1. Applying Concepts from Cognitive Linguistics to Your Conlang

2. Overview What this presentation will cover
Why you should know about cognitive linguistics
Specific concepts with implications for conlanging:
What this presentation will not cover
Detailed introduction to cognitive linguistics theory
Aspects of cognitive linguistics not immediately applicable to conlanging
History & Basic Premises of Cognitive Linguistics available in handout

3. Why You Should Know About It
Obtain deeper understanding of sub-conscious and semi-conscious structures of language
Better ability to avoid inadvertently creating language structures which covertly parallel English (or your native language’s) structures
Opens up a whole new level of creativity in conlang design
So, let’s explore some cognitive linguistics…

4. Spatial Conceptualization
Through sensory perception, bodily movement, and tactile interaction, infants learn to understand spatial relationships
This pre-linguistic, fundamental knowledge of space, motion, and the senses becomes the foundation for structuring and understanding more abstract conceptual domains
Spatial relationships are understood in terms of landmarks, trajectors, and image schemas

5. Spatial Conceptualization
Landmark: entity with respect to which some other entity moves
Trajector: entity that moves with respect to a (relatively) stationary landmark
Image Schema: “a recurring, dynamic pattern of our perceptual interactions and motor programs” (Mark Johnson, 1987) i.e., an image schema is a generalized, primitive mental abstraction used in reasoning to associate percepts with concepts

6. Landmarks and Trajectors
English prepositions dependent on landmark vs. trajector distinction
1a) I put my foot in(to) the stirrup. 1b) ?? I put my finger in(to) the ring.
2a) ?? I put the stirrup on my foot. 2b) I put the ring on my finger.
3a) I screwed the bulb into the socket. 3b) ?? I screwed the jar into the lid.
4a) ?? I screwed the socket onto the bulb. 4b) I screwed the lid onto the jar.

7. Image Schemas Common image schemas:
CONTAINER BALANCE COMPULSION BLOCKAGE COUNTERFORCE RESTRAINT REMOVAL ENABLEMENT ATTRACTION MASS-COUNT PATH LINK CYCLE NEAR-FAR CENTER-PERIPHERY SCALE PART-WHOLE MERGING SPLITTING FULL-EMPTY MATCHING ITERATION CONTACT SUPERIMPOSITION PROCESS SURFACE OBJECT COLLECTION SOURCE GOAL
The above schemas “map” in various combinatory ways to specific prepositions, phrases, and other words in a language, e.g., English “in” = CONTAINER + CENTER-PERIPHERY (+ FULL-EMPTY); “on” = SURFACE+CONTACT (+ CENTER-PERIPHERY)+COUNTERFORCE

8. Image Schemas
Help to explain seemingly contradictory or counter-intuitive usages of prepositions and particles, e.g., “out”:
1a) The sun is out. The sun came out. 1b) The light is out. The fire went out.
2a) Tom filled in the form. 2b) Tom filled out the form.
3a) The student dropped in this afternoon. 3b) The student dropped out this afternoon.
4a) A big crowd turned up for the rally. 4b) A big crowd turned out for the rally.

9. Image Schemas: “out” LM TR
LM = landmark TR = trajector
Identical Schema differentiated by perspective regarding accessibility :
Image Schema for “The sun came out.”
Image Schema for “The fire went out.”

10. Image Schemas: “out”
Perspective on accessibility extended to one’s cognitive field, rather than perceptual field:
Examples similar to “the sun is/came out”:
The news is out.
The secret is out.
She spoke out.
It turned out OK.
I’ve sorted it out.
Examples similar to “the fire is/went out”:
The noise drowned me out.
She’s blotted out the memory.
He’s hiding out.
We’re out of gas.
I’m tired out.

11. Image Schemas & Conlanging
Seemingly arbitrary usages of prepositions and particles now explicable
5a) Tom filled in the form. [CONTAINER schema]
( = form seen as set of containers being filled)
5b) Tom filled out the form. [ADDITIVE schema]
( = form seen as growing in size by adding information)

12. Image Schemas & Conlanging
So, should my conlang’s speakers say:
fill ‘in’ a form (CONTAINER + FULL/EMPTY schema), or fill ‘out’ a form (ADDITIVE schema) or some other schema(s) entirely?
Spots ‘on’ or ‘in’ a vase? How about ‘of’ a vase? Wrinkles ‘on’ or ‘in’ her skin? How about ‘at’ her skin? Bubbles ‘on’ or ‘at’ the surface? How about ‘in’? Pictures hanging ‘on’ or ‘from’ the wall? ‘Off’ the wall?
Determine what schema combinations can apply to various spatial and motion contexts, and how they map to your spatial-temporal lexemes

13. Image Schemas & Conlanging
Representing schemas morphologically:
While image schemas are cognitively universal, the mapping to morphemes/lexemes or morpho-syntactic constructions is language-specific.
The resulting morphological constructions and/or lexemes are then extended to apply to non-spatial, even abstract concepts. What limitations or rules should you allow for such extensions? E.g., “on time”, “in agony,” “that milk is off”, “my skills are at a new level”
How about being “under love”, “against agony” or “with time”?

14. Image Schemas & Conlanging
Consider (con-)cultural influences
e.g., the CONTAINER schema
Baskets, the standard container observed by Zapotec infants, are used equally to cover things up as they are to put things in.
Zapotec speakers equate semantic containment with both “in” and “under” lexico-morphology.
For alien, non-humanoid conlangs/concultures:
Different sensory array/organs, different bodily symmetry/appendages entail totally different image schemas  Beware of Terran schemas!

15. Construal: Iconicity Different word order = different construals
Distance Iconicity, e.g. ditransitive versus complement construction for indirect objects distinguishes recipient from directional goal
Resultative iconicity:
10a) Sam painted the white fence. 10b) Sam painted the fence white.
Sequential order iconicity, e.g.,
11a) Eye it, try it, buy it b) Buy it, eye it, try it.
12a) Jane got married and had a baby. 12b) Jane had a baby and got married.

16. Construal: Iconicity Application to Conlanging…
Examine your syntax! Have you inadvertently borrowed English (or your native language’s) iconicity patterns?
Consider to what extent these patterns are universal and may be applied anyway
Consider morphology-based substitutes (e.g., resultative case or recipient-vs.-goal marking)
Consider substituting different word-order patterns or different pitch/tone/prosodic features

17. Construal: Perspective
Same situation described from two different perspectives = different meanings, e.g.,
13a) The path descends steeply into the valley. 13b) The path climbs steeply out of the valley.
14a) John bought the car from Mary. 14b) Mary sold the car to John.
15a) The pen is on the table. 15b) ??The table is under the pen.
Sentence 15b implies pragmatic experience impacts semantic acceptability despite syntactical acceptability

18. Construal: Perspective
Application to Conlanging…
Consider how/whether to formally represent perspective morpho-syntactically
Different verbal voice? “Perspectivizer” affixes or particles? Prosodic changes? Lexicon?
Remember how perspective can work with image schemas and spatial conceptualization, e.g., The sun is out versus The fire is out
Alien conlangs: why stop at binary perspective? Why not let tables be under pens?

19. Conceptual Metaphor Lakoff & Johnson (1980): Metaphors We Live By
Human beings structure their understanding of their experiences in the world via “conceptual metaphors” derived from basic sensorimotor and spatial concepts learned during infancy and early childhood.
Learned via interaction with external environment.
The process is largely subconscious.
These simpler, more basic concepts are used as a framework for conceptualizing more abstract experiences and situations.
Examples in Handout

20. Conceptual Metaphor
Based on body symmetry/orientation, sensorimotor interaction, proprioception and emotional experience, we come to metaphorically conceive of ourselves and others as
more UP than DOWN
more FRONT than BACK
more ACTIVE than PASSIVE
more GOOD than BAD
more HERE than THERE
more NOW than THEN
Implications for non-humanoid con-cultures/ langs

21. Conceptual Metaphor
Most conceptual metaphors are specific instances of more general metaphors:
STATES ARE LOCATIONS
CHANGES ARE MOVEMENTS
CAUSES ARE FORCES
ACTIONS ARE SELF-PROPELLED MOVEMENTS
PURPOSES ARE DESTINATIONS
ACTION IS DIRECTED MOTION
Conceptual metaphor not only impacts speech but also how we think about situations. They are a powerful rhetorical device for social manipulation.

22. Conceptual Metaphor & Conlanging
When translating, find the English conceptual metaphors. Decide whether to adopt, substitute, or avoid them entirely.
Any domain of experience which can be cognitively mapped onto another logically is fair game.
Don’t violate pre-linguistic bodily-based metaphors arbitrarily (UP, FRONT, ACTIVE, GOOD, HERE, NOW).
On the other hand, if your speakers are non-humanoid, you should rethink your bodily-based metaphors.

23. Conceptual Metaphor & Conlanging
Think up metaphors whose underlying conceptual logic matches your con-culture or the psyche of your speakers, e.g.,
LOVE IS DANCING LOVE IS DEFUSING A BOMB
MEMORIES ARE DISEASES GOD IS THE SEA
THE FAMILY IS A JUNGLE LOVE IS A SCHOOL
THE FUTURE IS A JESTER LIFE IS MUSIC
A PROJECT IS A PREGNANCY LIFE IS WAR
SEX IS ART EMOTIONS ARE ZOO ANIMALS
SEX IS WEATHER THE MIND IS A LIVING BODY
SEEING IS EATING COMMERCE IS SEDUCTION
CRIME IS A CIRCUS ANGER IS A HOSPITAL

24. Categorization & Prototypes
Human categorization schemes are arbitrary
Human categorization criteria based on “fuzzy” logic, not classical set theory
Categorization schemes utilize “prototypes” – membership is relative to a “best example”
Radial categories: No single prototype; no single member contains all attributes of the set, e.g., Wittgenstein’s “spiel” (game)
Examples: “furniture”, “fruit,” “tall” vs. “short”

25. Categorization & Prototypes
Examples from Linguistic Morphology
Suffix: “-able” Prototype meaning: “able to be X’d” e.g., “washable”
Atypical examples: e.g., “readable”, “drinkable” (books “able to be read” or liquids “able to be drunk” are, pragmatically-speaking, near-tautologies)
Diminutive in Romance Languages: Prototype meaning: “small-sized X” e.g., Italian paesino < paese
Atypical examples: cenetta; mammina; sinfonietta; piogerella; dormicchiare (small-sized mothers, tiny raindrops or miniature plates of food are irrelevant)

26. Categorization & Prototypes
Implications for Conlangers
What will be the semantic range of a particular morphological category?
E.g., should my DIMINUTIVE cover the areas of size, endearment, scale, intensity, temporal brevity, and bodily impact as in Romance languages?
What about a different semantic range? E.g., “speak” + DIMINUTIVE = “to speak inanities” or “speak” + DIMINUTIVE = “to lie; tell a falsehood”

27. Categorization & Prototypes
Implications for Conlangers
Consider whether the particular worldview or psychology of your con-culture warrants different categorization boundaries/constraints
Go beyond mere differences in common semantic areas (e.g., color categorization); consider realms such as:
Verb tenses or aspects (e.g., circular time, phases)
Lexical classes (e.g., gender, declensions, etc.)
Syntactic relations / semantic roles / noun cases
Lexico-semantic taxonomies

28. Frame Semantics
The subconscious “meaning” of a given word goes well beyond its dictionary definition
Most words are associated with a culture-specific frame, an archetypical context or default mental “model” that provides immediate access to/recognition of pre-ordained related concepts and lexemes, e.g.,
“EAT” subconsciously entails food, silverware, kitchens, cooking utensils, ovens, cups and plates, packages, jars and cans, restaurants, menus, desserts, even abstract concepts such as hunger, famine, nutrition, etc.
The subconscious frame helps determine semantic acceptability, e.g. *The rock ate the candy bar.

29. Frame Semantics
Frames demonstrate that meanings of words are not feature-based, e.g., are the following persons bachelors? = [+MALE] [+ADULT][-MARRIED]
The Pope
Tarzan
A man living with his longtime girlfriend
A gay man living with his longtime boyfriend
Frames connote an entire network of cultural information – excellent opportunity for integration with your conculture

30. Frame Semantics
Frames involve interactional properties not inherent within the word itself, e.g. “fake” + “gun”
Must look like a real gun (you can’t use a dish-towel as a “fake gun”), i.e., “fake” preserves a perceptual property
Purpose must allow it to be handled like a real gun (e.g., as threat), i.e. “fake” preserves a motor-activity property
Must serve some purposes of a real gun (e.g., threat, for display), i.e. “fake” preserves a purposive property
It can’t shoot bullets, i.e., “fake” negates the primary functional property
It cannot have once been real (a broken gun is not a “fake gun”), i.e., it negates a historical property

31. Frame Semantics
These interactional properties “emerge” from the juxtaposition of “fake” + “gun”
These five properties (perceptual, motor-activity, purposive, functional, and historical) operate as an experiential gestalt
Another example: “KILLING” entails…
CAUSE OF DEATH, INSTRUMENT, METHOD, PERPETRATOR, VICTIM, DEGREE, MANNER, PLACE, PURPOSE, REASON, RESULT
Frames for English listed on FrameNet website

32. Frame Semantics & Conlanging
Determine scope of each word’s frame
Should it parallel English?
Should some elements be missing? (e.g., historical property of “gun”)
Should I add some elements missing from English? e.g., adding BODY PART to the “KILLING” frame to allow sentences translatable as “He stomached him to death” or “I throat-killed him.”
Common frames lend themselves to conlang-specific creativity, e.g., BUSINESS/COMMERCE, ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS, FOOD/EATING, FAMILY, EDUCATION, POLITICS, TRANSPORTATION

33. Questions?