DOI: https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.154883

SEMANTIC RELATION OF MERONYMY IN LANGUAGES OF DIFFERENT STRUCTURE (CASE STUDY OF SEMANTICS OF BODY PART NAMES)

Olena Materynska

Abstract


The present paper investigates semantics of human body part names (BPN) in languages of different structure. The lexemes under study are characterised by a high level of polysemy, frequent occurrence and primary role in the processes of world perception and categorisation. The empirical data comprise 438 lexemes (expressing 1438 meanings), which were analysed in seven languages of different structure (related and unrelated) from two language families: Indo-European (featuring such language groups as Germanic (English and German), Romance (Spanish), Balto-Slavonic (Latvian, Ukrainian and Russian)) and Japanese-Ryukyuan (featuring Japanese). The data are analysed within the framework of meronymy relation and highlight the universal features of semantic change in the compared languages, thus presenting a model for more extensive and complex studies of the semantic potential of basic lexical units. The research is based upon the methodology of classical semantics and typology as well as contrastive lexical studies, and is aimed at revealing the nature of semantic universals and regularities in the process of BPN semantic development. The lexical units under analysis are generalised and systematically investigated using contrastive analysis and linguistic description, whilst their semantic structure is thoroughly described with the help of componential analysis. The paper focuses on the classification of their regular semantic change mechanisms and juxtaposes the cross-linguistic similarities as well as differences in semantics of body part names. The relation of meronymy reveals interdependence with that of polysemy. The introduced index of polysemy helps to compare the potential for polysemy development in the languages under analysis. The conducted research enables the formulation of semantic universals and regularities within BPN polysemy development in languages of different structure as well as the creation of a semantic typology of BPN in related and unrelated languages. The analysis is supplemented with the statistical data allowing for the verification of the results. The main principles of this research may be applied to different thematic groups of lexis, contributing to further development of semantic language typology worldwide.



Keywords


meronymy; meronym; BPN (body part names); semantic change; polysemy; anthropomorphic metaphor; metonymy; semantic universals and regularities

Full Text:

PDF

References


Andersen, E. S. (1978). Lexical universals of body part terminology. In J.H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language (Vol. 3: Word structure) (pp. 335-368). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Aristotle. (2009). Metaphysik. Bücher VII und VIII. Griechisch-deutsch [Aristotle. Metaphysics. Books VII and VIII. Greek-German]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Arndt-Lappe, S. (2018). Expanding the lexicon by truncation: variability, recoverability and productivity. In S. Arndt-Lappe, A. Braun, C. Moulin, and E. Winter-Froemel (Eds.), Expanding the lexicon (pp.141-172). Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter.

Bilyk, O. & Pyliachyk, N. (2018). Metaphorisation of BREXIT in modern political discourse. Advanced Education, 10, 118-126. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.127267

Birner, B. J. (2018). Language and meaning. London & New-York: Routledge.

Blanco, C. M. (1999). Das bildliche Potenzial der deutschen Körperteilbezeichnungen: eine historische Darstellung seit indogermanischer Zeit [The metaphorical potential of the body part names in German: a historical outline from the Indo-Germanic times]. Muttersprache, 9 (3), 246 -260.

Bluhme, H. (2005). Etymologisches Wörterbuch des deutschen Grundwortschatzes [Etymological dictionary of the basic German vocabulary]. München: Lincom Europa.

Bowern, C. (2017). Comparison and relationship of languages. In J. Klein & B. Joseph (Eds.), Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics (pp. 1-7). Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter.

Brown, C. H. (2001). Lexical typology from an anthropological point of view. In M. Haspelmath et al. (Eds.), Language typology and language universals (Vol.1) (pp.1178-1190). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Brown C. H. (2002). Paradigmatic relations of inclusion and identity II: Meronymy. In A. Cruse & F. Hundsnurscher (Eds.), Lexicology : An international handbook on the nature and structure of words and vocabularies (Vol. 1) (pp. 480-485). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Comrie, B. (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology: Grammar, comparative and general. Word formation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Croft, W. (1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cruse, A. (1979). On the transitivity of the part-whole relation. Journal of Linguistics, 15 (1), 29-38.

Cruse, A. (2004). Meaning in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dirven, R. & Pörings R. (2003). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter

Erdeljac, V. & Sekulić Sović, M. (2018). Uloga predočivosti u leksičko–semantičkoj obradi hiperonimije/hiponimije [Role of imageability in lexical–semantic hypernymy / hyponymy processing]. Suvremena lingvistika, 44 (85), 23-39. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22210/suvlin.2018.085.02

Filar, D. & Głaz, A. (1996). Obraz ręki w języku polskim i angielskim [Image of the hand / arm in Polish and English]. In R. Grzegorczykowa & A. Padziński (Eds.), Językowa kategoryzacja świata (pp. 199-219). Lublin: UMCSP.

Gansel, G. (2017). Prototypensemantik und Stereotypensemantik [Prototype and stereotype semantics]. In S. Staffeldt and J. Hagemann (Eds.), Semantiktheorien. Lexikalische Analysen im Vergleich (pp. 77-95). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.

Gerstl, P. & Pribbenow, S. (1995). Midwinters, end games and body parts. A classification of part-whole relations. In C. Eschenbach & W. Heydrich (Eds.), Integrity and Granularity, 49 (pp. 23-49). Hamburg: Graduirtenkolleg Kognitionswissenschaft.

Goddard, C. (2001). Universal units in the lexicon. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible (Eds.), Language typology and language universals: An International Handbook (pp.1190-1203). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110171549.2.11.1190

Górska, E. (2003). On partonomy and taxonomy. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 39, 103-111.

Goschler, J. (2008). Metaphern für das Gehirn. Eine kognitiv-linguistische Untersuchung [Metaphors for the brain. A cognitive-linguistic investigation]. Berlin: Frank & Timme Verlag.

Hagemann, J. (2017). Metapher und Metonymie [Metaphor and Metonymy]. In S. Staffeldt and J. Hagemann (Eds.), Semantiktheorien. Lexikalische Analysen im Vergleich (pp. 231-262). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.

Heine, B. (1997). Possession. Cognitive sources, forces and grammaticalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heringer, H. (2017). Interkulturelle Kommunikation. Grundlagen und Konzepte [Intercultural Communication. Principles and concepts]. Tübingen: Francke Verlag.

Heydrich, W. (1995). Mereonymie. Zur Semantik der Teil-Ganzes Relationen [Meronymy. On semantics of part-whole relations]. In C. Eschenbach & W. Heydrich (Eds.), Integrity and Granularity, 49 (pp. 51-68). Hamburg: Graduirtenkolleg Kognitionswissenschaft.

Hübler, A. (2001). Das Konzept Körper in den Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft [The concept of body in language and communication studies]. Tübingen & Basel: Francke Verlag

Husserl, E. (2009). Zur Lehre von den Ganzen und Teilen. Logische Untersuchungen [On the studies of parts and wholes. Logical investigations]. Hamburg: Felix Mainer Verlag.

Iris, M., Litovitz, B., & Evens, M. (1988). Problems of the part-whole relation. In M. Evens (Ed.), Relational model of the lexicon. Representing knowledge in semantic networks (Studies in natural language processing (pp. 261-287). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ivantsiv, O. (2018). Metaphorical modelling in the case of cosmetic companies’ image development. Topics in Linguistics, 19 (1), 82-92. https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2018-0006

Kluge, F. (1999). Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache [Etymological dictionary of the German language]. Berlin & New-York: Walter de Gruyter.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (2008). Leben in Metaphern [Metaphors we live by]. Heidelberg: Carl Auer

Lutz, C. (1996). Untersuchungen zu Teil-Ganzes Relationen. Modellierungsanforderungen und Realisierung in Beschreibungslogiken (Mitteilung 258) [Studies on parts and wholes. Modeling requirements and realisation in description logics]. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg.

Materynska, O. (2012). Typologie der Körperteilbenennungen [The body part names typology]. Frankfurt am Main u.a.: Peter Lang. Danziger Beiträge zur Germanistik 41. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-02275-9

Materynska, O. (2014): Teil-Ganzes Beziehungen im interkulturellen Vergleich [A cross-cultural comparison of part-whole relations]. In K. Lukas & I. Olszewska (Eds.), Deutsch im Kontakt und im Kontrast (pp. 357–369). Frankfurt am Main u.a.: Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-04227-6

Nikitina, L. (2018). Stereotypes as an interdisciplinary construct: Implications for applied linguistics research. Suvremena lingvistika, 43 (83), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.22210/suvlin.2017.083.01

Oesterreicher, W. (2004). Sprachwandel – lexikalische Daten und kognitive Konstanten [Language change – lexical data and cognitive constants]. In W. Mihatsch and R. Steinberg (Eds.), Lexical data and universals of semantic change (pp. 39-56). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.

Platon. (1987). Parmenides. Griechisch-deutsch [Parmenides. Greek-German]. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam

Ridder, L. (2002). Mereologie. Ein Beitrag zur Ontologie und Erkentnisstheorie [Mereology. On ontology and gnoseology]. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.

Sander, T. (2018). Bedeutung als Gebrauch. Zur Form einer konventionalistischen Semantik [Meaning as use. On the form of conventional semantics]. Padeborn: Mentis.

Scheler, M. (2018). Die Stellung des Menschen im Kosmos [The place of a human being in the universe]. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.

Siahaan, P. (2008). Metaphorische Konzepte im Deutschen und Indonesichen (Herz, Leber, Kopf, Auge und Hand) [The metaphorical concepts in German and Indonesian (heart, liver, head, eye and hand)]. Frankfurt am Main u.a.: Peter Lang. Europäische Hochschulschriften 35.

Shafikov, S. G. (1998). Yazykovye universalii i problemy leksicheskoi semantiki [Language universals and the problems of lexical semantics]. Ufa: Bashkirskii universitet

Shafikov, S. G. (2000). Tipologiia leksicheskikh sistem i leksiko-semanticheskikh universalii [Typology of lexical systems and lexical-semantic universals]. Bashkirskii universitet

Sharifian, F. (2017). Cultural linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Tversky, B. (1990). Where partonomies and taxonomies meet. In S. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and Prototypes. Studies in linguistic categorisation (pp. 334-344). London & New York: Routledge

Uryson, E. (1995). Fundamentalnye sposobnosti cheloveka i naivnaia anatomiia [The fundamental abilities of a human being and the naive anatomy]. Voprosy yazykoznaniia, 3, 3-16.

Vohidova, N. (2016). Lexikalisch-semantische Graduonymie. Eine empirische basierte Arbeit zur lexikalischen Semantik [The lexical-semantic graduonymy. An empirical research on lexical semantics]. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag. Studien zur deutschen Sprache 69.

Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Semanticheskie universalii i opisanie yazykov [Semantic universals and description of languages]. Moscow, Russia: Yazyki russkoi kultury

Wildgen, W. (1999). Hand und Auge: eine Studie zur Repräsentation und Selbstrepräsentation (kognitive und semantische Aspekte) [Hand and eye: an investigation of the representation and self-representation (cognitive and semantic aspects)]. Bremen: Zentrum Philosophische Grundlagen der Wissenschaften.

Winston, M. E. Chaffin, R., & Herrmann, D. (1987). A taxonomy of part-whole relations. Cognitive Science, 11 (4), 417-444. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1104_2

Yu, N. (2008). The Chinese heart as the central faculty for cognition. In F. Sharifian, R. Dirven, N. Yu (Eds.), Culture, body and language. Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and languages (pp. 131-168). Berlin & New-York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Yu, N. (2009). From body to meaning in culture. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.




Copyright (c) 2019 Olena Materynska

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ISSN 2410-8286 (Online), ISSN 2409-3351 (Print)