Prepositions of Place

10 Key excerpts on "Prepositions of Place"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  Unpacking Metaphor-related Prepositions in Political Discourse

  From Polysemous to Powerful

  • Mokhtar Ounis(Author)
  • 2023(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  These dictionary entries consistently highlight two main characteristics of prepositions: first, their position within a sentence, and second, their function. Prepositions are defined based on their location in relation to other entities within the sentence. Three out of the five definitions incorporate the term “before”, while the fourth definition employs the term “preceding” to emphasize that this positional aspect is intrinsic to the meaning of the preposition.

  The etymology of the word “preposition” underscores its inherent emphasis on position. Its origins trace back to the Latin term praeponere, which combines the prefix prae, denoting “before” or “in front of”, with the verb ponere, meaning “to place” or “to put”. As such, a preposition signifies an element intended to be positioned before or placed in front of another entity within a sentence.

  In addition to their positional aspect, prepositions have another distinct feature: their function. Both dictionaries and grammar textbooks define prepositions by the function of creating a relation between two entities within a sentence. For example, Quirk et al. (1985 : 657) assert that “a preposition expresses a relation between two entities, one being that represented by the prepositional complement, the other by another part of the sentence”. Additionally, the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, a classical grammar reference, defines a preposition as “mortar which binds [the main building blocks of] texts together” (Biber et al. 1999 : 55).

  When these two aspects are combined, a preposition signifies an entity intended to be positioned before another entity while simultaneously establishing a relationship between the preceding entity and the succeeding entity.

  While these two dimensions distinguish a preposition from other parts of speech, they alone are insufficient to fully define its precise meaning. The question arises: is the meaning of a preposition independent or contingent on the relations it establishes, or is it a combination of both? Regarding the first view, it posits that a preposition possesses a fundamental semantic value that is accompanied by a constellation of interconnected meanings. Alternatively, the second view posits that prepositions derive their meanings through their semantically related associations and that these meanings can be accurately determined and anticipated via computational means, as explained by Srikumar and Roth (2013

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Theory and Language Acquisition

  • Martin Pütz, Susanne Niemeier, Martin Pütz, Susanne Niemeier(Authors)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter Mouton

    (Publisher)

  No preposition required. The role of prepositions for the understanding of spatial relations in language acquisition Katharina J. Rohlfing 1. Introduction In cognitive semantics locative prepositions play an important role for the processing of spatial relations. By using a locative preposi-tion, the speaker's understanding of a spatial relation is marked. One of the most striking issues for cognitive science is whether there are universal relations that are first acquired and then marked via a preposition associated to them. Some studies (Clark 1973, Grieve, Hoogenraad and Murray 1977, Sinha et al. 1999) from developmental psychology indicate that this may be the case. In English and Ger-man, an order of acquisition has been observed, whereby the relations IN and ON are acquired earlier than e.g. UNDER. It is probable that these relations IN and ON are universal and therefore acquired first. On the other hand Bowerman's (1996a) results indicate a high degree of language specificity for spatial relations acquisition. Choi and Bowerman (1991) conducted a study, in which they collected and compared data of children learning English and Korean. This study is especially important, because the languages differ significantly in how they classify spatial configurations: the English IN-relation is matched by two different Korean relations, depending on whether the relation is a tight fit (like a video cassette in its box) or whether the relation is a loose fit (like an apple in a bowl). This different spatial configuration originates from a different categorization: English makes a distinction between actions resulting in containment (put in) versus support or surface attachment (put on), while Korean makes a cross-cutting distinction between tight-fit relations ( kkita ) versus 230 Katharina J. Rohlfing loose-fit or other contact relations (various verbs).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Two First Languages

  Early Grammatical Development in Bilingual Children

  • Jürgen M. Meisel(Author)
  • 2010(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter Mouton

    (Publisher)

  As much of this research is largely descriptive in its orientation, Klinge: Prepositions 125 theoretical questions are not always discussed explicitly, making it somewhat difficult to compare the different studies. However, the results given in the available literature may be summarized as follows: as a rule, (bilingual) children seem to learn prepositions encoding locative concepts before they learn prepositions for non-locative concepts. That is, locative prepositions are followed by temporal prepositions, or local ones which already form part of the child's repertoire and are then used in temporal contexts. After that others indicating instrumental or case relations (e.g. dative) seem to be acquired. This general pattern can be observed, with little variation, both in experimental and in observational studies of first language learners. This developmental priority of spatial concepts (e.g. for the word class of prepositions) could possibly be explained in terms of cognitive factors (cf. Piaget & Inhelder, 1975; Yonas & Pick, 1975), for instance, by the degree of abstractness of the conceptual relations expressed by the later learned so-called syntactic prepositions (cf. Grimm 1975). In their article on the development of locative expressions, Johnston & Slobin (1979) suggest that the acquisition order could be predicted by the relative cognitive complexity of the conceptual relations involved. Conceptual resources alone, however, do not guarantee the development of expressive means. Acquisitional order might be affected as well by the difficulty of linguistic processing of the means available for coding a particular concept in a particular language. Thus, some variation could be expected across languages. 3 With this in mind, the present study was designed to investigate not only the acquisition sequence of various, mostly spatial prepositions, but also acquisition patterns involving omissions, misuses and the like.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Representation and Processing of Spatial Expressions

  • Patrick Olivier, Klaus-Peter Gapp(Authors)
  • 1998(Publication Date)
  • Psychology Press

    (Publisher)

  Also in the case of prepositions, in fact, the knowledge about the arguments has a fundamental impact on the interpretation of a relation (expressed via a preposition and not via a verb). The main difference is that we do not assume any fixed structure in the representation of objects (such as Qualia Structure proposed by Pustejovsky): Spatial properties are represented together with all other properties of a given object. In this chapter we deal exclusively with static spatial locative expressions, that is, expressions such as the ones appearing in (1), where the location of an object is described via a reference to the known location of another object. In the literature, the first object is called the relatum (Miller & Johnson-Laird, 1976), the figure (Talmy, 1985), or the trajector (Lakoff, 1987; Langacker, 1991) and the second object is respectively called the referent, the ground, or the landmark. We follow Herskovits (1986) and use the terms located object and reference object. The following section includes a short review of the current theories on the meaning of prepositions. The next three sections describe our approach: lexical and terminological knowledge, semantic representation, and interpretation. An example and some conclusions close the chapter. 2. THEORIES OF THE MEANING OF PREPOSITIONS AND ON SPATIAL RELATIONS Theories of the meaning of locative prepositions can be classified as simple relations models versus multiple relations models (cf. Herskovits, 1986). The first class includes theories coming both from linguistics (Bennett, 1975) and from the computational paradigm (Boggess, 1979; Cooper, 1968; Miller & Johnson-Laird, 1976; Waltz, 1980). Presumably, the position of Jackendoff (1983, 1990) also falls in this class. The basic idea of these approaches is that all spatial uses of a given preposition can be derived from a single geometric relation, whose arguments are the reference (background) object and the located object

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  A grammar of Pichi

  • Kofi Yakpo(Author)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • Language Science Press

    (Publisher)

  8 Spatial and temporal relations Location in space is expressed by elements from diverse word classes and through a large variety of constructions. Some of the means employed for the expression of spatial relations are carried over into the expression of temporal relations but there are also independent ways of expressing location in time. 8.1 Spatial relations Prepositions, locative nouns, and locative verbs play a part in expressing spatial rela-tions. Other items involved are motion verbs – verbs whose meanings include a motion component. Te relation between “fgure” and “ground” may be mediated through vari-ous types of structures. Te expression of source and goal is of particular interest in the disucssion because it may involve the use of various competing structures. 8.1.1 Locative prepositions Prepositions are employed to express the location and direction of motion of an entity (the “fgure”) in relation to a place (the “ground”). Locative prepositions and locative nouns (cf. §8.1.2) belong to separate word classes, but some shared characteristics make the distinction less clear-cut. Table 8.1 contains the Pichi inventory of prepositions. Tere are no postpositions in Pichi. Non-locative roles expressed by prepositions are covered in §9.1.3. Note that Pichi also has the two temporal prepositions ápás ‘afer’ and síns ‘since’ (cf. §8.2). Table 8.1 Locative uses of prepositions Preposition Gloss Location/direction Other semantic roles/uses na ‘loc’ Genera l location (at rest) — fɔ ‘prep’ G eneral location (at rest) Various non-locative roles pan ‘on’ Superior location ‘in addition to’ frɔn ‘from’ Source ‘since (temporal)’ sóté ‘up to’ Extent ‘until (temporal), extremely (adv)’ to ‘to’ Goal Complementiser 8 Spatial and temporal relations Locative prepositions introduce adverbial prepositional phrases. Prepositions difer from locative nouns because they cannot be employed in the syntactic position of nouns.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition

  • Rosa Alonso Alonso(Author)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • Multilingual Matters

    (Publisher)

  The fact that languages divide up and lexicalise spatial configurations and functions in different ways has also been addressed by Tyler and Evans (2003) in their Principled Polysemy Model, which provides a cognitive linguistics account of the various meanings associated with English prepositions in terms of systematically related polysemy networks. We recognise the value of this powerful model but do not rely on it in the present study because of the nature of our analysis, which focuses on learners’ choice of spatial prepositions in contexts that reflect fairly prototypical meanings of IN, ON and AT. Our study is nevertheless motivated by a cognitive linguistics perspective that assumes crosslinguistic differences in the ways that speakers of different languages construe spatial configurations. We now turn to the findings of previous research regarding crosslinguistic differences and crosslinguistic influence in the expression of spatial relationships.

  Crosslinguistic Differences and Crosslinguistic Influence in the Expression of Spatial Relationships

  One of the misconceptions about spatial prepositions is that their use is determined solely by the spatial and geometrical configurations of the objects whose relationships they refer to (e.g. apple in a bowl , pen on a table ). Although some prepositions in some languages (e.g. above in English) might refer relatively straightforwardly to geometrical configurations (but see Tyler & Evans, 2003), others are chosen more on the basis of extra-geometric information, such as location control. Location control refers to the likelihood that if the reference object moves, the located object will move with it (Coventry & Guijarro-Fuentes, 2008). The English preposition IN is chosen on the basis of both geometric (containment) and extra-geometric (location control) criteria. For example, an apple that is sitting inside a bowl is deemed by English speakers to be in the bowl because the apple is at least partially contained by the bowl and because the apple will move with the bowl if the bowl moves. An apple that is on a table underneath an upside-down bowl, on the other hand, is not in the bowl because, even though the apple is contained by the bowl, the apple will not move when the bowl moves. Studies reviewed by Coventry and Guijarro-Fuentes (2008) show that pre-linguistic infants are sensitive to both geometric and extra-geometric information in preferential looking tasks, and that it is not until infants begin acquiring their native language that their preferences become more language-specific (see also Bowerman & Choi, 2001; McDonough et al

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Realms of Meaning

  An Introduction to Semantics

  • Thomas R. Hofmann, Thomas Hofmann(Authors)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Chapter 9 Prepositions

  What can you answer if someone asks you which is correct?

  on his way to New York         (a)  he stopped at Chicago.         (b)  he stopped in Chicago.

  Of course, they are both correct but differ a little in meaning. The first suggests that he didn’t spend more than a few hours in Chicago, while the other implies at least a day’s stay. How can this be?

  In many languages prepositions are used to show aspects of location of an event — whether something happened, for example, in, on, at or near my house. English has a rather extensive set of such prepositions and uses them to carry meaning for which other languages commonly use nouns or verbs. In Chinese, for example, we would not watch television in the kitchen but ‘at the kitchen’s inside’. English uses prepositions so much that we might even call it a ‘prepositional language’. Here we will break down some of this complexity, and in the process find semantic elements that play important roles in most if not all languages.

  As with the arrays of deictic markers in Chapter 4 , the way the meanings of English prepositions break down into elementary meanings shows again that many words can be decomposed into semantic elements. In fact, English prepositions are so extensive that there is probably no other way to learn them — to list all the possible uses of each one in a dictionary would be nearly endless, and almost useless for most language learners.

  Although we shall be concerned primarily with prepositions in English, a great many languages are like Japanese and use postpositions instead. These are nearly the same as prepositions except that they are after (post-) the nominal instead of before it as prepositions are. The only other difference is that there is no stopping between a noun and a postposition.1

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Bi- and Multilingualism from Various Perspectives of Applied Linguistics

  • Zofia Chłopek, Przemysław E. Gębal, Zofia Chłopek, Przemysław E. Gębal(Authors)
  • 2022(Publication Date)
  • V&R Unipress

    (Publisher)

  As they predicted, the order in those four languages was similar. The first to appear in children’s speech are the prepositions in (Fr. dans, Pl. w), expressing the concept of con- tainment, on (Fr. sur, Pl. na), expressing the concept of support and under (Fr. sous, Pl. pod), expressing the concept of occlusion. The next prepositions to enter the child’s language is beside (Fr. à côté de, Pl. obok), expressing the spatial relation of proximity (not depending on the speaker’s viewpoint). It is followed by the locative words front (Fr. avant, Pl. przed, przód) and back (Fr. arrière, Pl. tył) used to talk about the objects with inherent fronts and backs and expressing the relation of proximity to this inherent feature. Then between (Fr. entre, Pl. mie ˛dzy), which expresses the coordination of two proximity relations, is ac- quired. The last to appear are the prepositions front and back but this time used to talk in relation to objects without inherent fronts and backs and expressing the coordination of the relative proximities of the speaker, reference object, and the located object. According to Johnston and Slobin, children acquire this set of locative words by their 4th birthday. Based on this research, confirming that the order of acquisition of the locative prepositions is strongly connected not nec- essarily to the language itself, but more to the cognitive development, we can assume that both analyzed languages, French and Polish, will present a pattern similar to the one presented above (Ingram, 1989, pp. 427–428). According to the timeline of language development proposed by Rondal (1999), the first prepositions to appear in a child’s language in French are the ones expressing the concept of belonging (à moi [“to me” / “my”], pour moi [“for me”], de moi [“of me”]), which occur around the second birthday.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Linguistic Issues in Machine Translation

  • Frank Van Eydne(Author)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Bloomsbury Academic

    (Publisher)

  Interestingly, prepositions are traditionally seen as quite ambiguous from a lexicographic point of view. Thus, the Longman Dictionary of the English Language recognises the interpretation in (3) among others of the preposition in. We give a fairly full quotation to give a better sense of the many distinctions postulated by a reasonably comprehensive dictionary. (3) in /in/ prep la(l) - used to indicate location within or inside something three-dimensional (swimming ---the lake) la(2) - used to indicate location within or not beyond limits (--- reach) (---sight) (wounded ---the leg) (playing ---the street) la(3) at - used with the names of cities, countries and seas (—- London) 142 Jacques Durand la(4) attending or undergoing treatment at (--- hospital) (--- church) la(5) occurring as the subject matter of (a character ---a play) la(6) during (--- the summer) (--- future) (--- 1959) (lost --- transit) la(7) by or before the end of (wrote it --- a week) ( will come ---an hour) lb(l) into (went ---the house) lb(2) through an inward direction (came ---the door) lb(3) towards (--- the wrong direction) (the sun ---my eyes) 2a - used to indicate means, or instrumentality, or medium of expression (drawn --- pencil) (bound --- leather) (written --- French) (covered ---jam) (drink your health --- cider) (a symphony --- G) 2b - used to describe costume (a child --- gumboots) (a girl --- red) 3a - used to indicate qualification, manner or circumstance (--- fun) (--- exile) (--- public) (--- steps) (---anger) (--- his sleep) (---a hurry) 3b - so as to be (broke --- pieces) - compare into c - used to indicate occupation or membership (a job --- insurance) (everyone ---the team) 4a - as regards (equal --- distance) (weak ---arithmetic) 4b - by way of (said --- reply) (the latest thing --- shoes) 5a - used to indicate division, arrangement or quantity (packed ---dozens) (standing ---a circle) (arrived --- their thousands), etc., etc.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Ontolinguistics

  How Ontological Status Shapes the Linguistic Coding of Concepts

  • Andrea C. Schalley, Dietmar Zaefferer, Andrea C. Schalley, Dietmar Zaefferer(Authors)
  • 2008(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter Mouton

    (Publisher)

  Bowerman, Melissa, and Eric Pederson 1992 Cross-linguistic perspectives on topological spatial relations. Paper presented at the American Anthropological Association, San Fran-cisco, CA, December 1992. 2003 Cross-linguistic perspectives on topological spatial relations. Eu-gene: University of Oregon, and Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, ms. Brala, Marija M. 2000 English, Croatian and Italian prepositions from a cognitive perspec-tive. When ‘at’ is ‘on’ and ‘on’ is ‘in’. Ph.D. diss., Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics, University of Cambridge, U.K. 2002 Understanding and translating (spatial) prepositions: An exercise in cognitive semantics for lexicographic purposes. In Working Papers Spatial ‘on’ – ‘in’ categories 327 in English and Applied Linguistics Vol. 7 , 1–24. Cambridge, U.K.: University of Cambridge. 2004 The story of ‘ o ’. Croatian prepositions as vectors. In prep. Brown, Penelope 1994 The INs and ONs of Tzeltal locative expressions: The semantics of static descriptions of location. Linguistics 32: 743–790. Choi, Soonja, and Melissa Bowerman 1991 Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The in fl u-ence of language-speci fi c lexicalization patterns. Cognition 41: 83– 121. Choi, Soonja, Laraine McDonough, Melissa Bowerman, and Jean M. Mandler 1999 Early sensitivity to language speci fi c spatial categories in English and Korean. Cognitive Development 14: 241–268. Clark, Herbert H. 1973 Space, time, semantics and the child. In Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language , Timothy E. Moore (ed.), 27–63. New York: Academic Press. Cooper, Gloria S. 1968 A semantic analysis of English locative prepositions. Bolt, Beranek, and Newman Report No. 1587. Cuyckens, Hubert 1993 The Dutch spatial preposition ‘in’: A cognitive-semantic analysis. In Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.), 27–71. Deacon, Terry 1997 The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain .

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book