- Email: [email protected]
Source metaphors in english
Journal of Pragmatics North-Holland
8 (1984) 395-410
SOURCE METAPHORS
Johan
VANPARYS
395
IN ENGLISH
*
From, off, and our of are the typical prepositions used in English to denote source relationships. Their semantic differences are preserved in their metaphorical extensions. They are used metaphorically in reference to static and/or nonspatial relationships. These metaphors form a structured set, based on the dynamic spatial relationship ‘source’.
0. Introduction Semanticists have lately focused much of their attention on metaphorical expressions. Metaphor is no longer seen as a peripheral process in poetry, used for aesthetical purposes and resulting in deviant language. Rather the opposite is true. Metaphor is at the core of language and constitutes one of its most dynamic parts. Moreover, metaphor is not a matter of language alone. Our “ordinary conceptual system in terms of which we both think and act is fundamentally metaphorical in nature” (Lakoff and Johnson 1980 : 3). Metaphors pervade our everyday life; we really ‘live by’ them (cf. Lakoff and Johnson 1980). Lakoff and Johnson argue that we conceive of a great many experiences m physical terms. Emotional states such as happiness and sadness, for instance, are often thought of in terms of spatial orientation. The metaphorical concepts happy is up [l] and sad is down give rise to utterances such as I’m feeling up/down, My spirits rose/sank, Thinking about her always gives me a lift, and He’s really low these days. The aim of the present paper is to analyze and interpret metaphors expressed by prepositional noun phrases (PNPs) that are introduced by the
* I am much indebted to Dr. B. Rudzka (Catholic University of Louvain), whose endless enthusiasm and critical remarks have been a great support. I am, of course, the one who is responsible for any shortcomings of this work. Author’s address: J. Vanparys, J.B. Van Monsstraat 85/5, B-3000 Louvain, Belgium. [l] In this paper, bold letters (e.g., happy is up) refer to concepts; italics (e.g.. from) are used for linguistic utterances.
0378-2166/84/$3.00
0 1984, Elsevier Science Publishers
B.V. (North-Holland)
three typical source prepositions are considered as their original, literal meanings and the other meanings are seen as metaphorical extensions. Spatial relationships are, according to Dirven (1981a, 1981b), determined by three factors: (1) The language-universal distinction between four basic categories of location: place (ut, on, in), goal (to, onto, into), source (from, of1 out of) and path (by, &out, through). Place is a static relationship, the other three categories are dynamic. (2) A “distinction according to whether the shape of the location is seen as relevant or not” (Dirven 1981a : 103). (3) The “kind of relationship between the located entity and the place of location” (Dirven 1981b). These three factors determine the core meanings of the locative prepositions. In the following, we shall be concerned with from, off and out of. Their basic meanings can be analyzed as follows [2]: Preposition
Shape of locution
f rom
zero-dimensional
off
one-/two-dimensional or surface) two-/three-dimensional or volume)
out of
Kind of relution
(a point) (a line (an area
loss of functional relation, origin loss of contact. separation loss of containment,
exit
From, off and out of have one common meaning component: they express a source relationship between an entity and a location. Such a relationship is dynamic: the entity moves away from its location. The meanings of the prepositions differ in the way they represent the shape of the location and the kind of relationship that originally holds between the entity and its location. With from, the shape of the location is seen as irrelevant and therefore represented as a point, i.e. a zero-dimensional location. The relationship between the entity and its original location is merely functional; from denotes “any point of origin from which a motion starts” (Dirven 1981a: 121) as in:
(1) He jumped
from the roof.
Speakers of English use off when they think of the source as a line or surface, i.e. a one- or two-dimensional location, with which an entity loses contact. In (2) the road is seen as a surface:
[2] For a more detailed analysis of these and other prepositions, Lyons (1977) and, especially.
Dirven (1981a),
whose analysis
see Leech (1969). Bennett I have extensively relied on.
(1975).
(2) Let’s get that car off the road. Out
of denotes
volume
loss of enclosure (three-dimensional):
in an area (two-dimensional)
or, as in (3) in a
(3) She helped him out of the water.
2. Metaphorical extensions of the source prepositions The source prepositions are used in a number of expressions where they lose part of their core meaning. Such expressions are, from a locative point of view, metaphorical extensions of the source prepositions. We shall argue that the “are still clearly felt in their original locative meanings of these prepositions metaphorical extensions” (Dirven 1981b). Moreover, we shall point out the metaphorical concepts underlying these expressions. The metaphorical extensions of from, off, and out of fall apart into nine classes: spatial metaphors (2.1), predicative metaphors (2.2), cause and motive metaphors (2.3), temporal metaphors (2.4), measure metaphors (2.5) quotation, adaptation, and derivation metaphors (2.6), inference metaphors (2.7) production metaphors (2.Q and contrast metaphors (2.9). These classes are not arbitrary; they form a structured whole, which will be described in section 3. 2. I. Spatial metaphors A source relationship is a dynamic one; yet, from, ofL and out of frequently occur in combination with static verbs. Such utterances should be considered as metaphors, since one thing (a static relationship) is expressed in terms of another (a dynamic relationship). These metaphors can be found in expressions of distance (2.1.1), point of view (2.1.2) and attachment (2.1.3). 2.1. I. Distance metaphors (4) Ten miles from the coast. (OALD) [3] We were a few miles off the coast. (FTW) The ship sank ten miles out of Singapore. (OALD) [3] I have borrowed
my examples from the Dirven articles, Hornby (1980), Wood (1967), and the KWIC Index to the Theater Corpus of the Department of Applied Linguistics at the University of Louvain (Belgium). Since the last three sources practice alphabetical ordering, no page references will be given for them. They will be abbreviated, respectively, as (OALD), (FTW), and (KI).
These examples show that distance can be expressed away from a source. A goal may also be expressed: (5) It is twenty
miles from Dover to Calais.
in terms of movement
(FTW)
This means that we conceive of distance in terms of movement from one place to another. There is a metaphorical concept: distance is movement from one place to another. 2.1.2. Point of view metaphors (6) From where we stood we got an excellent view of the procession. A noise could be heard from the adjacent room. (FTW) A map of the moon photographed from a satellite. (KI)
(FTW)
In (6), from denotes a point of view from where something is perceived. Empirical perception does not require any movement on the part of the perceiver. Yet, the dynamic preposition from is used. We conceive of perception in terms of movement away from the perceiver. The thing perceived is sometimes expressed with the typical prepositions of goal: listen to, look into, etc. This suggests the existence of a metaphorical concept: perception is movement from the perceiver to the thing perceived. A striking aspect of point of view metaphors is that they are constructed with from, not with off or out of. This may be explained as resulting from the literal meanings of the source prepositions. From, unlike the other two, does not stress the shape of the location; it merely denotes some point of origin. 2.1.3. Attachment
metaphors
(7) A nail projected from the wall. A lamp hung from the ceiling.
(FTW) (FTW) (8) Villiers Street is just off the Strand. (FTW) A narrow lane off the main road. (OALD) (9) The flowers were sticking out of the vases. (Dirven
1981a : 121)
These sentences express that two things are physically attached to each other. This static relationship is described in terms of a dynamic source relationship. The object to which something is attached is seen as the source that the thing attached moves away from. This reveals that in a number of cases we conceive of attachment in terms of detachment: attachment is movement away from the thing to which something is attached.
J. Vunputys
399
/ Source mefuphors in English
In the attachment metaphors, the prepositions have preserved part of their literal meanings. In the case of from, the wall and the ceiling are seen as mere points in space, although they actually are flat surfaces. More important than the shape of the source is the functional relationship, viz. that of attachment. Off presents the road as a flat surface. Vases are containers; that’s why out of is used in (9). 2.2. Predicative metaphors (1981b) defines predicative metaphors, such as at work, on patrol, and as PNPs consisting of “a metaphorised spatial preposition and a noun denoting a state or process”. In all the examples Dirven discusses, the NP refers non-metaphorically to a state or process. I shall, however, also take up instances here in which the NP metaphorically denotes a state or process (cf. in Dirven
in agreement,
one’s hands, on the pill).
Predicative
metaphors
(10) He got an honorable
with from are: discharge from the army.
(Dirven
1981a :
resignation movement away from the place of employment. An instance of predicative off in which the spatial meaning (11): (11) Duck and green peas is now off the menu.
is
is still clear, is
(FTW)
The menu is a list of dishes available at a restaurant. It refers to the range of available dishes in a metaphoric way. When someone asks: “What’s on the menu tonight?“, he or she is interested, not in the list itself, but in the range of dishes. Equally with (11). The spatial meaning of the PNP is the basis for the metaphorical meaning ‘not available’. Note that, here again, a dynamic preposition is used to refer to a static relationship. The underlying metaphorical concept is: the state of a dish not being available is movement away from the menu.
Other examples (12)
offone's smoking,
in which off expresses
loss or absence
of contact
food (having no appetite), off fish (not eating fish), offone’s head (mad), offduty
off
the state of not eating etc. as movement the food, etc. The state of being mad is movement
are: of/
away from
away from the head. the place
where reason is located. All the instances refer to a loss or absence of contact with some source. Sentences (13a, 13b) illustrate that of[is used to refer to both a dynamic (a) and a static (b) relationship. The dynamic relationship, loss of contact, is metaphorically extended to a static one, absence of contact. With off, the topic of a discussion is presented as a line to be followed: the process/state of deviation
from a topic is movement
Predicative
metaphors
away from a line to be followed.
with out of are numerous:
(14) out of shape, out of step, out of bread, out of petrol. out of patience, out of humor, out of one’s mind, out of temper, out of breath, out of work, out of sight, out of reach, out of danger, out of control, out of memory. out of mind, out of all reason, out of time, out of tune, out of order, out of form, out of stock, out of fashion (FTW and OALD) Why do we use out of here? About in-predicates. Dirven observes that most of them denote “states that one happens to be in and over which one has no control . . they denote a passive state. It is this idea of a passive state that is metaphorically expressed by the spatial notion of containment in an enclosure denoted by in. The person affected by the state is thus seen as contained within that particular state” (Dirven 19Slb). This observation can be extended to most of the out of predicates; out of being the source counterpart of in (Dirven 1981a: 118). The notion of passivity or lack of control is also present in (15): (15) He was kicked
out of the army.
(Dirven
1981a: 121)
The use of the verb kick indicates that the unlucky soldier had no control over his resignation. For an honorable discharge, however, the more neutral from is used, as in (10). Also, out of-predicates refer to both dynamic and static relationships: (16) It was not until after the shops were closed that she realized she was out of bread. (FTW) (FTW) About five miles from our destination we ran out of petrol.
A special metaphors, ing:
instance of predicative in which the predicate
metaphors is the category is an event that is prevented
of prevention from happen-
(17) What prevented/stopped/hindered you from coming? (OALD) (FTW) He saved a child from drowning. (FTW) He wants to keep you from going to bed now. (FTW) We put on our mackintoshes to protect us from the rain. These examples illustrate that we conceive of prevention in terms of movement away from the prevented event. For an integration of the predicative metaphors in the total set of source metaphors, see section 3. 2.3. Cause and motive metaphors A causal relationship
is expressed
(18) . . . many inconveniences
by from and out of in (18) and (19):
which
arise from
a marriage
of convenience.
(KI) (KI) My guns were a bit rusty from the wet weather. (KI) She died recently, from what cause? to collapse from fatigue, to suffer from starvation and disease (KI) (19) I am doing this out of Christian charity. (OALD) They helped us out of pity/kindness. (OALD) She asked only out of curiosity.
(OALD)
Expressions (18) refer to non-intentional activities, over which the subject has little or no control. They are accompanied by a from-phrase which expresses cause, “a semantic relationship which denotes a non-volitional event or entity causing a state or process”, over which the subject has no control (Dirven 1981b). Causation is conceived of in terms of movement away from the cause. The out of-examples refer to activities in which the subject is emotionally involved. This semantic relationship can be called ‘motive’ (cf. Wood 1967), a blend of (unintentional) cause and (intentional) reason, the latter being “the rational basis or ground of an action” in which “the free initiative of the person . . . comes into play” (Dirven 1981b). Dirven has not found many examples of reason predicates with on; I have found none which, by analogy, should be expressed by off. I have introduced the relationship ‘motive’ instead because the latter involves external of taking over Dirven’s “circumstance” stimuli, whereas the out of-examples have internal stimuli. The underlying concept is: motivation is movement away from the motive.
Since motivation
includes
causation,
it is possible
(20) He did it out of spite/jealousy/kindness. (21) She did it
terms of two metaphorical
concepts.
(23) The time will come when
to say (20) as well as (21):
(FTW)
: ch. 9), time in English is structured The first is: time is a moving object:
in
...
The other one is: time is stationary and we move through it: (24) As we go through
the years _. .
The from-metaphors belong to the second class. They refer to the temporal starting-point as being a source from where we start. They cannot belong to the first class, since a moving object is not its own source, but has a source.
J. Vutlputys / Source metaphors in English
403
Why is from, and not out of or off used in such expressions? Again, the answer can be found in the locative view on prepositions. In temporal metaphors, not the shape (e.g., duration) of the moment is important, but the use made of it, viz. that of a starting-point, which is seen as a point in a larger context (cf. at seuen o’clock). It will be shown in section 3 that temporal metaphors are grounded in spatial source relationships. 2.5. Measure
metaphors
(25) We have men’s ready-made suits from thirty pounds. (FTW) We have good Italian wine from El.50 a bottle. (OALD) These utterances refer to a range of prices, starting at a certain point, indicated by the from-phrase. Here the starting-point is a point on a numerical scale. This use of from is an instance of a measure metaphor. Dirven, dealing with static relationships, defines measure as a “semantic relationship which denotes a quantified or intuitively estimated unit indicating the range or rate of a given process or state on a measuring scale or along a subjective norm” (Dirven 1981b). With dynamic prepositions, not the full range is indicated, but only its extremes. From-phrases refer to the lower extreme; the higher extreme may be expressed by the goal preposition to: (26) The work should take us from two to three hours.
(FTW)
In measure metaphors, from is used rather than off or out of for the same reason as in the case of temporal metaphors. The underlying metaphorical concept is: range on a numerical scale is movement away from the lower extreme. 2.6. Quotation, adaptation, and derivation metaphors From
and adaptation,
out of are used
or a derivation.
to introduce the source Cf. (27) and (28):
of a quotation
(27) The play was an adaptation from the novel. (Dirven Many English words are derived from Latin. (FTW) You got that from a song. (KI) The ‘Drinking Song’ from ‘La Traviata’. (KI) Painted from life/nature. (OALD)
[4] I use the word
quore in a very broad
sense, i.e. that of ‘borrowing
[4], an
1981a : 121)
an element
from a text’.
(28)
A scene our of a play. (OALD) Copy something out of a book. They got it out of Hemingway.
(OALD) (KI)
These examples reveal the existence of such metaphorical concepts as quoting/ adapting/deriving is removing the quotation/adaptation/derivation from its original place. We conceive of these nonspatial relationships in terms of spatial ones, It is worth mentioning here that the sources involved, although being essentially mental, have some physical, and, by implication spatial aspects. A book, for instance, consists of a cover, sheets of paper, and ink, but it is essentially a mental reality. The physical aspects serve as a vehicle for conveying the mental contents. The above-mentioned metaphors are grounded in these physical aspects. What is the distribution of from and out of in such metaphors? All the out of-examples refer to written sources, while the from-metaphors refer to other sources as well. This distribution can be explained in terms of the locative meanings of the prepositions. With out of, the speaker sees the source as a volume. Words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and scenes are all parts of a larger context in which they are embedded. A character in a novel is contained in a network of relationships. Elements in a written work are essentially parts of a context, they do not exist independently. This means that, when you take an element out of its context, you refer not only to the element itself, out also to its relationship to other elements. Since a quoted element is so strongly related to its context, we can use the volume metaphor auf of NP. The from-metaphors stress other aspects. When someone paints from life. he or she not only takes an element out of its context. but also reshapes it. A painting is never an exact copy of reality, but it is the result of a person’s creativity. A play adapted from a novel is a new product. An English word derived from Latin is a new word. In all these cases, the notion of containment is lost. Elements are isolated from their contexts, and are reshaped. That’s why in such cases not out oJ; but from is used, since the latter is more neutral. 2.7. Inference
metaphors
(29) It appears from the inspector’s
report that the repairs will be rather costly.
(FTW) From his looks you might think him stupid. (FTW) From what I heard, the driver was to blame. (KI) You can make your mind up from descriptions and drawings.
(KI)
These examples refer to inferences, the basis for which is indicated by from NP: inference is movement away from the evidence. That both quotation and inference metaphors can be related to causation will be shown in section 3.
405
2.8. Production
metaphors
The verb make can be combined
with from, oJ and out of:
(30)
Cider is made from apples. (FTW) (FTW) Bread is made from flour, and flour from wheat. (FTW) (31) A dress made of velvet. A box made of sandalwood. (FTW) (32) A salad made of lettuce, tomatoes and cucumber. (FTW) (33) A dressing gown made our of a blanket. The underlying metaphorical concept is production is movement away from the source material. The distribution of the prepositions clearly reflects their locative meanings. Neutral from, in (30), “refers to the source material, from which something different is produced” (Wood 1967 : 353). The finished product is something entirely different from the source material, so that the notion of containment in or contact with the source gets lost. This excludes out of and off). Of refers to a source material which either “still exists in its original form in the finished product” (ibid.), as in (31), or which is still discernible in the finished product, as in (32). This means that the notion of contact between the source and the product is still strongly present. Of comes in the place of off in the set of source prepositions that combine with make. Out of refers to “the conversion of one article into another” (ibid.). When someone makes a dressing gown out of a blanket (cf. (33)), he or she sees the gown as contained in the blanket and makes it his or her task to produce the gown out of it. The notion of containment is conveyed by out of. Section 3 will illustrate how production metaphors are grounded in causation. 2.9. Contrast metaphors From denotes
contrast
in (34):
(FTW) (34) We could not distinguish one from another. We found the village much changed from what it used to be. (KI) You couldn’t tell a cross from a beer pump.
(FTW)
The use of a source preposition in such constructions suggests that we conceive of contrast between two entities in terms of movement away from one entity. Only from is used here because the two other source preposition express loss of either contact or containment, two notions that are contradictory with that of contrast. Here again, we have both dynamic and static relationships, expressed in terms of a dynamic source relationship.
3. Coherence in metaphors The source metaphors do not form an unstructured set, but are hierarchically related. Some of them are grounded in others. The metaphors involving dynamic relationships are presented in figure 1. Our experience of spatial relationships is one of our basic experiences (Lakoff and Johnson 1980); what I am trying to show here is that we conceive of a good many experiences in terms of one of these, viz. source relationships. We may say that the directly emergent concept movement away from a source constitutes the grounding for all the metaphorical concepts dealt with in section 2. Next in order come the temporal metaphors (2.4). That we conceive of TIME in terms of spatial progress is clearly illustrated in Lakoff and Johnson (1980 : ch. 9). The temporal metaphors discussed in 2.4 are illustrations of the metaphorical concept time is stationary and we move through it, which is (at least partially) grounded in the directly emergent concept: movement away from a source. This concept of time provides the basis for our causation/motivation concept (2.3). The cause or motive always precedes its effect. We understand an event X as being the cause for another event Y, because we have experi-
spatialsource relations
temporal
cause and motive metaphors
predicative metaphors
quotation metaphors Figure 1
percepl~on metaphors
metaphors
and inference
production metaphors
contrast metaphors
prevention metaphors
J. Vunpqvs
/ Source metuphors
in En&h
407
enced that X is always or sometimes followed by Y. Since causal relationships are also temporal ones and since we conceive of time in terms of spatial progress, we also conceive of causation/motivation in terms of spatial relationships: causation/ motivation is a temporal relationship a temporal relationship is a spatial relationship causation/motivation
is a spatial relationhip
In other words: we conceive of CAUSATION/MOTIVATION as a spatial relationship via our concept of TIME. A causal relationship is not a mere temporal one. A cause X not only precedes its effect Y, but Y also holds by virtue of X. Or: X provides the basis for Y. This causal relationship is the grounding for some other concepts. Quotation (2.6) and inference (2.7) show some remarkable similarities with causal relationships. The source from which something is quoted/inferred always precedes, and provides the basis for, the quotation/inference. This makes it possible for us to conceive of quotation and inference in terms of spatial relationships via our concepts of time and cause: quotation/inference is a causal relationship a causal relationship is a spatial relationship quotation/inference
is a spatial relationship
A similar case is the class of production metaphors (2.8) which show identical similarities with causation. The source material exists before the finished product does, and provides the basis for it. As was the case with quotation and inference, our concept of production is grounded in our concept of a spatial source relationship via a causal and temporal one: production is a causal relationship a causal relationship is a spatial relationship production is a spatial relationship Predicative metaphors (2.2), referring to dynamic relationships, constitute a more complex class. Some of them (e.g., (10) and (11)) can be said to be directly grounded in our concept of a spatial source relationship; all of them involve a temporal relationship. Saying that something is out of control, for instance, implies that it once was under control. Hence, a predicative metaphor refers to progress in time.
The prevention metaphors (3.2) also bear some similarities with causation. When the rain prevents you from finishing your work, the rain is the cause, and the event (not finishing the work) is the effect. Preventing is ‘causing that not’. The difference with other causation metaphors is that in prevention metaphors, the PNP introduced by the source preposition expresses the effect, whereas with the other causation metaphors it expresses the cause. Also, the dynamic contrast metaphors (2.9) are grounded in a source relationship via our concept of time. A change implies progress in time. dynamic contrast is a temporal relationship a temporal relationship is a spatial relationship dynamic contrast is a spatial relationship As to the source metaphors referring to static relationships, I have found no examples of static temporal metaphors. This is quite natural, since in our culture, time is essentially experienced as a dynamic phenomenon. Now the question arises why static relationships are referred to in terms of dynamic ones. Let us start with static spatial metaphors. First, we shall discuss the distance metaphors. Distance is a static relationship which we at least partially conceive of in terms of a dynamic source relationship. An explanation for this can be found in our very limited perception of distance. How do we perceive distance? First, we are gifted with a set of two eyes that provide us with stereoscopic vision. But this enables us only to measure distances between objects in our proximity. A second way is to exploit the fact that things farther away from us appear smaller than objects closer to us. But this is only possible with objects that are situated within our range of vision. For things we have no visual perception of, we have to call on another strategy. Closest to our experience of space is that of time. We can measure any distance in terms of the amount of time it takes to cover it (cf. the astronomic concept of ‘light-year’). This holds for short as well as long distances, so that our concept of time is an instrument that can be more generally used to measure distance than visual perception. That explains why we conceive of distance in terms of a dynamic relationship [5]. Since distance itself is a spatial relationship and since our concept of time is grounded in that of space, we conceive of distance in terms of a spatial relationship. Another static relationship which is conceived of in terms of a dynamic one is perception. We conceptualize it in terms of movement away from the
[5] See also Lyons (1977 : 692).
J. Vmpqs
/ Source nzerrrphors itr Etlglish
409
perceiver towards the thing perceived. This can be seen as a result of our subjective world-view. Phenomenological philosophy claims that we consider ourselves to be the center of the world around us, our Umwelt. The things surrounding us are there only in relation to a subject that perceives them. Our Urnwell exists by virtue of us, the perceivers; we are the source of meaning for the objects in it. This may explain the directionality of our conception of perception. The attachment metaphors of the form attachment is movement away from the thing to which something is attached can be explained in terms of the perception concept. Attachment, from a phenomenological point of view, is also a subjective relationship. It derives its sense from its relationship with a perceiver. In other words: attachment is perception of attachment perception is a dynamic spatial relationship attachment is a dynamic spatial relationship All the other instances of static metaphors express a static, nonspatial relationship in terms of a dynamic, spatial relationship. Most of them have dynamic equivalents: Static
Dynamic
Half of what he said was offthe point. My guns were rustyfrom the wet weather. The play is an adaptationfrom the novel. From the evidence we know that he’s guilty.
The speaker kept wandering offthe point. My guns rustedfromthe wet weather. She adapted the playfrom the novel. We can infer from the evidence that he’s guilty. She made a gown our of a blanket. The settlement had grown from a village into a city.
This gown is made out O/a blanket. We found the village much changed from what it used to be.
The examples in the righthand column refer to processes. These dynamic phenomena are expressed in terms of a source relationship. Such instances can be called metaphors to the first degree. The locative meanings of the prepositions have been transformed into nonspatial ones, but their dynamic aspect has been preserved. From a locative point of view, the examples in the left column are metaphors to the second degree, they are metaphorizations of the dynamic metaphors. Not only the locative meaning components of the prepositions have been transformed, but also the dynamic component has been transformed into a static one. The static examples refer to the results of the processes in the right column. These static results are referred to by means of dynamic prepositions. This means that we conceive of a number of states in terms of processes. In other words, states have for us a dynamic aspect. We understand a state as
being the result of a temporally preceding process. The use of source prepositions to refer metaphorically to static relationships is an illustration of the well-known fact that we think in cause-effect schemes. For us to understand a fact is to know the facts that precede it, which we (sometimes wrongly) interpret as being its causes.
4. Conclusion An analysis of the use of source prepositions, from a locative point of view, reveals that we conceive of a great many experiences in terms of source relationships. These experiences may be spatial or nonspatial, dynamic or static. Moreover, there is a certain coherence in these metaphors. An analysis of other prepositions will certainly shed more light on this field of investigation.
References Bennett, D.C., 1975. Spatial and temporal uses of English prepositions. London: Longman. Dirven, R., 1981a. ‘Spatial relations in English’. In: G. Radden and R. Dirven 1981. pp. 103-132. Dirven, R., 1981b. ‘Metaphors of spatial relations’. (Unpublished MS.) Hornby. AS.. ed., 1980. Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson, 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Leech, G.N., 1969. Towards a semantic description of English. London: Longman. Lyons, J.. 1977. Semantics. London/New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Radden, G. and R. Dirven, eds., 1981. Kasusgrammatik und Fremdsprachendidaktik: Anglistik & Englischunterricht. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. Wood, F.T., 1967. English prepositional idioms. London: Macmillan. Johan Vanparys (b. 1960) studied Germanic philology at the universities of Kortrijk (KULAK) and Louvain (KUL) and graduated on a thesis entitled ‘Permissive CAN and MAY: A Pragmatic approach’. He is presently employed at the Catholic University of Louvain. Inst. voor Levende Talen. His main topics of interest are semantics, pragmatics, psycholinguistics, and lexicography.
8 (1984) 395-410
SOURCE METAPHORS
Johan
VANPARYS
395
IN ENGLISH
*
From, off, and our of are the typical prepositions used in English to denote source relationships. Their semantic differences are preserved in their metaphorical extensions. They are used metaphorically in reference to static and/or nonspatial relationships. These metaphors form a structured set, based on the dynamic spatial relationship ‘source’.
0. Introduction Semanticists have lately focused much of their attention on metaphorical expressions. Metaphor is no longer seen as a peripheral process in poetry, used for aesthetical purposes and resulting in deviant language. Rather the opposite is true. Metaphor is at the core of language and constitutes one of its most dynamic parts. Moreover, metaphor is not a matter of language alone. Our “ordinary conceptual system in terms of which we both think and act is fundamentally metaphorical in nature” (Lakoff and Johnson 1980 : 3). Metaphors pervade our everyday life; we really ‘live by’ them (cf. Lakoff and Johnson 1980). Lakoff and Johnson argue that we conceive of a great many experiences m physical terms. Emotional states such as happiness and sadness, for instance, are often thought of in terms of spatial orientation. The metaphorical concepts happy is up [l] and sad is down give rise to utterances such as I’m feeling up/down, My spirits rose/sank, Thinking about her always gives me a lift, and He’s really low these days. The aim of the present paper is to analyze and interpret metaphors expressed by prepositional noun phrases (PNPs) that are introduced by the
* I am much indebted to Dr. B. Rudzka (Catholic University of Louvain), whose endless enthusiasm and critical remarks have been a great support. I am, of course, the one who is responsible for any shortcomings of this work. Author’s address: J. Vanparys, J.B. Van Monsstraat 85/5, B-3000 Louvain, Belgium. [l] In this paper, bold letters (e.g., happy is up) refer to concepts; italics (e.g.. from) are used for linguistic utterances.
0378-2166/84/$3.00
0 1984, Elsevier Science Publishers
B.V. (North-Holland)
three typical source prepositions are considered as their original, literal meanings and the other meanings are seen as metaphorical extensions. Spatial relationships are, according to Dirven (1981a, 1981b), determined by three factors: (1) The language-universal distinction between four basic categories of location: place (ut, on, in), goal (to, onto, into), source (from, of1 out of) and path (by, &out, through). Place is a static relationship, the other three categories are dynamic. (2) A “distinction according to whether the shape of the location is seen as relevant or not” (Dirven 1981a : 103). (3) The “kind of relationship between the located entity and the place of location” (Dirven 1981b). These three factors determine the core meanings of the locative prepositions. In the following, we shall be concerned with from, off and out of. Their basic meanings can be analyzed as follows [2]: Preposition
Shape of locution
f rom
zero-dimensional
off
one-/two-dimensional or surface) two-/three-dimensional or volume)
out of
Kind of relution
(a point) (a line (an area
loss of functional relation, origin loss of contact. separation loss of containment,
exit
From, off and out of have one common meaning component: they express a source relationship between an entity and a location. Such a relationship is dynamic: the entity moves away from its location. The meanings of the prepositions differ in the way they represent the shape of the location and the kind of relationship that originally holds between the entity and its location. With from, the shape of the location is seen as irrelevant and therefore represented as a point, i.e. a zero-dimensional location. The relationship between the entity and its original location is merely functional; from denotes “any point of origin from which a motion starts” (Dirven 1981a: 121) as in:
(1) He jumped
from the roof.
Speakers of English use off when they think of the source as a line or surface, i.e. a one- or two-dimensional location, with which an entity loses contact. In (2) the road is seen as a surface:
[2] For a more detailed analysis of these and other prepositions, Lyons (1977) and, especially.
Dirven (1981a),
whose analysis
see Leech (1969). Bennett I have extensively relied on.
(1975).
(2) Let’s get that car off the road. Out
of denotes
volume
loss of enclosure (three-dimensional):
in an area (two-dimensional)
or, as in (3) in a
(3) She helped him out of the water.
2. Metaphorical extensions of the source prepositions The source prepositions are used in a number of expressions where they lose part of their core meaning. Such expressions are, from a locative point of view, metaphorical extensions of the source prepositions. We shall argue that the “are still clearly felt in their original locative meanings of these prepositions metaphorical extensions” (Dirven 1981b). Moreover, we shall point out the metaphorical concepts underlying these expressions. The metaphorical extensions of from, off, and out of fall apart into nine classes: spatial metaphors (2.1), predicative metaphors (2.2), cause and motive metaphors (2.3), temporal metaphors (2.4), measure metaphors (2.5) quotation, adaptation, and derivation metaphors (2.6), inference metaphors (2.7) production metaphors (2.Q and contrast metaphors (2.9). These classes are not arbitrary; they form a structured whole, which will be described in section 3. 2. I. Spatial metaphors A source relationship is a dynamic one; yet, from, ofL and out of frequently occur in combination with static verbs. Such utterances should be considered as metaphors, since one thing (a static relationship) is expressed in terms of another (a dynamic relationship). These metaphors can be found in expressions of distance (2.1.1), point of view (2.1.2) and attachment (2.1.3). 2.1. I. Distance metaphors (4) Ten miles from the coast. (OALD) [3] We were a few miles off the coast. (FTW) The ship sank ten miles out of Singapore. (OALD) [3] I have borrowed
my examples from the Dirven articles, Hornby (1980), Wood (1967), and the KWIC Index to the Theater Corpus of the Department of Applied Linguistics at the University of Louvain (Belgium). Since the last three sources practice alphabetical ordering, no page references will be given for them. They will be abbreviated, respectively, as (OALD), (FTW), and (KI).
These examples show that distance can be expressed away from a source. A goal may also be expressed: (5) It is twenty
miles from Dover to Calais.
in terms of movement
(FTW)
This means that we conceive of distance in terms of movement from one place to another. There is a metaphorical concept: distance is movement from one place to another. 2.1.2. Point of view metaphors (6) From where we stood we got an excellent view of the procession. A noise could be heard from the adjacent room. (FTW) A map of the moon photographed from a satellite. (KI)
(FTW)
In (6), from denotes a point of view from where something is perceived. Empirical perception does not require any movement on the part of the perceiver. Yet, the dynamic preposition from is used. We conceive of perception in terms of movement away from the perceiver. The thing perceived is sometimes expressed with the typical prepositions of goal: listen to, look into, etc. This suggests the existence of a metaphorical concept: perception is movement from the perceiver to the thing perceived. A striking aspect of point of view metaphors is that they are constructed with from, not with off or out of. This may be explained as resulting from the literal meanings of the source prepositions. From, unlike the other two, does not stress the shape of the location; it merely denotes some point of origin. 2.1.3. Attachment
metaphors
(7) A nail projected from the wall. A lamp hung from the ceiling.
(FTW) (FTW) (8) Villiers Street is just off the Strand. (FTW) A narrow lane off the main road. (OALD) (9) The flowers were sticking out of the vases. (Dirven
1981a : 121)
These sentences express that two things are physically attached to each other. This static relationship is described in terms of a dynamic source relationship. The object to which something is attached is seen as the source that the thing attached moves away from. This reveals that in a number of cases we conceive of attachment in terms of detachment: attachment is movement away from the thing to which something is attached.
J. Vunputys
399
/ Source mefuphors in English
In the attachment metaphors, the prepositions have preserved part of their literal meanings. In the case of from, the wall and the ceiling are seen as mere points in space, although they actually are flat surfaces. More important than the shape of the source is the functional relationship, viz. that of attachment. Off presents the road as a flat surface. Vases are containers; that’s why out of is used in (9). 2.2. Predicative metaphors (1981b) defines predicative metaphors, such as at work, on patrol, and as PNPs consisting of “a metaphorised spatial preposition and a noun denoting a state or process”. In all the examples Dirven discusses, the NP refers non-metaphorically to a state or process. I shall, however, also take up instances here in which the NP metaphorically denotes a state or process (cf. in Dirven
in agreement,
one’s hands, on the pill).
Predicative
metaphors
(10) He got an honorable
with from are: discharge from the army.
(Dirven
1981a :
resignation movement away from the place of employment. An instance of predicative off in which the spatial meaning (11): (11) Duck and green peas is now off the menu.
is
is still clear, is
(FTW)
The menu is a list of dishes available at a restaurant. It refers to the range of available dishes in a metaphoric way. When someone asks: “What’s on the menu tonight?“, he or she is interested, not in the list itself, but in the range of dishes. Equally with (11). The spatial meaning of the PNP is the basis for the metaphorical meaning ‘not available’. Note that, here again, a dynamic preposition is used to refer to a static relationship. The underlying metaphorical concept is: the state of a dish not being available is movement away from the menu.
Other examples (12)
offone's smoking,
in which off expresses
loss or absence
of contact
food (having no appetite), off fish (not eating fish), offone’s head (mad), offduty
off
the state of not eating etc. as movement the food, etc. The state of being mad is movement
are: of/
away from
away from the head. the place
where reason is located. All the instances refer to a loss or absence of contact with some source. Sentences (13a, 13b) illustrate that of[is used to refer to both a dynamic (a) and a static (b) relationship. The dynamic relationship, loss of contact, is metaphorically extended to a static one, absence of contact. With off, the topic of a discussion is presented as a line to be followed: the process/state of deviation
from a topic is movement
Predicative
metaphors
away from a line to be followed.
with out of are numerous:
(14) out of shape, out of step, out of bread, out of petrol. out of patience, out of humor, out of one’s mind, out of temper, out of breath, out of work, out of sight, out of reach, out of danger, out of control, out of memory. out of mind, out of all reason, out of time, out of tune, out of order, out of form, out of stock, out of fashion (FTW and OALD) Why do we use out of here? About in-predicates. Dirven observes that most of them denote “states that one happens to be in and over which one has no control . . they denote a passive state. It is this idea of a passive state that is metaphorically expressed by the spatial notion of containment in an enclosure denoted by in. The person affected by the state is thus seen as contained within that particular state” (Dirven 19Slb). This observation can be extended to most of the out of predicates; out of being the source counterpart of in (Dirven 1981a: 118). The notion of passivity or lack of control is also present in (15): (15) He was kicked
out of the army.
(Dirven
1981a: 121)
The use of the verb kick indicates that the unlucky soldier had no control over his resignation. For an honorable discharge, however, the more neutral from is used, as in (10). Also, out of-predicates refer to both dynamic and static relationships: (16) It was not until after the shops were closed that she realized she was out of bread. (FTW) (FTW) About five miles from our destination we ran out of petrol.
A special metaphors, ing:
instance of predicative in which the predicate
metaphors is the category is an event that is prevented
of prevention from happen-
(17) What prevented/stopped/hindered you from coming? (OALD) (FTW) He saved a child from drowning. (FTW) He wants to keep you from going to bed now. (FTW) We put on our mackintoshes to protect us from the rain. These examples illustrate that we conceive of prevention in terms of movement away from the prevented event. For an integration of the predicative metaphors in the total set of source metaphors, see section 3. 2.3. Cause and motive metaphors A causal relationship
is expressed
(18) . . . many inconveniences
by from and out of in (18) and (19):
which
arise from
a marriage
of convenience.
(KI) (KI) My guns were a bit rusty from the wet weather. (KI) She died recently, from what cause? to collapse from fatigue, to suffer from starvation and disease (KI) (19) I am doing this out of Christian charity. (OALD) They helped us out of pity/kindness. (OALD) She asked only out of curiosity.
(OALD)
Expressions (18) refer to non-intentional activities, over which the subject has little or no control. They are accompanied by a from-phrase which expresses cause, “a semantic relationship which denotes a non-volitional event or entity causing a state or process”, over which the subject has no control (Dirven 1981b). Causation is conceived of in terms of movement away from the cause. The out of-examples refer to activities in which the subject is emotionally involved. This semantic relationship can be called ‘motive’ (cf. Wood 1967), a blend of (unintentional) cause and (intentional) reason, the latter being “the rational basis or ground of an action” in which “the free initiative of the person . . . comes into play” (Dirven 1981b). Dirven has not found many examples of reason predicates with on; I have found none which, by analogy, should be expressed by off. I have introduced the relationship ‘motive’ instead because the latter involves external of taking over Dirven’s “circumstance” stimuli, whereas the out of-examples have internal stimuli. The underlying concept is: motivation is movement away from the motive.
Since motivation
includes
causation,
it is possible
(20) He did it out of spite/jealousy/kindness. (21) She did it
terms of two metaphorical
concepts.
(23) The time will come when
to say (20) as well as (21):
(FTW)
: ch. 9), time in English is structured The first is: time is a moving object:
in
...
The other one is: time is stationary and we move through it: (24) As we go through
the years _. .
The from-metaphors belong to the second class. They refer to the temporal starting-point as being a source from where we start. They cannot belong to the first class, since a moving object is not its own source, but has a source.
J. Vutlputys / Source metaphors in English
403
Why is from, and not out of or off used in such expressions? Again, the answer can be found in the locative view on prepositions. In temporal metaphors, not the shape (e.g., duration) of the moment is important, but the use made of it, viz. that of a starting-point, which is seen as a point in a larger context (cf. at seuen o’clock). It will be shown in section 3 that temporal metaphors are grounded in spatial source relationships. 2.5. Measure
metaphors
(25) We have men’s ready-made suits from thirty pounds. (FTW) We have good Italian wine from El.50 a bottle. (OALD) These utterances refer to a range of prices, starting at a certain point, indicated by the from-phrase. Here the starting-point is a point on a numerical scale. This use of from is an instance of a measure metaphor. Dirven, dealing with static relationships, defines measure as a “semantic relationship which denotes a quantified or intuitively estimated unit indicating the range or rate of a given process or state on a measuring scale or along a subjective norm” (Dirven 1981b). With dynamic prepositions, not the full range is indicated, but only its extremes. From-phrases refer to the lower extreme; the higher extreme may be expressed by the goal preposition to: (26) The work should take us from two to three hours.
(FTW)
In measure metaphors, from is used rather than off or out of for the same reason as in the case of temporal metaphors. The underlying metaphorical concept is: range on a numerical scale is movement away from the lower extreme. 2.6. Quotation, adaptation, and derivation metaphors From
and adaptation,
out of are used
or a derivation.
to introduce the source Cf. (27) and (28):
of a quotation
(27) The play was an adaptation from the novel. (Dirven Many English words are derived from Latin. (FTW) You got that from a song. (KI) The ‘Drinking Song’ from ‘La Traviata’. (KI) Painted from life/nature. (OALD)
[4] I use the word
quore in a very broad
sense, i.e. that of ‘borrowing
[4], an
1981a : 121)
an element
from a text’.
(28)
A scene our of a play. (OALD) Copy something out of a book. They got it out of Hemingway.
(OALD) (KI)
These examples reveal the existence of such metaphorical concepts as quoting/ adapting/deriving is removing the quotation/adaptation/derivation from its original place. We conceive of these nonspatial relationships in terms of spatial ones, It is worth mentioning here that the sources involved, although being essentially mental, have some physical, and, by implication spatial aspects. A book, for instance, consists of a cover, sheets of paper, and ink, but it is essentially a mental reality. The physical aspects serve as a vehicle for conveying the mental contents. The above-mentioned metaphors are grounded in these physical aspects. What is the distribution of from and out of in such metaphors? All the out of-examples refer to written sources, while the from-metaphors refer to other sources as well. This distribution can be explained in terms of the locative meanings of the prepositions. With out of, the speaker sees the source as a volume. Words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and scenes are all parts of a larger context in which they are embedded. A character in a novel is contained in a network of relationships. Elements in a written work are essentially parts of a context, they do not exist independently. This means that, when you take an element out of its context, you refer not only to the element itself, out also to its relationship to other elements. Since a quoted element is so strongly related to its context, we can use the volume metaphor auf of NP. The from-metaphors stress other aspects. When someone paints from life. he or she not only takes an element out of its context. but also reshapes it. A painting is never an exact copy of reality, but it is the result of a person’s creativity. A play adapted from a novel is a new product. An English word derived from Latin is a new word. In all these cases, the notion of containment is lost. Elements are isolated from their contexts, and are reshaped. That’s why in such cases not out oJ; but from is used, since the latter is more neutral. 2.7. Inference
metaphors
(29) It appears from the inspector’s
report that the repairs will be rather costly.
(FTW) From his looks you might think him stupid. (FTW) From what I heard, the driver was to blame. (KI) You can make your mind up from descriptions and drawings.
(KI)
These examples refer to inferences, the basis for which is indicated by from NP: inference is movement away from the evidence. That both quotation and inference metaphors can be related to causation will be shown in section 3.
405
2.8. Production
metaphors
The verb make can be combined
with from, oJ and out of:
(30)
Cider is made from apples. (FTW) (FTW) Bread is made from flour, and flour from wheat. (FTW) (31) A dress made of velvet. A box made of sandalwood. (FTW) (32) A salad made of lettuce, tomatoes and cucumber. (FTW) (33) A dressing gown made our of a blanket. The underlying metaphorical concept is production is movement away from the source material. The distribution of the prepositions clearly reflects their locative meanings. Neutral from, in (30), “refers to the source material, from which something different is produced” (Wood 1967 : 353). The finished product is something entirely different from the source material, so that the notion of containment in or contact with the source gets lost. This excludes out of and off). Of refers to a source material which either “still exists in its original form in the finished product” (ibid.), as in (31), or which is still discernible in the finished product, as in (32). This means that the notion of contact between the source and the product is still strongly present. Of comes in the place of off in the set of source prepositions that combine with make. Out of refers to “the conversion of one article into another” (ibid.). When someone makes a dressing gown out of a blanket (cf. (33)), he or she sees the gown as contained in the blanket and makes it his or her task to produce the gown out of it. The notion of containment is conveyed by out of. Section 3 will illustrate how production metaphors are grounded in causation. 2.9. Contrast metaphors From denotes
contrast
in (34):
(FTW) (34) We could not distinguish one from another. We found the village much changed from what it used to be. (KI) You couldn’t tell a cross from a beer pump.
(FTW)
The use of a source preposition in such constructions suggests that we conceive of contrast between two entities in terms of movement away from one entity. Only from is used here because the two other source preposition express loss of either contact or containment, two notions that are contradictory with that of contrast. Here again, we have both dynamic and static relationships, expressed in terms of a dynamic source relationship.
3. Coherence in metaphors The source metaphors do not form an unstructured set, but are hierarchically related. Some of them are grounded in others. The metaphors involving dynamic relationships are presented in figure 1. Our experience of spatial relationships is one of our basic experiences (Lakoff and Johnson 1980); what I am trying to show here is that we conceive of a good many experiences in terms of one of these, viz. source relationships. We may say that the directly emergent concept movement away from a source constitutes the grounding for all the metaphorical concepts dealt with in section 2. Next in order come the temporal metaphors (2.4). That we conceive of TIME in terms of spatial progress is clearly illustrated in Lakoff and Johnson (1980 : ch. 9). The temporal metaphors discussed in 2.4 are illustrations of the metaphorical concept time is stationary and we move through it, which is (at least partially) grounded in the directly emergent concept: movement away from a source. This concept of time provides the basis for our causation/motivation concept (2.3). The cause or motive always precedes its effect. We understand an event X as being the cause for another event Y, because we have experi-
spatialsource relations
temporal
cause and motive metaphors
predicative metaphors
quotation metaphors Figure 1
percepl~on metaphors
metaphors
and inference
production metaphors
contrast metaphors
prevention metaphors
J. Vunpqvs
/ Source metuphors
in En&h
407
enced that X is always or sometimes followed by Y. Since causal relationships are also temporal ones and since we conceive of time in terms of spatial progress, we also conceive of causation/motivation in terms of spatial relationships: causation/ motivation is a temporal relationship a temporal relationship is a spatial relationship causation/motivation
is a spatial relationhip
In other words: we conceive of CAUSATION/MOTIVATION as a spatial relationship via our concept of TIME. A causal relationship is not a mere temporal one. A cause X not only precedes its effect Y, but Y also holds by virtue of X. Or: X provides the basis for Y. This causal relationship is the grounding for some other concepts. Quotation (2.6) and inference (2.7) show some remarkable similarities with causal relationships. The source from which something is quoted/inferred always precedes, and provides the basis for, the quotation/inference. This makes it possible for us to conceive of quotation and inference in terms of spatial relationships via our concepts of time and cause: quotation/inference is a causal relationship a causal relationship is a spatial relationship quotation/inference
is a spatial relationship
A similar case is the class of production metaphors (2.8) which show identical similarities with causation. The source material exists before the finished product does, and provides the basis for it. As was the case with quotation and inference, our concept of production is grounded in our concept of a spatial source relationship via a causal and temporal one: production is a causal relationship a causal relationship is a spatial relationship production is a spatial relationship Predicative metaphors (2.2), referring to dynamic relationships, constitute a more complex class. Some of them (e.g., (10) and (11)) can be said to be directly grounded in our concept of a spatial source relationship; all of them involve a temporal relationship. Saying that something is out of control, for instance, implies that it once was under control. Hence, a predicative metaphor refers to progress in time.
The prevention metaphors (3.2) also bear some similarities with causation. When the rain prevents you from finishing your work, the rain is the cause, and the event (not finishing the work) is the effect. Preventing is ‘causing that not’. The difference with other causation metaphors is that in prevention metaphors, the PNP introduced by the source preposition expresses the effect, whereas with the other causation metaphors it expresses the cause. Also, the dynamic contrast metaphors (2.9) are grounded in a source relationship via our concept of time. A change implies progress in time. dynamic contrast is a temporal relationship a temporal relationship is a spatial relationship dynamic contrast is a spatial relationship As to the source metaphors referring to static relationships, I have found no examples of static temporal metaphors. This is quite natural, since in our culture, time is essentially experienced as a dynamic phenomenon. Now the question arises why static relationships are referred to in terms of dynamic ones. Let us start with static spatial metaphors. First, we shall discuss the distance metaphors. Distance is a static relationship which we at least partially conceive of in terms of a dynamic source relationship. An explanation for this can be found in our very limited perception of distance. How do we perceive distance? First, we are gifted with a set of two eyes that provide us with stereoscopic vision. But this enables us only to measure distances between objects in our proximity. A second way is to exploit the fact that things farther away from us appear smaller than objects closer to us. But this is only possible with objects that are situated within our range of vision. For things we have no visual perception of, we have to call on another strategy. Closest to our experience of space is that of time. We can measure any distance in terms of the amount of time it takes to cover it (cf. the astronomic concept of ‘light-year’). This holds for short as well as long distances, so that our concept of time is an instrument that can be more generally used to measure distance than visual perception. That explains why we conceive of distance in terms of a dynamic relationship [5]. Since distance itself is a spatial relationship and since our concept of time is grounded in that of space, we conceive of distance in terms of a spatial relationship. Another static relationship which is conceived of in terms of a dynamic one is perception. We conceptualize it in terms of movement away from the
[5] See also Lyons (1977 : 692).
J. Vmpqs
/ Source nzerrrphors itr Etlglish
409
perceiver towards the thing perceived. This can be seen as a result of our subjective world-view. Phenomenological philosophy claims that we consider ourselves to be the center of the world around us, our Umwelt. The things surrounding us are there only in relation to a subject that perceives them. Our Urnwell exists by virtue of us, the perceivers; we are the source of meaning for the objects in it. This may explain the directionality of our conception of perception. The attachment metaphors of the form attachment is movement away from the thing to which something is attached can be explained in terms of the perception concept. Attachment, from a phenomenological point of view, is also a subjective relationship. It derives its sense from its relationship with a perceiver. In other words: attachment is perception of attachment perception is a dynamic spatial relationship attachment is a dynamic spatial relationship All the other instances of static metaphors express a static, nonspatial relationship in terms of a dynamic, spatial relationship. Most of them have dynamic equivalents: Static
Dynamic
Half of what he said was offthe point. My guns were rustyfrom the wet weather. The play is an adaptationfrom the novel. From the evidence we know that he’s guilty.
The speaker kept wandering offthe point. My guns rustedfromthe wet weather. She adapted the playfrom the novel. We can infer from the evidence that he’s guilty. She made a gown our of a blanket. The settlement had grown from a village into a city.
This gown is made out O/a blanket. We found the village much changed from what it used to be.
The examples in the righthand column refer to processes. These dynamic phenomena are expressed in terms of a source relationship. Such instances can be called metaphors to the first degree. The locative meanings of the prepositions have been transformed into nonspatial ones, but their dynamic aspect has been preserved. From a locative point of view, the examples in the left column are metaphors to the second degree, they are metaphorizations of the dynamic metaphors. Not only the locative meaning components of the prepositions have been transformed, but also the dynamic component has been transformed into a static one. The static examples refer to the results of the processes in the right column. These static results are referred to by means of dynamic prepositions. This means that we conceive of a number of states in terms of processes. In other words, states have for us a dynamic aspect. We understand a state as
being the result of a temporally preceding process. The use of source prepositions to refer metaphorically to static relationships is an illustration of the well-known fact that we think in cause-effect schemes. For us to understand a fact is to know the facts that precede it, which we (sometimes wrongly) interpret as being its causes.
4. Conclusion An analysis of the use of source prepositions, from a locative point of view, reveals that we conceive of a great many experiences in terms of source relationships. These experiences may be spatial or nonspatial, dynamic or static. Moreover, there is a certain coherence in these metaphors. An analysis of other prepositions will certainly shed more light on this field of investigation.
References Bennett, D.C., 1975. Spatial and temporal uses of English prepositions. London: Longman. Dirven, R., 1981a. ‘Spatial relations in English’. In: G. Radden and R. Dirven 1981. pp. 103-132. Dirven, R., 1981b. ‘Metaphors of spatial relations’. (Unpublished MS.) Hornby. AS.. ed., 1980. Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson, 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Leech, G.N., 1969. Towards a semantic description of English. London: Longman. Lyons, J.. 1977. Semantics. London/New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Radden, G. and R. Dirven, eds., 1981. Kasusgrammatik und Fremdsprachendidaktik: Anglistik & Englischunterricht. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. Wood, F.T., 1967. English prepositional idioms. London: Macmillan. Johan Vanparys (b. 1960) studied Germanic philology at the universities of Kortrijk (KULAK) and Louvain (KUL) and graduated on a thesis entitled ‘Permissive CAN and MAY: A Pragmatic approach’. He is presently employed at the Catholic University of Louvain. Inst. voor Levende Talen. His main topics of interest are semantics, pragmatics, psycholinguistics, and lexicography.