It is a well-known fact that abstract meanings usually have their origin in concrete domains, which are extended due to a process of metaphoric transfer. Meanings are thus extended in a motivated way. The study of the historical development of groups of verbs ofmental activity, for example, shows that many of them derive from verbs originally referring to physical activity. Whereas cognitively-based inter-domain metaphorical connections are crucial in semantic change, the close links between syntax and semantics cannot be ignored either. This paper approaches the syntax-semantics interface by bringing together the study of metaphoric mapping and verb complementation. Its aim is to investigate the risp of new subcategorization frames connected to the extension of verb senses from the concrete to the abstract domain. Thus, we explore how the rise of the abstract senses in a verb of mental activity —ponder—conforms, interacts with and is reflected in the argument structure of this verb

Poch, A.

Verdaguer, I.

Samara University

Isabel Verdaguer Anna Poch*University of BarcelonaMetaphoric mapping and argument structure in semantic change: A case studyIt is a well-known fact that abstract meanings usually have their origin in concrete domains, which are extended due to a process o f metaphoric transfer. Meanings are thus extended in a motivated way. The study of the historical development o f groups ofverbs ofmental activity, for example, shows that many of them derivefrom verbs originally referring to physical activity. Whereas cog­nitively-based inter-domain metaphorical connections are crucial in semantic change, the close links between syntax and semantics cannot be ignored either. This paper approaches the syntax-semantics interface by bringing together the study o f metaphoric mapping and verb complementation. Its aim is to investi­gate the risp o f new subcategorizationframes connected to the extension ofverb senses from the concrete to the abstract domain. Thus, we explore how the rise ofthe abstract senses in a verb o f mental activity —ponder—conforms, interacts with and is reflected in the argument structure ofthis verb.Introduction1Research in cognitive linguistics has stressed the importance of meta­phoric connections in human cognition and language (Lakoff 1987; Lakoff and Johnson 1999; Sweetser 1990). Metaphor permits an understanding of one kind of experience in terms of another and this is extensively reflected in language. It is a well-known fact that many abstract meanings have their origin in concrete domains, which are extended due to a process of meta­phoric transfer.The study of the historical evolution of groups of verbs of mental activity shows that many of them derive from verbs originally referring to physical activity (Sweetser 1990). The historical development of verbs such as see,* ©  Anna Poch, 2005.51contemplate (from the past participle of Latin contemplo, «look at») or spec­ulate (from Latin speculor, «watch», «spy out», «observe») shows that physi­cal vision can be regularly extended to mental perception. Thinking has been conceptualized as perceiving. Reflect (ultimately from Latin reflecto, re + flecto «bend», «turnback»), ruminate (from Latin rumino «ruminate», «chew the cud» and «turn over in the mouth»), or cogitate (from the past participle of Latin cogito: co, an intensive + agito, «turn over», «agitate») show that ideas can be seen as objects moving and revolving in the mind. In the case of ruminate, in addition, ideas are compared to food which is turned over and over in the mouth. In ponder or deliberate (from Latin deliberare, de +  li- brare, «weigh», from libra, «scales»), ideas are seen as objects which can be weighed and in grasp and in comprehend ideas are objects which can be held or manipulated.There have been, then, semantic shifts by which verbs alluding to physi­cal actions have come to refer to mental activities. Different metaphoric con­nections, which could be said to show the parallelism between our external and internal worlds, are involved in these examples. These semantic shifts in the verbal items obviously imply in the transitive verbs a shift in the type of the NP, which is semantically extended to include abstract nouns. For ex­ample, compare the following two sentences:(1) I  shall never eat garlike with Diogenes in a Tub, and speculate the Starres without a shirt.H. Shirley, Grateful Servant, II, i (1630)(2) We should not, therefore, wholly consult our senses when we speculate truth.Evelyn, Hist. Rel. 1.54 (1706)In these two examples the complementation pattern of speculate is SVO; however, in (1) speculate is used in the sense of physical perception and is followed by stars, a concrete Object, but in (2) it is used in the sense of mental perception or activity and the object is not something physical but abstract. These different meanings are reflected in the following Argument Structures ofspeculate:speculate 1 <Subj-NP[Agenll,Obj-NP(Concrete]> speculate! <Subj-NP|Agcm|,Obj-NP|Abs[raci|>52This leads us to the idea that, whereas inter-domain metaphoric connec­tions are crucial in semantic change, the close links between syntax and se­mantics cannot be ignored either. The importance of an approach which integrates syntax and semantics in synchronic linguistic description has been shown for a long time not only in cognitive linguistics approaches (Langack- er 1987,1991; Lakoif 1987; Goldberg 1995, among others)2but also in for­mal linguistics (Pollard and Sag 1987) and lexical semantics (Pusteojovsky 1995). Research in diachronic linguistics has also confirmed the need to in­tegrate syntax and semantics. It is in the study of grammaticalization where this interrelationship is especially taken into account (Heine et al. 1991 ; Hei­ne 1993; Hopper and Traugott 1993; Traugott 2003, among others). The fact that the evolution of certain grammatical particles cannot be separated from the syntactic structure in which they appear proves this. It has been shown that, in different languages, it is crucial to take into account the syntactic structure in which the word that is grammaticalized appears to explain the evolution of this particle.Although this is not a new idea, it is worth considering to what an extent it can be extended to explain types of semantic change where grammatical­ization is not present (Verdaguer and Poch 1996,1997). Our proposal in this paper consists in trying to see the importance of the syntax-semantics inter­face in the emergence of new meanings in verbs of mental activity. We have already seen that from a purely semantic point of view, in the rise of the mean­ing of such verbs metaphoric transfer has been involved. This metaphoric transfer has been accompanied by a change from concrete to abstract ob­jects. However, the development of these verbs has to be further explored to see the rise of new subcategorization frames connected to the extension of their senses. The example that we have chosen to illustrate this is the En­glish verb ponder.In order to show the interaction of syntax and semantics in the rise of new meanings, we will follow common practice in linguistics as is usual in the Unification-based tradition (e.g. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Gram­mar (HPSG)) in treating the argument structure of the verb as the interface between syntax and semantics. The argument structure, therefore, links syn­tactic valency to syntactic functions and semantic roles. An illustration of how lexical information is encoded in these models is provided by the verb weigh in the following context, which shows how syntactic and semantic informa­tion is merged in the Argument Structure of the verb (ARG-ST):(3) The butcher weighed the chickenw eighsemRELN weigh  A G ENT [1] THEM E [2] A R G -S T ([3 ]N P [i], [4]NP[2]) SUBJ [3]OBJ [4]synFigure 1As can be seen in this feature structure, the Argument Structure encodes the valency of the verb as a list of syntactic categories tagged with numbers linking semantic roles and syntactic functions. Thus, the first N P of the Argument Structure is linked to the Subject and to the Agent, and the second NP is linked to the Object and the Theme.A case study3Ponder, introduced in ME, derives from OFpondürer«weigh, poise», ul­timately from Latin ponderare, which originally meant «weigh». The earliest meaning, then, is one of physical activity. However, when it was introduced into English it had already undergone the metaphoric transfer to the more abstract meaning «to weigh (a matter, words...) mentally», «to estimate or judge the worth, value or amount of», «to evaluate». Those meanings are illustrated in the following examples:(4) I f  all men living were pondered in one balance.J. Frith A mirrourorglasse to know thyself, 263 (1532)(5) Consydre thys matter andponder my cause.J. Lydgate. Assembly o f Gods 134 (1420)(6) Vertues are not to be pondered by the sexe orkinde by whom they be done.W. Painter. The Palace o f Pleasure 1.44 (1566)In (4) the semantic object is a physical entity, thus, ponder means «weigh», but in (5) and (6) the semantic objects are mental entities and the meaning of ponder is «weigh mentally».54Figures 2 and 3 are a partial representation of these meanings of ponder and show that the new sense of the verb is related to a change in the semantic type of the Object Noun Phrase.RELN weighsem A G ENT [1]PH YSICAL OBJECT [2]ARG - ST  (NP[i], NPpj)Figure 2ponderp)RELN weigh mentally sem AGENT [1]MENTAL OBJECT [2] A R G -S T (N P [i] , NPpi)Figure 3This extension of meaning from concrete to abstract can also be found in the English verb weigh, among many others, when the N oun Phrase which is the Object is not a physical object which can be actually weighed but some­thing abstract:(7) They wayeingin thaire myndes the force ofthe saide acte.StarChamber. Cases (Selden Soc) II. 300 (1533)So far, all the examples have illustrated the use ofponder with an Object which is always a Noun Phrase, either referring to something concrete or abstract. Ponder, however, can also appear with a clausal complement from the fourteenth century onwards meaning “consider carefully”, “deliberate about” , represented in Figure 4 and illustrated by the following examples:(8) pelponderen wippis suspendingpatpey don itfor riftwisenesse to teche curatis obedience.J.Wyclif. English Works(9) [He] at that very instant, was pondering only how he might save the mon­arch’s crown.W. K. Kelly tr. L. Blanc’s History o f Ten Years 1 .119 (1848)(10) The government should ponder well whether the prize would be worth thecost.W H. Prescott. History o f the Reign ofPhilip / /, 1.116(1855)55 __________________________RELN considersem AGENT [1]SOA [2]A R G -ST (NP[i], Clausep]}Figure 4In order to explain why ponderacqwrcs this new meaning, we need to focus again on the mental object ofponder(2), which gradually evolves towards a State of Affairs with propositional content and expressed by a clausal complement. With a clausal complement, there still may be the idea of “weighing mental­ly” ; however, the concept of “thinking” is gradually highlighted. That is, when the complement ofponder is not an idea, a word, a matter, but a proposition, expressed by a clause, the verb develops the sense “give consideration to”. For instance, in (9) “ponder how to save a crown” gives the idea of some­body thinking how to develop a strategy; it is not so much to weigh the fact or estimate the value of saving the crown, but to think how to save it. The sense “thinking” is highlighted and the sense of “weighing” fades away.This extension of meaning can be explained by a metonymic process, triggered by a clause, whereby we refer to the whole (that is, “consider” , “think”) with the term which is used to refer to a part of the whole process (to weigh mentally or estimate the value of something can be a part of the whole process of thinking). The early sense, which keeps its original Latin value (“weigh something” > “weigh in the mind”) acquires a more generic sense.Once the metonymy is consolidated, ponder is documented since EModE with a new subcategorization frame: a Prepositional Phrase, introduced by onor over.----------------------------------------  56(11) Pondering thus on human miseries.J. Dryden.v4e«e/r/i. 311 (1697)(12) And at the same time, I  pondered a little over who tried to kill me and why.British National CorpusIn these examples we can see exactly the same process. In (11), for in­stance, the subject is not weighing in the mind or evaluating human miseries, but reflecting on them.Also, with this sense the syntactic complement is not necessarily overt:(13) So he from side to side roll’d, pondering deep.W. Cowper. Homer.Odysseus, xx. 30 (1791)This extension is represented in Figure 5:RELN thinksem AGENT [1]SOA [2]ARG-ST(NP[i], (PPJNPpj]))Figure 5As we can see, changes in the meaning of ponder are reflected in its argu­ment structure. When ponder is used to express the concept of “reflect, med­itate, think”, it can appear without an overt syntactic object or can be fol­lowed by a Prepositional Phrase, which specifies the matter which is medi­tated.Another point that needs to be considered is the reason why ponder(4) subcategorizes for a Prepositional Phrase. Our hypothesis is that this new subcategorization frame has to be studied taking into account that of the pro­totypical English verb think and the evolution undergone by its troponyms. An exploration of such verbs reveals that most troponyms of thinkwhich are used in ModE, such as reflect, ruminate, speculate, cogitate or meditate subcat- egorize for an optional Prepositional Phrase.Note the case of reflect, which appears with an Oblique Complement (PP) when it is used in this abstract sense:57 __________________________(14) Having reflected a little on the Danger which we had escaped, we viewed the second Pyramide.A. Lovell, Thevenot’s Travels into the Levant, 1 .134(1687)whereas it is usually apprehended in another of its several senses when it is used with a Direct Object (NP):(15) The hills reflect the sound (“cast or send back”).(16) The Walls reflected a hundred thousand Lights to me from my two Can­dles (“emit, give out a light, as the result of reflection”).D . Defoe, The Life and strange adventures ofRobinson Crusoe, 1,(1719)(17) Two glasses where herself herself beheldA thousand times, and now no more reflect (“mirror”).W. Shakespeare, Venus and Adonis, 1130 (1592)Other verbs which could in earlier periods appear with a Noun Phrase expressing the matter which was the object of the meditation:(18) Alberti had deeply meditated the remains o f Roman Antiquity.J. Hallam Introduction to the Literature o f Europe 1.(1837)are now, with this sense, predominantly used with a Prepositional Phrase, (and very rarely with a Noun Phrase) as a quick exploration of the British National Corpus reveals.(19) He ruminated on the idea.(20) Istarted to meditate on that verse in relation to my argument with my colleague.(21) I  stand on the balcony, apparently musing on this very credible story.All these data suggest that verbs of similar meaning also have a similar syntactic behaviour and develop similar subcategorization frames.58ConclusionsIn this paper we have focused on the evolution of ponder as an example of the development of a verb of mental activity. We believe that this example is significant enough to show that diachronic studies require an integrated analysis of syntactic and semantic evolution, even if the change that is analyzed does not involve a shift in the grammatical category of the term in question. The study of our data has enabled us to distinguish three stages in the evolu­tion of ponder1. The meaning ofponder, which was originally a verb of physical action, has been extended to mental activity. In this stage (which was already present in the Latin verb from which ponder derives) there has been metaphoric transfer (from concrete to abstract domain) and a shift in the semantic type of the Noun Phrase, which can now be abstract.2. There has been a metonymic transfer — triggered by a clausal comple­ment — by which part of the process of thinking comes to refer to the whole process.3. As a result of this extension in the meaning ofponder, a new optional complement has emerged, an oblique Prepositional Phrase, probably due to an analogical process with think—which can have this complementation since its earliest stages — and other verbs of thinking.The evolution of ponder is summarized in Figure 6:E. PONDER < F. PO N D É R E R  < L. P O N D E R A R E  Stages in the evolution o f  the English verb pon derponder^) (w eigh) T  {m etaphoric  transfer} T  ponder^) (weigh mentally) A rg-S t< N P  [Ag.jj NP[pi,ys. 0bj.]> A rg-St<N P  [Ag.], NP[mentai. ot>j.]̂{m etonym ic transfer}pon der(3) (consider)Arg-St<NP [Ag.], Clause[SoA]> {an alog ica l extension}pon der(4) (think)_____________________________________ Arg-St<NP [Ag.], (PP)[sqa]>______59Wfe have thus tried to highlight the importance of not separating the syn­tactic evolution and the semantic evolution of lexical items. Certainly, the independent study of the syntactic evolution or of the semantic development can reveal interesting facts, but the integration of both levels can provide a better understanding of linguistic change. As Pusteojovsky (1995: 5) says: “without an appreciation of the syntactic structure of a language, the study of lexical semantics is bound to fail. There is no way in which meaning can be completely divorced from the structure that carries it” .Notes1 The authors acknowledge the support of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology and FEDER (project number BFF 2001-2988).2 Goldberg (1995:3) quotes Bolinger (1968:127) «A difference in syntactic form always spells a difference in meaning».3 Our data have been obtained from the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts; the British National Corpus and the Oxford English Dictionary.References1. Bolinger, Dwight L. 1968: “Entailment and the M eaning o f  Structures”. Glossa 2:119-127.2. Goldberg, A  1995: Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The U  niversity o f  Chicago Press.3. Heine, B. 1993: Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. N ew  York: Oxford University Press.4. Heine, B., U . Claudi, & F  Hiinnemeyer. 1991: Grammaticalization: A  Conceptual Framework. Chicago: The University o f  Chicago Press.Hopper, P. & E. Traugott. 1993: Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.5. Lakoff, G . 1987: Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: The University o f Chicago Press.6. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1999: Philosophy in the Flesh. N ew  York: Basic Books.7. Langacker, R. 1987: Foundations o f  Cognitive Grammar. Vol I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.8. Langacker, R. \99\:FoundationsofCognitiveGrammar.Vo\ II. Stanford University Press.9. Pollard, C. & I. A. Sag. 1987: An Information-Based Syntax and Semantics. Stanford: C enterforthe Study o f  Language and Information.10. Pusteojovsky, J. 1995: The Generative Lexicon. The MIT Press, Cambridge: Mass.11. Sweetser, E. E. 1990: From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects o f  semantic structure. Cambridge University Press.6012. Traugott, E.C. 2003: “Constructions in Grammaticalization.” Handbook ofHistorical Linguistics. Ed. R .D . Janda and B .D . Joseph. Oxford: Blackwell.13. Verdaguer, I. & A. P och . 1996: “T he in teraction  o f  p o ly sem y  and complementation.” SE D E R IV IIed. by S. G. Fem6ndez-Corugedo. La Cornea 1996: 73-77.14. \ferdaguer, I. & A. Poch. 1997: “A  motivated account o f  the semantic evolution o f  Watch and its Catalan equivalents”. Historical Linguistics 1997. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. ed .b yM ..S . Schmid, J.R. Austin and D . Stein.Vol.164.391-400. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Data sourcesBritish National Corpus Online.Oxford English Dictionary 2  on CD-Rom. 1995. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Rissanen, Matti, Ossi Ihalainen and Meija Kytu (compilers). 1991: Helsinki Corpus o f  English Texts. Diachronic and dialectal. Helsinki.А.И. Волокитина*Самарский государственный университетПериферийные компоненты актуального членения высказывания в немецкой разговорной речиA.I. VolokitinaZweitrangige Komponenten der funktionalen Satzperspektive in der deutschen UmgangsspracheIm vorliegenden Beitrag werden die Funktion und die Reihenfolge der zweitrangigen thematischen und rhematischen Komponenten der Äußerung in Bezug auf die syntaktische Struktur des Satzes dargelegt: Vorfeld, Satrfeld, Nachfeld.* ©  Волокитина А.И., 2005.

Metaphoric mapping and argument structure in semantic change: A case study

http://repo.ssau.ru/bitstream/Sovremennye-metody-i-tehnologii-issledovaniya-germanskih-yazykov/Metaphoric-mapping-and-argument-structure-in-semantic-change-A-case-study-74997/1/Sovremennye%20metody-50-60.pdf

Metaphoric mapping and argument structure in semantic change: A case study

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Samara University