Home A multiple-grammar model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

A multiple-grammar model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge

  • Shoichi Iwasaki EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: April 18, 2015
Cognitive Linguistics
From the journal Cognitive Linguistics Volume 26 Issue 2

Abstract

By using the concept of ‘multiple grammars,’ this paper develops the view of an individual speaker’s cognitive organization of grammar. Although conversation, one type of spoken language environment, plays a crucial role in the emergence of grammar, for some speakers in a literate society, the written language environment may also contribute to developing a grammar. The two language environments are expected to provide unique incentives to shaping grammar differently as they diverge greatly in terms of media types (sound vs graph), constraints (online processing vs detachment), and purposes (interaction vs ideational formation), among others. At the same time, speakers may come in contact with and acquire additional sets of grammar for specific genres. Though the grammars acquired in different genre environments may be merged at the most abstract level, each grammar contains genre-specific formulaic expressions and grammatical resources with varying degrees of granularity. Speakers may conduct their routine linguistic activities in an informal conversation by employing reusable formulaic expressions of various types and rudimentary combinatory algorithms, but when they engage in more complex verbal tasks (politicians engaging in a debate, interviewees reconstructing past experiences), they may employ more abstract grammatical resources including those that were acquired from written language. The paper explores these suggestions by performing text and statistical analyses of several Japanese discourse samples.

Keywords: spoken language; written language; discourse genres; usage-based grammar; ecology of grammar

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the following people who gave me assistance during writing this paper: Mayumi Ajioka, Maggie Camp, Ewa Dąbrowska, Tetsuo Harada, Shimako Iwasaki, Michiko Kaneyasu, Yumiko Kawanishi, Chigusa Kurumada, Carol Lord, Tsuyoshi Ono, Yukinori Takubo, Sandra Thompson, Etsuko Yoshida, as well as the two anonymous reviewers of the earlier version of this paper. I’d also like to thank those institutions that provided me with opportunities to present the idea of a multiple-grammar model at its different stages of evolution: University of Tokyo (2005), Kyoto University (2006), National University of Singapore (2007), UC Santa Barbara (2007), National Institute of Japanese Language and Linguistics (2013), and Tokyo University of Foreign Studies (2013).

References

Akatsuka-McCawley, Noriko. 1978. Another look at no, koto, and to: Epistemology and complementizer choice in Japanese. In JohnHinds & IrwinHoward (eds.), Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics, 172–212. Tokyo: Kaitaku-sha.Search in Google Scholar

Barlow, Michael.2000. Usage, blends, and grammar. In MichaelBarlow & SusanneKemmer (eds.), Usage based models of language, 315–345. Stanford: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas.1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621024Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas.1989. A typology of English texts. Linguistics27. 3–43.10.1515/ling.1989.27.1.3Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, StigJohansson, GeoffreyLeech, SusanConrad & EdwardFinegan.1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, England & New York: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Boye, Kasper & PeterHarder.2007. Complement taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language3(13). 569–606.10.1075/sl.31.3.03boySearch in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan.2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language82(4). 711–733.10.1353/lan.2006.0186Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan & PaulHopper.2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45.01bybSearch in Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace.1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In DeborahTannen (ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy, 34–53. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace.1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace & DeborahTannen.1987. The relation between written and spoken language. Annual Review of Anthropology16. 383–407.10.1146/annurev.an.16.100187.002123Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam.2001. Derivation by phase. In MichaelKenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Clancy, Patricia.1982. Written and spoken style in Japanese narratives. In DeborahTannen (ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy, 55–75. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar

Collins, Peter C.1994. Cleft and pseudocleft constructions in English. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Crystal, David.1979. Neglected grammatical factors in conversational English. In S.Greenbaum, G.Leech & J.Svartvik (eds.), Studies in English linguistics, 153–166. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, Ewa2014. Recycling utterances: A speaker’s guide to sentence processing. Cognitive Linguistics25(4). 617–653.10.1515/cog-2014-0057Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger & MichaelTomasello.2001. The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics12(2). 97–141.10.1515/cogl.12.2.97Search in Google Scholar

Diller, A.1993. Diglossic grammaticality in Thai. In W.Foley (ed.), The role of theory in language description, 393–420. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Dorgeloh, Heidrun.1997. Inversion in modern English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.6Search in Google Scholar

Du Bois, John. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language63(4). 805–855.10.2307/415719Search in Google Scholar

Fox, Barbara & SandraThompson.2007. Relative clauses in English conversation: Relativizers, frequency, and the notion of construction. Studies in Language31(2). 293–326.Search in Google Scholar

Ferguson, Chalese.1983. Sports announcer talk: Syntactic aspects of register variation. Language in Society12.153–72.10.1017/S0047404500009787Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles.1979. On fluency. In Charles. J.Fillmore, DanKempler & William S.-Y.Wang (eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior, 85–101. New York: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-255950-1.50012-3Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. J., P.Kay & M.O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of Let Alone. Language64(3). 501–538.10.2307/414531Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles & MarkTurner.1996. Blending as a central process of grammar. In Adele E.Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language, 113–130. Stanford: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar

Fry, John.2003. Ellipsis and Wa-marking in Japanese Conversation. New York & London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203484036Search in Google Scholar

Fujii, Noriko & TsuyoshiOno.2000. The occurrence and non-occurrence of the Japanese direct object marker o in conversation. Studies in Language24(1). 1–39.10.1075/sl.24.1.02fujSearch in Google Scholar

Gasparov, Boris.1999. A coat of many colors: speech as an intertextual collage. Paper presented at the Berkeley Linguistics Colloquium, Berkeley, CA, April 12.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Irvin.1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E.1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E.2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences7(5). 219–224.10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9Search in Google Scholar

Green, Georgia M.1980. Some wherefores of English inversions. Language56(3). 582–601.10.2307/414451Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M .A. K.1989. Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. & R.Hasan.1989. Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John.2002. Ethnosciences and their significance for conversation linguistics. In G.Antos, K.Brinker, W.Heinemann & SvenSager (eds.), Linguistics of text and conversation: An international handbook of contemporary research, 908–919. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110169188.2.12.908Search in Google Scholar

Hinds, John.1982. Ellipsis in Japanese. Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research, Inc.Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul.1987. Emergent grammar. In J.Aske, N.Beery, L.Michaelis & H.Filip (eds.), Berkeley Linguistics Society13, 139–155.Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul.1988. Emergent grammar and the a priori grammar. In DeborahTannen (ed.), Linguistics in context: Connecting observation and understanding, 117–134. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul.1998. Emergent grammar. In MichaelTomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language, 155–175. Mahwah, NJ & London: Lawrence Erlbaum.10.4324/9781315085678-6Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul.2001. Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: Prototype or family resemblance. In MartinPütz, SusanneNiemeier & RenéDirven (eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition, 109–129. Berlin: De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul.2004. The openness of grammatical constructions. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society40(2). 153–175.Search in Google Scholar

Horie, Kaoru.1997. Three types of nominalization in Modern Japanese: no, koto, and zero. Linguistics35. 879–894.10.1515/ling.1997.35.5.879Search in Google Scholar

Iwasaki, Shoichi.1997. The Northridge earthquake conversation: The ‘loop’ sequence and mutual dependence in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics28. 661–93.10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00070-2Search in Google Scholar

Iwasaki, Shoichi.2013. Japanese. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Iwasaki, Shoichi. (To appear). Tajuupunpo [Multiple grammars]. In TakuoHayashi (ed.), Gengo kenkyuu no kakushin to keisho: Goyooron [Innovation and continuation in language studies: Pragmatics]. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo.Search in Google Scholar

Iwasaki, Shoichi & TsuyoshiOno.2002. “Sentence” in spontaneous spoken Japanese discourse. In JoanBybee & MichaelNoonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson, 175–202. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.110.10iwaSearch in Google Scholar

Jones, Kimberly & TsuyoshiOno (eds). 2008. Style shifting in Japanese. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Josephs, Lewis S.1976. Complementation. In MasayoshiShibatani (ed.), Syntax and semantics 5: Japanese generative grammar, 307–369. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368835_009Search in Google Scholar

Kinsui, Satoshi.1997. The influence of translation on the historical development of the Japanese passive construction. Journal of Pragmatics28. 759–779.10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00079-9Search in Google Scholar

Kuiper, K.1996. Smooth talkers. The linguistic performance of auctioneers and sportscasters. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Kuno, Susumu.1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge & London: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kroll, B.1977. Combining ideas in written and spoken English. In E.Keenan & T. L.Bennett (eds.), Discourse across time and space. Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics5, 69–108. Los Angeles, CA: Dept. Linguist, Univ. South. California.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W.1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical preliminaries. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W.1991. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W.2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In MichaelBarlow & SusanneKemmer (eds.), Usage based models of language, 1–63. Stanford: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen.1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Linell, Per.2005. The written language bias in linguistics: Its nature, origin and transformations. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203342763Search in Google Scholar

Longacre, Robert.1976. An anatomy of speech notions. Belgium: The Peter de Ridder Press.10.1515/9783112329924Search in Google Scholar

Mayes, Patricia.2003. Language, social structure, and culture: A genre analysis of cooking classes in Japan and America. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.109Search in Google Scholar

Miller, Jim & ReginaWeinert.1998. Spontaneous spoken language – Syntax and discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press & New York: Oxford University PressSearch in Google Scholar

Newmeyer, Frederick J.2010. What conversational English tells us about the nature of grammar: A critique of Thompson’s analysis of object complements. In KasperBoye & ElisabethEngberg-Pedersen (eds.), Language usage and language structure, 4–43. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Ochs, Elinor.1979. Planned and unplanned discourse. In T.Givon (ed.), Discourse and syntax (Syntax and semantics, Vol. 12), 51–79. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368897_004Search in Google Scholar

Okamoto, S.2014. The use and interpretation of “regional” and “standard” variants in Japanese conversation. In K.Kabata & T.Ono (eds.), Usage-based approaches to Japanese grammar, 279–303. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.156.18okaSearch in Google Scholar

Ono, Tsuyoshi & Suzuki, Ryoko.1992. Word order variability in Japanese conversation: Motivations and grammaticization. Text12. 429–445.10.1515/text.1.1992.12.3.429Search in Google Scholar

Ong, Walter.1988 [1982]. Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Ong, Walter.1992. Writing is a technology that restructures thought. In P. S.Downing, D.Lima & M.Noonan (eds.), The linguistics of literacy, 293–319. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.21.22ongSearch in Google Scholar

Pawley, Andrew & Frances HodgettsSyder. 1983a. Natural selection in syntax: Notes on adaptive variation and change in vernacular and literary grammar. Journal of Pragmatics7(5). 551–579.10.1016/0378-2166(83)90081-4Search in Google Scholar

Pawley, Andrew & Frances HodgettsSyder. 1983b. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Jack C.Richards & Richard W.Schmidt (eds.), Language and communication, 191–226. London & New York: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Purcell-Gates, Victoria. 1988. Lexical and syntactic knowledge of written narrative held by well-read-to kindergarteners and second graders. Research in the Teaching of English22. 128–160.Search in Google Scholar

Purcell-Gates, Victoria. 2001. Emergent literacy is emerging knowledge of written, not oral language. In PiaRebello Britto & JeanneBrooks-Gunn (eds.), The role of family literacy environments in promoting young children’s emerging literacy skills, 7–22. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.10.1002/cd.10Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A.1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In ElinorOchs, Emanuel A.Schegloff & Sandra A.Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 52–123. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002Search in Google Scholar

Scheibman, Joanne.2002. Point of view and grammar: Structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.11Search in Google Scholar

Schilling-Estes, Natalie. 2004. Exploring intertextuality in the sociolinguistic interview. In CarmenFought (ed.), Sociolinguistic variation, 44–61. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Selting, Margaret & ElizabethCouper-Kuhlen. 2001. Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.10Search in Google Scholar

Street, James A. & EwaDąbrowska. 2010. More individual differences in language attainment: How much do adult native speakers of English know about passives and quantifiers?Lingua120. 2080–2094.10.1016/j.lingua.2010.01.004Search in Google Scholar

Sulzby, Elizabeth.1985. Children’s emergent abilities to read favorite storybooks: A developmental study. Reading Research Quarterly20. 458–481.10.1598/RRQ.20.4.4Search in Google Scholar

Suzuki, Satoko.2000. Japanese complementizers: Interactions between basic and characteristics and contextual factors. Journal of Pragmatics32(11). 1585–1621.10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00112-5Search in Google Scholar

Taylor, Yuki.2010. Approximative tari in Japanese: Focus on interaction and information. In ShoichiIwasaki, HajimeHoji, Patricia M.Clancy & Sung-OckSohn (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguisticsvol 17, 533–546. Stanford: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah (ed.). 1982. Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar

Tao, Hongyin & Charles F.Meyer.2006. Gapped coordinations in English: Form, usage, and implications for linguistic theory. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory2(2). 129–163.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A.2002. “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language26(1). 125–164.10.1075/sl.26.1.05thoSearch in Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra & PaulHopper.2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In J.Bybee & P.Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 27–59. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45.03thoSearch in Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra & AnthonyMulac.1991. The discourse functions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics15(3). 237–251.10.1016/0378-2166(91)90012-MSearch in Google Scholar

Tomasello, Michael.2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Turner, Mark & GillesFauconnier.1995. Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor and symbolic activity10(3). 183–203.10.1207/s15327868ms1003_3Search in Google Scholar

Vygotsky, L. S.1962. Thought and language. Edited and translated by Hanfmann, Eugenia & Gertrude Vaker. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press / New York & London: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Search in Google Scholar

Watanabe, Minoru.1996. Nihongo Gaisetsu [A general overview of the Japanese language]. Tokyo: Iwanami.Search in Google Scholar

Appendix A: Abbreviations

ACC

accusative

ASP

aspect

COM

comitative

COMP

complementizer

COP

copula

G

goal

GEN

genitive

GER

gerund

INF

infinitive

INS

instrumental

LOC

locative

MOD

modal

NEG

negative

NOM

nominative

PASS

passive

POT

potential

PP

pragmatic particle

PST

past

QT

quotative

SE

sentence extension

TOP

topic

Appendix B: Data for Figure 6(a) and 6(b)

The top 20 most frequent words used by Mr. H in his spoken and written discourses

SpokenWritten
1 nn (173/0)11 desu (36/0)1 no (450/73)11 hi (83/19)
2 ne (82/0)12 n (36/0)2 ni (280/41)12 koto (73/11)
3 te (74/121)13 to (33/181)3 ga (234/55)13 mo (69/24)
4 no (73/450)14 wa (33/233)4 wa (233/33)14 aru (67/8)
5 ta (68/105)15 yo (33/0)5 o (184/5)15 nihongo (67/0)
6 ga (55/234)16 moo (29/0)6 to (181/33)16 washa (60/0)
7 nee (50/0)17 u (28/23)7 de (165/50)17 iru (58/3)
8 de (50/165)18 ano (26/0)8 te (121/74)18 suru (56/4)
9 ni (41/280)19 desho (26/0)9 ta (105/68)19 nai (55/25)
10 ee (39/0)20 nanka (26/0)10 eego (102/0)20 hatsuon (55/0)
[1][2][3]

Appendix C: Data for Figure 9(a)–9(c)

The top 20 most frequent words in Mr. H’s conversation, CH, and Ono data

Mr. H’s conversationCall Home (20 conv.)Ono Data (13 conv.)
Word Types: 499Word Types: 3,343Word Types: 2,148
Word Tokens: 2,251Word Tokens: 39,882Word Tokens: 18,822
1 nn (173/2,818/516)1 nn (2,818)1 te (781)
2 ne (82/1,269/356)2 te (1,396)2 no (684)
3 te (74/1,396/781)3 no (1,396)3 nn (516)
4 no (73/1,396/684)4 ne (1,269)4 n (506)
5 ta (68/1,049/449)5 ta (1,049)5 -ta (449)
6 ga (55/640/316)6 soo (830)6 de (412)
7 nee (50/0/1)7 da (807)7 ne (356)
8 de (50/776/412)8 de (776)8 ni (350)
9 ni (41/762/350)9 ni (762)9 da (348)
10 ee (39/9/7)10 -nai (644)10 –nai (346)
11 desu (36/42/67)11 ga (640)11 wa (325)
12 n (36/561/506)12 wa (588)12 ga (316)
13 to (33/392/212)13 yo (569)13 soo (279)
14 wa (33/588/325)14 n (561)14 yo (276)
15 yo (33/569/276)15 na (507)15 tte (219)
16 moo (29/257/182)16 kara (462)16 shi (215)
17 –u (28/236/65)17 ano (422)17 na (215)
18 ano (26/236/44)18 a! (416)18 toka (214)
19 desho (26/120/45)19 ka (409)19 to (212)
20 nanka (26/298/158)20 mo (405)20 nn (203)
[4][5][6][7]
Mr. H’s conversationCall Home (20 conv.)Ono Data (13 conv.)
38 koto (11)40 o (169)35 o (105)
77 o (5)44 koto (144)59 koto (50)

Appendix D: Data for Figure 10(a) and 10(b)

The top 20 most frequent words in Mr. H’s written sample and newspaper editorials

H writtenNewspaper editorials
Total No. of Word Types: 925Total No. of Word Types: 3,113
Total No. of Word Tokens: 6,096Total No. of Word Tokens: 17,251
H writtenNewspaper editorials
1 no (450/1,214)1 no (1,214)
2 ni (280/663)2 o (692)
3 ga (234/448)3 ni (663)
4 wa (233/610)4 wa (610)
5 o (184/692)5 ta (465)
6 to (181/351)6 ga (448)
7 de (165/363)7 de (363)
8 te (121/358)8 te (358)
9 ta (105/465)9 to (351)
10 eego (102/0)‘English’10 shi (348)
11 shi (83/348)11 mo (182)
12 koto (73/125)12 nai (167)
13 mo (69/182)13 suru (164)
14 aru (67/116)14 da (147)
15 nihongo (67/0)‘Japanese’15 iru (135)
16 washa (60/0)‘speakers’16 koto (125)
17 iru (58/135)17 na (125)
18 suru (56/164)18 aru (116)
19 nai (55/167)19 -re (111)
20 hatsuonn (55/0) ‘pronunciation’20 sa (99)
[8][9]
Received: 2013-12-11
Revised: 2014-8-6
Accepted: 2014-12-19
Published Online: 2015-4-18
Published in Print: 2015-5-1

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. A multiple-grammar model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge
  4. “Making meaning”: Communication between sign language users without a shared language
  5. Co-forming real space blends in tactile signed language dialogues
  6. Visualizing onomasiological change: Diachronic variation in metonymic patterns for woman in Chinese
  7. Culture or language: what drives effects of grammatical gender?
  8. Commentary
  9. Island constraints and overgeneralization in language acquisition
  10. Book Reviews
  11. Karen Sullivan: Frames and Constructions in Metaphoric Language
  12. Vyvyan Evans: Language and Time
https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0101
Keywords for this article
spoken language; written language; discourse genres; usage-based grammar; ecology of grammar

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. A multiple-grammar model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge
  4. “Making meaning”: Communication between sign language users without a shared language
  5. Co-forming real space blends in tactile signed language dialogues
  6. Visualizing onomasiological change: Diachronic variation in metonymic patterns for woman in Chinese
  7. Culture or language: what drives effects of grammatical gender?
  8. Commentary
  9. Island constraints and overgeneralization in language acquisition
  10. Book Reviews
  11. Karen Sullivan: Frames and Constructions in Metaphoric Language
  12. Vyvyan Evans: Language and Time
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 12.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cog-2014-0101/html
Scroll to top button