Meanings of the English prepositions over, above, under, below" in terms of cognitive semantics perspective

1 DECLARATION I certify that all the material in this study which is not my own work has been identified and acknowledged, and that no material is included for which a degree has already been conferred upon me Hanoi, November 2010 Nguyễn Tuyết Nhung ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my great gratitude toward many people who helped me complete this thesis First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr Hà Cẩm Tâm, who gave me suggestions, guidance, and support during the time I studied and composed the thesis Without her professional instructions and patient advice, I may not finish the thesis Also, I deeply indebted to all my lecturers at ULIS, VNU for their useful lectures as well as their constant support and insightful suggestions In addition, I am also grateful for my friends who gave me unconditional encouragement and inspiration Finally, I would like to thank my family With their support and invaluable help, I could pay more attention on my studies and thesis 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ii Abstract iii Table of contents iv PART I: INTRODUCTION Rationale Aims of the study Scope of the study Research question Design of the study PART II: DEVELOPMENT Chapter 1: Theoretical Background 1.1 An overview of Cognitive Linguistics and Cognitive Semantics 1.2 Spatial Prepositions and Semantic Perspectives on Spatial Prepositions 1.3 Spatial domain and dimensionality 1.4 Spatial characteristics of Trajectors and Landmarks 1.5 Categorization and semantic structure 1.5.1 Image schemas 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 2.4.1.1 Above 18 18 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 Limitations of the Research and Suggestions for Further Research 37 REFERENCES 38 PART I: INTRODUCTION 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 LarsenFreeman (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 nonarbitrary 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 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 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 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 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 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? Organization of the study The study is organized in four main parts 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 discusses the general theoretical background of the study; CHAPTER 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 PART II: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND In this chapter, I would like to address some of the main concepts that bear upon the analysis, noting that some oversimplification will be inevitable, as this is not a discussion or a presentation of theoretical cognitive linguistics My aim here is to present a view of the main points that have to be taken into account in the course of the analysis 1.1 An Overview of Cognitive Linguistics and Cognitive Semantics Cognitive Linguistics is the scientific study of human languages in relation to human cognition In other words, it is concerned with the investigating the relationship between human language, human mind and human socio-physical experiences Cognitive linguistics originally emerged in the 1970s and arose out of dissatisfaction with dominant formal approaches to language at that time Some researchers such as Fillmore (1975), Lakoff & Thompson (1975), and Rosch (1975) rejected the dominant ideas that syntax is separate from other aspects of language, and that language is separate from cognition Moreover, cognitive linguistics has always strongly influenced by theories and findings from the other cognitive sciences as they emerged during the 1960s and 1970s, particularly cognitive psychology and Gestalt psychology (e.g., Fillmore, 1975; Lakoff, 1987; Langacker, 1987; Talmy, 2000a, 2000b) Such cognitive linguists therefore acknowledge that language is part of, dependent on, and influenced by human cognition, including human perception and categorization, and that language develops and changes through human interaction and experiences in the world Cognitive linguistics practice could be roughly divided into two main areas of research: cognitive semantics and cognitive grammar Cognitive grammar, the model language developed by Ronald Langacker is concerned with modeling the language system rather than the nature of mind itself Cognitive linguistics assures that grammar is conceptualization People use grammar or language to conceptualize their experiences to express them (Jensen, 2004) However, it does so by taking the conclusions of research in cognitive semantics This means that meaning is central to cognitive grammar Cognitive semantics is concerned with investigating the relationship between experience, the conceptual system, and the semantic 10 structure encoded by language On the other hand, cognitive semantics states that meanings come from our mind, or rather, meanings are in the head (Gardenfor, 1994) According to Evans (2006), cognitive semantics is concerned with the investigating the relationship between human experience, the conceptual system in human mind, and the semantic structure encoded by language Cognitive Semantics is not a single unified framework, but there are four guiding principles that collectively characterize cognitive semantics: (i) Conceptual structure is embodied, (ii) Semantic structure is conceptual structure, (iii) Meaning representation is encyclopedic, and (iv) Meaning construction is conceptualization (Talmy, 2000; Lakoff & Jonhson, 1980; Geerearts, 1999) The first principle, conceptual structure is embodied, claims that we have a specific view of the world due to the nature of our body (Geerarts, 1993, Talmy, 1985, 2000; Taylor, 1989) The experience we have of the world is significant to the way we understand it What we understand from the world through our perception becomes our knowledge of it From this point of view, the human mindmust bear the imprint of embodied experience This position holds that conceptual is a consequence of the nature of our body embodiment The second principle, semantic structure is conceptual structure, is to say that language refers to what speakers have in mind, i.e concepts about the real world rather than to entities of the external world When someone say something, the meaning of his/her utterances come from his head where concepts are stored Thus, meaning is “conceptual grounded” (Gardenfords, 1994) In the other words, semantic structure (the meaning conventionally associated with words and other linguistic units) can be equated with conceptual structure (i.e concepts) (Rosch, 1973) However, the semantic structure and conceptual structure are not identical Instead, the meanings associated with linguistic units such as words arise from only subset of possible concepts in the mind of speakers and hearers After all, we have many more thoughts, ideas, and feelings than we can conventionally encode in language (Evans, 2006; Evans & Green, 2006) The third principle, meaning representation is encyclopedic, hold that meaning is not represented only by lexical concepts in our mind This means lexical conceptdo not represent a 30  Only part of the LM serves as a surface Under in this case has lower and next to meaning This involves a vertical LM like buildings (when the TR is outside) or parts of building (hedges, windows, lobster-outhouse, shed), trees, mountains, monuments iii 54) watch the foursome under the tree (Rowling) 55) under a shed in the playground (Dickens) 56) retired sulkily under the sideboard (Thackeray) Meaning with the TR which is physically lower than the LM as a surface-covering / SURFACE–COVER schema The second transformation from prototypical schema is encoded nearly the same as the above: the LM is a surface, able to contact with the TR; the TR is a zero-dimension which is stative or movable within the bounded space directly beneath the LM The difference between the two transformation is that in the later, the LM must be larger than the TR and the LM is located between the TR and the observer (Bower, 1996) The LM complements which manifest this sense include parts of the animal and human bodies (wings, hands), clothes, objects (envelop, pillow) surfaces (water) A total of 27 examples of this senses are found 57) its head under its wings (Rowling) 58) Resurgam was written under his coat (Thackeray) 59) snuggling under the blankets (Mitchell) In a word, Under in my corpus conveys spatial senses which are introduced through different image schemas The prototypical schema is the UP-DOWN schema involving a TR which is movable, lower than the LM, and in potential contact with the LM Like over, the different characteristics of the prototype allow it to transform into SURFACE-CONTAINER and SURFACE-COVER schemas Both of them share one or more similar characteristics with the prototype 2.4.2 Non-spatial senses Non-spatial meanings are depicted through the ways the image schemas are mapped from spatial domain to abstract domain via three main types of metaphors: orientational, structural, and ontological 2.4.2.1 Above 31 In my corpus, there are 41 instances, in which the relation between the TR and the LM is in non-spatial domains like quantity, quality and status All of them involve up-down relation That is the UP-DOWN schema is mapped on to abstract domains via ORIENTATIONAL metaphors, namely,  MORE-IS-UP (quantity domain 60) everybody who had a balance of above five hundred scudi (Thackeray) 61) that always took the students above first year to the castle (Rowling) 62) he could hard make himself heard above it (Rowling) / more sense) In the above examples, the TR is not actually mentioned Anyways, we can infer it in the light of the MORE-IS-UP metaphor For instances, in (11), the TR is the amount of money of five hundred and one scudi or more; in (12) – the person who is bigger them him; in (13) – the students of second or third years; in (14) something louder than it  GOOD IS UP (quality domain 63) I believe Agnes Wickfield to be as far above you (Dickens) ( 64) Love was above all earthly considerations (Dickens) (  VIRTUE IS UP / better sense) Agnet is very good or better) Love is the best) (moral domain / beyond sense) Via this metaphor, moral goodness is represented as elevated position, such as: 65) far and above their anger at the waste and mismanagement (Mitchell) 66) I know your motives are always above reproach (Mitchell) (motives are very good) The domains of the schema from our corpus is illustrated with the words like suspicion, brutality, meanness, honest, jealousy  HIGH STATUS IS UP (social domain / rank sense) 67) some people like to be above you (Dickens) 68) I can take my place above her in the world (Thackeray) 69) And the Lord was above all (Dickens) We infer in these examples that the TR possesses a higher position in society or at work than the LM It is noteworthy that, there is no contact or touch between the TR and the LM in all the metaphorical occurrences with above, or in the other words, the TR is out of the effect of the LM 32 2.4.2.1 Over The non-spatial senses of over are created via a number of different metaphors which are listed in the three groups of metaphors as followings: Groups of metaphor Structural Orientational Ontological Frequency of occurrences 166 52 47 Table 3: Frequency of metaphorical structures for over i SRUCTURAL METAPHOR The group of structural metaphor is the biggest group in my corpus The followings are some kinds of structural metaphor found in my corpus:  TIME IS A LINE This metaphor maps PATH schema onto domain of time Consider the following examples: 70) the thing he was doing over summer (Rowling) 71) I were happily seated over our dinner by a blazing fire (Dickens) 72) Let us skip over the interval in the history of her downward progress (Thackeray) In these examples summer, dinner, progress are conceptualized as a line or a path; and the thing, the interval - the landscapes while the end of summer or dinner – the goal A number of words denoting time such as days, week, years, holiday, summer, spring, Christmas, dinner are used in these occurrences of over  LIFE IS A JOURNEY The metaphor maps the END-OF-PATH schema onto the DOMAIN OF LIFE 73) Ernie had never quite got over the indignity of Malloy (Rowling) 74) I had got over my suspicion (Dickens) 75) I pass over all that happened at school (Dickens) In these examples, the TR (Ernie, I) are perceived as the travelers who are overcoming the obstacles (indignity, suspicion, all that happened) in their journey (relation with Malloy, life or lifetime at school) In my corpus, the LMs - obstacles are defined by such words as suspicion, difficulties, indignity They are understood in terms of vertical landmarks, which may be extended or not, on the path defined by life‟s journey 33  ACTIVITY IS A MOTION 76) Consider the followings: her eyes ranged over Nevill (Rowling) Here, the TR (her eyes) is the subjects of the activity-examination (ranged), and the LM (Nevill) is the object of this process The TR is understood to be higher and to move along the LM, which is conceptualized as the path (from the top to the bottom of the LM) In my data, the process of activity as examining is manifested with such expressions as shed a glare over, cast eyes over, pore over, look over, spell over, watch over  COGNITION IS PERCEPTION Consider the following: 77) without squabbles over food (Rowling) 78) to exclaim over her dress (Mitchell) 79) she thought over her little misadventure with Jos Sedley (Thackeray) In these examples, the TR is considered to be in a higher position and focus its attention to all the aspects of the LM, which is the problem or object which is cognized by the TR Over in this case has nearly the same meaning as about and follows the expressions of cognition like: squabble, delight, assent, lament, cry, ponder, brood, laugh, chuckle, pray, ii ORIENTATIONAL METAPHOR This type of metaphor involve the UP-DOWN relation between the TR and the LM or in the other words, it involves the vertical elevation of the TR in relation to the LM Followings are the typical:  MORE-IS-UP, LESS-IS-DOWN metaphor The UP-DOWN schema are mapped onto the abstract domains of quantity like AMOUNT, TIME, DISTANCE, SOUND For instances, 70) over hundred rolls of parchment zoomed into the air (Rowling) 71) They then spent over an hour revising Summoning Charms (Mitchell) 72) none of them looking over sixteen (Mitchell) 73) A journey of over five hundred mile (Mitchell) 74) we have talked it over a good deal (Dickens) In the idiom over a good deal, “deal” is a metonym for an amount 75) she heard Bonnie’s tones rise over Ella’s (Mitchell) In the domain of sound, the LM is illustrated with the words which express sound like bust, tone, hammering, mumberling, trampling, shout 34 This sense can be interpreted as louder than (sound), longer than, more than, older than (age), or farther than  HIGH STATUS IS UP and HAVING CONTROL OR FORCE IS UP metaphors (Controlling sense) The TRs in these cases are elaborated as people in a position of power or control, while the LMs are those controlled The TR‟s power can affect all the aspects of the LM The power is manifested in the word phrases like influence over, tyrannize over, victory over, triump over, rule over, ascendancy over, preside over, superiority over iii 76) he wanted to triumph over the others (Rowling) 77) we like to tyrannize over them (Dickens) 78) Mr Crawley had such a hold over the affections of his father (Thackeray) ONTOLOGICAL METAPHOR A total of 46 examples of ontological metaphor are found in my collected data Thery are divided into two subcategories:  Abstract concepts are perceived as concrete ones like word and thought in the followings: 79) I trip over a word (Dickens) 80) I redden, tumble over half-a-dozen words (Dickens) 81) she turned over all these thoughts on her pillow (Thackeray) In the two above, the LM (word) is conceptualized as the obstacle in the process of making speech; while in the third, the LM (thoughts) is conceptualized as an object, which is turned around while it is examined / thought about  Abstract concepts are described as a personification Consider the followings: 82) in a voice that sounded cheerfully all over the house (Dickens) 83) a drowsy silence lay over the large, square houses of Privet Drive (Rowling) 84) until darkness closed over their heads (Rowling) 85) A heavy warm somnolence lay over the house (Thackeray) 86) a curious feeling came over me that made me pretend not to know her (Dickens) The abstract TRs, including sounds (voice, the bells), state (silence, darkness), human state and feelings (somnolence, blush ) are understood to be able something as a person can All these abstract concepts have some similar characteristics as those of the TR in the 35 prototype of over Sound, bells are conceptualized to be able to move; silence, darkness, somnolence, felling are conceptualized as to be able to cover In brief, metaphorical extensions of over are structuralized in three main ways: structural (the biggest), orientational, and ontological Although metaphorical extensions are created in different ways, they all share some similarities: the TR is inferred to be movable and higher than the LM, and to have influence on the LM 2.5.1.3 Below In my corpus of below, the relation between the TR and the LM is mapped on to abstract domains like quantity and status via ORIENTATIONAL metaphors is in non-spatial domains  87) LESS-IS-DOWN (quantity domain / less sense) in spidery writing was written a date of some sixteen years previously, and below that (Rowling) In this example, the LM is manifested with some sixteen years previously Via the orientational LESS-IS-DOWN metaphor, the TR can be inferred as the time of fifteen years or less The amount or level that can be seen in the expressions like below standard, below level : 88) has unfortunately resulted in your being far below the standard (Rowling)  LOW STATUS IS DOWN (social domain / rank sense) 89) you cannot fail to know that she is far below him (Thackeray) The TR (she) is inferred to possess a lower position in society than the LM (him) Like in case of above, this type of metaphor make below convey the rank sense There are two non-spatial senses of below found in my data, including less and rank senses created by orientational metaphor only The remarkable is the same as in case of above, that the lack of contact between the TR and the LM in spatial domain causes the lack of control or touch in abstract domain, or in the other words the TR is out of LM‟s affection 2.5.1.4 Under A total of 250 expressions of under were collected Of these, are used as examples in my analysis The image schemas introducing meanings of over can be summed up in the following table: 36 Groups of metaphor Structural Ontological Orientational Frequency of occurences 52 49 41 Table 4: Frequency of metaphorical structures for under The non-spatial senses of under are created via a number of different metaphors which are listed in the three groups of metaphors as following: i STRUCTURAL METAPHOR 52 examples in my data have non-spatial senses which are created through structural metaphor The followings are some kinds found in my corpus:  AFFECTING IS TOUCHING Consider the followings: 90) he couldn’t bare walk under Dudley’s bulk (Rowling) 91) the road, sagging slightly under the weight (Rowling) In these sentences, the TRs (he, the road) is touched by the LM (bulk, weights), which are physically heavy and make the TRs‟ state change The LM is also conceptualized as physical force and is exibited in such words as the blow, the construction, the infliction 92) Ham staggered , , under the blow Mr Peggotty dealt him in his unbounded joy (Dickens) 93) Joe’s carriage (the temporary one, not the chaliot under construction) (Thackeray) 94) he would have had Mr Wickfield ( ) under his thumb (Thackeray) 95) this poinsonous viper be crushed under heel (Thackeray) In (94, 95) “under his thumb” and “under heel” are idioms, in which thumb and heel stand for some kinds of power The LMs involve more abstract concepts like the pressure, the strain, the defeat, the punishment All of them are understood as to be able to touch and affect the TR 96) Harry thought Professor Telawney might soon crack under the strain (Dickens) 97) stupefied under the pressure of her sorrow (Thackeray) The LM can be found in the domain of drink (able to affect the Tr‟s state or activity) and in the domain of medical treatment (able to affect the TR‟s health) 98) he did not actually stagger under the negus (Dickens) 37 he rallied a little under the Podger’s pills (Thackeray) 99)  LANGUAGE IS A PHYSICAL FORCE The LM which is elaborated by the concept of language (words, spell) is seen as a force affected the TR: 100)  My spirit sank under these words (Dickens) COGNITION IS PERCEPTION 101) under carefully controlled examination (Rowling) 102) got the vessel under the view in most skilful manner (Thackeray) The subject of cognition, which is understood as seeing / perception, is usually higher than the object, and the object‟s state is usually altered when it is seen In my data, the process of cognition is expressed in such words as gaze, scrutiny, observation, view, examination, recognizance The perception is also manifested in metonymical expression like under someone’s eyes, under someone’s nose 103) so that they might be under his own eyes (Thackeray) 104) she set about converting the perish under the Rector’s nose (Thackeray) 105) any point was under discussion in our limited circle (Dickens) By experience, we know that to discuss a problem, we must examine it before perceive it, so “discussion” in (105) is a metonym of cognition ii ONTOLOGICAL METAPHOR There are 49 occurrences in my corpus expressed in ontological metaphor  RESTRICTION IS A CONTAINER Abstracts concepts such as restriction are understood as containers with artificial boundaries The restrictions on people‟s lives, activities are able to respond the combination of the UP-DOWN and CONTAINER schema The restricted LMs are used with such words as conditions of something, circumstance of something, difficulties, harrows, vicissitudes .; The restriction of legislation manifested in such words as Acts, terms, articles, taboo, law is also considered as a surface LM which has force on the TR 106) she was bound to her under a forfeit (Thackeray) 107) ‘Quite as comfortable as we can expect a young mother to be, under these melody domestic circumstances ’ (Dickens) 108) Mr Micawber should apply for his release under the Insolvent Debtors Act (Dickens) 109) under the terms of Educational Decree Number Twenty-three 38  PROTECTION IS A COVER / SHELTER The phrase ‘under the roof’ appears several time in our corpus Physically, the roof is the highest part of the house and helps to protect people living in the house and furnitures in it from things like bad weather Metonymically, the roof stand for the house: 110) during the remaining term of our residence under the same roof (Dickens) Metaphorically, it stands for protection in general 111) can never fail under this roof (Dickens) The protection, conceptualized as the cover or shelter, are represented in expressions like under the auspices, under the guidance, under the protection, under the convoy, under the direction, under the guardianship, under the tuition 112) it was under the guidance of the elder (Dickens) 113) the transport went down the river and proceeded under convoy to Ostend (Thackeray)  PROTECTION IS A COVER, THE TRUTH IS A HIDDEN OBJECT Physically, a surface LM is sometimes used as a cover to prevent a TR from being seen Metaphorically, the abstract surfaces like pretence, delusion are conceptualized as the cover which hides the truth 114) the young lady came and knocked at Mr Rawdon’s door, under the pretence that they were desious to be useful (Thackeray) 115) To be labouring under the delusion that (Mitchell) Abstract concept such as states and emotions are understood as containers or cover to hide the true emotion or thoughts of a person 116) to hide many secret grief under a calm face (Thackeray) 117) What made matters worse was that under his smile (Mitchell) This sense is also used with the LM as a false name, which is used to cover the real person This metaphor exhibited in such expressions as under the appellation of, under another title, not under her own name iii 118) I never could discover who came under the denomination (Dickens) 119) Miss Briggs, whom you know under the another titles (Thackeray) ORIENTATIONAL METAPHOR These senses involve the UP-DOWN relation between the TR and the LM or in the other words, it involves the vertical elevation of the LM in relation to the TR 39  LESS STATUS IS DOWN and BEING SUBJECT TO FORCE OR CONTROL IS DOWN metaphors This sense of under involves a LM, which is elaborated as people in a position of power or control These people are conceptualized as zero-dimensional complements which are illustrated with personal pronouns, proper names or working position expressions like the galant Prince Marshal, Napoleon, Doctor, the aide-de-camp 120) I should certainly be happy under Doctor Strong (Dickens) 121) the entire repulse of the French under Ney after a six hours’ battle (Thackeray) The LM also involves more abstract concept which is manifested in such expressions: the authority, the orders, the control, the command, the tyranny, the threats, the apprehension, the impression 122) my eyes, however, not being so much under control as my tongue (Dickens) 123) Rawdon expressed himself as ready to act under her orders (Thackeray)  LESS IS DOWN MONEY metaphor The uses of under occurs in the domains of TIME, AGE, via this metaphor In these cases Under can be interpreted as less than, younger than The LM complements is usually a number, while the TR is a smaller one 124) under a month (Rowling) 125) Jane Osborne scarely ever met a man under sixty (Thackeray) 126) I’m not taking a Knut under twenty (Rowling) 127) as not one of these, however poor they might be, was under the rank of a Baroness (Thackeray) In (127), “poor” is a metonymical expression of money, and the LM “rank” is conceptualized as a money level The LM can be used in domain of SOUND and under is conceptualized as in lower voice than 128) he and the ladies whispered about it under their voices in the drawing room (Thackeray) 129) Harry swore under his breath (Rowling) In (129), the LM “breath” is a metonymical expression of sound Metaphorical extensions of under are structuralized in three main ways: structural, ontological, and orientational Although metaphorical extensions are created in different ways, they all share the similarities: the TR is inferred to be lower than the LM and is affected by the LM 40 PART III: CONCLUSION 3.1 Conclusion The present thesis has been carried out to find out the similarities and differences in the meanings of the four prepositions above, over, below, and under In the light of cognitive semantic framework, such notions as image schemas, and metaphorical structures are applied to discover not only the spatial (the protosence and peripheries) but also non-spatial senses (metaphorical extensions) This offers us an insight in comparison of the meanings conveyed by these prepositions Four prepositions are described with the UP-DOWN prototype Anyway, the characteristics of the TR and the LM are not the same, which lead to the different non-protosences as well as metaphorical uses Our major findings are outlined as follow:  Spatial senses: - Over conveys spatial senses which are described through six different schemas The LM and the TR are various The LM can be a pot, a path or a surface, while the TR can be a pot or a surface Anyway, there are some characteristics of the TR with unchangeable, namely, higher than the LM, movable and contactable - Under conveys spatial senses which are describe through different schemas with different LMs, zero-dimensional dot, surface-cover and surface-container The LM is higher and able to contact with the TR - Both above & below have only spatial senses The TRs and the LMs of the two prototypes have the same characteristics but in the opposite directions The noteworthy is that there is no contact between them  Non-spatial senses: - Metaphorical extensions of over belongs to three groups: structural, ontological and orientational Both the TRs or the LMs can be abstract The abstract concepts of TR can be conceptualized as a point (controlling people), a surface (state, emotion) or something able to move (ideas) The TR can also be understood to something that affect all the aspect of the LM (examining or perceiving activities) The abstract concepts of LM can be seen as a object 41 (a word), a path (time, life) The remarkable is that the TR is seen to be in a higher position than the LM and have touch or / influence on the LM - Metaphorical extensions of under also belongs to the three groups: structural, ontological and orientational Only the LMs are expressed in abstract concepts which are understood as a point (a powerful / controlling person; a burden), a surface (states, emotions, affection), or a container (restriction, language) All theses LM are conceptualized to be in a higher position and to have force / control on the TR - Metaphorical extensions of above and below are found in structural metaphor only The TR and LM are the abstract concepts which are understood to be out of the affection of each other (rank sense) However, more metaphorical uses of above are found than below These findings lay a foundation for us to learn a spatial preposition is used not only in the spatial domain but also in non-spatial domains via metaphorical extensions The characteristics of the TR and the LM in non-spatial domains are the same those in the spatial one That explains why a preposition can be used in the situation where the other can not Implications Semantics is very important in studying a language By means of semantics, students will be made aware of the fact that polysemy, idiomaticity, cultural diversity and diversity in the use of a single linguistic item are vividly manifested The understanding of these will help explain what speakers and mean when they produce utterances However, both language teachers and learners are usually confused with teaching and learning semantics The current study, to some certain extent, provides a key insights into meanings of the four prepositions It finds out the relation between the different senses of a preposition as well as the differences between the synonyms Hence, it is, hopefully, beneficial for EFL teachers and learners in teaching and learning vocabulary, reading comprehension, and speaking Moreover, through the exploring the meanings of the four prepositions in the light of Cognitive Semantics, I would like to suggest both the teacher and the students an effective way to present, study as well as remember vocabulary A lexical item should not be taught or learned in the isolation with the contexts or experiences It is the contexts that make a word convey different meanings, and the experiences that help the users understand these meanings 42 In this way, both the language teachers and learners should be aware of the importance of image schemas and conventional metaphors in teaching and learning meanings of prepositions in particular, and semantics in general A basic image schema help us understand the basic sense of a words The characteristics of the TR and the LM allow us to find the different transformations of the basic schema And together with using metaphorical structures, an image schema helps us to understand different uses of a words which are not completely similar as the primary one In this way, image schemas and metaphorical structures also help us find out the differences between the synonyms In short, Cognitive Semantics supply language teachers and learners an effective tools, namely image schemas and metaphors, to discover, understand and correctly use a polysemous lexical unit Limitations of the Research and Suggestions for Further Research The present thesis is just a small contribution to the study of a group of vertical English prepositions, above, over, below, and under In other words, it can never give a complete account of all the meanings designated by these prepositions due to some reasons The first is the limitation of time The second is the scope of the thesis that only occurrences in form of (NP)+ in + NP and NP + V + in + NP, where these words play the role of a preposition are used under analysis One more reason is that the data were collected from some the literary works only It is, therefore, better for further research to - investigate the meanings of the whole lexical units of above, over, below, and under where they function as a preposition, an adverb and prefix to propose a clearer and more profound radial network of the prepositions - investigate native speakers‟ intuitions about the meanings of above, over, below, and under - investigate the Vietnamese equivalents of these prepositions 43 REFERENCES Boers, F (1996), Spatial Prepositions and Metaphor: A Cognitive Semantic Journey along the Up-Down and the Front-Back Dimensions, Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag Cuyckens, H & G Radden (2002), Perspectives on Prepositions Tübingen: Niemeyer Cienki, A J (1989), Spatial Cognition and the Semantics of Prepositions in English, Polish and Russian, Munchen: Verlag Otto Sagner Croft, W & Cruse, A (2004), Cognitive Linguistics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Evans, V and Green, M (2006) Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction Routledge Finegan, E (2004), Language: Its Structure and Use Boston: Wardsworth Geeraerts, D (2006) Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter Geeraerts, D & Cuyckens (2007), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press 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