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)
References
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.
Boroditsky, Lera. 2000. Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75.1:1–28.
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Croft, William, and Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gibbs, Jr. Raymond W. 2005. Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2006. The verb slot in causative constructions: Finding the best fit. Constructions S1.3:1–46.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Gries, Stefan Th. 2009. Quantitative Corpus Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
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.
Gries, Stefan Th., and Nick C. Ellis. 2015. Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Language Learning 65.S1:228–255.
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]
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, Mark, and George Lakoff. 2002. Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics 13.3:245–263.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 202–251. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991a. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991b. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1997. Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics 8.1:1–32.
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.
Mandler, Jean Matter, and Cristóbal Pagán Cánovas. 2014. On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition 6.4:510–532.
Menzel, Peter. 1975. Semantics and Syntax in Complementation. Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
Miller, George Armitage, and Philip N. Johnson-Laird. 1976. Language and Perception. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
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.
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.
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.
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Th. Gries. 2005. Covarying Collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1.1:1–43.
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.
Thompson, Sandra A., and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2005. The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies 7.4–5:481–505.
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tyler, Andrea, and Vyvyan Evans. 2001. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over
. Language 77.4:724–765.
Tyler, Andrea, and Vyvyan Evans. 2003. The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning, and Cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two 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
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.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 november 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.