Cover not available
Part of
Studies in Figurative Thought and Language
Edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou
[Human Cognitive Processing 56] 2017
► pp. 232–249

Chapter 9
Metaphor, conceptual archetypes and subjectification

The case of completion is up and the polysemy of shàng in Chinese

| Masaryk University

This chapter addresses the relation between conceptual metaphor, conceptual archetype and subjectivity. I start by examining the polysemy of shàng in Chinese, given the working of completion is up on its semantics. In this chapter, I sketch a possible route of semantic extension of shàng and argue that its synchronic distribution is symptomatic of semantic attenuation and subjectification. I also propose an image-schematic structure for each of the relevant senses of shàng identified. With such analysis, I identify vertical elevation and contact as two important conceptual archetypes that may help understand the semantic extension and how completion is up is actually at work on the semantics of shàng.

Keywords: perfective aspect, resultative constructions, semantic network, subjectivity, verbal complement
Article outline
  • 1.Metaphor, polysemy and the semantics of shàng
  • 2.Senses of shàng relevant to completion is up
    • 2.1The sense ‘vertically higher’
    • 2.2The sense ‘vertically attained’
    • 2.3The sense ‘attached’
    • 2.4The sense ‘completive’
    • 2.5Interim summary
  • 3.Subjectivity, subjectification and conceptual archetypes in the semantics of shàng
  • 4.Concluding remarks: Image schemas, conceptual archetypes and metaphors
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Database consulted
Published online: 26 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.09lu
References

References

Athanasiadou, A., Canakis, C., & Cornillie, B.
2006 Introduction. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis, & B. Cornillie (Eds.), Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity (1–16). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brugman, C.
1988 The story of over: Polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W.
1994 The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago & London: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Cienki, A.
1997 Some properties and groupings of image schemas. In M. Verspoor, K.-D. Lee, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning (3–15). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V.
2004 The structure of time: Language, meaning and temporal cognition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hampe, B.
2000 Facing up to the meaning of ‘face up to': A cognitive semantic-pragmatic analysis of an English verb-particle construction. In A. Foolen, & F. van der Leek (Eds.), Constructions in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam 1997 (81–102). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, C., & Chang, S.
1996 Metaphor, metaphorical extension, and grammaticalization: A study of Mandarin Chinese -qilai. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (201–215). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Ikegami, Y.
2008 Subjective construal as a ‘fashion of speaking’ in Japanese. In M. de los Angeles Gomez Gonzalez, J. L. Mackenzie, & E. M. Gonzalez Alvarez (Eds.), Current trends in contrastive linguistics: Functional and cognitive perspectives (227–250). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M.
1987 The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kimmel, M.
2005 Culture regained: Situated and compound image schemas. In B. Hampe, & J. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (285–312). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
2001 Learning idioms in an FLT context. In M. Pütz, S. Niemeier, & R. Dirven (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy (87–115). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
2003 Metaphors we live by (2nded.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
1985 Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (109–150). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1999 Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (1–64). Stanford, California: CSLI.Google Scholar
2006 Subjectification, grammaticalization and conceptual archetypes. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis, & B. Cornillie (Eds.), Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity (17–40). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindner, S.
1983 A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb particle constructions with “out” and “up”. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Liu, Y.
1998 Quxiangbuyutongshi [A complete survey of directional verb complements]. Beijing: Beijing Language & Culture University Press.Google Scholar
Lu, W.-L
2008 From Textual prompts to cognitive models: A context-oriented perspective on metaphor interpretation in Taiwanese presidential speeches. Language and Linguistics, 9(2), 341–358.Google Scholar
Lu, W.-L.
2015a A Cognitive Linguistic approach to teaching spatial particles: From contrastive constructional analyses to material design. In K. Masuda, & C. Arnett (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and sociocultural theory (51–72). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Polysemy and the semantic-pragmatic interface: The case of up in a context-based model. Intercultural Pragmatics.13(4), 563–589. DOI logo
Lu, W.-L., & Su, I.-W.
2012 Antonymous polysemy: The case of -shang in Mandarin. In A. Bednarek (Ed.), Interdisciplinary perspectives in cross-cultural communication (36–50). München: Lincom Europa Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Sullivan, K.
2013 Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E.
1990 From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
1988 Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans V.
2001 Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 77, 724–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
2003 The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar

Database consulted

Sinica Corpus of Modern Chinese
[URL]), accessed 10 December, 2015.
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Knotková, Magdaléna & Wei-lun Lu
2020. Rendering, generalization and variation. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 7:1 ► pp. 201 ff. DOI logo
Knotková, Magdaléna & Wei-lun Lu
2022. Rendering, generalization and variation. In Visual Metaphors [Benjamins Current Topics, 124], ► pp. 209 ff. DOI logo
Lu, Wei-lun
2020. Chapter 7. Cultural “Signs of life” in politics. In Language, Culture and Identity – Signs of Life [Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts, 13], ► pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
Lu, Wei-lun
2020. Viewpoint and metaphor in culture. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 7:1 ► pp. 254 ff. DOI logo
Lu, Wei-lun
2022. A Conceptual Exploration of Polysemy: A Case Study of [V] – [UP] and [V] – [SHANG], DOI logo
Lu, Wei-lun
2022. Viewpoint and metaphor in culture. In Visual Metaphors [Benjamins Current Topics, 124], ► pp. 263 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 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.