Prototype effects in diachronic semantic change

Geeraerts (1992; 1997) analyzes diachronic semantic change with reference to prototypicality structure. The starting point of Geeraerts’ theory is the idea that principles structuring (synchronic mental representation of) linguistic knowledge must be relevant in diachronic development of these structures as well. He claims that prototypicality structure not only offers an adequate descriptive account of mechanisms of semantic change (‘the forms it may take’), but also forms in itself a

‘true cause’ of semantic change. Geeraerts argues that the importance of

prototypicality structures in diachronic semantic change emerges directly from the

“functional requirements that the conceptual system has to fulfill if it is to carry out optimally its task of storing categorial knowledge and making it accessible for cognitive and communicative purposes” (112; cf. discussion in Chapter 2).

Geeraerts (1997) singles out for investigation four specific ‘prototypicality effects’, derived from two fundamental characteristics of prototypicality structure, namely: ‘non-equality’ of the members of a prototypical category (salience effects, internal structure of core and periphery) and ‘non-discreteness’ (demarcation

4 What exactly may be similarities between subjectivity and domains of use was argued in Chapter 4. How this can be related to ‘subjectification’ will be discussed in following sections.

problems, flexible applicability –cf. discussion in Chapter 2). The four of them can be ordered according to their effects on either the extensional level (the ‘referential one’) or the intensional level (of ‘senses’)⁵ as summed up in Figure 5.1:

Extensional Intensional

Non-discreteness Fluctuations at the edges of a

category Absence of definitions in terms of necessary and sufficient attributes Figure 5.1 Synchronic (lexical) prototype effects investigated by Geeraerts (1997:

22).

Each of the dimensions yields a specific hypothesis concerning ‘the structure of semantic change’, highlighted by prototype theory:

Extensional Intensional

Non-equality Changes in the referential range of one specific word meaning may take the form of modulations on the core-cases within that referential range

Changes of word meaning may have a clustered set structure Figure 5.2 Statements on the structure of semantic change, as highlighted by prototype theory (Geeraerts 1997: 23).

Two of these ‘prototypicality effects’ will be highlighted in this section, as they are especially relevant for the purpose of the present study. The first (and most important) one is the one referring to the fact that different members of a category may differ in degree of saliency within that category and Geeraerts’ observation that if semantic changes occur, they are likely to take the form of an expansion of the prototypical center of a certain category (=left most cell in the top row of Figures 5.1 and 5.2). Geeraerts specifies this hypothesis as follows: “(…) changes in the

extension of a single sense of a lexical item are likely to take the form of an expansion of the prototypical centre of that extension. If the referents that may be found in the range of application of a particular lexical meaning do not have equal status, the more salient members will probably be more stable (diachronically speaking) than the less salient ones” (1997: 23). In other words, as it was formulated at the beginning of this chapter, no matter what extensions occur, the prototypical

5 Although Geeraerts does not seem to support the principled distinction between the intensional and the extensional level of semantic meaning, he maintains it in order to stay in line with the terminology used in formal, logical semantics (1997: 18).

center of the category tends to remain stable (unless fundamental change occurs in the conceptual understanding of the concept the word refers to).

This hypothesis is supported by a case-study of the ‘diachronic’

development of the concept ‘legging’ in the first five years of its existence in the Dutch language (Geeraerts 1997: 33-47). Geeraerts observes that ‘legging’, from its introduction as a garment by 1987 onwards, prototypically refers to ‘a tight-fitting pair of trousers for women, made of an elastic material’. Prototypicality was measured quantitively, in terms of number of occurrences of this specific term-concept pairing. As predicted by the ‘differences in saliency/ modulations of core cases’ hypothesis, in the years to follow the form ‘legging’ started to be used for referents that differ from the prototypical one on the dimensions length, width, material, function, and sex of the person wearing it. Geeraerts observes that “from a diachronic angle, the category shows an increasing flexibility: from year to year, the periphery of the category becomes more and more extended”, allowing for a bigger degree of deviation from the prototype over the years. However, the core area itself remains intact from 1988 to 1992, the period of time under investigation. Geeraerts (1997: 43-7) shows that impact of ‘differences in salience’ at the semasiological level is mirrored by an entrenchment of the form legging as a referring expression to the garment discussed above. This can be interpreted as a prototypicality effect at the onomasiological level of word meaning.

The second of the ‘prototypicality effects’ identified by Geeraerts that is important for the purposes of the present study - especially as it plays a crucial role in the argumentation throughout the present chapter – is Geeraerts’ observation that the onset of semantic change may very well take its starting-point from the domain of encyclopedic information, too. Aspects of the ‘encyclopedic nature of changes in word meaning’ hypothesis (located in the rightmost cell in second row in Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2) come close to the onomasiological level of analysis as it plays a role in the present chapter⁶. It states that semantic changes may take their starting-point in the domain of encyclopedic information as well as in the domain of purely semantic information – thus stressing the role of world-knowledge in onsetting semantic change. Geeraerts (1997: 69-70) discusses the diachronic development of the Dutch verb kruipen⁷ as an example.

Initially, this verb means ‘to crawl, to move on hands and feet’. But in the course of time, kruipen develops a new reading: ‘to go slowly’ – which can be used without reference to ‘crawling on hands and feet’ (for example, it can be said of cars in a traffic jam). This reading is a subset of the original reading, but by no means is it of a different ‘sense’: the distinction between ‘to crawl slowly’ and ‘to crawl swiftly’ is not a case of polysemy, but a case of vagueness. Therefore, the coming into being of the new reading cannot be understood to be an extension from a purely

6 As a matter of fact, Geeraerts discusses this phenomenon arguing against the theoretical distinction between the ‘extensional’ (encyclopaedic) and ‘intensional’ (purely semantic) levels of analysis. I will leave this discussion aside and will only ‘use’ his findings as an argument for my own purposes: identifying elements that affect semantic change on the onomasiological level.

7 With reference to Dik (1977), who initially observed the development discussed, and named it ‘inductive generalization’.

semantic sense, but originates from a subset that is referentially (‘encyclopedically’) salient (and ‘statistically prominent’ as Geeraerts puts it): most instances of crawling imply going slowly.

Geeraerts’ proposal was formulated and empirically tested for lexical items only, but there is no principled reason why it should not apply to functional or grammatical elements as well (see for example Geeraerts 1997: 3; 114).

5.3.3 Toward a hypothesis: Prototypicality and subjectification