What Can One See if One Brings the Linguistic Concept Into a Panchronic View?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1412.02Keywords:
embodied cognition, linguistic concept, mental image, panchrony, wordAbstract
This paper takes a panchronic perspective to show that the evolution of a linguistic concept in a worldview embraces this concept’s diachronic depth and this concept’s diachronic variation. The diachronic depth of a concept is an archaic image (modal mental representation) that was prerequisite for this concept (amodal mental representation) to emerge; this image had formed perceptually in the human mind, through the direct visual experience humans had in perceiving the world, which accounts for this concept’s embodiment. Mental image at this concept’s diachronic depth and embodiment of this concept are the two facts that this paper assumes one can see when viewing this concept panchronically. This paper treats panchrony as the combination of diachrony of language with universal processes of human cognition, and suggests that the panchronic mechanism behind linguistic semiosis is the modal-to-amodal conversion that takes place in the human mind and has the inner form of the word as its panchronic product and the image-driven interpretation of the word as its emergent product. This mechanism operates at each stage in language evolution, determines the genesis of the word as that of a sign-symbol, and is universal for the speakers of language by virtue of their embodiment. This paper’s theoretical commitments find application in the case of SIN in the English worldview: archaic image at SIN’s diachronic depth is reconstructed using methodologies of etymological research, as the inner form of the word sin in English; SIN’s content in diachronic variation is reconstructed using methodologies of cognitive linguistic research.
References
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–609. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x99002149
Barsalou, L. W., & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In D. Pecher, & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking (pp. 129–163). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499968.007
Bergson, H. (1911). Creative evolution. Henry Holt & Company.
Borghi, A. M., & Binkofski, F. (2014). Words as social tools: An embodied view on abstract concepts. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9539-0_3
Cassirer, E. (1955). The philosophy of symbolic forms. Mythical thought. Yale University Press.
Chemero, A. (2001). Dynamical explanation and mental representations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(4), 141–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01627-2
Clifford, J. (1986). Partial truths. In J. Clifford, & G. E. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture. The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 1–29). Berkeley.
de Lauretis, T. (2004). Statement due. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 365–368. https://doi.org/10.1086/421134
de Saussure, F. (1983). Course in general linguistics, ed. by Ch. Bally, & A. Sechehaye, with collaboration of A. Riedlinger; transl. by R. Harris. Duckworth. (Original work published 1916).
Frege, G. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedeutung [On Sense and Reference]. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik [Journal for Philosophy and Philosophical Criticism], 100(1), 25–50. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.deutschestextarchiv.de/book/show/frege_sinn_1892
Gallagher, Sh. (2005). How the body shapes the mind. Oxford University Press.
Gebser, J. (1986). The ever-present origin. Ohio University Press.
Hasson, U. (2016). This is your brain on communication. TED2016 Conference. Canada: Vancouver. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://ted.com/talks/uri_hasson_this_is_your_brain_on_communication
Heidegger, M. (1988). The basic problems of phenomenology. Indiana University Press.
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Huo, M., & Chen, J. (2021). On embodiment of predicative metaphor: A case of English body-action verbs. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 11(9), 1114–1120. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1109.19
Husserl, E. (2012). Cartesian meditations: An introduction to phenomenology. Springer Science & Business Media.
Jarosz, I. (2020). In search of the cultural motivation in language: Girl and woman in James Joyce’s ‘Dubliners.’ Peter Lang GmbH.
Jung, C. G. (1970). Mind and earth: Collected works of C. G. Jung, ed. by R. F. C. Hull. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400850976.29
Kaup, B., Ulrich, R., Bausenhart, K. M., Bryce, D., Butz, M. V., Dignath, D., Dudschig, C., Franz, V. H., Friedrich, C., Gawrilow, C., Heller, J., Huf1, M., Hütter, M., Janczyk, M., Leuthold, H., Mallot, H., Nürk, H.‑Ch., Ramscar, M., Said, N., Svaldi, J., & Wong, H. Y. (2024). Modal and amodal cognition: An overarching principle in various domains of psychology. Psychological Research, 88, 307–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-023-01878-w
Kimmel, M. (2008). Properties of cultural embodiment: Lessons from the anthropology of the body. In R. M. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke, & E. Bernárdez (Eds.), Sociocultural situatedness (Vol. 2, pp. 77–108). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199116.1.77
Kosslyn, S. M., Thompson, W. L., & Ganis, G. (2006). The case for mental imagery. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195179088.001.0001
Kövecses, Z. (2014). Conceptual metaphor theory and the nature of difficulties in metaphor translation. In D. R. Miller, & E. Monti (Eds.), Translating figurative language (pp. 25-39). Università di Bologna.
Kubrjakova, E. S. (2004). Jazyk i znanie [Language and knowledge]. Languages of Slavic Culture.
Kumar, S., Sumers, T., Yamakoshi, T., Goldstein, A., Hasson, U., Norman, K., Griffiths, Th., Hawkins, R., & Nastase, S. (2024). Shared functional specialization in transformer-based language models and the human brain. Nature Communications, 15, 5523. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49173-5
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Basic Books.
Łozowski, P. (2022). The will and be going to constructions as panchronic inferences: In search of cognitive motivation. Lege Artis. Language Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow, 7(2), 39–75.
Łozowski, P. (2023). In search of panchrony: Saussure versus cognitive linguistics. Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature, 47(2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.17951/lsmll.2023.47.2.153-164
Makovskij, M. M. (2012). Fenomen TABU v tradicijakh i v jazyke indoevropejcev. Suščnost’. Formy. Razvitie [The phenomenon of TABOO in the traditions and language of Indo-Europeans. Essence. Forms. Development]. URSS.
Mamardašvili, M. K. (1996). Strela poznanija: Nabrosok jestestvennoistoričeskoj gnoseologii [The arrow of knowledge: An outline of the natural and historical gnoseology]. Languages of Slavic Culture.
Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2005). Physically distributed learning: Adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 587–625. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_15
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. Routledge.
Minsky, M. (1988). Society of mind. Simon and Schuster.
Moholy-Nagy, L. (1945). In defense of ‘abstract’ art. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 4(2), 74–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/426079
Potebnja, A. A. (1892). Mysl’ i jazyk [Thought and language]. Adolf Darre’s Typography.
Shakespeare, W. (2021). King Henry VI. Simon & Schuster.
Shapiro, L., & Spaulding, Sh. (2024). Embodied cognition. In E. N. Zalta, & U. Nodelman (Eds.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/embodied-cognition/
Ševčenko, I. S. (2016). Evoljucijni mexanizmy kognityvnoji semantyky [The evolutionary mechanisms of cognitive semantics]. Cognition, Communication, Discourse, 13, 131–141. https://doi.org/10.26565/2218-2926-2016- 13-07
Spivey, M. J. (2007). The continuity of mind. Oxford University Press.
Vakhovska, O. V. (2022). The sin of the translator: On words and mental images in translation. Amazonia Investiga, 11(54), 178–188. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.54.06.17
Vakhovska, O. V. (2023). Emotions and the archaic consciousness of man: A diachronic semantic reconstruction of the names of emotions in English. Amazonia Investiga, 12(69), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.69.09.17
Vakhovska, O. V. (2024). Emotions and consciousness: Reconstructing emotion concepts’ diachronic depths with the use of proto-language data. Logos, 119, 49–58. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.24101/logos.2024.26
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (2017). The embodied mind. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Vasko, R. V. (2019). Semiotic and culturological passportization of numeric phraseosymbols. Logos, 98, 94–103. https://doi.org/10.24101/logos.2019.10
Vaxovskaja, O. V. (2011). Verbalizacija koncepta GREX v anglojazyčnom diskurse XIV–XXI vekov [Linguistic manifestation of the SIN concept in the English discourse of the 14th–21st centuries] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University.
von Humboldt, W. (1836). Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts [On the Difference of the Structure of Human Languages and its Influence on the Spiritual Development of Mankind]. F. Dümmler.
Ward, D., Silverman, D., & Villalobos, M. (2017). The varieties of enactivism. Topoi, 36(3), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-017-9484-6
Weber, S. (2005). A touch of translation: On Walter Benjamin’s ‘Task of the translator.’ In S. Bermann, & M. Wood (Eds.), Nation, language, and the ethics of translation (pp. 65–79). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400826681.65
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, ed. by J. B. Carroll. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Zada, Z., Goldstein, A., Michelmann, S., Simony, E., Price, A., Hasenfratz, L., Barham, E., Zadbood, A., Doyle, W., Friedman, D., Dugan, P., Melloni, L., Devore, S., Flinker, A., Devinsky, O., Nastase, S., & Hasson, U. (2024). A shared model-based linguistic space for transmitting our thoughts from brain to brain in natural conversations. Neuron, 112, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2024.06.025
Zahavi, D. (2005). Subjectivity and selfhood: Investigating the first-person perspective. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Zhabotynska, S. A. (2013). Saussure's theory of the linguistic sign: A cognitive perspective. Papers of the International Congress of Linguistics. Université de Genève. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.academia.edu/22862255/SAUSSURES_THEORY_OF_THE_LINGUISTIC_SIGN_A_COGNITIVE_PERSPECTIVE
