Multiple Influences on the Use of English Spatial Prepositions

Spatial Cognition & Computation

Cluster 1: overlaps (32, 33) Does not justify separate sense as only geometry type differs from Sense 1. Cluster 2: across some other object, indicated by nearness diagrams (29, 30) Sense 2: Objects that are across some other object from Cluster 3: covering (43, 48, 51) Sense 3: Objects that are covering (multiple) Through Core of preposition: overlaps (35, 39, 33) Sense 1: Objects that are overlapping Cluster 1: polygon geometries Does not justify separate sense as only geometry type differs from Sense 1. Cluster 2: linear geometries Does not justify separate sense as only geometry type differs from Sense 1. Over Core of preposition: overlaps (39) Sense 1: objects are overlapping/crossing Sense 3: overlap + alignment Cluster 1: mainly dominated by overlap using linear and polygon objects Does not justify separate sense as only geometry type differs from Sense 1 Cluster 2: emphasis on verticality, often polygon/point like objects that sit in a vertically dominant position, so more like one object on top of (or nearly on top of) another Sense 2: One object is above another object Cluster 3: pairs of linear objects (whether aligned or not aligned) Does not justify separate sense as only geometry type differs from Sense 1 Adjacent to Core of preposition: touches (all senses) (36), semantically similar proximity also important Sense 1: objects are touching or nearly touching Cluster 1: overlaps (32) Sense 2: there is some overlap in the objects (with vague boundaries)probably not actually an extra sense, just a stretching of the main sense Cluster 2: linear features, proximity and touching Does not justify separate sense as only geometry type differs from Sense 1 Cluster 3: multiple objects-sides of (50) Does not justify separate sense as only the frequency differs from Sense 1 Beside Core of preposition: touching relation (all three clusters), proximity also important Sense 1: objects are touching or close to each other Cluster 1: closeness and touching Sense 1: objects are touching or close to each other Cluster 2: close and touching, line and polygon Does not justify separate sense as only geometry type differs from Sense 1 Cluster 3: close and parallel, line types Sense 2: objects are close, linear, and parallel Line types alone doesn't justify separate sense, but parallelism does Close to Core of preposition: no three-way core, proximity, touching less important Sense 1: objects are close to each other Cluster 1: polygons, close to each other, but mostly not touching Sense 1: objects are close to each other Cluster 2: linear, parallel most important, but other orientations also permitted Linear parallelism not so strong as for beside (other orientations score more highly), so does not justify separate sense Cluster 3: no separate sense Same as sense 1 Near Core of preposition: no three-way core, proximity, touching even less important than for close to Sense 1: near (proximity) Only one sense Cluster 1: proximity, 3 and 53 are for expressions that involve parts (eastern part, centre part), 28 is disjoint (similar to proximity) Sense 1: near (proximity) Cluster 2 (only 2 expressions): proximity, for line-polygon pairs Does not justify separate sense as only geometry type differs from Sense 1 Cluster 3 (only 2 expressions): touches and proximity for pairs of polygons Does not justify separate sense, for some reason diagrams showing a person are selected Next to Core of preposition: proximity most important, touching close second Sense 1: proximity or touching between objects Cluster 1: touching most important, proximity second, polygon pairs Sense 1: proximity or touching between objects Cluster 2: proximity, 49 sometimes used to indicate linear object (a nature reserve located next to the coast), sometimes to describe part of an object (the side of the garden next to main street), some degree of overlap, linear and parallel Sense 2: linear parallelism Diagram 49 sometimes used to indicate linear object Outside Core of preposition: proximity most important, touching much lower Sense 1: proximity of objects Cluster 1: proximity, pairs of polygons, multiple objects Does not justify separate sense as objects are either multiple or have different geometries Cluster 2: proximity, overlaps (a trail outside of the park), line and polygon Sense 2: objects have partial overlap Off Core of preposition: no diagrams in all four clusters, proximity most dominant Sense 1: proximity of objects Cluster 1: proximity, or touching Sense 1: proximity of objects Cluster 2: two linear objects, all sorts of relations, but more involving touching/overlapping Sense 2: Overlapping of linear objects Cluster 3: linear objects overlapping or touching Does not justify separate sense as only geometry type differs Sense 2 Cluster 4: proximity, includes multiple object types Does not justify separate sense as objects are either multiple or have different geometry types Past Core of preposition: proximity, but no diagram is in all three clusters Sense 1: proximity (includes by the side of) Cluster 1: proximity, or touching (less important) Sense 1: proximity (includes by the side of) Cluster 2: with verb, bounded by, flanked by or, by the side of (probably two senses) Sense 2: enclosure (with appropriate verb) Cluster 3: proximity, multiple objects Does not justify separate sense as objects are multiple (sense 1) By Core of preposition: proximity, but no diagram is in all three clusters Sense 1: proximity (includes by the side of) Cluster 1: proximity, or touching (less important) Sense 1: proximity (includes by the side of) Cluster 2: with verb, bounded by, flanked by or by the side of (probably two senses) Sense 2: enclosure (with appropriate verb) Cluster 3: proximity, multiple objects Does not justify separate sense as objects are multiple (sense 1) Beyond Core of preposition: no overlap Sense 1 (only sense): proximity, with locatum on the other side of relatum from implied observer position Cluster 1: proximity, but implies observer position (diagram 2) Does not justify separate sense as objects are close with a presence of an observer Cluster 2: touching lines, again implies observer position (diagram 9) Does not justify separate sense as linear objects are close with a presence of an observer

2006

The present work is concerned with projective prepositions, which express the relation between two objects by referring to a direction in three-dimensional space. The projective prepositions have been regarded as expressing simple schematic relations of a geometric nature. A theory of the apprehension of projective relations can account for their meanings when they express strictly geometric relations. However, many studies have shown that the appropriateness of the prepositions also depends on the functional relation between the objects and that a number of functional factors influence the comprehension of English prepositions. This experimental study investigates if the acceptability of the Swedish prepositions over, under, ovanfor and nedanfor are influenced by functional factors as well, and whether acceptability judgments about over and under are more sensitive to functional influences than judgments about ovanfor and nedanfor, as has been shown for the corresponding English pr...

Cognitive Processing, 2009

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.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1993

Fundamental to spatial knowledge in all species are the representations underlying object recognition, object search, and navigation through space. But what sets humans apart from other species is our ability to express spatial experience through language. This target article explores the language of objects and places, asking what geometric properties are preserved in the representations underlying object nouns and spatial prepositions in English. Evidence from these two aspects of language suggests there are significant differences in the geometric richness with which objects and places are encoded. When an object is named (i.e., with count nouns), detailed geometric properties – principally the object's shape (axes, solid and hollow volumes, surfaces, and parts) – are represented. In contrast, when an object plays the role of either “figure” (located object) or “ground” (reference object) in a locational expression, only very coarse geometric object properties are represented...