Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Cognitive Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Divjak, Dagmar

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.902
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 2.297

CiteScore 2018: 2.09

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.075
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 2.063

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 28, Issue 2


Form-meaning correspondences in multiple dimensions: The structure of Hungarian finite clauses

András Imrényi
Published Online: 2017-03-17 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0082


The paper combines the assumptions of Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar, Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar and Dependency Grammar, arguing for an analysis of clauses as multi-dimensional networks. The semantic pole of each dimension is a network of semantic relations, which stands in correspondence to formal aspects of clause structure such as case morphology, word order and prosody. The proposed approach is applied to the study of core phenomena of Hungarian. The D1 dimension of Hungarian finite clauses is concerned with frame semantic (“thematic”) relations and their coding (primarily by morphology) on the formal side. The D2 and D3 dimensions pertain to speech function and contextualization, respectively, with the semantic relations marked by word order and prosody. It is hoped that the proposed account of Hungarian may inform both cross-linguistic comparisons and theory development in cognitive linguistics.

Keywords: Cognitive Grammar; form-meaning correspondence; multi-dimensional network; finite clause; Hungarian


  • Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Winfrid Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology, 329–394. Texas: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 1994. Speech act classification, language typology and cognition. In Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Foundations of speech act theory: Philosophical and linguistic perspectives, 460–477. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Debusmann, Ralph. 2006. Extensible dependency grammar: A modular grammar formalism based on multigraph description. Universität des Saarlandes dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55(1). 59–138.Google Scholar

  • Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619.Google Scholar

  • É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2). 245–273.Google Scholar

  • É. Kiss, Katalin. 2007. Topic and focus: Two structural positions associated with logical functions in the left periphery of the Hungarian sentence. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6. 69–81.Google Scholar

  • Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (eds.), Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin, 111–137.Google Scholar

  • Firbas, Jan. 1992. Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Garvin, Paul (ed.). 1964. A Prague School reader on esthetics, literary structure, and style. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts, 41–58. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

  • Halliday, M. A. K. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar, 4th edn. Revised by Christian Matthiessen. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Hudson, Richard. 2007. Language networks. The new word grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Imrényi, András. 2009. Toward a unified functional account of structural focus and negation in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 56. 342–374.Google Scholar

  • Imrényi, András. 2012. Inversion in English and Hungarian: Comparison from a cognitive perspective. In Chris Hart (ed.), Selected papers from UK-CLA meetings, Vol. 1, 209–228. Hertfordshire, UK: UK Cognitive Linguistics Association.Google Scholar

  • Imrényi, András. 2013. A magyar mondat viszonyhálózati modellje [A relational network model of Hungarian sentences]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar

  • Imrényi, András. 2015. From mutual dependency to multiple dimensions: Remarks on the DG analysis of “functional heads” in Hungarian. Proceedings of the third international conference on dependency linguistics (Depling 2015), 151–160. Uppsala, Sweden, 24–26 August, 2015.Google Scholar

  • Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Keszler, Borbála (ed.). 2000. Magyar grammatika [Hungarian grammar]. Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó.Google Scholar

  • Kicska, Emil. 1891. Hangsúly és szórend. [Stress and word order]. Magyar Nyelvőr 20. 292–298.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 1997. Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics 8(1). 1–32.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Conceptual grouping and constituency. In Langacker, Ronald W. (eds.), Grammar and conceptualization, 147–170. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2001a. Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12. 143–188.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2001b. Topic, subject, and possessor. In Hanne Gram Simonsen & Rolf Theil Endresen (eds.), A cognitive approach to the verb. Morphological and constructional perspectives, 11–48. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2002. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar, 2nd edn. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2005. Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. Sandra Peña Cervel (eds.), Cognitive linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction, 101–162. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2012. Substrate, system, and expression: Aspects of the functional organization of English finite clauses. In Mario Brdar, Ida Raffaelli & Milena Žic Fuchs (eds.), Cognitive linguistics between universality and variation, 3–52. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2015. Descriptive and discursive organization in cognitive grammar. In Jocelyne Daems, Eline Zenner, Kris Heylen, Dirk Speelman & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Change of paradigms – new paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics, 205–218. (Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 31). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Li, Charles N. & Sandra Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C. N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 458–489. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Mel’čuk, Igor. 1988. Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

  • Osborne, Timothy & Thomas Gross. 2012. Constructions are catenae: Construction grammar meets dependency grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 23(1). 165–216.Google Scholar

  • Pelyvás, Péter. 2006. Subjectification in (expressions of) epistemic modality and the development of the grounding predication. In Angeliki Athanasiadou, Costas Canakis & Bert Cornillie (eds.), Subjectification. Various paths to subjectivity, 121–150. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Ross, John R. 1969. Guess who? In Robert Binnick, Alice Davison, Georgia Green & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Papers from the 5th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 252–286. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

  • Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar

  • Tomasello, Michael. 1998. Introduction. A cognitive-functional perspective on language structure. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language, vii–xxiii. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Verschueren, Jeff. 1999. Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

  • Wierzbicka, Anna. 1995. Adjectives vs. verbs: The iconicity of part-of-speech membership. In M. E. Landsberg (ed.), Syntactic iconicity and linguistic freezes, 223–245. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-07-22

Accepted: 2016-12-16

Revised: 2016-12-12

Published Online: 2017-03-17

Published in Print: 2017-05-01

The research behind this paper was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship awarded by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office (NKFI) of Hungary, under project number PD 120934. Further support was received from the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA), under project number K 100717, “Research in functional cognitive linguistics” (a project led by Gábor Tolcsvai Nagy).

Citation Information: Cognitive Linguistics, Volume 28, Issue 2, Pages 287–319, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0082.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in