=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2050/isd_paper1
|storemode=property
|title=Schema Conflict: Functional Schema and Configurational Schema
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2050/ISD_paper_1.pdf
|volume=Vol-2050
|authors=Shingo Imai
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/jowo/Imai17
}}
==Schema Conflict: Functional Schema and Configurational Schema==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2050/ISD_paper_1.pdf
Schema Conflict: Functional Schema and
Configurational Schema1
Shingo IMAI 2
University of Tsukuba
Abstract. In this paper, I discuss the cases of schema conflicts in the process of
combination of primitive schemas. I claim that a functional schema overcomes a
configurational schema in a case of the conflict of the two schemas. I also show
that a more abstract functional schema wins over a less abstract or more concrete
schema when two functional schemas conflict with each other.
Keywords. Image schema, functional schema, configurational schema, preposition
1. Introduction
Primitive image schemas are considered universal components or building blocks of
spatial linguistic forms. Image schemas of closed-class spatial forms such as
prepositions have been extensively studied to update ([1], [2] among others). Primitive
image schemas are combined to produce spatial relations terms ([2], [3]). I will discuss
the cases of schema conflicts in the process of combination of primitive schemas. I
propose that functional schemas are chosen over configurational schemas when
conflicts occur in the choice of two schemas. As a case study, I look at two types of
closed-classes, namely pre/postpositions and demonstratives in English, Japanese, and
some other languages. The reason why closed-classes are investigated rather than open-
classes is that closed-classes are basically bounded by schemas but it is not always the
case of open-classes. In the usage of pre/positions and demonstratives, there are cases
that (a) may be associated with a foregrounded configurational schema but not with a
backgrounded functional schema; (b) may be used to describe situations that satisfy its
functional schema even though the spatial configuration schema is not satisfied; and (c)
where two or more closed-classes have the corresponding schema satisfied, one would
prefer the one that has a functional or more abstract schema satisfied, over one that has
only a configurational schema satisfied. Instances of (b) and (c) are treated as cases of
“schema conflict” in this paper.
2. Schema conflict
The meaning of “on” in English is defined as CONTACT and SUPPORT 3 [4].
1
I appreciate the feedback offered by anonymous reviewers. I added some comments and examples
provided by the reviewers to my discussion. I have greatly benefited from them.
2
E-mail: imai.shingo@gmail.com
3
A whole word in capital letters is intended to refer to a schema.
(1) a book on the table.
(2) a mirror on the wall.
(3) a bug on the ceiling.
In (1), on refers to the configurational or geometrical relation the figure book and the
landmark table underneath of the figure. This vertical configuration can be rotated as
exemplified in (2) and (3). Vertical configuration is irrelevant to the use of on in (2)
and (3). What matters in (2) and (3) is SUPPORT against the gravity rather than
configurational relation. In (1), the configurational relation of the figure and the ground
licenses the use of on, where SUPPORT is backgrounded. CONTACT, by the way,
distinguishes on from above in the above examples. (4) is a case without CONTACT.
(4) the lamp above the table.
It is clear from the observations that the function SUPPORT overcomes configurational
relation of a figure and a landmark in the usage of on.
Lindstromberg [4] argues that functional meaning rather than physical
arrangements plays an important role in the use of “in” in English by referring to an
example of figure 1. In figure 1, a banana is on top of apples, and the banana is not
geometrically in the bowl, however, sentence (5) is natural.
(5) A banana and some apples are in a bowl.
Figure 1. “In” (from [4])
Lindstromberg [4] states that "in" involves not a just geometrical inclusion but also a
functional inclusion as well. By functional inclusion, he means the function of keeping
a figure(s) from falling out or escaping [5]. In other words, both geometrical
ENCLOSURE and functional CONTAINMENT are the necessary conditions of the
meaning of “in”. On also requires both geometric and functional schemas, namely
CONTACT and SUPPORT respectively. With this in mind, compare the following two
sentences.
(6) John is in the upside-down tent.
(7) Ken is standing on the upside-down tent so that it is not blown away.
Figure 2. Upside-down tent (from iStock)
Although the physical arrangement of the figure and the ground is almost identical in
both sentences, in is used in (6), while on is used in (7). In both sentences, the figure,
i.e., a person, was enclosed by the contours of the ground, i.e., a tent. Therefore, both
sentences satisfy ENCLOSURE and CONTAINMENT. In both sentences, the person
had a contact with the surface of an upside-down tent, satisfying CONTACT. The
functional schema SUPPORT is the key in the choice of prepositions of the two
sentences. In (7), the person was keeping the tent from being blown off by the wind,
which implies that SUPPORT function is involved. This SUPPORT function requires
on in (7). The comparison between the two sentences indicates that SUPPORT wins
over ENCLOSURE and CONTAINMENT. CONTAINMENT implies the boundary of
the ground, the boundary, in turn, implies geometric connotation. CONTAINMENT is
a more concrete schema than SUPPORT, which does not imply the boundary of the
ground.
To sum up, CONTAINMENT is the stronger factor than ENCLOSURE, in turn,
SUPPORT is the stronger factor than CONTAINMENT. 4 CONTAINMENT, which is
defined as “functional inclusion” by Lindstrerg, connotes a geometrical configuration,
namely, “inclusion”. Such geometrical connotation does not exist in SUPPORT.
SUPPORT with no geometric connotation is more abstract schema than
CONTAINMENT with a geometrical connotation. In the case of the schema conflict,
the more abstract schema is a stronger factor than the less abstract or more concrete
schema for the choice of preposition. SUPPORT determines the choice of the
preposition on against in which is licensed by the more concrete schema
CONTAINMENT in (7). CONTAINMENT licenses the use of “in” in (5) in the sense
of Figure 1, which violates the sense of ENCLOSURE.
There are some cases that, at a glance, none of schemas seems to be relevant to the
usage of a preposition. For instance, you hear the announcement “welcome on board”
when you are inside of an airplane. You travel “on the train” when you are inside of a
train. These fixed expressions profile the floor of an airplane and a train, which in turn,
evokes a configurational schema.
We can find some other examples of schema conflict in the usage of
demonstratives, which are also closed-class forms, in many languages. We start with
English examples. Suppose you are at one end of a billiard table and pointing at a ball
at the other end of the table with your index finger. In this case, you use that rather than
this as in (8).
(8) That is my ball.
You will switch to using this if you indicate a ball by reaching it with a cue. The
choice between this and that is based on the speaker’s recognition of his/her
psychological TERRITORY. By using a long cue, the surrounding area of the ball is
recognized within his/her territory even if the ball is located rather far from the speaker.
This exemplifies that the functional schema TERRITORY overcomes the
configurational schema DISTANCE in the choice of demonstrative forms.
An extreme case of this line is when a doctor is touching a patient’s back. The
patient’s back is a part of his/her own body, nevertheless, the speaker recognizes
his/her own back to be under the doctor’s CONTROL in such a situation. Addressee’s
4
CONTACT seems to be a necessary condition of SUPPORT. Further work is needed for the
clarification of the relation of the two.
TERRITORY or CONTROL wins over the speaker’s TERRITORY or CONTROL,
therefore, the speaker will say, “I feel a pain there.” rather than “I feel pain here.” In
other words, functional TERRITORY schema or CONTROL schema is a more
influential factor than configurational DISTANCE schema. Although the part of
speaker’s body is maximally proximal to his/her own, proximal DISTANCE from the
speaker is canceled by the Addressee’s functional TERRITORY or CONTROL.
In Japanese, demonstrative systems consist of trichotomy rather than dichotomy as
in English. In Japanese, ko- indicates PROXIMAL, so- indicates MEDIAL, and a-
indicates DISTAL in terms of distance from the speaker. When the addressee’s
TERRITORY conflicts with distance from the speaker, it is always the case that
functional TERRITORY wins over geometric distance schema.
(9) Ano hito wa dare desu ka.
that person TOP who be INT 5
‘Who is that person?’
(10) Sochira no tenki wa dou desu ka.
INT of weather TOP how be INT
‘How the weather there?’
In (9), hito or a person may be located ten meters away from the location at which
both the speaker and addressee are standing. DISTAL distance of the location of hito
‘person’ from the location of the speaker (and the addressee) requires the use of a-
following the DISTANCE schema. In (10), on the other hand, so- but not a- is used
even if the speaker and the addressee, may be apart for hundreds or thousands of
kilometers. So- is chosen in this case, because the location or vicinity of the address
falls within the territory of the addressee. This is another example that a functional
schema overrides a configurational schema.
It is noteworthy that in a doctor-and-patient case, Japanese requires so- but not a-.
It indicates that the area touched by the doctor is recognized as belonging to the
addressee but not to the speaker. Japanese example along with English example
supports the view that a functional TERRITORY schema is superior to a
configurational DISTANCE schema in the case of schema conflicts.
Some languages have demonstratives indicating verticality, visibility, and motion
[6]. Let us briefly look how these demonstratives are coded and some cases of schema
conflicts. Mizo (a language belonging to the Kuki-Chin group of Tibeto-Burman,
spoken in eastern India) has distal demonstratives that distinguish “up”, “same level”
and “down”. A lamp and a picture higher on a wall and a fan on the ceiling is referred
to with a demonstrative khii or ‘that up there’; and a stone in a pond is referred to with
khuu ‘that down there’; however, once the speaker touches a referent with one’s hand
or with a long tool such as a stick, the speaker switches to a verticality-neutral hee or
“this”. This shows that CONTACT/CONTROL schema overrides VERTICALITY
schema. VERTICALITY is conceptualized through the speaker’s perception while
CONTRACT is conceptualized through an interaction of the speaker and a referent. It
5
Abbreviations used in gloss;
BND bounded DET determiner DIST distal distance
INT interrogative particle INV invisible LOC locative demonstrative
MED medial distance PROX proximal distance SG singular
TOP topic marker UNB unbounded 1 1st person
suggests that the speaker-and-referent interaction is more functional than visual
perception. This gives a reason to the fact that CONTACT/CONTROL schema is
chosen against VERTICALITY schema.
In Malagasy (a Malayo-Polynesian language spoken in Madagascar), an invisible
location is coded with "invisible" locative demonstratives exemplified as atsy and ato
in (11) and (12) respectively. (Following examples are from Imai 2009:166)
(11) n-apetra-ko atsy ilay vola madinika.
PST-put-1SG MED.LOC.INV DET.INV money small
‘I put the coin there.’
(12) misy rasufutr ato anatin’ itý anganba kasseto itý.
exist something DIST.LOC.INV.BND in PROX think cassette PROX
‘There is something in there. I think this is a cassette.’
The invisible referent is usually coded with “invisible” determiner exemplified as
ilay in (11). However, in (12) a cassette-tape, which cannot be seen by the speaker
since it it is in a bag, is coded with “visible” demonstrative adjectives itý. This is the
case that CONTACT/CONTROL schema overrides VISIBILITY schema. Again, a
functional schema, namely CONTACT/CONTROL chooses a closed-class form
against a form motivated by a visual perception.
3. Subjective vs. objective
In Malagasy, a moving referent is coded with a distance-neutral demonstrative iny.
Distance-neutral means that the demonstrative is used without regard to distance. It
behaves like an English determiner the, which is used regardless the distance of a
referent from the location of the speaker. One of the characteristics, which iny in
Malagasy does not share with English is that the use of the form is restricted to a
referent in motion as in (13). If a referent is not in motion, a distance-neutral
demonstrative io or one of the distance-sensitive demonstratives, for instance, irý, is
used as in (14).
(13) mandeha mafy iny tomobilna iny.
running fast UNB.SG automobile UNB.SG
‘That car is running fast.’
(14) misy trano irý / *iny manapaka ny lalana irý / *iny.
exist house DIST.SG/UNB.SG across DET road DIST.SG/UNB.SG
‘There is a house across that road.’
If a speaker refers to trees by the road while she is driving a car, she uses a
“motion” form because trees look as if they were passing by. If a speaker refers to a car
running in parallel with his car, he uses a “non-motion” form because the car next to
his car looks as if it were not in motion. Thus, notion of motion depends on perception
but not on physical motion. In other words, image schemas are based on perception or
subjective interpretation but not objectivity. Examples of schema conflicts discussed
before also show that subjective perception rather than objective reality plays a vital
role in the grammar of a language. The same applies to the following examples.
(15) A:itý ve? B:tsy iny.
PROX.SG INT not UNB.SG
‘This one?’ ‘Not that one’
(16) A:itý ve? B:tsy io.
PROX.SG INT not BND.SG
‘This one?’ ‘Not that one.’
In (15), the speaker A picks up a piece of chalk. The speaker B observes the chalk
is moving and uses “motion” iny. In (16), the speaker A points at a chalk without
touching it. The speaker B observes the chalk in situ and uses “non-motion” io.
Examples of this section indicated that grammar of a language is determined by the
speaker’s subjective construal of the world.
4. Conclusion
In this paper, I cited several usage examples of pre/postpositions, demonstratives and
determiners from various languages and claimed that a more abstract/functional image
schema rather than a more concrete/configurational image schema determines the usage
of closed-class forms in case more than one image schemas are candidate for
determining factor of linguistic forms. In addition, I noted that not physical world per
se but the speaker’s construal of the world is the basis of usage of language.
In our discussion, the term of “image schema” is used in a broad sense because it
includes not only visual perception but also the functional interaction between the
speaker and referents/location. “Image” in this sense is not limited to perception but is
extended to subjective “construal” by the speaker. This broader scope of image
schemas captures the linguistic behaviors and construal better than the narrow meaning
of image schemas that is limited to perception.
References
[1] L. Talmy, Toward A Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1. Concept Structuring Systems, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 2000.
[2] L. Talmy, The fundamental system of spatial schemas in language. In B. Hampe (ed.) From Perception to
Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, 199-234, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York,
2005.
[3] E. Dodge and G. Lakoff, Image schemas: From linguistic analysis to neural grounding, In B. Hampe (ed.)
From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, 57-92, Mouton de Gruyter,
Berlin/New York, 2005.
[4] S. Lindstromberg, English Prepositions Explained: Revised Version, John Benjamins Publishing
Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 2010.
[5] H. Annette, Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English,
Cambridge University Press, London/New York, 1986/2009.
[6] S. Imai, Spatial Deixis: How Finely Do Languages Divide Space?, VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, Saarbrücken,
Germany, 2009.