Lecture 9

Theory of domains
1 What is a domain?
2 Basic, image-schematic and abstract domains.
3 Distinctions between basic domains and image schemas.
4 Other characteristics of domains.
Introduction:
Domain theory in cognitive linguistics, also known as conceptual domain theory, is part of a
broader cognitive approach to understanding how humans process, conceptualize, and use
language. The theory posits that our knowledge of the world is organized into "domains" of
understanding, which are essentially conceptual frameworks that we use to make sense of
various aspects of our experience.
1) What is a Domain?
In the realm of Cognitive Linguistics, a domain is essentially a mental organization of related
experiences, concepts, or knowledge. It is a structured set of understandings that we use to make
sense of various aspects of the world. Think of a domain as a conceptual umbrella under which a
cluster of related ideas can be grouped. For instance, the "bird" domain includes concepts like
wings, feathers, flying, and nests. When we think about birds, we automatically activate this
network of associated concepts that help us understand and communicate about them.

1. Definition of a Domain:
- A domain is a cognitive entity, a complex of mental experiences, concepts, or
representational spaces. It is the background knowledge against which lexical concepts are
understood and used in language. Langacker emphasizes that domains encompass various levels
of complexity and organization, serving as a conceptual context for understanding terms like
"hot" or "cold" within the domain of TEMPERATURE.
2. Domain Matrix:
- Langacker extends Fillmore’s concept by proposing that a single lexical concept is typically
structured by multiple domains, termed the domain matrix. This matrix reflects our common
knowledge, as seen in the example of "birds," which involves various domains like SPACE,
PHYSICAL OBJECTS, LIFE, and TIME.
3. Basic vs. Abstract Domains:
- The theory distinguishes between basic domains that are directly tied to our embodied
experience (like SPACE and TIME) and more abstract domains (such as MARRIAGE or
LOVE), which are derived from these experiences but are more complex. Langacker's approach
encompasses both basic and abstract domains, whereas Fillmore’s work primarily addresses the
abstract domains.
4. Hierarchical Organization of Domains:
- Domains are hierarchically organized in Langacker’s model. A lexical concept may
presuppose a more basic domain and simultaneously act as a subdomain for a more complex
concept. This hierarchical structure mirrors meronymic (part-whole) relationships, as illustrated
with "ELBOW" being understood in relation to "ARM," and "ARM" in relation to "BODY."
5. Conceptual Ontology vs. Grammatical Behavior:
- Fillmore's Frame Semantics is geared towards explaining grammatical behaviors like valence
relations, while Langacker’s theory of domains is more focused on conceptual ontology—the
structure and organization of knowledge and how concepts interrelate and are understood in
terms of each other.
2) Basic, Image-Schematic, and Abstract Domains:
Domains can be categorized based on their level of abstraction and cognitive involvement:
- Basic Domains: These are directly grounded in our physical and perceptual experiences. They
involve concrete concepts such as "Body," "Force," or "Motion," which are directly observable
and experiential. For example, the "Container" domain is based on our bodily experiences with
objects that can hold other things, like a cup or a box.
- Image-Schematic Domains: Image schemas are dynamic conceptual patterns derived from our
bodily interactions, spatial relations, and perceptual motor experiences. They are more abstract
than basic domains and serve as the building blocks of thought, underlying more complex
concepts. Common image schemas include "Path," "Cycle," or "Balance," and they emerge from
basic bodily experiences but are used to structure more complex, sometimes abstract, reasoning.
- Abstract Domains: At the highest level of abstraction, these domains are not directly tied to
physical experiences but are conceptual constructs that we use to understand complex ideas such
as "Time," "Love," or "Justice." These domains are often structured by metaphorical extensions
from more concrete domains, such as understanding "Time" as a "Path" we travel along or
"Love" as a "Journey."
1. Hierarchy of Domains:
- Concepts are understood against a backdrop of domains, arranged in a hierarchy based on
complexity. Basic domains are foundational, not relying on other domains for their
understanding, and prevent the system from being circular.
2. Origins of Basic Domains:
- Basic domains originate from pre-conceptual experiences, such as sensory-perceptual
experiences. This is in line with the cognitive linguistic rejection of innate concepts, emphasizing
experientialism and emergentism. For example, our understanding of SPACE comes from direct
sensory experiences and does not derive from other conceptual domains.
3. Hierarchy of Complexity Example:
- The article illustrates the hierarchy with the example of "knuckle," which is part of a complex
chain: KNUCKLE → HAND → ARM → BODY → SPACE. "SPACE" sits at the base of this
hierarchy, not presupposed by another domain, while "KNUCKLE," being more complex, is at
the top.
4. Subjective and Sensory-Perceptual Experiences:
- Basic domains are informed by both internal experiences (like emotions or awareness of
time) and external sensory-perceptual experiences (like vision or touch). This dichotomy is the
foundation for conceptualizing domains such as EMOTION and TIME.
5. Basic Domains vs. Image Schemas:
 - Basic domains are directly linked to pre-conceptual experiences, while image schemas are
abstracted from recurrent patterns of experience and contribute to the domain matrices of a wide
range of concepts. An example is the CONTAINER schema, which is derived from SPACE and
MATERIAL OBJECT experiences but is not as fundamental as basic domains like SPACE.
6. Attributes of Basic Domains:
- The article identifies three attributes for basic domains: they are directly tied to sensory
experience, do not presuppose other domains, and may have a narrower distribution within the
conceptual system compared to image schemas.
7. Distinctions Between Basic Domains and Image Schemas:
- Image schemas are imagistic and derive from sensory experience, contributing to many
domain matrices. Basic domains, however, can be non-imagistic, as some arise from subjective
experiences like TIME.
8. Abstract Domains:
- Abstract domains are those that presuppose other domains and are higher up in the
complexity hierarchy. They are often indirect and mediated by intermediate concepts.
3) Distinctions between Basic Domains and Image Schemas:
While basic domains are closely related to sensory and perceptual experiences, image schemas
are more abstract and serve as the foundation for conceptual development and reasoning. For
example, the "Balance" schema can be understood from the physical experience of balancing
objects or our own bodies, but it extends into abstract domains when we talk about "balanced
arguments" or "emotional balance."
4) Other Characteristics of Domains:
Domains are dynamic and not fixed. They can evolve as our experiences and societal practices
change. This dynamism allows for the development of new metaphors and conceptualizations.
Domains are also inherently cultural; different cultural backgrounds can influence how a domain
is structured and understood. This means that language and thought are not universal but are
shaped by cultural experiences.
Moreover, domains interact with one another. The structure of one domain can be metaphorically
mapped onto another, as when we use the structure of the "Container" domain to understand
"Mind" (e.g., "full of ideas"). This interactivity is what allows for the rich metaphorical language
that characterizes human communication.
Additional characteristics of domains in Langacker's cognitive linguistic theory.
1. Dimensionality of Domains:
- Domains are structured along dimensions, with some being one-dimensional and others
multi-dimensional. For instance:
- TIME, TEMPERATURE, and PITCH are organized linearly, making them one-
dimensional. They are structured as sequences or scales.
- SPACE can be two-dimensional, like a drawing on a page, or three-dimensional, like a
physical object in the real world.
 - COLOUR involves three dimensions: brightness, hue, and saturation, which correspond
to distinct neuro-perceptual mechanisms in our visual perception.
2. Abstract Domains and Dimensionality:
- Abstract domains can also be organized dimensionally. The domain of CARDINAL
NUMBERS is an example of an abstract domain ordered along a single dimension.
- However, not all domains fit into this dimensional framework neatly. For example, the
domain of EMOTION does not have an obvious dimensional structure.
3. Locational vs. Configurational Domains:
- Domains differ based on whether they are locational or configurational:
- Locational Domains : These have points along their dimensions that are calibrated relative
to adjacent points. COLOUR is used as an example of a locational domain because each color
experience is a distinct point on the hue dimension.
- Configurational Domains : These are not calibrated in the same way. The domain of
SPACE is cited as configurational because the concept of a shape like a triangle does not
change based on its location in space—it remains a triangle and does not become a square.
Langacker emphasizes these characteristics as part of 's broader attempt to understand the
architecture of human conceptual organization. By identifying how domains are dimensionally
structured and whether they are locational or configurational, we can gain deeper insight into
how knowledge and concepts are organized in our minds.
5) Key concepts within domain theory:
1. Conceptual Domains: These are specific knowledge structures that we use to organize our
experience and understanding of the world. For example, the "container" domain is a conceptual
metaphor that we often use without even realizing it. We talk about "being in love," "out of
danger," or "under pressure," applying the physical notion of a container to abstract concepts.
2. Domain Mapping: This is the process by which we apply knowledge from one domain (the
source domain) to another (the target domain). In metaphorical expressions, this often involves
mapping our understanding of a more concrete or familiar domain (like spatial relations) onto a
more abstract domain (like time). For instance, we use spatial terms to describe time when we
say things like "We're approaching the deadline" or "He's behind on his work."
3. Embodied Experience: Cognitive linguists argue that our conceptual domains are grounded
in our physical and bodily experience. The ways we interact with the world physically—how we
perceive it, move within it, and manipulate it—provide the fundamental structures that shape our
concepts and language.
4. Cross-Domain Relationships: Domains are not isolated but can be related to each other in
complex ways. For example, the "journey" domain can be linked to the "life" domain, leading to
expressions such as "life is a journey," where experiences in life are understood through the more
concrete experiences of going on a journey.
5. Idealized Cognitive Models (ICMs): Domains often include "idealized cognitive models,"
which are simplified, typical, or "ideal" versions of a concept that people refer to when thinking
or speaking about that domain. For example, in the "family" domain, an ICM might include a
mother, a father, and children, even though many real-world families do not fit this structure.
6. Culture and Experience: Cognitive linguists recognize that domains are influenced by
cultural and individual experiences. This means that different cultures and individuals can
develop unique domain structures based on their distinct experiences and cultural practices.
7. Flexibility and Dynamism: Domains are not static; they can evolve over time as our
experiences and cultural practices change. This dynamism allows for the development of new
metaphors, conceptualizations, and linguistic expressions.
Summary of the main points of Langacker's concept of profile/base organization within the
domain matrix of lexical concepts:
1. Lexical Concepts and Domain Matrix:
- Lexical concepts, which are the meanings associated with words, are understood in relation to
a domain matrix. This matrix is a network of domains that provides a comprehensive knowledge
inventory for a given concept.
2. Differential Importance of Knowledge Facets:
- While a word can access an extensive network of knowledge, only certain parts of this
network are crucial for understanding the word's meaning. For instance, the word "hypotenuse"
connects to a wide array of knowledge about geometry, but only the concept of a right-angled
triangle is essential for understanding the meaning of "hypotenuse."
3. Scope, Profile, and Base:
- Langacker proposes that the scope of a lexical concept consists of a profile and a base. The
scope encompasses the necessary part of the knowledge network for understanding a concept.
- The profile is the specific entity or relationship that the word denotes, such as the longest
side of a right-angled triangle for "hypotenuse."
- The base is the broader domain necessary to make sense of the profile, such as the entire
concept of a right-angled triangle, including all its sides.
4. Profile/Base Relationship:
- The meaning of a word arises from the combination of its profile and base, not from either
one in isolation. For "hypotenuse," the meaning is only clear when considering the base (the
triangle) that provides the context for the profile (the triangle's longest side).
5. Multiple Profiles from the Same Base:
- A single base can lead to multiple profiles. The article uses the example of a circle, which can
be the base for various profiles like arc, radius, diameter, and circumference. Each of these
concepts highlights a different aspect of the circle.
6. Complex Example - The Word "Uncle":
- The concept of "uncle" is shown to have a complex domain matrix involving abstract
domains such as genealogy, personhood, gender, and familial relationships.
- For the word "uncle," the base is the network of familial relations, and the profile is a specific
entity within that network: a male sibling of one's mother or father.
Understanding lexical concepts involves recognizing the specific profile of a concept in the
context of its essential base, reflecting how words serve as access points to structured knowledge
networks within our cognition.
Conclusion:
In closing, the Theory of Domains in Cognitive Linguistics offers a powerful lens through which
we can understand the relationship between language, thought, and culture. By examining how
we group concepts and experiences into domains, we gain insight into how meaning is
constructed and how language is a reflection of our cognitive and cultural life. Thank you for
your attention, and I look forward to our discussion on the implications of this theory for
understanding language across different cultures and contexts.
Domain theory in cognitive linguistics is particularly influential in the study of metaphor and
metonymy. It helps explain how we can understand a phrase like "The White House stated
today..." by recognizing that "The White House" (a building) is being used metonymically to
refer to the people who work within it, and that we are applying our knowledge of how humans
communicate to understand this phrase, even though it literally describes a building speaking.
By analyzing language and thought through the lens of domain theory, cognitive linguists aim to
uncover the underlying structures of cognition that shape the way we use language and the way
we understand the world around us.
References
1. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, Vol.
1. Stanford University Press.
2. Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame Semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, edited by The
Linguistic Society of Korea, 111-137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
3. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the
Mind. University of Chicago Press.
4. Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and
Reason. University of Chicago Press.
5. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. MIT Press.
6. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
7. Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and Image Schemas. Cognitive Linguistics,
10(1), 1-31.
8. Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh University
Press.
9. Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford University Press.
10. Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. J. (2006). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Longman.