Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Contrasting the semantics of prepositions through a cognitive linguistic approach

The case of English on, Italian su, and Russian na

 | Macquarie University
 | Macquarie University
Many studies on cognitive-semantic analysis focus on the patterns of polysemy of prepositions and the explanation of how the multiple senses of prepositions are related in systematic ways. Only a few publications pay attention to the contrastive analysis of prepositions in different languages. The article addresses this gap in research literature and aims: to present a contrastive analysis of the English preposition on and its Italian and Russian partial equivalents in order to uncover the main areas of semantic asymmetry between them; to compare patterns of semantic extensions (from spatial to nonspatial senses) of these prepositions, and to determine how the similarities and differences in their spatial senses explain the similarities and differences in their nonspatial senses. The article follows a conceptual metaphor approach. Since most of the conceptual metaphors and metonyms are common cross-linguistically, similarities in patterns of semantic extensions of prepositions can be explained through the conceptual metaphors and metonymies on which these extensions are based. The article also demonstrates how the similarities and differences in spatial senses of the English preposition on, Italian su, and Russian na explain the similarities and differences in their nonspatial senses.
Keywords: semantics, cognitive linguistics, English on , Italian s , Russian na , prepositions, patterns of polysemy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The polysemy of English on, Italian su, and Russian na
    • 2.1Spatial senses
    • 2.2Non-spatial sense extensions
      • 2.2.1Non-spatial expressions based on the source domain of a Surface
      • 2.2.2Non-spatial expressions based on the source domains of a Burden, Support, and Pressure
      • 2.2.3Non-spatial expressions based on the source domain of a Goal (onto)
      • 2.2.4Non-spatial expressions based on the source domain of a path
      • 2.2.5Non-spatial expressions based on the source domains of above/up
      • 2.2.6Non-spatial expressions based on the source domain of proximity
  • 3.Semantic asymmetry between the English on, Italian su, and Russian na
    • 3.1Differences in the frequency of a conceptual metaphor
    • 3.2Variations in prepositions caused by a linguo-cultural “pre-selection”
    • 3.3Variations in prepositions caused by differences in connotations of collocated words
    • 3.4Variations of prepositions influenced by the syntactic patterns of synonyms
    • 3.5Variation in sets of prepositions
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00170.kal
References (57)
References
Apresjan, Ju. (1995). Izbrannye trudy. Integral’noe opisanie jazyka i sistemnaja leksikografja [Selected works. An integral description of language and systemic lexicography]. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Astaf’eva, N. (1974). Predlogi v russkom jazyke i osobennosti ix upotreblenija [Prepositions in the Russian language and particularities of their use]. Minsk: Vysšaja škola.Google Scholar
Bacz, B. (2002). On the image-schema proposals for the preposition PO in Polish. Glossos, 3 1, 1–19.Google Scholar
Brenda, M., & Mazurkiewicz-Sokołowska, J. (2022). A cognitive perspective on spatial prepositions: Intertwining networks. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brugman, C., & Lakoff, G. (1988). Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In S. Small, G. Cotrell & M. Tannenhaus (Eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution (pp. 477–508). Palo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. (1998). Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric expressions. In J.-P. Koenig (Ed.), Discourse and cognition (pp. 189–204). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Coventry, K., & Garrod, S. (2004). Saying, seeing and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Efremova, T. F. (2000). Tolkovyj onlajn-slovar’ russkogo jazyka Efremovoj T. F. [Efremova’s online explanatory dictionary of the Russian language]. Accessible on [URL]
Ètimologičeskij onlajn-slovar’ russkogo jazyka Šanskogo N. M. [Online etymology dictionary Šanskogo N. M.]. (n.d.). Zaviset’. In Ètimologičeskij onlajn-slovar’ russkogo jazyka Šanskogo N. M. Retrieved September 1, 2023, from [URL]
Falck, M. J. (2017). Embodied motivations for abstract in and on constructions. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, A. Luzondo Oyón & P. Pérez Sobrino (Eds.), Constructing families of constructions: Analytical perspectives and theoretical challenges (pp. 53–76). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frenda, A. S. (2005). Cross-linguistic comparisons: A case study involving Irish and Italian prepositions. The ITB Journal, 6 (2), 23–29.Google Scholar
Gak, V. G. (1998). Jazykovye Preobrazovanija [Language transformations]. Moskva: Škola. Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Haddadi, M. H., & Tavakoli, A. S. (2016). The problems of Iranian language learners in correctly using German prepositions. Asian Social Science, 12 (6), 156–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition. An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R., & Landau, B. (1991). Spatial language and spatial cognition. In D. J. Napoli & J. Kegl (Eds.), Bridges between psychology and language: A Swarthmore Festschrift for Lila Gleitman (pp.144–169). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in mind. Chicago: University of Chicago press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). The meaning of the body. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamakura, Y. (2011). Collocation and preposition sense: A phraseological approach to the cognition of polysemy. Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (1), 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kranjec, A., Cardillo, E., Schmidt, G., & Chatterjee, A. (2010). Prescribed spatial prepositions influence how we think about time. Cognition, 114 (1), 111–116. Retrieved November 21, 2022, from [URL]
Krivošeeva, I. (1999). Strukturnye sxemy russkogo prostogo predloženija s glagolami èmocional’noj dejatel’nosti. Avtoref. dis. .. kand. filol. nauk. [Structural schemas of the Russian simple sentence with verbs of emotional activity. Doctoral dissertation] Voronež: Voronežskij gosudarstvennyj universitet.
Kustova, G. (2001). Semantičeskaja set’ predloga NA [The semantic web of the preposition NA]. G. Kustova (Ed.), Trudy Meždunarodnogo seminara «Dialog 2001» po komp’juternoj lingvistike i eё priloženijam (pp. 141–150). Moskva: Nauka. Retrieved October 11, 2023, from [URL]
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories can reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., & Schwartz, A. (1991). Master Metaphor List (second draft copy). Retrieved September 1, 2023, from [URL]
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S. (2010). English prepositions explained. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, S. (2003). On the meaning of prepositions and cases: The expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mal’ceva, O. L. (2007). Sopostavitel’nyj analiz semantiki predlogov nemeckogo i russkogo jazykov [Comparative analysis of the semantics of prepositions of the German and Russian languages]. Teorija jazyka i mežkul’turnaja kommunikacija, 2 (2), 20–24. Retrieved September 1, 2023, from [URL] [URL]
Malinowska, M. (2005). Il ruolo degli schemi iconici (parte-tutto, percorso, punto iniziale, contenitore, supporto e contiguità) nella semantica preposizionale in italiano [The role of the iconic schemas (total-part, path, initial point, container, support and contiguity) in the prepositional semantics in Italian]. Kraków: Romanica Cracoviensia: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiello´nskiego.Google Scholar
Mori, S. (2019). A cognitive analysis of the preposition OVER: Image-schema transformations and metaphorical extensions. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 64 (3), 444–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morras Cortés, J. A., & Wen, X. (2021). Unweaving the embodied nature of English temporal prepositions: The case of at. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 8 (1), 60–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mueller, C. (2016). A semantic account of the English preposition FOR based on a cognitive linguistics framework. The Bulletin of the Faculty of Humanities, 53 1, 1–24.Google Scholar
Muljukina, L. (2007). Osobennosti transpozicii francuzskix predlogov [Peculiarities of the transposition of French prepositions]. Vestnik Čeljabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 20 1, 114–117.Google Scholar
Nacional’nyj korpus russkogo jazyka [National Russian Corpus]. (2003–2023). Accessible on [URL]
Navarro i Ferrando, I. (1999). The metaphorical use of ‘on.’ Journal of English Studies, 1 1, 145–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Online Etymology Dictionary. (n.d.). Lie, *dhe-, influence, *per-, depend. In Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved September 1, 2023, from [URL]
Dictionary, O. E. (Ed.) (2015). Oxford English dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paliczuk, A. (2020). A cognitive approach to teaching Italian prepositions to Polish students. In G. Drożdż & B. Taraszka-Drożdż (Eds.), Foreign language pedagogy in the light of cognitive linguistics research (pp. 85–112). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reddy, M. (1993). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 164–201). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandra, D., & Rice, S. (1995). Network analyses of prepositional meaning: mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics, 6 1, 89–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandra, D. (1998). What linguists can and can’t tell you about the human mind: A reply to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics, 9 1, 361–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seliverstova, O. (2000). Semantičeskaja struktura predloga na [The semantic structure of the preposition na ]. In O. Seliverstova (Ed.) Issledovanija po semantike predlogov (pp. 189–242). Moscow: Russkie slovari.Google Scholar
Šeškauskienė, I., & Žilinskaitė-Šinkūnienė, E. (2015). On the polysemy of the Lithuanian UŽ. A cognitive perspective. Baltic international yearbook of cognition, logic and communication, 10 (1), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application (pp. 225–282). Boston, MA: Springer US. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (1988). Contrasting prepositional categories: English and Italian. Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, 50 1, 299–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tchizmarova, I. (2012). A cognitive analysis of the Bulgarian prepositions and verbal prefixes NAD and POD. Jazykoslovje, 13 (1), 219–260.Google Scholar
Treccani Online Dictionary. (n.d.). Influenza. In Treccani Online Dictionary. Retrieved October 22, 2023, from [URL]
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Oosten, J. (1977). On defining prepositions. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 3 1, 454–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Vinogradov, V. (1999). Istorija slov [History of words]. Moskva: RAN. Retrieved February 14, 2023, from [URL]
Vladimirova, L., & Vlasova, A. (2013). Russkie prostranstvennye predlogi v ispanojazyčnoj auditorii [Russian spatial prepositions in a Spanish speaking classroom]. In N. Čujkina (Ed.) Russkij jazyk segodnja: Aktual’nye voprosy teorii i ix metodičeskaja interpretacija (pp. 207–217). Tallin: Tallin University Press.Google Scholar
Wang, C. (2020). Implicit cognitive meanings of the spatial prepositions in, on, and at in English. International Journal of Linguistics and Translation Studies, 1 (2), 70–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xoružaja, Ju. (2007). Semantičeskie funkcii prostranstvennyx i vremennyx predlogov v nemeckom i russkom jazykax. Avtoref. dis. … kand. filol. Nauk [Semantic functions of prepositions of space and time in the German and Russian languages. Doctoral dissertation]. Krasnodar: Kubanskij gos. un-t.
Zingarelli, N. (2004). Su. In Lo Zingarelli. Vocabolario della lingua italiana (12th edition, p. 1813). Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar