1887
Volume 12, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-7031
  • E-ISSN: 1877-8798
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study analyzes the manual action verb as part of the [ – NP] construction in two Chinese corpora. Drawing on constructionist perspectives on language productivity (Goldberg 2006Gries 2012), I show that [ – NP] is a productive construction the multiple meanings of which are conceptually motivated by manual action. The type-token distributions show the productivity of the [ – NP] schema, and the semantic clusters in a network of meanings show a gradation of manual action experiences with no clear-cut conceptual boundaries. Usage productivity goes hand in hand with semantic extension, which gives rise to the emergence of the light verb . Contra previous morpheme-based studies that view as a polysemy in its own right, isolated from its network of collocates, I argue that polysemy is a consequence and an epiphenomenon of constructional productivity resulting from language use and exemplar propagation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cld.00032.hun
2021-01-18
2021-10-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arnon, Inbal, and Snider, Neal
    2010 “More than Words: Frequency Effects for Multi-word Phrases.” Journal of Memory and Language62 (1): 67–82. 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barsalou, Lawrence W.
    1999 “Perceptual Symbol Systems.” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences22 (4): 577–660. 10.1017/S0140525X99002149
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002149 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bybee, Joan
    1995 “Regular Morphology and the Lexicon.” Language and Cognitive Processes10 (5): 425–455. 10.1080/01690969508407111
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969508407111 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2006 “From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition.” Language82 (4): 711–733. 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2013 “Usage-based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. byThomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cameron-Faulkner, Thea, Lieven, Elena, and Tomasello, Michael
    2003 “A Construction Based Analysis of Child Directed Speech.” Cognitive Science27 (6): 843–873. 10.1207/s15516709cog2706_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2706_2 [Google Scholar]
  7. Croft, William
    2001Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cruse, D. Alan
    1995 “Polysemy and Related Phenomena from a Cognitive Linguistic Viewpoint.” InComputational Lexical Semantics, eds. byPatrick Saint-Dizier, and EveIyne Viegas, 33–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511527227.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527227.004 [Google Scholar]
  9. Diessel, Holger, and Hilpert, Martin
    2016 “Frequency Effects in Grammar.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Retrieved fromhttps://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-120. (open access) 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.120
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.120 [Google Scholar]
  10. Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul, and O’Connor, Mary Catherine
    1988 “Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone.” Language64 (3): 501–538. 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1988 “The Mechanisms of Construction Grammar.” InProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society14: 35–55. 10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fried, Mirjam, and Östman, Jan-Ola
    (eds) 2004Construction Grammar in a Cross-language Perspective. Constructional Approaches to Language; v.2. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gao, Hong
    2001The Physical Foundation of the Patterning of Physical Action Verbs: A Study of Chinese Verbs (Travaux de l’institut de linguistique de lund, 41). Lund: Lund University.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gentner, Dedre
    1989 “The Mechanisms of Analogical Learning.” InSimilarity and Analogical Reasoning, ed. byStella Vosniadou, and Andrew Ortony, 199–241. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511529863.011
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511529863.011 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gibbs, Raymond W.
    1994The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2005Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511805844
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805844 [Google Scholar]
  17. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 1999 “The Emergence of the Semantics of Argument Structure Constructions.” InThe Emergence of Language, ed. byBrian MacWhinney, 197–212. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2006Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2019Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gries, Stefan Th.
    2012 “Frequencies, Probabilities, and Association Measures in Usage-/exemplar-based Linguistics.” Studies in Language36 (3): 477–510. 10.1075/sl.36.3.02gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.3.02gri [Google Scholar]
  22. Hauk, Olaf, Johnsrude, Ingrid, and Pulvermüller, Friedemann
    2004 “Somatotopic Representation of Action Words in Human Motor and Premotor Cortex.” Neuron41 (2): 301–307. 10.1016/S0896‑6273(03)00838‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00838-9 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hong, Jia-Fei, Ahrens, Kathleen, and Huang, Chu-Ren
    2008 “The Polysemy of Da3: An Ontology-based Study.” In9th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW 2008), 13–16. Singapore: National University of Singapore.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hu, Hsueh-Ying, and Chung, Siaw-Fong
    2016 “網路新興語言<耍>之語意辨析: 以批踢踢語料庫為本 [On the Semantic Analysis of the Verb Shua3 in Taiwan Mandarin: The PTT Corpus-Based Study].” InProceedings of the 28th Conference on Computational Linguistics and Speech Processing (ROCLING 2016), 164–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Huang, Tiao-Guan
    2000 “現代漢語徒手動作動詞<打>字的語義、語法探析. [An Investigation of the Semantics and Syntax of the Hand Action Verb ‘Da’ in Modern Chinese].” 臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所學位論文 [Doctoral Dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University], 1–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Jespersen, Otto
    1965A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. (Part VI. Morphology). London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kay, Paul, and Fillmore, Charles. J.
    1999 “Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y?” Construction. Language75 (1): 1–33. 10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kiefer, Markus, and Pulvermüller, Friedemann
    2012 “Conceptual Representations in Mind and Brain: Theoretical Developments, Current Evidence and Future Directions.” Cortex48 (7): 805–825. 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.04.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark
    1999Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites (Vol.1). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 2002Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar (Vol.1). Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Logan, Gordon D.
    1988 “Toward an Instance Theory of Automatization.” Psychological Review95 (4): 492–527. 10.1037/0033‑295X.95.4.492
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ou, Te-Fen
    2013 “多義詞義項區別性探究: 以感官動詞「看」為例 [The Distinction of Senses of Polysemy: A Case Study of Perception Verb ‘Kan’].” Journal of Chinese Language Teaching10 (3): 1–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2014 “多義感官動詞「看」義項之認知研究. [A Cognitive Study of the Senses of the Chinese Polysemous Verb ‘Kan’].” Language and Linguistics15 (2): 159–198.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Pinker, Steven
    1999Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language (First Edition). New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Pustejovsky, James
    1995The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Raposo, Ana, Moss, Helen E., Stamatakis, Emmanuel A., and Tyler, Lorraine K.
    2009 “Modulation of Motor and Premotor Cortices by Actions, Action Words and Action Sentences.” Neuropsychologia47 (2): 388–396. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.09.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.09.017 [Google Scholar]
  38. Ren, Fengmei
    2013 “A Grounding Approach to the Semantic Meaning of the Light Verb Da.” InWorkshop on Chinese Lexical Semantics, 88–96. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑45185‑0_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45185-0_10 [Google Scholar]
  39. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2020The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment (First Edition). Oxford; New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Shi, Heidi H., Liu, Sophia X., and Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo
    2020 “Manual Action Metaphors in Chinese: A Usage-based Constructionist Study.” InCorpus-based Research on Chinese Language and Linguistics [Sinica Venetiana 6] 1–18, eds. byBianca Basciano, Franco Gatti, and Anna Morbiato. Venice, Italy: Edizioni Ca’ Foscari University Press. doi:  10.30687/978‑88‑6969‑406‑6/004
    https://doi.org/10.30687/978-88-6969-406-6/004 [Google Scholar]
  41. Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Gries, Stefan Th.
    2003 “Collostructions: Investigating the Interaction of Words and Constructions.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics8 (2): 209–243. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  42. Talmy, Leonard
    1988 “Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition.” Cognitive Science12 (1): 49–100. 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2000Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Taylor, John R.
    1995Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2003 “Polysemy’s Paradoxes.” Language Sciences25 (6): 637–655. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(03)00031‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(03)00031-7 [Google Scholar]
  46. Thompson, Sandra, and Hopper, Paul
    2001 “Transitivity, Clause Structure, and Argument Structure: Evidence from Conversation.” InFrequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Typological studies in language; v. 45), ed. byJoan Bybee, and Paul Hopper, 27–60. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45.03tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.03tho [Google Scholar]
  47. Tomasello, Michael
    2003Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Traugott, Elizabeth
    1995 “Subjectification in Grammaticalization.” InSubjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives, ed. byDieter Stein, and Susan Wright, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2007 “The Concepts of Constructional Mismatch and Type-Shifting from the Perspective of Grammaticalization.” Cognitive Linguistics, 18 (4): 523–557. 10.1515/COG.2007.027
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.027 [Google Scholar]
  50. Tyler, Andrea, and Evans, Vyvyan
    2001 “Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Networks: The Case of Over.” Language77 (4): 724–765. 10.1353/lan.2001.0250
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0250 [Google Scholar]
  51. Wu, Ling-ling, and Barsalou, Lawrence W.
    2009 “Perceptual Simulation in Conceptual Combination: Evidence from Property Generation.” Acta Psychologica132 (2): 173–189. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  52. Xun, Endong, Rou, Gaoqi, Xiao, Xiaoyue, and Zhang, Jiaojiao
    2016 “大数据背景下BCC语料库的研制. [The Construction of the BCC Corpus in the Age of Big Data].” 语料库语言学 [Corpus Linguistics] 3 (1): 93–118. Retrieved frombcc.blcu.edu.cn/
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Yang, Jie, Shu, Hua, Bi, Yanchao, Liu, Youyi, and Wang, Xiaoyi
    2011 “Dissociation and Association of the Embodied Representation of Tool-use Verbs and Hand Verbs: An FMRI Study.” Brain and Language119 (3): 167–174. 10.1016/j.bandl.2011.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2011.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhan, Weidong, Guo, Rui, and Chen, Yirong
    2003The CCL Corpus of Chinese Texts: 700 million Chinese Characters, the 11th Century B.C. – present, Available online at thewebsite of Center for Chinese Linguistics (abbreviated as CCL) of Peking University, ccl.pku.edu.cn:8080/ccl_corpus
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Zipf, George Kingsley
    1935The Psycho-biology of Language: An Introduction to Dynamic Philology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cld.00032.hun
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cld.00032.hun
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error