cree eas os OG lbp e311 a FOUNDATIONS OF COGNITIVE GRAMMAR Volume | Theoretical Prerequisites (%) Ronald W. Langacker & eX ZED Burpee Cte tec a2lard eee a Ge CO et MME ae ee oS a oe ee CNEL E a. Cea es ct rpm eed: 2 1 DU FOr C12 LM oe OC CPG SES CDs MS EE aS ch Pe WA aE a CAEL) besa Ib Slee SS cL Sgt Me aphasia eS Ls ee bho LS) Re iL ee Bah heen 2 4, et tier Lee De ION SE eee eee Se Se ee CEES —Canadian Jounal of Linguistics Paes TEE ee ach Ee) Ube ae eis Ca POL ba Elbe elt edb ce Seed oe PRR EMG DS ad De SoM be S24 ses CAs ee Se etme bat a ee SD ae ee 2B SE ENTS DSS DOR ait mt ce eee cis SEs toes 1 eed ce RAMS Seo Ae ee Re cL Ee cand ere Se ee tie BN 7-301-06881-6HO Y19 :6(1) FOUNDATIONS OF COGNITIVE GRAMMAR Col VOLUME! C_J Theoretical Prerequisites (3) Ronald W. Langacker #% 4 BR deg HEAL @ ae i " fice Stanford University PressMERAAB IG HF :01-2004-1583 FA3 4e RR B (CIP) a AUB RHC 1) + BEMIS / (36) ¥ MEK (Langacker,R. W. 9%. —BED A. AGE ACHE AA tH MEAL 2004. 9 BABA FRY DRI AT 6) ISBN 7-301-06881-6 T.tke Of. Se ML. RRE-HK V. Hos FFT BABS PL 5 BECP SiC HE BF (2004) 9H 072146 © 1987 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved, Reprinted and published by arrangement with Stanford University Press, # 4%: FOUNDATIONS OF COGNITIVE GRAMMAR I US 1) Bie SM tEWHEM. C3IRonald W. Langacker HE HK Ok #f ME 43 &. ISBN 7-301-06881-6/H + 0960 HR Be Rs Te ea BL EJ Dk: FE HMB RE PAL AE BAY 100871 Bw Si: http: //ebs. pku. edu. en HB Wi. BORER 62752015 RATA 62750672 MMAR 62765014 LF (8 Mi. zpup@pup. pku. edu, en fl. IRC SIEN BW BEE 890 EK X1240 EK AS LT ANGK 620 FF 2001 1K 9 ABE 1 RE 2005 4F 4 A 2 EO a Hh: 38,00 56& Ff ata “BABS A RRLA RAAB” BALRAL ALS MESA BURN, RABKRY. MHRAMSAAH RE, RILERARE, REEL ENA SMR AKT, BARRE KRET AB. RARAALI RTH, MBSA B IBAA AAT ERR. BHFR TRANS, ALAABHAEA RM Hh SW EMAL THRE, REWRENS WA RMES OME. ll, BARE. WES POSE RSNESIIS, HAS, RUA, VARS. AAMAS SWNT A RAE HAE DE. AAR “BABS ARREARS” MAHER Pe, AGE 2002 4F 1 HILRAF MMO “AREA TB”, ASI PAS MALS MET AEA GRRE HL), Robert D. van Valin #il Randy J. Lapolla &) (A%i: #449. X4SIHKE), Andres Radford ff) CBA: WABLS RBA) StH, SNR. SiR LSHRR, ARELET, MLPA. RRR T HS PAMAESPHE, REA ATAECWARPARK NBA SANNA?” HEAER. QIMFEREABCAR, HEA WMAZABKBO NAR, RAR, ARTE SLSR ABRZRRS. A RGARMNSENE, SHR SAMA Se MARKERS REN — TAM, BATES LMS RNAS2 ARERR RAZR IEE, BAAR AR, SUBAREA OR BIB) Fal RAE RUE BU IL, MATT RAE TREE RN — SS ee Ak, KAS NRAKAA ASM NAR AE, BERTH 2 HAMS. KLAR, FEARS RUMBLES EK THN, SPREE ET REN. Alt, MARRRAA RIA BIN —ARME. ATERK—-A, AABRRRANWMRTAR, BAT RS REAR, TATRA AR, LHR AR. OE, BST FL, AERA RN AE, BY SBE. LE MENS R, RABE. RTEUA, KEABNBRST AK FADS EAN SESE DANTE A BUTI YA AAR ZA HS HRW, RNB ODE A ATR REA SE OMS HE 2004 +5 A LEKFERE= Ri OR USE BF E201 A804 AN BSE, RUG. Lakoff, M. Johnson, R. Langacker, C. Fillmore, J. R. Taylor, D. Geeraerts, P. Kay, G. Fauconnier, L. Talmy#lSweetser¢ a A Wifi fi 2 sie. 19894F 4%, WREAK AMER NRE MES Boe, BOT Ai AR 2 & (Intemational Cognitive Linguistics Association, ICLA). Hii, # Mouton de Gruyterth htt: HRAFAUME SZAHNBB. ORM CUM) (Cognitive Linguisitics) 78H. WSS iF ETE RUS 1 ERR» Lakoff & Johnson (1999; 3 2002) HUA RIAIAES) WR RE A ARLURIEPS. SEAR SIBLE first-generation cognitive science) RDF 20050 KN, BT LANKA TE OMA, HER: THN LE, FEIK ICI. ESA. SEBO, RMRIEOM AF CEMTER XM. KRU ADE SADE, BBA CKD RK ROM, ASA SARNIA: GS EMU AAR SHE WEAR TORS, URES Re, SPE AY EEE OE SMBH, ARE SHRM: FSM ERKAS SRLS, AN RARTERN: BRERU AOE RERA SHEN, BE FE STANI AR, RES GIP ABIL FRM VS ARE Ms ARRAN TE RE MAE AE TAT RE MA HE SE FB OT AA RO BRA (second-generation cognitive ce) HHBAZE2OTEETOSER. SB AR RUBY PAIR AB DA JE BS AR SEE A a 8 AR OR2 ea WAS. AL, OPES TE. USEC E. HE REE A EMME. LM HATED ABU, BER. RAL IE ARSE A AML, FSC RR, TDR ERAT AS TE FALE BURIED RITE RM» AAA AB EEE BEATE BF PK RBS, Sh. RAUBER A OSE T A aA SUR. KERALA (1999: 497) HAH: “MRS. K ROAR ATER, FAR UWE IA BEER. EE TER, RAR OLA eRe TO BI.” Ble, 2a SATA LE BATE RB SER. URI EUW A AYRE Ly BF BEY IT AIT ALPS A SL EB RAL AVE EAE A I LI. BER. WER. WR REAM TRAE ERE, AAHERRAMER ERD). AX PTET UE TSA, REN —-MD, ARR APE ST Sy HEF A HEE ABR. LE AY Bea HE UA 6 Renna FB 66 YM, RAVE LEP HOA ES |S BARE A BS, ELS Aa KA SPH, AAA M. BEM ARS SASSER BT AE, CLAN SBE Se AA BO AREA A A ORE HEA BA bes, EEE PEA. WT ALA 2 ES Ges FEF AMMAR LP. BO RUM FERR REP BLT ASN AR HS CER 2002). ARAVA URED AE ET ABS {ABI AEAT Ly BOR, AEWA. ETN ALAA He ATE GARE ER. AEF 20H LEBO4F AN ATTA RUE BE EE SARA RUE NSP KX, RUMOHY SHA EAAANURER. URES RARSREON-M?, AUMTENPED, BAKU MANA ERR, GHG 2001). USES URW, BRR SO Pe 8. PFONG. SHEERS ANELELRNAS: BERK WAU NEA AE RHE, TH MARE, MOT TTL RED RBG: ERI SCHEMA, VARA XK ARB ERE. WME PARI TIX WL. URI. HE# 3 AHA, BRK. BABAR AMBAN. BAN BOM, BAKKFUFABAY PMO RR, 5 )AZIRS FARRER. UME SERRA AMA, RTE NX CARH EMT, TARR. TL. TE ALR LHP BUH. ZEAATT I, URE EU AM ST RI, HTORS NAR, ERR. PARRA, ELE TERA AL HER, RRA. AON RRR, Hee, HH AR TS ABR aS | AREY AALS | AS TA) RAR RAE I A. RE, READE Mails, Ea Raa AA Sts. URE SF EES SEN KR» BIE PEERS ME ABLE: (D) BAE-TARNUMRK, HARAMITAN FRU MEA: (2) HKE-TPORMBRRA BUPRRAAN FILA LBD; 3) HSB XWFRAUAR EH A RE RES. UMBSFRET LRETERER, HHT BOM: CL) BARE-T+EAMUMAS, MES HHS OAS RA AU SUE: (2) AERA -THRNEAAR, FE Cia) CA LR CAE PAE RNB IEAR, BESTA MERE BX: 3) REFRANERERRESALASBAN, BABY HSVASMARN, ARRAN MRR. —ANA MAMIE MAE ASB IE RAIMA, Ti TEP ERA A aK, BNR Cimagery); (4) AAAARER AAT, IR. TAA] YEH MEME RAE (continuum). St, WA SABAH BXHABRNEA, DARSABM ARAB RENE ER. RB MMNAF Eh WS Zia FR MH (Langacker) AITO FEE, RAT UE R TSE, SIAR EAE (Space Grammar), 3f St 5 4E 1987 E #11991 4 HH A TCA BERND (Foundations of Cognitive Grammar) #—% (HRW) MAE GE MAD. 19907, {hit -FAT OMB ERA: (DBE FEVAIN—T APLAR), STS Ds He ED Sit Bo WRUAARARABRED, RHR RBS RB, MLTR RATANSR ALE ENOBRR. BAMA SH4 USB EE Rt URIRED AALS: (2) WSU SS RAEN, SOE TRSAR LO EMA. M5, EERE LADS aR SEMEN, ROP RAS WHECEEEN, ENA AE tee BK, MMM BAA EM SEtE. SEF LRM, URE UAHA RERAWT RAARMARAARATA RT, SRR RAE R. BLRBAN Po, PRERULAAN EMMA (symbolization); (3) USE AIB MALE BS SE, FEE AT PONE, ELAMOMSA. WFAMRE TX MOAR FEMME. ABARAT. ANTI A. ASTER PET Te — 9 FRET MRA, SAMAR, RUE L RR TARANEH. RRR. PEAR AS SR A BARK. HMLANAR. AMSA. Ait, HARE W, BBLMBMAHA, (4) BRAUN -AEARD, BRS AEA AR ERS ik. MARAIS, 7S RILK MAA — MEBANE BIEBER A 0 RA SIE EN ES ARMRET -RUMEREM AH: (9) BARRE MERA. BM WIE SRL Be. A. ted A. ARH SS, MEME VE: (6) RTE RS BEA. ARAB Sy RAM BARA, CERO FUR. ADLER CASTE) BEHR-E. BERRI i: TFA, BLAM ARLAR, FAD: FERG USE LS BBL SCHE (psychological reality) 4B th. CERAP ERA. Alt, ADEA RARER FNL. B-RHCEARR (SHARE), RHR STRS TERM. HH, HEAT EA BS YEN El, AY LB RANT. Bo MRO RUBE RVE AES, EATER. ARERR A BRAT te. ASA S ES. ABM) BD. URES TE SL US BOA ABIAVA (internal grammar) HHS. AMBRE TDRE,Se & 5 PARE. Asi, FR EPO Air Clinguistic unit). TiS PEE ARR, A ET Ha DR AMT. URN PES: (phonological unit), # X¥4iz (semantic unit) MR (EAL (symbolic unit). SHER TE E AATE MARR, Feel GSO / GE H) RAR. PMN ibook (45) HEAPS MEAMILIAE[ (BOOK) / (buk) |, HPAKSRRBR, HSRRBAR. RTPA PEA BE NL TERS ENE, BEA ATT eb SS ER A, RE AT HE HT AEF A. SE A RAGE A HEE T AT AE. WR — SA TERRIA EU a SA PE WS PAB fh Cah) RA, SR Ca) Br BRAN RARRZE EAM P, RARE A Oa, Bll JE FAST. TAR. HORE A HSE aR. HRA Be 1H. ROB AAMAT RSA EEA RTE RBM. ARIE FREE AR BRM. BAPULMAEBSHEARKA: BLXK (symbolization), ED NALA SAH IRA, YORE (categorization), Bf — ASME PTA LS BEEN SKA (schematic network); KARA Cintegration), BD PAPERS Hi ee RI. RR, oo { (BOOK) / (buk) J#Il (pl) / (z) RARER TER books. URE WERK AAD DAL. SSE, PRA TEAL, ENZINK WRAER AE SE Le USED Wik BE — PAE REE RA, RE ANAS BELIEF AEM ATA BBE DA I BE A. AHS. WREATH, LABIAL BA. bt R. ARASH. AMCASWORANASEHAS, FOR UR KAM (construe) HH, PAB ANE. Blk, Wee PEATE POM, Ota Neke 7. AB RoR: LH USED Ais SEE RA, BAR PARLE S HL. AECL MER, 1B IR EE RTE.6 ASE AE WARNE FES ES HH. an SEH RI AE AU SUBPRAIRX (predication), Bi XARA. AHI CMOERYRUMM AOE). BRAREAAME HEH), ZH MBMNRRRWE CAN. tH) SAG. SET a) MANGES CEA AE SR (cognitive domain) iX—7#R Ho WME WHS RBA GE) NTP R NMA, E AUT RS, WATS RAS. FET BSRAMARRAT WA PUAUL, WITTE. B.A RA SM, FELT — AA BLL — BRU IR SS — RATA ir SA HRM, HRAAURR. UNIT EK, RRB, ABRU SUSRADARAE A UA SUR ZS} FEA SURE AGAR AEM (representational field), AZ MAEA Bw, FL. CRAM RHA RAN LA, APA Te. RAV ARRERSRKRAN BRE, ARAN AUP EES AR AR. TEA AER LT ESR AE AAKHASREER RAR, RARER T — BRASS KABA, REAR (encyclopedic knowledge). BOURS RAGE KMS RGN A BA. BRS, RT AU Rie, RAR image, imagery)« K BEE REMES RURAL. 4 te FT RSE AK (Lakoff 1987) MAH Cohnson 1987) AHA MBAR HE RAAT EA BRAK Citnage schernas) TWAS RAT HRN SAB ARSE, 2: BOCA EEE ITE PR RABRN. “CARR, DIMI A.” AssRiG maT ONe CRAB. LERRAK, BRAM RAM, PRARERAAMR. RAR TMRRRR HR CRRA BR, BRALEE- SMHS AAR OE. HF RRMA. PRHDA, ARSE ARM TERA RR, FEAR RIE sk. ta: 1. Bill sent a walrus to Joyce. . 2, Bill sent Joyce a walrus.oe 7 (a) (b) Bi ABM Sr isto 11 ARERR NRE A, iT IS WERE RK: ALLA tot HR, Bit Bid KiB oycefla walusH HEALS, RRA HMA KERR, RENBR BBNAR, MAPA ABA. BANE AARBIEK (base) AME (profile). BAE—TAMN FR BRA TARR, SALE AEE AE EBS). AE RR ABP HARA (designate) MAHKGRX. MAA. MARR. Zi RIGHT TRIANGLE ELONGATED OBJECT HYPOTENUSE TIP UNCLE (a) (b) © B2 —Sia A UA (semantic value) RBM AFB, AR ATA, TREANMEMANAA. HS “PI” WERE HARA: 45 OR” HEAR — MaKe: HS “A Bl. (AR, BA. WR” SHEAR -AARBRKANTA. AMER TBO. LAAN IARE, AT EE BA — AB EA BAY A FBLA SR BAS RUN NEARS, Mappialgoii®# LA—TMTA (1) RB SIME GRR, trajectoraktr) MA a— Yk GihéR, landmarkaelm)8 URE AEE RIL. awaykarBanaR, gonelll ZV colt RA RBA. WAAIA (Langacker, 190, p.245): ~o| fo 9 i ' OY ae ion ! Oo shag al 8 68 GO AWAY GONE (a) (b) (©) B3 lel —fB RPE RR HEHE (selection). WAH Cperspective) 3842 (salience) Alif4#EKE (specificity) A+B RER. (CL) BR RRAEMRAREPON AH. SWASATSR TE, ER AA UE REA. TRE — EMA AUK. G40 % is] i Hithe big blue plastic cup, ME thi EGS T — 7M Ee SEER PE, PRI PET KAA , KA (BO. A (BD. RY CDR 4. EIN KRAVE FRA RE FH at EBLE A, MORES — BB RR ATER AR AMR ERA, UA BS A BM, OAR, HAR BARRA RR NY Re. MARE. A. RR, BE. NE HK. EA —-VUMRHAVAARP, REMRENMEZ AN, APTRIEN SOKNER ATT AAAI BL (scale). i: 3. The post office is quite near, (22 [i] ‘) 4. He is my near friend. (KAA) 2) PAMMRSOHAE. RESONAEAARS BM RHAR, Bae a HATA. MM: 5. The glass is half full. (A% BY 9H HE) 6. The glass is half empty. (2b fry Ai EDFe & 9 GG) REMERNRARA, SEES AR, Mn: A. RAK HATE]. META “go” Fl “gone” HKG, “go” RARE, i “gone” RVEME. B. REMMI. ARRAN, KRRPREMMS A RARE. Bb: 7. A cat is above a mat. (iE F Li. ) 8. A mat is below a cat. (44--7E98 Fil.) WA FE” AE OM” ER, A OK” SHAME “AF” LE. C. RAUB ATA. fig: 9. He has a few friends in high places. (fh JLGL3 5 PAYEE HAR) 10. He has few friends in high places. (hI JULIE i RAPE AT WAR.) “a few” Ml “few” RRHXMAEDREASH, SAE F “few” RAM LAMM, “afew” 2 ARAMA FSM D. Pi, FARINA. Bld: 11. Brian is sitting to the left of Sally. (7B AA ZERERI A ZE #.) 12. The hill falls gently to the bank of the river. ( uWOH LAI TH.) 13. The hill rises gently from the bank of the river. (LHi(V2a4 unt. ) 14, The balloon rose swiftly. (ERIS 47 i #3. ) 11 PLS ASH AAR AD TP AR; AY DALAT SAR IT. EAR EMR: ALL. 12. BBR Bm”; 4H MBA, ABM (objective) May: Wi2AMAIINA BALA PHEM (subjective) zx. (4) VEATAR BEEN FF] — HST WMA BS BH HB HARKS, HRB AAA CMSAA ARMA. i: 15. That player is tall. (ABE F ATH)10 USER 16, That defensive player is over 6 meters tall. (ABST FEAR NF MMORR ED 17. That linebacker is about 6.5 meters tall. (Abs BY6.53% Rit.) : 18, That middle linebacker is precisely 6.5 meters tall. (ABP Ja TLE SO. SHER) AAV SEVE) SEEM, HSU BE AR Baa. Ay “FABER (schema), F—A LARA (specificity). BR, RRA BY AE AS RL Se A EL AF AR RE MeaR. RLM: Bik BawS NRA AN RES LA BBE Pa JS FAB Bs PAE AB A A PB. IPR ERE, AIT RLM RED AAS FEARED. AS MAERUA NNE. B\SNRATRA, MA SRESRERER, PRBRATOREMM MAR, BMT W. AM SBMNARS AR, B+ — Rite SAK HAG, WW, AMS, MESHR, AIM eRAR EH HSRAGHZAMKAAE. UREA (grammatical classes) — PARA. At, ABE NAB (to profile) HY. HMM — BBE MAU RNR. FRACS LAR RAN BEAR. KE AAHEOARRM RA, Bal, Bi. RSE, RAT ME. ARE XbA (process), Sia MBA BE NA ABRAK (relation). 4: 19, There is a bridge across the river. (38) _/ S25 —EBF.) 20. A hiker waded across the river. (GES HAT 2 ALI ) 21. A hiker crossed the river carefully. (E27 (TH ORR Shiba.) 4] 19 Alf) 20 HH across RAGS AR MHAEAA, MRSA RA, — PAM. ASH ARMKX A (atemporal relation); #J 20I QBN RMRTASMNKA, WAN, AAT KA. BAK SH SA 4: tr aT t (a) (b) m4 FA 4 (a) SUE ONE) FI ERE SRR Cl) PRB ER Fis EL 4 (b) SBS Ciba Ta) MRUCER ATRIA LINS A. 4 20 Alf) 21 ZEEE. A 21 (sequential scanning), 4) 20 2.444444 (summary scanning). Wl LIU PAB He a I RA, BIRR a PR ti. ROARED LE SST PD, BLBRAITT RE, HUIRASEAR IR, BPR ASTI Ah UH, Bid QB, BALM OIL (temporal process), Mispial ay HWAMKA, R-ARIAMBMNKR. URE HEE SUE EMER, BEA AB R, ZANRATORBSN, ARMSBY, ee DEA th SRELNDSER. MAMA GORREPOMRA. KR. site REHNRR, SiN AGRERKANRR. RARE LKSAD PRADO, Arial HE ZA eH ET tA eR. ELA, URE T HAA, HB HAR ACRE (grammatical constructions), WAH WE SUETEN, FARE SURE. — Pat ai MA SHR. ERAT R EPR, REPRE12 URE a BAWSEL REA ARE. Hi, BSAA, BIE, HBAS GAR. i. HIF) MAAKAMREKOR TEA (symbolic structures), BUiYRSER ITC. iA RTI SOA A SE SEC Wn TRE, FCRIPE (component structures) ~ [i] YREMEMR A244 (composite structure) ZATARKR. AH i, BAB MAAA RE, BHR S Se AAR LR — AP EAL, YALU IE He I Se A Tike UNE — KEP A EZ FMLA (correspondence); AAAI TR NATE AS) OE SINR. WSRIBIMAMIE above the table WHA VAA T IXM AMARA. 3&8 M[ABOVE] 4) BIRT S PSR NS AL FPAR ) Z LB HE IK A WB M[TABLE) ABM —-TAAN EF). KADENA 3238 i [ABOVE] #9) 94 $5 #1 TABLE] 61) 0 MZ 15) I HK HMA SE i, @u SA V[ABOVE—TABLE], GARR AAS—Mi SET AA — A A FA BS: PUR LB $s SP HE RA“ above the table” E-TREME. SR, RARLEETEANER RB, B SREARRNA, ANP RMRS ARK.+ 13 bia 7a, Mao, Ag me RK PAGED: POMMRMKAN—W GPR) HR: Fe ALAR, SPA AA, FHP EATS eA RA PR ER FAME MBE RS AH, KAKA MALE HAY MH R (profile determinant). FEE PAU FE A HE RE HE A BE ET AKRAM. A 6 i bids bil RS 5% [LAMP] M4 Att FAI“ the lamp above the table” #2 ia) Mi if. HAL FITLAY PLE (head) RAM ARE, HLL “above” Arial MIE “above the table” AI? i, “lamp” 4K “lamp above the table” AYLI. MWR MANE A ES FE BS —RAE AR, ABATE A fe 482A ZEN (conceptually autonomous) fF, HIE B REY ABS He #AN) Cconceptually dependent) #{. [LAMP] & 8 EAH X, (ABOVE—TABLE]2 (KM . Alt, BOB ATLL MS ORAS HRS RTE, INET ASP EAA A EAE. LAMP- ABOYE-TABLE,14 URE EER AGLI VARY HA i SAA DF PY a ok HR, MAMMA AMMS AAA, BW ERRKA (categorizing relationship) ME. POREMRERER, URINE BR MY, EMSAM HAAS, MAAN EMER MS . AND SA RWAS, WRENN ED, EIB AE RR ER, RRA MLR. HEE MASP PEA ZESS TET AI PS AAR SS HS AT 9 SEM Croft, W. and A. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, G. &. M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Basic Books. Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Vol.1. Stanford University Press. Langacker, R. W. 1990. Concept, Image and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, R.W. 1991. Foundation of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. Vol.2. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Taylor, J. 1989/1995. Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Taylor, J. 2002. Cognitive Grammar, Oxford University Press. SO: (URE SFMT AR. UATE), ONES SOS) 3 2 HH, 2002. SAREE), ONBFH) 3B 1A, 2002. FR: ORE OF EE: REED, ONEBCE SRI) 284, 2002. EGE. IE: CARE SERIA), MEI. 3B 3 9, 2001. TE, FR: CUE) BoA, FAT, 2004. TKR. BLE: CURES AREA), NEO) 32H, 1999. URHA: QR. W. Langacker fi) “iAKEVE”), (YMA) 381 1, 1994, RS: CURIE TERE), LAER MNGEL, 2001.Preface For A LINGUIST, these are fascinating and exciting times. In the past quarter century linguistics has emerged as a separate discipline and established its in- tellectual significance. It has attracted ever increasing numbers of able schol- ars and fostered the investigation of virtually every aspect of language through arich variety of techniques and approaches. The period has consequently wit- nessed an unprecedented expansion in both our factual knowledge of lan- guages and our analytical understanding of linguistic structure. Still, many linguists are less than satisfied with the current state of the dis- cipline, especially in regard to linguistic theory. An extraordinary amount of time and energy is devoted to theoretical concerns, but whether this invest- ment has paid proportional dividends is subject to legitimate dispute. The ab- sence of any kind of theoretical consensus is painfully apparent as we thrash about in an almost impenetrable thicket of conflicting theories, which con- tinue to proliferate. In addition, many scholars are disturbed by both the nar- rowness of currently popular theories and their lack of naturalness. There is no comprehensive and unified theoretical framework available that success- fully accommodates our growing factual and analytical knowledge of lan- guage structure in all of its many aspects, treating it naturally and insightfully as an integrated whole. In short, the overall picture is one of fragmentation and confusion. My own dissatisfaction with the dominant trends in current theory is pro- found. It reaches to the deepest stratum of organizing principles: notions about what language is like and what linguistic theory should be concerned with. I believe that much of the confusion and inadequacy of mainstream the- ory flows directly from inappropriate decisions at this level, and from the un- critical acceptance of certain attitudes and assumptions (some of them tacit or unrecognized). Rightly or wrongly, I concluded some time ago that the con- ceptual foundations of linguistic theory were built on quicksand, and that the only remedy was to start over on firmer ground. My attempt at finding solid ground, and building something of consequence vvi Preface on it, began in the spring of 1976. Many of the central ideas coalesced within the first-few years, but that was only the initial (and easiest) phase in the long process of developing, refining, motivating, and at last presenting a coherent body of proposals. On more than one occasion in the early years I started writ- ing, completing several chapters of what was envisaged to be a massive work requiring many years to complete. These efforts were helpful to me, but pre- mature; in writing the present volume I started again from scratch. Part I was circulated in preliminary form in 1982, Part HI in 1983, and Part III in 1984. A comprehensive introduction to the framework I propose requires considerably more, but Parts I-III are capable of standing alone, so I am publishing them now as Volume I to ensure their timeliness and to make the basic ideas more generally accessible. I hope to complete Volume II within the next few years. 1 initially called this framework space grammar. Why is not important— in fact, there are so many good reasons to so label it that an “official” expla- nation would only impoverish the expression’s value. But despite its obvious appropriateness, a number of people have reacted negatively to the apparent frivolity of the term, perhaps with some reason. A theory called space gram- mar can obviously not be taken seriously, but one called cognitive grammar is potentially of great intellectual significance. So as not to foreclose the pos- sible significance of the model, I have opted for the latter term in this work. The research that led to this volume was greatly facilitated in its early stages by a Guggenheim Fellowship for the 1978-79 academic year, and by two quarters of sabbatical granted by UCSD in 1983. The UCSD Linguistics Department and Academic Senate kindly made funds available for duplicating and circulating preliminary versions of the manuscript. I gratefully acknow!- edge this support. Many people have contributed in one way or another to the completion of this project. Deserving special mention are my wife Peggy for preparing the index and for her long-term, uncomplaining support; George Lakoff for help and encouragement in many forms, most notably in being the first well-known scholar to recognize that space grammar is not totally crazy (or at least the first to admit to this recognition); Larry Gorbet, for assembling the glossary and also for helpful discussion on many points; Jim McCawley, for his de- tailed and constructive criticism; and Dave Tuggy, who has helped me to wrestle (though not always to his satisfaction) with some fundamental issues that bear on the conceptual foundations of the model and with the specifics of its formulation. Many others have helped significantly, in a variety of ways: by pertinent discussion; by their comments and criticism; by offering moral support and encouragement; by writing letters of recommendation; by calling relevant work to my attention (or even sending it to me); by their editorial support for my unorthodox positions; or by conducting research in the context of thePreface vii framework. The alphabetical list that follows is certainly not exhaustive—no slight is intended for those not mentioned, nor in many cases is this brief ac- knowledgment really sufficient: Noriko Akatsuka, Julie Andresen, Zev Bar- Lev, Liz Bates, Ursula Bellugi-Klima, Dwight Bolinger, Bill Bright, Cecil Brown, Claudia Brugman, Frank Thomas Burke, William Carver, Wallace Chafe, Aaron Cicourel, Herb Clark, Alain Cohen, Bill Croft, Roy D’Andrade, Probal Dasgupta, Scott DeLancey, René Dirven, Pam Downing, Suzette Elgin, Jeff Elman, Gilles Fauconnier, Charles Fillmore, Erica Garcia, Dedre Gentner, Cheng-ming Guo, John Haiman, Ken Hale, Eric Hamp, Heather Hardy, Leanne Hinton, Sue Hoover, Bill Jacobsen, Laura Janda, Mark Johnson, Paul Kay, Bob Kirsner, Ed Klima, Margaret Langdon, John Lawler, Kee-dong Lee, Odo Leys, David McNeill, Dan Morrow, Pam Munro, Geoff Nathan, Leonard Newmark, Elissa Newport, Don Norman, Rachel Reichman, Dave Rood, Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, Dave Rumelhart, Sanford Schane, Hansjakob Seiler, Eve Sweetser, Len Talmy, Jeanne van Oosten, Chuck Walrad, David Waltz, Don Wayne, Don Wesling. In addition, I offer special thanks to the many students who have partici- pated in my classes on space grammar over the past decade, and who have been willing to take these ideas seriously despite their basic conflict with the received linguistic wisdom of our era. They include students at the under- graduate, graduate, and postdoctoral levels; from linguistics and from other disciplines; my own dissertation candidates and those of other professors. They are too numerous to mention individually, but their comments, ques- tions, and papers, as well as their interest, encouragement, and tolerance of notions still in their formative stage, have done more than anything else to keep me going through the years. It is to all these students that I dedicate this book. R.W.L.x we Lal Contents Praface Introduction and Overview Part I: Orientation . Guiding Assumptions General Assumptions, 11. Methodological Assumptions, 31. . Fundamental Concepts The Nature of a Grammar, 56. The Nature of Grammatical Structure, 76. Componentiality and Correspondence, 86. Part Il: Semantic Structure . Cognitive Abilities Mental Experience, 99. Autonomous Processing, 109. Focal Adjustments, 116. Transformation, 138. . Domains Types of Domains, 147. Dictionaries and Encyclopedias, 154. Motion, Ordering, and Distance, 166. Things Profile and Base, 183. Bounded Regions, 189. An Abstract Characterization, 197. Spatial Bounding and Shape, 208. Atemporal Relations Relational Profiles, 214. Basic Conceptual Relations, 222. Trajector and Landmark, 231. . Processes The Temporal Profile, 244. Perfective vs. Imperfective Processes, 254. Dimensions of Complexity, 267. 7 147 183 214Ww Contents Part Il: Grammatical Organization 275 8. Valence Relations 277 Correspondence, 277. Profiling Within Constructions, 288. ‘Autonomy and Dependence, 298. Constituency, 310. Canonical Valence Relations, 324. 9. Symbolic Units 328 The Phonological Pole, 328. The Semantic Pole, 348. Symbolic Relationships, 356. 10. Categorization and Context 369 Complex Categories, 369. Schematic Networks, 377. Bipolar Networks, 386. Context, 401. 11. Sanction and Distribution 409 Constructions and Distribution, 409. Systemic Motivation, 425. Actualization, Computation, and Analogy, 437. 12. Composition 448 Analyzability and Related Phenomena, 448. Composition as Categorization, 466. Conclusion and Preview 481 Glossary 485 References 495 Index 505Introduction and Overview My OBJECTIVE in this work is to present and support a particular conception of grammatical structure. It emerges organically from a comprehensive and unified view of linguistic organization characterized in terms of cognitive pro- cessing. For this reason { will refer to the framework as cognitive grammar.’ Cognitive grammar is fundamentally at odds with the dominant trends in current linguistic theory. It speaks of imagery at a time when meaning is gen- erally pursued with apparatus derived from formal logic. It claims the insep- arability of syntax and semantics at a time when the status of syntax as an autonomous formal system is accepted by most theorists as established fact. It seeks an integrated account of the various facets of linguistic structure at a time when received wisdom calls for specialized theories dealing with numer- ‘ous separate domains. Finally, at a time when formalization and rigorous ar- gumentation are increasingly regarded as the sine qua non of viable linguistic inquiry, it suggests that these concerns must cede priority to a far more basic need: the conceptual clarification of fundamental issues. The vital problems of current linguistic theory are not of a formal nature, but lie instead at the level of conceptual foundations. Let me offer two brief illustrations. One is the problem of figurative language, including idioma- ticity, metaphor, and semantic extension. Figurative language is generally ig- nored in current theories; at best it is handled by special, ad hoc descriptive devices. Yet it would be hard to find anything more pervasive and fundamental in language, even (I maintain) in the domain of grammatical structure; if fig- urative language were systematically eliminated from our data base, little if any data would remain. We therefore need a way of conceiving and describing grammatical structure that accommodates figurative language as a natural, expected phenomenon rather than a special, problematic one. An adequate conceptual framework for linguistic analysis should view figurative language not as a problem, but as part of the solution. The second illustration pertains to the definition of basic and traditional ‘Boldface type is used for technical terms.2 Introduction and Overview grammatical concepts such as noun, verb, modifier, subject, and subor- dination. Every linguist relies on these concepts, but few if any are prepared to define them in an adequate, explicit, and revealing way. In explaining such terms to students, we normally provide some examples, list some typical properties, and, perhaps, offer a crude verbal definition that we know to be unsatisfactory. The linguistic community has not yet achieved general, work- able, deeply revelatory characterizations of these constructs in terms of more fundamental notions in the context of a coherent overall conceptual framework. I think it reasonable to expect a linguistic theory to resolve such basic issues in a simple, natural, and intuitively satisfying manner. Resolving them, I contend, is not a matter of simply formalizing current knowledge, extrapo- lating from existing models, or treading cautiously along well-worn paths. In- stead it requires a fresh perspective, an innovative approach permitting us to attack traditional problems in new and productive ways. Because cognitive grammar attempts to respond to this imperative, it demands of linguists a radical conceptual reorientation. It introduces a whole battery of new con- cepts, terms, and notations, which take some time to get accustomed to. It rejects a considerable number of prevalent theoretical assumptions, including certain tacit assumptions so deeply ingrained that their holders are barely con- scious of them and have difficulty conceiving of alternatives. Beyond this, cognitive grammar differs from established theories in its basic organizing principles: what it seeks to accomplish, the data it considers, the questions it asks, what it accepts as persuasive evidence, and so on. A concise and yet intelligible summary of the model is therefore difficult at best. A clear picture of how it analyzes grammatical structure can be pre- sented only through extensive elucidation of its basic perspective and the in- troduction of a considerable array of concepts and descriptive devices. Fur- ther complicating the task is the fact that cognitive grammar is not a finished or formalized theory; it is more realistically viewed as an evolving conceptual framework. As such it is subject to significant modification and will require extension, elaboration, and more explicit formulation. Nevertheless, its basic notions have crystallized into a relatively stable, highly integrated conceptual system whose general outlines can be sketched with fair precision. Central to its conception of grammatical structure are three closely related claims, which define the focal concern of this book: 1. Semantic structure is not universal; it is language-specific to a consider- able degree. Further, semantic structure is based on conventional imagery and is characterized relative to knowledge structures. 2. Grammar (or syntax) does not constitute an autonomous formal level of representation. Instead, grammar is symbolic in nature, consisting in the con- ventional symbolization of semantic structure.Introduction and Overview 3 3. There is no meaningful distinction between grammar and lexicon. Lexi- con, morphology, and syntax form a continuum of symbolic structures, which differ along various parameters but can be divided into separate components only arbitrarily. The specific import of these claims should gradually become apparent over the course of many chapters. The coherence, adequacy, and insight of the overall model must be judged in similar fashion. Earlier, more limited publications have offered only fragmentary glimpses of the total framework as I now envisage it. Of my own work, certain publica- tions (1975, 1976) can be regarded as precursors; others (1978, 1979, 1982b) reflect earlier formulations of the model; and still others (1981b, 1981c, 1982a, 1984, 1985) present it in its current form. In a number of papers and dissertations, my students have applied the model—with a great deal of indi- vidual creativity and insight—to descriptive problems in a variety of lan- guages: Eugene Casad has written on the Cora locational system (1982; Casad and Langacker 1985); Bruce Hawkins on English prepositions (1981, 1984); Susan Lindner on English verb-particle combinations (1981, 1982); David Tuggy on possessives and datives in Spanish (1980), and on the transitivity and morphology of Tetelcingo Nahuatl verbs (1981); and Claude Vandeloise on spatial terms in French (1984). Every work is a product of its times, even one that pretends to the status of a radical innovation. Despite my profound disagreement with what can fairly be called the “mainstream” of contemporary theory, I cannot begin to cite or properly credit the vast amount of ongoing linguistic research that I regard as basically compatible with cognitive grammar. The heterogeneity of that re- search should not be allowed to conceal a shared appreciation of the richness and unified character of language in all its many aspects and manifestations, and a common concern for naturalness in linguistic theory and description. This kindred spirit overshadows any points of conflict, and unites a variety of approaches and outlooks into a loose-knit but synergistic collective enterprise seeking a viable alternative to the prevailing theoretical trends. ‘“‘Natural grammar” would be a reasonable appellation for this overall enterprise. Exhaustive enumeration of either scholars or their writings is out of the question, so I must characterize the enterprise by citing representative in- stances, with all due apologies for the many that are not specifically men- tioned. One name that must be included is Dwight Bolinger, for many rea- sons, but most notably for his long-term commitment to elucidating the subtle detail of linguistic data and explicating the semantic value of grammatical morphemes and constructions (e.g. 1961, 1977). Chafe is noteworthy for his seminal efforts at constructing an alternative to the generative paradigm (1968, 1970), and Fillmore for his multifaceted contributions to semantics,4 Introduction and Overview especially in regard to deixis and “frames” (1975, 1977, 1982). Lakoff has long insisted on the need for a cognitively grounded approach to grammatical structure, the importance of naturalness in linguistic theory, the centrality of metaphor to language and our mental life, the critical nature of categoriza- tion, and the nonautonomy of grammar (1977, 1982, 1984a, 1984b, 1987; Lakoff and Thompson 1975; Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Lakoff and Kovecses 1983). Recent investigation of locative expressions, very significant in its own terms and convergent with the treatment of locatives in cognitive gram- mar, includes work by Brugman (1981), Herskovits (1982), and extensive contributions by Talmy (1975, 1977, 1978, 1983). Fauconnier’s important re- search (1985) on the correspondences between “mental spaces” is very much in the spirit of cognitive grammar's projected approach to the problems he considers. I greatly appreciate Moore and Carling’s views on the nonautonomy of linguistic structure (1982), Haiman’s work on iconicity and his comments ‘on encyclopedic semantics (1980, 1983), Hudson's efforts in developing “word grammar” (1984), and Wierzbicka’s subtle and imaginative studies of meaning (1972, 1975, 1985). There is a natural affinity between cognitive grammar and several contemporary schools of research, among them varia- tion theory (Bailey 1973) and the “Columbia school” (Diver 1982; Kirsner 1977, 1980; Garcia 1977; Garcia and Otheguy 1983). Especially significant is the vast program of research conducted by scholars in the “functional” tradi- tion spearheaded by Givén (1979, 1983, 1984), including DeLancey (1981), Kuno (1980), Hopper and Thompson (1980), and numerous others. If cog- nitive grammar provides a unified way of describing the complete spectrum of linguistic structures, functional studies allow us to determine and explain their relative prototypicality. Cognitive grammar is offered as an alternative to the generative tradition, and rejects many of its underlying assumptions. There are nevertheless a num- ber of parallels to be noted between this framework and developments in one or another version of generative theory. Cognitive grammar is not in any sig- nificant sense an outgrowth of generative semantics, but it does share with that conception a concern for dealing explicitly with meaning, and for provid- ing a unified account of grammar and lexicon (cf. Lakoff 1972; Langacker 1973b; Sadock 1980). Moreover, the trend in all versions of generative gram- mar has been towards greater emphasis on surface form and lesser reliance on transformational derivations from abstract underlying representations; some versions, for instance generalized phrase-structure grammar (Gazdar, Pullum, and Sag 1982), agree with cognitive grammar in doing away with such deriva- tions altogether. Various people have noticed a similarity between cognitive grammar and Montague grammar (Partee 1975; Cooper 1980), particularly in the latter’s association of a semantic rule with each syntactic rule; the two the- ories differ significantly in how this correlation is explicated, however, and