Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 17:2 (2019) ► pp.438–464

The semantics of the English complex preposition next to

| University of Szczecin
The present paper is an analysis of the semantic structure of the complex spatial preposition next to. Theoretical concepts of the cognitive framework promote a deep understanding of spatial relations and their metaphorical transfers encoded by individual prepositional senses. Assuming the usage-based model of language, the study takes a closer look at corpus data which is the basis for proposing five distinct meanings of the preposition under investigation. Conceptual metaphor theory is used to explain metaphorical transfer of spatial next to to abstract domains of human experience.
Keywords: cognitive semantics, spatial prepositions, conceptual metaphor
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Spatial prepositions in the cognitive framework – basic assumptions
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4. Next to – an overview
  • 5.The semantics of next to – findings
    • 5.1The Adjacent Sense
    • 5.2Metaphorical extensions of the preposition next to
      • 5.2.1The source domain of space
      • 5.2.2Target domains for the preposition next to
        • 5.2.2.1The Addition Sense
        • 5.2.2.2The Comparison Sense
        • 5.2.2.3The Scale Sense
        • 5.2.2.4The Almost Sense
    • 5.3The semantic contribution of next and to
    • 5.4The semantic network for next to
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00042.bre
References (46)
References
Bosworth, J.; & Toller, T. N. Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Retreived June 23, 2017, from [URL]
Brenda, M. (2014). The cognitive perspective on the polysemy of the English spatial preposition over. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
(2015). The semantics of at . In E. Komorowska (Ed.), Annales Neophilologiarum 9 1, pp. 25–55. Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego.Google Scholar
(2017). A cognitive perspective on the semantics near . Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15 (1), 121–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). The semantics of by . [Unpublished manuscript, University of Szczzecin, Poland].Google Scholar
British National Corpus. Retreived June 2014 from [URL]
Brugman, C. (1988). The story of over: polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Coventry, K. R.; & Garrod, S. C. (2004). Saying, seeing and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions essays in cognitive psychology. Hove: Psychology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuyckens, H. (1993). The Dutch spatial preposition in: A cognitive-semantic analysis. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The Semantics of Prepositions: From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuypere, L. de. (2013). Debiasing semantic analysis: the case of the English preposition to . Language Sciences 37 1, 122–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R. (1993). Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English prepositions. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The Semantics of Prepositions: From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. (2010). From the spatial to the non-spatial: the ‘state’ lexical concepts of in, on and at . In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space. The state of the art and new directions. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
(2013). Language and time: A cognitive linguistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, R. (Ed.), (2008). Euclid’s elements of geometry. Richard Fitzpatrick.Google Scholar
Herskovits, A. ([1986] 2009). Language and spatial cognition. An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ho-Abdullah, I. (2010). Variety and variability. A corpus-based cognitive lexical-semantics analysis of prepositional usage in British, New Zealand and Malaysian English. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle 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: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Conceptual metaphor: The contemporary theory of metaphor. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., & Schwartz, A. (Eds.), (1991). Master metaphor list (2nd ed.). Retrieved July 20th, 2016 from [URL]
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991a). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991b). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2000). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindstromberg, S. (2010). English Prepositions Explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (2007). Review of A. Tyler & V. Evans, The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: C.U.P., 2003. Cognitive Linguistics, 18 (1), 110–121.Google Scholar
Logan, G. D., & Sadler, D. D. (1996). A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Space and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, J. A. H., Bradley, H., Craigie, W. A. & Onions, C. T. (Eds.), (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
McEnery, T.; & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, G.; & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Navarro-Ferrando, I. (1999). The metaphorical use of on . Journal of English Studies 1 1, 145–164. DOI logoGoogle 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 the description of the meaning of at . In H. Cuyckens & G. Radden (Eds.), Perspectives on prepositions. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Przybylska, R. (2002). Polisemia przyimków polskich w świetle semantyki kognitywnej. Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar
Rudkiewicz, K. (2016). Cognitive explorations into the category schema of for. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. I. Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
(2003). The representation of spatial structure in spoken and signed language. In K. Emmorey (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign language, 169–195. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tutton, M. (2016). Locative expressions in English and French: A multimodal approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A.; & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Rethinking English ‘prepositions of movement’: The case of to and through . In H. Cuyckens, W. De Mulder, & T. Mortelmans (Eds.), Adpositions of Movement (Belgian Journal of Linguistics 18), pp. 247–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. ([1953] 1986). Philosophical investigations. (Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe.) Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.Google Scholar
Zwarts, J.; & Gärdenfors, P. (2016). Locative and Directional Prepositions in Conceptual Spaces: The Role of Polar Convexity. Retrieved December 3, 2016 from [URL]
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Kermer, Franka
2021. Semantic network of the German preposition hinter . Review of Cognitive Linguistics 19:2 ► pp. 403 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.