Spatial Cognition and the Semantics of Prepositions in English, Polish and Russian

Cienki, Alan

doi:10.3726/b12805

Cited by 65 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is crucial to note that what is apprehended as a point is the PLACE OF LOCATION. Cienki (1989), for example, argues that the place-function in the structure of to cannot be specified as AT because to does not entail point-apprehensibility (cf. (18) in section 1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining the conceptual structure of from and to

Lipovšek

2014

ELOPE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryFrom and to differ from other prepositions of movement in two significant respects: they entail point-apprehensibility and leave the actual trajector-landmark arrangement unspecified. The difference is due to the presence of two place-functions in their conceptual structure. The first place-function is the same as the one found in the conceptual structure of at. It triggers a point-like conceptualization and is lexicalized together with the path-function. The second place-function is not specified but can be lexicalized separately. The conceptual structure with two place-functions allows for a second preposition, but can at the same time account for the unacceptability of from at and to at. The paper highlights the vagueness of the traditional definitions of from and to, arguing that what is conceptualized as a point is not the landmark but the place of location.Key words: prepositions, from, to, conceptual structure, path-function, place-function, landmark, trajector Opredelitev konceptualne strukture predlogov from in to PovzetekFrom in to se od ostalih predlogov za izražanje premikanja razlikujeta v dveh bistvenih pogledih: implicirata točkovno konceptualizacijo in ne specificirata prostorskega razmerja med trajektorjem in orientacijsko točko. Omenjena razlika je posledica prisotnosti dveh funkcij lokacije v njuni konceptualni strukturi. Prva je enaka funkciji lokacije v konceptualni strukturi predloga at. Sproži točkovno konceptualizacijo in je leksikalizirana skupaj s funkcijo poti. Druga funkcija lokacije ni specificirana, lahko pa je leksikalizirana ločeno. Konceptualna struktura z dvema funkcijama lokacije omogoča rabo dodatnega predloga, vendar lahko še vedno utemelji nesprejemljivost kombinacij from at in to at. Članek med drugim izpostavi nenatančnost tradicionalnih definicij predlogov from in to z vidika konceptualizacije: predmet točkovne konceptualizacije namreč ni orientacijska točka, temveč mesto lokacije.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining the conceptual structure of from and to

Lipovšek

2014

ELOPE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is the case of the role of landmark dimensionality. Thus, it is normally assumed that one of the semantic differences between the units at, on and in resides in the different types of dimensionality that their landmarks impose on the conceptualisation (Lindkvist 1950(Lindkvist , 1976Leech 1969;Bennett 1975;Hawkins 1984;Herskovits 1986;Quirk et al 1985;Cienki 1989;Cuyckens 1993;Hottenroth 1993). This approach leads the analysts to ad hoc solutions when they try to explain uses like at sea, or at a surface -where the landmark should be a point -or when an explanation is needed why these three prepositions can be used equally with such landmarks as point or period.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This geometric conception is complemented by topological judgements in most standard descriptions. In some descriptions, thus, the topological relation of inclusion is emphasised (Miller & Johnson-Laird 1976;Herskovits 1986;Cienki 1989), though this inclusion may be partial.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A cognitive-semantic analysis of the English lexical unit "in"

Ferrando

2000

Cuadernos de Investigación Filológica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No other discussions of locative relations in the world's languages have discussed a functional basis as the primary determinant of locative relations (e.g. Cienki, 1989, Herskovits, 1982, 1986, Jackendoff, 1983, Levinson, 2003. In this article, I will illustrate the functional basis of locative relations in Rongga and attempt to define the functional relations that Rongga speakers consider "normal".…”

Section: Picturementioning

confidence: 99%

Semantics of Functional and Locative Relations in Rongga

Aryawibawa¹

2010

Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many scholars have proposed a universal set of locative relations. Herskovits's comprehensive study of English locative relations found that locative concepts such as inclusion, support and contiguity, and coincidence are basic in English. Her findings offer support for strong Universal Conceptual Categories. On the other hand, Levinson et al.'s examination of locative relations of nine unrelated languages revealed that the basic concepts are attachments, superadjacency, full containment, subadjacency, and proximity which suggest Universal Tendencies rather than Universal Conceptual Categories. This study investigates how locative relations are encoded in Rongga and their implications for the universalism of locative relations. A standard elicitation technique was used.It appears that Rongga is unique in the priority it gives to the notion of functional relations over locative relations. Functional relations refer to the "natural" function between located and reference objects. Thus, when a natural function is present the relation is functional rather than spatial. Rongga uses the preposition one to refer to functional relations. However, when the natural relation is absent the relation becomes locative. Various prepositions such as zheta wewo/zheta tolo 'on', zheta wena 'over/above', zhale one 'inside', zhale wena/zhale lewu 'below/under' are used to express locative relations. In other words, instead of encoding the locative relationship based upon the locative concepts described by Herskovits and Levinson et al., Rongga emphasizes the importance of natural function between located and reference objects.

show abstract

Spatial Cognition and the Semantics of Prepositions in English, Polish and Russian

Cited by 65 publications

References 0 publications

Defining the conceptual structure of from and to

Defining the conceptual structure of from and to

A cognitive-semantic analysis of the English lexical unit "in"

Semantics of Functional and Locative Relations in Rongga

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About