COGNITIVE GRAMMAR

developed by Ronald Langackerdeveloped by Ronald Langacker

Discussant:Joy A. Verzosa

Cognitive grammarCognitive grammar is a cognitive approach is a cognitive approach to language developed to language developed by Ronald Langacker, by Ronald Langacker,

which considerswhich considers

the basic units of the basic units of language to be symbols language to be symbols

or conventional pairings of a semantic structure with a phonological label.

Like construction grammar Like construction grammar (developed by Langacker's student (developed by Langacker's student Adele Goldberg), and unlike many Adele Goldberg), and unlike many mainstream linguistic theories, mainstream linguistic theories,

cognitive grammar extends the notion of symbolic units to the grammar of languages.

he further assumes that linguistic structures are motivated by general cognitive processes. In formulating his theory, he makes extensive use of principles of gestalt psychology and draws analogies between linguistic structure and aspects of visual perception.

Langacker develops the central ideas of cognitive grammar in his seminal, two-volume Foundations of cognitive grammar, which became a major departure point for the emerging field of Cognitive Linguistics.

Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction Ronald Langacker

OrientationOrientation

Grammar forms a continuum with lexicon and is fully Grammar forms a continuum with lexicon and is fully describable as assemblies of symbolic structures describable as assemblies of symbolic structures

(form-meaning pairings)(form-meaning pairings)

Lexicon varies with respect to the complexity of expressions and the degree of specifity of the meanings symbolized

Cognitive Grammar is a usage-based approach, in which linguistic structure is seen as emerging by abstraction from usage events, i.e. the reinforcement of what is common across multiple instances of language use in interactive contexts.

Conceptual Conceptual SemanticsSemantics

Linguistic meanings do not reflect the world in any Linguistic meanings do not reflect the world in any direct or straightforward manner, but rather direct or straightforward manner, but rather embody particular ways of construing the situations embody particular ways of construing the situations described, often involving imagination and mental described, often involving imagination and mental constructions. constructions.

An expression derives its meaning by flexibly invoking an open-ended set of cognitive domains, i.e. concepts or conceptual complexes of any degree of complexity.

CONSTRUAL

An expression's meaning depends not only on An expression's meaning depends not only on the conceptual content it evokes but also the conceptual content it evokes but also on the construal it imposes on that content. on the construal it imposes on that content.

Broad classes of construal phenomena include specificity, focusing, prominence, and perspective. Specificity (or its inverse, schematicity) is the degree of precision and detail at which a situation is characterized.

Grammatical ClassesGrammatical Classes

The standard doctrine that basic The standard doctrine that basic grammatical classes (parts of speech) grammatical classes (parts of speech) are not semantically definable rests on are not semantically definable rests on

erroneous assumptions about the erroneous assumptions about the nature of linguistic meaning. With a nature of linguistic meaning. With a

proper view of meaning, basic proper view of meaning, basic categories—notably noun and verb—categories—notably noun and verb—

have plausible conceptual have plausible conceptual characterizations at both the prototype characterizations at both the prototype

level (for typical examples) and the level (for typical examples) and the schema level (valid for all instances). schema level (valid for all instances).

The schemas are independent of any particular conceptual The schemas are independent of any particular conceptual content, residing instead in basic cognitive abilities immanent content, residing instead in basic cognitive abilities immanent in the archetypes: for nouns, grouping and reification; in the in the archetypes: for nouns, grouping and reification; in the case of verbs, the ability to apprehend relationships and to case of verbs, the ability to apprehend relationships and to

track their evolution through time. track their evolution through time.

An expression's grammatical category specifically depends on the nature of its profile (not its overall content). Thus a noun profiles a thing (defined abstractly as any product of grouping and reification), while a verb profiles a process (a relationship tracked through time). Expressions that profile non-process relationships include adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, infinitives, and participles. Relational expressions can be categorized in different ways, depending on factors like the number and type of focused participants, whether the profiled relation is simple or complex, and whether it is apprehended holistically or sequentially.

These characterizations prove efficacious in describing how relational expressions function as noun modifiers and in clausal organization.

M AJOR SUBCLASSES

Despite being polar opposites conceptually, the two most fundamental grammatical classes—noun and verb—show extensive parallelism.

One similarity is that both divide into two major subclasses: count vs. mass for nouns, perfective vs. imperfective for verbs. Allowing for the intrinsic conceptual difference between nouns and verbs, these oppositions are precisely the same. The essential feature of count nouns and perfective verbs is that the profiled thing or process is construed as being bounded within the immediate scope in a particular cognitive domain: the domain of instantiation, characterized as the domain where instances of a type are primarily conceived as residing and are distinguished from one another by their locations

For nouns, the domain of instantiation varies, although space is prototypical; for verbs, the relevant domain is always time. Correlated with bounding are other distinguishing properties: internal heterogeneity (for count and perfective) vs. homogeneity (for mass and imperfective); contractibility (the property of masses and imperfectives whereby any subpart of an instance is itself an instance of its type); and expansibility (whereby combining two mass or imperfective instances yields a single, larger instance).

Count vs. mass and perfective vs. imperfective are not rigid lexical distinctions, but are malleable owing to alternate construals as well as systematic patterns of extension. The conceptual characterization of perfective and imperfective verbs explains their contrasting behavior with respect to the English progressive and present tense.

ConstructionsGeneral Characterization

Grammar consists in patterns for assembling symbolically complex expressions. Such expressions are characterized as assemblies of symbolic structures, also called constructions. In large measure, symbolic assemblies are hierarchically arranged: at a given level of organization, component symbolic structures are integrated to form a composite symbolic structure, which can in turn function as component structure at a higher level, and so on. Component structures are integrated both semantically and phonologically, the phonological integration serving to symbolize the semantic integration. Although linguistic meanings are only partially compositional, compositional patterns are essential to the formation and understanding of novel expressions. These patterns are themselves symbolic assemblies, differing from expressions just by virtue of being schematic rather than specific; they are thus referred to as constructional schemas

ConstructionsDescriptive Factors

Constructions are characterized in terms of four basic factors: correspondences, profiling, elaboration, and constituency. Correspondences are the basis for semantic and grammatical integration; they specify the conceptual and phonological overlap between component structures, as well as between the component and composite structures. Semantic integration often involves multiple correspondences. Semantic anomaly arises when corresponding elements have inconsistent properties. A component which makes salient schematic reference to another in this manner is

said to be dependent on it. Organization in relationships of autonomy/dependence (A/D-alignment) is a basic feature of language structure. The difference between complements and modifiers is a matter of whether these component structures are autonomous or dependent with respect to the constructional head. Constituency is the hierarchical aspect of symbolic assemblies. Contrary to standard views, constituency is neither fundamental nor essential to grammar, and while it does emerge, it is neither invariant nor exhaustive of grammatical structure. Grammatical relations (like subject and object) are defined on the basis of semantic factors and correspondences, and are thus independent of particular constituency configurations.

Rules and RestrictionsLanguage is both cognitive and sociocultural, consisting in conventionally sanctioned patterns of communicative activity. These patterns take the form of schemas abstracted from usage events by the reinforcement of recurring commonalities. Conventional linguistic units are linked by relationships of composition and categorization (either elaboration or extension) and thus form intersecting networks of great complexity.

Expressions are interpreted and assessed for well-formedness through categorization by linguistic units. Through a process of interactive activation, particular units are selected to categorize particular facets of an expression. The total set of categorizing relationships constitutes the expression's structural description, and whether the categorizations involve elaboration or extension determines its degree of conventionality. Despite the absence of explicit prohibitions, this model affords an account of distribution, restrictions, and judgments of ungrammaticality.

Engaging the WorldBecause it unfolds through time, conceptualization (and hence linguistic meaning) is inherently dynamic. There are numerous natural paths that it tends to follow, and which tend to coalign in linguistic structure. In one kind of path, a salient reference point provides mental access to a target. Certain basic grammatical phenomena are analyzed in terms of reference point relationships, including possessives, pronominal anaphora, topic constructions, and trajector/ landmark organization (subject and object).

A subject differs from a discourse topic by being structurally internal to a clause and conceptually intrinsic to the clausal process. Trajector and landmark are characterized dynamically as the first and second reference points evoked in building up to the full conception of a profiled relationship. This explains their general grammatical accessibility as well as their role in certain specific constructions.

The mental world we construct is grounded in our experience as creatures with bodies who engage in motor and sensory interactions (embodiment). In constructing it, we transcend direct experience through abstraction, conceptual integration, and subjectification: the application of mental operations immanent in certain conceptions to situations for which their occurrence is extrinsic. Examples include fictive motion, fictive change, and the covert invocation of imagined scenarios.

Mental simulation is a fundamental aspect of conception and linguistic meaning. Subjectification is an important factor in grammaticization (the evolution of grammatical elements from lexical sources). Many grammatical notions are subjective counterparts of basic aspects of everyday experience.

Grammar reflects the means of disengagement through which we transcend immediate experience and construct our mental world. It is thus a key to conceptual analysis.

References:References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_grammar

Langacker, Ronald W. (1982) 'Space Grammar, Analysability, and the English Passive', Langacker, Ronald W. (1982) 'Space Grammar, Analysability, and the English Passive', LanguageLanguage, 58, 1, 22-80., 58, 1, 22-80.

Langacker, Ronald W. (1987) Langacker, Ronald W. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive GrammarFoundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1, , Volume 1, Theoretical PrerequisitesTheoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, Ronald W. (1990) Langacker, Ronald W. (1990) Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of GrammarGrammar. (Cognitive Linguistics Research 1.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. . (Cognitive Linguistics Research 1.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. [paperback edition 1991][paperback edition 1991]

Langacker, Ronald W. (1991) Langacker, Ronald W. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive GrammarFoundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 2, , Volume 2, Descriptive ApplicationDescriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, Ronald W. (2008) Langacker, Ronald W. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A Basic IntroductionCognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction . New York: . New York: Oxford University Press.Oxford University Press.

Taylor, John R. (2002) Taylor, John R. (2002) Cognitive GrammarCognitive Grammar. Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics. Oxford: . Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Oxford University Press.