The Semantics of Prepositions (From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing) || On universality and variability in the semantics of spatial adpositions

On universality and variability in the semantics of spatial adpositions

Bruce W. Hawkins

1. The problem

Recent work in cognitive linguistics has revealed a great deal about the nature of semantic structures in particular languages. Because the most influential works in this emerging field of linguistic analysis reject the fundamental assumptions of the Chomskyan research program (e.g., Langacker 1987, Lakoff 1987), the issue of universality of these semantic structures has not been confronted with any vigor by cognitive linguists. I find this problematic — an instance of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Whatever the nature of the structures under investigation, those structures must be acquirable. And as soon as we confront language from the acquisition perspective, the question of universality arises whether we like it or not.

The underlying purpose of this paper is to re-introduce the issue of universality into the research program of cognitive linguistics. I will do so through an examination of semantic structures in the domain of spatial relations. I will confront most directly the question of what semantic structures characteristic of English spatial prepositions may be considered universal. Derivatively, I will also consider the question of what factors lead to observed variability across languages of these supposedly universal semantic structures?

These questions will be confronted within the framework of Langack-er's Cognitive Grammar (CG). CG assumes an encyclopedic perspective on meaning, asserting that the meaning of any particular linguistic unit is inextricably tied to a complex web of linguistic and extralinguistic contexts. The substantive role of context in semantic structure is captured in CG by means of the profile/base distinction. The base in semantic structure constitutes a composite of specific and generalized contexts which make up the cognitive background relative to which a particular linguistic unit is semantically characterized. The entity highlighted in a particular semantic structure is the profile.

Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library (Brown University Rockefeller Library)Authenticated | 172.16.1.226

Download Date | 5/4/12 9:26 PM

328 Bruce W. Hawkins

Langacker (1987: 149) touches briefly on the issue of universality in his discussion of the base in semantic structure. He claims that every base involves specifications in one or more cognitive domains and that some of these domains may be conceptual primitives, hence universal. He refers to these as basic domains. He suggests that the search for universals among the inventory of profiled structures is outside the scope of CG. Thus, Langacker restricts our research on semantic profiles to the ques-tion of what structures are profiled. This paper takes issue with this self-imposed limitation on the CG research program. I propose that it is both necessary and possible to confront productively the universalist question of what structures are profilable.

Langacker actually began the process of investigating this latter ques-tion years ago by proposing a fundamental subcategorization within the set of profiled semantic structures. He identifies one category of profiles characteristic of nouns and another characteristic of verbs, adjectives and prepositions. The former are referred to as THINGS. Any semantic structure identified as a THING presents a profile characterizable as a region in some domain.

Herein, we are concerned most directly with a subset of the latter category, referred to in CG as RELATIONS. The central feature of any relational profile is a cognitive link (cf. Johnson 1987: 117-118) or interconnection. The entities linked may be THINGS or RELATIONS. The typical RELATION involves a linkage of two entities, but three or more entities may be involved. In any case, there will always be one particular entity in a relational profile that is most prominent. This entity, which stands out as a figure in the relational profile, is referred to in CG as the TRAJECTOR (TR). Any other entity in the relational profile constitutes a LANDMARK (LM) which provides a salient point of reference for situating the TR within a particular cognitive domain.

In this paper, I will examine the inventory of spatial relations profiled by English prepositions and Japanese postpositions. My ultimate objec-tive is to provide not just an inventory of profiled spatial relations, but more ambitiously, a theory of why the inventory includes the relations it does. As a result, we confront the question of universality head on. That is, the central question becomes not what are the profiled relations but rather what relations are profilable?



On universality and variability of spatial adpositions 329

2. The semantics of English spatial prepositions

Adequate description of the set of semantic structures profiled by English spatial prepositions necessitates three fundamental parameters of seman-tic structure: basic relations, configurations instantiable by the preposi-tional trajector (hereafter TR configurations), and configurations instan-tiable by the prepositional landmark (hereafter LM configurations). I shall begin substantive discussion of this framework with the basic rela-tions.

2.2.1. Basic relations

There are only two basic relations which are profiled by spatial prepo-sitions in English, COINCIDENCE and SEPARATION. In other words, the specifically relational content of any spatial preposition in English can be identified as either COINCIDENCE or SEPARATION. Each of the prepositions apparent in (1) profile the COINCIDENCE relation, while the contrasting prepositions in (2) exhibit the SEPARATION re-lation.

(1) a. Erika is at home. b. Erika is on the ugly blue carpet. c. Erika is in her bedroom.

(2) a. Erika is away from home. b. Erika is off the ugly blue carpet. c. Erika is out of her bedroom.

The essential defining characteristic of COINCIDENCE is identified explicitly in the principal definition of the verb "coincide" given by Webster's Third New International Dictionary: "to occupy the same place in space". The crucial word here is "same"; all other terms in the definition simply indicate that the relation involves location in space. The word "same" identifies the quality of this spatial relation — spatial cooccurr-ence, two entities perceived as occupying one physical space. In contrast, the defining characteristic of SEPARATION is difference. In any case of SEPARATION, there are two (or more, perhaps) entities perceived as occupying two different physical spaces. A natural consequence of this is that it is possible, indeed a logical necessity, to perceive a spatial gap between the entities in a SEPARATION relation. No such spatial gap can be perceived in a COINCIDENCE relation.




There are few locative prepositions in English, outside of those listed in (1), which profile a COINCIDENCE relation. Indeed, the only other reasonably uncontroversial members of this set are the prepositions in (3).

(3) a. Ken is beneath the covers. b. Ty is underneath Ken (screaming at the top of his lungs). c. Erika is on top of this small mass of humanity.

In the case of the prepositions in (3), as opposed to those in (1), the COINCIDENCE relation must be profiled against a cognitive back-ground which makes the vertical dimension identifiable. There appear to be no prepositions in English which profile COINCIDENCE specifically in either of the horizontal dimensions. As shown in (4), however, there are prepositions profiling SEPARATION in all three dimensions in space.

(4) a. The plane is above the clouds. b. The plant is over the kitchen sink. c. The plane has dropped below the clouds. d. You'll need to put a bucket under that hole in the ceiling. e. The blue bus parked in front of my car. f. The yellow bus parked behind/in back of my car. g. My chair is to the left of the bookcase. h. The stereo is to the right of the bookcase.

SEPARATION relations may also be distinguished on the basis of distance of the SEPARATION. In most cases in English, this is achieved with a prepositional qualifier rather than by the preposition itself. This is the case in (5).

(5) a. The plane is far above the clouds. b. The gate is 10 meters to the left of the house. c. The supermarket is only one mile down the road.

However, there is at least one preposition in English, near, which profiles a PROXIMAL SEPARATION relation.

(6) The Normal Post Office is near the ISU campus.

When we turn our attention to directional prepositions, we find that most profile a COINCIDENCE relation. For each preposition in (7), there is COINCIDENCE between the LM configuration and some re-stricted portion of a linear TR configuration.

(7) a. John jumped into his car. b. John backed out o/his garage.




c. John drove through the intersection without stopping for the red light.

d. John drove from Chicago to Los Angeles in record time.

In the case of into and to, COINCIDENCE involves only the terminal location, or TERMINUS, of the linear TR configuration. By contrast, the COINCIDENCE profiled by out of and from involves only the initial location, or ORIGIN of the linear TR configuration. In the example of through in (7 c), the COINCIDENCE relation involves some non-initial, non-terminal location or set of locations. In (8), on the other hand, we see that the same preposition can profile a COINCIDENCE relation which involves the entire linear TR configuration.

(8) He waved his sword defiantly through the air.

Similarly, the prepositions in (9) also exhibit COINCIDENCE which is exhaustive of a significantly expansive TR configuration. In these cases, however, the expansiveness is clearly not linear.

(9) a. There is smoke throughout the library. b. There are papers all over my desk. c. There is dirt all across the road.

2.2.2. TR configurations

Consider the syntactic structures in (10).

(10) a. the ball on the hill b. The ball rolled down the hill.

English syntax makes it appear that English spatial prepositions de-scribe relations between THINGS — ball and hill in (10 a) — or between a processual RELATION and a THING — the ball rolling and the hill, respectively, in (10 b). This is not exactly the case. Consider the semantic structures in (11).

(11) a. the road into Saarbrucken b. the road out of Saarbrucken c. the road through Saarbrucken

Although I have held constant the THING elaborating the respective TR valences of into, out of, and through, there is a clear distinction in the image attributed to this THING — the road — in each case. The




distinction is configurational. When elaborating the TR of into in (11 a), the road takes on the image of what I call the TERMINATIVE PATH configuration. When the same nominal elaborates the TR valence of out of in (11 b), it takes on a rather different image, which I call the INITIA-TIVE PATH configuration. And when that same nominal elaborates the TR of through in (11 c), it takes on yet a different image, which I call the IMPERFECTIVE PATH configuration. The exact same configurational contrasts are apparent in other sets of English spatial prepositions.

(12) a. I flew to Chicago. b. I flew from Chicago. c. I flew here via Chicago.

(13) a. The ball rolled onto the newspaper. b. The ball rolled off the newspaper. c. The ball rolled across the newspaper.

Common to these three configurations is that they all involve a one-dimensional expanse. Any configuration characterized by such a one-dimensional expanse is referred to herein as a PATH. In the examples given in (11), (12), and (13), we encounter three qualitatively different PATHs. The least complex is the IMPERFECTIVE PATH evident in (11 c), (12 c), and (13 c), characterization of which requires only what has already been said: IMPERFECTIVE PATH is purely a one-dimensional expanse.

Jackendoff (1978, 1983) identifies boundedness as a quality that distin-guishes TERMINATIVE PATH and INITIATIVE PATH on the one hand from IMPERFECTIVE PATH on the other. While any PATH could conceivably be bounded at two extremes, IMPERFECTIVE PATH is bounded at neither while both TERMINATIVE PATH and INITIA-TIVE PATH are bounded at only one extreme. The distinction between the two bounded PATHs is a matter of which bounding extreme is included in the configuration. TERMINATIVE PATH includes the ex-treme I call TERMINUS and is not bounded at the opposite extreme, while INITIATIVE PATH includes the extreme commonly identified as ORIGIN and is unbounded at the other extreme. Successful characteri-zation of TERMINATIVE PATH and INITIATIVE PATH, therefore, requires explicit identification of the difference between TERMINUS and ORIGIN. This distinction is a matter of direction, which is ultimately explainable in terms of the concept of order or sequence. When a PATH is directed, the continuous set of locations which constitute the PATH




must be perceived as occurring in a strategic order. Sequential scanning (cf. Langacker 1987: 248-253) of such a PATH leads to recognition of distinct bounding extremes. When sequential scanning results in percep-tion of an ordered change from the one-dimensional expanse of the PATH to something qualitatively different, that point of change is iden-tifiable as the TERMINUS. When the perceived change is in the opposite order, from something other than PATH to the one-dimensional expanse of the PATH, the point of change is the ORIGIN.

In the cases of TERMINATIVE PATH and INITIATIVE PATH, we find the properties of direction and boundedness co-occurring. However, not all directed PATHs are also bounded PATHs. Consider the PATH in the profile of toward in (14).

(14) The baby is crawling toward the stairway.

This sentence asserts that the infant is headed in the direction of a LM that can be particularly dangerous for a young child — the stairway, but it doesn't assert that the directed PATH will terminate at that LM. That is, the DIRECTIVE PATH in the profile of toward leaves open the possibility that the baby will go right on crawling when she reaches the stairway, a situation sure to alarm the parent.

Similarly, not all bounded PATHs in English are also directed PATHs. Consider the semantic contrast between (15 a) and (15 b).

(15) a. This train runs from downtown Chicago to OHare Airport. b. This train runs between downtown Chicago and OHare Airport.

Both examples exhibit a PATH bounded at both extremes. I refer to this configuration as PERFECTIVE PATH. The PERFECTIVE PATH in (15 a) is the result of explicitly juxtaposing the INITIATIVE PATH of from with the TERMINATIVE PATH of to. Since both contributing images are directed PATHs, the composite bounded PATH image is also a directed PATH. Thus, downtown Chicago is identifiable as the ORIGIN and OHare Airport as the TERMINUS of this composite PERFECTIVE PATH.

In contrast, direction is not characteristic of the PERFECTIVE PATH profiled by between. Although the order of the prepositional objects in (15 b) may suggest some priority of the first LM, (15 b) is true whether the train is headed in the direction of downtown Chicago or toward OHare Airport. Indeed, the best evidence for the truth of (15 b) would be observations of the same train going in one direction at one time and in the other direction at a different time.




The PATH image evident in (16) is one I call CIRCUITIVE PATH.

(16) This train goes around the airport once every 30 minutes.

The concepts needed to distinguish CIRCUITIVE PATH from other PATH configurations are curvature (or, more generally, non-rectilinear-ity) and closure; CIRCUITIVE PATH is best characterized as a simple closed curve. The preposition in (17) profiles a TR configuration which shares the curvature/non-rectilinearity characteristic of CIRCUITIVE PATH, but not the closure.

(17) We drove around town for hours looking for our kids.

I refer to this PATH image as NON-RECTILINEAR PATH. In defining the basic PATH image as one-dimensional expanse, we

have also defined the semantic factor common to directional prepositions. Every directional preposition exhibits some PATH as its TR configura-tion. As not all PATH images are directed, we can see that the term 'directional preposition' itself is something of a misnomer.

If the PATH image — one-dimensional expanse — is the defining characteristic of directional prepositions, what is the TR configuration characteristic of locative prepositions? The prepositions we saw earlier in examples (1) through (6) are all locatives, but those in (18) and (19) are rather questionable.

(18) a. There are acorns all over the lawn. b. There are acorns all across the lawn. c. There are acorns all around the mighty oak tree.

(19) a. There is smoke throughout the house. b. There is smoke all through the house. c. There is smoke all around the frightened child.

These prepositions are difficult to classify given only a two-way dis-tinction like locative vs. directional. The problem lies in considering the locative/directional distinction to be a basic dichotomy. These two cate-gories do not exhaust the set of English spatial prepositions. Clearly, these are the majority categories, but the data in (18) and (19) belong in a pair of very sparsely populated minority categories. All of these cate-gories are defined explicitly by the nature of the TR configuration in the relational profile of the preposition. As concluded earlier, directional prepositions exhibit a profile involving a TR configuration characterized by one-dimensional expanse. The prepositions in (18) and (19) profile




TR configurations which expand beyond a single dimension. The prep-ositions in (18) exhibit a TR configuration characterizable as two-dimen-sional expanse, while the prepositions in (19) exhibit a contrasting image characterizable as three-dimensional expanse. I refer to the former as AREA and the latter as SPACE.

So what, then, is the configuration characteristic of locative preposi-tions? Let's put the question in slightly different terms: what configura-tional information does the image convey? None! That is, locative prep-ositions profile a relation in which the TR configuration ascribes no properties whatsoever to the thing or process elaborating the prepositional TR. Clearly, this doesn't mean that this thing or process has no physical properties. For this reason, I reject proposals to characterize this config-uration as a point — an abstract, zero-dimensional entity (e.g., Dirven 1981, Rudzka-Ostyn 1988). I call this configuration NODE, because this term accurately captures the essence of the TR configuration character-istic of locative prepositions: the conceptual ability to ignore perceived facts of internal complexity and deal with an entity as an unanalyzed, autonomous whole — a node. This is precisely what cartographers do when they reduce whole cities to mere dots on a map. Lakoff (1987: 442) discusses this same basic phenomenon in terms of a multiplex <-> mass image-schema transformation.

2.2.3. LM configurations

Most analysts of English spatial prepositions recognize the natural classes in (20), (21), and (22).

(20) a. John is in the room. b. John is out of the room. c. John ran into the room. d. John ran out of the room. e. John ran through the room. f. John scattered papers throughoutjail through the room.

(21) a. John is on the white carpet. b. John is off the white carpet. c. John ran onto the white carpet. d. John ran off the white carpet. e. John ran across the white carpet. f. John scattered papers all across the white carpet.




(22) a. John is at the front door. b. John is away from the front door. c. John ran to the front door. d. John ran from the front door. e. John ran (to his car) via the front door.

However, not all analysts recognize that there is a fourth natural class to be considered along with this group.

(23) a. You'll find John along the road somewhere. b. John ran along the road. c. John scattered papers all along the road.

In comparison with those in (20), (21), and (22), the natural class in (23) is clearly deficient, but each of these natural classes of prepositions, including that in (23), is formed on the basis of shared configurational information about the prepositional LM. There are four LM configura-tions in English. I call the configuration characteristic of the prepositions in (20) MEDIUM. The prepositions in (21) share a contrasting LM configuration most analysts (including myself) call SURFACE. Charac-teristic of the prepositions in (22) is a configuration we have seen before, NODE. And finally, that deficient set of prepositions in (23) share the LM configuration I refer to as CHANNEL.

In an earlier forum (Hawkins 1984), I gave characterizations for these four LM configurations that are functional in nature. Each image was distinguished on the basis of its relational potential. The relational po-tential of MEDIUM is characterizable in a number of ways: enclosure, inclusion, or containment. The relational potential of SURFACE includes such concrete physical relations as contact, support, resistance, and con-tiguity. The CHANNEL image is characterized by a relational potential that can be characterized as passage, conveyance, or transmission. As before, NODE is the odd member of the set in that it seems to have no specific relational potential.

I refer to this functional characteristic of the LM configurations as relational potential because the concrete relations actually occur only when the particular LM configuration is found in a COINCIDENCE relation. When the same configuration is found in a SEPARATION relation, the relational potential remains unrealized. For example, locative out of in (20 b) does not involve a room in any containment relationship. Instead, it involves SEPARATION from a room which, in some other situation, could clearly be involved in a containment relation.




In a descriptive framework such as this, where configurations clearly contrast with relations, defining a configuration solely on the basis of its relational potential seems misguided. Furthermore, reconciliation of the NODE image with other LM configurations becomes quite difficult, if not impossible, if the defining characteristic of the set is relational poten-tial. As noted earlier, NODE has no particular relational potential, and, therefore, would not seem to fit well within a set so defined. Suspecting that Leech (1969) had come quite close to resolving this problem with his ascription features, [3DIME], [2DIME], and [1DIME] — correspond-ing to MEDIUM, SURFACE, and NODE, respectively - I confronted this problem from the same perspective as Leech had (cf. Hawkins 1988). That is, rather than attempting to confront the MEDIUM image directly, I followed Leech in recognizing that MEDIUM amounts to the conditions for acceptable co-occurrence with the prepositions in (20), and that the nominals which meet these conditions comprise a significant lexical cat-egory in English. We can refer to this as the lexical category MEDIUM. In effect, the MEDIUM configuration is an abbreviated representation of the lexical category of the same name. If an explicit characterization can be given to this lexical category, it would reveal the fundamental characteristics of the MEDIUM image.

My investigation led to the conclusion that the lexical categories ME-DIUM, SURFACE, CHANNEL, and NODE are natural categories defined not by necessary and sufficient conditions but rather by a cate-gorial prototype and local relations of similarity between category mem-bers. The condition defining the categorial prototype in each case is a configurational property: three-dimensional expanse for MEDIUM, two-dimensional expanse for SURFACE, and one-dimensional expanse for CHANNEL. NODE turns out to be a category superordinate to the others, defined just as we defined it earlier, as an integral, internally unanalyzed whole. At present, I can see no reason not to equate the LM configuration in each case with the prototype of the corresponding lexical category.

3. Implications for a theory of universal grammar

What implications does this particular analysis of English spatial prep-ositions have for the analysis of other languages? That is, assuming that the proposed framework has a reasonably high degree of descriptive




adequacy for English, what can it reveal about the nature of language in general? Clearly we cannot claim that the semantic system characteristic of English spatial prepositions is universal. Indeed, it is safe to assume that there is probably not another language in the world for which the proposed descriptive framework would be entirely adequate. So, does the proposed framework have any utility at all beyond that of describing the semantics of English spatial prepositions? And if so, what are the impli-cations for a theory of universal grammar?

I have come to the conclusion that this analysis has far-reaching implications for such a theory. We have seen the semantic system of English spatial prepositions characterized by three parameters of struc-ture, one relational and two configurational. I suggest that underlying these particular parameters in this particular semantic domain in this particular language are two fundamentally distinct, innate parameters of cognitive structure. One of these is a relational parameter. Analysis of the spatial prepositions in English reveals that this parameter must include at least two basic relations: SAME and DIFFERENT. Whether this particular innate parameter includes any other relations is clearly a relevant question, but not one we can confront productively with the data presently under consideration. The other parameter involves config-urational information. The facts of English spatial prepositions force us to recognize that this configurational parameter includes at least simple expanses in one, two and three dimensions and properties which can make certain expanses more complex — boundedness, direction, rectili-nearity/curvature and closure — as well as the capacity to ignore the configurational complexities of conceptualized entities.

At this point, it is useful to return to the distinction I drew earlier between profiled and profilable structures. A profiled structure is a language-specific semantic structure. It is necessarily highlighted within some cognitive domain (or set of domains) — the base in semantic structure. Every preposition in English involves a profiled structure which must meet the following semantic well-formedness conditions: it involves a basic relation from the inventory in (24) between a TR configuration from the inventory in (25) and a LM configuration from the inventory in (26).

(24) Basic relations a. COINCIDENCE: TR and LM occupy the same place in

space, such that there is no perceptible spatial gap between them.




b. SEPARATION:

(25)

(26)

TR and LM occupy different places in space, such that there is a perceptible spatial gap between them.

TR configurations a. NODE: b. IMPERFECTIVE PATH: c. INITIATIVE PATH:

d. TERMINATIVE PATH:

e. DIRECTIVE PATH:

f. PERFECTIVE PATH:

g. CIRCUITIVE PATH:

h. NON-RECTILINEAR PATH:

i. AREA: j. SPACE:

internally unanalyzed entity one-dimensional (1-d) expanse 1-d expanse, directed, and bounded at ORIGIN 1-d expanse, directed, and bounded at TERMINUS 1-d expanse, directed 1-d expanse, bounded at both extremes 1-d expanse, curved/non-recti-linear and closed 1-d expanse, curved/non-recti-linear 2-d expanse 3-d expanse

LM configurations NODE: internally unanalyzed entity

1-d expanse, relational potential: passage, conveyance, transmission, etc. 2-d expanse, relational potential: contact, support, resistance, contiguity, etc. 3-d expanse, relational potential: enclosure, inclusion, containment, etc.

a. b. CHANNEL:

c. SURFACE:

d. MEDIUM:

In contrast with a profiled structure, a profitable structure is not a semantic structure; it is a primitive cognitive structure. It differs crucially from a profiled structure in that the profilable structure is not highlighted within any cognitive domain. Indeed, a profilable structure exists innately in the human mind before the process begins of acquiring substantive information in particular cognitive domains. Throughout this process of cognitive development, profilable structures facilitate categorization of incoming perceptual data into packages of information stored economi-cally enough to meet the demands of rapid cognitive processing. We commonly refer to these packages as concepts. Profilable structures can be considered innate structural hypotheses which are tested against in-




coming perceptual data throughout the process of conceptual develop-ment.

My hypothesis about the development of language-particular semantic systems involves the following three fundamental claims: (i) one or more innate parameters are implicitly accessed in the search for manageable semantic structure in a particular system; (ii) some hypotheses from each parameter are retained for structuring particular concepts within the system, while others may be dismissed; and (iii) when more than one parameter is accessed to structure a particular semantic system, the retained hypotheses in one must coordinate with the retained hypotheses in the others, resulting in language-specific profiled structures which, because of this coordination, are clearly more complex than the innate profitable structures from which they are directly derived.

This hypothesis makes a number of important predictions. First, it predicts that although distinct semantic domains are structured differently within a given language, there should be cases of particular abstract cognitive structures surfacing in semantic structures in a number of different domains within that language. Second, it predicts that although a given semantic domain is treated differently across languages, there should be cases of particular cognitive structures surfacing in the same domain in different languages. Finally, it also predicts that we could expect to find instances in which a given innate parameter is accessed more than once in structuring a given semantic system. In any of these cases, we should expect to find both similarities and differences in the profiled structures either across domains or across languages. The simi-larities would be attributable to the fact that the same resource has been appealed to in each case, that being a particular parameter of profilable structures. The differences would be attributable to the fact that this resource has been applied to substantively different problems in different contexts.

Thus, we predict both similarity and difference in the manifestation of profilable structures in three different situations: across domains within a particular language, in corresponding semantic systems across lan-guages, and within a particular semantic system in a particular language. It is impractical in the present forum to present and discuss adequately data relevant to all three sets of predictions. I restrict my attention here to the predictions which can be illustrated with data from adpositional semantics. Thus, I will not confront data illustrating the variable mani-festation of profilable structures across domains within a given language. In confronting the issue of consistency and variability across languages




a bit later, we will compare the English system of spatial prepositions with the Japanese system of spatial postpositions. But we do not have to look to some other language to find our first example of variability in the manifestation of a given parameter and the structural hypotheses therein. There is an excellent example within the semantic system of English spatial prepositions, where the innate configurational parameter has been accessed not once but twice. As we would predict when the same resource is applied to two problems, there is significant similarity across the two subsystems. Both exhibit expanses in one, two, and three dimensions, as well as the configurationally unanalyzed NODE. We also predict that in applying a particular resource in distinct contexts, the contextual distinctions will lead also to some significant dissimilarities across the two subsystems. This prediction is borne out by the data of English spatial prepositions in two ways. First, we find that the LM role has an effect on the three expansive configurations that the TR role does not. That is, the LM role brings out the relational potential of 1-d, 2-d and 3-d expanses, while the TR role does not. Second, we find that the properties of boundedness, direction, curvature/non-rectilinearity, and closure are coordinated with the 1-d expanse of PATH to yield seven different TR configurations. In contrast, there is only one 1-d expanse image among the set of LM configurations: CHANNEL. The configu-rational property of boundedness does, however, play a minor role within the set of LM configurations. The LM configuration characteristic of the two prepositions in (27) is a MEDIUM, i.e., a 3-d expanse, which is necessarily bounded.

(27) a. I parked my car inside the garage, b. I parked my car outside the garage.

Let us turn our attention now to the system of Japanese spatial postpositions. The first important observation to be made is that Japanese does not have the rich set of locative adpositional particles that English does. Instead, Japanese exhibits the constructions no X ni and no X de along with a rich set of relational nouns to fill the X slot. Given in (28) and (29) are a few relevant examples.

(28) a. neko ga hako no ue ni imasu cat SUBJ box postp. top postp. be 'The cat is on the box.'

b. neko ga hako no naka ni imasu cat SUBJ box postp. interior postp. be 'The cat is in the box.'




c. neko ga hako no soto ni imasu cat SUBJ box postp. exterior postp. be 'The cat is out of the box.'

d. neko ga hako no mae ni imasu cat SUBJ box postp. front postp. be 'The cat is in front of the box.'

e. neko ga hako no ushiro ni imasu cat SUBJ box postp. back postp. be 'The cat is behind the box.'

(29) a. neko ga hako no ue de ne te imasu cat SUBJ box postp. top postp. sleep PROG be 'The cat is sleeping on the box.'

b. neko ga hako no naka de ne te imasu cat SUBJ box postp. interior postp. sleep PROG be 'The cat is sleeping in the box.'

c. neko ga hako no soto de ne te imasu cat SUBJ box postp. exterior postp. sleep PROG be 'The cat is sleeping outside of the box.'

d. neko ga hako no mae de ne te imasu cat SUBJ box postp. front postp. sleep PROG be 'The cat is sleeping in front of the box.'

e. neko ga hako no ushiro de ne te imasu cat SUBJ box postp. back postp. sleep PROG be 'The cat is sleeping behind the box.'

These data exemplify some important facts about the Japanese system of spatial postpositions. In order to discuss them with any degree of adequacy, it is necessary to clarify the semantic composition of the relevant postpositional structures. The first observation to be made con-cerns the postposition no. This postposition is used to express a wide range of relations (cf. Tohsaku 1982), the most common and concrete of which is possession, as in the NPs in (30).

(30) a. Yamada-san no hon Mr. Yamada postp. book 'Mr. Yamada's book'

b. Wat as i no kaban 1 ρ singular postp. briefcase 'my briefcase'




In the postpositional constructions under consideration, no profiles a relation more abstract than typical possession. This abstract relationship involves one nominal, hako, which profiles a discrete bounded entity (cf. Talmy 1988) and a second nominal — ue, naka, soto, mae, or ushiro — which profiles a space contiguous to and, crucially, defined relative to the first entity. Native speakers of Japanese consistently report that no does not encode the spatial contiguity relationship between the entity and this relationally defined space. The reports indicate that the relation profiled by no is a more abstract one which, I believe, can be identified as the conceptual dependency of the space upon the concrete object.

This discussion of no leads to an important conclusion concerning the appropriate parsing of the structures in (28) and (29). The conclusion is that we are not really dealing with lexically complex postpositions of the form no X ni and no X de but rather with the simple postpositions ni and de, the semantic LMs of which are elaborated by NPs of the structure Ν no N.

This has important repercussions in our analysis of the semantic system of Japanese spatial postpositions. In effect, we are concluding that the LM configurational information captured within the English system of spatial prepositions is not similarly captured within the Japanese post-positional system, but rather, within a separate semantic system of rela-tional nouns. Analysis of this Japanese system of relational nouns could clearly reveal important facts about the innate configurational parameter I have hypothesized. For our present purposes, however, the important fact is that a parameter accessed for a particular structuring task within the semantic system of English spatial prepositions is not accessed for the same purpose within the semantic system of Japanese spatial post-positions. This is one scenario which leads to cross-linguistic variability in structuring a particular semantic system.

Another vital fact that emerges from these data pertains to the inven-tory of relations profiled by Japanese postpositions. The fact established just a moment ago concerning the compositionality of the postpositional LM has a direct bearing here as well. Once we recognize that the postpositional LMs in (28) and (29) are elaborated not by the simple nominal hako but by the more complex NP structure hako no X, we must also recognize that the relation profiled by the postposition ni or de is that existing not between the cat (neko) and the box {hako), but rather the relation between the cat and the space profiled by the relational noun. This relation is consistently COINCIDENCE. In this regard, the contrasts between the (b) and (c) examples in (28) and (29) take on great significance




in that they demonstrate clearly that the notion of SEPARATION is captured not by Japanese locative postpositions but rather, like the LM configurational information, within the system of relational nouns in Japanese. This exhibits another scenario predicted earlier; the same innate parameter is accessed in structuring both systems of spatial adpositions — English and Japanese. Cross-linguistic variability results from a dis-tinction in the retention and dismissal of innate structural hypotheses. The English system retains both basic relational hypotheses — COIN-CIDENCE and SEPARATION. The Japanese postpositional system, on the other hand, retains only the COINCIDENCE hypothesis. The SEP-ARATION hypothesis is dismissed in this particular semantic system, but surfaces elsewhere in the language — within the system of relational nouns.

Finally, we turn our attention to the configurational information Jap-anese spatial postpositions contain concerning their TRs. Given what we have already concluded concerning the inventory of relational informa-tion and LM configurational information within the system, it should come as no surprise that TR configurational information is the significant variable within the system. And, as we would predict, the configurational structures are not very different from those we find in the English system of spatial prepositions.

We have already seen that there are two locative postpositions in Japanese, ni and de. These Japanese locatives are similar to English locatives in one significant way and different in another. The similarity is actually a matter of spatial information, the difference a matter of temporal information. The profiles of both postpositions involve the configuration I have called NODE. That is, ni and de share with all English locative prepositions the fact that the spatial characteristics in-herent in the adpositional TR are ignored. Where ni and de differ from English locatives is that they exhibit a sensitivity to temporal aspectual characteristics of the verb not exhibited by English locatives. Ni is the appropriate Japanese postposition to express location when the verb is stative, while de is the appropriate locative postposition in sentences involving a dynamic verb.

The directional postpositions in Japanese are (w)o, kara, made and e. Before discussing these four, however, it is important to note that both of the locative postpositions occur in sentences involving verbs of loco-motion. The role of locative de in such structures is no different from its role in any other sentence involving a dynamic verb: de simply indicates where the action is taking place. This is illustrated in (31).




(31) Rooka de hasirimasi ta hallway postp. run past Ί was running around in the hallway.'

The role of ni in sentences involving locomotion verbs is rather differ-ent. Citing evidence like that in (32), Kuno (1973: 97) suggests that ni "indicates that the [LM] NP is the goal of the motion designated by the verb."

(32) Rooka ni hasirimasi ta hallway postp. run past Ί ran into the hallway.'

It is important to note that Kuno's description of the function of ni in instances like (32) refers explicitly to what I have called the TERMINUS of a PATH rather than to a TERMINATIVE PATH per se. It would be inappropriate to conclude from the evidence in (32) that, in structures involving a verb of locomotion, ni involves the TERMINATIVE PATH configuration characteristic of the English prepositions to, onto and into. Such a conclusion would lead one to expect that the structure in (33) would be interpreted as "I swim to the lake", for example, down a river to the lake.

(33) Mizuumi ni oyogimasu. lake postp. swim Ί swim in the lake.'

But this structure is appropriate only under very special circumstances, and when it is appropriate it does not involve a TERMINATIVE PATH in any way. This structure necessitates a more or less permanent locative relationship between the swimmer and the lake. Thus, this sentence could be uttered appropriately by a fresh water mermaid describing her regular activity in her permanent aquatic domain.

A second reason for doubting that ni involves the TERMINATIVE PATH configuration is illustrated by the data in (34).

(34) a. Tokyo ni ikimasi ta Tokyo postp. go past Ί went to Tokyo.'

b. Tokyo e ikimasi ta Tokyo postp. go past Ί went to Tokyo.'




c. Tokyo made ikimasi ta Tokyo postp. go past Ί went to Tokyo'.

Although all three of these structures can be translated as Ί went to Tokyo', they are not synonymous, reflecting the fact that the postpositions are not synonymous. The only postposition in Japanese with the INI-TIATIVE PATH TR configuration in its profile is kara, and the post-position used consistently in opposition to kara to indicate a TERMI-NATIVE PATH is made. This is true whether these postpositions are used to indicate relations in the spatial domain, as in (35 a), or in the temporal domain, as in (35 b).

(35) a. Kyoto kara Osaka made hasirimasi ta. Kyoto postp. Osaka postp. run past Ί ran from Kyoto to Osaka.'

b. Ku-ji kara ju-ji made hasirimasi ta. 9:00 postp. 10:00 postp. run past Ί ran from 9:00 to 10:00.'

The only Japanese postposition to ascribe to its TR all of the config-urational information characteristic of TERMINATIVE PATH is made. The postpositions ni and e are appropriate in contexts involving a PATH that could be conceptualized as a TERMINATIVE PATH, but neither conveys all of the configurational information characteristic of TER-MINATIVE PATH. As noted earlier, the effect of ni in directional structures is to highlight some especially significant location. The location in (33) is significant because of its permanence. Native speakers of Japanese note that the speaker of (34 a) not only has made a trip that terminates in Tokyo, but intends to establish residence there. It might be more accurate, then, to translate (34 a) as 'He went to Tokyo for good.' Thus, the location indicated by ni (34 a) seems to be significant for two reasons: (i) it is the TERMINUS of a PATH; and (ii) there is a sense of permanence with this particular TERMINUS. The profile of ni includes the NODE TR configuration, and there is information prominent in the base of semantic structure which makes this NODE identifiable as a TERMINUS.

I concur with the standard textbook account of e that it highlights the direction of a PATH. In this regard, it is significant that the train in (36 a) definitely completes its trip in Tokyo, while that in (36 b) will make




a stop in Tokyo and then continue in the same direction to some final destination beyond Tokyo.

(36) a. Kono kisha wa Tokyo made ikimasu. this train subj. Tokyo postp. go 'This train goes to Tokyo.'

b. Kono kisha wa Tokyo e ikimasu. this train subj. Tokyo postp. go 'This train goes to Tokyo.'

I conclude, then, that in structures involving a process of locomotion that reaches some destination, the profile of made includes the TERMI-NATIVE PATH configuration common to the English prepositions to, onto and into, the profile of ni includes the NODE configuration against a semantic background that makes it identifiable as TERMINUS, and the profile of includes a DIRECTIVE PATH like that we find in the profile of English toward. Consequently, we find that the profiled struc-tures in these Japanese directionals exhibit no TR configurational infor-mation not found also in English spatial prepositions. The profiled structures may differ across languages, but the same set of profilable structures can account for the profiled structures in each language.

Finally, we turn to the postposition (w)o in locomotion structures like those in (37).

(37) a. Rooka ο hasirimasi ta hallway postp. run past Ί ran down/through the hallway.'

b. Miti ο arukimasi ta street postp. walk past Ί walked along/down the street.'

Kuno (1973: 97) concludes that (w)o "indicates that the motion des-ignated by the verb takes place covering the entire dimension (or major portion thereof) of the NP continuously and uni-directionally." In the terminology of the present analysis, we can say that the profile of (w)o includes the TR configuration IMPERFECTIVE PATH.

4. Conclusions and inconclusions

The English system of spatial prepositions and the Japanese system of spatial postpositions differ in a number of easily observed ways. However, the two systems are not so different that the descriptive framework




proposed by Hawkins (1984) is completely inapplicable to the task of describing Japanese spatial postpositions. What we find in comparing the two systems is that not all of the descriptive tools needed to describe English spatial prepositions are needed for the Japanese postpositions. The Japanese system involves only two parameters of profiled structure — one configurational and one relational — while the English system involves three parameters — two configurational and one relational. The Japanese postpositional system includes no configurational information concerning the adpositional LM, while the English system does. Within the relational parameter, the English system involves two basic relations - COINCIDENCE and SEPARATION, while the Japanese system involves only the former. Within the TR configurational parameter, the Japanese system includes NODE, TERMINATIVE PATH, INITIATIVE PATH, IMPERFECTIVE PATH, and DIRECTIVE PATH. The English system includes all of these configurations and a few that the Japanese system does not seem to exhibit: PERFECTIVE PATH, CIRCUITIVE PATH, NON-RECTILINEAR PATH, AREA and SPACE.

I have suggested that the similarities and differences across the two languages can be accounted for by hypothesizing two innate parameters of profitable structures, one relational and one configurational. These parameters are fundamental resources for linguistic semantic develop-ment. Variability in the manifestations of these parameters in particular domains and in particular languages is hypothesized to result from the interaction between these innate resources and the particular linguistic and pragmatic contexts in which they are accessed. These hypotheses clearly must be tested further, across languages as well as across domains within a particular language. At this point, however, we can conclude that the facts of English and Japanese spatial adpositions seem to be consistent with the predictions of these hypotheses.

References

Dirven, Rene 1981 "Spatial relations in English", in: Günter Radden and Rene Dirven (eds.)

103-132. Gove, Philip Babcock (ed.)

1961 Webster's third new international dictionary. Springfield, MA: G. & C. Mer-riam Company.

Halle, Morris — Joan Bresnan — George Miller (eds.) 1978 Linguistic theory and psychological reality. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.




Hawkins, Bruce W. 1984 The semantics of English spatial prepositions. [San Diego, UCSD doctoral

dissertation.] 1988 "The natural category MEDIUM: An alternative to selection restrictions and

similar constructs", in: Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), 231-270. Jackendoff, Ray

1978 "Grammar as evidence for conceptual structure", in: Morris Halle — Joan Bresnan — George Miller (eds.), 201-228.

1983 Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. Johnson, Mark

1987 The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kuno, Susumu 1973 The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

Lakoff, George 1987 Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stan-

ford University Press. Leech, Geoffrey

1969 Towards a semantic description of English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Radden, Günter — Rene Dirven (eds.) 1981 Kasusgrammatik und Fremdsprachendidaktik (Anglistik und Englischunterricht

14). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida

1988 "Semantic extensions into the domain of verbal communication". Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), 506-553.

Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida (ed.) 1988 Topics in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Talmy, Leonard 1988 "The relation of grammar to cognition", in: Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.),

165-205. Tohsaku, Yasu-hiko

1982 Japanese: language and culture. San Diego: UCSD.





Documents

The Semantics of Prepositions (From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing) || On universality and variability in the semantics of spatial adpositions