CC BY
15проелемы современного осрпзоопнип
Yu.R. Yusupova
THE SEMANTICS OF PREPOSITIONS WITNIN VERBAL PHRASES
Статья выполнена при поддержке гранта РГНФ 14-14-00497
Keywords: Figure, functional relations, Ground, semantic actants, non-spatial relations, semantics, spatial prepositions, verbal phrases.
Abstract: The semantic structure of the spatial prepositions denoting proximity implies some restrictions on the verbs which can be used in the V+ prep + N/NP constructions. We can use predicates of state, predicates, denoting discontinuing of the linear motion of the located object and predicates denoting motion. Type of the predicate has direct correlation with non-spatial (functional) relations between the objects, denoted by the preposition. Hypothetically the semantics of postpositions used originally as spatial prepositions affects the amount of phrasal verbs.
Ключевые слова: Фигура, Фон, функциональные отношения, семантические актанты, непространственные отношения, семантика, пространственные предлоги, послелоги, глагольные конструкции.
Аннотация: В статье рассматривается взаимодействие семантики английских пространственных предлогов, обозначающих пространственную близость, и семантики глаголов в конструкциях типа V+ prep + N/NP. По результатам исследования, данные предлоги не позволяют использовать в таких конструкциях глаголы движения; также, имеется прямая связь между типом предиката и непространственной информацией, сообщаемой исследуемыми предлогами. Предполагается, что обнаруженное взаимодействие обуславливает количество фразовых глаголов в случае перехода пространственного предлога в статус послелога.
Prepositions used to be neglected as "meaningful" parts of speech for decades and it took many years for linguists to prove these language units have their own semantics. Nowadays these linguistic units are still named as functional parts of speech but nobody argues that they have their own semantics.
What differentiates prepositional semantics is that it is realized only within some syntactic units or groups (or constructions if we apply the term of Construction Grammar).
The lexemes constituting those syntactic units/constructions are to be necessary for realization of a word meaning - to be obligatory participants of the linguistic situation. We may call them semantic actants like representatives of the Moscow Semantic School - Igor Mel'c'uk, Igor Boguslavskij among other linguists or valences (Helbig and W. Schenkel; Abraham; Allerton; Somers; Mosel; Feuillet, Engel and Schumacher; Apresjan and Pa'll; etc).
English prepositions have no less than two semantic actants / valences as they nominate the relations between no less than two participants of the LS. Spatial prepositions, for instance, correlate Figure with Ground (terms introduced by Talmy, 1983), Figure may be conceptualized either as a moving or a static object. Ground is an object or space, which Figure is correlated with. Ground is obligatory for preposition otherwise it becomes adverb. Figure may be not lexicalized in the sentence, but still has to be necessarily thought of as present in the situation under discussion, in other words, presupposed or understood from the situation.
While analyzing semantics of English spatial prepositions denoting proximity (at, by, beside, near, off) I observed three types of constructions with prepositions under study:
1) N/NP + prep + N/NP: a man at the door; people by the fire; a black car beside the house; a hotel off the road;
2) PrepNP + prep + N/NP: to a chair near the window; in the house by the ocean; on the chair beside him; in the waters off Spanish coast;
3)V+ prep + N/NP: was sitting at my window; sat down beside her; he rose by her side; were near the outskirts of London.
Spatial or geometric information is considered to be prior and dominating in the semantic structure of any spatial preposition, it correlates with non-spatial one. It means that semantic structure of "spatial" prepositions may include information about all types of possible interactions between objects, such as user-instrument relations, part-whole relations, etc. We will call them functional properties.
At describes Ground seen as an instrument used by Figure, so that they are in "userinstrument relations", i.e. the functional intention of Ground determines Figure's actions. In most cases Ground represents some item(s) of equipment, furniture, building construction; some kind(s) of musical instruments when they are in a static position, some functional spaces /areas (swimming pools, markets, shops, etc.):
• The tradesmen, at the doors of their shops, bowed low as he passed. User - the tradesmen, Instrument - the doors of shops.
• In the afternoon they changed places, and the King stood at the anvil and the Lad at the bellows.
User - the King, the Lad; Instrument - the anvil, the bellows.
• You don't settle down and live at a spring just because it gives you a drink, when you are thirsty.
User - You, Instrument - a spring.
There're no direct functional relations between Figure and Ground while using preposition by. But Figure may be influenced by the atmosphere created by some qualitative characteristics of Ground's Area:
• Look at you, you're just about to have a chill. You'll sit right down there by the fire and let me get you something to drink.
The location of Figure in Ground's Area may be determined by former or desired in future "user-instrument relations":
• The message said "Jessie-Ann, stay by the telephone".
( desired in future "user-instrument relations")
• Cassie sat by the radio that night after everyone had left.
(Former "user-instrument relations")
• "Firelight is prettier". And he set her by the fire and filled her lap with cones and dry leaves and dead braken to burn...
(Desired in future "user-instrument relations")
When the preposition beside is used to denote spatial relations of proximity between Figure and Ground, the following non-spatial information may be revealed:
1. The localization of Figure on the borderline or in the border realm of Ground's Area may be determined by potential "user-instrument relations", where Ground is User and Figure is Instrument. The border realm of Ground's Area forms some kind of unity (complex) with Ground.
• He sat alone in his small room, with a bottle of whisky beside him.
(He - potential User, a bottle of whisky - potential Instrument)
• Picture her lying beside that rich old man! Think of his hands on her - and be strong!.
nPOGACMU CO tip CMCHHOfO OCPn3<>OnHHn
(That rich old man - potential User, she - potential Instrument)
2. When Figure and Ground denote human beings localized within "a row", the deictic center may become Figure's behavior, condition, etc. or Ground's perception of Figure:
• Miss Lorah, she'll have to sleep beside that old man every night of her life!
• She's a frost. If I have to sit beside her an hour I'll catch cold and die, I swear it!
In both examples Figure's condition is a deictic center, which is caused by location at a close distance to Ground (have to sleep every night of her life; have to sit - will catch cold and die).
Non-spatial concepts in the semantics of spatial prepositions are more evidently seen in the verbal prepositional phrases as the verb contains the main information about the action itself.
The semantic structure of the spatial prepositions denoting proximity implies some restrictions on the verbs which can be used in the mentioned constructions. We can use
- verbs of state (be/live near Y; stay at Y; remain by Y; sit by / beside Y; live off Y etc.):
• You shall be beside me in the church.
• Young Jolyon stood motionless at the corner, looking after the cab.
• We were near the outskirts of London.
• Her house is just off Western Avenue.
- verbs, denoting discontinuing of the linear motion of the located object (Figure) (come near to Y; stop at Y; be stopped off Y etc.):
• They stopped at a roadhouse, and he put in more gasoline ... and made sure that his machine was at its best.
• As they came near to the better tower of the two, the jackdaws circled round them.
- verbs denoting motion(walk beside Y; run by Y, etc.).
• He was walking beside me.
• With a splash he rose by her side, lifting her screaming in his arms
Type of the predicate used within the construction has direct correlation with non-spatial (functional) relations between the objects, denoted by the preposition: e.g. the construction Predicate of state + by+ Noun/ Noun Phrase means potential functional relations between Figure and Ground (The message said "Jessie-Ann, stay by the telephone") while changing the predicate for that of action will lead to realization of pure spatial relations (She took her things from him, and laid them by the mirror).
Semantics of proximal At contains limitation on predicates, denoting discontinuing of the linear motion of the located object (Figure). The reason is that there is a restriction on a moving Figure, which means we cannot use predicate denoting action in the construction with this preposition.
• As they stood in the Botanic Gardens_at the rail of the little bridge...
• *As they kept walking in the Botanic Gardens at the rail of the little bridge...
- when the predicate was changed into that of motion all the subjects evaluated the sentence (and similar) abnormal.
Semantics of the preposition near contain information about absence of physical contact between Figure and Ground, and small distance doesn't make the "user-instrument" relations between them possible:
• (*) He stood near the door trying to open it.
But the distance is minimal: any diminution of it with the help of Verb of motion will change the situation as the Figure moves into the area "influenced" by Ground:
• That's what stretched that wild-cat's hide up there! She got too near the old musket!
• - That's a nasty-looking brute, that tiger!
- Don't go too near, mother, it may kill you! When both Figure and Ground denote human beings (in the construction Predicate of state-near-Noun/ NP) the situation contains information about emotional ties between them:
• I suppose I never understood that she wanted to be near her mother.
• Michael suggested that she should go to Vienna to be near Roger, and she would have liked that, but she shook her head.
• It was so comforting to have him near her.
English preposition off in contrast to other prepositions of spatial proximity might be used for both static and dynamic localization in space. When the first meaning is realized both Figure and Ground are to be static, and the predicate is represented by a verb of state. If the Figure denotes a moving object and the predicate is represented by a verb of motion/action off is used in dynamic meaning.
• Next day at two o'clock he took his stand off St. Paul's.
• Next day she moved into a small room in a lodging-house off the Edgware Road.
• He fell off the roof.
The subjects underlined that Static off expresses absence of any interaction Figure and Ground:
• Next day at two o'clock he took his stand off St. Paul's to paint its entrance.
• You can find him off the rubbish, looking for old clothes, picking up something strange and putting it into his bag.
In these sentences functional relations between Figure and Ground are evident that is why there is a restriction for using static off.
Dynamic off contains information about loss of functional "part-whole" relations between participants of the linguistic situation [Gazizova 1998].
• They cut a branch off the tree.
• Second British skier dies off piste in Alps.
The Figure (skier) and the Ground (piste) are to be functionally connected and form a kind of a unit as it is presupposed by our knowledge of reality, but using off adds information that they are too remote - the distance between them is too big to maintain the presupposed interaction. Thus this interaction stops.
Similar information is preserved in compound adjectives with off denoting "located beyond main/typical location or taking the secondary direction":
• Longest run is 1.6 kilometres and off-piste skiing is extensive.
• I also featured a skid-pan and an off-road circuit.
In such examples we observe off functioning as a morpheme which preserves the semantics
of a preposition [Yusupova 2006].
Another case when prepositions perform different to their original function is their participation in forming English phrasal verbs. Being used that way they constitute quite different syntactic patterns/ constructions: Verb + Preposition, and accordingly get the appellation 'postposition'. Supposedly the leading role in those constructions belongs to the verb. However verbal semantics within it differs from that of a "free" use. That was the reason for linguists to distinguish a special group of English verbs, which are very close to phrasemes/ phraseological units.
The status of postpositions in the language system is even more ambiguous than that of prepositions. Firstly scholars hesitate between particles and adverbs. The first ground their opinion on a "weaker" semantics of the unit treating it more like morpheme. The second group points out the similarity of its syntactic function with that of an adverb and refers to the historical development of adverbs from prepositions.
nPOGACMU CO tip CMCHHOfO 0GP/130nnHUn
Secondly, there are no accurate statistics on the amount of postpositions in the English language. Their number is not stable for some reasons. Thus the quantity of postpositions may vary along with some language changes. Some verbs have different number of prepositions at various time periods - it may increase or decrease. The verb back, for instance, previously formed phrasal verbs with four postpositions: away, down, out, up. Nowadays, it is also used with off - back off. The verb tell in the opposite had more phrasal units while now linguists mention only three forms including off, over, up. Phrasal verbs like tell out meaning 'count out' and tell away meaning 'drive away (pain, etc.) are considered archaic [Bogdanova 2009]. Such facts prove that the process of phrasal-verb-formation is active and complex. It involves changes in semantics of both components - the verb and the postposition (preposition/ adverb).
Spatial prepositions/ adverbs are quite "active" in phrasal verbs formation. This process of creating a linguistic unit which carries information both about action and its localization has started in Middle-English period. Linguists believe that it was a later tendency in word (verb)-formation in contrast to the Prefix + Verb pattern and is marked by evidently preserved spatial semantics [Sizova 2003, 101]. The leading role in the semantic structure of phrasal verb is taken by the "verbal" components denoting characteristics of the process, while spatial relations and some geometric properties go second and might develop into non-spatial.
Linguists may group phrasal verbs on the basis of spatial semantics contributed by postpositions/ prepositions/ adverbs. Postpositions up and down, for instance, describe "vertical process" (climb up, climb down, call up, call down, look up, look down, etc.). But in most cases spatial relations are reconceptualized and may denote in case of up and down decrease/ increase; worsening/ enhancement; completeness/ incompleteness; etc. [Bogdanova 2009]
The other way to group phrasal verbs is based on the conceptual spheres which are the result of the developing spatial concepts into non-spatial ones:
- the concept of loudness is expressed through phrasal verbs with out and up;
- the concept of division - with in, off, out;
- the concept of cleanliness/ freshness - with away, down, off, out, up;
- the concept of extension/spread - ahead (forth), off, out;
- the concept of narrowing - down to;
- the concept of getting to work - down to;
- the concept of negative experience (tiredness/ failure/ destruction, etc.) - down, off, out;
- the concept of calm - down, off;
- the concept of depth - in, down;
- the concept of search - finding - around, out, up;
- the concept of tracing - down, out;
- the concept of activating - deactivating - on, out, off.
These twelve concepts may be distributed within four wider conceptual fields 1) vector: division, extension/spread, narrowing, depth; 2) association: search - finding, activating - deactivating, tracing, getting to work; 3) synaesthesia: loudness, cleanliness/ freshness, getting cold (negative experience); 4) evaluation: tiredness, failure, destruction, etc. (negative experience) [Bogdanova 2009].
Taking into consideration prepositions denoting proximity when the function as postpositions with verbs we can speak of reconceptualization of spatial characteristics into non-spatial - functional or mental spaces on the basis of metaphor or metonymy:
• Mary was beside herself with joy when she heard the good news. - Mental space.
• The committee were willing to listen to your ideas before, but have balked at your latest suggestion. - Functional space.
Another interesting fact that we observed while investigating the issue is that the number of spatial prepositions / postpositions used within the Verb + Postposition constructions depends on
some restrictions distinguished in their semantics. Hypothetically the amount of phrasal verbs containing postpositions used as prepositions with predicates denoting action (not state) is larger. It may explain that the number of phrasal verbs containing at, beside and near is much less than that of phrasal verbs containing by and off (having dynamic meaning helps).
The Macmillan Dictionary, for instance, presents 16 phrasal verbs containing prepositions/ postpositions of proximity in its Grammar section. Eight out of the total (50%) include off: be off, keep off, live off, brush off, bunk off, call off, chase off, ease off; seven - include by: live by, come by, get by, go by, pass by, scrape by, zip by; only one phrasal verb contains at - keep at; and there is no any example of a phrasal verb containing near or beside [Macmillan Dictionary].
On the present stage of investigation it is too early to make final conclusions. More linguistic data are to be analyzed and the fact that static spatial location may undergo some metaphorical development as it was mentioned above is to be taken into consideration. But one thing is quite evident: these tiny linguistic units no matter how we name them - prepositions or postpositions or adverbs - actively produce new lexemes. This process represents complex interaction of both verbal and prepositional semantics.
The semantics of Verb + Preposition + Noun is no less interesting as it still leaves some issues open for linguists.
References:
1. Bogdanova S. Yu. Kognitivnyje osnovaniya analitizma // Kognitivnyje kategorii v sintaksise [Text]: ed. By L. M. Kovaleva.. - Irkutsk: Irkutsk University Press, 2009. - 249 p. URL: http://do.gendocs.ru/docs/index-237298.html?page=11
2. Boguslavsky I. M. Sfera deystviya lexicheskikh yedinits [Text]./ I. M. Boguslavsky. - M.: Yazyky Russkoy Kultury, 1996. - 464p.
3. Gazizova L. V. Opyt experimentalnogo issledovaniya prostranstvenno-dinamicheskikh predlogov "out of", "off' u "from" [Text]/ L. V. Gazizova // Voprosy yazykoznaniya i literaturovedeniya. -Ufa, 1998. - P.20-34.
4. Gazizova L. V. Prostranstvenno-dinamicheskiye predlogi so znacheniyem "dvizheniye iz iskhodnogo punkta" v angliyskom yazyke [Text]: PhD diss. L. V. Gazizova.- Ufa, 1999.
5. Mel'c'uk, Igor . Opyt teorii lingvisticheskikh modeley "Smysl < Text" [Text]./ Igor Mel'c'uk. -M.: Nauka, 1999. - 2 ed. - 464 p.
6. Miller, G., Johnson-Laird, P.N. Language and Perception [Text]/ G. Miller, P.N. Johnson-Laird.- Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harward University, 1976.
7. Sizova I. A. Smyslovaya structura drevnego prefixa kak otrazheniye yego geneziza. //Teorya, istoriya, tipologiya yazykov [Text]./ I. A. Sizova. - Materialy chteniy pamyati V.Yartsevoy. Vol. 1. - M.: "Sovetsky pisatel", 2003. - P. 100-109.
8. Shabanova,T.D., Yusupova Y.R. Space localization at a distance in Russian and English. [Text]/ T.D. Shabanova, Y.R. Yusupova // Neue linguistische Perspectiven. - Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2011.- P.171-191
9. Talmy L. How Language Structures Space. [Text]// H. Pick and L. Acredolo (eds.): L. Talmy Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research, and Application. New York, 1983. -P.225-228
10. The Macmillan Phrasal Verbs Plus Dictionary [Text]/ Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. 2009. -524p.
11. Yusupova Yu. R. Prostranstvennaya i neprostranstvennaya semantika angliyskikh proximalno-distantnykh predlogov [Text]: PhD diss. Yu. R. Yusupova. - Ufa, 2006.
