Talk:Cognitive semantics

I have some background with cognitive science and linguistics courses in college, but I find the first paragraph of this article incomprehensible. Specifically "first, that grammar is conceptualisation; second, that conceptual structure is embodied and motivated by usage;" is too jargon-laden to be meaningful to anyone not already familiar with the topics. Grammar and conceptualisation are used too precisely. I don't know exactly what you mean by those two terms, so equating the two gives me no knowledge. There's no definition of conceptualisation in the cognitive linguistics article either.

This is a technical article, and I don't expect it to be easily understood by everyone, but it seems to me that at least the introduction should be understandable to someone who's taken a intro to linguistics class.

Kevinpet (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. The lead is terrible. The "-ics" ending usually indicates a field of study (statistics, cybernetics), but this makes some claim that Cognitive semantics is part of some "movement", perhaps a bowel movement. I'll template the article accordingly. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed the first paragraph slightly to make it clearer. And Abductive: I agree that this frames cognitive semantics in a strange way as part of a wider philosophical movement without actually exploring many of the claims very well. I would like this article to have more discussion of what cognitive semantics really consists of and less about the comparisons with traditional semantics. Sorry if my formatting has been weird I'm new to wiki editing. Infamousgrouse (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Infamousgrouse, really good edits! You made the lead easier to understand for most readers, great! To make your edits even better, could you provide a source for the first lines of the lead, that you have written?  Lova Falk     talk   22:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

First sentence of the lead
What do you guys think about the first line: "Cognitive semantics is part of the cognitive linguistics movement." Should it really be movement? Not science? Or something else? Lova Falk    talk   22:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah movement isn't an ideal word, but it is accurate. Cognitive semantics is not accepted by the mainstream linguistics community. It isn't derided, but it's like the Neodarwinian Synthesists and Punctuated Equilibriumists... They disagree about the fundamentals. Infamousgrouse (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)