Cover not available
Part of
Analogy and Contrast in Language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics
Edited by Karolina Krawczak, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Marcin Grygiel
[Human Cognitive Processing 73] 2022
► pp. 245–282

Chapter 8
Emergent categories

Quantifying analogically derived similarity in usage

| Université Paris 8, Saint-Denis – Vincennes
This study considers the methodological implications of the usage-based model (Langacker 1987) for a description of prototype-structured categorisation (Lakoff 1987). The usage-based model places repeated analogical judgements at the heart of language processing as well as positing that the repetition of this process, across speech events, is responsible for grammatical competence. Semasiological structure represents one of the most challenging types of conceptual categorisation and is the focus of the case study on the semantics of the lexeme time in contemporary American English. The study examines the methodological adequacy of the Behavioural Profile Approach (Dirven et al. 1982; Geeraerts et al. 1994; Gries 2003) in accounting for that complexity in a cognitively plausible manner. It is shown how the method quantifiably accounts for the emergent many-to-many structures interpretable as structured polysemy.
Keywords: behavioural profiles, categorisation, corpus linguistics, polysemy, time, usage-based model
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Categorical complexity and the usage-based model
  • 2.Problem: Two methodological hurdles
    • 2.1Formal complexity and variation
    • 2.2Meaning complexity and variation
    • 2.3Methodological proposal. The behavioural profile approach
  • 3.Analysis: Contemporary language and usage-features
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Analysis
      • 3.2.1Formal features
      • 3.2.2Semantic features
        • 3.2.2.1Configurational structure: Boundedness; Dividedness; and Plexity
        • 3.2.2.2Aktionsart, aspect and temporal distribution
        • 3.2.2.3Telicity and event type
        • 3.2.2.4Extension
        • 3.2.2.5Figurativity
        • 3.2.2.6Force dynamics
        • 3.2.2.7Discrete and principled sense
  • 4.Results: Non-discrete usage-based polysemy
    • 4.1Meaning as emergent patterns of usage
    • 4.2Many-to-many form-meaning usage-patterns and structure
  • 5.Discussion: Emergent structure
    • 5.1Summary: Reified discrete meanings vs. distributed meaning patterns
    • 5.2Implications: Behavioural profiles and cognitive plausibility
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 October 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.73.08gly
References (66)
References
Arppe, A, Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zschel, A. 2010. Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora, 5, 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnier, J. 2019. explor: Interactive interfaces for results exploration. R package version 0.3.5. [URL]Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. 2006. Low-level schemas or general rules? The role of diminutives in the acquisition of Polish case inflections. Language Sciences, 28, 120–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. The later development of an early-emerging system: The curious case of the Polish genitive. Linguistics, 46, 629–650. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. & Tomasello, M. 2008. Rapid learning of an abstract language-specific category: Polish children’s acquisition of the instrumental construction. Journal of Child Language, 35, 533–558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. 2007. TIME Magazine corpus (100 million words, 1920s-2000s). Available online at [URL].Google Scholar
2008. The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present. Available online at [URL].Google Scholar
2011. Corpus of American soap operas: 100 million words. Available online at [URL].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
Drożdż, G. 2016. Perceptual foundations of English temporal and aspectual constructions. Cognitive Semantics, 2, 102–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. The Puzzle of (Un)Countability in English. A study in Cognitive Grammar. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.Google Scholar
Evans, V. 2004. The structure of time language. Meaning and temporal cognition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. The meaning of time: Polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics, 41, 33–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Everitt, B. Landau, S., Leese, M., and Stahl, D. 2011. Cluster analysis. (5th Ed). Chichester: John Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuoli, M. 2012. Assessing social responsibility: A quantitative analysis of Appraisal in BP’s and Ikea’s social reports. Discourse and Communication, 6, 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Building a trustworthy corporate identity: A corpus-based analysis of stance in annual and corporate social responsibility reports. Applied Linguistics, 39, 846–885. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. A step-wise method for annotating appraisal. Functions of Language, 25, 229–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuoli, M., & Hommerberg, C. 2015. Optimizing transparency, reliability and replicability: Annotation principles and inter-coder agreement in the quantification of evaluative expressions. Corpora, 10, 315–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. 1993. Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 223–272. 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
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Speelman, D. 1999. Convergentie en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat: een onderzoek naar kleding- en voetbaltermen. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar
Glynn, D. 2008. Lexical fields, grammatical constructions and synonymy: A study in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In H.-J. Schmid, & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage-patterns: Empirical studies (89–118). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2009. Polysemy, syntax, and variation: A usage-based method for Cognitive Semantics. In V. Evans, & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (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 (239–270). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014a. 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 (117–144). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014b. Correspondence Analysis: An exploratory technique for identifying usage patterns. In D. Glynn, & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (443–486). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015a. 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 (69–82). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2015b. Conceptualisation of home in popular Anglo-American texts: A multifactorial diachronic analysis. In J. Díaz-Vera (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy across time and cultures (265–294). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015c. The socio-cultural conceptualisation of femininity. Corpus evidence for cognitive models. In J. Badio, & K. Kosecki (Eds.), Empirical methods in language studies (97–117). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2016a. Quantifying polysemy: Corpus methodology for prototype theory. Folia Linguistica, 50, 413–447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016b. 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 (47–79). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D., & Fischer, K. (Eds.) 2010. Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D., & Robinson, J. 2014. (Eds.) Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. 2019. Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Greenacre, M. 2007. Correspondence analysis in practice (2nd Ed.). London: Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th. 1999. Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 10, 105–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London: Continuum.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 (57–99). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th., & Divjak, D. 2009. Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach towards cognitive semantic analysis. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (57–75). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, S. 2000. De distributie van niet-anaforisch er buiten de eerste zinsplaats. Sociolexicologische, functionele en psycholinguïstische aspecten van er’s status als presentatief signaal. Doctoral dissertation, Leuven University.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S., & Brysbaert, M. 1996. De distributie van het presentatieve er buiten de eerste zinsplaats. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 1, 280–305.Google Scholar
Heylen, K. 2005. A quantitative corpus study of German word order variation. In S. Kepser, & M. Reis (Eds.). Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives (241–264). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krawczak. K. 2014. Corpus evidence for the cross-cultural structure of social emotions: Shame, embarrassment, and guilt in English and Polish. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 50, 441–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Epistemic stance predicates in English: A quantitative corpus-driven study of subjectivity. In D. Glynn, & M. Sjölin (Eds.), Subjectivity and epistemicity: Corpus, discourse, and literary approaches to stance (355–386). Lund: Lund University PressGoogle Scholar
Krawczak, K., & Glynn, D. 2015. Operationalizing mirativity: A usage-based quantitative study of constructional construal in English. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13, 253–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krawczak, K., Fabiszak, M., & Hilpert, M. 2016. A corpus-based, cross-linguistic approach to mental predicates and their complementation. Folia Linguistica, 50, 475–506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. London: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2011. Conceptual semantics, symbolic grammar, and the day after day construction. In P. Sutcliff, W. Sullivan, & A. Lommel (Eds.), Mechanisms of linguistic behavior (3–24). Houston: LACUS.Google Scholar
Lê, S., Josse, J., & Husson, F. 2008. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maechler, M., Rousseeuw, P., Struyf, A., Hubert, M., & Hornik, K. 2019. cluster: Cluster analysis basics and extensions. R package version 2.1.0.Google Scholar
Nenadic, O., & Greenacre, M. 2007. Correspondence Analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: The ca package. Journal of Statistical Software, 20, 1–13.Google Scholar
Radden, G. & Dirven, R. 2007. Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 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 (613–661). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. Metaphor, schema, invariance: The case of verbs of answering. In L. Goossens, P. Pauwels, B. Rudzka-Ostyn, A.-M. Simon- Vandenbergen, & J. Vanparys (Eds.), By word of mouth. Metaphor, metonymy, and linguistic action from a cognitive perspective (205–244). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. 2017. Linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning. How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (435–452). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020. The dynamics of the linguistic system. Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. 2003. Be going to versus will/shall. Does syntax matter? Journal of English Linguistics, 31, 130–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 1985. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1, Concept structuring systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
UNESCO. 2013. Statistical guide for partitioning around medoids, section 7.1.1, [URL].
Vendler, Z. 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review, 66, 143–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J. 1997. Situated embodiment. Studies in the emergence of spatial meaning. Stockholm: Gotab.Google Scholar
2003. Polysemy or generality? In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (447–494). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

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
Ungerer, Tobias
2024. Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks. Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Haitao, Toshiyuki Kanamaru & Ke Li
2023. The polysemy of the Japanese temperature adjective atsui . Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.