The categories, they do nothing!
The categories, they do nothing!
A cognitive linguistics paper just for you.
I thought I just made this shit "cognitive linguistics" up...
Heh, nope, you would be a tenured prof in a linguistics or psych department if you had. "Cognitive linguistics" itself is a problematic term because it usually means "the branch of psycholinguistics that became George Lakoff's personality cult" rather than the more obvious meaning of "the application of cognitive psychology to linguistics."
I can see that the subtle differences there could cause confusion.
It's not really so subtle at all if you're familiar with the history of the fields, though. It's sort of like how "evolutionary psychology" often doesn't mean "psychology done from an evolutionary perspective," but "selfish gene + Cosmides and Tooby."
Sometimes I just want to roll the clock back a couple of years to before I stumbled head first into fuzziness. Things were just so much better.
Too late, you have already unasked the question.
Sometimes, academics ask questions that defeat the purpose of the intent of the underscored themes. This whole discussion on Categories by Danziger, creates a non "day to day life and use of language" and imposes, instead, this artificial construct of what catigories SHOULD do, and therefore why they are imperfect and imprecise. But what she wants them to do, and what they actually do do are two totally different things.
Her work on "language space and culture (1998)" just makes me wonder why she wants to prove her thesis, rather than wants to work with the proof she has to MAKE a thesis.