A study on meanings of the english preposition in and its vietnamese equivalents from a cognitive semantic perspective

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYỄN THỊ VÂN KHÁNH A STUDY ON MEANINGS OF THE ENGLISH PREPOSITION “IN” AND ITS VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS FROM A COGNITIVE SEMANTIC PERSPECTIVE (NGHIÊN CỨU CÁC NGHĨA CỦA GIỚI TỪ “IN” TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ CÁC NGHĨA TƯƠNG ĐƯƠNG TRONG TIẾNG VIỆT DƯỚI GÓC ĐỘ NGỮ NGHĨA HỌC TRI NHẬN) M.A Minor Thesis Field: English Linguistics Code: 60 22 15 HANOI - 2009 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYỄN THỊ VÂN KHÁNH A STUDY ON MEANINGS OF THE ENGLISH PREPOSITION “IN” AND ITS VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS FROM A COGNITIVE SEMANTIC PERSPECTIVE (NGHIÊN CỨU CÁC NGHĨA CỦA GIỚI TỪ “IN” TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ CÁC NGHĨA TƯƠNG ĐƯƠNG TRONG TIẾNG VIỆT DƯỚI GÓC ĐỘ NGỮ NGHĨA HỌC TRI NHẬN) M.A Minor Thesis Field: English Linguistics Code: 60 22 15 Supervisor: Dr Hà Cẩm Tâm HANOI - 2009 v TABLE OF CONTENTS Declaration ………………………………………………………………………… i Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………… ii Abstract …………………………………………………………………………… iii Abbreviations and Symbols ……………………………………………………… iv Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………… v INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………… 1 Statement of the Problem ……………………………………………… Aims of the Study ………………………………………………………… 3 Scope of the Study ………………………………………………………… Significance of the Study ………………………………………………… Research Questions ……………………………………………………… Design of the Study ……………………………………………………… DEVELOPMENT …………………………………………………………… CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES …………………… 1.1 A Brief Overview of Cognitive Linguistics …………………………… 1.2 A Brief Overview of Cognitive Semantics ……………………………… 1.3 Spatial Prepositions ……………………………………………………… 1.3.1 Definition of Spatial Prepositions ………………………………… 1.3.2 Syntactic Perspectives on Spatial Prepositions 1.3.3 Semantic Perspectives on Spatial Prepositions …………………… 1.4 Cognitive Semantics Approach to Spatial Prepositions ………………… 1.4.1 Experiential Realism, Image Schemas and Spatial Prepositions…… 1.4.2 Metaphor and Spatial Prepositions ………………………………… 11 1.4.3 Prototype, Radial Category and Spatial Prepositions ……………… 12 1.4.5 Polysemy and Spatial Prepositions ………………………………… 13 1.4.6 Perspective and Subjectivity ……………………………………… 14 CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY ………………………………………………… 16 2.1 Research Questions ………………………………………………… 16 2.2 Methodology …………………………………………………………… 16 vi 2.3 Data ……………………………………………………………………… 17 2.4 Analytical Framework …………………………………………………… 18 2.5 Data Analysis, Findings and Discussion ………………………………… 19 2.5.1 Meanings of the English Preposition “in” ………………………… 19 2.5.1.1 Prototypical Schema for “in”………………………………… 19 2.5.1.2 Non-prototypical Meanings of ‘in’…………………………… 20 2.5.1.3 Metaphorical Extensions ……………………………………… 22 2.4.1.3.1 Metaphorical extension of the enclosure prototype ……… 22 2.4.1.3.2 Metaphorical extension of the inclusion sense …………… 25 2.4.1.3.3 Metaphorical extension of the medium sense …………… 26 2.5.1.4 Radial Category of “in” ……………………………………… 27 2.5.1.5 Summary ……………………………………………………… 27 2.5.2 The English Preposition “in” and its Vietnamese Equivalents …… 28 2.5.2.1 “in” in English corresponds to “trong” in Vietnamese …… 29 2.5.2.2 “in” in English corresponds to “ngoài” in Vietnamese … 30 2.5.2.3 “in” in English corresponds to “trên” in Vietnamese 31 2.5.2.4 “in” in English corresponds to “dưới” in Vietnamese …… 32 2.5.2.5 “in” in English corresponds to “ở” in Vietnamese ……… 33 2.5.2.6 “in” in English corresponds to “trước” in Vietnamese … 33 2.5.2.7 “in” in English corresponds to “sau” in Vietnamese …… 34 2.5.2.8 “in” in English corresponds to “bên” in Vietnamese …… 35 2.5.2.9 “in” in English corresponds to “bằng” in Vietnamese …… 36 2.5.2.10 “in” in English corresponds to “về” in Vietnamese …… 36 2.4.2.11 “in” in English corresponds to “vào” in Vietnamese …… 37 2.5.2.12 “in” in English corresponds to other Vietnamese Non-prepositional Expressions……………………………… 37 2.5.2.3 Summary ……………………………………………………… 39 2.5.3 Similarities and Differences between English and Vietnamese Spatial Cognition ………………………………………………………… 40 2.5.3.1 Similarities …………………………………………………… 40 2.5.3.2 Differences …………………………………………………… 40 vii CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………… 42 Conclusions ……………………………………………………………… 42 Pedagogical Implications ………………………………………………… 43 Limitations of the Research and Suggestions for Further Research ……… 45 REFERENCES ………………………………………………………… 46 APPENDIX ………………………………………………………………… I iv ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS EFL: English as a Foreign Language ESL: English as a Second Language L2: Second Language LM: Landmark LMs: Landmarks MSA: Military Science Academy NP: Noun Phrase TR: Trajector TRs: Trajectors V: Verb INTRODUCTION Statement of the problem There is a well-established fact that learners of English as a Foreign Language more often than not confront a great many difficulties in actively mastering the language As a general rule, they seemingly hold the view that English notional categories, namely nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs are crucial, hence striving to learn as many of them as possible, and that such functional categories as prepositions are of minor significance because they are limited in number and their meanings are not important to the meaning of the whole sentence What is more, the traditional view considers that all the senses of a preposition are highly arbitrary and are not related to one another As a matter of fact, both dictionaries and grammars provide long lists of unrelated senses for each preposition and its possible uses in different contexts In other words, EFL learners resort to a great many linguistic materials whose authors have made monumental efforts to describe this type of words on the grounds of only functions and positions other than semantic factors contributing to determining their choices in use For the above reasons, prepositions are generally troublesome to the learners for whom English is a foreign/second language (Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1999) Boers and Demecheleer (1998) argue that prepositions are difficult for ESL/EFL learners because they have literal as well as figurative meanings For instance, we say, we are at the hospital; or we visit a friend who is in the hospital, or we lie in bed but on the couch Actually, much work has been done in the last decades to find a relationship between the different senses of English prepositions Cognitive Linguistics has paid great attention to polysemy, and specifically to the meaning of prepositions (Lindner, 1982; Vandeloise, 1991; Pütz & Dirven, 1996; Tyler & Evans, 2003) Interestingly, cognitive linguists, especially cognitive semanticists have been making momentous contribution to explaining polysemy in terms of radial categories (Lakoff, 1987) and therefore consider that the meaning of a polysemous word can be seen as a big semantic network of related senses Furthermore, it now seems evident that there is a highly schematic common core to all the related senses of a preposition, which all derive from a primary spatial schema or proto-scene (Tyler & Evans, 2003) to other non-spatial, abstract senses “by means of generalization or specialization of meaning or by metonymic or metaphoric transfer” (Cuyckens & Radden, 2002) It is also worth noting that cognitive semantics is concerned with investigating the relationship between experience, the conceptual system, and the semantic structure encoded by language (Lakoff, 1987) To put it plainly, cognitive semanticists have employed language as the lens through which these cognitive phenomena can be investigated As fas as spatial prepositions are concerned, cross-language research in cognitive semantics has shown that although spatial cognition exists in any language, there are differences in strategies of spatial conceptualization employed by people using each language In other words, it is evident that human experiences with space are held to be identical, since human beings are endowed with the same biological features and can be exposed to similar experiences with the environment The linguistic encoding of spatial concepts in different languages is, however, different (Choi & Bowerman, 1991; Levinson, 2001) The preposition in represents one of the most typical spatial prepositions in English Vietnamese EFL learners in general and those at the Military Science Academy in particular are almost not sure when in is acceptably used Additionally, it can be observed that they just tend to apply straightforward correspondence to prepositions in their mother tongue; for instance, English preposition in means in Vietnamese, on means trên, for means cho, to name just a few – irrespective of complements that are attached to the prepositions, and they think the job is done Apparently, the magnitude of this error is so enormous that it may delay the fluent native-like mastery of the target language Accordingly, it is essential to grasp the related meanings of the English preposition in within the framework of cognitive semantics and in this way immensely understand what native English speakers conceptualize spatial relations of the physical world objects and how they map from these spatial domains to non-spatial domains via metaphor and metonymy Moreover, how this preposition can be translated in to Vietnamese when they are in different collocations have so far not been thoroughly investigated The present thesis hopes to contribute to the on-going research into how different languages express the various spatial relations that can hold between entities in the world Last but not least, teachers can apply appropriate teaching methods to help students master the meanings of prepositions Besides indispensable roles of the teachers in the students’ learning achievements, students should be provided with suitable learning strategies to better language competence as well as cross-cultural awareness 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 Vietnamese equivalents within cognitive semantic theoretical framework Not only prototypical but also derived meanings of the preposition motivated from image-schema transformations and metaphorical conceptual mappings will be taken into account This investigation is based on my manual corpus of 681 in-examples in form of (NP) + in + NP and NP + V + in + NP, where in functions as a preposition, to the exlusion of others where in plays the role of an adverb or an affix The data were collected from three sources, namely, the English versions of Vanity Fair by Thackeray, W M., Jane Eyre by Brontë, C., and English-Vietnamese translation course books for third and fourth- year English majors at the MSA Vietnamese equivalents of those 681 in-occurrences were also identified and grouped in terms of frequency and percentage to explore differences and similarities between English and Vietnamese spatial conceptualization and cognition Significance of the study This thesis, to some extent, enumerates strong evidence in cognitive semantics that the typically English preposition in possesses numerous but related senses, suggesting that the use of a particular word reflects the way in which native English speakers conceptualize the physical world basing on their experience Additionally, the thesis takes a comparative stance and looks for cross-linguistic equivalents Potential Vietnamese equivalents of this preposition investigated in the current study will probably construe how Vietnamese people convey spatial meanings The thesis hopes to contribute to the overall stock of cognitive semantic studies on prepositions from a cross-linguistic perspective The findings of the study, as a result, will substantially contribute to language teaching and learning English as well as English-Vietnamese translation The results and data may also be useful for lexicographers when compiling 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 The present paper is organized in four main parts The INTRODUCTION part is devoted to presenting statement of 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 subdivided into two chapters: CHAPTER discusses the general theoretical background of the study and CHAPTER 2, the backbone of the thesis, comprises the methods of the study, data collection, analytical framework, data analysis, findings and discussion The CONCLUSION part demonstrates the conclusions of this piece of research, pedagogical implications, and suggestions for further studies References are also included 35 Vietnamese, the translator resorts to sau as an equivalent of in in these cases since probably he manipulates the cognitive constitution of the Vietnamese in spatial positioning and transmits the message understandable to the Vietnamese This, in turn, puts an emphasis on an undeniable view postulated by Gardner (1999) and Langacker (1990) that one’s subjective understandings and experiences of the physical world form an integral part of one’s overall perception of space 3.5.2.8 “in” in English corresponds to “bên” in Vietnamese Intriguingly, eight out of 681 occurrences (1.17 %) of in in our findings reveal this peculiarity inherent in Vietnamese people’s perception of space Evidently, Vietnamese people also conventionalize lateral frame of reference in spatial positioning (Lý Toàn Thắng, 1994, 2005) In other words, they make use of left-right binary relationship in addition to their own subjective ‘viewpoint’ to conceive of entities in the real world Take a look at the following: (108a) …every stump that started up in the their path … (Brontë, 2001: 287) (108b) … gốc cụt bên đường… (Nguyễn Tuyên, 2008: 343) (109a) …, and the sheer noise in the neighbour’s house… (Thackeray, 2001:102) (109b) …, tiếng động xé tai bên nhà hàng xóm… (Trần Kiêm, 2003:167) Critically, this reflects distinct differences in the realisations of the conceptual structure of in between English and Vietnamese In fact, path and house in English are obviously conceptualized as an area with boundaries and a container respectively, and in is used as a result In Vietnamese, though, path is seen as a cognitive area with twodimensional horizontal surface, motivating the usage of for anything that it supports; house is prototypically capable of containment and enclosure and is frequently a salient equivalent of in when used with this kind of container However, in the above examples bên is used instead of for the LM path and instead of for the LM house because it can be inferred that the TRs stump and noise are perceived as appearing on the left or right side of the LMs Nguyễn Đức Dân (1998) argues that in the process of conceptualizing space, Vietnamese people are likely to specify whether the TR is present in the same or different location from the speaker’s Accordingly, bên is employed to indicate there is separation between the speaker’s ego-space and another space of the TR What is more, it is worth a mention of bên in the examples below: (110a)… had become a vague sing-song in my years… (Brontë, 2001: 258) (110b) … trở thành điệp khúc mơ hồ bên tai tôi… (Nguyễn Tuyên, 2008: 301) 36 As far as enclosure meanings of in are concerned, ear as a part of our body can also be a container in English and anything located inside it will encode the usage of in Vietnamese, for example, an ant in my ear (có kiến tai tôi) On a metaphorical ground, ears are containers for speech sounds (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980); hence, it is absolutely fascinating to assume that the song comes to the hearer and the hearer in his turn can perceive it However, in in this case is translated as bên rather than in Vietnamese Subjectively deduced from the context, anything in form of speech sounds represents an embodiment of the person who makes it, suggesting that hearing it means having the person who produces it beside you Bên, therefore, appears to be encoded in the Vietnamese language in this sense To put it honestly, this emphasizes monumental influence of socio-cultural factors exerted on people’s conceptualization of space in particular and their use of language in general 3.5.2.9 “in” in English corresponds to “bằng” in Vietnamese In the corpus, nineteen out of the in-examples are translated as in Vietnamese The English preposition in is used to express topological configuration of the TR being immersed in a LM in form of a medium or material Accordingly, the Vietnamese preposition is practically used to convey this relation, as in the examples below: (111a) … everything on that table was in silver, too (Thackeray, 2001: 68) (111b) … thứ bàn ăn bạc (Trần Kiêm, 2003: 140) (112a) … and the tales written in French… (Thackeray, 2001: 23) (112b) … mẩu chuyện viết tiếng Pháp… (Trần Kiêm, 2003: 69) 3.5.2.10 “in” in English corresponds to “về” in Vietnamese A considerably small proportion (2.23%) of the in instances in our corpus is equivalent to in Vietnamese According to our findings, when in is employed to metaphorically articulate a reference domain containing a conceptualization it is translated as In the case of the Englsih in, the reference is made to a domain which serves as a LM within which a cognitive operation is performed (Langacker, 1993) English expressions like in this regard, in this respect, in certain aspects, in terms, etc are conventionalized uses of this kind of reference and they tend to correspond to mặt này, lĩnh vực này, điểm này, etc in Vietnamese For example: (113a) …, even in this respect, capital resources are stocked in favour of the south east (Chung et al, 2002: 5) 37 (113b) …, lĩnh vực này, nguồn tư xem xét cách thuận lợi cho miền nam It is important to note that in Vietnamese is also encoded to designate a TR being in a larger scale of reference functioning as a LM; that is, the LM denotes a certain field of knowledge, a certain aspect of public life, a certain attribute of physical objects and the like Other collocations like experience in (có kinh nghiệm về), belief in (quan niệm về), in principle (về mặt nguyên tắc), in political terms (về trị), in economy (về kinh tế), similarities in colour (giống màu sắc), etc illustrate this equivalence (114a) … to denote an ideological belief in unfettered free markets (Chung et al, 2003: 56) (114b) … quan niệm ý thức hệ thị trường tự thiếu kiểm soát (115a) … , in political terms, these are the areas of Labour Party (Chung et al, 2003: 39) (115b) … , mặt trị khu vực Cơng đảng,… 3.5.2.11 “in” in English corresponds to “vào” in Vietnamese As far as the time metaphor is concerned, in is generally used with temporal complements referring to periods which include other smaller periods, like days, months, years, seasons, and parts of a day This reflects English people’s spatial experience influences how something is represented in the non-spatial domain In Vietnamese, vào is conventionalized to designate temporal expressions concerning a certain part of a day, a season in a year, a particular month in a year, a particular year in which a significant event or a habitual activity takes place Like and bằng, vào has nothing to with spatial characteristics In this way, there exists a tendency to translate in the morning as vào buổi sáng, in the afternoon as vào buổi chiều, in the midnight as vào lúc nửa đêm, in spring as vào mùa xuân, in April as vào tháng tư, etc With reference to our findings, 26 instances of in are glossed as vào in Vietnamese Take the examples below into account: (116a) … , which Pyongyang says will take place in early April (Chung et al, 2002: 41) (116b) … Bình nhưỡng cho hay diến vào đầu tháng tư (117a) …, and these flowers are only in full bloom in spring… (Brontë, 2001: 98) (117b) …, loài hoa nở rộ vào mùa xuân… (Nguyễn Tuyên, 2008: 149) 3.5.2.12 “in” in English corresponds to other Vietnamese Non-prepositional Expressions Interestingly, 52 instances of in in our corpus not correspond to any preposition in Vietnamese Rather, the translators employ other Vietnamese linguistic expressions as equivalents of in-phrases, of which the following are the most salient ones: 38 1) verbs denoting directions: the LM actually signifies the destination to which the TR can be located For example: (118a) …I wish it were in the bottom of the Thames (Thackeray, 2001: 9) (118b) …Em cầu cho bị chìm xuống tận đáy sơng Thêmz… (Thackeray, 2001: 47) 2) words denoting people’s emotional states: specifically, the TR (people) is metaphorically conceived of as immersed in the LM as a emotional state In such cases, there is likelihood that the meaning manifested by the LM nouns serves as primary meaning of the whole in-phrases: (119a) … Miss Jemima, “are you in your senses?”… (Thackeray, 2001: 5) (119b) … Này Jêmima, dì có điên khơng đấy? (Trần Kiêm, 2003: 15) (120a) … and descended from the carriage in much indignation… (Brontë, 2001: 59) (120b) … xuống xe, tức giận (Nguyễn Tuyên, 2008: 125) (121a) …, where he passed a half-holiday in the bitterest sadness and woe (Brontë, 2001: 36) (121b) …, rầu rĩ đắng cay suốt ngày chủ nhật (Nguyễn Tuyên, 2008: 92) Other metaphorical expressions denoting emotional states such as in hope (tràn đầy hy vọng), in love (yêu say đắm), in great pain (đau đớn cùng) and in sympathy (tràn ngập cảm thơng), in desperation (có vẻ tuyệt vọng), etc apparently illustrate this equivalence 3) verbs denoting people wearing some piece of clothing: (122a) … a fat coach man in a three-cornered hat and wig (Thackeray, 2001:3) (122b) … anh xà ích béo quay đeo tóc giả, đội mũ vành bẻ tam giác (Trần Kiêm, 2003: 15) (123a) … in her nightdress… (Thackeray, 2001: 39) (123b) … cô vận váy ngủ… (Trần Kiêm, 2003:49) 4) words denoting characteristics that people possess: (124a) … ruddy in complexion… (Brontë, 2001: 67) (124b) … có da dẻ hồng hào… (Nguyễn Tuyên, 2008: 107) 5) adverbial clauses are used as equivalents of in-phrases: (125a) … It happened in your absence… (Brontë, 2001: 78) (125b)… việc xảy ông vắng mặt… (Nguyễn Tuyên, 2008: 128) (126a) … in their further disputes,… (Thackeray, 2001: 14) (126b) … họ tiếp tục tranh cãi… (Trần Kiêm, 2003: 55) 6) other expressions whose meaning in Vietnamese is not based on the meanings of components of the original English idiomatic expressions: 39 (127a) … both in Asia and in the world so as to adjust policy directions in good time (Chung et al, 2002: 35) (127b) … châu Á giới, từ điều chỉnh phương sách cách kịp thời (128a) They sensed that there was something in the wind (Brontë, 2001: 152) (128b) Họ cảm giác có sửa xảy (Nguyễn Tuyên, 2008: 243) (129a) In the first place, she gave up Peter Butt (Thackeray, 2001: 72) (129b) Đầu tiên cô ta bỏ rơi anh chàng Pitơ Bơt (Trần Kiêm, 2003: 147) 3.5.2.3 Summary The above sections have been devoted to thoroughly investigating potential Vietnamese equivalents of the English preposition in As can be seen from our findings, the majority of in-occurrences present in our manual corpus correspond to in Vietnamese, which suggests that these aspects of language to great extent are proved to be universal by virtue of common conceptual and cognitive structuring There is also plausible evidence to acknowledge that not only can in be made equivalent to other spatial prepositions, namely, (1.91%), (5.87%), (3.38%), trước (1.17%), sau (0.88%), bên (1.17%) but it is also equivalent to non-spatial prepositions like (2.79%), (2.23%), vào (3.82%), and interestingly to other non-prepositional expressions (7.63%) in Vietnamese The table below illustrates potential Vietnamese equivalents of in and the percentage each of them accounts for in our corpus: Vietnamese equivalents of “in” Frequency of occurrences Percentage Vietnamese prepositional equivalents 629 92.37 403 59.17 13 1.91 40 5.87 23 3.38 trước 1.17 sau 0.88 68 9.98 bên 1.17 19 2.79 15 2.23 vào 26 3.82 Vietnamese non-prepositional equivalents 52 7.63 Total 681 100 Table 2.2: Frequency and percentage of Vietnamese equivalents of in 40 2.5.3 Similarities and Differences between English and Vietnamese Spatial Cognition 2.5.3.1 Similarities As far as our findings are concerned, both English and Vietnamese people resort to prepositions as major means of expressing spatial conceptualisation Specifically, the polysemous preposition in was found to be made equivalent to eleven prepositions in Vietnamese Additionally, the biggest percentage of in-occurences in our corpus corresponds to trong, hightlighting that the prototypical use of the English in and the Vietnamese designates the relation of the TR and the LM in which the LM is a container-like object and the TR is a contained object located in the interior of the threedimensional LM The reason for this lies in that human experiences with space are held to be identical since human beings are endowed with the same biological features and can be exposed to similar experiences with the environment Due to universals of the physical world (e.g., the force of gravity) and of the human perceptual system, we might expect the same kinds of configurations to be described across cultures, perhaps leading to universals in spatial language (Levinson, 2001) 2.5.3.2 Differences Besides the above-mentioned similarities, there appear to be several distinct differences between English and Vietnamese spatial cognitive structuring The first and foremost difference lies in locative strategies Specifically, the conceptualization of the English in by and large depends on objective and physical relationship inherent between the TR and the LM In other words, English language encodes the motivation of the preposition in with respect to topological configuration of entities in the world out there In Vietnamese, however, besides objective conceptualization, it is widely assumed that the speaker’s subjective perception, his vantage point as well as his own occupation of the perceptual field play a crucial role in determining the choice of appropriate prepositions Our findings show that in can be glossed to eleven Vietnamese prepositions, namely, trong, ngoài, trên, dưới, trước, sau, ở, bên, bằng, về, vào The second difference resides in highly significant influence of socio-cultural factors exerted on encoding the use of language It is worth noticing that Vietnamese people tend to concretize spatial attributes of physical objects Put another way, they specify whether the TR is situated in the same or different perceptual space from theirs Also, they tend to make use of binary frames of references like trong-ngoài, trên-dưới, 41 trước-sau to describe objects Accordingly, one and the same English locative expression in the street designates a flexibility in translational correspondence like phố, phố, phố, bên phố, phố It can be seen that speakers’ perspectives on the event or situation being reported play a vital role in their ways of using language Different perspectives, e.g orientation, experience, physical or cultural directionality, lead to differences in linguistic expressions, thus creating different meanings, denotation as well as connotation, in communication It is, therefore, important to note that Langacker’s (1990) theory on viewer’s vantage point, subjectivity and egocentric arrangement lays the foundation for construing spatial cognitive structuring and conceptualization encoded by Vietnamese The third difference lies in that different conceptualisation of LMs can lead to different cognition of spatial relations between English and Vietnamese The English in requires LMs to be not only three-dimensional but also two- and even one- dimensional This, in fact, gives rise to a number of meaning transformations and extensions The Vietnamese, however, are accustomed to perceive that two-dimensional surface of LMs provides support for TRs and use as a frequent equivalent of in, as a result Last but not least, quite a few Vietnamese non-prepositional equivalents to the English in were uncovered, which proposes that spatial conceptualization of the Vietnamese is variable in comparison to that of the English Evidently, these Vietnamese equivalents bear no relation to each other, while meanings conveyed by the English in are systematically related That much of the cross-linguistic variation evident in spatial language results from the variation in the referential ranges of specific spatial terms provides insights into difficulties in translation and L2 learning as it helps explain the fact that the preposition in one language can be mapped into different prepositions in another language and L2 learners’ tendency to confuse when to use each one Hence, it is really necessary for Vietnamese EFL learners to be well aware of cultural and social factors embedded in L2 with a view to facilitating their L2 acquisition This will be brought to the fore in the next part of the present thesis 42 CONCLUSION Conclusions Within cognitive semantic theoretical framework, the current thesis has so far been carried out to answer two questions, one is to investigate meanings conveyed by the English preposition in and the other its Vietnamese equivalents Specifically, such cognitive semantic notions as image schemas, prototype theory and radial category, and metaphorical meaning extension have been exploited to immensely account for not only prototypical meaning of the preposition but also its variations by means of image schema transformations and metaphorical extensions Our findings show that in is a highly polysemous preposition, the radial network of which consists a prototype (enclosure), several instantiations from the prototype (i.e partial enclosure, interior as LM, inclusion, medium, material, integrated parts in the whole, gap/ object embedded in a physical object) and metaphorical meanings attached to nonspatial domains What is more interesting is that the spatial relation described by in can be made equivalent to a wide range of Vietnamese prepositions and non-prepositional expressions, which vividly reflects distinct differences besides minor similarities between English and Vietnamese spatial cognition Actually, among the prepositional equivalents of in found in the corpus, takes up the majority This, therefore, can be inferred that in Vietnamese and in in English, to a significant degree, constitute similar conceptualization However, a parallel mismatch is found between English and Vietnamese In can also corresponds to at least ten other prepositions in Vietnamese, namely ngoài, ở, trên, dưới, trước, sau, bên, bằng, vào, về, depending on the observer’s vantage point, his occupation in the space being depicted and his knowledge of cultural and social conventional perspectives deeply rooted in his community In Lý Toàn Thắng’s (2006) view, English spatial prepositions tend to state objective locative strategies regardless of the position of the speaker while in Vietnamese the position of the viewer is to be taken into consideration and so Vietnamese prepositions are more relational than objective These findings lay a foundation for us to learn that, language has an important role to play in reflecting people’s cognitive capacity or simply people’s understanding of the world which can be accumulated through their bodily experience The emphasis put here is 43 that although spatial cognition exists in any language, there are differences in strategies of spatial conceptualization employed by people using each language In short, the current study, to a certain extent, made a significant contribution to research on key insights from cognitive semantics Hence, it is, hopefully, beneficial for EFL teachers and learners, as well as translators Pedagogical Implications As a teacher of English to university students, I strongly advocate the development of semantics crucial for teaching purposes 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, particularly in the case with in In this way, EFL learners will be able to make gorgeous improvements in their English language learning in general and English-Vietnamese translation in particular Research in cognitive semantics has shown that it is possible to arrive at linguistically significant generalizations regarding the senses of polysemous prepositions in particular and lexical items in general To EFL teachers, such linguistically significant generalizations are obviously useful, as Lakoff (1987: 438) explains: “The psychological claim being made here is that it is easier to learn, remember, and use such assemblies which use existing patterns than it is to learn remember, and use words whose meaning is not consistent with existing patterns” Hence, in order to translate this information into actual teaching and learning practices, the following points represent some tentative views on the issue First and foremost, if one sees preposition learning as an instance of vocabulary learning, then students could benefit by being oriented to the meaning chain analysis A new lexical item is never learned alone, but is immediately integrated in a network of learned items In the language classroom, this means that the teacher and /or the learner should always be ready to activate such existing networks when a new lexical item or a new sense of a learned item appears A grasp of these networks would give students insight into the discourse of the target language and culture For those learners who keep a notebook of new vocabulary, they may need to develop new, personal, diagrammatic ways of capturing such meaning chains 44 Additionally, it seems unlikely that the debate concerning the value of grammar instruction will be settled in the near future, but recent interest in the role of grammar teaching (Rutherford, 1987) and cognitive learning strategies (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990) in second or foreign language teaching and learning suggest that analytic discussion may have something positive to offer In the classroom, the discussion can focus on the different senses of a particular preposition, as well as the links that exist among the various senses Therefore, it is natural to present the uses of spatial prepositions using line figures or real life objects By manipulating a few parameters, teachers are able to create a variety of simple yet informative figures which could have a strong visual impact on learners Rather than remaining passively on the receiving end, the learners could be induced to draw their own figures in response to the stimulus sentences and to compare them for the best fit Besides, prepositions have different but related senses of the TR - LM relationship, which have been evident in cognitive semantic studies; therefore, it is pedagogically useful to draw learners' attention to those aspects of a preposition's TR and LM relations What is more, a preposition is claimed to possess prototypical meanings and other derived ones via image schema transformations and metaphorical or metonymic extensions In this way, Vietnamese EFL learners are supposed to be aware of more concrete configurations and constantly reminded of the links among the chain of meanings Undoubtedly, a really interesting thing concerning the system of links is the role of metaphors in the extension of their senses Low (1988: 125) in fact argues that metaphor should occupy a more important place in language teaching because “it is central to the use of language” and because “from a structural point of view it pervades large parts of the language system” The idea of metaphor can be introduced not only in the literature or rhetoric classroom, or reading instruction, but also across the curriculum Importantly, it is of great concern to specify the nature of the semantic links by referring not to a linguistic metalanguage, but to common, everyday cognitive conceptualizations of the objects and phenomena in the world and their interrelationships It seems the study of metaphorical mode of thought may lead to the use of interpretative processes that belong to the greater domain of human cognition, which is cross-disciplinary and more general There is, of course, one important caveat in this; that is, for Vietnamese EFL learners, the metaphors that are present in the conceptual system of their native language may differ from those present in English 45 It is also noteworthy that motivated explanation may be given of differences between prepositions – for example, between in and on - by reference to the differences in image schemas and metaphorical conceptual mappings from spatial domains to non-spatial domains Actually, the teaching of prepositional clusters could help learners develop an awareness of authentic language usage patterns in English It thus remains the task of language teachers to empower language learners with appropriate skills which enable them to analyze for themselves how such patterns are used Last but not least, that the English preposition in has been demonstrated to correspond to at least eleven distinct prepositions and even other non-prepositional expressions in Vietnamese shows not every English preposition has a definite Vietnamese equivalent and vice-versa It is important to bear in mind the cognitive semantic approach recommended in this thesis emphasizes benefits of understanding cultural background, underlying models, schemas, and semantic relations to translation activities The highly polysemous nature of prepositions also means that the key terms can be used in a large variety of collocations which the student needs to translate correctly Therefore, Vietnamese EFL learners are supposed to be aware of cultural and social conventions encoded in Vietnamese and English so that they can resort to appropriate Vietnamese equivalents of English prepositions in certain contexts Limitations of the Research and Suggestions for Further Research The present thesis is just a small contribution to the study of the English preposition in and its Vietnamese equivalents in light of cognitive semantics In other words, it can never give a complete account of all the meanings designated by in and all of its Vietnamese equivalents Actually, due to the limitation of time and scope of the thesis, only in-occurrences in form of (NP)+ in + NP and NP + V + in + NP, where in plays the role of a preposition, and their Vietnamese equivalents have been taken into consideration It is, therefore, better for further research to - investigate the meanings of the whole lexical unit in where it functions as a preposition, an adverb and prefix to propose a clearer and more profound radial network of the preposition as well as find out its more interesting Vietnamese correspondences - investigate native speakers’ intuitions about the meanings of in - test the acquisition of the polysemy of the English preposition in by Vietnamese EFL learners at university level 46 REFERENCES In Vietnamese Nguyễn Đức Dân (1988), Lơgích từ nối tiếng Việt ngôn ngữ Đông Nam Á, Nxb Khoa học Xã hội, Hà Nội Đào Thản (1983), “Cứ liệu từ vựng ngữ nghĩa tiếng Việt mối quan hệ không gian thời gian”, Ngôn ngữ (3) Lý Tồn Thắng (1994), “Ngơn ngữ tri nhận khơng gian”, Ngơn ngữ (4) Lý Tồn Thắng (2005), Ngôn ngữ học tri nhận, từ lý thuyết đại cương đến thực tiễn tiếng Việt, Nxb Khoa học Xã Hội, Hà Nội Lý Tồn Thắng (2006), Hai hình thức phản ánh hai cách nhìn khơng gian ngôn ngữ Retrieved November 26th, 2008, from http://www.hcmussh.edu.vn/ Trần Ngọc Thêm (2004), Tìm sắc văn hố Việt Nam, Nxb Tổng hợp, Tp Hồ Chí Minh Nguyễn Đức Tồn (2002), Tìm hiểu đặc trưng văn hố dân tộc ngôn ngữ tư người Việt, Nxb Đại học Quốc gia, Hà Nội In English Barcelona, A (2003), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Boers, F (1996), Spatial Prepositions and Metaphor: A Cognitive Semantic Journey along the Up-Down and the Front-Back Dimensions, Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag 10 Boers, F & Demecheleer, M (1998), ‘A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions’, in ELT Journal, 52(3):197-204 11 Celce-Murcia, M & Larsen-Freeman, D (1999), The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course, Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle Publishing Company 12 Cuyckens, H (1993), “The Dutch Spatial Preposition “in”: A Cognitive Semantic Analysis”, in Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C (ed.) The Semantics of Prepositions, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter 13 Cuyckens, H & G Radden (2002), Perspectives on Prepositions Tübingen: Niemeyer 14 Cienki, A J (1989), Spatial Cognition and the Semantics of Prepositions in English, Polish and Russian, Munchen: Verlag Otto Sagner 47 15 Croft, W & Cruse, A (2004), Cognitive Linguistics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 16 Evans, V (2006), ‘Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction.’ Cognitive Linguistics, 17: 4, 491-534 17 Evans, V and Green, M (2006), Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press 18 Finegan, E (2004), Language: Its Structure and Use Boston: Wardsworth 19 Geeraerts, D (1999), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter 20 Geeraerts, D & Cuyckens (2007), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press 21 Herskovits, A (1986), Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 22 James, C (1980), Contrastive Analysis, London: Longman 23 Johnson, M (1987), The Body in the Mind, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 24 Lakoff, G (1987), Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 25 Lakoff, G & Johnson, M (1980), Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 26 Lakoff, G & Johnson, M (1999), Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought, New York: Basic Books 27 Langacker, R W (1987), Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites, Stanford: Stanford University Press 28 Langacker, R W (1990), Concept, Image, and Symbol, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter 29 Langacker, R W (1991a), Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume II, Stanford: Stanford University Press 30 Langacker, R W (1999), Grammar and Conceptualization, Berlin: Muton de Gruyter 31 Levinson, S (2001), Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 32 Lindstromberg, S (1998), English Prepositions Explained, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company 48 33 Lindvists, K.G (1950), Studies on the Local Sense of the Prepositions IN, AT, ON, and TO in Modern English, Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet 34 Low, G D (1988), On Teaching Metaphor Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 125-147 35 Miller, G A and Johnson-Laird, P N (1976), Language and Perception, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 36 Navarro-Ferrando, I (1998), A Cognitive Analysis of the Lexical Units AT, ON, IN In English, Universitat Jaume I, Ph.D dissertation 37 O'Malley, J M & Chamot A U (1990), Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 38 Pütz, M & Dirven, R (1996), The Construal of Space in Language and Thought Berlin: de Gruyter 39 Quirk et al (1985), A comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London: Longman 40 Rice, S (1996), ‘Prepositional Prototypes’ in Pütz, M & Dirven, R (ed.) The Construal of Space in Language and Thought, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter 41 Rosch, E H (1973), ‘Natural Categories’, Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328-350 42 Rutherford, W (1987), Second Language Grammar Learning and Teaching, London: Longman 43 Saeed, J (1997), Semantics, Oxford: Blackwell 44 Talmy, L (1983), Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research and Application, New York: Plenum Press 45 Talmy, L (2000), Toward a Cognitive Semantics Volume I: Concept Structuring Systems, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press 46 Taylor, J R (1989), Linguistic Categorization Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press 47 Taylor, J R (2002), Cognitive Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press 48 Tyler, A and Evans, V (2003), The Semantics of English Prepositions Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 49 Vandeloise, C (1991), Spatial Prepositions: A Case Study from French, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 50 Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C (ed) (1993), The Semantics of Prepositions: From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter I APPENDIX SOURCES OF DATA Hà Thành Chung, Lưu Đình Hiến, Trần Đoàn Ngọc, Bùi Thạch Cẩn (2002), Dịch 1, Học viện Khoa học Quân sự, Hà Nội Hà Thành Chung, Lưu Đình Hiến, Bùi Thạch Cẩn (2003), Dịch 2, Học viện Khoa học Quân sự, Hà Nội Trần Kiêm (2003), Hội Chợ Phù Hoa (dịch) Nxb Văn Học Nguyễn Tuyên (2008), Jên Erơ (dịch), Nxb Văn học Brontë, C (2001), Jane Eyre, London: Smith, Elder and Co., Cornhill Thackeray, W M (2001), Vanity Fair, London: Smith, Elder and Co., Cornhill ... pragmatics as well as semantics As a matter of fact, Talmy (2000) states that cognitive semantics sees language meaning as a manifestation of conceptual structure: the nature and organization of. .. prototypical use of the English in and the Vietnamese designates the relation of the TR and the LM in which the LM is a container-like object and the TR is a contained object located in the interior of. .. of imagination (such as metaphorical mappings and image schema transformation) demonstrating a natural and systematic organization of related senses 1.4.4 Polysemy and Spatial Prepositions Polysemy,