Conceptualization of containment in Chinese
A corpus-based study of the Chinese space particles lǐ, nèi, and zhōng
This study investigates the semantic variations of three near-synonymous space particle constructions of
containment in Chinese: [zài NP lǐ/nèi/zhōng]. While previous work has mostly applied
qualitative analyses of the semantic differences between these particles, this study presents a corpus-based analysis examining
the relationship between space particles and their co-occurring landmarks in the locative construction. Two quantitative analyses
were conducted: a multiple distinctive collexeme analysis and a post-hoc semantic analysis. Our results suggest the following.
First, lǐ is a more unmarked particle in encoding containment, co-occurring with both canonical landmarks and a
wider range of entities. Second, nèi shows a strong preference for landmarks denoting temporal concepts; this
metaphorical use often implies a preplanned objective in the proposition, with the landmark as an intended deadline. Finally,
zhōng shows a strong connection to landmarks denoting high-dynamicity events. This extended use often comes
with a marked aspectual reading of the landmark.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Literature review
- 2.1A usage-based constructionist approach to grammar
- 2.2Containment particles in Chinese
- 3.Methodology
- 3.1Data analysis
- 3.2Multiple distinctive collexeme analysis
- 3.3Semantic analysis
- 4.Results
- 4.1Multiple distinctive collexeme analysis
- 4.1.1[zài NP nèi]
- 4.1.2[zài NP zhōng]
- 4.1.3[zài NP lǐ]
- 4.2Semantic analyses
- 4.2.1
concreteness
- 4.2.2
time-relatedness
- 4.2.3
dynamicity
- 5.Conceptualizing containment
- 5.1Containment with concrete entities
- 5.2Containment with temporal entities
- 5.3Containment with dynamic entities
- 6.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
- List of abbreviations for inter-linear glossing
-
References
References (50)
Boers, Frank
1996 Spatial Prepositions and Metaphor: A Cognitive Semantic Journey Along the Up-Down and the Front-Back Dimensions. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boroditsky, Lera
2000 Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors.
Cognition 75.1:1–28.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, William
2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, William, and Alan Cruse
2004 Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Deng, Fang
2006 Fangwei Jiegou “X Zhong/Li/Nei” Bijiao Yanjiu [A Contrastive Study of the Locative Structures “X
Zhong/
Li/
Nei
”]. MA thesis, Jinan University, Canton.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dewell, Robert B.
2005 Dynamic patterns of containment.
From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by
Beate Hampe and
Joseph E. Grady, 369–393. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evans, Vyvyan, and Andrea Tyler
2004 Spatial experience, lexical structure and motivation: The case of in
.
Studies in Linguistic Motivation, ed. by
Günter Radden and
Klaus-Uwe Panther, 157–192. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Firth, John Rupert
1957 A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–55.
Studies in Linguistic Analysis, ed. by
John Rupert Firth, 1–31. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, Jr. Raymond W.
2005 Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle
2006 The verb slot in causative constructions: Finding the best fit.
Constructions S1.3:1–46.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E.
2006 Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gries, Stefan Th
2009 Quantitative Corpus Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gries, Stefan Th., and Anatol Stefanowitsch
2004a Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative.
Language, Culture, and Mind, ed. by
Michel Achard and
Suzanne Kemmer, 225–236. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gries, Stefan Th., and Anatol Stefanowitsch
Gries, Stefan Th., and Nick C. Ellis
2015 Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics.
Language Learning 65.S1:228–255.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huang, Chu-Ren, and Keh-jiann Chen
2010 Academia sinica balanced corpus of modern Chinese 4.0.
Academia Sinica. Retrieved January 13, 2016, from
[URL]
Hunston, Susan, and Gill Francis
Jackendoff, Ray
1983 Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Janda, Laura A.
2013 Quantitative methods in cognitive linguistics: An introduction.
Cognitive Linguistics: The Quantitative Turn, ed. by
Laura A. Janda, 1–32. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johnson, Mark
1987 The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johnson, Mark, and George Lakoff
2002 Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism.
Cognitive Linguistics 13.3:245–263.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, George
1993 The contemporary theory of metaphor.
Metaphor and Thought, ed. by
Andrew Ortony, 202–251. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
1980 Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald W.
1991a Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald W.
1991b Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald W.
1997 Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping.
Cognitive Linguistics 8.1:1–32.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levinson, Stephen, Sérgio Meira, and The Language and Cognition Group
2003 ‘Natural concepts’ in the spatial topological domain – adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology.
Language 79.3:485–516.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mandler, Jean Matter, and Cristóbal Pagán Cánovas
2014 On defining image schemas.
Language and Cognition 6.4:510–532.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Menzel, Peter
1975 Semantics and Syntax in Complementation. Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Miller, George Armitage, and Philip N. Johnson-Laird
1976 Language and Perception. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ono, Tsuyoshi, and Sandra A. Thompson
1996 Interaction and syntax in the structure of conversational discourse: Collaboration, overlap, and syntactic dissociation.
Computational and Conversational Discourse: Burning Issues – An Interdisciplinary Account, ed. by
Eduard H. Hovy and
Donia R. Scott, 67–96. Berlin: Springer.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pollio, Howard R., Lance B. Fagan, Thomas R. Graves, and Priscilla Levasseur
2005 The semantics of space: Experiential and linguistic aspects of selected English spatial terms.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34.2:133–152.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sandra, Dominiek, and Sally Rice
1995 Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics 6.1:89–130.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sinclair, John
1991 Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Th. Gries
Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Th. Gries
2005 Covarying Collexemes.
Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1.1:1–43.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Talmy, Leonard
1983 How language structures space.
Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research, and Application, ed. by
Herbert L. Pick, Jr. and
Linda P. Acredolo, 225–282. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thompson, Sandra A., and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2005 The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction.
Discourse Studies 7.4–5:481–505.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tomasello, Michael
2003 Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tyler, Andrea, and Vyvyan Evans
2001 Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over
.
Language 77.4:724–765.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tyler, Andrea, and Vyvyan Evans
2003 The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning, and Cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Xing, Fu Yi
1996 Fangwei jiegou “X li” yu “X zhong” [The locative structure “X
li” and “X
zhong
”].
Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue 41:4–15.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Yang, Hui
2008 Ronchi fangweici li zei zhong wai de kongjian yiyi [The spatial meaning of words of containers
li, nei, zhong, wai
].
Shichuan Jiaoyu Xuebao 24.12:74–76.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zaenen, Annie, Jean Carletta, Gregory Garretson, Joan Bresnan, Andrew Koontz-Garboden, Tatiana Nikitina, M. Catherine O’Connor, and Tom Wasow
2004 Animacy encoding in English: Why and how.
Proceedings of the 2004 ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation, ed. by
Bonnie Webber and
Donna Byron, 118–125. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zeng, Chuan-lu
2005 “
Li, zhong, nei, wai” fangwei yinyu de renzhi fenxi [A cognitive analysis of the orientational metaphors in “
li, zhong, nei, wai
”].
Guizhou Daxue Xuebao (Shehui Kexue Ban) 11:104–107.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zhang, Jin Sheng, and Yun Hung Liu
2008 “
Li” “zhong” “nei” kongjian yiyi de renzhi yuyanxue kaocha [A cognitive linguistic analysis of the spatial meanings of
li, zhong, and
nei
].
Jiefangjun Waiguoyu Xueyuan Xuebao 31.3:7–12.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by 2 other publications
Liao, Shengyu, Stefan Th. Gries & Stefanie Wulff
2024.
Transfer five ways: applications of multiple distinctive collexeme analysis to the dative alternation in Mandarin Chinese.
Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 0:0
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Chen, Alvin Cheng-Hsien
2022.
Words, constructions and corpora: Network representations of constructional semantics for Mandarin space particles.
Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 18:2
► pp. 209 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.