Jul 2026· Journal of innovative research and technology· Vol 1, pp. 1-10· 0 citations
Abstract
Cognitive Stylistics occupies an uncomfortable but productive position — caught between cognitive linguistics, literary theory, and psychology, answerable to all three and fully at home in none. The question driving it is deceptively straightforward: what actually happens in a reader’s mind when they move through a text, and how does the language itself shape that experience? This paper takes that question seriously and follows it through the field’s major theoretical commitments, historical development, and methodological range. The argument developed here draws on the work of Reuven Tsur, Mark Turner, Gilles Fauconnier, Elena Semino, Peter Stockwell, and others working broadly within the cognitive-stylistic tradition. What emerges, I want to suggest, is that the field offers something neither formalist analysis nor reader-response criticism has managed to provide on its own: a principled account of aesthetic experience that is theoretically coherent and, at least in aspiration, empirically responsible. The frameworks it has developed — schema theory, mental spaces, conceptual metaphor, blending theory, Text World Theory — are not merely borrowed from cognitive science and applied wholesale to literature. They have been reworked, tested against textual evidence, and refined through sustained engagement with the specific challenges that literary language poses. The paper also steps back occasionally from methodological detail to ask a broader question: where does Cognitive Stylistics stand in relation to ongoing debates about literary meaning, and what does it actually contribute to them? The position it takes, and one this paper broadly endorses, is that the field's distinctive value lies in its refusal to treat text and reader as separate problems to be solved independently. Meaning, on this account, is neither lodged in the text waiting to be extracted nor freely constructed by readers unconstrained by linguistic structure. It happens in the encounter between the two — between a text shaped by deliberate and recoverable choices and a reader who is embodied, historically situated, and bringing a particular mind to the act of reading
Linguistics has always stood against the belief, widespread across many cultures, that the true, primary, correct form of a language is located in its written version. Roy Harris called this belief ‘scriptism’, and made it one of the component fallacies of his ‘integrationist’ critique of mainstream linguistics, which he regarded as ‘segregationist’ in its aim of separating a language system from actual verbal communicative acts. Yet Harris’s treatment of spoken and written language is not entirely consistent with his own critique. In particular, it takes for granted that writing changes not only the way people think about language, but their cognitive capacity generally. The present article explores other arguments that have been made for and against such a view, and proposes that integrationists should be sceptical of Harris’s position concerning scriptism, and should think about ways of undertaking empirical research into the question of whether literacy entails or is required for a particular way of conceiving language, or whether on the contrary literacy already requires such a conception.
J. Joseph· RENTAS: Jurnal Bahasa, Saste...· 0 citations
This article proposes a reconceptualization of action and cognition within Cognitive Linguistics (CL) by re-examining its foundational metaphorical models. While meaning in the field is often defined as embodied and usage-based, its dominant metaphors remain static, privileging stability over process. Methodologically, the research in this paper adopts the principles of the “Cognitive Science of Philosophy,” engaging in an analysis of the metaphors underlying CL. This involves a critical self-reflection on the static metaphors in CL and a proposal of a new, dynamic metaphorical model of activity is flow to better attune the field’s tools with its prevailing process-oriented modes of thought. The proposed model synthesizes major philosophical sources, notably phenomenology and pragmatism, alongside the work of Gilles Deleuze and Bruno Latour. This new framework models habit as a dynamic sedimentation shaping a “terrain,” choice as a modulation within it, and priming as the microgenetic link between them. As shown in this article, the model enables a reframing of various issues concerning metaphor theory, meaning construction, discourse analysis, and translation studies.
Tomáš Figura, M. Kuźniak· Phenomenology and the Cognit...· 0 citations
This paper argues for the centrality of methodological awareness in writing the history of philosophy. It does this by analysing and comparing different interpretive proposals presented by those engaged with past philosophical texts. Taking the literature on Thomas Hobbes from past and present century as an example, it shows the
merits
of conscious contextualisation in its variety. This claim is also substantiated the other way round: by looking at the contextualisational
deficits
exhibited in some canonical readings of Hobbes. The analysis' salient takeaway is simple: sensibility towards the extratextual embeddedness of the author correlates with a high methodological consciousness as such. This correlation manifests itself in a three‐fold manner. First, pursuing extratextual contexts on the side of the author enhances the effort to explicitly mark the contexts the interpreter is seeking after. Second, the interpreter is thereby more prone to actually work with what has been sought, that is, to examine the sources that correspond to the contexts concerned. Third, it results in a considerable reduction of what can be called an uncontrolled break‐in of contexts that are centred around the reader herself: a break‐in that typically shows itself by the disjunction between the context and the source that is supposed to attest to it, or by the lack of a source altogether.
Through a new formalist reading of English- and Spanish-language short stories generated by ChatGPT-5, it is demonstrated that distributional regularities in language modelling scale upward, producing gendered and culturally normative stylistic patterns.
This paper interprets Mimesis as the last major philosophy of literary history that still preserves a meaningful connection to the Romantic-Idealist tradition. It reconstructs the book’s theoretical and methodological foundations and shows how Auerbach manages to bring together two aims that seem hard to reconcile. On one side, he is deeply committed to philological tradition, to an inductive method, and to close readings of individual texts. On the other, he aspires to build a broad historical synthesis. The structure of Mimesis is shaped by a tension between foreground and background, between detailed textual analysis and the implicit categories that underlie it. In this way, the book strikes a balance between positivist and idealist historicism. Auerbach presents European literary history as a sequence of three major mimetic paradigms – classical, Christian, and modern – each reflecting a different idea of reality. The paper ends by examining the political dimension of Auerbach’s narrative. Rather than affirming hierarchical models of representation, Mimesis points toward an egalitarian vision of human life and seeks to preserve the idea of totality in an age marked by fragmented knowledge and the decline of grand.
G. Mazzoni· Polythesys. Filologia, Inte...· 0 citations
This article interprets Grice’s “Meaning Revisited” (1982) to argue that the hallmark of non-natural meaning (meaning
NN
) is not exhausted by the second-order intention condition that featured centrally in “Meaning” (1957). Instead, the how-possibly story Grice tells about how non-natural meaning evolved from natural meaning foregrounds the centrality of value, evaluation, and rationality. But how does meaning
NN
implicate these normative notions? Drawing on Don Ross, this article contrasts
personality
with human
selves
, where selves are simplified and mutually understandable constructions that help stabilize coordination in iterated, culture-dependent games. Thus, meaningful
NN
communication doesn’t just convey the contents of one’s mind to another, but is essential to the task of rendering oneself culturally legible and evaluable as a narratively constructed self. The upshot of the article relocates the human/non-human primate boundary: non-human primates may lack meaning
NN
, not because they lack the capacity to formulate second-order intentions, but because they lack the capacity to self-narrate in terms of culturally specific roles.