2. Objectives, data, and methodology of cognitive linguistics

Cognitive linguistics analyzes linguistic phenomena on the three interrelated levels: (1) the level of meanings – their arrangement according to some conceptual / cognitive structures; (2) the level of the inner form – conceptual structures of the inner form as a fragment of meaning; (3) the level of the outer form – the way in which the conceptual structure of the inner form is represented in the outer form (at this level, cognitive linguistics considers the issues relevant for generative grammar, which enables their prospective cooperation). Thus, in cognitive linguistics the focal issue is meanings of various linguistic expressions, and it aims to expose the structure of these meanings. Respectively, the analyzed data are represented by a wide spectrum of semantic phenomena that exist in language and speech. The methodology employed for their study is conceptual analysis.

2. Conceptual analysis vs. Semantic analysis

Conceptual analysis is a theoretical and practical extension of semantic analysis. Semantic analysis is a necessary prerequisite for conceptual analysis. They differ from one another with regard to compositionality and schematicity.

• Semantic analysis aims to explain the meaning of a linguistic unit. This explanation is provided via componential analysis – disintegration of the meaning into semes, or semantic constituents that constitute the signified (the ‘core’ meaning), and its referential, connotational, and pragmatic elaborations. Semantic analysis establishes ta list of semes, or semantic constituents of the meaning. In conceptual analysis, listing the constituents is not enough. They must be somehow arranged, linked to one another within a particular meaningful structure which is grounded on a conceptual / cognitive model.

• Semantic analysis focuses on specific meanings. Conceptual analysis is provided in terms of generalized meanings. In a conceptual model, both the discrete entities and the relations between them are abstract, generalized concepts (schemas), representing the categories of thought. Unlike more specific semantic structures, conceptual structures (or models), are exposed at all levels of language. Together, such conceptual structures provide the mental ‘architecture’ as the foundation of language.

5.4. Conceptual structures and cognitive structures

Conceptual structures studied in cognitive linguistics are regarded as the instruments of thought. They are not concepts (meanings) per se; they are the tools with the help of which concepts are arranged. Among such ‘tools’ are propositions, frames, and scripts.

• Proposition is an elementary conceptual structure constituted by the logical subject (the target concept), and the logical predicate (the property attributed to the subject at the moment of thinking/speaking); e.g. Х (subject) is SUCH (predicate) – The table is round; Х (subject) is THERE (predicate) – The table is in the room. In language, proposition as a mental structure is represented with predication as a linguistic structure.

• Frame is a static conceptual structure that coherently relates several concepts. Frame is like a skeleton or an application form with many blanks, or slots, to be filled with the specified information. A frame may be constituted by several propositions. If the relations between the slots are explicit, the frame is a conceptual network. E.g. SUCH  is – X – has  THAT MANY PARTS – This round table has three legs. If the relations between the slots are implicit, the frame is a conceptual matrix. E.g. (X) (SUCH) (THAT MANY PARTS).

• Script is a dynamic conceptual structure that coherently relates several events that evolve in time. A script may be represented by its variations called scenarios. The most typical scenario is also called a script. E.g. ‘Visit to a dentist’: EVENT₁ (toothache)  EVENT₂ (calling the doctor’s office and making an appointment)  EVENT₃ (visit to the doctor)  EVENT₃ (buying medications).

In cognitive linguistics, the terms ‘conceptual structure / model’ and ‘cognitive structure / model’ tend to be used as synonyms. Meanwhile, it is worthwhile to differentiate between them. The rationale is as follows. The meaning of a linguistic expression is not just the conceptual content it evokes – equally important is how this content is construed. Construal is similar to a particular way of ‘viewing’ a ‘visual scene’. What we actually see depends on a number of cognitive operations: focusing (what we chose to look at), perspective (where we view it from), specificity (how carefully we examine it), and prominence (which elements we pay attention to). Therefore, we may apply different cognitive operations to one and the same conceptual structure. As a result, we get various modifications of this structure. Respectively, the conceptual structure should be understood as the one for which the cognitive operations are irrelevant (it just demonstrates how the entities are related); and the cognitive structure should be understood as a conceptual structure modified by some cognitive operation(s). E.g. conceptual structure: X (milk) is THERE (bottle) + prominence: (a) X (milk) is THERE (bottle) – a milk bottle; (b) X (milk) is THERE (bottle) – bottled milk.

Syntagmatic relations of linguistics expressions are represented with cognitive structures, since the order of elements in a syntagma (a derived word, phrase or sentence) depends on a prominence construal. Paradigmatic relations of linguistic expressions (lexical groups), as well as epidigmatic relations (polysemy) may be represented with both conceptual structures (e.g. a network of polysemy) and cognitive structures (e.g. a network of polysemy + prominence of particular meanings).

Contemporary cognitive linguistics is represented by a number of schools, among which the most notable are frame semantics and construction grammar, cognitive grammar, theory of conceptual metaphor, theory of conceptual integration, vantage theory, theory of prototypes, and theory of iconicity.