Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Historical Linguistics
Vol. 6:2 (2016) ► pp.165–200

Tracking semantic change in fl- monomorphemes in the Oxford English Dictionary

| CRISCO EA 4255 Université de Caen |
This study aims to track diachronic semantic shift in a small set of monomorphemes collected from the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), carrying the initial fl- phonestheme, such as flounder, flummox, flail, etc. The purpose is to determine the semantic behavior of fl- monomorphemes by identifying OED key words, which are then classified into eleven conceptual categories of semantic features. Five features of the eleven are conjectured as major on the basis of frequency of occurrence and frequency of combination with other features. Features which share similar progression rates are hypothesized to be linked through the natural process of metonymy (MTA, SV, SBT). Early emergent features are viewed as primary (MTA and MTL). From there, directionality of shift is assessed by comparing co-emergent with post-attestation features. Although no general pattern is discernible on this scale, several case studies of unexpected semantic shift towards minor features as in flummer and flourish show promising results for the field of historical lexical semantics.
Keywords: phonesthemes, semantic change, directionality of change, feature analysis, Sketch Engine, corpus linguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data, source, and method
    • 2.1Selection of initial submorpheme fl-
    • 2.2Using lexicographic data
      • 2.2.1Using the Oxford English Dictionary to track semantic shift over time
      • 2.2.2Collecting data from the OED online
      • 2.2.3Diachronic inclusions and dates
      • 2.2.4Sample corpus
    • 2.3Method for identifying shared semantic content
      • 2.3.1The shared semantic content of fl-
      • 2.3.2Identifying recurring features in OED definitions: Feature analysis
      • 2.3.3Correlation between shared roots and semantic features
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Distribution of features
    • 3.2Feature combination and its relevance
    • 3.3Diachronic propagation of fl- features over time
    • 3.4Semantic shift in frequent features (MTA, SV, SBT, MTL): Co-emergence vs. post-attestation emergence
    • 3.5Minor features emergence
    • 3.6Preliminary conclusions: Natural semantic shift between fl- features
  • 4.Discussion: Interpretation of results
    • 4.1Natural processes and analogy in language change
      • 4.1.1Natural processes of language change
      • 4.1.2Evidence of phonesthetic shift and what it means for language change
    • 4.2The evidence of semantic shift in fl- words in OED
    • 4.3Extrapolating semantic change in post-1900 fl- words
    • 4.4Collocate behavioral test of some fl- monomorphemes in the OEC
    • 4.5Testing collocate analysis of flounce <1542> in the OEC
  • 5.Summary
  • 6.Wider implications: Tools and multivariate statistics for semantic study
  • Notes
  • Primary Sources
  • References
Published online: 2 March 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.6.2.02smi
References (74)
Primary Sources
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED). Online subscription version, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at [URL]. Last accessed 16/03/2015.
Oxford English Corpus (OEC). Access granted by Oxford University, provided by Sketch Engine v3 (Feb 2012) “OEC + Biwec build v2″ 2.073 G words.
Google Books American. Available at [URL].
Corpus of Global Web-Based English. Available at [URL].
SketchEngine. Available at [URL].
Semantic Atlas: The Semantic Atlas Institut des Sciences Cognitives, CNRS, University Lyon 11, UMR 5015.
HTOED: The Historical Thesaurus of English. 2009. Glasgow University, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
References
Abramova, Ekaterina, Raquel Fernandes & Frederico Sangati. 2013. Automatic Labeling of Phonesthemic Senses. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Cognitive Science Meeting 2013 . Available online at [URL].
Aitchison, Jean. 2012 [1989]. Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon, 4th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Allan, Kathryn. 2012. Using OED Data as Evidence. In Kathryn Allan & Justyna Robinson, eds., 17–40.Google Scholar
Allan, Kathryn & Justyna Robinson, eds. 2012. Current Methods in Historical Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Argoud, Line. 2008. Les ‘mots en bl-’ du lexique anglais: étude de la structuration des données dans une optique lexico-cognitive. Lexis 2: Lexical Submorphemics ed. by Jamet Denis, 43–76.Google Scholar
. 2011. Réalité des idéophones anglais (phonesthèmes): propositions dans le cadre d’une approche de linguistique cognitive. E-rea, Revue d’études sur le monde anglophone. [Online Journal of English Studies]. Available online at [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin K. 2004. The Psychological Reality of Phonaesthemes. Language 80:2.291–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Phonesthemes: Frequency and Psychological Reality. Paper presented at the Emory University Conference Workshop Sound Symbolism: Challenging the Arbitrariness of Language , 26–27 March, 2010. Available online at [URL].
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1940. Word Affinities. American Speech 151.62–73. Reprinted in Bolinger 1965, 191–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1965. Forms of English: Accent, Morpheme, Order ed. by Isamu Abe & Tetsuya Kanekiyo. Cambridge: Harvard University Press/Tokyo: Hokuou.Google Scholar
Bottineau, Didier. 2008. The Submorphemic Conjecture in English: Towards a Distributed Model of the Cognitive Dynamics of Submorphemes. Lexis 21.19–42.Google Scholar
Boussidan, Armelle, Eyal Sagi & Sabine Ploux. 2009. Phonaesthemic and Etymological Effects on the Distribution of Senses in Statistical Models of Semantics. Proceedings of the 34th Cognitive Science Annual Meeting 20091, 36–40.
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Longman/Pearson.Google Scholar
Croft, William & Richard A Blythe. 2012. S-curves and the Mechanisms of Propagation in Language Change. Language 88:2.269–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David. 2003. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 5th ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 2002. Log(ist)ic and Simplistic S-curves. Motives for Language Change ed. by Raymond Hickey, 54–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dirven, Rene. 2005. Major Strands in Cognitive Linguistics. In Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, ed., 17–68.Google Scholar
Drellishak, Scott. 2006. Statistical Techniques for Detecting and Validating Phonesthemes. Paper presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America , Anaheim, CA.
Firth, John R. 1930. Speech. London: Ernest Benn.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2009. Grammaticalisation as Analogy Driven Change. Vienna English Working Articles 18:2.3–23. Available online at [URL].Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. 2005. Embodied Action in Thought and Language. In Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, ed., 225–248.Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2010. Corpus-Driven Cognitive Semantics: An Introduction to the Field. Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches ed. by D. Glynn & K. Fischer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012a. Correspondence Analysis: An Exploratory Technique for Identifying Usage Patterns. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson, eds.Google Scholar
. 2012b. Techniques and Tools: Corpus Methods and Statistics for Semantics. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson, eds.Google Scholar
. 2012c. The Many Uses of Run: Corpus Methods and Socio-Cogntive Semantics. In Dylan Glynn & Robinson, eds.Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan & J. Robinson, eds. 2012. Corpus Methods in Cognitive Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2010. Cluster Analysis and the Identification of Collexeme Classes. Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research ed. by Sally Rice & John Newman. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Heinrich & Brian D. Joseph. 2009 [1996]. Language History, Language Change and Language Relationship: An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Berli: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunter-Smith, Sarah. 2007. Understanding without Babblefish: Reviewing the Evidence for Universal Sound Symbolism in Natural Languages. Swarthmore College Unpublished Thesis. Available online at [URL].Google Scholar
Hutchins, S. S. 1998. The Psychological Reality, Variability, and Compositionality of English Phonesthemes. Emory University PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Language—Its nature, Development and Origin. London: George Allen & Unwim Ltd.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 1997. On the Linguistics of Marginality: The Centrality of the Periphery. Articles from the 33rd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society ed. by Kora Singer, Randall Eggert & Gregory Anderson, 197–213. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, Pavel Rychlý, Pavel Smrž & David Tugwell. 2004. The Sketch Engine. Proceedings of Euralex, 105–116. Lorient, France: Universite de Bretagne-Sud.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter. 2012. The Pervasiveness of Contiguity and Metonymy in Semantic Change. In Kathryn Allan & Justyna Robinson, eds., 259–312.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 2003. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Anatoly. 1990. Etymological Studies 3. Some Germanic Words Beginning with fl-: Language at Play. General Linguistics 301.81–107.Google Scholar
. 2013. Flutes and Flatterers. OUP blog June 2013. Available online at [URL].Google Scholar
Lijffijt, Jefrey, Tanja Säily & Terttu Nevalainen. 2012. CEECing the Caseline: Lexical Stability and Significant Change in a Historical Corpus. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English, Volume 10. Outposts of Historical Corpus Linguistics: From the Helsinki Corpus to a Proliferation of Resources ed. by Jukka Tyrkkö, Matti Kilpiö, Terttu Nevalainen & Matti Rissanen, Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English (VARIENG), University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Lijffijt, Jefrey, Terttu Nevalainen, Tanja Säily, Panagiotis Papapetrou, Kai Puolamäki & Heikki Mannila. 2015. Significance Testing of Word Frequencies in Corpora. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. Available online at [URL].Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. München: Verlag C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Miller, D. Gary. 2010. Language Change and Linguistic Theory. 2 Vols1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2014. Lexicogenesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 2014. The Predictive Potential of Empirical Historical Research and the S-Curve Model of Change. Paper Presented at Conference The International Society for the Linguistics of English (ISLE) , 24–27 August 2014, Zurich.
Ohala, John J. 1994. The Frequency Code Underlies the Sound-Symbolic Use of Voice Pitch. Sound Symbolism ed. by Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols & John J. Ohala, 325–347. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Otis, Katya & Eyal Sagi. 2008. Phonaesthemes: A Corpora-Based Analysis. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. by Bradley C. Love, Ken McRae & Vladmir M. Sloutsky, 65–70. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Philps, Dennis. 2002. Le concept de ‘marqueur sub-lexical’ et la notion d’invariant sémantique. La notion d’invariant sémantique ed. by P. Larrivée. Travaux de linguistique 451.103–123.Google Scholar
. 2008a. Submorphemic Iconicity in the Lexicon; A Diachronic Approach to English gn- Words. Lexis 2: La submorphémique lexicale. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008b. Sons et lumières: le marqueur sublexical <gl-> . L’Envers du décor, Etudes de linguistique anglaise ed. by Geneviève Girard, 24–43. Avignon: Publication des presses de l’Université d’Avignon.Google Scholar
. 2008c. From Mouth to Eye. The Evolution of Language ed. by A. Smith, K. Smith & R. Ferreri, 251–258. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, 2009. Conceptual Transfer and the Emergence of the Sign. CogniTextes 21. Available online at [URL].Google Scholar
. 2011. Reconsidering Phonaesthemes: Submorphemic Invariance in English sn- Words. Lingua 1211.1121–1137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Submorphemes: Backtracking from English ‘kn- words’ to the Emergence of the Linguistic Sign. Miranda 71. Available online at [URL]. DOI logo
Reay, I. E. 2009 [1994]. Sound Symbolism. Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics ed. by Keith Allan, 893–901. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José, ed. 2005. Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rychlý, Pavel. 2008. A Lexicographer-Friendly Association Score. Proceedings of 2nd Workshop on Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Languages Processing, RASLAN 2008 ed. by Petr Sojka & Aleš Horák, 6–9. Brno: Masaryk University. Available online at [URL].Google Scholar
Sagi, Eyal, Stefan Kaufmann & Brady Clark. 2012. Tracing Semantic Change with Latent Semantic Analysis. In Allan Kathryn & Justyna Robinson, eds., 161–183.Google Scholar
Shisler, Benjamin K. 1997. Dictionary of English Phonesthemes. Available online at [URL].Google Scholar
Sinclair, J.M. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Chris A. 2015. The Phonesthetics of Blends: A Diachronic Study of Cognitive Blends in the OED. ExELL Vol. 2.11 ed. by Adisa Imamović. Available online at [URL].Google Scholar
Tournier, Jean. 2007 [1985]. Introduction descriptive à la lexicogénétique de l’anglais contemporain. Paris: Champion-Slatkine.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elisabeth. 2010. Revisiting Subjectification and Intersubjectification. Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization ed. by Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens, 29–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsur, Reuven. 2006. Size Sound Symbolism Revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 381.905–924. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waugh, Linda R. 1979. On the Sound Shape of Language. The Sound Shape of Language ed. by Roman Jakobson & Linda R. Waugh, 198–214. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
. 1994. Degrees of Iconicity. Journal of Pragmatics 221.55–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, Joseph. 1898–1905. The English Dialect Dictionary Vol. II D-G1 ed. by Joseph Wright. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Farina, Mael
2024. Groaning and grunting: Investigating sound correspondences in the English lexicon. Lexis :23 DOI logo
Haslett, David A. & Zhenguang G. Cai
2024. Wayward associations: When and why people think of similar-sounding words. Journal of Memory and Language 138 ► pp. 104537 ff. DOI logo
Haslett, David A. & Zhenguang G. Cai
2024. Systematic mappings of sound to meaning: A theoretical review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 31:2 ► pp. 627 ff. DOI logo
Malysheva, V. N.
2024. French Loanwords in English cr-phonaesthemic group. Discourse 10:4 ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
PENTANGELO, JOSEPH
2021. Phonesthetics and the etymologies ofbloodandbone. English Language and Linguistics 25:2 ► pp. 225 ff. DOI logo
Benczes, Réka
2020. Sound Symbolism and Semantic Change. In Dynamics of Language Changes, ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo
Mahler, Hanna
2019. Lexical Emergence on Reddit: An Analysis of Lexical Change on the “Front Page of the Internet”. Lexis :16 DOI logo
Smith, Chris A.
2017. Where do new words like boobage, flamage, ownage come from? Tracking the history of ‑. Lexis :12 DOI logo
Smith, Chris A.
2019. A Case Study of -some and -able Derivatives in the. Lexis :16 DOI logo
Smith, Chris A.
2019. Introduction. Lexis :16 DOI logo
Smith, Chris A.
2019. List of References. Lexis :16 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 october 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.