Cover not available
Part of
Contexts of Subordination: Cognitive, typological and discourse perspectives
Edited by Laura Visapää, Jyrki Kalliokoski and Helena Sorva
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 249] 2014
► pp. 17–72

Subordination in a dynamic account of grammar

Subordination is no exception to the rule that basic and general notions are the hardest to characterize. There is in fact no guarantee that it represents a single or unified phenomenon. Rather than a definition, my immediate goal is thus to elucidate and clarify the numerous factors involved. I believe they are best understood in terms of an integrated account of meaning, grammar, processing, and discourse being developed in Cognitive Grammar (CG). Relative, complement, and adverbial clauses will be examined here by way of presenting and supporting this approach.
Published online: 4 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.249.02lan
References (41)
References
Bolinger, Dwight. 1971. The Phrasal Verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper, and Peter Harder. 2007. “Complement-Taking Predicates: Usage and Linguistic Structure.” Studies in Language 31: 569–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1987. “Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow.” In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 11], ed. by Russell S. Tomlin, 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 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
Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1981. “An Interpretation of Split Ergativity and Related Phenomena.” Language 57: 626–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger, and Michael Tomasello. 2001. “The Acquisition of Finite Complement Clauses in English: A Corpus-Based Analysis.” Cognitive Linguistics 12: 97–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press/Bradford.Google Scholar
. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. “Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone .” Language 64: 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harder, Peter. 1996. Functional Semantics: A Theory of Meaning, Structure and Tense in English [Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 87]. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L., and Bernard Comrie. 1977. “Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar.” Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987a. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1987b. “Nouns and Verbs.” Language 63: 53–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1993. “Reference-Point Constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics 4: 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. “Conceptual Grouping and Constituency in Cognitive Grammar.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm 3, ed. by Ik-Hwan Lee, 149–172. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
. 1997. “Constituency, Dependency, and Conceptual Grouping.” Cognitive Linguistics 8: 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. “Assessing the Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise.” In Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology [Cognitive Linguistics Research 15], ed. by Theo Janssen, and Gisela Redeker, 13–59. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001a. “Discourse in Cognitive Grammar.” Cognitive Linguistics 12: 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001b. “Dynamicity in Grammar.” Axiomathes 12: 7–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Deixis and Subjectivity.” In Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference [Cognitive Linguistics Research 21], ed. by Frank Brisard, 1–28. 
Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Form, Meaning, and Behavior: The Cognitive Grammar Analysis of Double Subject Constructions.” In Cognitive and Communicative Approaches to Linguistic Analysis [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 51], ed. by Ellen Contini-­Morava, Robert S. Kirsner, and Betsy Rodríguez-Bachiller, 21–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008a. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008b. “Subordination in Cognitive Grammar.” In Asymmetric Events [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 11], ed. by Barbara 
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, 137–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar [Cognitive Linguistics Research 42]. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Day After Day After Day.” In Meaning, Form, and Body, ed. by Fey Parrill, Vera Tobin, and Mark Turner, 149–164. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2012. “Substrate, System, and Expression: Aspects of the Functional Organization of English Finite Clauses.” In Cognitive Linguistics between Universality and Variation, ed. by Mario Brdar, Ida Raffaelli, and Milena Žic Fuchs, 3–52. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Lashley, Karl S. 1951. “The Problem of Serial Order in Behavior.” In Cerebral Mechanisms in Behavior, ed. by Lloyd A. Jeffress, 112–136. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1997. “From Outer to Inner Space: Linguistic Categories and Non-Linguistic Thinking.” In Language and Conceptualization [Language, Culture and Cognition 1], ed. by Jan Nuyts, and Eric Pederson, 13–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindner, Susan. 1981. A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of English Verb-Particle Constructions with UP and OUT. San Diego: University of California doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
. 1982. “What Goes Up doesn’t Necessarily Come Down: The Ins and Outs of Opposites.” Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 18: 305–323.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. “Principles of Categorization.” In Cognition and Categorization, ed. by Eleanor Rosch, and Barbara B. Lloyd, 27–47. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1987. “Thinking for Speaking.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 435–445.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1999. “Compositionality and Blending: Semantic Composition in a Cognitively Realistic Framework.” In Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology [Cognitive Linguistics Research 15], ed. by Theo Janssen, and Gisela Redeker, 129–162. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1996. “The Windowing of Attention in Language.” In Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, and Sandra Thompson, 235–287. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1965. Éléments de Syntaxe Structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. ““Object Complements” and Conversation: Towards a Realistic Account.” Studies in Language 26: 125–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 1986. Linguistic Theory and the Function of Word Order in Dutch: A Study on Interpretive Aspects of the Order of Adverbials and Noun Phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. 
Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Andersen, Anders & Erling Strudsholm
2023. Il congiuntivo alla danese. Revue Romane. Langue et littérature. International Journal of Romance Languages and Literatures 58:1 ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
Visapää, Laura
2022. Infinitives of affect and intersubjectivity: on the indexical interpretation of the Finnish independent infinitives. Cognitive Linguistics 33:3 ► pp. 521 ff. DOI logo
Waliński, Jacek Tadeusz
2022. Trees, assemblies, chains, and windows. In Construction Grammar across Borders [Benjamins Current Topics, 122], ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
Peltola, Rea
2021. Unfolding constructions. In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32], ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo
Fong, Ronald
2017. Chinese Motion-Directional Construction: A Conceptual and Cognitive Analysis. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 38:2 ► pp. 119 ff. DOI logo
Langacker, Ronald W.
2016. Toward an integrated view of structure, processing, and discourse. In Studies in Lexicogrammar [Human Cognitive Processing, 54], ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
Etelämäki, Marja & Laura Visapää
2015. Why blend conversation analysis with cognitive grammar?. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 477 ff. DOI logo
Wiklund, Mari
2014. Subordination and the prosodic marking of punctuation in L’étranger by Albert Camus. In Contexts of Subordination [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 249], ► pp. 203 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 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.