2004•영어학Requires access

From Opposition to Cooperation

Seongha Rhee

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

A historical investigation reveals that English preposition with underwent a change from OPPOSITION to ASSOCIATION and further to ACCOMPANIMENT, where the first stage shows peculiarity in that the two concepts involved comprise an unusual set to form an extensional chain. Intrigued by this oddity, this paper aims to investigate the semantic structure of English preposition with from a grammaticalization perspective. We review mechanisms and models of semantic change and evaluate their adequacy with the semantic structure and change shown by with. Drawing upon the observed fact that with underwent the apparent antonymic semantic change, it is argued that such semantic change mechanisms as metaphor, metonymy, subjectification, and generalization have difficulties explaining the change, and that only the Frame-of-Focus Variation can effectively account for this peculiar change type. In terms of semantic change models, we argue that the Bleaching Model cannot effectively provide an explanation; that the Loss and Gain Model has problems in explaining the motivation of change directions; that the Metonymic-Metaphoric Model cannot be assessed at the current level of investigation; and that the Overlap Model and the Prototype Extension Model excellently account for the macro-level changes.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

A historical investigation reveals that English preposition with underwent a change from OPPOSITION to ASSOCIATION and further to ACCOMPANIMENT, where the first stage shows peculiarity in that the two concepts involved comprise an unusual set to form an extensional chain. Intrigued by this oddity, this paper aims to investigate the semantic structure of English preposition with from a grammaticalization perspective. We review mechanisms and models of semantic change and evaluate their adequacy with the semantic structure and change shown by with. Drawing upon the observed fact that with underwent the apparent antonymic semantic change, it is argued that such semantic change mechanisms as metaphor, metonymy, subjectification, and generalization have difficulties explaining the change, and that only the Frame-of-Focus Variation can effectively account for this peculiar change type. In terms of semantic change models, we argue that the Bleaching Model cannot effectively provide an explanation; that the Loss and Gain Model has problems in explaining the motivation of change directions; that the Metonymic-Metaphoric Model cannot be assessed at the current level of investigation; and that the Overlap Model and the Prototype Extension Model excellently account for the macro-level changes.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

A historical investigation reveals that English preposition with underwent a change from OPPOSITION to ASSOCIATION and further to ACCOMPANIMENT, where the first stage shows peculiarity in that the two concepts involved comprise an unusual set to form an extensional chain. Intrigued by this oddity, this paper aims to investigate the semantic structure of English preposition with from a grammaticalization perspective. We review mechanisms and models of semantic change and evaluate their adequacy with the semantic structure and change shown by with. Drawing upon the observed fact that with underwent the apparent antonymic semantic change, it is argued that such semantic change mechanisms as metaphor, metonymy, subjectification, and generalization have difficulties explaining the change, and that only the Frame-of-Focus Variation can effectively account for this peculiar change type. In terms of semantic change models, we argue that the Bleaching Model cannot effectively provide an explanation; that the Loss and Gain Model has problems in explaining the motivation of change directions; that the Metonymic-Metaphoric Model cannot be assessed at the current level of investigation; and that the Overlap Model and the Prototype Extension Model excellently account for the macro-level changes.

Key concepts: Semantic change, Subjectification, Metonymy, Grammaticalization, Metaphor, Opposition (politics), Linguistics, Language change

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
From Opposition to Cooperation — Research Paper | ScholarLens