1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Cognitive Linguistic Studies
  4. Volume 8, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Durative events by default are atelic. However, temporal targets are typically required for durative verbs with a rushing manner, such as ‘We are catching the 3:30 flight’ and ‘The farmer rushed to harvest before the storm’. Why and how does manner introduce delimiting temporal concepts to durative verbs? This puzzle is addressed by our current study of two near-synonymous Mandarin durative verbs describing events carried out in a rushing manner: 赶 and 抢 . Our event-based account will examine both their compositional meanings and their constructional patterns. We will show that 赶 and 抢 not only coerce eventive readings from their nominal objects, but also require certain delineating temporal targets. The verb 赶 requires an understood deadline, while the verb 抢 requires the presupposition of the limited availability of the object. As neither temporal targets mark the time of the actual activities, these are exceptional cases of aktionsart. We will show that the different ways to delineate event meanings of the constructions [+ noun] can be predicted from the lexical meaning of the two verbs and can in turn predict the event types represented by the object with the MARVS theory. Based on this lexical semantic representation, we further show that the Generative Lexicon theory predicts the coercions of the rushing meaning from the original activity verb senses, and that the Construction Grammar theory accounts for their sharing of the same syntactic configuration.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00065.hua
2021-09-08
2023-09-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00065.hua
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahrens, K., Huang, C.-R., & Chuang, Y.-H.
    (2003) Sense and meaning facets in verbal semantics: A MARVS perspective. Language and Linguistics, 4(3), 469–484.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahrens, K., Chang, L.-L., Chen, K.-J., & Huang, C.-R.
    (1998) Meaning representation and meaning instantiation for Chinese nominals. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 3(1), 45–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahrens, K., & Huang, C.-R.
    (1996) Classifiers and semantic type coercion: Motivating a new classification of classifiers. InProceedings of the 11th Pacific Asia conference on language, information and computation (pp.1–10).
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Ahrens, K.
    (1995) The meaning of the double object construction in Chinese. InProceedings of the sixth North American conference on Chinese linguistics (pp.1–10), vol.1. (Syntax and Semantics) Los Angeles: GSIL, University of Southern California.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Apresjan, J. D.
    (1973) Regular polysemy. Linguistics, 142, 5–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Biq, Y.-O.
    (2004) Construction, reanalysis, and stance: ‘V yi ge N’ and variations in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1655–1672. 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.11.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.11.009 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chang, C.-C., Chen, C.-C., & Chen, Y.-H.
    (2012) Reflective behaviors under a web-based portfolio assessment environment for high school students in a computer course. Computers & Education, 58(1), 459–469. 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.023
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.023 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chang, L.-L., Chen, K.-J., & Huang, C.-R.
    (2000) Alternation across semantic field: a study of mandarin verbs of emotion. InY.-O. Biq (Ed.), Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing (Special Issue on Chinese Verbal Semantics), 5(1), 61–80.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Chou, Y.-M. & Huang, C.-R.
    (2010) Hantology: conceptual system discovery based on orthographic convention. InC.-R. Huang, N. Calzolari, A. Gangemi, A. Lenci, A. Oltramari, & L. Prévot (Eds.), Ontology and the Lexicon: A Natural Language Processing Perspective (pp.122–143). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511676536.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511676536.009 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chung, S.-F., & Ahrens, K.
    (2008) MARVS revisited: Incorporating sense distribution and mutual information into near-synonym analyses. Language and Linguistics, 9(2), 415–434.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Church, K. W., Gale, W., Hanks, P., Hindle, D., & Moon, R.
    (1994) Lexical substitutability. InB. T. S. Atkins, & A. Zampolli (Eds.), Computational approaches to the lexicon (pp.153–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Cruse, A.
    (1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. (2004a) Lexical facets and metonymy. Edições anteriores, 47, 73–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (2004b) Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Cruse, D. A.
    (2000) Lexical “facets”: Between monosemy and polysemy. InS. Beckmann, P. P. König, & T. Wolf (Eds.), Sprachspiel und bedeutung: Festschrift für Franz Hundsnurscher zum 60 geburtsta (pp.25–36). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 10.1515/9783110913705.25
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110913705.25 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. S.
    (1992) Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. InA. Lehrer, & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (75–102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Graff, D., Chen, K., Kong, J., & Maeda, K.
    (2005) Chinese Gigaword second edition LDC2005T14. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Hong, J.-F.
    (2015) Verb sense discovery in mandarin Chinese–A corpus based knowledge-intensive approach. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 10.1007/978‑3‑662‑44556‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44556-3 [Google Scholar]
  20. Huang, C.-R.
    (2009) Tagged Chinese Gigaword version 2.0. LDC2009T14. Philadelphia: Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Huang, C.-R., & Hsieh, S.-K.
    (2015) Chinese lexical semantics: from radicals to event structure. InW. S.-Y. Wang, & C.-F. Sun (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics (pp.290–305). New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Huang, C.-R., Hsieh, S.-K., Hong, J.-F., Chen, Y.-Z., & Su, I.-L., Chen, Y.-X., & Huang, S.-W.
    (2010) Chinese WordNet: Design, implementation, and application of an infrastructure for cross-lingual knowledge processing [In Chinese]. Journal of Chinese Information Processing, 24(2), 14–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Huang, C.-R., Chung, S.-F., & Su, I.-L.
    (2008) Durative event: A Comparison of gan3 and qiang3. Inthe Proceedings of the Chinese lexical semantic workshop (pp.42–50). Singapore.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Huang, C.-R. & Ahrens, K.
    (2003) Individuals, kinds and events: classifier coercion of nouns. Language Sciences, 25(4), 353–373. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(02)00021‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(02)00021-9 [Google Scholar]
  25. Huang, C.-R., Ahrens, K., Chang, L.-L., Chen, K.-J., Liu, M.-C., & Tsai, M.-C.
    (2000) The module-attribute representation of verbal semantics: From semantics to argument structure. InY.-O. Biq (Ed.), Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing (Special Issue on Chinese Verbal Semantics), 5(1),19–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Huang, C.-R., Chang, L.-P., Ahrens, K., & Chen, C.-R.
    (1999) The interaction of lexical semantics and constructional meanings [In Chinese]. InY.-M. Yin, I.-L. Yang, & H.-C. Chan (Eds.), Chinese language and linguistics v: interactions in language (Language and Linguistics monograph series) (pp.413–438). Taipei: Academia Sinica.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Huang, C.-R., & Ahrens, K.
    (1999) The function and category of gei in Mandarin ditransitive constructions. Journal of Chinese linguistics, 27(2), 1–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Jackendoff, R.
    (1983) Semantics and cognition. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Kilgarriff, A., Huang, C.-R., Rychly, P., Smith, S., & Tugwell, D.
    (2005) Chinese word sketches. InV. B. Y. Ooi, A. Pakir, I. Talib, L. Tan, P. K. W. Tan, & Y. Y. Tan (Eds.), the Proceedings of Fourth Asialex Conference (pp.142), Singapore.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Lee, C.-Y., Chang, C.-H., Hsu, W.-C., & Hsieh, S.-K.
    (2010) Qualia modification in noun-noun compounds: A cross-language survey. InProceedings of ROCLING 2010 (Poster Paper) (pp.379–390). Nantou, Taiwan.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Levin, B.
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Liu, M.-C., Huang, C.-R., & Lee, C.-Y.
    (1999) Lexical information and beyond: constructional inferences in semantic representation. Inthe Proceedings of the 13th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC) (pp.27–38). Taipei, Taiwan.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Liu, M.-C.
    (2005) Lexical information and beyond: meaning coercion and constructional inference of the Mandarin verb GAN. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 33(2), 310–332.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Lu, J. M. (陆俭明)
    (2004) 词语句法, 语义的多功能性: 对 “构式语法” 理论的解释. 外国语, 2, 15–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Lyons, J.
    (1968) Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165570
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165570 [Google Scholar]
  36. McCarthy, D., Koeling, R., Weeds, J., & Carroll, J.
    (2007) Unsupervised acquisition of predominant word senses. Computational Linguistics, 33(4), 553–590. 10.1162/coli.2007.33.4.553
     https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.2007.33.4.553 [Google Scholar]
  37. Pustejovsky, J.
    (1991) The syntax of event structure. Cognition, 41(1–3), 47–81. 10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90032‑Y
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90032-Y [Google Scholar]
  38. (1995) The generative lexicon. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Smith, C. S.
    (1997) The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5606‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5606-6 [Google Scholar]
  40. Song, Z. Y. (宋作艳)
    (2011) 轻动词, 事件与汉语中的宾语强迫. 中国语文, 3, 205–217.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Song, Z. Y., & Huang, C.-R.
    (Eds.) (2018) Generative lexicon studies in Chinese (生成辭彙理論與漢語研究). Beijing: Commercial Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Taylor, J. R.
    (2002) Near-synonyms as co-extensive categories: ‘High’ and ‘tall’ revisted. Language Sciences, 25, 263–284. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(02)00018‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(02)00018-9 [Google Scholar]
  43. Tsai, M.-C., Huang, C.-R., Chen, K.-J., & Ahrens, K.
    (1998) Towards a representation of verbal semantics–An approach based on near-synonyms. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 3(1), 61–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Yuan, Y. L. (袁毓林)
    (2014) 汉语名词物性结构的描写体系和运用案例. 当代语言学, 16(1), 31–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Zhang, B.-J. (张伯江)
    (1999) 现代汉语的双及物结构式. 中国语文, 270(3), 175–184.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00065.hua
Loading
Delimiting durative events with manner
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8, 16 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00065.hua
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00065.hua
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00065.hua
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): construction grammar; event structure; generative lexicon; MARVS; verbal semantics

Most Cited

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