Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T00:49:14.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nouns and Verbs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Ronald W. Langacker
Ronald W. Langacker*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The universal grammatical categories noun and verb are held susceptible to notional characterization. The traditional objections to this claim are overcome by an appropriate view of linguistic semantics, one based on cognitive processing and the structuring of conceptual content. Reasonably precise semantic descriptions of the noun and verb categories are proposed in the context of the cognitive grammar framework. The distinction between count and mass nouns is explicated, and is shown to be a direct analog of the fundamental aspectual distinction between verbs that designate perfective and imperfective processes. The analysis permits the elucidation of subtle semantic contrasts and the explanation of various grammatical phenomena.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , March 1987 , pp. 53 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bates, Elizabeth, and MacWhinney, Brian. 1982. Functionalist approaches to grammar. Language acquisition: The state of the art, ed. by Wanner, Eric & Gleitman, Lila, 173–218. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, Lauri. 1981. Aspect and quantification. In Tedeschi & Zaenen, 31–64.Google Scholar
Casad, Eugene H., and Langacker, Ronald W. 1985. ‘Inside’ and ‘outside’ in Cora grammar. IJAL 51.247–81.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. (Janualinguarum, 4.) The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre. 1981. Some interesting differences between verbs and nouns. Cognition and Brain Theory 4.161–78.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, I. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John, and Woisetschlaeger, Erich. 1982. The logic of the English progressive. LI 13.79–89.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1980. Dictionaries and encyclopedias. Lingua 50.329–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1985 (ed.) Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Bruce W. 1984. The semantics of English spatial prepositions. San Diego: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Herskovits, Annette H. 1982. Space and the prepositions in English: Regularities and irregularities in a complex domain. Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Herskovits, Annette H. 1985. Semantics and pragmatics of locative expressions. Cognitive Science 9.341–78.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1982 (ed.) Tense-aspect: Between semantics & pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Thompson, Sandra A. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Lg. 60.703–52.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1985. The iconicity of the universal categories ‘noun’ and ‘verb’. In Haiman, 151–83.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. (Current studies in linguistics, 8.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, William H. jr. 1979. Noun and verb in Nootkan. The Victoria Conference on Northwestern languages, ed. by Efrat, Barbara S., 83–155. (Heritage record, 4.) Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum.Google Scholar
Kosslyn, Stephen Michael. 1980. Image and mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1982. Categories: An essay in cognitive linguistics. Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. by the Linguistic Society of Korea, 139–93. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1973. Language and its structure. 2nd edn. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1978. The form and meaning of the English auxiliary. Lg. 54.853–82.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1981a. The nature of grammatical valence. Linguistic Notes from La Jolla 10.33–59.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1981b. The integration of grammar and grammatical change. Indian Linguistics 42.82–135.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1982a. Space grammar, analysability, and the English passive. Lg. 58.22–80.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1982b. Remarks on English aspect. In Hopper, 265–304.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1984. Active zones. BLS 10.172–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1985. Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In Haiman, 109–50.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1986. An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science 10.1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. ms a. An overview of cognitive grammar. To appear in Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.)Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. ms b. A usage-based model. To appear in Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.)Google Scholar
Lindner, Susan. 1981. A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb-particle constructions with up and out. San Diego: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Lindner, Susan. 1982. What goes up doesn't necessarily come down: The ins and outs of opposites. CLS 18.305–23.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Mourelatos, Alexander P. D. 1981. Events, processes, and states. In Tedeschi & Zaenen, 191–212.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1983. Grammatical theory: Its limits and its possibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. ms (ed.) Topics in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1964. Determiners and relative clauses in a generative grammar of English. Lg. 40.37–52.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1983. A theory of aspectual choice. Lg. 59.479–501.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences. Universals of human language, IV: Syntax, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph H. et al., 625–49. Stanford: University Press.Google Scholar
Tedeschi, Philip J., and Zaenen, Annie. 1981 (eds.) Tense and aspect. (Syntax and semantics, 14.) New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuggy, David. 1980. ¡ Ethical dative and possessor omission sí, possessor ascension no! Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota, 24.97–141.Google Scholar
Tuggy, David. 1981. The transitivity-related morphology of Tetelcingo Nahuatl: An exploration in space grammar. San Diego: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, Claude. 1984. Description of space in French. San Diego: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, Stephen. 1982. Figure and ground: The interrelationships of linguistic categories. In Hopper, 201–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985. Oats and wheat: The fallacy of arbitrariness. In Haiman, 311–42.Google Scholar