Cover not available
Article published In:
Concentric
Vol. 45:2 (2019) ► pp.211–245

Conceptualization of containment in Chinese

A corpus-based study of the Chinese space particles lǐ, nèi, and zhōng

| National Taiwan Normal University
| National Taiwan Normal University

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.

Keywords: cognitive semantics, quantitative corpus linguistics, space particles, containment, collostructional analysis, distinctive collexeme
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
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 1 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/consl.00009.su
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.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, Lera
2000 Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75.1:1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William, and Alan Cruse
2004 Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
Gibbs, Jr. Raymond W.
2005 Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle
2006 The verb slot in causative constructions: Finding the best fit. Constructions S1.3:1–46.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
2006 Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th
2009 Quantitative Corpus Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
2004b Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9.1:97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., and Nick C. Ellis
2015 Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Language Learning 65.S1:228–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Chu-Ren, and Keh-jiann Chen
2010 Academia sinica balanced corpus of modern Chinese 4.0. Academia Sinica. Retrieved January 13, 2016, from http://​asbc​.iis​.sinica​.edu​.tw/
Hunston, Susan, and Gill Francis
2000 Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1983 Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Mark
1987 The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Mark, and George Lakoff
2002 Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics 13.3:245–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993 The contemporary theory of metaphor. Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 202–251. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
1980 Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1991a Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1991b Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1997 Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics 8.1:1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Lindstromberg, Seth
2010 English Prepositions Explained: Revised Edition. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandler, Jean Matter, and Cristóbal Pagán Cánovas
2014 On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition 6.4:510–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Menzel, Peter
1975 Semantics and Syntax in Complementation. Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, George Armitage, and Philip N. Johnson-Laird
1976 Language and Perception. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John
1991 Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Th. Gries
2003 Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8.2:209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Covarying Collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1.1:1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svorou, Soteria
1994 The Grammar of Space. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
2003 Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea, and Vyvyan Evans
2001 Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over . Language 77.4:724–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning, and Cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 january 2023. 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.