The Polysemy of Beside: The Correlation between TR and LM Syntactic Elaborations and Meaning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.22.3.02Keywords:
polysemy, prepositions, conceptualization, syntaxAbstract
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. 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 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 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.
Brugman, C. [1981] 1988. The story of over: polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. Garland Publishing.
Cooper, G. S. 1968. A semantic analysis of English locative prepositions. Clearinghouse. 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. 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 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226704003056
Geeraerts, D. 2010. Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford University Press. 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 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 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 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 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002471322828
Hanks, P. 2013. Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. MIT Press. 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. 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. 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.
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. [1980] 2003. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press. 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.
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 2000. Grammar and conceptualization. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524
Langacker, R. W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
Lindstromberg, S. 2010. English prepositions explained. Revised edition. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4107.003.0015
Lundskær-Nielsen, T. 1993. Prepositions in Old and Middle English. Odense University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/nss.9
Luraghi, S. 2003. On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 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.
Navarro-Ferrando, I. 1999. The metaphorical use of on. Journal of English Studies 1, 145-164. 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. 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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.13.08ris
Rudkiewicz, K. 2016. Cognitive explorations into the category schema of ‘for’. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1. MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001
Tyler, A. and V. Evans. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517
Tuggy, D. 1993. Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive linguistics, 4-3, 273-290.
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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.273
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
