Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
The Role of Background Knowledge
Perceptual Analysis and the Embodiment of Meaning
Methodology for Determining Distinct Senses
Methodology for Determining the Primary Sense
Conclusion: The Semantics of Verticality
Special Case II: Orientation Frames
Conclusion
Limitations
References

Semanantics of English Preposition

Profile image of tr. Treetr. Tree

Abstract

Using a cognitive linguistics perspective, this book provides the most comprehensive theoretical analysis of the semantics of English prepositions available. All English prepositions originally coded spatial relations between two physical entities; while retaining their original meaning, prepositions have also developed a rich set of non-spatial meanings. In this innovative study, Tyler and Evans argue that all these meanings are systematically grounded in the nature of human spatio-physical experience. The original 'spatial scenes' provide the foundation for the extension of meaning from the spatial to the more abstract. This analysis introduces a new methodology that distinguishes between a conventional meaning and an interpretation produced for understanding the preposition in context, as well as establishing which of several competing senses should be taken as the primary sense. Together, the methodology and framework are sufficiently articulated to generate testable predictions and allow the analysis to be applied to additional prepositions.

Related papers

The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication THE GEOMETRY OF PREPOSITION MEANINGS
Xinlei Zhang

This article presents a unified approach to the semantics of prepositions based on the theory of conceptual spaces. Following the themes of my recent book The Geometry of Meaning, I focus on the convexity of their meanings and on which semantic domains are expressed by prepositions. As regards convex-ity, using polar coordinates turns out to provide the most natural representation. In addition to the spatial domain, I argue that for many prepositions, the force domain is central. In contrast to many other analyses, I also defend the position that prepositions have a central meaning and that other meanings can be derived via a limited class of semantic transformations.

View PDFchevron_right
Multiple Influences on the Use of English Spatial Prepositions
Michele (Shelli) Feist

Issues and Approaches

What do people know when they know a word? Previous accounts of the semantics of spatial locatives suggest that spatial meaning is based on both geometric and extra-geometric aspects of spatial scenes. However, attempts to explicitly delineate different sources of extra-geometric influences are still comparatively rare; even more rare are attempts to combine these different sources so as to examine their interactions. This chapter presents four studies examining the ways in which three classes of attributes – geometric, functional, and qualitative physical – influence speakers’ uses of the English spatial prepositions in and on. The experiments show that all three kinds of factors play roles in English speakers’ choice between these prepositions. The chapter concludes that the semantics of spatial locatives must take into account a complex set of interacting factors.

View PDFchevron_right
Prepositions retain aspects of spatial meaning in abstract contexts
Dedre Gentner

Prepositions such as in and on convey not only spatial relationships between objects, but also abstract relationships, such as 'Mary is in love' and 'Tim's on a roll'. Although such uses are often thought to be purely idiomatic, we hypothesized that these abstract, non-spatial relationships might preserve one specific aspect of prepositions' spatial meaning: the degree to which the figure or the ground controls the figure-ground relationship (

View PDFchevron_right
ON THE MEANING OF THREE ENGLISH PREPOSITIONS
Ignasi Navarro i Ferrando

In-roads of language: essays in English Studies, 2006

Learners of English as Foreign Language (EFL), like myself, encounter many difficulties in their quest for fluency in the language. In our struggle to actively master English vocabulary we generally assume that nouns and verbs are mostly important, so that the generalised attitude consists in trying to learn as many of these as possible. The semantic relevance of other words, such as prepositions, is diminished because they are considered "easy words". Learners just tend to apply a straightforward correspondence to "easy words" in their mother tongue, so that Eng. in is used as an equivalent to Sp. en, or Eng. to as an equivalent to Sp. a, and so on. By doing so, learners tend to think that the learning job is done. In my opinion, the consequence of that mistaken attitude is so crucial that it may delay the fluent native-like mastery of the language -or a near idiolect-for decades. Moreover, linguists have not usually considered the semantic factors that determine prepositional choice in use, but have generally described this type of words only according to their syntactic function or their position in the clause. However, as linguists we should consider the fact that these words might mean a lot more. Whenever their choice in language use is difficult to explain, the general claim states that this use is chaotic, capricious, or that these words form part of other lexical units where they do not contribute any meaning, i.e. prepositional verbs or phrasal verbs. The lexical units at, on and in are three of these words. In this paper, I will use these three words for illustration, and I will try to dismantle these two general assumptions: on the one hand, that these words are easy to learn or have exact interlinguistic correspondences, and on the other hand, that their use is otherwise chaotic or lexicalised.

View PDFchevron_right
Prepositional semantics and the fragile link between space and time
Sally Rice

Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 1999

View PDFchevron_right
Reflections on the Functional Characterization of Spatial Prepositions
Ronald Langacker

Corela, 2010

Ce document a été généré automatiquement le 1 mai 2019. Corela-cognition, représentation, langage est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution-Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale-Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International.

View PDFchevron_right
Coping with the intrinsic and deictic uses of spatial prepositions
Elisabeth André

Artificial intelligence II: Methodology …, 1987

View PDFchevron_right
The iconicity of embodied meaning. Polysemy of spatial prepositions in the cognitive framework
LUDOVIC DE CUYPERE

Language Sciences, 2007

This paper examines the concept of polysemy which serves as the basis of the 'principled polysemy model' of spatial prepositions proposed by A. Tyler and V. Evans in a number of recent publications . Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language 77, 724-765; Tyler, Andrea, Evans, Vyvyan, 2003a. The case of over. In: Brigitte Nerlich, Zazie Todd, Vimala Herman, Clarke, David D., (Eds.), Polysemy. Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 99-159; Tyler, Andrea, Evans, Vyvyan, 2003b. The Semantics of English Prepositions. Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge]

View PDFchevron_right
Literal and Metaphoric Readings in Spatial Prepositions
Francesco-Alessio Ursini

The goal of this paper is to propose a novel compositional analysis of literal and metaphoric readings in spatial prepositions and prepositional phrases. It is shown that these types of readings emerge as the result of prepositions interacting with other parts of speech, such as verbs, DPs and temporal adverbs (e.g., in one hour). Two types of understudied data are discussed. The first set of data involves the interaction of literal and metaphoric readings with lexical aspect, including their distribution with temporal adverbs (e.g., in one hour/for one hour). The second set of data involves the coexistence of literal and metaphoric readings for prepositions in coordinated structures (e.g., under the table and through the briefing). The account suggests that both readings emerge as types of possible relations that spatial prepositions can denote, as part of a complex semantic domain that includes distinct semantic dimensions.

View PDFchevron_right
The Acquisition of English Spatial prepositions: The Case of Logical Relations
Francesco-Alessio Ursini

Proceedings of the 2012 conference of the Australian Linguistics Society., 2013

This paper offers experimental evidence concerning children’s abilities to access two types of logical/lexical relations that hold among spatial prepositions. One is the sub-set relation that holds between the spatial prepositions “in” and “at”, the other is the relation of entailment that holds between “at” and “to”. The findings presented in the paper suggest that two hypotheses about the semantics of these prepositions hold. First, children appear to access and consolidate these interpretations in a step-wise fashion. Second, the logical/lexical relations between these prepositions may be accessible to children only after the interpretations of the involved prepositions are also accessible, but not before. These findings suggest that children may acquire logical relations among lexical items by interpreting these relations as “emergent” properties of lexical items. These findings are also discussed with respect to two competing theories of Language acquisition, the Continuity and the Construction hypotheses. It is shown that the findings are consistent with the Continuity hypothesis, while they offer evidence that challenges some of the core assumptions of the Construction hypothesis.

View PDFchevron_right

References (136)

  1. Baillargeon, R. 1993. The object concept revisited: new directions in the investigation of infants' physical knowledge. In Visual Perception and Cognition in Infancy, ed. by C. Granrud, 265-315. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1995. A Model of Physical Reasoning in Infancy. Advances in Infancy Research, volume IX, ed. by C. Rovee-Collier and L. Lipsitt, 305-71. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  2. Baillargeon, R., A. Needham, and J. DeVos. 1991. Location memory in 8-month-old infants in a non-search AB task: further evidence. Cognitive Development, 4: 345-67.
  3. Barnhart, Robert. 1988. Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology: The Origins of American English Words. New York: HarperCollins.
  4. Bertenthal, B. 1993. Infants' perception of biomechanical motions: intrinsic image and knowledge-based constraints. In Visual Perception and Cognition in Infancy, ed. by C. Granrud, 175-214. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  5. Bietel, Dinara, Raymond Gibbs, and Paul Sanders. 1997. The embodied approach to the polysemy of the spatial preposition on. In Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, ed. by H. Cuyckens and B. Zawada, 241-60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  6. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Bolinger, Dwight. 1971. The Phrasal Verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni- versity Press.
  7. Bowerman, Melissa. 1996. Learning how to structure space for language: a crosslinguis- tic perspective. In Language and Space, ed. by P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, and M. Garrett, 385-436. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  8. Bransford, J., and M. K. Johnson. 1973. Consideration of some problems in compre- hension. In Visual Information Processing, ed. by W. G. Chase, 39-61. New York: Academic Press.
  9. Brisard, Frank. 1997. The English tense-system as an epistemic category: the case of futurity. In Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Mean- ing, ed. by M. Verspoor, K. D. Lee, and E. Sweetser, 271-86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  10. Brugman, Claudia. 1981. The story of over. MA thesis, Dept. of Linguistics, UC Berkeley. Published, 1988, as The Story of Over: Polysemy, Semantics and the Structure of the Lexicon. New York: Garland Press.
  11. Brugman, Claudia, and George Lakoff. 1988. Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In Lexical Ambiguity Resolution, ed. by S. Small, G. Cottrell and M. Tannenhaus, 477-507. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
  12. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  13. Celce-Murcia, Marianne, and Diane Larsen-Freeman. 1999. The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course. Rowley, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
  14. Choi, Sylvia, and Melissa Bowerman. 1992. Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: the influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 41: 83-121.
  15. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  16. Clark, Eve. 1973. Nonlinguistic strategies in the acquisition of word meanings. Cognition, 2: 161-82.
  17. Clark, Herbert, H. 1973. Space, time, semantics and the child. In Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language, ed. by T. E. Moore, 27-64. New York: Academic Press.
  18. Coriston-Oliver, Monica. 2001. Central meanings of polysemous prepositions: challeng- ing the assumptions. Paper given at International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Santa Barbara, CA.
  19. Croft, William. 1998. Linguistic evidence and mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (2): 151-74.
  20. Cruse, Alan. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  21. Cuyckens, Hubert, Dominiek Sandra, and Sally Rice. 1997. Towards an empirical lexical semantics. In Human Contact Through Language and Linguistics, ed. by B. Smieja and M. Tasch, 35-54. Berlin: Peter Lang.
  22. Deane, Paul. 1992. Grammar in Mind and Brain: Explorations in Cognitive Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  23. Dennett, Daniel. 1991. Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little Brown.
  24. Dewell, Robert. 1994. Over again: image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5 (4): 351-80.
  25. Dirven, René. 1993. Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English prepositions. In The Semantics of Prepositions: From Men- tal Processing to Natural Language, ed. by C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, 73-97. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  26. Eimas, P., and P. Quinn. 1994. Studies on the formation of perceptually based basic-level categories in young infants. Child Development, 65: 903-17.
  27. Evans, Vyvyan. 2000. The structure of time: language, meaning and temporal cognition. PhD thesis, Dept. of Linguistics, Georgetown University.
  28. Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental Spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22 (2): 133-87.
  30. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
  31. Fillmore, Charles. 1971. Towards a theory of deixis. The PCCLLU Papers, 3 (4): 219-41. Dept. of Linguistics, University of Hawaii.
  32. Fillmore, Charles, Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O'Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone. Language, 64 (3): 501-38.
  33. Fleischman, Suzanne. 1999. Discourse markers across languages: implications of a case study for historico-comparative and sociolinguistics. Paper presented at Dept. of Linguistics, Georgetown University, November 1999.
  34. Frank, Marcella. 1972. Modern English: A Practical Reference Guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  35. Freeman, N., S. Lloyd, and C. Sinha. 1980. Infant search tasks reveal early concepts of containment and canonical usage of objects. Cognition, 8: 243-62.
  36. Frisson, S., Dominiek Sandra, Frank Brisard, and Hubert Cuyckens. 1996. From one meaning to the next: the effects of polysemous relationships in lexical learning. In The Construal of Space in Language and Thought, ed. by M. Putz and René Dirven, 613-47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  37. Garrod, Simon, Gillian Ferrier, and Siobhan Campbell. 1999. In and on: investigating the functional geometry of spatial prepositions. Cognition, 72: 167-89.
  38. Gibbs, Raymond, and Teenie Matlock. 1997. Psycholinguistic perspectives on polysemy. In Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, ed. by H. Cuyckens and B. Zawada, 213-39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  39. Gleitman, Leila. 2000. Remarks on language acquisition in the first 2 years. Paper given at the University of Maryland Child Language Acquisition Symposium, College Park, MD, March 2000.
  40. Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  41. Grady, Joseph. 1997a. Foundations of meaning: primary metaphors and primary scenes. PhD dissertation, Dept. of Linguistics, UC Berkeley. 1997b. theories are building revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (4): 267-90. 1999a. A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation versus resem- blance. In Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by R. Gibbs and G. Steen, 79-100. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  42. Cross-linguistic regularities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the LSA, January 1999, Los Angeles.
  43. In preparation. Foundations of meaning (ms.). Cultural Logic, Washington, DC.
  44. Green, Georgia. 1989. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  45. Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics, vol. III, Speech Acts, ed. by P. Cole and J. Morgan, 41-58. New York: Academic Press.
  46. Further notes on logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics, vol. IX, Pragmatics, ed. by P. Cole, 113-28. New York: Academic Press.
  47. Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  48. Haiman, John. 1980. Dictionaries and encyclopedias. Lingua, 50: 326-57.
  49. Harley, Trevor. 1995. The Psychology of Language. Hove: Psychology Press Hawkins, Bruce. 1988. The category medium. In Topics in Cognitive Grammar, ed. by B. Rudzka-Ostyn, 231-70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  50. Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  51. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  52. Herskovits, Annette. 1986. Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  53. Spatial expressions and the plasticity of meaning. In Topics in Cognitive Grammar, ed. by B. Rudzka-Ostyn, 271-98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  54. Hilferty, Joseph. 1999. Through as a means to metaphor. In Issues in Cognitive Linguis- tics, ed. by L. de Stadler and C. Eyrich, 347-66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  55. Hill, Clifford Alden. 1978. Linguistic representation of spatial and temporal orientation. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 524-38. Berkeley: UC Berkeley Press.
  56. Hopper, Paul, and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  57. Hottenroth, Priska-Monika. 1993. Prepositions and object concepts: a contribution to cognitive semantics. In The Semantics of Prepositions, ed. by C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, 179-219. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  58. Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1987. Consciousness and the Computational Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1992. Languages of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  59. Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  60. Johnson, Christopher. 1999. Metaphor vs. conflation in the acquisition of polysemy: the case of see. In Cultural, Typological and Psychological Perspectives in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by M. Hiraga, C. Sinha and S. Wilcox, 155-69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  61. Jones, S., and L. Smith. 1993. The place of perception in children's concepts. Cognitive Development, 8: 113-39.
  62. Kay, Paul, and Charles Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the what's X doing Y? construction. Language, 75 (1): 1-33.
  63. Kreitzer, Anatol. 1997. Multiple levels of schematization: a study in the conceptualiza- tion of space. Cognitive Linguistics, 8 (4): 291-325.
  64. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  65. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Metaphor and Thought (second edition), ed. by A. Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  66. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  67. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
  68. Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  69. Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. I. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1991a. Concept, Image and Symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1991b. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. II. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1992. Prepositions as grammaticalizing elements. Leuvenese Bijdragen, 81: 287-309. 1999a. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1999b. Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In Cognitive Linguistics: Foun- dations, Scope and Methodology, ed. by Theo Janssen and Gisela Redeker, 13-59. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. References
  70. Lanman, Charles Rockwell. 1884. A Sanskrit Reader. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  71. Legerstee, M. 1992. A review of the animate-inanimate distinction in infancy: im- plications for models of social and cognitive knowing. Early Development and Parenting, 1: 59-67.
  72. Leslie, A. 1984. Infant perception of a manual pick-up event. British Journal of Devel- opmental Psychology, 2: 19-32.
  73. Levin, Beth. 1993. Towards a Lexical Organization of English Verbs. Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press.
  74. Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  75. Lindner, Susan. 1981. A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb particle constructions with out and up. PhD thesis, Dept. of Linguistics, UC San Diego.
  76. Lindstromberg, Seth. 1998. English Prepositions Explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  77. Lloyd, S., C. Sinha, and N. Freeman. 1981. Spatial reference systems and the canon- icality effect in infant search. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 32: 1-10.
  78. Mandler, Jean. 1988. How to build a baby: on the development of an accessible repre- sentational system. Cognitive Development, 3: 113-36.
  79. How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 99: 587-604.
  80. Preverbal representation and language. In Language and Space, ed. by P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel and M. Garrett, 365-84. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  81. Miller, George, and Phillip Johnson-Laird. 1976. Language and Perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  82. Morgan, Pamela. 1997. Figuring out figure out: metaphor and the semantics of the English verb-particle construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 8 (4): 327-57.
  83. O'Dowd, Elizabeth. 1998. Prepositions and Particles in English: A Discourse-functional Account. New York: Oxford University Press.
  84. Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Günter Radden. 1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  85. Pfleider, Jean, and Michael Preston. 1981. A Complete Concordance to the Chester Mystery Plays. New York: Garland.
  86. Piaget, Jean. 1951. Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood. London: Kegan Paul, Trench and Trübner.
  87. Pustejovsky, James. 1998. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  88. Putnam, Hilary, 1981. Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  89. Quinn, P., and P. Eimas. 1997. Perceptual organization and categorization in young infants. In Advances in Infancy Research, vol. XI, ed. by C. Rovee-Collier and L. Lipsitt, 1-36. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  90. Quinn, P., P. Eimas, and S. Rosenkrantz. 1993. Evidence for representations of perceptual similar categories by 3-month-old infants. Perception, 22: 463-75.
  91. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. Harlow, England: Longman. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Harlow, England: Longman.
  92. Reddy, Michael. 1979. The conduit metaphor: a case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Metaphor and Thought, ed. by A. Ortony, 284-324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  93. Rice, Sally. 1993. Far afield in lexical fields: the English prepositions. ESCOL'92 (ed. by M. Bernstein), 206-17.
  94. Rice, Sally, Dominiek Sandra, and Mia Vanrespaille. 1999. Prepositional semantics and the fragile link between space and time. In Cultural, Psychological and Typological Issues in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers of the Bi-annual ICLA Meeting in Albuquerque, July 1995, ed. by M. Hiraga, C. Sinha and S. Wilcox, 108-27. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  95. Rosch, Eleanor. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104: 192-233.
  96. Principles of categorization. In Cognition and Categorization, ed. by E. Rosch and B. Lloyd, 27-48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  97. Ruhl, Charles. 1989. On Monosemy: A Study in Linguistic Semantics. Albany: State University of New York.
  98. Rummelhart, David. 1975. Notes on a schema for stories. In Representations and Understanding, ed. by D. Bobrow and A. Collins, 211-36. New York: Academic Press.
  99. Sandra, Dominiek. 1998. What linguists can and can't tell us about the mind: a reply to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (4): 361-78.
  100. Sandra, Dominiek, and Sally Rice. 1995. Network analyses of prepositional meaning: mirroring whose mind -the linguist's or the language user's? Cognitive Linguistics, 6 (1): 89-130.
  101. Saussure, Ferdinand De. [1915] 1983. Course in General Linguistics. Trans. and annot. by Roy Harris. London: Duckworth.
  102. Schiffrin, Deborah. 1992. Anaphoric then: aspectual, textual and epistemic meaning. Linguistics, 30: 753-92.
  103. Sinha, Chris, and Kristine Jensen De López. 2000. Language, culture and the embodi- ment of spatial cognition. Cognitive Linguistics, 11 (1/2): 17-42.
  104. Slobin, Dan. 1991. Learning to think for speaking. Pragmatics 1, 7-25.
  105. Spelke, E. 1988. Where perceiving ends and thinking begins: the apprehension of objects in infancy. In Perceptual Development in Infancy, ed. by A. Yonas, 197-234. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  106. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
  107. Svorou, Soteria. 1994. The Grammar of Space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  108. Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  109. Role and individual interpretations of change predicates. In Language and Con- ceptualization, ed. by J. Nuyts and E. Pederson, 116-36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  110. Talmy, Leonard. 1983. How language structures space. Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research and Application, ed. by H. Pick and L. Acredolo, 225-82. New York: Plenum. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In Language Typology and Syntactic Descriptions, vol. III, ed. by T. Shopen, 57-149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. References 1988a. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12: 49-100. 1988b. The relation of grammar to cognition. In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by B. Rudzka-Ostyn, 165-205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1996. Fictive motion in language and 'ception'. In Language and Space, ed. by P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel and M. Garrett, 211-76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics (2 vols.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  111. Taylor, John. 1989. Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  112. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1975. Spatial expressions of tense and temporal sequencing. Semiotica, 15 (3): 207-30.
  113. On the expression of spatio-temporal relations in language. In Universals of Human Language, ed. by J. Greenberg, 369-400. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65 (1): 31-55.
  114. Turner, Mark. 1987. Death is the Mother of Beauty: Mind, Metaphor, Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  115. Reading Minds. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1996. The Literary Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
  116. Tyler, Andrea, and Vyvyan Evans. 1999. Applying cognitive linguistics to language teaching: the prepositions of verticality. Paper presented at the Annual Association of Applied Linguistics, Stamford, Connecticut, March 1999. 2001a. The relation between experience, conceptual structure and meaning: non- temporal uses of tense and language teaching. In Applied Cognitive Linguistics: Theory, Acquisition and Language Pedagogy, ed. by M. Pütz, S. Niemeier and R. Dirven, 63-105. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 2001b. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: the case of over. Language, 77 (4): 724-65.
  117. Tyler, Andrea, Akiko Fuji, Seon Jeon, Dainora Kupcinskas, Olga Liamkina, David Macgregor, Kristin Mulrooney, and Mari Takada. 2001. Competing models of over: an experimental investigation. Paper presented at Washington CogLink Sym- posium. Georgetown University, Washington, DC. October 2001.
  118. Ungerer, Friedrich, and Hans Jürg Schmid. 1996. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman.
  119. Vandeloise, Claude. 1990. Representation, prototypes and centrality. In Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization, ed. by S. Tsohatzidis, 403-37. London: Routledge.
  120. Spatial Prepositions: A Case Study in French. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1994. Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics, 5 (2): 157-84.
  121. Varela, Francisco, Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch. 1991. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  122. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1990. 'Prototypes save': on the uses and abuses of the notion of 'prototype' in linguistics and related fields. In Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization, ed. by S. Tsohatzidis, 347-67. London: Routledge. 1993. Why do we say in April, on Thursday, at 10 o'clock? In search of an explanation. Studies in Language, 17 (2): 437-54.
  123. Semantics: Primes and Universals. New York: Oxford University Press.
  124. Wilson, Paul, and Richard Anderson. 1986. What they don't know will hurt them: the role of prior knowledge in comprehension. In Reading Comprehension: From Research to Practice, ed. by J. Orasunu, 31-48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  125. Ziegler, Debra. 1997. Retention in ontogenetic and diachronic grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics, 8 (3): 207-41. vantage point exterior cluster 194-95; disappearance sense 195 vantage point interior cluster 190-94; arrival sense 194; in favour sense 193, 194; perceptual accessibility sense 191-93 spatial scenes 181 spatial structure vs. functional element 180f, 180-82 In Favour Sense: in 193, 194 in front of etymology 157, 158 functional element 155, 158, 160 orientation 154-56 functionally oriented LMs 159-60 inherently unoriented LM: mirror-image alignment 158, 161f , 160-62; orientation frame 162 semantic network 158-64 priority sense 162-64 proto-scene 158-59, 159f see also before; behind In Situ Sense: in 186-87 see also Not in Situ Sense: out in tandem alignment 159, 163-64, 164f, 172, 173, 174-75 inferencing strategies 57, 71-72 best fit 57, 71-72, 78 real-world force dynamics 57-58, 70-72 topological extension 58, 70-72, 123, 131 Inferior Senses below 129 down 143-44
  126. Intended Recipient Sense: for 154 into vs. in 198 proto-scene 199, 199f
  127. Jackendoff, R. 11, 18, 20, 34
  128. Jensen de López, K. 181
  129. Johnson, C. 36
  130. Johnson, M. on containment 186 on experiential correlation 34, 96 on image-schemas 31 on metaphor 32, 187, 189, 190 path 221 jump 9f, 13, 16, 70, 71, 72
  131. Kay, P. 39 knowing and hearing 34 and physical touch 114 and seeing 33-34, 36
  132. Knowing Sense: out 207 Korean 25, 26, 234
  133. Kreitzer, A. on above 66, 111, 114-15 on over 8, 40, 41, 45, 46, 66, 69-71
  134. Lack of Priority Sense: behind 172 Lack of Visibility Sense: out 206 see also Visibility Sense: out, Perceptual Accessibility Sense, in 191-93
  135. Lakoff, G. on above 110 on containment schema 179 on experiential correlation 34, 96 full-specification model 40, 41, 42, 72, 236-37 on image-schemas 31 on metaphor 32, 187, 189, 190 on multiplex-mass transformation 185 on over 8, 11, 12, 40-42, 45, 46, 55-56, 92, 101, 110-11 on path 34, 55, 69-71, 221, 223 landmarks (LMs) 12 bounded see bounded landmarks orientation 132-35, 154-56 functional 159-60, 171 inherently unoriented: mirror-image alignment 158, 160-62, 171; orientation frame 162, 171-72 vertical 135 sphere of influence 58 vantage points 159, 167, 168
  136. Langacker, R. on of 211 on construals 21, 39 on exclusionary fallacy 39 on experiential correlation 34 on German case 199 on grammatical class 61, 86 on meaning 17, 20, 21, 40 on object shape 196 on orientation 109, 132 on polysemy networks 47, 49, 84 on spatial particles 54, 89, 104 on TR/LM 12 on usage events 67 on vantage points 53, 81-82, 159 language and languages Australian 34 context 229-30 dialects 143, 188 Dutch 37, 216, 234 French 26, 235 functional elements 235 German 199 Korean 25, 26, 234

Related papers

The semantics of spatial prepositions: the main trends of research
Ieva Stasiūnaitė

Taikomoji kalbotyra, 2017

The paper overviews the main trends of research into the semantics of spatial prepositions, as demonstrated by a plethora of papers on linguistic data from a variety of languages. The more traditional approach focuses on the locative meaning with respect to other words—both syntagmatically and in paradigms, thus ruling out pragmatics—and considers multiple senses of the same preposition to be arbitrary. In contrast, the modern framework employs the principles of cognitive linguistics for semantic analysis, highlighting the conceptual structuring of entities or relations in extralinguistic reality. On the basis of geometric, functional, and other relations between the figure and the ground, it attempts to explicate not only prepositional synonymy, but also extensive polysemy as a form of categorisation. As a consequence, the distinct meanings of a preposition are considered to be related, deriving either from the prototypical sense or any other sense which is related to it, and arran...

View PDFchevron_right
2016 - The semantics of spatial prepositions: the main trends of research. Taikomoji kalbotyra 2016 (8): 188-212.
Ieva Stasiūnaitė

The paper overviews the main trends of research into the semantics of spatial prepositions, as demonstrated by a plethora of papers on linguistic data from a variety of languages. The more traditional approach focuses on locative meaning with respect to other words—both syntagmatically and in paradigms—and considers multiple senses of the same preposition to be arbitrary. In contrast, the modern framework employs the principles of cognitive linguistics for semantic analysis, highlighting the conceptual structuring of entities or relations in extralinguistic reality. On the basis of geometric, functional, and other relations between the figure and the ground, it attempts to explicate not only prepositional synonymy, but also extensive polysemy as a form of categorisation. Consequently, the distinct meanings of a preposition are considered to be related, deriving either from the prototypical sense or any other sense which is related to it, and arranged in a network. The modern line of investigation may provide more possibilities for researchers interested in one language and/or in cross-linguistic studies, thus contributing to the development of lexicography, translation, and other fields of applied linguistics.

View PDFchevron_right
The 6 th ELTLT CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS THE COGNITIVE THEORY OF SPATIAL PREPOSITION AND ITS APPLICATION TO TEACHING ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND TRANSLATION
Joko Kusmanto

2017

The dichotomy of function and content words has for so long, precisely since Fries (1952), positioned the preposition as a subject of marginal interest in linguistic studies from the perspective of both formal and functional school of linguistics. If any, such studies have generally resulted merely in the description of its function and position. Yet, in English for instance, function words are not stressed in utterances and, therefore, considered to play a minor and an unimportant role in conveying messages in a communication. The paper does not discuss all types of preposition but focuses its discussion on the spatial preposition. This paper discusses (i) what cognitive aspects drive and motivate the emergence of the lexical meaning of spatial preposition, (ii) how English and Bahasa Indonesia differ and share the use of spatial preposition, and (iii) how TEFL and teaching translation can take advantage of the answer of the second question. The first question forms the theoretical...

View PDFchevron_right
Prepositions in their Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Context
Dennis Kurzon

Typological studies in language, 2002

View PDFchevron_right
Crosslinguistic Influence in the acquisition of spatial prepositions in English as a Foreign Language
Scott Jarvis, Rosa Alonso

Languages differ widely as to how they structure space. They differ in terms of the semantic granularity of their spatial markers ) and also in terms of the semantic features and conceptual dimensions that determine their conventional use . As an illustration of both types of differences, the Spanish preposition EN covers approximately the same range of spatial relations as do the three English prepositions IN, ON, and AT, whereas Dutch goes even further than English in that it distinguishes between two types of support relationships: The Dutch preposition AAN refers to spatial configurations such as a handle on a door, whereas the preposition OP refers to spatial configurations such as a book on a shelf .

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved