Polysemy In The
Semantic Field Of Movement In The English Language
Introduction
One of the long-established misconceptions about the
lexicon is that it is neatly and rigidly divided into semantically related sets
of words. In contrast, we claim that word meanings do not have clear
boundaries.1 In this paper we will give proof of the fuzziness of meaning
through an analysis of the semantic field of MOVEMENT in the English language.
We will show that many MOVEMENT verbs belong not only to several subdomains
within the field of MOVEMENT, but also to various semantic domains through
metaphorical extension.
Before dealing with the double or even triple membership
of MOVEMENT verbs, let us first present the model on which our description of
the lexicon is based, the Functional-Lexematic Model (Martín Mingorance,
1984, 1985a,b; 1987a,b,c; 1990a,b).
1. The Functional-Lexematic Model
The FLM integrates Coseriu’s Lexematics (1977), Dik’s
Functional Grammar (1997a) and some fundamental principles of cognitive
linguistics. Following Faber and Mairal (1998: 4-5), the two main objectives of
this model are, on the one hand, the construction of the linguistic architecture
of the lexicon of a language, and on the other hand, the representation of
knowledge based on the linguistic coding of dictionary entries.
The FLM establishes three axes of analysis: the
paradigmatic, syntagmatic and cognitive axes. The elaboration of the
paradigmatic axis entails the structuring of the lexicon in semantic domains
—each corresponding to a basic area of meaning,2 and the organization of
lexical domains into hierarchically constructed subdomains elaborated on the
basis of shared meaning components A subdomain is “a subdivision of semantic
space derived from the factorisation of the meaning definition of its members”3
(Faber and Mairal 1998: 6). Word definitions are built according to Dik’s
method of Stepwise Lexical Decomposition. This means that the definition
structure of each lexeme consists of the nuclear word —the archilexeme— and a
series of semantic features which mark its distance from the preceding members
of the subdomain.
Following Faber and Mairal (1999), the domain of
MOVEMENT is organised into four subdomains. The first subdomain describes
generic movement, while the other subdomains subsume lexemes which denote
movement in a number of contexts: liquid, atmosphere and land. Cutting across
this major configuration of the domain, the parameters of manner and direction
introduce further divisions within each subdomain.4 For instance, these
parameters traverse the following subdomains within the subdomain lexicalizing
generic movement:
1. Direction:
To move towards a place/person/thing
To move back
To move up
To move down
2. Manner:
To move quickly
To move slowly
To move smoothly
To move in a circular manner
As an example of a subdomain structured
paradigmatically, we have selected the subdomain To move down:
fall: to move down from a high position/the sky/a
tree.
plunge: to fall suddenly a long way from a high
position.
plummet: to fall very quickly from a high position.
come down: to fall (rain/snow) heavily.
descend: to move down a slope/stairs (fml).
The verbs indented to the right (plunge, plummet, come
down) are defined in terms of the verb immediate above them (fall), which thus
becomes their definiens. They are basically differentiated from one another in
terms of manner. The other archilexeme of this subdomain is descend.
The construction of the syntagmatic axis implies the
analysis of the complementation patterns of each lexeme using predicate frames
as integrated formulae.
The following types of information are captured in
predicate frames:
(i) the form of the predicate
(ii) the syntactic category to which it belongs
(iii) its quantitative valency, i.e. the number of
arguments that the predicate requires
(iv) its qualitative valency, i.e. the semantic
functions of the arguments and the pertinent selection restrictions
(v) the meaning definition
Predicate frames describe a state of affairs and
specify the relationship between the predicate arguments (represented by the
variable x). Each argument is characterized by a selection restriction
—described in terms of binary semantic features— and fulfills a semantic
function (Agent, Experiencer, Goal, Recipient, etc.).
Consider the predicate frame of the verb bow:
[ (x1: prototyp. human)Ag (x2: prototyp. part of the
body)Go ]Action
DEF = to bend your head and upper body as a greeting
or as a sign of respect.
This frame describes an Action and specifies the
relationship between a human argument, performing the function of Agent, and an
argument fulfilling the function of Goal and semantically marked as part of the
body (head).
The elaboration of the cognitive axis entails the
formulation of the predicate conceptual schemata, which are cognitive
constructs encoding semantic, syntactic and pragmatic information and
representing our knowledge about the lexical unit in question. Conceptual
schemata are codified at three levels: lexeme, subdomain and domain.
2. Polysemy of MOVEMENT verbs
Many MOVEMENT verbs fall within several subdomains.
This double/multiple membership may be accounted for on the following grounds:
a) The meaning component focalised
b) The genus of the lexeme
c) The metaphorical extension of the verb
Let us examine each of these factors.
2.1. Focalization of a meaning component
We have used Dik’s (1997a) pragmatic functions of
Focus and Topic to account for some instances of polysemy in the semantic field
of MOVEMENT. These functions specify the information status of the constituents
of the predicate within the communicative setting in which they occur, and they
are assigned to the constituents after the assigning of semantic and syntactic
functions. The Topic is the entity about which the predication predicates
something in the setting in question, whereas the Focus refers to the most
relevant information in the setting:
(1) As for Mary (Focus), I don’t care for her (Topic).
The application of such functions to the paradigmatic
description of the lexicon is based on the organization of the lexicon at three
levels: domain, subdomain and lexeme. In consonance with this idea, we may
formulate various levels of focalization:
Level of focalization 1: Domain
Level of focalization 2: Subdomain
Levels of focalization 3, 4, ... : Lexeme
A domain stands for the level of focalization number
1. It performs the function of Focus in that it represents one of the basic
areas of meaning.
A subdomain represents the level of focalization
number 2 in that it focuses on an area of meaning within a domain.
The following levels of focalization are formulated at
lexeme-level. This means that the lexemes of a subdomain represent different levels of
focalization based on the meaning hierarchies within the subdomain.
What is most
relevant is that what is Focus on a level becomes Topic on the level below.
Then a domain, which performs the function of Focus on the level of
focalization number 1, becomes topic at subdomain-level in that it presents the
given information, since all the subdomains of MOVEMENT lexicalize the concept
of movement. Therefore, the archilexeme of the lexical field, move, which
performs the function of Focus at domain-level in that it codifies the nuclear
meaning of the domain, becomes Topic at subdomain-level, since it is the
definiens of the archilexeme of each subdomain.
Similarly, a
subdomain, which acts as Focus on the level of focalization number 2, becomes
Topic at lexeme-level, since all the lexemes in the subdomain share the nuclear
information formalised by the subdomain. Then, as we move down in the semantic
hierarchy which characterizes the internal structure of each subdomain, what is
Focus in the meaning definition of the archilexeme (level of focalization
number 3) becomes Topic in the meaning definition of its hyponyms (level of
focalization number 4). For example, if we take the subdomain analysed above,
To move down, the definiens “to move down” acts as Focus in the definition of
fall (the archilexeme), and as Topic in the definition of plunge, plummet and
come down, the function of Focus being performed by the semantic parameters of
manner and place in that they individuate the members of the subdomain.
Let us now consider
the functions of Topic and Focus in the case of lexemes belonging to several
subdomains. Here the function of Focus applies to a particular meaning
component, which thus becomes especially relevant. The verbs whizz and zoom
involve quick movement, thus belonging to the subdomain To move quickly. But
they can also denote movement through the air:
(2) The bullets
whizzed past.
Then, these verbs
belong to the subdomain To move quickly or To move through the air depending on
which parameter is highlighted, whether manner or medium.
Similarly, the
verbs circle and whirl refer to circular movement in the air. If the manner
component is focalized, then the verbs fall in the subdomain To move in a
circular manner. If the focus is on the medium, then the verbs belong to the
subdomain To move through the air.
The table below
shows the double membership of these verbs.
VERB
FOCUS
DIMENSION
MEANING
whizz
zoom
circle
whirl
Manner
To move quickly
To move in a circular manner
To move (an engine/device)
very quickly with a loud whistling noise
To move (a vehicle/an
aircraft) very quickly with a loud buzzing/humming noise
To move in a circular manner
in the air
To turn round in the air
very quickly
whizz
zoom
circle
whirl
Medium
To move through the air
To move very quickly through
the air with a loud whistling noise
To move very quickly through
the air with a loud noise
To fly around in circles
To move very quickly in a
circular manner through the air
2.2. Genus of the
lexeme
Many verbs describe
generic movement. Verb membership is then determined by the semantic parameter
of medium or direction, or by the parameter specifying the nature of the subject/object.
The table below
presents the verbs whose membership is influenced by the medium parameter.
VERB
MEDIUM
DIMENSION
MEANING
dart
Air
Land
To move through the air
To move quickly using one’s
feet
To fly suddenly and quickly
(insects)
To
run suddenly
dive
plunge
Air
To move down through air
To move down through air
To
move downwards
To move down through air
quickly and steeply
To move down through air
suddenly a long way
To fall suddenly a long way
from a high position
dive
plunge
Water
To move in/down below the
surface of a liquid
To cause sb/sth to move
in/down below the surface of a liquid
To move head-first down into
water
To cause sth to move down
into water quickly and violently
sink
Air
Water/
Liquid/
Substance
To move down through air
To move in/down below the
surface of a liquid
To move down through air
To move down below the
surface of a liquid/ soft substance
glide
Water
Air
Land
To move over liquid
To move through the air
To
move smoothly
To move (boat) quietly and
smoothly across water
To fly quietly
To move quietly and smoothly
in an effortless way
The verb dart
describes sudden movement in air and on land:
(3) He darted
across the room.
(4) Bees were
darting from one flower to another.
The verbs dive,
plunge and sink designate downward movement in air and water:
(5) She plunged
into the swimming-pool.
(6) The falcon
plunged towards its prey.
Sink, as the
general term, denotes movement in a wider variety of contexts:
(7) Helen sank into
water/mud/an armchair.
However, we
postulate that the verbs dart, dive and sink prototypically describe movement
in a given medium: dart is prototypically associated with air, and dive and
sink with water. Our claim is supported by the fact that the medium parameter
need not be syntactically present:
(8) She dived from
the bridge and rescued the drowning child.
(9) The
aircraft-carrier, hit by a torpedo, sank at once.
Further, as we will
show below, sink has a metaphorical projection onto FEELING, which codifies the
metaphor Emotion = Liquid (Goatly 1997):
(10) When he
crashed, his heart sank at the thought that he might die.
Finally, glide
refers to quiet/smooth movement in a wide range of contexts (water, air, land):
(11) The cruiser
glided across the sea.
(12) An owl glided
over the fields.
(13) The snake
glided towards its prey.
As mentioned above,
the domain of MOVEMENT is marked by the semantic parameter of direction, which
can determine verb membership. The lexemes jump, vault, leap, hop and spring are
subsumed under various subdomains depending on whether they denote forward or
upward/downward movement over an obstacle:
VERB
DIRECTION
DIMENSION
MEANING
Jump
Vault
Leap
Hop
Spring
Forwards
To move forwards
quickly/suddenly
To move forwards quickly
using your legs
To jump onto sth with your
hands on it
To jump energetically a long
distance
To jump on one foot
(sb)/with both feet (birds/small animals)
To
jump suddenly
Jump
Vault
Leap
Over
sth
To move across/over/
through
To move over sth quickly
using your legs
To jump over sth with your
hands on it
To jump over sth
energetically
Jump
Spring
Hop
Up/Down
To move up/down using one’s
feet
To move up/down quickly
using one’s feet
To jump suddenly
To jump on one leg
(14) Robert jumped
one metre/over the fence/out of the shadow.
(15) Carol sprang
at him/to her feet.
Finally, as shown
below, verb membership can also be determined by the parameter describing the
nature of the subject or object.
ARGUMENT
SEMANTIC
SCOPE
VERB
DIMENSION
MEANING
Human/
Object
shake
tremble
quiver
To move from side to
side/back and forth/up and down repeatedly
To move quickly from side to
side/ up and down
To shake un-controllably/
slightly
To shake slightly
Part
of the body
shake
tremble
quiver
To
move one’s body
To move one’s body quickly
from side to side/up and down
To shake
un-controllably/slightly
To shake slightly
Subject
Human
Boat
sail
To move towards a place
To move over liquid
To travel to a place by ship
To move (boat) over the sea
Object
rise
fall
To move upwards
To move downwards
To move upwards through air
To move down from a high
position/the sky/a tree
Vehicle/
aircraft
plunge
plummet
To move in/downwards below
the surface of a liquid
To move downwards through
air
To move (vehicle) below the
surface of water
To move down through air
very quickly
Human
rise
fall
plunge
plummet
To move one’s body by
raising it
To move to the ground
To stand up (fml)
To move to the ground from
force of weight / loss of balance
To fall suddenly a long way
from a high position
To fall very quickly from a
high position
Object
Object
swing
lift
raise
bend
To move from side to
side/back and forth/up and down repeatedly
To cause stb/sth to move up
To move in a different
direction
To move regularly from side
to side/back and forth
To cause sb/sth to move up
To lift sth
To turn in a curve/angle
Part
of the body
swing
lift
raise
bend
To move a part of one’s body
To move regularly from side
to side/back and forth
To move a part of one’s body
upwards (esp. head/arm/leg/foot)
To move a part of one’s body
upwards
To move a part of one’s body
downwards
The verbs shake,
tremble and quiver may be found with a subject argument semantically
characterized as human or as concrete. But they can also take an object
denoting a part of the body via the metaphor Body part = Human (Goatly 1997):
(16) Mark was so
nervous that his knees were shaking.
Sail typically
occurs with a subject semantically characterized as boat. Its use with a human
agent results from a metonymical process (content for receptacle):
(17) They sailed
the Mediterranean.
Rise designates
upward movement of both human and concrete entities, but the prototypical
argument is human, as shown in the restricted use of rise with human subjects
when it describes body movement:
(18) She rose to
greet me.
Fall, plunge and
plummet, which denote downward movement, may also occur with human and concrete
entities:
(19) He fell off
the horse.
(20) The vase fell
from her hand.
Lastly, the verbs
swing, lift, raise and bend take an object semantically marked as object or
part of the body:
(21) She lifted her
head when I came in.
(22) The suitcase
is too heavy for him to lift.
2.3. Metaphorical
extension of the lexemes
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.
3. 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.