The cognitive mechanism of the semantic shift to take up → to abolish in the light of typological data
https://doi.org/10.28995/2686-7249-2022-5-92-120
Abstract
Based on the data of 11 languages belonging to three language groups (Hellenic, Germanic, and Romance) the article considers a range of semantic shifts forming a chain of meanings which, based on its outermost links, may be referred to as to take up → to abolish. The article analyzes the cognitive basis of the semantic development of verbs initially denoting the action to take up, a pattern assumed to be common for several languages and thus of particular significance for lexical and semantic typology.
The structure of the chain reflects the idea of the distance between the relocated object and its original location gradually becoming greater, on the basis of which the meanings to take off and to take away are acquired. The final links of the chain (the meanings to destroy and to abolish) represent the ultimate realization of removal. The mechanism of meaning acquisition is assumed to differ between the shifts in the chain since three of the four derivative meanings are metonymical, while the meaning to abolish is of metaphorical nature.
About the Author
M. V. Orlova
Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Mariia V. Orlova
bldg. 1, bld. 1, Bolshoy Kislovsky Lane, Moscow, 125009
References
1. Apresyan, Yu.D. (1995), Izbrannyye trudy, t. 1: Leksicheskaya semantika [Selected works, vol. 1, Lexical semantics], Shkola “Yazyki russkoi kul’tury”, Moscow, Russia.
2. Benveniste, É. (1974), Obshchaya lingvistika [General linguistics], Progress, Moscow, Russia.
3. Cienki, A. (1997), “Semantika v kognitivnoi lingvistike” [Semantics in cognitive linguistics], in Sekerin, I.A. (ed.), Fundamental’nyye napravleniya sovremennoi kognitivnoi lingvistiki, Izdatel’stvo MGU, Moscow, Russia, pp. 340–369.
4. Evans, N. (1992), “Multiple semiotic systems, hyperpolysemy, and the reconstruction of semantic change in Australian languages”, Diachrony within Synchrony: Language History and Cognition; papers from the International Symposium at the University of Duisburg 26–28 March 1990, frankfurt a/M., Germany, pp. 475–508.
5. françois, A. (2008), “Semantic maps and the typology of colexification: Intertwining polysemous networks across languages”, in Vanhove, M. (ed.), From Polysemy to Semantic Change. Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 163–216.
6. Gak, V.G. (1998), Yazykovyye preobrazovaniya [Language transformations], Shkola “Yazyki russkoi kul’tury”, Moscow, Russia.
7. Juvonen, P. and Koptievskaya-Tamm, M. (ed.) (2016), The lexical typology of semantic shifts, Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin, Germany, New York, USA.
8. Koch, P. (2000), “Pour une approche cognitive du changement sémantique lexical: aspect onomasiologique”, in Société de linguistique de Paris (éd.), Mémoires de la Société de linguistique de Paris. Nouvelle série, t. 9, Théories contemporaines du changement sémantique, Peeters, Leuven, Netherlands, pp. 75–95.
9. Koch, P. (2008) “Cognitive onomasiology and lexical change: Around the eye”, in Vanhove, M. (ed.), From Polysemy to Semantic Change. Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 107–138.
10. List, J.-M., Anderson, C., Greenhill, S.J., Mayer Th., Tresoldi, T. and forkel, R. (2018), “CLICS2: An Improved Database of Cross-Linguistic Colexifications Assembling Lexical Data with Help of Cross-Linguistic Data formats”, Linguistic typology, vol. 22, pp. 277–306.
11. Kustova, G.I. (2000), “Cognitive models in semantic derivation and the system of derivative meanings”, Voprosy yazykoznaniya, no. 4, pp. 85–109.
12. Kustova, G.I. (2004), Tipy proizvodnykh znacheniy i mekhanizmy yazykovogo rasshireniya [Types of derivative meanings and mechanisms of language extension], Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury, Moscow, Russia.
13. Maysak, T.A. and Rakhilina, E.V (1999), “Semantics and statistics: the verb идти compared to other verbs of movement”, in Arutyunova, N.D. and Shatunovskii, I.B. (ed.), Logicheskii analiz yazyka. Yazyki dinamicheskogo mira [The logical analysis of language. Languages of a dynamic world], Mezhdunarodnyi universitet prirody, obshchestva i cheloveka “Dubna”, Dubna, Russia, pp. 53–66.
14. Paducheva, E.V. (2000), “on semantic derivation: the word as a paradigm of lexemes”, Russkii yazyk segodnya, vol. 1, pp. 395–417.
15. Paducheva, E.V. (2004), Dinamicheskiye modeli v semantike leksiki [Dynamic models in lexical semantics], Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury, Moscow, Russia.
16. Pauly, É. (2012), La polysémie, L’Harmattan, Paris, france.
17. Plungyan, V.A. (2001), “The prefix под- in the Russian language: for a description of a semantic network”, Moscow Journal of Linguistics, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 95–124.
18. Rakhilina, E.V. (2010), Kognitivnyi analiz predmetnykh imen: semantika i sochetayemost’ [A cognitive analysis of object nouns: semantics and compatibility], Izdatel’skii tsentr “Azbukovnik”, Moscow, Russia.
19. Riemer, N. (2005), The semantics of polysemy, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany, New York, USA.
20. Rozina, R.I. (1999), “Conceptual structures and language rules of generation of meanings: verbs of downward movement”, in Gindin, S.I. and Rozanova, N.N. (ed.),
21. Yazyk. Kul’tura. Gumanitarnoye znaniye. Sbornik v chest’ G.O. Vinokura [Language. Culture. Humanities. Papers in the honour of G.o. Vinokur], Nauchnyi mir, Moscow, Russia, pp. 161–172.
22. Rozina, R.I. (2005), Semanticheskoye razvitiye slova v russkom literaturnom yazyke i sovremennom slenge: glagol [Semantic development of the word in the Russian literary language and in modern slang: the verb], Izdatel’skii tsentr “Azbukovnik”, Moscow, Russia.
23. Shmelev, D.N. (2008), Problemy semanticheskogo analiza leksiki [Problems of the analysis of lexical semantics], Izdatel’stvo LKI, Moscow, Russia.
24. Stolova, N.I. (2015), Cognitive lingusitics and lexical change. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Philadelphia, USA.
25. Viberg, Å. (2002), “Polysemy and disambiguation cues across languages. The case of Swedish få and English get”, in Altenberg, B. and Granger, S. (ed.), Lexis in contrast, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 119–150.
26. waltereit, R. (1999), “Grammatical constraints on metonymy: on the role of the direct object”, in Panther, K-U. and Radden, G. (ed.), Metonymy in language and thought, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, Netherland, pp. 233–255.
27. wilkins, D. (1996) “Natural tendencies of semantic change and the search for cognates”, in Durie, M. and Ross, M. (ed.), The comparative method reviewed: regularity and irregularity in language change, oxford University Press, New York, USA, pp. 579–655.
28. Zaliznyak, A.A. (2001), “Semantic derivation in synchrony and diachrony: the project of a ‘Catalogue of semantic shifts’ ”, Voprosy yazykoznaniya, no. 2, pp. 13–25.
29. Zaliznyak, A.A. (2013), Russkaya semantika v tipologicheskoy perspektive [Russian semantics in a typological perspective], Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury, Moscow, Russia.
30. Zaliznyak, A.A. (2013), “Semantic shift as an object of typology”, Voprosy yazykoznaniya, no. 2, pp. 32–51.
31. Zalizniak, A.A. (2018), “The catalogue of semantic shifts: 20 years later”, Russian Journal of Linguistics, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 770–786.
32. Zalizniak, A.A., Bulakh, M., Ganenkov, D., Gruntov, I., Maisak, T. and Russo, M. (2012), “The catalogue of semantic shifts as a database for lexical semantic typology”, in Koptyevskaya-Tamm, M. and Vanhove, M. (ed.), New directions in lexical typology. A special issue of Linguistics, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 633–669.
Review
For citations:
Orlova M.V. The cognitive mechanism of the semantic shift to take up → to abolish in the light of typological data. RSUH/RGGU Bulletin: “Literary Teory. Linguistics. Cultural Studies”, Series. 2022;(5):92-120. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.28995/2686-7249-2022-5-92-120
Views:
170
Email this article 