Article.
Oksana Orlenko
УДК
81’1: 811.111=161.2’165.18
CONCEPTUALIZATION OF SPATIAL RELATIONS: over vs. над, через
The author studies the differences of
conceptualization of some spatial concepts in English and Ukrainian languages.
The article contains the juxtaposition of the spatial relations represented by
the lexeme over and the
schematization of similar spatial relations by Ukrainian prepositions. The
cases of usage of the English preposition over
and the partially corresponding Ukrainian prepositions через, над along with на and за are described from the perspective of the contents
conceptualized in prepositional constructions due to the interaction of
members.
Keywords: preposition, semantic relations,
spatial relations, trajector, landmark, schematization, proto-scene, linguistic
representation.
Spatial relations depict the location of an object, action (event),
attribute and some spatial landmark in space [Всеволодова 1982:
6]. S. Levinson claims that spatial concepts are a
foundation for a great number of non-spatial concepts, and this is motivated by
the fact that space is a central cognitive domain for any moving creature, and
human mind is deeply spatial, as most information about the world is acquired
perceptually [Levinson 2003: 131]. The study of
perceiving space, categorization and verbalization of spatial relations is one
of the most topical areas in
contemporary researches. A key linguistic means for expressing spatial
relations is the preposition. In the prepositional system of each language, the
semantics of primary prepositions is "the most abstract and
semantically flexible, acquiring the secondary function that makes possible the
discrimination of their functional and semantic paradigms as well as the
establishment of some centres (nuclei) in their functional
representations" [Загнітко 2007: 133], but the most frequently evident
content is nuclear, primary (mostly spatial). In this paper, the focus is on the difference of the
linguistic representation of some spatial relations in English and Ukrainian.
The mechanism of achieving the aim defined consists of specific tasks: 1) tracking the possible usage
of the preposition over in English; 2) analyzing relations profiled by the
Ukrainian prepositions через and над in syntactic
constructions; 3) explaining the correlation of using the prepositions over
and через
/ над in both languages; 4) defining the differences in the model and
motivation of developing the semantic network of prepositions in different
languages.
The novelty of the analysis is defined
with synthesis of theoretical and applied studies of conceptual content of
prepositions in Ukrainian and the differences in space relation
conceptualization in English and Ukrainian. The theoretical value of this study is the presentation of the
models of developing the semantic network of the preposition, taking into
account the specific features of the linguistic representation of spatial
relations. Theoretical developments give reasons for practical importance of the proposed research, which may be used in
cultural, linguistic, psycholinguistic, pedagogic and other studies, as well as
developments in the application of models and motivation of lingual
representation of spatial relations.
The research is conducted in the framework of the dissertation which is
devoted to the analysis of the semantic relations of English, Serbian and
Ukrainian prepositions for revealing the mechanisms of perceiving and
experiencing the world as well as representing knowledge by means of national
languages.
The research of English prepositions has been rather well-documented,
meanwhile this type of studying Ukrainian and Serbian prepositions is at its
initial stage. Grounded on the principles of Anglophone researchers, the author
aims at studying the semantic relations of primary simple prepositions in two
languages as a means for representing the perception of space, time and
abstract notions.
The
theoretical background of the study is motivated by the researches of К. Brugman, А. Herskovits, G. Lakoff, R. Langacker, R. Przybylska, А. Tyler and V. Evans, І. Vykhovanets, А. Zahnitko [Brugman
1988; Herskovits 1986; Lakoff 1990; Langacker 2000; Przybylska 2002; Tyler, Evans 2003; Вихованець 1980; Загнітко 2004]. From the perspective of the schematization of the
natural category in the meaning represented by the lexeme over, and by contrasting
it to the schematization of relevant spatial relations in Ukrainian, one tracks
differences in conceptualizing of some spatial concepts in English and
Ukrainian which are the aim of this study. The object of this study is the
semantic relations in the grammatical constructions with the English
preposition over and with the partially corresponding constructions with
the Ukrainian prepositions над, через. The subject of the
study is 1000 contexts of the preposition over, 641 contexts of the
preposition через, 694 contexts of the preposition над and its phonetic
variants наді, надо. The source basis for the
English language is the British National
Corpus (BYU-BNC[1]). As the Ukrainian National Linguistic Corpus (Український національний лінгвістичний корпус)[2] is not accessible
for the public as yet, the study is possible on the sources of the Corpus of Ukrainian-Language Texts
(Корпус текстів української мови, КТУМ)[3].
The material for defining semantic categories conceptualized by primary
prepositions in contemporary languages, however, should consist of texts
produced during the last 30 years. These texts are not abundant in КТУМ. Besides, КТУМ has limited access to their statistics. That is why
this research focuses on 26 Ukrainian-language texts (this number is gradually
increasing), where the contexts of the prepositions under study were collected
by thorough selection.
The
basic conceptual content of each preposition is defined through the contexts
where the prepositions represent spatial relations. The conceptual content of
the preposition can be abstracted from specific spatial scenes that lead to
very abstract and schematized representation, which V. Evans and
A. Tyler term a proto-scene.
The proto-scene can be equated with the primary meaning associated with a
particular preposition, and thus includes the conceptual and spatial
information referring to the elements of a spatial proto-scene: a trajector (TR) and a landmark
(LM) (terms by R. Langacker [Langacker 2000]). As idealized schemas,
proto-scenes do not contain any detailed information neither about the nature
of a TR or LM, nor detailed metric information about such notions as the exact
shape of the LM or the degree of contact between the TR and the LM [Evans, Tyler 2003:
9]. The schema TR is a core element that empowers any
entity, which can be interpreted as "focus" or central, to take this
position. Moreover, there is a schema element of the background, i.e. landmark
which is the starting point for defining the position of a TR.
All the elements, which are significant for interpreting a
scene, must be linguistically encoded [Tyler, Evans 2003: 65].
The proto-scene associated
with over
involved a spatial configuration in which the TR is located higher than the LM.
А. Tyler and V. Evans address The
Oxford English Dictionary: the
primary sense is connected with the form of over and expresses the
relation HIGHER THAN as well as correlates with the preposition above
(see (1)) [Tyler, Evans 2003: 65]. The difference between over and above
is that over stands for spatial relations where the TR is higher than
the LM, but
crucially within potential contact with the LM, while above describes spatial
relations in which the TR is physically proximal to the LM (2). The
functional element which is associated with the proto-scene over:
the TR and LM are within each other’s sphere of influence (see (3)) – is not natural
for above
[Tyler, Evans 2003: 77].
(1) The picture is over the
mantel.
(2) There are a few stray marks just above
the line [Tyler, Evans 2003: 77].
(3) The aeroplane flew over Manhattan.
The
proto-scene of the Ukrainian preposition над is based on the relation: the TR
IS HIGHER THAN the LM [СУМ 1974: 59], the contact between the TR and the LM is
absent (4) and (5), but possible, like in (1) and (3).
(4) Розплавився навіть давній латунний гуцульський мосяжний хрест, прибитий
над входом (Прохасько 2005).
(5) А це означало б, що він неминуче пролетить і над Львовом (Андрухович 2003).
G. Lakoff asserts that the central sense of over
joins the elements of the senses of above and across
[Lakoff 1990: 542], claiming
that over profiles dynamicity, movement trajectory. А. Tyler
and V. Evans object to this point of view and ground that a movement is
profiled by a verb in the sentence, and a trajectory is profiled by the TR
feature of moving in a certain way [Tyler, Evans 2003: 69-71]. In the case like
(3), the schema enacted is identical to the one in (1). The preposition over
in both cases only profiles the key spatial configuration of the TR as a figure
concerning to the LM as a ground: the TR is located higher than the LM in the
sphere of influence, and some contact is possible between the elements of the
scene (the picture may fall on the mantel, the aeroplane may land on or fall on the territory of Manhattan).
In any
case, the spatial scene represented by the preposition over include – or, at
least, implies – more than one location point (or possibility) for the TR
at the specific time, but only one point is central for the scene and defines
the schema of relations. The Ukrainian preposition над has only one location
point for a TR in the proto-scene (4), (5), unlike the proto-scene of the
preposition через which offers a TR a possibility of its presence in more
than one point of the scene, but profiles its location in the direct contact
with the LM (6). In the prototypical situation, the LM is larger than the TR;
according to [СУМ 1980: 304],
the TR enters the limits of the LM on one side and leaves them on another,
meanwhile the TR needs some time for this (7), (8). The LM is conceptualized as
an obstacle on the way of the TR. The very specification of the LM has become
the foundation for developing the derivative senses of the preposition через.
(6) Дорога туди пролягала через
пустир та неродючі пригірські городи (Дереш 2006).
(7) Іван не озираючись пішов через
увесь передпокій… (Андрухович 2003).
(8) Ми пролазили
через дріт і збирали гриби
(Прохасько 2005).
The
proto-scene projects derivative senses on the basis of the image-schema and the
additional features of the scene. In other words, the current conceptualization
complex derives from the proto-scene, and the connection between the derived
sense and the proto-scene is fundamental. In many cases, various senses,
however, do not come directly from the proto-scene in the context of the sentence
where the preposition is used [Tyler, Evans 2003: 79]. Derived senses construct a network with branches. Basing
on the similarity of the situation, some senses produce
clusters.
The А-В-С Trajectory Cluster
V. Evans and А. Tyler suggest
a branched schema for illustrating the relations represented by the preposition over in various contexts
[Tyler, Evans 2003: 80]. The largest
cluster of derivative senses is conventionally called А‑В‑С Trajectory.
All senses forming the А‑В‑С Trajectory cluster
come from the reconsideration of the schema where points А and С are
only implied in cases (9) and (10). The situation is characterized by the
following elements: the verb jump
defines point A as a starting point; John
(TR) is not able to stay in the air and has to return to
the ground – to point С; the fence (LM) is construed as an obstacle for the direct movement
of the TR; over means the key position of the TR in this situation – over the LM, higher than the LM.
(9) John jumped over the fence and went on.
(10) John climbed over the fence and went on.
The
presence of contact between the LM and the TR is
probable, but this element is not relevant for the meaning of
the preposition over. As G. Lakoff states, the
contact is not visible on the schema, as the image-schema is neutral in this
aspect [Lakoff 1990: 542-543]. That is why we stress that the same schema is
applied in cases (9) and (10).
The
derivative schema of spatial relations represented by the preposition через
is construed similarly to the А‑В‑С Trajectory Schema of the
preposition over. Points А and С are presented conventionally in the
schema, the attention focuses on point В as the key position in the interaction
with the LM, and, unlike in the proto-scene of через, this point is
located higher than the LM (11), (12). The LM is conceptualized as an obstacle
in the proto-scene that is the main feature for associating the schema with the
proto-scene.
(11) У Свят-вечір не вільно подавати одне одному руку через поріг, розсипати сіль і бити дзеркала (Андрухович 2002).
(12) Ми з Хіппі скинули черевики, щоб їх, бува, не засмоктало, і по черзі
перелізли через тин (Дереш
2006).
The On-the-other-side-from Sense
The
On-the-other-side-from Sense is an invariant of the А‑В‑С Trajectory Schema. Here over
is applied for signifying the central spatial configuration where
the movement of the TR is finished, and the TR is on the other side of the LM
in comparison with the starting point of the trajectory [Tyler, Evans
2003: 81]. The fact that the preposition over
does not profile the trajectory supports the usage of over in connection both
with dynamic verbs (13), and with verbs showing the location of the TR (14). The presence or absence of the trajectory is defined by the
context, but it is not fundamental for construing another sense of over.
(13) Sam drove over the bridge [Lakoff 1990: 544].
(14) Arlington is over the Potomac River from Georgetown [Tyler,
Evans 2003: 81].
The only difference between these situations is that (13) schematizes
the moving trajectory of the TR, and (14) depicts the trajectory of an implied
witness’s view which is on that bank of the Potomac where Georgetown is
located, and, thus, this is the starting point for the trajectory of the view;
the place, where Arlington is located, is the target point of the view, and the
Potomac is the LM specified as an obstacle.
The Ukrainian equivalent for situation (13) could be presented as (15),
and (14) is literally translated as Арлінгтон розташовано через річку Потомак від Джорджтауна,
but in the Ukrainian
context this situation will demand a different preposition
like in (16).
(15) Семен переїхав через міст.
(16)
За річкою – Єзупіль, але на нього можна
лише дивитися з високого лівого берега (Прохасько 2010).
In its representative proto-scene, the preposition за, like over
in (13) and (17), includes an implied viewer that is “off-stage”. Therefore,
the starting point for the view is the place on the bank of the river, and the
target point coincides with the locus of the TR, i.e. it stays on the opposite
bank (18).
(17) The ball landed over the wall.
(18) М’яч приземлився (впав) за
стіною.
The reconsideration of the preposition over, which takes place
in the On-the-other-side-from Sense, contains changes unlike the
proto-scene: the privileged position of point С and its interpretation as a
point, near which the TR was located, as well as the change of the view point.
The position of an implied viewer is shifted very closely to point A. V. Evans
and А. Tyler assume that this sense has developed
via the usage of over in the context where the On-the-other-side-from
Sense was implicit, and has become conventionally associated
with over
as a distinct sense, – this process has been named pragmatic strengthening [Tyler, Evans 2003: 82].
Excess Schema (The
Above-and-beyond Sense)
The Above-and-beyond Sense
is realized when the usage of over is defined by the proto-scene with an additional
implicatures: the LM represents an
intended goal or target, and the TR moves
beyond the intended or desired point [Tyler, Evans 2003: 83].
(19) The arrow flew over the target and landed in the woods.
Case (19) differs from case (9) as the TR moves beyond the LM which is interpreted
as a target, and it is expected that the TR contacts the target. When the TR
misses the target, it moves ABOVE and BEYOND the LM. Therefore, the scene
conceptualizes MOVING TOO FAR, or it contains excess. Evidence for this sense
being distinct comes from further semantic widening which is inexplicable from
the contextual viewpoint [Tyler, Evans 2003: 83].
In Ukrainian, there are two variants of verbalizing a situation in such
spatial scene (19): 1) the Excess Sense is represented by the verbal
prefix пере- while the location in
space relevant to the LM is represented by the preposition через (20); 2) the
preposition над profiles the key position of the TR in such spatial
configuration where it is higher than the LM is (21), and excessiveness is
signalized by the features of the concept ЦІЛЬ ‘target’
which the prototypical arrow is to reach but it does not.
(20) Стріла перелетіла через ціль і впала десь у лісі.
(21) Стріла полетіла над ціллю і впала десь у лісі.
Nonetheless, neither через, nor над schematizes the Above-and-beyond Sense, like the
preposition over does. This relation can represent the whole context, often
linked to через and за prepositional constructions as in
(22). The preposition через conceptualizes a spatial
configuration where the TR stays in the space relevant to the LM, in the field
of interaction, and the specification of the TR’s location point depends on the
context. In the spatial scene of the preposition через, the LM is
conceptualized as an obstacle, and the features of the LM and the TR influence
the way how the TR can overcome this obstacle. For instance, context (23)
represents the scene where the TR misses the LM above, and in (24) the TR moves
between the elements of the LM.
(22) Часом стріли перелітали через
ціль і падали аж за межею поля.
(23) З відстані ста кроків вони перелітали ще й через двадцятиметрове дерево, а з тридцяти пробивали дошку (Прохасько 2005).
(24) Стріла пролетіла через листя,
не зачепившись за жодну гілку.
The
Excess Schema for the preposition через is linked to the
conceptualization of the LM as part of a container (25). In this scene, the LM
may be represented via the lexemes край, верх, вінця, denoting the upper boundary of a container wall.
(25) Бармен … наповняючи лямпки смолисто-тягучою, мов розтоплений бурштин,
рідиною, переливає через верх… (Прохасько 2005).
The Covering Sense
Typical is the situation when the TR is smaller than the LM. Although,
there are instances in the real world in which the object that is in focus
(i.e., the TR) is larger or perceived to be larger than the locating object
(i.e., the LM). Under usual conditions, the construction of the Covering Sense
contains two changes in the typical representation of the proto-scene: firstly,
the TR is accepted as being larger than the LM, and, secondly, the viewpoint is
shifted from the ‘off-stage’ position to the ‘higher than the LM’ position [Tyler, Evans 2003: 90]:
(26) The tablecloth is over the table.
(27) The fibreglass protector was over the swimming pool.
In
Ukrainian, the Covering Sense is characteristic for the
preposition на. The obligatory feature of the proto-scene of
the preposition на is a contact between the TR and the LM: the LM has a
horizontal surface above which there is the TR (28). The size of the TR does
not change schematization of the spatial scene as it is typical for the
prepositions on and over [Tyler, Evans 2003: 91].
(28) Скатертина лежить на столі.
The Examining Sense
Any spatial scene can be seen from various viewpoints.
The prototypical viewpoint is linked to the proto-scene where the viewer is
‘off-stage’. Construing the sense of over, which is illustrated by (29),
is the result of shifting a viewpoint. This is the viewpoint of the TR, and
moreover, the viewpoint of the TR is oriented at the LM [Tyler, Evans 2003: 93].
(29) Phyllis is standing over the entrance to the underground chamber.
Here over is
employed according to its proto-scene, and it denotes spatial relations between
the TR,
Phyllis, and
the
LM, the entrance to the underground chamber,
where the TR is located higher, but very close to the LM: Phyllis stays in the position where she can observe the entrance and is
able to notice details. If the object is not sufficiently close to the viewer,
it is usually fuzzy for the viewer’s perception and the viewer cannot notice
details
[Tyler, Evans 2003: 93].
The
preposition над can indicate the difference of the sizes of the TR and LM.
Cases (30), (31) testify that only part of the TR can be located just ABOVE the
LM. Both over, and над are characterized with the
appearance of a distinct sense of ‘examining’ motivated by the position of the
TR in the proto-scene that is convenient for observing closely the LM.
(30) Ще він побачив навколо себе голови – ціле товариство згромадилося над шахівницею, збуджено обговорюючи
становище… (Андрухович 2003).
(31) Карл-Йозеф обережно відклав убік свого меча і першим схилився над заюшеним Пепою (Андрухович 2003).
Thus,
we have analyzed the basic spatial relations represented by the English
preposition over. The contrasting of verbalizing similar spatial relations
in Ukrainian has enabled us to conclude that distinct senses of over
correlate with image-schemas, characteristic for various Ukrainian prepositions
– mainly над and через, but partially за
and на
as well. We deduce that in Ukrainian the presented set of scenes are not
conceptualized as a chain of connected variations, derived from the same
proto-scene and possessing one or two changes in the scene that provoke a
distinct sense, but as different scenes that represent various categories of
spatial relations, and they are not connected via derivation. The research is conducted in the framework of the
dissertation which is devoted to the analysis of the semantic relations of
English, Serbian and Ukrainian prepositions for revealing the mechanisms of
perceiving and experiencing the world as well as representing knowledge by
means of national languages. The research of English prepositions has been
rather well-documented, meanwhile this type of studying Ukrainian and Serbian
prepositions is at its initial stage. Grounded on the principles of Anglophone
researchers, the author aims at studying the semantic relations of primary
simple prepositions in two languages as a means for representing the perception
of space, time and abstract notions
[2] Ukrainian National
Linguistic Corpus created by the Ukrainian Linguistic
and Informational Fund of the National Academy of Arts and Sciences of Ukraine. – Access mode : URL : http://lcorp.ulif.org.ua/virt_unlc/. – Title
from the screen. [3] Corpus of
Ukrainian-Language Texts is a project of the Linguistic Portal. – Access mode :
URL : http://www.mova.info/corpus.aspx?l1=209. – Title
from the screen..
References.
Вихованець 1980: Вихованець, І. Прийменникова система
української мови [Текст] / І. Р. Вихованець. – К. : Наукова
думка, 1980. – 288 с. –
Бібліогр. : c. 274-284. – 1500 пр.
Всеволодова 1982:
Всеволодова, М. Способы выражения пространственных отношений в современном
русском языке [Текст] / М. В. Всеволодова,
Е. Ю. Владимирский. – М. : Русский язык,
1982. – 264 с. – Библиогр. : c. 250-253.
– 5000 экз.
Загнітко 2007: Загнітко, А. Синтагматика прийменників зі значенням мети
[Текст] / А. Загнітко,
Н. Загнітко // Лінгвістичні студії : Зб. наук. праць. Випуск 15 / Укл. : А. Загнітко (наук. ред.) та ін. – Донецьк : ДонНУ, 2007. – С. 131-142. – 500 пр. – ISBN 966-7277-88-7.
Загнітко 2004: Загнітко, А. Українські прийменники : інвентар і структура [Текст] /
А. Загнітко, І. Данилюк, Г. Ситар // Лінгвістичні студії : Зб. наук. праць. Випуск 12 /
Укл. : А. Загнітко та ін. – Донецьк : ДонНУ, 2004. – С. 41-47.
СУМ 1974: Словник української мови : В 11-ти томах [Текст] / Гол. ред. І. К. Білодід,
ред. тому В. О. Винник, Л. А. Юрчук. – Т. 5. – К. : Наукова думка, 1974. – 840 с.
СУМ 1980: Словник української мови : В 11-ти томах [Текст] / Гол. ред. І. К. Білодід,
ред. тому С. І. Головащук – Т. 11. – К. : Наукова думка, 1980. – 699 с.
Brugman 1988: Brugman, С. The Story of
Over : Polysemy, Semantics and the Structure of the Lexicon [Text] / С. Brugman. – New York : Garland,
1988. – 115 pp.
Evans, Tyler: Evans, V. Applying Cognitive Linguistics
to Pedagogical Grammar : The English Prepositions of Verticality [Електронний ресурс] / V. Evans, A. Tyler. – 50 pp. –
Access mode : URL : http://www.vyvevans.net/Applycoglxpedagogy.pdf від 09.09.2013. – Title from the screen.
Herskovits 1986:
Herskovits, A. Language and
Spatial Cognition: Interdisciplinary Study [Text] / А. Herskovits. – Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press, 1986. – 208 pp. – Ref. : Pр. 201-205. – ISBN 0 521 26690 4.
Lakoff
1990: Lakoff, G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things : What Categories
Reveal about the Mind [Text] / G. Lakoff. – Chicago : Chicago
University Press, 1990. – 614 pp. – Ref. : Pз. 589-600. – ISBN 0-226-46804-6.
Langacker 2000: Langacker, R. Grammar and Conceptualization [Text] / R. Langacker. – Berlin
– New York : Walter de Gruyter, 2000. – 427 рp. – Ref. : Pp. 401-418. – ISBN
3-11-016604-6.
Levinson 2003: Levinson, S.C. Spatial language [Text] / S. C. Levinson // Encyclopedia of
cognitive science / L. Nadel (Ed.). – London : Nature Publishing
Group, 2003. – Pp. 131-137. – Ref. : Pр. 348-367. – ISBN
0-511-03008-8.
Przybylska 2002: Przybylska, R.
Polisemia przyimków polskich w świetle semantyki kognitywnej [Text] / R. Przybylska. – Kraków: Towarzystwo autorów i wydawców
prac naukowych UNIVERSITAS, 2002. – 608 s. – Bibliogr. : S. 579-608. – ISBN 83-7052-582-2.
Tyler,
Evans 2003: Tyler, A. The Semantics of English
Prepositions :
Spatial scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition [Text] / V. Evans,
A. Tyler. –
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2003. – xii+254 pp. – Ref. :
Pp. 238–245. – ISBN-13 978-0-521-81430.
Sources
and Abbreviations
Андрухович 2002: Андрухович, Ю. Перверзія [Електронний ресурс] / Ю. Андрухович. – Львів : ВНТЛ-Класика, 2002.
Андрухович 2003:
Андрухович, Ю. Дванадцять обручів [Електронний ресурс] /
Ю. Андрухович. – К. : Критика, 2003.
Дереш 2006: Дереш, Л.
Поклоніння ящірці [Електронний ресурс] / Л. Дереш. – К. : Книжковий
клуб „Клуб сімейного дозвілля“, 2006.
Прохасько
2005: Прохасько, Т. З цього можна зробити кілька оповідань [Електронний
ресурс] / Т. Прохасько. – Івано-Франківськ : Лілея-НВ, 2005.
Прохасько
2010: Прохасько, Т. 1000 місць і слів [Електронний ресурс] //
Прохасько Т. Ботакє / Т. Прохасько. – Івано-Франківськ :
Лілея-НВ, 2010.
У статті прослідковано відмінності в концептуалізації деяких
просторових уявлень в англійській і українській мовах. Проведено зіставлення
схематизації просторових відношень, які репрезентує слово over, зі
схематизацією подібних просторових відношень прийменниками української мови.
Описано випадки вживання англійського прийменника over та
корелятивних (частково) українських прийменників через, над і почасти на і за, відштовхуючись від змісту, який концептуалізується у
прийменникових конструкціях завдяки взаємодії членів.
Ключові слова: прийменник, семантичні відношення, просторові
відношення, траєктор, орієнтир, схематизація, протосцена,
мовна репрезентація.
Available 1 October 2013.
|