FROM SPATIAL TO NON-SPATIAL MEANINGS OF ENGLISH PREPOSITIONS IN, AT, AND ON: A HYBRID MULTI-SPACE THEORETICAL APPROACH
Main Article Content
Abstract
Research on the polysemy of English spatial prepositions has traditionally relied on static geometric models or discrete radial networks, often overlooking the functional dynamics governing interaction between the trajector (TR) and the landmark (LM). This article proposes a refined conceptual model, termed Multi-space Theory, to provide a preliminary cognitive account of the semantic transference mechanisms mapping spatial meanings to non-spatial meanings across three prepositions: in, at, and on. The analytical framework systematically integrates Deane's (2005) Multimodal Image Theory (MIT) and Kövecses's (2020) Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Extended CMT). The data were sampled from Margaret Mitchell's novel Gone with the Wind and processed via AntConc software (version 4.3.1). The qualitative analyses demonstrate that semantic transference from the prototypical spatial scene into the target Mental Space is jointly driven by image-schema transformations and conceptual metaphorical/metonymic mappings. Crucially, this study argues that beyond the three established sensorimotor spaces (Visual, Maneuver, and Kinetic), each preposition inherently encodes a distinctive Functional Space, associated with boundary-based containment control (in), with supporting and activating surfaces (on), and with coordinate coincidence and localized engagement (at). The primary theoretical contribution lies in establishing a conceptual bridge explaining how functional affordances abstract to shape non-spatial mental constructs, providing initial evidence to overcome the purely geometric limitations of preceding paradigms.
Keywords
meaning transference, locative prepositions, functional space, Multi-space Theory, Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory
Article Details
References
Boers, F. (1996). Spatial Prepositions and Metaphor: A Cognitive Semantic Journey Along the Up-Down and the Front-Back Dimensions. Gunter Narr. https://philpapers.org/rec/BOESPA
Connor, U., & Upton, T. A. (2004). Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.16
Deane, P. (2005). Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of over. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 235–284). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.3.235
Do, T. L. (2022). Over again: A cognitive account of its meaning transference in the light of an image-schema based model. Gema Online Journal of Language Studies, 22(2), 1-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/gema-2022-2202-01
Do, T. L., & Vu, T. H. T. (2022). The Meaning Transference From Spatial to Non-Spatial Meanings of Below. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 38(3), 88–100. https://doi.org/10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4845
Do, T. L. (2023). The transference from spatial to non-spatial meanings of "Over, Above, Under, Below". Vietnam National University Press.
Do, T. L. (2024). Run: A Cognitive Account of Its Meaning Transference in the Light of an Image-Schema Based Model. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 40(3), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.63023/2525-2445/jfs.ulis.5267
Evans, V. (2009). How words mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models, and Meaning Construction. Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/book/9110/chapter-abstract/155713584?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Evans, V. (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. 1-28). University of Toronto Press. https://books.google.com.vn/books/about/Language_Cognition_and_Space.html?id=Cnb4PQAACAAJ&redir_esc=y
Evans, V. F., Evans, V., Margolis, E. (Ed.), & Laurence, S. (Ed.) (2015). What's in a concept? Analogue versus parametric concepts in LCCM Theory. In The Conceptual Mind: New directions in the Study of Concepts (pp. 25-29). MIT Press. https://research.bangor.ac.uk/en/publications/whats-in-a-concept-analogue-versus-parametric-concepts-in-lccm-th/
Evans, V. (2018). Conceptual vs. inter-lexical polysemy: An LCCM theory account. In L. Pickering & V. Evans (Eds.), Language learning, discourse and cognition: Studies in the tradition of Andrea Tyler (pp. 159-190). John Benjamins. https://benjamins.com/catalog/hcp.64.08eva?srsltid=AU7gw4Ul8rPfA2rqIm_1uc2HFrbzhUdzo9i6hF4sW5-LOVtCBvUk_O5y
Group, P. (2007). MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752
Hedblom, M. M., Kutz, O., Mossakowski, T., & Neuhaus, F. (2017). Between contact and support: Introducing a logic for image schemas and directed movement. In F. Esposito, R. Basili, S. Ferilli, & F. A. Lisi (Eds.), AI*IA 2017: Advances in artificial intelligence (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10640, pp. 256–268). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70169-1_19
Kövecses, Z. (2020). Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859127
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo3632089.html
Mitchell, M. (1936). Gone with the wind. Macmillan. https://www.panmacmillan.com/authors/margaret-mitchell/gone-with-the-wind/9781529091410
Navarro, F. (2003). A cognitive semantics analysis of the lexical units At, On and In in English. [Dissertation, University of Jaume I]. https://portalcientific.uji.es/documentos/5c13b146c8914b6ed3776304
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. II: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. The MIT Press. http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2000-00903-000
Thora, T. (2004). Review of The Semantics of English Prepositions. Linguistlist. https://linguistlist.org/issues/15/296/
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, Embodied meaning, and Cognition. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517