The Three Grammars and the sign
This article presents an original three-component model of the linguistic sign. It shares with the established
triadic models of Peirce (
1955 [1897]) and
Ogden
and Richards (1923/1949) in identifying
thought, word and
thing as essential components; but differs
in being linear, with
thought and
thing at opposite poles. It is argued that this arrangement reflects the way
the components of the sign relate to reality and thereby serves well as an explanatory tool for linguistic research. The model is
further modified at each of the ontological realms using concepts from cognitive linguistics, renamed
cognition, language
and
reality. The new model is employed as a research tool in two case studies: one illustrates its use in making sense of
the complex field of language grammar; the other does the same for figurative language – metaphor and metonymy. The article’s
conclusions include that interrogating established cornerstones of linguistic theory in the light of new theory can lead to the
development of improved research tools.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Modelling the sign – Developing a linear triadic model
- 3.Modifying the basic linear model of the sign using concepts from cognitive grammar
- 3.1Abstract things
- 3.2The semantic narrowing of words
- 3.3Complex thoughts
- 4.Case study 1 – Grammar
- 4.1Generative grammar
- 4.2Functional grammar
- 4.3Cognitive grammar
- 4.4The Three Grammars and the value of a semiotics perspective
- 5.Case study 2 – Figurative language
- 5.1Metaphor
- 5.2Metonymy
- 5.3Metaphor, metonymy and the Three Grammars
- 6.Concluding remarks
-
References
References (52)
References
Atkin, A. (2013). Peirce’s theory of signs. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. <[URL]> [accessed 2 March 2020].
Cameron, L. (2010). The discourse dynamics framework for metaphor. In L. Cameron & R. Maslen (Eds.), Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and humanities (pp. 77–94). London: Equinox.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cameron, L., & Maslen, R. (Eds.). (2010). Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and humanities. London: Equinox.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cowie, A. P. (Ed.). (1998). Phraseology: Theory, analysis and application. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Denroche, C. T. (2015). Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York, NY: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, C. J. (2006 [1982]). Frame semantics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 373–400). Berlin & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Page references in the present article are to the 2006 work. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, M. A. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, M. A. (1976). Deep grammar: System as semantic choice. In G. R. Kress (Ed.), Halliday: System and function in language. Selected papers (pp. 88–98). Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, M. A. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, M. A. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar (1st ed.). London: Edward Arnold.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, M. A. (1993). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In M. A. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science; Literacy and discursive power (pp. 69–85). London: The Falmer Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, M. A. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Harris, R. (1993). The linguistics wars. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hjelmslev, L. T. (1943/1953). Omkring sprogteoriens grundlkggelse (Danish text, Copenhagen, 1943). The 1953 English trans. by Francis Whitfield, Prolegomena to a theory of language (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press), was used in the present article.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jakobson, R. O. (1968). Language in relation to other communication systems. In Reports of the symposium on languages in society and in technique. Milan: Olivetti.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johansen, J. D. (1993). Dialogic semiosis: An essay on signs and meaning. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kress, G. R. (1976). Introduction. In G. R. Kress (Ed.), Halliday: System and function in language. Selected papers (pp. vii–xxi). Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kress, G. R. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kress, G. R., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G. P., & Johnson, M. L. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (1986). An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science 101, 1–40. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (2005). Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 101–159). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (2009). Metonymic grammar. In K. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (2013). Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leech, G. N. (1969). A linguistic guide to English poetry. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lyons, J. (1981). Language, meaning and context. Fontana Paperbacks.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Newmeyer, F. J. (1998). Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nuyts, J. (2005). Brothers in arms? On the relations between cognitive and functional linguistics. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 69–100). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A. (1923/1949). The meaning of meaning (10th ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Panther, K., & Thornburg, L. L. (2009). Introduction: On figuration in grammar. In K. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 1–44). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Peirce, C. S. (1955 [1897]). Logic as semiotic: The theory of signs. In J. Buchler (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce (pp. 98–119). New York, NY: Dover.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Radden, G. (2005). The ubiquity of metonymy. In J. Otal Campo, I. Navarro i Ferrando & B. Bellés Fortuña (Eds.), Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 11–28). Castello de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Saussure, F. de. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris, France: Payot.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Saussure, F. de. (1916/1959). Course in general linguistics. English translation of Cours de linguistique générale (1916) by Wade Baskin. New York, NY: Philosophical Library.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Saussure, F. de. (1916/1983). Course in general linguistics. English translation of Cours de linguistique générale (1916) by Roy Harris. London: Duckworth.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Steen, G. J. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Edited by John Carroll. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Denroche, Charles
2024.
Drawing as a Tool in Metaphor-Led Discourse Analysis.
Metaphor and Symbol 39:2
► pp. 132 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.