Pragmatic aspects of the spatial prepositions for learners of English language as a second language - Английский язык - Дипломные работы

Pragmatic aspects of the spatial prepositions for learners of English language as a second language

Загружено в:

24.09.2019

Скачано:

0

Размер:

525 KB

CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................................... CHAPTER I Syntactic and Semantic Features of English Prepositions. 1.1 Historical survey of English prepositions…………………………… 1.2 Preposition as a means to provide the sentence additional and necessary details…………………………………………………………………… 1.3 The grammatical functions of prepositions. ……………………………… CHAPTER II Reflections on the Functional Characterization of Spatial Prepositions 2.1 Spatial prepositions and their embodied meaning and cognition………….. 2.2 The nature of meaning that is embodied by means of spatial prepositions... 2.3 The Proto-scenes for spatial prepositions…………………………………. 2.4 The semantic network for spatial prepositions…………………………….. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….. Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………...

Introduction On December 10, 2012 President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Islam Karimov signed a decree “On measures to further improvement of foreign language learning system”. 1 It is noted that in the framework of the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On education” and the National Program for Training in the country, a comprehensive foreign languages’ teaching system, aimed at creating harmoniously developed, highly educated, modern-thinking young generation, further integration of the country to the world community, has been created. During the years of independence, over 51.7 thousand teachers of foreign languages graduated from universities, English, German and French multimedia tutorials and textbooks for 5-9 grades of secondary schools, electronic resources for learning English in primary schools were created, more than 5000 secondary schools, professional colleges and academic lyceums were equipped with language laboratories. However, analysis of the current system of organizing language learning shows that learning standards, curricula and textbooks do not fully meet the current requirements, particularly in the use of advanced information and media technologies. Education is mainly conducted in traditional methods. Further development of a continuum of foreign languages learning at all levels of education; improving skills of teachers and provision of modern teaching materials are required. According to the decree, starting from 2013/2014 school year foreign languages, mainly English, gradually throughout the country will be taught from the first of schooling in the form of lesson-games and speaking games, continuing to learning the alphabet, reading and spelling in the second year (grade). Also it is envisaged that university modules, especially in technical and international areas, will be offered in English and other foreign languages at higher education institutions. 1 “On measures to further improvement of foreign language learning system” Xalq so’zi December 10, 2012.

Actuality of the QP: This paper has great actuality in explaining the importance of space and spatial experience for both language and thought by means of spatial prepositions. By examining the nature of human spatio-physical experience we explore conceptualization of spatial relations that is reflected in the English language. By explaining the semantics of spatial prepositions this paper has an important actuality for extending the role of preposition in the exploration of spatial and non- spatial concepts. This work provides a detailed analysis of the range of meanings associated with English spatial prepositions, and argues for the foundational role of experience in the development of meaning in general and word meaning in particular. Investigations of the QP : This problem was investigated by many scientists: John D. Kelleher, Colm Sloan, Brain Mac Namee., Andrea Tyler and Vyvyan Evans and m any other cognitive linguists Fillmore, Herskovits, Heine, Langacker, Svorou, Talmy, Vandeloise are among them. The aim of the QP : The first aim of this work is to strengthen pragmatic aspects of the spatial prepositions for learners of English language as a second language. This paper aims to demonstrate the importance of a spatial scene as a conceptual unit and its role in systematic meaning extension. The second aim is to investigate the wide array of meanings associated with English spatial prepositions. The object of the qualification paper is the English spatial prepositions and their meanings associated with each preposition in cognitive linguistics, and spatial or non-spatial meanings which are reflected by them. The subject matter of the work has been to account for the wide array of meanings associated with spatial prepositions. In contrast to most previous investigations of spatial prepositions, we have been particularly concerned with the many non-spatial meanings associated with these prepositions. The tasks of the qualification paper are the following: - to explain the meaning constructions of spatial prepositions;

-to show the actuality of the meaning in context that is expressed by means of spatial prepositions; -to investigate the role of spatial prepositions in conceptualization of reality; We use the semantic and pragmatic observation methods in this research. Using a cognitive linguistics perspective, this paper provides the most comprehensive theoretical analysis of the semantics of English prepositions. Methodological basis of this paper is based on a decree of President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Islam Karimov which signed on December 10, 2012, “On measures to further improvement of foreign language learning system”. Theoritical basis of the research is based on the cognitive linguists’ approaches to the semantics of spatial prepositions such as Brugman, Lakkof, Herskovits and Kreitzer. Scientific novelty and practical value : Learners and teachers of English as a second language have long recognized spatial prepositions as one of the most difficult aspects of language to master. We believe that part of the difficulty non- native speakers have experienced with English spatial prepositions stems from the lack of descriptive adequacy of the models. We know that English spatial prepositions are polysemous and therefore that the many-to-one mappings between meanings and form are largely systematic is central to our paper. This work, the principled polysemy approach with its proto-scenes, will provide a more clearly articulated framework on which to build a systematic accessible account of English spatial prepositions for EFL, ESL teachers and learners. The first chapter of the paper reflects syntactic and semantic features of English prepositions, historical survey of prepositions, and the grammatical functions of them. The second chapter deals with the functional characterization of spatial prepositions, their semantic network and proto-scenes for spatial prepositions. Construction of the QP: It consists of introduction, two chapters, conclusion and list of literature. Total amount is…pages.

CHAPTER I Syntactic and Semantic Features of English Prepositions . 1.3. Historical Survey of English Prepositions. When it comes to the diachronic study of English prepositions, it must be conceded that, until recently historical linguists have neglected their study. With an exception of a chapter in Mitchell´s two volume Old English Syntax and another chapter in Mustanoja´s Middle English Syntax , there is no comprehensive survey of prepositions in Old or Middle English. 2 As a syntactic work, Mitchell´s book has a strong formal bias, dealing predominantly with the preposition-case relation. Mustanoja, on the other hand, focuses predominantly on semantics. The majority of other handbooks and grammars of Old and Middle English restrict themselves to enumerating only a selected number of prepositions, adding their basic meanings or the case they governed, if they actually do at least this. More recently, two diachronically oriented studies devoting themselves somehow more thoroughly to the study of prepositions occur namely, Lundskar-Nielsen´s Prepositions in Old and Middle English , which, however, restricts itself to the semantics of the prepositions in , on and at , and Iglesias-Rabade´s Semantic Erosion of Middle English Prepositions , which studies twelve selected Middle English prepositions in terms of their frequency of occurance and the French influence on their semantic erosion. The situation has slightly improved, especially with a small number of papers published after 2000. These trace the quantitative development of English prepositions in two of its main historical stages - Old English and Middle English. As for the semantics, we focused only on the prototypical meaning of each preposition. This primary meaning is then explicated on a Present-day English equivalent as well as on its Latin counterpart. From a morphological viewpoint, prepositions can be defined as invariable word forms which, throughout the history of English, almost never took any inflections. The exceptions were the suffix 2 Mitchell, Bruce “Old English Syntax” Volume I Oxford: Clarendon Press (1985). Mustanoja, Tauno F. “The Middle English Syntax” . Helsinki: Society Neophilologique (1960).

+ mang in ge+mang and on+ge+mang . The most productive, however, is the suffix + ward which occur since the Old English period in connection with some prepositions and in this way forms compound forms. The Old English attestations include æfterweard , inwardre , fromweardan , toweard , upweard , utweard . The prepositions with suffix + ward increased in number during the Middle English period and certain new forms like onward or untoward appeared in this period. In the course of the Early Modern English period, most of these forms were decreasing and the only remnants of this process that can be found in Present-day English are the prepositions toward and towards . Even though most prepositions formed according to the pattern preposition + ward disappeared, new prepositions were formed by compounding adverbs and the suffix + ward . Some of the prepositions also functioned as prefixes in word- formative processes. These include Old English and Middle English prefixes æfter -, æt -, betweon -, bi -, for -, foran -, forþ -, fram -, gegn -, in -, mid -, neah -, niþer -, of -, ofer -, on -, oþ -, þurh -, under -, wið -, wiðer - and ymb -. As for their morphological structure, Old English and Middle English prepositions can be classified into simple and compound. Simple prepositions are realized by a single morpheme (e.g. æfter , æt , fram , geond , of , ofer , on , oþ , samod etc.). Compound prepositions can be classified according to their morphological structure. In Old English, most of the compound prepositions are bimorphemic, the first morpheme being a preposition and the second is most commonly also a preposition (e.g. æt+foran , be+geondan , be+innan , be+neoþan , in+to , on+butan , on+innan , to+foran , wið+innan etc.). Less commonly, the second morpheme is an adverb (e.g. be + æftan , be + ufan , on + ufan ), a conjunction (e.g. to + eacan ), an adjective (e.g. and + lang ) or a numeral (e.g. be + tweone ). In Middle English, the number of simple prepositions has risen sharply. This was a result of a merger of several Old English compound prepositions with easily discernible morphological structure which, in Middle English, can be revealed only under a closer diachronic scrutiny (e.g. adown , above , amid , beneathen , tofore etc). Secondly, majority of

new loan preposition are monomorphemic (e.g. fro , maugre , pur , sans , countre etc.). Some of the Middle English prepositions, however, retained their clearly identifiable compound morphological structure (e.g. in+to , to+ward , with+in , for+by , for+with , for+to , on+under , ou+taken , up+ward etc.). Complex prepositions, which consist of two- or three-word combinations acting as a single unit, appeared only since the Late Middle English period (e.g. by means of , by virtue of , by way of) . Most of them have the pattern - simple preposition + noun + simple preposition. It was during the Modern English period that we saw the greatest expansion of this category which remains productive until nowadays. The syntax of English preposition can be studied on two levels - phrase level and clause level. The basic unit of phrase level is prepositional phrase. Prepositional phrase consists of a preposition which functions as a head governing the phrase, plus prepositional complement. In Old English, the prepositional complement was most commonly case-marked. Throughout the history of their development, English prepositions typically came before a noun. The noun does not necessarily come immediately after the preposition, since determiners (pronoun in Old English, and pronoun or article in Middle English) and adjectives could intervene. Other possible complements were pronoun, adverb (usually followed by a preposition), adverbial (including prepositional phrases) or rarely a clause. Moreover, in Middle English verse, prepositions may follow the noun or pronoun: The byschop come to þe burynes, him barones besyde, Þe maire with mony maӡti men and macers before him. Prepositions are high freuqency items belonging to one of the nine word classes into which English lexicon can be divided. They can be defined as a relatively closed class that is not prone to quick changes. Most of the formal changes in their system are a result of internal word-formative processes and grammatization and not borrowings from external sources. As any word class, prepositions can be broadly defined as a set of vocabulary items sharing certain common properties. These generally include varying number of morphological, syntactic and semantic phenomena. Prepositions, throughout the history of their

development, have always been central to the English lexicon. According to the corpus data 3 , the following prepositions occur among the fifty most frequently used English words: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Old English on t o mid In f or o f at be after o fer Middle English of t o i n For b e o n by with a t Early Modern English of t o i n For w ith b y at from o n Modern English of i n t o For w ith o n b y a t from This definition is far from being linguistically correct, since already in the Old English period, there sometimes occured postposed prepositions. Aelfric´s definition, as well as the term foresetnyss itself, imitates the Latin original by Donatus Aelius. The Anglo-Saxon term for a preposition is derived from the Latin term praepositio , the morpheme for meaning “ before ” , the root settan meaning “ to place ” and the derivational morpheme + nyss indicates the class of nouns. The Anglo-Saxon calque, nevertheless, did not gain much popularity and the Latin original penetrated into the English lexical system in the late 14th century. By the end of the sixteenth century, grammars had been written for nearly all of the European vernacular languages. Also, it is a well- known fact that there was a strong influence of Latin grammatical tradition upon these grammars and the English were not an exception. In fact, in the case of English grammars, this trend continued up to the 18th century, when certain grammarians finally realized that differences between Latin and English are too great and Latin grammars cannot form the basis for the description of English. Grammarians influenced by Latin tradition were, for instance, likely to consider English prepositional phrases as pure equivalents of Latin case systems. Prepositions with a different function were usually deemed to be adverbs or, in some cases, a separate word class. As far as 3 The data for Old English, Middle English and Early Modern English are drawn from the diachronic part of the Helsinki Corpus. Modern English data are adopted from a survey of British National Corpus by Leech et al. Although the year 1586 marks the beginning of English grammar writing, the definition of prepositions can already be found in Old English literature:

the influence of Latin grammars in the first 150 years of English grammar writing is concerned with Vorlat. The oldest study of English prepositions is represented right at the beginning of English grammar writing by William Bullokar´s 4 Brief Grammar for English , the first English grammar written in English. Bullokar defines prepositions as “ a part of speech properly used prepositively. First of all, it is interesting to observe that Bullokar takes notice of the fact that prepositions can occur postpostively, an important syntactic property commonly disregarded by later grammarians. Except for syntactic definition, Bullokar focuses on morphological aspect of prepositions as well. Bullokar´s grammar did not miss word-formative aspect of English prepositions as well. He notes that some prepositions can take the suffix +ward, e.g. inward , outward , thus creating adjectives which can be further modified by adding +ly into adverbs, e.g. inwardly . To a present-day speaker of English, affixation to prepostions might seem odd. Nevertheless, especially during the Middle English period, the suffix + ward really occurred in combinations with some prepositions. As far as semantics is concerned, Bullokar notices that prepositions compounded before a verb commonly changes the meaning of a respective verb while prepositions compounded after a verb retain its proper signification. The first English grammar provides a relatively thorough treatment of prepositions, studying them on morphological, syntactic and semantic level. 1.2 Prepositions as a means to provide the sentence additional and necessary details. Prepositions can be used to express wide range of semantic relations between their complement and the rest of the context. The relations expressed by means of 4 Bullokar, William “Brief Grammar for English” . London: Edmund Bollifant. (1586).

spatial (denoting location or direction), temporal (denoting position in time), or relations expressing comparison, content, agent, instrument, means, cause, purpose, reference, etc. Most common prepositions are highly polysemous (they have various different meanings).In many cases a primary, spatial meaning becomes extended to non-spatial uses by metaphorical or other processes. Because of the variety of meanings, a single preposition often has many possible equivalents in another language, depending on the exact context in which it is used; this can cause significant difficulties in foreign language learning. Usage can also vary between dialects of the same language (for example American English has on the weekend, where British English has at the weekend ). In some contexts (as in the case of some phrasal verbs) the choice of preposition may be determined by another element in the construction or be fixed by the construction as a whole. Here the prepositions may have little independent semantic content of its own and there may be no clear reason why the particular preposition is used rather than another. Examples of such expressions are; dispense with, listen to, insist on, proud of, good at. Spatial meanings of prepositions may be either directional or static. A directional meaning usually involves motion in a particular direction: “Key went to the store” , the direction in which something leads or points “ A path into the woods” or the extent of something; “ The fog stretched from London to Paris”. A static meaning indicates only a location: at the store, behind the chair, on the moon. Some prepositions can have both uses: He sat in the water (static) He jumped in the water (probably directional). In English and many other languages prepositional phrases with static meaning are commonly used as predicative expressions. This may happen with some

directional prepositions as well, but this is less common. Directional prepositional phrases combine mostly with verbs that indicate movement . Jay is going into her bedroom. Directional meanings can be further divided into telic and atelic. Telic prepositional phrases imply movement all the way to the endpoint: She ran to the fence while atelic ones do not: She ran towards the fence . Static meanings can be further divided into projective and non-projective meanings are those whose understanding requires knowledge of the perspective or point of view. For example the meaning of ‘behind the rock’ is likely to depend on the position of the speaker (projective) whereas the meaning of ‘on the desk’ is not (non-projective).Sometimes the interpretation is ambiguous as in ‘behind the house’ , which may mean either at the neutral back of the house or on the opposite side of the house from the speaker. There are often similarities in form between prepositions and adverbs. Some adverbs derived from the fusion of a preposition and its complement such as downstairs, from down the stairs and underground , from under the ground. Some words can function both as adverbs and as prepositions, such as inside, abroad, underneath. Such cases are analogous to verbs that can be used either transitively or intransitively and the adverbial forms might therefore be analyzed as “intransitive prepositions”. Some words can be used both as prepositions and as subordinating conjunctions (preposition) before/after/since the end of summer (conjunction) before/after/ since the summer ended. It would be possible to analyze such conjunctions (or even other subordinating conjunctions) as prepositions that take an entire clause as a complement. 1.3. The grammatical functions of prepositions. Traditional grammars define prepositions as words that link to other words, phrases and clauses and that express spatial or temporal relations. Prepositional phrases are phrases that consist of a preposition plus another word, phrase, or clause functioning as a prepositional complement. Prepositions and prepositional

phrase perform seven primary grammatical functions within sentence in the English language. The seven primary functions of prepositions and prepositional phrases are as follows: The first primary grammatical function that prepositions perform is prepositional phrase head. A prepositional phrase consists of a preposition plus another phrase or clause that functions as prepositional complement. For example, following italicized prepositions function as prepositional phrase heads: in the library, after reading the book for whatever will repair the leak. The second primary grammatical function that prepositional phrases perform is the noun phrase modifier. A noun phrase modifier is a word, phrase or clause that modifies or describes a noun including a noun phrase. For example the following italicized prepositional phrases function as noun phrase modifiers: an old man with glasses, someone for whom the bell tolls. The third primary grammatical function that prepositional phrases perform is the noun phrase complement .A noun phrase complement is a word phrase or clause that completes the meaning of a noun phrase. For example, the following italicized prepositional phrases function as noun phrase complements: passion for reading, love of the game, fear of flying; The fourth primary grammatical function that prepositional phrases perform is the adjective phrase complement. An adjective phrase complement is a word, phrase or clause that completes the meaning of an adjective phrase complements: fond of bananas, afraid of falling down stairs. The fifth primary grammatical function that prepositional phrases perform is the verb phrase complement. A verb phrase complement is a word, phrase or clause that completes the meaning of a verb phrase complements: rely on my husband, listen to the music, approval of my plan. A verb with a verb phrase complement is often referred to as a prepositional verb. Prepositional verbs are a common verb form in the English language that consists of a verb followed by a preposition.

The sixth primary grammatical function that prepositional phrases perform is the adjunct adverbial. An adjunct adverbial is a word, phrase or clause that modifies an entire clause by providing additional information about time, place, manner, condition, purpose, reason, result, and concession. For example, the following italicized prepositional phrases function as adjunct adverbials: The children waited in line. She failed the test because of her illness. The couple is walking their dog along the beach. The seventh primary grammatical function that prepositional phrase perform is the disjunct adverbial. A disjunct adverbial provides additional information to frame an entire clause. For example, the following italicized prepositional phrases function as disjunct adverbials: In my opinion, learning about grammar is fun. For the love of goodness, the children need to stop whining. With all due respect, you need to calm down. The seventh primary function of prepositions and prepositional phrases in English language are prepositional phrase heads, noun phrase modifiers, noun phrase complements, adjective phrase complements, verb phrase complements, adjunct adverbials and disjunct adverbials. A preposition generally, but not always, goes before its noun or pronoun. One of the undying myths of English grammar is that you may not end a sentence with a preposition. But look at the first example that follows. That is something I cannot agree with. You may have learned that ending a sentence with a preposition is a serious breach of grammatical etiquette. It doesn’t take a grammarian to spot a sentence ending prepositions, so this is an easy rule to get caught up on. Although it is often easy to remedy the offending preposition, sometimes it isn’t, and repair efforts sometimes result in a clumsy sentence. English language learners can begin to master the intricacies of preposition usage are through practice and paying close attention to speech and the written word. Prepositions are relationship words. They give clues

and guidance regarding how the reminder of the sentence fits together. There are several important rules when using prepositions in the context of a sentence. These rules relate to how prepositions can be used, which prepositions can be used, when, and where prepositions have to go in the sentence. Preposition is a word that explains the time, space or logical relationship between the other parts of the sentence. In other words, it links all the other words together, so the reader can understand how the pieces of the sentence fit. There are hundreds of prepositions in the English language. CHAPTER II Reflections on the Functional Characterization of Spatial Prepositions 2.1. Spatial prepositions and their embodied meaning and cognition. Prepositions are considered as two or three place predicates, because they express a relation between two or three speech participants. Hence Langacker

classifies prepositions as relational expressions because they express how the conceptualizer configurates the parts which constitute a spatial scene with respect to each other. Thus prepositions express how the speaker establishes a cognitive link between two or three parts of spatial scene in the particular cognitive domain. These conventions yield one part as the new part which is standing out as the foreground from an already known-part establishing the background, which functions as a location. In this partitioning the foreground figure receives prominence, because in a particular cognitive domain it is mobile or more movable in relation to its location which usually is more stationary. Langacker has introduced the terms of trajector and landmark for these old gestalt- psychological distinctions in order to mark their linguistic function. 5 The foreground is called the “trajector (TR) and the background is called the “landmark”(LM). The meaning of a preposition cannot be captured by a single semantic specification pertaining to either function or configuration. Instead according to the view now prevailing in cognitive linguistics prepositional meanings are complex in two respects. First, an element exhibits a range of conventional senses or established uses, usually anchored by a central case with respect to which the others can be seen as motivated extensions. The central case goes by various names, such as prototype (Lakoff), spatial scene (Tyler and Evans), conceptual schema (Navarro I Ferrando), and for Vandeloise (logical) impetus (impulsion). While these notions are not necessarily equivalent the differences can largely be ignored for present purposes. Second a given value especially the central one is complex in that its characterization involves multiple coexisting factors. The point is a general one even if we focus on the purely spatial import of prepositions, the active realm is important for understanding their semantics and grammar. Now one might expect that for describing stable spatial arrangements, setting like entities would tend to function in both capacities. But while this is certainly possible, for ex; Canada is in North America . More typical 5 Langacker, Ronald “Foundations of Cognitive Grammar” volume I. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (1987)

are expressions like ( Jill is in the garage ) in which the trajector is a participant and the landmark is a local setting (or location) rather than a global one. With respect to the distance scale, ranging from a human agent at one extreme to an all- encompassing setting at the other the trajector tends to lay toward the former pole, and the landmark toward the middle not the opposite extreme. In clauses that specify static location, the trajector is canonically either a person or a movable physical object ‘ She is on the porch’ . In this case the participant role it instantiates is a mere shadow of the role it has in the agent-patient archetype central to the active realm. There is first a single participant event coded by a simple intransitive clause for example: She stood up . While this is an action rather than an interaction, the subject is still a volitional actor exerting energy. A particular kind of an action, one having great importance and cognitive salience, is that of moving around in space. Corresponding to such events are intransitive clauses containing a movement verb and a complement describing the path of motion for example; ’ She walked along the river’. The landmark of a spatial preposition tends to be intermediate on the scale of distance. Though presumably accurate, it is generally not very useful to be informed that ‘Jill is in the solar system’. Several kinds of entities such as enclosures, bounded areas, and geographical regions of limited extent; ‘Jill is in her room’ . These are naturally viewed as locations, being characterized more by spatial expanse than by material substance. We can observe in these examples a general trend for a wider range of prepositions to occur with landmarks more readily viewed as participants. The reason evidently, is that the landmark’s function is to specify a location and landmarks which are not inherently locational fail to do so with any precision. The landmark entity is thus involved not as a location in and of itself, but rather as appoint of reference for defining one. It is defined by the prepositions. As the distinctive aspect of its meaning, each spatial preposition specifies a region in space, characterized in relation to the landmark object, within which the trajector can be found its interior (in), the region adjacent

to it (beside), its general neighbourhood (near) etc. In this way a set of prepositions provides a highly flexible means of using an object to locate another entity. Thus three major entities, each with a different function, figure in the conceptual characterization of a spatial preposition. This conceptual characterization of prepositions is indicative of their intermediate status, which has several dimensions. First, as noted earlier, they are intermediate in terms of grammatical category, where noun and verb represent a maximal opposition. Finally prepositions have intermediate status with respect to the distance scale, and the active circumstantial realms. Indeed, spatial prepositions are themselves subject to grammaticization involving semantic attenuation, giving rise to uses that are indisputably ‘grammatical’. With respect to grammatical category prepositions are intermediate between the two most fundamental classes, noun and verb, whose conceptual characterizations are polar opposites. The basic question is whether spatial prepositions should in fact be regarded as spatial in nature, or whether a functional characterization might be more fundamental and descriptively adequate. The centrality that prepositions have gained within the framework of Cognitive Grammar relies on the fact that prepositions as spatial expressions are highly representative of the nature of linguistic meaning; conceptualization comprises linguistic meaning or put the other way round, linguistic interpretation equates with conceptualization. In conceptualizing the physical world and communicating about it we are confronted with an immense number of spatially entities, which have a specific extension in three-dimensional space according to their dimentionality, their internal and external bounding, their shape and orientation and their mobility. Unbounded, i.e mass entities are associated with spatial properties in a restricted sense as they have no boundaries marking their gestalt and their absolute extension in space and time. It is by these spatial properties that the conceived entities constrain the possible relations between them and hence the possible spatial predications expressed by prepositions. In particular, we are interested in how spatial concepts are systematically extended to provide a wide

array of non-spatial meanings. We do so through a study of English spatial particles, an important subset of which is prepositions. There seem to be three basic problems for the semantics of prepositions; 1. Prepositions offer a considerable variability of context-independent interpretations i. e, the individual preposition can express a wide range of relations and this is true even if the analysis is restricted to the spatial uses of the individual preposition. The heterogeneity of possible interpretations for the individual preposition poses serious problems for all ‘abstractionist’ theories of word meaning that is, for instance, for theories that start from the assumption that word meanings should be defined in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions for their adequate use; or that they should comprise all and only information common to the whole range of context-dependent uses. 2. The second problem for a semantic theory of prepositions arises from the fact that there is a very close semantic interaction between the preposition and its linguistic context, especially between the preposition and its arguments. One cannot think of the meaning of spatial prepositions. Therefore, one of the problems prepositional semantics has to cope with is to disentangle and isolate the specific semantic content of the individual preposition from the contextual factors influencing its various interpretations, and to make explicit in which way these factors interact with the prepositional meaning. 3. The third problem for prepositional semantics arises from the fact that one and the same spatial situation can be viewed from different perspectives i.e., it can be conceptualized in different ways. In other words, we are able to create different mental structures to interpret an extralinguistic scene and correspondingly in a number of cases different prepositions can be used to refer to one and the same extralinguistic situation. This means that conditions on the use of the individual preposition can be reliably extrapolated from the objective geometrical properties of the extra linguistic situations which the preposition can express. Instead we have to look for the conditions and cognitive principles that make it possible to

conceptualize certain extra linguistic situations in one way or the other, and thus to choose one preposition or another. The semantic theory for spatial prepositions should be capable of accounting for all three phenomena mentioned so far in an adequate and natural way. In particular, it should be able to explain the whole range of context-dependent meanings. If we accept that a preposition expresses a relation between two arguments, these arguments will naturally play the central part in these processes. It is at this point that the spatial properties of the argument objects, i.e., the spatial properties of the located object and the reference object, have to be taken into account and with them the principles of object conceptualization and categorization relevant for the use of the individual preposition and its interpretation . For instance, in a spatial scene described by: The cup is on the table , the cup is in contact with the upper side of the table. A distinct spatio-configuration is described by the following: The coffee is in the cup . This scene involves the coffee being located inside the cup. It turns out that particular spatial re lations have non-trivial consequences that are meaningful to humans. The spatial scene involving on also involves a support function between the table and the cup: unless enough of the cup’s base is situated on the table, the cup will fall and smash on the floor. Equally, the spatial scene relating to in involves a contain ment function, which encompasses several consequences such as locating and limiting the activities of the contained entity. Being contained in the cup pre vents the coffee from spreading out over the table; if we move the cup, the coffee moves with it. These consequences, as well as the spatio-physical configuration between entities, give rise to a range of non-spatial meanings associated with the spatial prepositions on and in . For instance, sentences such as: You can count on my vote and she is in graduate school does not strictly involve spatial relations between physical entities, but rather non-physical concepts associated with the notions of support and containment respectively. The relational concept of a preposition may constrain the indexical meaning of trajector and landmark. These are conditions on trajector and landmark which by

an implied norm or normality or a contextually rendered orientation resolve vague relational concepts. It may, for example, depend on the proportion between trajector. In the cognitive paradigm prepositions are generally considered ideal for the study of lexicalization patterns for the following reasons: -prepositions establish a nearly closed class of units, the meaning of which is mentally represented in terms of highly abstract, i.e., simplified properties; prepositions originally are spatial predicates and concrete space is better accessible than its abstract derivate; -according to the strong hypothesis we defend all-semantic extension at some time has originated from spatial senses and therefore the study of our conceptual means to structure concrete space at the same time supplies us with clues for our mental organization of semantic space in general; for instance, the distinction into true lexical homonymy, polysemy and vagueness by the cognitive principles driving these meaning relations may be obtained in a relatively clear way with respect to the physical domain; -prepositions are highly polysemous with dense patterns of metonymy and metaphor. 2.2. The nature of meaning that is embodied by means of spatial prepositions. Linguists have often assumed that words constitute lexical forms that are conventionally paired with meanings, and that these form-meaning pairings are stored in a mental dictionary or lexicon. Traditional approaches to the mental lexicon have tended either to ignore the issue of whether distinct meanings associated with a single form are related or to assume that the relationships are arbitrary, which is to say, the forms are unrelated. However, the linguist Bernd

Heine has observed that finding a satisfactory solution to the problem of how to represent the multiple meanings associated with a single linguistic form is both a central and a controversial issue for linguistic theory. The position taken on this question affects not only how we model the semantics of individual lexical items and the architecture of the mental lexicon, but also the rest of one’s model of language. The lexicon represents a pivotal interface between syntax, semantics and pragmatics; the representation of the semantic component of lexical items has crucial implications not only for a theory of word meaning but also for a theory of sentence-level meaning construction. Such issues bear on the interaction between words and the human conceptual system. In this work we take up the challenge of how best to represent the distinct meanings or senses associated with a single lexical form. We do so through an examination of the semantics of a range of English spatial prepositions, such as over, up, down, in and out , etc. There are a number of reasons for choos ing spatial prepositions. Perhaps most importantly the variety and complexity of the numerous different meanings associated with even a single spatial preposition represents a significant descriptive challenge. Hence, insights gleaned from such an analysis promise to have considerable applicability to other classes of words. 6 But also important is the relatively transparent experiential basis of spatial prepositions. The meanings of this set of words are clearly grounded at some level in our spatio- physical interaction with the world. Inves tigating the meanings associated with spatial prepositions will offer fundamental insights into the relation between language, mental representation and human experience. “ My grandmother was a great one for mixing historical lessons in with child rearing. A favorite, regularly used when one of the grandchildren was being rebuked for failing to satisfactorily complete some minor task and was, con - sequently, being required to do it over A , involved pointing to the needle-point text hanging over B the sofa which read, ‘We won’t come back ’til l it’s over C , over D 6 Evans has successfully extended the same model to an examination of the conceptualization of time.

there.’ This was inevitably followed by the question, ‘Where would the world be if they hadn’t done their jobs properly?’ This text might strike contemporary readers as a little unusual. References to lines from old war songs and needle-pointed mottoes hanging on the wall belong to a bygone era and anecdotes relying on them are likely to be somewhat vague. However, what is even more striking about the text is exactly what typical native speakers of English are likely to find unremarkable, namely the numerous, very different interpretations assigned to the single word, over . In this short text, over has four distinct interpretations – over A can be paraphrased by ‘again’, over B by ‘above’, over C by ‘finished’ and over D by ‘in some other place’. For us, the fundamental question that texts such as the one above raise is whether the various meanings regularly associated with a single word are simply accidental (the fact that over has four very different meanings might, after all, be a bizarre accident), or systematically related. The question of how best to model the distinct meanings associated with a single lexical form has been approached from three perspectives. These are homonymy, monosemy and polysemy. We turn now to a consideration of these three approaches . Accord ingly, it would be claimed that there are several distinct form-meaning pairings for over which language users represent in their mental lexicons. This position would thus posit that each of the form-meaning lexical entries is homonyms, which is to say that they are unrelated. The fact that the different senses are coded by the same linguistic form is presumably just an accident. This is essen tially the position taken by traditional representations of the lexicon. The homonymy approach suffers from a number of weaknesses when we attempt to account for words such as over . First, it ignores any systematic relationships among the distinct meanings associated with a single linguistic form. Second, the homonymy position takes a narrow synchronic view. The synchronic seman tic network associated with a lexical item is a historical product. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that at an earlier stage in the language, a form such as over had fewer distinct, conventionalized meanings

associated with it; 7 thus, many of the uses now conventionally associated with the form at one point represented novel uses. Finally, the homonymy approach fails to explain the ubiquity of the pheno menon. Every spatial preposition of English demonstrates multiple senses. More over, careful examination of spatial prepositions as a word class reveals regular patterns of meanings across the individual members of the class. For instance, all spatial prepositions whose primary senses have a distinct goal sense share a clearly defined set of properties. As the homonymy approach fails to recognize that distinct meanings may be motivated and, hence, at some level systematically related, we are forced to conclude that it is inadequate. An alternative approach, monosemy, has been advocated by Charles Ruhl . Ruhl argues in detail that forms are paired with a single highly abstract meaning. This abstract meaning can be filled in by contextual knowledge, such that all the distinct meanings associated with a lexeme are derived. This position is termed monosemy, as it holds that the multiple meanings associated with a particular form are merely contextually derived variants of a single monosemous meaning. Monosemy, like homonymy, has a number of problems associated with it. Perhaps the most serious is that while it may well be that the distinct meanings as sociated with a particular form are related to a primary, abstract meaning, some meanings are demonstrably context independent. That is, although important, pragmatic knowledge alone is insufficient in predicting all of the distinct mean ings associated with a particular form. For instance, in our examples for over it is difficult to see what kind of contextual knowledge would allow us to derive the spatial meaning of ‘above’, the non-spatial meaning of ‘again’ and the non- spatial meaning ‘finished’, all from a single, abstract meaning associated with over . A second, and equally fatal, problem is that the primary meaning would need to be so abstract to be able to derive a set of such distinct meanings that it is difficult to see how the meanings associated with other spatial prepositions, such as above or on , could be mutually 7 This point is also made by Sweetser. From Etimology to Pragmatics: “Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1990).

distinguished. Some of the interpretations associated with a particular form must be due to distinct meanings paired with the words themselves. A polysemy approach suggests that the meanings associated with a spatial preposition such as over are related in some fashion . Our account of polysemy holds that a linguistic form is paired at the conceptual level, not with a single meaning, but rather with a network of distinct but related meanings. Therefore, the meanings associated with a particular form constitute a semantic network. Whereas the meaning of moving from one side of an obstacle to the other in sen tences of the following kind: The cat jumped over the wall , is a situated on-line interpretation, constructed for the purpose of local understanding in context. Figure2.1. Possible trajectories for The cat jumped over the wall. Consider a further complication diagram (d) in figure 2.1 crucially repre sents the cat’s motion ending at a point on the opposite side of the wall relative to the starting position of the jump. Yet, no element in the sentence explicitly provides us with this information. 8 In the following examples we can see polysemantic approach. 8 Dewell in his “Cognitive Linguistics” “ Over ” again: image-schema transformations in semantic analysis argues that the primary mental representation associated with over involves the arced trajectory(1994).

Figure 2.2 Trajectory paths potentially coded by over. Figure 2.2 shows that over can be associated with several potential spatial configurations holding between the object in focus and the locating, backgrounded object. Jane marched up the stairs. > Jane marched down the stair. In sentences such as these, information provided by the spatial preposition clearly affects the interpretation of the trajectory. Theorists who assume that meaning must (predominantly) come from the sentential elements (i.e., from language) must also assume that it is the spatial preposition which codes the trajectory. In a situation in which there is contact between the TR and LM, as in a sentence such as Sam crawled over the wall , the specifically mentioned LM provides the overall shape as well as the beginning and end points for the motion labeled as crawling . In order to specify an arc trajectory for ‘ above and across ’ , when there is no contact between the TR and LM, additional semantic features (beyond those provided by the LM) which code where the movement started and ended seem to be required. If such specification is necessary for one trajectory in which there is no contact, we might conclude that it should be included in the representation of all trajectories in which there is no contact. However, in the sentence: The plane flew over the city the normal interpretation does not include information concerning where the motion associated with flying started and ended. If not all non-contact trajectories are coded by the spatial preposition for beginning and end points, one might will wonder what criteria could be used in order to determine, in a non-arbitrary fashion, which uses of a spatial preposition would need to have starting and end points of the trajectory specified. Throughout this work, we will argue that attempting to list detailed informa tion in the basic lexical representation of spatial prepositions fails to account for everyday meaning construction. Spatial scenes, such as the scene prompted for by a sentence like: The cat jumped over the wall , involving conceptualiz ing a spatio-configurational relation between entities we encounter in the world around us and with which we interact. Hence, a spatial scene is a

conceptualiza tion grounded in spatio-physical experience. This analysis allows us to avoid the problems encountered with a more fully specified lexical representation while revealing the systematic semantic relations among the many meanings of individual English spatial preposition. We claimed that a subset of in terpretations represent those meanings which must be stored in memory, and hence are permanently available. These meanings we termed senses. We also suggested that some meanings associated with words must be due to prag matic inferencing, context and background knowledge. These meanings, we suggested, are constructed on-line in the moment of speaking and listening. In attempting to distinguish between the meaning contributed by language and the meaning due to world knowledge and cognitive processing, this led us to the general conclusion that meaning construction must be inherently conceptual in nature. Language refers to conceptual structure, which indirectly reflects the world. These general findings have profound consequences for a theory of word meaning, a theory of meaning construction, and perhaps most crucially, for an understanding of the relationship between language, thought and the nature of reality. 2.3 The proto-scenes for spatial prepositions. In order to distinguish the primary sense in a semantic network from the other senses that are ultimately derived from it, we use the term proto-scene . A proto- scene is an idealized mental representation across the recurring spa tial scenes associated with a particular spatial preposition; hence it is an abstraction across many similar spatial scenes. It combines idealized elements of real-world experience (objects in the guise of TRs and LMs) and a conceptual relation (a conceptualization of a particular configuration between the objects). Proto-scenes are instantiated in memory due to their frequency and util ity in human interaction with the world. In our label proto-scene, the term proto captures the idealized aspect of the conceptual/mental relation, while the use of the term scene emphasizes spatio-physical and hence perceptual awareness of a spatial scene. The proto-scene for over

The proto-scene associated with over involved a spatial configuration in which the TR is located higher than the LM. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the earliest meaning associated with the form over relates to higher than, or above. The OED relates over to the Old Teutonic preposition and adverb ufa , ‘above’, a cognate of the Sanskrit upari ‘higher’. The form over derives from an earlier form be-ufan , which was a comparative form of above . Figure 2.3 The proto-scene for over This proto-scene for over is diagrammed in figure 2.3. In this figure, the TR is repre - sented by the shaded sphere and the LM by the thick horizontal line. The area conceptualized as proximal to the LM is delimited by the dashed line. There are two claims that bear more thorough investigation resulting from the foregoing. The first is that the spatial configuration holding between the TR–LM is correctly captured by the description that over lexicalizes the proto- scene depicted in figure 2.3, namely that the TR is higher than but within a region of potential contact with the LM. The second claim warranting further scrutiny concerns the functional element: that the TR and LM are within each other’s sphere of influence. Dealing with the first claim, the linguistic evidence suggests that over is at best marginally acceptable if the TR is not within a specifiable proximal range of the LM. The proto-scene for above Above traces its origins to Anglo-Saxon be + ufan , which is related to the same Sanskrit root, ‘upari’, as over . In Anglo-Saxon, the antecedent of over was ufa , the

comparative form of above . In Gothic, be + fan was interpreted roughly as ‘being in an up position’. Thus, over and above has long been closely associated semantically. Many previous accounts have suggested that over and above are synonyms, both of which designate a TR that is higher than a LM. For instance, Lakoff states that the Higher-than Sense of over ‘is roughly equivalent in mean ing to above ’. In attempting to tease apart the meanings of the two prepositions, Brugman and Kreitzer 9 argued that above is typically interpreted as indicating a less specific location than over . Figure 2.4 Proto-scene for above We suggest that the linguistic evidence supports the conclusion that it is the functional element that distinguishes these two prepositions. Recall that the functional element we posit as being associated with over ’s proto-scene is that the TR is ‘within potential reach of’ the LM. This results in a conceptual connectedness between the TR and the LM. In contrast, we suggest that the functional element associated with above emphasizes an unbridgeable distance between the TR and the LM, such that the TR is ‘not within potential reach of the LM. Figure 2.4 diagrams the proto-scene for above . The TR in figure 2.4 is diagrammed as the dark sphere and the LM as the bold line. The dashed line distinguishes the spatial region that is conceptualized as being proximal to the LM from that which is conceptualized as being distal. Owing to its location, the TR in the figure is being conceptualized as not within potential reach of the LM. While the notion of distance between the TR and LM accounts for the majority of uses of above , that certain uses of prepositions are not predictable and only partially motivated, that the spatial scene prompted for by above involves a vaguer relation - ship between the TR and the LM, one in which the location of the TR is less clearly specified or known, than the scene prompted for by over . Proto-scenes for under and below 9 Anatol Kreitzer reflected that problem in his “Cognitive Linguistics” 1997 .

The divisions of the vertical axis higher than the LM represented by over and above are mirrored by under and below when the TR is conceptualized as being lower than the LM. Parallel to over , the proto-scene for under denotes a conceptual spatial-functional relation between a TR and a LM, in which the TR is lower than and yet proximal to the LM. Parallel to above , the proto- scene associated with below denotes a relation in that the TR is lower than and distal with respect to the LM, and hence the possibility of contact between the TR–LM is (largely) precluded. Figure 2.5 provides the proto-scene for under , while figure 2.6 gives the proto-scene for below .

Figure 2.5 Proto-scene for under Figure 2.6 Proto-scene for below In figures 2.5 and 2.6, the LM is designated by the bold line, the TR by the shaded sphere and the region experienced and conceptualized as within reach of the LM by the dashed line. Hence, the region of potential contact is between the LM and the dashed line. In figure 2.6, the TR is outside this region and hence the TR and LM are not in potential contact with respect to one another. Proto-scene for up The proto-scene for up denotes a relation in which the TR is directed towards the top of an oriented LM. Thus, the LM is conceptually partitioned and construed as having a top and bottom; what counts as top is determined by the LM. The TR is also conceptualized as being oriented; in this case, the asymmetry arises as a result of the direction in which the TR is directed. What constitutes up is the relation between the asymmetric LM and the oriented TR. Thus, we posit a proto-scene for up which involves an oriented TR and an asymmetric LM, partitioned into top and bottom components. Our proto-scene for up is diagrammed in figure 2.7

Figure 2.7 Proto-scene for up In figure 2.7 the ‘stick-person’ represents the asymmetrical LM; the head or ‘top’ is in focus and hence highlighted, which is represented by the shaded sphere, constituting the TR. The TR is represented by the dark sphere. The orientation of the TR is represented by the direction of the arrow emerging from the sphere. Proto-scene for down Having considered up in some detail, we will now consider down , which with up constitutes a contrast pair. A number of the patterns found with up are inversely reflected with down . Proto-scene for down is given in figure 2.8 Figure 2.8 Proto-scene for down In figure 2.8 the ‘head’ is unshaded while the ‘legs’ are in bold. This high lighting reflects the view that for down , the bottom half of the human form is profiled. In contrast with up , we suggest that the functional element associated with down is that of negative value. It is negative in the sense that the TR becomes invisible, no longer accessible, in a lower position, and no longer in a position of command, or influence, and no longer in a normative position, but a position of potential vulnerability. Proto-scene for to and for

In this section we examine the proto-scenes and several senses associated with to and for two spatial prepositions which involve oriented TRs. These prepositions are particularly interesting for several reasons. Teasing out the precise differences and offering a descriptively adequate representation of the proto-scenes emphasizes the importance of the notions of construal and highlighting, as well as the importance of the functional element. We have seen that English spatial prepositions may in particular contexts appear to be near synonyms, while in other contexts they are clearly distinct, for example over versus above and under versus below . In certain contexts, to and for also seem to share a high degree of semantic overlap. Figure 2.9 Proto-scene for to Figure 2.10 Proto-scene for for The linguistic manner exhibited by to and for discussed above, suggests that to and for both designate TRs oriented with respect to LMs, but the status of the TR and LM associated with the respective spatial prepositions is distinct. A consequence of these differences in status of the TRs and LMs is different in the functional elements associated with each preposition .We propose that in the proto-scene for to , denotes a spatial relation in which an oriented TR is directed towards a highlighted LM. Within this spatial configuration, the highlighted status of the LM makes it readily interpretable as a primary target or goal. Hence, the functional element associated with to is the LM as goal. Figure 2.9 represents the proto- scenes for to . The shaded sphere represents the TR. The arrow represents the orientation. The vertical line represents the LM. The functional element associated

with the proto-scene is that the LM constitutes the primary goal. Figure 2.10 represents the proto-scene associated with for . The shaded sphere represents the TR. The arrow represents the orientation. The vertical line rep resents the LM. Note that the LM is represented with a dashed line, reflecting the view that it is not profiled. Proto-scene for “ in front of” In the proto-scene for in front of , the LM is oriented, due either to possess ing inherent front/back asymmetry or to being conceptualized such that it has front/back asymmetry. The TR, however, is not oriented. In the proto-scene for in front of , the TR is located at the ‘front’ of the LM, that is, the LM is oriented towards the TR. Figure 2.11 Proto-scene for in front of The proto-scene for in front of is given in figure 2.11. The TR is denoted by the small shaded sphere. The LM is designated by the elongated sphere, with orientation denoted by the direction of the arrow emerging from the LM. Thus far in our discussion of the proto-scene for in front of , we have considered only animate LMs, which have inherent front/back orientation. However, the proto- scene for in front of can also be used with inanimate LMs, which are what we will term functionally oriented . Proto-scene for before The spatial preposition before relates historically to Old English beforen/biforan , Old Saxon biforan , Old High German bifora glossed as ‘be front’ or ‘ahead’ as well as to be + fore. Fore was a separate preposition in Old

English and meant ‘located at the front of’. Fore is related to Sanskrit puras w hich is glossed as ‘at first, in advance and the related preposition puristat which is glossed as ‘before’ and ‘in the presence of. Both the TR and the LM are oriented. The elongated sphere in figure 2.12 represents the LM; the smaller sphere represents the TR. Figure 2.12 Proto-scene for before A recurring consequence of two animate, oriented entities being in an in tandem alignment and in motion is that the one in the advance position will encounter other entities first. An unavoidable consequence of the TR and LM being so aligned is that the TR and the LM will encounter other entities se quentially. Proto-scene for behind The interactive consequence of a TR located at the back of a front/back oriented LM is that the LM does not have perceptual access to the TR. The etymology of this preposition is be + hind. Hind is clearly associated with an anthropomorphic/zoomorphic model, as in ‘hind end’ or ‘hind quarters’ of a person or animal. Thus, behind originally meant roughly ‘located at the back’. The proto- scene we propose for behind locates the TR at the back of the LM, that is, the TR is understood to be located such that the front of the LM is directed away from the TR. Figure 2.13 Proto-scene for behind

The proto-scene for behind is diagrammed in figure 2.13.As with the proto- scene posited for in front of and before , the small shaded sphere represents the TR. The larger elongated sphere represents the LM. The arrow indicates the orientation of the LM, such that the TR is situated at the back of the LM, and hence is positioned behind with respect to the LM. The functional element denoted by behind relates to lack of perceptual access and lack of surety about the location of the TR. Proto-scene for after After de rives from a comparative form of af , which was apparent in Old English and meant ‘off’ or ‘away’. Hence, the comparative ‘af + ter’ meant ‘farther off’ or ‘farther away’. Figure 2.14 Proto-scene for after The proto-scene for after is presented in figure 2.14. The larger, oriented element represents the LM; the smaller element represents the TR. Proto-scene for in The proto-scene for in constitutes a spatial relation in which a TR is located within a LM which has three salient structural elements – an interior, a boundary and an exterior. In addition to the spatial relation designated, the proto-scene for in is associated with the functional element of containment. Figure 2.15 Proto-scene for in

The proto-scene for in is given in figure 2.15. The LM is designated by the bold lines while the TR is designated by the shaded sphere. Proto-scene for into The English spatial preposition in no longer relates to orientation, but simply location within a bounded LM, the spatial preposition into does relate to orientation into mediates a spatial relation in which the TR is located on the exterior of a bounded LM and is oriented towards the LM. Spatial preposition into has a functional component of goal associated with it, such that the LM constitutes the TR’s objective. The proto-scene for into is diagrammed in figure 2.16. In the diagram the arrow signals that the TR is oriented with re spect to the bounded LM. Figure 2.16 Proto-scene for into Proto-scene for out

Positing that out involves the exterior element of a bounded LM and a func - tional element of non-containment predicts that many of the senses associated with out will involve opposing inferences from those arising with in and the functional element of containment. The spatial relation designated by out is one in which the TR is not contained by the bounded LM. However, in our everyday interaction with ob jects and our environment, it is evident that many TRs that are not contained by LMs at one time were. Figure 2.17 Proto-scene for out We diagram the proto-scene for out in figure 2.17. The shaded sphere repre - sents the TR while the dashed square represents the covert bounded LM. The LM is covert in the sense that it is not profiled by out . A consequence of this is that out seldom functions as a preposition. The functional element associated with out is non-containment. Proto-scene for of The spatial preposition of is particularly interesting as it appears to be one of only a few spatial prepositions, which, in synchronic terms, seems to have become largely dissoci ated from its spatial origin. According to the OED, “the primary sense was away , away from , a sense now absolute, except in so far as it is retained under the spelling OFF” (now a distinct spatial preposition, but one which originally de rived from of ). The earlier spatial sense is no longer widely in evidence. Perhaps the clos est sense in which of designates a spatial relation.

Figure 2.18 Proto-scene for of The spatial relation denoted by of in examples such as these therefore involves a part-whole designation, with the TR being a specified part of the LM. The designation of the spatial elements of the synchronic primary sense for of is diagrammed as our proto-scene in figure 2.18. The spatial part-whole relation designated by of is captured by virtue of the TR, the sphere, emerging from the LM, the square. Proto-scene for through It designates a spatial relation in which the TR is held to occupy a contiguous series of spatial points with respect to a LM, which has an interior structural element, such that these points are located on the exterior side of the LM co incident with the entrance point, within the LM and on the exterior side of the LM opposite to the entrance point, that is, the exit point. A consequence of the particular spatial designation associated with through is that the functional notion of path is evoked. Figure 2.19 Proto-scene for through Thus, the relation described by through describes a spatial relation in which a bounded LM is transected by virtue of an entrance point and an exit point. The functional element evoked is that of path. For this reason through is often asso ciated with motion. The proto-scene for through is diagrammed in figure 2.19. It is worth noting that the proto-scene we posit is consonant with the ‘spatial image’ of through presented by Hilferty 10 . 10 Joseph Hilferty “ Through as a means to metaphor” in Issues in Cognitive Linguistic s. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter 1999.

2.4. The semantic network for spatial prepositions An equally thorny problem is the question of what counts as the primary sense associated with a polysemy network. In previous studies of semantic networks it has been assumed that there is a single primary sense associated with a spa tial preposition, and that the other senses are derived from this primary sense in a principled way. How ever, one of the problems has been in deciding which is the primary sense, and even how ‘primariness’ should be defined. It is to this issue which we now turn. In particular, Lakoff argued that lexical categories and polysemy networks could be thought of in terms of being structured with respect to prototypical meanings. 11 On this view, the distinct meanings or senses associated with a particular word, such as over , are related in a principled way to a prototype. Lakoff modeled his semantic network for over in terms of a radiating lattice structure, in which the prototypical sense was positioned as central, while other senses were depicted as being more peripheral. The historical evidence shows that for the English spatial prepositions we have examined, the earliest attested uses have to do with a spatial configuration holding between the TR and the LM (as opposed to a non-spatial configuration as in: The movie is over ). Since English has historically drawn from many languages, not all spatial prepositions entered the language at the same time and there are instances of competing near synonyms, for instance, beneath, below and under . In such cases, over a period of time, the semantic territory has been divided among such competing prepositions, but even so, they retain a core meaning that directly involves the original TR–LM configuration. Unlike words from many other word classes, the earliest attested sense for many spatial prepositions is still a major, active component of the synchronic semantic network of each preposition. In the case of over , it is related to the Sanskrit upari ‘higher’ as well as the Old Teutonic comparative form ufa 11 Lakoff , George “The contemporary Theory of Metaphor and Thought”( second edition), edited by A. Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press(1993).

‘above’ (OED). Spatial prepositions are involved in at least two types of composite lexical units – compound forms, such as overcoat , and verb preposition forms, such as look over as in Would you look over this letter and get it back to me as soon as possible? Our examination of English spatial prepositions has revealed that many different senses in a semantic network can participate in these composite lexical units; however, there are some senses which do not participate. We suggest that participation in composite forms cannot directly determine which sense is primary, but failure to participate can be taken as suggestive that particular sense is probably not primary in the network. Within the entire group of spatial prepositions, certain clusters of prepositions ap pear to form compositional sets that divide up various spatial dimensions. For instance, the prepositions above, over, under and below appear to form a compositional set which divides up the vertical dimension into four related subspaces. Other contrast sets include up and down, before and after , and in front of and behind , and in and out . To a large extent, the label assigned to denote a particular TR–LM configuration is deter mined in relation to other labels in the contrast set. So, for instance, what we label as up is partially determined by what we label as down . In this sense, the meaning of a preposition that participates in a contrast set is partially determined by how it contrasts with other members of the compositional set. In the particular case of over , the sense that distinguishes this preposition from above , under and below involves the notion of a TR being located higher than but potentially within reach of the LM . Our primary goal in this paper is to account for the systematic, motivated network of senses associated with each spatial preposition. Introspective responses from various native speakers of English suggest that, in certain cases, speakers do have different conceptualizations of how a particular sense is related to the proto-scene. In establishing whether a meaning component associated with over constitutes a distinct sense. We present figure 2.20 which represents our proposed semantic network for over , subsuming a total of fifteen distinct senses including the proto scene. Each distinct sense is represented by

a dark sphere or node in the network; the proto-scene occupies a central position which indicates its status as the primary sense. When a complex conceptualization gives rise to multiple senses, we term the set of senses a cluster of senses. A cluster of senses is depicted in our paper of a semantic network by an open circle. A single distinct sense is represented by a shaded sphere. Figure 2.20 The semantic network for over The five distinct senses in the A-B-C Trajectory Cluster (On-the-other-side-of, Above-and-beyond (Excess I), Completion, Transfer and Temporal) all derive from reanalysis of the complex conceptualization. This complex conceptualization,

although profiling a sequentially evolving process, during reanalysis is subject to conceptualization in summary format. The On-the-other-side-of Sense has come to be associated with certain uses of over which are not derivable from context. Consider the following sentence: Arlington is over the Potomac River from Georgetown. Notice in this sentence that the verb is , fails to indicate any sense of motion. In our model for over , it is the verb that typically codes for motion and hence prompts for a trajectory. Thus, the lack of motion coded by is , in turn, results in failure to prompt for a trajectory. If there is no trajectory, there is no beginning or end point. Hence, there is no principled way of deriving an On-the-other- side-of Sense from this sentential context. Nevertheless, native speakers will normally interpret this utterance such that Arlington is understood to be located on the other side of the Potomac River from Georgetown. Notice that in none of the following do we conventionally obtain the reading in which the TR is physically higher than LM or that jumping or moving is involved: The ball landed over the wall. The old town lies over the bridge. The mansion is situated over that wall. John lives over the hill. The Above-and-beyond (Excess I) Sense (2.B) In the following sen tences, over is used as predicted by the proto-scene but with the additional implicatures that the LM represents an intended goal or target and that the TR moved beyond the intended or desired point. The arrow flew over the target and landed in the woods. Lissa just tapped the golf ball, but it still rolled over the cup. Given general knowledge about people shooting arrows and targets, we believe most speakers would assume that whoever shot the arrow intended to hit the target, but aimed too high. Thus, the movement of the arrow , the TR, was above and beyond the LM, or in excess of, what the agent intended. Evidence for this sense being distinct

comes from sentences such as the following in which the sense cannot be derived from context: Your article is over the page limit. Note that in this sentence, over cannot felicitously be interpreted as physically ‘higher than’. Rather the interpretation seems to be that there is an established or targeted number of pages for the article and that the actual number of pages went beyond (i.e., exceeded) that target. The Completion Sense (2.C) We suggest that the Completion Sense associated with over has arisen as a result of the implicature of completion being reanalysed as distinct from the complex conceptualization. Once reanalysis has taken place, the final location resulting from motion correlates with the completion of motion, and the distinct sense comes to be associated with the form over in the semantic network via pragmatic strengthening. Contextually independent usages of this particular sense are highly productive, as attested by the following: The film/game/play is over [= finished/complete] The Transfer Sense (2.D) As over has a conventionalized Transfer Sense associated with it, the relation between non-physical TRs and LMs cannot be spatio- configurational, but as is it can involve the notion of transfer. This further illustrates that transfer must be a distinct sense, as it could not be derived from context in such sentences: The old government handed its power over (to the newly elected officials). In this example, there is a conventional reading in which the members of the government transfer their authority, that is, their mandate to govern, to a new set of officials. Sally turned the keys to the office over to the janitor The bank automatically switched the money over to our checking account. The Temporal Sense (2.E) In this sense, over mediates a temporal relation between a particular TR and a period of duration. 12 Consider some examples that 12 Many of spatial prepositions we have examined have temporal senses. For instance , under, down, up, to, for, in, on, at, by, before, after and through all have temporal uses. Because of space limitations, we will only address

are illustrative: The festival will take place over the weekend. Their friendship has remained strong over the years. In each of these examples the TR is conceptualized as being manifested through time, and hence co-occurring with the temporal LM, the weekend and the years , respectively. For this reason we term this the Temporal Sense. In order to understand how this sense is likely to have derived, consider the following: The boy walked over the hill. The Covering Sense (3) All the senses and interpretations we have examined so far have assumed that the TR is smaller than the LM. However, there are instances in the real world in which the object that is in focus is larger or perceived to be larger than the locating object. Such a situation is described in the following sentences: The tablecloth is over the table. The fiberglass protector was over the swimming pool. The Examining Sense (4) The construal which gives rise to the Examining Sense is the result of a shift in vantage point. In particular, we argue that in the scene associated with the Examining Sense, the vantage point is that of the TR, and further that the TR’s line of vision is directed at the LM. Let us consider how this construal might arise. Consider the following sentences: Phyllis is standing over the entrance to the underground chamber. She wore a transparent veil over her face. Here over is being used as designated in the proto-scene and is denoting a spatial relation between the TR, Phyllis, and the LM, the entrance to the underground chamber, in which the TR is higher than but proximal to the LM. A conse quence of Phyllis being in this physical relation to the entrance is that she is in a position to observe the entrance carefully. Temporal Sense related to over.

The Focus-of-attention Sense (4 A) The following sentences illustrate what we call the Focus-of-attention Sense. Notice that in these sentences over can be paraphrased by about: a) The little boy cried over his broken toy . b) The little boy cried about his broken toy. This sense is closely related to the Examining Sense from which it derives. In the Examining Sense, the vantage point is that of the TR, while the LM is physically below and proximal to the TR. We further posited that the TR must be construed as directing attention toward the LM. Once this sense has been instantiated in memory, non-physical TRs and LMs can be denoted by this sense, as evidenced by the following: She thought over the problem. The vertical elevation or Up Cluster (5) Four distinct senses fall under this cluster. Each of these arises from construing a TR that is located physically higher than the LM as being vertically elevated or up relative to the LM. Being up entails a particular construal of the scene in which upward orientation is assigned to the TR. The construal of upward orientation being assigned to the TR arises fre quently in real-world experiences associated with the conceptual spatial relation over . For instance, in order to move over and beyond many LMs, movement from a physically lower location to a physically higher location is often nec essary, that is, vertical elevation of the TR occurs. The More Sense (5A) Over can be construed as relating a TR which is physically up with respect to a LM, and vertical elevation correlates in experiential terms with greater quantity, an implicature associated with being over is of having more of some entity. This implicature is conventionalized (via pragmatic strengthening) as attested by the following example: Jerome found over forty kinds of shells on the beach. The normal interpretation of over in this context is ‘more than’. The following is an additional example involving the More Sense:

The buyer offered Matt $1,000 over the amount he was asking for his house. Over-and-above (Excess II) Sense (5.A.1) The Over-and-above (Excess II) Sense is closely related to the More Sense. It adds an interpretation of ‘too much’ to the more construal. We believe that a likely origin for this sense involved reanalyzing scenes involving containment, such as those described in the following: The heavy rains caused the river to flow over its banks. When the amount of liquid or cereal which has been placed in the container is such that its level is higher than but within reach of the top of the LM, then the amount constitutes more than the container can hold. Lou kept pouring the cereal into the bowl until it spilled over and onto the counter. Control Sense (5.B) The third experiential correlate associated with vertical elevation is the phenomenon of control or power. This meaning com ponent associated with over is illustrated by the following sentence: She has a strange power over me. Clearly this sentence does not mean that the TR, she , is higher than but within reach of me , the LM. Rather, the conventional interpretation derived from such an example is that the TR exerts influence or control over the LM. Hence an important element of how we actually experience control is that of being physically higher than that which is controlled: The fight ended with John standing over Mac, his fist raised. Camilla has authority over purchasing. The Preference Sense (5.C) In this sense, that which is higher is conventionally understood as being preferred to that which is lower. Consider the following examples: I would prefer tea over coffee. We suggest that the Preference Sense derives in the following way. Being phys ically up in experiential terms can implicate greater quantity, which generally is preferred to a lesser quantity.

The Reflexive Sense (6) Spatial reflexivity is the phenomenon whereby a single entity that occupies multiple posi tions is conceptualized such that two salient positions occupied by the entity are integrated into a TR–LM spatial configuration. A spatial preposition such as over is then utilized to mediate a spatial relation between the two positions, even though the same entity cannot simultaneously occupy two distinct spatial positions in the world. Consider the following example: The fence fell over . In the sentence that is presented above TR, that is, the initial (upright) position of the fence is distin guished from the final position, in which the fence is lying horizontally on the ground. The Repetition Sense (6.A) The Repetition Sense adds an iterative meaning component to the use of over . Again, this meaning component could not be predicted from the proto-scene alone. Consider the following example in which over can be paraphrased by again : After the false start, they started the race over . Further examples of the Repetition Sense are given below: He played the same piano piece over. This keeps happening over and over. After exercising on all the weight machines, Edna began the circuit all over . The semantic network for above The semantic network for above contains only four distinct senses, many fewer than the number contained in the network for over . Given that meaning is embodied (derived from human interaction with spatial scenes), this follows naturally . We suggest, in a spatial relation such as over , which relates to potential contact and hence proximity, giving rise to a greater number of distinct meanings than a distal relation such as above , which (generally) relates to non-contact, and hence distance. Figure 2.21 diagrams the semantic network associated with above .

Figure 2.21 The semantic network for above The Up Cluster (2) In this cluster, inferences of this kind, relating to the TR being up relative to the LM, give rise to two distinct senses, the More Sense and the Superior Sense. The More Sense (2.A) Evidence for establishment of a distinct sense comes from uses of above in which there is no objective sense of physicality or of vertical elevation. Consider the following: The price of that stock is now above $20. In this sentence, both the TR, the price of that stock , and the LM, $20 , represent non-physical entities or concepts. Both over and above has developed More Sense. However, the uses of each of these prepositions in their More Sense are constrained by their representa tive proto-scenes. For instance, we commonly find expressions such as above reproach and above suspicion as in the following: a) Unlike many presidents, Lincoln’s personal relations have always been considered above reproach. In these sentences, the focus is on the clear distinction in Lincoln’s or Gandhi’s character/actions and the character/actions which would be consid ered within the realm of suspicion or reproach . The Superior Sense (2.B) Analogous, there is a correlation between being physically taller and phys ical superiority. For instance, the taller, larger person is

often the one who will win in physical combat. Moreover, the person who is left standing, in the ver tically up position, is the winner in many physical contests. The implicature of superiority, which comes from being vertically elevated, has been convention alized in the semantic network associated with above . Consider the following example that evidences the Superior Sense: Nancy’s intellectual prowess is well above the other judges in her district The interpretation of this sentence is that Nancy is a superior judge, not that her intellectual prowess is located physically higher than the other judges. More over, in this use of above , the concept of great distance seems to be highlighted, which is consistent with the proto-scene we have posited for above . Consider the following example: He’s above me in the company. In the relation designated by this example, the sentence does not mean that the TR, he , is physically higher than the LM, me , but rather that the TR, he , is superior to the LM, me , in some way, for instance in terms of authority, seniority, salary. There are two additional senses associated with above , which appear to di rectly derive from the proto-scene. These are what we term the Next-one-up Sense, and the Topographical-distance Sense. The Next-one-up Sense (3 ) In this sense, above relates to the next one up in a vertical sequence. In addition to the Higher-than reading associated with the proto- scene, it provides a more specific meaning component, in which the next element above the one currently in focus is identified. In order to make this concrete, consider an example: Be careful! The rung above the one you’re standing on is broken. In this example the broken rung being referred to is not in a vaguely defined, general region higher than the one identified as the one you’re standing on , but rather the next rung in sequence higher than the one identified. The Topographical-distance Sense (4) There is a second sense be yond the proto- scene, which does not derive from the Up Cluster. This is the Topographical-

distance Sense. To give an immediate indication of what this involves, consider the following: The nearest bridge is about half a mile above the falls. This sentence does not mean that the bridge is located vertically above the waterfalls such that it is half a mile up in the air. Rather, the conventional reading associated with this sentence is that the TR, the bridge , is located half a mile distant upstream from the LM, the falls . The semantic networks for under . Accordingly, the patterns found with over are to some extent repeated with under . The semantic networks for under is given in figure 2.22. Figure 2.22 Semantic networks for under The Down Cluster (2) This cluster represents the mirror of the Up Cluster for over . Owing to experi ential correlation, a TR that is lower than the LM implicates less. These implicatures have been conventionalized and instantiated in the semantic network for under.

The Less Sense (2.A) Evidence that less is a distinct sense in the semantic network comes from sentences in which the TR and LM cannot be construed as being physically lower than the TR: The government decided to exempt incomes under $4.000. In this sentence, we do not conventionally understand that there is a spatial relation that holds between incomes higher than $4,000 and those lower than $4,000. Rather, under has a conventional meaning of less than. Unless there were a distinct sense instantiated in memory, there would be no way of predict ing this non- spatial reading. The Control Sense (2.B) The second sense deriving from the Down Cluster is the Control Sense. An important insight offered by the principled polysemy approach is that both over and under , which are traditionally rep resented as opposites, should both develop a similar meaning component, a Control Sense. Because under prompts for a relation which includes both being physically lower than and within potential contact with the LM as meaning components, it is ideally suited to developing a Control Sense. Consider the following. The boy had trapped the fly under his hand . In the spatial scene designated by this sentence, the proto-scene is denoted. However, by virtue of the TR, the fly , being located under the LM, his hand , the fly is thereby trapped, and the boy has the fly in his control. The Covering Sense (3 ) The semantic network for under has two senses that do not derive from the Down Cluster. The first of these is the Covering Sense. As with the Control Sense, a simple oppositional representation of over versus under would not predict that these two prepositions would develop the same sense. However, as was the case with over , a consequence of adopting a certain vantage point on a spatial scene involving a TR that is within potential reach of the LM is a construal in which one element in the spatial relation intervenes between the construer and the

second element. If the intervening element is opaque, the inevitable consequence is that the second element is obscured. By way of illustration consider the following: My diary is somewhere under all this paperwork. In this example the TR, my diary , is physically lower than the LM, all this paperwork . The interpretation of the sentence is that the papers are covering the diary and obscuring it from the speaker’s line of vision. Further evidence that the Covering Sense constitutes a distinct sense comes from the following examples. As these relate to non-physical entities, there is no contextually available means of predicting a reading of Covering: He hid his yawn under a cough. The Non-existence Sense (4) A salient aspect of human experience is death. In many cultures, and traditionally in western cultures, the dead are buried underground. This gives rise to a recurring correlation between being under and no longer being alive. For instance, dead people are often buried underground; drowning, resulting in death, correlates with disappearing under the water’s surface, etc. We suggest that this correlation in experience has given rise, in certain contexts, to an implicature of non-existence having become associated with under . By way of example, consider the following: Typically, to prevent animals from disturbing the grave, the dead person is buried under six feet of dirt. In this sentence there is a correlation between being located under and death (hence: non- existence). Hence, the use of under in this context implicates non- existence. This suggests that the implicature that being under is no longer to exist has been conventionalized within the semantic network for under : The business went under. In this example the conventional reading associated with the sentence is that the busi ness no longer exists. The semantic network for below The origins of below can be traced to Old Norse be + lagr , ‘to be prostrate’ and Anglo-Saxon bi + low ‘be in a lower place’. As with above , which constitutes its

contrast partner, below denotes a con ceptual spatial relation in which there is no possibility of contact between the TR and the LM. The senses associated with the semantic net work for below closely mirror those associated with above . The Down Cluster (2) Below has two distinct senses subsumed under the Down Cluster. These are the Less Sense and the Inferior Sense. The Less Sense (2.A) In this sense, below denotes a relation in which the TR constitutes less vis-a`-vis the LM. Evidence for this sense comes from example such as the following: The temperature dropped below freezing. The Inferior Sense A consequence of being lower and hence having less quantity is that one is in a disadvantaged position, and hence an inferior situation. By way of illustration, consider the following: I don’t interact with Alan much, as he is below me in the law firm. The interpretation of this sentence is not that the TR is located physically lower than the LM, but that the TR, Alan , is in an inferior position in the law firm relative to the speaker. The Next-one-down Sense (3) The semantic network of below has a mirror-image of the Next-one-up Sense, associated with above , namely the Next-one-down Sense. Here, below serves to identify precisely the next element in a vertical sequence below the TR, as evidenced by the following: Not that one, the box below it! His office is on the floor below mine. As we observed in our discussion of the Next-one-up Sense for above , this sense allows the TR and LM to be in potential contact, by virtue of participating in a vertical sequence. We turn also to a subset of spatial prepositions whose semantics crucially involves an additional element, the orientation of either the LM or the TR. We will deal with four forms which relate to an oriented TR: up, down, to and for , and four which relate to an oriented LM: in front of, before, behind and after . Nevertheless, an examination of the semantics of English spatial prepositions indicates that a

number of forms crucially involve conceptualizing either the TR or the LM (or both) as being oriented. The notion of orientation of the TR or the LM is not new. For instance, even traditional accounts represent the prepositions to and from diagrammatically with arrows pointing towards or away from a particular location. Although they do not explicitly discuss the notion of orientation, it is implicit in these ‘arrow’ characterizations. The semantics of up The semantics of up is particularly complex. However, in the ensuing we will primarily limit ourselves to a discussion of the proto-scene and one cluster of senses. In particular, the analysis provides an elegant illustration of the way in which experiential correlations based on the proto-scene can give rise to meanings or senses that, in some cases, are wholly non-spatial in character. Moreover, more than one experiential correlation may contribute to a particular concept. This point is made clear when we study the complex nature of the concept of completion, illustrated in our discussion of the Completion Sense associated with up . The Quantity Cluster for ‘up’ The cluster of senses that we are terming the Quantity Cluster derives from the familiar experiential correlation between quantity and vertical elevation. In the following sections, we discuss three distinct senses that derive from this correlation. This discussion illustrates how a particular orientation towards the vertical axis can become meaningful to us as human beings because of the consequences it entails. Spatial axes are far more than merely locational/spatial denotations; they necessarily give rise to subjective (in the sense of humanly lived) responses, which provide non-spatial concepts. What is interesting about the senses subsumed under the Quantity Cluster is that there is nothing inher ently spatial about these meaning components, although they ultimately derive from experiential correlations grounded in spatial scenes closely related to the proto-scene, which is spatial in nature. The More Sense As we have already seen, quantity and vertical ele vation come to be associated at the conceptual level, not due to any perceived similarity between

them, but rather due to their pervasive and recurring corre lation in experience. It is often the case that an increase in vertical elevation correlates with an increase in quantity. This association causes up , which hence implicates more, to give rise to a conventionalized More Sense. Consider following example: The maid plumped up the cushions. The Improvement Sense A consequence of obtaining a greater quan tity, or more of something, is that it often implicates improvement or betterment. For instance, obtaining more food entails being less hungry, a desirable situa tion. Equally, obtaining more money for a particular job implicates a superior standard of living. Owing to the use of up in contexts in which an implicature of improvement or betterment occurs, up has developed a conventionalized Improvement Sense. This is clear from the following example in which there is no contextual means of predicting that up is associated with improvement: I read up on British history after watching the film about Elizabeth I . The Completion Sense A consequence of increasing quantity is that, in many circumstances, a limit is reached at which point there can be no further increase. This entails that the increase is complete. A common example of this relates to our everyday interaction with containers, ranging from cups of coffee, to baths, to glasses of beer. For instance, if liquid is poured into a glass, as the quantity of liquid contained increases, a point is reached where no more liquid can be contained, and hence the pouring activity is complete. Thus, there is a correlation between a liquid being up, with respect to a particular container, and the capacity of the container being completely used. For instance, in the following example, by virtue of filling up the container, the pitcher reaches its full capacity, hence the increase in the level of beer is complete and the action of filling the container is completed: The server filled up the pitcher with beer. The semantics of down Having considered up in some detail, we will now consider down , which with up constitute a contrast pair. A number of the patterns found with up are inversely

reflected with down . The following example illustrates the semantic network for down : The stone plunged down the well-shaft. In contrast with up , we suggest that the functional element associated with down is that of negative value. . We experience positions described by down as being negative precisely because they correlate with limited access, or vis ibility, or loss of control or vulnerability. It is in this sense that the functional element associated with down is described as being a negative value. The Less Sense The Less Sense derives from the independently moti vated correlation between quantity and vertical elevation. As down implicates smaller quantity, this implicature has come to be conventionally associated with the semantic network for down : The amount of water in the Potomac is down. In this example the use of down to prompt for a decreased quantity is derivable from context. This follows, since being physically down correlates with smaller quantity. The Worse/Inferior Sense A consequence of having less of something is that often one is in a worse or inferior position. The meaning component of being worse off has come to be conventionally associated with down , as evidenced by the following: The old man is down on his luck. The sentence in for instance, does not literally mean that the old man is somehow in a physically lower position than at other times in his life. The Completion Sense Like up , down has Completion Senses associated with it. This is illustrated in the following: A: Is there any pizza left? B: No, the guys downed it last night . This usage seems to draw on the correlation between consuming and observing the amount of food visibly diminish. In many cases, when the act of eating and drinking is completed, the available food and drink are gone.

The semantics of ‘to’ Indeed, many previous analyses have assumed that path is an inherent part of the basic meaning associated with to . However, a path – in the sense of a series of spatially contiguous locations mediating a starting point and an end point – is not explicitly coded by to , as illustrated by the following in which only orientation is apparent: The clock tower faces to the east. The Locational Sense In this sense to denote a relation in which the TR is located with respect to the LM, but the TR is not oriented towards the LM: In this picture, Diana is standing to my left. The Contact Sense In this sense, to denote contact between the TR and LM as illustrated by the following: The poster portrayed a young woman with her finger to her lips. The Contact Sense meets the criteria of being a distinct sense, as without knowing that to explicitly codes contact, context alone would not account for the interpretation that an expression such as finger to lips means ‘finger touch ing lips’, rather than, for instance, a finger pointing in the direction of one’s lips. The Attachment Sense A sense closely related to the Contact Sense is the Attachment Sense. In this sense, to denotes a relation, in which the TR is attached or joined to the LM such that it forms a part of or is contiguous with the LM. Consider the following: He added a fence to the garden. The Comparison Sense In this sense to denote a relation in which the TR is compared with the LM: The design of this sweater is inferior to that one . Here, to denote a relation between the TR and the LM such that a comparison is facilitated. This sense probably arose as the act of comparison correlates with bringing one object to another so that they can more easily be examined and compared. Owing to pragmatic strengthening, this aspect of context has become conventionally associated with to .

The Event Sense In this sense, to denote a relation between a particu lar TR and an event brought about by the TR. The event facilitated or undertaken by the TR is coded by the LM. Consider some examples which are illustrative of this sense: The captain went to the boaters’ rescue. The semantics of ‘for’ In contrast to the semantics of to – where a number of senses were related to direction, attaining a particular target or goal, and contact – the preponderance of senses associated with for are primarily concerned with motives, intentions and purposes, reflect ing the more intentional character of the functional element associated with the proto-scene. The senses we have selected for presentation here are illustrative of this difference. The Purpose Sense In this sense, the LM, which is closely related to the TR’s purpose or the entity sought, is in focus. As we have seen previously, a change in construal often results in a new sense. In this sense for denotes a relation in which an action by the TR is associated with a particular purpose. Consider this example: He arrived at 7.30 for dinner. In this example the TR performs a particular activity in order to achieve some purpose. The Intended Recipient Sense In this sense for introduces the intended recipient of a particular action. Hence, the recipient motivates the particular action designated. Consider some examples: Susan bought the gown for Carol. The Benefactive Sense In this sense, for denotes a relation between an action and a beneficiary: She raised money for charity. Clearly, this sense appears to be closely related to the Intended Recipient Sense. The difference is that while in the Intended Recipient Sense receipt is not entailed. The semantics of ‘in front of’ In terms of human experience, if the LM is human, a consequence of the LM being oriented with respect to the TR is that the TR is often perceptually accessible and located with surety. This is illustrated in such everyday experiences as:

Jean looked everywhere for her glasses and suddenly realized they were on the counter, right in front of her all the time. In this sentence, when the TR, the glasses , is recognized as being in an ‘in front of’ position in relation to the LM, Jean , they are perceptually accessible to the LM and, as a result, their location is confirmed. As such, we posit that the functional element associated with in front of is that of perceptual accessibility. The Priority Sense Having considered the proto-scene for in front of , we will consider one other sense associated with this spatial preposition. The purpose of doing so is to make the point that experiential correlation and pragmatic strengthening represent powerful phenomena in the development of additional, non-spatial senses be coming associated with a particular form. In the opening of Parliament, the Prime Minister has put reform of the National Health Service in front of outlawing cigarette advertising. In this example in front of denotes a non-spatial relation between a TR and a LM. Moreover, the conventional reading is that the TR is in some sense more important or more privileged than the LM. The semantics of before This can occur in our real-world experience when an ‘in front of relation involves a human TR that is directed away from the oriented LM. Before seems to be just such a preposition. We find evidence for two competing senses, the Location Sense (involving a TR and an oriented LM) and the In Advance Of Sense. Additionally, predominance in the semantic network gives a slight edge to the In Tandem or In Advance Sense being the better candidate for the proto-scene. This follows as four (those in bold) out of six ( Preceding, Temporal, Priority, Sooner/Rather Than , Location, Access To) senses seem to derive from this sense. The following illustrate each of these six senses: Preceding : The scouts fanned out before the main body of the army. Temporal : Alice arrived before Bill. Priority : We’ve decided to put public safety before everything else.

Rather Than : I’d throw out those ratty clothes before I’d wear them. Location : The hot steaming soup was placed on the table before him. Access To : The world was all before them where to choose (Milton) . The Location Sense Some sentences employing before do not necessarily involve an in tandem alignment and do not have a sequential interpretation. These uses of before appear to be (nearly) synonymous in interpretation with the proto-scene associated with in front of. The rabbi performed the ritual before the congregation. The Priority Sense Like in front of , before has a Priority Sense associated with it. In this sense before denotes a non-spatial relation between two entities in which the notion of being more privileged or more important in some way is signaled. Consider some examples: a. My father tried never to place one of his children before another. b. This airline makes a virtue out of placing safety before all else. In these examples the TR is afforded a higher priority than the LM. This relation is designated by before . Clearly, this sense is distinct from the proto-scene associated with before as it involves an additional, non-spatial relation. The semantics of behind The etymology of this preposition is be + hind. Hind is clearly associated with an anthropomorphic/zoomorphic model, as in ‘hind end’ or ‘hind quarters’ of a person or animal. Thus, behind originally meant roughly ‘located at the back’. The proto- scene we propose for behind locates the TR at the back of the LM, that is, the TR is understood to be located such that the front of the LM is directed away from the TR. Consider the following sentence by way of illustration: The student stood behind the teacher. In this sentence, the TR is located with respect to the teacher’s back. Hence, the LM must have front/back orientation, such that the front is directed away from the TR. The student can be either looking at the teacher’s back or turned away, with his or her back towards the teacher. The orientation of the TR is not crucial.

The Lack of Priority Sense Like in front of , behind also has a sense that relates to priority. As behind forms a contrast pair with in front of , this sense relates to a lack of priority, and hence a concomitant lack of importance or being privileged. Consider an illustrative example: The president placed environmental welfare behind all other items in his legislative program. In this sentence a non-spatial relation is designated in which the TR, environ mental welfare , is less privileged or lacks importance of other items on the legislative agenda. The semantics of after After shares semantic space with behind , but the etymological origins of the two prepositions are very different and continue to constrain their use. After de rives from a comparative form of af , which was apparent in Old English and meant ‘off’ or ‘away’. Hence, the comparative ‘af + ter’ meant ‘farther off’ or ‘farther away’. Unlike its contrast partner before , which has a Location Sense as part of its polysemy network, after appears not to have a Location Sense along the lines of ‘located at the back of the LM’, as evidenced by the following: He knelt after the King (intended reading: behind the King). Nevertheless, after does have a spatial sense associated with it, which paral lels some of the in tandem uses of the proto-scene for after. The Sequential Sense Owing to its proto-scene with a functional element of following or pursuing after is well placed to develop a Sequential Sense. In this it forms a contrast set with the Sequential Sense associated with before . In the examples given below, two entities in a sequence are denoted. As we observed in our discussion of before , sequences are inherently temporal, as they involve processing and/or experiencing discrete, temporally located events, which often become routinized as part of a sequence routine: Wave after wave crashed into the cliff. We have analyzed a range of spatial prepositions (and the spatial scenes with which they are related) pertaining to orientation. While up , down , to and for relate

to orientation of the TR, in front of, behind, before and after all involve orientation of the LM. The prepositions before and after add the additional element of the TR, as well as the LM, being oriented. A number of spatial prepositions appear to mediate relations in which the dimen sions of the LM are essentially irrelevant. We will explore a set of spatial prepositions, in , into , out , and through , which are sensitive to certain dimensions of the LM, namely the dimensions which collectively give rise to the notion of boundedness. By way of example, consider the following: Turn right at George Street and go three blocks. 13 Consistent with the view of embodied experience articulated throughout this work, the way in which humans experience and interact with bounded LMs has functional consequences. These consequences are reflected in the meanings typically associated with the spatial prepositions in , into , out , out of and through. The semantics for in We will begin with the semantics of in . As this spatial preposition is asso ciated with a particularly extensive and complex network of senses, we will restrict our discussion to a limited set of senses that exemplify the way in which human interaction with bounded LMs motivates a range of contrasting senses. The Location Cluster In the Location Cluster of senses, the notion that a bounded LM serves to pick out the salient space which contains the TR is privileged and gives rise to a range of closely related senses. We will briefly survey four of these: the In Situ Sense, the State Sense, the Activity Sense and the Means Sense. The In Situ Sense An experiential correlate of being located with surety is that the TR crucially remains in a particular location. The conventional interpretation that the TR remains co-located with the salient space designated by the LM for an extended period provides additional meaning not apparent in the proto-scene. Moreover, this designation suggests an attendant purpose for being so located. This sense is illustrated by the following examples: What are you in for (asked in a hospital = ‘What’s wrong with you?’ or a prison = ‘What were you convicted of?’). 13 This use of George Street may be a metonomy representing the intersection of George Street and another street. In this case, there may be a conceptual intersection between the walker’s trajectory and George street.

In each of these examples, the TR remains located for an extended period, for a particular purpose and/or due to a volitional act or event. In sum, a commonly occurring consequence of a TR being located within a bounded LM is that the TR is located with surety. The State Sense Through recurring instances of a particular emotional state being experienced in a specific locale, the correlation between location and emotional and/or physical state becomes established. This correlation gives rise to conceptual associations such that we conceptualize and hence lexicalize states in terms of location. The spatial preposition in can be employed with certain states which are concep tualized as constraining the TR or posing difficulty in leaving, for example She looked peaceful in death ; They’re always getting in trouble ; or with situations which can be conceptualized and hence lexicalized as states, We’re in a state of war/ emergency/holy matrimony/martial law/anarchy , etc. The reason for this is that there is a tight correlation between being located in a bounded LM and a particular state which is conferred by virtue of being so located. To clarify, consider the following example: She is in prison. She is a prisoner . The sentences designate a scene in which the TR, she , is located in a particular bounded LM, prison . Hence, the state of being a prisoner tightly correlates with being located within the confines of the prison. The Activity Sense In addition to the tight correlation between bounded LMs and states, noted in the foregoing, there is a similarly tight and ubiquitous correlation between a particular activity and the bounded LM in which the activity occurs. For instance, a person who works for a government official (the activity) might conceivably be described in the following way in response to a question as to the TR’s profession A: What’s his line of work? B: He’s in the governor’s office [= works for the governor] . This example nicely illustrates the correlation between an activity and the bounded LM at which the activity takes place. Working for the governor takes place in a

bounded LM referred to as the governor’s office(s). Hence, the loca tion can stand metonymically for the activity. The Perceptual Accessibility Sense A consequence of the experiencer and vantage point being located within a bounded LM is that TR(s) and interior environment contained by the LM are available to the experiencer (and hence vantage point) by virtue of his or her sense-perceptory apparatus. Hence, due to the frequently co- occurring experiences of the construer being located within the bounded LM and the resulting perceptual accessibility of the interior bounded space and the TR to the construer, in has developed a Perceptual Accessibility Sense. Consider some examples: I have it in view. I have him in sight . In the sentences above in denotes a relation between TR and sense-perceptory availability with respect to a particular experiencer (the vantage point). Notice that the sensory perception which is available is delimited by the LM, the bounding element. The In Favour Sense We hypothesize that the In Favour Sense derives largely from the tight correlation between gaining access or entry to certain kinds of bounded LMs and the desirability of the event or activity within the confines of the bounded LM. Owing to the tight correlation between being within the LM, and hence being in a favourable position, in has developed an In Favour Sense. To make this point consider the following example: He managed to get in the stadium, even though places were limited. In this example, which relates to the proto-scene, there is an implicature that being in , with respect to the bounded LM, the stadium , is to be in a favourable position. The Arrival Sense From the perspective of an experience located interior to the LM, the TR is perceived as moving closer to the interior vantage point. This gives rise to an implicature of arrival. This notion of arrival has become instantiated in semantic memory as a distinct sense, as evidenced by the following: The train is finally in . In this sentence, not only is the TR, the train , within the bounded LM, the train station, but it has arrived, as attested by the following, which represents a close paraphrase: The train has finally arrived.

The Disappearance Sense The nature of many physical entities with an interior is that they are made of opaque substances and thus the boundary of the LM often obstructs the observer’s view of the interior and hence the contents. We suggest that due to the tight correlation between LMs with interiors and occlusion, in has come to be reanalyzed as having a distinct Disappearance Sense, as evidenced by the examples given below: The wine quickly soaked in . Millie rubbed in the lotion . The reason for thinking that examples such as these evidence a distinct Dis - appearance Sense relates to our two criteria for determining whether a sense is distinct or not. The Shape As Boundary Sense In the Shape As Boundary Sense, the TR constitutes part of a delimited configuration forming a shape. Consider the following example: Ok, class, put your chairs in a circle. This utterance is not typically interpreted as a command to place the chairs inside a circle drawn on the floor. Rather, its interpretation has to do with arranging the chairs such that they form a circle shape; in other words, the arrangement forms a boundary that delimits a circle. The Blockage Sense One consequence of being located within a bounded LM is that the boundary can serve to prevent the TR from moving beyond the LM. This situation is evident in the following sentences which ap pear to derive from the proto-scene but which have the implication of blocking the movement of the TR out of the LM. Oxygen must be held in a sealed container (to keep it from escaping into the air). In some ancient cultures, live slaves were sealed in tombs with their dead masters. The implicature of blockage apparent here appears to have also contributed to the Blockage Sense associated with in . For instance, this notion of blockage is illustrated in the following example:

There’s a bad accident in the roadway with traffic backed up to the Wilson Bridge. In these sentences there is a Blockage meaning associated with in . That is, in does not relate to containment but rather to a constraint on movement. The Reflexive Sense In her study of verb-preposition constructions Lindner noticed that some spatial prepositions have a reflexive meaning element associated with them. In is such a spatial preposition. Consider some illustrative examples of the Reflexive Sense associated with in : The walls of the sandcastle fell in . The house caved in . The semantics of out We suggest that the primary meaning associated with out designates a spatial relation in which the TR is exterior to a bounded LM. The functional element we have posited for in is containment, which is a multifaceted but fairly unified concept, for which English has devel oped a lexical label. However, the relation designated by out does not sit in ‘simple’ opposition with respect to in . Even in grammatical terms, out – unlike in – rarely functions as a preposition but rather is often combined with verbs in verb-preposition constructions: He took out the trash/rubbish . The Location Cluster As with the Location Cluster of senses associated with in , this cluster of senses derives from the locational function provided by a bounded LM. As bounded LMs are themselves frequently conceptualized as locations, by virtue of bearing a specific relationship to the bounded, locational LM within a spatial scene, the TR has also developed a locational interpretation. The Not In Situ Sense As we noted above, in has developed a distinct sense in which the bounded LM has the default interpretation of ‘home’ or location where a TR spends extended periods of time. The following examples are illustrative: Amy is out sick for the day. The typical interpretation is that Amy is not present at her normal station (usually a workplace) because she is sick. If there is no longer any of the TR in the container, there is no more of the TR available. This correlation between a TR being exterior with respect to a bounded LM and the consequence that there is no more of the TR

available has given rise to a No More Sense becoming associated with out , as evidenced by the following: A: Have we got any milk left? B: No, we’re (all) out! The conventional reading associated with out is that there is no more of the TR, here the milk . The Completion Sense In this sense there is a meaning of completion associated with out , as evidenced by the following: This jacket needs to dry out before you wear it again. In this sentence out adds a meaning of completion. Hence, in each of these examples out can be paraphrased by the lexeme completely . In this sense, out designates the end point of a process, drying and thawing respectively. The Vantage Point is Interior Cluster With the proto-scene for out and the extended senses discussed so far, we have assumed the default, ‘off-stage’ vantage point. However, our experience with bounded LMs often involves the viewer being inside the LM. For instance, an everyday experience is for a person to be located in a building and to be observing, through a doorway or a window, objects and events that are located exterior with respect to the bounded LM. A number of implicatures arising from this particular vantage point have come to be conventionally associated with out . We will here describe two representative senses: the Exclusion Sense and the Lack of Visibility Sense. The Exclusion Sense As bounded LMs often prevent physical access to the interior by virtue of their boundaries, a consequence of being exterior is that the TR is excluded from the interior environment. From the perspective of the experiencer, located in the interior regions, the exclusion of the TR is often an intentional act: They used a special filter to block out the radio waves. The Lack of Visibility Sense One consequence of spatial scenes in which the TR is located exterior to the LM and in which the viewer is located within the bounded LM is that the TR is often not visible (or perceptually acces sible, in general). That

this sense of lack of visibility has become conventionally associated with out is illustrated in the following: He switched the light out . A light, when no longer visible, can be described as being out even when no bounded LM is involved in the interpretation. After all, the light is not physically located out , with respect to a particular bounded LM. The Vantage Point is Exterior Cluster This way of viewing a spatial scene has given rise to a number of distinct senses associated with out . We will consider two: the Visibility Sense and the Knowing Sense. The Visibility Sense In spatial scenes in which the vantage point is exterior to the bounded LM, it follows that if the TR is also exterior then the TR is often visible . This common scene gives rise to out having devel oped a Visibility Sense. The Knowing Sense An experiential correlation of being able to see that something is the case, such as seeing that the sun is out , is knowing that it is the case, knowing that the sun is out . Through pragmatic strengthening, this correlation has given rise to an additional sense associated with out , in which out relates to knowing that something is the case. Consider an example: The secret is out . In this example, there is nothing that can be physically seen. While we know a secret, a secret cannot be physically seen. The Segmentation Cluster Just as with in , out also has a Segmentation Cluster. As bounded LMs serve to delimit the environment, they accordingly segment the interior of the LM from that which is exterior. Being out signals a focus on the exterior space and the objects situated therein. The Distribution Sense In our everyday experience we often separate a TR from a bounded LM in order to distribute the entity. In this sense, out designates a relation in which the TR is distributed. Consider an example: The player dealt out the cards . The Reflexive Sense As with in , out also features a Reflexive Sense . In this sense, the LM is also the TR, and the TR comes to be located exterior to the original boundary of the LM. Consider an example:

The syrup spread out. In this example, the LM is identical to the TR. The boundary of the LM is defined by the outer limits of the original position occupied by the LM. The semantics for of Of has a number of distinct senses associated with it. Interestingly of has two distinct ‘source’ senses associated with it. Consider therefore the following sentence: This wine is a product of Italy. The second ‘source’ sense relating to of concerns the manufacturing process itself, in which a particular entity is ‘transformed’ into another. Consider the following sentence: This carving is made of oak. In this example the LM, oak , does not designate a physical location, but rather a material which is used to fashion a product, namely a carving. This sense associated with of we term the Material Source Sense. The semantics for through We turn now to the final spatial preposition associated with a bounded LM that we shall consider through . We will present a brief analysis of seven distinct senses associated with through . The Extended Action Sense As we will see time and again in our dis cussion of the Extended Senses associated with through , the functional element of path is crucial in the development of Extended Senses. Accordingly, it is appropriate to begin this illustration with the Extended Action Sense. This sense is illustrated in the following sentence: Mary worked through the pages of math exercises. The normal interpretation of this sentence is not that there are holes in the pages, which allow Mary somehow to move physically through them, such that she reaches the other side of the pages, as would be predicted by the proto-scene.

The Temporal Sense An extended action, comprising a number of se quential components, correlates with the passage of time. Owing to this tight and ubiquitous correlation, through has developed a Temporal Sense. Consider an example: John will be gone from June through August. The On-the-other-side-of Sense The result of the motion is arriving at a particular location. When a person completes the action of walking through a field, it is impossible not to be on the other side of the field from where he or she started: Once she passed through the doorway at the end of the dark hallway she found herself in a sunny enclosed porch . The normal interpretation of this sentence is that the TR moves along the hall way, the LM, passes beyond the hallway, which is bounded by the doorway, and ends up on the other side of the doorway in an entirely different room. The Completion Sense We will now turn to an examination of the Comple tion Sense. When through occurs in context with a verb of motion, it crucially influences the inferred trajectory by contributing the information that the TR enters and exits the LM. Thus, the spatial location, exit point, associated with through has been reconceptualized as completion: Jane is through with the book. The Transmission Sense A common experience in our everyday lives is to receive an entity from a sender via a bounded LM. For instance, consider the following sentence: The comatose patient was fed through a tube. In this sentence medical staff supplies an unconscious patient with food by in - serting a tube directly into the patient’s blood supply. The Means Sense In many situations paths provide an important means of reaching a particular goal. For instance, consider the following, which is consistent with the proto-scene: To escape I had to choose between hacking through the dense jungle or swimming through the crocodile-infested lake.

In this sentence, two means of escape, neither particularly inviting, involve ‘creating’ a path through a particular bounded LM. The Cause Sense The final sense that we will deal with is the Cause Sense. In this sense through mediates a relation between a situation or state, the TR, and a particular process, the LM, which motivates the TR. Consider the following example: The accused murderer’s wife was able to remain loyal through her conviction of his innocence. In this sentence a particular activity, ‘remaining loyal’, is caused, that is, moti vated, by an on-going conviction, manifesting itself in tangible demonstrations, such as, for instance, visiting him in jail. Conclusion Having studied the semantics of English prepositions and analyzing their syntactic and semantic features we came to the following conclusions: 1. Prepositions are essential to sentences because they provide additional and necessary details. Prepositions are words that introduce the following information to the reader: where something takes place, when or why something takes place general descriptive information. According to their grammatical functions

prepositions don’t stand alone. They work in groups of words that we call prepositional phrases. Prepositions, in the form of prepositional phrases, provide specific information in sentence for the reader. 2. As for the nature of meaning that is embodied by means of spatial prepositions they have numerous meanings associated with them. These meanings are called senses. Some meanings associated with prepositions must be due to pragmatic inferencing, context, and background knowledge. These meanings have profound consequences for a theory of word meaning construction, and perhaps most crucially, for an understanding of the relationship between language, thought, and the nature of reality. Through an examination of semantics of a range of English spatial prepositions such as over, up, down, in and out we represent distinct meanings or senses associated with a single lexical form. The meaning that is embodied by means of spatial prepositions may be spatial or non-spatial. 3. As for the diachronic study of English prepositions, it must be conceded that, until recently, historical linguists have neglected their study. With an exception of a chapter in Mitchell’s two volumes Old English Syntax and another chapter Mustanoja’s Middle English Syntax, there is no comprehensive survey of prepositions in Old nor in Middle English. As a syntactic work, Mitchell’s book has a strong formal bias, dealing predominantly with the preposition-case relation. From a morphological viewpoint, prepositions can be defined as invariable word forms which, throughout the history of English almost never took any inflection. The syntax of English preposition can be studied in two levels: phrase level and clause level. Prepositions and their relation to semantics always are problematic. They are often considered to have too little semantic content, vice, versa, to be too polysemous warrant a proper semantic description. 4. Especially spatial prepositions such as in, on, over, up, down, and out embody spatial scene, a conceptualized relation grounded in spatial interaction and experiences involving entities that are related in a particular spatio-configurational way.

There are number of reasons for choosing spatial prepositions. Perhaps most importantly the variety and complexity of the numerous different meanings associated with even a single spatial preposition represents a significant descriptive challenge. But also important is the relatively transparent experiental basis of spatial prepositions. The meanings of this set of words are clearly grounded at some level in our spatio-physical interaction with the world. Investigating the meanings associated with spatial prepositions will offer fundamental insights, into the relation between language, mental representation and human experience. The various meanings associated with spatial prepositions are related in systematic and highly motivated ways. Within the study of linguistic semantics, both in the philosophical and linguistic traditions, it has been widely assumed that meaning derives from the fact that language refers directly to the world. The means whereby language ‘matches up’ with the world has relied on the notion of truth. Yet, two fundamental problems fatally undermine this approach. In terms of the study of meaning, some scholars have suggested that so-called truth-conditional or model- theoretic approaches to semantics are concerned with what has been termed informational significance rather than cognitive significance, and hence do not represent the study of meaning, properly conceived. It is interested not in meaning (in the sense of conceptual structures encoded in language) but in the logical properties of sentences such as entailment, contradiction, or logical equivalence. Moreover, when prepositions are uttered (or written), they do not occur in isolation. Rather, they are embedded in longer segments of language, that is, naturally occurring language is always contextualized. Language itself radically underdetermines the rich interpretations regu larly assigned to naturally occurring utterances . Thus, any approach to language which attempts to account for how humans use language to communicate successfully must recognize that utterances serve as prompts for the elaboration of cognitive structure, which in cludes the interlocutors’ knowledge of the world and their prior experiences with the world, including their prior experience with language. Each time a preposition is

interpreted in context, its precise interpretation is affected by the context in which the preposition occurs. (This context includes the inevitable inferences involved in establishing an overall interpretation for the utterance.) Meaning, of a sentence or a preposition, thus arises from how the linguistic unit is used by speakers in the course of communica tion. When spatial prepositions are used in the description of recurring situations, the inferences which arise in connection with their contextualized use are also recurrent; these regularly occurring inferences often become associated with the spatial preposition through a process which, we label prag matic strengthening. Thus, language is a continually evolving, organic system, and a preposition (a preposition and its semantic network) will exhibit the co- existing ‘layers’ of its past and the communicative contexts in which it has regularly occurred. Bibliography: 1. I. A. Karimov, The concept of further deepening the democratic reforms and establishing civil society in the country, Uzbekistan, 2012. 2. Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On the National Program for the Cadre Training”, 1997 august 29. 3. I. A. Karimov`s decree “On measures to further improvement of foreign

language learning system”. December 10, 2012. 4. Andrea Tyler and Vyvyan Evans “The Semantics of English Prepositions (Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition)” Cambridge University press 2003. 5. Barnhart, Robert. Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology: The Origins of American English Words . New York: Harper Collins.1988 6. Bietel Dinara, Raymond Gibbs, and Paul Sanders “The embodied approach to the polysemy of the spatial preposition on In Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics : Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference ” Amsterdam 1997. 7. Bloomfield, Leonard “ Language “New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1933 8. Bolinger Dwight” The Phrasal Verb in English” Harvard Uni versity Press.1971 9. Bowerman Melissa. “Learning how to structure space for language: a crosslinguis- tic perspective in Language and Space” Cambridge Press.1996 10. Bransford J and M.K.Johnson “Consideration of some problems in compre - hension in Visual Information Processing” New York: Academic Press.1973 11. Brisard Frank “The English tense-system as an epistemic category: the case of futurity in Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Mean - ing ”. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.1997 12. Brugman Claudia and George Lakoff “Cognitive topology and lexical networks” In Lexical Ambiguity Resolution , San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.1988 13. Celce-Murcia, Marianne, and Diane Larsen-Freeman” The Grammar Book : An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course” Rowley, MA: Heinle and Heinle. 1999 14. Chomsky Noam “ Syntactic Structures ” The Hague: Mouton. 1995 15. Croft William “Cognitive Linguistics” 1998 16. Deane Paul “ Grammar in Mind and Brain: Explorations in Cognitive Syntax ” Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter 1992. 17. Dewell Robert ”Over again: image-schema transformations in semantic analysis” 1994.

18. Dirven Rene “Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English prepositions” 1993. 19. Faunconnier Gilles “Mental Spaces” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1994. 20. Frisson S, Dominiek Sandra, Frank Brisard “The Construal of Space in Language and Thought” Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter 1996. 21. Green Georgia “Pragmatics and Natural Understanding” Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum 1989. 22. Heine Bernd “Cognitive Foundations of Grammar” . Oxford: Oxford University Press 1997. 23. Herskovits Annette “Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1986. 24. Jackendof Ray “Semantics and Cognition” Cambridge MA: MIT Press 1983. 25. Lakoff George “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Metaphor and Thought” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993. 26. Langacker Ronald “Foundations of Cognitive Grammar” Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press 1987. 27. Miller George and Phillip Johnson-Laird “Language and Perception” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1976. 28. Quirk Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Startvik “ A Grammar of Contemporary English.” Harlow, England: Longman 1972. 29. Ruhl Charles “A Study in Linguistic Semantics “ Albany: State University of New York. 1989. 30. Svorou Soteria “The Grammar of pace” Amsterdam: John Benjamins 1994. 31. Vandeloise Claude “Spatial Prepositions: A Case Study in French” Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1991. 32. Varela Francisco, Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch “The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience” . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1991.

33. Wierzbicka Anna “The Semantics of Grammar” . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1990. 34. Wilson Paul and Richard Anderson “Reading Comprehension: From Research to Practice” . Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1986.

Похожие

Designing vocabulary tasks for beginners of English as a second language

The Semantics of the English Spatial Prepositions

The relations of language units

Developing Speaking Skills in Foreign Language Teaching

Motivational Teaching Strategies in Teaching Foreign