Cover not available
Article published In:
Asian Languages and Linguistics
Vol. 1:2 (2020) ► pp.251–277

Mechanisms of semantic change

The case of Cantonese slang

| The University of Hong Kong
This paper examines the mechanisms of semantic change in the creation of ten Cantonese slang words. It demonstrates with synchronic evidence that metaphorization, metonymization and (inter)subjectification are three principal driving forces behind the shift in meaning. It is argued that Traugott and Dasher’s (2002) Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change (IITSC), initially proposed for and widely used in the context of grammaticalization, is equally useful for the study of neologisms – in this case, the relatively recent slang expressions in Cantonese. These monosyllabic lexemes are shown to have followed the same unidirectional pathway of semantic change – that is, the shift from non-subjective meaning to encoded (inter)subjective meaning – outlined in their model of semantic change.
Keywords: slang words, semantic change, Cantonese, Cognitive Grammar, metaphor, metonym, (inter)subjectification, Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Metaphorization and metonymization
    • 2.1Metaphorization
    • 2.2Metonymization
  • 3.Subjectification and intersubjectification
    • 3.1Subjectification
    • 3.2Intersubjectification
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 11 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/alal.20020.won
References (93)
References
Aaron, Jessi Elana, & Cacoullos, Rena Torres. (2005). Quantitative measures of subjectification: A variationist study of Spanish salir(se) . Cognitive Linguistics, 16(4), 607–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ah Foot. (2008). A dictionary of internet trendy expressions 2008. Pi Publication Ltd.Google Scholar
Au Yeung, Ben. (2008). Cantonese and its very own grammar. Ming Cheong Press.Google Scholar
Barcelona, Antonio. (2000). On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for metaphor. In Antonio Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 31–57). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter. (2015). Problems with primary vs secondary grammaticalization: The case of East and mainland Southeast Asia languages. Language Sciences, 47(Part B), 132–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breivik, Leiv Egil, & Martínez-Insua, Ana. (2008). Grammaticalization, subjectification and non-concord in English existential sentences. English Studies, 89(3), 351–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte, Ghesquière, Lobke, & Van de Velde, Freek. (Eds.). (2014). Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in grammar and discourse. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere, & Pagliuca, William. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chan, Ka-chun. (2009, December 10). A lesson on trendy expressions: The case of sim2 . Ming Pao Daily.Google Scholar
Choi, Lan. (2008). King of trendy expressions. Pi Publication Ltd.Google Scholar
Chor, Winnie. (2013). From ‘direction’ to ‘positive evaluation’: On the grammaticalization, subjectification and intersubjectification of faan1 ‘return’ in Cantonese. Language and Linguistics, 14(1), 91–134.Google Scholar
Chu, Fun. (2008). The lessons of trendy expressions. Hong Kong: Wan Li Book Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin, & Heyvaert, Liesbet. (2007). On the middle voice: An interpersonal analysis of the English middle. Linguistics, 45(1), 37–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven, & Cuyckens, Huber. (Eds.). (2010). Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derrig, Sandra. (1978). Metaphor in the colour lexicon. In Donka Farkas, Wesley Jacobsen, & Karol Todrys (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on the lexicon (pp. 85–96). Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. (2011). Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics, 49(2), 365–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline, Degand, Liesbeth, Fagard, Benjamin, & Mortier, Liesbeth. (2011). Historical and comparative perspectives on subjectification: A corpus-based analysis of Dutch and French causal connectives. Linguistics, 49(2), 445–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fagard, Benjamin, & Degand, Liesbeth. (2010). Cause and subjectivity: A comparative study of French and Italian. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 33(2), 179–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fan, Ying. (2000). A classification of Chinese culture. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 7(2), 3–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ghesquière, Lobke, & Van de Velde, Freek. (2011). A corpus-based account of the development of English such and Dutch zulk: Identification, intensification and (inter)subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(4), 765–797. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghesquière, Lobke. (2014). The directionality of (inter)subjectification in the English noun phrase: Pathways of change. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goossens, Louis. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1995). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in figurative expressions for linguistic action. In Louis Goossens, Paul Pauwels, Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, Anne-Marie Simon Vandenbergen, & Johan Vanparys (Eds.), By word of mouth: Metaphor, metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive context (pp. 159–174). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grady, Joseph. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. (1989). Logic and conversation. In Paul Grice (Ed.), Studies in the way of words (pp. 22–40). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Speelman, Dirk, & Geeraerts, Dirk. (2007). Lexical variation and change. In Dirk Geeraerts, & Hubert Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 988–1011). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, & Kuteva, Tania. (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike, & Hünnemeyer, Friederike. (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. (1993). Auxiliaries: Cognitive force and grammaticalization. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ho, Man-yee. (2005). Trendy expressions in Hong Kong Cantonese: Morphological, semantic and pragmatic analyses (MA thesis). The University of Hong Kong. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul, & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. (2003). Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horie, Kaoru. (2007). Subjectification and intersubjectification in Japanese: A comparative typological perspective. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 8(2), 311–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Deborah Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: linguistic applications (pp. 11–42). Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Hutton, Christopher, & Bolton, Kingsley. (2005). A dictionary of Cantonese slang: The language of Hong Kong movies, street gangs and city life. University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian, & Janda, Richard. (2003). The handbook of historical linguistics. Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. (1991). Happiness: A definitional effort. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 6(1), 29–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2000). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, & Johnson, Mark. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. (1998). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenges to western thought. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, & Turner, Mark. (1989). More than cool Reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, Espenson, Jane, & Schwartz, Alan. (1991). Master metaphor list (second draft copy). Cognitive Linguistics Group, University of California Berkeley. Retrieved from [URL]
Lakoff, George. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1990). The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think? University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. (1985). Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In John Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 109–150). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. 1): Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 5–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1995). Raising and transparency. Language, 71(1), 1–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1999). Losing control: Grammaticalization, subjectificaiton, and transparency. In Andreas Blank, & Peter Koch (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition (pp. 147–175). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalised conversational implicature. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linguistic Society of Hong Kong. (1997). Jyut6 Ping3 [Cantonese Romanization Scheme]. Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José. (2010). Subjectification and intersubjectification. In Andreas H. Jucker, & Irma Taavitsainen (Eds.), Historical pragmatics (pp. 127–164). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loureiro-Porto, Lucía. (2012). On the relationship between subjectification, grammaticalization and constructions: Evidence from the history of English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13(2), 232–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luke, Kang-kwong, & Lau, Chaak-ming. (2008). On loanword truncation in Cantonese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 17(4), 347–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. (1982). Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In Robert Jarvella, & Wolfgang Klein (Eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 101–124). Wiley.Google Scholar
McGlone, Matthew. (2006). What is the explanatory value of a conceptual metaphor? Language & Communication, 27(2), 109–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko, & Heine, Bernd. (Eds.). (2011). The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. (n.d.). Oxford University Press.
Park, Chongwon. (2010). (Inter)subjectification of Korean honorifics. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 11(1), 122–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, Günter. (2000). How metonymic are metaphors? In Antonio Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 93–108). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reddy, Michael. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Andrew Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–310). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha. (2012). Context-induced interpretation and (inter)subjectification: The case of grammaticalization of sentence-final particles. Language Sciences, 34(3), 284–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, & Willems, Dominique. (2011). Crosslinguistic data as evidence in the grammaticalization debate: The case of discourse markers. Linguistics, 49(2), 333–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
So, Real-Real. (2008). Picture cards of trendy expressions in Hong Kong Cantonese. Kubrick.Google Scholar
. (2009). Flash cards of trendy expressions in Hong Kong Cantonese (Vol. 21). Kubrick.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Ryoko. (2007). (Inter)subjectification in the quotative tte in Japanese conversation: Local change, utterance-ness and verb-ness. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 8(2), 207–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tang, Sze-Wing. (2009). Word formation of Hong Kong trendy expressions. Chinese Language Research, 28(2), 11–21.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, & Dasher, Richard. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, & Heine, Bernd. (Eds.). (1991). Approaches to grammaticalization (Vols. 1–21). John Benjamins. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, & König, Ekkehard. (1991). The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott, & Bernd Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (Vol. 1): Theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 189–218). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65(1), 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Dieter Stein, & Susan Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives (pp. 31–54). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1997). Subjectification and the development of epistemic meaning: The case of promise and threaten . In Toril Swan, & Olaf Jansen Westvik (Eds.), Modality in Germanic languages (pp. 185–210). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1999). The rhetoric of counter-expectation in semantic change: A study in subjectification. In Andreas Blank, & Peter Koch (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition (pp. 177–196). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2003). Constructions in grammaticalization. In Brian Joseph, & Richard Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 624–647). Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007a). (Inter)subjectification and unidirectionality. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 8(2), 295–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007b). The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(4), 523–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, & Hubert Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp. 29–71). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2012). Pragmatics and language change. In Keith Allan, & Kasia M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 249–266). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2017). Semantic change. Oxford research encyclopaedia: Linguistics. Retrieved from [URL]. DOI logo
Van Linden, An. (2010). From premodal to modal meaning: Adjectival pathways in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(3), 537–571. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vesterinen, Rainer. (2010). The relation between iconicity and subjectification in Portuguese complementation: Complements of perception and causation verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(3), 573–600. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visconti, Jacqueline. (2013). Facets of subjectification. Language Sciences, 36(1), 7–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warren, Beatrice. (1999). Aspects of referential metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther, & Günter Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 121–138). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xing, Janet Zhiqun. (2006). Mechanisms of semantic change in Chinese. Studies in Language 30(3), 461–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yaguchi, Michiko. (2010). The historical development of the phrase there’s: An analysis of the Oxford English Dictionary data. English Studies, 91(2), 205–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, weiwei, Geeraerts, Dirk, & Speelman, Dirk. (2015). Cross-linguistic variation in metonymies for person: A Chinese-English contrastive study. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(1), 220–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar