Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Semantics of Relationships pp 73–89Cite as

Internally-Structured Conceptual Models in Cognitive Semantics

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Information Science and Knowledge Management ((ISKM,volume 3))

Abstract

The basic conceptual units of cognitive semantics—image schemata, basic level concepts, and frames—are internally structured, with meaningful relationships existing between components of those units. In metonymy, metaphor, and blended spaces, such internal conceptual structure is complemented by external referential structure, based on mappings between elements of underlying conceptual spaces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Barsalou, L. W. (1992). Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization, 21–74. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. (1958). How shall a thing be called? Psychological Review, 65, 14–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clausner, T., & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10, 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fauconnier, G. (1996). Analogical counterfactuals. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar, 57–90. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22, 133–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. In S. Harnard, H. Steklis, & J. Lancaster (Eds.), Origins and Evolution of Language and Speech, 20–32. New York: New York Academy of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization, 75–102. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • FrameNet. (n.d.). Available: < http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~framenet/ > [2001, October 9].

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, M. (1961, June). Mathematical games. Scientific American, 204, 166–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, 199–241. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grady, J. E. (1997). THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 267–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grady, J., Taub, S., & Morgan, P. (1996). Primitive and compound metaphors. In Goldberg, A. E. (Ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, 177–187. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krzeszowski, T. P. (1993). The axiological parameter in preconceptional image schemata. In R. A. Geiger & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds.), Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language, 307–329. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.), 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (1994). Conceptual metaphor home page. Available: <http://cogsci.berkeley.edu> [2001, October 9] .

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langacker, R. W. (1991). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lindner, S. (1981). A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of Verb-Particle Constructions with UP and OUT. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindner, S. (1982). What goes up doesn’t necessarily come down: The ins and outs of opposites. Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 18, 305–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. (1973). A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation (J. M. Robson, Ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. (Original work published 1843).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E., Mervis, C., Gray, W., Johnson, D., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweetser, E., & Fauconnier, G. (1996). Cognitive links and domains: Basic aspects of mental space theory. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar, 1–28. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M. (1993). An image-schematic constraint on metaphor. In R. A. Geiger & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds.), Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language, 291–306. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M. (n.d.). Blending and conceptual integration. Available: < http://www.wam.umd.edu/~mturn/WWW/blending.html > [2001, October 9].

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, B. (1986). Components and categorization. In C. Craig (Ed.), Categorization and Noun Classification, 63–76. Philadelphia: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, B., & Hemenway, K. (1984). Objects, parts, and categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 169–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Information Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Rebecca Green

Authors
  1. Rebecca Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Information Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA

    Rebecca Green

  2. Extramural Programs, National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

    Carol A. Bean

  3. Natural Language and Information Retrieval Laboratory, Division of Information and Communication, College of Engineering, Chungnam National University, Taejon, Korea

    Sung Hyon Myaeng

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Green, R. (2002). Internally-Structured Conceptual Models in Cognitive Semantics. In: Green, R., Bean, C.A., Myaeng, S.H. (eds) The Semantics of Relationships. Information Science and Knowledge Management, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0073-3_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0073-3_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5996-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0073-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation