Meanings of the english prepositions “over, above, under, below” in terms of cognitive semantics perspective

Meanings of the english prepositions “over,
above, under, below” in terms of cognitive
semantics perspective


Nguyễn Tuyết Nhung


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: 2010



Abstract: The thesis studies meanings of four vertical prepositions above, over, below, and
under to find out their similarities and differences. Data for analysis were collected from four
famous literary works. The collected data then were grouped and analyzed using image schemas
(in analyzing spatial senses) and metaphorical structures (in analyzing metaphorical expressions
or non-spatial senses). The result show that although the four prepositions are described through
the UP-DOWN schema but the characteristics of the TR and the LM are different. These
differences cause different spatial senses and metaphorical uses of the prepositions. They also
cause the differences in the use of synonyms. At the end of the thesis, some suggestions for
teaching semantics are also included.

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

Content:


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.

43
REFERENCES
1. Boers, F. (1996), Spatial Prepositions and Metaphor: A Cognitive Semantic Journey
along the Up-Down and the Front-Back Dimensions, Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
2. Cuyckens, H & G. Radden (2002), Perspectives on Prepositions. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
3. Cienki, A. J. (1989), Spatial Cognition and the Semantics of Prepositions in English,
Polish and Russian, Munchen: Verlag Otto Sagner.
4. Croft, W. & Cruse, A. (2004), Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

5. Evans, V. and Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Routledge.
6. Finegan, E. (2004), Language: Its Structure and Use. Boston: Wardsworth.
7. Geeraerts, D. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin/New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
8. Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens (2007), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
9. Herskovits, A. (1986), Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the
Prepositions in English, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
11. Langacker, R. W. (1990), Concept, Image, and Symbol, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
12. Langacker, R. W. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
13. Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume II, Descriptive
Application. California: Stanford University Press
14. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
15. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What categories reveal about the
mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Levinson, S. (2001), Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive
Diversity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

44
17. Radden, G & Dirven, R. (2007), Cognitive English Grammar, Philadenphia: John Benjamins
North America.
18. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
19. Tyler, A. and Evans, V. (2001), Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Networks: The case
of Over, Language, 77(4):95-159
20. Tyler, A. and Evans, V. (2003), The Semantics of English Prepositions. Spatial Scenes,
Embodied Meaning and Cognition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

21. Treichler, M. (2003), Metaphor and Space: The Cognitive Approach to Spatially Structured
Concepts, Munich: Grin Publishing
Online sources