Construal and its representative forms in cognitive linguistics

DALAT UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE Volume 11, Issue 3, 2021 3-27 
3 
CONSTRUAL AND ITS REPRESENTATIVE FORMS 
IN COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS 
Duong Huu Biena* 
aThe Faculty of Literatures and History, Dalat University, Lam Dong, Vietnam 
*Corresponding author: Email: biendh@dlu.edu.vn 
Article history 
Received: April 7th, 2020 | Accepted: May 4th, 2020 
Available online: April 25th, 2021 
Abstract 
The purpose of this paper is to examine construal as a basic human cognitive operation 
and its representative forms in Cognitive Linguistics. To achieve this purpose, the paper 
focuses on two main points: (a) a brief introduction to construal and some of its 
classification models; (b) an examination of the representative forms of construal which we 
often see in the literature of Cognitive Linguistics. 
Keywords: Construal; Fictive motion; Mental scanning; Profile; Viewpoint; Windowing of 
attention. 
DOI:  
Article type: (peer-reviewed) Full-length research article 
Copyright © 2021 The author(s). 
Licensing: This article is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 
DALAT UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE [SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES] 
4 
1. INTRODUCTION 
Construal is one of the central concepts of Cognitive Linguistics. This concept 
denotes one of the basic human cognitive operations; it relates to the way a language 
user chooses to “package” or “present” a conceptual representation as encoded in 
language, which in turn “has consequences for the conceptual representation that the 
utterance evokes in the mind of the hearer” (Evans, 2007, p. 40). In other words, 
construal is the basic cognitive operation that helps to choose the appropriate structural 
possibility among different alternatives, which are different ways of seeing a particular 
situation or scene, thereby deciding how language is used. For example, when “a 
speaker who accurately observes the spatial distribution of certain stars can describe 
them in many distinct fashions: as a constellation, as a cluster of stars, as specks of light 
in the sky, etc. Such expressions are semantically distinct; they reflect the speaker’s 
alternate construals of the scene, each compatible with its objectively given properties” 
(Langacker, 1991, p. 61). This shows that the user of language “is assumed to have the 
ability of construing one and the same situation in a number of alternate ways and of 
making different senses of it” (Langacker, 1991, p. 61). 
The purpose of this paper is to examine construal as the basic human cognitive 
operation and its representative forms in Cognitive Linguistics. To achieve this purpose, 
the paper focuses on two main points: the first is a brief introduction to construal and 
some of its classification models, and the second is an examination of the representative 
forms of construal which we often see in the literature of Cognitive Linguistics. 
2. SOME CLASSIFICATION MODELS OF CONSTRUAL IN COGNITIVE 
LINGUISTICS 
2.1. Langacker's classification model 
In his 1987 classic work, Langacker (1987, pp. 116-137) classified construal 
operations into three components, which he called “focal adjustments.”1 
• 1. Selection 
• 2. Perspective 
• 3. Abstraction 
1 Focus adjustment is a kernel concept in Langacker's Cognitive Grammar. This concept signifies how the 
speaker focuses attention on a particular facet of a given scene. In language, this is gain by making focal 
adjustments of any given scene's particular aspect using different linguistic expressions or grammatical 
constructions to describe that scene. For example, the visual metaphor is the focal adjustment expression 
that shows visual perception is fundamental to how we focus attention on aspects of the experience. “By 
choosing a particular focal adjustment and thus linguistically 'organizing' a scene in a specific way, the 
speaker imposes a unique construal upon that scene.” (Evans 2007, pp. 81-82). 
Duong Huu Bien 
5 
The component selection is understood as language users’ capacity to attend 
selectively to these facets of a conceptualization while neglecting others. The 
components perspective involves linguistic exhibitions of the position from which an 
observed situation and this component comprise four subtypes: (a) Figure/Ground 
alignment, (b) viewpoint, (c) deixis, and (d) objectivity/subjectivity. Abstraction is the 
component that describes our ability to set commonalities among distinct phenomena 
and abstract from differences, and therefore to organize concepts into classes and 
categories. 
However, in 1993, in Universals of Construal, Langacker revised his 1987 
classification into the following four components:2 
• 1. Specificity 
• 2. Prominence 
• 3. Perspective 
• 4. Dynamicity 
It is easy to see that the specificity component approximately corresponds to the 
previous abstraction component. The prominence is a new component that includes 
notably Figure/Ground phenomena and the phenomena previously classified under 
the selection label. Perspective is not modified, excluding the Figure/Ground subtype 
now has to be placed in the prominence component. Dynamicity is an additional 
component. This component is related to a conceptualization's development by 
processing time (rather than by conceived time). It is the first component of four ones 
related to the inherently temporal nature of utterances: Presenting a conceptualization's 
elements in different order results in differences of meaning. Besides, a dynamic and 
sequential concept can also lead to a dynamic concept's application to an object of 
conceptualization that is not itself inherently dynamic (as in Con đường này uốn lượn 
qua Thung lũng Tình yêu [The road winds through the Valley of Love]). 
2.2. Talmy’s classification model 
Initially, in his 1988 work, Talmy offered to classify the following “imaging 
systems” as the main components of construal operation: 
• 1. Schematization 
• 2.  ... ars drove way too fast.) 
 c. Chiếc Inova đâm vào một chiếc xe khác. 
(A Inova struck another car.) 
 d. Chiếc Ford Ranger Wildtrak 2.0 do một tài xế say rượu lái. 
 (The Ford Ranger Wildtrak 2.0 was driven by a drunk driver.) 
e. Chiếc Honda Civic 2020 bạc bị kẹp giữa hai xe tải. 
(The silver Honda Civic 2020 was sandwiched between two lorries.) 
Each of these alternative expression modes has its specific contextual meaning. 
For example, the superordinate term phương tiện in (18a) might use in the Departments 
for Transport or traffic reports. The basic-level term xe is used to describe situations in 
the most usual and general style, such as in (18b). Car enthusiasts can use subordinate 
words like Inova or Ford Ranger Wildtrak 2.0. “The same thing may thus be seen in 
different detail by different people in different situations” (Radden & Dirven, 2007). 
As Langacker (1987) and Talmy (2000) demonstrated, and as already pointed 
out, we can use lexical categories to make specific differences, while “using 
grammatical categories is tended to express very abstract or schematic notions, like 
those of the present, past, and future time”. And grammar also allows us to distinguish 
different specificity levels. 
3.8. Mental scanning 
In Langacker’s Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (1987), mental scanning 
means the construal of a situation concerning its phasing in time (T). In other words, in 
Duong Huu Bien 
23 
the same style as that we may visually scan a mountain range, we can do the same with 
a situation. There are two mental scanning modes: sequential scanning and summary 
scanning. The mental scanning of that situation in its all successive phases is 
called sequential scanning. Summary scanning concerns the mental scanning mode in 
which all periods of that situation are did simultaneously, i.e., that situation understood 
as timeless. The English sentences in (19) illustrate these two mental scanning modes 
(Radden & Dirven, 2007, p. 26): 
(19) a. The couple next door has adopted a baby. 
b. Another couple down the road wants to adopt a baby, too. 
c. Adopting a baby can be a joyful experience. 
 d. Older couples cannot apply for the adoption of a baby. 
According to Radden and Dirven (2007, p. 26), in (19a), “we mentally scan the 
whole process of adopting a child” as it is happening in time. The sequential scanning is 
expressed linguistically with tense forms of verbs. In other words, any situation 
verbalized by “a tensed verb form involves sequential scanning”. In sentence (19a), the 
present tense verb has invoked sequential scanning of the situation's phases. The three 
remaining sentences of (19) involve summary scanning. Summary scanning is 
expressed “linguistically in the lack of tense forms”, i.e., situations whose expressions 
do not have a tensed verb involve summary scanning. The timelessness of both the 
infinitive to adopt in (19b) and the gerund adopting in (19c) invokes summary 
scanning, the noun adoption in (19d) also has this timelessness effect. These two 
scanning modes illustrated in Figure 7: 
(a) 
(b) 
Figure 7. Sequential scanning (a) and summary scanning (b) 
Source: Langacker (1987, p. 144). 
DALAT UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE [SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES] 
24 
3.9. Fictive motion 
According to Talmy (2000, chapter 2), “a pervasive cognitive pattern can be 
posited in which two different cognitive subsystems in an individual form discrepant 
representations of the same entity. Furthermore, a third subsystem in the individual 
assesses one of those representations as more veridical, or ‘factive’, and the other as less 
veridical, or ‘fictive’.” In particular, language has may “fictive motions,” in which a 
factively stationary entity is represented as motion. Langacker (2005b, 2008) argues that 
fictive motion reflects subjective imaginary mental constructions used to talk about the 
existence of objects in real-life situations. It is a special kind of mental scanning, which 
is used to reactivate the conceptualized original experiences along an imaginary 
trajectory. Observe (20) and (21): 
(20) a. Hàng rào này chạy dích dắc từ đồi cù xuống tận hồ Xuân Hương. 
 (This fence zigzags from the hill to Xuân Hương lake.) 
 b. Hàng rào này chạy dích dắc từ hồ Xuân Hương lên tới tận đồi cù. 
 (This fence zigzags from Xuân Hương lake to the hill.) 
(21) a. Cổng này dẫn ra vườn. 
 (This gate leads to the garden.) 
 b. Con dốc này đổ dài xuống bến cảng gần cây số. 
 (This slope descends nearly a kilometer to the port.) 
The meanings of motion verbs like chạy (run), dẫn (lead to), đổ (descend), as 
these examples show, can be extended semantically to express spatial relations that are 
neither related to the motion itself nor related to a change of state. The motion's 
figurative representations are attributed to stative situations, immovable physical 
objects, or abstract concepts. They all are considered fictive movements (Langacker 
2005b, 2008; Talmy 1996, 2000, chapter 2). Fictive motion consists of a series of 
linguistic expressions in which the physical movements are the basis, and other 
information is the foreground to convey a visual metaphor. However, in the actual ones, 
a moving object continuously changes its positions over time, while in fictive motion, 
we mentally scan an imagined path. For example, in (21a), our eyes mentally track the 
imagined path from-gate-to-garden, and in (21b), our eyes mentally scan from the slope 
top down to the port. 
Talmy (2000, chapter 2) details two of the various types of fictive motions. The 
first type, which he called coextension paths, is used in static spatial relation 
expressions, as in example (20). “A ‘coextension path’ depicts the form, orientation, or 
location of a spatially extended object in terms of a path over the object’s extent” 
(Talmy, 2000, p. 138). This object is stationary and has no entity passing through the 
Duong Huu Bien 
25 
described path; however, it is mean as moving along or throughout its spatial 
configuration, as in (20) above. According to Talmy, in example (20), one cognitive 
subsystem in a listener has the world knowledge that the fence is stationary. But another 
subsystem responds to the literal wording–specifically, the motion words chạy, dích 
dắc, từ, xuống–to evoke a sense of motion along with the linear extent of the fence that 
“serves to characterize the fence’s contour and positioning” Talmy (2000, p. 138). A 
parallel sentence (20b) evokes a sense of motion in the opposite direction. Two these 
sentences together show how a concept–in this case is that of a sense of directed 
movement–can be imposed on or assigned to notions of phenomena in the world 
through linguistic devices (see also Dương, 2016). 
The second type, which Talmy (1996, 2000) called emanation paths, involves 
“the fictive conceptualization of an intangible line emerging from a source object, 
passing in a straight line through space, and terminating on a target object, where 
factively nothing is in motion” (Talmy, 1996, 2000). This fictive motion type has the 
following subtypes: 
• (a) “Demonstrative paths” subtype: “a directed line emerges from the 
pointed front of a source object” (Talmy, 1996, 2000). This is seen in Mũi 
tên này chỉ tới/chỉ lui/chỉ rời khỏi thị trấn (The arrow points 
toward/past/away from the town). 
• (b) “Radiation paths” subtype: a beam/ray of radiation emanates from a 
radiant object and terminates on an irradiated object, like Ánh sáng chiếu từ 
mặt trời vào hang (Light shone from the sun into the cave). According to 
Talmy (1996, 2000), “it might be claimed that photons do factively emanate 
from a radiant object, so that fictive motion need not be invoked. However, 
we do not see photons, so any representation of motion is cognitively 
imputed.” In another case, considered as a small related subtype–those are 
shadow paths–none claim the existence of “shadow ons,” and this fictive 
motion is seen in a sentence like Đèn hắt bóng lên tường (Light shadows on 
the wall). 
• (c) “Sensory path” subtype “is represented as moving from the experiencer 
to the experienced object” (Talmy, 1996, 2000) in a sentence like Tôi 
nhìn/vào quá khứ/tới tương lai (I looked into/past/future). Such an 
emanating “line of sight” can also be represented as moving laterally, as 
distinct from vertical fictive motion, as in the sentence Tôi từ từ nhìn xuống 
giếng (I slowly looked down into the well). Both of these forms of motion 
are called axial motion. 
4. CONCLUSION 
Construal, as we have seen, relates to different ways of imagining and 
portraying a situation, but only one of these alternate ways is selected. Construal and its 
representative forms are fundamental to language and cognition. They show humans’ 
DALAT UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE [SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES] 
26 
cognitive capacities with clear linguistic reflections, but there seems to be no way to 
organize all of them into a comprehensive classification system. 
This article examined construal nine representative forms of construal operation 
that we often see in the Cognitive Linguistics literature. It is easy to see three of these 
nine forms: windowing of attention, figure/ground, and profiling are related to 
prominence, in which windowing of attention denotes selected aspects of a situation 
focused; “figure and ground indicate the division of that situation into salient and non-
salient elements; and profiling represents the speaker’s choosing a conceptual and 
linguistic unit”, e.g., elbow, thereby implying its base (i.e., “arm.”) Six remaining 
representative forms are related to viewing operation: viewing-frame refers to the 
situation or its part which the communicators conceive or perceive; viewpoint denotes 
the speaker’s perspective of that situation; the distinction between objectivity and 
subjectivity indicates the extent to which the conceptualizer participates partly in that 
described situation; the division between generality and specificity applies to the 
construal of the situation in a more general or specific way; mental scanning shows “the 
construal of the situation in its phasing in time, and fictive motion refers to the 
construal” of the static situation as the motion situation. 
All these representative forms show the diversity of the construal operation. 
Perhaps, thanks to that, the speaker of language “is assumed to have the ability of 
construing one and the same situation in a number of alternate ways and of making 
different senses of it” (Langacker, 1991, p. 61). 
REFERENCES 
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 
Croft, W., & Wood, E. (2000). Construal operations in linguistics and artificial 
intelligence. In L. Albertazzi (Ed.), Meaning and cognition: A multidisciplinary 
approach (pp. 51-78). John Benjamins. 
Dương, H. B. (2016). Mô hình hệ thống ý niệm trong hệ hình Ngôn ngữ học Tri nhận. 
In H. B. Dương (Ed), Ngữ văn và Văn hóa học: Một chặng đường (pp. 466-493). 
Đại học Quốc gia Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh. 
Evans, V. (2007). A glossary of cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh University Press. 
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh 
University Press. 
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), 
Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111-137). Hanshin Publishing Co. 
Fillmore, C. J. (1997). Lectures on deixis. Cambridge University Press. 
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites 
(Vol 1). Stanford University Press. 
Duong Huu Bien 
27 
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. 
De Gruyter Mouton. 
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Universals of construal. Berkeley Linguistics Society,19, 447-463. 
Langacker, R. W. (2005a). Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In F. 
J. R. de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. S. P. Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: 
Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 101-159). De Gruyter 
Mouton. 
Langacker, R. W. (2005b). Dynamicity, fictivity, and scanning: The imaginative basis 
of logic and linguistic meaning. In D. Pecher, & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding 
cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking 
(pp. 164-197). Cambridge University Press. 
Langacker, R. W. (2007). Cognitive Grammar. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), 
The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 421-462). Oxford University Press. 
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. 
MacLaury, R. E. (1995). Vantage theory. In J. R. Taylor, & R. E. MacLaury (Eds.), 
Language and the cognitive construal of the world (pp. 231-276). De Gruyter 
Mouton. 
Radden, G. (1992). The cognitive approach to natural language. In M. Pütz (Ed.), Thirty 
years of linguistic evolution (pp. 513-542). John Benjamins. 
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. John Benjamins. 
Rubin, E. (1958). Figure and Ground. In D. C. Beardslee, & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), 
Readings in perception (pp. 194-203). Van Nostrand. (The original text published 
in 1915). 
Talmy, L. (1978). Figure and Ground in complex sentences. In J. Greenberg, C. 
Ferguson, & J. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of human language (Vol. 4, pp. 
625-649). Stanford University Press. 
Talmy, L. (1988). The relation of grammar to cognition. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), 
Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 165-205). John Benjamins. 
Talmy, L. (1996). Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’. In P. Bloom, M. A. 
Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 211-276). 
MIT Press. 
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics (Vol. 1). MIT Press.