2010 | 127 | 39-56
Article title

Network models: an assessment

Title variants
Languages of publication
This article - based on a larger study (Pawelec 2009) - has two aims. The more limited one is to present network models proposed by Ronald Langacker and George Lakoff. I try to show that both ventures rest on manifestly different assumptions, contrary to the widespread view that they are convergent or complementary. Langacker's declared aim is "descriptive adequacy": his model serves as a global representation of linguistic intuitions, rooted in convention. Lakoff, on the other hand, offers a developmental model: a fairly general abstract schema is "imagistically" specified and transformed, while the more specific schemas serve as the basis for metaphorical transfers. My wider aim is to offer a preliminary assessment of theoretical justifications and practical potential of network models in lexical semantics.
Physical description
  • Kraków
  • Croft W., Cruse D. A. 2004.Cognitive linguistics.Cambridge.
  • Dunbar G. 1991.The cognitive lexicon.Tübingen.
  • Evens M. W. (ed.) 1988.Relational models of the lexicon. Representing knowledge in semantic networks.Cambridge.
  • Johnson M. 1987.The body in the mind.Chicago.
  • Katz J. 1971.The underlying reality of language.New York.
  • Kleiber G. 2003.Semantyka prototypu. Kategorie i znaczenie leksykalne.[1990:La semantique du prototype. Categories et sens lexical.Paris]. Kraków.
  • Lakoff G. 1987.Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind.Chicago, London.
  • Lakoff G. 1990. The Invariance Hypothesis: is abstract reason based on image-schemas? -Cognitive Linguistics1.1: 39-74.
  • Lakoff G. 1996Moral politics.Chicago.
  • Lakoff G., Johnson M. 1980.Metaphors we live by.Chicago.
  • Lakoff G., Johnson M. 1999.Philosophy in the flesh.New York.
  • Lakoff G., Núñez R. 2001.Where mathematics comes from.New York.
  • Lakoff G., Turner M. 1989More than cool reason.Chicago.
  • Langacker R. 1987Foundations of cognitive grammar.[vol. ITheoretical prerequisites]. Stanford, ca
  • Langacker R. 1988. A usage-based model. - Rudzka-Ostyn B. (ed.)Topics in cognitive linguistics.Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 127-161.
  • Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk B. 2007. Polysemy, prototypes, and radial categories. - Geeraerts D., Cuyckens H. (eds.)The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics.Oxford, New York: 139-169.
  • Łozowski P. 1999. Panchrony, or linguistics without synchrony. - Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk B. (ed.)Cognitive perspectives on language.Frankfurt am Main: 23-35.
  • Normand C. 2004. System, arbitrariness, value. - Sanders C. (ed.)The Cambridge companion to Saussure.Cambridge: 88-104.
  • Oakley T. 2007. Image schemas. - Geeraerts D., Cuyckens H. (eds.)The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics.Oxford, New York: 214-235.
  • Pawelec A. 2005.Znaczenie ucieleśnione. Propozycje kręgu Lakoffa.Kraków.
  • Pawelec A. 2009.Prepositional network models. A hermeneutical case study.Kraków.
  • Rúa, P. L. 2003.Birds, colours and prepositions. The theory of categorization and its applications in linguistics.München.
  • Saussure F. de 1959.Course in general linguistics.New York.
  • Tabakowska, E. 1995.Gramatyka i obrazowanie.Kraków.
  • Talmy L. 1995.The cognitive culture system.Duisburg.
  • Taylor J. 1989.Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory.Oxford.
  • Tuggy D. 2007. Schematicity. - Geeraerts D., Cuyckens H. (eds.)The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics.Oxford, New York: 82-116.
  • Tyler A., Evans V. 2003. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case ofover.- Nerlich B. et al. (eds.)Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language.Berlin, New York: 95-159.
  • Zlatev J. 2003. Polysemy or generality? Mu. - Cuyckens H. et al. (eds.)Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics.Berlin: 447-494.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.