Cover not available
Part of
Studies in Lexicogrammar: Theory and applications
Edited by Grzegorz Drożdż
[Human Cognitive Processing 54] 2016
► pp. 23–54

Toward an integrated view of structure, processing, and discourse

Research in Cognitive Grammar divides into two broad phases. The first phase provided an integrated account of lexicon, morphology, and syntax as inherently meaningful structures; it offered a radical alternative to the generative paradigm based on modularity, constituency, and the autonomy of syntax. The current phase aims at a broader synthesis subsuming structure, processing, and discourse. Linguistic structures are never self-contained, but draw upon a substrate of indefinite extent, encompassing the speech situation, the context, background knowledge, and the ongoing discourse. The substrate includes the speaker-hearer interaction, which is part of an expression’s meaning even when left implicit. Recognition of the substrate allows a straightforward treatment of phenomena that are problematic when expressions are analyzed in isolation.
Keywords: attention, complementation, constituency, discourse, interaction, language processing, prosody, seriality, structure, substrate, symbolic assembly
Published online: 4 August 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.54.02lan
References (30)
Austin, J.L. 1962. How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Boye, K., & Harder, P. 2007. Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language, 31, 569–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. 2001. The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 97–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A. 1983. The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J., & Sag, I. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 391–428.Google Scholar
Ibbotson, P., Lieven, E.V.M., & Tomasello, M. 2013. The attention-grammar interface: Eye-gaze cues structural choice in children and adults. Cognitive Linguistics, 24, 457–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janssen, T. 1995. Deixis from a cognitive point of view. In E. Contini-Morava & B. Sussman Goldberg (Eds.), Meaning as explanation: Advances in linguistic sign theory (245–270). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1990. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1997. Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001a. Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001b. Topic, subject, and possessor. In H. Gram Simonsen & R. Theil Endresen (Eds.), A cognitive approach to the verb: Morphological and constructional perspectives (11–48). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2002. Deixis and subjectivity. In F. Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference (1–28). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Elliptic coordination. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 555–599. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Subordination in a dynamic account of grammar. In L. Visapää, J. Kalliokoski, & H. Sorva (Eds.), Contexts of subordination: Cognitive, typological and discourse perspectives (17–72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, C.N. 1997. On zero anaphora. In J. Bybee, J. Haiman, & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on language function and language type dedicated to T. Givón (275–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, J.R. 1970. On declarative sentences. In R.A. Jacobs & P.S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (222–272). Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London & New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 1988. The relation of grammar to cognition. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (165–205). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S.A. 2002. ‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language, 26, 125–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Hoek, K. 1995. Conceptual reference points: A cognitive grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language, 71, 310–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Backwards anaphora as a constructional category. Functions of Language, 4, 47–82.Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Podhorodecka, Joanna
2022. Review of Xu Wen & John R. Taylor (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (2021). New York and London: Routledge, pp. 772. Prace Językoznawcze 24:1 ► pp. 277 ff. DOI logo
Waliński, Jacek Tadeusz
2022. Trees, assemblies, chains, and windows*. In Construction Grammar across Borders [Benjamins Current Topics, 122], ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
Kochańska, Agata
2021. A grammatical construction in the service of interpersonal distance regulation. The case of the Polish directive infinitive construction. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 57:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Zhan, Hongwei
2020. Book review: Christopher Hart (ed.), Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Text and Discourse: From Poetics to Politics. Discourse Studies 22:2 ► pp. 247 ff. DOI logo
Möttönen, Tapani
2019. The normative basis of construal. In Normativity in language and linguistics [Studies in Language Companion Series, 209], ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo
Langacker, Ronald W.
2016. Working toward a synthesis. Cognitive Linguistics 27:4 ► pp. 465 ff. DOI logo
Langacker, Ronald W.
2020. Trees, assemblies, chains, and windows. Constructions and Frames 12:1 ► pp. 8 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Fictive questions in the Zhuangzi [Figurative Thought and Language, 18], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.