| This study involves a comparative semantic analysis of a selected group of spatial prepositions in English, Polish, and Russian which are commonly considered translation equivalents. It addresses the issue of why the usage of these so-called translation equivalents in fact differs so often across the three languages.;The analysis expands on and applies an approach to cognitive semantics developed by R. Jackendoff (1983) in Semantics and Cognition. The meaning of each preposition is viewed as, in part, a heterogeneous cluster of conditions, each of which is designated as either necessary, typical, or graded in nature. The conditions define the various topological, geometric, and physical relations conceptualized between the spatial entities being located and the reference objects, as well as the parts and types of reference objects specified by the prepositions. Each preposition has, in addition, certain selection restrictions which determine what types of objects it may refer to according to how the objects are conceptualized.;The prepositions of direct location in each language serve as the focus of the study: English on, in, and at: Polish na, w, przy, and u: and Russian na, v, and u. Prepositions of motion to or toward such locations (adlative motion) are also analyzed. The data consist of numerous examples translated in each of the three languages. Lexical ambiguity in English between location and adlative motion is treated in the framework of the analysis and is contrasted with the situation in the Slavic languages, which clearly differentiate the two.;The study supports some of L. Talmy's (1983) conclusions on "How Language Structures Space," especially the claim that prepositions are among the linguistic elements which specify only certain types of disjunctive spatial schemas. The differing domains of usage of "translation equivalent" prepositions in the different languages are found to result in part from (1) the fact that not all languages specify the same spatial schemas with prepositions, and (2) differences in how the selection restrictions apply to objects in different languages, since objects are not necessarily categorized the same way in each language. |
