认知科学和语言学主要文献 Reading List For Cognitive Science and Linguistics

Methodology Design and Analysis of Experiments If you have taken any undergraduate courses in statistics and logic, you probably have this covered. Statistics textbooks: Introduction to probability theory, statistics and experimental design. Hinkle, D., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (5th edition), Boston: Houghton Mufflin   Behavior Fundamental Cognitive Phenomena Course textbooks: Baddeley, A. (199X). Human Memory: Theory and Practice, 2nd ed. Allyn & Bacon Hunt & Ellis, Fundamentals of Cognitive Psychology. Posner, M. I. (1989). Foundations of Cognitive Science. Cambridge: MIT Press. (This text has good readings in all areas of cognitive science.) Linguistics and Semantics Introductory linguistic textbooks: Barsalou, L. Cognitive Psychology: An Overview for Cognitive Scientists: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bollinger, D., & Sears, D. (1981). Aspects of language (3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Finegan, E., & Besnier, N. (1989). Language, its structure and use. San Diego, CA: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Computational linguistics: Allen, J. (1987). Natural language understanding. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings. Readings in semantics: The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure. Ed. M. Tomasello, Lawerence Erlbaum. 1998. Coulson, Seana. Semantic Leaps. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. 2001. Eco, M., Santambrogio, M., & Violi, P. (1988). Meaning and mental representations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. University of Chicago Press. Pragmatics, speech act theory, and conversation analysis: Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Recommended: Bates, E., & Goodman, J. On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon: Evidence from acquisition, aphasia, and real-time processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1997, 12(5/6), 507-586.   Cognitive Development Recommended: Elman, J., Bates, E., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D. & Plunkett, K. Rethinking Innateness: a connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press/Bradford Books, 1998. Haith, M., & Benson (1998). Infant cognition. In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Volume Eds.), W. Damon (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th Ed.): Volume 2: Cognition, perception, and language (pp. xxx-xxx). New York: Wiley. Maratsos, M. P. (1998). The acquisition of grammar. In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Volume Eds.), W. Damon (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th Ed.): Volume 2: Cognition, perception, and language (pp. 421-466). New York: Wiley. Siegler, R.S. (1996). Emerging Minds. Oxford. Thelen, E. & Smith, L.B. (1998). Dynamic systems theories. In R. Lerner (Volume Ed.), W. Damon (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th Ed.): Volume 1: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 563-634). New York: Wiley. Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harverd University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Harvard.   Distributed Cognition, Everyday Cognition, Cognitive Engineering Norman, D. A. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday. Baecker, Grudin, Buxton, & Greenberg. Human-Computer Interaction: Toward the year 2000. Morgan Kaufman. Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. University of Chicago. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press. Holland, D., & Quinn, N. (1987). Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (1984). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Perrow, C., (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. New York: Basic Books.   Foundations Churchland, P. S. (1986). Neurophilosophy. Cambridge: MIT Press. Clark, Andy. (1997). Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Haugeland, J. (1981). Mind design. Cambridge: MIT Press. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. & Nunez, R. (2000). Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being. New York: Basic Books. Maturana, H. & Varela, F. (1987). The Tree of Knowledge: The Biololgical Roots of Human Understanding. Boston: Shambhala. Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Varela, F., Thompson, E. & Rosch, E. (1991). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge: MIT Press. Recommended: Nunez, R. & Freeman, W. (Eds.) (1999). Reclaiming Cognition: The Primacy of Action, Intention, and Emotion. Throverton, UK: Imprint Academic.   Brain   Neurobiology Carlson. Physiology of Behavior Allyn &Bacon Another good text: Shepherd, G. M. (1988). Neurobiology (2nd ed). New York: Oxford University Press.   Cognitive Neuroscience Course textbooks: Rosenzweig, Breedlove L. Biological Psychology. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Gazzamga, Ivry, & Magnum (1998). Cognitive Neuroscience: The biology of the mind. W.W. Norton.   Computation   Programming for Cognitive Science Students entering our Ph.D. program should be able to program in a higher language, e.g. Java. Programming languages frequently used in reach and teaching include but are not limited to, Java, Matlab, C++.   Computational Modeling and Artificial Intelligence An important early book: McClelland, J., & Rumelhart, D. (1988). Parallel distributed processing (Vols. 1 & 2). Cambridge: MIT Press. Modern Books: Ballard, D.H. (1997). An Introduction to Natural Computation. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press. Dayan, P. and Abbot, L.F.(2001). Theoretical Neuroscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Duda, Hart & Stork (2001). Pattern Classification. (2nd Ed.). Wiley. Forsyth, David A. and Ponce, Jean (2003). Computer Vision: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall. Haykin, S. (1999). Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation. Prentice Hall. MacKay, David J.C. (2003). Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms. Cambridge University Press. Recommended for students not specializing in computation: O'Reilly, Randall C. and Munakata, Yuko (2000). Computational Explorations in Cognitive Neuroscience. A Bradford Book, The MIT Press.

认知语言学最新阅读文献

General Readings in Cognitive Linguistics   Prepared by Vyv Evans     If you would like to find out more about various topics in cognitive linguistics, the following listing provides suggestions for follow-up reading. I have restricted my selection to published books (including both monographs, edited volumes and volumes in press). The reading list is annotated and divided into three sections:   General Introductions to Cognitive Linguistics Works of General Reference, and Specific Topics and Theories   Evans, Vyvyan; Benjamin Bergen and J.rg Zinken (In press.) Cognitive   Linguistics: An Overview. In V. Evans, B. Bergen and J. Zinken (eds.).   The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. London: Equinox.   General Introductions to Cognitive Linguistics   Croft, W., & Cruse, A. D. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   A recent introduction to cognitive linguistics. Particularly good coverage of lexical semantics and constructional approaches to grammar, although less detail on other aspects of cognitive linguistics.   Evans, V., Bergen B. & J. Zinken. (In press). The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. London: Equinox.   A collection of classic and more recent articles, providing a representative selection of topics addressed in cognitive linguistics.   Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ and Edinburgh: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Edinburgh University Press.   The most comprehensive general introduction to the field. Each chapter provides a detailed annotated reading list and exercises. Also includes chapters which compare cognitive linguistic theories with other theoretical frameworks.   Lee, D. (2001). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.   The most accessible of the general introductions, focusing on general ideas rather than detail. The selection of topics covered, is, nevertheless, a little uneven.   Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H.-J. (1996). Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman.   Very clear explanations of the areas presented, particularly on prototype and basic level objects research. However, the coverage is rather one-sided focusing on cognitive semantics at the expense of cognitive approaches to grammar. The book is also now over 10 years old. Works of General Reference   Evans, V. (Forthcoming). Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.   A glossary of over 350 specialist terms used in cognitive linguistics. Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (2006). Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.   A major reference work containing original encyclopedia-like articles by leading experts. Provides comprehensive coverage of all the key areas of cognitive linguistics.   Janssen, T., & Redeker, G. (1999). Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope and Methodology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.   An edited volume containing original articles by a selection of leading cognitive linguists. The articles address the theoretical and empirical basis of cognitive linguistics, and cognitive linguistic theories.   Specific Topics and Theories   BLENDING THEORY Coulson, S. (2000). Semantic Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   An important study on the role of conceptual blending in language comprehension.   Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind¡¯s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.   The definitive introduction to conceptual blending by the two architects of the theory. Highly accessible.   CATEGORISATION Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.   One of the classic texts in cognitive linguistics. Lakoff makes the case for a novel theory of cognitive models in order to account for recent findings in human categorisation. Also provides a philosophical framework for research in cognitive linguistics which remains influential.   Taylor, J. (2003). Linguistic Categorization, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.   Provides a highly accessible account of cognitive linguistic approaches to typicality effects and fuzzy categories as manifested in language.   COGNITIVE GRAMMAR Langacker, R. (1987/1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volumes I and II. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.   Volume I of Langacker¡¯s two-volume edifice lays out the theoretical assumptions of his theory. Volume II applies the theoretical architecture to a range of grammatical phenomena. These volumes are among the most important in cognitive linguistics.   Taylor, J. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.   An excellent textbook introduction to Langacker's theory.   COGNITIVE PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   Dbrowska, E. (2004). Language, Mind and Brain: Some Psychological and Neurological Constraints on Grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.   An excellent and highly accessible overview and review of the cognitive linguistic position with respect to key issues in psychologuistics, including language acqusition, lateralisation and modularity. Also includes a review of cognitive linguistic criticsims of Chomsky¡¯s Universal Grammar hypothesis.   COGNITIVE LEXICAL SEMANTICS Cuyckens, H., & Zawada, B. (2001). Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam, NJ: John Benjamins.   An edited collection of original articles presenting contemporary work and views on modelling lexical polysemy in cognitive linguistics.   Cuyckens, H., Dirven, R., & Taylor, J. (2003). Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.   An excellent representative selection of original articles relating to contemporary approaches to cognitive lexical semantics.   Nerlich, B., Todd, Z., Herman, V., & Clarke, D. D. (2003). Polysemy: Flexible Patterns in the Mind. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.   Another recent collected volume of papers on linguistic polysemy. However, the strength of this volume, in addition to including excellent review articles by the editors and John Taylor, also includes contributions from a range of scholars, including those who work in frameworks outside cognitive linguistics.   Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Experience and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   The most detailed cognitive linguistic study of English spatial relations. The book makes the case for the experiential basis of prepositional meanings and their extensions. It also provides an account of polysemy as conceptual in nature.   CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR AND METONYMY Barcelona, A. (2003). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.   A collection of original articles addressing the relationship between metaphor and metonymy. Several of the articles reflect the growing conviction in cognitive linguistics that metonymy may be as, or even more, foundational than metaphor.   Dirven, R, P.rings, R. (2002). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.   A collection reproducing seminal and influential articles relating to conceptual metaphor and metonymy.   Gibbs, R. (1994). The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   Presents psycholinguistic evidence for the conceptual basis of figurative language phenomena such as metaphor.   Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors We Live By, 2nd, revised edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.   This book, now a classic, and originally published in 1980, launched much of the recent interest in metaphor.   Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.   An updating of Lakoff and Johnson¡¯s seminal ideas on conceptual metaphors and the notion of embodied cognition.   K.vecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.   An accessible textbook introduction to Conceptual Metaphor Theory.   Gibbs, R., & Steen, G. (1999). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam, NJ: John Benjamins.   An edited collection of original papers broadly reflecting the nature and scope of recent research within the framework of Conceptual Metaphor Theory.     CONSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHES TO GRAMMAR Croft, W. (2002). Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.   Presents Croft¡¯s theory of Radical Construction Grammar.   Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.   A classic. Makes a compelling case for a constructional approach to grammar employing verbal argument constructions as a test case.   .stman, J.-O., & Fried, M. (2005). Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions. Amsterdam, NJ: John Benjamins.   An edited collection of original papers addressing theoretical and methodological issues relating to constructional approaches to grammar.   CULTURAL LINGUISTICS Palmer, G. (1996). Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics. University of Texas Press.   In this book Palmer makes a compelling case for applying cognitive linguistics to cultural aspects of language, arguing for a theory of cultural linguistics.   EMBODIMENT AND CONCEPTUALIZATION Nuyts, J., & Pederson, E. (1997) (Eds). Language and Conceptualization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   An important collection of articles on the relationship between language and conceptual processes.   Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The Embodied Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.   One of the first book-length treatments in cognitive science which made the case for the centrality of embodiment for cognition. Remains extremely important and is highly accessible.   EMPIRICAL APPROACHES Gonzalez-Marquez, M., Mittelberg, I., Coulson, S., & Spivey, M. J. (Eds) (2005), Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam, NJ: John Benjamins.   A recent edited volume comprising original articles by prominent cognitive linguists and psychologists. The collection both makes the case for empirical methods in cognitive linguistics and represents the state-of-the-art.   IMAGE SCHEMAs Hampe, B. (2005). From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.   An outstanding recent contribution to image schema theory. An edited collection of papers by leading scholars presenting a range of often conflicting positions on the nature of image schemas.   Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.   One of the classic texts in cognitive linguistics. Provides the first detailed treatment of image schemas. ,   Mandler, J. (2004). The Foundations of Mind: Origins of Conceptual Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.   An important study by a leading developmental psychologist. Mandler describes how image schemas derive from perceptual experience in pre-linguistic infants.   LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND LANGUAGE USE Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (2000) (Eds.). Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.   An important collection of original aricles which provide various perspectives on how best to model knowledge of language in terms of usage-based factors.   Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.   An important recent synthesis of empirical findings relating to first language acquisition. Presents the case for a usage-based perspective on language acquisition.   LANGUAGE AND CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE Evans, V. (2004). The Structure of Time: Language, Meaning and Temporal Cognition. Amsterdam, NJ: John Benjamins.   Investigates the relationship between lexical and conceptual structure in the domain of time.   Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. I and II. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.   Brings together, and updates, Talmy's classic papers in which he explores how language encodes various aspects of conceptual structure including space, force-dynamics and motion.   LANGUAGE CHANGE Croft, W. (2000). Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Perspective. London: Longman.   A seminal work by one of the most original thinkers currently working in cognitive linguistics. Croft presents a usage-based theory of language change which applies insights from the generalised theory of natural selection to language.   Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   Another highly influential and now classic text in cognitive linguistics. Sweetser uses ideas from metaphor theory and image schema theory in order to account for semantic aspects of grammatical change.   LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY AND RELATIVITY Gentner, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.   A recent collection of original papers by some of the most prominent cognitive scientists who work on cross-linguistic diversity and the relationship between language, mind and thought.   Gumperz, J., & Levinson, S. (1996) (Eds.). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   An important collection of articles from the mid 1990s which did much to revitalise the linguistic relativity debate. Of particular importance are articles by Bowerman, Lucy, Levinson, and Slobin.   Levinson, S. (2003). Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   An extremely important book. Presents a synthesis of over a decade's research on cross-cultural studies on the representation of space. Levinson uses his research as a platform to argue for the pervasive effects of cross-linguistic variation on non-linguistic cognition.   MENTAL SPACES THEORY Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2005). Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   Presents a theoretical account of conditional constructions using the framework of mental spaces theory.   Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental Spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   This is a revised edition of Fauconnier's classic book, first published in English in 1985. Presents a ground-breaking theory of semantic reference, successfully resolving many semantic phenomena which had bedevilled formal approaches.   Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   In this volume Fauconnier updates and extends his theory of mental spaces. He also introduces his collaborative work with Mark Turner on Conceptual Blending.   Fauconnier, G., & Sweetser, E. (1996). Spaces, Worlds and Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.   An edited volume consisting of original articles which address various semantic and grammatical issues making use of Fauconnier's theory of mental spaces.

认知语言学的方法与概括

In T. Janssen and G. Redeker (Eds). Scope and Foundations of Cognitive Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton De Gruyter.  Gilles Fauconnier   I. MEANING, LANGUAGE, COGNITION Linguists agree on one thing - that language is diabolically hard to study. They do not always agree, however, on the how's, the why's, and the what for's: how one should go about studying it and how speakers manage to do what they do; why it is so hard and why exactly we bother to study it; what language is for, and what linguistics is for. A mainstream view that has been popular in the last thirty years (but not necessarily before that) offers the following answers. How linguists do it: they collect grammaticality judgments from natives and concurrently build and check hypotheses about the formal structure of particular languages and languages in general. How humans do it: they come equipped biologically with innate language-specific universals, that require only minimal fine-tuning when exposed to a particular specimen. Why it's hard: easy for the child who has the innate universals already set up, hard for the linguist lost in a forest of idiosyncrasies that hide the deeper principles. Why bother? So that we can discover such principles. What is language for? The story here is that this question is not a priority for the scientist. We can worry later about function, communication, and meaning generally. And what is linguistics for? Well, there is the platonic reward of discovering structure for the sake of structure itself. And then there is biology: Since the universals are in the brain, they must also be in the genes; linguistics is theoretical biology; geneticists and neuroscientists will fill in the messy details of its implementation in our bodies. This strange and simple story contains its own methods and generalizations. The appropriate methods are in the 'how to do it' - collecting grammaticality judgments and so on. What counts as generalizations are the formal principles that apply to wider ranges of phenomena and/or languages. In contrast to this sharply autonomous view of language structure, cognitive linguistics has resurrected an older tradition. In that tradition, language is in the service of constructing and communicating meaning, and it is for the linguist and cognitive scientist a window into the mind. Seeing through that window, however, is not obvious. Deep features of our thinking, cognitive processes, and social communication need to be brought in, correlated, and associated with their linguistic manifestations. The cognitive linguistics enterprise, we believe, has already been remarkably successful. It is not far-fetched to say that perhaps for the first time a genuine science of meaning construction and its dynamics has been launched. This has been achieved by intensively studying and modeling the cognition that lies behind language and goes far beyond it, but which language reflects in certain ways, and which in turn supports the dynamics of language use, language change, and language organization. Echoing Erving Goffman, I have called this backstage cognition. Language is only the tip of a spectacular cognitive iceberg, and when we engage in any language activity, be it mundane or artistically creative, we draw unconsciously on vast cognitive resources, call up innumerable models and frames, set up multiple connections, coordinate large arrays of information, and engage in creative mappings, transfers, and elaborations. This is what language is about and what language is for. Backstage cognition includes viewpoints and reference points, figure-ground / profile-base / landmark-trajector organization, metaphorical, analogical, and other mappings, idealized models, framing, construal, mental spaces, counterpart connections, roles, prototypes, metonymy, polysemy, conceptual blending, fictive motion, force dynamics. Well, where does all this come from? Did it all just spring up in the fertile mind of cognitive linguists, giving them an unlimited supply of new notions to draw from in order to explain some linguistic facts that they wish to talk about? And if so, isn't all this a considerable weakening of linguistic theory, letting in so many flaky new gimmicks that virtually anything at all becomes easily but vacuously explainable? Mais pas du tout. Rather remarkably, all the aspects of backstage cognition just alluded to receive ample justification on non-linguistic grounds from a variety of sources. Some have been extensively studied in psychology (e.g. prototypes, figure- ground, analogy), others in artificial intelligence and/or sociology (frames, roles, cultural models), literature and philosophy (metaphor). Metonymy, mental spaces, force dynamics, conceptual blending, initially studied primarily by linguists have been shown to apply to cognition generally. The notion of viewpoint and reference point is presumably even more general, given the nature of our visual systems and orientation. Needless to say, all these features of backstage cognition deserve to be studied and understood in their own right, not just as a means of explaining linguistic distributions. To cognitive scientists who are not linguists, the linguistic distributions matter very little. And for cognitive linguists, there has been a major shift of interest. The cognitive constructs, operations, and dynamics, and the understanding of conceptual systems have become a central focus of analysis. The linguistic distributions are just one of many sources of relevant data. This shift bears on the methods employed and the generalizations obtained. Methods must extend to contextual aspects of language use and to non-linguistic cognition. This means studying full discourse, language in context, inferences actually drawn by participants in an exchange, applicable frames, implicit assumptions and construal, to name just a few. It means being on the look-out for manifestations of conceptual thought in everyday life, movies, literature, and science. This is because introspection and intuition are woefully insufficient to tell us about general operations of meaning construction. When we volunteer a meaning for an isolated sentence, we do it typically on the basis of defaults and prototypes. It is only in rich contexts that we see the full force of creative on-line meaning construction. As for generalizations, the most powerful ones are those which transcend specific cognitive domains. In our work on conceptual blending, we see as a strong generalization the discovery that the same principles apply to framing, metaphor, action and design, and grammatical constructions. This is not an internal generalization about language, it is an external one relating linguistic phenomena to non-linguistic ones. Such generalizations seem primordial to the understanding of how language relates to general cognition, but they are precluded in principle by the autonomous approach evoked above. It is no surprise, then, if that approach finds no connection between language and the rest of cognition, for that autonomy is built into the very method that serves to build up the field of inquiry and the theories that are its by-products. Although cognitive linguistics espouses the age-old view that language is in the service of meaning, its methods and results have been quite novel. The results in fact have been somewhat surprising. At the most general level, here are three that I find striking. I will call them respectively Economy, Operational Uniformity, Cognitive Generalization. ECONOMY AND THE ELIZA EFFECT By Economy, I mean the following: any language form in context has the potential to trigger massive cognitive constructions, including analogical mappings, mental space connections, reference point organization, blends, and simulation of complex scenes. When we try to spell out backstage cognition in detail, we are struck by the contrast between the extreme brevity of the linguistic form and the spectacular wealth of the corresponding meaning construction. Very sparse grammar guides us along the same rich mental paths, by prompting us to perform complex cognitive operations. What is remarkable is that by and large subjects engage in quite similar constructions on the basis of similar grammatical prompts, and thereby achieve a high degree of effective communication. The reason seems to be that the cultural, contextual, and cognitive substrate on which the language forms operate is sufficiently uniform across interlocutors to allow for a reasonable degree of consistency in the unfolding of the prompted meaning constructions. How this works remains in many ways mysterious. What is clear is that language is radically different from an information carrying and information preserving system, such as a code or telecommunications. Language forms carry very little information per se, but can latch on to rich preexistent networks in the subjects' brains and trigger massive sequential and parallel activations. Those activated networks are of course themselves in the appropriate state by virtue of general organization due to cognition and culture, and local organization due to physical and mental context. Crucially, we have no awareness of this amazing chain of cognitive events that takes place as we talk and listen, except for the external manifestation of language (sounds, words, sentences) and the internal manifestation of meaning: with lightning speed, we experience meaning. This is very similar to perception, which is also instantaneous and immediate with no awareness of the extraordinarily complex intervening neural events. What we are conscious of determines our folk-theories of what is going on. In the case of perception, the folk theory, an extremely useful one for us as living organisms, is that everything we perceive is indeed directly the very essence of the object perceived, out there in the world and independent of us. The effect is contained entirely in the cause. In the same way, our folk theory of language is that the meanings are contained directly in the words and their combinations, since that is all that we are ever consciously aware of. The effect (meaning) is attributed essentially to the visible cause (language). And again, this folk-theory is extremely useful to us as human organisms in everyday life. It makes sense. At another level, the level of scientific inquiry, this folk-theory, like other folk-theories, is wrong, and the information processing model of language breaks down. This reveals that, as humans experiencing language, we are fooled by an interesting variant of the Eliza effect. The famous computer program Eliza produced what looked like a sensible interaction between a psychiatrist and a subject operating the program, but the rich meaning that seemed to emanate from the machine was in fact read in (constructed) by the subject. And strikingly, just like a perceptual illusion, this effect cannot easily be suspended by rational denial. In the case of Eliza, the illusion may be hard to block, but it is easy to see. The more general illusion that meaning is in the language forms is both hard to repress and hard to acknowledge. And for that reason, it has made its way into many scientific accounts of language. In such accounts, the notion that forms have meaning is unproblematic, and the "only" problem becomes to give a formal characterization of such meanings associated with forms. Clearly, if the presupposition that there are such meanings is in error, the very foundations of such accounts are in jeopardy. It has been, I believe, a major contribution of cognitive linguistics to dispel this very strong unquestioned assumption. OPERATIONAL UNIFORMITY It is commonly thought that very different operations apply to the various levels of linguistic analysis. For example, syntax governs the sentence, and semantics provides it compositionally with a meaning. At a higher level, other quite different operations apply to produce implicatures, derived meaning, indirect speech acts. Then rhetorical and figurative devices may kick in, such as metaphor and metonymy. Our findings suggest a very different picture. Backstage cognition operates in many ways uniformly at all levels. Figure- ground and viewpoint organization pervades the sentence (Talmy (1978).; Langacker (19987/1991), the Tense system (Cutrer (1994)., Narrative structure (Sanders and Redeker (1996)., in signed and spoken languages, and of course many aspects of non- linguistic cognition. Metaphor builds up meaning all the way from the most basic levels to the most sophisticated and creative ones (Lakoff and Turner (1989); Grady (1997)). And the same goes for metonymic pragmatic functions (Nunberg (1978)) and mental space connections (Sweetser and Fauconnier (1996), Van Hoek (1996), Liddell (1996), which are governed by the same general Access principle. Frames, schemas and prototypes account for word level and sentence level syntactic/semantic properties in cognitive and construction grammar (Lakoff (1987), Fillmore (1985), Goldberg (1997), Langacker (1987/91)), and of course they guide thought and action more generally (Bateson (1972), Goffman (1974), Rosch;). Conceptual blending and analogy play a key role in syntax and morphology (Mandelblit (1997)), in word and sentence level semantics (Sweetser), and at higher levels of reasoning and rhetoric (Robert (1998), Coulson (1997), Turner (1996) ). Similarly, we find force dynamics and fictive motion (Talmy (1985, 1998) operating at all levels (single words, entire systems, like the modals, and general framing). This operational uniformity is unexpected, remarkable, and counter-intuitive. It has taken cognitive linguists a lot of hard work and theoretical conceptual rethinking to uncover this series of powerful generalizations. There are quite a few interesting reasons for the difficulty of thinking in this new way. One is that language does not come with its backstage cognition neatly displayed 'on its sleeve'. Everything that counts is deeply hidden from our consciousness, and masked by the 'folk theory' effects mentioned earlier. Another difficulty has to do with the long tradition of apprehending limited aspects of language in a self- contained, language-specific, descriptive apparatus. The resulting specialized technical vocabulary has been immensely helpful in launching a coherent linguistic science, but regrettably it has also shielded linguistics from a more comprehensive cognitive framework in which the right questions could be asked. COGNITIVE GENERALIZATION Operational uniformity, as outlined in the previous section, pertains essentially to language and reasoning. The uniformity is across linguistic levels, the word, the sentence, the sentence and its context, the whole discourse, and ultimately general reasoning. And yet, there are broader and even more interesting generalizations, those that transcend specific cognitive domains. Cognitive linguists have been especially attentive to this dimension of the new research, and they have argued persuasively for the cognitive generality of the mappings, correspondences, bindings, integration, perspectival organization, windows of attention, pragmatic functions, framing, force dynamics, prototype structures, and dynamic simulations that underlie the construction of meaning as reflected by language use. As a result, linguistics is no longer a self- contained account of the internal properties of languages; it is in its own right a powerful means of revealing and explaining general aspects of human cognition.   References Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of the Mind. New York: Ballantine Books. Coulson, Seana. 1997. Semantic Leaps: Frame-Shifting and Conceptual Blending. UCSD Ph. D. dissertation. Cutrer, Michelle. 1994. Time and Tense in Narratives and Everyday Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Calfornia at San Diego. Dinsmore, J. 1991. Partitioned Representations. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental Spaces. New York: Cambridge University Press. [Originally published (1985) Cambridge: MIT Press.] Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fauconnier, G. & E. Sweetser. 1996. Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. 1996. Blending as a central process of grammar. In Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, Ed. Adele Goldberg. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information [distributed by Cambridge University Press]. Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. 1998. Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science. Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (in preparation). Making Sense. Fillmore, C. 1985. Frames and the Semantics of Understanding. Quaderni di Semantica VI.2. 222-253. Freeman, Margaret. 1997. Grounded spaces: Deictic -self anaphors in the poetry of Emily Dickinson. Language and Literature 6:1, 7-28. Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row. Goldberg, A. 1994. Constructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hofstadter, D. 1995a. Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies. New York: Basic Books. Koestler, Arthur. 1964. The Act of Creation . NY: Macmillan. Kunda, Z., D. T. Miller, and T. Clare. Combining social concepts: the role of causal reasoning. Cognitive Science 14. 551-577. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), case study 1, pages 380-415. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books. Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Langacker, R. 1987/1991 . Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol.I. ,II, Stanford University Press. Liddell, Scott K. 1996. Spatial representations in discourse: Comparing spoken and signed language. Lingua 98:145-167. Mandelblit, Nili 1997. Grammatical Blending: Creative and Schematic Aspects in Sentence Processing and Translation. Ph.D. dissertation, UC San Diego. Moser, D. and D. Hofstadter. (undated ms.) Errors: A Royal Road to the Mind. Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition. Indiana University. Nunberg, G. 1978. The Pragmatics of Reference. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Oakley, Todd. 1995. Presence: the conceptual basis of rhetorical effect. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Maryland. Robert, Adrian. 1998. Blending in the interpretation of mathematical proofs. In: Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap. Edited by Jean-Pierre Koenig. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) [distributed by Cambridge University Press]. Sanders, J. and G. Redeker. 1996. Perspective and the Representation of Speech and Thought in Narrative Discourse. In Fauconnier, G. & E. Sweetser, eds. Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sweetser, E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: the mind-as-body metaphor in semantic structure and semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sweetser, Eve. Mental Spaces and Cognitive Linguistics: A Cognitively Realistic Approach to Compositionality. this volume. Talmy, L. 1977. Rubber-sheet Cognition in Language. Proceedings of the 13th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Talmy, L. 1978. Figure and Ground in Complex Sentences. In: Universals of Human Language: Syntax .(vol. 4). Edited by Joseph Greenberg. Stanford University Press. Talmy, L. 1985. Force Dynamics in Language and Thought. Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Talmy, L. 1998. Fictive Motion in Language and "ception." In Paul Bloom, Mary Peterson, Lynn Nadel, and Merrill Garrett, eds., Language and Space. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Turner, Mark. 1991. Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Turner, Mark. 1996. The Literary Mind. New York: Oxford University Press. Van Hoek, Karen. 1997. Anaphora and Conceptual Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Zbikowski, Lawrence. 1997. Conceptual blending and song. Manuscript, University of Chicago.