Volume 45, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1810-7478
  • E-ISSN: 2589-5230



This study investigates the semantic variations of three near-synonymous space particle constructions of in Chinese: [ NP ]. While previous work has mostly applied qualitative analyses of the semantic differences between these particles, this study presents a corpus-based analysis examining the relationship between space particles and their co-occurring landmarks in the locative construction. Two quantitative analyses were conducted: a multiple distinctive collexeme analysis and a post-hoc semantic analysis. Our results suggest the following. First, is a more unmarked particle in encoding , co-occurring with both canonical landmarks and a wider range of entities. Second, shows a strong preference for landmarks denoting temporal concepts; this metaphorical use often implies a preplanned objective in the proposition, with the landmark as an intended deadline. Finally, shows a strong connection to landmarks denoting high-dynamicity events. This extended use often comes with a marked aspectual reading of the landmark.

Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Boers, Frank
    1996Spatial Prepositions and Metaphor: A Cognitive Semantic Journey Along the Up-Down and the Front-Back Dimensions. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Boroditsky, Lera
    2000 Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition75.1:1–28. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00073‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6 [Google Scholar]
  3. Croft, William
    2001Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Croft, William , and Alan Cruse
    2004Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  5. Deng, Fang
    2006 Fangwei Jiegou “X Zhong/Li/Nei” Bijiao Yanjiu [A Contrastive Study of the Locative Structures “X Zhong/Li/Nei ”]. MA thesis, Jinan University, Canton.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dewell, Robert B.
    2005 Dynamic patterns of containment. From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Beate Hampe and Joseph E. Grady , 369–393. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.5.369
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.5.369 [Google Scholar]
  7. Evans, Vyvyan , and Andrea Tyler
    2004 Spatial experience, lexical structure and motivation: The case of in . Studies in Linguistic Motivation, ed. by Günter Radden and Klaus-Uwe Panther , 157–192. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Firth, John Rupert
    1957 A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–55. Studies in Linguistic Analysis, ed. by John Rupert Firth , 1–31. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Gibbs, Jr. Raymond W.
    2005Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511805844
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805844 [Google Scholar]
  10. Gilquin, Gaëtanelle
    2006 The verb slot in causative constructions: Finding the best fit. ConstructionsS1.3:1–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Goldberg, Adele E.
    2006Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gries, Stefan Th
    2009Quantitative Corpus Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge. 10.1515/9783110216042
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216042 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gries, Stefan Th. , and Anatol Stefanowitsch
    2004a Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. Language, Culture, and Mind, ed. by Michel Achard and Suzanne Kemmer , 225–236. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2004b Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics9.1:97–129. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  15. Gries, Stefan Th. , and Nick C. Ellis
    2015 Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Language Learning65.S1:228–255. 10.1111/lang.12119
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12119 [Google Scholar]
  16. Huang, Chu-Ren , and Keh-jiann Chen
    2010 Academia sinica balanced corpus of modern Chinese 4.0. Academia Sinica. RetrievedJanuary 13, 2016, fromasbc.iis.sinica.edu.tw/
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hunston, Susan , and Gill Francis
    2000Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.4 [Google Scholar]
  18. Jackendoff, Ray
    1983Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Janda, Laura A.
    2013 Quantitative methods in cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Cognitive Linguistics: The Quantitative Turn, ed. by Laura A. Janda , 1–32. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110335255.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110335255.1 [Google Scholar]
  20. Johnson, Mark
    1987The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Johnson, Mark , and George Lakoff
    2002 Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics13.3:245–263. 10.1515/cogl.2002.016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.016 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lakoff, George
    1987Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. 1993 The contemporary theory of metaphor. Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony , 202–251. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lakoff, George , and Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1991aConcept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1991bFoundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 1997 Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics8.1:1–32. 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  28. Levinson, Stephen , Sérgio Meira , and The Language and Cognition Group
    2003 ‘Natural concepts’ in the spatial topological domain – adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language79.3:485–516. 10.1353/lan.2003.0174
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0174 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lindstromberg, Seth
    2010English Prepositions Explained: Revised Edition. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.157
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.157 [Google Scholar]
  30. Liu, Dilin
    2010 Is it a chief, main, major, primary, or principal concern? A corpus-based behavioral profile study of the near-synonyms. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics15.1:56–87. 10.1075/ijcl.15.1.03liu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.1.03liu [Google Scholar]
  31. Mandler, Jean Matter , and Cristóbal Pagán Cánovas
    2014 On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition6.4:510–532. 10.1017/langcog.2014.14
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.14 [Google Scholar]
  32. Menzel, Peter
    1975Semantics and Syntax in Complementation. Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110820560
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110820560 [Google Scholar]
  33. Miller, George Armitage , and Philip N. Johnson-Laird
    1976Language and Perception. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674421288
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674421288 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ono, Tsuyoshi , and Sandra A. Thompson
    1996 Interaction and syntax in the structure of conversational discourse: Collaboration, overlap, and syntactic dissociation. Computational and Conversational Discourse: Burning Issues – An Interdisciplinary Account, ed. by Eduard H. Hovy and Donia R. Scott , 67–96. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑662‑03293‑0_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03293-0_3 [Google Scholar]
  35. Pollio, Howard R. , Lance B. Fagan , Thomas R. Graves , and Priscilla Levasseur
    2005 The semantics of space: Experiential and linguistic aspects of selected English spatial terms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research34.2:133–152. 10.1007/s10936‑005‑3635‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-3635-4 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sandra, Dominiek , and Sally Rice
    1995 Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s?Cognitive Linguistics6.1:89–130. 10.1515/cogl.1995.6.1.89
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1995.6.1.89 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sinclair, John
    1991Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Stefanowitsch, Anatol , and Stefan Th. Gries
    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]
  39. 2005 Covarying Collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory1.1:1–43. 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  40. Svorou, Soteria
    1994The Grammar of Space. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.25
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.25 [Google Scholar]
  41. Talmy, Leonard
    1983 How language structures space. Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research, and Application, ed. by Herbert L. Pick, Jr. and Linda P. Acredolo , 225–282. New York, NY: Plenum Press. 10.1007/978‑1‑4615‑9325‑6_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9325-6_11 [Google Scholar]
  42. Thompson, Sandra A. , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2005 The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies7.4–5:481–505. 10.1177/1461445605054403
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054403 [Google Scholar]
  43. Tomasello, Michael
    2003Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Tyler, Andrea , and Vyvyan Evans
    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]
  45. 2003The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning, and Cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486517
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517 [Google Scholar]
  46. Xing, Fu Yi
    1996 Fangwei jiegou “X li” yu “X zhong” [The locative structure “X li” and “X zhong ”]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue4:4–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Yang, Hui
    2008 Ronchi fangweici li zei zhong wai de kongjian yiyi [The spatial meaning of words of containers li, nei, zhong, wai ]. Shichuan Jiaoyu Xuebao24.12:74–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Zaenen, Annie , Jean Carletta , Gregory Garretson , Joan Bresnan , Andrew Koontz-Garboden , Tatiana Nikitina , M. Catherine O’Connor , and Tom Wasow
    2004 Animacy encoding in English: Why and how. Proceedings of the 2004 ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation, ed. by Bonnie Webber and Donna Byron , 118–125. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.3115/1608938.1608954
    https://doi.org/10.3115/1608938.1608954 [Google Scholar]
  49. Zeng, Chuan-lu
    2005 “Li, zhong, nei, wai” fangwei yinyu de renzhi fenxi [A cognitive analysis of the orientational metaphors in “li, zhong, nei, wai ”]. Guizhou Daxue Xuebao (Shehui Kexue Ban)1:104–107.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhang, Jin Sheng , and Yun Hung Liu
    2008 “Li” “zhong” “nei” kongjian yiyi de renzhi yuyanxue kaocha [A cognitive linguistic analysis of the spatial meanings of li, zhong, and nei ]. Jiefangjun Waiguoyu Xueyuan Xuebao31.3:7–12.
    [Google Scholar]

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