Vectors, viewpoint and viewpoint shift: Toward a discourse space theory

Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 78-116

  Chilton, Paul ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Complement clause; Conditionals; Coordinate systems; Counterfactuals; Deixis; Discourse; Foreground; Modality; Prepositions; Spatial representation; Tense; Vectors; Viewpoint

Indexed keywords

EID: 34250694717     PISSN: 15720268     EISSN: 15720276     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/arcl.3.06chi     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Andersen, R.A. (1995). Coordinate transformations and motor planning in posterior parietal cortex. M.S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neuroscience (pp. 519-532). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Anderson, J. (1971). The grammar of case. Towards a localist theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Anton, H. (1991). Elementary linear algebra. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
4. Asher, N. & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Bergen, B.K. & Chang, N.C. (2002). Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. Technical Report TR-02-004, International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley
6. Bloom, P., Peterson, M.A., Nadel, L. and Garrett, M.F. (Eds.). (1999). Language and space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Burgess, N. (2002). The hippocampus, space, and viewpoints in episodic memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 55(4), 1057-1080.
8. Burgess, N., Jeffery, K.J. and O’Keefe, J. (2003). The hippocampal and parietal foundations of spatial cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Chung, S. & Timberlake, A. (1985). Tense, aspect, and mood. In T Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Volume 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Dancygier, B. (1998). Conditionals andprediction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Dancygier, B. (2002). Mental space embeddings, counterfactuality, and the use of unless. English Language and Linguistics, 6(2), 347-377.
12. Declerk, R. & Reed, S. (2001). Conditionals: A comprehensive empirical analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
13. Evans, V. & Tyler, A. (2004a). Rethinking English prepositions: the case of to and through. In H. Cuyckens, W de Mulder and T Mortelmans (Eds.), Adpositions of movement (Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17) (pp. 247-270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
14. Evans, V & Tyler, A. (2004b). Spatial experience, lexical structure and motivation: the case of in. In G. Radden and K. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 157-192). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
15. Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think. New York: Basic Books.
18. Feldman, J. (1989). Neural representation of conceptual knowledge. In L. Nadel, L.A. Cooper, P. Culicover and R.M.Harnish (Eds.), Neural connections, mental computation (pp. 68-103). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Feldman, J. & Narayanan, S. (2004). Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language, 89, 385-392.
20. Fillmore, C.J. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111-138). Seoul: Hanshin.
21. Fleischmann, S (1989). Temporal distance: a basic linguistic metaphor. Studies in Language, 13, 1-50.
22. Frawley, W (1992). Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23. Gallese, V. (2003). A neuroscientific grasp of concepts: from control to representation. Philo-sophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 358(1435), 1231-1240.
24. Gallistel, C.R. (1990). The organization of learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Horn, L.R. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. Israel, M. (2004). The pragmatics of polarity. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 701-723). Oxford: Blackwell.
28. Kamp, H. & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
29. Kamp, H., van Genabith, J. and Reyle, U. (2005). Draft of article for Handbook of philosophical logic, Kluwer, accessed 30 January 2005.
30. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
31. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
32. Lakoff, G. & Nunez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from. New York: Basic Books.
33. Landau, B. (2003). Axes and direction in spatial language and cognition. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing direction in language and space (pp. 18-38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34. Landau, B. & Jackendoff, R. (1993). “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 16, 217-38.
35. Langacker, R.W (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
36. Langacker, R.W (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
37. Langacker, R.W (1996). Viewing in cognition and grammar. In PW. Davis (Ed.), Alternative linguistics. Descriptive and theoretical modes (pp. 153-212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
38. Levinson, S. 1996. Frames of reference and Molyneux’s questions: cross-linguistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson, L. Nadel and M.F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 109-170). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. Michaelis, L.A. (1998). Aspectual grammar andpast-time reference. London: Routledge.
40. Michaelis, L.A. (in press). Time and tense. In B. Aarts & A. McMahon (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
41. O’keefe, J. (1996) The spatial prepositions in English, vector grammar, and the cognitive map theory. In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson, L. Nadel and M.F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 493-529). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42. O’keefe, J. (2003). Vector grammar, places, and the functional role of the spatial prepositions in English. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing direction in language and space (pp. 69-85). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43. O’keefe, J. & Burgess, N. (1996). Geometric determinants of the place fields of hippocampal neurons. Nature, 381, 425-428.
44. O’keefe, J. & Nadel, L. (1978). The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
45. Petitot, J. (1995). Morphodynamics and attractor syntax: constituency in visual perception and cognitive grammar. In R.F. Port & T van Gelder (Eds.), Mind as motion (pp. 227-281). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. Port, R.F. & Van Gelder, T (Eds.). 1995. Mind as motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47. Radden, G. (2004). The metaphor time as space across languages.
48. accessed 16 De-cember 2004.
49. Regier, T (1996). The human semanticpotential. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
50. Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. London: Macmillan.
51. Shastri, L. (2002). Episodic memory and cortico-hippocampal interactions. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6(4), 162-168.
52. Sinha, C. & Jensen de Lopez, K. (2000). Language, culture and the embodiment of spatial cognition. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(1/2), 17-42.
53. Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54. Sweetser, E. (1996). Mental spaces and the grammar of conditional constructions. In G. Faucon-nier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, worlds, and grammar (pp. 318-333). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
55. Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H.L. Pick & L.Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research and application (pp. 225-282). New York: Plenum.
56. Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 2, 49-100.
57. Talmy, L. (2001). Lexicalization patterns. In L. Talmy, Toward a cognitive semantics (pp. 21-146). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
58. Thom, R (1970). Topologie et linguistique. In Essays on topology and related topics (pp. 226-248). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
59. Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2003). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: the case of over. In B. Nerlich, L. Todd, V. Herman and D.D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 95-160). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
60. Vandeloise, C. (1999)[1986]. Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
61. van Hoek, K. (2003). Pronouns and point of view: cognitive principles of coreference. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language. Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Volume 2 (pp. 169-194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
62. van der Zee, E. & Slack, J. (Eds.). (2003). Representing direction in language and space. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
63. Weiss, P.H., Marshall, J.C., Wunderlich, G., Tellmann, L., Halligan, P. W, Freund, H.J., Zilles, K. & Fink, G.R. (2000). Neural consequences of acting in near versus far space: a physiological basis for clinical dissociations. Brain, 123, 2531-2541.
64. Werth, P. (1999). Text worlds: Representing conceptual space in discourse. London: Longman.
65. Yu, N. (1998). The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
66. Zwarts, J. (1997). Vectors as relative positions: a compositional semantics of modified PPs. Journal of Semantics, 14, 57-86.
67. Zwarts, J. (2003). Vectors across spatial domains: from place to size, orientation, shape, and parts. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing direction in language and space (pp. 39-68). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
68. Zwarts, J. & Winter, Y. (2000). Vector space semantics: A model-theoretic account of locative prepositions, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 9(2), 171-213.