Cover not available

Article published In: Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 15:1 (2017) ► pp.253–287

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

A corpus-based analysis of the verb pleróo in Ancient Greek

The diachronic relevance of the container image-schema in its evolution

 | Universidad de Chile, Santiago
Published online: 4 September 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.10ioa
Abstract
This is a corpus-based study of the development of the verb pleróo in Ancient Greek, originally meaning fill, from the 6th c. bce in Classical Greek, up to the end of the 3rd c. bce in Hellenistic Koiné. It implements a hierarchical cluster analysis and a multiple correspondence analysis of the sum of the attested instances of pleróo of that period, divided by century. It explores the gains following a syncretism between two methodological strands: earlier introspective analyses postulating variant construals over intuitively grasped schematic configurations such as image schemas, and strictly inductive methods based on statistical analyses of correlations between co-occurring formal and semantic features. Thus, it examines the relevance of the container image-schema to the architecture of the schematic construction corresponding to the prototypical and historically preceding sense of pleróo, fill. Consequently, it observes how shifts in the featural configurations detected through statistical analysis, leading to the emergence of new senses, correspond to successive shifts on the perspectival salience of elements in the schematic construction of the verb.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Bottom-up induction and top-down elaboration: Perspectives on their union
    • 2.1Top-down gestalts sanctioning semantic change
    • 2.2Image schemas as prototypes and language change
  • 3.The verb pleróo: Schematic and featural constitution
    • 3.1The container image schema within fill’s linguistic construction
    • 3.2Operationalisation of variables in the analysis of pleróo
  • 4.Data analysis
    • 4.16th and 5th c. bce
    • 4.24th c. bce
    • 4.33rd c. bce
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (65)
References
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zeschel, A. (2010). Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora, 51, 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analysing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boers, F. (1996). Spatial prepositions and metaphor: A cognitive semantic journey along the up-down and the front-back dimensions. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brugman, C. (1988). The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon . New York: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brugman, C., & Lakoff, G. (1988). Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In S. Small, G. Cottrell, & M. Tannenhaus (Eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology and artificial intelligence (pp. 477–507). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chaffe, W. (1970). Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Díez Velasco, O. I. (2001). Metaphor, metonymy and image-schemas: An analysis of conceptual integration patterns. Journal of English Studies, 31, 47–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dirven, R., Goossens, L., Putseys, Y., & Vorlat, E. (1982). The scene of linguistic action and its perspectivization by speak, talk, say, and tell. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Divjak, D. (2006). Ways of intending: A corpus-based cognitive linguistic approach to near-synonyms in Russian. In S. T. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 19–56). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Divjak, D., & Fieller, N. (2014). Cluster analysis: Finding structure in linguistic data. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 405–441). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2005). Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fabiszak, M., Hebda, A., Kokorniak, I., & Krawczak, K. (2010). The semasiological structure of Polish mýsleć ‘to think’: A study in verb-prefix semantics. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 223–252). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. Harms (Ed.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1977). Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zambolli (Ed.), Linguistic structure processing (pp. 55–82). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 61, 222–254.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1987). On necessary and sufficient conditions. Journal of Semantics, 51, 275–291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics, 41, 223–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). Diachronic prototype semantics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P. (1994). The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Speelman, D. (1999). Convergentie en divergentie in de nederlandse woordenschat. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gesmann, M., & de Castillo, D. (2011). Using the Google chart tools with R: googleVis-0.5.2 Package Vignette (Version 0.5.2). Retrieved from [URL]
Gilquin, G. (2010). Corpus, cognition and causative constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glynn, D. (2009). Polysemy, syntax, and variation: A usage-based method for Cognitive Semantics. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 77–106). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010a). Corpus-driven cognitive semantics. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 1–42). Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010b). Synonymy, lexical fields, and grammatical constructions: A study in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In H. -J. Schmid, & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage-patterns: Empirical studies (pp. 89–118). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010c). Testing the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based cognitive semantics. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014a). The many uses of run: corpus methods and socio-cognitive semantics. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 117–144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014b). Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 443–485). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Semasiology and onomasiology: Empirical questions between meaning, naming and context. In J. Daems, E. Zenner, K. Heylen, D. Speelman, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Change of caradigms. New paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics (47–79). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. (2006). Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run . In S. T. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 57–99). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hespos, S. J., & Baillargeon, R. (2001). Knowledge about containment events in very young children. Cognition, 781, 207–245. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heylen, K., Wielfaert, T., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. (2015). Monitoring polysemy: Word space models as a tool for large-scale lexical semantic analysis. Lingua, 1571, 153–172. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janda, L., & Solovyev, V. (2009). What constructional profiles reveal about synonymy: A case study of the Russian words for sadness and happiness . Cognitive Linguistics, 201, 367–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A. (1997). I don’t believe in word senses. Computers and the Humanities, 311, 91–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, R. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krawczak, K., & Kokorniak, I. (2012). A corpus-driven quantitative approach to the construal of Polish think. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 481, 439–472. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1977). Linguistic gestalts. In W. A. Beach, S. E. Fox, & S. Philosoph (Eds.), Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, April 14–16, 236–287.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1982). Categories: An essay in Cognitive Linguistics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 139–194). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1988). A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 127–161). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehrer, A. (1982). Wine and conversation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGuillivray, B., Johanson, C., & Apollon, D. (2008). Semantic structure from correspondence analysis. In Coling 2008: Proceedings of 3rd Textgraphs workshop on Graph-Based Algorithms in Natural Language Processing (pp. 49–52). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. U. Panther & G. Radden (Ed.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17–59). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandra, D., & Rice, S. (1995). Network analysis of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics, 61, 89–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H. J. (1993). Cottage and co., idea, start vs. begin: Die kategorisierung als grundprinzip einer differenzierten bedeutungsbeschreibung. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. (2010). Causes for causatives: The case of Dutch ‘doen’ and ‘laten’. In T. Sanders & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp. 173–204). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Force dynamics in language and cognition, Cognitive Science, 121, 49–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2007). Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 48–81). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Georgakopoulos, Thanasis, Eliese-Sophia Lincke, Kiki Nikiforidou & Anna Piata
2020. On the polysemy of motion verbs in Ancient Greek and Coptic. Studies in Language 44:1 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Ioannou, Georgios
2018. Constructions and image-schema preservation. A historical-comparative analysis of PAY in Greek and English. Lingua 206 ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
Ioannou, Georgios
2019. From Athenian fleet to prophetic eschatology. Correlating formal features to themes of discourse in Ancient Greek. Folia Linguistica 53:s40-s2 ► pp. 355 ff. DOI logo
Ioannou, Georgios
2020. Image schemas as prototypes in the diachronic evolution of kámnō and eutheiázō in Greek: A behavioural-profile analysis. Lingua 245 ► pp. 102938 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue