On the feasibility of general meanings in prepositional semantics

Abstract

The paper investigates the status of general meanings in prepositional semantics. On the basis of a review of the strategies employed in different accounts of prepositions, the paper argues that strict adherence to the notion of general meanings is unfeasible in the field, partly because a purely deductive method of description breaks down as the number of possible oppositions increases. This failure points to the need for a theoretical reformulation of the notion. The paper suggests that there are three conservative ways to pursue such a reformulation: by rejecting the idea that general meanings are autonomous from thought, by rejecting the principle of oppositional constitution or by rejecting the requirement of monosemy. The merits and flaws of these strategies are discussed and some theoretical and methodological motives in choosing between them are considered.