Allomorphy
allomorphs, allomorphy assimilation ablaut metathesis rhotacism deletion weakening insertionPhonetics
consonants fricative
voicing affricate
larynx (voice box), vocal chords nasal
place of articulation liquid
lips, bilabial approximant
labiodental lateral
interdental voicing assimilation
alveolar, alveolar ridge place assimilation
palatal-alveolar manner assimilation
( = alveo-palatal) partial & total assimilation
hard palate, palatal vowels
soft palate (velum), velar vowel frontness: front/central/back
glottis, glottal vowel height: high/mid/low
manner of articulation diphthong
stop, oral stop (plosive) sounds vs. letters (pronunciation
vs. spelling) - terms above all
apply to SOUNDS not letters
Semantic change
polysemy widening (broadening, generalization)
metaphor narrowing (specialization)
metonymy taboo
eponymy euphemism
synechdoche (= part for whole) cycle of euphemism
amelioration (melioration) technological change as factor in
pejoration (degeneration) semantic change
Some clarifications on types of semantic change (or cognitive
processes that can lead to change) that are sometimes
confused:
Metaphor vs. metonymy
Metaphor is the use of a word for one concept to mean another, similar
concept. Metaphor involves some perceived similarity between two
things. ('Thing' is used in a very broad sense here.) Metonymy does
not.
For example, the word FORK can mean the place where a road or path
splits into two roads. This meaning of FORK is metaphorical: it is
based on the shape similarity between instruments with prongs, like
the forks you eat with or the barbecue tool for spearing meat, and the
configuration of roads or paths on the ground: Two or more longish things
emerging from a joined base. Metaphor can be called domain shift
because we use it to think about concepts in one domain (area of
experience) in terms of another domain. We use language of the domain
we better understand, to talk about the concepts we don't understand
or don't know how to describe so well.
Some similarities are not visual, but are actually mental (cognitive)
similarities. The many metaphors involving spatial terms being used
for temporal concepts shows that we view time and space as similar in
their basic configurations. Also, when we speak of LOUD colors, or a
SHARP taste, we are taking words from the domain of perception of
various kinds, and using them to talk about another kind of
perception. LOUD is usually about sounds in English, but a color that
is visually striking can be said to be loud.
Metonymy is a change or process in which there are two things close
together - they occur in the same situation - and we use the word for
one to mean the other. If we said "I hear a piano", what we are
actually hearing is music (or at least noise from the piano), but we
use the word for the object producing it to refer to that noise. "The
same situation" is often described as "the same place and
time". Perhaps situation is a clearer formulation. An example for
semantic change would be the change of the word MONEY, which
originally meant, in Latin, 'warning, one who warns'. The word was
first applied to the temple of Juno Moneta, the warning or guardian
goddess of the Romans, and then came to be applied to her temple, and
later to something that came out of that temple, namely coins. In Rome
Juno's temple was the place used for coining money. (Later more
temples to Juno were built in other places and were also used this
way). The person/goddess was associated with her name (person and
name are in same situation); then the name was associated with a
temple (goddess was in same situation as temple, since people were
worshipping her in there), and then with a product made in the temple
(temple and product were in the same situation). At each stage the
word's use was extended to a concept in the same situation as the
earlier concept, resulting in a long chain of metonymies in this
example. There is nothing metaphorical about the relations between the
goddess and the temple, or the temple and the money. It wasn't
similarity that allowed people to extend the word, but rather these
situational connections.
Synechdoche and eponymy are specific types of metonymy. All involved
situational "contiguity" (nearness in time and space).
Broadening/generalization vs. metaphor and metonymy
Broadening, like narrowing, is specifically about types and subtypes:
the word for a specific type of thing or action comes to be used for
the general type that INCLUDES the original thing or action. So, the
English word DOG, originally a word for a particular breed of dog, now
means 'dog' in general. The new meaning includes the old concept but
is more general ('general' here MEANS inclusive); it is a more general
TYPE of thing or action.
Metaphors don't really involve inclusion. They are about similarity in
two different domains of experience. So even though a metaphorical
meaning might SEEM more general than the original meaning, it is not,
in the sense that semanticists use the word GENERAL. Example: LONG
meaning 'extended for a considerable period in time' is a metaphorical
usage based on simlarity of spatial and temporal longness (based more
fundamentally on the perception of time as being line-like). The word
LONG did acquire a temporal sense, so it might seem that it is more
general than if it just meant 'extended a considerable distance in
space'. But that is not what we mean by general in terms of semantic
change, or else all cases of increasing polysemy would be
generalization. But they are not. Temporal longness is not a more
general (inclusive) type of longness than spatial longness. It is just
a DIFFERENT type of longness.
The same arguments apply to metonymy. A metonymic extension might, it
is true, yield greater polysemy, like when the word MONEY first came
to mean 'coins; currency' in addition to its original meaning. But
that does not mean it refers to a more general TYPE of thing. Coins
are not a more general type of thing that also includes temples or the
warning goddess. They are a kind of thing that happened to be in
situations where those earlier kinds of things were mentioned.
So watch out for the difference between generalization vs. types of
change that involve increasing polysemy or layperson's other potential
interpretations of generality. Generalization/broadening in semantics
always mean 'process of coming to refer to a more general TYPE of
thing/action, which includes the more specific types it used to
refer to exclusively.
Dictionaries and etymology
etymology relation of etymology and parsing folk etymology, false etymologies, hoax etymologies Samuel Johnson Noah Webster authoritative sources standard definition; extended definitions lexicography citations (quotations) the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) relation of definitions and semantic change in OED
Parsing
Review Parsing page
Review Sound terminology page
Word formation
Review word formation types, for purposes of recognizing examples. Neologisms discussed in class might be asked about.
derivation
zero-derivation = conversion
back-formation
compounds, compounding
folk etymology
blends, blending
clipping
acronym, initialism
© 2011
Suzanne Kemmer
Last modified 26 Oct 11