Instead of a bibliography, I’ve put together a spreadsheet of all the cognitive linguistics papers that have been presented at SBL through 2023 (both from the CLBI section and beyond). Currently I have a poorly formatted database of cognitive linguistics in biblical studies more generally that I’d like to make public, but this spreadsheet is a decent start.

Cognitive Linguistics at the Society of Biblical Literature through 2023
Link removed temporarily to correct some misalignments in the spreadsheet

Below I highlight and survey papers that stand out to me as particularly notable for various themes and methodological tools that cognitive linguists use for their work.

Papers from the CLBI SBL Program Section

Thematically, conceptual metaphor often has a strong presence in the SBL session. Some highlights include the following.^[1] Dille (2010) discusses the relationship between conceptual metaphor and genre, particularly the distinction between poetry and prose. van Hecke (2014) lays out an account of how illness and fear are realized in terms of metaphorical descriptions across the Hebrew Bible. Currier (2020) explores how metaphorical mappings affect the interpretations of figures of speech and idioms. She examines the ways the phrase “loose/slack bow” is interpreted metaphorically in terms of reliability and how these construals are realized across translations. Liantonio (2023) challenges earlier suggestions that the container metaphor does not occur with emotions in the Hebrew Bible by illustrating the container metaphor around the existence of emotion, its intensity, and its embodied nature.

Mental space theory, frame semantics, and blending theory represent a related collection of approaches that consider how implicit and encyclopedic knowledge interacts with language. Some early contributions include Howe (2006) explores the dynamic interaction of metaphor, frames, and blended mental spaces in Matthew 25:31-46,^[2] and Danner-McDonald (2009), who uses the parable of the Good Samaritan to examine how images schemas and common and “normal” experiences are manipulated by Jesus to challenge his audience to look for opportunities for interruptions of standard scripts and scenes to show radical compassion. Parris (2010, published Parris 2014) examines conditional constructions using mental space theory. Using frame semantics and force dynamics, Parris (2012) explores how the symptoms of a seizure might have been interpreted by the audience of Matt 17, Mark 9, and Luke 9. von Thaden (2012) and Robbins (2012) use blending theory and frame semantics, respectively, to build stronger empirical foundation for larger hermeneutical projects like socio-rhetorical criticism for understanding sacred texts in their social and cultural worlds (see also Robbins, von Thaden, and Bruehler 2016). Richard Rhodes has been prolific (2011; 2013; 2014; 2015; 2018; 2019; 2021; 2022;), highlighting frame semantics across a wide collection of biblical studies subdisciplines—exegesis, lexical semantics, and grammar. His first paper (Rhodes 2011) “What Linguists Wish Biblical Scholars Knew about Language” and (Rhodes 2018) “Frames and Exegesis” challenge biblical scholars to consider how meaning interacts in more complicated and more interesting ways than assumed in traditional biblical studies and earlier structuralist approaches. Rodriguez (2018), Wright (2020), and Aubrey (2022) all adopt frame semantics for explorations of the semantics of Hebrew and Greek prepositions, their semantics, grammar, and for Wright, also discourse.

More recent exegesis-focused uses of these approaches include Parris (2019), who works through features in Matthew 17, exploring the activation of semantic frames and how activated frames mold how the story is read. Likewise, Sweetser (2019) shows how mental space blending ground Jesus’ parables in Matthew to guide the audience through the process of understanding the ways that Jesus inverts conventional social systems. Howe (2019) engages in larger hermeneutical issues in her discussion of the Good Samaritan through the lens of conceptual blending and frame semantics. She illustrates how bending theory makes it possible for a wide range of plausible readings of the parable. She contrasts four readings of the parable in the history of interpretation and shows how the store builds in constraints that guide readers toward interpretive fidelity.

Knowledge structures like image schemas, categorization, radial networks, and prototype theory also continue to feature strongly. These are perhaps most commonly applied to lexicography and lexical semantics, like Ashdown’s (2009) analysis of the category structure of גאל, ‘redeemer’ or van der Merwe’s (2016) survey of semantic shifts with body-part vocabulary. But again, these cognitive linguistic concepts, theories and tools are relevant well beyond lexical semantics. Hayes (2008) uses prototype theory to explain grammar and structure of parallelism in Hebrew poetry. More recently, Sherman (2021) illustrates how conceptual metaphor and frame semantics can been effectively used together for interpreting biblical texts. Rae (2023) bridges lexical semantics and exegesis using prototype theory to consider the central sense of the Hebrew term הֶבֶל, ‘vapor.’ Rae argues that its metaphorical use in Ecclesiastes as ‘lack of substance’ provides new possibilities for understanding the structure and meaning of the book. Likewise, Qu (2023) uses Ecclesiastes 12 to illustrate how literariness functions as a prototypical category, wherein deviations from the prototype affect how a reader interprets the text as literary. Qu examines how images schemas and spatial metaphors create emotional responses in the reader. Vermeulen and Hayes (2020) explore prototype theory and hermeneutics by examining scholarly interaction with the biblical text as a process of categorization and the building up of prototypes. Aubrey and Aubrey (2023) show how prototype effects are realized in grammar itself. They explain how the source-path-goal image schema undergirds a family of related grammatical constructions, all meaningfully motivated via metaphorical mappings.

Other approaches and methods (viewpoint analysis, embodiment, profiling, and various construal processes) also gain recent attention. Sweetser’s early (2007) “Linguistic Cues to Building Mental Spaces of Authority” utilized mental spaces for highlighting insights into narrative viewpoint. Currier (2017) builds on Verhagen’s (2005) conception of intersubjective grounding for understanding the cognitive coordination among groups of individuals. She argues that Proverbs’ sayings are persuasive because of the ways the speaker and addressee interact in terms of subjective perspective to coordinate meaning. Runge (2021) explores issues of hermeneutical theory from the perspective of Kintsch’s comprehension model for processing discourse. Rachel Aubrey (2022) engages with viewpoint in the grammar and semantics of prepositional phrases. Long (2022) took Langacker’s concepts of “profiling,” “levels of specificity,” “scale-scope of predication,” and the “relative salience” to examine a variety of purpose constructions in Greek, with particular attention on their interplay in Eph 4:10–16. Metaphor and embodiment are also common themes, illustrated by Tappenden’s (2015) examination of Paul’s conception of body in the context of resurrection in Rom 5-6—a theme also explored by Tosatto (2023) in 2 Cor 5:1-5. Currier (2015) engages with embodiment and construal processes to illustrate the semantics of the categories of “rich” and “poor” in Proverbs.

And of course, all these concepts appear in explicit theories of grammar like Cognitive Grammar and Construction Grammar, oft championed by Ellen van Wolde, but also highlighted in several papers on grammar above. Van Wolde’s (2014) “The Surplus of a Combination of Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Grammar and Meaning” documented how both construction grammar and cognitive grammar make it possible to unite structure and meaning together in ways that provide better insights into Biblical Hebrew.

An ongoing strength of the Cognitive Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Section has been pre-conference workshops, which often bring in cognitive linguists to speak to the SBL community—such as Laura Michaelis (2018) on tense and aspect in narrative or Seana Coulson (2019) on embodiment and blending. Other times, the workshops highlight the work biblical scholar, like Reinier de Blois (2023) on lexical semantics. These workshops provide students and biblical scholars opportunity to interact with leading linguists on concepts directly relevant to understanding the biblical texts and their languages.

More of these papers need to be published, though some may be found in Howe and Green (2014). The task of collecting and organizing theme sessions or even papers on similar themes over the years into collected books would only benefit the field and help make more of this excellent work accessible. Whether exploring the horizons of hermeneutics, digging into exegetical questions of text, or analyzing lexical items and grammar, nearly two decades of papers in the CLBI section of SBL show clearly how the tools and methods of cognitive linguistics are readily applicable across the field of biblical studies.

---

[1] There are numerous papers that engage with the various cognitive linguistic methods surveyed below and almost impossible to mention everything. Instead, I provide a chronological taste of a few of the many standout papers over the past 18 years with some emphasis on repeat presenters.

[2] Attentive readers will note the allusion to Lakoff (1987) in Howe’s (2006) title: “Strangers, Fire, and Dangerous Distinctions: Cognitive Cues to Moral Authority in Matthew 25:31–46.”