JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES, I (1999), 9-27
                      SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE ORIGINS
                          OF COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS
                                                     ENRIQUE BERNÁRDEZ
                                             Complutense University of Madrid
                      ABSTRACT. The purpose of these notes is to contribute to the understanding of
                    the intellectual and scientific origins of Cognitive Linguistics (CL); it is not, therefore,
                    a history, even partial and incomplete, of CL; neither does it offer any exhaustive
                    consideration of all the factors, influences, linguistic and psychological models, or of
                    all the linguists that have contributed to the birth and development of the discipiline,
                    an enterprise that is probably premature.
           1. INTRODUCTION
             Cognitive Linguistics is something fundamentally different from any of those “one
           thousand and one theories of grammar” which seem to exist in the field. HDPSG, RG,
           WD, LFG, even MG (Chomsky’s Minimalist Program) exist as basically separated
           approaches to grammar and language which share just a few common ideas of a very
           general nature at the most: maybe that language is considered as a ‘somewhat’
           autonomous mental component or module and that only that part of grammar which can
           be independently studied and described merits serious attention as the nuclear part of
           language. But the methods, including the different approaches to formalisation, are quite
           different, some restrictions operating in some models but being flatly rejected in others;
           for instance, the possibiliy of assuming the existence of categories like PRO or pro
           which per definitionem lack any phonetic realisation, is nowadays only accepted within
                                                                  9
                           ENRIQUE BERNÁRDEZ 
         MG. It is even doubtful whether it would be right to use the term formal grammars as
         referring to these divergent models in any but the most trivial sense.
            In contrast, CL seems to allow for the existence of a number of different approaches,
         always considered as partial, which are seen as integrating a more general framework;
         this framework exhibits some characteristics which are adhered quite consistently to by
         the proponents of the different schools or models and it extends to the formal thinking
         underlying them. This diversity is moreover naturally accepted: the different models
         devote themselves to particular aspects, or subfields, of what is accepted as the common
         framewok of CL (which is moreover part of a yet wider field, Cognitive Science). There
         exists a significant number of principles that seem to be shared by the individual models
         and even, I dare say, by some of the more ‘formal’ approaches.
            This enables the existence of ‘textbooks on CL’ in a sense quite different from the
         usual one in ‘introductions to linguistics’, something that is in fact quite new in the
         recent history of our discipline.The existing self-called ‘textbooks’ have been restricted
         to the presentation of one single model or theoretical approach, more frequently than not
         that of Generative Grammar (GG), and if someone wanted to acquire a wider knowledge
         of what was being done in linguistics, she had to use a number of different, partial books.
         Even within GG the usual case was to restrict oneself to the model then considered as
         orthodox, perhaps with some scattered references to other generative approches, as is the
         case in Peter Culicover’s (1997) Principles and Parameters who readily uses the results
         achieved by LFG and RL; it has to be said, however, that such results are sometimes
         taken advantage of by the proponents of the standard GG model but without quoting
         them (see Pullum 1991).
            A recent textbook as Friedrich Ungerer’s and Hans-Jörg Schmid’s (1996) An
         Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics is a clear case in point. This book is organised
         around a number of what can be called ‘basic issues’ of CG and not on the differences
         among the approaches or on the presentation of alternative explanations of the same
         facts: Prototypes and categories, Levels of categorization, Conceptual metaphors and
         metonymies, Figure and ground, The Frame and attention approach, and Other issues
         including Iconicity, Grammaticalization, etc. What is new is not this subject-centered
         approach, which is also visible e.g. in Culicover’s introduction to GG: Arguments,
         government, and case; Binding theory; A-Movement; X’-Theory, etcetera. What I think
         is really new is first that the chapters in Culicover’s book or in any other introduction to
         GG, are devoted to issues concerning one single model, so that if we should take a
         different one, say HDPSG or LFG, some of them would necessarily have to disappear:
         there is no place for chapters on X’-Bar Theory or A-Movement in a textbook in HDPSG,
         for instance. The basic issue is not whether X’-Bar Theory may play a less relevant role
         10
                SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE ORIGINS OF COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS
         in HDPSG, and that such an important place in a textbook is deemed as unnecessary, but
         that it plays no role at all: it simply does not exist.
            The chapters in Ungerer and Schmid’s book (U&S), on the other hand, would be
         acceptable to anyone inside CL, even if some of them would not play such an important
         role in some models as in others. But the difference Figure-Ground is universally
         accepted, as is the importance of Prototypical Categorization, and so on. Let us recall the
         main chapters in any general introduction to any other scientific field, e.g. biology. It
         would make no sense to be obliged to write a different introduction to Biology for every
         possible approach, or that some chapters should only make sense in the framework of a
         given approach. The same chapters would have to be found in any general introduction,
         say Molecular biology, Cellular biology, Organismic biology, etcetera, and even books
         devoted to any one of these subdisciplines would share a basically similar structure.
         Now, not everyone in molecular biology works on the same issues or is even interested
         in all the aspects of the discipline, much less in biology as a whole, but they agree on
         some fundamental findings and frequently work on the results and achievements of other
         biologists. As I see it, this is what is happening in the reorganisation of linguistic studies
         that is known as CL.
            CL, in fact, has not grown out of the work of an individual, as has been the case in
         practically all the other modern linguistic models and especially GG, which has a clear
         point of departure with the publication of Chomsky’s Syntactic Structures in 1957,
         which was itself a development of another individual linguist’s ideas: those of Zellig
         Harris. Systemic Grammar is clearly associated with Michael Halliday, Functional
         Grammar with Simon Dik, etcetera. For these schools precise dates of birth can be given
         but, on the other hand, who, if anyone, was the initial creator, instigator or whatever of
         Cognitive Linguistics? Several people working in different towns, at different
         Universities of different countries coincided at some point in a number of basic ideas of
         language which, moreover, were also independently shared by a number of
         psychologists, biologists... even mathematicians with an interest in both biology and
         language (as is the case of the French René Thom). This makes CL, as has already been
         pointed out, quite different from the countless models, submodels, theories or sub-
         theories of language and grammar that have appeared in the last fifty years or so. The
         only similar case, to my knowledge, is that of Textlinguistics –as opposed to Discourse
         or Conversation Analysis, Ethnomethodology, etcetera–. Textlinguistics (TL) also
         emerged as the result of the efforts of a number of unrelated linguists working
         independently in different parts of the world; we could say that they “did not know they
         were doing textlinguistics” until they began reading each other and discovered that their
         interests and even sometimes their methods were closely related. TL, however, is only a
         partial study of language, as it has traditionally focused on only a few aspects of it, and
                                                        11
                           ENRIQUE BERNÁRDEZ 
         not on language as a whole. However, if the recent history of TL is considered (see e.g.
         Heinemann & Viehweger 1991), the interests of this discipline have frequently
         coincided with those of a general theory of language in a cognitive framework; again,
         with no direct relation with what was being done at the same time by linguists that called
         themselves ‘cognitive’. I shall come back to the relations of TL and CL.
            Of course, there exists a number a people who played a fundamental part in the
         creation of CL as we know it today and, especially, of the partial theories within CL that
         enjoy the greatest popularity. In fact, within CL several, sometimes rather divergent
         approaches can be distinguished. What follows is a non-exhaustive list and sometimes,
         for the lack of a good denomination, a linguist’s name will have to be used alone:
            Cognitive Grammar as represented by Ronald Langacker.
            Construction Grammar (Fillmore, Kay, etc.).
            Lakoff’s (and many others’) work on metaphorical categorisation.
            Prototype theory.
            Mental Spaces Theory (Gilles Fauconnier).
            Leonard Talmy’s work (which could be termed Framing-Theory, following U&S).
            Jean Petitot’s recent work within the framework of dynamic theory and mereology.
            Wolfgang Wildgen’s imagistic grammar.
            Jean-Pierre Desclès’ cognitive approach to language and grammar.
            Although not immediately included in CL, also Culioli’s approach shares many
         features with these models, as do most recent developments of Simon Dik’s Functional
         Grammar. Even HDPSG, traditionally considered as a branch of GG, has been getting
         closer and closer to CL. 
         2. COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS HAS A VARIETY OF SOURCES
            But a linguistic theory or a linguistic model does not grow out of nothing, it is the
         result of both internal developments within the discipline and of the general scientific
         ambience or in more general terms: of the ways of thinking at a given time. As we shall
         see, CL seems to be a result of two lines of thinking within linguistics: on the one hand,
         the insatisfaction with the results of research within Generative Grammar (GG), which
         made it impossible to understand and describe in an adequate form some issues that were
         however considered as of great importance; on the other hand, developments in
         textlinguistics necessarily lead, even in the first years of this discipline, to positions now
         generally acknowledged as cognitive. CL is also the result of some general trends in
         thinking: both the acceptance of variability, flexibility, and the need for a subtler means
         12