Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 19:1 (2021) ► pp.206–231

The Three Grammars and the sign

| University of Westminster

This article presents an original three-component model of the linguistic sign. It shares with the established triadic models of Peirce (1955 [1897]) and Ogden and Richards (1923/1949) in identifying thought, word and thing as essential components; but differs in being linear, with thought and thing at opposite poles. It is argued that this arrangement reflects the way the components of the sign relate to reality and thereby serves well as an explanatory tool for linguistic research. The model is further modified at each of the ontological realms using concepts from cognitive linguistics, renamed cognition, language and reality. The new model is employed as a research tool in two case studies: one illustrates its use in making sense of the complex field of language grammar; the other does the same for figurative language – metaphor and metonymy. The article’s conclusions include that interrogating established cornerstones of linguistic theory in the light of new theory can lead to the development of improved research tools.

Keywords: semiotics, the sign, ontological realms, reification, construal, construction, grammar, metaphor, metonymy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Modelling the sign – Developing a linear triadic model
  • 3.Modifying the basic linear model of the sign using concepts from cognitive grammar
    • 3.1Abstract things
    • 3.2The semantic narrowing of words
    • 3.3Complex thoughts
  • 4.Case study 1 – Grammar
    • 4.1Generative grammar
    • 4.2Functional grammar
    • 4.3Cognitive grammar
    • 4.4The Three Grammars and the value of a semiotics perspective
  • 5.Case study 2 – Figurative language
    • 5.1Metaphor
    • 5.2Metonymy
    • 5.3Metaphor, metonymy and the Three Grammars
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • References
Published online: 28 April 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00081.den
References
Atkin, A.
(2013) Peirce’s theory of signs. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. [URL] [accessed 2 March 2020].
Cameron, L.
(2010) The discourse dynamics framework for metaphor. In L. Cameron & R. Maslen (Eds.), Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and humanities (pp. 77–94). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Cameron, L., & Maslen, R.
(Eds.) (2010) Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and humanities. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1957) Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cowie, A. P.
(Ed.) (1998) Phraseology: Theory, analysis and application. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(1998) What (some) functionalists can learn from (some) formalists. In M. Darnell, E. Moravcsik, F. J. Newmeyer, M. Noonan & K. M. Wheatley (Eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, vol. 11 (pp. 87–110). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deignan, A.
(2005) Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denroche, C. T.
(2015) Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2018) Text metaphtonymy: The interplay of metonymy and metaphor in discourse. Metaphor and the Social World, 8(1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(2006 [1982]) Frame semantics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 373–400). Berlin & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Page references in the present article are to the 2006 work. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A.
(1973) Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
(1976) Deep grammar: System as semantic choice. In G. R. Kress (Ed.), Halliday: System and function in language. Selected papers (pp. 88–98). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1978) Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
(1985) An introduction to functional grammar (1st ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
(1993) Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In M. A. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science; Literacy and discursive power (pp. 69–85). London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
(1994) An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Harris, R.
(1993) The linguistics wars. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. T.
(1943/1953) Omkring sprogteoriens grundlkggelse (Danish text, Copenhagen, 1943). The 1953 English trans. by Francis Whitfield, Prolegomena to a theory of language (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press), was used in the present article.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. O.
(1968) Language in relation to other communication systems. In Reports of the symposium on languages in society and in technique. Milan: Olivetti.Google Scholar
Johansen, J. D.
(1993) Dialogic semiosis: An essay on signs and meaning. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kress, G. R.
(1976) Introduction. In G. R. Kress (Ed.), Halliday: System and function in language. Selected papers (pp. vii–xxi). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2010) Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kress, G. R., & van Leeuwen, T.
(1996) Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. P., & Johnson, M. L.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1986) An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science 101, 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 101–159). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2009) Metonymic grammar. In K. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N.
(1969) A linguistic guide to English poetry. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J.
(2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J.
(1981) Language, meaning and context. Fontana Paperbacks.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J.
(1998) Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J.
(2005) Brothers in arms? On the relations between cognitive and functional linguistics. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 69–100). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A.
(1923/1949) The meaning of meaning (10th ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Panther, K., & Thornburg, L. L.
(2009) Introduction: On figuration in grammar. In K. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 1–44). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. S.
(1955 [1897]) Logic as semiotic: The theory of signs. In J. Buchler (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce (pp. 98–119). New York, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group
(2007) MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G.
(2005) The ubiquity of metonymy. In J. Otal Campo, I. Navarro i Ferrando & B. Bellés Fortuña (Eds.), Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 11–28). Castello de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
(2007) Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
(1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure, F. de
(1916) Cours de linguistique générale. Paris, France: Payot.Google Scholar
(1916/1959) Course in general linguistics. English translation of Cours de linguistique générale (1916) by Wade Baskin. New York, NY: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
(1916/1983) Course in general linguistics. English translation of Cours de linguistique générale (1916) by Roy Harris. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J.
(1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steen, G. J.
(2008) The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whorf, B. L.
(1956) Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Edited by John Carroll. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar