1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Volume 23, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 23, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper explores the methodological potential of combining corpus-based and video-based resources in Contrastive Analysis within the theoretical framework of Cognitive Linguistics. Focusing on the breaking domain and the verbs used to describe events in this domain in English, Italian, and Swedish, we integrate data from the TenTen corpora and IMAGACT, a multimodal linguistic resource, to examine how different linguistic resources contribute to semantic analysis. We argue that using multiple data types enhances methodological robustness. We show that the use of a video-based language resource provides a consistent and reliable and allows the researchers to observe how actions are performed and to identify the characteristics of the action participants. These insights are combined with corpus data, which offers richer information about the verbs’ use in a variety of contexts. By combining different data types, we gain a more comprehensive understanding of verbs and action semantics.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00227.cac
2025-09-05
2026-05-15

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00227.cac
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, K., Altenberg, B., & Johansson, M.
    (Eds.) (1996) Languages in contrast: Papers from a symposium on text-based cross-linguistic studies, Lund 4–5 March 1994. Lund Studies in English.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Blanco, M. P.
    (2016) The construction of attitudinal stance: A corpus-based contrastive study of negative evaluative adjectives in English and Spanish opinion discourse. Languages in Contrast, 16(1), 31–53. 10.1075/lic.16.1.02per
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.16.1.02per [Google Scholar]
  3. Bouveret, M., & Sweetser, E.
    (2009) Multi-frame semantics, metaphoric extensions and grammar. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35(1), 49–59. 10.3765/bls.v35i1.3597
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v35i1.3597 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cacioli, C., & Vernillo, P.
    (2023) How did you break that? Semantic boundaries of Italian and English action verbs encoding breaking events. Languages in Contrast, 23(1), 93–120. 10.1075/lic.22004.cac
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.22004.cac [Google Scholar]
  5. Cadierno, T., Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., & Hijazo-Gascón, A.
    (2016) Semantic categorization of placement verbs in L1 and L2 Danish and Spanish. Language Learning, 66(1), 191–223. 10.1111/lang.12153
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12153 [Google Scholar]
  6. Connor, U., & Moreno, A.
    (2005) Tertium comparationis: A vital component in contrastive rhetoric research. InP. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. Eggington, W. Grabe & V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Directions in Applied Linguistics. Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. 10.2307/jj.27710949.17
     https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.27710949.17 [Google Scholar]
  7. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. Alan
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  8. Divjak, D., & Gries, S.
    (2009) Corpus-based cognitive semantics. A contrastive study of phrasal verbs in English and Russian. InB. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & K. Dziwirek (Eds.), Studies in cognitive corpus linguistics, (pp.273–296). (Lodz Studies in Language). Peter Lang Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Divjak, D., Levshina, N., & Klavan, J.
    (2016) Cognitive Linguistics: Looking back, looking forward. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 447–463. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0095
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0095 [Google Scholar]
  10. Ebeling, S. O., & Hasselgård, H.
    (2025) English go and Norwegian gå: Lexicogrammatical patterns and translation paradigms. Languages in Contrast. ISSN1387-6759. 10.1075/lic.00054.ebe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00054.ebe [Google Scholar]
  11. Enghels, R., Defrancq, B., & Jansegers, M.
    (2020) Reflections on the use of data and methods in contrastive linguistics. InR. Enghels, B. Defrancq & M. Jansegers (Eds.), New approaches to contrastive linguistics: Empirical and methodological challenges, 1–20. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110682588‑001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110682588-001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fernández-Martínez, N. J., & Faber, P.
    (2019) Who stole what from whom?: A corpus-based, cross-linguistic study of English and Spanish verbs of stealing. Languages in Contrast, 20(1), 107–140. 10.1075/lic.19002.fer
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.19002.fer [Google Scholar]
  13. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1982) Frame Semantics. InLinguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111–137). Hanshin Publishing Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fujii, S. I., Radetzky, P., & Sweetser, E.
    (2013) A multi-frame semantics of separation verbs. InM. Borkent, B. Dancygier & J. Hinnell (Eds.), Language and the creative mind (pp.137–153). CSLI publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Gärtig-Bressan, A. K.
    (2021) Der Ausdruck von Aktionen im Deutschen und Italienischen Recherchen zur Lexikalisierungsstrategie mit IMAGACT. Linguistik online, 111(6), 45–64. 10.13092/lo.111.8239
     https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.111.8239 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gast, V.
    (2011) Contrastive linguistics: Theories and methods. InB. Kortman & J. Kabatek (Eds.), Wörterbücker zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft Online: Linguistic Theory and Methodology. Berlin: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Granger, S.
    (2003) The corpus approach: A common way forward for Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies?InSylviane Granger, Jacques Lerot & Stephanie Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to contrastive linguistics and translation studies. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. 10.1163/9789004486638_004
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004486638_004 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gries, S. Th.
    (2022) Multi-word units (and tokenization more generally): a multi-dimensional and largely information-theoretic approach. Lexis, 191. 10.4000/lexis.6231
     https://doi.org/10.4000/lexis.6231 [Google Scholar]
  19. Haspelmath, M.
    (2010) Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language, 86(3), 663–687. 10.1353/lan.2010.0021
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0021 [Google Scholar]
  20. Huisman, J. L. A., Van Hout, R., & Majid, A.
    (2021) Cross-linguistic constraints and lineage-specific developments in the semantics of cutting and breaking in Japonic and Germanic. Linguistic Typology, 27(1), 1–35. 10.1515/lingty‑2021‑2090
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2021-2090 [Google Scholar]
  21. Johansson, Stig
    (1998) On the role of corpora in cross-linguistic research. InS. Johansson and S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Corpora and cross-linguistic research: Theory, method, and case studies (pp.3–24). Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004653665_004
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004653665_004 [Google Scholar]
  22. Johansson, S.
    (2007) Seeing through multilingual corpora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/scl.26
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.26 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kaufman, L. & Rousseeuw, P. J.
    (1990) Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9780470316801
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470316801 [Google Scholar]
  24. König, E.
    (2012) Contrastive linguistics and language comparison. Languages in Contrast, 12(1), 3–26. 10.1075/lic.12.1.02kon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.12.1.02kon [Google Scholar]
  25. Kopecka, A., & Narasimhan, B.
    (Eds.) (2012) Events of putting and taking: A crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.100
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.100 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kou, X., & Hohenstein, J.
    (2020) An event conflation model based on the realization event. Cognitive Semantics, 6(2), 188–213. 10.1163/23526416‑bja10008
     https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-bja10008 [Google Scholar]
  27. Krzeszowski, T. P.
    (1990) Contrasting languages: The scope of contrastive linguistics. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110860146
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110860146 [Google Scholar]
  28. Labov, W.
    (1973) The boundaries of words and their meanings. InC. J. N. Bailey & R. W. Shuy (Eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Langacker, R.
    (2007) Constructing the meanings of personal pronouns. InG. Radden, K. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp.171–187). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.12lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.12lan [Google Scholar]
  32. Levshina, N.
    (2016) Verbs of letting in Germanic and Romance languages. Languages in Contrast, 16(1), 84–117. 10.1075/lic.16.1.04lev
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.16.1.04lev [Google Scholar]
  33. (2022) Semantic maps of causation: New hybrid approaches based on corpora and grammar descriptions. Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft, 41(1), 179–205. 10.1515/zfs‑2021‑2043
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2021-2043 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B.
    (1999) A cognitive-interactional model of cross-linguistic analysis: New perspectives on ‘tertium comparationis’ and the concept of equivalence. InBarbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Cognitive perspectives on language. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Majid, A., Gullberg, M., Staden, M. Van, & Bowerman, M.
    (2007) How similar are semantic categories in closely related languages? A comparison of cutting and breaking in four Germanic languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(2), 179–194. 10.1515/COG.2007.007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.007 [Google Scholar]
  36. Majid, A., Boster, J. S., & Bowerman, M.
    (2008) The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition, 109(2), 235–250. 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.009 [Google Scholar]
  37. Majid, A., Roberts, S. G., Cilissen, L., Emmorey, K., Nicodemus, B., O’Grady, L., Woll, B., LeLan, B., De Sousa, H., Cansler, B. L., Shayan, S., De Vos, C., Senft, G., Enfield, N. J., Razak, R. A., Fedden, S., Tufvesson, S., Dingemanse, M., Ozturk, O., Levinson, S. C.
    (2018) Differential coding of perception in the world’s languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(45), 11369–11376. 10.1073/pnas.1720419115
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1720419115 [Google Scholar]
  38. Malt, B. C., Sloman, S. A., Gennari, S., Shi, M., & Wang, Y.
    (1999) Knowing versus naming: Similarity and the linguistic categorization of artifacts. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(2), 230–262. 10.1006/jmla.1998.2593
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2593 [Google Scholar]
  39. McEnery, T. & Xiao, R.
    (2007) Parallel and comparable corpora: What is happening?. InG. Anderman & M. Rogers (Eds.), Incorporating corpora. The linguist and the translator. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. 10.2307/jj.27710861.7
     https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.27710861.7 [Google Scholar]
  40. Moneglia, M., Brown, S. W., Frontini, F., Gagliardi, G., Kahn, F., Monachini, M., & Panunzi, A.
    (2014) The IMAGACT Visual Ontology: An extendable multilingual infrastructure for the representation of lexical encoding of action. InProceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14) (pp.3425–3432). Reykjavik, Iceland: European Language Resources Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Moneglia, M., Panunzi, A., & Gregori, L.
    (2018) Action identification and local equivalence of action verbs: the annotation framework of the IMAGACT ontology. InJ. Pustejovsky & I. van der Sluis (Eds.), Proceedings of the LREC 2018 Workshop “AREA — Annotation, Recognition and Evaluation of Actions (pp.23–30). ELDA.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Paradis, C.
    (2005) Ontologies and construals in lexical semantics. Axiomathes, 15(4), 541–573. 10.1007/s10516‑004‑7680‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-004-7680-7 [Google Scholar]
  43. Pekelder, J.
    (2010) Le tertium comparationis en linguistique contrastive: problèmes et méthodes. Linguistica Pragensia, 20(1), 22–36. 10.2478/v10017‑010‑0002‑6
     https://doi.org/10.2478/v10017-010-0002-6 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sakarias, M., & Flecken, M.
    (2019) Keeping the result in sight and mind: General cognitive principles and language-specific influences in the perception and memory of resultative events. Cognitive Science, 43(1), 1–30. 10.1111/cogs.12708
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12708 [Google Scholar]
  45. Slobin, D. I., Ibarretxe-Antunanõ, 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]
  46. Stathi, Katerina
    (2023) Granularity in the verbalization of events and objects: a cross-linguistic study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.233
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.233 [Google Scholar]
  47. Stosic, D.
    (2020) Defining the concept of manner: An attempt to order chaos. Testi e Linguaggi, 141, 127–150. 10.14273/UNISA‑3440
     https://doi.org/10.14273/UNISA-3440 [Google Scholar]
  48. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics, vol.21. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Viberg, Å.
    (2020) Contrasting semantic fields across languages. InR. Enghels, B. Defrancq & M. Jansegers (Eds.), New approaches to contrastive linguistics: Empirical and methodological challenges. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110682588‑009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110682588-009 [Google Scholar]
  50. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1984) Cups and mugs: Lexicography and conceptual analysis. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 4(2), 205–255. 10.1080/07268608408599326
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07268608408599326 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00227.cac
Loading
Combining corpora and video-based descriptions
Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association 23, 345 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00227.cac
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00227.cac
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00227.cac
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Contrastive Analysis; multimodality; 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