Cognitive Linguistics and Cognitive Semantics

I just ran accross a really great discussion on Cognitive Semantic Poetry. It is at The Suburban Ecstasies. The following is a slight rewrite of my comments left there.


I write linguistic processing software (Rosoka) that is based on Cognitive Linguistics. Putting into practice as algorithms that have to interpret meaning from written text makes one think a lot about the theory of linguistics in practical since.

In that regards I have always taken exception to the generally sighted definition of cognitive linguistics "it denies that there is an autonomous linguistic faculty in the mind" That is like saying I can't use my hands to read a book. I need them to turn the page or I will not get very far in he book. So that "an autonomous linguistic faculty in the mind" is another tool used to read and understand that same book, and after all I could use my feet, elbows, etc. to turn the page.

With regards to Cognitive-Semantics, I like to use the example of the west coast chain restaurant name "El Pollo Loco" which most people would structural English translate to by switching the order as "The Crazy Chicken" where as a word for word translation is "The Chicken Crazy". Since is a restaurant chain that I am rather partial to, either definition would work. But preserving the order it should translate to "The chicken that is crazy" which in my mind doesn't work. Why? Because, cognitively, to me, the crazy chicken is a restaurant that serves broiled chicken.


It is said a picture is worth a thousands words, but with a less one hundred,
I can paint a pictures far more vivid to your mind and heart a kindred,
to suffer the agony of star crossed lovers, as romeo and juliet once more fated,
to smell the roses sweet scent,
then suffer the thorn of lost love for whom it was intended,
to feel that hand on the night you held a true loves with the moon above,
now change image of that moon with the small step of a man.

While my poem may not be very good, it does illustrate one of the short falls of the cognitive semantics, (as well as many other) as a linguistics study, in that it uses references that must be conceptually understood in order to for complete conceptualization. If the references are not known to the reader, then the words have little or no meaning. Furthermore, the ideas are either direct references, or to abstract references that are unique to each reader as well as me the author. For example if one does not know Neil Armstrong's quote "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" then the conceptual image alluded to in the ending will be totally meaningless.

So how is this technology? These are concepts used in what is generally classified as Natural Language Processing. Although most language processing software follows Chompsky's generative grammar since they need to code syntactic rules.