<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W06-2104">
  <Title>Marked Adpositions</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
2 Qualities of Adpositional Phrases:
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"/>
    <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
Markedness of Meaning
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> There are different ways to diagnose markedness. De Hoop et al. (2003) mention amongst others order of acquisition (the unmarked form is acquired before the marked one), context (the unmarked interpretation of a form is the interpretation it gets in neutral context), syntactic/morphological complexity (a simple form or construction is less marked than a complex form or construction), and frequency (the unmarked option occurs more often than the marked one). In what follows I will use these criteria on properties of adpositions.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> Spatial meaning is usually divided into locational and directional meaning. The former could be said to be less complex than the second, since directional meaning by definition implies a change in place (cf. Helmantel 1998; Jackendoff 1983). This difference in complexity is also reflected in the order of acquisition of spatial prepositions, as locatives are acquired before directionals (Bowerman and Choi 2001). I propose that some directional meaning can be even more complex. Compare the following schematizations of locative meaning (3a), simple directional meaning (3b/c), and complex directional meaning (3d). The squares represent the Ground, each round the Figure at a different</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>