Spatial Concepts in the Semantics of the English Noun Bottom

This article examines the spatial meaning of the noun bottom, which is the basic component of its semantic structure. In our understanding, linguistic meaning as such is based on the idea of concept as a way of linguistic representation of a graphic image, which is a schematic reflection of the actual configuration of objects. The problem of using prepositions in phrases with bottom, which English language learners face, is related to the fact that the ways of conceptualizing space, peculiar to the Russian language consciousness, differ from those models used by native English speakers and which, accordingly, are reflected in the semantics of English words. The purpose of this study was to identify these differences and propose a description of concepts that would explain the patterns of using bottom in speech and have a predictive ability. As the analysis showed, the characteristic feature of this lexeme is a combination of two concepts: "the lower surface of a container" and "the lower part of any solid object as opposed to its upper part", which is of key importance for the semantic differentiation of phrases such as at the bottom of the lake and at the bottom of the page. The results of the study also suggest that, unlike phrases with the preposition on, phrases with at – at the bottom – describe the location of an object not as a flat surface of the bottom, but as a space adjacent to it. A similar picture is conveyed by the preposition in – in the bottom, when in the mind of the speaker the bottom is completed to a sphere with lower and lateral surfaces. The data of this study suggest that the spatial semantics of language is largely determined by the anthropocentric model of conceptualization of reality, which once again confirms the idea that language reflects not so much the real state of things in the world as how this world is perceived by humans.

1. Lecun Y. How the machine learns. A revolution in neural networks and deep learning. M.: Alpina non-fikshn; 2021.

2. Nikolenko S., Kadurin A., Arkhangelskaya E. Deep learning. SPb.: Peter; 2018.

3. Kirichenko A.S., Pronina E.E. Prepositions, concepts, quanta of meaning. On the question of the nature of linguistic meaning. Saarbrucken: Lap Lambert Academic Publishing; 2011.

4. Kirichenko A.S. The problem of differentiation of the prepositions ‘by’ and ‘with’ in combinations with the participle ‘surrounded’. Vestnik Moskovskogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. 2010; 2 (6): 40–45.

5. Hrisonopulo E.Yu. Factors of variability of English prepositions in the designation of a locative relation. M.: Science without borders. English studies in the 21st century. 2021: 164–169.

6. Zhukova A.O. Spatial semantics of English prepositions denoting proximity. Vestnik Minskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2022; 4(119): 56–68.

7. British National Corpus (BNC). Available from: https://www.english-corpora.org/bnc/ [accessed: 04.04.2025].

8. Malyar T.N., Seliverstova O.N. Spatial-distance prepositions and adverbs in Russian and English. München: Slavistische Beiträge; 1998.

9. Kirichenko A.S. Comparative semantics of the Russian prepositions ‘sredi’, ‘mezhdu’ and their English equivalents ‘among’, ‘between’. Dis... Candidate of Philological Sciences. М.: 2002.

10. Gimadeeva A.A., Garifullina D.B., Garayeva M.R. Lexico-semantic representation of the concept of "fear" (based on the material of English and Tatar phraseological units with a zoonym component). Kazanskiy Lingvisticheskiy Zhurnal. 2019; 2(1): 11–17.

11. Seliverstova O.N. The semantic structure of the preposition ‘on’. Research on the semantics of prepositions. edited by D. Payar, O.N. Seliverstova. M.: Russkiye slovari; 2000. p. 189–242.

12. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1980.