The meaning extension of over: A critique of key theories

s 
image-complexes); the kinetic space (in 
reference to action and force dynamics); 
and the maneuver space (in reference to 
Orientation and Alignment). Particularly, 
Deane’s model of Multimodal Image Theory 
is backed up by three principles in three 
aforementioned frames:
(i) Preference rule principle: A variant 
construal may be formed by combining a 
subset of images from the prototype.
(ii) Stereoscopic Principle: 
Representations employing object-centered 
fields are stereoscopic images, and must 
therefore consist of at least two images which 
represent the same scene but differ in the 
coordinates or resolution from which they 
view the scene.
(iii) Distinctiveness Principle: If an image 
or an image-complex is part of the prototype 
for a preposition, it cannot be used as a 
semantic variant of another preposition.
It is seen that the number of distinct 
senses associated with English prepositions is 
reducing systematically. Details of the senses 
denoted by over are discussed by Deane 
(ibid: 42-90). In fact, the model advocated by 
Deane has successfully bridged the gaps that 
previous approaches left. Firstly, it presents 
the sense development of over as a system 
from the prototypical sense to extended ones 
through three aforementioned principles, 
showing that the interpretation of over is a 
multi-stage cognitive process. Distinct sense, 
e.g. On-the-other-side-of or Covering sense 
presented by Tyler and Evans, are variants 
of the prototypical sense. Secondly, the 
framework has rigorous constraints on what 
counts as distinct sense, solving the issue of 
sense redundancy. However, the non-spatial 
senses of over are not treated in the light of 
Multimodal Space Image Theory. Therefore, 
in order to explain how non-spatial senses of 
over develop from spatial ones, there is a need 
of a combination between space and non-
space frames of analysis. 
3. Conclusion
In conclusion, regarding the goal of the 
paper, we have reviewed four notable works to 
treat over by different scholars (Lakoff, 1987; 
Boers, 1996; Tyler & Evans, 2003; Deane, 
2005). The Full-specification approach 
advocated by Lakoff is criticized for failing 
to set a theoretical constraint and no advance 
was shown in comparison with purely 
descriptive account. The Principled Polysemy 
framework introduced by Tyler and Evans 
(2003) provides rigid constraints to determine 
48 D.T.Long, V.T.H.Trang / VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol.36, No.1 (2020) 37-50
the prototypical sense of spatial prepositions, 
and to count a sense as distinct. However, this 
framework is also claimed to be too simple, 
as admitted by Evans (2014). Boers’ (1996) 
top-down analysis of conceptual metaphors 
associated with over seems to be arbitrary and 
could not show spatial cognition is a multi-
stage process. Last but not least, the model of 
Multimodal Spatial Representations by Deane 
(2005) proves to be successful, solving the 
remaining issues that other accounts left. It is 
suggested that the image-schema based view 
of over is an appropriate approach including 
four spaces: the visual space (spatial relations 
as image-complexes); the kinetic space (in 
reference to action and force dynamics); the 
maneuver space (in reference to Orientation 
and Alignment); and the mental space 
(in reference to virtual relations between 
figure and ground, in which CMT is the 
analysis tool). In other words, we advocate 
a combination between Multimodal Spatial 
Representations (Deane, 2005) and Mental 
Space from bottom-up direction (Kövecses, 
2017) to treat the issue raised in the paper. 
References
Aitchison, J. (1987). Words in the Mind: An Introduction 
to the Mental Lexicon. Oxford/ New York: Basil 
Blackwell.
Barcelona, A. (2003). Metaphor and metonymy at the 
Crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin: Mouton 
De Gruyter. 
Brugman, C. (1981). The story of OVER. Unpublished 
MA thesis, University of California: Berkeley. 
Boers, F. (1996). Spatial Prepositions and Metaphor: A 
Cognitive-semantic Journey along the UP-DOWN 
and the FRONT-BACK Dimensions. Tübingen: 
Gunter Narr.
Brenda, M. (2014). The Cognitive Perspective on the 
Polysemy of the English Spatial Preposition over. 
Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Coventry, K. R., Richard, C. & Simon, C. G. (1994). 
Spatial prepositions: object specific function and task 
requirements. Journal of Semantics,11(4), 289–309.
Croft, W. & Cruise, A. D. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Deane, P. D. (2005). Multimodal spatial representation: 
on the semantic unity of over. In From Perception to 
Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, 
Beate, H. & Grady, J. (eds), 235–284. Berlin/New 
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dewell, R. B. (1994). Over again: Image-schema 
transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive 
Linguistics, 5(4), 351–380.
Dobrovolskij, D., & Piirainen, E. (2005). Figurative 
Language: Cross-cultural and Cross-linguistic 
Perspective. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Evans, V. (2004). The Structure of Time: Language, 
Meaning and Temporal Cognition. Amsterdam: John 
Benjamins.
Evans, V. (2005). The meaning of time: polysemy, the 
lexicon and conceptual structure. J. Linguist, 41(1), 
33-75.
Evans, V. (2006). Lexical concepts, cognitive models 
and meaning-construction. Cognitive Linguist, 17(4), 
491-534.
Evans, V. (2009). How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, 
Cognitive Models and Meaning Construction. 
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Evans, V. (2010a). From the spatial to the non-spatial: 
the ‘state’ lexical concepts of in, on and at. In: Evans, 
V., Chilton, P. (Eds.), Language, Cognition & Space, 
215-248. London: Equinox.
Evans, V. (2010b). Figurative language understanding in 
LCCM Theory. Cognitive Linguist, 21(4), 601-662.
Evans, V. (2013). Language and Time: A Cognitive 
Linguistics Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press.
Evans, V. (2014). A unified account of polysemy within 
LCCM Theory. Lingua, 157, 100-123. 
Evans, V. (2015). What’s in a concept? Analog versus 
parametric concepts in LCCM Theory. In: Margolis, 
E., Laurence, S. (Eds.), The Conceptual Mind: New 
Directions in the Study of Concepts. Cambridge, 
MA: MIT Press.
Evans, V., & Green, M (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An 
Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Evans, V., & Tyler, A. (2004). Rethinking English 
prepositions of movement: the case of to and through. 
Belg. J. Linguist, Vol 18, 247-270.
Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental Spaces. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.
 Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual 
integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 31-187. 
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we 
think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden 
Complexities. New York: Basic Books. 
Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in 
the Morning Calm, ed. by The Linguistic Society of 
Korea, 111-137. Soeul: Hanshin. 
Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of Meaning: Primary 
Metaphors and Primary Scenes. Unpublished Ph.D 
Dissertation. Berkeley: University of California 
Berkeley. 
49VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol.36, No.1 (2020) 37-50
Grady, J. (1999). A typology of motivation for 
conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance. In 
G.W. Gibbs & G. Steen (eds), Metaphor in Cognitive 
Linguistics, 79-100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and Cognition. 
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily 
basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago, 
IL: University of Chicago Press. 
Kövecses, Z. (1990). Emotion Concepts. Berlin and 
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Kövecses, Z. (1995). American friendship and the scope 
of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 315–346.
Kövecses, Z. (2000a). The scope of metaphor, in A. 
Barcelona (ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at the 
Crossroads, 79-92. Berlin: Mouton.
Kövecses, Z. (2000b). Metaphor and Emotion. 
Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University 
Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor. A Practical Introduction. 
Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality 
and Variation. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge 
University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2010a). Metaphor. A Practical 
Introduction (2nd ed). Oxford and New York: Oxford 
University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2010b). A new look at metaphorical 
creativity in cognitive linguistics, Cognitive 
Linguistics, 21(4), 663-697.
Kövecses, Z. (2015). Where Metaphors Come From: 
Reconsidering Context in Metaphor. Oxford and 
New York: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2017). Levels of metaphor. Cognitive 
linguistics, 28(2), 321-347. 
Kreitzer, A. (1997). Multiple levels of schematicization: 
a study in the conceptualization of space. Cognitive 
Linguistics, 8(4), 291–325.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Tings: 
What Categories Tell Us about the Life of the Mind. 
Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1991). The invariance hypothesis. Is 
abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive 
Linguistics, 1, 39-74.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). The Metaphors We Live 
By. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive 
grammar: Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: 
Stanford University Press. 
Langacker, R. W. (2002). Concept, image, and symbol: 
The cognitive basis of grammar. (Originally 
published in 1991). Berlin and New York: Mouton 
de Gruyter. Lindstromberg, S. (2009). English 
prepositions explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
Linder, S. (1981). A Lexico-semantic Analysis of 
English Verb Particle Constructions with “out” and 
“up”. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, University of 
California, San Diego. 
Do, T. L. (2016). The meanings of English prepositions 
over, above, under, below and their potential 
equivalents in Vietnamese. Unpublished M.A Thesis, 
University of Languages and International Studies, 
Vietnam National University, Hanoi. 
Do, T. L. (2018a). Over again: Potential novel 
perspectives from Lexical concepts and Cognitive 
models. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 34(4), 83-
103. 
Do, T. L. (2018b). Over again: Novel perspectives 
from Lexical concepts and Cognitive models. In 
2018 International Graduate Research Symposium 
Proceedings, Linguistics, Foreign Language 
Education Interdisciplinary Fields. Hanoi: Vietnam 
National University Press, Hanoi. 
Musolff, A. (2006). Metaphor scenarios in public 
discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(1), 23-38.
Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying 
metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor & 
Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. 
Recanati, F. (2004). Literal Language. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. 
Roussel, E. (2013). Limit, Space and the Preposition 
Over. Cercles, 29, 198-225.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (1998). On the nature of blending 
as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 
30, 259–274.
Sandra, D., & Rice, S. (1995). Network analyses of 
prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – 
the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive 
Linguistics. 6(1), 89-130. 
So, Y. Y. (2004). The polysemy network of over. SNU 
Working papers in English Language and Linguistics, 
3, 63-78
Stefanowitch, A. (2007). Words and their metaphors. A 
corpus-based approach. In Stefanowitch, A. & Gries, 
S.T. (Eds.,) Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor 
and Metonymy, pp. 63 - 105. Berlin: Mouton de 
Gruyter.
Steen, G.et al. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying 
metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor 
and Symbol, 22(1), 1-39.
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and constructions in 
metaphoric language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. 
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In 
Pick, H. & L. Acredolo (eds). Spatial Orientation 
Theory, Research and Application, 225-281. New 
York: Plenum Press. 
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 
II, Typology and process in concept structuring. 
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 
Taylor, J.R. (1989, 2003). Linguistic Categorization, 
Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford 
University Press. 
50 D.T.Long, V.T.H.Trang / VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol.36, No.1 (2020) 37-50
Thora, T. (2004). Review of The Semantics of English 
Prepositions [Retrieved from 
pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?SubID=18309 on 20 
June 2015]
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2000). My first husband was 
Italian: Examining “exceptional” uses of English 
tense. Linguistic Agency of University of Duisburg 
(L.A.U.D) Series A: General and Theoretical Papers. 
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001a). Reconsidering 
prepositional polysemy networks: the case of over. 
Language, 77(4), 724-765. 
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001b). The Spatialization of 
Tense: A Cognitive Investigation of Exceptional 
Uses of English Tense. In M. Putz, S. Niemeier, & 
R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches 
to language pedagogy, 63-105. Berlin: Mouton de 
Gruyter. 
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English 
prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and 
cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2004). Applying cognitive 
linguistics to pedagogical grammar: the case of 
over. In M. Achard, & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive 
linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign 
language teaching, 257-280. Berlin: Mouton de 
Gruyter. 
Tyler, A. et al. (2011). Applying Cognitive Linguistics to 
Learning the Semantics of English to, for and at: An 
Experimental Investigation. VIAL, 8, 122-139.
SỰ MỞ RỘNG NGHĨA CỦA GIỚI TỪ TIẾNG ANH 
“OVER”: NHÌN LẠI NHỮNG HƯỚNG 
NGHIÊN CỨU CHÍNH
Đỗ Tuấn Long, Vũ Thị Huyền Trang
Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ, Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội,
Phạm Văn Đồng, Cầu Giấy, Hà Nội, Việt Nam
Tóm tắt: Bài viết này tóm lược và đưa ra nhận định về một vài đường hướng phân tích hiện tượng mở 
rộng nghĩa của giới từ over và đưa ra đề xuất về Mô hình Đa phương thức kết hợp giữa ba thuyết hình ảnh 
không gian và một thuyết hình ảnh không gian tinh thần dựa trên hình ảnh (image-based view). Đề xuất của 
chúng tôi về cơ bản hoàn toàn trùng khớp với mô hình nghiên cứu của Deane (2005) và Kövecses (2017), 
trong đó nhấn mạnh rằng khi phân tích hình ảnh không gian của giới từ, ta cần có sự kết hợp đa chiều. Xét 
về nghĩa phi không gian, thì mỗi nghĩa sẽ kích hoạt một ẩn dụ mang tính tầng lớp từ khung của nó trong 
một ngôn cảnh với mục đích giao tiếp cụ thể đến miền chứa khung và cuối cùng là hình ảnh – lược đồ, cái 
mà tương trợ cho khung tri nhận trong hoạt động chủ thức của con người. 
Từ khóa: ẩn dụ, over, chuyển nghĩa, cơ chế