Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:47:44.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Cognitive Analysis of the Preposition OVER: Image-schema transformations and metaphorical extensions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2019

Souma Mori
Souma Mori*
Affiliation:
University of Tsukuba
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dewell (1994), following Brugman (1981) and Lakoff (1987), provides a semantic analysis of over by relying more exclusively on image-schema transformations than did Brugman and Lakoff. The Brugman-Lakoff-Dewell analysis, however, can be improved by using simpler image-schemas, more natural image-schema transformations, and metaphorical extensions. A key idea adopted in the present article is to capture both trajectors and landmarks three-dimensionally and topologically. This modification brings about the elimination of unessential features such as the shape and size of the trajector and the landmark, contact/non-contact between the trajector and the landmark, and physical properties of the trajector. Its main advantage is that a central image-schema for a semicircular path provides the basis for explaining all of the senses of over using natural image-schema transformations and metaphorical extensions. The proposed image-schema transformations include: segment profiling, profiling the endpoint of access paths, the profiled peak position of the semicircular path with the constraint that the rest of the semicircular path is excluded, and the extension of the semicircular path-trajectory to an image of covering. The proposed metaphorical senses are time, means, and control. In addition, the radial category relating each sense of over is presented.

Résumé

Dewell (1994), après Brugman (1981) et Lakoff (1987), a fourni une analyse sémantique de over ‘dessus’ en s'appuyant plus exclusivement que Brugman et Lakoff sur les transformations de schémas d'image. L'analyse de Brugman-Lakoff-Dewell peut cependant être améliorée en utilisant des schémas d'image plus simples, des transformations de schémas d'image plus naturelles et des extensions métaphoriques. Une idée clé adoptée dans le présent article concerne les trajectoires et les points de repère capturés en trois dimensions et topologiquement. Cette modification permet d’éliminer des caractéristiques non essentielles telles que la forme et la taille du trajet et du point de repère, le contact ou non-contact entre le trajet et le point de repère, et les propriétés physiques du trajecteur. Son principal avantage est que le schéma d'image central d'une trajectoire semi-circulaire constitue la base pour expliquer tous les sens de over, en utilisant des transformations de schémas d'image naturelles et des extensions métaphoriques. Les transformations de schéma d'image proposées comprennent: le profilage de segment, le profil du point d'extrémité des chemins d'accès, la position maximale profilée du chemin semi-circulaire avec la contrainte d'exclusion du reste du chemin semi-circulaire, et l'extension de la trajectoire semi-circulaire à une image de couverture. Les sens métaphoriques proposés sont: temps, moyens, et contrôle. En outre, la catégorie radiale relative à chaque sens de over est présentée.

Keywords

Semicircular paththree-dimensional and topological structureimage-schema transformationsmetaphorical extensionsradial categoryChemin semi-circulairestructure tridimensionnelle et topologiquetransformations de schéma d'imageextensions métaphoriquescatégorie radiale
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 64 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 444 - 474
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I sincerely thank two anonymous reviewers for their very generous and helpful comments, which helped me refine an earlier version. I also thank Yukio Hirose, Naoaki Wada, Nobuhiro Kaga, Masaharu Shimada, and Akira Suzuki, who commented on an earlier version. I am also grateful to Ryohei Naya and Masatoshi Honda, who helped me with their discussions and support, and contributed to completing the revision cycle. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to Reiko Nakagawa, who encourages me in my studies. Needless to say, any remaining errors are of course my own responsibility.

References

REFERENCES

Alverson, Hoyt. 1994. Semantics and experience: Universal metaphors of time in English, Mandarin, Hindi, and Sesotho. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, John R. 2010. Cognitive psychology and its implications (7th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Ando, Sadao. 2007. Eibunpo o saguru [Exploring English grammar]. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Bellavia, Elena. 1996. The German über. In The construal of space in language and thought, ed. Pütz, Martin and Dirven, René, 73–107. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Blomberg, Johan. 2015. The expression of non-actual motion in Swedish, French and Thai. Cognitive Linguistics 26(4): 657–696.Google Scholar
Blomberg, Johan, and Zlatev, Jordan. 2015. Non-actual motion: Phenomenological analysis and linguistic evidence. Cognitive Processing 16 (Suppl. 1): 153–157.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, Lera. 2000. Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75(1): 1–28.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, Lera. 2001. Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Brugman, Claudia M. 1981. The story of over. M.A. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Casasanto, Daniel, and Boroditsky, Lera. 2008. Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition 106(2): 579–593.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1973. Space, time, semantics, and the child. In Cognitive development and the acquisition of language, ed. Moore, Timothy E., 27–63. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Deane, Paul. 1988. Polysemy and cognition. Lingua 75(4): 325–361.Google Scholar
Deane, Paul. 2005. Multimodal spatial representations: On the semantic unity of over. In From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. Hampe, Beate and Grady, Joseph E., 235–282. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Deignan, Alice. 1999. Metaphorical polysemy and paradigmatic relations: A corpus study. Word 50(3): 319–338.Google Scholar
Dewell, Robert. 1994. Over again: Image schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 5(4): 351–380.Google Scholar
Dewell, Robert. 1996. The separability of German über: A cognitive approach. In The construal of space in language and thought, ed. Pütz, Martin and Dirven, René, 109–133. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dewell, Robert. 2007. Moving around: The role of the conceptualizer in semantic interpretation. Cognitive Linguistics 18(3): 383–415.Google Scholar
Dirven, René. 1993. Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English prepositions. In The semantics of prepositions: From mental process to natural language processing, ed. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, Cornelia, 73–97. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Downs, Roger M., and Stea, David. 1973. Image and environment. London: Aldine.Google Scholar
Ekberg, Lena. 2001. Transformations on the path-schema and a minimal lexicon. Studia Linguistica 55(3): 301–323.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan. 2003. The Structure of Time. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan, and Green, Melanie. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
Freeman, Donald C. 1995. Catch[ing] the nearest way: Macbeth and cognitive metaphor. Journal of Pragmatics 24(6): 689–708.Google Scholar
Galton, Anthony. 2011. Time flies but space does not: Limits to the spatialization of time. Journal of Pragmatics 43(3): 695–703.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1992. The semantic structure of Dutch over. Leuvense Bijdragen 81(1–3): 205–30.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2010. Theories of lexical semantics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre, Imai, Mutsumi, and Boroditsky, Lera. 2002. As time goes by: Evidence for two systems in processing space → time metaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes 17(5): 537–565.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1994. The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1996. Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition 61(3): 309–319.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 2001. Evaluating contemporary models of figurative language understanding. Metaphor and Symbol 16(3–4): 317–333.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W., and Colston, Herbert. 1995. The cognitive psychological reality of image-schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics 6(4): 347–378.Google Scholar
Grady, Joe. 1997. Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Bruce W. 1984. The semantics of English spatial prepositions. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Ann Arbor, University Microfilms International.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1994. Grammaticalization as an explanatory parameter. In Perspectives on grammaticalization, ed. William, Pagliuca, 255–287. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Urike, and Hünemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark, and Lakoff, George. 2002. Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics 13(3): 245–263.Google Scholar
Kreitzer, Anatol. 1997. Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space. Cognitive Linguistics 8(4): 291–325.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1990. The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics 1(1): 39–74.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Metaphor and thought, ed. Ortony, Andrew (2nd ed.), 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 2012. Explaining embodied cognition results. Topics in Cognitive Science 4(4): 773–785.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Turner, Mark. 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, David. 2001. Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, Seth. 1998. English prepositions explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Longman dictionary of contemporary English (5th ed.). 2008. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matlock, Teenie. 2004. Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory and Cognition 32(8): 1389–1400.Google Scholar
Matlock, Teenie, Ramscar, Michael, and Boroditsky, Lera. 2005. On the experimental link between spatial and temporal language. Cognitive Science 29(4): 655–664.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo. 1996. How abstract is subjective motion? A comparison of coverage path expressions and access path expressions. In Conceptual structure, discourse, and language, ed. Goldberg, Adele, 359–373. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Meex, Birgitta. 2001. The spatial and non-spatial sense of the German preposition über. In Polysemy in cognitive linguistics, ed. Cuyckens, Hubert and Zawada, Britta, 1–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Moore, Kevin Ezra. 2006. Space-to-time mappings and temporal concepts. Cognitive Linguistics 17(2): 199–244.Google Scholar
Murphy, Gregory L. 1996. On metaphoric representation. Cognition 60(2): 173–204.Google Scholar
Murphy, Gregory L. 1997. Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphoric representation. Cognition 62(1): 99–108.Google Scholar
Oxford advanced learner's dictionary (8th ed.). 2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oxford English dictionary 2. (2nd ed.) 1989. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter, and Dirven, René. 2007. Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Reddy, Michael. 1979. The Conduit metaphor. In Metaphor and thought, ed. Andrew, Ortony, 164–201. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Regier, Terry. 1995. A model of the human capacity for categorizing spatial relations. Cognitive Linguistics 6(1): 63–88.Google Scholar
Richardson, John T.E. 1999. Imagery. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Roth, Ilona, and Frisby, John P.. 1986. Perception and representation: A cognitive approach. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. 1995. Metaphor, schema, invariance: The case of verbs of answering. In By word of mouth: Metaphor, metonymy, and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective, ed. Goossens, Louis, Pauwels, Paul, Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida, Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, and Vanparys, Johan, 205–243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek, and Rice, Sally. 1995. Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist's or the language user's? Cognitive Linguistics 6(1): 89–130.Google Scholar
Satonaka, Tetsuhiko. 2013. Eibunpo no rakuen [Paradise of English Grammar]. Tokyo: Chuokoron-Shinsha.Google Scholar
Shepard, Roger N., and Metzler, Jacqueline. 1971. Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science New Series 171(3972): 701–703.Google Scholar
Sinha, Chris, and de López, Kristine Jensen. 2001. Language, culture and the embodiment of spatial cognition. Cognitive Linguistics 11(1–2): 17–41.Google Scholar
Smith, Edward, Nolen-Hoeksema, Susan, Fredrickson, Barbara L., and Loftus, Geoffrey R.. 2003. Atkinson & Hilgard's introduction to psychology, 14th ed. London: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leorard. 1996. Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’. In Language and Space, ed. Bloom, Paul, Garrett, Merrill F., Nadel, Lynn, and Peterson, Mary A., 211–276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, Volume 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2003. Linguistic categorization (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2012. The Mental corpus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thagard, Paul. 1996. Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Torralbo, Ana, Santiago, Julio, and Lupiáñez, Juan. 2006. Flexible conceptual projection of time onto spatial frames of reference. Cognitive Science 30(4): 749–757.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1978. On the expression of spatio-temporal relations in language. In Universals of Human language. vol. 3, ed. Greenberg, Joseph H., Ferguson, Charles A., and Moravcsik, Edith A., 369–400. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Andreas, and Evans, Vyvyan. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Gucht, Fieke, Willems, Klaas, and De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2007. The iconicity of embodied meaning. Polysemy of spatial prepositions in cognitive framework. Language Sciences 29(6): 733–754.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, Claude. 1990. Representation, prototypes, and centrality. In Meaning and prototypes: studies in linguistic categorization, ed. Tsohatzidis, Savas L., 403–437. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, Claude. 1991. Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan. 2003. Polysemy or generality? Mu. In Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, ed. Cuyckens, Hubert, Dirven, René, and Taylor, John R., 447–494. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar