COGNITIVE GRAMMAR 201
The situation becomes more complex as soon as we move from individual
words to entire expressions. We can say that someone iscool,and mean, most
of the time, something other than a description of body temperature. We can
say that someone ishotwith a similar effect. Indeed, we can use both expres-
sions to describe a single person, as in:
- Macarena is cool.
- Macarena is hot.
Interestingly, these statements are not contradictory but can be easily under-
stood as complementary: Macarena’s coolness may, in fact, make her hot, and
vice versa. With these and countless other statements, the meaning cannot
readily be calculated on the basis of the words themselves. Taylor (2002) ex-
pressed the problem neatly when he wrote: “complex expressions nearly al-
ways have a meaning that is more than, or even at variance with, the meaning
that can be computed by combining the meanings of the component parts” (p.
13). The most well-known expressions of this type are idioms, such asThe
goon kicked the bucket, Rita needs to come down off her high horse, Every-
thing’s turning up roses,and so forth.
The metaphorical nature of language prompts many cognitive grammarians
to argue not only that meaning does not reside in individual words but also that
the meaning of individual words isconceptualrather than specific. Conceptual
meaning relies on a network of associations for each word that radiate in nu-
merous directions. The wordtree,for example, designates a generic concept, or
category, that serves as aprototype. In isolation, the word means very little.
However, its network of associations radiates outward to palm trees, oak trees,
maple trees, poplar trees, apple trees, and so on, allowing us to usetreein mean-
ingful ways. Especially interesting is the fact that the human mind is so good at
identifying and abstracting patterns that we can apply the termtreeto catego-
ries that have nothing at all to do with natural organisms like apple trees. We ac-
cept the sentence diagrams in chapters 4 and 5 astree diagramseven though
they have only one feature in common with actual trees—a branching structure.
On this account, we can say that the conceptual nature of meaning in cognitive
grammar underscores language as a symbolic system.
This approach to meaning allows for a better understanding of the relation
among cognition, grammar, and semantics. Function words, such as preposi-
tions, provide interesting illustrations:
- The book was on the table.
- The book was under the table.