Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-j5c6p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-10T03:16:33.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - The Metaphorical Bases of Constituency and Dependency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2024

By
András Imrényi
Edited by
Eva Duran Eppler ,
Nikolas Gisborne  and
Andrew Rosta
Eva Duran Eppler
Affiliation:
Roehampton University, London
Nikolas Gisborne
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Andrew Rosta
Affiliation:
University of Central Lancashire, Preston
Get access

Summary

The paper offers a cognitive linguistic analysis of metaphors informing the conceptualization of sentence structure. In line with cognitive linguistics, it is assumed that the construal of this highly abstract conceptual domain necessarily has a metaphorical basis. Accordingly, it is argued that key differences between alternative syntactic theories can be linked to the metaphorical choices they make. The paper begins with a critical comparison of constituency- and dependency-oriented syntax. The key virtue of the latter is seen in its ability to focus on relation types rather than unit types and unit boundaries. It is then argued that THE SENTENCE IS A BUILDING serves as the core metaphor underlying constituency analysis, whereas THE SENTENCE IS A FAMILY may play a similar role in dependency grammar. The final part of the paper discusses two instructive metaphors invented by Sámuel Brassai, both supporting a dependency grammatical understanding of sentences, namely THE SENTENCE IS A FEUDAL SOCIETY and THE SENTENCE IS A SOLAR SYSTEM. It is demonstrated that each of Brassai’s metaphors has its share of advantages and may be of great service to dependency grammar in language pedagogy.

Keywords

constituencydependencyconceptual metaphorinstructive metaphor
Type
Chapter
Information
Word Grammar, Cognition and Dependency , pp. 126 - 143
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Billroth, Gustav & Ellendt, Friederich. 1838. Lateinische Schulgrammatik. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. & Sag, Ivan A. 2013. Phrase structure. In den Dikken, Marcel (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 202–25.Google Scholar
Brassai, Sámuel. 2011 [1860]. A magyar mondat. I. értekezés. [The Hungarian sentence. 1st treatise.] In A magyar mondat. Texts selected by Elekfi, László and Kiefer, Ferenc. Budapest: Tinta. 10–98.Google Scholar
Brassai, Sámuel. 1873. Paraleipomena kai diorthoumena. A mit nem mondtak s a mit roszul mondtak a commentatorok Virg. Aeneise II. könyvére. [What the commentators did not say or wrongly said about Book 2 of Virgil’s Aeneid.] Budapest: MTA.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dmitrievsky, Aleksei. 1877. Prakticheskie zametki o russkom sintaksise, II: Dva li glavnykh chlena v predlozhenii? [Practical notes on Russian syntax: Are there two main members of the proposition?]. Filologicheskie Zapiski (Voronezh) 4, 15–37.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Turner, Mark. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1976. Arguments for a non-transformational grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1980. Constituency and dependency. Linguistics 18, 179–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1981. Some issues on which linguists can agree. Journal of Linguistics 17, 333–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700007052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1990. English Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 2000. Gerunds and multiple default inheritance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 12, 417–449.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 2003a. The psychological reality of syntactic dependency relations. MTT2003, Paris. https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/paris.doc (accessed 21 January 2023).Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 2003b. Gerunds without phrase structure. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3), 579–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 2007. Language networks. The new Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 2008. Word Grammar and Construction Grammar. In Trousdale, Graeme & Gisborne, Nikolas (eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 257–302. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199178.3.257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 2010. An introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imrényi, András. 2017. Form-meaning correspondences in multiple dimensions: The structure of Hungarian finite clauses. Cognitive Linguistics 28(2), 287–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imrényi, András & Vladár, Zsuzsa. 2020. Sámuel Brassai in the history of dependency grammar. In Imrényi, András & Mazziotta, Nicolas (eds.), Chapters of Dependency Grammar: A historical survey from Antiquity to Tesnière. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 164–87. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.212.06imrCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kertész, András. 2001. A nyelvészet metaforái. [Metaphors of linguistics.] Inaugural lecture at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 12 December 2001. https://bit.ly/3ISdfi4 (accessed 21 January 2023).Google Scholar
Koller, Alexander & Striegnitz, Kristina. 2002. Generation as dependency parsing. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Philadelphia, July 2002. 17–24. www.aclweb.org/anthology/P02-1003.pdf (accessed 21 January 2023).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kollmeier, Juna A. & Raymond, Sean N. 2018. Can moons have moons? Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 483(1), L80–L84. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/sly219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2010. Metaphor. A practical introduction, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhlmann, Marco. 2012. Mildly non-projective Dependency Grammar. Computational Linguistics 39(2), 355–87.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney. 2005. Language and brain: when experiments are unfeasible, you have to think harder. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 1(2), 151–76.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 2. Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2005. Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. Ruiz & Cervel, M. Sandra Peña (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 101–62.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2012. Substrate, system, and expression: Aspects of the functional organization of English finite clauses. In Brdar, Mario, Raffaelli, Ida & Žic Fuchs, Milena (eds.), Cognitive linguistics between universality and variation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 3–52.Google Scholar
Malouf, Robert. 1997. Mixed categories in HPSG. Expanded version of the paper presented at the Third International Conference on Head‐Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, May 1996, Marseille. https://bit.ly/4d2vgs7 (accessed 9 April 2024).Google Scholar
Malouf, Robert. 1998. Mixed categories in the hierarchical lexicon. PhD thesis, Stanford University. Google Scholar
Mayer, Richard E. 1993. The instructive metaphor: Metaphoric aids to students’ understanding of science. In Ortony, Andrew (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 561–78.Google Scholar
Mazziotta, Nicolas & Imrényi, András. 2020. Aspects of the theory and history of dependency grammar. In Imrényi, András & Mazziotta, Nicolas (eds.), Chapters of Dependency Grammar. A historical survey from Antiquity to Tesnière. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1–22.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor. 1988. Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. Albany: State University Press of New York.Google Scholar
Nivre, Joakim. 2005. Dependency grammar and dependency parsing. Technical Report, School of Mathematics and Systems Engineering, Växjö University. https://files.ifi.uzh.ch/cl/kalju/Courses/2006_DG_Tartu/ToRead/05133.pdf (accessed 21 January 2023).Google Scholar
Osborne, Timothy. 2005. Beyond the constituent: A dependency grammar analysis of chains. Folia Linguistica 39, 251–97.Google Scholar
Osborne, Timothy. 2018. Tests for constituents: What they really reveal about the nature of syntactic structure. Language Under Discussion 5(1), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, Timothy. 2020. Franz Kern: An early dependency grammarian. In Imrényi, András & Mazziotta, Nicolas (eds.), Chapters of Dependency Grammar. A historical survey from Antiquity to Tesnière. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 189–213.Google Scholar
Osborne, Timothy & Gerdes, Kim. 2019. The status of function words in dependency grammar: A critique of Universal Dependencies (UD). Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.537.Google Scholar
Osborne, Timothy & Gross, Thomas. 2012. Constructions are catenae: construction grammar meets dependency grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 23(1), 165–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sériot, Patrick. 2020. The Russian trail: Dmitrievsky, the little drama metaphor and dependency grammar. In Imrényi, András & Mazziotta, Nicolas (eds.), Chapters of Dependency Grammar. A historical survey from Antiquity to Tesnière. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 253–75.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Peter J. 1990. Metaphors for the description of acquisition data: From constituency ‘trees’ to dependency ‘frames’. IRAL 28(4), 273–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John R. 1989. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2017. Lexical semantics. In Dancygier, Barbara (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 246–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.017.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 2015 [1966]. Elements of structural syntax. Translated by Osborne, Timothy and Kahane, Sylvain. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurff, Wim van der. 1993. Gerunds and their objects in the Modern English period. In Marle, Jaap van (ed.), Historical linguistics 1991. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 363–75.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×