Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Approaches to Mind, Language, and Society: Theory and description
Edited by Mario Serrano-Losada and Daniela Pettersson-Traba
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies 11:1] 2024
► pp. 203–233

Embodied semantic parameters for the lexical representation of spatial relational categories

ORCID logo | Universitat Jaume I
This paper proposes an explanatory model for the lexical representation of the native speakers’ lexical knowledge of English prepositions. Lexical knowledge of prepositions as relational predicates includes argument structure (trajector-landmark) as in Cognitive Grammar, situation types (position vs state) as in Functional Grammar, lexical hierarchies (spatial subdomains) based on semantic primitives, as in Natural Semantic Metalanguage, and embodied perceptual parameters configured in four dimensions, namely, geometry, topology, force-dynamics and function (from Cognitive Linguistics). This model is illustrated here by expounding three lexical templates compatible with constructional templates in the Lexical Constructional Model, representing the semantic decomposition of English prepositions at, on and in.
Keywords: embodiment, lexical knowledge, lexical representation, prepositions, semantic decomposition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.From Euclidean geometry to embodied accounts of prepositional meaning
  • 3.Spatial relations lexical knowledge
    • 3.1Argument structure
    • 3.2Situation structure
    • 3.3Perceptual structure
    • 3.4Lexical inheritance hierarchy
  • 4.Lexical templates
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 6 June 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00118.nav
References (109)
References
Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W. K., Barbey, A. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7 (2), 84–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennett, D. C. (1975). Spatial and temporal uses of English prepositions: An essay in stratificational semantics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. (1988). On the Grammar of local prepositions. In M. Bierwisch & W. Motsch & I. Zimmermann (Eds.), Syntax, semantik und lexikon [Syntax, semantics and lexicon] (pp. 1–66). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Boers, F. (1996). Spatial prepositions and metaphor: A cognitive semantic journey along the up-down and the front-back dimensions. Günter Narr Verlag: Tübingen.Google Scholar
Breaux, B. O. (2013). On grounding metaphors in space: The role of metaphorical connections in accessing the abstract meanings of English prepositions. Ph.D. dissertation. Lafayette: University of Lousiana.
Breaux, B. O., & Feist, M. I. (2010). Extending beyond space. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1601–1606). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Brøndal, V. (1948). Les parties du discours [The parts of speech]. Copenhague: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
(1950). Théorie des prépositions [Theory of prepositions]. Copenhague: Munskgaard.Google Scholar
Brugman, C. (1980). Story of OVER. M.A. thesis. Berkeley: University of California
Butler, C. S. (2009). The Lexical Constructional Model: Genesis, strengths and challenges. In C. S. Butler & J. M. Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 117–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., Covey, E. S., & Lattanzi, K. M. (1999). “What” effects on “Where”: Functional influences on spatial relations. Pshychological Science, 10 (6), 516–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, D. (2022). Embodied semantics. In F. T. Li (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive semantics (pp. 1–13). Leiden: Brill. Last accessed on 21 Dec 2023: [URL]
Chilton, P. (2014). Language, space and mind: The conceptual geometry of linguistic meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1993). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. J. (1989). Spatial cognition and the semantics of prepositions in English, Polish and Russian. München: Verlag Otto Sagner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 27–63). London: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coventry, K. R. (1998). Spatial prepositions, functional relations and lexical specification. In P. Olivier & K.-P. Gapp (Eds.), Representation and processing of spatial expressions (pp. 247–262). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2015). Space. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 490–509). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coventry, K. R., Carmichael, R., & Garrod, S. C. (1994). Spatial prepositions, object-specific function, and task requirements. Journal of Semantics, 11 (4), 289–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coventry, K. R., & Garrod, S. C. (2004). Saying, seeing and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. London: Psychology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deane, P. D. (1993). At, by, to, and past: An essay in multimodal image theory. In Proceedings of the nineteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session and parasession on semantic typology and semantic universals (pp. 112–124). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of over. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 235–284). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1997). The theory of functional grammar: Part 1: The structure of the clause. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dirven, R. (1989). Space Prepositions. In R. Dirven & R. A. Geiger (Eds.), A user’s grammar of English: Word, sentence, text, interaction: Part B: The structure of sentences (pp. 520–576). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Drozdowicz, A. M. (1998). A cognitive-semantic analysis of the English preposition in . M.A thesis. Scotland: The University of Glasgow.
Feist, M. I. (2000). On in and on: An investigation into the linguistic encoding of spatial scenes. Ph.D. dissertation. Evanston: Northwestern University.
(2008). Space between languages. Cognitive Science, 32 (7), 1177–1199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feist, M. I., & Gentner, D. (1998). On plates, bowls, and dishes: Factors in the use of English IN and ON. In M. A. Gernsbacher & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 345–349). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2003). Factors involved in the use of in and on . In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 390–395). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2012). Multiple influences on the use of English spatial prepositions: The case of “in” and “on”. In C. Boonthum-Denecke, P. M. McCarthy, & T. Lamkin (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary advances in applied natural language processing: Issues and approaches (pp. 305–323). Hershey: Information Science Reference. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feist, M. I., & Zhang, Y. (2019). Mapping space: A comparative study. In Proceedings of the 41st annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 1717–1723). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The Case for Case. In E. W. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (2015). The geometry of preposition meanings. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 10 1, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C. (2021). Natural semantic metalanguage. In X. Wen & J. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 93–110). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2014). Words and meanings: Lexical semantics across domains, languages, and cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, B. W. (1984). The semantics of English spatial prepositions. Ph.D. dissertation. California: University of California San Diego.
Herskovits, A. (1985). Semantics and pragmatics of locative expressions. Cognitive Science, 9 (3), 341–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1986). Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. (1935). La Catégorie des Cas [The category of case]. København: C.A. Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jamrozik, A., & Gentner, D. (2015). Well-hidden regularities: Abstract uses of in and on retain an aspect of their spatial meaning. Cognitive Science, 39 (8). 1881–1911. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Johansson Falck, M., & Okonski, L. (2023). Procedure for identifying metaphorical scenes (PIMS): The case of spatial and abstract relations. Metaphor and Symbol, 38(1), 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the Mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jolly, J. (1991). Prepositional analysis within the framework of role and reference grammar. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kokorniak, I. (2007). English at: An integrated semantic analysis. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991). Concept, image, and symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Reflections on the functional characterization of spatial prepositions. Corela, 9–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1969). Towards a semantic description of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C., Meira, S., & The Language and Cognition Group. (2003). ‘Natural concepts’ in the spatial topological domain--Adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language, 79(3), 485–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C., & Wilkins, D. P. (2006). Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindkvist, K.-G. (1950). Studies on the local sense of the prepositions in, at, on, and to in Modern English. Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet.Google Scholar
(1976). A comprehensive study of conceptions of locality in which English prepositions occur. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Lindner, S. J. (1983). A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb particle constructions with ‘out’ and ‘up’. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S. (2010). English prepositions explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locke, J. (1690). An essay concerning human understanding. Buenos Aires: Aguilar. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mairal, R., & Faber, P. (2007). Lexical templates within a functional cognitive theory of meaning. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 5 (1), 137–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2008). New challenges for lexical representation within the Lexical-Constructional Model (LCM). Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 57 1, 137–155.Google Scholar
(2009). An overview of the Lexical Constructional Model: Part I: Lexical and constructional templates; Part II: Subsumption processes. Manuscript. University of La Rioja. [URL]
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phénomenologie de la Perception [Phenomenology of perception]. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Navarro i Ferrando, I. (1998). A multimodal system for the description of spatial semantics: The preposition on . In J. L. C. Honrubia (Ed.), Estudios de lingüística cognitiva II [Studies in cognitive linguistics II] (pp. 767–787). Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
(2000). A cognitive-semantic analysis of the English lexical unit in . Cuadernos de Investigación Filológica, 26 1, 189–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Towards a description of the meaning of at . In H. Cuyckens & G. Radden (Eds.), Perspectives on prepositions (pp. 211–230). Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). On the meaning of three English Prepositions. In I. Navarro i Ferrando & N. Alberola (Eds.), In-roads of language: Essays in English studies (pp. 167–179). Castelló de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
(2011). Lexical decomposition of English prepositions and their fusion with verb lexical classes in motion constructions. Language Value, 3 (1), 114–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Exploring the lexical representation of English particles in the Lexical-Constructional Model. In M. Brdar, I. Raffaelli & M. Ž. Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics between universality and variation (pp. 137–160). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Pederson, E., Danziger, E., Wilkins, D., Levinson, S., Kita, S., & Senft, G. (1998). Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language, 74 (3), 557–589. [URL]
Peña-Cervel, M. S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2022). Figuring out figuration: A cognitive Linguistic account. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1956). The child’s conception of space. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pottier, B. (1962). Systématique des Éléments de Relation [Systematics of relation elements]. Paris: Librairie Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6 1, 576–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Regier, T. (1996). The human semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rhee, S. (2004). Semantic structure of English prepositions: An analysis from a grammaticalization perspective. Language Research, 40 (2), 397–427.Google Scholar
Rice, S. (1992). Polysemy and lexical representation: The case of three English prepositions. In Proceedings of the fourteenth annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 89–94). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1996). Prepositional prototypes. In M. Pütz & R. Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (pp. 135–165). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R. (2008a). Challenging systems of lexical representation. Journal of English Studies, 5 1, 325–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008b). Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(3–4), 355–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silvestre López, A. J. (2009). Particle semantics in English phrasal and prepositional verbs: The case of IN and ON. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
Sinha, C. & Jensen de López, K. (2000). Language, culture, and the embodiment of spatial cognition Cognitive Linguistics , 11 (1–2), 17–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinha, C., & Thornseng, L. A. (1995). A coding system for spatial relational reference Cognitive Linguistics , 6 (2–3), 261–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sroka, K. A. (1972). The syntax of English phrasal verbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stocker, K. (2015). Toward an embodied cognitive semantics. Cognitive Semantics, 1 (2), 178–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, G. (2016). An adventure in English language space. A key to the mysteries of prepositions. Bloomington: Xlibris.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. L. Pick & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application (pp. 225–282). New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12 (1), 49–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). How language structures space. In L. Talmy (Ed.), Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol. I: Concept structuring systems (pp. 177–254). Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). The representation of spatial structure in spoken and signed language. In K. Emmorey (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 169–195). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Tésnière, L. (1959). Éléments de Syntaxe Structurale [Elements of structural syntax]. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1994). Methodology and analyses of the preposition in . Cognitive Linguistics, 5 (2), 157–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Jr. R. D. (2005). The syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface: An introduction to role and reference grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varela, F. J., Thomson, E., & Rosch, E. (2016). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience (revised edition). Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wen, X., & Jiang, C. (2021). Embodiment. In X. Wen & J. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 145–160). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willems, R. M., Toni, I., Hagoort, P., & Casasanto, D. (2010). Neural dissociations between action verb understanding and motor imagery. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22 (10), 2387–2400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y. (2013). Spatial representation of topological concepts IN and ON: A comparative study of English and Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation. Montreal: Concordia University.
Zlatev, J. (2007). Spatial semantics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 318–350). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar