Abstract
This article contrasts existential constructions in English and Chinese in terms of semantic variability and dimensions of semantic variation, distribution of Definiteness Effect and existentiality on the basis of corpus instances and their contextual features. Exploratory and confirmatory analyses show that: (1) existential construction in English varies more widely than its Chinese counterpart; (2) existential constructions in English and Chinese differ in covert/overt expression of background information, semantics of the existential verb and the noun phrase (NP) whose existence is asserted as well as an interaction between presence of a coda and NP definiteness. Contextual features such as semantics, number, quantification and modifier of NP and covert/overt expression of background information are found to have a significant effect on the distribution of Definiteness Effect. The survey on existentiality indicates that the concept has multiple manifestations in form. Reasons for these linguistic phenomena are discussed from various perspectives.
References
Abbott, B. 1992. “Definiteness, existentials, and the ‘list’ interpretation”. Proceedings of the semantics and linguistic theory II conference, 1–16. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University.10.3765/salt.v2i0.3028Search in Google Scholar
Abbott, B. 1993. “A pragmatic account of the definiteness effect in existential sentences.” Journal of Pragmatics 19. 39–95.10.1016/0378-2166(93)90069-2Search in Google Scholar
Abbott, B. 1997. “Definiteness and existentials.” Language 73(1). 103–308.10.2307/416595Search in Google Scholar
Allison, P.D. 2012. When can you safely ignore multicollinearity [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://statisticalhorizons.com/multicollinearitySearch in Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511750526Search in Google Scholar
Chatterjee, S. and A.S. Hadi. 2006. Regression analysis by example. Chichester and New Jersey: Wiley.10.1002/0470055464Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Q. 2020. “Creating a 3D semantic profile of causative shi and rang: A constructional approach”. Australian Journal of Linguistics 40(4). 405–527.10.1080/07268602.2020.1834348Search in Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Creissels, D. 2015. Existential predication and trans-possessive constructions. Retrieved from http://www.deniscreissels.fr/public/Creissels-Existential_predication_and_transpossessive_constructions.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Croft, W. and K. T. Poole. 2008. “Inferring universals from grammatical variation: multidimensional scaling for typological analysis”. Theoretical Linguistics 34. 1–17.10.1515/THLI.2008.001Search in Google Scholar
Davidse, K. 1992. “Existential constructions: A systemic perspective”. Leuvense Bijdragen 81. 71–19.Search in Google Scholar
Davidse, K. 2000. “The semantics of cardinal versus enumerative existential constructions”. Cognitive Linguistics 10 (3). 203–350.10.1515/cogl.2000.001Search in Google Scholar
DeMaris, A. 2003. Regression with social data: Modeling continuous and limited response variables. Chichester and New Jersey: Wiley.10.1002/0471677566Search in Google Scholar
Divjak, D. and Stefan T. Gries. 2006. “Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(1). 23–30.10.1515/CLLT.2006.002Search in Google Scholar
Divjak, D. 2006. “Ways of intending: delineating and structuring near-synonyms. In Gries, S. T. and A. Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpusbased approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 21–16.Search in Google Scholar
Dodge, Y. 2008. “The concise encyclopedia of statistics. Heidelberg and New York: Springer.Search in Google Scholar
Francez, I. 2010. “Context dependence and implicit arguments in existentials”. Linguistics and Philosophy 33. 11–10.10.1007/s10988-010-9073-2Search in Google Scholar
Freeze, R. 1992. “Existentials and other locatives”. Language 68(3). 553–395.10.2307/415794Search in Google Scholar
Gahl, S. and A. C. L. Yu. 2006. “Introduction to the special issue on exemplar-based models in linguistics”. The Linguistic Review 23(3). 213–316.10.1515/TLR.2006.007Search in Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. 2010. “Recontextualizing grammar: underlying trends in thirty years of cognitive linguistics”. In Tabakowska, E., M. Choinski and Ł. Wiraszka (eds.), Cognitive linguistics in action: From theory to application and back. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 71–102.Search in Google Scholar
Glynn, D. 2010a. “Synonymy, lexical fields, and grammatical constructions. A study in usage-based Cognitive Semantics”. In Schmid, H. J. and S. Handl (eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage-patterns: Empirical studies. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 89–918.10.1515/9783110216035.89Search in Google Scholar
Glynn, D. 2010b. “Testing the hypothesis. Objectivity and verification in usage-based Cognitive Semantics”. In Glynn, D. and K. Fischer (eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. De Gruyter Mouton. 239–970.Search in Google Scholar
Glynn, D. 2014. “Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns”. In Glynn, D. and J. A. Robinson (eds.), Human cognitive processing. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 443–385.10.1075/hcp.43.17glySearch in Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. New York/London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. 2006. “Corpus-based methods and Cognitive Semantics: The many senses of to run”. In Gries, S. T. and A. Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 57–79.10.1515/9783110197709Search in Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. 2008. BP 1.0. A program for R 2.7.1 and higher.Search in Google Scholar
Gu, Y. 1997. “The existential sentences in Chinese”. Modern Foreign Languages (3). 14–45.Search in Google Scholar
Hankamer, J. 1973. “There-Insertion and the definiteness of deletion targets”. Paper presented at the 4th meeting of the New England Linguistic Society, Brown University.Search in Google Scholar
Hazout, I. 2004. “The syntax of existential constructions”. Linguistic Inquiry 35. 393–330.10.1162/0024389041402616Search in Google Scholar
Hu, J. and H. Pan. 2007. “Focus and the basic function of Chinese existential you-sentences”. In Comorovski, I. and K. von Heusinger (eds.), Existence: semantics and syntax. Dordrecht: Springer. 133–345.Search in Google Scholar
Hu, W. 2004. “Cognition-based functional analysis of presentative sentences and the paratactic construction in Chinese. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies (4). 1–13.Search in Google Scholar
Huang, C.T.J. 1987. “Existential sentences in Chinese and (in)definiteness”. In Reuland, E. J. and A. G. B. Ter Meulen (eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 226–653.Search in Google Scholar
Janda, L. A. and A. Fábregas. 2019. “Seeing from without, seeing from within: Aspectual differences between Spanish and Russian”. Cognitive Linguistics 30(4). 687–718.10.1515/cog-2018-0054Search in Google Scholar
Jin, J. 1996. “A contrastive study on English and Chinese existential sentences”. Journal of Foreign Languages (6). 10–06.Search in Google Scholar
Keenan, E. 2003. “The definiteness effect: Semantics or pragmatics?” Natural Language Semantics 11. 187–716.10.1023/A:1024400425028Search in Google Scholar
Khoo, Y. K. and J. Lin. 2020. “A Corpus-based investigation of yǒu in Singapore Mandarin: The case for an existential perfect marker”. In Su, Q. and W. Zhan (eds.), From minimal contrast to meaning construct: Corpus-based, near synonym driven approaches to Chinese lexical semantics. Singapore: Springer Singapore. 101–118.10.1007/978-981-32-9240-6_8Search in Google Scholar
Kuno, S. 1971. “The position of locatives in existential sentences”. Linguistic Inquiry 2(3). 333–378.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, R. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar Vol. 2. Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620607Search in Google Scholar
Leonetti, M. 2008. “Definiteness effect and the role of the coda in existential constructions”. In Høeg Müller, H. and A. Klinge (eds.), Essays on nominal determination: From morphology to discourse management. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. 131–162.10.1075/slcs.99.09leoSearch in Google Scholar
Levin, B. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Levshina, N. 2011. Do what you cannot let: A usage-based analysis of Dutch causative constructions. Leuven: University of Leuven dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Levshina, N. 2015. How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/z.195Search in Google Scholar
Liu, M. and W. Wang. 2019. “A corpus-based contrastive study of English and Chinese existential agentive object sentences”. Technology Enhanced Foreign Language Education (1). 37–73.Search in Google Scholar
Lumsden, M. 2014 [1988]. Existential sentences: Their structure and meaning. London and New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1967. “A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences”. Foundations of Language 3(4). 390–096.Search in Google Scholar
McNally, L. 1998. “Existential sentences without existential quantification”. Linguistics and Philosophy 21(4). 353–392.10.1023/A:1005389330615Search in Google Scholar
McNally, L. 2016. “Existential sentences cross-linguistically: Variations in form and meaning”. Annual Review of Linguistics 2(1). 211–131.10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040837Search in Google Scholar
Medin, D. L. and M. M. Schaffer. 1978. “Context theory of classification learning”. Psychological Review 85(3). 207–738.10.1037/0033-295X.85.3.207Search in Google Scholar
Milsark, G. Lee. 2014 [1979]. Existential sentences in English. London and New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Murphy, G. L. 2002. The big book of concepts. Cambridge/MA:The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/1602.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E. and Y. Miyamoto. 2005. “The influence of culture: holistic versus analytic perception”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(10). 467–773.10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.004Search in Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. 1986. “Attention, similarity, and the identification–categorization relationship”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 115(1). 39–97.10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.39Search in Google Scholar
Paul, W. Yaqiao Lu and Thomas Hun-tak Lee. 2020. “Existential and locative constructions in Mandarin Chinese”. The Linguistic Review 37(2). 231–167.10.1515/tlr-2019-2043Search in Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/Search in Google Scholar
Radford, A. 1997. Syntactic theory and the structure of English: A minimalist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166706Search in Google Scholar
Rosch, E. 1975. “Cognitive representations of semantic categories”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104(3). 192–233.10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192Search in Google Scholar
Rosch, E. and C. B. Mervis. 1975. “Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories”. Cognitive Psychology 7. 573–305.10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9Search in Google Scholar
Shuai, Z. 2017. “The classification and category of Chinese existential sentences: A lexical-construction account”. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies (3). 81–11.Search in Google Scholar
Song, Y. 1982. “On existential sentences with a predicate structured ‘modifier + noun’”. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies (3). 27–74.Search in Google Scholar
Szekely, R. 2015. Truth without predication: The role of placing in the existential there-sentence. Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137483294Search in Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. 2010. “The English genitive alternation in a cognitive sociolinguistics perspective”. In Geeraerts, D., G. Kristiansen and Y. Peirsman (eds.), Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. De Gruyter Mouton. 141–166.10.1515/9783110226461.139Search in Google Scholar
Tian, Z. 2009. “Contrastive analysis of semantic features of atypical verbs in the English and Chinese static existential sentences”. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching (11). 16–60.Search in Google Scholar
Tian, Z., F. Wu and J. Cao. 2015. “An empirical and contrastive study of the semantic association between verbs and existential constructions in English and Chinese”. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 47(6). 826–637.Search in Google Scholar
Ungerer, F. and H. Schmid. 2006. “An introduction to cognitive linguistics (2nd edition). Pearson. Harlow.Search in Google Scholar
Wälchli, B. and M. Cysouw. 2012. “Lexical typology through similarity semantics: Toward a semantic map of motion verbs”. Linguistics 50(3). 671–110.10.1515/ling-2012-0021Search in Google Scholar
Wang, W. and Y. Zhang. 2019. “A Probe into the semantics of You(有) and its usages from the perspective of subjectification construal”. Journal of Foreign Languages 42(5). 2–22.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, Y. and J. Xu. 2013. “A systemic typology of existential and possessive constructions”. Functions of Language 20(1). 1–10.10.1075/fol.20.1.01wanSearch in Google Scholar
Ward, G. and B. Birner. 1995. “Definiteness and the English existential”. Language 71(4). 722–242.10.2307/415742Search in Google Scholar
Xun, E., G. Rao, X. Xiao and J. Zang. 2016. “The construction of the BCC Corpus in the age of Big Data”. Corpus Linguistics 3(1). 93–109+118.Search in Google Scholar
Yang, L. and H. Xu. 2020. “A cross-linguistic comparison between Chinese and English existential verbs on the interaction between event types, grammatical aspect and existential construction”. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching (1). 11–19+146.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, K. 2016. “Mandarin existential construction as a reference-point construction: Its cognitive properties and discursive functions”. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 3(1). 91–112.10.1075/cogls.3.1.05zhaSearch in Google Scholar
Zucchi, A. 1995. “The ingredients of definiteness and the definiteness effect”. Natural Language Semantics 3(1). 33–38.10.1007/BF01252884Search in Google Scholar
© 2022 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland