language and culture 40

8/18/2019 Language and Culture 40

1/40

Selection, introduction and editorial content © Masataka Yamaguchi, Dennis Tay,and Benjamin Blount 2014Remaining chapters © Contributors 2014

All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication maybe made without written permission.

No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save

with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright,Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permittinglimited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6–10Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.

Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may beliable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this workin accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

First published 2014 byPALGRAVE MACMILLAN

Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited,registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke,Hampshire RG21 6XS.

Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC, 175 FifthAvenue, New York, NY 10010.

Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies andhas companies and representatives throughout the world.

Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, theUnited Kingdom, Europe and other countries.

ISBN 978–1–137–27481–6This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fullymanaged and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturingprocesses are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of thecountry of origin.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataApproaches to language, culture, and cognition : the intersection of cognitivelinguistics and linguistic anthropology / edited by Masataka Yamaguchi,University of Queensland, Australia ; Dennis Tay, The Hong Kong Polytechnic

University, China ; Benjamin Blount, SocioEcological Informatics, US.pages cm“This book developed out of an international symposium titled “Cognitive Linguisticsand Second Language Acquisition: Towards an Integration of Language, Culture andCognition” at the University of Otago, New Zealand, 21-22 January 2011.”Summary: “The study of language, culture, and cognition has become increasinglyfragmented into separate disciplines and paradigms. This volume aims tore-establish dialogue between cognitive linguists and linguistic anthropologistswith 11 original papers on language, culture and cognition, and an editorialintroduction. It demonstrates that cognitively-informed perspectives cancontribute to a better understanding of social, cultural, and historical phenomena,

and argues that cognitive theories are relevant to linguistic anthropology. “—Provided by publisher.ISBN 978–1–137–27481–6 (hardback)1. Cognitive grammar. 2. Psycholinguistics. 3. Language and culture.4. Anthropological linguistics. I. Yamaguchi, Masataka, 1968- editor.II. Tay, Dennis, editor. III. Blount, Ben G., 1940- editor. IV. University of Otago.Department of Languages and Cultures.P165.A68 2014306.44—dc23 2014024391

Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India.

Copyrig te matria – 978–1–137–27481–6

Copyrighted matrial – 978–1–137–27481–6


2/40

v

Contents

List of Figures and Tables vii

Acknowledgments ix

Notes on Contributors x

1 Introduction: Approaches to Language, Culture,

and Cognition 1

Masataka Yamaguchi, Dennis Tay, and Benjamin Blount

Part I Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Languageand Culture

2 Culture and Cognition, Lexicon and Grammar 27

Ronald W. Langacker

3 Deliteralization and the Birth of ‘Emotion’ 50

Dirk Geeraerts

4 ‘Overthrowing’ Yesterday’s ICM: (Re)focusing of Meaning in a

Hong Kong Chinese (Cantonese) Constructional Idiom 68

Kam-yiu S. Pang

Part II Cultural Linguistic Approaches to Languageand Culture

5 Advances in Cultural Linguistics 99

Farzad Sharifian

6 Sloppy Selfhood: Metaphor, Embodiment, Animism, andAnthropomorphization in Japanese Language and Culture 124

Debra J. Occhi

7 The Ceremonial Origins of Language 145

Gary B. Palmer, Jennifer Thompson, Jeffrey Parkin, and

Elizabeth Harmon




3/40

vi Contents

Part III Intersection of Cognitive Linguistics andLinguistic Anthropology

8 On Intersubjective Co-construction of Virtual Space

through Multimodal Means: A Case of Japanese Route-Finding Discourse 181

Kuniyoshi Kataoka

9 Discovering Shared Understandings in Discourse:

Prototypes and Stereotypes 217

Masataka Yamaguchi

10 Experiences as Resources: Metaphor and Life in

Late Modernity 234 Lionel Wee

11 An Analysis of Metaphor Hedging in Psychotherapeutic Talk 251

Dennis Tay

Part IV Summary and Future Directions

12 Situating Cultural Models in History and Cognition 271

Benjamin Blount

Glossary 299

Index 303




4/40

1

1.1 Why language, culture, and cognition now?

By recognizing that the study of language, culture, and cognition

has been fragmented into separate disciplines and paradigms (see

Beller, Bender, and Medin, 2012; Kronenfeld, Bennardo, de Munck,

and Fischer, 2011), we aim to re-establish dialogue between cognitive

linguistics and linguistic anthropology in order to advance our under-

standing of the relationship among language, culture, and cognition

(see Blount, 1995[1974]; Blount and Sanches, 1977; Casson, 1981;

Dougherty, 1985; Giglioli, 1972; Gumperz and Hymes, 1972; Sanches

and Blount, 1975 for earlier attempts). This volume particularly high-

lights the ways in which cognitive linguistics can contribute to a better

understanding of cultural and social phenomena. In so doing, it aims to

provide insights into the theory and practice of linguistic anthropology,

which has been mainly concerned with ‘the cultural contextualization

and social uses of language, and … the acquisition of communicative

competence’ (Keesing, 1992: 604; also see Duranti, 2001, 2009).

In linguistic anthropology, however, ‘[t]here is much work to be done

on exploring languages as conceptual systems’, as Roger M. Keesing

(1992: 605) points out. We take this suggestion seriously, even after

more than two decades has passed since 1992 (and we will come back

to this point at the end of this chapter). At the same time we also

draw explicit attention to the reciprocal contributions that cognitive

linguistics and linguistic anthropology can make toward each otherin both conceptual and empirical terms, which we hope will provoke

further thought and discussions. For these purposes, the volume col-

lects empirical papers that demonstrate ways of integrating language,

culture, and cognition through actual analyses of discourse, as well as

1Introduction: Approaches toLanguage, Culture, and Cognition

Masataka Yamaguchi, Dennis Tay, and Benjamin Blount




5/40

2 Approaches to Language, Culture, and Cognition

showcasing the ways in which cognitive linguistic approaches to gram-

mar, semantics, and metaphor are useful for investigating sociocultural

and historical issues (see Section 1.3).

As noted, this collection draws on cognitive linguistics and othercognitive theories, including cognitive anthropology (e.g., Brown,

2006; D’Andrade, 1995; Shore, 1996; Strauss and Quinn, 1997) while

covering diverse topics. The eleven chapters that follow are arranged

in terms of theoretical orientations: Part I (Cognitive Linguistic

Approaches) consists of three chapters that represent foundational

cognitive linguistic approaches (Langacker; Geeraerts; Pang); Part II

(Cultural Linguistic Approaches) contains three chapters that intro-

duce what Cultural Linguistics is (Sharifian) and illustrate the fieldby two case studies (Occhi and Palmer et al.); Part III (Intersections of

Cognitive Linguistics and Linguistic Anthropology) collects four chap-

ters (Kataoka; Yamaguchi; Wee; Tay) that are located at the intersections

of cognitive linguistics and linguistic anthropology. All of the authors in

Part III show commitment to empirical analyses of discourse data. The

volume concludes with a historical overview, current trends, and future

directions for integrating language, culture and cognition (Blount).

For the rest of this introductory chapter, we list existing significantcollections as precursors, which point to both uniqueness and continu-

ity of this collection (see Section 1.2). We then present an overview of

this volume and the connections and cross-readings of the chapters.

Finally we conclude with a call for further investigations of language,

culture, and cognition against the backdrop of the current trend in lin-

guistic anthropology (see Section 1.3).

1.2 Language, culture, and cognition: precursors

Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter to review the vast

amount of the literature on this topic, which necessarily makes our

selection highly selective, we should recognize several collections as

significant contributions in the history of the field of language, culture,

and cognition. We only list edited collections that are directly relevant

to this volume. First of all, Language, Culture, and Society: A Book of

Readings, edited by Ben G. Blount (1995), should be noted as a synthetic

volume that has implications for framing the study of cognition in the

history of linguistic anthropology. It is an expanded version of his ear-

lier collection (1974), which divides the study of language, culture, and

society into three historical periods (cf. Duranti, 2003): the 1910–1940s

as the formative period, in which Boas, Sapir, and Whorf played a major




6/40

Introduction 3

role; the 1950s–1970s as the period of paradigm development; and

1980s–1990s as the period of new directions (Blount, 1995). Among

the ten selected articles published between the 1950s and 1970s, three

papers fall within the category of cognitive anthropology and linguis-tics (Charles O. Frake’s ‘The Ethnographic Study of Cognitive Systems’

in 1962, and his ‘How to Enter a Yakan House’ in 1975[1964], and Brent

Berlin’s ‘Speculations on the Growth of Ethnobotanical Nomenclature’

in 1972). A foundational linguistic/semiotic anthropological paper,

‘Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description’ (Silverstein,

1976), occupies a prominent place by synthesizing the cognitive papers

with the other sociocultural and sociolinguistic articles (see Blount,

1995: 106–107, for an explication).Blount’s collection is also notable in that he selects cognitive anthro-

pological/linguistic papers, which were published after 1980s (Eugene

Hunn’s ‘Ethnoecology: The Relevance of Cognitive Anthropology for

Human Ecology’ in 1989, and Paul Kay, Brent Berlin, and William

Merrifield’s ‘Biocultural Implications of Systems of Color Naming’ in

1991), as well as a linguistic anthropological paper ‘Whorf’s View of the

Linguistic Mediation of Thought’ by John A. Lucy in 1985. If we follow

Duranti’s (2003) vision of the three paradigms, the period of paradigmdevelopment between 1950s and 1970s should have no ‘classic’ cogni-

tive papers. However, cognitive lines of inquiry in linguistic anthropol-

ogy were alive and well throughout the 1970s, into the 1980s–1990s

(Berlin, 1992), and at present (Beller and Bender, 2011; Hunn, 2006;

Kronenfeld, 2008; Strauss, 2006; cf. Silverstein, 2004, 2007). Thus,

we might question the statement ‘language was no longer a window

on the human mind … Rather it was primarily a social phenomenon,

to be studied … in the midst of speech events or speech activities’ in

1970s and 1980s (Duranti, 2003: 329, italics in the original). We agree,

of course, that language is fundamentally social, but to say that it is

not a ‘window on the human mind’ seems unnecessarily restrictive.

Social activity cannot occur in the absence of a coordinated nervous

system, even among eusocial animals. Among humans, language has to

be cognitively based and, moreover, is a major avenue of inquiry into

how social and cultural phenomena are processed and integrated in

the brain. Marginalization of cognition within linguistic anthropology,

however, has been an unfortunate trend for several decades.

Cognition in linguistics has not been subject to the same margin-

alization. In linguistic anthropology, views about its marginal status

are related to developments in the 1970s (see Blount, 2011; Quinn,

2011). Decomposition of lexical items within domains, e.g., kinship,




7/40


was pursued from the late 1960s as a way of searching for underlying

features of organization. The arrangement of underlying features, or

components, was originally thought to have psychological validity. The

components upon which classification was based were considered to beunits upon which cognition operated, but by the late 1970s that view

was known to be inadequate, requiring modification. As in linguistics

(Fillmore, 1975; Taylor, 2003[1989]), feature analyses gave way to proto-

type perspectives (Rosch, 1973), producing new directions in cognitive

anthropology. An early success was in color term research (Berlin and

Kay, 1969), but other successes followed, in particular the concept of

cultural models.

Marginalization of cognition in linguistic anthropology came about,in part, through an erroneous equation of lexical classificational

analyses (componential analysis) to cognition in language in general.

Cognitive approaches in linguistic anthropology have been portrayed,

incorrectly, as a continuation of the formal lexical analyses, thereby

rendering them as deficient and marginal. That point of view unfor-

tunately became widespread. The incorrect reading of cognition and

language within linguistic anthropology has been previously noted and

discussed in a number of publications. Strauss and Quinn (1997), forexample, addressed the problem in detail and serves as a good source

for historical contextualization of the issue. We return to this topic at

the end of this chapter.

Among the most widely known topics in the study of language, culture,

and cognition is the linguistic relativity hypothesis also known as the

‘Whorfian Hypothesis’. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity , edited by John J.

Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson (1996), is an authoritative and com-

prehensive collection of publications since the late 1960s and early 1970s,

in which the idea of linguistic relativity was ignored at best and dismissed

at worst. Known as the ‘neo-Whorfian movement’ (Lucy, 1992; Silverstein,

1979), the theory and methods for investigating the issue of linguistic rela-

tivity is refined by taking typological universals into account. The Gumperz

and Levinson volume points to the necessity to study language, culture,

and cognition from a broadly ethnographic perspective of observing and

recording ordinary usages (‘fashions of speaking’) in cultural context, com-

bined with psychological experiments for testing the relativity hypothesis.

Some of the findings from the neo-Whorfian approach to spatial cognition

(Levinson, 1996, 2006a) are utilized by Kataoka (Chapter 8),who combines

them with multimodal discourse analysis in this volume.

Naomi Quinn’s discourse-oriented approach to cultural models is

entitled Finding Culture in Talk: A Collection of Methods (2005), a volume




8/40

Introduction 5

mainly written for graduate students in cultural anthropology. Technical

details in linguistics are not explored in depth, although the linguisti-

cally sophisticated analyses made by Jane Hill (2005a) and by Claudia

Strauss (2005) are informative even for seasoned cognitive linguists. Inrelation to this current volume, Yamaguchi and Blount are particularly

inspired by the cognitive anthropological notion of ‘culture’ as ‘shared

knowledge’ among a socio-culturally defined group of people, which

was proposed by Goodenough (1957). In Chapter 4, Sharifian also

describes the recent conceptual developments of Cultural Linguistics,

which are partly influenced by cognitive anthropology. Furthermore,

in Chapter 12, Blount refines the meaning of ‘sharing’ from a cognitive

anthropological perspective (see Section 1.3).Another volume that makes strong contributions to linguistic relativ-

ity is Language, Culture, and Society: Key Topics in Linguistic Anthropology ,

edited by Christine Jourdan and Kevin Tuite (2006). The publication

is from the Cambridge University Press series of ‘Studies in the Social

and Cultural Foundations of Language’, and it contains four chapters

written by notable experts (John Leavitt, Regna Darnell, Penny Brown,

and Paul Kay). This volume also features eminent linguistic anthropolo-

gists such as Monica Heller, Elinor Ochs, Bambi Schieffelin, and PaulFriedrich. The editors, however, did not intend to integrate the contri-

butions in either conceptual or empirical terms. They did not, in other

words, make an effort to bring cognitive consideration into play. One

of the chapters in the current volume, however, shows how important

an integration can be in those terms. In Chapter 6, Occhi draws on

Friedrich’s conceptualization of ‘ethnopoetics’ in her cognitive linguis-

tic analysis of metaphors in lyrics (cf. Lakoff, 1993). By this combina-

tion, she confronts and manages ‘the dilemma of poetic nuance versus

universals, the role of tropes or figures, [and] the harmonization of

verbal art and scientific approaches’ (Friedrich, 2006: 207).

In linguistic anthropology, Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition,

and Interaction, edited by N. J. Enfield and Stephen C. Levinson (2006),

needs to be acknowledged. It covers the diverse topics of ‘Properties

of Human Interaction’, ‘Psychological Foundations’, ‘Culture and

Sociality’, ‘Cognition in Interaction’, and ‘Evolutionary Perspectives’

in a well-balanced and synthetic manner. The collection shows not

only depth and breadth but the continuity of the study of cognition in

linguistic anthropology and related disciplines, including psychology.

With reference to this present collection, Kataoka develops some of the

conceptual tools for analyzing interaction, proposed by such contribu-

tors as Schegloff, C. Goodwin, Hutchins, and Enfield, in Enfield and




9/40


Levinson (2006). Also, in Chapter 12, Blount places his proposal for

‘neurocultural cognitive models’ within an evolutionary framework (see

Sperber, 2006).

Calls for greater attention on culture and interaction have alsoresounded across cognitive linguistics, with many upholding the posi-

tion that these variables should, or have always occupied a central place

in cognitive linguistic theorization (e.g., Geeraerts and Grondelaers,

1995; Kövecses, 2005; Lakoff and Johnson, 1999). An early collec-

tion, Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics (1997), edited by

Wolf-Andreas Liebert, Gisela Redeker, and Linda Waugh, examined how

interactional phenomena such as modal expressions, focus particles, and

tag questions are both sites of application and enrichment for cogni-tive linguistic constructs including metaphor and Cognitive Grammar.

Sociocultural and interactional perspectives are also prominent within

what are traditionally regarded as independent branches of cognitive

linguistics. Langacker (2001), for instance, demonstrated that the seem-

ingly abstract analytic units of Cognitive Grammar are able to provide a

coherent framework for contextually driven discourse analysis. Within

the province of conceptual metaphor theory, the study of how context,

culture, and interaction shape the characteristics and use of metaphorsis a programmatic and ongoing strand of research (Cameron, Maslen,

Todd, Maule, Stratton and Stanley, 2009; Gibbs, 1999; Kövecses, 2009;

Steen, 2011, among others), which exemplifies the presently envisioned

intersection between cognitive linguistics and linguistic anthropology.

A recent series of collections which include Advances in Cognitive

Sociolinguistics, edited by Dirk Geeraerts, Gitte Kristiansen, and Yves

Peirsman (2010), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, edited by Vyvyan

Evans and Stéphanie Pourcel (2009), and Body, Language, and Mind , edited

by Roslyn Frank, René Dirven, Tom Ziemke, and Enrique Bernárdez

(2008), have gone on to articulate how this intersection is realizable in

different ways. The papers in Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics explore

the ‘interplay between conceptual meaning and variationist factors’

(Geeraerts, Kristiansen, and Peirsman, 2010: 1). On the one hand, the

notion of sociolinguistic variation should inhere in cognitive linguis-

tic constructs, if the latter claims to be derived from abstractions over

socially situated instances of language use. On the other hand, cognitive

linguistics may enrich sociolinguistic inquiry by providing insights into

the ‘meaningfulness’ of linguistic variation; i.e., how speakers them-

selves construe and make sense of the fact of variation.

The papers in New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics survey

state-of-the-art research and propose new frontiers in different branches




10/40


11/40


Lexicon and Grammar’ (Chapter 2), firmly rejects the traditional stance

that the dividing line between lexicon and grammar reflects its corre-

sponding dichotomy between culture and cognition. Drawing on the

notions of embodied cognition (Wilson, 2002) and usage events (Tummers,Heylin, and Geeraerts, 2005), he elaborates on a balance between ‘bodily

embodiment’ and ‘cultural embeddedness’ in human cognition, from

the perspective of the usage-based theory of grammar. Furthermore, he

situates Cognitive Grammar broadly in cognitive science (Beller, Bender,

and Medin, 2012; also see Ross and Medin, 2011). In assuming that

cognition is universally embodied and culturally embedded, he argues

that ‘lexicon and grammar form a continuum of meaningful structure’.

From this perspective, he points towards direct avenues for closer col-laboration between cognitive linguists and linguistic anthropologists.

In conclusion, he argues that ‘[o]n the one hand, linguists need anthro-

pology in order to properly assess and characterize the cultural basis of

linguistic meanings. On the other hand, linguistic analysis … reveals

the details of the mental constructions constitutive of culture’ (this

volume: 47). The rest of the contributions in this volume elaborates and

develops his insights by providing detailed linguistic analyses in diverse

sociocultural and historical contexts.Dirk Geeraerts (Chapter 3) takes a case study approach to diachronic

prototype semantics (Geeraerts, 1997) in his ‘Deliteralizaiton and the

Birth of “Emotion”’, further exploring a delicate balance between

cultural factors and embodied experience. Specifically, he empirically

examines the historical changes in the domain of emotion and the cul-

tural influences of the humoral theory (also see Blount, this volume) by

critically engaging with the tenet of embodiment in cognitive linguis-

tics. Building upon his influential paper (Geeraerts and Grondelaers,

1995), which shows the ways in which the concept of anger is also a

cultural artefact of the humoral theory, as much as a product of embod-

ied cognition, he adds another cultural layer to the early ‘universalist’

accounts (Lakoff and Kövecses, 1987). In this chapter, Geeraerts dem-

onstrates how the word ‘emotion’ itself has its etymological roots in

the humoral theory. However, it should be noted that he by no means

denies embodied cognitive mechanisms. In his corpus analysis, he dem-

onstrates that metaphorical and metonymic interpretations played a

significant role in the specialization of the meanings of émouvoir (which

is the verbal form of émotion in Old French) from spatial to purely psy-

chological readings.

By making a conceptual distinction between ‘semasiology’ and ‘ono-

masiology’ (Geeraerts, Grondelaers, and Bakema, 1994), he proposes




12/40

Introduction 9

a functional explanation of the ‘birth of emotion’ as the ‘conceptual

onomasiological salience’ or ‘entrenchment’: there was a ‘diachroni-

cally growing need for concepts referring exclusively to psychological

phenomena’ between the middle of the 14th century and the 16thcentury (this volume: 61).2 Interestingly, his findings provide empirical

evidence for the philosophical speculation on the rise of individualism

after the Renaissance (C. Taylor, 1989), which deserves the attention

of linguistic anthropologists. In sum, Geeraerts offers a more nuanced

picture of the domain of emotion from cognitively informed historical

and cultural perspectives.

Kam-yiu S. Pang (Chapter 4) is also concerned with diachronic

changes, by examining the meanings of a popular proverb in Cantonesein his ‘“Overthrowing” yesterday’s ICM: (Re)focusing of meaning in

a Hong Kong Chinese (Cantonese) constructional idiom’. He takes a

semasiological viewpoint by historically tracing the ways in which a

particular proverb is used to denote distinct states of affairs. For this

purpose, proverbs are conceptualized as ‘constructional idioms’ (Taylor,

2002, 2012) within the framework of cognitive linguistics. Through

analyzing the data taken from the Internet periodically, he demon-

strates that the Cantonese proverb on ‘overthrowing the today’s self’,which was predominantly used for ‘praising’, has been changing in the

direction of negative or ‘censuring’ uses, particularly in the domain of

political discourse. Empirically, this chapter shows the semasiological

transformations of the proverb as a constructional idiom.

In order to illuminate a ‘conceptual integration of the two selves’,

Pang uses the ‘blending theory’ (Fauconnier and Turner, 2002).

Moreover, central to his conceptual framework is the ‘idealized cog-

nitive model’ (ICM) (Lakoff, 1987), which is also referred to as ‘cul-

tural model’ (Holland and Quinn, 1987) or ‘cultural cognitive model’

(Blount, this volume; also see Sharifian; Yamaguchi, this volume). He

constructs ICMs by discerning the ‘worldview’ (Hill and Manheim,

1992) in the contextual uses of a proverb. The new proverbial uses also

contribute to the renewal of the culturally constructed self in the Hong

Kong Chinese context (also see Occhi, this volume, for the cultural

construction of self).

Seen this way, language is inseparable from culture, and thus a pro-

verbial phenomenon instantiates ‘languaculture’ (Agar, 1994; Friedrich,

1986), by which it is assumed that each language represents a unique

worldview. The topic of proverb has been studied in language and cul-

ture (e.g., Briggs, 1985; White, 1987), and more recently under the rubric

of ‘ritual communication’ (Senft and Basso, 2009), by highlighting the




13/40


notion of ‘interdiscursivity’ or connectivity across discourses, in the

uses of proverbs (Goddard, 2009). From this ‘languaculture’ perspec-

tive, Pang illustrates one of the ways in which cognitive linguistics and

linguistic anthropology meaningfully intersect.Taking the notion of ‘languaculture’ as a fundamental assumption, the

three chapters in Part II (Cultural Linguistic Approaches to Language and

Culture) squarely address linguistic anthropological concerns by apply-

ing cognitive linguistic insights. In Chapter 5 (‘Advances in Cultural

Linguistics’), Farzad Sharifian defines the field of Cultural Linguistics

as a multidisciplinary area which ‘explores the interface between lan-

guage, culture, and conceptualization’ (this volume: 99). The notion

of ‘conceptualization’ is placed at the nexus of language and culture.By the notion of ‘conceptualization’, he denotes the cultural aspects

of cognition or what he calls ‘cultural conceptualizations’, which

include schemas, categories (prototypes), and metaphors. It should

be noted, however, that he emphasizes socially distributed cognition

(see Hutchins, 1995; Kataoka this volume), as well as culturally shared

cognition. His chapter usefully indicates several connections among

other chapters in this volume. In his overview of Cultural Linguistics,

we see that it intersects with cultural model theory (Pang; Yamaguchi;Blount this volume); conceptual metaphor theory (Occhi; Wee; Tay, this

volume); cultural categorization (Yamaguchi, this volume); and cultural

metaphor (Geeraerts, this volume), among others.

Toward the end, Sharifian illustrates the current research agendas with

sample analyses: World Englishes, intercultural (mis)communication,

and political discourse. In his attempt to incorporate a contextually

sensitive (or ‘indexical’) perspective into his analysis, he draws on the

notion of ‘contextualization cue’ (Gumperz, 1982) in analyzing the cases

of intercultural miscommunication. However, his focus is on the denota-

tionally explicit aspects of communication and lexicalized information

in particular. Thus, he will benefit from ‘keyword analysis’, which has

been developed by Blount (this volume; also see Quinn, 2005; Strauss,

2005; Wierzbicka, 1996), who systematically and rigorosly analyzes

discourse.

The other two chapters in Part II are in-depth case studies. Chapter

6 is entitled ‘Sloppy Selfhood: Metaphor, Embodiment, Animism, and

Anthropomorphization in Japanese Language and Culture’, in which

Debra J. Occhi addresses herself to the issue of the cultural construc-

tion of the self (Duranti, 1997) in the Japanese context. She starts with

observing the phenomena of animism and anthropomorphization

across the domains of religion, traditional art forms (such as poetry and




14/40

Introduction 11

paintings), and contemporary public discourses, including visual media.

Based on her insightful observations, she conceptualizes the Japanese

self as a ‘sloppy self’, by which she means that the self is closely con-

nected with or even inseparable from nature. Among the data takenfrom her fieldwork, Japanese popular media, and historical-literary

documents, she particularly makes an in-depth analysis of enka lyrics

or traditional Japanese love songs. Her conceptual tools derive from

‘ethnopoetics’ (Friedrich, 2006) in linguistic anthropology, and the

blending theory in cognitive linguistics (see Pang, this volume), which

is applied to the Japanese language as HUMANS ARE NATURE/ NATURE

IS HUMAN (Hiraga, 1999). Analytically focusing on the co-occurrences

of the first- and second-person pronouns (and other indexical featuressuch as address terms and reported speech) with body-part synecdoche

and metaphor, she reveals gendered patterns as ‘schemas’ (see Blount,

this volume), in which the Japanese self is constructed in the sentimen-

tal scenarios for romance. In doing so, she rejects the Cartesian dichot-

omy of mind and body, and instead argues for embodiment by positing

the schemas that blend human beings and natural phenomena.

One of the implications of her analysis for linguistic anthropology

is the existence of close connections between metaphor and ideology,which is underexplored in the field of language ideologies (Woolard,

Schieffelin, and Kroskrity, 1998; see Wee, this volume). As Occhi argues,

‘[u]nderstanding the ideological basis for Japanese human-nature

metaphor is crucial to understanding its force and endurance’ (this

volume: 125). By taking an ethnopoetic approach to performance (see

Yamaguchi, this volume), she illuminates the ways in which the ‘sloppy’

Japanese self is metaphorically and metonymically embodied in verbal

and visual images, which should appeal to linguistic anthropologists.

To wrap up Part II, Gary Palmer, Jennifer Thompson, Jeffery

Parkin, and Elizabeth Harmon (Chapter 7) propose a hypothesis on

the genesis of language in their ‘The Ceremonial Origins of Language’.

The first author is known for founding the field of Cultural Linguistics

(see Sharifian; Occhi, this volume) as a synthesis of cognitive linguis-

tics and linguistic anthropology (Palmer, 1996). The arguments they

make for supporting the hypothesis take into account evidence from

archeology and physical anthropology, as well as linguistic and other

semiotic data. In brief, their hypothesis is that Homo heidelbergensis, who

originated in Africa in the Middle Pleistocene period (between 800K and

130K ya) is the first hominine species who possesses the anatomical

and brain characteristics that would have allowed the use of a proto-

language comparable to the language used by Homo sapiens.3 Palmer




15/40


16/40


17/40


he hypothesizes ‘racial’ taxonomic structures (‘x is a kind of y ’) in the

repetitive or ‘poetic’ patterns of discourse. The taxonomic structures

are presumptively shared among a group of people (and in his case

‘New Zealanders’), which needs to be empirically investigated, usingcognitive anthropological elicitation techniques and methods. His goal

is to hypothesize ‘cultural models’ (Pang; Blount, this volume) in the

domain of ethnic and racial categories, based on the ‘poetic’ structures

(Occhi, this volume).

In the process of analysis, he goes back and forth between the ‘indexi-

cal’ at the token level and the ‘symbolic’ at the type-level, by mainly

drawing on linguistic anthropology for the former and cognitive

anthropology for the latter. He also critically compares the notions of‘stereotype’ and ‘prototype’, drawing on Taylor (2003[1989]), Geeraerts

(2008), and others in cognitive linguistics. By the comparison, he syn-

thesizes them as ‘cultural’ concepts in discourse (Silverstein, 2004).

By drawing out the implications, he summarizes commonalities and

differences among linguistic anthropology, cognitive anthropology,

and cognitive linguistics. He proposes that the three paradigms can be

synthesized in an empirical cycle of research, which consists of the for-

mulation of hypotheses, operationalization, falsification, and the gen-eration of new hypotheses. He concludes by suggesting that Cognitive

Grammar (Langacker, this volume; Taylor, 2002) be incorporated into

discourse analysis.

The next two chapters apply conceptual metaphor theory (Lakoff,

1993) to empirical discourse analysis. Chapter 10 is entitled ‘Experiences

as Resources: Metaphor and Life in Late Modernity’, in which Lionel

Wee adroitly bridges the gap between the social and the cognitive in

the analysis of a contemporary metaphor. Specifically, he focuses on

the metaphor ‘Experiences as Resources’, by which the sharing of the

success stories of an entrepreneur or a celebrity who overcame her post-

partum depression is conceptualized as ‘resources’ in politico-economic

terms. By this conceptualization, he points to the recent trends of the

study of the commodification of discourse in linguistic anthropology

(Agha, 2011; cf. Tay, this volume) and a turn to ‘small stories’ in narra-

tive studies (Bamberg, 2006). One of the original aspects of this chapter

is to situate the discourse of sharing in the sociological theory of ‘reflex-

ive modernity’ (Beck, 1994), which theorizes contingent and uncertain

life styles in ‘late modernity’ (Giddens, 1991). His synthesis may be a

precursor in the study of language, culture, and cognition, in which the

issue of ‘language and globalization’ (Coupland, 2010) has been under-

studied, presumably due to the relative lack of interest in social theory




18/40

Introduction 15

among cognitive scientists (Keesing, 1987). From this perspective, Wee

responds to the critique of ‘asocial cognitive linguistics’ by bringing

‘society’ to cognitive linguistic research.

In methodological terms, the data in Chapter 10 are all taken fromthe Internet, which perhaps epitomizes the contemporary world char-

acterized as late modernity. Wee shares this data collection technique

with Pang (Chapter 4) and Tay (Chapter 11) in this volume. In general,

systematic uses of the Internet for data collection can enhance research

outcomes, and search engines represented by Google offer a conveni-

ent and reasonably reliable corpus, which can be applied in linguistic

anthropology (see Hill, 2005b), in combination with the traditional

fieldwork methods.Dennis Tay (Chapter 11) is also concerned with metaphors in context

(Wee, this volume), and specifically with the contextual modulation of

metaphoric meanings, in his ‘An Analysis of Metaphoric Hedging in

Psychotherapeutic Talk’. While much has been written about how the

cognitive import of metaphors help patients to understand and change

their views on the issues for which they seek help, Tay draws attention

to the ‘pragmatic tension’ between wanting to use metaphor, and the

need in professional counselling to maintain a semblance of ‘objectivetruth’. He illustrates how this tension is negotiated with the use of

hedging expressions (Lakoff, 1975), such as ‘in a way’ or ‘sort of’, in the

data taken from psychotherapeutic sessions. Particularly noteworthy is

his observation that the ‘inferential potential of metaphors’ can be ben-

eficially exploited for psychotherapeutic purposes. His analytic point

is that metaphors are ‘non-factual approximations’ of the patients’

circumstances, which can facilitate further exploration of alternative

metaphoric representations in psychotherapy. By recognizing the ideo-

logical, context-creating, or constitutive aspects of metaphors in use

(Occhi; Wee, this volume), Tay suggests the complementarity and par-

tial convergence of cognitive linguistics and linguistic anthropology in

the analysis of psychotherapeutic discourse. In sum, Part III illustrates

multiple methods for integrating language, culture, and cognition

through empirical analyses of discourse, from social, cultural and cogni-

tive perspectives.

As a summary of this collection, Benjamin Blount (Chapter 12), in

his ‘Situating Cultural Models in History and Cognition’, provides an

overview of the history of the study of language, culture, and cognition,

while noting the current theoretical developments and the future direc-

tions, from social, cultural, linguistic, and neuro-biological perspectives.

Although he anchors his theoretical discussion in the framework of




19/40


cultural model (or ‘cultural cognitive model’) in cognitive anthropology,

the scope of his chapter is far-reaching and covers the issues discussed

in the other chapters of this volume. He proposes a ‘new cognitive

paradigm’ that synthesizes cognitive linguistics (Langacker; Geeraerts;Pang; Sharifian; Wee, Tay, this volume), interactional approaches to

discourse and conversation (Kataoka; Yamaguchi; Tay, this volume), and

cultural models theory (Pang; Occhi; Yamaguchi, this volume), within a

biological-evolutionary framework (cf. Palmer et al., this volume). From

this perspective, he argues that a cultural cognitive model is a type of

cognitive model, environmentally adaptive, and subject to evolutionary

frameworks.

In his theoretical discussion of cultural models, Blount argues againsta ‘distributed-cognition model’ (Kronenfeld, 2008), which concep-

tualizes cultural models as psychologically ‘shallow’. In contrast, he

proposes an ‘enriched lexicon model’, which theorizes cultural models

as ‘deeply internalized’ (cf. Sperber, 2006), by synthesizing cogni-

tive anthropology (Strauss and Quinn, 1997), cognitive linguistics

(Taylor, 2012), interactional sociolinguistics (Gumperz, 2006), and

neuro-biological studies. The enriched lexicon model also resonates

with Langacker’s (Chapter 2) view of lexical items as ‘points of access toextensive bodies of knowledge that are not specifically or even primarily

linguistic’ (this volume: 28).

In empirical terms, his case study argues for the ‘cognitive depth’ of

cultural models, by showing the historical endurance of the cultural

models of ‘soul’. Blount illustrates the continuity of the humoral theory

as a cultural model (Geeraerts, this volume) within the historical-cultural

cognitive models of the cosmos and the soul that persisted from the

Greek period until the 18th century (Zimmer, 2004). Interestingly, the

historical reconstruction of the cultural models shows that the ‘scien-

tific’ versus the ‘humanistic’ is a false dichotomy by deconstructing

erroneous stereotypes about cognitive science as ‘non-humanistic’.

In the end, Blount notes the controversial issue of the relation-

ship between the mind (or the brain) and the external environment

in cognitive processes. The polar positions are noted: one argues

that cognition is exclusively ‘internal’ and the environment is irrel-

evant. The other puts priority on the external in cognitive processes

(cf. Hutchins, 1995). In this volume, Kataoka (Chapter 8) and Yamaguchi

(Chapter 9) manifest the tension between a distributed-cognition per-

spective and an individual-cognition perspective. As Ross and Medin

(2011) note, scholars working in the ‘situated cognition’ paradigm




20/40

Introduction 17

(e.g., Hutchins, 1995, 2006) ‘explicitly deny that cognition is a property

of individuals’ (Ross and Medin, 2011: 359). They thus look at ‘activi-

ties’ by only recognizing cognition at the intersubjective level. In light

of the debate between the ‘internalism’ and the ‘externalism’, Blountconcludes by commenting that anthropologists have been rejecting

psychological-cognitive explanations as ‘reductionist’ for more than a

century, despite ample evidence for supporting psychological explana-

tions in cognitive science.

To sum up, the eleven papers we collected in this volume, all of

which are written from cognitive perspectives, will be able to inform

the theory and practice of linguistic anthropology in meaningful ways.

By way of conclusion, we thus argue for more cognitively informedresearch, while recognizing the current dominant trend, which is

counter-posed to our attempted renewal of the relation between cogni-

tive linguistics and linguistic anthropology. As noted, the general point

is provided by Blount (Chapter 12) as the debate over ‘the internal ver-

sus the external’ in cognitive science, as well as the protest against psy-

chological explanations as ‘reductionism’ in anthropology and social

sciences, which have been particularly influenced by phenomenological

perspectives (see Blount, 1968; Cicourel, 1973 for earlier explications).We briefly discuss this problem of regarding cognitive theorization

as ‘reductionism’ in linguistic anthropology by describing the current

trend. It is not difficult to observe the dominant anti-cognitive ethos in

linguistic anthropology. For example, as Stephen C. Levinson (2006b)

points out, there is a widely held ‘misconception’ among some lin-

guistic anthropologists, and discourse and conversation analysts, who

mistakenly think that: ‘There are serious differences between theories

of discourse that turn on the role of cognition in the theory’ (2006b:

85). In a similar vein, Teun A. van Dijk comments, ‘there is another,

even more fundamental form of exclusion, [which is] the study of cogni-

tion. There is a widespread misunderstanding … that identifies cognition

with an individual and therefore nonsocial approach to language and

discourse’ (2003: 340, italics added). His comments are made on the cur-

rent trend in linguistic anthropology (Duranti, 2003) and related areas

in discourse studies (see van Dijk, 2014, for a synthetic sociocognitive

approach). 4

It remains to be seen that the assumption of individual-level cogni-

tion in cognitive linguistics can be reconciled with the anti-cognitive

view held by linguistic anthropologists. The latter are often agnostic

or indifferent to cognition, and generally not interested in cognitive




21/40


definitions of ‘culture’ and in the notion of ‘internalization’. The

relatively new generation of linguistic anthropologists have been ‘on

postmodern holiday’ since the 1980s and have not come back to cogni-

tion yet (Levinson, 2012), which also accelerates anti-cognitivism andanti-scientism.

In light of the dominant trend in linguistic anthropology, we propose

that more conscious, sustained, and systematic efforts are required in

order to integrate language, culture and cognition in the 21st century.

Our sincere hope is that this volume offers a new point of departure

and directions for future endeavors toward that goal, by indicating that

a point does exist at the intersection of cognitive linguistics and linguis-

tic anthropology, a point made clear by Keesing (1992), among others,more than two decades ago.

Notes

1. There are notable exceptions among linguistic anthropologists (e.g., William

F. Hanks, James M. Wilce, Richard Parmentier, and Paul Kockelman). For

example, Hanks (1996) draws on the cognitive notions of ‘frame’ and

‘schema’ in order to conceptualize the background knowledge that Maya

participants assume, in his studies of the Maya deictic system. However,Wilce (2009: 70) critiques the cognitive linguistic approach to emotion,

which ‘largely overlooks the complex interactions of iconicity and indexi-

cality in emergent, entextualized discourse’, although there is nothing

inherent in those phenomena that would preclude cognitive analyses.

His critique is, nonetheless, valuable and thus Kataoka (Chapter 8) and

Yamaguchi (Chapter 9) carefully consider iconic and indexical aspects of

language in this volume. Also Tay (Chapter 11) takes a ‘phenomenological’

or interactional approach to conceptual metaphor by examining the emer-

gent aspects of discourse.

2. The ‘onomasiological’ perspective ‘asks, for any given entity or state of affairs,what range of linguistic expressions may be used to denote it’ while the

‘semasiological’ perspective is the converse (Taylor, 2003: 54). In Geeraerts’

chapter, the increasing need for words to refer to particular psychological

phenomena (i.e. emotions) in the particular historical periods is at issue, so

that ‘onomasiological salience’ is at the center of attention.

3. 100K ya means 100,000 years ago.

4. One of the important ‘origins’ of anti-cognitivism in linguistic anthropol-

ogy goes back to a critique of speech act theory (Searle, 1969) by Michelle

Rosaldo (1982). She argues that John Searle ignores the external environment

by exclusively focusing on the speaker’s intentions. Her point has been sup-ported by linguistic anthropologists, and perhaps most notably developed

by Duranti, who critiques the Western view of language as the ‘personalist

language ideology’ (Duranti, 1993). In short, linguistic anthropology devel-

oped an anti-intentionalist approach to meaning, which contributed to

anti-cognitivism by erasing the speaker as an individual from the picture.




22/40

Introduction 19

References

Agar, M. (1994) ‘The Intercultural Frame’. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(2): 221–237.

Agha, A. (2011) ‘Commodity Registers’. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology , 21(1):22–53.

Bamberg, M. (2006) ‘Stories: Big or Small? Why Do We Care?’ Narrative Inquiry ,16: 147–155.

Beck, U. (1994) ‘The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory of Reflexive

Modernization’, in U. Beck, A. Giddens and S. Lash (eds), Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order (Cambridge: Polity),pp. 1–55.

Beller, S. and Bender, A. (2011) ‘Numerical Categories and Ethnomathematics’, in

D. Kronenfeld, G. Bennardo, V. de Munck and M. Fischer (eds), A Companion toCognitive Anthropology (New York: Wiley-Blackwell), pp. 270–289.

Beller, S., Bender, A., and Medin, D.L. (2012) ‘Should Anthropology Be Part of

Cognitive Science?’ Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(3): 342–353.Berlin, B. (1972) ‘Speculations on the Growth of Ethnobotanical Nomenclature’.

Language in Society , 1: 51–86.Berlin, B. (1992) Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants

and Animals in Traditional Societies (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Berlin, B. and Kay, P. (1969) Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution.

(Berkeley: University of California Press) (2nd ed., 1991).

Blount, B. (1968) ‘Some Contributions of Phenomenology to Social Science’. Kroeber Anthropology Society Papers, 38: 82–105.

Blount, B. (ed.) (1995[1974]) Language, Culture, and Society: A Book of Readings (Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers) (reissued in 1995 by Waveland Press).

Blount, B. (2011) ‘A History of Cognitive Anthropology’, in D. Kronenfeld,

G. Bennardo, V. de Munck and M. Fischer (eds), A Companion to Cognitive Anthropology (New York: Wiley-Blackwell), pp. 11–29.

Blount, B. and Sanches, M. (eds) (1977) Sociocultural Dimensions of LanguageChange (New York: Academic Press).

Briggs, C. L. (1985) ‘The Pragmatics of Proverb Performances in New Mexican

Spanish’. American Anthropologist , 87(4): 793–810.Brown, P. (2006) ‘Cognitive Anthropology’, in C. Jourdan and K. Tuite (eds),

Language, Culture, and Society: Key Topics in Linguistic Anthropology (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press), pp. 96–114.

Cameron, L., Maslen, R., Todd, Z., Maule, J. Stratton, P., and Stanley, N. (2009)

‘The Discourse Dynamics Approach to Metaphor and Metaphor-led Discourse

Analysis’. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(2): 63–89.Casson, R. W. (ed.) (1981) Language, Culture, and Cognition: Anthropological

Perspectives (New York: Macmillan).Cicourel, A. (1973) Cognitive Sociology (Harmondsworth: Penguin).

Coupland, N. (2010) ‘Introduction: Sociolinguistics in the Global Era’, inN. Coupland (ed.), The Handbook of Language and Globalization (Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell), pp. 1–28.

Croft, W. (2009) ‘Towards a Social Cognitive Linguistics’, in V. Evans and

S. Pourcel (eds), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (Amsterdam andPhiladelphia: John Benjamins), pp. 395–420.




23/40


24/40

Introduction 21

Geeraerts, D. (1997) Diachronic Prototype Semantics: A Contribution to Historical Lexicology (Oxford: Clarendon).

Geeraerts, D. (2008) ‘Prototypes, Stereotypes, and Semantic Norms’, in G. Kristiansen

and R. Dirven (eds), Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models,

Social Systems (Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 21–44.Geeraerts, D. and Grondelaers, S. (1995) ‘Looking Back at Anger: Cultural

Traditions and Metaphorical Patterns’, in J. R. Taylor and R. E. MacLaury (eds),

Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World (Berlin and New York: Moutonde Gruyter), pp. 153–180.

Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., and Bakema, P. (1994) The Structure of LexicalVariation: Meaning, Naming, and Context , Vol. 5 (Berlin and New York: Moutonde Gruyter).

Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., and Peirsman, Y. (eds) (2010) Advances in CognitiveSociolinguistics (Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter).

Gibbs, R. W. (1999) ‘Taking Metaphor Out of Our Heads and Putting It into the

Cultural World’, in R. W. Gibbs and G. J. Steen (eds), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins), pp. 145–166.

Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self- Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (Stanford: Stanford University Press).

Gigioli, P. P. (1972) (ed.) Language and Social Context: Selected Readings (Harmondsworth: Penguin).

Goddard, C. (2009) ‘“Like a Crab Teaching Its Young to Walk Straight”:

Proverbiality, Semantics, and Indexicality in English and Malay’, in G. Senft

and E. B. Basso (eds), Ritual Communication (Oxford and New York: Berg), pp.103–126.Goodenough, W. (1957) ‘Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics’, in P. Garvin

(ed.), Report of the Seventh Annual Roundtable on Linguistis and Language Study(Washington, DC: Georgetown University), pp. 167–173.

Gumperz, J. (2006) ‘Interactional Sociolinguistics’, in K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopediaof Language & Linguistics, Volume 5. 2nd ed. (Oxford: Elsevier), pp. 724–729.

Gumperz, J. J. (1982) Discourse Strategies (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress).

Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds) (1996) Rethinking Linguistic Relativity

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Gumperz, J. and Hymes, D. (eds) (1972) Directions in Sociolinguistics: The

Ethnnography of Communication (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston).Hanks, W. F. (1996) ‘Language Form and Communicative Practices’, in J. J.

Gumperz and S. C. Levinson (eds), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press), pp. 232–270.

Hill, J. H. (2005a) ‘Finding Culture in Talk’, in N. Quinn (ed.), Finding Culture inTalk: A Collection of Methods (New York: Palgrave), pp. 157–202.

Hill, J. H. (2005b) ‘Intertextuality as Source and Evidence for Indirect Indexical

Meanings’. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology , 15(1): 113–124.

Hill, J. H. and Mannheim, B. (1992) ‘Language and World View’. Annual Reviewof Anthropology , 21: 381–406.

Hiraga, M. (1999) ‘“Blending” and Interpretation of Haiku: A Cognitive

Approach’. Poetics Today , 20(3): 461–481.Holland, D. and Quinn, N. (eds) (1987) Cultural Models in Language & Thought.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.




25/40


Hunn, E. (1989) ‘Ethnoecology: The Relevance of Cognitive Anthropology for

Human Ecology’, in M. Freilich (ed.), The Relevance of Culture (Westport, CT:Greenwood), pp. 143–160.

Hunn, E. (2006) ‘Ethnoscience’, in K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language &

Linguistics, Volume 5. 2nd ed. (Oxford: Elsevier), pp. 258–260.Hutchins, E. (1995) Cognition in the Wild (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Hutchins, E. (2006) ‘The Distributed Cognition Perspective on Human

Interaction’, in N. J. Enfield and S. C. Levinson (eds), Roots of Human Sociality:Culture, Cognition and Interaction (Oxford: Berg), pp. 375–398.

Jourdan, C. and Tuite, K. (eds) (2006) Language, Culture, and Society: Key Topics in Linguistic Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Kay, P., Berlin, B., and Merrifield, W. (1991) ‘Biocultural Implications of Systems

of Color Naming’. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology , 1(1): 12–25.Keesing, R. M. (1987) ‘Models, “Folk” and “Cultural”: Paradigms Regained?’

in D. Holland and N. Quinn (eds), Cultural Models in Language and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 369–394.

Keesing, R. M. (1992) ‘Anthropology and Linguistics’, in M. Pütz (ed.), ThirtyYears of Linguistic Evolution: Studies in Honour of René Dirven on the Occasion ofhis Sixtieth Birthday (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), pp. 593–609.

Kövecses, Z. (2005) Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press).

Kövecses, Z. (2009) ‘The Effect of Context on the Use of Metaphor in Discourse’.

Iberica, 17: 11–23.

Kronenfeld, D. (2008) Culture, Society, and Cognition: Collective Goals, Values, Action, and Knowledge (Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter).Kronenfeld, D., Bennardo G., de Munck, V., and Fischer, M. (eds) (2011) A

Companion to Cognitive Anthropology (New York: Wiley-Blackwell).Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About

the Mind (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press).Lakoff, G. (1993) ‘The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor’, in A. Ortony (ed.),

Metaphor and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 202–251.Lakoff, G. and Kövecses, Z. (1987) ‘The Cognitive Model of Anger Inherent

in American English’, in D. Holland and N. Quinn (eds), Cultural Models in

Language and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 195–221.Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1999) Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and

Its Challenge to Western Thought (New York: Basic Books).Lakoff, R. (1975) Language and Women’s Place (New York: Harper and Row).Langacker, R. W. (2001) ‘Discourse in Cognitive Grammar’. Cognitive Linguistics,

12(2): 143–188.

Leavitt, J. (forthcoming) ‘Reviewing the History of Linguistic Relativity: From

Boas to Whorf/Lucy’, in F. Sharifian (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Languageand Culture (New York/London: Routeldege).

Levinson, S. C. (1996) ‘Relativity in Spatial Conception and Description’, in J. J.

Gumperz and S. C. Levinson (eds), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press), pp. 177–202.

Levinson, S. C. (2006a). ‘On the Human “Interaction Engine”’, in N. J. Enfield

and S. C. Levinson (eds), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction (Oxford: Berg), pp. 39–69.




26/40


27/40


Silverstein, M. (2007) ‘How Knowledge Begets Communication Begets Knowledge:

Textuality and Contextuality in Knowing and Learning’. InterculturalCommunication Review , 5: 31–60.

Sinha, C. (2004) ‘The Evolution of Language from Signals to Symbols to System’,

in D. K. Oller and U. Griegbel (eds), Evolution of Communication Systems: AComparative Approach, Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology (Cambridge, MA: MITPress), pp. 217–236.

Sperber, D. (2006) ‘Why a Deep Understanding of Cultural Evolution is

Incompatible with Shallow Psychology’, in N. J. Enfield and S. C. Levinson

(eds), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction (Oxford: Berg),pp. 431–449.

Strauss, C. (2005) ‘Analyzing Discourse for Cultural Complexity’, in N. Quinn

(ed.), Finding Culture in Talk (New York: Palgrave), pp. 203–242.Strauss, C. (2006) ‘Cognitive Anthropology’, in K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of

Language & Linguistics, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Elsevier), pp. 529–532.Strauss, C. and Quinn, N. (1997) A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Steen, G. J. (2011) ‘The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor—Now New and

Improved!’ Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1): 26–64.Taylor, C. (1989) Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press).

Taylor, J. R.(2002) Cognitive Grammar (Oxford and New York: Oxford UniversityPress).

Taylor, J. R.(2003[1989]) Linguistic Categorization, 3rd ed. (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press).Taylor, J. R. (2012) The Mental Corpus: How Language Is Represented in the Mind (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Tummers, J., Heylen, K., and Geeraerts, D. (2005) ‘Usage-based Approaches in

Cognitive Linguistics: A Technical State of the Art’. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory , 1(2): 225–261. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-34248712140&partnerID=40&md5=7e38e11bac

603628da48ab2bbe3ddbd6.

van Dijk, T. A. (2003) ‘Commentary on A. Duranti’s “Language as Culture in U.S.

Anthropology: Three Paradigms”’. Current Anthropology , 44(3): 340–341.

van Dijk, T.A. (2014) Discourse and Knowledge: A Sociocognitive Approach(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

White, G. M. (1987) ‘Proverbs and Cultural Models’, in D. Holland and N.

Quinn (eds), Cultural Models in Language and Thought (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press), pp. 151–172.

Wierzbicka, A. (1996) Semantics: Primes and Universals (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress).

Wilce, J. M. (2009) Language and Emotion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Wilson, M. (2002) ‘Six View of Embodied Cognition’. Psychonomic Bulletin and

Review , 9(4): 625–636.

Woolard, K., Schieffelin, B., and Kroskrity, P. (eds) (1998) Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory (New York: Oxford University Press).

Zimmer, K. (2004) Soul Made Flesh: The Discovery of the Brain—and How It Changedthe World (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Zlatev, J., Racine, T. P., Sinha, C., and Itkonen, E. (2008) ‘Intersubjectivity: What

Makes us Human?’ in J. Zlatev, T. P. Racine, C. Sinha, and E. Itkonen (eds), TheShared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), pp. 1–14.




28/40

303

Index

AAbelson, R. P., 276Aboriginal cultural spiritual conceptu-

alisations, 114Aboriginal English speakers, 112absolute, absolutive, 131, 158, 160,

186, 231, 257

Abu-Lughod, L., 129Acheulian, 151–2action chain and scenarios, 157,

159–60activity type, 237Adams, M., 235, 249n1adaptive, 16, 157, 169Agar, M., 9, 69, 146Agha, A., 14, 245, 246Aguirre, E., 149

Aiello, L. C., 149, 160, 168anger, concept of, 8, 56–9, 62, 64Angus, L. E., 253, 257, 262animism, 10, 126–8, 142anthropological linguistics, 101, 118anthropological research on space, 181anthropology, 46

cognitive anthropology (CA),see cognitive anthropology (CA)

linguistic anthropology (LA),

see linguistic anthropology (LA)anthropomorphism, 126, 128, 142anti-cognitivism, 18Aoki, H., 211n3Aquinas, T., 290Arbib, M., 148, 164Aristotle and Greek cosmos, 291Armstrong, D. F., 147, 160, 164, 165,

168Arthur, J. M., 115

Ascher, R., 147, 163attention, 35, 36, 46, 293

joint attentional frame, 162, 169Auel, J. M., 143n4Australian Aboriginal English, 111

Australian Aboriginal languages andcultures, 7, 108

Avdi, E., 253Avruch, K., 118

Bback/foregrounding, 87

Bakema, P., 8, 61Bamberg, M., 14, 247Bartlett, F. C., 102basic cognitive ability, 30, 34, 39basic domain, 30Basso, E. B., 9Basso, K. H., 159, 181Bauman, Z., 236Beck, U., 14, 234, 236Becker, A. L., 141

Beller, S., 1, 3, 8Bender, A., 1, 3, 8Bennardo, G., 1, 181, 274, 280Berlin, B., 3, 4, 102Bernárdez, E., 6, 7Bickerton, D., 147, 160, 161, 168, 169blending theory, 7, 9, 11–12Blenkiron, P., 252, 253, 254, 260Bloem, A., 50, 51, 60, 62, 63Blount, B. G., 1–3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 101, 102,106, 211n1, 217, 218, 221, 223,226, 227, 228, 230, 231n4, 271,273, 274, 275, 284, 289

Boas, Franz, 3, 101Bodo, 149–51body, 183, 186, 272, 287, 290

holistic treatment of, 210and language, 194parts, 11, 103, 110–11, 137–9,

199, 209Bourdieu, P., 181brain

as a mapping mechanism, 272,287–8




29/40

304 Index

brain - continued out-of-awareness functions, 286–7

brain functions, 30, 272mapping mechanisms, 272, 287–8

out of awareness, 272, 276–7,286–7, 292–3

Briggs, C. L., 9, 248Brooks, A., 246, 249n1Brown, P., 2, 5, 181Brugman, C., 160Buddhism, 124, 126Bühler, K., 208Burling, R., 154, 155, 168, 170,

171n12Bybee, J., 171n17

Ccall system, 154–5, 170Cameron, L., 6, 251, 252, 253, 262Campbell, B. G., 148, 149, 151Cantonese, 7, 9, 68–92Casson, R. W. 1catastrophists, 168–9

ceremonial, 145–70character-internal perspective, 188,192, 195–201, 204–5

character viewpoints (VPTs), 186, 193,198, 207

Observer-external, 193Observer-internal, 198, 199, 200

Cicourel, A., 13, 17, 183classifier, 40–1, 108–9, 158class-inclusion model, 240, 241, 244,

246, 247cognition, 2–8, 16–18, 27–8, 31, 64–6,

103cultural, 10, 99, 103–5culturally embedded, 33distributed, 104, 282–3embodied, 33, 37–9, 42, 46

cognitive anthropology (CA), 2–5,14, 16, 99, 106, 119n1, 182,217–18, 225, 227–8, 230n1,

272, 282, 295cognitive depth, 16, 285–92cognitive development, 31, 107,

294cognitive domains, 28–30, 32–4, 36,

219, 231n5

Cognitive Grammar (CG), 6, 8, 14,27–8, 30, 219, 229

cognitive linguistics, 1–2, 5–18, 29,47, 50, 53, 62, 64, 69, 99,

100–3, 109, 111, 117, 118, 124,145, 146, 157, 185, 217, 230n1,265

cognitive linguistics (CL) approach,1–2, 7, 10, 13–15, 50, 99,145–6, 217, 227–8, 230n1

and conceptual metaphor, 111mechanisms of, 12social contexts, 218–19traditional approaches, 101

cognitive science, 8, 16–17, 46–7, 102,182, 294

Cognitive Sociolinguistics, 218–19,227, 228

cognitive utility (of metaphor), 254commodification of experiences, 14,

235, 242–7commodity discourse, 245communicative competence, notion

of, 1, 102communicative dynamics, 255communicative event, 218, 220, 221,

227Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS), 103–4Comrie, B., 160conceptual archetypes, 31, 40–1conceptual blending, 12, 157, 169,

171n14conceptual content, 28–9, 34, 36,

37–40and construal, 34

conceptualizationcognitive, 103cultural, 104–11, 114–15, 117

conceptual metaphor, 6, 10, 12, 14,50, 53–4, 103, 105, 109–12,117, 147, 157–8, 169

conceptual metaphor theory, 6, 10,14, 50, 53

conceptual metonymy(ies), 12, 157–9,169

concordance analysis, 256consonants, 154–6, 161construal phenomena, 34–7

definition of, 34




30/40

Index 305

constructional idioms (CIs), 9, 91,93n5

lexico-grammatical characteristics,75–7

proto-, 84–5consumption, 243, 246, 248contextualization cue, notion of, 10,

231n6conversation analysis, 211n2Cooley, D. R., 274, 275correspondence models, 240–1,

244Craw, M. J., 253, 254, 260, 261, 262Croft, W., 7cultural categorization/category(ies),

10, 12, 104and language, 107–9

cultural cognition, notion of, 99,103–5, 110–11

cultural cognitive models (CCMs),notion of, 9, 16, 99, 217–18,221, 224–6, 271, 278–9, 285,294–5

biocultural framework, 272culture-in-talk models, 272–3definitions, 217, 224lexicon and, 284–5methods, 227out-of-awareness brain functions

and, 286–7of pre-modern Western medicine,

288–92schemas and, 276–8

social network analysis and, 284see also idealized cognitive models

(ICMs)cultural concept/conceptualisations,

notion of, 10, 104–5, 107, 114,117, 219

cultural consonance, 273, 275cultural knowledge, 31, 33, 36, 38,

100, 104, 279cultural linguistics, 2, 5, 10–11, 15,

106, 113, 118–19, 145–6aim of, 111applications of, 99framework of, 103and intercultural communication,

114–17

and political discourse analysis,117–18

and research into varieties ofEnglish, 111–13

see also cultural schemascultural metaphors, 10, 104, 110–11cultural models, 4, 9–10, 12, 14–16,

99, 106, 111, 117, 157–9, 169,217, 271–95

cognitive depth and, 16of the cosmos and the soul, 289of Galen, 289–90historical reconstruction of, 16and methods, case studies, 273–4as psychologically shallow, 16see also idealized cognitive models

(ICMs)cultural schemas, 104, 281

Aboriginal, 115intercultural communication, 115and language, 105–7

culture, 1, 13, 100, 101, 103, 106,142, 277, 280, 293

computational models, 283definition of, 5distributed cognition, 13, 16, 99,

104, 282–3embodiment and, 29–34in-talk models, 272–3and sharing, 237, 280–2

Cuyckens, H., 183

D

Damasio, A., 287D’Andrade, R. G., 2, 106, 227, 273,

277Davis, B. L., 154, 156decontextualization, 227, 228, 248deictic gesture, 201, 212n11deictic motion verbs (DMVs), 182,

184, 186, 191, 193, 195, 201,204, 207

Deignan, A., 251, 252

deliteralization, 50–66de Munck, V., 1diachronic prototype semantics, 8dialectics of culture and cognition,

64–6Diller, H.-J., 62, 64




31/40

306 Index

directive force, 273, 295direct metaphoric communication,

254, 258, 261, 265direct metaphorization, 52

Dirven, R., 6, 7, 183, 218, 219, 280discourse markers, 251, 255distributed cognition model, 10,

13, 16, 99, 104, 184, 208,210, 283

distributed knowledge, notion of, 104Dixon, R. M. W., 38domain matrix, 87, 219, 230n2domain(s), 8, 28, 230n2, 231n5, 240,

273, 275, 277, 280, 282cognitive, 28–9, 30, 34, 36conceptual, 251cultural, 146matrix, 219

Donald, M., 162, 163Dougherty, J., 1Dressler, W., 273, 274, 275Du Gay, P., 235, 246Dunbar, R., 147, 166

Duranti, A., 1, 2, 3, 10, 13, 17, 18n4,102, 145, 182, 183, 188, 192,209, 210

Durkheim, E., 126

EEagleman, D., 286, 287E-language, 284embodied cognition, 8, 31–3, 34, 37,

39, 42

embodiment, 8, 10, 37, 39, 50, 124–42,201

and culture, 29–34notion of, 7, 11, 29–34, 45

embodiment hypothesis, 50emotion (émouvoir ), 4, 8, 18n1, 35,

50–66, 103, 110–11, 125, 129,132–3, 146–7, 164, 167, 291

birth of, 50–7 Japanese conceptualizations of, 125

metaphorical interpretation of, 65psychological readings of, 57specialization of, 57–64

empirical cycle, 14, 218–19, 227encyclopedic knowledge, 226, 228,

278–9, 281, 293–4

Enfield, N. J., 5, 186enka lyrics (traditional Japanese love

songs), 11, 125–6, 128–30enriched lexicon model, 16, 226,

283enterprise culture, 235, 246entrenchment, 9, 61–2, 105, 169environmental sustainability, 235epistemic control cycle, 45–6ergative, 160ethical regimes, 235–6ethnoecology, 273ethnography of speaking/

communication, 99, 101, 102ethnopoetics, 5, 11ethnosemanticists, 102ethnosemantics (ethoscience),

101–2Evans, V., 6excellence, 246–7externalism, 17, 220external language (E-language), 284

FFalk, D., 148, 165, 166Fauconnier, G., 9, 33, 81, 125, 157Feld, S., 181Feldman, J. A., 271, 277, 294Ferrara, K. W., 253, 255fictive motion, 36Fillmore, C. J., 4, 28, 185Fischer, M., 1focus

shift of, 70, 89focusing, 11–12, 18, 34–6, 39, 43, 46,

68–92, 131, 139, 210Foley, W. A., 171n10folk models, 106, 226

see also cultural cognitive models(CCMs)

Frake, C., 3, 221frames, see idealized cognitive models

(ICMs)

frames of reference (FOR), 185–6, 202,208

framing, 2, 246, 248Frank, B., 184Frank, R. M., 6, 7, 117, 184, 218Frederick, R. E., 181




32/40


33/40

308 Index

idealized cognitive models (ICMs), 9,28, 86, 87

‘consistency’, 85, 88–9, 91in English-speaking culture, 69

and idiomatic expressions, 68–70as normative sociocultural beliefs,

69person split into identical ‘self at

time t ’ and ‘self at time t –n’, 86‘progress’, 83–6, 88–9, 91, 93n4‘single self’, 83, 85, 88see also cultural cognitive models

(CCMs); constructional idioms(CIs); cultural models

ideology, 11, 18n4, 126, 129, 230n1idiomatic expressions, 68–70, 77

see also constructional idioms (CIs)Ikegami, Y., 41iku ‘go’, 182, 184–5, 193, 204I-language, 284imagery, notion of, 100, 124–5, 128–

9, 145–6, 148, 159, 162–4, 169image schemas, 30, 100, 102–3, 157

immanence, 34immediate scope, 36incredulity response construction, 70indexical, 13–14, 130, 133, 227, 245indexical pronouns, 223individual cognition perspective, 16,

181inferential potential (of metaphor),

15, 252, 257, 262, 264inspiration, 55, 217, 237, 244, 247

instantiation, 55, 104, 240, 277–9,293–4

intention reading, 164, 169Interactional Sociolinguistics, 16,

231n6interaction(s), 6–7, 13, 18n1, 27, 30,

183embodied, 184social, 103, 160, 220, 227, 229,

236–7, 278, 284

intercultural miscommunication, 10interdiscursivity, notion of, 10internalism, 17internalization, notion of, 18, 285–6internal language (I-language), 284Internet data, 70–2

intersubjectivity, 12, 13, 146, 148,162, 165, 169, 182–4, 188–9,209–10, 241, 281, 282

intersubjectivity/intersubjective,

concept of, 148, 169Husserlian notion of, 13mimesis for, 162

Itkonen, E., 13

J Jackendoff, R., 38 Japanese human-nature metaphors,

11, 125–6, 128, 142 Japanese language and culture, 11 Japanese onomatopoeia, 198 Jespersen, O., 147, 166, 167, 168 Jin, Y., 83, 84 Johansson, S., 147, 170n4 Johnson, M., 6, 30, 32, 47, 81, 103,

109, 157, 158, 182, 239, 251,253, 271

joint attention frames, 162, 169, 184 Jourdan, C., 5, 7

KKabwe, 149–51Kataoka, K., 2, 7, 10, 12, 186, 189,

193, 201Kay, P., 3, 4, 5Keesing, R. M., 1, 15, 18, 106, 275Kempton, W., 274Kendon, A., 197, 200, 209, 211n8keywords, 10, 219, 223–4, 228, 274,

276, 278–9, 281, 285, 293Kimmel, M., 262, 263kinship, 3–4, 41, 109Kita, S., 148, 162, 164, 186Kitner, K., 274, 275Klein, R. G., 148, 151, 152, 153Knight, C., 147, 148, 162, 166Kockelman, P., 217Kopp, R. R., 253, 254, 260, 261, 262Kornreich, M., 252, 264

Kövecses, Z., 6, 8, 50, 70Kripke, S., 217Kristiansen, G., 6, 183, 218, 219, 280Kronenfeld, D., 1, 3, 16, 279–80,

282–3, 296Kroskrity, P., 11, 249n3




34/40

Index 309

Kuno, S., 204kuru ‘come’, 182, 184

L

Labov, W., 186Lakoff, G., 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 28, 30, 32,

47, 50, 69, 81, 103, 109, 157,158, 160, 236, 239, 240, 251,253, 297

Lakoff, R., 15, 255landmark, 36, 189, 197–9, 210, 211n7Langacker, R. W., 2, 6, 7, 14, 16, 28,

30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42,43, 45, 47, 87, 100, 102, 157,159, 160, 161, 171n11, 183,219, 229, 271

languaculture, notion of, 9–10, 69,91, 146

language(s), 2–7, 14–15, 170n2,230n1

-acquisition, 171n19, 183–4central aspect of cultural cognition,

104

history, 15ideologies, 11origin in evolutionary-biological

framework, 12proto-, 11–12, 145–6, 148, 156–62,

170as social phenomena, 3socio-cultural grounding of, 102verbal, see verbal language

late modernity, 14–15, 234–7, 247–8

Lawrence, D., 181Leach, E., 226Leavitt, J., 5, 7Levinson, S. C., 4, 5, 6, 7, 17, 18, 158,

181, 185, 186, 187, 237lexical items, 28, 36, 38

in Aboriginal English, 114decomposition of, 3–4

lexical/lexemes meaningcase study, 42–6

conceptual content, 28–9construal, 34–7embodiment and culture, 29–34

lexico-grammatical characteristics, 75–7lexicon, 8, 16, 27, 37, 38, 44, 62, 156,

229

and cultural cognitive models,284–5

and grammar, 8, 27–8, 37, 38, 42,45

language-specific nature of, 27meaning of, 27networks of constructions, 37

Li, C., 147Liang, Q., 72, 83, 84, 85Linde, C., 186linguistic anthropologists, 17–18, 217,

221linguistic anthropology (LA), 1–18,

99, 100, 102, 114, 124, 145,181, 183, 217–20, 221, 227–9,230n1, 249n3, 265

anti-cognitivism in, 18n4anti-intentionalist approach to

meaning, 18n4connections between metaphor and

ideology, 11cultural concepts in, 221marginalization of cognition

within, 4sociocentric cognition, 227token-level analyses in, 228

linguistic categorization, 217linguistic diversity, 27–8, 28linguistic relativity hypothesis, 4, 7linguistic variation, 6, 45Livingstone, F. B., 147, 167Locke, J., 148, 165, 166, 168love, 11, 65, 110, 112, 115, 125,

127–41overt address, 130–5

Low, G., 252, 265Low, S., 181Loy, J. D., 148, 149, 151Lucy, J. A., 3, 4, 7, 40, 181

MMacNeilage, P. F., 154, 155, 156‘macro-metaphor’, 125

Mandler, J., 32Mandler, J. M., 30, 42Mannheim, B., 7, 9, 141map

cognitive, 158–9, 171n15macro, 159




35/40


36/40

Index 311

neo-Whorfian approach/movement,4, 181

networksconceptual, 157–8

semantic, 160–1neural models, 293neuro-cultural cognitive models, 294neurolinguistics, research in, 287neuroscience, 271–2, 286, 293–4Nichols, J., 168non-homogeneous speech commu-

nity, 227see also linguistic anthropology (LA)

non-Western languages, 7noun, 39

classifiers, 108, 109, 158class markers, 108–9

Oobserver-internal perspective, 192,

195–201observer’s external perspective, 188,

193–5, 204–5

observer viewpoints (VPTs), 186, 193Occhi, D. J., 2, 7, 10, 124, 126, 128,138, 139, 142

Ochs, E., 5Ohnuki-Tierney, E., 124Old French data, 8, 51, 55, 57, 63–4Ong, A.-H., 235onomasiology, 8–9, 60–1, 63–4-onomic knowledge, 221, 223, 226,

231n5

Origo (origin of perception), 184–5,193, 195–7, 199, 200–2, 204–5,207–8, 210

Oxford English Dictionary , 64, 68

PPalmer, G. B., 2, 11, 12, 16, 47,

99–104, 106, 110, 119, 145,157, 158, 159, 160, 171n15,171n18, 183, 185, 218

Pang, K.-Y. S., 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 79, 83, 87partonomies, 221, 230n3Pederson, E., 181performance, 11–12, 125, 128, 146–7,

162, 164–7, 169, 171n18, 191,193, 197, 199, 202, 285

perspective, 4–10, 12, 15–17, 18n2, 31,34, 36–7, 62, 76, 99, 103, 111, 114,116–17, 169, 182, 185–9, 192–210

perspective-taking, 13, 181–2, 187–8,

192, 201, 210phonemes, 100phonological networks, 157, 161–2

Platzwechsel, notion of, 183plausibility shields, 257Pleistocene, Middle, 11, 145–7, 151,

153–4, 158, 165, 168–9‘poetic’ structures, 14, 223, 228, 229pointing, 13, 62, 146, 162, 186, 202,

204–5, 207–9, 219political discourse analysis, 10

and cultural linguistics, 117–18political metaphors, 117polycentric conceptual networks, 157, 158polysemy, polysemous, 156–7, 160–1post-partum depression, 238, 240–1Pourcel, S., 6Power, C., 147, 163pragmatic characteristics (of meta-

phor), 251pragmatic tension, 15, 261PRC linguistic communities, 93n5prelinguistic vocalization

primates, vocal symbolization andprotosyntax in, 154–5

proto frames, 155–7pre-modern Western medicine, cultural

cognitive models of, 288–92primate

bonobo, 154–5chimpanzee, 154–5gibbon, 154–5

primate call system, 154Prince, E., 257probing strategy, 261Prochaska, J. O., 255profile, 36, 39–40, 43–4, 84, 133, 135,

146, 285propositional attitude predicate, 42–3,

45–6proto-grammar, 155, 169proto-language, 11–12, 145–6, 148,

153, 161prelinguistic vocalization transition

to, 154–7




37/40

312 Index

proto-semantics, 157–62proto-sign, 164–5proto-speakers, 145–7, 154–5, 157–8,

161–2

proto-speech, 146, 155, 162, 165, 167,169, 170n2

proto-syntax, 154–5prototype, notion of, 14, 41, 217–18,

221, 231n4cultural, 104culturally constructed, 108vs stereotypes, 219–20

proto-words, 154proverb, 9–10

meaning of, 68–9psychology, 5, 181, 280psychotherapeutic discourse, 15, 258,

265psychotherapeutic talk, 252–3, 255psychotherapy, 15, 249n4, 265

metaphor in, 252–5see also metaphors/metaphorization

Public Opinion Programme (Hong

Kong), 90Putnam, H., 217, 219, 220, 221, 223,225, 227

Pütz, M., 218

Q Quiatt, D., 158, 168Quinn, N., 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 16, 69, 106,

218, 224, 226, 262, 271, 272,273, 275, 276, 282

R‘racial’ taxonomic structures, 14Racine, T. P., 13recontextualization, 248Rampton, B., 234recontextualization, 248Reddy, M. J., 28reduplication, 156, 161–2,

171n12

reflexive modernity, 14reflexivity, notion of, 171n18, 235,

237–9, 248, 249n1religion, metaphor’s role

in, 126Renaissance, 9, 59–62

Rennie, D. L., 262reported speech, 11, 133–5, 139representational gesture, 186ritual speech, 166

Rizzolatti, G., 164Rogoff, B., 184Rosaldo, M. Z., 18n4Rosch, E., 4, 219Ross, C. F., 154Ross, N., 8, 16, 17, 154, 280Ruhlen, M., 156Rumsey, A., 13, 222, 223Rymes, B., 217

SSacks, H., 13salience, salient, 9, 29, 35, 51, 60–1,

64, 69, 87, 146–7, 158, 160,164, 169, 189, 219, 236–7, 246,275, 280

Sanches, M., 1, 218Sapir, E., 3Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, 145

scenario, 11, 84, 86, 100, 128, 147,157–60, 169, 283Schank, R., 276Schegloff, E. A., 209, 211n2s

language and culture 40

Documents