Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Online-First Articles

The polysemy of the Japanese temperature adjective atsui

A behavioral profile analysis

| Kyoto University
| Kyoto University
| Kyoto University
This study adopts a corpus-based behavioral profile approach to explore the semantic relationships among the senses of the Japanese temperature adjective atsui (‘hot’). As a result, the hierarchical cluster analysis represents the distributional (dis)similarity of the ten senses of atsui. Average silhouette width suggests a two-cluster interpretation, which reveals that senses derived from the same experience (sensory or subjective) tend to have similar usage characteristics. The discriminating properties of four subclusters and usage characteristics of each sense have been identified by means of computing t-values. Also, the structure of the hypothesized network has been represented based on the distributional (dis)similarity of the ten senses. The relationships among these ten senses and the usage characteristics identified in this study provide insight into Japanese lexicography. Moreover, as the first attempt to apply the behavioral profile to the investigation of Japanese polysemy, this study holds implications for lexical semantics in Japanese.
Keywords: polysemy, lexical semantics, behavioral profile, Japanese, temperature adjective
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Previous studies on atsui
    • 2.2Polysemy in cognitive linguistics
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1The target lexical item and its senses
    • 3.2The behavioral profile approach
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Identifying the prototype of atsui
    • 4.2Semantic relations of atsui
      • 4.2.1General observations
      • 4.2.2Discriminating characteristics between clusters
      • 4.2.3Semantic relationships between individual senses
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 23 June 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00156.wan
References (74)
References
Atkins, B. T. (1987). Semantic ID tags: Corpus evidence for dictionary senses. In Proceedings of the third annual conference of the UW Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary, University of Waterloo, Canada, 17–36.Google Scholar
Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Gensler, S., Weiber, R., & Weiber, T. (2021). Multivariate analysis: An application-oriented introduction. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bunkachō [Agency for Cultural Affairs]. (2014). Ijidōkun no Kanji no Tsukaiwakerei (Hōkoku) [examples of Kanji usage for common Ijidōkun (a report)]. [URL]. Accessed 27 August 2022.
Brugman, C. (1981). The story of over. M. A. thesis. University of California, Berkeley.
Brugman, C., & Lakoff, G. (1988). Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In S. L. Small, G. W. Cottrell & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution (pp. 477–508). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuyckens, H., & Zawada, B. E. (2001). Introduction. In H. Cuyckens & B. E. Zawada (Eds.), Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. ix–xxvii). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewell, R. (1994). Over again: image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5 (4), 351–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D. (2006). Ways of intending: Delineating and structuring near-synonyms. In S.Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 19–56). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Structuring the lexicon. A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D., & Gries, S.Th. (2006). Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2 (1), 23–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. (2004). The structure of time: Language, meaning and temporal cognition. Amsterdam & Phialdelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). The meaning of time: Polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics, 41 (1), 33–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6 1, 222–254.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955. In J. R. Firth (Ed.), Studies in linguistic analysis (pp. 1–32). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1993). Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (3), 223–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. (2007). Why cognitive linguists should care more about empirical methods. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson & M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 2–18). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D. (2009). Polysemy, syntax, and variation: A usage-based method for cognitive semantics. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 77–106). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010a). Synonymy, lexical fields, and grammatical constructions: A study in usage-based cognitive semantics. In H. J. Schmid & S. Handle (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage patterns (pp. 89–118). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010b). Corpus-driven cognitive semantics. Introduction to the field. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 1–41). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014a). Polysemy and synonymy. Cognitive theory and corpus method. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 7–38). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014b). The many uses of run: Corpus methods and socio-cognitive semantics. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 117–144). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014c). Techniques and tools: Corpus methods and statistics for semantics. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 307–342). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Semasiology 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 (pp. 47–79). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
(2016). Quantifying polysemy: Corpus methodology for prototype theory. Folia Linguistica, 50 (2), 413–447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Emergent categories. In K. Krawczak, M. Grygiel & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Analogy and Contrast in Language (pp. 245–282). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D., & Fischer, K. (2010). Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D., & Robinson, J. (2014). Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S.Th. (2006). Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run . In S.Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 57–99). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Chapter 2: Polysemy. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics – Key topics (pp. 23–43). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S.Th., & Divjak, D. (2009). Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic analysis. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 57–75). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S.Th., & Otani, N. (2010). Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based perspective on synonymy and antonymy. ICAME Journal, 34 1, 121–150.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1954). Distributional structure. Word, 10 1, 146–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hattori, S. (1964). Igiso no Kōzō to Kinō [Structure and function of the sememe]. Gengo Kenkyū [Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan], 45 1, 12–26.Google Scholar
Hida, Y., & Asada, H. (Eds.). (2018) [1991]. Genndai keiyōshi yōhō jiten [Japanese adjectives usage dictionary], 2nd ed. Tokyo: Tokyodo.Google Scholar
Imai, S. (Ed.). (2011). Nihongo Tagigo Gakushū Jiten Keiyōshi-fukushi Hen [A learner’s dictionary of multi-sense Japanese words: Adjectives & adverbs]. Tokyo: Aruku.Google Scholar
Iori, I. (Ed.). (2012) [2001]. Atarashii Nihongogaku Nyūmon [An introduction to modern Japanese linguistics], 2nd ed. Tokyo: 3A Corporation.Google Scholar
Jansegers, M., Vanderschueren, C., & Enghels, R. (2015). The polysemy of the Spanish verb sentir: A behavioral profile analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26 (3), 381–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kageyama, T. (1980). Nichiei Hikaku Goi no Kouzou [Japanese-English comparison on the structure of the lexicon]. Tokyo: Shohaksuha.Google Scholar
Kitahara, Y. (Ed.). (2000). Nihon Kokugo Daijiten: Dai Ni Ban [Shogakukan’s Japanese dictionary, 2nd ed.]. Tokyo: Shogakukan.Google Scholar
Kovecses, Z. (2010) [2002]. Metaphor: A practical introduction, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kreitzer, A. (1997). Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space. Cognitive Linguistics, 8 (4), 291–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kunihiro, T. (1967). Kōzō-teki Imi-ron [Structural semantics: A contrastive study of English and Japanese]. Tokyo: Sanseido.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume l Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, N. (2015). How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam & Phildelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, M. (2022). Towards a dynamic behavioral profile of the Mandarin Chinese temperature term re: a diachronic semasiological approach. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory (published online). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. Third Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Momiyama, Y. (2021). (Reikai) Nihongo no Tagigo Kenkyū [(Illustration) Research on polysemy in Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishukan Publishing.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. D. (2003). Polysemy and flexibility: Introduction and overview. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman & D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 3–30). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noji, J. (1973–77). Yooji no gengo seikatsu no jittai [The reality of the language life of young children] I–IV 1. Tokyo: Bunka Hyoron Shuppan.Google Scholar
Norvig, P., & Lakoff, G. (1987). Taking: A study in lexical network theory. In J. Aske, N. Beery, L. Michaelis & H. Filip (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society (pp. 195–206). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogawa, Y. (2016). Ogawa corpus. Pittsburgh, PA: TalkBank. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (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 resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7 1, 573–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sampson, G. (1985). Writing systems: A linguistic introduction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Sandra, D., & Rice, S. (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
Schmid, H. J. (2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seto, K. (2007). Metafā to Tagigo no Kijutsu [Metaphor and polysemy description]. In T. Kusumi (Ed.), Metafā Kenkyū no Saizensen [At the forefront of metaphor research] (pp. 31–61). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Shimodaira, H. (2004). Approximately unbiased tests of regions using multistep-multiscale bootstrap resampling. Annals of Statistics, 32 (6), 2616–2641. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shindo, M. (1998). An analysis of metaphorically extended concepts based on bodily experience: A case study of temperature expressions (1). Papers in Linguistic Science, 4 1, 29–54.Google Scholar
(2015). Subdomains of temperature concepts in Japanese. In M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (Ed.), The linguistics of temperature (pp. 639–665). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, R., & Shimodaira, H. (2006). Pvclust: An R package for assessing the uncertainty in hierarchical clustering. Bioinformatics, 22 (12), 1540–1542. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szymor, N. (2015). Behavioral profiling in translation studies. Trans-kom, 8 (2), 483–498.Google Scholar
Tamura, A. (1999). Ondokankaku o Arawasu-go no Imikakutyō nitsuite [Semantic extension of words for temperature sense]. Gakugei Nihongo Kyōiku [Journal of Gakugei Japanese language teaching], 2 1, 1–12.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (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: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, M. (1970). Goi Kyōiku no Taikei to Hōhō [System and method for education of lexicon]. In K. Morioka, M. Nagano & Y. Miyaji (Eds.), Kōza Tadashii Nihongo 4: Goi-hen [Lectures on Correct Japanese 4: Lexicon] (pp. 289–310). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Yamada, S. (2014). Imi kara Mita Ijidōkun [A research of Ijidōkun from the perspective of semantics]. Nihongo-gaku [Japanese Linguistics], 33 (10), 14–22.Google Scholar
Yamaguchi, N. (1982). Kankaku Kanjō Goi no Rekishi [Histori of sensory and emotional lexicon]. In K. Morioka, Y. Miyaji, H. Teramura & Y. Kawabata (Eds.), Kōza Nihongo-gaku: Goi-shi [Lectures on Japanese Linguistics: History of the Lexicon] (pp. 202–227). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.Google Scholar
Zhang, B. (2010). Guanyu “wenjue xingrongci + mingci” lei yinyu de kaocha. Cong renzhi yuyanxue de jiaodu [An examination of the “temperature adjectives + noun” metaphor: from the perspective of cognitive linguistics]. Riyu xuexi yu yanjiu [Journal of Japanese Language Study and Research], 5 1, 56–62.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Bębeniec, Daria
2024. In search of methodological standards for corpus-based cognitive semantics: The case of Behavioral Profiles. Studia Neophilologica ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.