Transformations on image schemas and cross-linguistic polysemy

polysemy. This is presumably true for some of the meaning variants, such as the
end-point focus which turns a dynamic meaning into a static one incorporating
the locomotion as background knowledge. For other meaning variants it is less
obvious that we are dealing with psycho-linguistically separate senses. Below I
will mention some examples of meaning differences – assumed to be the result
of image schema transformations – which, in my opinion, are so fine-grained
that it is questionable whether they give rise to polysemy. The alternative is that
they are simply contextual modifications, i.e. instances of monosemy. 3
The first example is taken from Dewell (1994: 357), who emphasizes the
distinction between the two uses of over in (4), arguing that the sense (my
italics) in (4a) “should not be confused with closely related instances” i.e. those
exemplified in (4b). (The transformation responsible for the specific meaning,
according to Dewell, is given in brackets.)
(4) a. Sam is over the bridge now. (subjective path)
b. Sam lives over the bridge. (end-point focus)
The preposition in (4a) as well as (4b) denotes end-point location as a result of
the speaker’s (interpreter’s) mental scanning of the path. The difference between
the two uses is that in (4a) the TR actually has traversed the path, whereas in
(4b) there is no indication of a preceding locomotion of the TR. The question is
whether this difference is salient enough for the two uses being separate senses
in the mind of the speaker/interpreter. My suggestion is instead that both uses
are instances of one and the same meaning variant, related to the central
meaning of over via end-point focus.
Another case where the status of the linguistic outcome of the transformation
can be questioned is when a multiplex TR is construed as a mass. It is not
obvious that there are different senses connected to the determiner vs. the verb
in (5) and (6) depending on how the noun is construed, i.e. as a multiplex or a
mass entity. It can just as well be that the alternation between multiplex/mass is
3 See Sandra (1998) for an insightful and very enlightened discussion of what linguists can, and
cannot, tell about mental representations, among them representations of lexical senses.
31