CC BY
190.Г. Дудочкина
SOME PECULIARITIES OF EXPRESSING SPACE CONCEPTS IN ENGLISH AND RUSSIAN
Keywords: spatial prepositions, commonly conceptualized spatial properties and specific properties, important distributional characteristics, "Starting and Final Points'', ''Type of Trajectory'', '' Visible Scene'', ''Cognitive Map'', subjects.
Abstract: The research is devoted to spatial lexicon in English and Russian. It reveals important distributional characteristics of the prepositions in English and Russian. We have studied spatial prepositions with the general meaning of crossing some space from one point to another in English and Russian. The investigation showed there are commonly conceptualized spatial properties and specific properties. The study demonstrated systematically in the organization of spatial lexicon. This means that the same concepts are repeated in different languages. First of all it concerns functional properties that govern the organization of human space perception. Geometrical information is repeated as well: Ground, Motion, Starting Point, etc. It has been also found that the information presented by a word is the sphere of semantics both in English and Russian,
1.e. the information about the type of Ground and the type of Trajectory, Visible Scene and Cognitive Map is a separate semantic component in Russian and in English. The presence in the semantic structure of spatial prepositions geometrical and functional information explains the role of prepositions in the semantic structure of the sentence.
Ключевые слова: пространственные предлоги, важные дистрибутивные характеристики, всеобщие пространственные свойства, специфические пространственные свойства, «Начальная точка», «Конечная точка», «Тип траектории», «Визуальное пространство», «Когнитивная карта», информанты.
Аннотация: Исследование посвящено пространственным предлогам в английском и русском языках. В исследовании раскрываются важнейшие дистрибутивные характеристики пространственных предлогов в обоих языках. Мы исследовали предлоги с интегральным значением пересечения пространства из одной точки в другую. Исследование показало, что существуют общие пространственные характеристики, присущие обоим языкам, и специфические характеристики концептуализации пространства. Пространственные предлоги в английском и русском языках организованы системно, что означает повторение одинаковых концептов в обоих языках. Прежде всего, это касается функциональных характеристик, которые управляют концептуализацией пространства человеком. Геометрическая информация также повторяется. Наличие в семантической структуре пространственных предлогов геометрической и функциональной информации объясняет роль предлогов в семантической структуре предложения.
The article is devoted to spatial lexicon in English and Russian. We have studied spatial prepositions with the general meaning of crossing some space from one point to another in English and Russian. The investigation showed there are commonly conceptualized spatial properties and specific properties. To begin with it is necessary to еxplain how the investigation was carried out.
The first stage of the investigation was concerned with formulation of hypotheses about semantic properties of the prepositions. For this purpose examples of the authentic usage of the prepositions were collected. The corpus data were supplemented by usage examples found in unannotated English and Russian texts. This stage revealed important distributional characteristics of the prepositions. For example, it was found that the Russian preposition cherez never combines with verbs having an element pro-, such as prolezt ( пролезть), probezhat (пробежать), while skvoz does, for example, prolezt skvoz kusty/*prolezt cherez kusty (пролезть сквозь кусты/*пролезть через кусты). Hypotheses about analysed prepositions were formulated in terms of properties of referent scenes that tend to be described by these prepositions, such as "Starting and Final Points'', ''Type of Trajectory'', ''Visible Scene'', ''Cognitive Map'', etc.
The hypotheses were tested in experiments with native speaking subjects. During the experiments subjects' judgments about appropriateness of the use of the prepositions in selected contexts were obtained. The methodology is based on the assumption that an expression is thought to be semantically acceptable in a context, if this context possesses semantic features that are either the same as those of the expression or do not contradict them; the expression is unacceptable, if the context contains semantic properties, contradicting those of the expression. The presence of a semantic property in the meaning of a preposition was verified in the following manner. In the context, which possessed the examined semantic property, first one and then the other of the contrasted prepositions were placed. If there was a statistically significant difference between the distributions of subjects' evaluations of the two sentences, presence of the property in the semantics of a preposition was considered to be verified.
nPOGACMU CO tip CMCHHOfO OCPn3<>OnHHn
Stuff for each preposition was tested in experiments with at least 30 subjects. As English-speaking subjects, university students and teachers, and a number of civil servants were employed. They represented the American, Canadian, and British varieties of English. Their age were between 20 and 60. All of them were college graduates. As Russian-speaking subjects, graduate and undergraduate students of the English Language Department of Bashkir State University (Ufa, Russia) were recruited, their age ranging between 18 and 30.
During the experiment the subjects were presented with questionnaires, each of them containing about 30 pairs of identical sentences. The sentences differed only in the prepositions used. For example:
(1) The balloon went across the roof.
(2) The balloon went over the roof.
(3) The balloon went through the roof.
(4) He went across the crowd.
(5) He went over the crowd.
(6) He went through the crowd.
(7) The train went across the tunnel.
(8) The train went over the tunnel.
(9) The train went through the tunnel.
The subjects were instructed to evaluate appropriateness of the use of the prepositions in the sentences according to a 5-degree scale. In case they perceived a sentence as ambiguous, they were asked to point it out and leave it unevaluated. The received information was analyzed and the semantic structures of the prepositions were formulated. Then the subjects were offered the tests that might check for sure that the information in the form of a semantic component pertains to the meaning of the word but not to our knowledge of the world. For example:
(1) He went across the room and left it.
(2) He went over the room and left it.
(3) He went through the room and left it.
(4) He entered the room, went across it and left it at the opposite door.
(5) He entered the room, went over it and left it at the opposite door.
(6) He entered the room, went through it and left it at the opposite door.
(7) He entered the room, went across it and stopped at the opposite door.
(8) He entered the room, went over it and stopped at the opposite door.
(9) He entered the room, went through it and stopped at the opposite door.
There were achieved final results with English and Russian prepositions.
The above mentioned methodology of investigation provided us with the tool to formulate the metalanguage for a particular synonimic group of prepositions: a separate metalanguage for each group and in each language. And only after that we can arrive at the definite conclusion concerning universal and national peculiarities of spatial concepts which are lexicalized in the languages.
The metalanguage presupposes some symbols which are interpreted in natural sentences so as to make clear how spatial information is processed and stored by human beings. The semantic structure of spatial lexicon is presented in the article as a natural description of the situation which demands the use of a particular word.
Metalanguage of English Prepositions Across, Over, Through
- Figure (X) - a moving object
- Ground (Y) - an object or area as a landmark of Figure's motion
- Type of Ground - Geometrical shape (whether it is conceptualized as Surface (horizontal) or volumetrical pourous (nonporous) space
- Starting and Final Points of Figure's Motion
- Type of Trajectory while Figure moves in the area of Ground (a straight line, an arc, a curve or anything but a straight line)
- Goal - some real or implied point within the Final point of a path space of Ground or outside it, towards which Figure moves
- Source - some real or implied point within the starting point of a path or outside the space of Ground, from which Figure moves
- Visible Scene - Ground that can be perceived by the eyesight of Observer.
- Cognitive Map - Ground that is constructed in Speaker's mind but not necessarily perceived visually.
Obstacle - type of Ground, when Figure moves inside or along Ground. The obstacle can be:
1) horizontal or vertical distance;
2) another Ground;
3) an object, etc.
- Functional relations - any factual or potential forms of Figure and Ground interaction Semantic Structure of English prepositions
Across Across I
Preposition "across" informs about Figure's motion along a horizontal surface of Ground. Trajectory of Figure's motion is a straight line. e.g.: to go across a field / sky / to swim across a lake Across II
Preposition "across" informs about Figure's motion parallel to a horizontal surface of Ground. In this case there is no "physical" contact between entities (Ground and Figure). Trajectory of Figure's motion is a straight line.
e.g.: to fly across an ocean / to go across the globe / to fly across the sky
In reality Ground may turn out not to be a flat horizontal surface, but it is always conceptualized as a flat horizontal surface. e.g.: to crawl across a log / to lay across a ball. Through
Through I (physical)
The preposition "through" informs about Figure's motion into or inside Ground. Ground is conceptualized as some volumetrical pourous space acceptable for inside motion of Figure. e.g.: to go through a tunnel / to go through a forest / to see through clear water. Through II (physical)
The preposition "through" informs about Figure's motion inside Ground. Ground is conceptualized as an Intermediate Point on Figure's way from Starting point of the path to its Final point. e g.: to go to Paris through Berlin / to go to a village through a forest. Through III (functional)
The preposition "through" informs about Figure's using Ground as "a means". e.g.: to give a letter through a friend / to know it through mother. Through IV (physical)
Preposition "through" informs about Figure's penetration into Ground. Ground is conceptualized as some kind of bulk (volumetrical nonpourous space). Figure always leaves the bounds of Ground. The integrity of Ground is broken by Figure's motion inside it.
e.g.: to go through the window / to go through the table / to go through the chest. Breaking Ground integrity doesn't always occur. It depends on the structure of Ground. But this information is our knowledge of the world and not the sphere of semantics. e.g.: to go through the water / to go through the clouds / to go through the mist.
If the structure of Ground is hard, thick and dense Figure's motion inside Ground always breaks it.
tlPOGACMU con PCM CHHOfO OCPn300nHHft
Over
Over I
Preposition "over" informs about Figure's motion from Starting point of the path to its Final point. The Trajectory is like an arc. Physical properties of Ground are irrelevant. e.g.: to jump over a fence. Ov II
Preposition "over" informs about Figure's motion from Starting point of the path to its Final point.. Trajectory is any like but not a straight one. Physical properties of Ground are irrelevant. e.g.: to wind over a field.
Metalanguage of Russian prepositions skvoz, cherez
- Goal - some real or implied point inside or outside Ground towards which Figure moves.
- Source - some real or implied Starting point inside or outside of a path of Ground, from which Figure moves.
- Visible Scene - the area within the sight of Observer
- Cognitive Map - the area constructed in the mind of Observer.
- Type of Ground - Geometrical shape of Ground (pourous/nonpourous Ground)
-Obstacle - the obstacle can be conceptualized as:
1) vertical distance
2) large horizontal distance
3) a large object
4) a solid hard object
5) some other Ground, etc.
Non-geometrical (functional) properties - any factual or potential forms of Figure and Ground interaction (Instrumental relations, Source relations, etc)
Semantic Structure of Russian Prepositions skvoz, cherez Skvoz
Preposition "skvoz" informs about Figure's penetration into the bulk of Ground. Ground is conceptualized as being some nonporous space. Preposition "skvoz" informs about Figure's leaving the bounds of Ground. e.g.: proyti skvoz stenu / proyti skvoz steklo / proyti skvoz sneg / proyti skvoz maslo ( to go through the wall / to go through the glass / to go through the snow / to go through the butter ). Cherez I (geometrical)
Preposition "cherez" informs about Figure's motion into or inside Ground. Ground is conceptualized as some pourous space when Figure finds it possible to move inside Ground or through it.
e g.: yehat cherez tunnel / to go through a tunnel Cherez II (geometrical)
Preposition "cherez" informs about Figure's motion inside Ground when moving from Starting point of Path to its Final point. Ground is conceptualized as some Obstacle, which can be realized as a vertical or horizontal distance of a big size, a large object, a hard solid object, some other porous space, etc. e.g.: idty cherez les / letet cherez vsyu stranu / proity cherez pesok ( to go through the forest / to fly over the whole country / to go through the sand) Cherez III (functional)
Preposition "cherez" informs about Figure's using Ground as "an instrument" or "a means".
e.g.: peredat pismo cherez druga / pustit neft cherez trubu ( to give a letter through a friend / to drive the oil in the tube ).
Cherez IV (geometrical + functional)
Preposition "cherez" informs about Figure's motion from the starting point of the Path to its final point when Ground may be perceived as Obstacle. Trajectory in this case is like an arc.
e.g.: prygnut cherez zabor ( to jump over the fence ).
The investigation proved commonly conceptualized properties though not identical to each other. The universally conceptualized geometrical properties are connected with conceptualizing the size of correlated Figure and Ground, the type of Ground, the type of Trajectory. The language peculiarities of space categorization are sensitive to the conceptual detail of perceptual properties.
Non-geometrical properties are part and parcel of the Spatial lexicon in both analyzed languages. In case these properties are traced in the semantic structure they govern the perception of geometrical properties of the scene. Functional properties are recognized as inherent semantic properties and not as a matter of pragmatics. The investigation proved the proto-semantic origin of spatial concepts: the metalanguage used in the description of semantic structures of the analyzed spatial lexicon presents basic concepts for the development of other meanings according to such mechanisms as metaphor and metonymy. Though the semantic structure is presented in terms of semantic features it is not characterized by a hierarchy of its components. We may speak about a certain set of semantic components of a radial origin, some kind of a spatial net, the knots of which may give rise to the meaning shift.
It has been found that the information presented by a word is the sphere of semantics in both English and Russian, i.e. the information about the type of Ground, the type of Trajectory, Visible Scene and Cognitive Map is a separate semantic component in both languages.
The study demonstrated systematically in the organization of spatial lexicon. This means that the same concepts are repeated in different languages. First of all it concerns functional properties that govern the organization of human space perception. Geometrical information is repeated as well: Ground, Motion, Starting Point, etc.
The presence in the semantic structure of spatial prepositions geometrical and functional information explains the role of prepositions in the semantic structure of the sentence. If the prepositional noun phrase carries purely locative information the preposition in this case is a carrier of the geometrical information. If the noun phrase plays an actant role ( Instrument, Source, etc.) the preposition becomes a carrier of the functional information (We know this through our friend).
References
1. Dudochkina, O.G. Prostranstvenno-dinamicheskaya semantica predlogov across, over, through: Dissertastiya na soiscanie zvaniya kandidata philologicheskih nauk. Ufa, 1998.
2. Dudochkina O.G. Sposoby konsteptualizastii prostranstva v angliiskom yazyke (na primere prostranstvennyh predlogov across, over, through ). Ufa,: Izd-vo BGPU, 2010.
3. Malyar T.N., Seliverstova O.N. Prostranstvenno-distanstionnye predlogi I narestiya v russkom I angliiskom yazykah. Munchen, Verlag Otto Sagner, 1998.
