The preposition under and its noun collocates in the under-NOUN pattern: A quantitative corpus-based investigation
Jarosław Wiliński
Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, PolandJarosław Wiliński is an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Linguistics and Literary Studies at Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities. He is the author of several articles and book chapters on applications of cognitive linguistics in onomasiological lexicography and on the use of quantitative methods in linguistic research. His areas of interest include cognitive and corpus linguistics, lexicology, phraseology, and onomasiological lexicography. His current research focuses on applications of cognitive linguistics in the compilation of thematic reference works and on a quantitative corpus-based investigation of grammatical constructions, collocations, and metaphors.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3136-6529
Abstract
This paper adopts a usage-based perspective on grammatical structure (Goldberg 2006, 2013) and the attraction-reliance measure (Schmidt 2000; Schmid & Küchenhoff 2013) to gauge the reciprocal interaction between a noun and the preposition under in the under-NOUN pattern: in other words, to determine strongly attracted nouns of this preposition. On the basis of the data extracted from the academic part of the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), this paper seeks to show that there are nouns that are more strongly attracted to the preposition under than others and that the co-occurrences of particular nouns with this preposition are more significant than others. In addition, the results of the analysis seem to suggest that the mutual associations between particular nouns and this preposition depend upon different senses of under and are therefore motivated by conceptual metaphors, metonymies, and/or image schemas.
Keywords:
construction grammar, COCA, attraction-reliance measure, corpus-based approachReferences
Achard, M. & Niemeier, S. (eds.). 2004. Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching, Vol. 18. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Arnon, I. & Snider, N. 2010. More than words. Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62: 67-87.
Boers, F. 1996. Spatial Prepositions and Metaphor. A Cognitive Semantic Journey along the up-down and the front-back Dimensions. Tuebingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Boers, F. & Demecheleer, M. 1998. A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. English Language Teaching Journal 53: 197-204.
Brenda, M. 2014. The Cognitive Perspective on the Polysemy of the English Spatial Preposition ‘over’. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Brugman, C. 1988. The Story of ‘over’: Polysemy, Semantics and the Structure of the Lexicon. New York: Garland.
Bybee, J. 2010. Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (eds.). 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cho, K. 2010. Fostering the acquisition of English Prepositions by Japanese learners with networks and prototypes. In: S. D. Knop, F. Boers & A. D. Rycker (eds.), Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency Through Cognitive Linguistics, 259-275. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dewell, R. 1994. Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 5(4): 451-480.
Diessel, H. 2015. Usage-based construction grammar. In: E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 295-321. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Diessel, H. 2017. Usage-based linguistics. In: M. Aronoff (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Evans, V. & Tyler, A. 2004a. Spatial experience, lexical structure and motivation: The case of in. In: G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Motivation, 157-192. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Evans, V. & Tyler, A. 2004b. Rethinking English prepositions of movement: The case of to and through. In: H. Cuyckens, W. deMulder & T. Mortelmans (eds.), Adpositions of Movement (Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 18), 247-270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Evans, V. & Tyler, A. 2005. Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar: The English prepositions of verticality. Revista Brasileira de Lingüística Aplicada 5(2): 11-42.
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. 2006. Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. 2013. Constructionist approaches to language. In: T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale (eds.), Handbook of Construction Grammar, 15-48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hampe, B. 2005. Image schemas in cognitive linguistics: introduction. In: B. Hampe (ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, 1-14. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hilpert, M. 2014. Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Reason, Thought and Imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kӧvecses, Z. 2006. Language, Mind and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kӧvecses, Z. 2010. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kӧvecses, Z. 2015. Where Metaphors Come From: Reconsidering Context in Metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kӧvecses, Z. 2016. Contextual factors in metaphor creation in discourse. In: M. Fabiszak, K. Krawczak & K. Rokoszewska (eds.), Categorization in Discourse and Grammar, 21-32. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Kövecses, Z. & Radden, G. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 37-77.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Theoretical Prerequisites. Vol. II. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lindstromberg, S. 1996. Prepositions: Meaning and method. ELT Journal 50(3): 225-236.
Lindstromberg, S. 2001. Preposition entries in UK monolingual learner’s dictionaries: Problems and possible solutions. Applied Linguistics 22(1): 79-103.
Lindstromberg, S. 2010. English Prepositions Explained. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Littlemore, J. 2009. Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Second Language Learning and Teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mandler, J. M. & Pagan Cánovas, C. 2014. On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition 6: 510-532.
Oakley, T. 2007. Image schemas. In: D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 214-235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Radden, G. & Dirven, R. 2007. Space and extensions of space. In: G. Radden & R. Dirven (eds.), Cognitive English Grammar: Cognitive Linguistics in Practice 2, 303-334. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rundell, M. (ed.). 2007. Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. 2nd ed. Oxford: Macmillan Education.
Schmid, H.-J. 2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells. From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schmid, H.-J. & Küchenhoff, H. 2013. Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics 24(3): 531-577.
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. 2001. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language 77(4): 724-765.
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. 2003. The Semantics of English Prepositions. Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Data sources
The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available from https://www.corpusdata.org/purchase.asp
Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, Poland
Jarosław Wiliński is an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Linguistics and Literary Studies at Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities. He is the author of several articles and book chapters on applications of cognitive linguistics in onomasiological lexicography and on the use of quantitative methods in linguistic research. His areas of interest include cognitive and corpus linguistics, lexicology, phraseology, and onomasiological lexicography. His current research focuses on applications of cognitive linguistics in the compilation of thematic reference works and on a quantitative corpus-based investigation of grammatical constructions, collocations, and metaphors.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3136-6529
