The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics Part 49 ppsx

Cognitive Grammar does lend itself to investigating language in its social and historical context, for it avoids the artificial disjunctures of synchrony versus di-achrony and language st

battery of conceptual tools potentially useful for translation and literary studies (Tabakowska 1993) For various reasons, Cognitive Grammar does not readily lend itself to computer implementation.48Still, much can be learned from even partial attempts and consideration of why the problem is so difficult (Holmqvist 1993, 1999) Cognitive Grammar does lend itself to investigating language in its social and historical context, for it avoids the artificial disjunctures of synchrony versus di-achrony and language structure versus language use (section 2) There have so far been few sociolinguistic studies specifically exploiting descriptive constructs of Cognitive Grammar (Kemmer and Israel 1994; Backus 1996; see Langacker 2003b).

By contrast, diachronic issues figured prominently in the first publication on Cog-nitive Grammar (Langacker 1981) and have continued to receive attention (Lan-gacker 1990b, 1992a, 1998, 1999c; Carey 1994, 1996; Rubba 1994; Israel 1996b; Doiz Bienzobas 1998—see also Bybee, this volume, chapter 36) Grammaticalization has been a special focus and is likely to remain so in view of its central importance to semantics and grammar (this volume, chapters 10, 36).

With respect to theory and description, several major themes should be pivotal to Cognitive Grammar research in the coming years The first is dynamicity, pertaining

to how a conceptualization unfolds through processing time (section 3) The lin-guistic effects of temporal sequencing are both pervasive and fundamental (Lan-gacker 1993c, 1997b, 2001a, 2001b, 2001d, 2003c) They obtain in every dimension and

at every level of organization—from discourse to sublexical semantic structure.49If a linguistic model is to be psychologically realistic, the inherent temporality of cog-nitive processing would seem to demand a dynamic account of language structure, which in any case is strongly motivated on purely linguistic grounds The second theme is fictivity Even when discussing actual individuals and occurrences, surpris-ingly much of what we directly refer to linguistically is ‘‘fictive’’ or ‘‘virtual’’ in nature Fictive motion (Langacker 1986; Matsumoto 1996; Talmy 1996) is merely the tip of a virtual iceberg (Langacker 1999c, 2003d).50Achieving a clear understanding of the myriad kinds and levels of virtuality is crucial for advancing conceptual semantics A final theme will be the grounding of language structure in discourse and social interaction (Langacker 2001a, 2001e, 2003b, 2004c, 2004d) While this grounding has from the outset been inherent in Cognitive Grammar’s basic architecture (section 2),

it has not been sufficiently emphasized in either description or theoretical formu-lation In principle, Cognitive Grammar is a theory of e´nonciation (Culioli 1990) Its future development should make this increasingly more apparent in practice.

N O T E S

1 These points are detailed in Langacker (2005a, 2005b) Comparison of Cognitive Grammar with two other approaches, Tesnie`re’s Structural Syntax and the Columbia School, can be found in Langacker (1995d, 2004b) For extensive treatment of Cognitive Grammar itself, see Langacker (1987a, 1990a, 1991, 1999b) and Taylor (2002)

2 See the following references (all to Langacker): for noun and verb, 1987b; for subject, 1999a, 2001b; for morpheme, 1987a, 1995a; for constituency, 1995a, 1997a; for subordinate clause, 1991

3 To the extent they are analogous, the term viewing is employed for both perception and conception in general (Langacker 1993d, 1995e; cf Talmy 1996)

4 Also within the scope of potential linguistic concern are facial expression and even body language Writing and gesture can be taken as alternative central channels of ex-pression

5 This is essentially what is shown in figure 17.1, which can be taken as a skeletal representation that all units share and that each elaborates in its own way

6 Excluded are channels in which no specification is made (i.e., they are fully schematic), as well as those noncentral enough to be ignored for particular purposes

7 The semantic pole of a symbolic unit is ipso facto a semantic unit There can also be semantic units that are not individually symbolized (e.g., a concept that defines a category schematically but happens to represent a ‘‘lexical gap’’), just as there are phonological units that do not individually serve a symbolizing function

8 Lexical items can be partially schematic phonologically if they only occur in larger expressions where their schematic elements are specified and overtly manifested (e.g., a reduplicative morpheme of the schematic form CV-, where the schematic consonant and vowel match those of the stem) For other subtleties concerning the notion ‘‘expression,’’ see Langacker (1987a: section 11.2.1)

9 Cognitive Grammar agrees with Construction Grammar in treating lexical items as constructions However, it does not follow Construction Grammar in positing construc-tions only when there is some discernible irregularity or nonpredictability Expressions that are semantically and grammatically regular can nonetheless be established as con-ventional linguistic units Since mastery of these usual ways of saying things is essential to speaking a language fluently, it seems both arbitrary and artifactual to exclude them from linguistic knowledge just because they happen to be regular

10 The term ‘‘apprehension’’ merely indicates mental occurrence It is intended as being neutral between speaking and understanding

11 For the speaker, this might be some aspect of the conception to be conveyed For the listener, it might be an auditory impression and/or some aspect of the conception anticipated as representing the speaker’s intent

12 See, for example, Kempson (1977: section 2.3) and Palmer (1981: section 2.2) The word concept and its derivatives do not even appear in the index of Lyons (1995)

13 A common mistake is to think of conceptualization as being like an image pro-jected on a screen inside the skull for viewing It should instead be identified with the mental experience engendered by viewing the world ‘‘outside.’’ Only as a special case, and

to a very limited extent, can we monitor our own conceptualizing activity

14 These egregious misinterpretations of the Cognitive Grammar view are found in Levinson (1997) The actual Cognitive Grammar position is quite close to the one Levinson espouses

15 See Haiman (1980), Langacker (1987a: section 4.2), and Wierzbicka (1995) Refer-ence to dictionaries and encyclopedias is metaphorical—pace Wierzbicka, it is not claimed, for instance, that an encyclopedic semantic characterization contains the kinds of esoteric information found in actual encyclopedias which most speakers are ignorant of

16 In terms of encyclopedic semantics, these senses consist of different ways of ac-cessing the same domains of knowledge, or overlapping sets of domains Polysemy illus-trates the general phenomenon of complex categories, whose formation was described

at the end of section 2 Lakoff’s (1987) radial model of categorization is a special case of this network model (one that ignores the abstraction of more schematic meanings)

17 For instance, something is ‘‘basic’’ if it is either innately specified or first acquired

In one sense a whole is more ‘‘basic’’ than its parts, but also ‘‘basic,’’ in another way, are the smallest parts out of which a whole is progressively assembled

18 Actually, any established ‘‘concept’’ can equally well be described dynamically as the routinized ability to execute a certain ‘‘packet’’ of processing activity

19 The examples cited by Lakoff (1987) and Johnson (1987) of ‘‘image schemas’’ include both sorts of basic notions, and their discussion fails to clearly distinguish them While image schemas are supposedly abstracted from bodily experience, Cognitive Grammar is essentially agnostic on the innateness issue However, a reasonable working hypothesis is that the basic cognitive abilities, at least, are innately provided They make possible the structured experience required for the emergence of archetypes

20 Other possibilities are basic domains pertaining to emotive and motor/kinesthetic experience The irreducibility of basic domains does not preclude their being structured (e.g., color space has the dimensions of brightness, hue, and saturation) or being sus-ceptible to metaphorical construal (e.g., loud color) While analysis and metaphor enhance our understanding of these domains, they do not themselves constitute the basic experi-ence (e.g., the sensation of redness)

21 The earlier term abstract domain is infelicitous, since many conceptions pertain to concrete experience

22 The term construal is preferable to imagery, used in earlier works, since the latter is commonly employed for other phenomena (e.g., visual imagery) Content and

construal cannot be sharply distinguished; the terminological distinction is made primarily

to highlight the importance of construal, which is largely ignored in traditional semantics The classification of construal phenomena is likewise mostly for expository convenience

23 Here, for instance, are some usual prominence asymmetries: whole > part; human > nonhuman; concrete > abstract; new > given; category prototype > noncentral members; basic-level category > subordinate/superordinate categories

24 Because a relationship cannot be conceptualized without conceptualizing its central participants (given as circles), these are included in the relational profile

25 In terms of figure 17.1, the immediate scope is the content appearing in the viewing frame

26 These are unproblematic in Cognitive Grammar For instance, metonymy consists

of an alternate choice of profile within the same conceptual base Mental space configu-rations and the mappings between spaces characteristic of metaphor and blending represent special cases of how the domains of a matrix can be related to one another

27 A morpheme is a degenerate symbolic assembly consisting of just a single symbolic structure; that is, it is not analyzable into symbolic components However, since the analyzability of fixed expressions is a matter of degree, morphemic status is graded as well (Langacker 1987a: section 12.1; 1995a)

28 As later discussion will show, distributional classes of this sort are readily ac-commodated in a usage-based model (Langacker 2000), as are the distributional properties

of semantically definable categories

29 For example, the schematic definition of a noun (an expression that profiles a thing) defines a category that includes not only the elements traditionally recognized as such, but also pronouns, articles, demonstratives, and full noun phrases For extensive discussion of grammatical classes, see Langacker (1987a, 1987b, 1991)

30 The oft-debated issue of whether every language has a noun/verb distinction pertains to primary lexical categorization, which is just a matter of whether particular profiling options are entrenched and conventionalized If a lexeme has no inherent pro-filing, the construction it appears in will nonetheless impose one, so that it functions as a noun or a verb in any given use In claiming that nouns and verbs are universal gram-matical categories, Cognitive Grammar remains agnostic as to whether they are also universal lexical categories

31 The constitutive entities can be taken as arbitrary ‘‘splotches’’ of substance As used

in Cognitive Grammar, the term entity is maximally schematic, implying no specific properties or individual cognitive salience

32 The entities interconnected in a relationship need not be discrete, distinct, cog-nitively salient, or individually mentioned Thus, expressions that profile relationships need not have multiple (or even any) overtly specified participants

33 A better term might be nonprocessual, since time is often a factor For example, before and after (figure 17.7) are atemporal (nonprocessual) because the profiled rela-tionship is construed as a single configuration in time (analogous to one in space), rather than being viewed as evolving through time By contrast, the verbs precede and follow either follow this relationship through time as a stable configuration (as in June precedes July) or portray it as emerging through time (Lightning preceded the storm)

34 As abbreviations used for expository convenience, capital letters stand for semantic structures, with lower case orthography representing phonological structures Ellipses indicate that the class schemas impose no specific phonological requirements (i.e., they are maximally schematic at the phonological pole) Although they are shown separately for analytic purposes, the schemas are actually immanent in their instantiations, that is, in-herent in the processing activity constituting them

35 To keep things simple, articles are omitted and only the semantic pole is shown in any detail The pictures of a table and a door are merely mnemonic abbreviations for the full, encyclopedic meanings of table and door An extensive treatment of grammatical constructions is offered in Langacker (2003a)

36 More fundamental are conceptual grouping, phonological grouping, symboliza-tion, and the hierarchical organization characteristic of human behavior in general (see Langacker 1995a, 1997a)

37 A more restrictive definition reflecting traditional usage would limit the term

‘‘subject’’ to situations where the relationship is profiled and only at the clausal level (e.g., The table is near the door)

38 The schema can also be seen as one facet of the lexical item’s characteriza-tion Since a lexical item occurs in particular grammatical environments, the repre-sentation abstracted from usage events includes a set of structural frames in which it figures If there is any representation independent of such frames, it arises by further abstraction

39 Phonologically, for example, the word picnics divides into pic and nics on unipolar grounds (syllable structure), whereas bipolar considerations dictate the otherwise unmo-tivated segmentation into picnic and -s Semantically, the meaning of -s is quite schematic and unlikely to emerge as a conceptual unit were it not for its linguistic role in forming plurals, incorporating the more specific content of the nouns it combines with

40 Phonological representations are not just based on articulation, but also on per-ception, which constitutes another channel In signed languages, the main expressive burden is shifted to the corresponding gestural channels

41 As a facet of unipolar phonological organization, accentual prominence lacks the referential function of profiling This follows from the inherent difference between con-ceptualization and expression

42 As reflected in the history of writing, segments are psychologically less basic than syllables and words and do not occur alone except when they happen to coincide with these larger structures Representations of segments are thus abstracted from larger structural frames, which (in schematized form) are part of their characterization This is quite analogous to the incorporation of symbolic structural frames in the characterization

of lexical items (see note 38)

43 These are analogous to patterns of semantic extension, such as the metonymic pattern [creator -"creation] (as in She just bought a Miro´) For some differences between derivation and categorization, see Langacker (1987a: 444)

44 For instance, a clausal subordinator might be placed in the middle of the clause as

a suffix on the verb

45 I restrict attention to research largely based on Cognitive Grammar proper (without implying any sharp distinction from work in cognitive and functional linguistics more generally) Here and in what follows, only selected citations can be given

46 Starting with Lindner (1981, 1982), considerable attention has been devoted to polysemy and semantic networks What I have in mind here is rather the absence of large-scale attempts at describing the conceptual semantic structure of individual meanings or senses in a systematic fashion (i.e., some analogue of Wierzbicka’s 1996 lexicographic program)

47 Scho¨nefeld (1999) offers a positive assessment of its success in this regard

48 Among these reasons are construal, encyclopedic semantics, and the

indissociability of meaning and grammar

49 Processing at different levels occurs on different time scales Sequentiality is quite apparent at the discourse level, owing to the large time scale involved In the case of sublexical meanings, where the small time scale forecloses introspective observation, the evidence is substantial but indirect (Langacker 1998)

50 For instance, the cat referred to in She doesn’t have a cat is not any actual cat but a virtual creature ‘‘conjured up’’ to characterize the situation whose existence is being de-nied Each protester lit a candle does not refer directly to any actual protestor, any actual candle, or any actual event of lighting Instead, it designates a fictive event involving fictive participants, with each specifying how the type of event thus characterized maps onto actuality

R E F E R E N C E S

Achard, Michel 1996 Two causation/perception constructions in French Cognitive Lin-guistics 7: 315–57

Achard, Michel 1998 Representation of cognitive structures: Syntax and semantics of French sentential complements Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Backus, Ad 1996 Two in one: Bilingual speech of Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press

Barlow, Michael, and Suzanne Kemmer, eds 2000 Usage-based models of language Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications

Barsalou, Lawrence W 1999 Perceptual symbol systems Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 577–660

Beck, David 1996 Transitivity and causation in Lushootseed morphology Canadian Journal of Linguistics 41: 109–40

Brisard, Frank, ed 2002 Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Bybee, Joan L 1994 A view of phonology from a cognitive and functional perspective Cognitive Linguistics 5: 285–305

Carey, Kathleen 1994 Pragmatics, subjectivity and the grammaticalization of the English perfect PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego

Carey, Kathleen 1996 From resultativity to current relevance: Evidence from the history of English and modern Castilian Spanish In Adele E Goldberg, ed., Conceptual structure, discourse and language 31–48 Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications

Casad, Eugene H 1982 Cora locationals and structured imagery PhD dissertation, Uni-versity of California, San Diego

Casad, Eugene H., and Gary B Palmer, eds 2003 Cognitive linguistics and

non-Indo-European languages Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Cienki, Alan 1995 The semantics of possessive and spatial constructions in Russian and Bulgarian: A comparative analysis in cognitive grammar Slavic and East European Journal 39: 73–114

Cook, Kenneth W 1988 A cognitive analysis of grammatical relations, case, and transitivity

in Samoan PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego

Cook, Kenneth W 1993a A cognitive account of Samoan case marking and cliticization Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 22: 509–30

Cook, Kenneth W 1993b A cognitive account of Samoan lavea and galo verbs In Richard

A Geiger and Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, eds., Conceptualizations and mental processing in language 567–92 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Cornelis, Louise H 1997 Passive and perspective Amsterdam: Rodopi

Croft, William 2001 Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological per-spective Oxford: Oxford University Press

Culioli, Antoine 1990 Pour une linguistique de l’e´nonciation Vol 1, Ope´rations et re-pre´sentations Paris: Ophrys

Cuyckens, Hubert 1995 Family resemblance in the Dutch spatial prepositions door and langs Cognitive Linguistics 6: 183–207

Da˛browska, Ewa 1997 Cognitive semantics and the Polish dative Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Doiz Bienzobas, Aintzane 1995 The preterite and the imperfect in Spanish: Past situation

vs past viewpoint PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego

Doiz Bienzobas, Aintzane 1998 La evolucio´n diacro´nica de la categorı´a de la modalidad deo´ntica en Euskera In Jose´ Luis Cifuentes Honrubia, ed., Estudios de ling€uuı´stica cognitiva II 559–73 Alicante, Spain: Universidad de Alicante, Departamento de Filologı´a Espan˜ola, Lingu¨ı´stica General y Teorı´a de la Literatura

Enger, Hans-Olav, and Tore Nesset 1999 The value of cognitive grammar in typological studies: The case of Norwegian and Russian passive, middle and reflexive Nordic Journal of Linguistics 22: 27–60

Farrell, Patrick 1990 Spanish stress: A cognitive analysis Hispanic Linguistics 4: 21–56 Farrell, Patrick 1995 Lexical binding Linguistics 33: 939–80

Farrell, Patrick 1998 The conceptual basis of number marking in Brazilian Portuguese

In Jean-Pierre Koenig, ed., Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap 3–16 Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications

Fauconnier, Gilles 1985 Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994) Fauconnier, Gilles 1997 Mappings in thought and language Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner 1998 Conceptual integration networks Cognitive Science 22: 133–87

Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner 2002 The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities New York: Basic Books

Fillmore, Charles J 1988 The mechanisms of ‘‘construction grammar.’’ Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 35–55

Goldberg, Adele E 1995 Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Haiman, John 1980 Dictionaries and encyclopedias Lingua 50: 329–57

Harder, Peter 1996 Functional semantics: A theory of meaning, structure and tense in English Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Harris, Catherine L 1998 Psycholinguistic studies of entrenchment In Jean-Pierre Koenig, ed., Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap 55–70 Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications Hawkins, Bruce W 1984 The semantics of English spatial prepositions PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego

Heyvaert, Liesbet 2003 A cognitive-functional approach to nominalization in English Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Holmqvist, Kenneth 1993 Implementing cognitive semantics Lund, Sweden: Department of Cognitive Science, Lund University

Holmqvist, Kenneth 1999 Implementing cognitive semantics—overview of the semantic composition process and insights into the grammatical composition process In Leon

de Stadler and Christoph Eyrich, eds., Issues in cognitive linguistics 579–600 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra A Thompson 1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse Language 56: 251–99

Hsiao, Yuchau E 1991 A cognitive grammar approach to perfect aspect: Evidence from Chinese Berkeley Linguistics Society 17: 390–401

Huffman, Alan 1997 The categories of grammar: French lui and le Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Huumo, Tuomas 1998 Bound spaces, starting points, and settings In Jean-Pierre Koenig, ed., Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap 297–307 Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications

Israel, Michael 1996a Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 619–66

Israel, Michael 1996b The way constructions grow In Adele E Goldberg, ed., Conceptual structure, discourse and language 217–30 Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications

Israel, Michael 1998 The rhetoric of grammar: Scalar reasoning and polarity sensitivity PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego

Janda, Laura A 1986 A semantic analysis of the Russian verbal prefixes za-, pere-, do-, and ot- Munich: Verlag Otto Sagner

Janda, Laura A 1993 A geography of case semantics: The Czech dative and the Russian instrumental Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Janssen, Theo A J M., and Gisela Redeker, eds 1999 Congitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Johnson, Mark 1987 The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Kellogg, Margaret Kimberly 1996 Neurolinguistic evidence of some conceptual properties

of nouns and verbs PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego

Kemmer, Suzanne, and Michael Israel 1994 Variation and the usage-based model Chicago Linguistic Society 30: 165–79

Kempson, Ruth M 1977 Semantic theory Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Kumashiro, Fumiko 2000 Phonotactic interactions: A non-reductionist approach to phonology PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego

Kumashiro, Toshiyuki 1994 On the conceptual definitions of adpositions and case markers: A case for the conceptual basis of syntax Chicago Linguistic Society 30: 236–50

Kumashiro, Toshiyuki 2000 The Conceptual basis of grammar: A cognitive approach to Japanese clausal structure PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego Kumashiro, Toshiyuki, and Ronald W Langacker 2003 Double-subject and complex-predicate constructions Cognitive Linguistics 14: 1–45

Lakoff, George 1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson 1980 Metaphors we live by Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson 1999 Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought New York: Basic Books

Langacker, Ronald W 1981 The integration of grammar and grammatical change Indian Linguistics 42: 82–135

Langacker, Ronald W 1982 Space grammar, analysability, and the English passive Language 58: 22–80

Langacker, Ronald W 1986 Abstract motion Berkeley Linguistics Society 12: 455–71 Langacker, Ronald W 1987a Foundations of cognitive grammar Vol 1, Theoretical pre-requisites Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press

Langacker, Ronald W 1987b Nouns and verbs Language 63: 53–94

Langacker, Ronald W 1988a Autonomy, agreement, and cognitive grammar In Diane Brentari, Gary Larson, and Lynn MacLeod, eds., Agreement in grammatical theory 147–80 Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society

Langacker, Ronald W 1988b A usage-based model In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, ed., Topics

in cognitive linguistics 127–61 Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Langacker, Ronald W 1990a Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Langacker, Ronald W 1990b Subjectification Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5–38

Langacker, Ronald W 1991 Foundations of cognitive grammar Vol 2, Descriptive appli-cation Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press

Langacker, Ronald W 1992a Prepositions as grammatical(izing) elements Leuvense Bijdragen 81: 287–309

Langacker, Ronald W 1992b The symbolic nature of cognitive grammar: The meaning

of of and of of-periphrasis In Martin Pu¨tz, ed., Thirty years of linguistic evolution: Studies in honour of Rene´ Dirven on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday 483–502 Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Langacker, Ronald W 1993a Clause structure in cognitive grammar Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 22: 465–508

Langacker, Ronald W 1993b Grammatical traces of some ‘‘invisible’’ semantic constructs Language Sciences 15: 323–55

Langacker, Ronald W 1993c Reference-point constructions Cognitive Linguistics 4: 1–38 Langacker, Ronald W 1993d Universals of construal Berkeley Linguistics Society 19: 447–63 Langacker, Ronald W 1995a Conceptual grouping and constituency in cognitive grammar

In Ik-Hwan Lee, ed., Linguistics in the morning calm 3 149–72 Seoul: Hanshin Langacker, Ronald W 1995b Possession and possessive constructions In John R Taylor and Robert E MacLaury, eds., Language and the cognitive construal of the world 51–79 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Langacker, Ronald W 1995c Raising and transparency Language 71: 1–62

Langacker, Ronald W 1995d Structural syntax: The view from cognitive grammar In Franc¸oise Madray-Lesigne and Jeannine Richard-Zappella, eds., Lucien Tesnie`re aujourd’hui 13–39 Paris: E´ditions Peeters

Langacker, Ronald W 1995e Viewing in cognition and grammar In Philip W Davis, ed., Alternative linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical modes 153–212 Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Langacker, Ronald W 1997a Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping Cog-nitive Linguistics 8: 1–32

Langacker, Ronald W 1997b A dynamic account of grammatical function In Joan L Bybee, John Haiman, and Sandra A Thompson, eds., Essays on language function and language type dedicated to T Givo´n 249–73 Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Langacker, Ronald W 1997c Generics and habituals In Angeliki Athanasiadou and Rene´ Dirven, eds., On conditionals again 191–222 Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Langacker, Ronald W 1998 On subjectification and grammaticization In Jean-Pierre Koenig, ed., Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap 71–89 Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications

Langacker, Ronald W 1999a Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise In Theo Janssen and Gisela Redeker, eds., Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology 13–59 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Langacker, Ronald W 1999b Grammar and conceptualization Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Langacker, Ronald W 1999c Losing control: Grammaticization, subjectification, and transparency In Andreas Blank and Peter Koch, eds., Historical semantics and cog-nition 147–75 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Langacker, Ronald W 1999d Virtual reality Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29: 77–103 Langacker, Ronald W 2000 A dynamic usage-based model In Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer, eds., Usage-based models of language 1–63 Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications

Langacker, Ronald W 2001a Discourse in cognitive grammar Cognitive Linguistics 12: 143–88

Langacker, Ronald W 2001b Dynamicity in grammar Axiomathes 12: 7–33

Langacker, Ronald W 2001c The English present tense English Language and Linguistics 5: 251–71

Langacker, Ronald W 2001d Topic, subject, and possessor In Hanne Gram Simonsen and Rolf Theil Endresen, eds., A cognitive approach to the verb: Morphological and con-structional perspectives 11–48 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Langacker, Ronald W 2001e Viewing and experiential reporting in cognitive grammar In Augusto Soares da Silva, ed., Linguagem e cognic¸˜ao: A perspectiva da linguı´stica cog-nitiva 19–49 Braga: Associac¸a˜o Portuguesa de Linguı´stica and Universidade Cato´lica Portuguesa, Faculdade de Filosofia de Braga

Langacker, Ronald W 2002a The control cycle: Why grammar is a matter of life and death Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association 2: 193–220

Langacker, Ronald W 2002b Deixis and subjectivity In Frank Brisard, ed., Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference 1–28 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Langacker, Ronald W 2002c Remarks on the English grounding systems In Frank Brisard, ed., Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference 29–38 Berlin: Mouton

de Gruyter

Langacker, Ronald W 2002d A study in unified diversity: English and Mixtec locatives

In Nick J Enfield, ed., Ethnosyntax: Explorations in grammar and culture 138–61 Oxford: Oxford University Press

Langacker, Ronald W 2003a Constructions in cognitive grammar English Linguistics 20: 41–83

Langacker, Ronald W 2003b Context, cognition, and semantics: A unified dynamic approach In Ellen van Wolde, ed., Job 28: Cognition in context 179–230 Leiden, Netherlands: Brill

Langacker, Ronald W 2003c Dynamicity, fictivity, and scanning: The imaginative basis of logic and linguistic meaning Korean Linguistics 18: 1–64

Langacker, Ronald W 2003d Extreme subjectification: English tense and modals In Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, Rene´ Dirven, and Klaus-Uwe Panther, eds., Motivation in language: Studies in honor of G€uunter Radden 3–26 Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Langacker, Ronald W 2004a Aspects of the grammar of finite clauses In Michel Achard and Suzanne Kemmer, eds., Language, culture and mind 535–77 Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications

Langacker, Ronald W 2004b Form, meaning, and behavior: The cognitive grammar analysis of double subject constructions In Ellen Contini-Morava, Robert S Kirsner, and Betsy Rodrı´guez-Bachiller, eds., Cognitive and communicative approaches to linguistic analysis 21–60 Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Langacker, Ronald W 2004c Possession, location, and existence In Augusto Soares da Silva, Amadeu Torres, and Miguel Gonc¸alves, eds., Linguagem, cultura e cognic¸˜ao: Estudios de linguı´stica cognitive 1: 85–120 Coimbra, Portugal: Almedina

Langacker, Ronald W 2004d Remarks on nominal grounding Functions of Language 11: 77–113

Langacker, Ronald W 2005a Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so In Francisco J Ruiz de Mendoza Iba´n˜ez and Sandra Pen˜a Cervel, eds., Cognitive lin-guistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction 101–59 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Langacker, Ronald W 2005b Integration, grammaticization, and constructional meaning

In Mirjam Fried and Hans C Boas, eds., Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots 157–189 Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Langacker, Ronald W Forthcoming On the subject of impersonals

Lee, Jeong-Hwa 1999 A cognitive semantic analysis of manipulative motion verbs in Korean with reference to English Seoul: Hankuk

Levinson, Stephen C 1997 From outer to inner space: Linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking In Jan Nuyts and Eric Pederson, eds., Language and conceptuali-zation 13–45 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Lindner, Susan 1981 A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb-particle construc-tions with OUT and UP PhD dissertation, University of California at San Diego