The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics Part 11. In the past decade, Cognitive Linguistics has developed into one of the most dynamic and attractive frameworks within theoretical and descriptive linguistics The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics is a major new reference that presents a comprehensive overview of the main theoretical concepts and descriptive/theoretical models of Cognitive Linguistics, and covers its various subfields, theoretical as well as applied. | 70 ARIE VERHAGEN is more natural with another word order and intonation contour Some theoreticians frankly deny the relevance of these results . The fact that in front position frankly takes elements of the ground the utterance itself and how it may be taken by the addressee as its base and not the object of conceptualization implies that the construal relation itself is in this case even less profiled than in the case of epistemic may so that this frankly-sentence exemplifies the highly subjective construal configuration of figure rather than that of figure . Yet the highly subjective nature of a construal is certainly a matter of degree as the use of frankly still imposes a constraint on the nature of the object of conceptualization it must be some piece of discourse. Some elements in a language may allow objective as well as epistemic and speech act construals. This has been proposed for example for some causal connectives . because in English by Sweetser 1990 . Consider the following examples. 16 John typed her thesis because he really loves her. 17 John really loves her because he typed her thesis. 18 What are you doing tonight Because there s a good movie on. In 16 because profiles a causal relationship as part of the object of conceptualization in 17 it construes an element of the object of conceptualization the fact that John typed her thesis as an argument for the addressee to accept the conclusion that John s love for her must also be part of the object of conceptualization an epistemic construal of the type depicted in figure and in 18 it justifies an element of the ground itself namely the speech act of asking. What we have seen then is that these are all linguistic expressions just like the spatial markers below and across that as such allow both relatively objective and relatively subjective construals. The actual type of construal varies depending on several contextual features for an illuminating discussion of such factors in the .
