Midterm 2 will cover Chapters 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 (with not as much emphasis on 11), and the material on etymology and dictionaries talked about in class. Covered material includes class lectures, comments and discussion, as well as web pages linked to the course schedule during the dates since we started this material after Midterm 1.
The focus will be on these topics:
Questions on the midterm will assume some knowledge of concepts introduced
in the previous chapters, but these will not be tested specifically. 
By now you should know all these concepts on the
 
 
Skills tested:
 
 
There is also a little on parsing and word formation types/neologism
types, since as mentioned before these are topics that continue
throughout the course. See earlier review pages and linked pages to
review these.
See also the 
Course
objectives and skills recap which describe some of the knowledge
and abilities you should have with respect to Indo-European, language
variation, and the other topics of the course. 
 
1. Polysemy, Semantic change, etymology (incl. word stories)
 
The notes below the terms in this section are provided to clarify the differences
betweeen some of the terms.
 
polysemy (words having different, related senses; contrast with  homonymy)  
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 is sometimes 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. For example, as discussed
below, in English and many languages,  we talk about time
in the terminology we use for space, because time is not concrete, and
is not at all easy to understand. Once we spatialize it, it becomes
more understandable, to the point where we don't even have another way
of understanding it. 
 
The fork example, like the hippocampus example discussed
in class, involve shape similarity between two physical objects. But
some similarities are not visual at all; they are more 
abstract (cognitive) similarities. The many metaphors involving
spatial terms being used for temporal concepts show 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 channel of perception. Loud is usually about
sounds in English, but a color or pattern that is visually striking can also be said
to be loud.  
 
Metonymy is a change or process in which there are two things
conceptually close
together - they occur in the same situation - and we use the word for
one to refer to 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 the sound.  "The
same situation" is often described as "the same place and
time". I think that "situation" is a clearer formulation.  
 
Another example is the case of visual properties and  the objects with those
properties. For example, the case of loud colors above is a case of
metaphor; but when we talk about a loud tie we mean a tie with
a loud pattern or color.  The property of the color/pattern
(loud) is applied to an object having that property. The color
and the object occur to our visual perception at the same time and in
the same place. The two things (the color and the shirt) are so
related that we might have trouble even realizing that they are
logically separate concepts. 
 
Synechdoche and eponymy are specific types of metonymy. All involve
situational "contiguity" (nearness in time and space).
 
Broadening/generalization vs. Metaphor and metonymy
 
The following distinction was discussed in class. Broadening, like
narrowing, is specifically about types and subtypes: the word for a
specific type of thing or action, a hyponym, comes to be used for
the general type, a hypernym, 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. Dog in Old English was a hyponym of
the older English word for 'dog in general',  hound.  Now in
Modern English dog is a hypernym for all the words for breeds of
dogs like boxer, spaniel, beagle etc. 
 
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. 
 
2. Dictionaries
 
first dictionaries of European languages  
3. Latin and Greek morphology
 
Latin and Greek inflectional categories  
4. Genetic relationship, Indo-European language family, the Indo-Europeans
 
genetic relationship 
5. Language Variation and Language in Society
 
prescriptivism 
dialect = a social variety or geographical variety; contrast popular
    meaning of term, infused with judgement of
    'good'/'bad'. Linguists don't apply judgements like this; we
    look at varieties/dialects objectively so we can study them more
    accurately. Language attitudes are due to historical and cultural
    factors; they do not reflect instrinsic "goodness" or "badness" of
    linguistic forms or varieties. Language attitudes towards variants
    typically change over time as the relationships of the groups
    change through history. The prestige or high-power group can
    become the despised group if they get invaded and lose power. And then their
    language is seen as "bad" or "low class". Cf. the Anglo-Saxons
    under the Normans; or Tex-Mex speakers in Texas. 
standardization and education 
Neologisms (and the word formation types used to create them)
 
Review Word formation types
 
neologism  
Parsing
 
Review the  Parsing page. 
There will be some multiple choice questions on parsing. 
 
 © 2013
Suzanne Kemmer 
metaphor   
metonymy        
                   
eponymy              
              
synechdoche (= part for whole)      
amelioration (= melioration)          
pejoration (= degeneration)          
widening (= broadening, generalization)
narrowing (= specialization)
taboo
euphemism 
cycle of euphemism (former euphemism for a taboo word itself becomes taboo)
technological change as factor in semantic change
hypernym  (more general word; a type)
hyponym (more specific example of its type)
etymology 
relation of etymology and parsing 
 folk etymology (false etymologies. Sometimes these involve reanalysis; but
sometimes they are just (false) urban legends about etymology, often spread by
internet
Samuel Johnson 
Noah Webster 
authoritative sources (necessity of) 
senses of a word   
standard or basic sense; extended senses 
lexicography 
citations (quotations) 
the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) 
relation of definitions and semantic change in OED (first definition
generally original sense; subsequent are extensions of various kinds
base or stem (inflectional endings for the various  categories are
added to base or stem) 
noun inflectional categories 
case (endings in Latin, Greek marking sentence functions like subject, object etc.)
number: singular, plural 
gender: masculine, feminine, neuter 
difference betweeen semantic number or gender, vs. grammatical number
or gender 
(noun declension; not covered) 
verb inflectional categories  
person:  1st, 2nd, 3rd         
verb conjugation classes (stem classes; stem vowels) 
principal parts  
voice: active, passive 
participles  
past participle  ( = perfect participle in book (-t-; sometimes shows
up without participle meaning - just precedes certain suffixes,
e.g. -t-or)  
 present participle morpheme (stem vowel + nt)  
future participle morpheme (= gerundive in book)  (stem vowel + nd) 
related languages VS. languages affected by culture contact (and
 therefore borrowing)
language family
family tree metaphor
parent language, mother language, ancestor language
sister language
daughter language
dialects
language breakup
  (due to loss of contact  + different changes in different places)
Grimm's law; language family it affected
sound change
reasons for persistence of evidence of relationship:
  --regularity of sound change
  --resistance to change of basic vocabulary
Indo-European
Reconstruction of aspects of Indo-European culture  (linguistic
archaeology): economic system, family system, technology
Proto-Indo-European (the prehistoric language):
Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European words
The Indo-Europeans: origin, time of migration to Europe,
Hypotheses on geographical origin
Germanic (West, North, East)
Celtic (Welsh, Scots Gaelic, Irish Gaelic)
Italic / Romance.  Same linguistic family. But "Italic" refers to Latin and its sister and ancestor 
   languages; "Romance" is name given to the modern descendents of
   Latin,  French, Italian (and its various dialects), Spanish,
   Portuguese, Catalan, Provencal,  Romanian, Corsican, and Sardinian
Hellenic  (the family that includes Classical Greek, Demotic Greek
(language of the New Testament), and modern Greek dialects
Baltic  (Lithuanian, Latvian)
Slavic (East Slavic: Russian, Ukrainian; West Slavic: Polish, Czech, Slovakian;
South Slavic: Bulgarian, Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian
Armenian 
Albanian 
Indo-Iranian - Indic (sometimes called "Aryan") subfamily:
Sanskrit and its modern descendent dialects (Punjabi,
Gujarati, Hindi, Urdu). Iranian subfamily: Persian languages,
including Farsi, national language of Iran.
Tocharian 
Hittite language  (Anatolian family). Hittite and its speakers, the
Hittites, were referred to in the old Testament, when they were
powerful. Now all that's left of them is some texts found in clay
jars. 
Non-Indo-European languages of Europe: Finnish, Hungarian, Estonian
(Finno-Ugric languages); Basque
descriptivism
standard, nonstandard
correctness; relativity (better: context-dependence) of correctness
shibboleths
standard forms as shibboleths; role of education
prestige maintenance via linguistic shibboleths
formality
formal, informal varieties  (variation in register or style)
orthography; sound vs. spelling
spoken vs. written language (also considered a variation in register)
language as a marker of groups 
shibboleth 
in-group vs. outgroup
slang, characteristics of slang
jargon (words used by a professional or interest group)
language and power
language peeves
peevology: the study of people's pet peeves about language
derivation
conversion or zero-derivation 
affixation 
compounds, compounding: phrasal compounds, rhyming compounds
blends, blending
acronyms, initialisms 
clipping, clippings 
folk etymology 
reanalysis 
analogy 
 
creative respelling
novel creation 
nonce words (words coined once and used once for a specific purpose; 
not conventionalize, i.e. they  have not spread to other speakers)
sound symbolism/onomotopeia 
 
Last modified 6 Dec 13