2.2 Spatial Semantics

This section reviews spatial semantics，which is intimately related to conceptualiza tion of stationary events．

2.2.1 The Talmyan Fundamental Spatial Schematic System

In the early 1970s，Talmy adopted the psychological notions of Figure and Ground to illustrate a“translatory situation”（Talmy，1972：10）． The Figure／Ground organization had been discovered by the Danish psychologist Edgar Rubin in 1921（cf.Palmer，1999：280－283，also in Lampert，2011）．Talmy defines the Figure as“a moving or conceptually moveable entity whose path，site，or orientation is conceived as a variable，the particular value of which is the relevant issue”，and the Ground as“a reference entity，one that has a stationary setting relative to a reference frame，with respect to which the Figure's path，site，or orientation is characterized”（Talmy，2000a：312）．This pair of notions have become a bedrock for discussions about the spatial structuring and typological features of stationary events．In the 1980s，Talmy characterized a“fundamental conceptual framework”（Talmy，1983：225）of space represented by a subdivision of linguistic“fine structure”（Talmy，2000a：177，2017a），i.e.，closed-class forms．It is a sketch of the general properties of linguistic structuring of space．Then，in 2000，he“substantially revised and expanded” the version of Talmy（1983）（cf.Talmy，2000a：252，Note 1），but its essence does not change too much． Five years later， he arguably proposed a comprehensive“fundamental system of spatial schemas in language（FSSS）”（Talmy，2005：199－234）for spatial structuring in spoken languages．It is obviously more operable than Talmy's（1983） or Talmy's（2000） versions of the “fundamental conceptual framework”for the analyses of spatial adpositional schemas in stationary events．

A brief introduction of this system is made here（for a detailed description，please refer to Section 3.2.1，Chapter 3）．Based on traditional linguistic research on many principles of spatial schemas represented by closed-class forms，Talmy integrates this comprehensive system．His finding is that this system has three main parts：“the componential，the compositional，and the augmentive”（Talmy，2005：200）．The componential part contains an analytic process，the compositional part is a synthetic process and the augmentive part involves the features of spatial schemas and an extension process of the basic schemas（cf.Talmy，2005）．This system is targeted at the analyses of spatial schemas of closed-class linguistic forms．Up till now，however，Talmy has not investigated into this system further or apply this system to any other languages except for English to test its applicability．

On the one hand，a couple of theoretical notions in Talmyan Cognitive Semantics can be combined with FSSS so that we can draw an overall picture of conceptualization processes of space in language．First of all，the“structuring”（Talmy，2000a：177） of space is itself a configuration system of language．The structuring processes involved form an inter-face between language and cognition due to first-order properties of the domain of space in both language and cognition．Secondly，the fundamental spatial categories and fundamental spatial elements are mostly from perceptive cognitive systems，such as vision or thigmesthesia（tactile sensation），which constitute the low end of“ception”（Talmy，2000a：102）．Finally，those basic spatial concepts are perceived through multiple modalities involving the overlapping systems model of cognitive organization（Talmy，2015）．

On the other hand，the applicability of Talmy's findings still needs to be testified by other languages，particularly Mandarin Chinese，being genetically unrelated to English．Talmy's primary source of examples are English．Although Talmy says“but the general applicability of the examples—such generality is the aim since this study's concern is with universal properties of languages—is underwritten by my work with a range of languages”（Talmy，2000a：178）．

2.2.2 The Levinsonian Frames of Reference

In the previous over twenty years，a series of studies into the domain of space were carried out by Levinson and his colleagues（Gumperz＆ Levinson，1991；Brown＆Levinson，1992；Levinson，1996，1997，2003；Levinson＆Wilkins，2006：1－23）．They concentrated especially on two aspects of spatial cognition，i.e.，frames of reference（Levinson，2003） and spatial topological concepts（Levinson＆ Meira，2003）．Levinson defined three frames of reference as illustrated in Table 1.The first frame of reference is an intrinsic frame of reference，such as“the house”in the first sentence．The second frame of reference is a relative frame of reference，such as“the observer”implied in the second sentence．The third frame of reference is an absolute frame of reference，such as“the earth”implied in the third sentence．

Levinson's frames of reference are to some extent equivalent to the Talmyan primary or secondary reference object．Besides，Levinson and Meira also investigated the topological relations represented by spatial adpositions in nine languages including Basque， Dutch，Ewe，Lao，Lavukaleve， Tiriyó， Trumai，and so on．His topological system encompasses certain spatial concepts such as CONTACT or INCLUSION （being coincident）which are overlapped with Talmyan spatial concepts．But Levinson failed to combine those two subsets into an integrated one．

This defect is primarily caused by his aim of analyses which is to argue against linguistic universals，particularly Chomskyan linguistic universals，and possibly also Talmyan ones． His target is to summarize“decades of cross-linguistic work by typologists and descriptive linguists”，and to show“just how few and unprofound the universal characteristics of language are”（Evans＆ Levinson，2009）．Although he criticized the Indo-European perspective，or in his words，“ethnocentrism”（ibid．：430）of cognitive scientists and linguists，his arguments constitute a masked version of it，whether he intends it or not．Consequently，although he claimed“to reconcile diverse linguistic systems as the product of one cognitive system”（ibid．：445），and has even suggested two models of cognitive system，he did not arrive at it．

Besides，there are three technical factors which hinder Levinson's further analyses of spatial concepts．First of all，Levinson did not distinguish closed-class forms from open-class forms．For instance，he confused the function of“pierced”or“attached”（Levinson＆ Meira，2003：498） concepts—which should be mapped onto certain open-class forms—with the function of notions like AT or IN，which should be mapped onto certain closed-class forms． This confusion renders his illustration of spatial representation less reliable． Secondly，the number of his spatial concepts is far from being sufficient．Particularly，his spatial topological concepts only include a few primitive spatial concepts such as containment，support，and non-contiguity．But many other fundamental spatial elements are neglected in his analyses．Finally，he classifies spatial notional areas mostly in accordance with such spatial near-primitives as IN，ON，UNDER，etc．，the granularity of which are too gross．Those topological notions are simply based on natural lexical items and should be further divided into finer topological primitives such as proximity（subjacency with or without contact）in order to precisely characterize spatial semantics represented by language．Although the near primitives are readily available，they are not readily applicable．Therefore，Levinson's theory does not fit for the analyses of conceptualization processes of spatial adpositions in this study．

2.2.3 The Talmyan Macro-events

According to Talmy，stationary events are a subtype of motion events．Besides，motion events are a subclass of Macro-events （Talmy，2000b，2019；Li，2019，2020）．

Since“motion is pervasive in human activities”（Li，2013a：136），motion events are often taken as conceptual prototypes of other events（Talmy，2000b：226）．For example，in the five Talmyan Macro-events ： motion ， state change ， temporal contouring ， action correlation ，and realization ，motion events are usually taken as prototypes of the other four types of Macro-events ．

Based on the construct of Macro-event ，Talmy suggests a framework for analyzing the typology of its representation in language，as is the dichotomy ofV-L and S-L．This framework will be discussed in detail in Section 3.3.1，Chapter 3．

Up to now，in the five types of Macro-events ，only dynamic motion events have been sufficiently investigated（cf.Yan，1998；Slobin，2004；Zlatev＆ Peerapat，2004；Filipovic＇，2007；Beavers，Levin＆Tham，2010；Croft et al.，2010；Kan，2010；Li，2010；Shi，2011，2013；Tai＆Su，2013；Shi＆Wu，2014）．

2.2.4 Zhang's Spatial Relation Construction

Zhang（2008，2009a，2009b） points out the significance of spatial relation constructions in his expounding of existence constructions，as shown in Figure 1．His spatial relation constructions are simply constrained in the scope of some existence constructions in the two languages of English and Chinese．The spatial adpositional constructions analyzed in this study are not expounded in his study．

2.2.5 Qi's Study of zai 4 Construction

In Chinese，SEs are frequently seen to be represented in the spatial constructions which are also called z ai 4，“at”construction traditionally（Qi，1999）．Qi states that there are altogether five kinds of zai 4 constructions representing SE spatial relations，as in（2.1）：

（2.1）a．画在墙上。（S＋ zai 4＋NP1＋POST） ^[1]

Hua4 zai 4 qiang2 shang4．

Painting at wall on

“The painting is on the wall．”

b．一幅画在墙上挂着。／他在床上坐着。（S＋V＋ zai 4＋NP1＋POST＋V＋·zhe）

Yi4-fu2 hua4 zai 4 qiang2 shang4 gua4 zhe．／Ta1 zai 4 chuang2 shang4 zuo4 zhe．

One-CLF painting at wall on hang PROG／He at bed on sit PROG

“The painting is on the wall．／He is sitting in the bed．”

c．一幅画挂在墙上。／他坐在床上。（S＋V＋ zai 4＋NP1＋POST）

Yi4-fu2 hua4 gua4 zai 4 qiang2 shang4.／Ta1 zuo4 zai 4 chuang2 shang4．

One-CLF painting hang at wall on／He sit at bed on

“The painting is hanging on the wall．／He is sitting in the bed．”

d．他在北京住。／他在车站里等候。（S＋ zai 4＋NP2＋V／S＋ zai 4＋NP2＋POST＋V）

Ta1 zai 4 Bei3jing1 zhu4.／Ta1 zai 4 che1-zhan4 li3 deng3-hou4．

He at Beijing live／He at station in wait

“He lives in Beijing．／He is waiting at the station．”

e．他在医院里死了。／他在马路上摔了。（S＋ zai 4＋NP2＋POST＋V＋·le／S＋ zai 4＋NP1＋POST＋V＋·le）

Ta1 zai 4 yi1-yuan4 li3 si3 le．／Ta1 zai 4 ma3-lu4 shang4 shuai1 le．

He at hospital in die PST／He at road on fell PST

“He died in the hospital．／He fell down on the road．”

Since this study mainly discusses sentences being used to answer the question“Where is X”，the sentences in（2.1d）and（2.1e）are not within the scope of this study．Several examples of the Chinese sentence patterns in this study are indicated in（2.2）．

（2.2）a．灯在桌上。

Deng1 zai 4 zhuo1 shang4．

Lamp at table on

“The lamp is on the table．”

b．灯在桌上放着。

Deng1 zai 4 zhuo1 shang4 fang4 zhe．

Lamp at table on lay PROG

“The light is laid on the table．”

c．灯放在桌上。

Deng1 fang4 zai 4 zhuo1 shang4．

Lamp lay at table on

“The light is laid on the table．”

（2.3）a．The lamp is on the table．

b．The lamp is lying on the table．

The Chinese main verb zai 4，“be located at”turns up to be more puzzling than the English main verb be ．Spatial adpositions in the two languages are closed-class forms，but the main verbs possess the properties of open-class forms．Being the main verb，both the Chinese word zai 4 and the English word be play a role in the representation of the core schema“Path ＋（the ground）”．Part of the spatial information related to the path of SEs is represented in either word．In general，the English spatial prepositions and the Chinese locatives are relatively easy to analyze．But the function of neither the English main verb be nor the Chinese main verb zai 4 are easy to explicate．And the Chinese word zai 4 functions variously in the core schema of the three types of sentences in（2.2a－2.2c）．

The simplest pattern is represented by（2.2c） Deng 1 fang 4 zai 4 zhuo 1 shang 4，“The light is laid on the table”．In sentences like（2.2c），there are usually verbs like fang 4，“lay”， cha 1，“insert”， bai 3，“put”， gua 4，“hang”，and so on，to represent manner，which is followed by a prepositional phrase．In this sentence，it is obvious that the core schema of PATH is completely represented in the prepositional phrases，without any connection with the main verb fang 4，“lay”．Similarly，in the English sentence（2.3b），the path is completely represented in the prepositional phrase on the table ．These sentence patterns in both languages are S-L typology．

There are，however，three views on the representation of a path in（2.2a） Deng 1 zai 4 zhuo 1 shang 4，“The lamp is on the table”：a．The path is in the verb zai 4，“at”．b．The path is in the nominal phrase zhuo 1 shang 4，“on the table”．c．The path information is in the whole construction（Li，2015）．This paper argues that these three viewpoints are not sufficient to explain the actual representation of the path information in the sentence．Because the first point of view posits that the verb zai 4，“at”represents part of the path information，but it ignores the rest of the path represented in the locative of the whole phrase．In contrast，the second and third arguments are not aware of the verb zai 4，“at”，which also illuminates part of the path information．

The above problems may be solved by extending the scope of satellite components．In the Talmyan definition of a satellite， the complements of noun phrases and prepositions are excluded，because these two types of constituents cannot directly become sister components of the main verb in a sentence．But in stationary events，the representation of this definition is facing the challenge for the three types of sentences（2.2a－2.2c） and also the challenge from the English sentences（2.3a－2.3b）．Especially，in sentence（2.2a） Deng 1 zai 4 zhuo 1 shang 4，“The lamp is on the table”，the main verb is obviously zai 4．However，the whole locative pattern Deng 1 zai 4 zhuo 1 shang 4，“The lamp is on the table”，being a basic spatial construction or a gestalt，also plays a role in constructing the conceptual structure in the sentence．The way to solve the problem is to put the construction S ZAI 4 NP SHANG 4 as a satellite of the main verb zai 4，“at”．Likewise，the whole locative construction S BE ON NP in the English sentence（2.3a）can be taken as the satellite of the main verb be ．

Next problem is also related to the function of the Chinese main verb（as for more information on the main verb properties，cf.Talmy，2012b，2016） of zai 4，“at”．From the main verb perspective，in the Chinese sentence（2.2a），the syntactic constituent zai 4 is apparently the only main verb root which is an open-class form and expresses part of the path information．Correspondingly，in the English sentence（2.3a），the constituent be is the only main verb root which also delineates part of the path information．All these are evidence that both the Chinese sentence（2.2a）and the English one（2.3a） have the feature of a V-L typology．However，from the perspective of a grammatical construction，in the Chinese sentence（2.2a），the subject Deng 1，“lamp”，the verb zai 4 and the NP＋POST zhuo 1 shang 4，“on the table” constitute a complete Chinese grammatical construction“S＋ zai 4 ＋ NP ＋LOC”，which functions as the satellite of the main verb zai 4．Therefore，the copula verb zai 4，“be located at”bears a dual function：being the main verb and part of the grammatical construction．And the whole Chinese spatial construction works as the satellite of the main verb zai 4．In the same way，the construction“S ＋be＋on ＋NP”in the English sentence（2.3a） works as the satellite of the verb be ．They provide the evidence that the Chinese sentences like（2.2a）and the English sentences like（2.3a）also have the property of an S-L typology．As a result，these sentence patterns possess properties of both typologies．

Here，in both the verb root and the grammatical construction，a portion of the path information is represented as very much similar to the one of the ditransitive constructions with a ditransitive verb root（Ren，2007；Ren，Li＆Deng，2015）or the resultative construction with a resultative verb root．In these sentences，since the path information is represented not only in the locative construction，but also in the verb，this type of sentences in both languages possess the property of an H-L typology．Generally speaking，the hypothesis that the SE sentences in the English and Chinese data demonstrate a complemented distribution of S-L and H-L typology has been testified in this study．

[1] NP1 refers to the type of a ground object which directly interacts with the figure object，while NP2 refers to the site where the action of the figure object occurs．Their difference may be exhibited by the following two English examples：
a．The stick is leaning against the tree trunk ．（NP1）
b．Jack was playing table tennis in the library ．（NP2） qIrEKxoG48XqSJnAr3ah+26B6KdkqexfkVwm7WH/UGk5WLZBJdmleD8I0mICGdp3