Article published In:
Construction Grammar across BordersEdited by Tiago Timponi Torrent, Ely Edison da Silva Matos and Natália Sathler Sigiliano
[Constructions and Frames 12:1] 2020
► pp. 8–55
Edited by Tiago Timponi Torrent, Ely Edison da Silva Matos and Natália Sathler Sigiliano
[Constructions and Frames 12:1] 2020
► pp. 8–55
Trees, assemblies, chains, and windows
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.
Keywords: constituency, dependency, function, processing, symbolization
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Constituency in Cognitive Grammar
- 3.Constituency vs. dependency
- 4.Assemblies
- 4.1Connections
- 4.2Temporal dimension
- 4.3Functions
- 5.Architecture
- 6.Descriptive and discursive organization
- 7.From connection to constituent
- 8.Seriality
- 9.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References (40)
Anderson, J. M. (1971). The grammar of case: Towards a localistic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. S. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 21–51). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 
(1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
Croft, W. A. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press/Bradford.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press/Bradford.
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.
Hudson, R. A. (1984). Word Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
(1987). Zwicky on heads. Journal of Linguistics, 231, 109–132.
(2010). An introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Israel, M. (2011). The grammar of polarity: Pragmatics, sensitivity, and the logic of scales. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Janssen, T. A. J. M. (1995). Deixis from a cognitive point of view. In E. Contini-Morava & B. S. Goldberg (Eds.), Meaning as explanation: Advances in linguistic sign theory (pp. 245–270). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kirsner, R. S. (1993). From meaning to message in two theories: Cognitive and Saussurean views of the Modern Dutch demonstratives. In R. A. Geiger & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds.), Conceptualizations and mental processing in language (pp. 81–114). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1972). The categorical and the thetic judgment. Foundations of Language, 91, 153–185.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
(1988). The nature of grammatical valence. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 91–125). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(1990). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(1997). Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics, 81, 1–32.
(1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2001). Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 121, 143–188.
(2002). Deixis and subjectivity. In F. Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference (pp. 1–28). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2005). Dynamicity, fictivity, and scanning: The imaginative basis of logic and linguistic meaning. In D. 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.
(2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
(2009a). Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2009b). Metonymic grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2012). Elliptic coordination. Cognitive Linguistics, 231, 555–599.
(2014). Subordination in a dynamic account of grammar. In L. Visapää, J. Kalliokoski, & H. Sorva (Eds.), Contexts of subordination. Cognitive, typological and discourse perspectives (pp. 17–72). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2015). How to build an English clause. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 1–45.
(2016a). Nominal grounding and English quantifiers. Cognitive Linguistic Studies,
3
1, 1–31.
(2016b). Toward an integrated view of structure, processing, and discourse. In G. Drożdż (Ed.), Studies in lexicogrammar: Theory and applications (pp. 23–53). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2017). Entrenchment in Cognitive Grammar. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 39–56). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Li, C. N. (1997). On zero anaphora. In J. 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.
Osborne, T., & Gross, T. (2012). Constructions are catenae: Construction grammar meets dependency grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 231, 165–216.
Robinson, J. J. (1970). Dependency structures and transformational rules. Language, 461, 259–285.
Talmy, L. (1996). The windowing of attention in language. In M. Shibatani & S. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 235–287). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Hoek, K. (1995). Conceptual reference points: A Cognitive Grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language, 711, 310–340.
(1997a). Anaphora and conceptual structure. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
(1997b). Backwards anaphora as a constructional category. Functions of Language, 41, 47–82.
Zwicky, A. M. (1985). Heads. Journal of Linguistics, 211, 1–29.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Ponsford, Dan
2023. Meaning differences between the inputs to syntactic blends. Linguistics 61:3 ► pp. 593 ff. 
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.