Article published in:

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

Ronald W. Langacker

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: 04 September 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.249.02lan

References

Bolinger, Dwight

1971 The Phrasal Verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Boye, Kasper, and Peter Harder

2007 “Complement-Taking Predicates: Usage and Linguistic Structure.” Studies in Language 31: 569–606.

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.

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.

Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle

1968 The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.

Dehé, Nicole, and Anne Wichmann

2010 “The Multifunctionality of Epistemic Parentheticals in Discourse: Prosodic Cues to the Semantic-Pragmatic Boundary.” Functions of Language 17: 1–28.

DeLancey, Scott

1981 “An Interpretation of Split Ergativity and Related Phenomena.” Language 57: 626–657.

Diessel, Holger, and Michael Tomasello

2001 “The Acquisition of Finite Complement Clauses in English: A Corpus-Based Analysis.” Cognitive Linguistics 12: 97–141.

Fauconnier, Gilles

1985 Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press/Bradford.

1997 Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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.

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.

Keenan, Edward L., and Bernard Comrie

1977 “Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar.” Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99.

Langacker, Ronald W.

1987a Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

1987b “Nouns and Verbs.” Language 63: 53–94.

1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

1993 “Reference-Point Constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics 4: 1–38.

1995 “Conceptual Grouping and Constituency in Cognitive Grammar.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm 3, ed. by Ik-Hwan Lee, 149–172. Seoul: Hanshin.

1997 “Constituency, Dependency, and Conceptual Grouping.” Cognitive Linguistics 8: 1–32.

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.

2001a “Discourse in Cognitive Grammar.” Cognitive Linguistics 12: 143–188.

2001b “Dynamicity in Grammar.” Axiomathes 12: 7–33.

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.

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.

2008a Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

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.

2009 Investigations in Cognitive Grammar [Cognitive Linguistics Research 42]. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

2010 “Day After Day After Day.” In Meaning, Form, and Body, ed. by Fey Parrill, Vera Tobin, and Mark Turner, 149–164. Stanford: CSLI.

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.

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.

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.

Lindner, Susan

1981 A Lexico-Semantic Analysis of English Verb-Particle Constructions with UP and OUT. San Diego: University of California doctoral dissertation.

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.

Rosch, Eleanor

1978 “Principles of Categorization.” In Cognition and Categorization, ed. by Eleanor Rosch, and Barbara B. Lloyd, 27–47. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Slobin, Dan I.

1987 “Thinking for Speaking.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 435–445.

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.

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.

Tesnière, Lucien

1965 Éléments de Syntaxe Structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.

Thompson, Sandra A.

2002 ““Object Complements” and Conversation: Towards a Realistic Account.” Studies in Language 26: 125–164.

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.

2005 Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Cited by other publications

Etelämäki, Marja & Laura Visapää

2014. Why blend conversation analysis with cognitive grammar?. Pragmatics 24:3 ► pp. 477 ff.

Langacker, Ronald W.

2016. In Studies in Lexicogrammar [Human Cognitive Processing, 54], ► pp. 23 ff.

Wiklund, Mari

2014. In Contexts of Subordination [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 249], ► pp. 203 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 june 2020. 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.