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 [email protected].

Published online: 1 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/consl.00009.su
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.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 [URL]
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 (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 0:0 DOI logo
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 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.