DOCSLIB.ORG

The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polysemy: a Relevance-Theoretic Account

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polysemy: a Relevance-Theoretic Account The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polysemy: A Relevance-Theoretic Account Ingrid Lossius Falkum Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University College London January 2011 I, Ingrid Lossius Falkum, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. _____________________ Sign. 2 Abstract This thesis investigates the phenomenon of polysemy: a single lexical form with two or multiple related senses (e.g. catch the rabbit/order the rabbit; lose a wallet/lose a relative; a handsome man/a handsome gift). I develop a pragmatic account of polysemy within the framework of Sperber and Wilson’s relevance theory, where new senses for a word are constructed during on-line comprehension by means of a single process of ad hoc concept construction, which adjusts the meanings of individual words in different directions. While polysemy is largely unproblematic from the perspective of communication, it poses a range of theoretical and descriptive problems. This is sometimes termed the polysemy paradox. A widely held view in lexical semantics is that word meanings must consist of complex representations in order to capture the sense relations involved in polysemy. Contrary to this view, I argue that a conceptual atomist approach, which treats word meanings as unstructured atoms and thereby avoids the range of problems associated with decompositional theories of word meaning, may be at least as able to account for polysemy when paired with an adequate pragmatic theory. My proposed solution to the polysemy paradox is to treat polysemy as a fundamentally communicative phenomenon, which arises as a result of encoded lexical concepts being massively underdetermining of speaker-intended concepts, and is grounded in our pragmatic inferential ability. According to this approach, the role of the linguistic system in giving rise to polysemy is to provide a minimal input, or clue, which the pragmatic system uses as evidence to yield hypotheses about occasion- specific, speaker-intended meanings. I further show how this pragmatic approach can account for cases of ‘systematic polysemy’, usually seen as prime candidates for an analysis in terms of lexical rule application. Finally, I develop an account of metonymy within the overall framework of relevance-theory. 3 Contents Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................7 Chapter 1 Introduction............................................................................................................9 1.1 What is polysemy? .........................................................................................................9 1.2 Background...................................................................................................................10 1.3 The polysemy paradox ................................................................................................13 1.4 The problem of definition...........................................................................................16 1.4.1 Polysemy and homonymy...................................................................................16 1.4.2 Ambiguity and vagueness....................................................................................19 1.4.3 Polysemy and lexical pragmatics........................................................................23 1.5 Outline of the thesis.....................................................................................................26 Chapter 2 Lexical semantics and polysemy: the problem of representation ..................28 2.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................28 2.2 Lexical decomposition approaches............................................................................29 2.2.1 The classical theory ..............................................................................................30 2.2.2 Prototypes, cognitive semantics and polysemy................................................36 2.2.3 The generative lexicon.........................................................................................42 2.2.4 Neo-classical theories...........................................................................................47 2.3 Conceptual atomism....................................................................................................56 2.3.1 Radical nativism?..................................................................................................58 2.3.2 Conceptual atomism and polysemy...................................................................59 2.4 Psycholinguistic perspectives on polysemy..............................................................62 2.4.1 Core meanings or separate entries? ...................................................................63 2.5 Conclusion....................................................................................................................72 Chapter 3 Language, theory of mind, and inferential communication: solving the problem of polysemy motivation?...........................................................................................75 3.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................75 3.2 The code model of communication ..........................................................................77 3.2.1 The generative lexicon.........................................................................................79 3.3 Linguistic underdeterminacy .....................................................................................82 4 3.3.1 The (in)effability of thought ...............................................................................86 3.4 The inferential model of communication ................................................................91 3.4.1 Relevance theory...................................................................................................91 3.4.2 Polysemy and utterance comprehension ..........................................................94 3.5 An evolutionary story about theory of mind and language...................................98 3.6 Implications of the pragmatic approach.................................................................106 Chapter 4 Relevance-theoretic lexical pragmatics: the how of polysemy .....................110 4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................110 4.2 The pragmatic adjustment of lexical meaning.......................................................112 4.2.1 A single process of ad hoc concept formation................................................116 4.2.2 Implications of the relevance-theoretic account............................................124 4.3 A lexical-pragmatic account of polysemy...............................................................127 4.3.1 A re-analysis of the Pustejovsky (1995a) cases...............................................128 4.3.2 Polysemy, sense relations and lexical semantic change ................................132 4.3.3 Prepositional polysemy......................................................................................137 4.4 Conclusion..................................................................................................................146 Chapter 5 Systematic polysemy and the count-mass distinction...................................148 5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................148 5.2 Computational semantic accounts: The case of ‘grinding’ ..................................152 5.3 A relevance-theoretic account..................................................................................160 5.3.1 The count-mass distinction and systematic polysemy..................................161 5.3.2 A (mainly) pragmatic account of systematic polysemy ................................168 5.3.3 The book/window cases......................................................................................182 5.4 Conclusion..................................................................................................................198 Chapter 6 Metonymy ...........................................................................................................200 6.1 Introduction................................................................................................................200 6.2 Previous approaches to metonymy .........................................................................205 6.2.1 Metonymy as pragmatic function application ...............................................205 6.2.2 Cognitive linguistic approaches to metonymy...............................................211 6.3 A relevance-theoretic approach...............................................................................223 6.3.1 Lexical pragmatic processes: associative or inferential?................................223 6.3.2 Papafragou (1996) ..............................................................................................226 5 6.3.3 Metonymy as ad hoc concept construction?...................................................236 6.3.4 Metonymy as ‘naming’ revisited
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Search for Old English Semantic Primes: the Case of HAPPEN
    The search for Old English semantic primes: the case of HAPPEN Raquel Mateo Mendaza, University of La Rioja Abstract This journal article aims at contributing to the research line of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage Research Programme by identifying the Old English exponent for the semantic prime HAPPEN. This study applies four different criteria, namely, the morphological, textual, semantic and syntactic one, in order to select the most suitable candidate for prime exponent. The analysis is based on both lexicographical and textual sources. Conclusions are reached on both the descriptive and the methodological side. Keywords: Natural Semantic Metalanguage; Semantic primes; Old English 1. Introduction This research takes the approach of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) model, which is based on the assumption that there is a set of core meanings in every natural language in terms of which complex words can be described by means of simpler terms. If these words are identified in every language, this will give rise to a universal ‘natural semantic metalanguage’ by which every concept will be understood without cultural or ethnicity restrictions.1 In order to contribute to the development of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage Research Programme (NSMRP) as well as the study of Old English lexicology, this article aims at establishing the Old English exponent for the semantic prime HAPPEN. In this sense, this article follows the line of research represented by previous work by Martin Arista and Martin de la Rosa (2006), de la Cruz Cabanillas (2007), Guarddon Anelo (2009) and Mateo Mendaza (2013), who have searched Old English for the exponents of semantic primes.
    [Show full text]
  • Words and Alternative Basic Units for Linguistic Analysis
    Words and alternative basic units for linguistic analysis 1 Words and alternative basic units for linguistic analysis Jens Allwood SCCIIL Interdisciplinary Center, University of Gothenburg A. P. Hendrikse, Department of Linguistics, University of South Africa, Pretoria Elisabeth Ahlsén SCCIIL Interdisciplinary Center, University of Gothenburg Abstract The paper deals with words and possible alternative to words as basic units in linguistic theory, especially in interlinguistic comparison and corpus linguistics. A number of ways of defining the word are discussed and related to the analysis of linguistic corpora and to interlinguistic comparisons between corpora of spoken interaction. Problems associated with words as the basic units and alternatives to the traditional notion of word as a basis for corpus analysis and linguistic comparisons are presented and discussed. 1. What is a word? To some extent, there is an unclear view of what counts as a linguistic word, generally, and in different language types. This paper is an attempt to examine various construals of the concept “word”, in order to see how “words” might best be made use of as units of linguistic comparison. Using intuition, we might say that a word is a basic linguistic unit that is constituted by a combination of content (meaning) and expression, where the expression can be phonetic, orthographic or gestural (deaf sign language). On closer examination, however, it turns out that the notion “word” can be analyzed and specified in several different ways. Below we will consider the following three main ways of trying to analyze and define what a word is: (i) Analysis and definitions building on observation and supposed easy discovery (ii) Analysis and definitions building on manipulability (iii) Analysis and definitions building on abstraction 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Lectures on English Lexicology
    МИНИСТЕРСТВО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ И НАУКИ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ ГОУ ВПО «Татарский государственный гуманитарно-педагогический университет» LECTURES ON ENGLISH LEXICOLOGY Курс лекций по лексикологии английского языка Казань 2010 МИНИСТЕРСТВО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ И НАУКИ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ ГОУ ВПО «Татарский государственный гуманитарно-педагогический университет» LECTURES ON ENGLISH LEXICOLOGY Курс лекций по лексикологии английского языка для студентов факультетов иностранных языков Казань 2010 ББК УДК Л Печатается по решению Методического совета факультета иностранных языков Татарского государственного гуманитарно-педагогического университета в качестве учебного пособия Л Lectures on English Lexicology. Курс лекций по лексикологии английского языка. Учебное пособие для студентов иностранных языков. – Казань: ТГГПУ, 2010 - 92 с. Составитель: к.филол.н., доцент Давлетбаева Д.Н. Научный редактор: д.филол.н., профессор Садыкова А.Г. Рецензенты: д.филол.н., профессор Арсентьева Е.Ф. (КГУ) к.филол.н., доцент Мухаметдинова Р.Г. (ТГГПУ) © Давлетбаева Д.Н. © Татарский государственный гуманитарно-педагогический университет INTRODUCTION The book is intended for English language students at Pedagogical Universities taking the course of English lexicology and fully meets the requirements of the programme in the subject. It may also be of interest to all readers, whose command of English is sufficient to enable them to read texts of average difficulty and who would like to gain some information about the vocabulary resources of Modern English (for example, about synonyms
    [Show full text]
  • Semantic Differences in Translation Exploring the Field of Inchoativity
    Semantic differences in translation Exploring the field of inchoativity Lore Vandevoorde language Translation and Multilingual Natural science press Language Processing 13 Translation and Multilingual Natural Language Processing Editors: Oliver Czulo (Universität Leipzig), Silvia Hansen-Schirra (Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz), Reinhard Rapp (Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz) In this series: 1. Fantinuoli, Claudio & Federico Zanettin (eds.). New directions in corpus-based translation studies. 2. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia & Sambor Grucza (eds.). Eyetracking and Applied Linguistics. 3. Neumann, Stella, Oliver Čulo & Silvia Hansen-Schirra (eds.). Annotation, exploitation and evaluation of parallel corpora: TC3 I. 4. Czulo, Oliver & Silvia Hansen-Schirra (eds.). Crossroads between Contrastive Linguistics, Translation Studies and Machine Translation: TC3 II. 5. Rehm, Georg, Felix Sasaki, Daniel Stein & Andreas Witt (eds.). Language technologies for a multilingual Europe: TC3 III. 6. Menzel, Katrin, Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski & Kerstin Anna Kunz (eds.). New perspectives on cohesion and coherence: Implications for translation. 7. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Oliver Czulo & Sascha Hofmann (eds). Empirical modelling of translation and interpreting. 8. Svoboda, Tomáš, Łucja Biel & Krzysztof Łoboda (eds.). Quality aspects in institutional translation. 9. Fox, Wendy. Can integrated titles improve the viewing experience? Investigating the impact of subtitling on the reception and enjoyment of film using eye tracking and questionnaire data. 10. Moran, Steven & Michael Cysouw. The Unicode cookbook for linguists: Managing writing systems using orthography profiles. 11. Fantinuoli, Claudio (ed.). Interpreting and technology. 12. Nitzke, Jean. Problem solving activities in post-editing and translation from scratch: A multi-method study. 13. Vandevoorde, Lore. Semantic differences in translation. ISSN: 2364-8899 Semantic differences in translation Exploring the field of inchoativity Lore Vandevoorde language science press Vandevoorde, Lore.
    [Show full text]
  • The Analysis of Polysemy from the Perspective of Decategorization Lu
    Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 319 5th International Conference on Humanities and Social Science Research (ICHSSR 2019) The Analysis of Polysemy from the Perspective of Decategorization Lu Hongyan Xiamen University Tan Kah Kee College, Zhangzhou, China [email protected] Key words: Prototype Category Theory, Polysemy, Decategorization Abstract: The cognitive semantics shows reasonable interpretation power as to the relations among the senses of each polysemous word by applying the prototype category theory, while it is far from enough as to the forming procedure of polysemy. Linguistic decategorization is a vital part of the linguistic categorization and shows that cognization is a gradually continual changing procedure, so it can help to analyze the dynamical forming mechanism and procedure of polysemy. This paper studies how decategorization functions in our cognization of the many senses of polysemous word. 1. Introduction According to Cognitive Linguistics, language is the representation of our conceptualization, so the language that we use and our concept are closely related. With the deepening of our cognition, there will be new things adding into our cognitive and conceptual system. In our linguistic system, many new concepts can be expressed by the already existing linguistic forms and constructs. The adding of new concepts into a concrete linguistic entity makes the entity multivocal, and the most common representative is polysemy. It arises from the fact that there are systematic relationships between different cognitive models and between elements of the same model. The same word is often used for elements standing in such cognitive relations to one another. Polysemy accounts for a large part of the whole vocabulary and it represents the economical principle of language.
    [Show full text]
  • Polysemy Page Ii Page Iii
    page i Polysemy page ii page iii Polysemy Theoretical and Computational Approaches Edited by Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock page iv Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Paris SaÄo Paulo Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw with associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York editorial Matter + organization # yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock 2000 Individual chapters # the contributors The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2000 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organisation. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any acquiror British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data applied ISBN 0±19±823842±8 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 Typeset in Times by Kolam Information Services Pvt Ltd, Pondicherry, India Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by page v Preface The problem of polysemy, or of the multiplicity of word meanings, has preoccupied us since the beginning of our professional careers.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Polysemy and Metaphor in the Verbs of Perception
    Manasia: Polysemy and Metaphor 55 Polysemy and Metaphor in the Verbs of Perception Mihaela Georgiana Manasia ABSTRACT: This paper addresses the idea that has been recently that perception verbs have a polysemous structure motivated by ourput forwardexperience by andseveral understanding studies in the of fieldthe world. of cognitive Metaphor linguistics is not only characteristic of poetic language, but on the contrary, it can be found everywhere in everyday language and the polysemous and constructional alternatives makes them a motivating semantic character of perception verbs reflected into a wide range of syntactic KEY WORDS: polysemy, metaphor, perception verbs, prototypical meaning,field to approach metaphorical in this meaning. respect. olysemy represents, within semantics, the term used to Pcharacterize the situation in which a word has two or more polysemy has been subject to controversies and continues to remain similar meanings. Despite this very simple definition, the concept of In 1980, the study of polysemy and metaphor expands a debatable field in the linguistic research. book Metaphors We Live By. relationwithin cognitive of meanings. linguistics It is perceivedespecially withas categorization Lakoff and Johnson’s namely related meanings are organised They intodefine categories polysemy based as a systematic on family resemblance. 55 56 HARVARD SQUARE SYMPOSIUM | THE FUTURE OF KNOWLEDGE to put forward that perception verbs have a polysemous structure, motivatedRecent by studies our experience in the field and of cognitive understanding semantics of thehave world. tried Metaphor represents one of the cognitive instruments structuring the way in which we think, perceive and act. this varietyThe authors of meanings of Metaphors and a part We of Live everyday By criticized language the that classical affects theory of metaphor as a comparison, describing similarities that already exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Frege and the Logic of Sense and Reference
    FREGE AND THE LOGIC OF SENSE AND REFERENCE Kevin C. Klement Routledge New York & London Published in 2002 by Routledge 29 West 35th Street New York, NY 10001 Published in Great Britain by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane London EC4P 4EE Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper. Copyright © 2002 by Kevin C. Klement All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any infomration storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Klement, Kevin C., 1974– Frege and the logic of sense and reference / by Kevin Klement. p. cm — (Studies in philosophy) Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 0-415-93790-6 1. Frege, Gottlob, 1848–1925. 2. Sense (Philosophy) 3. Reference (Philosophy) I. Title II. Studies in philosophy (New York, N. Y.) B3245.F24 K54 2001 12'.68'092—dc21 2001048169 Contents Page Preface ix Abbreviations xiii 1. The Need for a Logical Calculus for the Theory of Sinn and Bedeutung 3 Introduction 3 Frege’s Project: Logicism and the Notion of Begriffsschrift 4 The Theory of Sinn and Bedeutung 8 The Limitations of the Begriffsschrift 14 Filling the Gap 21 2. The Logic of the Grundgesetze 25 Logical Language and the Content of Logic 25 Functionality and Predication 28 Quantifiers and Gothic Letters 32 Roman Letters: An Alternative Notation for Generality 38 Value-Ranges and Extensions of Concepts 42 The Syntactic Rules of the Begriffsschrift 44 The Axiomatization of Frege’s System 49 Responses to the Paradox 56 v vi Contents 3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Polysemy of the Words That Children Learn Over Time Arxiv
    The Polysemy of the Words that Children Learn over Time Bernardino Casas [email protected] 1 Neus Català [email protected] 2 Ramon Ferrer-i-Cancho [email protected] 1 Antoni Hernández-Fernández [email protected] 1,3 Jaume Baixeries [email protected] 1 1. Complexity & Quantitative Linguistics Lab, Departament de Ciències de la Computació, Laboratory for Relational Algorithmics, Complexity and Learning (LARCA), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Catalonia. 2. Complexity & Quantitative Linguistics Lab, Departament de Ciències de la Computació, Center for Language and Speech Technologies and Applications (TALP Research Center), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Catalonia. 3. Institut de Ciències de l0Educació, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Catalonia. arXiv:1611.08807v2 [cs.CL] 26 Mar 2019 1 Abstract Here we study polysemy as a potential learning bias in vocabulary learning in children. Words of low polysemy could be preferred as they reduce the disambiguation effort for the listener. However, such preference could be a side-effect of another bias: the preference of chil- dren for nouns in combination with the lower polysemy of nouns with respect to other part-of-speech categories. Our results show that mean polysemy in children increases over time in two phases, i.e. a fast growth till the 31st month followed by a slower tendency towards adult speech. In contrast, this evolution is not found in adults interacting with children. This suggests that children have a preference for non-polysemous words in their early stages of vocabulary acquisition. Interestingly, the evolutionary pat- tern described above weakens when controlling for syntactic category (noun, verb, adjective or adverb) but it does not disappear completely, suggesting that it could result from a combination of a standalone bias for low polysemy and a preference for nouns.
    [Show full text]
  • Grammatical Polysemy and Grammaticalization in Cognitive and Generative Perspectives: Finding Common Ground in Inter- Generational Corpora of Ancient Languages1
    Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 48, 2017, 239-253 doi: 10.5774/48-0-294 Grammatical polysemy and grammaticalization in cognitive and generative perspectives: Finding common ground in inter- generational corpora of ancient languages1 Christian Locatell Institute of Archaeology and the Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Ariel University, Israel Department of Ancient Studies, Stellenbosch University, South Africa E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Cognitive and generative approaches to linguistics have taken a different perspective on grammatical polysemy and grammaticalization. While the former see polysemy as a core characteristic of language and a necessary result of grammaticalization within idiolects, the latter see it as a less interesting phenomenon peripheral to linguistics proper. Grammaticalization is seen as a phenomenon of language acquisition which does not disturb the homogeneity of idiolects. These differing perspectives have generated much debate between the two approaches and are even in large part responsible for the different programmatic focuses of each. While the disagreement over grammatical polysemy between these two approaches to language is rooted in entrenched commitments on each side that are perhaps irreconcilable, at least some common ground does seem to be possible. Specifically, when it comes to inter- generational corpora, it seems that both cognitive and generative approaches to linguistics can agree that the universal phenomenon of grammaticalization would result in
    [Show full text]
  • Andras Final.Pdf
    Masaryk University Faculty of Arts Department of English and American Studies English Language and Literature Jozef Andraš Theoretical Approaches to Polysemy Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis Supervisor: Doc. PhDr. Naděžda Kudrnáčová, Ph. D. 2018 1 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. …………………………………………… Author’s signature I would like to thank my supervisor, doc. PhDr. Naděžda Kudrnáčová, CSc. for her kind supervision, patient guidance and support. I would also like to thank my family for their support during the years of my studies. Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5 1. Meaning .................................................................................................................. 6 2. Lexical Ambiguity.................................................................................................. 7 3. Polysemy in contrast to homonymy ....................................................................... 9 3.1. Polysemy ................................................................................................................ 9 3.2. Homonymy ........................................................................................................... 10 3.3. Distinction between polysemy and homonymy ................................................... 12 4. Relations between polysemes..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • S&P 2012 Lecture 3: Semantic Change
    4.43201 Semantics & Pragmatics 2012 Lecture 3: Semantic Change S&P 2012 Lecture 3: Semantic Change Today’s Menu: 1. Semantic shift: various processes of semantic change (widening /narrowing, amelioration/ pejoration) & their causes 2. Grammaticalization (both semantic & structural change) and its causes. Last week, we zoomed in on the ‘technical features’ of our ‘spinning wheel’; we examined the smallest units that make it up (word-meanings), and grouped them by resemblance (synonyms/ antonyms; homonymy/ polysemy) and contiguity (hyponymy/ hypernymy & meronymy/ holonymy). Thus, we established the nature of ‘systemic’ lexical relations between word-meanings because of resemblance or contiguity between them, as perceived by our minds. This week, while still focused on the ‘technical specifications’ of the language tool, we will ‘zoom out’ a little, and view its smallest units in the 4th dimension of all existence – Time. Our task this week is to establish how word-meanings change over time, and to explain why they do so. 1. Semantic Change: How do word-meanings change over time? In historical/ diachronic linguistics, semantic change refers to a change in denotative, socially shared, word meaning. Semantic shift is the general way of referring to any unspecified semantic change. Major types of semantic change may be viewed as . Widening (generalization) – a shift to a more general meaning: i.e., in Middle English, bridde meant a ‘small bird’; later, bird came to be used in a general sense and the word fowl, formerly the more general word, was restricted to the sense of ‘farm birds bred especially for consumption’; . Narrowing (specification) – a shift towards a more specific concept: the opposite of widening, or expansion.
    [Show full text]