A course in Cognitive Linguistics: Cognitive Grammar

[@Bobby-bz8bk]

Profile/Base 9:30 Trajectory/Landmark 11:30 Thing 12:12 Relation 15:10 Entity 17:50 Construal 16:39 Schematicity 22:41 Sequential vs Summary Scanning 24:23 Unit 24:54 Conventionalization 29:11 Constituency 30:51 Elaboration / 'e-site' 32:58 Grounding 35:29

[@zoec2479]

39:37 summary

[@michaelwolf4196]

Amazing video. Thank you, Dr. Hilpert. I have read the two books by Langacker several times but tend to be lost in lines. The last time I read them was after I watched this video. Believe me, you have made my life much easier. Here I am, watching this video again because I am trying to popularize cognitive linguistics to middle school English teachers in China. To share some of my experience with you, when teaching a theory to people who have no linguistic background, I find it necessary to break the sequence of knowledge presented in the books. For example, it is actually easier for my students to understand cognitive grammar if I teach them something from Book II before I teach them things in Book I. I guess the structure of learning a subject is different from the structure of the knowledge in this subject. I hope I have expressed myself clearly.

[@rorshadowz]

You deserve so much more credit for these videos. I love what you do. Thank you.

[@RiazLaghari]

One of the best lectures on Cognitive Grammar! I have learned a lot from this video class. Thank you for making the topic easier to understand.

[@RobertBrownieJr]

Jesus man, you earned a subscription. This was a heavy but so worthwhile lecture, thank you so much. I bet you just turned your computer off as soon as you finished this!!

[@daisukegongda8207]

Thank you very much for the wonderful lecture. I'm in holidays now waiting my master in second language acquisition to begin so my professor recommended me to read the books 'foundations of cognitive grammar'. He told me that it is going to be such a tough work to comprehend the contents so I was a little bit scared to get started, but now I'm very motivated to start my journey! I will go to a bookstore tomorrow. Thank you as always, Dr. Hilpert. I appreciate your efforts.

[@MartinHilpert]

Good luck with your master, Daisuke!

[@mennahatem758]

Thank you for your efforts, you are such a great man. Whenever I come across any new linguistic theory and find a video for you, I feel relieved. May Allah guide you to the right bath.

[@ETU20070050]

watched the video again today. very clear elaboration on the key terms of CG. Thanks!

[@johnclarke1319]

love it. Electricity -that stuff which goes along wires that stuff somes it up - thankyou

[@stephengoldborough5189]

The passive voice is an example of a "neutral" grammatical form that actually has pragmatic and semantic meaning. In Japanese the passive voice form in "I was kept-cried by the baby" is also a marker of inconvenience (Breen). The English double transformation [convert to passive -> then, drop the agent] results in a standard form of deliberate obfuscation - for example a senior management writing a safety manual which has the entry "Employees will be made aware of occupational health issues relating to their workplace." (Indirectly, "WE are NOT taking personal financial liability on this one". Just as the Zulu noun counter system is not the same as the Latin gender system (Lakoff), the case system and mood markers of Latin or Sanskrit do not line up with Tagalog "equivalent" structures where there are 5 different word order transformations depending on the focus of the sentence. Also, in many Austronesian languages - partly due to obscure morphophonological changes in the past - the form of the transformed verb is a lexical item and not something that children could easily recreate.

[@rafaelarevalo8047]

do you have any further reading on that last point about Austronesian languages? very much intrigued by that

[@lilyjeong5694]

Thank you for the good lecture. I can understand more easily about the cognitive linguistics through this.

[@gkcadadr]

Thanks a lot! This playlist and your whole channel are so useful! W.r.t. what you say after "grounding", as a first-year MA student in linguistics with a non-linguistics background, I find Cognitive and Constructional approaches to be way more easier to understand than any TGG approach besides context-free PSGs and maybe OT. After a year of self-teaching and half a year of MA classes, I still don't understand, let alone grok, anything that came after Aspects. But with CxG and this, I don't even need to try to understand, it all feels that natural.

[@feltpresence]

Thank you for this excellent introduction. This is a perfect video to share with friends who might be curious to get started with Cognitive Grammar.

[@MartinHilpert]

Many thanks, Ryan!

[@marias.8941]

Hello Mr. Hilpert, is it true that this video doesn't include the parts 'mental interactions' and 'action-chain sequences'? I would appreciate an explanation of these two categories. Thank you:)

[@pawelwysockicoreandquirks]

I've only just started finding my way around cognitive grammar, but it seems surprising that perfective events (such as "the bridge collapsed") should be construed as processes. Huddleston/Pullum (2002) "With perfective aspectuality, the situation is presented in its totality, as a complete whole; it is viewed, as it were, from the outside, without reference to any internal temporal structure or segmentation."

[@_8-_-8_]

Thank you a lot for the lecture! Everything is very well explained!

[@sebastianrincon2904]

I really appreciate the help with these videos you're doing but I do have a question remaining, the thing is that for my linguistics class my teacher asked us to explain from a standpoint of both cognitive grammar and cognitive linguistics, how is a lapsus linguae perceived as? As in for those two disciplines how is that phenomenon viewed and/or explained as. Thanks in advance, have a nice day!

[@teachergoran]

A great lecture, clear and simple examples. :) We are using some of your papers in the course on Modern cog.ling theories in our English department in Nis, Serbia :)

[@MartinHilpert]

Many thanks, Goran! Let me know if you have questions!

[@rafaelarevalo8047]

Fascinating explanation. Thank you so much!

[@eserordem]

I really thank you a lot and you are helping us a lot

[@zachzhao9956]

Hope more videos about cognitive grammar. thank you.

[@jihadnoaman7529]

I have a question and I'll be more glad if you answered or helped! So, I'm a pre-masters student and my professors - so unfortunately - are not helping as expected. So the question is: as a pre-master scholar, do I need to read all references concerning branches and approaches in linguistics? Or what should I do? Is it supposed to be only reading about the subject? Because I feel SO lost. Thanks!

[@ParadoxDvDCenter]

Helped me a lot, thanks Mr. Hilpert

[@mebeasensei]

I care about one thing above all else...with each of these theories, how do we situate them, prioritize them, and make use of them? or is all just 'up to the reader' and thus...it's just a mess of relativity, arbitrary and 'you do yours' and 'I'll do mine'.

[@mohammadzamani72]

Thank you very much sir, this is REALLY helpful.

[@nathallful]

This was great, thank you!

[@YT-cc7py]

Hi Mr.Hilpert, thank you for your amazing video, I learned a lot of concept from your courses!!! I have a question, are "target" and "trajectory" same things? also "landmark" and "reference point" same things? I often see similar diagrams, but the namings are different...

[@MartinHilpert]

I'd say that "reference point and target" broadly map onto "landmark and trajectory", at least that is not completely wrong. For the former, Langacker talks about reference point constructions that provide mental access to a target.

[@YT-cc7py]

@@MartinHilpert Thank you for your reply! Understood, so reference point construction is more about mental path process. And I believe that is a similar concept but landmark/trajectory is used when talking about the ground/figure.

[@MartinHilpert]

@@YT-cc7py Yes, that's it.

[@javiermarmol-queralto5607]

Very good video! Thanks very much

[@Sk8Kitteh]

what is the conceptual space of "space"?

[@whitediekraft]

very good video

[@mebeasensei]

Can Cognitive Grammar tell me why, 'I like being out in the open' is regular and *'I like being in out the open' is anomalous? That is what I need in a grammar!

[@Tuulmgd]

please help me to understand how to explain simple and complex sentence structure through cognitive linguistic.

[@kimebensgaard5936]

I definitely recognize the chin-scratching scenario :-)

[@michaelfalkenberg1930]

Thank you for this lecture.

[@msszollosiable]

Deixis sounds like the collective noun for masculine presenting lesbians. I'm dead. 😂

[@mehreman2500]

Explained very well. Thanks a lot. 🇵🇰

[@pawelwysockicoreandquirks]

Why couldn't "to run" be a region in some domain of conceptual space? Say, in the domain of the ways in which you can move your body or whatever? Or "quickly" - for that matter?

[@ParadoxDvDCenter]

Maybe you're confusing it with "running" as a "thing"

[@尤弥尔九大巨人王]

vielen vielen Dank es ist sehr usefull

[@tuze8]

Where you come from Martin, I'm studying theoretical grammar, I'd like to share some experience

[@MartinHilpert]

I was born in Germany, studied in the US, and live and work in Switzerland.

[@bam1742]

Everything I've read and heard so far goes a bit like this: So, what is Cognitive Grammar? Response: ten paragraphs with definitions with the word cognitive in it. Bit like asking: What is a tree? Response: It's a tree bascially. I'll keep going though.

[@MartinHilpert]

The literature on Cognitive Grammar can be very dense and reliant on jargon. I'd encourage you to persist and cut through to the real issues. My own take on it is that Cognitive Grammar is the attempt to define all aspects of grammatical structure in terms of meaning.

[@danybuyung6433]

thankyou Hilpert Sensei

[@哈哈-q1o]

it sounds good but I can't not understand words without caption😅

[@juliamaxfalcon5483]

Thanks for the help :) I wish you were my teacher xD