`  : I know the current Cognitive grammar stub sucks and is definitely substandard in terms of both content and clarity. I'm not sure about any controversy, but my understanding is that ``Cognitive Grammar`` is its own framework. In my school days, it was referred to as a type of construction grammar, but I don't recall Langacker himself saying that in the text. For those reasons, I don't think a redirect is appropriate either. I've removed the merge tags from both articles. If I have some time later, I'll attempt to improve the Cognitive grammar article, since I do have both volumes of Langacker's Foundations of Cognitive Grammar on hand.  `