meanings of the english prepositions over, above, under, below in terms of cognitive semantics perspective = các nét nghĩa của các giới từ over, above, under, below dưới góc độ ngữ nghĩa học tri nhận

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
Table of contents iv
PART I: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale 1
2. Aims of the study 2
3. Scope of the study 2
4. Research question 2
5. Design of the study 2
PART II: DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 1: Theoretical Background
1.1. An overview of Cognitive Linguistics and Cognitive Semantics 4
1.2. Spatial Prepositions and Semantic Perspectives on Spatial Prepositions 6
1.3. Spatial domain and dimensionality 7
1.4. Spatial characteristics of Trajectors and Landmarks 8
1.5. Categorization and semantic structure 8
1.5.1. Image schemas 9
1.5.2. Prototype theory and Radial network 10
1.5.3. The relevance of semantic factors 11
II.5. Metaphor and Spatial Prepositions 12
Chapter 2: The Study
2.1. Research question 15
2.2. Data Collection 15
2.3. Analytical Framework 15
2.4. Data Analysis and Discussions
2.4.1. Spatial senses 18

2.4.1.1. Above 18

5
2.4.1.2. Over 19
2.5.1.3. Below 22
2.5.1.4. Under 23
2.4.2. Non-spatial senses 25
2.5.2.1. Above 25
2.5.2.2. Over 27
2.5.2.3. Below 30
2.5.2.4. Under 30
PART III: CONCLUSION
3.1. Conclusion 35
3.2. Pedagogical Implications 36
3. Limitations of the Research and Suggestions for Further Research 37
REFERENCES 38




6

PART I: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
There is a well-established fact that the acquisition of English prepositions poses major
challenges for second language learners. Language researchers like Celce-Murcia and Larsen-
Freeman (1988) note several reasons for this difficulty, one of which is quoted by Evans and
Tyler (2001) is that it is notoriously difficult to characterize the semantic of prepositions. In
fact, the traditional views considers that all the senses of a preposition are highly arbitrary and
are not related to one another. Both dictionaries and grammars provide long lists of unrelated

senses for each preposition and its possible uses in different contexts. Of those prepositions
are above, over, below, and under which are considered to belong the group of vertical
prepositions. They usually make the English learners confused with their polysemy, like in the
followings: She held the umbrella over both of us, and I was in Settle over summer; or He hid
under the bed, or I wonder what Britain like under the Romans. Moreover, above and over , as
well as below and under is said to form two pairs of synonyms since over is defined in terms
of above and under in terms of below. And the learners are confused with the distinction
between some synonymous prepositions such as above and over. For instances, the sentence
The helicopter was hovering above the building is interpreted nearly the same as The
helicopter was hovering over the building. However, the sentence We were flying over the
clouds has different meaning with We were flying above the clouds.
Traditional studies have represented the semantics of English prepositions as largely
arbitrary and difficult to characterize (Frank, 1972, Chomsky, 1995). On the other hand,
Cognitive Linguistics, especially Cognitive Semantics offers an alternative perspective,
suggesting that the differences in expressing spatial relations can be account for in non-
arbitrary ways and that the distinct meanings associated with a particular preposition are
related in systematic, principled ways (Linder, 1982; Brugman & Lakoff, 1988; Herkovits,
1986, 1988; Boer, 1996, Evans & Tyler, 2001, 2003).
Cognitive semanticists have been making momentous contribution to explain the
polysemy in terms of prototype theory (Rosch (1978) and radial categories (Lakoff, 1987). By
this way, the meanings of a polysemous like a spatial preposition can be seen as a big

7
semantic network of related sense. Moreover, cognitive semantics offers a system of image
schemas (Johnson, 1987) which are used to structure the our physical experience, and a
number of metaphor which help to map the structure of a concrete source domain onto an
abstract target domain. These tools are useful in determining the relation of spatial meanings
to non-spatial ones of a prepositions.
With the purpose to help English learners have an insightful view on these prepositions,
Cognitive Semantics was chosen as the tool in my investigation on the meanings of the four

spatial prepositions above, over, below and under in order to find out the spatial as well as
non-spatial senses of each and the similarities as well as differences in their meanings.
2. Aims of the study
The aims of the study are:
To find out the similarities and differences in the meanings of the four prepositions
above, over, below and under.
3. Scope of the study
The study is an attempt to explain the meanings conveyed by the four English prepositions
“Over, Above, Under, Below". Not only prototypical but also derived meanings of the
prepositions motivated from image schema transformations and metaphorical extensions will
be taken into account. Anyway, the investigation is based on my corpus of 962 examples in
form of NP + prep. + NP and NP + V + prep. + NP, where over, above, under, below function
as a preposition only. The data were collected from 4 main sources, namely, the English
versions of “Harry Potter Order of Phoenix” by J. K. Rowling, “David Copperfield” by C.
Dickens, “Vanity Fair” by W.M. Thackeray and “Gone with the Wind” by M. Mitchell.
4. Research questions:
To realize the above objectives, the following research questions will be searched out:
How are the prepositions Over, Above, Under, Below different in terms of
cognitive semantic perspective?
5. Organization of the study
The study is organized in four main parts.

8
The INTRODUCTION part is devoted to presenting statement ò the problem, aims of the
study, scope of the study, significance of the study, research questions and organization of the
study.
The DEVELOPMENT part is divided into two chapter: CHAPTER 1 discusses the general
theoretical background of the study; CHAPTER 2 includes the method of the study, data
collection, analytical framework, data analysis, and discussion.
The CONCLUSION part demonstrates the major findings of the study, implications and

suggestions for further studies. References are also put in this part.






















9
PART II: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
In this chapter, I would like to address some of the main concepts that bear upon the analysis,
noting that some oversimplification will be inevitable, as this is not a discussion or a
presentation of theoretical cognitive linguistics. My aim here is to present a view of the main
points that have to be taken into account in the course of the analysis.

1.1. An Overview of Cognitive Linguistics and Cognitive Semantics
Cognitive Linguistics is the scientific study of human languages in relation to human
cognition. In other words, it is concerned with the investigating the relationship between
human language, human mind and human socio-physical experiences.
Cognitive linguistics originally emerged in the 1970s and arose out of dissatisfaction
with dominant formal approaches to language at that time. Some researchers such as Fillmore
(1975), Lakoff & Thompson (1975), and Rosch (1975) rejected the dominant ideas that syntax
is separate from other aspects of language, and that language is separate from cognition.
Moreover, cognitive linguistics has always strongly influenced by theories and findings from
the other cognitive sciences as they emerged during the 1960s and 1970s, particularly
cognitive psychology and Gestalt psychology (e.g., Fillmore, 1975; Lakoff, 1987; Langacker,
1987; Talmy, 2000a, 2000b). Such cognitive linguists therefore acknowledge that language is
part of, dependent on, and influenced by human cognition, including human perception and
categorization, and that language develops and changes through human interaction and
experiences in the world.
Cognitive linguistics practice could be roughly divided into two main areas of research:
cognitive semantics and cognitive grammar. Cognitive grammar, the model language
developed by Ronald Langacker is concerned with modeling the language system rather than
the nature of mind itself. Cognitive linguistics assures that grammar is conceptualization.
People use grammar or language to conceptualize their experiences to express them (Jensen,
2004). However, it does so by taking the conclusions of research in cognitive semantics. This
means that meaning is central to cognitive grammar. Cognitive semantics is concerned with
investigating the relationship between experience, the conceptual system, and the semantic

10
structure encoded by language. On the other hand, cognitive semantics states that meanings
come from our mind, or rather, meanings are in the head (Gardenfor, 1994). According to
Evans (2006), cognitive semantics is concerned with the investigating the relationship
between human experience, the conceptual system in human mind, and the semantic structure
encoded by language.

Cognitive Semantics is not a single unified framework, but there are four guiding
principles that collectively characterize cognitive semantics: (i) Conceptual structure is
embodied, (ii) Semantic structure is conceptual structure, (iii) Meaning representation is
encyclopedic, and (iv) Meaning construction is conceptualization (Talmy, 2000; Lakoff &
Jonhson, 1980; Geerearts, 1999).
The first principle, conceptual structure is embodied, claims that we have a specific view of
the world due to the nature of our body (Geerarts, 1993, Talmy, 1985, 2000; Taylor, 1989).
The experience we have of the world is significant to the way we understand it. What we
understand from the world through our perception becomes our knowledge of it. From this
point of view, the human mindmust bear the imprint of embodied experience. This position
holds that conceptual is a consequence of the nature of our body embodiment.
The second principle, semantic structure is conceptual structure, is to say that language
refers to what speakers have in mind, i.e. concepts about the real world rather than to entities
of the external world. When someone say something, the meaning of his/her utterances come
from his head where concepts are stored. Thus, meaning is “conceptual grounded”
(Gardenfords, 1994). In the other words, semantic structure (the meaning conventionally
associated with words and other linguistic units) can be equated with conceptual structure (i.e.
concepts) (Rosch, 1973). However, the semantic structure and conceptual structure are not
identical. Instead, the meanings associated with linguistic units such as words arise from only
subset of possible concepts in the mind of speakers and hearers. After all, we have many more
thoughts, ideas, and feelings than we can conventionally encode in language (Evans, 2006;
Evans & Green, 2006).
The third principle, meaning representation is encyclopedic, hold that meaning is not
represented only by lexical concepts in our mind. This means lexical conceptdo not represent a

11
complete package of meaning as we may see in a dictionary. “Rather, they serve as „point of
access‟ to vast repositories of knowledge relating to a particular concept or conceptual
domain” (Langacker, 2007). Of course, it can be deniable that words have conventional
meanings associated with them. Nevertheless, cognitive semantics argue that the conventional

meaning associated with a particular linguistic unit is simply a prompt for the process of
meaning construction: the „selection‟ of an appropriate interpretation against the context of the
utterance.
The fourth principle, meaning construction is conceptualization, confirms that language
itself does not encode meaning, but evokes prompts for the construction of meaning. The
meaning of linguistic expressions does not relate directly or objectively to the real world, but
rather it is based on our ways of experiencing or conceptualizing the real world.
1.2. Spatial Prepositions and Semantic Perspectives on Spatial Prepositions
When describing spatial relation in natural language, we often use spatial prepositions.
According to Cuyckens (1993), spatial prepositions indicate relation between two arguments,
x and y, how they relate to each other in space. More specially, in a large number of cases,
spatial prepositions describe the place of x by using the arguments y as reference. That means
they serve to locate x with respect to y, or rather, the place of y. In fact, a spatial preposition
indicates not only the spatial relation but also non-spatial relations. It is found in many
Cognitive Linguistics studies on the prepositional semantics that:
+ Prepositional meaning is defined as a core sense. All the uses of preposition are reduced to
the core sense (Leech, 1969; Bennett, 1975). This core sense (or core meaning) occurs in a
variety of contexts. These contexts introduce nuances of meaning that can be assigned to the
preposition, but the core sense is in all of them (Miller and Johnson-Laird, 1976; Herskovits,
1986; Wierzbika, 1993).
+ Prepositions are polysemious. There is a prototypical sense and other non-prototypical
senses. There is a preference rule system that determines the prototype which is always a
spatial relation (Ciencki, 1989). The different senses of a preposition can be derived from a
basic image-schema by means of family resemblances and image schema transformations
(Brugman 1980; Linder 1983; Hawkin 1984; Lakoff 1987; Cuycken 1988, 1993).

12
In describing a spatial relational, Langacker (1987) used the terms trajector and
landmark. The landmark is a salient entity that provides a point of reference for locating the
trajector (Langacker 1980: 217), and so does Taylor (1989). Talmy (2000) prefers to use the

terms primary and secondary objects. In the present research studies, Langacker‟s binominal
trajector (TR) and landmark (LM) will be empolyed.
1.3. Spatial domain and dimensionality
Any kind of conceptualization, regardless of its degree of complexity, can function as a
domain or context in the characterization of semantic structure. By this we are not referring to
a textual, syntagmatic or pragmatic context, but rather to a field of experience or human
knowledge, whether it be naturally or culturally established. Each domain has its particular
specifications or parameters. There are very basic domains, such as time, space, smell, color,
etc., and very complex ones, related to marginal or more elaborated fields of experience. The
domain in which prepositions are conceptualized is three-dimensional space.
According to Günter Radden & René Dirven (2007), the three canonical dimensions of
space consist of height, length and width. They are conceptualized in language, and more
specifically, in prepositional usage, as zero-dimensional, one-dimensional, two-dimensional,
and three-dimensional. Zero-dimensional is the case when the LM entity is conceived of as a
point with irrelevant internal structure, as in „I’ll wait at the bus stop’ (Günter Radden & René
Dirven, 2007). When the LM entity is conceptualized as having a vertical or horizontal axis,
as in „the child by the flagpole‟ and „a cruise down the river‟, the dimension is one-
dimensional. When the LM entity is conceptualized as an extended entity, as in „the cows in
the field‟, it is two-dimensional. And three-dimensional is the case when the area is
conceptualized as having volume, as in „the marble in the box‟. Not only the landmark entity
but also the trajector is conceptualized accordingly in relation to its canonical dimensions:
however, in prepositional usage it is the LM entity that bears directly upon the choice of
preposition, which is appropriate in each case. The concept of dimensionality derives directly
from the intrinsic characteristics of the spatial domain that prepositions describe. In short, we
can conceive of three dimensions of spatial prepositions: vertical, horizontal, and extension. In
practice, this means that an objects can be conceptualized as a dot (zero-dimensional), as a line

13
(one-dimensional), as an extended area (two-dimensional), or as an area with volume /
container (three-dimensional).

1.4. Spatial characteristics of Trajectors and Landmarks
As regards prepositional usage, the TR entity carries out the relation described by the
preposition, whereas the LM is the entity in relation to which the relation is carried out.
The clock above the painting.
In this example, „clock‟ is the TR and „painting‟ is the LM or reference point, which permits
the location of the TR. This sentence differs from the next one:
The painting below the clock.
In this case, „clock‟ servers as the LM and „painting‟ turns into the TR (Boers, 1996).
All relational predicates involve an LM as part of their profile, regardless of whether the LM
is syntactically specified or not (Langacker 1987, 1991). Linguistic convention allows for non-
specification of the LM in cases like the following: when it is unique in its class; when the
context, either pragmatic or textual, permits a clear identification, or in the case of reflexivity.
For the analysis, the following characteristics should be considered when describing the TR
and LM entities: dimensions of TR and LM; forms of TR and LM (vertical, horizontal or
extended), whether the TR is singular or multiplex, whether it is static or dynamic, if there is
contact or not between TR and LM, if there is reflexivity, deixis, covering, type of trajectory,
if there is real or implied motion, if there is end-point focus, etc.
1.5. Categorization and semantic structure
A category is a group of referents that are related to one another by perceptual and
propositional similarity. To categorize is to conceptualize and to classify (in that order). It
affects all cognitive processes and perceptions and, consequently, language and speech.
Cognitive linguistics assumes as a fundamental premise the innate validity of the prototypical
conception of categorization, viewing it as natural and deriving from the neurological
constitution of human beings. In the linguistic field, and more specifically in the domain of
prepositions, we can distinguish several types of basic conceptual structure: 1) image schemas;
2) prototypes and radial networks, and 3) semantic factors.


14
1.5.1. Image schemas:

The most important theoretical notion in cognitive semantics is that of an image
schema. Image schemas are formed from our bodily interactions, from linguistic experience,
and from historical context. The term is explained in Mark Johnson's book The Body in the
Mind, in case study of George Lakoff's Women, Fire and Dangerous Things and by Rudolf
Arnheim in Visual Thinking. Image schemas transcend particular modes of perception. They
are not merely visual, but rather kinesthetic in nature (Lakoff, 1987). According to Johnson
(1987), an image schema is a mental pattern that recurrently provides structured understanding
of various experiences, and is available for use in metaphor as a source domain to provide an
understanding of yet other experiences.
Different scholars have proposed different lists of image schemas and suggest several
content domains which they can be transferred to. Thus, for Lakoff, the CONTAINER schema
would work as the basis for understanding the body as container, the visual field, and set
models, among others. The PART-WHOLE schema is transferred to domains such as families,
teams, organizations, marriage, etc. The SOURCE-PATH schema gives the clue for purposes in
our daily life as destinations of a journey. Other image schemas are: PROXIMITY-DISTANCE
which determines close and distant relationships; FRONT-BACK orientation; LINEAR order; UP-
DOWN; MASS VS MULTIPLEX, etc. According to Lakoff, these image schemas might be so
deeply grounded in common human experience that they constitute universal prelinguistic
cognitive structures. Many of the schemas clearly derive from the most immediate of all our
experiences, our experience of the human body. These image schemas lead to primary
conceptualizations in the domain of physical experience and will define the primigenial use of
words. For instance, the CONTAINER schema is claimed to provide the basis for explaining the
multiple meanings of the preopsition in; the SOURCE-PATH schema is applicable to account for
senses of to (Hercovits, 1986); the UP-DOWN schema is used to explain the vertical
prepositions like over, above, under, below (Lakoff & Brugman, 1988; Boers, 1996; Evans
&Tyler, 2001).
Langacker (1987) argued that physical space will be the most salient domain of
conceptualization of prepositions. Ontogenetically, the conceptual schema must be previously

15

elaborated in this basic domain in order for a speaker to acquire a spatial concept and is
associated with new instances so that speaker is able to categorize these new instances.
Accordingly, the concept can be extended to new senses via metaphorical mappings or schema
transformations.
Image-Schema Transformations: According to Dewell 1994, different schemas can
be expanded from a prepositional central one to introduce the non-prototypical senses of a
preposition. This process occurs through the application of image schema transformations.
The cat is under the table. (UP-DOWN schema)
The cat ran under the table to the door. (PATH schema)
The horse jumped over the fence. (PATH schema)
The fence fell over. (REFLEXIVE schema)
Therefore, apart from UP-DOWN, the following schemas will be used as analysing tools in the
present study: PATH, END-OF-PATH, CONTACT, SURFACE
1.5.2. Prototype theory and Radial network
Prototype theory
The "prototype theory" was proposed by Rosch (1978), who suggested that when
people categorize objects they match them against "the prototype. Objects that do not share all
the characteristics of the prototype are still members of the category but not prototypical ones.
She argued that prototypes represent a "basic level of categorization", e.g. "chair", as opposed
to a "superordinate", e.g. "furniture" and a "subordinate" level, e.g. "kitchen chair".
Prototype approach is pervasive among the studies in the acquisition of English prepositions.
According to Bennett (1975), three types of meaning are considered as meaning of
prepositions; namely spatial, temporal and abstract. He claimed that the centre of the meaning
is spatial, and the other two meanings are derived from the spatial meaning. That is, the spatial
usage, which shows the relationship between the TR and LM, is the prototypical meaning
while temporal and abstract relations are extensional usages of spatial relation.
Brugman and Lakoff (2006) finds out each lexical representation has two levels of prototype
structure. That is because each lexical representation has two levels of topological structures.
The first is its each sense, semantic sense, which is a complex topological structure. The

16
second is the radial category, which is formed from all the semantic senses. At the first level,
the prototypicality concerns the degree of fit of some real world relation to an individual sense
of the word. For example, in the sentence "The plane flew over the mountain." the best fit is
where the path goes right above the center of the mountain. As the path of flight moves away
from the center of the mountain, the degree of fit lessens. At the second level, the central sense
in the radial category is the prototypical sense.
Radial network: According to V. Evans and M. Green, a radial category (or radial network) is
a conceptual category in which the range of concepts is organized relative to a central or
prototypical concept. They claim that the radial category representing lexical concept has the
same structure with the range of lexical concepts (or sense) organized with respect to a
prototypical lexical concept or sense. A radial network is a model that is not used to
distinguish meanings from the central or prototypical sense. Instead, it shows how distinct but
related meanings are stored in semantic theory. In short, the radial network model describes a
category structure in which a central case of category radiates towards novel instances: less
central category uses are extended from the center. That is, the radial categories have a centre-
periphery structure. They build around a central schema or prototype and include the schemas
that show resemblance or relatedness to the central case (Frank Boer 1996).
1.5.3. The relevance of semantic factors
Semantic factors or properties are like building blocks that conform the conceptual
substance of words. We can also view them as tools, which allow the semantic analysis and
classification of words. These perceptual factors are the most primitive semantic entities as
regards the linguistic characterization of the spatial domain. Lakoff (1987) claims that it is not
necessary to give up entirely the notion of semantic compositionality, even though mental
images are gestalts. Gestalts are directly meaningful, and decomposable, for methodological
reasons, into factors, but these factors have no entity if we consider them in isolation. The
conceptualizer‟s attention is not centered separately on the different specifications of the
configuration; instead, the „cluster‟ of properties is perceived as psychologically simpler than
the parts. Mental images are cognitive processes which the speaker is able to use because they
occur repeatedly in our experience.

17
Other than the characteristics that arise from the configuration of the TR and LM
entities, type of trajectory, etc., we will consider the following perceptual properties or
variables: Deixis, Viewpoint of speaker, End-point Focus, Reflexivity, Completion or
Resultativity, Position, Passage, Contact/Lack of contact, Medium, Destination and Goal,
Direction and Covering.
1.6. Metaphor and Spatial Prepositions
Metaphor has been understood as deviant language by Generative Linguistics where
meanings of words are bundles of necessary and sufficient features, and there are clear-cut
boundaries between semantic categories. However, cognitive semantics does not view
metaphor as a speaker‟s violation of rules of competence (Reddy, 1993; Lakoff & Johnson,
1980; Lakoff and Turner, 1989; Lakoff, 1993; Kovečes and Szabó, 1996; Lakoff & Johnson,
1997). In the view form cognitive semantics, metaphor is a means whereby ever more abstract
and intangible areas of experience can be conceptualized in terms of the familiar and concrete.
One cognitive domain can be understood, or even created, in terms of components more
usually associated with another cognitive domain (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).
Metaphor is the main conceptual mechanism through which we comprehend abstract
concepts and perform abstract reasoning (Langacker, 1990). Metaphors are mappings across
conceptual domains that establish correspondences between entities in the target and source
domains, and can project inference patterns from the source domain onto the target domain.
They are grounded in the body, and in everyday experience and knowledge, to the extent that
they constitute a subsystem of our conceptual system. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) divided the
metaphorical concepts into three groups based on the way they are created, namely structural,
orientational and ontological metaphors.
1. ORIENTATIONAL metaphors. Those metaphors are based on the orientation in
space, i.e. a spatial relationship is made for a concept. This relationship is normally based on
our experiences of the physical space we have. For instances, HAPPY IS UP, SAD IS DOWN in
You're in high spirits, and I fell into a depression. Lakoff and Johnson have experience with
the physical state in the fact that someone who is sad has a bowed posture and a happy person

18
is upright. Another possibility could be seen in the fact that heaven standing for happiness is
high above us but hell meaning misery is below us.
ORIENTATIONAL metaphors map the orientational image schemas of physical space
onto abstract experience. The UP-DOWN image schema, for example, is mapped onto abstract
quantities through the orientational metaphor MORE IS UP, LESS IS DOWN.
2. STRUCTURAL metaphors.
The group of structural metaphors is said to be the biggest group. Different parts of
experiences which are complex but too abstract are conceptualised with the help of simple but
known experiences. For example, ARGUMENT IS WAR in I’ve never won an argument with him
(Lakoff, 1980).
In case of spatial prepositions, STRUCTURAL metaphors map a particular structure of
a spatial domain onto a more abstract target domain. For instance, the PATH image schema is
mapped onto abstract experience through the structrural metaphor AN ACTIVITY IS A PATH.
(Boer, 1996)
3. ONTOLOGICAL metaphors.
This last group are based on the experience with physical objects. There are many kinds of
ontological metaphors with different purposes.
 The abstract concepts are understood as things like THE MIND IS A BRITTLE OBJECT
metaphor in She is easily crushed.
 The abstract concepts are understood as containers. According to Lakoff and
Johnson, human beings are containers with boundaries and an orientation of inside and
outside. This orientation is also used for other physical objects. In these cases we set up
artificial boundaries.
For examples, ACTIVITY IS A CONTAINER metaphor in The problem will be dealt with in the
next discussion. ; HUMAN STATE IS A CONTAINER metaphor in He's in love.
 The abstract concepts are described as a person, a personification. For instances, His
theory explained to me the behavior of chickens raised in factories.
It should be emphasize that metaphors are not just figures of speech in literature, but

also pervasive in everyday language. Metaphors are not just language but also a conceptual

19
tool to understand and create more abstract conceptual domains. In the case of prepositions, a
metaphorical mapping from physical space onto conceptual space is understood in terms of
conceptual image schemas. Conceptual image schemas based on spatial experience are
directly understood, they provide the conceptual basis for uses of prepositions in the physical
domain, and are extended metaphorically to structure other domains. Thus, metaphor theory
gives an insightful view into discovering the senses of a word, in general and a spatial
preposition, in particular.

20
CHAPTER II: THE STUDY
In this chapter, the research questions will be restated in 2.1, the data will be described in 2.2,
and the analytical framework will be presented in 2.3, the data analysis and discussion will be
represented in 2.4, which constitutes the focus of the study .
2.1. Research questions
It is worth restating the research question that guideline the study:
What are the similarities and differences in meanings prepositions Over, Above, Under, Below
from cognitive semantic perspective?
2.2. Data
As far as the scope of the study is concerned, only occurrences of the prepositions in form
of (NP) + over / above / under / below + NP and NP + V + over / above / under / below + NP,
where these words play the role as a preposition, were taken from 5 main sources, namely, the
English versions of “Harry Potter Order of Phoenix” by J. K. Rowling, “David Copperfield”
by C. Dickens, “Vanity Fair” by W.M. Thackeray and “Gone with the Wind” by M. Mitchell.
The first source, a model book about the witches, who travel in the air or under the ground
was expected to supply good instances of protosences of the four prepositions. The second and
the third sources , famous classical novels, were waited to provide a number of instances in
metaphorical expressions. And the last, a famous American novel, was looked forward to
supply additional examples from American English, in which some prepositions such as below
is said to be used more.
As the result, the corpus of 962 instances were collected for analysis. Of these examples,
153 instances occur with above; 523 instances occur with over; 250 instances occur with
under; and 40 instances occur with below. These expression of data were grouped into image
schemas with TR or LMs in spatial domain and non-spatial domains.
The following part represents the analytical framework to analyze the data.
2.3. Analytical Framework

The analytical framework applied in this study includes image schemas (in analyzing spatial
senses) and metaphorical structures (in analyzing metaphorical expressions or non-spatial
senses). In the following section details of the framework will be outlined.

21
2.3.1. Image schemas. According to Johnson (1987), an image schema is a mental pattern that
recurrently provides structured understanding of various experiences, and is available for use
in metaphor as a source domain to provide an understanding of yet other experiences.
The groups of image schemas proposed by Johnson (1987), Brugman & Lakoff (1987), Boer
(1996), Evans & Tyler (2001) were used for the analysis of the spatial meaning of the
preposition under study. Following is the discussion of the schemas.
i. VERTICALITY schema: This schema involves “up” and “down” relation. For instance,
standing upright, climbing schema (Lakoff, 1987). UP-DOWN schema is said to be a cluster of
VERTICALITY schema because it involves one of the two entities, the TR or the LM, higher
than the other like the followings, The painting is over the mantel. (Brugman, 1988) or He
was sitting under the chandelier. (Boer, 1996).
ii. PATH schema:A path schema consists of a starting point, a goal, and a series of
intermediate points. It involves a movement from place to place. For instance, The plane flew
over the hill. (Brugman, 1987)
iii. END-OF-PATH schema: This schema is the one in which a location is understood as
the termination of a prescribed path as in the followings: The old town lies over the bridge.
(Evans & Tyler, 2001).
iv. SURFACE schema: This schema involves an entity as a surface configuration. A
surface can be conceptualized as a container when it has imaginable boundaries like the table
in the following The cat is under the table. (Boer, 1996). A surface can also be conceptualized
as a cover when it contacts and hide a object or another surface like the table cloth in the
following: Frank quickly put the table cloth over the table. (Evans & Tyler, 2001).
v. REFLEXIVE schema: was first proposed by Lindner (1981). In this schema the TR is
also the LM like in the following instance, He turned over the page. (Evans & Tyler, 2001).
In this sentence, half of the TR moves above and across the rest which is considered as the

LM.
2.3.2. Metaphorical extensions. Together with describing the spatial meanings of the
prepositions, above image schemas are used as a source domain to provide an understanding

22
of other experiences. Three kinds of metaphors proposed by Lakoff & Johnson (1980) will be
considered in this study.
i. ORIENTATIONAL METAPHOR. An orientational metaphor is a metaphor in which
concepts are spatially related to each other, such as UP or DOWN. It involves many kinds of
metaphors like HAVING CONTROL FORCE IS UP; BEING SUBJECT TO CONTROL or FORCE IS
DOWN (from the physical basis: physical size typically correlates with physical strength, and
the victor in a fight is typically on top). E.g. He is under my control (Lakoff, 1980); and
MORE IS UP; LESS IS DOWN (from the physical basis: If you add more of a substance or of
physical objects to a container or pile, the level goes up). For instances, Jerome found over
forty kinds of shells on the beach (Evans & Tyler, 2001); or This wine should cost under 19s.
per bottle (Boer, 1996).
ii. SRUCTURAL METAPHOR. A structural metaphor is a metaphor in which one concept is
understood and expressed in terms of another structured, sharply defined concept or in the
other words these concepts are seen in the same image schemas. For instances, life in LIFE IS A
JOURNEY metaphor, is represented to have the same structure as a journey (which can be seen
in the PATH schema with a starting point, a route, and a destination / a goal) during which the
person is a traveler, purposes are destinations, means are routes, difficulties are obstacles,
counselors are guides, achievements are landmarks, choices are crossroads.
E.g.: Harry still hasn't gotten over his divorce. (Lakoff, 1987)
Some other kinds of structural metaphors are TIME IS A LINE (path schema); COGNITION IS
PERCEPTION (up-down schema), AFFECTING IS TOUCHING
iii. ONTOLOGICAL METAPHOR. An ontological metaphor is a metaphor which is based on
the experience with physical objects. In ontological metaphor an abstraction, such as an
activity, emotion, or idea, is represented as something concrete, such as an object, substance,
container, or person. Here are some kinds of ontological metaphors: PROTECTION IS A COVER

and TRUTH IS A HIDDEN OBJECT; RESTRICTIONS ARE BOUNDARIES;. For instances,
Under my persistent questionings she will tell. (LANGUAGE IS A PHYSICAL FORCE)



23
2.4. Data Analysis and Discussions
This section focuses on meanings of the four spatial prepositions Over, Above, Under,
Below in two dimensions: spatial and non-spatial. For better recognition of image schemas and
metaphor structures, the image schemas and types of metaphors are printed capital, the
instances are in italic.
2.4.1. Spatial senses
Spatial senses of the prepositions are described through image schemas with typical
characteristics of the TR and the LM.
2.4.1.1. Above
Meaning with the TR which is physically higher than the LM / UP-DOWN schema.
This is the only spatial sense of above. 112 expressions of above conveying this meaning were
found. It requires a zero-dimensional TR which locates in a higher position than the LM. The
TR is stative or in continuous motion in the sphere of the LM which locates in a lower
position. There is no contact between the LM and the TR. The LM may be conceptualized as:
- a zero dimentional complement
1) Firenze pointed to the red star directly above Harry (Rowling)
2) the portrait of Grandma Robillard hanging above the fireplace (Mitchell)
3) a large purple lump was swelling above Nevilleʹs right eye (Dickens)
- multiple zero-dimensional complements as in the followings
4) she sat with her skirts well above her knees (Mitchell)
5) the smoke which rolled like low-hanging clouds above the trees (Mitchell)
- a surface complement like the surface, the table in (6, 7):
6) held it suspended an inch above the smooth yellowish surface of his parchment (Rowling)
7) He stretched out his cruel-looking hand above my table (Dickens)

However, the TR is not necessary to be directly higher than the LM like in the
followings, where we can infer the position of the TR is higher and next to the LM.
8) Look at me through a window above the desk (Dickens)
9) to tower above any other house on Peachtree Street (Mitchell)
10) The mound above the ashes and the dust (Dickens)
The LM of the prototype is instantiated with various complements denoting: buildings
and parts of building; bodies and parts of body, landscapes on the surfaces.

24
The LM also involes proper name, referring a geographic area.
11) Johnston did stand like an iron rampart in the mountains above Dalton (Mitchell)
In short, above has only one spatial sense. This is because the relation between the TR and
the LM in case of above is introduced through the only UP-DOWN image schema, which
involves a TR higher than a LM and is not transformed into another schema. The noteworthy
is that there is no contact between the TR and the LM.
2.4.1.2. Over
In my corpus, there are 316 expressions of spatial senses. The image shemas introducing
meanings of over can be summed up in the following table:
Schemas
Frequency of occurences
UP-DOWN
100
PATH
66
END-OF-PATH
71
SURFACE
64
VERTICAL PATH
9

REFLEXIVE
6
Table 1: Frequency of image schemas for over
i. Meaning with the TR which is physically higher than the LM (Above sense) / UP-
DOWN schema
This schema is considered to be the prototypical one (Evans & Tyler, 2001). The spatial
meaning is introduced through UP-DOWN schema. This requires that the LM is zero-
dimentional or two-dimentional and is located in a lower position while the TR is higher,
stative or moving withing the sphere of the LM. This sense suggests the 3 modes of the spatial
configuration of over: the TR possesses a higher position; and the TR is movable and the TR
is in potential of contact with the LM.
This sense occurs with such zero-dimentional LMs as human bodies (expressed in a
personal pronouns or a proper name) or parts of human body (head, nose, eyes, arm),
buildings or parts of buildings (house, kitchen,door, mantel, fire), inaminated objects
(cascades, knitting, book), or two-dimentional LMs, such as water, grass which are
conceptualized as having limits.

25
12) his arms over his head, cowering (Rowling)
13) my box was at my old lodging, over the water (Dickens)
This sense also occurs when over follows the verbs denoting continous motion, such as swing,
stir, hover, shake
14) he swung his right leg over his Firebolt (Rowling)
15) who only shook her head over her knitting (Dickens)
In my corpus survey, the prototypical schema undergoes some transformations, which are
the combinations between the prototypical schema with another, namely PATH, END-OF-PATH,
SURFACE To speak clearly, the characteristics of the transformed schemas include one or
some the characteristics of the prototypical one, i.e. they involve a TR which is movable,
higher than the LM and within the LM‟s affection. These transformed schemas introduce the
non-prototypical senses of over which are listed below.

ii. Meaning with the TR which is physically higher and moves across the LM (Above –
Across sense) / PATH schema
This schema is used with a TR moving across the LM or finishing its moving. In my data,
the LM configurations consist of:
- zero-dimensional complements like human and animal bodies or parts of the body (head,
shoulder, spider, ), inanimate objects (desk, broomstick), buildings
(16) threw his long beard over his shoulder (Rowling)
(17) the fog was creeping over the desolate flat (Dickens)
- multiple zero-dimensional complements
(18) The carts jingling up and down over the stones (Mitchell)
(19) running his thumbs over the calluses
- surfaces like floor, ground, grass, surface, turf, bridge :
(20) most of the book he owned were strewn over the foor (Rowling)
(21) I don’t allow anybody to ride over that turf (Dickens)
- vertical extended LMs like wall, gate, wreck,
(22) stepped over low garden wall (Rowling)
(23) sweeping over the rolling wreck (Dickens)
iii. Meaning with the TR which is physically higher and on the other side of the LM
(On-the-other-side sense) / END-OF-PATH schema

26
The schema involves a TR located on the other side of the LM when the motion is
consider to be complete. That is, the TR turns from PATH configuration (in sense 2) to END-
OF-PATH. The LM is an extended one and relative to the starting point of the TR. There is a
contact between the TR and the LM. The LM is found to be used with two-dimensional
surfaces like way, side, bar, table.
24) The three of them looked cautiously over the banisters (Rowling)
25) the landlord looked at me in return over the bar (Dickens)
The LMs are also illustrated with zero-dimensional LMs like threshold, shield, parts of the
body (head, shoulder, ), items on the table (cusp, dishes, glasses ) The noteworthy here is

that these one-dimensional complements are conceptualized as being in vicinity of the end of
path (Evan & Tyler, 2001). As a result, the locations of TRs in these case are depicted to be
next to or behind the LMs.
26) Harry & Ron read the notice over the heads of some anxious-looking second-years (Rowling)
27) we were sitting over our decanter of wine before the fire (Dickens)
iv. Meaning with the TR which is higher and covers the LM (covering sense) / SURFACE
schema.
The schema involves a LM as zero-dimensional complement like desk, slate, body or parts
of the body (ear, face, head), or a two-dimensional surface like rug, doormat or proper nouns
denoting geographic areas The TR is used with some configurations:
- a two-dimensional TR like hand, apron, clothes,
28) claps his hands over his ears (Rowling)
29) his jacket over his hat (Dickens)
- a multiplex TR which is made up of many individuals like hair, grass, weeds
30) rumpled her hair all over her face to hide it (Dickens)
31) coarse grass and rank weeds straggled over all the marshy land in the vicinity (Dickens)
- a TR as a mass in which individuals are jointed to form a path which covers the LM.
32) he opened his mouth and vomited all over the doormat (Rowling)
33) Miss Clarissa and my aunt roam all over London (Dickens)
over in the two later cases is usually paired with a mass quantifier that quantifies regions of
LM, like all, most

27
v. Meaning with the TR which is physically higher and moves to the LM from the high
(falling-down sense) / VERTICAL PATH schema
This sense of over involves a transformation from the PATH schema. In this case, the path
(LM) shows the position of the TR: the start point is higher and the end point is lower. This
sense is used with the verbs denoting up-down motion like fall, tumble,
34) Harry fell forwards over the hydrangea bush (Rowling)
35) my knife tumbled over my fork (Dickens)

v. Meaning with the TR and the LM are the identical / REFLEXIVE schema
In this case, half of the TR moves above and across the rest which is considered as the
LM.
36) he turned over his steak (Rowling)
In brief, we have found that over conveys 6 spatial senses which are introduced through 6
different image schemas, of which the prototype is the UP-DOWN and the non-prototypes are
the PATH, END-OF-PATH, VERTICAL PATH, REFLEXIVE, and SURFACE. Obviously, all the non-
prototypical schemas involve a TR able to move along a path. This TR is also able to cover
something. In this way, the typical characteristics of the TR in case of over are moving along
a path and covering.
2.4.1.3. Below
Meaning with the TR which is physically lower than the LM / UP-DOWN schema.
Below, in comparison with the three above prepositions, is used the most really. In fact,
below is used more frequently as an adverb. There are only 40 occurrences of below as a
preposition collected in our corpus. Of those, there are spatial sense is manifested in 36
expressions. It requires a zero-dimensional TR which locates in a lower position than the LM.
The TR is stative or in continuous motion in the sphere of the LM which locates in a lower
position. There is no contact between the LM and the TR. The TR is instantiated with
complements denoting: buildings and parts of building; bodies and parts of body; objects;
landscapes on the surfaces. The LM may be conceptualized as
- a zero-dimensional complement
37) lying in their graves at rest, below the solemn moon (Dickens)
38) showing anima-white teeth below a colse-clipped black mustache (Mitchell)

28
- a multiple zero-dimensional complement
39) all of them was alert and serious, watching what was happening below them (Rowling)
40) the banked flowers below the pictures of Mr. Davis (Mitchell)
- a surface complement
41) his sleepless eyes would come below the writing (Dickens)

42) the sun was now below the horizon (Mitchell)
In (42) the horizon is conceptualized as the boundary line between the sky and the earth.
The TR is not necessary to be directly lower than the LM.
43) I look down on the line of boys below me (Dickens)
44) She saw Rhett Butler standing just below the doctor (Mitchell)
The LM also is instantiated with a proper name which denotes a geographic area like in the
following:
45) they reached the little town of Calhoun, six miles below Resaca (Mitchell)
The remarkable here is that “Resaca” is not beneath “Calhoun”, but it is is lower than
“Calhoun” in comparison with sea level.
Below has only one spatial sense which is introduced through the UP-DOWN image schema,
which involves a TR lower than a LM and unable to contact with the LM. This prototypical
schema is not transformed into another one. Therefore, below has no derived spatial senses.
2.4.1.4. Under
A total of 108 expressions with spatial meanings of under were collected. The image schemas
introducing meanings of under can be summed up in the following table:

Schemas
Frequency of occurrences
UP-DOWN
33
SURFACE – CONTAINER
48
SURFACE – COVER
27
Table 2: Frequency of image schemas for under
i. Meaning with the TR which is physically lower than the LM / UP-DOWN schema
In my collected data there are 33 instances, whose spatial meaning are introduced through
UP-DOWN schema. This requires that the LM and TR are zero-dimensional. The TR can move
within a bounded space directly beneath the LM. The relation between the TR and the LM