Abstract
This article is an exemplary study of semantic change of polysemous words in Arabic and Semitic languages. Since words do not change their meanings by mere coincidence or acquire new ones randomly, the study of the historical evidence of groupings according to related senses can show how multiple functions of a word are related to each other and which role cognitive structuring plays in the acquisition of new senses. To show that mental categories can explain the relations of the different usages of a single word I am adopting a cognitive approach. Metaphorical change within polysemous words in the domain of vision will serve as a case in point. Following SWEETSER (1990), I will look into the historical evidence of visionrelated verbs in Arabic and their equivalents in the Semitic languages.Key words: Etymology, lexical semantic change, polysemy, cognitive linguistics, visual metaphor
Highlights
In this study I will use a cognitive approach to meaning and show that it can account for facts in lexical semantic change
The questions I want to answer are: What is the relationship between an acquired new meaning and the old one and, in the case of polysemy, is there a regularity determining the distribution of meanings that coexist in a single root across the Semitic languages at a given time and, if so, how can it be explained? It is an attempt to explain the semantic diversity / groups and sub-groups observed in words denoting vision across Semitic
What SWEETSER proved for the Indo-European languages holds true for the Semitic languages
Summary
29. 3 For further elaboration on the difference between physical interaction with the world on the one hand and cultural influences on the other hand, cf. Palmer’s essay on “When does cognitive linguistics become cultural?” (PALMER 2006). 4 BRUNER 1964: 14. 5 JOHNSON 1987. 6 LAKOFF & JOHNSON 1980:39f. Traditional semantic theories treat metaphor only as a deviant or derivative function on literal meaning. Falling apart in combination with a word referring to something mental and not physical is a traditional metaphor and everyone will understand the meaning of this statement. The conceptual metaphor underlying the word theory is ORGANIZATION IS PHYSICAL STRUCTURE.. The conceptual metaphor underlying the word theory is ORGANIZATION IS PHYSICAL STRUCTURE.8 It is the way theory is being understood, its mental categorization, that allows us to use the verb to fall apart together with the noun theory, and explains why the combination is not felt to be meaningless. Since linguistic forms and functions are reflexions of human cognitive structures and conceptual organisation, their detailed description should provide us with an adequate method to understand a given language.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
