在认知语言学的功能主义，突出强调语言的符号功能。它充分承认了社会互动中语言的基础，但坚持说，即使是它的交互功能也严重依赖于概念化。在这一部分中，我认为认知语法是解释语言现象的一种方法，特别是对于认知语法，人们只关心语言中不存在的固定的或容易被证明的心理能力。我们能够，例如，集中和转移注意力，来跟踪移动物体，形成和处理图像，比较两种经验，建立对应的简单元素，结合成复杂的结构，可以从不同的角度看一个场景，具体情况在不同的抽象层次，等等。这样的一般能力是否能充分说明语言的习得性和普遍性？或是具体的蓝图和遗传语言连接？认知语法并不代表这个问题。我们显然是天生的说话，所以不排除语言可能会出现由于大量先天规范特有的Â它。但是如果我们的遗传禀赋做为语言的特殊规定，他们有可能驻留在更基本的认知现象的适应，而不是分开，自成一格。在这方面，它们与言语的物理器官类似。
美国统计学论文代写:动中语言的基础
Within functionalism, cognitive linguistics stands out by emphasizing the semiological function of language. It fully acknowledges the grounding of language in social interaction, but insists that even its interactive function is critically dependent on conceptualization. In this part, I've considered cognitive grammar as an approach to explain the phenomena of languages.As for cognitive grammar in particular, care is taken to invoke only well-established or easily demonstrated mental abilities that are not exclusive to language. We are able, for example, to focus and shift attention, to track a moving object, to form and manipulate images, to compare two experiences, to establish correspondences, to combine simple elements into complex structures, to view a scene from different perspectives, to conceptualize a situation at varying levels of abstraction, and so on. Can general abilities like these fully account for the acquisition and the universal properties of language? Or are specifi c blueprints for language wired in and genetically transmitted? Cognitive Grammar does not prejudge this issue. We are evidently born to speak, so it is not precluded that language might emerge owing to substantial innate specification peculiar to it. But if our genetic endowment does make special provisions for language, they are likely to reside in adaptations of more basic cognitive phenomena, rather than being separate and sui generis. They would be analogous in this respect to the physical organs of speech.
