Quantifying analogically derived similarity in usage
Dylan Glynn | Université Paris 8, Saint-Denis – Vincennes
This study considers the methodological implications of the usage-based model (Langacker 1987) for a description of prototype-structured categorisation (Lakoff 1987). The usage-based model places repeated analogical judgements at
the heart of language processing as well as positing that the repetition of this process, across speech events, is
responsible for grammatical competence. Semasiological structure represents one of the most challenging types of
conceptual categorisation and is the focus of the case study on the semantics of the lexeme time in
contemporary American English. The study examines the methodological adequacy of the Behavioural Profile Approach
(Dirven et al. 1982; Geeraerts et al. 1994; Gries 2003) in
accounting for that complexity in a cognitively plausible manner. It is shown how the method quantifiably accounts for
the emergent many-to-many structures interpretable as structured polysemy.
Arppe, A, Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zschel, A.
2010Cognitive
corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and
methodology. Corpora, 5, 1–27.
Barnier, J.
2019explor:
Interactive interfaces for results exploration. R package version
0.3.5. [URL]
Dąbrowska, E.
2006Low-level
schemas or general rules? The role of diminutives in the acquisition of Polish case
inflections. Language
Sciences, 28, 120–135.
Dąbrowska, E.
2008The
later development of an early-emerging system: The curious case of the Polish
genitive. Linguistics, 46, 629–650.
Dąbrowska, E. & Tomasello, M.
2008Rapid
learning of an abstract language-specific category: Polish children’s acquisition of the instrumental
construction. Journal of Child
Language, 35, 533–558.
Davies, M.
2007TIME
Magazine corpus (100 million words, 1920s-2000s). Available online
at [URL].
Davies, M.
2008The
corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words,
1990-present. Available online at [URL].
Davies, M.
2011Corpus
of American soap operas: 100 million words. Available online
at [URL].
Dirven, R., Goossens, L., Putseys, Y., & Vorlat, E.
2005The
meaning of time: Polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of
Linguistics, 41, 33–75.
Everitt, B. Landau, S., Leese, M., and Stahl, D.
2011Cluster
analysis. (5th
Ed). Chichester: John Wiley.
Fuoli, M.
2012Assessing
social responsibility: A quantitative analysis of Appraisal in BP’s and Ikea’s social
reports. Discourse and
Communication, 6, 55–81.
Fuoli, M.
2017Building
a trustworthy corporate identity: A corpus-based analysis of stance in annual and corporate social
responsibility reports. Applied
Linguistics, 39, 846–885.
2015Optimizing
transparency, reliability and replicability: Annotation principles and inter-coder agreement in the
quantification of evaluative
expressions. Corpora, 10, 315–349.
1994The
structure of lexical variation. Meaning, naming and context. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Speelman, D.
1999Convergentie
en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat: een onderzoek naar kleding- en
voetbaltermen. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.
Glynn, D.
2008Lexical
fields, grammatical constructions and synonymy: A study in usage-based Cognitive
Semantics. In H.-J. Schmid, & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive
foundations of linguistic usage-patterns: Empirical
studies (89–118). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
2010Testing
the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based Cognitive
Semantics. In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative
Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven
approaches (239–270). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
2015aThe
social nature of anger. Multivariate corpus evidence for context effects upon conceptual
structure. In I. Novakova, P. Blumenthal, & D. Siepmann (Eds.), Emotions
in
discourse (69–82). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Glynn, D.
2015bConceptualisation
of home in popular Anglo-American texts: A multifactorial diachronic
analysis. In J. Díaz-Vera (Ed.), Metaphor
and metonymy across time and
cultures (265–294). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Glynn, D.
2015cThe
socio-cultural conceptualisation of femininity. Corpus evidence for cognitive
models. In J. Badio, & K. Kosecki (Eds.), Empirical
methods in language
studies (97–117). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Glynn, D.
2016aQuantifying
polysemy: Corpus methodology for prototype theory. Folia
Linguistica, 50, 413–447.
Glynn, D.
2016bSemasiology
and onomasiology: Empirical questions between meaning, naming and
context. In J. Daems, E. Zenner, K. Heylen, D. Speelman, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Change
of paradigms – New paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and
linguistics (47–79). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Glynn, D., & Fischer, K.
(Eds.)2010Quantitative
methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
2019Explain
me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of
constructions. Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Greenacre, M.
2007Correspondence
analysis in practice (2nd
Ed.). London: Academic.
Gries, St. Th
1999Particle
movement: A cognitive and functional approach. Cognitive
Linguistics, 10, 105–45.
Gries, St. Th
2003Multifactorial
analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle
placement. London: Continuum.
Gries, St. Th
2006Corpus-based
methods and Cognitive Semantics: The many senses of to
run. In St. Th. Gries, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora
in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and
lexis (57–99). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
2000De
distributie van niet-anaforisch er buiten de eerste zinsplaats. Sociolexicologische, functionele en
psycholinguïstische aspecten van er’s status als presentatief
signaal. Doctoral dissertation, Leuven University.
Grondelaers, S., & Brysbaert, M.
1996De
distributie van het presentatieve er buiten de eerste zinsplaats. Nederlandse
Taalkunde, 1, 280–305.
Heylen, K.
2005A
quantitative corpus study of German word order
variation. In S. Kepser, & M. Reis (Eds.). Linguistic
evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational
perspectives (241–264). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
2014Corpus
evidence for the cross-cultural structure of social emotions: Shame, embarrassment, and guilt in English and
Polish. Poznań Studies in Contemporary
Linguistics, 50, 441–475.
Krawczak. K.
2015Epistemic
stance predicates in English: A quantitative corpus-driven study of
subjectivity. In D. Glynn, & M. Sjölin (Eds.), Subjectivity
and epistemicity: Corpus, discourse, and literary approaches to
stance (355–386). Lund: Lund University Press
2016A
corpus-based, cross-linguistic approach to mental predicates and their
complementation. Folia
Linguistica, 50, 475–506.
Lakoff, G.
1987Women,
fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the
mind. London: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R.
1987Foundations
of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical
prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R.
2011Conceptual
semantics, symbolic grammar, and the day after day
construction. In P. Sutcliff, W. Sullivan, & A. Lommel (Eds.), Mechanisms
of linguistic
behavior (3–24). Houston: LACUS.
Lê, S., Josse, J., & Husson, F.
2008FactoMineR:
An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical
Software, 25, 1–18.
Maechler, M., Rousseeuw, P., Struyf, A., Hubert, M., & Hornik, K.
2019cluster:
Cluster analysis basics and extensions. R package version
2.1.0.
Nenadic, O., & Greenacre, M.
2007Correspondence
Analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: The ca
package. Journal of Statistical
Software, 20, 1–13.
1989Prototypes,
schemas, and cross-category correspondences: The case of
ask. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Prospects
and problems of prototype
theory (613–661). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rudzka-Ostyn, B.
1995Metaphor,
schema, invariance: The case of verbs of
answering. In L. Goossens, P. Pauwels, B. Rudzka-Ostyn, A.-M. Simon- Vandenbergen, & J. Vanparys (Eds.), By
word of mouth. Metaphor, metonymy, and linguistic action from a cognitive
perspective (205–244). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Schmid, H.-J.
2017Linguistic
entrenchment and its psychological
foundations. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment
and the psychology of language learning. How we reorganize and adapt linguistic
knowledge (435–452). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schmid, H.-J.
2020The
dynamics of the linguistic system. Usage, conventionalization, and
entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Szmrecsanyi, B.
2003Be
going to versus will/shall. Does syntax
matter?Journal of English
Linguistics, 31, 130–160.
Talmy, L.
1985Force
dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive
Science, 12, 49–100.
Talmy, L.
2000Toward
a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1, Concept structuring
systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.
UNESCO
2013Statistical guide for partitioning
around medoids, section 7.1.1, [URL].
Vendler, Z.
1957Verbs
and times. The Philosophical
Review, 66, 143–160.
Zlatev, J.
1997Situated
embodiment. Studies in the emergence of spatial
meaning. Stockholm: Gotab.
Zlatev, J.
2003Polysemy
or generality? In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive
approaches to lexical
semantics (447–494). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cited by
Cited by 2 other publications
Glynn, Dylan & Olaf Mikkelsen
2024. Concrete constructions or messy mangroves? How modelling contextual effects on constructional alternations reflect theoretical assumptions of language structure. Linguistics Vanguard 0:0
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 march 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.