1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Volume 22, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 22, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study adopts a corpus-based behavioral profile approach to explore the semantic relationships among the senses of the Japanese temperature adjective (‘hot’). As a result, the hierarchical cluster analysis represents the distributional (dis)similarity of the ten senses of . Average silhouette width suggests a two-cluster interpretation, which reveals that senses derived from the same experience (sensory or subjective) tend to have similar usage characteristics. The discriminating properties of four subclusters and usage characteristics of each sense have been identified by means of computing -values. Also, the structure of the hypothesized network has been represented based on the distributional (dis)similarity of the ten senses. The relationships among these ten senses and the usage characteristics identified in this study provide insight into Japanese lexicography. Moreover, as the first attempt to apply the behavioral profile to the investigation of Japanese polysemy, this study holds implications for lexical semantics in Japanese.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00156.wan
2023-06-23
2024-12-12

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00156.wan
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Atkins, B. T.
    (1987) Semantic ID tags: Corpus evidence for dictionary senses. InProceedings of the third annual conference of the UW Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary, University of Waterloo, Canada, 17–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Gensler, S., Weiber, R., & Weiber, T.
    (2021) Multivariate analysis: An application-oriented introduction. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. 10.1007/978‑3‑658‑32589‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-32589-3 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bunkachō [Agency for Cultural Affairs]
    Bunkachō [Agency for Cultural Affairs] (2014) Ijidōkun no Kanji no Tsukaiwakerei (Hōkoku) [examples of Kanji usage for common Ijidōkun (a report)]. https://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/bunkashingikai/kokugo/hokoku/pdf/ijidokun_140221.pdf. Accessed27 August 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Brugman, C.
    (1981) The story of over. M. A. thesis. University of California, Berkeley.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Brugman, C., & Lakoff, G.
    (1988) Cognitive topology and lexical networks. InS. L. Small, G. W. Cottrell & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution (pp.477–508). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman. 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑051013‑2.50022‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-051013-2.50022-7 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cuyckens, H., & Zawada, B. E.
    (2001) Introduction. InH. Cuyckens & B. E. Zawada (Eds.), Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.ix–xxvii). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.177.02cuy
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.177.02cuy [Google Scholar]
  7. Dewell, R.
    (1994) Over again: image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(4), 351–380. 10.1515/cogl.1994.5.4.351
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1994.5.4.351 [Google Scholar]
  8. Divjak, D.
    (2006) Ways of intending: Delineating and structuring near-synonyms. InS.Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp.19–56). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197709.19
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197709.19 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2010) Structuring the lexicon. A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110220599
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220599 [Google Scholar]
  10. Divjak, D., & Gries, S.Th.
    (2006) Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(1), 23–60. 10.1515/CLLT.2006.002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2006.002 [Google Scholar]
  11. Evans, V.
    (2004) The structure of time: Language, meaning and temporal cognition. Amsterdam & Phialdelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.12
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.12 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2005) The meaning of time: Polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics, 41(1), 33–75. 10.1017/S0022226704003056
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226704003056 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fillmore, C.
    (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica61, 222–254.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Firth, J. R.
    (1957) A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955. InJ. R. Firth (Ed.), Studies in linguistic analysis (pp.1–32). Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Geeraerts, D.
    (1993) Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(3), 223–272. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.223
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.223 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2010) Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Gibbs, R.
    (2007) Why cognitive linguists should care more about empirical methods. InM. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson & M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.2–18). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.18.06gib
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.18.06gib [Google Scholar]
  18. Glynn, D.
    (2009) Polysemy, syntax, and variation: A usage-based method for cognitive semantics. InV. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.77–106). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.24.08gly
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.08gly [Google Scholar]
  19. (2010a) Synonymy, lexical fields, and grammatical constructions: A study in usage-based cognitive semantics. InH. J. Schmid & S. Handle (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage patterns (pp.89–118). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110216035.89
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216035.89 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2010b) Corpus-driven cognitive semantics. Introduction to the field. InD. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp.1–41). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226423.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423.1 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2014a) Polysemy and synonymy. Cognitive theory and corpus method. InD. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp.7–38). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.01gly
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.01gly [Google Scholar]
  22. (2014b) The many uses of run: Corpus methods and socio-cognitive semantics. InD. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp.117–144). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.05gly
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.05gly [Google Scholar]
  23. (2014c) Techniques and tools: Corpus methods and statistics for semantics. InD. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp.307–342). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.12gly
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.12gly [Google Scholar]
  24. (2015) Semasiology and onomasiology: Empirical questions between meaning, naming and context. InJ. Daems, E. Zenner, K. Heylen, D. Speelman & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Change of paradigms – New Paradoxes: Recontextualizing Language and Linguistics (pp.47–79). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (2016) Quantifying polysemy: Corpus methodology for prototype theory. Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 413–447. 10.1515/flin‑2016‑0016
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0016 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2022) Emergent categories. InK. Krawczak, M. Grygiel & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Analogy and Contrast in Language (pp.245–282). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.73.08gly
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.73.08gly [Google Scholar]
  27. Glynn, D., & Fischer, K.
    (2010) Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226423
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423 [Google Scholar]
  28. Glynn, D., & Robinson, J.
    (2014) Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43 [Google Scholar]
  29. Gries, S.Th.
    (2006) Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run. InS.Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp.57–99). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197709.57
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197709.57 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2010) Behavioral profiles: A fine-grained and quantitative approach in corpus-based lexical semantics. The Mental Lexicon, 5(3), 323–346. 10.1075/ml.5.3.04gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.5.3.04gri [Google Scholar]
  31. (2019) Chapter 2: Polysemy. InE. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics – Key topics (pp.23–43). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. 10.1515/9783110626438‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110626438-002 [Google Scholar]
  32. Gries, S.Th., & Divjak, D.
    (2009) Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic analysis. InV. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.57–75). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.24.07gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.07gri [Google Scholar]
  33. Gries, S.Th., & Otani, N.
    (2010) Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based perspective on synonymy and antonymy. ICAME Journal, 341, 121–150.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Harris, Z. S.
    (1954) Distributional structure. Word, 101, 146–162. 10.1080/00437956.1954.11659520
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1954.11659520 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hattori, S.
    (1964) Igiso no Kōzō to Kinō [Structure and function of the sememe]. Gengo Kenkyū [Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan], 451, 12–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Hida, Y., & Asada, H.
    (Eds.) (2018) [1991] Genndai keiyōshi yōhō jiten [Japanese adjectives usage dictionary], 2nd ed.Tokyo: Tokyodo.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Imai, S.
    (Ed.) (2011) Nihongo Tagigo Gakushū Jiten Keiyōshi-fukushi Hen [A learner’s dictionary of multi-sense Japanese words: Adjectives & adverbs]. Tokyo: Aruku.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Iori, I.
    (Ed.) (2012) [2001] Atarashii Nihongogaku Nyūmon [An introduction to modern Japanese linguistics], 2nd ed. Tokyo: 3A Corporation.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Jansegers, M., Vanderschueren, C., & Enghels, R.
    (2015) The polysemy of the Spanish verb sentir: A behavioral profile analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(3), 381–421. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0055
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0055 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kageyama, T.
    (1980) Nichiei Hikaku Goi no Kouzou [Japanese-English comparison on the structure of the lexicon]. Tokyo: Shohaksuha.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Kitahara, Y.
    (Ed.) (2000) Nihon Kokugo Daijiten: Dai Ni Ban [Shogakukan’s Japanese dictionary, 2nd ed.]. Tokyo: Shogakukan.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Kovecses, Z.
    (2010) [2002] Metaphor: A practical introduction, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Kreitzer, A.
    (1997) Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 291–325. 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.291
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.291 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kunihiro, T.
    (1967) Kōzō-teki Imi-ron [Structural semantics: A contrastive study of English and Japanese]. Tokyo: Sanseido.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  46. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume l Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. (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]
  48. Levshina, N.
    (2015) How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam & Phildelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.195
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  49. Liu, M.
    (2022) Towards a dynamic behavioral profile of the Mandarin Chinese temperature term re: a diachronic semasiological approach. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory (published online). 10.1515/cllt‑2021‑0046
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2021-0046 [Google Scholar]
  50. MacWhinney, B.
    (2000) The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. Third Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Momiyama, Y.
    (2021) (Reikai) Nihongo no Tagigo Kenkyū [(Illustration) Research on polysemy in Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishukan Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. D.
    (2003) Polysemy and flexibility: Introduction and overview. InB. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman & D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp.3–30). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110895698.3
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895698.3 [Google Scholar]
  53. Noji, J.
    (1973–77) Yooji no gengo seikatsu no jittai [The reality of the language life of young children] I–IV1. Tokyo: Bunka Hyoron Shuppan.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Norvig, P., & Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Taking: A study in lexical network theory. InJ. Aske, N. Beery, L. Michaelis & H. Filip (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society (pp.195–206). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1820
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1820 [Google Scholar]
  55. Ogawa, Y.
    (2016) Ogawa corpus. Pittsburgh, PA: TalkBank. 10.21415/T5H314
     https://doi.org/10.21415/T5H314 [Google Scholar]
  56. Rosch, E.
    (1978) Principles of categorization. InE. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp.27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B.
    (1975) Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 71, 573–605. 10.1016/0010‑0285(75)90024‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9 [Google Scholar]
  58. Sampson, G.
    (1985) Writing systems: A linguistic introduction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Sandra, D., & Rice, S.
    (1995) Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s?Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 89–130. 10.1515/cogl.1995.6.1.89
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1995.6.1.89 [Google Scholar]
  60. Schmid, H. J.
    (2000) English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110808704
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808704 [Google Scholar]
  61. Seto, K.
    (2007) Metafā to Tagigo no Kijutsu [Metaphor and polysemy description]. InT. Kusumi (Ed.), Metafā Kenkyū no Saizensen [At the forefront of metaphor research] (pp.31–61). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Shimodaira, H.
    (2004) Approximately unbiased tests of regions using multistep-multiscale bootstrap resampling. Annals of Statistics, 32(6), 2616–2641. 10.1214/009053604000000823
     https://doi.org/10.1214/009053604000000823 [Google Scholar]
  63. Shindo, M.
    (1998) An analysis of metaphorically extended concepts based on bodily experience: A case study of temperature expressions (1). Papers in Linguistic Science, 41, 29–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. (2015) Subdomains of temperature concepts in Japanese. InM. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (Ed.), The linguistics of temperature (pp.639–665). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.107.20shi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.107.20shi [Google Scholar]
  65. Suzuki, R., & Shimodaira, H.
    (2006) Pvclust: An R package for assessing the uncertainty in hierarchical clustering. Bioinformatics, 22(12), 1540–1542. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl117
     https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btl117 [Google Scholar]
  66. Szymor, N.
    (2015) Behavioral profiling in translation studies. Trans-kom, 8(2), 483–498.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Tamura, A.
    (1999) Ondokankaku o Arawasu-go no Imikakutyō nitsuite [Semantic extension of words for temperature sense]. Gakugei Nihongo Kyōiku [Journal of Gakugei Japanese language teaching], 21, 1–12.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
    (2001) Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: the case of over. Language, 77(4), 724–765. 10.1353/lan.2001.0250
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0250 [Google Scholar]
  69. (2003) The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486517
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517 [Google Scholar]
  70. Watanabe, M.
    (1970) Goi Kyōiku no Taikei to Hōhō [System and method for education of lexicon]. InK. Morioka, M. Nagano & Y. Miyaji (Eds.), Kōza Tadashii Nihongo 4: Goi-hen [Lectures on Correct Japanese 4: Lexicon] (pp.289–310). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Wittgenstein, L.
    (1953) Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Yamada, S.
    (2014) Imi kara Mita Ijidōkun [A research of Ijidōkun from the perspective of semantics]. Nihongo-gaku [Japanese Linguistics], 33(10), 14–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Yamaguchi, N.
    (1982) Kankaku Kanjō Goi no Rekishi [Histori of sensory and emotional lexicon]. InK. Morioka, Y. Miyaji, H. Teramura & Y. Kawabata (Eds.), Kōza Nihongo-gaku: Goi-shi [Lectures on Japanese Linguistics: History of the Lexicon] (pp.202–227). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Zhang, B.
    (2010) Guanyu “wenjue xingrongci + mingci” lei yinyu de kaocha. Cong renzhi yuyanxue de jiaodu [An examination of the “temperature adjectives + noun” metaphor: from the perspective of cognitive linguistics]. Riyu xuexi yu yanjiu [Journal of Japanese Language Study and Research], 51, 56–62.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00156.wan
Loading
The polysemy of the Japanese temperature adjective atsui
Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association 22, 476 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00156.wan
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00156.wan
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00156.wan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): behavioral profile; Japanese; lexical semantics; polysemy; temperature adjective

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