Cognitive Linguistics; Cognitive Grammar

3.1. History
3.2. Definitions; Characterizations
3.3. Cognitive Linguistics
3.4. Cognitive Grammar
3.5. Overvie
3.1.History
!hough "oam Choms#y is often $uote% as one hose or# contri&ute% to the foun%ation
of cognitive science' cognitive (inguistics as such gre out of i%eas that ere in %irect
o))osition to Choms#yan (inguistics in the 1*+,s. !hus' one &ranch of cognitive (inguistics'
construction grammar -.i((iam Croft' /ichae( !omase((o' Laura 0aun%a12 is %eve(o)e%
u)on a conce)tua( frameor# that' -12 e3)oses the f(as of (inguistic nativism' -22 shos
e3)erientia( (earning to &e at the center of the )rocess &y hich one in%ivi%ua( ac$uires a
certain (anguage' an% -32 a(most %enies the e3istence of synta3 -an%' thus' of 4yntactic
4tructures. 5ccor%ing to these ne )ositions' chi(%ren %o not first ac$uire syntactic
structures hich they then furnish ith various sets of ver&s' &ut rather they ac$uire the
in%ivi%ua( ver&s first an% then associate them ith some constructions' an% the
constructions for one ver& are not transfera&(e to other ver&s. 4uch scho(ars as Char(es
6i(more' 7ona(% Langac#er' an% Leonar% !a(my ere among the first to )ro)ose an%
agree that Choms#y as rong in assuming that meaning8the resu(t of inter)retation8is
)eri)hera( to the stu%y of (anguage' an% that synta3 functions accor%ing to )rinci)(es
in%e)en%ent of meaning9 on the contrary' meaning is centra( to the stu%y of (anguage an%
the stu%y of meaning is centra( to cognitive (inguistics; a(( (inguistic units are meaningfu(
an% the com)(e3 re(ationshi)s -in the human min%2 &eteen meaning an% form shou(%
form the &asis of (inguistic ana(ysis.
Other &ranches of the ne investigation fie(% %eve(o)e% in the 1*+,s' such as functiona(
(inguistics8%iscourse functiona( (inguistics an% functiona(:to)o(ogica( (inguistics::' a(( of
them a(so %efen%ing the )osition that (anguage shou(% &e stu%ie% ith reference to its
cognitive' e3)erientia(' an% socia( conte3ts' a(( of hich go &eyon% the (inguistic system as
such. 5s a(rea%y suggeste%' much or# as &eing %one -;iaget<s inf(uence2 in chi(%
(anguage ac$uisition; $uite a num&er of cognitive(y oriente% researchers -=(iza&eth >ates'
=ve C(ar#' Dan 4o&in12 stu%ie% ac$uisition em)irica((y an% sa the )ro&(em as one of
(earning' once again re?ecting Choms#y<s c(aim of the innateness of the (inguistic ca)acity.
@n the 1*A,s' frame semantics an% construction grammar -!a(my' Langac#er' La#off2
%eve(o) Oscar Ducrot<s an% Gi((es 6auconnier<s theory of menta( s)aces an% then that of
conce)tua( &(en%ing -ith /ar# !urner as an im)ortant e3)onent2; there are more an%
more a%herents in 5merica an% aroun% the or(%' the first conference of Cognitive
Linguistics is organize% in 1*A*' an% the first issue of the ?ourna( Cognitive Linguistics is
)u&(ishe% in 1**,; in the 2,,,s the num&er of cognitive (inguists can &e counte% &y the
hun%re%s' an% &i&(iogra)hica( (ists are a(rea%y overhe(ming.
3.2. Definitions; Characterizations
5s a centra( )art of cognitive science' cognitive (inguistics e3)an%e% to cover such various
areas as semantics' synta3' (ess of mor)ho(ogy an% )hono(ogy' some of historica( (inguistics
an%' o&vious(y' much )ragmatics' ith sty(istics as an emerging o)ening.
5 goo% summary of the inte((ectua( )ursuits )ractice% &y cognitive (inguists is given &y
Dir# Geeraerts in 0. Berschueren et a(s' e%s. -1**52 Han%&oo# of ;ragmatics' ).1129
C>ecause cognitive (inguistics sees (anguage as em&e%%e% in the overa(( cognitive
ca)acities of man' to)ics of s)ecia( interest for cognitive (inguistics inc(u%e9 the structura(
characteristics of natura( (anguage categorization -such as )rototy)ica(ity' systematic
)o(ysemy' cognitive mo%e(s' menta( imagery an% meta)hor2; the functiona( )rinci)(es of
(inguistic organization -such as iconicity an% natura(ness2; the conce)tua( interface
&eteen synta3 an% semantics - as e3)(ore% &y cognitive grammar an% construction
grammar2; the e3)erientia( an% )ragmatic &ac#groun% of (anguage:in:use; an% the
re(ationshi) &eteen (anguage an% thought' inc(u%ing $uestions a&out re(ativism an%
conce)tua( universa(s.D
Once again' the theoretica( assum)tions of generative (inguistics are regar%e% as
insufficient(y groun%e%9 a(( (inguistic units have meaningfu( semantic structures an%
(inguistic forms are %esigne% to e3)ress these semantic structures; thus cognitive (inguistics
ta#es (anguage creation an% %eve(o)ment' (anguage (earning an% usage as &est e3)(aine%
&y reference to human cognition in genera(' hich im)(ies that there is no autonomous
(inguistic facu(ty in the min%' an% that #no(e%ge of (anguage' in chi(%ren or a%u(ts' arises
out of (anguage use; (inguistic cognition occu)ies no s)ecia( )(ace among other forms of
cognition an% the )henomenon of (inguistic cognition is a unifie% one ithin consciousness'
so that &or%ers &eteen tra%itiona( (inguistic )rocesses -)hono(ogy' synta3' mor)ho(ogy'
semantics' )ragmatics2 can an% shou(% &e crosse%.
5n im)ortant )remise of cognitive (inguistics is that meaning is em&o%ie%9 the
e3)erientia( &asis for our un%erstan%ing is )rovi%e% &y our &o%ies through our organs of
)erce)tion an% senses9 u)E%on' nearEfar' overEun%er' har%Esoft1; hich is hy meta)hor
is regar%e% &y many -not ?ust La#off' 0ohnson' an% !urner2 as the main e3)ressive form
for the te3ture of meaning.
3.3. Cognitive Linguistics
7e(ate% as it is to )hi(oso)hy -here' as a matter of fact it has foun% its sources an%
ins)iration2' )sycho(ogy an% neuro:)sycho(ogy as e(( as artificia( inte((igence stu%ies'
cognitive (inguistics can as yet &e &est %escri&e% as a tren% or movement' assum)tions an%
metho%s resu(ting in $uite a num&er of %ifferent &ut convergent theories. 5s a(rea%y
suggeste%' one )remise is &ase% u)on the acce)tance of some genera( )rinci)(es that a))(y
to a(( as)ects of the (anguage; )revious forma( (inguistics -inc(u%ing Choms#y2' as is too
e(( #non' %e%icate% s)ecia( cha)ters an% s)ecific ty)es of effort to the stu%y of soun%'
or%s an% sentences' sentence structure an% organization' mor)ho(ogy' or %iscourse stu%y;
human min% a))ears here as mo%u(ar an% the com)onents of (anguage are %istinct an%
shou(% &e stu%ie% %istinct(y; for cognitive (inguists there is a common set of human
cognitive a&i(ities that gives &irth to (inguistic #no(e%ge as a ho(e. 5n% thus the cognitive
(inguistic a))roach may &e regar%e% as vertica( -across (ayers of (inguistic organization'
from to) to &ottom' through soun% structure' (e3icon' syntactic organizations12rather
than horizonta( -each (ayer in%ivi%ua((y an% on its on terms2.
5nother )remise is that the genera( )rinci)(es of (anguage shou(% &e stu%ie%
inter%isci)(inari(y' on the &asis of hatever information can &e foun% in other researches
a&out the &rain an% the min%; the human cognitive system is' in this vie' a unifie% one
an% (inguistic theories have got to o&serve these )rocesses an% structures (i#e any other
theories in )hi(oso)hy' &rain sciences' cognitive neuroscience an% so on; com)onents of any
mo%e( of investigation shou(% come from convergent evi%ence for the rea(ity &eing stu%ie%;
so genera(izations are use% to transcen% s)ecific cognitive %omains; conce)tua( &(en%ing'
for instance' im)(ies that the same )rinci)(es a))(y to grammatica( constructions' to
meta)hor' an% framing; such genera(izations are im)ortant in un%erstan%ing ho
(anguage re(ates to genera( cognition.
5n% the rea(ity a&ove is ma%e u) of (anguage an% the min%' hich e can su&stitute for
their near synonyms #no(e%ge an% consciousness; then #no(e%ge an% any or a(( sets of
menta( structures' an%' fina((y' the re(ationshi) &eteen #no(e%ge an% sign -(anguage is a
sign system %esigne% or %eve(o)e% for categorizing' storing' retrieving' an% )rocessing
information' hich is' of course' the com)utationa( meta)hor of min%' a meta)hor on
hich most mo%ern theories of cognition are &ui(t2. @n their turn signs are ta#en to &e
&inary structures' ana(yza&(e in terms of form an% content' hich are use% &y sen%ers to
)rocess certain enco%e% meanings' an% &y the receivers to %eco%e them; an% meaning or
signification is the resu(t of a cognitive contact &eteen an organism -ith a &o%y an% a
min%2 an% the environment.
Hoever' this tra%itiona( mo%e( for the e3change of information via enco%ing sen%er8
enco%e% message8%eco%ing receiver has come to &e cha((enge% &y the ne assum)tion
that (anguage is connotationa( rather than %enotationa(' an% so the conce)t of a consensua(
%omain &eteen s)ea#er an% (istener &ecame necessary; the s)ea#er<s an% (istener<s
&ac#groun% #no(e%ge affects coategorica( %ecisions an% the ac$uisition o f ne conce)ts
%uring this transfer of informationE#no(e%ge; the e3)erience of our environment'
moreover' affects the on:going )rocess of Co&?ectD recognition an% categorization; so hat
is necessary8an% cognitive scientists have agree% on this to &e so8is to ta#e into account
the e3)erientia((y share% evi%ence as a consesua((y acce)te% cognitive %omain of human
interactions. @n this vie' the com)utationa( meta)hor of the min% i(( %efine (anguage as a
s)ecific consensua( environmenta( %omain serving as a cognitive interface ith the or(%;
thus' an interface that is consensua(' environmenta(' high(y s)ecific' interactive' an%
cognitive; consensua( in that you are not a 0a)anese )hysicist ho acce)ts to go an%
a%%ress ' in 0a)anese' a 6rench au%ience of o(% (a%ies intereste% in feminism' nor that you
are a (istener ho ma#es a simi(ar(y unusua(; choice; the environment ou(% inc(u%e the
communication me%ium' the %omain e3)ertise' the ty)e of communicative co%e' etc.;
s)ecificity is a term e genera((y use to )oint to )articu(ars e cannot a(ays %efine;
interactive8in the sense that much of the meaning may &e )rovi%e% &y the co%er; an%
cognitive covering #no(e%ge an% consciousness.
@t may &e sim)(y notice% no that' in fact' cognitive (inguistics ta#es us &ac# to an o(%
tra%ition' in hich (anguage is seen as an instrument in the service of constructing an%
communicating meaning' &eing' at the same time' a )ossi&i(ity of (oo#ing at ho the min%
functions; so it is not on(y the cognition in the (anguage' &ut the cognition that (ies &ehin%
the (anguage that matters' &ecause it su))orts the %ynamics of (anguage use' (anguage
ac$uisition an% change. 5s Gi((es 6auconnier )uts it -in !. 0anssen an% G. 7e%e#er' e%s'
4co)e an% 6oun%ation of Cognitive Linguistics2' (anguage is on(y the ti) of a s)ectacu(ar
ice&erg' an% as e use (anguage in any form or conte3t' e unconscious(y %ra on vast
cognitive resources9 this C&ac#stage cognition inc(u%es vie )oints an% reference )oints'
figure:groun%E)rofi(e:&aseE(an%mar#:tra?ector organization' meta)horica(' ana(ogica(' an%
other ma))ings' i%ea(ize% mo%e(s' framing' construa(' menta( s)aces' counter)art
connections' ro(es' )rototy)es' metonymy' )o(ysemy' conce)tua( &(en%ing' fictive motion'
force %ynamics.D-).12
!hat is hy the metho%s of cognitive (inguistics ou(% have to &e a))(ie% to non:
(inguistic cognition as e(( as to the conte3tua( as)ects of (anguage use9 thus' (anguage in
conte3t' %iscourse' inferences %ran &y the )artici)ants in the e3change' assum)tions'
frames' etc.; in other or%s' %escri)tions an% ana(yses of fu(( an% com)(e3 conte3ts in
hich the energy of meaning construction can &e o&serve% an% eva(uate%; an% this can &e
)rimari(y %one &y noticing the com)(e3ity of this )rocess of meaning construction in
contrast ith the sim)(icity or &revity of the (inguistic e3)ression; the Cconsensua(D
mentione% a&ove )oints to a re(ative uniformity of the cognitive su&strate' hich a((os for
a high %egree of consistency in communication; (anguage use activates netor#s in the
&rain that are there not &y &irth' &ut are there as organize% &y cognition an% cu(ture' )(us
the )hysica( an% menta( conte3t; the fact that meaning is in the (anguage forms a(one is an
i((usion re(egate% to the )ast an% to fo(# theories.
/eaning is most(y in this C&ac#stage cognition'D hich8again8%oes not fo((o
%ifferent o)erations that a))(y to various (eve(s of (inguistic ana(ysis -semantics' synta3'
etc.2; rather' it o)erates uniform(y at a(( (eve(s; as an e3am)(e' meta)hor %oes not on(y
function at the rhetorica(' sty(istic' or figurative (eve(' &ut it cuts across -see the various
(ayers a&ove2 a(most a(( )ossi&(e (eve(s' from the sim)(est to the most so)histicate%; an% the
same goes for vie)oint organization' menta( s)ace connections' )rototy)es' schemas an%
frames' conce)tua( &(en%ing an% ana(ogy' force %ynamics' -Leonar% !a(my2 an% fictive
motion; ;hence the remar#a&(e genera(izations uncovere% &y cognitive (inguists across
(inguistic (eve(s' from mor)hemes an% or%s to sentence' its conte3t' an% ho(e %iscourse;
(inguistics is no (onger a num&er of various accounts a&out the %ifferent )ro)erties of one
or severa( (anguages' &ut a means8)ro&a&(y the most )oerfu( one8of o)ening a in%o
into genera( cognition.
3.4. Cognitive Grammar
.e have a(rea%y note% that in cognitive (inguistics the &oun%ary &eteen cognitive
a))roaches to semantics on one han% an% to grammar on the other is not c(ear(y %efine%'
meaning an% grammar &eing seen as com)(ementary an% inter%e)en%ent; a cognitive
a))roach to semantics means un%erstan%ing ho the (inguistic system8stu%ies &y
cognitive grammar8re(ates to our conce)tua( system; in its turn' this conce)tua( system
re(ates to em&o%ie% e3)erience. 4o cognitive grammar consists in the stu%y of the fu(( range
of units that ma#e u) a (anguage' from the (e3ica( to the grammatica(' on the &asis of the
assum)tion that the &asic grammatica( unit is a sym&o(ic unit' an% thus form cannot &e
stu%ie% in%e)en%ent(y of meaning' as in many tra%itiona( forma( grammars; one centra(
i%ea is that of a (e3icon:grammar continuum' in hich &oth a content or% an% a
grammatica( construction count as sym&o(ic units. @t seems o&vious that this sym&o(ic
)rinci)(e of -Langac#er<s2 cognitive grammar has its roots in the 4aussurean sym&o( ma%e
u) of a signifier -the )hono(ogica(Egra)hic )o(e2 an% a signifie% -the semantic )o(e2' &oth of
hich are )sycho(ogica( entities' in that they &e(ong ithin the menta( system of (inguistic
#no(e%ge.
5 secon% )rinci)(e of cognitive grammar ho(%s that a s)ea#er<s #no(e%ge of the
(anguage is forme% &y a&stracting the a&ove sym&o(ic units from instances of (anguage use;
thus' there seems to &e no %istinction &eteen com)etence -#no(e%ge of (anguage2 an%
)erformance -use of (anguage2' #no(e%ge of (anguage &eing #no(e%ge of ho (anguage is
use%.
@n !he Cognitive Linguistic 7ea%er -=$uino3' 2,,F2' Byvyan =vans' >en?amin G.
>ergen' an% 0org Hin#en -C!he Cognitive Linguistic =nter)rise9 5n OvervieD2 offer a
c(assification of the ma?or theories an% a))roaches to ty)es of cognitive grammars' i.e.
those that concentrate on (anguage as a system of #no(e%ge. 6irst in their (ist is Leonar%
!a(my<s mo%e( -!oar% a cognitive 4emantics' 2,,,2 hich' as his tit(e shos' )ro)oses a
%istinction &eteen the (e3ica( su&system of (anguage an% its grammatica( su&system9 the
(e3ica( su&system is ma%e u) of o)en:c(ass e(ements' hich are high(y rich in terms of
content' an% c(ose%:c(ass e(ements -grammatica(2' hich enco%e schematic or structura(
meaning. His re(evant e3am)(e of c(ose%:c(ass e(ements is that hi(e most (anguages have
nomina( inf(ections -%ua( or )(ura(2 to in%icate num&er' no nomina( inf(ections e3ist in any
(anguage for co(or' i.e. there are no grammatica( affi3es to in%icate &(ueness -the intricate
)ro&(em of $ua(ia2. @n !a(my<s vies' the grammatica( c(ose%:c(ass system )rovi%es the
&asis a&ove hich are (ai% the e(ements of the o)en:c(ass system; !a(my argues that' since
there is no (imit to human e3)erience' #no(e%ge an% un%erstan%ing' there is no inventory
of conce)ts e3)ressi&(e &y grammatica( forms' hi(e there is a restricte% inventory of
conce)ts e3)ressi&(e &y (e3ica( forms -a %ictionary2. !he grammatica(' c(ose%:c(ass e(ements
a))ear to c(uster in a schematic system' hich inc(u%es a configurationa( system' an
attentiona( system' a )ers)ectiva( system' an% a force:%ynamics system.
Cogniive grammar )ro)er is re)resente% &y 7ona(% Langac#er an% his to vo(umes
-)u&(ishe% in 1*A+ an% 1**12 of 6oun%ations of Cognitive Grammar. Langac#er fo((os
!a(my in arguing that grammatica(' c(ose%:c(ass units are inherent(y meaningfu(' i.e.
grammatica( categories' for instance' are e3)resse% &y meaningfu( mor)hemes or
constructions; #no(e%ge of (anguage is re)resente% in the s)ea#er<s min% as an inventory
of such sym&o(ic units' i.e. sym&o(ic entities that are store% -cognitive routine2 an% accesse%
as a ho(e' rather than &eing &ui(t com)ositiona((y &y the (anguage system; these units are
conventiona( an% are share% among the mem&ers of a s)eech community -some of them'
(i#e %og , are more conventiona(' i.e. share &y the $uasi:tota(ity of the mem&ers' hi(e
others are (ess conventiona(' i.e. restricte% to grou)s' categories or c(asses of mem&ers2.
6urther on' sym&o(ic units' (i#e the mor)heme for instance' can &e sim)(e3 in terms of
their sym&o(ic structures' hi(e others' (i#e or%s' )hrases or ho(e sentences' are com)(e3
constructions. 6ina((y' the sym&o(ic units are not store% in the min% in a ran%om ay' &ut
one<s ho(e inventory is structure% accor%ing to re(ationshi)s esta&(ishe% &eteen an%
among units; some units may &e su&)arts of other units -mor)hemes ma#e u) or%s'
or%s ma#e u) )hrases' )hrases an% or%s ma#e u) sentences2' so that there is a set of
inter(in#ing an% over(a))ing re(ationshi)s conceive% as netor#s; an% there are schemas in
terms of hich #no(e%ge of (inguistic )atterns is conceive%.
5 thir category is that of constructiona( a))roaches to grammar' re)resente%' first' &y
Char(es 6i((more' ;au( Gay' /ary Gatherine O<Connor' an% >ery( !. 5t#ins -1*+5:1**2'
see the e%ition of 6rames' 6ie(%s an% Contrasts' Hi((s%a(e' "09 =r(&aum' 1**22. !heir
)osition is' o&vious(y' that grammar can &e mo%e(e% in terms of constructions rather than
or%s an% ru(es; a grammatica( construction' (i#e #ic# the &uc#et' has a meaning or
meanings that cannot &e un%erstoo% or e3)(aine% on the &asis of their com)onents' so it
has to &e Cstore%D ho(e' rather than &ui(t ste) &y ste). 5nother mo%e( of construction
grammar is that )ro)ose% &y the same grou) of (inguists' ith the simi(ar )rinci)(e that
syntactic' semantic' )hono(ogica( an% )ragmatic #no(e%ge is re)resente% in constructions
-(i#e (et a(one2' here a(( the information is containe% in a sim)(e unifie% re)resentation.
5nother %eve(o)ment is )ro)ose% &y 5%e(e Go(%&erg -Constructions9 5 Construction
Grammar 5))roach to 5rgument 4tructure' Chicago9 Chicago I.;.' 1**52' ho' &y
o&vious(y focusing on ver& argument constructions' manages to )rove that sentence:(eve(
constructions e3hi&it the same sort of )henomena as other (inguistic units' inc(u%ing
)o(ysemy re(ations an% meta)hor e3tensions.
.i((iam Croft -7a%ica( Construction Grammar9 4yntactic !heory in !y)o(ogica(
;ers)ective' O3for% Iniversity ;ress' 2,,22 an% D. 5((an Cruse e3)(ore (inguistic ty)o(ogy
in terms of simi(arity an% %iversity; their aim is to %eve(o) a mo%e( of (anguage that
com&ines ty)o(ogica( insights ith a meaning:&ase% mo%e( of (anguage structure -see
su)ra2; instea% of grammatica( universa(s in a(( the or(%<s (anguages' hich assumes a
forma( universa( grammar' it is grammatica( %iversity that shou(% &e ta#en as a starting
)oint in &ui(%ing a mo%e( that accounts for ty)o(ogica( variation; rather than )(ace the
em)hasis on genera(ization' Croft sees a constructiona( a))roach that articu(ates the
ar&itrary an% the uni$ue; for the ra%ica( investigator' the on(y theoretica( e(ement is the
construction' hi(e or% c(asses' or% )atterns' an% grammatica( re(ations are
e)i)henomena(' an% thus synta3 %oes not e3ist.
5 fourth' even more recent mo%e( of construction grammar comes form >en?amin
>ergen' "ancy Chang an% others -see Construction Grammars9 Cognitive Groun%ing an%
!heoretica( =3tensions' 5mster%am9 0ohn >en?amins' 2,,52' ith an em)hasis on (anguage
)rocessing an% %escri&e% as em&o%ie% construction grammar' i.e. %eve(o)ing a forma(
(anguage to %escri&e' first' the constructions in a certain (anguage an%' secon%(y' ho these
constructions give rise to em&o%ie% conce)ts in %ynamic (anguage com)rehension.
6ina((y' =vans' >ergen an% Hin#en mention cognitive a))roaches to grammatica(ization'
i.e. the )rocess of (anguage change &y hich c(ose%:c(ass' grammatica( e(ements -see a&ove2
evo(ve from the o)en:c(ass system; grammatica(ization is seen as a )rocess that fa((s in the
fie(% of historica( (inguistics.
3.5. Overvie
5s a centra( )art of cognitive science' cognitive (inguistics offers &oth an un%erstan%ing of
other ty)es of investigations into the ac$uiring an% transmission of human (anguage an% a
ne un%erstan%ing of ho (anguage or#s. >y investigating the re(ationshi)s &eteen
(anguage' min%' an% socioJ)hysica( e3)erience' cognitive (inguistics re?ects former
%ominant a))roaches to (anguage -inc(u%ing transformationa(:generative grammar2 an%
)ro)oses a ne )ara%igm that can an% has &een a))(ie% to a i%e range of areas -non:
ver&a( communication' (anguage' teaching' an% other %isci)(ines in the humanities2.
5s )art of cognitive (inguistics' cognitive grammar %eve(o)s on the groun% of the
&i)o(arity of semantic structures an% )hono(ogica( structures that are sym&o(ica((y
connecte% ith each other; an% this' as Langac#er shos -C!he 7u(e Controversy9 5
Cognitive Grammar 5))roachD2 is a &asic organizationa( feature that corre(ates %irect(y
ith the )rimary function of the (anguage' i.e. that of a((oing meanings to &e sym&o(ize%
&y )hono(ogica( se$uences; &eing fu((y re%uci&(e to sym&o(ic re(ationshi)s' cognitive
grammar )osits that (e3icon' mor)ho(ogy' an% synta3 form a continuum that can &e
%escri&e% in terms of sym&o(ic structures; &eing re%uci&(e to form:meaning )airings'
grammar can &e sai% to &e fu((y sym&o(ic.
D75GO4 5B5D5"=@ :COGNITIVE SCIENCE AND THE HUMANITIES' =%.
KIniversitas LL@D' @aMi' 2,1,