Zum Einfluss des Genus auf die Konzeptualisierung der Objekte vor dem Hintergrund der verkörperten Kognition. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 50 (4), 605-647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41244-020-00182-zen
dc.referencesMazurkiewicz-Sokołowska, J. 2023. Versuch einer Reaktivierung des semantischen Netzwerks als Werkzeug zur Ermittlung der kognitiven Mechanismen bei der Bedeutungsbildung am Beispiel der Präposition an. Zeitschrift für die Literaturwissenschaft und Limguistik (in print).en
dc.referencesMunnich, E., Landau, B., Dosher, B. 2001. Spatial language and spatial representation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cognition, 81, 171-208.en
dc.referencesNegri, A., Castiglioni, M., Caldiroli, Barazzetti, A. 2022. Language and Intelligence: A Relationship Supporting the Embodied Cognition Hypothesis. Journal of Intelligence 10: 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10030042en
dc.referencesNelson, K. 2017. The Cultural Basis of Language and Thought in Development. In: N. Budwig, E. Turiel,, P. Zelazo (eds), New Perspectives on Human Development, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 402-424.en
dc.referencesRice, S., Kabata, K. 2007. Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the ALLATIVE. Linguistic Typology 11, 451–514. https://doi.org/10.1515/LINGTY.2007.031en
dc.referencesSlobin, D. I. [1996] 1999. From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. In: J. Gumperz, S. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.en
dc.referencesSzwedek, A. 2007. Polysemy and metaphorization. In: W. Chłopicki, A. Pawelec, A. Pokojska (eds.), Cognition in Language: Volume in Honour of Professor Elżbieta Tabakowska. Kraków: Tertium, 255-272.en
dc.referencesTaylor, J. 2002. Cognitive grammar. Oxford textbooks in linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.en
dc.referencesThompson, E. 2007. Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.en
dc.referencesTyler, A., Evans, V. 2003. The Semantics of English Prepositions. Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517en
dc.referencesWhorf, B. [1940] 1956. Linguistics as an exact science. Technology Review, 43. Reprinted in J. Carroll (ed.), In Language, thought and reality: selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 220-232.en
dc.referencesWierzbicka, A. 1997. Understanding Cultures through Their Key Words. London: Oxford University Press.en
dc.contributor.authorEmailjolanta.mazurkiewicz-sokolowska@usz.edu.pl
dc.identifier.doi10.18778/1731-7533.21.1.06
dc.relation.volume21


Pliki tej pozycji

Thumbnail

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Pokaż uproszczony rekord

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Poza zaznaczonymi wyjątkami, licencja tej pozycji opisana jest jako https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0