Article published in:
International Journal of Chinese Linguistics
Vol. 1:1 (2014) ► pp. 136–156

When cognitive grammar meets functional grammar

Diversified interpretations of shared/similar terms in the two schools

| Institute of Linguistics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
This paper points out that certain frequently used terms in linguistic literature, such as“prominent/salient” and “background/ground”, are in fact interpreted differently or even contrarily in Functional Grammar and Cognitive Grammar. The paper attributes their diversified interpretations to the fundamental differences between these two linguistic schools in terms of paradigm and methodology, i.e. to focus on communicative activities of speech and discourse rules or on cognitive abilities and rules. The paper claims that “prominence” as a concept in cognitive grammar mainly relates to the speaker’s concerns, and can be more specifically reworded as topicality or accessibility since it, while conflicting with the focus-stress pattern, mostly conforms to the syntactic hierarchy of syntactic functions and the accessibility hierarchy of NPs, with the case being that the higher position an element occupies in the syntactic hierarchy the more prominent it is cognitively; “prominence” in Functional Grammar, however, mainly relates to the communicative function and the information status of the relevant elements, which thus can be more specifically reworded as focus or focusing, and it mostly conforms to the focus-stress pattern but conflicts with the syntactic hierarchy, with the case being that the more deeply an element is syntactically embedded the more prominent it is functionally. Some controversial opinions about emphasized elements in certain Chinese constructions might arise from the diversified interpretations of the relevant terms. On this basis, the paper further discusses certain problems existing in the ‘figure-background’ theory in cognitive grammar.
Keywords: Cognitive Grammar, prominence, terminology, Functional Grammar, stress pattern, syntactic hierarchy, background/ground
Published online: 05 September 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijchl.1.1.05liu
References
端木三 [Duanmu, S] (2007) 重音、信息和语言的分类 [Stress, information, and language typology]. 语言科学 [Linguistic Sciences], 51, 3–16.Google Scholar
方 梅 [Fang, M] (2004) 汉语口语后置关系从句研究 [On post-nominal relative clauses in spoken Chinese]. In 庆祝中国语文创刊50周年学术论文集 [ Selected Papers from the International Symposium Marking the 50th Anniversary of the Publication of Zhongguo Yuwen ] (pp. 70–78). Beijing: The Commercial Press.
方 梅 [Fang, M] (2005) 篇章语法与汉语篇章语法研究 [Discourse grammar and Chinese discourse grammar study]. 中国社会科学 [Social Sciences in China], 51, 165–172.Google Scholar
方 梅 [Fang, M] (2008) 由背景化触发的两种句法结构——主语零形回指和描写性关系从句 [Two emergent grammatical structures motivated by background information packaging: A case study on the cataphoric zero subject clause and the descriptive relative clause]. 中国语文 [Zhongguo Yuwen], 41, 291-303.Google Scholar
刘丹青 [Liu, D] (1995) 语义优先还是语用优先——汉语语法学体系建设断想 [The priority of semantics or the priority of pragmatics: Thoughts on the construction of Chinese grammar system]. 语文研究 [Linguistic Research]. 21, 10–15.Google Scholar
刘丹青 [Liu, D] (2011) “有”字领有句的语义倾向和信息结构 [The semantic preference and information structure of the possessive construction with the verb “you”(have)]. 中国语文 [Zhongguo Yuwen]. 21, 99–109, 191.Google Scholar
刘丹青 [Liu, D], 徐烈炯 [Xu, L] (1998) 焦点与背景、话题及汉语“连”字句 [Focus, background, topic and Chinese “lian”(even) sentence]. 中国语文 [Zhongguo Yuwen]. 041, 243–252.Google Scholar
刘宁生 [Liu, N] (1994) 汉语怎样表达物体的空间关系 [How to present the spatial relationship between objects in Chinese]. 中国语文 [Zhongguo Yuwen], 31, 169–179.Google Scholar
刘宁生 [Liu, N] (1995) 汉语偏正结构的认知基础及其在语序类型学上的意义 [Cognitive basis of Chinese modifier-head structures and its significance in word order typology]. 中国语文 [Zhongguo Yuwen], 21, 81–89.Google Scholar
潘秋平 [Pan, Q] (2009) 从认知语法看上古汉语的“於” [The grammatical meaning of preposition yu in Archaic Chinese from a cognitive grammar perspective]. 汉语史学报 [Journal of Chinese Language History], 81, 134–148. Shanghai: Shanghai Educational Publishing House.Google Scholar
沈家煊 [Shen, J] (1999) 不对称和标记论 [Asymmetry and markedness]. Nanchang: Jiangxi Educational Publishing House.Google Scholar
沈家煊 [Shen, J] (2000) 说“偷”和“抢” [On “steal” and “rob”]. 中国语文 [Zhongguo Yuwen], 41, 19-24.Google Scholar
宋文辉 [Song, W] (2012) 汉语动结式的功能与认知研究 [On the function and cognition of chinese verb-resultative structure]. Draft of Program Report.
王洪君 [Wang, H] (2008) 汉语非线性音系学（增订版） [ Non-linear phonology of Chiense ]. Beijing: Peking University Press。Google Scholar
徐杰、李英哲 [Xu, J., & Li, Y] (1993) 焦点和两个非线形语法范畴：“否定”“疑问” [Focus and two non-linear syntactic categories: Negation and interrogation]. 中国语文 [Zhongguo Yuwen], 21, 81–92.Google Scholar
徐烈炯 [Xu, L] (2005) 焦点的语音表现 [Phonetic presentation of Focus]. In L. Xu & H. Pan (Eds.), 焦点结构和意义的研究 [ On focus structure and meaning ] (pp. 34–46). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
张伯江、方梅 [Zhang, B., & Fang, M] (1996) 汉语功能语法研究 [Functional studies of Chinese grammar]. Nanchang: Jiangxi Educational Publishing House.Google Scholar
周韧 [Zhou, R] (2011) 现代汉语韵律与语法的互动关系研究 [A research on the interactive relations between prosody and grammar in Mandarin]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J
(2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. & M. Halle
(1968) Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cinque, G
(1993) A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry, 241: 239–297.Google Scholar
Comrie, B
(1989) Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W
(2003) Typology and universals, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, E. & Cruse, D.A
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D
(1997) A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 4th edition. Oxford: Blackwell. (Translated by 沈家煊 [Shen, J]. 现代语言学词典 [A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics]. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2000).Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W
(1994) Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John
(1987) The Discourse Basis of Ergativity, Language, 631: 805–855. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M
(2006) Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T
(1979) On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H
(1963) Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Language, ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg. 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Holme, R
(2009) Cognitive grammar and language teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E.L., & Comrie, B
(1977) Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 81, 63–99.Google Scholar
Kim, A.H.-O
(1988) Preverbal focusing and type XXIII languages. In M. Hammond, E. Moravacsik & J. Wirth (Eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (pp. 147–172). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krupa, V
(1982) Syntactic typology and linearization. Language, 58(3), 639–645. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K
(1994) Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J.R
(2002) Cognitive grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, S.A
(1988) A discourse approach to the cross‑linguistic category ‘adjective’. In J. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 167‑185). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1998) A discourse explanation for the cross-linguistic differences in the grammar of incorporation and negation. In A. Siewierska & J.J. Song (Eds.), Case, Typology and Grammar in honor of Barry J. Blake. (Vol.381). (pp. 309–341). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H.J
(1996) An introduction to cognitive linguistics. Boston: Addison Wesley Longman limited.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa and Jean-Roger, Vergnaud
(2000) Phrasal stress and syntax. In Progress in Grammar, ed. Marc van Oostendorp and Elena Anagnostopoulou (an electronic book http://​www​.roquade​.nl​/meertens​/progress​-ingrammar​/index​.html). Publisher: Roquade, Amsterdam/Utrecht/Delft.Google Scholar