Everything about Onomasiology totally explained
Onomasiology is a branch of
linguistics concerned with the question "how do you express X?" It is in fact most commonly understood as a branch of
lexicology, the study of words (although some apply the term also to
grammar and conversation).
Onomasiology, as a part of lexicology, departs from a concept (for example an idea, an object, a quality, an activity etc.) and asks for its names. The opposite approach is known as
semasiology: here one departs from a word and asks what it means, or what concepts the word refers to. Thus, an onomasiological question is, for example, "what are the
names for long, narrow pieces of potato that have been deep-fried?" (answers:
french fries in the US,
chips in the UK etc.), while a semasiological question is, for example, "what is the
meaning of the term
chips?" (answers: 'long, narrow pieces of potato that have been deep-fried' in the UK, 'slim slices of potatoes deep fried or baked until crisp' in the US).
Onomasiology can be carried out or, for example historically. The majority of linguists seem to link onomasiology automatically to
diachronic questions, for example questions on how and why things change their names. Therefore, the following sections refer predominantly to onomasiology in its diachronic perspective.
State of the art
Onomasiology was initiated already in the late 19th century, but it didn’t receive its name until
1902, when the Austrian linguist Adolf Zauner published his study on the body-part terminology in
Romance languages. And it was in Romance linguistics that the most important onomasiological works were written. Early linguists were basically interested in the etymology (for example the word-history) of the various expressions for a concept which was mostly a clearly defined, unchangeable concrete object or action. Later the Austrian linguists Rudolf Meringer and
Hugo Schuchardt started the “Wörter und Sachen” movement, which emphasized that every study of a word needed to include the study of the object it denotes. It was also Schuchardt who underlined that the etymologist/onomasiologist, when tracing back the history of a word, needs to respect both the “dame phonétique” (prove the regularity of sound changes or explain irregularities) and the “dame sémantique” (justify semantic changes). Another branch that developed from onomasiology and, at the same time, enriched it in turn was linguistic geography (areal linguistics), since it provided onomasiologists with valuable
linguistic atlases. The first ones are the ALF (
Atlas Linguistique de la France) by
Jules Gilliéron (1902-20), the AIS (
Sprach- und Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz) by
Karl Jaberg and
Jakob Jud (1928-1940), the DSA (
Deutscher Sprachatlas) by Ferdinand Wrede et al. (1927-1956). These atlases include maps that show the corresponding names for a concept in different regions as they were gathered in interviews with dialect speakers (mostly old rural males) by means of a questionnaire. Concerning English linguistics, onomasiology as well as linguistic geography has been playing only a minor role (the first linguistic atlas for the US was initiated by
Hans Kurath, the first one for the UK by Eugen Dieth. ). In
1931 the German linguist
Jost Trier introduced a new method in his book
Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes which is known as the
lexical field theory. According to Trier, lexical changes must always be seen, apart from the traditional aspects, in connection with the changes within a given word-field. After World War II only few studies on onomasiological theory have been carried out (for example by
Cecil H. Brown,
Stanley R. Witkowski,
Brent Berlin). But onomasiology has recently seen new light with the works of
Dirk Geeraerts, Andreas Blank, Peter Koch and the periodical
Onomasiology Online
, which is published at the Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt by
Joachim Grzega, Alfred Bammesberger and Marion Schöner. A recent representative of synchronic onomasiology (with a focus on word-formation processes) is Pavol Stekauer.
Instruments for the historical onomasiologist
The most important instruments for the historical onomasiologist are:
Explanations of lexical change
When speaker has to name something, s/he first tries to categorize it. If the speaker can classify the referent as member of a familiar concept, s/he will carry out some sort of cognitive-linguistic cost-benefit-analysis: what should I say to get what I want. Based on this analysis, the speaker can then either fall back on an already existing word or decide to coin a new designation. These processes are sometimes more conscious, sometimes less conscious.
The coinage of a new designation can be incited by various forces (cf. Grzega 2004):
difficulties in classifying the thing to be named or attributing the right word to the thing to be named, thus confusing designations
fuzzy difference between superordinate and subordinate term due to the monopoly of the prototypical member of a category in the real world
everyday contact situations
institutionalized and non-institutionalized linguistic pre- and proscriptivism
flattery
insult
disguising things (for example euphemistic language, doublespeak)
taboo
avoidance of words that are phonetically similar or identical to negatively associated words
abolition of forms that can be ambiguous in many contexts
word play/punning
excessive length of words
morphological misinterpretation (creation of transparency by changes within a word = folk-etymology)
deletion of irregularity
desire for plastic/illustrative/telling names for a thing
natural prominence of a concept
cultural-induced prominence of a concept
changes in the world
changes in the categorization of the world
prestige/fashion (based on the prestige of another language or variety, of certain word-formation patterns, or of certain semasiological centers of expansion)
The following alleged motives found in many works have shown to be invalid by Grzega (2004): decrease in salience, reading errors, laziness, excessive phonetic shortness, difficult sound combinations, unclear stress patterns, cacophony.
Processes of lexical change
In the case of intentional, conscious innovation speaker has to pass several levels of a word-finding, or name-giving, process: (1) analysis of the specific features of the concept, (2) nonomasiological level (where the semantic components for the naming units are selected [“namingin a more abstract sense”]), (3) the onomatological level (where the concrete morphemes are selected [“namingin a more concrete sense”]). The level of feature analysis (and possibly the onomasiological level) can be spared if the speaker simply borrows a word from a foreign language or variety; it's also spared if the speaker simply takes the word s/he originally fell back to and just shortens it.
If the speaker doesn't shorten an already existing word for the concept, but coins a new one, s/he can select from several types of processes. These coinages may be based on a model from the speaker’s own idiom, on a model from a foreign idiom, or, in the case of root creations, on no model at all. In sum, we get the following catalog of formal processes of word-coining (cf. Koch 2002):
adoption of either
an already existing word of speaker’s own idiom (semantic change) or (b)
a word from a foreign idiom (loanword)
conversion (for example to e-mail from the noun e-mail)
composition (in a broad sense, for example compounds and derivations, which are, very consciously, not further subclassified)
ellipsis (i.e morpheme deletion, for example the noun daily from daily newspaper)
clipping (for example morpheme shortening, for example fan from fanatic)
acronyms (for example VAT from value added tax)
blendings (including folk-etymologies, although these come up non-intentionally, for example sparrow-grass for asparagus)
back-derivation (for example to baby-sit from babysitter)
reduplication (for example goody-goody)
morphological alteration (for example number change as in people as a plural word instead of a singular word)
tautological compounds (for example peacock for original pea, which already meant 'peacock')
wordplaying/puns
stress alteration (for example stress shift in E. ímport vs. impórt)
graphic alteration (for example E. discrete vs. discreet)
phraseologism
root creation (including onomatopoetic and expressive words)
The name-giving process is completed with (4) the actual phonetic realization on the morphonological level.
In order to create a new word, the speaker first selects one or two physically and psychologically salient aspects. The search for the motivations (iconemes) is based on one or several cognitive-associative relations. These relations are:
contiguity relations (= “neighbor-of” relations)
similarity relations (= “similar-to” relations)
partiality relations (= “part-of” relations)
contrast relations (= “opposite-to” relations)
These relations can be seen between forms, between concepts and between form and concept.
A complete catalog reads the following associative relations (cf. also Koch 2002):
identity (for example with loans)
“figurative”, for example individually felt, similarity of the concepts (for example mouse for a computer device that looks like a mouse)
contiguity of concepts (for example a Picasso for a painting by Picasso or glass for a container made out of glass)
partiality of concepts (for example bar 'place of an inn where drinks are mixed' for the entire inn)
contrast of concepts (for example bad in the sense of "good")
“literal” or “figurative” similarity between the forms of a sign and the concept (for example with onomatopoetic words like purr)
strong relation between contents of signs and “literal” similarity of concepts (for example with generalization of meaning, for example Christmas tree for any kind of fur tree or even any kind of conifer)
strong relation between contents of signs and contrast of concepts (for example with learn in the sense of "teach" in some English dialects)
strong relation between contents of signs and “literal” similarity of concepts (for example corn in the English sense of "wheat" or Scottish sense of "oats" instead of "cereal")
(“literal”) similarity of the forms of signs (for example sparrow-grass for asparagus)
contiguity of the forms of signs (for example brunch from breakfast + lunch, VAT from value added tax)
“literal”, for example objectively visible, similarity and contiguity of concepts (for example with the transfer of names among spruce and fir in many dialects)
“literal” similarity of referents and strong relation between contents of signs
multiple associations (for example with certain forms of word-play)
The concrete associations can or can't be incited by a model which may be of speaker’s own idiom or a foreign idiom.
Further Information
Get more info on 'Onomasiology'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://onomasiology.totallyexplained.com">Onomasiology Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
