АУТОР(И): Mihailo P. Antović
The paper illustrates how the author’s emerging theory of “multi-level grounding” may be applied to some contrastive phenomena in English and Serbian. The theory argues that classic semantic approaches based on cross-space interaction may profit enormously from a more thorough consideration of contextual constraints on meaning generation. For example, to understand even a fairly simple comparison such as “Achilles is a lion”, one needs to know a lot more than just how to, depending on the paradigm of choice, “cross-domain map”, “blend”, or “analogize” appropriate formal elements of the two concepts understood as mere mental representations. Rather, to be meaningful in more than just an academic sense, the interpretation needs to call layers of context, from the very general knowledge of who Achilles is and what lions are to specific cultural and even personal connotations appropriate to the two agents and their interaction. In relation to the earlier work of Searle and Langacker, cognitive linguists Coulson and Oakley propose to allocate such knowledge to the construct of the “grounding box” (containing implicit information on the agents, forum, and circumstances surrounding the utterance). The author’s theory makes this concept more refined, suggesting a series of at least six hierarchical and partly recursive grounding boxes constraining meaning generation – from the perceptual attributes of objects cognized to such percepts’ cross-modal interaction with the interlocutors’ embodied experience, to their aﬀective, conceptual, and discourse-driven (re) interpretations. The analysis in this paper aims to show how this approach may be instrumental in disentangling the (seemingly) shared and diﬀerent semantic strategies in the way English and Serbian treat a simple stock expression (“You are right” / “U pravu si”), grammatical construction (“tolerant of” / “tolerantan prema”), and widely used idiom (“a finger in every pie” / “u svakoj čorbi mirođija”).
English, Serbian, multilevel grounding, semantics, cognition
Antović, Stamenković 2012: M. Antović, D. Stamenković, Vision, space and embod- iment: Interpretation of English idioms by Serbian students, in: C. Hart (Ed.), Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings, http://uk-cla.org.uk/proceed- ings, Vol 1, 385–400.
Antović 2016: M. Antović, From expectation to concepts: Toward multilevel ground- ing in musical semantics, Cognitive Semiotics, 9(2), 105–138.
Antović 2018a: M. Antović, Schemas, grounds, meaning: On the emergence of musi- cal concepts through conceptual blending, Musicae Scientiae, 22(1), 57–71.
Antović 2018b: M. Antović, Jezik, muzika i kognitivne osnove izgradnje značenja u pesmama Bore Đorđevića „Ravnodušan prema plaču” i „Slušaj, sine, obriši sline”, u: M. Kovačević (ur.) Jezik, književnost, muzika: Poezija i muzika Bore Đorđevića, Andrićgrad: Andrićev institut.
Antović accepted: M. Antović, Multilevel-grounded semantics across cognitive modalities: Music, vision, poetry, Language and Literature.
Antović et al. 2020: M. Antović, J. Mitić, J., N. Benecasa, Conceptual rather than perceptual: Cross-modal binding of pitch sequencing is based on an underlying schematic structure, Psychology of Music, 48(1), 84–104.
Antović et al. 2016: M. Antović, D. Stamenković, D., V. Figar, Association of meaning in program music: On denotation, inherence, and onomatopoeia, Music Perception, 34(2), 243–248.
Casasanto 2008: D. Casasanto, Who’s afraid of the big bad Whorf? Crosslinguistic dif- ferences in temporal language and thought, Language Learning, 58, 63–79.
Coulson, Oakley 2005: S. Coulson, T. Oakley, Blending and coded meaning: Literal and figurative meaning in cognitive semantics, Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1510–1536.
Fauconnier, Turner 2002: G. Fauconnier, M. Turner, The way we think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities, New York: Basic Books.
Firth 1935: J. R. Firth, The Technique of Semantics, Transactions of the Philological Society: 3G72.
Goldberg 1995: A. E. Goldberg, Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jackendoﬀ 1990: R. Jackendoﬀ, Semantic Structures, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT press.
Kivy 2002: P. Kivy, Introduction to a Philosophy of Music, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lakoﬀ, Johnson 1980: G. Lakoﬀ, M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live by, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker 1987: R. W. Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Redwood CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker 2002: R. W. Langacker, Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Lerdahl 2001: F. Lerdahl, The sounds of poetry viewed as music, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 930(1), 337–354.
Magnus 2001: M. Magnus, What’s in a Word?: Studies in Phonosemantics, Ph.D. dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Mandler 2005: J. M. Mandler, How to build a baby: III. Image schemas and the tran- sition to verbal thought, in: Hampe, B. (Ed.) From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 137–164.
Searle 1978: J. R. Searle, Literal meaning, Erkenntnis, 13(1), 207–224.
Stamenković et al. 2014: D. Stamenković, A. Bennett, M. Antović, The roles of vision, space and the body in interpreting unfamiliar Serbian and English idiomatic expressions, Respectus Philologicus 25 (30), 11–32.
Talmy 1988: L. Talmy, Force dynamics in language and cognition, Cognitive Science, 12(1): 49–100.
Wertheimer 1938: M. Wertheimer, Laws of organization in perceptual forms, in: Ellis
W.D. (Ed.) A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology, London, England: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Company, 71–88.