Наслеђе 51 (2022), стр. 115-126

АУТОР(И): Katarina M. Ivanović


Download Full Pdf   

DOI: 10.46793/NasKg2251.115I


This paper examines the linguistic phenomenon of prepositional polysemy, illustrated by two analyses of the English preposition over. Due to its complex meaning, over has been frequently studied within the framework of cognitive linguistics. Two approaches to prepo- sitional polysemy – a radical polysemy of prepositional meaning authored by Lakoff (1987) and a more moderate approach by Tyler and Evans (2003) are reviewed and compared in the paper. Given that both fall within cognitive linguistics studies, their fundamental assumptions are identical. Still, they significantly depart in the treat- ment of the proliferation of meaning. My paper aims at identifying and, subsequently, analyzing these differences. Following my review and comparison of these approaches, I reach the conclusion in support of a more moderate approach – the one which not only acknowledges contextual uses but also significantly reduces the number of distinct prepositional senses, stored in the semantic memory.


prepositional semantics, prepositional polysemy, over, proliferation of meaning, cognitive linguistics, principled polysemy


  • Brenda 2014: M. Brenda, The Cognitive Perspective on the Polysemy of the English Spatial Preposition Over, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Brugman 1981: C. Brugman, The Story of over: Polysemy, Semantics, and the Structure of the Lexicon, New York: Garland.
  • Brugman 1997: C. Brugman, Polysemy, Handbook of Pragmatics, Volume 3.
  • Carston 2002: R. Carston, Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Chomsky 1995: N. Chomsky, The Minimalist Program, Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Cienki 1989: A. Cienki, Spatial Cognition and the Semantics of Prepositions in English, Polish, and Russion, Munich: Verlag Otto Sagner.
  • Deane 1988: P. Deane, Polysemy and cognition, Lingua 75: 325-361.
  • Deane 2005: P.  Deane, Multimodal spatial representation: on the semantic unity of over, From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, Beate Hampe & Joseph E. Grady (eds.), Berlin/New York Mouton de Gruyter), 235-284.
  • Dewell 1994: R. Dewell, Over again: image-schema transformations in semantic anal- ysis“. Cognitive Linguistics, 5 (4): 351-380.
  • Dirven 1993: R. Dirven, Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual cate- gories by means of English prepositions. The Semantics of Prepositions: From Mental Processing to Natural Language, C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 73-97.
  • Evans 2015: V. Evans, A unified account of polysemy within LCCM theory, Lingua 157, 100-123.
  • Falkum and Vicente 2015: I. L. Falkum and A. Vicente, Polysemy: Current perspec- tives and approaches, Lingua, 157, 1-16.
  • Garrard, Perry and Hodges 1997: P. Garrard, R. Perry and J. Hodges, Disorders of semantic memory, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 62(5), 431-435.
  • Herskovits 1986: A. Herskovits, Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Herskovits 1988: A. Herskovits, Spatial Expressions and the Plasticity of Meaning, Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, B. Rudzka-Ostin (ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 271-297.
  • Jackendoff 1983: R. Jackendoff, Semantics and Cognition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Johnson 1987: M. Johnson, The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Lakoff and Johnson 1980: G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, Metaphors we live by, London: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff 1987: G. Lakoff, Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Langacker 1986: R. Langacker, An Introduction to Cognitive Grammar, Cognitive Science, Volume 10, Issue 1, San Diego: University of California, 1-40.
  • Miller and Johnson-Laird 1976: G. Miller and P. Johnson-Laird, Language and Perception, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ruhl 1989: C. Ruhl, On Monosemy: A Study in Linguistic Semantics, Albany: State University of New York.
  • Taylor 1989/2003: J. Taylor, Linguistic Categorization. Third Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Talmy 1983: L. Talmy, How language structures space, Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research and Application, H. Pick and L. Acredolo (eds.). New York: Plenum Press, 225-282.
  • Tyler and Evans 2003: A. Tyler and V. Evans, The Semantics of English Prepositions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Vandeloise 1991: C. Vandeloise, Spatial Prepositions, a Case Study from French (trans- lated by Anne R. K. Bosch), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Vandeloise 1994: C. Vandeloise, Methodology and analyses of the preposition in, Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 157-184.
  • Vicente and Falkum 2017: A. Vicente and I. L. Falkum, Polysemy, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Oxford University Press.
  • Weber 2012: D. Weber, Еnglish Prepositions: A Historical Survey. Master’s thesis, pdf, 10. 12. 2020.
  • Zlatev 2007: J. Zlatev, Spatial Semantics, Hubert Cuyckens and Dirk Geeraerts (eds.) Handbook in Cognitive Linguistics, Oxford University Press. 318-351.