Chapter published in:
Studies in Figurative Thought and Language
Edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou
[Human Cognitive Processing 56] 2017
► pp. 232–249

Metaphor, conceptual archetypes and subjectification

The case of completion is up and the polysemy of shàng in Chinese

| Masaryk University
This chapter addresses the relation between conceptual metaphor, conceptual archetype and subjectivity. I start by examining the polysemy of shàng in Chinese, given the working of completion is up on its semantics. In this chapter, I sketch a possible route of semantic extension of shàng and argue that its synchronic distribution is symptomatic of semantic attenuation and subjectification. I also propose an image-schematic structure for each of the relevant senses of shàng identified. With such analysis, I identify vertical elevation and contact as two important conceptual archetypes that may help understand the semantic extension and how completion is up is actually at work on the semantics of shàng.
Keywords: perfective aspect, resultative constructions, semantic network, subjectivity, verbal complement
Published online: 26 April 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.09lu
References

References

Athanasiadou, A., Canakis, C., & Cornillie, B.
2006 Introduction. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis, & B. Cornillie (Eds.), Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity (1–16). Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brugman, C.
1988 The story of over: Polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W.
1994 The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago & London: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Cienki, A.
1997 Some properties and groupings of image schemas. In M. Verspoor, K.-D. Lee, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning (3–15). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V.
2004 The structure of time: Language, meaning and temporal cognition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hampe, B.
2000 Facing up to the meaning of ‘face up to': A cognitive semantic-pragmatic analysis of an English verb-particle construction. In A. Foolen, & F. van der Leek (Eds.), Constructions in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam 1997 (81–102). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C., & Chang, S.
1996 Metaphor, metaphorical extension, and grammaticalization: A study of Mandarin Chinese -qilai. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (201–215). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Ikegami, Y.
2008 Subjective construal as a ‘fashion of speaking’ in Japanese. In M. de los Angeles Gomez Gonzalez, J. L. Mackenzie, & E. M. Gonzalez Alvarez (Eds.), Current trends in contrastive linguistics: Functional and cognitive perspectives (227–250). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M.
1987 The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kimmel, M.
2005 Culture regained: Situated and compound image schemas. In B. Hampe, & J. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (285–312). Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
2001 Learning idioms in an FLT context. In M. Pütz, S. Niemeier, & R. Dirven (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy (87–115). Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
2003 Metaphors we live by (2nded.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
1985 Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (109–150). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1999 Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (1–64). Stanford, California: CSLI.Google Scholar
2006 Subjectification, grammaticalization and conceptual archetypes. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis, & B. Cornillie (Eds.), Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity (17–40). Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindner, S.
1983 A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb particle constructions with “out” and “up”. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Liu, Y.
1998 Quxiangbuyutongshi [A complete survey of directional verb complements]. Beijing: Beijing Language & Culture University Press.Google Scholar
Lu, W.-L.
2008 From Textual prompts to cognitive models: A context-oriented perspective on metaphor interpretation in Taiwanese presidential speeches. Language and Linguistics, 9(2), 341–358.Google Scholar
Lu, W.-L.
2015a A Cognitive Linguistic approach to teaching spatial particles: From contrastive constructional analyses to material design. In K. Masuda, & C. Arnett (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and sociocultural theory (51–72). Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015b Conceptual autonomy and dependence in Chinese lexical semantic analysis: The role of image-schema, conceptual domains and co-text in [V]–[SHANG]. Chinese Language and Discourse, 6(2), 162–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016. Polysemy and the semantic-pragmatic interface: The case of up in a context-based model. Intercultural Pragmatics.13(4), 563–589. Crossref
Lu, W.-L., & Su, I.-W.
2012 Antonymous polysemy: The case of -shang in Mandarin. In A. Bednarek (Ed.), Interdisciplinary perspectives in cross-cultural communication (36–50). München: Lincom Europa Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Sullivan, K.
2013 Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E.
1990 From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
1988 Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans V.
2001 Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 77, 724–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
2003 The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Database consulted

Sinica Corpus of Modern Chinese
http://​app​.sinica​.edu​.tw​/kiwi​/mkiwi/), accessed 10 December, 2015.
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Knotková, Magdaléna & Wei-lun Lu
2020. Rendering, generalization and variation. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 7:1 ► pp. 201 ff. Crossref logo
Lu, Wei-lun
2020.  In Language, Culture and Identity – Signs of Life [Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts, 13], ► pp. 141 ff. Crossref logo
Lu, Wei-lun
2020. Viewpoint and metaphor in culture. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 7:1 ► pp. 254 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 02 march 2021. 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.