Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



For describing grammatical organization, metaphors based on a variety of source domains – including trees, networks, chains, paths, and windows – all appear to have some validity. In Cognitive Grammar, they pertain to facets of assemblies, where semantic and phonological structures are connected by relations of symbolization, composition, and categorization. Assemblies have a temporal dimension; consisting in sequenced processing activity that runs concurrently on different time scales, they involve both seriality and hierarchy. In their hierarchical aspect, they are comparable to constituency trees, and in their connections, to dependency trees. Assembly elements, which can be characterized at any level of specificity, are connected in both syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations. A person’s linguistic ability comprises a vast assembly of conventional units, a portion of which are activated as part of the transient assembly constituting a particular expression. Lexicon and grammar effect the implementation of semantic functions – affective, interactive, descriptive, and discursive – which emerge with varying degrees of salience depending on their symbolization by segmental, prosodic, and other means. Assemblies thus make possible a unified approach to processing, structure, function, and use.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anderson, J. M.
    (1971) The grammar of case: Towards a localistic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Chafe, W.
    (1987) Cognitive constraints on information flow. InR. S. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp.21–51). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.11.03cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.11.03cha [Google Scholar]
  3. (1994) Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chomsky, N., & Halle, M.
    (1968) The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Croft, W. A.
    (1991) Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Fauconnier, G.
    (1985) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press/Bradford.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Fodor, J. A.
    (1983) The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press/Bradford. 10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Harder, P.
    (2010) Meaning in mind and society: A functional contribution to the social turn in cognitive linguistics. Berlin and New York: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110216059
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216059 [Google Scholar]
  9. Hudson, R. A.
    (1984) Word Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (1987) Zwicky on heads. Journal of Linguistics, 23, 109–132. 10.1017/S0022226700011051
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700011051 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2010) An introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511781964
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781964 [Google Scholar]
  12. Israel, M.
    (2011) The grammar of polarity: Pragmatics, sensitivity, and the logic of scales. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975288
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975288 [Google Scholar]
  13. Janssen, T. A. J. M.
    (1995) Deixis from a cognitive point of view. InE. Contini-Morava & B. S. Goldberg (Eds.), Meaning as explanation: Advances in linguistic sign theory (pp.245–270). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110907575.245
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907575.245 [Google Scholar]
  14. Kirsner, R. S.
    (1993) From meaning to message in two theories: Cognitive and Saussurean views of the Modern Dutch demonstratives. InR. A. Geiger & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds.), Conceptualizations and mental processing in language (pp.81–114). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110857108.81
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110857108.81 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kuroda, S.-Y.
    (1972) The categorical and the thetic judgment. Foundations of Language, 9, 153–185.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (1988) The nature of grammatical valence. InB. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp.91–125). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.50.05lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.05lan [Google Scholar]
  18. (1990) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (1997) Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 1–32. 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  20. (1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110800524
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2001) Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 143–188. 10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2002) Deixis and subjectivity. InF. Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference (pp.1–28). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110899801.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110899801.1 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2005) Dynamicity, fictivity, and scanning: The imaginative basis of logic and linguistic meaning. InD. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language and thinking (pp.164–197). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511499968.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499968.008 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2009a) Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214369
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2009b) Metonymic grammar. InK.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.45–71). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.04lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.04lan [Google Scholar]
  27. (2012) Elliptic coordination. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 555–599. 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0017 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2014) Subordination in a dynamic account of grammar. InL. Visapää, J. Kalliokoski, & H. Sorva (Eds.), Contexts of subordination. Cognitive, typological and discourse perspectives (pp.17–72). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2015) How to build an English clause. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 1–45. 10.14706/JFLTAL15121
    https://doi.org/10.14706/JFLTAL15121 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2016a) Nominal grounding and English quantifiers. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 3, 1–31. 10.1075/cogls.3.1.01lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.3.1.01lan [Google Scholar]
  31. (2016b) Toward an integrated view of structure, processing, and discourse. InG. Drożdż (Ed.), Studies in lexicogrammar: Theory and applications (pp.23–53). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.54.02lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.54.02lan [Google Scholar]
  32. (2017) Entrenchment in Cognitive Grammar. InH.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp.39–56). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Li, C. N.
    (1997) On zero anaphora. InJ. Bybee, J. Haiman, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on language function and language type dedicated to T. Givón (pp.275–300). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.82.17li
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.82.17li [Google Scholar]
  34. Osborne, T., & Gross, T.
    (2012) Constructions are catenae: Construction grammar meets dependency grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 165–216. 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0006 [Google Scholar]
  35. Robinson, J. J.
    (1970) Dependency structures and transformational rules. Language, 46, 259–285. 10.2307/412278
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412278 [Google Scholar]
  36. Talmy, L.
    (1996) The windowing of attention in language. InM. Shibatani & S. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp.235–287). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. van Hoek, K.
    (1995) Conceptual reference points: A Cognitive Grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language, 71, 310–340. 10.2307/416165
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416165 [Google Scholar]
  38. (1997a) Anaphora and conceptual structure. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (1997b) Backwards anaphora as a constructional category. Functions of Language, 4, 47–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Zwicky, A. M.
    (1985) Heads. Journal of Linguistics, 21, 1–29. 10.1017/S0022226700010008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700010008 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): constituency; dependency; function; processing; symbolization
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error