Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T03:59:33.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Networks: The Case of Over

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Andrea Tyler and
Vyvyan Evans
Andrea Tyler*
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Vyvyan Evans*
Affiliation:
University of Sussex, UK
*
Tyler, Linguistics Dept., Georgetown University, Washington DC 20057 [tyleran@georgetown.edu]
Evans, School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QH, UK [vyv@cogs.susx.ac.uk]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores lexical polysemy through an in-depth examination of the English preposition over. Working within a cognitive linguistic framework, the present study illustrates the nonarbitrary quality of the mental lexicon and the highly creative nature of the human conceptual system. The analysis takes the following as basic: (1) human conceptualization is the product of embodied experience, that is, the kinds of bodies and neural architecture humans have, in conjunction with the nature of the spatio-physical world humans inhabit, determine human conceptual structure, and (2) semantic structure derives from and reflects conceptual structure. As humans interact with the world, they perceive recurring spatial configurations that become represented in memory as abstract, imagistic conceptualizations. We posit that each preposition is represented by a primary meaning, which we term a PROTOSCENE. The protoscene, in turn, interacts with a highly constrained set of cognitive principles to derive a set of additional distinct senses, forming a motivated semantic network. Previous accounts have failed to develop adequate criteria to distinguish between coding in formal linguistic expression and the nature of conceptualization, which integrates linguistic prompts in a way that is maximally coherent with and contingent upon sentential context and real-world knowledge. To this end, we put forward a methodology for identifying the protoscene and for distinguishing among distinct senses.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 77 , Issue 4 , December 2001, pp. 724 - 765
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, Paul, Peterson, Mary A., Nadel, Lynn; and Garrett, Merrill F. (eds.) 1996. Language and space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1971. The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brisard, Frank. 1997. The English tense-system as an epistemic category: The case of futurity. Lexical and syntactäcal constructions and the construction of meaning, ed. by Marjolijn Verspoor, K. D. Lee, and Sweetser, Eve, 271–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brugman, Claudia. 1988. The story of over: Polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Press. [1981. The story of over. Berkeley, CA: UC-Berkeley master's thesis.]Google Scholar
Brugman, Claudia, and Lakoff, George. 1988. Cognitive topology and lexical networks. Lexical ambiguity resolution, ed. by Small, S., Cottrell, G., and Tanenhaus, M., 477–507. Palo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere; and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Categories and transformations. The minimalist program, by Noam Chomsky, 219–394. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cienki, Alan. 1998. Straight: An image schema and its metaphorical extensions. Cognitive Linguistics 9. 107–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1973. Space, time, semantics, and the child. Cognitive development and the acquisition of language, ed. by Moore, T., 27–64. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1998. Linguistic evidence and mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics 9. 151–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cushing, Steven. 1990. Prototypical considerations on modal meanings. In Tsohatzidis, 74–90.Google Scholar
Cushing, Steven. 1991. Explaining a missing modal meaning: Ideology and paradigm as pragmatic parameter. Levels of linguistic adaptation, ed. by Verschueren, J., 19–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewell, Robert. 1994. Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 5. 351–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, René. 1993. Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English prepositions. The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing, ed. by Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C., 73–97. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan. 2000. The structure of time: Language, meaning and temporal cognition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University dissertation.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Turner, Mark. 1994. Conceptual projection and Middle Spaces. Cognitive Science Technical Report, no. 9401, UC-San Diego.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Turner, Mark. 1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science 22. 133–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul; and O'Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64. 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1999. Discourse markers across languages: Implications of a case study for historico-comparative and sociolinguistics. Paper presented at Georgetown University, November 1999.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grady, Joseph. 1997. Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Berkeley, CA: UC-Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, ed. by Cole, P. and Morgan, J., 41–58. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herskovits, Annette. 1986. Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul, and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul, and Fillmore, Charles. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? construction. Language 75. 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreitzer, Anatol. 1997. Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space. Cognitive Linguistics 8. 291–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1991a. Concept, image and symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1991b. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1992. Prepositions as grammatical(izing) elements. Leuvenese Bijdragen 81. 287–309.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. Towards a lexical organization of English verbs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lindner, Susan. 1981. A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb particle constructions with out and up. UC-San Diego dissertation. Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, Seth. 1997. English prepositions explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mandler, Jean. 1988. How to build a baby: On the development of an accessible representational system. Cognitive Development 3. 113–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandler, Jean. 1992. How to build a baby: II Conceptual primitives. Pschological Review 99. 587–604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandler, Jean. 1996. Preverbal representation. In Bloom et al., 365–84.Google Scholar
Morgan, Pamela. 1997. Figuring out figure out: Metaphor and the semantics of the English verb-particle construction. Cognitive Linguistics 8. 327–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Dowd, Elizabeth. 1998. Prepositions and particles in English: A discourse-functional account. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1998. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rice, Sally. 1993. Far afield in lexical fields. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 92. 206–17.Google Scholar
Rice, Sally, Sandra, Dominiek; and Vanrespaille, Mia. 1999. Prepositional semantics and the fragile link between space and time. Cultural, psychological and typological issues in cognitive linguistics, ed. by Hiraga, Masako, Sinha, Chris, and Wilcox, Sherman, 107–27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104. 192–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruhl, Charles. 1989. On monosemy: A study in linguistic semantics. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek. 1998. What linguists can and can't tell you about the human mind: A reply to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics 9. 361–378.Google Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek, and Rice, Sally. 1995. Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind—The linguist's or the language user's? Cognitive Linguistics 6. 89–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Daniel, and Wilson, Deirdre. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Svorou, Soteria. 1993. The grammar of space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences. Universals in human language, vol. 4, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph, 625–49. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1983. How language structures space. Spatial orientation: Theory, research and application, ed. by Pick, H. and Acredelo, L., 225–320. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12. 49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1996. Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’. In Bloom et al., 211–76.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65. 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsohatzidis, Savas L. (ed.) 1990. Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Turner, Mark. 1991. Reading minds. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Mark. 1996. The literary mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea, and Evans, Vyvyan. 2002. Spatial scenes: A cognitive approach to prepositions and the experiential basis of meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, Claude. 1990. Representation, prototypes and centrality. In Tsohatzidis, 403–437.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, Claude. 1991. Spatial prepositions: A case study in French. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, Claude. 1994. Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics 5. 157–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varela, Francisco, Thompson, Evan; and Rosch, Eleanor. 1991. The embodied mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar