Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation

Cognitive Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Newman, John

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2013: 0.833
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.188
Rank 55 out of 169 in category Linguistics in the 2013 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Social Sciences Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.718
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 1.356

ERIH category 2011: INT1

VolumeIssuePage

Issues

On the continuous debate about discreteness

Citation Information: Cognitive Linguistics. Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 107–151, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: 10.1515/COG.2006.003, May 2006

Publication History

Received:
2005-10-03
Accepted:
2005-10-26
Published Online:
2006-05-29

Abstract

The issue of discreteness vs. continuity comes into play in all domains of linguistic analysis and at multiple levels. The distinction’s experiential basis is discussed, as well as various means of discretization and continuization. Most phenomena are sufficiently complex that treatments emphasizing discreteness and continuity both have some validity—it is not a matter of choosing between them, but of determining what each contributes and how they relate to one another. These notions are applied to a number of specific problems, including genetic relationships, constituency, constructions, grammaticality, and grammatical categories. Special attention is devoted to the network model of complex categories. Like any metaphor, it can be misleading if pushed too far. An alternative is proposed which arguably represents a more appropriate mixture of discreteness and continuity.

Keywords: discreteness vs. continuity; network model; grammar; metonymy; reference point.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.