UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology

UCLA

Peer Reviewed

Title:
Cognitive Linguistics

Author:
Nyord, Rune, King's College, Cambridge University

Publication Date:
08-31-2015

Series:
UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology

Permalink:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/9tf384bh

Keywords:
determinatives, classification

Local Identifier:
nelc_uee_24134

Abstract:
Cognitive linguistics is an influential branch of linguistics, which has played an increasing role in
different areas of Egyptology over the last couple of decades. Concepts from cognitive linguistics
have been especially influential in the study of determinatives/classifiers in the hieroglyphic script,
but they have also proven useful to elucidate a number of other questions, both narrowly linguistic
and more broadly cultural historical.

Copyright Information:
All rights reserved unless otherwise indicated. Contact the author or original publisher for any
necessary permissions. eScholarship is not the copyright owner for deposited works. Learn more
at http://www.escholarship.org/help_copyright.html#reuse

eScholarship provides open access, scholarly publishing

services to the University of California and delivers a dynamic
research platform to scholars worldwide.
 COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

‫ﻟﺴﺎﻧﯿﺎت ﻣﻌﺮﻓﯿﺔ‬
Rune Nyord
EDITORS
WILLEKE WENDRICH
Editor-in-Chief
University of California, Los Angeles

JACCO DIELEMAN
Editor
University of California, Los Angeles

ELIZABETH FROOD
Editor
University of Oxford

JOHN BAINES
Senior Editorial Consultant
University of Oxford

JULIE STAUDER-PORCHET, ANDRÉAS STAUDER

Area Editors Language, Text and Writing
Swiss National Science Foundation & University of Basel, EPHE Paris

Short Citation:
Nyord, 2015, Cognitive Linguistics. UEE.

Full Citation:
Nyord, Rune, 2015, Cognitive Linguistics. In Julie Stauder-Porchet, Andréas Stauder and
Willeke Wendrich (eds.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles.
http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz002k44p6

24134 Version 1, August 2015

http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz002k44p6
 COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS

‫ﻟﺴﺎﻧﯿﺎت ﻣﻌﺮﻓﯿﺔ‬
Rune Nyord
Kognitive Linguistik
Linguistique cognitive

Cognitive linguistics is an influential branch of linguistics, which has played an increasing role in
different areas of Egyptology over the last couple of decades. Concepts from cognitive linguistics have
been especially influential in the study of determinatives/classifiers in the hieroglyphic script, but they
have also proven useful to elucidate a number of other questions, both narrowly linguistic and more
broadly cultural historical.

‫ واﻟﺘﻲ ﻟﻌﺒﺖ دورا ﻣﺘﺰاﯾﺪا ﻓﻲ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ‬،‫اﻟﻠﺴ������ﺎﻧﯿﺎت )اﻟﻠﻐﻮﯾﺎت( اﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﯿﺔ ھﻲ ﻓﺮع ﻣﺆﺛﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻠﻐﻮﯾﺎت‬
‫ ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎن ﻟﻠﻤﻔﺎھﯿﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻠﺴ��ﺎﻧﯿﺎت اﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﯿﺔ ﺗﺄﺛﯿﺮا‬.‫ﻣﺠﺎﻻت ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻤﺼ��ﺮﯾﺎت ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺪى اﻟﻌﻘﺪﯾﻦ اﻟﻤﺎﺿ��ﯿﯿﻦ‬
‫ وﻟﻜﻨﮭﺎ أﺛﺒﺘﺖ ﺟﺪواھﺎ أﯾﻀ���ﺎ ﻓﻰ‬،‫ اﻟﻤﺼ���ﻨﻔﺎت ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﺛﺎﺋﻖ اﻟﮭﯿﺮوﻏﻠﯿﻔﯿﺔ‬/ ‫ﺧﺎﺻ���ﺎ ﻓﻲ دراﺳ���ﺔ اﻟﻤﺨﺼ���ﺼ���ﺎت‬
‫ﺗﻮﺿﯿﺢ ﻋﺪد ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺴﺎﺋﻞ‬

ognitive linguistics is a branch of apparently purely linguistic phenomena as

C linguistics developed in the 1980s
and characterized by the aim of
metaphor and metonymy. We will focus here
on some of the most central concepts in
giving an account of language as an integral cognitive linguistics, which have influenced
part of the human cognitive system. Rather Egyptological research significantly (references
than constituting a unified theoretical to more general introductions to the
framework, cognitive linguistics can be seen as framework can be found in the Bibliographic
a more loosely connected movement united by Notes section at the end of this entry).
the aim of drawing on insights from cognitive
A fundamental idea in cognitive linguistic
science and psychology in the description and
approaches is that the human cognitive system
explanation of linguistic phenomena. Thus, if
(of which language forms an integral part) is
there is a single core tenet of cognitive
fundamentally embodied. In contrast to
linguistics, it could be said to be the hypothesis
traditional Western philosophical ideas about
that linguistic structure reflects conceptual
reason consisting of the manipulation of purely
structure.
abstract symbols, cognitive linguistics stresses
In practice this commitment means that the way human conceptual categories have
cognitive linguistics has inherited certain their basis in human embodied experience.
central concerns from cognitive psychology This view of cognition has consequences on a
(e.g., questions of classification and category number of different levels, the most important
structure) and cognitive science (e.g., the role for the present purposes being the prototype
of embodiment in language and thought), but structure of natural human categories and the
it has also been able to show the central notion of pre-conceptual structures based on
position in wider human cognition of such embodied experience known as image schemata

Cognitive Linguistics, Nyord, UEE 2015 1

(cf. in general Lakoff and Johnson 1999 and dealing with a dead culture, which has left
Gibbs 2005). abundant written documentation of the
language. On this basis, such examples as “It
A fundamental early insight is Rosch’s
has been a long, bumpy road” said in the
(1978) demonstration that categories in human
context of a love relationship is indicative of
natural language tend to be delimited, not by
the wider conceptual metaphor LOVE IS A
necessary and sufficient criteria, but rather by
JOURNEY, which enables speakers of English
being organized around experientially salient
to talk and think about LOVE in terms of
prototypes regarded as central members of the
JOURNEYS—thereby offering a number of new
category in question, while less “good”
inferential possibilities. To someone studying
examples of the category are characterized by
the culture in question, in turn, this
varying degrees of deviation from the
phenomenon would offer some central
prototype. Thus, in a frequent example, a
insights into one side of the ideals and
blackbird or a robin is a “better,” more “typical”
expectations English speakers have about the
example of the category bird than, say, a penguin
domain of LOVE.
or an ostrich (both of which lack, for example,
the prototypical attribute of flight, but also As a fundamental conceptual mechanism,
deviate on other points such as the prototypical metaphor plays a role on many levels of human
shape shared by more central members). cognition, including making it possible for
Prototypes further tend to be located on what image schemata to provide structure to abstract
is known as the “basic” level of categorization categories. For example, “He was forced to
between the “superordinate” and the abandon the hypothesis” treats data or
“subordinate,” e.g., dog as opposed to either arguments as a concrete force compelling an
mammal or dachshund. object to move, while “There are many
important ideas in the new theory”
The focus on the human conceptual system
conceptualizes the relationship between theory
as rooted in embodied experience has led to the
and ideas as one of CONTAINMENT. Metaphor
notion of pre-conceptual primitives based on
also often plays a role in category structure, so
basic experiences of the human body, which
that extensions from a prototype are not
underlie even the most abstract reasoning.
necessarily made just by the absence of
Known as image schemata, these include such
particular attributes of the prototype, but can
central experiential gestalts as CONTAINER,
also be made by conceptual mechanisms such
PART-WHOLE, PATH, etc. (Johnson 1987;
as metaphor, leading to a so-called radial
Hampe 2005).
structure where less central members of a
The role played by image schemata in category are derived from more central ones,
abstract thought is mediated by another central sometimes involving several different steps
concept, that of conceptual metaphor (Kövecses and conceptual principles of derivation (Lakoff
2002; Lakoff and Johnson 2003). In cognitive 1987).
linguistics, metaphor is understood as the
transfer of conceptual structure from one Cognitive Linguistics in Egyptology
domain, which is closer to direct embodied
experience (i.e., more “concrete”), to one Since the first introduction of cognitive
which is further away (i.e., more “abstract”). linguistic ideas in Egyptology in the early 1990s
Metaphor is thus not just a question of (Goldwasser 1992; Collier 1994), the explicit
choosing a particular way to express an idea, use of this framework has remained a
but rather it is a conceptual mechanism, which consistent, if somewhat marginal, presence in
provides structure to abstract domains such as the field. The earliest and still by far the most
LOVE or ANGER. As linguistic structure reflects
widespread use of cognitive linguistics is found
conceptual structure, linguistic metaphorical in the study of the hieroglyphic script,
expressions can become a window into the especially the function of what is known in
conceptual structure of a linguistic traditional Egyptology as “determinatives,”
community—which is particularly useful when which was relabeled by Goldwasser as

Cognitive Linguistics, Nyord, UEE 2015 2

“classifiers” in an attempt to better capture determinatives (Shalomi-Hen 2000, 2006),
their function from a cognitive point of view. cloth (Herslund 2010), or on a particular
Concepts and methods derived from cognitive domain, such as the use of classifiers in foreign
linguistics have found more sporadic usage in phrases (Allon 2010).
other areas of Egyptology, both linguistic core
areas such as grammar and lexical semantics Table 1. Members of the taxonomic category
and in broader cultural studies where textual [habitat] (after Goldwasser 2005: 97).
(and occasionally even pictorial) evidence is
analyzed in order to reveal underlying
conceptual frameworks with relevance for such The [HABITAT] classifier
areas as emotions, law, and religion.

house
Script: “Classifiers” (Determinatives) (logogram)
The first area in which the principles of
classification discovered in cognitive linguistics fortress
became used in Egyptology is in the
exploration of the hieroglyphic script, in
particular the use of “determinatives.” Orly office
Goldwasser (1995, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2006) has
argued and demonstrated in a series of works
that the fact that determinatives relate tomb
semantically to the words they determine
effectively creates a category for each
determinative, and that such categories show stable
the same basic structure as other human
categories. For this reason, Goldwasser
introduced the new designation “classifiers” cave, den
for this group of signs based on their
functional similarity to classifying morphemes
in other languages, arguing that identifying the
nest
central (prototypical) members and exploring
the inclusion of less central members could
provide an understanding of Egyptian
conceptual categories that are not necessarily tent
found in the spoken language. An example of
this (Table 1) is the sign marking the category
[HABITAT], and thereby showing that the
Egyptian conceptual system incorporated such The focus on classification in this sense
a general idea (encompassing both human and means that Goldwasser’s and her students’
divine dwellings, but also those of animals, so approach works particularly well for nouns,
that “building” would be too narrow a whereas it has been somewhat less successful
designation), although there does not appear to in analyzing the classification of verbs. A more
have been a corresponding word in Egyptian. recent attempt to account for verbal
By focusing on the interplay between different classification developed by Frank Kammerzell
hierarchical levels (superordinate, basic level, moves away from some of the fundamental
subordinate), the structure of the categories assumptions in Goldwasser’s framework,
marked by classifiers can be explored. Studies regarding classifiers as being a means to codify
in this tradition have focused either on the salient participants in the event expressed by
categories marked by individual signs, such as the verb (Lincke 2011; Lincke and Kammerzell
the “bad bird” (G37 ; David 2000), divine 2012). Having only been published fairly

Cognitive Linguistics, Nyord, UEE 2015 3

recently, the full potential of this development Nyord 2010). Compound prepositions in
and its precise relationship to Goldwasser’s ancient Egyptian are often derived from parts
framework remains to be explored, but at the of the human body, and it has been shown
moment it seems accurate to speak of a (Nyord 2015) that the semantics of such
“Jerusalem School” and a “Berlin School” of compounds in Coptic can be analyzed in terms
classifier studies (as in Goldwasser and of a chain of metonymical and metaphorical
Grinevald 2012: 19). extensions from the central body part concept.
Whichever approach is taken, studying Apart from such analyses of the radial
determinatives/classifiers from the point of structure of linguistic categories, cognitive
view of their semantic contents can often yield linguistic principles have also been used to
results, which are of interest beyond the elucidate lexical semantics in other ways. Thus
exploration of the structure of the writing the present author (Nyord 2009: 55-113)
system itself. Thus, Arlette David (2006, 2007, revisits the classical Egyptological debate about
2010, 2011) has written a series of important the meanings and interrelationship of the
works on ancient Egyptian legal and social apparently two synonyms for “heart” in
conceptions, which draw frequently on the ancient Egyptian, jb and HAty. Without going
“classifier” framework to supplement more into the possibly radial structure of the
traditional structuralist linguistic analyses. concepts, the image-schematic properties of
each term are examined instead (e.g., the ability
to be conceptualized as a CONTAINER, the role
Lexical Semantics in metaphors, etc.). This study shows clear and
With the focus on category structure (radiality, consistent differences in the use of the two
prototype structure, etc.), lexical semantics is terms in the examined texts, indicating that the
one of the core areas of interest in cognitive idea of their straightforward synonymity may
linguistics, and there are several Egyptological stem more from the modern expectation of
studies testifying to this (cf. Smoczyński 1999; finding anatomical correlates to the terms than
and Lincke and Kammerzell 2012 for the from their actual usage in Earlier Egyptian.
interplay between lexical semantics and Apart from this specific conclusion, this study
classifiers). also indicates that there are other, more
indirect, ways in which the conceptual
In a recent contribution dedicated to
framework can be drawn upon in the
illustrating the usefulness of cognitive
exploration of lexical semantics than just the
linguistics in the exploration of ancient
examination of radial structures.
Egyptian lexical semantics, the present author
(Nyord 2012) has argued that the meanings of
the highly polysemous verb fx “release,” Grammar
“leave,” “destroy,” etc. can be understood as a Despite the promise of such frameworks as
radial structure organized around the Langacker’s “cognitive grammar” (Langacker
embodied prototype of “letting go of an object 1987, 2008) and the broader principle of
held in the hand,” from which the other cognitively realistic descriptions, cognitive
meanings can be derived. linguistics has relatively rarely played an explicit
Also drawing on the concept of radial role in the study of overall grammatical
structure, it has been suggested (Nyord 2010, patterns in ancient Egyptian, such as those of
2015) that the relations marked by prepositions the verbal system. In an early article by Mark
can also be understood as radial structures Collier (1994), it is argued that the then-
organized around a prototype. In the case of prevailing Standard Theory understanding of
prepositions such prototypes become very the Egyptian verbal system where verbal forms
general, in fact approximating pure image are classified primarily according to syntactic
schematic structures in the case of frequent categories should be replaced with an approach
prepositions such as m “in,” etc. (CONTAINER based on cognitive principles, most notably
schema) and r “towards,” etc. (PATH schema; figure/ground relations. Following Collier’s

Cognitive Linguistics, Nyord, UEE 2015 4

analysis, Uljas (2009) draws on the cognitive been very influential in Egyptology. An
linguistic principle of radiality to argue that exception to this trend is found in a small
grammatical categories, such as those marked group of studies on the cognitive principles
by different verbal forms, are organized around behind ancient Egyptian art.
central, experientially salient prototypes from
In a seminal analysis relating insights from
which less central members are derived. In
cognitive linguistics to the principles of ancient
other recent studies of Egyptian grammar (e.g.,
Egyptian art, Frandsen (1997) has argued that
Winand 2006: 9; Uljas 2007: 27) cognitive
the concept of an object underlying both
linguistics or one of its subfields is cited as an
pictorial and linguistic instantiations can be
important source of inspiration for the analyses
characterized in terms of a combination of
presented, especially regarding the aim of
inalienable properties (“the features or
cognitively realistic descriptions. More
properties which cannot be acquired or
generally, it is likely that the latter principle,
disposed of, and without which the object
along with the general cognitive linguistic focus
would cease to be what it is,” Frandsen 1997:
on semantics, has further played a more
78) and interactional properties (“characteristic
implicit and possibly indirect role in much of
features deriving from the classifier’s
the criticism of the Standard Theory of
interaction with the category,” Frandsen 1997:
Egyptian grammar published in the last couple
80). On this basis, Frandsen goes on to show
of decades.
that comparable classificatory and
metaphorical phenomena can be found both in
Broader Conceptual Patterns hieroglyphic writing, in the grammar of the
language and in pictorial representations,
Because of the broad commitment of cognitive focusing especially on the way depictions and
linguistics to providing cognitively realistic accompanying texts can interact by
descriptions, and due to the underlying notion highlighting complementary metaphorical
that linguistic structure reflects conceptual conceptualizations. Building on this approach,
structure, the cognitive linguistic framework in a more recent contribution (Nyord 2013),
lends itself well to analysis of broader the present author has presented a new
conceptual patterns than the purely linguistic. interpretation of the “aspectivity” of Egyptian
This possibility has played a significant role in art in terms of philosophy of perception,
Egyptological research, although it cannot be showing that within this new understanding
said to have entered the mainstream of the field some of the conspicuous details in Egyptian
the way it has in other subject areas. Instead, two-dimensional depictions (such as the larger
the cognitive linguistic framework has been size of important persons) can be understood
used in studies of particular areas reflecting the as pictorial expressions of conceptual
interests of the individual researchers making metaphors paralleled linguistically in texts.
use of the theory and methods.
This background has led to text- and/or
Reception of Cognitive Linguistic Approaches in
script-based studies of religious conceptions
(e.g., Goldwasser 1997), legal theory and Egyptology
practice (e.g., David 2007), political ideology As seen above, cognitive linguistic approaches
(David 2011), conceptions of the body (Nyord have slowly crept from the relatively limited
2009), emotions (Köhler 2011a, 2011b, 2012), areas in which they were first used from the
and notions of communication (Nyord 2012). 1990s onwards to become a contributor to
Because of the predicted commensurability of most of the main themes of the exploration of
linguistic patterns with broader conceptual the Egyptian language (and sometimes
patterns, the cognitive linguistic framework significantly beyond). In many cases, cognitive
can even be used in analyses of non-linguistic linguistic analyses are able to provide a
material, an approach which has been perspective complementing different
influential in material culture studies more approaches to the same question. A good
widely (e.g., Tilley 1999), but has not so far example are the many recent studies of the

Cognitive Linguistics, Nyord, UEE 2015 5

preposition r “towards,” etc., where the Goldwasser’s suggestion of replacing the
cognitive linguistic approach (Nyord 2010) Egyptological term “determinative” with that
usefully supplements more traditional notions of “classifier,” pointing out the number of
of a “basic meaning” (Stauder-Porchet 2009; differences between the function of the
Gracia Zamacona 2010) and typologically Egyptian signs and the “numeral classifiers” in
oriented mappings of the semantic space other languages that formed Goldwasser’s
covered by the preposition (Grossman and inspiration for this term. While this problem
Polis 2012; Werning 2012) by focusing on the might in principle be overcome by using
internal conceptual structure of the category. Rude’s (1986) more specific notion of
Other studies of prepositions show that “graphemic classifier” to signal such
perspectives from cognitive linguistics can differences, or Lincke and Kammerzell’s
fruitfully be combined with other linguistic (2012) broader conception of “classifiers” as
approaches, such as Di Biase-Dyson (2012). covering both phonemic and graphemic
phenomena, McDonald (2004a: 238) also
Outside of the discussions among
argues that the use of the signs “often seems to
specialized linguists, the use of cognitive
go beyond any simply classificatory function.”
linguistics in Egyptology is sometimes met
McDonald thus stresses the need to include the
with the kind of general suspicion often
specific context of occurrences in analyses (an
accorded to “imported” theories. Unlike the
argument also made in some detail by Loprieno
fairly pluralistic way of thinking characterizing
2003), and she takes this point further in
linguistic approaches, the question outside this
another, more specific, contribution where she
area often becomes: to the extent that the
argues that “the words that may take Sethian
analyses presented on the basis of cognitive
determinatives should not be considered as a
linguistic concepts seem convincing, couldn’t
uniform group” (McDonald 2007: 33; cf. Allon
we just have arrived at those results without the
2007 for the opposite view). However, as
theory (e.g., Stadler 2011)? This sentiment is
Lincke and Kammerzell (2012) have shown in
difficult to debate in practice and hence rarely
a recent article surveying the uses of classifiers
leads to a substantial critique, based as it is on
in ancient Egyptian, the pragmatically
an old tradition of ancient Egypt as a sui generis
motivated uses such as those pointed out by
culture that can best (or even only) be studied
McDonald are in many ways analogous to cases
on its own terms in isolation from specialist
found in other “classifier languages,” which
knowledge from other fields about the
could also be said frequently to “go beyond any
phenomena studied (cf. the recent discussion
simply classificatory function.” Most recently,
in Moreno García 2015). This way of thinking
Meeks (2015) has criticized the tendency in
is strongly ingrained and forms a continuing
classifier studies to work on the basis of
challenge from mainstream Egyptology to
published sign lists and typeset hieroglyphs,
many theoretical approaches.
which may obscure the intricacies of the
In the area of determinative studies, the hieroglyphic and hieratic writing systems.
cognitive linguistic approach has occasionally
While the cognitive linguistic approach to
been met with more principal criticism. For the
determinatives has generally been very
most part, critique of the works in this area has
successful in setting the agenda for specialized
tended to be concerned with the methods of
studies on this topic, there are also a few
study, rather than with the theoretical
examples of fairly recent determinative studies
framework itself, which is often accepted and
that do not engage with these ideas at all (e.g.,
even explicitly praised in such contexts (e.g.,
Beaux 2004; Spalinger 2008), and so far the
Quack 2003; McDowell 2004b; Nyord 2007).
approach has not had much influence on more
However, criticism has also occasionally mainstream Egyptological publications such as
been voiced, which questions the “classifier” language textbooks (with Nyord 2008: 10-24 as
framework on a more fundamental level. an exception).
McDonald (2004a) has questioned

Cognitive Linguistics, Nyord, UEE 2015 6

 Bibliographic Notes
There are a number of introductory textbooks that provide good points of entry to the concepts,
methods, and results of the cognitive linguistic tradition in general (Taylor 2002; Croft and Cruse
2004; Evans and Green 2007), and the most seminal early works are still well worth reading (e.g.,
Lakoff 1987; Lakoff and Johnson 2003). In an Egyptological context, a fairly detailed general
overview of some of the central concepts can be found in Nyord (2009: 5-35), and this work also
presents a detailed semantic analysis of concepts of the human body and its parts in an explicit
cognitive linguistic framework. Collier (1994) analyzes grammatical categories in the earlier Egyptian
verbal system drawing on cognitive grammar. A good introduction to the understanding of
determinatives as classifiers can be found in Goldwasser (2005), and the “Berlin School” approach
to determinatives is presented in Lincke and Kammerzell (2012). The usability of the concepts of
prototype and radial structure for exploring lexical semantics has been explained and exemplified in
Nyord (2012). The most recent works on classifiers (esp. Lincke and Kammerzell 2012; cf. also
Goldwasser 2006) have countered most of the central points raised by earlier critics of the approach
(Loprieno 2003; McDonald 2004a), and these works can be fruitfully read together. Meeks (2015)
criticizes several recent articles drawing on different strands of cognitive linguistics, although the
discussion is somewhat selective and should be read with the articles criticized at hand for a complete
picture.

References
Allon, Niv
2007 Seth is Baal: Evidence from the Egyptian script. Ägypten und Levante 17, pp. 15-22.
2010 At the outskirts of a system: Classifiers and word dividers in foreign phrases and texts. Linguae
Aegyptia 18, pp. 1-17.
Beaux, Nathalie
2004 La marque du “divin”: Comparaison entre deux corpus funéraires: Les Textes des Pyramides et les
Textes des Sarcophages. In D’un monde à l’autre: Textes des Pyramides & Textes des Sarcophages,
Bibliothèque d’étude 139, ed. Bernard Mathieu and Susanne Bickel, pp. 43-56. Cairo: Institut français
d’archéologie orientale.
Collier, Mark
1994 Grounding, cognition and metaphor in the grammar of Middle Egyptian: The role of human
experience in grammar as an alternative to the standard theory notion of paradigmatic substitution.
Lingua Aegyptia 4, pp. 57-87.
Croft, William, and D. Alan Cruse
2004 Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
David, Arlette
2000 De l’infériorité à la perturbation: L’oiseau du “mal” et la catégorisation en Egypte ancienne. Göttinger
Orientforschungen IV. Reihe: Ägypten 38/1 = Classification and Categorization in Ancient Egypt
1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
2006 Syntactic and lexico-semantic aspects of the legal register in Ramesside royal decrees. Göttinger
Orientforschungen IV. Reihe: Ägypten 38/5 = Classification and Categorization in Ancient Egypt
5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
2007 Ancient Egyptian forensic metaphors and categories. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und
Altertumskunde 134, pp. 1-14.

Cognitive Linguistics, Nyord, UEE 2015 7

 2010 The legal register of Ramesside private law instruments. Göttinger Orientforschungen IV. Reihe: Ägypten
38/7 = Classification and Categorization in Ancient Egypt 7. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
2011 The nmH and the paradox of the voiceless in the Eloquent Peasant. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
97, pp. 73-85.
Di Biase-Dyson, Camilla
2012 A diachronic approach to the syntax and semantics of Egyptian spatio-temporal expressions with
HA-t “front”: Implications for cognition and metaphor. In Lexical semantics in ancient Egyptian, Lingua
Aegyptia Studia Monographica 9, ed. Eitan Grossman, Stéphane Polis, and Jean Winand, pp. 247-
292. Hamburg: Widmaier.
Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green
2006 Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Frandsen, Paul John
1997 On categorization and metaphorical structuring: Some remarks on Egyptian art and language.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 7(1), pp. 71-104.
Gibbs, Raymond
2005 Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goldwasser, Orly
1992 The Narmer palette and the “triumph of metaphor.” Lingua Aegyptia 2, pp. 67-85.
1995 From icon to metaphor. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 142. Fribourg: University Press; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
1997 Itn – the “Golden Egg” (CT IV, 292b-c). In Essays on ancient Egypt in honour of Herman te Velde, ed.
Jacobus van Dijk, pp. 79-84. Groningen: STYX Publications.
1999 The determinative system as a mirror of world organization. Göttinger Miszellen 170, pp. 73-93.
2002 Prophets, lovers and giraffes: Wor(l)d classification in ancient Egypt. Göttinger Orientforschungen IV. Reihe:
Ägypten 38/3 = Classification and Categorization in Ancient Egypt 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
2005 Where is metaphor? Conceptual metaphor and alternative classification in the hieroglyphic script.
Metaphor and Symbol 20, pp. 95-113.
2006 On the new definition of classifier languages and scripts. Lingua Aegyptia 14, pp. 473-484.
Goldwasser, Orly, and Colette Grinevald
2012 What are “determinatives” good for? In Lexical semantics in ancient Egyptian, Lingua Aegyptia Studia
Monographica 9, ed. Eitan Grossman, Stéphane Polis, and Jean Winand, pp. 17-53. Hamburg:
Widmaier.
Gracia Zamacona, Carlos
2010 Space, time and abstract relations in the Coffin Texts. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und
Altertumskunde 137, pp. 13-26.
Grossman, Eitan, and Stéphane Polis
2012 Navigating polyfunctionality in the lexicon: Semantic maps and ancient Egyptian lexical semantics.
In Lexical semantics in ancient Egyptian, Lingua Aegyptia Studia Monographica 9, ed. Eitan Grossman,
Stéphane Polis, and Jean Winand, pp. 175-225. Hamburg: Widmaier.
Hampe, Beate (ed.)
2005 From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Herslund, Ole
2010 Cloths – garments – and keeping secrets: Textile classification and cognitive chaining in the ancient
Egyptian writing system. In Textile terminologies in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the third
to the first millennia BC, ed. Cécile Michel and Marie-Louise Nosch, pp. 68-80. Oxford: Oxbow
Books; Oakville, Conn.: David Brown Book Company.
Johnson, Mark
1987 The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Cognitive Linguistics, Nyord, UEE 2015 8

 Köhler, Ines
2011a Rage like an Egyptian: The conceptualization of anger. In Current research in Egyptology 2010:
Proceedings of the eleventh annual symposium, ed. Maarten Horn, Joost Kramer, Daniel Soliman, Nico
Staring, Carina van den Hoven, and Lara Weiss, pp. 81-96. Oxford and Oakville, Conn.: Oxbow.
2011b Dies Irae und andere Katastrophen: Möglichkeiten einer kognitiv semantischen Untersuchung von
Wortfeldern. In Lexical fields, semantics and lexicography, ed. Anke Ilona Blöbaum, Kathrin Butt, and
Ines Köhler, pp. 125-139. Aachen: Shaker.
2012 “Du Pharao - ich Hulk”: Wahrnehmung und Versprachlichung von Wut. In Sozialisationen:
Individuum - Gruppe - Gesellschaft: Beiträge des ersten Münchner Arbeitskreises Junge Aegyptologie (MAJA 1),
3. bis 5.12.2010, ed. Gregor Neunert, Kathrin Gabler, and Alexandra Verbovsek, pp. 127-138.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Kövecses, Zoltán
2002 Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
1999 Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
2003 Metaphors we live by. 2nd edition. (1st ed. 1980). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald
1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
2008 Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Lincke, Eliese-Sophia
2011 Die Prinzipien der Klassifizierung im Altägyptischen. Göttinger Orientforschungen IV. Reihe: Ägypten
38/6 = Classification and Categorization in Ancient Egypt 6. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Lincke, Eliese-Sophia, and Frank Kammerzell
2012 Egyptian classifiers at the interface of lexical semantics and pragmatics. In Lexical semantics in ancient
Egyptian, Lingua Aegyptia Studia Monographica 9, ed. Eitan Grossman, Stéphane Polis, and Jean
Winand, pp. 55-112. Hamburg: Widmaier.
Loprieno, Antonio
2003 Is the Egyptian hieroglyphic determinative chosen or prescribed? In Philosophers and hieroglyphs, ed.
Lucia Morra and Carla Bazzanella, pp. 237-250. Turin: Rosenberg & Seller.
McDonald, Angela
2004a Review of Goldwasser 2002. Lingua Aegyptia 12, pp. 235-244.
2004b Review of David 2000 and Shalomi-Hen 2000. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 90, pp. 225-230.
2007 A metaphor for troubled times: The evolution of the Seth deity determinative in the First
Intermediate Period. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 134, pp. 26-39.
Meeks, Dimitri
2015 Linguistique et égyptologie: Entre théorisation à priori et contribution à l’étude de la culture
égyptienne. Chronique d’Égypte 90, pp. 40-67.
Moreno García, Juan Carlos
2015 The cursed discipline? The peculiarities of Egyptology at the turn of the twenty-first century. In
Histories of Egyptology: Interdisciplinary measures, ed. William Carruthers, pp. 50-63. New York and
Abingdon: Routledge.
Nyord, Rune
2007 Review of Shalomi-Hen 2006. Lingua Aegyptia 15, pp. 321-328.
2008 Middelægyptisk grammatik: En standardteoretisk indføring [Middle Egyptian Grammar: A standard-
theoretical introduction]. Copenhagen: Studentercentret, University of Copenhagen.
(Internet resource:
https://www.academia.edu/1735961/2008._Middle_Egyptian_teaching_grammar_in_
Danish_4th_ed._.)

Cognitive Linguistics, Nyord, UEE 2015 9

 2009 Breathing flesh: Conceptions of the body in the ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts. CNI Publications 37.
Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.
2010 The radial structure of some Middle Egyptian prepositions. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und
Altertumskunde 137, pp. 27-44.
2012 Prototype structures and conceptual metaphor: Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics in
ancient Egyptian. In Lexical semantics in ancient Egyptian, Lingua Aegyptia Studia Monographica 9,
ed. Eitan Grossman, Stéphane Polis, and Jean Winand, pp. 141-174. Hamburg: Widmaier.
2013 Vision and conceptualization in ancient Egyptian art. In Sensuous cognition: Explorations into human
sentience: Imagination, (e)motion and perception, ed. Rosario Caballero and Javier E. Díaz-Vera, pp. 135-
168. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
2015 Conceptualizations of embodied space: The semantics of body parts in Sahidic compound
prepositions. In Lotus and laurel: Studies in ancient Egyptian language and religion in honour of Paul John
Frandsen, ed. Rune Nyord and Kim Ryholt, pp. 241-281. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.
Quack, Joachim
2003 Review of Shalomi-Hen 2000. Welt des Orients 33, pp. 160-162.
Rosch, Eleanor
1978 Principles of categorization. In Cognition and categorization, ed. Eleanor Rosch and Barbara B. Lloyd,
pp. 27-48. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rude, Noel
1986 Graphemic classifiers in Egyptian hieroglyphics and Mesopotamian cuneiform. In Noun classes and
categorization: Proceedings of a symposium on categorization and noun classification, Eugene, Oregon, October
1983, ed. Colette Craig, pp. 133-138. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Shalomi-Hen, Racheli
2000 Classifying the divine: Determinatives and categorization in CT 335 and BD 17. Göttinger
Orientforschungen IV. Reihe: Ägypten 38/2 = Classification and Categorization in Ancient Egypt
2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
2006 The writing of gods: The evolution of divine classifiers in the Old Kingdom. Göttinger Orientforschungen IV.
Reihe: Ägypten 38/4 = Classification and Categorization in Ancient Egypt 4. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Smoczyński, Wawrzyniec
1999 Seeking structure in the lexicon: On some cognitive-functional aspects of determinative
assignment. Lingua Aegyptia 6, pp. 153-162.
Spalinger, Anthony
2008 A garland of determinatives. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 94, pp. 139-164.
Stadler, Martin Andreas
2011 Review of Nyord 2009. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 101, pp. 501-506.
Stauder-Porchet, Julie
2009 La preposition en égyptien de la première phase: Approche sémantique. Aegyptiaca Helvetica 21. Basel:
Schwabe.
Taylor, John
2002 Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tilley, Christopher
1999 Metaphor and material culture. Malden: Blackwell.
Uljas, Sami
2007 The modal system of ancient Egyptian complement clauses: A study in pragmatics in a dead language. Probleme
der Ägyptologie 26. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
2009 Radiality in Middle Egyptian Grammar. Lingua Aegyptia 17, pp. 277-290.

Cognitive Linguistics, Nyord, UEE 2015 10

 Werning, Daniel
2012 Ancient Egyptian prepositions for the expression of spatial relations and their translation: A
typological approach. In Lexical semantics in ancient Egyptian, Lingua Aegyptia Studia Monographica
9, ed. Eitan Grossman, Stéphane Polis, and Jean Winand, pp. 293-346. Hamburg: Widmaier.
Winand, Jean
2006 Temps et aspect en égyptien: Une approache semantique. Probleme der Ägyptologie 25. Leiden and Boston:
Brill.

Cognitive Linguistics, Nyord, UEE 2015 11