Part of
Studies in Lexicogrammar: Theory and applicationsEdited by Grzegorz Drożdż
[Human Cognitive Processing 54] 2016
► pp. 23–54
Edited by Grzegorz Drożdż
[Human Cognitive Processing 54] 2016
► pp. 23–54
Toward an integrated view of structure, processing, and discourse
Research in Cognitive Grammar divides into two broad phases. The first phase provided an integrated account of lexicon, morphology, and syntax as inherently meaningful structures; it offered a radical alternative to the generative paradigm based on modularity, constituency, and the autonomy of syntax. The current phase aims at a broader synthesis subsuming structure, processing, and discourse.
Linguistic structures are never self-contained, but draw upon a substrate of indefinite extent, encompassing the speech situation, the context, background knowledge, and the ongoing discourse. The substrate includes the speaker-hearer interaction, which is part of an expression’s meaning even when left implicit. Recognition of the substrate allows a straightforward treatment of phenomena that are problematic when expressions are analyzed in isolation.
References
Austin, J.L.
1962 How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Boye, K., & Harder, P.
2007 Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language, 31, 569–606. 
Chafe, W.
1994 Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
Chomsky, N.
1965 Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M.
1968 The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M.
2001 The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 97–141.
Fauconnier, G.
1985 Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.
Fodor, J.A.
1983 The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.
Hankamer, J., & Sag, I.
1976 Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 391–428.
Ibbotson, P., Lieven, E.V.M., & Tomasello, M.
2013 The attention-grammar interface: Eye-gaze cues structural choice in children and adults. Cognitive Linguistics, 24, 457–481.
Janssen, T.
1995 Deixis from a cognitive point of view. In E. Contini-Morava & B. Sussman Goldberg (Eds.), Meaning as explanation: Advances in linguistic sign theory (245–270). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R.W.
1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
1990 Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
1991 Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
1997 Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 1–32.
1999 Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
2001a Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 143–188.
2001b Topic, subject, and possessor. In H. Gram Simonsen & R. Theil Endresen (Eds.), A cognitive approach to the verb: Morphological and constructional perspectives (11–48). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
2002 Deixis and subjectivity. In F. Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference (1–28). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
2008 Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
2009 Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
2012 Elliptic coordination. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 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 (17–72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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 (275–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ross, J.R.
1970 On declarative sentences. In R.A. Jacobs & P.S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (222–272). Waltham, MA: Ginn.
Searle, J.R.
1969 Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L.
1988 The relation of grammar to cognition. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (165–205). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Thompson, S.A.
2002 ‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language, 26, 125–164.
van Hoek, K.
1995 Conceptual reference points: A cognitive grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language, 71, 310–340.
1997 Backwards anaphora as a constructional category. Functions of Language, 4, 47–82.
Cited by
Cited by 8 other publications
Kochańska, Agata
2021. A grammatical construction in the service of interpersonal distance regulation. The case of the Polish directive infinitive construction. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 57:1 ► pp. 1 ff. 
Langacker, Ronald W.
2016. Working toward a synthesis. Cognitive Linguistics 27:4 ► pp. 465 ff.
Langacker, Ronald W.
Möttönen, Tapani
2019. The normative basis of construal. In Normativity in Language and Linguistics [Studies in Language Companion Series, 209], ► pp. 125 ff.
Podhorodecka, Joanna
2022. Review of Xu Wen & John R. Taylor (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (2021). New York and London: Routledge, pp. 772. Prace Językoznawcze 24:1 ► pp. 277 ff.
Waliński, Jacek Tadeusz
2022. Trees, assemblies, chains, and windows. In Construction Grammar across Borders [Benjamins Current Topics, 122], ► pp. 7 ff.
Zhan, Hongwei
2020. Book review: Christopher Hart (ed.), Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Text and Discourse: From Poetics to Politics. Discourse Studies 22:2 ► pp. 247 ff.
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 november 2023. 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.