FACTORS RELEVANT TO THE USE OF LOCATIVE NOUNS IN ENGLISH
Olga N. Prokhorova, Elena V. Pupynina, Igor V. Chekulay, V ladim ir S. Pugach
Belgorod State University, 308015, Belgorod, Pobeda Street, 85 (RUSSIA)
E-mails: prokhorova@ bsu.edu.ru, pu pynina@ bsu.edu.ru, chekulai@ bsu.edu.ru, pugach@ bsu.edu.ru DOI: 10.7813/jll.2015/6-2/44
Received: 12 Feb, 2015 Accepted: 18 Mar, 2015
A B S T R A C T
One of the im portant issues of spatial language research is w hat factors influence the use of spatial term s. The article focuses on spatial term s such as 'position' and 'area' as im portant com ponents of spatial language and explores if the ir production and com prehension are affected by the sam e general factors that w ork for the core spatial term s. It is shown that the locative nouns' usage patterns em ploy the sam e properties of spatial scenes - geom etric and functional - but in a different way: 'position' refers to the topological aspect of space w hereas 'area' refers to the m eronym ic aspect of space.
K ey w o rd s : spatial language, spatial cognition, geom etric factors, functional factors, locative nouns 1. INTR O D U C TIO N
S im ilarly to other conceptual dom ains, spatial dom ain can be represented by different language m eans, i. e. by separate language units, for example, by prepositions, by certain types of utterances, for exam ple, by the construction 'som ething is som ew here', by the w hole texts, for example, route directions. However, spatial dom ain is regarded as fundam ental in cognitive system and as structural basis to m e taphorically convey other dom ains of knowledge.
P repositions are the prototypical language units to represent spatial know ledge therefore they have been studied most intensively and there is considerable body of knowledge about how they function in language use. However, there is m uch to be explored in other areas of spatial language. This article focuses on abstract spatial term s such as 'position' and 'area'. In contrast to prepositions they do not directly nam e spatial relations but they nam e the whole spatial scenes or the ir fragm ents. Taking into consideration that spatial relations encoded in prepositions are parts of those spatial scenes we expect that factors influencing the use of prepositions may also influence the use of the nouns in question.
W hat factors influence the use of spatial term s is one of the im portant issues of spatial language research [1- 3].
Recent works show that know ledge associated w ith a de finite language unit is far more com plex tha n th a t of spatio- geom etric properties of the spatial scene. It even applies to prepositions as core com ponents of spatial language.
Thus, V. Evans w rites about the sim ple relations m odel w hich focuses only on the so-called sim ple relations, i. e.
geom etric, in accounting for param eters responsible fo r the use of prepositions. He notes th a t this m odel is not com plete and that correct interpretation of 'spatial' lexical concepts requires the ir functional understanding. By functional he m eans the follow ing. “To understand how language users em ploy the core ‘sp a tia l’ lexical concept of a preposition w e m ust also allow for non-spatial param eters w hich form part of the linguistic content encoded by the lexical concept. The use of the term
‘fun ctiona l’ is m otivated by th e observation th a t such non-spatial param eters are a functional consequence of hum anly relevant interactions w ith the spatio-geom etric properties in question” [4].
C oventry et al confirm that “there is now a large body of evidence docum enting the im portance of a range of so- called ‘extra-g eom e tric’ variables that affect the com prehension and production of a range of spatial prepositions” [5]. They com e to the conclusion th a t “spatial language com prehension is associated with a situational representation of how objects usually function, and thus can invoke a range of types of perceptual sim ulations, including m otion processing w here attention is directed to objects not m entioned in the sentence to be evaluated” [5].
The im portance of functional factor and its close relations, even indissociability, with geom etric factor in the production and com prehension of spatial language is now evidenced by m any researchers [6, 7].
S ignificance of the functional com ponent of spatial knowledge is understandable as the central point in spatial representation is a human being for w hom space is not limited to a set of geom etric properties but it is where everything exists and serves purpose.
A nother factor th a t is param ount for producing and interpreting spatial language is Figure-G round alignm ent [8, 9].
The term s taken from G estalt psychology has proved th e ir productivity in relation to sem antic events of m otion and location.
L. Talm y defines the tw o term s for the use in linguistic sem antics in the follow ing way. “The Figure object is a m oving or conceptually m ovable point w hose path or site is conceived as a variable the particular value of w hich is the salient issue.
The G round object is a reference-point, having a statio nary setting w ithin a reference-fram e, with respect to w hich the Figure's path or site receives characterization” [8].
These general factors of spatial language use are relevant for understanding abstract spatial nouns described in this article.
2. METHODS
This research em ploys usage-based approach w hich accounts for how language is used in real situations and contexts. “Central to the usage-based position is the hypothesis that instances of use im pact the cognitive representation of language... Exem plar representations are rich m em ory representations; they contain, at least potentially, all the inform ation a language user can perceive in a linguistic experience. This inform ation consists of ph onetic detail, including redundant and
|
216
variable features, the lexical item s and constructions used, the m eaning, inferences made fro m this m eaning and from the context, and properties of the social, physical and linguistic context” [10].
In line w ith this approach our research focuses on the contexts in w hich spatial nouns occur m ost frequently. The contexts may be represented as collocations, constructions or even situations. Q uantitative studies are im portant for a usage-based approach as the y give the idea of the scope of experience w ith language.
Corpus study w as used to collect the nouns' patterns of use and to perform quantitative analysis of the language data. The corpus that served these purposes w as the British National Corpus. Q uantitative study w as follow ed by sem antic analysis of the collected language data.
3. MAIN PART
The patterns of use of the spatial nouns show w hat features of spatial scenes becom e salient. For 'position' geom etric factor is im portant. The definition of the noun is the follow ing: position - “the w a y som eone stands or sits, or the direction in w hich an object is pointing” (Longm an D ictionary of C ontem porary English. Edinburgh, 2000). The definition shows that 'position' focuses attention on object's spatial relation to the environm ent or the relation of object's parts to each other. The frequent situations in w hich 'position' occurs are those of human functional states: a standing/sitting/lying position.
S ituationally dependent functional postures, i. e. those that are taken to perform certain actions in contrast to the m entioned above that are connected with biological nature of a human being are kneeling/sq uattin g position. O ther collocations represent types of the functional states m entioned above: upright position (=sitting/standing), lotus position (=sitting), prone po sition (=lying), supine po sitio n (=lying), straddle position (=sitting/standing). G eom etric variants of the functional states are represented by collocations with dim ensional adjectives such as vertical/horizontal po sition and top/m iddle/low position, fro nt/b ack position, rig h t/le ft position.
The properties described above are also revealed in com parative analysis of nouns 'position' and 'place'. 'Place' im plies that object is fixed in space. This noun's usage in the context with motion verbs refers to the forw ard m ovem ent as it is shown in the follow ing example: We k e p t m o ving from pla ce to place. The sentence dem onstrates that m otion leads to the change of place, it im plies covering som e distance. The follow ing sentence also contains the verb 'm ove' but as a com ponent of the context fo r the noun 'position': The dancers m o ved from p o sitio n to position. C om pared to the previous exam ple, in this one there is no distance being covered, no change of place, there is m ovem ent of the parts of the body in relation to each other. Since in both exam ples the sam e construction is used with the only difference in the nouns tha t are the com ponents of the construction, it is the spatial nouns tha t are responsible for the difference observed.
So, the use of the noun 'position' proves the im portance of both geom etric and functional factors. C onfiguration of the parts of the object m ay be purely spatial or m ay be conjoined w ith functional states.
The use of the noun 'area' is influenced by Figure and G round alignm ent. It is worth noting that the use of the noun does not only dem onstrate how Figure and G round are perceived but it also produces evidence for how bounds are im posed on com ponents of spatial scenes via language. Spatial scene construed by language has salient com ponents dependent on the Figure and G round reversals, w hich is the result of active processing of the visual inform ation. S em antic variability of the locative nouns especially of the noun 'area' is relevant for referring to spatial scenes w hose configuration m ay be various depending on how the y are perceived.
The com ponent of the spatial scene is conceptualised as Figure in the noun's collocations w ith adjectives: ne arby area, adjoining area, sep arate area, surroun ding area. Sim ilar conceptualisations are found in the follow ing com binations:
both areas, som e areas, groups o f areas, m a ny areas, m o st areas, a ll areas.
Figure-G round alignm ent is naturally dem onstrated in the use of the noun 'area' w ith prepositions as the prevailing factor of the ir functioning is geom etric. In the follow ing collocations 'area' represents G round: w ithin the area, in the area, into the area, to the area, through the area, along the area, throughout the area.
Fragm ent of the spatial scene named by the noun 'area' is conceptualised as G round w hen th e spatial scene is perceived as filled w ith objects. There are several contextual patterns of this kind in w hich 'area' occurs. They include the follow ing:
a) 'Area' in com bination with the verb 'fill', that conceptualises the scene as filled w ith objects: The courthouse was one side o f a large square, and the area was alre ady filled w ith people m illing about, laughing and c h a tterin g...
b) The noun 'area' in com bination w ith “ge om etric” verbs: A ll three operas are s e t in the B ingen-B iebrich-M ainz area w hich is do tted w ith castles, fortresses, and n otable rock form ations.
c) The noun 'area' in the context with language units conveying the idea of presence of som ething in the spatial scene: A n excess o f endem ics in S inai is pe rhap s due to the unusually vast area and the presence w ithin this area o f high m ountains.
d) There is / are construction as part of the clause referring to the noun 'area': It was recognized tha t Tyrone was lik e ly to be the area in w hich there w ould be a ctivity subsequent to the activities in Belfast.
e) The use of the noun 'area' in the X of Y construction that may be transform ed into a clause w ith there is / are construction : It is an area o f (=w here there are) curious ro ck form ations and small, na rrow valleys.
S patio-geom etric factor in the use of the noun 'area' is bound with functional factor. The im portance of the latter is shown in the follow ing contexts:
a) In com bination w ith 'use', 'exploit', 'serve' and sim ilar verbs: The area is used m a in ly fo r live sto ck production. They exp lo it various pa rts o f the area fo r diffe ren t purposes.
b) In collocations w here the dependent com ponent describes various spheres of human activity: vacation area, m anufacturing area, indu strial area, w ork area, sw im m ing area, recreation area, picnic area, dining area.
c) In collocations with the preposition 'for': area fo r fo rm a l affairs, area fo r info rm al entertaining, p la y areas fo r the yo u n g and yo u n g a t heart, p la y area fo r the you ng ones to use som e energy, areas fo r visitor inform ation display.
It is evident that the use of the noun 'area' reveals the im portance of both geom etric and functional factors.
4. CONCLUSION
R esearch into spatial language in cognitive linguistics is m ostly concentrated on prepositions as core linguistic means of representing spatial relations. O ther areas of spatial dom ain do not enjoy equal scope of attention from researchers. This article is aimed at filling in this gap by focusing on the study of the locative nouns 'position' and 'area'.
|
217
In the research presented here, it is hypothesized that production and understanding of the locative nouns in question may be influenced by the sam e factors that prove their relevance for the use of prepositions.
The abundance of research on prepositions de m onstrates the im portance of several factors in the ir use. However, there is a grow ing body of evidence that know ledge underlying prepositions m ay be more com plex than that associated with one factor and may represent interplay of various factors. A m ong the most significant ones there are spatio-geom etric and functional factors. Equally im portant is Figure-G round alignm ent, tha t is alm ost unquestionable param eter of spatial scenes since it m anifests one of the most im portant properties of human perception.
Employing usage-based approach our research focuses on the contexts in w hich spatial nouns occur most frequently. The contexts m ay be represented as collocations, constructions or even situations.
Usage patterns in w hich the noun 'position' occurs show that it refers to an object's spatial relation to the environm ent or the relation of an object's parts to each other. C onfiguration of the parts of the object m ay be purely spatial or m ay be conjoined with functional states, w hich proves the im portance of both geom etric and functional factors.
Usage patterns in w hich the noun 'area' occurs fall into tw o groups: geom etric factor group and functional factor group. The form er is subdivided into area-as-Figure subgroup and area-as-G round subgroup. S patio-geom etric factor in the use of the noun 'area' is bound w ith functional factor.
The interrelation of tw o factors and Figure-G round variation in the use of the noun also show that describing spatial scenes a hum an being defines functional fragm ents of space as areas creating boundaries w here the y are not shaped geom etrically.
O ur research show s that production and understanding of the locative nouns in question are influenced by the sam e factors tha t prove th e ir relevance fo r the use of prepositions.
A lthough the use of the tw o locative nouns is influenced by the sam e factors the w ay geom etric and functional properties of spatial scenes are em ployed in the use of each noun is quite different. The analysis of the most frequent usage patterns allows to differentiate the tw o nouns in the follow ing way. The noun 'position' refers to the topological aspect of space w hereas the noun 'area' refers to the m eronym ic aspect of space.
5. RESULTS
1. A bstract locative nouns are im portant com ponents of spatial language w hose production and com prehension are affected by th e sam e general factors that w ork fo r the core spatial term s: geom etric factor, functional factor, Figure-G round alignm ent.
2. The locative nouns' usage patterns em ploy the sam e properties of spatial scenes - geom etric and functional - but in a different way.
3. The noun 'position' refers to an object's spatial relation to the environm ent or the relation of an object's parts to each other. C onfiguration of the parts of the object m ay be purely spatial or may be conjoined with functional states, w hich proves the im portance of both geom etric and functional factors.
4. In description of spatial scenes functional fragm ents of space are defined as areas creating boundaries w here they are not shaped geom etrically.
5. The noun 'position' refers to the topological aspect of space w hereas the noun 'area' refers to the m eronym ic aspect of space.
REFERENCES
1. Landau B., and Jackendoff R., 1993. “W h a t” and ‘W h e re ” in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16: 217-265.
2. C arlson L.A., and van der Zee E., 2005. Functional features in language and space: insights from perception, categorization, and developm ent. Oxford University Press, pp: 400.
3. Feist M.I., and G entner D., 2012. M ultiple Influences on the Use of English Spatial Prepositions: The C ase of
“ in” and “ on” . In C ross-D isciplinary A dvances in A pplied Natural Language Processing: Issues and A pproaches, Eds., B oonthum -D enecke, С., P. M. M cC arthy and T. Lamkin. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp: 305- 323.
4. Evans, V., 2010. From the spatial to the non-spatial: The 'state' lexical concepts of in, on and at. In Language, C ognition and Space: The S tate of The A rt and New Directions, Eds., Evans, V. and P. Chilton. London:
Equinox publishing, pp: 215-248. P. 218.
5. Coventry, K.R., D. Lynott, A. Cangelosi, L. Monrouxe, D. Joyce, and D.C. R ichardson, 2010. Spatial language, visual attention, and perceptual sim ulation. Brain and language, 112(3): 202-213. P. 203, P. 212.
6. Langacker, R.W., 2010. Reflections on the Functional C haracterization of Spatial Prepositions. Corela.
C ognition, representation, langage, HS-7. Date V iew s 15.03.2015 http://corela.revue s.org /999.
7. M iller J.E., and C arlson L.A., 2013. Functional effects in spatial language. In Language and A ction in Cognitive N euroscience, Eds., Coello, Y. and A. Bartolo. Psychology Press, pp: 193-208.
8. Talm y, L. 2011. Figure and ground in com plex sentences. In P roceedings of the A nnual M eeting of the B erkeley Linguistics Society, 1(1): 419-430. P. 419.
9. Thiering, M. 2011. Figure-ground reversals in language. G estalt theory, 33(3/4): 245-276.
10. Bybee, J. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. C am bridge U niversity Press, pp: 252. P. 14.
|