The Polysemy of Beside: The Correlation between TR and LM Syntactic Elaborations and Meaning

Maria Brenda

doi:10.18778/1731-7533.22.3.02

Authors

Maria Brenda University of Szczecin

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.22.3.02

Keywords:

polysemy, prepositions, conceptualization, syntax

Abstract

The paper contributes to the discussion of the polysemy of spatial prepositions looking at the conceptual structure of the preposition beside. Introducing the syntactic criterion to the process of trajector/landmark identification, the paper shows that beside gives access to a three-dimensional conceptual category, extending both upward and sideways, and that its polysemy arises when the conceptualizer focuses attention on the basic level of the category, the level of senses.

References

Brenda, M. 2015. The semantics of at. Annales Neophilologiarum, 9, 25-55.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.18276/an.2015.9-02

Brenda, M. 2017. A cognitive perspective on the semantics of near. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15:1, 121-153. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.06bre
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.06bre

Brenda, M. 2019. The semantics of the English complex preposition next to. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 17:2, 438-464. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00042.bre
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00042.bre

Brenda, M. and J. Mazurkiewicz-Sokołowska. A Cognitive Perspective on Spatial Prepositions: Intertwining networks. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Google Scholar

Brugman, C. [1981] 1988. The story of over: polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. Garland Publishing.
Google Scholar

Cooper, G. S. 1968. A semantic analysis of English locative prepositions. Clearinghouse.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.21236/AD0666444

Cruse, D. A. 2000. Aspects of the micro-structure of word meaning. In Ravin, Y. and C. Leacock (eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches, 30-51. Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198238423.003.0002

Croft, W. and D. A. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864

Evans, V. 2005. The meaning of time: polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics 41, 33-75.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226704003056

Geeraerts, D. 2010. Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198700302.001.0001

Gärdenfors, P. 2015. The geometry of preposition meanings. The Baltic international yearbook of cognition, logic and communication, volume 10: Perspectives on spatial cognition, 1-33. https://doi.org/10.4148/1944-3676.1098
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4148/1944-3676.1098

Gilquin, G. and A. McMichael. 2018. Through the prototypes of through: A corpus-based cognitive analysis. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 6:1, 43-70. https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2018-0003
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2018-0003

Gries, S. 2019. Polysemy. In Dąbrowska, E. and D. Divjak (eds.). Cognitive linguistics: Key topics, 23-43. Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110626438-002
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110626438-002

Van der Gucht, F., Willems, K. and L. De Cuypere. 2007. The iconicity of embodied meaning. Polysemy of spatial prepositions in the cognitive framework. Language Sciences 29, 733-754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.027
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.027

Hanks, P. 2000. Do word meanings exist? Computers and the Humanities 34, 205-215.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002471322828

Hanks, P. 2013. Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. MIT Press.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262018579.001.0001

Johnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001

Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001

Lakoff, G. 1996. Sorry, I’m not myself today: The metaphor system for conceptualizing the self. In G. Fauconnier and E. Sweetser (eds.), Spaces, worlds, and grammar, 91-123. University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. [1980] 2003. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001

Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford University Press.
Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. 2000. Grammar and conceptualization. Mouton de Gruyter.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524

Langacker, R. W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001

Lindstromberg, S. 2010. English prepositions explained. Revised edition. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/z.157

Logan, G. D. and D. D. Sadler. 1996. A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations. In Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nadel, L. and M. F. Garrett (eds.), Space and Language, 493-529. MIT Press.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4107.003.0015

Lundskær-Nielsen, T. 1993. Prepositions in Old and Middle English. Odense University Press.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/nss.9

Luraghi, S. 2003. On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.67

Murray, James A. H., Henry Bradley, W. A. Craigie and C. T. Onions (eds.). 1989. The Oxford English dictionary (2nd edition). Clarendon Press.
Google Scholar

Navarro-Ferrando, I. 1999. The metaphorical use of on. Journal of English Studies 1, 145-164.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.47

Navarro-Ferrando, I. 2000. A cognitive semantic analysis of the English lexical unit in. Cuadernos de Investigación Filológica 26, 189-220.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.18172/cif.2227

Rissanen, M. 2004. Grammaticalisation from side to side: On the development of beside(s). In Lindquist, H. and Mair, C. (eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English, 151-170. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.13.08ris
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.13.08ris

Rudkiewicz, K. 2016. Cognitive explorations into the category schema of ‘for’. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Google Scholar

Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1. MIT Press.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001

Tyler, A. and V. Evans. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions. Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517

Tuggy, D. 1993. Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive linguistics, 4-3, 273-290.
Google Scholar

Ungerer, F. and H. J. Schmid. [1996] 2006. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Pearson Education Limited. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.273
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.273