From the perspective of cognitive linguistics, grammar, i.e., the constructions used in the speech as the manifestations of grammatical structures, can be considered the conceptualization of an idea. Therefore, any representation of knowledge from a linguistic perspective, be it morphological, phonological, semantic, or syntactic one, is a conceptual structure, which does not allow for elucidating the connection between the semantic and the formal representation of a word to a basic truth-conditional representation. Therefore, by implying that grammatical constructions should be interpreted as the conceptualizations, one introduces a plethora of opportunities for uninhibited linguistic creativity into the language.
Cognitive linguistics allowed for merging the domains of truth-conditional (i.e., logical) and the phenomenon of generative syntax, therefore, helping understand how speech is produced and what role experience and subjective interpretation of reality play in the process of producing speech. The use of conceptualization as the amalgam of the speaker’s experience on which the process of generating speech is based can be considered a chance to refrain from the traditional usage of rigid linguistic patterns and bring expressivity and artistry into the language, therefore, creating prerequisites for its further evolution. For example, the word “see” can be used to denote not only the ability to observe something (e.g., “I see a beautiful flower”) but also as the means of denoting comprehension (as in “Oh, I see now what you mean”).
In other words, by introducing the conceptualist perspective into the modern linguistics, one is likely to build the foundation for language experimentations, as well as the inclusion of denotation-related meanings based on the experience of the speakers. Thus, in theory, the process of language development can be defined as not being based on any specific order or reality. The promotion of the intersubjective truth as the foundational concept for the further evolution of the language will imply that the latter is theoretically going to be represented by the speakers’ knowledge and use thereof. In other words, the further incorporation of new and innovative metaphors, constructions, and other elements of speech into the language is going to be derived from people’s experiences and the information that they will acquire. Consequently, given the immense range of opportunities for personal discoveries in the usage of language, one may assume that the further perspectives for the evolution of the language are basically endless. For example, one’s perception of the neutral word “outside” as the synonym for something that was not familiar and, therefore, hostile, triggered a negative connotation of the word “outsider.”
Put differently, the perspective through which cognitive linguistics views the process of producing a speech allows building an entirely new model of representing the grammar. Consequently, the number of tools for analyzing the stages of creating a specific idea and wording it increases significantly. Furthermore, the very process of creating a statement and putting it into words is no longer considered as merely the result of matching a certain grammatical framework with a specific idea. Instead, the introduction of the principles of conceptualization as the means of eliminating the boundaries between the linguistic structures and the personal interpretation of language as a continuously evolving phenomenon will be possible.
In other words, the idea of viewing the language development through the lens of conceptualization suggests that the experience acquired by the speaker should be incorporated with the knowledge about the language that they possess. It would be wrong to claim that the phenomenon of conceptualization immediately cancels the rules and principles of grammar, syntax, phonology, etc. Quite on the contrary, it invites new opportunities for the evolution of the said concepts. The idea of conceptualization serves as the catalyst for the development of the language. It pushes the envelope, helping make expressions used in a speech more memorable and powerful. As a result, the message conveyed by the speaker becomes all the more convincing, getting across the sense of urgency, necessity, and significance.
It should be borne in mind, though, that conceptualization is intrinsically visual in its nature and, therefore, implies that the speaker is going to incorporate their visual experiences primarily into forming the new concepts and phenomena with the help of traditional linguistics tools. As a result, a certain amount of chaos may be introduced into the language, making it a cluster of personal impressions shaped with the help of the set linguistic tools. Nevertheless, the fact that visual perceptions are typically homogenous among the speakers of a particular language and the representatives of a specific culture, it can be assumed that the generalized versions of new concepts and ideas will finally work their way into the language, contributing successfully to its further progress.
By claiming that constructions as the representation of grammatical structure should be interpreted as conceptualizations, one creates a myriad of possibilities for linguistic creativity and the further development of the language. Therefore, it is the array of options for expressing oneself creatively with the help of the traditional linguistic tools that the said statement permits. Despite the fact that the identified approach invites certain issues regarding the subjectivity of the language use, it provides a solid boost for the further evolution of thereof. Thus, the prerequisites for the creation of a richer and more expressive use of linguistic tools can be built.