Volume 6, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-2116
  • E-ISSN: 2210-2124
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This study aims to track diachronic semantic shift in a small set of monomorphemes collected from the (), carrying the initial - phonestheme, such as , etc. The purpose is to determine the semantic behavior of - monomorphemes by identifying 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 and show promising results for the field of historical lexical semantics.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED). Online subscription version, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available atwww.oed.com/. Last accessed16/03/2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 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 Scholar]
  3. Google Books American. Available atgooglebooks.byu.edu/x.asp/.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Corpus of Global Web-Based English. Available atcorpus.byu.edu/glowbe/.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. SketchEngine. Available atwww.sketchengine.co.uk/.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Semantic Atlas: The Semantic Atlas Institut des Sciences Cognitives, CNRS, University Lyon 11, UMR 5015.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. HTOED: The Historical Thesaurus of English 2009 Glasgow University, Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Abramova, Ekaterina , Raquel Fernandes & Frederico Sangati
    2013 Automatic Labeling of Phonesthemic Senses. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Cognitive Science Meeting 2013 . Available online atstaff.science.uva.nl/~raquel/articles/2013/phonesthemes_cogsci2013.pdf/.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Aitchison, Jean
    2012 [1989]Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon, 4th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Allan, Kathryn
    2012 Using OED Data as Evidence. In Kathryn Allan & Justyna Robinson , eds., Current Methods in Historical Semantics,17–40.
  11. Allan, Kathryn & Justyna Robinson
    eds. 2012Current Methods in Historical Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Argoud, Line
    2008 Les ‘mots en bl-’ du lexique anglais: étude de la structuration des données dans une optique lexico-cognitive. Lexis 2: Lexical Submorphemicsed. by Jamet Denis , 43–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 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 aterea.revues.org/1294/. doi: 10.4000/erea.1294
    https://doi.org/10.4000/erea.1294 [Google Scholar]
  14. Barðdal, Jóhanna
    2008Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.8 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bergen, Benjamin K
    2004 The Psychological Reality of Phonaesthemes. Language80:2.291–311. doi: 10.1353/lan.2004.0056
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0056 [Google Scholar]
  16. 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 atpsychology.emory.edu/soundsymbolismworkshop2010/Bergen_SoundSymbolism_2010.pdf/.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bolinger, Dwight L
    1940 Word Affinities. American Speech15.62–73. Reprinted in Bolinger 1965, 191–202. doi: 10.2307/452731
    https://doi.org/10.2307/452731 [Google Scholar]
  18. 1965Forms of English: Accent, Morpheme, Ordered. by Isamu Abe & Tetsuya Kanekiyo . Cambridge: Harvard University Press/Tokyo: Hokuou.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bottineau, Didier
    2008 The Submorphemic Conjecture in English: Towards a Distributed Model of the Cognitive Dynamics of Submorphemes. Lexis2.19–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 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 2009, 36–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Croft, William
    2000Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Longman/Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Croft, William & Richard A Blythe
    2012 S-curves and the Mechanisms of Propagation in Language Change. Language88:2.269–304. doi: 10.1353/lan.2012.0027
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0027 [Google Scholar]
  23. Crystal, David
    2003A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 5th ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. de Cuypere, Ludovic
    2008Limiting the Iconic: From the Metatheoretical Foundations to the Creative Possibilities of Iconicity in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ill.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.6 [Google Scholar]
  25. Denison, David
    2002 Log(ist)ic and Simplistic S-curves. Motives for Language Changeed. by Raymond Hickey , 54–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Dirven, Rene
    2005 Major Strands in Cognitive Linguistics. In Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez , ed., Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction,17–68.
  27. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Firth, John R
    1930Speech. London: Ernest Benn.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Fischer, Olga
    2009 Grammaticalisation as Analogy Driven Change. Vienna English Working Articles18:2.3–23. Available online athttps://anglistik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/weitere_Uploads/Views/views0902.pdf/.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr
    2005 Embodied Action in Thought and Language. In Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez , ed., Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction,225–248.
  31. Glynn, Dylan
    2010 Corpus-Driven Cognitive Semantics: An Introduction to the Field. Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approachesed. by D. Glynn & K. Fischer . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226423
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2012a Correspondence Analysis: An Exploratory Technique for Identifying Usage Patterns. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson , eds.Corpus Methods in Cognitive Semantics,
  33. 2012b Techniques and Tools: Corpus Methods and Statistics for Semantics. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson , eds.Corpus Methods in Cognitive Semantics,
  34. 2012c The Many Uses of Run: Corpus Methods and Socio-Cogntive Semantics. In Dylan Glynn & Robinson , eds.Corpus Methods in Cognitive Semantics,
  35. Glynn, Dylan & J. Robinson
    eds. 2012Corpus Methods in Cognitive Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.43
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43 [Google Scholar]
  36. Gries, Stefan & Anatol Stefanowitsch
    2010 Cluster Analysis and the Identification of Collexeme Classes. Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Researched. by Sally Rice & John Newman . Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 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: 10.1515/9783110214307
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214307 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hunter-Smith, Sarah
    2007Understanding without Babblefish: Reviewing the Evidence for Universal Sound Symbolism in Natural Languages. Swarthmore College Unpublished Thesis. Available online atwww.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/linguistics/2007_hunter-smith_sarah.pdf/.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hutchins, S. S
    1998The Psychological Reality, Variability, and Compositionality of English Phonesthemes. Emory University PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Jespersen, Otto
    1922Language—Its nature, Development and Origin. London: George Allen & Unwim Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Joseph, Brian D
    1997 On the Linguistics of Marginality: The Centrality of the Periphery. Articles from the 33rd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Societyed. by Kora Singer , Randall Eggert & Gregory Anderson , 197–213. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kilgarriff, Adam , Pavel Rychlý , Pavel Smrž & David Tugwell
    2004The Sketch Engine. Proceedings of Euralex, 105–116. Lorient, France: Universite de Bretagne-Sud.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Koch, Peter
    2012 The Pervasiveness of Contiguity and Metonymy in Semantic Change. In Kathryn Allan & Justyna Robinson , eds., Current Methods in Historical Semantics,259–312.
  44. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
    2003Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  45. Liberman, Anatoly
    1990 Etymological Studies 3. Some Germanic Words Beginning with fl-: Language at Play. General Linguistics30.81–107.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2013Flutes and Flatterers. OUP blogJune 2013 Available online atblog.oup.com/2013/07/flute-word-origin-etymology/.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 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 Resourcesed. by Jukka Tyrkkö , Matti Kilpiö , Terttu Nevalainen & Matti Rissanen , Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English (VARIENG), University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 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 atdsh.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/12/08/llc.fqu064/.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Marchand, Hans
    1969The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. München: Verlag C. H. Beck.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Miller, D. Gary
    2010Language Change and Linguistic Theory. 2 Vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 2014Lexicogenesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199689880.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199689880.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  52. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Ohala, John J
    1994 The Frequency Code Underlies the Sound-Symbolic Use of Voice Pitch. Sound Symbolismed. by Leanne Hinton , Johanna Nichols & John J. Ohala , 325–347. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 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]
  55. Philps, Dennis
    2002 Le concept de ‘marqueur sub-lexical’ et la notion d’invariant sémantique. La notion d’invariant sémantiqueed. by P. Larrivée . Travaux de linguistique 45.103–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 2008a Submorphemic Iconicity in the Lexicon; A Diachronic Approach to English gn- Words. Lexis 2: La submorphémique lexicale. doi: 10.4000/lexis.728
    https://doi.org/10.4000/lexis.728 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2008b Sons et lumières: le marqueur sublexical <gl->. L’Envers du décor, Etudes de linguistique anglaiseed. by Geneviève Girard , 24–43. Avignon: Publication des presses de l’Université d’Avignon.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 2008c From Mouth to Eye. The Evolution of Languageed. by A. Smith, K. Smith & R. Ferreri , 251–258. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. doi: 10.1142/9789812776129_0032
    https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812776129_0032 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2009 Conceptual Transfer and the Emergence of the Sign. CogniTextes2. Available online atcognitextes.revues.org/180/.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 2011 Reconsidering Phonaesthemes: Submorphemic Invariance in English sn- Words. Lingua121.1121–1137. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2012 Submorphemes: Backtracking from English ‘kn- words’ to the Emergence of the Linguistic Sign. Miranda7. Available online atmiranda.revues.org/4244/. doi: 10.4000/miranda.4244
    https://doi.org/10.4000/miranda.4244 [Google Scholar]
  62. Reay, I. E
    2009 [1994] Sound Symbolism. Concise Encyclopedia of Semanticsed. by Keith Allan , 893–901. Oxford: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
    ed. 2005Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Rychlý, Pavel
    2008 A Lexicographer-Friendly Association Score. Proceedings of 2nd Workshop on Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Languages Processing, RASLAN 2008ed. by Petr Sojka & Aleš Horák , 6–9. Brno: Masaryk University. Available online atnlp.fi.muni.cz/raslan/2008/articles/13.pdf/.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Sagi, Eyal , Stefan Kaufmann & Brady Clark
    2012 Tracing Semantic Change with Latent Semantic Analysis. In Allan Kathryn & Justyna Robinson , eds., Current Methods in Historical Semantics,161–183.
  66. Shisler, Benjamin K
    1997Dictionary of English Phonesthemes. Available online at www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/9783/phond1.html/.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Sinclair, J.M
    1991Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Smith, Chris A
    2015 The Phonesthetics of Blends: A Diachronic Study of Cognitive Blends in the OED. ExELLVol. 2.1ed. by Adisa Imamović . Available online atwww.degruyter.com/view/j/exell.2014.2.issue-1/exell-2016-0002/exell-2016-0002.xml?format=INT/.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Tournier, Jean
    2007 [1985]Introduction descriptive à la lexicogénétique de l’anglais contemporain. Paris: Champion-Slatkine.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Traugott, Elisabeth
    2010 Revisiting Subjectification and Intersubjectification. Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalizationed. by Kristin Davidse , Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens , 29–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  71. Tsur, Reuven
    2006 Size Sound Symbolism Revisited. Journal of Pragmatics38.905–924. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  72. Waugh, Linda R
    1979 On the Sound Shape of Language. The Sound Shape of Languageed. by Roman Jakobson & Linda R. Waugh , 198–214. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 1994 Degrees of Iconicity. Journal of Pragmatics22.55–70. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90056‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90056-6 [Google Scholar]
  74. Wright, Joseph
    1898–1905The English Dialect DictionaryVol. II D-Ged. by Joseph Wright . London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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