Transformations on image schemas and cross-linguistic polysemy

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