Transformations on image schemas and cross-linguistic polysemy

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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-toface-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)
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 and 16: again-set - which speaks in favor o
Page 17: the same development as Greek metá
Page 21 and 22: Croft, William, 1993: The role of d

Transformations on image schemas and cross-linguistic polysemy

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?