Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Introduction
Like any other word category, prepositions structure a subjective, lan-
guage-specific view of relations in our experiential world. The purpose
of this paper is to show that the structuring of our experience of physical
space by means of prepositions to a large extent determines the language-
specific concepts built up in mental space. More specifically, the paper
aims to analyse the following theses:
(i) Some, if not all, English prepositions are dividing up physical space
in an idiosyncratic, "English" way.
(ii) The basic spatial conceptualisations can be and are projected onto
"mental space", i. e., they may form chains of meaning covering various
conceptual domains such as time, state, area, manner or means, circum-
stance, cause or reason, etc.
(iii) Since each of the prepositions can follow a more or less similar path
of extensions in meaning, we may, theoretically speaking, find a number
of different concepts of time, state, area, manner, cause etc.
The question therefore is to find out how similar or how different are
the various concepts in mental space, e.g., the various concepts of
circumstance or cause denoted by the different prepositions. Although
one may assume that concepts of cause are fundamentally different from
concepts of manner or area, the question also arises whether the various
concepts denoted by the chain of meanings of one preposition, e.g., at
may not be as closely related in meaning to each other as they are to the
corresponding senses in the domain denoted by another preposition, e. g.,
on. More importantly, one may also expect gaps in the meaning extensions
for some mental domains because of the specific spatial structuring
conventionalised by a specific preposition. These hypotheses will be tested
on a sample of twelve prepositions selected more or less at random: the
three basic space prepositions at, on, in:1 the two "proximity" prepositions
Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library (Brown University Rockefeller L
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 5/4/12 9:32 PM
74 Rene Dirven
by and with; the two "path" prepositions through and about, the two
"vertical space" prepositions under and over, and the tree "separation"
or "source" prepositions from, off and out of.
AT ON IN
[4] [6]
BY THROUGH
[5] [7]
WITH ABOUT
[8]
[91
UNDER OVER
a line or surface (thus a somewhat funny sentence like he comes off the
station could only mean that he had climbed onto the building) and out
of denotes separation from the inside of a landmark as in he comes out
of the station.
Obviously, on and off are the clearest instances of the spatial sense of
all prepositions, which may be a consequence of their basic meaning of
denoting physical contact (or breaking it off) between trajector and
landmark. Although at and in can be used to fulfil purely spatial func-
tions, they do so in a less concrete or less "spatial" way than on, and
therefore they may be more apt to go beyond spatial conceptualisations.
The same holds for the "proximity" prepositions by and with, which
locate the trajector in relation to a point of orientation just like at does,
whereas through and about presuppose a two- or three-dimensional area
just like in.
More specifically by denotes the idea of "connection", either in a static
relationship, e. g., He is sitting by the fire, or in a dynamic relationship,
e. g., This bus passes by the sation. With also denotes both a point of
orientation and the idea of connection, but it subsumes these notions
under the more abstract notion of association and/or accompaniment.
Hence in its spatial sense, with can only denote persons as a landmark,
e. g., John is sitting with Mary.
In contrast with the "point-of-orientation" character of by and with, the
two- or three-dimensional prepositions through and about require the
landmark to be seen as a surface or a volume as in he walks through the
station or he walks about the station (platforms). Thus through structures
space as a tunnel or channel, whereas about denotes spatial movement in
any direction.
The two vertical space prepositions under and over are outsiders in the
general picture drawn here. Their inclusion in the discussion has a dual
purpose: (i) to show that prepositions denoting a negative polarity —
this also applies to the "separation" prepositions from, off and out of are
less apt to be extended into all domains of mental space, and (ii) to show
that the positive polarity item over behaves differently from under, even
to such an extent that it can cover some of the domains expressed by
through and especially about.
Consequently, the only real outsider in Figure 1 is under (especially in
view of the position it takes up in the representation). But its position is
somehow justified in that it negates over, which in some of its extensions
adjoins about. Needless to say, there is no link between the adjoining
Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library (Brown University Rockefeller L
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 5/4/12 9:32 PM
76 Rene Dirven
items with and under nor between under and from. The various relation-
ships that do hold between the twelve prepositions chosen are therefore
rather to be interpreted in the sets or groups as represented in Figure 2.
(g) cause
(e) means
(g) reason
(e) means
(f) circumstance
(by such bad weather)
(e) means/instrument
Τ
(f) circumstance
(by accident)
(g) cause/agent
(idestroyed by fire/the enemy)
2.6. Through is, just like about, a path preposition and typically occurs
within dynamic contexts. This basic tendency also prevails in the non-
2.7. About denotes movement in any direction, which also leaves fewer
options for figurative extensions:
(a) Place: about the playground
(b) Time: about then
(d) Area: think/doubt about
(g) Cause: excited/crazy about
(g) cause
2.8. Over can denote static and dynamic situations and has similar
possibilities to about:
(a) Place: over the mountain.
(b) Time: over the whole year.
(d) Area: debate over
(g) Cause: argue/fight over
Figure 11 represents these extensions of over:
(g) cause
(c) state
(f) circumstance
(g) cause
at + + + + + +
on + + + + + +
in + + + + + +
by + - + + + +
with — - + + + +
through + - + - +
about + - • - - +
over + + - - +
under — • — - + +
from + - - - - +
off - - + - - +
out of - - - - - +
Two conclusions that complement each other can be drawn from this
summary and the foregoing analyses:
(i) a preposition that denotes a vaguer or more general location is more
apt to develop metaphorical extensions;
(ii) a preposition that denotes a more concrete location or a specialised
visual location or which has a negative polarity meaning is less apt to
develop metaphorical extensions.
These conclusions do not only apply when larger sets of prepositions
or prepositions within sets are compared, but also when single preposi-
tions are compared:
— The first five prepositions {at, on, in, by, with) are vaguer in exact
location than the seven others, and they show more extensions, too (see
Table 1).
— Within this set of five prepositions only the first three prepositions
{at, on, in) can form "state" prepositional phrases. In fact, this is not
surprising, if one takes into account the "proximity" meaning of by and
with: a state cannot easily be seen as being near an entitity, but it must
somehow "touch" that entity.
— Within the set of the three most productive prepositions at, on, in, on
is more concrete than at and in, since it has, as a major component, the
notion of "physical contact". This feature may explain why on does not
form "active" state predicates like at or in can {at work, in search of): on
just like under only forms "passive" state predicates such as on display
("being displayed") or under arrest ("being arrested"). Furthermore, on
can not form manner phrases, but only expressions of means {diet on
bananas), which is in line with the notion of physical contact. Also the
circumstance meaning of on is a very special one, since it requires two
successive acts touching upon each other {on arrival). The dominating
feature of contact may also explain why the "cause-effect" pair is not
found with on: cause and effect may be a too complex and too abstract
relation to be limited to continuous or even tangent events. But reason
is possible, precisely since one event can be supported (via a logical step)
by some other event.
— Also through and about differ slightly in concrete visualisation: through
implies the image of a tunnel or channel and therefore excludes the
notions of state, area, or manner, but only allows "passage-like" concepts
of means or cause; about is much vaguer due to its visual conceptualisation
of "movement in any direction" and allows extension into mental move-
ment required for area {think/speak about) or cause {excited about).
Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library (Brown University Rockefeller L
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 5/4/12 9:32 PM
86 Rene Dirven
3.1. State
3.2. Area
Only six of the twelve prepositions selected can be used to express one
or more aspects of this complex domain:
The fact that the other six of the twelve prepositions about, over, under,
from, off and out of do not form prepositional phrases of manner, means,
instrument may be due to the vaguer, dispersive meanings of the former
two (about, over), and to the negative polarity of the latter four.
The domain of manner, means and instrument can be seen as a
conceptual continuum, at one end of which we find more abstract con-
ceptualisations for manner and at the other end the more concrete
conceptualisations for instrument; the concept of means, though some-
what closer to instrument stands between the two extremes of manner
and instrument, as shown in Table 2.
with with
at, in, on, by, through
3.4. Circumstance
Five of the six prepositions (i.e., at, on, in, by, with, through) that can
express the domain of manner, means and instrument can also be used
for the domain of circumstance; through is out now, but under takes its
place.
(1) at: at these words (he left)
(2) on: on arrival, on his death, on my return, on receipt, on the condition
that, on the pretext that
(3) in: (he smoked) in silence
(4) by: by accident, (catch) by surprise, by such bad weather
(5) with: (I can't do it) with everybody laughing', with the door wide open,
the bugs can get in
(6) under: under these circumstances, under the premise
As with the former domain, the domain of circumstance requires a more
or less clear "location"; this condition is also met by under.
Circumstance is a conceptual domain that refers to a situation occurring
or holding at the same time as or in a close vicinity of some other
situation; though some link between the two situations is implied, the
nature of this link is not specified or not clearly specified. In fact, there
is not a clear-cut boundary between circumstance and cause or reason,
but, as with most conceptual categories, a fuzzy zone of transition is
found here. Still, the centres of both categories "circumstance" and
"cause" are relatively stable. And even within the domain of circumstance,
Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library (Brown University Rockefeller L
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 5/4/12 9:32 PM
92 Rene Dirven
the various prepositions divide up this 'mental space' into quite different
concepts of circumstance.
With at circumstance is viewed as an orientating activity marking the
occurrence of a second activity; as with the other uses of at the notion
of activity prevails here, too. With on two meanings of circumstance
emerge: either the notion of a bordering action (on arrival) which is to
be followed by new action (clearly the notion of contact between the two
actions is present here); or else we have a static circumstance (on the
condition that, on the understanding that), which implies that one situation
is to be conditionally supported by some other fact.
As already suggested in Figures 3 and 4, the extensions of at and on
go from the time concept to that of circumstance so that we can speak
of "temporal circumstance" here. To this we must also add the notion of
"conditional" circumstance.
In denoting circumstance is an extension of state and manner (see
Figure 5). The enveloping metaphor following from the "enclosure" sense
of in does not allow the interpretation of successive events with /«-phrases,
but only that of simultaneous situations. In such an "enveloping" circum-
stance, the link between the two situations is always felt to be stronger
and the borderline with the domains of manner, purpose, cause, or reason
is hard to draw: thus one could interpret she nodded in agreement not
only as manner but also as circumstance, or even as purpose or reason.
The inherent "connection" sense of by makes this preposition almost
into the predestined item to express the neutral domain of circumstance,
especially when no visible link between two events is implied, as in the
expressions by accident, by chance, by mere coincidence. Also other un-
controllable situations such as weather conditions typically require by (by
such bad weather), although here the weather can also be seen as an
enveloping factor and thus allows the use of in: in such a bad snowstorm,
in the rain, in this heat etc.
The "accompaniment" meaning of with, just like the "connection"
sense of by, is a very apt candidate for a meaning extension into the
domain of "circumstance". The difference is that with requires a clearly
delimited situation, which can function as an accompaniment to some
other situations. Consequently, mere indications of time or factors of
luck are not sufficient, but only a fully spelled out situation (e. g., with
the door wide open) can be used for this type of circumstance.
Circumstance denoted by under (under these circumstances) is very
much the same as static circumstance denoted by its antonym on (on the
condition that) in that both tend to express the notion of condition. The
Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library (Brown University Rockefeller L
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 5/4/12 9:32 PM
Dividing up physical and mental space 93
As already stated before, all the twelve prepositions can denote some
type of cause (or reason):
(1) at: laugh at, irritation at, angry at
(2) on: congratulate on, compliment on, pride oneself on
(3) in: delight in, rejoice in, exult/triumph/revel in
(4) by: surprised by, a book by
(5) with: tremble with fear, hair grey with age, pleased with, besides
himself with, blush with pleasure, blind with passion, white with anger
(6) through: killed through accidents
(7) about: excited/crazy/angry/unhappy about
(8) over: argue over, fight over, hesitant over
(9) under: suffer under a regime
(10) from: die from drugs
(11) of: die of cancer
(12) out of: kill sb. out of despair
The causal meaning of each of these prepositions is strikingly different
and helps to explain the type of verb that can be used in the accompanying
verb phrase.
The three basic prepositions at, on, in are rather restricted in the
expression of causal relations. Thus causal at denotes a cause as a target
at which one aims one's emotions such as laughter, irritation, anger etc.
implying that the target (person or situation) was the cause of the emotion
felt by the subject. Thus cause as target is an extension of the basic spatial
sense of at, but taken in its dynamic sense. The fact that at only takes
Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library (Brown University Rockefeller L
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 5/4/12 9:32 PM
94 Rene Dirven
Since the differences between a remote cause (die from drugs), an im-
mediate cause (die of cancer) and a non-focussed cause as state (kill
somebody out of despair) have already been analysed in great detail by
Radden (1985: 88 ff.), we can here dispose of the question of why the
image schema of "separation from a source" is so apt to become meta-
phorised into the expression of cause.
Conclusion
Notes
1. The terminology used here and in the following paragraphs to characterise the meanings
of three English prepositions is the same as that used in Dirven (1989) and is accounted
for there.
2. The notions trajector and landmark are used in the specific sense given them by Langacker
(1987).
3. Dictionaries are not always very consistent in pointing out this difference, but vaguely
imply it. Thus libery is defined in The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as "exemption
or release from captivity, bondage, or slavery", freedom is defined as "exemption or
release from slavery or imprisonment, personal liberty".
4. Cobuild English Language Dictionary contrasts delight in hard manual work with delight
at the prospect of leaving home; this use of at is necessary since a prospect is not
References
Dirven, Rene
1989 "Space prepositions" in: R. Dirven (ed.), 519-550.
Dirven, Rene (ed.)
1989 A user's grammar of English: Word, sentence, text, interaction. Frankfurt: R
Lang.
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald
1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Paprotte, W. T. — Rene Dirven (eds.)
1985 The Ubiquity of Metaphor, Metaphors in language and thought. Amsterdam:
J. Benjamins.
Radden, Günter
1985 "Spatial metaphors underlying prepositions of causality", in: W. J. Paprotte
- R. Dirven, (eds.), 177-207.
1989 a "Semantic roles" in: R. Dirven (ed.), 4 2 1 ^ 7 2 .
1989 b "Figurative use of prepositions", in: R. Dirven (ed.), 551-576.