Volume 17, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The present paper is an analysis of the semantic structure of the complex spatial preposition . Theoretical concepts of the cognitive framework promote a deep understanding of spatial relations and their metaphorical transfers encoded by individual prepositional senses. Assuming the usage-based model of language, the study takes a closer look at corpus data which is the basis for proposing five distinct meanings of the preposition under investigation. Conceptual metaphor theory is used to explain metaphorical transfer of spatial to abstract domains of human experience.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bosworth, J.; & Toller, T. N.
    Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. RetreivedJune 23, 2017, frombosworth.ff.cuni.cz/about
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Brenda, M.
    (2014) The cognitive perspective on the polysemy of the English spatial preposition over. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2015) The semantics of at. InE. Komorowska (Ed.), Annales Neophilologiarum9, pp.25–55. Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2017) A cognitive perspective on the semantics near. Review of Cognitive Linguistics15(1), 121–153. 10.1075/rcl.15.1.06bre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.06bre [Google Scholar]
  5. (2018) The semantics of by. [Unpublished manuscript, University of Szczzecin, Poland].
  6. British National Corpus. RetreivedJune 2014fromwww.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brugman, C.
    (1988) The story of over: polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Coventry, K. R.; & Garrod, S. C.
    (2004) Saying, seeing and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions essays in cognitive psychology. Hove: Psychology Press. 10.4324/9780203641521
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203641521 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cuyckens, H.
    (1993) The Dutch spatial preposition in: A cognitive-semantic analysis. InC. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The Semantics of Prepositions: From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110872576.27
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110872576.27 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cuypere, L. de
    (2013) Debiasing semantic analysis: the case of the English preposition to. Language Sciences37, 122–135. 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dirven, R.
    (1993) Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English prepositions. InC. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The Semantics of Prepositions: From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110872576.73
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110872576.73 [Google Scholar]
  12. Evans, V.
    (2010) From the spatial to the non-spatial: the ‘state’ lexical concepts of in, on and at. InV. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space. The state of the art and new directions. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2013) Language and time: A cognitive linguistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107340626
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107340626 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fitzpatrick, R.
    (Ed.) (2008) Euclid’s elements of geometry. Richard Fitzpatrick.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Herskovits, A.
    ([1986] 2009) Language and spatial cognition. An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ho-Abdullah, I.
    (2010) Variety and variability. A corpus-based cognitive lexical-semantics analysis of prepositional usage in British, New Zealand and Malaysian English. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kokorniak, I.
    (2007) English at: an integrated semantic analysis. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2006) Conceptual metaphor: The contemporary theory of metaphor. InD. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., & Schwartz, A.
    (Eds.) (1991) Master metaphor list (2nd ed.). RetrievedJuly 20th, 2016fromaraw.mede.uic.edu/alansz/metaphor/METAPHORLIST.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (1991a) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (1991b) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2000) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (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]
  27. Lindstromberg, S.
    (2010) English Prepositions Explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/z.157
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.157 [Google Scholar]
  28. 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]
  29. Lewis, D.
    (2007) Review of A. Tyler & V. Evans, The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: C.U.P., 2003. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(1), 110–121.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Logan, G. D., & Sadler, D. D.
    (1996) A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations. InP. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Space and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Lyons, J.
    (1995) Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511810213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810213 [Google Scholar]
  32. Murray, J. A. H., Bradley, H., Craigie, W. A. & Onions, C. T.
    (Eds.) (1989) The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. McEnery, T.; & Hardie, A.
    (2012) Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Miller, G.; & Johnson-Laird, P. N.
    (1976) Language and perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674421288
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674421288 [Google Scholar]
  35. Navarro-Ferrando, I.
    (1999) The metaphorical use of on. Journal of English Studies1, 145–164. 10.18172/jes.47
    https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.47 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2000) A cognitive semantic analysis of the English lexical unit in. Cuadernos de Investigación Filológica26, 189–220. 10.18172/cif.2227
    https://doi.org/10.18172/cif.2227 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2002) Towards the description of the meaning of at. InH. Cuyckens & G. Radden (Eds.), Perspectives on prepositions. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 10.1515/9783110924787.211
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110924787.211 [Google Scholar]
  38. Przybylska, R.
    (2002) Polisemia przyimków polskich w świetle semantyki kognitywnej. Kraków: Universitas.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Rudkiewicz, K.
    (2016) Cognitive explorations into the category schema of for. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. I. Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (2003) The representation of spatial structure in spoken and signed language. InK. Emmorey (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign language, 169–195. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Tutton, M.
    (2016) Locative expressions in English and French: A multimodal approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110354867
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110354867 [Google Scholar]
  43. Tyler, A.; & Evans, V.
    (2003) The semantics of English prepositions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486517
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2004) Rethinking English ‘prepositions of movement’: The case of to and through. InH. Cuyckens, W. De Mulder, & T. Mortelmans (Eds.), Adpositions of Movement (Belgian Journal of Linguistics 18), pp.247–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Wittgenstein, L.
    ([1953] 1986) Philosophical investigations. (Translated byG. E. M. Anscombe.) Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Zwarts, J.; & Gärdenfors, P.
    (2016) Locative and Directional Prepositions in Conceptual Spaces: The Role of Polar Convexity. RetrievedDecember 3, 2016fromlink.springer.com/search?query=zwarts+joost

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognitive semantics; conceptual metaphor; spatial prepositions
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