Reprinted from Tre uppsatser om semantisk förändring hos relationella lexem. Nordlund 24.Småskrifter från Institutionen för nordiska språk i Lund. 25-46.

Lena EkbergTransformations on image schemas and cross-

linguistic polysemy*

1. IntroductionOne of the central questions for the study of lexical semantics is whether, and towhich degree, the paths of sense developments are predictable, given a certainlexical source. As regards developments of lexemes referring to spatial relationsand physical actions, image schemas play a crucial role. In this paper I willargue that so-called transformations of image schemas may generate new,cognitively motivated meaning variants.

The image-schematic structure is taken to be the most abstract basis of thelexical meaning connected to a specific linguistic form. Due to its flexible andsimple nature an image schema may, and is supposed to, function as a basis forthe meaning of whole categories of words. The Path-schema, e.g., is commonnot only to verbs of locomotion (such as go and come) but also to prepositionsand adverbs expressing directionality (cf. to, from; up, down). Furthermore,cognitively founded operations on image schemas are supposed to be reflectedin lexical semantics (cf. Lakoff 1987: Case Study 2).

The present paper takes the image schema Spatial association as a point ofdeparture for investigating the potential polysemy of lexemes based on acommon schema. The schema Spatial association is assumed to structure themeaning of (primarily) spatial prepositions such as with, at, or transitive verbsexpressing locomotion such as follow. It will be argued that lexical meaningextensions reflecting transformations of image schematic structure arecognitively motivated, and thus expected to arise cross-linguistically. The paperis written as part of the project “The Dictionary of the World”1, of which the * I am greatly indebted to Carita Paradis, Christer Platzack, Beatrice Warren, and my project

colleagues Kerstin Norén and Jerker Järborg for their valuable comments on earlier versions ofthis paper.

1 The members of the project are, in addition to the author, Kerstin Norén (project leader) andJerker Järborg, both University of Gothenburg. The project is financed by The Bank of SwedenTercentenary Foundation.

26

overarching aim is to find general principles effecting semantic change. In thisproject methods from both the traditional lexicography and Cognitive Semanticstheory (Lakoff 1987, Dewell 1994, etc.) are combined. By means of a databaseof some 60.000 words (lemmas) we are able to test a number of assumptions ofsemantic regularities in lexical polysemy. The working hypothesis is that arestricted number of general principles operating on abstract semantic structuresare responsible for an indefinite number of lexical meaning variants of a givenform. The descriptive aim is thus twofold: to account for the input – the abstractsemantic structure functioning as a source for derivation – and to account for theprinciples operating on the input. The assumption is that semantic structures at acertain level of abstraction, as well as the principles of meaning change, areuniversal devices for generating new lexical meaning variants. Such a search foruniversal features has not had priority within Cognitive Semantics (as pointedout by Hawkins 1993). We find it, however, important to emphasize not onlylanguage-specific semantics but universal principles that may account for (andexplain) lexical meaning variants that are represented cross-linguistically.

Here I will deal with one of the assumed principles – the image schematransformation – investigating cross-linguistic polysemy, based on trans-formations of various schemas that are part of the superordinate category ofSpatial association. As a background I will describe some preliminary propertiesof the semantic input (the source concept) and the principles operating on these,focussing on the notion of image schema transformation.

2. Semantic input and principles of meaning change

2.1. Description of the semantic inputWhat are the relevant properties of a linguistic expression sensitive to change?What is the relevant level of abstraction on which the processes of changeoperate? These are the main questions when trying to predict the avenues ofsense development. The following is an attempt to narrow down the semanticcore of the source concept in the process of creating new meanings. I assumethat the semantic input is so abstract that it involves only properties definingclasses of predicates (in the sense of Langacker 1987: 97), e.g. predicatesdenoting spatial inclusion (in, within, into etc.). I will restrict myself to relational

27

predicates (verb, prepositions, adverbs, and adjectives), since the image schematransformations accounted for in the literature relate to this group of semanticpredicates.

Following Langacker (1987: 183ff), a predication always has a certain scope(a base), described in terms of an experiential domain, or domain matrix (Croft1993) within which a substructure is selected for designation (the profile). Themeaning of finger tip can only be understood in relation to finger (functioning asthe characterizing domain of finger tip), which in turn can only be understood inrelation to hand, etc. Relating a linguistic expression to a domain thus delimitsthe possible interpretations of it. The profiled content (“the designatum”) isfurthermore always construed in a specific way.2 As for relational predicates theconstrual amounts to – in the first place – the selection of the salient entities inthe profile, Trajector (TR) and Landmark (LM), the former referring to theentity being assessed, the latter to the reference entitity (Langacker 1987: 231f).The choice of preposition (in vs. on) in (1) below amounts to the construal of theinterconnections between TR and LM, i.e. either the TR is conceptualized as“included” in the LM (in) or as located on the surface of the LM (on) .(Henceforth TR is marked in bold whereas LM is underlined.)

(1) The girl is sitting in / on the grass.

Relational predicates fall into four subgroups depending on the conceptualrelation between TR and LM (Langacker 1987: 225). These are identification(IDENT), separation (SEP), association (ASSOC) and inclusion (INCL).Transitive verbs typically instantiate a separation relation, i.e. TR is separatefrom LM, as in Lisa hit Carl. Reflexive verbs however express identification ofTR and LM (He shaved himself). Further the locative preposition in denotesinclusion, whereas on typically denotes association. The verb spread is anexample of a predicate that may denote different conceptual relations in itsdifferent uses, cf. the sentences below.

(2) a. Han spred gödseln i ett jämnt lager. (SEP)he spread manure-the in an even layer

2 Compare also the reasoning about the meaning of through in example (7) below.

28

b. Den nya läran spred sig snabbt. (IDENT)the new theory spread itself fast

c. Lampan spred ett varmt sken. (ASSOC)lamp-the spread a warm light

Note that in (2c) TR and LM is dependent on each other but not identical.Connected to the abstract basis of lexical meaning is, finally, the image

schema. In the sense of Johnson (1987: xiv) an image schema is a “recurring,dynamic pattern […] that gives coherence and structure to our experience”.Image schemas are said to be embodied as they emerge through our continuousencounters with the physical environment, and are “constantly operating in ourperception, bodily movement through space, and physical manipulation ofobjects” (Johnson 1987: 23). As an illustration, the concept of a path, i.e. thePath-schema, underlies the meaning of a range of lexical items, such as go,follow; up, down; to, from.

The suggestion I make here is that the above-mentioned properties – domain,construal, conceptual relation, and image schema – systematically may undergochange, i.e. are sensitive to general principles of meaning extensions.

2.2. Principles of meaning changeGeneral meaning changes seem to fall into two major categories: those related tothe domain of the lexical expression and those related to the image schematicstructure underlying the more specific part of the lexical meaning. Related to thenotion of domain are metaphorical and metonymical mappings. Metaphorsinvolve mapping of the image schematic structure of one (source) domainmatrix onto another, the target domain matrix. (In the example He is in themiddle of life the spatial preposition gets its interpretation in the abstract domainof a human lifetime.) Metonymies, on the other hand, displace the focus fromone domain onto another within the same domain matrix (cf. Strindberg is notalways easy to read where the literary product is focused instead of the author).Also generalization and specialization of meaning refer to the notion of domain,the former yields enlarging, the latter narrowing of the domain. Finally, the useof predicates of motion to denote location by way of mental scanning of a path –usually referred to as subjective, or abstract, motion (e.g. Langacker 1991) –involves change of domains, from a spatial to a mental domain. That is, in a

29

context like The road goes from Malmö to Lund the motion referred to by goentirely takes places in the mind of the language user.

As regards the image schematic structure this can be either specified ortransformed (see also Lakoff 1987: Case Study 2). My suggestion is thatspecifications of the LM (alternatively the TR) do not result in polysemy. Thuscontrary to Lakoff (1987: 422), I do not regard the two uses of over in (3) ashaving separate mental representations. The reason is that spelling out the LM(here “hill” vs. “wall”) generally does not seem to influence the schematicmeaning of the relational predicate (i.e. over denotes a curved arc-trajectory inboth cases).

(3) a. Sam walked over the hill.b. Sam climbed over the wall.

In contrast, schema transformations, e.g. focussing on some part of the imageschematic structure, are more likely to result in polysemy; cf. the sense of end-point focus in Sam lives over the bridge.

In the following section we will take a closer look at what characterizes imageschema transformations.

3. Image schema transformationsAn important factor in the polysemy of relational predicates is the ability of theimage schema to undergo transformations, i.e. cognitively founded operationschanging the structure of the schema in a nonarbitrary way. A well-knownexample of a transformation operating on the Path-schema is the end-pointfocus, which relates the two senses of over in Sam walks over the bridge andSam lives over the bridge (Lakoff 1987: Case Study 2). The latter sense of overis consequently motivated by the transformational link between the two imageschematic structures underlying the two senses. Elaborating, and improving,Lakoff’s (1987) analysis of over Dewell (1994) gives a thorough account oftransformations operating on the central schema of over, applicable also toschemas underlying other lexemes. Through these transformations the varioussenses of over are related to each other in a cognitively motivated way. The listbelow comprises a selection of general transformations (besides the end-point

30

focus already mentioned), accounted for in Lakoff (1987), Dewell (1994) andEkberg (1995, 1997, 2001).

Multiplex / mass: A multiplex collection of objects can be construed as acontinuous mass, alternatively as a one-dimensional entity. Cf. He poured thepeas / the juice out on the table. The multiplex-mass transformation is based onvisual perception, since a collection of objects is perceived as a mass at aspecific distance.

Multiplex TR / multiplex paths: A single TR moving in various directions canbe construed as tracing a multiplex of paths covering the LM. This schema isthus linked to a schema with a multiplex TR covering the LM. Cf. The guardswere posted all over the hill / I walked all over the hill.

Segment profiling: A path expression is used for referring to a profiledsegment of a path (Dewell 1994); cf. He walked around the corner (profiling asemicircular segment), The sun came up over the mountains (profiling anupward trajectory), Sam fell over the cliff (profiling a downward trajectory).This transformation is an instance of a whole-for-part-relationship, and thusbased on the general ability of visual and mental focussing.

Reflexive trajector: The relationship that holds between two separate entities,TR and LM, may be transformed into a relationship holding between differentparts of the same entity, i.e. the TR. Cf. He walked around the block / He turnedaround.

Mental rotating: The mental rotating of an oriented path or axis has a directcounterpart in the physical manipulation of objects. An instance of this generaloperation is the transformation of a vertical axis into a horizontal one, lexicallymanifested in the use of vertical expressions to refer to movements in thehorizontal plane, cf. He walked up and down the corridor (Ekberg 1997).

In Lakoff (1987), Dewell (1994, 1997), Ekberg (1995) and others, meaningvariants of the same lexeme related by means of image schema transformationsare (implicitly or explicitly) regarded as separate senses, i.e. as instantiations of

31

polysemy. This is presumably true for some of the meaning variants, such as theend-point focus which turns a dynamic meaning into a static one incorporatingthe locomotion as background knowledge. For other meaning variants it is lessobvious that we are dealing with psycho-linguistically separate senses. Below Iwill mention some examples of meaning differences – assumed to be the resultof image schema transformations – which, in my opinion, are so fine-grainedthat it is questionable whether they give rise to polysemy. The alternative is thatthey are simply contextual modifications, i.e. instances of monosemy.3

The first example is taken from Dewell (1994: 357), who emphasizes thedistinction between the two uses of over in (4), arguing that the sense (myitalics) in (4a) “should not be confused with closely related instances” i.e. thoseexemplified in (4b). (The transformation responsible for the specific meaning,according to Dewell, is given in brackets.)

(4) a. Sam is over the bridge now. (subjective path)b. Sam lives over the bridge. (end-point focus)

The preposition in (4a) as well as (4b) denotes end-point location as a result ofthe speaker’s (interpreter’s) mental scanning of the path. The difference betweenthe two uses is that in (4a) the TR actually has traversed the path, whereas in(4b) there is no indication of a preceding locomotion of the TR. The question iswhether this difference is salient enough for the two uses being separate sensesin the mind of the speaker/interpreter. My suggestion is instead that both usesare instances of one and the same meaning variant, related to the centralmeaning of over via end-point focus.

Another case where the status of the linguistic outcome of the transformationcan be questioned is when a multiplex TR is construed as a mass. It is notobvious that there are different senses connected to the determiner vs. the verbin (5) and (6) depending on how the noun is construed, i.e. as a multiplex or amass entity. It can just as well be that the alternation between multiplex/mass is

3 See Sandra (1998) for an insightful and very enlightened discussion of what linguists can, and

cannot, tell about mental representations, among them representations of lexical senses.

32

so well integrated in the mind of the language user that it does not give rise topolysemy, perhaps not even vagueness.

(5) all people (MX) / all gold (MS)

(6) to spread leaflets (MX) / to spread manure (MS)

The third example is taken from another article of Dewell, (1997), where heintroduces the notion of construal transformations, accounting for subjectiveshifts of viewpoint of a given scene. Consider the sentence

(7) Lucy ran through the house.

According to Dewell (1997: 25), the prepositional phrase, through the house, ispolysemous due to various possibilities to construe the LM (the house).Adopting an external vantage point, through only denotes Lucy’s entering andemerging from the house, whereas her passing through the inside of the house isimplied. The second option is to shift from an external to an internal viewpoint(to be able to follow Lucy’s way inside the house) and then back to an externalviewpoint, to watch her emerging out of the house. Thirdly, we may adopt anexclusively internal viewpoint on the house, in which case the outer boundariesare irrelevant for the interpretation of through. Assuming that through is vagueas to the location of the endpoints of the path, the internal-viewpointtransformation imposes different, more detailed interpretations of the pre-positional phrase, which then is regarded polysemous. As Dewell (p. 25) puts it,“[t]he polysemy is not exactly “located” in either the preposition or the LM, butit arises from their syntactic combination under a particular pragmatic construalof the LM”. However, this extension of the notion of polysemy is not justifiedwithout support from psycho-linguistic tests. As Sandra (1998) strongly empha-sizes, intuition is insufficient when it comes to delimit the boundaries betweenpolysemous senses and variants of a monosemous sense. (See also Tuggy (1993)for a discussion of the boundaries between ambiguity (homonomy), polysemyand vagueness.)

With this reservation in mind, we turn back to the role of image schematransformations in the generation of new senses. The question to be answered is:

33

Given a specific image schema, is it possible to account for so-called motivatedpolysemy? I will argue that it is. If transformations of image schemas areanalogs of spatial operations, such as manipulations of physical objects (seeJohnson 1987, and cited research), it should be possible to predict whichtransformations a specific schema may undergo. In the remainder of the paper Iwill elaborate this argument by illustrating how transformations of the imageschemas of Spatial association (Fig. 1) may generate polysemy that is cross-linguistically realized.

The image schema Spatial association instantiates the basic conceptualrelation of association (ASSOC) (Langacker 1987: 225). It can be regarded as asuperordinate schema, embracing a variety of relational predicates encoded asprepositions, adverbs, and verbs, in turn based on various subordinate schemas.Thus the schema Spatial association does not underlie any specific lexicalconcept but rather generates the image schemas structuring lexical concepts.4

Lexemes denoting spatial association in its central sense are e.g. at, with,together, between, near, follow; thus on an abstract level these lexemes are allrelated via the schema in Fig. 1 (adopted from Langacker 1987: 230). (A and Bare equal to TR and LM, whereas C is a construed, primarily spatial, regionincluding A and B; cf. He stood near the house where C is defined as a regionwithin the visual field including TR and LM.)

A B

C

Fig. 1. Spatial association.

Given the spatial proximity of two entities, there is a range of possible ways oforientation of the two. Adding a front and a back to the entities they willcanonically be oriented face-to-face, as illustrated in Fig. 2 (Clark 1973,

4 The schema Spatial association shows striking similarities with what Hawkins (1993) names “a

profilable structure”, a primitive cognitive structure which “exists innately in the human mindbefore the process begins of acquiring substantive information in particular cognitive domains”(Hawkins 1993: 339).

34

Traugott 1986). A second possibility is that they are looking in the samedirection, with the consequence that either B will be in front of A (Fig. 3), or Awill be in front of B. Lexical instantiations of Fig. 2 and 3, respectively, areagainst and follow. Finally, A and B might be oriented in an explicitly parallelfashion (Fig. 4), thus instantiating a parallel relation between A and B,exemplified by with. Together, the figures 2–4 illustrate various specifications ofthe schema Spatial association.

A B

Fig. 2. Face-to-face orientation.

A B

Fig. 3. Sequential orientation.

A

BA B

Fig. 4. Parallel orientation.

In the next section I will account for the developmental paths of each of thespecific schemas above in terms of lexical polysemy.

4. Transformations on schematic specifications of Spatialassociation

4.1. The face-to-face schemaThe potential polysemy of a face-to-face-lexeme can be exemplified by thedevelopment of Old English (OE) wifl and its cognates Old Swedish (OSw.) vifl,Old Icelandic vi›r and Old High German widar, henceforth jointly referred to asthe with-set. In OE the central meaning of wifl was roughly that of ModernEnglish against (Dekeyser 1990). The original meaning of OE wifl (and itscognates) was directional, “toward” (Onions 1966), which in concrete contexts

35

became oppositional (Traugott 1985: 518).5 (The examples in (8) and (9) arefrom Dekeyser 1990: 39.)

(8) a. wifl Italiaopposite Italy

b. Hie gefuhtun wifl WalumThey fought against the Celts of Britain/theWelsh

However with was also used with the meaning ‘together with’, that is, the“inverse” meaning of ‘against’, instantiating a parallel orientation.

(9) Ferde wum man wifl hineSome man travelled with him

Thus OE wifl shows a meaning development from face-to-face to parallelorientation. The polysemy of the OSw. equivalent vifl suggests that this changein meaning is not unmotivated. Besides the meaning ‘to’, ‘toward’ (10a) and‘against’ (10b), vifl (viflar, wiidh) also had a comitative meaning ‘together with’(10c). (See further Ekberg 2002, from which the examples in (10) are taken.)

(10) a. fiöl niflar vifl iorflfell down to earth

b. viflar min guflagainst my God

c. ath the wille wiidh swerige bliffuathat they wanted with Sweden to-staythat they wanted to stay with Sweden

In Modern Swedish the meaning variants in (10) have all disappeared from thestandard language. Instead, another variant of meaning of OSw. vifl, namely ‘at’,has become the central meaning of Modern Swedish vid:

5 The meaning of opposition is presumably derived by pragmatic strengthening of the spatial

meaning ‘toward’ (see Traugott 1989: 51).

36

(11) Han står vid dörren.he is standing at door-the

Taking the image schema to be the most abstract basis of lexical meaning, Isuggest that the sense development of OE wifl, as well as its OSw. equivalentvifl, can adequately be described as an image schematic transformation operatingon the schema face-to-face orientation. The schema in Fig. 2 has thus beentransformed into the schema in Fig. 4, with the result that the asymmetricrelation between A and B is abandoned. Also in the ‘at’-sense in (10), illustratedin Fig. 5, the asymmetric relation is discarded (or at least bleached). The ‘at’-meaning underspecifies the orientation of A and B, although it expresses anunmarked asymmetry between A and B (the one entity, A, normally beingsmaller and more mobile in relation to the other, B).

A B

Fig. 5. Spatial ‘at’.

Interestingly, as regards the Icelandic equivalent vi› , all the sensessynchronically present in OE and OSw. are retained in present day Icelandic, i.e.‘to’, ‘toward’ (12a), ’against’ (12b), ‘together with’ (12c), and ‘at’ (12d).

(12) a. hún brosti vi› honumshe smiled at him (i.e. in his direction)

b. berjast vi› einhvern(to) fight with someone

c. vi› flri›ja manntogether with two men

d. standa upp vi› veggstand at a wall

Finally, German wieder – etymologically identical to Sw. vid, Eng. with – showsanother developmental path, namely from face-to-face to ‘back’ or ‘return’.

37

(13) a. Er fiel und stand sofort wieder auf.He fell and stood immediately up again.

b. Stell es wieder an seinen Platz!Put it back on its place!

I will come back to this particular development in connection with the next setof words, namely form equivalents of Mod. Eng. again.

Besides the with-set there were also other Germanic words expressing face-to-face-orientation, e.g. OSw. i gen, OE ongean (ongegn), which have the sameetymological origin, and belong to what I refer to as the again-set. Broadlyspeaking, both words show the same development, from OSw., OE ‘against’ toMod. Sw., Mod. Eng. ‘again’. Below we will take a closer look at the polysemyof OSw. i gen (see also Ekberg 2002).

The central meaning of i gen during the Old Swedish period was ‘toward’,‘against’ (14a). In adverbial use i gen developed two meaning variants that atfirst glance seem to be unrelated both to the central meaning and to each other,namely ‘closed’ and ‘back’; cf. the Swedish examples in (14b,c).

(14) a. Konungin gik honum siälfuer ij geenking-the walked him himself towardThe king himself walked toward him

b. Dörren slog igen.door-the hit IGEN

The door closed (with a bang).c. Besvären kom igen efter en vecka.

pains-the came back after a week

With the schema in Fig. 2 in mind it is, however, not surprising that a meaningof ‘closure’ may develop (14b). A mental and physical movement face-to-facecannot go on forever since the path at some point is blocked by the other entity.The meaning ‘closed’ arises when the two entities meeting one another closeeach other’s path, cf. Fig. 6 below.

Fig. 6. The meaning ‘closed’.

38

The meaning ‘back’, illustrated in (14c) and Fig. 7, represents another possibledevelopment of the face-to-face orientation. (Or, alternatively, a furtherdevelopment of the ‘closure’-meaning.)

Fig. 7. The meaning ‘back’.

As one entity closes the path of the other, the movement may only continue bymaking a turn and taking the same trajectory back again. Considering thepolysemy of German wieder in the light of the sense development of Sw. igen‘again’ will provide us with an explanation of the meaning variants ‘back’,‘return’, exemplified in (13) above. Since German wieder shares the same coremeaning as Sw. igen, the meaning variants of wieder are motivated on the samegrounds as these variants are motivated in the polysemy of the again-set.

In Modern Swedish, the central meaning of igen is the repetitive one, i.e. themeaning is equivalent to the meaning of English again. The last link in themeaning chain relates the meaning ‘back’ to ‘again’ by emphasizing the featureof repetition present in the ‘back’-sense. More specifically, two differentmovements – a “coming” and a “going” – are reinterpreted into movements ofthe same kind. Thus, the schema in Fig. 7 is transformed into the schema in Fig.8 (which is identical with the sequential schema in Fig. 3 above).

Fig. 8. The meaning ‘again’.

Summarizing, the sense development of Eng. again and Swed. igen originates inan asymmetric face-to-face-meaning and ends in a symmetric repetitivemeaning.

The conclusion that can be drawn from the data presented in this section isthat the ‘face-to-face’-sense has a potential to develop a ‘together with’-sense,an ‘at’-sense, and a repetitive meaning, respectively. The former two possi-bilities are shown by the historical development of the with-set, except for theGerman equivalent wieder. German wieder instead follows the same track as the

39

again-set – which speaks in favor of the idea that the potential sensedevelopment operates on the abstract image schema, not the more contextualinterpretations of the word(s).

4.2. The parallel schemaA common path of development of lexemes based on the parallel schema isfrom the comitative meaning (‘together with’) to the meaning of instrument andmanner. For instance, the semantic equivalents Eng. with, Swed. med, Icel. vifland Spanish con all develop both the meaning of instrument and the meaning ofmanner. Here the symmetric comitative meaning is turned into an asymmetricone by “degrading” one of the entities to Instrument or Manner, respectively; cf.the examples in (15):

(15) a. He threatened her with the scissors. INSTRUMENT

b. She was walking with difficulty. MANNER

Taking into account the possibilities of generating truly inverse meanings out ofthe face-to-face-schema we expect the same to be true also for the parallelschema. Just to mention one example, Latin contra ‘against’ (< *com-tro-) isformed on the preposition com, cum ‘with’ (Walde 1965: 251, Onions 1966:209), thus illustrating the opposite development to Eng. with (‘against’ >‘together with’). The schema in Fig. 4 is consequently transformed into theschema in Fig. 2.6 Interestingly enough, the polysemy of Latin contra showssimilarities with both the with-set and the again-set; cf. the selection of meaningvariants from Oxford Latin Dictionary:

(16) The polysemy of contra:a. in front of one, in the eyes, face to faceb. so as to face the enemy, on the other side, against onec. towards, up to, a person, so as to meet him, face to face

6 As com, cum governs ablative in Latin there might be an alternative link between the meaning

‘with’ and ‘against’. Assuming that ‘from’ (the meaning of the ablative case) and ‘against’encode different perspectives of the same directional sense – ‘from’ being source oriented and‘against’ goal oriented – the ‘against’-sense may arise as a result of transforming the perspectiveof the direction encoded as ‘from’ into ‘against’.

40

d. against or at the enemye. in opposition, by way of objection, on the other sidef. in return, by way of recompense

It is especially worth noting that contra so to speak unites the polysemy of OEongean and German wieder, i.e. shows both the ‘against’-sense (16b, d, e) andthe ‘back’-sense (16f).

Further, the development of the Greek preposition metá demonstrates apossible relation between (a variant of) the parallel schema and the sequentialschema. In Ancient Greek metá could occur with the dative, the genitive or theaccusative. With the dative and the genitive metá was interpreted as ‘among’,with the accusative metá could mean either ‘among’ or ‘after’. While the ‘after’-sense is clearly sequential, the ‘among’-sense can be regarded as a variant of theparallel schema – a “weaker” variant since an indefinite number of entities areinvolved. Given this analysis, the two meaning variants of metá instantiate arelation between the parallel and the sequential schema. According to Luraghi(2001) the polysemy of metá is due to the character of the LM. When the LMwas multiplex – which was the case with the dative and the genitive – themeaning turned out as ‘among’, but when the LM was a simplex, metá insteadmeant ‘after’. The cognitive explanation is that the TR is conceptualized asincluded in a multiplex LM – and thus ‘among’ the entities referred to by theLM – whereas the TR is seen as not included in a LM referring to a simplexentity.7 As accusative LMs with metá could be either multiplex or simplex bothmeaning variants were compatible with the accusative form. At the level ofimage schematic structure the relation between the two meanings of metá istransformational, the parallel schema (or a variant of it) is transformed into asequential schema.

In Modern Greek there are two forms deriving from Ancient metá, the onemeaning ‘after’, the other meaning ‘with’. Thus, not only is ‘after’ and ‘among’connected via a transformational link, but there seems to be a developmentalpath leading from ‘among’ to ‘with’, i.e. from a week to a strong variant of theparallel schema. A further indication of such a path is that Sw. med ‘with’ shows 7 There is no obvious reason, however, that meaning in the latter case should turn out as ‘behind’,

‘after’ rather than ‘before’.

41

the same development as Greek metá, i.e. from ‘among’ (‘in the middle’,‘between’) to ‘with’. (Swedish med is derived from PIE *me-dhi (alternatively*me-tí) formed on *me- ‘in the middle’, ‘between’, among’, on which alsoGreek metá is based (Pokorny 1959: 702; Hellquist 1957: 638)).

In conclusion, the parallel symmetric schema may give rise to variousasymmetric meanings such as ‘instrument’ and ‘manner’, ‘against’ (based on theface-to-face-schema) and ‘after’ (based on the sequential schema).

4.3. The sequential schemaFinally, we expect the sequential schema to be transformed into either a face-to-face-schema or a parallel schema. Arguments for the former case is found inTraugott (1985, referring to Timmer 1967) who gives a wealth of examples ofsystematic morphological derivation where one word form expresses direction(i.e. sequentiality) and the other opposition, e.g. Arabic klafa ‘to be thesuccessor’ and kalafa ‘to be contradictory’.

The latter case – the sequential schema turning into a parallel one – isillustrated by the Sw. verb följa ‘follow’. Prototypically, följa denotes asequential meaning, ‘A after B’ (16a), which in certain contexts may be reinter-preted as a parallel locomotion, ‘A moving together with B’ (16b) (see alsoEkberg this volume).

(16) a. Han följde henne uppför trappan.he followed her up stairs-the

b. Han följde henne till stationen.he followed her to station-the

The original schema in Fig. 3 may thus be transformed into the schema in Fig. 4.

5. Conclusion: meaning development in terms of conceptualnetworksSemantic change is usually far less systematic and general than changes inphonology, morphology and syntax. This does not mean that a search forregularities also in the area of semantics would be fruitless. Modern researchwithin the field of historical lexical semantics and grammaticalization in fact has

42

provided arguments that meaning change is motivated by cognitive principlesindependent of specific languages. Above a number of examples have beengiven of sense developments of lexemes – some related, others unrelated –sharing the same abstract core of Spatial association. The meaning changesaccounted for are all motivated by cognitively founded image schema trans-formations, and are thus (in the sense of Lakoff 1987) “natural” changes. Inother words, it is no wonder that they turn up in language after language. It is,however, not possible to predict that they will turn up. Which meaning variantsare in fact realized ultimately depend on a range of linguistic, and extra-linguistic, factors, among which the image schema transformation is only one.

Image schema transformations affecting the orientation of (parts of) the imageschematic structure can obviously give rise to “opposite” meaning variants ofthe same lexical item. Lexemes instantiating asymmetric meanings, like face-to-face-orientation, may develop explicitly symmetric meanings, cf. OE w ifl‘against’, which ends up as Mod. Eng. with. On the other hand, lexemesinstantiating a parallel meaning may end up with a face-to-face-meaning, suchas the formation of Lat. contr ‘against’ < com, cum ‘with’.8 In addition,meaning changes of words of spatial orientation may either strengthen orneutralize the inherent meaning. In the case of OE wifl, as well as OE ongean,the spatial meaning ‘toward’ is strengthened when the meaning is extended to‘against’ (opposition). On the other hand, when the Swedish cognate viddevelops the meaning ‘at’, the asymmetry between TR and LM is neutralized.Finally, also symmetric meanings can be either strengthened or neutralized(weakened). The former seems to yield Greek metá, developing from ‘among’ to‘with’, whereas the latter yields when the OSw. preposition med, with theprimary meaning ‘together with’, is interpreted ‘in the presence of’ (mz [med]thwa aff brödrom ‘in the presence of two of the brothers’) (Ekberg 2002).

The lists below comprise various examples of the developmental paths of thenotions of face-to-face, parallel, and sequential orientation, respectively.

8 Ekberg (2002) following Traugott (e.g. 1986) proposes that a principle of symmetry triggers

sense developments eliminating the asymmetric relation, whereas a principle of asymmetrytriggers opposite developments, from symmetric meanings to asymmetric ones.

43

(17) Face-to-face-orientation:OE wifl ‘against’ > ‘together with’OSw. vifl ‘against’ > ‘at’Eng. again, Swed. igen; Germ. wieder ‘against’ > ‘back’, ‘again’Eng. confront “to face in hostility” (1588), “to

adjoin on equal borders” (1601),“to parallel” (1641)9

(18) Sequential orientation:Sw. följa sequential > parallel orientationOE ongean, OSw. i gen ‘in a direct line with’ > ‘toward’ >

‘against’Arabic kalafa ‘to be the successor’ klafa ‘to be contradictory’

(= sequential > face-to-face)

(19) Parallel orientation:Eng. with, Swed. med, Span. con comitative > instrument and mannerGreek metá ‘among’ >‘after’Eng. contest “to assert or confirm with the witness

of an oath” (1579), “to dispute”(1603)10

Lat. com, cum > contra ‘with’ > ‘against’

The data presented suggest that general principles of sense development seem tooperate on the underlying abstract semantic structure (the image schema) ratherthan on the more specific lexical meaning. Thus, given the notion of face-to-face-orientation – underlying the meaning of OE wifl, Eng. again, Swed. igen;Germ. wieder – the meanings ‘together with’, ‘back’ and ‘repetition’ are likelyto develop in preference to other meanings. I suggest that the avenues ofsemantic change are best described in terms of a conceptual network where thenodes are linked by transformations of the image schematic structure. Such aconceptual network is assumed to cut across both language-specific lexicons and 9 Traugott (1985)10 Traugott (1985)

44

lexical networks within a specific language. For the basic notions of spatialorientation the conceptual network would have the hypothetical structure givenbelow:

Fig. 9: The conceptual network of Spatial association.

The nodes of the conceptual network illustrated in Fig. 9 are all specifications ofthe schema Spatial association. I regard this schema as a superordinate cognitivestructure, which functions as a means of categorization of perceptualinformation into semantic categories, in turn structured by the specificinstantiations of Spatial association. Along with other superordinate schemas –some of which are still to be investigated – Spatial association is a potentialuniversal source of lexically manifested spatial relations. The generation of themore specific spatial relations is carried out by means of specification ortransformation of the schema. Not only the schema but also the transformationsof the schema are universal, in the sense of being language independent andmotivated by human cognitive ability. Thus polysemy based on image schematransformations is universal and cross-linguistic as regards the schematic,abstract meaning underlying the rich, lexical meaning.

ReferencesClark, Herbert H., 1973: Space, Time, Semantics, and the Child. Cognitive

Development and the Acquisition of Language, ed. by T. E. Moore. NewYork: Academic Press, 27–63.

FACE-TO-FACE

PARALLEL NEUTRAL SEQUENTIAL

INSTRUMENT/MANNER

MANNER

PARALLELSEQUENTIALFACE-TO-FACE FACE-TO-FACE

45

Croft, William, 1993: The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors andmetonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4–4, 335–370.

Dekeyser, Xavier, 1990: The prepositions with, mid and again(st) in Old andMiddle English. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 5, 35–48.

Dewell, Robert B., 1994: Over again: Image-schema transformations insemantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 5–4, 351–380.

Dewell, Robert B., 1997: Construal Transformations: Internal and ExternalViewpoints in Interpreting Containment. Lexical and SyntacticalConstructions and the Construction of Meaning, ed. by M. Verspoor et al.Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 17–32.

Ekberg, Lena, 1995: Image Schemas and Lexical Polysemy: The Case ofSwedish runt ‘around’. Working Papers in Linguistics 25, 23–42.

Ekberg, Lena, 1997: The Mental Manipulation of the Vertical Axis: How to gofrom “up” to “out”, or from “above” to “behind”. Lexical and SyntacticalConstructions and the Construction of Meaning, ed. by M. Verspoor et al.Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 69–88.

Ekberg, Lena, 2001: Transformations on the Path-schema and a minimallexicon. Studia Linguistica 55:3, 301–323.

Ekberg, Lena, 2002: Symmetri eller asymmetri? Kognitiva principer förbetydelseutveckling, med exempel från fornsvenskan. Arkiv för nordiskfilologi 117, 197–219.

Ekberg, Lena, this volume: Semantiska förändringsprinciper. Exemplet följa.Györi, Gábor, 2002: Semantic change and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics

13–2, 123–166.Hawkins, Bruce, 1993: On universality and variability in the semantics of spatial

adpositions. The Semantics of Prepositions. From mental Processing toNatural Language Processing, ed. by Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt. Mouton deGruyter, 327–349.

Hellquist, Elof, 1957 [1922]: Svensk etymologisk ordbok. 3 uppl. Lund:Gleerups förlag.

Johnson, Mark, 1987: The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning,Imagination and Reasoning. Chicago and London: The University of ChicagoPress.

46

Lakoff, George, 1987: Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categoriesreveal about the mind. Chicago and London: The University of ChicagoPress.

Langacker, Ronald W., 1987: Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1.Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, Ronald W., 1991: Concept, Image, and Symbol. The Cognitive Basisof Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Luraghi, Silvia, 2001: The Ancient Greek Preposition ‘metá’: A CognitiveAccount. Abstract for the 7th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference,July 22–27 2001, University of Santa Barbara.

Onions, C. T. (ed.), 1966: The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford:Claredon Press.

Oxford Latin Dictionary, 1982, 2000. Ed. by P. G. W. Glau. Oxford at theClarendon Press.

Pokorny, Julius, 1959: Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Vol. I.Bern: Francke Verlag.

Sandra, Dominiek, 1998: What linguists can and can’t tell you about the humanmind: A reply to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics 9–4, 361–378.

Timmer, Esther H., 1967: A semantic comparison of the third form in Arabicwith the prepositional form in Swahili and the applied form in Kanuri.Unpublished M, A. thesis, Stanford University.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, 1985: Confrontation and association. Papers from the6th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Jacek Fisiak.John Benjamins. 515–526.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, 1986: On the Origins of “and” and “but” Connectivesin English. Studies in Language10–1, 137–150.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, 1989: On the rise of epistemic meanings in English:An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65:1, 31–55.

Tuggy, David, 1993: Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. CognitiveLinguistics 4–3, 273–290.

Walde, A., 1965: Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: CarlWinter Universitetsverlag.