Exploring culturally conceptualized meaning in the Indonesian spatial prepositions “di dalam” and “di atas” and the English “in” and” on”

Öz

If meaning of words conceptually evolves in relation to how the speakers of a particular language view the world and preposition is no exception; hence, preposition hypothetically also carries culturally motivated meaning. This paper explores how speakers’ worldview culturally conceptualized in spatial preposition and it is barely conducted in Indonesia. The spatial prepositions being explored are the Indonesian prepositions “di dalam” and “di atas” and respectively the English preposition “in” and “on”. The comparative method was applied to facilitate unveiling the cultural conceptualization embedded in the spatial preposition. The result of the study descriptively shows that the Indonesian spatial prepositions “di dalam” and “di atas” cannot always be translated into the English “in” and “on” respectively and vice versa. This reveals that (i) the spatial preposition “di dalam” and “”di atas” evolves in different cultural conceptualization from the spatial preposition “in” and “on”, (ii) the culturally conceptualized meaning of the spatial prepositions is much richer than what appears to be their superficial meaning, and (iii) that the so-called lexical meaning of preposition is absurd. In conclusion, the study strongly indicates that spatial preposition carries a significant cultural conceptualization of spatial relations more than just merely a grammatical function.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cognitive semantics
• spatial relation
• Indonesian prepositions
• cultural meaning

Exploring culturally conceptualized meaning in the Indonesian spatial prepositions “di dalam” and “di atas” and the English “in” and” on”

Öz

Kelime anlamları kavramsal olarak, özellikle belirli bir dilin konuşucularının dünyayı nasıl gördüğüyle ilişkili olarak evrimleşiyorsa ve prepozisyon da istisna değilse; dolayısıyla, prepozisyon hipotetik olarak kültürel olarak motive edilmiş anlam taşıyor. Bu makale, konuşucuların dünya görüşünün kültürel olarak mekânsal bir ön konumda nasıl kavramsallaştığını keşfeder ve bu genellikle Endonezya'da gerçekleştirilmemiştir. İncelenen mekânsal prepozisyonlar, Endonezya prepozisyonları "di dalam" ve "di atas" ile sırasıyla İngilizce prepozisyonları "in" ve "on" dur. Kültürel kavramsallaşmanın ortaya çıkarılmasına yardımcı olmak için karşılaştırmalı bir yöntem uygulandı. Çalışmanın sonucu, Endonezya mekânsal prepozisyonlarının "di dalam" ve "di atas"ın her zaman İngilizce "in" ve "on" ile çevrilemeyeceğini ve tam tersi olduğunu betimleyici olarak gösteriyor. Bu, (i) mekânsal prepozisyon "di dalam" ve "di atas"ın, mekânsal prepozisyon "in" ve "on"dan farklı kültürel kavramsallaşmadan evrildiğini, (ii) mekânsal prepozisyonların kültürel olarak kavramsallaştırılmış anlamının, yüzeysel anlamının göründüğünden çok daha zengin olduğunu ve (iii) prepozisyonun sözlü anlamının anlamsız olduğunu gösterir. Sonuç olarak, çalışma, mekânsal prepozisyonun sadece gramatik bir işlevden daha fazlasını taşıyan önemli bir kültürel kavramsallaşma taşıdığını güçlü bir şekilde göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bilişsel semantik
• mekânsal ilişki
• Endonezya prepozisyonları
• kültürel anlam

Kaynakça

1. Brenda, M. (2014). Cognitive perspective on the polysemy of the english spatial preposition over. Cambridge Scholar Publishing.
2. Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methodology. In Social Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-22911-2
3. Chaer, A. (2008). Morfologi Bahasa Indonesia (Pendekatan Proses). Rineka Cipta.
4. Cienki, A. (2013). Image schemas and mimetic schemas in cognitive linguistics and gesture studies. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 11(2), 417–432. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.11.2.13cie
5. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
6. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). Qualitative Inqury Reaserch Design. In Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (Vol. 53, Issue 9).
7. DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annu. Rev. Social, 23, 263–287. https://doi.org/10.1038/251454a0
8. Effendi, S., & Aritonang, B. (1991). Preposisi dan Frase Berpreposisi. Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

9. Flick, U. (2018). Designing Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications.
10. Glanzberg, M., & Skilters, J. (2015). Editors’ Introduction. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic, and Communication, 10, 1 – 3.
11. Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Cognitive Linguistics:Categorization, meaning and language use. Routledge.
12. Górska, E. (2014). The up/down orientation in language and music. Brill’s Studies in Language, Cognition and Culture, 8(section 2), 177–195. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004274297_011
13. Hanif, A., Hardiyanti, S. U., & Sumarlam. (2020). Frasa Preposisional dalam Kumpulan Cerpen Senja dan Cinta yang Berdarah Karya Seno Gumira Ajidarma. Seminar Nasional Linguistik Dan Sastra:, 138–145.
14. Hickmann, M., & Robert, S. (2006). Space, language, and cognition, some new challenges. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in Languages, Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories (pp. 1 – 18). John Benjamins.
15. Horiuchi, F. (2017). English Prepositions as an Interface between Embodied Cognition and Dynamic Usage : Proposal of a Dynamic View of Grammar. Keio University.
16. Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. In 2017 Joint Conference of the European Frequency and Time Forum and IEEE International Frequency Control Symposium, EFTF/IFC 2017 - Proceedings. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.1109/FCS.2017.8088869
17. Johnson, M. (2008). The philosophical significance of image schemas. From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.1.15
18. Kurniasih. (2017). Penggunaan preposisi dalam bahasa indonesia. Jurnal Bahasa Dan Sastra Indonesia, 6(6), 798–810.
19. Kusmanto, J. (2017). The cognitive theory of spatial preposition and its application to teaching English as a foreign language and translation. The 6th ELTLT CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS., October, 285–291.
20. Kusmanto, J., Siregar, S. A., & Mariahati, M. (2021). Spatial Relations in the Indonesian Locative Preposition of “Di Atas”: a Study of Cognitive Semantics. BAHASTRA, 41(2). https://doi.org/10.26555/bahastra.v41i2.19864
21. Levinson, S. C., & Wilkins, D. P. (2006). The background of the study of the language of space. In S. C. Levinson & D. P. Wilkins (Eds.), Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity (pp. 1–23). Cambridge University Press.
22. Mas Kusumaningrat, I. C. (2015). Analisis konstrastif pemarkah lokatif “di” dalam bahasa Indonesia dan “in”, “on”, “at” dalam bahasa Inggris. Linguistika: Buletin Ilmiah Program Magister Linguistik Universitas Udayana, 22(1), 94–107. https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/linguistika/article/view/14000
23. Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist, 44(12), 1469–1481. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.12.1469
24. Mori, S. (2019). A Cognitive Analysis of the Preposition OVER : Image-schema transformations and metaphorical extensions. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 64(3), 444–474. https://doi.org/10.1017/cnj.2018.43
25. Mulyadi. (2012). Frasa preposisi bahasa Indoensia: analisis X-Bar. Kajian Sastra, 34(1), 1–12. https://ejournal.undip.ac.id/index.php/kajiansastra/article/view/2671
26. Payne, T. E. (2011). Understanding English Grammar: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge University Press. http://library1.nida.ac.th/termpaper6/sd/2554/19755.pdf
27. Ramscar, M., & Port, R. (2015). 4. Categorization (without categories). In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 75–99). DE GRUYTER. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-005
28. Rini, E. I. H. A. N. (2009). Analisis kontrastif pemarkah lokatif ‘di’ dalam bahasa Indonesia dengan ‘ni’ dan ‘de’ dalam bahasa Jepang. Komposisi: Jurnal Pendidikan, Bahasa, Dan Seni, 10(2), 81–88.
29. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. L. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Lawrence Erlbaum.
30. Sugiarti, R., & Ngaisah, S. (2018). Analisis kesalahan penggunaan preposisi dan pungtuasi dalam karangan narasi siswa. Primary Jurnal Keilmuan Dan Kependidikan Dasar, 10(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.32678/primary.v10i02.1284
31. Svorou, S. (1994). The Grammar of Space. John Benjamins Pub. Co.
32. Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. Pick & L. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research, and Application (pp. 225–282). Plenum Press.
33. Talmy, L. (2018). The Targeting System of Language: Reference or Direct Object. The MIT Press. van Gelderen, E. (2010). An introduction to the grammar of English (Revised). John Benjamins Pub. Co. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.153
34. Weber, D. (2011). English Prepositions: A Historical Survey. Masaryk University.
35. Yusof, M. (1996). Fungsi frasa preposisi : predikatif lawan non-predikatif *. Linguistik Indonesia, 27(2), 197–215.
36. Zlatev, J. (2007). Spatial semantics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 318 – 350). Oxford University Press.