1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Historical Linguistics
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of When does semantic change lead to semantic loss?
EPUB
PDF

Abstract

Semantic change proceeds via an A > A/B (> B) trajectory (Traugott & Dasher 2002). While semantic extension (i.e., A > A/B) is now relatively well-understood, semantic loss (i.e., A/B (>B)) is not. This article argues that the mechanism of semantic extension is a determinant of the likelihood of loss. Specifically, loss is more likely following extension through inference-driven metonymy than following metaphorical extension. This is because metaphorically related senses tend to be contextually more distinct, which better supports polysemy sustenance. Conversely, because inference-driven extensions typically rely on bridging contexts, related senses often occur in overlapping contexts. This makes loss of the source sense more likely following extension. Evidence to support this argument is drawn from different corpus-based case studies into the semantic development of the English adjectives , , , and , and Dutch ‘frightening’.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.24047.ceu
2026-06-08
2026-07-17

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jhl.24047.ceu
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/jhl.24047.ceu/jhl.24047.ceu.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.24047.ceu&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Allan, Kathryn
    2008 Metaphor and metonymy: A diachronic approach. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Allwood, Jens
    2003 Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. Cognitive approaches to lexical semanticsed. byHubert Cuyckens, René Dirven & John R. Taylor, –. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110219074.29
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219074.29 [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnold, Jennifer E., Thomas Wasow, Ash Asudeh & Peter Alrenga
    2004 Avoiding attachment ambiguities: The role of constituent ordering. Journal of Memory and Language(). –. 10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.006 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barcelona, Antonio
    1986 On the concept of depression in American English: A cognitive approach. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Blevins, Juliette & Andrew Wedel
    2009 Inhibited sound change: An evolutionary approach to lexical competition. Diachronica(). –. 10.1075/dia.26.2.01ble
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.26.2.01ble [Google Scholar]
  6. BNC Consortium, The British National Corpus, XML Edition
    BNC Consortium, The British National Corpus, XML Edition 2007 Oxford Text Archive, hdl.handle.net/20.500.14106/2554
  7. Bybee, Joan
    2003 Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. The handbook of historical linguisticsed. byBrian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda, –. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch19
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch19 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2016 Language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Diewald, Gabriele
    2002 A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. New reflections on grammaticalizationed. byIlse Wischer & Gabrielle Diewald, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.09die
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.09die [Google Scholar]
  10. Cai, Yingying & Hendrik De Smet
    2024 In alternations, not all semantic motivation comes from semantic contrast. Linguistics Vanguard. 10.1515/lingvan‑2023‑0041
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2023-0041 [Google Scholar]
  11. Campbell, Lyle
    2020 Historical linguistics: An introduction, 4 edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9781474463133
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474463133 [Google Scholar]
  12. Casenhiser, Devin M.
    2005 Children’s resistance to homonymy: An experimental study of pseudohomonyms. Journal of child language(). –. 10.1017/S0305000904006749
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000904006749 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ceuppens, Hilke
    2023 Losing one’s senses: The role of contextual distinctiveness in semantic loss. KU Leuven MA thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Ceuppens, Hilke & Hendrik De Smet
    2025 Tied together, fried together: Understanding semantic extensibility through semantic loss. English Language and Linguistics(). –. 10.1017/S1360674325000206
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674325000206 [Google Scholar]
  15. Corpus Gesproken Nederlands — CGN [data set]
    Corpus Gesproken Nederlands — CGN [data set] 2014 (version 2.0.3). Available at the Dutch Language Institute: hdl.handle.net/10032/tm-a2-k6
  16. Couranten Corpus [online service]
    Couranten Corpus [online service] 2022 (version 1.0). Available at the Dutch Language Institute: hdl.handle.net/10032/tm-a2-u9
  17. Croft, William
    1993 The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics. –. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2000 Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse
    2004 Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  20. Davies, Mark
    2010 The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA). Available online athttps://www.english-corpora.org/coha/
     [Google Scholar]
  21. De Smet, Hendrik, Susanne Flach, Jukka Tyrkkö & Hans-Jürgen Diller
    2015 The Corpus of Late Modern English (CLMET), version 3.1: Improved tokenization and linguistic annotation. KU Leuven, FU Berlin, U Tampere, RU Bochum. Available fromhttps://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0044428/clmet3_1.htm
     [Google Scholar]
  22. De Smet, Hendrik
    2017 Entrenchment effects in language change. Entrenchment, memory and automaticity: The psychology of linguistic knowledge and language learninged. byHans-Jörg Schmid, –. Washington: American Psychology Association. 10.1037/15969‑005
     https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-005 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2019 The motivated unmotivated: Variation, function and context. Grammar — Discourse — Context: Grammar and usage in language variation and changeed. byKristin Bech & Ruth Möhlig-Falke, –. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110682564‑011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110682564-011 [Google Scholar]
  24. De Smet, Hendrik, Frauke D’hoedt, Lauren Fonteyn & Kristel Van Goethem
    2018 The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics(). –. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0025
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0025 [Google Scholar]
  25. De Vogelaer, Gunther & Evie Coussé
    2011 The functional nature of pronominal change: Innovative plural pronouns in English and Dutch. Neophilologus. –. 10.1007/s11061‑010‑9210‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11061-010-9210-8 [Google Scholar]
  26. Dixon, Robert M. W.
    2004 The Jarawara language of Southern Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199270675.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199270675.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Doherty, Martin J.
    2004 Children’s difficulty in learning homonyms. Journal of Child Language. –. 10.1017/S030500090300583X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500090300583X [Google Scholar]
  28. Eckardt, Regine, Klaus von Heusinger & Christoph Schwarze
    2003 Words in Time: Diachronic Semantics from Different Points of View. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110899979
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110899979 [Google Scholar]
  29. Enger, Hans-Olav
    2007 Grammaticalisation due to homonymy avoidance in Gudbrandsdalen /æpr˛ede/?Transactions of the Philological Society(). –. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2007.00183.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2007.00183.x [Google Scholar]
  30. Evans, Vyvyan
    2005 The meaning of time: Polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics(). –. 10.1017/S0022226704003056
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226704003056 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2006 Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction. Cognitive Linguistics(). –. 10.1515/COG.2006.016
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.016 [Google Scholar]
  32. Evans, Nicholas & David Wilkins
    2000 In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language(). –. 10.2307/417135
     https://doi.org/10.2307/417135 [Google Scholar]
  33. Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner
    2000 Metaphor, metonymy, and binding. Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroadsed. byAntonio Barcelona, –. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Ferreira, Victor S., L. Robert Slevc & Erin S. Rogers
    2005 How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions?Cognition. –. 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  35. Firth, John Rupert
    1957 Studies in linguistic analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Gabora, Liane
    2014 Physical light as a metaphor for inner light. Aisthesis(). –. 10.13128/Aisthesis‑15289
     https://doi.org/10.13128/Aisthesis-15289 [Google Scholar]
  37. Geeraerts, Dirk
    1997 Diachronic Prototype Semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198236528.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198236528.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Gilliéron, Jules & Mario Roques
    1912 Etudes de géographie linguistique. Paris: Champion.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995 Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Goossens, Louis
    1990 Metaphotonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics(). –. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323 [Google Scholar]
  41. Haspelmath, Martin
    1999 Why Is grammaticalization irreversible?Linguistics(). –. 10.1515/ling.37.6.1043
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.6.1043 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hanks, Patrick
    2000 Do word meanings exist?Computers and the Humanities(). –. 10.1023/A:1002471322828
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002471322828 [Google Scholar]
  43. Heine, Bernd
    2002 On the role of context in grammaticalization. New reflections on grammaticalizationed. byIlse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/tsl.49.08hei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.08hei [Google Scholar]
  44. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    2004 Lexicalization and grammaticalization: opposite or orthogonal?What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its componentsed. byWalter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer, –. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197440.1.21
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197440.1.21 [Google Scholar]
  45. Hock, Hans Henrich
    1986 Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110871975
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871975 [Google Scholar]
  46. Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth C. Traugott
    2003 Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  47. Koch, Peter
    2016 Meaning change and semantic shifts. The Lexical Typology of Semantic Shiftsed. byPäivi Juvonen & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm, –. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110377675‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110377675-002 [Google Scholar]
  48. Lakoff, George
    1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  49. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
    1980 Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Lamers, Monique & Peter de Swart
    (eds.) 2012 Case, word order and prominence. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑1463‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2 [Google Scholar]
  51. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Lass, Roger
    1997 Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620928
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620928 [Google Scholar]
  53. Levshina, Natalia
    2021 Communicative efficiency and differential case marking: A reverse-engineering approach. Linguistic Vanguard(). 10.1515/lingvan‑2019‑0087
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0087 [Google Scholar]
  54. Nerlich, Brigitte & David D. Clarke
    2003 Polysemy and flexibility: Introduction and overview. Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and languageed. byBrigitte Nerlich, Zazie Todd, Vimala Herman & David D. Clarke, –. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110895698.3
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895698.3 [Google Scholar]
  55. Nerlich, Brigitte, Zazie Todd & David D. Clarke
    2003 Emerging patterns and evolving polysemies: the acquisition of get between four and ten years. Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and languageed. byBrigitte Nerlich, Zazie Todd, Vimala Herman & David D. Clarke, –. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110895698.333
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895698.333 [Google Scholar]
  56. Nuyts, Jan & Pieter Byloo
    2015 Competing modals: Beyond (inter)subjectification. Diachronica(). –. 10.1075/dia.32.1.02nuy
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.32.1.02nuy [Google Scholar]
  57. Oostdijk, Nelleke, Martin Reynaert, Véronique Hoste & Ineke Schuurman
    2013 The construction of a 500-million-word reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch. Essential speech and language technology for Dutched. byPeter Spyns & Jan Odijk, –. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑30910‑6_13
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30910-6_13 [Google Scholar]
  58. Oxford English Dictionary (OED) Online
    Oxford English Dictionary (OED) Online 2000– 3rd edn. (in progress). Oxford University Press. www.oed.com (accessedApril 2024)
  59. Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda L. Thornburg
    2007 Metonymy. The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguisticsed. byDirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Petré, Peter
    2013 EEBOCorp: Early English Books Online Corpus 1.0. Available fromhttps://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/416330
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 2014 Constructions and environments: Copular, passive and related constructions in Old and Middle English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199373390.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199373390.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  62. Piersoul, Jozefien, Robbert De Troij & Freek Van de Velde
    2021 The construction of the Dutch Corpus of Contemporary and Late Modern Periodicals. Nederlandse Taalkunde(). –. 10.5117/NEDTAA2021.3.002.PIER
     https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.3.002.PIER [Google Scholar]
  63. Rabagliati, Hugh & Jesse Snedeker
    2013 The truth about chickens and bats: Ambiguity avoidance distinguishes types of polysemy. Psychological science(). –. https://doi-org.kuleuven.e-bronnen.be/10.1177/0956797612472205
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Radden, Günter
    2000 How metonymic are metaphors?Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroadsed. byAntonio Barcelona, –. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José & Olga Isabel Díez Velasco
    2002 Patterns of conceptual interaction. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrasted. byRené Dirven & Ralf Pörings, –. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.489
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.489 [Google Scholar]
  66. Shi, Yuzhi
    2002 The establishment of modern Chinese grammar: The formation of the resultative construction and its effects. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.59
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.59 [Google Scholar]
  67. Silverman, Daniel
    2010 Neutralization and anti-homophony in Korean. Journal of Lingusitics. –. 10.1017/S0022226709990247
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990247 [Google Scholar]
  68. Steen, Gerard J., Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrman, Anna A. Kaal, Tina Krennmayr & Tryntje Pasma
    2010 A method for linguistic metaphor identification. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/celcr.14
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  69. Sweetser, Eve
    1990 From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  70. Taylor, John R.
    2002 Category extension by metonymy and metaphor. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrasted. byRené Dirven & Ralf Pörings, –. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.323
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.323 [Google Scholar]
  71. Temperley, David
    2003 Ambiguity avoidance in English relative clauses. Language(). –. 10.1353/lan.2003.0189
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0189 [Google Scholar]
  72. The Letters as Loot / Brieven als Buit-corpus
    The Letters as Loot / Brieven als Buit-corpus 2021 (3rd release). Compiled by Marijke van der Wal (Programme leader), Gijsbert Rutten, Judith Nobels and Tanja Simons, with the assistance of volunteers of the Leiden-based Wikiscripta Neerlandica transcription project, and lemmatised, tagged and provided with search facilities by the Institute for Dutch Lexicology (INL). Leiden University. hdl.handle.net/10032/tm-a2-s4
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Todd, Simon, Janet B. Pierrehumbert & Jennifer Hay
    2019 Word frequency effects in sound change as a consequence of perceptual asymmetries: An exemplar-based model. Cognition. –. 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.01.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.01.004 [Google Scholar]
  74. Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Ekkehard König
    1991 The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1: Theoretical and methodological issuesed. byElizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/tsl.19.1.10clo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.10clo [Google Scholar]
  75. Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard B. Dasher
    2002 Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Tyler, Andrea & Vyvyan Evans
    2003 The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486517
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517 [Google Scholar]
  77. Winter-Froemel, Esme
    2019 Introducing pragmatic ambiguity. On the diversity and ambivalence of ambiguity in discourse. Ambivalenz in Sprache, Literatur und Kunsted. byMatthias Bauer, Frauke Berndt & Sebastian Meixner, –. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. 2021 Reinvestigating ambiguity and frequency in reanalysis: A two-step methodology for corpus-linguistic analyses based on bridging use exposure. Journal of historical syntax. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (WNT) Online
    Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (WNT) Online 2007– Instituut voor de Nederlandse taal. https://ivdnt.org/woordenboeken/historische-woordenboeken/woordenboek-der-nederlandsche-taal/ (accessedApril 2024)
  80. Van de Velde, Freek
    2014 Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. Extending the scope of construction grammared. byRonny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten, –. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110366273.141
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110366273.141 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.24047.ceu
Loading
When does semantic change lead to semantic loss?
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.24047.ceu
/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.24047.ceu
/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.24047.ceu
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: semantic loss ; metaphor ; polysemy sustenance ; inference-driven metonymy

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error