The meaning extension of over: A critique of key theories

VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol.36, No.1 (2020) 37-5037
THE MEANING EXTENSION OF OVER: 
A CRITIQUE OF KEY THEORIES 
Do Tuan Long*, Vu Thi Huyen Trang 
VNU University of Languages and International Studies,
Pham Van Dong, Cau Giay, Hanoi, Vietnam
Received 4 April 2019 
Revised 8 January 2020; Accepted 14 February 2020
Abstract: This paper summarizes different approaches to the meaning extension of the English 
preposition over and proposes a multimodal approach comprising three spatial image theories and one 
mental space theory in reference to an image-based view. It is concluded that the author’s proposal is a 
combination of Deane’s 2005 multimodal spatial representations and 2017 Kövecses’s model, in which 
there is an emphasis that treating the spatial configurations of a spatial marker requires different frames 
and when the marker denotes a non-spatial sense, there exists an activation of a metaphor layered from its 
frame in certain context with a specific communicative purpose to the domain of which the frame is a part 
and finally the activation will reach the image schema that supports the frame.
 Keywords: metaphor, over, meaning transference, mechanisms 
1. Introduction
1English prepositions are used before nouns 
to denote a spatial configuration between 
the Figure and the Ground (Talmy, 2000). 
However, they also indicate a “non-spatial” 
configuration as shown in the following two 
examples:
(1) Dangers are over the man’s head. 
(2) Year on year, the company is 
performing below par. (Tyler & Evans, 2003)
In the first sentence, the virtual ground is 
the man’s head while the figure is dangers, 
and readers could realize the concept of 
imminent dangers menacing the man as if 
they (dangers) were just above his head. The 
second sentence reveals the company’s worse 
performance than the usual/expected standard 
(the par). There are two main proposals giving 
* Corresponding author: Tel.: 84-985227867
 Email: tuanlongcfl@gmail.com/longdt1990@vnu.edu.vn
an explanation for such a usage. Firstly, 
Lakoff and Johnson (1980) accounted for 
the meaning transference12 in those sentences 
to be image-schema transformations, or in 
other words, metaphors are used to transfer 
non-spatial senses. Besides, Tyler and Evans 
(2003) analyzed the meaning transference 
in reference to the encyclopedic knowledge 
and metaphor, showing the perceptual 
resemblance and experiential correlation 
between the space and abstract domain are 
two mechanisms for sense extension. 
However, the use of over in the following 
sentence is more complicated than it is in the 
previous ones:
(3) The British Ambassador in hot water 
over joke. (BBC headline)
1 Two terms “sense” and “meaning” have to be 
distinguished here. Sense refers to a particular meaning 
of a preposition in contexts of use while meaning is more 
general, referring to the whole senses of a preposition. 
38 D.T.Long, V.T.H.Trang / VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol.36, No.1 (2020) 37-50
A componential analysis of sentence 
(3) provides readers with a structure of a 
prepositional phrase (in hot water) + over + 
a noun phrase (joke). Do (2016) observed 
that if the prepositional phrase refers to an 
unpleasant feeling or experience, the noun 
phrase succeeding over could be the cause or 
reason. A further reading of the article offers 
the “caused by” use of over, which is explained 
by only Collins Dictionary2. Moreover, over in 
the previous sentence could not be represented 
in an image-schema as an image-schema must 
be specific enough to be visualized (Aitchison, 
1987, pp. 42-43; Palmer, 1981, pp. 25-26; 
Johnson, 1980, 1999).
As being shown, the use of a preposition, 
e.g. over, is not always simple. Therefore, 
in this paper we would analyze different 
approaches to the sense extension of over, and 
then propose a potential framework to treat its 
role as both spatial and non-spatial markers, 
which might serve as a basis for the discussion 
of sense extension of other prepositions. 
2. A critique of different approaches to 
sense extension of over
2.1. Full-specification Approach
Over is treated by Lakoff as a case study in 
English prepositions (Lakoff, 1987, pp. 416-
461) and his analysis is sometimes described 
as the full-specification approach to lexical 
semantics in later literature review (Evans, 
2001; Tyler & Evans, 2003; Deane, 2005). 
In the analysis, twenty-two senses of over 
were accounted, mostly prepositional usages, 
one verb-particle construction and one verbal 
prefix. The core point in the theory is that the 
senses associated with prepositions like over, 
which are grounded in spatial experience, are 
structured in terms of image-schemas. Lakoff 
supposes that an image schema combining 
elements of both ABOVE and ACROSS is the 
prototypical sense of over. The distinct senses 
associated with over are structured with 
respect to this image-schema which provides 
the category with its prototype structure. 
Furthermore, according to Lakoff, some of 
the connections among schemas can only be 
defined in imagistic terms.
Lakoff claims that the schemas which 
are different from the central schema are 
considered to represent distinct senses 
associated with over. According to this model 
of word meaning, the central schema for over 
has at least six distinct and closely related 
variants (see Figure 1), each of which is stored 
in semantic memory.
Figure 1. Central image schema (adopted from Lakoff, 1987, p.423)
1Given the range of senses over is 
associated with in addition to the ABOVE-
2. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/
english/over1
ACROSS sense (summarized in Table 1), this 
model results in a potentially vast proliferation 
of senses for each lexical item. 
39VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol.36, No.1 (2020) 37-50
Table 1. Schemas proposed by Lakoff (1987) for over besides the central schema 
(Evans & Green, 2006, p.337)
Schema type Basic meaning Examples
ABOVE schema The TR is located above the LM. The helicopter is hovering over the 
hill.
COVERING schema The TR is covering the LM The board is over the hole.
REFLEXIVE schema The TR is reflexive: the TR is 
simultaneously the TR and the 
LM. The final location of the TR is 
understood with respect to its starting 
position
The fence fell over. 
EXCESS schema When over is employed as a prefix it 
can indicate ‘excess’ of TR relative to 
LM
The bath overflowed. 
REPETITION schema Over is used as an adverb to indicate a 
process that is repeated. 
After receiving a poor grade, the 
student started the assignment over 
(again). 
Here are some more examples for the 
table 1: 
Schema 1. The plane flew over. 
Schema 1.X.NC. The plane flew over the 
yard. 
Schema 1.VX.NC. The plane flew over 
the hill. 
Schema 1.V.NC. The bird flew over the 
wall. 
Schema 1.X.C. Sam drove over the bridge. 
Schema 1.VX.C. Sam walked over the 
hill. 
Schema 1.V.C. Sam climbed over the wall. 
Schema 1.VX.C.E. Sam lives over the 
hill. 
Schema 1.X.C.E. Sausalito is over the 
bridge.
Schema 2. Hang the painting over the 
fireplace. 
Schema 2.1DTR. The power line stretches 
over the yard. 
Schema 3. The board is over the hole. 
Schema 3.P.E. The city clouded over. 
Schema 3.MX. The guards were posted all 
over the hill. 
Schema 3.MX.P. I walked all over the hill. 
Schema 3.RO. There was a veil over her 
face. 
Schema 3.P.E.RO. Ice spread all over the 
windshield. 
Schema 3. MX.RO. There were flies all 
over the ceiling. 
Schema 3. MX.P.RO. The spider had 
crawled all over the ceiling. 
Schema 4. Roll the log over.
Schema 4.RFP. The fence fell over. 
Schema 5. The bathtub overflowed. 
Schema 6. Do it over.
The numbers from 1 to 6 are “above and 
across”, pure “above”, “covering”, “curved 
trajectory”, “excess”, and “repetition” 
respectively. Each schema is labelled for its 
salient properties. Additional specifications 
vary along several dimensions: the landmark 
(LM, or reference object), may be horizontally 
(X) or vertically (V) extended. It may also be 
one dimensional (1DTR) or not. There may 
be contact (C) or noncontact (NC) between 
the LM and the TR. The TR may be multiplex 
(multiple entities or locations) or mass (a 
continuous medium). Various remaining 
distinctions are indicated: P indicates a 
connecting path, E indicates location at the 
end of a trajectory (end-point focus), and RO 
indicates a relation rotated from its normal 
orientation.
According to Lakoff, metaphors take 
image-schemas as their input; and hence, the 
40 D.T.Long, V.T.H.Trang / VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol.36, No.1 (2020) 37-50
emergence of the metaphorical use of over in 
the sentence, She has a strange power over 
me, is explained:
this is an instance of a very common 
metaphor: CONTROL IS UP; LACK 
OF CONTROL IS DOWN (Lakoff and 
Johnson,1980:15). Over in this sentence is 
an extension of schema 2, where the trajector 
is simply above the landmark (Lakoff, 
1987:426).
2.2. A critique of Full-specification Approach
In our opinion, there are four problems 
with the full-specification approach: (i) the 
methodology is unconstrained; (ii) there is a 
lack of a rigorous theory of images; (iii) the 
context-bound interpretations of the lexical 
networks would clear risks of misanalysis; 
and (iv) there is a lack of systematic analysis 
of how certain metaphors emerge associated 
with over. 
To begin with, Lakovian approach has 
been blamed for a lack of methodological 
constraints. In other words, Lakoff provides 
no principled criteria for determining what 
counts as a distinct sense. This means that 
the polysemy account presented for over (or 
whatever lexical item we might apply the 
approach to) results purely from the intuitions 
(and perhaps also the imagination) of the 
analyst rather than actually representing the 
way a particular category is represented in the 
mind of the language users. 
Secondly, though Lakoff’s analysis is 
based on image-schema, he fails to set a 
rigorous theory of images. This makes the 
semantic description of over become “an 
informal exercise” without predictive power 
(Deane, 2005, p.6). 
Thirdly, Lakoff used linguistic context 
of an utterance containing over to analyze 
its meaning, or context-bound interpretations 
in other words, leading to a clear risk of 
misanalysis. One example is the following 
sentences:
(4) a. The bird flew over the wall.
 b. Sam climbed over the wall.
Following Lakoff, over in sentences 
(4a) and (4b) has two distinct senses in 
reference to contact or without contact. 
However, the interpretation of over with 
respect to contact or lack of contact 
derives from the integration of over 
with the other elements in the sentence. 
Human knowledge about birds (they can 
fly) and people (they cannot), provides 
readers with the inference that birds do 
not come into contact with walls when 
crossing over them while people do. In 
other words, the linguistic context together 
with encyclopedic knowledge provides the 
details relating to the presence or absence 
of contact. Therefore, over here is vague 
with respect to contact (Tyler and Evans, 
2003).
Last but not least, the sense extension of 
over as a preposition is arbitrarily presented 
because there is no systematic analysis of 
the mappings from the source to the target 
domains. 
2.3. Reformulating the challenge of ‘over’
This is the challenge of over: to formulate 
a framework describing the process by which 
abstract senses are extended. We will consider 
the following analyses: (i) Boers, 1996; (ii) 
Tyler & Evans, 2003; and (iii) Deane, 2005.
2.3.1. Image-schema transformations 
approach
Boers (1996) made use of the Conceptual 
Metaphor Theory (CMT), the standard 
version in later literature, by Lakoff and 
Johnson (1980) to treat the sense extensions 
of over (Kövecses, 2006), and the notion of 
image-schemas serve as a basis for further 
discussion. In general, Boers’ analysis is in 
line with the previous description of Lakoff 
(1987). The following table summarizes 
Boers’ analyses:
41VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol.36, No.1 (2020) 37-50
Table 2. A summary of Boer’s analysis of over
Senses In physical space In other domains
1. Above and 
across
The TR is not in contact and 
higher than the LM. The shape of 
the TR and LM varies depending 
on contexts. 
1. The CONDUIT metaphor
E.g.: We talk about it over breakfast.
2. Linguistic (inter)action is a path
E.g.: Talking over his problems.
3. Cognitive action is a path
E.g.: Thinking over the results of the meeting.
4. An activity is a path
E.g.: Plenty of food is left over.
5. Life is a journey.
E.g.: “to get over this difficulty we should ”
6. Proximity is (near) identity and distance is difference
E.g.: New York swung over from opposition to 
ratification or the new laws.
7. A transaction is a path
E.g.: He handed over the briefcase to the mugger.
8. Time is a path and we move on it
E.g.: We have seen considerable changes over the years. 
9. Time is a moving object
E.g.: Those days are now over. 
2. Above The TR is higher than the LM 1. Cognition is perception
E.g.: He had little hope over her recovery.
2. More is up, less is down
E.g.: They produced over 70 000 tons of iron a year.
3. High status is up + Having control or force is up 
E.g.: He holds the reins of power over the party.
In this metaphor, the metonymic basis of these 
metaphors (bodily posture, etc.) may still be felt in, for 
example: a tower suggesting domination over the other 
buildings 
3. Covering The sense is related to the 
Above sense, but the TR is 
conceptualized as a surface with 
or without contact with the LM.
1. Truth is a hidden object + Cognition is perception. 
E.g.: His reputation as an artist drew a glittering curtain 
over his other characteristics.
2. Having force or control is up; being subjected to 
force or control is down
E.g.: A wave of nostalgia swept over me
4. Reflexive 
sense
In reflexive schemas the TR and 
the LM are one and the same 
entity (TR = LM).
Mentally rotating an entity can also be described by 
means of reflexive over.
E.g.: I turned the question over in my head. 
We suppose that there are two problems with 
this approach: (i) the issue of methodology 
and (ii) the issue of the direction of analysis. 
In the first place, the methodology of 
CMT focuses on the basis of intuitive and 
unsystematically found linguistic metaphor 
(Pragglejaz, 2007). Recall the information 
provided in Table 2, we could realize that the 
metaphor of “Having force or control is up; 
being subjected to force or control is down” is 
derived from both Covering sense and Above 
sense of over. What is the difference between 
42 D.T.Long, V.T.H.Trang / VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol.36, No.1 (2020) 37-50
the two kinds of metaphor derived from the 
two aforementioned senses? What are the 
salient remaining aspects of the source domain 
in the target domain through the mappings? 
How could the conceptual metaphors emerge? 
Those questions do not seem to have any 
answers yet. Additionally, the second issue 
concerns the direction of analysis, whether 
it is top-down or bottom-up (Dobrovolskij 
& Piirainen, 2005; Stefanowitch, 2007). 
Though Boers analyzed instances of use of 
over in a corpus, he still followed the top-
down direction instead of showing that a 
given conceptual metaphor of over is a result 
of a multi-stage procedure (Steen, 1999). 
All in all, the following model advocated by 
Kövecses (2017) is compatible with analyzing 
the emergence of certain metaphors associated 
with over from bottom-up direction:
Figure 2. Activation from MENTAL SPACES to FRAMES, DOMAINS, and IMAGE 
SCHEMAS (after Kövecses, 2017)
The link is a continuum from mental 
spaces to frames, domains and finally the 
image-schemas. A metaphor that is used in 
a specific communicative situation as part 
of a mental space, or scene, will activate the 
frame structure to which it is linked, which 
will, in turn, activate the domain of which the 
frame is a part, and the activation will reach 
the image schema that conceptually supports 
the frame. This proposal is consonant with a 
number of others in the cognitive linguistic 
study of metaphor, such as Lakoff’s (1991) 
“invariance principle” and Ruiz de Mendoza’s 
(1998) “extended invariance principle.”
2.3.2. Principled Polysemy
The framework Principled Polysemy 
first introduced in the book “The Semantics 
of English Prepositions” in 2003 is used 
to analyze the meanings of certain English 
prepositions and present them in semantic 
networks. Over was taken as a case study to 
shed light on the analysis of other prepositions. 
The two authors provided a semantic network 
for over with one central meaning and fifteen 
extended meanings (see Figure 3). 
Tyler and Evans (2003) followed 
Lakovian idea that a preposition (or a word) 
has prototypical meaning and then from this 
meaning other extensions occur. So, it is 
necessary first to identify the prototypical 
meaning of a preposition and present other 
meaning extensions in a semantic network 
for that preposition. According to them, 
the prototypical meaning of a word needs 
to have four following characteristics: (1) 
earliest attested meaning; (2) predominance 
in the semantic network; (3) relations to other 
prepositions; and (4) ease of predicting sense 
extensions. After finding the prototypical 
meaning of a preposition, it is crucial to decide 
whether a particular sense of a preposition 
counts as a distinct sense and can, therefore, 
be established as a case of polysemy. Founders 
of the framework provided two criteria: 
(i) for a sense to count as distinct, it must 
involve a meaning that is not purely spatial in 
nature, and/or a spatial configuration holding 
between the TR and LM that is distinct from 
the other senses conventionally associated 
with that preposition; and (ii) there must also 
be instances of the sense that are context-
independent: instances in which the distinct 
sense could not be inferred from another sense 
and the context in which it occurs.
43VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol.36, No.1 (2020) 37-50
The two authors when explaining the 
mechanisms of meaning extension relied 
on context-bounds and tried to provide 
their explanation in reference to perceptual 
resemblance, experiential correlation, 
online meaning construction and pragmatic 
strengthening. 
Figure 3. The semantic network for over (Tyler & Evans, 2003, p.80)
 The review of both spatial and non-spatial senses of over is shown in the following table:
Table 3. The total senses of over in its semantic network (Do, 2016)1
Senses Graphic Illustrations Examples1
1. Proto-scene (5) The picture is over the mantle. 
2A. On-the-
other-side-of
(6) Arlington is over the Potomac River from 
Georgetown.
2B. Above and 
Beyond (Excess 
I)
(7) The arrow flew over the target and landed 
in the woods.
2C. Completion
(8) Most of what he was saying went over her 
head, as did any conversation that was not 
personal.
2D. Transfer
(9) Sally turned the keys to the office over to 
the janitor.
2E. Temporal
(10) Over the waffles next morning, Pittypat 
was lachrymose, Melanie was silent and 
Scarlett defiant.
1 Some examples are extracted from “Gone with the Wind” and “Vanity Fair”, the others are Tyler & Evans’. 
44 D.T.Long, V.T.H.Trang / VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol.36, No.1 (2020) 37-50
3. Covering
(11) Of course, her brooch could be pinned 
over the spot, but perhaps Melanie had sharp 
eyes.
4. Examining