Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:53:07.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An instruction-based analysis of over

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2014

GILLES COL  and
THIERRY POIBEAU
GILLES COL
Affiliation:
FoReLL – MSHS/CNRS, Université de Poitiers, France
THIERRY POIBEAU
Affiliation:
LaTTiCe – CNRS, Ecole Normale Supérieure & U. Sorbonne Nouvelle, Montrouge, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many studies in cognitive linguistics have analyzed the semantics of over, notably the semantics associated with over as a preposition. Most of them generally conclude that over is polysemic and that this polysemy is to be described thanks to a semantic radial network, showing the relationships between the different meanings of the word. What we would like to suggest, to the contrary, is that the meanings of over are highly dependent on the utterance context in which its occurrences are embedded, and consequently that the meaning of over itself is under-specified, rather than polysemic. Moreover, to provide a more accurate account of the apparently wide range of meanings of over in context, we ought to take into account the other uses of this unit: as an adverb and particle, and not only as a preposition. In this paper, we provide a corpus-based description of over which leads us to propose a monosemic definition.

Keywords

polysemyinstructiongestalt compositionalityovercorpusprepositionadverb particlemonosemyconvocation−evocation principle
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 370 - 407
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2014 

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.)

References

references

Apresjan, Juri (1974). Regular polysemy. Linguistics, 142, 5−32.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577−660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, Lawrence W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617−645.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. (2010). Grounded cognition: past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 716–724.Google Scholar
Brugman, Claudia (1981). Story of over. (Unpublished master’s thesis), University of California (Berkeley).Google Scholar
Cadiot, Pierre, & Visetti, Yves-Marie (2001). Pour une théorie des formes sémantiques; motifs, profils, thèmes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Col, Gilles, Aptekman, Jeanne, Girault, Stéphanie, & Poibeau, Thierry (2012). Gestalt compositionality and instruction-based meaning construction. Cognitive Processing, 13(2), 151−170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coseriu, Eugenio (1985). Linguistic competence: what is it really? Modern Language Review, LXXX, xxv−xxxv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio (2000). ‘Structural’ semantics and ‘cognitive’ semantics. Logos and Language: Journal of General Linguistics and Language Theory, I(1), 19–42.Google Scholar
Coulson, Seana (2001). Semantic leaps: frame shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, Seana (2006). Constructing meaning. Metaphors and Symbol, 21(4), 245−266.Google Scholar
Culioli, Antoine (1990). Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation, 1. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Culioli, Antoine (1995). Cognition and Representation in Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert, & Zawada, Britta E. (Eds.) (2001). Polysemy in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Deane, Paul (1993). Multimodal spatial representations: on the semantic unity of ‘over’ and other polysemous prepositions. Duisburg: LAUD [= Linguistic Agency, University of Duisburg].Google Scholar
Deane, Paul (2005). Multimodal spatial representation: on the semantic unity of over. In Hampe, Beate, & Grady, Joseph E. (Eds.), From perception to meaning: image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 235–282). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewell, Robert B. (1994). Over again: image-schematic transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 351–380.Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald (1984). Le Dire et le dit. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan (2006). Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: the many meanings of to run. In Gries, S., & Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 57−99). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hallan, Naomi (2001). Paths to prepositions? A corpus-based study of the acquisition of a lexico-grammatical category. In Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (Eds), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structures (pp. 91−120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hanks, Patrick (2004). The syntagmatics of metaphor and idioms. International Journal of Lexicography, 17(3), 245−274.Google Scholar
Herskovits, Annette (1986). Language and spatial cognition: an interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George P. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Landragin, Frédéric, Poibeau, Thierry, & Victorri, Bernard (2012). ANALEC: a new tool for the dynamic annotation of textual data. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012), Istanbul, Turkey, online: <http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2012/pdf/638_Paper.pdf>.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundation of cognitive grammar, 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Le Ny, Jean-François (2005). Comment l’esprit produit du sens. Paris: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1765). Nouveaux Essais sur l’entendement humain. In Leibniz, G. W. (Ed.), Philosophische Schriften, vol. VI (pp. 39–527). Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Locke, John (1689). An essay concerning human understanding. London: Printed by Eliz. Holt, for Thomas Basset.Google Scholar
Lyons, John (1977) Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nerlich, Brigitte, Todd, Zane, Herman, Vimala, & Clarke, David D. (Eds.) (2003). Polysemy: flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (Trends in Linguistics 142). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravin, Yael, & Leacock, Claudia C. (2000). Polysemy: an overview. In Ravin, Y., & Leacock, C. (Eds.), Polysemy: theoretical and computational approaches (pp. 1−129). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ruhl, Charles (1989). On monosemy: a study in linguistic semantics. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek, & 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
Spivey, Michael (2007). The continuity of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard (2000). Towards a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard (2005). The fundamental system of spatial schemas in language. In Hamp, B. (Ed.), From perception to meaning: image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 199−234). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. (1988). Contrasting prepositional categories: English and Italian. In Rudzka-Ostyn, (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 299−326). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea, & Evans, Vyvyan (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: the case of over. Language, 77, 724–765.Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea, & Evans, Vyvyan (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, Claude (1991) Spatial prepositions: a case study in French. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Van Der Gucht, Fieke, Willems, Klaas, & De Cuypere, Ludovic (2007). The iconicity of embodied meaning: polysemy of spatial prepositions in the cognitive framework. Language Sciences, 29, 733–754.Google Scholar
Victorri, Bernard (1994). The use of continuity in modelling semantic phenomena. In Fuchs, Catherine, & Victorri, Bernard (Eds.), Continuity in linguistic semantics (pp. 241−251). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Victorri, Bernard, & Fuchs, Catherine (1996). La Polysémie. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
Visetti, Yves-Marie, & Cadiot, Pierre (2002). Instability and the theory of semantic forms. In Feigenbaum, S., & Kurzon, S. D. (Eds.), Prepositions in their syntactic, semantic and pragmatic context (pp. 9−39). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan (2003) Polysemy or generality? Mu. In Cuyckens, Hubert, Dirven, René, & Taylor, John (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 447–494). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (2001 [1953]). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar