Spatial Minds Conceptual Correlations of Spatial Prepositions in Hungarian Croatian and English 1st Edition Irena Zovko Dinkovi Linda Gros

Spatial Minds Conceptual Correlations
of Spatial Prepositions in Hungarian

Croatian and English 1st Edition Irena
Zovko Dinkovi■ Linda Gros
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/spatial-minds-conceptual-correlations-of-spatial-prepo
sitions-in-hungarian-croatian-and-english-1st-edition-irena-zovko-dinkovic-linda-gros/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Spatial Analysis Using Big Data: Methods and Urban

Applications (Spatial Econometrics and Spatial
Statistics) 1st Edition Yoshiki Yamagata
https://ebookmeta.com/product/spatial-analysis-using-big-data-
methods-and-urban-applications-spatial-econometrics-and-spatial-
statistics-1st-edition-yoshiki-yamagata/
Fundamentals of Spatial Analysis and Modelling 1st

Edition Jay Gao
https://ebookmeta.com/product/fundamentals-of-spatial-analysis-
and-modelling-1st-edition-jay-gao/
Spatial Readings and Linguistic Landscapes 1st Edition

Alina Bako
https://ebookmeta.com/product/spatial-readings-and-linguistic-
landscapes-1st-edition-alina-bako/
Spatial Tensions in Urban Design: Understanding

Contemporary Urban Phenomena
https://ebookmeta.com/product/spatial-tensions-in-urban-design-
understanding-contemporary-urban-phenomena/
Spatial Senses Philosophy of Perception in an Age of
Science 1st Edition Tony Cheng
https://ebookmeta.com/product/spatial-senses-philosophy-of-
perception-in-an-age-of-science-1st-edition-tony-cheng/
Doing Spatial History 1st Edition Riccardo Bavaj

(Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/doing-spatial-history-1st-edition-
riccardo-bavaj-editor/
Spatial Dynamics and Pattern Formation in Biological

Populations 1st Edition Ranjit Kumar Upadhyay
https://ebookmeta.com/product/spatial-dynamics-and-pattern-
formation-in-biological-populations-1st-edition-ranjit-kumar-
upadhyay/
Imperial Infrastructure and Spatial Resistance in

Colonial Literature 1880 1930 Dominic Davies
https://ebookmeta.com/product/imperial-infrastructure-and-
spatial-resistance-in-colonial-literature-1880-1930-dominic-
davies/
Planning in a Failing State: Reforming Spatial

Governance in England 1st Edition Sykes
https://ebookmeta.com/product/planning-in-a-failing-state-
reforming-spatial-governance-in-england-1st-edition-sykes/
Spatial Minds
Spatial Minds:
Conceptual Correlations
of Spatial Prepositions
in Hungarian, Croatian
and English
By
Irena Zovko Dinković and Linda Gros

Spatial Minds: Conceptual Correlations of Spatial Prepositions
in Hungarian, Croatian and English
By Irena Zovko Dinković and Linda Gros
This book first published 2018
Cambridge Scholars Publishing
Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Copyright © 2018 by Irena Zovko Dinković and Linda Gros
All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
the prior permission of the copyright owner.
ISBN (10): 1-5275-0639-8

ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-0639-8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures ........................................................................................... vii
List of Tables .............................................................................................. ix
List of Abbreviations................................................................................... xi
Preface...................................................................................................... xiii
Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1

Prepositions and Space
1.1. Concepts and categorization ........................................................... 2
1.2. Prepositional meanings ................................................................... 3
1.3. Image schemas .............................................................................. 11
1.4. Conceptualization of space ........................................................... 13
1.5. Scope of the present study ............................................................ 19
Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 21

The Nine Spatial Concepts
2.1. Containment .................................................................................. 23
2.2. Support .......................................................................................... 25
2.3. Adjacency ..................................................................................... 26
2.4. Location ........................................................................................ 27
2.5. Source and destination .................................................................. 27
Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 29

A Case Study in Prepositions
3.1. Scope of the study ......................................................................... 29
3.2. Aims and methodology ................................................................. 30
3.3. Participants.................................................................................... 34
vi Table of Contents
Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 37

A Comparative Morphological Analysis of Hungarian, Croatian
and English
4.1. Hungarian...................................................................................... 38
4.2. Croatian......................................................................................... 41
4.3. English .......................................................................................... 47
4.4. Comparative analysis and hypotheses ........................................... 54
Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 57

Results and Discussion
5.1. Hungarian (N=12) ......................................................................... 58
5.2. Croatian (N=18) ............................................................................ 63
5.3. English (N=18) ............................................................................. 68
5.4. Comparative analysis .................................................................... 74
5.5. Corpus analysis ............................................................................. 79
Chapter Six ................................................................................................ 87

Conclusion
Appendices ................................................................................................ 93
References ............................................................................................... 109

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Radial category structure of a tree typical of (a) Mediterranean,

(b) continental, and (c) mountainous regions ......................................... 2
Figure 2. The radial category structure of in (form) .................................... 4
Figure 3. The radial category structure of at (meaning) .............................. 4
Figure 4. Overlapping category borders ...................................................... 5
Figure 5. The relation of space, mass mind, and language ........................ 15
Figure 6. Movement within the boundaries of the CONTAINER
schema ................................................................................................. 24
Figure 7. SUPPORT image schema with gravitational forces ................... 25
Figure 8. The location variables of the ADJACENCY schema ................. 26
Figure 9. SOURCE–PATH–GOAL schema .............................................. 27
Figure 10. Spatial placement of in, on and at in context............................ 51
Figure 11. Image schemas of (a) on the table and (b) at the table
(adopted from Kerovec 2012, 149) ...................................................... 52
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Image schemas of the nine spatial notions................................... 22

Table 2. Definitions and codes for spatial relations (based on Szili 2011,
and systematized) ................................................................................. 23
Table 3. The original Hungarian table ....................................................... 38
Table 4. The original Hungarian table–connections .................................. 40
Table 5. Croatian systematization (based on Siliü and Pranjkoviü 2005,
243–244) .............................................................................................. 42
Table 6. Croatian terms ............................................................................. 42
Table 7. Croatian terms–connections ........................................................ 46
Table 8. English systematization (adopted from Greenbaum and Quirk
2007, 191) ............................................................................................ 48
Table 9. English systematization (based on Bennett 1975, 74) ................. 48
Table 10. English terms ............................................................................. 49
Table 11. English terms–connections ........................................................ 53
Table 12. Research categories ................................................................... 55
Table 13. Answer statistics–native Hungarian speakers ............................ 58
Table 14. Mean values according to type of relation for corresponding
pairs–Hungarian ................................................................................... 59
Table 15. Mean values according to type of motion for corresponding
pairs–Hungarian ................................................................................... 60
Table 16. Hungarian terms–conceptual relations ...................................... 63
Table 17. Answer statistics–native Croatian speakers ............................... 64
pairs–Croatian ...................................................................................... 65
pairs–Croatian ...................................................................................... 65
Table 20. Croatian terms–conceptual relations.......................................... 68
Table 21. Answer statistics–native English speakers ................................ 69
pairs–English ....................................................................................... 70
pairs–English ....................................................................................... 70
Table 24. English terms–conceptual relations ........................................... 73
Table 25. Comparison of mean values according to type of relation
for corresponding pairs in all three languages ..................................... 75
x List of Tables
Table 26. Comparison of mean values according to type of motion for

corresponding pairs in all three languages ........................................... 76
Table 27. Combinations of nouns and prepositions extracted from the
corpora ................................................................................................. 82
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
LM landmark
TR trajectory
A (a member of the) containment category
B (a member of the) support category
C (a member of the) adjacency category
1 (a member of the) destination category
2 (a member of the) location category
3 (a member of the) source category
Q question
RT response time
CA correctly answered
IA incorrectly answered
NA not answered
ACC accusative case
LOC locative case
GEN genitive case
R relation
M motion
CON containment
SUP support
ADJ adjacency
Y “corresponding pairs” category
DIR A “direction away” category
DIR T “direction towards” category
STAT “static” category
SF A, B, C “suffix family” category for categories of containment
(A), support (B), and adjacency (C)
SUB “substitution” category
OPP “opposition” category
PREFACE
Nothing exists except atoms and empty space;

everything else is opinion.
—Democritus
Spatial language is prevalent in every aspect of human life, which is

why people think of it as pedestrian and commonplace, despite its
uniqueness. However, though it may seem simple, it offers an interesting
insight into the human mind. Namely, language connects our minds and
the spatial reality, and is closely related to human conceptualization. As
Chilton (2010, 2) rightly remarks:
We can assume that communicating about spatial locations and movements

is one area that has particular significance in the evolution of language and
languages. And possibly it is the most fundamental area.
Many human experiences are not spatial, but are interpreted with the
help of spatial concepts, underlining the importance of our spatial
awareness and experience. But to what extent is spatial language
connected to spatial conceptualization? Furthermore, is a particular system
of spatial representation universal to all humans, or is it influenced by the
different languages we speak?
A set of concepts of nine basic spatial expressions involving the
prepositions in, on, and at is analysed in this book, both morphologically
and psycholinguistically, in order to shed light on their mutual relationship
in language and in the mind. The research was undertaken both intra- and
cross-linguistically, in languages that belong to three different European
language groups: Finno-Ugric (Hungarian), Slavic (Croatian), and
Germanic (English). Such an approach provides details on how different
or similar the spatial conceptualizations of the speakers of these three
languages are.
This study investigates the similarities and differences between
conceptual and morphological spatial categories, i.e. between mind and
language. It is argued that the three languages share these categories, yet
vary in the mutual relations of their members. One might expect that the
speakers’ spatial conceptualization has altered due to global communication
and new technologies, becoming more similar across languages unlike
xiv Preface
morphology, which tends to change more slowly. Thus, this study

questions to what extent human conceptualization may be formed or
influenced by language, and how much external factors can invade the
mind-language relation.
These issues are presented here in a clear and simple manner, making
the book accessible to students of linguistics, and to language enthusiasts
from other fields. The first chapter provides an introduction to the
theoretical background of the field, which is followed in Chapter Two by a
description of the spatial concepts and categories investigated in our study.
Chapter Three describes a case study involving spatial prepositions in the
three languages analyzed, along with the method, a sample and the
procedure. A comparative morphological analysis of the semantic sets in
the three languages can be found in Chapter Four, followed by the results
of the psycholinguistic and corpus analysis, and discussion in Chapter
Five. The conclusion in Chapter Six completes the study.
CHAPTER ONE
PREPOSITIONS AND SPACE
Every language contains certain linguistic constructions that specify

space. These include noun satellites1, noun endings, independent words,
and different kinds of constructions. The first two and their combination
are the focus of this study, as grammatical items that modify the spatial
relationship of lexemes. These items vary cross-linguistically, but among
the best known are prepositions, as in English or Italian, and the
combination of prepositions and cases, as in the Slavic languages or
languages such as German and Latin. They can also appear as suffixes on
nouns, as in Hungarian or Finnish. These three systems are capable of
expressing the same spatial relationship with no difference in meaning,
and their expressions will therefore be treated as mutually corresponding.
Each of these spatial grammatical items carries multiple concepts,
which vary from context to context. In fact, they are highly polysemous as
they carry not only spatial meaning, but also temporal and metaphorical
ones. The best example is given in Brugman’s study of the preposition
over (1981 [1988]), which has around 20 distinct spatial variations. In that
heap of meanings it might seem difficult to distinguish the most
characteristic, yet speakers invariably point out one or two that they
consider to be basic meanings. The key to achieving this is in the
fundamental, or “ideal” meaning (Herskovits 1982, 1986) that the
preposition carries, which shall be dealt with in more detail in section 1.2
This meaning then spreads by means of polysemy or metaphor into other
distinct meanings. To be able to see the fuzzy borders of each
preposition’s ideal meaning, one needs the help of linguistic tools, as
shown in the following sections.
1
Satellites, in linguistic terms, are lexical items (Dik 1989) that modify the
meaning of an expression in whose near proximity they are situated (on verb
satellites, cf. Talmy 1985). In this respect and pertinent to this study, noun
satellites are prepositions as found in Croatian and English (see 4.2. and 4.3.).
2 Chapter One
1.1. Concepts and categorization

One of the essential notions in linguistics is that of concept, commonly
defined as a general idea or notion. More specifically, concepts are basic
“units of reason and linguistic meaning” (Lakoff and Gallese 2005), and
are therefore conventional and relatively stable. They are usually defined
with the help of other concepts, and most of them have a broader context,
or scenario. For example, a waiter is characterized by a restaurant
scenario, and a buyer by a commercial exchange scenario (Lakoff 1987,
286).
Categorization, on the other hand, is a means of distributing knowledge
into meaningful structural units (categories), based on their associativeness,
also called family resemblance (cf. Wittgenstein 1986), which helps us
access stored entities when needed. Family resemblance reflects the
resemblances or attributes the members of a certain category share.
Relative to the previous explanation, there is a concept underlying each
category: i.e. every category is based on a certain concept (Lakoff 1987).
a b c
Figure 1. Radial category structure of a tree typical of (a) Mediterranean, (b)

continental, and (c) mountainous regions
There are many different features of categories, of which only a few

will be mentioned here. The radial category structure is defined by the
notion of “the best fit”. The best example of a category, i.e. the prototype,
is placed in the center of the category, with the other entities situated
radially around it, closer or further away according to how well they fit the
prescribed features (Rosch 1973). We can take the concept of a tree as an
example (see Figure 1). Depending on geographical allocation, the
inhabitants of various parts of the world may have different prototypes of a
tree in their mind. For example, in Central and South Europe, people from
the Mediterranean will have an olive tree as their first association, people
from inland areas (or the continent) an oak tree, and people living in the
Prepositions and Space 3
mountains a pine tree. This implies that categories are culturally

determined. Further, the borders between categories are not sharply
defined, but fuzzy 2 (Rosch 1973). They can also overlap; for example
turquoise can fall under the color blue as well as green, as it is a mixture of
both.
Categorization is an important part of organizing concepts in our
minds. Spatial concepts may also be organized in such a manner,
regardless of their word class. Due to language economy, spatial concepts
are used not only for designating spatial relations, but for many other
purposes too, shifting the meaning further from its basis. The following
section will focus on the basic spatial meaning of prepositions.
1.2. Prepositional meanings

In the context of this research, spatial prepositions and endings may be
categorized in the same way as shown in the previous section. These
categories also spread radially from the most fundamental concept to the
most metaphorical one 3 . The central part of the radial structure may
contain only one particular concept, i.e. the fundamental concept, while
the other radial circles may have numerous members.
Categories can be structured according to many factors, such as form
and meaning. Expressions having the same form and involving the concept
of in can therefore be segmented according to the change in their meaning.
Looking at Figure 2, in the center the primary meaning is spatial: in the
box. Further out, in the second circle, the meaning changes. The
expression in school has the spatial meaning of being located within the
denoted building, and an additional meaning of being a pupil or an
employee of the institution. In this stage the basic meaning of the
expression is still recognizable, and there is a radial division amongst
members based on the principle of being more or less similar to the central
meaning. Finally, in the outer circle the fundamental spatial meaning has
little to do with the metaphorically extended meaning, as in time.
If a category of a preposition is structured according to similarity of
meaning, it would include expressions involving other prepositions as
2
The term “fuzzy concept” was first used by Iranian computer scientist Lofti
Zadeh (1965) to define a characteristic of a concept as applying “to a certain
degree or extent”. Lakoff (1973) used the term in linguistics, to describe hedges in
his interpretation of categories, building up on Rosch’s (1973) research.
3
The literal senses of a word, as opposed to the metaphorical ones, are considered
to be conceptually primary, and therefore also explanatorily primary (cf. Lakoff
and Johnson 1980, Lakoff 1987).
4 Chapter One
well. In Figure 3, the concept of at is compared to three other concepts. In

front of, next to and behind are the closest concepts in meaning to the
central concept of at. The concept of near has the most divergent meaning,
since one can be located near a specific place, and still not be at that place.
A reference to the difference among these concepts can be found in section
4.3.
Figure 2. The radial category structure of in (form)
Figure 3. The radial category structure of at (meaning)
Looking back to Figure 1, we can justly conclude that there are differences
in the array of radial meanings, which apply to different languages as well
as different cultures. The changes consider a shift of meaning as in Figure
2, or one expression in one language being expressed with a different
preposition or ending, or in a completely different way. For example, za
stolom is the Croatian expression for at the table, yet at is commonly
translated as kod in Croatian. This makes the former part of a completely
different semantic field. Moreover, the overlapping meanings of some

phrases can appear within a single language, as Figure 4 shows. In the box
and on the table have distinct meanings, while in the street and on the
street are quite similar in meaning, with a slight conceptual difference.
in the on the
box table
in/on the
street
Figure 4. Overlapping category borders
Spatial prepositions are highly polysemous, and determining their

basic or core meaning has been a matter of much linguistic debate over the
past decades. This debate centers around whether all spatial uses of
different prepositions can be accounted for with a single meaning, or if we
should assume the existence of a relatively large number of different
meanings for each preposition. In his discussion of this problem, Bennett
(1975) considers the latter to be an informal position, well-suited to
teaching English to non-native speakers, but not very suitable
when one sets out to present a rather more formalized account of the
meaning of English prepositions within the framework of an explicit theory
of the structure of language (Bennett 1975, 5).
Instead, in what he calls an “essay in stratificational semantics”,

Bennett proposes that differences in meaning lie in the context in which a
preposition is found, rather than in the preposition itself4. He refines the
claim (put forward by opponents of multiple-meaning analysis) that at, on
and in have essentially the same meaning, and that the choice of one
meaning over another depends on the nature of the referent of the noun
with which a particular preposition occurs. “What matters”, says Bennett
(1975, 67), “is the way an object is thought of on a particular occasion.
4
Bennett was among the rare linguists in the 1970s (others included Lehrer 1974,
Wierzbicka 1976 and Fillmore 1977) to show interest in the issue of prepositions,
and to draw attention to semantic investigation rather than the formal aspects of
language.
6 Chapter One
[…] Since at, on and in occur in the realization of simple locative

expressions, it is clear that they have a locative meaning.” 5 He then
proposes the following componential definitions for these three
prepositions: at: “locative”, on: “locative surface”, and in: “locative
interior.” To do this, he draws on Jakobson’s (1932, 1936) notion of
“Gesamtbedeutung”:
The Gesamtbedeutung of an item […] is the general meaning that it has in

isolation, or that is independent of the context when the item occurs in a
particular utterance. In a given context the item appears to have a specific
meaning (“Sonderbedeutung”) but this results from the contribution of the
meanings of neighbouring items (Bennett 1975, 10).
Picking up on this debate some twenty years later, Lindstromberg

(1996) puts forward a critique of the then dominant theories of word
meaning generally applied in ELT. He does so in an attempt to provide a
new approach to teaching prepositions, based on prototype semantics.
Lindstromberg first contrasts the single-meaning approach with the
“collocational” approach. The former is illustrated by Ruhl’s (1989) claim
that polysemy is an illusion, arising when we mistakenly believe the
meaning of a word that we inferred from the context to be inherent in that
word. Thus Ruhl argues that a word may have a wide range of different
uses, but a single “general” (and often quite abstract) meaning. The
problem with this view is that words with diverse uses (which prepositions
are) would then have a general meaning so abstract as to become
inexpressible. Conversely, the collocational approach6 sees highly frequent
words as delexicalized, i.e. not having a meaning common to all or some
of their uses (or contexts) 7 . This approach shifts attention from single
5
Locative terms may be considered relational (as opposed to directional) since
they are used to localize objects relative to other objects (cf. Wunderlich and
Herweg 1991, 760).
6
Through this approach, Lindstromberg (1996) subsumes lexicographers such as
Benson et al. (1986) and Sinclair (1987).
7
It is worth noting that the preposition of has (especially in the generative
tradition) long been considered the best example of a meaningless syntactic
element that is moved around a sentence for purely grammatical reasons. Calling
this long-term treatment of this preposition the “of-abuse”, Langacker (2000, 73)
provides evidence that “even of—the English preposition for which such an
analysis seems most plausible—can in fact be ascribed a semantic value that
motivates its grammatical behavior.” He calls the preposition of “arguably the most
tenuous of the English prepositions from the semantic standpoint […] if only by
virtue of being abstract and lacking a basic spatial value.” (2000, 77). In
Langacker's view, of must be regarded as polysemous, profiling an intrinsic
words to recurring combinations of words, which, in the case of

prepositions and their meanings implies that they must be learned phrase
by phrase. However, this is not only uneconomical, but also
psychologically implausible, as Bennett (1975, 5) was aware when he
stated that “we presumably do not store every single occurrence of a given
lexeme that we have ever encountered.” Lindstromberg (1996, 227) also
believes that the collocational account “greatly underestimates the extent
to which prepositional semantics is systematic.” He therefore opts for the
prototype approach to representing prepositional meaning proposed by
Brugman (1981 [1988]) and Lakoff (1987) within the framework of
Cognitive Grammar. This “modular” approach maintains that individual
words have a small number of related meanings. These meanings are then
combined with the meanings of other words to form overall meanings,
thus enabling a person to make sense of unfamiliar uses of a preposition
by relating them to meanings that are already known (Lindstromberg
1996, 235).
Cognitive Grammar (Lakoff 1987, Langacker 1987) placed prepositions
in the center of linguistic investigation. As spatial expressions, they are
highly representative of the nature of linguistic meaning, which is
considered encyclopedic in nature,
comprising knowledge about basic as well as specific domains, knowledge

about language use, which is related to knowledge about social
conventions and other behavioral constraints. (Zelinsky-Wibbelt 1993, 13)
To arrive at a word’s meaning, we have to mentally abstract it from its

instantiations, and in doing so we must impose concepts on a vast amount
of varied information. The interpretation of meaning is thus performed
through categorization, both in terms of prototypes, as the most typical
instances of a particular semantic category, and of image schemata, as
generalizations over two or more instances. Rice’s (1996, 159) experiment
provided evidence in favor of the claim that “there are indeed prototypical
semantic values for the English prepositions, at, on, and in, which are
definitely spatial in meaning.”8
relationship between the trajector and landmark, and having in each construction
“a meaning related to those it displays in other uses” (Langacker 2000, 90).
8
However, Rice (1996, 159) includes a caveat, saying that the results she obtained
“also indicate that temporal senses are just as salient, and […] seem to be equally
concrete and completely independent semantically.” This pertains to the fact that
cognitive linguistics commonly considers time to be a straightforward
metaphorical extension of space.
8 Chapter One
In describing the related senses of lexemes, cognitive linguists

introduced the concept of the “lexical network”—a structure of multiple
interconnected nodes, extending from a central node, commonly
considered the “prototype” of a given lexical category. These nodes are at
varying distances conceptually, both from each other and from the central
node (cf. Lakoff 1987, and Brugman and Lakoff 1988). The same concept
is employed to represent the meaning of prepositions, though Sandra and
Rice (1995) and Rice (1996) point out that many aspects of this kind of
organization have been left unspecified, either regarding identifying the
prototype of a given network,9 or defining what a prototype actually is.
Many researchers have excluded non-spatial uses of prepositions from
their analyses, thus failing to capture the entire of range of prepositional
meanings. Rice (1996, 143) also warns that some common questions
remain unresolved in network-based models:
In our rush to formulate network models, especially for prepositions, are

we describing or inventing? That is to say, does the resulting mental space
or lexical network reflect a linguistically relevant catalogue of all available
use types both synchronically and diachronically? Or does it reflect the
personal and highly subjective categorization of the linguist/model-
builder? And, as a proposal about conceptualization, should it not represent
some sort of consensus about agreed-upon similarities and distinctions
relevant to actual language users?
Rice’s last question invokes the claim that our conceptualizations are
conventionally based and related to our physical, social and linguistic
contexts.
Besides the prototype model, Annette Herskovits (1982, 1986)
introduces a theoretical model, known as the “ideal meaning” of
prepositions. Herskovits explains the notion in the following way:
The prepositional meanings that I propose, which I call “ideal” or “core”

meanings, have some analogies with prototypes, but are suited to the
domain of spatial relations. The core meaning of a preposition is a
geometrical “idea”, from which all uses of that preposition derive by
means of various “adaptations” and shifts. A core meaning is generally a
9
Rice (1996) actually uses the term “central reference point” or CenRP, because
she considers it to be more neutral (or less “loaded” as she says) than the term
prototype. She sides with Langacker’s (1991), rather than Lakoff’s (1987), view of
the network as a taxonomy of node types, where each node “corresponds to what
he calls ‘established senses’ which are all connected by arcs indicating the
particular categorizing relationship which links the sense to other senses
represented in the network” (Rice 1996, 140).
relation between two or three “ideal” geometric objects (points, lines,

surfaces, volumes, vectors, etc.). Such objects are mapped onto real objects
by some process of idealization, or geometric imagination. (Herskovits
1982, 69)
The difference between the ideal meaning and the prototype model is that
an ideal or core meaning is a geometric “idea”, i.e. a geometric relation of
two or three schematic geometric objects. The “idea” carries the
fundamental meaning of the preposition, and all its other meanings form
from this: it is unique to every spatial preposition. On the other hand, a
prototype is the central concept of a category, and can also be a member of
another category with a different central concept. That means that it forms
its category according to any concept, including that of an ideal or core
meaning of a preposition.
The meaning that will be used here is the “ideal” or “core” meaning of
spatial prepositions, and it will be treated as the prototypical concept of its
own category. All the other meanings are members of the category located
in the inner and outer circles of the radial category. Their exact location is
not important to this study, and will therefore not be specified.
As speakers, we conceptualize objects in our spatial environment and
assign them an orientation, either according to our point of view, or in
relation to other objects. Vandeloise (1984) called these two types of
orientation “intrinsic” and “contextual” respectively, while Lang (1989)
distinguished between “inherently oriented” and “canonically oriented”
objects. Langacker (1987, 123), on the other hand, subsumes the two
notions under the general terms “viewpoint” or “vantage point” (“the
position from which a scene is viewed”) and “orientation”, which
“pertains to alignment with respect to the axes of the visual field”. The
latter can be further subdivided into canonical or actual orientation. It is
important to note that both Vandeloise (1984) and Lang (1989) subscribe
to the so-called “two-level approach”, which looks at “how linguistic
structures are determined by the orientation of objects and by the speaker’s
line of sight,” while Cognitive Grammar
explains by cognitive, biological and pragmatic principles how the speaker

attributes a certain salience, relevance and typicality to the objects and
their parts which belong to a given scene, and how in accordance with this
attribution the objects participate in certain relations (Zelinsky-Wibbelt
1993, 8).
A highly simplified version of the conventional representation of an

object is a schematic geometric object or image schema (cf. Talmy 1983,
10 Chapter One
Lakoff 1987) (see 1.3.). Image schemas are easily projectable to real-life
objects, with emphasis on the distinctive field the geometric “idea” is
based on. For example, a closet has three fixed sides, and one door, which
can be opened by swinging or sliding. It often stands on four legs, and its
top panel is lower than the ceiling. It has shelves, drawers, and a rod from
which to hang clothes. Yet the very concept of a thing being contained
within the sides of the closet is far more important than all the details that
characterize it. The container schema schematized as a quadrant can be
projected onto this closet, and onto any other, such as a body, a box, or the
sea. This process is called the “process of idealization” or “geometric
imagination” (Herskovits 1982, 1986). However, as Aurnague and Vieu
(1993) point out, only the purely objective positional and directional
properties of spatial markers are represented at this geometrical level10.
Therefore, they propose a three-fold model for the interpretation of the
meaning of spatial markers, which involves
the geometrical properties of the entities and the geometrical relations […]
the functional properties and relations [and] the pragmatic principles
together with a representation of (some) world knowledge and (part of) the
context (Aurnague and Vieu 1993, 397).
These three parts are interconnected:
The geometrical level is at the root of this system. It constitutes a formal

structure where we represent the objective, purely spatial data present in
the text analysed. […] The functional level is of course based on the
geometrical level, since the spatial properties are part of the properties of
the entities, and many functional relations imply geometrical ones (e.g.,
containment implies inclusion in the interior) […] The specific knowledge
that the pragmatic level embodies is procedural: either it works as a filter,
[…] or it produces defeasible information (Aurnague and Vieu 1993, 397,
400).
10
Positional (static or topological) relations express a position of one entity in
relation to another, while directional (dynamic or projective) relations express a
motion or orientation of one entity towards another (Zelinsky-Wibbelt 1993, 7).
The prepositions in, on and at are thus positional, because they relate one entity to
the interior, the upper surface, or the exterior of another entity respectively, while
into, out of and from are directional, because they express motion into or out of a
container, or away from something respectively. Tenbrink (2007, 119) classifies in,
on and at as topological and non-dimensional, reserving the term dimensional for
all syntactic forms that “are used to express relative location on the spatial
dimensions or axes.”
The functional level is crucial to the pragmatic one, because the concept of
typicality (and relevance) necessarily relies on the function of objects,
especially when several possible relations compete. Aurnague and Vieu
(1993, 434) illustrate this point using a bowl turned upside-down over an
apple, where the prepositions in and under compete to describe the
situation. Under would be chosen over in, because the bowl and the apple
are not in a situation typically described using the preposition in. This
proves that containment is not a necessary condition for the use of in, but
it does make it more relevant. In the same vein, Coventry and Garrod
(2004, 52) argue for a functional geometric framework, “which combines
both geometric and extra-geometric constraints to establish the situation-
specific meaning of spatial expressions.” When speaking of in and on,
Coventry and Garrod (2004) propose two components in the meaning of
both these terms: a functional component of “location control,” and a
geometrical component of “enclosure,” where enclosure affords location
control (for instance, if coffee is in a mug, when the mug is moved, the
coffee moves with it). In other words,
the cases of in and on illustrate how the two components, the functional
and the geometric, combine to define a functional geometric relation. In
these cases, the geometric constraints of enclosure and contact with a
surface are directly associated with varying degrees of location control
(Coventry and Garrod 2004, 53).
It is therefore quite clear that in order to use and understand spatial

language we need not only our knowledge of the geometrical properties of
entities, but also our world knowledge about the typical situations in
which they are found. These two types of knowledge, along with our
physical experience, directly influence our conceptualization of space.
Before we discuss this matter further, we shall briefly present the
notion of image schemas, which is crucial to our analysis.
1.3. Image schemas

The field of image schemas was started by Talmy (1983), and
continued by Johnson (1987), Lakoff (1987), and others. Talmy introduced
the notion of mapping between geometrically idealized or “schematized”
representations of objects and their corresponding regions. These objects,
therefore, contain a few vague details, but are generally recognizable for
their distinct geometric features (Talmy 1983). The schemas themselves
are relatively abstract sketches that organize perceivable entities relevant
to the represented concept (Lakoff 1987, 453). More loosely, they are a
12 Chapter One
recognizable visual explanation of individual spatial relations, or as Talmy

(1983, 225) puts it,
[a] process that involves the systematic selection of certain aspects of a

referent scene to represent the whole while disregarding the remaining
aspects.
Image schemas depict various relations between items distributed in

space, and these relations may be profiled differently with respect to the
part of the domain covered by the relational predicate. In other words,
speakers may single out different aspects of the same scene to give them
special prominence by mentally moving them to the foreground, leaving
other aspects in the background. This idea first appeared under the tenets
of Gestalt psychology in the early 20th century (cf. Rubin 1915,
Wertheimer 1923, Köhler 1929, and Koffka 1935) under the terms of
“figure” and “ground”. Cognitive Grammar follows the tracks of Gestalt
psychology in its interpretation of the mental organization of different
scenes. Langacker (1987) thus considers figure/ground organization to be
a fundamental feature of cognitive functioning, which is important for
semantic and grammatical structure as well. He defines the two terms as
follows:
The figure within a scene is a substructure perceived as “standing out”

from the remainder (the ground) and accorded special prominence as the
pivotal entity around which the scene is organized and for which it
provides a setting. Figure/ground organization is not in general
automatically determined for a given scene; it is normally possible to
structure the same scene with alternate choices of figure. However, various
factors do contribute to the naturalness and likelihood of a particular
choice. (Langacker 1987, 120)
Aside from Figure and Reference (the latter of which is Talmy’s term
for “ground”), Talmy (1983) distinguishes two more terms that are
involved in conceptualization: Path (a particular sequence of places
passed), and Manner of Motion. Lakoff (1987), in turn, systemized that
conceptualization into Trajectory (TR), an object that moves or does not
move, and Landmark (LM), the object in reference to which TR moves or
not, leaving Manner of Motion and Path irrelevant. While for some spatial
expressions the former four are of great importance, the expressions in this
research are not sensitive to Path and Manner of Motion. Therefore, this
study will use Lakoff’s (1987) terminology for practical reasons.
Some objects are more likely to be LMs, and some TRs. For instance,
LMs are usually big stationary objects that hold some kind of significance
to society (Talmy 1983, 11). They might be, for example, buildings,
statues, a pavilion in a park, or an entity familiar to two individuals. A TR
is an entity that is usually smaller than a LM, and is typically mobile.
Good examples are humans and animals, but TRs can also be inanimate
objects that move, like a ball or a book. The latter need a force to make
them move, which can be provided by, for example, a human or a river, or
similar.
Aside from LM and TR, there is one more item that helps speakers to
conceptualize. A region is the place where a TR is located “relative to a
landmark” (Radden and Dirven 2007, 305), i.e. the part of the LM that we
usually interact with (see also 4.2. for the notion of search domain). A
common region of a closet is its interior, and the region of a table is its
upper surface.
The image schemas used in this study are containment, support and
adjacency (see 2.1., 2.2., and 2.3.), which are only a few in a long and
varied list of possible relations depicted by image schemas. The former
two, i.e. image schemas of containment and support, are considered
conventional due to frequency of encounter. The adjacency image schema,
however, has only recently been recognized as a variation of an existing
conventional schema depicting proximity. We discuss in more detail each
of these schemas in Chapter Three.
1.4. Conceptualization of space

The relation of space and language is very intricate and difficult to
describe. Space is, by its nature, in an extremely slow but constant state of
change, yet its reference points are always present to help define it.
Conversely, language is a system that, among other things, describes
space, developing under the influence of tradition, which induces change
according to usage, contemporary trends, class, and other social factors.
These social factors create irregularities, and cause some expressions to
become obsolete or disappear from usage.
As well as space and language, the issue of conceptualization further
complicates the relation. Our conceptualization is based on our physical
experience in a spatial environment. In other words,
Our concepts are structured, both internally and relative to one another.
That structuring permits us to reason, to comprehend, to acquire
knowledge, and to communicate […] But structure alone does not make for
meaningfulness. […] Experientialism claims that conceptual structure is
meaningful because it is embodied, that is, it arises from, and is tied to, our
preconceptual bodily experiences (Lakoff 1987, 267).
14 Chapter One
This approach starts primarily from the question of how conceptualization

determines linguistic expressions, while simultaneously being constrained
by the speaker’s environment, perspective and purposes (cf. Zelinsky-
Wibbelt 1993, 8). The amount of information that we get from our
physical and non-physical environments is so vast that “understanding and
communication only become possible via the schematic, relatively simple
structure imposed [on this information] by spatial concepts” (Zelinsky-
Wibbelt 1993, 5).
Similarly, Tyler and Evans (2003, 52) propose the term “proto-scene”
and define it as follows:
A proto-scene is an idealized mental representation across the recurring

spatial scenes associated with a particular spatial particle; hence it is an
abstraction across many similar spatial scenes. It combines idealized
elements of real-world experience (objects in the guise of TRs and LMs)
and a conceptual relation (a conceptualization of a particular configuration
between the objects).
Lakoff (1987, 267), however, also identifies the two major problems
arising from the claim that our conceptual structure is formed from our
preconceptual one: 1) the assumption that our physical, bodily experience
itself has structure, and determining the nature of that structure; and 2)
given that not all our concepts are physical in nature, how can an abstract
concept be based on bodily experience?
Like Johnson (1987), Lakoff (1987, 267) offers a solution to these
problems by proposing that “there are at least two kinds of structure in our
preconceptual experiences”: basic-level structure with basic-level
categories, and kinesthetic image-schematic structure, with image schemas
that “constantly recur in our everyday bodily experience”. As for abstract
conceptual structures, Johnson and Lakoff consider them to be indirectly
meaningful, i.e. “understood because of their systematic relationship to
directly meaningful structures” (Lakoff 2000, 268).
Tyler and Evans (2003, ix) stress that particular spatial relations have
important consequences that are meaningful to humans, and give rise to a
range of non-spatial meanings. They provide the following example:
Sentences such as: You can count on my vote and She is in graduate school
do not strictly involve spatial relations between physical entities, but rather
non-physical concepts associated with the notions of support and
containment respectively. Spatial particles offer rich and fascinating
evidence of the complex interaction between spatio-physical experience,
the human conceptual system and language use.
Still, the question of how to describe the relation between space and
language remains complex, and is far from being resolved. One early
attempt to do so was made by Benjamin Whorf, who said that language is
a product of the “mass mind,” developed slowly through time under the
influence of inventions and innovations (Whorf 1941a [1939]). By “mass
mind,” Whorf implied cultural and social factors, which he believed
shaped language. This relation is put in the context of an individual, whose
conceptualization is formed in accordance with the mass mind. The latter
would, therefore, govern the individual’s conceptualization, as influenced
by internal inventions and innovations, with habit as the key driving force.
In other words, language convention is a type of habit—a social consensus
on mental representations, denoted by the elements of a language.
The mass mind and conceptualization are tightly connected; in fact, in
the researchers’ opinion, conceptualization is part of the mass mind. It can
be placed between space and language, since it perceives space and uses
language to express this perception (see Figure 5). Further, language
change appears due to a shift in conceptualization within the mass mind,
making the two a crucial part of the stated chain. Yet neither the mass
mind nor language can change space: they only change the
conceptualization of it. This is why it can be said that space shapes
language through the speakers’ conceptualization of space. The research
herein will use this idea of conceptualization as its guiding idea.
Figure 5. The relation of space, mass mind, and language
As an addition to the concept described in Figure 5, Whorf claimed

that a human’s conceptualization is shaped by language, i.e. that linguistic
categories influence our perception and cognition—a postulate better
known as the principle of linguistic relativity, or the Sapir–Whorf
16 Chapter One
Hypothesis. 11 While Sapir devoted his attention to the nature of the

language system (which he saw as dual, consisting of code and
representation), Whorf focused on how grammatical categories of specific
languages related to conceptual and behavioral patterns:
Languages have grammars, which are assumed to be merely norms of

conventional and social correctness, but the use of language is supposed to
be guided not so much by them as by correct, rational, or intelligent
thinking. (Whorf 1940a, 229)
He defined the principle of linguistic relativity as follows:
The phenomena of language are background phenomena, of which the

talkers are unaware or, at the most, very dimly aware […] These automatic,
involuntary patterns of language are not the same for all men but are
specific for each language and constitute the formalized side of the
language, or its “grammar”—a term that includes much more than the
grammar we learned in the textbooks of our school days. From this fact
proceeds what I have called the “linguistic relativity principle,” which
means, in informal terms, that users of markedly different grammars are
pointed by their grammars toward different types of observations and
different evaluations of externally similar acts of observation, and hence
are not equivalent as observers but must arrive at somewhat different views
of the world (Whorf 1940b, 61).
We have to keep in mind, though, that Whorf was addressing an audience

of scientists and readers of the MIT Technology Review, and warning them
that
the habituated thinking cultivated in a monolingual English environment

could turn their coveted scientific objectivity into an English-centric
subjectivity (Bąk 2016, 9).
11
Neither Sapir nor Whorf ever stated the principle in the form of a hypothesis. In
fact, Roger Brown and Eric Lenneberg, who were among the first to conduct an
empirical test of the linguistic relativity principle in 1954, considered the idea to be
Whorf’s alone. In Bąk’s (2016, 10) opinion, the term “Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis”
was coined because “in true relativistic fashion the idea needed to be named to be
fixed in the academic mass mind.” However, it was Carroll’s (1956) introduction
to his collection of Benjamin Whorf’s selected works that gave the latter’s work a
deterministic interpretation. This publication was to become a leading source for
researching the Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis.
From our present perspective it is interesting to see how, only a couple of

decades after Whorf’s observation, some syntactic approaches readily fell
into this trap (and some still do). Back in his time, Whorf (1941) himself
offered a solution, saying:
the only correctives lie in all those other tongues which by aeons of
independent evolution have arrived at different, but equally logical,
provisional analyses. (Whorf 1941, 272)
However, the general fate of the linguistic relativity principle was

unfortunate until the 1990s. Sapir died in 1939, and Whorf two years later,
so neither could defend the principle for what it really was: an
anthropologically rooted investigation of languages and their variability.
In the wake of World War II and its propaganda, anything that even
remotely suggested that language could subconsciously shape people’s
feelings and thoughts was subject to distortion and misinterpretation. Bąk
(2016, 12) defends the original principle, which she claims was
“vulgarized” and turned into a “radical logical statement which is testable
and falsifiable”, especially by linguists and experimental psychologists.
She concludes:
[Sapir and Whorf’s] domain was anthropology, and they observed that
given particular contextual (social, cultural, historical, environmental)
configurations different cultures will develop different languages (under
their definition of “language”). Linguistic relativity for them was an
anthropological principle deduced from observation and material evidence.
[…] Simplified to fit the logical rigors of experimental methods and torn
out of its disciplinary context, the linguistic relativity principle was
replaced in the public and academic imaginations with the “Sapir–Whorf
Hypothesis.” And though plentiful criticism was rained down upon the
“Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis” in its vulgarized form, the linguistic relativity
principle with all its subtleties continued to be a useful research framing
device in anthropology. An impressive body of evidence was collected to
illustrate the linguistic relativity principle in many areas of life for a great
variety of cultures. (Bąk (2016, 12)
From this we can see that on one hand language is one of the most
important ways of transmitting information, and on the other it is a
learning tool. When learning, the mind tries to organize knowledge in
various ways. It seems plausible that language, which is constantly
analyzed by the mind, influences the way we think, at least to some extent,
though it would be difficult to believe in a direct and straightforward
cause-and-effect relation between language and culture. Language is a tool
18 Chapter One
for transferring information, and a projection of our thoughts. Without a

concept in mind, language has nothing to express. If a concept changes,
language compensates through the addition or substitution of a word
standing for the concept. In this respect we could say that our
conceptualization should shape language. Perhaps the compromise that
settles the chasm between the two ideas is that language helps people’s
memory while they’re growing up and getting to know the world. Yet
when certain concepts are organized, they can be used in innovative ways
to shape language. Indeed, when we code a particular spatial relation, we
rely not only on geometry and spatial configuration, but also on our own
knowledge and experience, which arise from our interaction with and in
space (cf. Žic Fuchs 1991, Kerovec 2012). To what extent language might
shape human conceptualization when it comes to basic spatial relations is
the focal idea around which this research revolves, and it will be dealt with
in the discussion part of this book.
There is yet another issue in historical linguistics that could shed light
on the morphology of a language. It revolves around the idea that speakers
of a language had a different spatial perception in the past, which might be
the cause of the different morphological features of various languages. The
morphology considering spatial expressions does not change easily,
especially today, for two external reasons. First, language changes more
easily when it is not written, and since the invention of the printing press,
languages tend to keep their prescribed forms. Second, globalization has
created a gigantic melting pot, and it is therefore possible for speakers not
to change their language as much as they change their perception and
conceptualization. This means that conceptualization in different
languages could produce a mutually similar version of itself.
This study will test the idea of how similar morphology and speakers’
conceptualizations are. What can also be looked into according to the
results acquired is whether morphology has roots in conceptualization, by
which we mean today’s conceptualization. It may be proven that it is
different from the morphological basis, and the three languages dealt with
in this study may have a similar conceptualization despite differences in
their morphological links. This would imply that either globalization had
an influence on the perception and representation of spatial relations, or
that the speakers of the three languages have a different mindset to that
which their morphology implies.
1.5. Scope of the present study

This study is concerned with nine basic spatial relations, originally
found in the formal Hungarian systematization of certain spatial relations.
The results of this research should confirm or refute the hypothesis made
after the preliminary morphological analysis of those nine relations.
In general, the focus of this study is the relation of morphology and
conceptualization within these three languages, and between them. More
specifically, our interest lies in the connections between certain categories
and their members, as well as a cross-linguistic comparison.
Since this study is limited to “ideal” meanings (cf. Herskovits 1982),
although other instances will be mentioned they will not play a significant
role. Further, the study is based on a research method that can only
measure voluntary decisions and not non-voluntary reactions, which
makes it psycholinguistic research. This implies that the research is based
on the subjects’ answer data and not on their thoughts, which would give a
better insight into the processes occurring in their minds. To address the
latter, neurolinguistic research would be more appropriate, but that is
beyond the scope of this study.
CHAPTER TWO
THE NINE SPATIAL CONCEPTS
As we have seen, space can be expressed with a variety of concepts,

with the “ideal” meaning (Herskovits 1982) of each at the center of its
own category (Rosch 1973, Lakoff 1987). Other “ideal” concepts spread
radially from the center according to the principle of being more or less
similar to the central concept. Yet grouping these ideal meanings
according to how they are conceptualized in the mind proves to be a
difficult mission in many languages.
This research addresses the concepts of nine “ideal” spatial relations,
which make a semantic set. Individual languages conceptualize these
relations in different ways, and hence have created different methods of
explaining them. We have chosen Hungarian as the starting point of our
analysis, since in this language these relations are shown in the form of a
table, which serves as a learning tool for foreign language learners, as well
as a simplified method for native speakers to learn grammar. However,
what it actually represents is a systematically organized description of
certain spatial relations in the Hungarian language.
The table of nine spatial relations consists of 3x3 fields distributed
according to two groups, for which we suggest the following terms: type of
relation (R) of LM and TR (containment, support and adjacency) and type
of motion (M) (static: location; dynamic: destination and source). The
usage of the latter mostly depends on the nature of the verb. In Vendler’s
essay (1957), a distinction is made between activity and state terms,
setting apart the physical activity from its lack. A parallel can be drawn
with types of motion: destination and source indicate an activity, and
location a state (considering general movement). Therefore, we can
conclude that destination and source are accompanied by dynamic verbs,
and location by static verbs.
All of the items in the set find their place in the table according to two
elements: one of relation and one of motion. In place of actual terms,
image schemas of corresponding spatial notions are provided in Table 1.
The arrows combined with points stand for direction of movement
(destination and source), and the points alone for inaction or movement
22 Chapter Two
within the sset boundariess of the landm mark (locationn). Both of th

hese are a
type of TR R. The squaree (container), line (surfacee), and statuee with its
adjacent areea (specific place)
p all sig
gnify types off LM. In thee English
linguistic traadition (cf. Radden
R and Dirven, 2007), they would be b named
after the ddimensionalityy of the LM M: volume/arrea (two- an nd three-
dimensionall), line and surface
s (one-- and two-dimmensional), and
a point
(zero-dimennsional), respeectively. Therefore, the tabble can also be
b seen in
terms of thee combinationn of LM and TR features. Each categorry will be
described fuurther in the foollowing sections.
mage schemas of the nine spatial notion

Table 1. Im ns
M
R Desstination Location
n Source
S
CON
SUP
ADJ
It is intteresting to note
n that the quality of thhe LM and the TR’s
movement ggovern the usee of each spattial notion, wh whilst the qualiity of TR
does not inffluence the chhoice of a partticular spatial notion. Thereefore, the
same spatiall concept wouuld be used wh hether a box oor a kitten weere put on
a shelf, or w
whether an elepphant or a buttterfly were sittting on a dan
ndelion.
The Nine Spatial Concepts 23
Table 2. Definitions and codes for spatial relations (based on Szili

2011, and systematized)
M Destination Location Source
R
CON A1 A2 A3
TR is entering a TR is located within TR is leaving
container, i.e. a the boundaries of the the container or
volume or an area container or area area
SUP B1 B2 B3
TR is arriving onto TR is located within TR is leaving
a surface (source the boundaries of the the surface
direction irrelevant) surface (direction
irrelevant)
ADJ C1 C2 C3
TR is arriving at TR is located in the TR is leaving
the proximity of a area adjacent to the the proximity of
point in space point the point
In order to better understand the selection of the items included in the

tables (which are presented in Chapter Four), each concept should be
briefly defined. It is important to keep in mind that only the “ideal” spatial
meaning of each concept is taken into consideration. For easier future
reference, each notion will subsequently be marked by a combination of a
letter (type of relation) and a number (type of motion), adopted from Szili
(2011). Table 2 shows a systematic view of the codes and their definitions.
The following sections give more detail on the categories in the table.
2.1. Containment
This relation subsumes a CONTAINER image schema, named for a
three-dimensional bounded space, which is able to hold an entity for a
period of time. It can also be used for two-dimensional areas. Its region is
its interior, and its basic notions are boundary (physical or conventional),
interior, and exterior, with the result being the “most basic distinction
between in and out” (Lakoff 1987: 271–272). Each of our days involves
numerous situations in which such a schema occurs; for example, our
bodily experience as containers ourselves, or being in a container such as a
room.
24 Chapter Two
When coonsidering thee static mean ning of the scchema, the TR R can be
placed in anny part of the interior
i of a container
c withhout making a semantic
uch as Suzy is in the kitchen
difference. IIn addition, inn sentences su n, the TR
does not evven have to be static, bu ut it does havve to stay within
w the
boundaries set by the naature of the co ontainer, or itts convention
nal usage.
Directional meanings siggnify the simp ple entrance oor exit of a TR into or
out of such a container.
Figure 6. Movvement within the

t boundaries of the CONTA
AINER schema
The boun
undary can sepparate the inteerior from thee exterior withh no open
entry/exit ppoints, as in a box, but it can be m missing a wh hole side.
Prototypicallly, there is one
o opening, as a in a vase, but multiple openings
are possiblee, as in a roomm, or a forestt. Additionallyy, a whole sid
de can be
missing, as in a bowl. Containers
C can
n completely oor partially en nclose an
object, whicch can easily be imagined as a a bowl conntaining soup,, or filled
with fruit. IIn some casess the bounded dness of a sururface is moree relevant
than its dim a it is ratherr perceived ass a container, as in the
mensionality, and
example of a car in the drriveway (Radd den and Dirveen 2007: 312– –313).
The conccept of a conttainer is also interesting
i froom the point of
o view of
language accquisition. Inn Searchinger’s (1999) doocumentary on human
language, booth small chilldren and adu ults were askeed to say whiich of the
two marbless (the one in or the one ou utside the boxx) was NEAR R the box.
All the partticipants, incluuding very smmall children,, opted for thhe marble
outside the box. The maain question to arise from this was: how w does a
child know that the marbble that is in th he box cannoot be near it? Chomsky
C
offers an expplanation:
If the boxx is a geometriccal object, say a sphere in the geometrical sen nse, or
a cube, tthe marble cann be near the box. b The marbble is near the box’s
surface. SSo the box is a surface, the geometrical
g objject is the surfface so
somethingg inside it can be
b near it, just as something ooutside can be near
n it.
But we don’t develop cooncepts like thaat naturally, wee have to inven nt them
with somme other facultyy of the mind d. The concept of the box th hat we
actually ddevelop is a very
v obscure one.
o It includess the interior, but it
doesn’t matter what is inside it (...) That’s an extremely abstract concept—

far beyond what any evidence could ever drive. There is no evidence that
the child has available that tells the child that the “box” is not just its
surface. In fact, if we were to invent a science, we would make it just a
surface, as we do in geometry and physics. What that means is that the
concept, with all of its incredible intricacy, must be fixed by the mind, and
keyed by some trivial fact about the environment. (Chomsky on The
Human Language Series, part I 1999)
This explanation provides us with an insightful interpretation of how

we develop concepts in our mind. It is in line with Chomsky’s theory
about the innateness of the ability to acquire language, and the idea that
“the child somehow has the concepts available before experience with
language.” (Chomsky 1988: 24)
2.2. Support
This category relies on the CONTACT schema, which in this case
presupposes a prototypically two-dimensional horizontal surface (region),
giving support to the TR through contact in order for it to stay on the LM’s
surface. It can also be used with a one-dimensional line as its LM. The
support schema’s meaningfulness is based on the direction of the
gravitational force. Therefore, the basic notions of support are: surface (of
boundary); contact; the gravitational force; and balance (Lakoff 1987).
Figure 7. SUPPORT image schema with gravitational forces
Another support schema includes an LM with a vertical surface, such as a

wall. In that case, the TR is supported by a connecting entity (e.g. a nail),
so that the TR can withstand the gravitational force. This kind of relation
is quite similar to the one described above, but will not be included in the
present study.
26 Chapter Two
2.3. Adja
acency
The adjaacency schem ma is part of thet PROXIMIITY schema. It places
the TR in thhe proximity of the LM, in i the adjoineed area (regioon) being
shaped by thhe qualitative characteristiccs of the LM ((Šariü 2008, 151).
1 The
LM is usuaally bigger or o more speccific compareed to the TR R or the
surroundingg area, and thee size of its adjoined area iis usually pro oportional
to its magniitude. Contactt between TR R and LM is ppossible, but leess likely
than that bettween the TR and the LM’ss immediate suurroundings. If I the LM
is human, itts meaning iss metonymicaally extended to the living space of
that individuual, and it willl not be dealt with
w in this reesearch.
The term m “adjacencyy” (adopted from Whitleey 2002) meeans “the
attribute of being so nearr as to be touching” (The F Free Dictionaary 2012),
possibly leaading the readeer to think thaat contact withh the LM is crucial
c (as
in the phrasse on the sidee of), althoug gh it is used hhere to distinguish the
single meanning of “prooximity” from m the whole set of its meanings.
m
Contact, how wever, may sttill be approved if conceptuualized as con ntact with
the LM’s addjacent area.
Figure 8. Thee location variabbles of the ADJJACENCY scheema
As opposed to other PROXIMITY

P schemas suchh as in front of,
of by, and
next to, the aadjacency schhema is not seensitive to the concrete placcement of
the TR in thhe area adjoineed to the LM, or the actual distance betw ween them
(Šariü 2008,, 151), which is illustrated ini Figure 8.
Thereforre, it can be considered
c as a broader terrm than the remaining
r
members off the schema.
It shouldd be mentioneed that some LMsL can be pperceived as possessing
different feaatures. Therefo
fore, some hav ve more regionns than otherss. A good
example is a simple box: it has its uppeer surface, its interior as a container,
c
and it can bee seen as a speecific item in the proximityy of which anoother item
may be placced.
2.4. Location
The location schema is a stationary schema signifying the state of
being located within the boundaries of the LM or, in the case of adjacency,
its area. This allows the TR to stay in one place, or to move within the
LM’s boundaries. Location does not have an established schema of its
own, but rather functions as a state in contrast to movement. Some
schemas not signifying obligatory movement are: CONTAINMENT,
CONTACT, PROXIMITY, FRONT–BACK, and PART–WHOLE. In
conclusion, we suggest the constitutive element of location to be a
boundary.
2.5. Source and destination

These two schemas are best known from the SOURCE–PATH–GOAL
schema combination (Johnson 1987, Lakoff 1987). The term “destination”
is preferred in this study, since the end point of the movement is spatial, as
opposed to the temporal meanings for which the term “goal” is more
suited (Lakoff 1987: 275). The SOURCE–PATH–GOAL schema is a
dynamic schema of movement, unlike the static location. Its structural
elements are source, path (a sequence of locations leading from source to
destination), destination, and direction (from source to destination). It is
based on our bodily experience of movement from a starting point,
following a certain combination of locations in the direction of the final
point, where it ends (Lakoff 1987: 275).
Source Path Goal
Figure 9. SOURCE–PATH–GOAL schema
In Table 1, source and destination are separated by location because

the original version of the table in Hungarian had the same distribution.
This order is a logical sequence of events: one goes to a place, one is at a
place, and then one moves away from it.
28 Chapter Two
Path is excluded from this study, since it is not part of the semantic
table we use in this research. However, it might prove an effective tool for
further investigation into the conceptualization of such notions in different
languages, and as such, could be the subject of another study.
CHAPTER THREE
A CASE STUDY IN PREPOSITIONS
3.1. Scope of the study

This study revolves around three basic spatial concepts that are
embedded in the foundation of our spatial orientation, as well as many
more or less metaphorical expressions. These concepts differ from one
language to another, so by using three diverse languages (Croatian,
Hungarian and English) in this study we have a different perspective to
that which we would get by studying the issue within just one of them. If
closely inspected, languages present various kinds of conceptualization
when focusing on a single word, whose environment can be quite distinct
when compared across languages.
Therefore the focus of this study is the relation of morphology and
conceptualization in each of the three languages, and between them. More
precisely, our interest lies in the links between certain categories and their
members, as well as in a cross-linguistic comparison. For this purpose,
two types of research were conducted: psycholinguistic research involving
native speakers; and small-scale research based on the analysis of corpora,
which was expected to corroborate the results of the psycholinguistic
analysis. The objective was to explore the links between mind and
language in certain spatial relations, but to address the following issues
specifically:
a) What are the actual spatial categories in our mind concerning this
field of research?
b) Do morphological similarities mirror conceptual ones?
Since this study is limited to ideal meanings (cf. Herskovits 1982,
1986), other instances will be mentioned but not discussed in detail. In
addition, the psycholinguistic research method can only measure voluntary
decisions, and not non-voluntary reactions. This implies that the research
is based on the participants’ answer data, and not on their thoughts, which
would provide a better insight into the processes in their minds. For this
purpose, neurolinguistic research would be more appropriate, which is
beyond the scope of this study.
30 Chapter Three
It should be mentioned that this kind of research in this field is among

the first attempts to learn more about the conceptualization of these spatial
relations using this method. Some similar studies we mention here are: that
of Tower-Richardi et al. (2012), which is concerned with abstract spatial
concepts and experience-based domains; Williams and Bargh (2008), who
investigate the influence of spatial distance to the self; and McNamara et
al. (1989), who explore the constraints on priming in spatial memory.
3.2. Aims and methodology

The purpose of this research is to identify the morphological
similarities and differences in the spatial notions described in the previous
chapter, and see whether they match the categories in our minds. Most
importantly, this could tell us more about the language system in our
minds, which is a widely debated subject.
Language has developed under the influence of the human mind and
tradition (social influences), the latter making it an unreliable source for
such research due to its constant state of change. But even though it cannot
tell us exactly how language and conceptualization work in our minds, it
can still provide answers to some of our questions.
As previously mentioned, this study involves two research
methodologies: psycholinguistic analysis and supporting corpus analysis.
The objective of both is to better understand conceptualization in different
languages.
The psycholinguistic research was designed around a table of nine
spatial notions found in Hungarian, because this language has a unique
way of systematizing spatial relations. Namely, it distributes them neatly
in a logical tabular format (see Table 1), which is argued to provide a
better overview of spatial relations than systematization in the other two
languages (see 4.2. and 4.3.) In this study it serves as a tool for analyzing
and comparing language systems and their conceptual arrangements.
The research was conducted in two phases. In the morphological
analysis, a table with nine spatial concepts, originally found in Hungarian,
was used as a basic tool to establish spatial categories. The spatial terms of
all three languages were inserted into this table, matching its original
concepts. This resulted in three tables, one for each language. The
morphological similarities were found in each language accordingly, and
were then compared cross-linguistically. This was mostly done by
category, since there are hardly any similarities between table members
that do not share a category. The analysis was done for the purpose of
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
those who had a hankering after the Covenant to turn to the loyal
side, which allowed them greater latitude in their games and plays. It
was therefore announced that, in the ensuing week, the pastime of
Robin Hood and Little John (which had not been celebrated in the
beginning of May, the usual time, on account of the disturbances)
should be practised on the playfield, along with the usual helps to
merriment.
Of all the crowds that poured out from the town on that day to see
the spectacle, it is our business only to take notice of a young man
and maiden that tripped along just as it was commencing. They
appeared to be of the first order of the citizens. The maiden was a
lively, interesting little girl, with blue eyes and a fine complexion; her
limbs moulded into the most exact symmetry, and her whole
appearance in the utmost degree fascinating. Her dress was white,
with a sort of scarf or plaid wound round her person, and fastened by
a loop and silver button on the left shoulder. Her flaxen hair, except
a few ringlets which strayed down her neck, was confined by a silken
snood, which, even at that period, was the badge of Scottish maidens.
Her companion was above the middle size, of rather a slender make
and ruddy complexion, with expressive dark eyes, and coal black hair
flowing down, according to the fashion of the royalists, in large and
glossy curls. He was about twenty years of age, and though his figure
was somewhat boyish,—or feminine if you will,—yet the fire of his
eye, the intelligence of his countenance, and the activity of his frame,
confirmed his claims to manhood. Although the young man intended
only to be a spectator of the revels, he was dressed in green, with bow
and arrows, which was the dress of the actors of the play.
As they approached the playfield, now called Gilcomston, the
shouts of the delighted populace were heard, mingled with the
sounds of the pipe, fiddle, and trumpet, the songs of the minstrels,
and the cries of the jugglers. The Abbot and Prior of Bon-Accord (or,
as they were called after the Reformation, Robin Hood and Little
John) had just arrived; and having been greeted by the populace,
were forming a ring for the celebration of the sports, which was
guarded by a body of their archers. We have no need to detail the
performance; suffice it to say, that the piece was intended for a satire
on the Covenanters, they being shown to the lieges under the
semblance of evil spirits, and the royalists of angels of light. Towards
the close of it, the young man whom we have mentioned felt his
sleeve pulled by a person behind him.
“Thou art he whom I seek,” said the person who thus forced
himself on his notice; “and thy name is Basil Rolland.”
“It is,” returned he; “declare your business.”
“Not here. Thou seest we are surrounded by the multitude.
Remove with me to a little distance, for I would hold some secret
converse with thee.”
“That may not be. I came to squire this maiden to the revels, and
may not leave her alone.”
“Suffer the damsel to tarry here for a short space, and follow me to
a little distance.”
“Go with the stranger, Basil,” said she, “and I will remain in the
same spot till you return.”
“Do so then, Mary,” said Basil; “I’ll return anon.”
As they retired to some distance from the crowd, Basil had leisure
to note the appearance of the stranger. From his dress little could be
learned; it was in the extremity of plainness. He had been a man of
uncommon muscular strength, but it seemed much decayed, perhaps
from the struggles of an active life. His eyes were sunk, but retained
their lustre; and premature furrows were on his brow. When he
halted, Basil addressed him:
“Will it please you then, sir, to communicate your tidings?”
“Then I ask thee, Basil Rolland, what dost thou here?”
“Why, grave sir, I’ll answer thy question with another,” said Basil,
laughing at this solemn opening of the conference: “what dost thou
here?”
“My gray hairs, young man, are a testimony unto thee that I come
not here on any light matter.”
“Why then, my foolish face may be a testimony to thee of the
lightness of the cause that brought me hither. Marry! we have at last
got rid of Montrose and his prickeared gang, wherefore we may be
allowed to enjoy ourselves on the prospect of peace.”
“Enjoy thyself!” said he. “And what enjoyment canst thou gain
from these absurd and impious mummeries? They are a sacrifice to
the evil one; a bloody engine of Prelacy to betray the unthinking soul.
Peace! What have ye to do with peace? Have not thy friends been
treacherous as a snare, and unstable as water? Hath not the finger of
Heaven written bitter things against them for their guile and deceit?
Have not their enemies trampled them under foot, and they in whom
they trusted been as a scourge and as a snare unto them? Have they
not been lukewarm in the good cause, regarding the favour of men
more than the will of God? Are they not even now triumphing at the
hurt of Israel, and rejoicing that the pure evangel has been
withdrawn from them? Let them lean on those whom they have
chosen, and well shall it be for them if they can protect them against
the just wrath of the godly.”
“Your words are dark and threatening, old man, but to me they
appear as the ravings of a feverish dreamer. You seem to tell me of
some danger hanging over us; but our enemy’s forces are disbanded,
and in my judgment there is nothing to fear. The town is fortified:
Aboyne, with a strong army, possesses it. So away with these fancies;
and if you have aught to say that concerns me particularly, say on, for
I must return to my sister.”
“Thy sister? Well, Mary Leslie may deserve the name. I am thy
friend, wherefore I am so thou shalt quickly know. Ponder well what
I have said. Remember that the calm often precedes the storm, and
that it is better to take part with the faithful, even in adversity, than
to be the friend of covenant-breaking, soul-seducing prelatists. I will
see thee to-morrow at the booth of Samuel Fairtext at eventide. Meet
me there, and it shall be for thy good. Farewell, mayst thou be
partaker of all covenant blessings.”
So saying, he walked off, and in a short time was lost among the
crowd, leaving Basil at a loss what to make of his insinuations. When
he came up with Mary Leslie, the Skinners, who represented the
royalists, had succeeded in driving the Litsters, who represented the
Covenanters, into a smoky den or booth, which, in a moment after,
took fire, while the whole angelic train joined in a song to the praise
of the Viscount of Aboyne.
He remarked, however, that the spectators were now very
inattentive to the sports. They were drawn together into small knots,
all over the field, in earnest conversation, which, as it became more
general, entirely drowned the iron voices of the performing cherubs.
The spectators began to leave the field in great numbers. Robin
Hood’s body-guard even followed their example, and Little John, by
the same inexplicable spirit of discontent, deserted his friend and
leader. The whisper (as it was at first) was not long in extending to
the spot where Basil and Mary were standing. The cause of the
disturbance may be gathered from the following conversation:—
“Now, the like o’ this I never saw,” said Thomas Chalmers, deacon
of the fleshers. “That deil’s buckie Montrose is to the road again, an’
comin’ wi’ thousands upon thousands to the town. Fient a hoof mair
will I get killed till we be clear o’ him.”
“Weel, weel,” said Jamie Jingle, the bellman, “it’s a gude thing it’s
nae waur. Come wha like, they’ll aye need a bellman.”
“Nae waur, ye clappertongue!” said another. “I wad like to ken
what waur could come? Willna a’ thing we hae be spulzied by thae
rascals,—black be their cast!—an’ wunna there be anither speel at the
Covenant, whilk we hae a’ ta’en an’ unta’en about half-a-dozen o’
times already?”
“Ye’re vera right, Saunders,” said the chief of the tanners; “but for
a’ that, Aboyne may gie him his kail through the reek; and, if the
news be true, there will be a great demand for shoon and belts, whilk
sud be a source o’ comfort, ye ken.”
“What hae I to do wi’ your belts an’ your brogues, Benjie Barkhide?
What hae I to do wi’ them, I say? A murrain on the Covenanters, say
I, and a’ that pertains to them.”
“A curse on the Covenanters an’ prelatemongers baith, conjunctly
and severally!” said another citizen. “I wish the deil would snite his
nose with the hale clanjamphry, though he sud get me to the bet o’
the bargain, for wishing them sae.”
“Wha would hae thought o’ this in the morning?” said Barkhide.
“Weel, lads, I think we sud a gae hame, an’ put as mony o’ our bits o’
things out o’ the way as we can.”
They departed, and this sentiment becoming general, in a short
time the play field was emptied of the revellers.
As Mary and Basil moved homewards with the rest, the latter
evaded the questions put to him concerning the stranger. He saw,
however, a coincidence between his darkly expressed hints and the
events of the day; and while he resolved for the present to keep this
secret, he anxiously wished for the promised interview.
Chapter II.
The red cross glares on Frazer’s towers,
My love, I dare not stay;
The bugle peals through Lovat’s bowers,
My love, I must away.—Old Ballad.
We shall now conduct the reader to a shop in the Broadgate, over

which appeared in ancient characters,—
Patrick Leslie & Samuel Fairtext.
It is not to be supposed that the street had the same appearance

which it now exhibits; neither are the unsophisticated to imagine
that the shops resembled those of our own times, with lofty roofs,
gigantic windows, mahogany counters, splendid chandeliers, and
elegant gas burners. The windows were not much larger than the
loop-holes of a modern prison; the roof was low and covered with
cobwebs, and the goods exposed for sale were all lying at sixes and
sevens. The forepart of the shop extended about ten feet forward into
the street, and was decorated on the outside with swatches of the
various commodities that were to be sold within. In the back shop,
which was nearly as dark as midnight, were deposited the whole of
the goods, except the specimens just mentioned. In the inmost recess
of these penetralia, was Provost Leslie, with three or four stout
fellows, removing, under his command, the goods in the back shop
or warehouse.
“Saunders,” said the provost, “ye’ll tak awa yon silks an’ velvets,
and put them into the vault i’ the dryest—ay, that’s anither flask
broken, ye careless gowk! I’ll set ye about your business gin ye wunna
tak mair tent. As soon’s you get that barrel awa, ye’ll tak down the
Prayer-Books from that shelf, and put up twa or three dozen o’
Confessions o’ Faith. An’, my little man, ye’ll run up to my lasses, and
tell them to leave a’ their wark an’ come down to grease the sword
blades, for fear that they rust in the cellar, an’ syne tell the same to
Sammy Fairtext’s maidens, an’ bring them a’ wi’ you as fast’s ye can.
—Ay, Basil, are ye there? Troth, gentle or semple, ye maun help’s the
day. You are a canny lad, sae try if ye can collect a’ the trinkets and
the siller cups and spoons, and take them up by to my chamber.—Ye
ne’er-do-weel! ye haverel, Sandie Hackit, what garred you spill the
wine on that web? Ye needna mind it now, ye sorrow; it’s nae worth
puttin’ out o’ Montrose’s way.”
When Basil Rolland returned from executing his commission, the
stranger whom he had seen on the former day was in the shop,
engaged in conversation with Fairtext. The latter bade Basil conduct
him to his house, whether he himself would follow when he had
dispatched some necessary business. When they were seated, the
stranger began—
“Thou hast seen, youth, that the things which I hinted to thee are
in part come to pass. The city is in confusion, the men of war are
discouraged, so that they will assuredly be a prey, and a spoil, and a
derision to their adversaries. What dost thou now intend?”
“What but to join the army of Aboyne, and do battle with my best
blood against these murdering rebels.”
“And what would be thy reward, young man? Thy good sense tells
thee that it is wrong to deprive free-born men of liberty of
conscience. You would fight for your own slavery. Charles is one who
regardeth not covenants. He will reward jugglers and lewd ones,
rather than those who have shed their blood for his wicked house.
But he already totters on his throne, and the day may not be distant
when he himself shall cry for mercy from those whose fathers,
mothers, and children he hath slain. If you are vanquished in the
approaching contest, all with you is lost; if successful, you are
nothing the better, except for upholding a Papistical hierarchy, the
raw project of a godless debauchee. Thy grandfather did battle on the
wrong side, and, after his fall at the battle of Pinkie, the family fell
from its former power, which it has never been able to regain.”
“Let me ask what comfort or reward could I expect by deserting my
friends? The Covenanters have renounced their oath of allegiance,
and have imbrued their hands in their countrymen’s blood. Good can
never follow an enterprise begun by perjury, and continued with
carnage.”
“And did not Charles first deliberately break his oath and the
covenant made with the people? The paction was therefore nullified
by him, and could not bind the other party. If they have shed blood,
their blood has been shed; and it was not till every attempt at
pacification failed that they took up the carnal weapon. And, for
comfort, I have long supported this cause, and I can look back with
greater pleasure to my conduct in this respect than thou canst on the
picture of thy lady love which even now is peeping from thy bosom.”
“It is my mother’s picture,” said Basil, blushing to the eyes.
“Thy mother’s!” said the stranger, while, with an emotion which he
had not yet exhibited, he caught at the picture with such violence as
to break the silken riband with which it was suspended, and,
unconscious of Basil’s presence, riveted his eyes upon it, scanning
the features with the greatest eagerness.
“The same, the same,” said he to himself; “the arched brow and the
feeling eye, the smiling lips and the rosy cheek. But where is the
principle that gave these their value? Where is the life, the soul?”
continued he, kissing the senseless painting. “How inferior was this
once to thy beauty, and how superior now to thy mouldering ashes!
Didst thou appear as the ideal charmer of a flitting dream, or wert
thou indeed the pride of my youth, the light of my eyes, and the
mistress of my heart? Thou wert! thou wert! my sorrows tell it.—
Preserve this picture, young man. Thou never, alas! knewest a
mother’s love—or a father’s affection: the former flame was rudely
quenched, the latter burned unknown to thee.”
“Then you knew my mother?”
“Ay, Basil, I knew her. We ran together in infancy, we danced
together on the braes of Don, and wove each other garlands of the
wild-flowers that grew on its banks. Then we thought this world was
as heaven, while we were as innocent as angels. As we grew up, the
sun, the wood, the rock, was our temple, where we admired the
beauteous novelty of this earth. All was love, and peace, and joy; but
sorrow came, and those sweet dreams have vanished.”
During these unexpected communications, Basil felt himself
strangely agitated. The old man seemed to know his history, and with
a mixture of doubt and anxiety he inquired if he knew his father.
“I am thy father,” said the stranger, weeping, and throwing himself
into his arms; “I am thy parent, thy joyous, sorrowing parent. How
often have I wished for this day! It is now come, and thou art all that
I could wish—except in one thing, and that is not thy fault. I have
claimed thee at a time when the boy must act the man, and take part
boldly in the great struggle. We must depart from this place to-night.
The citizens, thou knowest, are summoned to join the royalists under
pain of death, so that we may be delayed if we tarry longer.”
“But whither, my father, shall we go?” said Basil.
“Where but to the persecuted remnant that are even now
struggling for freedom. We will fight under the banner of the
Covenant.”
“I have now found a father,” said Basil, “and his commands I must
and will obey; but you will not bid me lift the sword when every
stroke must fall upon an acquaintance or a schoolmate?”
Isaac Rolland then began to mention to his son the reasons which
induced him to join this party. He had no more of enthusiasm than it
becomes one to have who knows he is embarked in a good cause. He
mentioned his own early history, which we shall blend with that of
his son. He had been one of the mission, headed by Sir Thomas
Menzies, that visited King James in 1620 on civil business. About
eighteen months before, he had lost a loving and beloved wife, with
whom he had been acquainted from early infancy. She died on the
birth of Basil. After this affliction, Isaac Rolland could find no
pleasure in the place of his nativity, where everything reminded him
of some dear departed joy; wherefore, having interest to obtain a
situation at court, he left his only son Basil under the guardianship of
his friend Fairtext, and contented himself by hearing often about
him, without ever visiting him till the time at which this story
commences. Rolland was acquainted partially with the
circumstances of his birth. He knew that his mother died when she
gave him life; he knew also that his father existed, but nothing
farther. Isaac laid before his son, in a clear and methodic manner,
the reasons for which the Covenanters took up arms, the
reasonableness of their demands, and the tyranny of their enemies.
He neither palliated nor denied the excesses of either party, but
contended that these should teach all to use their superiority
mercifully. The forcible point of view in which he set his arguments
wrought instant conviction in Basil’s mind, which his father
observing,—
“Come, then,” said he, “and let us prepare for this struggle. If we
be successful (and shall we not be so in such a cause?), we shall have
the consolation of having given peace and freedom to the land. I have
a sufficiency of world’s goods, and thou and thy Mary—nay, start not,
I know all—thou and thy Mary will be the support and comfort of my
old age, and the subject of my last prayer, as ye have been of many,
many in the days bygone. Bid your friends farewell, and an hour
hence we meet to part no more. Be cautious, however, my son, for
these men of Belial have set a guard on the city, and death is the lot
of all who seem about to leave it. Farewell! God bless thee, my dear
son;” and he again folded him in his arms.
When Basil was left to himself, it would have been difficult to say
whether he was more sorrowful or joyful. He had found his father, a
fond and doting father; but his heart revolted at turning his back on
the scenes of his youth and the smiling face of his Mary. The latter
was the more distressing. She had listened to his suit, and the good-
natured provost, when acquainted with it, had sworn that no other
should marry his Mary. His own father seemed to approve his
passion; wherefore he resolved to bid her farewell, and moved
accordingly to the provost’s house.
She was alone, and received him with her usual smile of joy, but
was startled at the unusual expression of sorrow on his countenance.
“Mary,” said he; but his lips could articulate nothing farther.
She became alarmed. “Basil, you are ill!” said she.
He seized her hand. “Mary, I am come to bid you farewell—
perhaps a long farewell.”
She became pale in her turn, and asked him to explain himself. He
resumed,—
“When we were young, Mary, you were my only companion, and I
yours. You were unhappy when away from Basil Rolland, and I when
absent from Mary Leslie. When, in the folly of play, I had girded
myself with your father’s sword, you complained to him, while the
tears ran down your cheeks, that brother Basil was leaving you to
become a soldier. Such things at the time are trifling; but how often
are they the types of blessed love in riper years. I am now to leave
you to mingle in scenes of strife: let me carry with me the
consciousness of your continued love; confirm to me the troth that
you have plighted, and, come life or death, I shall be happy.”
“But why, O Basil, why are you leaving us? Have we not more need
of thy presence than ever?”
“I have found my father, and by his command I leave you this very
night.”
“This night!” said she, while the tears coursed in torrents down her
pale cheek. Basil caught her in his arms, and they wept together who
had never known sorrow before.
“Be comforted, Mary,” said Basil at length; “we shall meet again,
and the present sorrow will enhance the gladness of the meeting. My
happiness depends entirely on you, and my father looks fondly to our
union.”
“Oh! when you are gone far from this, you will soon forget the
vows that you have made. I have no mother to guide me; oh, do not
then deceive me, Basil.”
“I swear that my heart never owned the influence of another, and
that its last beat shall be true to you.”
“Then,” said she, throwing herself into his arms, “I am happy!”
Basil hastily explained to her what he knew of his destination, and,
with a chaste kiss of mutual transport, they separated.
He acquainted no other person with his intention of departing, but
returned to make some preparations for his journey. These were
soon completed; he was joined by his father, and leaving the town at
sunset, they walked leisurely to Stonehaven, where Montrose’s army
was encamped.
Chapter III.
See how he clears the points o’ faith.—Burns.
Hamlet. Hold you the watch to-night?

Horatio. We do, my lord.—Shakspeare.
Day was dawning as our travellers reached the camp of the

Covenanters. They rested for some time to partake of victuals, which
their journey rendered necessary. Isaac Rolland then judged it
proper to present his son to Montrose, and accordingly conducted
him to Dunottar, where the general then was. They were admitted to
his presence.
“I expected you sooner, Rolland,” said Montrose. “What
intelligence have you gathered?”
“The enemy are preparing to take the field with a numerous and
well-appointed force, and I have gathered, from a sure source, that it
is their intention to attack our forces as soon as some needful
supplies are received from the north.”
“How do the citizens stand affected?”
“Almost to a man they have joined Aboyne. They have fortified the
city and the bridge, and are determined to hold out to the last.”
“The ungrateful truce-breaking slaves!” said Montrose. “But
vengeance is at hand. Who is this young man whom thou hast
brought with thee?”
“My son,” said Isaac, “whom grace hath inclined to take part with
us.”
“A youth of gallant bearing! Young man, thy father’s faithfulness is
a warrant for thine. Let thy fidelity equal thy reputed spirit, and thou
shalt not lack the encouragement due to thy deserts. You may both
retire to rest, and I will apprise you of the duties required of you.”
They saluted the general, and retired.
A foraging party returned with a report that Aboyne was already
on his march. This was found to be incorrect by some scouts who had
been dispatched that evening to gather what information they could
about the enemy’s motions. They brought the intelligence, however,
that Aboyne’s equipments were completed, and that it was the
popular belief that he would march immediately to meet the
Covenanters. Preparations were accordingly made for immediate
marching. Numerous foraging parties scoured the adjacent country
for provisions, and horses for transporting the baggage and
ammunition. According to the custom of the Congregation, when
about to engage in warfare, the next day was appointed for a general
fast throughout the host.
There perhaps never was assembled any body for the purposes of
religious worship that exhibited such an appearance of romantic
sublimity as the Covenanters did on such occasions. At the present
time they were assembled under the blue canopy of heaven, in a
hollow valley betwixt two mountains, the summits of which were
planted with sentinels, to give notice to the main body of any
interruption. Upon the declivity of one of the mountains was erected
a wooden pulpit, before which was assembled the army, to the
number of about 2000 men. A dead stillness prevailed among them,
while the preacher, a man richly endowed with that nervous and fiery
eloquence which was the most effectual with men in their situation,
explained to them a passage from the fifteenth chapter of Second
Samuel:—“Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which
Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he
came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy
all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and
woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” This
passage he applied to the condition of the Covenanters. He described
the sufferings and grievances of the persecuted kirk, and showed that
the Almighty did not disregard these, but, in His own time, would
avenge the blood of His saints. He told them that God was now
calling on all who were on His side to fight for the good of the land,
and that His soul could have no pleasure in those who drew back
from the approaching contest. “And now,” said he, while the fire
flashed from his eyes, as with prophetic ardour, which was answered
by a corresponding enthusiasm in his hearers; “and now the men of
Babylon have set up an image of gold, even a molten image, and they
say, ‘Fall down and worship the image that we have set up;’ and they
have fenced themselves with trenched cities, and they have
encompassed themselves with spears, and a multitude of horsemen
and slingers, and archers, and they say unto this help from Egypt,
‘This shall be for a deliverance unto us.’ But fear not ye the multitude
of their strong ones, neither be dismayed at the neighing of their
horses; for the Lord of hosts is on our side, and His right hand shall
work valiantly for us. He breaketh the iron weapon, and burneth the
chariot in the fire. He laugheth at the bow of steel and the rattling of
the quiver. Walled cities are no defence against His hand, nor the
place of strength, when His thunder muttereth in the sky. Wherefore,
gird up your loins to fight the battles of the Lord. Smite the
Amalekites from Dan even unto Beersheba. Destroy the lines of their
tents, and their choice young men, that the reproach may be
removed from the camp of Israel. Turn not aside from the sacrifice
like the faint-hearted Saul, but smite them till they be utterly
consumed, and their name become a hissing, and an abomination,
and a by-word upon the earth. Think on your children, and your
children’s children, from age to age, who shall hold your name in
everlasting remembrance, and look to the reward of Him who sitteth
between the cherubim, who hath said, that whosoever layeth down
his life for My sake shall find it.
“The days are now come when the father shall deliver up the son to
death, and the son the father; when the brother shall be divided
against the sister, and the sister against the mother. But the days of
Zion’s peace shall also come, when all the princes of the earth shall
bow down before her, and call her the fairest among women.
(Canticles, sixth and first.) The house of the Lord shall be established
on the tops of the mountains. The New Jerusalem shall appear as a
bride adorned for her husband. (Revelations, twenty-first and
second.) The tabernacle of God shall be with men, and He will dwell
with them, and they shall be His people, and God himself shall be
with them, and be their God; and God shall wipe away all tears from
their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor
sighing, neither shall there be any more pain, for the former things
shall have passed away. Go forth, then, to the battle. Quit yourselves
like men. Be strong. Look to those ancient worthies who, through
faith, subdued kingdoms, stopped the mouths of lions, waxed valiant
in fight, turned to flight the armies of the alien. Fear not their
multitude nor their fury, for he that is with you is greater than your
enemies. Think on the persecuted state of Zion, and may the God of
battles be for a buckler and a defence unto you!”
A hum of approbation ran along the lines of the Covenanters at the
conclusion of this discourse, while the preacher called upon them to
join with him in praising the Almighty. The part chosen was that
eloquent passage of the eightieth psalm, where the Israelites are
spoken of under the similitude of a vine.
As the last note of this hymn ascended in solemn strains to the
lofty heaven, several of the scouts made their appearance, with jaded
horses, bringing the news that Aboyne was already on his march, and
approaching rapidly to Stonehaven. Orders were immediately given
to the army of the Covenanters to set out on their journey. These
were promptly obeyed, and, in a few hours, the armies met at Megray
Hill. This was announced to the Covenanters by their advanced
guard being driven back by the royalists. It was not, however,
Aboyne’s intention to hazard a general engagement, as his soldiers
were wearied by the march. But Montrose, dispatching a strong band
of infantry, supported by a detachment of cavalry, broke upon them
suddenly both in flank and rear, involved them in the greatest
confusion, and forced them to seek Aberdeen by a rapid flight, after
leaving a considerable number dead on the field. Montrose pursued
them, with the greatest possible dispatch, to Aberdeen, where they
made a stand. The Bridge of Dee was fortified in a very strong
manner, and protected by four field-pieces and a strong guard of the
citizens. Montrose made several attempts at forcing it, but was
vigorously repulsed by the defenders, who poured in a shower of
missiles with effect on the assailants, while they themselves were so
sheltered by their breastworks that they received little injury.
Montrose was obliged, therefore, to draw off his forces, and, as it was
evening, gave up the thought of any farther attack. Having found a
convenient place, he pitched his camp about a mile from the bridge,
and stationed his sentinels on the little eminences in its
neighbourhood, while those of Aboyne were planted on both sides of
the river for a considerable distance above and below the bridge.
Both armies, fatigued with the exertions of the day, availed
themselves of the repose offered by their situation, and in a short
time the busy hum of both camps was changed into stillness.
Our hero had accompanied the army during the march, with that
wonder and admiration which youthful minds feel in such spirit-
stirring scenes. The strictness of the military duty, the contempt of
danger, the degree of subordination and regularity that prevailed (for
the abilities of Montrose prevented that ruinous confusion which the
camp of the Covenanters too often exhibited), and the promptness
and patience with which the necessary commands were executed
made an impression on the mind of Basil strongly in favour of his
military life. The general, at the commencement of the march,
ordered him to be near his person, and by means, as the Covenanters
would have said, of a “soul-searching” conversation, contrived to get
a clear view of his character and worth. The opinion that he made up
was in favour of Basil, and he scrupled not to give him more direct
assurances of his favour than he had hitherto done. The honours that
had been paid him by this distinguished statesman and general gave
rise to a new train of ideas in his mind; and, as the army was
preparing for the night’s repose, he was charging the enemy at the
head of his own troops, succouring the distressed damsel, and
hurling unheard-of destruction on his foes. But the mightiest
conquerors have often found themselves conquered when they least
expected it; and, as the valiant Don Quixote felt his very soul
withering when thinking on the absence of his Dulcinea, so our hero
regarded the short time that he had been separated from his Mary to
be an age. An ugly river and a hostile army lay between him and his
love. If Leander swam across the Hellespont, surely he might cross
the Dee, and trust the rest to his prudence and good fortune.
His father was engaged with the general; so out he wandered, and,
by his correct local knowledge, succeeded in passing the various
sentinels, and getting to the banks of the river, a little below the
rocks called the Craig-lug, where he had the fortune to find a small
fishing-boat (for, so far back as the year 1290, Aberdeen is celebrated
in history for its salmon-fishings). He easily rowed himself across the
river, and, fastening the boat on the northern bank, stole along the
water’s edge, and entered that part of the town which, as fronting the
harbour, was not walled. He directed his course to the Broadgate,
and, as there were still several stragglers in the street, ensconced
himself behind a projecting shop till all should be quiet.
When he left the camp, the night was calm and serene. The breeze
that floated by was unable to curl the surface of the river, and the
moonbeams were dancing in silvery circles on the placid waters as
they gurgled by. But this was not of long continuance. The
atmosphere became quickly loaded with clouds, the moon was
obscured, the rain fell in torrents, and the sullen howling of the east
wind, with the hollow muttering of the thunder, indicated one of
those storms which not unfrequently disturb the beauty of summer.
Basil wrapped his cloak the closer around him, and hastened to the
provost’s house. All in it was dark and still. He knocked; but no one
returned an answer. Astonished at this, he endeavoured to open the
door, but it resisted his efforts. Being acquainted with all the
intricacies of the provost’s domicile, he gained admission by a
window, but found the house deserted of its inhabitants and stripped
of its furniture. Mary Leslie’s apartment was then the object of his
search. It was also desolate. Her lute, her books, and her landscapes
were all removed. In groping through the room, his hand fell on a
small picture, which the next flash of lightning discovered to be her
miniature. He pressed it to his lips and hid it in his bosom, regarding
it, as the holy man did the prophetic mantle, as the last unexpected
memorial of a lost friend. It would be vain to attempt to describe his
amazement at these appearances. He trembled for his friends, when
he knew the deeds of violence that were daily practised in these
perilous times. He determined to arouse the neighbourhood—to
search for, pursue, and destroy in one breath, all who had been any
way concerned in this outrage. Reason, however, came to his aid, and
he saw the utter uselessness of his attempting such a thing, except by
the assistance that he could obtain from the Covenanters. He
therefore turned sorrowfully to retrace his steps, which, from the
darkness of the night and the violence of the storm, was not an easy
matter. Having rowed himself across the river by the little boat, he
was making a circuit to reach the camp, when he saw a light at a
small distance from the landing-place. It proceeded from a hut that
was built at the foot of the rock for the accommodation of the
fishermen. Curious to know who were in it at this untimely hour, he
pressed forward, and listened to the following dialogue:—
“Ay! an’ will ye tell me that the possession of Joash, the Abiezrite,
wasna in Ophrah? But it’s just like a’ your fouk; ye ken naething
about the Scriptures, but daze yourselves wi’ that ill-mumbled mass,
the prayer-beuk. But your yill’s very gude, and far better than what
we have.”
“I doubtna, my lad,” said another voice; “your fouk are sae stocked,
I daresay Montrose is gaun to mak you a’ Nazarenes, for he gies you
neither wine nor strong drink.”
“Dinna speak lightly o’ the Scriptures, Sawnie Hackit; ye’re just a
blaspheming Shemei, or a time-serving Balaam.”
“Hout,” said Hackit, “gie’s nane o’ your foul-mou’d misca’ings. I
wunner what the deil garred you turn a Covenanter, Tammas
Granehard, for ye usedna to be that fond o’ covenants, unless it was
ane for a fou pint stoup at Jamie Jinks’ hostelry.”
“I wasna aye i’ the right way, Sandie, muckle to my shame; but
better late mend than never do weel; an’ I’m thinking it would be
better for you if ye would come wi’ us, for your fouk can never stand
ours, and, instead o’ getting share o’ the spuilzie, ye’ll maybe get but
a weel-clawed crown.”
“I doubtna but ye’re very right, Tammas; but what would come o’
my ten achisons ilka day, forby the jibble o’ drink, an’ my place at
Provost Leslie’s?”
“I’m doubtin’ your place there’ll no’ be worth muckle, if we tak the
town. The provost isna a man to be passed over, wha can sae weel
afford to pay for’s idolatry.”
“Did ye ever hear,” said Hackit, “o him ever losing ony thing when
the whigs had the town one day and the royalists the next?”
“Weel, Sandie,” said the other, “I canna just charge my memory wi’
ony thing o’ the kind; and gif it wasna, it was that God-fearing man,
Samuel Fairtext, that saved him.”
“Ay,” said Hackit; “and, when the royalists were here, it was the
jolly old cavalier that saved Fairtext. Troth, it’s the only wiselike
partnership that I ken o’ at present; for, if they had been baith whigs
or baith royalists, they would have been ruined out o’ house and ha’
ere this time. But, ye see, when the royalists were in the town,
Fairtext kept himself quiet, and they wadna meddle wi’ him on
Provost Leslie’s account. And now a’ the gudes are removed, an’ put
under Fairtext’s care; sae that the Covenanters wudna tak the value
of a shoe-tie frae him, for he can pray and grane as weel as ony o’
them. The provost and his dochter have left their ain house, and are
to dwell wi’ Fairtext till the danger be ower.”
By the latter part of this conversation, Basil felt as if the imaginary
weight of sorrow were removed from his bosom; but, instead of it, his
arms were pinioned on a sudden, by a strong physical force, so
firmly, that he was unable to move himself round to discover the
occasion of this unceremonious embrace.
“Come here, ye dotterels!” said a strong voice; “ye sit there, gabbin’
an’ drinkin’ awa, nae caring wha may be hearing you. An’ you, my
birkie, will better be as quiet ’s you can, or, deil tak me,—an’ I’m no
used to swear,—but I’ll scour my durk atween the ribs o’ ye.”
A couple of men now came out of the hut and assisted in dragging
Basil into it. As soon as they had forced him in, the person who had
first seized him quitted his hold, exclaiming, “Eh, sirs! is that you?”
Hackit also let him go, and Basil was able to look around him. There
was neither chair nor table in the booth, but turf seats around the
walls, plentifully littered with straw. A candle, fixed in the neck of an
empty bottle, illuminated the place, and revealed a goodly quantity of
bottles, with two or three horn drinking-cups on the floor, by which
it appeared that the party had been engaged in a debauch.
Thomas Granehard still kept his hold, and, in a stern voice,
demanded what he was?
“What the deil’s your business wi’ that?” said Hackit. “I ken him,
an’ that’s eneuch.”
“But I am strong in spirit,” muttered the Covenanter.
“The toom bottles testify that, to a certainty, Tammas,” said the
other. “But, never mind; get anither stoup, Geordie, an’ sit down,
Master Basil.”
“Blithely,” said Geordie; “and troth, Master Rolland, I didna ken it
was you, or I wudna hae handled you sae roughly. But sit down, for
it’s a coarse night.”
“I may not,” said Basil. “I must to the camp. But why do I find you
here?”
“Ou,” said Hackit, “ye see Geordie and me belangs to Aboyne, for
the provost sent a’ his servants to him. We’re upon the watch the
night, ye maun ken. But wha, i’ the name of the seventy disciples,
could stand thereout in a night like this? Sae we made up to the
Covenanters’ warders, and met in wi’ Tammas there, an auld
acquaintance; and we thought it best to come here and keep
ourselves warm wi’ sic liquor as we could get, and let the camps
watch themselves.”
“Do you know that you all expose yourselves to death for this
frolic?”
“There gang twa words to that bargain. We’ve done a’ that could be
reasonably expected,—we watched till the storm came.”
“Well, you are not accountable to me; I must depart.”
“Weel, a gude evening to you. But stop!—now that I mind—ye
maun gie me the pass-word.”
“The pass-word!” said Basil, in a tone of surprise.
“Ay, the pass-word! Ye see, Sergeant Clinker says to me, ‘Now,
Saunders, if ony ane comes to you that canna say Balgownie, ye’re to
keep him and bring him to me.’ Sae, for as weel’s I like you, Master
Basil, ye canna pass without it.”
“Balgownie, then,” said Basil laughing.
Hackit turned on his heel, saying it was “vera satisfactory,” when
Granehard remembered that he had got a similar injunction;
wherefore, making shift to steady himself a little by leaning on his
arquebuss, he delivered himself thus:—
“Beloved brethren,—I mean young man,—I, even I, have also
received a commandment from ancient Snuffgrace, saying, ‘Thou
shalt abstain from wine and strong drink; and whosoever cometh
unto thee that cannot give the pass, Tiglathpeleser, thou shalt by no
means allow him to escape, otherwise thou shalt be hanged on a tree,
as was the bloody Haman, the son of Hammedatha, the Agagite.’
Wherefore, now, repeat unto me the word—the light of the moon is
darkened—another cup, Sandie—woe to the Man of Sin—a fearsome
barking—dumb dogs—Malachi——” And he sank down in a state of
complete and helpless intoxication.
Basil earnestly advised Hackit and his companions to return
immediately to their posts, and retraced his steps to the camp, as the
reader may judge, not excessively gratified with the issue of the
night’s adventure.
Chapter IV.
With forkis and flales they lait grit flappis,
And flang togedder lyk freggis,
With bougars of barnis they best blew kappis,
Quhyle they of bernis made briggis;
The reird rais rudelie with the rappis,
Quhen rungis were layd on riggis,
The wyffis cam furth with cryis and clappis,
‘Lo! quhair my lyking liggis,’
Quo they;
At Christis Kirk on the Grene that day.—King James I.
Basil was dreaming about Mary Leslie when he was awakened by

the dreadful note of preparation. The bugles were sounding, men and
horses hurrying to and fro, and a body of Cameronians—or “hill-
fouk”—had formed themselves into a conventicle beside his tent, and
were listening with the greatest attention to a favourite preacher.
When he came out, the scene was beyond measure animating. There
was no trace of the late storm, and the little birds sang their
accustomed songs. All was bustle, both in the camp of the
Covenanters and that of the royalists. The latter were repairing the
fortifications of the bridge, which had suffered in the last night’s
attack. The royalists were already under arms, but Montrose had no
design of attacking them, till the ebbing of the tide should render the
lower fords passable in case he should be unable to force the bridge.
The Covenanters remained idle during the forenoon, while the
royalists stood in order of battle, uncertain as to the time of attack.
About two in the afternoon, the shrill sound of a bugle collected
the Covenanters to their standards; and Aboyne’s sentinels, who till
now had kept on the south bank of the river, fell back to the main
body. Our hero was ordered by Montrose to lead a body of horsemen
to the lower ford, to remain there till informed of the bridge’s being
taken, when he was to push to the town and guard Aboyne’s house
from being plundered, and seize on all papers that might be found in
it. He departed accordingly.

Spatial Minds Conceptual Correlations of Spatial Prepositions in Hungarian Croatian and English 1st Edition Irena Zovko Dinkovi Linda Gros

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Spatial Minds Conceptual Correlations of Spatial Prepositions in Hungarian Croatian and English 1st Edition Irena Zovko Dinkovi Linda Gros

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

Spatial Minds Conceptual Correlations of Spatial Prepositions in Hungarian Croatian and English 1st Edition Irena Zovko Dinkovi Linda Gros

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spatial Minds Conceptual Correlations

of Spatial Prepositions in Hungarian

Spatial Analysis Using Big Data: Methods and Urban

Fundamentals of Spatial Analysis and Modelling 1st

Spatial Readings and Linguistic Landscapes 1st Edition

Spatial Tensions in Urban Design: Understanding

Doing Spatial History 1st Edition Riccardo Bavaj

Spatial Dynamics and Pattern Formation in Biological

Imperial Infrastructure and Spatial Resistance in

Planning in a Failing State: Reforming Spatial

Irena Zovko Dinković and Linda Gros

By Irena Zovko Dinković and Linda Gros

This book first published 2018

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Copyright © 2018 by Irena Zovko Dinković and Linda Gros

ISBN (10): 1-5275-0639-8

List of Figures ........................................................................................... vii

List of Tables .............................................................................................. ix

Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1

Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 21

Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 29

Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 37

Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 57

Chapter Six ................................................................................................ 87

References ............................................................................................... 109

Figure 1. Radial category structure of a tree typical of (a) Mediterranean,

Table 1. Image schemas of the nine spatial notions................................... 22

Table 26. Comparison of mean values according to type of motion for

Nothing exists except atoms and empty space;

Spatial language is prevalent in every aspect of human life, which is

We can assume that communicating about spatial locations and movements

morphology, which tends to change more slowly. Thus, this study

PREPOSITIONS AND SPACE

Every language contains certain linguistic constructions that specify

1.1. Concepts and categorization

Figure 1. Radial category structure of a tree typical of (a) Mediterranean, (b)

There are many different features of categories, of which only a few

mountains a pine tree. This implies that categories are culturally

1.2. Prepositional meanings

well. In Figure 3, the concept of at is compared to three other concepts. In

Figure 2. The radial category structure of in (form)

Figure 3. The radial category structure of at (meaning)

different semantic field. Moreover, the overlapping meanings of some

Figure 4. Overlapping category borders

Spatial prepositions are highly polysemous, and determining their

Instead, in what he calls an “essay in stratificational semantics”,

[…] Since at, on and in occur in the realization of simple locative

The Gesamtbedeutung of an item […] is the general meaning that it has in

Picking up on this debate some twenty years later, Lindstromberg

words to recurring combinations of words, which, in the case of

comprising knowledge about basic as well as specific domains, knowledge

To arrive at a word’s meaning, we have to mentally abstract it from its

In describing the related senses of lexemes, cognitive linguists

In our rush to formulate network models, especially for prepositions, are

The prepositional meanings that I propose, which I call “ideal” or “core”

relation between two or three “ideal” geometric objects (points, lines,