Cognitive Grammar
Cognitive Grammar
Cognitive Grammar
COGNITIVE GRAMMAR
comprehensively in Langacker (1987, 1991), two mutually dependent volumes which are
best read together. Langacker (1988) provides a succinct chapter-length overview of his
theory, while Taylor (2002) and Evans and Green (2006, 553-640) are highly
scope and provocative in its approach to understanding linguistic structure. It has played
with what is known about cognitive processing in domains other than language. CG
contrasts in this respect with models which insist upon a discrete, autonomous “grammar
attention, and figure vs. ground asymmetry in accounting for linguistic phenomena. In
structures reflecting alternate construals of the conceived situation. Not surprisingly, the
Page 2 of 8
cognitive notions assume a relatively abstract interpretation when applied to some aspects
scanning of a field, and perception of a boundary are all deemed relevant to explicating
conceptualization of nouns with clear spatial boundaries (e.g., cup, pencil), but a more
abstract interpretation of these processes is clearly required in other domains. Body part
nouns (e.g., waist, shoulder, side), for example, must be explicated in terms of a “virtual
demarcation. Likewise, the notions of figure and ground familiar from the study of
notions have most obvious relevance in the case of words relating to the spatial domain,
such as the contrasting pair above and below, where there is a kind of figure-ground
reversal of the conceptual reference point. The terms “trajector” (an extension of the
notion of figure) and “landmark” (an extension of the notion of ground) are used to refer
to the specifically linguistic manifestation of the perceptual notions of figure and ground,
such that the book is the trajector and the table is the landmark in the book under the
table. Conversely, the table is the trajector and the book is the landmark in the table over
the book. More abstractly still, the traditional syntactic contrast between subject and
object is construed as a very specific instance of the trajector vs. landmark contrast.
(1987, 99); see Talmy (2000, 4) for a similar view of semantic structure). CG takes the
notion of symbolic unit (similar to, but not to be equated simply with, the Saussurean
items, grammatical classes and grammatical constructions. The lexical item tree, for
example, consists of a semantic unit [TREE] and a corresponding phonological unit [trɪ]
which combine to form the symbol for tree, [[TREE]/[trɪ]]. The same apparatus is
applicable to defining a word class such as a noun, [[THING]]/[…]], where both semantic
and phonological units (or “poles”) are schematic. A more complex lexical item such as
the noun tree and the plural [-z]: [[[TREE]/[trɪ]]-[[PL]/[z]]]. Grammatical constructions are
in principle no different from a lexical item like trees in terms of the descriptive
apparatus required to capture all the relevant detail, with each of the component
appearing in a construction, such as of, are treated as symbolic units in their own right,
with semantic structure (of, for example, specifies a part-whole relation). The integration
of any two symbolic units goes hand in hand with distinguishing the dependent and
whole syllable and can be considered autonomous, while the single consonant [z] is
dependent.
Page 4 of 8
into larger composite structures. The analysis of the English passive construction in
account of a construction type. Briefly, and consistent with the foregoing remarks, each
morpheme in the passive (including by and the auxiliary verbs) has its own symbolic
representation, giving rise to the overall semantic structure, just as the active counterpart
has its own compositional structure and resulting semantic structure. Passive clauses do
not derive from active clauses in this view; nor do they derive from some abstract
structure underlying actives and passives. Rather, passive clauses exist in their own right
(1987, 328-348, 388-40) and Taylor (2002, 78-95)), it is semantic structure which has
received most attention and for which most theoretical apparatus has been developed.
represent polysemy relationships and to provide motivation for conventional and novel
extensions. Each node of the semantic network, together with the associated phonological
structure, represents a semantic variant of the lexical item. Two types of relationships
figure prominently in these networks: schematicity and extension. The word head, for
example, can be assigned a sense [PART OF A WHOLE WHICH CONTROLS THE BEHAVIOR OF
THE HUMAN BODY WHERE THINKING IS LOCATED ] and [PERSON WHO MANAGES AN
proposed, encompassing all lower-level senses in the network, though such superschemas
are not feasible for every network. The extensive polysemy of head, for example, makes
one single superschema covering such diverse senses as ‘head of a lettuce’, ‘head of a
bed’, ‘head of a golf club’ etc. unlikely. Semantic extension holds between the more basic
sense of ‘human head’ and the sense of ‘head of an administrative unit’. The node which
is the source of the extension constitutes a “local” PROTOTYPE (with respect to the
extended sense); where one node is experienced as representative of the whole category,
as is likely in the case of the ‘human head’ sense of head, we speak of a “global”
prototype. There is clearly variation among speakers in their judgments about nodes and
relationships within the network, including their ability to identify relatedness of senses
and to extract schematic meanings. This variation poses challenges for description, but
does not negate the need to acknowledge the reality of such networks.
listing of highly specific patterns alongside the statement of more general patterns, rather
than recognizing only the most general rules and schemas. The existence of a general
pattern of plural formation in English with, say, a suffixed /z/, does not obviate the need
to recognize the more specific patterns of plural formation which hold between any
particular singular/plural pair, even when the plural formation is fully regular, such as
runs counter to deeply entrenched practices in contemporary linguistics which has been
description. Langacker has repeatedly emphasized the desirability of both general and
structured inventory of conventional linguistic units” (Langacker 1987, 73). The units, so
conceived, may be semantic or phonological; they range from the symbolic units
consisting of a single morpheme to larger composite symbolic units at the clause level;
they include highly specific, as well as highly schematic units. This conception of
theorizing, e.g., the collocational patterning of great idea, absolutely fabulous etc.
other approaches which focus on LANGUAGE IN USE whereby actual usage, including
basis for extracting patterns of varying generality. Fully general, exceptionless rules are
seen as atypical and, while it is valid to seek out such rules, it would be misguided in this
devices used by Langacker who employs a distinctive and highly original, geometric
style of representation (in his earlier publications, Langacker used the term “Space
Grammar” to refer to his approach). To some extent, the notation is intuitive: a circle is
used to denote a [THING] entity; thicker, darker lines represent the “profile”, i.e., the
of the notation, however, requires careful study. Of course, not all the detail needs to be
represented all the time and CG ideas can be effectively incorporated into linguistic
--John Newman
John Benjamins.
Page 8 of 8
Langacker, Ronald W. 2001. [1st ed. 1991]. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive
Basis of Grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. The chapters in this
volume cover key areas of grammar (grammatical valence, case, passive etc.) and can
Newman, John. 2004. “The Quiet Revolution: Ron Langacker’s Fall Quarter 1977
This chapter gives a first-hand account of an early presentation of the material which