1887
Volume 11, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730

Abstract

Abstract

This paper proposes an explanatory model for the lexical representation of the native speakers’ lexical knowledge of English prepositions. Lexical knowledge of prepositions as relational predicates includes argument structure (trajector-landmark) as in , situation types (position vs state) as in , lexical hierarchies (spatial subdomains) based on semantic primitives, as in , and embodied perceptual parameters configured in four dimensions, namely, geometry, topology, force-dynamics and function (from ). This model is illustrated here by expounding three lexical templates compatible with constructional templates in the , representing the semantic decomposition of English prepositions , and .

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00118.nav
2024-06-06
2024-06-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/cogls.00118.nav.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00118.nav&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W. K., Barbey, A. K., & Wilson, C. D.
    (2003) Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 84–91. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(02)00029‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00029-3 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bennett, D. C.
    (1975) Spatial and temporal uses of English prepositions: An essay in stratificational semantics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bierwisch, M.
    (1988) On the Grammar of local prepositions. InM. Bierwisch & W. Motsch & I. Zimmermann (Eds.), Syntax, semantik und lexikon [Syntax, semantics and lexicon] (pp. 1–66). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Boers, F.
    (1996) Spatial prepositions and metaphor: A cognitive semantic journey along the up-down and the front-back dimensions. Günter Narr Verlag: Tübingen.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Breaux, B. O.
    (2013) On grounding metaphors in space: The role of metaphorical connections in accessing the abstract meanings of English prepositions. Ph.D. dissertation. Lafayette: University of Lousiana.
  6. Breaux, B. O., & Feist, M. I.
    (2010) Extending beyond space. InProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1601–1606). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brøndal, V.
    (1948) Les parties du discours [The parts of speech]. Copenhague: Munksgaard.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (1950) Théorie des prépositions [Theory of prepositions]. Copenhague: Munskgaard.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brugman, C.
    (1980) Story of OVER. M.A. thesis. Berkeley: University of California
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Butler, C. S.
    (2009) The Lexical Constructional Model: Genesis, strengths and challenges. InC. S. Butler & J. M. Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 117–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.107.07the
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.107.07the [Google Scholar]
  11. Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., Covey, E. S., & Lattanzi, K. M.
    (1999) “What” effects on “Where”: Functional influences on spatial relations. Pshychological Science, 10(6), 516–521. 10.1111/1467‑9280.00198
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00198 [Google Scholar]
  12. Casasanto, D.
    (2022) Embodied semantics. InF. T. Li (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive semantics (pp. 1–13). Leiden: Brill. Last accessed on21 Dec 2023: https://www.casasanto.com/papers/Casasanto%20Embodied%C2%A0Semantics%C2%A02022.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Chilton, P.
    (2014) Language, space and mind: The conceptual geometry of linguistic meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511845703
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511845703 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chomsky, N.
    (1993) Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 10.1515/9783110884166
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110884166 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cienki, A. J.
    (1989) Spatial cognition and the semantics of prepositions in English, Polish and Russian. München: Verlag Otto Sagner. 10.3726/b12805
    https://doi.org/10.3726/b12805 [Google Scholar]
  16. Clark, H. H.
    (1973) Space, time, semantics and the child. InT. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 27–63). London: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑505850‑6.50008‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-505850-6.50008-6 [Google Scholar]
  17. Coventry, K. R.
    (1998) Spatial prepositions, functional relations and lexical specification. InP. Olivier & K.-P. Gapp (Eds.), Representation and processing of spatial expressions (pp. 247–262). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (2015) Space. InE. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 490–509). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-024 [Google Scholar]
  19. Coventry, K. R., Carmichael, R., & Garrod, S. C.
    (1994) Spatial prepositions, object-specific function, and task requirements. Journal of Semantics, 11(4), 289–309. 10.1093/jos/11.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/11.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  20. Coventry, K. R., & Garrod, S. C.
    (2004) Saying, seeing and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. London: Psychology Press. 10.4324/9780203641521
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203641521 [Google Scholar]
  21. Deane, P. D.
    (1993) At, by, to, and past: An essay in multimodal image theory. InProceedings of the nineteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session and parasession on semantic typology and semantic universals (pp. 112–124). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 10.3765/bls.v19i1.1500
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v19i1.1500 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2005) Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of over. InB. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 235–284). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.3.235
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.3.235 [Google Scholar]
  23. Dik, S. C.
    (1997) The theory of functional grammar: Part 1: The structure of the clause. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Dirven, R.
    (1989) Space Prepositions. InR. Dirven & R. A. Geiger (Eds.), A user’s grammar of English: Word, sentence, text, interaction: Part B: The structure of sentences (pp. 520–576). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Drozdowicz, A. M.
    (1998) A cognitive-semantic analysis of the English preposition in. M.A thesis. Scotland: The University of Glasgow.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Feist, M. I.
    (2000) On in and on: An investigation into the linguistic encoding of spatial scenes. Ph.D. dissertation. Evanston: Northwestern University.
  27. (2008) Space between languages. Cognitive Science, 32(7), 1177–1199. 10.1080/03640210802152335
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802152335 [Google Scholar]
  28. Feist, M. I., & Gentner, D.
    (1998) On plates, bowls, and dishes: Factors in the use of English IN and ON. InM. A. Gernsbacher & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 345–349). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2003) Factors involved in the use of in and on. InR. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 390–395). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2012) Multiple influences on the use of English spatial prepositions: The case of “in” and “on”. InC. Boonthum-Denecke, P. M. McCarthy, & T. Lamkin (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary advances in applied natural language processing: Issues and approaches (pp. 305–323). Hershey: Information Science Reference. 10.4018/978‑1‑61350‑447‑5.ch020
    https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61350-447-5.ch020 [Google Scholar]
  31. Feist, M. I., & Zhang, Y.
    (2019) Mapping space: A comparative study. InProceedings of the 41st annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 1717–1723). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1968) The Case for Case. InE. W. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Gärdenfors, P.
    (2015) The geometry of preposition meanings. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 101, 1–33. 10.4148/1944‑3676.1098
    https://doi.org/10.4148/1944-3676.1098 [Google Scholar]
  34. Goddard, C.
    (2021) Natural semantic metalanguage. InX. Wen & J. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 93–110). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351034708‑7
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-7 [Google Scholar]
  35. Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A.
    (2014) Words and meanings: Lexical semantics across domains, languages, and cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hawkins, B. W.
    (1984) The semantics of English spatial prepositions. Ph.D. dissertation. California: University of California San Diego.
  38. Herskovits, A.
    (1985) Semantics and pragmatics of locative expressions. Cognitive Science, 9(3), 341–378. 10.1016/S0364‑0213(85)80003‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(85)80003-3 [Google Scholar]
  39. (1986) Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hjelmslev, L.
    (1935) La Catégorie des Cas [The category of case]. København: C.A. Reitzels Forlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Jackendoff, R.
    (1983) Semantics and cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Jamrozik, A., & Gentner, D.
    (2015) Well-hidden regularities: Abstract uses of in and on retain an aspect of their spatial meaning. Cognitive Science, 39(8). 1881–1911. 10.1111/cogs.12218
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12218 [Google Scholar]
  43. Jespersen, O.
    (1924) The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Johansson Falck, M., & Okonski, L.
    (2023) Procedure for identifying metaphorical scenes (PIMS): The case of spatial and abstract relations. Metaphor and Symbol, 38(1), 1–22. 10.1080/10926488.2022.2062243
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2022.2062243 [Google Scholar]
  45. 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]
  46. Jolly, J.
    (1991) Prepositional analysis within the framework of role and reference grammar. New York: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kokorniak, I.
    (2007) English at: An integrated semantic analysis. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 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]
  49. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. (1991) Concept, image, and symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. (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]
  52. (2010) Reflections on the functional characterization of spatial prepositions. Corela, 9–34. 10.4000/corela.999
    https://doi.org/10.4000/corela.999 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2013) Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Leech, G. N.
    (1969) Towards a semantic description of English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Levinson, S. C.
    (2003) Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613609
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613609 [Google Scholar]
  56. Levinson, S. C., Meira, S., & The Language and Cognition Group
    (2003) ‘Natural concepts’ in the spatial topological domain--Adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language, 79(3), 485–516. 10.1353/lan.2003.0174
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0174 [Google Scholar]
  57. Levinson, S. C., & Wilkins, D. P.
    (2006) Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486753
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486753 [Google Scholar]
  58. Lindkvist, K.-G.
    (1950) Studies on the local sense of the prepositions in, at, on, and to in Modern English. Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. (1976) A comprehensive study of conceptions of locality in which English prepositions occur. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Lindner, S. J.
    (1983) A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb particle constructions with ‘out’ and ‘up’. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Lindstromberg, S.
    (2010) English prepositions explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.157
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.157 [Google Scholar]
  62. Locke, J.
    (1690) An essay concerning human understanding. Buenos Aires: Aguilar. 10.1093/oseo/instance.00018020
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oseo/instance.00018020 [Google Scholar]
  63. Mairal, R., & Faber, P.
    (2007) Lexical templates within a functional cognitive theory of meaning. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 5(1), 137–172. 10.1075/arcl.5.07mai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.5.07mai [Google Scholar]
  64. Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2008) New challenges for lexical representation within the Lexical-Constructional Model (LCM). Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 571, 137–155.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. (2009) An overview of the Lexical Constructional Model: Part I: Lexical and constructional templates; Part II: Subsumption processes. Manuscript. University of La Rioja. www.lexicom.es/drupal/files/LCM_overview.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Merleau-Ponty, M.
    (1945) Phénomenologie de la Perception [Phenomenology of perception]. Paris: Gallimard.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N.
    (1976) Language and perception. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674421288
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674421288 [Google Scholar]
  68. Navarro i Ferrando, I.
    (1998) A multimodal system for the description of spatial semantics: The preposition on. InJ. L. C. Honrubia (Ed.), Estudios de lingüística cognitiva II [Studies in cognitive linguistics II] (pp. 767–787). Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. (2000) A cognitive-semantic analysis of the English lexical unit in. Cuadernos de Investigación Filológica, 261, 189–220. 10.18172/cif.2227
    https://doi.org/10.18172/cif.2227 [Google Scholar]
  70. (2002) Towards a description of the meaning of at. InH. Cuyckens & G. Radden (Eds.), Perspectives on prepositions (pp. 211–230). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110924787.211
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110924787.211 [Google Scholar]
  71. (2006) On the meaning of three English Prepositions. InI. Navarro i Ferrando & N. Alberola (Eds.), In-roads of language: Essays in English studies (pp. 167–179). Castelló de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. (2011) Lexical decomposition of English prepositions and their fusion with verb lexical classes in motion constructions. Language Value, 3(1), 114–137. 10.6035/LanguageV.2011.3.6
    https://doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2011.3.6 [Google Scholar]
  73. (2012) Exploring the lexical representation of English particles in the Lexical-Constructional Model. InM. Brdar, I. Raffaelli & M. Ž. Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics between universality and variation (pp. 137–160). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Pederson, E., Danziger, E., Wilkins, D., Levinson, S., Kita, S., & Senft, G.
    (1998) Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language, 74(3), 557–589. www.jstor.org/stable/417793
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Peña-Cervel, M. S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2022) Figuring out figuration: A cognitive Linguistic account. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.14 [Google Scholar]
  76. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B.
    (1956) The child’s conception of space. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Pottier, B.
    (1962) Systématique des Éléments de Relation [Systematics of relation elements]. Paris: Librairie Klincksieck.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Pulvermüller, F.
    (2005) Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 61, 576–582. 10.1038/nrn1706
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1706 [Google Scholar]
  79. Pustejovsky, J.
    (1995) The generative lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Regier, T.
    (1996) The human semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/3608.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3608.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  82. Rhee, S.
    (2004) Semantic structure of English prepositions: An analysis from a grammaticalization perspective. Language Research, 40(2), 397–427.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Rice, S.
    (1992) Polysemy and lexical representation: The case of three English prepositions. InProceedings of the fourteenth annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 89–94). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. (1996) Prepositional prototypes. InM. Pütz & R. Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (pp. 135–165). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110821611.135
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821611.135 [Google Scholar]
  85. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R.
    (2008a) Challenging systems of lexical representation. Journal of English Studies, 51, 325–356. 10.18172/jes.136
    https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.136 [Google Scholar]
  86. (2008b) Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(3–4), 355–400. 10.1515/FLIN.2008.355
    https://doi.org/10.1515/FLIN.2008.355 [Google Scholar]
  87. Silvestre López, A. J.
    (2009) Particle semantics in English phrasal and prepositional verbs: The case of IN and ON. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Sinha, C. & Jensen de López, K.
    (2000) Language, culture, and the embodiment of spatial cognition Cognitive Linguistics, 11(1–2), 17–41. 10.1515/cogl.2001.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2001.008 [Google Scholar]
  89. Sinha, C., & Thornseng, L. A.
    (1995) A coding system for spatial relational reference Cognitive Linguistics, 6(2–3), 261–309. 10.1515/cogl.1995.6.2‑3.261
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1995.6.2-3.261 [Google Scholar]
  90. Sroka, K. A.
    (1972) The syntax of English phrasal verbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110801378
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110801378 [Google Scholar]
  91. Stocker, K.
    (2015) Toward an embodied cognitive semantics. Cognitive Semantics, 1(2), 178–212. 10.1163/23526416‑00102002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-00102002 [Google Scholar]
  92. Takahashi, G.
    (2016) An adventure in English language space. A key to the mysteries of prepositions. Bloomington: Xlibris.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Talmy, L.
    (1983) How language structures space. InH. L. Pick & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application (pp. 225–282). New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4615‑9325‑6_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9325-6_11 [Google Scholar]
  94. (1988) Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100. 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2 [Google Scholar]
  95. (2000) How language structures space. InL. Talmy (Ed.), Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol. I: Concept structuring systems (pp. 177–254). Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/6847.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6847.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  96. (2003) The representation of spatial structure in spoken and signed language. InK. Emmorey (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 169–195). New York: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Tésnière, L.
    (1959) Éléments de Syntaxe Structurale [Elements of structural syntax]. Paris: Klincksieck.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
    (2003) 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]
  99. Vandeloise, C.
    (1991) Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. (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]
  101. Van Valin, Jr. R. D.
    (2005) The syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface: An introduction to role and reference grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610578
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578 [Google Scholar]
  102. Varela, F. J., Thomson, E., & Rosch, E.
    (2016) The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience (revised edition). Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262529365.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262529365.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  103. Vendler, Z.
    (1967) Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 10.7591/9781501743726
    https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501743726 [Google Scholar]
  104. Vygotsky, L.
    (1986) Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Wen, X., & Jiang, C.
    (2021) Embodiment. InX. Wen & J. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 145–160). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351034708‑11
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-11 [Google Scholar]
  106. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1996) Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198700029.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198700029.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  107. Willems, R. M., Toni, I., Hagoort, P., & Casasanto, D.
    (2010) Neural dissociations between action verb understanding and motor imagery. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(10), 2387–2400. 10.1162/jocn.2009.21386
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21386 [Google Scholar]
  108. Zhang, Y.
    (2013) Spatial representation of topological concepts IN and ON: A comparative study of English and Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation. Montreal: Concordia University.
  109. Zlatev, J.
    (2007) Spatial semantics. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 318–350). New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00118.nav
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00118.nav
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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