On an Aspect of the Meaning Change by Synonymic Collision

2007 ◽  
Vol null (50) ◽  
pp. 329-355
Author(s):  
ChoiHyungYong
Keyword(s):  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
saber lahbacha

From polysemy to meaning change: lexical cognitive perspectivesSaber Lahbacha By:PhD. Arabic language and Literature, University of Manouba, Member of association of Arabic lexicology in TunisAbstract:Many essays to find a model to study polysemy in most words emerged in several semantic, lexical, cognitive and pragmatic perspectives. Diverse dimensions of this phenomenon are activated according to the requirements of each discipline. If the lexical treatment gives priority to distinguish between polysemy (one entry) and homonymy (many entries), the pragmatic approach includes the contextual non-linguistic operators in building polysemy. The cognitive approach considers that lexical concepts are sets of semantic complicated nuances built on polysemy. This cognitive approach considers that there is no way to distinguish between meanings and the boundaries between them are ambiguous.Key words: Semantics – Polysemy – cognitive linguistics – lexicology – homonymy. ملخصلم تنقطع محاولات إيجاد منوال لمقاربة الاشتراك الدلالي (تعدّد المعاني) في معظم الكلمات عن البروز ضمن منظورات دلالية ومعجمية وعرفانية وتداولية متعددة. وبحسب مقتضيات كلّ فرع لساني، يجري تنشيط الأبعاد المختلفة للظاهرة ويتم التركيز على مناحٍ دون أخرى. فإذا كانت المعالجة المعجمية تضع أولوية اهتمامها في توضيح التمييز بين الاشتراك الدلالي (مدخل واحد) والاشتراك اللفظي (مداخل متعددة)، فإن المقاربة التداولية تؤصل مشاركة العوامل السياقية غير اللغوية في تأسيس الاشتراك الدلالي. أما المقاربة العرفانية فترى أن المفاهيم المعجمية هي مجموعات من الفروق الدلالية المتراكبة التي تقوم على الاشتراك الدلالي ولا ترى أن التمييز بين المعاني ممكن بل إن الحدود بين المفاهيم المعجمية ضبابية.الكلمات المفاتيح: علم الدلالة - الاشتراك الدلالي – اللسانيات العرفانية – المعجمية - الاشتراك اللفظي.


Author(s):  
Herman Cappelen

This chapter continues to consider some foundational semantic issues important for the author’s theory, and for conceptual engineering in general. It argues that conceptual engineering is not—despite the nomenclature—concerned with concepts, but rather with the intensions and extensions of words. It introduces externalism about meaning, which is a key component of the Austerity Framework, and draws connections between meaning change and externalist discussions of reference shift. It responds to the objection that externalism makes changing meaning either impossible or extremely difficult by denying the first—it’s built into externalism that meaning change is possible—and frankly accepting the latter. It then argues that not only semantic values but also metasemantics can change over time, draws out some consequences, and discusses expressions that do not have intensions or extensions.


2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 265-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl Hogsden ◽  
Emma K Poulter

What can museum objects do when they are placed within a digital contact network – a system made up of reciprocally linked but otherwise separate nodes in which control and ownership of content lies with each location? What new connections are enabled through the placement of objects within this contact network and what are the new understandings that result? Dynamics of access, ownership and meaning change when museum collections are transformed into digital forms, in ways that require the reconceptualization of digital objects and their relational capacities. In theory and in practice, the ‘real’ and the digital object are often framed as disconnected and oppositional entities, a separation that hinders approaches to, and uses of, digital forms. Using examples of recent projects at the University of Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, and at the British Museum, it is argued that digital contact networks enable the unique qualities of digital objects to come to the fore, providing platforms for effective engagement and digital reciprocation.


2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 352-369
Author(s):  
Stephen Turner

Abstract There is a core conflict between conventional ideas about “meaning” and the phenomenon of meaning and meaning change in history. Conventional accounts are either atemporal or appeal to something fixed that bestows meaning, such as a rule or a convention. This produces familiar problems over change. Notions of rule and convention are metaphors for something tacit. They are unhelpful in accounting for change: there are no rule-givers or convenings in history. Meanings are in flux, and are part of a web of belief and practical activity that is in constant change. We can perhaps salvage some point to appeals to fixed frameworks if we treat them as “as if ” constructions designed as crutches to enable us to improve on literal readings of the texts by making more sense of the inferential connections and practical significance of their content at the time.


Linguistics ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 599-651 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawei Jin ◽  
Jun Chen

Abstract This paper analyzes a hitherto unnoticed semantic change process in Chinese, in which lexical (adjectival) materials develop into superlative operators, and subsequently turn into definiteness markers. Our analysis focuses on the semantic factors that underlie this meaning change trajectory. Specifically, we argue that frequent association of gradable adjectives with superlative implication leads to pragmatic strengthening in which the superlative implication conventionally enters the literal meaning. Furthermore, we show that a further change in the extension of the nominal part of superlative phrases leads to a maximality reanalysis that is compatible with the semantics of definite NPs. This paper contributes to the burgeoning field of applying truth-conditional semantics to theories of grammaticalization.


1991 ◽  
Vol 18 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 335-347
Author(s):  
Brigitte Nerlich

Summary This article is intended to fill a gap in the history of semantics and the history of the psychology of language in England at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. The work of the psychologist and philosopher George Frederick Stout (1860–1944) is analysed, focusing on an article on ‘thought and language’, published in 1891. In this article Stout proposes a new theory and typology of signs – his contribution to semiotics. He also puts forward a new definition of language as a system of signs and an instrument of communication. Finally, he develops a new conception of word meaning, sentence meaning and meaning in discourse, based on the notion of ‘apperception’. He compares his concept of meaning and meaning change with that of Hermann Paul and uses it to criticize the latters definitions of usual and occasional meaning.


2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 592-634
Author(s):  
Koji Tanno

Abstract The present study examines the diachronic development of the Japanese discourse marker dakara ‘so’ from the perspective of grammaticalization with a special focus on the role of discursive strategy in its semantic-pragmatic meaning change. Stemming from the adverbial phrase soredakara ‘because it is so’, dakara originally emerged as a causal connective that introduces a consequence. Subsequently, it gained several non-causal uses, i.e. the point-making use that refers back to what has been said or inferable in the discourse to stress the point that the speaker has been trying to make, the point-clarification use that points out that the preceding interlocutor’s statements need more elaboration, and the point-denying use that indicates the speaker’s opposition to the interlocutor’s claim. Among the new non-causal uses, it is found that the point-making use emerged from the retrospective use of causality as a result of employing the discourse strategy of justification in argumentative discourse, while the point-clarification and the point-denying uses arose due to its use as a device for delaying disagreement. It is argued that these new uses developed because the expression was repeatedly used for these two discourse strategies and over time the readings associated with these contexts became conventionalized and turned into the expression’s encoded meaning. This low-level generalization seems to better explain the process of grammaticalization than the high-level generalization of (inter)subjectivity for the developments of dakara.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document