Bruce,

Thanks for your nice reply. Your response raises the extremely important 
theoretical question of explanation vs. description, which I think is 
not an appropriate discussion for this list.

An explanation answers the question "why does this happen?" It seems to 
me that most of my responses to your points did just that. I'm not sure 
what it would mean to "formalize" construal. Does that mean making it 
conform to rules of logic? Formal logic is not a very good way to model 
how the human mind works. The mental capacities that CG draws on for its 
basic explanatory constructs are drawn from cognitive psychology rather 
than mathematics, logic, or information theory; some linguists I know at 
Berkeley are also examining brain-function correlates through PET scans 
and whatnot. Those constructs are gestalt conceptualization, including 
both holistic processing and foregrounding/backgrounding (these are the 
elements of construal), categorization, schematization and schema 
formation and storage, the imagination, and other basic skills (these 
are laid out in some detail in the first foundational book on CG, 
"Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I" by Langacker). Lakoff & Fauconnier 
and Turner have dealt a lot with the role of imagination in language, 
looking into metaphor and blending as ways the mind organizes the world 
and then expresses that organization through language.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba   Associate Professor, Linguistics
English Department, California Polytechnic State University
One Grand Avenue  • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. (805)-756-2184  •  Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone.  756-2596
• E-mail: [log in to unmask] •      Home page: 
http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/