A new approach to the study on counterexamples of generic sentences: From the perspective of interactive reference point-target relationship and re-categorization model

Authors

  • Yunfei Liu

    School of Foreign Languages, China Three Gorges University
  • Yiting Yu

    School of Foreign Languages, China Three Gorges University
  • Siyu Chen

    School of Foreign Languages, China Three Gorges University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18063/fls.v4i1.1454

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).

Keywords:

interactive reference point-target relationship and re-categorization model; generic sentence; counterexample-tolerating

References

Alexander N and Frank CK (2019) Generics designate kinds but not always essences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(41): 1–6.

Bu F (2012) A Cognitive Approach to Chinese Generic Sentences. Master’s Thesis, Hunan University, China.

Carlson GN and Pelletier FJ (1995) The Generic Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Eckardt R (1999) Normal objects, normal worlds and the meaning of generic sentences. Journal of Semantics 16(3): 237–278.

Fu Z (2010) A Conceptual Metonymic Approach to Generics. Master’s Thesis, Southwest University, China.

Fu Z (2017) The embodied basis and cognitive motivation of generic sentences. Journal of Southwest University (Social Sciences Edition) 43(6): 137–145, 196.

Gao Y (2013) A Study of English Generics Based on Conceptual Metonymy. Master’s Thesis, Yan’an University, China.

Geeraerts D (1997) Diachronic Prototype Semantics: A Contribution to Historical Lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Jackendoff RS (1985) Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Krifka M (1987) An outline of genericity. Germany: Seminar für natürliche-sprachliche Systeme, Tübingen University.

Langacker RW (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application (Vol.II). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Langacker RW (1993) Reference-point construction. Cognitive Linguistics 4(1): 1–38.

Langacker RW (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University.

Lei Q (2019) Denotations and connotations of generic sentences: A prospective from an embodied-cognitive approach. Foreign Languages in China 16(6): 44–49.

Leslie SJ (2007) Generics and the structure of the mind. Philosophical Perspectives (21): 375–403.

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.

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.

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

Liao Q (2010) Generic sentence and paradox. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 42(6): 424–430, 480.

Liu W and Li H (2005) The cognitive characteristics of re-categorization in C-E translation. Foreign Language Research (4): 49–54, 80.

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.

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.

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.

Rosch E (1975) Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology (7): 532–547.

Sandeep P, Sangeet K, Sarah-Jane L, et al. (2013) Conceptual distinctions amongst generics. Cognition 126(3): 405–422.

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.

Ungerer F and Schimd HJ (2005) Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research.

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

Wang Y (2001) Semantic Theory and Language Teaching. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

Wang Y (2002) The philosophical basis for cognitive linguistics: Embodied philosophy. Foreign Language Teaching and Research (2): 82–89, 160.

Wang Y (2009) Revision on construction coercion: Lexical coercion and inertia coercion. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching (12): 5–9.

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

Wei Z (2012) A cognitive construal of the presupposition mechanism of generic sentences. Foreign Language and Literature 28(1): 69–73.

Wen X and Jiang X (2001) Categorization: Cognition in language. Foreign Language Education (4): 15–18.

Wu B (2010) On the kind-denoting function of generic sentences. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 42(2): 92–96, 160.

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

Xu S (2010a) True or not: About generic sentence and its counterexample. TCSOL Studies (1): 47–51.

Xu S (2010b) Cognitive-pragmatic implications of the study of generic sentences. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies 42(2): 83–91, 160.

Zou C and Zhang J (2011) Metonymy and generic. Heilongjiang Science and Technology Information (25): 228.

Zhou B (2004) On the essence of generic sentence and concept. Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Science) (4): 20–29.

Downloads

How to Cite

Liu, Y., Yu, Y., & Chen, S. (2022). A new approach to the study on counterexamples of generic sentences: From the perspective of interactive reference point-target relationship and re-categorization model. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.18063/fls.v4i1.1454

Issue

Vol. 4 , Iss. 1 (September 2022)

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2022 Yunfei Liu, Yiting Yu, Siyu Chen

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.