Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T05:25:25.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distributed Spatial Semantics1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Chris Sinha  and
Tania Kuteva
Chris Sinha
Affiliation:
University of Aarhus, Institute of Psychology, Asylvej 4, 8240 Risskov, Denmark. Email: [email protected].
Get access

Abstract

The “local semantics” approach to the analysis of the meaning of locative particles (e.g. spatial prepositions) is examined, criticized and rejected. An alternative, distributed approach to spatial relational semantics and its linguistic expression is argued for. In the first part of the paper, it is argued that spatial relational semantic information is not exclusively carried in languages such as English by the locative particle, and that “item-specific meanings plus selectional restrictions” cannot save the localist approach. In the second part of the paper, the “covertly” distributed spatial relational semantics of languages such as English is contrasted with the “overtly” distributed spatial relational semantics characterizing many other languages. Some common assumptions relating to the universality of the expression of spatial relational meaning by closed syntactic classes are criticized. A change of perspective from “local” to “distributed” semantics permits the re-analysis of polysemy and item-bound “use-type” in terms of the distributed expression of language-specific spatial relational semantic types.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 18 , Issue 2: Special issue on COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS , December 1995 , pp. 167 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ameka, F. In press. The Linguistic Construction of Space in Ewe. Cognitive Linguistics 6 2/3.Google Scholar
Bennett, D. 1975. Spatial and Temporal Uses of English Prepositions: An Essay in Stratificational Analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bennett, D. 1993. There Is More to Location Than Prepositions. Commentary on Landau and Jackendoff, 1993. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16, 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugman, C. 1981. The Story of “Over”. MA thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Brugman, C. 1983. The Use of Body-Part Terms as Locatives in Chalcatongo Mixtec. Survey of California and Other Indian Languages 4, 239–290.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. 1991. Prepositions, Adverbs and Adverbials. In Tieken-Boon, I. and Frankis, J. (eds), Language: Usage And Description. Editions Rodopi, pp. 159–172.Google Scholar
Casad, E. H. 1993. “Locations”, “Paths” and the Cora Verb. In Geiger, R. A. and Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (eds). Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 593–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claudi, U. and Heine, B. 1986. On the Metaphorical Base of Grammar. Studies in Language 10, 297–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, H. 1991. The Semantics of Spatial Prepositions in Dutch: A Cognitive-Linguistic Exercise. PhD thesis, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 1972. Evidence that Indirect Object Movement is a Structure Preserving Rule. Foundations of Language 8, 546–561.Google Scholar
Freeman, N. H., Lloyd, S. & Sinha, C. 1980. Infant Search Tasks Reveal Early Concepts of Containment and Canonical Usage of Objects. Cognition 8, 243–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geeraerts, D. 1992. The Semantic Structure of Dutch Over. Leuvense Bijdragen 81, 205–229.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. 1993. Vagueness's Puzzles, Polysemy's Vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics 4, 223–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U. & Hünnemeyer, F. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Herskovits, A. 1986. Language and Spatial Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuteva, T. & Sinha, C. 1994. Spatial and Non-spatial Uses of Prepositions: Conceptual Integrity Across Semantic Domains. In Schwarz, M. (ed.), Kognitive Semantik/Cognitive Semantics: Ergebnisse, Probleme, Perspectiven. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, pp. 215–237.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, B. & Jackendoff, R. 1993. “What” and “Where” in Spatial Language and Spatial Cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16, 217–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1, 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. R. 1991. Relativity in spatial conception and description. Cognitive Anthropology Research Group at the Max-Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Working Paper 1: Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacLaury, R. E. 1989. Zapotec Body-Part Locatives: Protoypes and Metaphoric Extensions. International Journal of American Linguistics 55, 119–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1976. Language and Perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ookubo, T. 1977. Shin Nihon-bunpou Nyuumon. Sanseido.Google Scholar
Paprotté, W. & Sinha, C. 1987. Functional Sentence Perspective in Discourse and Language Acquisition. In Dirven, R. & Fried, W. (eds), Functionalism in Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 265–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, C. 1982. Representational Development and the Structure of Action. In Butterworth, G. and Light, P. (eds), Social Cognition: Studies in the Development of Understanding. Hassocks: Harvester, pp. 137–162.Google Scholar
Sinha, C. 1988. Language and Representation: A Socio-Naturalistic Approach to Human Development. Brighton: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Sinha, C., Thorseng, L. A., Hayashi, M. & Plunkett, K. 1994. Comparative Spatial Semantics and Language Acquisition: Evidence from Danish, English and Japanese. Journal of Semantics 11: 253–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, C. & Thorseng, L. A. In Press. A Coding System for Spatial Relational Reference. Cognitive Linguistics 6, 2/3.Google Scholar
Slobin, D.I. 1992. Two Ways to Travel: Verbs of Motion in English and Spanish. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Linguistics Society of Belgium,Antwerp,November.Google Scholar
Svorou, S. 1994. The Grammar of Space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 1983. How Language Structures Space. In Pick, H. L. Jr. & Acredolo, L. P. (eds). Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research and Application. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 225–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure In Lexical Forms. In Shopen, T. (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 3, Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–149.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1990. Fictive Motion and Change in Language and Cognition. Plenary lecture to International Pragmatics Conference, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. In Press. Fictive Motion in Language and “Ception”. In Bloom, P., Peterson, M., Nadel, L. & Garrett, M. (eds), Language and Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, C. 1991. Spatial Prepositions: A Case Study from French. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. & Hill, D. In Press. When “Go” Means “Come”. Questioning the Basicness of Basic Motion Verbs. Cognitive Linguistics 6, 2/3.Google Scholar
Yamada, S. 1990. Kinougo No Imi No Hikaku. In Kunihiro, T. (ed.) Nichieigo Hikaku Kouza, Vol 3. Taishuukan-Shoken.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J. 1992. A Study of Perceptually Grounded Polysemy in a Spatial Microdomain. TR-92–048. International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J. 1995. “Holistic” Spatial Semantics: a Cross-linguistic Study. Paper presented at the 4th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference,Albuquerque, NM,July.Google Scholar