Pokaż uproszczony rekord

Usage Effects on the Cognitive Routinization of Chinese Resultative Verbs

dc.contributor.authorWang Ben, Pin-Yunen
dc.date.accessioned2015-06-12T12:36:07Z
dc.date.available2015-06-12T12:36:07Z
dc.date.issued2013-01-29en
dc.identifier.issn1731-7533en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/9656
dc.description.abstractThe present study adopts a corpus-oriented usage-based approach to the grammar of Chinese resultative verbs. Zooming in on a specific class of V-kai constructions, this paper aims to elucidate the effect of frequency in actual usage events on shaping the linguistic representations of resultative verbs. Specifically, it will be argued that while high token frequency results in more lexicalized V-kai complex verbs, high type frequency gives rise to more schematized V-kai constructions. The routinized patterns pertinent to V-kai resultative verbs varying in their extent of specificity and generality accordingly serve as a representative illustration of the continuum between lexicon and grammar that characterizes a usage-based conception of language.en
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegoen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesResearch in Language;10en
dc.rightsThis content is open access.en
dc.titleUsage Effects on the Cognitive Routinization of Chinese Resultative Verbsen
dc.page.number405-422en
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationThe Pennsylvania State Universityen
dc.identifier.eissn2083-4616
dc.referencesBaker, Collin F. & Josef Ruppenhofer 2002. “FrameNet’s frames vs. Levin’s verb classes”. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 28: 27-38.en
dc.referencesBiber, Douglas 2000. “Investigating language use through corpus-based analyses association patterns”. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (287-313). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.en
dc.referencesBoas, Hans C 2006. “A frame-semantic approach to identifying syntactically relevant elements of meaning”. In Petra Steiner, Hans C. Boas & Stefan Schierholz (Eds.), Contrastive studies and valency: Studies in honor of Hans Ulrich Boas (119-49). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.en
dc.referencesBybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.en
dc.referencesBybee, Joan L. 2006. “From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition”. Language, 82: 711-33.en
dc.referencesBybee, Joan L. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.en
dc.referencesBybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.en
dc.referencesBybee, Joan & Paul Hopper (Eds.) 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.en
dc.referencesBiq, Yung-O 2007. “Lexicalization and phrasalization of na collocates in spoken Taiwan Mandarin”. Contemporary Linguistics, 9: 128-36.en
dc.referencesCroft, William & D. Alan Cruse 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.en
dc.referencesDickinson, Connie & Talmy Givon 2000. “The effect of the interlocutor on episodic recall: An experimental study”. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (151-96). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.en
dc.referencesDiessel, Holger 2004. The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.en
dc.referencesEvans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green 2006. Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.en
dc.referencesFillmore, Charles J. 1976. “Frame semantics and the nature of language”. In Stevan R. Harnad, Horst D. Steklis & Jane Lancaster (Eds.), Origins and evolution of language and speech (20-32). New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.en
dc.referencesFillmore, Charles J. 1977. “The need for a frame semantics in linguistics”. In Hans Karlgren (Ed.), Statistical methods in linguistics (5-29). Stockholm: Skriptor.en
dc.referencesFillmore, Charles J. 1982. “Frame semantics”. In Linguistics in the morning calm (111-37). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.en
dc.referencesFillmore, Charles J. 1985. “Frames and the semantics of understanding”. Quaderni di Semantica, 6: 222-54.en
dc.referencesFillmore, Charles J. & Beryl. T. Atkins 1992. “Towards a frame-based organization of the lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors”. In Adrienne Lehrer & Eva Feder Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantics and lexical organization (75-102). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.en
dc.referencesFillmore, Charles J., Josef Ruppenhofer & Collin F. Baker 2004. FrameNet and representing the link between semantic and syntactic relations. In Chu-Ren Huang & Winfried Lenders (eds.), Computational linguistics and beyond: 19-64. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academic Sinica.en
dc.referencesGries, Stefan Th. 2006. Introduction. Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, ed. by Stefan Th. Gries and Anatol Stefanowitsch: 1-17. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.en
dc.referencesKemmer, Suzanne & Michael Barlow 2000. Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. Usage-based models of language, ed. by Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer: vii-xxviii. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.en
dc.referencesLangacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.en
dc.referencesLangacker, Ronald W. 2000. “A dynamic usage-based model”. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (1-64). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.en
dc.referencesLangacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.en
dc.referencesLevin, Beth 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.en
dc.referencesLi, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.en
dc.referencesLiberman, Mark & Richard Sproat 1992. “The stress and structure of modified noun phrases in English”. In Ivan A. Sag & Anna Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical matters (131-81). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.en
dc.referencesMukherjee, Joybrato 2005. English ditransitive verbs: Aspects of theory, description and a usage-based model. Amsterdam: Rodopi.en
dc.referencesPackard, Jerome L. 2000. The morphology of Chinese: A linguistic and cognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.en
dc.referencesPustejovsky, James (1998). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.en
dc.referencesRostila, Jouni 2006. “Storage as a way to grammaticalization”. Constructions 1/2006 (www. constructions-online. de) <http://www.constructions-online.de/>.en
dc.referencesSchmid, Hans-Jorg 2000. English abstract nouns as conceptual shells. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.en
dc.referencesShi, Yuzhi 2002. The establishment of modern Chinese grammar: The formation of the resultative construction and its effects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.en
dc.referencesStarosta, Stanley, Koenraad Kuiper, Siew-ai Ng & Zhi-qian Wu 1997. “On defining the Chinese compound word: Headedness in Chinese compounding and Chinese VR compounds”. In Jerome L. Packard (Ed.), New approaches to Chinese word formation: Morphology, phonology and the lexicon in modern and ancient Chinese (347-70). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.en
dc.referencesThompson, Sandra A. 1973. “Resultative verb compounds in Mandarin Chinese: A case for lexical rules”. Language, 49: 361-379.en
dc.referencesTomasello, Michael 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.en
dc.referencesTummers Jose, Kris Heylen & Dirk Geeraerts 2005. “Usage-based approaches in Cognitive Linguistics: A technical state of the art”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1: 225-261.en
dc.referencesen
dc.contributor.authorEmailbenpywang@gmail.comen
dc.identifier.doi10.2478/v10015-012-0002-zen


Pliki tej pozycji

Thumbnail
Nazwa:
v10015-012-0002-z.pdf
Rozmiar:
433.2KB
Format:
PDF
Oglądaj/Otwórz

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Pokaż uproszczony rekord