changing meaning in eng words

8/12/2019 Changing Meaning in Eng Words

1/5

Anna Wierzbickas Changing Meaning

of the English Word Friend

Rachasak Jirawat

ABSTRACTThis article mainly discusses the semantic change of the English word friend

described by Anna Wierzbicka in Understanding Cultures through Their Key Words(1997). According to her claim, the meaning of the word can be reflected by thecultural context and can be categorized differently in terms of human relations.However, there are two main criticisms made by Aitchison (1999) and Ramson (2001)of Wierzbickas approach to word meaning related to the English word friend. Theseauthors claim that Wierzbickas information is overlapping and not fully analyzed.Besides, she does not consult the Oxford English Dictionaryat all when she mentionsthe shift of the meaning of the word friend. Thus, this article also looks at thearguments that these authors use to support their opposition to Wierzbickas claim and aresponse of Wierzbicka (2001) to Ramsons criticism.

Anna Wierzbicka

Under-standing Cultures through Their Key Words (1997) Anna Wierzbicka

Aitchison (1999)Ramson (2001) Wierzbicka Wierzbicka Wierzbicka Oxford English

Dictionary Wierzbicka (2001) Ramson

INTRODUCTIONThe aim of this paper is to illustrate the different

types of meaning associated with the word frienddescribed by Anna Wierzbicka in Understanding

Cultures through Their Key Words (1997) and alsoher discussion of semantic change in relation to thewordfriend.

Furthermore, there are some criticisms of Wierz-bickas approach made by Aitchison (1999) andRamson (2001) that should be taken into account. Also,Wierzbickas (2001) response to Ramsons criticismwill be discussed.

Wierzbickas Different Types of Meaning Associatedwith the WordFriend

In Wierzbickas discussion of the meaning ofthe word friend (1997), there are several types ofmeaning that she distinguishes which are similar tothe way that Leech (1981) and Frawley (1992) do.

1) Collocative MeaningFirst, she demonstrates the various meanings of

the word friend by grouping the word friend withadjectives such as bosom friends, true friends, close

friends, dear friends and enjoyable friends. Thesecollocations, she claims, can illustrate the differencesbetween the old meaning and the modern meaning ofthe wordfriend. Clearly, this type of meaning coincideswith Leechs (1981) different types of meaning.

According to Leech (1981), collocative meaningis one type of meaning that he classifies. He statesthat collocative meaning consists of the associationsa word acquires on account of the meanings of wordswhich tend to occur in its environment (1981, p. 20),that is, some words can go well with some otherwords and have good meanings while some wordscannot.


2/5


3/5

First, Wierzbicka (1997, p. 42) illustrates thedifferent usage of a friend of mine and my friend.She asserts that the use of my friend has decreasedwhereas the use of a friend of mine has increasedsignificantly in modern times. The explanation for

this is that the construction of a friend of mineimplies a whole class of persons. The speaker is notinterested in any particular friend but refers to amember of a category (Wierzbicka, 1997, p. 43).Besides, she also claims that the use of my friendseems to be used as a euphemism for boyfriend orgirlfriend.

Second, she demonstrates her argument bygrouping the wordfriendwith some other words suchas dear friendand enjoyable friend. The expressiondear friend was one of the most common collocationsin the past. In the older usage of the word friend,friends were expected to be loved. Thus, people usedthe word dear to refer to affection and love. In

contrast, people tend to talk about friends in terms ofenjoyment, pleasure, and fun in the modern usage(Wierzbicka, 1997, p. 51). Therefore, the expressionenjoyable friend can refer to the notion of theenjoyment and fun in the modern sense of the word

friend.In short, the shift of the meaning of the word

friend can be explained in terms of the change ofhuman relations. The contemporary sense of friendseems to involve doing things together with enjoy-ment and fun whereas the older sense involves loveand affection.

2) MateMate is one of the key words that has beencommonly used in Australian culture. Mate in theAustralian sense is something like someone like me.However, in the modern sense of the word, mateinvolves the notion of doing things together.According to Wierzbicka (1997, p. 109), the main shiftof the meaning of the word mateinvolves a transitionfrom an emphasis on sharing work to an emphasis onsharing company, activities and experiences.

Clearly, it can be seen that the shifts of themeaning of friend and mate involve the change inhuman relations.

In addition, these semantic changes can be

related to the notion of World View 1 and WorldView 2 illustrated by Hale (1986). According to hisclaim, World View 1 refers to the central propositionsor postulates in a peoples theory of how things are inthe world (Hale, 1986, p. 233). It can be characterizedin the following terms: a) it is not necessarilyshared by all speakers of a language; b) it is learnedseparately from language and is autonomous fromgrammar; c) its relationship to language tends to be amatter of the lexicon rather than the grammar and d)its existence must be established independently of thegrammar of the language of the people who profess it(Hale, 1986, p. 234).

By contrast, World View 2 is part of the innatelinguistic capacity of human beings. It can be

characterized in the following terms: a) it isnecessarily shared by all speakers of the language; b)it is learned as a part of the process of learning thelanguage; c) its relationship to grammar is intimateand d) its existence is established as an automatic

consequence of the choice of the correct grammar ofthe language (Hale, 1986, p. 234).According to the notion of World View 1 and 2,

the changes of meaning of friend and mate can berelated to World View 1. This is because thesechanges are related to the lexicon rather than thegrammar and the changes of usage do not affect thegrammar of English.

In addition, Wierzbicka (1997, p. 22) claims thatthe linguistic universals can provide a valid basis forcomparing conceptual systems established indifferent languages. That means the relationshipbetween word meaning and culture fit when we havewell-established linguistic universal. Wierzbicka

(1997, p. 24) also asserts that all languages have acommon core which is innate and shaped by a pre-linguistic readiness for meaning and it is language-independent which is determined by an innate con-ceptual system. This seems to coincide with WorldView 2. According to Hale (1986), World View 2 isuniversal and it is a part of the innate linguisticcapacity of human beings.

The Criticism of Wierzbickas ApproachThere are two main criticisms made by Aitchison

(1999) and Ramson (2001) of Wierzbickas approachto word meaning related to the English wordfriend. In

this section, we will look at the arguments that theseauthors use to support their opposition to Wierzbickasclaim and a response of Wierzbicka to Ramsonscriticism.

1) Aitchinsons Comment on Wierzbickas WordMeaning

In Aitchinsons 1999 review of Wierzbickas1997 book, she comments on Wierzbickas approachto word meaning saying that Wierzbicka is unawareof other important lexical work on semantic groupingsand primitives (Aitchinson, 1999, p. 88). Aitchinson(1999, p. 89) illustrates the example of Wierzbickasformulae which she claims that they are too wide to be

useful. For instance, the explication of the Australianword bullshitillustrated by Wierzbicka (1997, p. 230)seems to be too wide and can apply to some otherwords such as censorship, confusion, crap, hypocrisy,rubbish and shit (Aitchinson, 1999, p. 89). Also,Aitchison (1999, p. 89) suggests that the writer shoulddo some serious corpus linguistics on the ground thatcollocations are needed in order to distinguishpotential synonyms and near-synonyms.

Furthermore, Aitchinson (1999, p. 88) uses theterm bag lady to describe Wierzbicka. Why does sheuse this term to describe Wierzbicka and what is theassociative meaning that Aitchinson intends to

convey? First, we should know what the term bag ladyactually means. The meaning of bag lady defined by


4/5

The Macquarie Dictionary is a homeless elderlywoman who carries all her belongings in a shoppingbag. It seems to be the conceptual meaning asdescribed by Leech (1981).

According to Leech (1981), conceptual meaning

is a logical meaning and it can be the central factor inlinguistic communication. Conceptual meaning canrefer to sense which is the concept associated withthe word. For example, the conceptual meaning ofwoman is human, female and adult. Therefore, theconceptual meaning or sense of bag lady is themeaning illustrated by Macquarie Dictionary asmentioned above. However, the term bag lady asAitchison (1999) refers to Wierzbicka seems to beassociated with negative connotative meaning inLeechs (1981).

Connotative meaning is the communicative valuean expression has by virtue of what it refers to, overand above its purely conceptual meaning (Leech,

1981, p. 14). Thus, one element of connotativemeaning of bag lady that Aitchinson explicitly refersto is that Wierzbicka has a lot of not carefully analyzedinformation as her belongings and this informationseems to overlap and jumble. She says that Wierzbickaseems to give the impression of carrying her posses-sions and her belongings around with her. And in eachchapter of her work, she represents some informationthat is overlapping and not fully analyzed and it mighthave been taken from some of her works that havealready appeared elsewhere which Aitchinson (1999,p. 88) calls this the overall jumble-sale effect.

2) Ramsons Comment on Wierzbickas ApproachIn his article, Ramson (2001) makes a commenton Wierzbickas approach to the change of themeaning of the word friend. His comment mainlyfocuses on her misunderstanding and misuse of theprinciples of historical lexicography.

Ramson (2001, p. 184) argues that Wierzbickasapproach to the shift of the meaning of the word

friend is flawed because she does not consult theOxford English Dictionary(OED)at all. In his pointof view, if she wants to make an argument about achange in the meaning of friend, she should consultthe OED because it records the historical change ofwords. In contrast, she chooses to take the quotations

from Stevensons Book of Quotations (1958) tosupport her argument. In Wierzbicka (1997, p. 36),she asserts that the change in the meaning of friendresults from the emergence of the expression close

friend. Also, she claims that among more than 200classical quotations including the word friend inStevenson (1958), there is not a single one for close

friend. However, according to Ramson (2001, p.184), OED reveals that Holinshed used close friendin 1577, Steele used close intimacy in 1711, andMacaulay used close friendshipin 1835. This refutesWierzbickas argument that the expression close

friendhas been used for many hundred years.

In addition, Ramson (2001, p. 185) refutesWierzbickas claim about an increasing number offriends over time. Wierzbicka (1997, p. 36) asserts thatthe number of friends that one can have has increasedover time in all major Anglo societies. Ramson (2001,

p. 185) argues against this by citing the senses offriend recorded in the OED. For instance, the firstsense of the OED entry is one joined to another inmutual benevolence and intimacy and the editoradded that not ordinarily applied to lovers orrelatives. Precisely, this sense shows the movementtowards friendship as between two people but itleaves the matter of number carefully open-ended(Ramson, 2001, p. 185). He also points out that thesecond sense gathers a number of uses, being appliedto a mere acquaintance or to a stranger which is alsoused by members of the Society of Friends as theirnormal mode of address (Ramson, 2001, p. 185). Heclaims that this sense is a foundation of Wierzbickas

modern sense and it is as old as the first. Thus, it canbe seen that the evidence that Ramson shows refutesWierzbickas claim and that the number of friendsdoes not have anything to do with the old or presenttime.

From his argument, we can see that Ramsons(2001) comment mainly focuses on the way Wierz-bicka describes the changing meaning of friendwithout referring to the OED and her misuse of theprinciples of historical lexicography.

However, Wierzbicka also rejects Ramsonscomment on her misuse of dictionary evidence. Sheargues that we cannot see the OED as immutable

principles of historical lexicography since data in theOED was collected by a collection of some fivemillions of excerpts from English literature whichwas empirical (Wierzbicka, 2001, p. 197). Moreover,the OED was published for many hundred years ago;its principles may not remain a standard for the studyof the vocabulary (Wierzbicka, 2001, p. 198).

In addition, Wierzbicka (2001, p. 199) alsoargues that a good dictionary is not just a collectionof words, but a reference work linking words withmeaning. Thus, there is a link between words andsemantics. Moreover, each dictionary provides itsown network of meanings so the meanings can bedifferent in other dictionaries.

However, one might find her position quitedifficult to defend. This is because if you want toshow a change of meaning of any word over time,you need to have reasonable evidence or acceptablesources to support your argument. Thus, the OED isthe one that records the meaning of words over timeand it is widely used. In contrast, Wierzbicka did notconsult the OED at all. Instead, she used the bookthat can support her argument. Moreover, theevidence from the OED that Ramson (2001) showsus makes his claim more convincing because it isagainst all Wierzbickas arguments.


5/5

CONCLUSIONWe have discussed Wierzbickas approach to the

changing meaning of the word friend and types ofmeaning she classifies according to the word friend.Moreover, we have seen the evidence offered by

Ramson (2001) to oppose to her approach to the shiftof the meaning offriend. His claim enables us to seethe points that Wierzbicka has overlooked and makesher argument less convincing. However, Wierzbickasfindings also allow us to see the relationship betweenwords and meanings which is changing all the time.Thus, semantics has become a main factor that enablesus to understand the relationship between words andmeanings communicated through language.

REFERENCESAitchison, J. (1999). Review of Wierzbicka (1997).

International Journal of Lexicography, 12.1, 87-

89.Clark H.H. & E.V. Clark. (1977). Psychology and

Language. Jovanovich: Harcourt, Brace.Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic Semantics.Lawrence

Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.Hale, K. (1986). Notes on World View and Semantic

Categories: Some Warlpiri Examples. In Peter,M. & Henk, R. (Eds.). Features and Projections.(pp. 233-254). Foris: Dordrecht.

Leech, G.(1981). Semantics. Penguin: London.Ramson, W.S. (2001). Anna Wierzbicka and the

Trivialization of Australian Culture. AustralianJournal of Linguistics, 21.2, 181-194.

Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Understanding Cultures

through Their Key Words. Oxford UniversityPress: New York.

Wierzbicka, A. (2001). Australian Culture andAustralian English: A Response to WilliamRamson. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 21.2,195-214.

Mr. Rachasak Jirawatreceived his M.A. (Linguistics)from the University of Queensland, Australia and hisB.A. (English) from Bangkok University. He is a full-time lecturer in the School of Humanities, BangkokUniversity.

changing meaning in eng words

Documents