Cover not available

In:Constructing Families of Constructions: Analytical perspectives and theoretical challenges
Edited by Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Alba Luzondo Oyón and Paula Pérez-Sobrino
[Human Cognitive Processing 58] 2017
► pp. 53–76

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

Chapter 2
Embodied motivations for abstract in and on constructions

 | Umeå University
Published online: 26 July 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.58.03joh
Abstract
This chapter investigates the relationship between abstract in and on constructions (i.e. grammatical form and meaning pairings (Langacker 1987: 409; Goldberg 2006: 3) and body-world knowledge. Abstract in and on instances retrieved from the British National Corpus (BNC) are analyzed to identify what types of abstract concepts are construed as containing entities (used with the English preposition/particle in) and what types of abstract concepts are construed as objects/supporting surfaces (used with the preposition/particle on). Analyses show that abstract in and on constructions fall into families of constructions that refer to related concepts, and that these, in turn, are connected with specific types of embodied experiences. Body-world knowledge thus provides a principled way of explaining the constructions.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Cognitive linguistics approaches to abstract in and on
  • 3.Method
  • 4.Abstract in and on concepts
  • 5.Embodied motivations for abstract in constructions
  • 6.Embodied motivations for abstract on constructions
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (38)
References
Bąçzkowska, A. 2011. Space, time and language: A cognitive analysis of English prepositions. Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kazimierza Wielkiego.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. 2008. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 230–244.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beitel, D., Gibbs, R. W. Jr., & Sanders, P. 2001. The embodied approach to the polysemy of the spatial preposition on . In H. Cuyckens, & B. Zawada (Eds.), Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected papers from the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, 1997 (241–260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K., & Chang, N. 2005. Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J.-O. Östman, & M. Fried (Eds.). Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (147–190). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergen, B., & Wheeler, K. 2010. Grammatical aspect and mental simulation. Brain and Language, 112, 150–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 2006a. Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006b. Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language, 21, 434–458. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Matlock, T. 2008. Metaphor, imagination and simulation: Psycholinguistic evidence. In R. W. Gibbs Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (247–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grady, J. 1997. Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herskovits, A. 1986/2009. Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. London & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. 1999. Cognitive artifacts. In R. A. Wilson, & F. C. Keil (Eds.), The MIT Encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences (126–128). Cambridge, Massachusetts & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johansson Falck, M. 2013. Narrow paths, difficult roads, and long ways: Travel through space and metaphorical meaning. In C. Paradis, C. J. Hudson, & U. Magnuson (Eds.). The construal of spatial meaning: Windows into conceptual space (214–235). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. What trajectors reveal about TIME metaphors: Corpus analysis of English and Swedish. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 21(1), 28–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johansson Falck, M., & Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 2012. Embodied motivations for metaphorical meanings. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(2): 251–272. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johansson, R., Holsanova, J., & Holmqvist, K. 2006. Pictures and spoken descriptions elicit similar eye movements during mental imagery, both in light and in complete darkness. Cognitive Science, 30(6), 1053–1079. 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
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 & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1999. Philosophy in the flesh. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. 2002. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar (2nd ed.). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S. 2010. English prepositions explained. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mandler, J. H. 2010. The spatial foundations of the conceptual system. Language and Cognition, 2(1), 21–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mandler, J. M. 2012. On the spatial foundations of the conceptual system and its enrichment. Cognitive Science, 36, 421–451. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mandler, J. M., & C. P. Cánovas. 2014. On defining Image Schemas. Language and Cognition, 6(4) (2014), 510–532. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Navarro, I. 1999. The metaphorical use of on. Journal of English Studies, I(1999), 145–164.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2000. A cognitive semantic analysis of the English lexical unit IN. Cuadernos de Ivenstigación Filológica, XXVI, 189–220. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reddy, M. 1993. The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (164–201). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. 2013. Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan, & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into Functional Linguistics: The role of constructions in RRG Grammars [Studies in Language Series] (231–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rice, S. A. 1993. Prepositional prototypes. In M. Pütz, & R. Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought: 19th international LAUD symposium on language and space (135–165). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spivey, M. J., & Geng, J. J. 2001. Oculomotor mechanisms activated by imagery and memory: Eye movements to absent objects. Psychological Research, 65, 235–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stanfield, R. A., & Zwaan, R. A. 2001. The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153–156. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. 2007. 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. 2006. Are there spatial prepositions? In M. Hickmann, & R. Stephane (Eds.), Typological studies in language, 66: Space in Languages (139–154). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. 2002. Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science, 13, 168–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Kalyuga, Marika & Sofya Yunusova
2025. Contrasting the semantics of prepositions through a cognitive linguistic approach. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 23:2 ► pp. 440 ff. DOI logo
Okonski, Lacey & Marlene Johansson Falck
2025. The effect of the Embodied Scenes approach to preposition learning with PrepApp. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 12:1 ► pp. 70 ff. DOI logo
Falck, Marlene Johansson & Lacey Okonski
2024. Metaphorical and non-metaphorical meaning from spatial relations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo
Knop, Sabine De
2020. The embodied teaching of complex verbal constructions with German placement verbs and spatial prepositions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:1 ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 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