A study on meanings of the english prepstion “ in “ and its VietNamese equivalents from a cognitive semantic perspctive

A study on meanings of the english prepstion
“ in “ and its VietNamese equivalents from a
cognitive semantic perspctive
Nguyễn Thị Khánh Vân


Trường Đại học Ngoại Ngữ
Luận văn ThS. Chuyên ngành:English Linguistics; Mã số: 60 22 15
Người hướng dẫn: Dr. Hà Cẩm Tâm
Năm bảo vệ: 2009


Abstract: This thesis is aimed at analyzing meanings of the English preposition in and
investigating its potential Vietnamese equivalents based on the theoretical framework of
cognitive semantics. The present analysis posits that meanings of in are not arbitrary; rather
they are systematically related in a network. Specifically, from the central schema
designating prototypical meaning of in, other meanings occurs by means of image-schema
transformations and metaphorical mappings from spatial domains to non-spatial and abstract
domains. In addition, it is interesting to note that in can correspond to not only prepositions
but also other non-prepositional expressions in Vietnamese. The emphasis put here is that
although spatial cognition exists in any language, there are differences in strategies of spatial
conceptualization employed by people using each language. Accordingly, our findings are
supposed to be really beneficial, on the one hand, to teaching, learning and translating
English prepositions; on the other, to better understanding socio-cultural beliefs associated
with the use of language.

Keywords: Tiếng Anh; Tiếng Việt; Giới từ; Ngữ nghĩa học tri nhận

Content:

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration …………………………………………………………………………
i
Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………
ii
Abstract …………………………………………………………………………….
iii
Abbreviations and Symbols ………………………………………………………
iv
Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………
v
INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………….
1
1. Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………
1
2. Aims of the Study …………………………………………………………
3
3. Scope of the Study ………………………………………………………….
3
4. Significance of the Study …………………………………………………
3
5. Research Questions ………………………………………………………
4
6. Design of the Study ………………………………………………………
4
DEVELOPMENT ……………………………………………………………
5
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES ……………………
5

1.1. A Brief Overview of Cognitive Linguistics ……………………………
5
1.2. A Brief Overview of Cognitive Semantics ………………………………
6
1.3. Spatial Prepositions ………………………………………………………
7
1.3.1. Definition of Spatial Prepositions …………………………………
7
1.3.2 Syntactic Perspectives on Spatial Prepositions
8
1.3.3. Semantic Perspectives on Spatial Prepositions ……………………
8
1.4. Cognitive Semantics Approach to Spatial Prepositions ………………….
9
1.4.1. Experiential Realism, Image Schemas and Spatial Prepositions…….
9
1.4.2. Metaphor and Spatial Prepositions …………………………………
11
1.4.3. Prototype, Radial Category and Spatial Prepositions ………………
12
1.4.5. Polysemy and Spatial Prepositions ………………………………….
13
1.4.6. Perspective and Subjectivity ………………………………………
14
CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY ………………………………………………….
16
2.1. Research Questions …………………………………………………
16
2.2. Methodology ……………………………………………………………
16

vi
2.3. Data ………………………………………………………………………
17
2.4. Analytical Framework ……………………………………………………
18
2.5. Data Analysis, Findings and Discussion …………………………………
19
2.5.1. Meanings of the English Preposition “in” …………………………
19
2.5.1.1. Prototypical Schema for “in”…………………………………
19
2.5.1.2. Non-prototypical Meanings of „in‟…………………………….
20
2.5.1.3. Metaphorical Extensions ………………………………………
22
2.4.1.3.1. Metaphorical extension of the enclosure prototype ………
22
2.4.1.3.2. Metaphorical extension of the inclusion sense ……………
25
2.4.1.3.3. Metaphorical extension of the medium sense …………….
26
2.5.1.4. Radial Category of “in” ………………………………………
27
2.5.1.5. Summary ………………………………………………………
27
2.5.2. The English Preposition “in” and its Vietnamese Equivalents ……
28
2.5.2.1. “in” in English corresponds to “trong” in Vietnamese …….
29

2.5.2.2. “in” in English corresponds to “ngoài” in Vietnamese …
30
2.5.2.3. “in” in English corresponds to “trên” in Vietnamese
31
2.5.2.4. “in” in English corresponds to “dưới” in Vietnamese …….
32
2.5.2.5. “in” in English corresponds to “ở” in Vietnamese ………
33
2.5.2.6. “in” in English corresponds to “trước” in Vietnamese …
33
2.5.2.7. “in” in English corresponds to “sau” in Vietnamese ……
34
2.5.2.8. “in” in English corresponds to “bên” in Vietnamese ……
35
2.5.2.9. “in” in English corresponds to “bằng” in Vietnamese ……
36
2.5.2.10. “in” in English corresponds to “về” in Vietnamese ……
36
2.4.2.11. “in” in English corresponds to “vào” in Vietnamese ……
37
2.5.2.12. “in” in English corresponds to other Vietnamese
Non-prepositional Expressions………………………………

37
2.5.2.3. Summary ………………………………………………………
39
2.5.3. Similarities and Differences between English and Vietnamese
Spatial Cognition …………………………………………………………
2.5.3.1. Similarities …………………………………………………….
2.5.3.2. Differences …………………………………………………….

40
40
40

vii
CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………
42
1. Conclusions ………………………………………………………………
42
2. Pedagogical Implications …………………………………………………
43
3. Limitations of the Research and Suggestions for Further Research ……….
45
REFERENCES …………………………………………………………
APPENDIX …………………………………………………………………
46
I




1
INTRODUCTION
1. Statement of the problem
There is a well-established fact that learners of English as a Foreign Language more
often than not confront a great many difficulties in actively mastering the language. As a
general rule, they seemingly hold the view that English notional categories, namely nouns,
verbs, adjectives and adverbs are crucial, hence striving to learn as many of them as
possible, and that such functional categories as prepositions are of minor significance

because they are limited in number and their meanings are not important to the meaning of
the whole sentence. What is more, the traditional view considers that all the senses of a
preposition are highly arbitrary and are not related to one another. As a matter of fact, both
dictionaries and grammars provide long lists of unrelated senses for each preposition and
its possible uses in different contexts. In other words, EFL learners resort to a great many
linguistic materials whose authors have made monumental efforts to describe this type of
words on the grounds of only functions and positions other than semantic factors
contributing to determining their choices in use. For the above reasons, prepositions are
generally troublesome to the learners for whom English is a foreign/second language
(Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1999). Boers and Demecheleer (1998) argue that
prepositions are difficult for ESL/EFL learners because they have literal as well as
figurative meanings. For instance, we say, we are at the hospital; or we visit a friend who
is in the hospital, or we lie in bed but on the couch.
Actually, much work has been done in the last decades to find a relationship
between the different senses of English prepositions. Cognitive Linguistics has paid great
attention to polysemy, and specifically to the meaning of prepositions (Lindner, 1982;
Vandeloise, 1991; Pütz & Dirven, 1996; Tyler & Evans, 2003). Interestingly, cognitive
linguists, especially cognitive semanticists have been making momentous contribution to
explaining polysemy in terms of radial categories (Lakoff, 1987) and therefore consider
that the meaning of a polysemous word can be seen as a big semantic network of related
senses. Furthermore, it now seems evident that there is a highly schematic common core to
all the related senses of a preposition, which all derive from a primary spatial schema or
proto-scene (Tyler & Evans, 2003) to other non-spatial, abstract senses “by means of
generalization or specialization of meaning or by metonymic or metaphoric transfer”
(Cuyckens & Radden, 2002)

2
It is also worth noting that cognitive semantics is concerned with investigating the
relationship between experience, the conceptual system, and the semantic structure
encoded by language (Lakoff, 1987). To put it plainly, cognitive semanticists have

employed language as the lens through which these cognitive phenomena can be
investigated. As fas as spatial prepositions are concerned, cross-language research in
cognitive semantics has shown that although spatial cognition exists in any language, there
are differences in strategies of spatial conceptualization employed by people using each
language. In other words, it is evident that human experiences with space are held to be
identical, since human beings are endowed with the same biological features and can be
exposed to similar experiences with the environment. The linguistic encoding of spatial
concepts in different languages is, however, different (Choi & Bowerman, 1991; Levinson,
2001)
The preposition in represents one of the most typical spatial prepositions in English.
Vietnamese EFL learners in general and those at the Military Science Academy in
particular are almost not sure when in is acceptably used. Additionally, it can be observed
that they just tend to apply straightforward correspondence to prepositions in their mother
tongue; for instance, English preposition in means trong in Vietnamese, on means trên, for
means cho, to name just a few – irrespective of complements that are attached to the
prepositions, and they think the job is done. Apparently, the magnitude of this error is so
enormous that it may delay the fluent native-like mastery of the target language.
Accordingly, it is essential to grasp the related meanings of the English preposition in
within the framework of cognitive semantics and in this way immensely understand what
native English speakers conceptualize spatial relations of the physical world objects and
how they map from these spatial domains to non-spatial domains via metaphor and
metonymy. Moreover, how this preposition can be translated in to Vietnamese when they
are in different collocations have so far not been thoroughly investigated. The present
thesis hopes to contribute to the on-going research into how different languages express the
various spatial relations that can hold between entities in the world. Last but not least,
teachers can apply appropriate teaching methods to help students master the meanings of
prepositions. Besides indispensable roles of the teachers in the students’ learning
achievements, students should be provided with suitable learning strategies to better
language competence as well as cross-cultural awareness.

3
For all the above-mentioned reasons, it is strongly desirable for the author to
conduct this thesis.
2. Aims of the study
The current thesis aims at
- uncovering a semantic description of the English preposition in in light of cognitive
semantics
- investigating potential Vietnamese equivalents of the English preposition in
- embarking on pedagogical implications for teaching, learning and translating
English prepositions.
3. Scope of the study
The study is limited to investigating senses of the English preposition in and their
Vietnamese equivalents within cognitive semantic theoretical framework. Not only
prototypical but also derived meanings of the preposition motivated from image-schema
transformations and metaphorical conceptual mappings will be taken into account. This
investigation is based on my manual corpus of 681 in-examples in form of (NP) + in + NP
and NP + V + in + NP, where in functions as a preposition, to the exlusion of others where
in plays the role of an adverb or an affix. The data were collected from three sources,
namely, the English versions of Vanity Fair by Thackeray, W. M., Jane Eyre by Brontë, C.,
and English-Vietnamese translation course books for third and fourth- year English majors
at the MSA. Vietnamese equivalents of those 681 in-occurrences were also identified and
grouped in terms of frequency and percentage to explore differences and similarities
between English and Vietnamese spatial conceptualization and cognition.
4. Significance of the study
This thesis, to some extent, enumerates strong evidence in cognitive semantics that
the typically English preposition in possesses numerous but related senses, suggesting that
the use of a particular word reflects the way in which native English speakers
conceptualize the physical world basing on their experience. Additionally, the thesis takes
a comparative stance and looks for cross-linguistic equivalents. Potential Vietnamese
equivalents of this preposition investigated in the current study will probably construe how

Vietnamese people convey spatial meanings. The thesis hopes to contribute to the overall
stock of cognitive semantic studies on prepositions from a cross-linguistic perspective. The
findings of the study, as a result, will substantially contribute to language teaching and

4
learning English as well as English-Vietnamese translation. The results and data may also
be useful for lexicographers when compiling new general and specialized dictionaries.
5. Research questions
The following questions are proposed in the current research:
- What meanings are conveyed by the English preposition in from a cognitive
semantic perspective?
- What are Vietnamese equivalents of the English preposition in?
This study in turn, hopes to contribute to enriching pedagogical proposals for
teaching English prepositions and translation of prepositions to English major students at
the MSA.
6. Design of the study
The present paper is organized in four main parts. The INTRODUCTION part is
devoted to presenting statement of 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 subdivided into two chapters: CHAPTER 1 discusses the general
theoretical background of the study and CHAPTER 2, the backbone of the thesis,
comprises the methods of the study, data collection, analytical framework, data analysis,
findings and discussion. The CONCLUSION part demonstrates the conclusions of this
piece of research, pedagogical implications, and suggestions for further studies. References
are also included.

46
REFERENCES
In Vietnamese
1. Nguyễn Đức Dân (1988), Lôgích của từ nối trong tiếng Việt và các ngôn ngữ Đông Nam
Á, Nxb Khoa học Xã hội, Hà Nội.
2. Đào Thản (1983), “Cứ liệu từ vựng ngữ nghĩa tiếng Việt về mối quan hệ không gian
thời gian”, Ngôn ngữ (3)
3. Lý Toàn Thắng (1994), “Ngôn ngữ và sự tri nhận không gian”, Ngôn ngữ (4).
4. Lý Toàn Thắng (2005), Ngôn ngữ học tri nhận, từ lý thuyết đại cương đến thực tiễn
tiếng Việt, Nxb Khoa học Xã Hội, Hà Nội.
5. Lý Toàn Thắng (2006), Hai hình thức phản ánh và hai cách nhìn không gian trong ngôn
ngữ. Retrieved November 26
th
, 2008, from
6. Trần Ngọc Thêm (2004), Tìm về bản sắc văn hoá Việt Nam, Nxb Tổng hợp, Tp Hồ Chí
Minh.
7. Nguyễn Đức Tồn (2002), Tìm hiểu đặc trưng văn hoá dân tộc của ngôn ngữ và tư duy
ở người Việt, Nxb Đại học Quốc gia, Hà Nội.
In English
8. Barcelona, A. (2003), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive
Perspective, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
9. Boers, F. (1996), Spatial Prepositions and Metaphor: A Cognitive Semantic Journey
along the Up-Down and the Front-Back Dimensions, Tubingen: Gunter Narr
Verlag

10. Boers, F. & Demecheleer, M. (1998), „A cognitive semantic approach to teaching
prepositions‟, in ELT Journal, 52(3):197-204.
11. Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999), The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL
Teacher's Course, Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle Publishing Company.
12. Cuyckens, H. (1993), “The Dutch Spatial Preposition “in”: A Cognitive Semantic
Analysis”, in Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. (ed.) The Semantics of Prepositions, Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter
13. Cuyckens, H & G. Radden (2002), Perspectives on Prepositions. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
14. Cienki, A. J. (1989), Spatial Cognition and the Semantics of Prepositions in English,
Polish and Russian, Munchen: Verlag Otto Sagner.

47
15. Croft, W. & Cruse, A. (2004), Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
16. Evans, V. (2006), „Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction.‟
Cognitive Linguistics, 17: 4, 491-534.
17. Evans, V. and Green, M. (2006), Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
18. Finegan, E. (2004), Language: Its Structure and Use. Boston: Wardsworth.
19. Geeraerts, D. (1999), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology,
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
20. Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens (2007), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
21. Herskovits, A. (1986), Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of
the Prepositions in English, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. James, C. (1980), Contrastive Analysis, London: Longman.
23. Johnson, M. (1987), The Body in the Mind, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
24. Lakoff, G. (1987), Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal
about the Mind, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
25. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980), Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.
26. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999), Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its
Challenge to Western Thought, New York: Basic Books.
27. Langacker, R. W. (1987), Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I: Theoretical
Prerequisites, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
28. Langacker, R. W. (1990), Concept, Image, and Symbol, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
29. Langacker, R. W. (1991a), Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume II, Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
30. Langacker, R. W. (1999), Grammar and Conceptualization, Berlin: Muton de Gruyter.
31. Levinson, S. (2001), Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive
Diversity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
32. Lindstromberg, S. (1998), English Prepositions Explained, Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.

48
33. Lindvists, K.G. (1950), Studies on the Local Sense of the Prepositions IN, AT, ON, and
TO in Modern English, Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet.
34. Low, G. D. (1988), On Teaching Metaphor. Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 125-147.
35. Miller, G. A. and Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976), Language and Perception, Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
36. Navarro-Ferrando, I. (1998), A Cognitive Analysis of the Lexical Units AT, ON, IN In
English, Universitat Jaume I, Ph.D dissertation.
37. O'Malley, J. M. & Chamot A. U. (1990), Learning Strategies in Second Language
Acquisition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Pütz, M. & Dirven, R. (1996), The Construal of Space in Language and Thought.
Berlin: de Gruyter.
39. Quirk et al. (1985), A comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London:
Longman
40. Rice, S. (1996), „Prepositional Prototypes‟ in Pütz, M. & Dirven, R. (ed.) The
Construal of Space in Language and Thought, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

41. Rosch, E. H. (1973), „Natural Categories‟, Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328-350
42. Rutherford, W. (1987), Second Language Grammar Learning and Teaching, London:
Longman.
43. Saeed, J. (1997), Semantics, Oxford: Blackwell.
44. Talmy, L. (1983), Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research and Application, New York:
Plenum Press.
45. Talmy, L. (2000), Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume I: Concept Structuring
Systems, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
46. Taylor, J. R. (1989), Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory,
Oxford: Oxford University Press
47. Taylor, J. R. (2002), Cognitive Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48. Tyler, A. and Evans, V. (2003), The Semantics of English Prepositions. Spatial Scenes,
Embodied Meaning and Cognition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Vandeloise, C. (1991), Spatial Prepositions: A Case Study from French, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
50. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. (ed) (1993), The Semantics of Prepositions: From Mental
Processing to Natural Language Processing, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.