METADATA
Title: The non-linguistic context – a bridge to linguistic items and phenomena
Vol. 2, 2017, pp. 219-226
DOI: 10.46687/SILC.2017.v02.018
Author: Miroslava Tsvetkova
About the author: Associate Professor Miroslava Tsvetkova, PhD is a full-time lecturer in the Department of English studies at Konstantin Preslavsky University of Shumen, Bulgaria. The theoretical and practical contributions of her scientific production are in the field of Cognitive linguistics and Methodology of English language teaching. She was awarded a doctoral degree in the scientific specialty 05.07.03 after successfully defending a dissertation on some aspects of the acquisition of the present progressive by 1st-4th grade students. A continuation and upgrade of her dissertation is her habilitation work entitled “Taxonomy of the English constructions with “be” (Bulgarian learners’ acquisition, use and errors). She is an Associate professor in the area of 1. Pedagogical sciences, professional field 1.3. Pedagogy of education in… (Methodology of teaching English).
e-mail: m.tsvetkova@shu.bg
ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6774-8177
Citation (APA style): Tsvetkova, M. (2017). The non-linguistic context – a bridge to linguistic items and phenomena. Studies in Linguistics, Culture, and FLT, 2, 219-226. doi:10.46687/SILC.2020.v08i01.001
Link: https://silc.fhn-shu.com/images/issues/2017/SILC_2017_2_219_226_8_EN.pdf
Abstract: Each language is a complex system, which represents the world in a unique way, with its own stock of sounds, words, and phrases, as well as with its own grammatical constructions. The aim of the article is to prove that the non-linguistic context is a good way to improve the acquisition of linguistic items and phenomena and that our non-linguistic experience can affect the way we perceive language. The study proves that language, perception, and thought are interdependent and the direction of interaction can go both from linguistic to non-linguistic patterns and vice versa.
The question of language and thought needs to extend not only to whether language affects thought, but whether non-linguistic patterns can affect the way language is perceived.
Key words: linguistic item, perception, thought, interaction.
References:
Birner 1999. Does the language I speak influence the way I speak? Linguistic Society of America. Advancing Scientific Study of Language. <https://www.linguisticsociety.org/content/does-language-i-speak-influence-way-i-think>. [Accessed 14 Oct. 2017].
Caroll J. B. 1956. Language, thought, and reality: selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chater N. and Christiansen, M. 2010. Language acquisition meets language evolution. Cognitive Science, 34(7): 1131-1157.
Deutscher G. 2010. Does your language shape how you think? The New York Times Magazine. 29 August 2010. <https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html>. [Accessed 14 Oct. 2017].
Finley S. 2013. The effect of non-linguistic patterns on linguistic biases. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 35: 2291-2296. <https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3vd1778n>. [Accessed 14 Oct. 2017].
Gallese V. and Lakoff G. 2005. The brain’s concept: the role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3): 455-479.
Kay P. and Kempton W. 1984. What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86: 65-79.
Langacker R. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
Loftus E. F. and Palmer J. C. 1974. Reconstruction of automobile destruction: an example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13: 585-589.
Malinowski B. 1948. Magic, science and religion and other essays. The Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois.
Malotki E. 1983. Hopi time: a linguistic analysis of the temporal concepts in the Hopi language. Mouton Publishers, Berlin.
Peneva D. 2013. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the apology speech act „sorry‟. In: Todorova et al. (eds.), Dynamics, interdisciplinarity, diversity. Studies in Linguistics, Culture and FLT. Konstantin Preslavsky University Press, Shumen, pp. 29-42.
Piaget J. 1936. Origins of intelligence in the child. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Sapir E. 1949. Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture and personality. Mandelbaum D. G. (ed.). University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 160-166.
Slobin D. 1996. From “Thought and language” to “Thinking for speaking”. In: Gumperz J. J. and Levinson S. C. (eds.). Rethinking linguistic relativity. CUP, pp. 70-96.
Tacca M. 2011. Commonalities between perception and cognition. Front Psychol., 2: 358. <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22144974/>. [Accessed 14 Oct. 2017].
Taylor J. 1995. Linguistic categorization: prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Tsvetkova M. 2012. Конструкцията на сегашно продължително време в английския език като част от когнитивната таксономия на предхождащите я конструкции. Годишник на Шуменския университет „Епископ Константин Преславски”, Факултет по хуманитарни науки, том ХХІІІ А. Университетско издателство, Шумен, с. 256-281.
Tsvetkova M. 2016. Challenges in teaching ESL to young learners. In: Todorova et al. (eds.), Challenges in English teaching and research. Studies in Linguistics, Culture and FLT, 1: 125-135. Asenevtsi trade Ltd., Sofia.
Whorf B. 1956. Language, thought and reality. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 207-219.
Wierzbicka A. 1992. Semantics, culture and cognition: universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations. OUP.
