Formulaic Language in the Magnifying Glass. Setting Parameters on the Analyzability of Linguistic Structure

• Authors: Justyna Mandziuk
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Adopting the model of Cognitive Grammar as proposed and developed by Ronald Langacker (1987, 1991, 2008), the article applies three basic cognitive parameters on the continuum of linguistic structure: analyzability, compositionality, and institutionalization, to an analysis of proverbs and especially to new proverbial modifications. The aim of the study is twofold: first, by proposing a two-dimensional coordinate system, we seek to establish a correlation between analyzability and compositionality. Second, by adding a third parameter on linguistic structure, namely institutionalization, we develop a three-dimensional system which, we believe, can offer a fuller account of the grammar-lexicon continuum. 

Keywords

EN

cognitive grammar; analyzability; compositionality; institutionalization; formulaic language; proverbs; modified proverbs; idioms

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej
• Journal: New Horizons in English Studies
• Year: 2018
• Issue: 3

Dates

published

2018

online

2018-08-17

Contributors

author

Justyna Mandziuk

• Maria Curie - Skłodowska University

editor

Aneta Okuń-Jaśkowiak

editor

Adam Głaz

editor

Lidia Kniaź-Hunek

editor

Anna Bendrat

editor

Ewelina Prażmo

editor

Przemysław Terejko

editor

Piotr Szczypa

editor

Grzegorz Czemiel

editor

Ewa Antoszek

editor

Justyna Galant

editor

Marta Komsta

editor

Edyta Frelik

editor

Agata Waszkiewicz

editor

Anna Oleszczuk

editor

Agata Waszkiewicz

other

Aneta Okuń-Jaśkowiak

References

• Bybee, J. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Doyle, C., Mieder, W., Shapiro F. R. 2012. The Dictionary of Modern Proverbs. Yale: Yale University Press.
• Fauconnier, G., Turner, M. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
• Fillmore CJ, Kay P, O'Connor MCatherine. 1988. Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone. Language. Vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 501-538
• Fraser, Bruce. 1970. Idioms within a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language 6, 22-42.
• Hamblin, J. L., Gibbs, R. W. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research; New York 28.1: 25.
• Gibbs, R. & Van Orden, G. (2010). Adaptive cognition without massive modularity. Language & Cognition, 2, 147-169.
• Kardela, H., Gussmann, E. 1994. Analyzability and Idiomaticity. Phrasal Verbs in Focus. In E. Gussmann and H. Kardela (eds.) Focus on Language. Papers from the 2nd Conference of the Polish Association for the Study of English, Kazimierz ‘93 (co-ed.: Edmund Gussmann), UMCS, Lublin 1994. 139-152.
• Kardela, H. 2000. Dimensions and Parameters in Grammar. Studies in A/D Asymmetries and Subjectivity Relations in Polish, Lublin: Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press.
• Kardela, H., Gussmann E. 2005. Schemat i prototyp w gramatyce kognitywnej. [Schema and prototype in cognitive grammar] In: H. Kardela, Z. Muszyński, M. Rajewski (eds.) Kognitywistyka I: Problemy i perspektywy. UMCS, Lublin, 2005. 179-207.
• Kardela, H. 2009. Cognitive grammar as a parametrized continuum of linguistic units. In: S Puppel, B. Tafelska (eds.). New Pathways in Linguistics. Olsztyn: UMK, 2009, 243-274.
• Kardela, H. 2016. Analyzability and Institutionalization. Setting parameters in Cognitive morphology. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics. 2016. Vol 16-2016 No 2, pp. 69-90.
• Lakoff, G., and Johnson M. 2003. Metaphors We Live By. London: The University of Chicago Press.
• Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Langacker, R. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2. Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Langacker, R. 1991a. Concept, Image and Symbol. The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Langacker, R. 1991b. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol 2. Descriptive Application. Stanford, Cal: Stanford University Press.
• Langacker, R. 1999/2003, ‘‘A dynamic usage model,” in M. Barlow and S. Kemmer (eds.), Usage Based Models of Language, 1-63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
• Langacker, R. 2008. Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. Oxford: OUP.
• Lipka, L. 2002. English Lexicology. Tübingen: Narr.
• Mandziuk, J. 2016. “A Proverb a Day Keeps Boredom Away.” Anti-Proverbs, Twisted Proverbs, Perverbs and Other Animals. New Horizons in English Studies. UMCS.
• Mandziuk, J. 2017. “Why money cannot buy happiness. The painful truth about traditional proverbs and their modifications.” New Horizons in English Studies. UMCS.
• Mieder, W. 1993. Proverbs Are Never Out of Season: Popular Wisdom in the Modern Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Mieder, W. 2004. Proverbs. A Handbook. Westport, CT and London: Greenwood Publishing Group.
• Nunberg, G. Ivan A. Sag and Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language, 70: 491–538.
• Nattinger, J.R., and DeCarrico, J.S. 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Rosch, E. 1977. ‘Human Categorization.’ In N. Warren (ed.) Studies in Cross-Cultural Psychology. New York: Academic Press.
• Taylor, J. 1989. Linguistic Categorization.Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: OUP.
• Taylor, J. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: OUP.
• Wray, A., and Perkins, M.R. 2000. The functions of formulaic language: an integrated model. Language & Communication 20:1-28.

Identifiers

DOI

10.17951/nh.2018.3.18