Cover not available
Article published In:
Chinese Language and Discourse
Vol. 12:2 (2021) ► pp.215–237

Manual action motivates networked meanings of a productive construction in Mandarin

Rethinking polysemy

ORCID logo | University of Oregon
This study analyzes the manual action verb dǎ as part of the [dǎ – NP] construction in two Chinese corpora. Drawing on constructionist perspectives on language productivity (Goldberg 2006; Gries 2012), I show that [dǎ – NP] is a productive construction the multiple meanings of which are conceptually motivated by manual action. The type-token distributions show the productivity of the [dǎ – NP] schema, and the semantic clusters in a network of meanings show a gradation of manual action experiences with no clear-cut conceptual boundaries. Usage productivity goes hand in hand with semantic extension, which gives rise to the emergence of the light verb dǎ. Contra previous morpheme-based studies that view dǎ as a polysemy in its own right, isolated from its network of collocates, I argue that polysemy is a consequence and an epiphenomenon of constructional productivity resulting from language use and exemplar propagation.
Keywords: manual action, productivity, polysemy, usage-based constructionist approach, Chinese
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and methods
  • 3.Analysis and results
    • 3.1Type-token distributions of the pattern [dǎ – NP]
    • 3.2The schematic patterns and semantic clusters of dǎ
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Conceptual representation and exemplar model
    • 4.2The relationship between embodied conceptualization and language productivity
    • 4.3The polysemy of dǎ as a byproduct of constructional productivity
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 January 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.00032.hun
References (55)
References
Arnon, Inbal, and Snider, Neal. 2010. “More than Words: Frequency Effects for Multi-word Phrases.” Journal of Memory and Language 62 (1): 67–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. “Perceptual Symbol Systems.” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4): 577–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1995. “Regular Morphology and the Lexicon.” Language and Cognitive Processes 10 (5): 425–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition.” Language 82 (4): 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Usage-based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cameron-Faulkner, Thea, Lieven, Elena, and Tomasello, Michael. 2003. “A Construction Based Analysis of Child Directed Speech.” Cognitive Science 27 (6): 843–873. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan. 1995. “Polysemy and Related Phenomena from a Cognitive Linguistic Viewpoint.” In Computational Lexical Semantics, eds. by Patrick Saint-Dizier, and EveIyne Viegas, 33–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger, and Hilpert, Martin. 2016. “Frequency Effects in Grammar.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Retrieved from [URL]. (open access) DOI logo
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul, and O’Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. “Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone.” Language 64 (3): 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. “The Mechanisms of Construction Grammar.” In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 141: 35–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam, and Östman, Jan-Ola (eds). 2004. Construction Grammar in a Cross-language Perspective. Constructional Approaches to Language; v.2. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gao, Hong. 2001. The Physical Foundation of the Patterning of Physical Action Verbs: A Study of Chinese Verbs (Travaux de l’institut de linguistique de lund, 41). Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre. 1989. “The Mechanisms of Analogical Learning.” In Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, ed. by Stella Vosniadou, and Andrew Ortony, 199–241. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2005. Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1999. “The Emergence of the Semantics of Argument Structure Constructions.” In The Emergence of Language, ed. by Brian MacWhinney, 197–212. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2019. Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2012. “Frequencies, Probabilities, and Association Measures in Usage-/exemplar-based Linguistics.” Studies in Language 36 (3): 477–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hauk, Olaf, Johnsrude, Ingrid, and Pulvermüller, Friedemann. 2004. “Somatotopic Representation of Action Words in Human Motor and Premotor Cortex.” Neuron 41 (2): 301–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hong, Jia-Fei, Ahrens, Kathleen, and Huang, Chu-Ren. 2008. “The Polysemy of Da3: An Ontology-based Study.” In 9th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW 2008), 13–16. Singapore: National University of Singapore.Google Scholar
Hu, Hsueh-Ying, and Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2016. “網路新興語言<耍>之語意辨析: 以批踢踢語料庫為本 [On the Semantic Analysis of the Verb Shua3 in Taiwan Mandarin: The PTT Corpus-Based Study].” In Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Computational Linguistics and Speech Processing (ROCLING 2016), 164–180.Google Scholar
Huang, Tiao-Guan. 2000. “現代漢語徒手動作動詞<打>字的語義、語法探析. [An Investigation of the Semantics and Syntax of the Hand Action Verb ‘Da’ in Modern Chinese].” 臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所學位論文 [Doctoral Dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University], 1–187.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1965. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. (Part VI. Morphology). London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul, and Fillmore, Charles. J. 1999. “Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y?” Construction. Language 75 (1): 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, Markus, and Pulvermüller, Friedemann. 2012. “Conceptual Representations in Mind and Brain: Theoretical Developments, Current Evidence and Future Directions.” Cortex 48 (7): 805–825. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites (Vol. 11). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2002. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar (Vol. 11). Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Logan, Gordon D. 1988. “Toward an Instance Theory of Automatization.” Psychological Review 95 (4): 492–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ou, Te-Fen. 2013. “多義詞義項區別性探究: 以感官動詞「看」為例 [The Distinction of Senses of Polysemy: A Case Study of Perception Verb ‘Kan’ ].” Journal of Chinese Language Teaching 10 (3): 1–39.Google Scholar
. 2014. “多義感官動詞「看」義項之認知研究. [A Cognitive Study of the Senses of the Chinese Polysemous Verb ‘Kan’].” Language and Linguistics 15 (2): 159–198.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language (First Edition). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Raposo, Ana, Moss, Helen E., Stamatakis, Emmanuel A., and Tyler, Lorraine K. 2009. “Modulation of Motor and Premotor Cortices by Actions, Action Words and Action Sentences.” Neuropsychologia 47 (2): 388–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ren, Fengmei. 2013. “A Grounding Approach to the Semantic Meaning of the Light Verb Da .” In Workshop on Chinese Lexical Semantics, 88–96. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020. The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment (First Edition). Oxford; New York, NY: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shi, Heidi H., Liu, Sophia X., and Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo. 2020. “Manual Action Metaphors in Chinese: A Usage-based Constructionist Study.” In Corpus-based Research on Chinese Language and Linguistics [Sinica Venetiana 6] 1–18, eds. by Bianca Basciano, Franco Gatti, and Anna Morbiato. Venice, Italy: Edizioni Ca’ Foscari University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. “Collostructions: Investigating the Interaction of Words and Constructions.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (2): 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. “Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition.” Cognitive Science 12 (1): 49–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2003. “Polysemy’s Paradoxes.” Language Sciences 25 (6): 637–655. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra, and Hopper, Paul. 2001. “Transitivity, Clause Structure, and Argument Structure: Evidence from Conversation.” In Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Typological studies in language; v. 45), ed. by Joan Bybee, and Paul Hopper, 27–60. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth. 1995. “Subjectification in Grammaticalization.” In Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives, ed. by Dieter Stein, and Susan Wright, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “The Concepts of Constructional Mismatch and Type-Shifting from the Perspective of Grammaticalization.” Cognitive Linguistics, 18 (4): 523–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Andrea, and Evans, Vyvyan. 2001. “Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Networks: The Case of Over.” Language 77 (4): 724–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wu, Ling-ling, and Barsalou, Lawrence W. 2009. “Perceptual Simulation in Conceptual Combination: Evidence from Property Generation.” Acta Psychologica 132 (2): 173–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xun, Endong, Rou, Gaoqi, Xiao, Xiaoyue, and Zhang, Jiaojiao. 2016. “大数据背景下BCC语料库的研制. [The Construction of the BCC Corpus in the Age of Big Data].” 语料库语言学 [Corpus Linguistics] 3 (1): 93–118. Retrieved from [URL]
Yang, Jie, Shu, Hua, Bi, Yanchao, Liu, Youyi, and Wang, Xiaoyi. 2011. “Dissociation and Association of the Embodied Representation of Tool-use Verbs and Hand Verbs: An FMRI Study.” Brain and Language 119 (3): 167–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhan, Weidong, Guo, Rui, and Chen, Yirong. 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, [URL]
Zipf, George Kingsley. 1935. The Psycho-biology of Language: An Introduction to Dynamic Philology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar