Image-Schema transformations and cross-linguistic polysemy: a matter of terminology

In her 2004 paper (Transformation on image schemas and cross-linguistic polysemy), Lena Ekberg is generally concerned with diachronic semantic change across different languages and she argues that cross-linguistic semantic change is cognitively motivated. She recognises that "[m]odern research within the field of historical lexical semantics and grammaticalization in fact has provided arguments that meaning change is motivated by cognitive principles independent of specific languages" (p.42). Although Ekberg (2004) links with my project in the sense that it takes a cross-linguistic approach to investigate polysemous lexical items while trying to incorporate a Cognitive Semantics approach, it differs from my project in two major ways: i) it identifies specific semantic changes in specific languages and then compares those changes cross-linguistically; and ii) it considers semantic variance diachronically. My project, on the other hand, is concerned with cross-linguistic semantic change in terms of word senses in language x affecting the senses of corresponding words in language y. Further, my project is concerned with on-line cross-linguistic semantic interference and is not concerned with the development of word senses overtime. Despite these differences, Ekberg (2004) is of interest to me because it raises a number of terminology-, methodology- and theoretical framework-related issues.

Ekberg's overall stand on semantic change is stated in Construal operations in semantic change: the case of abstract nouns):

"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" (p.63)

Further,

"[T]he processes generating semantic variation and change operate on the schematized structure underlying the lexical representation of a linguistic expression" (p. ).

Ekberg investigates cross-linguistic semantic change by considering and trying to bring together two theoretical approaches with different theoretical assumptions: the lexical semantics approach and the cognitive semantics approach. In her investigation of "the potential polysemy of lexemes based on a common schema" (p.25), Ekberg (2004) attempts to deal simultaneously with lexical patterns, conceptual processes and cognitive mechanisms. Overall, the paper highlights the limitations of such an inclusive methodology that ultimately relies on loose use of terminology.

Ekberg's (2004) working 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" (p.26)
  

Ekberg (2004) claims that:

• polysemy results from a process of image-schema transformation which itself results from a mental construal process
• polysemy refers to meaning variants of the same lexeme related by means of image-schema transformations and which are regarded as separate senses, i.e. instantiation of polysemy
  
• lexical meaning extensions reflecting transformations of image-schematic structure are cognitively motivated and thus arise cross-linguistically
• image-schema transformations are motivated by mental construal processes

Raising issues:

• Ekberg recognises the image schema transformation as a central process in the emergence of new senses. However, in the paper, the term image schema lacks a reliable working definition. The term is first defined on page 28, in the sense of Johnson (1987) as " a recurring dynamic pattern [...] that gives coherence and structure to our experience". The term is then later referred to on page 36 as being "the most abstract basis of lexical meaning", and on page 43 as an "underlying abstract semantic structure". In other words, throughout the paper, it is unclear whether the term refers to schematic representations of word senses or whether it refers to schematic representations of physical experiences. In the first case, the approach to cross-linguistic semantic change and polysemy is lexically based. In the second case, the approach is experientially based and therefore conceptual in nature (i.e. pre-linguistic). Distinguishing between the two cases is important because they both ultimately refer to different stages/levels in the construction of meaning. The author's attempt to bridge lexical matters (i.e. linguistic in nature) and conceptual matters (i.e. pre-linguistic in nature) creates a degree of confusion about the level of abstraction targeted in the discussion.
  
• Similarly, the term cognitively motivated ("lexical meaning extensions reflecting transformations of image-schematic structure are cognitively motivated and thus arise cross-linguistically") calls for clarification. Assuming that lexical meaning extensions do reflect transformations of image-schematic structure (as understood in the CL framework) then those meaning extensions are by definition cognitively motivated and the phrase quoted above is redundant and therefore not useful. Alternatively, the term (in the context of the example) could be referring to a speaker's specific cognitive ability which could be applied to the process of lexical meaning extensions.Under the term cognitive, it is unclear whether the author refers to a cognitive ability allowing speakers to extend lexical meanings in similar ways in different languages or whether the author refers to a conceptual process (i.e. image-schema, as understood in the CL framework). Without a solid working definition of the term image schema, it is difficult to recognise that polysemy results from a process of image schema transformation. It is also difficult to recognise what exactly is being transformed in the process of meaning extension: the schematic representation of lexical meanings or the image schema as an analog representation of a physical experience.
  

Ekberg (2004) raises questions about the possibility of/feasibility in bridging the lexical and the conceptual via the cognitive process of image schema. As far as my study is concerned, even though an overall CL approach to may/can in French-English IL will allow for an analysis of how the senses of may/can are represented in the French-English bilingual mind, the study may well be restricted to show just that! Talmy, Sweetser and Johnson have investigated the English modals in terms of linguitsic tools referring to the image schema of Force Dynamic. Although I cannot ignore such studies, the question is now how can they be exploited empirically?