Transformations on image schemas and cross-linguistic polysemy

overarching aim is to find general principles effecting semantic change. In this
project methods from both the traditional lexicography and Cognitive Semantics
theory (Lakoff 1987, Dewell 1994, etc.) are combined. By means of a database
of some 60.000 words (lemmas) we are able to test a number of assumptions of
semantic regularities in lexical polysemy. The working hypothesis is that a
restricted number of general principles operating on abstract semantic structures
are responsible for an indefinite number of lexical meaning variants of a given
form. The descriptive aim is thus twofold: to account for the input – the abstract
semantic structure functioning as a source for derivation – and to account for the
principles operating on the input. The assumption is that semantic structures at a
certain level of abstraction, as well as the principles of meaning change, are
universal devices for generating new lexical meaning variants. Such a search for
universal features has not had priority within Cognitive Semantics (as pointed
out by Hawkins 1993). We find it, however, important to emphasize not only
language-specific semantics but universal principles that may account for (and
explain) lexical meaning variants that are represented cross-linguistically.
Here I will deal with one of the assumed principles – the image schema
transformation – investigating cross-linguistic polysemy, based on transformations
of various schemas that are part of the superordinate category of
Spatial association. As a background I will describe some preliminary properties
of the semantic input (the source concept) and the principles operating on these,
focussing on the notion of image schema transformation.
2. Semantic input and principles of meaning change
2.1. Description of the semantic input
What are the relevant properties of a linguistic expression sensitive to change?
What is the relevant level of abstraction on which the processes of change
operate? These are the main questions when trying to predict the avenues of
sense development. The following is an attempt to narrow down the semantic
core of the source concept in the process of creating new meanings. I assume
that the semantic input is so abstract that it involves only properties defining
classes of predicates (in the sense of Langacker 1987: 97), e.g. predicates
denoting spatial inclusion (in, within, into etc.). I will restrict myself to relational
26