1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Cognitive Linguistic Studies
  4. Volume 12, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper explores the polysemy of the preposition from a cognitive perspective. The purpose of this paper is: (i) to show that in cognitive semantics of , the trajectors (TRs), landmarks (LMs), and image-schemas are captured three-dimensionally and topologically; (ii) to show that in the senses of , a circular path sense is central, and other senses are formed from the central circular path sense via image-schema transformations and domain shift; (iii) to show that the image-schema transformations include: disposing the TR along the circular path and excluding motion; mental scanning of the circular path; the TR entering the inside of the LM, (which is termed ‘LM-internal TRs’ in this paper); and segment profiling; (iv) to present the radial category relating each sense of ; and (v) to show that the sense of ‘LM-internal TRs’ of can be subjectified diachronically.

© 2025 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00133.mor
2025-06-02
2025-06-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00133.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. Anderson, J. R.
    (2010) Cognitive psychology and its implications (7th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bybee, J.
    (2015) Language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139096768
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139096768 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cruse, D. A.
    (2011) Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Deane, P.
    (2005) Multimodal spatial representations: 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]
  5. Dewell, R. B.
    (1994) Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(4), 351–380. 10.1515/cogl.1994.5.4.351
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1994.5.4.351 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2007) Moving around: The role of the conceptualizer in semantic interpretation. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(3), 383–415. 10.1515/COG.2007.022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.022 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dixon, R. M. W.
    (2021) English prepositions: Their meanings and uses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198868682.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198868682.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Downs, R. M., & Stea, D.
    (1973) Image and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Ekberg, L.
    (2001) Transformations on the path-schema and a minimal lexicon. Studia Linguistica, 55(3), 301–323. 10.1111/1467‑9582.00082
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00082 [Google Scholar]
  10. Evans, V.
    (2019) Cognitive linguistics: A complete guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9781474405232
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474405232 [Google Scholar]
  11. Evans, V., & Tyler, A.
    (2004) Rethinking English ‘prepositions of movement’: The case of to and through. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 181, 247–270. 10.1075/bjl.18.13eva
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.18.13eva [Google Scholar]
  12. Geeraerts, D.
    (2010) Theories of lexical semantics. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C.
    (2003) Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. Johnson, M., & Lakoff, G.
    (2002) Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(3), 245–263. 10.1515/cogl.2002.016
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.016 [Google Scholar]
  16. 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]
  17. (2012) Explaining embodied cognition results. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 773–785. 10.1111/j.1756‑8765.2012.01222.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01222.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Langacker, R. W.
    (1990) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. (1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110800524
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  21. (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]
  22. Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (2002) A communicative grammar of English (3rd ed.). London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Lindstromberg, S.
    (2010) English prepositions explained (revised edition). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.157
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.157 [Google Scholar]
  24. Matlock, T.
    (2004) Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition, 321, 1389–1400. 10.3758/BF03206329
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206329 [Google Scholar]
  25. Matlock, T., Ramscar, M., & Boroditsky, L.
    (2005) On the experiential link between spatial and temporal language. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 655–664. 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_17
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_17 [Google Scholar]
  26. Matsumoto, Y.
    (1997) Idohyogen no kakucho: Shukanteki idohyogen [An extension of motion expressions: subjective motion expressions]. InS. Tanaka & Y. Matsumoto (Eds.), Kukan to ido no hyogen [Expressions of space and motion] (pp.207–228). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Mori, S.
    (2019) A cognitive analysis of the preposition OVER: Image-schema transformations and metaphorical extensions. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 63(3), 444–474. 10.1017/cnj.2018.43
     https://doi.org/10.1017/cnj.2018.43 [Google Scholar]
  28. Peña Cervel, M. S., & Ruiz de Medoza Ibáñez, F. J.
    (2009) The metonymic and metaphoric grounding of two image-schema transformations. InK.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.339–361). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.21pen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.21pen [Google Scholar]
  29. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Richardson, J. T. E.
    (1999) Imagery. London: Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Roth, I., & Frisby, J. P.
    (1986) Perception and representation: A cognitive approach. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Schulze, R.
    (1993) The meaning of (a)round: A study of English preposition. InR. A. Geiger & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds.), Conceptualizations and mental processing in language (pp.399–432). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110857108.399
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110857108.399 [Google Scholar]
  33. Smith, E. E., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Fredrickson, B. L., & Loftus, G. R.
    (2003) Atkinson & Hilgard’s introduction to psychology (14th ed.). London: Thomson Wadsworth.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Talmy, L.
    (1996) Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’. InP. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp.211–276). Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/4107.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4107.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2000) Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’. InL. Talmy (Ed.), Toward a cognitive semantics: Volume 1: Concept structuring systems (pp.99–175). Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/6847.003.0005
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6847.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  36. Taylor, J. R.
    (2002) Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198700333.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198700333.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2003) Linguistic categorization (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199266647.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199266647.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2012) The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199290802.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199290802.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Thagard, P.
    (1996) Mind: Introduction to cognitive science. London: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Traugott, E. C.
    (1989) On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65(1), 31–55. www.jstor.org/stable/414841
     [Google Scholar]
  41. (1995) Subjectification in grammaticalisation. InD. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectification (pp.31–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2003) From subjectification to intersubjectification. InR. Hickey (Ed.), Motives for Language change (pp.124–139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2010) (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. InK. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp.29–71). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2014) Intersubjectification and clause periphery. InL. Brems, L. Ghesquière & F. Van de Velde (Eds.), Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in grammar and discourse: Theoretical and descriptive advances (pp.7–27). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.65.02trau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.65.02trau [Google Scholar]
  45. Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B.
    (2002) Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 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]
  47. Wilcox, S., & Palermo, D. S.
    (1975) “In”, “on”, and “under” revisited. Cognition, 3(3), 245–254. 10.1016/0010‑0277(74)90011‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(74)90011-0 [Google Scholar]
  48. Zlatev, J.
    (2003) Polysemy or generality? Mu. InH. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp.447–494). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219074.447
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219074.447 [Google Scholar]
  49. Longman dictionary of contemporary English [LDCE] (6th ed.)
    Longman dictionary of contemporary English [LDCE] (6th ed.) (2014) London: Longman.
  50. Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary [OALD] (10th ed.)
    Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary [OALD] (10th ed.) (2020) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  51. Oxford English dictionary [OED] (2nd ed.)
    Oxford English dictionary [OED] (2nd ed.) (1989) Oxford: Clarendon Press.
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00133.mor
Loading
Image-schema transformations, radial category, 3D topological structure, and subjectification
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 12, 186 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00133.mor
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00133.mor
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00133.mor
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): circular path; image-schema transformations; radial category in around; segment profiling; subjectification; three-dimensional and topological treatment

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