dickhudson.comdickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/cogling.d… · web view[cognitive...

[Cognitive Linguistics (2012, 23, 219-30)]

Richard Hudson. An Introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge: C ambridge

University Press. 2010, 348 pp. Paperback, ISBN 9780521721646.

Reviewed by Chunshan Xu 1 and Haitao Liu 2

1. Department of Foreign Language, Anhui University of Architecture, China.

E-mail: ⟨[email protected]⟩2. School of International Studies, Zhejiang University, China.

E-mail: ⟨[email protected]⟩An Introduction to Word Grammar, which is Richard Hudson’s most recent

work, proposes a distinctive cognitive linguistic theory integrating modern

cognitive sciences and dependency grammar. This book is arranged into three

parts, respectively devoted to its theoretical foundation in cognitive sciences,

Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

Authenticated

Download Date | 11/23/15 10:04 AM222 Book reviews Cognitive Linguistics 23–1 (2012)

the cognitive interpretations of language in general and of English in p articular.

This book is logically coherent and thoughtfully structured. Each part of this

book serves as the theoretical basis upon which the next part is unfolded while

directions and summaries provided throughout the whole book help readers to

link the corresponding sections in different parts into a unified “network”.

The author takes a cognitive stand in linguistic study, which implies a close

relation between theories of cognitive sciences and theories of language — a

good reason why the first part is entitled How the mind works. Before dwelling

on Word Grammar, the author first introduces the cognitive theories on which

Word Grammar is built, a thoughtful arrangement so far neglected in many

works of cognitive linguistics. It is generally acknowledged in the field of

c ognitive linguistics that language is part of cognition, subjecting itself to

c ognitive mechanism. Hence, cognitive linguistic inquiry should start with the

question — what cognition is. The author’s answer to this question is that cog-

nition includes general knowledge. Thinking can best be understood in terms

of representational structures in the mind and computational procedures that

operate on those structures, which is the central hypothesis of cognitive s cience

(Thagard, 2005). In other words, cognitive sciences concern the acquisition,

presentation and the working mechanism of this knowledge as well as its rela-

tion with non-knowledge experiences. Addressing these questions is a neces-

sary preparation for the establishment of a cognitive linguistic theory because,

Hudson believes, grammar, which is undoubtedly a part of cognition, must be

acquired, presented and used in the same way as general knowledge.

The author holds that general knowledge is a conceptual network, a well-

established concept of numerous cognitive theories that answers two ques-

tions: what knowledge is and how it is presented, or organized. A conceptual

network is composed of nodes — the concepts, and edges — the relations among

nodes. The conceptual network is similar to symbolic-network models such as

hierarchical networks and spreading activation networks. However, it is obvious

at the same time that the author’s model also has a flavor of connectionism, as

can be clearly seen in Hudson’s definition of concept. According to Hudson, a

concept is nothing but its connections with other nodes and therefore, “the

network is firmly ‘anchored’ to external units such as perceptual categories”

(Hudson, 2007: 18), which is a typically distributed point of view. Hudson’s

model borrows a lot from both symbolic network model and distributed

n etwork model. The organization is hierarchical, the working mechanism is

spreading-activation and the concepts are stored and processed in a distributed

and parallel manner. In short, the model of the conceptual network has solid

theoretical foundations in cognitive disciplines.

In a conceptual network, the nodes of concepts are defined by features, or the

relations with other nodes, and these relations ultimately link to non-concept

nodes such as percepts, emotions and motor-skills. Hudson distinguishes be-


Authenticated

Download Date | 11/23/15 10:04 AMBook reviews Cognitive Linguistics 23–1 (2012) 223

tween two types of relations: primitive relations and relational concepts. The

latter are concept nodes linking two other concept nodes via two primitive rela-

tions: argument and value. Since conceptual relations far outnumber the prim-

itive relations, these two primitive relations play vital roles. In a conceptual

network, the ways nodes are connected (organized) constitute the very knowl-

edge. To put it in another way, knowledge and organization of knowledge

c annot be distinctly differentiated. Another vital primitive relation is the Isa

relation, which leads to the hierarchical structure of the conceptual network.

Without this relation, there is no possibility for generalization — the fundamen-

tal operation of cognition, let alone the methodic structure of our knowledge,

which contributes significantly to the high efficiency in information process -

ing. In other words, this primitive relation is vital for the establishment of the

entire knowledge system where taxonomy is omnipresent. Owing to the Isa

relation, inheritance, another important cognitive operation, is possible, which

means that the feature links of a super node can be inherited, via Isa relations,

by its sub nodes. That is, all these features are stored as links to only one super

node, instead of links to each of the sub nodes, which is undoubtedly a great

advantage in terms of efficiency. In brief, since a node is itself nothing but the

converging point of links, knowledge is the structure of the entire conceptual

network.

Then how is the knowledge acquired? — another hot issue in cognitive sci-

ences. In terms of conceptual networks, this question can be reformulated as

following: how a specific network structure is formed. Hudson believes that

it results from the creation of new nodes, the creation of new links, and the

induction, or generalizations, that initially start with nothing but the percepts,

motor skills and feelings. When human beings encounter a new entity, they

build, for this entity, a new node in mind with links for important perceivable

features. Because of the novelty of this exemplar node, human attention will

keep it at a high activation level so that it will not quickly disappear. As a

r esult, next time when the same entity appears, this node can quickly be acti-

vated, transforming into a type node. For example, a node for robin with such

features as its profile, wing, and beak can be established in this way. If more

entities that share some features occur, nodes sharing these features will be

built. A robin, a sparrow and a nightingale all have features such as wing and

beak; therefore, the c orresponding nodes all link to these two features. As the

result of spreading activation, every time one such node is activated, other

nodes, owing to their shared features, are also activated. Repetition brings

about frequency effects, and thus, there forms a “tightly-knit little network

with each of the exemplar nodes linked to each of the properties” (85). This

background activation is circulated ‘off-line’ and can be spotted by the mind to

build a new node connected, via Isa relations, to existing nodes of this little

network. This mechanism is, as we can see, rather similar to the well-known


Authenticated


process of implicit learning. This process can be recycled again and again to

build nodes at different levels, or rather, generalizations at different levels.

First, the concepts for robin, sparrow and nightingale are built through in-

duction, then, on this basis, these nodes are recycled to establish an even

more general concept node. N evertheless, all the concepts are rooted in

concrete and specific experiences, a fundamental view of cognitive linguis-

tics. In other words, a concept, however abstract it may be, comes from

experiences.

Then, Hudson addresses the question of how to use the knowledge. Actually,

how to use knowledge means how to exploit the conceptual network to com-

prehend new experiences, which involves, according to Hudson, node build-

ing, attention, spreading activation, binding and best matching. That is, when a

new entity occurs, a node is built, together with its perceivable features. At the

same time, the activation randomly spreads from the features and finally con -

verges on the node which is currently most activated. Then the new node is

bound to the target node and the features of the target node are inherited. In this

way, we can make use of existing knowledge to understand the present situa-

tion. This process unfolds through the network, in the form of activation. This

model conforms to the physiological structure of the brain, as we know of it so

far.

Here are two noteworthy points. First, different from Hudson’s model

a dvanced in Language Networks: a new word grammar, this model attaches

much importance to attention. In fact, every new node can have numerous

feature links which on the one hand may well overwhelm the processing

c apacity of the brain and, on the other hand, will dramatically reduce the

efficiency of the whole system since not all these features are useful in

information processing. Similarly, since the target node may also link to

numerous other nodes, it is impossible and inefficient that all the features

should be inherited, or, activated. However, in this model, attention, which

serves as a filter allowing only significant input stimuli and output features

when new experiences are processed, is exploited to amend these two

flaws. Apparently, this new model integrates both bottom-up processing

and top-down processing while the one proposed in Language Networks is

a bottom-up one.

Secondly, the notion of ‘choice set’ is introduced into this new model, which

is fairly significant in the operation of overriding and multi-inheritance. Over-

riding is an important mechanism, endowing the conceptual network model

with considerable robustness because binding between a new node and the

target node, owing to this mechanism, doesn’t necessarily entail a 100 percent

matching. Exceptions, virtually unavoidable in all categories, have brought

troubles to classic category theories, which mostly hold a clear-cut definition

as the necessary basis for any concept. However, with the overriding mecha-


Authenticated


nism, exceptions can be satisfactorily accommodated within the framework

of conceptual network, since an exemplar node in a conceptual network is

a llowed to possess features, of course not too many, contradicting those of the

existing node to which it is to bind, as long as the matching between them is

the maximum within the entire network. Hudson calls it the best global candi-

date. In this case, there should be a mechanism to avoid the possible inheri-

tance of conflicting features. The author, to address this issue, puts forward the

concept of choice set: a set of inter-inhibiting alternatives. According to neuron

network theory, the links between nodes can be excitatory or inhibitory con-

nections (Solso et al., 2004: 142). We can regard the links within a choice set

as inhibitory. Rather similar to the famous prototype theory, this model is able

to cope with exceptional cases, and what’s more, it is potentially capable of

providing a computational model to process peripheral category members.

Apart from overriding, choice set also plays a vital role in multiple inheritance,

which is a pervasive phenomenon of one node inheriting features from more

than one super node and hence has the same risk of inheriting conflicting fea -

tures as overriding does.

In the first part, the author presents a detailed introduction of the cognitive

foundation of Word Grammar — conceptual network. The important ideas of

this theory, such as Isa relation, taxonomy, inheritance, frequency e ffect, spread-

ing activation, attention, etc., are well established in cognitive sciences. As has

been mentioned, the model of conceptual network is based upon both the sym-

bolic network and the distributed network (or connectionist network), which

are two important models in cognitive sciences. Of the numerous theories of

cognitive linguistics, not many bear so close a relation with modern cognitive

sciences. In brief, one of the striking features of this theory is its i ntimate rela-

tion with contemporary cognitive sciences, especially cognitive psychology.

The author devotes the entire first part to a convincing interpretation of the

organization, acquisition and employment of knowledge, which serves as the

theoretical preparation for the next topic: language knowledge. Since Word

Grammar is based on cognitive psychology, it is possible to test this theory

with empirical approaches, which is also an intriguing feature of Word Gram-

mar. In addition, such an a rrangement not only exhibits a solid foundation of

cognitive sciences but also paves a smooth way for the readers to go gradually

from general theory to specific topics, another feature still wanting in most

works of cognitive l inguistics.

The second part, entitled How Language Works, accounts for more than half

of the whole book — a reasonable arrangement considering the fact that this

book is concerned with cognitive linguistics. Lakoff (1990) argues that cogni-

tive commitment is a defining feature of cognitive linguistics, which is a com -

mitment to accord one’s account of human language with what is generally

known about the mind and the brain, from other disciplines as well as our own.


Authenticated


In other words, cognitive linguistics holds that language, which is not autono-

mous, subjects itself to the general cognition mechanism of human b eings: a

fundamental disagreement with Generative grammar. Therefore, a cognitive

linguistic theory narrows the questions raised at the very beginning of this

book down to the following: the presentation (organization) of linguistic

knowledge, the acquisition of this knowledge, the use of this knowledge and

the relation between linguistic knowledge and non-linguistic knowledge. Word

Grammar adopts the approaches of dependency grammar, which concerns the

links between words. Apparently, dependency theory is in accordance with the

network idea. Linguistic knowledge, undoubtedly a part of general cognition,

must be a part of the conceptual network. According to Word Grammar, lin-

guistic knowledge consists in the links among the nodes in a language network

and the links between language network and the rest of the human mind. Surely

enough, the nodes in this language network must be concepts. Nevertheless,

these concepts are not the traditional ones that we usually identify as meanings

of words. Hudson points out that a concept in fact is the result of generaliza-

tion. In this sense, with its meaning left out, a word, which is a type in our

mind, must be a concept itself. For example, in this sentence I have a small

dog, he has two big dogs, there are two tokens of the word type have and two

tokens of dog. Both dog and have, as two words in our mind, are clearly inde-

pendent of any text and situation and therefore are the generalizations, or con-

cepts, abstracted from experience.

Now that words themselves are concepts, they may well be treated as nodes

in conceptual networks. Actually, that is why this theory is named Word Gram-

mar. With words treated as nodes and the rest of linguistic knowledge as links,

of which lexical meaning is one, the outline of Word Grammar is drawn. With

dog as an example, Hudson illustrates that the meaning of dog is one of

such features as spelling, word class, pronunciation, etc, which define a word

node. Of course, some of these features do not belong to linguistic knowledge,

a fact revealing the close relation between linguistic nodes and non-linguistic

nodes.

The nodes of the language network are also structured in terms of

t axonomy — the basic structuring principle of conceptual network. In other

words, the numerous word nodes form a hierarchy via Isa relation for the sake

of economy and efficiency. According to Word Grammar, inflections, which

are results of generalization and have their own feature links, also stand as

concepts. Lexemes and inflections are both the sub nodes of word, so words are

divided into lexemes and inflections, which can be further divided into sub -

types, with each level reflecting a certain degree of generalization. In this way,

the important operation of inheritance and overriding can run smoothly in the

language network. For example, books Isa book (a sub node of noun) and

p lural (a sub node of inflection) and thus can multi-inherit their features. Obvi-


Authenticated


ously, linguistic knowledge lies in the links, or rather, the features, of nodes in

this network.

As mentioned above, some of these features such as word-class and syn-

tactic valence are within the scope of linguistic knowledge, i.e. the links

within the language network. At the same time, many features such as the

links to meaning, spelling, pronunciation and speaker (an important factor of

context), etc., indicate the close relations between language network and the

rest of our mind. To recapitulate, Word Grammar implies that there is no

clear-cut division between linguistic knowledge and general knowledge, which

closely relate to each other in the conceptual network. This is a stand entirely

coherent with the fundamental tenet of cognitive linguistics — language is part

of cognition.

Word Grammar presents network analyses in terms of morphology, syntax,

semantics, etc. Of course, from a network point of view, they are not separate

modules but embedded and interrelated in the whole network. The morpho-

logical analysis is mainly unfolded in terms of inflection and derivation, both

of which can be well dealt with from a network perspective. For instance,

walks is linked to walk via Isa relation, while walker is linked to walk via

agent-noun relation, a lexical relation instead of a hierarchical relation. Never-

theless, when it comes to word forms, the two pairs both exhibit a variant

r elation. Some irregular morphological variations are treated as sublexemes in

Word Grammar. Hudson (2007) presented a more detailed analysis of mor-

phology, to which those who are interested in morphology can refer. With

d ependency grammar as the theoretic foundation, Word Grammar reduces syn-

tax to the dependencies among words. In Word Grammar, syntactic rules are

the valences, lying in words. Every word (including inflections) has its own

valence, or, dependency pattern, which is either attached directly to words

themselves as features or inherited indirectly from super nodes. There are

two types of valence: parent-valence and dependent-valence. The grammati-

cality of a sentence then depends on whether valences carried by words in

this sentence can be filled. As Hudson puts it, word tokens are grammatical

if their properties are compatible with all the properties that they should

i nherit from the grammar. Since the valence of noun demands a parent, a word

in a sentence, if it is a noun, should satisfy this valence. Closely related with

valence is another important feature at the syntactic level: the landmark rela-

tion, which decides the word order in a sentence. The cognitive foundation of

this feature is the figure /ground theory advanced by Gestalt psychologists

(Koffka, 1935) and the subsequent landmark theory (Langacker, 2000). In

Word Grammar, the valence feature and landmark feature merge into a com-

plex feature, that is, the landmark feature depends on the valence feature. The

dependency between two words normally fixes their serial order with the

p arent, which is more prominent than the dependent, serving as the landmark.


Authenticated


For example, an o bject-valence link between two words entails a before-

landmark link between them. Certainly, exceptions are possible as the result

of the overriding mechanism. Hudson advances the Best Landmark Principle

to exclude tangled dependencies and chaotic sentential order. In this sense,

Word Grammar seems to be potentially able to provide a formal model as TG

grammar does.

Hudson holds that ‘meaning’, which he divides into social meaning and

r eferential meaning, is a relation. With this as a starting point, Hudson re-

spectively probes, from a network perspective, sense and referent, anaphora,

sentence meaning and social meaning. The network presentation of the differ-

entiation between referent and sense lays the foundation on which anaphora

and sentence meaning are explored. Hudson distinguishes between identity-of-

reference and identity-of-sense anaphora and gives a detailed account of mean-

ing and syntax, that is, how the meanings of words combine to produce the

compositional meaning of a sentence or a phrase.

Word grammar not only presents a network picture of linguistic knowledge

organized in taxonomy, but also gives a network account of the acquisition and

use of linguistic knowledge, which involves again those terms such as activa-

tion, spreading, binding and attention. For instance, learning a new word in-

volves the building of an exemplar node with its feature links, the retention of

high activation due to novelty and attention, and the survival of the new node

until it becomes a type when the same word appears again. Learning syntax is

a little more complicated, as it involves building nodes for syntactic schemas

derived from experiences, an inductive process similar to the one elaborated in

the first part. Apparently, learning syntax is a process of generalization and can

occur with different degree of generalization. With regard to using linguistic

knowledge, inheritance again plays an important role. For example, if one

p erson wants to say cat, activation spreads from the meaning of cat while his

attention keeps the nodes concerning pronunciation at a high activation level.

Consequently, the nodes connected to cat via its pronunciation feature receives

a double dose of activation and become the global best candidate. Hudson

calls this process ‘attention channeled activation’. As can be seen, the work-

ing and learning of linguistic knowledge can be interpreted in a network

manner, totally in accordance with the operation of the conceptual network

in general.

In this part, Hudson illustrates that everything related with language can be

described in terms of nodes and links. Virtually every operation of language,

according to Word Grammar, is a network operation. In addition, treating words

as the central elements of grammar brings one admirable advantage. That is,

with the rich links that a node is allowed, Word Grammar presents the possibil-

ity of dealing with all important branches of synchronic linguistics (such as

phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and social linguistics)


Authenticated


within one unified theoretical framework — a significant achievement in the

field of theoretical linguistics, especially cognitive linguistics. Different from

other cognitive linguistic theories (Langacker, 2000; Goldberg, 1995; Croft,

2001), which are profoundly influenced by Gestalt psychology, Word Gram -

mar builds itself mainly upon modern cognitive sciences, especially cognitive

psychology, and inevitably, as cognitive psychology does, focuses on the orga-

nization and operating mechanism of linguistic knowledge, rather than abstract

schemes. Still owing to this feature, Word Grammar is potentially able to pro-

cess real language materials and to serve as an important model in such fields

as NLP. Modern computational linguistics attaches increasing importance to

the application of complex features to the models of language processing sys-

tems because researchers have realized the extent to which language opera-

tions depend on multiple factors, linguistic or non-linguistic. Word Grammar

obviously embraces this trend — the feature links of word nodes are by nature

complex features. That is, the multiple links of word nodes can endow sen-

tence parsing with whatever level of granularity as is needed. A sentence parser

can be equipped with different amounts of feature links to reap parsing results

at different granularity levels. Furthermore, the mechanism of overriding and

global best matching can make for a robust sentence parser. For example, the

feature links may well be endowed with different weights according to their

roles in composing an acceptable sentence (of course how to obtain those

weights is still a problem), then, instead of a simple acceptance or rejection, the

parser can compute and output a degree of acceptability by calculating the

weight of those overridden or inherited features. In short, Word G rammar

can be applied to the analysis of real corpora and contribute significantly to

the establishment of computational models in Natural Language Processing,

which is another distinctive feature so far lacking in many cognitive linguistic

theories.

In this part, Hudson draws a network picture of linguistic knowledge, which

is nothing but nodes and links. Though languages may be different, the struc-

turing principles and working mechanism are the same. Therefore, the differ-

ences among languages consist in the differences of nodes and links that

c ompose the language network. At the very beginning of the third part — How

English Works, Hudson describes English linguistics as the study of English

based on the ideas and methods of the ‘general linguistics’ that has pushed

forward our understanding of how language works. This shows that the third

part will be an illustration of how the general theory of Word Grammar is

e mbodied in a specific language like English.

It is reasonable to believe that the operations of the language network such

as activation, binding, inheritance, etc, are the same for different languages,

since the working mechanism must be the same. Owing to this reason, the third

part, which is the shortest one in this book, addresses only two major issues:


Authenticated


English words and English syntax. The acquisition and use of English is not

touched because the difference among languages mainly lies in the nodes and

links, not the working mechanism.

As explained above, the Isa relation makes a unique contribution to the

t axonomic structure and the ensuing high efficiency of a conceptual network.

Word Grammar centers on words, so the taxonomy of words comes as the first

topic. Word Grammar categorizes English words into noun, verb, adjective,

preposition, adverb and conjunction. Determiners constitute a subtype of pro-

noun, which is itself a subtype of noun b ecause determiners such as any and

this share features with pronouns, which themselves in turn resembles nouns in

some aspects. The overriding mechanism can well cope with the existing con-

flicting features among determiners, pronouns and nouns. Besides lexemes,

inflections are also treated as concepts. For example, in English, finite is

a node, of which verb inflection is the super node and tensed verb, the sub

node.

As concept nodes, word classes are defined by their feature links, which can

be inherited by their sub nodes, a mechanism contributing to high efficiency.

Hudson offers some ‘membership tests’ to decide the word class of a word.

These tests rely on the features of a word class such as tense, number and

v alence. Surely enough, exceptions are inevitable, and as we all know, linguis-

tic concepts like word class are generally fuzzy, a characteristic of not only

language but also human cognition. However, within the framework of Word

Grammar, the unavoidable exceptions can be reasonably construed as the

r esult of overriding.

One unique feature of Word Grammar is the integration of linguistic and

non-linguistic factors, which is clearly illustrated in the section entitled social

properties. The author raises two questions: “how do English words convey

social information?” and “what kinds of social information do English words

convey?” (277). According to Word Grammar, the links to meaning, pronun-

ciation and valence can all convey social information, but the ways these mes-

sages are linked to nodes are yet to be explored. As to the second question, the

author mentions formality but acknowledges that there is still much work to do

in this field.

On the syntactic level, one feature of English is, as Hudson points out, that

it is a head-medial language, which leads to the differentiation between pre-

dependents and post-dependents: two concepts devoid in many languages. To-

gether with adjuncts and valents, they give rise to pre-adjuncts, post-adjuncts,

subjects and complements.

Valences fall into parent-valences and dependent valences. In English, not

only finite verbs can be free from a parent-valence, but also some expressions

like how about, what if, etc. In Word Grammar, they are treated as special

s ublexemes with distinctive valences. Dependent valence is another important


Authenticated


feature at the syntactic level. With the analysis of their dependent valences,

a close resemblance can be found between English prepositions and ‘subordi-

nating conjunctions’. Possessive ‘‘s’ is seen as a word in Word Grammar

b ecause it has its own dependent valences as other independent words have.

According to Word Grammar, there are seven types of dependent valences:

pre- adjunct, post-adjunct, subject, complement, (direct) object, indirect object

and predicative.

Word Grammar treats the number agreement also as a feature link. For a

noun, the default number feature is singular which can be overridden by a sub

node whose number feature is plural — a technicality adopting the contrast

b etween ‘markedness’ and ‘unmarkedness’.

In short, this part, instead of discussing human cognitions, focuses on lan-

guage knowledge itself because English, just like any other language, are pre-

sented in our brain in terms of nodes and links. The differences simply lie in

what nodes are built and how they are linked. However, the ways in which this

network organizes itself and operates is no different from any other language

network.

This book presents a unique theory of cognitive linguistics that is solidly

based on cognitive sciences, especially cognitive psychology, and is poten-

tially able to subject itself to empirical tests. This theory is presented as a for-

mal system with such rigour that it can be used to analyze real language usage.

Considering these two features, Word Grammar as presented in this book is a

testable cognitive grammar. What’s more, as a textbook, this book is very

thoughtfully structured. Readers can go through the whole book in a linear

order as they usually do. Nevertheless, considering the correspondences among

the sections in different parts, the author provides a ‘lateral approach’ to read-

ing, linking the corresponding sections in all three parts together. At the begin-

ning and the end of a section, the author explicitly directs the readers to

c orresponding sections in others parts, which helps readers understand “how

various general ideas from cognitive science apply to language and explain its

characteristics”. In this book, the author even provides different reading links

to readers with different proficiency in linguistics. Moreover, the author gives

summaries at the end of each chapter and most sections, and these summaries

will be reintroduced at the beginning of the corresponding chapters in the

f ollowing parts. This is a considerate help for students to grasp the important

points after learning each chapter and to review them before learning another

corresponding one.

In brief, this book not only presents a testable cognitive grammar with a

solid foundation in cognitive sciences, which opens a new window for those

interested in cognitive and general linguistics, but also, owing to its reasonable

structural organization, serves as a quality textbook for both students and

teachers of linguistics.


Authenticated


References

Croft, W., 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goldberg, A., 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hudson, R., 2007. Language Networks: a new word grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Koffka, K., 1935. Principles of Gestalt Psychology. London: Lund Humphries.

Langacker, R. W., 2000. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Monton de Gruyter.

Lakoff, G. 1990. The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schema? Cognitive

Linguistics 1(1): 39–74.

Solso, R. L., MacLin, O. H., MacLin, M. K., 2005. Cognitive Psychology, 7th edition. Beijing:

Peking University Press.

Thagard, P., 2005. Mind: Introduction to Cogntive Science. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.

dickhudson.comdickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/cogling.d… · web view[cognitive...

Documents