Conceptual metaphors and blends of “understanding” and “knowledge” in Hungarian

Acta Linguistica Hungarica, Vol. 48 (1�3), pp. 79�100 (2001)

CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS AND BLENDS OF

�UNDERSTANDING� AND �KNOWLEDGE� IN HUNGARIAN*

gábor tolcsvai nagy

Abstract

This paper combines the theories of conceptual metaphor, blending and the pro�le/base re-

lations system of Langacker in interpreting the most important verbs of �understanding� and�knowledge� in the Hungarian language within the conceptual metaphors understandingis seeing, and understanding is grasping. The analysis demonstrates that the semantic

compositions of verbal pre�x + verb play an outstanding role in constructing the expressionsof �understanding� and �knowledge� prior and/or parallel to the metaphoric correspondences.The verbal pre�xes build a complex spatial system in Hungarian and, combined with verbsof visual and tactile conceptual structures, represent �understanding� and �knowledge� in

a dynamic way, where the target entity of understanding or knowledge is taken as a fullystructured object.

1. Introduction

It was a well-known fact even before the rise of cognitive linguistics that, in the

conceptual and linguistic representation of human experiences, there are fun-

damental analogies between �perception� and �cognition�. The Hungarian lan-

guage is no exception in this respect. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to look

at the folk theories of �understanding� and �knowledge� manifest in Hungar-

ian.1 The present analysis is based on the theoretical foundations of cognitive

linguistics by Langacker (1987); Lako� (1987); and Lako��Johnson (1980).2

� I am grateful to Mária Ladányi for her critical comments and questions on an earlier

version of this paper. All shortcomings, of course, are mine.1 Everyday experiences are structured by people according to prototypical instances,forming �folk categories�. On the other hand, �expert categories� are constructed byscienti�c principles and methodology (cf. Taylor 1991, 72�4).

2 Some theoreticians tend to distingish two main streams in present day linguistics as a

cognitive science: one is the �holistic� or functional line (represented by the works ofR. Langacker and G. Lako�), the other one is the modular or formal line (cf. Schwarz1992). The present paper takes the functional line as its theoretical basis.

1216�8076/01/$ 5.00 c 2001 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest

80 gábor tolcsvai nagy

First a taxonomy of the most important words of �understanding� and �knowl-

edge� is given grouped in two conceptual metaphors, thereafter the verbs are

interpreted in Langacker's pro�le/base and temporal/atemporal relations sys-

tem, and as a synthesis the results are elaborated on in the framework of

blending theory in those cases where semantic composition is primary to the

conceptual metaphor. As a result it can be assumed that a complete spa-

tial system is built up conceptually concerning �understanding� and �knowl-

edge�, partly by language speci�c morphological constructs of verbal pre�xes

and verbs, prior to the conceptual metaphors; that the semantic compositions

characteristic of expressions of �understanding� and �knowledge� are formed by

a certain type of blending; and that the goal of understanding or the represen-

tation of knowledge is an entity, something like an object independent of man.

2. Two conceptual metaphors of �understanding� and �knowledge�

In the �rst part of the paper I give a list of the most important metaphorical

relations between perception and cognition in the conceptual domain of �under-

standing� and �knowledge� in the Hungarian language. As explicated below,

these two concepts are closely related not only in psychology (as process and

structure in the mind) or in philosophy, but also in the folk theories represented

in the Hungarian language. Both concepts are elaborated in di�erent concep-

tual metaphors of vision and grasping, mainly in understanding is seeing,

understanding is grasping (as possibly in many other languages, probably

as a language universal, indicated by Lako��Johnson 1980 and Sweetser 1990,

all originating from the mind is a body conceptual metaphor). I do not deal

with the auditive mode of perception and understanding in detail, since the

conceptual metaphor understanding is hearing seems to be less relevant

in Hungarian than the other ones.

The conceptual structures of �understanding� and �knowledge� in the Hun-

garian language are to be found in the following tables (on the basis of Lako��

Johnson 1980; Sweetser 1990; Sjöström 1998, the tables are constructed in

harmony with Sjöström 1998, 84). The tables are formed according to the

main components of conceptual metaphors: the cognitive relation, the cogni-

tive agent, and the cognitive object.

Acta Linguistica Hungarica 48, 2001

conceptual metaphors 81

2.1. Understanding is seeing

Table 1

the perception relation the cognitive relation

1. verbs

(a) lát `see' lát ùnderstand,`perceive',`think',`�nd',`deem',

`consider'átlát `see across/through' átlát 1.`penetrate, fathom',

2.`comprehend, realize'belát 1.`see in', belát 1.`have an insight into',

2.`survey, look over' 2.`realize', 3.àdmit afault'

belelát `see into' belelát `get an insight of/into'

keresztüllát `see through' keresztüllát ùnderstand sy'sintention, behaviour'

meglát `catch sight of' meglát 1.ùnderstand', 2.`realize'rálát òverlook, have a sight of rálát ùnderstand sg as a

whole'túllát `see beyond, over' túllát ùnderstand sg in its

broader context'

(b) néz `look at' néz `consider'átnéz `look through' átnéz `go over, run through'belenéz `look into' belenéz `read super�cially'félrenéz `look aside' félrenéz `pay no attention

deliberately'hátranéz `look back' hátranéz `deal with the past'keresztülnéz `look through' keresztülnéz ìgnore sy'

kinéz `look out' kinéz 1.`�nd some data from atext', 2.`be guessable',3.`think, guess of sy'

megnéz `look at' megnéz èxamine the state ofa�airs'

odanéz `look at' odanéz `pay attention to sg'ránéz `look at' ránéz `pay attention to sg/sy'

szétnéz `look around' szétnéz `gather information'utánanéz `look after' utánanéz 1. `look after', 2.`try to

�nd', 3.èxamine'

végignéz `look on, see to the end' végignéz èxamine'

(c) tekint `look at' tekint `consider, regard as'áttekint 1.`look across' áttekint `have a global

2.`survey, look over' understanding'

(d) szemlél `view, gaze at' szemlél `mentally act tounderstand'

(e) megvilágít ìlluminate' megvilágít ìlluminate, make sgunderstandable'




2. nouns

belátás `the sight into sg' belátás 1.`discernment of, insightinto',

2.ùnderstanding,comprehension'

látásmód `way of seeing' látásmód `point of view'

látóhatár `horizon' horizont `horizon'látókör `�eld of vision' látókör `horizon, scope'látószög `visual angle' látószög `point of view'nézet `view' nézet `view, opinion, idea'

néz®pont `point of view' néz®pont `point of view'tekintet `look, glance' tekintet 1.`regard, respect,

consideration'

2.`relation, point of view'

szemlélet3 `way of looking' szemlélet àspect, contemplation'

szempont `point of view' szempont `point of view, aspect'

Table 2

the perceiver the cognitive agent

vak `blind' vak `blind'elvakult `blinded' elvakult `be blind to sg'

sötét `dark' sötét `stupid, dismal, shady'[sokat lát `see much'] széles látókör¶ `sy with a wide intellectual

horizon'

[keveset lát `see little'] sz¶k látókör¶ `sy with a narrowintellectual horizon'

csukottszemmel

`with closed eyes' csukottszemmel

`without the intention ofunderstanding'

nyitottszemmel

`with open eyes' nyitottszemmel

`with the intention ofunderstanding'

tágra nyíltszemmel

`with wide open eyes' tágra nyíltszemmel

`with the intention ofunderstanding'

ködös `foggy' ködös `confused'[kép `picture, image'] képes `capable, able'

képtelen ìncapable, unable'

3 szem èye' + lél verbal derivational a�x + et nominal derivational a�x.



Table 3

the perceived object the cognitive object

sötét `dark' sötét òbscure, unintelligible,incomprehensible'

világos `clear, bright' világos òbvious, self-evident,intelligible,comprehensible'

látható `visible' látható `comprehensible'átlátható `can be seen through' átlátható `penetrable,

comprehensible as awhole'

belátható `can be surveyed' belátható `comprehensible'homályos `dim' homályos `di�cult to understand'áttekinthet® èasy to survey, clearly

arranged'

áttekinthet® èasy to understand

globally'ködös `foggy' ködös `vague'

The conceptual metaphor understanding is seeing in the Hungarian lan-

guage can be characterized as follows:

(1) source: target:

(a) an agent (prototypically a humanbeing)


(b) visually perceives (or does not or

cannot perceive)

(b) mentally perceives, i.e. understands

(or does not or cannot understand)(c) a physical object (c) a certain state of a�airs

The mappings between the source and the target domains are very clear, in-

dicating strict correspondences between the components of the two domains.

Both visual and cognitive relations (i.e. the perception or the cognitive pro-

cesses) are represented from the point of view of the agent, thus with respect

to the way this agent approaches the object or state of a�airs. The ways are

expressed mostly by the di�erent spatial relations represented in the trajector�

landmark relations of the verbal pre�xes (for more details see below). The

ability of the agent, the degree of the perception are indicated by expressions

mainly independent of the verbs with very strong spatial reference.



2.2. Understanding is grasping

Table 4


1. verbs

(a) fog `hold'átfog `grasp' átfog `span, comprehend'

egybefog `hold together' egybefog `to form a thematic unitmentally or textually'

felfog `seize', `pick up', `hold

o�'

felfog `grasp, comprehend'

megfog `catch, hold' megfog `grasp, comprehend'[össze + fog+ lal]

`together' + `hold' +frequentative verbal

derivational a�x

összefoglal `sum up, summarize'

(b) ragad `stick'megragad `seize, grasp' megragad 1.`comprehend'

2.ùnderstand theessence'

(c) tapint `touch, �nger' tapint (azelevenére, a

lényegre)

`touch the sore point',ùnderstand the essence

of sg'rátapint `lay one's �nger on' rátapint (a

lényegre)ùnderstand the essenceof sg'

(d) vesz `take'

kivesz 1.`take out, remove' kivesz ìnfer, conclude'2.`distinguish, make out'

2. nouns

felfogás `the act of seizure' felfogás 1.`comprehension'2.òpinion, notion'

Table 5

the perceiver the cognitive agent

[felfog!] felfogásúgyors felfogású `nimble-witted'

lassú felfogású `slow-witted'felfogóképesség àbility to seize, pick up,

hold o�'felfogóképesség àbility to comprehend'



Table 6

the perceived object the cognitive object

[fog!] fogalom `concept'felfogható `(sg) may be seized, picked

up, held o�'

felfogható ìntelligible,

comprehensible'felfoghatatlan `(sg) may not be seized,

picked up, held o�'felfoghatatlan ìncomprehensible'

The conceptual metaphor understanding is grasping in the Hungarian

language can be characterized as follows:

(2) source: target:



(b) grasps or touches (or does not orcannot grasp or touch)

(b) mentally grasps or touches,i.e. understands (or does not orcannot understand)

(c) a physical object (c) a certain state of a�airs

The mappings between the source and the target domains are very clear, in-

dicating strict correspondences between the components of the two domains.

Both tactile and cognitive relations (i.e. the grasping or the cognitive processes)

are represented from the point of view of the agent, thus with respect to the

way this agent approaches the object or state of a�airs. The ways are expressed

mostly by the di�erent spatial relations represented in the trajector�landmark

relations of the verbal pre�xes (for more details see below). The ability of

the agent, the degree of the perception are also indicated by expressions that

mainly derive from verbs with very strong spatial reference.

2.3. The main features of the two conceptual metaphors

From the data presented above some assumptions can be made, in accordance

with Lako��Johnson (1980), and Sweetser (1990). The expressions of �under-

standing� and �knowledge� are

� clearly connected conceptually to visual and tactile expressions and their

mental representations;

� there are more visual expressions than tactile;



� the conceptual relation between the perception relation and the cognitive

relation is more explicit within the visual domain than within the tactile

dimension.

However, the characterization is by far not exhausted. The following additional

and preliminary assumptions may be set:

� a complete spatial system is built up conceptually concerning �under-

standing� and �knowledge�, partly by language speci�c morphological

constructs, prior to the conceptual metaphors;

� most of the semantic compositions characteristic of expressions of �un-

derstanding� and �knowledge� are formed by a certain compositional, not

metaphorical type of blending;

� the spatial system and the compostional blends are characteristic of the

verbs with verbal pre�xes expressing the cognitive relations (i.e. the cog-

nitive processes);

� the goal of understanding or the representation of knowledge is considered

to be an entity, something like an object independent of man.

These assumptions need some explanation. Let's exemplify the �rst assump-

tion by the verbs lát `see', ùnderstand' and átlát `see across/through', `com-

prehend, realize'.

3. Pro�ling in the semantic constructions of verbal pre�x + verb

3.1. Lát `see'

Lát `see' has the following features according to Langacker (1987; 1991; 1999):

(a) in the perception relation

� process with a temporal pro�le, sequential scanning,4 imperfective (with-

out change through time), without temporal bounding;

� domain: physical space;

4 According to Langacker (1987, 248), �Sequential scanning [. . . ] involves the successive

transformations of one con�guration into another. The component states are processedin series [. . . ] This is the mode of processing that characterizes processual predica-tions [. . . ].�



� its landmark is an unspeci�ed physical thing (object), something salient

and distinct in a three-dimensional physical continuum (as indicated in

Langacker 1987, 183� with a matrix of pro�le-base relations in certain

domains);

� its trajector is an intelligent being with the ability to perceive and process

visual information; the visual processing is thus directed towards a phys-

ical thing (object), and this kind of processing is modelled in di�erent

ways (see e.g., Marr 1982).

t

tr

lm

0

. . .

0

. . .

0

. . .

Oriented physical space

Fig. 1

(b) in the cognitive relation

� process with a temporal pro�le, sequential scanning, imperfective (with-

out change through time), without temporal bounding;

� domain: a mentally processed spatial continuum;

� its landmark is a structured entity, a (complex) structure of information,

something salient and (relatively) distinct within the continuum of incom-

ing information (represented e.g., as a message, a situation, a relation, a

problem, a de�nition etc.);

� its trajector is an intelligent being (prototypically a human being) with

the ability to perceive and process, i.e., understand di�erent kinds of in-

formation as a structured whole; this kind of processing is modelled in

di�erent ways (see e.g., the mental models by Johnson-Laird 1983; the

modularity model by Fodor 1984; the connectionist model in McClelland�

Rumelhart 1986; Dinsmore 1992 and many others, the cognitive ap-

proach by Langacker himself and the idealized cognitive model by Lako�



1987, etc., or the di�erent discourse models, cf. van Dijk 1980; Strohner

1990).5

t

tr

lm

0

. . .

0

. . .

0

. . .

Mentally processed space

Fig. 2

3.2. The verbal pre�x + verb composition

However, most of the data presented above show a bit more complexity both

semantically and morphologically. The words of �understanding� and �knowl-

edge� in the cognitive relation (representing the cognitive process) originate

from some verbs of visual and tactile meaning, and usually have a verbal pre-

�x6 closely connected with them. These verbs and their derivatives have a

prototypical structure, a structure that creates a double spatial/temporal and

conceptual scheme:

5 It should be mentioned that there are some basic expressions of �understanding� and�knowledge� belonging to one of the two conceptual metaphors only in a historical sense(i.e., they have no counterparts indicating any kind of perception relation in present-day Hungarian; for the etymological data see Benk® 1993; 1995). 1. ért 1. ùnderstand',2. `refer to', 3. `be skilled', 4. ùnderstand a language'. Etymology: ér 1. `touch, hit',2. `reach to', 3. àrrive at' + t instantaneous verbal derivational su�x. Ér is an ancientverb in Hungarian, possibly originating from the Finno-Ugric or the Old Turkic proto-

language, in both cases with the meaning `touch'. 2. megért ùnderstand, comprehend'.Etymology: meg (originally mög `the back of sg') verbal pre�x for perfective aspect + ért(cf. 1.). 3. ismer `know', `be familiar with'. Etymology: unknown. 4. tud 1. `know',

2. `can, be able'. Etymology: the reconstructed Uralic form is *tumte `touch', `feelwith the �ngers'. The present-day forms of the original verb can be found both in theperception relation and the cognitive relation in Finnish, Lapp, Estonian, and most ofthe other Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic languages.

6 �Verbal pre�x� is one possible English term for this linguistic unit in Hungarian, anotherone is �preverb�. It must be mentioned that the process of grammaticalization in theforming of verbal pre�xes did not yield �real� pre�xes.



(3) verbal pre�x + verb

Both morphemes conceptualize a spatial relation in terms of trajector and land-

mark and a temporal relation in terms of perfective and non-perfective aspect.

Take átlát `look across, through', `penetrate, fathom', `comprehend, real-

ize' for a closer look. (Compare átlát to átmegy `go across': Átmegyek az utcán.

Ì go across the street.') Átlát in the perception relation: át àcross, through,

over' (verbal pre�x) + lát `see' (verb), `see something distant through the air':

(4) Péter átlát a túlsó partra.P across/through see-3sg the other side-on

`Péter can see the other side of the river/lake.'

`see something behind another not completely solid (i.e. penetrable) thing,

material':

(5) Átlátok a bokron.across/through see-1sg the bush-on

Ì can see through the bush.'

Átlát in the cognitive relation:

(6) János átlátja a helyzetet.

J across/through see-3sg the situation-acc

`John understands the situation.'

It has to be mentioned that the Hungarian language has two parallel complete

declensions of verbs: the de�nite and the inde�nite declensions. The inde�nite

paradigm is used with inde�nite objects or without any object (e.g., olvas in

Péter olvas `Peter is reading' where the hearer does not know what Peter is

reading or ül in A kutya a sarokban ül `The dog is sitting in the corner' where

the verb has no object). The de�nite paradigm is used with 3rd person de�nite

(direct) objects (e.g., olvassa in Péter olvassa a könyvet `Peter is reading the

book'). In the perception relation in the case of átlát the inde�nite declension

is used, whereas in the cognitive relation the de�nite one is used. However,

both semantic constructions have their trajector and landmark, regardless of

declension. Also to be mentioned is the fact that the complement of átlát in

the perception relation is generally an adverb (as in (4) and (5)), while it is

an object in the cognitive relation (as in (6)).



3.3. The verbal pre�x át `through/across'

Before analyzing the semantic constructions of átlát, the verbal pre�x át needs

some explanation. Verbal pre�xes are characterized by Hungarian grammars

as morphemes that modify the meaning of the verbal stems (they indicate the

spatial orientation of the action, they make a verb perfective), they may change

the Aktionsart of the verb, and also they modify the syntactic functions of the

verbal stem (they make a verb transitive, they change the valency relations of

a verb, etc.) (cf. Kiefer 2000, 289�97; Kiefer�Ladányi 2000; Kugler 2000). As

seen in the above examples, the verbal pre�x may be in preverbal position, but

in other cases (e.g. when there is an emphatic constituent in the sentence which

always immediately precedes the verb), it is in postverbal position (É. Kiss 1995

highlights the phenomenon in generative terms):

(7) János nem látja át a helyzetet.

J not sees across/through the situation-acc

`John doesn't understand the situation.'

The verbal pre�x may also form an utterence by itself, mainly in short answers:

(8) A: Átlátod a helyzetet?across/through see-2sg the situation-acc

`Do you understand the situation?'

B: Át.

across/through

`Yes.'

Át àcross/through' can be explained brie�y as follows (I use the unspeci�ed

�gures in Langacker 1987, 218 and 1991, 22 a) in the perception relation:

lm

tr

lm

Fig. 3

Here the relation between the landmark and the trajector is pro�led in an

oriented physical space as a path between the source and the goal, and the

trajector (the thing to be seen) is also pro�led. Although the second landmark



(the �impediment�) is pro�led as a whole, it has no other speci�cation. The �rst

landmark is speci�ed as simply a source, or in a more elaborated explication

it is a reference point (Langacker 1999, 50). Here the path across/through

relation implies [into], [in] and [out of].

Át àcross/through' in the cognitive relation:

lm

tr

Fig. 4

Here the landmark as a source is in relation with the second landmark in the

perception relation, thus the path between the source (the reference point)

and the second, pro�led landmark (the �impediment�) is pro�led, and also the

path in the second landmark. This relation implies [into] and [in], but not

[out of]. The original trajector of the perception relation disappears, and the

original second landmark becomes a trajector, there is a shift of pro�ling in

relation to the perception relation. This pro�led new trajector has di�erent

features: it is pro�led as a whole, and also as a structured whole. The path

in this case doesn't mean àcross/through something as a whole, as a unit',

but àcross/through the components of something within that something as a

whole, as a unit'. The main conceptual mapping is `to get to the end of an

entity from within'.

3.4. The verbal pre�x + verb composition in the �gure/ground re-

lation

Turning back to the example of átlát as a unit of two morphemes, this verb

has the following semantic construction in the perception relation (for the sake

of simplicity the �gure contains only one component state of the innumerable

ones, instantiating one moment of conceived and also of processing time):



át àcross/through' lát `see'

lm

tr

lm

t

tr

lm

0

. . .

Oriented physical space

Fig. 5

In the case of the perception relation the original trajector (the goal in the

source-path-goal image schema) of the verbal pre�x át àcross/through' is iden-

tical with the landmark of lát `see', whereas the �rst landmark (the reference

point) of át àcross/through' is identical with the trajector of lát `see'.7

Átlát has the following semantic construction in the cognitive relation:

át àcross/through' lát `see'

lm

tr

t

tr

lm0

. . .

Mentally processed space

Fig. 6

In the case of the cognitive relation the original second landmark, the new

trajector (the new goal in the source-path-goal image schema) of the verbal

pre�x át àcross/through' is identical with the landmark of lát `see', whereas

the �rst landmark (the reference point) of át àcross/through' is identical with

the trajector of lát `see'.

7 For questions of the �gure/ground asymmetry in verbs of perception and mental atti-tude see Langacker (1987, 234).



Although both át and lát retain their basic characteristics (as indicated in

(7) and (8), they both can function as relatively independent predicates), they

have some e�ect on each other, thus transforming their semantic pole. The

most important e�ect seems to be the change in conceived time and space. In

the case of the perception relation átlát is a perfective verb. The verb lát `see',

originally imperfective, open ended, becomes a perfective verb with a de�nite

end by the trajector of át as a goal arrived at by the �rst landmark. Within

the same process, that is while the temporal features of lát are determined

by the spatial features of the verbal pre�x, the semantic pole of át itself as

an atemporal relation becomes something like a symbolic unit with summary

scanning.8 In other words: the semantic poles of the independent morphemes

(a) át (atemporal spatial relation) and lát (temporal relation, imperfective

with sequence scanning) become (b) át (�pseudo� temporal spatial relation

with summary scanning) and lát (temporal relation, perfective with sequence

scanning; this interpretation is a bit di�erent from the one in Langacker (1991,

22) set as �complex atemporal relation�).

4. Verbal pre�x + verb composition as blending

Blending theory, based on the notion of mental spaces elaborated by Fau-

connier (1994 [1985]), and worked out in Fauconnier�Turner (1996); Sweetser

(1999) etc., has some advantages in dealing with the phenomena presented

above in comparison with conceptual metaphor theory. As Grady�Oakley�

Coulson (1999) sums up, conceptual metaphor theory interprets metaphors in

the stable and systematic relation of two conceptual domains, while blending

theory uses four or even more mental spaces, �partial and temporary presenta-

tional structures� to interpret any semantic compositions, not only metaphor-

ical ones (as in Sweetser 1999). In the most widely used model the two input

spaces have more or less correspondences between each other, they have some

shared conceptual content in the generic space, and their conceptual structures

are combined in the blend space. In the present case the verbal pre�x and the

verb are the two input spaces with their conceptual structures.

8 As Langacker (1987, 248) states: �Summary scanning is basically additive, and theprocessing of conceptual components proceeds roughly in parallel. [. . . ] This is themode of processing characteristics of things and atemporal relations [. . . ].�



4.1. The blending of át `through/across' and lát `see'

It seems that all the relevant components of the semantic compositions of átlát

have been mentioned. However, it is reasonable to complete the above analysis

with the theoretical frame of conceptual blending (cf. Fauconnier 1994 [1985];

Sweetser 1999). The morphemes át àcross/through' and lát `see' form two

di�erent mental spaces processed by the verb átlát in the cognitive relation,

and the two mental spaces form a blend:

Generic space

agent

with cognitive

processes

Input 1 Input 2

agent

#

orientate in

#

bounded, structured

region

human mind

#

the unspeci�ed

understanding

#

of sg

át lát

human being

#

understanding

by orientation

#

structured entity

Blend: átlát `comprehend'

Fig. 7



The cognitive distance of the two inputs of blending is not as large as that

of the examples by Sweetser (1999)) and others, nevertheless they are distinct

enough to consider them as two di�erent and elaborated mental spaces. The

above explicated blend and all the other ones recognizable in the complex words

(verbal pre�x + stem) enumerated in Tables 1�6 are highly entrenched, but

since independent syntactically to a certain degree, the blending as a process

is dymanic enough.

If we take the blending of át àcross/through' and lát `see' as a semantic

composition in the preception relation, Figure 8 represents the process:

Generic space

agent

with perception

processes

Input 1 Input 2

agent

#

get through sg

#

to another

sg

eye and

nervous system

#

visual perception

#

of sg

át lát

human being

#

see through sg

#

sg

Blend: átlát `see through/across'

Fig. 8

In Figures 7 and 8 solid horizontal lines represent cross-space corespondences

(mappings between input spaces), curved lines represent projections between

spaces.



It is the system of mappings between the two blendings depicted in Figures

7 and 8 that constitute the meaning ùnderstand' of átlát and make it possible

to form an expression in the conceptual metaphor understanding is seeing.

A parallel, but slightly di�erent example may illuminate further the se-

mantic composition analyzed here. The verb átérez `be sensible/aware of sg,

feel signi�cance of sg' has the same structure: át àcross/through' + érez `feel',

where the verb érez `feel' represents an emotional processing of a situation, etc.

as a spatially comprehendable structured entity. Áttekint `look across' and

`have a global understanding' and átfog `grasp' and `span, comprehend' may

also be mentioned as similar semantic compositions by blending and also be-

longing to the two conceptual metaphors detailed here.

4.2. Verbal pre�xes and space

To continue the elaboration of the preliminary assumptions, let us investigate

brie�y the spatial system created by the verbs of �understanding� and �knowl-

edge� by the blending of the mental spaces represented in the verbal pre�x

and the verb stem. First it has to be noted that the verbal pre�xes occur-

ring in the above list all have a meaning of spatial orientation. The most

important ones are:

(9) át àcross/through'be ìnto'

bele ìnto'félre àside'hátra `to the back'

keresztül `through'ki òut'meg (its present-day meaning is perfective, originally mög `the back of sg')oda `there, in that direction'

rá ònto'szét àpart, in di�erent directions'túl `beyond, over'

utána àfter'végig `to the end'

All these verbal pre�xis can be found in the lists presented in Tables 1�6,

mainly with the verbs lát `see' and néz `look'. Of course, these verbal pre-

�xes form many other constructions with other verbs, constituting completely

di�erent blends, although their spatial orientation always has its role in the

semantic composition.



With regard to the cognitive relation of �understanding� and �knowledge�

this system includes the following spatial orientations: [into], [in], [across,

through], [around], [over], all implicating the speci�cation of source-path-

goal �from one side/end through/around/over the inner parts to the other

side/end�.

The system of verbal pre�xes was formed between the 10th and the 15th

centuries ad. As mentioned in footnote 5, the most ancient verbs of un-

derstanding and knowing in Hungarian belong to the conceptual metaphor

understanding is grasping: ért ùnderstand, progressive', megért ùnder-

stand, perfective', tud `know' are all common in their etymology: their Finno-

Ugric stem meant `touch, grasp'. Since there are no data of these verbs found

in Hungarian with any meaning not belonging to the conceptual metaphor, it

may be assumed that those verbs detailed above (lát `see', néz `look') acquired

their metaphorical meaning of understanding and knowing later. The more so-

phisticated compositions that give some detail (way, mode) of understanding

and knowing were formed even later. Thus the ancient verbs take the entity

to be comprehended or known as a thing, an object. Moreover this object is

considered as a whole which can be approached only from outside, that is, it

can only be touched or grasped as a whole from the outside (see the etymolo-

gies and meanings of ért, tud). This kind of conceptualization is in complete

accord with what Sweetser states:

�physical manipulation and touching is a source of domain for words both of sight(visually picking out a stimulus) and a mental data-manipulation (grasping a

fact = understanding). [. . . ] Grasping and manipulation are evidence of control�(Sweetser 1990, 38).

But in the case of the historically later verbal pre�x + verb stem compositions

the spatial relation conceptualizes a source-path-goal image schema in every

case with a visual or tactile relation, in its trajecetor-landmark relation also

conceptualizing a source-goal relation. The source-path-goal image schemata

in the verbal pre�xes represent di�erent kinds of approaches to the entity to

be comprehended, considered as an object, too, but this time not only as a

whole, but as a whole consisting of parts and relations. The di�erent spatial

orientations result in di�erent source-path-goal approaches to an entity that

can be comprehended. In these cases the blends represent penetration and

internal orientation or di�erent overviews, insights instead of simple touching.

All the derived nouns, verbs, and adjectives emerging from these verbs have

the same conceptual content. Thus control is only the result of the processes

conceptualized by these verbs.



It can be assumed that the entity to be understood or known is considered

an object in the folk theory manifested in Hungarian, but an object with inner

structure that can be understood or known in a dynamic process.

5. Conclusions

As the above analysis has proved, in Hungarian a complete spatial system

is built up conceptually, concerning �understanding� and �knowledge�. This

system is universal in its cognitive basis, but has language speci�c morpholog-

ical and semantic features: the verbal pre�x conceptualizes a spatial relation

between an actor and an entity to be approached, the verb conceptualizes a

cognitive process of understanding, and the two form semantic compositions

prior to the conceptual metaphors. These semantic compositions are formed

by a non-metaphoric type of blending. One input is the verbal pre�x pro�led

by orientation in space, the other input is the verb pro�led by the process of

cognition. The goal of understanding or the representation of knowledge is

considered to be an entity, something like an object independent of man, but

this object is conceptualized as a structured entity.

References

Benk®, Loránd (ed.). 1993. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Ungarischen. I. A�Kop.

Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.

Benk®, Loránd (ed.). 1995. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Ungarischen. II. Kor-Zs.Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.

Dijk, Teun A. van. 1980. Macrostructures. An interdisciplinary study of global structures indiscourse, interaction, and cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale.

Dinsmore, John. 1992. Thunder in the gap. In: John Dinsmore (ed.): The symbolic andconnectionist paradigms, 1�24. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale.

É. Kiss, Katalin. 1995. NP movement, operator movement, and scrambling in Hungarian. In:Katalin É. Kiss (ed.): Discourse con�gurational languages, 207�43. Oxford University

Press, Oxford.

Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994 [1985]. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in naturallanguage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Fauconnier, Gilles � Mark Turner. 1996. Blending as a central process of grammar. In:A. Goldberg (ed.): Conceptual structure, discourse, and language, 183�203. Stanford

University Press, Stanford CA.



Fodor, Jerry A. 1984. The modularity of mind. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

Grady, Joseph E. � Todd Oakly � Seana Coulson. 1999. Blending and metaphor. In:R.W. Gibbs Jr. � G.J. Steen (eds): Metaphor in cognitive linguistics, 101�24. JohnBenjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Johnson-Laird, Phillip N. 1983. Mental models. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kiefer, Ferenc. 2000. Jelentéselmélet [A theory of meaning]. Corvina, Budapest.

Kiefer, Ferenc � Mária Ladányi. 2000. Az igeköt®k [The verbal pre�xes]. In: Ferenc Kiefer(ed.): Strukturális magyar nyelvtan 3. Morfológia [A structural grammar of Hungar-ian 3. Morphology], 475�80. Akadémia Kiadó, Budapest.

Kugler, Nóra. 2000. Az ige jelentése [The meaning of the verb]. In: Borbála Keszler (ed.):

Magyar grammatika [Hungarian grammar], 82�3. Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest.

Lako�, George. 1987. Women, �re, and dangerous things. The University of Chicago Press,Chicago.

Lako�, George � Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. The University of ChicagoPress, Chicago.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1. Stanford Uni-

versity Press, Stanford CA.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Concept, image, symbol: the cognitive basis of grammar.Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin�New York.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin�

New York.

Marr, David. 1982. Vision: A computation investigation into the human processing of visualinformation. Freeman, San Francisco.

McClelland, J. L.�D.E. Rumelhart (eds). 1986. Parallel distributed processing: Explorationsin the microstructure of cognition. Vol. 2. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

Schwarz, Monika. 1992. Einführung in die Kognitive Linguistik. Francke, Tübingen.

Sjöström, Sören. 1998. From vision to cognition. A study of metaphor and polysemy. In:J. Allwood � P. Gärdenfors (eds): Cognitive semantics. Meaning and cognition. (Prag-matics and Beyond. New Series 55.), 66�85. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Strohner, Hans. 1990. Textverstehen. Kognitive und kommunikative Grundlagen der Sprach-

verarbeitung. Westdeutcher Verlag, Opladen.

Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge.

Sweetser, Eve. 1999. Compositionality and blending: semantic composition in a cognitivelyrealistic framework. In: T. Janssen � R. Redeker (eds): Cognitive linguistics: founda-

tions, scope, and methodology, 129�62. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin�New York.

Taylor, John R. 1991. Linguistic categorization. Clarendon Press, Oxford.



Address of the author: Gábor Tolcsvai Nagy

Department of Hungarian LinguisticsEötvös Loránd UniversityPiarista köz 1.

H�1052 [email protected]


Documents

Conceptual metaphors and blends of “understanding” and “knowledge” in Hungarian