Chapter 5
The role of embodiment in the semantic analysis of phrasal verbs
A corpus-based study
Many of the meanings of prepositions are derived from our bodily experience and conceptualization of the spatial-physical world. This study examines the relationship between frequency and embodied meaning in spatial particles. Tyler and Evans’ Principled Polysemy Model was used to analyze high and low frequency particles. The analysis shows that particles including up, out, off and over appear frequently in phrasal verbs due to a larger set of embodied experiences and a more complex semantic network associated with these particles. In contrast, low frequency particles such as through, under, into and for appear less frequently in phrasal verbs due to the nature of the embodied meanings motivating these uses. Implausible constructions such as hold under and drop up were found to be explainable by examining the basic embodied meanings of the verb and the particle.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Literature review
- 3.Analysis
- 3.1Spatial particles of the vertical axis
- 3.2Spatial particles with bounded LMs
- 3.3Spatial particles of orientation
- 4.Infrequent verb-particle constructions
- 5.Conclusion
-
Notes
-
References
References
Baillargeon, R., Needham, A. & Devos, J.
(
1991)
The development of young infants’ intuitions about support. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
Barsalou, L. W.
(
2008)
Grounded cognition.
Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.
Bergen, B. K.
(
2012)
Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.
Benor, S., & Levy, R.
(
2006)
The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials.
Language, 82, 233–278.
Brugman, C. & Lakoff, G.
(
1988)
Cognitive typology and lexical networks. In
S. Small,
G. Cottrell, &
M. T. Tanenhaus (Eds.),
Lexical ambiguity resolution (pp. 477–507). Palo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufman. COCA [online]:
[URL] [Accessed March 21th 2012].
Evans, V. & Green, M.
(
2006)
Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Gardner, D. & Davies, M.
(
2007)
Pointing out frequent phrasal verbs: A corpus-based analysis.
TESOL Quarterly, 41, 339–59.
Gelman, R.
(
1990)
First principles organize attention to and learning about relevant data: Number and the animate-inanimate distinction as examples.
Cognitive Science, 14, 79–106.
Gibbs, R. W.
(
2006)
Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, M.
(
1987)
The body in mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kolstad, V. T.
(
1991,
April).
Understanding of containment in 5.5-month-old infants. Poster presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA.
Lakoff, G.
(
1987)
Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
(
1980)
Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
(
1999)
Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Langacker, R.
(
1987)
Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Leslie, A.
(
1988)
The necessity of illusion: perception and thought in infancy. In
L. Weiskrantz (Ed.),
Thought without language (pp. 185–210). Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Louwerse, M.
(
2008)
Embodied relations are encoded in language.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(4), 838–844.
Mahpeykar, N.
(
2014)
A principled cognitive linguistics account of English phrasal verbs. Washington DC: Georgetown University dissertation.
Mandler, J.
(
1992)
How to build a baby: Conceptual primitives.
Psychological Review, 99, 587–604.
Mandler, J.
(
1996)
Preverbal representation and language. In
P. Bloom,
M. A. Peterson,
L. Nadel &
M. F. Garrett (Eds.),
Language and space (pp. 365–384). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Mandler, J.
(
2004)
The foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thought: Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McDonough, L. & Mandler, J. M.
(
1998)
Inductive generalization in 9- and 11-month-olds.
Developmental Science, 1, 227–232.
Rudzka-Ostyn, B.
(
2003)
Word power: Phrasal verbs and compounds: A cognitive approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sandra, D.
(
1998)
What linguistics can and can’t tell you about the human mind: A reply to Croft,
Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 361–78.
Sandra, D. & Rice, S.
(
1995)
Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 89–130.
Sweetser, E.
(
1990)
From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L.
(
2000)
Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tyler, A. & Evans, V.
(
2003)
The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vandeloise, C.
(
1991)
Spatial prepositions: A case study in french. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vandeloise, C.
(
2005)
Force and function in the acquisition of the preposition in. In
L. Carlson (Ed.),
Functional features in language and space: Insights from perception, categorization, and development (pp. 219–229). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zwaan, R. A.
(
2004)
The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In
B. H. Ross (Ed.),
The Psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 44 (pp. 35–62). New York: Academic Press.
Cited by
Cited by 2 other publications
Attardo, Salvatore & Lucy Pickering
Littlemore, Jeannette
2023.
More on Categories: Words, Morphemes, ‘Grammar Rules’, Phonological Features, and Intonation Patterns as Radial Categories. In
Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Second Language Learning and Teaching,
► pp. 57 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 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.