Distributed Spatial Semantics

Nordic Journal of Linguistics http://journals.cambridge.org/NJL Additional services for Nordic

Journal of Linguistics:

Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here

Distributed Spatial Semantics Chris Sinha and Tania Kuteva Nordic Journal of Linguistics / Volume 18 / Issue 02 / December 1995, pp 167 - 199 DOI: 10.1017/S0332586500000159, Published online: 22 December 2008

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0332586500000159 How to cite this article: Chris Sinha and Tania Kuteva (1995). Distributed Spatial Semantics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 18, pp 167-199 doi:10.1017/ S0332586500000159 Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/NJL, IP address: 58.20.50.174 on 16 Jun 2015

Distributed Spatial Semantics1 Chris Sinha & Tania Kuteva Sinha, C. & Kuteva, T. 1995. Distributed Spatial Semantics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 18, 167-199. The "local semantics" approach to the analysis of the meaning of locative particles (e.g. spatial prepositions) is examined, criticized and rejected. An alternative, distributed approach to spatial relational semantics and its linguistic expression is argued for. In the first part of the paper, it is argued that spatial relational semantic information is not exclusively carried in languages such as English by the locative particle, and that "item-specific meanings plus selectional restrictions" cannot save the localist approach. In the second part of the paper, the "covertly" distributed spatial relational semantics of languages such as English is contrasted with the "overtly" distributed spatial relational semantics characterizing many other languages. Some common assumptions relating to the universality of the expression of spatial relational meaning by closed syntactic classes are criticized. A change of perspective from "local" to "distributed" semantics permits the re-analysis of polysemy and item-bound "use-type" in terms of the distributed expression of language-specific spatial relational semantic types. Chris Sinha, University of Aarhus, Institute of Psychology, Asylvej 4, 8240 Risskov, Denmark. Email: psykcgs@aau. dk.

INTRODUCTION Existing approaches to the semantic analysis of locative particles (e.g. English spatial prepositions) presuppose a local semantics for these lexemes.2 That is, it is assumed that the semantic content which they bear is distributed paradigmatically over the single form-class. To put it more simply, it is assumed that spatial relational meaning (see below for a definition of this) is carried by the locative particle, and only by the locative particle. This is, by definition, the basic assumption of all kinds of contrastive analysis, since contrastively-derived meaning components postulated for, e.g., prepositions, are components of prepositional meaning, and not of the meanings of other form classes. Indeed, the localist assumption, as applied to locative particle meaning, is simply a generalization from the traditional approach to lexical semantics which derives features from contrastive analysis (Lyons 1977; Cruse 1986). The contrastive approach to lexical semantics works quite well for open classes like nouns, and also for some semi-closed sub-classes expressing the kind of restricted semantic domains (e.g. kinship terms) that psycholinguists and cognitive anthropologists are frequently concerned with. Locative particles are commonly understood to constitute a closed syntactic class for all languages, and the semantic domain of spatial relations is by most accounts restricted (Talmy 1983; Landau and

168 Jackendoff 1993; Svorou 1994). It is also (though we shall challenge this assumption) frequently assumed that the spatial relational semantics of a given language may adequately be analyzed by paying exclusive attention to closed class "spatial grams" (Note 2). However, a contrastive approach is generally acknowledged to be difficult to apply to locative particle meaning. As Miller and Johnson-Laird (1976:394) put it "locative prepositions are a heterogeneous collection of special-purpose devices exhibiting little of the contrastive or hierarchical simplicity of color names or kin terms." The localist assumption is not, however, restricted to contrastive approaches, being also a common assumption of stratificational and procedural spatial semantic analyses employing non-contrastive features (e.g. Bennett 1975; Miller and Johnson-Laird 1976). A number of wellknown analyses in cognitive semantics, such as Brugman's analysis of the semantics of the English preposition over (Brugman 1981; Lakoff 1987), also assume that spatial relational meaning is carried by the preposition, and only by the preposition. Although it is widely held, the localist assumption is rarely explicitly argued for in relation to spatial meaning (see Landau and Jackendoff 1993, for a rare exception). Its applicability to the class of locative particles is, however, questionable, because of the often-remarked strong dependence of the contextual meaning of the locative particle upon the meanings of syntagmatically co-present items. We cite Miller and Johnson-Laird (1976) again, who point out that: "Semantic analysis of spatial locatives is complicated by strong interdependencies between the preposition and the relatum . . . selectional restrictions in English are complex and often seem arbitrary, but it is not possible to analyze spatial locatives without taking into account the kinds of landmarks that can serve as their relata." (p. 380). It is this contextual dependence (remarked upon but not analyzed by Miller and Johnson-Laird, and also referred to by several of the commentators upon Landau and Jackendoff 1993) which we shall analyze and attempt to account for in this paper. We shall argue that an adequate analysis requires the abandonment of the localist approach, and the analysis of how spatial relational meaning is syntagmatically distributed over simultaneous selections from closed and open form classes. At this point, it is important to define exactly what we mean by spatial relational meaning. We are concerned with the characterization of a referential situation in terms of the static or dynamic spatial relationship obtaining between one object (variously referred to in the literature as Ground, Landmark, Reference Object, Relatum), whose location is usually assumed by the speaker to be known by the hearer; and another object (variously referred to as Figure, Trajector, Target, Referent),

169 usually smaller than the other object, whose location or change of location is specified in relation to the location of the other object and its parts and region(s). In this paper we adopt the terminology of Landmark (LM) and Trajector (TR) (Langacker 1987). Thus, we are concerned exclusively with spatial meaning, and for the most part only with that aspect of spatial meaning which encodes relations. Our definition of spatial relational meaning does not cover other (non-relational) aspects of spatial meaning, such as information about the size, shape, configuration, disposition or manner of movement of single referents, such as might be conveyed by English adjectives (e.g. long), or verbs of motion (e.g. walk, slip). The relational meanings with which we are centrally concerned are those which are indeed most frequently conveyed in English by prepositions (e.g. in, on, under, in front of). Despite the predominance of the localist assumption, a strong or simple-minded version of it can easily be demonstrated to be false. Such a version would hold that, in any given language, spatial relational meanings are exclusively expressed, at a systemic level, by closed class "spatial grams". This is clearly not the case, even in English. Some verbs of motion (e.g. enter) and dispositional manner (e.g. straddle) convey spatial relational information such that a spatial relationship between a Landmark and a Trajactor is necessitated and specified, without requiring the co-presence of any closed class item. Thus, spatial relational meaning is not exclusively expressed by the English form-class of prepositions. This point is uncontroversial, and has frequently been made in relation to spatial meaning in general. Bennett (1993) for example, points out that "given that spatial information is expressed by prepositions {in, inside), adverbs {nearby, inside), verbs {enter, contain), adjectives {long, thin), and nouns {top, inside), and given the close relationship between such (nonsynonymous) expressions as inside the jar and on the inside of the jar, it seems unlikely that the semantic representations which we derive, in the process of understanding utterances, are segregated into sections deriving from different parts of speech" (p. 239). Bennett does not, in this passage, however, draw a distinction between spatial relational meaning and other aspects of spatial meaning; nor does he relate the phenomenon of the multiple linguistic means of expression of spatial meaning to the contextual dependency of prepositional meaning. Attempting to elucidate the relationship between these two issues in spatial semantics is the main goal of this paper. Our principal (though not exclusive) focus will be upon cases in which a locative particle is present, and expresses spatial relational meaning. Our argument is that even in these cases, the spatial relational meaning is not mapped exclusively to the locative particle, but is distributed over other elements in the syntagm as well.

170 We shall build initially upon a large body of work in spatial cognitive semantics, which emphasises the interaction between the meaning of a preposition and the meaning of the Noun Phrase denoting the Landmark, as proposed in the passage by Miller and Johnson-Laird cited above (see, in addition to other studies cited above, Herskovits (1986), Vandeloise (1991)). This interaction is typically seen in cognitive semantics as resulting in a conceptual image schematization of the referential situation.3 For example, the English preposition ON can be used in both the following ways: (1) the book is ON the table (2) the picture is ON the wall Clearly, the image schematizations of the two referential situations are different, and it is the specification of the Landmark which is responsible for the different readings of the preposition. The image schematization of the referential situation can then be seen to be the outcome of an interaction between the meanings of the preposition and the Landmark NP. Of course, it is not (as we shall see) only LM.NPS whose meaning interacts with the meaning of the preposition. A common move in cognitive semantics is to account for the different readings of a given preposition by appealing to polysemy. The preposition is seen as having different senses corresponding to the available possible image schematizations with which it is associated. Since the image schematization is selected by the preposition in interaction with other lexical items, it then seems natural to view (as do Miller and Johnson-Laird above) the contextual resolution of prepositional meaning in terms of selection restrictions determining the sense-interpretation of the polysemic preposition. Although we accept that locative particle meaning is appropriately characterized, at the local level, as polysemous, we shall argue in the next Section that intra-linguistic selection restrictions cannot account for the resolution in discourse of the contextual meaning of the preposition, nor for the selection in many contexts of the preposition expressing a given spatial relational meaning. We shall propose an alternative approach to spatial relational meaning which we call distributed spatial semantics. In the subsequent section, we shall try to show how this approach offers the possibility of unifying a wide range of spatial language phenomena, and suggests a possible basis for language typology. We shall employ examples from Bulgarian, Danish, Dutch, English, Ewe, Japanese and Tzeltal.

171 DISTRIBUTED SPATIAL SEMANTICS VS SELECTION RESTRICTIONS It has often been pointed out that the meanings of spatial prepositions in different languages do not translate directly into each other, even when the languages in question are closely related. Indeed, one argument for viewing spatial prepositional meaning as polysemous is that a meaning-distinction which is non-contrastive at the expression-level in one language, may be contrastive at the expression-level in another language.4 It is then but a short step to conclude that the lexical item in the first language is polysemous with respect to the given sense-distinction, while the very same sense-distinction in the second language is lexicalized. Take for example the two readings of the English preposition ON above. In Dutch, the selection of the appropriate preposition, rather than the selection of the reading of the preposition, varies according to the Landmark NP: (3) Het boek ligt OP de tafel The book is ON the table (4) Het schilderij hangt AAN de muur The picture is ON the wall It is possible to characterize the relevant meaning-distinction in terms of the schematic relations of SUPPORT, ADHESION and SUSPENSION (Cuyckens 1991)5. All of these relations are subsumed under usages of the English preposition ON. In Dutch, however, SUPPORT is expressed by OP (frequently glossed as ON), as in (3), and SUSPENSION (which may be extended to CONTROL of TR by LM) is expressed by AAN (frequently glossed as AT), as in (4) and (5): (5) De hond is AAN de lijn6 The dog is on the leash In Dutch, ADHESION is frequently expressed by OP: (6) Hij plakt de affiche OP de muur He pastes the poster on the wall However, ADHESION may also be expressed by AAN, as in: (7) De affiche zit vast AAN de muur The poster is (stuck) TO/ON the wall Note at this point that in most of the Dutch expressions (and not only those involving a transitive verb such as (6)), a specific verb of dispositional manner - lie (3), hang (4), sit (7) - replaces the ubiquitous

172 English copula. This is not obligatory in Dutch, but the use of "be" will frequently be unusual and infelicitous. It might, then, be suggested that whereas, in English, Prep.-LM.NP combinations determine the interpretation of Prep, and hence the schematization of the whole referential situation, it is the combination of Verb and Prep, which fulfils a similar role in Dutch. Note, though, that the combinatorics of Verb and Prep, are relatively free in Dutch. A given verb can combine with different prepositions expressing different spatial relational meanings, e.g. (8) De vaas staat OP de tafel The vase is on the table (9) De kast staat IN de kamer The cupboard is IN the (sitting-)room (10) De kast staat TEGEN de muur The cupboard is UP AGAINST the wall (11) De vaas staat NAAST de raam The vase is NEXT TO the window Conversely, different verbs can combine with the same Prep, expressing the same spatial relation, but a different spatial disposition of TR, e.g(12)

De vaas STAAT OP de tafel The vase is (standing upright) on the table (13) De vaas LIGT OP de tafel The vase is (lying on its side) on the table

This does not mean, however, that the combinatorics of Verb and Prep, in Dutch are such that the meaning contribution of each is entirely independent of the other. For example, the Dutch locative particle over has been analysed as having a polysemous structure analagous to (though different from) its English equivalent (Geeraerts 1992; the following examples are adapted from that paper.) (14)

De vijand ligt OVER de rivier The enemy is ACROSS the river (15) De vijand vliegt OVER de rivier The enemy flees OVER/ACROSS the river It is thus also the case that in Dutch, as in English, the LM.NP can determine the interpretation of the preposition and of the spatial relational meaning which it expresses within the overall schematization of the referential situation:

173 (16) Jan fietst OVER het weggetje Jan bicycles OVER/ALONG the little path (17) Jan fletst OVER het plein Jan bicycles OVER/ACROSS/AROUND IN the square (18) Jan fietst OVER de eindstreep Jan bicycles OVER/ACROSS the finishing line The means for marking in Dutch the contextual meaning of the locative particle also include the positioning of the particle (either preposed or postposed to the LM.NP), when the verb is a verb of motion, e -g(19) Mieke Mieke (20) Mieke Mieke

loopt IN het bos walks IN the woods loopt het bos IN walks INTO the woods

Finally, we should note (after Herskovits, 1986) that, in both English and Dutch, the TR.NP can (in combination with a given LM.NP) also affect the interpretation of Prep., e.g. (21) (22) (23) (24)

The fruit in the bowl The crack in the bowl Het fruit in de kom De spleet in de kom

The foregoing examples clearly demonstrate that there is more to the meaning of a preposition than just the preposition itself. Moreover, although in English the LM.NP is an extremely important determinant of the interpretation of a polysemous preposition, it is not the only one; rather, spatial relational meaning is distributed over selections from different form-classes, of which Prep, and LM.NP are the most important. This distribution of spatial relational meaning across various elements of the syntagm is to be found in Dutch as well as in English, but in Dutch the Verb receives a stronger "weighting" for the expression of spatial relational meaning than is the case in English. Our claims in this paper are essentially that: (a) all languages exhibit a ditributed spatial semantics; (b) the "weighting" of different form classes for the expression of spatial relational meaning varies across languages; (c) languages also vary in terms of the extent to which the underlying distributed semantics of space is manifest or overt in expression. We stated above that we wish to argue that the notion of selection restriction cannot explain the range of phenomena for which we wish to

174 attempt an account. Instead, we shall offer an account in which the crucial notion is the schematization or linguistic conceptualization of the referential situation (see Sinha and Thorseng, in press, for a discussion of the notion "linguistically conceptualized spatial relational referential situation"). Note that we do not thereby simply mean that "the meaning of a locative particle is an image schema or set of image schemata." In fact, the locative particle, as we have seen, is only one of the contributants to the linguistic conceptualization of the referential situation. We shall return later to the question of how best to describe the meaning of locative particles. For now, the essential point that we wish to make is that the inadequacy of the notion of selection restriction rests in its assumption that it is the lexical items forming the co-text of the preposition which determine the interpretation or selection of the latter. On the contrary, as we shall show, it is the entire linguistically conceptualized referential situation, (RS = referential situation), and not the items designating the particular elements of the RS, which is crucial for the interpretation/selection of the locative particle. To begin with, we can note that a given extra-linguistic state of affairs7 may be linguistically characterized in different ways, using different prepositions, even where the other expression elements remain constant. The factors determining the selection of the preposition are, in such cases, discourse contextual and/or referential contextual. Below, we list some of these factors, providing examples and, where necessary, brief analyses. Vantage Point We start with a simple and self-explanatory example. The distance of Speaker's Vantage Point from the RS may affect the choice of Prep, (see Langacker, 1990; Talmy, 1983): (25) The boat IN the lake (near) (26) The boat ON the lake (far) Attributed Intention Where TR is an agent, and the RS results from an intentional movement of TR, Speaker's evaluation of whether RS is the goal or a subgoal of TR'S movement may affect the choice of Prep. Imagine the (fictional) situation in which the German commander Rommel has taken Cairo in the Desert campaign of the Second World War, and that Speaker is a British General: (27) Rommel is IN Cairo (goal) (28) Rommel is AT Cairo (sub-goal)

175 (27) Would likely be uttered on the speaker's presupposition that Rommel's movement had terminated with the taking of Cairo, while (28) would likely be uttered on the speaker's presupposition that taking Cairo is a part of a larger movement. Note in this example that, although the RS is characterized in terms of a stative spatial relation, it is discursively-conceptually a part of a Path (either goal or sub-goal). If RS is not part of such an implicit Path, then the selection of Prep, will be determined, not only by the spatial relation, but also by the nature of LM (a geographic location, an institution, an activity etc.) and possibly by Implicit Deixis (see below). Talmy (1990, in press) analyzes how stative locative relations may be characterized in terms of "fictive motion", as in (29): (29) The road runs across the desert Examples such as (27) and (28) back up Talmy's contention that Path of Motion plays a more extensive role in characterizing stative spatial relations than has generally been recognized (see also Casad 1993). In Danish, a different distinction with respect to attributed intention is marked by the alternation of the prepositions hos (usually glossed as with) and ved (usually glossed as at).8 In this case, which we owe with thanks to Lis A. Thorseng, the relevant intention is that which causes a volitional TR to be located at LM: (30) Jens er HOS tandlaegen Jens is AT the dentist (visiting the person) (31) Jens er VED tandlaegen. Jens is AT the dentist (for a consultation) (32) Jens er HOS tante Anna Jens is AT aunt Anna's (33) * Jens er VED tante Anna Jens is AT aunt Anna's As illustrated by (30)-(33), this distinction (namely, visiting for personal vs. visiting for professional/institutional reasons) can be expressed by prepositional alternation only if the LM-NP is ambiguous between an individual and an institutional or professional role, allowing for the attribution of different volitional intentions causing the spatial coincidence between the locations of TR and LM. Attributed Site of Volition of LM

The above examples are all clear cases in which the preposition expresses (is part of the expression of) spatial relational meaning.9 The following

176 example is less clear-cut in this respect, since (as we shall see) it involves the expression by the preposition of the CONTROL of LM by TR (see (5) above.) In English, this CONTROL relationship is frequently expressed by means of the preposition on, as in: (34) Keep your hands ON the wheel There are some cases where a metonymic extension of the CONTROLschema results in an expression which does not (exceptfiguratively)have any spatial relational meaning, as in: (35) Keep your eyes ON the road However, in most cases, the CONTROL-schema also involves a spatial relationship between a TR and a LM. Where this is the case, the preposition AT may substitute for the preposition ON. This substitution is acceptable for most speakers in (34) but not in (35). In other contexts, however, AT is used non-interchangeably with ON to express the semantically closely-related schema of DIRECTION OF ATTENTION OR AIM (as in look at, point at, throw at.) Now let us take (36) and (37): (36) John held a gun ON Mary (37) John held a gun AT Mary Should (37) be interpreted as expressing the CONTROL-schema, or as expressing a schematization of RS in terms of DIRECTION ATTENTION OR AIM, as in (38)? (38) John pointed a gun AT Mary The question can be resolved by considering (39) and (40): (39) John held a gun AT Mary's head (40) ? John held a gun ON Mary's head (40), although an acceptable sentence, can receive only the "odd" and different interpretation of John holding a gun on the top of Mary's head. This is because the expression by on of the schema of control and constraint is acceptable in sentences like (37), where LM is an agent with independent volition, but not in sentences like (40), where LM is a body part. Body parts (even heads!) do not have independent volition (it is the person, not their body or part of it, which is the linguistically conceptualized, and folk psychological, site of volition). We therefore

177 conclude that, although in some contexts at can substitute for on in expressing the same coNTROL-schema, in other contexts it may be lexically substitutable but express a different schematization: in this case, we claim that (36) and (37) express different schematizations of RS, although the physical RS remains constant. Implicit Deixis Imagine a discourse context where Speaker is a secretary receiving a phone call asking to speak to a third party. Speaker may reply with either (41) or (42): (41) She's IN a meeting (42) She's AT a meeting Usually, Hearer will infer, for (41), that 3rd party is "here" (e.g. in the building), but for (42) that 3rd party is "there" (e.g. in another building). The relationship between location of Speaker and location of TR does not receive direct expression, but is implicit in the selection of Prep.10 The foregoing examples have all illustrated differential linguistic schematization of physically identical states of affairs under conditions in which both the lexicalization of TR and LM, and the spatial relation between TR and LM, remain constant; while Prep, varies.11 This is the first part of our argument for the inadequacy of selection restrictions as an account of prepositional choice/interpretation. The second part of our argument takes an opposite tack. As we saw earlier, the choice of LM.NP (and perhaps of other items, e.g. the verb) will frequently convey information about the referent which will be relevant for the selection by Speaker, or interpretation by Hearer, of the preposition (see 1-4, above). However, perceptible characteristics of the actual referent of the LM.NP may also affect the selection of Prep., even where variations in these characteristics are not relevant for the selection of LM.NP itself. In other words, the same NP may be used to refer to a range of LMS, standing in some spatial relation to a TR, in which the characteristics of the LM referent will vary so as to permit or afford different schematizations of RS, and hence the selection of a different Prep. An example is the alternation between the English prepositions across and along. We are not going to attempt an exhaustive analysis of the semantics of these locative particles. For current purposes, we can offer the following restricted and incomplete account: Def: If the RS includes a LM schematized as a 2-dimensional region whose length in one axis is saliently greater than its length in another

178 TR (Castle)

Figure 1 b ACROSS

TR (Castle)

Figure 1. ALONG vs. ACROSS.

axis standing at an angle of approximately 90° to the first axis, then: if TR lies on a path of (real or fictive) motion approximately coinciding or parallel with the longer axis, then RS will be schematized in terms of TR along LM; and if TR lies on a path of (real orfictive)motion approximately coinciding or parallel with the shorter axis, then RS will be schematized in terms of TR across LM. Consider the RS'S diagrammed in Fig. 1. Speaker (s) wishes to refer to a castle (the TR) on the other side of a beach (the LM) The curve of the "sandy bay" formed by the beach is represented by the upper arc, and the shoreline by the lower straight line. The RS diagrammed in Fig. la is such as to permit only the utterance of (43), whereas the RS diagrammed in Fig. lb seems more indeterminate, permitting the utterance of either (43) or (44). If we imagine a further deepening of the bay formed by the beach, only (44) will be appropriate.12 (43) The castle is ALONG the beach (44) The castle is ACROSS the beach Here, it is not the lexical co-text, but the referential context (specifically, the shape/path configuration of LM from s's vantage point), which determines the schematization or linguistic conceptualization of the RS, and hence the selection of the preposition.

179 A third, and final, argument against the adequacy of the notion of selection restriction is that lexical co-text underdetermines not only (as we have seen) prepositional choice, even when RS remains constant, but also the interpretation of the preposition, where this is polysemous and permits alternative readings. An example is the use in Dutch of op (usually glossed on ON) to mean simply "located at", where LM is an institution and the relationship between TR and LM instantiates that institutional function (Cuyckens, 1991), as in (45): (45) Hij koopt de postzegels OP het postkantoor He buys the stamps AT the post office The fact, (45) permits the alternative (if perverse) reading that TR is ON TOP OF the post office (characterized as a building, rather than an institutional location.)13 We hope that we have convinced the reader that intra-linguistic lexical selection restrictions are inadequate to account for the full range of spatial uses of spatial prepositions (let alone their many non-spatial uses). We believe that a number of other significant points can also be made with the aid of the foregoing examples. The first point concerns the notion of vagueness and fuzzy boundaries. It is obvious that the boundary between the appropriate referential application of the ACROSS schema and the ALONG schema is vague. It is easy to find further illustrations of this point. Imagine a matchbox placed on the palm of your outstretched hand. Now imagine gradually closing the fingers of your hand to enclose the matchbox. At what point does the matchbox cease to be on, and begin to be in, your hand?14 It would however, we argue, be wrong to conclude from this that the meanings conveyed by expressions involving prepositions like across, along, in, on are vague and indeterminate. The linguistic conceptualization of a RS in terms of (associated with, or mapped onto) ACROSS is quite distinct from a conceptualization in terms of ALONG. We may agree that there may be more than one schematization associated with a given preposition, but still, each of these schematizations is (more or less) distinct from the others, and the "more or less" qualification is analyzable. For example, the schematizations associated with, respectively. BY and NEXT TO are less distinctly different from each other than those associated with, respectively, ON and IN FRONT OF. What is vague and in a way unanalyzable (though it is illustrable, to employ Wittgenstein's distinction between "saying" and "showing") is the proper boundary between the referential grounding of one schematization and another schematization. In other words, the boundaries governing the application of any given schematization to extra-linguistic states-of-affairs are vague

180 and fuzzy, but the schematizations themselves are more-or-less distinct: and, crucially, states of affairs may lend themselves to different schematizations, expressed by alternative choices of locative particles, even where the selections of co-present linguistic items remain constant. Hence, "selection restriction" is an inadequate concept for explaining the contextuality and distribution of spatial relational meaning. A second, and closely related, point concerns the proper boundary between the semantics and the pragmatics of spatial meaning and reference. If, as we have argued, the purely intra-linguistic notion of selection restriction is inadequate to explain the constraints upon the selection and interpretation of spatial prepositions, a traditional response would be to argue (as do, for example, Landau and Jackendoff (1993)) that the phenomena in which we are interested are part of pragmatics, and not of semantics. Such a view could be supported by pointing out that many of the differences in meaning which we attribute to differential schematization in the above examples are "defeasible implicatures". We can meet this argument halfway by accepting a distinction between the linguistically conceptualized spatial relational referential situation, which we can also call "narrow schematization", on the one hand; and the profiling of this situation ("wide schematization") against a background of discourse and non-linguistic context, speaker's vantage point and "Discourse Relevant Mutual Knowledge" (Paprotte and Sinha 1987), on the other hand. To exemplify the distinction, we can say that (25) and (26) above represent alternative profilings of the same linguistically conceptualized referential situation, i.e. they are identical with respect to narrow schematization, but not with respect to wide schematization. Sinha and Thorseng (in press) discuss the notion of the "profiling" of linguistically conceptualized spatial relations in more detail, and we shall not expand on the point here. Note, however, that our argument does not rest solely upon examples involving differences in "wide schematization": cf. (43, 44, 45). Hence, even if (and we are agnostic on this point) one equates the distinction between "narrow" and "wide" schematization with a distinction between semantics and pragmatics, pragmatics alone cannot save the case for selection restrictions.15 A determined advocate of a local and intra-linguistic approach to spatial relational semantics does, we concede, have one other option at this point. That is to restrict by fiat the semantic analysis of locative particles to only that level of granularity at which local meanings plus intra-linguistic constructions such as selection restrictions can account for the linguistic behaviour of locative particles. Such a restriction of semantics would entail a "minimalist" approach specifying only very general meanings for locative particles, which would be unable (as many

181 authors in cognitive semantics have pointed out) to comprehend the structured inter-relation between different contextual interpretations of the same lexical item (e.g. in terms of structured polysemy, radial categories etc.), that is of the integrity of locative particle meanings (which also, we have argued elsewhere, extends into their non-spatial uses: Kuteva and Sinha (1994)). However, and equally importantly, a minimalist and localist treatment of spatial relational meaning will also be unable to comprehend the way in which spatial relational meaning is implicated in a wide variety (both within and between languages) of phenomena at the expression level of language, for which the distributed semantics approach is intended to account. This is the topic of the next Section. DISTRIBUTED SPATIAL SEMANTICS AND LANGUAGE VARIATION The basic argument of the previous Section was that it is the linguistic conceptualization or schematization of the RS as a whole, rather than the particular co-occuring lexical items, which determines the selection or interpretation of the locative particle. There are (as we have seen) a wide variety of factors, of which we probably have only just scratched the surface, governing and constraining possible schematizations of TR in a spatial relationship to LM. Our point is more than this, however; it is that the schematization of the spatial relationship not only determines the selection/interpretation of the locative particle, but also maps onto selections from other form classes. Therefore, the contextual meaning of the locative particle is conditioned by a distributed spatial semantics. Languages vary very widely in their means of realizing spatial relational meaning, but we claim that in all languages this meaning is distributed and not local. We propose that one dimension of language typology is the extent to which the distributed semantics of spatial relations receives explicit expression. Where such expression is regularly highly explicit, we can speak of an overtly distributed spatial semantics. Where such expression is regularly non-explicit, we can speak of a covertly distributed spatial semantics. English is a good example of a language with a covertly distributed spatial semantics, in which Prep.-LM.NP collocations (and/or collocations of Prep, and other open class items) frequently determine the reading of Prep; and in which the prepositional expression of spatial relational information may optionally be omitted in certain conditions in which this is recoverable from linguistic context, e.g: (45) The boy jumped OVERt the fence (46) The girl swam ACROSS! the river

182 (47) The plane broke THROUGH! the sound-barrier t optional. Conversely, there is a restriction in English which prohibits the expression of the same semantic information at different places in the syntagm by variants of the same basic morpheme, e.g: (48)

* The man crossed ACROSS the road

However, this restriction is not absolute, and where it does not apply (i.e. where the expression of the same information involves the repetition of the same morpheme), reduction of the kind seen in (45)-(47) is not permitted: (49) iNsert the plug IN(TO) the socket (50) * Insert the plug the socket The bias in English against the repetition of the same spatial semantic information at different places in the syntagm is not confined, however, to cases where expression is via the same basic morpheme; it is semantically motivated. For example, (51) is for many speakers unacceptable: (51)

? John entered INTO the room

The difference between (51) and (45)-(47) is that, whereas the Path information in (51) is conflated (see Talmy, 1985) into the verb in such a way that the locative Goal is profiled identically to the way this is profiled in the preposition, this is not the case for (45)-(47). In (45)(47), the profiling of Path is not conflated into the verb of motion, but covertly distributed across Verb and LM.NP. Path-profile can be recovered from the combination of Verb and LM.NP, but is not expressed by either of these elements, whether singly or in terms of compositional combination; hence, another Prep, could be substituted in those examples (e.g., respectively, beside, up, back through). The reduction of the PP is thus enabled by speaker and hearer's Discourse Relevant Mutual Knowledge, of which an important part is knowledge of canonical relations between referents. We suggest that it may be possible to unify the various constraints and permissions which underly examples (45)-(54) semantically, without direct recourse to the strong (but not indefeasible) tendency of English to disprefer the repetition of the same basic morpheme in a single syntagmatic sequence. We offer the following tentative but simple for-

183 mulation of the constraint applying to the expression in English of what Casad (1993) calls the Directed Path Schema: The English Directed Path Constraint No two English morphemes will directly (overtly) express within the same syntagmatic sequence16 exactly the same profiled schematization of a particular Directed Path. Where the Profiled Directed Path is recoverable from its covert distribution across other elements, the preposition which overtly expresses it may optionally be omitted. It might be objected that this does not explain why (50), where it seems that the constraint ought to apply (the verb insert expresses the same Path information as the preposition into) is unacceptable; while (52) (where it seems that there is no morpheme directly expressing Path, as opposed to configuration) is equally unacceptable: (52)

* The bridge straddled ACROSS the road

One possible explanation runs as follows. In (50), the verb insert, while it undoubtedly conflates Directed Path into its meaning, does so by profiling the initiation of the action (N.B. not the Source of the motion), while the preposition into profiles the Goal of the motion. In (52), on the other hand, not only is the Directed Path expressed by the preposition across conflated into the dispositional manner verb straddle, but it is the directionality per se of the path which is expressed by both morphemes. Of course, our explanation of the unacceptability of (52) depends upon (or, according to one's point of view, supports) the acceptance of the minimal analysis of the meanings of across and along in the previous section in terms of path of real orfictivemotion. Whether this explanation is correct or not remains to be seen. In further support of it, however, we can point to the fact that, unlike examples (45)-(47), not only does the use of the verb straddle prohibit the expression of the preposition across, but it also prohibits the use of any other alternative preposition. An alternative explanation would rely upon the observation that the verb insert differs from the other verbs in the foregoing examples, in that it requires in all contexts a Direct Object and cannot be used intransitively; and that it requires two arguments (expressed, if nominalized, respectively by a Direct Object NP and a Locative NP.) It is a general fact about English that it does not allow the combination of Direct Object and Locative NP unless the latter is a part of a PP: (53) She put the flower IN the vase (54) * She put the flower the vase

184 If this explanation is correct, we must qualify the English Directed Path Constraint as follows: that it is over-ridden by the English PS-rules applying to transitive verbs requiring a locative argument. We shall not pursue this particular issue further here, since it takes us beyond our main concerns. We now ask the question: Does the Directed Path Constraint apply to other languages than English? Recall our earlier informal characterization of English as a language characterizable as having a covertly distributed spatial semantics. We stated that English has a bias against expressing the same spatial semantic information at different places in the same syntagmatic sequence (especially when such expression is by means of the same basic morpheme), and the Directed Path Constraint may be viewed as one manifestation of the generally covertly distributed nature of the expression in English of spatial relational information. As we shall now demonstrate, this is not the case for a wide variety of other languages. Some languages seem to have an overtly distributed spatial semantics, in the sense that the same spatial semantic information may be repeatedly expressed at different places in the syntagmatic chain of the utterance, thus receiving expression in selections from more than one form-class. Recall (49): (49) Insert the plug IN(TO) the socket Such examples are, in fact rare in English, and it might be argued, given the Latin derivation of the verb insert, that they are anomalous indications of the mixed pedigree of English. In general, English and other Germanic languages tend to conflate manner into verbs of motion, while Romance languages, in general, tend to conflate path into verbs of motion (Talmy 1985; see also Slobin 1992). In terms of motion and path, Germanic and Romance languages can be characterized, after Talmy, as respectively satellite-framed and verb-framed. As Slobin puts it, there are "two ways to travel", in one of which Path is expressed by a locative particle, while Manner is conflated into the verb; and in the other of which Path is conflated into the verb, while Manner is expressed adverbially. We can exemplify this by contrasting (following Talmy, 1985) English (55) and Spanish (56), which are translation equivalents: (55) The bottle floated out (56) La botella salidio flotando The bottle exited floating In neither (55) nor (56) is there either reduction or redundancy of expression. That is to say, the expressions in each case distribute the spatial semantic information differentially, without this distribution

185 being either reduced (i.e., in both cases all the relevant information is expressed) or repeated, (i.e. in neither case does any "part" of the information receive expression more than once.) If we view (55) and (56) as representing alternative points of equilibrium (or "sufficient expressional minima") for the distribution of spatial relational information (neither "too much" nor "too little" morphemic realization of the information to be expressed), then (49) must appear to be either a kind of arbitrary synchronic quirk, or at most a residue of the diachronic co-presence and "clash" of different and opposed distributional principles. But consider now Japanese, which (like Spanish) can be characterized as verb-framed (and indeed, verb-dominant), but in which expressions analagous to (49) are not exceptional but regular. Before proceeding further, we supply the following brief description of Japanese spatial semantics and its grammatical realization, which we owe with thanks to Mariko Hayashi. Japanese employs a small number of postpositional locative particles, of the closed class named "Kakujoshi" (Ookubo 1977; Yamada 1990). Of the two most common Japanese locative postpositions, one, ni, marks the location of people and things, and the other, de, the location where an activity takes place. Thus, these two particles express only a general and abstract spatial relational meaning which can be glossed at AT, conflated with non-spatial information regarding the nature of the TR. Four other (less frequent) postpositions express more specific spatial relational meanings which can be (very broadly) glossed as THROUGH, TO, FROM and UP TO/UNTIL. All these locative particles, as is the case for many (perhaps all) other languages, are polysemous and have nonspatial as well as spatial meanings. Although the Japanese locative particle system seems rather restricted when compared with English, spatial relational meaning is also expressed in Japanese by other form classes, in particular path-conflating verbs of motion and verbs of dispositional manner; and partonymic nouns denoting parts and regions of Landmarks, which are postposed to the LM.NP with an intervening genitive-marking particle. For example, the spatial relation expressed by the English PP "on the table" can be expressed in Japanese by specifying by nominal postposition the relevant part/region of the LM as ue (top/upper surface/above), and then further postposing the locative particle ni or de. Thus, the meaning expressed by the English preposition on is expressed in Japanese by the postposed partonymic noun as well as by the postposed locative particle. In (60), spatial relational meaning is expressed by all three relevant form classes (verb, partonymic noun and locative postposition):

186 (57) Sensei wa hon o hako (no naka)t ni# ireru Professor-TOPic -book-OBJ - box- (GEN-inside) - LOC-insert.PRES The professor puts the book in the box. t optional. # optional in colloquial speech. In Japanese, we can observe from this example, the locative Path information may be "redundantly" expressed, within a single sequence, by both the verb and by a noun denoting a part or region of the LM. We may also note that both the noun and the postposition may optionally be omitted. We can further observe that the NP denoting the Goal of the movement does not profile the change of location in quite the same way as does the verb (which profiles the initiation of the action, much as does the English verb "insert".) This suggests that Japanese in general has a more overtly distributed spatial semantics than does English (i.e. spatial relational meaning is regularly expressed by simultaneous selections from verb, noun and postposition). On the other hand, it would appear from (57) that Japanese, like English, may obey some kind of Directed Path Constraint, inasmuch as the different expression items do not reduplicate the same profilings of the Path of Motion. We can also suggest that such a constraint may also underly the frequently permitted elisions of the noun and the locative particle in colloquial speech; just as, in English, in some contexts, the locative particle may be omitted. We have to emphasize here that this is only a tentative suggestion, since we have not carried out the analysis which would be necessary to back it up; however, it serves to illustrate the kind of research questions which the distributed spatial semantics approach is likely to throw up. The case of Japanese furthermore enables us to reinforce our criticism of the assumption that we mentioned in the introduction, that the spatial relational semantics of any given language may be elucidated by paying exclusive attention to the closed classes which Svorou (1994) names "spatial grams". Of the three form classes participating in the regular expression in Japanese of spatial relational meaning, either one (the locative particle) or two (the locative particle and the locative noun) may be considered to be such spatial grams. The particle class is enumerable and has only six members. It corresponds most closely in its grammatical properties to Svorou's proposed Pattern 2 of grammaticalization path (variant N POSTP), in which "the previous evolutionary stage is an adverbial construction" (p. 104). The verbdominance of Japanese makes this hypothesis likely, but we cannot offer evidence on the diachronic evolution of the Japanese locative particle. However, we should point out that, although the particle may be directly

187 postposed to the LM-noun, it need not be: as in (57), it may also be directly postposed to the locative noun. The class of partonymic locative nouns is also enumerable. According to Svorou's proposed classification, the locative noun would indeed be counted as an adposition, conforming to a variant of Pattern 1 (N GEN POSTP) ("unattested" according to Svorou) of grammaticalization path, in which "the previous evolutionary stage is a genitive construction". We may assume, on the basis of Svorou's analysis, that the locative noun is at an earlier stage of grammaticalization than the locative particle, and for this reason we are reluctant to consider it as an adposition.17 Whatever the proper grammatical treatment of the two "adposed" classes of items and their diachronic derivation may be, it is significant that it is the selections from both these two closed classes which may optionally be (and frequently are) omitted in colloquial Japanese. The linguistically-conceptualized RS ("narrow" schematization) expressed by (57) may easily be recovered by a Japanese listener (via Discourse Relevant Mutual Knowledge) from the meanings of the TR and LM nouns, and the verb, alone. Grammaticalization theory has significantly added to our understanding of how open class items (nouns and verbs) figure as sources of closed class expressions of spatial relational meaning; but our brief examination of the Japanese language shows us, too, that such classes remain significant bearers of such meanings, in interaction with other items and with context. (57) illustrated how, in Japanese, the same "narrow" spatial relational schematization may be expressed by simultaneous overt selections from different form classes, a pattern which we might label as "redundancy". In (58), from Bulgarian, a different kind of overtly expressed pattern of distributed spatial semantics is illustrated, a pattern which we can label as "differentiation". (58) Samoletat preletja nad grada. plane. the-through.flew-above/o ver-town. the The plane flew over the town. In (58), the verbal prefix/?re (which is related to the prepositionprez, through), and the preposition {nad, above/over), each contribute a different part of the spatial relational meaning in terms of which the referential situation is conceptualized: the prefix expresses the directed path and the preposition expresses the spatial relation between TR and LM in the vertical plane. The combination of verbal prefix and preposition is a regular and frequently employed means for the expression of spatial relational meaning in Bulgarian, and, as well as differentially distributing different semantic information over these two form classes, Bulgarian

188 also permits (like Japanese) the "redundant" distribution of the same information over the two form classes. Moreover, unlike Japanese, this may involve the repetition of the same basic morpheme (an expression structure which, as we have seen, is strongly dispreferred in English). (59) Tja

dopalzja

do

vratata.

She-ADJACENT + CONTACT. Crept-ADJACENT + CONTACT-door.the

She crept up to the door In (59), the same morpheme {do: "adjacent + contact") is employed first as a verbal prefix, and second as a preposition, in each case expressing the same spatial relational meaning. As this example shows, Bulgarian, like Japanese, has an overtly distributed spatial semantics, relative to English, and it can be argued that it is more overt than is the case for Japanese, since the same schematization is actually expressed by the same morpheme in different positions in the syntagm. This is a subpattern of redundancy which we might label parallelism. The semantic correlate (or motivation) for parallelism in expression can be seen in the fact that, unlike English and Japanese, Bulgarian appears to obey no Directed Path Constraint, inasmuch as the two occurrences of do both profile the Goal of the schematized motion. (58) and (59) illustrate, finally, that exhibiting an overtly distributed spatial relational semantics is not a property only of verb-framed languages. The Bulgarian verb root conflates manner, not path, into motion; and path is expressed by both lexical (prepositions) and incorporated (prefixes) satellites to the verb. The distribution of spatial relational meaning across both closed class lexical items and either nominal or verbal morphology is neither unusual nor unremarked. Case-inflected languages (e.g. Finnish) frequently employ adpositions together with locative, allative, ablative and essive case markings on the LM.NP; and verb morphology is also implicated in spatial relational expression in many languages, sometimes in combination with case marking. Hungarian, for example, employs a combination of verbal prefixes, nominal case-marking suffixes and locative postpositions (Csaba Pleh, pers. comm.), and Casad (1993) documents the extremely rich path specifications afforded to speakers of the North American language Cora by its complex system of verbal prefixes and suffices. Thus, it is clear that non-lexical spatial grams from more than one form class may be implicated in the syntagmatically distributed expression of spatial relational meaning, frequently in combination with lexical items. As the Japanese example shows, more than one closed lexical class may also simultaneously be involved in spatial relational expression. In

189 Japanese, the partonymic noun specifying the locative "search domain" (the relevant part/region of the Landmark) is optional. However, in the West African language Ewe (Ameka, in press), such specification is in most contexts obligatory, involving the use of nominally-derived postpositions. The (also obligatory) expression in Ewe of the spatial relational information proper is accomplished by selections from either verbs of motion/orientation, or verb/derived prepositions, or a combination of the two. The following example (adapted from Ameka, in press, to whom we are also indebted for the analysis of the expression) illustrates the way in which, in Ameka's felicitous phrase, the "various elements in an Ewe spatial construction 'conspire', so to speak, to provide information about spatial scenes." (60) Agala do le do me crab - exit- be.at- hole- inside Lit: The crab exited at the inside of the hole The crab has got out of the hole Ameka comments on the above example as follows: "the preposition [le] may be rendered in English [in this context] as 'from'. But this is not just a rendition of the preposition, it is the result of the interaction between the source feature encoded in the verb plus the 'at' meaning of the preposition. The verb do could be paraphrased as a 'move out of a place thought of as an enclosed/bounded region/place'. In (60) the place where the crab moves out of is do 'hole'.18 This place is construed as an enclosure, that is, the inside of a hole as signalled by the postposition me 'containing region of. This meaning unifies with the meaning of 'be at a place' of the preposition to produce the literal meaning of the utterance." Heine et al. (1991:142) similarly emphasize that the morpheme le is in general highly context-dependent in its meaning, and relate this to the high degree of its grammaticalization. We may note that, in (60), the profiling of the "source" spatial relationship of containment/inclusion is accomplished through the use of no less than three co-present lexical items, namely the verb, the noun and the postposition. In the terms that we have introduced above, the example demonstrates redundant distribution of spatial relational information. Despite this very high degree of overtly distributed spatial relational meaning, however, the example also provides an instance of covertly distributed spatial relational meaning: namely, the use of the canonically stative preposition le (at) to signal (interpreted in relation to the verb and other items) a dynamic spatial relation. Ameka points out that Ewe provides many examples of the way in which the distribution in expression of spatial relational meaning yields

190 compositionally explicit specifications of that meaning, but that in cases like the above "it is the union of the spatial semantic feature of the verb which describes the core event and . . . the preposition" which determines interpretation. Thus, in Ewe, just as in English, the covert distribution of spatial relational meaning across an entire expression can result in schematizations which go beyond and actively transform the meaning of the individual elements, even though the language in general displays a more overt pattern of distributed spatial semantics than does English. Heine et al. (1991:144) compare the Ewe system for expressing spatial relational meaning (involving two classes of locative particles/ adpositions) and the typical single particle class/prepositional system of European languages in the following terms: "Viewed from the perspective of Ewe, . . . prepositions in European languages may be called portmanteau markers since they combine the function of both v- and Nadpositions"; and add more generally that "In terms of the framework proposed by Talmy (1985), one may say that N-adpositions tend to provide information on the shape and/or dimensionality of the ground, whereas v-adpositions are more likely to describe the relation between figure and ground". However, the Germanic prepositional language Danish offers yet another pattern of both "redundant" and "differential" distributed expression and profiling of spatial relational meaning, this time within the single form class of locative particles (see Sinha et al., 1994, for a more detailed description of the Danish locative particle system). Like English, Danish permits the collocation of different prepositions with different meanings in a prepositional phrase, e.g. Dan. op pa, Eng. up on. However, unlike English, Danish also (optionally) permits the preposing within a PP of an adverbial particle to a morphologically related but simpler prepositional particle, e.g. (61) Saet koppen ind i skabet Put-cup. the-into-in-cupboard. the Put the cup into the cupboard Note that in such cases it is the first-occuring, adverbial particle which is optional. The preposition i, like English in, can express in general either a static or a dynamic spatial relationship, when occuring alone in a PP; but in (64) its co-occurence with the adverbial particle ind compels a dynamic interpretation. It should be noted that in Danish the adverbial particles cannot (unlike English derived particles such as into) occur alone in a PP; while (again conversely to English) only the morphologically more complex adverbial particles, but not prepositional

191 particles, may be employed adverbially without being preposed to an LM.NP. Since some Danish adverbial particles such as ind (but not prepositional particles such as i) may also be employed as verbal prefixes, or as prefixes to deverbal nouns, there is good reason to classify these particles, in the terms of Heine et al. (1991), as V-particles. Yet, contrary to the tendency noted by Heine et al. (1991), it is members of this class of V-particles (such as inden, "inside-with tight fit") which profile "the shape and/or dimensionality of the ground", while the prepositional particles provide more general information regarding the spatial relation. There is good reason, then, to classify Danish, relative to English, as having a relatively overtly distributed expression of spatial relational meaning within the form class of locative particles, permitting the Danish speaker to profile path, goal and configuration to a greater extent than can the English speaker. In (64), for example, the path is both conflated into the prepositionally expressed goal expression, and separately marked as path. Thus, English locative particles may be viewed as "portmanteau" markers, in the terms of Heine et al., relative to Danish as well as to Ewe. While Danish has a more elaborate locative particle system than English, we have noted that, in comparison with English prepositions, the Japanese locative particle system proper constitutes a much smaller enumerable class, comprising six items, of which two (ni and de), both of which gloss to English at, are the most frequent and salient. The Ewe v-particle (prepositional) system is also small. Ameka lists seven established items, of which one (le), also glossing (in its spatial uses) to at, is the most salient and frequent. The Mayan language Tzeltal (Levinson 1991) exhibits an even more extreme case of apparent reduction of the adpositional system, possessing only one preposition (ta), also glossing (in its spatial uses) to at. Similarly to Japanese, the relevant LM part/region is frequently (but optionally) specified in Tzeltal by the use of a small class of nouns genitively related to the LM.NP. Unlike in Japanese (but similarly to many other Meso-American languages; Brugman 1983; MacLaury 1989), these nouns are human and animal bodypart terms; and they are preposed in Tzeltal to the LM.NP, while Japanese partonymic nouns are postposed to the LM.NP. Similarly to Ewe, Tzeltal further (and obligatorily) specifies spatial relational meaning by means of an enumerable class of 14 verbs of motion (dynamic meanings); and a class of preposed verbally-derived adjectival spatial predicates (stative meanings). However, in other respects Tzeltal is entirely unlike Ewe. The v-particles in Ewe are only seven in number, and are mostly diachronically and morphologically related to verbs of motion. In contrast, stative v-items in Tzeltal are diachronically and morphologically unrelated to motion verb roots, and

192 constitute a large lexical class of some 300 members. Semantically, these "dispositional" items "describe in great detail the geometrical nature of the Figure rather than that of the Ground" (Levinson 1991:10). (65), adapted from Levinson (1991:16) illustrates the way that spatial relational meaning is distributed in Tzeltal expression: (65) waxal kajpej ta (s-ti)t k'ajk standing-coffee-at-(its.mouth/lips)-fire The coffee is standing at (the edge of) the fire t = optional As Levinson points out, the Tzeltal speaker may (optionally) specify the relevant part/region of the LM to which the spatial relation is referred, but must specify the dispositional characteristics of the TR. The disposition/geometry of TR is, on most accounts, a semantic subdomain which is related to, but separate from, spatial relational meaning proper. Hence, as Levinson says, it is doubtful whether the one-place dispositional predicates should properly be semantically classified as locative items (let alone, given the large number of them, "spatial grams" in the sense of Svorou (1994)). However, says Levinson (n. 16, p. 11), functionally there is no doubt that they serve as location-specifying items. This is because the specificity of the dispositional information provided by Tzeltal stative v-items serves in many contexts (against the background of Discourse Relevant Mutual Knowledge) to permit an inference to "covert" canonical spatial relational meaning, as in the following example (Levinson 1991:10): (66) pachal ta mexa boch Sitting bowl like-at-table-gourd The gourd is on the table Taken together, the examples from the languages which we have examined in this section demonstrate the wide variation that exists between natural languages in the semantic resources and expressional means which they have available to schematize spatial relational meaning. They also pose a clear challenge to the following common assumptions: (a) that spatial relational meaning is universally predominantly expressed by clearly-identifiable closed spatial relational grammatical classes ("spatial grams"); (b) that a given subdomain (e.g. Goal, Path) of spatial relational meaning is normally expressed by only one selection from a single lexical class in any given syntagmatic string; and (c) that subdomains of spatial relational semantics (e.g. shape/

193 dimensionality of LM) are universally associated with specific paths of grammatical derivation (e.g. noun, verb).19 The examples demonstrate, furthermore, that the overt distribution, as opposed to the covert, "portmanteau"-like distribution, of the expression of spatial relational meaning is a frequent phenomenon in widely different and genetically unrelated languages. At the same time, we have seen that even languages which in general display highly overt distribution of spatial relational meaning may also provide examples of its covert distribution in some kinds of expression. The examples, and our analyses of them, also lead us back to the question: what is a locative particle, and how can the meanings of locative particles best be characterized? CONCLUSION In the first part of this paper we argued (a) that the meaning of locative particle in languages such as English is not exclusively carried by the particle; (b) that spatial relational semantic information - the "linguistically conceptualized spatial relational referential situation" - is irreducible to the individual contributions of members of any single lexical form class; and (c) that item-specific meanings plus selection restrictions constitutes an inadequate theoretical framework for comprehending the schematization of spatial relational meaning. In its place, we offered an approach based upon distributed spatial relational semantics. In the second part of the paper, we examined some of the different expressional means by which such distribution is accomplished in different languages. The semantic content of locative particles of the "typical" European, "prepositional" type seems, against a background of cross-linguistic comparison, to be well-characterized in Heine et al.'s terms as "portmanteau", though there are significant differences in this respect even between closely related languages such as Danish and English (and we shall further qualify the "portmanteau" notion below). Furthermore, given the wide variety of grammatical structures and closed, semi-closed and open lexical classes which express (overtly and/ or covertly) spatial relational meaning in different languages, the class "locative particle" in English and similar languages seems itself to be a "portmanteau" semantic/morphological/grammatical category which neither semantically nor structurally maps in any simple way to other languages.20 Nonetheless, we would argue that the semantic integrity of the class "locative particle" across its various (spatial, temporal and abstract) uses in "prepositional" languages justifies its unified treatment (Kuteva and Sinha 1994). The key to such a unified treatment lies in the recognition that the particle is only one of the form classes bearing spatial relational

194 meaning. The "localist" bias of spatial semantic analyses has led to characterizations of prepositional meanings as polysemous, or as involving multiple and overlapping "use types" (Herskovits 1986). This is an appropriate characterization only as long as one focusses upon the single form class in isolation. Taking into account language variation in the distributed expression of spatial relational meaning, a more fruitful approach is to abandon the notion of "use type" as tied to specific form classes, and substitute the notion of (language-specific) spatial relational semantic type, as distributed across selections from different form classes (Sinha and Thorseng, in press). Such distribution may be both overt and covert. "Prepositional" languages such as English typically display (in varying degrees) a covert pattern of distributed expression of spatial relational meaning across closed class locative particles and open class nouns and verbs; while many other languages display (in varying degrees) a pattern of overt distributed expression of spatial relational meaning, involving collocations of several, in the paradigm case closed class, selections. It is in this sense that we need to qualify the proposal that English locative particles are "portmanteau" expression vehicles equivalent to simultaneous, multiple closed class selections in languages such as Ewe. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that, inasmuch as one can postulate a broad equivalence relationship between the semantic types expressed in different ways by two different languages Ll and L2, (say, Ewe and English), differing along the overt-covert dimension of spatial relational expression, then the meaning which Ll overtly distributes across e.g. preposition and postposition is covertly distributed in L2 between the locative particle and selections from open classes such as nouns and verbs. Thus, the "portmanteau" characterization of the meaning of the L2 locative particle is valid only inasmuch as the particle is the sole explicit bearer of spatial relational meaning; taking the implicit (open class) bearers of spatial relational meaning into account, the locative particle is an under-specifying reduction of the meaning overtly distributed in Ll, and this accounts for its polysemous meaning. If this account is broadly correct, then we can propose the following linked hypotheses: Hi: Languages which largely restrict the overt expression of spatial relational meaning to a single form class of locative particles will be characterizable in terms both of relatively high (but also relatively discrete) polysemy of items in this class, and of complex and noncompositional covert distribution of expression of spatial relational meaning across co-present open class items. Such languages will in general disfavour optionality in the expression of spatial relational meaning through the locative particle system, but will favour it in contexts

195 where open class items explicitly (overtly) express spatial relational meaning. These languages will also disfavour the overt repetition of the same spatial relational meaning at different points in the syntagmtic string. H2: Languages which overtly distribute spatial relational meaning across co-selections from two or more closed classes may exhibit high degrees of polysemy (in the limit case, extreme meaning indeterminacy) in one or more of such classes, but will compensate by high specificity of meaning in other closed classes; and such languages will favour both the contextually-determined optionality of some spatial relational meaning-bearing items, and the overt repetition within a single syntagmatic string of the same spatial relational information. Our discussion hitherto has focussed on spatial relational semantics; our claim has been that this semantic domain is, in all languages, either overtly or covertly, distributed rather than local in its expression. We leave open the question of whether other semantic domains may also be so characterizable. We conclude by offering a simple formal characterization of the concept of "distributed semantics" and its difference from "local semantics" (see also Sinha and Thorseng, in press; Zlatev 1992, 1995). In common with other cognitive linguists (e.g. Langacker 1987), we conceive of linguistic sense, or meaning, as being essentially a mapping relation between structured conceptualized content, and structured expression. A semantic domain exemplifying a local semantics is one in which a given linguistic conceptualization, or semantic type, is mapped to a single selection from a single form class, and a disjunctive set of semantic types is mapped to a disjunctive set of selections from within the same form class. Conversely, a semantic domain exemplifying a distributed semantics is one in which a given semantic type is mapped to selections from different form classes (either systemically or in a given syntagmatic string), and a disjunctive set of semantic types is nondisjunctively mapped to such selections from different form classes. The challenge now is to construct linguistic and cognitive models capable of further explicating the nature of distributed spatial semantics. NOTES 1 The authors are greatly indebted to Hubert Cuyckens, Mariko Hayashi, Christa KilianHatz, Bernd Heine, Lis A. Thorseng and Jordan Zlatev for their comments on and contributions to various analyses and examples in this paper. Earlier versions were presented at the 3rd International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Leuven, Belgium, July 1993, and the LAUD International Symposium on Language and Space, Duisburg, Germany, March 1994. This research was supported by the Danish Humanities Research Council and the Center for Semiotic Research, University of Aarhus. The address of the first author is: Institute of Psychology, Aarhus University, Asylvej 4, DK-8240 Risskov, Denmark, Email [email protected].

196 2 Here and elsewhere we use the term locative particle as a designation for the class of locative items which are in many languages adposed to noun phrases, but which may also occur as verbal particles or be used adverbially. Hence, our use of the term locative particle covers items which may, in grammatical terms, be adpositions, adverbs, or particles sensu strictu; and which may or may not exhibit internal structure (e.g. English in vs. in front of). We shall be concerned with both preposed and postposed particles in different languages, and we shall also be concerned with the different ways in which the semantics of spatial relations receives expression in different languages; but our first concern is not with the taxonomical status within grammar of locative particles as such (Emonds 1972; Burton-Roberts 1991). Svorou (1994) employs the term spatial gram to cover locative particles as we have defined them, other locative lexical items, and items of affixative and inflectional morphology conveying spatial relational meaning. Although we shall consider some examples of e.g. verbal affixes, our main focus is upon lexical locative items. 3 We are not concerned here with the issues of whether or not "image-schematic" representations are the only appropriate descriptive notation for spatial relational meaning, or whether imagistic representations are fully adequate to describe, for example, functional aspects of spatial relations. The more theoretically neutral notion we employ below is that of linguistic conceptualization. However, "image schematization" is a natural and effective conceptual vehicle to introduce the basic notions of cognitive semantics. See Lakoff 1987; Vandeloise 1991; Sinha andThorseng, in press. 4 See Geeraerts (1993) for a critical appraisal of this argument. 5 Cuyckens employs the terms "maximal attachment" for ADHESION and "minimal attachment" for SUSPENSION.

6 It is interesting that the same spatial relationship is expressed in Danish by i (in): hunden er i snoren (the dog is on the leash). This seems to be an alternative schematization of control in terms of constraint by containment: compare the English expression "the horse is in the harness". 7 By "extra-linguistic state of affairs", we mean in this context the referred-to triple of LM, TR and Spatial Relation. 8 At least in North Jutland dialects. Native speakers' opinions about these examples may vary, as is (we have noticed) often the case for judgements of the acceptability of uses of spatial prepositions. In this case, however, Lis Thorseng has verified her intuitions against those of four other native speakers, while one (Copenhagen) native speaker has challenged the acceptability of (31). Peter Harder suggests that the alternative expression til tandlagen is characteristic of Copenhagen Danish. 9 This does not mean, clearly, that spatial relational meaning is all that is indicated or signalled by the preposition; the example from Danish should make it clear that the "pragmatics" of spatial reference also involves sociolinguistic factors, such as the possibility of identifying a person by their role and its "nameability" within a community. 10 We should point out here that the notion of Implicit Deixis as employed here is closely related to (perhaps indeed, at an appropriate level of analysis, identical to) that of Vantage Point (see above.) 11 More specifically, that part of RS constituted by the triple LM,TR andSR (spatial relation) remains constant, although the profiling of the constituent aspects of the spatial relation may vary as a function of expression (Sinha and Thorseng, in press). See below. 12 (43) and (44) might be judged (from the use of the copula as opposed to a verb of motion) to be stative locative expressions which do not employ the device of fictive motion proper. This still does not mean, however, that Path is irrelevant to the schematizations they express; see Lakoff (1987) on end-point focussing. A similarly complex relation between Path, Shape and Motion can be seen in Dutch, where both these RS's may be schematized in terms of the complex preposition aan de overkant van (on the other side of), but may not be schematized in terms of fictive motion plus over. However, the former schematization is permissible for Fig. 2b only on condition that the beach does not extend beyond the location of the castle; if it does, then aan will be selected. We thank Jose Sanders for her insights and intuitions here.

197 13 Danish employs exactly the same construction, using the preposition pa ("on"): "Han k0ber frimEerker PA posthuset." 14 cs recalls this example from discussions with Norman Freeman in the course of the LARINCS project at Bristol University on children's development of spatial cognition and language. See for example Freeman, Lloyd and Sinha (1981), Sinha (1982, 1988). 15 Wilkins and Hill (in press) argue for a "two-level semantics" in which the second level of semantics is pragmatically conditioned. This is perhaps similar to the distinction between "narrow" and "wide" schematization. They also, however, argue for "modularly distinct" pragmatics and semantics: our own preference (in common with most cognitive linguists) is to reject such modular distinctness, and to appeal in support of this rejection to the strong penetration into expression of "wide schematization" in the domain of spatial relational meaning. In other words, since we accept the basic cognitive linguistic premise of the motivation of structure by schematized meaning, and sine spatial relational expression is motivated (without demarcation in expression) by schematization in both the broad and the narrow sense, we consider it reasonable to assume a continuity rather than a discontinuity between "semantics" and "pragmatics", even if one accepts that the terms do mark different aspects of meaning in general. 16 The syntagmatic sequence at issue may be a phrasal or a sentential clause. 17 The locative noun is fully productive in its combinatorial properties; since Japanese does not employ articles, the absence of such for the locative noun is no indication that it should be considered as an adposition. 18 Bernd Heine (p.c.) suggests that this noun, contrary to what may be implied by the orthography of the uncorrected proofs of Ameka's article which we have at our disposal at the time of writing, is in fact a different morpheme (do, "belly") from the verb do. See Heine et al., 1991: 134. 19 We do not suggest that all these assumptions have gone unexamined or unchallenged, but that they constitute a framework of largely inexplicit presuppositions associated with, and flowing from, the widespread "localist" bias of standard approaches to spatial semantics. 20 See also Heine et al. (1991:276, n. 22): "the term 'preposition' is grossly misleading: more appropriately, one should say that we are dealing with a continuum ranging from verbal [and nominal] to prepositional use." REFERENCES Ameka, F. In press. The Linguistic Construction of Space in Ewe. Cognitive Linguistics 6 2/3. Bennett, D. 1975. Spatial and Temporal Uses of English Prepositions: An Essay in Stratificational Analysis. London: Longman. Bennett, D. 1993. There Is More to Location Than Prepositions. Commentary on Landau and Jackendoff, 1993. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16, 239. Brugman, C. 1981. The Story of "Over". MA thesis, University of California, Berkeley. Brugman, C. 1983. The Use of Body-Part Terms as Locatives in Chalcatongo Mixtec. Survey of California and Other Indian Languages 4, 239-290. Burton-Roberts, N. 1991. Prepositions, Adverbs and Adverbials. In Tieken-Boon, I. and Frankis, J. (eds), Language: Usage And Description. Editions Rodopi, pp. 159-172. Casad, E. H. 1993. "Locations", "Paths" and the Cora Verb. In Geiger, R. A. and Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (eds). Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 593-645. Claudi, U. and Heine, B. 1986. On the Metaphorical Base of Grammar. Studies in Language 10, 297-335. Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cuyckens, H. 1991. The Semantics of Spatial Prepositions in Dutch: A Cognitive-Linguistic Exercise. PhD thesis, University of Antwerp. Emonds, J. 1972. Evidence that Indirect Object Movement is a Structure Preserving Rule. Foundations of Language 8, 546-561. Freeman, N. H. Lloyd, S. & Sinha, C. 1980. Infant Search Tasks Reveal Early Concepts of Containment and Canonical Usage of Objects. Cognition 8, 243-262.

198 Geeraerts, D. 1992. The Semantic Structure of Dutch Over. Leuvense Bijdragen 81, 205229. Geeraerts, D. 1993. Vagueness's Puzzles, Polysemy's Vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics 4, 223-272. Heine, B., Claudi, U. & Hiinnemeyer, F. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Herskovits, A. 1986. Language and Spatial Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kuteva, T. & Sinha, C. 1994. Spatial and Non-spatial Uses of Prepositions: Conceptual Integrity Across Semantic Domains. In Schwarz, M. (ed.), Kognitive Semantik/ Cognitive Semantics: Ergebnisse, Probleme, Perspectiven. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, pp. 215-237. Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Landau, B. & Jackendoff, R. 1993. "What" and "Where" in Spatial Language and Spatial Cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16, 217-265. Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, R. W. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1, 5-38. Levinson, S. R. 1991. Relativity in spatial conception and description. Cognitive Anthropology Research Group at the Max-Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Working Paper 1: Nijmegen. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacLaury, R. E. 1989. Zapotec Body-Part Locatives: Protoypes and Metaphoric Extensions. International Journal of American Linguistics 55, 119-154. Miller, G. A. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1976. Language and Perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ookubo, T. 1977. Shin Nihon-bunpou Nyuumon. Sanseido. Paprotte, W. & Sinha, C. 1987. Functional Sentence Perspective in Discourse and Language Acquisition. In Dirven, R. & Fried, W. (eds), Functionalism in Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 265-296. Sinha, C. 1982. Representational Development and the Structure of Action. In Buttenvorth, G. and Light, P. (eds), Social Cognition: Studies in the Development of Understanding. Hassocks: Harvester, pp. 137-162. Sinha, C. 1988. Language and Representation: A Socio-Naturalistic Approach to Human Development. Brighton: Harvester-Wheatsheaf. Sinha, C , Thorseng, L. A., Hayashi, M. & Plunkett, K. 1994. Comparative Spatial Semantics and Language Acquisition: Evidence from Danish, English and Japanese. Journal of Semantics 11: 253-287. Sinha, C. & Thorseng, L. A. In Press. A Coding System for Spatial Relational Reference. Cognitive Linguistics 6, 2/3. Slobin, D. I. 1992. Two Ways to Travel: Verbs of Motion in English and Spanish. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Linguistics Society of Belgium, Antwerp, November. Svorou, S. 1994. The Grammar of Space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Talmy, L. 1983. How Language Structures Space. In Pick, H. L., Jr. & Acredolo, L. P. (eds). Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research and Application. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 225-282. Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure In Lexical Forms. In Shopen, T. (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 3, Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57-149. Talmy, L. 1990. Fictive Motion and Change in Language and Cognition. Plenary lecture to International Pragmatics Conference, Barcelona. Talmy, L. In Press. Fictive Motion in Language and "Ception". In Bloom, P., Peterson, M., Nadel, L. & Garrett, M. (eds), Language and Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vandeloise, C. 1991. Spatial Prepositions: A Case Study from French. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

199 Wilkins, D. & Hill, D. In Press. When "Go" Means "Come". Questioning the Basicness of Basic Motion Verbs. Cognitive Linguistics 6, 2/3. Yamada, S. 1990. Kinougo No Imi No Hikaku. In Kunihiro, T. (ed.) Nichieigo Hikaku Kouza, Vol 3. Taishuukan-Shoken. Zlatev, J. 1992. A Study of Perceptually Grounded Polysemy in a Spatial Microdomain. TR-92-048. International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley. Zlatev, J. 1995. "Holistic" Spatial Semantics: a Cross-linguistic Study. Paper presented at the 4th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Albuquerque, NM, July.