Cover not available
Part of
Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy
Edited by Dylan Glynn and Justyna A. Robinson
[Human Cognitive Processing 43] 2014
► pp. 117–144

The many uses of run

Corpus methods and Socio-Cognitive Semantics

 | University of Paris VIII
Multifactorial usage-feature analysis (profile-based approach) has been successfully applied to polysemy research (Gries 2006; Glynn 2009, 2010). This chapter represents a repeat analysis of Gries (2006). The study has three aims: (i) to verify the results of the previous study; (ii) to identify limitations in the applications of the statistical technique employed (hierarchical cluster analysis) in the previous study; and (iii) to demonstrate the need to account for sociolinguistic dimensions in polysemy research. The study is based on a sample of 500 occurrences of the lexeme to run, extracted in even proportions from British English and American English and from online personal journals (blogs) and conversations (American National Corpus and British National Corpus).
Keywords: cluster analysis, Cognitive Semantics, corpus linguistics, multifactorial usage-feature analysis, polysemy, sociolinguistics
Published online: 6 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.05gly
References (49)
References
Arppe, A., & Järvikivi, J. (2007). Every method counts: Combining corpus-based and experimental evidence in the study of synonymy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory , 3, 131–159. 
DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zeschel, A. (2010). Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora , 5, 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R.H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, S., & Hadi, A. (2006). Regression analysis by example . Chichester & New Jersey: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1964). A transformational approach to syntax. In J.A. Fodor, & J. Katz (Eds.), The structure of language (pp. 211–241). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, H. (1993). The Dutch spatial preposition “in”: A cognitive-semantic analysis. In 
C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (pp. 27–72). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeMaris, A. (2003). Regression with social data: Modeling continuous and limited response variables . Chichester & New Jersey: Wiley.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., Goossens, L., Putseys, Y., & Vorlat, E. (1982). The scene of linguistic action and its perspectivization by SPEAK, TALK, SAY, and TELL . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John 
Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D. (2010). Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Divjak, D., & Gries, St. Th. (2006). Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory , 2, 23–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dodge, Y. (2008). The concise encyclopedia of statistics . Heidelberg & New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Faraway, J. (2002). Extending the linear model with R: Generalized linear, mixed effects and nonparametric regression models . London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica , 6, 222–254.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1987). On necessary and sufficient conditions. Journal of Semantics , 5, 275–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1989). Prospects and problems of prototype theory . Linguistics , 27, 587– 612. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1993). Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics , 4, 223–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1995). Representational formats in Cognitive Semantics. Folia Linguistica , 39, 21–41.Google Scholar
. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology . 
Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
. (2000). Salience phenomena in the lexicon: A typology. In L. Albertazzi (Ed.), Meaning and Cognition (pp. 79–101). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P. (1994). The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G. (2010). Corpus, cognition and causative constructions . 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
. (2010). Testing the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 239–270). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (In press). Cognitive socio-semantics: The theoretical and analytical role of context in meaning. Review of Cognitive Linguistics .Google Scholar
Gries, St. Th. (2003). Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement . London & New York: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
. (2006). Corpus-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 (pp. 57–99). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009). Statistics for Linguistics with R: A practical introduction . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2010). Cluster analysis and the identification of collexeme classes. In S. Rice, & J. Newman (Eds.), Empirical and experimental methods in cognitive/functional research (pp. 73–90). CSLI: Stanford.Google Scholar
Janda, L. (1993). A geography of case semantics: The Czech dative and the Russian instrumental . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A. (1997). I don’t believe in word senses. Computers and the Humanities , 31, 91–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kleiber, G. (1990). Sémantique du prototype : catégorie et sens lexical . Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Kudrnáčová, N. (2010). On pragmatic and cognitive processes in meaning variation. Linguistica Silesiana , 31, 55–67.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
. (1990). The invariance hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics , 1, 39–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, A. (1982). Wine and conversation . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, K., & Lehrer, A. (1994). Fields, networks, and vectors. In F. Palmer (Ed.), Grammar and meaning: A festschrift for John Lyons (pp. 26–47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levy, J., Bullinaria, J., & Patel, M. (1999). Explorations in the derivation of cooccurrence statistics. South Pacific Journal of Psychology , 10, 99–111.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maindonald, J., & Braun, J. (2003). Data analysis and graphics using R: An example-based approach . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marques de Sá, J. (2007). Applied statistics using SPSS, STATISTICA, MATLAB and R . 
Heidelberg & New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 104, 192–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (1989). Prototypes, schemas, and cross-category correspondences: The case of ask . In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Prospects and problems of prototype theory (Special edition of Linguistics 27 ) (pp. 613–661). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sandra, D., & Rice, S. (1995). Network analysis of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics , 6, 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
. (2010). Does frequency in text instantiate entrenchment. In D. Glynn, & 
K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 101–135). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2006). Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. (1989). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Tribushinina, E. (2009). On prototypicality of dimensional adjectives. In J. Zlatev, M. Andrén, M. Johansson Falck, & C. Lundmark (Eds.), Studies in language and cognition (pp. 111–128). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over . Language , 77, 724–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J. (2003). Polysemy or generality? Mu. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 447–494). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (25)

Cited by 25 other publications

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
Chen, Qiaoyun
2024. Profiling analytic causative construction in Chinese: a multifactorial analysis of diachronic change. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory DOI logo
Dai, Ying & Yicheng Wu
2024. The colexification of vision and cognition in Mandarin: controlled activity surpasses uncontrolled experience. Cognitive Linguistics 35:3 ► pp. 345 ff. DOI logo
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 10:s1 ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Haitao, Toshiyuki Kanamaru & Ke Li
2024. The polysemy of the Japanese temperature adjective atsui . Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:2 ► pp. 476 ff. DOI logo
Dalpanagioti, Thomai
2023. Fluidic motion patterns in English and Modern Greek. Languages in Contrast DOI logo
DESAGULIER, GUILLAUME & PHILIPPE MONNERET
2023. Cognitive Linguistics and a Usage‐Based Approach to the Study of Semantics and Pragmatics. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics, ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo
Geeraerts, Dirk, Dirk Speelman, Kris Heylen, Mariana Montes, Stefano De Pascale, Karlien Franco & Michael Lang
2023. Lexical Variation and Change, DOI logo
KAMBARA, Kazuho & Tsukasa YAMANAKA
2023. <i>Philosophy of Data Science for Corpus Linguistics:</i>. Annals of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science 32:0 ► pp. 47 ff. DOI logo
Kiyama, Naoki & Yoshikata Shibuya
2023. A Topic-Based Diachronic Account of the Polysemy of the English Verb ‘Run’. Research in Language 21:2 ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Meili
2023. Towards a dynamic behavioral profile of the Mandarin Chinese temperature termre: a diachronic semasiological approach. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 19:2 ► pp. 289 ff. DOI logo
Schmid, Hans-Jörg
2023. Multi-Dimensional Regularity Analysis: How the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model can be applied to corpus data. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 11:1 ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
SUGAWARA, Yuki & Kazuho KAMBARA
2023. <i>The Many Uses of Explain:</i>. Annals of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science 32:0 ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Alvin Cheng-Hsien
2022. Words, constructions and corpora: Network representations of constructional semantics for Mandarin space particles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 18:2 ► pp. 209 ff. DOI logo
Diewald, Gabriele & Dániel Czicza
2022. Variation and Grammaticalization of Verbal Constructions. Constructions and Frames 14:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Glynn, Dylan
2022. Chapter 8. Emergent categories. In Analogy and Contrast in Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 73], ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
Kokorniak, Iwona
2022. Chapter 5. Contrast and analogy in aspectual distinctions of English and Polish. In Analogy and Contrast in Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 73], ► pp. 115 ff. DOI logo
Montes, Mariana & Dirk Geeraerts
2022. How vector space models disambiguate adjectives: A perilous but valid enterprise. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 10:1 ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
Krawczak, Karolina
2021. Chapter 3. The role of verb polysemy in constructional profiling. In GiveConstructions across Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 29], ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
Desagulier, Guillaume
2020. Multivariate Exploratory Approaches. In A Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, ► pp. 435 ff. DOI logo
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis, Eliese-Sophia Lincke, Kiki Nikiforidou & Anna Piata
2020. On the polysemy of motion verbs in Ancient Greek and Coptic. Studies in Language 44:1 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Kokorniak, Iwona & Alicja Jajko-Siwek
2018. Expressing i think that in Polish. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:1 ► pp. 229 ff. DOI logo
Smith, Chris A.
2018. Diachronic patterns of usage of no doubt in the English Historical Book Collection (EEBO, ECCO and EVANS). ExELL 6:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Ioannou, Georgios
2017. A corpus-based analysis of the verb pleróo in Ancient Greek. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:1 ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 november 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.