The verbs creep and escape fall within various subdomains because of their metaphorical extension.
| VERB | SUBDOMAIN | MEANING |
| Creep | To move in a particular way | To move quietly and slowly in order to get to a place without being noticed |
| To move slowly | To move (light/shadow/mist) very slowly, so that you hardly notice it (lit.) | |
| Escape | To move off/away from a place/thing/person | To leave a place after doing sth illegal |
| To move out of a place | To move (gas/liquid) out of an object/a container |
Creep typically describes a person’s slow movement towards a place and thus falls primarily within the subdomain To move in a particular way, which refers to movement on land. Yet it also belongs to the subdomain To move slowly through a process of personification (Object/Substance=Human), whereby a concrete entity semantically marked as “light/ shadow/ mist” is seen as a human entity. The meaning components speed —“slowly”— and secrecy —“without/hardly being noticed”— are basic to the definition of both verbs.
On the other hand, escape falls in the subdomains To move off/away from a place/ thing/ person and To move out of a place. This double membership obtains from the metaphorization of liquid as a human entity:
(23) Gas is escaping from this hole.
Interfield membership of MOVEMENT verbs
We have so far analysed the intrafield membership of a set of MOVEMENT verbs, i.e. their grouping under several subdomains within the semantic domain of MOVEMENT. We will now focus on the verbs’ interfield membership, i.e. their projection onto other semantic fields.
The relations of a semantic domain with others codify metaphorical processes, thus showing that lexical structure is governed by conceptual structure., or, in Sweetser’s words (1990:25), “much of meaning is grounded in speakers’ understanding of the world”. Indeed, each language is equivalent to a particular conceptual system by means of which we interpret our environment, and this conceptual organization is reflected in the lexicon. This means that metaphor is not only a cognitive but also a linguistic phenomenon. Metaphorical processes are encoded in the lexicon and must thus be integrated in a lexical model.
Therefore, the codification of metaphorical processes in the lexicon not only tells us a great deal about how we understand and construct reality but also reflects the internal organization of the lexicon.
Below we sketch the metaphors codified in the domain of MOVEMENT, which establish connections with the semantic fields of COGNITION, SPEECH, CHANGE, FEELING and ACTION.
| MET. PROCESS | TYPE METAPHOR | METAPHOR | LEX. EXPRESSION | TARGET DOMAIN |
| Reification | Concretization | Idea = Object | swing, revolve, stuff cram, shove | COGNITION |
| Words = Object | raise, drop, pass | SPEECH | ||
| Ideas/Words = Cloth | spin, weave | SPEECH | ||
| Place/Space | Activity = Place | rush, leave, quit abandon | ACTION | |
| Orientational | Health = Up | fall, sink | CHANGE | |
| Pitch = Up | rise, raise, sink, lower drop | CHANGE | ||
| More = Up | jump, rise, raise, fall sink, plunge, plummet come down, lower drop, sink | CHANGE | ||
| Importance/Status = Up | rise, climb, come down | CHANGE | ||
| Happy = Up | fall, sink, lift | FEELING | ||
| Activity/Process = Movement forward | push, prod | ACTION | ||
| Personification | Emotion = Sense expression | shake, tremble, shiver shudder, quiver | FEELING | |
| Idea = Human | slip, escape | COGNITION | ||
| Body part = Human | fall, sink | FEELING |
Following Goatly (1997), the metaphorization of abstract entities can obtain through a process of reification or personification. Reifying metaphors fall into three categories:
|
|
(i) Concretizing metaphors, which codify the representation of abstract entities as objects or cloth/clothes (first row).
(ii) Orientational metaphors, i.e. equations linked to the notion of place/space (second row).
(iii) Metaphors related to the notion of orientation. Abstract concepts such as health, pitch, happiness, amount and rank are seen as entities on a vertical axis (up/down)5.
The last set of equations codify the personification of abstract entities.
Note that some verbs codify several metaphors, e.g. rise, fall, sink, lower. In this regard, we may affirm that the intrafield membership correlates with the interfield double membership.
Movement and change
The projection of MOVEMENT onto CHANGE touches upon verbs denoting an increase or decrease in amount or degree, thus linking MOVEMENT to CHANGE, since the semantic parameters of amount and degree traverse the domain of CHANGE. The connection between both semantic fields obtains from a set of orientational metaphors (cf. above):
(24) He has risen to the position of manager.
(25) Share prices have plunged.
Movement and feeling
|
|
MOVEMENT verbs also extend to FEELING. This extension results from the codification of several metaphorical processes:
- the metaphorical representation of a feeling (happiness) on an up/down scale:
(26) Whenever I feel down, Martha lifts my spirits.
(27) Peter’s face fell when I broke the news to him.
- the personification of body parts. This metaphor interacts with the previous one (cf. example above).
- the metaphorical structuring of emotions as sense expressions. The verbs shake, tremble,shiver, shudder and quiver describe body movement as expression of an internal emotional state (anxiety, fear, disgust). This metaphorical process can be explained by the fact that emotions have corresponding physical effects on the experiencer, and these effects have come to represent the emotion that caused them:
(28) He trembled like a leaf at the sight of the tiger.
Movement and cognition
The metaphorical projection of MOVEMENT into COGNITION results from a process of reification or personification of abstract entities. On the one hand, ideas can be metaphorized as objects moving in/into (revolve, penetrate) or out of somebody’s mind (slip, escape):6
(29) The importance of her decision did not penetrate at first.
(30) His surname has slipped my mind.
(31) There is a major point which seems to have escaped you.
To use Halliday’s terminology (1994:117), the last examples are instances of the please-type metaphorical structuring of mental processes. Mental processes can be represented either as like-types or please-types. This means that I like X is equivalent to X pleases me. Then, It has slipped my mind/It has escaped me has the same meaning as I have forgotten it.
Ideas can also be seen as objects which are pushed into someone’s mind:
(32) He stuffed my head full of strange ideas.
Following Reddy (1993), the verbs stuff, cram and shove lexicalize an aspect of the conduit metaphor, which explains the conceptualization of communication as the transfer of thoughts bodily from one person to another.
MOVEMENT AND SPEECH
The verbs raise, drop, pass, spin and weave show the extension of MOVEMENT to SPEECH. Ideas can be communicated like objects being moved: raise (a subject, an objection), drop7 (a hint, remark), pass (a sentence, remark):
(33) You shouldn’t drop hints about promotion to your boss.
Words can also be metaphorically seen as strands of thread that the speaker puts together to produce a coherent message:
(34) The old sea captain sat by the fire spinning yawns.
Movement and action
The connection of MOVEMENT with ACTION is established though the metaphorization of activities as places. Activities can be described as if they were linear motion. It is then possible to move into (rush) or away from an activity (leave, quit, abandon):
|
|
(35) They abandoned the game because of the rain.
On the other hand, causing an activity is causing movement forward:
(36) She pushed me into taking the job.
Conclusion
The semantic analysis of the field of MOVEMENT has shown that words are embedded in a set of rich semantic relations. The focalization of a meaning component and the genus of the lexeme account for the extension of a few MOVEMENT verbs to other subdomains within the domain (intrafield extensions). On the other hand, the metaphorical processes encoded in the semantic domain of MOVEMENT account for the projection of many verbs onto other semantic fields (interfield extensions), thus giving proof of the linguistic significance of metaphor.a
Notes
1 This assumption is found in some semantic theories (i.e. prototype semantics).
2 By working upwards from the definitional structure of primary lexemes, Faber and Mairal (1997) have identified eleven semantic domains corresponding to basic conceptual categories: EXISTENCE, MOVEMENT, POSITION, CHANGE, PERCEPTION, FEELING, COGNITION, POSSESSION, SPEECH, SOUND, and GENERAL ACTION.
3 The concept of subdomain is based on Geckeler´s (1971) concept of lexical dimension.
4 See appendix for the configuration of the paradigmatic axis of the semantic domain of MOVEMENT.
5 Lakoff and Johnson’s Experiential Hypothesis (1980: 267-268) postulates that most abstract concepts arise from our preconceptual bodily experiences as infants —like the experience of up and down— by metaphorical projection.
6 Note the conceptualization of the mind as a place. As Romelhart (1993:89) points out: “We use a spatial world to talk about the mind”.
7 This verb codifies the conduit metaphor (cf. above).
8 The verbs in brackets are an example of the type of verbs falling in each subdomain.
Список литературы
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1977. Principios de Semántica Estructural. Madrid: Gredos.
Dik, Simon C. 1997. Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Faber, Pamela and Ricardo Mairal. 1997. “The Paradigmatic and the Syntagmatic Structure of the Semantic Field of EXISTENCE in the Elaboration of a Semantic Macronet”. In Studies in Language 21 (1) (Amsterdam: John Benjamins): 119-154.
---. 1998. “Towards a Semantic Syntax”. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses: 37-64.
---. 1999. Constructing an English Lexicon for Verbs. Berlin: Mouton.
Geckeler, Horst. 1971. Strukturelle Semantik und Wortfeldtheorie. Munich: Fink.
Goatly, Andrew. 1997. The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge.
Halliday, Mark. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Martín Mingorance, Leocadio. 1984. “Lexical Fields and Stepwise Lexical Decomposition in a Contrastive English-Spanish Verb Valency Dictionary”. In Hartman, R. R. K. (ed.). LEXeter ’83 Proceedings. Papers from the International Conference on Lexicography at Exeter. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer: 226-236.
---. 1985a. “La semántica sintagmática del adjetivo. Parámetros para la organización de un lexicón inglés/ español de valencias adjetivales”. Actas del II Congreso Nacional de la Asociación Española de Lingüística Aplicada. Madrid: Sociedad General Española de Librería: 329-340.
---. 1985b. “Bases metodológicas para un estudio contrastivo del léxico derivado”. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada. 1: 37-54.
---. 1987a. “Classematics in a Functional-lexematic Grammar of English”. Actas del X Congreso de la Asociación Española de Estudios Anglo-Norteamericanos. Zaragoza: Publicaciones de la Universidad: 377-382.
---. 1987b. “Semes, Semantics, Classemes, and Dimensions: the Lexicological and Lexicographic Perspectives”. Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Linguists. Berlin: 10-15.
---. 1987c. “Pragmatic Features in the Lexicon of a Functional Grammar”. Proceedings of the International Pragmatics Conference. Antwerp: 17-22.
---. 1990a. “Functional Grammar and Lexematics in Lexicography”. In Tomaszczyk, J. and B. Lewandoska-Tomaszczy. (eds.). Meaning and Lexicography, Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 227-253.
---. 1990b. “Léxico y sintaxis en la gramática funcional de S. C. Dik”. Cuadernos de Investigación Filológica. Logroño: CUL.
Ortony, A. (ed.). Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.
Reddy, Mark J. 1993. “The Conduit Metaphor”. In Ortony, A. (ed.): 285-324.
Romelhart, David E. 1993. “Some Problems with the Notion of Literal Meanings”. In Ortony, A. (ed.).
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.