The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics Part 49 ppsx

battery of conceptual tools potentially useful for translation and literary studies
(Tabakowska 1993). For various reasons, Cognitive Grammar does not readily lend
itself to computer implementation.
48
Still, much can be learned from even partial
attempts and consideration of why the problem is so difficult (Holmqvist 1993, 1999).
Cognitive Grammar does lend itself to investigating language in its social and
historical context, for it avoids the artificial disjunctures of synchrony versus di-
achrony and language structure versus language use (section 2). There have so far
been few sociolinguistic studies specifically exploiting descriptive constructs of
Cognitive Grammar (Kemmer and Israel 1994; Backus 1996; see Langacker 2003b).
By contrast, diachronic issues figured prominently in the first publication on Cog-
nitive Grammar (Langacker 1981) and have continued to receive attention (Lan-
gacker 1990b, 1992a, 1998, 1999c; Carey 1994, 1996; Rubba 1994; Israel 1996b; Doiz
Bienzobas 1998—see also Bybee, this volume, chapter 36). Grammaticalization has
been a special focus and is likely to remain so in view of its central importance to
semantics and grammar (this volume, chapters 10, 36).
With respect to theory and description, several major themes should be pivotal to
Cognitive Grammar research in the coming years. The first is dynamicity, pertaining
to how a conceptualization unfolds through processing time (section 3). The lin-
guistic effects of temporal sequencing are both pervasive and fundamental (Lan-
gacker 1993c, 1997b, 2001a, 2001b, 2001d, 2003c). They obtain in every dimension and
at every level of organization—from discourse to sublexical semantic structure.
49
If a
linguistic model is to be psychologically realistic, the inherent temporality of cog-
nitive processing would seem to demand a dynamic account of language structure,
which in any case is strongly motivated on purely linguistic grounds. The second
theme is fictivity. Even when discussing actual individuals and occurrences, surpris-
ingly much of what we directly refer to linguistically is ‘‘fictive’’ or ‘‘virtual’’ in nature.
Fictive motion (Langacker 1986; Matsumoto 1996;Talmy1996) is merely the tip of a

virtual iceberg (Langacker 1999c, 2003d).
50
Achieving a clear understanding of the
myriad kinds and levels of virtuality is crucial for advancing conceptual semantics. A
final theme will be the grounding of language structure in discourse and social
interaction (Langacker 2001a, 2001e, 2003b, 2004c, 2004d). While this grounding has
from the outset been inherent in Cognitive Grammar’s basic architecture (section 2),
it has not been sufficiently emphasized in either description or theoretical formu-
lation. In principle, Cognitive Grammar is a theory of e
´
nonciation (Culioli 1990). Its
future development should make this increasingly more apparent in practice.
NOTES

1. These points are detailed in Langacker (2005a, 2005b). Comparison of Cognitive
Grammar with two other approaches, Tesnie
`
re’s Structural Syntax and the Columbia
School, can be found in Langacker (1995d, 2004b). For extensive treatment of Cognitive
Grammar itself, see Langacker (1987a, 1990a, 1991, 1999b) and Taylor (2002).
450 ronald w. langacker
2. See the following references (all to Langacker): for noun and verb, 1987b; for subject,
1999a, 2001b; for morpheme, 1987a, 1995a; for constituency, 1995a, 1997a; for subordinate
clause, 1991.
3. To the extent they are analogous, the term viewing is employed for both perception
and conception in general (Langacker 1993d, 1995e; cf. Talmy 1996).
4. Also within the scope of potential linguistic concern are facial expression and even
body language. Writing and gesture can be taken as alternative central channels of ex-
pression.
5. This is essentially what is shown in figure 17.1, which can be taken as a skeletal

representation that all units share and that each elaborates in its own way.
6. Excluded are channels in which no specification is made (i.e., they are fully
schematic), as well as those noncentral enough to be ignored for particular purposes.
7. The semantic pole of a symbolic unit is ipso facto a semantic unit. There can also be
semantic units that are not individually symbolized (e.g., a concept that defines a category
schematically but happens to represent a ‘‘lexical gap’’), just as there are phonological units
that do not individually serve a symbolizing function.
8. Lexical items can be partially schematic phonologically if they only occur in larger
expressions where their schematic elements are specified and overtly manifested (e.g., a
reduplicative morpheme of the schematic form CV-, where the schematic consonant and
vowel match those of the stem). For other subtleties concerning the notion ‘‘expression,’’
see Langacker (1987a: section 11.2.1).
9. Cognitive Grammar agrees with Construction Grammar in treating lexical items as
constructions. However, it does not follow Construction Grammar in positing construc-
tions only when there is some discernible irregularity or nonpredictability. Expressions
that are semantically and grammatically regular can nonetheless be established as con-
ventional linguistic units. Since mastery of these usual ways of saying things is essential to
speaking a language fluently, it seems both arbitrary and artifactual to exclude them from
linguistic knowledge just because they happen to be regular.
10. The term ‘‘apprehension’’ merely indicates mental occurrence. It is intended as
being neutral between speaking and understanding.
11. For the speaker, this might be some aspect of the conception to be conveyed. For
the listener, it might be an auditory impression and/or some aspect of the conception
anticipated as representing the speaker’s intent.
12. See, for example, Kempson (1977: section 2.3) and Palmer (1981: section 2.2). The
word concept and its derivatives do not even appear in the index of Lyons (1995).
13. A common mistake is to think of conceptualization as being like an image pro-
jected on a screen inside the skull for viewing. It should instead be identified with the
mental experience engendered by viewing the world ‘‘outside.’’ Only as a special case, and
to a very limited extent, can we monitor our own conceptualizing activity.

14. These egregious misinterpretations of the Cognitive Grammar view are found in
Levinson (1997). The actual Cognitive Grammar position is quite close to the one Levinson
espouses.
15. See Haiman (1980), Langacker (1987a: section 4.2), and Wierzbicka (1995). Refer-
ence to dictionaries and encyclopedias is metaphorical—pace Wierzbicka, it is not claimed,
for instance, that an encyclopedic semantic characterization contains the kinds of esoteric
information found in actual encyclopedias which most speakers are ignorant of.
16. In terms of encyclopedic semantics, these senses consist of different ways of ac-
cessing the same domains of knowledge, or overlapping sets of domains. Polysemy illus-
trates the general phenomenon of complex categories, whose formation was described
cognitive grammar 451
at the end of section 2. Lakoff’s (1987) radial model of categorization is a special case of this
network model (one that ignores the abstraction of more schematic meanings).
17. For instance, something is ‘‘basic’’ if it is either innately specified or first acquired.
In one sense a whole is more ‘‘basic’’ than its parts, but also ‘‘basic,’’ in another way, are the
smallest parts out of which a whole is progressively assembled.
18. Actually, any established ‘‘concept’’ can equally well be described dynamically as
the routinized ability to execute a certain ‘‘packet’’ of processing activity.
19. The examples cited by Lakoff (1987) and Johnson (1987) of ‘‘image schemas’’
include both sorts of basic notions, and their discussion fails to clearly distinguish them.
While image schemas are supposedly abstracted from bodily experience, Cognitive
Grammar is essentially agnostic on the innateness issue. However, a reasonable working
hypothesis is that the basic cognitive abilities, at least, are innately provided. They make
possible the structured experience required for the emergence of archetypes.
20. Other possibilities are basic domains pertaining to emotive and motor/kinesthetic
experience. The irreducibility of basic domains does not preclude their being structured
(e.g., color space has the dimensions of brightness, hue, and saturation) or being sus-
ceptible to metaphorical construal (e.g., loud color). While analysis and metaphor enhance
our understanding of these domains, they do not themselves constitute the basic experi-
ence (e.g., the sensation of redness).

21. The earlier term abstract domain is infelicitous, since many conceptions pertain to
concrete experience.
22. The term construal is preferable to imagery, used in earlier works, since the latter is
commonly employed for other phenomena (e.g., visual imagery). Content and
construal cannot be sharply distinguished; the terminological distinction is made primarily
to highlight the importance of construal, which is largely ignored in traditional semantics.
The classification of construal phenomena is likewise mostly for expository convenience.
23. Here, for instance, are some usual prominence asymmetries: whole > part;
human > nonhuman; concrete > abstract; new > given; category prototype > noncentral
members; basic-level category > subordinate/superordinate categories.
24. Because a relationship cannot be conceptualized without conceptualizing its
central participants (given as circles), these are included in the relational profile.
25. In terms of figure 17.1, the immediate scope is the content appearing in the viewing
frame.
26. These are unproblematic in Cognitive Grammar. For instance, metonymy consists
of an alternate choice of profile within the same conceptual base. Mental space configu-
rations and the mappings between spaces characteristic of metaphor and blending
represent special cases of how the domains of a matrix can be related to one another.
27. A morpheme is a degenerate symbolic assembly consisting of just a single symbolic
structure; that is, it is not analyzable into symbolic components. However, since the
analyzability of fixed expressions is a matter of degree, morphemic status is graded as well
(Langacker 1987a: section 12.1; 1995a).
28. As later discussion will show, distributional classes of this sort are readily ac-
commodated in a usage-based model (Langacker 2000), as are the distributional properties
of semantically definable categories.
29. For example, the schematic definition of a noun (an expression that profiles a
thing) defines a category that includes not only the elements traditionally recognized as
such, but also pronouns, articles, demonstratives, and full noun phrases. For extensive
discussion of grammatical classes, see Langacker (1987a, 1987b, 1991).
452 ronald w. langacker

30. The oft-debated issue of whether every language has a noun/verb distinction
pertains to primary lexical categorization, which is just a matter of whether particular
profiling options are entrenched and conventionalized. If a lexeme has no inherent pro-
filing, the construction it appears in will nonetheless impose one, so that it functions as a
noun or a verb in any given use. In claiming that nouns and verbs are universal gram-
matical categories, Cognitive Grammar remains agnostic as to whether they are also
universal lexical categories.
31. The constitutive entities can be taken as arbitrary ‘‘splotches’’ of substance. As used
in Cognitive Grammar, the term entity is maximally schematic, implying no specific
properties or individual cognitive salience.
32. The entities interconnected in a relationship need not be discrete, distinct, cog-
nitively salient, or individually mentioned. Thus, expressions that profile relationships
need not have multiple (or even any) overtly specified participants.
33. A better term might be nonprocessual, since time is often a factor. For example,
before and after (figure 17.7) are atemporal (nonprocessual) because the profiled rela-
tionship is construed as a single configuration in time (analogous to one in space), rather
than being viewed as evolving through time. By contrast, the verbs precede and follow either
follow this relationship through time as a stable configuration (as in June precedes July)or
portray it as emerging through time (Lightning preceded the storm).
34. As abbreviations used for expository convenience, capital letters stand for semantic
structures, with lower case orthography representing phonological structures. Ellipses
indicate that the class schemas impose no specific phonological requirements (i.e., they are
maximally schematic at the phonological pole). Although they are shown separately for
analytic purposes, the schemas are actually immanent in their instantiations, that is, in-
herent in the processing activity constituting them.
35. To keep things simple, articles are omitted and only the semantic pole is shown in
any detail. The pictures of a table and a door are merely mnemonic abbreviations for the
full, encyclopedic meanings of table and door. An extensive treatment of grammatical
constructions is offered in Langacker (2003a).
36. More fundamental are conceptual grouping, phonological grouping, symboliza-

tion, and the hierarchical organization characteristic of human behavior in general (see
Langacker 1995a, 1997a).
37. A more restrictive definition reflecting traditional usage would limit the term
‘‘subject’’ to situations where the relationship is profiled and only at the clausal level (e.g.,
The table is near the door).
38. The schema can also be seen as one facet of the lexical item’s characteriza-
tion. Since a lexical item occurs in particular grammatical environments, the repre-
sentation abstracted from usage events includes a set of structural frames in which it
figures. If there is any representation independent of such frames, it arises by further
abstraction.
39. Phonologically, for example, the word picnics divides into pic and nics on unipolar
grounds (syllable structure), whereas bipolar considerations dictate the otherwise unmo-
tivated segmentation into picnic and -s. Semantically, the meaning of -s is quite schematic
and unlikely to emerge as a conceptual unit were it not for its linguistic role in forming
plurals, incorporating the more specific content of the nouns it combines with.
40. Phonological representations are not just based on articulation, but also on per-
ception, which constitutes another channel. In signed languages, the main expressive
burden is shifted to the corresponding gestural channels.
cognitive grammar 453
41. As a facet of unipolar phonological organization, accentual prominence lacks the
referential function of profiling. This follows from the inherent difference between con-
ceptualization and expression.
42. As reflected in the history of writing, segments are psychologically less basic
than syllables and words and do not occur alone except when they happen to coincide with
these larger structures. Representations of segments are thus abstracted from larger
structural frames, which (in schematized form) are part of their characterization. This is
quite analogous to the incorporation of symbolic structural frames in the characterization
of lexical items (see note 38).
43. These are analogous to patterns of semantic extension, such as the metonymic
pattern [creator

"
creation] (as in She just bought a Miro
´
). For some differences
between derivation and categorization, see Langacker (1987a: 444).
44. For instance, a clausal subordinator might be placed in the middle of the clause as
a suffix on the verb.
45. I restrict attention to research largely based on Cognitive Grammar proper
(without implying any sharp distinction from work in cognitive and functional linguistics
more generally). Here and in what follows, only selected citations can be given.
46. Starting with Lindner (1981, 1982), considerable attention has been devoted to
polysemy and semantic networks. What I have in mind here is rather the absence of large-
scale attempts at describing the conceptual semantic structure of individual meanings or
senses in a systematic fashion (i.e., some analogue of Wierzbicka’s 1996 lexicographic
program).
47. Scho
¨
nefeld (1999 ) offers a positive assessment of its success in this regard.
48. Among these reasons are construal, encyclopedic semantics, and the
indissociability of meaning and grammar.
49. Processing at different levels occurs on different time scales. Sequentiality is quite
apparent at the discourse level, owing to the large time scale involved. In the case of
sublexical meanings, where the small time scale forecloses introspective observation, the
evidence is substantial but indirect (Langacker 1998).
50. For instance, the cat referred to in She doesn’t have a cat is not any actual cat but a
virtual creature ‘‘conjured up’’ to characterize the situation whose existence is being de-
nied. Each protester lit a candle does not refer directly to any actual protestor, any actual
candle, or any actual event of lighting. Instead, it designates a fictive event involving fictive
participants, with each specifying how the type of event thus characterized maps onto
actuality.

REFERENCES

Achard, Michel. 1996. Two causation/perception constructions in French. Cognitive Lin-
guistics 7: 315–57.
Achard, Michel. 1998. Representation of cognitive structures: Syntax and semantics of French
sentential complements. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Backus, Ad. 1996. Two in one: Bilingual speech of Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands.
Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Barlow, Michael, and Suzanne Kemmer, eds. 2000. Usage-based models of language.
Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
454 ronald w. langacker
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22:
577–660.
Beck, David. 1996. Transitivity and causation in Lushootseed morphology. Canadian
Journal of Linguistics 41: 109–40.
Brisard, Frank, ed. 2002. Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Bybee, Joan L. 1994. A view of phonology from a cognitive and functional perspective.
Cognitive Linguistics 5: 285–305.
Carey, Kathleen. 1994. Pragmatics, subjectivity and the grammaticalization of the English
perfect. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Carey, Kathleen. 1996. From resultativity to current relevance: Evidence from the history of
English and modern Castilian Spanish. In Adele E. Goldberg, ed., Conceptual structure,
discourse and language 31–48. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Casad, Eugene H. 1982. Cora locationals and structured imagery. PhD dissertation, Uni-
versity of California, San Diego.
Casad, Eugene H., and Gary B. Palmer, eds. 2003. Cognitive linguistics and non-
Indo-European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cienki, Alan. 1995. The semantics of possessive and spatial constructions in Russian and
Bulgarian: A comparative analysis in cognitive grammar. Slavic and East European

Journal 39: 73–114.
Cook, Kenneth W. 1988. A cognitive analysis of grammatical relations, case, and transitivity
in Samoan. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Cook, Kenneth W. 1993a. A cognitive account of Samoan case marking and cliticization.
Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 22: 509–30.
Cook, Kenneth W. 1993b. A cognitive account of Samoan lavea and galo verbs. In Richard
A. Geiger and Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, eds., Conceptualizations and mental processing in
language 567–92. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cornelis, Louise H. 1997. Passive and perspective. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological per-
spective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Culioli, Antoine. 1990. Pour une linguistique de l’e
´
nonciation. Vol. 1, Ope
´
rations et re-
pre
´
sentations. Paris: Ophrys.
Cuyckens, Hubert. 1995. Family resemblance in the Dutch spatial prepositions door and
langs. Cognitive Linguistics 6: 183–207.
Da˛browska, Ewa. 1997. Cognitive semantics and the Polish dative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Doiz Bienzobas, Aintzane. 1995. The preterite and the imperfect in Spanish: Past situation
vs. past viewpoint. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Doiz Bienzobas, Aintzane. 1998. La evolucio
´
n diacro
´
nica de la categorı
´

a de la modalidad
deo
´
ntica en Euskera. In Jose
´
Luis Cifuentes Honrubia, ed., Estudios de ling
€
uuı
´
stica
cognitiva II 559–73. Alicante, Spain: Universidad de Alicante, Departamento de
Filologı
´
a Espan
˜
ola, Lingu
¨
ı
´
stica General y Teorı
´
a de la Literatura.
Enger, Hans-Olav, and Tore Nesset. 1999. The value of cognitive grammar in typological
studies: The case of Norwegian and Russian passive, middle and reflexive. Nordic
Journal of Linguistics 22: 27–60.
Farrell, Patrick. 1990. Spanish stress: A cognitive analysis. Hispanic Linguistics 4: 21–56.
Farrell, Patrick. 1995. Lexical binding. Linguistics 33: 939–80.
Farrell, Patrick. 1998. The conceptual basis of number marking in Brazilian Portuguese.
In Jean-Pierre Koenig, ed., Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap 3–16. Stanford,
CA: CSLI Publications.

cognitive grammar 455
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994)
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive
Science 22: 133–87.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the
mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. The mechanisms of ‘‘construction grammar.’’ Berkeley Linguistics
Society 14: 35–55.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument
structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Haiman, John. 1980. Dictionaries and encyclopedias. Lingua 50: 329–57.
Harder, Peter. 1996. Functional semantics: A theory of meaning, structure and tense in
English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Harris, Catherine L. 1998. Psycholinguistic studies of entrenchment. In Jean-Pierre Koenig,
ed., Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap 55–70. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Hawkins, Bruce W. 1984. The semantics of English spatial prepositions. PhD dissertation,
University of California, San Diego.
Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2003. A cognitive-functional approach to nominalization in English.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Holmqvist, Kenneth. 1993. Implementing cognitive semantics. Lund, Sweden: Department of
Cognitive Science, Lund University.
Holmqvist, Kenneth. 1999. Implementing cognitive semantics—overview of the semantic
composition process and insights into the grammatical composition process. In Leon
de Stadler and Christoph Eyrich, eds., Issues in cognitive linguistics 579–600. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse.
Language 56: 251–99.

Hsiao, Yuchau E. 1991. A cognitive grammar approach to perfect aspect: Evidence from
Chinese. Berkeley Linguistics Society 17: 390–401.
Huffman, Alan. 1997. The categories of grammar: French lui and le. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Huumo, Tuomas. 1998. Bound spaces, starting points, and settings. In Jean-Pierre
Koenig, ed., Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap 297–307. Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications.
Israel, Michael. 1996a. Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy
19: 619–66.
Israel, Michael. 1996b. The way constructions grow. In Adele E. Goldberg, ed., Conceptual
structure, discourse and language 217–30. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Israel, Michael. 1998. The rhetoric of grammar: Scalar reasoning and polarity sensitivity.
PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Janda, Laura A. 1986. A semantic analysis of the Russian verbal prefixes za-, pere-, do-, and
ot Munich: Verlag Otto Sagner.
Janda, Laura A. 1993. A geography of case semantics: The Czech dative and the Russian
instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Janssen, Theo A. J. M., and Gisela Redeker, eds. 1999. Congitive linguistics: Foundations,
scope, and methodology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
456 ronald w. langacker
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and
reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kellogg, Margaret Kimberly. 1996. Neurolinguistic evidence of some conceptual properties
of nouns and verbs. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Kemmer, Suzanne, and Michael Israel. 1994. Variation and the usage-based model. Chicago
Linguistic Society 30: 165–79.
Kempson, Ruth M. 1977. Semantic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kumashiro, Fumiko. 2000. Phonotactic interactions: A non-reductionist approach to
phonology. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Kumashiro, Toshiyuki. 1994. On the conceptual definitions of adpositions and case

markers: A case for the conceptual basis of syntax. Chicago Linguistic Society 30:
236–50.
Kumashiro, Toshiyuki. 2000. The Conceptual basis of grammar: A cognitive approach to
Japanese clausal structure. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Kumashiro, Toshiyuki, and Ronald W. Langacker. 2003. Double-subject and complex-
predicate constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 14: 1–45.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the
mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its
challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1981 . The integration of grammar and grammatical change. Indian
Linguistics 42: 82–135.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1982. Space grammar, analysability, and the English passive.
Language 58: 22–80.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1986. Abstract motion. Berkeley Linguistics Society 12: 455–71.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987a. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1, Theoretical pre-
requisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987b. Nouns and verbs. Language 63: 53–94.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1988a. Autonomy, agreement, and cognitive grammar. In Diane
Brentari, Gary Larson, and Lynn MacLeod, eds., Agreement in grammatical theory
147–80. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1988b. A usage-based model. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, ed., Topics
in cognitive linguistics 127–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990a. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990b. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5–38.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2, Descriptive appli-
cation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1992a. Prepositions as grammatical(izing) elements. Leuvense
Bijdragen 81: 287–309.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1992b. The symbolic nature of cognitive grammar: The meaning
of of and of of -periphrasis. In Martin Pu
¨
tz, ed., Thirty years of linguistic evolution:
Studies in honour of Rene
´
Dirven on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday 483–502.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1993a. Clause structure in cognitive grammar. Studi Italiani di
Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 22: 465–508.
cognitive grammar 457
Langacker, Ronald W. 1993b. Grammatical traces of some ‘‘invisible’’ semantic constructs.
Language Sciences 15: 323–55.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1993c. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 1–38.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1993d. Universals of construal. Berkeley Linguistics Society 19: 447–63.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1995a. Conceptual grouping and constituency in cognitive grammar.
In Ik-Hwan Lee, ed., Linguistics in the morning calm 3 149–72. Seoul: Hanshin.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1995b. Possession and possessive constructions. In John R. Taylor
and Robert E. MacLaury, eds., Language and the cognitive construal of the world 51–79.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1995c. Raising and transparency. Language 71: 1–62.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1995d. Structural syntax: The view from cognitive grammar. In
Franc¸oise Madray-Lesigne and Jeannine Richard-Zappella, eds., Lucien Tesnie
`
re
aujourd’hui 13–39. Paris: E
´
ditions Peeters.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1995e. Viewing in cognition and grammar. In Philip W. Davis, ed.,
Alternative linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical modes 153–212. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1997a. Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cog-
nitive Linguistics 8: 1–32.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1997b. A dynamic account of grammatical function. In Joan L.
Bybee, John Haiman, and Sandra A. Thompson, eds., Essays on language function and
language type dedicated to T. Givo
´
n 249–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1997c. Generics and habituals. In Angeliki Athanasiadou and Rene
´
Dirven, eds., On conditionals again 191–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1998. On subjectification and grammaticization. In Jean-Pierre
Koenig, ed., Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap 71–89. Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999a. Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In Theo Janssen
and Gisela Redeker, eds., Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology
13–59. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999b. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999c. Losing control: Grammaticization, subjectification, and
transparency. In Andreas Blank and Peter Koch, eds., Historical semantics and cog-
nition 147–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999d. Virtual reality. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29: 77–103.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Michael Barlow and
Suzanne Kemmer, eds., Usage-based models of language 1–63. Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2001a. Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12:
143–88.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2001b. Dynamicity in grammar. Axiomathes 12: 7–33.

Langacker, Ronald W. 2001c. The English present tense. English Language and Linguistics 5:
251–71.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2001d. Topic, subject, and possessor. In Hanne Gram Simonsen and
Rolf Theil Endresen, eds., A cognitive approach to the verb: Morphological and con-
structional perspectives 11–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2001e. Viewing and experiential reporting in cognitive grammar. In
Augusto Soares da Silva, ed., Linguagem e cognic¸
˜
ao: A perspectiva da linguı
´
stica cog-
nitiva 19–49. Braga: Associac¸a
˜
o Portuguesa de Linguı
´
stica and Universidade Cato
´
lica
Portuguesa, Faculdade de Filosofia de Braga.
458 ronald w. langacker
Langacker, Ronald W. 2002a. The control cycle: Why grammar is a matter of life and death.
Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association 2:
193–220.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2002b. Deixis and subjectivity. In Frank Brisard, ed., Grounding: The
epistemic footing of deixis and reference 1–28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2002c. Remarks on the English grounding systems. In Frank Brisard,
ed., Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference 29–38. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2002d. A study in unified diversity: English and Mixtec locatives.
In Nick J. Enfield, ed., Ethnosyntax: Explorations in grammar and culture 138–61.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2003a. Constructions in cognitive grammar. English Linguistics 20:
41–83.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2003b. Context, cognition, and semantics: A unified dynamic
approach. In Ellen van Wolde, ed., Job 28: Cognition in context 179–230. Leiden,
Netherlands: Brill.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2003c. Dynamicity, fictivity, and scanning: The imaginative basis of
logic and linguistic meaning. Korean Linguistics 18: 1–64.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2003d. Extreme subjectification: English tense and modals. In
Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, Rene
´
Dirven, and Klaus-Uwe Panther, eds.,
Motivation in language: Studies in honor of G
€
uunter Radden 3–26. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2004a. Aspects of the grammar of finite clauses. In Michel Achard
and Suzanne Kemmer, eds., Language, culture and mind 535–77. Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2004b. Form, meaning, and behavior: The cognitive grammar
analysis of double subject constructions. In Ellen Contini-Morava, Robert S. Kirsner,
and Betsy Rodrı
´
guez-Bachiller, eds., Cognitive and communicative approaches to
linguistic analysis 21–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2004c. Possession, location, and existence. In Augusto Soares da
Silva, Amadeu Torres, and Miguel Gonc¸alves, eds., Linguagem, cultura e cognic¸
˜
ao:
Estudios de linguı

´
stica cognitive 1: 85–120. Coimbra, Portugal: Almedina.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2004d. Remarks on nominal grounding. Functions of Language 11:
77–113.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2005a. Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In
Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Iba
´
n
˜
ez and Sandra Pen
˜
a Cervel, eds., Cognitive lin-
guistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction 101–59. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2005b. Integration, grammaticization, and constructional meaning.
In Mirjam Fried and Hans C. Boas, eds., Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots
157–189. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W. Forthcoming. On the subject of impersonals.
Lee, Jeong-Hwa. 1999. A cognitive semantic analysis of manipulative motion verbs in Korean
with reference to English. Seoul: Hankuk.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1997. From outer to inner space: Linguistic categories and non-
linguistic thinking. In Jan Nuyts and Eric Pederson, eds., Language and conceptuali-
zation 13–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lindner, Susan. 1981. A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb-particle construc-
tions with OUT and UP. PhD dissertation, University of California at San Diego.
cognitive grammar 459