This talk will concern the grammar of paths — the large macroconstituents which specify where themes — the actants which move, to use Jeff Gruber's term — begin their movement, continue it, and end it. From LA along the coast to SF is a typical path, consisting of only a Source, a Trajectory, and a Goal. All of these are optional; only the central one can be repeated in a path as many times as one wants. These three types of legs of paths all have a common structure, all can be modified by adverbs like just, right, straight, spang, smackdab and plumb; and most pathworthy prepositions can be followed by there, which turns out to be restricted to occurring in paths and locatives. Cf. [along/behind/under] there, vs. [*at/*beside*between] there. Where, however, often thought to correspond closely to there, has in fact a more limited distribution: it can only occur after the two end-prepositions from and to, [As we see from who jumped [from where / *along where / to where?]] My work has led me to a lot of surprising restrictions on proforms like there (and related spatial terms containing the -ere morpheme, like [every/some/any/no]where, and temporal analogues like now/then/[sometime/anytime, etc.]. These contexters (a loathesome term I feel, faute de mieux, forced to use) cannot advance (cf. I cleared the snow from there but not *I cleared there of the snow); only some of them can be preposed (cf. There I would never jump [from / *along]); and only some of them can be modified by right (cf. We're going to fly [from (right) there / along (*right) there], and also We're going to leave (from) there at noon vs. We're going to leave *(from) right there at noon.

These are not isolated facts; the function of spatial proforms like here, there, and where is to background the subconstituents of the paths in which they can occur, by contrast with the constituents which are pronominalized with definite pronouns like she, he, it, and they. Constituents that are linked to the former type of proforms cannot serve as topics, while those linked to the latter type can: What Mort said about the tower was that[ that was what he would leap from / *there was where he would leap from].

I want to use the details of the syntax of paths to arrive at a deeper understanding of the spatial basis of the semantics of many prepositions, as well as verbs and nouns. For instance, whether an NP is pronominalized with it or there affects whether it can be taken as a patient: What they did to the sidewalk was to clear the snow [from it / ?from there]. And while it feels correct to treat many uses of from as being metaphorically extended Sources, I believe that the microsyntax of paths can tell us something about exactly how this extension takes place. The further away a path goes from its spatial roots, the less can its legs be modified by right: cf. I am clearing the snow (right) from the driveway vs. I am learning calc [(right) from the book / (?right) from Professor Dudsworth] vs. I am benefitting (*right) from your advice vs. I stopped him (**right) from publishing the book.

Metaphorical extension lies at the heart of semantactic change, and thus of grammaticalization. Terms taken from the spatial vocabulary of languages are used again and again as a basis for talking about time ( (??right) on Tuesday), about aspect ( (*right) in the course of studying), grammatical role and case (surprising (**right) to me); about quality ( (*right) under par), about quantity (a high number), emotions (in love, on edge), and too many others to mention. It may even be the case that in any language, space is the basis for the most metaphors. Whether or not this proves to be right, it is my hope that the greater the understanding we have of the literal spatial system, the greater clarity we will be able to bring to bear on the ways in which this system can be extended to provide the foundations for the conceptual architecture of a language.