• Forthcoming titles
      • New in paperback
      • New titles by subject
      • February 2023
      • January 2023
      • December 2022
      • November 2022
      • New serials
      • Latest issues
      • Currently in production
      • Active series
      • Other series
      • Open-access books
      • Text books & Course books
      • Dictionaries & Reference
      • By JB editor
      • Active serials
      • Other
      • By JB editor
      • Printed catalogs
      • E-book collections
      • Amsterdam (Main office)
      • Philadelphia (North American office)
      • General
      • US, Canada & Mexico
      • E-books
      • Examination & Desk Copies
      • General information
      • Access to the electronic edition
      • Special offers
      • Terms of Use
      • E-newsletter
      • Book Gazette
Article published in:
English Historical Linguistics 2008: Selected papers from the fifteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 15), Munich, 24-30 August 2008. Volume II: Words, texts and genres
Edited by Hans Sauer and Gaby Waxenberger
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 324] 2012
► pp. 85–98

Repayment and revenge

Metaphorical or metonymic links between two semantic fields

Carole Hough | University of Glasgow

Links between the semantic fields of repayment and of revenge occur in many languages. As the usual pattern of metaphorical sense development is from concrete to abstract, repayment has been taken as the source domain, with revenge as the target. However, the relationship does not conform to that usual in metaphor. Revenge is not understood in terms of repayment; and both in Old English and later stages of the language, the semantic field of revenge includes not only polysemous but monosemous terms. The explanation may lie in the early legal system, which constructed links between the domains of revenge and restitution to provide an alternative to the blood feud. From a diachronic perspective, the domains were so closely related that the semantic link may represent metonymy rather than metaphor. A diachronic perspective also suggests that revenge was the more concrete concept, acting as source domain, with repayment as the target.

Published online: 09 August 2012
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.324.05hou
Share via FacebookShare via TwitterShare via LinkedInShare via WhatsApp
About us | Disclaimer | Privacy policy | | | | Antiquariathttps://benjamins.com