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.
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)
References
Anderson, J. M. (1971). The grammar of case: Towards a localistic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chafe, W. (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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W. A. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press/Bradford.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press/Bradford. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hudson, R. A. (1984). Word Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hudson, R. A. (1987). Zwicky on heads. Journal of Linguistics, 231, 109–132. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hudson, R. A. (2010). An introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Israel, M. (2011). The grammar of polarity: Pragmatics, sensitivity, and the logic of scales. New York: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1972). The categorical and the thetic judgment. Foundations of Language, 91, 153–185.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (1988). The nature of grammatical valence. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 91–125). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (1997). Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics, 81, 1–32. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (2001). Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 121, 143–188. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (2009a). Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (2012). Elliptic coordination. Cognitive Linguistics, 231, 555–599. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (2015). How to build an English clause. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 1–45. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Osborne, T., & Gross, T. (2012). Constructions are catenae: Construction grammar meets dependency grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 231, 165–216. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Robinson, J. J. (1970). Dependency structures and transformational rules. Language, 461, 259–285. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Hoek, K. (1995). Conceptual reference points: A Cognitive Grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language, 711, 310–340. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Hoek, K. (1997a). Anaphora and conceptual structure. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Hoek, K. (1997b). Backwards anaphora as a constructional category. Functions of Language, 41, 47–82.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zwicky, A. M. (1985). Heads. Journal of Linguistics, 211, 1–29. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Ponsford, Dan
2023.
Meaning differences between the inputs to syntactic blends.
Linguistics 61:3
► pp. 593 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.