The Cognitive Perspective on the Polysemy
of the English Spatial Preposition Over
The Cognitive Perspective on the Polysemy
of the English Spatial Preposition Over
By
Maria Brenda
The Cognitive Perspective on the Polysemy of the English Spatial Preposition Over
By Maria Brenda
This book first published 2014
Cambridge Scholars Publishing
12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Copyright © 2014 by Maria Brenda
All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
ISBN (10): 1-4438-6047-6, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-6047-5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ........................................................................................... viii
List of Figures............................................................................................ ix
Acknowledgements .................................................................................. xii
Introduction ............................................................................................. xiii
Chapter One ................................................................................................ 1
A Conceptual Approach to Language ......................................................... 1
1.1. Psychological foundations of language .......................................... 1
1.1.1. Human visual perception ....................................................... 1
1.1.2. Knowledge and imagery ........................................................ 7
1.2. Cognitive foundations of language .............................................. 10
1.2.1. Embodied experience .......................................................... 10
1.2.2. Organization of conceptual structure ................................... 16
1.2.3. Trajector and landmark ........................................................ 35
1.3. Emergent meaning ....................................................................... 36
1.3.1. Knowledge representations and meaning in language......... 36
1.3.2. Usage and frequency ........................................................... 43
1.3.3. Meaning construction .......................................................... 45
1.4. Summary ...................................................................................... 58
Chapter Two ............................................................................................. 59
The Grammar of Prepositions
2.1. The morphology of prepositions .................................................. 59
2.1.1. Simple prepositions ............................................................. 62
2.1.2. Complex prepositions .......................................................... 63
2.1.3. Compound prepositions....................................................... 64
2.1.4. Overlap between prepositions and other word classes ........ 65
2.1.5. The morphology of the preposition over ............................. 69
2.2. The syntax of prepositions ........................................................... 72
2.2.1. Complements of prepositions .............................................. 73
2.2.2. Syntactic function of prepositional phrases ......................... 75
2.2.3. Modifiers ............................................................................. 79
vi
Table of Contents
2.2.4. Syntactic differences between prepositions and other
speech parts ............................................................................. 80
2.2.5. Stranded (deferred) prepositions ......................................... 92
2.2.6. Phrasal and prepositional verbs ........................................... 95
2.3. Syntactic features of the preposition over .................................. 101
2.3.1. Complements of the preposition over................................ 101
2.3.2. Syntactic functions of prepositional phrases headed
by the preposition over .......................................................... 103
2.3.3. Syntactic differences between the preposition over
and other word classes ........................................................... 104
2.3.4. Stranded preposition over .................................................. 108
2.4. Syntactic properties of the preposition over–labelled tree
diagrams ...................................................................................... 109
2.5. Summary .................................................................................... 138
Chapter Three ......................................................................................... 140
Semantic and Prototypical Aspects of the English Preposition Over
3.1. Etymology of over ..................................................................... 140
3.2. Evolution of over ....................................................................... 149
3.3. The senses of the preposition over ............................................. 153
3.3.1. The primary sense of over ................................................. 154
3.3.2. The A-B-C Trajectory Cluster ........................................... 157
3.3.3. The Covering Sense........................................................... 180
3.3.4. The Examining Sense ........................................................ 183
3.3.5. The vertical elevation or Up Cluster.................................. 187
3.3.6. The Reflexive Sense .......................................................... 196
3.4. Geometric relations of the preposition over ............................... 201
3.4.1. Range of geometries of the TR and the LM ...................... 204
3.4.2. Asymmetry of LM ............................................................. 210
3.4.3. Secondary Reference Objects and Frames of Reference ... 211
3.4.4. Perspective Point ............................................................... 217
3.4.5. Distribution of Attention ................................................... 220
3.4.6. Force Dynamics................................................................. 223
3.4.7. Fundamental Categories of Spatial Structure .................... 224
3.5. Functional relations of the preposition over............................... 230
3.6. Summary .................................................................................... 238
Conclusion .............................................................................................. 239
The Polysemy of Over
vii
Appendix A: The List of Sentences and Phrases Discussed ................... 246
Appendix B: List of Abbreviations ......................................................... 260
Appendix C: Abbreviations and Bibliography for Section 3.1 ............... 261
Appendix D: Database of the Preposition Over...................................... 265
Sentences employing the preposition over ........................................ 265
Compounds with the preposition over .............................................. 284
Bibliography ........................................................................................... 286
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Complex vs. simple prepositions .............................................. 64
Table 2-2 Prepositions and prepositional phrases vs. adverbs .................. 91
Table 3-1 The evolution of over ............................................................. 149
Table 3-2 The English preposition over and its Polish equivalents ........ 178
Table 3-3 The English compounds with over and the Polish
equivalents ...................................................................................... 192
Table 3-4 English–Polish comparison of the Reflexive Sense................ 198
Table 3-5 Expression of the Reflexive Sense in English and Polish....... 199
Table 3-6 Geometries of the TR and the LM .......................................... 205
Table 3-7 Asymmetry of LM geometries, secondary reference objects
and frames of reference in the preposition over.............................. 213
Table 3-8 Perspective point, distribution of attention and force dynamics
in reference to the preposition over ................................................ 218
Table 3-9 Categories pertaining to individual scene components ........... 225
Table 3-10 Categories pertaining to the relation of one scene component
to another ........................................................................................ 228
Table 3-11 Nongeometric Categories ..................................................... 230
Table 3-12 Functional elements of the preposition over ......................... 233
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig.1-1 Principle of symmetry .................................................................... 4
Fig.1-2 Principle of proximity .................................................................... 4
Fig.1-3 Principle of similarity .................................................................... 4
Fig.1-4 Principle of closure ........................................................................ 4
Fig.1-5 Principle of continuity.................................................................... 4
Fig.1-6 Principle of smallness .................................................................... 4
Fig.1-7 Principle of convexity .................................................................... 4
Fig.1-8 The standing jug–the handle is on the right side of the visual
field; the jug turned to its side–the handle is on the left side
of the visual field (adapted from Parkin 2002) ................................... 6
Fig.1-9 The modified version of Tyler and Evans’ (2003:80) semantic
network for over ............................................................................... 28
Fig.1-10 Partial primary cognitive model profile for [BEAUTIFUL] ...... 54
Fig.1-11 Partial primary cognitive model profile for [COUNTRY] ......... 54
Fig.1-12 Partial primary cognitive model profile for [FRANCE] ............ 55
Fig.2-1 The structure of over the hill ...................................................... 110
Fig.2-2 The structure of I can’t get over what he did to me.....................111
Fig.2-3 The structure of He was thinking over signing a peace treaty ... 112
Fig.2-4 The structure of They were talking over her arrival .................. 113
Fig.2-5 The structure of Pass it over to me............................................. 114
Fig.2-6 The structure of They pass it over from cell to cell .................... 114
Fig.2-7 The structure of Julian smirked at him from over the table ....... 115
Fig.2-8 The structure of The man over the table keeps staring at us ...... 116
Fig.2-9 The structure of The old man lives over the street ..................... 116
Fig.2-10 The structure of Moreover she specializes in counselling ........ 117
Fig.2-11 The structure of He was looking over the papers ..................... 117
Fig.2-12 The structure of US enthusiastic over investment ties .............. 118
Fig.2-13 The structure of Over the weekend would be good timing ....... 118
Fig.2-14 The structure of He is not over-the-hill yet .............................. 119
Fig.2-15 The structure of Over the lake, the sailor saw a storm cloud... 119
Fig.2-16 The structure of The lamp hung right over the table ................ 120
Fig.2-17 The structure of Two high narrow towers rose over the trees .. 120
Fig.2-18 The structure of All our men are overboard ............................. 121
Fig.2-19 The structure of They are running all over the ship ................. 121
Fig.2-20 The structure of More rain is expected over the next week ...... 122
x
List of Figures
Fig.2-21 The structure of The skies clouded over ................................... 123
Fig.2-22 The structure of She smoothed over the hair ............................ 123
Fig.2-23 The structure of She smoothed the hair over ............................ 124
Fig.2-24 The structure of She puzzled indefinitely over such questions . 125
Fig.2-25 The structure of I simply couldn’t get it over the bridge .......... 125
Fig.2-26 The structure of I went over to my sister’s house ..................... 126
Fig.2-27 The structure of Get it over with with two adverbial particles . 127
Fig.2-28 The structure of Get it over with with an adverbial particle
and a preposition without a complement ........................................ 127
Fig.2-29 The structure of New gadgets he really gets enthusiastic over 128
Fig.2-30 The structure of What are you crying over? ............................. 129
Fig.2-31 The structure of What new gadgets people get enthusiastic
over! ............................................................................................... 129
Fig.2-32 The structure of This is the one which I was thinking over ...... 130
Fig.2-33 The structure of This is the one that I tripped over .................. 131
Fig.2-34 The structure of Jane was enthusing over the same dress
I was enthusing over ....................................................................... 131
Fig.2-35 The structure of Here are a few remarks for you to think over 132
Fig.2-36 The structure of He is not to be pushed over............................ 133
Fig.2-37 The structure of I don’t understand what you are thinking
over ................................................................................................. 134
Fig.2-38 The structure of They cannot agree on whose house to stay
over ................................................................................................. 134
Fig.2-39 The structure of This is the pot which boiled over ................... 135
Fig.2-40 The structure of From over which table did you smirk at him? 136
Fig.2-41 The structure of the two elements I tripped over and over
which obstacle ................................................................................ 136
Fig.2-42 The structure of To the left is the table over which the lamp
does not work.................................................................................. 137
Fig.2-43 The structure of Over which table are the swallows circling ... 138
Fig.3-1 Primary sense of over (Tyler and Evans 2003:66) ..................... 155
Fig.3-2 The projection of the TR onto the LM ....................................... 156
Fig.3-3 A-B-C Trajectory Cluster (Tyler and Evans 2003:71)................ 157
Fig.3-4 Schematization of sentences (227) through (229), the TR
in point C ........................................................................................ 159
Fig.3-5 Schematization of sentences (230) through (232), the TR
in point B ........................................................................................ 159
Fig.3-6 Schematization of sentences (233), (235) and (237), the TR
in point A ........................................................................................ 159
Fig.3-7 Schematization of sentences (234), (236) and (238), the TR
in point B ........................................................................................ 160
The Polysemy of Over
xi
Fig.3-8 Schematization of (240) ............................................................. 160
Fig.3-9 Schematization of Chłopiec przeskoczył nad płotem ................. 161
Fig.3-10 The Next-to usage .................................................................... 162
Fig.3-11 The On-the-other-side-of Sense (Tyler and Evans 2003:81) .... 163
Fig.3-12 Schematization of sentence (253) ............................................ 165
Fig.3-13 The Above-and-beyond (Excess I) Sense (Tyler and Evans
2003:84).......................................................................................... 167
Fig.3-14 The Above-and-beyond (Excess I) Sense with the vantage
point on “this” side of the LM ........................................................ 168
Fig.3-15 The Above-and-beyond (Excess I) Sense with the vantage
point on “the other” side of the LM ................................................ 168
Fig.3-16 The nonspatial aspect of the Above-and-beyond (Excess I)
Sense of the preposition over.......................................................... 169
Fig.3-17 The Completion Sense (Tyler and Evans 2003:86) .................. 170
Fig.3-18 The Transfer Sense (Tyler and Evans 2003:87) ....................... 173
Fig.3-19 The Transfer Sense–no obstacle for the TR to overcome
and different trajectory shapes ........................................................ 173
Fig.3-20 The Temporal Sense (Tyler and Evans 2003:89)...................... 175
Fig.3-21 The Covering Sense (Tyler and Evans 2003:91) ...................... 180
Fig.3-22 The Examining Sense (Tyler and Evans 2003:94) ................... 184
Fig.3-23 The Focus-of-attention Sense (Tyler and Evans 2003:96) ....... 185
Fig.3-24 The Up Cluster (Tyler and Evans 2003:96).............................. 187
Fig.3-25 The More Sense ....................................................................... 188
Fig.3-26 The Over-and-above (Excess II) Sense .................................... 190
Fig.3-27 The Control Sense (Tyler and Evans 2003:102)....................... 193
Fig.3-28 The Attracting-attention usage ................................................. 194
Fig.3-29 The Preference Sense (Tyler and Evans 2003:103) .................. 195
Fig.3-30 The Reflexive Sense (Tyler and Evans 2003:104) ................... 196
Fig.3-31 The Reflexive Sense indicating circular movement ................. 197
Fig.3-32 The Repetition Sense (Tyler and Evans 2003:105) .................. 200
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to those who gave me the opportunity to
complete this book. First and foremost, I am indebted to my mentor
Prof. Olga Molchanova, the University of Szczecin, for her constant guidance, advice, inspiration and motivation. I have benefited from numerous
discussions for which she was always available. I would also like to
acknowledge Prof. Ewa Komorowska, the University of Szczecin, for her
support with the administrative procedures. I would like to thank my colleague dr Joanna Sadownik for sharing with me her expertise in English syntax during our fruitful discussions. I am very grateful to my parents, my
nephew and my niece for their support, confidence and motivation. Special
thanks to Marek Majtyka for his technical support which made the formatting
of this work more accessible.
INTRODUCTION
Since the very beginning of their existence, human beings have functioned in space, related to it and tried to manage it in a variety of ways. It is
no wonder, then, that space is also ubiquitous in language, the means of exchanging experiences of everyday human life. Speakers use spatial prepositions in order to talk about the place they occupy in the surrounding world,
the location of objects in the environment and relations between them. Linguistically, for a long time, spatial prepositions have been regarded as a function or grammatical words with little semantic content. Present advances in
cognitive linguistics allow us to have a better insight into the nature of the
content expressed by spatial prepositions bringing about the conclusion that
prepositions encode rich and diverse information both grammatical and semantic.
The view that spatial prepositions encode complex semantic information
is relatively new and not at all widespread. Even when it is acknowledged
that the semantics of prepositions is extended, scholars express various opinions on the matter of their categorical status. Radford (1997:45), for instance,
considers prepositions as lexical items because they come in antonymous
pairs, such as inside/outside, just like nouns, verbs, adjectives and certain
adverbs. Hagège makes a more moderate claim that prepositions, “elements
allegedly belonging to grammar, (…) also belong to the lexicon” (2010:332).
Evans (2010) refers to prepositions as lexical concepts which suggests a relation with lexemes and a reference to specific concepts or a body of rich encyclopaedic knowledge people have about the world. Other linguists investigating prepositions, such as Lakoff (1987), Brugman (1988), Herskovits ([1986]
2009), Talmy (2000), or Coventry and Garrod (2004), take a more traditional
stance on the matter, conceiving of prepositions as closed-class (functional/grammatical) words. An important research endeavour is to discover if the
meaning of spatial prepositions is, in fact, rich and complex enough for them
to be treated as lexical units rather than only functional ones.
The present work is a continuation of the tradition of research into the nature and the semantic properties of spatial prepositions in general, and of the
preposition over in particular. One of the earliest works on the semantics of
prepositions is Klebanowska’s (1971) study of spatial prepositions in Polish.
She discusses primary senses of prepositions, geometrical relations between
the objects involved, and conditions that have to be met in order for a certain
xiv
Introduction
preposition to encode a particular relation. The earliest works involving the
preposition over in English are Brugman’s (1988) and Lakoff’s (1987) prototype models of the polysemy of the preposition. Herskovits ([1986] 2009)
discusses notions such as normal situation types, ideal meanings, pragmatic
factors in the understanding of prepositions and geometric descriptions of
objects in spatial relations. Talmy (2000, 2005) elaborates on the geometry of
the objects which enter into a spatial relation and formulates categories which
apply to the spatial structure of language. Przybylska (2002) presents Polish
spatial prepositions in the cognitive perspective, arranging prototypical senses and their extensions into semantic networks. Tyler and Evans (2003) provide a comprehensive study of English spatial prepositions, introduce schematic diagrams to represent spatial relations encoded by the prepositions
discussed, and use the notion of pragmatic strengthening to explain how new
senses come into being. Coventry and Garrod’s (2004) main contribution into
the research is the identification of functional elements in spatial scenes.
In the history of linguistic investigation inquiries into the nature of meaning have taken different forms. The cognitive research with its basic assumptions has its predecessor in the nineteenth century. At that time, language was
thought to be embedded in the human experience and to store the cognitive
categories with which people understand the world around them. Bréal
(1897), for instance, highlighted the psychological orientation in semantics
and maintained that linguistic meaning is a psychological phenomenon involving the workings of psychological processes. Meanings of words were
considered to be psychological entities, that is, kinds of thoughts or ideas, as
they constitute personal reflections and reconstructions of experience. One of
the achievements of the historical-philological tradition prevailing in the
nineteenth century was the introduction of the distinction between the “usual”
and “occasional” meanings and of the notion of context. The usual meaning
was “the total representational content that is associated with a word for any
member of speech community”, whereas the occasional meaning referred to
“the representational content that an interlocutor associates with a word when
he uses it, and which he expects the hearer to associate with the word as well”
(Paul 1920:75).
Although the achievements of historical-philological semantics cannot be
underestimated as many issues discussed by linguists working in this tradition
appear to be present in the contemporary linguistic thought, in the 1930s
a new approach to semantics started to emerge. Based mostly on the work of
de Saussure, structural semantics set a new direction in the word meaning
research (Geeraerts 2010:50). Word meaning was defined as part of the linguistic system and not as part of the psychological life of an individual using
the language. A linguistic sign was described in relation to other linguistic
The Polysemy of Over
xv
signs and its value was determined by the oppositions it entered into with
regard to other items. Thus, structural semantics brought with it the shift from
semasiology to onomasiology–the scholarly interest addressed the question of
how sets of words carve up the world and how they name the reality.
The findings of structuralist semantics were further developed in the tradition of the generative approach to language. In the 1960s, Katz and Fodor
attempted to combine a structuralist method of analysis, a formalist system of
description and a mentalist conception of meaning (Geeraerts 2010:105-110).
The issues crucial for structuralist semantics such as the semantic identity of
words, oppositeness of meaning, taxonomical organization and semantic
relations between the terms in a lexical field came into focus. At the same
time, scholars introduced a psychological element into natural language semantics, concentrating the investigation not on the structure of the language
but on the ability of the language user to interpret sentences. Katz and
Fodor’s research triggered the incorporation of semantics in the formal theory
of grammar, which resulted in the formulation of Interpretive Semantics
within the mainstream of generative grammar.
Structuralist semantics continued to develop after the introduction of
componential analysis into generative grammar. Contemporary structural
theories consider the psychological reality of semantic analyses and the adequacy of the formal representations of word meaning as the basic issues to be
discussed. One of such approaches is Wierzbicka’s Natural Semantic Metalanguage. The model has a decompositional orientation attempting to reduce
the semantic description to a set of primitive meaning components and it
seeks a truly linguistic, not encyclopedic, level of description (Geeraerts
2010:126-128). The approach implies that the concepts which people have
are clearly delineated even though the world is essentially blurry. The theory
aims at establishing a set of universal primitive concepts which constitute
definitional elements employed to define the meaning of words and rejects
the link between meaning and extralinguistic knowledge. This link is introduced by Jackendoff’s Conceptual Semantics, where linguistic is complemented with extralinguistic knowledge and where both modules are assigned
different tasks (Jackendoff 1996a, Jackendoff 1996b).
In the 1980s, as a result of dissatisfaction with the notion of the autonomy
of grammar and the secondary position of semantics in the generative theory
of language, cognitive semantics emerged as part of a loosely structured theoretical movement of cognitive linguistics. I believe that the theory offers
valuable tools for the investigation into the nature of spatial prepositions. In
particular, cognitive semantics considers the meaning of prepositions, as well
as meaning in general, a cognitive phenomenon. Meaning is no longer seen as
being carried by words, but rather it is seen as emergent when speakers filter
xvi
Introduction
the semantic content of individual words in a particular situation of use. It is
speakers with their various abilities, both linguistic, cognitive, and, more
broadly, psychological, who actually construe the meaning of the message
they receive in a sociocultural, physical and temporal setting. Understanding
meaning in such an extensive way allows us to explain semantic mechanisms
in a much more exhaustive way than it is possible with the tools of traditional
linguistics. In what follows, I approach the meaning of the preposition over
from such a broad perspective, showing that the kind of organisms we have,
our experiences and knowledge about the world, contribute to our understanding of the meanings of prepositions. I am also of the opinion that there is
a need to continue incorporating the latest findings of the psychological and
neurocognitive research into the study of this word class.
One of the assumptions of cognitive semantics differentiating it from
more traditional linguistic theories is a maximalist perspective on meaning
and the rejection of a clear borderline between semantic and encyclopedic
knowledge. In the present investigation, I attempt to demonstrate that vast
domains of encyclopedic knowledge can be used in order to arrive at a deeper
understanding of the preposition over. Extended knowledge about how human beings and other animate and inanimate objects function in space, in
what kind of geometrical configurations they can participate, as well as what
consequences such geometric relations have for the participants, is needed to
explain the semantic structure encoded by spatial prepositions.
The central notions of prototype and categorization find their expression
in the description of the polysemy of the preposition over. Its distinct senses
represent a graded centrality, with the Primary Sense functioning as the prototype of the category and the remaining senses as more or less peripheral
members related to the prototype by means of the process of specification or
by means of the metaphoric link. The proto-scene, constituting an idealized
geometric relation between two objects, suggests the presence of what Langacker (1987) calls the schema. It can be repeated after Brugman (1988) that
the preposition over reflects the notion of the prototype in two ways. On
a higher category level, it contrasts with other higher level categories such as
ABOVE or ACROSS, and on a lower category level its various senses represent members of the category OVER. As the act of linguistic categorization
rests upon using a particular preposition in relation to a certain spatial, temporal or functional relation between two (or more) objects, the present inquiry
can be thought of as a survey of all possible spatial relations to be referred to
with the preposition over.
In the course of the research, I collected a total of 1095 linguistic items
including 708 sentences containing the preposition over, 132 compounds with
over and 255 sentences containing other prepositions used for the grammati-
The Polysemy of Over
xvii
cal analysis. The present investigation discusses a total of 417 sentences, out
of which 162 contain the preposition over, and it focuses on spoken and written registers with the exclusion of slang, literary and academic language. The
examples come from contemporary dictionaries of the English language such
as the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (2003), the Oxford
Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2005), Webster’s Third New International
Dictionary of the English Language (1986), the Free Dictionary1, the Urban
Dictionary2and the most reliable The Oxford English Dictionary (1989). The
sample gathered is analyzed first and foremost in terms of its semantic content but also in terms of the morphology and syntax. I attempt to describe
different facets of the preposition over and the semantic structure encoded by
its distinct senses.
The present study is organized into three chapters. Chapter 1 outlines the
theoretical assumptions of cognitive linguistics relevant for the discussion of
the spatial structure of language in general and the preposition over in particular. Specifically, it focuses on the psychological and cognitive foundations
of language, meaning representation in the human mind and meaning construction. The notions of space and shape perception as well as human cognitive abilities such as the identification of image schemas, along with the categorization and formulation of concepts, are closely related to the construal of
meaning. Chapter 2 addresses the morphological properties of the class of
prepositions, the areas of overlap with other (lexical and grammatical) word
classes, the syntactic behaviour of prepositions and prepositional phrases as
well as the morphological and syntactic characteristics of the preposition
over. Chapter 3 discusses the semantic content of the preposition over, in
particular the geometrical and functional relations holding between objects in
the spatial scene encoded by the preposition.
Throughout the book, the terms trajector and landmark, abbreviated to
TR and LM respectively, are used even though the existence of equally frequently used notions of figure and ground must be acknowledged. The terms
geometry and geometrical were borrowed from mathematics and they relate
to the physical characteristics of objects participating in a spatial relation.
I also adhere to the traditional distinction between closed and open classes of
words calling prepositions interchangeably grammatical, functional or closedclass words without a change in meaning.
Generally speaking, the present investigation demonstrates that the spatial
preposition over encodes a broad range of geometric and functional relations
which form an extended network of meanings. These meanings, well established in the English language and well entrenched in the minds of its speak1
2
The Free Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Dictionary.htm).
The Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/).
xviii
Introduction
ers, can be used creatively in new situations of use, possibly giving rise to
new usages or senses. I believe that the detailed description of the semantic
content encoded by the preposition over allows us to gain a better insight into
the human management of space in particular and the workings of the human
mind in general.
CHAPTER ONE
A CONCEPTUAL APPROACH TO LANGUAGE
1.1. Psychological foundations of language
The description of spatial prepositions in the light of cognitive linguistics
should first and foremost address the issue of the human perception of space.
The perception of space and shape is most relevant to the discussion of prepositional meanings as it segments the reality into more manageable units, the
so-called spatial scenes. Space perception rests on the sense of vision; however, it also involves all human senses to a certain degree. This section discusses the mechanisms of the visual perception of space and shape.
1.1.1. Human visual perception
Despite the fact that people are able to recognize surrounding objects and
events in the world around them and that they orient themselves in the environment relatively easily, perception of the reality in itself is a complex phenomenon. Psychologists divide perception into three subsequent but interrelated stages: sensation, perception, and the identification/recognition of
objects (Zimbardo and Weber 1997). During sensation, physical energy is
converted into neural activity which registers information about the type and
quality of the stimulation. In other words, the light reflected by objects enters
the eye and forms an image on the retina, while the brain registers the sensory
information and creates an image of the real objects. In the perceptual stage,
a percept is formed in the mind of the perceiver, making it possible to answer
the question What does a given object look like? A percept is “the internal
representation derived from the initial pattern of stimulation and it is this that
serves as the basis for subsequent identification processes, i.e. determining
what an object looks like, sounds like, smells like, and so on” (Parkin
2002:27). Percepts are attributed with meaning in the final identification/recognition stage. Rectangular objects, for instance, are identified as
books, boxes, windows or pictures and the perceiver is, at that moment,
aware of various functions the objects can perform. Books can be read, boxes
2
Chapter One
store things, windows can be closed or opened and pictures hang on walls to
decorate the interior.
Thus, the process of visual perception begins with a two-dimensional image on the retina and finishes as a three-dimensional scene in which there is
depth, colour, movement and other characteristic features. Since perceptual
processes gradually add components to a given scene, visual perception is
considered reconstructive in nature. Various inferential processes use cues
provided by the two-dimensional input formed on the retina to form a visual
percept, and, despite considerable distortions in what projects onto the retina,
people are able to mentally represent a three-dimensional, constant world.
The reconstructive nature of perception motivated the formulation of several psychological theories, attempting to explain how perceptual processes
work. The theories are of two main kinds–bottom-up (data-driven) and topdown (conceptually-driven) theories of perception (Parkin 2002:29, Sternberg
2001). Bottom-up processing assumes that the analysis of data proceeds from
lower levels of sensory stimuli to higher levels of cognitive organization,
such as past experience, knowledge, memory, language or expectation. In
contrast, top-down processing involves a perceiver’s higher cognitive processes analyzing lower sensory stimuli in the interpretation of the object of
perception at a later stage. For instance, when objects are obscured by other
objects or when they are poorly lit, people rely on higher cognitive processes
to assign meaning to the sensory information. Usually however, both types of
processing are interrelated, enabling us to perceive our environment in
a meaningful way.
Sensory information gathered by the retinal receptors must be organized
into coherent and structured wholes to contribute to the creation of a meaningful image of the world. The first task of perceptual organizational processes is to segregate the patterns of light and dark encoded on the retina into
meaningful regions (Zimbardo and Weber 1997). This segregation rests on
the registration of abrupt changes in colour and texture, which signal the
boundaries between two regions. Once different regions have been established, they are devided into figures, object-like regions, and grounds, the
background against which the figures stand out.1 The boundaries between the
regions are interpreted as edges belonging to the figures, whereas the grounds
are seen as extending behind them.
In order to segregate sensory information into figure-ground organization,
the visual system performs a perceptual grouping of stimuli, a phenomenon
1
Contrary to the accepted view that figure-ground organization precedes object
recognition, the study of Peterson (1994) indicated that some object recognition processes are conducted before the determination of figure-ground organization and depth
segregation.
A Conceptual Approach to Language
3
first studied extensively by Gestalt psychologists.2 Gestalt laws of perceptual
grouping include symmetry, proximity, similarity, closure, continuity, smallness and convexity (Evans and Green 2006, Parkin 2002, Sternberg 2001,
Wiegand 2007).3 Fig.1-1 illustrates the principle of symmetry which holds
that people tend to group symmetrical items together. This means that in
Fig.1-1 we perceive four sets of symmetrical brackets rather than eight unrelated elements. In Fig.1-2, the circles spaced closer to one another are perceived as belonging together in line with the principle of proximity, which
states that, all else being equal, the most proximal elements are grouped together. People also tend to group objects together on the basis of their similarity. In accordance with this principle, we perceive in Fig.1-3 six columns
of circles and crosses rather than three rows of ‘o-x’ sequences. The principle
of closure holds that the human perceptual system often completes incomplete figures even in the absence of some perceptual information. The round
shape in Fig.1-4 is perceived as complete while, in fact, it consists of four
disconnected elements. Similarly, the perceptual system has a preference for
continuous figures, which results in the perception of two unbroken rectangles in Fig.1-5, one behind the other, although we can actually see a vertical
rectangle and two squares on its sides. According to the principle of smallness small objects are more readily perceived as figures than large objects. In
Fig.1-6, we are more likely to perceive a black cross rather than a white cross
because the black cross occupies less space. Finally, the principle of convexity illustrated in Fig.1-7 holds that convex shapes are more likely to be perceived as figures than concave ones.
2
Gestalt psychologists maintain that human beings have a tendency to perceive any
set of sensory elements as segregated into a stable and coherent gestalt (shape) and not
as disorganized meaningless sensations.
3
The principles of figure-ground organization presented here are the most widely
discussed ones. However, the perception of figures can also be based on other cues.
For example, regions with higher as well as lower spatial frequency, regions with
a wide base, and regions depicting familiar objects, can be considered figures
(Kimachi and Peterson 2008).
Chapter One
4
{[]}<()>
Fig.1-1 Principle of symmetry
X
X
X
X
O
O
O
O
X
X
X
X
O
O
O
O
X
X
X
X
O OO O OO O OO
Fig.1-2 Principle of proximity
O
O
O
O
Fig.1-3 Principle of similarity
Fig.1-4 Principle of closure
Fig.1-5 Principle of continuity
Fig.1-6 Principle of smallness
Fig.1-7 Principle of convexity
Once the sensory stimuli have been segregated into figures and grounds,
the perceptual system undertakes the task of converting the two-dimensional
image into a three dimensional one. The perception of depth, a fundamental
component of this process, is crucial in such common tasks as reaching for
A Conceptual Approach to Language
5
and manipulating objects, assessing the distance from one car to another
while driving, or assessing how loudly to call a friend who is just passing by
at some distance. The perception of depth is based on a number of different
cues which are generally divided into monocular, derived from the vision of
a single eye, and binocular, derived from the combined vision of two eyes
(Parkin 2002, Sternberg 2001).
One of the most powerful monocular cues is linear perspective, the phenomenon observed when two parallel lines become farther and father apart as
they move away from the horizon or converge as they move closer to it. Objects appear to be more distant from the observer when the lines of perspective are closer to one another and, conversely, they appear more proximal
when the lines are farther apart. Interposition and motion parallax also provide an impression of depth. Interposition refers to the assumption that
an object obscuring another is nearer the viewer. Motion parallax allows us to
perceive closer objects as bigger and moving faster and more distant objects
as smaller and more stationary. Other important cues of depth perception
involve texture gradients and the contrast between objects and their backgrounds. The impression of depth is achieved when elements of texture become denser as they recede into the distance and sparser when they move
closer to the observer. Contrast changes when more distant objects seem to
merge with the background, becoming less distinct from it and, conversely,
when closer objects appear to be more clearly defined.
Convergence and stereopsis are binocular cues of depth perception related
to the fact that the human eyes are distant enough from one another to provide the brain with different types of sensory information. When the viewer
observes an approaching object, the eyes converge towards the nose and the
movements of the optical muscles are interpreted by the brain as a cue of
depth. On the contrary, when the object becomes more and more distant, the
optical muscles are relaxed and the eyes are directed more towards the ears.
Stereopsis relates to the fact that the both eyes have different views of a given
object. When an object is closer to the viewer, there is a considerable difference between the views coming from the right eye and the left eye. However,
when the object is farther away from the viewer, there is a minimal divergence between the views coming from both eyes. These visual discrepancies
can be used by the brain to compute depth.
At this moment, when figure-ground segregation has been completed and
depth assessed, the representation of an object in the mind is still viewercentred, that is, dependent on the actual view of the object an individual has
(Parkin 2002). Fig.1-8 illustrates a jug standing on a table with its handle on
the right side of the observer’s visual field. This view changes when the jug is
turned on its side as its handle is, then, located on the left side of the visual
6
Chapter One
field. Alternatively, when the jug is turned on the other side, the handle remains on the left side of the visual field, however its position changes:
Fig.1-8 The standing jug–the handle is on the right side of the visual field; the jug
turned to its side–the handle is on the left side of the visual field (adapted from Parkin
2002)
However, human perception is based on the object-centred description of
any given object, which is independent of viewpoint and which allows the
object’s features to remain constant irrespective of how it is viewed (Parkin
2002, Sternberg 2001). Even though our view of the environment is continually changing as we move around, we remain unaware of this fact and perceive the world around us as invariable. The phenomenon known as size
constancy ensures that when an object becomes bigger as we approach it, its
size is still perceived as unchanged. In addition, the perception of colour does
not change greatly with different illumination allowing us to perecive a tomato as red both in daylight and in artificial light, the tendency known as colour
constancy. Shape constancy allows us to perceive an object as having the
same shape irrespective of the angle at which it is viewed. Object constancy
signals the establishment of a three-dimensional representation of an object
based on its structural description, in which the relationships of various parts
of the object are already specified.
The perceptual processes briefly outlined above provide sufficient and accurate knowledge about the physical properties of the surrounding objects,
such as their position, size, shape and colour. They do not, however, provide
information about what the objects are, what their function is and whether we
have seen them before or not. During the final stage of perception, identification and recognition, our higher-level mental processes, such as memory,
expectation, motivation, personality and experience enable us to add meaning
to perceived percepts. For instance, we are well aware that small moving
objects in the skies are more likely to be birds or planes than cars or people.
Abstract thoughts, prior knowledge, beliefs and values manage the incoming
A Conceptual Approach to Language
7
percepts, giving them titles, labels and explanations placing them in an appropriate segment of the intricate structure of our mental world.
1.1.2. Knowledge and imagery
Perception of the surrounding reality constitutes a fundamental building
block of human knowledge. Knowledge-based processes of the human mind
interpret, assign meaning to and store neutrally coded information coming
from the sensory organs. Generally, human knowledge can be devided into
two major types: declarative knowledge, that is, “knowledge that”, and procedural knowledge, “knowledge how” (Sternberg 2001). Declarative
knowledge is mentally represented in the form of words and visual symbols
and it constitutes all the information human beings have about the world
around them. Procedural knowledge amounts to subsequent steps of actions.
It comprises information about, for instance, how to ride a bicycle, how to
drive to a particular place, or how to sign one’s name. With reference to language, declarative knowledge refers, among other things, to how people understand words and utterances, whereas procedural knowledge guides the
motor processes that accompany speech production mechanisms.
Declarative knowledge is much more relevant for the discussion of spatial
prepositions than procedural knowledge. Its two different representational
formats, mental images and words, are used to record different information
since it is much easier to represent concrete objects, such as a triangle, by
means of mental pictures and abstract ideas, such as justice, by means of
words.4 Mental images are analogue representations of real objects comprising their same shape, size, parts and colours. Words, on the other hand, are
symbolic representations of physical objects and, unlike mental images, include only scarse information relating to their physical attributes. The comparison of an image of a cat and the content of the word cat recorded in
a dictionary definition is illustrative as to the difference between mental images and words.5 When we imagine a cat, we see a small animal of a specific
cat-like shape with particular characteristic features such as four legs, a tail,
ears, and a certain brownish colour. In contrast, a dictionary definition of the
word cat reads: “A small animal with soft fur that people often keep as a pet.
Cats catch and kill birds and mice” (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
4
The building blocks of human knowledge also include more complex structures such
as concepts, facts, propositions, rules, and memories (Zimbardo and Weber 1997).
5
Mental images are linked with lexical items referring to concrete objects. Prepositions belong to a group of functional or grammatical words and they do not invoke
mental images as such, but they do invoke schematized spatial relations in the form of
their proto-scenes (see section 1.3 for a more detailed discussion).
8
Chapter One
2005). The definition makes reference to information that is not registered in
the mental image of the cat, such as its functions and habits, at the same time
ignoring some features which constitute the mental image.
Images and words interact in the mind to form intricate complexes of
knowledge. In order to account for mental representation of knowledge in the
two formats, psychologists proposed the dual coding hypothesis (Paivio
1969) which assumes the existence of two independent coding systems–
a non-verbal imagery processing visual information about objects and events,
and a verbal system specialized for handling speech and writing. In this view,
the smallest units of the two systems, images and logogens, are assumed to be
connected by referential links allowing a word to be associated with its relevant image. The dual coding hypothesis explains in a convenient way experimental findings concerning the better learning of concrete rather than abstract words. Concrete words induce both verbal and non-verbal
representational codes which facilitates their recall. In contrast, abstract
words are usually more poorly remembered as they rely solely on the verbal
code to the exclusion of the visual one.
The most fundamental unit of symbolic knowledge is the concept defined
in most general terms as the knowledge or idea of an object. Psychological
research has resulted in a number of theories explaining the emergence of
concepts, among which the most important are the defining attributes theory,
feature comparison theory, prototype theory and exemplar theory (Parkin
2002).6 The defining attributes model assumes that a concept has certain
attributes associated with it. For instance, the concept HORSE includes defining attributes, such as “has four legs, hair, a tail, neighs”, as well as nondefining attributes, such as “can be ridden, is piebald.” The concepts in the
mind are organized into a network of superordinate concepts, such as FISH or
BIRD, and other subordinate concepts such as CANARY or SALMON.7 The
network is based on the principle of cognitive economy, which states that
only those attributes that distinguish a concept from its superordinates are
stored in the concept itself (Collins and Quillian 1969).
The defining attributes model was criticized and rejected on the basis of
the fact that not all concepts can be characterized in terms of defining attributes. The concept GAME discussed by Wittgenstein is a well-known example
of the concept whose members do not share common defining attributes but
6
The process of concept formation can be discussed within the framework of both
cognitive linguistics and psychology even though both disciplines base on the prototype-theoretical research conducted by Rosch in the 1970s and 1980s (Geeraerts
2010:244). The extended discussion of concepts in linguistic theory is presented in
section 1.2.2.1.
7
Levels of categorization are discussed in more detail in section1.2.2.3.
A Conceptual Approach to Language
9
are rather linked together by the relation of a family resemblance which cannot be pinned down to one specific feature (Pelczar 2000). Feature comparison theory, proposed in response to the criticism of the defining attributes
theory, assumes that concepts are represented as a list of defining and characteristic features. All members of a category possess certain defining features,
but only some possess characteristic ones. When an object is to enter
a category, its features are compared with the defining features of the category, and it is accepted into it if the overlap is sufficient.
The dissatisfaction with the feature comparison model, which was slightly
more efficient than the defining attributes model but which did not represent
knowledge in a psychologically realistic way, led to the formulation of the
prototype theory of knowledge representation.8 As Parkin (2002:161) puts it:
“(…) prototypes can be thought of as a modern expression of Wittgenstein’s
idea of family resemblance.” Accordingly, a prototype is a typical representative of a class which emerges when individual features of other members of
this class coalesce into a single representation. Within this model, the individual instances of the class relate to the prototype by means of similarity
rather than the by means of an exact match.
Although the prototype model of knowledge representation seems to be
very productive in psychology, the exemplar model is an equally frequent
alternative (Parkin 2002). In fact, it is assumed that prototypes emerge
through successive encounters with different exemplars of a category. Exemplar theory assumes that no prototype is stored in the mind but only individual exemplars of concepts, which stands in opposition to the premises of the
prototype model. A considerable advantage of exemplar models is that they
preserve the variability of the instances of a concept, for instance, an individual size, shape and colour of an object. Conversely, the formation of a prototype involves an averaging process whereby specific features and the relations among them are lost. However, exemplar models cannot at the moment
reasonably account for the storage and organization of the enormous masses
of information that exemplars undoubtedly constitute.
The controversy related to the inefficiency of the prototype and exemplar
models has been resolved by a proposal of mixed models of categorization
both in linguistics and psychology. Bybee (2001:138), for instance, assumes
“a modified exemplar model”–“a model somewhere between these two proposals”–for the phonological representations of words. Similarly, developmental psychologists suggest that both children and adults represent
knowledge in terms of prototype and exemplar categories (Horst, Oakes and
Madole 2005). It has been suggested that, in psychological experiments,
adults form a prototype when they first learn items in a category and remem8
Section 1.2.2.3 is devoted to the prototype theory in linguistic research.
10
Chapter One
ber individual exemplars only after extensive training. This reverses when
categories are sparse and difficult; in such cases participants first learn individual items and they form a summary representation with additional exposure.
1.2. Cognitive foundations of language
The preceding section discussed psychological foundations of language
which include space and shape perception and different ways of organizing
knowledge in the human mind. The information gathered in the process of the
perception of reality constitutes the raw material later used in higher cognitive processing. The present section discusses basic constructs introduced by
cognitive research into the theory of language. Image schemas constitute
a link between perceptual knowledge and the knowledge of a language. Concepts, categories and prototype models organize linguistic knowledge into
coherent structures. The notions of the trajector and landmark, referring to the
psychological notions of figure and ground respectively, play a significant
role in the semantic description of spatial prepositions.
1.2.1. Embodied experience9
One of the main commitments of cognitive linguistics is the notion of
embodiment which emphasizes the centrality of the human body in human
experience. We experience the surrounding reality through our bodies and the
nature of this experience depends on the way we are physically built. Lakoff
(1987:12) expresses the embodiment commitment as follows: “Conceptual
embodiment: The idea that the properties of certain categories are a consequence of the nature of human biological capacities and of the experience of
functioning in a physical and social environment. It is contrasted with the
idea that concepts exist independent of the bodily nature of any thinking
9
Embodiment is a broad term. Rohrer (2001) distinguishes ten perspectives on the
notion of embodiment derived from multiple methodologies. The following is just
a sample of four. Embodiment 1) can have a phenomenological meaning which refers
to the things people notice consciously about the role of human bodies in shaping selfidentities and culture; 2) can refer to the cultural contributions in which the body,
cognition and language emerge (cultural artifacts); 3) can mean what Lakoff and
Johnson (1998) call the cognitive unconscious–in which case it refers to the shaping
of conceptual thought by unconscious processes revealed through experimental psychology; 4) can be used in the neurophysiological sense when it refers to the neural
structures underlying processes like metaphoric projection or object-centered and
viewer-centered frames of reference in the visual system.
A Conceptual Approach to Language
11
beings and independent of their experience.” In the same vein, Evans and
Green (2007:45) state that “[t]he idea that experience is embodied entails that
we have a species-specific view of the world due to the unique nature of our
physical bodies. In other words, our construal of reality is likely to be mediated in large measure by the nature of our bodies.”
Our experience of gravity is an example of how the human physical constitution affects the nature of human experience (Evans and Green 2007).
Although gravity is an objective physical phenomenon, human beings and
other species experience it differently due to their biological distinctness and
the environments they inhabit. For instance, hummingbirds live in the same
ecological niche as human beings, but their specific morphology makes them
experience gravity in a different way. Hummingbirds are able to rise from the
ground without pushing off it, using only the rapid movement of their wings.
They also experience motion differently due to their small size–they experience little momentum and can stop almost instantaneously. Conversely, human beings have to push off the ground using the strength of their muscles,
cannot hover over it and have to land soon after they have pushed off. When
running, human beings cannot come to a standstill immediately, but they
slow down gradually taking a few steps before they stop. Other organisms,
fish for instance, experience gravity in yet another way since their physical
constitution is different from that of people and since they inhabit a different
environment. As water reduces the effects of gravity to a considerable degree,
the morphology of fish is adapted to the surrounding conditions, enabling
them to move through the water easily.
The effects of gravity influence the geometry of the TR and LM encoded
in the A-B-C Trajectory Sense of the preposition over. As will be shown
later, the A-B-C Trajectory Sense of over encodes an archlike trajectory of
the TR over the elevated LM. The trajectory takes the shape of an arch only
when the TR works against the force of gravity pushing off the ground,
moves over an obstacle and lands on the other side of it under the influence
of gravity.
1.2.1.1. Image schemas
According to cognitive theory, human embodied experience has a direct
influence on human cognition. The reality we perceive and the concepts we
form in the process of maturation derive directly from the typically human
experience of the world. This embodied experience manifests itself on the
cognitive level in the form of image schemas, that is, rudimentary concepts
such as CONTACT, CONTAINER, BALANCE, etc., directly linked with
human perceptual experience.
12
Chapter One
Although the notion of image schema is widely accepted in cognitive linguistics, it is difficult to define it in precise terms. It has been agreed that
image schemas are “mental patterns associated with broad classes of concepts
or experiences” (Grady 2005:36). Originally, Lakoff (1987) and Johnson
(1987) emphasized the aspect of the bodily perceptual experience in image
schemas: “Image schemas are relatively simple structures that constantly
recur in our everyday bodily experience: CONTAINER, PATHS, LINKS,
FORCES, BALANCE, and in various orientations and relations: UP-DOWN,
FRONT-BACK, PART-WHOLE, CENTRE-PERIPHERY, etc.” (Lakoff
1987:267). Johnson (2005:15) argues that the image schema is a key conception which can help to explain “how (…) meaning, imagination, and reason–
the marks of human intelligence–emerge from our organic, bodily interactions with our environment.”10 However, even the earliest discussions of the
notion involved certain image schemas which are not directly tied to sensory
experience (Grady 2005). The CYCLE schema, for instance, refers to the
general pattern of recurring states and not to any specific type of cycle, such
as a circle or circular motion.
Even though image schemas are often referred to as patterns or structures,
it should be remembered that the structural aspects are not the total content
but merely a “skeleton” of meaning (Johnson 2005:28-29). Aspects such as
qualities, values and norms also contribute their part to the meaning and constitute its “flesh and blood.” For instance, we experience the CONTAINER
schema when we are held tightly in someone’s arms and when we are constrained in a small room; however, the qualities, values and norms of the
experiences are very different. In the same vein, Grady (2005:44) suggests
that image schemas should be treated as “fundamental units of sensory experience” or “minimal gestalts–self-contained dimensions of our richer perceptual experience.” Gibbs (2005:115) takes this idea even further suggesting
that “image schemas are best understood as experiential gestalts which momentarily emerge from ongoing brain, body and world interactions.” He argues that image schemas, also more static ones such as OBJECT or COMPLEXITY, are continually linked to embodied actions operated by the socalled body schemas responsible for integrating the bodily posture and posi10
Image schemas can be used to explain conceptual metaphors operating in a broad
range of mathematical fields. For instance, the COLLECTION image schema is found
in the metaphor ARITHMETIC IS OBJECT COLLECTION. The mappings from the
source domain (object collection) to the target domain (mathematical addition) involve: collections of objects of the same size– numbers, the size of the collection - the
size of numbers, bigger–greater, smaller–less, the smallest collection–the unit (one),
putting collections together -addition, taking a smaller collection from a larger collection–and subtraction (Johnson 2005).