Cognitive Linguistics and Sociocultural Theory

Kyoko Masuda, Carlee Arnett, Angela Labarca, Kyoko Masuda, Carlee Arnett, Angela Labarca

• Publisher: De Gruyter Mouton
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781501500893
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Sprachen & Linguistik
• Subtopic: Sprachwissenschaft

By integrating cognitive linguistics and sociocultural theories, this groundbreaking book presents empirical studies on selected grammatical and semantic aspects that are challenging for second/foreign language learners. Through in-depth studies exploring eight different languages, this book offers insights generated through the synergy between cognitive linguistics and sociocultural theories that can be readily incorporated into teaching.

Kyoko Masuda and Carlee Arnett

1 Cognitive linguistics, Sociocultural Theory and language teaching: Introduction

Abstract: This introductory chapter presents a concise overview of two theories (Cognitive Grammar and Construction Grammar), and an explanation of some central concepts relevant to the other chapters including categorization, usage-based model, figure and ground, schema, prototypes, metaphor andmetonymy1as well as insights into the role of Cognitive Linguistics (CL) in foreign and second language (L2) instruction. We then give a brief historical account of Sociocultural Theory (SCT) development and its fundamental principles within Second Language Acquisition (SLA). Core Vygotskian notions such as language envisioned as a mediational tool, internalization, zone of proximal development, verbal consciousness and L2 conceptual development are reviewed as well. We also discuss other related notions derived from Vygotskian theory such as languaging (Swain 2006). Furthermore, Chapter 1 explains why new assimilative development in both CL and SCT is advantageous for informing foreign or L2 language classroom practices.

Keywords: cognitive linguistics; cognitive grammar; construction grammar; categorization; usage-based model; figure and ground; schema; prototypes; metaphor and metonmy; Sociocultural Theory; Vygotsky; mediational tool; internalization; zone of proximal development; verbal consciousness; L2 conceptual development; languaging

1 General introduction to Cognitive Grammar and Construction Grammar

Cognitive Linguistics (CL) assumes that language mirrors human conceptualization (cf., Lakoff 1987; Langacker 1987; Talmy 2000) and seeks to explain the mental processes governing the perception, production and acquisition of language. In CL, how the speaker as conceptualizer perceives or construes a situation, the object of conceptualization, is critical because it is reflected in language use. Two CL theories of particular interest are Cognitive Grammar (Lakoff 1987; Langacker 1987, 1991, 2008) and Construction Grammar (Goldberg 1995, 2003). Both theories evolved in the last 20–25 years and oppose formalist theories, especially Chomsky’s (1965, 1981, 1995), which regards language as an autonomous component and pursues universal grammar rigorously.2 Both advocate a unified account of grammar (syntax) and lexicon and consider that language is essentially symbolic in nature and that it is made available to the speaker for communicative use. Both CG’s share the tenet that grammatical structures "consist of assemblies of symbolic structures fully reducible to form-meanings pairing" (Langacker 2008: 81).

Construction Grammar argues that form-meaning pairing or construction should be observed and accounted for directly, without assuming that a particular subset of the data is part of a privileged core (Goldberg 2003: 219, Gries and Wulff 2009). Both CG’s also share the fundamental assumption that all components of language – phonemes, morphemes, syntax, and pragmatics – are conceptual and are embodied in language. The acquisition, learning, retrieval and storage of linguistic data is not different from the cognitive abilities used for other tasks unrelated to language. Cognitive Grammar also acknowledges that it is in social interaction that the grounding of language exists, but "even its interactive function is critically dependent on conceptualization." (Langacker 2008: 8)

Both theories pay full attention to conceptualization or meaning and can serve as a framework for analyzing semantically complex or polysemous items. Lakoff (1987: 8) explains that "human categorization is essentially a matter of both human experience and imagination – of perception, motor activity, and culture, on the one hand, and of metaphor, metonymy and mental imagery on the other." Cognitive Grammar focuses more on semantic structure including tense, aspect, schema among others, while Constructional Grammar addresses the interaction between syntactic ’templates’ and lexically instantiated verbs so that it can account for syntactic variation.

2.1 Categorization and the usage-based model

Central to the theories discussed above are human categorization, or the ability to identify similarities between entities and group them together. In CL, conceptual categories are used to describe the features of language. The categories are considered to form a network of meaning and are grouped according to prototypes, extensions and inheritance. In this volume, we are mostly concerned with semantic network models of syntactic constructions or lexical items. Semantic networks are derived from usages that actually occur in speech and writing. In the case of syntactic constructions, a certain structure might be possible theoretically, but not used. Theoretical constructions, since they are not found in natural language data, will not find a prominent place in the semantic network, although they cannot be ignored.

In a usage-based model, grammar is viewed as the product of language use (cf., Bybee 2006; Bybee and Hopper 2001; Langacker 1987, 2000). Langacker (1987), for example, theorizes that grammar is the conventionalized symbolization of semantic and conceptual units paired with phonological units (i.e., non-autonomous and non-modular units) used for communicative purposes. Through exposure to actual expressions, a speaker extracts patterns called schemas, which become entrenched through repeated activation. Schemas are based on this non-reductive and bottom-up approach. A usage-based model of language views naturally occurring language as the basis for study. In first language (L1) acquisition, linguistic knowledge is first derived from the comprehension and production of specific utterances on specific occasions of use in contexts in communication (Tomasello 2003: 237–238).

In a usage-based model, the primary focus is on the language that is actually used by speakers, whether L1 or L2, rather than language that it might be possible to use. Thus, this model does not privilege the abstract notion of a native speaker (Kramsch 2009) and is uniquely equipped to handle the study of dialects, various genres of writing and speech, differing registers, grammaticalization, and learner language.

Notice also that in CL meaning is essential and resides in language use. More importantly, linguistic structure emerges through use (cf., Langacker 1987, 2000; Tomasello 2000, 2003). This model dovetails nicely with one of the core concepts of CL, which is that language is no different from other activities with respect to acquisition and/or learning. This is to say that the modeling, pattern recognition, observation, entrenchment, trial and error, and practice that are present in learning any new skill, are also important to language learning/ acquiring.

2.2 Schema

Understanding the concept of schema is essential in CL because the meaning of an expression lies in the conceptual structure evoked or activated by that expression. According to Langacker (1982: 46), a semantic structure is a "conventionalized conceptual structure, and grammar is the conventional symbolization of semantic structure. 3 Semantic structures depend on the conceptual imagery established in a speech community.

Speakers learn semantic and syntactic structures through exposure to the conventional lexico-grammatical patterns of their language (Tomasello 2000, 2003).4 Acquired as part of membership in a speech community, these conventional patterns are stored in the mind as schemas. Speakers extract schemas from specific expressions that actually occur and these are then used to understand and construct new expressions (Tomasello 2000). Thus, the meaning of an expression is derived from the conceptions that it activates in a speaker’s mind (cf., Chafe 1970; Jackendoff 1983; Lakoff 1987).

Processing an expression involves a speaker activating knowledge structures or cognitive domains (Langacker 1987: 147–166). Any concept or experience can be the cognitive domain for an expression. For example, knowledge of the viola would be the domain for an f-hole, alto clef and C, G, D and A strings.

Furthermore, the meaning of an expression contains both content and construal. The content is the activated cognitive domain and the construal is the way content is represented in language. It is the speaker’s choice to represent content in any number of ways sanctioned by the speakers of a language, see (1) and (2) below. What is relevant for construal is the degree of prominence assigned to the elements that make up the content. Thus semantics is conceptual, rather than truth-conditional.

(1) The plant hangs over the table.

(2) The table is under the plant.

In Figure 1 below, [A] is schematic for [B] and [C]. That is, [B] and [C] elaborate or instantiate [A]. Instances such as [B] and [C] inherit the specifications of the schema [A] but provide them with more detail. Since both [B] and [C] elaborate on [A], they are similar. Schema [A] encompasses the similarity of the instances [B] and [C]; thus, we can say that the schema abstracts from the instances (Taylor 2002: 123–137).

Figure 1: Relationship between a schema and its instances (Taylor 2002:125)

The solid arrows show a relationship of instantiation and have ends pointing in both directions because the relation can go either way – from the schema to the instances or from the instances to the schema. The broken line arrow shows the similarity between the instances and can also go both ways.

To give a less abstract example than Figure 1, we could call "musical instrument" a schematic concept represented by [A]. [A] in Figure 1 would be "musical instrument" and [B] [C], [D] and so forth would be reeds, brass, percussion. There is shared content among these instantiations of the musical instrument category, but they are not the same and all can be subsumed under the schematic concept, "musical instrument". Here, [B], [C], [D] etc. are considered to be horizontal extensions. Take another example from English phonology, the phoneme (/p/) is the schema represented by [A], while the allophones ([p] and [ph]) are instances shown by [B] and [C] (Evans and Green 2006: 505).

There also are hierarchies of schema-instance relations. For instance, we can extend upwards in the schema-instance relation and see "instrument" as a schematic concept for "musical instrument" and "tool". It is also possible to extend it downwards by adding tuba, trombone and trumpet as instances of the "brass" category. We can also extend further downwards by elaborating trombone with valve and slide. There is an end to extension downwards becau...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Table Of Contents
• Preface and Acknowledgements
• Authors and Affiliations
• 1 Cognitive linguistics, Sociocultural Theory and language teaching: Introduction
• I Acquisition research
• II Classroom research
• Index
• Endnotes