Cover not available
Part of
Columbia School Linguistics in the 21st Century
Edited by Nancy Stern, Ricardo Otheguy, Wallis Reid and Jaseleen Sackler
[Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 77] 2019
► pp. 1–32

Introduction

Columbia School Linguistics in the functional-cognitive space of the 21st century

 | The City College of New York and Graduate Center, City University of New York (CUNY)
Keywords: Columbia School, Cognitive linguistics, functional-cognitive space, meaning, monosemy
Article outline
  • 1.Context and overview
  • 2.The role of communication in the formulation of theory
  • 3.Signal, meaning and message
  • 4.Monosemy
  • 5.Rejection of the a priori constructs and categories of the sentence
  • 6.Description and explanation
  • 7.The data of linguistic analysis
  • 8.Inference: The link between meaning and message
  • 9.Communicative strategies
  • 10.Grammar and lexicon
  • 11.The role of metaphor
  • 12.Language-specific analyses
  • 13.Named languages
  • 14.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.77.01ste
References (123)
References
Agha, Asif. (2007). The object called “language” and the subject of linguistics. Journal of English Linguistics 35(3), 217–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. (2002a). The demise of a unique concept of literal meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (4), 361–402 (Special issue: literal, minimal and salient meanings). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2002b). Privileged interactional interpretations. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (8), 1003–1044. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, John L. 1940/1961. The meaning of a word. Reprinted in Philosophical Papers. Oxford University Press, 1961.Google Scholar
Barlow, Michael, & Kemmer, Suzanne (Eds.). (2000). Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: CSLI (Center for the Study of Language and Information) Publications.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan, & Reppen, Randi. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. (2004). Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). The role of phonological predictability in sound change: Privileged reduction in Oceanic reduplicated substrings. Oceanic Linguistics, 44, 455–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006). A theoretical synopsis of Evolutionary Phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32, 117–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Consonant epenthesis: natural and unnatural histories. In J. Good (Ed.), Language universals and language change (pp.79–107). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2009). Structure-preserving sound change: A look at unstressed vowel syncope in Austronesian. In A. Adelaar, & A. Pawley (Eds.), Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: A festschrift for Bob Blust (pp.33–49). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. (2014). Evolutionary Phonology: A holistic approach to sound change typology. In P. Honeybone and J. Salmons (Eds.), Handbook of historical phonology (pp.485–500). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, Lois. (1970). Language development: Form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. (1968). Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa, 2, 119–127.Google Scholar
Boogaart, Ronny, & Foolen, Ad. (2015). Discussion of Robert S. Kirsner, Qualitative- quantitative analyses of Dutch and Afrikaans grammar and lexicon. Nederlandse Taalkunde 20(2), 215–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, & Levinson, Stephen C. (1978/1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger. (1973). A first language: The early stages. London: George Allen & Unwin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brugman, Claudia M. (1981/1988). The story of ‘over’: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. Master’s thesis, University of California, Berkeley. New York: Garland, 1988.Google Scholar
Brugman, Claudia M. (1988). The syntax and semantics of ‘have’ and its complements. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher S., & Gonzálvez-García, Francisco. (2005). Situating FDG in functional-cognitive space: An initial study. In J. Lachlan Mackenzie, & M. de los Angeles Gómez-González (Eds.), Studies in Functional Discourse Grammar [Linguistic Insights: Studies in Language and Communication 26] (pp.109–158). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. (2014). Exploring functional-cognitive space. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (1998). A functionalist approach to grammar and its evolution [URL]. Evolution of Communication 2, 249–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition, Language 82, 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. (2002). On nature and language, ed. by Adriana Belletti and Luigi Rizzi. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2012). The science of language: Interviews with James McGilvray. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Contini-Morava, Ellen. (1995). Introduction. In E. Contini-Morava, & B. Sussman Goldberg (Eds.), Meaning as explanation: Advances in linguistic sign theory (pp.1–39). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2002). (What) do noun class markers mean? In W. Reid, R. Otheguy, & N. Stern (Eds.), Signal, meaning, and message: Perspectives on sign-based linguistics (pp.3–64). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Contini-Morava, Ellen & Barbara Sussman Goldberg. (1995). Meaning as explanation: Advances in linguistic sign theory. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Contini-Morava, Ellen, Kirsner, Robert S., & Rodríguez-Bachiller, Betsy (Eds.) (2004). Cognitive and communicative approaches to linguistic analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, Seanna, & Oakley, Todd. (2005). Blending and coded meaning: Literal and figurative meaning in cognitive semantics. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 1510–1536. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. (2014). Comparing categories and constructions crosslinguistically (again): the diversity of ditransitives [Review article on Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook, ed. A. Malchukov, M. Haspelmath & B. Comrie]. Linguistic Typology , 18, 533–551.Google Scholar
Croft, William, & Cruse, D. Alan. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. (2008-) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990-present. Available online at [URL].Google Scholar
Davis, Joseph. (2004a). The linguistics of William Diver and the linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure. In G. Hassler, & G. Volkmann (Eds.), History of linguistics in texts and concepts, (Vol I, pp.307–326). Münster: Nodus.Google Scholar
. (2004b). Revisiting the gap between meaning and message. In E. Contini-Morava, & B. Sussman Goldberg (Eds.), Meaning as explanation: Advances in linguistic sign theory (pp.155–174). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. (2006). Introduction: Consistency and change in Columbia School Linguistics. In J. Davis, R. J. Gorup, & N. Stern (Eds.), Advances in functional linguistics: Columbia School beyond its origins (pp.1–15). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2017). The substance and value of Italian si. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, Joseph, Gorup, Radmila, & Stern, Nancy (Eds.). (2006). Advances in functional linguistics: Columbia School beyond its origins. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dekker, Adriaan, & de Jonge, Bob. (2006). Phonology as human behavior: The case of Peninsular Spanish. In J. Davis, R. J. Gorup, & N. Stern (Eds.), Advances in functional linguistics: Columbia School beyond its origins (pp.131–141). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Jonge, Bob. (1993). The existence of synonyms in a language: Two forms but one, or rather two, meanings? Linguistics 31, 521–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diver, William. (1969/2012). The System of Relevance of the Homeric verb. In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.135–160). Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
. (1974). Substance and value in linguistic analysis. Semiotexte[e] 1(2), 11–30.Google Scholar
. (1979). Phonology as human behavior. In D. Aaronson, & R. Rieber (Eds.), Psycholinguistic research: Implications and applications (pp.161–182). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
. (1975)/( 2012). The nature of linguistic meaning. In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.47–64). Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
. (1986)/ (2012). Latin se . In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.279–289). Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
. (1992)/(2012). The Latin demonstratives. In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.265–277). Leiden / Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
. (1995). Theory. In E. Contini-Morava, & B. Sussman Goldberg (Eds.), Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory (pp.43–114). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diver, William, Davis, Joseph, and Reid, Wallis. 2012. Traditional Grammar and its legacy in twentieth-century linguistics. In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.371–443). Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Emanatian, Michele. (1990). The Chagga consecutive construction. In J. Hutchison, & V. Manfredi (Eds.), Current approaches to African linguistics (vol 7, pp.193–207). Dordrecht: Foris Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan & Green, Melanie. (2006). Cognitive linguistics. An introduction. Great Britain: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. (1976). Frame Semantics and the Nature of Language. In S. Harnad, H. Steklis, & J. Lancaster (Eds.), Origins and evolutions of language and speech (pp.20–32). New York: Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
(1982). Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.) Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp.111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
(1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di semantica 6, 222–254.Google Scholar
García, Erica C. (1975). The role of theory in linguistic analysis: The Spanish pronoun system. Amsterdam/Oxford: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
García, Erica. C. (2009). The motivated syntax of arbitrary signs: Cognitive constraints on Spanish clitic clustering. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
García, Erica C., & Otheguy, Ricardo L. (1983). Being polite in Ecuador: Strategy reversal under language contact. Lingua 61(2–3), 103–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, & Cuyckens, Hubert (Eds.) (2007). The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2007). Introducing Cognitive Linguistics. In Geeraerts, D., & H. Hubert Cuyckens (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.3–21). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs Raymond W. Jr., (1994). The poetics of mind. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gorup, Radmila. (2006). Se Without Deixis. In J. Davis, R. J. Gorup, & N. Stern (Eds.), Advances in functional linguistics: Columbia School beyond its origins (pp.195–209). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. (1978). A Study in polysemy. Studies in Language 2(1): 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Roy. (1980). The language-makers. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
. (1981). The language myth. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Roy, Harris. (1990). On redefining linguistics. In H. Davis, & T. Taylor (Eds.), Redefining linguistics (pp.18–52). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language, 86(3), 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul. (2007). Linguistics and micro-rhetoric: A twenty-first century encounter. Journal of English Linguistics 35(3), 236–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huffman, Alan. (1997). The categories of grammar: French lui and le. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2001). The linguistics of William Diver and the Columbia School. Word 52, 29–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2012). Introduction: The Enduring legacy of William Diver. In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp.1–20). Leiden /Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huffman, Alan, & Davis, Joseph. (2012). Language: Communication and human behavior: The linguistic essays of William Diver. Leiden / Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirsner, Robert S. (1989). Does sign-oriented linguistics have a future? On the falsifiability of theoretical constructs. In Y. Tobin (Ed.), From sign to text: A semiotic view of communication (pp.161–178). Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Introduction: On paradigms, analyses, and dialogue. In E. Contini-Morava, R. S. Kirsner, & B. Rodríguez-Bachiller (Eds.), Cognitive and communicative approaches to linguistic analysis (pp.1–18). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. (1977). Linguistic gestalts. CLS 13, 225–235.Google Scholar
. (1986). The meanings of literal. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 1, 291–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, & Johnson, Mark. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991/2002). Concept, image, symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar, 2nd edition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. (2004). Form, meaning and behavior: The Cognitive Grammar analysis of double subject constructions. In E. Contini-Morava, R. S. Kirsner, & B. Rodríguez-Bachiller (Eds.), Cognitive and communicative approaches to linguistic analysis (pp.21–60). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. (2017). Ten lectures on the basics of cognitive grammar. Leiden/Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindner, Susan. (1981). A lexico-semantic analysis of verb-particle constructions with up and out. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
MacSwan, Jeff. (2017). A multilingual perspective on translanguaging. American Educational Research Journal 54(1), 167–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Makoni, Sinfree, & Pennycook, Alastair. (2005). Disinventing and (re)constituting languages. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International Journal, 2(3), 137–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McEnery, Anthony M., & Wilson, Anita. (2001). Corpus linguistics: an introduction. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Nerlich, Brigitte & Clarke, David D. (2007). Cognitive Linguistics and the history of linguistics. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.589–607). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. (2007). Cognitive Linguistics and Functional Linguistics. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.543–565). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Otheguy, Ricardo. (2002). Saussurean anti-nomenclaturism in grammatical analysis. In W. Reid, R. Otheguy, & N. Stern (Eds.), Signal, meaning, and message: Perspectives on sign-based linguistics (pp.373–403). Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Otheguy, Ricardo, García, Ofelia, & Reid, Wallis. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review 6(3), 281–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2018). A translanguaging view of the linguistic system of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics Review (pp.1–27). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, Alistair. (2018). Posthumanist applied linguistics. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reagan, Timothy. (2004). Objectification, positivism and language studies: A reconsideration. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: An International Journal 1(1), 41–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reid, Wallis. (1991). Verb and noun number in English: A functional explanation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. (1995). Quantitative analysis in Columbia School theory. In E. Contini-Morava, & B. Sussman Goldberg (Eds.), Meaning as explanation: Advances in linguistic sign theory. Berlin /New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.115–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2004). Monosemy, homonymy and polysemy. In E. Contini-Morava, R. S. Kirsner, & B. Rodríguez-Bachiller (Eds.), Cognitive and communicative approaches to linguistic analysis (pp.93–129). Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006). Columbia School and Saussure’s langue. In J. Davis, R. J. Gorup, & N. Stern (Eds.), Advances in functional linguistics: Columbia School beyond its origins (pp.17–39). Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). The communicative function of English verb number. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 29(4), 1087–1146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2018). The justification of linguistic categories. In N. Shin, & D. Erker (Eds.), Questioning theoretical primitives in linguistic inquiry ( Papers in honor of Ricardo Otheguy ) (pp.91–132). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2002). Introduction: Sign-based linguistics. In W. Reid, R. Otheguy, & N. Stern (Eds.), Signal, meaning, and message: perspectives on sign-based linguistics (pp.ix–xxi). Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Reid, Wallis, Otheguy, Ricardo, & Stern, Nancy (Eds.) (2002). Signal, meaning, and message: Perspectives on sign-based linguistics. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4, 328–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor, Mervis, Carolyn, Gray, Wayne, Johnson, David, & Boyes-Braem, Penny. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8, 382–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruhl, Charles. (1989). On monosemy: A study in linguistic semantics. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Sabar, N. (2018). Lexical meaning as a testable hypothesis: The case of English look, see, seem and appear. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Publié par Charles Bally et Albert Séchehaye. Avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlinger. Translated by Roy Harris as Course in General Linguistics. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Classics, 1972 [1986]. Translated by Wade Baskin as Course in General Linguistics. New York: The Philosophical Library, 1959; McGraw-Hill, 1966.Google Scholar
Stern, Nancy. (2001). The meaning and use of English -self pronouns. Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate Center, The City University of New York.Google Scholar
. (2004). The semantic unity of reflexive, emphatic, and other -self pronouns. American Speech 79(3), 270–280. doi: DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006). Tell me about yourself: A unified account of English -self pronouns. In J. Davis, R. J. Gorup, & N. Stern (Eds.), Advances in functional linguistics: Columbia School beyond its origins (pp.177–194). Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2019). Ourself and themself: Grammar as expressive choice. Lingua DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John R. (1995). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory, 2nd edition . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Talbot. (2007). Cognitive Linguistics and Autonomous Linguistics. In Geeraerts, D., & H. Hubert Cuyckens (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.566–588). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tobin, Yishai. (1990). Semiotics and linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. (1995). Only vs. just: Semantic integrality revisited. In E. Contini-Morava, & B. Sussman Goldberg (Eds.), Meaning as explanation: Advances in linguistic sign theory (pp.323–359). Berlin /New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1997). Phonology as human behavior: Theoretical implications and clinical applications. Durham, NC /London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
. (2011). Phonology as human behavior from an evolutionary point of view. In B. de Jonge, & Y. Tobin (Eds.), Linguistic theory and empirical evidence (pp.169–195). Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuggy, David. (2007). Schematicity. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.82–116).
Whorf, Benjamin L. (1956). In J. B. Carroll (Ed.), Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1953). Philosophical investigations. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Stern, Nancy
2019. Ourself and Themself: Grammar as expressive choice. Lingua 226 ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 2024. 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.