Welcome to my homepage !!!

 

 

 

The prime facts of language lie, as it were, within the easy grasp of every man who speaks – yet more, of every man who has studied other languages than his own – and to direct intelligent attention toward that which is essential, to point out the general in the midst of the particular and the fundamental underneath the superficial, in matters of common knowledge, is a method of instruction which cannot but bear good fruit.   

 

William Dwight Whitney,

The Life and Growth of Language (1875)

 

 

 

The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.

 

Ludwig Wittgenstein,

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1922)

 

 

    My name is Marcin Grygiel. I am a teacher of English in the Institute of Russian Studies and a resercher in the Section of Theoretical Linguistics which makes part of the English Department. My research interests include cognitive linguistics, conceptual blending, linguistic relativity, historical semantics, semantic change, meaning variation. So far, my research has focused on English historical near-synonyms of man used in the sense ‘male human being’.

 

Degrees:

MA in English (from UMCS 1996)

Thesis: Semantic Aspects of Complementation in English and Portuguese

PhD in English linguistics (from University of Rzeszów 2005)

Thesis: Towards a Cognitive Theory of Semantic Change: Semantic Development of English Historical Near-synonyms of MAN/MALE HUMAN BEING in Panchronic Perspective.

 

Professional organisations:

Polish Association for the Study of English (PASE)

International Cognitive Linguistics Association (ICLA)

Polish Society of Cognitive Science

 

Scholarships:

Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal, 1997

Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal, 1996

Nene College of Education, Northampton, UK, 1992

 

Conference participation:

14th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Bergamo, August 2006

The 33rd LACUS Forum, Toronto, July-August 2006

Świat Słowian w języku i kulturze, Pobierowo, April 2006

4th Medieval English Studies Symposium, Poznań, November 2005

New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, Brighton, UK, October 2005

17th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Madison, USA, August, 2005

Perspectives on Metonymy, Łódź, May 2005

New Approaches in English Historical Lexis, Helsinki, March 2005

Current Trends in Cognitive Linguistics, Hamburg, December, 2004

3rd Medieval English Studies Symposium, Poznań, November 2004

Cognitive Systems as Representational Systems, Toruń, September 2004

13^th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Vienna, August 2004.

3^rd Chełm Symposium “The Do’s and Don’t’s of Teaching English at the College/University Level”, Chełm, April 2003.

International Language Conference “Insights into Teaching English”, Rzeszow , May 2001.

8^th IATEFL Annual Conference, Katowice , November 1999.

 

 

 

Publications:

 

 

Refereed journal articles:

Grygiel, M. 2005. “The methodology of analysing semantic change in historical perspective.” [in:] G. A. Kleparski (ed.) Studia Anglica Resoviensia 3, 25-47, Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo UR.

Grygiel, M and G. A. Kleparski 2005. ”Semantic change and chaos theory.” [in:] G. A. Kleparski (ed.)  Studia Anglica Resoviensia 3, 48-58, Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo UR.

Grygiel, M. 2005. “Non-linearity and panchronic dimension of semantic changes affecting the OE synonyms of MAN.” [in:] A. Waseliński and J. Wełna (eds.) Anglica 14, 127-132, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo UW.

Grygiel, M. 2004. “Semantic changes within the domain BOY in panchronic perspective.” [in:] J. Fisiak (ed.) Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 40, 153-162, Poznań: Wydawnictwo UAM.

Grygiel, M. 2004. “Semantic change as a process of conceptual blending.” [in:] F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (ed.)  Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 2, 285-304, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Grygiel, M. 2003. “Back to basics: A cognitive analysis of conversion de-adjectival nominalisations in English.” [in:] G. A. Kleparski (ed.)  Studia Anglica Resoviensia 2, 32-41, Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo UR.

Grygiel, M. and G. A. Kleparski, 2003. “Why it is better to have false friends than no friends at all: The role of the native language in reading comprehension; autonomous vs. cognitive semantic theories in practice.” [in:] G. A. Kleparski (ed.) The Do’s and Don’t’s of Teaching English at the College/University Level, 22-28, Chełm: NKJO-Chełm Publishers.

 

Other publications:

Grygiel, M and G. A. Kleparski (to appear) Main Trends in Historical Semantics. Prefaced by Christian Kay. Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo UR

Grygiel, M. 2006. “On the cyclicity of meaning alternations in English historical synonyms of MAN/MALE HUMAN BEING.” [in:] R. McConchie et al. (eds.) Selected Proceedings of the 2005 Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis (HEL-LEX), 60-68. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Kleparski, G.A. and M. Grygiel, 2003. “Protestants, Puritans, Papists and logomachy: Some remarks on the role of social factors in the rise of new words and meanings.” [in:] Gazeta Uniwersytecka 1/15, Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo UR.

Kleparski, G.A. and M. Grygiel, 2003. “Assassins, fanatics and quislings: Towards their etymological roots.” [in:] Gazeta Uniwersytecka 4/18, Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo UR.

Kleparski, G.A. and M. Grygiel, 2003. “On the origin of English bimbo”. [in:] Gazeta Uniwersytecka 7/21, Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo UR.

 

 

My curriculum vitae

 

 

 

What is conceptual blending ?

 

Conceptual blending is a widespread, general and flexible cognitive mechanism which applies over many areas of conceptualisation such as metaphor and metonymy. Fauconnier and Turner (2002) argue that it is, in fact, a fundamental aspect of all human experience and is involved in everything from perceptual processing, through the sensation of pain, reception of music to knowledge of cause and effect. Fauconnier and Turner (2002) call conceptual blending a great mental capacity that gave human beings the ability to invent new concepts and, subsequently, create art, science, religion, culture and language.

Fauconnier (1997:149) observes that “blending is in principle a simple operation, but in practice gives rise to myriad possibilities”. Central to the theory is the notion of the conceptual integration network - an array of mental spaces in which the processes of conceptual blending unfold. Blending involves 3 optional processes. During a stage called composition, structure from input mental spaces fed by information from discrete cognitive domains is selectively projected to a separate mental space called the blend. All this takes place within a generic space that contains more abstract organisation common to all spaces in the network and defines the core cross-space mapping between them. Through completion and elaboration, the blend develops structure not provided by the inputs. Inferences, arguments, and ideas created in the emergent structure of the blend can have effect in cognition. Mental spaces, on the other hand, are described as small conceptual packets constructed as we think and talk, for purposes of local understanding and action. Consequently, blending involves the establishment of partial mappings between cognitive models in different spaces in the network, and the projection of conceptual structure from space to space that can assume this basic four-space form:

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. The basic four-space integration network (Fauconnier and Turner 2002: 46).

 

 

What is cognitive linguistics ?

 

Cognitive linguistics is a broad movement within modern linguistics which includes a variety of approaches, such as conceptual metaphor theory, prototype semantics or theory of conceptual blending. They are unified by the belief that language forms an integral part of human cognition. Its framework was developed by scholars like George Lakoff and Ronald Langacker. Basically cognitive linguistics relates language to conceptual structure and human experience. Meaning is said to reside in conceptualisation, and grammar is not seen as autonomous. Cognitive processing plays an important role in this model, and basic cognitive abilities such as viewing, distancing and scanning are incorporated into the theory.

Conceptual structure is meaningful because it comes from and is linked to our pre-conceptual bodily experiences. There is no objective, disembodied truth, and consequently the world is not objectively reflected in language. Language is much more than just a mirror, it describes our individual and collective experiences of the world. Conceptual and linguistic universals arise from the fact that we have similar bodies and brains, that we inhabit similar environments and that we communicate with each other.

Cognitive linguistics is by nature cross-disciplinary and among the most obviously related fields are psychology, neuroscience, artificial intelligence and general cognitive science. In my view, this openness is part of what makes cognitive linguistics such an exciting venue. Much of the research has focused on metaphor, semantic change, prototype effects, blends, prepositional expressions and many other topics. There has also been a great deal of work carried out in establishing appropriate formalisms. Key concepts include metaphors, prototype theory, radial structures, mental spaces and embodiment.

 

 

What is semantic change ?

 

Semantic change is a linguistic phenomenon that allows words to mean something different from what they used to mean in a given time. For example, OE lece, a predecessor of ModE leech, used to mean ‘physician, doctor’. The problem of semantic change has preoccupied linguists ever since the beginning of the 19^th century. It was at that time when many students of language first realised that sense alterations can no longer be treated as corruption or degeneration and tried to bring them into some order and system. This outburst of interest in meaning and its development led to the formation of a new area of linguistic study, the science of semasiology, that later gave rise to semantics. Although its golden period is long gone, the study of diachronic changes in meaning has never been abandoned entirely.

In my research, I treat semantic change as a natural consequence of the dynamic and creative nature of human cognitive capacities such as, for example, the ability to compress, remember, reason, categorise or need for reclassifying and reorganising constant flow of information we are confronted with. In my approach, semantic change is perceived as an unconscious act of creation resulting from the basic mental mechanism of putting two things together, otherwise referred to as conceptual blending. Paradoxically, language is possible only if it allows a limited number of combinable linguistic forms to cover a very large number of meaningful situations. Thanks to conceptual blending, we are able to envisage a new experience in well known and familiar expressions, or see what is diffuse, abstract, too general and emotionally bland from human-friendly perspective. Constructing cross-domain mappings and putting together mental spaces we can arrive at new meanings that may become entrenched and conventionalised in language leading to semantic change.