Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 10:1 (2023) ► pp.1–32

Russian equivalents of the English over

A cognitive linguistic analysis

ORCID logo | Macquarie University
The article deals with a comparative analysis of the English over and the Russian language items that serve as its approximate translation equivalents. The main attention is on such Russian equivalents of over as the prepositional phrases nad with the instrumental case, čerez with the accusative case, za with the accusative case and po with the dative case, as well as the prefixes pere- and pro-. The research is undertaken using the Cognitive linguistic framework or, more precisely, the theory of conceptual metaphor. The aim of the article is to analyse the Russian language means of coding the spatial relations that are similar to those expressed by the English over and to trace patterns of extension of spatial meanings into non-spatial domains in these languages. The study reveals that although English is an analytic language and Russian is a synthetic (fusional) language and, therefore, they use different means to express meanings, similar conceptual-metaphorical motivations of semantic extensions can be traced in both languages.
Keywords: polysemy, English, over, Russian equivalents, conceptual metaphors
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.Findings
    • 3.1Spatial meanings of the English preposition over and its Russian translation equivalents
      • 3.1.1“Up” and “above” meanings
      • 3.1.2The “onto” meaning
      • 3.1.3The “over and above” and “above and beyond” meanings
      • 3.1.4“On the other side of” meaning
      • 3.1.5The “across the surface” and “along the surface” meanings
    • 3.2Non-spatial meanings
      • 3.2.1Semantic extensions from the “Up/Above” meanings
        • 3.2.1.1The Control meaning
        • 3.2.1.2The More and preference meanings
        • 3.2.1.3Metonymic extensions
      • 3.2.2Semantic extensions from the “onto” meaning
      • 3.2.3Semantic extensions from the “above and beyond” meaning
        • 3.2.3.1The excess meaning
        • 3.2.3.2Temporal meaning
        • 3.2.3.3A Topic and a Stimulus meaning
      • 3.2.4Semantic extensions from the “across the surface” and “along the surface” meanings
        • 3.2.4.1A Means to action and an Intermediary
        • 3.2.4.2The meaning of Cause
        • 3.2.4.3The meaning of Area (an area of knowledge or skill studied or taught)
      • 3.2.5Semantic extensions from an Orientation in Different Directions and in the Same Direction
        • 3.2.5.1Compliance and Non-compliance meanings
    • 3.3Russian equivalents of the English adverbal particle over
      • 3.3.1The meaning of Transfer
      • 3.3.2The meaning of Completion
      • 3.3.3The reflexive meaning
      • 3.3.4The repetition meaning
    • 3.4Summary of patterns of semantic extensions of the English over and its Russian equivalents
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.22008.kal
References (30)
References
Bacz, B. (2002). On the image-schema proposals for the preposition po in Polish. Glossos, 31, 1–19.Google Scholar
Baicchi, A. (2017). Emotions travelling across cultures: Embodied grounding of English vis-à-vis Italian prepositional phrases. International Journal of Language and Culture, 4(1), 24–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boers, F. (1996). Spatial prepositions and metaphor: A cognitive semantic journey along the up-down and front-back dimensions. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Bogatova, G. A. (1995). Slovar’ russkogo jazyka 11–17 vekov [Dictionary of the Russian language of the 11th-17th centuries]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Brugman, C. (1981). The story of over. M.A. Thesis, University of California.
Col, G., & Poibeau, T. (2014). An instruction-based analysis of over . Language and Cognition, 6 (3), 370–407. 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 OVER: The role of systematic semantic processes in defining individual lexemes. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 5 1, 271–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R. (1995). The construal of cause: The case of cause prepositions. In J. R. Taylor & R. E. MacLaur (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world (pp. 95–118). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Janda, L. A. (2000). A cognitive model of the Russian accusative case. Trudy meždunarodnoj konferencii Kognitivnoe modelirovanie, 41, 20–43.Google 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
Kalyuga, M. (2020). Russian prepositional phrases: A cognitive linguistic approach. Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kreitzer, A. (1997). Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space. Cognitive Linguistics, 8 (4), 291–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., & Schwartz, A. (1991). The master metaphor list. URL: [URL]. Accessed 3 March 2022.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar (vol. 1): Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Matovac, D. (2014). The semantics of the preposition po in Croatian language. Croatica et Slavica Iadertina, 10 (10), 3–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meex, B. (1997). The spatial and non-spatial senses of the German preposition Über. In H. Cuyckens & B. E. Zawada (Eds.), Polysemy in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, 1997 1 (pp. 1–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle 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, 64 (3), 444–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palancar, E. L. (2001). Emergent markers: The relation of instruments, causes, and agents in grammatical constructions. STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 54 (4), 365–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). The origin of agent markers. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sreznevsky, I. I. (2003). Materialy dlja slovarja drevnerusskogo jazyka po pis’mennym pamjatnikam [Materials for a dictionary of the Old Russian language based on the written sources]. Moscow: Znak.Google Scholar
Tchizmarova, I. (2012). A cognitive analysis of the Bulgarian prepositions and verbal prefixes NAD and POD. Jazykoslovje, 13 (1), 219–260.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 77 (4), 724–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003a). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman & D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 95–159). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003b). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Gucht, F., Willems, K., & De Cuypere, L. (2007). The iconicity of embodied meaning: Polysemy of spatial prepositions in the cognitive framework. Language Sciences, 29(6), 733–754. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yamaguchi, K. (2004). A typological, historical, and functional study of adpositions in the languages of the world. URL: [URL]. Accessed 6 February 2022.