県立広島大学人間文化学部紀要　10，45-51（2015）

Etymology and Lexicalization in Cognitive Grammar

CHUNG,Wootaek(Prep.Univ.ofHiroshima)

1. Introduction

Thegoals and subjects of linguistics in the last centuryhadbeen focused on theworksthatwas analyzing thedatabaseduponnatural languageor spoken languages and findingout the regularities of languagephenomena.At the lastdecades of last century, alongwiththebroadunderstandingof structuresand functionsofbrain, interdisciplinaryresearchesofhuman intelligenceandreal substanceandmechanismofhumancommunicationabilitywereactivated.Consequently itbecame inevitable tocooperatewithotherdisciplinesandtoextendits territory.Theefforts tounderstand thesubstanceofhumancommunicationabilitywhichsupports intellectual competenceare stronglydemanded, aswell aspractical and traditionalterritoriesoflinguisticsasthehumanities,suchasschool-grammareducation,languageeducation.It isnecessaryto investigatethemechanismsofcommunicationabilitybasedupon intellectandcognitivecompetence.Furthermoreitisnecessarytoreconsider,onthebasisofactualexperiencesand languageperformances,whichone ismoreempiricalandpositiveapproach;module-basedtheorythatlinguisticabilityiscomposedofseparatedcategories,andnetworktheoryworkingasacomplexofintellectualfaculties.Inthispaper,amongsomecontroversialissuesinrelationtotheterritoryoflinguistics,archetypenotionoflexicalization-grammaticalizationincognitivegrammarandetymologicalmethodwouldbediscussedasexamplesofcomparison. In fact, thenotionofarchetype (orprototype)hasnoempiricalgroundtobetreatedasbasicnotionatthecategoriesoflexiconandgrammar.Morefundamentalcategoriesofconceptscouldbeadmittedincognitivescience,but it is inapplicable to the levelof lexicon-grammar. It ismoreempirical to supposethat theschematizationofconceptualizationandtheprocessof lexicalization-grammaticalizationbelongtodifferentlevels.Thenotionofarchetypeintheprocessofconceptualizationisrepeatedattheleveloflexicalization-grammaticalization:fromsourcedomainofaconcepttotargetdomain.It is applicable topolysemyandhomonymy.Thearchetype (prototype) is considered tobeconceptualizedwithoutteachingoracquisition.Onthecontrarythesourcedomainofconceptisnotcognizedbythelanguageusers,itisusuallyacquiredbylearningafterwards.Thereasonwhytocompareetymologicalworkswiththearchetype-notionandsourceconceptofCG (cognitivegrammar) is that theyareuseful for instrumentalconcept tounderstandtheprocessesconcerned.Etymologicalworkshavederivedfromthequestionofseekingthehistoryofwordchangesanditalsogottomakeupapartofbasicworksinvestigatinghistoricalchangesof language.Whileontheotheranylinguistwhotakesanalyticmethodsisunwillingtomentionit,becausetheword‘etymology(meaningfromGreek:studyingthetruesense)’containsasenseofvalueorgenuineness. It is impossible toclearuptheultimateoriginofaword,butalso themethodsofmanyetymologistsseemlackofunderstandingsofthemechanismoflanguagelearning

45

CHUNG,Wootaek　　　EtymologyandLexicalizationinCognitiveGrammar

andtheprocessofdiachronicchanges.Butusingetymologicalanalysis ispracticallyaneffectivewaytolearnandenlargevocabulary.Weknowthatadictionaryofestablishedreputationwouldnotmissetymologicalanalysisout.

2. Method of etymology

2 . 1 . Contents of etymology are only handled as diachronic changes of lexical items.Aproblematic issuewasconcernedwiththeviewpointofvalueandtheattitudetowardhistoryoflinguisticchanges.Controversialpointsofetymologyareasfollows.Thefirst, theaimortaskofetymologywasto trackvocabularyto theultimateorigins.Thisattitudeassumesateleologicalviewpointthatlanguagehasultimateelementsandlanguageitselfhasthereasonforbeing.Thesecond,etymologysometimes leadsto irrationalunderstandingof linguistic factsandmysticismabout language.Likea taboooranamulet,knowledgeabout languagecausesan illusionasasubstitute forrealworld.Etymologicalstage itselfrepresentsaphaseofdiachronicchanges,notunchangeable.Itisdifficulttoadmitetymologywithoutconsiderationaboutacontextofchanges.Neverthelessthereasonofincludingetymologicalexplanationsinalarge-scalelinguisticdictionaryisdue to theeffectiveness forvocabulary learning.The first, itprovidesananalyticview forvocabulary.Thesecond, itenrichesvocabulary-aneologism,anarchaismetc.Thethird,relatedwordgroupof a language-learner canbeeasilymadeup. It is consideredasevenespeciallymoreeffective toolwhen learningnon-native languages.Etymologicalorhistoricalapproachatvocabularyacquisitioncouldbeadmitted insubstancealthoughthe term‘etymology’ isbeingshunned.

2. 2. Example: folk-etymology

Atypicalexampleofpseudo-etymologyisfolk-etymology.Thesomeexamplesofitisasfollows.

(1a)bridegroom:OE.guma(man)>>groom(<<attendant)(fromobsoletism)(1b)cockroach:Sp.cucaracha>>cock+roach(incorrectanalysisfromforeignlanguage)

(2a)ulge>ul-γe>ure>>　urwe[울게>울에>우레>>우뢰(雨雷)](2b)chilssam>>kilssam(weavingcloth)　[질쌈>>길쌈](hyper-correction)

(3a)akagire(あかぎれ):aka+kire[<<a(足)+kakaru(皸)]　(3b)namida(涙) 1 [<<?na(生る)+mi(水)+deru(出)]

1Itseemsmorereasonablethat‘namida(<namita)’andThai‘náamtaa(tears)’makecognatesinaviewpointofhistorical-comparativelinguisticmethod.Thai‘náamtaa’iscompoundof‘náam’(water)and‘taa(eye)’.

46

県立広島大学人間文化学部紀要　10，45-51（2015）

Even though it isundoubtedlydifficult andunnecessarywork toverifyopinionsabout folk-etymologyitself,theoperatingmechanismofmakingupfolk-etymologyprovidessuggestiveideas.There-constructed frameworkofetymology in theprocessofsuchawork isapplicable to thereverseflowofderivingfromprototypeorsourcedomainatthecognitivegrammar.Thecognitivemechanismwithwhich language-user re-constructanetymology is similar insubstance to thelexicalizationincognitivegrammaraboutthediffusion-transitionprocessofmeaning.Itisamatterof‘time’and‘cognitivemechanism’.Thediachronicchangewhich language-usercannotgraspthewholeprocessonlyby intuitionrepeatsthesamemechanismintheprocessof lexicalizationinCG.Becauseauser’s linguisticability inwhich linksofcognitiverelationsareseveredhavetoestablishnewrelations(orsematicnetwork).Forexample,inthecaseoftaking‘centralpark’asanexamplewecanassumetwocases: theonewhosemind‘apark locatedat thecenterofatown’comes into,andtheothersomespecificparksuchas‘CentralPark inNewYork’.Themeaningsandconceptsofeachotheraremadeupindifferentways.

2 . 3 .Asemanticnetworkofanindividualisalwaysboundtodevelopitselffrominitialstage:inafigurativesenseitcouldbecalled‘initialization’.Itissimilartothephenomenonthatphylogenyrepeatsontogenyinbiology.Theaccumulationofevolutionofphysiologicalbrain-functionsdoesnotguaranteethedevelopmentofcontentinthebrain.DevelopmentofIntellecthasnotaccompaniedaccumulationofknowledge.Asapplicationshavetobeinstalledagainatanewcomputersystem,asemanticnetworkornetworkofmeaningsandconceptsofaspecificuserhastobeestablishednewly.There-constructionofetymologycorresponds to suchaprocess.Sometimeserrorsofanalysishappentooccur: that is folketymology.Themechanismofprocess isapplicable to inthe lexicalization inCG, too.Thesamecognitivemechanism isworking in theprocesses.Asetymologicalinformationisnotsetupinthebrainoflanguageuser,informationaboutprototypeandprocessoflexicalizationisso.

3. Lexicalization in CG and prototype

3 . 1 .Developmentofcognitivescienceowetoneuroscienceandbrainphysiology,andcognitivegrammarcouldmakeuseofsuchresultsofneighboringdisciplinesfurthermore.Aftertheconcept

‘prototype’isshapedfromtheacademictraditionsofphilosophyandpsychology,itisstillusefulconcept in the field of cognitive science.Concerning the concept‘prototype (archetype)’ofcognitivegrammaranissuecouldbediscussed.Itwouldbeadiscussionaboutaninterpretationofmechanismofmeaningchangeintheprocessoflexicalization.Thefirstissueisthatprototypehasarealexistenceinthebrainoflanguageuser,andthesecondishowchangesoriginatedfromthesourceconceptcouldspreadintootherusers.

Thereisnoevidenceorproofofthefirstquestion.Inempiricaljudgmentlanguageuserratherre-constructsprototypebyanalogy forhimselfandre-formprototypebyacquisition.Atypicalexample isanerror inananalysis (‘meta-analysis’ inoldterms)at folketymology.Eventhoughtheconceptofprototype (archetype) isanavailablemeansexplaining lexical-semanticnetwork

47

CHUNG,Wootaek　　　EtymologyandLexicalizationinCognitiveGrammar

and lexicalizationas ifan imaginarynumber isavailableatmathematics, there isnoempiricalandpositivegroundtobelieve thatprototypeexistreallyor languageusercognize itapriori.Concerninglexicalization,theflowofaprocessbetweensourcedomain(ofaconcept)andderiveddomain(ofaconcept)isexplainedasprogressivedirection.Practicallytheprocessofcognitionisconsideredtoshowreversedirection.Thisisapplicabletothecaseofprototype,too.

Howare theconceptofprototypeand thesourceconceptat lexicalizationmadeup in thecognitionofuser?The first, it comes fromthesensoryexperiences. In thecase thatasourceof experience is changed, the conceptofprototype itself changes, too.Theprototype isnotunchangeable, but variable according to environmentbeing cognizedby languageuser. Itresemblesthe formationprocessofdialectareas.As ifdialectarea isdividedandre-formedbylanguagecontacts,prototypeconceptisre-formedbyinfluencesofenvironments.Thesecondisare-constructionofprototypebyacquisition.Itismadeuporre-formedbyetymologicalanalysisasmentionedbeforeorlanguagelearningwithininfluencesofschoolandmassmedia.

3.2. How the changes spreadWiththeassumption that linguisticchangeoccursandtheresult isre-formedat the levelof

user individual, it isevident fromempiricalexperiencesthatgeneticheredityoroutside factorcannotinterveneintheprocessoflanguageacquisitionandtheformationoflinguisticability.Newchangesofasourceuserspreadby languagecontacts. Incontemporary timessocial factoroflanguagecontactsismoreinfluentialthangeographicalfactor.Inthecaseofyounggenerationnon-face-to-facecontactssuchasSNSareremarkablefactors.

3.3. Structure of lexical item (lexeme)Thediscussionaboveaboutprototype intends tounderstand lexical itemandmechanismof

lexicalization.Astructureoflexicalitemcouldbeschematized.

Figure� 1 .�Structure�of�Lexical�item

conceptual meaning01conceptual meaning02

.........conceptual meaningN

grammatical information01grammatical information02

.........grammatical informationN

pragmatic information01pragmatic information02

.........pragmatic informationN

sound image01soundimage02

.......sound imageN

48

県立広島大学人間文化学部紀要　10，45-51（2015）

In the case ofpolysemy (andhomophony), conceptualmeaning01andconceptualmeaning02are independent fromeachother,butpolysemydoesnotshare itsgrammaticalandpragmaticinformation.itfunctionsasaseparateitem.Itisthepracticalmechanismoflexicalizationthattherelationofpolysemyisre-constructedintheprocessoflanguageacquisitionofanindividual.Theinstancesatfirststageoflexicalizationareasbelow.

(4a)바가지[agourd.](4b)바가지를긁다[verb.yap.(scratchagourd)]

(5a)しも　[下、下流](5b)しものせわをする

(6a)will[verb](6b)will[modal]

Thechange from (6a) to (6b)presentsaprocessof lexicalization (exactly,grammaticalization).Theprocessofgrammaticalizationisendedwhen(6a)becomeanobsoleteword.Examplesof(4a),(5a) is incurrentprocessof lexicalization.After theresultof lexicalization, it iscalledas fossilremainedatcompoundsoridioms.Therelationof(a)and(b)-afterwardetymologicalrelation-isnotrecognizedatfirststageoflanguagelearningbecausetheprocessoflanguagelearningstartsfromacleansheet.

4. Concluding remark

A linguistic theoryneeds tobe explanatorybecause it has to analyze and interpret thephenomena.Thecausesof linguisticchangescouldbeexplainedsuchawaythat thecognitivemechanismof languageacquisitionalways requires initializationor resetof linguisticability.Therefore thepresentaimof linguistic studyneeds to investigate themechanismof languageand toco-operatewithothersciences.Even if linguisticability itself is innate like intellectofhuman-beings,thecontentsare innovatedandrenewedallthetimes.Thechangesanddiversityof languagesare inevitable.Languageeducationand languageplanneedtotakesuchnatureoflanguagemechanismintoconsideration.

References

Langacker,Ronald.W., (2007), ‘Cognitive grammar’, in theOxfordHandbook ofCognitiveLinguistics(ed.ByGeeraertsandCuyckens),OxfordUniv.Press.

Langacker,Ronald.W., (2011),‘Grammaticalization andCognitivegrammar’, in theOxfordHandbookofGrammarticalization(ed.ByNarrogandHeine),OxfordUniv.Press.

49

CHUNG,Wootaek　　　EtymologyandLexicalizationinCognitiveGrammar

Chung,Woo-taek(2014),‘LexiconinCognitiveLinguisticsandDiachronicmethod’,inBulletinofthefacultyofhumancultureandsciencev.9,Pref.Univ.ofHiorshima.

50

県立広島大学人間文化学部紀要　10，45-51（2015）

Abstract

Etymology and Lexicalization in Cognitive Grammar

CHUNG,Woo-taek(Pref.Univ.ofHiroshima)

Amongsomecontroversial issues inrelationtotheterritoryof linguistics,archetypenotionoflexicalization-grammaticalization incognitivegrammarandetymologicalmethodwerediscussedasexamplesofcomparison.Thenotionofarchetype(orprototype)hasnoempiricalgroundtobetreatedasbasicnotionatthecategoriesoflexiconandgrammar.Itismoreempiricaltosupposethat theschematizationofconceptualizationandtheprocessof lexicalization-grammaticalizationbelongtodifferentlevels.Thenotionofarchetypeintheprocessofconceptualizationisrepeatedattheleveloflexicalization-grammaticalization:fromsourcedomainofaconcepttotargetdomain.Asemanticnetworkofan individual isalwaysbound todevelop itself from initial stage: inafigurativesenseitcouldbecalled‘initialization’.

Theoriginoftheconceptofprototypeandthesourceconceptatlexicalizationareasbelow.Thefirst,itcomesfromthesensoryexperiences.Inthecasethatasourceofexperienceischanged,theconceptofprototypeitselfchanges,too.Theprototypeisnotunchangeable,butvariableaccordingtoenvironmentbeingcognizedby languageuser. Itresembles the formationprocessofdialectareas.As ifdialectarea isdividedandre-formedby languagecontacts,prototypeconcept isre-formedbyinfluencesofenvironments.Thesecondisare-constructionofprototypebyacquisition.It ismadeuporre-formedbyetymologicalanalysisasmentionedbeforeor language learningwithininfluencesofschoolandmassmedia.

Thecausesof linguisticchangescouldbeexplainedsuchawaythatthecognitivemechanismof languageacquisitionalwaysrequires initializationorresetof linguisticability.Therefore thepresentaimoflinguisticstudyneedstoinvestigatethemechanismoflanguageandtoco-operatewithothersciences.

51