1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Cognitive Linguistic Studies
  4. Volume 6, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 6, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Spatial language has been traditionally understood as encoding purely spatio-geometric information. However, much more than that must be considered for a full account of the semantics of space. It turns out that spatial arrangements manifest functional consequences which are non-spatial, so prepositional vehicles cannot be equated solely with spatial elements (Vandeloise 19911994). These non-spatial parameters in turn, play a major role in spatial, non-spatial, and temporal conceptions. This provides solid ground to propose a motivation behind these types of meanings that prepositions usually convey. This paper attempts to show how the for each preposition proposed, is a key component within conceptual processes such as elaboration and extension (Langacker 1987). Such an analysis provides a better understanding of the spatial configuration of the English and Spanish prepositions, as well as an account for the semantic extension of non-spatial and temporal conceptions. Using a corpus-driven methodology to evidence the prepositions’ use types, the results obtained favor the hypothesis that non-spatial conceptions are ultimately motivated by spatial ones. This in turn, shows the language-specific character of parameterization due to the clear differences that exist between the English prepositions , and , and their Spanish equivalent . The cognitive linguistic analysis showed in this research may also offer a new perspective in the area of Language Teaching. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research on the plausibility of psycholinguistic validation and pedagogical applications of the conceptual bases proposed.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00032.mor
2019-07-12
2024-10-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00032.mor
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barcelona, A.
    (2000) On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp.31–58). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. (2008) Metonymy is not just a lexical phenomenon: On the operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse. Selected papers from the Stockholm, 1–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. (2011) Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp.7–57). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.02bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.02bar [Google Scholar]
  4. (2015) Metonymy. InE. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.143–166). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110292022‑008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-008 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cambridge University Press
    Cambridge University Press (2008) Cambridge online dictionary, Cambridge Dictionaryonline inhttps://dictionary.cambridge.org
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Evans, V.
    (2004) The structure of time: Language, meaning, and temporal cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.12
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.12 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2009) How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234660.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234660.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2010a) From the spatial to the non-spatial: The “state” lexical concepts of in, on and at. InV. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition & space: The state of the art and new directions (pp.215–248). London: Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (2010b) The perceptual basis of spatial representation. InV. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions (pp.21–48). London: Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. (2013) Language and time: A cognitive linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107340626
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107340626 [Google Scholar]
  11. Evans, V. A unified account of polysemy within LCCM Theory. Lingua
    (2015) doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2014.12.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.12.002
  12. Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M.
    (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Grady, J.
    (1997) Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Unpublished doctoral thesis, linguistics dept, UC Berkeley.
  14. Hampe, B.
    (2005) Image schemas in cognitive linguistics: Introduction. InB. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. (pp.1–12). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.0.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.0.1 [Google Scholar]
  15. Haun, D. B., Rapold, C. J., Janzen, G., & Levinson, S. C.
    (2011) Plasticity of human spatial cognition: Spatial language and cognition covary across cultures. Cognition, 119 (1), 70–80. 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.009 [Google Scholar]
  16. Herskovits, A.
    (1985) Semantics and pragmatics of locative expressions. Cognitive Science9, 341–378. 10.1207/s15516709cog0903_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0903_3 [Google Scholar]
  17. (1986) Language and spatial cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (1988) Spatial expressions and the plasticity of meaning. InB. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.271–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.50.11her
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.11her [Google Scholar]
  19. Jackendoff, R.
    (1983) Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2005) The philosophical significance of image schemas. InB. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.15–33). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.1.15
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.1.15 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2008) The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh (Vol.4). New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, volume II: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2009) Metonymic grammar. InK. U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.04lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.04lan [Google Scholar]
  30. (2012a) Interactive cognition: Toward a unified account of structure, processing, and discourse. International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics, 3(2), 95–125.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. (2012b) Linguistic manifestations of the space-time (dis) analogy. InL. Filipović & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Space and time in languages and cultures: Language, culture and cognition (pp.191–215). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.37.15lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.37.15lan [Google Scholar]
  32. Mandler, J.
    (2004) The foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Morras, J.
    (2018) Base conceptual de la preposición entre y sus equivalentes de la lenguainglesa between, among, y amid: una perspectivaenlingüísticacognitiva [Conceptual basis of entre and its English equivalents between, among and amid: A cognitive linguistics perspective]. RILEX. Revista sobre Investigaciones Léxicas, 1(2), 52–84. 10.17561/rilex.v1.n2.3
     https://doi.org/10.17561/rilex.v1.n2.3 [Google Scholar]
  34. O’Dowd, E.
    (1998) Prepositions and particles in English: A discourse-functional account. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Peña Cervel, S.
    (2012) Los esquemas de imagen [Imageschemas]. InI. Ibarretxe-Antuñano & Valenzuela (Eds.), Lingüística Cognitiva (pp.69–98). Barcelona: Anthropos.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Radden, G. & Dirven, R.
    (2007) Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clip.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2 [Google Scholar]
  37. Real Academia Española
    Real Academia Española (2015) Diccionario de la lengua española (23.aed.). Consultado endle.rae.es
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Rosch, E., & Lloyd, B. B.
    (Eds.) (1978) Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Taylor, J.
    (2006) Polysemy and the lexicon. InG. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven & F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp.51–80). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
    (2003a) The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486517
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2003b) Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. InB. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman & D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp.95–159). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110895698.95
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895698.95 [Google Scholar]
  42. Vandeloise, C.
    (1991) Spatial prepositions: A case study from French (trans.Anna R. K. Bosch). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. (1994) Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(2), 157–184. 10.1515/cogl.1994.5.2.157
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1994.5.2.157 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00032.mor
Loading
Conceptual structuring of the English prepositions between, among, and amid, and their Spanish equivalent entre
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 6, 103 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00032.mor
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00032.mor
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00032.mor
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conceptual basis; figure/ground alignment; parameters; semantic extension; trajector/landmark

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error