Transformations on image schemas and cross-linguistic polysemy
Transformations on image schemas and cross-linguistic polysemy Transformations on image schemas and cross-linguistic polysemy
(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
- Page 1 and 2: Reprinted from Tre uppsatser om sem
- Page 3 and 4: predicates (verb, prepositions, adv
- Page 5 and 6: context like The road goes from Mal
- Page 7 and 8: polysemy. This is presumably true f
- Page 9 and 10: Given a specific image schema, is i
- Page 11: ecame oppositional (Traugott 1985:
- Page 15 and 16: again-set - which speaks in favor o
- Page 17 and 18: the same development as Greek metá
- Page 19 and 20: (17) Face-to-face-orientation: OE w
- Page 21 and 22: Croft, William, 1993: The role of d
(11) Han står vid dörren.<br />
he is st<strong>and</strong>ing at door-the<br />
Taking the <strong>image</strong> schema to be the most abstract basis of lexical meaning, I<br />
suggest that the sense development of OE wifl, as well as its OSw. equivalent<br />
vifl, can adequately be described as an <strong>image</strong> schematic transformati<strong>on</strong> operating<br />
<strong>on</strong> the schema face-to-face orientati<strong>on</strong>. The schema in Fig. 2 has thus been<br />
transformed into the schema in Fig. 4, with the result that the asymmetric<br />
relati<strong>on</strong> between A <strong>and</strong> B is ab<strong>and</strong><strong>on</strong>ed. Also in the ‘at’-sense in (10), illustrated<br />
in Fig. 5, the asymmetric relati<strong>on</strong> is discarded (or at least bleached). The ‘at’-<br />
meaning underspecifies the orientati<strong>on</strong> of A <strong>and</strong> B, although it expresses an<br />
unmarked asymmetry between A <strong>and</strong> B (the <strong>on</strong>e entity, A, normally being<br />
smaller <strong>and</strong> more mobile in relati<strong>on</strong> to the other, B).<br />
A B<br />
Fig. 5. Spatial ‘at’.<br />
Interestingly, as regards the Icel<strong>and</strong>ic equivalent vi›, all the senses<br />
synchr<strong>on</strong>ically present in OE <strong>and</strong> OSw. are retained in present day Icel<strong>and</strong>ic, i.e.<br />
‘to’, ‘toward’ (12a), ’against’ (12b), ‘together with’ (12c), <strong>and</strong> ‘at’ (12d).<br />
(12) a. hún brosti vi› h<strong>on</strong>um<br />
she smiled at him (i.e. in his directi<strong>on</strong>)<br />
b. berjast vi› einhvern<br />
(to) fight with some<strong>on</strong>e<br />
c. vi› flri›ja mann<br />
together with two men<br />
d. st<strong>and</strong>a upp vi› vegg<br />
st<strong>and</strong> at a wall<br />
Finally, German wieder – etymologically identical to Sw. vid, Eng. with – shows<br />
another developmental path, namely from face-to-face to ‘back’ or ‘return’.<br />
36
Change language