Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 15:1 (2017) ► pp.121–153

A cognitive perspective on the semantics of near

 | University of Szczecin, Poland
The present study investigates the semantic structure of the word near assuming that its distinct senses form a semantic network with a prototypical spatial sense at the center and various extended senses at different distances away from the prototype. In order to explain the extensions of near, the cognitive notions of construal, image schema transformation, metaphor and metonymy are taken into consideration. The conceptual blending theory is used to explain the semantic structure of the complex preposition near to. The research reveals that the word near functions as a preposition (also a part of the complex preposition near to), an adverb, an adjective and a verb, and that its semantic structure is best viewed as a continuum encoding both lexical and grammatical information. At the same time, the analysis shows that the polysemy of near is rather impoverished when compared to the polysemies of other spatial prepositions, such as in, on, at or over.
Keywords: cognitive linguistics, semantics, spatial prepositions
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.Mechanisms behind sense extensions of the word near
  • 4.The senses of the prepositions near and near to
    • 4.1The senses of the preposition near
      • 4.1.1The primary sense of the preposition near – In-the-vicinity Sense
      • 4.1.2The Interaction Sense of the preposition near
      • 4.1.3The Approach Sense of near
      • 4.1.4The Approximately Sense of the preposition near
      • 4.1.5The Temporal Sense of the preposition near
    • 4.2The senses of the complex preposition near to
      • 4.2.1The primary sense of the complex preposition near to
      • 4.2.2The Interaction Sense of the preposition near to
      • 4.2.3The Approach Sense of near to
      • 4.2.4The Approximately Sense of the preposition near to
      • 4.2.5The Temporal Sense of near to
  • 5.The adverb near
    • 5.1The senses of the adverb near
      • 5.1.1The In-the-vicinity Sense
      • 5.1.2The Interaction Sense
      • 5.1.3The Approach Sense
      • 5.1.4The Temporal Sense
  • 6.The adjective near
  • 7.The verb near
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 4 September 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.06bre
References (47)
References
Burigo, M., & Coventry, K. (2010). Context affects scale selection for proximity terms. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 101, 292–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
British National Corpus. Retrieved June 21, 2014 from [URL].
Brenda, M. (2014). The cognitive perspective on the polysemy of the English spatial preposition over. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Brugman, C. (1988). The story of over: Polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics 101, 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coventry, K. R., & Garrod, S. C. (2004). Saying, seeing and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions essays in cognitive psychology. Hove: Psychology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, A. D. (2000). Aspects of the micro-structure of word meanings. In Y. Ravin & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches (pp. 31–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, H. (1993). The Dutch spatial preposition in: A cognitive-semantic analysis. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.). The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (pp. 27–72). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deane, P. (2005). Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of over . In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 35–56). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R. (1993). Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English prepositions. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (pp. 73–97). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. (2013). Language and time: A cognitive linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
(2004). Rethinking metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 53–66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grady, J. E. (2005). Image schemas and perception: Refining a definition. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 35–56). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hagège, C. (2010). Adpositions: Function-marking in human languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ho-Abdullah, I. (2010). Variety and variability: A corpus-based cognitive lexical-semantics analysis of prepositional usage in British, New Zealand and Malaysian English. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). A student’s introduction to English grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1951[1924]). Philosophy of grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kokorniak, I. (2007). English at: An integrated semantic analysis. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lindstromberg, S. (2010). English prepositions explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Logan, G. D., & Sadler, D. D. (1996). A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Space and language (pp. 493–529). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lundskær-Nielsen, T. (1993). Prepositions in Old and Middle English. Gylling: Odense University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malt, B. C., & Wolff, P. (Eds.). (2010). Words in the mind: How words capture human experience. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, J. A. H., Bradley, H., Craigie, W. A., & Onions, C. T. (Eds.). (1989). The Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Navarro-Ferrando, I. (1999). The metaphorical use of on . Journal of English Studies, 11, 145–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). A cognitive semantic analysis of the English lexical unit in . Cuadernos de Investigación Filológica, 261, 189–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Towards the description of the meaning of at . In H. Cuyckens & G. Radden (Eds.), Perspectives on prepositions (pp. 211–230). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007[1998]). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (2007[1998]). Towards a theory of metonymy. In V. Evans, B. K. Bergen, & J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive linguistics reader (pp. 335–359). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Saussure, de F. (1959[1916]). Course in general linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Svorou, S. (1994). The grammar of space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. (1988). Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser, & H. Singmaster (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 406–416). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial senses, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Zhang, Yi
2022. Chinese adverbs. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:2 ► pp. 330 ff. DOI logo
Kermer, Franka
2021. Semantic network of the German preposition hinter . Review of Cognitive Linguistics 19:2 ► pp. 403 ff. DOI logo
Kalyuga, Marika
2020. Prepositional Phrases of Proximity. In Russian Prepositional Phrases, ► pp. 203 ff. DOI logo
Brenda, Maria
2019. The semantics of the English complex prepositionnext to. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 17:2 ► pp. 438 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Bibliography. In A Cognitive Perspective on Spatial Prepositions [Human Cognitive Processing, 74], ► pp. 229 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.