Document Type : Research Paper


Department of English and linguistics, Faculty of language and literature, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran


The present study aims at investigating English lexicon polysemy within the cognitive approach to study the way based on which Persian language learners learn English lexicon with the concepts used in cognitive linguistics such as, prototype, polysemy, categorization, etc. The nature of the methodology used in this qualitative research for studying the meanings of English lexicon is a descriptive-analytic method. After the semantic analysis of the English lexicon based on the model of Dirven & Verspoor (2004), it was found that the meanings of the lexicon are classifiable based on theoretical procedures on cognitive semantics. The authors are trying to show the cognitive concepts in cognitive linguistics can be used for teaching English lexicon. The findings, generally, showed that the unconscious knowledge of learners in learning the cognitive structure of the meanings of the lexicon has a meaningful relationship with learning. The results also revealed that the lexicon has a semantic network semantically, in which the notion of core or prototype is located in the center of the semantic network and the rest of the meanings can be examined as the peripheral meanings of a lexicon.


Main Subjects

Almalki, S. M. (2017). “Conceptualizing Language Learning Metaphors in the Saudi EFL Context: Practicality, Applicability & Appropriacy”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(7): 277-285
Berlin, K. & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: their Universality and Evolution. University of California Press.
Breal, M. (1897).  Essai de semantique. Science des significations. Paris: Hachette.
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: University Press.
Dabir Moghadam, M. (2003). Theoretical Linguistics: Emergence and development of generative Grammar. (2nd Edition, Tehran: SAMT Publication) [In Persian]
Dehghan, M. (2017). “Learning English Vocabulary and the Effect of Basic Level from a Cognitive Perspective”. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 4(1):36-45
Dehghan, M. (2018). Polysemic Analysis of the Preposition /læ/, /wæ/, /­wægærd / and /­wæpi­/ in Kurdish within Principled- Polysemy Approach. Language Related Research. Vol. 9, Issue 2, 1-33. [In Persian]
Dirven, R. & Verspoor, M. (2004). Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia
Evans, V. (2011). Language and cognition: The view from Cognitive Linguistics. In Language and Bilingual Cognition, edited by Vivian Cook & Benedetta Bassetti, 69-109.  
Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ and Edinburgh: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Edinburgh University Press.
Fayazi, M. S. & Kambuziya, A. (2007a). The Metaphorical Origin of polysemic Sensitive Verbs in Persian from Cognitive Semantics.. A Quarterly Journal of Persian Language and Literature. [In Persian]
Fayazi, M. S. & Kambuziya, A. (2007b). Cognitive Semantics and Structural Semantics. Pazand Magazine. [In Persian]
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (1994). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course.  Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 270
Geeraerts, D. (1995). Cognitive Linguistics: Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: J. Benjamin Pub. Co.
Geeraerts, D. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (2007). The Oxford Handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford University Press
      Hassandokht, F.S. (2008). The Study of Metaphors in Farrokhzad's Poems from cognitive perspective. Tehran: TMU. [In Persian]
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundation of Cognitive Grammar.vol.1, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.1
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1987). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lee, D. (2001).Cognitive Linguistics, an Introduction. Oxford University Press, New York. Xi-xii.
Nerlich, B. & Clarke, D. D. (1998). The linguistic repudiation of Wundt. History of Psychology. 1(3), 179–204.
Olson, C. B. & Land R. (2008). Taking a Reading/Writing Intervention for Secondary English Language Learners on the Road: Lessons Learned from the Pathway Project. Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 42, No. 3.
Postal, P. M. (1969). Underlying and superficial linguistic structure. In David A. Reibel and Sanford A. Schane eds., Modern studies in English: Readings in transformational grammar. 19-37. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice –Hall.
Pavlović V. (2010). Cognitive Linguistics and English Language Teaching at Englis Departments. FACTA UNIVERSITATIS. Linguistics and Literature Vol. 8, No 1, 2010, pp. 79 - 90
Quine, W.V.O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rasekh Mahand, M. (2009). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics: Theories and Concepts. Tehran: SAMT Publication. [In Persian]
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive Representation of Semantic Categories. Journal ofexperimental psychology.Vol. 104, N. 3, 192-233
Taylor, J. R. (1995). Linguistic Categorization. Oxford, New York: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press.
Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. 17.
Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Linguistics and Language Teaching. London: Edward Arnold.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Yanqing C. (2009). A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to Classroom English Vocabulary Instruction for EFL Learners in Mainland China. Journal of English Language Teaching. V. 2, No. 1.
Zolfaghari, M. (2005). The Encyclopedia of cognitive Linguistics Terms. M.A. Thesis. Tehran: TMU. [In Persian] .