1. History and Core Concepts of Cognitive Linguistics Laura A. Janda laura.janda@uit.no

2. Eleanor Rosch (Psychology): Structure of human cognitive categories Showed that human cognitive categories are not Aristotelian categories, but instead have: –Prototypes –Radial structure of categories Confirmed for structure of existing categories (fruits & vegetables), for building of new categories (color), and for inferencing (birds) Inspired many works in linguistics that laid the groundwork for cognitive linguistics –Fillmore, Kay, McDaniel, Coleman, Lakoff (Rosch1973a-b, 1978; Mervis and Rosch 1981)

3. Early works in linguistics inspired by Rosch Fillmore 1975, 1978, 1982: –questions necessary & sufficient features for describing meaning >> replace by radial categories/frame semantics Kay and McDaniel 1978 –On the linguistic significance of the meanings of basic color terms Coleman and Kay 1981 –English lie as a protoype (+falsehood is actually the least predictive “feature”) Lakoff 1977 –Linguistic gestalts

4. Other precursors of cognitive linguistics Lakoff & Johnson 1980: Metaphors We Live By –Ubiquity of metaphor – not just a literary device Lindner 1981: UP and OUT –structured polysemy of grammatical morphemes, metaphor Casad 1982: Cora locationals –spatial relations and their extensions Fauconnier 1985: Mental Spaces –Idealized Cognitive Model as alternative to “possible worlds” – a situation may hold true for a mental space but not for reality Lakoff 1987: Women, Fire and Dangerous Things –radial category structure of linguistic units Brugman 1988: Story of OVER –polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon

5. No single “guru”, but Langacker stands out Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (1987, 1991) Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar (1990) Grammar and Conceptualization (1999) Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction (2008) Construal Profiling Symbolic Structures and Symbolic Assemblies Elaboration Subjectification

6. Some other major players Croft: Radical Construction Grammar, Verbal aspect Dabrowska: Acquisition (chunking), non-uniform grammars Geeraerts: Sociolinguistic variation, historical change Goldberg: Construction grammar Talmy: Fictive motion, limits of grammatical expression (topological vs. Euclidean), sattelite vs. verb framing Taylor: Linguistic categorization, possession Tomasello: Verb-island hypothesis, joint attention, language evolution Turner: Blending

7. Other major players: Croft Radical Construction Grammar 2001 –Idiomaticity is a cline –Syntax is semantically motivated –Linguistic categories (“adjective”, “passive”, “dative”) are language- specific –No strict universals, but some tendencies –“Simpler”, “more elegant” solutions are not necessarily best –Constructions are the minimal units; pairings of form and meaning –The only syntactic relations required are meronomic (part-whole) Verbs. Aspect and Causal Structure 2012 –2-D geometric representation of aspectual types (construals); extension of Vendlerian categories –Much depends on construal (metonymy) –Multidimentional scaling analysis of Dahl’s crosslinguistics tense-aspect data

8. ICLA conferences Duisburg, Germany 1989 Santa Cruz, CA 1991 Leuven, Belgium 1993 Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1995 Amsterdam, Netherlands 1997 Stockholm, Sweden 1999 Santa Barbara, CA 2001 La Rioja, Spain 2003 Seoul, Korea 2005 Krakow, Poland 2007 Xi’an, China 2011 Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 2013

9. “Tier I” (Nivå 2) International journal since 1989… Currently edited by Ewa Dąbrowska (Sheffield U)