1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of What does it mean for cognitive linguistics to be a usage-based discipline?
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The problem of metalanguage and the basic methodological principles underlying empirical analysis represents one of the most pressing challenges in contemporary Cognitive Linguistics. The article examines this problem addressing Ronald W. Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar. It reveals significant discrepancies between the fundamental theoretical claims posited by Langacker and the methodology that underlies his examination of specific linguistic material. Notably, despite the assertion that Cognitive Grammar is a usage-based approach, a direct analysis indicates that his “working” methodology is based on a system of abstract basic categories, from which more complex constructions, close to real communicative situations, are deductively derived. Such a methodology is arguably not representative of a usage-based approach. A broader concern that emerges from the examination of Langacker’s framework is the relationship between neuro-level analysis and sociocultural analysis. The article argues that the perspective which reduces the entirety of linguistic processes to the activation of neural groups in the cerebral cortex exemplifies a specific form of reductionism, and that data analysis at the neural level and sociocultural analysis require distinct metalanguages and methodologies.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00223.gle
2025-06-12
2025-07-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00223.gle
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barsalou, L.
    (2005) Situated conceptualization. InH. Cohen & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp.–). Amsterdam & Boston; Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. (2017) What does semantic tiling of the cortex tell us about semantics?Neuropsychology, , –. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.04.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.04.011 [Google Scholar]
  3. Boogaart, R., & Janssen, T.
    (2007) Tense and aspect. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.–). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Broccias, C., & Hollmann, W. B.
    (2007) Do we need summary and sequential scanning in (Cognitive) grammar?Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/COG.2007.026
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.026 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bybee, J.
    (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  6. Carnap, R.
    (1934) The unity of science. London: K. Paul.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Carreiras, M., & Clifton, Ch.
    Jr. Eds.) 2004 The on-line study of sentence comprehension: eyetracking, ERPs, and beyond. New York: Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Casasanto, D., & Lupyan, G.
    (2015) All concepts are ad hoc concepts. InE. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), The conceptual mind: New directions in the study of concepts (pp.–). Cambridge & Mass.: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9383.003.0031
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9383.003.0031 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chafe, W.
    (1970) Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. (1994) Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chomsky, N.
    (1998) Language and responsibility. InN. Chomsky, On language (pp.–). New York: The New Press. (Original work published in 1975).
     [Google Scholar]
  12. (1998a) Reflections on language. InN. Chomsky, On language (pp.–). New York: The New Press. (Original work published in 1975).
     [Google Scholar]
  13. (2000) New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511811937
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811937 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2015) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge & Mass.: The MIT Press. (Original work published in 1965).
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Dąbrowska, E.
    (2004) Language, mind and brain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9781474466011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474466011 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2010) Native v. expert competence: An empirical study of speaker intuitions. The Linguistic Review, , –. 10.1515/tlir.2010.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2010.001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dąbrowska, E., & Divjak, D.
    (Eds.) (2015) Handbook of cognitive linguistics. Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2015a) Introduction. InE. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.–). Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Deignan, A.
    (2003) Metaphorical expressions and culture: An indirect link. Metaphor and Symbol, (), –. 10.1207/S15327868MS1804_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1804_3 [Google Scholar]
  20. Díaz-Vera, J., & Manrique-Antón, T.
    (2015) ‘Better shamed before one than shamed before all’: Shaping shame in Old English and Old Norse texts. InJ. Díaz-Vera (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy across time and cultures: Perspectives on the sociohistorical linguistics of figurative language (pp.–). Berlin, München & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110335453.225
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110335453.225 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dummett, M.
    (1991) The logical basis on metaphysics. Cambridge & Mass.: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Egan, T.
    (2008) Non-finite complementation: A usage-based study of infinitive and -ing clauses in English. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789401205542
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401205542 [Google Scholar]
  23. Evans, V., & Green, M.
    (2006) Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Fanego, T.
    (2004) Is Cognitive Grammar a usage-based model? Towards a realistic account of English sentential complements. Miscelánea: A journal of English and American studies, , –. 10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.200410394
     https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.200410394 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ferguson, H., & Sanford, A.
    (2008) Anomalies in real and counterfactual worlds: An eye-movement investigation. Journal of Memory and Language, , –. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  26. Freeman, J., & Chwe, J.
    (2024) Social categorization: Looking toward the future. InD. Carlston, K. Hugenberg & K. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social cognition (pp.–). New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197763414.013.7
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197763414.013.7 [Google Scholar]
  27. Garrod, S.
    (1995) Distinguishing between Explicit and Implicit Focus during Text Comprehension. InG. Rickheit & Ch. Habel (Eds.), Focus and coherence in discourse processing (pp.–). Berlin & New York: W. de Gruyer. 10.1515/9783110808414.3
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808414.3 [Google Scholar]
  28. Garrod, S., & Sanford, A.
    (1985) On the real-time character of interpretation during reading. Language and Cognitive Processes, , –. 10.1080/01690968508402070
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968508402070 [Google Scholar]
  29. Geeraerts, D.
    (2005) Lectal variation and empirical data in cognitive linguistics. InF. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interactions (pp.–). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197716.2.163
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197716.2.163 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2006) Introduction: A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics. InD. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp.–). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199901.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199901.1 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2010a) Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (2010b) The doctor and the semantician. InD. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp.–). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110226423.61
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423.61 [Google Scholar]
  33. Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H.
    (Eds.) (2007) The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Geeraerts, D., Gevaert, C., & Speelman, D.
    (2011) How ‘anger’ arose: Hypothesis testing in diachronic semantics. InK. Allan & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Current methods in historical semantics (pp.–). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110252903.109
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110252903.109 [Google Scholar]
  35. Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
    (2006) Introspection and cognitive linguistics. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, , –. 10.1075/arcl.4.06gib
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.4.06gib [Google Scholar]
  36. Glebkin, V.
    (2013) A socio-cultural history of the machine metaphor. Review of cognitive linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/rcl.11.1.04gle
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.11.1.04gle [Google Scholar]
  37. (2015) Is conceptual blending the key to the mystery of human evolution and cognition?Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0067
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0067 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2024a) Cognitive Semantics: A cultural-historical perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clscc.15
     https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.15 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2024b) The view of meaning from a “postclassical” perspective. Review of cognitive linguistics: Online first. 10.1075/rcl.00196.gle
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00196.gle [Google Scholar]
  40. Glebkin, V., & Kuznetsova, V.
    (2022) Jazykovaja kompetencija kak ob#ekt jeksperimental’nogo issledovanija [Language competence as an object of experimental research]. Russkij jazyk v nauchnom osveshhenii, (), –. 10.31912/rjano‑2022.1.2
     https://doi.org/10.31912/rjano-2022.1.2 [Google Scholar]
  41. Glynn, D.
    (2004) Perception, lexical class, and lexical variation. Limitations for cognitive grammar in the study of lexis. Anglophonia, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Goehr, L.
    (2022) Red Sea-red square-red thread: a philosophical detective story. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780197572443.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197572443.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  43. Goldstone, R., Rogosky, B., Pewtzow, R., & Blair, M.
    (2005) Perceptual and semantic reorganization during category learning. InH. Cohen & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp.–). Amsterdam & Boston; Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑008044612‑7/50084‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044612-7/50084-6 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hallan, N.
    (2001) Paths to prepositions? A corpus-based study of the acquisition of a lexico-grammatical category. InJ. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45.05hal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.05hal [Google Scholar]
  45. Hanks, P.
    (2013) Lexical analysis: Norms and exploitations. Cambridge & Mass.: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262018579.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262018579.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  46. Haxby, J., & Gobbini, M. I.
    (2012) Distributed neural systems for face perception. InG. Rhodes, A. Calder, M. Johnson & J. Haxby (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of face perception (pp.–). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Hugenberg, K., Young, S., Sacco, D., & Bernstein, M.
    (2012) Social categorization influences face perception and face memory. InG. Rhodes, A. Calder, M. Johnson & J. Haxby (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of face perception (pp.–). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Ibbotson, P., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M.
    (2013) The attention-grammar interface: Eye-gaze cues structural choice in children and adults. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2013‑0020
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0020 [Google Scholar]
  49. Janda, L.
    (Ed.) (2013) Cognitive linguistics: The quantitative turn. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110335255
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110335255 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2013a) Quantitative methods in Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. InL. Janda (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: The quantitative turn (pp.–). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110335255.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110335255.1 [Google Scholar]
  51. Janssen, T., & Redeker, G.
    (1999) Introduction. InT. Janssen & G. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, foundations, scope, and methodology (pp.–). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110803464
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110803464 [Google Scholar]
  52. Kant, I.
    (1998) Critique of pure reason. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published in 1781). 10.1017/CBO9780511804649
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804649 [Google Scholar]
  53. Kimchi, R.
    (1993) Basic-level categorization and part-whole perception in children. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, , –. 10.3758/BF03334129
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334129 [Google Scholar]
  54. Konat, B.
    (2016) The structure of idealization in Noam Chomsky’s generativist theory. InG. Borbone & K. Brzechczyn (Eds.), Idealization XIV: Models in science (pp.–). Leiden & Boston: Brill-Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004318847_011
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004318847_011 [Google Scholar]
  55. Kuhn, T.
    (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Lakoff, G.
    (2008) The neural theory of metaphor. InR. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.–). New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.003 [Google Scholar]
  57. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. (1988) A usage-based model. InRudzka-Ostyn, B. (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.50.06lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.06lan [Google Scholar]
  59. (1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2. Descriptive application. Stanford & Calif.: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. (1991a) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. (1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110800524
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  62. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  63. (2009) Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214369
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
  64. (2013) Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. (2016) Working toward a synthesis. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0004 [Google Scholar]
  66. (2019) Levels of reality. Languages, (), . 10.3390/languages4020022
     https://doi.org/10.3390/languages4020022 [Google Scholar]
  67. (2017) Ten lectures on the elaboration of cognitive grammar. Leiden & Boston: Brill. 10.1163/9789004347472
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004347472 [Google Scholar]
  68. Lee, D.
    (2001) Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Melbourne, Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Levinson, S.
    (1997) From outer to inner space: Linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking. InJ. Nuyts & E. Pederson (Eds.), Language and conceptualization (pp.–). Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139086677.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139086677.002 [Google Scholar]
  70. McKone, E., & Robbins, R.
    (2012) Are faces special?InG. Rhodes, A. Calder, M. Johnson & J. Haxby (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of face perception (pp.–). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Mischler, J. J., III
    (2013) Metaphor across time and conceptual space: the interplay of embodiment and cultural models. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clscc.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.3 [Google Scholar]
  72. Poddiakov, A.
    (2024) Possibilities of free will in different physical, social, and technological worlds: An introduction to a thematic issue. Integrative psychological and behavioral science, , –. 10.1007/s12124‑024‑09843‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-024-09843-x [Google Scholar]
  73. Riemer, N.
    (2005) The semantics of polysemy: reading meaning in English and Warlpiri. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197556
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197556 [Google Scholar]
  74. Sanford, A., & Moxey, L.
    (1995) Notes on plural reference and the scenario-mapping principle in comprehension. InG. Rickheit & Ch. Habel (Eds.), Focus and coherence in discourse processing (pp.–). Berlin & New York: W. de Gruyer. 10.1515/9783110808414.18
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808414.18 [Google Scholar]
  75. Schindler, S., Drożdżowicz, A., & Brøcker, K.
    (Eds.) (2020) Linguistic intuitions: evidence and method. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198840558.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198840558.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  76. Schutze, C.
    (1996) The empirical basis of linguistics: Grammaticality judgements and linguistic methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. V. 1. Concept structuring systems. Cambridge & Mass.: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. (2007) Foreword. InM. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson & M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.18.03tal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.18.03tal [Google Scholar]
  79. Tanaka, J., & Gordon, I.
    (2012) Features, configuration, and holistic face processing. InG. Rhodes, A. Calder, M. Johnson & J. Haxby (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of face perception (pp.–). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Tomlin, R.
    (1995) Focal attention, voice, and word order. InP. Downing & M. Noonan (Еds.), Word order in discourse (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.30.18tom
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.30.18tom [Google Scholar]
  81. Weber, M.
    (1904) Die «Objectivität» sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis [The ‘objectivity’ of sociological and socio-political knowledge]. Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft und Socialpolitik, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Zebrowitz, L.
    (2012) Ecological and social approaches to face perception. InG. Rhodes, A. Calder, M. Johnson & J. Haxby (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of face perception (pp.–). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00223.gle
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: reductionism ; Langacker ; neural level ; Cognitive Grammar ; a usage-based discipline

Most Cited

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