Abstract
This study adopts a corpus-based behavioral profile approach, combining multifactorial usage-feature analysis with frequency-based quantitative analysis, to investigate the diachronic semasiological variation of the Mandarin Chinese temperature term 热 re ‘hot’. The result shows a dynamic behavioral profile, i.e., both the usage patterns and the semasiological structural weight of senses have been constantly shifting. The semasiology of re has been becoming more and more diversified over time. Methodologically, this study extends the traditional behavioral profile approach—hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis by applying multiple correspondence analysis and corroborating its validity in accounting for and visualizing the multifactorial nature of semasiological change of lexical items. Theoretically, the present study not only corroborates basic assumptions of usage-based cognitive semantics (e.g., non-discreteness, non-equality of senses, and bodily experience) but also complements it by demonstrating that sociocultural factors also play an important role in semasiological boundary variation of a lexical item.
Funding source: Philosophy and Social Science Program of Zhejiang Province, China
Award Identifier / Grant number: No. 22NDJC196YB
Acknowledgments
The author thanks professor Dirk Geeraerts and Mariana Montes for their insightful comments and suggestions for improvement, and two anonymous reviewers and the editors for their constructive feedback and suggestions. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 12th International Conference on Corpus Linguistics (CILC 2021) (April 2021). The author is grateful to the audience for their valuable feedback. As ever, all errors in the writing belong to the author.
-
Funding: This work was supported by Philosophy and Social Science Program of Zhejiang Province, China (No. 22NDJC196YB).
References
Arppe, Antti, Gaetanelle Gilquin, Dylan Glynn, Martin Hilpert & Arne Zeschel. 2010. Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5(1). 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2010.0001.Search in Google Scholar
Barlow, Michael & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.). 2000. Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa 2. 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1968.tb00282.x.Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82. 711–733. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186.Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750526Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Paul Hopper (eds.). 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Huan. 2011. Songci zhong wenduci jiqi yixiang de renzhi yanjiu [Temperature words and their images in Song lyrics: A study from the cognitive perspective]. Guilin: Guangxi Normal University MA thesis.Search 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 & Nick Fieller. 2014. Cluster analysis: Finding structure in linguistic data. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 405–442. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.16divSearch in Google Scholar
Firth, John. R. 1957. Papers in linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gao, Hang & Chensong Yan. 2008. Hanyu wendu tushi suo yansheng de gainian yinyu [Conceptual Metaphors Derived from the Temperature Schema in Chinese]. Sichuan Waiyu Xueyuan Xuebao [Journal of Sichuan International Studies University] 2. 7–12.Search in Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, Peter. 1999. Some tenets of cognitive semantics. In Jens Allwood & Peter Gärdenfors (eds.), Cognitive semantics: Meaning and cognition, 19–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.55.03garSearch in Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1988. Where does prototypicality come from? In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics, 207–229. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.50.09geeSearch in Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1993. Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics 4. 223–272. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.223.Search in Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/oso/9780198236528.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2006 [1989]. Prospects and problems of prototype theory. In Dirk Geeraerts (ed.), Words and other wonders, 3–26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219128Search in Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2010. Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198700302.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaetanelle. 2006. The place of prototypicality in corpus linguistics: Causation in the hot seat. In Stefan Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 159–191. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197709.159Search in Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaetanelle. 2008. What you think ain’t what you get: Highly polysemous verbs in mind and language. In Jean-Remi Lapaire, Desagulier Guillaume & Jean-Baptiste Guignard (eds.), From gram to mind: Grammar as cognition, 235–255. Bordeaux: Presse Universitaires de Bordeaux.Search in Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2010. Testing the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based cognitive semantics. In Dylan Glynn & Kerstin Fischer (eds.), Quantitative cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches, 239–270. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226423.239Search in Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2014a. The many uses of run: Corpus methods and socio-cognitive semantics. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 117–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.05glySearch in Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2014b. Polysemy and synonymy: Cognitive theory and corpus method. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 7–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.01glySearch in Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2014c. Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 443–486. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.17glySearch in Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2016. Quantifying polysemy: Corpus methodology for prototype theory. Folia Linguistica 50(2). 413–444. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0016.Search in Google Scholar
Greenacre, Michael. 2007. Correspondence analysis in practice. London: Chapman & Hall.10.1201/9781420011234Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2006. Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many meanings of to run. In Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 57–99. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197709Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2010. Behavioral profiles: A fine-grained and quantitative approach in corpus-based lexical semantics. The Mental Lexicon 5(3). 323–346. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.5.3.04gri.Search in Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig. 1954. Distributional structure. Word 10. 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1954.11659520.Search in Google Scholar
Heylen, Kris, Jose Tummers & Dirk Geeraerts. 2008. Methodological issues in corpus-based cognitive linguistics. In Gitte Kristiansen & René Dirven (eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems, 91–128. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110199154.2.91Search in Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1987. Emergent grammar. In Jon Aske, Natasha Berry, Laura Michaelis & Hana Filip (eds.), Berkeley linguistics society 13: General session and parasession on grammar and cognition, 139–157. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834Search in Google Scholar
Jansegers, Marlies & Stefan Th. Gries. 2020. Towards a dynamic behavioral profile: A diachronic study of polysemous sentir in Spanish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16(1). 145–187. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0080.Search in Google Scholar
Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo & Xinjia Peng. 2016. The emergence of disjunction: A history of the constructionalization in Chinese. Cognitive Linguistics 27. 101–136. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0073.Search in Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam. 1997. I don’t believe in word senses. Computers and the Humanities 31. 91–113. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1000583911091.10.1023/A:1000583911091Search in Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2015. Introducing “the linguistics of temperature”. In Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (ed.), The linguistics of temperature. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/tsl.107Search in Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria & Ekaterina V. Rakhilina. 2006. “Some like it hot”: On the semantics of temperature adjectives in Russian and Swedish. Language Typology and Universals (STUF) 59(3). 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2006.59.3.253.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites, vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lei, Dan & Xiugui Qin. 2013. Tiyan renzhi shijiao xia “re” de gainian yinyu—yixiang yinghan duibi shizheng yanjiu [conceptual metaphors of hot from the embodied cognitive perspective: A comparative study between English and Chinese]. Dangdai Waiyu Yanjiu [Contemporary Foreign Language Studies] 3. 24–28.Search in Google Scholar
Lê, Sebastien, Julie Josse & Husson Francois. 2008. FactoMineR: A package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 25(1). 1–18.10.18637/jss.v025.i01Search 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
Ma, Yongtian & Weiqi Song. 2015. Jiben yinyu de renzhi yanjiu—yi wendu gainian jiegou weili [A cognitive approach to primary metaphors: A case study of temperature conception structure]. Journal of Xi’an International Studies University 23(4). 15–19.Search in Google Scholar
Mehl, Seth. 2021. What we talk about when we talk about corpus frequency: The example of polysemous verbs with light and concrete senses. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 17(1). 223–247. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2017-0039.Search in Google Scholar
Ren, Xiaoyan. 2006. Xiandai Hanyu Wendu Ganjueci Yanjiu [A Study on the Lexicons of temperature Sensations in Modern Chinese]. Jinan: Shandong University MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2007. Entrenchment, salience and basic levels. In Dirk Geeraerts & HubertCuyckens (eds.), The oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 117–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sun, Yi & Wenjing Zhu. 2011. Xiyu de renzhi yinyu xue jili dushi—jiyu “leng (cold)” yuliao de hanying duibi yanjiu [A cognitive metaphorical interpretation of idioms based on the comparative study of “leng (cold)” between Chinese and English]. Waiguo Yuwen [Foreign Language and Literature] 6. 70–74.Search in Google Scholar
Tang, Shuhua, Yuanxing Dong & Fang Li. 2011. Goushi yu yinyu tuozhan—hangying wendu yu weiyuju xingrongci yinyu tuozhan chayi ji chengyin tanxi [Constructions and metaphorical extensions: A comparative study of Chinese and English temperature domain predicative adjectives and their metaphorical extension constraints]. Waiguo Yu [Journal of Foreign Languages] 1. 50–57.Search in Google Scholar
Taylor, John. 2003. Linguistic categorization, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, Weihui. 2000. Donghan – Sui Changyongci Yanbian Yanjiu[Research on the Evolution of Common Words from Eastern Han Dynasty to Sui Dynasty]. Nanjing: Nanjing University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wu, Fang. 2006. Shanggu—Zhonggu “Han”, “leng”, “liang” Ciquan de Renzhi Yanjiu[A Cognitive Study on Word Class of “Han”, “leng”, “liang” in Ancient Times—Medieval times]. Wuhan: Central China Normal University MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Zhan, Weidong, Rui Guo & Yirong Chen. 2003. The CCL corpus of Chinese texts: 700 million Chinese characters, the 11th Century B.C.–present, available online at the website of center for Chinese linguistics (abbreviated as CCL) of Peking University. Available at: http://ccl.pku.edu.cn:8080/ccl_corpus.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Lei. 2018. A comparative study of semantic meanings of Chinese temperature sensation word “Re” and Korean “tteugeopda”. Journal of Chinese Humanities 69. 457–471. https://doi.org/10.35955/jch.2018.08.69.457.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Lihong. 2013. Wenduci “Re, Leng, Wen, Liang” Yuyi Yanbian de Lishi Kaocha [A Study of Historical Evolution of the Semantic of Temperature Words: Re, Leng, Wen and Liang]. Nanchang: Jiangxi Normal University MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan. 2003. Polysemy or generality? Mu. In HubertCuyckens, René Dirven & John R. Taylor (eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, 447–494. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219074.447Search in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
