Abstract
This study examines the diachronic evolution of the polysemy of the Spanish verb sentir (‘to feel’) by means of a corpus-based dynamic behavioral profile (BP) analysis. Methodologically, it presents the first application of the BP approach to historical data and proposes some methodological innovations not only within the current body of research in historical semantics but also with regard to previous applications of the BP approach. First, whereas the majority of existing studies in quantitative historical semantics are largely based on observed frequencies or percentages of collocational co-occurrence, our study leverages more complex historical data that are based on the similarities of vectors. Second, this study also provides an extension of the methodological apparatus of the BP approach by complementing the traditional hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis (HAC) with a dynamic BP approach derived from multidimensional scaling maps (MDS). Theoretically, this methodology contributes to a comprehensive perspective on the process of Constructionalization and the nature of networks, which is illustrated on the basis of the development of the Discourse Marker (DM) lo siento (‘I’m sorry’).
Appendix 1. List of ID tags and ID tag levels (21st century)
| TYPE OF ID TAG | ID TAG | ID TAG LEVEL | |
|---|---|---|---|
| VERB | morphosyntactic properties | tense | present vs. past vs. future vs. infinitival form |
| mood | indicative vs. subjunctive vs. conditional vs. imperative vs. N/A | ||
| infinitival form | infinitive vs. gerund vs. N/A | ||
| person | 1 vs. 2 vs. 3 vs. N/A | ||
| number | singular vs. plural vs. N/A | ||
| voice | active vs. passive vs. impersonal vs. middle | ||
| grammatical aspect | perfective vs. imperfective | ||
| presence of causative V | yes vs. no | ||
| infinitive | sentir, sentirse | ||
| semantic properties | general sense | general physical perception vs. specific perception modality vs. cognitive perception vs. emotional perception vs. ambiguous physical P-cognitive P vs. ambiguous physical P-emotional P vs. ambiguous cognitive P-visual P vs. ambiguous synaesthesia vs. ambiguous vs. metalinguistic use | |
| specific sense | 30 levels of ID tags (cf. Table below “Senses as labeled in the dendrogram and their paraphrase in English”) | ||
| ARGUMENT STRUCTURE (AS) | basic AS | full lexical AS vs. weakened AS vs. absolute use | |
| formal characte-ristics of S | lexical presence S | with vs. without lexical subject | |
| form S | NP vs. proper name vs. pronoun vs. relative pronoun vs. clause vs. N/A | ||
| semantic characteristics S | semantic role S | preceptor vs. experiencer vs. stimulus vs. ambiguous vs. N/A | |
| semantic type S [nature ±animate; ±concrete] | animate_human vs. animate_human_collective vs. animate_animal vs. animate_collective vs. inanimate_concrete vs. inanimate_abstract vs. inanimate_body part vs. clause_event vs. clause_state vs. N/A | ||
| formal characteristics of DO | presence DO | with vs. without DO | |
| form DO | NP vs. pronoun vs. relative pronoun clitic vs. clause vs. gerund vs. infinitive vs. N/A | ||
| NP ± determinant | NP with determinant vs. NP without determinant vs. N/A | ||
| semantic characteristics of DO | referent DO | person vs. concrete entity vs. abstract entity vs. situation/event vs. ambiguous vs. N/A | |
| type of clitic DO | clitic of the reflexive passive vs. impersonal clitic vs. reflexive clitic vs. non-reflexive clitic vs. N/A | ||
| type of non-reflexive clitic | referential clitic vs. non-referential clitic vs. N/A | ||
| characteristics of the predicative complement of DO | presence predicative complement of DO | with vs. without predicative complement of DO | |
| predicative complement of DO: form | adjective vs. adverb vs. clause introduced by como vs. NP vs. personal pronoun vs. N/A | ||
| characteristics of the predicative complement of S | presence predicative complement of S | with vs. without predicative complement of S | |
| predicative complement of S: form | adjective vs. adverb vs. clause introduced by comovs. NP vs. personal pronoun vs. clause with gerund vs. clause with infinitive vs. prepositional NP vs. N/A | ||
| characteristics of the prepositional object (PO) | presence PO | with vs. without PO | |
| ADJUNCTS | presence of adverbial adjunct | with vs. without adverbial adjunct | |
| formal characteristics of the adjuncts | type of adverbial adjunct: form | adverb vs. PP vs. NP vs. N/A | |
| semantic characteristics of the adjuncts | semantic role adverbial adjunct | space vs. goal vs. cause time vs. manner vs. quantity vs. agent vs. N/A | |
| DISCOURSE | scope | predicational autonomy | yes vs. no |
| collocations | presence adversative/negative conjunction | yes vs. no | |
| presence vocative | yes vs. no |
Senses as labeled in the dendrogram and their paraphrase in English
| Spanish label in dendrogram | English paraphrase |
|---|---|
| EMO.encontrarse | be in an emotional state |
| FIS_GEN.encontrarse.METAF | be in a general physical state: metaphorical use |
| AMBIG.FIS.EMO | ambiguous between physical and emotional perception |
| FIS.GEN.encontrarse | be in a general physical state |
| COGN.considerar | cognitive perception: consider, judge |
| EMO.experimentar.METAF | experience an emotional perception: metaphorical use |
| EMO.experimentar | experience an emotional perception |
| AMBIG.EMO.COGN | ambiguous between emotional and cognitive perception |
| FIS_GEN.experimentar.corp.METAF | experience a general physical bodily sensation: metaphorical use |
| FIS_ESP.AUD.METAF | specific physical auditory perception: metaphorical use |
| FIS_ESP.TACT | specific physical tactile perception |
| FIS_GEN.experimentar.term | general physical perception: thermal sensation |
| FIS_ESP.AUD | specific physical auditory perception |
| FIS_GEN.experimentar.corp | experience a general physical bodily sensation |
| AMBIG.FIS | ambiguous cases of physical perception |
| FIS_ESP.GUST.METAF | specific physical gustative perception: metaphorical use |
| FIS_ESP.TACT.METAF | specific physical tactile perception: metaphorical use |
| EMO.lamentar | emotional perception: regret |
| COGN.presentir | cognitive perception: have a presentiment |
| COGN.pensar | cognitive perception: think |
| COGN.intuir | cognitive perception: intuit |
| COGN.creer.opinar | cognitive perception: believe, opine |
| COGN.darsecuenta | cognitive perception: realize |
| FIS_GEN.manifestarse | general physical perception: appear, show up |
| EMO.capacidad.experimentar | ability to perceive: emotional perception |
| FIS_GEN.capacidad.percibir | ability to perceive: general physical perception |
| AMBIG | ambiguous cases |
| AMBIG.FIS.COGN | ambiguous between physical and cognitive perception |
| COGN.comprender | cognitive perception: understand |
| FIS_ESP.OLF | specific physical olfactory perception |
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Atkins, Beryl. 1987. Semantic ID tags: Corpus evidence for dictionary senses. Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the UW Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary, 17–36. Waterloo: University of Waterloo Canada.Search in Google Scholar
Atkins, Beryl. 1992. Tools for computer-aided corpus lexicography: The Hector project. In Ferenc Kiefer, Gábor Kiss & Júlia Pajzs (eds.), Papers in computational lexicography: Complex’92, 1–60. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Search in Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.). 2015. Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.18Search in Google Scholar
Berez, Andrea & Stefan Th. Gries. 2009. In defense of corpus-based methods: A behavioral profile analysis of polysemous get in English. In Steven Moran, Darren S. Tanner & Michael Scanlon (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th northwest linguistics conference. University of Washington working papers in linguistics, 157–166. Seattle, WA: Department of Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Boas, Hans. 2013. Cognitive construction grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 233–252. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0013Search in Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa 2. 119–127.Search in Google Scholar
Boogaart, Ronny, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten. 2014. Extending the scope of construction grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110366273Search in Google Scholar
Brinton, Lauren. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511551789Search in Google Scholar
Corominas, Juan & José A. Pascual. 1980–1991. Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico. Madrid: Gredos. [DCELC]Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William & Keith T. Poole. 2008. Inferring universals from grammatical variation: Multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical Linguistics 34(1). 1–37.10.1515/THLI.2008.001Search in Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds.). 2013. On multiple source constructions in language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/bct.79Search in Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar. 2010. Structuring the lexicon. A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110220599Search in Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar & Stefan Th. Gries. 2006. Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(1). 23–60.10.1515/CLLT.2006.002Search in Google Scholar
Enghels, Renata & Marlies Jansegers. 2013. On the cross-linguistic equivalence of sentir(e) in Romance languages: A contrastive study in semantics. Linguistics 51(5). 957–991.10.1515/ling-2013-0034Search in Google Scholar
Firth, John. 1957. Papers in linguistics, 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna, Caterina Mauri & Piera Molinelli (eds.). 2013. Synchrony and diachrony: A dynamic interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.133Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5). 219–224.10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2006. Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run. In Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 57–99. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197709Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2010a. Behavioral profiles: A fine-grained and quantitative approach in corpus-based lexical semantics. The Mental Lexicon 5(3). 323–346.10.1075/bct.47.04griSearch in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2010b. BehavioralProfiles 1.01. A program for R 2.7.1 and higher.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Dagmar Divjak. 2009. Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic analysis. In Vyvyan Evans & Stéphanie Pourcel (eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics, 57–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.24.07griSearch in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Dagmar Divjak. 2010. Quantitative approaches in usage-based cognitive semantics: Myths, erroneous assumptions, and a proposal. In Dylan Glynn & Kerstin Fischer (eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches, 333–353. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226423.331Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Naoki Otani. 2010. Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based perspective on synonymy and antonymy. ICAME Journal 34. 121–150.Search in Google Scholar
Hanegreefs, Hilde. 2008. Los verbos de percepción visual. Un análisis de corpus en un marco cognitivo. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig S. 1954. Distributional Structure. Word 10. 146–162.10.1080/00437956.1954.11659520Search in Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 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). 435–461.10.1075/ijcl.16.4.01hilSearch in Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139004206Search in Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2016. Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may. Constructions and Frames 8(1). 66–85.10.1075/cf.8.1.05hilSearch in Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165525Search in Google Scholar
Jaén, Fernández. 2012. Semántica cognitiva diacrónica de los verbos de percepción física del español. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Jansegers, Marlies. 2017. Hacia un enfoque múltiple de la polisemia. Un estudio empírico del verbo multimodal ‘sentir’ desde una perspectiva sincrónica y diacrónica. Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110476972Search in Google Scholar
Jansegers, Marlies & Renata Enghels. 2013. De verbo de percepción a marcador de disculpa: La evolución diacrónica del verbo ‘sentir’ en español, Revue de Linguistique Romane 305. 139–166.Search in Google Scholar
Jansegers, Marlies, Clara Vanderschueren & Renata Enghels. 2015. The polysemy of the Spanish verb sentir: A Behavioral Profile analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 26(3). 381–421.10.1515/cog-2014-0055Search in Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2008. Metaphor and emotion. In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 380–396. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.023Search in Google Scholar
Kurath, Hans. 1921. The semantic sources of the words for the emotions in Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and the Germanic languages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2011. Doe wat je niet laten kan: A usage-based analysis of Dutch causative construction. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do linguistics with R. Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.195Search in Google Scholar
Louw, Bill. 1993. Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In Mona Baker, Gill Francis & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds.), Text and technology. In honour of John Sinclair, 157–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.64.11louSearch in Google Scholar
Majid, Asifa, James S. Boster & Melissa Bowerman. 2008. The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition 109(2). 235–250.10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.009Search in Google Scholar
Maldonado, Ricardo. 1999. A media voz. Problemas conceptuales del clítico se. Mexico D.F.: Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, UNAM.Search in Google Scholar
Moliner, María. 1998. Diccionario de uso del español. Madrid: Gredos. [DUE]Search in Google Scholar
Mortier, Liesbeth & Liesbeth Degand. 2009. Adversative discourse markers in contrast. The need for a combined corpus approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3). 301–329.10.1075/ijcl.14.3.03morSearch in Google Scholar
Norrick, Neal R. 1979. The lexicalization of pragmatic functions. Linguistics 17. 671–685.10.1515/ling.1979.17.7-8.671Search in Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1997. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Real Academia Española. 2001a. Diccionario de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa. [DRAE]Search in Google Scholar
Real Academia Española. 2001b. Nuevo tesoro lexicográfico de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa. Online edition: http://buscon.rae.es/ntlle/SrvltGUILoginNtlle [NTLLE].Search in Google Scholar
Sagi, Eyal, Stefan Kaufmann & Brady Clark. 2012. Tracing semantic change with latent semantic analysis. In Kathryn Allan & Justyna Robinson (eds.), Current methods in historical semantics, 161–183. Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110252903.161Search in Google Scholar
Sánchez, Aquilino. 1985. Diccionario de Uso: Gran Diccionario de la lengua española. Madrid: Sociedad General Española de Librería. [GDLE]Search in Google Scholar
Seco, Manual, Olimpia Andrés & Gabino Ramos. 1999. Diccionario del español actual. Madrid: Aguilar. [DEA]Search in Google Scholar
Sinclair, John (ed.). 1987. Collins cobuild English language dictionary. London: HarperCollins.Search in Google Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita. 1995. Some remarks on comment clauses. In Bas Aarts & Charles F. Meyer (eds.), The verb in contemporary English, 290–301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620904Search in Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2011. The geolinguistics of grammatical variability in traditional British English dialects: A large-scale frequency-based study. Freiburg: Freiburg University post-doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Bernd Kortmann. 2009. Vernacular universals and angloversals in a typological perspective. Markku Filppula, Juhani Klemola & Heli Paulasto (eds.), Vernacular universals and language contacts: Evidence from varieties of English and beyond, 33–53. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Christoph Wolk. 2011. Holistic corpus-based dialectology. Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada 11(2). 561–592.10.1590/S1984-63982011000200011Search in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2014. Toward a constructional framework for research on language change. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 1. 3–21.10.1075/slcs.162.06traSearch in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. Forthcoming. Modeling language change with constructional networks.Search in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Multiple inheritance and constructional change. Studies in Language 37(3). 491–514.10.1075/bct.79.02troSearch in Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek. 2014. Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten (eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar, 141–179. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110366273.141Search in Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek, Hendrik De Smet & Lobke Ghesquière. 2013. On multiple source constructions in language change. Studies in Language 37(3). 473–489.10.1075/bct.79.01intSearch in Google Scholar
Wheeler, Eric S. 2005. Multidimensional scaling for linguistics. In Reinhard Koehler, Gabriel Altmann & Rajmund G. Piotrowski (eds.), Quantitative linguistics: An international handbook, 548–553. Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Zipf, George K. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cambridge, M.A: Addison-Wesley Press.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
