Constructing a second language: some final thoughts

All the papers in this special section address issues central to cognitive linguistics research: usage-based models with their focus on frequency; multi-word units and the relationship between lexical and grammatical knowledge; and the nature of lexical meaning, especially construal or “thinking for speaking”. Cognitive Linguistics is thus clearly a useful paradigm for L2 research. The contributors also emphasise that many of the processes operating in L1 acquisition are relevant in L2A as well. In this paper, I discuss the opposite side of the coin: how cognitively-inspired L2 research can inform work on first language learning and theoretical linguistics, focussing in particular on three issues that have been extensively studied in an L2 context but neglected by the other language sciences: transfer of knowledge between constructions, the role of explicit learning, and individual differences in linguistic knowledg

How like-smile relates to metaphor: an exploration of analytical parameaters

Traditional accounts of figurative language consider like-simile and metaphor to be largely equivalent. However,more recent research shows that metaphor expresses a closer association between the two terms of comparison than likesimile.This paper proposes a variety of criteria to understand the similarities and differences between these two figures ofspeech, among them the abstractness of the resemblance relationship, the greater subjectivity of metaphor, and the role ofcomparison in contrast to other factors. This discussion casts light on the metaphor-simile equivalence versus non-equivalence debate

Why *John can't contribute Mary money. Constructional behavior of contribute verbs

Este artículo examina la estructura conceptual de las principales construcciones en las que aparecen los verbos de contribución de Levin (1993), concretamente las construcciones ditransitiva y dativa que alternan a menudo. El presente trabajo cuestiona la fiabilidad del criterio semántico de Levin para los verbos de contribución y demuestra que la subsunción de estos verbos en la construcción dativa se rige por varios factores, como la presencia de múltiples agentes, múltiples entidades transferidas y múltiples recipientes que desenfocan la relación de posesión entre un único recipiente y un objeto (ej. contribuir, administrar, distribuir), y la prominencia conceptual del evento de movimiento sobre la relación de posesión entre el recipiente y el objeto (ej. remitir, transferir), entre otros.This article examines the conceptual structure of the main constructions in which Levin's (1993) contribute verbs appear, viz. the ditransitive and the dative constructions, which often alternate. The present paper questions the reliability of Levin's semantic criterion for contribute verbs and shows that the integration of these verbs into the dative construction is licensed by several factors, such as the presence of multiple agents, multiple transferred entities and multiple recipients which deprofile the possessive relationship between a unique recipient and an object (e.g. contribute, administer, distribute), and the conceptual prominence of the motion event over the possession relationship between the recipient and the object (e.g. refer, transfer), among others. Keywords: ditransitive construction, dative construction, Lexical Constructional Model, internal/external constraints, Focal Prominence Compatibility constraint

Cognitive and pragmatic aspects of metonymy

Metonymy has been described by Lakoff and his co-workers as a conceptual mapping within a domain which involves a brand for' relationship between entities. In this article this conception is revised in order to draw clearer dividing lines between metonymy and metaphor, on the one hand, and between metonymy and related polysemy phenomena, on the other. Considerations of mapping types and of the status of source-target relationships are brought to bear for the understanding of metonymy; also, an analysis of how metonymies are used referentially and predicatively is provided, which introduces the pragmatic dimension into the account. Finally, it is stressed that a sound understanding of the cognitive processes underlying metonymic expressions allows us to understand berrer their communicative potential. Then, it is proposed that the actual communicative impon of metonymy (and of metaphor, for that matter) can be best studied with the help of some of the conceptual tools provided in pragmatics by Relevance Theory.La metonimia ha sido descrita por Lakoff y sus colaboradores como una proyección conceptual interna a un dominio en la que una entidad se usa para representar a otra. En este artículo se revisa esta concepción con el fin de trazar, de la forma más clara posible, los límites entre metonimia y metáfora, por una parte, y entre metonimia y otros fenómenos polisémicos relacionados, por otra. Se estudia la importancia de los distintos tipos de proyección y de la naturaleza de la relación entre los dominios fuente y mera para la comprensión del fenómeno metonímico. Asimismo se estudian los usos referencia1 y predicativo de la metonimia, lo que introduce la perspectiva pragmática en nuestro estudio. Como conclusión. se hace hincapié en que una buena comprensión de los procesos cognitivos que subyacen al uso de expresiones metonímicas nos permite entender mejor su potencial comunicativo. Finalmente, se defienden las ventajas de la aplicación al estudio del valor comunicativo de la metonimia de algunas de las herramientas conceptuales desarrolladas en pragmática por la Teoría de la Relevancia, aplicación que se puede hacer extensible al caso de la metáfora

Principios cognitivos y pragmáticos del procesamiento y la comprensión

En Lingüística Cognitiva se sostiene como fundamental lo que Lakoff (1990) ha denominado el compromiso cognitivo, según el cual el lingüista debe incorporar en su descripción cuantas categorías empíricas, procedentes de las ciencias cognitivas, sea posible. Sin embargo, este compromiso, llevado a su extremo lógico, puede llegar a dejar en un segundo plano el potencial explicativo de las propias herramientas de análisis puramente lingüístico. En este trabajo se explora el problema de la comprensión lingüística del lenguaje (especialmente el figurado) mediante métodos puramente lingüísticos, pero cuyos resultados son compatibles con los fundamentos de la teoría de los modelos cognitivos idealizados, de inspiración empírica.

Structural similarity in figurative language: A preliminary cognitive analysis

Structural similarity may be based on the structural characteristics of concrete entities (e.g., the heart relates to bloodcirculation in the way that a pump to a hydraulic system) or on the structural properties of situations and events (e.g.,Your words were a dagger to my heart compares the emotional damage done by the hearers words to the physicalharm caused by a dagger). In combination with metonymy, structural similarity gives rise to paragon-based antonomasiaand allegory-like narratives. An example of paragon-based antonomasia is the Lennon of football, which, said about agreat player, is based on structural similarity: the player and the musician are masters, each in his domain of expertise.Allegory-like narratives rely on a form of high-level structural similarity where each entity-denoting target element is elab-orated through the member-for-class metonymy. For example, in The Prodigal Son, the regretful sons return to hisfather asking for forgiveness represents any repentant sinner. In terms of structural similarity, God is to a repentant sin-ner what the forgiving father is to his returning son. Drawing on a selection of examples, this article reexamines the con-tribution of different types of structural similarity to figurative reasoning at various degrees of abstractness andcomplexity