Transformations on image schemas and cross-linguistic polysemy

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
predicates (verb, prepositions, adverbs, and adjectives), since the image schema transformations accounted for in the literature relate to this group of semantic predicates. Following Langacker (1987: 183ff), a predication always has a certain scope (a base), described in terms of an experiential domain, or domain matrix (Croft 1993) within which a substructure is selected for designation (the profile). The meaning of finger tip can only be understood in relation to finger (functioning as the characterizing domain of finger tip), which in turn can only be understood in relation to hand, etc. Relating a linguistic expression to a domain thus delimits the possible interpretations of it. The profiled content (“the designatum”) is furthermore always construed in a specific way. 2 As for relational predicates the construal amounts to – in the first place – the selection of the salient entities in the profile, Trajector (TR) and Landmark (LM), the former referring to the entity being assessed, the latter to the reference entitity (Langacker 1987: 231f). The choice of preposition (in vs. on) in (1) below amounts to the construal of the interconnections between TR and LM, i.e. either the TR is conceptualized as “included” in the LM (in) or as located on the surface of the LM (on). (Henceforth TR is marked in bold whereas LM is underlined.) (1) The girl is sitting in / on the grass. Relational predicates fall into four subgroups depending on the conceptual relation between TR and LM (Langacker 1987: 225). These are identification (IDENT), separation (SEP), association (ASSOC) and inclusion (INCL). Transitive verbs typically instantiate a separation relation, i.e. TR is separate from LM, as in Lisa hit Carl. Reflexive verbs however express identification of TR and LM (He shaved himself). Further the locative preposition in denotes inclusion, whereas on typically denotes association. The verb spread is an example of a predicate that may denote different conceptual relations in its different uses, cf. the sentences below. (2) a. Han spred gödseln i ett jämnt lager. (SEP) he spread manure-the in an even layer 2 Compare also the reasoning about the meaning of through in example (7) below. 27
Page 1: Reprinted from Tre uppsatser om sem
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 and 18: the same development as Greek metá
Page 19 and 20: (17) Face-to-face-orientation: OE w
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?