VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTGRADUATE STUDIES HÀ THỊ TUYẾT PREPOSITIONS “IN, ON, AT” IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE FROM A COGNITIVE SEMANTIC PERSPECTIVE CÁC GIỚI TỪ “IN, ON, AT” TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT DƯỚI GÓC ĐỘ NGỮ NGHĨA HỌC TRI NHẬN M. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Linguistics Code: 60220201 HANOI – 2017 TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTGRADUATE STUDIES HÀ THỊ TUYẾT PREPOSITIONS “IN, ON, AT” IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE FROM A COGNITIVE SEMANTIC PERSPECTIVE CÁC GIỚI TỪ “IN, ON, AT” TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT DƯỚI GÓC ĐỘ NGỮ NGHĨA HỌC TRI NHẬN M. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Linguistics Code: 60220201 Supervisor: Dr. Hà Cẩm Tâm HANOI – 2017 TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com DECLARATION I hereby declare that the thesis, entitled “Prepositions “in, on, at” in English and Vietnamese from a cognitive semantic perspective” has been carried out in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Art at the University of Languages and International Studies.
This work is original and all the sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references. Hanoi – 2017 Hà Thị Tuyết i TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS During the period of completing the Master thesis, the author has received the support of a great number of people. First and foremost, I wish to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Ha Cam Tam, my supervisor, who has generously given me insightful guidance and valuable feedback during the process of carrying out the thesis, without which this thesis would be far from completed.
I would also like to give my sincere gratitude to all of the lecturers at ULIS –VNU, Hanoi for their scholarly knowledge and enthusiasm in their lectures. My profound thanks are also to all my friends and classmates in the cohort 23, who have always stayed by my side, given me constructive comments and perked me up every time I need. Last but not least, my heartfelt thanks go to my family, especially my husband and my daughter, for their immeasurable support and continual encouragement. The Master thesis could not have been fulfilled without them.
ii TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com ABSTRACT In light of reference frames used in spatial location coined by cognitive linguist Talmy in 2000, this thesis is intended to investigate the semantic features of English prepositions of place in, at, on with reference to Vietnamese. The reason for this choice of topic is that spatial conceptualization is basic in a human being‘s development and it reveals meaningful insights into the patterns of thinking and viewing the world in cross-linguistics. This paper compiles a set of typical cases using prepositions ―in‖, ―on‖ and ―at‖ in the two languages, pointing out the ways they are conceptualized and making a comparison from the data collected. The final aim is to give valid construals about spatial conceptualization processes that native speakers employ in the language.
The results show that these prepositions in both languages have some similarities and differences in term of semantics. iii TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS NP Noun phrase LM Landmark LMs Landmarks TR Trajector TRs Trajectors iv TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iv TABLE OF CONTENTS v PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1. Statement of the Problem 1 2. Aims of the Study 2 3.
Scope of the study 2 4. Organization of the study 2 PART 2: DEVELOPMENT 4 CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 4 1. An overview of Cognitive Linguistics and Cognitive Semantics 4 1. Spatial Prepositions and Semantic Perspectives on Spatial Prepositions 7 1.
Spatial domain and dimensionality 8 1. Spatial characteristics of Trajectors and Landmarks 10 1. Metaphor and spatial preposition 11 1. Overview of related studies 14 CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 17 2.
Research methods 21 CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 22 3. Conceptualization of ―in‖, ―on‖, ―at‖ in English 22 v TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail. Conceptualization of ―in‖, ―on‖, ―at‖ in Vietnamese 32 3. Similarities and Differences between English and Vietnamese Spatial Cognition 39 3.
Differences 39 PART 3: CONCLUSION 42 3. A summary of the findings 42 3. Limitation and recommendation for further studies 43 REFERENCES 45 APPENDIX: A sample of a page in the novel The Great Gasby I vi TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com PART 1: INTRODUCTION In this part, the author presents the statement of the problem, aims of the study, the research question, and organization of the study. Statement of the Problem Nowadays, English has been widely used all over the world.
The language is currently considered as a second language in many countries. However, learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) have a lot of difficulties in conceptualize and perceive the language. Beside essential notional categories namely nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs, such functional categories as prepositions are also challenging to learners of this language. EFL leaners often try to relate the use of English prepositions to their mother tongue prepositional system.
It is worth noting that cognitive semantics is concerned with investigating the relationship between experience, the conceptual system, and the semantic structure encoded by language (Lakoff, 1987). As far as spatial prepositions are concerned, cross-language research in cognitive semantics has shown that although spatial cognition exists in any language, there are differences in strategies of spatial conceptualization employed by people using each language. The linguistic encoding of spatial concepts in different language is different (Choi & Bowerman, 1991). The preposition ―in, on, at‖ are very popular spatial prepositions in English.
It is essential to grasp the related meanings of these English prepositions within the framework of cognitive semantics and this way 1 TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com immensely understand what native speakers conceptualize spatial relations of the physical world objects and how they map from these spatial domains to non- spatial domains. How these prepositions can be understood in different collocations have so far not been thoroughly investigated. The thesis hopes to contribute to the research into how different language express the various spatial relations that hold between entities in the world. Aims of the Study This study investigates the prepositions ―in, on, at‖ in English and Vietnamese from cognitive perspectives.
Therefore, it is aimed at: - Finding the ways the prepositions ―in, on, at‖ are conceptualized in English and in Vietnamese and their differences, if any. Scope of the study The study is limited to investigating the ways the prepositions ―in, on, at‖ are conceptualized in English and in Vietnamese and identifying the differences between the spatial conceptualization in these two languages, if any. Research question The following question is proposed in the current research: - To what extend do English and Vietnamese differ in the conceptualization of prepositions ―in, on, at‖ regarding the cognitive semantic perspective? 5. Organization of the study The present paper is organized in four main parts.
The INTRODUCTION part is devoted to presenting statement of the problem, aims of the study, scope of the study, significance of the study, research questions and organization of the study. The DEVELOPMENT part is subdivided into three chapters: CHAPTER 2 TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com 1 discusses the ―LITERATURE REVIEW‖ which provides necessary and relevant general theoretical concepts for the main contents of the study; CHAPTER 2: ―METHODOLOGY‖ includes data collection, analytical framework and research method of the study; CHAPTER 3: ―DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS‖ comprises data analysis, findings and discussion. The CONCLUSION part demonstrates the conclusions of this piece of research, pedagogical implications, and suggestions for further studies. 3 TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com PART 2: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.
An overview of Cognitive Linguistics and Cognitive Semantics 1.1 Cognitive linguistics Cognitive linguistics is an approach to language that is based on our experience of the world and the way we perceive and conceptualize it. Ungerer & Schmid (1996) Gilles Fauconnier (2006) describes cognitive linguistics as: ―Cognitive linguistics goes beyond the visible structure of language and investigates the considerably more complex backstage operations of cognition that create grammar, conceptualization, discourse, and thought itself. The theoretical insights of cognitive linguistics are based on extensive empirical observation in multiple contexts, and on experimental work in psychology and neuroscience. Results of cognitive linguistics, especially from metaphor theory and conceptual integration theory, have been applied to wide ranges of nonlinguistic phenomena.2 Cognitive semantics Cognitive semantics is a branch of cognitive linguistics.
Like cognitive linguistics, cognitive semantics is not a single unified theory. It studies language as a container and an organizer within the human mind. This approach takes the relationship between meaning and human mind as its central concern. Vyvyan Evans (2006:156), cognitive semantics sees linguistic meaning as a manifestation of conceptual structure: the nature and organization of mental 4 TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com representation in all its richness and diversity, and this is what makes it a distinctive approach to linguistic meaning.
Talmy (2000:4) describes cognitive semantics and the main methodology as: ―Research on cognitive semantics is research on conceptual content and its organization in language and hence, on the nature of conceptual content and organization in general‖. According to Talmy (2000), Lakoff & Johnson (1980), and Geerearts (1999), there are four guiding principles that cognitive semantics conform to: (i) Conceptual structure is embodied; (ii) Semantic structure is conceptual structure; (iii) Meaning representation is encyclopedic; (iv) Meaning construction is conceptualization. The first guiding principle means that the nature of conceptual organization arises from bodily experience. Because of the nature of our bodies, including our neuro-anatomical architecture, we have a species specific view of the world (Geerearts, 1999; Talmy, 1985, 2000).
In other words, our construal of reality is mediated, in large measure, by the nature of our embodiment. We can only talk about what we can perceive and conceive, and the things that we can perceive and conceive derive from embodied experience. From this point of view, the human mind must bear the imprint of embodied experience. This position holds that conceptual is a consequence of the nature of our embodiment and thus is embodied.
The second guiding principle; that is to say, semantic structure is conceptual structure, asserts that language refers to concepts in the mind of the speaker rather than, directly, to entities which inhere in an objectively real 5 TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com external world. Put another way, semantic structure (the meanings conventionally associated with words and other linguistic units) can be equated with conceptual structure (i. However, the claim that semantic structure can be equated with conceptual structure does not mean that the two are identical. Instead, cognitive semanticists hold that the meanings associated with linguistic units such as words, for example, form only a subset of possible concepts in the minds of speaker-hearers.
After all, we have many more thoughts, ideas and feelings than we can conventionally encode in language (Evans, 2006; Evans & Green, 2006). The third guiding principle holds that semantic structure is encyclopedic in nature. This means that lexical concepts do not represent neatly packaged bundles of meaning. Rather, they serve as ‗points of access‘ to vast repositories of knowledge relating to a particular concept or conceptual domain (Langacker, 1987).
Of course, to claim that lexical concepts are ‗points of access‘ to encyclopedic meaning is not to deny that words have conventional meanings associated with them. Nevertheless, cognitive semanticists argue that the conventional meaning associated with a particular linguistic unit is simply a ‗prompt‘ for the process of meaning construction: the ‗selection‘ of an appropriate interpretation against the context of the utterance. The forth guiding principle is that language itself does not encode meaning. Accordingly, meaning is constructed at the conceptual level.