Home Cognitive (Construction) Grammar
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Cognitive (Construction) Grammar

  • Ronald W. Langacker
Published/Copyright: February 10, 2009
Cognitive Linguistics
From the journal Volume 20 Issue 1

Abstract

Goldberg overstates the differences between Cognitive Grammar and Cognitive Construction Grammar. The former does not claim that a clause invariably inherits its profile from the verb; it has merely been suggested that the latter's preference for monosemy may have been pushed too far. The matter can only be addressed given a specific definition of what is meant in saying that a verb “has” a certain sense. Also, the schematic meanings proposed in Cognitive Grammar for basic grammatical notions do not imply a “reductionist” or “essentialist” view based on classical categorization. Instead they complement the characterization of these notions as “metageneralizations over construction-specific categories”, which otherwise begs the question of why the distributional patterns supporting such generalizations should be observed in the first place.

Keywords:: Cognitive Grammar; categorization; construction; grammatical category; verb meaning
Author's email: 〈〉.
Received: 2007-05-26
Revised: 2007-12-08
Published Online: 2009-02-10
Published in Print: 2009-February

© 2009 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Cognitive Linguistics comes of age
  2. ‘Caused motion’? The semantics of the English to-dative and the Dutch aan-dative
  3. Fictive dynamicity, nominal aspect, and the Finnish copulative construction
  4. The role of gesture in crossmodal typological studies
  5. The nature of generalization in language
  6. Constructions at work or at rest?
  7. On Subject-Auxiliary Inversion and the notion “purely formal generalization”
  8. The case of the missing generalizations
  9. Constructions and generalizations
  10. Cognitive (Construction) Grammar
  11. Constructions on holiday
  12. Developing constructions
  13. Constructions work
https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.010
Keywords for this article
Cognitive Grammar; categorization; construction; grammatical category; verb meaning

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Cognitive Linguistics comes of age
  2. ‘Caused motion’? The semantics of the English to-dative and the Dutch aan-dative
  3. Fictive dynamicity, nominal aspect, and the Finnish copulative construction
  4. The role of gesture in crossmodal typological studies
  5. The nature of generalization in language
  6. Constructions at work or at rest?
  7. On Subject-Auxiliary Inversion and the notion “purely formal generalization”
  8. The case of the missing generalizations
  9. Constructions and generalizations
  10. Cognitive (Construction) Grammar
  11. Constructions on holiday
  12. Developing constructions
  13. Constructions work
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 2.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/COGL.2009.010/html
Scroll to top button