Cover not available

Article published In: Cognitive Approaches to Mind, Language, and Society: Theory and description
Edited by Mario Serrano-Losada and Daniela Pettersson-Traba
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies 11:1] 2024
► pp. 203–233

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

Embodied semantic parameters for the lexical representation of spatial relational categories

ORCiD logo with link | Universitat Jaume I
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with Jaume I University.

Published online: 6 June 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00118.nav
Abstract
This paper proposes an explanatory model for the lexical representation of the native speakers’ lexical knowledge of English prepositions. Lexical knowledge of prepositions as relational predicates includes argument structure (trajector-landmark) as in Cognitive Grammar, situation types (position vs state) as in Functional Grammar, lexical hierarchies (spatial subdomains) based on semantic primitives, as in Natural Semantic Metalanguage, and embodied perceptual parameters configured in four dimensions, namely, geometry, topology, force-dynamics and function (from Cognitive Linguistics). This model is illustrated here by expounding three lexical templates compatible with constructional templates in the Lexical Constructional Model, representing the semantic decomposition of English prepositions at, on and in.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.From Euclidean geometry to embodied accounts of prepositional meaning
  • 3.Spatial relations lexical knowledge
    • 3.1Argument structure
    • 3.2Situation structure
    • 3.3Perceptual structure
    • 3.4Lexical inheritance hierarchy
  • 4.Lexical templates
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (109)
References
Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W. K., Barbey, A. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 84–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bennett, D. C. (1975). Spatial and temporal uses of English prepositions: An essay in stratificational semantics. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. (1988). On the Grammar of local prepositions. In M. Bierwisch & W. Motsch & I. Zimmermann (Eds.), Syntax, semantik und lexikon [Syntax, semantics and lexicon] (pp. 1–66). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boers, F. (1996). Spatial prepositions and metaphor: A cognitive semantic journey along the up-down and the front-back dimensions. Günter Narr Verlag: Tübingen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breaux, B. O. (2013). On grounding metaphors in space: The role of metaphorical connections in accessing the abstract meanings of English prepositions. Ph.D. dissertation. Lafayette: University of Lousiana.
Breaux, B. O., & Feist, M. I. (2010). Extending beyond space. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1601–1606). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brøndal, V. (1948). Les parties du discours [The parts of speech]. Copenhague: Munksgaard.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1950). Théorie des prépositions [Theory of prepositions]. Copenhague: Munskgaard.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brugman, C. (1980). Story of OVER. M.A. thesis. Berkeley: University of California
Butler, C. S. (2009). The Lexical Constructional Model: Genesis, strengths and challenges. In C. S. Butler & J. M. Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 117–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., Covey, E. S., & Lattanzi, K. M. (1999). “What” effects on “Where”: Functional influences on spatial relations. Pshychological Science, 10(6), 516–521. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Casasanto, D. (2022). Embodied semantics. In F. T. Li (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive semantics (pp. 1–13). Leiden: Brill. Last accessed on 21 Dec 2023: [URL]
Chilton, P. (2014). Language, space and mind: The conceptual geometry of linguistic meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1993). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cienki, A. J. (1989). Spatial cognition and the semantics of prepositions in English, Polish and Russian. München: Verlag Otto Sagner. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 27–63). London: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coventry, K. R. (1998). Spatial prepositions, functional relations and lexical specification. In P. Olivier & K.-P. Gapp (Eds.), Representation and processing of spatial expressions (pp. 247–262). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Space. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 490–509). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coventry, K. R., Carmichael, R., & Garrod, S. C. (1994). Spatial prepositions, object-specific function, and task requirements. Journal of Semantics, 11(4), 289–309. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coventry, K. R., & Garrod, S. C. (2004). Saying, seeing and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. London: Psychology Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deane, P. D. (1993). At, by, to, and past: An essay in multimodal image theory. In Proceedings of the nineteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session and parasession on semantic typology and semantic universals (pp. 112–124). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of over. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 235–284). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1997). The theory of functional grammar: Part 1: The structure of the clause. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dirven, R. (1989). Space Prepositions. In R. Dirven & R. A. Geiger (Eds.), A user’s grammar of English: Word, sentence, text, interaction: Part B: The structure of sentences (pp. 520–576). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drozdowicz, A. M. (1998). A cognitive-semantic analysis of the English preposition in. M.A thesis. Scotland: The University of Glasgow.
Feist, M. I. (2000). On in and on: An investigation into the linguistic encoding of spatial scenes. Ph.D. dissertation. Evanston: Northwestern University.
(2008). Space between languages. Cognitive Science, 32(7), 1177–1199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feist, M. I., & Gentner, D. (1998). On plates, bowls, and dishes: Factors in the use of English IN and ON. In M. A. Gernsbacher & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 345–349). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Factors involved in the use of in and on. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 390–395). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Multiple influences on the use of English spatial prepositions: The case of “in” and “on”. In C. Boonthum-Denecke, P. M. McCarthy, & T. Lamkin (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary advances in applied natural language processing: Issues and approaches (pp. 305–323). Hershey: Information Science Reference. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feist, M. I., & Zhang, Y. (2019). Mapping space: A comparative study. In Proceedings of the 41st annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 1717–1723). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The Case for Case. In E. W. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (2015). The geometry of preposition meanings. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 101, 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2021). Natural semantic metalanguage. In X. Wen & J. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 93–110). London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2014). Words and meanings: Lexical semantics across domains, languages, and cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, B. W. (1984). The semantics of English spatial prepositions. Ph.D. dissertation. California: University of California San Diego.
Herskovits, A. (1985). Semantics and pragmatics of locative expressions. Cognitive Science, 9(3), 341–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1986). Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. (1935). La Catégorie des Cas [The category of case]. København: C.A. Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jamrozik, A., & Gentner, D. (2015). Well-hidden regularities: Abstract uses of in and on retain an aspect of their spatial meaning. Cognitive Science, 39(8). 1881–1911. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johansson Falck, M., & Okonski, L. (2023). Procedure for identifying metaphorical scenes (PIMS): The case of spatial and abstract relations. Metaphor and Symbol, 38(1), 1–22. 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
Jolly, J. (1991). Prepositional analysis within the framework of role and reference grammar. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kokorniak, I. (2007). English at: An integrated semantic analysis. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.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
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Concept, image, and symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.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
(2010). Reflections on the functional characterization of spatial prepositions. Corela, 9–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1969). Towards a semantic description of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C., Meira, S., & The Language and Cognition Group. (2003). ‘Natural concepts’ in the spatial topological domain--Adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language, 79(3), 485–516. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C., & Wilkins, D. P. (2006). Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindkvist, K.-G. (1950). Studies on the local sense of the prepositions in, at, on, and to in Modern English. Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1976). A comprehensive study of conceptions of locality in which English prepositions occur. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindner, S. J. (1983). A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb particle constructions with ‘out’ and ‘up’. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S. (2010). English prepositions explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Locke, J. (1690). An essay concerning human understanding. Buenos Aires: Aguilar. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mairal, R., & Faber, P. (2007). Lexical templates within a functional cognitive theory of meaning. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 5(1), 137–172. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2008). New challenges for lexical representation within the Lexical-Constructional Model (LCM). Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 571, 137–155.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). An overview of the Lexical Constructional Model: Part I: Lexical and constructional templates; Part II: Subsumption processes. Manuscript. University of La Rioja. [URL]
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phénomenologie de la Perception [Phenomenology of perception]. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Navarro i Ferrando, I. (1998). A multimodal system for the description of spatial semantics: The preposition on. In J. L. C. Honrubia (Ed.), Estudios de lingüística cognitiva II [Studies in cognitive linguistics II] (pp. 767–787). Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). A cognitive-semantic analysis of the English lexical unit in. Cuadernos de Investigación Filológica, 261, 189–220. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Towards a description of the meaning of at. In H. Cuyckens & G. Radden (Eds.), Perspectives on prepositions (pp. 211–230). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). On the meaning of three English Prepositions. In I. Navarro i Ferrando & N. Alberola (Eds.), In-roads of language: Essays in English studies (pp. 167–179). Castelló de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Lexical decomposition of English prepositions and their fusion with verb lexical classes in motion constructions. Language Value, 3(1), 114–137. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Exploring the lexical representation of English particles in the Lexical-Constructional Model. In M. Brdar, I. Raffaelli & M. Ž. Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics between universality and variation (pp. 137–160). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pederson, E., Danziger, E., Wilkins, D., Levinson, S., Kita, S., & Senft, G. (1998). Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language, 74(3), 557–589. [URL]
Peña-Cervel, M. S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2022). Figuring out figuration: A cognitive Linguistic account. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1956). The child’s conception of space. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pottier, B. (1962). Systématique des Éléments de Relation [Systematics of relation elements]. Paris: Librairie Klincksieck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 61, 576–582. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Regier, T. (1996). The human semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rhee, S. (2004). Semantic structure of English prepositions: An analysis from a grammaticalization perspective. Language Research, 40(2), 397–427.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rice, S. (1992). Polysemy and lexical representation: The case of three English prepositions. In Proceedings of the fourteenth annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 89–94). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). Prepositional prototypes. In M. Pütz & R. Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (pp. 135–165). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R. (2008a). Challenging systems of lexical representation. Journal of English Studies, 51, 325–356. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008b). Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(3–4), 355–400. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silvestre López, A. J. (2009). Particle semantics in English phrasal and prepositional verbs: The case of IN and ON. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinha, C. & Jensen de López, K. (2000). Language, culture, and the embodiment of spatial cognition Cognitive Linguistics, 11(1–2), 17–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinha, C., & Thornseng, L. A. (1995). A coding system for spatial relational reference Cognitive Linguistics, 6(2–3), 261–309. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sroka, K. A. (1972). The syntax of English phrasal verbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stocker, K. (2015). Toward an embodied cognitive semantics. Cognitive Semantics, 1(2), 178–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Takahashi, G. (2016). An adventure in English language space. A key to the mysteries of prepositions. Bloomington: Xlibris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. L. Pick & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application (pp. 225–282). New York: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). How language structures space. In L. Talmy (Ed.), Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol. I: Concept structuring systems (pp. 177–254). Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). The representation of spatial structure in spoken and signed language. In K. Emmorey (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 169–195). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tésnière, L. (1959). Éléments de Syntaxe Structurale [Elements of structural syntax]. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago: University of Chicago 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
Van Valin, Jr. R. D. (2005). The syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface: An introduction to role and reference grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Varela, F. J., Thomson, E., & Rosch, E. (2016). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience (revised edition). Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wen, X., & Jiang, C. (2021). Embodiment. In X. Wen & J. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 145–160). London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willems, R. M., Toni, I., Hagoort, P., & Casasanto, D. (2010). Neural dissociations between action verb understanding and motor imagery. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(10), 2387–2400. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Y. (2013). Spatial representation of topological concepts IN and ON: A comparative study of English and Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation. Montreal: Concordia University.
Zlatev, J. (2007). Spatial semantics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 318–350). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Navarro i Ferrando, Ignasi
2025. Review of Ounis (2024): Unpacking metaphor-related prepositions in political discourse. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 23:1 ► pp. 320 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