The changing role of "support" an "contiguity" : The hidden facet of the preposition "on" in Ols English

Authors

  • Carmen Guarddon Anelo U.N.E.D.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.89

Abstract

The simple relations model pervades most semantic treatments of the topological prepositions in, on and at. Concerning the preposition on, the pertinent literature has established two features, support and contiguity, which allegedly applies to all its uses. However, in Old English the preposition on categorises location in large geographic entities, i.e., nations. In the current paper we claim that such spatial relationships cannot be described in terms of support and contact and, therefore, the simple relations model is not adequate for a diachronic description of the preposition on. We also demonstrate that the selection restrictions that ruled the distribution of the prepositions in and on in Old English, in the locative relations derived from cognitive maps, are still partially active in present-day English. Thus, we conclude that the single relations model has to be reconsidered as a valid theoretical device to account for the current uses of the topological prepositions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Belden, M. 1897. The Prepositions In, On, To, For, Fore, and Æt in Anglo-Saxon Prose. A Study of Case Values in Old English. Baltimore: Friedenwald.

Bennet, D. 1975. Spatial and Temporal Uses of English Prepositions – An Essay in Stratificational Semantics. Longman: London.

Boggess, L. C. 1978. Computational Interpretation of English Spatial Prepositions. University of Illinois: PhD Dissertation.

Brugman, C. M., and G. Lakoff. 1988. “Cognitive topology and lexical networks”. Lexical Ambiguity Resolution: Perspectives from Psycholinguistics, Neuropsychology and Artificial Intelligence. Eds. Small, S., G. Cottrell, and M. Tanenhaus. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. 407-508.

Cooper, G. S. 1968. “A Semantic Analysis of English Locative Prepositions”. Bolt, Beranek & Newman report 1587.

Dirven, R. 1993. “Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English prepositions”. The Semantics of Prepositions. From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing. Ed. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 73-98.

Goold, G. P., ed. 1930. Baedae Opera Historica with an English Translation by J. E. King, in Two Volumes. Norwich: Fletcher and Son Ltd.

Herskovits, A. 1982. Space and the Prepositions in English: Regularities and Irregularities in a Complex Domain. Stanford University: PhD Dissertation.

Herskovits, A. 1986. Language and Spatial Cognition. An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jackendoff, R. 1995 (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of a Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Levinson, S. 2002. Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lindkvist, K. 1978. At versus On, In, By: On the Early History of Spatial At and Certain Primary Ideas Distinguishing At from On, In, By. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International.

Lundskær-Nielsen, T. 1993. Prepositions in Old and Middle English. A Study of Prepositional Syntax and the Semantics of At, In and On in some Old and Middle English Texts. Odense: Odense University Press.

Miller, G. A., and P. Johnson-Laird. 1976. Language and Perception. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Miller, T. ed. 1990 (1890). The Old English Version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of The English People. New York: Kraus Reprint.

O’Keefe J., and L. Nadel. 1978. The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map. Oxford: Clarendon.

Piaget, J., and B. Inhelder. 1967 (1948). The Child’s Conception of Space. New York: W.W. Norton.

Regier, T. 1996. The Human Semantic Potential. Spatial Language and Constrained Connectionism. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Rice, S. 1996. “Prepositional prototypes”. The Construal of Space in Language and Thought. Eds. Pütz, M., and R. Dirven. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 135-165.

Sandra, D., and S. Rice. 1995. “Network Analyses of Prepositional Meaning: Mirroring whose mind-the linguist’s or the language user’s?”. Cognitive Linguistics 6 (1): 89-130.

Talmy, L. 1978. “Figure and ground in complex sentences”. Universals of human language. Vol. 4. Ed. Greenberg, J. H.. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 625-649.

Wilkins D. P., and D. Hill. 1995. “When ‘go’ means ‘come’: Questioning the basicness of basic motion verbs”. Cognitive Linguistics 6 (2/3). 209-259.

Downloads

Published

29-05-2004

How to Cite

Guarddon Anelo, C. (2004). The changing role of "support" an "contiguity" : The hidden facet of the preposition "on" in Ols English. Journal of English Studies, 4, 89–105. https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.89

Issue

Section

Articles