The metaphorical use of "on"

Abstract

An attempt is made at refuting the idea that figurative uses of prepositions are chaotic. Figurative uses of the preposition on are explained as the result of metaphorical mappings from the physical domain onto abstract domains. The semantic structure of this preposition in the source domain is explained as a conceptual schema (support), which is formed as a combination of three more basic image schemas, namely, the contact schema, the control schema, and the force downwards schema. The Invariance Principle guarantees the preservation of the logic of these image schemas in target domains. The selection of a particular target domain is, therefore, motivated.

Well‐Hidden Regularities: Abstract Uses ofinandonRetain an Aspect of Their Spatial Meaning

“…By focusing on differences between individual uses of in and on , other previous accounts (e.g., Beitel et al., ; Navarro i Ferrando, , ) may capture some subtle aspects of meaning that are not fully explained by a general difference in relative control between the prepositions. For example, Beitel et al.…”

“…Though the constraint schema involves relative degree of figure and ground control, the other schemas do not, and abstract uses that draw primarily on those schemas should not evoke relative control. Likewise, Navarro i Ferrando (, ) posited several different kinds of spatial schemas for uses of in and on . On this account, abstract uses that derive from the support, enclosure, or functional spatial schemas could suggest a difference in relative control, but those uses that derive from the other schemas should not.…”

“…Our proposal is that this distinction is also extended to abstract uses of in and on . Elements of this proposal have appeared in earlier accounts of abstract in and on use, beginning with Garrod and Sanford's () proposal (see also Beitel, Gibbs, & Sanders, ; Evans, ; Navarro i Ferrando, , ). However, we believe that this work is the first to test the prediction that abstract uses of in and on are distinguished by the degree of figure and ground control.…”

“…Other accounts of the relationship between spatial and abstract uses of in and on (e.g., Beitel et al., ; Evans, ; Navarro i Ferrando, , ) have been quite varied, differing in the number and kind of basic spatial meanings proposed, in the kind of correspondence assumed between spatial meanings and abstract uses, and in the degree to which spatial and abstract uses are assumed to draw upon the same aspects of the meaning. In general, these accounts propose many specific ways in which abstract uses of in and on relate to the prepositions’ spatial uses, some of which allow for difference in degree of control.…”

“…Thus, relative degree of control is allowed for, though not emphasized, in this account. Navarro i Ferrando proposed two basic spatial schemas—enclosure for in (Navarro i Ferrando, ) and support for on (Navarro i Ferrando, ), each of which includes information about the topology, force‐dynamics, and function of the figure–ground relationship. On this account, abstract uses of in and on can derive either from the basic spatial schemas (support or enclosure) or from one of the more specific schemas (topology, force‐dynamics, function).…”