Abstract
The paper combines the assumptions of Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar, Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar and Dependency Grammar, arguing for an analysis of clauses as multi-dimensional networks. The semantic pole of each dimension is a network of semantic relations, which stands in correspondence to formal aspects of clause structure such as case morphology, word order and prosody. The proposed approach is applied to the study of core phenomena of Hungarian. The D1 dimension of Hungarian finite clauses is concerned with frame semantic (“thematic”) relations and their coding (primarily by morphology) on the formal side. The D2 and D3 dimensions pertain to speech function and contextualization, respectively, with the semantic relations marked by word order and prosody. It is hoped that the proposed account of Hungarian may inform both cross-linguistic comparisons and theory development in cognitive linguistics.
Funding statement: The research behind this paper was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship awarded by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office (NKFI) of Hungary, under project number PD 120934. Further support was received from the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA), under project number K 100717, “Research in functional cognitive linguistics” (a project led by Gábor Tolcsvai Nagy).
Acknowledgments
The comments and suggestions of Ronald Langacker, Lachlan Mackenzie and Péter Pelyvás are gratefully acknowledged. All remaining errors are my own.
References
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Winfrid Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology, 329–394. Texas: University of Texas Press.Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1994. Speech act classification, language typology and cognition. In Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Foundations of speech act theory: Philosophical and linguistic perspectives, 460–477. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Debusmann, Ralph. 2006. Extensible dependency grammar: A modular grammar formalism based on multigraph description. Universität des Saarlandes dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55(1). 59–138.10.1017/CBO9780511611896Search in Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619.10.1353/lan.1991.0021Search in Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2). 245–273.10.1353/lan.1998.0211Search in Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2007. Topic and focus: Two structural positions associated with logical functions in the left periphery of the Hungarian sentence. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6. 69–81.Search in Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (eds.), Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin, 111–137.Search in Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1992. Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511597817Search in Google Scholar
Garvin, Paul (ed.). 1964. A Prague School reader on esthetics, literary structure, and style. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts, 41–58. New York, NY: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611834Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd edn. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar, 4th edn. Revised by Christian Matthiessen. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203783771Search in Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2007. Language networks. The new word grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Imrényi, András. 2009. Toward a unified functional account of structural focus and negation in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 56. 342–374.10.1556/ALing.56.2009.4.1Search in Google Scholar
Imrényi, András. 2012. Inversion in English and Hungarian: Comparison from a cognitive perspective. In Chris Hart (ed.), Selected papers from UK-CLA meetings, Vol. 1, 209–228. Hertfordshire, UK: UK Cognitive Linguistics Association.Search in Google Scholar
Imrényi, András. 2013. A magyar mondat viszonyhálózati modellje [A relational network model of Hungarian sentences]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Search in Google Scholar
Imrényi, András. 2015. From mutual dependency to multiple dimensions: Remarks on the DG analysis of “functional heads” in Hungarian. Proceedings of the third international conference on dependency linguistics (Depling 2015), 151–160. Uppsala, Sweden, 24–26 August, 2015.Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Keszler, Borbála (ed.). 2000. Magyar grammatika [Hungarian grammar]. Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó.Search in Google Scholar
Kicska, Emil. 1891. Hangsúly és szórend. [Stress and word order]. Magyar Nyelvőr 20. 292–298.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1997. Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics 8(1). 1–32.10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.1Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Conceptual grouping and constituency. In Langacker, Ronald W. (eds.), Grammar and conceptualization, 147–170. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110800524Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2001a. Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12. 143–188.10.1515/cogl.12.2.143Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2001b. Topic, subject, and possessor. In Hanne Gram Simonsen & Rolf Theil Endresen (eds.), A cognitive approach to the verb. Morphological and constructional perspectives, 11–48. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2002. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar, 2nd edn. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110857733Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2005. Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. Sandra Peña Cervel (eds.), Cognitive linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction, 101–162. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110214369Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2012. Substrate, system, and expression: Aspects of the functional organization of English finite clauses. In Mario Brdar, Ida Raffaelli & Milena Žic Fuchs (eds.), Cognitive linguistics between universality and variation, 3–52. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2015. Descriptive and discursive organization in cognitive grammar. In Jocelyne Daems, Eline Zenner, Kris Heylen, Dirk Speelman & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Change of paradigms – new paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics, 205–218. (Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 31). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110435597-013Search in Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Sandra Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C. N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 458–489. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor. 1988. Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Search in Google Scholar
Osborne, Timothy & Thomas Gross. 2012. Constructions are catenae: Construction grammar meets dependency grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 23(1). 165–216.10.1515/cog-2012-0006Search in Google Scholar
Pelyvás, Péter. 2006. Subjectification in (expressions of) epistemic modality and the development of the grounding predication. In Angeliki Athanasiadou, Costas Canakis & Bert Cornillie (eds.), Subjectification. Various paths to subjectivity, 121–150. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1969. Guess who? In Robert Binnick, Alice Davison, Georgia Green & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Papers from the 5th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 252–286. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Search in Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Search in Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1998. Introduction. A cognitive-functional perspective on language structure. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language, vii–xxiii. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Verschueren, Jeff. 1999. Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1995. Adjectives vs. verbs: The iconicity of part-of-speech membership. In M. E. Landsberg (ed.), Syntactic iconicity and linguistic freezes, 223–245. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110882926.223Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
