Abstract
This article introduces Agentive Cognitive Construction Grammar, an emerging field that seeks to connect the linguistic system with speaker-meaning. The stated purpose is thus to tackle a pervasive disconnect in both cognitive linguistics and construction grammar, whereby the linguistic system (langue) and speaker selections (parole) are separated in the belief that language is essentially a mental process associated with the brain, and hence, separated from bodily experience. I contend this view by introducing a triadic model of construction (based on the Peircean sign) in which form and function are inextricably bound up with agency. This is possible because language is tethered to senses of movement and balance that connect experiences with the physical world with the mental. A major insight of the paper is that argument structure constructions partake of both linguistic and non-linguistic signs, which provides speakers with a means to verbalize their thoughts and distribute agency in specific events.
References
Barthes, Roland. 1985. L’aventure sémiologique. Paris: Éditions du seuil.Search in Google Scholar
Busso, Lucia, Florent Perek & Alessandro Lenci. 2021. Constructional associations trump lexical associations in processing valency coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 32(2). 287–318.10.1515/cog-2020-0050Search in Google Scholar
Collins, Peter. 2009. Modals and quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.10.1163/9789042029095Search in Google Scholar
Cox, Ryan. 2018. Knowing why. Mind & Language 33(2). 177–197.10.1111/mila.12173Search in Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990–present. Available online at: http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Search in Google Scholar
Eccleston, Christopher. 2015. Balance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2012. Elements of agency. In N. J. Enfield & Kockelman Paul (eds.), Distributed agency, 3–8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190457204.003.0001Search in Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2017. Distribution of agency. In N. J. Enfield & Kockelman Paul (eds.), Distributed agency, 9–14. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190457204.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Facchinetti, Roberta, Frank Palmer & Manfred Krug (eds.). 2003. Modality in contemporary English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110895339Search in Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994 [1985]. Mental spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139174220Search in Google Scholar
Gentsch, Antje & Simone Schütz-Bosbach. 2015. Agency and outcome prediction. In Patrick Haggard & Baruch Eitam (eds.), The sense of agency, 218–231. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190267278.003.0009Search in Google Scholar
Gibson, James J. 1966. The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Search in Google Scholar
Gibson, James J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2019. Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.2307/j.ctvc772nnSearch in Google Scholar
Hyman, John. 2015. Action, knowledge and will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198735779.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1989. Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In Almog Joseph, John Perry & Wettstein Howard (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, 481–563. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In H.-J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (eds.), Worlds, words, and contexts, 38–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and conditionals: New and revised perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234684.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2002. Deixis and subjectivity. In Brisard Frank (ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference (Cognitive Linguistics Research 21), 1–28. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110899801.1Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. Investigations in cognitive grammar (Cognitive Linguistics Research 42). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110214369Search in Google Scholar
Leclercq, Benoît & Ilse Depraetere. 2021. Making meaning with be able to: modality and actualisation. English Language and Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674320000489.Search in Google Scholar
Lorenzo, Guillermo & Emilio Rubiera. 2019. On Iconic-Discursive Representations: Do they bring us closer to a Humean Representational Mind?. Biosemiotics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-019-09365-9.Search in Google Scholar
Lupyan, G. & Bodo Winter. 2018. Language is more abstract than you think, or, why aren’t languages more iconic?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 373. 20170137.10.1098/rstb.2017.0137Search in Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Morey, Richard D., Michael P. Kaschak, Antonio M. Díez-Álamo, Arthur M. Glenberg, Rolf A. Zwaan, Daniël Lakens, Agustín Ibáñez, Adolfo García, Claudia Gianelli, John L. Jones, Julie Madden, Florencia Alifano, Benjamin Bergen, G Nicholas, Bloxsom, Daniel N. Bub, Zhenguang G. Cai, Christopher R. Chartier, Anjan Chatterjee, Erin Conwell, SusanJoshua D. Wagner CookDavis, Ellen R. K. Evers, Sandrine Girard, Derek Harter, Franziska Hartung, Eduar Herrera, Huettig Falk, Stacey Humphries, Marie Juanchich, Katharina Kühne, Shulan Lu, Tom Lynes, E Michael, J. Masson, Markus Ostarek, Sebastiaan Pessers, Rebecca Reglin, Sara Steegen, Erik D. Thiessen, Laura E. Thomas, Sean Trott, Joachim Vandekerckhove, Wolf Vanpaemel, Maria Vlachou, Kristina Williams & Noam Ziv-Crispel. 2021. A pre-registered, multi-lab non-replication of the action-sentence compatibility effect (ACE). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-01927-8.Search in Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1990. Modality and the English modals, 2nd edn. London & New York: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Peña Cervel, Sandra & Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez. 2009. The metonymic and metaphoric grounding of two image-schema transformations. In Klaus-Uwe Panther, Linda L. Thornburg & Antonio Barcelona (eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar, 339–362. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/hcp.25.21penSearch in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols, C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.]Search in Google Scholar
Perek, F. & Adele E. Goldberg. 2017. Linguistic generalization on the basis of function and constraints on the basis of statistical preemption. Cognition 168. 276–293.10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.019Search in Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sydney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Radvansky, Gabriel A. & Jeffrey M. Zacks. 2014. Event cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199898138.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Stawarska, Beata. 2015. Saussure’s philosophy of language as phenomenology: Undoing the doctrine of the Course in General Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190213022.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1982. Root and epistemic modals: Causality in two worlds. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 8. 484–507.10.3765/bls.v8i0.2049Search in Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620904Search in Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12. 49–100.10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2015. A constructionist approach to the teaching of phrasal verbs. English Today 31(3). 46–58.10.1017/S0266078415000255Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2016. Working out multiword verbs within an applied cognitive construction grammar framework. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 5(1). 1–32.10.1515/eujal-2016-0003Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2018a. Constructions as triads of form, function and agency: An agentive cognitive construction grammar analysis of English modals. Cognitive Semantics 4(1). 1–38.10.1163/23526416-00401001Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2018b. Exploring attachment patterns between multi-word verbs and argument structure constructions. Lingua 209. 21–43.10.1016/j.lingua.2018.04.001Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2019. Taming English modals: How a Construction Grammar approach helps to understand modal verbs. English Today 35(2). 50–57.10.1017/S0266078418000081Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2020. On English modals, embodiment and argument structure: Response to Fong. English Today (first view). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078420000437.Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2021a. Applied Cognitive Construction Grammar: A cognitive guide to the teaching of phrasal verbs. Medellín: Self-published monograph.Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2021b. Agentive Cognitive Construction Grammar: Exploring the Continuity between environment, body, mind, and language. Medellín: Self-published monograph.Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2021c. The cognition of caused-motion events in Spanish and German: An agentive cognitive construction grammar analysis. Australian Journal of Linguistics 41(1). 33–65.10.1080/07268602.2021.1888279Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2022a. A radical embodied characterization of German modals. Cognitive Semantics. Accepted for publication.Search in Google Scholar
Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2022b. Metaphors are embodied otherwise they would not be metaphors. Linguistics Vanguard. Accepted for publication.10.1515/lingvan-2019-0083Search in Google Scholar
Wagner, Johannes. 2018. Multilingual and multimodal interactions. Applied Linguistics 39(1). 99–107.10.1093/applin/amx058Search in Google Scholar
Wärnsby, Anna. 2016. On the adequacy of a constructionist approach to modality. Constructions and Frames 8(1). 40–53.10.1075/cf.8.1.03warSearch in Google Scholar
Williams, Helen L., Martin A. Conway & Alan D. Baddeley. 2008. The boundaries of episodic memories. In Thomas F. Shipley & Jeffrey M. Zacks (eds.), Understanding events: From perception to action, 589–616. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195188370.003.0024Search in Google Scholar
Zacks, Jeffrey M. 2004. Using movement and intentions to understand simple events. Cognitive Science 28. 979–1008.10.1207/s15516709cog2806_5Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
