A corpus-based study of semantic prosody in ràng and shǐ constructions
-
Chi Wu
Chi Wu is a master student in Teaching Chinese as a Second Language at National Taiwan Normal University. His study mostly focuses on cognitive-semantic corpus analysis and implementing ICT into teaching. A certified secondary-school Chinese teacher and Google Certified Trainer (GCT), Mr. Wu has conducted over Eighty Edtech workshops, running an EdTech social media and a speaker of Gemini Academy for educators in Taiwan (
Journal of Digital Narrative ).Huichen S. Hsiao 蕭惠貞 is a Professor of Chinese as a Second Language at National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan. She received her Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University at Buffalo and currently serves as the Director of NTNU’s Research Ethics Office. Her research interests include lexical and cognitive semantics, construction grammar, and Mandarin corpus linguistics. Recent projects have explored motion verb semantics and the acquisition of polysemy in second language learners. Her major publications include
Cognitive Linguistic-inspired Perspectives and Empirical Studies of Teaching Chinese as a Second Language, Key to the World: A Kaleidoscope of Taiwan, andLight Taiwan. 
Abstract
This study investigates the semantic nuances of the Mandarin causative constructions ràng and shǐ, focusing on their distinct semantic preferences and variations in semantic prosody. Analysis of 1,000 instances of each construction from the Corpus of Contemporary Taiwanese Mandarin (COCT) Written Corpus 2020 reveals that ràng frequently co-occurs with verbs and terms related to intelligence and cognition, while shǐ is more often found with terms and verbs associated with psychological states. This suggests that ràng constructions are often linked to cognitive processes, while shǐ constructions tend to evoke emotional or psychological responses. Although both constructions show an affinity for verbs describing change of state, psychological states, and motion, shǐ exhibits greater versatility, appearing with a broader range of verb classes. Examination of semantic prosody, utilizing Stubbs’ (1995) classification (positive, negative, neutral), shows that ràng constructions exhibit greater variation in their connotational coloring compared to shǐ constructions. Notably, both constructions tend to shift towards negative semantic prosody within the “changed” causative events, as shown in Table 6, with ràng demonstrating a stronger tendency to negative semantic prosody in comparison with shǐ (ràng: 47.7 % vs. shǐ: 38.9 %). These findings highlight the subtle ways in which ràng and shǐ constructions convey different shades of meaning. The study contributes valuable insights into the linguistic expression, deepening our understanding of causative constructions in Mandarin.
提要
本研究再探漢語致使構式「讓」與「使」的語意細微差異, 聚焦於兩者在語意偏好 (semantic preference) 與語意韻 (semantic prosody) 上的異同。本研究自 《現代台灣華語語料庫 COCT》 2020 年書面語料中, 各擷取 1,000 例「讓」構式與 1,000 例「使」構式進行分析。結果顯示, 「讓」構式常與涉及智力與認知的動詞共現, 而「使」構式則較常與表達心理狀態的詞語與動詞搭配, 凸顯「讓」構式更傾向於表達認知過程, 「使」構式則較易引發情感或心理層面之反應。雖然兩者皆常與描述狀態變化、心理狀態及移動的動詞共現, 「使」構式在動詞類別上的搭配範圍更為廣泛。我們進一步依據 Stubbs (1995) 之分類 (正面、負面、中性) 檢視語意韻, 發現「讓」構式在語意色彩上變化較大; 值得注意的是, 在語意韻發生變化的致使事件中, 兩種構式雖皆呈現向負面語意韻的轉移, 而「讓」構式在負面語意韻變化相較於「使」構式更明顯 (讓: 47.7 % vs. 使: 38.9 %)。本研究凸顯「讓」與「使」在語言表達上的細微差異, 深化我們對漢語致使構式的理解。
About the authors
Chi Wu is a master student in Teaching Chinese as a Second Language at National Taiwan Normal University. His study mostly focuses on cognitive-semantic corpus analysis and implementing ICT into teaching. A certified secondary-school Chinese teacher and Google Certified Trainer (GCT), Mr. Wu has conducted over Eighty Edtech workshops, running an EdTech social media and a speaker of Gemini Academy for educators in Taiwan (Journal of Digital Narrative).
Huichen S. Hsiao 蕭惠貞 is a Professor of Chinese as a Second Language at National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan. She received her Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University at Buffalo and currently serves as the Director of NTNU’s Research Ethics Office. Her research interests include lexical and cognitive semantics, construction grammar, and Mandarin corpus linguistics. Recent projects have explored motion verb semantics and the acquisition of polysemy in second language learners. Her major publications include Cognitive Linguistic-inspired Perspectives and Empirical Studies of Teaching Chinese as a Second Language, Key to the World: A Kaleidoscope of Taiwan, and Light Taiwan.
Acknowledgments
Part of this research were presented and discussed at the 25th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW 2024). We are grateful to the conference participants for their valuable feedback and extend special thanks to the anonymous reviewers of CASLAR for their insightful suggestions. This study was supported by funding from Taiwan’s National Science and Technology Council (NSTC 111-2410-H-003-085), which made the research and experimental work possible. Any remaining errors or omissions are solely the responsibility of the authors.
References
Bednarek, Monika. 2008. Semantic preference and semantic prosody re-examined. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 4(2). 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2008.006.Suche in Google Scholar
Beuls, Katrien & Paul Van Eecke. 2023. Fluid construction grammar: State of the art and future outlook. In Claire Bonial & Harish Tayyar Madabushi (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Construction Grammars and NLP (CxGs+NLP, GURT/SyntaxFest 2023), 41–50. Washington, DC: Association for Computational Linguistics.Suche in Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2013. Cognitive construction grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 233–252. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0013Suche in Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C., Jaakko Leino & Benjamin Lyngfelt. 2024. Constructionist views on construction grammar. Constructions and Frames 16(2). 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.24005.boa.Suche in Google Scholar
Chen, Qiaoyun. 2025. Profiling analytic causative construction in Chinese: A multifactorial analysis of diachronic change. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 21(1). 201–236. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2023-0062.Suche in Google Scholar
Cheng, Winnie. 2011. Exploring corpus linguistics: Language in action. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203802632Suche in Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar
Desagulier, Guillaume. 2022. Changes in the midst of a construction network: A diachronic construction grammar approach to complex prepositions. Cognitive Linguistics 33(2). 339–386. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0128.Suche in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 2006. Frame semantics. In Dirk Geeraerts (ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings, 373–400. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110199901.373Suche in Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2006. The verb slot in causative constructions: Finding the best fit. Constructions SV1-03. 1–46. https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-445.Suche in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste.Suche in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on alternations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 97–129. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri.Suche in Google Scholar
Hsiao, Huichen S. & Mahastuti Lestari. 2020. A collostructional analysis of ditransitive constructions in Mandarin. In Jia-Fei Hong, Yangsen Zhang & Pengyuan Liu (eds.), Chinese lexical semantics: 20th workshop, CLSW 2019, Revised selected papers (lecture notes in computer science 12348), 37–51. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-38189-9_4Suche in Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne & Arie Verhagen. 1994. The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics 5(2). 115–156. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1994.5.2.115.Suche in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Liesenfeld, Andreas, Meichun Liu & Chu-Ren Huang. 2022. Profiling the Chinese causative construction with ràng, shǐ, and lìng using frame semantic features. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 18(2). 263–306. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2020-0027.Suche in Google Scholar
Lin, Yen-Yu & Siaw-Fong Chung. 2016. A corpus-based study on the semantic prosody of challenge. Taiwan Journal of TESOL 13(2). 99–146.Suche in Google Scholar
Liu, Na & Fuyin Li. 2023. Mandarin analytic causative constructions with shǐ and ràng: A usage-based collostructional analysis. In Qi Su, Ge Xu & Xiaoyan Yang (eds.), Chinese lexical semantics: CLSW 2022, 539–552. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-031-28953-8_39Suche in Google Scholar
Partington, Alan. 1998. Patterns and meanings: Using corpora for English language research and teaching. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.2Suche in Google Scholar
Phoocharoensil, Supakorn. 2021. Semantic prosody and collocation: A corpus study of the near-synonyms persist and persevere. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics 7(1). 240–258. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911269.Suche in Google Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk, Dirk Speelman, Freek Van de Velde & Stefan Grondelaers. 2021. Incorporating the multi-level nature of the construction into hypothesis testing. Cognitive Linguistics 32(3). 487–528. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0039.Suche in Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2023. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/.Suche in Google Scholar
Shih, Cing-Fang, Mao-Chang Ku & Shu-Kai Hsieh. 2020. Lectal variation of the two Chinese causative auxiliaries. In Proceedings of the 32nd Conference on Computational Linguistics and Speech Processing (ROCLING 2020), 163–177. Taipei: ACLCLP.Suche in Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Stubbs, Michael. 1995. Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative methods. Functions of Language 2(1). 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.2.1.03stu.Suche in Google Scholar
Tian, Xiaoyu. 2025. Refining the network for the Chinese analytic causative construction: Insights from corpus analysis and psycholinguistic experimentation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. (advance online publication) https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cllt-2024-0071/html.10.1515/cllt-2024-0071Suche in Google Scholar
Tian, Xiaoyu, Weiwei Zhang & Speelman Dirk. 2022. Lectal variation in Chinese analytic causative constructions: What trees can and cannot tell us. In Dennis Tay & Molly Xie Pan (eds.), Data analytics in cognitive linguistics: Methods and insights, 137–168. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110687279-006Suche in Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie & Suzanne Kemmer. 1997. Interaction and causation: Causative constructions in modern Standard Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics 27(1). 61–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(96)00003-3.Suche in Google Scholar
Wang, Ying-Ting. 2011. A semantic, discourse, and pragmatic analysis of the Mandarin causative construction rang with pedagogical application [漢語致使結構之語義、篇章、語用分析及教學初探──以「讓」字句為例]. MA thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.Suche in Google Scholar
Weng, Chuan-Hui. 2007. Causative, permissive, and yielding: The Mandarin Chinese verb rang. Nanzan Linguistics 1(2). 69–90.Suche in Google Scholar
Xiong, Xue-Liang & Xiao-Bo Liang. 2003. A prototypical study of the causative construction [致使結構的原型研究]. Journal of Jiangxi Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) 36(6). 106–110.Suche in Google Scholar
Yang, Jiang-Feng. 2016. A multi-dimensional study of periphrastic causative constructions in Mandarin Chinese [漢語迂回致使結構的多維度研究]. PhD dissertation. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University.Suche in Google Scholar
Zhang, Li-Li. 2005. The causativisation of Chinese shi-yi constructions [從使役到致使]. Humanitas Taiwanica 62. 119–152. https://doi.org/10.6258/bcla.2005.62.07.Suche in Google Scholar
Zhang, Li-Li. 2006. The semantic development of passive meaning in Mandarin causative structure [漢語使役句表被動的語義發展]. Language and Linguistics 7(1). 139–174.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Papers in English
- The type, motive, and function of swear words: a sociolinguistic analysis of Khek Chinese language in Bangka
- A corpus-based study of semantic prosody in ràng and shǐ constructions
- Task-based language teaching for Chinese as a foreign language: a qualitative research synthesis
- Papers in Chinese
- 高文化负载词在二语习得中构成的“阻力区”探究 – 以教授法国学习者汉语亲属称谓语及其泛化使用为例
- 现代汉语时间副词的意义和范围
- ChatGPT 赋能产出导向型留学生口语课实证研究
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Papers in English
- The type, motive, and function of swear words: a sociolinguistic analysis of Khek Chinese language in Bangka
- A corpus-based study of semantic prosody in ràng and shǐ constructions
- Task-based language teaching for Chinese as a foreign language: a qualitative research synthesis
- Papers in Chinese
- 高文化负载词在二语习得中构成的“阻力区”探究 – 以教授法国学习者汉语亲属称谓语及其泛化使用为例
- 现代汉语时间副词的意义和范围
- ChatGPT 赋能产出导向型留学生口语课实证研究
