Construal operations in semantic change: the case of abstract nouns

Reprinted from Tre uppsatser om semantisk förändring hos relationella lexem. Nordlund 24.
Småskrifter från Institutionen för nordiska språk i Lund. 47-65.
Lena Ekberg
Construal operations in semantic change: the case
of abstract nouns
1. Introduction
This paper deals with lexical variation and semantic change of abstract nouns. 1
The theoretical framework is Cognitive Semantics as presented in works by
Langacker (1987, 1991), Talmy (2000), and others. We assume that regular
sense developments is due to cognitively based processes – so called construal
operations (Croft & Wood 2000) – operating on a semantic input, i.e. the
schematic structure constituting the foundation of the more detailed lexical
meaning. As for relational predicates, e.g. prepositions and verbs, transformations
on the basic schematic structure, commonly referred to as the image
schema, have proved to be an important device of generating new meaning
variants (Ekberg 2001, this volume). For nouns, (also) other types of operations
can be assumed to be relevant in relating meaning variants to each other.
In this paper I argue for the impact of construal operations by means of
analyzing a selection of Swedish abstract nouns, namely tillfälle ‘occasion’,
mening ‘opinion’, uppgift ‘information’, and fråga ‘question’. The nouns chosen
show various degrees of relatedness to verbs that are synchronically used with
the same meaning. As a consequence, they show various degrees of “abstractness”
in terms of different content ontologies (Paradis submitted). In short, there
are abstract entities that are located in time and space, i.e. events (actions,
processes or states), and those that are not located in time and space, e.g.
abstract phenomena such as idea, opportunity. A noun referring to an event
relates to a situation profiled as a THING (Langacker 1987) but have the same
situation type characteristics as the related verb (Paradis submitted).
1
The reported study is part of the project “The Dictionary of the World”, of which the
overarching aim is to describe and explain regularities in lexical polysemy. The members of
the project are, in addition to the author, Jerker Järborg and Kerstin Norén (project leader).
The project is financed by The Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation. I am grateful to
my project colleagues, and to Carita Paradis and Christer Platzack for valuable comments
and stimulating discussions. I am solely responsible for remaining inconsistencies.

Crucial for the semantic account of these (and other) lexemes is the notion of
profile-base asymmetry. The profile is what the lexeme designates within a
given cognitive domain, i.e. the base. In other words, the profile is equal to those
portions of the base that the semantic predication invokes (Langacker 1987). As
will be argued, the profile of verbal nouns includes an event structure (E),
embedded in the holistic conceptualization characteristic of a nominal. The
concept of an event comprises activities, processes and states. 2 The different
event types represent different elaborations of an event structure; thus E will be
short for a semantic entity with a relational internal structure, e.g. one of the
various elaborations of the basic action chain underlying the semantics of all
four nouns in question.
The thesis elaborated here is that the process of attention plays a crucial role
in relating meaning variants of verbal nouns to each other. Attention is taken to
be one of four basic cognitive abilities manifested in language by way of
continuously occurring processes – the others being comparison (the foundation
of metaphorical relations), choice of perspective and constitution (Gestalt),
respectively. Croft & Wood (2000) distinguish five subtypes of attention, which
are partly overlapping. The most important ones for a lexical description of
verbal nouns are selection, scalar adjustment and schematization. Selection
amounts to focusing on only part(s) of an entity or an experience and
disregarding the rest, whereas scalar adjustment (abstraction, in terms of
Langacker 1987) is construing an event with various degrees of abstraction/specificity.
On this view, schematization – the choice of viewing something
by means of a more encompassing category – is one end of the abstraction cline.
Cognitive linguists see construal operations of the type presented above as
structural devices of the lexicon. The assumption made here is that the same
types of operations that underlie the structure of the lexicon also underlie the
structure of lexical networks, i.e. the category formed by the various meanings
of a single lexeme. Furthermore semantic change and synchronic lexical
variation is claimed to be two sides of the same coin. The tracks of semantic
2
Activities and processes have the feature [+dynamic] in common but differ with respect to
agentivity – activities are [+agent] while processes are [-agent]. State predicates are both
non-dynamic and non-agentive (see further Schmid 2000).
48

change may simultaneously be looked upon as meaning relations within a
lexical network.
2. Lexical variation and semantic change of some abstract
nouns
2.1. Tillfälle ‘occasion’
One of the synchronic uses of tillfälle is ‘occasion’, designating a single point of
time, as in (1).
(1) vid det tillfället....
at that occasion....
on that occasion....
The conceptualization of a single point of time presupposes an event (E) taking
place at the specific moment (see 1.) 3 The event constitutes the LM (the
reference point) in relation to the focused point of time (PT), which is the TR. I
assume that the TR-LM-relation is hosted within the profile of a region, since
the “surface” meaning of tillfälle is a holistic situation connecting a point of
time (PT) with a particular event (E), cf. Fig. 1. 4
Profile
E/TR
PT/LM
Time
Base
Fig. 1. The schematic structure of ‘occasion’.
3
In Schmid (2000: 79), tillfälle functions as a shell noun with an inherent semantic gap that is
filled by an unspecific ‘event’.
4
Here, and henceforth, the profile is given in boldface and the focused entity within the
profile is designated by a filled circle.
49

The example in (2) illustrates the profile-base-relation inherent in the semantics
of tillfälle. Here the base (marked with capitals) is explicitly referred to as a
number of temporally sequential events, bound to a sequence of points in time,
out of which a particular point of time is profiled by the noun phrase ett tillfälle
‘one occasion’.
(2) Vid ett tillfälle UNDER MÄTNINGARNA bröts strömmen. 5
at one occasion DURING MEASUREMENTS.THE switched.off.PASS current.the
One one occasion DURING THE MEASUREMENTS the current was switched
off.
In (3) however, the meaning of the particular event is focused, at the cost of
temporal meaning. Note that the point of time (September the 28 th ) is explicitly
stated and consequently not focused in the use of the noun. As shown in Fig. 2,
the event corresponds to the TR (in boldface) and the point of time to the LM
(underlined).
(3) Detta historiska tillfälle inträffar den 28 september.
this historic event occurs the 28 th September
This historic event will occur the 28 th of September.
The meaning in (3) thus represents an interchanged TR-LM-relation within the
profiled region compared to the one in Fig. 1, namely:
Profile
E/TR
PT/LM
Time
Base
Fig. 2. The schematic structure of ‘event’.
5
The – sometimes slightly manipulated – examples are mainly taken from a computerized
corpus named SUC/LBAB (see Järborg 1999.)
50

A further step from the “pure” temporal meaning is when tillfälle corresponds to
‘opportunity’:
(4) bereda någon tillfälle att framföra sina synpunkter
give someone opportunity to express his/her views
to give someone opportunity to express his/her views
This meaning assumes – just as the meaning ‘occasion’ – a course of time,
which includes a specific point of time when the possible event may be realized.
In other words, the relation between the elements hosted within the profile is the
same as in the temporal meaning but the setting is virtual instead of actual. 6 In
Fig. 3, the virtual setting is represented by broken lines.
Profile
E/TR
PT/LM
Time
Base
Fig. 3. The schematic structure of ‘opportunity’.
Summarizing, the synchronic meaning category of tillfälle includes the
meanings ‘occasion’, ‘event’, and ‘opportunity’. ‘Event’ is related to ‘occasion’
through change of focus within the profile. The meaning ‘opportunity’ instead
retains the relation between ‘point of time’ and ‘event’ as profiled by the
temporal meaning but changes the setting of the relation.
Note that whereas ‘opportunity’ intuitively is a separate sense 7 , the temporal
and the eventive meanings are rather variants of the same sense. As I have
argued ‘occasion’ and ‘event’ in fact presuppose each other (and are often
difficult to separate in actual use). In other words, they seem to be different
6 Setting is defined as a “global, inclusive region within which an event unfolds or a situation
7
obtains” (Langacker 1991:553).
“Meaning” is used as a superordinate term, not distinguishing between contextually
triggered interpretations and well-entrenched lexical meaning variants (“senses”).
51

facets of the same meaning, conventionally associated with the lexical item (see
Paradis 2003; Cruse 2003).
The boundary between ‘occasion’ and ‘event’ on the one hand and
‘opportunity’ on the other is motivated by the different bases (or settings)
decisive of the interpretations of the profile. The temporal and the eventive
meanings are interpreted within the same setting, whereas ‘opportunity’ is
interpreted within a different setting.
The history of tillfälle however adds further meaning variants to the lexical
network. The following variants are attested in Old Swedish (Söderwall
1884–1918): ‘event’ (5), ‘opportunity’ (6), ‘occasion’ (7), ‘cause’ (8), and
‘accident’ (9). Of these, ‘accident’ seems to be the earliest meaning, cf. the
parallel formations MLG tôval, MHG zuoval ‘accident’, and Lat. accidens (from
ad- ‘to’ and cadere ‘fall’ (Hellquist 1957)).
(5) ciprianus … taladhe til biscopin all sin tilfälle
Ciprianus ... spoke to bishop.the all his events
Ciprianus ... told the bishop everything that had happened to him
(6) han sökir tilfälle mik fördriffwa oc dräpa
he seeks opportunity me to.drive.away and kill
he seeks an opportunity to drive me away and kill me
(7) jak gaf thik tillfälle
I gave you occasion
I gave you occasion
(8) at ond gerning var hans dödz tilfälle
that evil deed was his death.GEN cause
that evil deed caused his death
(9) aff eno tilfälle
of one accident
because of an accident
52

As I will argue the meaning ‘accident’ – paraphrased as “a random cause of
something that has happened” – in fact includes all the other meaning variants of
tillfälle. From ‘accident’ we may proceed to ‘cause’, by way of generalization of
the cause-notion, suppressing the feature ‘random’ and leaving ‘cause’ as the
only profiled content. The semantic structure of ‘cause’ (C), a well as ‘accident’
8 , in turn presupposes the concept of ‘event’ (E) – bound to a point of time
(PT).
Profile
C
E
PT
Time
Base
Fig. 4: The schematic structure of ‘cause’/’accident’.
By varying the structure in Fig. 4 also the other meaning variants (cf. 5, 6, 7) are
derived. First, ‘event’ is related to ‘cause’ through promotion of the event-notion
(E) in the profile, resulting in a schematic structure equal to the one in fig. 2.
Further, ‘occasion’ is related to ‘event’ through promotion of the notion ‘point
of time’ (PT), resulting in the schematic structure of Fig. 1. In both cases the
focus of attention is changed. Finally, ‘opportunity’ is related to both ‘occasion’
and ‘event’ by changing the setting of the entire event-structure, cf. Fig. 3.
As shown above the set of meaning variants in Old Swedish also includes the
ones retained in Modern Swedish, i.e. ‘occasion’, ‘event’ and ‘opportunity’.
Thus both diachronically and synchronically the meaning variants of tillfälle
stay within the realms of the complex meaning attested in the earliest use of the
word.
Assuming that the concept ‘cause’ includes an event, bound to a point of time,
provides an explanation of the coexistence of ‘cause’ and ‘opportunity’ (i.e. a
possible point of time bound to a possible event) within the same lexical
network. There are in fact further examples of this coexistence. Swedish,
8
It is assumed that ‘accident’ and ‘cause’ share the same schematic structure. The feature
‘random’, distinguishing the two meaning variants, is taken to be part of the lexical
specification.
53

Norwegian anledning – formed in accordance with German Anleitung ‘cause’
(orig. ‘guidance’) 9 – shows, cross-linguistically, the same “lexical intraference”
(with a term borrowed from Croft 2000) as tillfälle. In Modern Swedish the
central meaning is ‘reason’ whereas in Norwegian the central meaning is
‘opportunity’. Thus a possible explanation of this cross-linguistic polysemy is
that ‘opportunity’ is derived from ‘reason’ – which meaning is present also in
Norwegian – by way of interpreting the event-structure (presupposed by ‘cause’)
in a virtual setting. This derivation will thus be a parallel to the semantic
development of tillfälle.
2.2. Mening ‘opinion’
The noun mening is derived from the verb mena ‘(to) mean; think’, and one of
the salient synchronic meanings is ‘view, opinion’, as in:
(10) Enligt min mening …
according.to my view ….
According to my view …
The schematic structure underlying the more specific lexical meaning of the
noun presupposes an elaborated variant of the schematic model of an action
chain (Langacker 1991: 283). As the profiled entity – LM1, in Fig. 5 – is
interpreted within the event frame of a communication situation, the Trajector
(TR) matches the sender whereas LM2 corresponds to the addressee. LM1 is
equal to the “message” – here specified as the “opinion” of the TR – transferred
from TR to LM2.
9
Germ. Anleitung in turn is derived from the verb anleiten ‘(to) guide’ (composed of an ‘to’
and leiden ‘(to) lead’). The cause-sense – actually: “what has led to something” – thus
seems to be a natural extension of the concrete sense of the verb.
54

TR LM1 LM2
‘opinion’
COMMUNICATION
Fig. 5. The schematic structure of ‘opinion’.
In addition to the meaning ‘opinion’, the word shows a number of semantically
related meanings, namely ‘intention’ (11a), ‘purpose’ (11b), ‘ sense’ (11c), and
‘sentence’ (11d).
(11) a. Meningen är att förstärka partimedlemmarnas inflytande …
intention.the is to.reinforce party.members.the.GEN influence
The intention is to reinforce the influence of the party members …
b. Lydnad är meningen med människans liv på jorden.
obedience is purpose.the with man.the.GEN life on earth.the
Obedience is the purpose of man’s life on earth.
c. i ordets verkliga mening
in word.the.GEN real sense
in the word’s real sense
d. en lång mening
a long sentence
Opinions are typically expressed by means of verbal communication, i.e. in
words and sentences, which (in our culture at least) are conceptualized as some
sort of containers (Reddy 1979). In terms of this metaphorical thinking the
linguistic form corresponds to the embracing container whereas the linguistic
meaning is seen as the content of the container. There is thus a clear connection
between ‘opinion’ (10) and ‘sense’ (11c) in that part of the background knowledge
of the meaning ‘opinion’ is highlighted (or profiled) in the meaning
variant ‘sense’. A verbally expressed opinion is not only an instance of a
linguistic sense (wrapped up in words and sentences), but it also manifests
55

intention and purpose. Thus ‘intention’ and ‘purpose’ are linked to both
‘opinion’ and ‘sense’, respectively. Further, the use of mening in (11b) is related
to the metaphorical use in (11c) – life is just like a word conceptualized as a
container but whereas the content of life is equal to the purpose of life, the
content of a word is equal to its sense.
Also the meaning ‘sentence’ (11d) – although clearly separated from the
variants in (11a–c) – fits well into the base knowledge of the sense ‘opinion’.
Sentences are in fact not only the typical means to verbally express an opinion
but the way to do it. That is, sentences represent the form side of a linguistic
expression used to express an opinion. Interestingly, also Eng. sentence shows
an earlier meaning ‘meaning, sense’; ‘opinion’, motivated by its origin in Lat.
sententia ‘mental feeling, opinion’ (ODEE: 809).
Together all these meaning variants – ‘sense’, ‘intention’, ‘purpose’ and
‘sentence’ – are parts of the base, referred to as COMMUNICATION in Fig. 5,
along with other semantic aspects which are not lexically realized. The interconnections
between the various elements in the base are illustrated in Fig. 6
below. Lexically realized meanings are given within single quotation marks.
Profile:
Mening ‘opinion’
Base:
[linguistic expression]
[symbolic unit]
[functional unit]
[form] [meaning] ‘intention’ ‘purpose’
‘sentence’
‘sense’
Fig. 6. Overview of the interconnections in the base of Sw. mening ‘opinion’.
In each of the uses in (11) above only one of the elements in the base is focused
– i.e. has entered the profile – whereas the others are backgrounded.
56

2.3. Uppgift ‘information’
The noun uppgift has two well-entrenched meanings, namely ‘information’ vs.
‘task’. The meaning ‘information’ can be paraphrased as “a message containing
a statement”, showing that uppgift is viewed as a container (cf. 2.2.). In addition,
the verbal message per se is conceptualized as a bounded object, which can be
given (12a), received (12b), and possessed (12c).
(12) a. uppgift skall lämnas om hur många dagar….
information shall leave.PASS about how many days…
information should be left about how many days…
b. att han fått uppgiften om yxhugget
that he got information.the about cut.of.axe.the
that he got the information about the cut of the axe
c. Har du några uppgifter på det?
have you any information.PLUR on that
Have you any information about that?
The range of uses of uppgift supports the idea that verbal messages are
conceived of in terms of the conduit metaphor, shown in the examples below
where “the content” of uppgift is underlined.
(13) a. Framställningen bör innehålla uppgift om övriga omständigheter.
report.the ought to.contain information about other circumstances
The report ought to contain information about other circumstances.
b. att uppgiften skall avse näringsidkarens registrerade firma
that information.the shall concern manufacturer.the.GEN registered firm
that the information should concern the manufacturer’s registered firm
In some uses, however, only the content is focused – disregarding the embracing
verbal form. For instance, this is the case when uppgift is combined with the
verb stämma ‘to be correct’:
(14) Stämmer uppgiften?
is.correct information.the
Is the information correct?
57

Compare also the example in (15) where uppgift takes an attribute that modifies
the truth of the verbal content:
(15) tvivelaktiga / äkta uppgifter
doubtful / genuine information.PLUR
doubtful / genuine information
In other uses the focus is shifted the other way around, so to speak, i.e. to the
form of the verbal information, disregarding the conceptual content. In (16) this
has led to an almost concrete sense of the word uppgift.
(16) De uppgifter som förr sparades på papper finns idag…
those information.PLUR that previously saved.PASS on paper is.found
today…
The information that previously was saved on paper is found today…
Given the semantic description of uppgift – “a message containing a statement”
– form and content are different facets of the meaning (see 2.1.). Thus the
different uses focusing on either the form or the content – or referring to both –
are contextual meaning variants, not different senses. Out of context, both
aspects (form and content) are simultaneously referred to.
Another meaning of uppgift, which is clearly distinct from ‘information’, is
‘task’. This meaning can be paraphrased as “a certain activity, with a certain
purpose, that is expected to be executed by a given person, organization etc.”. 10
(17) a. Åklagarens uppgift är att försöka visa att…
prosecutor.the.GEN task is to try to.show that…
The prosecutor’s task is to try to show that…
b. Musikernas uppgift är den svåraste.
musician.PLUR.the.GEN task is the most.difficult
The musicians’ task is the most difficult one.
10
The definition is taken from the lexical database GLDB/SDB (see Järborg 1999).
58

At first glance the two meanings of uppgift seem to be unrelated, but I will argue
that there is a cognitively plausible way of connecting the two. Uppgift appeared
with the meaning ‘information’ in the 17 th century, derived from the complex
Swedish verb upgiva ‘to give away’, ‘inform’. In the 18 th century the noun
appears also with the meaning ‘task’, which is a translation loan from German
Aufgabe with the same meaning (NEO). Common for both meanings however is
the conception of an action chain (see 2.2.) underlying the semantics of the
derivational verb base ‘to give away’. When used to mean ‘information’ (Fig. 7)
the profiled entity – LM1 – is equal to the message transferred from TR to LM2.
TR LM1 LM2
‘statement’
COMMUNICATION
Fig. 7. The schematic structure of ‘information’.
On the other hand, when used to mean ‘task’, LM1 is identical to “a piece of
activity” that, also, is transferred (given) to LM2. The underlying schematic
structure is identical, but the boundary of the profile is different. LM1 is still the
entity focused on, but also LM2 is hosted within the profile – reflecting the fact
that ‘task’ refers to a goal-oriented action. The lexical content of LM1 is due to
the different cognitive domains (bases) in which the noun uppgift is interpreted.
TR LM1 LM2
task’
ACTIVITY
Fig. 8. The schematic structure of ‘task’.
59

The representations in fig. 7 and 8, respectively, are assumed to be different
specifications of the schematic structure underlying the verb upgiva ‘to give
away’, of which the noun uppgift is derived.
Summarizing, the meaning category of uppgift includes both the meaning
‘information’ and the related but distinct (i.e. lexical) meaning ‘task’. The
former meaning has contextual variants focusing on either the form of the verbal
message or the content expressed. The meaning ‘task’ is linked to ‘information’
(and its variants) by means of a different construal of the profile, in turn related
to different bases of the underlying schematic structure.
2.4. Fråga ‘question’
In Modern Swedish the central meaning of fråga is ‘question’, which according
to SAOB is elaborated as “request for information about a state of affairs of
which one is ignorant” (my translation). The complex meaning is derived from
the verb fråga “to ask”, elaborated as “x asks for information from z”. The
underlying schematic structure is thus the same as for uppgift. That is, the
schematic structures of fråga and uppgift, respectively, are variants of the
general action chain (see 2.2, 2.3.), where the TR transfers an entity (LM1) to a
recipient (LM2). In Fig. 9, illustrating the schematic structure of ‘question’, the
profiled entity LM1 is the ‘question’, which is understood in relation to the
cognitive domain STATE OF AFFAIRS. The entire action chain in turn is related
to the domain COMMUNICATION.
TR LM1 LM2
‘question’
[STATE OF AFFAIRS]
COMMUNICATION
Fig. 9. The schematic structure of ‘question’.
60

What the meaning variants of fråga have in common is that they all select
elements in either of the bases – STATE OF AFFAIRS vs. COMMUNICATION – and
promote them to the profile. The most salient meaning variants of fråga are
given below, numbered F1–F5. The central meaning is referred to as F.
F1: “state of affairs of which one is ignorant”, which further develops into
“problem, matters”, cf. the examples in (18):
(18) a. frågan är hur vi ska göra med X
question.the is how we shall do with X
the question is what to do with X
b. lösa en fråga
to.dissolve a question
to dissolve a question (i.e. a problem)
Meaning derivation: F > F1, as a result of promotion of elements in the base
STATE OF AFFAIRS into the profile, combined with a conventionalized
pragmatic inference. The inference is based – hypothetically – on the reasoning
that a state of affairs of which one is ignorant easily may become problematic.
F2: “state of affairs”; exemplified by:
(19) ekonomiska, sociala, politiska frågor
economical, social, political matters
economical, social, political matters
Meaning derivation: F1 > F2, as a result of generalization of meaning F1 (“state
of affairs of which one is ignorant”).
F3: “discussion; consideration (about a state of affairs)”, illustrated by an
example from the 18 th century:
Meaning derivation: F > F3, as a result of selection of elements in the base
COMMUNICATION. The meaning F3 relates to the reciprocal communication, of
which the questioning is part.
61

F4: “argument, debate, dispute” (18 th –19 th century), exemplified by:
(21) Det är bekant, hvad fråga varit emellan Philosophiska Sedelärare, om
en enda princip för Sedeläran (SAOB)
it is known what dispute been between philosophical moral.philosophers,
about one single principle for moral.philosophy.the
It is known what dispute has been between philosophical moral philosophers,
about one single principle for the moral philosophy
Meaning derivation: F3 > F4, as a result of pragmatic inference. The motivation
for this assumption is that “discussion” often implies “disagreement”.
F5: “doubt”, exemplified by:
(22) Frågan är om fästingar verkligen orsakar hjärnhinneinflammation.
question.the is whether ticks really cause meningitis
The question is whether ticks really cause meningitis.
Meaning derivation: F > F5 as a result of selection of elements in the base
STATE OF AFFAIRS, combined with pragmatic inference. The reasoning goes as
follows: it is likely that one may be doubtful about a state of affairs of which one
is ignorant.
The developmental network of fråga is summarized in Fig. 10.
F
F1 F3 F5
F2
F4
Fig. 10 . The developmental network of fråga ‘question’.
62

As for the meaning variants F1, F3, F5 they can all be traced back to meaning F
– through the process of selection of elements in either of the two bases of the
semantic predication. The variant F2 in fact instantiates the meaning of an entire
domain (STATE OF AFFAIRS), present in the variant F1 (and F).
3. Summary and conclusion
The present account of the semantics of four abstract nouns leads to the
following – tentative – conclusions. Firstly, the semantic pole of a noun pro
filing a region may host a schematized relational structure. More precisely this
schematic structure is what Talmy (2000) refers to as an event frame with
particular characteristics depending on the conceptual content of the noun. The
event structure embedded in the profile is inherited from a related verb, either
this verb is synchronically present (uppgift) or not (tillfälle). However, the
embedded event is invariably construed as a whole unit, giving rise to a holistic
conceptualization. Secondly, it has been demonstrated that processes generating
semantic variation and change operate on the schematized structure underlying
the lexical representation of a linguistic expression. Among these processes are
selection of elements of the profile vs. the base, and change of setting of the
entire event structure.
Selection amounts to the foregrounding of x, where x is either part of the
profile or the base. In the latter case, the elements in the profile is backgrounded
– i.e. put in the base – and substituted by the new profiled element(s).
Generalization and promotion are taken to be subcases of selection. The former
amounts to a case where the foregrounding of x leads to the elimination of other
elements in the profile, leaving x as the only profiled content. The latter amounts
to promoting of elements from the base to the profile. Change of setting is
assumed to be a general construal mechanism – a transformational device –
giving rise to new meaning variants.
The prerequisites of meaning variation of a lexeme are intrinsic in the
underlying schematic structure as well as in the construal operations that may
apply to that structure. Thus every instance of semantic change and variation –
either resulting in polysemy or contextual meaning variation – is motivated by
the possibilities of varying a given schematized structure by means of general
and cognitively motivated construal operations.
63

4. References
Croft, William, 1998: The Structure of Events and the Structure of Language.
The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to
Language Structure ed. by Michael Tomasello, 67–92. London: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Croft, William, 2000: Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary
Approach. Harlow, England: Longman.
Croft, William & Esther J. Wood, 2000: Construal operations in linguistics and
artificial intelligence. Meaning and Cognition. A multidisciplinary approach
ed. by Liliana Albertazzi, 51–78. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cruse, D. Alan, 2003: The construal of sense boundaries. Revue de Sémantique
et Pragmatique 12, 101–119.
Ekberg, Lena, 2001: Transformations on the Path-schema and a minimal
lexicon. Studia Linguistica 55:3, 301–323.
Ekberg, Lena, this volume: Image schema transformations and cross-linguistic
polysemy.
Hellquist, Elof, 1957 [1922]: Svensk etymologisk ordbok. 3 uppl. Lund:
Gleerups förlag.
Järborg, Jerker, 1999: Lexikon i konfrontation. Research Reports from the
Department of Swedish, Göteborg University.
Langacker, Ronald W., 1987: Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. I.
Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W., 1991: Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. II.
Descriptive Application. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
NEO = Nationalencyklopedins ordbok, 1996: Språkdata, Göteborg & Bra
Böcker, Höganäs.
ODEE = C. T. Onions, ed. 1966: The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Paradis, Carita. 2003: Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets and active
zones. The Department of English in Lund Working Papers in Linguistics 3.
77–91.
Paradis, Carita, submitted: Lexical meaning as ontologies and construals.
Reddy, Michael, 1979: The Conduit Metaphor. Metaphor and Thought ed. by A.
Ortony, 284–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64

SAOB = Ordbok över svenska språket utgiven av Svenska Akademien. 1889–.
Lund.
Schmid, Hans-Jörg, 2000: English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From
Corpus to Cognition. (= Topics in English Linguistics, 34.) Berlin & New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Söderwall, K. F., 1884–1918: Ordbok öfwer Svenska Medeltidsspråket. Lund.
Talmy, Leonard, 2000: Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. I & II. Mass.: MIT
Press.
65