The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics Part 108 pptx

Heider, Eleanor R. 1971. ‘‘Focal’’ color areas and the development of color names. Devel- opmental Psychology 4: 447–55. Heider, Eleanor R. 1972. Universals in color naming and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology 93: 10–20. Heider, Eleanor R., and Donald C. Olivier. 1972. The structure of the color space in naming and memory in two languages. Cognitive Psychology 3: 337–54. Hering, Ewald. 1964. Outlines of a theory of the light sense. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hill, Jane H., and Kenneth C. Hill. 1998. Culture influencing language: Plurals of Hopi kin terms in comparative Uto-Aztecan perspective. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 7: 166–80. Hill, Jane H., and Bruce Mannheim. 1992. Language and world view. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 381–406. House, Juliane. 2000. Linguistic relativity and translation. In Martin Pu ¨ tz and Marjolijn Verspoor, eds., Explorations in linguistic relativity 69–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hunn, Eugene S. 1977. Tzeltal folk zoology: The classification of discontinuities in nature. New York: Academic Press. Hunn, Eugene S. 1982. The utilitarian factor in folk biological classification. American Anthropologist 84: 830–47. Hunt, Earl, and Franca Agnoli. 1991. The Whorfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychology perspective. Psychological Review 98: 377–89. Jameson, Kimberly, and Roy G. D’Andrade. 1997. It’s not really red, green, yellow, blue: An inquiry into perceptual color space. In C. L. Hardin and Luisa Maffi, eds., Color categories in thought and language 295–319. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kay, Paul. 1996. Intra-speaker relativity. In John J. Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson, eds., Rethinking linguistic relativity 97–114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kay, Paul, and Willett Kempton. 1984. What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist 86: 65–79. Kay, Paul, and Chad K. McDaniel. 1978. The linguistic significance of the meanings of basic color terms. Language 54: 610–46. Kay, Paul, and Terry Regier. 2006. Language, thought and color: Recent developments. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10: 51–54. Koerner, Konrad E. F. 2000. Towards a ‘full pedigree’ of the ‘Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis’: From Locke to Lucy. In Martin Pu ¨ tz and Marjolijn Verspoor, eds., Explorations in linguistic relativity 1–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Nouns and verbs. Language 63: 53–94. Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2, Descriptive appli- cation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Lardiere, Donna. 1992. On the linguistic shaping of thought: Another response to Alfred Bloom. Language in Society 21: 231–51. Lee, Penny. 1996. The Whorf theory complex: A critical reconstruction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lee, Penny. 2000. When is ‘linguistic relativity’ Whorf’s linguistic relativity? In Martin Pu ¨ tz and Marjolijn Verspoor, eds., Explorations in linguistic relativity 45–68. Am- sterdam: John Benjamins. 1040 eric pederson Lenneberg, Eric H., and John M. Roberts. 1956. The language of experience: A study in methodology. International Journal of American Linguistics Memoir, no. 13. Balti- more, MD: Waverly Press. Levinson, Stephen C. 1996. Frames of references and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel, and Merrill Garrett, eds., Language and space 109–69. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Levinson, Stephen C., Sotaro Kita, Daniel B. M. Hauna, and Bjo ¨ rn H. Rasch. 2002. Returning the tables: Language affects spatial reasoning. Cognition 84: 155–88. Li, Peggy, and Lila Gleitman. 2002. Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition 83: 265–94. Liu, Lisa Gabern. 1985. Reasoning counterfactually in Chinese: Are there any obstacles? Cognition 21: 239–70. Loftus, Elizabeth F. 1975. Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology 7: 560–72. Losonsky, Michael, ed. 1999. Wilhelm von Humboldt: On language: On the diversity of human language construction and its influence on the mental development of the human species. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lowenstein, Jeffrey, and Dedre Gentner. 1998. Relational language facilitates analogy in children. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science So- ciety 615–20. Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lucy, John A. 1992a. Grammatical categories and cognition: A case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lucy, John A. 1992b. Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lucy, John A. 1997a. Linguistic relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 291–312. Lucy, John A. 1997b. The linguistics of ‘‘color.’’ In C. L. Hardin and Luisa Maffi, eds., Color categories in thought and language 320–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lucy, John A., and Suzanne Gaskins. 2001. Grammatical categories and the development of classification preferences: A comparative approach. In Melissa Bowerman and Ste- phen C. Levinson, eds., Language acquisition and conceptual development 257–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lucy, John A., and Richard A. Shwedder. 1988. The effect of incidental conversation on memory for focal colors. American Anthropologist 90: 923–31. Luria, Aleksandr Romanovich. 1976. Cognitive development, its cultural and social foun- dations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. MacLaury, Robert E. 1991. Exotic color categories: Linguistic relativity to what extent? Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 1: 26–51. MacLaury, Robert E. 1995. Vantage theory. In John R. Taylor and Robert E. MacLaury, eds., Language and the cognitive construal of the world 231–76. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. MacLaury, Robert E. 2000. Linguistic relativity and the plasticity of categorization: Uni- versalism in a new key. In Martin Pu ¨ tz and Marjolijn H. Verspoor, eds., Explorations in linguistic relativity 251–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Malt, Barbara C., Steven A. Sloman, and Silvia P. Gennari. 2003. Speaking versus thinking about objects and actions. In Dedre Gentner and Susan Goldin-Meadow, eds., Lan- guage in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought 81–111. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. cognitive linguistics and linguistic relativity 1041 Manchester, Martin L. 1985. The philosophical foundations of Humboldt’s linguistic doctrines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Miura, Irene T. 1987. Mathematics achievement as a function of language. Journal of Educational Psychology 79: 79–82. Miura, Irene T., Chungsoon C. Kim, Chih-mei Chang, and Yukari Okamoto. 1988. Effects of language characteristics on children’s cognitive representation of number: Cross- national comparisons. Child Development 59: 1445–50. Miura, Irene T., and Yukari Okamoto. 1989. Comparisons of U.S. and Japanese first graders’ cognitive representation of number and understanding of place value. Journal of Educational Psychology 81: 109–14. Miura, Irene T., Yukari Okamoto, Chungsoon C. Kim, Chih-Mei Chang, Marcia Steere, and Michel Fayol. 1994. Comparisons of children’s cognitive representation of number: China, France, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and the United States. International Journal of Behavioral Development 17: 401–11. Miura, Irene T., Yukari Okamoto, Chungsoon C. Kim, Marcia Steere, and Michel Fayol. 1993. First graders’ cognitive representation of number and understanding of place value: Cross-national comparisons: France, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and the United States. Journal of Educational Psychology 85: 24–30. Miura, Irene T., Yukari Okamoto, Vesna Vlahovic-Stetic, Chungsoon C. Kim, and Jong Hye Han. 1999. Language supports for children’s understanding of numerical fractions: Cross-national comparisons. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 74: 356–65. Morais, Jose ´ , Luz Cary, Je ´ sus Alegria, and Paul Bertelson. 1979. Does awareness of speech as a sequence of phones arise spontaneously? Cognition 7: 323–31. Oezgen, Emre, and Ian R. L. Davies. 1998. Turkish color terms: Tests of Berlin and Kay’s theory of color universals and linguistic relativity. Linguistics 36: 919–56. Olson, David R. 1991. Literacy as metalinguistic activity. In David R. Olson and Nancy Torrance, eds., Literacy and orality 251–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Olson, David R. 2002. What writing does to the mind. In Eric Amsel and James P. Byrnes, eds., Language, literacy, and cognitive development: The development and consequences of symbolic communication 153–65. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ong, Walter J. 1992. Writing is a technology that restructures thought. In Pam Downing, Susan D. Lima, and Michael Noonan, eds., The linguistics of literacy 293–319. Am- sterdam: John Benjamins. Pederson, Eric. 1993. Geographic and manipulable space in two Tamil linguistic systems. In Andrew U. Frank and Irene Campari, eds., Spatial information theory 294–311. Berlin: Springer Verlag. Pederson, Eric. 1995. Language as context, language as means: Spatial cognition and ha- bitual language use. Cognitive Linguistics 6: 33–62. Pederson, Eric. 1998. Spatial language, reasoning, and variation across Tamil communities. In Petr Zima and Vladimı ´ r Tax, eds., Language and location in space and time 111–19. Munich: Lincom Europa. Pederson, Eric. 2003. Mirror-image discrimination among nonliterate, monoliterate, and biliterate Tamil speakers. Written Language and Literacy 6: 71–91. Pederson, Eric, Eve Danziger, David Wilkins, Stephen Levinson, Sotaro Kita, and Gunter Senft. 1998. Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language 74: 557–89. Read, Charles, Yun-Fei Zhang, Hong-Yin Nie, and Bao-Qing Ding. 1986. The ability to manipulate speech sounds depends on knowing alphabetic writing. Cognition 24: 31–44. 1042 eric pederson Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4: 328–50. Saxton, Matthew, and John N. Towse. 1998. Linguistic relativity: The case of place value in multi-digit numbers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 69: 66–79. Scinto, Leonard F. M. 1986. Written language and psychological development. New York: Academic Press. Scribner, Sylvia, and Michael Cole. 1981. The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Shlain, Leonard. 1998. The alphabet versus the goddess: The conflict between word and image. New York: Viking. Silverstein, Michael. 1985. Language and the culture of gender: At the intersection of structure, usage, and ideology. In Elizabeth Mertz and Richard J. Parmentier, eds., Semiotic mediation: Sociocultural and psychological perspectives 219–59. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Silverstein, Michael. 1987. Cognitive implications of a referential hierarchy. In Maya Hickmann, ed., Social and functional approaches to language 125–64. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Slobin, Dan I. 1991. Learning to think for speaking: Native language, cognition, and rhe- torical style. Pragmatics 1: 7–25. Slobin, Dan I. 1996. Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In Masayoshi Shibatani and Sandra A. Thompson, eds., Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning 195–219. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Slobin, Dan I. 2000. Verbalized events: A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. In Susanne Niemeier and Rene ´ Dirven, eds., Evidence for linguistic rel- ativity 107–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Smith, Marion V. 1996. Linguistic relativity: On hypotheses and confusions. Communi- cation & Cognition 29: 65–90. Takano, Yohtaro. 1989. Methodological problems in cross-cultural studies of linguistic relativity. Cognition 31: 141–62. Talmy, Leonard. 1977. Rubber-sheet cognition in language. Chicago Linguistic Society 13: 612–28. Talmy, Leonard. 1978. The relation of grammar to cognition—a synopsis. In David Waltz ed., Proceedings of TINLAP-2 14–24. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical form. In Timothy Shopen, ed., Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 3, Grammatical categories and the lexicon 57–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Talmy, Leonard. 2000a. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1, Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Talmy, Leonard. 2000b. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 2, Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Taylor, Holly A., Robert R. Faust, Tatiana Sitnikova, Susan J. Naylor, and Phillip J. Hol- comb. 2001. Is the donut in front of the car? An electrophysiological study examining spatial reference frame processing. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 55: 175–84. Taylor, Holly A., Susan J. Naylor, Robert R. Faust, and Phillip J. Holcomb. 1999. ‘‘Could you hand me those keys on the right?’’ Disentangling spatial reference frames using different methodologies. Spatial Cognition and Computation 1: 381–97. Whorf, Benjamin L. 1956. Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. cognitive linguistics and linguistic relativity 1043 Whorf, Benjamin L., and George L. Trager. [1938] 1996. Report on linguistic research in the department of Anthropology of Yale University for the term Sept. 1937–June 1938.In Penny Lee, The Whorf theory complex: A critical reconstruction 251–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Zheng, Mingyu, and Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2002. Thought before language: How deaf and hearing children express motion events across cultures. Cognition 85: 145–74. 1044 eric pederson chapter 39 COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS gary b. palmer 1. Introduction Coming from opposite directions on the cognitive-cultural spectrum, linguists are approaching a theory of grammar in which meaning originates not only in bio- logically driven cognitive processes and embodied categories of physical and so- cial experience, but also in cultural traditions. Each of these sources of meaning provides schemas and more elaborate cognitive models that constitute semantic categories. Culture takes on heightened significance in this equation when we con- sider that even embodied categories such as that of ‘container’ may be shaped by living within dwellings of various architectures or by the sight, feel, and charac- teristic usage of household cups, bowls, saucers, and baskets (Sinha and Jensen de Lo ´ pez 2000). This perspective has been called Cultural Linguistics (Palmer 1996), but it is entirely consistent with Cognitive Linguistics as defined by Langacker (1999a: 16), who has stated that ‘‘language is an essential instrument and compo- nent of culture, whose reflection in linguistic structure is pervasive and quite significant.’’ Similarly, Lakoff has argued that metaphorical idioms involve cultural knowledge in the form of conventional images and that links in radial semantic categories are structured by experiential domains, which may be culture-specific (Lakoff 1987: 95; Lakoff and Johnson 1999: 69). 1 Making the point even more directly, Geeraerts and Grondelaers (1995: 177) claimed, ‘‘If cognitive models are cultural models, they are also cultural institutions.’’ Thus, it is clear that Cognitive Linguistics must keep one eye on culture. It is the shift of focus to culture as a source of lexicon, grammar, and metaphor that takes us into the realm of An- thropological Linguistics. This chapter focuses on the intersection of cultural knowledge with the se- mantic component of Cognitive Grammar. In the theory of Cognitive Grammar, the semantic component includes Idealized Cognitive Models and maps, domains of experience, image schemas, conceptual metaphors and metonymies, prototypes, complex categories, radial categories, and encyclopedic knowledge (Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Lakoff 1987; Langacker 1987, 1990, 1991, 2000). These elements almost always present important cultural components, in that they take specific forms which speakers learn in the course of socialization and enculturation. Cognitive models that are culturally specific may be termed cultural models. Though we may think of cultural models as primarily structuring social interaction and cultural artifacts, they may also provide specific conceptual structure for cognitive maps of salient physical domains of nature, such as geography or anatomy (Hallowell 1955; Wallace 1965; Bickel 1997; Basso 1990; Palmer 1998a). Cultural models of social action may be termed scenarios (Lakoff 1987; Palmer 1996)orcultural scripts (Schank and Abelson 1977; Frake 1981; van Dijk 1987; Wierzbicka 1994a, 1994b), depending on whether one wishes to highlight contingencies and expectations (scenarios) or fixed sequences with slots for paradigmatic alternatives (scripts). 2 Others simply refer to them as schemas (Malcolm and Sharifian 2002; Sharifian 2001, 2002)or scenes (Grady and Johnson 1997). The conceptual content of scenarios may pertain to any social institutions or domains of discourse, from the mythical and ritual to the economic and domestic. Lakoff (1987) based his famous interpretation of Dyirbal noun classifiers on the domain of myth. In Palmer and Woodman (1999) and Palmer (2006), we centered our analysis of Shona noun classifiers on the do- mestic activity of pounding grain. Wierzbicka (1994b) presented scripts of discourse on various topics in Japanese and in American Black and White English. Examples of cultural structuring of scenes with schemas, scenarios, or scripts are myriad; but a few examples will make the point. In English, we commonly conceptualize the future as lying ahead of us on the horizontal plane. When the speaker of Cora, a Uto-Aztecan language of Mexico, talks about the future, we find that time marches uphill, curving around the side of the hill on a path leading to the top (Eugene Casad, p.c.). In southwest Australia, Aboriginal English half refers to any degree of partiality (Malcolm and Sharifian 2002; also see Sharifian 2001), which suggests that these speakers apply a different cultural schema than that of non-Aboriginal English half. In Zapotec, the schemas that in English must be termed in or under are both referenced by one term whose prototype meaning is ‘stomach’ (Sinha and Jensen de Lo ´ pez 2000). Examples such as these, revealing conceptualizations that are simultaneously semantic and cultural, could be mul- tiplied into the thousands. Scholars have been aware of cross-linguistic differences 1046 gary b. palmer in construal and categorization of common experiences since at least the early nineteenth century (Humboldt [1836] 1972). If we subscribe to Langacker’s (1987: 63) assertion that semantic knowledge is encyclopedic, then semantic schemas may be discovered and recorded by system- atic ethnographic research. Linguistics that aspires to explain grammatical struc- ture requires ethnographic methods aimed at discovering and verifying those cultural models, maps, and scenarios that govern and motivate linguistic usages, where usage refers not only to grammar, but also to the pragmatic dimension of language—the uses of language to accomplish social goals (Duranti 1997). This chapter examines research in two broad semantic domains: (i) agency and emotion and (ii) spatial orientation. There is no presumption that these categories have folk or emic status in other languages; their status is merely analytic. In actual case studies, one seeks to discover how speakers themselves delineate their semantic domains. One can think of other semantic domains that linguists and anthropol- ogists have studied—color, kinship, illness, firewood, botany, anatomy, geography, and the earmarkings of reindeer come to mind. The two discussed in this chapter are less well publicized than the research on color terms and kinship, but they are prominent in contemporary research. 3 My purpose is to discuss new approaches and findings in each of the selected domains that offer promise for Anthropological Linguistics. I focus on studies demonstrating strong interdependencies between grammar and culture, but I will show that the findings do not support a strong Whorfian position on the determination of perception by grammar. 2. Agency and Emotion Emotion language has been the object of intensive study in recent years, both in Cognitive Linguistics and in anthropology (see, e.g., Niemeier and Dirven 1997; Palmer and Occhi 1999; Wierzbicka 1999;Ko ¨ vecses 2000). Much of this research has focused on the search for universals in emotion language and the debate over whether any universals can be demonstrated (see, e.g., Geeraerts and Grondelaers 1995 vs. Ko ¨ vecses 1995;Ko ¨ vecses and Palmer 1999;Ko ¨ vecses, Palmer, and Dirven 2002). In this section, I will first show that many verbal expressions of emotion are governed by conceptual scenarios in which emotions are evoked and lead to sub- sequent actions and thoughts (see also Dirven, Wolf, and Polzenhagen, this volume, chapter 46). These scenarios of emotion presume agents and patients who possess various qualities and degrees of agency that are specific to languages and cultures. The topic of agency is one that has received much attention in contemporary an- thropology, especially among critical theorists who study social inequalities per- taining to race, ethnicity, gender, or class (Ortner 1996;Ahearn1999). In linguistics, topics pertinent to agency include voice, ergativity, transitivity, and hierarchies of cognitive linguistics and anthropological linguistics 1047 animacy or empathy, all of which have received extensive study. 4 Thus, it seems worthwhile to explore connections between the anthropological notion of agency and the grammatical topic of voice. I propose that morphemes of voice predicate and profile highly abstract scenarios of agency. To illustrate, I will describe the usage of grammatical voice in the emotion language of a Tagalog melodrama in which agency is very much at stake. Emotion language is not the only domain exhibiting con- nections between voice and agency, but emotional scenes often highlight the links. 2.1. Agency and Grammatical Voice The grammar of voice should be of high interest to linguistic anthropologists as well as to linguists, because it provides vehicles for the communication of agency. Lin- guistic anthropologists take it as axiomatic that agency is not only expressed by language, but also constructed and maintained by it (Duranti 1997; Ahearn 1999). Agency is the capacity of an intentional being or social group to make choices, to perform actions that have intended consequences, to effect results, or to control situations. It is conferred by political and economic power, which are central to theories of self, gender, race, ethnicity, and class. Grammatical voice refers to how linguistic forms and constructions predicate relationships between nominal par- ticipants in a clause, particularly the degree of influence of active Agents on the objects of action or attention. Voice covers such phenomena as the English active and passive voice, the ‘‘middle’’ voice of Greek and Interior Salish languages, reflexive verbs, noncontrol verbal affixes (which may be misleadingly called ‘‘causatives’’), experiential verb forms, ‘‘impersonal’’ constructions, and antipassives (Crystal 1991; Langacker 1991). Ergative markers and active transitive constructions signal rela- tively high agency in a clausal subject or focal participant. Passive constructions, ab- solutive markers, and noncontrol or stative verb forms signal relatively low agency in subjects and focal participants. Thus, these voicing constructions are crucial to dis- courses involving the assertion, denial, and negotiation of agency. But agency is not one-dimensional. Prototypically, it involves an Agent who applies mechanical force to an object or a Patient, but it could also mean applying social influence or controlling the actions of a secondary active participant. Or it may involve nothing more than active attention and perception as contrasted with experience over which one lacks control. Thus, it would appear that there is no simple semantic model of agency that can be applied cross-linguistically and cross-culturally. Most probably, the grammar of agency is constructed more or less uniquely in each language. Here I propose that grammatical morphemes and con- structions of voice predicate highly schematic scenarios that characterize either the influence of agents on other participants, the degree of control over events affect- ing the agent or patient, or the degree of direct involvement of agents in predi- cated events or processes. These semantic qualities are independent of, but inter- act with, related potentials in the verb or verb stem. Some of these possibilities are diagrammed for Tagalog voice constructions in Palmer (2006). 1048 gary b. palmer To the extent that expressions signaling voice are based either directly or met- aphorically on scenes involving mechanical forces, their semantics may be repre- sented by Talmy’s (1988) model of force dynamics (see also De Mulder, this vol- ume, chapter 12). A well-known feature of Navajo verb morphology demonstrates that each culture arrives at its own conventional construals of the force dynamics of events. Navajo can mark a transitive verb construction with one or the other of the prefixes yi- or bi It was formerly thought that the yi- marked transitive objects and bi- marked passive subjects, but Witherspoon (1977) has shown this to be an oversimplification. The bi- is best understood as marking a scenario in which a controlling subject allows him-/her-/itself to be acted upon by a noncon- trolling agent. Relative control is defined by a cultural schema that ranks intelli- gent ‘‘talking’’ beings (mostly people) above less intelligent ‘‘calling’’ beings (mostly animals), large beings above small ones, and animate beings above inanimate ob- jects. Infants are ranked with ‘‘calling’’ beings. Thus, Navajo grammar is not simply marking Agonists and Antagonists as Agents and objects; it is also marking the Navajo construal of the mental efforts that control events (Palmer 1996: 158), a lin- guistic development whose appearance in some language or other would have been predictable from Talmy’s (1988) theory of force dynamics. In many languages, it is uncommon to explicitly mention agents of transitive constructions, so that sentence subjects are often Experiencers or objects of tran- sitive actions. In some of these languages, such as Samoan, a transitive Agent may require explicit ergative marking, while in others, such as Tagalog, transitive Agents are given no special marking, 5 but absolutives (objects, Patients, and Experiencers) are focused. In a study of village council meetings in Western Samoa, Duranti (1994: 114–43) has shown how the study of grammar in context can reveal estab- lished patterns of agency as well as bids and concessions thereof. During the be- ginnings of meetings, participants use few constructions with ergative Agents, re- vealing a reluctance to assign agency. As meetings progress, ergative constructions are used only where participants are receiving credit or blame or where the power of actors is acknowledged. This is most evident in talk about actions of the Al- mighty, which place the Lord in the ergative case (126). Duranti pointed out that speaking with ergative Agents constructs relations of power as much as it reflects them. The powerful may use ergative constructions to frame the situation, but the less powerful use them at their own risk. Section 2.2 will demonstrate how voice morphology expresses qualities of agency in Tagalog by predicating scenarios in- volving direct and indirect agency and noncontrol. 2.2. Agency and Emotion Language In linguistics, emotion is often regarded as a kind of basic experience that is expressed or predicated by particular lexemes and constructions, but in linguistic anthropology, emotion language is more likely to be treated as a kind of discourse with pragmatic consequences (Rosaldo 1984; Lutz 1988; Palmer and Brown 1998). cognitive linguistics and anthropological linguistics 1049 . focuses on the intersection of cultural knowledge with the se- mantic component of Cognitive Grammar. In the theory of Cognitive Grammar, the semantic component includes Idealized Cognitive Models. con- structions of voice predicate highly schematic scenarios that characterize either the influence of agents on other participants, the degree of control over events affect- ing the agent or patient, or the. Donald C. Olivier. 1972. The structure of the color space in naming and memory in two languages. Cognitive Psychology 3: 337–54. Hering, Ewald. 1964. Outlines of a theory of the light sense. Cambridge,