The full-specification approach

Lakoff’s analysis of the English preposition over is sometimes described as the full-specification approach to lexical semantics. Central to Lakoff’s account is the view that the senses associated with prepositions like over, which are grounded in spatial experience, are structured in terms of image schemas. As we noted above, the spatial senses of over are judged to be more prototypical by native speakers than non-spatial meanings, as illustrated by the fact that spatial senses are listed as primary senses by lexicographers. Lakoff argued that the prototypical sense of over is an image schema combining elements of both ABOVE and ACROSS. The distinct senses associated with over are structured with respect to this image schema which provides the category with its prototype structure. Recall from Chapter 6 that image schemas are relatively abstract schematic representations derived from embodied experience. The central image schema for over, proposed by Lakoff, is shown in Figure 10.2.

Lakoff argues that the schema depicted in Figure 10.2 underlies examples like (3):

As we have seen, the abbreviations TR and LM are derived from Langacker’s theory of Cognitive Grammar (e.g. 1987), which is discussed in detail in Part III of the book. TR stands for trajector and relates to the entity in the scene that is smaller and that is typically capable of motion. LM stands for landmark and relates to the entity with respect to which the TR moves. TR and LM are therefore Langacker’s terms for figure and ground (or reference object), respectively, which we introduced in Chapter 3. In the central schema for over the LM is unspecified. The oval represents the TR and the arrow represents its direction of motion. The TR and its path of motion are located above the LM. According to Lakoff, this central image schema is highly schematic, lacking detail not only about the nature of the LM but also about whether there is contact between the TR and the LM.

Lakoff proposes a number of further more detailed image schemas related to this central schema. These are developed by the addition of further information that specifies properties of the landmark and the existence and nature of any contact between the TR and LM. For example, landmarks can be ‘horizontally extended’, which means that they can extend across the horizontal plane of the LM. This is illustrated in example (4), where the bird’s flight (TR) extends across the yard (LM).

Lakoff annotates this property with the symbol X (horizontally eXtended). For contexts in which there is no contact between the TR and LM, which is also illustrated by example (4), Lakoff uses the abbreviation NC (No Contact). According to Lakoff, examples like (4) therefore relate to a distinct sense of over arising from a distinct image schema. This image schema is represented in Figure 10.3. Like the central image schema (labelled schema 1) in Figure 10.2, the moving entity is designated by TR, but this schema contains an overt horizontal landmark, represented by LM. This LM corresponds to the yard in example (4).

Some landmarks are simultaneously vertically and horizontally extended, like hill in example (5).

Lakoff annotates landmarks that are vertically extended with V. Therefore, a landmark that is both vertically and horizontally extended is represented by VX. According to Lakoff, the schema in Figure 10.4, which corresponds to example (5), represents a distinct sense for over, which counts as an instance of the central schema with the additional features VX.NC.

While the previous two schemas involve landmarks that are horizontally extended, example (6) designates a landmark (the wall) that is vertically extended but not horizontally extended. Lakoff’s image schema for examples of this kind is depicted in Figure 10.5.

In addition to the variants of schema 1 represented in Figures 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5, none of which involve contact between the TR and LM, Lakoff also pro poses instances of this schema that involve contact between the TR and LM. These are annotated as ‘C’ rather than ‘NC’. These are illustrated in Figures 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8.

In sum, Lakoff claims that each of the schemas considered so far represent distinct senses associated with over. According to this model of word meaning, the central schema for over in Figure 10.2 has at least six distinct and closely related variants (see Figure 10.9), each of which is stored in semantic memory. It should now be clear why Lakoff’s approach is described as the ‘full specification approach’. Given the range of senses over is associated with in addition to the ABOVE-ACROSS sense (summarised in Table 10.2), this model results in a potentially vast proliferation of senses for each lexical item. As we will see in section 10.4, some cognitive semanticists argue that the level of detail or granularity that characterises the full specification approach is problematic for a number of reasons.

اخر الاخبار

اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

متحف الكفيل يباشر صيانة منسوجات تراثية تابعة للعتبة العسكرية المقدسة

العتبة العباسية المقدسة تستذكر مظلومية الإمام الكاظم (عليه السلام) عبر مجلس عزاء

قسم العلاقات العامة يناقش مع منتدى شباب الإسكان إقامة مهرجان تكريم طالبات المدارس المرتديات العباءة في القادسية

سماحة السيد الصافي يدعو إلى توحيد الجهود في تحقيق التراث لضمان الرصانة والدقة وخدمة الساحة العلمية

المزيد

الآخبار الصحية

6 فواكة تساعدك على الشعور بتحسّن عند المرض

حفاظا على صحة العين.. هذا أفضل وقت لتناول فيتامين أ

الاستخدام اليومي لسماعات الأذن.. أخطر مما تتصور !

هل توقيت نشاطك اليومي يؤثر على صحة دماغك؟.. العلماء يجيبون

المزيد

الآخبار التكنلوجية

ابتكار ألماني قد يغيّر مستقبل صناعة البلاستيك

تحديثات وأرباح عبر المشاهدات.. ما الذي تخطط له "لينكد إن"؟

"الكوكايين الوردي".. مخدر جديد يثير قلق السلطات الأميركية

دراسة: تغيّرات في أسلوب القيادة قد تكشف مبكرا عن الخرف !

المزيد

مواضيع ذات صلة

Image schema transformations

Polysemy as a conceptual phenomenon

Word meaning and radial categories

Metaphor and metonymy summary

Metaphor-metonymy interaction

Vehicles for metonymy

Metonymy-producing relationships

Metonymy as an access mechanism

Conceptual metonymy

What is metonymy?

Distinguishing primary and compound metaphors