Prepositions in whose minds?

Prepositions, directional adverbs and particles
Some words, such as cow/s, are used both generally and specifically. In its general sense,the word cows can refer to a mixed group cows, bulls, heifers, calves and so on. In its specific sense, it refers to the adult female of the species. In this book, I use the word preposition in much the same way – often generally, sometimes specifically. When the issue is meaning rather than syntactical patterning, the term preposition covers all of the following: prepositions proper, directional adverbs, and particles. In fact, with respect to meaning, even adjectives and verbs may have prepositional character (e.g. an in joke and to down a plane). Occasionally, following others (e.g. Jackendoff and Landau, 1991), I use the blanket term intransitive preposition instead of directional adverb (Go away). This term is a good reminder that directional adverbs such as away may be very prepositional in terms of meaning. One might object that the incorrectness of a sentence like

(12a) indicates that away should be called something other than a preposition since the noun phrase that follows it (the car) is not in fact its Landmark.

Step away the car.
But if we consider matters in more detail, the prepositionality of away becomes evident. Take the following sentence, for example:
Step away from the car
In vs into
Our most vivid and clear understanding of being in something surely involves a Subject which is enclosed by a Landmark on all sides, like this, . Often, a context makes it clear that enclosure was preceded by movement. But even in a context which makes this very clear, in keeps the focus on the result (enclosure) and off the movement that led up to enclosure (e.g. We got in the car). In contrast, into of highlights the fact of movement (e.g. We got into the car). That is to say, into is more dynamic, as (8a) and (8b) attest:
a. We slept in the car./ We crashed in the tree.

b. We slept into the car./ We crashed into the tree.
Because in does not itself express or evoke an image of a boundary being crossed, (9a) could mean that the people didn’t begin to jump until after they were already inside the train (as in We jumped for joy on the platform and they jumped for joy in the train). In contrast, example (9b) is unambiguous about movement from the outside to the inside.
a. They jumped in the train.

b. They jumped into the train.
In some contexts into is the only natural choice when the context highlights movement. We have already seen, for example, that crash in a tree is deviant compared to crash into a tree. The case of (10a) vs (10b) is more subtle.
a. We got in France after some delay.

b. We got into France after some delay
The reason (10a) is odd, while We got in the car is natural, is probably as follows. Getting in a car involves movement across a very short distance. Moving between countries virtually always involves travel of some considerable distance. Our knowledge of this fact makes get into France natural and get in France unacceptable. On the other hand, into, unlike in, can only be used when the Landmark is specified.
a. We got in late.

b. We got into late.
This means that the difference between in and into which we have just been looking at disappears when into is not possible for syntactic reasons. Note, by the way, that (12) is alright because there is a specified Landmark (‘that’):
That needs looking into