The Catalogue of Semantic Shifts: 20 Years Later

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The article summarizes the goals and the current state of the Catalogue of sematic shifts (CSSh), its primary notions being those of a semantic shift , which is understood as a relation of cognitive proximity between two linguistic meanings, and a realization of a semantic shift, i.e. one polysemic word or a pair of cognate words of the same language or different languages that act as “exponents” of this relation. The typology of semantic shifts occupies a position at the crossroad of semantic, lexical and grammatical typologies, overlapping each of these areas of study in terms of linguistic data and methods used; however, the domain of CSSh does not coincide with any of them. The framework of CSSh provides the theoretical foundation for identifying recurring cross-linguistic semantic shifts, and collecting them in the Database of Semantic Shifts for further analysis. The article demonstrates that the notion of semantic shift as defined in CSSh is just a formalization of an instrument of linguistic analysis that is already quite common in various areas of linguistics. Semantic shift provides a basis for the notion of semantic parallel used in the historical linguistics and etymology, for motivational models in word-formation, it is a central notion for grammati- calization theory; finally, semantic shift is one of various types of implicit meanings (along with presuppositions and connotations) that shape the “linguistic model of the world”. Linguistic data contained in the Database of Semantic Shifts can be used in all these areas, in order to provide semantic plausibility criteria for linguistic reconstruction, to act as empirical evidence for cognitive mechanisms of linguistic conceptualization, to aid in identifying specific features of the semantic system of a given language or group of languages.

About the authors

Anna A Zalizniak

Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: anna.zalizniak@gmail.com
Doctor of Philology, a Chief Researcher at the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a Leading Researcher at the Federal Research Centre of Computer Science and Control of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 1 B. Kislovskij Ln., Moscow, 125009, Russia

References

  1. Apresjan, Yu.D. (1974). Leksicheskaya semantika (Lexical Semantics). Moscow.
  2. Apresjan, Yu.D. (2009). Issledovaniya po semantike i leksikografii. T. 1. Paradigmatika. (Research in Semantics and Lexicography. Vol. I. Paradigmatics) Moscow. (In Russ.)
  3. Arkad’ev, P.M. (2002). Polisemiya nazvanij golovy v slavyanskikh i germanskikh yazykakh v tipo¬logicheskom i istoricheskom aspekte (Polysemy of Denominations for the Word “Head” in Slavic and Germanic Languages in the typological and Historical Aspects). Moskovskij lingvisticheskij zhurnal. 2002. T. 6. № 1. (in Russ.)
  4. Benveniste, E. (1954). Problèmes sémantiques de la reconstruction. Word, vol. X, N°2-3.
  5. Blank, A. (2000). Polysemy in the Lexicon. In R. Eckarolt, K. von Heusinger (eds.). Meaning change - meaning variation. Workshop held at Konstanz, Feb. 1999. Konstanz.
  6. Blank, A., Koch, P. & P. Gévaudan (2000). Onomasiologie, sémasiologie et l’étymologie de langues romanes: esquisse d’un projet. In A. Englebert, M. Pierrard, L. Rosier, D. Van Raemdonck (eds.) Actes du XXIIe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes, Bruxelles, 23-29 juillet 1998. IV: Des mots aux dictionnaires. Tübingen.
  7. Blank, A. & P. Koch (2000). La conceptualisation du corps humain et la lexicologie diachronique romane In H. Dupuy-Engelhardt, M.-J. Montibus (eds.). La lexicalisation des structures conceptuelles: Actes du colloque international EUROSEM 1998. (Recherches en linguistique et psychologie cognitive 13.) Reims, 2000.
  8. Blumfil’d, L. (1968). Yazyk (Language). Moskva. (in Russ.)
  9. Brown, C.H. & S.R. Witkowski (1983). Polysemy, lexical change and cultural importance. Man. New Series. 1983. V. 18. № 1.
  10. Buck, C.D. (1971). A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principle Indo-European Languages. A Contribution to the History of Ideas. Chicago.
  11. Bybee, J.L. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge.
  12. Cornillie, B. (2004). The shift from lexical to subjective readings in Spanish prometer ‘to promise’ and amenazar ‘to threaten’: a corpus-based account. Pragmatics, 2004, 14(1): 1-30.
  13. Croft, W. (2003). Typology and Universals. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
  14. Croft, W. & D.A. Cruse (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004.
  15. Dal’, V.I. (1994). Tolkovyj slovar’ zhivogo velikorusskogo yazyka (Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian Language) Moskva.
  16. Evans, N. (2011). Semantic typology. In J.J. Song (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  17. Evans, N. & D. Wilkins (2000). In the mind’s ear: the semantic extension of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language. 2000. V. 76. № 3.
  18. François, A. (2008). Semantic maps and the typology of colexification. In M. Vanhove (ed.). From Polysemy to semantic change. Towards a Typology of Lexical Semantic Associations. [Studies in Language Companion series, 106] Amsterdam, 2008.
  19. Gak, V.G. (1998). Metafora: universal’noe i spetsificheskoe (Metaphor: the Universal and the Specific). Gak V.G. Yazykovye preobrazovaniya. Moskva. (in Russ.)
  20. Gladkova, A. (2005). In what ways the Russian soperezhivanie is different from the English empathy? The Natural Semantic Metalanguage in contrastive semantics. Computational Linguistics and Intellectual technologies. Papers from the Annual International Conference Dialogue-2005, Zvenigorod, 1-7 June 2005. P. 107-112. Moscow. (In Russ.)
  21. Gladkova, A. and T. Larina (2018). Anna Wierzbicka, Words and The World. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 22 (3), 499-520.
  22. Georgakopoulos, Th. & St. Polis (2018). The semantic map model: State of the art and future avenues for linguistic research. [wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/lnc3].
  23. Gévaudan, P., Koch, P. & A. Neu (2003). Hundert Jahre nach Zauner: Die romanischen Namen der Körperteile im DECOLAR. Romanische Forschungen. Bd. 115. № 1.
  24. Gévaudan, P. & D. Wiebel (2004). Dynamic lexicographic data modeling: A diachronic dictionary. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’04) [http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2004/pdf/471.pdf]
  25. Goddard, C. (2008) (ed.). Cross-linguistic semantics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  26. Goddard, C. (2012). Semantic primes, semantic molecules, semantic templates: Key concepts in the NSM approach to lexical typology. Linguistics. 50 (3), 711-743.
  27. Goddard, C. & A. Wierzbicka (eds.) (1994) Semantic and lexical universals: Theory and empirical findings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  28. Greenberg, J.H. (1957). The nature and uses of linguistic typologies. International Journal of American Linguistics, 23 (2).
  29. Haspelmath, M. (1997). Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
  30. Haspelmath, M. (2003). The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic map and cross-linguistic comparison. In Tomasello M. (ed.). The new psychology of language. V. 2. Mahwah (NJ).
  31. Havlová, E. (1965). O potřebe slovníku semantickych zmĕn. Yazykovĕdné actuality. № 4.
  32. Heine, B. & T. Kuteva (2006). The Changing Languages of Europe. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
  33. Hénault-Sakhno, Ch. & S. Sakhno (2001). Typologie des langues et sémantique diachronique: le problème des universaux. LINX. V. 45.
  34. Hénault-Sakhno, Ch. & S. Sakhno (2005). Typologie sémantique lexicale: problèmes de systémati¬sation. In C. Moyse-Faurie, G. Lazard (eds.). Typologie linguistique. Villeneuve d’Ascq.
  35. Juvonen, P. & M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.) (2016). The lexical typology of sematic shifts. [Cognitive Linguistics Research, 58] Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  36. Knyazev, Yu.P. (2007). Grammaticheskaya semantika. Russkij yazyk v tipologicheskoj perspektive. (Grammatical Semantics: Russian Language in Typological Perspective.) Moskva: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur, 2007.
  37. Koch, P. (2000) Pour une approche cognitive du changement semantique lexical: aspect onomasio¬logoque. Memoires de la Société de linguistique de Paris. Nouvelle série, tome IX. The-ories contemporaine du changement sémantique. Peeters, 75-95.
  38. Koch, P. (2001). Lexical typology from a cognitive and linguistic point of view. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher, W. Raible (eds.) Language typology and language universals: An international handbook. Vol. 2, 1143-1175. Berlin - N.-Y.: Walter de Gruyter.
  39. Koch, P. (2004). Diachronic onomasiology and semantic reconstruction. In W. Mihatsch, R. Stein¬berg (eds.), Lexical Data and Universals of Semantic Change. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 2004.
  40. Koch, P. (2008). Cognitive onomasiology and lexical change. Around the eye In M. Vanhove (ed.) From Polysemy to semantic change. Towards a Typology of Lexical Semantic Associations. [Studies in Language Companion series, 106] Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2008.
  41. Koch, P., Gévaudan, P. & A. Neu (2003). Dictionnaire Etymologique et Cognitif des Langues Romanes In Th. Städtler (hrsg.). Wissenschaftliche Lexikographie im deutschsprachigen Raum. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 195-207.
  42. Koch, P. & D. Marzo (2007). A two-dimensional approach to the study of motivation in lexical typology and its first application to French high-frequency vocabulary. Studies in Language, vol. 31, 2.
  43. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (2012). New directions in lexical typology In M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. Vanhove (eds.) New directions in lexical typology. Special issue of Linguistics. V. 50. № 3.
  44. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (2015). The linguistics of temperature. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  45. Krysin, L.P. (1998). Tolkovyi slovar’ inoyazychnykh slov. (Dictionary of Foreign Words.) Moskva. (In Russ.)
  46. Kustova, G.I. (2004). Tipy proizvodnykh znachenij i mekhanizmy yazykovogo rasshireniya. (Types of Derivative Meanings and Mechanisms of Linguistic Expansion). Moskva: Yazyki slavyanskoj kul’tury. (In Russ.)
  47. Lehmann, C. (1990). Towards lexical Typology. In W. Croft, K. Denning, S. Kemmer (eds.) Studies in Typology and Diachrony. Papers presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th Birthday. Amsterdam, 1990.
  48. Lehrer, A. (1992). A theory of vocabulary structure: Retrospectives and prospectives. In M. Putz (ed.) Thirty years of linguistic evolution. Studies in Honor of René Dirven on the occasion of his sixtieth Birthday. Amsterdam: Joh Benja-mins.
  49. List, J.-M., Anderson, C., Greenhill, S.J., Mayer, Th., Tresoldi, T. & R. Forkel (2018). CLICS2: An Improved Database of Cross-Linguistic Colexifications Assembling Lexical Data with Help of Cross-Linguistic Data Formats. Linguistic Typology, 22, 277-306.
  50. Maisak, T.A. & E.V. Rakhilina (eds.) (2007). Glagoly dvizheniya v vode: leksicheskaya tipologiya. (Verbs of Movement in Water: Lexical Typology.) Moskva. (in Russ.)
  51. Marzo, D. (2009). Polysemie als Verfahren lexikalischer Motivati-on. Theorie und Empirie am Beispiel von Metonymie und Metapher im Französischen und Italienischen. Tübingen.
  52. Nerlich, B. & D. Clarke (2004). Polysemy and flexibility: introduction and overview. In Z. Todd, V. Herman, D.D. Clarke (eds.). Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language [Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs, 142]. Berlin, New York, 2004.
  53. Nunberg, G. & A. Zaenen (1992). Systematic polysemy in lexicology and lexicography. Eurolex’92, Part II, 1992, 387-396.
  54. Paducheva, E.V. (2004). Dinamicheskie modeli v semantike leksiki. (Dynamic Models in Lexical Semantics.) Moskva. (In Russ.)
  55. Paul’, G. (1960). Principy istorii yazyka (Principles of the History of Language). Moskva. (in Russ.)
  56. Plungian, V.A. (2011). Vvedenie v grammaticheskuyu semantiku: grammaticheskie znacheniya i grammaticheskie sistemy yazykov mira. (Introduction to Grammatical Semantics: Grammatical Meanings and Grammatical systems in the Languages of the World.) Moskva. (in Russ.)
  57. Pustejovsky, J (1998). The Generative Lexicon. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998.
  58. Rakhilina, E.V. & I. Kor-Shain (2010). Novaya zagadka khvatat’. (New Riddle of khvatat’.) In Rakhilina E.V. (red.) Lingvistika konstruktsij. Moskva: Azbukovnik, 318-332. (In Russ.)
  59. Rakhilina, E.V. & V.A. Plungian (2007). O leksiko-semanticheskoj tipologii. (About Lexico-Semantic Typology.) In Maisak T.A., Rakhilina E.V. (eds.), 9-26. (In Russ.)
  60. Rakhilina, E.V. & T.I. Reznikova (2016). A frame-based methodology for lexical typology. In Juvonen, P. & M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), 95-130.
  61. Rey, A. (2000). Dictionnaire historique de la langue française. Paris: Dictionnaires LE RORERT.
  62. Russo, M.M. (2014). Neogumbol’dtianskaya lingvistika i ramki «yazykovoj kartiny mira» (Neo-Humboltdian Linguistics and the Boundaries of the “Linguistic Model of the World”). Politi-cheskaya lingvistika, № 47, 12-24. (In Russ.)
  63. Sakhno, S. (1999). Typologie des parallèles lexicaux russes-français dans une perspective sémantico-historique. Slovo, v. 22-23.
  64. Sakhno, S. (2001). Dictionnaire russe-français d’étymologie comparée. Correspondances lexicales historiques. Paris: L’Harmattan.
  65. Schröpfer, J. (1956). Wozu ein vergleichendes Wörterbuch des Sinnwandels? Proceedings of the seventh International Congress of Linguists (London 1952). London: Clarendon Press.
  66. Shmelev, A.D. (2009) «Neznachashchee» i «nevyrazhennoe» otritsanie (kognitivnye i kommuni¬kativnye istochniki enantiosemii) (“Insignificant ” and “Unexpressed” Negation (Cognitive and Communicative Origins of the Enantiosemy)). Logicheskij analiz yazyka. Asserciya i negaciya. Moskva: Indrik, 173-202. (In Russ.)
  67. Smirnitskaya, A. (2018). The Database of semantic shifts 2.0 as а way to represent semantic variability. Presentation on the workshop “Semantic maps: Where do we stand and where are we going?”. University of Liège. 26-28.6.2018 http://web.philo.ulg.ac.be/lediasema/wp-content/uploads/ sites/43/2018/05/Workshop_2018_LeDiasema_Posters.pdf.
  68. Sreznevskij, I.I. (1989). Materialy k slovaryu drevnerusskogo yazyka. (Material for the Dictionary of the Old Russian Language.) 3 volumes. Moskva. (In Russ.)
  69. Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 54. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
  70. Talmy, L. (2007). Lexical typologies. In T. Shopen (ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. 3: Grammatical Cate-gories and the Lexicon. 2nd edition. Cambridge.
  71. Taylor, J. (2004). Cognitive models of polysemy. In Z. Todd, V. Herman, D.D. Clarke (eds.). Poly¬semy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language [Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs, 142]. Berlin, New York.
  72. Tolstaya, S.M. (2002). Motivatsionnye semanticheskie modeli i kartina mira. (Motivational Semantic Models and the Image of the World.). Russkij yazyk v nauchnom osveshchenii. № 1 (3). (In Russ.)
  73. Tolstaya, S.M. (2008). Prostranstvo slova. Leksicheskaya semantika v obshcheslavyanskoj perspektive. (The Space of a Word. Lexical Semantics in a General Slavic Perspective) Moskva: Indrik.
  74. Traugott, E. & Dasher, R. (2002) Regularities in semantic change. Cambridge: CUP.
  75. Trubachev, O.N. (1964). ‘Molchat’’ i ‘tayat’’. O neobkhodimosti semasiologicheskogo slovarya novogo tipa. (‘Molchat’’ and ‘tayat’’. About the Necessity of a Semasiological Dictionary of a New Type). Problemy indoevropeiskogo yazykoznaniya. Moskva. (In Russ.)
  76. Trubachev, O.N. (1976). Etimologicheskie issledovaniya i leksicheskaya semantika. (Etymological Research and Lexical Semantics). Printsipy i metody semanticheskikh issledovanij. Moskva.
  77. Trubachev, O.N. (1988). Priemy semanticheskoj rekonstrukcii (Methods of Semantic Reconstruction). Sravnitel’no-istoricheskoe izuchenie yazykov raznykh semej. Teoriya lingvisticheskoj rekonstrukcii. Moskva: Nauka. (In Russ.)
  78. Ullmann, St. (1963). Semantic universals. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.) Universals of Language. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 172-207.
  79. van der Auwera, J. (2008). In defense of classical semantic maps. Theoretical Linguistics, 34, 39-46.
  80. Vanhove, M. (ed.) (2008). From Polysemy to semantic change. Towards a Typology of Lexical Semantic Associations. [Studies in Language Companion series, 106] Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  81. Wierzbicka, A. (1972) Semantic primitives. [Linguistische Forschungen. Вd 22]. Frankfurt am Main.
  82. Wierzbicka, A. (1980). Lingua mentalis. The semantics of natural language. Sydney etc.: Acad. Press, 1980.
  83. Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Semantics, Culture, and Cognition. Universal Human Concepts in Culture-Specific Configurations. N. Y.; Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
  84. Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
  85. Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Emotions across Languages and Cultures. Cambridge Univ. Press. Paris: Edition de la Maison des Sciences de l’homme.
  86. Wierzbicka, A. (2002). Semantic primes and linguistic typology. In C. Goddard & A. Wierzbicka (eds.) Meaning ad Universal Grammar. Theory and Empirical Findings. Vol. II, 257-300. Amster¬dam: John Benjamins.
  87. Wierzbicka, A. (2006). English: Meaning and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  88. Wilkins, D. (1996). Natural tendencies of semantic change and the search for cognates. In M. Durie, M. Ross (eds.). The Comparative Method Reviewed. Regularity and irregularity in Language Change. N.Y., Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
  89. Zalizniak, A.A., Toropova, E.V. & V.L. Yanin (2005). Berestyanye gramoty iz raskopok 2004 g. v Novgorode i Staroj Russe (Birch Bark Manuscripts Recovered in Novgorod and Staraya Russa in 2004). Voprosy yazykoznaniya, № 3. (In Russ.)
  90. Zalizniak, Anna A. (2001). Semanticheskaya derivaciya v sinkhronii i diakhronii: proekt sozdaniya «Kataloga semanticheskikh perekhodov» (Synchronic and Diachronic Semantic Derivation: The Project of a “Catalogue of Semantic Shifts”). Voprosy yazykoznaniya, № 2. (In Russ.)
  91. Zalizniak, Anna A. (2006). Mnogoznachnost’ v yazyke i sposoby ee predstavleniya. (Linguistic Ambiguity and Ways of its Representations) Moskva: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur. (In Russ.)
  92. Zalizniak, Anna A. (2008). A Catalogue of Semantic Shifts: towards a Typology of Semantic Deriva¬tion. In Vanhove M. (ed.) From Polysemy to semantic change. Towards a Typology of Lexical Semantic Associations. [Studies in Language Companion series, 106] Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 217-232.
  93. Zalizniak, Anna A. (2009) O ponyatii semanticheskogo perexoda (On the notion of sematic shift). Computational Linguistics and Intellectual technologies. Papers from the Annual International Conference Dialogue-2009, Bekasovo, 27-31 maya 2009, 107-112. Moscow. (In Russ.)
  94. Zalizniak, Anna A. (2013a). Semanticheskij perekhod kak ob"ekt tipologii (Semantic Shift as an Object of Typology). Voprosy yazykoznaniya, 2013, № 2. (In Russ.)
  95. Zalizniak, Anna A. (2013b). Russkaya semantika v tipologicheskoj perspektive: k voprosu o termine «yazykovaya kartina mira» (Russian Semantics from Typological Perspective: On the Notion of the “Linguistic Picture of the World”). Russian Linguistics. 2013. V. 37. № 1. (In Russ.)
  96. Zalizniak, Anna A., Bulakh, M., Ganenkov, D., Gruntov, I., Maisak, T.& M. Russo (2012) The Cata¬logue of semantic shifts as a database for lexical semantic Typology. Linguistics. V. 50. № 3.
  97. Zevakhina, T.S. (1985). K voprosu ob universaliyakh v oblasti polisemii (About Linguistic Universals in Polysemy.). Lingvisticheskaya tipologiya. Moskva: Nauka. (In Russ.)

Copyright (c) 2018 Zalizniak A.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies