Causes, types and results of semantic change.

Word-meaning is liable to change in the course of the historical evolution of the language. Changes of lexical meaning are determined by diachronic semantic analyses of many commonly used English words. Thus the word silly (OE sælig) meant ‘happy’, the word glad (OE glæd) had the meaning of ‘bright, shining’, etc. Polysemy is the result of semantic change, when new LSVs emerge on the basis of already existing ones according to certain patterns of semantic derivation.

It is necessary to discriminate between the causes, the nature and the results of semantic change. Discussing the causes of semantic change we attempt to find out why the word changed its meaning. The factors accounting for semantic changes are of two kinds: a) extra-linguistic and b) linguistic causes. By extra-linguistic causes are meant changes in the life of a speech community, various spheres of human activities as reflected in word meanings. Historical, economic, political, cultural, technological, etc. changes result in either appearance of new objects which require new names or the existing objects undergo changes to such an extent that it causes semantic changes. Although objects, concepts, institutions, etc. change in the course of time, in many cases the sound form of the word is retained. The word car from Latin carrus which meant ‘a four-wheeled wagon’ now denotes ‘a motor-car’ and ‘a railway carriage’. The meaning of the word ship (OE scip) also considerably changed from the primary ‘vessel with bowsprit and three, four or five square-rigged masts’ to modern ‘any sea-going vessel of considerable size’ and ‘spacecraft’.

Social factors play a very important part in semantic change, especially when the words become jargonisms and professionalisms, i.e. used by certain social or professional groups. Each group uses its own denominations, and in consequence words acquire new content, new LSVs emerge, developing the words’ polysemy. Such are the polysemantic lexemes ring and pipe. The lexeme ring developed such professionalisms as ‘circular enclosure of space for circus-riding’, ‘concentric circles of wood when the trunk is cut across’, ‘space for the showing of cattle, dogs, etc (at farming exhibitions, etc) and others; pipe ‘musical wind instrument’, geol. cylindrical vein of ore, ‘cask for wine, esp. as measure’ and others.

To linguistic causes of semantic change refer changes of meaning due to factors acting within the language system. They are as follows: a) ellipsis: in a phrase made up of two words one of these is omitted and its meaning is transferred to another, e.g. the meaning of the word daily was habitually used in collocation with the word newspaper. Later the noun newspaper was omitted and the adjective daily acquired the meaning of the whole phrase ‘ daily newspaper’; b) discrimination of synonyms: when a new word is borrowed or coined in the language, it sometimes influences meanings of its synonyms, e.g. the Old English word hlaf which had the meaning of modern bread changed its meaning under the influence of the word bread,and now the OE hlaf is loaf which means ‘mass of bread cooked as a separate quantity’; the word fowl (OE fugol) had the meaning of modern bird but under the influence of its synonym bird [OE brid ‘young bird’] the word fowl developed a new LSV ‘domestic cock or hen’;c) linguistic analogy: it was found out, that if one of the members of a synonymic set acquires a new meaning, other members of this set change their meaning too, for instance, verbs synonymous with catch, e.g. grasp, get, etc. acquired another meaning - ‘to understand’ [Ginzburg 1979: 29].

Change of meaning presupposes using the existing name of a certain particular object for nominating another object. Such processes lately have got the name of secondary nomination. The processes of secondary nomination are also called transference of meaning, though it is more correct to speak of the transference of names and emerging of new meanings.

Changes in meaning become possible because there is a certain connection, association between the old meaning and the new or the two objects (referents) involved in the processes of nomination. Associations of meanings reflect our perception and understanding of things. There are two main types of association involved in semantic change: similarity of meanings and contiguity of meanings.

A very productive type of semantic change is metaphor which is based on similarity of meanings. Thisis a semantic process of associating two referents, one of which in some ways resembles the other. Similarity of meaning may be based on different aspects of objects: similarity of their forms - the nose of a kettle, the bridge of the nose, the lip of a crater, the eye of a potato;similarity of position in space - the leg of the table, the foot of the hill, the mouth of a river, etc.In many languages there are regular patterns which serve as basis for metaphoric transference. The above examples illustrate the most obvious pattern of transfer of terms for parts of the human body to external objects in nature. Another obvious pattern is the case when names of animals through metaphoric transference are used to give names to people whose behaviour resembles that of animals, e.g. cat – (fig.) an excitable woman, goose – simpleton, cow – awkward woman, cuckoo – crazy person, chicken – cowardetc.

A subtype of metaphoric transferences is the so-called synesthesia. Synesthetic transferences are based on similarities of the physical and emotional perception of two objects. Adjectives denoting physical properties (temperature, light, size, taste, etc.) come to denote emotional or intellectual properties: a sharp smell, a warm feeling, a cold reception, a sharp pain, soft music, a bright idea, etc.Within verbs synesthetic transferences are observed in lexemes denoting physical qualities which come to denote emotions and intellectual activity: to grate ‘ have an irritating effect’, to rasp on one’s nerves ‘to annoy’, to crack a code ‘to decipher a code’, to smash a theory ‘to disprove a theory’.

The above examples in no way exhaust all the multitude of metaphoric transferences, which result in appearance of many new LSVs in polysemantic lexemes. The role of metaphor is extremely important in the processes of cognition and nomination. In their book “Metaphors We Live By” [Lakoff, Johnson 1980] the authors contend that metaphor is not only a language phenomenon but also a daily conceptual reality when we are thinking about one sphere in the terms of another one. Based on similarity of objects, metaphor is closely linked with man’s cognitive activity, as it presupposes cognition through comparing objects.

Metonymy or contiguity of meanings may be described as the semantic process of associating two referents, one of which makes part of the other or is closely connected with it. There are various patterns of metonymy based on spatial, temporal relations, relations of cause and result.

There are distinguished certain patterns of metonymic transferences. Thus, to examples of metonymy based on spatial relations belongs the pattern when people or objects placed in the proximity of some other object, on or within the object get the name of that object. In the sentence Keep the table amused, the word table denotes people sitting around the table. In the example The hall applauded people got the name hall according to their location inside the hall at the moment. This pattern of spatial relations can be described as the relations between ‘the container and the thing contained’.

In the semantic structure of the lexeme school we find the following LSVs: school - 1) institution for educating children; 2) process of being educated in a school: Is he old enough for school?; 3) time when teaching is given, lessons: School begins at 9 a.m.; 4) all the pupils in a school: The whole school was present at the football match. LSVs 2 and 3 express metonymic transferences based on temporal relations, LSV4 – those based on spatial relations.

To regular patterns of metonymic transferences also refer instrumental relations: the lexeme tongue ‘the organ of speech’ developed the meaning ‘language’: e.g. ‘mother tongue ’, because tongue is an instrument which produces speech; the relations between the material and the thing made of this material: silver, bronze, e.g. ‘table silver: spoons, forks, teapots, dishes’; ‘ the quality – the subject of this quality ’: beauty - 1) combination of qualities that give pleasure to the senses; 2) person, thing, feature that is beautiful: Isn’t she a beauty!; talent - 1) special, aptitude, faculty, gift; 2) persons of talent; ‘ action – the agent of the action ’: support as a noun: 1) supporting or being supported; 2) sb. or sth. that supports; and some other patterns.

A variety of metonymy is synechdoche, that is the transference of meaning from part to whole, e.g. the case when the nouns denoting the parts of human body come to denote human beings, as the word hand meaning‘a workman’ (Hands wanted) and ‘a sailor’ (All hands on deck!), the word head meaning cattle(a hundred head of cattle) and others.

The diachronic approach to the word meaning makes it possible to point out the results of semantic change. Results of semantic change can be observed in the changes of the denotational meaning of the word and also its connotational component.

Changes in the denotational meaning may result in either restriction or extension of meaning. Restriction or narrowing of meaning istransference of meaning from a wider, more general meaning to a narrower one: the modern verb to starve ‘suffer or die of hunger’ in Old English meant ‘to die’, disease ‘illness’ previously had the meaning ‘discomfort of any kind’, Restriction of meaning can be also illustrated by the example deer (Old English deor) which previously denoted ‘any animal’ and now it denotes ‘(kind of) graceful, quick-running animal, the male of which has horns’. This is also the case with the word fowl which in Old English denoted ‘any bird’ but in Modern English denotes ‘a domestic hen or rooster’. The word meat, which is today limited to ‘flesh food’ originally meant food in general, as is indicated in the archaic phrase meat and drink ‘food and drink’.

If the word with the new meaning comes to be used in the specialized vocabulary, it is usual to speak of specialization of meaning. For instance we can observe restriction and specialization in the verb to glide which had the meaning ‘to move gently and smoothly’ and has now acquired a restricted and specialized meaning ‘to fly with no engine’.

Changes in the denotational meaning may also result in the application of the word to a wider variety of referents. This is described as extension of meaning and may be illustrated by the word target which originally meant ‘a small round shield’ but now means ‘anything that is fired at’ and also ‘any result aimed at’. The word to help previously meant ‘to treat, to cure’, it has undergone extension of meaning, at present it means ‘do sth. for the benefit of’. If the word with the extended meaning passes from the specialized vocabulary into common use, we describe the result of the semantic change as the generalization of meaning. “Numerous examples of this process have occurred in the religious field, where office, doctrine, novice and many other terms have taken on a more general, secular range of meanings” (Crystal, p.138). Here also belong such examples as the word camp previously belonging to military terms which at present denotes ‘place where people live in tents or huts for a time’.

To semantic change based on extension also refers desemantization [Гак 1977: 32 - 34], that is weakening of the lexical meaning of the word and its grammaticalization. Many verbs of motion lost their meaning ‘manner of moving’ in such examples as to run a risk, to fall into disuse, to fly into a temper, to come to a conclusion. In word combinations like to keep alive, to grow angry, etc. the first components keep, grow have undergone desemantization.

Changes in the denotational component of meaning can be accompanied by changes in the connotational component of meaning which include: a) pejorative development or the acquisition by the word of some derogatory emotive charge, e.g. the word silly originally denoted ‘happy, blessed’ and then gradually it acquireda derogatory meaning ‘foolish, weak-minded’; Modern English villain ‘wicked man’ in Middle English neutrally described a serf; b) ameliorative development or the improvement of the connotational component of meaning, e.g. minister which in one of its meanings originally denoted ‘a servant, an attendant’, but now - ‘a civil servant of higher rank, a person administering a department of state’; angel initially having the meaning ‘a messenger’ developed positive connotational semes ‘lovely, innocent, kind, thoughtful’.

Sure enough, not every word changed its meaning in the course of history of the language. But the diachronic analysis of various types of semantic changes proves that the lexical meaning is one of the most dynamic, changeable elements of the language system, its flexibility is conditioned by the necessity to adequately reflect the constantly changing world.

Дата добавления: 2015-08-13