Cognitive Grammar

Page of

1,995 words (Limit 2,000)
John Newman
University of Alberta
Department of Linguistics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E7, Canada
[phone]
[e-mail]
COGNITIVE GRAMMAR

Cognitive Grammar (CG) refers to the theory of language articulated most 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 recommended as student-oriented introductions to the theory. CG is wide-ranging in its scope and provocative in its approach to understanding linguistic structure. It has played a key role in the history of COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS.

Fundamental to CG is the idea that language is an integral part of human cognition and cannot be properly understood without reference to cognitive abilities. A pervasive feature of CG is the determination to reconcile accounts of linguistic structure 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 module” and the AUTONOMY OF SYNTAX. The cognitive orientation of CG is apparent from a reliance on notions such as sensory imagery, perspective, mental scanning, attention, and figure vs. ground asymmetry in accounting for linguistic phenomena. In broad terms, grammatical structure is explained as conventional imagery, with alternate structures reflecting alternate construals of the conceived situation. Not surprisingly, the cognitive notions assume a relatively abstract interpretation when applied to some aspects of linguistic structure. For example, cognitive processes such as registration of contrast, scanning of a field, and perception of a boundary are all deemed relevant to explicating the notion of a count noun, understood as a “bounded region in some domain” in Langacker (1987, 189-203). Such processes may be obvious factors in the 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 boundary” which does not correspond to any visible, objectively identifiable demarcation. Likewise, the notions of figure and ground familiar from the study of perception are seen as underpinning various relational asymmetries in language. These 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.
At the heart of CG is the concept of a symbolic unit, consisting of semantic structure standing in correspondence to a phonological structure. Consistent with the idea that language is part of conceptual structure, semantic structure is understood as “conceptualization tailored to the specifications of linguistic convention” (Langacker (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 SIGN) as fundamental and applicable at all levels of representation, including lexical 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 trees is represented as a composite structure integrating two symbolic units representing 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 structures of a construction represented by a symbolic unit. Grammatical morphemes 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 autonomous parts of the composite structure. As far as semantic structure is concerned, [tree] is autonomous, while [pl] is dependent, requiring an elaboration by a noun to complete the structure. In terms of phonological structure, [trɪ] is pronounceable as a whole syllable and can be considered autonomous, while the single consonant [z] is dependent.

A striking feature of CG is the detail provided for in the integration of structures into larger composite structures. The analysis of the English passive construction in Langacker (2001, 101-147) illustrates the theoretical notions relevant to a detailed grammatical description and is recommended as a prime example of a full-blown CG 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 as instantiations of a construction type with its own distinctive way of integrating symbolic units, reflecting a particular construal of the event.

While phonological structure can be fruitfully explored within CG (see Langacker (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. Fundamental to semantic structure is the idea of a network which is employed to 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 whole] which is schematic relative to finer-grained elaborations such as [part of the human body where thinking is located] and [person who manages an administrative unit]. In some cases, a highest-level node or “superschema” can be 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.
CG adopts a non-reductionist or “maximalist” stance in its analysis of linguistic structure, contrasting with prevailing reductionist, minimalist approaches in contemporary linguistics. The non-reductionist approach of CG explicitly provides for the 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 dog/dogs, cat/cats, horse/horses, etc. Acknowledging low-level, highly specific patterns runs counter to deeply entrenched practices in contemporary linguistics which has been preoccupied with higher-level generalizations and the principle of economy in description. Langacker has repeatedly emphasized the desirability of both general and particular statements in linguistic description, referring to the assumption that a phenomenon is to be accounted for in a mutually exclusive way as either a rule or a list as the “rule/list fallacy” (Langacker 1997, 40-42). Grammar, in CG terms, amounts to “a 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 grammar makes CG comparable to CONSTRUCTION GRAMMARS, which are also “inventory-based” (cf. Evans and Green 2006, 475-483), particularly Radical Construction Grammar (Croft 2001).
By including quite specific patterns within a grammatical description, CG is able to comfortably accommodate phenomena which have been largely neglected in linguistic theorizing, e.g., the collocational patterning of great idea, absolutely fabulous etc. involving combinations of particular words. The greater emphasis on specific patterning makes CG highly compatible with the methodology of CORPUS LINGUISTICS and other approaches which focus on LANGUAGE IN USE whereby actual usage, including frequency of occurrence and patterns of co-occurrence, can be observed and used as a 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 approach to attend only to the most general patterns.
Finally, a word on notation employed in CG. There is an array of notational 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 designated thing or relation in the semantic structure of a morpheme. A full appreciation 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 analyses simply in prose or with a minimum of notation (as in Taylor 2002).

--John Newman

Works Cited and Suggestions for Further Reading

Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Evans, Vyvyan and Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1988. “An Overview of Cognitive Grammar.” In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 3-48. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2001. [1^st 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 be read more or less independently of one another - a good balance between CG theory and application to data.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Newman, John. 2004. “The Quiet Revolution: Ron Langacker’s Fall Quarter 1977 Lectures.” In Imagery in Language: Festschrift in Honour of Professor Ronald W. Langacker, ed. Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Alina Kwiatkowska, 43-60. This chapter gives a first-hand account of an early presentation of the material which eventually became Langacker (1987).
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Taylor, John. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.