Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 6:1 (2019) ► pp.1–21

Uncovering historical semantic connections with the help of image schemata

The case of Modern English some, same and Old English sam-

 | University of Pécs
 | University of Pécs
Standard etymological dictionaries agree that Modern English some, same and their Old English cognate sam- ‘half’ descend from the same etymon. However, while explaining their phonological development from the same proto-form is unproblematic, their divergent meanings make the reconstruction of their semantic evolution more challenging. The paper examines the historical semantic connection between these three morphemes from a cognitive perspective and attempts to provide an explanation of how they are conceptually linked to each other. Based on a cognitive semantic analysis of the meanings of these forms, we propose that all three concepts are understood on the basis of and embedded in one and the same image schematic domain – comprised by the general unity/multiplicity schema – and derive from entailments of its subschemata. Such an image schematic account of the conceptual connections between these meanings provides an explanation for the various paths of semantic development from the original etymon leading to the established later meanings. This approach will also facilitate the semantic reconstruction of the ancestral Proto-Indo-European form and help identify the exact cognate relationships between some, same and sam-.
Keywords: conceptualization, image schemata, semantic extension, semantic reconstruction, etymology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Overview of the etymological data
  • 3.The conceptual connections of some, same and sam-: An image schematic account of the etymological data
    • 3.1Pathways of conceptual evolution
    • 3.2Applying image schemata to the explanation of semantic changes
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00028.heg
References (53)
References
Anttila, R. (1972). An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
(1992). Field theory of meaning and semantic change. In G. Kellermann & M. D. Morrissey (Eds.), Diachrony within synchrony: Language history and cognition (pp. 23–83). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bammesberger, A. (1994). On the prehistory of Old English sam-/som- ‘half’. NOWELE, 241, 3–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blank, A. (1999). Why do new meanings occur? A cognitive typology of the motivations for lexical semantic change. In A. Blank & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition (pp. 61–89). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Words and concepts in time: Towards diachronic cognitive onomasiology. In R. Eckardt, K. von Heusinger & C. Schwarze (Eds.), Words in time: Diachronic semantics from different points of view (pp. 37–66). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beekes, R. (2010). Etymological dictionary of Greek. Leiden & Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Blažek, V. (1999). Numerals: Comparative-etymological analyses of numeral systems and their implications. Brno: Masarykova Universita.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. (1998). Historical linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Clausner, T. & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10 (1), 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coleman, R. (1992). Italic. In J. Gvozdanović (Ed.), Indo-European numerals (pp. 389–446). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruz Cabanillas, I. de la. (2012). On the evolution of some Old English prefixes: The case of sam . In N. Vázques (Ed.), Creation and use of historical English corpora in Spain (225–244). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Diakonoff, I. M. (1983). Some reflections on numerals in Sumerian: Towards a history of mathematical speculation. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 103(1), 83–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. & Green, M. (2004). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fortson, B. W. (2004). Indo-European language and culture: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gamkrelidze, T. V. & Ivanov, V. V. (1995). Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language and a proto-culture. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
(2010). Prospects for the past: Perspectives for cognitive diachronic semantics. In M. E. Winters, H. Tissari & K. Allan (Eds.), Historical cognitive linguistics (pp. 333–356). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonda, J. (1953). Reflections on the numerals “one” and “two” in ancient Indo-European languages. Utrecht: A. Oosthoek.Google Scholar
Győri, G. (1996). Historical aspects of categorization. In E. H. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics in the Redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics (pp. 175–206). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Semantic change and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 123–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Győri, G. & Hegedűs, I. (1999). Is everything black and white in conceptual oppositions? In L. de Stadler & C. Eyrich (Eds.), Issues in cognitive linguistics (pp. 57–74). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). A cognitive approach to the methodology of semantic reconstruction: The case of English chin and knee . In K. Allen & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Current methods in historical semantics (pp. 313–333). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U. & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). From cognition to grammar: Evidence from African languages. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (pp. 149–187). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. (2004). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hunting, R. P. & Davies, G. E. (1991). Dimensions of young children’s conceptions of the fraction one half. In R. P. Hunting & G. Davies (Eds.), Early fraction learning (pp. 27–72). New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jordan, N. C., Rodrigues, J., Hansen, N. & Resnick, I. (2017). Fraction development in children: Importance of building numerical magnitude understanding. In D. C. Geary, D. B. Berch, R. J. Ochsendorf & K. Mann Koepke (Eds.), Acquisition of complex arithmetic skills and higher-order mathematics concepts (pp. 126–140). London: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroonen, G. (2013). Etymological dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden & Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mallory, J. P. & Adams, D. Q. (1997). The encyclopedia of Indo-European culture. London & Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn.Google Scholar
(2006). The Oxford introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European world. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neal, K. (2002). From discrete to continuous: The broadening of number concepts in early modern England. Dodrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OED Online. September 2018. Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Parrat-Dayan, S. & Vonéche, J. (1992). Conservation and the notion of “half”. In J. Bideaud, C. Meljac & J.-P. Fischer (Eds.), Pathways to number: Children’s developing numerical abilities (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Paul, H. (1920). Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. (5th edition). Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pokorny, J. (1959). Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Ringe, D. (2006). From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szemerényi, O. J. L. (1999). Introduction to Indo-European linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1999). The role of pragmatics in semantic change. In J. Verschueren (Ed.), Pragmatics in 1998: Selected papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference, vol. II1 (pp. 93–102). Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.Google Scholar
(2011a). Pragmatics and language change. In K. Allan & K. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 549–565). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2011b). Grammaticalization and mechanisms of change. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 19–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vaan, M. de. (2008). Etymological dictionary of Latin and the other Italic languages. Leiden & Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2007). Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 48–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Waanders, F. M. J. (1992). Greek. In J. Gvozdanović (Ed.), Indo-European numerals (pp. 369–388). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Winters, M. E. (1992). Schemas and prototypes: Remarks on syntax change. In G. Kellermann & M. D. Morrissey (Eds.), Diachrony within synchrony: Language history and cognition (pp. 265–280). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2010). Introduction: On the emergence of diachronic cognitive linguistics. In M. E. Winters, H. Tissari & K. Allan (Eds.), Historical cognitive linguistics (pp. 3–27). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wischer, I. (2000). Grammaticalization versus lexicalization: ‘Methinks’ there is some confusion. In O. Fischer, A. Rosenbach & D. Stein (Eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English (pp. 355–370). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zalizniak, A. A., Bulakh, M., Ganenkov, D., Gruntov, I., Maisak, T. & Russo, M. (2012). The catalogue of semantic shifts as a database for lexical semantic typology. Linguistics, 50(3), 633–669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Yang, Kun, Jinqiu Guo & Xu Wen
2021. Eating we live by. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8:1 ► pp. 204 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.