Abstract
The purpose of this chapter is the introduction of the framework of Cognitive Grammar, a theoretical development within the field of cognitive linguistics, whose pedagogical application is the focus of the present work. As a first step, Sect. 2.2 introduces, in a general fashion, the overall area of cognitive linguistics, as well as Cognitive Grammar, one of its major subcurrents, together with its definition of grammar/language. All the subsequent sections present the theoretical and descriptive apparatus of Cognitive Grammar, introducing along the way its most relevant notions, definitions, distinctions, terms, etc. First, in Sect. 2.3, the Cognitive Grammar view of language as essentially meaningful, or, in other words, the theory’s symbolic thesis, is introduced and discussed. The introduction to the theory is further effected by explaining in a detailed manner, in Sects. 2.4 and 2.5, the above-mentioned definition of grammar/language espoused by Cognitive Grammar. This theory is further introduced through a discussion, in Sect. 2.6, of its view of the role of cognitive abilities in natural language. Finally, Sect. 2.7 summarizes the diverse array of issues treated in the whole chapter, spells out how Cognitive Grammar conforms to the principles of cognitive linguistics and briefly compares this theory with other cognitive approaches to grammar, evaluating, in a preliminary fashion, its pedagogical potential.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Although the introduction to Cognitive Grammar offered in the present chapter focuses mainly on the facets of the theory the understanding of which is necessary to properly appreciate its descriptions of the grammatical material taught in the course of the study reported in Chap. 5, it also covers some issues which are not of direct relevance to this study. However, it seems to us that making the scope of this introduction a little broader than perhaps absolutely necessary is at worst harmless and perhaps desirable. There are two reasons for this desirability. First, we feel that there is an acute need to legitimize our turning to Cognitive Grammar in search for ideas potentially enhancing the quality and effectiveness of grammar teaching. This rationalization may come not only from direct arguments included in Sect. 4.4.1.1, but also from the presentation of Cognitive Grammar as a highly coherent and comprehensive view of natural languages. The second reason for the expansion of this introduction beyond absolute necessity is the fact that the book may be of interest to two major groups of linguists: theoretical and applied. While the theory may be familiar to most linguists of the former kind, it is expected not to be so to the majority of the latter, who may therefore welcome some basic information concerning the theory which is not strictly related to the empirical study reported in Chap. 5.
- 2.
For an interesting distinction between weak and strong autonomy, see Langacker (2005a, pp. 103, 104; 2009, p. 6).
- 3.
CG subscribes to the connectionist model of cognitive processing (also called parallel distributed processing or neural network modeling) (Langacker 1991, p. 525; 2008a, p. 10) outlined by Rumelhart and McClelland (1986) and McClelland and Rumelhart (1986). It is an alternative to algorithmic models associated with generative grammar.
- 4.
Beyond its introduction in the present section, symbolization receives further treatment in Sect. 2.4.1 , where it is considered as one of the structuring relations of grammar.
- 5.
For a full account, see Langacker (1999).
- 6.
A convention derived from CG literature of abbreviating semantic units by means of capitalized graphemic representations, phonological structures by means of lower-case graphemic representations and including both of them within square brackets is adopted throughout the book. Another convention used is placing a hyphen between representations of linguistic units to mark the relation of integration.
- 7.
[THING] is to be described in much more detail in Sect. 2.4.2.3.
- 8.
Basically, […] stands here for “any phonological content.” However, see the review of Taylor’s (2002) findings in Sect. 2.4.2.3.
- 9.
The fact that these obligatory elements may be accompanied by additional optional material, i.e. adverbials, is ignored here.
- 10.
See examples (1)–(6) earlier in the section.
- 11.
This is due to, among other things, the rejection in CL and CG of the classical view of categorization (based on necessary and sufficient attributes), traceable to Aristotle, in preference to Prototype Theory of Categorization (cf. Rosch 1978; Lakoff 1987). This view of categorization, together with categorization by schema, which is the second major alternative to the classical view widely used in CL and CG, are discussed in considerable detail in Sect. 2.4.2.
- 12.
In this connection Langacker (1987, p. 62) cites the example of jabberwocky, which evokes Lewis Carroll’s poem “Jabberwocky.” It is not difficult, however, to find numerous other examples of similar poems and songs, which are usually addressed to children.
- 13.
Non-basic domains used to be called (in multiple works on CG) abstract domains. However, Langacker (2008a, p. 45n) admits the latter term’s infelicity and abandons it in preference to the former.
- 14.
One example of a frame is the Fillmorian commercial transaction frame (Fillmore 1977) in terms of which the meanings of such verbs as buy, charge and spend must be defined.
- 15.
Langacker (1987, pp. 184–186) provides a discussion of a similar example, uncle, on which the present treatment of sister draws.
- 16.
Figure 2.1 is modeled on a figure by Langacker (1987, p. 185) concerning a different kinship term, uncle.
- 17.
It seems that the lower the degree to which a given concept is characterized by a specification, the more numerous such specifications are.
- 18.
The convention is followed throughout the book.
- 19.
The possible distinction between the biological category of sex and the social category of gender is ignored here.
- 20.
This is another dichotomy, in addition to the ones mentioned in Sect. 2.3.2, eschewed by CG.
- 21.
The term usage event is explained in more detail in Sect. 2.5.
- 22.
In some cases at least their auditory specifications may be combined with motor-kinesthetic specifications responsible for articulatory routines.
- 23.
See note 3 above.
- 24.
It is common to think about such paradigmatic relations as vertical, with syntagmatic relations of composition, discussed in Sect. 2.4.2.6, regarded as horizontal.
- 25.
The nature of most of these units is explained in more detail later in the section. For now, it should be noted that [THING], [REPLICATE THING] and [HOMOGENOUS MASS] are highly abstract notions, and […] stands for a schematic phonological structure, “little more than the presence of ‘some phonological content’” in Langacker’s (2002, p. 17) words.
- 26.
The same remarks concerning the operation of extension in the establishment of the category schema apply to verbs and other word classes. The verb prototype is discussed in one of the subsequent sections.
- 27.
It should be recalled that cognitive events are ultimately implemented by patterns of neural activation.
- 28.
For reasons of economy, the subsequent discussions of the other word class schemas will not make reference to their phonological poles. It should be generally assumed that they are likewise specified in highly schematic terms. The discussion of the phonological pole of the noun schema was included to give an idea of how CG handles such matters.
- 29.
In Langacker’s definition, a primary domain is mentioned in this connection, which is the most important domain for a given noun.
- 30.
In the majority of cases, there is only one landmark, so the ensuing general discussion of relational predications will focus on cases of this sort.
- 31.
See the all-inclusive definition of an entity in Sect. 2.4.2.3.
- 32.
The analysis of beautiful (and of adjectives in general) offered here diverges from Langacker’s (1987, pp. 216–217, 227, 272–274) analysis of adjectives in certain subtle ways. For instance, to give justice to the full complexity of the CG analysis, reference would have to be made to the notion of active zones (cf. Langacker 1987, pp. 272–274). The simplification, encountered in many other works (cf. Broccias 2006, p. 87; Evans and Green 2006, p. 567), is made for expository clarity and coherence.
- 33.
As is clear from Fig. 2.4, the verb schema’s phonological pole is, just as the noun schema’s (and any other lexical category’s), specified only in very schematic terms, i.e. as any phonological content. However, Taylor’s (2002, pp. 180–185) findings concerning the phonology of English nouns as compared with that of verbs, reviewed in Sect. 2.4.2.3, may be also taken as the basis for a more specific characterization of the phonological pole of the verb category schema.
- 34.
The actual conceptualization entertained by most speakers would probably be enriched by some specifications concerning the lock and its function in the whole action. For the purposes of the present discussion this consideration may be ignored.
- 35.
Ignored here is the unlikely interpretation of resemble in (16) as a perfective verb designating a cycle of starting to resemble someone, resembling this person for some time and then ceasing to do so, in which case it would of course be compatible with again and again.
- 36.
Strictly speaking CG does not recognize the existence of rules, which it takes to be “analogous to the phrase structure rules and transformations of generative syntax” (Langacker 2009, p. 2). Rather, it only posits the existence of constructions (constructional schemas) (Langacker 2009, p. 2), as defined in Sect. 2.3.1.
- 37.
The process of coding performed by the speaker is reflected as a kind of a mirror image in the process of decoding performed by the hearer (Langacker 1999, p. 99). The latter process is ignored here for the sake of economy.
- 38.
It seems that the process of coding developed by CG roughly corresponds to the formulator in the well-known model of speech production by Levelt (1989).
- 39.
The image is not necessarily visual; it may involve a different sensory mode, e.g. auditory or tactile, or else it may be autonomous (abstract) in the sense of being executed by cognitive processing divorced from any perceptual support (Langacker 1987, pp. 111–113).
- 40.
In addition, CG uses the figure/ground organization to explain the traditionally troublesome, in terms of defying neat definitions, head/modifier distinction (Langacker 1987, p. 235). However, its explication would require an extended discussion, which is foregone here for reasons of economy.
- 41.
The only concern of CL from among those mentioned in the introductory section that has not been reflected in the foregoing introduction to CG is the linguistic relevance of conceptual metaphor, metonymy and other figurational devices. Although their linguistic importance is recognized by the theory and they are easily accommodated by it (see for instance Langacker 2009: Chap. 2), CG’s focus seems to lie elsewhere. Because figuration does not occupy a central place in CG and because its analysis is not relevant in the context of the present dissertation, CG’s approach to it has not been presented.
- 42.
Both kinds of approaches were mentioned briefly in Sect. 2.2.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bielak, J., Pawlak, M. (2013). Introduction to Cognitive Grammar. In: Applying Cognitive Grammar in the Foreign Language Classroom. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27455-8_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27455-8_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-27454-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-27455-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)