Meanings of the English prepositions over, above, under, below" in terms of cognitive semantics perspective

On the other hand, Cognitive Linguistics, especially Cognitive Semantics offers an alternative perspective, suggesting that the differences in expressing spatial relations can be account

DECLARATION

I certify that all the material in this study which is not my own work has been identified and acknowledged, and that no material is included for which a degree has already been conferred upon me

Hanoi, November 2010

Nguyễn Tuyết Nhung

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my great gratitude toward many people who helped me complete this thesis First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr Hà Cẩm Tâm, who gave me suggestions, guidance, and support during the time I studied and composed the thesis Without her professional instructions and patient advice, I may not finish the thesis

Also, I deeply indebted to all my lecturers at ULIS, VNU for their useful lectures as well as their constant support and insightful suggestions

In addition, I am also grateful for my friends who gave me unconditional encouragement and inspiration

Finally, I would like to thank my family With their support and invaluable help, I could pay more attention on my studies and thesis

2 Aims of the study 2

PART II: DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 1: Theoretical Background

1.1 An overview of Cognitive Linguistics and Cognitive Semantics 4

1.2 Spatial Prepositions and Semantic Perspectives on Spatial Prepositions 6

1.4 Spatial characteristics of Trajectors and Landmarks 8

Chapter 2: The Study

2.3 Analytical Framework 15 2.4 Data Analysis and Discussions

PART I: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale

There is a well-established fact that the acquisition of English prepositions poses major challenges for second language learners Language researchers like Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1988) note several reasons for this difficulty, one of which is quoted by Evans and Tyler (2001) is that it is notoriously difficult to characterize the semantic of prepositions In fact, the traditional views considers that all the senses of a preposition are highly arbitrary and are not related to one another Both dictionaries and grammars provide long lists of unrelated senses for each preposition and its possible uses in different contexts Of those prepositions

are above, over, below, and under which are considered to belong the group of vertical

prepositions They usually make the English learners confused with their polysemy, like in the

followings: She held the umbrella over both of us, and I was in Settle over summer; or He hid under the bed, or I wonder what Britain like under the Romans Moreover, above and over , as well as below and under is said to form two pairs of synonyms since over is defined in terms

of above and under in terms of below And the learners are confused with the distinction between some synonymous prepositions such as above and over For instances, the sentence The helicopter was hovering above the building is interpreted nearly the same as The helicopter was hovering over the building However, the sentence We were flying over the clouds has different meaning with We were flying above the clouds

Traditional studies have represented the semantics of English prepositions as largely arbitrary and difficult to characterize (Frank, 1972, Chomsky, 1995) On the other hand, Cognitive Linguistics, especially Cognitive Semantics offers an alternative perspective, suggesting that the differences in expressing spatial relations can be account for in non-arbitrary ways and that 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)

Cognitive semanticists have been making momentous contribution to explain the polysemy in terms of prototype theory (Rosch (1978) and radial categories (Lakoff, 1987) By this way, the meanings of a polysemous like a spatial preposition can be seen as a big

semantic network of related sense Moreover, cognitive semantics offers a system of image schemas (Johnson, 1987) which are used to structure the our physical experience, and a number of metaphor which help to map the structure of a concrete source domain onto an abstract target domain These tools are useful in determining the relation of spatial meanings

to non-spatial ones of a prepositions

With the purpose to help English learners have an insightful view on these prepositions, Cognitive Semantics was chosen as the tool in my investigation on the meanings of the four

spatial prepositions above, over, below and under in order to find out the spatial as well as

non-spatial senses of each and the similarities as well as differences in their meanings

2 Aims of the study

The aims of the study are:

To find out the similarities and differences in the meanings of the four prepositions

above, over, below and under

3 Scope of the study

The study is an attempt to explain the meanings conveyed by the four English prepositions

“Over, Above, Under, Below" Not only prototypical but also derived meanings of the

prepositions motivated from image schema transformations and metaphorical extensions will

be taken into account Anyway, the investigation is based on my corpus of 962 examples in

form of NP + prep + NP and NP + V + prep + NP, where over, above, under, below function

as a preposition only The data were collected from 4 main sources, namely, the English versions of “Harry Potter Order of Phoenix” by J K Rowling, “David Copperfield” by C Dickens, “Vanity Fair” by W.M Thackeray and “Gone with the Wind” by M Mitchell

4 Research questions:

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

How are the prepositions Over, Above, Under, Below different in terms of

cognitive semantic perspective?

5 Organization of the study

The study is organized in four main parts

The INTRODUCTION part is devoted to presenting statement ò the problem, aims of the study, scope of the study, significance of the study, research questions and organization of the study

The DEVELOPMENT part is divided into two chapter: CHAPTER 1 discusses the general theoretical background of the study; CHAPTER 2 includes the method of the study, data collection, analytical framework, data analysis, and discussion

The CONCLUSION part demonstrates the major findings of the study, implications and suggestions for further studies References are also put in this part

PART II: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

In this chapter, I would like to address some of the main concepts that bear upon the analysis, noting that some oversimplification will be inevitable, as this is not a discussion or a presentation of theoretical cognitive linguistics My aim here is to present a view of the main points that have to be taken into account in the course of the analysis

1.1 An Overview of Cognitive Linguistics and Cognitive Semantics

Cognitive Linguistics is the scientific study of human languages in relation to human

cognition In other words, it is concerned with the investigating the relationship between human language, human mind and human socio-physical experiences

Cognitive linguistics originally emerged in the 1970s and arose out of dissatisfaction with dominant formal approaches to language at that time Some researchers such as Fillmore (1975), Lakoff & Thompson (1975), and Rosch (1975) rejected the dominant ideas that syntax

is separate from other aspects of language, and that language is separate from cognition Moreover, cognitive linguistics has always strongly influenced by theories and findings from the other cognitive sciences as they emerged during the 1960s and 1970s, particularly cognitive psychology and Gestalt psychology (e.g., Fillmore, 1975; Lakoff, 1987; Langacker, 1987; Talmy, 2000a, 2000b) Such cognitive linguists therefore acknowledge that language is 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

Cognitive linguistics practice could be roughly divided into two main areas of research:

cognitive semantics and cognitive grammar Cognitive grammar, the model language

developed by Ronald Langacker is concerned with modeling the language system rather than the nature of mind itself Cognitive linguistics assures that grammar is conceptualization People use grammar or language to conceptualize their experiences to express them (Jensen, 2004) However, it does so by taking the conclusions of research in cognitive semantics This

means that meaning is central to cognitive grammar Cognitive semantics is concerned with

investigating the relationship between experience, the conceptual system, and the semantic

structure encoded by language On the other hand, cognitive semantics states that meanings come from our mind, or rather, meanings are in the head (Gardenfor, 1994) According to Evans (2006), cognitive semantics is concerned with the investigating the relationship between human experience, the conceptual system in human mind, and the semantic structure encoded by language

Cognitive Semantics is not a single unified framework, but there are four guiding

principles that collectively characterize cognitive semantics: (i) Conceptual structure is embodied, (ii) Semantic structure is conceptual structure, (iii) Meaning representation is encyclopedic, and (iv) Meaning construction is conceptualization (Talmy, 2000; Lakoff & Jonhson, 1980; Geerearts, 1999)

The first principle, conceptual structure is embodied, claims that we have a specific view of the world due to the nature of our body (Geerarts, 1993, Talmy, 1985, 2000; Taylor, 1989) 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

The second principle, semantic structure is conceptual structure, is to say that 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”

(Gardenfords, 1994) In the other words, semantic structure (the meaning conventionally associated with words and other linguistic units) can be equated with conceptual structure (i.e concepts) (Rosch, 1973) However, the semantic structure and conceptual structure are not

identical Instead, 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 (Evans, 2006; Evans & Green, 2006)

The third principle, meaning representation is encyclopedic, hold that meaning is not represented only by lexical concepts in our mind This means lexical conceptdo not represent a

complete package of meaning as we may see in a dictionary “Rather, they serve as „point of access‟ to vast repositories of knowledge relating to a particular concept or conceptual domain” (Langacker, 2007) Of course, it can be deniable that words have conventional meanings associated with them Nevertheless, cognitive semantics argue that the conventional meaning associated with a particular linguistic unit is simply a prompt for the process of meaning construction: the „selection‟ of an appropriate interpretation against the context of the utterance

The fourth principle, meaning construction is conceptualization, 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

1.2 Spatial Prepositions and Semantic Perspectives on Spatial Prepositions

When describing spatial relation in natural language, we often use spatial prepositions According to Cuyckens (1993), spatial prepositions indicate relation between two arguments,

x and y, how they relate to each other in space More specially, in a large number of cases, spatial prepositions describe the place of x by using the arguments y as reference That means they serve to locate x with respect to y, or rather, the place of y In fact, a spatial preposition indicates not only the spatial relation but also non-spatial relations It is found in many Cognitive Linguistics studies on the prepositional semantics that:

+ Prepositional meaning is defined as a core sense All the uses of preposition are reduced to the core sense (Leech, 1969; Bennett, 1975) 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)

+ Prepositions are polysemious 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 (Ciencki, 1989) 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)

In describing a spatial relational, Langacker (1987) used the terms trajector and landmark The landmark is a salient entity that provides a point of reference for locating the

trajector (Langacker 1980: 217), and so does Taylor (1989) Talmy (2000) prefers to use the

terms primary and secondary objects In the present research studies, Langacker‟s binominal trajector (TR) and landmark (LM) will be empolyed

1.3 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 be 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 Zero-dimensional is the case when the LM entity is conceived of as a

point with irrelevant internal structure, as in „I’ll wait at the bus stop’ (Günter Radden & René

Dirven, 2007) 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, as in „the cows in the field‟, it is two-dimensional And three-dimensional is the case when the area is conceptualized as having volume, as in „the marble in the box‟ Not only the landmark entity but also the trajector is conceptualized accordingly in relation to its canonical dimensions: however, in prepositional usage it is the LM entity that bears directly upon the choice of preposition, 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-(one-dimensional), as an extended area (two-dimensional), or as an area with volume /

container (three-dimensional)

1.4 Spatial characteristics of Trajectors and Landmarks

As regards prepositional usage, the TR entity carries out the relation described by the preposition, whereas the LM is the entity in relation to which the relation is carried out

The clock above the painting

In this example, „clock‟ is the TR and „painting‟ is the LM or reference point, which permits the location of the TR This sentence differs from the next one:

The painting below the clock

In this case, „clock‟ servers as the LM and „painting‟ turns into the TR (Boers, 1996)

All relational predicates involve an LM as part of their profile, regardless of whether the LM

is syntactically specified or not (Langacker 1987, 1991) Linguistic convention allows for 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,

non-if there is real or implied motion, non-if there is end-point focus, etc

1.5 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 (in that order) It affects all cognitive processes and perceptions and, consequently, language and speech Cognitive linguistics assumes 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, and more specifically in the domain of prepositions, we can distinguish several types of basic conceptual structure: 1) image schemas; 2) prototypes and radial networks, and 3) semantic factors

1.5.1 Image schemas:

The most important theoretical notion in cognitive semantics is that of an image schema Image schemas are formed from our bodily interactions, from linguistic experience, and from historical context The term is explained in Mark Johnson's book The Body in the Mind, in case study of George Lakoff's Women, Fire and Dangerous Things and by Rudolf Arnheim in Visual Thinking Image schemas transcend particular modes of perception They

are not merely visual, but rather kinesthetic in nature (Lakoff, 1987) According to Johnson (1987), an image schema is a mental pattern that recurrently provides structured understanding

of various experiences, and is available for use in metaphor as a source domain to provide an understanding of yet other experiences

Different scholars have proposed different lists of image schemas and suggest several content domains which they can be transferred to Thus, for Lakoff, 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: PROXIMITY-DISTANCE which determines close and distant relationships; FRONT-BACK orientation;LINEAR order; UP- DOWN; MASS VS MULTIPLEX, etc 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 For instance, the CONTAINER schema is claimed to provide the basis for explaining the

multiple meanings of the preopsition in; the SOURCE-PATH schema is applicable to account for senses of to (Hercovits, 1986); the UP-DOWN schema is used to explain the vertical

prepositions like over, above, under, below (Lakoff & Brugman, 1988; Boers, 1996; Evans

&Tyler, 2001)

Langacker (1987) argued that physical space will be the most salient domain of conceptualization of prepositions Ontogenetically, the conceptual schema must be previously

elaborated 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 Accordingly, the concept can be extended to new senses via metaphorical mappings or schema transformations

Image-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

The cat is under the table (UP-DOWN schema) The cat ran under the table to the door (PATH schema) The horse jumped over the fence (PATH schema) The fence fell over (REFLEXIVE schema)

Therefore, apart from UP-DOWN, the following schemas will be used as analysing tools in the present study: PATH, END-OF-PATH, CONTACT, SURFACE

1.5.2 Prototype theory and Radial network

Prototype theory

The "prototype theory" was proposed by Rosch (1978), who 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

Brugman and Lakoff (2006) finds out 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 prototypicality concerns the degree of fit of some real world relation to an individual sense

of the word For example, in the sentence "The plane flew over the mountain." the best fit is where the path goes right above the center of the mountain As the path of flight moves away from the center of the mountain, the degree of fit lessens At the second level, the central sense

in the radial category is the prototypical sense

Radial network: 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 They build around a central schema or prototype and include the schemas that show resemblance or relatedness to the central case (Frank Boer 1996)

1.5.3 The relevance of semantic factors

Semantic factors or properties are like building blocks that conform 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 Lakoff (1987) claims that 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 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: Deixis, Viewpoint of speaker, End-point Focus, Reflexivity, Completion or Resultativity, Position, Passage, Contact/Lack of contact, Medium, Destination and Goal, Direction and Covering

1.6 Metaphor and Spatial Prepositions

Metaphor has been understood as deviant language by Generative Linguistics where meanings of words are bundles of necessary and sufficient features, and there are clear-cut boundaries between semantic categories However, cognitive semantics does not view metaphor as a speaker‟s violation of rules of competence (Reddy, 1993; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Lakoff and Turner, 1989; Lakoff, 1993; Kovečes and Szabó, 1996; Lakoff & Johnson, 1997) In the view form 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 One cognitive domain can be understood, or even created, in terms of components more usually associated with another cognitive domain (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980)

Metaphor is the main conceptual mechanism through which we comprehend abstract concepts and perform abstract reasoning (Langacker, 1990) Metaphors 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 Lakoff and Johnson (1980) divided the metaphorical concepts into three groups based on the way they are created, namely structural, orientational and ontological metaphors

1 ORIENTATIONAL metaphors 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 Lakoff and Johnson have experience with

the physical state in the fact that 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

ORIENTATIONAL metaphors 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 STRUCTURAL metaphors

The group of structural metaphors is said to be the biggest group Different parts of experiences which are complex but too abstract are conceptualised with the help of simple but known experiences For example, ARGUMENT IS WAR in I’ve never won an argument with him (Lakoff, 1980)

In case of spatial prepositions, STRUCTURAL metaphors map a particular structure of

a spatial domain onto a more abstract target domain For instance, the PATH image schema is mapped onto abstract experience through the structrural metaphor AN ACTIVITY IS A PATH (Boer, 1996)

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

 The abstract concepts are understood as things like THE MIND IS A BRITTLE OBJECT

metaphor in She is easily crushed

 The abstract concepts are understood as containers 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

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 concepts are described as a person, a personification For instances, His

theory explained to me the behavior of chickens raised in factories

It should be emphasize that metaphors are not just figures of speech in literature, but also pervasive in everyday language Metaphors are not just language but also a conceptual

tool to understand and create more abstract conceptual domains 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

CHAPTER II: THE STUDY

In this chapter, the research questions will be restated in 2.1, the data will be described in 2.2, and the analytical framework will be presented in 2.3, the data analysis and discussion will be represented in 2.4, which constitutes the focus of the study

2.1 Research questions

It is worth restating the research question that guideline the study:

What are the similarities and differences in meanings prepositions Over, Above, Under, Below

from cognitive semantic perspective?

2.2 Data

As far as the scope of the study is concerned, only occurrences of the prepositions in form

of (NP) + over / above / under / below + NP and NP + V + over / above / under / below + NP,

where these words play the role as a preposition, were taken from 5 main sources, namely, the English versions of “Harry Potter Order of Phoenix” by J K Rowling, “David Copperfield”

by C Dickens, “Vanity Fair” by W.M Thackeray and “Gone with the Wind” by M Mitchell The first source, a model book about the witches, who travel in the air or under the ground was expected to supply good instances of protosences of the four prepositions The second and the third sources , famous classical novels, were waited to provide a number of instances in metaphorical expressions And the last, a famous American novel, was looked forward to

supply additional examples from American English, in which some prepositions such as below

is said to be used more

As the result, the corpus of 962 instances were collected for analysis Of these examples,

153 instances occur with above; 523 instances occur with over; 250 instances occur with under; and 40 instances occur with below These expression of data were grouped into image

schemas with TR or LMs in spatial domain and non-spatial domains

The following part represents the analytical framework to analyze the data

2.3 Analytical Framework

The analytical framework applied in this study includes image schemas (in analyzing spatial senses) and metaphorical structures (in analyzing metaphorical expressions or non-spatial senses) In the following section details of the framework will be outlined

2.3.1 Image schemas According to Johnson (1987), an image schema is a mental pattern that

recurrently provides structured understanding of various experiences, and is available for use

in metaphor as a source domain to provide an understanding of yet other experiences

The groups of image schemas proposed by Johnson (1987), Brugman & Lakoff (1987), Boer (1996), Evans & Tyler (2001) were used for the analysis of the spatial meaning of the preposition under study Following is the discussion of the schemas

standing upright, climbing schema (Lakoff, 1987) UP-DOWN schema is said to be a cluster of VERTICALITY schema because it involves one of the two entities, the TR or the LM, higher

than the other like the followings, The painting is over the mantel (Brugman, 1988) or He was sitting under the chandelier (Boer, 1996)

ii PATH schema:A path schema consists of a starting point, a goal, and a series of

intermediate points It involves a movement from place to place For instance, The plane flew over the hill (Brugman, 1987)

iii END-OF-PATH schema: This schema is the one in which a location is understood as

the termination of a prescribed path as in the followings: The old town lies over the bridge

(Evans & Tyler, 2001)

iv SURFACE schema: This schema involves an entity as a surface configuration A

surface can be conceptualized as a container when it has imaginable boundaries like the table

in the following The cat is under the table (Boer, 1996) A surface can also be conceptualized

as a cover when it contacts and hide a object or another surface like the table cloth in the following: Frank quickly put the table cloth over the table (Evans & Tyler, 2001).

also the LM like in the following instance, He turned over the page (Evans & Tyler, 2001)

In this sentence, half of the TR moves above and across the rest which is considered as the

LM

2.3.2 Metaphorical extensions Together with describing the spatial meanings of the

prepositions, above image schemas are used as a source domain to provide an understanding

of other experiences Three kinds of metaphors proposed by Lakoff & Johnson (1980) will be

considered in this study

concepts are spatially related to each other, such as UP or DOWN It involves many kinds of metaphors like HAVING CONTROL FORCE IS UP; BEING SUBJECT TO CONTROL or FORCE IS DOWN (from the physical basis: physical size typically correlates with physical strength, and

the victor in a fight is typically on top) E.g He is under my control (Lakoff, 1980); and

MORE IS UP; LESS IS DOWN (from the physical basis: If you add more of a substance or of

physical objects to a container or pile, the level goes up) For instances, Jerome found over forty kinds of shells on the beach (Evans & Tyler, 2001); or This wine should cost under 19s per bottle (Boer, 1996)

understood and expressed in terms of another structured, sharply defined concept or in the

other words these concepts are seen in the same image schemas For instances, life in LIFE IS A

JOURNEY metaphor, is represented to have the same structure as a journey (which can be seen

in the PATH schema with a starting point, a route, and a destination / a goal) during which the person is a traveler, purposes are destinations, means are routes, difficulties are obstacles, counselors are guides, achievements are landmarks, choices are crossroads

E.g.: Harry still hasn't gotten over his divorce (Lakoff, 1987)

Some other kinds of structural metaphors are TIME IS A LINE (path schema); COGNITION IS

PERCEPTION (up-down schema), AFFECTING IS TOUCHING

iii ONTOLOGICAL METAPHOR An ontological metaphor is a metaphor which is based on the experience with physical objects In ontological metaphor an abstraction, such as an activity, emotion, or idea, is represented as something concrete, such as an object, substance, container, or person Here are some kinds of ontological metaphors: PROTECTION IS A COVER

and TRUTH IS A HIDDEN OBJECT; RESTRICTIONS ARE BOUNDARIES; For instances,

Under my persistent questionings she will tell (LANGUAGE IS A PHYSICAL FORCE)