| 1. |
- Zlatev, Jordan, et al.
(författare)
-
Embodiment, language and mimesis
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Body, Language, Mind. Vol 1: Embodiment. - 1861-4132. ; , s. 297-337
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The present focus on embodiment in cognitive science undervalues concepts such as convention/norm, representation and consciousness. I argue that these concepts constitute essential properties of language, and this makes it problematic for “embodiment theories” to account for human language and cognition. These difficulties are illustrated by examining a particular, highly influential approach to embodied cognition, that of Lakoff and Johnson (1999), and exposing the problematic character of the notion of the “cognitive unconscious”. To attempt a reconciliation between embodiment and language, I turn to the concept of (bodily) mimesis, and propose the notion of mimetic schema as a mediator between the individual human body and collective language.
|
|
| 2. |
- Zlatev, Jordan, et al.
(författare)
-
Introduction : Cognitive semiotics comes of age
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Meaning, Mind and Communication : Explorations in Cognitive Semiotics - Explorations in Cognitive Semiotics. - 9783631657041 - 9783653049480 ; , s. 9-28
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Zlatev, Jordan, et al.
(författare)
-
Motion, Emotion and Mind Science
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Moving Ourselves, Moving Others: Motion and Emotion in Intersubjectivity, Consciousness and Language. - 978 90 272 4156 6 ; , s. 1-28
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 5. |
- Zlatev, Jordan, et al.
(författare)
-
Stages and transitions in children’s semiotic development
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Studies in Language and Cognition. ; , s. 380-401
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Stage models were prevalent in developmental psychology in the past, but have recently been subjected to much criticism. We propose “rehabilitation”, defining semiotic stage as a (not necessarily stable) period characterized by the clear establishment of a novel semiotic capacity, which may “dominate” the communication of the child at this stage, but does not replace capacities from previous stages. This is spelled out by adopting one particular model of semiotic development – the Mimesis Hierarchy (Zlatev 2008a, 2008b) – and presenting comparative and developmental data from 6 children in Sweden and Thailand, between 18 and 27 months of age, analyzing their acts of bodily communication (ABCs) in relation to their emerging linguistic capacities. The results show evidence for a transition around 20 months, when children display the use of (stable) signs, shared with their community, in both the linguistic and gestural modalities, but do not yet systematically combine them. Only towards the end of the period under study does this begin to occur on a more routine basis. Implications are drawn for the continuous debate “insight” vs. gradual development in ontogeny, suggesting a compromise.
|
|
| 6. |
- Zlatev, Jordan, et al.
(författare)
-
The coevolution of intersubjectivity and bodily mimesis
- 2008
-
Ingår i: The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity. - Amsterdam : John Benjamins Publishing Company. - 1566-7774. - 9789027239006 - 9789027239068 - 9789027291011 ; 12, s. 215-244
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 7. |
- Ahlner, Felix, et al.
(författare)
-
Cross-modal iconicity: A cognitive semiotic approach to sound symbolism
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Sign Systems Studies. - 1406-4243. ; 38:1/4, s. 298-348
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- It is being increasingly recognized that the Saussurean dictum of "the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign" is in conflict with the pervasiveness of the phenomenon commonly known as "sound symbolism". After first presenting a historical overview of the debate, however, we conclude that both positions have been exaggerated, and that an adequate explanation of sound symbolism is still lacking. How can there, for example, be (perceived) similarity between expressions and contents across different sensory modalities? We offer an answer, based on the Peircian notion of iconic ground, and G. Sonesson's distinction between primary and secondary iconicity. Furthermore, we describe an experimental study, in a paradigm first pioneered by W. Kohler, and recently popularized by V. Ramachandran, in which we varied vowels and consonants in fictive word-forms, and conclude that both types of sounds play a role in perceiving an iconic ground between the word-forms and visual figures. The combination of historical conceptual analysis, semiotic explication and psychological experimentation presented in this article is characteristic of the emerging paradigm of cognitive semiotics.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Blomberg, Johan, et al.
(författare)
-
Actual and non-actual motion: why experientialist semantics needs phenomenology (and vice versa)
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1568-7759 .- 1572-8676. ; 13:3, s. 395-418
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Experientialist semantics has contributed to a broader notion of linguistic meaning by emphasizing notions such as construal, perspective, metaphor and embodiment, but has suffered from an individualist concept of meaning and has conflated experiential motivations with conventional semantics. We argue that these problems can be redressed by methods and concepts from phenomenology, through a case study of sentences of non-actual motion such as The mountain range goes all the way from Mexico to Canada. Through a phenomenological re-analysis of proposals of Talmy, Langacker and Matlock, we show that non-actual motion is both experientially and linguistically non-unitary. At least three different features of human consciousness – enactive perception, visual scanning and imagination –constitute experiential motivations for non-actual motion sentences, and each of these could be related to phenomenological analyses of human intentionality. The second problem is addressed by proposing that the experiential motivations of non-actual motion sentences can be viewed as sedimented through “passive” processes of acquisition and social transmission, and that this implies an interactive loop between experience and language, yielding losses in terms of original experience, but gains in terms of communal signification. Something that is underestimated by phenomenology is that what is sedimented are not only intentional objects such as states of affairs, but aspects of how they are given, i.e. the original, temporal, bodily experiences themselves. Since cognitive semantics has emphasized such aspects of meaning, we suggest that phenomenology can itself benefit from experientialist semantics, especially when it turns its focus from pre-predicative to predicative, linguistic intentionality.
|
|
| 10. |
- Blomberg, Johan, et al.
(författare)
-
Metalinguistic relativity : Does one's ontology determine one's view on linguistic relativity?
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Language and Communication. - : Elsevier BV. - 0271-5309. ; 76, s. 35-46
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Linguistic relativity is a notion that has been met with both praise and scorn. We argue that there is correlation between theorists’ general conceptions of the nature of language, and their stance toward linguistic relativity. Starting with the proponents of the thesis, we distinguish between the relativists of the early days (Boas, Whorf) and modern neo-Whofians (Levinson, Slobin), showing that the first but not the latter are committed to a view of language as a monolithic semiotic system contrasting “arbitrarily” with other such systems. Critics of the thesis also come from two diametrically opposed views of language. While universalists see the most significant part of language as pan-human cognitive structure (insulated from thought in general), socio-cultural theorists emphasize the nature of language as contextually situated activity. In both cases the potential for locally sedimented linguistic structures to influence thought is excluded or at best marginalized. In response, we propose that a synthetic ontology of language as an experientially grounded semiotic system for meaning making in actual social contexts allows for the possibility for language to influence thought, though in different ways. These depend on whether we consider language as situated use, as sedimented conventions or as ultimately prelinguistic motivations for “universal” properties like predication. We argue that all three of these perspectives need to be considered. With the help of the Motivation & Sedimentation Model, which is based on such a linguistic ontology, and inspired by the integral linguistics and phenomenology, we show how the deadlock in the debate over linguistic relativity can be resolved, and the possibility for discussion to proceed in less antagonistic manner.
|
|
