003 (吴福祥老师)语义演变的规律性(1)

Traugott (1990:497-498)
It turns out that the process of semantic change outlined for the semantics of grammaticalization belongs to a larger set of processes of semantic change that are in general quite regular. Indeed, they are so regular that it is possible to develop predictive hypotheses. They are predictive in the sense that one can test them against historical data and show their correctness. Further, they are predictive in the sense that one can take synchronic polysemies from any period in any language and project change back into the past, in other words, one can do internal semantic-pragmatic reconstruction .
Wilkins (1996:266) These trends have lead to a view that, instead of being wild, chaotic, and unpredictable, semantic change is in many cases regular and is often predictable and that natural tendencies of semantic change arise out of the universality of certain cognitive processes and/or out of universal traits to be found in the production and interpretation of fully contextualized natural discourse.
As a consequence, there seem to be no natural constraints on the directions and results of semantic change. Given enough imagination—and daring—it is possible to claim semantic relationship for almost any two words under the sun.” (Hock 1986:308)
复旦：2016.07.22
叁
语义演变的规律性
吴福祥
0.引言 1.什么是语义演变的规律 2.语义演变有哪些规律 3.为什么要研究语义演变的规律 4.结语
0.引言 新语法学派最重要的贡献是发现语音演变的规律性， 此后历史语言学家进一步发现，跟语音演变一样， 人类语言的形态句法演变也具有显著的规律，尽管 其规律的严整性不及语音演变。语义演变有没有规 律？有什么样的规律？体现在哪些概念域？应该如 何对这类规律进行概括？这些问题以往的语言学家 特别是历史语言学家聚讼纷纭。本文尝试对这些问 题进行初步的探讨。
1. 什么是语义演变的规律
1.1 语义演变有没有规律性? 以往语言学家有不同看法。 ■■一种观点明确主张语义演变没有规律，例如 Raimo Anttila、Anthony Arlotto和Hans Henrich Hock等。 Anttila (1972: 147) {An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics }
上个世纪80年代以来，更多的语言学家倾向语义演变是有 规律的，特别是与语法化相关的语a, 1985b, 1986a, 1986b, 1988, 1989,1999), Traugott and Dasher (1987,2002), Traugott and Heine (1991), Traugott and Konig (1991), Sweetser (1982,1987,1990), Nikiforidau and Sweetser (1989), Bybee (1985,1988,1990), Bybee and Pagliuca (1985), Bybee et al. (1991), Heine (1992), Heine et al (1991), Geeraerts (1983, 1985, 1986), Evans (1992), and Wilkins (1981,1989b, 1991).
Traugott & Dasher (2002:1) Regularity in semantic change
In this book we show that there are predictable paths for semantic change across different conceptual structures and domains of language function. Most especially we will show that, despite century-old taxonomies that suggest that meaning changes are bidirectional, e.g. generalization and narrowing, metaphor and metonymy, when we trace the histories of lexemes cross-linguistically we in fact repeatedly find evidence for unidirectional changes.
Hock (1986: 308): Principles of historical linguistics
Examples like the one just cited demonstrate that under certain circumstance semantic change can be quite regular and systematic, However, this should not detract from the fact that in most cases, semantic change is „fuzzy‟, highly irregular, and extremely difficult to predict
“It has not been possible to formulate truly general laws of semantic change”.
Arlotto (1972:165): Introduction to historical linguistics
Studies in semantic change so far have not resulted in the formulation of abstract models or even in the reasoned educated guesswork that pervades the study of phonological, morphological, and syntactic change. One reason for this is quite obvious, the semantic models of general or synchronic linguistics are themselves quite limited and not applicable to all cases.
Fox (1995:111) Linguistic reconstruction: an introduction to theory and method
There is also little in semantic change which bears any relationship to regularity in phonological change
■■另外一些语言学家则主张或相信语义演 变是有规律的，甚至在某些概念域里有望发 现类似于语音演变那种意义上的演变定律。 较早明确主张语义演变具有规律性的学者是 德国语言学家威廉· 冯特（Wilhelm Wundt）在其 1900年出版的《民族心理学》（Volkerpsychologie） 中主张‚语义演变跟音系演变一样具有严格 的规律性‛
Wilhelm Wundt (1900:437) Volkerpsychologie (民族心理学)
Semantic change, in the same way as phonological change, is subject to strict regularities, whose discovery is only impeded by the competition of manifold causes of various origins.
Traugott (1985:168)
I hope to have shown by these few brief examples that much semantic change is highly regular, so regular, indeed, that testable hypotheses can be developed and investigated. Of course, one cannot predict exactly when or if a given change will occur. while we can predict that if a language has temporal terms, markers of grammatical relations, connectives, mental or speech act verbs, some of them will be derived from spatial terms of a certain kind, we cannot tell which change will occur, or when.