Abstract
This study investigates the intricate polysemy of the Spanish perception verb sentir (‘feel’) which, analogous to the more-studied visual perception verbs ver (‘see’) and mirar (‘look’), also displays an ample gamut of semantic uses in various syntactic environments. The investigation is based on a corpus-based behavioral profile (BP) analysis. Besides its methodological merits as a quantitative, systematic and verifiable approach to the study of meaning and to polysemy in particular, the BP analysis offers qualitative usage-based evidence for cognitive linguistic theorizing. With regard to the polysemy of sentir, the following questions were addressed: (1) What is the prototype of each cluster of senses? (2) How are the different senses structured: how many senses should be distinguished – i.e., which senses cluster together and which senses should be kept separately? (3) Which senses are more related to each other and which are highly distinguishable? (4) What morphosyntactic variables make them more or less distinguishable? The results show that two significant meaning clusters can be distinguished, which coincide with the division between the middle voice uses (sentirse) and the other uses (sentir). Within these clusters, a number of meaningful subclusters emerge, which seem to coincide largely with the more general semantic categories of physical, cognitive and emotional perception.
Appendix List of senses as labeled in the dendrogram and their paraphrase in English
| Spanish label in dendrogram | English paraphrase |
| EMO.encontrarse | be in an emotional state |
| FIS_GEN.encontrarse.METAF | be in a general physical state: metaphorical use |
| AMBIG.FIS.EMO | ambiguous between physical and emotional perception |
| FIS.GEN.encontrarse | be in a general physical state |
| COGN.considerar | cognitive perception: consider, judge |
| EMO.experimentar.METAF | experience an emotional perception: metaphorical use |
| EMO.experimentar | experience an emotional perception |
| AMBIG.EMO.COGN | ambiguous between emotional and cognitive perception |
| FIS_GEN.experimentar.corp.METAF | experience a general physical bodily sensation: metaphorical use |
| FIS_ESP.AUD.METAF | specific physical auditory perception: metaphorical use |
| FIS_ESP.TACT | specific physical tactile perception |
| FIS_GEN.experimentar.term | general physical perception: thermal sensation |
| FIS_ESP.AUD | specific physical auditory perception |
| FIS_GEN.experimentar.corp | experience a general physical bodily sensation |
| AMBIG.FIS | ambiguous cases of physical perception |
| FIS_ESP.GUST.METAF | specific physical gustative perception: metaphorical use |
| FIS_ESP.TACT.METAF | specific physical tactile perception: metaphorical use |
| EMO.lamentar | emotional perception: regret |
| COGN.presentir | cognitive perception: have a presentiment |
| COGN.pensar | cognitive perception: think |
| COGN.intuir | cognitive perception: intuit |
| COGN.creer.opinar | cognitive perception: believe, opine |
| COGN.darsecuenta | cognitive perception: realize |
| FIS_GEN.manifestarse | general physical perception: appear, show up |
| EMO.capacidad.experimentar | ability to perceive: emotional perception |
| FIS_GEN.capacidad.percibir | ability to perceive: general physical perception |
| AMBIG | ambiguous cases |
| AMBIG.FIS.COGN | ambiguous between physical and cognitive perception |
| COGN.comprender | cognitive perception: understand |
| FIS_ESP.OLF | specific physical olfactory perception |
References
Arppe, Antti & JuhaniJärvikivi.2007a. Take empiricism seriously! In support of methodological diversity in linguistics. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory3(1). 99–109.10.1515/CLLT.2006.007Search in Google Scholar
Arppe, Antti & JuhaniJärvikivi.2007b. Every method counts: Combining corpus-based and experimental evidence in the study of synonymy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory3(2). 131–159.10.1515/CLLT.2007.009Search in Google Scholar
Arppe, Antti, GaëtanelleGilquin, DylanGlynn, MartinHilpert & ArneZeschel.2010. Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora5(1). 1–27.10.3366/cor.2010.0001Search in Google Scholar
Atkins, Beryl T.1987. Semantic ID tags: Corpus evidence for dictionary senses. Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the UW Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary, 17–36.Search in Google Scholar
Baayen,R. Harald.2008. Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801686Search in Google Scholar
Backhaus, Klaus, BerndErichson, WulffPlinke & RolfWeiber.1996. Multivariate Analysemethoden: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.Search in Google Scholar
Berez, Andrea L. & Stefan Th.Gries.2009. In defense of corpus-based methods: A behavioral profile analysis of polysemous get in English. In StevenMoran, Darren S.Tanner & MichaelScanlon (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Northwest Linguistics Conference. University of Washington Working Papers in Linguistics Vol. 27, 157–166. Seattle, WA: Department of Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Brugman, Claudia.1988. The story of “over”: Polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland.Search in Google Scholar
Brugman, Claudia & GeorgeLakoff.1988. Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In Steven L.Small, Garrison W.Cottrell & Michael K.Tanenhaus (eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution, 477–508. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.10.1016/B978-0-08-051013-2.50022-7Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William.1998. Linguistic evidence and mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics9(2). 151–173.10.1515/cogl.1998.9.2.151Search in Google Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert & BrittaZawada (eds.). 1997. Polysemy in cognitive linguistics. Selected papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistic Conference. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
De Mauro, Tullio.1999. Grande dizionario Italiano dell’uso. Torino: Utet.Search in Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar.2003. On trying in Russian: A tentative network model for near(er) synonyms. In Slavica Gandensia 30. Belgian Contributions to the 13th International Congress of Slavicists, Ljubljana, 15–21 August 2003, 25–58.Search in Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar.2006. Ways of intending: Delineating and structuring near-synonyms. In Stefan Th.Gries & AnatolStefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 19–56. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar.2010a. Structuring the lexicon. A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110220599Search in Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar.2010b. Corpus-based evidence for an idiosyncratic aspect-modality relation in Russian. In DylanGlynn & KerstinFischer (eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches, 305–330. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226423.305Search in Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar.2015. Exploring the grammar of perception. A case study using data from Russian. Functions of Language22(1). 44–68.10.1075/fol.22.1.03divSearch in Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar & Stefan Th.Gries. 2006. Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory2(1). 23–60.10.1515/CLLT.2006.002Search in Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar & Stefan Th.Gries. 2008. Clusters in the mind? Converging evidence from near synonymy in Russian. The Mental Lexicon3(2). 188–213.10.1075/ml.3.2.03divSearch in Google Scholar
Enghels, Renata.2007. Les modalités de perception visuelle et auditive. Différences conceptuelles et répercussions sémantico-syntaxiques en espagnol et en français. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110944884Search in Google Scholar
Enghels, Renata & MarliesJansegers.2013. On the cross-linguistic equivalence of sentir(e) in Romance languages: A contrastive study in semantics. Linguistics51(5). 957–991.10.1515/ling-2013-0034Search in Google Scholar
Featherston, Sam.2005. The Decathlon Model. In StephanKepser & MargaReis (eds.), Linguistic evidence. Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives, 187–208. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197549.187Search in Google Scholar
Fernández Jaén, Jorge. 2012. Semántica cognitiva diacrónica de los verbos de percepción física del español. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles.1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica6. 222–254.Search in Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk.1993. Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics4(3). 223–272.Search in Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk.2006. Methodology in cognitive linguistics. In GitteKristiansen, MichelAchard, RenéDirven & Francisco J.Ruiz, de MendozaIbáñez (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives, 21–50. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk.2010. The doctor and the semantician. In DylanGlynn & KerstinFischer (eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches, 63–78. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226423.61Search in Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, StefanGrondelaers & PeterBakema.1994. The structure of lexical variation. Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110873061Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond.2007. Why cognitive linguists should care more about empirical methods. In MonicaGonzález-Márquez, IreneMittelberg, SeanaCoulson & Michael J.Spivey (eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics, 2–18. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.18.06gibSearch in Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2003. Causative get and have. So close, so different. Journal of English Linguistics31. 125–148.Search in Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2006. The place of prototypicality in corpus linguistics: Causation in the hot seat. In Stephan Th.Gries & AnatolStefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 159–192. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2008. What you think ain’t what you get: Highly polysemous verbs in mind and language. In Jean-RémiLapaire, GuillaumeDesagulier & Jean-BaptisteGuignard (eds.), Du fait grammatical au fait cognitif. From gram to mind: Grammar as cognition, 235–255. Pessac: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux.Search in Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan.2009. Polysemy, syntax, and variation. A usage-based method for cognitive semantics. In VyvyanEvans & StéphaniePourcel (eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics, 77–106. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.24.08glySearch in Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan.2010a. Corpus-driven cognitive semantics. Introduction to the field. In DylanGlynn & KerstinFischer (eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches, 1–41. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226423.1Search in Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan.2010b. Synonymy, lexical fields, and grammatical constructions. A study in usage-based cognitive semantics. In Hans-JörgSchmid & SusanneHandle (eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage patterns, 89–118. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110216035.89Search in Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan.2010c. Testing the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based cognitive semantics. In DylanGlynn & KerstinFischer (eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches, 239–269. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226423.239Search in Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan.2014. Polysemy and synonymy. Cognitive theory and corpus method. In DylanGlynn & Justyna A.Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 7–38 Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.01glySearch in Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan & KerstinFischer (eds.). 2010. Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226423Search in Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan & RobinsonJustyna (eds.). 2014. Polysemy and synonymy: Corpus methods and applications in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.01glySearch in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th.2002. Evidence in linguistics: Three approaches to genitives in English. In Ruth M.Brend, William J.Sullivan & Arle R.Lommel (eds.), LACUS Forum XXVIII: What constitutes evidence in linguistics?, 17–31. Fullerton, CA: LACUS.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th.2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th.2006. Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run. In Stefan Th.Gries & AnatolStefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 57–99. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197709Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th.2009. Quantitative corpus linguistics with R: A practical introduction. London & New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th.2010a. Behavioral profiles: A fine-grained and quantitative approach in corpus-based lexical semantics. The Mental Lexicon5(3). 323–346.10.1075/ml.5.3.04griSearch in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th.2010b. Behavioral Profiles 1.01. A program for R 2.7.1 and higher.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th.2015. Polysemy. In EwaDąbrowska & DagmarDivjak (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110292022-023Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., BeateHampe & DorisSchönefeld. 2005a. Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics16(4). 635–676.10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., BeateHampe & DorisSchönefeld. 2005b. Converging evidence II: More on the association of verbs and constructions. In JohnNewman & SallyRice (eds.), Empirical and experimental methods in cognitive/functional research, 39–72. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & DagmarDivjak. 2009. Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic analysis. In VyvyanEvans & StéphaniePourcel (eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics, 57–75. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.24.07griSearch in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & DagmarDivjak. 2010. Quantitative approaches in usage-based cognitive semantics: Myths, erroneous assumptions, and a proposal. In DylanGlynn & KerstinFischer (eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches, 333–353. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226423.331Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & NaokiOtani. 2010. Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based perspective on synonymy and antonymy. ICAME Journal34, 121–150.Search in Google Scholar
González-Márquez, Monica, IreneMittelberg, SeanaCoulson & Michael J.Spivey (eds.). 2007. Methods in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan & DirkGeeraerts.2003. Towards a pragmatic model of cognitive onomasiology. In HubertCuyckens, RenéDirven & John R.Taylor (eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, 67–92. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219074.67Search in Google Scholar
Hanegreefs, Hilde.2008. Los verbos de percepción visual. Un análisis de corpus en un marco cognitivo. Leuven: KULeuven dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide B.1999. Metaphorical mappings in the sense of smell. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, Selected Papers from the 5th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, July 1997, 29–45. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.175.03ibaSearch in Google Scholar
Jansegers, Marlies & RenataEnghels.2013. De verbo de percepción a marcador de disculpa: la evolución diacrónica del verbo sentir en español, Revue de Linguistique Romane 305–306, 139–166.Search in Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne.1993The middle voice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2008. Metaphor and emotion. In Raymond W.Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 380–396. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.023Search in Google Scholar
Kurath, Hans.1921. The semantic sources of the words for the emotions in Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and the Germanic languages, Department of comparative philology, general linguistics, and Indo-Iranian philology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George.1982. Categories. An essay in cognitive linguistics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 139–194. Seoul: Hanshin.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George.1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald.1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald.1988. A usage-based model. In BrygidaRudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics, 127–161. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.50.06lanSearch in Google Scholar
Liu, Dilin.2013. Salience and construal in the use of synonymy: A study of two sets of near-synonymous nouns. Cognitive Linguistics24(1). 67–113.10.1515/cog-2013-0003Search in Google Scholar
Miller, George A. & Philip N.Johnson-Laird.1976. Language and perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674421288Search in Google Scholar
Nerlich, Brigitte & David D.Clarke.1997. Polysemy: Patterns of meaning and patterns in history. Historiographica Linguistica24. 349–385.10.1075/hl.24.3.07nerSearch in Google Scholar
Newman, John & SallyRice.2004. Patterns of usage for English SIT, STAND and LIE: A cognitive exploration in corpus linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics15(3). 351–396.Search in Google Scholar
Newman, John & SallyRice. 2006. Transitivity schemas of English EAT and DRINK in the BNC. In St. Th.Gries & AnatolStefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 225–260. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Raukko, Jarno.1999. An “intersubjective” method for cognitive-semantic research on polysemy: The case of get. In HiragaMasako K., ChrisSinha & ShermanWilcox (eds.), Cultural, Psychological and Typological Issues in Cognitive Linguistics. Selected papers of the bi-annual ICLA meeting in Albuquerque, July 1995, 87–105. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.152.09rauSearch in Google Scholar
Raukko, Jarno.2003. Polysemy as flexible meaning: Experiments with English get and Finnish pitää. In BrigitteNerlich, ZazieTodd, VimalaHerman & David D.Clarke (eds.), Polysemy. Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language, 161–193. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Robert, Paul, AlainRey & JosetteRey-Debove. 2008. Le Nouveau Petit Robert. Dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française. Nouvelle édition du Petit Robert de Paul Robert. Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert.Search in Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor.1978. Principles of categorization. In EleanorRosch & Barbara B.Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and categorization, 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor & Carolyn B.Mervis.1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology7. 573–605.10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9Search in Google Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek & SallyRice.1995. Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s?Cognitive Linguistics6(1). 89–130.10.1515/cogl.1995.6.1.89Search in Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2000. English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110808704Search in Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2010. Does frequency in text instantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system? In DylanGlynn & KerstinFischer (eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches, 101–133. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226423.101Search in Google Scholar
Seco, Manuel, AndrésOlimpia & RamosGabino.1999. Diccionario del español actual. Madrid: Aguilar.Search in Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol.2010. Empirical cognitive semantics: Some thoughts. In DylanGlynn & KerstinFischer (eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches, 355–380. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226423.355Search in Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th.Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics8(2). 209–243.10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03steSearch in Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve.1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620904Search in Google Scholar
Tuggy, David.1993Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics4(3). 273–290.Search in Google Scholar
Vanderschueren, Clara & KevinDiependaele.2013. The Portuguese inflected infinitive: An empirical approach. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory9(1). 161–186.10.1515/cllt-2013-0013Search in Google Scholar
Vesterinen, Rainer.2010. The relation between iconicity and subjectification in Portuguese complementation: Complements of perception and causation verbs. Cognitive Linguistics21(3). 573–600.10.1515/COGL.2010.019Search in Google Scholar
Viberg, Åke. 1984. The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics21(1). 123–162.10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.123Search in Google Scholar
Ward, Joe H.1963. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(301). 236–244.Search in Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig.1953. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie.2006. Go-V vs. go-and-V in English: A case of constructional synonymy? In Stephan Th.Gries & AnatolStefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 101–126. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton
