1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Contrasting the semantics of prepositions through a cognitive linguistic approach
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Many studies on cognitive-semantic analysis focus on the patterns of polysemy of prepositions and the explanation of how the multiple senses of prepositions are related in systematic ways. Only a few publications pay attention to the contrastive analysis of prepositions in different languages. The article addresses this gap in research literature and aims: to present a contrastive analysis of the English preposition and its Italian and Russian partial equivalents in order to uncover the main areas of semantic asymmetry between them; to compare patterns of semantic extensions (from spatial to nonspatial senses) of these prepositions, and to determine how the similarities and differences in their spatial senses explain the similarities and differences in their nonspatial senses. The article follows a conceptual metaphor approach. Since most of the conceptual metaphors and metonyms are common cross-linguistically, similarities in patterns of semantic extensions of prepositions can be explained through the conceptual metaphors and metonymies on which these extensions are based. The article also demonstrates how the similarities and differences in spatial senses of the English preposition , Italian , and Russian explain the similarities and differences in their nonspatial senses.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00170.kal
2024-02-02
2024-10-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00170.kal
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Apresjan, Ju
    (1995) Izbrannye trudy. Integral’noe opisanie jazyka i sistemnaja leksikografja [Selected works. An integral description of language and systemic lexicography]. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Astaf’eva, N.
    (1974) Predlogi v russkom jazyke i osobennosti ix upotreblenija [Prepositions in the Russian language and particularities of their use]. Minsk: Vysšaja škola.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bacz, B.
    (2002) On the image-schema proposals for the preposition PO in Polish. Glossos, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Brenda, M., & Mazurkiewicz-Sokołowska, J.
    (2022) A cognitive perspective on spatial prepositions: Intertwining networks. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.74
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.74 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brugman, C., & Lakoff, G.
    (1988) Cognitive topology and lexical networks. InS. Small, G. Cotrell & M. Tannenhaus (Eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution (pp.–). Palo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufman. 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑051013‑2.50022‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-051013-2.50022-7 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cienki, A.
    (1998) Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric expressions. InJ.-P. Koenig (Ed.), Discourse and cognition (pp.–). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Coventry, K., & Garrod, S.
    (2004) Saying, seeing and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. 10.4324/9780203641521
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203641521 [Google Scholar]
  8. Efremova, T. F.
    (2000) Tolkovyj onlajn-slovar’ russkogo jazyka Efremovoj T. F. [Efremova’s online explanatory dictionary of the Russian language]. Accessible onhttps://lexicography.online/explanatory/efremova
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Ètimologičeskij onlajn-slovar’ russkogo jazyka Šanskogo N. M. [Online etymology dictionary Šanskogo N. M.]. (n.d.). Zaviset’. InÈtimologičeskij onlajn-slovar’ russkogo jazyka Šanskogo N. M.RetrievedSeptember 1, 2023, fromhttps://lexicography.online/etymology/shansky
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Falck, M. J.
    (2017) Embodied motivations for abstract in and on constructions. InF. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, A. Luzondo Oyón & P. Pérez Sobrino (Eds.), Constructing families of constructions: Analytical perspectives and theoretical challenges (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.58.03joh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.58.03joh [Google Scholar]
  11. Frenda, A. S.
    (2005) Cross-linguistic comparisons: A case study involving Irish and Italian prepositions. The ITB Journal, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Gak, V. G.
    (1998) Jazykovye Preobrazovanija [Language transformations]. Moskva: Škola. Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Haddadi, M. H., & Tavakoli, A. S.
    (2016) The problems of Iranian language learners in correctly using German prepositions. Asian Social Science, (), –. 10.5539/ass.v12n6p156
     https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v12n6p156 [Google Scholar]
  14. Herskovits, A.
    (1986) Language and spatial cognition. An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Jackendoff, R., & Landau, B.
    (1991) Spatial language and spatial cognition. InD. J. Napoli & J. Kegl (Eds.), Bridges between psychology and language: A Swarthmore Festschrift for Lila Gleitman (pp.–). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in mind. Chicago: University of Chicago press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2007) The meaning of the body. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226026992.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226026992.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kamakura, Y.
    (2011) Collocation and preposition sense: A phraseological approach to the cognition of polysemy. Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham.
  19. Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
    (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kövecses, Z.
    (2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195145113.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195145113.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kranjec, A., Cardillo, E., Schmidt, G., & Chatterjee, A.
    (2010) Prescribed spatial prepositions influence how we think about time. Cognition, (), –. RetrievedNovember 21, 2022, fromhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2783920
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Krivošeeva, I.
    (1999) Strukturnye sxemy russkogo prostogo predloženija s glagolami èmocional’noj dejatel’nosti. Avtoref. dis. .. kand. filol. nauk. [Structural schemas of the Russian simple sentence with verbs of emotional activity. Doctoral dissertation] Voronež: Voronežskij gosudarstvennyj universitet.
  23. Kustova, G.
    (2001) Semantičeskaja set’ predloga NA [The semantic web of the preposition NA]. G. Kustova (Ed.), Trudy Meždunarodnogo seminara «Dialog 2001» po komp’juternoj lingvistike i eё priloženijam (pp.–). Moskva: Nauka. RetrievedOctober 11, 2023, fromhttps://www.dialog-21.ru/digest/2001/articles/kustova/
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories can 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]
  26. Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., & Schwartz, A.
    (1991) Master Metaphor List (second draft copy). RetrievedSeptember 1, 2023, fromaraw.mede.uic.edu/~alansz/metaphor/METAPHORLIST.pdf
  27. Langacker, R.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Lindstromberg, S.
    (2010) English prepositions explained. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.157
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.157 [Google Scholar]
  29. Luraghi, S.
    (2003) On the meaning of prepositions and cases: The expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.67
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.67 [Google Scholar]
  30. Mal’ceva, O. L.
    (2007) Sopostavitel’nyj analiz semantiki predlogov nemeckogo i russkogo jazykov [Comparative analysis of the semantics of prepositions of the German and Russian languages]. Teorija jazyka i mežkul’turnaja kommunikacija, (), –. RetrievedSeptember 1, 2023, fromhttps://api-mag.kursksu.ru/media/pdf/002-05.pdfhttps://api-mag.kursksu.ru/media/pdf/002-05.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Malinowska, M.
    (2005) Il ruolo degli schemi iconici (parte-tutto, percorso, punto iniziale, contenitore, supporto e contiguità) nella semantica preposizionale in italiano [The role of the iconic schemas (total-part, path, initial point, container, support and contiguity) in the prepositional semantics in Italian]. Kraków: Romanica Cracoviensia: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiello´nskiego.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Mori, S.
    (2019) A cognitive analysis of the preposition OVER: Image-schema transformations and metaphorical extensions. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, (), –. 10.1017/cnj.2018.43
     https://doi.org/10.1017/cnj.2018.43 [Google Scholar]
  33. Morras Cortés, J. A., & Wen, X.
    (2021) Unweaving the embodied nature of English temporal prepositions: The case of at. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, (), –. 10.1075/cogls.00066.mor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00066.mor [Google Scholar]
  34. Mueller, C.
    (2016) A semantic account of the English preposition FOR based on a cognitive linguistics framework. The Bulletin of the Faculty of Humanities, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Muljukina, L.
    (2007) Osobennosti transpozicii francuzskix predlogov [Peculiarities of the transposition of French prepositions]. Vestnik Čeljabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Nacional’nyj korpus russkogo jazyka [National Russian Corpus] (2003–2023) Accessible onruscorpora.ru
  37. Navarro i Ferrando, I.
    (1999) The metaphorical use of ‘on.’ Journal of English Studies, , –. 10.18172/jes.47
     https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.47 [Google Scholar]
  38. Online Etymology Dictionary
    Online Etymology Dictionary. (n.d.). Lie, *dhe-, influence, *per-, depend. InOnline Etymology Dictionary. RetrievedSeptember 1, 2023, fromwww.etymonline.com
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Dictionary, O. E.
    (Ed.) (2015) Oxford English dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Paliczuk, A.
    (2020) A cognitive approach to teaching Italian prepositions to Polish students. InG. Drożdż & B. Taraszka-Drożdż (Eds.), Foreign language pedagogy in the light of cognitive linguistics research (pp.–). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑58775‑8_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58775-8_6 [Google Scholar]
  41. Reddy, M.
    (1993) The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.–). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.012
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.012 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sandra, D., & Rice, S.
    (1995) Network analyses of prepositional meaning: mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s?Cognitive Linguistics, , –. 10.1515/cogl.1995.6.1.89
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1995.6.1.89 [Google Scholar]
  43. Sandra, D.
    (1998) What linguists can and can’t tell you about the human mind: A reply to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics, , –. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.4.361
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.4.361 [Google Scholar]
  44. Seliverstova, O.
    (2000) Semantičeskaja struktura predloga na [The semantic structure of the preposition na]. InO. Seliverstova (Ed.) Issledovanija po semantike predlogov (pp.–). Moscow: Russkie slovari.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Šeškauskienė, I., & Žilinskaitė-Šinkūnienė, E.
    (2015) On the polysemy of the Lithuanian UŽ. A cognitive perspective. Baltic international yearbook of cognition, logic and communication, (), –. 10.4148/1944‑3676.1101
     https://doi.org/10.4148/1944-3676.1101 [Google Scholar]
  46. Talmy, L.
    (1983) How language structures space. InSpatial orientation: Theory, research, and application (pp.–). Boston, MA: Springer US. 10.1007/978‑1‑4615‑9325‑6_11
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9325-6_11 [Google Scholar]
  47. Taylor, J. R.
    (1988) Contrasting prepositional categories: English and Italian. Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, , –. 10.1075/cilt.50.12tay
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.12tay [Google Scholar]
  48. Tchizmarova, I.
    (2012) A cognitive analysis of the Bulgarian prepositions and verbal prefixes NAD and POD. Jazykoslovje, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Treccani Online Dictionary
    Treccani Online Dictionary. (n.d.). Influenza. InTreccani Online Dictionary. RetrievedOctober 22, 2023, fromhttps://www.treccani.it/vocabolario
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 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]
  51. Van Oosten, J.
    (1977) On defining prepositions. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, , –. 10.3765/bls.v3i0.2251
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v3i0.2251 [Google Scholar]
  52. Vandeloise, C.
    (1991) Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Vinogradov, V.
    (1999) Istorija slov [History of words]. Moskva: RAN. RetrievedFebruary 14, 2023, fromhttps://azbyka.ru/otechnik/books/original/16377-История-слов.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Vladimirova, L., & Vlasova, A.
    (2013) Russkie prostranstvennye predlogi v ispanojazyčnoj auditorii [Russian spatial prepositions in a Spanish speaking classroom]. InN. Čujkina (Ed.) Russkij jazyk segodnja: Aktual’nye voprosy teorii i ix metodičeskaja interpretacija (pp.–). Tallin: Tallin University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Wang, C.
    (2020) Implicit cognitive meanings of the spatial prepositions in, on, and at in English. International Journal of Linguistics and Translation Studies, (), –. 10.36892/ijlts.v1i2.33
     https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlts.v1i2.33 [Google Scholar]
  56. Xoružaja, Ju
    (2007) Semantičeskie funkcii prostranstvennyx i vremennyx predlogov v nemeckom i russkom jazykax. Avtoref. dis. … kand. filol. Nauk [Semantic functions of prepositions of space and time in the German and Russian languages. Doctoral dissertation]. Krasnodar: Kubanskij gos. un-t.
  57. Zingarelli, N.
    (2004) Su. InLo Zingarelli. Vocabolario della lingua italiana (12th edition, p.). Bologna: Zanichelli.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00170.kal
Loading
Contrasting the semantics of prepositions through a cognitive linguistic approach
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00170.kal
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00170.kal
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00170.kal
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: Italian s ; English on ; semantics ; patterns of polysemy ; prepositions ; cognitive linguistics ; Russian na

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