Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 21:2 (2023) ► pp.515–541

The semantic mapping of the German spatial preposition JENSEITS

| University of Turku
The present study aims to investigate the semantic value of the German spatial preposition jenseits (‘beyond’). It is argued that our conceptualization of the spatial-physical world and how we interact with objects in our environment transforms a prepositions’ primary meaning into domains of meaning that are tied to time or social interactions. While the study of the semantic structure of English prepositions has received attention, German prepositions, particularly less frequently used ones such as hinter (‘behind’) or jenseits, present a gap in research. It is attempted to show that the different senses of jenseits form a semantic network in which meaning extensions of the spatial, primary sense of jenseits are motivated by varying construal patterns imposed upon an observed scene. The description of the semantic structure of jenseits also draws on previous studies on its English counterpart, beyond (Boers, 1996; Lindstromberg, 2010). Based on the sample collected for the purpose of this study, this paper analyzes 1000 occurrences of the preposition jenseits in the DWDS-subcorpus Die Zeit. The analysis shows that a high frequency of the occurrences found in the sample constitute non-spatial meanings of jenseits and thus encode a configuration between objects in more abstract domains. Furthermore, the notion of metaphorical mapping is used to explain the conceptualization and metaphorical transfer of spatial jenseits to abstract domains of human experience.
Keywords: prepositions, trajector-landmark relation, meaning extension, metaphorical mapping, German
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1CL: spatial prepositions
    • 1.2Conceptualization of the TR-LM relationship
    • 1.3Sense extensions of prepositions: radial networks
  • 2. Jenseits in other literature
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.The various senses of Jenseits
    • 4.1The primary sense: On the other side of & at a greater distance away from something
    • 4.2The surpassing of a bounded category sense
    • 4.3The inaccessibility sense
    • 4.4The temporal sense
    • 4.5The in addition to sense
    • 4.6The semantic structure of jenseits
  • 5.The various construals of jenseits
  • 6.Conclusion
  • List of References
Published online: 3 April 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00146.ker
References

List of References

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: 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
Bergen, B.
(2012) Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York, NY: Basic Books.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
Brugman, C.
(1981) The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Cohen, J.
(1968) Weighed kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70 (4), 213–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coventry, K. R.
(2015) Space. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 489–507). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A.
(2004) Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dabrowska, E.
(2016) Cognitive Linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics, 27 (4), 479–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewell, R.
(1994) Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5 (4), 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
Evans, V., & Green, M.
(2006) Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Dirven, R., & Taylor, J. R.
(Eds.) (2006) Cognitive Linguistics: Basic readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D.
(2010) Corpus-driven Cognitive Semantics: Introduction to the field. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer, Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics. Corpus-Driven Approaches (pp. 1–45). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grady, J.
(1997) Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
(2005) Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics, 37 1, 1595–1614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th
(2015) Polysemy. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 472–490). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hampe, B.
(2005) Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics: Introduction. In J. E. Grady & B. Hampe (2005), From perception to meaning. Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 1–14), Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herskovits, A.
(1986) Language and spatial cognition. An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Print.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning. Imagination, and reason. University of Chicago. 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
Kermer, F.
(2021) Semantic network of the German preposition hinter . Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 19 (2), 403–428. 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) Conceptual metaphor in everyday language. The Journal of Philosophy, 77 (8), 453–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1993) Reference-Point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 1, 1–38. DOI logoGoogle 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
(2009) Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin & Amsterdam: Walter de Gruyter. 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
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
Mandler, J.
(2004) The foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thought. USA: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meex, B.
(2002) Die Wegpreposition über . In H. Cuyckens & G. Radden, Perspectives on prepositions (pp. 157–176). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nüse, R.
(2007) Der Gebrauch und die Bedeutungen von auf, an und unter . Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 35 (1), 27–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pütz, D., & Dirven, R.
(Eds.) (1996) The construal of space in language and thought. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
(2007) Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E.
(1975) Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 104 1, 192–233. DOI logoGoogle 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.
(2002) Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tenbrink, T.
(2020) Cognitive discourse analysis. An introduction. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turewicz, K.
(2004) Understanding prepositions through cognitive grammar. A case of IN. In K. Turewicz, 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, 77 1, 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
Vandelanotte, L., & Dancygier, B.
(2017) Multimodal artefacts and the texture of viewpoint. Journal of Pragmatics, 122 1, 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich
(1985) Raum, Zeit und das Lexikon. In Schweizer, H. (Ed.) Psychologische und linguistische Aspekte der Aneignung und Verarbeitung von Räumlichkeit (pp. 66–89) Stuttgart: Metzler.Google 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: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, J.
(2007) Spatial semantics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 318–350). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar