Cognitive interpretation of lexical units

2.2 Language as an object of cognitive linguistics

Some linguists (for example, generativists ) believe that the language system forms a separate module, outside the general cognitive mechanisms [ G.Lakoff 1982, p.141]. However, more often linguistic activity is considered as one of the modes of " cognition ", constituting the tip of the iceberg, which is based on cognitive abilities that are not purely linguistic, but provide prerequisites for the latter. Such abilities include: construction of images and logical conclusion based on them, obtaining new knowledge based on available information, drawing up and implementing plans [ M.Richelle 1987, p.27].

An example of a cognitivist style of theorizing is cognitively-based phonology ) [ S.Eliasson 1991, c.155-156], in which the description takes place in terms of the rules for constructing a structure, "working" in close interaction with "cognitive schemes". These schemes constitute the extralinguistic system of "mental competence". The emphasis is on functionality rather than formal simplicity - why and teleological explanations are acceptable.
Another example of the cognitivist approach is associated with the use of the principle of "cognitive correspondence", formulated as follows [ R.Wilensky 1990, c.79]: when putting forward a representation (representation) for a specific unit, one should pay attention to how this unit is recognized ( known ). Of several competing research hypotheses about the structure of a sentence, predicate, text, etc. the one that best corresponds, in the opinion of the researcher, to cognitive reality is selected. A formally plausible representation that contradicts this principle should be rejected.
This position is opposed to the principle of direct correspondence, according to which the elements of representation directly correspond to entities in the world and reflect truth conditions ( truth conditions ), or satisfaction conditions ( conditions of satisfaction ). For example, the phrase "Brooklyn Bridge" has a reference to a specific object in reality if there is an object of this reality ("referent") that satisfies the requirements of this description: such an object looks like a bridge, and it is customary to call it "Brooklyn" (perhaps it is located in Brooklyn). In other words, it satisfies all the requirements set by the description. According to the principle of cognitive correspondence, the “Brooklyn Bridge” is not related to a specific object in the real world (outside the “ cognition ” of a person), but to some entity in the cognitive representation of this world, in the “projection” of the world onto human cognition [ RSJackendoff 1983]. By virtue of the principle of cognitive correspondence, the cognitive structure is embedded in the meanings of linguistic expressions.
The lapidary cognitivist view of meaning and reference can be formulated as a maxim: "Avoid talking about anything outside of human cognition ." From here - one step to the recognition of the redundancy of the term "reference": if you are a cognitivist , then you have the right to speak only about the denotation of linguistic expressions.
However, without the concept of "reference", without relying on the axioms of the "external world", how can one establish the non- self -contradiction of a judgment in a linguistic form? This problem is posed by cognitive linguistics to the philosophy of language. Cognitivists hope to answer this question through the following theoretical projects:
. Building a theory of interpretation of texts (which, as you know, sometimes contain mutually exclusive judgments), explaining the logical conclusion in natural language - "speech reflection". Such a theory should characterize the processes of cognition and the relationships between and within sentences. Human cognition itself , we repeat, is modeled as a "cognitive computation" [ T.Myers , Brown , McGonigle 1986, p.1].
. The development of a science about the "work of thought" of a person, including the theory of the computability of the meaning of the text, i.e. establishing its coherence (logical non- self -contradiction [ Ph.N. Johnson-Laird 1988, c.26]), despite the fact that (following phenomenologists ) the coherence of judgments about the world is considered a correlate of the true existence of the world [ WRMcKenna 1982, c.223].
So, starting from the linguistic platform, we enter the territory of related disciplines. Cognitivists are doomed to interdisciplinarity , this is predetermined by their very history. Only by the joint efforts of psychology, linguistics, anthropology, philosophy, computer science ( computer science ) one can answer questions about the nature of the mind, about the comprehension of experience, about the organization of conceptual systems [ G.Lakoff 1982, c.XI ].