Transformations on image schemas and cross-linguistic polysemy

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