See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321526989

Semantic Change

Article · December 2014

CITATIONS READS
0 1,030

1 author:

Saher Oklah
National Institute of Technology
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MA in English Linguistics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Saher Oklah on 05 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Semantic Change

Language deals with concepts strongly connected with experience, and as experience fluctuates

according to many facts in time and space, words referring to such concepts fluctuate too. Although language

changes are self-evident and very frequent, they are, at least synchronically, imperceptible and difficult to

explain. G. Hudson argues:

“[…] it is rarely noticeable within one generation, but we are often aware those generations before

and after ours speak differently, preferring forms and rules different from those we prefer and even having

some different ones. Whenever a language at some point in time is compared with its descendant language

even a few hundred years later, the change is obvious.” (G. Hudson, 2000:392)

A linguist may describe a linguistic change case in great details, but may as well fail to construct a systemic

frame for this change, especially in cases of semantic change. Unlike other types of linguistic change, like

sound or spelling changes, semantic change is strongly linked to arbitrary cultural and social changes, thus

making it very strenuous to predict the direction or depth of this change. Moreover, semantic change has no

physiological restriction as, for example, sound change does. Yet, some relatively recent research shows

some regularity in this linguistic phenomenon. Since the 1980’s, Elizabeth Traugott has been trying to prove

some regularity of semantic change, in which she partially succeeded, but these regularities fundamentally

fall under the term ‘subjectification1’ where egocentric tendencies of human cognition seem to be the drive

for phenomenon. Still, as we shall see, most of cases are irregular and hard to predict.

There is a considerable dissent among linguists regarding categorization and terminology of

semantic change. It is unpractical to discuss these differences here since they are not the essence of this

paper, and they would take a great space. I will simply mention some of these terms in passing to show that

they refer to the same thing. We will concentrate in this paper on ‘lexical’ or ‘lexemic’ semantic change

rather than grammatical /functional/syntactic change; that is the change in meaning of a word, understood to

1
A diachronic process whereby an element or a construction develops new senses that require speaker-
reference, i.e. that lead to subjectivity (Traugott 1995).

By: Saher Oklah 1

be a change in the concepts associated with a word. The study of semantic change (also semantic

shift, semantic progression or semantic drift) can be seen as a part of etymology, onomasiology2,

semasiology3, and semantics. We will discuss here with detailed examples two aspects of semantic change:

change in denotation in which the meaning of a lexeme is ‘extended’ or ‘restricted’; and change in

connotation in which a word may be ‘ameliorated’ or ‘pejorated’. We will also discuss change in the

stylistic meaning of words where the meaning of words may be changed radically according to their

context. There are other types of semantic change like metaphor and metonymy, but we cannot cover them

all in this limited essay. Further definitions will be provided in respective parts of this paper.

Change in denotation:

Humans naturally tend to generalize, and this affects their use of language. This is one of the causes

of the semantic phenomenon known as semantic broadening (also termed extension, widening, and

generalization). In this process, a specific feature of the word is dropped or the word is used outside its

original specific context to refer to a more generalized concept or object. Take the word acquit, in the early

thirteenth century, this word originally meant 'to quiet' or 'appease a claim', hence to satisfy a claimant and

discharge the debtor (OED). Then by the end of the fourteenth century it started to suggest that no debt is

found against someone to begin with (Hayes, 2012). This term was mainly connected with debts and claims

until the seventeenth century; it was used in a broader meaning in some contexts though, mostly figuratively.

Looking at the synonyms of acquit like exonerate and exculpate, we can see that acquit is oldest word used

in courts in official 'clearing' context; and this is probably the reason behind adopting it in its wider sense in

courts.

Moron was first adopted and used by the American Association for the Study of the Feeble-minded

in 1910 with a very specific meaning 'an adult person having a mental age of between eight and twelve'

2
The branch of knowledge concerned with terminology, in particular contrasting terms for similar concepts,
as in a thesaurus. (COED)
3
The branch of knowledge concerned with concepts and the terms that represent them. (COED)

By: Saher Oklah 2

(OED); a moron was more developed mentally than an imbecile (IQ of 26 to 50) or an idiot (IQ of 0 to 25)

(Hayes, 2012). All these terms were popularized by the above-mentioned association. Since most people are

not aware of these technicalities, they started using them in a broader sense as an insult. Insulting is

categorized by some scholars, like Grzega (2004), as one of the motives for semantic change.

Enthusiasm came from French in the seventeenth century and its ultimate origin is Greek as the root

theos 'god' indicates (OALD). Its original denotation was strictly connected with divine or supernatural

possession or excitement. It gained a rather pejorative connotation with the coming of Puritans in the

sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as they found people indulging themselves in excessive emotional

fantasies (Hayes, 2012). After Restoration in 1660 and the Act of Uniformity4 1662, the Puritans lost their

grip over church and authority. It was not until the early eighteenth century that enthusiasm lost its religious

denotation and pejorative connotation, and had its generalized current meaning due to the common use of the

term outside its religious context.

In the case of magazine, the polysemic range is broadened. Magazine comes ultimately from Arabic

makhazin which is the plural form of makhzan which means 'warehouse' or 'storehouse'. It came into English

through French (OED). This word is a good example of how strange and unexpected the direction of the

semantic change can be. In the seventeenth century, it started to be used in the titles of books with the sense

'storehouse of information' on a specified subject or for a particular class of persons; so we had, for example,

a Militarie Magazine or The Mariners Magazine (OED). Later in the eighteenth century it was used more

generally to refer to these periodical publications themselves. In the nineteenth century, radio and television

producers gave magazine another sense when they used it for their periodical programmes. Although

magazine lost its original broad meaning as a 'storehouse', it regained some of it in the eighteenth century but

in a specific context, that is in some shooting weapons, where it refers to 'the place where bullets are kept

4
After the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 moves were made to revise and re-introduce the Prayer Book. In May
1662 Parliament passed another Act of Uniformity which authorised the use of a revised version broadly the same as
the 1559 edition.
The full title of this Act is, 'An Act for the Uniformity of Public Prayers and Administration of Sacraments, and other
Rites and Ceremonies, and for establishing the Form of making, ordaining and consecrating Bishops, Priests and
Deacons in the Church of England.' Source:http://www.parliament.uk

By: Saher Oklah 3

before being fired'. It is interesting to mention here that this regain effected Arabic itself. The standard

Arabic word for this part of rifles or pistols is 'makhzan' simply because we received it as magazine from

English, as it is the French cartouche in some regional spoken dialects in western Syria where French

colonization once existed.

Many writers use examples like arm, head, foot, etc. (as in arm of the chair, head of cabbage …etc)

when talking about metaphorical extension, and I think this is not accurate since these are not actually

metaphors, they are in fact dead metaphors. However, dead metaphors do broaden the polysemous range of

words. Take the word hand for instance, if you look at its entry in any non-concise dictionary you will see

how huge and cross-linked it is. It is used in dead metaphors as in hour hand or minute hand, and it is also

used in real metaphorical sense as authority or control, which has been a common use since King James

Version. Hand is a very old word in English and it is natural to gain more meanings since we, humans, tend

to scale everything according to ourselves. Hence the use of body parts in dead and living metaphors is very

common, if not the commonest.

Semantic restriction (also termed narrowing, reduction, and specialization) is the opposite of

broadening. In this process, the meaning of a word is narrowed to refer only to a specific or limited part of its

original denotation. For example, the word Safari come originally from the Arabic word safar which means

‘travelling’ generally. It comes from the verb saafara ‘to travel’, and it is used when talking about someone

travelling regardless of the distance, it has to be relatively long though. Whether you are travelling from

Cairo to Alexandria or to Paris; by foot, animals, or ships; we call it safar in Arabic. Then this word was

adopted by East African countries to refer to hunting expeditions. When it entered English in the nineteenth

century, it was still used mostly with this hunting denotation. With the accumulation of animal rights and

similar pacifist organizations and the ban on hunting in most targeted areas, the ‘travelling’ and ‘animals’

senses are still borne in the word but mostly for sightseeing and scientific investigation rather than hunting.

The OED does not trace back the older original meaning of Arabic word Suffah, from which sofa

comes. It comes from the word Saf which means ‘row’ or ‘line’. The commonest term in Arabic which

By: Saher Oklah 4

includes this word is ahluS Suffah which refers to a group of very poor new Muslims who went to Madinah

(city of the Muslim Prophet) and they had to stay in the ‘shaded area’ of Nabawi Masjid ‘the Prophet’s

Mosque’ (Ibn Manzoor: 9, 194). Later when Muslims became prosperous, these simply shaded areas went to

palaces and had some comfortable furniture in them. When sofas began to be made in the eighteenth century,

the designers seemed to have purposely made it look like the oriental Suffah so to give it a luxurious touch.

The formal history of acorn has been much perverted by ‘popular etymology.’ From the Old English

and well into the Middle English period, acorn was a generic word given to the ‘fruits’ of the forest trees,

especially ‘mast of oak’ or ‘beech’, etc., from which farm animals gained sustenance. In Gothic it

extended to ‘fruit’ generally (OED). By the sixteenth century, acorn came to be associated exclusively with

the oak tree because the mighty oak was the main source for feeding swine (Hayes, 2012). It is comparable

to the way some modern trademarks have become synonyms for various products For example, here, in the

Middle East, Arabs call any clothes powder detergent Tide. The various root spellings of acorn were akarn or

akran, but since the Old English word for ‘oak’ was ‘ac’ and the object was used like ‘corn’ to feed the

animals, the spelling of the word shifted to the present-day acorn. (Hayes, 2012)

Art had several senses since it first came into English in the thirteenth century from Old French. It

denoted ‘skill’ in many different ways; in display, in application, abstractly, as a result of knowledge and

experience …etc. It was also used to refer to trivium and quadrivium sciences. Shakespeare used it with a

different sense, and so did Pope and many others. In the seventeenth century, it started to be used to refer to

the “application of skill to the arts of imitation and design, painting, engraving, sculpture, architecture; the

cultivation of these in its principles, practice, and results; the skilful production of the beautiful in visible

forms” (OED). According to the OED, “This is the most usual modern sense of art, when used without any

qualification. It does not occur in any English Dictionary before 1880, and seems to have been chiefly used

by painters and writers on painting, until the present century.” It seems that art lost most of its polysemic

range because this current sense is the only main sense that was meant to be sublimated. In other words,

words derived from its general meaning were mostly pejorated; words like artifice which meant ‘skilful

By: Saher Oklah 5

workmanship’ became ‘trickery’, and artificial, which was a neutral word used to differentiate goods made

humans from goods created by nature, now means ‘superficial’ or ‘shallow’.

The first use of undertaker was in the late fourteenth century in religious contexts with two main

meanings: ‘the one who helps or assists’ (OED), especially to refer to Christian Lords, and, in early quotes,

‘susceptor or godfather’ (OED). In the following century it was used in a more generalized way ‘the one who

undertakes an enterprise or task’ (OED). Then it took multiple meanings in several contexts. For example,

Shakespeare used it to mean ‘the one who takes up another’s quarrel’. In the late seventeenth and early

eighteenth century, the current meaning of ‘mortician’ rose. It seems that ‘undertakers’ of other businesses

were not as busy as ‘funeral undertakers’ due to the short life spans of the period because of plagues,

diseases, wars, etc., thus the term ‘undertaker’ was associated mostly with those in the ‘mortal business’.

Nowadays the only known ‘undertaker’ who does not arrange funerals is the wrestler Mark Calaway. (Hayes,

2012)

Change in connotation:

Thus far we have been dealing with change in denotation. Now we shall move to the connotative

change of the meaning of words. Some words undergo axiological or evaluative change in their meaning in

the course of time; they may gain either a positive or negative connotation which did not exist in their

original or previous uses. When a word is used to express negatively loaded values not inherent in its original

meaning, we call this phenomenon pejoration (also termed deterioration or degradation). It is generally

agreed upon that the frequency of pejorative cases is much higher that ameliorative ones (Kleparski 1986;

Grygiel 2005). For many scholars, this is due to, again, natural human tendency to worsen things, and some

social and political biases against women for example. In his Preface to his English Dictionary, Johnson

hints to this by saying: "tongues, like governments have a natural tendency to degeneration […]. It is

incident to words as to their authors to degenerate from their ancestors." A more recent scholar, C. L.

Barber (1964:251), states that "human nature being what it is, deterioration is commoner than

By: Saher Oklah 6

amelioration: we are only too prone to believe the worst of anybody, and this is reflected in the way our

words change." In his classic Essai de semantique, the French linguist Michel Bréal presents a much

deeper psychoanalytic explanation for this process:

“The so-called pejorative tendency is the result of a very human disposition which prompts us to

veil, to attenuate, to disguise ideas which are disagreeable, wounding or repulsive […]. There is nothing in

it all save a feeling of consideration, a precaution against unnecessary shocks, a precaution which

whether sincere or feigned is not long efficient, since the hearer seeks out things behind the word, and at

once identifies them (Bréal, 1897:100–101).”

Let us take the word bint for example, this word generally means 'a girl' or 'daughter', and it is used

in other contexts as opposed to womanhood (still virgin). This latter sense was conveyed in Charles

Doughty's Travels in Arabia Deserta, he wrote: "Hirfa sighed for motherhood: she had been these two years

with an husband and was yet bint, as the nomads say, ‘in her girlhood’.”(OED). Now bint bears an offensive

and derogatory connotation (OALD, COED), although the word binti 'my girl' is a very kind way to call a

girl in Arabic, but since it comes from the Arabs and connected with women so it must be bad. So we have

two driving forces for this pejorated connotation; first, is because it is about women who are a main target of

linguistic degradation as a secondary result of social and political biases. Secondly, it comes from Arabs who

are shown in western writings and, later, media as uncivil backward woman lashers. We, Arabs, use bint

'daughter of' with our most esteemed female characters, the Quran (Muslims' Word of God) itself calls Mary

Maryam bnatu (bint) Imraan in a verse which highly praises her as a virtuous and believing woman: "And

Mary, the daughter of 'Imran', who guarded her chastity, so We blew into [her garment] through Our angel,

and she believed in the words of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient." (Quran

66:12).

Another word most people (mistakenly) connect with Arabs is genie, In fact it came in mid

seventeenth century, denoting 'a guardian or protective spirit', through French génie, from Latin genius

‘attendant spirit present from one's birth, innate ability or inclination’, from the root of gignere ‘beget’.

By: Saher Oklah 7

Genie was adopted in the current sense by the eighteenth century French translators of The Arabian Nights'

Entertainments, because of its resemblance in form and sense to Arabic jinnī ‘jinnee’ (OALD), which is in

itself a rather negative word in Arabic. The connotation of genie is not really worsened, but it is neutralized

after it had a rather positive “protective” meaning.

Daft, Old English gedæfte ‘mild' or 'meek’, is of Germanic origin related to Gothic gabadan

‘become or be fitting’ (OED).’Insulting’ seems to be a strong pejorative force in English; we find similar

cases with idiot and imbecile which did not initially mean 'stupid'. In the fourteenth century, daft is used with

beasts to mean 'innocent' or 'silly': in c 1325, Body & Soul 302 in Map's Poems 343 “Ne wuste what was

good or il, But as a beest, doumbe and daft.”(OED). In the next century, it is used to refer to people who are

'foolish' or 'wanting in intelligence' (OED) probably because gentlemen of that time were dull and did not do

interesting or exciting activities (Hayes, 2012), so there is nothing more insulting than comparing them with

uninteresting silly animals.

When the connotation of a word becomes better or neutralized after it was rather negative, we call

this process amelioration. It is not as common as pejoration because the latter has more psychological,

social, and linguistic drives. An interesting example of amelioration is luxury. It comes from Old French

luxurie 'abundance, sumptuous enjoyment' (OED), and it denoted lechery and lasciviousness in the Middle

Ages because the aim of sex then was procreation not enjoyment. Then it started to lose its negative

connotation meaning simply luxuriance or abundance. By the mid seventeenth century, Chaucer's "O foule

lust of luxurie" became Milton's "All now was turn'd to jollitie and game, To luxurie and riot, feast and

dance." (OED). It was not until the early eighteenth century that it took the current meaning and connotation

connected with exquisite and opulent surroundings. Maybe one day if all belts have to be tightened, luxury

will be pejorated again.

In the same direction of amelioration, a word sometimes does not become all the way positive or

even neutral, but becomes less negative; in other words, it is softened. For instance, naughty, as we may

guess, comes from naught 'nothing, zero'. It originally meant needy or poor (OED), then, in the sixteenth

By: Saher Oklah 8

century, it meant 'wicked or vile' (OED) due to the snobbish impression which was common then that

poverty and need result from some wickedness or villainous nature (Hayes, 2012). In the seventeenth

century, it began to take its current meaning which is still disapproving but not as it used to be.

Change in stylistic meaning:

The style and context often cause words to shift their meanings, sometimes radically. Sometimes

words are used ironically to mean the opposite. For example when you arrive at your door and discover that

you forgot the keys in the office and say "Excellent!". With the expansion of new areas of sciences and

technology, new whole cultures are created. In the world of computers, you do not need glue to install a

wallpaper, the icons have nothing to do with Eastern Orthodox Church, a default user did not fail in any

payment, and the monitor is meant to be watched not watch. Many expressions in everyday speech were

coined with such cultures. One may go screensaver when they are tired. The word computers itself meant

'calculators' or individuals who count or estimate until the 1960’s, but the development in this device led to

the development of the word itself. Words like ego, fixation, phobia, etc. were reintroduced into English with

specific technical meanings in the late nineteenth century by Sigmund Freud’s conquests of psychology; they

are used in a more loose way these days.

Conclusions:

Semantic change is highly irregular in direction due to the irregularity of its causes. These causes are

usually interrelated, and semantic change is rarely the result of one cause exclusively. Although it can be

radical sometimes, semantic change rarely jumps to a far meaning; it is gradual and usually slow, which

explains why it is very hard to notice synchronically. It is sometimes mainly the result of natural human

tendencies as we saw in broadening and pejoration, and like the human tendency to measure things by body

organs which is the primary cause of so-called metaphorical extension. It is also commonly caused by social

By: Saher Oklah 9

and political changes, as in the cases of enthusiasm and undertaker, and biases as in bint and daft. The lack

of knowledge or indifference towards narrow technical meanings of words like moron or ego may lead to

change in their denotations or connotations. Change is a process; what is neutralized now may be

ameliorated or pejorated later, what matters here is that the phenomenon is there. Finally, it is important not

to forget the crucial role of media in causing and “diffusing” these linguistic changes.

References:

Dictionaries:

Johnson, S. 1755. A Dictionary of the English Language. Hildesheim (reprint 1968).

Oxford English Dictionary (OED) Second Edition on CD-ROM (v. 4.0), 2009. Oxford University Press.

Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (OALD), 8th Edition, 2010. Oxford University Press.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary (COED), 11th Edition, 2004. Oxford University Press.

Ibn Manzoor, Lisaanul Arab ‘Arabs’ tongue’, 3rd Edition, 1414 Hijri (c. 1994). Dar Saadir, Beirut. (Arabic

dictionary)

Other:

Bréal, M., 1897. Essai de Semantique. Science de significations. Paris: Hachette (reprint 1921).

Lerer, Seth, 2008. The History of the English Language, 2nd Edition, The Teaching Company. (Video

course).

By: Saher Oklah 10

 Grygiel, M. 2005. “The methodology of analysing semantic change in historical perspective” [in:]

Studia Anglica Resoviensia 3, vol. 25, pp. 25–47.

Grzega, J. (2004). “A qualitative and quantitative presentation of the forces for lexemic change in the history

of English” [in:] Onomasiology Online 5(2004).

Hayes, J. C., 2012, The Unexpected Evolution of Language, Adams Media, MA, USA.

Hudson, G. 2000. Essential Introductory Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Kleparski, G.A. 1986. Semantic Change and Componential Analysis. An Inquiry in Pejorative

Developments in English. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet Verlag.

Traugott, Elizabeth. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Stein, D. and L. Wright

(eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

By: Saher Oklah 11

View publication stats