The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics Part 78 pdf

involves an increase in the range of a morpheme advancing from a lexical to a grammatical or from less grammatical to more grammatical status’’—the renewed interest in grammaticalization focused not only on the description of the morpho- syntactic changes that morphemes underwent but also on the semantic and pragmatic changes, which, according to several scholars, precede and drive grammaticaliza- tion. A number of important publications on various grammaticalization pheno- mena in different languages converged in further advancing our knowledge of the process. Studies by Bybee and Pagliuca (1985), Lehmann (1985), Traugott (1982, 1988), among others, provided the theoretical and empirical foundations for a theory of grammaticalization with the following characteristics: a. Grammaticalization is a diachronic process, although it can be interpreted synchronically. b. Grammaticalization affects the morphosyntactic status of a lexical or gram- matical form; forms/grams become phonologically eroded, their position within the sentence becomes gradually more fixed, and they lose in cate- goriality. c. Grammaticalization involves semantic generalization; forms tend to as- sume more general meanings, losing some of their semantic specificities while retaining the basic semantic schema. Such semantic generalization is seen as a precursor to morphosyntactic changes. d. Grammaticalization is a unidirectional process in that it leads from a ‘‘less grammatical’’ to a ‘‘more grammatical’’ unit but not vice versa. The development of adpositions from lexical sources features prominently in most of these studies. Initially, however, the focus was on the changes that affect their morphosyntactic character. It was not until the cross-fertilization of grammati- calization theory with metaphor theory that the semantic aspect of grammatica- lization started to become interesting. The study of metaphor as a literary device is as old as literary tradition it- self. The publication of Lakoff and Johnson (1980) and Lakoff (1987) provided the scholarly community with a new insight into metaphor and its ubiquity. According to them, metaphor is not simply a literary device, but a kind of conceptual ma- nipulation that humans do, which enables the linguistic structures we call ‘‘met- aphorical’’ (see also Grady, this volume, chapter 8). Metaphor is seen as the process responsible for creating the polysemy found in language (Brugman 1981) on the synchronic level. New uses emerge out of extensions of aspects of the meaning of a lexical item to a new context, which is unfamiliar, abstract, or difficult to comprehend. Such extensions are unidirectional going from concrete, familiar, comprehensible domains to abstract and unfamiliar domains. The process of metaphorical extension involves imposition of an image schema, which is the basis of our understanding of the meaning of a lexical item, to a new situation for the purpose of understanding the new situation. The classic example here involves the use of spatial expressions such as before and after for our understanding of time. From the historical vantage point, the combination of grammaticalization theory and metaphor theory seemed only natural at that point: grammaticalization 740 soteria svorou theorists where looking foranexplanation of whatdrives this process, where abstract grammatical concepts emerge out of concrete lexical concepts, and why it happens, and metaphor theory involved expressing an abstract domain by making use of lexical means from a more concrete domain. Studies by Claudi and Heine (1986), Heine and Claudi (1986), Svorou (1986, 1988), Heine (1989), and Heine, Claudi, and Hu ¨ nnemeyer (1991a, 1991b) employ metaphorical extension as the mechanism that operates in early stages of grammaticalization. The most straightforward ar- gument in support of metaphorical extension taking place in grammaticalization that was offered involved the development of spatial and temporal adpositions. Data from a wide range of languages—Claudi and Heine (1986) and Heine (1989) on data from 125 African languages, Bowden (1992) on data from 125 Oceanic languages, and Svorou (1986) on data from 26 genetically unrelated languages— provided evidence for a grammaticalization model of adpositions touching upon their semantic as well as their morphosyntactic character. Spatial adpositions in- volving locative orientational notions such as ‘in’, ‘on’, ‘above’, ‘under’, ‘in front’, ‘behind’, and ‘between’ evolve from lexical sources that involve body-part nouns (human or animal) and landmark nouns. 4 Along similar lines, Haspelmath (1997) provides evidence of the evolution of temporal grams from spatial grams. In looking at the sources of grams with the same meaning/function, one is struck by the fact that cross-linguistically there is a relatively small set of nominal or verbal forms out of which specific grams arise. For example, ‘in’ grams develop from body-part terms expressing notions such as belly, abdomen, heart, mouth, liver, bowels, kidneys, tooth, torso, female sexual organs, umbilicus, tongue, stom- ach, throat, intestines, or landmark nouns such as meaning ‘house’, and in a few cases, even relational nouns such as ones meaning ‘middle’ (Stolz 1992; Svorou 1994). One can only speculate at this point as to what seems to be the determining factor for ‘‘selecting’’ one of these sources to express the locative notion of ‘in’. The prevailing view is that language change is nondeterministic; therefore, predicting which language will ‘‘choose’’ which source to develop a gram of a certain type is deemed to be the wrong question to ask. In a nondeterministic view of language change, we would need to consider not only which source concept is similar to the type of target location, but all sorts of other factors such as cultural facts about specific body parts or landmarks as well as associated frequency of activation effects of such facts, other existing grams in the language of the same type, and possible language contact effects. This is a complex area of future inquiry in the field, which grammaticalization researchers have started to tackle by looking at language change in the making. What can be said about the relation between source and target concepts in the development of relational grams is that the same image schema configuration exists (Sweetser 1988; Heine, Claudi, and Hu ¨ nnemeyer 1991b; Rubba 1994). So, for example, body-part terms such as belly, abdomen, heart, liver, bowels, stomach, intestines, umbilicus, tongue, throat, and female sexual organs are all characterized by their position relative to the human body as being in its interior. In the development of such terms into relational grams expressing containment, the relational aspect of their semantics of being contained has been retained. The container is no longer the human body but rather a generalized landmark notion relational constructions in cognitive linguistics 741 which can accommodate a host of concrete as well as abstract entities construed as containers, as, for example, in in the building, in the water, in my thoughts. The role of metaphor in language change, and specifically the development of relational grams, would not be as compelling if it were not for ample evidence for the synchronic deployment of this process. In many languages, nominal sources and their relational gram targets exist at the same synchronic period. Brugman (1983) and Brugman and Macaulay (1986), for example, among several other studies, provide such evidence for spatial grams of Chalcatongo Mixtec. The synchronic existence of such forms create the preconditions for potential grammaticalization and license the assumption that similar synchronic stages have existed even in cases where no such direct evidence can be documented. While a number of scholars have attributed the historical development of ad- positions to metaphor and metaphorical processes (Heine, Claudi, and Hu ¨ nnemeyer 1991a, 1991b, and others), others argue that metaphor as a process is too static and stiff to account for small meaning adjustments that take place when a particular con- struction gets fine-tuned to the current context. Schwenter and Traugott (1995: 264), for example, in discussing the development of English instead of/in place of/in lieu of, building on discussion presented in Traugott and Ko ¨ nig (1991), Heine, Claudi, and Hu ¨ nnemeyer (1991b), and Hopper and Traugott (1993), propose ‘‘that a metaphor is predominantly a product where meaning change as opposed to individual, often creative innovations, is concerned. By contrast, metonymy, being associative and pragmatically involving context-induced inferencing, is an ongoing process which results in a new product (Heine’s ‘context-induced reinterpretation’) but is poten- tially present in all language use.’’. The product of historical change may look like metaphor but has resulted from the process of context-induced reinterpretation. The small meaning adjustments induced by context that take place constantly in language use result in observable changes which are the result of high frequency use of a set of meaning adjustments. Such changes have been represented by evo- lutionary chains or continua with identifiable stages linking sets of sources and targets. Heine (1997: 44), summarizing analyses of cross-linguistic data presented in Heine, Claudi, and Hu ¨ nnemeyer (1991b) and Svorou (1994), presents a four- stage scenario of conceptual shift from body-part to spatial concept as follows: a. Stage 1: a region of the human body b. Stage 2: a region of an (inanimate object) c. Stage 3: a region in contact with an object d. Stage 4: a region detached from the object These conceptual shifts involve the development of one type of relational grams that have their source in body-part terms. This type of grams constitutes a large part of spatial grams, but they are not the only sources of relational grams. Others develop from landmark nouns, such as earth, ground, sky, trace, and footprint, and relational nouns, such as front, middle, back, interior, and so on. Sources other than nominal include adverbs, such as up and down, and verbs, such as ascend, descend, fall, enter, exit, and so on. The above studies, as well as Heine and Kuteva (2002), provide detailed discussions and data in support of these developments. 742 soteria svorou Conceptual shifts are accompanied by, or even trigger, changes in the mor- phosyntactic status of the forms undergoing grammaticalization. The above stages of conceptual shift are paralleled by the following morphosyntactic changes: a. Stage 1 : head noun in genitive inalienable construction (the front ‘forehead’ of my father) (< Latin frons ‘forehead’) b. Stage 2: head noun in genitive construction (the front of the house) c. Stage 3: head noun embedded in relational construction (in the front of the house) d. Stage 4: relational gram with genitive NP complement (in front of the house) The grammaticalization does not stop with stage 4. Once a form becomes gram- matical, semantic generalization may lead to other changes in the morphosyntactic form. One such change expands the possibilities of the case of the complement that the relational gram may take to include an accusative NP (before him). As many studies have shown, relational grams of adpositional nature may become bound in the form of affixes, as case markers (Reh 1986). Alternatively, adpositions may become subordinators of various adverbial clauses (Genetti 1986, 1991). This is what is expected by the broadening of the types of contexts that a relational gram is used in: phrasal relations and clausal relations are conceived of as being analogous to nominal relations. One determinant of the degree of grammaticalization that a construction may reach may be the type of language. Bybee (1997) has argued that some languages generalize grammatical meaning to a greater extent than others do, and consequently, we observe differences in the level of grammaticalization of forms in functionally equivalent constructions. Another determinant is the particular semantics of a con- struction. As I have argued (Svorou 2002b), across languages, interior region grams are more likely to reach high levels of grammaticalization as compared to top or bottom region grams and the latter more likely than front or back region grams. It is conjectured that this asymmetry is due to the semantic and cognitive complexity of front and back region grams as compared to interior region grams. In the process of grammaticalization, which does not stop with a gram reach- ing a point clearly recognizable as an adposition, relational grams change in terms of their semantics. The process of change has been described as semantic bleach- ing (Givo ´ n 1979), generalization (Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994), or seman- tic attenuation (Langacker 1990b), in contrast to earlier accounts which hold that grammatical material may become practically meaningless. One of the aspects of semantic change of relational grams involves a shift from describing an objective situation to representing a construal of the situation from the point of view of a conceptualizer, therefore, providing a subjective view of it. For example, compare (8) and (9), which illustrate an objective and a subjective point of view of a scene. (8) The squirrel jumped over the fence. (9) The squirrel is over the fence. relational constructions in cognitive linguistics 743 In (8), the squirrel occupied a series of positions sequentially leading from one side of the fence to the other, thus representing an objective sequence of events. In (9), however, the squirrel may be in the same position with respect to the fence and the observer but occupying this position did not necessarily involve moving to the other side of the fence; yet, the conceptualizer in (9) construes the relation subjectively, as if the squirrel had in fact moved. This phenomenon has also been observed by Matsumoto (1996), who terms it subjective motion, and has been explored extensively by Talmy (1996, 2000), who talks about fictive motion. Talmy also observes that there is an asymmetry in that the process of conceptualizing static events in terms of dy- namic is more common than the process of conceptualizing dynamic events as static. While these aspects of grammaticalization are generally supported by research and accepted, other aspects still remain controversial or unresolved. One such aspect involves the claim that grammaticalization is a unidirectional process, which creates grams out of lexical items (Heine, Claudi, and Hu ¨ nnemeyer 1991a; Traugott and Heine 1991; Hopper and Traugott 1993; Haspelmath 1999). Recent studies, however, point to a reversal of the process, degrammaticalization, where a gram gets to be used as a lexical item (Ramat 1992; Campbell 2001;Janda2001; Norde 2001). Given that lexicon and grammar form a continuum, some fluency might be expected, but such a process may also depend on the kind of grammatical element at issue; a spatial gram may give rise to a noun (the ups and downs), but for a verbal perfective affix this would be more difficult. Another question involves the distinction of degram- maticalization from conversion or functional shift. When the English preposition up is used as a verb to up , I would argue that this is an example of conversion rather than degrammaticalization, since this shift can happen instantaneously and takes place outside the construction in which up functions as a grammatical element. Moreover, using up as a verb immediately creates all the paradigm of to up, making past-tense and participial forms available (upped, upping). In contrast, the process of degram- maticalization would involve the reversal of the process of grammaticalization of an element within its construction and would be a gradual process (Svorou 2002a). It still remains to be resolved in cases where an adposition is also used as an adverb whether it is an example of degrammaticalization, conversion, or simply a common situation in grammaticalization where forms from consecutive diachronic stages may also exist at the same synchronic stage. 5. Looking Ahead: Themes for the Next Decade Despite the progress that was made within Cognitive Linguistics toward a deeper understanding of relational constructions in the last two decades, many issues re- main unresolved, unaddressed, or controversial. 744 soteria svorou One such issue has to do with the definition of a domain of investigation. Given what we have learned, is cross-language comparison more fruitful by focusing on structural or on functional equivalence? In other words, do we compare the gram- matical inventory of languages as far as a certain semantic domain is concerned, or do we compare languages as to how they express a certain domain, regardless of whether they employ lexical or grammatical means? The former view involves developing a grammatical typology of a specific domain. The latter view is what Levinson and his colleagues have argued for. Both views are indispensable since comparing results from these different perspectives would be most revealing about human language and conceptualization. Another point of future investigation remains the description of relational constructions in the languages of the world. Most studies have focused on English or European languages, resulting in a biased view of the area of inquiry. Expan- sion of the inventory of languages under investigation would enrich our under- standing of the domain. NOTES 1. Abkhaz is a head-marking language. Hewitt (1979) uses ‘‘þ’’ to indicate boundaries between morphological elements that bear derivational relations and ‘‘À’’to separate morphemes that bear clausal-level relations. 2. A comprehensive bibliography on prepositions up to the late 1970s is Guimier (1981). 3. For an account of the history of grammaticalization, see Hopper and Traugott (1993). 4. In cases where explicit historical information was not available, given the perva- siveness of the formal similarity of adpositions with body-part nouns in language after language, it was argued that the observed similarity was a result of evolution of such nouns into adpositions. REFERENCES Ameka, Felix. 1990. The grammatical packaging of experiences in Ewe: A study in the semantics of syntax. Australian Journal of Linguistics 10: 139–81. Ameka, Felix. 1995. The linguistic construction of space in Ewe. Cognitive Linguistics 6: 139–81. Anderson, John M. 1971. The grammar of case: Towards a localistic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bacz, Barbara. 1997. On the meaning and the prototype of the locative case: A semantic study of the Polish locative with the preposition przy. Langues et Linguistique 23: 1–18. Bacz, Barbara. 2000. On the status of preposition in case languages: Does preposition govern case? Langues et Linguistique 26: 1–22. relational constructions in cognitive linguistics 745 Bellavia, Ellena. 1996. The German € uber. In Martin Pu ¨ tz and Rene ´ Dirven, eds, The con- strual of space in language and thought 73–107. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bennett, David C. 1972. Some considerations concerning the locative-directional distinc- tion. Semiotica 5: 58–88. Bennett, David C. 1975. Spatial and temporal uses of English prepositions: An essay in stratificational semantics. London: Longman. Bowden, John. 1992. Behind the prepositions: Grammaticalization of locatives in oceanic languages. Canberra: Australian National University. Brugman, Claudia. 1981. Story of Over. MA thesis, University of California at Berkeley. (Published as The story of Over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland, 1988) Brugman, Claudia. 1983. The use of body-part terms as locatives in Chalcatongo Mixtec. In Alice Schlichter, Wallace L. Chafe, and Leanne Hinton, eds., Survey of California and other Indian languages 235–90. Studies in Mesoamerican Linguistics. Report no. 4. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley. Brugman, Claudia, and Monica Macaulay. 1986. Interacting semantic systems: Mixtec expressions of location. Berkeley Linguistics Society 12: 315–27. Buck, Frederick H. 1955. Comparative study of postpositions in Mongolian dialects and the written language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Am- sterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan L. 1997. Semantic aspects of morphological typology. In Joan L. Bybee, John Haiman, and Sandra Thompson, eds., Essays on language function and language type 25–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan L., and William Pagliuca. 1985. Cross-linguistic comparison and the devel- opment of grammatical meaning. In Jacek Fisiak, ed., Historical semantics and his- torical word-formation 59–83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Campbell, Lyle. 2001. What’s wrong with grammaticalization? Language Sciences 23: 113–61. Casad, Eugene. 1975. Location and direction in Cora discourse. Anthropological Linguistics 19: 216–41. Casad, Eugene. 1982. Cora locationals and structured imagery. PhD dissertation, University of California at San Diego. Casad, Eugene, and Ronald Langacker. 1985. ‘Inside’ and ‘outside’ in Cora grammar. International Journal of American Linguistics 51: 247–81. Reprinted in Ronald Lan- gacker, Concept, image, and symbol 33–57. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1990. Clark, Eve. 1978. Locationals: Existential, locative, and possessive constructions. In Joseph Greenberg, Charles Ferguson, and Edith Moravcsik, eds., Universals of human lan- guage 1: 85–126. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Clark, Herbert H. 1973. Space, time, semantics and the child. In Timothy E. Moore, ed., Cognitive development and the acquisition of language 28–63. New York: Academic Press. Clark, Marybeth. 1978. Coverbs and case in Vietnamese. Pacific Linguistics Series B, no. 48. Canberra: Australian National University. Claudi, Ulrike, and Bernd Heine. 1986. On the metaphorical base of grammar. Studies in Language 10: 297–335. Colombo, Lucia, and Giovanni B. Flores D’Arcais. 1984. The meaning of Dutch preposi- tions: A psycholinguistic study of polysemy. Linguistics 22: 51–98. 746 soteria svorou Coventry, Kenny R., Richard Carmichael, and Simon C. Garrod. 1994. Spatial prepositions, object-specific function, and task requirements. Journal of Semantics 11: 289–309. Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological per- spective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cuyckens, Hubert. 1991. The semantics of spatial prepositions in Dutch: A cognitive- linguistic exercise. PhD dissertation, University of Antwerp. Cuyckens, Hubert. 1993a. The Dutch spatial preposition in: A cognitive-semantic analysis. In Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt, ed., The semantics of prepositions: From mental pro- cessing to natural language 27–71. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cuyckens, Hubert. 1993b. Spatial prepositions in French revisited. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 291–310. Dancygier, Barbara. 2000. How Polish structures space: Prepositions, direction nouns, case, and metaphor. In Ad Foolen and Frederike van der Leek, eds., Constructions in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference 27–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Grammaticalization and the gradience of categories: Relator nouns and postpositions in Tibetan and Burmese. In Joan L. Bybee, John Haiman, and Sandra A. Thompson, eds., Essays on language function and language type 51–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Delbecque, Nicole. 1996. Towards a cognitive account of the use of the prepositions por and para in Spanish. In Eugene H. Casad, ed., Cognitive linguistics in the Redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics 249–318. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dewell, Robert. 1994. Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 5: 351–80. Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of functional grammar. Ed. Kees Hengeveld. 2 vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Friedrich, Paul. 1969a. Metaphor-like relations between referential subsets. Lingua 24: 1–10. Friedrich, Paul. 1969b. On the meaning of the Tarascan suffixes of space. International Journal of American Linguistics 35: 5–48. Friedrich, Paul. 1970. Shape in grammar. Language 46: 379–407. Garrod, Simon, Gillian Ferrier, and Siobhan Campbell. 1999. In and on: Investigating the functional geometry of spatial prepositions. Cognition 72: 167 –89. Garrod, Simon C., and Anthony J. Sanford. 1989. Discourse models as interfaces between language and the spatial world. Journal of Semantics 6: 147–60. Geeraerts, Dirk. 1992. The semantic structure of Dutch over. Leuvense Bijdragen 81: 205–30. Genetti, Carol. 1986. The development of subordinators from postpositions in Bodic languages. Berkeley Linguistics Society 12: 387–400. Genetti, Carol. 1991. From postposition to subordinator in Newari. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine, eds., Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 2, Focus on types of grammatical markers 227–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givo ´ n, Talmy. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist’s field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 7: 394–415. Givo ´ n, Talmy. 1975. Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger-Congo. In Charles Li, ed., Word order and word order change 47–117. Austin: University of Texas Press. Givo ´ n, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press. Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg, ed., Universals of language: Report of a conference held at Dobbs Ferry, New York, April 13–15, 1961 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. relational constructions in cognitive linguistics 747 Guimier, Claude. 1981. Prepositions: An analytical bibliography. Amsterdam: John Benja- mins. Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. From space to time: Temporal adverbials in the world’s languages. Munich: Lincom Europa. Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37: 1043–68. Hawkins, Bruce W. 1984. The semantics of English spatial prepositions. PhD dissertation, University of California at San Diego. (Also published as LAUT Paper no. 142, Trier, Germany: Linguistic Agency of the University of Trier, 1985) Hawkins, Bruce W. 1986. The preposition ‘out’: A case of semantic elision. LAUD Paper no. 169. Essen: Linguistic Agency of the University of Duisburg-Essen. Heaton, J. B. 1965. Prepositions and adverbial particles. Essex: Longman. Heine, Bernd. 1989. Adpositions in African languages. Linguistique Africaine 2: 77–127. Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. Heine, Bernd, and Ulrike Claudi. 1986. On the rise of grammatical categories: Some examples from Maa. (Ko ¨ lner Beitra ¨ ge zur Afrikanistik, 13.) Berlin: Reimer Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hu ¨ nnemeyer. 1991a. From cognition to grammar: Evidence from African languages. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine, eds., Approaches to grammaticalization 1: 149–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hu ¨ nnemeyer. 1991b. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heine, Bernd, and Mechthild Reh. 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. Herskovits, Annette. 1982. Space and the prepositions in English: Regularities and irreg- ularities in a complex domain. PhD dissertation, Stanford University. Herskovits, Annette. 1985. Semantics and pragmatics of locative expressions. Cognitive Science 9: 341–78. Herskovits, Annette. 1986. Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hewitt, B. G. 1979. Abkhaz. Lingua Descriptive Studies, no. 2. Amsterdam: North Holland. Hill, L. A. 1968. Prepositions and adverbial particles: An interim classification, semantic, structural and graded. London: Oxford University Press. Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (2nd ed., 2003) Houghton, Herbert P. 1961. An introduction to the Basque language: Labourdin dialect. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill. Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Janda, Richard D. 2001. Beyond ‘‘pathways’’ and ‘‘unidirectionality’’: On the discontinuity of language transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23: 265–340. Kahr, Joan Casper. 1975. Adpositions and locationals: Typology and diachronic develop- ment. Working Papers on Language Universals 19: 21–54. Kahr, Joan Casper. 1976. The renewal of case morphology: Sources and constraints. Working Papers on Language Universals 20: 107–51. Kreitzer, Anatol. 1997. Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space. Cognitive Linguistics 8: 291–326. Kristoffersen, Kristian Emil. 2001. Semantic structure of the Norwegian preposition mot. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24: 3–27. 748 soteria svorou Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1975. The evolution of grammatical categories. In Jerzy Kuryłowicz, Esquisses linguistiques 2: 38–54. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1, Theoretical prereq- uisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1990a. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald W. 1990b. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5–38. Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2, Descriptive appli- cation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Lehmann, Christian. 1982. Thoughts on grammaticalization: A programmatic sketch. Vol. 1. Cologne: Institut fu ¨ r Sprachwissenschaft der Universita ¨ t. Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20: 303–18. Levinson, Stephen C. 1991. Relativity in spatial conception and description. Working paper no. 1, Cognitive Anthropology Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Psycholin- guistics, Nijmegen, Netherlands. Levinson, Stephen C. 1994 . Vision, shape, and linguistic description: Tzeltal body-part terminology and object description. Linguistics 32: 791–856. Levinson, Stephen C. 1996. Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel, and Merrill F. Garrett, eds., Language and space 109–69. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive di- versity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, Stephen C., Se ´ rgio Meria, and The Language and Cognition Group. 2003. Natural concepts in the spatial topological domain: Adpositional meanings in cross- linguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language 79: 485–516. Li, Charles, and Sandra Thompson. 1973. Serial verb constructions in Mandarin Chinese. In Claudia Corum, T. Cendric Smith-Stark, and Ann Wieser, eds., You take the high node and I’ll take the low node: Papers from the Comparative Syntax Festival. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Li, Charles, and Sandra Thompson. 1974. Co-verbs in Mandarin Chinese: Verbs or prepositions? Journal of Chinese Linguistics 2: 257–78. Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lindkvist, Karl-Gunnar. 1950. Studies on the local sense of the prepositions ‘in’, ’at’, ’on’ and ‘to’ in Modern English. Lund: Lund University Press. Lindkvist, Karl-Gunnar. 1972. The local sense of the prepositions ‘over’, ‘above’, and ‘across’ studied in present-day English. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Lindkvist, Karl-Gunnar. 1976. A comprehensive study of conceptions of locality in which English prepositions occur. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell Lindner, Susan. 1981. A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb-particle constructions with OUT and UP. PhD dissertation, University of California at San Diego. (Also published as A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb-particle constructions. LAUT Paper, no. 101. Trier, Germany: Linguistic Agency of the University of Trier, 1983) relational constructions in cognitive linguistics 749 . Towards a cognitive account of the use of the prepositions por and para in Spanish. In Eugene H. Casad, ed., Cognitive linguistics in the Redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics. development of one type of relational grams that have their source in body -part terms. This type of grams constitutes a large part of spatial grams, but they are not the only sources of relational. domains. The process of metaphorical extension involves imposition of an image schema, which is the basis of our understanding of the meaning of a lexical item, to a new situation for the purpose of