Зміст книги
перейти до управління читачемперейти до навігаціїперейти до деталей бронюванняперейти до зупинок
15
aimingatabetterself-understanding.26Iwilltrytomaketherelationbetween
scienceandhermeneutics–centralforthesecondlayerofthiswork–somewhat
clearerin0.1.Naturally,thisisabroadsubject,debatedonbothsides,andone
cannotgointodetails.Thepresentstudyasawholemaybetakenasanexempli-
ficationofthatdialogue.27
Asforthemethod,primarilyIreportresearchfoundrelevantinCLtothrow
lightonthenotionof“linguisticcategorization”,asithasbeentheoreticallydis-
cussedanddevelopedinparticularexamplesofnetworkmodellingofpreposi-
tionalpolysemy.Mycontributionistoplacethatresearchinthewiderperspec-
tiveonlanguageofferedbyhermeneutics,inordertorevealsomeofitsinherent
limitations.Importantly,thisshouldnotbeviewedasanegativetask,butinthe
contextofRicoeur’sremark:“Anawarenessofthevalidityofagivenmethodis
essentiallylinkedtoanawarenessofitslimits”(1985:150).28
Asfortheorderofpresentation,thefirstlayerofthebook–the“casestudy”
–consistsoffourchapters.InChapter1,Ipresentanddiscussthe“foundational”
accountsofnetworkmodellingbyLangackerandLakoff.Chapter2containssev-
eralattemptstoimproveLakoff’smodelofover.InChapter3,Ipresentanddis-
cuss(mostlyfromthediachronicperspective)aLangackerianmodelofthePolish
lexemeza(-).Chapter4investigatestheissueofthecognitive“diachronywithin
synchrony”.Thesecond“hermeneutical”layerofthebook,whichprovidesthe
frameworkforthecasestudy,consistsoftwoparts.InthepreliminaryChapter0,
Itrytocharacterize“thehermeneuticalsituation”,orthe,primafacie,nontrans-
parentbackgroundoftheissuestakenupinthecasestudy.InChapter5,Ioppose
thehermeneuticalviewoflanguagetothepositionadoptedbyCL(andlinguistics
ingeneral).
26LetmeaddthatIviewmyselfasamemberoftheCLcommunityinaratheruncomfort-
ableroleofadoubtingThomas,whoquestionsonthehermeneuticalgroundsthe“objectiveness”of
constructsoftentakenforgranted,e.g.thecognitiveunconscious,conceptualmetaphorsorimage
schemas.Theroleisuncomfortablebecauseitisonethingtoclaimingeneralthatsomeconstructs
donotmakesenseasexplanatorydevicesofaspecifiedkind–e.g.theunconsciousasconceivedby
LakoffandJohnsonwascriticisedlongbeforebyRicoeurinreferenceto“naiveinterpretations”of
Freud(1985:212–213)–whileitisquiteadifferentthingtobeabletoshowitinthetermsaccepted
withintheCLcommunity.Thelattertaskwasundertakene.g.byZlatev(2007b)inhiscriticismof
thecognitiveunconscious,and(2007c)inhiscriticismofimageschemas.Someproblemswiththe
conceptualmetaphorsparadigmarepointedoutbyCroft,Cruse(2004:198–204);seealsoOrtony
(1988).
27Whichtookplacemostlyinthenaturalandsocialsciences,e.g.C.Taylor(1985,1995).As
forcognitivescience,thehermeneuticalpositionwaspresentedbye.g.Dreyfus(1992)andDreyfus,
Dreyfus(1986).FirstgenerationCL(Chomsky’sTG)wasdefendedagainstahermeneutical(Witt-
gensteinian)challengebyPateman(1987).
28Ricoeur’scommentconcernsstructuralismandtheissueofits“initialtruth”,oftenhardlyvis-
ibleinlaterphasesofitsdevelopmentandinsomefar-reachingapplications.Thus,thetaskoffinding
defensiblelimitsofamethodislinkedtothisinitialstageofdivergenceandtheprocessofgrowth,
whenaparticularperspectiveestablishesitselfagainstavailablepositionsandisfoundmoregener-
allyattractive.Asisnormalinhistory,itmaybefoundattractiveforvarious(alsowrong)reasons.
