1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Volume 21, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 21, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Crosslinguistic studies on motion events have revealed that S-languages demonstrate finer-grained lexical categories than V-languages in representing motion manners/gaits. But these studies were restricted to the semantic domain of motion events and confined to a limited number of S- or V- languages. In this paper, we further investigate whether the association between lexical diversity and language typology is manifest in a similar way in the semantic domain of separation events by focusing on Mandarin, Russian and Korean. Our results suggest that: (1) Separation expressions support the diversity-typology correlation proved in motion expressions because the two S-languages Mandarin and Russian demonstrate richer lexical diversity than the V-language Korean; (2) It is further pointed out that apart from language typology, lexical diversity is influenced by multiple factors including lexical resources, conceptual salience, event construal, and event type; (3) Though typologically different, these three languages, in their lexical naming of separation events, are constrained by the biomechanical structure and follow the principle of prototypicality. Overall, this study opens up a new crosslinguistic perspective by showing how lexical diversity is typologically and linguistically driven.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00143.du
2023-03-14
2025-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00143.du
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ameka, F. K., & Hill, D.
    (2020) The comparative semantics of verbs of ‘opening’: West Africa vs Oceania. InH. Bromhead & Z. Ye. Meaning, life and culture: In conversation with Anna Wierzbicka. Canberra: ANU Press. 10.2307/j.ctv1d5nm0d.8
     https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1d5nm0d.8 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ameel, E., Malt, B. C., & Storm, G.
    (2008) Object naming and later lexical development: From baby bottle to beer bottle. Journal of Memory and Language, 581, 262–285. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.01.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.01.006 [Google Scholar]
  3. Andersen, E. S.
    (1975) Cups and glasses: Learning boundaries are vague. Journal of Child Language, 21, 78–103. 10.1017/S0305000900000908
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900000908 [Google Scholar]
  4. Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Tham, S. W.
    (2010) The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 461, 331–377. 10.1017/S0022226709990272
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990272 [Google Scholar]
  5. Berlin, B.
    (1992) Ethnobiological classification: Principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400862597
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400862597 [Google Scholar]
  6. Berlin, B., & Kay, P.
    (1969) Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bowerman, M.
    (1996) Learning how to structure space for language: A crosslinguistic perspective. InP. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp.385–436). Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/4107.003.0012
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4107.003.0012 [Google Scholar]
  8. (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. H. Rakison (Eds.), Building object categories in developmental time (pp.209–243). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (2012) Ten lectures on language, cognition, and language acquisition. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bowerman, M., & Choir, S.
    (2003) Space under Construction: Language-specific spatial categorization in first language acquisition. InD. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadwo (eds.), Language in mind: advances in the study of language and thought (pp.387–427). MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/4117.003.0021
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4117.003.0021 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bohnemeyer, J., Bowerman, M., & Brown, P.
    (2001) Cut and break clips. InS. C. Levinson & N. J. Enfield (Eds.), Field manual 2001, language and cognition group (pp.90–96). Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Nijmegen: MPI.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bohnemeyer, J.
    (2007) Morpholexical transparency 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]
  13. Brown, C. H.
    (1976) General principles of human anatomical partonomy and speculations on the growth of partonomic nomenclature. American Ethnologist, 31, 400–424. 10.1525/ae.1976.3.3.02a00020
     https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1976.3.3.02a00020 [Google Scholar]
  14. Brown, P.
    (2007) She had just cut/broken off her head: Cutting and breaking verbs in Tzeltal. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(2), 319–330. 10.1515/COG.2007.019
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.019 [Google Scholar]
  15. Chao, Y. R.
    (1968) A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Choi, S., & Bowerman, M.
    (1991) Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 411, 83–121. 10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90033‑Z
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90033-Z [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. Chen, L., & Guo, J.
    (2009) Motion events in Chinese novels: Evidence for an equipollently-framed language. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(9), 1749–1766. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.015 [Google Scholar]
  19. Croft, W.
    (2010) The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics48(1), 1–48. 10.1515/ling.2010.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Croft, W., Barðdal, J., Hollmann, W., Sotirova, V., & Taoka, C.
    (2010) Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex event constructions. InH. C. Boas (Ed.), Contractive studies in construction grammar (pp.201–236). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.10.09cro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.10.09cro [Google Scholar]
  21. Divjak, D.
    (2019) Frequency in language: Memory, attention and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316084410
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316084410 [Google Scholar]
  22. 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]
  23. 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]
  24. Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P.
    (1994) The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context (Cognitive Linguistics Research 5). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110873061
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110873061 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gennari, S. P., Sloman, S. A., Malt, B. C., & Fitch, W. T.
    (2002) Motion events in language and cognition. Cognition, 831, 49–79. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(01)00166‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00166-4 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gentner, D.
    (2005) The development of relational category knowledge. InL. Gershkoff-Stowe & D. H. Rakison (Eds.), Building object categories in developmental time (pp.245–275). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Goodenough, W.
    (1956) Componential analysis and the study of meaning. Language, 321, 195–216. 10.2307/410665
     https://doi.org/10.2307/410665 [Google Scholar]
  28. K. Hale & S. J. Keyser
    (1987) A view from the middle. Lexicon project working papers 10. Cambridge, MA: MIT, Center for Cognitive Science.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Janda, L. A., & Nesset, T.
    (2010) Taking apart Russian RAZ-. Slavic and East European Journal, 54(3), 476–501.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Ji, Y. L., Hendriks, H., & Hickmann, M.
    (2011) The expression of cause motion events in Chinese and English: Some typological issues. Linguistics, 49(5), 1041–1077. 10.1515/ling.2011.029
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.029 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kay, P., Berlin, B., Maffi, L., & Merrifield, W.
    (1997) Color naming across languages. InC. L. Hardin & L. Maffi (Eds.), Color categories in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519819.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519819.002 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kay, P., & McDaniel, C. K.
    (1978) The linguistic significance of the meanings of basic color terms. Language, 541, 610–646. 10.1353/lan.1978.0035
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1978.0035 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kay, P., & Regier, T.
    (2003) Resolving the question of color naming universals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1001, 9085–9089. 10.1073/pnas.1532837100
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1532837100 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kwon, I.
    (2016) How do Koreans break and cut things?: A cognitive-semantics approach to BREAK predicates and CUT predicates in Korean. Linguistic Research, 33(1), 65–94. 10.17250/khisli.33.1.201603.004
     https://doi.org/10.17250/khisli.33.1.201603.004 [Google Scholar]
  35. Labov, W.
    (1973) The boundaries of words and their meanings. InJ. Bailey & R. Shuy. New ways of analyzing variation in English (pp.340–373). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Langacker, R.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Levinson, S. C.
    (2007) Cut and break verbs in Yeli Dnye, the Papuan language of Rossel Island. Cognitive Linguistics, 181, 207–218. 10.1515/COG.2007.009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.009 [Google Scholar]
  39. Liu, D. L.
    (2013) Salience and construal in the use of synonymy: A study of two sets of near-synonymous nouns. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(1), 67–113. 10.1515/cog‑2013‑0003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0003 [Google Scholar]
  40. Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Staden, M. V., & 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]
  41. Majid, A., Boster, J. S., & Bowerman, M.
    (2008) The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition, 1091, 235–250. 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.009 [Google Scholar]
  42. Malt, B. C., Gennari, S., Imai, M., Ameel, E., Tsuda, N., & Majid, A.
    (2008) Talking about walking: Biomechanics and the language of locomotion. Psychological Science, 191, 232–240. 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2008.02074.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02074.x [Google Scholar]
  43. Malt, B. C., Gennari, S., & Imai, M.
    (2010) Lexicalization patterns and the world-to-words mapping. InB. C. Malt & P. Wolff (Eds.), Words and the mind: How words capture human experience (pp.29–57). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311129.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311129.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  44. Malt, B. C., Ameel, E., Imai, Gennari, M. S., Saji, N., & Majid, A.
    (2014) Human locomotion in languages: Constraints on moving and meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 741, 107–123. 10.1016/j.jml.2013.08.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  45. Narasimhan, B.
    (2007) Cutting, breaking, and tearing verbs in Hindi and Tamil. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(2),195–205. 10.1515/COG.2007.008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.008 [Google Scholar]
  46. Pye, C.
    (1996) K’iche’ Maya verbs of breaking and cutting. Kansas working papers in linguistics, 211, 87–98. Lawrence: University of Kansas. 10.17161/KWPL.1808.458
     https://doi.org/10.17161/KWPL.1808.458 [Google Scholar]
  47. Pye, C., Loeb, D., & Piao, Y.-Y.
    (1995) The acquisition of breaking and cutting. InE. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Child Language Research Forum. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Saji, N., Imai, M., Saalbach, H., Zhang, Y., Shu, H., & Okada, H.
    (2011) Word learning does not end at fast mapping: Evolution of verb meanings through reorganization of an entire semantic domain. Cognition, 1181, 45–61. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  49. Shaefer, R. P.
    (1980) An experimental assessment of the boundaries demarcating three basic semantic categories in the domain of separation. Kansas: University of Kansas.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Slobin, D. I.
    (1996) Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. InM. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp.195–220). Oxford: Clarendon Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198235392.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198235392.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2000) Verbalized events: A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. InS. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Evidence for linguistic relativity (pp.107–138). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.198.10slo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.198.10slo [Google Scholar]
  52. (2004) The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. InS. Stromqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.). Relating events in narrative: Vol. 2. typological and contextual perspectives (pp.219–257). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. (2005) Relating narrative events in translation. InD. Ravid & H. B. Shyldkrot (Eds.), Perspectives on language and language development: Essays in honor of Ruth A. Berman (pp.115–129). Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/1‑4020‑7911‑7_10
     https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-7911-7_10 [Google Scholar]
  54. (2006) What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. InM. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (pp.59–81). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.66.05slo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.66.05slo [Google Scholar]
  55. Slobin, D. I. I., Ibarretxe-Antunano, I., Kopecka, A., & Majid, A.
    (2014) Manners of human gait: A crosslinguistic event-naming study. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 701–741. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0061
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0061 [Google Scholar]
  56. Sloman, S. A., & Malt, B. C.
    (2003) Artifacts are not ascribed essences, nor are they treated as belonging to kinds. Language and Cognitive Processes, 181, 563–582. 10.1080/01690960344000035
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960344000035 [Google Scholar]
  57. Shi, W. L., & Wu, Y. C.
    (2014) Which way to move: The evolution of motion expressions in Chinese. Linguistics, 52(5), 1237–1292. 10.1515/ling‑2014‑0024
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2014-0024 [Google Scholar]
  58. Son, M.
    (2009) Linguistic variation and lexical parameter: The case of directed motion. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 15(1), 213–222.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Tai, J. H.
    (2003) Cognitive relativism: Resultative construction in Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 4(2), 301–316.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. (2013) Reflections on typological characterization of Chinese grammar. Human language resources and linguistic typology (pp.59–88). Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Sinology. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Talmy, L.
    (1985) Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical form. InT. Shopen (Ed.). Language typology and syntactic description: Vol. 3. Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp.57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. (2000) Toward cognitive semantics (Volume II): Typology and process in concept structuring. Mass: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Yan, C. S.
    (2005) The lexicalization pattern of ‘realization’ in English and Chinese. Journal of Foreign Languages, 11, 23–29.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00143.du
Loading
Separation events in Mandarin, Russian and Korean
Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association 21, 377 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00143.du
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00143.du
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00143.du
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): crosslinguistic studies; language typology; lexical category; lexical diversity; separation events

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