Semantic Broadening in Persian: A Case Study of Verbs

Author
R. Gandomkar
Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Allameh Tabataba’i University- Tehran- Iran
Abstract
Semantic broadening is one of the important processes of semantic change that has long been studied by experts and especially by historical-philological semanticists. In this process, which occurs over time, the meaning of a word broadens from time period A to time period B and thus, in addition to its previous meaning, the word includes a new concept. Semantic broadening over time leads to a multitude of meanings. A word is used to refer to a new unit of language in terms of its similarity to a new concept, and based on the Prototype theory. As such, in addition to its original meaning, it is also applied in a new sense. This "similarity" has, in many cases, led to confusion between semantic broadening and metaphor, and a group of words that has undergone semantic broadening is considered as metaphors. The present research, in addition to explaining semantic broadening, examines the difference of this process with metaphor, and, in particular, by emphasizing Persian verbs, tries to show that many of the constructs considered as metaphor, are, in fact, instances of semantic broadening that, as a result of this process, have gained multiple meanings. Relying on examples, in particular, examples of Persian verbs, this paper attempted to emphasize the distinction between semantic broadening and metaphor, and to show that, by tradition, in our metaphor, one tends to separate the tenor from the simile and apply it on other contexts. However, in the case of semantic broadening, the tenor is by no means used in different contexts. Words are semantically broadened over time and their semantic scope expands, which is a process quite different from metaphor. As such, the results of this study indicate the subtle distinction that exists between semantic broadening and the process of metaphor, which is often neglected. In metaphor, the "tenor" is derived from the simile, and is used in other sentences instead of the "vehicle"; in a way that the "tenor" adopts the semantic behavior of the “vehicle”. However, in semantic broadening, an independent process occurs, and what emerges as the process of semantic broadening is the semantic expansion of other units of the simile.

Keywords

Subjects

• Afrashi A.; T. Hesami & B. Salas, (2013). “A Comparative survey of orientational- conceptual metaphors in Spanish and Persian”. Language Related Research. 3 (4): pp. 1-23. [In Persian].
• Badakhshan E. & S. Mousavi, (2014), “A linguistic analysis of euphemism in Persian” Language Related Research. 5 (1). Pp:1-26. [In Persian].
• Berlin, B. & P. Kay, (1969), Basic Color Terms. Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley, CA and Los Angeles, CA: University of Los Angeles Press.
• Bréal, M. (1900/1964). Semantics: in the science of meaning. Cust H. (trans.). New York: Dover.
• Díaz-Vera J. E. (ed.) (2015). Metaphor and Metonymy across Time and Cultures
• Evans, V. & M. Green, (2006), Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh University Press.
• Geeraerts, D. (1989). “Prospects and problems of prototype theory”. Linguistics 27.Pp: 587-612.
• Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gibbs, R. (2017). Metaphor Wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Golfam, A. & M. Qomshei , (2012), “The iconicity of reduplicative constructions in Persian: semantic types”. Language Related Research. 3 (1). Pp. 153-172. [In Persian].
• Grady, J.E. (2007). “Metaphor”.In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 188-213.
• Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kövecses, Z. (2020). Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Labov, W. (1973). “The Boundaries of Words and their Meaning”. In Bailey C-J & Shuy R. W. (eds.) New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English. Washangton DC: Georgetown University Press. 340-373.
• Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson, (1980), Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff, G. & M. Turner, (1989), More than Cool reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff, G. ,(1983). “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor”. In A. Ortony (Ed.). Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 202-251.
• Lakoff, G. ,(1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff, G. (1993). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 202-251.
• Löbner, S. (2013). Understanding Semantics (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
• Murphy, M. L. and Koskela, A. (2010). Key Terms in Semantics. New York: Continuum.
• Perspectives on the Sociohistorical Linguistics of Figurative Language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
• Qorbanzadeh, F. (2014). “Semantic browdening of “baraye” in the meaning of “mal”. Persian Academy. 54.Pp: 80-88. [In Persian].
• Raymond, W. & Gibbs, Jr. (2017). Metaphor Wars; Conceptual Metaphors in Human Life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Ross, J. J. (1973). “Nounniness”. In Fujimura, O. (ed.) Three Dimentions of Linguistic Research. Tokyo: TEC Company Ltd. 137-257.
• Safavi, K. (2004). An Introduction to Semantics. Tehran: Sooreh Mehr [In Persian].
• Safavi, K. (2005). Descriptive Dictionary of Semantics. Tehran: Farhange Mo’aser [In Persian].
• Safavi, K. (2014). An Introduction to Semiotics of Literature. Tehran: Elmi [In Persian].
• Safavi, K. (2016). Descriptive Dictionary of Literary Studies. Tehran: Elmi [In Persian].
• Safavi, K. (2017a). Text Interpretation. Tehran: Elmi [In Persian].
• Safavi, K. (2017b). Metaphor. Tehran: Elmi [In Persian].
• Stern, G. (1931/1968). Meaning and Change of Meaning. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
• Takemitsu, M. (1998). Nitizyoogo no Yurai Ziten [Etymological Dictionary of Everyday Words in Japanese]. Tokyo: Tokyodo Shuppan.
• Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Taylor, J. R. (2009). “Prototype Semantics”. In Allan K. (ed.) Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics. Oxford: Elsevier.
• Traugott, E. C. & R. B. Dasher, (2004), Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ullmann, S. (1957). The Principles of Semantics. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Veisi Hesar R. & M. Tavangar, (2015), “Metaphor and culture: a cognitive approach to the two translations of Khayyam’s Quatrans”. Language Related Research. 5 (4).Pp:197-218. [In Persian].
• Wolf, G. (1991). “Translator’s introduction: The emergence of the concept of semantics”. In Michel Bréal, The Beginnings of Semantics: Essays, Lectures and Reviews (ed. and trans by George Wolf ), 3–17. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Yegane F. & A. Afrashi ,(2016), “Orientational metaphors in Quran: A cognitive semantic approach”. Language Related Research. 7 (5). Pp: 193-216. [In Persian].
Language Related Research
Volume 10, Issue 5 - Serial Number 53
November and December 2019
Pages 233-256