On the polysemy of the Polish complete path construction: A corpus-based exploratory study
-
Daria Bębeniec
and
Małgorzata Cudna
Abstract
In this article, we present a corpus-based analysis of two major types of the Polish Complete Path (CP) construction in which a source-PP, headed by od+GEN, is immediately followed by a goal-PP, headed by do+GEN or po+ACC, as in od jesieni 1920 do jesieni 1921 ‘from autumn 1920 to autumn 1921’ and od kreskówek po rysunki techniczne ‘from cartoons to technical drawings’. The aim of the study is to shed some light on the polysemous structure of the CP construction on the basis of its usage patterns. To this end, we used a random sample of over 500 instances of both construction types retrieved from the National Corpus of Polish. The data were annotated for a number formal and semantic features and subsequently explored using hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis. When interpreting the results of several analyses performed on different sets of variables, we gave special attention to three levels of semantic granularity encoded in the data, concluding that, on the whole, all analyses point towards a distinction between the spatial, temporal and abstract meanings of the construction under investigation.
References
Baayen, R.H. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801686Search in Google Scholar
Berez, A.L. and S.T. Gries. 2009. “In defense of corpus-based methods: A behavioral profile analysis of polysemous get in English”. In: Moran, S., D.S. Tanner and M. Scanlon (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Northwest Linguistics Conference. Seattle, WA: Department of Linguistics. 157–166.Search in Google Scholar
Bębeniec, D. and M. Cudna. 2015. “Complete Path in Polish: A usage-based study of constructional alternatives”. Paper presented at Cognitive Linguistics in the Year 2015, 25 September 2015, Lublin, Poland.Search in Google Scholar
Bębeniec, D. and M. Cudna. 2017. “Some techniques of handling problematic dimensionality in linguistic data: A view from the perspective of usage-based semantics”. Paper presented at Cognitive Linguistics in Wrocław, 3 December 2017.Search in Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. 2006. “Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’”. Constructions online 1(7). 1–28.Search in Google Scholar
Deshors, S.C. and S.T. Gries. 2014. “A case for the multifactorial assessment of learner language: The uses of may and can in French-English interlanguage”. In: Glynn, D. and J.A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 179–204.10.1075/hcp.43.07desSearch in Google Scholar
Divjak, D. and S.T. Gries. 2006. “Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(1). 23–60.10.1515/CLLT.2006.002Search in Google Scholar
Divjak, D. and S.T. Gries. 2009. “Corpus-based Cognitive Semantics: A contrastive study of phrasal verbs in English and Russian”. In: Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. and K. Dziwirek (eds.), Studies in cognitive corpus linguistics. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 273–296.Search in Google Scholar
Divjak, D. and N. Fieller. 2014. “Cluster analysis: Finding structure in linguistic data”. In: Glynn, D. and J.A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 405–441.10.1075/hcp.43.16divSearch in Google Scholar
Fabiszak, M., A. Hebda, I. Kokorniak and K. Krawczak. 2014. “The semasiological structure of Polish myśleć ‘to think’: A study in verb-prefix semantics”. In: Glynn, D. and J.A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 224–251.10.1075/hcp.43.09fabSearch in Google Scholar
Garai, K. J. and I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano. 2002. “From x to y: The ‘complete path’ construction in Basque”. Odense Working Papers in Language and Communication 23. 289–311.Search in Google Scholar
Glynn, D. 2009. “Polysemy, syntax, and variation: A usage-based method for Cognitive Semantics”. In: Evans, V. and S. Pourcel (eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 77–104.10.1075/hcp.24.08glySearch in Google Scholar
Glynn, D. 2010. “Testing the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based Cognitive Semantics”. In: Glynn, D. and K. Fischer (eds.), Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin: De Gruyter. 239–270.10.1515/9783110226423.239Search in Google Scholar
Glynn, D. 2014a. “The many uses of run: Corpus methods and Socio-Cognitive Semantics”. In: Glynn, D. and J.A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 117–144.10.1075/hcp.43.05glySearch in Google Scholar
Glynn, D. 2014b. “Polysemy and synonymy: Cognitive theory and corpus method”. In: Glynn, D. and J.A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 7–38.10.1075/hcp.43.01glySearch in Google Scholar
Glynn, D. 2015. “Semasiology and onomasiology: Empirical questions between meaning, naming and context”. In: Daems, J., E. Zenner, K. Heylen, D. Speelman and H. Cuyckens (eds.), Change of paradigms – new paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter. 47–79.Search in Google Scholar
Glynn, D. 2016. “Quantifying polysemy: Corpus methodology for prototype theory”. Folia Linguistica 50(2). 413–447.10.1515/flin-2016-0016Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 2002. “Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations”. Cognitive Linguistics 13(3). 327–356.10.1515/cogl.2002.022Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Gries, S.T. 2006. “Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run”. In: Gries, S.T. and A. Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin: De Gruyter. 57–99.10.1515/9783110197709Search in Google Scholar
Gries, S.T. 2010. “Behavioral profiles: A fine-grained and quantitative approach in corpus-based lexical semantics”. The Mental Lexicon 5(3). 323–346.10.1075/ml.5.3.04griSearch in Google Scholar
Gries, S.T. 2011. “Phonological similarity in multi-word units”. Cognitive Linguistics 22(3). 491–510.10.1515/9783110335255.177Search in Google Scholar
Gries, S.T. 2013. Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction. (2nd revised edition.) Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110307474Search in Google Scholar
Gries, S.T. and D. Divjak. 2009. “Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach towards cognitive semantic analysis”. In: Evans, V. and S. Pourcel (eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 57–75.10.1075/hcp.24.07griSearch in Google Scholar
Gries, S.T. and D. Divjak. 2010. “Quantitative approaches in usage-based cognitive semantics: Myths, erroneous assumptions, and a proposal”. In: Glynn, D. and K. Fischer (eds.), Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin: De Gruyter. 333–354.10.1515/9783110226423.331Search in Google Scholar
Gries, S.T. and N. Otani. 2010. “Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based perspective on synonymy and antonymy”. ICAME Journal 34. 121–150.Search in Google Scholar
Harris, Z. 1954. “Distributional structure”. Word. Journal of the linguistic circle of New York 10(2–3). 146–162.10.1080/00437956.1954.11659520Search in Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139004206Search in Google Scholar
Husson, F., J. Josse and J. Pagès. 2010. “Principal component methods – hierarchical clustering – partitional clustering: Why would we need to choose for visualizing data?” Technical report – Agrocampus Quest.Search in Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. 2004. “Language typologies in our language use: The case of Basque motion events in adult oral narratives”. Cognitive Linguistics 15(3). 317– 349.10.1515/cogl.2004.012Search in Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. 2015. “Going beyond motion events typology: The case of Basque as a verb-framed language”. Folia Linguistica 49(2). 307–352.10.1515/flin-2015-0012Search in Google Scholar
Jansegers, M., C. Vanderschueren and R. Enghels. 2015. “The polysemy of the Spanish verb sentir: A behavioral profile analysis”. Cognitive Linguistics 26(3). 381–421.10.1515/cog-2014-0055Search in Google Scholar
Janus, D. and A. Przepiórkowski. 2007. “Poliqarp 1.0: Some technical aspects of a linguistic search engine for large corpora”. In: Waliński, J., K. Kredens and S. Góźdź-Roszkowski (eds.), The proceedings of Practical Applications in Language and Computers PALC 2005. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Kaleta, Z. 2002. “The source-path-goal schema and the accusative in interaction with the genitive in Polish”. In: Davidse, K. and B. Lamiroy (eds.), The nominative and accusative and their counterparts. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 201–225.10.1075/cagral.4.09kalSearch in Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2011. “Conceptual semantics, symbolic grammar, and the day after day construction”. In: Sutcliffe, P., W.J. Sullivan and A. Lommel (eds.), LACUS Forum 36: Mechanisms of Linguistic Behavior. Houston, TX: LACUS. 3–24.Search in Google Scholar
Levshina, N. 2016. “A geometric exemplar-based model of semantic structure: The Dutch causative construction with laten”. In: Yoon, J. and S.T. Gries (eds.), Corpus-based approaches to Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 241– 262.10.1075/cal.19.09levSearch in Google Scholar
Lê, S., J. Josse and F. Husson. 2008. “FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis”. Journal of Statistical Software 25(1). 1–18.10.18637/jss.v025.i01Search in Google Scholar
Perek, F. 2012. “Alternation-based generalizations are stored in mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment”. Cognitive Linguistics 23(3). 601–635.10.1515/cog-2012-0018Search in Google Scholar
Perek, F. 2014. “Rethinking constructional polysemy: The case of the English conative construction”. In: Glynn, D. and J.A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 61– 85.10.1075/hcp.43.03perSearch in Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, A., M. Bańko, R. Górski and B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk. 2012. Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego [The National Corpus of Polish]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Search in Google Scholar
Przybylska, R., 2002. Polisemia przyimków polskich w świetle gramatyki kognitywnej [The polysemy of Polish prepositions in the light of Cognitive Grammar]. Kraków: Universitas.Search in Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.orgSearch in Google Scholar
Rice, S., D. Sandra and M. Vanrespaille. 1999. “Prepositional semantics and the fragile link between space and time”. In: Hiraga, M., C. Sinha and S. Wilcox (eds.), Cultural, psychological and typological issues in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 107–127.10.1075/cilt.152.10ricSearch in Google Scholar
Robinson, J. A. 2014. “Quantifying polysemy in Cognitive Sociolinguistics”. In: Glynn, D. and J.A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 87–115.10.1075/hcp.43.04robSearch in Google Scholar
Sandra, D. and S. Rice. 1995. “Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s?” Cognitive Linguistics 6(1). 89– 130.10.1515/cogl.1995.6.1.89Search in Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. and S.T. Gries. 2003. “Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8. 209–243.10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03steSearch in Google Scholar
Suzuki, R., 2013. “Hierarchical clustering with p-values via multiscale bootstrap resampling”. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/pvclust/pvclust.pdf (Last access: 25 Nov 2017.)Search in Google Scholar
Suzuki, R., and H. Shimodaira. N.d. “An R package for hierarchical clustering with p-values”. http://stat.sys.i.kyoto-u.ac.jp/prog/pvclust/ (Last access: 25 Nov 2017.)Search in Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. 2004. “On operationalizing syntactic complexity”. In: Purnelle, G., C. Fairon, and A. Dister (eds.), Le poids des mots. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Textual Data Statistical Analysis. (Vol. 2.) Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain. 1032–1039.Search in Google Scholar
Uhrig, P. 2015. “Why the Principle of No Synonymy is overrated”. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 63(3). 323–337.10.1515/zaa-2015-0030Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
