<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="T78-1003">
  <Title>The Relation of Grammar to Cognition--a Synopsis</Title>
  <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="14" type="abstr">
    <SectionTitle>
Abstract
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> A sentence (or other portion of discourse) is taken to evoke in the listener a meaning complex, here called a &amp;quot;cognitive representation&amp;quot;. The lexical elements of the sentence, to simplify, by and large specify the content of the cognitive representation, while the grammatical elements specify its structure. Thus, looking systematically at the actual notions specified by grammatical elements can give us a handle for ascertaining the very makeup of (l~nguistic-) cognitive structuring. We accordingly examine a number of grammatically specified notions, observe the categories and systems in which they pattern, and speculate on broader cognitive connections. null Some provisional findings have already emerged.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Grammatical specifications for structure are preponderantly relativistic or topological, and exclude the fixed or metrically Euclidean. The categories in which grammatical notions pattern include: plexity perspectival mode state of boundedness level of synthesis state of dividedness level of exemplarity degree of extensionality axial characteristics pattern of distribution scene-breakup &amp;quot; Grammatical specification of structuring appears to be the same, in certain abstract characteristics, as the structuring of visual perception.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> O. Introduction A sentence (or other portion of discourse) is taken to evoke in the listener a particular kind of experiential complex--here to be termed a &amp;quot;cognitive representation&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;CR&amp;quot;.I There appears to be a significant way in which different portions of the language input specify, or code for, different portions of the CR. The major finding is that--for a first approximation--the lexical fraction of a sentence codes mainly for the content, or substance, of a CR, while the grammatical fraction of a sentence codes mainly for the structure of a CR. Determining the structure within a realm of phenomena has been a central concern for analytic science, including linguistics and psychology. With grammar seen in the above light, it can be used in determining the structure, of the language-related portion of human cognition, with possible connections to further portions. In particular, Iookingsystematically at the actual notions specified by grammatical elements can give us a handle for ascertaining the xery nakeup of (linguistic-) cognitive structuring. ~ The beginnings of such an endeavor are the aims of this paper.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Several ideas here require some immediate elaboration. The distinction between lexical and grammatical is made entirely formally--i.e., without any reference to meaning--on the basis of the distinction between open-class and closed-class. 3 All open-class elements--i.e., the stems of nouns, verbs, and adjectives4--are considered lexical. Everything else is considered grammatical. Included here are all closed-class morphemes and words--inflections, particles, adpositons, conjunctions, demonstratives, etc.--as well as syntactic constructions, grammatical relations~ categorial identities, word order, and intonation. Terminologically here, &amp;quot;grammatical element&amp;quot; will be used to refer to any of these.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> The nature of content and of structure, and the distinction between them, are not understood well enough to be addressed analytically in this paper and must be left to our intuitive sense of the matter.5 Taking them for granted, however, we can now more finely characterize the linguistic-cognitive crossrelationships noted earlier. While most of a CR's content is specified by the lexical fraction of a sentence, the lexical items do usually specify some structural notions along with the contentful ones.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> The grammatical elements of a sentence more unalloyedly specify only structural notions;~and specify them more determinately in the case of conflict with a lexical item, establishing perhaps the majority of a CR's structure. 6 In other work in the present direction--notably Fillmore's (e.g., 1975, 1976)--concern has also been with ascertaining structre, but the sentence elements used as starting-points have generally been lexical items with prominently inmixed structural specifications (like buy and sell)~ The present work, in part a complement to the other, takes advantage of grammar's greater directness and completeness:in specifying structure~ This paper is divided into three sections. In the first, a sampling of grammatical elements is examined for the notions that they specify, both as an introduction to out method and for the aim of noticing properties common to such notions as well as properties excluded from them. In the second, we present a number of the categories in which grammatically specified notions have been observed to pattern. In the third, we speculate on broader cognitve connections. null</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>