28. Symbolic structure of symbolic unit (simplex, complex)

Symbolic units can be simplex or complex in terms of their symbolic structure. For example, a simplex symbolic unit like a morpheme may have a complex semantic or phonological structure, but is simplex in terms of symbolic structure if it does not contain smaller symbolic units as subparts. The word dog and the plural marker -s are examples of simplex symbolic units. Complex units vary according to the level of complexity, from words (for example, dogs) and phrases (for example, John’s brown dog) to whole sentences (for example, Geoff kicked the dog). Langacker refers to complex symbolic units as constructions.

The repository of entrenched symbolic units is conceived by Langacker as a mental inventory. Yet, the contents of this inventory are not stored in a random way. The inventory is structured, and this structure lies in the relationships that hold between the units. For example, some units form subparts of other units which in turn form subparts of other units (for example, morphemes make up words and words make up phrases which in turn make up sentences). This set of interlinking and overlapping relationships is conceived as a network.

There are three kinds of relation that hold between members of the network: (i) symbolization–the symbolic links between semantic pole and phonological pole; (ii) categorization–for example, the link between the expressions rose and flower, given that rose is a member of the category flower; and (3) integration (the relation between parts of a complex symbolic structure like flower-s).

As a constraint on the model, Langacker (1987, pp. 53–54) proposes the content requirement. This requirement holds that the only structures permissible within the grammar of a language are (i) phonological, semantic and symbolic units; (ii) the relations that hold between them (described above); and (iii) schemas that represent these units. This requirement excludes abstract rules from the model. Instead, knowledge of linguistic patterns is conceived in terms of schemas.

29. Constructional approaches to grammar

Constructional approaches to grammar are based on the observation that the meaning of a whole utterance is more than a combination of the words it contains – the meaning of the whole is more than the meaning of the parts (Lakoff, 1977). There are (at least) four main varieties of constructional approach to grammar. The first is the theory called Construction Grammarthat was developed by Charles Fillmore, Paul Kay and their colleagues (e.g., Fillmore et al., 1988/this volume). While this theory is broadly generative in orientation, it set the scene for the development of cognitively realistic theories of construction grammar which adopted the central thesis of Fillmore and Kay’s approach. This thesis is the position that grammar can be modelled in terms of constructions rather than ‘words and rules’. In part, Construction Grammar is motivated by the fact that certain complex grammatical constructions (e.g. idioms like kick the bucket or throw in the towel) have meaning that cannot be predicted on the basis of their sub-parts and might therefore be ‘stored whole’ rather than ‘built from scratch’.

We also briefly introduce three other constructional approaches that are set firmly within the cognitive linguistics framework: (1) a model that we call Goldberg’s Construction Grammar, developed by Adele Goldberg (e.g., 1995, 2003/this volume); (2) Radical Construction Grammar, developed by William Croft (e.g., 1996/this volume, 2001); and (3) Embodied Construction Grammar, a recent approach developed by Benjamin Bergen and Nancy Chang (2005/this volume). It is worth pointing out that Cognitive Grammar could also be classified as a constructional approach to grammar because Langacker also adopts a constructional view of certain types of grammatical unit. However, Langacker defines the notion of a construction in a different way from these models.

Cognitive Grammar and constructional approaches to grammar share another feature in common. Both are inventory-based approaches to the study of grammar (Evans & Green, 2006). In other words, both types of approach view the grammar as an inventory of symbolic units rather than a system of rules or principles. This amounts to the claim that the language system does not work predominantly by ‘building’ structure (as in generative models of grammar) but by ‘storing’ it.