|
COPYRIGHT 2005 Adam Mickiewicz University Press
ABSTRACT
This article aims to discuss semantic history of selected zoosemic terms targeted at the conceptual category FEMALE HUMAN BEING in the light of cognitive semantics (e.g. Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Lakoff 1987; Lakoff and Turner 1989; Langacker 1987). In the body of the paper, Schulz's (1975) observation, that of semantic derogation of women, is reconsidered and supported by further examples from English and other Indo-European languages. Specifically, it is shown that meaning pejoration of lexemes used with reference to women is not only a frequent semantic mechanism but a productive linguistic process.
1. Introduction
This paper is a pilot study designed to signal and delineate the scope of a larger research field, that of English animal metaphor (2) (henceforth: zoosemy) from the standpoint of cognitive semantics. Thus, the aim here is to examine some of zoosemy data, Domestic Animals Metaphors, in particular. Specifically, it will be argued that the three conceptual categories, i.e. CANIDAE, FELIDAE and EQUIDAE are particularly abundant in metaphorical developments targeted at the conceptual category FEMALE HUMAN BEING where pejoration of meaning is an extremely frequent semantic mechanism.
In this paper we will reconsider Schulz's (1975: 65) observation that, not infrequently, a perfectly innocent term designating a girl or woman may begin with totally neutral or even positive connotations, but gradually, it acquires negative implications. At first perhaps, these may be only slightly disparaging, but after a period of time, becoming abusive and ending up as a sexual slur. We will show that Schulz's (1975: 65) observation, holds perfectly true for the range of metaphors that are of interest to us. We hope to give evidence that virtually every originally neutral lexeme designating women has at some point in its history acquired debased connotations or obscene reference (Schulz 1975: 65). The data we will examine in what follows originate in Middle English/Early Modern English (henceforth: ME/EME) (1050-1700) and, in various cases, continue their metaphorical development in the present.
2. Theoretical background
Using some of the tools and insights of cognitive grammar adopted in, e.g. Kardela (1992), Kleparski (1996, 1997), Krzeszowski (1997), Lakoff and Johnson (1980), Lakoff (1987), Lakoff and Turner (1989), Langacker (1987), Martsa (2001), we will analyse those lexemes linked to the categories EQUIDAE, CANIDAE and FELIDAE which in their semantic history have undergone zoosemic development, targeted at the conceptual category FEMALE HUMAN BEING.
In their analysis of proverbs, Lakoff and Turner (1989) employ the concept of the Great Chain of Being whose theoretical bases were developed by the ancient philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle (cf. Nisbet 1982: 35), and which has not only survived into our times but, more importantly, its mechanisms have been reflected in various evolutionary theories and, recently, also in semantic investigations. The basic Great Chain is defined by attributes and behaviours, arranged in a hierarchy.
Lakoff and Turner (1989: 172) point out that the Great Chain of Being Metaphor is "a tool of great power and scope" because "it allows us to comprehend general human character traits in terms of well-understood nonhuman attributes; and, conversely, it allows us to comprehend less well-understood aspects of the nature of animals and objects in terms of better-understood human characteristics". Specifically, Lakoff and Turner (1989: 195) make use of the mechanism of the Great Chain of Being to explore the meaning of such metaphors as Achilles is a lion or Man is a wolf i.e. metaphors of the form A is a B where B is a concept characterised by a metaphorical schema. In the metaphor Achilles is a lion certain instinctive traits of a lion are perceived metaphorically in terms of human character traits, such as courage. The authors claim that the expression Achilles is a lion helps us to understand the character of Achilles in terms of a certain instinctive trait of lions, a trait which is already "metaphorically understood in terms of a character trait of humans". Interestingly, to use Lakoff and Turner's (1989: 195) terminology, "understanding the character of Achilles in terms of the instinct of the lion, asks us to understand the steadfastness of Achilles' courage in terms of the rigidity of animal instinct". The authors argue that the mechanism by which this works is the GREAT CHAIN OF BEING METAPHOR: steadfastness, being of higher-order character, is understood in terms of rigidity of lower-order instinct.
The lexical items targeted in this paper have been analysed on the basis of the features, traits or attributes being mapped from the source domain (EQUINE/CANINE/FELINE) onto the target domain (HUMAN), in the following way: DOMAIN OF SPECIES, DOMAIN OF FUNCTIONS, DOMAIN OF ORIGIN/RANK, DOMAIN OF AGE, DOMAIN OF CHARACTER, BEHAVIOUR AND MORALITY, DOMAIN OF PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND APPEARANCE, DOMAIN OF ABUSE. (3)
3. Data and analysis
Now we shall cast a closer look at semantic history and metaphorical development of selected lexical items. Specifically, we will show that the main mechanism which can be held responsible for zoosemy is that of metaphorical extension. It has been convincingly proved by, among others, Somig (1981: 11), Adamska-Sataciak (1996: 136), Kleparski (1997: 91) that in order for a metaphorical extension between two categories to take place, the two designata must be already perceived as being somehow related through their properties. As Sornig argues (1981: 11), there is always a need for some relationship between the old and the new meaning (or the source and target domain) to bridge the gulf of arbitrariness. Thus, metaphorical extensions stem from the mapping of values from the source onto the target domain. Kleparski (1997: 92) observes that the operation of metaphorical extension means that speakers must conceptualise the two phenomena/objects/actions designated by expressions as internally complex and sharing some elements. In a nutshell, certain subsections of the meaning of one lexical category start to serve as the basis for a functional extension, while other aspects of a given semantic structure remain irrelevant for this purpose.
As mentioned above, the three conceptual categories we wish to concentrate on presently are EQUIDAE, (4) CANIDAE and FELIDAE. It will be noticed that some of the selected lexical items subject to analysis are axiologically neutral when used in their original sense-threads (e.g. mare, stallion, mule), and it is only by the process of zoosemy that their axiological (negative) marking comes to surface. Other lexemes (e.g. jade, hackney, hilding), are already axiologically loaded as input, and after the process of metaphorisation the axiological marking is strengthened when applied to female human beings. Interestingly enough, some other terms under discussion, axiologically unmarked in their original sense (e.g. stallion), by the process of zoosemy, come to serve as compliments when applied to men and, significantly, as invectives when used to designate women.
Before we proceed to the presentation and analysis of data, it must be made clear that the examples chosen represent only a subset of those which exist. This paper seeks to suggest, with these examples, a path for future research and a mode of analysis.
3.1. MARE
The word mare has been present in the English lexicon since the 10th century and its primary sense is 'the female of any equine animal (as the horse, ass, or zebra), but especially applied to the female of...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
