Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg

Institute for English and American Studies

Winter Semester 2017
Dr. Florian Schleburg
Hauptseminar: “Core Topics in English Historical Linguistics”

Semantic change: external and internal factors

Trang Thi Thu Hoang

18 Wichern Straße
91052 Erlangen
Hoangtrang.226@gmail.com
Matrikel-Nr: 22077030
English Studies, Linguistics and Applied Linguistics
Deadline: 30th April, 2018
 Table of Contents

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 2
2. Basics of semantic change ............................................................................................................... 3
2.1. Categories of semantic change ................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Results of semantic change ....................................................................................................... 6
3. Reasons for semantic changes ........................................................................................................ 7
3.1 External factors ......................................................................................................................... 8
3.1.1 Historical causes ................................................................................................................. 8
3.1.2 Social change/ sociocultural change .................................................................................. 8
3.1.3 Psychological causes........................................................................................................... 9
3.1.4 Metaphors, euphemisms and taboo/ emotionally mark concepts. ................................. 10
3.1.5 Individual speakers .......................................................................................................... 11
3.1.6 The avoidance of synonyms ............................................................................................. 11
3.1.7 The avoidance of excessive homonymy ........................................................................... 12
3.1.8 The need for a new name (new concept) ....................................................................... 12
3.2 Internal factors ........................................................................................................................ 13
3.2.1 Linguistic causes ............................................................................................................... 13
3.2.2 Further Blank’s cognitive causes ..................................................................................... 13
4. Criticism ......................................................................................................................................... 16
5. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 18
References ......................................................................................................................................... 19

1
 1. Introduction

Words can have no single fixed meaning. Like wayward electrons, they can spin
away from their initial orbit and enter a wider magnetic field. No one owns them or
has a proprietary right to dictate how they will be used.
(Lehman 1991)
The semantic dimension of words is far from stable – even if the form stays the same, the
meaning may undergo substantial shifts. In the 14th century, the word fantastic meant
‘existing only in imagination’, which originated from the old French term fantastique. It
was not until 1938 that the word was first used to mean ‘wonderful’ or ‘marvellous’. In the
same vein, bully is used as ‘darling’ or ‘sweetheart’ in the 16th century. This form probably
stems from the Dutch word boel meaning ‘lover’ or ‘brother’. Only in the course 17th
century, the meaning of bully deteriorated through ‘fine fellow’ and ‘blusterer’, to ‘harasser
of the weak’. The originally positive semantics are conceivable in the American slang
expression bully for you popular in the 1860s. A more familiar case is perhaps the word
mouse, which only refers to the animal in the past, but in recent decades has been extended
to name the electronic input device. Another popular example is gay. Whenever this term is
mentioned, most people associate the meaning ‘homosexual’, while in the past, it referred
to ‘happy’ or ‘merry’.
As can be seen from the various examples, many words have changed their meaning in
fascinating, unusual and unexpected ways, even from a markedly positive meaning to a
decidedly negative meaning and vice versa. One question receiving much concern is that
why such phenomenon occur.
In order to answer for this question, the definition of semantic change should be provided
as a starting point. According to Ullmann (1972:159) (Ullmann, Koopmann 1972) if
meaning is perceived as a reciprocal relation between names and meaning, then semantic
change occurs whenever a new name is linked with a meaning/ or a new meaning is
connected to an existing name.

In fact, the precise nature and the question of possible reasons for semantic change have
given rise to many challenges and desiderata over the last century and a haft. Numerous
attempts have been made so far at explaining phenomena of semantic change.
Consequently, in-between three and thirty-one causes for semantic changes have been

2
proposed, depending on the methodological and theoretical outlook of the various
approaches. Although they differ in their details, a general broad consensus between the
various studies points to certain tendencies that explain semantic change in one of the
following key categories (c.f (Blank 1999)
- External factors: these influences are initially independent of the linguistic system
per se. They mainly concern the speakers, changes in societal structures, the culture
and the development of communicative needs.
- Internal factors: the second main group of explanations places an emphasis on
factors inherent to the linguistic system. From this perspective, language is regarded
as an autonomous system with inner laws and forces, such as the principles of
language economy and the largest possible differentiation.
This paper is concerned with discussing possible reasons for such processes of semantic
change, including internal and external factors. However, it also should be noted that this
paper does not aim at selecting the best explanation for semantic change – the goal is rather
to attempt at providing an overview of the various viewpoints put forth in the different
approaches, thus presenting the phenomenon of semantic change as a multi-facetted issue
with numerous aspects that may require various explanations. In addition to elaborating on
traditionally proposed types of semantic change, this paper will also encompass a cognitive
perspective. The following section (chapter 2) finds out in which dimensions words can
change their meanings to gain a better comprehension of why meanings change in the way
they do, and then makes an attempt to illuminate some results and consequences from such
change; Chapter 3 subsequently addresses various possible reasons for semantic change;
Chapter 4 points out some criticisms in this topic, and is followed by the short conclusion
in chapter 5.

2. Basics of semantic change

Giving a general picture of semantic change might be useful before attempting to have a
deeper insight into the elements that cause semantic changes. This overview is given in
section 2.1.

3
2.1. Categories of semantic change
A number of taxonomies for types of semantic change have been suggested by linguists
such as (Bloomfield 1993), (Blank, Koch 1999), (Öhman 1953), and Ullmann (1962).
Nonetheless, there are general tendencies that the various approaches can be said to have in
common. The following discussion will deal with these types respectively, based on
Jucker’s (1993) categorisation.
One of the most efficient manners of semantic change is metaphor which pointed out by
Jucker as “the transfer of literal meaning to a figurative area”. This projection of meaning is
based on the similarity between concepts (Jucker 1993). To illustrate this point, we can
return to the aforementioned example of the word mouse, which originally stands for a type
of small rodent. In recent decades, the word mouse has also come to refer to a type of
computer input device. Although the concepts of ‘rodent’ and ‘piece of hardware’ are not
directly related, some of the characteristics habitually associated with mice, e.g. their
relatively small size and their approximate silhouette, have enabled the mapping of the
word form from one domain to another. It should be noted that the modern meaning is
derived by a further concrete-to-abstract meaning extension, thus having undergone
additional semantic change.
Another form of change in meaning is metonymy. It is characterised by the substitution of
one word by other related words (cf Jucker 115). The relationship between the original
word and its replacement may be cause and effect, contain and container, or a part and
whole. To exemplify, consider the example of ‘crown’ which refers to a monarch, based on
the common knowledge shared by both speaker and listener that only monarchs have right
to wear crowns.
Sex, death or excreta are always sensitive concepts (Jucker 2000). The explicit mentioning
of these topics is considered offensive by many speakers and therefore frequently avoided
in conversation. That is how euphemism is applied as a type of semantic change. By
frequent use, the originally euphemistic expression may become increasingly
conventionalised. In general, these euphemisms are polite, mild phrases which substitute
unpleasant ways of saying something sad or uncomfortable. The aim of using euphemisms
is to soften difficult situations. For example, a used car, which might show some signs of
damage or abrasion, may be referred to as a pre-enjoyed or pre-loved vehicle. As an
example for a more conventionalised instance of euphemism, toilet room, a euphemism in

4
itself, gradually became more common, thus adopting some of the unpleasant connotations
it was originally intended to evade – over the course of time, this form was replaced with
bathroom and water closet, which, after undergoing similar processes, were replaced
(respectively) with rest room and W.C. (Jucker 2000)
Irony is another device to alter the meaning of a word. The prerequisite for “successful”
irony is that the addressee must notice that the normal sense of the word cannot be the
intended meaning, as the conventional sense of the word would be extremely implausible in
a given situation. For instance, he’s awfully handsome includes a use of the word handsome
that obviously deviates from the usually sense of the word. Through repeated use, awful
has taken on the function of an intensifier and can be used to express something is
extremely or particularly good or nice.
Implicature is a device that builds on the implicit meaning of utterances. (cf Jucker 116).
There are many aspects that are not indicated in an expression’s literal meaning. The
implicature thus relies on cues provided by the pragmatic situation such as the common
knowledge of the speakers and the addressee’s particular circumstances. Some implicatures
become conventionalised and part of the meaning of a word when they happen regularly.
Jucker (p. 116) gives an example of “since” which originally only indicates the temporal
meaning (from the time that). Nevertheless, in another case as in “since he moved, he has
been doing even better”, since will generally be perceived as the indicator of a causal
sequence (that his moving somehow led to his success), rather than be understood as a
strictly temporal sense.
Extension is another device to change the meaning of a word. It is defined to expand the
range of meaning in “imperceptibly small steps” (p.117). In other words, the word meaning
is used in more contexts than before the change. For instance, dog in its original sense
referred to a specific powerful breed of dog, but over the course of time has become the
general expression used to indicate all breeds or races of the species.
New domains are social and cultural contexts (p.117). These factors can have an enormous
impact on language use in general, and on lexical semantics in particular. New domains
may include the development of new communicative contexts and correlating needs for
new ways of expression. This includes the expansion or even emergence of fields such as
religion, medicine, computer science, psychology etc. Semantic change of existing forms
due to the development of new domains happens when a word form one domain is adopted

5
into a new domain and therefore changes its usage potential. To name an example, Jucker
gave the word dinosaur which has been adopted from biology and can be used to refer to
‘something that is old-fashioned and bulky’. It can be utilised as in the following sentence:
“This typewriter is a bit of dinosaur” (p. 117)
Ellipsis is another device to alter word meaning. It is all a shortened form which has
adopted the meaning potential of the longer form (Jucker 117). For example, instead of
saying daily paper, people can say daily. In order to be understandable and thus as a
prerequisite for potential conventionalisation, there is a necessity that the speakers share
enough common ground.
Loan translation is a resource that “speakers utilize an existing word with a new meaning
in analogy to another language in which translation equivalent of this word already has the
meaning” (Jucker 118). For example, the Great Bear and the Lesser Bear are two names to
refer to constellations in the northern hemisphere. This goes back to Latin ursa which
means ‘female bear’. In the same way, a number of other modern European languages also
use this term to refer to these constellations.
The final device that Jucker (p.118) mentions is reanalysis. To illustrate this point, he gives
the example of desiccated which originally only means ‘dried’. Since this word was
regularly used in conjunction with the word coconut, this usage becomes connotated with
the concept of being shredded. Consequently, the users start using desiccated as meaning
‘shredded’.

2.2 Results of semantic change

(Jucker 1993), as many others, classified five basic types of results of semantic change,
namely broadening, narrowing, shift, elevation and degeneration. The present section is
dedicated to presenting these concepts in more detail.
Broadening: one possible result of semantic change is that after “a new meaning is added
to the existing meanings” (Jucker 118). In the previous section, the principle of metaphor
has been mentioned and exemplified. It shows the ability to extend the original word
meaning. For instance, foot is not only a part of the human body but also describes the
bottom of the mountain: the foot of the mountain. Another instance is leg which happens in
the same way. We thus can say ‘leg of the table’.
Narrowing: the range of the meaning becomes restricted and more specialised than it was
before (cf Jucker 118). Therefore, it can be said that narrowing is the opposite process of
6
broadening. One example is the word hound in OE, used to apply for all kinds of dogs but
now only used to refer a special breed of dogs.
A shift in meaning occurs when “the meaning of a word changes more or less completely”.
One example of this given by Jucker (p.118) is place-names such as Cheddar, Cheshire,
Gloucester, and Stilton which are utilised to refer to types of cheese.
Elevation/amelioration also contributes to the implication of semantic shifts. The sense of
a word can change towards a more positive association within a speaker community. For
example, the word chancellor in O.E is originated from the word cancellarius in Latin,
indicating the secretary at court while it currently denotes a high political office. (Jucker
120).
Degeneration/ pejoration, as claimed by Jucker (p.120), is the opposite process of
elevation. In this case, a word’s original sense is turned into a less positive or more
negative meaning in the mind of the speakers as time goes by. For example, cnafa meant
‘boy’ in OE, (cf. the nowadays somewhat obsolete form Knabe in German). Later however,
the word is increasingly used for servants or dishonest men as a way to show the
underestimation of certain groups holding a low societal status. Another example is sælig in
OE with the meaning of ‘happy’ or ‘pious’ (German selig). In MidE, seely meant ‘innocent,
harmless’ – while still positive, a decrease in the extent of positivity is already evident. In
ModE, the form silly means ‘foolish, senseless or stupid’.

3. Reasons for semantic changes

“Changes of meaning can be brought about by an infinite multiplicity of causes…but no

matter how fine a mesh of distinctions one may devise, there will always be some cases
which will slip though it”.
(Ullmann 1962)
Semantic change, as the above citation indicates, is a tough topic to handle – there are no
absolute truths to be uncovered, and it will probably never be possible to find a definite
explanation for every single case, as reasons for change may well interact with one another.
In this section, an effort will be made to lay out some potential reasons for semantic shift,
mainly based on the traditional classification of (Ullmann 1962), while also incorporating
some perspectives from the cognitive approach, following work by (Blank 1999). This is

7
intended offer the reader an alternative and extended point of view in the realm of semantic
change.

3.1 External factors

External elements are also known as extra-linguistic (historical) factors. Thus, instead of
being inherent to the linguistic system, the roots for semantic change are in these cases
manifested in the changes of everyday life in the speech community; in economic and
social structures; in culture, knowledge, technology, arts; or in ideas, scientific concepts,
ways of life. However, above all, the core of the semantic change is some kind of
communicative benefit ((Fritz 1998). In line with this, Jucker (p.112) affirms that at the
heart of every semantic change, there is a communicative need, a demand to find new ways
of expression to accommodate these developments.

3.1.1 Historical causes

(Ullmann 1962) remarks that language is sometimes more conservative than civilization
because some objects, institutions ideas, scientific concepts change in the course of time
while the expression used to refer to them is retained. To be more specific, pursuant to
(Luján 2010) “words tend to be conservative in the sense that they usually remain in a
language even if the reality that they refer to undergoes variations”. He later gives the
following instance: The same word king was used to illustrate a king either in a
contemporary democratic society or in earlier societies even though kings do not take on
the same functions in the respective political institutions such as parliaments or courts
(p.301). Another example given by (Aitchison 2013) is the historical shift of the word pen,
whose origin in Latin was penna ‘feather’. The term pen later is still applied to depict the
contemporary writing tool even though the writing device’s material has been altered from
feather quills to other elements such as plastic.

3.1.2 Social change/ sociocultural change

Sociocultural development is another motivation for semantic change. (Luján 2010) states
that “in a certain sense, every semantic change has a social base”. In spite of the fact that
creation and innovation of each individual is unlimited and occurs continuously, it needs to
be pervasive in the community to be retained in one language. According to (Ullmann
1962) “a word passes from ordinary language into specialised register/jargon and acquires a
more restricted sense (specialisation) and words borrowed from a group-language
8
(jargon/specialised register) into common use can widen their meaning (generalisation)”.
Aitchison (p.129) gives the example of hack ‘cut’, ‘chop’, which was reapplied to computer
terminology. Since then, the term has also indicated ‘break into a computer system’.
Besides, (Blank 1999) also gives another instance of semantic change caused by this
reason. He offers a fascinating example of the diachronic development of French words for
meal which is manifested via the following table.

He also explains that in the 16th century, people have two meals namely, the main meal
(disner/desgeiiner) which was held in the middle of the morning and another lighter meal
(souper) which was in the afternoon. Nevertheless, the main meal was later shifted to noon
since the noble class and urban bourgeoisie changed their lifestyle. The term breakfast
(meal in the morning) was subsequently introduced because the amount of time between
waking up and eating was long. This also contributed to the semantic distinction of
déjeuner 'breakfast' and dîner 'main meal'; Besides, souper was later used to mean 'evening
meal'. Until the 19th century, it seemed to be plausible for the urban professional class to
get the main meal in the evening, whereby dîner took the sense of 'dinner' and déjeuner was
used for 'lunch'. For 'breakfast', a new word was created – petit déjeuner – and souper now
serves to name a late-evening meal.

3.1.3 Psychological causes

It is Hans Sperbers who introduced the theory of the psychological foundation of semantic
change (Porzig 1926). He suggested that emotionally marked concepts can serve as ‘center
of attraction’ for other words to verbalize the ‘attractive’ concepts and to other way around,
serve as ‘center of expansion’. These features were mentioned by (Ullmann 1962) as the
emotive factors. He also explained that psychological causes stems from the speaker’s state
of mine and provides three strategies that are frequently used, namely emotive factors;
taboo /euphemism; Pseudo-euphemisms. In another vein, (Aitchison 2013) subsumed
‘taboo’ under the heading ‘psychological reason’. He notes that in some cases, words
9
should be avoided due to the religious causes. For example, the taboo word L’Autre ‘the
other one’ in French for addressing the devil.

3.1.4 Metaphors, euphemisms and taboo/ emotionally mark concepts.

The challenging to give an overview of the causes for semantic change is that it is quite
hard to make a clear distinction between the reasons and the vehicles of semantic change.
(Hock, Joseph 2009) take metaphor as the first reason for semantic shift. They affirm that
“The major vehicle through which words acquire new or broader meaning is metaphor”
(p.228). It showcases the high application of metaphor in the normal life as well as its
efficiency in communication. For example, when the speaker would like to make a deep
impression on the hearer, they could add the intensifier like terribly or awfully. (Ullmann
1962), on the other hand, remarks another function of metaphor as “the artistic beauty”.
However, this usage of metaphor might be limited in the meaning extension. In another
situation, when metaphor is used widely and the speakers could not realize it, (Hock,
Joseph 2009) called that phenomenon as ‘fading’. For instance, we normally say ‘I
demolished her argument’ but we are not aware of the fact that it is metaphor.
Concerning euphemisms, (Jucker 2000) said that “whenever they are in need of an
inoffensive expression for an otherwise offensive utterance, speakers might use the
euphemisms”. Euphemisms could be considered as the way either to use the politeness in
language or to avoid the forbidden words. (Blank 1999) considers euphemisms and
dysphemism are two ways of treating taboo concepts. He adds that “while euphemisms are
often created via metonomy, metaphor, semantic restriction, ellipsis or ironic antiphrasis,
dysphemism is considered to be tough or signifies coolness”. One good example is the
avoidance to use vomit while ‘get sick’ would be used instead. (Aitchison 2013) also points
out the euphemism’s application for the words ‘die’, ‘be killed’. According to him, those
taboo words could be replaced by various options to ease the strong negative meaning such
as pass away; kick the bucket; put up the daisies; or turn up one’s toes. The relation
between euphemism and dysphemism with taboo could be seen as the strong interrelation.
Taboo thus has been marked as the powerful concept which happens frequently. Besides,
(Blank 1999) offers a number of conceptual domains most of which are marked with taboo
namely eating, drinking, sex, death, fear. In order to avoid the taboo concepts, it is
compulsory for speakers to look for the new expression. In general, those above treatments
are created with the view to guaranteeing and enhancing the communicative success.
10
3.1.5 Individual speakers
Another element with an enormous impact on the semantic alternation is the individual
speaker. Undoubtedly, the speakers are considered as the constituing factor determining the
structure of a speech community. As a result of this, the utterances conducted by each
speaker transparently make a contribution to the shift in the community speech. (Fritz
1998) attempts to find out explanations from the dissimilar perception. He argued that only
when an innovation becomes a part of a community’s speech and conventionally utilized
among speakers, can we talk about semantic change. Still, as mentioned previously, it is
individual speaker who creates the new word. If that word can meet the demand of
communicative efficiency, semantic change would happen. (Fritz 1998) made a list of
motivations that stimulates individual speaker to use the new meanings. Most of them
manifest individual’s desires including: identify a new object; introduce a new perspective
of an object; refer to an object in a way easily comprehensible for the listener, refer to an
object in an usual way; express a new circumstance; express a new circumstance without
using certain tabooed expressions; express his emotions in an exceptionally expressive
way; tease someone in a particularly subtle manner; show his competence in a certain area
(cf. 39)

3.1.6 The avoidance of synonyms

As previously mentioned, there would be an unimaginable number of lexical items in a
language if each word corresponded to only one meaning. According to (Hock, Joseph
2009) “The language is designed to convey the maximum amount of meanings through a
minimum amount of lexical item”. Therefore, if the phenomenon of complete synonymity
(where two words indicate the same layers of meaning even though they are formally
different) occurred with a high frequency, it would seem to be redundant. However, when
complete synonyms do occur, the speakers tend to develop semantic distinctions among
them. In many cases, both old forms and new forms coexist. The new form will often tend
to occupy more efficient and simple functions whereas the old form functions more
specifically and marginally. For example, the old form brethren (new form brothers) is
utilized in a very limited situation, namely in the Bible. Thus, a cooccurrence of words with
the same extensional meaning is usually accompanied by the semantic shift of the
historically older element; as one and the same variety does not need two words expressing
the exact same level of meanings when the linguistic resources are restricted. It could be
11
said that complete synonymity leads to linguistic material waste and is therefore avoided
through the occurrence of semantic change.

3.1.7 The avoidance of excessive homonymy

(Geeraerts 1997) refers to the avoidance of excessive homonymy by the term
homonymiphobia. Usually, it is not hard for the recipient to understand the meaning of the
words used by the speaker with the aid of the context even when homonymy occurs.
Nonetheless, an example given by (Hock, Joseph 2009:224) is an obvious evidence for the
fact that the not all the time the context could work well. The O.E words lae:tan ‘let,
permit’ and lettan ‘hinder, prevent’, both of which became ‘let’ in Mod.Engl through
regular sound change. For the sake of an example, imagine that a robber is running away
after taking the purse from a woman and she screams ‘Let the robber!’ In this case, it is
NOT easy to know which sense of let is used. When homonymy excesses, however, one of
the meanings will tend to be substituted. (Hock, Joseph 2009). For instance, the word gat
‘rooster’ from South Western French was replaced by the the alternative form vicar.

3.1.8 The need for a new name (new concept)

Despite the fact that both Ullmann and Andreas Blank share the perspective that one central
reason for sense alternation is due to the demand of new names, their explanation is quite
different. Ullman claims that explorations in science are the main key to stimulate us to
devise more new concepts. Specifically, the development of objects, ideas or things
requires the creation of new names for every single field such as in science, politics, the
society or the cultures. Those concepts will be created thorough forming, borrowing and
altering. One example for this is the forming of words such as flying boats; fortresses,
saucers (cf (Ullmann 1962). Approaching the issue from the cognitive way, (Blank, Koch
1999; Blank 1999) asserts that change in meaning is the change in our conceptualization of
our world. He points out that new names/ concepts are created “when we change our way
of conceiving the world around us and we leave our “habitat’ and enter a new one” (p. 78).
For example, in Latin, the word pecunia means 'cattle (used as a currency)' while it is
currently used to refer to 'money'. Another example is the English word mouse 'small
rodent' which is referred to 'small, hand-guided electronic device for executing commands
in computer programs' as mentioned previously.

12
3.2 Internal factors
The internal factors have gained less attention since they have been neglected for a long
time in the literature. Such factors involve the changes owing to the constant
interdependence of lexical units in language and speech, namely, the discrepancy between
synonyms, or the alternation concerning ellipsis and with fixed contexts. In other words,
the factors occurring within the language system are named internal factors.

3.2.1 Linguistic causes

(Luján 2010) notes that “sometimes semantic change is language-induced”. The internal
factor, from Ullmann’s viewpoint, however, is referred to as the phenomenon of contagion,
by which ‘the meaning of a word is transferred to another because they appear together
frequently or in many contexts’ (Breal 1S97: chapter 21, Ullmann 1962). In other words,
the semantic change in this case is brought about by two forms originally forming a
collocation and thus being associated with one another. Obviously, there is no sign of any
external motivation involved in this case. (Ullmann 1962) gives the explanation that ‘the
habitual collocations could have permanent impact on the term meaning relation’. The
meaning of one word thus might be transferred to another because of the co-occurrence in
many contexts. One of the most outstanding examples for this type is the French word pas
‘step’. It was applied as an intensifier to strengthen the negative of ne and pas later came to
be considered as a negative (cf. Aitchison 129; cf. Blank).

3.2.2 Further Blank’s cognitive causes

Abstract concepts, distant and usually invisible referents: In his article, (Blank 1999)
reveals that there are some conceptual domains whose referents are so hard or abstract to
‘seize intellectually’. Those abstractions give explanation of the usual metaphorical
verbalization of ‘time, understanding, sense-perception or emotion, etc’. For example, in
Italian, afferare means 'to grip, to grasp' is used with the meaning 'to understand'. It proves
such an interesting thing that Italian speakers were quick to create a new metaphor which
conceptually connects understanding (the mental process) and grasping (the physical
activity).
Close conceptual or factual relations: Blank explains that in the course of a conversation,
the recipient might understand the meaning of one word mostly based on either the support
of the context or the word that is used to refer to a concept that is closely linked with the

13
idea that is currently being referred to. Three types of constellations have been proposed by
Blank, namely frame relation, prototypical change and blurred concepts.
Frame relation is the strong and habitual interrelation between two concepts within a
frame so that the two of them can be activated during conversation by using only one word
(p.74). Examples of this type of relation are metonymies. For example: In Latin
testimonium means ‘testimony, witness’ but in French, the word témoin refers to
‘witnesser’. As a witness is inseparably connected to a perceiver, this change in meaning
was enabled through the connection of the original lexical meaning and the role of the
person that the concept is strongly linked to. Besides, the frame relation can lead to
autoconverse change, where the perspective on an action is reversed while the form is
completely retained. For instance, the Italian noleggiare ‘to lend’ changed its meaning into
‘to borrow’.
When it comes to prototypical change, in contrast to Geeraerts (1983), Blank acclaims
that prototypical change only occurs in specific restricted cases. The first case is the
situation that a word is regularly utilized to refer to the prototype of the usually signified
group which leads to the development of a meaning limitation. For example, in patriarchal
societies man is the prototypical sense of Human being (cf Blank 75). In particular, this can
be seen in examples when the orator addresses the whole community in public discourse
but actually speaks to the male assembly. Furthermore, in Latin homo means ‘human being’
but in Vulgar Latin it means ‘male human being’. The other case is the opposite situation
when “the word for the prototype is taken to refer to another member of the category or the
category itself” (p.76) which shows the semantic extension of a form that originally was
more restricted. A good example for this is in Latin, tenere means ‘to hold’ while in
Spanish tener means ‘to have’. It could be said that to hold (in the hand) is the most
outstanding instance of possession (p.75). Both of the above-mentioned instances of
prototypical semantic change contribute to the higher frequency of use of semantically
extended or restricted words which makes their new senses even more attractive.
(Blank 1999) highlights that ‘blurred concepts’ affect every member of the speaker
community every single day. This phenomenon is caused owing to the human’s knowledge
shortage of word concept restriction and due to the unclearness and confusion of
ambiguous or vague word concepts. The users thus tend to transfer them without being
aware of any semantic conflicts. This, on the other hand, can lead to “co-hyponymous

14
transfer’. In the past, conception shift in Romance languages was brought about several
times in the case of ‘rat’ and ‘mice’.
Complexity and irregularity in the lexicon is also regarded as one of the causes of semantic
changes. Normally, in order to ensure communicative efficiency, speakers have the
tendency to gradually cut down all the irregularities or complexity in the lexicon although
they are not aware of it. (Blank 1999)Andreas Blank distinguishes four different lexical
groups as follows:
Lexical complexity puts an emphasis on the “lexical ellipsis” process whereby the
signifiant of high- frequency words tends to be reduced by the speakers. Blank (p.77) states
that to the case of a compound or syntagmatic construction such as mother-in-law, the
reduction might involve one part of the complex lexeme. Regarding to the senses, a simple
lexeme can take the meaning of a complex word by two ways, namely ‘absorption’ or
‘incorporation’ to create a more efficient term (p.78). For instance, in Italian, portatile
‘portable’ can be used to refer to the ‘notebook-computer’ (computer portatile). Blank
noted that although the causal relation among the three elements lexical complexity, high
frequency use and the semantic process of ellipsis is strong, but it is not the only motivation
for ellipsis. To name an example, we say drink instead of drink alcohol because of the
dedency.
Orphaned words, as the expression suggests, are lexically isolated words which are quite
unique and restricted in use, interpreted by the speaker as belonging to another derivational
class (Blank 1999). The orphaned word then integrates into the class, leading to the
phenomenon of ‘popular etymology’ or ‘reinterpretation’. It should be noted that such
phenomena of popular etymology could be restricted to the level of phonetics and graphitic.
(p. 79). When the word changes its meaning, the formal similarity will be supported by the
contiguity (the conceptual relation). For instance, in French, forain means non-resident and
foire means fair, market (belonging to the fair).
Lexical gaps are brought about owing to the asymmetricity in the lexical structure, claimed
by Blank as one of the motivations for semantic shift. He gives the following case as an
example: on the one hand, eques in Latin has two meanings namely ‘calvaryman’ and
‘knight’ (member of the social class that formed the cavalry in the Roman army), on the
other hand, a co-hyponym of eques was pedes ‘infantryman’. The fact that eques is
polysemic meanwhile pedes is monosemic reveals the unevenness between the two forms.

15
This evokes the creation of an analogous metonymy for the word pedes to take balance.
Pedes later means ‘plebian’ even though the expressions plebs and plebeius already existed
and referred to the same concept. It can be concluded that such innovations have been
created to enable for the hearer to understand more easily and to thereby decrease the
number of communicative failures.
Untypical meaning/ untypical argument structure is considered as one of the roots for
semantic change. This involves words ‘whose meaning is somewhat untypical for the word
class they belong to’ (Blank 1999). In general, those words later get more prototypical
senses. The following example shows a case of such a development. In Latin prehensio
means ‘act of seizing somebody’, indicating the result. The corresponding cognate in
French prison originally meant ‘captivity’ and subsequently comes to mean ‘prison’.

4. Criticism
Even though different scholars have tried to categorize different reasons for meaning
alteration, it can still be concluded that to this point there is still a lack of a convincing
system that explains the majority of the actual cases. In fact, the more attention this topic
has gained in research, the more arguments have emerged, revealing the multifaceted
approaches of the issue. Regarding to the referenced causes for semantic shift processes,
Aitchison (p.129) also criticized that “the traditional lists of causes dwindle semantic
change to the level of stamp collecting, an assembly of colorful bits and pieces. They
wrongly give the impression that words exist in isolation from one another”.
The theory of Ullmann has been predominant in the literature on the topic of semantic
change for a long time and has become the most popular and important approach in this
field. Nevertheless, this traditional approach still leaves a large number of issues which are
yet to be assessed in a satisfying way. Concerning the typologies proposed by Ullmann,
(Luján 2010) argued that it would be more appropriate to consider ‘taboo’ (as the
motivation for semantic change) from the social perspective rather than psychological
viewpoint as Ullmann does. In agreement with the idea that Ullmann’s typology contains
many weak points, (Blank 1999) also criticized that “Ullmann's list lacks both a cognitive
and an empirical background and is merely an eclectic collection of motivations, necessary
conditions and accessory elements”. He further pointed out that only two causes referenced
by Ullmann appeared to be convincing, namely “social causes’ and the “psychological
16
cause” while the rest are restricted by a number of problematic aspects. To be more
specific, he argued that “the Ullmann’s historical causes and need for a new name are facets
of one and belongs to the same type” (Blank 1999) as they both refer to the emergence of
new concepts and the resulting need for new communicative devices. Submarine bomb and
the modern pen are served as the proof for the existence of new concept creation in both
cases. Blank (p.68) continues by arguing that Ullmann’s instance of linguistic causes
should be shown as in the case that the meaning of “the whole collocation is transferred to
the simple words”, but not as only “the sense of the part that is omitted”. Consequently, the
phenomenon of lexical ellipsis should be explained in a different way than is the case in
Ullmann’s interpretation. Additionally, Blank adds that the collocation ‘Ne…pas’ is not the
reason for semantic shift, but “is the necessary condition that makes a change possible”(p.
68). He remarked that if it was the motivation, all collocations would necessarily become
elliptic, which is apparently not the case. Moreover, he said that Ullman’s typology lacks
traditional causes which are so-called ‘irony’- the relation between the things. He supported
his opinion by giving Nyrop’s statement that “the concepts in our mind are interconnected
and that one concept can evoke those concepts related to it”. Obviously, Andreas Blank’s
cognitive approach of semantic alternation thus provides a range of new perspectives on the
field, severely challenging former approaches. He perceived the semantic change as the
alternation in the conceptualization of the world which broadens the spectrum of factors
involved in semantic processes by emphasising the close correlation between our cognition
and semantics. In the same vein, (Gábor Györi 1998) also explained that ‘semantic and
lexical change is the arising of new communication needs in a speech community’. He
claims that communication is also a cognitive activity because we communicate our mental
states, the contents of our minds. (p.1). Comparing to Ullmann’ s traditional approach, the
cognitive viewpoint has breathed a new life into this topic, bringing a new and interesting
perspective. Nevertheless, it is necessary to say that this approach by Blank remains rather
abstract and should be extended and adapted in the course of empirical examinations, be it
through experiments or large-scale corpus linguistic studies. Moreover, another hypothesis
suggested by (Trier 1973) which is not mentioned in this term paper, also has received
criticism. The approach is based on choosing semantic field as the means of accession,
providing a profoundly new idea of semantic changes. Still, it arouses heated discussions
because of its too rigid way and sometimes due to its misapplication to “produce mere

17
pseudo-structures”. In general, it could be seen that every approach has its own value and
its deficiency. Personally, I do not see that anyone has come up with a satisfying and
powerful system that explains a majority of the actual cases.

5. Conclusion

To recapitulate, this paper first gives the reader an overview of semantic change
classifications and the results of semantic changes based on Jucker’s viewpoint. It
subsequently addresses some possible internal and external reasons proposed by Ullmann’s
traditional approach and some new cognitive factors suggested by Andreas Blank. In
general, it is impossible to determine which approach is the best since each of them has its
own advantages and disadvantages. Still, to some extent, the relation among accessions
should be supplementary rather than alternative. It thus would be hard to decide which
explanation is the best approach. Due to their respective explanatory power regarding
isolated aspects, the conclusion may be drawn that the different approaches complement
each other rather than being mutually exclusive. A conclusive answer for semantic change
is far from close, and may never be attained. This might be one of the most fruitful fields
for yet-to-be-conducted larger-scale corpus linguistic studies in the near future, which will
require the development of more extensive empirical resources than are currently available.

18
References
Aitchison, Jean (2013): Language change. Progress or decay? 4. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ. Press (Cambridge approaches to linguistics). Available online at
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy1214/2012027127-d.html.
Blank, A. (1999): Why do new meanings occur? A cognitive typology of the motivations
for lexical semantic change 13, pp. 61–90.
Blank, Andreas; Koch, Peter (Eds.) (1999): Historical semantics and cognition. Berlin,
New York: Mouton de Gruyter (Cognitive linguistics research, 13). Available online at
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN
=627876.
Bloomfield, Leonard (1993): Language. 5. ed., repr. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr.
Fritz, Gerd (1998): Einführung in die historische Semantik. Tübingen: Niemeyer
(Germanistische Arbeitshefte, 42).
Gábor Györi (1998): Semantic Change, Semantic Theory and Linguistic Relativity. Jannus
Pannonius University, Pecs (Hungary) (No. 444).
Geeraerts, Dirk (1997): Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hock, Hans Henrich; Joseph, Brian D. (2009): Language history, language change, and
language relationship. An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. 2nd rev.
ed. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs,
218). Available online at http://lib.myilibrary.com/detail.asp?id=342901.
Jucker, Andreas H. (1993): History of English and English historical linguistics. 1. Auflage.
Stuttgart: Klett Lerntraining (Uni-Wissen Anglistik, Amerikanistik).
Jucker, Andreas H. (2000): History of English and English historical linguistics. 3. Aufl.
Stuttgart: Klett-Lernen-und-Wissen (Uni-Wissen Anglistik, Amerikanistik).
Lehman, David (1991): Signs of the times. Deconstruction and the fall of Paul de Man.
London: André Deutsch.
Luján, Eugenio R. (Ed.) (2010): Semantic change. Continuum companion to historical
linguistics. With assistance of Silvia Luraghi and Vít: Continuum International Publishing
Group.
Öhman, Suzanne (1953): Theories of the “Linguistic Field”. In <i>WORD</i> 9 (2),
pp. 123–134. DOI: 10.1080/00437956.1953.11659462.
Porzig, Walter (1926): Sperber H. Einführung in die Bedeutungslehre. In Indogermanische
Forschungen 43 (s1). DOI: 10.1515/if-1926-s107.
Trier, Jost (1973): Aufsätze und Vorträge zur Wortfeldtheorie. Edited by Anthony van der
Lee, Oskar Reichmann. Berlin: de Gruyter (Janua Linguarum. Series Minor, 174).
Available online at
http://www.degruyter.com/search?f_0=isbnissn&q_0=9783111351599&searchTitles=true.
19
Ullmann, Stephen (1962): Semantics. Chapter 8. An introduction to the science of meaning.
New York: Barnes & Noble (A Barnes & Noble paperback).
Ullmann, Stephen; Koopmann, Susanne (1972): Grundzüge der Semantik. Die Bedeutung
in sprachwissenschaftlicher Sicht. 2., unveränd. Aufl. Berlin: de Gruyter (De Gruyter
Lehrbuch).

20
Affidavit

I hereby truthfully declare that

1) I wrote the submitted paper independently and without illicit assistance;

2) I did not use any materials other than those listed in the bibliography and that all
passages taken from these sources in full or in part have been marked as such and
their origin has been cited individually in the text stating the version (edition and
year of publication), the volume and page of the cited work, and in the case of
Internet sources stating the complete URL and the date of access;

3) I have listed all institutions and persons that supported me in the preparation and
production of the paper;

4) I have not submitted the paper to any other institution and that it has never been
used for other purposes, neither in full nor in part.

I am aware that any violation of this declaration will result in a fail grade (nicht
bestanden).

30.04.2018
Erlangen, ……………………………………………………………………………………..

Signature