Statement of the Problem
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners often struggle with mastering the language, particularly when it comes to understanding prepositions, which are frequently perceived as less significant than nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs This misconception leads learners to focus on expanding their vocabulary in these areas while underestimating the importance of prepositions Traditional views suggest that the meanings of prepositions are arbitrary and unrelated, resulting in lengthy lists of their various senses in dictionaries and grammar books that fail to connect them semantically Consequently, EFL learners encounter difficulties with prepositions due to their dual literal and figurative meanings, as illustrated by examples such as "at the hospital" versus "in the hospital" and "in bed" versus "on the couch."
In recent decades, significant research has focused on the relationship between the various meanings of English prepositions, particularly within the field of Cognitive Linguistics Scholars have explored polysemy, emphasizing the meanings of prepositions (Lindner, 1982; Vandeloise, 1991; Pütz & Dirven, 1996; Tyler & Evans, 2003) Cognitive semanticists have notably advanced our understanding of polysemy through the concept of radial categories (Lakoff, 1987), suggesting that the meanings of polysemous words form a vast semantic network of interconnected senses It is now clear that all related meanings of a preposition share a common core, originating from a primary spatial schema or proto-scene (Tyler & Evans, 2003), which can evolve into non-spatial, abstract meanings through processes of generalization, specialization, metonymy, or metaphor (Cuyckens & Radden, 2002).
Cognitive semantics explores the relationship between human experience, conceptual systems, and the semantic structures encoded in language (Lakoff, 1987) Researchers in this field utilize language to investigate cognitive phenomena, particularly in the realm of spatial prepositions Cross-language studies reveal that while spatial cognition is universal, the strategies for conceptualizing space differ among languages Despite sharing similar biological features and environmental experiences, the linguistic encoding of spatial concepts varies across languages (Choi & Bowerman, 1991; Levinson).
The preposition "in" is a commonly used spatial preposition in English, yet Vietnamese EFL learners, particularly at the Military Science Academy, often struggle with its correct usage They tend to rely on direct translations from Vietnamese, such as "in" for "trong," "on" for "trên," and "for" for "cho," without considering the nuances of different contexts This misunderstanding can significantly hinder their ability to achieve fluency in English To address this issue, it is crucial to explore the meanings of "in" through the lens of cognitive semantics, which helps reveal how native speakers perceive spatial relationships and how these concepts extend to non-spatial contexts through metaphor and metonymy Furthermore, the translation of "in" into Vietnamese in various collocations remains under-researched This thesis aims to enhance the understanding of spatial relations across languages and suggests that teachers employ effective methods to aid students in mastering prepositional meanings Additionally, students should be equipped with appropriate learning strategies to improve their language skills and cross-cultural understanding.
For all the above-mentioned reasons, it is strongly desirable for the author to conduct this thesis.
Aims of the Study
The current thesis aims at
- uncovering a semantic description of the English preposition in in light of cognitive semantics
- investigating potential Vietnamese equivalents of the English preposition in
- embarking on pedagogical implications for teaching, learning and translating English prepositions.
Scope of the Study
The study is limited to investigating senses of the English preposition in and their
This article explores Vietnamese equivalents within the cognitive semantic framework, focusing on both prototypical and derived meanings of the preposition "in," which are influenced by image-schema transformations and metaphorical mappings The study is based on a manual corpus of 681 examples in the structures (NP) + in + NP and NP + V + in + NP, specifically examining "in" as a preposition, excluding its adverbial or affix roles Data were sourced from the English versions of "Vanity Fair" by Thackeray, "Jane Eyre" by Brontë, and English-Vietnamese translation textbooks for third and fourth-year English majors at the MSA The Vietnamese equivalents of these occurrences were identified and categorized by frequency and percentage to analyze the differences and similarities in spatial conceptualization and cognition between English and Vietnamese.
Significance of the Study
This thesis presents compelling evidence from cognitive semantics that the English preposition "in" encompasses multiple related meanings, reflecting how native speakers perceive the physical world based on their experiences It also adopts a comparative approach by exploring potential Vietnamese equivalents, shedding light on how spatial meanings are expressed in Vietnamese The research aims to enhance the body of cognitive semantic studies on prepositions from a cross-linguistic viewpoint, with findings that will significantly aid in teaching and learning English, as well as in English-Vietnamese translation Additionally, the results may serve as a valuable resource for lexicographers in the development of new general and specialized dictionaries.
Research Questions
The following questions are proposed in the current research:
- What meanings are conveyed by the English preposition in from a cognitive semantic perspective?
- What are Vietnamese equivalents of the English preposition in?
This study in turn, hopes to contribute to enriching pedagogical proposals for teaching English prepositions and translation of prepositions to English major students at the MSA.
Design of the Study
This paper is structured into four key sections: the INTRODUCTION outlines the problem statement, study aims, scope, significance, research questions, and overall organization The DEVELOPMENT section is divided into two chapters, with CHAPTER 1 providing the theoretical background and CHAPTER 2 detailing the study's methods, data collection, analytical framework, findings, and discussion Finally, the CONCLUSION summarizes the research outcomes, highlights pedagogical implications, and offers suggestions for future research, along with a comprehensive list of references.
THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES
A Brief Overview of Cognitive Linguistics
Cognitive linguistics, a contemporary field of linguistic study that gained prominence in the late 1970s and early 1980s, focuses on exploring the connections between human language, cognitive processes, and socio-physical experiences (Croft & Cruse, 2004; Evans & Green, 2006; Langacker, 1987).
This paradigm posits that linguistic knowledge is intertwined with general cognition and thinking, suggesting that linguistic behavior is not isolated from other cognitive abilities such as reasoning, memory, attention, and learning Instead, it is viewed as an integral component of these mental processes (Johnson, 1987).
Cognitive linguistics is founded on two key principles: first, that language is an essential aspect of cognition, and second, that language is inherently symbolic This perspective, as outlined by Lakoff (1987), necessitates a 'cognitive commitment' from linguists, acknowledging the connection between language and cognitive processes Saeed (1997) emphasizes that language principles reflect broader cognitive principles and that the distinction between language and other mental functions is a matter of degree rather than kind Additionally, Langacker (1987) posits that language's symbolic nature arises from the relationship between semantic and phonological representations, aligning with Saussure's concept of the linguistic sign Cognitive linguists argue that language is not arbitrarily structured but is instead motivated by our physical, social, and cultural experiences, encapsulated in the concept of 'embodiment' (Johnson, 1987; Lakoff, 1987).
The central concept posits that mental and linguistic categories are not abstract or independent of human experience; rather, they are formed through our tangible experiences and the limitations of our physical bodies.
As a consequence, this new paradigm could be seen as a reaction against the dominant generative paradigm which pursues an autonomous and arbitrary view of language.
A Brief Overview of Cognitive Semantics
Cognitive semantics, a branch of cognitive linguistics, explores the interplay between experience, conceptual systems, and the semantic structures expressed in language Scholars in this field focus on knowledge representation and meaning construction, bridging the gap between pragmatics and semantics According to Talmy (2000), cognitive semantics views language meaning as a reflection of conceptual structure, highlighting the complexity of mental representation This unique perspective allows cognitive semanticists to use language as a tool to examine cognitive phenomena, making their research equally focused on modeling the human mind and understanding linguistic semantics.
Cognitive semantics, as outlined by Talmy (2000), Lakoff & Johnson (1980), and Geeraerts (1999), is governed by four key principles: first, conceptual structure is embodied; second, semantic structure reflects conceptual structure; third, meaning representation is encyclopaedic in nature; and fourth, meaning construction involves the process of conceptualization.
The conceptual structure we possess is fundamentally shaped by our unique neuro-anatomical architecture and bodily experiences, leading to a species-specific perspective of the world (Geerearts, 1993; Talmy, 1985, 2000; Taylor, 1989) Our understanding of reality is largely influenced by our embodiment, as we can only discuss what we can perceive and conceive, which arises from our physical experiences Consequently, the human mind is deeply imprinted by these embodied experiences, reinforcing the idea that our conceptualization is inherently a product of our embodiment.
The principle of semantic structure as conceptual structure posits that language reflects the concepts held in the speaker's mind rather than directly referencing an objectively real external world This means that while semantic structure—comprising the meanings linked to words—can be aligned with conceptual structure, they are not identical Cognitive semanticists argue that the meanings derived from linguistic units like words represent only a fraction of the broader range of concepts that exist in the minds of speakers Ultimately, individuals possess a wealth of thoughts, ideas, and emotions that extend beyond what can be expressed through conventional language.
The third guiding principle asserts that semantic structure is inherently encyclopaedic, indicating that lexical concepts function as access points to extensive knowledge related to specific concepts or domains (Langacker, 1987) While it is acknowledged that words possess conventional meanings, cognitive semanticists maintain that these meanings are merely a starting point for understanding the broader encyclopaedic knowledge associated with each linguistic unit.
‘prompt’ for the process of meaning construction: the ‘selection’ of an appropriate interpretation against the context of the utterance
The fourth guiding principle asserts that language does not inherently encode meaning; rather, words act as prompts for constructing meaning (Geeraerts, 1999) This construction occurs at the conceptual level, where linguistic units facilitate various conceptual operations and draw upon background knowledge Thus, meaning is viewed as a dynamic process rather than a fixed entity that can be neatly encapsulated by language.
Spatial Prepositions
Spatial prepositions, according to Cuyckens (1993), illustrate the spatial relationship between two entities They define how one entity (x) is positioned in relation to another entity (y), highlighting the location of x concerning the place indicated by y.
Prepositions that indicate spatial relationships can be categorized into two types: prepositions of location and prepositions of direction Prepositions of location, also known as spatial prepositions, are commonly used with verbs that describe states or conditions, particularly the verb "be." In contrast, prepositions of direction are typically paired with verbs that convey motion.
1.3.2 Syntactic Perspectives on Spatial Prepositions
According to Quirk et al (1985), a preposition indicates a relationship between two entities, with one entity known as the prepositional complement This complement often appears as a noun phrase, a nominalised wh-clause, a nominalised ing-clause, or occasionally as an adjective or adverb Together, the preposition and its complement form a prepositional phrase, which typically serves as a postmodifier in a noun phrase or functions adverbially Additionally, spatial prepositions are a subset of prepositions, inheriting these relational characteristics.
1.3.3 Semantic Perspectives on Spatial Prepositions
Rice (1996) posits that prepositions have their own distinct lexical meanings, separate from the nouns or pronouns they accompany This perspective suggests that each preposition not only holds a core lexical meaning but also has lexical viability We endorse this view, which implies that an independent lexical meaning is supported by a semantic kernel, surrounded by various peripheral meanings However, there is no consensus on the exact nature of a preposition's lexical meaning, with differing interpretations existing in linguistic studies.
The relationship between words serves as a significant extra-linguistic aspect, particularly when examining the semantics of prepositions Understanding prepositions involves navigating a complex web of meanings, highlighting the intricate connections that exist within language.
Most prepositions primarily convey spatial relations, as noted by Tyler & Evans (2003) and others These spatial meanings serve as a foundation for deriving additional meanings Langacker (1987) introduced the concepts of trajector (TR) and landmark (LM) to describe relational expressions involving spatial prepositions, where the TR represents the figure whose location is indicated, while the LM acts as the reference point that specifies this location.
Langacker's framework distinguishes between the trajector (TR) and landmark (LM) in spatial relationships, as seen in the example "The bird is in the tree," where the bird represents the TR and the tree the LM This foundational meaning serves as a basis for metaphorical extensions, as discussed by Lindstromberg (1998), who differentiates between literal and extended meanings For instance, the literal use of "in" in "He's in bed" contrasts with its metaphorical application in "He is in trouble," where "in" signifies a non-physical state This early-acquired literal meaning often pertains to the physical world, providing a foundation for understanding more abstract concepts.
Tyler and Evans (2003) highlight that a semantic network is centered around a primary spatial meaning that connects the trajector and landmark This primary meaning, which encompasses literal and basic interpretations, can be further expanded through metaphorical and metonymic extensions They also emphasize that the application of spatial meanings in prepositions to convey non-spatial relationships is well-motivated Consequently, English learners might find prepositions less challenging if they grasp the underlying logic of their usage.
Cognitive Semantics Approach to Spatial Prepositions
In the present study, the semantic analysis of the English preposition in and its
Vietnamese equivalents are accounted for and illustrated within the framework of cognitive semantics Hence, primary notions proposed by Johnson (1987), Langacker
The concepts of experiential realism, image schemas, prototype and radial categories, metaphor as a mechanism for meaning extension, polysemy, perspective, and subjectivity, as discussed by scholars such as Lakoff (1987) and others (1987, 1991a), provide a foundational framework for data analysis These key ideas will be examined in the following sections.
1.4.1 Experiential Realism, Image Schemas and Spatial Prepositions
Cognitive Semantics posits that our conceptual systems are rooted in bodily experiences, shaped by perception, movement, and social interactions (Johnson, 1987) Lakoff (1987) links experiential realism to connectionism, biologism, and social realism, emphasizing the importance of acknowledging the real world and its constraints on our concepts He argues that human reasoning is influenced by genetic inheritance, environmental factors, and both social and physical activities Furthermore, Lakoff highlights that our bodies and repeated actions provide a fundamental experiential foundation for understanding various image schemas.
Image schemas, as defined by Johnson (1987), represent recurrent patterns and regularities in our actions, perceptions, and conceptions According to Gibbs & Colston (1995), cited in Geeraerts & Cuyckens (2007), these schemas emerge from our bodily experiences during activities, influencing how we manipulate objects and orient ourselves in space and time Johnson and Lakoff argue that our experiences are preconceptually structured, with gestalts rich in structure that they refer to as image schemas Lakoff identifies various schemas, such as the CONTAINER schema, which helps us understand concepts of containment, and the PART-WHOLE schema, applicable to social structures like families and organizations Other notable schemas include the LINK schema for interpersonal relationships, the CENTRE-PERIPHERY schema for prioritizing importance, and the SOURCE-PATH schema for navigating daily life Lakoff posits that these schemas are grounded in universal human experiences, forming prelinguistic cognitive structures that shape our primary conceptualizations and word meanings, which are influenced by socio-cultural beliefs rather than being strictly feature-based.
According to Johnson (1987), metaphor plays a vital role in connecting image schemas with abstract thought, serving as a key link between physical experiences and rational thinking This relationship will be explored in the subsequent section.
Image schemas play a crucial role in understanding the spatial relations expressed by prepositions, as they map to specific prepositions in various combinatory ways within a language These schemas help clarify seemingly contradictory usages of prepositions, such as how the container schema explains the multiple meanings of "in" and the source-path schema accounts for the meanings of "to." Langacker emphasizes that physical space is the most significant domain for conceptualizing prepositions Ontogenetically, a speaker must first develop a conceptual schema in this fundamental domain to acquire specialized concepts, allowing them to categorize new instances This process enables the extension of concepts to new meanings through metaphorical mappings or transformations of image schemas.
Cognitive semantics perceives metaphor not as a breach of linguistic competence, as suggested by Generative Linguistics, but as a tool for conceptualizing abstract experiences through familiar, concrete terms This approach allows for the understanding and even creation of one cognitive domain using elements typically linked to another domain.
Metaphor serves as a crucial conceptual mechanism for understanding abstract ideas and reasoning, as highlighted by Langacker (1990) It involves mappings between conceptual domains that create correspondences between entities in both the target and source domains, allowing for the projection of inference patterns from the source onto the target Grounded in bodily experiences and everyday knowledge, metaphors form an unconscious subsystem of our conceptual framework This conventional metaphor system operates automatically and is integral to our comprehension of experiences and subsequent actions It significantly influences the grammar and lexicon of language, with certain aspects being universal while others are culture-specific This understanding suggests that inference patterns from the source domain remain intact in the target domain, and metaphorical mappings occur only when the target domain's inference patterns align with those of the source domain (Lakoff, 1990; Barcelona, 2003).
Metaphors extend beyond mere literary devices; they are integral to everyday language and serve as essential conceptual tools By utilizing metaphors, individuals can better understand and navigate abstract concepts, enhancing both communication and comprehension in various contexts.
With respect to spatial semantic categories, certain aspects of the basic physical domain are highlighted to understand and create abstract domains (Lakoff & Johnson,
Our interactions with the tangible world, including people, objects, and events, shape our understanding of abstract concepts Prepositions, when employed figuratively, illustrate a metaphorical mapping from physical space to conceptual space, supported by conceptual image schemas (Boers, 1996) These schemas, rooted in spatial experiences, form the foundation for prepositional usage in the physical realm and extend metaphorically to other domains Metaphor theory thus reveals the processes involved in creating and processing conventional figurative language This framework can be viewed as a mechanism activating semantic categories for application in abstract contexts, particularly in the abstract uses of prepositions In our analysis, we aim to explore and account for the various metaphorical extensions of these predicates.
1.4.3 Prototype, Radial Category and Spatial Prepositions
Rosch (1973) posits that categories, particularly in domains like color and shape, form around perceptually salient prototypes, which are psychologically determined and likely universal, though cultural variations may exist in category boundaries Object categories also revolve around prototypes, with their content influenced by cultural factors Categories are organized to enhance the correlation and predictability of attributes, leading to the establishment of prototypes that best represent the category's attribute structure This organization simplifies and clarifies categories, making them appear more distinct than they may actually be While categories and prototypes can differ across cultures, the underlying principles of their formation and development are expected to be universal Prototypes act as reference points for categorizing less clear instances, with entities gaining category membership based on their similarity to the prototype; the closer an entity is to the prototype, the more central its role within the category.
Category structures and prototype effects play a vital role in shaping the organization of radial categories Prototype effects highlight that certain members of a category are seen as more representative than others (Lakoff, 1987) In a radial category, non-prototypes extend outward from a central prototype, which holds the most significant position This structure exemplifies polysemy as an intricate semantic network, featuring a central prototypical sense and various non-prototypical senses that arise from human imaginative capacities, including metaphorical mappings and image schema transformations, showcasing a natural and systematic organization of related meanings.
Polysemy refers to a single linguistic form that encompasses multiple distinct yet related meanings (Taylor, 2002) In recent decades, cognitive semantics has focused on this phenomenon, with key insights from linguists like Langacker, Lakoff, and Johnson They argue that the lexicon is structured as a natural category, where various meanings are organized around a central sense, forming a semantic network Thus, cognitive semantics suggests that the lexicon is more complex than previously understood.
Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1999) and Lakoff (1987) argue that polysemy arises from figurative language use, suggesting that both language and cognition function metaphorically This perspective posits that human reasoning is rooted in perception, bodily movement, and social experience, rather than merely abstract symbol manipulation Metaphor, metonymy, and mental imagery serve as tools for comprehending abstract concepts not directly linked to experience This understanding is further enriched by prototype theory (Rosch, 1977, 1978) and cognitive models (Lakoff, 1987), where related word meanings form categories with family resemblances According to Lakoff, polysemy results from systematic relationships among different cognitive models and their elements Consequently, various models of lexical networks emerge, depicting meanings of a lexeme as a radially structured category with a central member, connected through image-schema transformations and metaphors.
Cognitive semanticists, including Rice (1996), Lakoff (1987), and Langacker (1991a), have explored the structure of prepositional polysemy through various lexical networks Despite differences among these networks, they share common characteristics, indicating that they are integrated structures with interconnected nodes These nodes represent distinct senses or usage types of the preposition, radiating from a central node that typically represents the prototype of the lexical category This paper focuses on Rice's (1996) lexical network, which posits that novel senses emerge primarily at the periphery of the category, extending from already established senses.
In cognitive semantics, as outlined by Langacker (1987, 1990), the concepts of perspective and subjectivity play a crucial role in understanding meaning According to Langacker (1990), the essence of cognitive semantics lies in the idea that meaning cannot solely be defined by an objective description of a situation; rather, it is equally vital to consider how the conceptualizer interprets and expresses that situation This perspective emphasizes that the semantic value of an expression is influenced by various factors, including the specificity of the situation, underlying assumptions and expectations, the prominence of different entities, and the overall viewpoint taken on the scene.
THE STUDY
Research Questions
It is worth restating the two research questions that guideline the study:
- From a cognitive semantic perspective, what meanings does the English preposition in have?
- What are potential Vietnamese equivalents of the English preposition in?
Methodology
This paper explores the diverse meanings of the English preposition "in" and its possible Vietnamese equivalents from a cognitive semantic viewpoint Cognitive semanticists emphasize the relationships among different word senses, recognizing that understanding these distinctions is complex Traditional studies have relied on decontextualized data gathered through introspection, which can lead to empirically questionable findings To address this, cognitive linguistics now incorporates psycholinguistic experimentation and corpus analysis While psycholinguistic experiments reveal individual perceptions of word senses, corpus analysis reflects social patterns, with Geeraerts highlighting the concept of onomasiological entrenchment, where higher frequency in corpora indicates greater entrenchment of a word's sense within the linguistic community.
This study employs a corpus-based analysis to address the first research question by determining the prototypical sense of the preposition "in" based on its frequency in the corpus This approach highlights the cue validity of the most relevant perceptual aspects associated with "in." Subsequently, other meanings derived from "in" will be classified according to their relationship with the prototypical sense through sense shifts and metaphorical extensions.
In addressing the second research question, contrastive analysis is utilized to explore potential Vietnamese equivalents of the English preposition "in." As noted by James (1980), this analytical approach is crucial for understanding the nuances between two languages and offers insights into equivalence challenges The study will provide a thorough examination of the distinct differences and similarities in language use, reflecting how cognitive structures shape spatial understanding.
In our analysis, we collected a corpus of 681 instances focusing on the use of "in." The study specifically examines occurrences of "in" in the structures (NP) + in + NP and NP + V + in.
The study analyzed noun phrases (NP) where "in" functions as a preposition, sourced from Vanity Fair by Thackeray, Jane Eyre by Bronte, and English-Vietnamese translation textbooks for third and fourth-year English majors at MSA Examples deemed excessively repetitive were omitted to ensure clarity These sources were selected because they are included in the MSA curriculum, allowing for reliable translational equivalents.
Actually, of all the 681 in-samples which have been gathered manually, 221 instances occur in Vanity Fair by Thackeray, W M., 198 in Jane Eyre by Bronte, C and
The English-Vietnamese translation course books for third and fourth-year English majors at MSA include 262 entries focused on disambiguating the meanings of prepositions Each English preposition is paired with its Vietnamese equivalents, ensuring clarity in translation The identification and selection process involved a meticulous manual review of both source and target texts Extracted prepositions and their corresponding translations were organized into separate tables for classification Additionally, the frequency of different variation types was recorded and expressed as percentages to enhance understanding.
The framework of this thesis is based on the particular notions in cognitive semantics, namely, image schemas, prototype theory and radial category, and metaphorical meaning extension
The conceptual image schema of CONTAINER, as proposed by Johnson (1987), serves as the foundational meaning of the preposition "in," representing enclosure This schema is believed to be the first meaning acquired by children and precedes the extension of meanings It provides a basis for new senses to emerge through natural image-schema transformations Extensions are primarily understood as metaphorical mappings from spatial domains to various aspects of human experience, such as social and scientific contexts In this analysis of the English preposition "in," the focus will be on metaphorical extensions, highlighting the phenomenon of polysemy.
Lakoff's (1987) concept of the radial category, rooted in prototype theory, offers a clear framework for understanding the organization of the polysemous English preposition "in." This approach allows us to see how "in" forms a complex semantic network, with its prototypical sense at the center of the radial structure, representing the most fundamental meaning Surrounding this central sense are the non-prototypical meanings, which arise from sense shifts and metaphorical projections, radiating outward All these non-prototypical and metaphorical interpretations are interconnected with the prototypical sense, creating a systematic and natural network of meanings for "in."
This article utilizes contrastive analysis, as outlined by James (1995), to examine the Vietnamese equivalents of the preposition "in." Additionally, the concepts of vantage point and subjectivity, proposed by Langacker (1987), play a crucial role in elucidating potential Vietnamese translations found in our corpus Through this exploration, we aim to reveal both the differences and similarities in spatial conceptualization between English and Vietnamese, highlighting the intriguing ways cognitive elements are encoded across different languages.
Data Analysis, Findings and Discussion
This section focuses on two key aspects: the distinct yet interconnected meanings of the English spatial preposition "in" and its Vietnamese equivalents The analysis will be divided into three parts: first, it will present the conceptual image schema or prototypical meaning of "in"; second, it will explore the non-prototypical senses and metaphorical extensions of "in"; and third, it will develop the radial category of "in." Additionally, the section will examine the Vietnamese translational equivalents of "in," providing a thorough analysis of both prepositional and non-prepositional forms.
2.5.1 Meanings of the English Preposition “in”
What is proposed in numerous works on prepositions like Lindkvist (1950), Miller,
G & Johnson-Laird (1976), Herskovits (1986), and Cienki (1989) highlight that image schemas serve as foundational conceptual frameworks that drive the development of concepts However, these central schemas are not static; they evolve across different contexts, leading to polysemy Notably, while the concept's origin can be traced back to the container schema, the central schema for "in," rooted in bodily experiences, suggests the emergence of an enclosure prototype.
It is found that fifty nine out of in-occurrences in our corpus convey this typical meaning
The enclosure prototype, as described by Vandeloise (1991) and Lindkvist (1950), is a three-dimensional, hollow structure that is completely enclosed on all sides This concept encompasses three key semantic modes of spatial understanding: the Theme Referent (TR) coincides with the interior space of the Location Marker (LM), the TR is capable of movement within this interior, and the LM exerts control over the TR by either protecting it from external entities or isolating it from the outside world Examples of this total enclosure prototype include buildings, parts of buildings, human and animal bodies, various modes of transportation like cars and planes, and inanimate objects such as wardrobes and bottles.
(1) … every one of the servants in the house … (Thackeray, 2001: 15)
(2) …, visited it to review the contents of a certain secret drawer in the wardrobe (Brontở, 2001: 25)
(3) "And the pain in your chest?" (Brontở, 2001: 202)
(4) …I recalled the time when I had traveled that very road in a coach (Brontở, 2001: 297)
2.5.1.2 Non-prototypical Meanings of “in”
The prototypical schema undergoes two main transformations: partial enclosure and interior region as LM (Cienki, 1989; Navarro-Ferrando, 1998), each of which in turn gives origin to a new chain of meanings
Partial enclosure occurs when the boundaries set by the landmark (LM) are perceived as incomplete, allowing a portion of the trajector to remain visible This concept is commonly associated with landmarks such as corners, doors, frames, seats, balconies, beds, clothing, and trees.
37 occurrences of in in our corpus Consider the following examples:
(5) … in her night dress…(Thackeray, 2001: 46)
(6) …I knew quite well that I was in my own bed (Brontở, 2001: 75)
This partial enclosure sense gives rise to a novel chain of meanings as follows:
1) Inclusion (sense 2) With regard to Vandeloise (1991), and Talmy, L (1983) inclusion reflects the sense that the TR is found within the limits of an area or line What has occurred here is a focalization on topological relations between TRs and LMs This sense is used with two-dimensional surface complements like land, country, yard, suburb, park, ground, field, roads, territory, garden, forest, plain, desert, island, peninsula, moors, etc or proper names that denote this type of geographical area This sense is also used with one-dimensional LMs like line, direction, route, etc What is noteworthy here is that LMs designate areas which are conceptualized as having limits and marking the region where location of the TR demands the preposition in to express the topological relationship of coincidence which exists between both elements
(7) … the darling girls caught a colt in a paddock, … (Thackeray, 2001: 70)
(8)… light in the churchyard just over his grave (Brontở, 2001: 78)
(9)… I was a mile from Thornfield, in a lane noted for wild roses in summer (Brontở, 2001: 347)
As regards expressions such as centre, middle, heart, bottom, etc., the location of the trajector within an entity with limits is more closely defined that the above-mentioned ones:
(10) I wish it were in the bottom of the Thames… (Thackeray, 2001: 9)
(11)… right in the middle of the garden… (Brontở, 2001: 326)
All in all, 78 out of 681 cases of in collected in our corpus manifest the so-called inclusion meaning
2) Integrated parts in the whole (sense 2a) This meaning requires an image schema involving a TR as a part of a LM The TR is conceived of as located in the interior region defined by the external boundaries of the LM Thus, the LM is likely to be a row, a machine, a collection, a set, a programme, a food, a substance, a chain of mountains, etc which consists of integral components 18 examples of in in our corpus are found to possess this meaning For instance:
(12) The pictures are displayed in sets (Chung et al, 2002: 23)
(13) we had only a short end of candle in our candlestick (Brontở, 2001: 268)
3) Gap / object embedded in physical object (sense 2b) For example: a gate in the wall, vacancies in a company, lacking in courage, etc This sense accounts for 11 examples of in in our corpus Take a look at the following:
(14) A few enterprises were lacking in well-qualified staff (Chung et al, 2002: 63)
The second transformation of the prototypical schema involves using the interior region as a locative marker (LM) to describe spaces within containers such as holes, cracks, and leaks, as well as in specific phrases like "in place of" and "in lieu of" (Navarro-Ferrando, 1998).
(15) … English excellently dubbed in place of the Russian dialogue (Chung et al, 2003: 57)
4) Medium (sense 3) The term medium is described as the intervening or surrounding substances, fluid, conditions or influences, according to Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C (1993) The
LM serves as a medium that occupies the interior space defined by lost boundaries, encompassing elements such as air, sky, space, wind, and various weather phenomena This concept is illustrated through linguistic expressions like "in the sun," "in the rain," and "in the dark," which highlight the connection between the trajector and the space filled by these media Additionally, the medium can include fluids like water and wine, as well as solid substances such as soil and sand Notably, our analysis reveals 46 occurrences of "in" that convey this meaning, emphasizing the significance of these spatial relationships.
(16) …, the road, the tranquil hills, all reposing in the autumn day's sun; (Brontở, 2001: 291)
(17) … waited it in silence… (Brontở, 2001: 42)
(18)… There is a high gale in that sky, and on this hill-top (Brontở, 2001: 356)
(19) … go to bed in the dark… (Thackeray, 2001: 66)
5) Material (sense 3a) In Vandeloise’s (1991) account, entities that are made of a material are conceived of as if included in a medium filled with that material Put differently, the
The concept of TR is often associated with or filled by LM, where colors are perceived as materials This perspective allows us to recognize colors in various substances such as ink, silver, gold, blood, and green In the analyzed corpus, there are 20 instances of "in" that convey this meaning.
(20)… everything on that table was in silver, too (Thackeray, 2001: 68)
(21) … embroidery, […] raised pattern in blue, pink, bronze and gold… (Chung et al, 2002: 77)
(22) " It was a landscape in water colours (Brontở, 2001: 272)
The term "in" has various meanings that extend beyond its spatial origins, as these meanings evolve metaphorically when applied to different contexts This transformation occurs through human imagination, allowing spatial concepts to influence interpretations in non-spatial domains, which is the main focus of this section.
3.5.1.3.1 Metaphorical extension of the enclosure prototype
It is interesting to note that the mappings of the enclosure sense onto abstract and social domains give rise to a series of metaphorical transferences, which take up 252 out of
681 in-occurrences in our corpus The following are the most remarkable cases:
1) THE HUMAN BODY OR ITS PARTS ARE CONTAINERS FOR EMOTIONS, THOUGHTS, PHYSICAL STATES, VITAL FORCES, AND CHARACTER Actually, the head is conceived of as a container for thoughts, knowledge, imagination, memories and all the activities connected with the brain; the heart and soul are seen as containers for emotions; the body is regarded as a location of a person’s character, and so on
(23) This scheme I went over twice, thrice; it was then digested in my mind (Brontở, 2001: 257)
(24) …, but friendly feelings are concealed in their hearts (Brontở, 2001: 190) (25)… who can but admire this quality of gratitude in an unprotected orphan? (Thackeray, 2001: 79)
2) ORGANISATIONS AND SOCIAL GROUPS ARE CONTAINERS FOR PEOPLE AND EVENTS Institutions like political parties, associations, schools, universities, classes, Parliaments, churches, clubs, and so on illustrate this sense
(26) I have been made to tend the little girls in the lower school classes (Thackeray, 2001: 10)
(27)… many of Mr Bush's natural allies in the corporate community (Chung et al, 2002: 31)
3) TERRITORES, COUNTRIES, CITIES, PROVINCES, etc ARE CONTAINERS They are seen as containers for people, laws, social conditions, traditions, customs, to name just a few, within their scope of influence
(28) … as happy […] a girl as any in the whole big city of London… (Thackeray, 2001: 15)
(29) … Internet use […] in China, Japan and South Korea (Chung et al, 2002: 27)
4) BOOKS ARE CONTAINERS FOR IDEAS AND INFORMATION Books are used as a general terms for literary works, newspapers, magazines, journals, letters documents, theses, or parts and sections of these
(30) … the Princess of Persia puts in the cream-tarts in the Arabian Nights (Thackeray, 2001: 20)
(31) … a vein of interest deeper than what I found in fairy tales (Brontở, 2001: 74)
(32) … A new chapter in a novel is something like a new scene in a play (Brontở, 2001: 244)
5) WORDS AND LANGUAGE ARE CONTAINERS FOR IDEAS AND MEANINGS With reference to Lakoff and Johnson (1980), this is regarded as conduit metaphor Specifically, the speaker puts ideas (objects) into words (containers) and sends them (along a conduit) to a bearer who takes the ideas out of the words This sense is manifested in such LMs as word, sentence, speech, resolution, remark, message, etc For example:
(33) … and there is sarcasm in his speech … (Chung et al, 2002: 27)
(34) … and in those last words lies the secret of the red-room (Brontở, 2001:23)
6) LANGUAGES ARE CONTAINERS FOR VOCABULARY, GRAMMATICAL RULES, STYLISTIC ASPECTS, SEMANTIC PROPERTIES,etc
(35) … to wait centuries to see changes in the English language (Chung et al, 2003: 42)
7) EXTERNAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE CONTAINERS Numerous negative or difficult circumstances are conceptualized as containers that exert control over somebody However, positive or good situations are conceived of as access to hidden or inaccessible entities This metaphor is exhibited in such expressions as in the wrong, in tumult, in insurrection, in danger, in trouble, in need, in power, in office, in business, in slavery, in no circumstances, etc
(36) … How all my brain was in tumult, and all my heart in insurrection (Brontở, 2001: 35)
(37) … Fortunately, I have it in my power to supply deficiencies for this once (Brontở, 2001: 237)
8) EMOTIONS ARE CONTAINERS Lakoff and Johnson (1980) argue that emotions can be conceptualised as containers because it feels as if they have control over people’s actions, as containers (LM) has control over TR, which suggests that people are conceptualized as being immersed in positive as well as negative emotional states such as in love, in awe, in surprise, in despair, in desperation, in disgrace, in frustration, in hope, in fear, to name just a few Consider the following:
(38) …the Commoner was in disgrace… (Thackeray, 2001: 57)
(39) … I felt resolved, in my desperation, to go all lengths (Brontở, 2001: 47)