Prepositional Variation Observed in the Adjective Effective

doi:10.18627/jslg.34.1.201805.93

All Issue

2018 Vol.34, Issue 1 Preview Page

Prepositional Variation Observed in the Adjective Effective: Ekaterina Chon and Yoon-kyoung Joh

31 May 2018. pp. 93-104

PDF

Abstract

This study describes possible motivations for the choice of prepositions when the adjective effective is used. Among various prepositions that can be used with effective, this study focuses on three prepositions for, in and at which are the most notoriously confusing, to find generalized principles about their choice. More specifically, we suggest that the preposition for is selected when the goal or beneficiary is regarded to be important. The preposition in is employed when the subject is seen as the only source of effectiveness in a situation of its intense involvement. Lastly, the preposition at is found to be used when the subject is not the only source. In a word, we claim that the choice of the three different prepositions depends on the kind and degree of the involvement of the subject which is being effective.

Keywords

corpus

preposition

beneficiary

involvement

effectiveness

References

Dichtel, F. 2016. A Quantifier Used on Many Occasions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 21, 80-104.10.1075/ijcl.21.1.04dic
Dirven, R. 1993. Dividing Up Physical and Mental Space into Conceptual Categories by Means of English Prepositions. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.), The Semantics of English Prepositions. From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 73-97.10.1515/9783110872576.73
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. 1998. Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science, 22, 133-187.10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1
Goh, G.-Y. 2012. On the Alternation of the Three Prepositions Following Different. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 20, 193-210.
Hottenroth, P. M. 1993. Prepositions and Object Concepts: A Contribution to Cognitive Semantics. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, (ed.), The Semantics of English Prepositions. From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 179-219.10.1515/9783110872576.179
Kjellmer, G. 1985. Help to / Help ø Revisited. English Studies, 66, 156-161.10.1080/00138388508598377
Lovejoy, J. 1995. Prepositions in British and American English – A Computer-aided Corpus Study. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 20, 55-74.
Rauh, G. 1993. On the Grammar of Lexical and Non-lexical Prepositions in English. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, (ed.), The Semantics of English Prepositions. From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 99-105.10.1515/9783110872576.99
Rohdenburg, G. 2002. Processing Complexity and the Variable Use of Prepositions in English. In H. Cuyckens and G. Radden (ed.), Perspectives on Prepositions. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 79-100.10.1515/9783110924787.79
Rohdenburg, G. 2007. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English and the Formation / Confirmation of Linguistic Hypotheses by Means of Internet Data. In M. Hundt, N. Nesselhauf and C. Biewer. (eds.), Corpus linguistics and the web. Amsterdam – New York: Rodopi, 191-209.10.1163/9789401203791_012
Taylor, J. R., 1993. Prepositions: Patterns of Polysemization and Strategies of Disambiguation. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, (ed.), The Semantics of English Prepositions. From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 151-175.10.1515/9783110872576.151 8416873
Turner, M., and Faucconnier, G. 2003. Metaphor, Metonymy, and Binding. In Antonio Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at Crossroads. A Cognitive Perspective, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 133-145.10.1515/9783110894677.133
Tyler, A., and Evans, V. 2003. The Semantics of English Prepositions. Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486517
Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. 1993. Introduction, In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, (ed.), The Semantics of English Prepositions. From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 151-17510.1515/978311087257610.1515/9783110872576.1

Information

Publisher :The Modern Linguistic Society of Korea
Publisher(Ko) :한국현대언어학회
Journal Title :The Journal of Studies in Language
Journal Title(Ko) :언어연구
Volume : 34
No :1
Pages :93-104
DOI :https://doi.org/10.18627/jslg.34.1.201805.93

[1] Dichtel, F. 2016. A Quantifier Used on Many Occasions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 21, 80-104.10.1075/ijcl.21.1.04dic

[2] Dirven, R. 1993. Dividing Up Physical and Mental Space into Conceptual Categories by Means of English Prepositions. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.), The Semantics of English Prepositions. From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 73-97.10.1515/9783110872576.73

[3] Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. 1998. Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science, 22, 133-187.10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1

[4] Goh, G.-Y. 2012. On the Alternation of the Three Prepositions Following Different. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 20, 193-210.

[5] Hottenroth, P. M. 1993. Prepositions and Object Concepts: A Contribution to Cognitive Semantics. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, (ed.), The Semantics of English Prepositions. From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 179-219.10.1515/9783110872576.179

[6] Kjellmer, G. 1985. Help to / Help ø Revisited. English Studies, 66, 156-161.10.1080/00138388508598377

[7] Lovejoy, J. 1995. Prepositions in British and American English – A Computer-aided Corpus Study. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 20, 55-74.

[8] Rauh, G. 1993. On the Grammar of Lexical and Non-lexical Prepositions in English. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, (ed.), The Semantics of English Prepositions. From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 99-105.10.1515/9783110872576.99

[9] Rohdenburg, G. 2002. Processing Complexity and the Variable Use of Prepositions in English. In H. Cuyckens and G. Radden (ed.), Perspectives on Prepositions. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 79-100.10.1515/9783110924787.79

[10] Rohdenburg, G. 2007. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English and the Formation / Confirmation of Linguistic Hypotheses by Means of Internet Data. In M. Hundt, N. Nesselhauf and C. Biewer. (eds.), Corpus linguistics and the web. Amsterdam – New York: Rodopi, 191-209.10.1163/9789401203791_012

[11] Taylor, J. R., 1993. Prepositions: Patterns of Polysemization and Strategies of Disambiguation. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, (ed.), The Semantics of English Prepositions. From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 151-175.10.1515/9783110872576.151 8416873

[12] Turner, M., and Faucconnier, G. 2003. Metaphor, Metonymy, and Binding. In Antonio Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at Crossroads. A Cognitive Perspective, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 133-145.10.1515/9783110894677.133

[13] Tyler, A., and Evans, V. 2003. The Semantics of English Prepositions. Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486517

[14] Zelinsky-Wibbelt, C. 1993. Introduction, In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, (ed.), The Semantics of English Prepositions. From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 151-17510.1515/978311087257610.1515/9783110872576.1

The Journal of Studies in Language ISSN:1225-4770(Print) 2671-6151(Online) 언어연구

All Issue