Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T02:30:28.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

We Can't Go On Meeting Like This

A Cognitive Theory of Literature? The Fall of the Wall between Linguistics and Theory of Literature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Frederik Stjernfelt
Frederik Stjernfelt
Affiliation:
Institute for Comparative Literature, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. Email: stjern@coco.ihi.ku.dk.
Get access

Abstract

The article investigates the meeting between linguistics and literary theory under the auspices of cognitive grammar. First, it places this recent meeting in contrast to the relation between the two under structuralism; second, it sketches the philosophical foundations of cognitive linguistics in a series of related ideal types, such as cognitivism, diagrammatism, gestaltism, phenomenology, etc.; third, it investigates the literary theory of cognitive semantics in Lakoff and Turner's More Than Cool Reason as a background for some critical remarks.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 18 , Issue 2: Special issue on COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS , December 1995 , pp. 121 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Cassirer, E. 1945. Structuralism in Modern Linguistics. In Word, vol. I, 2. New York.Google Scholar
Greimas, A. J. & Courtés, J. 1979. Sémiotique. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. 1943. Omkring sprogteoriens grundlœggelse. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag (American version: Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Bloomington: Indiana University 1953)Google Scholar
Husserl, E. 1980. Logische Untersuchungen (first ed. 1900). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Husserl, E. 1976. Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften. Husserliana, vol. VI. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Ingarden, R. 1973. The Literary Work of Art (first German ed. 1931). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1983. Cognition and Semantics, Cambridge. MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1960. Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics. In Sebeok, Th. (ed.), Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1963. Essais de linguistique générale, Paris.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1979. Elementer, funktioner og strakturer isproget. Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. 1989. More Than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. 1987–1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, I–II. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. 1945. Phénoménologie de la perception. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. 1964. Le visible et l'invisible. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. 1934–1958. Collected Papers, I–VIII. Harvard: The Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Petitot, J. 1992. Physique du sens. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Smith, B. 1988. Foundations of Gestalt Theory. München & Wien: Philosophia Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stjernfelt, F. 1992. Korrespondenser – metaforens semiotik mellem kognition og poesi. Litteratur & Samfund 47–48, 138–73, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Stjernfelt, F. 1992a. Forståelse bunder i, hvad der er betydende for en organisme. Information 20/11 (the daily newspaper), Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Stjernfelt, F. 1992b. Kategoriens kategori. In Finnemann, N.O. & Stjernfelt, F. (eds.), Kognition og sprog, 106–26. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Stjernfelt, F. 1992c. Formens betydning. Katastrofeteori og semiotik. Copenhagen: Akademisk forlag.Google Scholar
Stjernfelt, F. 1995. Symbol og skema i neo-kantiansk semiotik. Psyke & Logos, nr. 1, 76–98. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1987. The Relation of Grammar to Cognition. In Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1988. Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition. Cognitive Science 12, 49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar