If someone says to you ‘Our car has broken down’, your reaction may simply be to feel sorry. For the linguist, though, even such a simple utterance calls for quite an elaborate explanation. As far as the meaning and the grammar of the sentence are concerned, a traditional description would try to paraphrase the meanings of the words used; it would analyze the clause pattern (here a simple combination of subject and verb or predicate), and would probably go on to discuss the use of the present perfect tense.
Modern linguists have on the whole not been satisfied with the traditional explanation of grammatical structures and word meanings. Indeed much work in modern linguistics has been devoted to constructing rules that would produce our initial sentence, but would exclude sentences like We car has broken down or our car has jumped up as not well-formed. The ultimate goal of this endeavor has been to establish a body of logical rules for generating the sentences of a language that are grammatically correct and semantically acceptable. For the individual words a set of ‘objective’ semantic features has been proposed which would guarantee that the words are inserted appropriately into the grammatical structure. Thus the meaning of car would be described with the semantic features ‘inanimate’, ‘concrete’, ‘movable’ and ‘self-propelled’.
Assuming that the logical rules and objective semantic features which generate language are stored in our memory, it seems only natural to claim that they are of a mental nature. This approach is therefore also ‘cognitive’ in the original sense of the word (i.e. ‘related to knowledge’). However, it is not the kind of ‘cognitive linguistics’ that our topic is about. To distinguish this approach from what we have in mind when we talk about ‘cognitive linguistics’, we will characterize it as the logical view in cognitive linguistics.
As we understand the term, cognitive linguistics is today chiefly represented by the experiential view. Its main claim is that instead of postulating logical rules and objective definitions on the basis of theoretical considerations and introspection, a more practical and empirical path should be pursued. For example, one can ask language users to describe what is going on in their minds when they produce and understand words and sentences. As experiments have shown, people will not only state that a car has a box-like shape, that it has wheels, doors, and windows, that it is driven by an engine and equipped with a steering wheel, an accelerator and brakes, and that it has seats for the driver and the passengers. More likely than not, it will also be mentioned that a car is comfortable and fast, that it offers mobility, independence and perhaps social status. Some people may connect the notion of car with their first love affair, or with injury if they were once involved in an accident.
What would a traditional linguist do with ‘Our car has broken down’?
He would try to paraphrase the meanings of the words used, analyze the clause pattern and would probably go on to discuss the use of the present perfect tense.
What would a modern linguist do with ‘Our car has broken down’?
He would do nothing because he won't think it as not well-formed.
How is the logical view related to ‘cognitive linguistics’?
When assuming that the logical rules and objective semantic features which generate language are stored in our memory, we characterize it as the logical view in cognitive linguistics to distinguish this approach from what we have in mind when we talk about cognitive linguistics.
What is the claim of the experiential view?
Instead of postulating logical rules and objective definitions on the basis of theoretical considerations and introspection, a more practical and empirical path should be pursued.