Cover not available
Article In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 12:1 (2025) ► pp.187–211

Image-schema transformations, radial category, 3D topological structure, and subjectification

A cognitive semantic analysis of AROUND

ORCID logo | University of Tokyo Science
This paper explores the polysemy of the preposition AROUND from a cognitive perspective. The purpose of this paper is: (i) to show that in cognitive semantics of AROUND, the trajectors (TRs), landmarks (LMs), and image-schemas are captured three-dimensionally and topologically; (ii) to show that in the senses of AROUND, a circular path sense is central, and other senses are formed from the central circular path sense via image-schema transformations and domain shift; (iii) to show that the image-schema transformations include: disposing the TR along the circular path, and excluding motion; mental scanning of the circular path; the TR entering the inside of the LM (which is termed ‘LM-internal TRs’ in this paper); and segment profiling; (iv) to present the radial category relating each sense of AROUND; and (v) to show that the sense of ‘LM-internal TRs’ of AROUND can be subjectified diachronically.
Keywords: image-schema transformations, three-dimensional and topological treatment, circular path, segment profiling, radial category in AROUND, subjectification
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A semantic analysis of AROUND
    • 2.1Sense A: Circular path — the central image-schema
    • 2.2Sense B: The ‘circular static state’ sense
    • 2.3Sense C: Mental scanning of the circular path
    • 2.4Sense D: LM-internal TR
    • 2.5Sense E: Segment profiling
      • 2.5.1Sense E1: Profiled arc path
      • 2.5.2Sense E2: Profiled endpoint of the arc path
      • 2.5.3Sense E3: Profiled endpoint of the access path
    • 2.6Sense F: The ‘approximately’ sense
  • 3.Radial category in AROUND
  • 4.Subjectification of sense D
    • 4.1Subjectification
    • 4.2Subjectification of AROUND in sense D
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • The following abbreviations are used
  • Author queries
  • References
  • Data
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (51)
References
Anderson, J. R. (2010). Cognitive psychology and its implications (7th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2015). Language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (2011). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deane, P. (2005). Multimodal spatial representations: 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
Dewell, R. B. (1994). Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5 (4), 351–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Moving around: The role of the conceptualizer in semantic interpretation. Cognitive Linguistics, 18 (3), 383–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (2021). English prepositions: Their meanings and uses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Downs, R. M., & Stea, D. (1973). Image and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Ekberg, L. (2001). Transformations on the path-schema and a minimal lexicon. Studia Linguistica, 55 (3), 301–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. (2019). Cognitive linguistics: A complete guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V., & Tyler, A. (2004). Rethinking English ‘prepositions of movement’: The case of to and through . Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 18 1, 247–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 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
Johnson, M., & Lakoff, G. (2002). Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics, 13 (3), 245–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Explaining embodied cognition results. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4 (4), 773–785. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (2002). A communicative grammar of English (3rd ed.). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S. (2010). English prepositions explained (revised edition). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T. (2004). Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition, 32 1, 1389–1400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T., Ramscar, M., & Boroditsky, L. (2005). On the experiential link between spatial and temporal language. Cognitive Science, 29 (4), 655–664. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1997). Idohyogen no kakucho: Shukanteki idohyogen [An extension of motion expressions: subjective motion expressions]. In S. Tanaka & Y. Matsumoto (Eds.), Kukan to ido no hyogen [Expressions of space and motion] (pp. 207–228). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Mori, S. (2019). A cognitive analysis of the preposition OVER: Image-schema transformations and metaphorical extensions. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 63 (3), 444–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peña Cervel, M. S., & Ruiz de Medoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2009). The metonymic and metaphoric grounding of two image-schema transformations. In K.-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 339–361). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Richardson, J. T. E. (1999). Imagery. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Roth, I., & Frisby, J. P. (1986). Perception and representation: A cognitive approach. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Schulze, R. (1993). The meaning of (a)round: A study of English preposition. In R. A. Geiger & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds.), Conceptualizations and mental processing in language (pp. 399–432). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. E., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Fredrickson, B. L., & Loftus, G. R. (2003). Atkinson & Hilgard’s introduction to psychology (14th ed.). London: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1996). Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 211–276). Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’. In L. Talmy (Ed.), Toward a cognitive semantics: Volume 1: Concept structuring systems (pp. 99–175). Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Linguistic categorization (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thagard, P. (1996). Mind: Introduction to cognitive science. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65 (1), 31–55. [URL]
(1995). Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectification (pp. 31–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). From subjectification to intersubjectification. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Motives for Language change (pp. 124–139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp. 29–71). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Intersubjectification and clause periphery. In L. Brems, L. Ghesquière & F. Van de Velde (Eds.), Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in grammar and discourse: Theoretical and descriptive advances (pp. 7–27). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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
Wilcox, S., & Palermo, D. S. (1975). “In”, “on”, and “under” revisited. Cognition, 3 (3), 245–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J. (2003). Polysemy or generality? Mu. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 447–494). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Data
Longman dictionary of contemporary English [LDCE] (6th ed.). (2014). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary [OALD] (10th ed.). (2020). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oxford English dictionary [OED] (2nd ed.). (1989). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar