Pokaż uproszczony rekord

The Polysemy of Beside: The Correlation between TR and LM Syntactic Elaborations and Meaning

dc.contributor.authorBrenda, Maria
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-15T13:14:44Z
dc.date.available2025-01-15T13:14:44Z
dc.date.issued2024-12-31
dc.identifier.issn1731-7533
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/54221
dc.description.abstractThe paper contributes to the discussion of the polysemy of spatial prepositions looking at the conceptual structure of the preposition beside. Introducing the syntactic criterion to the process of trajector/landmark identification, the paper shows that beside gives access to a three-dimensional conceptual category, extending both upward and sideways, and that its polysemy arises when the conceptualizer focuses attention on the basic level of the category, the level of senses.en
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl
dc.relation.ispartofseriesResearch in Language;3en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
dc.subjectpolysemyen
dc.subjectprepositionsen
dc.subjectconceptualizationen
dc.subjectsyntaxen
dc.titleThe Polysemy of Beside: The Correlation between TR and LM Syntactic Elaborations and Meaningen
dc.typeArticle
dc.page.number182-211
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationUniversity of Szczecinen
dc.referencesBrenda, M. 2015. The semantics of at. Annales Neophilologiarum, 9, 25-55.en
dc.referencesBrenda, M. 2017. A cognitive perspective on the semantics of near. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15:1, 121-153. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.06breen
dc.referencesBrenda, M. 2019. The semantics of the English complex preposition next to. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 17:2, 438-464. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00042.breen
dc.referencesBrenda, M. and J. Mazurkiewicz-Sokołowska. A Cognitive Perspective on Spatial Prepositions: Intertwining networks. John Benjamins Publishing Company.en
dc.referencesBrugman, C. [1981] 1988. The story of over: polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. Garland Publishing.en
dc.referencesCooper, G. S. 1968. A semantic analysis of English locative prepositions. Clearinghouse.en
dc.referencesCruse, D. A. 2000. Aspects of the micro-structure of word meaning. In Ravin, Y. and C. Leacock (eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches, 30-51. Oxford University Press.en
dc.referencesCroft, W. and D. A. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864en
dc.referencesEvans, V. 2005. The meaning of time: polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics 41, 33-75.en
dc.referencesGeeraerts, D. 2010. Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford University Press.en
dc.referencesGärdenfors, P. 2015. The geometry of preposition meanings. The Baltic international yearbook of cognition, logic and communication, volume 10: Perspectives on spatial cognition, 1-33. https://doi.org/10.4148/1944-3676.1098en
dc.referencesGilquin, G. and A. McMichael. 2018. Through the prototypes of through: A corpus-based cognitive analysis. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 6:1, 43-70. https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2018-0003en
dc.referencesGries, S. 2019. Polysemy. In Dąbrowska, E. and D. Divjak (eds.). Cognitive linguistics: Key topics, 23-43. Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110626438-002en
dc.referencesVan der Gucht, F., Willems, K. and L. De Cuypere. 2007. The iconicity of embodied meaning. Polysemy of spatial prepositions in the cognitive framework. Language Sciences 29, 733-754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.027en
dc.referencesHanks, P. 2000. Do word meanings exist? Computers and the Humanities 34, 205-215.en
dc.referencesHanks, P. 2013. Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. MIT Press.en
dc.referencesJohnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago Press.en
dc.referencesLakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press.en
dc.referencesLakoff, G. 1996. Sorry, I’m not myself today: The metaphor system for conceptualizing the self. In G. Fauconnier and E. Sweetser (eds.), Spaces, worlds, and grammar, 91-123. University of Chicago Press.en
dc.referencesLakoff, G. and M. Johnson. [1980] 2003. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.en
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.en
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford University Press.en
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. 2000. Grammar and conceptualization. Mouton de Gruyter.en
dc.referencesLangacker, R. W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press.en
dc.referencesLindstromberg, S. 2010. English prepositions explained. Revised edition. John Benjamins Publishing Company.en
dc.referencesLogan, G. D. and D. D. Sadler. 1996. A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations. In Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nadel, L. and M. F. Garrett (eds.), Space and Language, 493-529. MIT Press.en
dc.referencesLundskær-Nielsen, T. 1993. Prepositions in Old and Middle English. Odense University Press.en
dc.referencesLuraghi, S. 2003. On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases. John Benjamins Publishing Company.en
dc.referencesMurray, James A. H., Henry Bradley, W. A. Craigie and C. T. Onions (eds.). 1989. The Oxford English dictionary (2nd edition). Clarendon Press.en
dc.referencesNavarro-Ferrando, I. 1999. The metaphorical use of on. Journal of English Studies 1, 145-164.en
dc.referencesNavarro-Ferrando, I. 2000. A cognitive semantic analysis of the English lexical unit in. Cuadernos de Investigación Filológica 26, 189-220.en
dc.referencesRissanen, M. 2004. Grammaticalisation from side to side: On the development of beside(s). In Lindquist, H. and Mair, C. (eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English, 151-170. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.13.08risen
dc.referencesRudkiewicz, K. 2016. Cognitive explorations into the category schema of ‘for’. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.en
dc.referencesTalmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1. MIT Press.en
dc.referencesTyler, A. and V. Evans. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions. Cambridge University Press.en
dc.referencesTuggy, D. 1993. Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive linguistics, 4-3, 273-290.en
dc.referencesUngerer, F. and H. J. Schmid. [1996] 2006. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Pearson Education Limited. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.273en
dc.contributor.authorEmailmaria.brenda@usz.edu.pl
dc.identifier.doi10.18778/1731-7533.22.3.02
dc.relation.volume22


Pliki tej pozycji

Thumbnail
Nazwa:
182-211_Brenda.pdf
Rozmiar:
692.6KB
Format:
PDF
Oglądaj/Otwórz

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Pokaż uproszczony rekord

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Poza zaznaczonymi wyjątkami, licencja tej pozycji opisana jest jako https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0