Spatial prepositions and functional relations : the case for minimally specified lexical entries
In this thesis we present a minimally specified approach to the lexical entries for spatial prepositions based on the recognition of the importance of functional relations. We begin by introducing the problem of separating our senses of a lexeme from occurrences of a lexeme, and with a consideration of methods of sense delineation, including ambiguity tests. We then consider classical approaches to the lexical entries of prepositions which favour minimal specification of lexical entries, and compare them to cognitive linguistic accounts which favour full specification of lexical entries. It is argued that classical accounts have problems with case accountability, while cognitive linguistic accounts are based on a misinterpretation of prototype theory. We demonstrate that the accounts are very similar in that they delineate senses in terms of different geometric relations in the world. Functional relations are introduced as an alternative way of understanding spatial relations. It is argued that what is important about objects is how they interact with each other, that is, the <i>functional relations</i> between objects. The work of Garrod and Sanford (1989) and Talmy (1988) is considered in this context, and
Coventry, Kenneth Richmond
Spatial prepositions and functional relations : the case for minimally specified lexical entries. In this thesis we present a minimally specified approach to the lexical entries for spatial prepositions based on the recognition of the importance of functional relations. We begin by introducing the problem of separating our senses of a lexeme from occurrences of a lexeme, and with a consideration of methods of sense delineation, including ambiguity tests. We then consider classical approaches to the lexical entries of prepositions which favour minimal specification of lexical entries, and compare them to cognitive linguistic accounts which favour full specification of lexical entries. It is argued that classical accounts have problems with case accountability, while cognitive linguistic accounts are based on a misinterpretation of prototype theory. We demonstrate that the accounts are very similar in that they delineate senses in terms of different geometric relations in the world. Functional relations are introduced as an alternative way of understanding spatial relations. It is argued that what is important about objects is how they interact with each other, that is, the <i>functional relations</i> between objects. The work of Garrod and Sanford (1989) and Talmy (1988) is considered in this context, and
spatial preposition functional relation case minimally specify lexical_entry present minimally lexical_entry spatial preposition base recognition_importance functional relation begin_introduce problem sens lexeme occurrence lexeme consideration method sense delineation include ambiguity test consider classical approach lexical_entry preposition favour minimal specification lexical_entry compare cognitive_linguistic account favour full specification lexical_entry argue classical account problem case accountability cognitive_linguistic account base misinterpretation prototype_theory account similar delineate sens term different geometric relation world functional relation introduce alternative_way spatial_relation argue important object interact functional relation object work talmy consider context