Cover not available
Part of
Constructing Families of Constructions: Analytical perspectives and theoretical challenges
Edited by Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Alba Luzondo Oyón and Paula Pérez Sobrino
[Human Cognitive Processing 58] 2017
► pp. 53–76

Chapter 2
Embodied motivations for abstract in and on constructions

| Umeå University

This chapter investigates the relationship between abstract in and on constructions (i.e. grammatical form and meaning pairings (Langacker 1987: 409; Goldberg 2006: 3) and body-world knowledge. Abstract in and on instances retrieved from the British National Corpus (BNC) are analyzed to identify what types of abstract concepts are construed as containing entities (used with the English preposition/particle in) and what types of abstract concepts are construed as objects/supporting surfaces (used with the preposition/particle on). Analyses show that abstract in and on constructions fall into families of constructions that refer to related concepts, and that these, in turn, are connected with specific types of embodied experiences. Body-world knowledge thus provides a principled way of explaining the constructions.

Keywords: abstract concepts, prepositions, particles, body-world knowledge, English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Cognitive linguistics approaches to abstract in and on
  • 3.Method
  • 4.Abstract in and on concepts
  • 5.Embodied motivations for abstract in constructions
  • 6.Embodied motivations for abstract on constructions
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.58.03joh
References

References

Bąçzkowska, A.
2011 Space, time and language: A cognitive analysis of English prepositions. Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kazimierza Wielkiego.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L.
2008 Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 230–244.Google Scholar
Beitel, D., Gibbs, R. W. Jr., & Sanders, P.
2001 The embodied approach to the polysemy of the spatial preposition on . In H. Cuyckens, & B. Zawada (Eds.), Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected papers from the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, 1997 (241–260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K., & Chang, N.
2005 Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J.-O. Östman, & M. Fried (Eds.). Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (147–190). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B., & Wheeler, K.
2010 Grammatical aspect and mental simulation. Brain and Language, 112, 150–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr.
2006a Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2006b Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language, 21, 434–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Matlock, T.
2008 Metaphor, imagination and simulation: Psycholinguistic evidence. In R. W. Gibbs Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (247–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
1995 A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006 Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grady, J.
1997 Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Herskovits, A.
1986/2009 Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. London & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E.
1999 Cognitive artifacts. In R. A. Wilson, & F. C. Keil (Eds.), The MIT Encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences (126–128). Cambridge, Massachusetts & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johansson Falck, M.
2013 Narrow paths, difficult roads, and long ways: Travel through space and metaphorical meaning. In C. Paradis, C. J. Hudson, & U. Magnuson (Eds.). The construal of spatial meaning: Windows into conceptual space (214–235). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Temporal prepositions explained: Cross-linguistic analysis of English and Swedish unit of TIME landmarks. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 1(2), 271–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 What trajectors reveal about TIME metaphors: Corpus analysis of English and Swedish. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 21(1), 28–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johansson Falck, M., & Gibbs, R. W. Jr.
2012 Embodied motivations for metaphorical meanings. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(2): 251–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johansson, R., Holsanova, J., & Holmqvist, K.
2006 Pictures and spoken descriptions elicit similar eye movements during mental imagery, both in light and in complete darkness. Cognitive Science, 30(6), 1053–1079. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M.
1987 The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
1980 Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1999 Philosophy in the flesh. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.
2002 Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar (2nd ed.). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S.
2010 English prepositions explained. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandler, J. H.
2010 The spatial foundations of the conceptual system. Language and Cognition, 2(1), 21–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandler, J. M.
2012 On the spatial foundations of the conceptual system and its enrichment. Cognitive Science, 36, 421–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandler, J. M., & C. P. Cánovas
2014 On defining Image Schemas. Language and Cognition, 6(4) (2014), 510–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Navarro, I.
1999 The metaphorical use of on. Journal of English Studies, I(1999), 145–164.Google Scholar
2000 A cognitive semantic analysis of the English lexical unit IN. Cuadernos de Ivenstigación Filológica, XXVI, 189–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reddy, M.
1993 The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (164–201). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.
2013 Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan, & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into Functional Linguistics: The role of constructions in RRG Grammars [Studies in Language Series] (231–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, S. A.
1993 Prepositional prototypes. In M. Pütz, & R. Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought: 19th international LAUD symposium on language and space (135–165). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Spivey, M. J., & Geng, J. J.
2001 Oculomotor mechanisms activated by imagery and memory: Eye movements to absent objects. Psychological Research, 65, 235–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stanfield, R. A., & Zwaan, R. A.
2001 The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
2007 The Semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, C.
2006 Are there spatial prepositions? In M. Hickmann, & R. Stephane (Eds.), Typological studies in language, 66: Space in Languages (139–154). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H.
2002 Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science, 13, 168–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Kalyuga, Marika & Sofya Yunusova
2024. Contrasting the semantics of prepositions through a cognitive linguistic approach. Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo
Knop, Sabine De
2020. The embodied teaching of complex verbal constructions with German placement verbs and spatial prepositions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:1 ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.