Over Again: A Cognitive Account of its Meaning Transference in the Light of an Image-schema Based Model

Long Tuan Do

Abstract


This article is the second in a two-article series that first critiques polysemic and monosemic theories to the meaning transference of over and then accounts for the word’s meaning transference from an image-schema based model. To be specific, this qualitative study aims to explain the processes of over’s meaning transference from spatial to non-spatial ones with 1350 instances in the 2017 Corpus of Contemporary American English, genre: Fiction. In the light of a combination of Multimodal Image Theory and Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, the mappings from SPACE domain to non-spatial domains, image-schema transformations, and a range of conceptual metaphors associated with over were systematically analysed to first identify the word’s senses and then account for the mechanisms of its meaning transference. It was found that mappings together with image-schema transformations are significant in motivating the meaning transference processes. The results of the study are summarized as follows: (i) The prototypical sense of over, represented by a pair of  image complexes, designates the relative UP spatial positions and potential forces between the Trajectory (TR) and Landmark (LM) denoted by the preposition; (ii) its spatial senses cognitively generate within three spatial modalities of thought: Visual space, Maneuver space, and Kinetic space, and (iii) its non-spatial senses are attached to a range of conceptual metaphors which are spatially grounded. In other words, three spaces provide concrete image-schemas or experience which are virtually represented/ mapped on to abstract experience shown by the retaining salient TR-LM configurations.


Keywords


over; meaning transference; image-schema; Multimodal Image Theory; Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory

Full Text:

PDF

References


Allwood, J. (2009). Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. In R. D. H. Cuyckens, Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics (pp. 29-66). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219074.29

Anthony, L. (2017, 1 15). Antconc. Retrieved from Lawrence Anthony's: https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/

Boers, F. (1996). Spatial Prepositions and Metaphor: A Cognitive-semantic Journey along the UP-DOWN and the FRONT-BACK Dimensions. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Brenda, M. (2014). The cognitive perspective on the polysemy of the English spatial preposition "over". Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Brugman, C. and Lakoff, G. (1988). Cognitive Topology and Lexical Networks. In G. W. S. L. Small, Lexical Ambiguity Resolution: Perspectives from Psycholinguistics, Neuropsychology, and Artificial Intelligence (pp. 477-508). San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-051013-2.50022-7

Croft, W. and Cruse, A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cruse, A. (2000). Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Davies, M. (2010). The Corpus of Contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of English. Literary and linguistic computing, 25(4), 447-464.

Deane, P. (2005). Multimodal spatial representation: on the semantic unity of over. In H. and. Beate, In From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 235-284). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Dwell, R. (1994). Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(4), 351–380.

Evans, V. (2004). The Structure of Time: Language, meaning and temporal cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Evans, V. and Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.

Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental Spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame semantics. In L. S. Korea, Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.

Gilles, C. and Thierry, P. (2014). An instruction-based analysis of over. 6(3), 370-407. doi:10.1017/langcog.2014.10.

Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kövecses, Z. (2017). Levels of Metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 321-347.

Kövecses, Z. (2020). Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859127

Kreitzer, A. (1997). Multiple levels of schematization: a study in the conceptualization of space. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 291–325.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Tings: What Categories Tell Us about the Life of the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. (1991). The invariance hypothesis. Is abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 1-39.

Lakoff, G. and Mark, J. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Long, D. and Huyen Trang, V. (2020). The Meaning Extension of Over: A Critique of Key Theories. Journal of Foreign Studies, 1(36), 37-50. doi: https://doi.org/10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4497

Long, D. T. (2018). Over again: Novel perspectives from Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models Theory. Journal of Foreign Studies, 34(4), 83-103. doi: https://doi.org/10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4283

Mori, S. (2019). A cognitive analysis of the preposition Over: Image-schema transformations and metaphorical extensions. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne De Linguistique, 63(4), 444-474. doi: doi:10.1017/cnj.2018.43

Newman, J. (1996). Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Roussel, E. (2013). Limits, Space and the Preposition over. Cercles, 29, 198-225.

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (1998). On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 259-274.

Simpson, A. and Weiner, S. (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam: Amsterdam.

Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Talmy, L. (2000a). Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. II, Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Talmy, L. (2000b). How language structures space. In H. and. Pick, Spatial Orientation Theory, Research and Application (pp. 225-281). New York: Plenum Press.

Tyler, A. and Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van Der Gucht, F. W. et. al (2007). The iconicity of embodied meaning. Polysemy of spatial prepositions in the. Language Sciences, 29, 733–754.

Zlatev, J. (2003). Polysemy or generality. In H. D. Cuyckens, Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics (pp. 447–494). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/gema-2022-2202-01

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

 

eISSN : 2550-2131

ISSN : 1675-8021