1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Volume 21, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 21, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The present study aims to investigate the semantic value of the German spatial preposition (‘beyond’). It is argued that our conceptualization of the spatial-physical world and how we interact with objects in our environment transforms a prepositions’ primary meaning into domains of meaning that are tied to time or social interactions. While the study of the semantic structure of English prepositions has received attention, German prepositions, particularly less frequently used ones such as (‘behind’) or , present a gap in research. It is attempted to show that the different senses of form a semantic network in which meaning extensions of the spatial, primary sense of are motivated by varying construal patterns imposed upon an observed scene. The description of the semantic structure of also draws on previous studies on its English counterpart, (Boers, 1996Lindstromberg, 2010). Based on the sample collected for the purpose of this study, this paper analyzes 1000 occurrences of the preposition in the DWDS-subcorpus . The analysis shows that a high frequency of the occurrences found in the sample constitute non-spatial meanings of and thus encode a configuration between objects in more abstract domains. Furthermore, the notion of metaphorical mapping is used to explain the conceptualization and metaphorical transfer of spatial to abstract domains of human experience.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00146.ker
2023-04-03
2025-06-23

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00146.ker
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arnett, C., & Deifel, K.
    (2015) Two-way prepositions and L2 Students of German. InK. Masuda, C. Arnett & A. Labarca (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and sociocultural theory: Applications for second and foreign language teaching (pp.183–201). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781614514442‑010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614514442-010 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bellavia, E.
    (1996) The German über. InM. Pütz & R. Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (pp.73–107). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110821611.73
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821611.73 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bender, A., Bennardo, G., & Beller, S.
    (2005) Spatial frames of reference for temporal relations: A conceptual analysis in English, German, and Tongan. InB. G. Bara, L. Barsalou & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.220–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergen, B.
    (2012) Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York, NY: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Boers, F.
    (1996) Spatial prepositions and metaphor. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M.
    (1998) A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. ELT journal, 53(3), 197–204. 10.1093/elt/52.3.197
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/52.3.197 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brugman, C.
    (1981) The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohen, J.
    (1968) Weighed kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70(4), 213–220. 10.1037/h0026256
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026256 [Google Scholar]
  9. Coventry, K. R.
    (2015) Space. InE. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.489–507). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110292022‑024
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-024 [Google Scholar]
  10. Croft, W., & Cruse, A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dabrowska, E.
    (2016) Cognitive Linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 479–491. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0059
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0059 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dewell, R.
    (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]
  13. Evans, V.
    (2005) The meaning of time: polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics, 41(1), 33–75. 10.1017/S0022226704003056
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226704003056 [Google Scholar]
  14. Evans, V., & Green, M.
    (2006) Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Geeraerts, D., Dirven, R., & Taylor, J. R.
    (Eds.) (2006) Cognitive Linguistics: Basic readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199901
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199901 [Google Scholar]
  16. Glynn, D.
    (2010) Corpus-driven Cognitive Semantics: Introduction to the field. InD. Glynn & K. Fischer, Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics. Corpus-Driven Approaches (pp.1–45). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226423.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423.1 [Google Scholar]
  17. Grady, J.
    (1997) Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
  18. (2005) Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics, 371, 1595–1614. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.012 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gries, S. Th
    (2015) Polysemy. InE. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.472–490). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110292022‑023
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-023 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hampe, B.
    (2005) Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics: Introduction. InJ. E. Grady & B. Hampe (2005), From perception to meaning. Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.1–14), Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.0.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.0.1 [Google Scholar]
  21. Herskovits, A.
    (1986) Language and spatial cognition. An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Print.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning. Imagination, and reason. University of Chicago. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kalisz, R.
    (1990) A cognitive approach to spatial terms represented by in front of and behind in English, and their metaphorical extensions. InB. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & J. Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Meaning and lexicography (pp.167–180). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/llsee.28.17kal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/llsee.28.17kal [Google Scholar]
  24. Kermer, F.
    (2021) Semantic network of the German preposition hinter. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 19(2), 403–428. 10.1075/rcl.00089.ker
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00089.ker [Google Scholar]
  25. 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]
  26. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Conceptual metaphor in everyday language. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(8), 453–486. 10.2307/2025464
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2025464 [Google Scholar]
  27. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. (1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. (1993) Reference-Point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 41, 1–38. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  31. (1996) Viewing in cognition and grammar. InP. W. Davis (Ed.), Alternative linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical modes (pp.153–212). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.102.06lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.102.06lan [Google Scholar]
  32. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2009) Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin & Amsterdam: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214369
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
  34. Liamkina, O.
    (2007) Semantic structure of the German Spatial Particle über. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 19(2), 115–160. 10.1017/S1470542707000050
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542707000050 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lindstromberg, S.
    (2010) English prepositions explained (Revised ed.). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.157
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.157 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2020) An update on frequent English spatial prepositions: Are they monosemic, polysemic, or something else?CitetononCRdoi:10.13140/RG.2.2.15423.87204
     https://doi.org/Cite to nonCR doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15423.87204 [Google Scholar]
  37. Mandler, J.
    (2004) The foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thought. USA: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311839.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311839.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Meex, B.
    (2002) Die Wegpreposition über. InH. Cuyckens & G. Radden, Perspectives on prepositions (pp.157–176). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110924787.157
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110924787.157 [Google Scholar]
  39. Nüse, R.
    (2007) Der Gebrauch und die Bedeutungen von auf, an und unter. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 35(1), 27–51. 10.1515/ZGL.2007.003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ZGL.2007.003 [Google Scholar]
  40. Pütz, D., & Dirven, R.
    (Eds.) (1996) The construal of space in language and thought. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110821611
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821611 [Google Scholar]
  41. 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]
  42. Rosch, E.
    (1975) Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 1041, 192–233. 10.1037/0096‑3445.104.3.192
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192 [Google Scholar]
  43. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. I. Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. (2007) Attention phenomena. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.264–293). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 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]
  46. Tenbrink, T.
    (2020) Cognitive discourse analysis. An introduction. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108525176
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108525176 [Google Scholar]
  47. Turewicz, K.
    (2004) Understanding prepositions through cognitive grammar. A case of IN. InK. Turewicz, Cognitive Linguistics – a user friendly approach (pp.100–126). Szczecin: Szczecin University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
    (2001) Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 771, 724–765. 10.1353/lan.2001.0250
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0250 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2003) Spatial scenes: A cognitive approach to English prepositions and the experiential basis of meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Vandelanotte, L., & Dancygier, B.
    (2017) Multimodal artefacts and the texture of viewpoint. Journal of Pragmatics, 1221, 1–9. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.011 [Google Scholar]
  51. Wunderlich
    Wunderlich (1985) Raum, Zeit und das Lexikon. InSchweizer, H. (Ed.) Psychologische und linguistische Aspekte der Aneignung und Verarbeitung von Räumlichkeit (pp.66–89) Stuttgart: Metzler.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Wunderlich, D.
    (1993) On German UM: semantic and conceptual aspects. Linguistics, 31(1), 111–133. 10.1515/ling.1993.31.1.111
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1993.31.1.111 [Google Scholar]
  53. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C.
    (1993) Introduction. InC. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (pp.1–24). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110872576.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110872576.1 [Google Scholar]
  54. Zlatev, J.
    (2007) Spatial semantics. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.318–350). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00146.ker
Loading
The semantic mapping of the German spatial preposition JENSEITS
Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association 21, 515 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00146.ker
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00146.ker
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00146.ker
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): German; meaning extension; metaphorical mapping; prepositions; trajector-landmark relation

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