Evaluating Cognitive-Linguistic Approaches to Interventions for Aphasia within the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System (RTSS)

Author(s):  
Mary Boyle ◽  
Jean K. Gordon ◽  
Stacy M. Harnish ◽  
Swathi Kiran ◽  
Nadine Martin ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 592
Author(s):  
Dan Wu

This paper attempts to take a critical review of research work on the complementarity of the cognitive linguistic and relevance-theoretic approaches to metaphor study. Addressing the current concerns and problems of metaphor studies, the complementarity view demonstrates the cooperative potential of relevance-theoretic and cognitive linguistic approaches which will benefit metaphor studies and give full accounts of metaphor understanding and interpretation. In particular, the relevance-theoretic approach gives an account of ad hoc concept, emergent property and mental imagery which complements the cognitive linguistics and helps solve some issues in metaphor interpretation.


Author(s):  
Geert Brône ◽  
Kurt Feyaerts ◽  
Tony Veale

AbstractEver since the publication of Victor Raskin's seminal work on the


2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-384
Author(s):  
Branimir Belaj ◽  
Gabrijela Buljan

This paper explores the polysemy of the Croatian verbal prefix od- ‘(away) from’ from a Cognitive Grammar perspective (Langacker, 1987, 1991, etc.; Taylor, 2002). Despite the seemingly inordinate semantic heterogeneity of od-prefixed verbs, we argue that the different uses of od- are semantically motivated and that this has at least as much to do with the existence of a single abstract sanctioning schema as it does with the motivated extensions from the prototype, viz. spatial ablativity, or other category members. In this way we depart not only from the deep-rooted Croatian tradition, which tends to ignore any semantic motivation among different uses of a single prefix (e.g. Babić, 1986), but also from those cognitive linguistic approaches which rely on meaning chains, i.e. categorization by extension, to account for the polysemy of prefixes, prepositions and particles (e.g. Janda, 1985, 1986, 1988; Šarić, 2006a, 2006b, 2008, etc.).


2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher S. Butler

The overall aim of this article is to explain why researchers working in Systemic Functional Linguistics and Cognitive Linguistics would benefit from dialogue with people working in psycholinguistics, and with each other. After a brief introduction, the positions on cognition taken in the Sydney and Cardiff models of Systemic Functional Linguistics are reviewed and critiqued. I then assess the extent to which Cognitive Linguistics has honoured the ‘cognitive commitment’ which it claims to make. The following section examines compatibilities between Systemic Functional and Cognitive Linguistic approaches, first outlining existing work which combines Hallidayan and cognitive perspectives, then discussing other potential areas of contact between the two, and finally examining the Cardiff model in relation to Cognitive Linguistics. The final section presents a collaborative view, suggesting that the ultimate aim of functionally-oriented (including cognitive) linguistics should be to attempt to answer the question ‘How does the natural language user work?’, and pointing out that collaboration between proponents of different linguistic models, and between linguists and researchers in other disciplines which study language, is crucial to this enterprise. Suggestions are made for ways in which dialogue across the areas of Systemic Functional Linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics and psycholinguistics could contribute to such a project.


2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 293-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Ambridge ◽  
Claire H. Noble ◽  
Elena V. M. Lieven

AbstractAdults and children aged 3;0–3;6 were presented with ungrammatical NVN uses of intransitive-only verbs (e.g., *Bob laughed Wendy) and asked – by means of a forced-choice pointing task – to select either a causal construction-meaning interpretation (e.g., ‘Bob made Wendy laugh’) or a non-causal sentence-repair interpretation (e.g., ‘Bob laughed at Wendy’). Both age groups chose casual construction-meaning interpretations on at least 82% of trials, regardless of (a) verb frequency and (b) the construction used for grammatical control/filler trials (transitive – e.g., Bob moved Wendy – or intransitive – e.g., Wendy moved). These findings constitute support for cognitive linguistic approaches under which verb argument structure constructions have meanings in and of themselves and – further – suggest that construction meaning is sufficiently powerful as to overrule verb meaning when the two conflict.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document