The remit of this paper is to investigate the role of prefixes of spatiality in the formation of words. To do so, it adopts two approaches. Theoretically, it adopts Cognitive Semantics (CS) and tries to substantiate some of its tenets with reference to prefixation. One tenet is that linguistic items are meaningful. On this basis, it argues that prefixes of spatiality have a wide range of meanings that gather around a central sense. Another tenet is that the meaning of a linguistic item is best understood in terms of the domain in which it is embedded. On this basis, it argues that prefixes of spatiality form a set which highlights not only similarities but also differences. A further tenet is that the use of an expression is governed by the particular construal imposed on its content. On this basis, it argues that a derived word is used relative to the particular construal the speaker chooses to describe a situation. Empirically, it adopts Usage-based Linguistics, and tries to substantiate some of its prmises with reference to prefixation. One premise is that knowledge of language is derived from language use. Another premise is that the linguistic system is shaped by actual data. A further premise is that structure and substance are tightly linked.

No abstract

This paper seeks to explicate the notion of approximation in language: the state of being close or near to a desired number or amount. Approximation is used to reflect a lack of exact knowledge. This paper adopts Cognitive Semantics and attempts to apply two of its fundamental claims to the description of markers denoting approximation. One claim is that all linguistic elements posited in language have semantic content. On the basis of this claim, the paper argues that a marker of approximation has conceptual content of its own which conditions its presence in a construction. Each marker adds semantic import to the construction in which it occurs. The other claim is that the use of a lexical expression is the outcome of the specific construal imposed on a situation. On the basis of this claim, the paper argues that the uses of approximating markers represent different dimensions of construal. Each marker signals a different perspective of the speaker in describing the world. The aim is to show, based on examples, that approximating markers are not random choices. Each marker has a distinct message in the language.

This paper seeks to substantiate two fundamental claims of Cognitive Grammar (CG) with regard to for-to complement clauses used in verbal complementation. One claim is that all linguistic elements posited in grammar are ascribed some kind of conceptual import. On the basis of this claim, the paper argues that for-to has not only a syntactic function but also meaning of its own which conditions its behaviour. The other claim is that the syntax of an expression is a reflection of its conceptual organisation, which represents the specific construal imposed on its content. On the basis of this claim, the paper argues that to-infinitive complement clauses represent a self-related construal in the sense of reflecting the main clause subject's involvement in the complement event, and so implying his/her high degree of interest in its realisation. By contrast, for-to complement clauses represent an other-related construal in the sense of reflecting the main clause subject's distance from the complement event, and so implying his/her low degree of interest in its realisation.

In Cognitive Grammar, the syntax of a complement clause construction reflects the particular construal imposed on its conceptual content. Differences in syntax reflect differences in construal. One such construal concerns perspective, which can be subjective or objective. A personal construction portrays the speaker's involvement in the complement event; thus it is construed as subjective. Subjectivity is the act of judging an event which is influenced by personal opinions. An impersonal construction portrays the speaker's distance from the complement event; thus it is construed as objective. Objectivity is the act of judging an event without being influenced by personal opinions. This paper explores the impact of objectivity on the syntactic realization of atemporal complement clauses. Impersonal constructions take various forms which represent different construals. One construal pertains to scope. A non-extraposed construction signals a minimal range of content in describing a complement event. An extraposed construction signals a maximal range of content in describing a complement event. Another construal relates to profile. A non-raised construction profiles a whole complement event. A raised construction profiles the most salient entity in a complement event.