
\documentclass[xelatex]{OSLa3} 
\usepackage{stmaryrd} 
\usepackage{multicol} 
\usepackage{enumerate} 
\usepackage{natbib} 
\usepackage{polyglossia} 
\usepackage{hyphenat} 
\usepackage{xspace}
\usepackage{cgloss4e}
\usepackage{linguex} 
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{tikz} 
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{tipa}
\widowpenalty=10000 \clubpenalty=10000 \setmainlanguage{english} \DeclareRobustCommand\dash{\unskip\nobreak\thinspace\textemdash\allowbreak\thinspace\ignorespaces} 
\usepackage{todonotes} 
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\setmainlanguage{english}
\setotherlanguage{russian}
\newfontfamily\russianfont[Mapping=text-tex,SmallCapsFont={Linux Libertine O C},ItalicFont={Linux Libertine O Italic}]{Linux Libertine} % Linux Libertine

\setcounter{page}{263}
\newcommand{\ru}[1]{\begin{russian}#1\end{russian}}
\newcommand{\ruit}[1]{\textit{\ru{#1}}}

%\renewcommand\firstrefdash{}
\usepackage{array} 
\usepackage{supertabular} 
\usepackage{hyperref} 
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{framed}
\usepackage{units}
\usepackage{parsetree}
\newcommand{\smalltodo}[1]{\todo[size=\tiny]{#1}}

\providecommand{\shortcite}[1]{\cite{#1}}

\renewcommand\firstrefdash{}
\newcommand{\sem}[2][]{\mbox{ $[[ #2 ]]^{#1}$}}
\def\citeapos#1{\citeauthor{#1}'s (\citeyear{#1})}

\title{From physical to abstract affectedness: The prepositions \textit{vrz}
and \textit{v\u{a}rhu} in Balkan Slavic}
\def\titlehead{\textit{Vrz} and \textit{v\u{a}rhu} in Balkan Slavic}
\author{Eleni Bu\v{z}arovska \& Liljana Mitkovska}
\affiliation{Ss. Cyril and Methodius University \& FON University}
\def\authorhead{Bu\v{z}arovska \& Mitkovska}



\hyphenation{Kuz-ne-co-va Ma-ka-ro-va ex-pe-ri-men-tal}
\setcounter{page}{1}

\begin{document}


\maketitle
 





\begin{abstract}
This article investigates the semantics of the Macedonian preposition
\textit{vrz }and its Bulgarian counterpart \textit{v\u{a}rhu }from a cognitive
perspective. These prepositions represent a rare case of coding the functional
meaning of landmark (LM) affectedness, which we understand as a characteristic of
a force-dynamic pattern. The article has two related goals: to explain the
polysemy of \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu }by discovering the semantic links between its
spatial and non-spatial senses and to filter out the semantic components that
\textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu }shares with other related spatial prepositions, such as
\textit{na} `on',\textit{ po }`across, over',\textit{ preku/prez} `over',\textit{
}and \textit{nad }`over, above'. The dictionary definitions of both prepositions
do not include the affectedness meaning, a fact that obscures the difference in
use between \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu }and the prepositions mentioned above. The
authors, on the other hand, show how the spatial domain of \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu
}is shared by other semantically similar prepositions of superposition and offer
an explanation as to why they differ.

An analysis of \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu} based on the authors' collection of
examples helps determine the role of the semantic component of ``affectedness''
responsible for the special position of this preposition among the prepositions
that express superposition. This component\textit{ }is often found with verbs
denoting downward movement, such as \textit{fall, put, pour, hit, }and
\textit{throw upon},\textit{ }which underscore the affectedness of the LM in
conveying the meaning of superposition. This prototype effect is preserved in all
spatial extensions, although considerably weakened in the covering sense
(\textit{Stavete kilim vrz svetol pod}. `Put a rug over a light floor'). It is
also pronounced in the non-spatial extensions of \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu }with
predicates such as \textit{vlijae vrz }`influence',\textit{ se fokusira vrz
}`focus on', \textit{prezema kontrola vrz }`take control of' and other similar
cases of conceptual transfer from physical to mental/emotional affectedness.

Even though the semantic component of affectedness is also characteristic of the
Bulgarian preposition \textit{v\u{a}rhu}, analysis of the Bulgarian examples
shows that \textit{v\u{a}rhu, }in comparison to \textit{vrz, }does not adhere to
this criterion so strictly. This results in a wider distribution of
\textit{v\u{a}rhu }in both physical and abstract domains.
\end{abstract}

\section{introduction}
\label{sec:1}

This article investigates the semantics of the Macedonian preposition
\textit{vrz }and its Bulgarian counterpart \textit{v\u{a}rhu }from a cognitive
perspective. These prepositions represent a rare case of coding the functional
meaning of affectedness of the reference object (i.e., landmark, LM)\footnote{The
term \textit{reference object} is used in Cognitive Grammar to indicate the less
salient element in a figure-ground organization, interchangeably with the term
\textit{ground}, e.g., \citep[184]{talmy00}. The term \textit{landmark} is also used
for this concept, following Langacker (see \citep[253, fn.4]{talmy00}; \citep[70]{langacker08:_cognit}). In this article we mainly adopt the terms \textit{landmark} (LM) for
ground and \textit{trajector} (TR) for figure.} and thus illustrate the role of a
force\textbf{-}dynamic pattern in their semantic structure. Our point here is to
show that the functional meaning of affectedness is dominant in the semantics of
\textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu}, especially in Macedonian. We agree with an anonymous
reviewer's observation that the functional meaning of affectedness is part of the
semantics of almost all prepositions of superposition, but it is our belief that
it is often in the background. We wanted to point out that in this preposition
affectedness is foregrounded and part of its semantic profile. Therefore, this
meaning appears to be~decisive~in delimiting this preposition
(particularly~\textit{vrz}) from other rival prepositions of superposition.
However, it is not equally present in all uses, an issue discussed in Section \ref{sec:2}.

The concept of ``affectedness'' has been used in research on
transitivity and argument structure, especially in determining patienthood
``usually construed as a persistent change in or impingement of an event
participant'' \citep[335]{beavers11}. Similarly, in discussing the semantic
macroroles, \citet[8]{valin2002} maintains that ``[a]ffectedness concerns whether
a participant is affected in some way in a state of affairs'' and points out that
affectedness is a gradable property; that is, ``it may range from very great, as
with the situations denoted by verbs like \textit{crush, kill}, and
\textit{smash}, to quite little, as with the states of affairs depicted by verbs
like \textit{see} and \textit{like.}''\footnote{\citet[24]{beavers11} also argues in
favor of degrees of affectedness encoded in verbs (i.e., predicates), proposing
an affectedness hierarchy  on a semantic basis.} Drawing on
this definition, we use the term ``affectedness'' for a relation between two
objects, but argue that it can also be encoded in the preposition.\footnote{The
term \textit{affectedness} is also often used in relation to ditransitive
constructions involving a dative case \citep{beavers11} and external possession
\citep{janda1993geography}; \citep{dska1997cognitive}; \citep{mitkovska2007why}, where the physical and
psychological effects on the affected participant merge\textbf{.}} We understand
``affectedness'' as a characteristic of a force-dynamic pattern \citep[413]{talmy00}
in which the object (agonist) moves downward due to gravitational force and the
LM (antagonist) ``holds'' it or ``stands'' in its way; for example, \textit{padna
vrz }`fall upon',\textit{ hv\u{a}rlja se v\u{a}rhu }`throw oneself on'. The LM
becomes affected because it receives force from the object's directed motion
during its change of location.\footnote{\citet{beavers11} notes ``As the label
`force recipient' conveys, these participants receive force transmission, which
creates the appropriate conditions for change to occur, even if it does not.''}
Although this semantic property is related to dynamic verbs of change, we argue
that the prepositions \textit{vrz}/\textit{v\u{a}rhu}, in signaling the endpoint
of force transmission, may also convey affectedness. We believe that this
preposition has acquired this feature due to its frequent occurrence in this
force-dynamic model and, consequently, it may imply affectedness even with an
ellipted or ``non-forceful'' verb.\footnote{That \textit{vrz} implies the LM's
affectedness even if the verb is not forceful (e.g., s\textit{edna} `sit down');
this can be illustrated with a contrasting pair of similar situations 

\ex.[(i)] (a)
\textit{sedna na stolicata} `s/he sat on the chair' 
\\
 (b) ??\textit{sedna vrz
stolicata} `s/he sat upon the chair'  

where (b) is rather unusual because the
chair is not affected. In a situation in which there is a book on the chair that
may be damaged if somebody sits on it, (d) is not only acceptable but even
preferable: 

\ex.[(i)] (c)
\textit{sedna na knigata (na stolicata)} 
\\ (d) \textit{sedna
vrz knigata} \textit{na stolicata}.

} 

This pattern is especially productive in the
abstract domain, where the affectedness feature is instrumental in the
conceptualization of situations of control or influence.

The translational equivalents of \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu }in other Slavic
languages are recruited from the domain of superposition and lack this functional
meaning. This preposition is based on the Old Slavic noun
\begin{russian} вьрхъ \end{russian}
(Proto-Slavic *\textit{v\begin{russian}ь\end{russian}rx\begin{russian}ъ\end{russian}}) `top'. In
standard Bulgarian it takes the locative form \textit{v\u{a}rhu}. In Macedonian
the final \textit{x} was lost and the deictic particle \textit{z} was added \citep[624--625]{skok1973textitetimologijski}. A similar form, \textit{vr\u{a}z}, is in use in colloquial
Bulgarian, and \textit{vrz} in Serbian dialects in Kosovo \citep[624--625]{skok1973textitetimologijski}.
Other prepositions based on the same lexeme are also present in Bulgarian (e.g.,
\textit{sv\u{a}rhu, nav\u{a}rh}) but they have limited distribution and are not
considered here. In Serbian and Croatian the prepositions \textit{navrh }`on top
of' and\textit{ uvrh }`at the top of, above' are in use, but they have no
affectedness component.

Adopting a cognitive approach, we base our analysis on the assumption that
prepositions represent polysemous units comprising a network of related meanings.
We accept the view that the primary senses of prepositions are spatial in nature
and they are based in human embodied experience \citep{johnson1987textitthe}. Apart from
spatial meanings, prepositions also have functional meanings that can be
understood as meaningful consequences of a spatial scene.\footnote{For more
discussion on the functional meaning of prepositions see, for instance, \citep[61]{navarro01}, \citep[26--27]{tyler2003semantics}, \citep[18]{ari2008spatial},
\citep[256]{coventry1998spatial}, and \citep[261]{coventry2003spatial}.} The topology of an object
(acting as figure; i.e., trajector, TR) in relation to another object (acting as
ground; i.e., LM) may create conditions for interaction and mutual influence
between them. The functional aspect of a spatial relation gives rise to
correlated non-spatial inferences that may develop into abstract meanings. By
analyzing the preposition \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu}, we would like to shed
light on the semantic contribution of the functional element of affectedness to
the meaning of this spatial term. How does affectedness relate to the topological
element of superposition in the conceptual structure of these prepositions? Does
this interrelation depend on context? We draw on \citeapos{coventry2004saying}
view that geometric and functional components interact to different degrees in
different discourse contexts. They argue that, in the case of the spatial term
\textit{in}, a functional component of location control interacts with a
geometric component of enclosure. These components ``support'' each other to
different degrees when one of them is ``weak'' \citep[53]{coventry2004saying}. We assume that there is a similar
correlation between affectedness and superposition in the prototypical meanings
of \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu}.

Discourse factors should also be taken into consideration in the interpretation
of \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu}. Although we are aware that contextual variability
influences the interpretation of the prepositions analyzed, we assume that a
common topological structure---an abstract schema---unites all the meanings in
different contexts \citep[519--520]{taylor2002textitcognitive}. However, the functional component in
the semantics of the preposition \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu} seems to be decisive in
delimitating them from other superpositional prepositions that share a similar
topological meaning. Coventry's  position (\citeyear[266--267)]{coventry2003spatial} that prepositions may
be differently affected by pragmatic and semantic information and that in some
contexts functional relations dominate\footnote{\citet[267]{coventry2003spatial} states that
``it is possible to create a context in which functional relations dominate.
Therefore, contrary to the commonly held view that there is a single system
underlying spatial language and spatial representation that is geometric in
nature, the evidence points to the need for the instantiation of multiple systems
of representation that are integrated `in line.'''} is supported by the behavior
of the prepositions \textit{vrz} and \textit{v\u{a}rhu}. Various contextual
factors either highlight or background a particular geometric or functional
feature in their semantic structure. This in turn causes widening or narrowing of
their semantic scope, which results in different contextual applicability of
these prepositions.

This article discusses the polysemy of the preposition \textit{vrz} in
Macedonian and compares it with the Bulgarian preposition \textit{v\u{a}rhu} in
order to establish the functional zone of these similar prepositions. Although
the two languages use the same preposition as translational equivalents, the
distribution and frequency of uses do not overlap because ``the boundaries
between the contrasting categories often differ'' \citep[229]{ari2008spatial}. In
addition, we isolate the semantic components that \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu} shares
with similar prepositions of superposition---\textit{na }`on',\textit{ po}
`across, over',\textit{ preku/prez }`over',\textit{ }and\textit{ nad}
`above/over'---and determine the features that distinguish \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu}
from them.

The Macedonian dictionaries list several senses of \textit{vrz}, which can be
divided into spatial and non-spatial. The first meaning listed usually describes
the spatial relation involving position or movement of an object on top of or
along/over the surface of something \citep[309--310]{koneski2003textittolkoven}, or an object on or
over/along the upper surface of something \citep[96]{murgoski2005textitrevcnik}. Such definitions
indicate the semantic affinity of \textit{vrz }with the prepositions \textit{na,
po},\textit{ }and\textit{ nad. }The second sense listed is non-spatial, vaguely
defined as ``object of the activity'' \citep[309--310]{koneski2003textittolkoven} or an activity
producing some effect \citep[96]{murgoski2005textitrevcnik}. There is also mention of the sense
``piling up objects of equal type'' and the set phrase \textit{vrz osnova na} `on
the basis of'. Similar explanations are given for the Bulgarian counterpart.
According to Bulgarian dictionaries \citep[99]{andrej63} and
electronic dictionaries,\footnote{\url{http://rechnik.info};
\url{http://www.t-rechnik.info/search.php?search}} the spatial meanings of
\textit{v\u{a}rhu} correspond to those of \textit{vrz}: superposition and
movement to the ``object of activity.'' However, in both meanings, no distinction
is made between physical and abstract senses, although the examples presented
clearly illustrate the difference.

Our analysis is based on more than 350 examples collected from authentic
sources, electronic as well as printed (both Macedonian and
Bulgarian).\footnote{Because there is no comprehensive electronic corpus of
Macedonian, we collected examples from various sources. The sources include
internet blogs and forums, electronic versions of newspapers, magazines, books,
and printed sources. The printed sources consist of Macedonian and Bulgarian
short stories: Dragi Mihajlovski, \textit{Peperutkarot} (Skopje: Kaprikornus,
2010); Rumena Bu\v{z}arovska, \textit{Osmica} (Skopje: Blesok, 2010); Dimit\u{a}r
Tolev, \textit{Razkazi, povesti} (Sofia: Narodna kultura, 1967); Kristina
Dimitrova, \textit{Ljubov i smrt pod krivite kru\v{s}i} (Sofia: Obsidijan, 2004).
The examples used in the article were translated by the authors. Macedonian
examples are marked with (M) and Bulgarian with (B). 
%The sources are separately
%listed at the end of the article.
} In contrast to traditional lexicographic
descriptions of the meanings of\textit{ vrz/v\u{a}rhu}, the cognitive approach
allows us not only to determine the spatial senses, but also to recognize the
functional ones. In Section \ref{sec:2} we describe how they arise from the spatial
relation of \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu} and further develop into abstract senses, thus
forming a network of related senses. The proposed network shows the regularity of
semantic change, whereas the comparison of \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu} with similar
prepositions in each use helps establish the functional scope of the prepositions
analyzed. In Section \ref{sec:3} the relation between the rival prepositions coding
superposition is summarized and Section \ref{sec:4} offers some concluding remarks.

\section{Spatial senses of \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu }and its related non-spatial
senses}\label{sec:2}

\subsection{Vertical {static} spatial meaning: prominence}

In the vertical static spatial meaning, \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu }indicates that a
static object is positioned on the upper surface of the LM. Although this meaning
is infrequent, especially in \textit{vrz}, the lexical semantics of `top' seems
to be the source for the other two senses. We presume that in the creation of a
LM's prototypical meaning of affectedness the shape of the LM plays an important
role: it is convex with a protruding upper part \ref{ex1}. However, with the
extension of its use onto other LMs, the protruding requirement becomes
neutralized. In such uses, \textit{vrz }is very similar to \textit{na }or
\textit{nad} and hence often mutually interchangeable. Yet they all differ with
respect to their functional meaning: unlike \textit{na, vrz} implies that the TR
dominates the scene \ref{ex1} and/or affects the LM in some way  \ref{ex2}. The
affectedness component is rather low, especially in Bulgarian \textit{v\u{a}rhu
} \ref{ex3}, which is more frequently used in this meaning than Macedonian
\textit{vrz}. Thus, the reason why many Bulgarian examples with
\textit{v\u{a}rhu} cannot be translated with \textit{vrz }is the absence of
affectedness in a given situation. For instance, the translation equivalents of
the movie title \textit{Bird on a Wire} are \textit{Ptica v\u{a}rhu \v{z}ica }in
Bulgarian and \textit{Ptica na \v{z}ica} in Macedonian\textit{. }The alternative
variant with \textit{vrz} would imply that the bird's pressure on the wire causes
a certain sagging.

\ex.  \label{ex1} 
a.  \v{S}tipskite vernici ne sakaat antena \textbf{vrz} kambanarijata. (M)
\\`The faithful in \v{S}tip don't want an antenna \textbf{on top of}
the bell tower.' \\
b. Va\v{s}iot ured ne mora da stoi \textbf{vrz} televizor. (M)
\\ `Your gadget doesn't have to be \textbf{on} the TV set.'

\ex.  \label{ex2} Lu\'{g}eto pominuvaat, se zagleduvaat vo \v{c}udnata gletka, a drvoto u\v{s}te
stoi \textbf{vrz} avtomobilot.\\
`People pass by, stare at this strange scene, but the tree is still \textbf{on
top of} the car.'

\ex. \label{ex3} \v{Z}iteli na Sozopol sko\v{c}iha sre\v{s}tu stroe\v{z}a na moderen hotel
\textbf{v\u{a}rhu} skalite. (B) \\
`The residents of Sozopol protested against the construction of a modern hotel
\textbf{on} the cliff top.'

\subsection{Physical support: pressure}

The meaning of physical support hinges on the features of contact and
dimensionality. This relation profiles a voluminous TR positioned on a LM as a
supporting ground, basically similar to the relation expressed by the preposition
\textit{na. }However, unlike \textit{na, }the preposition \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu
}suggests that LM supports the TR despite the latter's considerable weight. In
fact, the difference between these two prepositions is not topological, but
affective: the preposition \textit{na }states\textit{ }only the position, while
\textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu }adds an expressive dimension to the relation. In the
following examples, \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu }can be replaced by \textit{na }without
any change in meaning, but \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu} emphasizes the TR's size and/or
pressure.

\ex. \label{ex4} Kupolata se potpira \textbf{vrz/na} \v{c}etiri stolba. (M)
\\ `The dome rests \textbf{on} four columns.'

\ex. \label{ex5} Toj e bleden, no spokoen, podpira se s dvete si r\u{a}ce \textbf{v\u{a}rhu}
sabljata. (B)
\\ `He is pale, but calm, leans with both hands \textbf{on} his saber.'

\subsection{Abstract meaning: psychological/mental support, base}

The abstract meaning of support in Macedonian \textit{vrz }is a product of
metaphorical transfer from the relation of physical support into the domain of
human relations or reasoning. Thus, \textit{vrz }denotes some kind of
reinforcement that comes from the reference base \ref{ex6}. Associative relations
can also be established between physical entities, as well as people \ref{ex7}.

\ex. \label{ex6} Dr\v{z}avata se potpira vrz silna populisti\v{c}ka propaganda. (M)
\\ `The country relies on strong populist propaganda.'

\ex. \label{ex7} Podatocite \textbf{vrz} koi se zasnova procenata za rizikot (M)
\\ `Data \textbf{on} which the estimation of risk relies'

Bulgarian \textit{v\u{a}rhu} seems to be much less frequent in this meaning,
although we encounter examples with the verb \textit{opira se} `is based' \ref{ex8}.

\ex. \label{ex8} Opirat se \textbf{v\u{a}rhu} indianski duhovni tradicii na Kasteneda, Redfijld i
dr. (B)
\\ `They rely \textbf{on} the Indian spiritual traditions of Castaneda, Redfield,
etc.'

The preposition \textit{na }is equally possible in expressing such abstract
relations \ref{ex9} both in Macedonian and Bulgarian, and it seems to be more
frequently used because of its neutral tone. Due to its expressivity, the
preposition \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu }may serve stylistic purposes.

\ex. \label{ex9} Estonija ḱe se potpira \textbf{na/vrz} NATO za da se za\v{s}titi od
neprijatelot. (M) \\
`Estonia will rely \textbf{on} NATO to protect itself from an enemy.'

More detailed investigation into the syntactic and semantic conditions for
occurrence of the two prepositions might shed some light on the divergent
tendencies in their behavior. Apart from the expressive nature of \textit{vrz}
already mentioned,\textit{ }the polyfunctionality of \textit{na }may also be a
relevant factor for the choice of \textit{vrz}.

The preposition \textit{na }cannot replace \textit{vrz} in the set phrase
\textit{vrz osnova na }`on the basis of' based on the metaphor of support. This
complex preposition is quite common in administrative registers: \textit{vrz
osnova na \v{c}len} \textit{75 }`on the basis of Article 75',\textit{ vrz osnova
na izjavata na }`on the basis of the statement of'. Bulgarian uses the
preposition \textit{v\u{a}z} in the same construction \textit{v\u{a}z}
\textit{osnova na} `on the basis of', which is commonly used in administrative
styles \citep[247]{2002textitbualgarska}.

\subsection{Force-dynamic meaning: motion resulting in affectedness (physical
impact)}

The vertical dynamic spatial sense of \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu }seems to be the
most frequent in both languages. The preposition evokes an image of an object
(TR) coming down on another object (LM) with speed and force, ending up located
with its full lower surface on the upper surface of the LM \ref{ex10} and \ref{ex11}. The
role of force is crucial for this configuration, as well as for a number of other
conceptualizations.\footnote{\citet[42]{johnson1987textitthe} notes that: ``Because force is
everywhere, we tend to take it for granted and to overlook the nature of its
operation. We easily forget that our bodies are clusters of forces and that
every\textit{ }event of which we are part consists, minimally, of forces in
interaction.''} This force-dynamic pattern gives rise to a functional meaning of
affectedness, which arises in combination with verbs of forceful physical motion.
It is precisely because of the frequent occurrence of \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu }with
such verbs that the meaning of ``affectedness'' becomes associated with this
preposition.\footnote{This conclusion dovetails with an anonymous reviewer's
observation.} The use of the preposition \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu }automatically
presupposes that the TR somehow affects the LM by its action.

\ex. \label{ex10} Nepoznati napa\'{g}a\v{c}i v\v{c}era frlile molotov koktel \textbf{vrz }turskiot
konzulat. (M) \\
`Unknown assailants threw a Molotov cocktail \textbf{at} the Turkish consulate
yesterday.'

\ex. \label{ex11} Kola padna \textbf{v\u{a}rhu} k\u{a}\v{s}ta p\u{a}lna s deca. (B)
\\ `The car fell \textbf{on} a house full of children.'

The affectedness effect is often reinforced by some context elements that
emphasize the weight of the TR \ref{ex12} or explicitly state its consequences on
the TR \ref{ex13}. These elements are, however, only additional contextual support
and do not determine the meaning of the preposition. Thus, in \ref{ex12}, if the
phrase \textit{te\v{z}ok do\v{z}d} `heavy rain' is replaced by \textit{siten
do\v{z}d} `light rain', the affectedness meaning will not be
eliminated.\footnote{We thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing up this point.}

\ex. \label{ex12} Te\v{z}ok do\v{z}d pa\'{g}a \textbf{vrz} moeto telo. (M)
\\
`Heavy rain falls \textbf{on} my body.'

\ex. \label{ex13} Te\v{z}ok kufer pa\'{g}a \textbf{vrz} glavata na dedoto a patnicite konstatiraat
deka e mrtov. (M)
\\ `A heavy suitcase falls \textbf{on} the old man's head
and the passengers determine that he is dead.'

The TR may be a liquid or other type of material that affects the LM with its
physical or chemical properties: in \ref{ex14} coffee damages the communications
system, and in \ref{ex15} light dispels darkness.

\ex. \label{ex14} Pilotot go isturil svoeto kafe \textbf{vrz} opremeta za komunikacija na avionot.
(M)
\\
`The pilot spilled his coffee \textbf{over} the communications system on the
dashboard of the aircraft.'

\ex. \label{ex15} Svetlinata se izsipva \textbf{v\u{a}rhu} platnoto za da progoni mraka v
o\v{c}ite. (B)
\\
`The light falls \textbf{on} the canvas in order to dispel darkness.'

This functional meaning of affectedness sets \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu} apart from
the comparable spatial preposition \textit{na }`on', which also codes physical
contact, but profiles support rather than pressure. In our collected examples,
\textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu} predominantly collocates with verbs that code forceful
downward movement (\textit{pa}\'{g}\textit{a} `fall', \textit{isturi} `pour',
\textit{frla} `throw', \textit{udira} `hit') as in \ref{ex16}, but there are also
verbs with no special force implication (\textit{stavi} `put', \textit{se roni}
`crumble'). In \hyperref[ex17]{(17a)}  the passersby are affected even though the verb itself
does not imply force; in \hyperref[ex17]{(17b)}   it is the preposition \textit{vrz }that
produces such an effect, not the neutral verb \textit{stavi }`put'. This suggests
that the preposition itself can create the affectedness scenario.


\ex. \label{ex16} Zaradi silnija vjat\u{a}r v stolicata d\u{a}rvo padna \textbf{v\u{a}rhu} mlad
m\u{a}\v{z} dokato toj izlizal ot .~.~. (B)
\\
`Due to strong wind in the capital, a tree fell \textbf{on} a young man when he
was coming out .~.~.'

\ex. \label{ex17} a. Fasadite se lupat \ldots{} i se ronat \textbf{vrz} glavite na minuva\v{c}ite.
(M)
\\ `The fa\c{c}ades of the houses crack and fall \textbf{on} the heads
of the passersby.'
\\
b. Ne ja stavaj kutijata \textbf{vrz} masata. Ḱe ja o\v{s}teti\v{s}. (M)
\\`Don't put the box \textbf{on} the table. You'll damage it.'

This implication of affectedness is preserved even in static conceptualization,
where the weight of the TR is perceived as exerting some considerable effect on
the LM \ref{ex18}.

\ex. \label{ex18} Tumorot pritiska \textbf{vrz} nervite. (M)
\\
`The tumor presses \textbf{on} the nerves.'


\subsection{Abstract meaning: affectedness through physical impact}


The ``impact'' meaning that codes ``placing TR on top of the LM and in the
process considerably affecting it'' is directly related to the meaning of
physical and psychological affectedness of the LM. In such relations, the contact
feature is not central, but only marginally implied. The TR makes an intended
impact on the LM by some forceful movement (\textit{puka} `shoot') or forceful
activity (\textit{se iz\v{z}ivuva} `molest'), as in \ref{ex19}. The effects on the
TR may be highlighted even if the action is not physically forceful \ref{ex20}.

\ex. \label{ex19} Obvinetiot se tovari deka seksualno se iz\v{z}ivuval \textbf{vrz} deteto. (M)
\\ `The accused is charged with sexually molesting the child.'

\ex. \label{ex20} Ne kupuvam stoki testvani \textbf{v\u{a}rhu} \v{z}ivotni. (B)
\\
`I don't buy goods tested \textbf{on} animals.'

The affectedness meaning of \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu} is often expressed in
collocations with nominalizations (\textit{napad} `attack', \textit{atentat}
`assassination', \textit{vandalizam} `vandalism', \textit{nasilstvo} `violence')
or periphrastic predicates in which the activity is coded by an abstract noun or
nominalization in a construction with a light verb ``V N \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu}
N'' (\textit{vr\v{s}i napad} `attack', \textit{vr\v{s}i operacija} `operate on',
\textit{vr\v{s}i intervencija} `intervene', \textit{primenuva nasilstvo} `apply
violence').

\ex. \label{ex21} Londonskata policija primeni nasilstvo \textbf{vrz} demostranti (M)
\\
`London police applied force \textbf{against} protesters.'

\ex. \label{ex22} Teroristite izv\u{a}r\v{s}vat genocid \textbf{v\u{a}rhu} deca v Holms (B)
\\
`Terrorists are carrying out genocide \textbf{on} children in Holms.'

Following the same pattern, \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu }builds constructions with
\textit{nomina agentis }such\textit{ }as \textit{napa\'{g}a\v{c}} `attacker',
\textit{vladetel }`ruler', and so on. These nominals absorb the first argument of
the nominalized predication, rendering the type of activity through the semantics
of the agent. Thus in \ref{ex23} the verbal nominalizations that appear as TRs in
the relation expressed by the preposition in fact represent a metonymy for the
activity: \textit{napa\'{g}a\v{c}ot }A \textit{vrz B} `the attacker A upon B' $<$
`A attacks B'. In Bulgarian the preposition \textit{nad} is preferred to
\textit{v\u{a}rhu} in similar contexts, as in \ref{ex24}.

\ex. \label{ex23} Napa\'{g}a\v{c}ot \textbf{vrz} komplekstot na ON e uapsen. (M)
\\
`The attacker \textbf{on} the UN headquarters has been arrested.'

\ex. \label{ex24} Razkriha napadatel \textbf{nad} \v{z}eni. (B)
\\
`The attacker \textbf{on} women has been found.'

\subsection{Abstract affectedness and influence/control}

Expressions coding physical affectedness (e.g., \textit{udri vrz},
\textit{pritiska vrz, napa\'{g}a vrz}) in both languages can be extended to
relations with abstract LMs, thus giving rise to abstract affectedness \ref{ex25} 
and \ref{ex26}.

\ex. \label{ex25} Poskapiot benzin pritiska \textbf{vrz} cenite na trensportnite uslugi. (M)
\\
`Expensive gasoline puts pressure \textbf{on} the price of transportation.'

\ex. \label{ex26} Vsi\v{c}kite igri \ldots{} s cenite na bra\v{s}noto, reflektiraha lo\v{s}o
\textbf{v\u{a}rhu} hljaba. (B)
\\
`The manipulations of flour prices have had a negative impact \textbf{on}
bread.'

If the LM is personal or metonymically points to people, as in examples \ref{ex27} and
\ref{ex28}, the relation coded by the preposition \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu }is liable to
further abstraction. The impact of the TR is viewed as producing psychological
effects on the LM \ref{ex29}.

\ex. \label{ex27} Korumpiranite sindikati te\v{z}at \textbf{vrz} grbot na rabotnicite. (M)
\\
`Corrupt trade unions weigh \textbf{on} the backs of the workers.'

\ex. \label{ex28} Dolgovite pritiskaat \textbf{vrz} firmite. (M)
\\
`Debts put pressure \textbf{on} firms.'

\ex. \label{ex29} Spisok\u{a}t na \v{z}ertvite koito te\v{z}at \textbf{v\u{a}rhu} s\u{a}vestta na
carja, ne sv\u{a}r\v{s}ava tuk. (B)
\\
`The list of victims weighing \textbf{on} the czar's conscience does not end
here.'

The functional meaning of affectedness expressed by \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu}
extends into the abstract domain to meanings of the TR's exertion of influence
and/or control on the LM, where the physical contact component is irrelevant, cf.~examples \ref{ex30} and \ref{ex31}. In such relations, an abstract or physical TR affects the
LM with some inherent property or by directing energy towards the LM.

\ex. \label{ex30} Beliot leb \v{s}tetno deluva \textbf{vrz} zdravjeto na lu\'{g}eto. (M)
\\
`White bread has negative effects \textbf{on} people's health.'

\ex. \label{ex31} Depresijata na majkata vlijae \textbf{v\u{a}rhu} moz\u{a}ka na deteto\textit{.
}(B)
\\ `A mother's depressive state has an effect \textbf{on} her child's
brain.'

The same verbs, periphrastic predicates and nominals that appear in physical
relations contexts (\textit{pa\'{g}a} `fall'\textit{, frla }`throw'\textit{,
istura} `spill') combine with \textit{vrz} to code \textit{abstract relations}.
To convey psychological effects of control exertion, \textit{vrz }co-occurs in
various constructions: 1) with abstract nouns (\textit{danok }`tax',
\textit{embargo} `embargo', \textit{veto} `veto', \textit{pravo} `right',
\textit{sopstvenost} `ownership'); 2) with resultative or event nominals\textit{,
}(\textit{vlijanie} `influence', \textit{vnimanie} `attention',
\textit{koncentriranje} `concentration', \textit{fokusiranje} `focusing',
\textit{pogled }`glance/view', \textit{dejstvo }`effect', \textit{udar }`attack',
\textit{pritisok} `pressure'), and 3) in periphrastic predicates
(\textit{vr\v{s}i pritisok vrz naselenieto} `puts pressure on citizens',
\textit{vr\v{s}i kontrola vrz proizvodstvoto} `conducts control over the
production', \textit{vr\v{s}i vlijanie vrz glasa\v{c}ite} `exerts influence over
voters',\textit{ frli pogled vrz knigata }`cast a glance at the book'), which is
a more common pattern than with a single verb.\footnote{The same types of
constructions occur in Bulgarian with \textit{v\u{a}rhu}: \textit{hv\u{a}rlja
petno v\u{a}rhu tsjalata bolnica} `cast a shadow over the whole hospital',
\textit{ima efekti v\u{a}rhu \v{c}ove\v{s}kija organiz\u{a}m} `has effects on
human body'.}

When the same meaning is not rendered by a periphrastic predicate but by a
single verb, three types of complementation patterns are possible: a) some verbs
require direct objects (\textit{vr\v{s}i kontrola vrz proizvodstvoto }$>$
\textit{go kontrolira proizvodstvoto }`maintains control over the production' $>$
`controls the production'), b) some require prepositional objects
(\textit{vr\v{s}i vlijanie vrz glasa\v{c}ite $>$ vlijae vrz glasa\v{c}ite
}`exerts influence over voters' $>$ `influences voters'), and c) some verbs allow
both (\textit{go pritiska naselenieto/pritiska vrz naselenieto }`puts pressure on
the citizens/pressure the citizens'), the difference being in the degree of the
LM's affectedness. However, in a number of cases in both languages the
periphrastic predicate cannot be replaced by a single verb: \textit{frla
senka/damka} `casts a shadow', \textit{prezema kontrola} `takes control',
\textit{ima efekti} `has effects', \textit{ima/dava pravo} `has/gives the right',
etc.), exemplified in \ref{ex32} and \ref{ex33}.

\ex. \label{ex32} NATO ja prezede kontrolata \textbf{vrz} voenata akcija protiv Libija. (M)
\\
`NATO has assumed control \textbf{over} the military operation in Libya.'

\ex. \label{ex33} Edin otdelen incident ne mo\v{z}e da hv\u{a}rli sjanka \textbf{v\u{a}rhu}
tradicionno dobrite otno\v{s}enija. (B)
\\
`A single incident cannot cast a shadow \textbf{over} traditionally good
relations.'

Regular co-occurrence of certain light verbs with \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu} has
resulted in their idiomatization. A typical example is the verb \textit{pa\'{g}a
}`fall' in examples \ref{ex34} and \ref{ex35}.

\ex. \label{ex34} Odgovornosta pa\'{g}a \textbf{vrz} organizatorot na demonstraciite. (M)
\\
`The responsibility falls \textbf{on} the organizer of the demonstrations.'

\ex. \label{ex35} Iskame \textbf{v\u{a}rhu} na\v{s}eto ime kato partija da ne pada pet\u{a}nce.
(B)
\\
`We, as a party, demand that no blemish should be cast \textbf{upon} our name.'

\subsection{Abstract meaning: attention focusing and activity
absorption}

The semantic component \textit{odozgora }`on top of' represents a base for the
rise of the functional meaning of mental focusing. With certain predicates,
\textit{vrz}/\textit{v\u{a}rhu} denotes that a human TR directs attention towards
an LM engaged in some mental activity. Usually \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu} combines
with the verb \textit{raboti }`work', cf.~examples \ref{ex36} and \ref{ex37}, but other verbs are
also encountered (e.g., \textit{se zamisli vrz problemot }`reflected on the
problem'\textit{, se fokusira vrz ekonomijata }`to focus on the economy').

\ex. \label{ex36} Rabotam \textbf{vrz} najnoviot poetski rakopis.\textbf{ }(M)
\\
`I am working \textbf{on} my latest poetry manuscript.'

\ex. \label{ex37} Rabotja \textbf{v\u{a}rhu} nova kniga. (B)
\\
`I am working \textbf{on} a new book.'

The agent's focus on the object is also expressed with the prepositions
\textit{na }and \textit{nad}. The former is more common in both languages,
whereas the latter is characteristic for Bulgarian, but less frequent in
Macedonian.\footnote{Cf. \citep[130--131]{mitkovska2012preposition} on the use
of the preposition \textit{nad} in South Slavic languages and Tyler and Evans's
  analysis of \textit{over} \citep{tyler2001recognizing}.} Even though there are contexts in which all
three prepositions are interchangeable, each one has a specific, often
contextual, nuance that is difficult to capture. The reason for their specialized
application may lie in the conventionalization of collocational combinations.

\subsubsection{Topic/theme (in Bulgarian only)}

Additionally, the Bulgarian preposition \textit{v\u{a}rhu }occurs in the
abstract meaning of ``aboutness'' or ``topic/theme'' \ref{ex38}, whereas its
Macedonian counterpart \textit{vrz} has not developed such a use. Macedonian
employs the preposition \textit{za }`for, about' to express this relation. Such
uses involve predicates of speech and cognition, in whih the preposition marks
the topic of conversation or thought and could be paraphrased as `relating to,
with reference to, with regard to'.

\ex. \label{ex38}Tekst\u{a}t spodelja razmisli \textbf{v\u{a}rhu} neobi\v{c}ajnata situacija. (B)
\\
`The text conveys thoughts \textbf{about} the unusual situation.'

\subsection{Competition between the preposition \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu} and
\textit{na}}

In the meaning of physical affectedness, the preposition \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu}
competes with \textit{na} `on'. Because both imply that the TR comes to or is
positioned in contact with the LM (which usually supports the TR on the upper
surface), they are interchangeable in many contexts \ref{ex39}. However, the main
feature of \textit{on} is control: the LM controls the location of the TR in the
horizontal or vertical axis of the LM \citep{brala02}, whereas \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu
}highlights the effect of the attachment of the TR with the
LM.\footnote{According to \citet{brala05}, the domain of \emphasis{SUPERPOSITION} lexicalized
in Croatian by \textit{nad, iznad, preko, }and \textit{na} is split into two
subordinate levels: +/- \emphasis{ATTACHMENT} (\textit{na} vs. \textit{nad, iznad, preko}).}
The examples analyzed suggest that the implication of affectedness is inherent in
\textit{vrz }whereas \textit{na }is neutral in this respect. This explains why in
some contexts the use of \textit{na }is either not preferred or marginal \ref{ex40}.

\ex. \label{ex39} Nepoznati napa\'{g}a\v{c}i v\v{c}era frlile molotov koktel \textbf{vrz/na}
turskiot konzulat. (M)
\\
`Unknown assailants yesterday threw a Molotov cocktail \textbf{at} the Turkish
consulate.'

\ex. \label{ex40} Most star 150 godini padna \textbf{vrz/?na} voz \v{s}to pominuval pod nego i ubi
33 patnici. (M)
\\
`A 150-year-old bridge collapsed \textbf{on} a train passing under it and killed
33 passengers.'

The preposition \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu }is mainly used with predicates (or their
nominalizations), signaling that the second participant is strongly affected by
the activity; namely, it emphasizes the patienthood of the second participant,
whereas \textit{na }invites no such inference. This difference is equally
maintained in abstract relations, although not as regularly because the choice
depends more heavily on the speaker/writer's construal of the relation (compare
examples \ref{ex30}--\ref{ex31} with examples \ref{ex41}--\ref{ex42}). In such cases, the two prepositions are
used for stylistic variation.

\ex. \label{ex41} Slabeenjeto mo\v{z}e \v{s}tetno da deluva \textbf{vrz} zdravjeto. (M)
\\
`Slimming down can be harmful \textbf{to} one's health.'

\ex. \label{ex42} Esenta naistina vlijae \textbf{na} nastroenieto. (B)
\\
`Autumn really can affect one's mood.'

Another reason for choosing \textit{vrz }over \textit{na }is to avoid the
ambiguity that the multifunctional preposition\textit{ na} could create. Because
\textit{na }is used for both agentive and patientive participants of a
nominalized predication, it may be unclear whether the object of the preposition
refers to the initiator or the undergoer, whereas \textit{vrz }clearly points to
the patient. Thus, the expression \textit{pritisok na vladata }`pressure of/on
the government' may be interpreted as `pressure of the government' or `pressure
on the government' but the use of \textit{vrz} in \textit{pritisok vrz vladata
}clarifies that the government is the affected entity.

Furthermore, the preposition \textit{na }is used for marking both possession and
indirect object (experiencer or recipient), causing ambiguity in certain
contexts. By using \textit{vrz},\textit{ }the speaker/writer clearly points at
the experiencer \ref{ex43}. In addition, \textit{vrz}, in contrast to \textit{na,}
possesses certain expressivity and thus is more common in headlines as a
stylistic attention-capturing device, whereas the body text contains \textit{na},
as in the following example\textit{.}\footnote{This is perhaps one of the reasons
why we encounter \textit{vrz }in poetry more often than in other genres.}

\ex. \label{ex43} Do\v{z}dot i gradot napravija \v{s}teti \textbf{vrz} posevite. (headline)
\\
Spored informaciite od farmerite gradot napravi \v{s}teti \textbf{na}
\v{z}itnite i gradinarski kulturi. (M)
\\
`Rain and hail cause damage \textbf{to} crops. \\
According to information from farmers, the hailstorm caused damage \textbf{to}
crops in fields and gardens.'

In Bulgarian, the obsolete preposition \textit{vr\u{a}z} is found instead of
\textit{v\u{a}rhu} in stylistically marked contexts.\footnote{We would like to
thank Ivelina Tchizmarova for this observation and for providing exhaustive
interpretation of the examples with \textit{vr\u{a}z}.} In newspaper headlines
\ref{ex44} and literary prose \ref{ex45}, it conveys a greater degree of
expressivity.

\ex. \label{ex44} D\v{z}ip parkira \textbf{vr\u{a}z} st\u{a}palata na Etnografskija muzej. (B)
\\
`The jeep parked \textbf{at} the entry to the Ethnographic Museum.'

\ex. \label{ex45} Sneg\u{a}t turi sm\u{a}l\v{c}ana pokrivka \textbf{vr\u{a}z} vsi\v{c}ko. (B)
\\
`The snow spread a silent cover \textbf{over} everything.'


\subsection{Horizontal spatial meaning: spreading over a surface, covering}

The third spatial meaning of \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu }presupposes contact of the
TR with a broader surface of the LM, usually the entire upper surface, which
gives rise to the functional meaning of partial or full covering; examples \ref{ex46} and \ref{ex47}. In \ref{ex46}, the print covers part of the shirt; it also indicates that the
TR and LM are not necessarily positioned on the vertical axis. Actually, here the
location of the TR on the horizontal axis is controlled by a planar LM.

\ex. \label{ex46} Pe\v{c}atenje \textbf{vrz} maici i tekstil. (M)
\\
`Printing \textbf{on} T-shirts and fabric.'

\ex. \label{ex47} Razlivam voda \textbf{v\u{a}rhu} masata. (B)
\\
`I spill water \textbf{over} the table.'

Given that the TR is not concentrated on a limited spot of the LM, it is not
viewed as producing a considerable impact. Therefore the affectedness component
is negligible or totally absent. It seems that the presence of the feature of
dimensionality (or rather planarity) of the ``controller'' LM \citep{brala05}
suspends the affectedness effect of the TR's superpositional attachment onto the
LM. The degree of affectedness also depends on the physical makeup of the object;
for example, liquids versus solid objects, as in \ref{ex47}.

Bulgarian \textit{v\u{a}rhu }is more often encountered in this meaning than
\textit{vrz }in Macedonian; the latter has a limited distribution, probably
because it suggests verticality and hence the affectedness effect is more
pronounced. Quite often in such contexts the Macedonian equivalent of
\textit{v\u{a}rhu }is not \textit{vrz, }but \textit{na} or \textit{po},\textit{
}as in examples (48) and (49).

\ex. \label{ex48} ``B\u{a}lgarija \textbf{v\u{a}rhu} kulturnata karta na sveta'' e mnogo
ljubopitna kniga. \\(= \textit{na}) (B)
\\
`\textit{Bulgaria \textbf{on} the Cultural Map of the World} is a very curious
book.'

\ex. \label{ex49} Arabski tatuirovki \textbf{v\u{a}rhu} telata na zvezdi. (= \textit{po}) (B)
\\
`Arabic tattoos \textbf{all over }the bodies of pop stars.'

In contexts in which both prepositions are possible in the two languages,
\textit{v\u{a}rhu }prevails in Bulgarian, whereas \textit{na }is more common in
Macedonian, although \textit{vrz }is also an option, cf.~examples \ref{ex50} and \ref{ex51}.

	\ex. \label{ex50} a. Nanesete smesata \textbf{v\u{a}rhu} liceto i sled 20 minuti izmijte. (B)
\\ b. Nanesete ja smesata \textbf{na} liceto i dr\v{z}ete ja 20 minuti. (M) \\
`Apply the mixture \textbf{to} your face and let it sit for 20 minutes.'

\ex. \label{ex51} a. Evropejskata komisija odobri novi 14 predupreditelni
nadpisa, koito \v{s}te mogat da b\u{a}dat otpe\v{c}atvani \textbf{v\u{a}rhu} kutiite s
cigari. (B) \\
`The European Commission has approved fourteen new graphic warnings that may be
printed \textbf{on} cigarette packs.' \\
b. Spored sudijata, grafi\v{c}kite predupreduvanja za \v{s}tetnosta
od pu\v{s}enjeto \textbf{vrz} kutiite so cigari i \textbf{vrz} reklamnite materijali gi prekr\v{s}uvaat osnovnite
slobodi. (M) \\
`According to the judge, the graphic warnings concerning the hazards of smoking
\textbf{on} cigarette packs and \textbf{on} advertising materials violate basic
rights.'

Table \ref{tab:1} shows the results of a Google search of four direct strings with
\textit{vrz}/\textit{v\u{a}rhu} and \textit{na}. Although the numbers present the
raw score, the differences are indicative of the preferences in the two
languages. The results lend support to our conclusion that \textit{v\u{a}rhu} is
far more common in the ``spreading'' sense than \textit{vrz.}

\begin{table}
\caption{Google search results for \textit{v\u{a}rhu/vrz} and
\textit{na} in contexts of spreading over a surface}
\label{tab:1}

%\vspace{3pt} \noindent
%\begin{tabular}{|p{22pt}|p{146pt}|p{141pt}|p{95pt}|}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lll}

\hline
&  
\textbf{Bulgarian}
 & 
\textbf{Macedonian}
 \\
\hline
&  
(nadpisi) \textit{v\u{a}rhu }cigareni paketi 

 &  
(natpisi) \textit{vrz }kutii so cigari

 
 \\
&  -- 13,900  hits & -- 4 hits  \\ 
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{`(labels) on cigarette packs'} \\



\hline
&  
(nadpisi) \textit{na }cigareni paketi

 & 
(natpisi) \textit{na} kutii so cigari
 
 
 \\
&  -- 9    hits & -- 10,200  hits  \\
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{`(labels) on cigarette packs'} \\
\hline
Ratio & 
 

\textit{v\u{a}rhu} to \textit{na }99.94\% to 0.06\%
 & 
\textit{vrz} to \textit{na }0.04\% to 99.96\%
  \\
\hline
 & 
Nanesete smesata \textit{v\u{a}rhu} liceto


 & 
Nanesete ja smesata \textit{vrz} liceto \\
& 
 -- 45,700  hits & -- 1  hit  \\
 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{`Apply the mixture [all] over your face.'} \\
\hline
 & 
Nanesete smesata \textit{na} liceto


 & 
Nanesete ja smesata \textit{na} liceto

 
 \\
& 
 -- 15,700   hits & -- 1,790    hits   \\
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{`Apply the mixture  to/on your face.'} \\
\hline
Ratio &  
\textit{v\u{a}rhu} to \textit{na }74\% to 26\%
 & 
\textit{vrz} to \textit{na }0.055\% to 99.94\%
   \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{2pt}
\end{table}

If the TR's contact surface is equal or larger than the LM's, the functional
component of covering may be interpreted as ``protection'' or ``hiding from
view'', cf.~examples \ref{ex52} and \ref{ex53}, causing the creation of an implicature of layering.
This use of both \textit{vrz }and \textit{v\u{a}rhu} is common in culinary
discourse to convey layering in a horizontal structure, illustrated in examples
\ref{ex54} and \ref{ex55}.

\ex. \label{ex52} Toj nosi ko\v{s}ula \textbf{vrz} bluzata. (M)
\\
`He is wearing a shirt \textbf{over} his long-sleeve T-shirt.'

\ex. \label{ex53} Toj be obljak\u{a}l palto \textbf{v\u{a}rhu} pulovera. (B)
\\
`He had put on a jacket \textbf{over} his pullover.'

\ex. \label{ex54} Rezanki od kru\v{s}kite se stavaat \textbf{vrz} sloj od karamela i se pokrivaat
so sloj na meko testo. (M)
\\
`Slices of pear are placed \textbf{on} the layer of caramel and are covered with
a layer of soft pastry.'

\ex. \label{ex55} V tava izsipete solta, sled koeto \textbf{v\u{a}rhu} neja naredete pile\v{s}kite
but\v{c}eta. (B)
\\
`Cover the pan with a layer of salt and place the chicken legs in a row\textbf{
over} it.'

Placing the same type of TR one over another \ref{ex56} produces a special effect
that results in the conventionalization of the implicature of layering. This
functional meaning makes the construction liable to idiomatization, such as
\textit{edin v\u{a}rhu drug }in \ref{ex57}. In Bulgarian, the colloquial (obsolete)
preposition \textit{vr\u{a}z} is often used for expressivity in some idiomatic
expressions; for instance \textit{sedi krak vr\u{a}z krak }`sit with crossed
legs',\textit{ }which has the Macedonian equivalent \textit{sedi noga vrz noga.}

\ex. \label{ex56} Sloj \textbf{vrz }sloj pudra izgleda lo\v{s}o. (M)
\\
`Layer \textbf{upon} layer of powder looks bad.'

\ex. \label{ex57} Te trupat matraci edin \textbf{v\u{a}rhu} drug. (B)
\\
`They pile up mattresses one \textbf{over }the other.'

The prepositions \textit{preku/po, na},\textit{ }and \textit{nad }compete with
\textit{vrz }in this function, but they highlight different aspects of the
superposition topology. The focus of \textit{preku/po }falls on the extension of
the TR over the entire surface of the LM, underscoring completeness to a higher
degree than \textit{vrz }(compare examples \ref{ex58} and \ref{ex59}), whereas the use of
\textit{na }is neutral regarding the scope of spread/coverage \ref{ex60};
\textit{nad }implies vertical proximity \ref{ex61}.

\ex. \label{ex58} Nanesuvajte go proizvodot ... \textbf{preku} celata povr\v{s}ina. (M)
\\
`Spread the product \textbf{over} the whole surface.'

\ex. \label{ex59} Koga ḱe se nanese \textbf{vrz} pluskavicata, pastata za zabi pobrzo ja su\v{s}i.
(M)
\\
`When you smear toothpaste~\textbf{over}~a blister, the blister dries faster.'

\ex. \label{ex60} Nanesete eukaliptusovo maslo \textbf{na} krp\v{c}e i izbri\v{s}ete. (M)
\\
`Spread eucalyptus oil \textbf{on} a piece of cloth and use for cleaning.'

\ex. \label{ex61} \textbf{Nad} testoto stavete go filot, a \textbf{nad} nego \v{s}lag krem .~.~.
(M)
\\
`Spread custard over the pastry and put some whipping cream on top
.~.~.'

Sometimes the difference between these prepositions is so negligible that they
may be used interchangeably to avoid repetition \ref{ex62}. However, note that
\textit{vrz }is used for a smaller object that is on top but does not cover the
entire surface of the LM.

\ex. \label{ex62} Par\v{c}inja gorgonzola stavete \textbf{na} sekoe ispe\v{c}eno lep\v{c}e, a
\textbf{vrz} nea stavete jatka orev. (M)
\\
`Put some gorgonzola \textbf{on} each toasted slice of bread, and \textbf{over}
it place half a walnut.'

\subsection{Abstract meaning: recursiveness}

The meaning of recursive activity (\textit{pale\v{s}e cigara vrz cigara }`He lit
cigarette after cigarette'\textit{; pi\v{s}uva\v{s}e pismo vrz pismo }`she wrote
letter after letter') is extended from the sense of physical piling or layering
of entities one over another. Repetition of the same activity creates an
implicature of quantity that has relevance in some particular context \ref{ex63}.
In Bulgarian we found the emotionally-marked preposition \textit{vr\u{a}z }in
this function \ref{ex64}.

\ex. \label{ex63} Se tro\v{s}at narodnite pari, se udira danok \textbf{vrz} danok, .~.~. (M)
\\
`The people's money is spent, tax \textbf{after} tax is imposed, .~.~.'

\ex. \label{ex64} Ot tri godini pismo \textbf{vr\u{a}z} pismo mi pi\v{s}e, ela mi na gosti,
bad\v{z}anak. (B)
\\
`For three years he's been writing me letter \textbf{after} letter, come and
visit me, brother.'

\subsection{Summary: the network of spatial and abstract meanings of
\textit{vrz }and \textit{v\u{a}rhu}}
\label{sec:2.11}

The semantic network of the prepositions \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu} is shown on
Figure \ref{fig:1}. As discussed above, three spatial meanings branch from the meaning `on
top of' representing the abstract ``image schema'' and each has given rise to one
or more abstract meanings.



\begin{figure}[htbp]
	\centering
		\includegraphics[height=3.5in]{fig1_chap3.png}
	\caption{The conceptual network of \textit{vrz} and
\textit{v\u{a}rhu}}
	\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}

%
%\begin{figure}
%\caption{The conceptual network of \textit{vrz} and
%\textit{v\u{a}rhu}}
%\label{fig:1x}
%
%\vspace{3pt} \noindent
%\begin{tabular}{p{108pt}p{102pt}p{102pt}p{104pt}}
% & \multicolumn{2}{c}{
%\textbf{`on top of'}
%
%(basic abstract schema)
%} &  \\
%\includegraphics[width=165pt]{img-6.eps}
%Vertical static
%
%(prominence)
%\includegraphics[width=0pt]{img-8.eps} & \multicolumn{2}{l}{\includegraphics[width=160pt]{img-5.eps}\includegraphics[width=0pt]{img-7.eps}
%Vertical synamic
%
%\includegraphics[width=0pt]{img-14.eps}(impact)
%} & 
%Horizontal -- dynamic/static
%
%\includegraphics[width=0pt]{img-13.eps}(covering)
% \\
%
%Physical support
%
%(pressure)
%\includegraphics[width=0pt]{img-15.eps} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{
%Affectedness through
%
%\includegraphics[width=48pt]{img-10.eps}\includegraphics[width=52pt]{img-11.eps}physical
%impact
%} & 
%On top of one another
%
%\includegraphics[width=0pt]{img-12.eps}(layering)
% \\
%
%Abstract support
%
%(base)
% & 
%Abstract affectedness
%
%and influence
% & 
%Attention focusing
%
%\includegraphics[width=0pt]{img-9.eps}\& activity absorption
% & 
%Recursiveness
%
%(Bulg. \textit{vr\u{a}}z)
% \\
% &  & 
%Topic
%
%(Bulgarian only)
% &  \\
%\end{tabular}
%\vspace{2pt}
%\end{figure}

We distinguish between vertical and horizontal types of meaning on the basis of
the nature of the contact. In the vertical meanings it is restricted to a
relatively small portion of the LM, whereas in the horizontal ones it spreads
radially and may cover the entire surface. Both orientations are found in static
and dynamic patterns. In the vertical orientation, the two patterns are
cognitively distinct, which is reflected in the existence of two senses
(prominence and impact). This hypothesis is supported by the fact that both
senses serve as sources for separate extension pathways: pressure versus
affectedness through physical impact. On the other hand, in the horizontal
orientation the distinction between the static and dynamic meanings is
neutralized in the covering sense with its two contextual variants.

The two varieties of the dynamic pattern may be characterized as a force-dynamic
pattern and force-dynamically neutral pattern, the difference being in the
orientation of movement: vertical or horizontal. In the force-dynamic pattern,
the object comes in contact with the surface as a result of vertical
impact\footnote{Compare Lindstromberg's  explanation of the English
preposition \textit{against}, which includes the element of force and suggests
violent impact \citep[177]{lindstromberg1997textitenglish}.} (downward movement). The dynamicity of this conceptualization
may be neutralized by the different orientation of the impact. In a
force-dynamically neutral pattern the object moves radially, in all directions
along a planar surface, which is usually but not necessarily horizontal
(\textit{plo\v{c}ki vrz dzidot} `tiles over the wall'). In sum, the dynamic
meanings analyzed share a similar topological configuration of superpositional
attachment, the main difference being in the verticality or horizontality of the
attachment relation. Verticality produces the meaning of ``contact attachment'';
that is, only in the place of impact, whereas horizontality conveys ``spreading
attachment'' on all (or a fair amount of) the surface of the LM. As a
consequence, the functional component of affectedness weakens at the expense of
the covering component, also conveying certain affectedness itself.

The two vertical varieties (impact and prominence) may be conceptualized as two
poles of a force-dynamic continuum with different degrees of affectedness. It is
most prominent in the vertical dynamic conceptualization of the relation coded by
\textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu, }which is based on the presupposition of a preceding
forceful or neutral movement. The degree of affectedness is lower in the static
pattern, which is conceptually simpler because the profiled relation does not
trigger the presupposition of movement; that is, the activity that has led to the
contact is not in the focal zone of the conceptualization scene.\footnote{Or in
the zone of cognitive ``ception.'' This partly overlaps with what Langacker calls
``focal prominence.'' According to \citet[365]{langacker08:_cognit}, focal prominence
``resides in the directing of attention, made necessary by the difficulty of
viewing a complex occurrence in a global and a wholly neutral fashion---we cannot
attend to everything equally and simultaneously. As a limited resource, attention
has to be allocated and for a given structure different allocations are
possible.''} The preposition profiles the relation of the attached superposition,
which contextually determines affectedness. However, the distinction between the
two patterns is often blurred. In \textit{Ne sedi vrz mojot krevet!} `Don't sit
on my bed!' \textit{vrz }implies some affectedness but the verb itself codes a
static situation even though it is obviously a result of a dynamic activity.

Therefore, the three meanings are distinguished by their functional features:
prominence, affectedness (impact), and covering, respectively. Each has given
rise to a corresponding abstract meaning, with some final branches differing in
Macedonian and Bulgarian.

\subsubsection{Comparison between vrz and v\u{a}rhu}

The above overview shows that the Macedonian preposition \textit{vrz }and its
Bulgarian counterpart \textit{v\u{a}rhu} are close equivalents used for
expressing similar spatial relations of attached superposition. It seems that
they have followed similar paths of extension to abstract meanings. However, our
analysis has shown that there is difference in usage. It seems that the Bulgarian
\textit{v\u{a}rhu }is more widely used in the senses of ``position on top of,''
``spread on a surface,'' and ``support,'' in which the affectedness component is
weak. The implication of affectedness is more strongly felt in Macedonian
\textit{vrz}, which makes it more expressive and thus less common in contexts
lacking affectedness. To draw more specific conclusions, though, a precise
statistical analysis of the occurrences of these prepositions in the two
languages is needed, but at this point such an analysis is unfeasible because
there is no extensive electronic corpus of Macedonian.

We also noted some differences in the scope of abstract meanings:

\begin{enumerate}
	\item Bulgarian \textit{v\u{a}rhu} is used in some abstract meanings in which
Macedonian \textit{vrz }is not applied: the meaning `about', expressing topic,
was mentioned above (\textit{Sporim v\u{a}rhu tozi problem} `argue over this
problem'); second, it has a distributive meaning in expressing percentages
(\textit{20\% DDS v\u{a}rhu 1 lev }`20\% VAT on 1 lev'), where Macedonian uses
\textit{na}; in mathematics it is used for expressing ratios (\textit{deset
v\u{a}rhu petnaeset} `ten divided by fifteen').
	\item In the abstract meaning of support (\textit{se bazira/zasnova} \textit{vrz}),
Macedonian \textit{vrz} is very common, whereas Bulgarian \textit{v\u{a}rhu} is
restricted to one verb and \textit{na} is more usual\textit{.}
\end{enumerate}

\section{\textit{vrz }and \textit{v\u{a}rhu} in relation to similar
prepositions on superposition}
\label{sec:3}

This analysis has revealed the relation of the preposition \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu
}to some semantically close prepositions. Our starting premise is that spatial
prepositions mark meaning distinctions in a stable conceptual domain and that
their meanings are determined in relation to the other prepositions with which
they share this domain \citep[108]{tyler2003semantics}. Therefore, on the one hand
the meaning of a preposition depends on the scope of similar spatial prepositions
and, on the other, on specific functional implications evoked by prepositions
that give each of them a characteristic nuance.

Table \ref{tab:2} shows the specific features characteristic for the prepositions
\textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu, na, preku/prez, po},\textit{ }and \textit{nad} in the
spatial domain expressing a position of a TR on the upper surface of a LM. It is
obvious that not all functional components are shared by all prepositions, the
contact component being the only common one. Apart from contact, the preposition
\textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu }shares with \textit{na} the components of pressure,
affectedness, and support; it is connected to \textit{preku/prez, po} through
spreading, covering, and layering, and to \textit{nad }through covering,
layering, and overhanging.

\begin{table}
\caption{Component features of the preposition \textit{vrz }in relation
to its similar prepositions}
\label{tab:2}

%\vspace{3pt} \noindent
%\begin{tabular}{|p{99pt}|p{28pt}|p{28pt}|p{56pt}|p{28pt}|}
\centering
	\begin{tabular}{lllll}
\hline
 & 
{\scriptsize VRZ }
 & 
{\scriptsize NA}
 & 
{\scriptsize PO, PREKU/PREZ}
 & 
{\scriptsize NAD}
 \\
\hline

contact
 & 
+
 & 
+
 & 
+
 & 
+/-
 \\
\hline

pressure
 & 
+
 & 
+
 &  &  \\
\hline

affectedness
 & 
+
 & 
+
 &  &  \\
\hline

support
 & 
+
 & 
+
 &  &  \\
\hline

spreading
 & 
+
 &  & 
+
 &  \\
\hline

covering
 & 
+
 &  & 
+
 & 
+
 \\
\hline

layering
 & 
+
 &  & 
+
 & 
+
 \\
\hline

overhanging
 & 
+
 &  &  & 
+
 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
%\vspace{2pt}
\end{table}

Such overlap of features indicates that the domains of these prepositions share
a common semantic field, which explains their interchangeability in particular
contexts. Figure \ref{fig:2} represents the functional domains of \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu
}and the competing prepositions. In contexts in which a particular functional
component is prominent, the use of \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu }is compatible with the
preposition that has the same property. However, although these prepositions
contain the same features in their semantic structure, each preposition displays
a different hierarchy of these features. Usually, the dominant feature of a
particular preposition distinguishes it from other semantically close
prepositions. Thus the meaning of ``attached superposition'' of
\textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu} can also be coded by \textit{na, }but the features of
pressure, affectedness, and support do not have the same significance in both:
whereas \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu }underscores pressure and affectedness, the
dominant feature for \textit{na }is support, cf.~examples \ref{ex39} and \ref{ex40}. In the meaning
of ``spread over some surface, covering,'' \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu }shares a domain
with \textit{po }and \textit{preku/prez}, but the central feature for the latter
is ``spreading,'' whereas for the corresponding meaning of \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu}
it is\textit{ }``covering'', cf.~examples \ref{ex54} and \ref{ex55}. The same function can be
expressed by the preposition \textit{nad,} but for this preposition
``overhanging'' (created by the topology of detached superposition) is the
central feature \ref{ex61}.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
	\centering
		\includegraphics[height=2.6in]{fig2_chap3.png}
	\caption{The scope of the preposition \textit{vrz }in relation to
similar prepositions}
	\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}

%\begin{figure}
%\caption{The scope of the preposition \textit{vrz }in relation to
%similar prepositions}
%\label{fig:2}
%\includegraphics[width=146pt]{img-1.eps}   
%\hspace{15pt}\hspace{15pt}\hspace{15pt}     \hspace{15pt}   \hspace{15pt}    
%\hspace{15pt}
%{\footnotesize \textbf{          PREKU/PREZ, PO}}
%\includegraphics[width=155pt]{img-2.eps}\includegraphics[width=153pt]{img-4.eps}\includegraphics[width=145pt]{img-3.eps}\hspace{15pt}\hspace{15pt}\hspace{15pt}\hspace{15pt}\hspace{15pt}
%spreading
%
%\hspace{15pt}\hspace{15pt}\hspace{15pt}\hspace{15pt}         c o v e r i n g
%
%\textbf{      }\hspace{15pt}\textbf{NA}     \hspace{15pt}\hspace{15pt}  
%layering\hspace{15pt}
%
%\hspace{15pt}          pressure\hspace{15pt}\hspace{15pt}\hspace{15pt}  
%\hspace{15pt}   \textbf{{\footnotesize NAD}}
%
%\hspace{15pt}              \hspace{15pt}     affectedness
%
%s u p p o r t     \hspace{15pt}  \hspace{15pt}\hspace{15pt}overhanging
%
%\hspace{15pt}\hspace{15pt}\hspace{15pt} \hspace{15pt}       
%\textbf{{\footnotesize VRZ/V\u{A}RHU}}
%\end{figure}

Similar overlaps are typical of non-spatial meanings. Abstract affectedness
and/or control over a LM may be expressed by \textit{na}; compare examples
\ref{ex39}--\ref{ex43}. The functional meaning ``overhanging'' in \textit{vrz} that has derived
from ``focusing'' attention (e.g., with the verb \textit{raboti }`work') may be
coded by \textit{nad} and \textit{na}, but \textit{vrz} implies greater
directionality, hence involvement. \textit{Vrz/v\u{a}rhu }shares the functional
domain of covering with \textit{po, preku/prez}, and \textit{na}, but \textit{na}
does not imply total spreading (all over the surface), as do
\textit{preku}/\textit{prez }and \textit{po}. Only \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu} has
developed the ``recursiveness'' sense derived from ``layering.''

The meaning of \textit{support} is more central to spatial \textit{na} than it
is for \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu}, but \textit{vrz} is more often used for moral
support (\textit{se potpiram vrz tebe} `I rely on you' vs. \textit{se potpiram na
tebe} `I lean on you'). Examples \ref{ex65}--\ref{ex67} demonstrate how these prepositions are
mutually interchangeable in some contexts, which indicates considerable overlap
of their functional zones. Semantic and pragmatic factors such as the nature of
participants and the type of activity the participants are involved in determine
the choice of the suitable preposition for a particular situation.

\ex. \label{ex65} Ja staviv knigata \textbf{na} masata. (*\textit{nad}, *\textit{vrz},
*\textit{preku}) (M)
\\
`I put the book \textbf{on} the table.'

\ex. \label{ex66} Go rasposlav \v{c}ar\v{s}avot \textbf{na} masata. (*\textit{nad}, ?\textit{vrz},
\textit{preku}) (M)
\\
`I spread the tablecloth \textbf{on} the table.'

\ex. \label{ex67} Ja staviv rakata \textbf{na} o\v{c}ite. (?\textit{nad}, \textit{vrz},
\textit{preku}) (M)
\\
`I put my hand \textbf{over} my eyes.'

To support the results presented in our analysis, it would be helpful to conduct
a statistical investigation of the relationship of \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu} with
other rival prepositions. The comparison of frequency of prepositions in
different syntactic constructions should help reveal the factors influencing the
choice of a particular preposition. Given that a rigorous statistical analysis
was beyond the scope of this article, the findings of our analysis may serve as a
foundation for future statistically based investigations.

\section{Concluding remarks}
\label{sec:4}
In the above cognitive-based analysis of the prepositions \textit{vrz }and
\textit{v\u{a}rhu},\textit{ }we have established the role of the functional
element ``affectedness'' in the meaning of this spatial category. With the
verticality dimension as part of this configuration, the category profiles not
only a topological relation of attachment, but implies direction and impact. We
adopt the view (held by other authors cited in this article) that spatial
relations coded in prepositions are primary and that ``[t]he functional element
arises as a consequence of our daily interaction with the spatial configuration
associated with the particular preposition'' \citep{tyler2004rethinking}. Thus we
assume that affectedness is a byproduct of directional movement in a
force-dynamic pattern triggered by the frequent occurrence of these prepositions
with a certain type of verbs. Affectedness has become their distinguishing
feature, especially in the case of \textit{vrz}. We argue that this preposition
contains a functional component in all senses, which vary from ``prominence''
through ``impact'' to ``covering.'' Although ``affectedness'' prevails in the
second sense, which is the most frequent and productive, it is also felt in the
other two senses. All of these functional components trigger the creation of
numerous extensions in the abstract domain. Furthermore, we have tried to uncover
the interaction of the affectedness component and the superposition component in
the conceptual structure of these prepositions. The analysis has led to the
conclusion that dimensionality and contextual factors influence the prevalence of
one or another component and subsequently determine the degree of affectedness.

The analysis has also focused on the polysemy of the prepositions
\textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu}. We have determined the meanings of these prepositions by
positing the existence of dynamic and static pattern in their configurations,
outlined in Section \ref{sec:2.11}. This enabled us to find associative links between
different, seemingly unrelated meanings and demonstrate the structural character
of the system lexicalized by these prepositions.

Finally, we have conducted two types of contrastive analysis: between the
prepositions \textit{vrz} and \textit{v\u{a}rhu} and between
\textit{vrz}/\textit{v\u{a}rhu} and the other prepositions of attached
superposition. Whereas the aim of the first comparison was to delineate the
functional zone of \textit{vrz} versus \textit{v\u{a}rhu}, in the second
comparison we isolated the functional features that set \textit{vrz/v\u{a}rhu}
apart from other semantically close prepositions.



\bibliographystyle{sp}
\bibliography{kap3sydslav}


\section*{Author contact information}
\noindent 
Eleni Bu\v{z}arovska\\
Ss. Cyril and Methodius University\\
Bla\v{z}e Koneski Faculty of Philology\\
Bul. Goce Del\v{c}ev bb, 1000 Skopje\\
Macedonia \\
\url{elenibuzarovska@t-home.mk}
\newline

\section*{Author contact information}
\noindent 
Liljana Mitkovska\\
FON University, Skopje\\
Faculty of Foreign Languages\\
Bul. Vojvodina br. 5 1000 Skopje\\
Macedonia \\
\url{liljana.mitkovska@fon.edu.mk}
\newline




\end{document}