Article published in:
Corpus Approaches to Language, Thought and Communication
Edited by Wei-lun Lu, Naděžda Kudrnáčová and Laura A. Janda
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 17:1] 2019
► pp. 113–130

The near-synonymy of classifiers and construal operation

A corpus-based study of 棵 kē and 株 zhū in Chinese

| Masaryk University
| Masaryk University
This paper investigates the near-synonymy of classifiers, using Chinese kē and zhū as illustration. We find that in [quantifier] – [classifier] – [noun], the two classifiers have overlapping semantic prototypes due to their similar behavioral profiles. However, despite a shared functional core, the two classifiers diverge in terms of which part of plant to profile. In particular, zhū highlights parts of plant that are small and vulnerable, such as flowers and seedlings. In addition, small is another important conceptual characteristic exclusively associated with zhū, which gives it a distinctive set of peripheral members to include in that particular linguistic category, including mold, bacterium, and even biological and chemical substance. Another important difference is the quantifier that precedes, where kē tends to occur with lower numbers (typically under 10), while zhū with higher numbers (typically over 1,000). Accordingly, we conclude that [quantifier] – [zhu] – [noun] tends to invoke a higher-resolution construal.
Keywords: classifier, construal, quantifier, synonymy, Chinese
Published online: 20 August 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00028.dos
References

[ p. 129 ]References

Aikhenvald, A. Y.
(2000) Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Allan, K.
(1977) Chinese classifier systems and human categorization. Language, 53(2), 285–311. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D. S., & Gries, S. T.
(2009) Corpus-based cognitive semantics: A contrastive study of phrasal verbs in English and Russian. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & K. Dziwirek (Eds.), Studies in cognitive corpus linguistics (pp. 273–296). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Erbaugh, M. S.
(2006) Chinese classifiers: Their use and acquisition. In H. T. Li, E. Bates, & O. J. L. Tzeng (Eds.), Handbook of East Asian psycholinguistics: Chinese (pp. 39–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D.
(2014) The social nature of ANGER: Multivariate corpus evidence for context effects upon conceptual structure. In I. Novakova, P. Blumenthal, & D. Siepmann (Eds.), Emotions in discourse (pp. 69–82). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Goddard, C.
(2011) Semantic analysis: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, P.
(1996) Contextual dependency and lexical sets. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 1, 75–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hirst, G.
(1995) Near-synonymy and the structure of lexical knowledge. In AAAI symposium on representation and acquisition of lexical knowledge: Polysemy, ambiguity, and generativity (pp. 51–56). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Hirst, G., & Edmonds, P.
(2002) Near-synonymy and lexical choice. Computational Linguistics, 28(2), 105–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. A., & Solovyev, V. D.
(2009) What constructional profiles reveal about synonymy: A case study of Russian words for sadness and happiness. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(2), 367–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, S.
(2017) The semantics of Chinese classifiers and linguistic relativity. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(2008) Cognitive Grammar: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liu, D.
(2013) Salience and construal in the use of synonymy: A study of two sets of near-synonymous nouns. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(1), 67–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A.
(2012) Corpus linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McEnery, T., & Wilson, A.
(2001) Corpus linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Myers, J.
(2000) Rules vs. analogy in Chinese classifier selection. Language and Linguistics, 1(2), 187–209.Google Scholar
Rosch, E.
(1978) Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
[ p. 130 ]
Sinclair, J.
(2004) Corpus and text: Basic principles. In M. Wynne (Ed.), Developing linguistic corpora: A guide to good practice (pp. 1–16). Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T.
(2005) Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Su, L., & Lu, W.
(2009) A new look at analogous words: A corpus-based approach. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Dziwirek (Eds.), Studies in cognitive corpus linguistics (pp. 191–206). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Tai, J. H. Y.
(1994) Chinese classifier systems and human categorization. In M. Y. Chen & O. J. L. Tzeng (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies on language and language change (pp. 479–494). Taipei: Pyramid.Google Scholar

Dictionary consulted

Oxford Chinese dictionary
(2010) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Liesenfeld, Andreas, Meichun Liu & Chu-Ren Huang
2020. Profiling the Chinese causative construction with rang (讓), shi (使) and ling (令) using frame semantic features. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 0:0 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 07 november 2020. 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.