This is a corpus-based study of the development of the verb pleróo in Ancient Greek, originally meaning fill, from the 6th c. bce in Classical Greek, up to the end of the 3rd c. bce in Hellenistic Koiné. It implements a hierarchical cluster analysis and a multiple correspondence analysis of the sum of the attested instances of pleróo of that period, divided by century. It explores the gains following a syncretism between two methodological strands: earlier introspective analyses postulating variant construals over intuitively grasped schematic configurations such as image schemas, and strictly inductive methods based on statistical analyses of correlations between co-occurring formal and semantic features. Thus, it examines the relevance of the container image-schema to the architecture of the schematic construction corresponding to the prototypical and historically preceding sense of pleróo, fill. Consequently, it observes how shifts in the featural configurations detected through statistical analysis, leading to the emergence of new senses, correspond to successive shifts on the perspectival salience of elements in the schematic construction of the verb.
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zeschel, A.
(2010) Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora, 51, 1–27.
Baayen, R. H.
(2008) Analysing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Boers, F.
(1996) Spatial prepositions and metaphor: A cognitive semantic journey along the up-down and the front-back dimensions. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Brugman, C.
(1988) The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland.
Brugman, C., & Lakoff, G. (1988) Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In S. Small, G. Cottrell, & M. Tannenhaus (Eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology and artificial intelligence (pp. 477–507). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
Chaffe, W.
(1970) Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Díez Velasco, O. I.
(2001) Metaphor, metonymy and image-schemas: An analysis of conceptual integration patterns. Journal of English Studies, 31, 47–63.
Dirven, R., Goossens, L., Putseys, Y., & Vorlat, E.
(2006) Ways of intending: A corpus-based cognitive linguistic approach to near-synonyms in Russian. In S. T. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 19–56). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Divjak, D.
(2010) Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Divjak, D., & Fieller, N.
(2014) Cluster analysis: Finding structure in linguistic data. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 405–441). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Evans, V., & Tyler, A.
(2004) Spatial experience, lexical structure and motivation: The case of in. In G. Radden & K. U. Panther (Eds.). Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 157–192). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Evans, V., & Green, M.
(2005) Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fabiszak, M., Hebda, A., Kokorniak, I., & Krawczak, K.
(2010) The semasiological structure of Polish mýsleć ‘to think’: A study in verb-prefix semantics. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 223–252). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fillmore, C. J.
(1968) The case for case. In E. Bach & R. Harms (Ed.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Fillmore, C.
(1977) Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zambolli (Ed.), Linguistic structure processing (pp. 55–82). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Fillmore, C.
(1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 61, 222–254.
Geeraerts, D.
(1987) On necessary and sufficient conditions. Journal of Semantics, 51, 275–291.
(2010a) Corpus-driven cognitive semantics. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 1–42). Berlin: Mouton.
Glynn, D.
(2010b) Synonymy, lexical fields, and grammatical constructions: A study in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In H. -J. Schmid, & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage-patterns: Empirical studies (pp. 89–118). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Glynn, D.
(2010c) Testing the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based cognitive semantics. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(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 caradigms. New paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics (47–79). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A.
(2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224.
Gries, S.
(2006) Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run. In S. T. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 57–99). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gries, S.
(2013) Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hespos, S. J., & Baillargeon, R.
(2001) Knowledge about containment events in very young children. Cognition, 781, 207–245.
Heylen, K., Wielfaert, T., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D.
(2015) Monitoring polysemy: Word space models as a tool for large-scale lexical semantic analysis. Lingua, 1571, 153–172.
(2009) What constructional profiles reveal about synonymy: A case study of the Russian words for sadness and happiness. Cognitive Linguistics, 201, 367–393.
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kilgarriff, A.
(1997) I don’t believe in word senses. Computers and the Humanities, 311, 91–113.
Kövecses, Z.
(2010) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, R. (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77.
(2012) A corpus-driven quantitative approach to the construal of Polish think. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 481, 439–472.
Lakoff, G.
(1977) Linguistic gestalts. In W. A. Beach, S. E. Fox, & S. Philosoph (Eds.), Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, April 14–16, 236–287.
Lakoff, G.
(1982) Categories: An essay in Cognitive Linguistics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 139–194). Seoul: Hanshin.
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G.
(1990) The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas?Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74.
Lakoff, G.
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press
Langacker, R.
(1988) A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 127–161). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Langacker, R.
(2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lehrer, A.
(1982) Wine and conversation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
(2008) Semantic structure from correspondence analysis. In Coling 2008: Proceedings of 3rd Textgraphs workshop on Graph-Based Algorithms in Natural Language Processing (pp. 49–52). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
(1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. U. Panther & G. Radden (Ed.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17–59). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sandra, D., & Rice, S.
(1995) Network analysis of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s?Cognitive Linguistics, 61, 89–130.
Schmid, H. J.
(1993) Cottage and co., idea, start vs. begin: Die kategorisierung als grundprinzip einer differenzierten bedeutungsbeschreibung. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D.
(2010) Causes for causatives: The case of Dutch ‘doen’ and ‘laten’. In T. Sanders & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp. 173–204). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Talmy, L.
(1985) Force dynamics in language and cognition, Cognitive Science, 121, 49–100.
Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
(2003) The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verhagen, A.
(2007) Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 48–81). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cited by
Cited by 4 other publications
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis, Eliese-Sophia Lincke, Kiki Nikiforidou & Anna Piata
2018. Constructions and image-schema preservation. A historical-comparative analysis of PAY in Greek and English. Lingua 206 ► pp. 85 ff.
Ioannou, Georgios
2019. From Athenian fleet to prophetic eschatology. Correlating formal features to themes of discourse in Ancient Greek. Folia Linguistica 53:s40-s2 ► pp. 355 ff.
Ioannou, Georgios
2020. Image schemas as prototypes in the diachronic evolution of kámnō and eutheiázō in Greek: A behavioural-profile analysis. Lingua 245 ► pp. 102938 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 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.