Mapping functional-cognitive space

Gonzálvez-García, Francisco; Butler, Christopher S.

doi:10.1075/arcl.4.04gon

Cited by 122 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Croft, 2007, Section 5), but most of them share principles (Gonzálvez-García & Butler, 2006) relating, among other things, their definition as form-meaning pairing, the link between language and cognition and a usage-based approach recognising different levels of abstraction in the definition of language units (cf. Croft, 2007;Ellis & Cadierno, 2009;Goldberg, 2013).…”

Section: Constructing Meaning In Language (L1 and L2 Acquisition)mentioning

confidence: 98%

Applying Cognitive Linguistics

Piquer-Píriz¹,

González²

2016

RCL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, Cognitive Linguistics (CL) has established itself not only as a solid theoretical approach but also as an important source from which different applications to other fields have emerged. In this introductory article, we explore some of the current, most relevant topics in applied CL-oriented studies grouped into three main strands: Analyses of figurative language (both metaphor and metonymy) in use, constructions and typology. An outline of the contents of the eight chapters included in this special issue is provided, explaining their contributions to these research areas and highlighting their methodological rigour.

show abstract

Section: Constructing Meaning In Language (L1 and L2 Acquisition)mentioning

confidence: 98%

Applying Cognitive Linguistics

Piquer-Píriz¹,

González²

2016

RCL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The last twenty years have witnessed a noteworthy proliferation of Construction Grammar (CxG) accounts (see Dirven & Ruiz de Mendoza, 2010;Gonzálvez-García & Butler, 2006, for an overview). 1 Among the ones that figure more prominently, the following may be highlighted: Embodied CxG (Bergen & Chang, 2005), Cognitive Grammar (Langacker, 1987(Langacker, , 1991a(Langacker, , 1991b(Langacker, , 2003a(Langacker, , 2003b, Radical CxG (Croft, 2001(Croft, , 2003(Croft, , 2005, Cognitive CxG (Goldberg, 2006(Goldberg, , 2009, and Boas's frame-semantic approach (Boas, 2003(Boas, , 2010.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constraining factors on the family of resultative constructions

Oyón

2014

RCL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on the assumptions made in Construction Grammar(s), the present proposal addresses the debate between formulating broad-scale generalizations of the type postulated by Goldberg (1995) or finer-grained analyses, heavily based on lexical-class identification, as those put forward by Boas (2010Boas ( , 2011, who claims that Goldberg's account leads to the over-generation of ungrammatical examples. The position taken here is that, although Goldberg's theory has largely overlooked the role of verb meaning(s), generalizations in the form of constraints are still necessary to build a fully principled account of lexical-constructional fusion. Taking the family of resultative constructions as a case study, I employ the analytical tools (i.e. the apparatus of so-called internal and external constraints on constructional integration) developed by the Lexical Constructional Model in order to show that a fine-nuanced description can go hand in hand with the postulation of macro-generalizations.

show abstract

“…Tomasello's chapter appears to include Croft (2000) among 'functionalist theorists' (p. 440), while he styles himself a 'cognitive-functionalist' linguist (1998,2003). My answer to the above question can be found in Gonzálvez-García & Butler (2006). This work analyzes in some detail the salient properties of 11 functionalist, cognitive and/or constructionist models in the light of 36 features against the background of formalist models, most notably, Chomsky's Minimalist Program (1995) (see also Butler 2006 for further discussion).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%