Lexical Meaning in Biblical Hebrew and Cognitive Semantics 87 1. Some Basic Assumptions of Cognitive Semantics and its Implications(11) Cognitive semantics represents an experimental approach to meaning. In some respects it links up with pre-structuralist and romantic approaches to linguistic meaning. It does not believe that the meaning of linguistic expressions can be determined merely by a structural analysis of linguistic signs (e.g. their syntagmatic and paradigmatic distribution) in abstraction from the society that uses them. It also does not regard language and linguistic knowledge as an autonomous human faculty, as is argued in Chomskyean circles, nor that the lexicon of a language is one of a number of independent modules that make up this special human faculty. Instead, a basic assumption of cognitive semantics (which is backed by substantial empirical evidence) is that “the cognitive processes that govern language use, in particular the construction and communication of meaning by language, are in principle the same as other cognitive abilities” (12). Furthermore, “common human experience of maturing and interacting in society motivates basic conceptual structures which make understanding and language possible” (13). The lexical stock (alongside the grammatical constructions) of a language is regarded as representing a set of conceptual categories that reflect the way in which a society conceptualizes itself and its environment. Geeraerts describes these categories as a “repository of world knowledge, a structured collection of meaningful categories that help us deal with new experiences and store information about old ones” (14). However, this is not a full-scale return to a strong romantic position concerning the relationship between language and thought (15). Humans tend to categorize the entities of the world in which they live in terms of categories at various levels, e.g. animals>fish>freshwater fish>black bass>large-mouthed bass. Folk taxonomies tend to differ from biological taxonomies, because cultures differ concerning the attributes that they regard as the most salient in the classification process, e.g. a bat’s ability to fly may be more salient than its ability to give birth, so that it would often be classified as a bird rather than as a mammal (16). However, folk taxonomies also show similarities across cultures (17): (1) (11) Compare also VAN DER MERWE, Biblical Hebrew Lexicology: A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective. (12) W. CROFT – D.A. CRUSE, Cognitive Linguistics (Cambridge 2004) 2. — This means, among other things, that psychological models of cognition and memory shed light on the way linguistic knowledge is organized, in particular how categorization takes place. (13) J. I. SAEED, Semantics (Oxford 1997) 331. (14) D. GEERAERTS, “Structuring of Word Meaning I: An Overview”, Lexikologie. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von Wörtern und Wortschätzen. (eds. D.A. CRUSE – F. HUNDSNURSCHER – M. JOB – P.R. LUTZEIER) (Berlin – New York 2002) 112-113. (15) Cf. the findings of S.C. LEVINSON, Space in Language and Cognition. Explorations in Cognitive Diversity (Cambridge 2003) (16) Cf. the way that animals and plants are classified by speakers of Biblical Hebrew. Cf. A.S. GILBERT, “The Native Fauna of the Ancient Near East”, A History of the Ancient Animal World in the Ancient Near East (ed. B.J. COLLINS) (Leiden 2002) 3-47. (17) Pre-linguistic image schemes which reflect the way in which humans perceive and experience their bodies as containers also across languages motivate linguistic expressions, e.g. someone is filled with emotions (in English) or filled with a spirit (in Biblical Hebrew: Exod 35,31, Jer 31,25). See SAEED, Semantics, 311-312, for a succinct explanation of “path” and “force” image schemes.