Abstract
The paper singles out English orientating constructions which refer to constant coordinates meant to position situational changeable entities, e.g. at eye level, on hand, in part, in detail. The analysis of constructions denoting location reveals their entrenchment in mind in the basic – articleless – form representing situation coordinates on the superordinate categorization level. Orientating constructions have two discursive variants depending upon the article in their structure: definite and indefinite. The definite article refers to the reference points imposed by a particular situation which is signalled by the combination of orientating and extending constructions while the indefinite article points to the establishment of new coordinates.
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2008. The actuality adverbs ‘in fact’, ‘actually’, ‘really’ and ‘indeed’ – establishing similarities and differences. Proceedings of the BAAL Conference 2007, 111-120. London: Scitsiugnil Press.
Balaga, Monika. 2004. From the actual to the virtual. On the semantics of the preposition ‘on’. In Kardela, Henryk & Sullivan, William J. & Głaz, Adam (eds.), Perspectives on Language, 23-32. Lublin: UMCS.
Berezowski, Leszek. 2009. The myth of the zero article. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Burridge, Kate & Stebbins, Tonya N. 2016. For the love of language: An introduction to linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clausner, Timothy C. & Croft, William. 1999. Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics 10(1). 1-31.
Collins: Collins Dictionary; https://www.collinsdictionary.com (Accessed 2018-04-05).
Contini-Morava, Ellen & Tobin, Yishai. 2000. Introduction. In Contini-Morava, Ellen & Tobin, Yishai (eds.), Between Grammar and Lexicon, xiii-xxix. Amsterdam (Phil.): John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2010. Language, mind and brain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Diehl, Randy L. & Kluender, Keith R. & Foss, Donald J. & Parker, Ellen M. & Gernsbacher, Morton A. 1987. Vowels as islands of reliability. Journal of Memory and Language 26(5). 564-573.
Drozdowicz, Ariadna. 2001. The image-schematic profile of the English preposition in. Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici (English studies X. Humanities and Social Sciences (345)). 17-37.
Eckhoff, Hanne M. 2011. Old Russian possessive constructions: A construction grammar approach. Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
Evans, Vyvyan & Green, Melanie. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Goddard, Cliff. 2002. Оn and on. Cognitive Linguistics 13(3). 277-294.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Construction at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, Mark. 2005. The philosophical significance of image schemas. In Hampe, Beate & Grady, Joseph E. (eds.), From Perception to Meaning. Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, 15-33. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
LDOCE: Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 2001. Harlow: Longman.
Lewis, Diana M. 2006. Discourse markers in English: A discourse-pragmatic view. In Fischer, Kerstin (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles, 43-59. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Lyons, Chistopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Macmillan: Macmillan Dictionary; https://www.macmillandictionary.com (Accessed 2018-04-05).
MWD: Merriam-Webster Dictionary; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/time (Accessed 2018-04-05).
Nattinger, James R. & DeCarrico, Jeanette S. 1992. Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oxforddictionaries: Oxford Dictionaries: English Dictionary, Thesaurus, & grammar help; https://en.oxford-dictionaries.com (Accessed 2018-04-05).
Potapenko, Serhiy. 2016. Cognitive rhetoric of effect: energy flow as a means of persuasion in inaugurals. Topics in Linguistics 17(2).
Quirk, Randolph & Greenbaum, Sydney & Leech, Geoffrey & Starvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Reid, Wallis. 2004. Monosemy, homonymy and polysemy. In Contini-Morava, Ellen & Kirsner, Robert S. & Rodrigez-Bachiller, Betsy (eds.), Cognitive and Communicative Approaches to Linguistic Analysis, 131-150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of Categorization. In Rosch, Eleanor & Lloyd, Barbara B. (eds.), Cognition and Categorization, 27-48. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schwenter, Scott A. & Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2000. Invoking scalarity: The development of in fact. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(1). 7-25.
Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, John R. 2007. Ten Lectures on Applied Cognitive Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Tomasello, Michael. 2000. First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics 11(1/2). 61-82.
Tyler, Andrea & Evans, Vyvyan. 2003. The Semantics of English Prepositions. Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wible, David. 2010. Multiword expressions and the digital turn. In Meunier, Fanny & Granger, Sylviane (eds.), Phraseology in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching, 163-181. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zeschel, Arne. 2009. What’s (in) a construction? In Evans, Vyvyan (ed.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, 185-200. Bangor: Bangor University Press.
License
Copyright (c) 2017 Nataliia Talavira
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.