Dividing Up Physical and Mental Space I PDF

Dividing up physical and mental space into
conceptual categories by means of

English prepositions
Rene Dirven
Introduction
Like any other word category, prepositions structure a subjective, lan-
guage-specific view of relations in our experiential world. The purpose
of this paper is to show that the structuring of our experience of physical
space by means of prepositions to a large extent determines the language-
specific concepts built up in mental space. More specifically, the paper
aims to analyse the following theses:
(i) Some, if not all, English prepositions are dividing up physical space
in an idiosyncratic, "English" way.
(ii) The basic spatial conceptualisations can be and are projected onto
"mental space", i. e., they may form chains of meaning covering various
conceptual domains such as time, state, area, manner or means, circum-
stance, cause or reason, etc.
(iii) Since each of the prepositions can follow a more or less similar path
of extensions in meaning, we may, theoretically speaking, find a number
of different concepts of time, state, area, manner, cause etc.
The question therefore is to find out how similar or how different are
the various concepts in mental space, e.g., the various concepts of
circumstance or cause denoted by the different prepositions. Although
one may assume that concepts of cause are fundamentally different from
concepts of manner or area, the question also arises whether the various
concepts denoted by the chain of meanings of one preposition, e.g., at
may not be as closely related in meaning to each other as they are to the
corresponding senses in the domain denoted by another preposition, e. g.,
on. More importantly, one may also expect gaps in the meaning extensions
for some mental domains because of the specific spatial structuring
conventionalised by a specific preposition. These hypotheses will be tested
on a sample of twelve prepositions selected more or less at random: the
three basic space prepositions at, on, in:1 the two "proximity" prepositions
Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library (Brown University Rockefeller L
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 5/4/12 9:32 PM
74 Rene Dirven
by and with; the two "path" prepositions through and about, the two
"vertical space" prepositions under and over, and the tree "separation"
or "source" prepositions from, off and out of.
1. Characterisation of spatial conceptualisations

These 12 prepositions and some of the relationships between their spatial
meanings can be brought together as in Figure 1.
This representation of the relationships is, of course, too strong in
some respects. But what it intends to express is the following:
At, on, in are the basic and most general place prepositions. At, as the
most "neutral" place preposition, denotes place as a point of orientation,
disregarding its physical shape: e. g., at the station takes the station as an
orientation point for some trajector, 2 but does not denote whether the
trajector is near, inside or on top of the station area. On denotes physical
contact between trajector and landmark, and therefore necessitates view-
ing the landmark as one-dimensional space (a line) or two-dimensional
space (a surface). In denotes the enclosure of the trajector in the landmark,
and therefore views the landmark as two- or three-dimensional space (a
surface or a volume).
Similar, but now "separation" spatial configurations hold for the three
source prepositions. From denotes separation from a point of orientation,
e. g., he comes from the station. Off denotes separation from contact with
[1] [2] [3]
AT ON IN
[4] [6]
BY THROUGH
[5] [7]
WITH ABOUT
[8]
[91
UNDER OVER
FROM OFF OUT OF

[10] [11] [12]
Figure 1. Some relations between prepositions

Dividing up physical and mental space 75
a line or surface (thus a somewhat funny sentence like he comes off the
station could only mean that he had climbed onto the building) and out
of denotes separation from the inside of a landmark as in he comes out
of the station.
Obviously, on and off are the clearest instances of the spatial sense of
all prepositions, which may be a consequence of their basic meaning of
denoting physical contact (or breaking it off) between trajector and
landmark. Although at and in can be used to fulfil purely spatial func-
tions, they do so in a less concrete or less "spatial" way than on, and
therefore they may be more apt to go beyond spatial conceptualisations.
The same holds for the "proximity" prepositions by and with, which
locate the trajector in relation to a point of orientation just like at does,
whereas through and about presuppose a two- or three-dimensional area
just like in.
More specifically by denotes the idea of "connection", either in a static
relationship, e. g., He is sitting by the fire, or in a dynamic relationship,
e. g., This bus passes by the sation. With also denotes both a point of
orientation and the idea of connection, but it subsumes these notions
under the more abstract notion of association and/or accompaniment.
Hence in its spatial sense, with can only denote persons as a landmark,
e. g., John is sitting with Mary.
In contrast with the "point-of-orientation" character of by and with, the
two- or three-dimensional prepositions through and about require the
landmark to be seen as a surface or a volume as in he walks through the
station or he walks about the station (platforms). Thus through structures
space as a tunnel or channel, whereas about denotes spatial movement in
any direction.
The two vertical space prepositions under and over are outsiders in the
general picture drawn here. Their inclusion in the discussion has a dual
purpose: (i) to show that prepositions denoting a negative polarity —
this also applies to the "separation" prepositions from, off and out of are
less apt to be extended into all domains of mental space, and (ii) to show
that the positive polarity item over behaves differently from under, even
to such an extent that it can cover some of the domains expressed by
through and especially about.
Consequently, the only real outsider in Figure 1 is under (especially in
view of the position it takes up in the representation). But its position is
somehow justified in that it negates over, which in some of its extensions
adjoins about. Needless to say, there is no link between the adjoining
76 Rene Dirven
Figure 2. Sets of prepositions and relationships
items with and under nor between under and from. The various relation-
ships that do hold between the twelve prepositions chosen are therefore
rather to be interpreted in the sets or groups as represented in Figure 2.
2. Chains of meaning from physical into mental space
The extensions of the meanings of a preposition from physical space via

time into more abstract domains do not occur in any haphazard way but
follow a path of gradually increasing abstractions, whereby the link with
each prior meaning remains obvious and may account for most, if not
all, co-occurrence restrictions between trajector and landmark. Note,
however, that these notions will gradually come to be used in a more
abstract sense, too.
2.1. At extends from an orientation-point in space to one in time, and

further into state, area, manner, circumstance and cause, as illustrated
below:
(a) point as place: at the station
(b) time-point: at six o'clock
(c) state: at work
(d) area: good at guessing
(e) manner (point on scale)
(d) area-· (a) point in space »-(b) point in time
(c) state ( 0 circumstance
(g) cause
Figure 3. Radial network of extensions of at
(e) manner: at full speed

(f) circumstance: at these words (he left)
(g) cause: laugh at, irritation at
The notion of orientation-point obviously links space (a) and time-
point (b); also the state (c) is a metaphorical orientation-point since it
contrasts with other states such as at rest, at sleep, at prayer etc. The
notion of "area" is used in Radden's (1989: 448) sense of "the thematic
context or field within which an event is seen"; thus one can be "good"
within the context or field of "guessing". The fact that at is used with a
number of predicates such as good, bad, clever, adept, an expert etc.
suggests that the skill in question is a point at which the subject of these
predicates is aiming. With the manner expression at full speed (e), at
denotes a point on a scale, which can be contrasted with other points.
Circumstantial at in at these words (f) is a further abstraction of temporal
at, now not with a point on the time continuum but with human actions
as a reference-point. Although it is possible to imply a cause-effect
relationship with circumstantial at in (f), this is not necessary. When this
causal relationship is explicitly given as in (g) laugh at, irritation at,
infuriated at, angry at, surprised at etc., what is expressed is that the
emotional state follows from a cause or that the cause triggers the
emotional state.
We propose the following diagram (Figure 3) to represent these rela-
tions.
2.2. On is substantially different from at due to its notion of "contact"

and can have the following extensions:
78 Rene Dirven
(e) means
(d) area (a) contact with line/surface (b) time-expanse
(c) state (f) circumstance
(g) reason
Figure 4. Radial network of the extensions of on
(a) contact with line/surface: on the floor

(b) period of time: on Sunday
(c) state: on display
(d) topic or area: lecture on history
(e) manner/means: dine on snails
(f) circumstance: on arrival (register first)
(g) cause/reason: congratulate sb. on his performance
The notion of spatial contact with a line or surface in (a) is mirrored
on the time-axis in (b) and in the continuing state in (c). The idea of
lecturing (d) presupposes solid contact with one's subject matter. Simi-
larly, snails or whatever other means of subsistence (e) with dine on, live
on etc. form a basis of support.
Consequently, the notion of manner seems to be incompatible with on.
Only the notion of condition, which can be a subcategory of circumstance,
seems to be compatible with on as on her own, on these conditions etc. In
contrast with this concept of a supporting circumstance, the notion of
circumstance with on in (f) does not form a basis of support, but rather
denotes the contact that holds between two successive moments in time
or in an action chain. Finally, the notion of contact seems to exclude the
idea of cause and effect, but the notion of reason is fully compatible with
on, since the reason for the act of congratulation follows from and is
based upon the performance delivered.
2.3. In conceptualises space as an enclosure or volume, and this basic

characteristic also pervades all its extensions:
(e) means
(d) area (a) spatial enclosure (b) time-span
(c) state as enclosure
(e) manner as state
(f) circumstance as state
(g) cause as state
Figure 5. Radial network of extensions of in
(a) spatial enclosure: in the station

(b) time-span: in one day; in a week
(c) state as enclosure: in despair, in search of
(d) area: specialise in, rich in coal
(f) manner, means: in a loud voice, in English
(g) circumstance: she nodded in agreement
(h) cause: delight in one's success, revel in
The enclosing space can be physical as in (a) or temporal as in (b): here
it can be a time-span within which one is situated or a later time-span
(seen from the present time-point). The notion of enclosure is extended
to psychological states such as in despair or active states such as in search
of (c). Also the notion of area can be an action field {specialise in) or a
thematic field {rich in). English categorises all kinds of state as enclosing
experiences which may denote manner or means (f), circumstance (g) or
even cause (0; in themselves these expressions merely denote an "envel-
oping" state, and the further specifications arise in the given contexts.
This may be summarised in the following diagram.
2.4. By highlights the notion of "connection" between two entitities in

physical space or two events or states in mental space.
80 Rene Dirven
(d) area · (a) connection in place - (b) connection in time

(lawyer by (house by the bridge) (by day)
profession)
(f) circumstance
(by such bad weather)
Figure 6. Radial network of extensions of static by
(a) connection in space: a house by a bridge', pass by a bridge

(b) connection in time: by day, by six o'clock
(c) -
(d) area: a lawyer by profession
(e) manner, instrument: travel by bus
(f) circumstance: by accident, by such bad weather
(g) cause/agent: surprised by his appearance, a book by Lakoff
Unlike the three basic prepositions at, on, in, which are mostly static, by
can denote both static {a house by a bridge) or dynamic (pass by a bridge)
relationships. This also applies to time relations: by day denotes a static
relationship, by six o'clock refers to a later moment of time, before which
something is to happen. English does not associate a psychological state
with by (c), which may be due to its strong notion of connection. Also
area is only marginally present in (d). But whenever two entitities, events
or states can be seen as strongly in connection with each other, by is very
productive as with manner, which is usually conceptualised as an instru-
ment (e), or with circumstance (f) and cause or agent (g).
The two diagrams in Figure 6 and 7 are proposed to represent the
extensions of static by and dynamic by, respectively:
2.5. With conceptualises the notions of association and accompaniment,

which are not physical in nature, though they may denote physical
proximity; nevertheless this is not transferrable to time or state:
(a) proximity in space: John is sitting with Mary
(b) -
(c) -
(d) area: deal with a problem
(e) manner, instrument: with great precision, with a key
(f) circumstance: (I cannot do it) with everybody laughing
(g) cause: tremble with fear
(e) means/instrument
(a) connection as path (b) connection with time-point

(pass by the bridge) (finish by six ο 'clock)
Τ
(f) circumstance
(by accident)
(g) cause/agent
(idestroyed by fire/the enemy)
Figure 7. Radial network of extensions of dynamic by
All the more abstract meanings of with invoke a metaphorisation of the

notion of accompaniment: in the domain of area, the thematic field is
seen as a companion one has to deal with; manner or instrument are
likewise seen as companions to fulfil an assignment; circumstance is a
companion standing by and cause a feeling or emotion leading to visible
effects.
The diagram in Figure 8 represents these extensions:
2.6. Through is, just like about, a path preposition and typically occurs
within dynamic contexts. This basic tendency also prevails in the non-
(e) manner/instrument as accompaniment
(d) area (a) proximity/accompaniment in space
(f) circumstance as accompaniment
(g) cause as accompaniment
Figure 8. Radial network of extensions of with

82 Rene Dirven
(a) movement in enclosure (b) movement in time-span
(e) means as channel
(g) cause as channel
Figure 9. Radial network of extensions of through
spatial usages, which are, however, precisely because of the necessity of

dynamic contexts, more limited than those of by.
(a) Place as path: walk through the fields
(b) Time as path: go on through the next months
(e) Means: funded through our budget
(g) Cause: killed through accidents
The following diagram can be proposed to represent these extensions:
2.7. About denotes movement in any direction, which also leaves fewer
options for figurative extensions:
(a) Place: about the playground
(b) Time: about then
(d) Area: think/doubt about
(g) Cause: excited/crazy about
The notion of mental movement is found with verbs denoting speaking

and thinking (d): these activities are seen as movements over a mental
area. The same notion underlies emotional state predicates which denote
emotional states caused by wandering over certain causes (g).
(d) area (a) movement in all (b) approximative time

directions in space
(g) cause
Figure 10. Radial network of extensions of about

2.8. Over can denote static and dynamic situations and has similar
possibilities to about:
(a) Place: over the mountain.
(b) Time: over the whole year.
(d) Area: debate over
(g) Cause: argue/fight over
Figure 11 represents these extensions of over:
(d) area (a) movement to end (b) movement in time-span

of surface
(g) cause
Figure 11. Radial network of extensions of over
2.9. Under denotes a static position at the negative and of a vertical

dimension, so that it can easily lead to the expression of negative states
or circumstances, too:
(a) Place: under the bridge
(c) State: under attack, under arrest
(f) Circumstance: under no circumstances, under the premise
(g) Cause: under the thought of
Figure 12 represents these extensions:
(a) lower point in vertical space
(c) state
(f) circumstance
(g) cause
Figure 12. Radial network of extensions of under

84 Rene Dirven
The three "source" or "separation" prepositions are even more strongly

limited in their possibilities for metaphorical extensions of meaning.
2.10. From denotes a point of departure either in physical space, in time,

or in the domain of causation:
(a) Place: He has returned from England.

(b) Time: He has been working from 6 o'clock onwards.
(g) Cause: He died from drugs.
2.11. Off reduced to of in its area or causal meaning, denotes departure

from a surface with which one was in direct contact:
(a) Place: He has come off the ladder.
(d) Area: Talk of the devil (and he is sure to appear.)
(g) Cause: He died of cancer.
2.12. Out of denotes departure from an enclosure, which in a metaphor-

ical sense can be an emotional state causing an effect:
(a) Place: He walked out of the house.
(g) Cause: He killed her out of despair.
In order to summarise the varying possibilities for meaning extensions,
let us first survey the twelve prepositions with respect to their values for
each of the six areas as in Table 1.
Table I. Survey of the meaning extensions of prepositions
time state area means circum- cause

manner stance reason
at + + + + + +
on + + + + + +
in + + + + + +
by + - + + + +
with — - + + + +
through + - + - +
about + - • - - +
over + + - - +
under — • — - + +
from + - - - - +
off - - + - - +
out of - - - - - +

Two conclusions that complement each other can be drawn from this
summary and the foregoing analyses:
(i) a preposition that denotes a vaguer or more general location is more
apt to develop metaphorical extensions;
(ii) a preposition that denotes a more concrete location or a specialised
visual location or which has a negative polarity meaning is less apt to
develop metaphorical extensions.
These conclusions do not only apply when larger sets of prepositions
or prepositions within sets are compared, but also when single preposi-
tions are compared:
— The first five prepositions {at, on, in, by, with) are vaguer in exact
location than the seven others, and they show more extensions, too (see
Table 1).
— Within this set of five prepositions only the first three prepositions
{at, on, in) can form "state" prepositional phrases. In fact, this is not
surprising, if one takes into account the "proximity" meaning of by and
with: a state cannot easily be seen as being near an entitity, but it must
somehow "touch" that entity.
— Within the set of the three most productive prepositions at, on, in, on
is more concrete than at and in, since it has, as a major component, the
notion of "physical contact". This feature may explain why on does not
form "active" state predicates like at or in can {at work, in search of): on
just like under only forms "passive" state predicates such as on display
("being displayed") or under arrest ("being arrested"). Furthermore, on
can not form manner phrases, but only expressions of means {diet on
bananas), which is in line with the notion of physical contact. Also the
circumstance meaning of on is a very special one, since it requires two
successive acts touching upon each other {on arrival). The dominating
feature of contact may also explain why the "cause-effect" pair is not
found with on: cause and effect may be a too complex and too abstract
relation to be limited to continuous or even tangent events. But reason
is possible, precisely since one event can be supported (via a logical step)
by some other event.
— Also through and about differ slightly in concrete visualisation: through
implies the image of a tunnel or channel and therefore excludes the
notions of state, area, or manner, but only allows "passage-like" concepts
of means or cause; about is much vaguer due to its visual conceptualisation
of "movement in any direction" and allows extension into mental move-
ment required for area {think/speak about) or cause {excited about).
86 Rene Dirven
— Over, though only expressing, in its prototypical senses, vertical lo-

cation, also implies movement and this may be the reason why it has the
same, albeit less productive, possibilities of denoting area and cause. The
negative polarity item under, on the other hand, can only be extended to
notions of passive state (under arrest) and of circumstance (under the
premise).
— The three "separation" prepositions are all negative in orientation
and, just like under, allow far fewer extensions into mental space. Only
the most neutral of these three, from, can be used for time. The fact that
all three can be extended into cause suggests that extension into cause,
though a fairly abstract notion, poses a more general problem. In fact,
all these prepositions except on may denote cause, which again requires
an independent explanation, which may be attributable to the notion of
cause rather than to the nature of the prepositions themselves. This will
be the topic of Section 3.5., but it will be discussed in the context of the
differentiated concepts which can be shaped within one domain.
3. Differentiated concepts of place, time, state, area,

manner etc.
Linguistic description finds no difficulty in distinguishing between various
concepts in the domain of place or time. Concepts like point in space or
time-point are familiar ones. So are concepts like line, surface, volume,
enclosure in space or time. The use of different prepositions for the
domains of state, area, manner or means, circumstance, and cause or
reason, suggests that linguistic description cannot but make similar dis-
tinctions within these domains, too. I shall therefore now examine the
paradigm of prepositional phrases within one conceptual domain and
investigate how similar or different these expressions are. To facilitate
the comparison, I shall quote the same examples as before, but add more
instances, and group them according to domains. We can leave out place
and time, since here we can assume general agreement, and begin with
state. For the numbering of the prepositions, the order given in Section
1 will be used.
3.1. State
English prepositional predicates denote four different types of state:

(1) at: at workjrestjsleep)workjplay)prayer/warjlunch

(2) on: on display/show/sale/hire/trial/guard/duty
(3) in: in despair/sorrow/love/fun/search of/demand
(4) under: under arrest/repair/control/fire/pressure
As the examples suggest, these states incorporate important differences.
With at all the prepositional predicates denote a more or less clearly
delimited and usually and "active" state, whereby the subject is usually
human and engages in some form of organised activity; it is the activity
itself which is the point of orientation so that the use of at is fairly
normal. With on (and also with its antonym under) the prepositional
predicates denote "passive" states: things are or can be displayed, shown,
sold, hired etc. Most of these ow-predicates are associated with things,
and only a few with persons: also in this case the "passive" state (on
trial) or the "commissioned" state (on guard, on duty) are still prevalent.
It seems that the on predicates visualise things on a platform for everybody
to see or witness. In this respect the under-predicates are slightly different:
here we find a stronger suggestion of the presence of an agent who
controls (very typical is under control) the situation, /«-predicates, finally,
leave room for both passive and/or emotional expressions (in despair/
sorrow/love, in demand), or more active ones (in search of/in a hurry).
This may be seen as a consequence of the "enveloping" sense implied in
the idea of "enclosure" expressed by in: the emotional state, passive state
or active state is viewed as an enclosure in which the subject finds himself.
The four prepositions thus help to conceptualise different forms of
states: at states refer to (parts of) a larger scheduled network of human
activities or states; in states denote feelings, emotions or other individual
situations; on states, on the other hand, denote controlled, often passive
situations, which in adverse conditions are seen as emanating from higher
forces, typically expressed as under states. English thus contrasts at liberty
with in freedom: at collocates with oberty since this contrasts with a
transient state of captivity, whereas in denotes a person's state of being
free; 3 under arrest denotes the control "over" a person, and on trial
denotes somebody's being raised for public investigation.
3.2. Area
Eight of the twelve prepositions can be used to denote area:

(1) at: good/bad/clever/an expert/adept at
(2) on: concentrate/meditate/an expert/lecture/a book/a summit/a report/
a comment on
88 Rene Dirven
(3) in: specialisejrichjlowjpoorjlacking in

(4) by: a lawyer by profession
(5) with: deallbusylfamiliarlbe engaged with
(7) about: think/doubt/speak/say sth./talk/a book about
(8) over: debate/a controversy/a dispute! quarrel I argue over
(11) of: speak / think/remind/know /dream/read of
The point-of-orientation meaning of at is preserved in its transfer f r o m

place to the " a r e a " domain in that this area must be one of practical
skills such as good at playing the piano. In this respect at in area expres-
sions is very similar to at "active" state expressions, where both action
and h u m a n subjects also seem to be m a j o r co-occurrence restrictions.
In contrast with at, the use of on in area expressions presupposes longer
and more p r o f o u n d contact with, preferably, a mental area: thus one can
be "an expert at repairing pianos" in the sense that one practises this
oneself, but be "an expert on (repairing) pianos", which implies knowl-
edge a b o u t the area, which may be the specific field of piano repairing
or the more general field related to pianos in general. This also explains
the co-occurrence of on with such mental activity verbs as concentrate,
lecture, brood, ponder, muse, meditate, etc. The difference between on and
in stands out clearly with the item expert, too: one can be an expert on
the nineteenth century, but for a larger area English prefers in e.g., an
expert in literary history. This notion of area with in is therefore the wider
context within which one is an expert, whereas on designates a more
specific area (of knowledge) and at an area of practical skills. This specific
nature of the enveloping /'«-area also accounts for expressions such as
rich/poor/low in: here the notion of richness or scarcity only applies within
a specific field.
The use of with for area evokes the idea of accompaniment, be it
activity as in be engaged with, busy with, knowledge as in familiar with
or mental activity as in deal with. But this sense of with is not very
productive with verbs.
In fact, the four prepositions with verbs denoting mental and/or com-
municative activity are on, about, over, and of. On and of are, just as in
their spatial meanings, clear antonyms: serious, p r o f o u n d mental activity
requires on: thus lecture on and speak of are almost antipodes. This also
explains that things connected with one's imagination or intuition are
expressed with of. dream of, know of, think of, remind of. The same holds
for things that have to be retrieved f r o m m e m o r y such as remind of,
reminiscent of, oblivious of. The spatial notion of "separation" of the

preposition o f ( f ) does not guarantee any in-depth concentration on

things.
As against all these more "specific" conceptualisations of area, the
expression of area by means of about tends to be that of a "dispersive"
or a "discursive" area. This may be based on the fundamental sense of
"movement in all directions", whereby the notion of movement may
explain the co-occurrence restriction to mental activities such as speak,
write, lecture, think, doubt or mental products such as books, stories,
films, articles, papers, studies, songs etc.
Although about and over are similar in some respects, they differ in
one important respect, too: whereas about denotes movement in all
directions, over visualises a two-direction movement, implying the way
from and back to the mental starting-point. It is this two-way sense of
over that shapes the notion of an antagonist area such as in debate,
dispute, quarrel, argue, controversy over.
The four prepositions that cannot be used for the domain of area are
through, under, from and out of The image schema of a tunnel may block
any association with the notion of area and so may the concrete vertical
image schema of under do. Separation prepositions seem by nature less
apt to denote area, although o f ( f ) can be used for the suggestion of a
"distanced" area, an area only vaguely reachable. The question, however,
is whether this of can still be considered as one of the senses of polysemous
ofif)·
3.3. Manner, means, instrument
Only six of the twelve prepositions selected can be used to express one
or more aspects of this complex domain:
(1) at: at full speed, at the top of his voice.

(2) on: dine on snacks, drunk on whisky, on foot, on horseback
(3) in: in agreement, in a loud voice, write in ink/pencil
(4) by: by train/bike/car/air/sea
(5) with: with precision/care /passion', with a key /a pen
(6) through: funded through our budget, obtain sth. through the post.
The domain of manner, means and instrument requires prepositions

denoting orientation, contact, enclosure or connection between two en-
tities, situations or concepts.
90 Rene Dirven
The fact that the other six of the twelve prepositions about, over, under,
from, off and out of do not form prepositional phrases of manner, means,
instrument may be due to the vaguer, dispersive meanings of the former
two (about, over), and to the negative polarity of the latter four.
The domain of manner, means and instrument can be seen as a
conceptual continuum, at one end of which we find more abstract con-
ceptualisations for manner and at the other end the more concrete
conceptualisations for instrument; the concept of means, though some-
what closer to instrument stands between the two extremes of manner
and instrument, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Distribution of prepositions over manner, means and instrument
MANNER MEANS INSTRUMENT
with with
at, in, on, by, through
The prototypical preposition covering both the concepts of manner

and instrument is with: combined with abstract nouns, it usually expresses
manner, with concrete nouns it expresses an instrument. The other prep-
ositions tend to favour one of the segments of the continuum: at tends
towards the more abstract segment; on and by towards the intermediate
segment of means; in covers the abstract manner segment (nod in agree-
ment) or the intermediate "means" (write in ink), and through concep-
tualises means as a channel.
The difference between means and instrument stands out most clearly
in the pair write in pencil and write with a pencil: the ί'η-phrase concep-
tualises the way (manner or means) in which things are done; here the
idea of an enveloping state or substance is clearly present, which also
accounts for the use of pencil as an uncountable noun; the wzfA-phrase
stresses the use of an accompanying instrument and since this is concrete,
pencil is used as a countable noun here.
The fact that on does not favour a manner interpretation is a conse-
quence of the notion of physical contact of spatial on; in its semantic
extension to the manner/means/instrument domain on cannot fully switch
to the fully abstract end of the continuum, although such a manner
interpretation is never fully excluded in expressions such as on foot, on
horseback. But even the other extreme interpretation of instrument cannot
be excluded in these two expressions; still the absence of articles or plurals
in such idiomatic phrases suggests that these are not comparable to freely
manipulative instruments, but are rather supporting entities or surfaces

with which the user is in physical contact. This notion of a supporting
means (which also holds for subsistence by means of food and drink) is
different from the "path" expressions denoting means, such as by boatj
bike/airjsea or through our budget etc.; here the notions of "connection"
(by) or "channel" (through) are extended into that of "means", but this
time not a supporting means, but rather a means allowing the passage
of entities. Typically, the concrete entities (boat, bike, bus) or the sub-
stances (air, sea) are not seen as fundamentally different since they are
all treated as uncountable nouns.
With through the noun remains countable, however, and therefore such
expressions as through our budget never allow a "manner" interpretation,
which could still be invoked for ^-phrases.
3.4. Circumstance
Five of the six prepositions (i.e., at, on, in, by, with, through) that can
express the domain of manner, means and instrument can also be used
for the domain of circumstance; through is out now, but under takes its
place.
(1) at: at these words (he left)
(2) on: on arrival, on his death, on my return, on receipt, on the condition
that, on the pretext that
(3) in: (he smoked) in silence
(4) by: by accident, (catch) by surprise, by such bad weather
(5) with: (I can't do it) with everybody laughing', with the door wide open,
the bugs can get in
(6) under: under these circumstances, under the premise
As with the former domain, the domain of circumstance requires a more
or less clear "location"; this condition is also met by under.
Circumstance is a conceptual domain that refers to a situation occurring
or holding at the same time as or in a close vicinity of some other
situation; though some link between the two situations is implied, the
nature of this link is not specified or not clearly specified. In fact, there
is not a clear-cut boundary between circumstance and cause or reason,
but, as with most conceptual categories, a fuzzy zone of transition is
found here. Still, the centres of both categories "circumstance" and
"cause" are relatively stable. And even within the domain of circumstance,
92 Rene Dirven
the various prepositions divide up this 'mental space' into quite different
concepts of circumstance.
With at circumstance is viewed as an orientating activity marking the
occurrence of a second activity; as with the other uses of at the notion
of activity prevails here, too. With on two meanings of circumstance
emerge: either the notion of a bordering action (on arrival) which is to
be followed by new action (clearly the notion of contact between the two
actions is present here); or else we have a static circumstance (on the
condition that, on the understanding that), which implies that one situation
is to be conditionally supported by some other fact.
As already suggested in Figures 3 and 4, the extensions of at and on
go from the time concept to that of circumstance so that we can speak
of "temporal circumstance" here. To this we must also add the notion of
"conditional" circumstance.
In denoting circumstance is an extension of state and manner (see
Figure 5). The enveloping metaphor following from the "enclosure" sense
of in does not allow the interpretation of successive events with /«-phrases,
but only that of simultaneous situations. In such an "enveloping" circum-
stance, the link between the two situations is always felt to be stronger
and the borderline with the domains of manner, purpose, cause, or reason
is hard to draw: thus one could interpret she nodded in agreement not
only as manner but also as circumstance, or even as purpose or reason.
The inherent "connection" sense of by makes this preposition almost
into the predestined item to express the neutral domain of circumstance,
especially when no visible link between two events is implied, as in the
expressions by accident, by chance, by mere coincidence. Also other un-
controllable situations such as weather conditions typically require by (by
such bad weather), although here the weather can also be seen as an
enveloping factor and thus allows the use of in: in such a bad snowstorm,
in the rain, in this heat etc.
The "accompaniment" meaning of with, just like the "connection"
sense of by, is a very apt candidate for a meaning extension into the
domain of "circumstance". The difference is that with requires a clearly
delimited situation, which can function as an accompaniment to some
other situations. Consequently, mere indications of time or factors of
luck are not sufficient, but only a fully spelled out situation (e. g., with
the door wide open) can be used for this type of circumstance.
Circumstance denoted by under (under these circumstances) is very
much the same as static circumstance denoted by its antonym on (on the
condition that) in that both tend to express the notion of condition. The
difference between on and under in this respect is that on constitutes the

unmarked, neutral case, whereas under is used for the marked case of
adverse situations.
Finally, it should be kept in mind that, although there is no clear
dividing line between the various domains, their centres stand firm. Thus
the expression suffer in translation is unequivocally circumstance, not
cause, although one might, logically speaking, imply a causal factor. Still,
it is not expressed by in here. Expressing such a causal relationship with
suffer requires denoting the source of the process as in suffer from a
tendency to exaggerate. The various types of causal relationship are
discussed in the next section.
3.5. Cause and reason
As already stated before, all the twelve prepositions can denote some
type of cause (or reason):
(1) at: laugh at, irritation at, angry at
(2) on: congratulate on, compliment on, pride oneself on
(3) in: delight in, rejoice in, exult/triumph/revel in
(4) by: surprised by, a book by
(5) with: tremble with fear, hair grey with age, pleased with, besides
himself with, blush with pleasure, blind with passion, white with anger
(6) through: killed through accidents
(7) about: excited/crazy/angry/unhappy about
(8) over: argue over, fight over, hesitant over
(9) under: suffer under a regime
(10) from: die from drugs
(11) of: die of cancer
(12) out of: kill sb. out of despair
The causal meaning of each of these prepositions is strikingly different
and helps to explain the type of verb that can be used in the accompanying
verb phrase.
The three basic prepositions at, on, in are rather restricted in the
expression of causal relations. Thus causal at denotes a cause as a target
at which one aims one's emotions such as laughter, irritation, anger etc.
implying that the target (person or situation) was the cause of the emotion
felt by the subject. Thus cause as target is an extension of the basic spatial
sense of at, but taken in its dynamic sense. The fact that at only takes
94 Rene Dirven
predicates denoting an emotional state or action results from the basic

target sense of dynamic at: since this image schema of target remains
intact, the verb or predicate must be such that it resembles in some
respects the pure target verbs such as aim at, drive at, fly at, get at etc.
(see Dirven 1989: 548).
Causal on is also closely linked to the image schema of support
associated with spatial on: thus one situation is felt to be the ground on
which the other rests one congratulates, or compliments somebody basing
oneself on the achievements of that person. This image schema also
explains why on does not denote cause proper but only reason: the fact
that one situation rests on another does not mean that the second triggers
off the first, at least not in English. But in the two related languages
German and Dutch, the closest historical items are an and aan, which
are very generally used for the expression of causal relations. But an and
aan have only kept the contact notion of on, not the support notion,
which in German and Dutch is expressed by auf and op, respectively.
Causal in is like all other meanings of in based on the spatial image
schema of enclosure and the mental schema of an enveloping state: e. g.,
in delight in hard manual work the manual work is the state enveloping
and causing the emotional state of delight. 4 Consequently, the predicates
that can be used with causal in must also denote an emotional state which
is caused and kept going by the 'enveloping' state denoted by the in
phrase. The list of such predicates is rather limited and only contains
predicates which denote a strongly felt emotion such as delight, rejoice,
exult, triumph, revel etc.
Summarizing these three types of cause, one can make the generalisa-
tion that the three basic prepositions only allow a type of cause or reason
which determines human or animate behaviour and which is restricted
to emotions.
A similar, though less strong, restriction holds in the case of causal
with: this is mostly used with predicates denoting perceptible animate
behaviour such as tremble /grin/blush/beside oneself/blind/ white with (the
latter three in their metaphorical senses) or perceptible states or processes:
hair grey with age; echo with the clash of cutlery, etc. These co-occurrence
restrictions for causal with follow from the basic sense of accompaniment:
the cause is seen as an accompanying factor of some behaviour or state
and triggering it off. For this reason, causal with strongly contrasts with
the causes denoted by the three basic prepositions which do not require
perceptible situations such as delight, rejoice etc.
By and through denote a cause which is seen as a path and therefore

have the potential of denoting a more general type of cause. In actual
fact, this is only reserved for by in English, through being too much
concretely visual in its tunnel image schema. 5 In the sentence Many people
are killed through accidents, the through phrase denotes the notion of
being involved in an accident with the effect of being killed. This visual
configuration is absent in killed by, which therefore is not compatible
with circumstantial causes such as accidents. Here English only expresses
the circumstance by means of in, e. g., killed in an accident, but not the
agentive cause, e. g., * killed by an accident. Consequently, the notion of
causal by requires an independently acting cause, often bearing "primary
responsibility though not volition" as Lakoff (1987: 66) puts it. This is
nicely illustrated in a sentence like The tense situation was resolved by the
entrance of the corporal, where the by phrase denotes a cause, but not a
willing agent. But it would take us too far to go into the distinction
between cause and agent here.
Although about and over are also path prepositions, they do not denote
a linear path as by and through, but a scattered path in all directions
{about) or a path in its back and forth directions {over). This makes these
two prepositions apt to be used for emotional causes. Causal about and
over are very strongly related to the 'area' meanings of these two prep-
ositions (see Figures 10 and 11). The extension of the area meaning found
with verbs of cognition and communication such as know, doubt, wonder,
write, speak, talk goes via a transition zone such as worry about to purely
emotional states such as denoted by excited/crazy/angryj{un)happy/con-
fident about etc. In all these predicates the subject is human and seems
to be moving "emotionally" about the cause of his emotion.
Since the movement associated with over is less hectic and implies a
two-way or a repeated movement, causal over is limited to reciprocal
verbs such as fight, argue, etc. or to predicates implying repeated thought
movements such as hesitant over. The image schema underlying expres-
sions such as worked up over may be that of a vertical dimension only
whereby the state of being "worked up" is caused by the event situated
below it. Causal under denotes a cause working from above so that the
state in which the subject is results from the weight of that cause: this
image schema is present in suffer under a regime·, her heart sinks under
the thought of, stagger under the impact of, agonise under somebody's
sarcasm, etc.
Of the twelve prepositions under discussion, the three "separation"
prepositions from, of and out of, are least restricted in denoting cause.
96 Rene Dirven
Since the differences between a remote cause (die from drugs), an im-
mediate cause (die of cancer) and a non-focussed cause as state (kill
somebody out of despair) have already been analysed in great detail by
Radden (1985: 88 ff.), we can here dispose of the question of why the
image schema of "separation from a source" is so apt to become meta-
phorised into the expression of cause.
Conclusion
The above analysis of the radial networks of meanings of English prep-

ositions and of the differentiated senses within one domain of meaning
has amply shown that the uses and possibilities of the prepositions to
express other than spatial meanings is not an arbritary or random hocus-
pocus, but a highly motivated system. The most striking phenomenon is
the relationship between the way physical space is divided up in English
and the way mental space is structured. It is due to the very specific way
prepositions are geared to denote relationships in the domain of spatial
experience that English has made differentiations in the domains of
mental experience such as area, manner or cause.
More generally, we can conclude that languages, even the most related
ones, have conceptualised the links between spatial and mental domains
of experience in slightly or markedly different ways. The basis of it all is
the conceptualisation of physical space. The structurings that have taken
place here also determine the later extensions of these spatial concepts
into the mental domains.
Notes
1. The terminology used here and in the following paragraphs to characterise the meanings
of three English prepositions is the same as that used in Dirven (1989) and is accounted
for there.
2. The notions trajector and landmark are used in the specific sense given them by Langacker
(1987).
3. Dictionaries are not always very consistent in pointing out this difference, but vaguely
imply it. Thus libery is defined in The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as "exemption
or release from captivity, bondage, or slavery", freedom is defined as "exemption or
release from slavery or imprisonment, personal liberty".
4. Cobuild English Language Dictionary contrasts delight in hard manual work with delight
at the prospect of leaving home; this use of at is necessary since a prospect is not

conceivable as an enveloping state; the αί-phrase is intermediate between circumstance

(at these words he left) and cause and hence a typical example of the continuum scale
between circumstance and cause.
5. Note that other languages have the equivalent of through for cause/agent, e. g., German
durch (but only for inanimate causes/agents) and Dutch door for all types of animate
and inanimate causes/agents.
References
Dirven, Rene
1989 "Space prepositions" in: R. Dirven (ed.), 519-550.
Dirven, Rene (ed.)
1989 A user's grammar of English: Word, sentence, text, interaction. Frankfurt: R
Lang.
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald
1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Paprotte, W. T. — Rene Dirven (eds.)
1985 The Ubiquity of Metaphor, Metaphors in language and thought. Amsterdam:
J. Benjamins.
Radden, Günter
1985 "Spatial metaphors underlying prepositions of causality", in: W. J. Paprotte
- R. Dirven, (eds.), 177-207.
1989 a "Semantic roles" in: R. Dirven (ed.), 4 2 1 ^ 7 2 .
1989 b "Figurative use of prepositions", in: R. Dirven (ed.), 551-576.


Dividing Up Physical and Mental Space I PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dividing Up Physical and Mental Space I PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dividing up physical and mental space into

conceptual categories by means of

1. Characterisation of spatial conceptualisations

[1] [2] [3]

FROM OFF OUT OF

Figure 1. Some relations between prepositions

Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library (Brown University Rockefeller L

Figure 2. Sets of prepositions and relationships

2. Chains of meaning from physical into mental space

The extensions of the meanings of a preposition from physical space via

2.1. At extends from an orientation-point in space to one in time, and

(e) manner (point on scale)

(d) area-· (a) point in space »-(b) point in time

(c) state ( 0 circumstance

Figure 3. Radial network of extensions of at

(e) manner: at full speed

2.2. On is substantially different from at due to its notion of "contact"

(d) area (a) contact with line/surface (b) time-expanse

(c) state (f) circumstance

Figure 4. Radial network of the extensions of on

(a) contact with line/surface: on the floor

2.3. In conceptualises space as an enclosure or volume, and this basic

(d) area (a) spatial enclosure (b) time-span

(c) state as enclosure

(e) manner as state

(f) circumstance as state

(g) cause as state

Figure 5. Radial network of extensions of in

(a) spatial enclosure: in the station

2.4. By highlights the notion of "connection" between two entitities in

(d) area · (a) connection in place - (b) connection in time

Figure 6. Radial network of extensions of static by

(a) connection in space: a house by a bridge', pass by a bridge

2.5. With conceptualises the notions of association and accompaniment,

(a) connection as path (b) connection with time-point

Figure 7. Radial network of extensions of dynamic by

All the more abstract meanings of with invoke a metaphorisation of the

(e) manner/instrument as accompaniment

(d) area (a) proximity/accompaniment in space

(f) circumstance as accompaniment

(g) cause as accompaniment

Figure 8. Radial network of extensions of with

Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library (Brown University Rockefeller L

(a) movement in enclosure (b) movement in time-span

(e) means as channel

(g) cause as channel

Figure 9. Radial network of extensions of through

spatial usages, which are, however, precisely because of the necessity of

The notion of mental movement is found with verbs denoting speaking

(d) area (a) movement in all (b) approximative time

Figure 10. Radial network of extensions of about

Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library (Brown University Rockefeller L

(d) area (a) movement to end (b) movement in time-span

Figure 11. Radial network of extensions of over

2.9. Under denotes a static position at the negative and of a vertical

(a) lower point in vertical space

Figure 12. Radial network of extensions of under

Brought to you by | Brown University Rockefeller Library (Brown University Rockefeller L

The three "source" or "separation" prepositions are even more strongly

2.10. From denotes a point of departure either in physical space, in time,

(a) Place: He has returned from England.

2.11. Off reduced to of in its area or causal meaning, denotes departure

2.12. Out of denotes departure from an enclosure, which in a metaphor-