Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T14:13:02.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Semantic Structure of the Norwegian Preposition mot

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

K. E. Kristoffersen
K. E. Kristoffersen
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, PO Box 1102 Blindern, N-0317 Oslo, Norway. E-mail: k.e.kristoffersen@ilf.uio.no
Get access

Abstract

This article examines the semantic structure of the Norwegian preposition mot ‘towards, against’, and suggests an analysis within cognitive semantics where it is argued that the various senses of this word are best accounted for in terms of a family resemblance category, with two interrelated image schemas, SOURCE-PATH-GOAL and FORCE DYNAMICS, as its basic senses. Other senses are treated as extensions, for the most part metaphorical, of these two basic senses. The study builds on a corpus of Norwegian texts from various genres.

Type
Articles
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , June 2001 , pp. 3 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Atkins, B. T., Kegl, J. & Levin, B. 1988. Anatomy of a Verb Entry: From Linguistic Theory to Lexicographic Practice. International Journal of Lexicography 1: 84–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrell, M. & Brée, D. 1993. German Temporal Prepositions from an English Perspective. In Zelinsky-Wibbelt 1993: 297–325.Google Scholar
Faarlund, J. T., Lie, S. & Vannebo, K. I. 1997. Norsk Referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Fritzner, J. 1973. Ordbog over det Gamle Norske Sprog, vols I–III. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Hawkins, B. W. 1993. On Universality and Variability in the Semantics of Spatial Adpositions. In Zelinsky-Wibbelt 1993: 327–349.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1992. Languages of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. & Landau, B. 1992. Spatial Language and Spatial Cognition. In Jackendoff 1992: 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landrø, M. I. & Wangensteen, B. (eds), 1993. Bokmålsordboka, 2nd ed.Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, I. 1993. Semantic and Conceptual Aspects of the Preposition durch. In Zelinsky-Wibbelt 1993: 221–247.Google Scholar
Knudsen, T. & Sommerfelt, A. (eds), 1937–1957. Norsk Riksmålsordbok. Oslo: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 202–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lang, E. 1993. The Meaning of German Projective Prepositions: A Two-level Approach. In Zelinsky-Wibbelt 1993: 249–291.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. I. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. II. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Moshagen, S. N. 1993. Over – Again!: A Formalised i-Semantic Study of the Norwegian Preposition Over. Master's thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of Trondheim.Google Scholar
Olsen, T. M. 1995. Momenter til Semantisk Beskrivelse av i og på: En Kritisk Gjennomgang av Studiene til Cuyckens, Hottenroth og Herskovits. Master's thesis, Department of Scandinavian Studies and Comparative Literature, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Rauh, G. 1993. On the Grammar of Lexical and Non-lexical Prepositions in English. In Zelinsky-Wibbelt 1993: 99–150.Google Scholar
Silva, E. W. 1995. In/on-Type Elements in Tamil and Norwegian. A Study in the Expression of Unit-Creating Relations. Dr. art. thesis, University of Oslo. [Reprinted 1996 by Department of Linguistics, NTNU in the series Working Papers in Linguistics/University of Trondheim; 29.]Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 1988. Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition. Cognitive Science 12: 49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization, 2nd ed.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, C. 1994. Methodology and Analyses of the Preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics 5: 157–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1990. “Prototypes Save”: On the Uses and Abuses of the Notion of “Prototype” in Linguistics and Related Fields. In Tsohatzidis, S. L. (ed.), Meanings and Prototypes. Studies in Linguistic Categorization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. (ed.), 1993. The Semantics of Prepositions. From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar