Cover not available
Part of
Non-Nuclear Cases
Edited by Nicole Delbecque, Karen Lahousse and Willy Van Langendonck
[Case and Grammatical Relations Across Languages 6] 2014
► pp. 21–66

Obliques: Some that are, and some that aren’t

This study first provides a general survey of formal and semantic properties of elements expressing location, direction, means, instrument, manner, accompaniment, benefactee and association, etc. realized in Cora, an Uto-Aztecan language, as free postpositional forms or, less prototypically, as locative verbal prefixes or a combination of both types. A detailed analysis is then given of the various meanings of six specific free form postpositions and of their extended variants. For each of these highly polysemous postpositions, a schematic network structure is provided which accommodates the variety of meanings they are able to convey. Each schematic network is further shown to be related to one, two or three prototypes, to which the non-prototypical variants are related through elaboration or extension.
Published online: 17 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cagral.6.02cas
References (25)
References
Casad, Eugene H. 1977. “Location and Direction in Cora Discourse.” Anthropological Linguistics 19 (5): 216-41.Google Scholar
. 1982. Cora Locationals and Structured Imagery. La Jolla, CA: UCSD Doctoral Dissertation.Google Scholar
. 1988. “Conventionalization of Cora Locationals.” In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 345-78. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. “Cora postpositions.” Leuvense Bijdragen 81 (1-3): 47-70.Google Scholar
. 1993. “On the notions 'Locative', 'Path', 'Source' and 'Goal'.” In Conceptualizations in Natural Language Processing, ed. by Richard A. Geiger, and Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 603-654. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Imagery through the Ages.” In Imagery in Language (Festschrift in Honor of Professor Ronald W. Langacker), ed. by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, and Alina Kwiatkowska, 115-158. Frankfurt: Peter Lang: Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Cook, Kenneth W. 1993. “A Cognitive Account of Samoan Case Marking and Cliticization.” Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 3: 509-530.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert. 1999. “Grammaticalization in the English prepositions 'to' and 'for'.” In Cognitive Perspectives on Language, ed. by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, 151-161. Frankfurt: Peter Lang: Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Herskovits, Annette H. 1986. Language and Spatial Prepositions: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1988. “Spatial Expressions and the Plasticity of Meaning.” In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 271-297. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge, UK – New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura. 1993. A Geography of Case Semantics. CLR 4. Berlin - New York: Mouton de Gruyter DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1976. Non-Distinct Arguments in Uto-Aztecan. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
. 1977a. “The Syntax of Postpositions in Uto-Aztecan.” IJAL 43:11-26.Google Scholar
. 1977b. An Overview of Uto-Aztecan Grammar (Studies in Uto-Aztecan Grammar Volume 1). Arlington, TX: SIL and the University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. Concept, Image, and Symbol: the Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. “Prepositions as Grammatical (izing) Elements.” Leuvense Bijdragen 81 (1-3): 287-309.Google Scholar
. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek, and Hubert Cuyckens. 1999. “Fuzziness in Dutch prepositional categories.” In Cognition and function in language, ed. by Barbara A. Fox, Dan Jurafsky, and Laura Michaelis, 200-219. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, Izchak. 1979. “Cognitive structures and deep structures: the case of the instrumental.” Journal of Linguistics 15: 307-324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sovorou, Soteria. 1994. The Grammar of Space. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. “The Relation of Grammar to Cognition.” In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 165-205. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Ekkehardt König. 1988. “The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited.” In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. I, ed. by Elizabeth C. Traugott, and Bernd Heine, 189-218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John R. 1988. “Contrasting Prepositional Categories: English and Italian.” In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 299-326. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar