M. Iriskulov, A. Kuldashev a course in Theoretical English Grammar Tashkent 2008

 
SYNTAGMATIC RELATIONS 
 
J.R. Taylor views the syntagmatic relations in the light of conceptual 
combination. It means that he proposes the analysis of syntactic units in terms of
mechanisms whereby semantic units combine with each other. The target of
J.R. Taylor’s analysis is to introduce generalized schemas which reflect
conceptual processing that enables creation /interpretation of syntactic units, and 
group syntactic structures as mapped onto these schemas.
J.R. Taylor introduces the notion “constructional schema”. A constructional 
schema abstracts what is common to phrases of different kind. Here we may start 
with the analysis of the expressions which share the same constituent order (the 
level of syntax). For example, on the one hand, the assembly of prepositional 
phrases with the structure [Prep қ [Noun phrase]] – on the table, on the mat,
above the sofa, under the bed, etc., on the other hand, the assembly of verb 
phrases with the structure [V қ [Noun phrase]] – leave the office, drive the car, 
push the cart and countless more. We could go further, and propose a 
constructional schema that covers both the prepositional and verb phrases 
(conceptual level). In this case a constructional schema shows what these two types 
of phrases have in common at the semantic level: they are headed by the relational 
unit (preposition and verb) - the head of the expression, which is elaborated by a 
nominal expression – the complement of the expression. Here we have a head-
complement constructional schema, one of the four types of constructional 
schemas, proposed by J.R. Taylor. 
Constructional schemas have two principal functions. First, they have a 
sanctioning function. They allow expressions which are constructed in conformity 
with the schemas to be rapidly categorized and interpreted. Secondly, the schemas 
have an enabling function. They facilitate the rapid creation of an indefinite 
number of new expressions in conformity with the schemas.
While investigating the mechanisms of conceptual combination J.R. Taylor
uses notions “profile”, “base”, “domain” – the basic notions in Cognitive 
Grammar analysis of meaning. 
P r o f i l e, b a s e, d o m a i n 
The profile and base constitute the concept. The semantic value of any 
linguistic expression resides in the combination of profile and base. The profile 
picks out one aspect of the base and renders it particularly prominent. The concept 
consists in knowledge of the profile against the appropriate base. Consider the 

---

165 
concept father. The word father profiles an adult male human and invokes, as its 
base, the notion of a relation between a profiled individual and one more individual 
who counts as the father’s offspring. (It is axiomatic in Cognitive Grammar that all 
linguistic expressions profile something or other. A clause profiles a situation or 
event, a verb profiles a process, a preposition profiles a kind of relation.) If the 
base of an expression is the conceptual content that is inherently invoked by the 
expression, the domain is a more generalized “background” knowledge against 
which conceptualization is achieved. In the “father” example more general notions, 
such as kinship, genealogy, gender constitute domains against which a whole 
cluster of concepts are characterized: father, son, aunt, cousin, etc.
The distinction between base and domain, though not always clear-cut, does 
have linguistic manifestation. Consider the expressions with preposition of and the 
verb have, which profile an intrinsic relation between entities. Since the base is 
intrinsic to a concept, it is not surprising that of and have can express the relation 
between the profiled entity and the base. On the other hand, the relation between 
the profiled entity and a domain is a more distant relation, and of and have are 
often inappropriate in such cases. Compare: the thumb of my left hand (normal) 
and the thumb of my left arm (odd); A hand has five fingers (normal) and An arm