MEANINGS OF PREPOSITIONS OVER, ABOVE, UNDER, BELOW IN ENGLISH AND THE VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS FROM a COGNITIVE SEMANTICS PERSPECTIVE

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY M.A THESIS MEANINGS OF PREPOSITIONS OVER, ABOVE, UNDER, BELOW IN ENGLISH AND THE VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS FROM A COGNITIVE SEMAN

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A THESIS MEANINGS OF PREPOSITIONS OVER, ABOVE, UNDER, BELOW

IN ENGLISH AND THE VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS

FROM A COGNITIVE SEMANTICS PERSPECTIVE

(CÁC NÉT NGHĨA CỦA CÁC GIỚI TỪ OVER, ABOVE, UNDER, BELOW

TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ TƯƠNG ĐƯƠNG TRONG TIẾNG VIỆT DƯỚI GÓC NHÌN NGỮ NGHĨAHỌC TRI NHẬN)

DAO THI HUONG

Field: English Language Code: 60220201

Supervisor: Assoc Prof Dr Hoang Tuyet Minh

Hanoi, 1/2018

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I certify that the thesis entitled “Meanings of prepositions over, above, under,

below in English and theVietnamese equivalents from a cognitive semantics

perspective” is the result of my own research and the substances of this thesis has not,

wholly or in part, been submitted for a degree to any other university or institution

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research has, in many senses, been accomplished with the help and encouragement of many people Therefore, I hereby would like to express my appreciation to all of them

First of all, I would like to acknowledge my depth of gratitude to my supervisor, Assoc Prof Dr Hoang Tuyet Minh, lecturer of Hanoi Open University Institute, who has not only encouraged me to do this study but also given invaluable

ideas and enormously helpful guidance

My sincere thanks also go to all staffs of the Department of Post Graduate and Hanoi Open University for their valuable lessons and precious help Thanks to them, I could overcome enormous obstacles when doing this research

Besides, I would like to give my heartfelt thanks to the teachers and the students at the People’s Police University of Technology and Logistics for participating in this research Without their help, I would not have been able to complete this thesis

Last but not least, I also owe the deepest gratitude to my parents and my boyfriend, my colleagues, my friends for their constant support and thorough understanding Their great encouragement and love have helped me to overcome the difficulties during my study

ABSTRACT

The thesis studies the meanings of four vertical prepositions above, over,

below, and under to find out their similarities and differences The theory of

cognitive linguistics and cognitive semantics are used as fundamental framework

background for the research.The data are collected and analyzedin three famous

literary works that are represented by the tables and figures They were grouped and analyzed through using image schemas (analyzing spatial senses) and metaphorical structures (analyzing metaphorical expressions or non-spatial senses) Investigating

of four described prepositionsthrough the up-down schema gave the results but there are still some differences in characteristics of the trajector and the landmark and the Vietnamese equivalents of these prepositions These differences cause different spatial senses and metaphorical uses of the prepositions and synonyms that made some common errors by the first year non-major students at The Police

People University of Technology and Logistics

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Certificate of originality i

Acknowledgements ii

Abstract iii

Table of contents iv

List of tables and graphs vi

CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale for the study 1

1.2 Aims and objectives of the study 1

1.3 Research questions 2

1.4 Methods of the study 2

1.5 Scope of the study 2

1.6 Significance of the study 3

1.7 Design of the study 3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1 Previous studies 5

2.2 Cognitive Linguistics 6

2.3 A brief overview of Cognitive semantics 11

2.4 Spatial prepositions and semantic perspectives on spatial prepositions 13

2.5 Cognitive semantics approach to prepositions 15

2.5.1 Spatial domain and dimensionality 15

2.5.2 Spatial characteristics of trajectors (TR) and landmarks (LM) 16

2.5.3 Categorization and semantic structure 17

2.5.4 Metaphor and Spatial Prepositions 20

2.6 Summary 23

CHAPTER 3: PREPOSITIONS OVER, ABOVE, UNDER, BELOWIN ENGLISH AND THE VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS FROM A COGNITIVE SEMANTICS PERSPECTIVE 25

3.1 The semantic features of over, above, under, below in English 25

3.1.1 Spatial senses of over 25

3.1.2 Spatial senses of above 28

3.1.3 Spatial senses of under 29

3.1.4 Spatial senses of below 31

3.1.5 Non- spatial senses of over 32

3.1.6 Non- spatial senses of above 36

3.1.7 Non-spatial senses of under 36

3.1.8 Non-spatial senses of below 40

3.2 Prepositions over, above, under, below in English and their Vietnamese equivalents 41

3.2.1 “over” and the Vietnamese equivalents 41

3.2.2 “above” and the Vietnamese equivalents 42

3.2.3 “under” and the Vietnamese equivalents 43

3.2.4 “below” and the Vietnamese equivalents 44

3.3 Summary 44

CHAPTER 4: SOME COMMON ERRORS OF USING PREPOSITIONS “OVER, ABOVE, UNDER, BELOW” IN ENGLISH MADE BY THE FIRST YEAR NON-MAJOR STUDENTS AT THE POLICE PEOPLE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS 47

4.1 Survey questionnaires 47

4.1.1 Subjects 47

4.1.2 Questionnaires 47

4.1.3 Procedure 47

4.2 Common errors made by learners of English when using the prepositions over, above, under, below 48

4.2.1 Theory of error analysis and contrastive analysis 48

4.2.2 Students’ perception of learning using English prepositions 52

4.2.3 Learner’s factors hinder in using prepositions over, above, under, below 53

4.3 Suggestions for teaching and learning English prepositions 57

4.3.1 Suggestions for teaching English prepositions 57

4.3.2 Suggestions for learning English prepositions 57

4.4 Summary 58

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 59

5.1 Concluding remarks 59

5.2 Limitation of the study 59

5.3 Recommendations/Suggestions for further study 60

REFERENCES 61

APPENDIX 1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

LM: Landmark (mốc định vị)

TR: Trajector (vật được định vị)

LIST OF TABLES AND GRAPHS

Table 3.1: Frequency of image schemas of over 25

Table 3.2: Frequency of image schemas of under 29

Table 3.3: Frequency of metaphorical structures of over 33

Table 3.4: Frequency of metaphorical structures of under 37

Graph 4.1: Students’ perception in using these English prepositions 52

Graph 4.2: Students’ agree in using positions of the prepositions in sentences… 50

CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale for the study

English is a language that has more languages than other prepositions Howard Sargeant once said that "We know that English is a language used to connect the relationships between words in a sentence, and as a result, English uses more and more prepositions than other languages"

Theoretically, there was many famous authors that researched on prepositions from cognitive perspectives in overseas and Vietnam These traditional studies also have represented the semantics of English prepositions as largely arbitrary and difficult to characterize prepositions in English from cognitive perspective Accordingly, it is essential to grasp the related meanings of the English preposition within the framework of cognitive semantics and in this way immensely understand what native English speakers conceptualize spatial relations of the physical world objects and how they map from these spatial domains to non-spatial domains via metaphor, however, how the prepositions can be translated into Vietnamese when they are in different collocations have so far not been thoroughly investigated or they have not still illustrated the Vietnamese equivalents of the prepositions from cognitive perspective

Practically, four prepositionsabove, over, below,under are examined in

English that belong to the group of vertical prepositions They usually make the

learners confused with their polysemyand synonym prepositions such as “above and

over”; “below and under”.Although there are a lot of reference books and materials

related to preposition but not many of them is about their meanings and their Vietnamese equivalents from Cognitive perspective Moreover, many students of English often make mistakes when using them too Therefore, the study is

conducted related to them named “Meanings of prepositions over, above, under,

below in English and the Vietnamese equivalents from a cognitive semantics perspective”. With the purpose to help English learners have an insightful view on these prepositions, cognitive semantics was chosen as the tool to investigate the

meanings of the four spatial prepositions above,over, below,underandpoint out

some common mistakes and suggest solutions

1.2 Aims and objectives of the study

The aims of the study are tohelp Vietnamese learners use prepositions above,

effectively

The objectives of the study are:

- todescribe the semantic features of prepositions over, above, under,

belowin Cognitive semantics perspective

- to find out the Vietnamese equivalents of four prepositions in English

1.3 Research questions

To realize the above objectives, the following research questions will be searched out:

1. What are the semantic features of four English prepositions over, above,

under, below from a cognitive semantic perspective?

2. What are the Vietnamese equivalents of four English prepositions over,

above, under, below?

3 What implications are suggested for learning–teaching four

prepositionsover, above, under, belowin English?

1.4 Methods of the study

The meanings of four prepositions over, above, under, below are investigated

and described by collecting information from many different resources such as the internet, reference books and documents After collecting enough information in this paper, both quantitative and qualitative methods are used to synthesize the basic theories from many linguists and induce the data collected from English and

Vietnamese materials

In addition, the descriptive, analytic, comparative method is used to find out the similarities and differences of the prepositions in the body experience and the world conceptualization in English and their Vietnamese equivalentsbased on the semantic aspects

Besides that, statistical methods are also used to investigate the frequency of prepositions occurred in the process of semantic changing from spatial meaning into non-spatial meaning The use of many prepositions is a dominant feature of English

1.5 Scope of the study

The study explained the meanings conveyed by the four English prepositions

over, above, under, below Not only prototypical but also derived meanings of the prepositions motivated using image schema transformations and metaphorical extensions will be described

Based on the corpus with forms of NP + prep + NP and NP + V + prep +

NP, where the function ofprepositions over, above, under, below as a preposition

only in the primary sources of the English and Vietnamese versions like “Gone with the Wind” by M Mitchell; “David Copperfield” by C Dickens; “Harry Potter Order of Phoenix” by J K Rowling that helped me to collect database to illustrate the ideas.Vietnamese equivalents of the occurrences were also identified and grouped in terms of frequency and percentage to explore differences and similarities between English and Vietnamese spatial conceptualization and cognition

1.6 Significance of the study

The thesis contributes further to the enrichment of cognitive linguistic theory through the English and Vietnamese semantic and comparative documents, related

to the common spatial prepositions It also clarified the relation of the linguistics, thinking and culture and conceptual processes

In addition, the study of prepositions from the cognitive perspective will explain the expanding of meanings of the preposition (radiality) changed from the spatial meaning into the non-spatial meaning The metaphorical theory of conception, the concept of the body experience are presented in the thesis contribute

to researching on prepositions, language, psychology, translation and teaching Potential Vietnamese equivalents of these prepositions investigated in this study will probably construe how Vietnamese people convey spatial meanings

Therefore, the thesis is practical and useful for both teachers and students to learn English better and help foreigners learn Vietnamese more easily It is may also

be useful for lexicographers when compiling new general and specialized dictionaries

1.7 Design of the study

With a clear organization in which there are four main parts designed It is hoped that the readers can read easily:

Part I, the introduction, is devoted to presenting statement of the problem, aims of the study, scope of the study, method of the study, significance of the study, research questions and design of the study

Part II, the development, is divided into four chapters:

CHAPTER 1 discusses the general theoretical background of the study, analytical framework;

CHAPTER 2investigatesthe meanings of the prepositions in English;

CHAPTER 3 finds the similarities and differences of four English prepositions and their Vietnamese equivalents from a cognitive semantics perspective

CHAPTER 4is common errors made by the first year non major students at the Police People Technology and Logistics University when using these prepositions in English

Part III, the conclusion, demonstrates the major findings of the study, implications and suggestions for further studies References come at the endof the study

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Previous studies

There are many authors who researched on prepositions The author Greek philosopher Aristotle’s (384-322) BC researches are mentioned in the earliest In the West Europe, J Lyons and the grammatical and semantics researchers are also interested in researching on prepositions The author Lyons said that “the two basic functions of prepositions are the syntactic function and the positioning function.” According to Frank, (1972); Chomsky, (1995), there are also many traditional studies that have represented the semantics of English prepositions difficult to characterize On the other hand, Cognitive Linguistics, particularly Cognitive Semantics offers an alternative perspective, suggesting that the differences in expressing spatial relations and the distinct meanings associated with

a particular preposition are related in systematic, principled ways, Linder, (1982); Brugman & Lakoff, (1988); Herkovits, (1986, 1988); Boer, (1996), Evans & Tyler, (2001, 2003)

Nowadays, thanks to pioneering studies researched by Ray Jackenkoff, George P Lakoff, Ronald Wayne Langacker, Evans, Vyvan and Melanie Green, the prepositional studies have a new direction in terms of cognitive linguistics Cognitive semanticists has showed an important contribution to demonstrating of the polysemy in terms of prototype theory, Rosch, (1978) and radial categories, Lakoff, (1987) The meanings of a polysemy in a spatial preposition can be seen as

a big semantic network of related sense Langacker has achievements in researching

on a pair of well-known trajector and landmark to create the basis of image schemas for studying prepositions Moreover, according to Johnson, 1987, an arrangement of image schemas are offered in cognitive semantics to aid using structure our physical experience, and a number of metaphors which help to map the structure of a concrete source domain onto an abstract target domain It is very important to use these tools in determining the relation of spatial meanings to non-spatial ones of the prepositions Lakoff's research is considered as a well-known study on construction grammar in cognition linguistics And these are the theoretical basis for me to solve the problems in my thesis

In Vietnam, prepositions havebeen chosenas researching participants in the

thesis There are famous researches such as the Nguyen LaiPh.D.’s research “Group

of prepositions of movement in Vietnamese” or Tran Quang Hai Ph.D.'s thesis,

(2001) “Research on orientational prepositions in pragmatics”; Le Van Thanh Ph.D ‘s researchor Nguyen Canh HoaPh.D.’s thesis, (2001) “Research on grammar

and semantics of prepositions in English and their Vietnamese equivalents” These are the pioneering thesis of spatial prepositions in Vietnam that deeply went into the prepositions and contrast with the Vietnamese based on the semantic structure approach combined with the cognitive linguistic approach Therefore, it would be very difficult to study the new point if following this approach

All previous studies above showed the problems of prepositions in the structure-semantic aspects Thesestudies showed that the development of cognitive linguistics asexamining semantic development (conceptualization processes) in Vietnam and in the world in recent years that explain further on issues However,cognitive linguistics is still a new area in Vietnam, the application of this approach is mainly at the beginning that causes some limitations, especially in giving the Vietnamese equivalents of prepositions or other problems related to prepositions Therefore,the advantages of the semantic structure approach are combined with using new results in the cognitive approach that help me to find the solutions for readers as well as learners of foreign languages, to solve difficulties of prepositions

2.2.Cognitive Linguistics

In this chapter, cognitive semantic framework of the study will be presented Specifically, cognitive linguistics and cognitive semantics theory will be briefly discussed in 2.2 and 2.3; semantic perspectives on spatial prepositions will be demonstrated in 2.4; several primary notions in cognitive semantics employed to investigate meanings of spatial prepositions will be explicitly put forward in 2.5 Cognitive Linguistics grew out of the work of a number of researchers active

in the 1970s who were interested in the relation of language and mind, and who did not follow the prevailing tendency to explain linguistic patterns by means of appeals

to structural properties internal to and specific to language Rather than attempting

to segregate syntax from the rest of language in a 'syntactic component' governed by

a set of principles and elements specific to that component, the line of research followed instead was to examine the relation of language structure to things outside language: cognitive principles and mechanisms not specific to language, including

principles of human categorization; pragmatic and interactional principles; and functional principles in general, such as iconicity and economy

Cognitive Linguistics is a new approach to the study of language which views linguistic knowledge as part of general cognition and thinking; linguistic behavior is not separated from other general cognitive abilities which allow mental processes of reasoning, memory, attention or learning, but understood as an integral part of it It emerged in the late seventies and early eighties, especially through the work of George Lakoff, one of the founders of Generative Semantics, and Ronald Langacker, also an ex-practitioner of Generative Linguistics As a consequence, this new paradigm could be seen as a reaction against the dominant generative paradigm which pursues an autonomous2 view of language (see Ruiz de Mendoza, 1997) The most influential linguists working along these lines and focusing centrally on cognitive principles and organization were Wallace Chafe, Charles Fillmore, George Lakoff, Ronald Langacker, and Leonard Talmy Each of these linguists began developing their own approach to language description and linguistic theory, centered on a particular set of phenomena and concerns One of the important assumptions shared by all of these scholars is that meaning is so central to language that it must be a primary focus of study Linguistic structures serve the function of expressing meanings and hence the mappings between meaning and form are a prime subject of linguistic analysis Linguistic forms, in this view, are closely linked to the semantic structures they are designed to express Semantic structures of all meaningful linguistic units can and should be investigated

By the late 1980s, the kinds of linguistic theory development being done in particular by Fillmore, Lakoff, Langacker, and Talmy, although appearing radically different in the descriptive mechanisms proposed, could be seen to be related in fundamental ways Fillmore's ideas had developed into Frame Semantics and, in collaboration with others, Construction Grammar (Fillmore et al 1988) Lakoff was well-known for his work on metaphor and metonymy (Lakoff 1981 and Lakoff 1987) Langacker's ideas had evolved into an explicit theory known first as Space Grammar and then Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1988) Talmy had published a number of increasingly influential papers on linguistic imaging systems (Talmy 1985a,b and 1988)

Scientific frameworks are not just sets of concepts, models, and techniques: they also consist of people, activities, and channels of communication Thinking in terms of people, the key figures of Cognitive Linguistics are George Lakoff, Ronald W Langacker, and Leonard Talmy Around this core of founding fathers, who originated Cognitive Linguistics in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, two chronologically widening circles of cognitive linguists may be discerned A first wave, coming to the fore in the second half of the 1980s, consists of the early collaborators and colleagues of the key figures, together with a first generation of students

More generally, the rising interest in empirical methods is far from being a dominant tendency, and overall, there is a certain reluctance with regard to the adoption of an empirical methodology While the reasons for this relative lack of enthusiasm may to some extent be practical (training in experimental techniques or corpus research is not a standard part of curricula in linguistics), one cannot exclude the possibility of a more principled rejection Cognitive Linguistics considers itself

to be a nonobjectivist theory of language, whereas the use of corpus materials involves an attempt to maximalize the objective basis of linguistic descriptions Is

an objectivist methodology compatible with a nonobjectivist theory? Isn't any attempt to reduce the role of introspection and intuition in linguistic research contrary to the spirit of Cognitive Linguistics, which stresses the semantic aspects

of the language—and the meaning of linguistic expressions is the least tangible of linguistic phenomena

According to Croft & Cruse,( 2004); Evans & Green, (2006); Langacker, (1987), cognitive linguistics is a modern school of linguistic study and practice, has been of special interest since it emerged in the late seventies and early eighties It is primarily concerned with investigating the relationship between human language, the mind and socio-physical experience

According to Johnson, (1987), to put it in another way, this paradigm views linguistic knowledge as part of general cognition and thinking; linguistic behavior is not separated from other general cognitive abilities which allow mental processes of reasoning, memory, attention or learning, but understood as an integral part of it Such cognitive linguists therefore acknowledge that language is a part of, dependent

on and influenced by human cognition, including human perception and categorization, and that language develops and changes through human interaction

and experiences in the world It is a reaction of modern linguists to truth-conditional (objectivist) semantics and generative grammar which have been the dominant approaches to the study of language meaning and grammatical form since the middle of the last century As a consequence much cognitive linguistic research has focused on describing how concepts are organized (frames, domains, profiles, ICM) and the range of conceptualization or construal operations as instances of more general cognitive processes such as attention, comparison, perspective Ultimately, they all are grounded in our bodily experience, our need to make sense of the world and to communicate

It is very difficult to summarize in just a few words what the main theoretical ideas underlying a linguistic paradigm are, especially in a field as heterogeneous as Cognitive Linguistics However, if I had to be concise in describing its foundations,

I would consider the following as the main pillars of the whole theory:

(i) Language is an integral part of cognition

(ii) Language is symbolic in nature

Language is understood as a product of general cognitive abilities Consequently, a cognitive linguist must be willing to accept what Lakoff (1990) calls the „cognitive commitment‟, that is, s/he must be prepared to embrace the link between language and other cognitive faculties because linguistic theory and methodology must be consistent with what is empirically known about cognition, the brain and language This position is based on a functional approach to language Cognitive Linguistics explains the link between perception and cognition in these two examples on the basis of our conceptual organisation We perceive and understand these two processes as related On the basis of our experience as human beings, we see similarities between vision and knowledge, and it is because of these similarities that we conceptualise them as related concepts For cognitive linguists, language is not structured arbitrarily It is motivated and grounded more or less directly in experience, in our bodily, physical, social, and cultural experiences because after all, “we are beings of the flesh” (Johnson 1992) This notion of a

„grounding‟ is known in Cognitive Linguistics as „embodiment‟ (Johnson, 1987; Lakoff, 1987; Lakoff and Johnson, 1980, 1999) and finds its philosophical roots in the phenomenological tradition (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, 1963; Rosch, (1993)

For Cognitive Linguistics, however, this distinction is not strict Meanings are cognitive structures embedded in our patterns of knowledge and belief They

reflect the mental categories which people have created from their experiences of growing up and acting in the world Conventional meanings arise from experience and knowledge and our complex conceptual structures are invoked in language use and comprehension Furthermore, the fact that our experience-based knowledge is present in linguistic meaning at every level implies that there is not a strict distinction between lexicon and grammar This means that firstly lexicon and grammar form a continuum (Langacker, 1987), that they cannot be treated as autonomous modules as postulated in Chomsky linguistics; secondly, on the continuum, they correspond to very specific conceptualisation, i.e the lexicon for specific entities or relations, the grammar for more abstract conceptualisations According to Ronald Langacker, Cognitive linguistics practice could be

divided into two main areas: cognitive semantics and cognitive grammar Cognitive

grammar, the model language developed by is concerned with modeling the language system rather than the nature of mind itself Cognitive linguistics assures that grammar is conceptualization According to Jensen, (2004), people use grammar or language to conceptualize their experiences to express them However,

it does so by taking the conclusions of research in cognitive semantics

2.3.A brief overview of cognitive semantics

Cognitive semantics is part of the cognitive linguistics movement Cognitive semantics is typically used as a tool for lexical studies such as those put forth

by Leonard Talmy, George Lakoff, Dirk Geeraerts and Bruce Wayne Hawkins Cognitive semantic theories are typically built on the argument that lexical meaning is conceptual That is, the meaning of a lexeme is not reference to the entity or relation in the "real world" that the lexeme refers to, but to a concept in the mind based on experiences with that entity or relation

According to researchers Rosch, (1973); Lakoff & Johnson, (1980); Lakoff, (1987); Johnson, (1987); Langacker, (1987, 1990, 1999), cognitive semantics is part

of cognitive linguistics movement, is concerned with investigating the relationship between experience, the conceptual system, and the semantic structure encoded by language In specific terms, scholars working in cognitive semantics investigate knowledge representation (conceptual structure), and meaning construction (conceptualization) Therefore, cognitive semantics studies much of the area traditionally devoted to pragmatics as well as semantics

Cognitive semantics is not a single unified framework, but there are four guiding principles that collectively characterize cognitive semantics.These

principles can be stated as follows:

The first principle is conceptual structure is embodied According to Geerarts, (1993),Talmy, (1985-2000),Taylor, (1989), we have a specific view of the world due to the nature of our body The experience we have of the world is significant to the way we understand it What we understand from the world through our perception becomes our knowledge of it From this point of view, the human mindmust bear the imprint of embodied experience This position holds that conceptual is a consequence of the nature of our body embodiment In other words, cognitive semanticists set out to explore the nature of human interaction with and awareness of the external world, and to build a theory of conceptual structure that is consonant with the ways in which we experience the world

The concept associated with containment is an instance of what cognitive linguists call an image schema In the cognitive model, the image-schematic concept represents one of the ways in which bodily experience gives rise to meaningful concepts While the concept CONTAINER is grounded in the directly

embodied experience of interacting with bounded landmarks, imageschematic conceptual structure can also give rise to more abstract kinds of meaning

The second principle issemantic structure is conceptual structure According

to Gardenfords,(1994), language refers to what speakers have in mind, i.e concepts about the real world rather than to entities of the external world When someone say something, the meaning of his/her utterances come from his head where concepts are stored Thus, meaning is “conceptual grounded” According to Rosch, (1973),

semantic structure (the meaning conventionally associated with words and other

linguistic units) can be equated with conceptual structure (i.e concepts) However, the semantic structure and conceptual structure are not identical According to

Evans & Green, (2006), the meanings associated with linguistic units such as words arise from only subset of possible concepts in the mind of speakers and hearers After all, we have many more thoughts, ideas, and feelings than we can conventionally encode in language

However, the claim that semantic structure can be equated with conceptual structure does not mean that the two are identical Instead, cognitive semanticists claim that the meanings associated with words, for example, form only a subset of possible concepts

According to Langacker, (1987), there is no English word that conventionally encodes this concept (at least not in the non-specialist vocabulary of everyday language) It follows that the set of lexical concepts is only a subset of the entire set of concepts in the mind of the speaker Truthfully, we have concepts in the first place either because they are useful ways of understanding the external world,

or because they are inevitable ways of understanding the world, given our cognitive architecture and our physiology

The third principle is meaning representation is encyclopedic According to Langacker, (2007), meaning is not represented only by lexical concepts in our mind This means lexical concept do not represent a complete package of meaning as we may see in a dictionary

The fourth principle is meaning construction is conceptualization that confirms that language itself does not encode meaning, but evokes prompts for the construction of meaning The meaning of linguistic expressions does not relate directly or objectively to the real world, but rather it is based on our ways of experiencing or conceptualizing the real world

2.4.Spatial prepositions and semantic perspectives on spatial prepositions

Prepositions in English are words that illustrate the relationship between the noun which follows it and other words in the sentence such as place or position, direction, time, manner, and agent Prepositions may be one word or a prepositional phrase They’re always followed by a noun which is the “object” of the preposition

In this part, we get some knowledge of spatial prepositions "Spatial prepositions" are preposition that express a spatial relationship

According to Cuyckens, (1993), spatial prepositions express how two entities relate to each other in space In other words, these spatial prepositions describe a

relation between an ordered pair of arguments x and y in which the spatial preposition indicates the location of an entity x with respect to an entity y, or better with respect to the place referred to by the entityy According to Cuyckens, (1993),

spatial prepositions are often used in describing spatial relation in natural language

It indicate relation between two arguments, x and y, how they relate to each other in the spatial relation and non-spatial relation

According to Finegan, (2004), prepositions expressing spatial relations are of two kinds: prepositions of location and prepositions of direction Prepositions of location or spatial prepositions appear with verbs describing states or conditions,

especially be; prepositions of direction appear with verbs ofmotion Prepositions

describing spatial relations are used in so many abstract domains that one may wonder whether they deserve to be called “spatial prepositions”

According to Bowerman & Choi, (2001), the fact that “spatial words emerge over a long period of time in a relatively consistent order, both within children learning the same language and across children learning different languages” leads

to the idea of a correspondence between spatial concepts and their expressions In the case of spatial relational terms, it is assumed that the spatial preposition marks a child’s knowledge about an appropriate spatial relation

According to Leech, (1969) and Bennett, (1975), prepositional meaning is defined as a core sense All the uses of preposition are reduced to the core sense This core sense (or core meaning) occurs in a variety of contexts These contexts introduce nuances of meaning that can be assigned to the preposition, but the core sense is in all of them, Miller and Johnson-Laird, (1976); Herskovits, (1986); Wierzbika,(1993)

According to Ciencki, (1989), prepositions are polysemy There is a prototypical sense and other non-prototypical senses There is a preference rule system that determines the prototype which is always a spatial relation The different senses of a preposition can be derived from a basic image-schema by means of family resemblances and image schema transformations , Brugman,(1980); Linder,(1983); Hawkin, (1984); Lakoff,(1987); Cuycken,(1988, 1993)

According to Langacker, (1987), the terms trajector and landmark are used

in describing a spatial relation According to Langacker, (1980), Taylor, (1989), the landmark is a salient entity that provides a point of reference for locating the

trajectory According to Talmy, (2000), it is preferred to use the terms primary and

secondary objects

According to Rice, (1996), a preposition possesses its own lexical meaning because it stands apart from a noun or pronoun with which different prepositions can be used In other words, a preposition has its lexical meaning on the one hand, and a lexical viability We support this point of view which logically leads to the fact that the existence of an independent lexical meaning presupposes the existence

of some semantic kernel around which some additional peripheral meanings are grouped There is no unique approach to what a lexical meaning of a preposition is and some consider it as "relationship between words", as an extra linguistic aspect and phenomenon The semantic perspective on prepositions is somewhat trickier to account for, since it is possible to draw an intricate network of meanings around each preposition

In Cognitive Linguistics, especially in Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar (also called space grammar), it is claimed that grammatical structures are “inherently symbolic, providing for the structuring and conventional symbolization of conceptual content” When using a locative preposition, it is assumed that the speaker marks the understanding of a spatial relation and the understanding of a preposition means the appropriate spatial relation is being processed According to Grabowski, (1999) explains that the meaning of spatial prepositions needed for its use affects the nature of spatial relations In Linguistics, it is also assumed that in understanding a word such as a spatial preposition, the hearer needs the appropriate

“lexical competence” also related to as: lexical knowledge In other words, the hearer should have knowledge of the meaning of this word, which specifies the

affiliated spatial relation The correlated relation plays, therefore, an important role

in processing a spatial preposition

According to Tyler & Evans, (2003); Cienki, (1989); Herskovits, (1986); the prototypical meaning of most prepositions is always a spatial relation, and other meanings can be derived from this one According to Langacker, (1987), in describing a relational expression of a spatial preposition, used the terms trajector (TR) and landmark (LM) The figure of which the location is indicated is the TR whereas the reference point specifying the location is the LM, and so does Taylor, (1989), explicitly following him, whereas Talmy, (2000) prefers to speak about primary and secondary objects In the present research study, Langacker’s binomial trajector vs landmark will be employed This literal meaning is the one that is learnt earliest by native speakers and it often refers to the physicalworld

Likewise, Tyler and Evans (2003) discuss a primary sense around which a semantic network can be drawn The literal, the primary, and the basic meaning all seem to refer to the same thing - it is a spatial meaning that relates the trajector and the landmark to each other Taylor and Evans (2003) also show that the way the spatial meaning of prepositions can be used to describe non-spatial relations is highly motivated Thus, learners of English would find prepositions a less problematic area if they just understood the logic behind their usage

2.5 Cognitive semantics approach to prepositions

2.5.1 Spatial domain and dimensionality

Any kind of conceptualization, regardless of its degree of complexity, can function as a domain or context in the characterization of semantic structure By this

we are not referring to a textual, syntagmatic or pragmatic context, but rather to a field of experience or human knowledge, whether it is naturally or culturally established Each domain has its particular specifications or parameters There are very basic domains, such as time, space, smell, color, etc., and very complex ones, related to marginal or more elaborated fields of experience The domain in which

prepositions are conceptualized is three-dimensional space

According to Günter Radden & René Dirven, (2007), the three canonical dimensions of space consist of height, length and width They are conceptualized in language, and more specifically, in prepositional usage, as zero-dimensional, one-dimensional, two-dimensional, and three-dimensional

According to Günter Radden & René Dirven, (2007), the three canonical dimensions of space consist of height, length and width They are conceptualized in language, and more specifically, in prepositional usage, as zero-dimensional, one-dimensional, two-dimensional, and three-dimensional Zero-dimensional is the case when the LM entity is conceived of as a point with irrelevant internal structure When the LM entity is conceptualized as having a vertical or horizontal axis, as in

‘the child by the flagpole’ and ‘a cruise down the river’, the dimension is dimensional When the LM entity is conceptualized as an extended entity, it is two-dimensional And three-dimensional is the case when the area is conceptualized as having volume Not only the landmark entity but also the trajector is conceptualized accordingly in relation to its canonical dimensions: however, in prepositional usage

one-it is the LM entone-ity that bears directly upon the choice of preposone-ition, which is appropriate in each case The concept of dimensionality derives directly from the intrinsic characteristics of the spatial domain that prepositions describe In short, we can conceive of three dimensions of spatial prepositions: vertical, horizontal, and extension In practice, this means that an objects can be conceptualized as a dot (zero-dimensional), as a line (one-dimensional), as an extended area (two-

dimensional), or as an area with volume / container (three-dimensional)

In short, three dimensions of spatial prepositions can be conceived such as vertical, horizontal, and extension Practically, an object can be conceptualized as a dot (zero-dimensional), as a line (one-dimensional), as an extended area (two-

dimensional), or as an area with volume / container (three-dimensional)

2.5.2 Spatial characteristics of trajectors (TR) and landmarks (LM)

According to Langacker, (1987), all relational predicates involve an LM as part of their profile, regardless of whether the LM is syntactically specified or not Linguistic convention allows for non-specification of the LM in cases like the following: when it is unique in its class; when the context, either pragmatic or textual, permits a clear identification, or in the case of reflexivity

For the analysis, the following characteristics should be considered when describing the TR and LM entities: dimensions of TR and LM; forms of TR and

LM (vertical, horizontal or extended), whether the TR is singular or multiplex, whether it is static or dynamic, if there is contact or not between TR and LM, if there is reflexivity, deixis, covering, type of trajectory, if there is real or implied motion, if there is end-point focus, etc

2.5.3 Categorization and semantic structure

A category is a group of referents that are related to one another by perceptual and propositional similarity To categorize is to conceptualize and to classify It affects all cognitive processes and perceptions and language and speech Cognitive linguistics considered as a fundamental premise the innate validity of the prototypical conception of categorization, viewing it as natural and deriving from the neurological constitution of human beings In the linguistic field, specifically in the aspect of prepositions, there are several types of basic conceptual structure such as: image schemas; prototypes & radial networks and semantic factors

2.5.3.1.Image schemas

An image schema is a recurring structure within our cognitive processes which establishes patterns of understanding and reasoning Image schemas are formed from our bodily interactions,from linguistic experience, and from historical context According to George Lakoff, (1987), the most important theoretical notion in

cognitive semantics is an image schema Image schemas are formed from our bodily

interactions, from linguistic experience, and from historical context Image schemas transcend particular modes of perception They are not merely visual, but rather kinesthetic in nature Lakoff said that the CONTAINER schema would work as the basis for understanding the body as container, the visual field, and set models, among others The PART-WHOLE schema is transferred to domains such as families, teams, organizations, marriage, etc The SOURCE-PATH schema gives the clue for purposes

in our daily life as destinations of a journey Other image schemas are: DISTANCE which determines close and distant relationships; FRONT-BACK orientation; LINEAR order; UP-DOWN; MASS VS MULTIPLEX, etc

PROXIMITY-According to Lakoff, these image schemas might be so deeply grounded in common human experience that they constitute universal prelinguistic cognitive structures Many of the schemas clearly derive from the most immediate of all our experiences, our experience of the human body These image schemas lead to primary conceptualizations in the domain of physical experience and will define the primigenial use of words According to Lakoff & Brugman,( 1988); Boers, (1996);

Evans &Tyler, (2001), the UP-DOWN schema is used to explain the vertical

prepositions like over, above, under, below

According to Langacker, (1987), physical space will be the most outstanding domain of conceptualization of prepositions The conceptual schema must be previously created in this basic domain in order for a speaker to acquire a spatial concept and is associated with new instances so that speaker is able to categorize these new instances Thus, the concept can be extended to new senses via metaphorical mappings or schema transformations

According to Dewell, (1994), different schemas can be expanded from a prepositional central one to introduce the non-prototypical senses of a preposition This process occurs through the application of image schema transformations Therefore, apart from UP-DOWN, the following schemas will be used as analysis tools such as: PATH, END-OF-PATH, CONTACT, SURFACE In short, the image schema is very important for examining the semantic features of prepositions

2.5.3.2 Prototype theory and Radial network

Firstly, according to Rosch, (1978), the "prototype theory" was suggested that when people categorize objects they match them against "the prototype” Objects that do not share all the characteristics of the prototype are still members of the category but not prototypical ones She argued that prototypes represent a "basic level of categorization", e.g "chair", as opposed to a "superordinate", e.g

"furniture" and a "subordinate" level, e.g "kitchen chair" Prototype approach is pervasive among the studies in the acquisition of English prepositions

According to Bennett, (1975), three types of meaning are considered as meaning of prepositions; namely spatial, temporal and abstract He claimed that the centre of the meaning is spatial, and the other two meanings are derived from the spatial meaning That is, the spatial usage, which shows the relationship between the TR and LM, is the prototypical meaning while temporal and abstract relations are extensional usages of spatial relation

According to Brugman and Lakoff, (2006), each lexical representation has two levels of prototype structure That is because each lexical representation has two levels of topological structures The first is its each sense, semantic sense, which is a complex topological structure The second is the radial category, which is formed from all the semantic senses At the first level, the prototypical concerns the degree of fit of some real world relation to an individual sense of the word

Secondly, according to V Evans and M Green, a radial category (or radial network) is a conceptual category in which the range of concepts is organized relative to a central or prototypical concept They claim that the radial category representing lexical concept has the same structure with the range of lexical concepts (or sense) organized with respect to a prototypical lexical concept or sense

A radial network is a model that is not used to distinguish meanings from the central or prototypical sense Instead, it shows how distinct but related meanings are stored in semantic theory In short, the radial network model describes a category structure in which a central case of category radiates towards novel instances: less central category uses are extended from the center That is, the radial categories have a centre-periphery structure According to Frank Boer, (1996), they build around a central schema or prototype and include the schemas that show resemblance or relatedness to the central case

2.5.3.3.The relevance of semantic factors

According to Lakoff, (1987), it is not necessary to give up entirely the notion

of semantic compositionality, even though mental images are gestalts Gestalts are directly meaningful, and decomposable, for methodological reasons, into factors, but these factors have no entity if we consider them in isolation Semantic factors or properties are like building blocks that confirm the conceptual substance of words

We can also view them as tools, which allow the semantic analysis and classification of words These perceptual factors are the most primitive semantic entities as regards the linguistic characterization of the spatial domain The conceptualizer’s attention is not centered separately on the different specifications

of the configuration; instead, the ‘cluster’ of properties is perceived as psychologically simpler than the parts Mental images are cognitive processes which the speaker is able to use because they occur repeatedly in our experience Other than the characteristics that arise from the configuration of the TR and

LM entities, type of trajectory, etc., we will consider the following perceptual properties or variables such as deixis, viewpoint of speaker, end-point focus, reflexivity, completion or results, position, passage, contact/lack of contact, medium, destination and goal, direction and covering

2.5.4 Metaphor and spatial prepositions

According to Generative Linguistics, metaphor has been understood as deviant language where meanings of words are bundles of necessary and sufficient features, and there are clear-cut boundaries between semantic categories However, according to Reddy, (1993); Lakoff & Johnson, (1980); Lakoff and Turner, (1989); Lakoff,(1993); Kovečes and Szabó,( 1996); Lakoff & Johnson, (1997), cognitive semantics does not view metaphor as a speaker’s violation of rules of competence From the view of cognitive semantics, metaphor is a means whereby ever more abstract and intangible areas of experience can be conceptualized in terms of the familiar and concrete According to Lakoff & Johnson, (1980), one cognitive domain can be understood, or even created, in terms of components more usually associated with another cognitive domain

According to Langacker, (1990), metaphor is the main conceptual mechanism through which we comprehend abstract concepts and perform abstract reasoning They are mappings across conceptual domains that establish correspondences between entities in the target and source domains, and can project inference patterns from the source domain onto the target domain They are grounded in the body, and in everyday experience and knowledge, to the extent that they constitute a subsystem of our conceptual system According to Lakoff and Johnson, (1980), the metaphorical concepts aredivided into three groups based on the way they are created, namely structural, orientational and ontological metaphors

2.5.4.1 .ORIENTATIONAL metaphors

According toLakoff and Johnson, someone who is sad has a bowed posture and a happy person is upright Another possibility could be seen in the fact that heaven standing for happiness is high above us but hell meaning misery is below us.Those metaphors are based on the orientation in space, i.e a spatial relationship

is made for a concept This relationship is normally based on our experiences of the

physical space we have For instances, HAPPY IS UP, SAD IS DOWN in You're in

high spirits , and I fell into a depression

ORIENTATIONALmetaphors map the orientational image schemas of physical space onto abstract experience The UP-DOWN image schema, for example, is mapped onto abstract quantities through the orientational metaphor MORE IS UP, LESS IS DOWN

2.5.4.2 STRUCTURAL metaphors

According to Lakoff, (1980), the group of structural metaphors is said to be the biggest group Different parts of experiences which are complex but too abstract are conceptualized with the help of simple but known experiences For example,

ARGUMENT IS WAR in I’ve never won an argument with him

According to Boer, (1996), the PATH image schema is mapped onto abstract experience through the structural metaphor AN ACTIVITY IS A PATH In case of spatial prepositions, STRUCTURAL metaphors map a particular structure of a spatial domain onto a more abstract target domain

2.5.4.3 .ONTOLOGICAL metaphors

This last group is based on the experience with physical objects There are many kinds of ontological metaphors with different purposes

The abstract conceptsare understood as things like THE MIND IS A

BRITTLE OBJECTmetaphor in She is easily crushed

According to Lakoff and Johnson, human beings are containers with boundaries and an orientation of inside and outside This orientation is also used for

other physical objects In these cases we set up artificial boundaries The abstract conceptsare understood as containers

For examples, ACTIVITY IS A CONTAINER metaphor in The problem will

be dealt with in the next discussion; HUMAN STATE IS A CONTAINER

metaphor in He's in love

+ The abstract conceptsare described as a person, a personification For

instances, His theory explainedto me the behavior of chickens raised in factories

Metaphors are not just language but also a conceptual tool to understand and create more abstract conceptual domains It should be emphasize that metaphors are not just figures of speech in literature, but also pervasive in everyday language In the case of prepositions, a metaphorical mapping from physical space onto conceptual space is understood in terms of conceptual image schemas Conceptual image schemas based on spatial experience are directly understood, they provide the conceptual basis for uses of prepositions in the physical domain, and are extended metaphorically to structure other domains Thus, metaphor theory gives an insightful view into discovering the senses of a word, in general and a spatial preposition, in particular

2.5.5 Polysemy and prepositions polysemy

Polysemy, usually described as the phenomenon whereby two or more semantic values attach to a single phonological representation, is endemic in language, i.e found regularly Hence, for language users, including translators, various manifestations of polysemy might be a hindrance to effective rendering of the meaning, meaning of prepositions of place being not an exception What is more, polysemy, which Tyler and Evans (2001) see as the phenomenon when a single linguistic form is associated with a number of related but distinct meanings

or senses, forces the translator to look for a number of effective the Target language means in order to translate the Source language text and its elements, such as prepositions of place, successfully, i.e precisely, logically and stylistically adequately

If to agree with Shmeliov (1973), who claims that the same sections of reality are segmented by lexis of different languages differently, it seems that deep and detailed analysis of semantics can shed light on many problems of both linguistic and cognitive nature As Dixon (1992) puts it, varying grammatical behaviors of words are a consequence of their meaning differences, while the meaning is conditioned and determined by both non-linguistic and linguistic 16 reality The shift of the viewpoint toward the meaning, including the meaning of prepositions of place, as to the ambivalent phenomenon is reflected in a welter of works of linguistic and crosslinguistic studies of spatial cognition and language A number of researchers who are preoccupied with discussing the nature of the mapping between spatial cognition and spatial language, Jackendoff (1983,1996), Lakoff (1987), Coventry and Ludwig (1991) finally come up to the conclusion that in spite of the universality of conceptual structure, which is language independent, languages tend to differ in packaging concepts in lexical items or spelling out concepts in syntax What is more, linguists stress that for the identification of the meaning a number of factors are of great importance To put it other way, in order to define and describe the meaning one has to keep in mind two levels, namely conceptual and semantic As Chalker ( 1991) and Taylor (2003) put it, the analysis of meaning is impossible without paying attention to the phenomenon of conceptualization In the case

of analysis of semantics of spatial prepositions, the way the object is conceptualized is of great importance, as it ‘ is our everyday experience of cars, poles, towers and cigarettes and the way we conceptualize these objects, rather than some abstract properties of the nouns, which denote these objects, which guide us in our use of language The attempts

to highlight correspondence of non- linguistic spatial knowledge and linguistic one caused and stimulated the appearance of range of various ideas concerning the identification of the meaning of locatives, namely distinguishing the primary meaning and its polysemous variants

According to Taylor, (2002), polysemy is a single linguistic form associating with a number of distinct but related senses Over the past few decades, the issue of polysemy has been paid attention within the framework of cognitive semantics According to Langacker, (1987); Lakoff,( 1987); Johnson, (1987), cognitive linguists hold important views about polysemy: the lexicon constitutes a natural category of its various senses organized with respect to the most central sense and thus form a semantic network According to Lakoff & Johnson, (1980, 1999), Lakoff, (1987), polysemy can be attributed to figurative usage Indeed, it is held that not only our language, but also our cognition operates figuratively Polysemy is accounted for within a general approach to human categorization that rejects the idea that human reasoning is solely based on the capacity to manipulate abstract symbols Rather, human reasoning is held to be grounded 14 in perception, bodily movement, and experience of a physical and social nature

According to Lakoff, (1987), polysemy arises from the fact that there are systematic relationships between different cognitive models and between elements

of the same model This view has given rise to different models for lexical networks based on the notion that the different meanings of a given lexeme “form a radially structured category, with a central member and links defined by image-schema transformation and metaphors”, Lakoff, (1987) Cognitive semanticists have made several attempts at showing the structure of prepositional polysemy Such authors as Rice, (1996), Lakoff (1987), Langacker, (1991) have proposed lexical networks representing polysemy of prepositions

2.6.Summary

In this chapter, the theoretical background of definitions of cognitive linguistic and cognitive semantics is examined clearly; semantic perspective of spatial prepositions in three dimensions: vertical, horizontal, extension; characteristics of spatial prepositions such as trajectory and landmarks, image schemas, prototype theory, etc Through there, the semantic meanings of the prepositions also further examined

In summary, Langacker highlighted the famous pair of concepts landmark) and ( figure-ground) as a basis for conceptual schemas( image schemas) that is very important for researching the spatial prepositions in chapter These are both theoretical background and framework background for the study in later chapters

(trajectory-CHAPTER 3: PREPOSITIONS OVER, ABOVE, UNDER, BELOWIN ENGLISH AND THE VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS FROM A COGNITIVE SEMANTICS

PERSPECTIVE

Based on theoretical background and framework background in chapter 2, it

is clear that the semantic features of four prepositions are examined through the frequency of occurrences of prepositions in three English literary novels such as

“Gone with the Wind” by M Mitchell; “David Copperfield” by C Dickens;

“Harry Potter Order of Phoenix” by J K Rowlingas following:

3.1 The semantic features of over, above, under, belowin English

Spatial senses of the prepositions are described through image schemas with

typical characteristics of the TR and the LM

3.1.1 Spatial senses of over

Spatial sensesoverare found out through the image schemas in the following

table:

Table 3.1: Frequency of image schemas of over

No Schemas Frequency of occurrences

possesses a higher position; and the TR is movable and the TR is in potential of contact with the LM

This sense occurs with such zero-dimensional LMs as human bodies

(expressed in a personal pronouns or a proper name) or parts of human body (head,

nose, eyes, arm ), buildings or parts of buildings (house, kitchen,door, mantel, fire), senseless objects (cascades, knitting, book), or two-dimensional LMs, such as

water, grass which are conceptualized as having limits

1) my box was at my old lodging, over the water (Dickens)

2) his arms over his head, cowering (Rowling)

It is showed that this sense also occurs when the verbs of denoting motion

are followed by over such as swing, stir, hover, shake

3) who only shook her head over her knitting (Dickens)

4) he swung his right leg over his Firebolt (Rowling)

In the survey, some transformations appear in this prototypical schema, which are combined between the prototypical schema and another one such as PATH, END-OF-PATH, SURFACE It is clearly showed that the characteristics of the transformed schemas include one or some the characteristics of the prototypical one, i.e They involve a TR which is movable, higher than the LM and within the

LM’s affection The non-prototypical senses of over are introduced by the

transformed schemas below

b Meaning with the TR which is physically higher and moves across the

LM (Above – Across sense) / PATH schema

This schema is used with a TR moving across the LM or finishing its moving The LM configurations are consisted of:zero-dimensional complements

likehuman and animal bodies or parts of the body (head, shoulder, spider), senseless objects (desk, broomstick), buildings …

5) the fog was creeping over the desolate flat (Dickens)

6) threw his long beard over his shoulder (Rowling)

multiple zero-dimensional complements

7) running his thumbs over the calluses

8) The carts jingling up and down over the stones (Mitchell)

- vertical extended LMs like wall, gate, wreck,

9) sweeping over the rolling wreck (Dickens)

10) stepped over low garden wall (Rowling)

surface like floor, ground, grass, surface, turf, bridge

11) I don’t allow anybody to ride over that turf (Dickens)

12) most of the book he owned were strewn over the floor (Rowling)

c Meaning with the TR is physically higher and on the other side of the

LM(On-the-other-side sense) / END-OF-PATH schema

The schema involves a TR located on the other side of the LM when the motion is considered to be complete That is, the TR turns from PATH configuration to END-OF-PATH The LM is an extended one and relative to the starting point of the TR There is a contact between the TR and the LM The LM is

found to be used with two-dimensional surfaces like way, side, bar, table

13) the landlord looked at me in return over the bar (Dickens)

14) The three of them looked cautiously over the banisters (Rowling) The LMs are also illustrated in zero-dimensional LMs like threshold, shield,

parts of the body (head, shoulder, .), items on the table (cusp, dishes, glasses ) According to Evan & Tyler, (2001), it is noted here that these one-dimensional complements are conceptualized as being in surroundings of the end of

path As a result, the locations of TRs in these cases are described as next to or behind

the LMs

15) we were sitting over our decanter of wine before the fire (Dickens)

16) Harry & Ron read the notice over the heads of some anxious-looking second-years (Rowling)

d Meaning with the TR which is higher and covers the LM (covering

sense) / SURFACE schema

The schema involves a LM as zero-dimensional complement like desk, slate, body or parts of the body (ear, face, head), or a two-dimensional surface like rug,

doormat or proper nouns denoting geographic areas The TR is used with some

configurations:a two-dimensional TR like hand, apron, clothes,

17) his jacket over his hat (Dickens)

18) claps his hands over his ears (Rowling)

Many individuals are made up in a multiplex TR like hair, grass, weeds

19) coarse grass and rank weeds straggled over all the marshy land in the vicinity (Dickens)

rumpled her hair all over her face to hide it (Dickens)

Individuals are jointed ina TR as a mass to form a path which covers the LM

21) Miss Clarissa and my aunt roam all over London (Dickens)

22) he opened his mouth and vomited all over the doormat (Rowling)

“over”is usually combined with a mass quantifier that quantifies regions of

LM, like all, most in the two later cases

e Meaning with the TR which is physically higher and moves to the LM

from the high (falling-down sense) / VERTICAL PATH schema

This sense of over involves a transformation from the PATH schema In this

case, the position of the TR is showed by the path (LM): the start point is higher and the end point is lower This sense is used with the verbs denoting up-down motion

like fall, tumble

23) my knife tumbled over my fork (Dickens)

24) Harry fell forwards over the hydrangea bush (Rowling)

f. Meaning with the TR and the LM are the identical / REFLEXIVE schema

In this case, half of the TR moves above and across the rest which is

considered as the LM

25) he turned over his steak (Rowling)

In brief, it is showed that over conveys 6 spatial senses which are introduced

through 6 different image schemas, of which the prototype is the UP-DOWN and the non-prototypes are the PATH, END-OF-PATH, VERTICAL PATH, REFLEXIVE, and SURFACE Obviously, a TR is able to be involved by all the non-prototypical schemas to move along a path This TR is also able to be covered

by something In this way, the typical characteristics of the TR in case of over are

moving along a path and covering

3.1.2 Spatial senses of above

Meaning with the TR is physically higher than the LM / UP-DOWN schema This is the only spatial sense of above We found out 84 expressions of

above conveying this meaning It requires a zero-dimensional TR which locates in a higher position than the LM The TR is stative or in continuous motion in the sphere

of the LM which locates in a lower position There is no contact between the LM and the TR The LM may be conceptualized as:

a zero dimensional complement

26) a large purple lump was swelling aboveNevilleʹs right eye (Dickens)

27) Firenze pointed to the red star directly above Harry (Rowling)

28) the portrait of Grandma Robillard hanging above the fireplace

(Mitchell)

multiple zero-dimensional complements as in the followings

29) the smoke which rolled like low-hanging clouds above the trees

(Mitchell)

30) she sat with her skirts well aboveher knees (Mitchell)

a surface complement like the surface, the table

31) He stretched out his cruel-looking hand above my table (Dickens)

32) held it suspended an inch above the smooth yellowish surface of his parchment (Rowling)

However, the TR is not necessary to be directly higher than the LM like in the

followings, where we can infer the position of the TR is higher and next to the LM

33) The mound above the ashes and the dust (Dickens)

34) Look at me through a window above the desk (Dickens)

35) to tower above any other house on Peachtree Street (Mitchell)

The LM of the prototype is created with various complements denoting: buildings and parts of building; bodies and parts of body, landscapes on the surfaces The LM also involves proper name, referring a geographic area

36) Johnston did stand like an iron rampart in the mountains above Dalton… (Mitchell)

In short, above has only one spatial sense This is because the relation between the TR and the LM in case of above is introduced through the only UP-

DOWN image schema, which involves a TR higher than a LM and is not transformed into another schema It is noted that there is no contact between the TR and the LM

3.1.3 Spatial senses of under

The expressions with spatial meanings of under were collected throughthe

image schemas in the following table:

Table 3.2: Frequency of image schemas of under

a Meaning with the TR is physically lower than the LM / UP-DOWN

schema

There are 31 instances were listed in the data Their spatial meanings are introduced through UP-DOWN schema The LM and TR are considered as the zero-dimensional The TR can move within a bounded space directly beneath the LM The relation between the TR and the LM may be contact or separation This sense

suggests modes of the spatial configuration of under: the TR is lower than the, the

TR is movable, the TR is able to contact with the LM

This schema occurs with a LM complement as an object (umbrella, picture,

mistletoe) and a stative TR like or a moving TR like

37) Cho Chang had been approaching him under the mistletoe (Rowling)

According to Boer, (1996), the LM complements are also involved in this

sense as parts of the body Since the classical posture of human being is vertical,

parts of the human body are determined in UP-DOWN axis, that is the highest is head and the lowest is food even when they are lying

38) I felt myself violently chucked under the chin by the long-legged young man (Dickens)

39) my legs shook under me (Dickens)

40) His heart, , was thumping loudly under his ribs (Rowling)

b Meaning with the TR is physically lower than the LM as a container / SURFACE-CONTAINER schema

surface-This is the first transformation from the prototypical schema The LM configuration is changed from a zero-dimensional into an extended or a surface one The remarkable is that the LM is the surface which has imaginable bounded space and is seen as a container In this way, the transformed schema is combined between the UP-DOWN and the SURFACE schemas The TR is the same as in central schema, a zero-dimensional which is stative or moves within the bounded space directly beneath the LM and is able to contact with the LM Anyway, they are divided into two variants:

• The whole LM serves as a surface This sense is used with the LM like

furniture (sofas, tables, desks), extended parts of buildings (ceiling, canopies,

balcony, awning ), weather phenomenon (rain)

41) I found a nest of dead Puffkeins under sofa (Rowling)

Only part of the LM serves as a surface Under in this case has lower and

next to meaning This involves a vertical LM like buildings (when the TR is

outside) or parts of building (hedges, windows, lobster-outhouse, shed), trees,

mountains, monuments

42) under a shed in the playground (Dickens)

43) watch the foursome under the tree (Rowling)

c Meaning with the TR is physically lower than the LM as a covering / SURFACE–COVER schema

surface-According to Bower, (1996), the difference between the two transformations

is that the LM must be larger than the TR and the LM is located between the TR and the observer later The second transformation from prototypical schema is encoded nearly the same as the above: the LM is a surface, contact with the TR; the

TR is a zero-dimension which is stative or movable within the bounded space directly beneath the LM The sense is manifested by the LM complements which

include parts of the animal and human bodies (wings, hands), clothes, objects (envelop, pillow) surfaces (water) Here, 27 examples are found of this sense

44) snuggling under the blankets (Mitchell)

45) its head under its wings (Rowling)

In the survey, underconveys 3 spatial senses through 3 different image

schemas The prototypical schema is the UP-DOWN schema involving a TR which

is movable, lower than the LM, and in potential contact with the LM Like over, the

different characteristics of the prototype allow it to transform into CONTAINER and SURFACE-COVER schemas One or more similar characteristics with the prototype are shared by both of them

SURFACE-3.1.4 Spatial senses of below

Meaning with the TR is physically lower than the LM / UP-DOWN schema

In fact, below is used more frequently as an adverb than three above prepositions 25 occurrences of below are expressed in 31 expressions as a

preposition in the survey It requires a zero-dimensional TR which locates in a

lower position than the LM The TR is stative or in continuous motion in the area of the LM which locates in a lower position There is no contact between the LM and the TR The TR is created with complements denoting: buildings and parts of building; bodies and parts of body; objects; landscapes on the surfaces The LM may be conceptualized as:

a zero-dimensional complement

46) lying in their graves at rest, below the solemn moon (Dickens)

47) showing anima-white teeth below a close-clipped black mustache

(Mitchell)

a multiple zero-dimensional complement

48) all of them was alert and serious, watching what was happening below them (Rowling)

49) the banked flowers below the pictures of Mr Davis (Mitchell)

a surface complement

50) his sleepless eyes would come below the writing (Dickens)

51) the sun was now below the horizon (Mitchell)

“the horizon”is conceptualized as the boundary line between the sky and the

earth.The TR is not necessary to be directly lower than the LM

52) I look down on the line of boys below me (Dickens)

53) She saw Rhett Butler standing just below the doctor (Mitchell)

The LM also is instantiated with a proper name which denotes a geographic area like in the following:

54) they reached the little town of Calhoun, six miles below Resaca

(Mitchell)

The remarkable here is that “Resaca” is not beneath “Calhoun”, but it is lower than “Calhoun” in comparison with sea level

In the survey, it is considered that below has only one spatial sense which is

introduced through the UP-DOWN image schema, which involves a TR lower than

a LM and have no contact with the LM This prototypical schema is not

transformed into another one Therefore, below has no the derived spatial senses

The ways of the image schemas describe non-spatial meanings that are mapped from spatial domain to abstract domain via three main types of metaphors: orientational, structural, and ontological

3.1.5 Non- spatial senses of over