Volume 15, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This is a corpus-based study of the development of the verb in Ancient Greek, originally meaning , from the 6th c. in Classical Greek, up to the end of the 3rd c. in Hellenistic Koiné. It implements a hierarchical cluster analysis and a multiple correspondence analysis of the sum of the attested instances of of that period, divided by century. It explores the gains following a syncretism between two methodological strands: earlier introspective analyses postulating variant construals over intuitively grasped schematic configurations such as image schemas, and strictly inductive methods based on statistical analyses of correlations between co-occurring formal and semantic features. Thus, it examines the relevance of the image-schema to the architecture of the schematic construction corresponding to the prototypical and historically preceding sense of , . Consequently, it observes how shifts in the featural configurations detected through statistical analysis, leading to the emergence of new senses, correspond to successive shifts on the perspectival salience of elements in the schematic construction of the verb.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Arppe, A. , Gilquin, G. , Glynn, D. , Hilpert, M. , & Zeschel, A.
    (2010) Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora, 5, 1–27. doi: 10.3366/cor.2010.0001
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2010.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, R. H.
    (2008) Analysing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  3. Boers, F.
    (1996) Spatial prepositions and metaphor: A cognitive semantic journey along the up-down and the front-back dimensions. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brugman, C.
    (1988)  The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon . New York: Garland.
  5. Brugman, C. , & Lakoff, G. (1988) Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In S. Small , G. Cottrell , & M. Tannenhaus (Eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology and artificial intelligence (pp.477–507). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman. doi: 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑051013‑2.50022‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-051013-2.50022-7 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chaffe, W.
    (1970) Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Díez Velasco, O. I.
    (2001) Metaphor, metonymy and image-schemas: An analysis of conceptual integration patterns. Journal of English Studies, 3, 47–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dirven, R. , Goossens, L. , Putseys, Y. , & Vorlat, E.
    (1982) The scene of linguistic action and its perspectivization by speak, talk, say, and tell. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pb.iii.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.iii.6 [Google Scholar]
  9. Divjak, D.
    (2006) Ways of intending: A corpus-based cognitive linguistic approach to near-synonyms in Russian. In S. T. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp.19–56). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2010) Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110220599
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220599 [Google Scholar]
  11. Divjak, D. , & Fieller, N.
    (2014) Cluster analysis: Finding structure in linguistic data. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp.405–441). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.43.16div
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.16div [Google Scholar]
  12. Evans, V. , & Tyler, A.
    (2004) Spatial experience, lexical structure and motivation: The case of in . In G. Radden & K. U. Panther (Eds.). Studies in linguistic motivation (pp.157–192). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Evans, V. , & Green, M.
    (2005) Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fabiszak, M. , Hebda, A. , Kokorniak, I. , & Krawczak, K.
    (2010) The semasiological structure of Polish mýsleć ‘to think’: A study in verb-prefix semantics. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp.223–252). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fauconnier, G. , & Turner, M.
    (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1968) The case for case. In E. Bach & R. Harms (Ed.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp.1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fillmore, C.
    (1977) Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zambolli (Ed.), Linguistic structure processing (pp.55–82). Amsterdam: North Holland.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Geeraerts, D.
    (1987) On necessary and sufficient conditions. Journal of Semantics, 5, 275–291. doi: 10.1093/jos/5.4.275
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/5.4.275 [Google Scholar]
  20. (1993) Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 223–72. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.223
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.223 [Google Scholar]
  21. (1997) Diachronic prototype semantics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2006) Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219128
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219128 [Google Scholar]
  23. Geeraerts, D. , Grondelaers, S. , & Bakema, P.
    (1994) The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110873061
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110873061 [Google Scholar]
  24. Geeraerts, D. , Grondelaers, S. , & Speelman, D.
    (1999) Convergentie en divergentie in de nederlandse woordenschat. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gesmann, M. , & de Castillo, D.
    (2011) Using the Google chart tools with R: googleVis-0.5.2 Package Vignette (Version 0.5.2). Retrieved fromcran.rproject.org/web/packages/googleVis/vignettes/googleVis.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gilquin, G. (2010) Corpus, cognition and causative constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.39
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.39 [Google Scholar]
  27. Glynn, D.
    (2009) Polysemy, syntax, and variation: A usage-based method for Cognitive Semantics. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.77–106). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.24.08gly
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.08gly [Google Scholar]
  28. (2010a) Corpus-driven cognitive semantics. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp.1–42). Berlin: Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110226423.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423.1 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2010b) Synonymy, lexical fields, and grammatical constructions: A study in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In H. -J. Schmid , & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage-patterns: Empirical studies (pp.89–118). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110216035.89
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216035.89 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2010c) Testing the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based cognitive semantics. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226423.239
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423.239 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2014a) The many uses of run: corpus methods and socio-cognitive semantics. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp.117–144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.43.05gly
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.05gly [Google Scholar]
  32. (2014b) Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp.443–485). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.43.17gly
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.17gly [Google Scholar]
  33. (2015) Semasiology and onomasiology: Empirical questions between meaning, naming and context. In J. Daems , E. Zenner , K. Heylen , D. Speelman , & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Change of caradigms. New paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics (47–79). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224. doi: 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00080‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 [Google Scholar]
  36. Gries, S.
    (2006) Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run . In S. T. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp.57–99). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197709.57
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197709.57 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2013) Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110307474
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110307474 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hespos, S. J. , & Baillargeon, R.
    (2001) Knowledge about containment events in very young children. Cognition, 78, 207–245. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(00)00118‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00118-9 [Google Scholar]
  39. Heylen, K. , Wielfaert, T. , Speelman, D. , & Geeraerts, D.
    (2015) Monitoring polysemy: Word space models as a tool for large-scale lexical semantic analysis. Lingua, 157, 153–172. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hilpert, M.
    (2011) Dynamic visualizations of language change. Motion charts on the basis of bivariate and multivariate data from diachronic corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(4), 435–461. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.16.4.01hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16.4.01hil [Google Scholar]
  41. Janda, L. , & Solovyev, V.
    (2009) What constructional profiles reveal about synonymy: A case study of the Russian words for sadness and happiness . Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 367–393. doi: 10.1515/COGL.2009.018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.018 [Google Scholar]
  42. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Kilgarriff, A.
    (1997) I don’t believe in word senses. Computers and the Humanities, 31, 91–113. doi: 10.1023/A:1000583911091
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1000583911091 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kövecses, Z.
    (2010) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kövecses, Z. , & Radden, R. (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  46. Krawczak, K. , & Glynn, D.
    (2015) Operationalizing mirativity: A usage-based quantitative study of constructional construal in English. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13, 353–382. doi: 10.1075/rcl.13.2.04kra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.2.04kra [Google Scholar]
  47. Krawczak, K. , & Kokorniak, I.
    (2012) A corpus-driven quantitative approach to the construal of Polish think. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 48, 439–472. doi: 10.1515/psicl‑2012‑0021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2012-0021 [Google Scholar]
  48. Lakoff, G.
    (1977) Linguistic gestalts. In W. A. Beach , S. E. Fox , & S. Philosoph (Eds.), Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, April 14–16, 236–287.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. (1982) Categories: An essay in Cognitive Linguistics. InLinguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.139–194). Seoul: Hanshin.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  51. (1990) The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas?Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39 [Google Scholar]
  52. (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.202–251). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  53. Langacker, R.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press
    [Google Scholar]
  54. (1988) A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.127–161). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.50.06lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.06lan [Google Scholar]
  55. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  56. Lehrer, A.
    (1982) Wine and conversation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Levshina, N.
    (2015) How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.195
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  58. McGuillivray, B. , Johanson, C. , & Apollon, D.
    (2008) Semantic structure from correspondence analysis. InColing 2008: Proceedings of 3rd Textgraphs workshop on Graph-Based Algorithms in Natural Language Processing (pp.49–52). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Radden, G. , & Kövecses, Z.
    (1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. U. Panther & G. Radden (Ed.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17–59). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
  60. Sandra, D. , & Rice, S.
    (1995) Network analysis of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s?Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 89–130. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1995.6.1.89
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1995.6.1.89 [Google Scholar]
  61. Schmid, H. J.
    (1993) Cottage and co., idea, start vs. begin: Die kategorisierung als grundprinzip einer differenzierten bedeutungsbeschreibung. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783111355771
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111355771 [Google Scholar]
  62. Speelman, D. , & Geeraerts, D.
    (2010) Causes for causatives: The case of Dutch ‘doen’ and ‘laten’. In T. Sanders & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp.173–204). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Talmy, L.
    (1985) Force dynamics in language and cognition, Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2 [Google Scholar]
  64. Tyler, A. , & Evans, V.
    (2003) The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486517
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517 [Google Scholar]
  65. Verhagen, A.
    (2007) Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.48–81). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [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