Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 20:2 (2022) ► pp.438–475

The convergence and divergence of extension and intension on semantic change

Evidence from Chinese pò

| University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
ORCID logo | Beihang University
Despite the fact that semantic change studies have intensively argued that intensional readings develop from the literal reading as a whole, diachronic prototype semantics proposes that intensional readings arise from the extensional subsets of the literal reading. This study empirically explored this proposal by carrying out a corpus-based diachronic study. It is proved from the semantic change of Chinese pò that: (1) There exists a corresponding relationship between extensional usages and intensional readings of a lexical item. (2) Extension and intension both converge and diverge on semantic change. Their convergence lies in the fact that extensional usages give rise to intensional readings. Extensional usages, though nuanced, motivate the emergence and development of intensional readings. Their divergence is reflected in the independent development of extensional usages and intensional readings. The subsistence or dying out of extensional usages does not constrain the appearance or disappearance of intensional readings. (3) Semantic change involves three stages, namely the extensional stage, the intensional stage, and the grammaticalization stage. These three stages constitute an interweaving continuum in the process of semantic change.
Keywords: diachronic prototype semantics, extensional usages, intensional readings, semantic change
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Diachronic prototype semantics
  • 3.Research methodology
    • 3.1Data source and chronological stages
    • 3.2Data retrieval
    • 3.3Data annotation
      • Data annotation for extensional pò
      • Data annotation for intensional pò
    • 3.4Data analysis
  • 4.Extensional usages and intensional readings
    • 4.1Extensional usages of pò
    • 4.2Intensional readings of pò
  • 5.Semantic change of pò
    • 5.1Convergence of extension and intension
      • 5.1.1Semantic lineage of disruptive separation
      • 5.1.2Semantic lineage of impediment removal separation
      • 5.1.3Semantic lineage of new function separation
    • 5.2Divergence of extension and intension
    • 5.3Summary
  • 6.Conclusions and implications
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 8 December 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00118.du
References (61)
References
Ancient Chinese Frequent-used Character Dictionary. (2019). Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1968). Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa, 21, 119–127.Google Scholar
Brugman, C. (1981). The story of ‘over’. M.A. Thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of California Berkeley.
(1988). The story of ‘Over’: Polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. (2004). Historical linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, L., & Kay, P. (1981). Prototype semantics: The English word lie . Language, 57 (1), 26–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Essex, U.K.: Longman, Pearson Education.Google Scholar
(2006). The relevance of an evolutionary model to historical linguistics. In O. N. Thomsen (Ed.), Competing models of linguistic change: Evolution and beyond (pp.91–132). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. (1977). Inductive generalizations in semantic change. In P. Hopper (Ed.), Studies in descriptive and historical linguistics: A Festschrift for Winfred P. Lehmann (pp. 283–300). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D., & Arppe, A. (2013). Extracting prototypes from exemplars: What can corpus tell us about concept representation? Cognitive Linguistics, 24 (2), 221–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du, J., F. J. Li, & Xu, M. (2020). Pò (BREAK), qiē (CUT) and kāi (OPEN) in Chinese: A diachronic conceptual variational approach. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 18 (1), 213–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Firth, J. (1957). Papers in linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1983). Prototype theory and diachronic semantics: A case study. Indogermanische Forschungen, 88 1, 1–32.Google Scholar
(1990). Meanings and prototypes. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Eds.), Studies in linguistic categorization (pp. 195–210). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(1997). Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
(2006). The semantic structure of Dutch over. In D. Geeraerts (Eds.), Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics (pp.48–73). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Family resemblances, radial networks, and multidimensional models of meaning. In M. L. Friend, P. R. Vaz, S. H. Santano & J. Casanova (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th AEDEAN Conference (pp. 1–11). Huelva: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Huelva.Google Scholar
(2010). Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2016). Prospects and problems of prototype theory. Diacronia, 3 1, 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Forthcoming). The structured nature of prepositional meaning. In W. A. Ross & S. Runge (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to Greek prepositions in the Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (2007). Introducing cognitive linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 3–21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. (2007). Lexical variation and change. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.988–1011). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grzega, J. (2003). On using (and misusing) prototypes for explanations of lexical changes. Word, 54 (3): 335–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harmon, Z., & Kapatsinski, V. (2017). Putting old tools to novel uses: The role of form accessibility in semantic extension. Cognitive Psychology, 98 1, 22–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1954). Distributional structure. Word, 10 1, 146–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hunnemeyer, F. (1991). From cognition to grammar: Evidence from African languages. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (vol.11) (pp. 149–187). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hock, H. H., & Joseph, B. D. (2009). Language history, language change, and language relationship: An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hu, C. R. (2005). The early forms of resultative construction and the relevant criterion. Studies of the Chinese Language, 3 , 214–225. (胡敕瑞. 2005. 动结式的早期形式及判定标准. 中国语文(3): 214–225.)Google Scholar
Jiang, S. Y. (1985). Lexical semantic development and change. Linguistic Researches, 2 1, 7–12. (蒋绍愚. 1985. 词义的发展和变化. 语文研究 2 1, 7–12.)Google Scholar
Kraska-Szlenk, I. (2014). Semantic extensions of body part terms: Common patterns and their interpretation. Language Sciences, 44 1, 15–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lander, Y., Maisak., T., & Rakhilina, E. (2008). Domains of aqua-motion: A case study in lexical typology. In E. van der Zee & M. Vulchanova (Eds.), Motion encoding in language and space (pp. 95–129). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32 1, 89–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Modern Chinese Dictionary. (2016). Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17 (3), 269–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rakhilina, E., & Reznikova, T. (2014). Doing lexical typology with frames and semantic maps. Basic Research Program Working Papers Series: Linguistics, WP BRP 18/LNG. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). A frame-based methodology for lexical typology. In P. Juvonen. & M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (Eds.), The lexical typology of semantic shifts (pp. 95–129). Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robert, S. (2008). Words and their meanings: principles of variation and stabilization. In M. Vanhove (Eds.), From polysemy to semantic change (pp. 55–93). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp.111–144). Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1975). Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology 104 (3), 192–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories, Cognitive Psychology, 7 1, 573–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svorou, S. (1993). The grammar of space. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. (2003). Linguistic categorization (3rd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thomsen, O. N. (2006). Competing models of linguistic change: Evolution and beyond. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2017). Semantic change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over . Language 77 (4), 724–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, L. (2013). Outline of the history of Chinese. Beijing: Zhong Hua Book Company. (王力. 2013. 汉语史稿. 北京：中华书局.)Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W., & Herzog, M. I. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language Change. In W. P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel (eds.), pp. 95–195. Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wu, F. X. (2017). The semantic changes of the Chinese locative term hou . Studies of the Chinese Language 6 1, 494–506. (吴福祥. 2017. 汉语方所词语“后”的语义演变. 中国语文 6 1, 494–506.)Google Scholar
Xu, D. (2001). Investigating semantic influence on syntactic structure from the emergence of resultative constructions – a study on the divergence of the semantic and function of Chinese verbs. Linguistic Researches, 2 1, 5–12. (徐丹. 2001. 从动补结构的形成看语义对句法结构的影响—兼谈汉语动词语义及功能的分化. 语文研究 2 1, 5–12.)Google Scholar
(2005). Typological changes of some verbs in Chinese: The case of po (to break > broken). Studies of the Chinese Language, 4, 333–339. (徐丹. 2005. 谈“破”—汉语某些动词的类型转变. 中国语文 (4), 333–339.)Google Scholar
Yu, N. (2008). Metaphor from body and culture. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 247–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar