Semantic changes in the word meaning

There are factors within these causes that will also impact semantic changes. Have a look at the table below to see some examples of extralinguistic and linguistic causes of semantic change.

Semantic narrowing is the process by which a word’s meaning becomes less generalised (in other words more specific) over time. This means that the new meaning derives directly from the original meaning. Typically this process is caused by linguistic factors, such as ellipses, and can take many years to occur. Narrowing can also be referred to as semantic specialisation or semantic restriction.

Let’s look at two examples of semantic narrowing:

Hound

The word ‘hound’, traditionally was used to refer to any type of dog. However, over the centuries the meaning narrowed until it was only used when discussing dogs used when hunting (such as beagles and bloodhounds).

Fig. 1 — An example of semantic narrowing is ‘hound.’

The term, ‘cool’, was popular within the language of jazz musicians, as it referred to a specific style of music (‘cool jazz’)! Over time, as jazz music grew in popularity, the word started to be used in other contexts.

Fig. 2 — An example of semantic broadening is ‘Jazz.’

Amelioration

Amelioration is a term that refers to when a word acquires a more positive meaning over time. It may also be referred to as semantic amelioration or semantic elevation. Typically this process occurs due to different extralinguistic reasons, such as cultural and worldview changes occurring.

Semantic
change
is the process of development of a new meaning or any other change of
meaning.

Extra-linguistic
causes of semantic changes:

—historical,
e.g. a
pen
‘any instrument for writing’ < Lat. penna
‘a feather of a bird’; supper
‘the last meal of the day’ < Fr. souper
< PIE *sup
‘to drink in sips’;

-social,
e.g. a
live wire ‘one
carrying electric current’ > ‘a person of intense energy’, a
feed-back
‘the return of a sample of the output of a system’ >
‘response’, to
spark off in chain reaction, a launching pad;

-psychological,
e.g. a
don
‘a university teacher, a leader, a master’ > ‘the head of
Mafia family or other group involved in organised crime’, bikini.

Linguistic
Causes of Semantic
Change

ellipsis
is the omittance of one of the components in a word-group; the
meaning is transferred to the other component, e.g. a
presale view > a presale;
to
study works by Ch. Dickens
> to
study Dickens;

differentiation
of synonyms,
i.e. a gradual change of the meanings of synonyms which develop
different semantic structures, e.g. autumn
– harvest, a deer – a beast – an animal;

fixed
context
results from synonymic differentiation when one of the synonyms
becomes to be restricted in use to a number of set expressions and
compound words, e.g. meat
originally
‘food’ (mincemeat,
nutmeat, sweetmeat, meat and drink)
> ‘edible flesh’;

linguistic
analogy occurs
when one of the members of a synonymic set acquires a new meaning and
the other members of this set change their menaings in the same way,
e.g.
to
snack – to bite.

Types
of Semantic Change (by H. Hirt)

Changes
in the denotative
component of meaning:

generalisation
(broadening, extension) is the widening of a word’s range of
meanings, e.g. a
fellow
‘a partner or shareholder of any kind’ > ‘a man; a person in
the same group’; ready
‘prepared for a ride’ > ‘prepared for anything’; rich
‘powerful’ > ‘wealthy’ etc.;

specialisation
(narrowing, restriction) is the reduction in a word’s range of
meanings, often limiting a generic word to a more specialised or
technical use, e.g. lord
‘the master of the house, the head of the family’ > ‘a man
of noble rank’; a
disease
‘any inconvenience’ > ‘an illness’; to
sell
‘to give’ > ‘to deliver for money’ etc.

Changes
in the connotative
component of meaning:

amelioration
(elevation) of meaning occurs as a word loses negative connotations
or gains positive ones, e.g. a knight ‘a boy, youth’ > ‘a
noble, courageous man’; fond
‘foolish, silly’ > ‘loving, affectionate’; pretty
‘tricky, sly wily’ > ‘pleasing to look at, charming and
attractive’ etc.;

pejoration
(degradation) of meaning occurs as a word develops negative
connotations or loses positive ones; it is frequently due to social
prejudice and often involves words for women and foreigners, e.g.
vulgar
‘common, ordinary’ > ‘coarse, low, ill-bred’; silly
‘happy’
> ‘foolish’. A word can have its meaning deteriorate in
several directions at once, e.g. a
cowboy
– (in BrE) ‘an incompetent or irresponsible workman or business’
(cowboy plumbers); (in AmE) ‘a driver who does not follow the rules
of the road’; ‘a factory worker who does more than the piece-work
norms set by the union or fellow-workers’.

A
euphemism
(Gr. éu
‘well’, phēmi
‘speak, glorify’; euphēmia
‘a word or phrase used in place of a religious word or phrase that
should not be spoken aloud’)
is a vague or indirect reference to the taboo topics:

-death,
e.g.
to
join the majority,
to
kick the bucket, pass away,
to
check
out, to take a leave of life, to pay nature’s last debt, to be
beyond the veil etc.;

-human
weaknesses, e.g. to
be
tired
and emotional,
to
be chemically affected (to
be drunk), to
have a weakness for horses (gambling)
etc.;

-mental
deficiency, e.g. to
be intellectually challenged,
to
be thick in the head,
funny
farm etc.;

-pregnancy,
e.g.
to
be eating for two,
lady-in-waiting,
in the family way,
on
the nest,
in
the interesting way, to have a bun in the oven etc;

-age,
e.g. God’s
waiting room, the golden age etc.;

—
politics,
e.g. less
fortunate elements (the
poor),
the economic tunnel (the
crisis) etc.

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semantic change (also semantic shift, semantic progression, semantic development, or semantic drift) is a form of language change regarding the evolution of word usage—usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage. 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. The study of semantic change can be seen as part of etymology, onomasiology, semasiology, and semantics.

Examples in English[edit]

• Awful — Literally «full of awe», originally meant «inspiring wonder (or fear)», hence «impressive». In contemporary usage, the word means «extremely bad».
• Awesome — Literally «awe-inducing», originally meant «inspiring wonder (or fear)», hence «impressive». In contemporary usage, the word means «extremely good».
• Terrible — Originally meant «inspiring terror», shifted to indicate anything spectacular, then to something spectacularly bad.
• Terrific — Originally meant «inspiring terror», shifted to indicate anything spectacular, then to something spectacularly good.^[1]
• Nice — Originally meant «foolish, ignorant, frivolous, senseless.» from Old French nice (12c.) meaning «careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish,» from Latin nescius («ignorant or unaware»). Literally «not-knowing,» from ne- «not» (from PIE root *ne- «not») + stem of scire «to know» (compare with science). «The sense development has been extraordinary, even for an adj.» [Weekley] — from «timid, faint-hearted» (pre-1300); to «fussy, fastidious» (late 14c.); to «dainty, delicate» (c. 1400); to «precise, careful» (1500s, preserved in such terms as a nice distinction and nice and early); to «agreeable, delightful» (1769); to «kind, thoughtful» (1830).
• Naïf or Naïve —Initially meant «natural, primitive, or native» . From French naïf, literally «native«. The masculine form of the French word, but used in English without reference to gender. As a noun, «natural, artless, naive person,» first attested 1893, from French, where Old French naif also meant «native inhabitant; simpleton, natural fool.»
• Demagogue — Originally meant «a popular leader». It is from the Greek dēmagōgós «leader of the people», from dēmos «people» + agōgós «leading, guiding». Now the word has strong connotations of a politician who panders to emotions and prejudice.
• Egregious — Originally described something that was remarkably good (as in Theorema Egregium). The word is from the Latin egregius «illustrious, select», literally, «standing out from the flock», which is from ex—»out of» + greg—(grex) «flock». Now it means something that is remarkably bad or flagrant.
• Gay — Originally meant (13th century) «lighthearted», «joyous» or (14th century) «bright and showy», it also came to mean «happy»; it acquired connotations of immorality as early as 1637, either sexual e.g., gay woman «prostitute», gay man «womaniser», gay house «brothel», or otherwise, e.g., gay dog «over-indulgent man» and gay deceiver «deceitful and lecherous». In the United States by 1897 the expression gay cat referred to a hobo, especially a younger hobo in the company of an older one; by 1935, it was used in prison slang for a homosexual boy; and by 1951, and clipped to gay, referred to homosexuals. George Chauncey, in his book Gay New York, would put this shift as early as the late 19th century among a certain «in crowd», knowledgeable of gay night-life. In the modern day, it is most often used to refer to homosexuals, at first among themselves and then in society at large, with a neutral connotation; or as a derogatory synonym for «silly», «dumb», or «boring».^[2]
• Guy — Guy Fawkes was the alleged leader of a plot to blow up the English Houses of Parliament on 5 November 1605. The day was made a holiday, Guy Fawkes Day, commemorated by parading and burning a ragged manikin of Fawkes, known as a Guy. This led to the use of the word guy as a term for any «person of grotesque appearance» and then by the late 1800s—especially in the United States—for «any man», as in, e.g., «Some guy called for you.» Over the 20th century, guy has replaced fellow in the U.S., and, under the influence of American popular culture, has been gradually replacing fellow, bloke, chap and other such words throughout the rest of the English-speaking world. In the plural, it can refer to a mixture of genders (e.g., «Come on, you guys!» could be directed to a group of mixed gender instead of only men).

Evolution of types[edit]

A number of classification schemes have been suggested for semantic change.

Recent overviews have been presented by Blank^[3] and Blank & Koch (1999). Semantic change has attracted academic discussions since ancient times, although the first major works emerged in the 19th century with Reisig (1839), Paul (1880), and Darmesteter (1887).^[4] Studies beyond the analysis of single words have been started with the word-field analyses of Trier (1931), who claimed that every semantic change of a word would also affect all other words in a lexical field.^[5] His approach was later refined by Coseriu (1964). Fritz (1974) introduced Generative semantics. More recent works including pragmatic and cognitive theories are those in Warren (1992), Dirk Geeraerts,^[6] Traugott (1990) and Blank (1997).

A chronological list of typologies is presented below. Today, the most currently used typologies are those by Bloomfield (1933) and Blank (1999).

Typology by Reisig (1839)[edit]

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)[edit]

• Generalization: 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)[edit]

• Metaphor
• Metonymy
• Narrowing of meaning
• Widening of meaning

The last two are defined as change between whole and part, which would today be rendered as synecdoche.

Typology by Bréal (1899)[edit]

• 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)[edit]

• 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; distinction from substitution is unclear.

This classification does not neatly distinguish between processes and forces/causes of semantic change.

Typology by Bloomfield (1933)[edit]

The most widely accepted scheme in the English-speaking academic world^{[according to whom?]} is from Bloomfield (1933):

• Narrowing: Change from superordinate level to subordinate level. For example, skyline formerly referred to any horizon, but now in the US it has narrowed to a horizon decorated by skyscrapers.^[7]
• Widening: There are many examples of specific brand names being used for the general product, such as with Kleenex.^[7] Such uses are known as generonyms: see genericization.
• 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 use broadcast in the earlier sense.^[7]
• Metonymy: Change based on nearness in space or time, e.g., jaw «cheek» → «mandible».
• 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 weaker to stronger meaning, e.g., kill «torment» → «slaughter»
• Meiosis: Change from stronger to weaker meaning, e.g., astound «strike with thunder» → «surprise strongly».
• Degeneration: e.g., knave «boy» → «servant» → «deceitful or despicable man»; awful «awe-inspiring» → «very bad.»
• Elevation: e.g., knight «boy» → «nobleman»; terrific «terrifying» → «astonishing» → «very good».

Typology by Ullmann (1957, 1962)[edit]

Ullmann distinguishes 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
  • Ellipsis: change based on a contiguity of names
• Consequences of semantic change
  • Widening of meaning: rise of quantity
  • Narrowing of meaning: loss of quantity
  • Amelioration of meaning: rise of quality
  • Pejoration of meaning: loss of quality

Typology by Blank (1999)[edit]

However, the categorization of Blank (1999) has gained increasing acceptance:^[8]

• 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».
• Synecdoche: A type of metonymy involving a part to whole relationship, e.g. «hands» from «all hands on deck» → «bodies»
• Specialization of meaning: Downward shift in a taxonomy, e.g., corn «grain» → «wheat» (UK), → «maize» (US).
• 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 to the invention of the (motor) car.
• Folk-etymology: Semantic change based on the similarity of names, e.g., French contredanse, orig. English country dance.

Blank considered it problematic to include amelioration and pejoration of meaning (as in Ullman) as well as strengthening and weakening of meaning (as in Bloomfield). According to Blank, these are not objectively classifiable phenomena; moreover, Blank has argued that all of the examples listed under these headings can be grouped under other phenomena, rendering the categories redundant.

Forces triggering change[edit]

Blank^[9] 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 Grzega (2004):^[10]

• 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., «misnomers»)
• 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»)
• Wordplay/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)
• Worldview 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)

The case of reappropriation[edit]

A specific case of semantic change is reappropriation, a cultural process by which a group reclaims words or artifacts that were previously used in a way disparaging of that group, for example like with the word queer. Other related processes include pejoration and amelioration.^[11]

Practical studies[edit]

Apart from many individual studies, etymological dictionaries are prominent reference books for finding out about semantic changes. A recent survey lists practical tools and online systems for investigating semantic change of words over time.^[12] WordEvolutionStudy is an academic platform that takes arbitrary words as input to generate summary views of their evolution based on Google Books ngram dataset and the Corpus of Historical American English.^[13]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

• Blank, Andreas (1997), Prinzipien des lexikalischen Bedeutungswandels am Beispiel der romanischen Sprachen (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 285), Tübingen: Niemeyer
• Blank, Andreas (1999), «Why do new meanings occur? A cognitive typology of the motivations for lexical Semantic change», in Blank, Andreas; Koch, Peter (eds.), Historical Semantics and Cognition, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 61–90
• Blank, Andreas; Koch, Peter (1999), «Introduction: Historical Semantics and Cognition», in Blank, Andreas; Koch, Peter (eds.), Historical Semantics and Cognition, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–16
• Bloomfield, Leonard (1933), Language, New York: Allen & Unwin
• Bréal, Michel (1899), Essai de sémantique (2nd ed.), Paris: Hachette
• Coseriu, Eugenio (1964), «Pour une sémantique diachronique structurale», Travaux de Linguistique et de Littérature, 2: 139–186
• Darmesteter, Arsène (1887), La vie des mots, Paris: Delagrave
• Fritz, Gerd (1974), Bedeutungswandel im Deutschen, Tübingen: Niemeyer
• Geeraerts, Dirk (1983), «Reclassifying Semantic change», Quaderni di Semantica, 4: 217–240
• Geeraerts, Dirk (1997), Diachronic prototype Semantics: a contribution to historical lexicology, Oxford: Clarendon
• Grzega, Joachim (2004), Bezeichnungswandel: Wie, Warum, Wozu? Ein Beitrag zur englischen und allgemeinen Onomasiologie, Heidelberg: Winter
• Grzega, Joachim; Schöner, Marion (2007), English and general historical lexicology: materials for onomasiology seminars (PDF), Eichstätt: Universität
• Jeffers, Robert J.; Lehiste, Ilse (1979), Principles and methods for historical linguistics, MIT press, ISBN 0-262-60011-0
• Paul, Hermann (1880), Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, Tübingen: Niemeyer
• Reisig, Karl (1839), «Semasiologie oder Bedeutungslehre», in Haase, Friedrich (ed.), Professor Karl Reisigs Vorlesungen über lateinische Sprachwissenschaft, Leipzig: Lehnhold
• Stern, Gustaf (1931), Meaning and change of meaning with special reference to the English language, Göteborg: Elander
• Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1990), «From less to more situated in language: the unidirectionality of Semantic change», in Adamson, Silvia; Law, Vivian A.; Vincent, Nigel; Wright, Susan (eds.), Papers from the Fifth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 496–517
• Trier, Jost (1931), Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes (dissertation)
• Ullmann, Stephen (1957), Principles of Semantics (2nd ed.), Oxford: Blackwell
• Ullmann, Stephen (1962), Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning, Oxford: Blackwell
• Vanhove, Martine (2008), From Polysemy to Semantic change: Towards a Typology of Lexical Semantic Associations, Studies in Language Companion Series 106, Amsterdam, New York: Benjamins.
• Warren, Beatrice (1992), Sense Developments: A contrastive study of the development of slang senses and novel standard senses in English, [Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis 80], Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell
• Zuckermann, Ghil’ad (2003), Language Contact and Lexical Enrichment in Israeli Hebrew. Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 1-4039-1723-X.

Further reading[edit]

• AlBader, Yousuf B. (2015) «Semantic Innovation and Change in Kuwaiti Arabic: A Study of the Polysemy of Verbs»
• AlBader, Yousuf B. (2016) «From dašš l-ġōṣ to dašš twitar: Semantic Change in Kuwaiti Arabic»
• AlBader, Yousuf B. (2017) «Polysemy and Semantic Change in the Arabic Language and Dialects»
• 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[edit]

• Onomasiology Online (internet platform by Joachim Grzega, Alfred Bammesberger and Marion Schöner, including a list of etymological dictionaries)
• Etymonline, Online Etymology Dictionary of the English language.
• Exploring Word Evolution An online analysis tool for studying evolution of any input words based on Google Books n-gram dataset and the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA).

Semantic change, also known as semantic shift or semantic progression describes the evolution of word usage — usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage. 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. The study of semantic change can be seen as part of etymology, onomasiology, semasiology, and semantics.

Examples

• Awful — Originally meant «inspiring wonder (or fear)». It is a portmanteau of the words «awe» and «full», used originally as a shortening for «full of awe». In contemporary usage the word usually has negative meaning.
• Demagogue — Originally meant «a popular leader». It is from the Greek demagogos (leader of the people), from demos (people) + agogos (leader). Now the word has strong connotations of a politician who panders to emotions and prejudice.
• Egregious — Originally described something that was remarkably good. The word is from the Latin egregius (outstanding) which is from e-, ex- (out of) + greg- or grex (flock). Now it means something that is remarkably bad or flagrant.
• Guy — Guido (Guy) Fawkes was the alleged leader of a plot to blow up the English Houses of Parliament on 5 November 1605. The burning on 5 November of a grotesque effigy of Fawkes, known as a «guy,» led to the use of the word «guy» as a term for any «person of grotesque appearance» and then to a general reference for a man, as in «some guy called for you.» In the 20th century, under the influence of American popular culture, «guy» has been gradually replacing «fellow,» «bloke,» «chap» and other such words throughout the English-speaking world, and, in the plural, can refer to a mixture of genders (e.g., «Come on, you guys!» could be directed to a group of men and women).
• Gay — Originally meant feelings of being «carefree», «happy», or «bright and showy»; it had also come to acquire some connotations of «immorality» as early as 1637. The term later began to be used in reference to homosexuality, in particular, from the early 20th century, a usage that may have dated prior to the 19th century.

Types of semantic change

A number of classification schemes have been suggested for semantic change. The most widely accepted scheme in the English-speaking academic world is from Bloomfield (1933):

• 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.^[1]
• 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.^[1]
• 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.
• Meiosis: Change from weaker to stronger meaning, e.g., kill «torment» → «kill»
• Hyperbole: . Change from stronger to weaker meaning, e.g., astound «strike with thunder» → «surprise strongly».
• Degeneration: e.g., knave «boy» → «servant» → «deceitful or despicable man».
• Elevation: e.g., knight «boy» → «knight».

However, the categorization of Blank (1998) has gained increasing acceptance:^[2]

• 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».
• Synecdoche: Same as above.
• Specialization of meaning: Downward shift in a taxonomy, e.g., corn «grain» → «wheat» (UK), → «maize» (US).
• 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 to the 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 shown that all of the examples listed under these headings can be grouped into the other phenomena.

Forces triggering semantic change

Blank^[3] 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 Grzega (2004):^[4]

• 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 worldwide.

Theoretical studies

Recent overviews have been presented by Blank^[5] and Blank & Koch (1999). Semantic change had attracted academic discussions already in ancient times. The first major works of modern times were Reisig (1839), Darmesteter (1887), Bréal (1899), Paul (1880), Stern (1931), Bloomfield (1933) and Stephen Ullmann.^[6] Studies beyond the analysis of single words have been started with the word-field analyses of Trier (1931), who claimed that every semantic change of a word would also affect all other words in a lexical field.^[7] His approach was later refined by Coseriu (1964). Fritz (1964) introduced Generative semantics. More recent works including pragmatic and cognitive theories are those in Warren (1992), Dirk Geeraerts,^[8] Traugott (1990) and Blank (1997).

As stated above, the most currently used typologies are those by Bloomfield (1933) and Blank (1998) 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
• Narrowing of meaning
• Widening 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; distinction from substitution is unclear.

This classification does not neatly distinguish between processes and forces/causes of semantic change.

Typology by Ullmann (1957, 1962)

Ullmann distinguishes 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
  • Ellipsis: change based on a contiguity of names
• Consequences of semantic change
  • Widening of meaning: raise of quantity
  • Narrowing of meaning: loss of quantity
  • Amelioration of meaning: raise of quality
  • Pejoration of meaning: loss of quality

See also

• Calque
• Bastardization / corruption
• Euphemism treadmill
• Genericized trademark
• Language change
• Lexicology and Lexical semantics
• List of calques
• Onomasiology and Semasiology
• Phono-semantic matching
• Retronym

Notes

References

• Blank, Andreas (1997), Prinzipien des lexikalischen Bedeutungswandels am Beispiel der romanischen Sprachen (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 285), Tübingen: Niemeyer
• Blank, Andreas (1999), «Why do new meanings occur? A cognitive typology of the motivations for lexical Semantic change», in Blank; Koch, Peter, Historical Semantics and Cognition, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 61–90
• Blank, Andreas; Koch, Peter (1999), «Introduction: Historical Semantics and Cognition», in Blank; Koch, Peter, Historical Semantics and Cognition, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–16
• Bloomfield, Leonard (1933), Language, New York: Allen & Unwin
• Bréal, Michel (1899), Essai de sémantique (2nd ed.), Paris: Hachette
• Coseriu, Eugenio (1964), «Pour une sémantique diachronique structurale», Travaux de Linguistique et de Littérature 2: 139–186
• Darmesteter, Arsène (1887), La vie des mots, Paris: Delagrave
• Fritz, Gerd (1974), Bedeutungswandel im Deutschen, Tübingen: Niemeyer
• Geeraerts, Dirk (1983), «Reclassifying Semantic change», Quaderni di semantica 4: 217–240
• Geeraerts, Dirk (1997), Diachronic prototype Semantics: a contribution to historical lexicology, Oxford: Clarendon
• Grzega, Joachim (2004), Bezeichnungswandel: Wie, Warum, Wozu? Ein Beitrag zur englischen und allgemeinen Onomasiologie, Heidelberg: Winter
• Grzega, Joachim; Schöner, Marion (2007), English and general historical lexicology: materials for onomasiology seminars, Eichstätt: Universität, http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/OnOnMon1.pdf
• Jeffers, Robert J.; Lehiste, Ilse (1979), Principles and methods for historical linguistics, MIT press, ISBN 0262600110
• Paul, Hermann (1880), Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, Tübingen: Niemeyer
• Reisig, Karl (1839), «Semasiologie oder Bedeutungslehre», in Haase, Friedrich, Professor Karl Reisigs Vorlesungen über lateinische Sprachwissenschaft, Leipzig: Lehnhold
• Stern, Gustaf (1931), Meaning andcChange of meaning with special reference to the English language, Göteborg: Elander
• Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1990), «From less to more situated in language: the unidirectionality of Semantic change», in Adamson, Silvia; Law, Vivian A.; Vincent, Nigel et al., Papers from the Fifth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 496–517
• Trier, Jost (1931), Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes (dissertation)
• Ullmann, Stephen (1957), Principles of Semantics (2nd ed.), Oxford: Blackwell
• Ullmann, Stephen (1962), Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning, Oxford: Blackwell
• Warren, Beatrice (1992), Sense Developments: A contrastive study of the development of slang senses and novel standard senses in English, [Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis 80], Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell
• Zuckermann, Ghil’ad (2003), Language Contact and Lexical Enrichment in Israeli Hebrew. Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 140391723X.

Further reading

• 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)