Cover not available

Article published In: Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 6:1 (2019) ► pp.103–129

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Conceptual structuring of the English prepositions between, among, and amid, and their Spanish equivalent entre

A cognitive linguistic approach to spatial, non-spatial and temporal scenes

 | University of Córdoba
 | University of Córdoba
Published online: 12 July 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00032.mor
Abstract
Spatial language has been traditionally understood as encoding purely spatio-geometric information. However, much more than that must be considered for a full account of the semantics of space. It turns out that spatial arrangements manifest functional consequences which are non-spatial, so prepositional vehicles cannot be equated solely with spatial elements (Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial prepositions: A case study from French (trans. Anna R. K. Bosch). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, (1994). Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(2), 157–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). These non-spatial parameters in turn, play a major role in spatial, non-spatial, and temporal conceptions. This provides solid ground to propose a motivation behind these types of meanings that prepositions usually convey. This paper attempts to show how the conceptual basis for each preposition proposed, is a key component within conceptual processes such as elaboration and extension (Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Such an analysis provides a better understanding of the spatial configuration of the English and Spanish prepositions, as well as an account for the semantic extension of non-spatial and temporal conceptions. Using a corpus-driven methodology to evidence the prepositions’ use types, the results obtained favor the hypothesis that non-spatial conceptions are ultimately motivated by spatial ones. This in turn, shows the language-specific character of parameterization due to the clear differences that exist between the English prepositions between, among, and amid, and their Spanish equivalent entre. The cognitive linguistic analysis showed in this research may also offer a new perspective in the area of Language Teaching. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research on the plausibility of psycholinguistic validation and pedagogical applications of the conceptual bases proposed.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background and methodology
  • 3.Analysis
    • 3.1Spatial configuration of between
      • 3.1.1Semantic extension of between
    • 3.2Spatial configuration of among
      • 3.2.1Semantic extension of among
    • 3.3Spatial configuration of amid
      • 3.3.1Semantic extension of amid
    • 3.4Spatial configuration of entre
      • 3.4.1Semantic extension of entre
  • 4.Pedagogical applications and discussion
  • 5.Final remarks
  • Notes
  • References
References (43)
References
Barcelona, A. (2000). On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 31–58). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Metonymy is not just a lexical phenomenon: On the operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse. Selected papers from the Stockholm, 1–40.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 7–57). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Metonymy. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 143–166). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cambridge University Press. (2008). Cambridge online dictionary, Cambridge Dictionary online in [URL]
(2009). How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010a). From the spatial to the non-spatial: The “state” lexical concepts of in, on and at. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition & space: The state of the art and new directions (pp. 215–248). London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010b). The perceptual basis of spatial representation. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions (pp. 21–48). London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Language and time: A cognitive linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, V. A unified account of polysemy within LCCM Theory. Lingua (2015). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Unpublished doctoral thesis, linguistics dept, UC Berkeley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hampe, B. (2005). Image schemas in cognitive linguistics: Introduction. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. (pp. 1–12). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haun, D. B., Rapold, C. J., Janzen, G., & Levinson, S. C. (2011). Plasticity of human spatial cognition: Spatial language and cognition covary across cultures. Cognition, 119 (1), 70–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herskovits, A. (1985). Semantics and pragmatics of locative expressions. Cognitive Science 91, 341–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1986). Language and spatial cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1988). Spatial expressions and the plasticity of meaning. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 271–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). The philosophical significance of image schemas. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 15–33). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Philosophy in the flesh (Vol. 41). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, volume II: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Metonymic grammar. In K. U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012a). Interactive cognition: Toward a unified account of structure, processing, and discourse. International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics, 3(2), 95–125.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012b). Linguistic manifestations of the space-time (dis) analogy. In L. Filipović & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Space and time in languages and cultures: Language, culture and cognition (pp. 191–215). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mandler, J. (2004). The foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morras, J. (2018). Base conceptual de la preposición entre y sus equivalentes de la lenguainglesa between, among, y amid: una perspectivaenlingüísticacognitiva [Conceptual basis of entre and its English equivalents between, among and amid: A cognitive linguistics perspective]. RILEX. Revista sobre Investigaciones Léxicas, 1(2), 52–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Dowd, E. (1998). Prepositions and particles in English: A discourse-functional account. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peña Cervel, S. (2012). Los esquemas de imagen [Imageschemas]. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano & Valenzuela (Eds.), Lingüística Cognitiva (pp. 69–98). Barcelona: Anthropos.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G. & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Real Academia Española. (2015). Diccionario de la lengua española (23.aed.). Consultado en [URL]
Rosch, E., & Lloyd, B. B. (Eds.). (1978). Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J. (2006). Polysemy and the lexicon. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven & F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 51–80). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003a). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003b). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman & D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 95–159). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial prepositions: A case study from French (trans. Anna R. K. Bosch). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(2), 157–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Kermer, Franka
2021. Semantic network of the German preposition hinter . Review of Cognitive Linguistics 19:2 ► pp. 403 ff. DOI logo
Morras Cortés, Javier A. & Xu Wen
2021. Unweaving the embodied nature of English temporal prepositions. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8:1 ► pp. 60 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue