Usage Effects on the Cognitive Routinization of Chinese Resultative Verbs

Ben Pin-Yun Wang

doi:10.2478/v10015-012-0002-z

Authors

Ben Pin-Yun Wang The Pennsylvania State University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-012-0002-z

Abstract

The 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.

Author Biography

Ben Pin-Yun Wang, The Pennsylvania State University

Ben Pin-Yun Wang is currently a Ph.D. candidate in the dual-title program of Applied Linguistics and Asian Studies. In addition, he was a visiting student researcher at the University of California, Berkeley (2008-2009) and taught as a lecturer in the Academic Writing Education Center at National Taiwan University in 2010-2011. His research interests include cognitive-functional linguistics and text/discourse analysis as well as their applications to language pedagogy.

References

Baker, Collin F. & Josef Ruppenhofer 2002. “FrameNet’s frames vs. Levin’s verb classes”. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 28: 27-38.
Google Scholar

Biber, 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.
Google Scholar

Boas, 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.
Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2006. “From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition”. Language, 82: 711-33.
Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan & Paul Hopper (Eds.) 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Google Scholar

Biq, Yung-O 2007. “Lexicalization and phrasalization of na collocates in spoken Taiwan Mandarin”. Contemporary Linguistics, 9: 128-36.
Google Scholar

Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Dickinson, Connie & Talmy Givón 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.
Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger 2004. The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green 2006. Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Google Scholar

Fillmore, 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.
Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. “The need for a frame semantics in linguistics”. In Hans Karlgren (Ed.), Statistical methods in linguistics (5-29). Stockholm: Skriptor.
Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. “Frame semantics”. In Linguistics in the morning calm (111-37). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.
Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. “Frames and the semantics of understanding”. Quaderni di Semantica, 6: 222-54.
Google Scholar

Fillmore, 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.
Google Scholar

Fillmore, 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.
Google Scholar

Gries, 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.
Google Scholar

Kemmer, 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.
Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Google Scholar

Langacker, 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.
Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Levin, Beth 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar

Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Google Scholar

Liberman, 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.
Google Scholar

Mukherjee, Joybrato 2005. English ditransitive verbs: Aspects of theory, description and a usage-based model. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Google Scholar

Packard, Jerome L. 2000. The morphology of Chinese: A linguistic and cognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Pustejovsky, James (1998). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Google Scholar

Rostila, Jouni 2006. “Storage as a way to grammaticalization”. Constructions 1/2006 (www.constructions-online.de).
Google Scholar

Schmid, Hans-Jorg 2000. English abstract nouns as conceptual shells. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Google Scholar

Shi, Yuzhi 2002. The establishment of modern Chinese grammar: The formation of the resultative construction and its effects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Google Scholar

Starosta, 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.
Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A. 1973. “Resultative verb compounds in Mandarin Chinese: A case for lexical rules”. Language, 49: 361-379.
Google Scholar

Tomasello, Michael 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar

Tummers 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.
Google Scholar