The Semantics of
ja and ye:
Semantic variation in 
Marathi motion verbs

by Nick Ward

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements 
for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honours) 
at the Department of Linguistics, 
University of Sydney, June 2009.
Revised with minor changes February, 2010.

Chapter One: Introduction							page
1.1 Introduction									4
1.2 Marathi										6
1.3 A note on translation								7
1.4 Thesis overview									7

Chapter Two: Theoretical framework
2.1 Introduction									9
2.1.1 Subjectivity, Embodiment, Protoypicality				10
2.1.2 Semantics and pragmatics						13
2.1.3 Diachronicity in studies of semantic change 				13
2.2 Deixis										14
	2.2.1 Deixis in come and go as verbs of motion through space		16
	2.2.2 Space in language							22
	2.2.3 ‘Figurative’ deixis in come and go					24
2.3 Polysemy										29
	2.3.1 Mechanisms: Metaphor and metonymy				31
2.3.1.1 Meaning ‘extension’							38
2.3.2 Causes: subjectivity and expression/efficiency			40
2.4 Representing meaning								42
2.5 Summary	48

Chapter Three: Semantics of ja and ye
3.1 Introduction									49
3.1.1 Data									50
	3.1.2 Dictionary definitions							51
3.1.3 Ja vs Ye?								51

3.2 ‘Basic’ senses: Ja and ye as verbs of motion through space			52
	3.2.1 Grammatically invited inference					52
	3.2.2 Ja									55	
	3.2.3 Ye									59
3.3 Meaning ‘extensions’								63
	3.3.1 Metaphorical applications of ‘basic’ senses				63
	3.3.2 Extended senses with metaphor and metonymy			70
	3.3.3 Causes									83
3.4 ‘Figurative’ deixis in ja and ye							87
3.5 Discussion									93
3.6 Summary										94

Chapter Four: Conclusions							96

References 										99

Chapter One: Introduction

1.1 Introduction	
The verbs come and go, and their counterparts in other languages, are most commonly associated with a motion event, often with an implication of movement towards (“Come!”) or away from (“Go!”) the speaker. As a starting point this is ok, but it is also clearly insufficient, as many languages also utilize their forms of these verbs to encode a broader and more complex range of semantic information than simply a motion event through space, towards or away from the speaker.

This study will examine the use of the Marathi verbs ja and ye (‘go’ and ‘come’, respectively), paying particular attention to usages that are semantically divergent from the basic spatial motion event. Cross-linguistically such ‘semantically divergent’ usages include renderings of a range of physical, mental and existential states. Furthermore, and again cross-linguistically, evaluative connotations are often systematically encoded in the pair of verbs. 

In this thesis I show that the ‘basic’ senses of ja and ye support a diverse range of metaphorical usages and are surrounded by several metaphorically and metonymically ‘extended’ senses. I also show that Marathi exhibits (as do Hindi, English and Thai) a figurative and evaluative systematization of its ‘go’ and ‘come’ verbs (ja and ye) with the contrastive notions of ‘bad’ and ‘good’ respectively. 

The study integrates linguistic and cognitive linguistic work on subjectivity, prototypicality, metaphor, metonymy and image schemas to investigate the mechanisms and causes of the semantic changes leading to ja and ye’s current lexico-semantic situation. 

One of the main theoretical avenues in previous work on this topic has been deixis. Here too deixis will bear significantly on ja and ye, but my analysis will also reflect the shifting of theoretical ground that has occurred in the field of semantics since some of the earlier ‘come’-and-‘go’ studies (e.g. Fillmore 1971). Specifically, I will expound polysemy to join deixis as the twin principal component of my theoretical framework, which together more comprehensively cover the processes and motivations for semantic shift of the kind we are looking at.

Amongst the major questions that this study addresses are:
•	How can we define (cross-linguistic) ‘come’ and ‘go’, and (Marathi) ja and ye in their uses as verbs of motion through space?
•	What happens when ja and ye are used with some meaning other than these ‘basic’ meaning of spatial motion? 
•	In such cases, what semantic forces are at play in allowing or constraining extension of the verbs’ meanings? What roles, for instance, are being played by the verbs’ deictic properties, or by the underlying mechanisms and causes of polysemy? 

1.2 Marathi
Marathi is an Indo-Aryan language spoken in the central western part of India, predominantly in the state of Maharashtra where it is an official language. It is bordered to the north and north-east by other Sanskrit-based languages, Gujarati and Hindi, and to the south-east and south by Dravidian languages Telugu and Kannada. Off the south-west corner of the Marathi speaking region lies Konkani, a closely related Indo-Aryan language. 

Marathi is spoken by about seventy percent of people in Maharashtra state, or seven percent of Indians, which amounts to approximately 70million people, and ranks as the fourth most-spoken language in India (15th in the world). Addition of the global diaspora brings the total number of speakers up to over 80million.

Being sandwiched between typologically distinct Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages has had some interesting effects on the development of aspects of Marathi phonology, lexicon and syntax, where it displays some characteristic Dravidian features layered throughout its largely Sanskrit-derived base (Pandharipande 1997). Likewise, Marathi’s prominent position both within India and now in the global language economy has contributed to an abundance and diversity of sociolinguistic variation (Pandharipande 2003, Nemade 1990). About 45 distinct dialects of Marathi are recognized, with many other regional varieties. Despite this, it is highly standardized thanks to Marathi-medium education and a proud (and highly politicized) ethno-linguistic identity (D’Souza 2006, Benei 2005).

Marathi uses the devanagari alphabet (similarly to Hindi, Nepali and Sanskrit), employing 47 individual characters (37 consonants and 10 vowels).
1.3 A note on translation. 
I am providing ‘go’ and ‘come’ as English translations of ja and ye, as well as of other ‘equivalent’ lexical items in other languages. Neither ‘go’ nor ‘come’ are suitable candidates as either semantic primitives, nor as semantic universals (Goddard 1998:205-9, Goddard 2001:28, Wilkins and Hill 1995). The analysis of ja and ye will show that their semantic distribution is, in their ‘basic’ senses as verbs of motion through space, similar to English go and come, although still not identical. In some of their less prototypical applications, however the English-Marathi counterparts are less comparable. Thus, ja and ye do not precisely mean ‘go’ and ‘come’; all glosses should be thought of, especially in the finer details, as semantic approximations. Following Wilkins and Hill (1995) I will use (small caps) come and go when referring to an approximate semantic concept spanning a range of languages and their respective relevant lexical items. Note that I am not claiming the actual cross-linguistic existence of such linguistic (or underlying cognitive) structures; come and go are provided more as a procedural convenience.

1.4 Thesis overview
The remainder of the thesis is laid out as follows:

Chapter two presents the theoretical framework to be used for the subsequent semantic analysis. Commencing with a synopsis of some of the overarching concepts, the main sections on deixis and polysemy are then followed by a methodological discussion on representing meaning including justification of the chosen metalanguage for the present analysis. 

Chapter three utilizes this theoretical framework in a semantic analysis of the Marathi verbs ja and ye. Based on written and spoken language data it presents arguments for the development of different senses of the verbs, as well as exploring their use of ‘figurative’ deixis.

Chapter four brings together the arguments and offers some Marathi-specific as well as some general theoretical conclusions on the themes.

Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework

2.1 Introduction
Prior to our semantic analysis of ja and ye we must review the concepts and theoretical tools that will be utilized.

Cursory inspection of the data reveals a variety of uses of ja and ye. Central to the analysis will be a theory of polysemy, detailing the differentiation – or the integration – of these different ‘senses’. Polysemy’s mechanisms (metaphor and metonymy, and underlying these, image schemas) and causes (subjectivity, efficiency/expressivity) will be described. The other major component of the analysis will utilize the theory of linguistic deixis. 

Broadly, this theoretical framework pertains to the nexus of structural linguistics and pragmatics, bridging language ‘knowledge’ and language ‘usage’ (Chomsky 1986). The close interdependence of these levels of language use and theory is detailed below (section 2.1.2). Whilst both polysemy and deixis are semantic theories, at a slightly finer level of distinction deixis has a somewhat more specific pragmatic element: In a theory of polysemy, ultimately a word’s meaning (or more correctly its sense in each usage), comprehended with the assistance of contextual information, can be glossed independently of the context – like dictionary definitions. The meaning of a deictic word, in contrast, (which has only one sense unless it is polysemous as well), relies directly in every case on the context of use. 

Thus, the theoretical themes are all contributions to our understanding of the complex relationships between words, their use, and therein their meanings. 
	2.1.1 Subjectivity, Embodiment, Prototypicality
Before commencing on deixis and polysemy, we will consider some key concepts that permeate the theoretical areas and form links between them: Subjectivity, embodiment and prototypicality.

An appreciation of the significance of subjectivity must lie close to the heart of any theory of meaning. Subjectivity “involves the expression of self and the representation of a speaker’s… perspective or point of view in discourse”. (Traugott & Dasher 2002:20 quoting Finegan 1995:1). The inherent perspective of the speaker is a fundamental characteristic of much deictic language, as observed by Bühler ([1934] 1982) in his exposition of the ‘Origo’, the deictically situated a reference point of ‘me, here, now’. Indeed, according to Bühler it is precisely the subjective nature of deictic language that has been cited by the ‘ancient [Greek] grammarians’ and modern philosophers of language alike as complicating its logical and linguistic analysis. This conception of subjectivity aligns with Benveniste’s perspective that “c’est dans et par la langue que l’homme se constitue comme sujet; parce que la langue seul fonde en réalite, dans sa réalite qui est celle de l’être, le concept d’ ‘ego’” (Benveniste 1966:259 quoted in Lyons 1982:101). 

Moreover, semantics in general is “irreducibly interpretive and subjective” (Riemer 2005:417), as we each bring to our language use our own particular experiences and understandings. As such, in making claims about the ‘meanings’ of words or sentences, we are of course invoking an ‘idealized’ language user (Chomsky 1965); a certain shared standard of meaning as epitomized in the cumulative product of a language’s dictionary and grammar, vital to linguistic analysis but elusive in real linguistic practice. Thus we must acknowledge subjectivity’s capricious and powerful influence, and simultaneously, for practical reasons, downplay its significance in the hope of viewing more general (and less subjective) patterns of shared meaning. This analysis represents but one possible subjective interpretation of the data, but it also implicitly suggests that this interpretation reflects some recognizable shared meaning amongst Marathi speakers. Subjectivity will also be explored as a potential cause or motivation for meaning shift in language.

Closely related to the notion of subjectivity is the effect embodied experience has on our linguistic systems and the underlying cognitive structures. These claims pertain to the cognitive linguistics approach, which looks explicitly for “language-mind and language-mind-body linkages” in order to explain linguistic structure and behaviour (Gibbs 2006:90). The notion of embodiment then, like subjectivity, presents a functionalist account of the development of meanings.

Levinson (2003) observes the embodied nature of spatial perception and the explanatory power of semantic and pragmatic extension from this embodied understanding of space, whilst Gibbs (2006) explains that we conceptualize our sensory perceptions into general and extendable models of forces and phenomena – image schemas (cf. section 2.3.1), through which subsequent experiences may be conceptually filtered and understood. Being a cognitive model these image schemas can only be indirectly observed through such things as language and behaviour, and accordingly they are suggested as providing the underlying structure to linguistic devices such as metaphor. The relevant cognitive linguistic theories – metaphor, metonymy and image schemas – will be more fully introduced later in this chapter. 

Finally, the influential concept of prototypes pervades many aspects of this study. The prototypical understanding of categorization for which there is compelling evidence (Fillmore 1982:33), arose from the psycholinguistic work in the 1970s of Eleanor Rosch and was one of the significant advances that heralded the subsequent explosion of cognitive linguistic research (e.g. Lakoff et al’s work on metaphor). The basic premise (Geeraerts 1997:11) is that categories:

(i)	…exhibit degress of typicality; not every member is equally representative for a category.
(ii)	…exhibit a family resemblance structure, or more generally, their semantic structure takes the form of a radial set of clustered and overlapping readings.
(iii)	…are blurred at the edges.
(iv)	…cannot be defined by means of a single set of criterial (necessary and sufficient) attributes. 

We will observe various permutations of these properties in the organization of the senses of ja and ye, and in shaping the senses’ development. One reason why prototypicality is so inherently useful in the study of semantic change is because of its fundamental flexibility, which imbues it even as a static and synchronic theory of categorial structure with a highly dynamic nature (Geeraerts 1997:114).

These overarching themes – subjectivity, embodiment and prototypicality – will be referred to at numerous relevant points throughout the remainder of the study.
	2.1.2 Semantics and pragmatics 
As a semantic analysis this study will largely ignore issues of pragmatics. We will focus on only the explicitly encoded information, avoiding tacit communicative devices such as implicatures. Our data, however, are language in use: Where context-specific pragmatic pressures have already inevitably impacted on ‘decontextualised’ semantic information (such as our internal generalized ‘dictionary-like’ definitions of words). Despite this, polysemy by definition pertains to the initial level of semantic information (i.e. prior to pragmatics). So even though the data do display the effects of pragmatic pressures, our approach is to simply accept these at face value, and to focus on the subsumed semantic level of “stored communicable information associated with conventional signs” (Wilkins and Hill 1995:213). In general, therefore, we will assume that besides what is made explicit or is immediately contextually apparent, the context and other pragmatic effects are maximally simple. For instance, if someone is ‘going’ but their destination is not mentioned we will assume that none is implied.
	
2.1.3 Diachronicity in semantic change studies
Studies of semantic change often adopt a diachronic approach, using data spanning an extended period of time. This is, of course, appropriate for viewing unfolding stages of change. A synchronic data set, however, is also capable of showing (at least certain types of) semantic change. Specifically, when a word’s meaning shifts by becoming systematically (semantically) used divergently to its original meaning, but the original meaning does not disappear, the resulting situation is a word with two distinct meanings – historically (etymologically) related, but both simultaneously ‘current’. This situation, called polysemy, will be discussed in section 2.3. Accordingly, whilst diachronic data is certainly useful, it is not absolutely crucial. The present study unfortunately lacks the space to include a wider, diachronic range of data, but is nevertheless justified in providing an account of diachronic semantic shift based on synchronic data.

2.2 Deixis
Deictic language is that which may only be fully and correctly “interpreted by knowing certain aspects of the communication act in which the utterances” occurred (Fillmore 1971:39). In this way it contrasts with language that is non-indexical in the sense that each word can be sufficiently understood by its standard semantic content (say, dictionary definition), and that the sentence in turn can be deciphered according to a set of standard decontextualized syntactic and semantic rules. Although such non-deictic language exists widely (such as in gnomic statements, e.g. “Cats are stealthy”), deixis is also prolific. The meanings of verbs like come and go rely on deixis because their definition in a given usage includes a place which is relative to some discourse relevant person, usually the speaker or the addressee; this will be discussed more below.

Essentially then, deixis requires contextualization to provide or recover its complete meaning, thus connecting language and the world in a manner sensitive to the situational details of the particular linguistic act in which it occurs. Deictic language may be anchored to the context through a number of different channels, including (summarized from Fillmore 1971:39-40):
•	The identity of the interlocutors, person deixis (eg. Personal pronouns, which refer to different people depending on who utters them and/or hears them.)
•	The place/s in which the conversation participants are located, or some other place relevant to the discourse: place deixis (eg. Demonstratives like ‘here’ and ‘there’, which refer to different places depending on the location of the speaker and possibly the addressee.)
•	The time at which the communication act takes place, or in the case of non-synchronic communication such as letter, when it is produced or received: time deixis (eg. Time expressions like ‘tomorrow’, ‘now’, ‘later’, ‘before’ etc. whose meaning is clearly dependent on some implicitly shared reference time, or tense and aspect markers which temporally situate the discourse and the event within the discourse.) 
•	Preceding and following parts of the discourse: discourse deixis (eg. Anaphorically functioning words like ‘this’ or ‘that’ when they refer to some previously made point.)
•	Social relationships of the interlocutors or others: social deixis (eg. Respect forms of address like ‘Sir’, or honorifics.)

As this overview illustrates, deixis is of great and varied significance within linguistic communication. It endows language with an efficient means of referring to the immediate context, thus catering elegantly to language’s most frequent application as a practical tool for interacting with others in order to manipulate the environment, including other people. 

The variety of channels through which deictic language may be anchored to its context are consolidated by one very common default, communally understood deictic reference point, the deictic centre, which is roughly: ‘me, here, now, at this point in the discourse, in my social position’ (Fillmore 1971). Once this centre has been located (usually implicitly) by the speaker, it can serve as a zero point for a more extensive system of relative coordinates or directions - left, right, north, south etc. of here. (cf. Bühler 1934 Origo; and Fillmore 1982:45 on speaker ‘grounding’), and which an addressee who is appropriately linguistically and culturally conversant will be able to decode. Deictic centering is highly significant in an analysis of any deictic language, including come and go. The default deictic centre, needless to say, is the mode par excellence of expressing our subjectivity (Lyons 1982).

Whilst for practical and phenomenological reasons the deictic centre often remains egocentrically located, it can also be shifted by the speaker to suit his pragmatic needs or preferences. We shall see such shifting of the deictic centre in the following discussion on the deixis of come and go. 

2.2.1 Deixis in come and go as verbs of motion through space
We have so far introduced deixis and glimpsed its importance in linguistic practice. One aspect of deixis that has been examined is its role in the semantic structure of certain verbs of motion like come and go. From this point forward we will adopt Talmy’s (1985) descriptive notation of typical verbs of motion: An object of some kind (the Figure) moves along a trajectory (the Path), away from one point (Source) and simultaneously towards another (Goal). Both the Source and the Goal are subcategorized as specific parts of the Ground, reference points against which the motion happens. The Path, being essentially a series of adjacent points between the Source and Goal, is also technically just a specific part of the Ground. So, reduced, motion involves a Figure and a Ground, the latter subspecified into Source, Path, and Goal (cf. source-path-goal image schema, section  2.3.1)

Deictic centering, as explained, occurs when the speaker (or more precisely some aspect of her utterance) utilizes a contextually referential anchoring point, often (but by no means always) ‘me, here, now’. Deictic centering is clearly relevant in English come and go as can be seen in these dictionary definitions:

come: (1) move or travel towards or into a place near or familiar to the speaker (Concise OED 11thEd.);

go: “(where) the prominent notion is that of destination or direction… the verb is distinguished from come by the implication that the movement is not towards the speaker, or the person whose point of view he for the moment assumes” (OED, quoted in Fillmore 1971:51)

These definitions suggest a relatively consistent spatial deictic centre for come and go in the location of the speaker. Or do they? Certainly, the deictic anchoring of come is made quite explicit, but go’s deictic properties seem dependent on being understood in opposition to come, rather than inherent. Such an interpretation is proposed by Wilkins and Hill (1995), along with the observation that an intrinsic semantic opposition between come and go has often been assumed but is not necessarily the case, especially outside of English. Staying for now with English, and the more clearly deictically anchored come, it is apparent that come’s deictic centre cannot simply be identifying with the location of the speaker: 

“May I come in [to the house, i.e. towards you, the addressee]?”

“I came to the front door [where I expected you, the addressee, to be, but you actually were not; you may have been there earlier but were not necessarily], but you were not there.”

In these examples the deictic centre has been shifted to the addressee’s location, either actual or, as in the second example, potential, past or imagined. 

Upon examination, Fillmore (1971:50) concludes that go indicates motion towards somewhere other than the speaker’s location at ‘coding time’. (‘Coding time’ is the time at which the communication act occurs. In contrast is ‘reference time’ which is “the temporal focus or background for the event or condition being described in the clause” [Fillmore 1971:52-54]). It is the Goal of go, then, which is deictically defined negatively as a place where the speaker is not.

Come, for its part, must be more volubly defined (Fillmore 1971):

motion toward the location of either the speaker or the addressee at either coding time or reference time [see note]… [or] motion at reference time which is in the company of either the speaker or addressee… [or] in discourse in which neither the speaker nor addressee figure as a character, motion toward a place taken as the subject of the narrative, toward the location of the central character at reference time, or toward the place which is the central character’s home base at reference time. 

This definition identifies nine possible locations for come’s deictic centre: six when the speaker and/or addressee ‘figure as characters’ in the discourse, and three when neither of them figure as such. More generally the definitions contend that both come and go are, in fact, deictic terms, as their meaning in a given usage is dependent on the context – specifically, the location of the speaker or some other discourse-relevant person. 

All potentially semantically contributing in a given use of come or go, then, are: 
•	the location of the Source or Goal (place deixis); 
•	who is speaking/being spoken to and who is accompanying them (person deixis); 
•	who else is or isn’t present in the discourse (discourse deixis); 
•	the relationship between coding time and reference time (time deixis). 

The difference between come as motion towards a deictically specified Goal, and go as motion towards a negatively deictically specified Goal (i.e. deictically specifying a point and then stipulating movement to some other point) suggests (i) that come may be a ‘more deictic’ verb than go because come’s meaning is more dependent on an actual deictically specified location and (ii) that the meaning of come is intrinsically Goal-related. 

Whether go, for its part, is more semantically associated with the Source or Goal is less clear-cut. Fillmore defined go with respect to a Goal, but it is a negatively deictically specified Goal. Such a negatively defined location clearly represents a more complicated semantic relationship between place and motion, but precisely what effects this has will, at this stage, remain open for discussion. Also on this point we might compare some NSM explications of the English motion verb pair (metalanguages are discussed in section 2.4). Interestingly – and this will be explored more later through ja and ye, Goddard (1998:205) provides a separate explication for when a to-phrase is added to go, pointing out that in this syntactic context “X went from A to B entails X moved from A to B”: 

go:
X went (yesterday)=
before this, X was somewhere
X wanted to be somewhere else
because of this, X moved for some time (yesterday)
because of this, after this X wasn’t in this place any more
X was somewhere else

go with a to-phrase:
X went from A to B (yesterday)=
before this, X was in place-A
X wanted to be somewhere else
because of this, X moved for some time (yesterday)
because of this, after this X wasn’t in place-A any more
X was in place-B

come:
X came to place-A (yesterday)=
before this, X was somewhere
X wanted to be somewhere else 
because of this, X moved for some time
because of this, after this X was in place (place-A) (yesterday)
someone in this place could think:
	X is in the same place as me

The explication for come is identical to go in the first three components, “which is as it should be considering that an act of coming can be seen (from another point of view) as an act of going.” (Goddard 1998:210). The differences thereafter attest to (i) the different temporal perspectives on the motion itself: Motion is a prior condition for coming, whereas motion is an outcome of going. And, more significantly, (ii) “the possibility of an ‘egocentric’ interpretation of X’s final location”, encoded in the final two lines which provide “the special quality of come” (Goddard 1998:210). Note that this ‘egocentric’ perspective can be that of the speaker, addressee or a third party, and (‘someone in this place could think’) can even express a “hypothetical or imagined” situation (Goddard 1998:211).

Upon this grounding the deictic properties of ja and ye will be examined in chapter three. 

To conclude this section, and of significance for the present study, there is a considerable degree of cross-linguistic variation in the deictic referencing properties of come and go (Fillmore 1971:68-69; Wilkins & Hill 1995; Wälchli 2006; Ricca 1993; Goddard 1998:205-9). Mazahua, for instance, makes use of social deixis, (the only type of deixis not encoded in English come and go), by allowing the deictic centre to be shifted to the addressee only when used in “polite or deferential language”, thus referencing some aspect of the social relationship between speaker and addressee (Fillmore 1971:69). Whilst Ricca (1993, cited in Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2008:17) concludes from her study of 20 European languages that come is a deictic verb but go is non-deictic.

The deictic properties of come and go that we have so far been discussing have largely to do with spatial reference – locations and direction of movement. We shall see below that come and go often refer to events other than direction of movement through space. But first, as space does appear to be of some importance, we will review the theoretical area of space in language.

2.2.2 Space in language
Our experiential acquaintance with space provides an abundant stimulus for much language. Many grammatical constructions including temporal and aspectual, existential, change-of-state and causal expressions are directly or metaphorically couched in locative language grounded in ‘spatial notions’, and “[p]sychologists have suggested that these ‘localist’ tendencies may reflect the evolution of language out of spatial cognition.” (Levinson 2003:17). Space’s “primacy” may be cross-linguistically observed in “the fact that spatial relations often carry core conceptual content, as manifested by their expression in closed-class forms, and from metaphorical use of spatial relations throughout other parts of the semantic system” (Regier 1996:20).

Cultural variability in spatial conception is widely attested on the basis of cross-linguistic evidence. Specifically, variable ‘frames of reference’ (intrinsic, relative, absolute) reflect a range of possible conceptions of space and movement, as well as of many other related facets of cognition (Levinson 2003). A deictic centre is not in itself a frame of reference; rather, it provides an origin to which a frame of reference may be anchored (Levinson 2003:70-71; cf. Bühler on ‘Origo’ and Fillmore 1982:45 on speaker ‘grounding’). 

The grounding of many cognitive and linguistic structures in ‘spatial notions’ is an assertion about embodied experience, as we only understand the abstract entity ‘space’ indirectly, as it is filtered through our sensory perceptions, and our linguistic and cultural models. Furthermore, the claim that space is cognitively primordial, underlying and mapping onto other domains of experience and abstract concepts, relates to several other key (and themselves interrelated) concepts in the present study: The idea of central vs. peripheral meanings and its foundation in prototypicality; theories of polysemy; and in the literal/figurative meaning distinction briefly mentioned above. Specifically, the implication is that more prototypical meanings, more primary senses (in polysemy), and what are perceived to be more ‘literal’ meanings lie semantically closer to the claimed cognitive prime – space. 

Also the focus of much semantic interpretation is another experientially comprehended abstract concept – time. Some analyses suggest that our understanding of space is somehow more primal than our understanding of time, such as Lakoff’s (1993) time passing is motion conceptual metaphor. But this is merely a theoretical extension of the more cautious observation that aspects of spatial and temporal language are “structurally similar”, which does not necessarily entail that one stems metaphorically from the other (McClone 2001:103). An equally reasonable explanation is that aspects of our interaction with space may lead to a more “transparent” expression of a “common set of abstract principles” organizing our experiences of space, time and other abstract concepts (McGlone 2001:103 citing Jackendoff 1983, Gruber 1976 and Talmy 1996). The linguistic manifestations could (and often do) mislead us to infer that space is more cognitively real or fundamental. Although McGlone does not expand on this ‘common set of abstract organizing principles’, it appears functionally analogous to image schemas (cf. section 2.3.1). More generally, Kovecses (2006:212) suggests that ‘conceptual space’ is structured by our embodied experience of physical space. Accordingly, naming (supposed) conceptual mappings between these domains ‘metaphors’ is perhaps overstating the case. (Or, on the other hand, this is a prototypical exemplar of ‘metaphor’. This is precisely the problem with trying to define metaphor at a conceptual level – where does metaphor end and embodied thinking begin?) That native English speakers generally agree, for instance, that long is more basically a spatial descriptor, and only derivatively a temporal one need not be interpreted as that space is cognitively prior to time, but is more soberly interpreted (by Fillmore 1982:32-33) as a prototype effect within that particular word.

This discussion is relevant because come and go, as verbs of motion, also implicitly encode movement through time. Change, in this case of a Figure’s location, is inherently temporally grounded. This fundamental relationship between spatial motion and temporal ‘motion’ no doubt contributes to the impression of conceptual and linguistic mapping between the two semantic domains (cf. Hoyt 1994, Gibbs 2006:187-190).

2.2.3 ‘Figurative’ deixis in come and go
So far, the deictic properties of come and go have been discussed in the context of movement through space. But these verbs are also used for a variety of other distinct semantic purposes. In a number of studies in various languages, come and go are seen to refer to a range of much more abstract events, such as the arrival, departure or occurrence of certain mental or physical states, or the occurrence of other (non-personal) events, none of which seem to involve any notion of spatial motion at all. Clarke (1974) suggests that these uses of come and go should be thought of as less ‘literal’ and more ‘figurative’. This claim will be further examined below, but for the sake of the current discussion, the literal/figurative dichotomy will be observed. Even though these figurative uses of come and go occur in a broad range of semantic environments, and without clear person, place or time deictic anchoring points, the concept of deictic centre still contributes crucially to their meaning. 

The observed tendency is for come to indicate states or events which are favorable, or which are generally considered ‘normal’. Go, in its turn, fulfills the reverse semantic roles, referring to things which are unfavorable, or which are considered departures from ‘normal’. This contrast will here be simplified to ‘good’ (come) vs. ‘bad’ (go). The vital point is that deictic centre is still utilized, but it is ‘located’ at the figurative location of ‘good’, which events or states described with come ‘approach’, ‘arrive at’ or simply ‘are at’. Conversely, events or states described with go ‘depart’, ‘move away from’ or ‘are not at’ the deictic center (‘good’). With regards to what constitutes ‘normal’ and ‘favorable’ (here ‘good’), Clarke (1974:316) suggests such things as sanity, consciousness, and socially accepted/expected behaviour, but acknowledges the likelihood of some cultural variation. Following are some illustrative examples from the studies whose findings have supported the above hypothesis. Sinha (1972) analysed ana (come) and jana (go) in Hindi, Clarke (1974) come and go in English, and Treerat (1990) ma: (come) and pay (go) in Thai. (The examples below are either from Clarke [English examples], Sinha [Hindi] or Treerat [Thai]).

•	When something comes it is good:

English:
I came up with the answer/idea/solution. 
We came to an agreement. 
She came into some money.
All of my dreams came true. 
He came good in the end.
She came to/around (i.e. returned to consciousness)/out of a coma.

Hindi:
uska	larka	layak/yogya/widwannidar/bhadra/bhala	nikal	aya		
his	son	able/a scholar/fearless/gentle/noble	out	came		
His son turned out to be able/a scholar/fearless/gentle/noble.

musiibat	me	uskii	buddhi	nikal	aayii	
crisis	in	his	wisdom	out	came	
In crisis his wisdom came out.

ciijo	ke	daam	niice	utar	aaye	
things	Poss.	price	down	Obl.	came	
The price of things came down.

Thai:
khǎw 	tù:n	ma:	dûay	cìtcay	thî:	caè:msǎy	
He	awake	come	with 	mind	that	glow	
He woke up feeling bright

pho’:	khǎw	fú’:n	ma:	kó’	hěn	phû:khon	ra:yló’:m	khǎw	yù:	
when	he	regain
consciousness	come	then	see	people	surround	he	Asp.	
As he came back to his senses he found that he was surrounded by people.

•	When something goes it is bad:

English:
A situation or thing goes/*comes bad.
Food goes/*comes stale/sour/off. 
Metal goes/*comes rusty.
A person goes/*comes bald/deaf/blind/into a coma. 

Hindi:
uska	larka	bewkuf/badmas/xarab/haramzada	nikal	gaya		
his	son	fool/rascal/bad/bastard	out	went		
His son turned out to be (Lit: went out) a fool/rascal/bastard/bad.

musiibat	me	uskii	buddhi	nikal	gayii		
crisis	in	his	wisdom	out	went		
In crisis his wisdom went/left him.

ciijo	ke	daam	upar	carh	gaye		
things	Poss.	price	up	Obl.	went		
The price of things went up.

Thai:
hà:k	khô’:sanǒe:	ní:	tòk	pay	phǒm	cà	sǐacay	mâ:k	
if	proposal	this	reject	go	I	will	sad	very	
I will be very unhappy if this proposal is rejected.

fay	yù: yù:	kó’	dàp	pay	
power	without any cause	Conj	extinguish	go	
The power went out without any reason.

khǎw	ta:y	pay	yà:ng	ráy	yâ:t	mît	
he	die	go	Adv	without	relative	friend	
He died without any friends and relatives.

phû:tca:	hây	sùpâ:p	dǐaw	cà	kla:y	pen	khon	ráy	ma:ra:yâ:t	pay	
speak	give	polite	other-wise	will	change	be	people	without	manner	go	
  Speak politely otherwise it will be considered bad manners.

Overall the three studies arrive at similar conclusions regarding the ‘good’ deictic centre of come and go when used in figurative ways. 

The encoding of an evaluative standard in come and go as seen in this section is clearly an expression of subjectivity, presenting the perspective or opinion of, usually, the speaker, but also, as in the final Thai (‘social standard’) example, the subjectively projected ‘population in general’. 

As was mentioned at the start of this section, many of the examples have little or no semantic relationship to ‘literal’ movement through space. But what (nearly) all of them do contain is motion through time. As discussed above, this is because coming and going, whether literal or figurative, are inchoative verbs that refer to a change in state, which is inevitably extended through time. It is therefore suggested that motion, of a more elementary kind than spatial motion, is central to the inherent meaning of come and go, and hence remains even in their semantic extension into figurative senses. 

In revealing the range of meanings come and go can encode, this discussion introduces the second major theoretical area, polysemy.
2.3 Polysemy
Polysemy is the development over time of a range of meanings, called senses, attached to a single lexical item. This section outlines the mechanisms and causes of polysemy, and specifically those that are applicable to this study. Afterwards, in applying the concepts in an analysis of ja and ye we hope to trace semantic threads through their different senses and perhaps arrive at their (individual or common) semantic ‘core’. That is not to suggest, however, that any single thread or core needs to pervade all of a word’s senses. Recall from the start of the chapter the characteristics of prototype style categories, any of which could be sought and (reasonably) expected within the readily identifiable category of a word’s set of senses. Accordingly, we may seek the most crucial features of the best prototype of a word or sense. The more of such features that a given example fulfills, the closer it is to the prototypical category member. Thus, some senses are more central, whilst others are more peripheral. This (along with other features of prototype categories) entails that different senses, and different semantic components of different senses, have varying levels of structural importance within the overall semantic topography of the lexical item with its varied senses (Geeraerts 1997:21). 

Before proceeding to the mechanisms and causes of polysemy, we must briefly discuss possible tests for polysemy and the related topic of generality. Firstly, ‘generality’ means that a word does not encode one way or the other a potential definition-internal distinction: Whilst in its general definition it includes both sides of the distinction, in a particular context it may refer specifically to one or the other of the alternatives (Goddard 1998:19). For example, in many languages one lexical item covers the arm and the hand (Koptjevskaka-Tamm 2008:19 citing Brown 2005). In such languages, this lexical item is ‘general’ regarding the hand/arm distinction. (Speakers of these languages can, if they need to, of course refer to the hand and arm individually through other means, but the distinction is just not lexicalised at this same level that we are accustomed to in English). In particular contexts this ‘general’ (hand/arm) lexical item may refer to either the hand or the arm individually. This does not mean, however, that the lexical item is polysemous, with one sense meaning ‘hand’ and the other meaning ‘arm’. Instead its relationship with the alternate referents is called ‘general’. This subtle distinction hints at the inherent uncertainty (or just subjective variability) as to whether a usage or set of usages constitute a distinct sense or not. Which brings us to testing for polysemy.

Many tests for polysemy have been proposed including logical, syntagmatic and paradigmatic types (for details see Riemer 2005:133-48). Ultimately, however, none of these tests (individually or in combination) can guarantee a definitive judgement on the question of the polysemy (or not) of a given lexical item. This failing reflects (i) the inherently complex nature of meaning, (ii) the (already observed) ultimate subjectivity of any analysis, and (iii) the fact that we have no clear “pre-theoretical notion of what a distinct meaning [i.e. sense] is...” and so our search for criteria to distinguish between senses will inevitably be “...hampered by the fact that we do not know precisely what it is we want a criterion for” (Geeraerts 2006: 136). In response to this complexity, the following analysis of ja and ye’s various uses and senses consciously expounds multifaceted arguments. 

Having observed various uses of come and go, possibly (but not necessarily) reflecting multiple senses, we are interested to ask: Are there semantic features which pertain to all uses of come (or go)? If so, is there amongst them one (or perhaps several) key features which define a core meaning of come (and, separately, go)?

As previously mentioned, we would posit a shared core feature of movement (minimally through time and frequently through space and time). And additionally, for come, a deictically specified Goal (which of course depends on the language specific deictic projection properties). Go’s locational aspect may require a more complex definition depending on the particular syntactic environment such as specification (or not) of a Source or Goal, but a general restriction might be that the Goal may not be the location of the speaker at coding time. In both cases we have observed that the deictic centre – which recall provides a reference point for the Source and Goal, may be defined either literally or figuratively. 

Motivated by our prototype approach to meaning, we might further wonder which movement (through space or time), and which deictic centre (literal or figurative) define the more prototypical come and go. For now these questions will be left aside, but their insinuation that the semantic structures of words are “networks of semantic concepts that are extendible from a core meaning” (Ravin and Leacock 2000:5) leads us back to the mechanisms and causes of these processes of semantic ‘extension’, to which we will now turn.

2.3.1 Mechanisms: Metaphor and metonymy
This subsection outlines two of the most commonly observed mechanisms leading to polysemy, metaphor and metonymy. Before this, though, we will look very briefly at another pair, pejorative and ameliorative change. Pejorative and ameliorative change is when meaning shifts to encode inherent ‘bad’ or ‘good’ connotations (Geeraerts 1997:93-102). This type of change was (or perhaps will eventually be) a semantic component of many of the figurative senses of come and go discussed above. Their meanings in context do not solely amount to a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ connotation, but this is certainly in some respect one part of their new ‘extended’ meaning. To illustrate, the following two examples consist solely of the words come and go yet still convey good and bad respective connotations: When someone is uncontrollably drunk (‘bad’) we say they are “gone”; and to experience sexual orgasm (‘good’) is to “come”.

Returning now to metaphor and metonymy. Whilst in some respects these two concepts can be suitably defined and distinguished from one another, there is also a significant degree of crossover and interplay between the two. This exists both at a theoretical (i.e. definitional and conceptual) level, and more practically in seeking to identify their linguistic presence and effects. This ‘problem of demarcation’ (Riemer 2005) arises in part because the “the target and/or the source [of a metaphor] must be understood or perspectivized metonymyically for the metaphor to be possible’” (Barcelona 2000:31 italics original). In other words, for a mapping to be based on semantic similarity (metaphor), there must be some sense of semantic contiguity (metonymy). And vice versa, if two domains are contiguous with one another, they evidently also share some semantic similarities. Note that both ‘semantic similarity’ and ‘semantic contiguity’ are delineated according to culture-specific conventional practice; they are neither universal nor subjectively arbitrary. Even if we do accept a theoretical division, researchers have observed (e.g. Riemer 2005, Traugott & Dasher 2002), and the present study will likewise discern, that the two mechanisms often co-occur in one semantic shift, with the concomitant complication of whether they occur simultaneously, or if one precedes the other.

These ‘demarcation’ issues aside, metaphor and metonymy are commonly defined along the following lines: 

Metaphor is a mapping of some quality or qualities from one semantic domain (the source domain) to another (the target). E.g. (from Glucksberg 2001): 

‘My lawyer is a shark.’ 

This statement takes the sharks’ qualities of aggressiveness and ruthless efficiency in what they do, and applies them to ‘my lawyer’. Lawyers and sharks would generally (to my mind at least) be accepted as belonging to distinct semantic domains (‘professionals’ and ‘marine life’, say). We will come back to metaphor after looking at metonymy.

Metonymy is a mapping between structurally adjacent semantic domains, which are in fact part of the same broader semantic domain. This is linguistically realized (loosely) in  a ‘stand-for’ relation; ‘x stands for y’ (Kovecses 2006:97). E.g. (from Kovecses 2006):

‘Washington denied the charges.’ 

A place (Washington) which is systematically associated with the activities that occur there (governing America), is standing for one of the people who are known to engage in those activities, a politician who is a member of the United States government. It is this politician who actually ‘denied the charges’. The connection between the politician and Washington is based on a chain of principled semantic affiliations, but that politician and Washington are also part of the same broad semantic domain of ‘The United States Government’.

The notion of metonymy is indispensable to the present study. Come and go terms (like ye and ja), often being verbs and specifically inchoative verbs, semantically encode events (Croft 1990). Events can be viewed in their entirety, or they can be divided up into stages or constituents comprising the overall event. A translational motion event, for instance, could be portrayed as containing the following constituents:

1.An object is at a location.
2.The object departs from the location. 
3.It moves along a trajectory through space.  
4.It arrives at another location.  
5.The object is at this second location.

This is essentially a restatement of the ‘basic motion event’ introduced above with its associated terminology (Figure, Path, Source, Goal, Ground). Each of these constituents has an obvious principled connection with each of the other constituents, and they simultaneously are congregated within the broader domain of ‘translational motion events’. Thus one or several of the constituents might be used to stand for others, or for the motion event in general. Or, conversely, the motion event could be used to stand for one or several particular constituents. Regarding its analytical capacity for this study, this ‘constituency’ concept will be re-presented below (section 2.4).

As traced above in the discussions of ‘figurative’ deixis in come and go, and the language of time and space, metaphor is another mechanism that may offer an account of the semantic development of these verbs. We briefly defined metaphor above, and now we will continue to a more in depth examination of the trope. 

One influential claim is that metaphors in language are but a surface expression of an underlying cognitive structure and/or process, called ‘conceptual metaphor’ (Lakoff & Johnson 1980). The precise nature of conceptual metaphors’ theoretical claim, however, needs to be explicit as their putative elements (sources or targets) are often demonstrably neither semantically universal nor primitive (Goddard 2008). Take, for instance, the proposed conceptual metaphor the mind is the body. Body is a universally lexicalized concept, and semantically ‘simple’; mind, on the other hand, is “semantically complex and exquisitely culture-bound” (Goddard 2008:94). This argument legitimately attacks universal conceptual metaphors, but it does not preclude the positing of culture/language specific conceptual metaphors. Accordingly, any posited metaphor in this study is intended solely as an observation of linguistic metaphor, and only with reference to Marathi. I will neither assert nor refute conceptual metaphors, rather I will observe instances and broader patterns of linguistic metaphor, not extending the discussion to whether or not these reflect underlying conceptual metaphors.

Looking beyond this debate, conceptual metaphors are posited largely on the basis of general patterns of linguistically observed metaphor. Several are of obvious significance to the present study, including (all from McGlone 2001 citing Lakoff 1987, 1993, Lakoff & Johnson 1977, 1980): 

•	time passing is motion. Cf. discussions above on spatial/temporal connections both generally and for motion verbs.
•	death is departure. Departure is one constituent of the ‘basic motion event’ (cf.  section 2.4) encompassing both come and go.
•	the mind is a container (more generally ‘the conduit metaphor’). Once the mind is a container, it can then be a physical location (e.g. a Source or Goal). 
•	happy is up, having control is up; sad is down, being subject to control is down. ‘Up’ and ‘down’ could be directions of coming or going movement. Also ‘happy vs. sad’ and ‘having control vs. being subject to control’ bear obvious relationship to come and go’s figurative deictic center (‘good’).

It must be remembered that these conceptual metaphors have been drawn from English. Whilst we should certainly expect cross-cultural variation they are nevertheless a useful starting point, especially as explanations of them are often in terms of embodied experience. Embodiment is also highly culturally variable, but it nonetheless includes at least one relatively universal element, the physical human form.

Metaphors involve cross-domain semantic mapping, but this description is by no means comprehensive. In fact, only specific semantic aspects of the source and target domains may be involved in the metaphorical mapping process (Glucksberg 2001:52-67). Drawing on contextual and encyclopedic knowledge, only particular aspects of the target domain will be relevant to the discourse, and hence suitable to be mapped-to. Likewise, only certain specific elements of the source domain can be informatively and comprehensibly mapped-from, namely “the kinds of things that it [the source] can epitomize” (Glucksberg 2001:55). These constraints contrast with the more simplistic view that metaphor involves a relatively free (i.e. according to the will of the speaker) mapping of any similar features shared by the source and target domains. These constraints, and the ways in which they are extended or deliberately violated by speakers, no doubt reflect the cultural and linguistic norms of the particular community, as well as individuals’ judgments and communicative needs (our old friend subjectivity). Understanding the constraints (in general, and with respect to a particular linguistic community) provides a useful tool for comprehending the nature of metaphorical extension between or within senses, and also in indicating potential core semantic features that are shared between senses.

One proposed model sees metaphors’ as largely structured by conceptually underlying ‘image schemas’ (Gibbs 2006:90-96). ‘Image schemas’ are “experiential gestalts” that “emerge throughout sensorimotor activity”, informed by “patterns of force dynamics [that] underlie our embodied understandings of abstract concepts” (Gibbs 2006:90). Being essentially cognitive models, their empirical reality cannot be definitively confirmed or denied. They have nevertheless proven to be useful explanatory tools. Proposed image schemas which may be useful in the context of this study (i.e. with reference to the above conceptual metaphors) are the source-path-goal, path, and the balance image schemas (Gibbs 2006:90-96). For instance, take the statement, “We came to an agreement.” This could be interpreted as a manifestation of the metaphor purposes are destinations (Gibbs 2006:117), and in turn providing underlying structure to this metaphor we might posit the source-path -goal image schema. Once again, the image schema (source-path -goal) conceptually structures the notion of a destination. This concrete concept (‘a destination’) is then metaphorically mapped (as the metaphor’s source, via the purposes are destinations metaphor) onto the abstract concept ‘a purpose’ (the metaphor’s target) (Gibbs 2006:91). Image schemas could thus be perceived as either mechanisms or causes of semantic change (or both). In underlying metaphor they could be interpreted as causing the metaphor, or simply as a more fundamental level of the metaphor. This matter will be further discussed in the context of the analysis of ja and ye (section 3.3.3).

A basic notion within most metaphor theory is that mappings tend to occur from more concrete domains towards more abstract ones (Lakoff & Johnson 1980). This assumption is reflected in the organization of semantic studies (such as Clarke 1974, Sinha 1971, Treerat 1990, all discussed above, as well as the present study), which present first ‘literal’ meanings and then contrast them with ‘figurative’ meanings, which are (explicitly or implicitly) claimed to semantically derive from the original ‘literal’ meanings. It is to this idea that we will now briefly turn.

2.3.1.1 Meaning ‘extension’
There is a ‘commonsense’ understanding of a contrast between ‘literal’ language and ‘figurative’ (i.e. ‘non-literal’) language (Turner 2005). ‘Literal’ language describes the world transparently, ‘objectively’ and ‘truthfully’ (Turner 2005:25-26). Of a word’s senses, some may be ‘literal’ and others are ‘non-literal’, ‘figurative’ or ‘metaphorical’. ‘Literal’ language is often thought of as representing ‘concrete’ things and ‘concrete’ relationships of meaning: regular nouns and their tangible referents, verbs for experientially common events, or spatial prepositions. ‘Non-literal’ language, on the other hand, describes more ‘abstract’ entities, events and relations.

However, just as prototype theory advocates the idea of graded category membership, there is substantial evidence based in our linguistic patterns of language use that we do not actually implicitly recognize such a definite divide between ‘literal’ and ‘non-literal’ meaning (Gluckberg 2001, Coulsen & Lewandowska-Tomaszczyck 2005).

Meaning is, in fact, dynamically located along a continuum of ‘literalness’. What is more:
•	non-literal (or metaphorical or figurative) meanings are just as easily produced and understood as literal ones; 
•	both literal and non-literal meanings can, when appropriate, operate simultaneously; and
•	in a conducive context, non-literal meaning may be immediately construed and/or produced before literal meaning has even entered the cognitive or linguistic picture. 

These findings largely refute some of the most common claims about the literal/figurative meaning divide (Glucksberg 2001). Their implications for the present study are manifold: We must acknowledge that the notion of inherently ‘basic’ (and ‘centrally’ located) senses of ja and ye, with ‘extended’ senses branching off from them, is in some sense brought to the analysis, rather than pre-existent to it. Likewise, the relationships described here between all of the senses (‘basic’ and ‘extended’ alike) represent but one possible interpretation of the data. This issue is in some sense but a particular manifestation of the ‘tests for polysemy’ problem discussed above; the broader problem concerns whether to conceptualise a distinct sense, and the present (literal/figurative) one concerns how we conceptualise of distinct senses (cf. Israel 2005:153-4). Thus, whilst this study cannot claim to represent any absolute theoretical or cognitive truth (cf. Riemer 2005), it does of course propose a principled and (thus) defensible explanation of the linguistic facts. In response to the specific arguments (above) against a clear literal/figurative divide, we will concede. We will, however, maintain on the basis of our prototype model of meaning categorisation, that there is a most ‘basic’ sense of a word, which is the prototypical instance, and other senses which are peripheral, or ‘extensions’ (Fillmore 1982:33). Whether or not these necessarily correspond to ‘literal’ and ‘non-literal’ meaning will be discussed during the analysis but will not be assumed. 
 
2.3.2 Causes: subjectivity and expression/efficiency
So far we have discussed the mechanisms of semantic change, metaphor and metonymy. Now we turn to its causes. Semantic shift (of the kind we are here concerned with) is essentially innovation, starting with a single utterance that over time is progressively adopted until it eventually becomes commonly accepted usage. The initial act of innovation, and its subsequent success or failure, are commonly understood to be a result of two opposing forces inherent in language: efficiency and expression. The expressive imperative, that we want and/or need to express ourselves, within constantly evolving (and parallel) physical, emotional and discursive environments, is tempered by the efficiency requirement, that we must make sure we are understood otherwise our expression has been futile. Note that the dichotomy maps neatly on to the two sides of the communicative dyad: Speakers desire expressivity and hearers require efficiency (Traugott & Dasher 2002:17-19). Thus phrased, these apparently ‘opposing’ forces are revealed as “complementary sides of the same [communicative] coin”. Our need or desire to express ourselves in a given novel situation will encourage innovation and change. But that innovation and change will be constrained by the requirement for communicative efficiency – if a given change interferes with successful communication then it will not be flourish into common usage (Geeraerts 1997:108). Characteristics of  prototypical categories contribute to both sides of this equation: Prototypical categories contain a large amount of densely structured information for categorizing, and structurally (in terms of the relationships between different features of a category) they exhibit stability in some aspects and flexibility in others. These features – informational density and complementary structural stability and flexibility – all contribute to language’s potential for communicative efficiency. The last of these features, structural flexibility, also offers a wealth of potential for innovative expression (Geeraerts 1997:112-19). Efficiency/expression provides a functional explanation for semantic change; it locates the causes of semantic change within the basic (as we generally understand it) functions of language: to communicate effectively (Geeraerts 1997:103-6). An answer to the question of what exactly we are likely to want to communicate can be found in the second part of our causal explanation: Subjectivity.

As (arguably) reasonably cognitively evolved beings, humans are capable of a great deal of empathy even (again, arguably) to the point of altruism. And yet it is hard to deny that overall most of our thoughts and actions most of the time are reflexively directed towards ourselves. This tendency, of course, is not frivolous, but has obvious evolutionary foundations in our instincts of survival and self-preservation. In this way subjectivity should also be thought of as basically a functional explanation. This basic subjectivity of our experience is a powerful underlying force in semantic change. This claim derives from observations that meanings often shift towards a more subjective orientation (Traugott & Dasher 2002; Marchello-Nizia 2006). Thus meaning, due to these subjective tendencies, comes to be “conventionalized and reanalyzed as semantic polysemies” (Traugott & Dasher 2002:1, emphasis added). In other words, subjectification and polysemy exist on the same continuum of semantic change, just at different levels of integration into common usage – subjectification prior and polysemy following afterwards.

The two causes for semantic shift that we have thus identified, efficiency/expressive and subjectivity, can both be regarded as semantic change attractors. Attractors are ‘preferred patterns’ that a system will evolve towards; they “reflect emerging points of stability in a system as it engages in real-world interaction” Gibbs (2006:114-115). In this case, new information (semantic change) feeding into the system (our individual and shared linguistic practice) gravitates towards a conceptual point grounded in our experientially- based models of ourselves (subjectivity) and linguistic communication (efficiency/expression). 

Within this section we have explored polysemy’s primary mechanisms (metaphor and metonymy) and causes (subjectivity and efficiency/expressivity).

2.4 Representing meaning
There are a variety of ways commonly utilized by linguists to discuss, analyse and represent meaning. Underlying many of them are some key suppositions, one of which is that meaning is decomposable, or at least re-composable. This assumption, of course, also underlies the very existence of semantic analyses such as this one.

Semanticists often employ reductive paraphrases, couched either in (relatively) familiar (eg. NSM) or more abstract (eg. Jackendoff’s conceptual semantics) metalanguage (see Goddard 1998:56-68 for a summary of different approaches). Both assume semantic primitives, and both have a limited lexicon and a distinct syntax. But semantic primitives are problematic (cf. Riemer 2005), and as an examination of their feasibility is not my purpose, they will be avoided altogether.

Instead, ordinary English paraphrase will be used. The implicit claim is not necessarily that the paraphrases are semantically simpler than the objects of analysis, but that they expound more explicitly the semantic details of the objects of analysis. It must at any rate be remembered that any description of meaning is “grounded as much in the semantics of the metalanguage as in those of the object language. The ‘correct definition’ of an object language term is thus not a single construct, but a field of alternative analyses that can be recast in a number of possible ways” (Riemer 2005:155).

Whilst the primary metalanguage up to this point has been, and for the ensuing analysis of ja and ye will be, ordinary English, I will also utilize a schematic representation of a ‘basic motion event’ using Talmy’s (1985) terminology outlined in section 2.2.1. This should not be understood as an abstract metalanguage, but merely as a more concise way of expressing information which could just as acceptably be expressed (albeit more capaciously) in ordinary English. The schematic representation lays out the constituents of the ‘basic motion event’ and thereon displays a visual mapping of the constituent(s) that are more semantically prevalent in a given example. The value of this tool will become apparent as we see that ja and ye (like come and go more generally), whether in their ‘basic’ or ‘extended’ senses, often vary as to which constituent they focus on. 

So, the ‘basic motion event’, in chronological order, is:

Figure (F) at Source	F departs from Source	F moves away from Source	F moves along Path	Figure moves towards Goal	Figure arrives at Goal	Figure at Goal	
I	II	III	IV	V	VI	VII	

The often subtle ‘shift’ from one constituent to the next alludes to the lack of truly distinct boundaries between them; the Figure leaving the Source (II) logically requires that it was, in the first place, at the Source (I), and the Figure moving along a Path (IV) is self-evidently moving away from somewhere (III) and simultaneously towards somewhere else (V), and so on. The point is not that these are discreet constituents, but that they are each aspects of the motion event, which in a given sense (or instance) of the verb can be semantically highlighted, or more or less focused on or emphasised. Thus the constituents (I-VII) are not being claimed to be functionally or semantically discrete, rather they should be more accurately conceived as a continuum. Also note that a combination of different areas along the continuum can be variously semantically emphasised (or perhaps, differentially semantically ‘weighted’). These ideas can be represented as follows:

“Go!”
Figure (F) at Source	F departs from Source	F moves away from Source	F moves along Path	Figure moves towards Goal	Figure arrives at Goal	Figure at Goal	
I	II	III	IV	V	VI	VII	

The above illustrates that the semantic focus of this instance of go is around constituents II-III. This could be contrasted with:

“He goes home.” (i.e. habitually)
Figure (F) at Source	F departs from Source	F moves away from Source	F moves along Path	Figure moves towards Goal	Figure arrives at Goal	Figure at Goal	
I	II	III	IV	V	VI	VII	

and:

“He is going home.” (i.e. right now)
Figure (F) at Source	F departs from Source	F moves away from Source	F moves along Path	Figure moves towards Goal	Figure arrives at Goal	Figure at Goal	
I	II	III	IV	V	VI	VII	

Semantic ‘weighting’ of the various constituents is represented in the size and concentration of the shaded regions underneath the corresponding constituent. Remember that the diagrams could of course be paraphrased in ordinary language. For instance, in the first example, go focuses on the Figure leaving and moving away from the Source (constituent II and III), whilst in the second example, explicit mention of the Goal has the effect of shifting some of the semantic focus over to the Figure’s movement towards and (possibly) arrival at the Goal (V & VI), whilst still maintaining some semantic weight on the Figure’s leaving the Source and moving away from it along a Path (II, III & IV). The exact proportionate ‘weightings’ depend on the specifics of the context and the interpretations intended and understood by the speaker and hearer respectively. 

One advantage of the diagrams is that they capture the ‘fuzzy edges’ that are characteristic of (both components within, and at the edges of) prototypical categories, and hence reflect the theoretical stance of this study that meaning is organized according to similar prototype-like principles. Also, they express very clearly the fact that different constituents of the motion event are being semantically emphasized in different proportions. In this regard they will be especially useful in identifying event-internal metonymy (where specific constituents are selected for semantic emphasis). The diagrams, however, still fail to represent more subtle levels of meaning specific to the particular usage, such as the existence or the nature of the interrelationships between the different constituents, or the extent to which the verb in a given instance refers to the event as a whole, or relationships with other elements external to the event (such as, say, the cause of motion). These observations about the interdependence of the constituents and the difficulty of specifying the nature of connections between them reinforces the earlier observation of the arbitrariness of divisions, whether within or at the borders of, a motion event (cf. Riemer 2005).

Whilst the shaded ‘fuzzy-edged’ representations are visually useful and conceptually revealing, they are somewhat cumbersome. As such I will ‘abbreviate’ them to the following:

“Go!”
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
	+++	+++	++

Concentrations of shaded grey are replaced by concentrations of + signs. ‘Fuzzy’ edges should be assumed. So, +++, ++, + represent respectively high, medium and low concentrations of semantic weighting at the allocated constituent with fuzzy edges which, when adjacent, blend into each other. 

Additionally, to keep an eye on any possible ‘figurative’ deixis, in examples where it is deemed that a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ evaluation could be assigned to the sentence’s referent (or a part of it) this will be indicated next to the constituency weighting diagram:
elektrisitii	gelii	aahe,	
electricity	go-pst-3sf	be-prs-3s	
There’s a blackout. [Shr]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
+++							/ja-bad	

elektrisitii	parat	aalii	
electricity	back	come-pst-3sf.	
The electricity is back on. [Shr]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
						+++	/ye-good
These abbreviated analytical tools are provided as a means of tracking the semantic properties of individual examples as they are presented, but all patterns or other points of interest that they reveal will be explained and discussed in the primary metalanguage of this study, ordinary English.

2.5 Summary
•	Deixis and polysemy are the backbone of the ensuing semantic analyses.
•	The concepts of subjectivity, embodiment and prototypicality permeate the theoretical framework, and in many cases draw elements of it together.
•	Deixis is a crucial part of the meaning of go and come, especially come.
•	Space and time are key underlying conceptual structures of go and come.
•	Deictic properties can extend from the ‘literal’ to the ‘figurative’ realm of language.
•	Polysemy concerns the multiple historically related senses of a word.
•	Polysemy occurs due to causes like subjectivity and efficiency/expression, and via mechanisms like metaphor and metonymy (and underlyingly image schemas).
•	A clear literal/figurative linguistic divide is fictitious, and at any rate, probably not useful in understanding our actual meaning-making practices.
•	No semantic metalanguage is perfect. Ordinary English provides an approachable (to analyst and reader) metalanguage, potentially as adequate as any other.

Upon this theoretical grounding we will commence the semantic analysis of ja and ye. 

Chapter Three: Semantics of JA and YE

3.1 Introduction
The Marathi verbs ja and ye are primarily used, like go and come, to indicate motion of objects (Figures), often people, through space. But they are also used in a variety of other semantic contexts.

The analysis will proceed with respect to the two main theoretical loci, as outlined in chapter two: Deixis and polysemy. We saw in chapter two that deictic properties are crucial to the various uses and senses of come and go; they form an integral part of the semantic structure of the verbs. It will similarly be seen that the semantic structures of ja and ye rely heavily on their deictic properties. 

Initially (section 3.2) the semantics of ja and ye as verbs of motion through space will be examined; their ‘basic’ senses (to continue with our established terminology). Here we will examine the deictic properties of basic ja and ye, as well as other aspects such as ‘basic motion event’ constituent selection as outlined in section 2.4 (Representing Meaning). Following, (3.3) we will turn to other ‘extended’ senses of ja and ye and investigate their semantic affiliation with the basic senses, as well as the processes of semantic change that these extended senses have undergone; the mechanisms and the causes thereof.

3.1.1 Data
Data for the study consists of over four hundred sentences containing any word form of the two lexemes (ja and ye) under investigation, which were drawn from several sources (approximate number of instances from each source shown in brackets). 
1.	(270) Ayurvedic books written in Marathi by native speakers, and used widely in Maharashtra as primary sources in doctor training. Specifically, two books were selected as the chief data sources: 
a.	the Mahadhawanidaan, a diagnostic manual [MaNi]; and 
b.	the Padaarthawidnaan, a treatise on the basic principles of Ayurveda based on the fundamentals of Classical Indian philosophy [PaVi]. 
Both are Marathi commentaries on Sanskrit primary sources.
2.	(80) Two Marathi grammars, Pandharipande (1997) [P97], and Wali (2005) [W05].
3.	(30) Two Marathi-English dictionaries, Molesworth’s (2nd ed. 1989) [Mol], and Navneet [Nav]; and one English-Marathi dictionary, Oxford (2003) [Oxf].
4.	(60) Elicited sentences from several native speakers representing a range of different regional dialects [Shr], [Vish], [Smit], [Ash], [Brd].

The abbreviations shown after each source in square brackets will be used, along with a page number reference, to indicate the source of each example. For example [MaNi:56; Vish] indicates that the example comes from page 56 of the Mahadvanidan, and was translated with the assistance of the native speaker coded ‘Vish’.

Written texts were predominantly used primarily for practical reasons, avoiding the heavy time and technical demands of transcription and spoken pragmatic devices like gesture. 
	3.1.2 Dictionary definitions
Many senses of ja and ye are listed in the dictionaries consulted but these will receive little attention during the analysis. It is well observed that distinct dictionary-defined senses do not necessarily correlate with speakers’ intuitions about sense boundaries (Riemer 2005:74). Secondly, these are based on observations of usage, which, whether they do or do not reflect folk categorization of the senses, are nonetheless not (necessarily) grounded in a systematic semantic analysis as is applied in this study.

3.1.3 Ja vs. Ye?
As alluded to in chapter two, come and go are often assumed to comprise a binary opposition, and also (thus) a complete or closed semantic set. This assumption is probably based on the situation in English, and in fact is not supported by cross-linguistic data (Wilkins and Hill 1995; Goddard 1998). 

One such complicating factor in the case of Marathi is the word chaal. Often translated as ‘go’, chaal means to proceed or move, and seems to differ from ja in that it doesn’t have the same emphasis on departure from a Source. Rather, it is used to indicate more general (translational) movement where the direction of movement is not specified. The reason why ja is here being analysed in opposition to ye, then, is because it more closely mirrors the English language opposition between movement towards the deictic centre (speaker or projected; come/ye), and movement which is explicitly not towards that center (go/ja). Whilst on the face of it this is a reasonable opposition on which to select ja vs. ye, failing the space to conduct a thorough investigation into chaal, the precise nature of the semantic distinction between chaal, ja, and ye, cannot be specified and thus should not be assumed.
3.2 ‘Basic’ senses: Ja and ye as verbs of motion through space
The following discussion will focus on two key interrelating aspects of ja and ye in their respective senses as verbs of motion through space: (i) their deictic properties, and (ii) their variable reference to constituents of the ‘basic motion event’. These two aspects are closely related because two significant aspects of the ‘basic motion event’ are the Source and Goal locations, which we have seen are often variously deictically referenced by come and go.

	3.2.1 Grammatically invited inference
Even within the basic senses of ja and ye we still encounter much semantic variation. This variation is often due to ‘grammatically invited inference’. Grammatically invited inferences arise due to choices about which aspects of a situation or event are made linguistically explicit, such as which verbal arguments to mention and how to encode the tense-aspect-mood. Whilst their effects are not the focus of this study, they are nevertheless relevant because they can occur in systematic or regular relationship with particular senses of ja and ye.

For instance, tense-aspect plays a role in determining the semantic qualities of ye in the following examples:

1	mii	gharii	yet	aahe.	
	I	home-Loc.	come-Pres.Part	be-prs-1s	
I am coming home
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
			+++	+++

2	(kaal)	mii	gharii	aalo.	
	(yesterday)	I	home-Loc.	come-pst-1sm	
(Yesterday) I came home.
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
			+	++	+++	+++		

The two sentences describe the same event. In 1, in present progressive tense-aspect, the semantic focus is on the Path and the motion towards the Goal (IV & V). In 2, however, in past (and perfective) tense-aspect the semantic focus shifts onto the arrival at the Goal and the subsequent location (existence) of the Figure at the Goal.

This is because the tense-aspect system anchors the utterance deictically with respect to some combination of the events described in the utterance, the rest of the discourse, and the coding time or some other reference time. That is to say, the tense-aspect is a deictic marker, and one effect of variation in tense-aspect deictic marking is variation in constituent focus.

Clearly, however, we cannot say that examples 1 and 2 represent two distinct senses of ye. The two sentences refer to the same event and so make use of the same sense. What is variable is simply the perspective on the event. One reason to take note of this is because it will be seen below (section 3.4) that some of ja and ye’s extended senses are characterized by their shift in semantic focus in precisely this way, i.e. towards a focus on the constituent(s) representing the result or outcome of the event. 

Interestingly, the grammatically invited inference of increasing semantic focus on the Path (as seen above in the progressive aspect) can be similarly invoked by use of a lexical item which refers specifically to the Path, such as saphar ‘journey’:

3	mii	sapharawar	jaaiin.	
	I	journey-on	go-fut-1s	
I will go on a journey
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
	+++	+	+++	

Consider, finally, the following examples which show that grammatically invited inference is even more pervasive than just the immediate syntactic environment, extending even across different parts of the discourse: The same word (gelo) in the same utterance is variably semantically imbued depending on the preceding utterance. (A & B are conversation partners): 
4	A: “to aataa kuthe aahe?”		(Where is he now?)
B: “to shaalalaa gelo” 			(He went to school.)
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
	+				+	+++

Versus:
5	A: “to ithe aahe ka?” 			(Is he here?) 
B: “to shaalalaa gelo” 			(He went to school.) (i.e. No, he is not here)
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
+++	+++	++			++?	++?
Apart from anything else, the variation between 4 and 5 highlights the difficulty of prying apart semantics and pragmatics (cf. section 2.1.2).

Whilst numerous studies have observed that different senses of polysemous words tend to occur in distinctive grammatical contexts (Robert 2008:85), these distinctive contexts nevertheless do not define the sense (cf. section 2.3 on tests for polysemy). They may be thought of as an effect of the sense or as a secondary attribute, but the sense definition will include other factors.
 
	3.2.2 Ja
In order to find the basic sense of ja an intuitive step is to examine some very ‘basic’ sentences containing the verb:

6	“Jaa!” 		(Go!)
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
	+++	++

7	“To jaato.” 	(He goes.)
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
	+++	+++	++

Sentence 6, the imperative, deictically specifies the Source as the location of the addressee, i.e. “Go [from here]!” The speaker is generally at the same location as the addressee, explaining why we intuit “Go[from here]!”  - ‘here’ referring deictically to the location of the speaker. But, in the case of speaker and addressee not being co-located, a phone conversation for instance, “Go!” obviously intends the addressee to leave her own location i.e. “Go [from there]!”. Thus, departure from and movement away from the Source (II-III) are emphasized. Example 7 is similarly semantically weighted (in terms of the constituents), but the Source is much less firmly deictically anchored to the location of the speaker or addressee. Indeed it is just as likely to be tied to the location of the subject of the narrative to ‘he’, but context (such as whether the speaker and/or addressee are also co-located with to ‘he’) will probably be a determining factor. Both of them, however, fail to recognize that ja (like English go) is often pragmatically accompanied by a specified Goal, whether or not it is explicitly encoded. Thus To jato ‘He goes’ quite likely means ‘He goes [somewhere/there/home etc.]’:

8	“[Roj] to [ofisla] jaato.” 	(He goes [everyday to the office])
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
				+	++	++	+++

Recall, however (section 2.1.2), that if an element is not explicitly included we will here assume it to be (also) implicitly absent. The inclusion of a Goal, then, significantly shifts the constituent focus. Recall Goddard’s (1998) requirement of two separate explications for (English) ‘go’ and ‘go with a specified Source and/or Goal’. Similarly, contrast:

9	“to gelo.” 		(He went)
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
	+++

10	“to gharii gelo.”	 (He went home)
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
	+++	+	+	+++	+?	+?

The deictic property observed when a Goal is not specified (e.g. the imperative “Ja!”) does not merely disappear, though, in the Goal-specified examples (8, 10). The Goal of ja’s motion is overwhelmingly a location other than the speaker’s at coding time; in this regard it is like English come (Fillmore 1971:50). This specification is, however, perhaps slightly less strict in Marathi as the following example shows, where the speaker could be located at coding time in Nagpur:

11	tuu	kadhii	naagpurlaa	gelii	aahes	ka?	
	you	ever	Nagpur-Dat	go-pst-3sf	be-prs-2s	Q	
Have you ever been to Nagpur? [P97:417]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
					+	+++

In this scenario in English we use been or maybe come, but gone definitely sounds odd.

So, even in a range of very simple sentences we observe variation in the deictic and constituent-focusing properties of the ‘basic’ sense of ja. How then – on the basis of which examples, to provide a definition of ‘basic’ ja? 

Firstly, (disregarding its superlative morphological simplicity) the imperative will not be proposed as the most basic use of ja’s basic sense, due to its sole use in a very specific and marked pragmatic situation. The imperative of any verb is distinguished by its orientation to the addressee’s current situation: the addressee is not currently doing whatever it is that the speaker is commanding. Thus the Source-orientation of “Ja!” is perhaps as much due to the fact that the Source is the location of the addressee at coding time, rather than that Source is ja’s most semantically dominant constituent.

Next, without a principled reason to decide whether the Goal- and/or Source- specified examples represent the ‘basic’ usage, or if it is where these locations are not specified, we must content ourselves (like Goddard’s NSM go explication in section 2.2.1) with two parallel basic senses. This exemplifies the potential complicating effects of grammatically invited inference. 

For our purposes we will propose the following generalizations about basic ja:

1.	it encodes movement that is usually to a Goal that is not the coding time location of the speaker or the addressee.
2.	if no other contextual elements or constituents of the motion event are specified, then the semantic focus is on constituents I-III. 
3.	if the Goal is specified then this will raise constituents V-VII’s weighting (and probably concordantly lower I-III’s weighting). 
4.	if the Path is somehow specified (such as use of the present continuous tense/aspect, or inclusion of a Path-focusing lexical item like ‘journey’) then IV’s weighting will increase.

The variations in 2. to 4. are metonymic effects, selecting or deselecting constituents of the event such that the general motion event word ja stands for only the combination of selected constituents. So, even within a single sense of the word metonymic effects are constantly occurring. Also, as it happens, the same statement is true of metaphorical effects; these will be discussed in section 3.3.1 

	3.2.3 Ye
As with ja, we will start with some ‘basic’ (looking) sentences containing ye.

12	“Ye!”		(Come!)
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
			++	+++	+

13	“Tii yete.”	(She comes.)
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
			++	+++	+

14	“Tii gharii yete.”	(She comes home)
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
			++	+++	+

15	“Tii gharii aalii.”	(She came home)
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
			++	++	+++	+++	

So far, ye most frequently and strongly emphasizes constituent V – motion towards the Goal. This is slightly affected in 15 by a grammatically invited inference, specifically the past-perfective tense-aspect, which inheres a perspective to the constituents representing the result of the (otherwise) semantic focus (V) – arrival of and presence of the Figure at the Goal (VI-VII).

Another grammatically invited inference is activated if the Source is specified, and the focus shifts accordingly (partially) to the relevant constituents (I-III):

16	mii	kaal	mumbaiihuun	aalo.	
	I	yesterday	Bombay-Abl.	come-pst-3sm	
Yesterday, I came from Bombay. [P97:336]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
+++	+++	+++	+++	++	++	+

17	gharaachyaa	aatuun	aawaaj	aalaa.	
	house-Poss.	in-from	sound-3sm	come-pst-3sm	
The sound came from inside the house. [P97:339]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
++	+++	++	+	+

The Goal still receives some attention, either a significant amount and from V all the way to VII (in 16), or only a more subtle suggestion from the implicature that the sound (Figure) was heard by the speaker (or someone who had reported to the speaker) in 17. 

The fact that the understood Goal in examples 12 and 16 is ‘where I (the speaker) am now (coding time)’, and of 17 is ‘where I (speaker) was at the time of the event (reference time)’, suggests that ye contains a similar inherent core quality to English come (and come in many other languages). As discovered in section 2.2.1 come is centrally defined by being (i) a verb of motion and (ii) having a Goal which is deictically located, often at (or with respect to) the location of the speaker, but also possibly elsewhere depending on the properties of deictic projection that the language allows (generally and for this verb specifically). Marathi, it appears, is no different. And the rules of deictic projection are also fairly similar to English, as we see the deictic centre shifted by the speaker to:
(i) the location of the addressee: 

18	“mii tithe yeuu ka?” 		(Shall I come there?)
I	II	III	IVp	V 	VI	VII
			++	+++	+++

(ii) the location of a third party (Vaishali is in Kolhapur but the speaker or addressee are not): 

19	mii	purchaa	aathawadyaat	kolhapuurlaa	yenar	aahe, 	
	I	next	week-Loc	Kolhapur-Dat	come-fut	be-prs-1s	

he 	vaishaliilaa	mahitii 	aahe	ka?	
this	Vaishali-Dat	know-prs-3sf	be-prs	Q?	
Does Vaishali know that I’m coming to Kolhapur next week? [Vish] 
I	II	III	IVp	V 	VI	VII
			+	++	+++	+++

This usage is, however, restricted to third-party-locations that the speaker has some claim of affinity or association with. The speaker of the above example, for instance, although not in Kolhapur at coding time, would be understood to have been there before, or at the very least to have family members there. As one informant puts it ye is an “emotional word”, it “has some hidden meaning”.

(iii) a potential or imagined location (in the following example it is the imagined location of the addressee):

20	mii	darwajya	aalo	pan	tuu	tithe	nauhota!	
	I	door	come-pst-1sm	but	you	there	be-pst-Neg-2sm	
I came to the front door, but you weren’t there!
I	II	III	IVp	V 	VI	VII
			+	+	++	+++

Based on such similar possibilities of deictic projection as English come, and on the observed Goal-orientation – whether movement towards it (constituent V) or arrival and location at it (VI-VII), we will propose a basic sense of ye fairly similar to Goddard’s (1998) explication of English come (obviously though, not in NSM but in our metalanguage of ordinary English):

Ye encodes movement to a Goal that is the location – real, imagined or potential – of either the speaker or addressee, or is a place to which the speaker claims personal affiliation.

Of course the final element, ‘a personal affiliation’, is ill-defined, but the exact nature of this ‘affiliation’ will need to be left as the subject of future work. Also, as with the above discussion of basic ja, constituent metonymy effects due to grammatically invited inference (see variation in constituency weighting diagrams for 12 to 20) are absorbed within the meaning of this basic sense of ye.

Having thus defined the basic senses of ja and ye, the analysis will proceed to senses semantically extended from them.

3.3 Meaning ‘extensions’
From these basic senses of ja and ye several other semantically related but distinct senses have developed. They have developed by way of the mechanisms of semantic change, metonymy and metaphor, and due to the causes of semantic change, subjectivity and efficiency/expressivity, as detailed in chapter two. Because many of the extended senses involve combinations of the mechanisms, the senses will be presented individually rather than being classified according to mechanism. A discussion of causes will follow.

	3.3.1 Metaphorical applications of ‘basic’ senses
Oftentimes, what may appear as extended senses are actually metaphorical applications of the basic senses (cf. Riemer 2005). The uncertainty arises because the context of usage may be highly metaphorical, including elements not prototypically part of a basic motion event. These usages, however, should still be treated as instances of the basic senses because although the metaphorical mechanism is being applied, it is not to the verb (ja or ye) itself, but rather to other elements of the ‘basic motion event’, such as the Source, Figure, Path or Goal. Once one or several of the basic motion event elements have become the targets of metaphorical mapping, which often takes the prototypical metaphorical form of  [abstract] is a [concrete], then the elements (along with their appropriately mapped source attributes) are free to participate in the basic motion event. Whilst these instances, then, do not constitute extended senses of ja and ye, they are included in this section because they are nevertheless less prototypical uses of the verbs. In other words, the verb’s sense remains basic, but the broader grammatical and pragmatic context of its use is extended.

Recall (section 2.3) that properties of a metaphor’s target or source domains are more or less suitable for being metaphorically mapped. Thus, depending on whether highly suitable elements of the source and target are cross-mapped, or less suitable elements, we find a continuum of metaphors ranging from the very conventional and readily decipherable to the highly unusual and decipherably opaque (with everything in between).

The subtle effects of basic motion event elements being more highly metaphorical or less-so in sentences containing ja and ye can be seen in the following:

21	hyaa	utpann	houun	tyaachaa	praaN	jaato.	
	this	produce(n.)	become-Conj.Part	he-Poss	life(m.)	go-prs-3sm	
this having occured, he [the patient] dies. [MaNi:85]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
+++	+++						/ja-bad

22	praaN	pakheru	uduun	gele	
	life(m.)	birds	fly-Conj.Part.	go-pst-3plm	
He passed away (eupemistic) [Shr] (Lit: Life-birds flew away)
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
+++	+++	+	+				/ja-bad

In both 21 and 22 the metaphor’s source praaN ‘life’ is mapped onto the target Figure. In the second example, however, praaN takes on the form of a mythical or imaginary animal, it is ornitho-morphised. By taking on this tangible form it becomes somewhat less metaphorical, because a prototypical Figure is a concrete physical object such as pakheru ‘birds’ rather than an abstract concept such as praaN ‘life’. This accounts for the perceived effect of the more motion-bearing constituents (III-IVp) receiving greater emphasis in 22. The existence of an abstract concept is perhaps fairly directly conceptually analogous with the location of a physical object at a location (constituent I), as suggested in the fact that cross-linguistically “the word for ‘happen’ [often has a] secondary meaning approximating ‘appear’ or ‘arrive’” (Goddard 2001:24). Thus an abstract entity (praaN ‘life’) not being somewhere simply equates to it not existing. Its actual physical motion, on the other hand, is perhaps less easily imagined, and hence less completely synthesized into the metaphor. In these examples ja is semantically most similar to the Goal-unspecified exemplars above (6 & 7: Ja! ‘Go!’; to jaato ‘He goes’). This may logically suit this particular metaphorical application because where exactly life ‘goes’ when one dies, and by what route (i.e. a Goal and a Path), do not necessarily have meaningful answers, especially within the normal wordly context of basic motion events. This analysis would clearly benefit from a more thorough integration of cultural details (such as metaphysical beliefs on whether life can actually ‘go’ somewhere, and if so, where?) and native-speaker intuitions (on, for instance, the relative abstractness of praaN and praaN pakheru).

Another metaphorical application of ja’s basic sense, this time of the Goal-specified variety: 
23	mi	vikopaas	jaato!	
	I	aggression(m.)-near	go-prs-1sm	
I’m at my wits end! [Vish]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
				++	+++	++?	/ja-bad

24	ajiirN	phaar	vikopaas	gele.	
	indigestion(n.)	very 	aggression(m.)-near	go-pst-1sn	
(The) indigestion is in its final stages. [MaNi:59; Vish]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
			+	+++	+++	/ja-bad
The abstract concept vikop ‘aggression’ is metaphorically mapped to the Goal, and then motion occurs towards it; motion either of the highly prototypical Figure mii ‘I’ (in 23) or of the much more highly figurative Figure ajiirn ‘indigestion’ (in 24). The intermixing of elements of varying metaphoricity, and the flexibility even within one highly syntactically specified example (vikopaas jaaNe) attests to the plasticity of the language and of our linguistic faculties, as discussed above regarding the literal/figurative ‘divide’.
 
Also, temporal expressions are metaphorical applications of the basic senses of ja and ye:

25	jewaNaapuurviiche	don	taas	(ajuun)	jaayachet.	
	lunch-until	two	hours	(still, yet)	go-Inf.-Poss.-3pl	
Two hours to go before lunch. [Oxf:325]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
			++	++	+++			

26	aamchyaa	gharaaNyaachaa	itihaas	gelyaa	300	warshanchaa	aahe.	
	us-Poss	lineage(n.)-Poss	history(m.)	go-perf.	300	years-Poss	be-prs-3s	
Our family goes back 300 years. [Oxf:326]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
			++	++		+++	

27	tiche	naaw	itihaasaat	lihile	jaaiil.	
	she-Poss	name	history(m.)-Loc	read-pst-3sf	go-fut-3s	
Her name will go down in history. [Oxf:326]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
			++	++		+++

This is an interesting metaphorical application because an abstract entity, time, is seemingly both Figure and Path simultaneously: Time is moving (or more specifically, going), but with respect to what medium (Ground) is it moving? Time! 

28	weL	jaato	
	time(m.)	go-prs-3sm	
Time passes. [Shr]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
			+++	

29	divas	agadii	mand	gatiine	jaat	aahet.	
	days	quite	slow	speed(f.)-Inst.	go-Prs.Part	be-prs-3pl	
The days go by so slowly. [Oxf:326]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
			+++

Moreover, Source and Goal being specific parts of the Ground, time is also apparently simultaneously ‘going’ away from (a particular moment in) time (the Source), and towards (another particular moment in) time (the Goal), which of course it is! In the above examples the provision of a specific point in time (sometimes more specific jewan ‘lunch’, 300 warsha ‘300 years’, and sometimes less so itihaas ‘history’) locates a Goal. Note that in all cases a significant proportion of the focus remains on the Path (IV), more systematically and consistently than in basic ja. This may be interpreted as a reflection of the nature of time as a metaphorical Figure/Path: It is difficult to conceive of time ever not moving or being moved along (or ‘through’, as we would say in English). 

Marathi speakers may also speak deictically of time moving towards a subjectively oriented Goal, such as ‘me’ (the speaker) ‘now’ (coding time), using ye:

30	diwaalii	aalii.	
	Diwali	come-pst-3sf	
It’s Diwali. [Shr]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
					+++	+++

31	diwaalii	yet	aahe.	
	Diwali	come-Prs.Part	be-prs-3s	
Diwali is coming. [Shr]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
			+++	+++

This analysis of time phrases conflicts with Fillmore’s (1982:33) assertion that “a prototype semanticist would explicitly not choose to construct a single general formulation of the meaning of the word that would simultaneously cover both its spatial and its temporal uses.” On the contrary, my analysis proposes that the semantic domain of time is less prototypically associated with basic motion events, but in theory is as suitable a source for metaphorical mapping as any of the other semantic domains we have so far seen mapped onto ja and ye (cf. discussion in 2.2.2 and McGlone’s 2001:103). 

Whilst the ja temporal examples express both ego-moving and the time-moving metaphors (i.e. where people ‘move’ through time, or time ‘moves’ towards or away from people; Lakoff & Johnson 1980), the data does not present any ego-moving ye examples (e.g. ‘We are coming up to Diwali’), and indeed one informant claimed this was not acceptable in Marathi. This by no means, however, indicates that the Ground (including Source and Goal) of ye may not be metaphorical, as the following examples demonstrate.

32	mi	janmaat	aalo.	
	I	existence-Loc	come-pst-1sm	
I was born. [Shr]
I	II	III	IV	V	VI	VII
					++	+++	/ye-good

33	to	prashna	ajuun	aalaach	naahii.	
	that	question	yet	come-pst-	be-prs-Neg	
The question hasn’t come up yet. [Oxf:145]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
						+++

34	(achaanak)	kaahii	aDachaNii	aalyaa	aahet.	
	(suddenly)	some	problem(f.)-pl.	come-Ger.	be-prs-3pl	
A couple of problems have come up. [Oxf:145]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
						+++	/ye-bad

In all three cases (32-34) there is a (more or less) metaphorical Path and Goal. In general in this section we have seen a wide variety of elements – and combinations of elements – of the basic motion event being metaphorized, and then applied to the basic senses of both ja and ye. The following section will show some cases where the basic senses of ja and ye are themselves extended via the mechanisms of metaphor and metonymy.
	
3.3.2 ‘Extended’ senses with metaphor and metonymy
Three extended senses will be presented, two of ye and one of ja.

Ye as a measure of physical extent or evaluative degree:

35	hii	aangaThii	toLaabhar	vadzan	yeiil.	
	this	ring(f.)	1 tola	weight	come-fut-3s	
This ring weighs 1 tola (10 grams) [Mol:677; Brd]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
						+++

36	he	paagoTe	changale	aale	naahii	aNkhii	baandh.	
	this	turban	good	come-pst-3sn	be-prs-Neg.	again	tie-Imp.	
This turban is not good, tie it again. [Mol:677; Brd]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
					+	+++ 	/ye-bad

37	ghar	agadii	moDakaLiis	aale	aahe.	
	house	literally	broken	come-pst-3sn	is-prs-3s	
The house is nearly broken (i.e. is in bad condition). [Mol:677; Brd]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
			+	+++	+		/ye-bad
	
38	bil	wiis	paunDaaitake	aale		
	bill	20	pounds-much	come-pst-3sn		
The bill came to 20 pounds. [Oxf:145]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
					+	+++

As in some of the above ‘metaphorical applications’ examples, we see here a host of metaphorical Goals, vadzan ‘weight’ (35), changale naahii ‘not good’ (36), modakaliis ‘broken’ (37) and wis paund ‘20 pounds’ (38). The difference in these examples (35-38), which makes them a separate sense rather than just metaphorical applications of the basic sense, is that the motion itself is metaphorical: There are relatively prototypical Figures, physical objects which are perfectly capable of movement (hii angathii ‘this ring’, he paagote ‘this turban’, ghar ‘[the] house’ and bil ‘[the] bill’), which ‘come’ but which do not actually move anywhere. The attendant claim, then, is that making ye’s motion metaphorical is a more fundamental semantic shift than making other elements (its Figure or Goal, say) metaphorical, and is hence more likely to result in the development of a distinct sense. A potential counterargument would point out that having a highly metaphorical Figure such as praaN ‘life’ (in example 21) would seem to necessarily entail abstract (i.e. more metaphorical) motion – because an abstract object cannot literally move. But in this case (21), the initial metaphorization of the Figure (praaN) allows the motion to be metaphorical without undermining the basic sense of the verb. This contrasts with the sense currently being discussed, where a physical (and so more literal or prototypical) Figure moves metaphorically, and thus seems to produce (along with other factors no doubt) the interpretation of a separate sense.

A further feature of this sense is constituent metonymy placing semantic focus around the result of the motion event, namely, the arrival of the Figure at the Goal and its subsequent presence there (constituents VI-VII). Whilst these constituents are also semantically dominant in basic ye, this sense focuses on them to the more emphatic exclusion of the ‘motion’ aspects of the event – the Path and motion towards the Goal (IV-V). Example 37 is an exception as it describes the resultant state from the perspective of the immediately preceding ‘approach’ to the state – it is ‘nearly’ in a certain state. In all of the examples for this sense (except for 35) the perfective aspect emphasizes the perspective of the resultant state, as this aspect views a completed event whose effects or results are thus perceptually (in theory or in fact) available.

The distinction, then, between metaphorical applications of the basic sense, and metaphorical extension to a separate sense (such as the sense currently being discussed), whilst subtle, appears to be necessary. It may also assist us to pinpoint the core semantic features of the basic sense, as it has been observed that verbs, when used metaphorically, are understood to refer to a general category of actions which can be epitomized by the metaphorically used verb (Glucksberg 2001:49 reporting on Torreano 1997). Accordingly, we may infer form this sense of ye that its original metaphorical extension (although now frozen) identified basic ye as being centrally defined by the quality which was emphasized in the metaphorical usage, namely, the arrival of the Figure at the Goal and its subsequent presence there (constituents VI-VII). 

Ye for existence/presence
Ye can be used to mean that its (grammatical) subject is present somewhere:

39	paN	jewha	te	phaar	waaDhatat	tewhaa	aamaashayaakaDehi	war	yetat.	
	but	if	they	much	increase-prs-3pl	then	buttocks-to	on	come-prs-3pl	
But if there are too many [germs] then they are also on the buttocks. [MaNi:64; Vish]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
						+++	/ye-bad

40	yeThaparyantachyaa	sarwa	shlokaant	granThaant	aalelyaa	
	there-up to-Poss	all	shloks-Loc	treatise(m.)-Loc	come-Perf.	

rogaanchii	anukramaNikent	dilii	aahe.	
disease-about	index-Loc	give-pst-3pln	be-prs-3s	
All of the diseases in these shlokas are given in the index. [MaNi:17; Vish]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
						+++

41	parantu	to	amukach	prakaarachaa	yeiil	he	nichshra-yaane	samajat	naahii.	
	but	that	particular	type-Poss	come-fut-3s	this	certain	understand-Prs.Part	be-prs-Neg	
But you can’t predict the particular type that it will be. [MaNi:18; Vish]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
						+++

Like the previously described sense (ye as a measure of physical extent or evaluative degree), this sense semantically focuses on the result of the motion event, which is the location of the Figure at the Goal (VII). In this way the primary mechanism of its extension from basic ye is constituent metonymy. However, it does differ from the previous sense in being even more heavily focused on this constituent. No other constituents receive any semantic weighting at all, in contrast to the previous sense where several of the examples retained some suggestion of the Path or arrival at the Goal (IV-VI). This is quite a significant semantic development because the verb effectively switches from being referentially ‘complex’ – encoding a series of continually shifting relations between the Figure and the Ground, to referentially ‘simple’ – representing a single unchanging relationship between Figure and Ground (Kovecses 2006:241-2 citing Taylor 2002).

There is one other very prevalent situation wherein this sense of ye is used. That is when ye is used to express the presence of a wide range of physical and mental conditions. These usages are a slightly nuanced special case of the ‘existence/presence’ sense of ye, because in addition to a primary focus on the presence of the Figure at the Goal (VII) they do also retain some slight semantic orientation to the arrival of the Figure at the Goal (VI). Thus they do not shift quite so dramatically from a ‘complex’ to a ‘simple’ relationship expression as observed in the above examples (39-41). This is because the presence of a condition, so often a temporary state, is inescapably associated with the onset of the condition at some prior time. Nevertheless, native Marathi speakers overwhelmingly translated these examples as existential or stative type statements, only rarely using an inchoative English verb.

42	aaLas	yeNe	
	sluggishness	come	
be/feel sluggish [MaNi:18]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
						+++	/ye-bad

43	jwar	yeNe	
	fever	come	
have a fever [MaNi:18]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
						+++	/ye-bad

44	okaarii	yeNe	
	vomit	come	
vomit [MaNi:23]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
					++	+++	/ye-bad

45	phoDa	yeNe	
	pimples	come	
get pimples [MaNi:23]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
					+	+++	/ye-bad

46	chakkar	yeNe	
	dizziness	come	
feel dizzy [MaNi:23]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
						+++	/ye-bad

47	ghaam	yeNe	
	sweat	come	
sweat [MaNi:23]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
					+	+++	/ye-bad
48	jhop	phaar	yeNe	
	sleepiness	very	come	
feel very sleepy [MaNi:24]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
						+++	/ye-bad

49	paDase	yeNe	
	common cold	come	
have a cold [MaNi:24]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
						+++	/ye-bad

50	gandhii	yeNe	
	boils	come	
get boils [MaNi:25]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
					+	+++	/ye-bad

51	indriyaveikalya	aale	aahe	
	organ-broken state	come-pst-3plf	is-prs-3s	
the organs feel old [MaNi:40; Vish]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
						+++	/ye-bad

52	tyaat	mrutyu	yeto				
	in that way,	death	come-prs-3sm				
thus [the patient; ‘he’] will/could die. [MaNi:30; Vish]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
					+	+++	/ye-bad

And so on. This is an extremely common sense of ye, especially in the context of bodily (including mental) functions: The primary data sources (Ayurveda books) contain at least a hundred different physical and mental states expressed using this sense of ye. Most of the examples hitherto have been of physical conditions; following are some of the mental ones that make use of the same sense of ye.

53	manaatsii	shaantii	parat	aalii.	
	mind-Poss.	peace	back	come-pst-3sf.	
peace of mind returned. [Shr]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
						+++	/ye-good

54	tasech	dishaa	kaal	aadii	goshTiichaa	anubhaw	aapaNaalaa	yeto.	
	Thus	space	time	principal-(adj)	matter(f.)-Poss	experience(m.)	we-Dat	come-prs-3sm	
Thus, we have experience of space and time as the chief constituents. [PaVi:67; Smit]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
						+++	/ye-good

55	…jhaalyachii	shankaa	yete.	
	…become-pst-Poss	doubt(f.)	come-prs-1sf	
[the preceding] having happened there is doubt/we have doubt. [MaNi:48,54; Vish]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
						+++	/ye-bad

This sense of ye is difficult to distinguish at times from a metaphorical application of ye’s basic sense because the interpretation of the word is dependent on the context and even more subjectively on the perspective that the addressee or reader decides to construe. Thus even in context the following (56 & 57) were claimed by the native Marathi translation assistant to be capable of meaning either of the two provided glosses:

56	prasang	yeNe	
	situation	come	
to have a situation [PaVi:5; Shr]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
						+++
or: for a situation to arise
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
					++	+++

57	baadhaa	yeNe	
	obstacle	come	
there are obstacles [PaVi:15; Shr]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
						+++	/ye-bad
or: obstacles appear
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
					++	+++	/ye-bad

This lack of absolute determinacy suggests that ye may in fact simply be ‘general’ (cf. section 2.3) as regards its reference to ‘presence’ or ‘arrival’. (‘Arrival’ may be better substituted for other words in the English glosses such as ‘onset’, ‘appearance’ or ‘occurrence’ depending on the particular example.) That is, in its most general basic definition ye could mean both ‘arrival’ and ‘presence’, but in a specific instance the same basic sense could refer more (or even only) to one or the other. The semantic range within the data and the native-speaker translations suggest that the most satisfactory explanation might be a continuum of semantic possibilities extending from the most clear-cut distinct sense-like examples (such as the first three exemplars provided for this ‘presence/existence’ sense of ye, example 39-41), through instances where the verb is more vague as to ‘presence’ or ‘arrival’ (such as these latter examples, 56 & 57; and the long list of symptom examples of the similar form ‘noun yeNe’, 42-55), to those that represent the most prototypical basic sense in that they definitely retain the fundamental motional quality of the verb by describing primarily ‘arrival’ (such as many, although still not all, of the examples discussed for basic ye in section 3.2.3). Indeed, Goddard (2001:24) observes a cross-linguistic proclivity for “the word for ‘happen’ [to have] a secondary meaning approximating ‘appear’ or ‘arrive’”. The drawing of any demarking lines along this continuum is perhaps anyway futile in light of the ultimate interdependence of constituents VI (arrival of Figure at Source) and VII (presence of Figure at Source): If VI has occurred then VII also pertains, and if VII pertains then VI has at some point occurred. 

Ja as body part’s loss of power or normal functioning ability
This sense of ja is, on the face of it, quite similar to the application of the metaphorical Figure praaN ‘life’ to ja as discussed above (examples 21 & 22). Loss of life is simply the whole person’s ‘loss of power or normal functioning ability’ (as opposed to just a single body part’s):

58	bal	wa	varna	he	donhii	jaatat.	
	power	and	skin	this	pair	go-prs-3pl	
Power and skin both deteriorate. [MaNi:66; Vish]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
++	+++						/ja-bad

59	hii	baayko	chaanglii	paN	kambarent	gelii.	
	that	woman	good	but	waist/loins(f.)	go-pst-3sf	
That woman is good but has some problem with her waist. [Mol:313; Vish]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
+++	++						/ja-bad

60	majhaa	pay	gelii	
	me-Poss	legs	go-pst-3pln	
My legs don’t work (have stopped working). [Vish]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
+++	++						/ja-bad

61	indriyaache	bal	gele	aahe	
	organs-Poss.	strength	go-pst-3sn	is-prs-3s	
power in the organs has gone. [MaNi:40]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
+++	++						/ja-bad

One potential reason for identifying here a distinct sense of ja is the same as that provided for the ‘physical extent/evaluative degree’ sense of ye: That in most cases the Figure is a tangible object (varna ‘skin’, kambarent ‘waist/loins’, pay ‘legs’) and is therefore highly prototypical (in contrast to praaN ‘life’). As such any statement of its ‘going’ can only be interpreted as metaphorical and not literal motion, which we observed above (in ‘ye as physical extent or evaluative degree’) as being sufficiently semantically divergent from the basic sense to posit a separate sense. Furthermore, the present sense of ja may be used to describe the loss of power or function of the whole body, i.e. sharir jaaNe ‘to waste away’ (literally: for the body to go; [Mol:313]), which contrasts with praaN jaaNe ‘to die’ (literally: for life to go).

This sense of ja is metonymically analogous to the two senses of ye already discussed. It focuses on the effect or the result of the event. Unlike for ye, however, the result of the event is not the existence of the Figure somewhere, but the opposite, the non-existence of the Figure somewhere, specifically, at the Source (see discussions in sections 2.2.1 & 3.2.2). But this observation frustrates the preceding claim that the Figures in examples 58 to 62 (for this sense of ja) are concrete physical objects. Because although literally (i.e. syntactically) the Figure is the (tangible) body or part thereof (e.g. majhaa pay gelii = literally ‘my legs went’), actually (i.e. integrating the semantic ‘facts’) the Figure is the abstract ‘power or normal functioning ability of the body or part thereof’ (i.e. majhaa pay gelii = ‘my legs stopped functioning’). So, after this abstract Figure ‘goes’ from its regular location (the Source; the body or part thereof) this sense of ja does not provide for the inclusion of any semantic information surrounding the subsequent Path or Goal (III-VII). Indeed, the only relevant (or perhaps even, experientially accessible) information is that the Figure has departed from the Source and is henceforth no longer present there (I-II).

To reiterate, two divergent interpretations are proposed above: The ‘literal’ (i.e. syntactic) interpretation wherein a prototypical (tangible object) Figure moves metaphorically (similarly to ye’s ‘physical extent/evaluative degree’ sense); and the ‘semantically integrated’ interpretation which looks more like a metaphorical application of basic ja as opposed to a distinct sense. In this second interpretation an abstract entity is metaphorically mapped onto the Figure which then ‘literally’ (as an abstract Figure) moves. Whereas the first interpretation sees a literal Figure moving figuratively. Whether we chose one or the other, however, does not alter the specific and marked metonymic process displayed, and hence even on the sole basis of this active mechanism the proposal of a distinct sense is justified.

Another aspect of the body’s normal functioning ability is the mind’s normal functioning ability. This same sense of ja can also be used to describe the loss of such mental function.

62	tyaachii	buddhii	gelii	
	he-Poss.	sense	go-pst-3sf	
He lost his mind / became stupid. [Shr]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
+++	++						/ja-bad

63	manaachii	shaantii	gelii	(aahe).	
	mind-Poss.	peace	go-pst-3sf 	(has)	
Lost peace of mind. [Shr]
I	II	III	IVp	V	VI	VII
+++							/ja-bad

We have described four cases of meaning extension with respect to basic ja and ye:
1.	metaphorical applications of the basic senses (recall though that these are not extensions of basic ja and ye but extensions of meaning within the basic senses).
2.	Ye as a measure of physical extent or evaluative degree.
3.	Ye for existence/presence.
4.	Ja for the loss of function of the body or part thereof.

Within these extensions we have witnessed both of the mechanisms (metaphor and metonymy) functioning, usually in combination with each other. More specifically, metonymy has functioned to focus on the results of the events, and a vast range of metaphorical mappings onto all elements of the basic motion event have been seen to effectively operate. We will now turn to a discussion of the possible causes for these semantic shifts.

	3.3.3 Causes
The operation of ‘result metonymy’ in all of the extended senses is causally interpretable in terms of subjectivity. That is, these shifts are the outcome of innovation tending (or being ‘attracted’) towards meanings which are more subjective. Metonymic selection of the ‘result’ constituents fits with a subjective explanation because with both ja and ye it is these constituents which most directly relate to the deictic centre – generally the speaker. This is because the Ground orientation of the verbs (the Goal for ye, and variable according to syntactic context for ja, but normally predominantly the Source and/or Goal) is often tied to a subjectively located deictic centre – especially so for ye which is strongly deictically imbued. Note that this ‘subjectivity’, like the deictic centre, can be ‘projected’ to express the perspective of someone other than the speaker, such as the penultimate example above (62: tyachii buddhii gelii ‘his common sense abandoned him’), where the Source of gelii ‘went’ is the subject of the narrative to ‘him’. This is what Traugott and Dasher (2002) call intersubjectivity, various peoples’ subjectivities relating with each other.

Result metonymy in the case of motion verbs also has a possible cognitive basis suggested in experimental results showing that “our memory for the spatial location of an object is biased in the direction of the object’s motion, even when the object is presented statically” (Gibbs 2006:56 citing Freyd & Finke 1984). The experiments demonstrated that when presented with a still image of a moving object we tend to ‘remember’ the object’s location as being further in the direction that it was depicted to be moving. This is called ‘representational momentum’. Combined with the findings presented above on the conceptual and linguistic integration of the literal and the figurative (section 2.3.1.1; Glucksberg 2001, Coulson & Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk 2005), there is every reason to assume that this phenomenon of representational momentum – even after multiple and various metaphorical applications within the ‘literal’ motion event – could be accessed, adapted and adopted into the metaphorized motion event. 

Turning now to the other posited cause of semantic change, the twin efficiency/expression imperative. The fact that the three extended senses of ja and ye have become conventionalized sufficiently attests to their general communicative efficiency (i.e. if it didn’t work then it wouldn’t catch on). Briefly, though, the result metonymy is efficient in that it selects only the most significant part of the motion event for semantic focus. The other constituents, being less essential in terms of the particular communicative motivation (i.e. what needs, in this case, to be expressed), are de-emphasized. This point could actually be restated in terms of subjectivity and the need/desire for expressivity: ‘What needs to be expressed’ requires someone’s subjective perspective to integrate the communicative demands of the situation with their own personal communicative needs/desires (cf. Traugott & Dasher 2002 on subjectivization in modal verbs). In the case of ja and ye, their result constituents (departure from or arrival at a location) also happen to be central in their respective basic meanings. Thus, their ‘result metonymy’ is also ‘core-constituent metonymy’. This kind of metonymic selection is semantically efficient because it maintains, via a core constituent, a relatively simple and transparent relationship to the (more broadly conceived) basic motion event. This argument for the ‘efficiency’ of result/core-constituent metonymy is further supported – although only for ye – by the ‘representational momentum’ phenomenon discussed above; this kind of metonymy in ye is a semantic shift towards the same part (constituents) of the basic motion event as ‘representational momentum’ concentrates on.

Looking now at the expressive requirement as a cause of semantic shift we might consider some of the underlying cultural tendencies which led to the development of these particular semantic forms. Many of the usages of the extended senses can be seen to be in the broad domain of physical and mental health (and illness). Of course this is a reflection of the major data sources (Ayurveda books), but it may also suggest a cultural-internal tendency to use inchoative verbs in this particular domain. Inchoative verbs inherently express temporal flux, as well as ‘complex’ rather than ‘simple’ relationships between parts (see discussion in ‘ye for existence/presence’; Kovecses 2006:241-2). This linguistic pattern then, expresses peoples’ physical and mental states as processes rather than static relationships. 

This pattern could reflect an underlying cycle  image schema which is variously manifested in sub-continental culture and cosmology, such as in cyclical conceptions of time (Hoyt 1994, e.g. belief in a continual cycle of birth and rebirth), and is hence not surprisingly found expressed in their language. The cycle image schema relates to the balance image schema (Gibbs 2006:93-4, 103), also highly significant in the Indian conception of health and healing – health is defined as a balance of the three vital bodily humours (dosha), and illness is their imbalance (Kirmayer 2004). The recurrent process of the body (or mind or universe or anything) coming and going in and out of balance is distinctly cyclical. Things (Figures) ‘coming’ and ‘going’ to and from a person (Source/Goal), it appears, determines health (or lack of it). It is precisely the same notion of adding or subtracting things from a system which will either balance it or imbalance it. Thus we can see the conception of human cycles of balance and imbalance displayed in the linguistic tendency of using verbs of motion (ja and ye) to describe human states and conditions. 

Motion verbs also have a broad cross-linguistic tendency to describe ‘self-volitional’ events, thus largely excluding external agents (Croft 1990:61). This could be interpreted in two contrastive ways: (1) such events are the actions of discrete and autonomous entities, acting according to their own internal and isolable motivations, or (2) such events are ‘natural’ occurrences which do not require external agents but which simply happen of their own accord. Interpretation (1) is clearly more suited to prototypical instances of the basic senses of ja and ye, where the Figure is a person and hence (at least by my intuitive/conditioned understanding) capable of having their own internal motivations. For many of the examples illustrating extended uses/senses, however, I suggest that more metaphorical Figures (such as abstract concepts) do not possess such a capability, and so interpretation (2) must be favoured. This suggests a conception of health and illness as being internally regulated, which is confirmed by ethnographically supported claims that Ayurveda is an ‘internalizing’ medical system (Kirmayer 2004). ‘Internalizing’ systems view health and illness as being the result of internal states and processes. In the case of Ayurveda this is also linguistically expressed in the polysemous word dosha, which refers to the bodily humors but also just means ‘illness’. In other words, illness is just you, but in a different form (specifically, an imbalanced form, as earlier discussed). We can thus observe the (independently attested) internalizing conception of health and illness linguistically manifested in the widespread use in this domain of motion verbs which do not have (nor require) external causative factors. 

This contrasts with the tendency in English of a linguistically implied separation between patient and illness, e.g. ‘he has an illness’, ‘she suffers from an illness’. This contrast is reflected in the more thorough integration of personal, social and environmental factors into the Indian conception of health and illness, in terms of causes, processes and treatments as compared to the Western model (Warner 1976).  

Finally, we may posit that subjectivity, especially perhaps in its outsourced manifestations like deictic projection, is underlyingly structured by the center-periphery image schema (Gibbs 2006:91). Based on our embodied understanding of ourselves as, literally, the centre of our universe with all else happening around us, we can project the model and place another person at the center and then organise everything else with respect to them, at their periphery. 

We cannot here speculate any further on the specifics of the language-culture interrelationships that the above observations might reveal; more ethnographic inquiry would be required. But the findings presented here could certainly be valuable in supplying the linguistic data of possible anthropological linguistic research in this area. 

3.4 ‘Figurative’ deixis in ja and ye	
Finally, before wrapping up this chapter, we will return to the idea of figurative deixis which has featured in several cross-linguistic analyses of come and go (section 2.2.3). The general hypothesis is that if the deictic centre is projected into the abstract realm it will be ‘located’ at (broadly) ‘good’. Due to this, uses or senses of come which incorporate metaphorized elements involve motion towards or arrival at this figurative deictic centre. Go, in part deictically characterized in terms of opposition to come’s primary deictic property, involves departure or motion away from the figurative deictic centre ‘good’. Do the Marathi data confirm the hypothesis?

The general answer is yes, they do. We will discuss some qualifications to this affirmative answer, but firstly, some examples which support the premise:

•	come/ye = ‘good’

64	malaa	lakshaat	yete.	
	me-Dat	attention(n.)-Loc	come-prs-3sn	
I get it (know/understand how to do it). [Ashi]

65	maajhaa	dhyaanaat	yete	tuu	
	me-Poss	attention(n.)-Loc.	come-3sn	you	
I remember you [Smit]

66	mi	janmaat	aalo.	
	I	existence-Loc	come-pst-1sm	
I was born. [Shr]

67	mi	srimantiit	aalo.					
	I	richness-loc	come-pst-1sm.					
I became rich. [Shr]

68	tiche	pot	aale	ahe.				
	she-Poss.	stomach	come-pst-3sf	is-prs-3s				
She is pregnant [Vish]

69	mhanaje	suuj	kamii	yeiil			
	means	swelling	less	come-fut-3s			
That will relieve you of swelling. [Ajit]

70	nusatyaa	aushadhaane	tyaas	gun	yeNe	shakya	naahii.	
	just	medicine-Inst	those	benefit(m.)	come-Inf	feasible	be-prs-Neg	
They are difficult to cure with only medicine. [MaNi:43; Vish]

•	go/ja = ‘bad’

71	panchatvaalaa	jaaNe	
	death-Loc	go-inf	
to die. [PaVi:114]

72	…rogyaachaa	shabd	khol	jaato.			
	patient(m.)-Poss.	voice(m.)	deep	go-prs-3sm			
the patient’s voice becomes (Lit: goes) low/deep.  [MaNi:97]

73	aawaaj	waadhat	jaaNe					
	voice	high	go-Inf.					
The voice becomes high [Vish]

74	aang	waaLat	jaaNe	
	body	dry	go-Inf.	
 The body becomes dry. [MaNi:31]

75	to	khuup	presharamadhun	gela.		
	he	much	pressure-under	go-pst-3sm		
He was under a lot of pressure. [Smit]

76	nikaal	tyaachyaa	viruddh	gelaa.		
	verdict(m.)	he-Poss	against	go-pst-3sm		
The verdict went against him. [Oxf:326]

There are many examples which also seem, on the face of it, to contradict the hypothesis. However, upon closer inspection these are overwhelmingly descriptions of conditions – either internal (personal) or external (general circumstances) which have become metaphorical Figures and then either ‘come’ (i.e. happen or persist) or ‘go’ (i.e. cease or desist). Obviously, whether some abstract Figure’s ‘coming’ or ‘going’ (i.e. is present or absent) is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ depends entirely on the nature of the abstract Figure. For instance, money (paisa) or energy (both human [shaktii] and electrical [elektrisitii]) can ‘come’ (=‘good’) and ‘go’ (=‘bad’) in Marathi. But this does not imply a ‘good’ deictic centre because fever (taap) and anger (raag) can also ‘come’ (=‘bad’) and ‘go’ (=‘good’). 

Similarly, recall the list of physical symptoms exemplifying the ‘existence/presence’ sense ye. All are clearly ‘bad’, but this profusion of ye=‘bad’ examples does not necessarily indicate that there is a ye=‘bad’ semantic tendency in Marathi. Rather, it is just as likely a reflection of a bias in the data due to the fact of one of the main sources being a physician’s diagnostic manual. Accordingly, we can also find examples of ‘good’ conditions ‘coming’ which hence could be claimed to bear out the “‘good’ deictic centre” hypothesis (these are repeated from section 3.3.2):

77	manaachii	shaantii	parat	aalii.	
	mind-Poss.	peace	back	come-pst-3sf.	
peace of mind returned. [Shr]

78	tasech	dishaa	kaal	aadii	goshTiichaa	anubhav	aapaNaalaa	yeto.	
	Thus	space	time	principal-(adj)	matter(f.)-Poss	experience(m.)	we-Dat	come-prs-3sm	
Thus, we have experience of space and time as the chief constituents. [PaVi:67; Smit]

The point is that these examples where a metaphorical Figure ‘comes’ or ‘goes’ should not be taken to either support or refute the hypothesis. 

Before leaving this point, let us follow the ‘symptom’+yeNe examplar full circle. The lack of or cessation (‘departure’) of the symptom or condition can sometimes (but not always) be expressed simply by substituting ja, e.g.:

79	phoD	jaaNe	
	pimples	go-Inf.	
to stop having pimples [Vish] 

My informant explained that ja can be used when the condition is a drawn-out one that occurs gradually and over a long period of time. Conditions that ‘come’ on suddenly will, in Marathi, ‘ye’, but cannot then ‘ja’. Instead, they can be semantically inverted with kamii ye ‘come less’:

80	mhanaje	suuj	kamii	yeiil	
	means	swelling	less	come-fut-3s	
That will relieve you of swelling. [Ajit]

This turn of phrase, notice, slots back in to the hypothesized frame – come/ye = ‘good’, as does its contrastive ja counterpart (below), where the ‘condition’ (vyaadhiawasthaa) ‘going less’ (kamii hot jaaNe) is clearly a ‘bad’ thing as it is cited as the ‘main cause’ of the subsequent digestion problem:
81	tyaamuLe	vyaadhiawasThaa	kamii	hot	jaaNe	mhaNajech	doshaanchaa	
	accordingly	condition(f.)	less	become-Prs.Part	go-Inf	means	problem-Poss?	

paak	ghaDuun	yet	chaalalaa	aahe,	
digestion(m.)	happen-Conj.Part	come-Prs.Part	proceed-pst-3sm	be-3s	
If the condition is easing, then that’s the main cause of the digestive problem [PaVi:49; Smit]

Thus we have seen a certain (although admittedly not compelling) amount of supportive evidence for the proposed “‘good’ deictic center” hypothesis. It was suggested in section 2.3 that ‘ameliorative’ and ‘pejorative’ change may be a systematic part of come and go’s semantic development, as witnessed in the hitherto discovered cross-linguistic pervasiness of the come = ‘good’ / go = ‘bad’ dyad (Sinha 1972, Clarke 1974, Treerat 1990). This claim can now be buttressed with the Marathi evidence, but more fundamentally, with the semantic ‘attractor’ of subjectification: To place the deictic centre at (the figurative location) ‘good’ is patently to align one’s own perspective with one’s own preferred situation. Thus subjectivity, which has already been so influential in the analysis, further consolidates its value as a causal explanation of semantic change in ja and ye.

Unfortunately, we have not had the benefit of a more exhaustive range of data nor of sufficient access to (or possession of) native-speaker intuition to decisively confirm (or disconfirm) Marathi’s concordance with the “‘good’ deictic centre” hypothesis. We have presented some evidence suggesting concordance, and made some useful observations about the phenomena from the Marathi perspective, but ultimately we must recommend that future work is still required on this topic.

3.5 Discussion
Before wrapping up this chapter we will briefly consider some of the general implications of the findings. 

Firstly, and in agreement with Traugott and Dasher (2002:29), the findings indicate that “conceptual metonymy needs to be expanded to account for subjectification”. In the context of the metonymic extensions of ja and ye and their subjectivity-based causes, we observed numerous significant interrelationships between the two concepts.

The array of metaphorical applications to the basic senses, and at the same time of distinct metaphorically extended senses, can be understood with reference to the property of ‘dual reference’. Broadly characteristic of metaphor usage and understanding, ‘dual reference’ allows multiple senses and applications of words to be simultaneously (cognitively and linguistically) ‘active’, allowing them all ‘online’ access to each other’s semantic attributes (Glucksberg 2001:50, Israel 2005:155). This remarkable aspect of our linguistic faculties explains the ease with which we manage the dynamic continuum of literal-figurative meaning discussed in section 2.3.1.1. With regards to the dominant semantic domain of the data in this study (health, illness, healing), Kirmayer (2004) has found that the efficacy of many traditional healing practices relies on the mutually reinforcing effect of synchronically interpreted multiple levels of meaning (literal and figurative). In this study we have observed ja and ye expressing a variety of literal and figurative meanings. This variety of levels of meaning may actually be functionally contributing to the discourses of healing that they are a part of (cf. Kirmayer 2004:42).

One final area which we do not have the space to cover, but will mention briefly, is the syntactic applications of ja and ye. Both ja and ye have a number of grammaticalized forms and functions, and within these they exhibits many of the same mechanisms and causal motivations that have been discussed with regards to their lexical manifestations. I would identify the integration of grammaticalized forms into regular studies of semantic shift as another area for future research in this field and language (cf. Robert 2008; Traugott & Dasher 2002; Heine & Kuteva 2002).

3.6 Summary
•	The basic senses of ja and ye are similar in meaning, although not identical, to English go and come. 
•	Both crucially involve (i) movement, and (ii) implicit or explicit reference to one or more locations (Source and/or Goal).
•	Ye is generally Goal oriented. The Goal is deictically referenced by the verb and is often subjectively (speaker) oriented but can be quite freely projected.
•	Ja’s deictic properties are less explicit but also tend to be subjectively deictically referential. The Goal or Source orientation of ja depends on grammatically invited inference.
•	Grammatically invited inference is also capable of generating many more general semantic variations with the basic senses.
•	Extensions of meaning occur both within the basic senses by metaphorization, and also from them by associated mechanisms of metaphorization and metonymization.
•	At least two distinct senses of ye and one of ja can be distinguished, although their classification is not unproblematic.
•	The ‘result/core-constituent’ metonymic effect is largely a semantic shift towards (the ‘attractor’ of) subjectivity.
•	Efficiency is also a subjectivity-grounded cause of semantic change.
•	Expressivity as a cause illuminated some cognitive (image schemas) influences, and suggested some language-culture connections worthy of further investigation.
•	Ja and ye conform to the “‘good’ deictic centre” hypothesis, although more evidence would strengthen this finding.
•	The plasticity and flexibility of meaning, both inherently and in the context of language and our linguistic faculties, is fundamentally responsible for the variation observed in ja and ye, but remains far from fully understood.

Chapter Four: Conclusions

Come and go are widespread but neither universal nor semantically primitive. As such there is still much new and interesting ground to cover regarding their special properties of meaning, both basic and extended, and within individual languages and cross-linguistically.

Deixis is an inherent feature of language. Moreover, it is inherently complicating in its dual influence in more structural aspects of language, and more applied areas like semantics and pragmatics. But also, it simulataneously simplifies communicative practice thanks to its directly referential capacity. As such we can observe deixis as attending all at once to our inclination to subjectivity (the default deictic center me, here, now), as well as to our requirements for communicative efficiency and expressivity. Deixis plays a key role in the meanings and uses of both basic and extended ja and ye, and more broadly of go and come. The extension of go and come’s deictic properties from the ‘literal’ to the ‘figurative’ realm eloquently exemplifies the interplay of literal and figurative meaning.

Polysemy provides powerful theoretical tools for the explanation of a particular type of semantic change – where a single lexical item develops multiple senses. One of its primary mechanisms, metaphor, taps into the creative capacity of language (and people) to manipulate the dynamic (literal/figurative) potential of meaning. Underlying metaphor we can detect (through empirical means such as language) cognitive models called image schemas which structure our construal of the world in all its concreteness and abstractness. Image schemas can illuminate linkages between language, cognition and culture, but ultimately they are theoretical tools that empirically can neither be proven nor disproven. Another of polysemy’s main mechanisms, metonymy, is underpinned by forces both personal (subjectivity) and interpersonal (efficiency/expression, intersubjectivity). These semantic ‘attractors’ allow us to perceive a degree of regularity within a diversity of semantic change, including in that of ja and ye. Prototypicality provides yet another organizational model for the multiple complex structures and processes involved in semantic change.

Distinguishing polysemous senses (as with semantic theory in general) is fraught with theoretical and practical difficulties, ruling out any possible claims of absolute or exclusive ‘truth’. The best we can hope for is what has been achieved here for ja and ye, namely a “redescription of semantic phenomena which classifies them according to a transparent and obvious – though not necessary or objective – set of criteria” (Riemer 2005:418-9). A principled investigative procedure was established and applied to the data, yielding a coherent account of the semantic ‘facts’ as witnessed in the actual usage of ja and ye.

All told, the theoretical examination and semantic analysis of ja and ye provided here suggest that the current linguistic paradigms for the study of motion verbs are inadequate. In too often focusing on one or other of the theoretical perspectives they over-simplify what is actually a complex interplay between various aspects of coinciding fields: The various cognitive, social and linguistic influences subsumed within semantic change towards polysemy, deixis, the language and conception of space, but to name a few. Also, much research on motion verbs is grounded in ‘localist’ hypotheses of the primacy of space, and branches out from there to the (apparently) less directly graspable figurative and metaphorical realms of language and meaning. In this respect it assumes rather than directly addresses some of the deeper perceptual and theoretical questions surrounding space, cognition and language, and fails to provide a truly functional explanation that draws together our experiential reality and the subjective and intersubjective processes of creating and using ‘meaning’. It is in this direction that I hope future excursions into the language of motion verbs will move.

References

DICTIONARIES:

Concise Oxford English Dictionary. 11th edition.

Molesworth’s Marathi – English Dictionary. 2nd edition. 1998. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services.

Navneet Marathi – English Dictionary. 3rd edition. 2008. Mumbai: Navneet

Oxford English – Marathi Dictionary. New Edition. 2003. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

MARATHI LANGUAGE SOURCES:

Garde, K.D.G.K. (undated). Saartha Mahadhawanidaan. Pune: Rajesh Ramesh Raghuwanshii.

Paraanjape, G.R. and Raande, S. 2007. Padaarthawidnaan. Pune: Anamol.

REFERENCES:

Assayag, J. and Fuller, C.J. (eds.). 2005. Globalizing India: perspectives from below London: Anthem Press.

Barcelona, A. (ed.). 2000. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Benei, V. 2005. ‘Of languages, passions and interests: Education, Regionalism and Globalization in Maharashtra 1800-2000’. in Assayag and Fuller. pp.141-63.

Benveniste, E. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris : Gallimard.

Bloom, P. and Peterson, M.A. 1996. Language and Space: Language, speech and communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Brown, C.H. 2005. ‘Hand and arm’. in Haspelmath et al. pp.522-525.

Bühler, K. [1934] 1982. ‘Sprachttheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache’. translated and abridged in Jarvella and Klein, pp.9-30.

Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.

Clark. E.C. 1974. ‘Normal states and evaluative viewpoints’. Language. 50(2). pp.316-332.

Coulson, C. and Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (eds.). 2005. The literal and Nonliteral in Language and Thought. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Croft, W. 1990. ‘Possible Verbs and the Structure of Events’. in Tsohatzidis pp.48-73.

D’Souza, J. 2006. ‘Language, education and the rights of the child’. World Englishes, 25(1), pp.155–166

Fillmore, Charles. [1971] 1975. Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Fillmore, C.J. 1982. ‘Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis’. in Jarvella, R.J. and Klein, W. (eds.) Speech, Place and Action: Studies in deixis and related topics. John Wiley & Sons.

Finegan, E. 1995. ‘Subjectivity and subjectivisation: An introduction’. in Stein and Wright. pp.1-15.

Freyd, J. and Finke, R. 1984. ‘Representational Momentum’. Journal of experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 10. pp.126-132.
 
Geeraerts, D. 1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics: A contribution to historical lexicography. Oxford: Clarendon

Geeraerts, D. 2006. Words and Other Wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Gibbs. R.W.Jr. 2006. Emodiment and Cognitive Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Glucksberg, Sam. 2001. Understanding Figurative Language. New York: Oxford University Press

Goddard, C. 1998. Semantic Analysis: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press

Goddard, C. 2001. ‘Lexico-semantic universals: A critical overveiw’. Linguistic Typology, 5,  pp.1–65.

Goddard, C. 2008. ‘Contrastive Semantics and Cultural Psychology: English heart vs. Malay hati’. in Sharifian, F., Dirven, R., Yu, N., and Niemeier, S. (eds.). Culture, Body, and Language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Gokhale, B.G. 1961. Indian Thought Through the Ages. London: Asia Publishing House.

Gruber, J.S. 1976. Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North Holland Press.

Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hickmann, M. and Robert, S. (eds.). 2006. Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Congitive Categories. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Hoyt, A. 1994. Semantics and experience: universal metaphors of time in English, Mandarin, Hindi, and Sesotho. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Israel, M. 2005. ‘Common sense literal meaning’. in Coulson and Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, pp.147-77.

Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jarvella, R.J. and Klein, W. (eds.). 1982. Speech, Place and Action: Studies in deixis and related topics. John Wiley & Sons.

Johnson, D.M. and Erneling, C.E. (eds.). 1997. The future of the cognitive revolution. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kirmayer, Laurence J. 2004. The Cultural Diversity of Healing: Meaning, Metaphor and Mechanism. in British Medical Bulletin. 69, pp.33-48.

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. 2008. ‘Approaching Lexical Typology’. in Vanhove, pp.3-52.

Kovecses, Z. 2006. Language, Mind, and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press

Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. 1993. ‘The contemporary theory of metaphor’. in Ortony,  pp.202-251.

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1977. ‘Conceptual metaphor in everyday language’. Journal of Philosophy. 77, pp.453-486.

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Levinson, S. 2003. Space in language and cognition : explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lyons, J. 1982. ‘Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum?’. in Jarvella and Klein pp.101-124.

Marchello-Nizia, Christiane. 2006. ‘From personal deixis to spatial deixis’. in Hickmann and Robert pp.103-120

McGlone, Matthew S. 2001. ‘Concepts as Metaphors’. in Glucksberg pp.90-115.

Nemade, B. 1990. The Influence of English on Marathi: A sociolinguistic and stylistic study. Panaji: Praphakar Bhide.

Ortony, A. (ed.). 1993. Metaphor and thought (2nd Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Pandharipande, R. 1997. Marathi. New York: Routledge.

Pandharipande, R. 2003. Sociolinguistic Aspects of Marathi: Multilingualism in central India. Munich: Lincom.

Ravin, Y. and Leacock, C. 2000. Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches. New York: Oxford University Press.

Regier, T. 1996. The human semantic potential: spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Ricca, D. 1993. I verbi deittici di movimento in Europa: Una ricerca interlinguistica. Firenze: La Nuova Italia Editrice.

Riemer, N. 2005. The Semantics of Polysemy: Reading meaning in English and Warlpiri. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Robert, S. 2008. ‘Words and their meanings: Principles of variation and stabilization’. in Vanhove, pp.55-92.

Shopen, T. (ed.). 1985. Language Typology and Syntactic Description; Vol III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sinha, A. K. 1972. ‘On the deictic use of ‘Coming’ and ‘Going’ in Hindi’. Papers from the regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. 8. pp.351-358.

Stein, D. and Wright, S. (eds.). 1995. Subjectivity and Subjectivisation in Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Talmy, L. 1985. ‘Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms’. in Shopen, pp.57-149.

Talmy, L. 1996. ‘Fictive motion in language and “ception”’. in Bloom and Peterson, pp.211-276.

Taylor, J.R. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Torreano, L. 1997. Understanding Metaphorical Use of Verbs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton University.

Traugott, E.C. and Dasher, R.B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Treerat, W. 1990. On the deictic use of ‘coming’ and ‘going’ in Thai. Unpublished MA Thesis. Australian National University.

Tsohatzidis, S.L. (ed.). 1990. Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization. New York: Routledge.

Turner, M. 2005. ‘The literal versus figurative dichotomy’. in Coulson and Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, pp.25-52.

Vanhove, M. (ed.). 2008. From Polysemy to Semantic Change. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Wälchli, B. 2006. ‘Lexicalization patterns in motion events revisited’. (http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/home/a20_11/waelchli/waelchli-lexpatt.pdf) 

Wali, Kashi. 2005. Marathi. Munich:Lincom

Warner, R. 1976. ‘The relationship between language and disease concepts’. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine. 7(1), pp.57-68.

Wilkins, D.P. and Hill, D. 1995. ‘When “go” means “come”: Questioning the basicness of basic motion verbs’. Cognitive Linguistic, 6(2/3),  pp.209-259.