Transformations on image schemas and cross-linguistic polysemy
Transformations on image schemas and cross-linguistic polysemy 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
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
- 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 and 12: ecame oppositional (Traugott 1985:
- Page 13 and 14: (13) a. Er fiel und stand sofort wi
- Page 15: again-set - which speaks in favor o
- Page 19 and 20: (17) Face-to-face-orientation: OE w
- Page 21 and 22: Croft, William, 1993: The role of d
the same development as Greek metá, i.e. from ‘am<strong>on</strong>g’ (‘in the middle’,<br />
‘between’) to ‘with’. (Swedish med is derived from PIE *me-dhi (alternatively<br />
*me-tí) formed <strong>on</strong> *me- ‘in the middle’, ‘between’, am<strong>on</strong>g’, <strong>on</strong> which also<br />
Greek metá is based (Pokorny 1959: 702; Hellquist 1957: 638)).<br />
In c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>, the parallel symmetric schema may give rise to various<br />
asymmetric meanings such as ‘instrument’ <strong>and</strong> ‘manner’, ‘against’ (based <strong>on</strong> the<br />
face-to-face-schema) <strong>and</strong> ‘after’ (based <strong>on</strong> the sequential schema).<br />
4.3. The sequential schema<br />
Finally, we expect the sequential schema to be transformed into either a face-toface-schema<br />
or a parallel schema. Arguments for the former case is found in<br />
Traugott (1985, referring to Timmer 1967) who gives a wealth of examples of<br />
systematic morphological derivati<strong>on</strong> where <strong>on</strong>e word form expresses directi<strong>on</strong><br />
(i.e. sequentiality) <strong>and</strong> the other oppositi<strong>on</strong>, e.g. Arabic klafa ‘to be the<br />
successor’ <strong>and</strong> kalafa ‘to be c<strong>on</strong>tradictory’.<br />
The latter case – the sequential schema turning into a parallel <strong>on</strong>e – is<br />
illustrated by the Sw. verb följa ‘follow’. Prototypically, följa denotes a<br />
sequential meaning, ‘A after B’ (16a), which in certain c<strong>on</strong>texts may be reinterpreted<br />
as a parallel locomoti<strong>on</strong>, ‘A moving together with B’ (16b) (see also<br />
Ekberg this volume).<br />
(16) a. Han följde henne uppför trappan.<br />
he followed her up stairs-the<br />
b. Han följde henne till stati<strong>on</strong>en.<br />
he followed her to stati<strong>on</strong>-the<br />
The original schema in Fig. 3 may thus be transformed into the schema in Fig. 4.<br />
5. C<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>: meaning development in terms of c<strong>on</strong>ceptual<br />
networks<br />
Semantic change is usually far less systematic <strong>and</strong> general than changes in<br />
ph<strong>on</strong>ology, morphology <strong>and</strong> syntax. This does not mean that a search for<br />
regularities also in the area of semantics would be fruitless. Modern research<br />
within the field of historical lexical semantics <strong>and</strong> grammaticalizati<strong>on</strong> in fact has<br />
41
Change language