Introduction 3tion of basic readings in Cognitive Linguistics, it is shown how a focus on
meaning constitutes a basic principle of cohesion for Cognitive Linguistics.
The central concepts of Cognitive Linguistics are mutually related because
they derive from a common set of underlying fundamentals: the principle
that language is all about meaning, in the broadest possible sense, in com-
bination with four specific assumptions about the nature of linguistic mean-
ing – that meaning is flexible and dynamic, that it is encyclopedic and non-
autonomous, that it is based on usage and experience, and that it is perspec-
tival in nature.
But meaning does not exist in isolation: it is created in and transmitted
through the interaction of people, and that is why the definition and the
basic architecture of language are recognized by Cognitive Linguistics as
involving not just cognition, but socially and culturally situated cognition.
A specific line of studies produced in the context of Cognitive Linguistics
analyzes the way in which the emergence of language as such and the pres-
ence of specific features in a language can only be adequately conceived of
if one takes into account the socially interactive nature of linguistic com-
munication. Examples of this strand of research include Sinha (2007) on
language as an epigenetic system, Zlatev (2005) on situated embodiment,
Itkonen (2003) on the social nature of the linguistic system, Verhagen
(2005) on the central role of intersubjectivity in language, and Harder
(2003) on the socio-functional background of language.
The references mentioned here mostly take a foundational rather than a
descriptive point of view: establishing the social nature of meaning as such
predominates over the empirical study of variation as illustrated in the
present volume. It needs to be pointed out, though, that such foundational
studies are important, because the social nature of meaning has been less
spontaneously obvious to Cognitive Linguistics than we suggested above.
In fact, although the notion of cultural model played a significant role in
the emergence of Cognitive Linguistics as a linguistic new framework
(Holland and Quinn 1987), a certain tension exists within Cognitive Lin-
guistics between a more universalist approach and a more culturally
oriented approach. A typical case in point is the discussion between Gee-
raerts and Grondelaers (1995) on the one hand and Kövecses (1995) on the
other regarding the nature of ANGER IS HEAT metaphors: while the former
emphasized the culturally specific and historically contingent nature of
such metaphorical patterns, the latter defended a universalist, physiologi-
cally grounded position. In recent years, however, the socio-cultural pers-