Semantic change: its types and causes

A living language is an everchanging entity. These changes are stimulated by the dynamic character of the life conditions of the speaking community. Generally every principal comparison between the new and the older meanings of the semantic structure of words is based upon the historical aspect of the language. In this case we speak about the out-of-date and present-date meanings of the given word.

The study of the semantic change of words is not only directed backwards that is within the historical parameters of the word, but may also be added by a forecast for the future changes, which are based on the previous semasiological experience. French scholar Michel Breal was the first to emphasize the fact that many lexemes pass a standard way from their general usage into a special or specialized sphere of communication. On this way the word as a rule is subject to the process of specialization of meaning, otherwise named the semantic narrowing. E.g. the word case has a general meaning of circumstances in which someone or something finds him/her/itself. This is, however, only the general meaning of the lexeme and this meaning is narrowed in a law (дело), grammar (падеж), medicine (случай).

At the same time it should be realized that the general meaning, unlike the specialized or narrowed one, is normally perceived without the help of the context, while the narrowed meanings need a minimum context or situation to be realized as such. E.g. the Possessive Case is the minimum context for case in grammar.

The word cell denotes different meanings for biologists (клетка), electrician (элемент), nun (келья), prisoner (камера). These meanings create the semantic paradigm. It is also important that the semantic paradigm embraces only the meanings and meaning shades which are interconnected, and these should be perceived synchronically. Hence the word case meaning портфель stands beyond the boundaries of the basic semantic paradigm, although historically it shows its connection with the same.

The phenomenon of specialization of meaning may be viewed both as a final result and a dynamic process. The result is manifested through a more or less developed paradigm, while the process is in fact a diachronic development of the above paradigm.

Some examples of diachronic specialization of meaning are:

1. Reds and mice and such small deer (W. Shakespeare). In OE (old English) deer meant any wild animal.

2. OE mete meant any food, but was modified in ME (modern English) meat, which means edible flesh that is a particular sort of food.

3. OE fuзol (compare Germal Vogel), was modified in ME fowl meaning domestic birds only.

In the above examples the new meaning superseded all the possible old ones. However, there are cases, when both meanings, general and narrow, coexist within the semantic structure of one word, which is this time polysemantic. E.g. ME token came into being from OE tacen (compare to German Zeichen), but later the word sign appeared in the English language, and both these forms were brought into mutual competition. As a result token in its use became restricted to only few cases, manifesting themselves in only fixed contexts, e.g. a token of love, a token of respect, a token payment, a token vote, etc. Thus in ME token means something small, unimportant or cheap, which represents something big, important, valuable and perhaps spiritual.

Other vivid examples of this type are room, the old meaning being “space” and the new one being “комната”, though both coexist nowadays. Corn has old meaning of any grain, new maize in American English (as the corn was found in America, raised by Indians, and colonists called it corn, as they thought it was a special kind of corn).

Above shown were the cases of specialization of meaning, which takes place within the boundaries of one national language that is modern English. But there also is an alike process, though possessing its own specific features, which may take place between two different languages, when a lexical form is borrowed by one language from another. In this latter case the semantic change may be much deeper and reach the level of complete modification and alteration of the original meaning.

A process reverse to specialization is named by the scholars generalization of meaning or widening of such. Here the scope of new notions becomes much greater than the scope within the original form. The regularity is such that generalization is combined with a much higher degree of abstraction of the original notion, e.g.:

1. ME ready meaning prepared (for practically anything) was a derivative of OE redan which in its term was a derivative of ridan meaning to ride a horse, so initially ready meant ready for a horse ride.

2. The word fly originally meant to move through the air with the help of wings only, but these days it means any movement through the air.

3. The word person is another vivid example here. It was borrowed into Middle English from old French, where it was persone, where it came from Latin persona meaning the mask used by an actor and, at the same time, metonymycally the actor himself, who wears that mask and plays that part, that is the character in a play. The mask was called persona, per meaning “through” and sonare meaning “to sound”, so the mask was used as a special instrument amplifying the actor’s voice. The term was first metonymycally transferred to the charater and then, due to the generalization of meaning, attached to any human being without any reference to the theatrical terminology.

Thus the word person belongs to the category of generic terms, that is non-specific words, applicable to a greater class of members of some larger group.

The two other types of the regular transfer of the name from one object to another are metaphor, based on the association of similarity or contiguity, and metonymysation based on the partial character of objects in metonymy.

Examples of metaphors are: a lioness (woman), a cat (nice guy).

Examples of metonymy: a skirt (woman (in a skirt)), a white collar (clerk).

There are also non-stylystic language metaphors: a foot of a mountain, an eye of a needle, the teeth of a saw, the back of a book (cover), the stone of a fruit, etc.

Examples of anthropomorphic metaphors: the head of an army, the arms and the mouth of a river, the tongue of a bell, etc.

Such a metaphoric transition may also include proper names and thus form cases of antonomasia, like a don juan (less rude for womanizer), an adonis (self-loving person), a jesebel (shameless woman, from the femitian wife of biblician Ahab), hunns, etc.