Onomasiology - Processes of Lexical Change

Processes of Lexical Change

In the case of intentional, conscious innovation speaker has to pass several levels of a word-finding, or name-giving, process: (1) analysis of the specific features of the concept, (2) onomasiological level (where the semantic components for the naming units are selected ), (3) the onomatological level (where the concrete morphemes are selected ). The level of feature analysis (and possibly the onomasiological level) can be spared if the speaker simply borrows a word from a foreign language or variety; it is also spared if the speaker simply takes the word s/he originally fell back to and just shortens it.

If the speaker does not shorten an already existing word for the concept, but coins a new one, s/he can select from several types of processes. These coinages may be based on a model from the speaker’s own idiom, on a model from a foreign idiom, or, in the case of root creations, on no model at all. In sum, we get the following catalog of formal processes of word-coining (cf. Koch 2002):

• adoption of either

1. an already existing word of speaker’s own language (semantic change) or (b)
2. a word from a foreign language (loanword)

• conversion (e.g. to e-mail from the noun e-mail)
• composition (in a broad sense, i.e. compounds and derivations, which are, very consciously, not further subclassified)
• ellipsis (i.e. morpheme deletion, e.g. the noun daily from daily newspaper)
• clipping (i.e. morpheme shortening, e.g. fan from fanatic)
• acronyms (e.g. VAT from value added tax)
• blendings (including folk-etymologies, although these come up non-intentionally, e.g. sparrow-grass for asparagus)
• back-derivation (e.g. to baby-sit from babysitter)
• reduplication (e.g. goody-goody)
• morphological alteration (e.g. number change as in people as a plural word instead of a singular word)
• tautological compounds (e.g. peacock for original pea, which already meant 'peacock')
• wordplaying/puns
• stress alteration (e.g. stress shift in E. ímport vs. impórt)
• graphic alteration (e.g. E. discrete vs. discreet)
• phraseologism
• root creation (including onomatopoetic and expressive words)

The name-giving process is completed with (4) the actual phonetic realization on the morphonological level.

In order to create a new word, the speaker first selects one or two physically and psychologically salient aspects. The search for the motivations (iconemes) is based on one or several cognitive-associative relations. These relations are:

• contiguity relations (= “neighbor-of” relations)
• similarity relations (= “similar-to” relations)
• partiality relations (= “part-of” relations)
• contrast relations (= “opposite-to” relations)

These relations can be seen between forms, between concepts and between form and concept.

A complete catalog reads the following associative relations (cf. also Koch 2002):

• identity (e.g. with loans)
• “figurative”, i.e. individually felt, similarity of the concepts (e.g. mouse for a computer device that looks like a mouse)
• contiguity of concepts (e.g. a Picasso for a painting by Picasso or glass for a container made out of glass)
• partiality of concepts (e.g. bar 'place of an inn where drinks are mixed' for the entire inn)
• contrast of concepts (e.g. bad in the sense of "good")
• “literal” or “figurative” similarity between the forms of a sign and the concept (e.g. with onomatopoetic words like purr)
• strong relation between contents of signs and “literal” similarity of concepts (e.g. with generalization of meaning, e.g. Christmas tree for any kind of fir tree or even any kind of conifer)
• strong relation between contents of signs and contrast of concepts (e.g. with learn in the sense of "teach" in some English dialects)
• strong relation between contents of signs and “literal” similarity of concepts (e.g. corn in the English sense of "wheat" or Scottish sense of "oats" instead of "cereal")
• (“literal”) similarity of the forms of signs (e.g. sparrow-grass for asparagus)
• contiguity of the forms of signs (e.g. brunch from breakfast + lunch, VAT from value added tax)
• “literal”, i.e. objectively visible, similarity and contiguity of concepts (e.g. with the transfer of names among spruce and fir in many dialects)
• “literal” similarity of referents and strong relation between contents of signs
• multiple associations (e.g. with certain forms of word-play)

The concrete associations can or cannot be incited by a model which may be of speaker’s own idiom or a foreign idiom.