Cognitive Grammar: a Basic Introduction

[REVIEW ] Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction By Ronald W. Langacker, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008, x+562pp. CHIE FUKADA St. Thomas University* Keywords: content requirement, symbolic view, naturalness, unification, dis- embodied cognition 1. Introduction In Ronald W. Langacker’s ongoing investigation of the grammar of language, he questions the dominant trends in linguistic theory and con- templates the nature of language as well as the most appropriate scope of linguistic theory.1 Having demonstrated the inadequacy of mainstream theories, he has been working to formulate an alternative theory known as CG (Cognitive Grammar), which is intuitively natural, insightful, and comprehensive. An overall picture of his basic ideas first took concrete shape in the two-volume FCG (Foundations of Cognitive Grammar) (Langacker (1987, 1991)). In these volumes, he proposes the symbolic nature of language as one through which we achieve an important conceptual unification of linguistic organization. The volumes deal with a vast range of topics from lexicon to grammar, clarifying the correlations between human cognition and linguistic structures. The essence is found in Langacker (1988) and his articles written in those days are published in the book Concept, Image and Symbol (Langacker (1990)). The continued development of the theory and its application to diverse linguistic phenomena can be seen in his * I would like to thank Masahiko Ohnuma, Kathleen Yamane, and two anonymous re- viewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. All remaining errors are, of course, my own. 1 One of the dominant trends describes grammar as a purely formal system based on abstract principles unrelated to other aspects of human cognition. An immediate consequence of this view is that linguistic research should deal only with syntax (or grammar, in a narrow sense) and fixed (lexical) meanings, both of which have been considered as autonomous, logical, and absolute (see Lakoff and Johnson (1980)). English Linguistics 27: 1 (2010) 159–171 －159－ © 2010 by the English Linguistic Society of Japan 160 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 27, NO. 1 (2010) second collection of articles, Grammar and Conceptualization (Langacker (1999)). The last chapter of this book offers “dynamic conceptualization,” i.e. the cognitive mechanism which accommodates the dynamics of discourse emerging from contextually grounded social interaction. CG has thus been gradually evolving in its own direction, accommodating the wealth of findings and insights from various studies of cognitive linguistics. The book CGBI (Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction) presents compactly and accessibly the overall framework of CG. Although it is subtitled “a basic introduction,” the depth of discussion far surpasses that of any other introductory textbook in cognitive linguistics. CGBI, in correct- ing misconceptions about CG and clarifying its ideas and targets, delineates the nature of language as a reflection of both cognition and social interaction. The book comprises four parts, which collectively afford a real un- derstanding of CG. The first two parts, i.e. Part I (Preliminaries) and Part II (Fundamentals), give a basic introduction to the theory. The next two parts, Part III (Structures) and Part IV (Frontiers), are more challenging, de- veloping the theory as applied to discourse and elucidating the interrelation- ship between grammar, cognition, and social interaction. From the outset, CG has emphasized the contextual and interactive basis of language (Langacker (1999: 261)), but the scope of the investigations on discourse prior to CGBI was very limited and did not seem to be fully integrated in the overall framework of CG. CGBI endeavors to clarify the role of discourse in the emergence of grammar, demonstrating that grounding reflects a basic connection between the interlocutors and linguistic con- tents (esp., Ch. 9 in Part III) and illustrating that linguistic structures reside in the processing activity that occurs in usage events (see Ch. 13 in Part IV for details).2 CGBI, therefore, patiently attempts to explicate the nature of grammar in relation to cognition and social interaction. Chapter 14 is the outcome of this effort, synthesizing the basic tenets and recent findings of cognitive science and suggesting that language reflects our disengaged cognition, i.e. the process of simulation. The central idea of CG is that grammar is meaningful. In order to sub- stantiate this claim more clearly, CGBI provides a great amount of relevant discussion on the basis of the content requirement: “the only elements as- cribable to a linguistic system are (i) semantic, phonological, and symbolic 2 When quoting from the book under review, only pagination or chapter number are given. REVIEWS 161 structures that actually occur as parts of expressions; (ii) schematizations of permitted structures; and (iii) categorizing relationships between permitted structures” (p. 25). Since this is established as a strong working hypoth- esis, all discussions in CGBI are subsumed under this requirement.3 Con- sequently, CGBI succeeds in motivating the theory with empirical evidence, disputing critiques of CG in a coherent manner. The basic tenet of CG is that “nothing beyond symbolic structures need be invoked for the proper characterization of complex expressions and patterns they instantiate” (p. 5). An immediate consequence of this idea is that linguistic structures from lexicon to grammar to discourse form a gradation which consists solely of assemblies of symbolic structures, i.e. the pairing between a semantic structure and a phonological structure. This is quite different from the prevailing idea which takes for granted the “objective” representations of language structure and recognizes the sharp boundaries between lexicon, grammar, and discourse. Unlike such orthodox linguistic theories, CG can explore the global organization of linguistic systems by as- signing a symbolic view to any linguistic structure at any level. In this review, I will mainly discuss the fundamental ideas of CG focus- ing on the following notions: naturalness, unification, and disengaged cognition. The discussions concerning these notions can be seen in Langcker’s earlier writings, but CGBI more explicitly describes the close connection between CG’s ideas/research and these notions. In doing so, CGBI provides sufficient evidence for the plausibility of the viewpoint adopted by CG. The research has great potential for further development. 2. Naturalness One of the noteworthy properties of CG is that it proposes a framework which is intuitively “natural,” the embryo of which is detectable as early as Langacker (1972).4 In this review, he repeatedly articulates the importance of naturalness in linguistic theory and/or research, claiming that the semanti- cally based approach to language structure is intuitively natural and invites great progress in linguistic research. 3 The content requirement is rooted in his position that research on language should be “natural” and motivated. Langacker’s claim about “naturalness” is summarized in section 2. 4 Most of the basic ideas of CG are shown in this review. It appears that the direction of CG was determined at about this time. 162 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 27, NO. 1 (2010) This position has since been maintained in all of his subsequent works. On “naturalness,” for example, FCG1 (p. 13) cites: “I regard a description as natural to the extent that it deals with data in their own terms, with full range for the richness, subtlety, and complexity characteristic of linguistic phenomena.” CG therefore defines “natural” linguistic research as that which investigates linguistic structures from a cognitive point of view with- out employing any theoretical constructs that are not based on empirical evidence.5 The position has been unshakable, though it is seen as being quite radical by linguists who adopt the “objectivist” approach to language. 2.1. Symbolic View of Grammar CGBI crystallizes the “subjectivist” and “experientialist” view with a con- siderable amount of evidence.6, 7 It argues that the framework of CG “offers a comprehensive yet coherent view of language structure, with the further advantages (I would argue) of being intuitively natural, psychologically plausible, and empirically viable” (p. 3). This attitude stems from the phil- osophical principle of “naturalness”: “language—when properly analyzed—is by and large reasonable and understandable in view of its semiological and interactive functions, as well as its biological, cognitive, and sociocultural grounding” (p. 14). Language is grounded in social interaction between cognizing interlocutors who apprehend their interaction and employ a certain linguistic expression in accordance with what they believe their interlocutors know. The constructs posited for grammatical description in CG are therefore all linked to our cognitive capacities. Given this view of language, CG claims that grammar “resides in sche- matized patterns of conceptual structuring and symbolization” (p. 27) and analyzes linguistic structures at any level as a symbolic association between a semantic and a phonological structure (p. 15). The term “phonological 5 Simplicity is another significant property of the framework of CG. It holds that language should be investigated by employing simple (or basic) and unified notions concerning general human cognition (see Ch. 2 and FCG1 (pp. 40–42)). 6 Subjectivism in a narrow sense

Load more