Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 19:2 (2021) ► pp.403–428

Semantic network of the German preposition hinter

| University of Turku
The present study sets out to construct a semantic network for the German preposition hinter (‘behind’) based on the theoretical framework of “principled polysemy”. The analysis regarding the cognitive and pragmatic aspects motivating the meaning extensions of hinter attempts to highlight the importance of varying construal patterns and vantage points as well as the role of real-world knowledge. By means of corpus data, I intend to present six senses of the preposition hinter, hinting at the polysemous nature of prepositions more generally. Furthermore, the theory of conceptual metaphor is applied to account for metaphorical extensions of hinter to more abstract domains of embodied experience.
Keywords: preposition, meaning extension, polysemy, semantic network, German
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Spatial semantics and prepositions: Basic principles
  • 3.Overview of hinter/behind in the scientific literature
  • 4.Analysis of hinter
    • 4.1Methodology
    • 4.2Findings
      • 4.2.1The proto-scene: At the Back/Lack of Perceptual Access Sense
      • 4.2.2The Lack of Priority sense
      • 4.2.3The Temporal sense
      • 4.2.4The Unknown sense
      • 4.2.5The Support sense
      • 4.2.6The Reason sense
      • 4.2.7Hinter Gittern (‘behind bars’)
    • 4.3The semantic network of hinter
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
  • Online dictionaries and database
Published online: 11 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00089.ker
References

References

Almuoseb, A.
(2016) A lexical-semantic analysis of the English prepositions at, on and in and their conceptual mapping onto Arabic. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 4(1), 211–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnett, C., & Deifel, K.
(2015) Two-way prepositions and L2 Students of German. In K. Masuda, C. Arnett & A. Labarca (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and Sociocultural Theory: Applications for Second and Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 183–201). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bellavia, E.
(1996) The German über . In M. Pütz & R. Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (pp. 73–107). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bender, A., Bennardo, G., & Beller, S.
(2005) Spatial frames of reference for temporal relations: A conceptual analysis in English, German, and Tongan. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 220–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berez, A., & Gries, S. Th.
(2009) In defense of corpus-based methods: a behavioral profile analysis of polysemous get in English. Proceedings of 24th Northwest Linguistics Conference, 271, 157–166.Google Scholar
Boers, F.
(1996) Spatial prepositions and metaphor. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Boers, F., & Demecheleer, M.
(1998) A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. ELT journal, 53(3), 197–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brala-Vukanovic, M., & Rubinic, N.
(2011) Croatian spatial prepositions and prefixes. A cognitive semantic analysis. Fluminensia, 23(2), 21–37.Google Scholar
Bratož, S.
(2014) Teaching English locative prepositions: A cognitive perspective. Linguistica, 45(1), 325–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brenda, M.
(2015) The semantics of at . In E. Komorowska (Ed.), Annales Neophilologiarum 91 (pp. 25–55). Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) A cognitive perspective on the semantics near . Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 121–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) The semantics of the English complex preposition next to . Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 438–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brugman, C.
(1981) The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Carstensen, K-U.
(2015) A cognitivist attentional semantics of locative prepositions. In G. Marchetti, G. Benedetti & A. Alharbi (Eds.), Attention and meaning. The attentional basis of meaning (pp. 93–132). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Coventry, K. R.
(1998) Spatial prepositions, functional relations and lexical specification. In P. Olivier & K. Gapp (Eds.), The Representation and processing of spatial expressions (pp. 247–262). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
(2015) Space. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 489–507). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Coventry, K. R., Prat-Sala, M., & Richards, L.
(2001) The interplay between geometry and function in the comprehension of over, under, above, and below . Journal of Memory and Language, 44(3), 376–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A.
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuyckens, H.
(1991) The semantics of spatial prepositions in Dutch: A cognitive-linguistic exercise. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
Dewell, R.
(1994) Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 51, 351–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V.
(2005) The meaning of time: polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics, 41(1), 33–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) The perceptual basis of spatial representation. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions (pp. 21–48). London, Oakville: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
(2013) Language and time: A cognitive linguistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grabowski, J., & Weiss, P.
(1996) The prepositional inventory of languages: A factor that affects comprehension of spatial prepositions. Language Sciences, 181, 19–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th.
(2006) Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run. In A. Stefanowitsch & S. Th. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy (pp. 57–99). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2015) Polysemy. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 472–490). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hampe, B., & Grady, J.
(Eds.) (2005) From perception to meaning. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalisz, R.
(1990) A cognitive approach to spatial terms represented by in front of and behind in English, and their metaphorical extensions. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & J. Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Meaning and Lexicography (pp. 167–180). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kokorniak, I.
(2007) English at: an integrated semantic analysis. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kreitzer, A.
(1997) Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space. Cognitive Linguistics, 81, 291–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lam, Y.
(2009) Applying cognitive linguistics to the teaching of the Spanish prepositions por and para. Language Awareness, 18(1), 2–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, B., & Jackendoff, R.
(1993) “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 161, 217–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1996) Viewing in cognition and grammar. In P. W. Davis (Ed.), Alternative linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical modes (pp. 153–212). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
(2003) Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Cognition at the heart of human interaction. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 85–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liamkina, O.
(2007) Semantic structure of the German spatial particle über . Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 19(2), 115–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindner, S.
(1981) A lexico-semantic analysis of verb-particle constructions with ‘up’ and ‘out.’ Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S.
(2010) English prepositions explained (Revised ed.). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) An update on frequent English spatial prepositions: Are they monosemic, polysemic, or something else?. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lu, W.-L.
(2015) A cognitive linguistic approach to teaching spatial particles: From contrastive constructional analyses to material design. In K. Masuda, C. Arnett & A. Labarca (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and sociocultural theory (pp. 51–72). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mahpeykar, N.
(2018) The role of embodiment in the semantic analysis of phrasal verbs. Language and Cognition, 7(1), 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mahpeykar, N., & Tyler, A.
(2011) The semantics of Farsi be: Applying the principled polysemy model. In M. Egenhofer, N. Giudice, R. Moratz & M. Worboys (Eds.), Spatial information theory. COSIT 2011. Lecture notes in computer science, Vol 6899 (pp. 413–433). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) A principled cognitive linguistics account of English phrasal verbs with up and out. Language and Cognition, 4(1), 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martín, M. A.
(2000) A cognitive approach to the polysemy of ‘through’. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 81, 11–38.Google Scholar
Meex, B.
(2002) Die Wegpreposition über . In H. Cuyckens & G. Radden, Perspectives on prepositions (pp. 157–176). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mueller, C. M.
(2015) A semantic account of the English preposition FOR based on a cognitive linguistics framework. 藤女子大学文学部紀要, 53(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Navarro, I.
(1998) A cognitive semantics analysis of the lexical units AT, ON, and IN in English. Ph.D. dissertation. Castelló de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I de CastellóGoogle Scholar
(2002) Towards a description of the meaning of AT. In H. Cuyckens & G. Radden (Eds.), Perspectives on prepositions (pp. 211–230). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pütz, D., & Dirven, M.
(Eds.) (1996) The construal of space in language and thought. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schröder, U. A.
(2014) Die metaphorische Bedeutungsvielfalt von Präpositionen im DaF-Unterricht an brasilianischen Hochschulen. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht. Didaktik und Methodik im Bereich Deutsch als Fremdsprache 19(2), 146–170.Google Scholar
Shakhova, D., & A. Tyler
(2010) Taking the principled polysemy model of spatial particles beyond English: The case of Russian za . In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions (pp. 267–291). London, Oakville: Equinox.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. I. Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
(2007) Attention phenomena. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 264–293). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
(1993) Prepositions: Patterns of polysemization and strategies of disambiguation. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (pp. 151–179). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turewicz, K.
(1994) English IN and ON; Polish W and NA. A Cognitive Grammar perspective. In E. Gussman & H. Kardela (Eds), Focus on language (pp. 1–22). Lublin: Maria Curie – Skodowska University Press.Google Scholar
(2004) Understanding prepositions through cognitive grammar. A case of IN. In K. Turewicz (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics – a user friendly approach (pp. 100–126). Szczecin: Szczecin University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
(2001) Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 771, 724–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Spatial scenes: A cognitive approach to English prepositions and the experiential basis of meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., Mueller, C. M., & Ho, V.
(2011) Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English TO, FOR, and AT: An experimental investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 81, 122–140.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, C.
(1991) Spatial prepositions: A case study in French. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wang, B., & Su, L.
(2015) On the principled polysemy of -kai in Chinese resultative verbs. Chinese Language and Discourse, 6(1), 2–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, D.
(1993) On German UM: Semantic and conceptual aspects. Linguistics, 31(1), 111–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C.
(1993) Introduction. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (pp. 1–24). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J.
(1997) Situated embodiment: Studies in the emergence of spatial meaning. PhD dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
(2007) Spatial semantics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 318–350). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Online dictionaries and database

Duden
n.d.). Duden dictionary online. [URL]
DWDS
n.d.). Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. [URL]