The right-left conceptual mapping in a comparative and diachronic perspective

This paper investigates the right-left conceptualization of space in ancient Indo-European languages. In a crosslinguistic perspective, RIGHT and LEFT terms can be recruited to designate cardinal directions (Hertz 1909: 567; Lloyd 1962: 59; Brown 1983: 136). These terms turn out to be associated respectively to east and west in languages such as Vedic Sanskrit, Hittite, and Homeric Greek. However, the interpretation of such metaphorical mapping from the source domain to the target domain is still an open question. This is also due to some unresolved inconsistencies between etymology and semantic developments emerged in the reconstruction of the Indo-European roots of these terms since the earlier studies of Grimm. The German linguist ascribed the origin of the spatial uses of RIGHT and LEFT to the orientation of the observer’s body (1848: 981). The question is further complicated by the unclear origin of linguistic metaphors for positive and negative valence, through an associative mapping from the concrete right-left space to the abstract emotional concepts of ‘goodness’ and ‘badness’. The mental spatial schema is indeed activated to represent such concepts by means of the well-known Good is Right and Left is Bad conceptual mapping (cf. Casasanto 2009; 2014). From a strictly linguistic perspective, a strong asymmetry has been observed between RIGHT and LEFT terms. More specifically, while the RIGHT terms of most Indo-European languages derive from one and the same root *deḱs- (Walde 1930: 784; Pokorny 1959: 190), the LEFT terms cannot be traced back to one common ancestor (cf. Buck 1949: 865). Traditionally, such an asymmetry has been ascribed to cultural conventions (cf. Van Leeuwen-Turnovcová 1990), which, however, would ultimately reflect the original embodied asymmetry within the hand domain (cf. Meillet 1906 [1982]: 290; Cuillandre 1947; Heesterman 1959: 256; Giannakis 2019: 256-257). Yet, from an etymological perspective, it has been shown how the words for RIGHT and LEFT derive from lexical roots that are not primarily related to the sides of the body (cf. Foolen 2019: 145), thus challenging an embodied origin of these mental metaphors. Now, recent studies on Indo-European spatial Frames of Reference (FoRs) have revealed that RIGHT and LEFT terms could be used within an absolute or geocentric FoR (Bartolotta 2022). Such results might shed light on the transfer pattern from the concrete domain of spatial regions to the abstract domain of right-left dimensions. Indeed, although it is widely assumed that the human body is the main source domain for the linguistic conceptualization of the entire domain of spatial relations, and that, accordingly, hands are the conceptual source for RIGHT and LEFT polarity (Heine 1997: 49; cf. Bickel 1994: 32), the analysis of the data from a comparative and diachronic perspective seems to suggest a different path of this conceptual metaphor. More specifically, the textual analysis of the RigVeda and the Homeric poems, aside from supporting pieces of evidence derived from Hittite oracle and ritual texts (cf. Ünal 1978; Puhvel 1983; Sakuma 2009) and the Umbrian Tabulae Iguvinae (Prosdocimi 1979; 2015; Untermann 2000: 475), suggests that the extension to hands is the result of a conceptual metaphor which goes from cosmogony (involving the concrete movements of the sun) to the body (cf. Kuiper 1970: 128; Gonda 1972: 8; Abrams & Primack 2001: 1769), thus proving that the metaphoric mapping between body-parts and other domains is not unidirectional (cf. Sinha & Jensen de López 2000: 24; Yu 2008: 408). References Abrams, N. E., Primack J. R. (2001), Cosmology and 21st-century Culture, «Science» 293 (5536): 1769- 1770. Bartolotta, A. (2022), Spatial Cognition and Frames of Reference in Indo-European, in D. Romagno, F. Rovai, M. Bianconi, M. Capano (eds.), Variation, Contact, and Reconstruction in the Ancient Indo-European Languages. Between Linguistics and Philology, Brill, Leiden/Boston, pp. 179-209. Bickel, B. (1994), Mapping Operations in Spatial Deixis and the Typology of Reference Frames, Working Paper n. 31, Cognitive Anthropology Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen. Brown, C.H. (1983), Where Do Cardinal Direction Terms Come From?, «Anthropological Linguistics» 25(2): 121-161. Buck, C.D. (1949), A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European languages, University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London. Casasanto, D. (2009), Embodiment of Abstract Concepts: Good and Bad in Right-and Left-Handers, «Journal of Experimental Psychology: General» 138 (3): 351-367. Casasanto, D. (2014), Experiential origins of mental metaphors: Language, culture, and the body, in M. J. Landau, M. D. Robinson, B. P. Meier (Eds.), The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life (Vol. 155), American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Cuillandre, J. (1943), La droite et la gauche dans les poèmes homériques en concordance avec la doctrine pythagoricienne et la tradition celtique, Imprimeries Réunies, Rennes. Foolen, A. (2019), The value of left and right, in J. L. Mackenzie, L. Alba-Juez (Eds.), Emotion in Discourse, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 139-158. Giannakis, G. K. (2019), The east/west and right/left dualism and the rise of some taboos in ancient Greek language and culture, in G.K. Giannakis, C. Charalambakis, F. Montanari, A. Rengakos (Eds.), Studies in Greek Lexicography, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 233-262. Gonda, J. (1972), The Significance of the Right Hand and the Right Side in Vedic Ritual, «Religion» 2 (1): 1-23. Grimm, J. (1848), Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache, Zweiter Band, in der Weidmannschen Buchhandlung, Leipzig. Heine, B. (1997), Cognitive Foundations of Grammar, Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford. Hertz, R. (1909), La prééminence de la main droite: Étude sur la polarité religieuse, «Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger» 68: 553-580. Heesterman, J.C. (1959), Reflections on the significance of the “Dákṣiṇā”, «Indo-Iranian Journal» 3 (4): 241-258. Kuiper, F.B.J. (1970), Cosmogony and Conception: A Query, «History of Religions» 10 (2): 91-138. van Leeuwen-Turnovcová, J. (1990), Rechts und Links in Europa: ein Beitrag zur Semantik und Symbolik der Geschlechterpolarität, Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. Lloyd, G.E.R. (1962), Right and Left in Greek Philosophy, «The Journal of Hellenic Studies» 82: 56-66. Meillet, A. (1906 [1982]), Quelques hypothèses sur des interdictions de vocabulaire dans les langues indo-européennes, in A. Meillet (Ed.), Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, Paris, Champion, pp. 281-291. Pokorny, J. (1959), Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, I, Francke Verlag, Bern/München. Prosdocimi, A. L. (1979), Umbria: Asisium, Parte III (Note e commenti). Rivista di Epigrafia Italica, in «Studi Etruschi» 47: 376-379. Prosdocimi, A. L. (2015), Le Tavole Iguvine. Preliminari all’interpretazione. La testualità: Fatti e metodi, II. Olschki, Firenze. Puhvel, J. (1983), Homeric Questions and Hittite Answers, «The American Journal of Philology» 104 (3): 217-227. Sakuma, Y. (2009), Hethitische Vogelorakeltexte, Ph.D. dissertation, Julius Maximilian University, Würzburg. Sinha C. & K. Jensen de López (2000), Language, culture, and the embodiment of spatial cognition, «Cognitive Linguistics» 11 (1/2): 17-41. Ünal, A. (1978), Ein Orakeltext über die Intrigen am hethitischen Hof, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg. Untermann, J. (2000), Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen. Handbuch der Italischen Dialekte. Band III. Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg. Walde, A. (1930), Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen. Herausgegeben und bearbeitet von Julius Pokorny. 1. Band, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Leipzig. Yu, N. (2008), The Relationship Between Metaphor, Body and Culture, in R. M. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke, E. Bernárdez (Eds.), Body, Language and Mind. Sociocultural Situatedness (Vol. 2), Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 387-408.