A new approach to the study on counterexamples of generic sentences: From the perspective of interactive reference point-target relationship and re-categorization model
Abstract
Based on deficiencies of existing researches, this paper, aiming at taking the tolerance of counterexamples reflecting seeming syntax-semantic mismatch in generic sentences, and the online cognitive process of these sentences into the same analyzing framework, proposes the Interactive Reference Point-target Relationship and Re-categorization Model (IRPR-RC Model) to give a unified explanation to the main types of counterexample-tolerating generic sentences (GS), thus further fulfilling the generalization commitment of cognitive linguistics. According to this model: 1) there is an interaction relationship between reference points and targets connecting generic words and attribute words in counterexample-tolerating generic sentences (GS); 2) this interactive relationship provides the premise for re-categorization, which selects a particular sub-category and makes it salient. This process can also be viewed as a phenomenon of attribute words coercing the generic words; 3) the model can be divided into three types: Focusing Type, Imbedding Type and Repulsing Type, according to different operation mechanism of IRPR-RC Model in counterexample-tolerating generic sentences (GS).
References
[1] Alexander N and Frank CK (2019) Generics designate kinds but not always essences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(41): 1–6.
[2] Bu F (2012) A Cognitive Approach to Chinese Generic Sentences. Master’s Thesis, Hunan University, China.
[3] Carlson GN and Pelletier FJ (1995) The Generic Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[4] Eckardt R (1999) Normal objects, normal worlds and the meaning of generic sentences. Journal of Semantics 16(3): 237–278.
[5] Fu Z (2010) A Conceptual Metonymic Approach to Generics. Master’s Thesis, Southwest University, China.
[6] Fu Z (2017) The embodied basis and cognitive motivation of generic sentences. Journal of Southwest University (Social Sciences Edition) 43(6): 137–145, 196.
[7] Gao Y (2013) A Study of English Generics Based on Conceptual Metonymy. Master’s Thesis, Yan’an University, China.
[8] Geeraerts D (1997) Diachronic Prototype Semantics: A Contribution to Historical Lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[9] Jackendoff RS (1985) Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[10] Krifka M (1987) An outline of genericity. Germany: Seminar für natürliche-sprachliche Systeme, Tübingen University.
[11] Langacker RW (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application (Vol.II). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[12] Langacker RW (1993) Reference-point construction. Cognitive Linguistics 4(1): 1–38.
[13] Langacker RW (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University.
[14] Lei Q (2019) Denotations and connotations of generic sentences: A prospective from an embodied-cognitive approach. Foreign Languages in China 16(6): 44–49.
[15] Leslie SJ (2007) Generics and the structure of the mind. Philosophical Perspectives (21): 375–403.
[16] Liu C (2010) A cognitive explanation of generic sentences: Mental model selection under the control of the generative whole. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages 33(3): 1–6, 127.
[17] Li S (2012) On generic sentence and categorization in terms of cognitive structures. Journal of Changsha University of Science and Technology (Social Science) 27(3): 125–129.
[18] Li T (2013) The generation of generic sentences from the philosophical perspective of mind. Foreign Languages Research (4): 5–9. DOI: 10.13978/j.cnki.wyyj.2013.04.007
[19] Liao Q (2010) Generic sentence and paradox. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 42(6): 424–430, 480.
[20] Liu W and Li H (2005) The cognitive characteristics of re-categorization in C-E translation. Foreign Language Research (4): 49–54, 80.
[21] Liu Y, Luo J and Wu F (2021) Construction of cognitive model of syntactic-semantic mismatched resultative constructions: From the perspective of interaction construction grammar. Foreign Language Education 42(2): 60–66.
[22] Liu Y, Qu Q, Chen Q, et al. (2021) Chinese quasi-attributive construction: From the perspective of cognitive reference point relationship and metonymy. Journal of Foreign Languages 44(2): 31–40.
[23] Prasada S and Dillingham E (2009) Representation of principled connections: A window onto the formal aspect of common sense conceptions. Cognitive Science 33(3): 401–448.
[24] Rosch E (1975) Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology (7): 532–547.
[25] Sandeep P, Sangeet K, Sarah-Jane L, et al. (2013) Conceptual distinctions amongst generics. Cognition 126(3): 405–422.
[26] Sun X and Cheng X (2013) Generic sentences and its language application. Foreign Languages Research (1): 37–41, 112. DOI: 10.13978/j.cnki.wyyj.2013.01.012.
[27] Ungerer F and Schimd HJ (2005) Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research.
[28] Wang T (2015) The semantic analysis model of pair construction “A, bai B ne” based on “(De/Re)-categorization”. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies (6): 16–21. DOI: 10.13458/j.cnki.flatt.004199
[29] Wang Y (2001) Semantic Theory and Language Teaching. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[30] Wang Y (2002) The philosophical basis for cognitive linguistics: Embodied philosophy. Foreign Language Teaching and Research (2): 82–89, 160.
[31] Wang Y (2009) Revision on construction coercion: Lexical coercion and inertia coercion. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching (12): 5–9.
[32] Wei Z (2008) The cognitive reference point and pragmatic presuppositions. Foreign Language Research (3): 93–97. Doi: 10.16263/j.cnki.23-1071/h.2008.03.017
[33] Wei Z (2012) A cognitive construal of the presupposition mechanism of generic sentences. Foreign Language and Literature 28(1): 69–73.
[34] Wen X and Jiang X (2001) Categorization: Cognition in language. Foreign Language Education (4): 15–18.
[35] Wu B (2010) On the kind-denoting function of generic sentences. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 42(2): 92–96, 160.
[36] Wu B and Wei X (2012) A lexical pragmatic approach to generic sentences. Foreign Language Education 33(5): 36–40. DOI: 10.16362/j.cnki.cn61-1023/h.2012.05.012
[37] Xu S (2010a) True or not: About generic sentence and its counterexample. TCSOL Studies (1): 47–51.
[38] Xu S (2010b) Cognitive-pragmatic implications of the study of generic sentences. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies 42(2): 83–91, 160.
[39] Zou C and Zhang J (2011) Metonymy and generic. Heilongjiang Science and Technology Information (25): 228.
[40] Zhou B (2004) On the essence of generic sentence and concept. Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Science) (4): 20–29.
Copyright (c) 2022 author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The author(s) warrant that permission to publish the article has not been previously assigned elsewhere.
Author(s) shall retain the copyright of their work and grant the Journal/Publisher right for the first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under:
OA - Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). This license allows for the copying, distribution and transmission of the work, provided the correct attribution of the original creator is stated. Adaptation and remixing are also permitted.
This broad license intends to facilitate free access to, as well as the unrestricted reuse of, original works of all types.
_%E5%89%AF%E6%9C%AC1.png){kind=logo}
