Causes of semantic change

The factors accounting for semantic changes may be divided into 2 groups: a). extra

linguistic and b). linguistic causes.

By extra-linguistic causes we mean various changes in the life of the speech community, changes in economic and social structure, and changes in ideas, concepts, way of life and other spheres of human activities as reflected in word meanings. Although objects, institutions, concepts and etc. change in the course of time in many cases the sound form of the words which denote them is retained, but the meaning of the words is changed.

Some changes of meaning are due to purely linguistic causes i.e. factors acting within the language system. The commonest form which this influence takes is so-called ellipsis. In a phrase made up of two words one of them is omitted and its meaning is transferred to its partner. The verb to starve had the meaning to die and was used in collocation with the word hunger. In the 16th century the word itself acquired the meaning to die from hunger.

Another linguistic cause is discrimination of synonyms which can be illustrated by the semantic development of a number of words. The word land meant both solid part of the earth’s surface and the territory of a nation. When in the Middle English period the word country was borrowed as its synonym, the meaning of the word land altered and the territory of the nation came to be denoted by the borrowed word country.

Some semantic changes may be explained by the influence of a peculiar factor, usually referred to as linguistic analogy. It was found out that if one member of a synonymic set acquires a new meaning other members of this set change their meanings too. It was observed that all English adverbs which acquired the meaning rapidly always develop the meaning immediately, similarly verbs synonymous with catch. E.g. grasp, get, etc. by semantic extension acquired another r meaning – to understand.

Types of word-grouping

Alongside with separate words speakers use larger blocks consisting of more than one word yet functioning as a whole. These set expressions are extremely variegated structurally, functionally, semantically and stylistically. Set expressions have sometimes been called word equivalents and it was considered that the vocabulary of a language consists of words and word equivalents (word-group).

It is difficult to distinguish Phraseological units from free word-groups. It is further complicated by the existence of a great number of marginal cases, the so-called semi-fixed or semi-free word groups, which have structural stability but lack their semantic unity and figurativeness. A free phrase permits substitution of any of its elements without semantic change in the other element. This substitution is never unlimited. Semi-fixed groups have structural stability but lack their semantic unity and figurativeness. For example, the pattern consisting of the verb go followed by a preposition and a noun without any article before it (go to school, go to market, go to court, etc.) is used only with nouns of places where definite actions or functions are performed.

If substitution is restricted to a few synonyms of one of the members, or impossible, i.e. if the elements of the phrase are always the same and make a fixed context for each other, the word-group is a set expression.

No substitution of any element is possible in the following expressions: red tape, first night, busy as a bee, a dark horse, a bull in a china shop, etc. Any substitution of the elements in these expressions would destroy the meaning of the combination.

In a free phrase each element has a much greater independence. Each component can be substituted without affecting the meaning of the other: to cut bread, to cut cheese, to eat bread.

There is another criterion for distinguishing between Phraseological units and free word-groups: semantic.

Compare the following examples:

A.- I am told they are inviting more American professors to this University. Isn’t it rather carrying coals to Newcastle?

(To carry coal to Newcastle means “to take something to a place where it is not needed).

B. This cargo ship is carrying coal to Newcastle. Here we observe the semantic difference of the two word groups consisting of the same essential constituents. In the second sentence the free word-group is carrying coal is used in the direct meaning. The first context has nothing to do with coal or its transporting and the meaning of the whole word-group is something new and far from the current meaning of the constituents.

Academician V.V.Vinogradov spoke of the semantic change in Phraseological units as “a meaning resulting from peculiar chemical combination of words”. The semantic shift affecting Phraseological units does not consist in a mere change of meanings of each separate constituent part of the unit. The meaning of the constituents merge to produce an entirely new meaning: to have a bee in one’s bonnet means “to be eccentric or even mad”. The speakers using the expression hardly think of bees or bonnets but accept it in its transferred meaning.

That is what meant when Phraseological units are said to be characterized by semantic unity. In the traditional approach Phraseological units have been defined as word-groups conveying single concept (whereas in free word-groups each meaningful component stands for a separate concept). It makes Phraseological units similar to words: both words and Phraseological units possess semantic unity.

Most Russian scholars accept the semantic criterion of distinguishing Phraseological units from free word-groups as the major one and base their research work in the field of phraseology on the definition of a Phraseological unit offered by Professor A.V. Koonin: “A Phraseological unit is a stable word-group characterized by a completely or partially transferred meaning”.

Due to this definition the degree of semantic change in a Phraseological unit may vary. In actual fact the semantic change may affect either the whole word-group or only one of its components. The following Phraseological units represent the first case: to skate on thin ice – to take risks, to have one’s heart in one’s boots – to be deeply depressed, a wolf in a sheep’s clothing.

The second type is represented by Phraseological units in which one of the components preserves its current meaning and the other is used in the transferred meaning: to lose one’s temper, to fall ill, to fall in love, bosom friend, to stick to one’s word.

The term “idiom” is mostly applied to Phraseological units with completely transferred meaning, that is, to the ones in which the meaning of the whole unit doesn’t correspond to the current meaning of the components. There are many scholars who regard idiom as the essence of phraseology and the major focus of interest in phraseology research.