Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Language in Context Studies
- Part I Language in Context: A Sociohistorical Perspective
- Part II Philosophical, Semantic, and Grammatical Approaches to Context
- 4 Philosophy of Language and Action Theory
- 5 A Functional Approach to Context
- 6 The Grammar of Incremental Language Production in Context
- 7 Cognitive Linguistics and Context
- Part III Pragmatic Approaches to Context
- Part IV Applications of Context Studies
- Part V Advances in Multimodal and Technological Context-Based Research
- Index
- References
7 - Cognitive Linguistics and Context
from Part II - Philosophical, Semantic, and Grammatical Approaches to Context
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 November 2023
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Language in Context Studies
- Part I Language in Context: A Sociohistorical Perspective
- Part II Philosophical, Semantic, and Grammatical Approaches to Context
- 4 Philosophy of Language and Action Theory
- 5 A Functional Approach to Context
- 6 The Grammar of Incremental Language Production in Context
- 7 Cognitive Linguistics and Context
- Part III Pragmatic Approaches to Context
- Part IV Applications of Context Studies
- Part V Advances in Multimodal and Technological Context-Based Research
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter reviews recent developments that reflect a convergence of work in various branches of linguistics and psycholinguistics around the implications of the incremental sequencing of speech units for understanding grammar and the cognitive processing that underlies the production, comprehension, and interpretation of utterances. Notions from Functional Discourse Grammar are used to present a view of syntactic structure as arising from the incremental extension of holophrases, i.e. minimal utterances. By prioritizing the timecourse of language processing, the chapter interprets syntactic hierarchy as arising from chunk-and-pass operations supported by predictive processing. Spoken dialogue is identified as the primary arena for these processes, with grammaticality subordinated to situational appropriateness. Linguistic data are seen as protocols of joint action aimed at the incremental co-creation of meaning. All of these notions make essential reference to context as constantly active, prior to and during the utterance of the linguistic signal, and as a crucial component of the operations and processes that take place in verbal interaction.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context , pp. 160 - 180Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Barcelona, A., ed. (2000). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Berlin, B., and Kay, P. (1969). Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Berthele, R. (2006). Ort und Weg: Die sprachliche Raumreferenz in Varietäten des Deutschen, Rätoromanischen und Französischen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugman, C. (1988). The Story of “Over”: Polysemy, Semantics and the Structure of the Lexicon. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. ( 2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T. (2010). Lectal variation in constructional semantics: “Benefactive” ditransitives in Dutch. In Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., and Peirsman, Y. (eds.), Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (pp. 191–221). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. ( 2009). Towards a social cognitive linguistics. In Evans, V. and Pourcel, S. (eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 395–420). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E., and Divjak, D., eds. (2015). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., ed. (2017). The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H.. (2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D. (2019). Frequency in Language: Memory, Attention and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., and Pörings, R., eds. (2002). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Evans, V., and Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Evans, V., Bergen, B., and Zinken, J., eds. (2007). The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. ( 1985). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., and Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1977). Scenes-and-frames semantics. In Zampolli, A. (ed.), Linguistic Structures Processing (pp. 55–81). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–254.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1989). Prospects and problems of prototype theory. Linguistics, 27, 587–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2005). Lectal variation and empirical data in Cognitive Linguistics. In Ruiz de, F. Ibáñez, Mendoza and Cervel, S. Peña (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interactions (pp. 163–189). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., ed. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., and Cuyckens, H., eds. (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2010). Recontextualizing grammar: Underlying trends in thirty years of Cognitive Linguistics. In Tabakowska, E., Choinski, M., and Wiraszka, L. (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in Action: From Theory to Application and Back (pp. 71–102). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2015). From structure to context: Modern linguistics from a distance. Μελέτες για την Ελληνική Γλώσσα. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 35, 35–51.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2016). The sociosemiotic commitment. Cognitive Linguistics, 27, 527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., and Peirsman, Y., eds. (2010). Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J. (1997). “Theories are buildings” revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 267–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampe, B., ed. (2005). From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harder, P. (2010). Meaning in Mind and Society: A Functional Contribution to the Social Turn in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T., and Trousdale, G., eds. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, D., and Quinn, N., eds. (1987). Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, E. (2003). What Is Language? A Study in the Philosophy of Linguistics. Turku: Åbo Akademis tryckeri.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. ( 1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., and Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2020). An extended view of conceptual metaphor theory. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 18, 112–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, G., and Dirven, R., eds. (2008). Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, G., and Geeraerts, D., eds. (2013). Contexts of Use in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (Thematic issue of Journal of Pragmatics). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow, M. and Kemmer, S. (eds.), Usage-based Models of Language (pp. 1–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J., and Taylor, J. R., eds. (2014). The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1968). Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure. In Darden, B. J., Bailey, C.-J., and Davidson, A. (eds.), Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 71–80). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Montague, R. ( 1974). Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. ( 2007). Cognitive linguistics and functional linguistics. In Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 543–565). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ogden, C. K., and Richards, I. A. (1923). The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Palmer, G. B. (1996). Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Pütz, M., Robinson, J. A., and Reif, M., eds. (2012). Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Social and Cultural Variation in Cognition and Language Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. A. (2010). Awesome insights into semantic variation. In Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., and Peirsman, Y. (eds.), Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (pp. 85–110). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B. B. (eds.), Cognition and Categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharifian, F. ( 2017). Cultural Linguistics: Cultural Conceptualisations and Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, C. (2009). Language as a biocultural niche and social institution. In Evans, V. and Pourcel, S. (eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 289–309). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soares da Silva, A. (2014). The pluricentricity of Portuguese: A sociolectometrical approach to divergence between European and Brazilian Portuguese. In A. da Silva, Soares (ed.), Pluricentricity: Language Variation and Sociocognitive Dimensions (pp. 143–188). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2015). Prototype effects in grammar. In Dąbrowska, E. and Divjak, D. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 562–579). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wen, X., and Taylor, J. R. eds. (2021). The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York/London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters, M. E., and Nathan, G. S. (2020). Cognitive Linguistics for Linguists. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zenner, E., Speelman, D., and Geeraerts, D. ( 2012). Cognitive Sociolinguistics meets loanword research: Measuring variation in the success of anglicisms in Dutch. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 749–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J. (2008). The co-evolution of intersubjectivity and bodily mimesis. In Zlatev, J., Racine, T., Sinha, C., and Itkonen, E. (eds.), The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity (pp. 215–244). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W., Geeraerts, D., and Speelman, D. (2015). Visualizing onomasiological change: Diachronic variation in metonymic patterns for “woman” in Chinese. Cognitive Linguistics, 26: 289–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.