Meanings of the english prepositions “over, above, under, below” in terms of cognitive semantics perspective Nguyễn Tuyết Nhung Trường Đại học Ngoại Ngữ Luận văn ThS. Chuyên ngành: English Linguistics; Mã Số: 60 22 15 Người hướng dẫn: Dr. Hà Cẩm Tâm Năm bảo vệ: 2010 Abstract: The thesis studies meanings of four vertical prepositions above, over, below, and under to find out their similarities and differences. Data for analysis were collected from four famous literary works. The collected data then were grouped and analyzed using image schemas (in analyzing spatial senses) and metaphorical structures (in analyzing metaphorical expressions or non-spatial senses). The result show that although the four prepositions are described through the UP-DOWN schema but the characteristics of the TR and the LM are different. These differences cause different spatial senses and metaphorical uses of the prepositions. They also cause the differences in the use of synonyms. At the end of the thesis, some suggestions for teaching semantics are also included. Keywords: Giới từ; Tiếng Anh; Ngữ nghĩa học tri nhận Content: 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ii Abstract iii Table of contents iv PART I: INTRODUCTION 1. Rationale 1 2. Aims of the study 2 3. Scope of the study 2 4. Research question 2 5. Design of the study 2 PART II: DEVELOPMENT Chapter 1: Theoretical Background 1.1. An overview of Cognitive Linguistics and Cognitive Semantics 4 1.2. Spatial Prepositions and Semantic Perspectives on Spatial Prepositions 6 1.3. Spatial domain and dimensionality 7 1.4. Spatial characteristics of Trajectors and Landmarks 8 1.5. Categorization and semantic structure 8 1.5.1. Image schemas 9 1.5.2. Prototype theory and Radial network 10 1.5.3. The relevance of semantic factors 11 II.5. Metaphor and Spatial Prepositions 12 Chapter 2: The Study 2.1. Research question 15 2.2. Data Collection 15 2.3. Analytical Framework 15 2.4. Data Analysis and Discussions 2.4.1. Spatial senses 18 2.4.1.1. Above 18 5 2.4.1.2. Over 19 2.5.1.3. Below 22 2.5.1.4. Under 23 2.4.2. Non-spatial senses 25 2.5.2.1. Above 25 2.5.2.2. Over 27 2.5.2.3. Below 30 2.5.2.4. Under 30 PART III: CONCLUSION 3.1. Conclusion 35 3.2. Pedagogical Implications 36 3. Limitations of the Research and Suggestions for Further Research 37 REFERENCES 38 6 PART I: INTRODUCTION 1. Rationale There is a well-established fact that the acquisition of English prepositions poses major challenges for second language learners. Language researchers like Celce-Murcia and Larsen- Freeman (1988) note several reasons for this difficulty, one of which is quoted by Evans and Tyler (2001) is that it is notoriously difficult to characterize the semantic of prepositions. In fact, the traditional views considers that all the senses of a preposition are highly arbitrary and are not related to one another. Both dictionaries and grammars provide long lists of unrelated senses for each preposition and its possible uses in different contexts. Of those prepositions are above, over, below, and under which are considered to belong the group of vertical prepositions. They usually make the English learners confused with their polysemy, like in the followings: She held the umbrella over both of us, and I was in Settle over summer; or He hid under the bed, or I wonder what Britain like under the Romans. Moreover, above and over , as well as below and under is said to form two pairs of synonyms since over is defined in terms of above and under in terms of below. And the learners are confused with the distinction between some synonymous prepositions such as above and over. For instances, the sentence The helicopter was hovering above the building is interpreted nearly the same as The helicopter was hovering over the building. However, the sentence We were flying over the clouds has different meaning with We were flying above the clouds. Traditional studies have represented the semantics of English prepositions as largely arbitrary and difficult to characterize (Frank, 1972, Chomsky, 1995). On the other hand, Cognitive Linguistics, especially Cognitive Semantics offers an alternative perspective, suggesting that the differences in expressing spatial relations can be account for in non- arbitrary ways and that the distinct meanings associated with a particular preposition are related in systematic, principled ways (Linder, 1982; Brugman & Lakoff, 1988; Herkovits, 1986, 1988; Boer, 1996, Evans & Tyler, 2001, 2003). Cognitive semanticists have been making momentous contribution to explain the polysemy in terms of prototype theory (Rosch (1978) and radial categories (Lakoff, 1987). By this way, the meanings of a polysemous like a spatial preposition can be seen as a big 7 semantic network of related sense. Moreover, cognitive semantics offers a system of image schemas (Johnson, 1987) which are used to structure the our physical experience, and a number of metaphor which help to map the structure of a concrete source domain onto an abstract target domain. These tools are useful in determining the relation of spatial meanings to non-spatial ones of a prepositions. With the purpose to help English learners have an insightful view on these prepositions, Cognitive Semantics was chosen as the tool in my investigation on the meanings of the four spatial prepositions above, over, below and under in order to find out the spatial as well as non-spatial senses of each and the similarities as well as differences in their meanings. 2. Aims of the study The aims of the study are: To find out the similarities and differences in the meanings of the four prepositions above, over, below and under. 3. Scope of the study The study is an attempt to explain the meanings conveyed by the four English prepositions “Over, Above, Under, Below". Not only prototypical but also derived meanings of the prepositions motivated from image schema transformations and metaphorical extensions will be taken into account. Anyway, the investigation is based on my corpus of 962 examples in form of NP + prep. + NP and NP + V + prep. + NP, where over, above, under, below function as a preposition only. The data were collected from 4 main sources, namely, the English versions of “Harry Potter Order of Phoenix” by J. K. Rowling, “David Copperfield” by C. Dickens, “Vanity Fair” by W.M. Thackeray and “Gone with the Wind” by M. Mitchell. 4. Research questions: To realize the above objectives, the following research questions will be searched out: How are the prepositions Over, Above, Under, Below different in terms of cognitive semantic perspective? 5. Organization of the study The study is organized in four main parts. 8 The INTRODUCTION part is devoted to presenting statement ò the problem, aims of the study, scope of the study, significance of the study, research questions and organization of the study. The DEVELOPMENT part is divided into two chapter: CHAPTER 1 discusses the general theoretical background of the study; CHAPTER 2 includes the method of the study, data collection, analytical framework, data analysis, and discussion. The CONCLUSION part demonstrates the major findings of the study, implications and suggestions for further studies. References are also put in this part. 43 REFERENCES 1. Boers, F. (1996), Spatial Prepositions and Metaphor: A Cognitive Semantic Journey along the Up-Down and the Front-Back Dimensions, Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. 2. Cuyckens, H & G. Radden (2002), Perspectives on Prepositions. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 3. Cienki, A. J. (1989), Spatial Cognition and the Semantics of Prepositions in English, Polish and Russian, Munchen: Verlag Otto Sagner. 4. Croft, W. & Cruse, A. (2004), Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 5. Evans, V. and Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Routledge. 6. Finegan, E. (2004), Language: Its Structure and Use. Boston: Wardsworth. 7. Geeraerts, D. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 8. Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens (2007), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 9. Herskovits, A. (1986), Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10. Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 11. Langacker, R. W. (1990), Concept, Image, and Symbol, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 12. Langacker, R. W. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 13. Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume II, Descriptive Application. California: Stanford University Press 14. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 15. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 16. Levinson, S. (2001), Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 44 17. Radden, G & Dirven, R. (2007), Cognitive English Grammar, Philadenphia: John Benjamins North America. 18. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press. 19. Tyler, A. and Evans, V. (2001), Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Networks: The case of Over, Language, 77(4):95-159 20. Tyler, A. and Evans, V. (2003), The Semantics of English Prepositions. Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 21. Treichler, M. (2003), Metaphor and Space: The Cognitive Approach to Spatially Structured Concepts, Munich: Grin Publishing Online sources http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/contents.htm . well as differences in their meanings. 2. Aims of the study The aims of the study are: To find out the similarities and differences in the meanings of the four prepositions above, over, below. of the study The study is an attempt to explain the meanings conveyed by the four English prepositions “Over, Above, Under, Below". Not only prototypical but also derived meanings of the. Meanings of the english prepositions “over, above, under, below” in terms of cognitive semantics perspective Nguyễn Tuyết Nhung Trường