ВУЗ: Не указан
Категория: Не указан
Дисциплина: Не указана
Добавлен: 06.04.2021
Просмотров: 4682
Скачиваний: 79
Results of semantic change can be generally
observed in the changes of the denotational
meaning of the word (restriction and exten-
sion of meaning) or in the alteration of its connotational component (ame-
lioration and deterioration of meaning).
C h a n g e s in t h e d e n o t a t i o n a l m e a n i n g may re-
sult in the restriction of the types
or
range of referents denoted by the
word. This may be illustrated by the semantic development of the word
hound
(OE.
hund)
which used to denote ‘a dog of any breed’ but now
denotes only ‘a dog used in the chase’. This is also the case with the word
fowl
(OE.
fuzol, fuzel)
which in old English denoted ‘any bird’, but in
Modern English denotes ‘a domestic hen or cock’. This is generally de-
scribed as “restriction of meaning” and if the word with the new meaning
comes to be used in the specialised vocabulary of some limited group
within the speech community it is usual to speak of s p e c i a l i s a -
t i o n of m e a n i n g . For example, we can observe restriction and
specialisation of meaning in the case of the verb
to glide
(OE.
glidan)
which had the meaning ‘to move gently and smoothly’ and has now ac-
quired a restricted and specialised meaning ‘t o fly with no engine’ (cf.
a
glider).
Changes in the denotational meaning may also result in the application
of the word to a wider variety of referents. This is commonly described as
e x t e n s i o n of m e a n i n g and may be illustrated by the word
target
which originally meant ‘a small round shield’ (a diminutive of
targe, сf.
ON.
targa)
but now means ‘anything that is fired at’ and also
figuratively ‘any result aimed at’.
If the word with the extended meaning passes from the specialised vo-
cabulary into common use, we describe the result of the semantic change
as the g e n e r a l i s a t i o n of m e a n i n g . The word
camp,
e.g.,
which originally was used only as a military term and meant ‘the place
where troops are lodged in tents’ (cf.
L.
campus — ‘exercising ground for
the army) extended and generalised it s meaning and now denotes ‘tempo-
rary quarters’ (of travellers, nomads, etc.).
As can be seen from the examples discussed above it is mainly the de-
notational component of the lexical meaning that is affected while the
connotational component remains unaltered. There are other cases, how-
ever, when the changes in the connotational meaning come to the fore.
These changes, as a rule accompanied by a change in the denotational’
component, may be subdivided into two main groups: a) p e j o r a t i v e
d e v e l o p m e n t or the acquisition by the word of some derogatory
emotive charge, and b) a m e l i o r a t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t or
the improvement of the connotational component of meaning. The seman-
tic change in the word
boor
may serve to illustrate the first group. This
word was originally used to denote ‘a villager, a peasant’ (cf.
OE.
z
ebur
‘
dweller’) and then acquired a derogatory, contemptuous connotational
meaning and came to denote ‘a clumsy or ill-bred fellow’. The ameliora-
tive development of the connotational meaning may be observed in the
change of the semantic structure of the word
minister
which in one of its
meanings originally denoted ‘a servant, an attendant’,
31
§ 23. Results of Semantic
Chang
but now — ‘a civil servant of higher rank, a person administering a de-
partment of state or accredited by one state to another’.
It is of interest to note that in derivational clusters a change in the
connotational meaning of one member doe’s not necessarily affect a the
others. This peculiarity can be observed in the words accident аn acciden-
tal. The lexical meaning of the noun accident has undergone pejorative
development and denotes not only ’something that happens by chance’,
but usually’something unfortunate’. The derived adjective accidental does
not possess in its semantic structure this negative connotational meaning
(cf. also fortune: bad fortune, good fortune and fortunate).
As can be inferred from the analysis of vari-
ous changes of word-meanings they can be
classified according to the social causes that
bring about change of meaning (socio-linguistic classification), the nature
of these changes (psychological classification) and the results of semantic
changes (logical classification). Here it is suggested that causes, nature
and results of semantic changes should be viewed as three essentially dif-
ferent but inseparable aspects of one and the same linguistic phenomenon
as a change of meaning may be investigated from the point of view of its
cause, nature and its consequences.
Essentially the same causes may bring about different results, e.g the
semantic development in the word knight
(OE.
cniht) from ‘a boy servant’
to ‘a young warrior’ and eventually to the meaning it possesses in Modern
English is due to extra-linguistic causes just as the semantic change in the
word boor, but the results are different. In the case of
book
we observe
pejorative development whereas in the case of
knight
we observe amelio-
ration of the connotational component. And conversely, different causes
may lead to the same result. Restriction of meaning, for example, may be
the result of the influence of extra-linguistic factors as in the case of glide
(progress of science and technique) and also of purely linguistic causes
(discrimination of synonyms) as is the case with the word
fowl
. Changes
of essentially identical nature, e. g. similarity of referent as the basis of
association, may bring about different results, e.g. extension of meaning as
in target and also restriction of meaning as in the word
fowl
.
To avoid terminological confusion it is suggested that the terms r e -
s t r i c t i o n and e x t e n s i o n or a m e l i o r a t i o n and d e -
t e r i o r a t i o n of meaning should be used to describe only t h e
r e s u l t s of semantic change irrespective of its nature or causes. When
we discuss metaphoric or metonymic transfer of meaning we imply t h e
n a t u r e of the semantic change whatever its results may be. It also fol-
lows that a change of meaning should be described so as to satisfy all the
three criteria.
In the discussion of semantic changes we confined ourselves only to
the type of change which results in the disappearance of the old meaning
which is replaced by the new one. The term c h a n g e of meani n g
however is also used to describe a change in the number (as a rule
32
§ 24. Interrelation of
Causes, Nature and Results
of Semantic Change
an increase) and arrangement of word-meanings without a single meaning
disappearing from its semantic structure.
1
1. Not only the sound-form but also the
meaning of the word is changed in the course
of the historical development of language. The factors causing semantic
changes may be roughly subdivided into extra-linguistic and linguistic
causes.
2.
Change of meaning is effected through association between the ex-
isting meaning and the new. This association is generally based on the
similarity of meaning (metaphor) or on the contiguity of meaning (meton-
ymy).
3.
Semantic changes in the denotational component may bring about
the extension or the restriction of meaning. The change in the connota-
tional component may result in the pejorative or ameliorative development
of meaning.
4.
Causes, nature and result of semantic changes should be regarded as
three essentially different but closely connected aspects of the same lin-
guistic phenomenon.
MEANING AND POLYSEMY
So far we have been discussing the concept of meaning, different types
of word-meanings and the changes they undergo in the course of the his-
torical development of the English language. When analysing the word-
meaning we observe, however, that words as a rule are not units of a single
meaning. Monosemantic words, i.e. words having only one meaning are
comparatively few in number, these are mainly scientific terms, such -as
hydrogen, molecule
and the like. The bulk of English words are
p o l y s e m a n t i c , that is to say possess more than one meaning.
The actual number of meanings of the commonly used words ranges from
five to about a hundred. In fact, the commoner the word the more mean-
ings it has.
The word
table,
e.g., has at least nine mean-
ings in Modern English: 1. a piece of furni-
ture; 2. the persons seated at a table; 3.
sing.
the food put on a table, meals; 4. a thin flat piece of stone, metal, wood,
etc.; 5.
pl.
slabs of stone; 6. words cut into them or written on them (the
ten tables);
2
7. an orderly arrangement of facts, figures, etc.; 8. part of a
machine-tool on which the work is put to be operated on; 9. a level area, a
plateau. Each of the individual meanings can be described in terms of the
types of meanings discussed above. We may, e.g., analyse the eighth
meaning of the word
table
into the part-of-speech meaning — that of the
noun (which presupposes the grammatical meanings of number and case)
combined with the lexical meaning made up of two components The deno-
tational semantic component which can be interpreted
1
For details see ‘Semasiology’, §29, p. 36.
2
десять заповедей
(библ.)
33
§ 25. Summary
and Conclusions
§ 26. Semantic Structure
of Polysemantic Words
as the dictionary definition (part of a machine-tool on which the work is
put) and the connotational component which can be identified as a specific
stylistic reference of this particular meaning of the word
table
(technical
terminology). Cf. the Russian
планшайба, стол станка.
In polysemantic words, however, we are faced not with the problem of
analysis of individual meanings, but primarily with the problem of the in-
terrelation and interdependence of the various meanings in the semantic
structure of one and the same word.
If polysemy is viewed diachronically, it is
understood as the growth and development of
or, in general, as a change in the semantic structure of the word.
Polysemy in diachronic terms implies that a word may retain its previ-
ous meaning or meanings and at the same time acquire one or several new
ones. Then the problem of the interrelation and interdependence of indi-
vidual meanings of a polysemantic word may be roughly formulated as
follows: did the word always possess all its meanings or did some of them
appear earlier than the others? are the new meanings dependent on the
meanings already existing? and if so what is the nature of this dependence?
can we observe any changes in the arrangement of the meanings? and so
on.
In the course of a diachronic semantic analysis of the polysemantic
word
table
we find that of all the meanings it has in Modern English, the
primary meaning is ‘a flat slab of stone or wood’, which is proper to the
word in the Old English period (
OE
.
tabule
from
L.
tabula);
all other
meanings are secondary as they are derived from the primary meaning of
the word and appeared later than the primary meaning,
The terms s e c o n d a r y and d e r i v e d meaning are to a certain
extent synonymous. When we describe the meaning of the word as “sec-
ondary” we imply that it could not have appeared before the primary
meaning was in existence. When we refer to the meaning as “derived” we
imply not only that, but also that it is dependent on the primary meaning
and somehow subordinate to it. In the case of the word
table,
e.g., we may
say that the meaning ‘the food put on the table’ is a secondary meaning as
it is derived from the meaning ‘a piece of furniture (on which meals are
laid out)’.
It follows that the main source of polysemy is a change in the semantic
structure of the word.
Polysemy may also arise from homonymy. When two words become
identical in sound-form, the meanings of the two words are felt as making
up one semantic structure. Thus, the human
ear
and the
ear
of corn are
from the diachronic point of view two homonyms. One is etymologically
related to
L.
auris
, the other to
L.
acus, aceris
. Synchronically, however,
they are perceived as two meanings of one and the same word. The
ear
of
corn
is felt to be a metaphor of the usual type (cf. the eye of the needle,
the foot of the mountain) and consequently as one of the derived or, syn-
chronically, minor meanings of the polysemantic word
ear.
1
Cases
1
In dictionaries
ear
(L.
auris)
and
ear
(L.
acus, aceris)
are usually treated as
two
ho-
monymous words as dictionary compilers as a rule go by etymological criterion.
34
§ 27. Diachronic Approach
of this type are comparatively rare and, as a rule, illustrative of the
vagueness of the border-line between polysemy and homonymy.
Semantic changes result as a rule in new meanings being added to the
ones already existing in the semantic structure of the word. Some of the
old meanings may become obsolete or even disappear, but the bulk of
English words tend to an increase in number of meanings.
Synchronically we understand polysemy as
the coexistence of various meanings
of the same word at a certain historical period of the development of the
English language. In this case the problem of the interrelation and inter-
dependence of individual meanings making up the semantic structure of
the word must be investigated along different lines.
In connection with the polysemantic word table discussed above we
are mainly concerned with the following problems: are all the nine mean-
ings equally representative of the semantic structure of this word? Is the
order in which the meanings are enumerated (or recorded) in dictionaries
purely arbitrary or does it reflect the comparative value of individual
meanings, the place they occupy in the semantic structure of the word ta-
ble? Intuitively we feel that the meaning that first occurs to us whenever
we hear or see the word table, is ‘an article of furniture’. This emerges as
the basic or the central meaning of the word and all other meanings are
minor in comparison.
1
It should be noted that whereas the basic meaning occurs in various
and widely different contexts, minor meanings are observed only in cer-
tain contexts, e.g. ‘to keep- the table amused’, ‘table of contents’ and so
on. Thus we can assume that the meaning ‘a piece of furniture’ occupies
the central place in the semantic structure of the word table. As to other
meanings of this word we find it hard to grade them in order of their
comparative value. Some may, for example, consider the second and the
third meanings (‘the persons seated at the table’ and ‘the food put on the
table’) as equally “important”, some may argue that the meaning ‘food
put on the table’ should be given priority. As synchronically there is no
objective criterion to go by, we may find it difficult in some cases to sin-
gle out even the basic meanings since two or more meanings of the word
may be felt as equally “central” in its semantic structure. If we analyse
the verb to get, e.g., which of the two meanings ‘to obtain’ (get a letter,
knowledge, some sleep) or ‘to arrive’ (get to London, to get into bed)
shall we regard as the basic meaning of this word?
A more objective criterion of the comparative value of individual
meanings seems to be the frequency of their occurrence in speech. There
is a tendency in modern linguistics to interpret the concept of the central
meaning in terms of the frequency of occurrence of this meaning. In a
study of five million words made by a group of linguistic scientists it was
found that the frequency value of individual meanings is different. As far
as the word table is concerned the meaning ‘a piece of furniture’ pos-
sesses
1
There are several terms used to denote approximately the same concepts: basic (ma-
jоr) meaning as opposed to minor meanings or central as opposed to marginal meanings.
Here the terms are used interchangeably.
2
*
3
5
§ 28. Synchronic. Approach