Nature of Semantic

Chang

There are two kinds of association

involved as a rule in various semantic changes namely: a) similarity of

meanings, and b) contiguity of meanings.

S i m i l a r i t y of m e a n i n g s or metaphor may be described

as a semantic process of associating two referents, one of which in some

way resembles the other. The word hand, e.g., acquired in the 16th century

the meaning of ‘a pointer of a clock of a watch’ because of the similarity

of one of the functions performed by the hand (to point at something)

and the function of the clockpointer. Since metaphor is based on the

perception of similarities it is only natural that when an analogy is obvious,

it should give rise to a metaphoric meaning. This can be observed in

the wide currency of metaphoric meanings of words denoting parts of the

human body in various languages (cf. ‘the leg of the table’, ‘the foot of the

hill’, etc.). Sometimes it is similarity of form, outline, etc. that underlies

the metaphor. The words warm and cold began to denote certain qualities

of human voices because of some kind of similarity between these qualities

and warm and cold temperature. It is also usual to perceive similarity

between colours and emotions.

It has also been observed that in many speech communities colour

terms, e.g. the words black and white, have metaphoric meanings in addition

to the literal denotation of colours.

C o n t i g u i t y of meanings or metonymy may be described as

the semantic process of associating two referents one of which makes part

of the other or is closely connected with it.

, This can be perhaps best illustrated by the use of the word tongue —

‘the organ of speech’ in the meaning of ‘language’ (as in mother tongue;

cf. also L. lingua, Russ. язык). The word bench acquired the meaning

‘judges, magistrates’ because it was on the bench that the judges used to

sit in law courts, similarly the House acquired the meaning of ‘members

of the House’ (Parliament).

It is generally held that metaphor plays a more important role in the

change of meaning than metonymy. A more detailed analysis would show

that there are some semantic changes that fit into more than the two groups

discussed above. A change of meaning, e.g., may be brought about by the

association between the sound-forms of two words. The word boon, e.g.”,

originally meant ‘prayer, petition’, ‘request’, but then came to denote ‘a

thing prayed or asked for’. Its current meaning is ‘a blessing, an advantage,

a thing to be thanked for.’ The change of meaning was probably due

to the similarity to the sound-form of the adjective boon (an Anglicised

form of French bon denoting ‘good, nice’).

Within metaphoric and metonymic changes we can single out various

subgroups. Here, however, we shall confine ourselves to a very general

outline of the main types of semantic association as discussed above. Amore detailed analysis of the changes of meaning and the nature of such

changes belongs in the diachronic or historical lexicology and lies outside

the scope of the present textbook

Results of Semantic

Chang

Results of semantic change can be generally

observed in the changes of the denotational

meaning of the word (restriction and extension

of meaning) or in the alteration of its connotational component (amelioration

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 result

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 described

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 acquired

a restricted and specialised meaning ‘to 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 vocabulary

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 its meaning and now denotes ‘temporary

quarters’ (of travellers, nomads, etc.).

As can be seen from the examples discussed above it is mainly the denotational

component of the lexical meaning that is affected while the

connotational component remains unaltered. There are other cases, however,

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 semantic

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. zebur

‘dweller’) and then acquired a derogatory, contemptuous connotational

meaning and came to denote ‘a clumsy or ill-bred fellow’. The ameliorative

development of the connotational meaning may be observed in thechange of the semantic structure of the word minister which in one of its

meanings originally denoted ‘a servant, an attendant’, but now — ‘a civil servant of higher rank, a person administering a department

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 accidental.

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).