Foundations of

Cognitive Grammar
by

David Harper

Paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for a graded credit for the course
Semantics, Course A
in Winter Term 2002-3
Submission Date: 31.03.2003
Approved by: Peter Franke, M.A.
Philipps University Marburg

1 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar

Contents
1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................

2 Cognitive Processing..................................................................................................

2.1 Prototypes and domains............................................................................................

4-5

2.2 Salience.....................................................................................................................

2.3 Summary...................................................................................................................

3 Inherent symbolism of grammatical structures......................................................

3.1 Units .........................................................................................................................

8-9

4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................

10

5 References...................................................................................................................

12

1 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar

Introduction

Ronald Langacker is the father of a branch of linguistics known as cognitive

grammar. The official birth of this field can be fixed at a symposium in
Duisburg, Germany in 1989, where the initiation of the journal Cognitive
Linguistics was announced. The goal of Langacker and other cognitive linguists
has been the project of many linguists before him--to represent a comprehensive
description of language structure. However, Langacker breaks radically with
predominant linguistic theories and denies even some of the most basic premises
that have guided linguistic investigation since Chomskys seminal work Syntactic
Structures appeared in 1957. In rejecting some of the widely accepted views in the
field, Langacker proposes at least two new tenets to guide linguistic research:
1. The cognitive grammar model assumes that language is neither selfcontained nor describable without essential reference to cognitive
processing (regardless of whether one posits a special facult de
langage).
2.

Grammatical structures do not constitute an autonomous formal system

or level of representation: they are claimed instead to be inherently
symbolic, providing for the structuring and conventional symbolization of
conceptual content. (Langacker 1990: 1)

The acceptance of either or both of these views would be equivalent to the furor
caused by Chomskys early work, as it would imply a complete revision of the
grounding principles of the field of linguistics. However, Langackers theories
have not yet been proven to be unassailable.

2 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar

Cognitive Processing

For Langacker, cognitive processing is an essential element in the description of a

grammar. His position is empiricist in that he emphasizes the formation of
complex ideas through experience, and denies the importance of a facult de
langage. This position lies in stark contrast to the Chomskian school, which
maintains that essential concepts are inborn and facilitate the acquisition of
language. Langacker, in one of his mist radical assertions, extends his ideas on
cognitive processing to conclude that meaning and conceptualization are
inseparable and therefore equivalent.

2.1

Prototypes and domains

If meaning and conceptualization were equivalent, it would be necessary to

describe the cognitive events that result in concepts in order to arrive at a model
of lexical semantics. One attempt to explain our conceptualization of things is
the prototype approach. This classic approach involves identifying conceptual
categories around the best examples, or prototypes, of those categories. The
assignment of objects to these natural categories thereby allows us to organize
information and successfully communicate. Langacker, in Concept, Image, and
Symbol (1990), also adopts the idea of the prototype, but applies it differently.
Instead of a hierarchy of lexical items that pertain to a specific category, he
envisions an elastic network. The meaning of any individual item is then
equivalent to the entire network.
The importance of relations between concepts is essential to understanding
Langackers work. Semantic structures, which Langacker refers to as
predications, include the relation between a concept and its domain. A domain
can be any sort of conceptualization: a perceptual experience, a concept, a
conceptual experience, an elaborate knowledge system, etc. (Langacker 1990: 3)
These conceptualizations are often very complex and can resemble a matrix. As
proof of the importance of the relationship between a concept and its domain,

2 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar

Langacker states that certain conceptions presuppose others for a cognitive event
to take place. For example, arm is a domain for elbow. Knowledge of the
physiology of the arm is essential to conceptualize elbow.
Langacker concludes that in order to properly define a semantic structure
there must be a complete account of developmental cognition. This account
necessarily includes the description of the domain, or in the case of predications
requiring more than one domain, its complex matrix. The full description of a
semantic structure, however, is first reached when the nature of the relationship
between profile and base is described. The base of a predication is simply its
domain, and the profile is the entity designated by the semantic structure. This
entity is embedded in the base and elevated, and the resulting relationship
between the profile and the base creates an expressions semantic value.

2.2

Salience

Salience is an important concept for cognitive grammarians. It is essentially the

process of making one element more prominent than another. In this process, the
profile becomes the salient element of the predication. Cruse identifies two forms
of salience in semantics. (Cruse 2000:57) The type of salience that is most
relevant to cognitive grammar is the type dealing with the degree of
foregrounding and backgrounding, which is most often discussed in terms of the
figure-ground effect.
In his discussion of salience, Langacker is very critical of what he terms
autonomous syntax, in which syntax is studied as a self-contained system
isolated from cognitive processes. In contrast to proponents of autonomous
syntax, Langacker maintains that utterances and expressions that would be
deemed equivalent in terms of deep structure do indeed differ semantically. The
concept of salience supports this claim. In considering the rule of dative shift,
Langacker asserts that the two sentences below, although they have the same truth
value, do differ semantically:
(a) He sent a letter to Susan.
(b) He sent Susan a letter.

2 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar

The presence of to and the juxtaposition of nominals create a different

grammatical structure, which results in the increased prominence of one aspect
over another. (Langacker 1987: 39) In sentence (a) the letter seems to be more
prominent than in sentence (b), for example.
The evidence of the semantic difference between (a) and (b) above seems
apparent, as there are clear changes in the syntactic structure of the two sentences.
But expressions designating symmetrical relationships are less straightforward.
Langacker maintains that sentences such as X resembles Y and Y resembles X are
also semantically distinct. This can again be explained with the relative salience
of the predications substructures. While they may share the same truth value, and
may have the same deep structure, the reference points in each sentence and
therefore their conceptualization remain distinct. And, since for Langacker
conceptualization and meaning are equivalent, the semantic values of the two
sentences are consequently distinct.

2.3

Summary

The above sketches of some of Langackers guiding principles would indicate that
he is very much opposed to traditional views of language and language study. In
particular, he denies the validity of searching for deep structures, as even the
slightest syntactical variation leads to a different meaning. This would thereby
invalidate transformational grammar as a productive endeavor. In addition, he
believes that linguistic semantics, if its goal is indeed to analyze meaning, must
amount to a complete account of developmental cognition. In the past, linguists
have tended to isolate elements of language and study them individually;
Langacker challenges the notion that this can lead to a greater understanding of
the production of meaning. In fact, he suggests that past attempts to isolate areas
of study have encouraged unfounded or gratuitous assumptions concerning the
nature of language. Instead, Langacker proposes that the study of language cannot
be separated from cognitive processes.

3 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar

Inherent symbolism of grammatical

structures

Langacker, in addition to his claims concerning the cognitive nature of linguistic

semantics, conceives the grammar of a language as an inventory of symbolic
resources, among them schematic templates representing established patterns in
the assembly of complex symbolic structures. (Langacker 1990: 16) Again, he
rejects the notion that any language system can be derived through algorithms.
Langacker, rather, adopts a more pragmatist approach by assigning a good deal of
the responsibility of the generation of meaning to the individual. He describes it as
a problem-solving activity on the part of an individual, who employs any
knowledge available to evaluate the symbolic structures at hand. In accordance
with this approach, Langacker accepts a large degree of polysemy, which sets him
apart from most linguists.
Early linguists attempted to establish grammatical categories according to
their semantic function. For example, adjectives were considered describing
words and verbs were doing words. However, exceptions to the rule, such as
verbs that dont do like seem, soon forced the early linguists to revise their
theories. They then decided that categories should be defined syntactically. As the
connections with semantics were sometimes irregular, they were deemed therefore
of limited importance. Using this approach, for example, verbs were marked by
their inflection for tense and aspect. (Cruse 2000: 267) For the cognitive linguist
this is exactly the sort of partitioning of language elements that is unacceptable
and has led to a distortion of the object of study itself. For Langacker, the
assumption that syntax is autonomous has led to the wrong questions and
misrepresented the object of investigation. As an alternative to segregating
linguistic structure into separate semantic, syntactic, morphological, lexical and
phonological components, he proposes that the internalized grammar of an
individual be broken down into three basic units: semantic, phonological, and
symbolic.

3 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar

3.1

Units

Langacker defines a unit as follows:

A cognitive structure mastered by a speaker to the point that it can be employed in
largely automatic fashion, without requiring attention to its individual parts or their
arrangement. A unit is sufficiently well entrenched to be easily evoked as an
integrated whole, that is, carried out more or less automatically once initiated.
(Langacker 1987: 494)

The units are intricately linked in the grammar, and not like a row of boxes on a
shelf. The units themselves often function as components of other units. Of the
three units, or broad facets of linguistic structure, the symbolic unit is the most
innovative. Langacker describes it as a bipolar unit composed of a semantic and
a phonological pole and the association between them. He maintains that the
traditional grammatical units, such as grammatical morphemes, categories, and
constructions, are all intrinsically symbolic units. Most importantly, Langacker
sees these units as sufficient for describing grammatical structure.
In order to illustrate how these units function, it is necessary to look at a
few examples, and it is important to note that units have no limits in terms of
complexity. Beginning at the low end, a unit is minimal if it contains no other
symbolic units as components. A symbolic unit consists of the semantic and
phonological pole and can be represented as such: [[SEM]/[PHON]]. The example
Langacker provides is that of the pencil [[PENCIL]/[pencil]]. The capital letters
represent a semantic structure, and the phonological structure is represented
orthographically. (Langacker 1990:16) For lexical units this assertion has been
relatively uncontroversial since saussurian structuralism. In the pencil example
this unit can be considered highly specific. At the other end of the scale we find
the most abstract concepts, or units that are maximally schematic. In this way
Langacker explains basic grammatical categories. In his model a noun would
instantiate the schema [[THING]/[X]], and a verb the schema [[PROCESS]/[Y]],
where [THING] and [PROCESS] are abstract notionsand [X] and [Y] are
highly schematic phonological structures (i.e. they specify little more than the
presence of some phonological content). (Langacker 1990:17) The internalized
grammar of an individual is thus composed of units that range from being
minimally to maximally schematic.

3 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar

In contrast to the Chomskian theory of an innate grammar, Langacker

believes that through the recurrence of certain mental activities a process of
entrenchment takes place. A specific mental process is said to have unit status
once the process can be evoked as an integrated whole, i.e. the entire process has
become automated. (Langacker 1987: 100) There are no limitations as to which
units an individual may form or not form, and the units become increasingly
integrated and elaborate, forming a complicated matrix, or schema, of meaning.
Units, in effect, are for the cognitive grammarian what deep structure is for the
transformational grammarianthe building blocks of meaning.

4 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar

Conclusion

Among the advantages of Langackers theory is that it accommodates figurative

language and unpredictable behavior. This is indeed a problem in traditional
linguistics, whose search for deep structure assumes an objectivist view of
meaning and tends to ignore anomalies. These assumptions in traditional
linguistics have been sustainable only by partitioning language into categories.
Langacker refutes this methodology in favor of his units, which invariably
include a semantic element and emphasize the cognitive processes that are
constantly taking place. In this sense he seems to be in line with some mainstream
linguists such as Cruse, who also favors a study of linguistic semantics that
emphasizes the importance of conceptualization.
For various reasons cognitive grammar has not revolutionized linguistics,
although as can be seen in Cruses introductory book the work of cognitive
grammarians has hardly been ignored. I believe one reason that cognitive
grammar has not achieved the notoriety it is perhaps due is that it challenges the
basic foundations of linguistics as it is studied today. Instead of a radical
rethinking of the entire field of linguistics, it seems that there is a gradual
acceptance of some of the tenets of cognitive grammar. The most importantyet
still controversialclaim concerns the indivisible nature of grammar and
meaning. Mainstream theorists seem to be moving in this direction by
acknowledging the importance of conceptualization in language, but few seem
willing to equate conceptualization and meaning. This hesitancy may lie in the
relatively speculative nature of the study of human cognition, which is of central
importance to cognitive grammar. Langacker himself states that an exhaustive
description of language cannot be achieved without a full description of human
cognition. (Langacker 1987:64) How to arrive at this ambitious goal of full
description will surely be difficult, and many linguists are skeptical of the
cognitive grammarians current attempts. As Goddard contends, cognitive
semanticists tend to rely greatly on linguistic evidence when describing human
cognition, but then fail to support this with independent empirical support.
(Goddard 1998: 81) However, despite some unanswered, or unanswerable,

10

4 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar

questions, cognitive grammar is unquestionably influencing the direction of future

linguistic study and may be able to fill in some of the gaps still left by traditional
linguistic studies.

11

5 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar

References

Cruse, D. Alan. 2000. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and

Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goddard, Cliff. 1998. Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol 1. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of
Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Saeed, John I. 1997. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

12