Cover not available

In:Language Learning, Discourse and Cognition: Studies in the tradition of Andrea Tyler
Edited by Lucy Pickering and Vyvyan Evans
[Human Cognitive Processing 64] 2018
► pp. 111–130

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

Chapter 5
The role of embodiment in the semantic analysis of phrasal verbs

A corpus-based study

Published online: 20 December 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.64.06map
Abstract
Many of the meanings of prepositions are derived from our bodily experience and conceptualization of the spatial-physical world. This study examines the relationship between frequency and embodied meaning in spatial particles. Tyler and Evans’ Principled Polysemy Model was used to analyze high and low frequency particles. The analysis shows that particles including up, out, off and over appear frequently in phrasal verbs due to a larger set of embodied experiences and a more complex semantic network associated with these particles. In contrast, low frequency particles such as through, under, into and for appear less frequently in phrasal verbs due to the nature of the embodied meanings motivating these uses. Implausible constructions such as hold under and drop up were found to be explainable by examining the basic embodied meanings of the verb and the particle.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
  • 3.Analysis
    • 3.1Spatial particles of the vertical axis
    • 3.2Spatial particles with bounded LMs
    • 3.3Spatial particles of orientation
  • 4.Infrequent verb-particle constructions
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (32)
References
Baillargeon, R., Needham, A. & Devos, J. (1991). The development of young infants’ intuitions about support. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K. (2012). Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benor, S., & Levy, R. (2006). The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Language, 82, 233–278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brugman, C. & Lakoff, G. (1988). Cognitive typology and lexical networks. In S. Small, G. Cottrell, & M. T. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution (pp. 477–507). Palo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufman. COCA [online]: [URL] [Accessed March 21th 2012].
Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gardner, D. & Davies, M. (2007). Pointing out frequent phrasal verbs: A corpus-based analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 339–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gelman, R. (1990). First principles organize attention to and learning about relevant data: Number and the animate-inanimate distinction as examples. Cognitive Science, 14, 79–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kolstad, V. T. (1991, April). Understanding of containment in 5.5-month-old infants. Poster presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA.
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: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leslie, A. (1988). The necessity of illusion: perception and thought in infancy. In L. Weiskrantz (Ed.), Thought without language (pp. 185–210). Oxford, UK: Clarendon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Louwerse, M. (2008). Embodied relations are encoded in language. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(4), 838–844. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mahpeykar, N. (2014). A principled cognitive linguistics account of English phrasal verbs. Washington DC: Georgetown University dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mandler, J. (1992). How to build a baby: Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 99, 587–604. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). Preverbal representation and language. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 365–384). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). The foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thought: Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McDonough, L. & Mandler, J. M. (1998). Inductive generalization in 9- and 11-month-olds. Developmental Science, 1, 227–232. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (2003). Word power: Phrasal verbs and compounds: A cognitive approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandra, D. (1998). What linguistics can and can’t tell you about the human mind: A reply to Croft, Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 361–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandra, D. & Rice, S. (1995). Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 89–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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 in french. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Force and function in the acquisition of the preposition in. In L. Carlson (Ed.), Functional features in language and space: Insights from perception, categorization, and development (pp. 219–229). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 44 (pp. 35–62). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Littlemore, Jeannette
2023. More on Categories: Words, Morphemes, ‘Grammar Rules’, Phonological Features, and Intonation Patterns as Radial Categories. In Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Second Language Learning and Teaching, ► pp. 57 ff. DOI logo
Attardo, Salvatore & Lucy Pickering
2018. The theoretical and applied foundations of Andrea Tyler’s approach to the study of language. In Language Learning, Discourse and Cognition [Human Cognitive Processing, 64], ► pp. 301 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