Abstract

Prepositions retain aspects of spatial meaning in abstract contexts Anja Jamrozik ([email protected]) Department of Psychology, Northwestern University 2029 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208 USA Dedre Gentner ([email protected]) Department of Psychology, Northwestern University 2029 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208 USA Abstract Prepositions such as in and on convey not only spatial relationships between objects, but also abstract relationships, such as ‘Mary is in love’ and ‘Tim’s on a roll’. Although such uses are often thought to be purely idiomatic, we hypothesized that these abstract, non-spatial relationships might preserve one specific aspect of prepositions’ spatial meaning: the degree to which the figure or the ground controls the figure-ground relationship (Coventry, 1992; Coventry, Carmichael & Garrod, 1994; Feist & Gentner, We found that locus of control distinguishes in and on in common abstract metaphorical contexts (e.g., in love/on a roll), matched abstract contexts (e.g., in/on time), and novel abstract contexts. These findings suggest that prepositions retain aspects of their spatial meaning when used abstractly. Keywords: metaphor prepositions; spatial language; semantics; Introduction Spatial prepositions such as in and on are often used abstractly to describe non-spatial relationships. For example, we use the same preposition in to describe the spatial relationship between two objects, such as ‘an orange in a bowl’, and to describe the abstract relationship between a person and an emotional state, such as ‘Mary is in love’. Such uses are highly frequent: approximately 40% of preposition use is metaphorical (Steen, Dorst, Herrmann, Kaal, Krennmayr, & Pasma, 2010). The high frequency of these abstract metaphorical uses makes it important to know whether there is some underlying regularity in this usage. Are there patterns of in and on use that remain stable across spatial and non-spatial contexts? It is generally assumed that the answer is no: that is, that abstract uses of in and on are idiomatic and follow no patterns. Intuitively, the abstract uses of on, such as 'on a roll', 'on the way', or 'on time' do not seem to have much in common with each other, nor do they form an obvious contrast with abstract uses of in such as 'in a fury', 'in the presentation, or 'in earnest'. Indeed, the idea that the abstract uses of prepositions are idiosyncratic and lack any regularity is stated quite explicitly in educational materials designed to teach English as a second language. Books designed to teach prepositions to non-native speakers advise students to learn preposition uses on a case-by-case basis. For example, a popular guide to prepositions suggests that abstract uses such as ‘in time’ and ‘on time’ are entirely different from spatial uses of these prepositions and must be learned individually (Yates, 1999). Thus, according to the commonly held view, there is no systematic mapping from spatial meanings to abstract meanings for in and on; abstract uses of these prepositions simply convey frozen, idiomatic meanings. But perhaps this pessimistic view is premature. After all, there is considerable evidence that spatial language can be used to structure how we talk about more abstract concepts (e.g. Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). For example, spatial terms can be used systematically to describe affective states (Nagy, 1974), such as when we say that someone is feeling low or that someone’s spirits rose. Spatial terms can also be used to describe communication (e.g., an idea getting across to someone) (Reddy, 1979) and to talk about time (e.g., autumn is ahead of us or summer is behind us) (e.g., Boroditsky, 2000; Clark, 1973; Gentner, Imai, & Boroditsky, 2002; Heine, 1997; Traugott, 1978). Given that spatial terms can often be mapped systematically to abstract domains while retaining many aspects of their spatial meaning, we asked whether the same is true of the prepositions in and on. Factors that distinguish between in and on Two factors that have been found to distinguish spatial uses of in and on in English are geometry and function. Generally, in is more likely to be used if the geometry of the figure-ground relationship is one of inclusion of the figure in the ground (Miller & Johnson-Laird, 1976; Herskovits, 1986; Cienki, 1989; Bowerman & Pederson, 1992; Coventry, Carmichael, & Garrod, 1994). Additionally, the more concave the ground is (and thus able to contain the figure) the more likely we are to use in rather on to describe the spatial relationship (Herskovits, 1986; Feist & Gentner, 2003). A second factor that determines whether in or on will be used is the function of the figure and the ground (e.g., Bowerman & Pederson, 1992; Coventry, 1992; Coventry, Carmichael, & Garrod, 1994; Coventry & Garrod, 2004; Coventry & Prat-Sala, 2001; Feist, 2008; Feist & Gentner, 2003; Garrod & Sanford, 1989). For example, in is more likely to be used if the ground typically functions as a container for the figure (Coventry, Carmichael, & Garrod, 1994; Coventry & Garrod, 2004; Feist & Gentner, 2003). While these two factors are very important in distinguishing spatial preposition meaning, it is unclear how