CIUDAD CON CALIDAD DE AGUA

The claim of cognitive linguistics that meaning is equated with conceptualisation calls for an adequate description of the conceptual structures which can be used to analyse mental concepts, and – hence – linguistic meaning. One of the first significant attempts in this respect was the theory of mental frame semantics put forward by Fillmore (1982; 1985). Fillmore describes mental frames as coherent regions of conceptualisation which allow for the representation of semantic expressions. He observes that truth-conditional approach does not account for the asymmetries in semantic descriptions. To take the already-cited example, the componential semantic description of bachelor and spinster differs only with regards to [MALE]/ [FEMALE] distinction in their semantic description. However, speakers of English typically share many additional assumptions about bachelors and spinsters. Bachelors in American culture are assumed to behave in a certain way and live a particular lifestyle of their own will. Spinsters are typically assumed to have a different set of shared features and their unmarried status is thought to be of doleful necessity. These assumptions are based on the knowledge and expectations shared by the speakers of a particular language. Similarly, the analysis of girl and boy shows irregularities in the way these terms are applied; for one thing, girl appears to be used for females of wider age range than boy is in case of males. Thus, a componential analysis account wherein these terms are differentiated solely by means of their sex appears to be inadequate. Fillmore analyses such examples relative to conceptual frames encompassing not only linguistic knowledge, but also extralinguistic assumptions and expectations about the world; Boy, girl, bachelor and spinster evoke frames encompassing not only biological differences, but also different attitudes of language speakers towards society and gender roles (Fillmore, 1982: 126-31; Croft and Cruse, 2009: 7-9).

While analysing the relations between concepts within the conceptual system, Langacker (1991a: 183-5) observes that empirical analysis of English terms often points to the relation of interdependency. For instance, the concept arc (a section of the circumference of a circle) requires the concept of circle for its semantic description. Similarly, circle requires the notion of space for its explication, as illustrated in figure 6 below.

Figure 6. The profiling of concepts circle and arc (Langacker, 1991a: 184)

Langacker employs the terms profile for the concept that is described relative to certain conceptual structure and base for the conceptual structure that is presupposed by the concept. A single conceptual base may be used to profile a number of different concepts. Langacker observes diameter, radius, chord also presuppose the term circle. On the other hand, a concept may be described relative to one or more cognitive domains (domain matrix) (Langacker, 1991a: 147). Thus, Langacker equates base with cognitive domain understood as ―any coherent area of conceptualization relative to which semantic structures can be characterized (including any kind of experience, concept, or knowledge system)‖ (Langacker, 1991b: 547) In this sense, therefore, the terms domain and frame have been claimed to refer to the same type of mental construct and have often been used interchangeably (cf. Croft and Cruse, 2009: 17).

Langacker (1991: 148-50) concedes that domains may be characterized by different levels of complexity. The most basic domains include colour space,

temperature, time etc. Linguistic communication, however, often requires a set of

more complex cognitive domains with one concept depending on several levels of cognitive domains. The concept of a letter, for instance, T is profiled against the

SPACE

CIRCLE ARC

domain of the alphabet. This domain in turn presupposes the notion of the writing

system, which again is understood relative to the general activity of writing and so

on:

Figure 7. Domain matrix for the concept T (after Croft and Cruse, 2009: 26)

Thus, the concept of T is shown relative to a domain matrix, presupposing certain domain structure for the conceptualisation of a particular notion. This relates also to what Langacker, 1988b: 54 refers to as the increasing complexity of cognitive domains (cf. Croft, 1993).

Another term used within cognitive semantics and one that will serve as the basis of insult analysis in chapter 5 is the concept of idealised cognitive models

(hereafter ICMs), proposed by Lakoff (1987: 68), who describes it in the following way:

Each ICM is a complex structured whole, a gestalt, which uses four kinds of structuring principles:

- propositional structure, as in Fillmore’s frames

- image-schematic structure, as in Langacker’s cognitive grammar - metaphoric mappings, as described by Lakoff and Johnson9 - metonymic mappings, as described by Lakoff and Johnson

Each ICM, as used, structures a mental space, as described by Fauconnier.

Thus, ICM – in Lakoff‘s description – is a general conceptual structure encompassing mental frames and cognitive domains; idealised cognitive models encompass all kinds of linguistic and encyclopaedic knowledge about the world – including speakers‘ beliefs and expectations. This knowledge is structured within ICM for the purpose of conceptualisation and the production of meaning.

In effect, ICMs represent an idealised view of reality; they reflect speaker‘s internal theories about the world. In Lakoff‘s analysis the category of bachelors is described relative to the BACHELORHOOD ICM whereby speakers expect bachelors to be macho-type heterosexual individuals who date a lot of women etc. Thus, unmarried adult males who do not comply with these requirements (e.g. priests, gays, Tarzan-like figures) are not considered to be good examples of the category (Lakoff, 1987: 85-6). At the same time, drawing from the knowledge encompassed in this ICM it is possible to ignore the truth-conditional semantic features of bachelor in order to arrive at meaningful linguistic expressions:

(1) Mary‘s husband is a real bachelor. (Taylor, 1995: 95) (2) bachelor girl

In (1) a married man is described as a bachelor, possibly to indicate certain features of his behaviour or character, for instance he may be an insatiable womanizer. In (2) the description of a female individual as a bachelor suggests that she may exhibit traits and characteristics of bachelors presumed by the BACHELORHOOD ICM. Lakoff (1987) notes that the above kind of analysis is limited to the view of bachelors as they are seen in contemporary American culture. Other national or social groups may well have a distinct idea of bachelors based on their expectations and experience. This points, once more, to the fact that

ICMs incorporate broad knowledge of the world and expectations of reality as they are presented by speakers internal theories.

Lakoff (1987: 74-6) observes that ICMs may have a complex overlapping structure. The concept mother, for instance, is describable relative to a number of models:

The BIRTH model: the person who gives birth is the mother

The GENETIC model: the female who contributes the genetic material is the mother.

The NURTURANCE model: the female adult who nurtures and raises a child is the mother of that child.

The MARITAL model: the wife of the father is the mother.

The GENEALOGICAL model: the closest female ancestor is the mother.

Prototypical mothers in the American culture are defined relative to all of the above ICMs; a mother is a person who has provided genetic material for and given birth to a child, nurtures this child, is the wife of the child‘s father. There are, however, instances of non-prototypical mothers who do not comply with all of the models presented above, such as stepmothers, foster mothers, genetic mothers, unwed mothers etc. Thus, the category MOTHER has, in Lakoff (1986: 83-4) terms, a radial structure, wherein different conventionalized sub-categories of non-prototypical mothers are structured around one central, prototypical case. Lakoff‘s concept of radial categories is adopted in section 5.3.5 for the purpose of the corpus analysis of the speech act of insulting.