Language Acquisition: A Systemic View from Cognitive Linguistics

  • Kazumi TaniguchiEmail author
Part of the Translational Systems Sciences book series (TSS, volume 17)


Among the most significant notions of systems thinking are the interaction of the whole and its parts and the emergent properties that are observable in a holistic structure which cannot be reduced to its components. Such notions are fully compatible with the theoretical views of cognitive linguistics, which assumes language as an integrated system of general cognitive abilities. In particular, the usage-based model of cognitive linguistics is a synthesis of categorization and abstraction from actual usages, involving both bottom-up and top-down organizations. The validity of the usage-based account for language acquisition will support a systemic approach to language development, which is further located appropriately in the scientific paradigm of complexity theory as suggested by Larsen-Freeman (Complexity theory: the lessons continue. In: Ortega L, Han Z (eds) Complexity theory and language development. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp 11–50, 2017).


Cognitive linguistics Constructions Usage-based model Complexity theory Systems thinking 


  1. Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for action: A short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The ‘What’s X doing Y?’ construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lambrecht, K. (1990). “What, me worry?”: ‘Mad magazine sentences’ revisited. BLS, 16, 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar vol.1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Langacker, R. W. (1991a). Foundations of cognitive grammar vol.2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Langacker, R. W. (1991b). Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  10. Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2017). Complexity theory: The lessons continue. In L. Ortega & Z. Han (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development (pp. 11–50). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shiotani, S. H. (2004). How do American children learn English? Tokyo: Shodensha.Google Scholar
  13. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Verspoor, M. (2017). Complex dynamic systems theory and L2 pedagogy: Lessons to be learned. In L. Ortega & Z. Han (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development (pp. 143–162). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Human and Environmental StudiesKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations