認知語義學領域最常討論的話題之一就是人類如何將空間經驗概念化。而在空間概念中， 容納(CONTAINMENT)和支撐(SUPPORT)這兩個重要的空間概念，在過去十年中備受關注。雖然語言共享許多共同的空間概念，但不同語言的人們在如何編碼這些空間關係上卻是十分多樣的。本研究旨在探討中文母語使用者如何通過三個接近同義詞的空間詞構式意即[在…NP…裡/內/中]來概念化容納語意關係。
過去大都採用質性分析來理解這些空間構式上的語義差異，而本研究意在透過以量化語料庫的角度，檢視容納空間構式與其地標詞(landmark)之間的共現模式。更具體地說，本研究藉由兩個統計分析，即多重鑑別詞彙連接分析(multiple distinctive collexeme analysis)和事後語義分析(post-hoc analysis)，從量化語料庫的角度來研究這些概念上類似的容納語意構式。目的在於探討每個空間構式，鑑別詞彙連接(distinctive collexeme)所形成之語義場(semantic field)，從而識別構式間之語義差異。
研究結果發現，三種空間構式對其地標詞選擇具有不同的偏好。這些差異反映了中國人使用容納的意象基模(image schema)來概念化一系列抽象概念，如時間和事件。[在…NP…裡]此空間構式被認為是容納關係的原型和無標記形式(unmarked)。因此，它具有更多樣化的模式，吸引了具體名詞，時間名詞，靜態抽象名詞。另一方面，當使用容納的意象基模來指定時間事件的閾值時，[在…NP…內] 此空間構式則被用於指定預先計劃的目標的截止日期。當容納的意象基模擴展到事件類的概念化時，[在…NP…內] 此空間構式可能在中文較為偏好，且通常會激發對地標的未完成(imperfective)解讀。

關鍵詞: 構式搭配分析法, 語料庫分析法, 空間詞

How humans conceptualize space is one of the most commonly discussed topics in the field of cognitive semantics. Two important spatial concepts, namely CONTAINMENT and SUPPORT, have received much attention in the past decades. While languages share many common spatial concepts, studies have suggested cross-linguistic diversity in the categorization of these spatial relations. In particular, this study focuses on how Chinese conceptualize the CONTAINMENT relation through three near-synonymous spatial particle constructions [zai…NP…li/nei/zhong]. While previous works mostly adopt a qualitative analysis on the semantic differences of these spatial particles, this study provides a quantitative corpus-based analysis of these CONTAINMENT constructions by examining the relationship between space particles and their co-occurring landmarks. More specifically, we investigate the semantic commonalities and differences of these conceptually similar particles of CONTAINMENT in Chinese through two quantitative analyses, i.e., multiple distinctive collexeme analysis and post-hoc semantic analysis.
Our results show that each construction has its own semantic preference for the landmarks. These differences reflect how Chinese speakers utilize the image schema of CONTAINMENT to conceptualize a range of abstract concepts. For li construction, it tends to attract more diverse types of landmarks, including concrete objects, temporal units, static abstract entities. It is the only particle that shows a connection to a prototypical CONTAINMENT landmark, i.e., a three-dimensional bounded entity. Our result suggests that li construction may be the prototypical and unmarked form to encode the CONTAINMENT. For nei construction, it shows a strong preference for landmarks denoting temporal concepts. This metaphorical use of CONTAINMENT with temporal landmarks often implies a preplanned objective with the landmark as an intended deadline for achieving the goal. Finally, for zhong construction, it shows a strong connection to landmarks denoting events of higher dynamicity. This metaphorical use of CONTAINMENT with dynamic abstract entities as landmarks often comes with a marked specificity, motivating an aspectual reading of the landmark.

Keywords: collostructional analysis, corpus analysis, spatial particles

Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75(1), 1-28. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6
Bowerman, M. (1996). The origins of children’s spatial semantic categories: Cognitive versus linguistic determinants. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 145-176). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bowerman, M., & Choi, S. (2001). Shaping meanings for language: Universal and language-specific in the acquisition of semantic categories. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 475-511). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bowerman, M., & Pederson, E. (1992). Topological relations picture series. In S. C. Levinson (Ed.), Space stimuli kit 1.2 (pp. 51). Nijmegen, Netherlands: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
Chen, K. J., & Ma, W. Y. (2010). Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus of Modern Chinese 4.0. http://asbc.iis.sinica.edu.tw/
Choi, S. (2006). Influence of language-specific input on spatial cognition: Categories of containment. First Language, 26(2), 207-232. doi:10.1177/0142723706060748
Coventry, K. R., Carmichael, R., & Garrod, S. C. (1994). Spatial prepositions, object-specific function, and task requirements. Journal of Semantics, 11(4), 289-309. doi:10.1093/jos/11.4.289
Deng, F. (2006). Fangwei jiegou “X zhong/li/nei” bijiao yanjiu [The contrastive study of the locative structures “X zhong/li/nei”. (Master), Jinan University. Retrieved from http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10559-2007045332.htm
Dewell, R. (2005). Dynamic patterns of CONTAINMENT. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 369-393). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dilin, L. (2010). Is it a chief, main, major, primary, or principal concern?: A corpus-based behavioral profile study of the near-synonyms. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(1), 56-87. doi:10.1075/ijcl.15.1.03liu
Divjak, D. S., & Gries, S. (2006). Ways of trying in Russian: clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(1), 23-60. doi:10.1515/CLLT.2006.002
Evans, V. (2010). From the spatial to the non-spatial: The ‘state’lexical concepts of in, on and at. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition & space (pp. 215-248). London, England: Equinox.
Evans, V., & Chilton, P. (2010). Language, cognition and space. London, England: Equinox.
Evans, V., & Tyler, A. (2004). Spatial experience, lexical structure and motivation: The case of in. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 157-192). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Feist, M. I. (2000). On in and on: An investigation into the linguistic encoding of spatial scenes. (Doctoral dissertation ), Northwestern University, Evaston, IL.
Feist, M. I., & Gentner, D. (1997). Animacy, control, and the IN/ON distinction. Paper presented at the Fourteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
Feist, M. I., & Gentner, D. (2003). Factors involved in the use of in and on. Paper presented at the Proceedings of The Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting of The Cognitive Science Society.
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Gilquin, G. (2006). The verb slot in causative constructions: Finding the best fit. Constructions, 1, 1-46.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (1996). Construction grammar. Concise encyclopedia of syntactic theories, 6871.
Gries, S. T. (2009). Quantitative corpus linguistics with R. New York, NY: Rourledge.
Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004a). Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp. 225-236). Stanford, CA: ICLI.
Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004b). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on alternations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97-129. doi:10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
Johnson, M. (2013). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, M., & Lakoff, G. (2002). Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(3), 245-264. doi:10.1515/cogl.2002.016
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202-251). Cambridge, England: University Press Cambridge.
Lakoff, G. (2008). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Landau, B. (2017). Update on “What” and “Where” in Spatial Language: A New Division of Labor for Spatial Terms. Cognitive Science, 41(S2), 321-350. doi:10.1111/cogs.12410
Landau, B., Johannes, K., Skordos, D., & Papafragou, A. (2017). Containment and Support: core and Complexity in Spatial Language Learning. Cognitive Science, 41(S4), 748-779. doi:10.1111/cogs.12389
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Nouns and verbs. Language, 63, 53-94. doi:10.2307/415384
Langacker, R. W. (2002). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar (Vol. 1). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Levinson, S. C., & Wilkins, D. P. (2006). Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lindstromberg, S. (2010). English prepositions explained: Revised Edition. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.
Liu, & Zhang. (2008). “Li” “zhong” “nei” kongjian yiyi de renzhi yuyan xue kaocha [A cognitive linguistic analysis of the spatial meanings of li, zhong and nei]. Jiefangjun Waiguo Yu Xueyuan Xuebao [Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages](3), 7-12.
Lu, W.-L. (2017). Perspectivazation and Contextualization in Semantic Analysis: A Parsimonious Polysemy Approach to In. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 2017(3), 247-264. doi:10.4467/20834624SL.17.017.7091
Mandler, J. M. (2007). On the origins of the conceptual system. American Psychologist, 62(8), 741-751. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.8.741
Mandler, J. M., & Cánovas, C. P. (2014). On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition, 6(4), 510-532. doi:10.1017/langcog.2014.14
McEnery, A. M., & Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh, England: Edinburgh University Press.
Menzel, P. (1975). Semantics and syntax in complementation. Paris, France: Mouton.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2013). Collostructional analysis. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 215-231). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209-243. doi:10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. L. Pick & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application (pp. 225-282). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Vandeloise, C. (2017). Three basic prepositions in French and in English: A comparison. Corela. Cognition, Représentation, Langage(HS-23). doi:10.4000/corela.5033
Xing, F. Y. (1996). Fangwei jiegou “X li”he “X zhong”.[The locative structure ““X li” and “X zhong”]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [Chinese Teaching in the World](4), 4-15.
Yang, H. (2008). Ronchi fangweici li Zhong nei wai de kongjian yiyi. [The spatial meaning of words of containers “Li, Zhong, Nei, Wai”]. Shichuan Jiaoyu Xuebao. [Journal of Sichuan College of Education](12), 74-76 & 79.
Zaenen, A., Carletta, J., Garretson, G., Bresnan, J., Koontz-Garboden, A., Nikitina, T., . . . Wasow, T. (2004). Animacy encoding in English: Why and how. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2004 ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation.
Zhang, Y., Segalowitz, N., & Gatbonton, E. (2011). Topological spatial representation across and within languages: IN and ON in Mandarin Chinese and English. The Mental Lexicon, 6(3), 414-445. doi:10.1075/ml.6.3.04zha
Zheng, Z. L. (2005). “Li, Zhong, Nei, Wai” fangwei yinyu de renzhi fenxi. [Cognitive analysis of “Li, Zhong, Nei, Wai” orientational metaphor]. Guizhou daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) [Journal of Guizhou Normal University (Social Science)](1), 104-107.