Top products from r/cognitivelinguistics

It'll take me a while to read about Tomasello.

Yup, the top google search result has been First Language Acquisition (Eve V. Clark) - is that a sufficiently good book either?

It definitely is easy to find articles. Anyways, I'll try the book above - it is available on libgen, than the Ten Lectures book I mentioned in the OP.

Yes, I'm aware of libgen, just wasn't sure if mentioning such sites are allowed in this sub-reddit.

Vyvyan Evans has two books that are geared to students, and which I would say are comprehensive enough.

• Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction is a thorough textbook, and it has "exercises" and further reading at the end of each section. Very useful.
  
• The Cognitive Linguistics Reader is an anthology of basic articles.
  
  I'd say going through these two, and integrating with any further readings you might find and be interested in, would give you a very good basis for cogling!

Honestly not sure exactly what you are looking for, but this book may be of interest: http://www.amazon.com/Emotions-across-Languages-Cultures-Interaction/dp/0521599717. I took a college course on the ways that emotions are portrayed in different cultures and used it as our primary text book.

P.S. You may be able to find articles on similar topics by this author for free online.

Ooo, that's a good idea. I might establish a more permanent resource there for literature, but I was thinking of stuff that's more informal in nature. More like Ben Bergen's [Louder Than Words] (http://www.amazon.com/Louder-Than-Words-Science-Meaning/dp/0465028292). Stuff that isn't fundamental to the field but that people here might find interesting.

I don't know maybe what I'm thinking of fits that niche of a reading list and I'm just not seeing it.

Basically this is where semiotic intersects mathematics and logic. You'll want to look at how mathematics defines functions in terms of set theory and in terms of inference. Probably key is testing your function in terms of mapping. The reason this matters is that it affects causality and inference.

An example in Chinese involves the mapping between hànzì, pinyin and oral Chinese. The only complete and unique form is hànzì. Because the mapping between hànzì --> pinyin are surjective, you can NOT infer the hànzì uniquely from pinyin. Only if the mapping were injective can you make unique and specific inferences but not inversely implicative. You have to have a bijective mapping to move bidirectionally.This impacts inferences about causality of any relationship.

One example is 電 and 店 which BOTH map to the pinyin diàn so if you see or hear "diàn" you can't unique know whether you are hearing "electricity" or "store" (or several other meanings) without more context.

It's this subtlety plus not understanding basic logic that tends to make semiotic hipsters so insufferable and usually wrong about everything they say about semiotics.

The nature of cognition based on what we know about the biology is that there is an inherent and essential mapping between internal model and physical reality that is the basis of cognition. The best brain model is the "instrumental model": reality is perceived through a "soda straw" of the senses with a model of reality created over a lifetime that simulates reality. See Hawkins, Dennett and Norretranders which are backed up by science.

An example of this is the "model" of the color pink. Pink has no physical reality. There is no electromagnetic frequency/wavelength of "pink". Pink is an artifact of cognitive mapping that results when you sense all wavelengths with green missing.

Pink is created by the brain out of thin air as a result of mapping a linear range of of wavelengths to a circular internal model of color. The "circularness" is an artifact of the representation. So the mapping of reality to model (symbol) is inherently injective. The mapping of the model to reality is surjective. Overall the mapping is not bijective.

And this example of pink has a mathematical basis from topology: reality is a conformal map through a sphere while the brain's model is a conformal map through a torus. Because a sphere is not a torus, you create the paradox of the reality of pink.