In diachronic (or historical) linguistics, semantic change is a change in one of the meanings of a word. Every word has a variety of senses and connotations which can be added, removed, or altered over time, often to the extent that cognates across space and time have very different meanings. Semantic change is one of three major processes to find a designation for a concept. The study of semantic change can be seen as part of etymology, onomasiology, semasiology and semantics.
An example of a recent semantic change is of the word mouse; with the advent of computer technology, the word for the rodent has been used to refer to the input device.
A number of classification schemes have been suggested for semantic change. The most widely accepted scheme in the English-speaking academic world is from :
Narrowing: Change from superordinate level to subordinate level. For example, skyline used to refer to any horizon, but now it has narrowed to a horizon decorated by skyscrapers.[1]
Widening: Change from subordinate level to superordinate level. There are many examples of specific brand names being used for the general product, such as with Kleenex.[2]
Metaphor: Change based on similarity of thing. For example, broadcast originally meant "to cast seeds out"; with the advent of radio and television, the word was extended to indicate the transmission of audio and video signals. Outside of agricultural circles, very few people use broadcast in the earlier sense.[3]
Metonymy: Change based on nearness in space or time, e.g., jaw "cheek" ? "jaw".
Synecdoche: Change based on whole-part relation. The convention of using capital cities to represent countries or their governments is an example of this.
Hyperbole: Change from stronger to weaker meaning, e.g., astound "strike with thunder" ? "surprise strongly".
Litotes: Change from weaker to stronger meaning, e.g., kill "torment" ? "kill".
Degeneration: e.g., knave "boy" ? "servant".
Elevation: e.g., knight "boy" ? "knight".
However, the categorization of has gained increasing acceptance:[4]
Metaphor: Change based on similarity between concepts, e.g., mouse "rodent" ? "computer device".
Metonymy: Change based on contiguity between concepts, e.g., horn "animal horn" ? "musical instrument".
Generalization of meaning; Upward shift in a taxonomy, e.g., hoover "Hoover vacuum cleaner" ? "any type of vacuum cleaner".
Cohyponymic transfer: Horizontal shift in a taxonomy, e.g., the confusion of mouse and rat in some dialects.
Antiphrasis: Change based on a contrastive aspect of the concepts, e.g., perfect lady in the sense of "prostitute".
Auto-antonymy: Change of a word's sense and concept to the complementary opposite, e.g., bad in the slang sense of "good".
Auto-converse: Lexical expression of a relationship by the two extremes of the respective relationship, e.g., take in the dialectal use as "give".
Ellipsis: Semantic change based on the contiguity of names, e.g., car "cart" ? "automobile", due the to invention of the (motor) car.
Folk-etymology: Semantic change based on the similarity of names, e.g., French contredanse, orig. English country dance).
Blank considers it problematic, though, to include amelioration and pejoration of meaning as well as strengthening and weakening of meaning. According to Blank, these are not objectively classifiable phenomena; moreover, Blank has only shown that all of the examples listed under these headings can be grouped into the other phenomena.
Forces triggering semantic change
Blank[5] has tried to create a complete list of motivations for semantic change. They can be summarized as:
Linguistic forces
Psychological forces
Sociocultural forces
Cultural/encyclopedic forces
This list has been revised and slightly enlarged by :[6]
Fuzziness (i.e., difficulties in classifying the referent or attributing the right word to the referent, thus mixing up designations)
Dominance of the prototype (i.e., fuzzy difference between superordinate and subordinate term due to the monopoly of the prototypical member of a category in the real world)
Social reasons (i.e., contact situation with "undemarcation" effects)
Institutional and non-institutional linguistic pre- and proscriptivism (i.e., legal and peer-group linguistic pre- and proscriptivism, aiming at "demarcation")
Flattery
Insult
Disguising language (i.e., "mis-nomers")
Taboo (i.e., taboo concepts)
Aesthetic-formal reasons (i.e., avoidance of words that are phonetically similar or identical to negatively associated words)
Communicative-formal reasons (i.e., abolition of the ambiguity of forms in context, keyword: "homonymic conflict and polysemic conflict")
Word play/punning
Excessive length of words
Morphological misinterpretation (keyword: "folk-etymology", creation of transparency by changes within a word)
Logical-formal reasons (keyword: "lexical regularization", creation of consociation)
Desire for plasticity (creation of a salient motivation of a name)
Anthropological salience of a concept (i.e., anthropologically given emotionality of a concept, "natural salience")
Culture-induced salience of a concept ("cultural importance")
Changes in the referents (i.e., changes in the world)
World view change (i.e., changes in the categorization of the world)
Prestige/fashion (based on the prestige of another language or variety, of certain word-formation patterns, or of certain semasiological centers of expansion)
Practical studies
Apart from many individual studies, etymological dictionaries are prominent reference books for finding out about semantic changes. The internet platform Onomasiology Online shows a bibliography of etymological dictionaries of languages world-wide.
Theoretical studies
Recent overviews have been presented by Blank[7] and . Semantic change had attracted academic discussions already in ancient times. The first major works of modern times were , , , , , and Stephen Ullmann.[8] Studies beyond the analysis of single words have been started with the word-field analyses of , who claimed that every semantic change of a word would also affect all other words in a lexical field.[9] His approach was later refined by . introduced Generative semantics. More recent works including pragmatic and cognitive theories are those in , Dirk Geeraerts,[10] and .
As stated above, the most currently used typologies are those by and shown above. Other typologies are listed below.
Typology by Reisig (1839)
Reisig's ideas for a classification were published posthumously. He resorts to classical rhetorics and distinguishes between
Synecdoche: shifts between part and whole
Metonymy: shifts between cause and effect
Metaphor
Typology by Paul (1880)
Specialization: enlargement of single senses of a word's meaning
Specialization on a specific part of the contents: reduction of single senses of a word's meaning
Transfer on a notion linked to the based notion in a spatial, temporal, or causal way
Typology by Darmesteter (1887)
Metaphor
Metonymy
Widening of meaning
Narrowing of meaning
The last two are defined as change between whole and part, which would today be rendered as synecdoche.
Typology by Bréal (1899)
Restriction of sense: change from a general to a special meaning
Enlargement of sense: change from a special to a general meaning
Metaphor
"Thickening" of sense: change from an abstract to a concrete meaning
Typology by Stern (1931)
Substitution: Change related to the change of an object, of the knowledge referring to the object, of the attitude toward the object, e.g., artillery "engines of war used to throw missiles" ? "mounted guns", atom "inseparable smallest physical-chemical element" ? "physical-chemical element consisting of electrons", scholasticism "philosophical system of the Middle Ages" ? "servile adherence to the methods and teaching of schools"
Analogy: Change triggered by the change of an associated word, e.g., fast adj. "fixed and rapid" ? faste adv. "fixedly, rapidly")
Shortening: e.g., periodical ? periodical paper
Nomination: "the intentional naming of a referent, new or old, with a name that has not previously been used for it" (Stern 1931: 282), e.g., lion "brave man" ? "lion"
Regular transfer: a subconscious Nomination
Permutation: non-intentional shift of one referent to another due to a reinterpretation of a situation, e.g., bead "prayer" ? "pearl in a rosary") *Adequation: Change in the attitude of a concept, which makes the distinction from Substitution unclear).
This classification does not neatly distinguish between processes and forces/causes of semantic change.
Typology by Ullmann (1957, 1962)
Ullmann dintinguishes between nature and consequences of semantic change:
nature of semantic change
Metaphor: change based on a similarity of senses
Metonymy: change based on a contiguity of senses
Folk-etymology: change based on a similarity of names
Grzega, Joachim (2000), "Historical Semantics in the Light of Cognitive Linguistics: Aspects of a New Reference Book Reviewed", Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 25: 233-244.
Koch, Peter (2002), "Lexical Typology from a Cognitive and Linguistic Point of View", in: Cruse, D. Alan et al. (eds.), Lexicology: An International Handbook on the Nature and Structure of Words and Vocabularies / Lexikologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von Wörtern und Wortschätzen, [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 21], Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, vol. 1, 1142-1178.
Wundt, Wilhelm (1912), Völkerpsychologie: Eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythus und Sitte, vol. 2,2: Die Sprache, Leipzig: Engelmann.
External links
Onomasiology Online (internet platform by Joachim Grzega, Alfred Bammesberger and Marion Schöner, including a list of etymological dictionaries)
Encyclopedia
top
