Volume 15, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


The present study investigates the semantic structure of the word assuming that its distinct senses form a semantic network with a prototypical spatial sense at the center and various extended senses at different distances away from the prototype. In order to explain the extensions of , the cognitive notions of construal, image schema transformation, metaphor and metonymy are taken into consideration. The conceptual blending theory is used to explain the semantic structure of the complex preposition . The research reveals that the word functions as a preposition (also a part of the complex preposition ), an adverb, an adjective and a verb, and that its semantic structure is best viewed as a continuum encoding both lexical and grammatical information. At the same time, the analysis shows that the polysemy of is rather impoverished when compared to the polysemies of other spatial prepositions, such as or .


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Burigo, M. , & Coventry, K.
    (2010) Context affects scale selection for proximity terms. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 10, 292–312. doi: 10.1080/13875861003797719
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13875861003797719 [Google Scholar]
  2. British National Corpus
    British National Corpus . RetrievedJune 21, 2014fromwww.natcorp.ox.ac.uk.
  3. Brenda, M.
    (2014) The cognitive perspective on the polysemy of the English spatial preposition over. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brugman, C.
    (1988) The story of over: Polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Clausner, T. C. , & Croft, W.
    (1999) Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics10, 1–31. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1999.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1999.001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Coventry, K. R. , & Garrod, S. C.
    (2004) Saying, seeing and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions essays in cognitive psychology. Hove: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cruse, A. D.
    (2000) Aspects of the micro-structure of word meanings. In Y. Ravin & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches (pp.31–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cuyckens, H.
    (1993) The Dutch spatial preposition in: A cognitive-semantic analysis. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.). The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (pp.27–72). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110872576.27
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110872576.27 [Google Scholar]
  9. Deane, P.
    (2005) Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of over . In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp.35–56). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197532.3.235
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.3.235 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dirven, R. (1993) Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English prepositions. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (pp.73–97). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110872576.73
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110872576.73 [Google Scholar]
  11. Evans, V.
    (2013) Language and time: A cognitive linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107340626
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107340626 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fauconnier, G. , & Turner, M.
    (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2004) Rethinking metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.53–66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Grady, J. E.
    (2005) Image schemas and perception: Refining a definition. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp.35–56). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197532.1.35
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hagège, C.
    (2010) Adpositions: Function-marking in human languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575008.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575008.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Herskovits, A.
    (1986) Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. Huddleston, R. , & Pullum, G.
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2005) A student’s introduction to English grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511815515
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815515 [Google Scholar]
  20. Jespersen, O.
    (1951[1924]) Philosophy of grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kokorniak, I.
    (2007) English at: An integrated semantic analysis. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lakoff, G. , & Turner, M.
    (1989) More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2000) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2013) Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Lindstromberg, S.
    (2010) English prepositions explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.157
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.157 [Google Scholar]
  32. Logan, G. D. , & Sadler, D. D.
    (1996) A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations. In P. Bloom , M. A. Peterson , L. Nadel , & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Space and language (pp.493–529). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lundskær-Nielsen, T.
    (1993) Prepositions in Old and Middle English. Gylling: Odense University Press. doi: 10.1075/nss.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/nss.9 [Google Scholar]
  34. Malt, B. C. , & Wolff, P.
    (Eds.) (2010) Words in the mind: How words capture human experience. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311129.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311129.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Miller, G. A. , & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976) Language and perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.4159/harvard.9780674421288
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674421288 [Google Scholar]
  36. Murray, J. A. H. , Bradley, H. , Craigie, W. A. , & Onions, C. T.
    (Eds.) (1989) The Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Navarro-Ferrando, I.
    (1999) The metaphorical use of on . Journal of English Studies, 1, 145–164.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (2000) A cognitive semantic analysis of the English lexical unit in . Cuadernos de Investigación Filológica, 26, 189–220. doi: 10.18172/cif.2227
    https://doi.org/10.18172/cif.2227 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2002) Towards the description of the meaning of at . In H. Cuyckens & G. Radden (Eds.), Perspectives on prepositions (pp.211–230). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. doi: 10.1515/9783110924787.211
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110924787.211 [Google Scholar]
  40. Quirk, R. , Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. , & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Radden, G. , & Dirven, R.
    (2007[1998]) Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/clip.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2 [Google Scholar]
  42. Radden, G. , & Kövecses, Z.
    (2007[1998]) Towards a theory of metonymy. In V. Evans , B. K. Bergen , & J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive linguistics reader (pp.335–359). London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Saussure, de F.
    (1959[1916]) Course in general linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Svorou, S.
    (1994) The grammar of space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.25
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.25 [Google Scholar]
  45. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Traugott, E.
    (1988) Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. In S. Axmaker , A. Jaisser , & H. Singmaster (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp.406–416). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Tyler, A. , & Evans, V.
    (2003) The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial senses, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486517
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognitive linguistics; semantics; 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