SEMANTIC CHANGE AND THE METHODOLOGY OF SEMANTIC RECONSTRUCTION Matthias UrbanMPI EVA

OutlineApproaches to and issues in Semantic ReconstructionA new proposalApplication to IE dataHow natural typologically is the reconstructed PIE lexicon generally?

Practice of Semantic ReconstructionNikolayev and Starostin (1994: 7): the semantic reconstruction is of course very tentative; we do not pretend that meanings can be exactly reconstructed in most cases.Most etymological dictionaries I know do not make explicit the reasoning the authors used to arrive at semantic reconstructs at all (though this doesnt mean that authors didnt apply any or didnt think carefully about what to reconstruct).Though note Rix (2002: 1336): Wo die einzelsprachlichen Bedeutungen differieren, ist der Ansatz zu suchen, der die wenigsten und/oder leichtesten einzelsprachlichen Bedeutungsvernderungen impliziert... But what are leichte Bedeutungsvernderungen?

Koch (2004): typology of practical approaches The additive type

The selective type

The taxonomic-abstracting type

The engonymic type

Theory: Reconstruction by Semantic FeaturesForeshadowed in Benveniste (1956), discussed by Fox (1995), applied e.g. by Zorc (2004)Idea: look at the meanings of cognates in daughter languages and what semantic features they have in common. These features are thought to figure in the proto-meaning as well.

Benvenistes famous example (summarized from Koch 2004) Reconstruct: passage (franchissement)

The resulting proto-meaning thus becomes a sort of lowest common denominator of the descendent meanings. If we took these feature-based semantic etymologies in general at their face value, the resulting Proto-Indo-European vocabulary would be an improbably abstract one. (Sweetser 1990: 24)it is scarcely surprising that to many linguists, the non-phonological side of etymology appears inherently non-scientific (Sweetser 1990: 23)

Theory: from concrete to abstractSweetser (1990: 24) Furthermore, such generalizations about semantic change as we do have ... suggest very strongly that meaning more frequently shifts from concrete to abstract than in the opposite direction; an observation which makes the semantic side of many feature-based etymologies doubly suspect.An extremely valuable generalization, but restricted in application mostly to (i) changes related to grammaticalization and (ii) the conceptualization of abstract domains via metaphor. But what to do with data where neither applies (in practice, probably the majority)?

A new synchrony-based approach (Urban 2011)Basic Observation: Cross-linguistically, the same semantic relationship that is realized by polysemy in one language may be realized by word-formation relations in another (Evans 1992: 478, inter alia).Khalkha Mongolian kebeli belly, stomach, womb Vietnamese is d con stomach child = womb . This I call an asymmetry in overt marking revealed by cross-linguistic evidence.

Hypothesis: Directionality in word-formation (synchronic) often mirrors directionality in semantic change (diachronic): Terms for stomach are likely to develop the meaning womb, but not vice versa. Data: A world-wide sample of 149 languages on both patterns of polysemy and morphologically complex terms for a wordlist of 160 meanings.

46 asymmetries and thus testable hypotheses1. cloud fog/mist 2. sun moon3. grass straw/hay4. smoke fog/mist 5. steam fog/mist6. animal bird7. lake swamp 8. smoke dust 9. smoke cloud10. tree branch 11. ashes embers12. tree forest13. day dawn14. flower/blossom bud15. day noon16. sun noon17. honey wax18. bone horn19. river/stream flood20. breast milk 21. mouth lip 22. belly/stomach womb23. heart belly/stomach

24. milk nipple 25. liver lungs26. car train27. heart kidney28. mirror glasses29. heart lungs30. (molar) tooth jaw31. belly/stomach navel32. cheek buttocks33. mouth cheek 34. skin bark35. saliva/spittle foam36. house nest37. mouth estuary38. tongue flame49. road/street/way Milky Way40. bed nest41. egg testicle42. sun clock43. seed testicle44. shadow mirror45. bird airplane46. foam lungs

Test against Indo-Aryan datap < .002p < .05 (Binomial test)

Caveat: not considered is the special case of shift from animal body part to human body part (beak mouth etc.), since pragmatically special

Application to IE reconstructionGiven that there is reason to believe that the predictions work out (although it would be required to test against more data to get a better assessment of the validity of the suggestions), the asymmetries can be applied for semantic reconstruction.Standard of Comparison: Reconstructions in Pokorny (1969/1994). Reconstructions here are mostly of the taxonomic-abstracting type.

22. womb belly/stomach

Root / lemma: udero-, udero- (Pk 1104-1105)Reconstructed Meaning: Bauch, und gleichbedeutende Worte hnlichen AnlautesMaterial: Ai. udara-m Bauch, Anschwellung des Leibes, der dicke Teil eines Dinges, Hhlung, InneresLat. uterus Unterleib, Bauch, bes. Mutterleib, Gebrmutter [], venter Bauch

1. fog/mist cloud

Root / lemma: sneudh- (Pk 978)Reconstructed Meaning: Nebel; neblig, dsterMaterial: Av. snaoa- Wolke, sdbalui nd leichtes Gewlk, Nebel, Regenwolke, gr. . , , lat. nbs Wolkecymr. nudd Nebel

Suggestion: Reconstruct cloud (in line with the evidence from older stages)

9. cloud smoke

Root / lemma: reu-b / reu-g (Pk 871-872)Reconstructed Meaning: sich erbrechen, rlpsen, hervorbrechen, auch Wolke, RauchMaterial: Wenn alb. r Wolke aus *rougi entstanden ist wie nhd. Rauch, ist ein bereits uridg. *reug Wolke, Rauch vorraussetzbar.

If anything, more likely only Rauch (would also fit better as metaphorical extension of basic verbal meaning); but note that the etymology is more complicated (Kluge 2002)

23. stomach heart

Root / lemma: skerd-, krd-, krd-, kred- (Pk 579-580)Reconstructed Meaning: Herz Material: Arm. sirt, Instr. srti-v Herz gr. (att.), (hom.), (lesb.), (kypr.) Herz; Magen; Mark bei Pflanzen' Hitt. Ka-ra-az (karts) Herz []

41. testicle egg

Root / lemma: (u)i-om (Pk 783)Reconstructed Meaning: Ei, d. h. das vom Vogel gehrigeMaterial: Old pers. xya Ei gr. att. (* (u)i-om), ol. (* (u)i-om), dor. (* (u)i-om) Ei cymr. wy, corn. uy Ei Av. ap-vaya entmannt (?), falls aus apa-vaya ohne Hode

Advantages-Consistent Method-Reconstructed Meanings are natural-Based on synchronic typological data, so even languages with no documented history can contribute to the data poolDisadvantages-Margin of error, probabilistic only-Requires at this stage further empirical substantiation and testing on other language families -Requires expansion to different meanings

How natural typologically is the reconstructed PIE lexicon otherwise?

One of the most striking properties is the huge amount of analyzable items, both derivatives and compounds.How natural is that, and is an increase in analyzability in reconstructs an artifact of the process of reconstruction?

Comparison of the same meanings in Proto-Uralic:

Comparison of the same meanings in Proto-Nakh-Daghestanian:

Unsystematic comparison suggests that reconstruction does not automatically entail a largely analyzable lexicon.But whence the difference?Again, synchronic typology may help: the shorter the lexical roots are in a language, the more analyzable terms its lexicon will feature (Urban forthcoming, on the basis of a sample of 72 languages):

IE Lexical root structure: monosyllabic, dominantly CeC structure, with possibility of root enhancementsRoots typically verbal, with nominals often derived from themPIE reconstruct in line with typological evidence:

PIE would be in this group

Thank you!

ReferencesBenveniste, mile. 1954. Problmes Smantiques de la Reconstruction. Word 10.251-264.Evans, Nicholas. 1992. Multiple semiotic systems, hyperpolysemy, and the reconstruction of semantic change in Australian languages. In: Gnter Kellerman and Michael D. Morrissey (eds.): Diachrony within synchrony, 475-508. Bern: Peter Lang.Fox, Anthony. 1995. Linguistic Reconstuction. An Introduction to Theory and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kluge, Friedrich. 2002. Etymologisches Wrterbuch der Deutschen Sprache. 24th edition, ed. by Elmar Seebold. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Koch, Peter. 2004. Diachronic Onomasiology and Semantic Reconstruction. Lexical Data and Universals of Semantic Change, ed. by Wiltrud Mihatsch & Reinhild Steinberg, 79-106. Tbingen: Stauffenburg.Nikolayev, Sergej L., and Sergej A. Starostin. 1994. A North Caucasian etymological dictionary. Moscow: Asterisk.Pokorny, Julius. 1969/1994. Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wrterbuch. Tbingen/Basel: Francke.

Rdei, Kroly. 1988. Uralisches etymologisches Wrterbuch. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Rix, Helmut. 2002. Wurzeletymologie. In: Cruse et al. (eds.), 1333-1339.Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wodtko, Dagmar S., Britta Irslinger, and Carolin Schneider. 2008. Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter.Urban Matthias. 2011. Asymmetries in Overt Marking and Directionality in Semantic Change. Journal of Historical Linguistics 1, 3-47.Urban, Matthias. Forthcoming. Lexical Motivation and Universally Recurrent Denominations: A cross-linguistic study in lexicology. Dissertation, MPI for Evolutionary Anthropology & Universiteit LeidenZorc, R. David. 2004. Semantic Reconstruction in Austronesian Linguistics. Phillipine Journal of Linguistics 35:2.1-21.