In:Motivation in Language: A cognitive perspective
Edited by Grzegorz Drożdż and Barbara Taraszka-Drożdż
[Human Cognitive Processing 83] 2027
► pp. 153–182
Chapter 7The motivation of semantic shifts between different categories of
nouns
The case of craft
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
This chapter investigates the motivation behind
selected semantic extensions of the English noun
craft that co-occur with shifts across four
nominal categories: count, mass, zero plural, and plurale tantum.
Drawing on diachronic lexicographic evidence, primarily from the
Oxford English Dictionary, it reconstructs
pathways of sense extension and the accompanying changes in
grammatical properties. The analysis adopts the Cognitive Grammar
approach to polysemy and Panther’s model of linguistic motivation.
The chapter shows that these developments are not arbitrary; rather,
they reflect interacting motivations rooted in historically situated
cultural practices, perceptual experience, conceptualization, and
language-internal tendencies.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The background of the study
- 2.1The cognitive perspective on language change
and its motivational factors- 2.1.1Perception and Gestalt laws
- 2.2Polysemy and sense extension in Cognitive Grammar
- 2.3The grammatical properties of craft
- 2.3.1Countability
- 2.3.2Uncountability
- 2.3.3The zero plural sense
- 2.3.4The plurale tantum sense
- 2.4The historical properties of craft
- 2.5The methodology and research question
- 2.1The cognitive perspective on language change
- 3.The analysis
- 3.1Uncountable → countable
- 3.2Countable → uncountable
- 3.3Uncountable → zero plural
- 3.4Zero plural → countable
- 3.5Countable → plurale tantum
- 4.Conclusions
- Author queries
Notes References
References (59)
Barcelona, A. 2002. Clarifying
and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within
cognitive linguistics: An
update. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor
and metonymy in comparison and
contrast (207–277). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Berezowski, L. 2020. English
animal zero plurals: A new
explanation. Beiträge zur
allgemeinen und vergleichenden
Sprachwissenschaft, 9, 7–27.
Bruce, V., Green, P., & Georgeson, M. 2003. Visual
perception: Physiology, psychology, &
ecology. Hove: Psychology Press.
CAMDIC =
Cambridge Dictionary
Online. Available
at: [URL]
Crawford, A. 1985. C.
R. Ashbee: Architect, designer & romantic
socialist. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Crisma, P., & Pintzuk, S. 2016. An
from Old to Middle
English. In S. Vikner, H. Jørgensen, & E. van Gelderen (Eds.), Let
us have articles betwixt
us (31–53). Aarhus: Department of English, School of Communication and Culture, Aarhus University.
DIC
=
Dictionary.com. Available
at: [URL]
Drożdż, G. 2017. The
puzzle of (un)countability in English: A study in Cognitive
Grammar. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Fox, S. 1864. King
Alfred’s Anglo-Saxon version of Boethius’ Consolation of
Philosophy. London: H. G. Bohn.
Harris, J. 1704. Lexicon
technicum: Or, an universal English dictionary of arts and
sciences: Explaining not only the terms of art, but the arts
themselves. London: Dan Brown et al.
Hopper, P. J. 1991. On
some principles of
grammaticization. In E. C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches
to grammaticalization. Vol. 1: Theoretical and
methodological
issues (17–35). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. 2002. The
Cambridge grammar of the English
language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations
of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical
prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
1994. Culture,
cognition, and
grammar. In M. Pütz (Ed.), Language
contact and language
conflict (25–54). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2000. A
dynamic usage-based
model. In M. Barlow, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based
models of
language (1–63). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
2016. Nominal
structure in Cognitive Grammar: The Lublin
lectures. Lublin: Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press.
Marckwardt, A. H. 1970. Much
and many: The historical development of a Modern English
distributional
pattern. In J. L. Rosier (Ed.), Philological
essays (50–54). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
MWEB
= Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Online. Available
at: [URL]
Myers, A. R. 1959. The
household of Edward IV: The Black Book and the ordinance of
1478. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
OED = Oxford
English Dictionary
Online. Available
at: [URL]
Palmer, S. 1992. Common
region: A new principle of perceptual
grouping. Cognitive
Psychology, 24(3), 436–447.
Panther, K.-U. 2013. Motivation
in
language. In S. Kreitler (Ed.), Cognition
and motivation: Forging an interdisciplinary
perspective (407–432). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2021. Motivation. In X. Wen, & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of cognitive
linguistics (297–313). New York & London: Routledge.
2022. Introduction
to cognitive
pragmatics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G. 2011. Introduction:
Reflections on motivation
revisited. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Motivation
in grammar and the lexicon [Human
Cognitive Processing
27] (1–26). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Pomerantz, J. 1981. Perceptual
organization in information
processing. In M. Kubovy, & J. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual
organization (141–180). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. 1985. A
comprehensive grammar of the English
language. London: Longman.
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). 2007. Cognitive
English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. 1999. Towards
a theory of
metonymy. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy
in language and
thought (17–59). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U. 2004. Introduction:
Reflections on
motivation. In G. Radden, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies
in linguistic
motivation (1–46). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rissanen, M. 1967. The
uses of “one” in Old and early Middle
English. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
Seto, K.-I. 1999. Distinguishing
metonymy from
metaphor. In K.-U. Panther, & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy
in language and
thought (91–120). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Soares da Silva, A. 2026. Prototypes,
(inter)subjectification, figurativity and semantic change:
Evidence from
Portuguese. In A. Rogos-Hebda, & H. Tissari (Eds.), At
the crossroads of historical and cognitive
linguistics (122–146). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Society of
Antiquaries of
London. 1790. A
collection of ordinances and regulations for the government
of the Royal Household: Made in divers reigns from King
Edward III to King William and Mary; also receipts in
ancient
cookery. London: J. Nichols.
Taylor, H. F. 1921. Preservation
of fish nets. Appendix IV to the
report of the U.S. Commissioner of Fisheries for 1920.
Bureau of Fisheries Document No.
898. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Toupin, F. 2015. About
plural morphology and game animals: From Old English to
Present-Day
English. Lexis, 9, 95–122.
Toyota, J. 2009. When
the mass was counted: English as classifier and
non-classifier
language. SKASE Journal of
Theoretical
Linguistics, 6(1), 118–130.
Wierzbicka, A. 1988. The
semantics of
grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Winters, M. E. 2020. Historical
linguistics: A Cognitive Grammar
introduction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
