Gilquin (2008, What you think ain't what you get: Highly polysemous verbs in mind and language. In Jean-Remi Lapaire, Guillaume Desagulier & Jean-Baptiste Guignard (eds.), From gram to mind: Grammar as cognition, 235-255. Bordeaux: Presse Universitaires de Bordeaux) reported that light uses of verbs (e.g. make use) tend to outnumber concrete uses of the same verbs (e.g. make furniture) in corpora, whereas concrete senses tend to outnumber light senses in responses to elicitation tests. The differences between corpus frequency and cognitive salience remain an important and much-discussed question (cf. Arppe et al. 2010, Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5(1). 1-27). The question is particularly complicated because both corpus frequency and cognitive salience are difficult to define, and are often left undefined. Operationalising and defining corpus frequencies are the issues at the heart of the present paper, which includes a close, manual semantic analysis of nearly 6,000 instances of three polysemous verbs with light and concrete uses, make, take, and give, in the British component of the International Corpus of English. The paper compares semasiological frequencies like those measured by Gilquin (2008) to onomasiological frequency measurements (cf. Geeraerts 1997, Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press). Methodologically, the paper demonstrates that these approaches address fundamentally different research questions, and offer dramatically different results. Findings indicate that corpus frequencies in speech may correlate with elicitation test results, if the corpus frequencies are measured onomasiologically rather than semasiologically; I refer to Geeraerts's (2010, Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press) hypothesis of onomasiological salience in explaining this observation.

中文翻译：

---

当我们谈论语料频率时所谈论的是：带有轻和具体意义的多义动词的例子

Gilquin（2008，您的想法不是您所得到的：思维和语言中高度多义的动词。在Jean-Remi Lapaire，Guillaume Desagulier和Jean-Baptiste Guignard（ed。）中，从语法到思维：语法作为认知，235 -255。波尔多：波尔多大学出版社（Presse Universitaires de Bordeaux）报告，语料库中动词的轻度使用（例如，make use）倾向于超过相同动词的具体用途（例如，make furniture），而对感官的反应，具体的意义倾向于胜过光感。测试。语料频率和认知显着性之间的差异仍然是一个重要且讨论广泛的问题（参见Arppe等人，2010，《认知语料库语言学：当前理论和方法论的五个论点》，语料库5（1）。1-27）。这个问题特别复杂，因为语料频率和认知显着性都难以定义，并且常常不明确。语料库的可操作性和定义频率是本文的核心问题，其中包括对近6,000个三个多义动词实例的近距离手动语义分析，这些实例在英国的构成部分中具有轻，具体的用法，用法，用法和用法。国际英语语料库。该论文将像吉尔奎恩（Gilquin，2008）所测量的信号频率与本体频率测量相比较（参见Geeraerts 1997，《历时原型语义：对历史词汇学的贡献》，牛津：Clarendon Press）。从方法上讲，本文证明了这些方法可以解决根本不同的研究问题，并提供截然不同的结果。研究结果表明，如果语料库频率是从本体论而不是信号源学上测量的，那么语音中的语料库频率可能与激发测试结果相关。在解释这一发现时，我参考了Geeraerts（2010，词汇语义学理论，牛津：牛津大学出版社）的假设。