image of Metaphorical and non-metaphorical meaning from spatial relations



Speakers regularly use their experiences of spatial relations to construe linguistic meaning in metaphorical and non-metaphorical ways. Still, we have yet to identify the meaning-bearing functions that different spatial relations commonly serve. This paper focuses on into relations. Using data from the Corpus of Contemporary American English, we apply an Embodied Scenes approach to identify the categories of concepts that are regularly construed with ‘into relations’ and the actions that are commonly involved. More generally, we aim to show how spatial metaphors can be systematically studied by investigating the collocates of prepositions and prepositional constructions.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Adıgüzel, M. F.
    (2020) Metaphoric conceptualization of love pain or suffering in Turkish songs through natural phenomena and natural disasters. Metaphor and Symbol, (), –. 10.1080/10926488.2020.1712784
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2020.1712784 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahlberg, D. K., Bischoff, H., Strozyk, J. V., Bryant, D., & Kaup, B.
    (2018) How do German bilingual schoolchildren process German prepositions? – A study on language-motor interactions. PloS One, (), –. 10.1371/journal.pone.0193349
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193349 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baczkowska, A.
    (2011) Space, time and language: A cognitive analysis of English prepositions. Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kazimireza Wielkiego.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barsalou, L. W.
    (2008) Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, (), –. 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beitel, D., Gibbs, R., & Sanders, P.
    (2001) The embodied approach to the polysemy of the spatial preposition on. InH. Cuyckens & B. E. Zawada (Eds.), Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.177.11bei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.177.11bei [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergen, B. K.
    (2012) Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York, NY: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Björklund, J., & Johansson Falck, M.
    (2019) How spatial relations structure linguistic meaning. Proceedings of the 15th SweCog Conference (pp.–). Skövde: University of Skövde.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brugman, C.
    (1981) The story of over. [Master’s thesis]. University of California, Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Church, K. W., & Hanks, P.
    (1990) Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics, (), –.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Davies, M.
    (2008–2019) COCA. Corpus of Contemporary American English.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gibbs, R.
    (2006) Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511805844
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805844 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2022) Metaphorical experience: Contiguity or cross-domain mappings?Review of Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/rcl.00099.gib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00099.gib [Google Scholar]
  13. Gibbs, R., & Matlock, T.
    (2008) Metaphor, imagination, and simulation: Psycholinguistic evidence. InR. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.–). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.011
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.011 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gärdenfors, P.
    (2014) The Geometry of meaning: Semantics based on conceptual spaces. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9629.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9629.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Herskovits, A.
    (1986/2009) Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of prepositions in English (Vol.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hilpert, M.
    (2019) Construction grammar and its application to English (Second ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9781474433624
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474433624 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Johansson Falck, M.
    (2017) Embodied motivations for abstract in and on constructions. InF. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, A. Luzondo Oyón, & P. Pérez Sobriño (Eds.), Constructing families of constructions: Analytical perspectives and theoretical challenges (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.58.03joh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.58.03joh [Google Scholar]
  19. (2018) From ecological cognition to language: When and why do speakers use words metaphorically?Metaphor and Symbol, (), –. 10.1080/10926488.2018.1434937
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1434937 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2023) Lexico-encyclopedic conceptual (LEC) metaphors. InT. L. Fuyin (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive semantics. Amsterdam: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Johansson Falck, M., & Gibbs, R.
    (2012) Embodied motivations for metaphorical meanings. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0008 [Google Scholar]
  22. Johansson Falck, M., & Okonski, L.
    (2022) Procedure for identifying metaphorical scenes (PIMS): A Cognitive Linguistics approach to bridge theory and practice. Cognitive Semantics, , –. 10.1163/23526416‑bja10031
    https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-bja10031 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2023) Procedure for identifying metaphorical scenes (PIMS): The case of spatial and abstract relations. Metaphor and Symbol, (), –. 10.1080/10926488.2022.2062243
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2022.2062243 [Google Scholar]
  24. (in preparation). From concrete to abstract and back again.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 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]
  26. Kennedy, G.
    (1991) Between and through: The company they keep and the functions they serve. InK. Aijmer, B. Altenberg & J. Svartvik (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in honour of Jan Svartvik (pp.–). London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kessler, K., & Rutherford, H.
    (2010) The two forms of visuo-spatial perspective taking are differently embodied and subserve different spatial prepositions. Frontiers in Psychology, , . 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00213
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00213 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kövecses, Z.
    (2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  29. 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]
  30. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980/2008) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2002) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lindstromberg, S.
    (2010) English prepositions explained (Rev. ed.). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.157
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.157 [Google Scholar]
  34. Liu, D.
    (2013) Salience and construal in the use of synonymy: A study of two sets of near-synonymous nouns. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2013‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0003 [Google Scholar]
  35. Okonski, L., & M. Johansson Falck
    . (manuscript accepted for publication). The effect of the embodied scenes approach to preposition learning with PrepApp. Cognitive Linguistic Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Peña-Cervel, S.
    (2004) The image-schematic basis of the EVENT STRUCTURE metaphor. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, , –. 10.1075/arcl.2.05pen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.2.05pen [Google Scholar]
  37. Reddy, M.
    (1979/1993) The conduit metaphor: a case of frame conflict in our language about language. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Pérez-Hérnandez, L.
    (2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, (), –. 10.1080/10926488.2011.583189
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583189 [Google Scholar]
  39. Team, R. C.
    (2022) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved fromhttps://www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 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]
  41. Webster, M.
    (Ed.) (2022) Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (Vols. 2006).
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Winter, B.
    (2020) Statistics for linguists: An introduction using R. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: Embodied Scenes approach ; collocations ; into ; spatial metaphors ; spatial relations
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