semantics of prepositions, semantics, geometry of meaning, meaning, semantic domains, spatial domain, prepositions, semantic transformations


This article presents a unified approach to the semantics of prepositions based on the theory of conceptual spaces. Following the themes of my recent book The Geometry of Meaning, I focus on the convexity of their meanings and on which semantic domains are expressed by prepositions. As regards convexity, using polar coordinates turns out to provide the most natural representation. In addition to the spatial domain, I argue that for many prepositions, the force domain is central. In contrast to many other analyses, I also defend the position that prepositions have a central meaning and that other meanings can be derived via a limited class of semantic transformations.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.


Beliën, M. (2002). Force dynamics in static propositions: Dutch aan, op and tegen. In H. Cuyckens & G. Radden (Eds.), Perspectives on Prepositions (pp. 195-209). Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Beliën, M. (2008). Constructions, Constraints and Construal: Adpositions in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT Publications.

Bohnemeyer, J. (2012). A vector space semantics for reference frames in Yucatec. In E. Bogal-Allbritten (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting on the Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas (SULA 6) and SULA-Bar (pp. 15-34). Amherst: GLSA Publications.

Bowerman, M. (1996). Learning how to structure space for language: A cross-linguistic perspective. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. Garrett, (Eds.), Language and Space (pp. 385-436). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bowermann, M., & Choi, S. (2001). Shaping meanings for language: Universal and language-specific in the acquisition of semantic categories. In M. Bowerman, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 475-511). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bowermann, M., & Pedersen, E. (1992). Topological relations picture series. In S. C. Levinson (Ed.), Space stimuli kit 1.2 (pp. 40-50). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.

Brugman, C. (1981). Story of Over. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Linguistics Club.

Coseriu, E. (2003). Geschichte der Sprachphilosophie. Tübingen/Basel: Francke.

Coventry, K. R., Carmichael, R., & Garrod, S. C. (1994). Spatial prepositions, object-specific function and task requirements. Journal of Semantics, 11, 289-309.

Coventry, K. R., Prat-Sala, M., & Richards, L. (2001). The interplay between geometry and function in the comparison of over, under, above and below. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 376-398.

Dewell, R. (1994). Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 351-380.

Eschenbach, C., Tschander, L., Habel, C., & Kulik, L. (2000). Lexical specifications of paths. In C. Freksa, W. Brauer, C. Habel and K.F. Wender (Eds.), Spatial Cognition II. Integrating Abstract Theories, Empirical Studies, Formal Methods, and Practical Applications (pp. 127-144). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Fauconnier, G. (1990). Invisible meaning. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 390-404.

Feist, M. I., & Gentner, D. (1998). On plates, bowls, and dishes: Factors in the use of English IN and ON. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 345-349.

Gärdenfors, P. (2000). Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gärdenfors, P. (2014). The Geometry of Meaning: Semantics Based on Conceptual Spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gärdenfors, P. and Löhndorf, S. (2013). “What is a domain? – Dimensional structure versus meronomic relations”, Cognitive Linguistics, 24(3), 437-456.

Garrod, S. C., Ferrier, G., & Campbell, S. (1999). ’In’ and ‘on’: Investigating the functional geometry of spatial prepositions. Cognition, 72, 167-189.

Gehrke, B. (2008). Ps in Motion: On the Semantics and Syntax of P Elements and Motion Events. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht University.

Habel, C. (1989). Zwischen-Bericht. In C. Habel, M. Herweg, K. Rehkämper, (Eds.), Raumkonzepte in Verstehensprozessen (pp. 37-69). Tübingen: Niemeyer

Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Holmqvist, K. (1993). Implementing Cognitive Semantics. Lund: Lund University Cognitive Studies 17.

Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kreitzer, A. (1997). Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 291-325.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Landau, B., & Jackendoff, R. (1993). ’What’ and ‘where’ in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 217-265.

Leibniz, G. W. (1765). Nouveaux essais sur l’entendement humain. In Philosophische Schriften, vol. VI (pp. 39–527). Berlin: Akademie.

Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Malyneux’s question: Cross-linguistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson, L. Nadel and M. Garret (Eds.), Language and space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 109-170.

McIntyre, A. (2007). Functional interpretations: Borderline idiosyncrasy in prepositional phrases and other expressions. Retrieved from http://www2.unine.ch/files/content/sites/andrew.mcintyre/files/shared/mcintyre/functional.pdf.

Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and Perception. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Nikitina, T. (2008). Pragmatic factors and variation in the expression of spatial goals: The case of into vs. in. In A. Asbury, J. Dotlačil, B. Gehrke, & R. Nouwen (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P (pp. 175-195). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Talmy, L. (1996). Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and Space (pp. 211-276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Talmy, L (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 77, 724-765.

Vandeloise, C. (1986). L’espace en français: sémantique des prépositions spatiales. Paris: Editions du Seuil.

Van der Gucht, F., Klaas, W., & De Cuypere, L. (2007). The iconicity of embodied meaning. Polysemy of spatial prepositions in the cognitive framework. Language Sciences, 29, 733-754.

Van der Zee, E., & Watson, M. (2004). Between space and function: How spatial and functional features determine the comprehension of between. In L. Carlson, & E. van der Zee, (Eds.), Functional Features in Language and Space: insights from perception, categorization and development (pp. 116-127). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zlatev, J. (2003). Polysemy or generality? Mu. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics (pp. 447-494). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Zwarts, J. (2005). Prepositional aspect and the algebra of paths. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28, 739-779.

Zwarts, J. (2010). Semantic map geometry: Two approaches. Linguistic Discovery, 8, 377-395.

Zwarts, J. & Gärdenfors, P. (submitted). Locative and directional prepositions in conceptual spaces: The role of polar convexity.

Zwarts, J., & Winter, Y. (2000). Vector space semantics: A model-theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 9, 171-213.