Home Linguistics & Semiotics Persistence of spatial meanings in the conceptualization of causality: at, by, with and about in emotion constructions
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Persistence of spatial meanings in the conceptualization of causality: at, by, with and about in emotion constructions

  • Eunmi Kim EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: June 8, 2018

Abstract

Prepositions encode various causal forces when expressing emotion causality in emotion constructions. This study investigates two pairs of prepositions, the zerodimensional at and by, and the two- or three-dimensional with and about, which show contrasting collocation patterns in emotion constructions. Through a corpus analysis of the Corpus of Contemporary American English, this study claims that there is a strong tendency that zero-dimensional prepositions are used with short-term emotions, whereas two- or three-dimensional prepositions frequently occur with long-term emotions. This study argues that the constraints of distributions of prepositions with emotive adjectives can be accounted for by features of their spatial source meanings in early usages. In the framework of grammaticalization, the constraints of collocation patterns of two pairs of prepositions with emotive adjectives show the phenomenon with respect to the “persistence” of Hopper (1991) in which traces of the source lexemes are retained in the constraints of their distributions. This study is significant in that it suggests a typology of causality based on spatial dimensions of prepositions.


Eunmi Kim Hankuk, University of Foreign Studies, 107 Imun-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, 02450 Seoul, Republic of Korea

References

Ahn, M. 2009. English causal complex prepositions: A grammaticalization perspective. (PhD dissertation, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul.)Search in Google Scholar

Bennett, D.C. 1975. Spatial and temporal uses of English prepositions: An essay in stratificational semantics. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, J. and W. Pagliuca. 1985. “Cross-linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning”. In: Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical semantics, historical word-formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 59–83.10.1515/9783110850178.59Search in Google Scholar

Cabanac, M. 2002. “What is emotion?” Behavioural Processes 60. 69–83.10.1016/S0376-6357(02)00078-5Search in Google Scholar

Dirven, R. 1995. “The construal of cause: The case of cause prepositions”. In: Taylor, J.R. and R. E. Maclaury (eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 82–95.10.1515/9783110809305.95Search in Google Scholar

Dirven, R. 1997. “Emotions as cause and the cause of emotions”. In: Niemeier, S. and R. Dirven (eds.), The language of emotions: Conceptualization, expression, and theoretical foundation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 55–83.10.1075/z.85.06dirSearch in Google Scholar

Ekman, P. 1999. “Basic emotions”. In: Dalgleish, T. and M.J. Power (eds.), The handbook of cognition and emotion. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 45–60.Search in Google Scholar

Fontaine, J.R. and K.R. Scherer. 2013. “From emotion to feeling: The internal structure of the feeling component”. In: Fontaine, J.R., K.R. Scherer and C. Soriano (eds.), Components of emotional meaning: a sourcebook. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 129–148.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199592746.003.0009Search in Google Scholar

Fontaine, J.R., K.R. Scherer and C. Soriano. 2013. “The why, the what, and the how of the GRID instrument”. In: Fontaine, J.R., K.R. Scherer and C. Soriano (eds.), Components of emotional meaning: a Sourcebook. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 83–97.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199592746.003.0006Search in Google Scholar

Fontaine, J.R., Y.H. Poortinga, B. Setiadi and S.S. Markam. 2002. “Cognitive structure of emotion terms in Indonesia and The Netherlands”. Cognition and Emotion 16. 61–86.10.1080/02699933014000130Search in Google Scholar

Heine, B., U. Claudi, and F. Hunnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Herskovits, A. 1986. Language and spatial cognition: an interdisciplinary study of prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, P.J. 1991. “On some principles of grammaticization”. In: Traugott, E.C. and B. Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 17–35.10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hopSearch in Google Scholar

Hopper, P.J. and E.C. Traugott. 2003[1993]. Grammaticalization. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165525Search in Google Scholar

Iachini, T and F. Giusberti. 2004. “Metric properties of spatial images generated from locomotion: The effect of absolute size on mental scanning”. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 16(4). 573–596.10.1080/09541440340000321Search in Google Scholar

Izard, C.E. 2007. “Basic emotions, natural kinds, emotion schemas, and a new paradigm”. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2(3). 260–280.10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00044.xSearch in Google Scholar

Johnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, M.1993. Moral imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Jurafsky, D. 1996. “Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive”. Language 72. 533–578.10.2307/416278Search in Google Scholar

Kim, E. 2017. “Causality-encoding of at and by in emotion constructions in English”. Australian Journal of Linguistics 37(1). 1–18.10.1080/07268602.2016.1169974Search in Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. and C. Kiparsky. 1970. “Fact”. In: Bierwisch, M. and K. Heidolph (eds.), Progress in linguistics: a collection of papers. The Hague: Mouton. 143–173.Search in Google Scholar

Kosslyn, S.M., T.M. Ball and B.J. Reiser. 1978. “Visual images preserve metric spatial information: Evidence from studies of image scanning”. Journal of Experimental Psychology 4(1). 47–60.10.1037/0096-1523.4.1.47Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. 1990. “The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas?” Cognitive Linguistics 1. 39–74.10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39Search in Google Scholar

Lutz, C. 1988. Unnatural emotions: Everyday sentiments on a Micronesian atoll and their challenge to Western theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226219783.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Markus, H.R. and S. Kitayama. 1991. “Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation”. Psychological Review 98(2). 224–253.10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224Search in Google Scholar

Noordman, L.G. and F. de Blijzer. 2000. “On the processing of causal relations”. In: Couper-Kuhlen, E. and B. Kortmann (eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 35–56.10.1515/9783110219043.1.35Search in Google Scholar

Osgood, C.E., W.H. May and M.S. Miron. 1975. Cross-culturaluniversals of affective meaning. Urbama: University of Illinois Press.Search in Google Scholar

Osmond, M. 1997. “The prepositions we use in the construal of emotion: Why do we say fed up with but sick and tired of?” In: Niemeier, S. and R. Dirven (eds.), The language of emotions: Conceptualization, expression, and theoretical foundation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 111–133.10.1075/z.85.09osmSearch in Google Scholar

Pander Maat, H. and T. Sanders. 2000. “Domains of use or subjectivity? The distribution of three Dutch causal connectives explained”. Topics in English Linguistics 33. 57–82.10.1515/9783110219043-004Search in Google Scholar

Radden, G. 1981. “The conceptualization of emotional causality by means of prepositional phrases”. In: Athanasiadou, A. and E. Tabakowska (eds.), Speaking of emotions: Conceptualization and expression. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 273–294.Search in Google Scholar

Radden, G. 1985. “Spatial metaphors underlying prepositions of causality”. In: Paprotté, W. and R. Dirven (eds.), The ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 177–205.10.1075/cilt.29.10radSearch in Google Scholar

Rhee, S. 2002. “Semantic changes of English preposition against: A grammaticalization perspective”. Language Research 38(2). 563–583.Search in Google Scholar

Rhee, S. 2004. “Semantic structure of English prepositions: An analysis from a grammaticalization perspective”. Language Research 40(2). 397–427.Search in Google Scholar

Rhee, S. 2012. “Dimensions and force dynamics in perception and grammar: A grammaticalization perspective”. Studies in Modern Grammar 70. 181–206.Search in Google Scholar

Scherer, K.R. 1984. “On the nature and function of emotion: A component process approach”. In: Scherer, K.R. and P. Ekman (eds.), Approaches to emotion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 293–317.Search in Google Scholar

Scherer, K.R. 2001. “Appraisal considered as a process of multi-level sequential checking”. In: Scherer, K.R., A. Schorr and T. Johnstone (eds.), Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory, Methods, Research. New York: Oxford University Press. 92–120.Search in Google Scholar

Scherer, K.R. 2009. “The dynamic architecture of emotion: evidence for the component process model”. Cognition and Emotion 23. 1307–1351.10.1080/02699930902928969Search in Google Scholar

Scherer, K. R. 2013. “Measuring the meaning of emotion words: A domain-specific componential approach”. In: Johnny R.F., K.R. Scherer and C. Soriano (eds.), Components of emotional meaning: a sourcebook. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 7–30.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199592746.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

Shaver, P., J. Schwartz, D. Kirson and G. O’Connor. 1987. “Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype approach”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52(6). 1061–1086.10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1061Search in Google Scholar

Shaver, P., S. Wu and J. C. Schwartz. 1992. “Cross-cultural similarities and differences in emotion and its representation”. In: Clark, M. S. (ed.), Emotion: Review of personality and social psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 175–212.Search in Google Scholar

Snider, T. 2010. The Semantics of prepositions: An exploration into the uses of at and to. (M.A. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.)Search in Google Scholar

Sweetser, E.E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620904Search in Google Scholar

Sweetser, E.E. and B. Dancygier. 2000. “Constructions with if, since and because: Causality, epistemic stance, and clause order”. In: Couper-Kuhlen, E. and B. Kortmann (eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 111–142.Search in Google Scholar

Talmy, L. 1988. “Force dynamics in language and cognition”. Cognitive Science 12. 49–100.10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2Search in Google Scholar

Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-6-8
Published in Print: 2018-6-26

© 2018 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland

Downloaded on 13.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/psicl-2018-0009/pdf
Scroll to top button