Volume 18, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study explores the conceptual boundaries among and from an under-investigated diachronic perspective and addresses the diachronic conceptual variations of Chinese (‘break’), (‘cut’) and (‘open’). The Center for Chinese Linguistics corpus is employed for the extraction of historical data. Correspondence analyses are conducted for uncovering the conceptual boundary variations among , and . In doing so, this study, situated in Diachronic Prototype Semantics, has revealed that: (1) The conceptual ranges of , and greatly overlapped in ancient Chinese, but their division of labor becomes increasingly clear-cut in Mandarin. (2) By the stage of Modern Mandarin, these three lexical categories have formed their own prototypical structures and categorize separation events of state change in virtue of a lexical continuum “”. (3) Language selection, semantic specialization, as well as conceptual reorganization are proposed as contributing factors for these changes.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bohnemeyer, J.
    (2007) Morpholexical relatedness and the argument structure of verbs of cutting and breaking. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(2), 153–177. 10.1515/COG.2007.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.006 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bowerman, M.
    (1978) The acquisition of word meaning: An investigation into some current conflicts. InN. Waterson & C. Snow (Eds.), The development of communication (pp.263–287). New York: Wiely.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2005) Why can’t you “open” a nut or “break” a cooked noodle? Learning covert object categories in action word meanings. InL. Gershkoff-Stowe & D. Raikson (Eds.), Building object categories in developmental time: 32nd carnegie symposium on cognition (pp.33–62). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bowerman, M., & Choir, S.
    (2001) Shaping meanings from language: Universals and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. InM. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp.475–511). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620669.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620669.018 [Google Scholar]
  5. Carpenter, M. J.
    (2013) Semantic change and cognition: How the present illuminates the past and the future. InC. Howe, S. E. Blackwell & M. L. Quesada (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 15th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp.1–16). MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen, J. D.
    (2007) ‘He cut-break the rope’: Encoding and categorizing cutting and breaking events in Mandarin. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(2), 273–285. 10.1515/COG.2007.015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.015 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clark, E., Carpenter, K. L., & Deutsch, W.
    (1995) Reference states and reversals: Undoing actions with verbs. Journal of Child Language, (2), 633–662. 10.1017/S0305000900009983
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900009983 [Google Scholar]
  8. Colleman, T., & De Clerck, B.
    (2011) Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1),183–209. 10.1515/cogl.2011.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.008 [Google Scholar]
  9. Croft, W.
    (2006) The relevance of an evolutionary model to historical linguistics. InT. O. Nedergaard (Ed.). Competing models of linguistic change: Evolution and beyond (pp.91–132). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.279.08cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.279.08cro [Google Scholar]
  10. (2010) The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics, 48(1), 1–48. 10.1515/ling.2010.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.001 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2012) Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2015) Force dynamics and directed change in event lexicalization and argument realization. InR. G. de Almeida & C. Manouilidou (Eds.), Cognitive science perspectives on verb representation and processing (pp.103–129). New York: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  14. Essegbey, J.
    (2007) Cut and break verbs in Sranan. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(2), 231–239. 10.1515/COG.2007.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.011 [Google Scholar]
  15. Firth, J.
    (1957) Papers in linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Franco, K., Geeraerts, D., Speelman, D., & Van Hout, R.
    (2019) Concept characteristics and variation in lexical diversity in two Dutch dialect areas. Cognitive Linguistics, 30(1), 205–242. 10.1515/cog‑2017‑0136
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0136 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fujii, S., Radetzky, P., & Sweetser, E.
    (2013) Splitting, cutting and breaking talk in Japanese. Paper presented at the12th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Edmonton: University of Alberta.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Geeraerts, D.
    (1997) Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (2000) Salience phenomena in the lexicon: A typology. InL. Albertazzi (Ed.), Meaning and cognition (pp.79–101). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.2.05gee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.2.05gee [Google Scholar]
  20. (2010) Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y.
    (2010) Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226461
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226461 [Google Scholar]
  22. Geeraerts, D.
    (2018) Ten lectures on Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Glynn, D.
    (2014) Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. InD. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp.443–486). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.17gly
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.17gly [Google Scholar]
  24. Greenacre, M. J.
    (2007) Correspondence analysis in practice (2nd ed). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra. 10.1201/9781420011234
    https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420011234 [Google Scholar]
  25. Guerssel, M., Hale, K., Laughren, M., Levin, B., & Eagle, J. W.
    (1985) A crosslinguistic study of transitivity alternations. InW. H. Eilfort, P. D. Kroeber & K. L. Peterson (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on causatives and agentivity at the 21st Regional Meeting (pp.48–63). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Györi, G.
    (1996) Historical aspects of categorization. InE. H. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics in the redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics (pp.175–206). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110811421.175
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110811421.175 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hull, D. L.
    (1988) Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226360492.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226360492.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Cognitive models and prototype theory. InU. Neisser (Ed.), Emory symposia in cognition, 1. Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization (pp.63–100). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Langacker, R.
    (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Levin, B.
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.
    (1995) Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Levshina, N.
    (2015) How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.195
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  33. Majid, A., Bowerman, M., van Staden, M., & Boster, J. S.
    (2007) The semantic categories of breaking and cutting events: A crosslinguistic perspective. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(2), 133–152. 10.1515/COG.2007.005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.005 [Google Scholar]
  34. Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E.
    (1981) Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, (32), 89–115. 10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.000513
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.000513 [Google Scholar]
  35. Pye, C.
    (1996) K’iche’ Maya verbs of breaking and cutting. InM. Goodel & D. I. Choi (Eds.), Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics21 (pp.87–98). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B.
    (2001) An event structure account of English resultatives. Language, 77, 766–797.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (2005) Change of state verbs: Implications for theories of argument projection. InN. Erteschik-Shir & R. Tova (Eds.), The syntax of aspect: Deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation (pp.274–287). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0013 [Google Scholar]
  38. Rosch, E.
    (1973) On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. InT. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp.111–144). New York: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑505850‑6.50010‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-505850-6.50010-4 [Google Scholar]
  39. (1975) Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104(3), 192–233. 10.1037/0096‑3445.104.3.192
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192 [Google Scholar]
  40. (1978) Principles of categorization. InE. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp.27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B.
    (1975) Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, (7), 573–605. 10.1016/0010‑0285(75)90024‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9 [Google Scholar]
  42. Shaefer, R. P.
    (1980) An experimental assessment of the boundaries demarcating three basic semantic categories in the domain of separation. University of Kansas, Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Soares da Silva, A.
    (2003) Image schemas and category coherence: The case of the Portuguese verb deixar. InH. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp.281–322). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219074.281
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219074.281 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2007) Verbs of letting: Some cognitive and historical aspects. InN. Delbecque & B. Cornille (Eds.), On interpreting construction schemas: From action and motion to transitivity and causality (pp.171–200). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Talmy, L.
    (2000a) Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. (2000b) Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Taylor, J. R.
    (2002) Near synonyms as co-extensive categories: ‘high’ and ‘tall’ revisited. Language Sciences, 25, 263–284. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(02)00018‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(02)00018-9 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2003) Linguistic categorization (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Traugott, E., & Dasher, R. B.
    (2002) Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Wedel, A. B.
    (2006) Exemplar models, evolution and language change. The Linguistic Review, 23, 247–274. 10.1515/TLR.2006.010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TLR.2006.010 [Google Scholar]
  51. Winters, M. E.
    (1987) Syntactic and semantic space: The development of the English subjective. InA. Giacalone- Ramat, C. Onofrio & B. Giuliano (Eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Berlin & New York: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.48.44win
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.48.44win [Google Scholar]
  52. (2010) Introduction: on the emergence of diachronic cognitive linguistics. InM. E. Winters, H. Tissari & K. Allan (Eds.), Historical Cognitive Linguistics (pp.3–31). New York & Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226447.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226447.3 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2006) Typological Change in Chinese Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199297566.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199297566.001.0001 [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