Transformations on image schemas and cross-linguistic polysemy

Reprinted from Tre uppsatser om semantisk förändring hos relationella lexem. Nordlund 24.
Småskrifter från Institutionen för nordiska språk i Lund. 25-46.
Lena Ekberg
<strong>Transformations</strong> on image schemas and cross-
1. Introduction
linguistic polysemy *
One of the central questions for the study of lexical semantics is whether, and to
which degree, the paths of sense developments are predictable, given a certain
lexical source. As regards developments of lexemes referring to spatial relations
and physical actions, image schemas play a crucial role. In this paper I will
argue 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 the
lexical meaning connected to a specific linguistic form. Due to its flexible and
simple nature an image schema may, and is supposed to, function as a basis for
the meaning of whole categories of words. The Path-schema, e.g., is common
not only to verbs of locomotion (such as go and come) but also to prepositions
and adverbs expressing directionality (cf. to, from; up, down). Furthermore,
cognitively founded operations on image schemas are supposed to be reflected
in lexical semantics (cf. Lakoff 1987: Case Study 2).
The present paper takes the image schema Spatial association as a point of
departure for investigating the potential polysemy of lexemes based on a
common schema. The schema Spatial association is assumed to structure the
meaning of (primarily) spatial prepositions such as with, at, or transitive verbs
expressing locomotion such as follow. It will be argued that lexical meaning
extensions reflecting transformations of image schematic structure are
cognitively motivated, and thus expected to arise cross-linguistically. The paper
is 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 of
this paper.
1 The members of the project are, in addition to the author, Kerstin Norén (project leader) and
Jerker Järborg, both University of Gothenburg. The project is financed by The Bank of Sweden
Tercentenary Foundation.

overarching aim is to find general principles effecting semantic change. In this
project methods from both the traditional lexicography and Cognitive Semantics
theory (Lakoff 1987, Dewell 1994, etc.) are combined. By means of a database
of some 60.000 words (lemmas) we are able to test a number of assumptions of
semantic regularities in lexical polysemy. The working hypothesis is that a
restricted number of general principles operating on abstract semantic structures
are responsible for an indefinite number of lexical meaning variants of a given
form. The descriptive aim is thus twofold: to account for the input – the abstract
semantic structure functioning as a source for derivation – and to account for the
principles operating on the input. The assumption is that semantic structures at a
certain level of abstraction, as well as the principles of meaning change, are
universal devices for generating new lexical meaning variants. Such a search for
universal features has not had priority within Cognitive Semantics (as pointed
out by Hawkins 1993). We find it, however, important to emphasize not only
language-specific semantics but universal principles that may account for (and
explain) lexical meaning variants that are represented cross-linguistically.
Here I will deal with one of the assumed principles – the image schema
transformation – investigating cross-linguistic polysemy, based on transformations
of various schemas that are part of the superordinate category of
Spatial association. As a background I will describe some preliminary properties
of 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 input
What are the relevant properties of a linguistic expression sensitive to change?
What is the relevant level of abstraction on which the processes of change
operate? These are the main questions when trying to predict the avenues of
sense development. The following is an attempt to narrow down the semantic
core of the source concept in the process of creating new meanings. I assume
that the semantic input is so abstract that it involves only properties defining
classes of predicates (in the sense of Langacker 1987: 97), e.g. predicates
denoting spatial inclusion (in, within, into etc.). I will restrict myself to relational
26

predicates (verb, prepositions, adverbs, and adjectives), since the image schema
transformations accounted for in the literature relate to this group of semantic
predicates.
Following Langacker (1987: 183ff), a predication always has a certain scope
(a base), described in terms of an experiential domain, or domain matrix (Croft
1993) within which a substructure is selected for designation (the profile). The
meaning of finger tip can only be understood in relation to finger (functioning as
the characterizing domain of finger tip), which in turn can only be understood in
relation to hand, etc. Relating a linguistic expression to a domain thus delimits
the possible interpretations of it. The profiled content (“the designatum”) is
furthermore always construed in a specific way. 2 As for relational predicates the
construal amounts to – in the first place – the selection of the salient entities in
the profile, Trajector (TR) and Landmark (LM), the former referring to the
entity 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 the
interconnections 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 conceptual
relation 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 separate
from LM, as in Lisa hit Carl. Reflexive verbs however express identification of
TR and LM (He shaved himself). Further the locative preposition in denotes
inclusion, whereas on typically denotes association. The verb spread is an
example of a predicate that may denote different conceptual relations in its
different 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.
27

. 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 continuous
encounters with the physical environment, and are “constantly operating in our
perception, bodily movement through space, and physical manipulation of
objects” (Johnson 1987: 23). As an illustration, the concept of a path, i.e. the
Path-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 undergo
change, i.e. are sensitive to general principles of meaning extensions.
2.2. Principles of meaning change
General meaning changes seem to fall into two major categories: those related to
the domain of the lexical expression and those related to the image schematic
structure underlying the more specific part of the lexical meaning. Related to the
notion of domain are metaphorical and metonymical mappings. Metaphors
involve mapping of the image schematic structure of one (source) domain
matrix onto another, the target domain matrix. (In the example He is in the
middle of life the spatial preposition gets its interpretation in the abstract domain
of a human lifetime.) Metonymies, on the other hand, displace the focus from
one domain onto another within the same domain matrix (cf. Strindberg is not
always 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 use
of 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
28

context like The road goes from Malmö to Lund the motion referred to by go
entirely takes places in the mind of the language user.
As regards the image schematic structure this can be either specified or
transformed (see also Lakoff 1987: Case Study 2). My suggestion is that
specifications of the LM (alternatively the TR) do not result in polysemy. Thus
contrary to Lakoff (1987: 422), I do not regard the two uses of over in (3) as
having separate mental representations. The reason is that spelling out the LM
(here “hill” vs. “wall”) generally does not seem to influence the schematic
meaning of the relational predicate (i.e. over denotes a curved arc-trajectory in
both 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 image
schematic 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 image
schema transformations.
3. Image schema transformations
An important factor in the polysemy of relational predicates is the ability of the
image schema to undergo transformations, i.e. cognitively founded operations
changing the structure of the schema in a nonarbitrary way. A well-known
example of a transformation operating on the Path-schema is the end-point
focus, which relates the two senses of over in Sam walks over the bridge and
Sam lives over the bridge (Lakoff 1987: Case Study 2). The latter sense of over
is consequently motivated by the transformational link between the two image
schematic structures underlying the two senses. Elaborating, and improving,
Lakoff’s (1987) analysis of over Dewell (1994) gives a thorough account of
transformations operating on the central schema of over, applicable also to
schemas underlying other lexemes. Through these transformations the various
senses of over are related to each other in a cognitively motivated way. The list
below comprises a selection of general transformations (besides the end-point
29

focus already mentioned), accounted for in Lakoff (1987), Dewell (1994) and
Ekberg (1995, 1997, 2001).
Multiplex / mass: A multiplex collection of objects can be construed as a
continuous mass, alternatively as a one-dimensional entity. Cf. He poured the
peas / the juice out on the table. The multiplex-mass transformation is based on
visual perception, since a collection of objects is perceived as a mass at a
specific distance.
Multiplex TR / multiplex paths: A single TR moving in various directions can
be construed as tracing a multiplex of paths covering the LM. This schema is
thus linked to a schema with a multiplex TR covering the LM. Cf. The guards
were posted all over the hill / I walked all over the hill.
Segment profiling: A path expression is used for referring to a profiled
segment of a path (Dewell 1994); cf. He walked around the corner (profiling a
semicircular segment), The sun came up over the mountains (profiling an
upward trajectory), Sam fell over the cliff (profiling a downward trajectory).
This transformation is an instance of a whole-for-part-relationship, and thus
based 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 different
parts of the same entity, i.e. the TR. Cf. He walked around the block / He turned
around.
Mental rotating: The mental rotating of an oriented path or axis has a direct
counterpart in the physical manipulation of objects. An instance of this general
operation is the transformation of a vertical axis into a horizontal one, lexically
manifested in the use of vertical expressions to refer to movements in the
horizontal plane, cf. He walked up and down the corridor (Ekberg 1997).
In Lakoff (1987), Dewell (1994, 1997), Ekberg (1995) and others, meaning
variants of the same lexeme related by means of image schema transformations
are (implicitly or explicitly) regarded as separate senses, i.e. as instantiations of
30

polysemy. This is presumably true for some of the meaning variants, such as the
end-point focus which turns a dynamic meaning into a static one incorporating
the locomotion as background knowledge. For other meaning variants it is less
obvious that we are dealing with psycho-linguistically separate senses. Below I
will mention some examples of meaning differences – assumed to be the result
of image schema transformations – which, in my opinion, are so fine-grained
that it is questionable whether they give rise to polysemy. The alternative is that
they are simply contextual modifications, i.e. instances of monosemy. 3
The first example is taken from Dewell (1994: 357), who emphasizes the
distinction between the two uses of over in (4), arguing that the sense (my
italics) in (4a) “should not be confused with closely related instances” i.e. those
exemplified 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 of
the speaker’s (interpreter’s) mental scanning of the path. The difference between
the 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 is
whether this difference is salient enough for the two uses being separate senses
in the mind of the speaker/interpreter. My suggestion is instead that both uses
are instances of one and the same meaning variant, related to the central
meaning of over via end-point focus.
Another case where the status of the linguistic outcome of the transformation
can be questioned is when a multiplex TR is construed as a mass. It is not
obvious that there are different senses connected to the determiner vs. the verb
in (5) and (6) depending on how the noun is construed, i.e. as a multiplex or a
mass 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.
31

so well integrated in the mind of the language user that it does not give rise to
polysemy, 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 he
introduces the notion of construal transformations, accounting for subjective
shifts 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, is
polysemous due to various possibilities to construe the LM (the house).
Adopting an external vantage point, through only denotes Lucy’s entering and
emerging from the house, whereas her passing through the inside of the house is
implied. 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 external
viewpoint, to watch her emerging out of the house. Thirdly, we may adopt an
exclusively internal viewpoint on the house, in which case the outer boundaries
are irrelevant for the interpretation of through. Assuming that through is vague
as to the location of the endpoints of the path, the internal-viewpoint
transformation imposes different, more detailed interpretations of the prepositional
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, but
it arises from their syntactic combination under a particular pragmatic construal
of the LM”. However, this extension of the notion of polysemy is not justified
without support from psycho-linguistic tests. As Sandra (1998) strongly emphasizes,
intuition is insufficient when it comes to delimit the boundaries between
polysemous senses and variants of a monosemous sense. (See also Tuggy (1993)
for a discussion of the boundaries between ambiguity (homonomy), polysemy
and vagueness.)
With this reservation in mind, we turn back to the role of image schema
transformations in the generation of new senses. The question to be answered is:
32

Given a specific image schema, is it possible to account for so-called motivated
polysemy? I will argue that it is. If transformations of image schemas are
analogs of spatial operations, such as manipulations of physical objects (see
Johnson 1987, and cited research), it should be possible to predict which
transformations a specific schema may undergo. In the remainder of the paper I
will elaborate this argument by illustrating how transformations of the image
schemas of Spatial association (Fig. 1) may generate polysemy that is cross-
linguistically realized.
The image schema Spatial association instantiates the basic conceptual
relation of association (ASSOC) (Langacker 1987: 225). It can be regarded as a
superordinate schema, embracing a variety of relational predicates encoded as
prepositions, adverbs, and verbs, in turn based on various subordinate schemas.
Thus the schema Spatial association does not underlie any specific lexical
concept 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 all
related via the schema in Fig. 1 (adopted from Langacker 1987: 230). (A and B
are equal to TR and LM, whereas C is a construed, primarily spatial, region
including A and B; cf. He stood near the house where C is defined as a region
within 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 of
orientation of the two. Adding a front and a back to the entities they will
canonically 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 mind
before the process begins of acquiring substantive information in particular cognitive domains”
(Hawkins 1993: 339).
33

Traugott 1986). A second possibility is that they are looking in the same
direction, with the consequence that either B will be in front of A (Fig. 3), or A
will be in front of B. Lexical instantiations of Fig. 2 and 3, respectively, are
against and follow. Finally, A and B might be oriented in an explicitly parallel
fashion (Fig. 4), thus instantiating a parallel relation between A and B,
exemplified by with. Together, the figures 2–4 illustrate various specifications of
the schema Spatial association.
A B
Fig. 2. Face-to-face orientation.
A B
Fig. 3. Sequential orientation.
A B
Fig. 4. Parallel orientation.
A
B
In the next section I will account for the developmental paths of each of the
specific schemas above in terms of lexical polysemy.
4. <strong>Transformations</strong> on schematic specifications of Spatial
association
4.1. The face-to-face schema
The potential polysemy of a face-to-face-lexeme can be exemplified by the
development 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 as
the with-set. In OE the central meaning of wifl was roughly that of Modern
English against (Dekeyser 1990). The original meaning of OE wifl (and its
cognates) was directional, “toward” (Onions 1966), which in concrete contexts
34

ecame oppositional (Traugott 1985: 518). 5 (The examples in (8) and (9) are
from Dekeyser 1990: 39.)
(8) a. wifl Italia
opposite Italy
b. Hie gefuhtun wifl Walum
They 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 hine
Some man travelled with him
Thus OE wifl shows a meaning development from face-to-face to parallel
orientation. The polysemy of the OSw. equivalent vifl suggests that this change
in 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 iorfl
fell down to earth
b. viflar min gufl
against my God
c. ath the wille wiidh swerige bliffua
that they wanted with Sweden to-stay
that they wanted to stay with Sweden
In Modern Swedish the meaning variants in (10) have all disappeared from the
standard 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).
35

(11) Han står vid dörren.
he is standing at door-the
Taking the image schema to be the most abstract basis of lexical meaning, I
suggest that the sense development of OE wifl, as well as its OSw. equivalent
vifl, can adequately be described as an image schematic transformation operating
on the schema face-to-face orientation. The schema in Fig. 2 has thus been
transformed into the schema in Fig. 4, with the result that the asymmetric
relation between A and B is abandoned. Also in the ‘at’-sense in (10), illustrated
in Fig. 5, the asymmetric relation is discarded (or at least bleached). The ‘at’-
meaning underspecifies the orientation of A and B, although it expresses an
unmarked asymmetry between A and B (the one entity, A, normally being
smaller and more mobile in relation to the other, B).
A B
Fig. 5. Spatial ‘at’.
Interestingly, as regards the Icelandic equivalent vi›, all the senses
synchronically 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› honum
she smiled at him (i.e. in his direction)
b. berjast vi› einhvern
(to) fight with someone
c. vi› flri›ja mann
together with two men
d. standa upp vi› vegg
stand at a wall
Finally, German wieder – etymologically identical to Sw. vid, Eng. with – shows
another developmental path, namely from face-to-face to ‘back’ or ‘return’.
36

(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 set
of words, namely form equivalents of Mod. Eng. again.
Besides the with-set there were also other Germanic words expressing face-toface-orientation,
e.g. OSw. i gen, OE ongean (ongegn), which have the same
etymological origin, and belong to what I refer to as the again-set. Broadly
speaking, both words show the same development, from OSw., OE ‘against’ to
Mod. Sw., Mod. Eng. ‘again’. Below we will take a closer look at the polysemy
of 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 at
first 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 geen
king-the walked him himself toward
The 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 meaning
of ‘closure’ may develop (14b). A mental and physical movement face-to-face
cannot 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 close
each other’s path, cf. Fig. 6 below.
Fig. 6. The meaning ‘closed’.
37

The meaning ‘back’, illustrated in (14c) and Fig. 7, represents another possible
development of the face-to-face orientation. (Or, alternatively, a further
development of the ‘closure’-meaning.)
Fig. 7. The meaning ‘back’.
As one entity closes the path of the other, the movement may only continue by
making a turn and taking the same trajectory back again. Considering the
polysemy 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 core
meaning as Sw. igen, the meaning variants of wieder are motivated on the same
grounds 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. the
meaning is equivalent to the meaning of English again. The last link in the
meaning chain relates the meaning ‘back’ to ‘again’ by emphasizing the feature
of repetition present in the ‘back’-sense. More specifically, two different
movements – a “coming” and a “going” – are reinterpreted into movements of
the 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 in
an asymmetric face-to-face-meaning and ends in a symmetric repetitive
meaning.
The conclusion that can be drawn from the data presented in this section is
that 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 possibilities
are shown by the historical development of the with-set, except for the
German equivalent wieder. German wieder instead follows the same track as the
38

again-set – which speaks in favor of the idea that the potential sense
development operates on the abstract image schema, not the more contextual
interpretations of the word(s).
4.2. The parallel schema
A common path of development of lexemes based on the parallel schema is
from the comitative meaning (‘together with’) to the meaning of instrument and
manner. For instance, the semantic equivalents Eng. with, Swed. med, Icel. vifl
and Spanish con all develop both the meaning of instrument and the meaning of
manner. Here the symmetric comitative meaning is turned into an asymmetric
one 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 of
the face-to-face-schema we expect the same to be true also for the parallel
schema. Just to mention one example, Latin contra ‘against’ (< *com-tro-) is
formed 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 the
schema in Fig. 2. 6 Interestingly enough, the polysemy of Latin contra shows
similarities with both the with-set and the again-set; cf. the selection of meaning
variants from Oxford Latin Dictionary:
(16) The polysemy of contra:
a. in front of one, in the eyes, face to face
b. so as to face the enemy, on the other side, against one
c. 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 perspective
of the direction encoded as ‘from’ into ‘against’.
39

d. against or at the enemy
e. in opposition, by way of objection, on the other side
f. in return, by way of recompense
It is especially worth noting that contra so to speak unites the polysemy of OE
ongean and German wieder, i.e. shows both the ‘against’-sense (16b, d, e) and
the ‘back’-sense (16f).
Further, the development of the Greek preposition metá demonstrates a
possible relation between (a variant of) the parallel schema and the sequential
schema. In Ancient Greek metá could occur with the dative, the genitive or the
accusative. 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 the
parallel schema – a “weaker” variant since an indefinite number of entities are
involved. Given this analysis, the two meaning variants of metá instantiate a
relation 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 LM
was multiplex – which was the case with the dative and the genitive – the
meaning turned out as ‘among’, but when the LM was a simplex, metá instead
meant ‘after’. The cognitive explanation is that the TR is conceptualized as
included in a multiplex LM – and thus ‘among’ the entities referred to by the
LM – whereas the TR is seen as not included in a LM referring to a simplex
entity. 7 As accusative LMs with metá could be either multiplex or simplex both
meaning variants were compatible with the accusative form. At the level of
image schematic structure the relation between the two meanings of metá is
transformational, the parallel schema (or a variant of it) is transformed into a
sequential schema.
In Modern Greek there are two forms deriving from Ancient metá, the one
meaning ‘after’, the other meaning ‘with’. Thus, not only is ‘after’ and ‘among’
connected via a transformational link, but there seems to be a developmental
path leading from ‘among’ to ‘with’, i.e. from a week to a strong variant of the
parallel 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’.
40

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 also
Greek metá is based (Pokorny 1959: 702; Hellquist 1957: 638)).
In conclusion, the parallel symmetric schema may give rise to various
asymmetric meanings such as ‘instrument’ and ‘manner’, ‘against’ (based on the
face-to-face-schema) and ‘after’ (based on the sequential schema).
4.3. The sequential schema
Finally, we expect the sequential schema to be transformed into either a face-toface-schema
or a parallel schema. Arguments for the former case is found in
Traugott (1985, referring to Timmer 1967) who gives a wealth of examples of
systematic morphological derivation where one word form expresses direction
(i.e. sequentiality) and the other opposition, e.g. Arabic klafa ‘to be the
successor’ and kalafa ‘to be contradictory’.
The latter case – the sequential schema turning into a parallel one – is
illustrated by the Sw. verb följa ‘follow’. Prototypically, följa denotes a
sequential meaning, ‘A after B’ (16a), which in certain contexts may be reinterpreted
as a parallel locomotion, ‘A moving together with B’ (16b) (see also
Ekberg 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 conceptual
networks
Semantic change is usually far less systematic and general than changes in
phonology, morphology and syntax. This does not mean that a search for
regularities also in the area of semantics would be fruitless. Modern research
within the field of historical lexical semantics and grammaticalization in fact has
41

provided arguments that meaning change is motivated by cognitive principles
independent of specific languages. Above a number of examples have been
given of sense developments of lexemes – some related, others unrelated –
sharing the same abstract core of Spatial association. The meaning changes
accounted for are all motivated by cognitively founded image schema transformations,
and are thus (in the sense of Lakoff 1987) “natural” changes. In
other 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 variants
are in fact realized ultimately depend on a range of linguistic, and extralinguistic,
factors, among which the image schema transformation is only one.
Image schema transformations affecting the orientation of (parts of) the image
schematic structure can obviously give rise to “opposite” meaning variants of
the same lexical item. Lexemes instantiating asymmetric meanings, like face-to-
face-orientation, may develop explicitly symmetric meanings, cf. OE wifl
‘against’, which ends up as Mod. Eng. with. On the other hand, lexemes
instantiating a parallel meaning may end up with a face-to-face-meaning, such
as the formation of Lat. contr ‘against’ < com, cum ‘with’. 8 In addition,
meaning changes of words of spatial orientation may either strengthen or
neutralize 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 vid
develops 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 the
primary 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 the
notions 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 asymmetry
triggers opposite developments, from symmetric meanings to asymmetric ones.
42

(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 orientation
OE ongean, OSw. i gen ‘in a direct line with’ > ‘toward’ >
‘against’
Arabic kalafa ‘to be the successor’ klafa ‘to be contradictory’
(19) Parallel orientation:
43
(= sequential > face-to-face)
Eng. with, Swed. med, Span. con comitative > instrument and manner
Greek 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 to
operate on the underlying abstract semantic structure (the image schema) rather
than on the more specific lexical meaning. Thus, given the notion of face-toface-orientation
– underlying the meaning of OE wifl, Eng. again, Swed. igen;
Germ. wieder – the meanings ‘together with’, ‘back’ and ‘repetition’ are likely
to develop in preference to other meanings. I suggest that the avenues of
semantic change are best described in terms of a conceptual network where the
nodes are linked by transformations of the image schematic structure. Such a
conceptual network is assumed to cut across both language-specific lexicons and
9 Traugott (1985)
10 Traugott (1985)

lexical networks within a specific language. For the basic notions of spatial
orientation the conceptual network would have the hypothetical structure given
below:
INSTRUMENT/
MANNER
MANNER
Fig. 9: The conceptual network of Spatial association.
The nodes of the conceptual network illustrated in Fig. 9 are all specifications of
the schema Spatial association. I regard this schema as a superordinate cognitive
structure, which functions as a means of categorization of perceptual
information into semantic categories, in turn structured by the specific
instantiations of Spatial association. Along with other superordinate schemas –
some of which are still to be investigated – Spatial association is a potential
universal source of lexically manifested spatial relations. The generation of the
more specific spatial relations is carried out by means of specification or
transformation of the schema. Not only the schema but also the transformations
of the schema are universal, in the sense of being language independent and
motivated by human cognitive ability. Thus polysemy based on image schema
transformations is universal and cross-linguistic as regards the schematic,
abstract meaning underlying the rich, lexical meaning.
References
Clark, Herbert H., 1973: Space, Time, Semantics, and the Child. Cognitive
Development and the Acquisition of Language, ed. by T. E. Moore. New
York: Academic Press, 27–63.
FACE-TO-FACE
PARALLEL NEUTRAL SEQUENTIAL
FACE-TO-FACE SEQUENTIAL FACE-TO-FACE
44
PARALLEL

Croft, William, 1993: The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and
metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4–4, 335–370.
Dekeyser, Xavier, 1990: The prepositions with, mid and again(st) in Old and
Middle English. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 5, 35–48.
Dewell, Robert B., 1994: Over again: Image-schema transformations in
semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 5–4, 351–380.
Dewell, Robert B., 1997: Construal <strong>Transformations</strong>: Internal and External
Viewpoints in Interpreting Containment. Lexical and Syntactical
Constructions 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 of
Swedish runt ‘around’. Working Papers in Linguistics 25, 23–42.
Ekberg, Lena, 1997: The Mental Manipulation of the Vertical Axis: How to go
from “up” to “out”, or from “above” to “behind”. Lexical and Syntactical
Constructions and the Construction of Meaning, ed. by M. Verspoor et al.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 69–88.
Ekberg, Lena, 2001: <strong>Transformations</strong> on the Path-schema and a minimal
lexicon. Studia Linguistica 55:3, 301–323.
Ekberg, Lena, 2002: Symmetri eller asymmetri? Kognitiva principer för
betydelseutveckling, med exempel från fornsvenskan. Arkiv för nordisk
filologi 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 to
Natural Language Processing, ed. by Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt. Mouton de
Gruyter, 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 Chicago
Press.
45

Lakoff, George, 1987: Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories
reveal about the mind. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago
Press.
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 Basis
of Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Luraghi, Silvia, 2001: The Ancient Greek Preposition ‘metá’: A Cognitive
Account. Abstract for the 7 th 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 the
Clarendon 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 human
mind: A reply to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics 9–4, 361–378.
Timmer, Esther H., 1967: A semantic comparison of the third form in Arabic
with 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 the
6th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Jacek Fisiak.
John Benjamins. 515–526.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, 1986: On the Origins of “and” and “but” Connectives
in 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. Cognitive
Linguistics 4–3, 273–290.
Walde, A., 1965: Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl
Winter Universitetsverlag.
46