ON THE DIFFERENTIATION OF MEANING.
Language develops by the development of the vocabulary of individual
speakers in the same linguistic community: their tendency is to produce
synonymous forms and constructions in addition to those already at their
disposal. Each individual is, in fact, constantly engaged in increasing
the number of synonymous words, forms, and constructions in the language
which he speaks. One source of this superfluous development depends on
analogical formation: as when in English the imperfect is assimilated to
the participle, or the participle to the imperfect; as where forms like
_spoke_ and _broke_ appear beside _spake_ and _brake_ or _held_, beside
_holden_.
A second source of the same superfluity depending on synonyms arises
from the fact that of two words, each may develop its meaning on its own
lines, and the meanings may come to converge so as to become one and the
same. Thus, for instance, the two words _relation_ and _relative_, the
former originally the abstract verbal noun, the latter an adjective,
have converged in the meaning ‘a related person;’ and it has thus
happened that owing to this process there arise two terms for one and
the same idea. To the above a third source may be added; viz., the
acceptance of a foreign word into a language where a native word
already exists to express the same idea. Of course English is especially
rich in words of this kind, owing to the large number of Norman-French
words imported at the Conquest and maintained as an integral part of the
language; though the process of borrowing from French has been also
active since the epoch of the Conquest: such are the pairs _nude_,
_naked_; _pedagogue_, _schoolmaster_; _poignant_, _sharp_; _peccant_,
_sinning_; _sign_, _token_: other familiar instances are _tether_,
derived from the Celtic at an old date; and _loot_, adopted from the
Hindi, by the side of _plunder_. The case is, of course, similar where a
synonym is adopted from another dialect, as _vetch_ by the side of
_fitch_, _vat_ beside _fat_ (a vessel), etc.
But though such superfluities in language are continually appearing,
they have a constant tendency to disappear on the earliest possible
occasion. Language is a careful housewife, who is constantly
endeavouring to keep nothing on hand but what she can use, and carefully
to retrench the superfluous. We must, of course, never suppose that any
body of speakers combine to admit a word into the common language which
they employ, and that then, finding that the word or form has its
meaning already expressed in their language and is therefore
unnecessary, they proceed to discard it. These new words and forms
proceed in each instance from individuals, who overlook the existence in
their own language of a term already in use for some meaning which they
need to express, and so introduce a new form: this is then employed by
others, who, hearing the new form and the old, employ both alike
indiscriminately. Superfluity in language, then, must be regarded as
spontaneously arising, and without the aid of any voluntary impulse on
the part of any individual or individuals. The language of common life
is, as might be expected, most ready in freeing the vehicle of ordinary
communication from superfluities, and in the differentiation of
synonyms. The language of poetry and, in a less degree, of written
prose, demands a store of synonyms, on which an author may draw at will,
thereby forming an individual style and avoiding monotony. It is as
useful, nay, as indispensable to the poet that he should have a store of
words with similar meanings which he may employ for the purposes of his
artificial style, as it is for the ordinary speaker or writer to have a
distinct shade of meaning attached to each of the synonyms which he
employs. And as poetry makes greater demands upon the taste and powers
of an author than prose, we find that the language of poetry preserves
archaic forms and words which in prose have been practically obsolete.
In fact such words become the stock in trade of all writers of poetry,
appearing, of course, most frequently in those who seek to invest their
work with a peculiarly archaic caste. Thus, the diction of Spenser must
have appeared almost as archaic to his contemporaries as to
ourselves.[135] Poetry will also maintain constructions which have a
tendency in prose to become obsolete: as, _meseems; Time prove the
rest_. The metaphors employed in old Norse poetry are very instructive
on this head. They have been treated at great length in the ‘Corpus
Poeticum Boreale’ by Vigfusson and York Powell, from whose work[136] we
cite the following instances. The breast is spoken of as _the mind’s
house_, _memory’s sanctuary_, _the lurking-place of thought_, _the shore
of the mind_, _the bark of laughter_, _the hall of the heart_. The eye
is _the moon or star of the brows_, _the light or levin of the
forehead_, _the cauldron of tears_, _the pledge of Woden_. Herrings are
_the arrows of the sea_, _the darts_, _the tail-barbed arrows of the
deep_. Ships are characterised by a host of metaphors; as, _the tree or
beam_, _the sled_, _the car_, _the beam or timber of the sea or waves_;
_the steeds of the helm, oars, mast, sail, yard_: and numerous other
specimens of ‘pars pro toto.’
The most simple and obvious case of retrenchment in language is where,
out of several similar forms and phrases, all disappear and are disused
except a single one; as where _to grow_ is used instead of _to wax_; _to
go_, instead of _to fare_, etc. We must look upon these retrenchments in
language as mainly due to individuals; each speaker expresses himself
more or less unconsciously with a certain consistency, and uses,
generally speaking, what we may properly call his own dialect. It is
owing to such individual influence that the distinctions in language
which we call dialects arise, and thus the different opportunities for
choice form a main source of the distinctions of dialect.
In addition to this negative process of simply dropping what is useless,
there is the positive process of utilising what is superfluous in
language by differentiation of meaning in the case of synonymous words
and phrases. This process is no more the result of conscious purpose
than the other. Since each individual has gradually to learn the
different senses of words, inflections, particles, etc., it is clear
that when there are several synonyms in use--each of which has several
shades of signification--he will almost certainly hear one of them used
in one, and another in another of these meanings. If, for instance, we
represent the full meaning of a word in its different shades by the
letters _A_ + _B_ + _C_ + _D_, and, similarly, that of its synonym by
_a_ + _b_ + _c_ + _d_, the probability almost amounts to certainty that
when a learner first hears the former word, the shade of meaning (say
_B_) in which it happens to be employed will differ from that (say _d_)
in which he first learns the use of the latter. He will then inevitably,
though perhaps unconsciously, attach by preference these particular
shades of meaning to the two words; and will continue to do so, unless
stronger impulses, such as frequent use in other meanings by surrounding
speakers, force him to discard the differentiation which he has
established. But from the moment when he begins to use, and as long as
he uses the word consistently in one sense, he will influence others in
the same linguistic community, and lay the basis for definite acceptance
of the word in a particular or special sense.
Nor, again, must we assume that a differentiation in sound was purposely
and consciously made by speakers with a view to differentiate meanings.
Cases taken from modern languages may serve to show the unreasonableness
of such assumptions. Especial attention has been paid by writers on
Romance Philology to the ‘doublets’ occurring in their own languages. By
‘doublets’ we mean the double derivative forms of one and the same word
(such as _raison_, ‘reason,’ and _ration_, ‘allowance,’ both coming from
_rationem_): forms commonly appearing in a language at two different
periods in the history of the language, and invested, in spite of their
common origin, with distinct and special senses. The name of ‘doublets’
was first applied to them by Nicolas Catherinot, who, as early as 1683,
published a list of those which he had observed in French, but without
giving the reasons for the phenomenon. How imperfect the philological
knowledge of his day was may be seen from the following specimens of
‘doublets’ which he gives: from BATTUERE, Low Latin for ‘to fight,’ he
derived both _battre_ (to fight) and _tuer_ (to kill): from GRAVIS
(heavy), _grave_, serious; _brave_, brave: from MARMOR (marble),
_marble_, marble; _marmot_, guinea-pig.[137] A. Brachet has collected
many other specimens in the work cited below: Coelho has made a
collection from the Portuguese in the Romania, II. 281, sqq.[138]
It must, however, be noticed that many of the doublets cited in these
works stand outside of the class of those with which we have to deal,
and such cannot be taken as real cases of differentiation. For instance,
a loan word may immediately upon its introduction have been accepted in
a sense different from that borne by the word of the same origin which
already existed in the language: as in the case of _chantée_ (sung, fem.
past part.) and _cantata_ (cantata, a piece which is sung, as
distinguished from a sonata, a piece which is sounded or played),
borrowed from the Italian by the French; of _sexte_ (term in music and
‘the sixth book’) with its doublet _sieste_ (the hour of rest) borrowed
from the Spanish _siesta_, both derived from the Latin _sextam_; of
_façon_ (manner) with its doublet _fashion_, borrowed from the English,
both from Latin _factionem_, ‘a making.’ Thus, again, the French
_chose_ (a thing) and _cause_ (a cause) alike owe their origin to the
Latin _causam_, but the meanings were not differentiated in France:
_cause_ was borrowed as a law-term long after _chose_ had developed into
the general meaning of _thing_. It is the same, moreover, with such
English doublets as _ticket_, _etiquette_: _army_, _armada_: _orison_,
_oration_: _penance_, _penitence_. Such doublets as these, and _guitar_,
_zither_, _cithara_ may be called pseudo-doublets, producing as they do
the _effect_ of differentiation, but serving really as labels to
designate a foreign idea or object. Nor, again, must we include cases in
which a word became grammatically isolated and then received a special
meaning; such as where ‘besch_ei_den,’ in German, is now employed with
the signification of ‘modest,’ while ‘besch_ie_den’ is used as the true
participial form, and never means, or has meant, ‘modest.’ Similarly, in
French, we have _savant_ (a scholar) originally used as synonymous with
present participle _sachant_ (knowing) but in modern French as an
adjective or noun only, whilst _sachant_ has always remained present
participle and no more: _amant_, the present participle of _amare_ (to
love) is used as a substantive only.[139]
There are, however, other cases in which words are really
differentiated; that is to say, cases in which two words, whose meaning
we know to have been identical, have come to be accepted in different
meanings. This is a genuine process of economy in language. In French
_s’attaquer à_ and _s’attacher à_ at one time were used with identically
the same meaning and employed indifferently. _Attaquer_ is used in the
sense of ‘_attacher_’ in this line of the fourteenth century--_Une riche
escarboucle le mantel ataqua_ (‘a rich carbuncle attached (= held) the
mantel’) (Bauduin de Sebourc, i. 370). On the other hand, _attacher_ is
used in the sense of ‘to attack:’ as in the following passage, quoted by
M. Brachet[140] from a letter of Calvin to the regent of England,--_Tous
ensemble méritent bien d’estre réprimés par le glayve qui vous est
commis, veu qu’ils s’attaschent non seulement au roy, mais à Dieu qui
l’a assis au siège royal_, = ‘All together deserve to be put down by the
sword which has been entrusted to you, seeing that they attack not
merely the King, but God who has set him on the royal seat.’ (Lettres de
Calvin recueillies par M. Bonnet, ii. 201). In modern French _attacher_
is used exclusively in the sense of ‘to attach’ ‘to fasten;’ _attaquer_
= ‘to attack.’ Another instance is found in _chaire_ and _chaise_, both
of which words came into French from _cathedram_, and both of which once
signified the same thing (Theodore Beza, in 1530, complains of the
faulty pronunciation of the Parisians who say _chaise_ instead of
_chaire_). At the present day, of course, _chaise_ means ‘chair,’ and
_chaire_ is confined to the signification of ‘pulpit’ or ‘professor’s
chair.’ In English, _shoal_ and _shallow_ seem to have been used
synonymously, and to have become differentiated.[141] Other instances
are _of_, _off_; _naught_, _not_; _assay_, _essay_; _upset_, _set up_;
_Master_, _Mister_ (_Mr._); _Miss_, _Mistress_, _Mrs._ (pronounced
_Missus_). In these cases, the differentiation took place within the
given language; and such cases should be carefully distinguished from
those cases in which the differentiation was made _outside_ of the
language. For instance, in _squandered_ and _scatter_, both of which
seem to have signified the same thing, simply ‘to disperse’; cf.,
_squandered abroad_ (Merchant of Venice, I. iii. 22). _Indict_ and
_indite_ seem to have borne the same meaning, but are now
differentiated.
To these may be added the German doublets _reiter_ (a rider) and
_ritter_ (a knight), which may be paralleled by the use of the English
_squire_ and _esquire_; of which the latter word has lately come into
use simply as a title of society, whereas both forms were once used as
in Scott’s _nine and twenty squires of fame_. Other instances are
_scheuen_, ‘to fear,’ and _scheuchen_, ‘to scare:’ _jungfrau_, ‘maiden,’
and _jungfer_, ‘virgin.’
Double forms arising from the confusion of different methods of
declension are often used in different senses, as in the case of the
Latin _locus_, whose plurals _loca_ and _loci_ mean ‘places,’ and
‘passages in books’ respectively: the German _Franke_, the Franconian
_franken_, ‘a franc’ (9½_d._): this difference is utilised, together
with a difference of gender, in the German _der lump_, ‘the worthless
fellow;’ _die lumpe_, ‘the rag;’ etc. The difference of gender cannot be
utilised in English, but is thus utilised--in German--in such cases as
DER _band_, ‘volume;’ DAS _band_, ‘ribbon:’ DER _see_, ‘the lake;’ DIE
_see_, ‘the sea:’ DIE _erkenntniss_, ‘the act of judging;’ DAS
_erkenntniss_ ‘the judgment:’--in French, UN _foudre de guerre_, ‘a
thunderbolt of war’ (personified); UNE _foudre_, ‘a thunderbolt:’ UN
_critique_, ‘a critic;’ UNE _critique_, ‘a criticism:’ UN _office_, ‘a
duty;’ UNE _office_, ‘a pantry:’ LE _mémoire_, ‘memorandum;’ LA
_mémoire_, ‘memory:’ LE _politique_, ‘politician;’ LA _politique_,
‘politics:’ LE _Bourgogne_, ‘Burgundy wine;’ LA _Bourgogne_, ‘Burgundy:’
LE _paille_, ‘straw colour;’ LA _paille_, ‘the straw.’ To these must be
added the cases in which double plural formations are differentiated, as
in English _clothes_, _cloths_; _brothers_, _brethren_; _cows_, _kine_
(poetical); _pence_, _pennies_:--in German, _Band_, ‘bond’ and ‘ribbon;’
_Bande_, ‘bonds:’ _Bänder_, ‘ribbons:’ _Bank_, ‘bench’ and ‘bank;’
_Bänke_, ‘benches;’ _Banken_, ‘banks:’ _Gesicht_, ‘face’ and ‘vision;’
_Gesichte_, ‘vision;’ _Gesichter_, ‘faces:’ _Laden_, ‘shop’ and
‘shutter;’ _Läden_, ‘shops;’ _Laden_, ‘shutters:’ etc.[142] In French,
we have _l’aïeul_, ‘the grandfather;’ _les aïeux_, ‘ancestors;’ and
_aïeuls_, ‘grandfathers:’ _les travaux_, ‘works;’ and _les travails_, ‘a
minister’s reports:’ _l’œil_, ‘eye;’ _les yeux_, ‘eyes;’ and _les œils_
(small oval windows commonly called _œils de bœuf_). The singular
_appât_ means ‘bait;’ _les appas_ signifies ‘charms,’ and has a doublet,
_les appâts_, meaning ‘baits.’ In Russian, the accusative plural is the
same as the nominative in the case of inanimate objects: it is in the
case of animate beings identical with the genitive form. In Dutch, the
plurals in _-en_ and _-s_ are used in the case of some words
indifferently, as _vogelen_ and _vogels_, ‘birds:’ in the case of some
others, one alone is commonly used, as _engelen_, ‘angels,’ but
_pachters_, ‘farmers:’ again, in the case of others, both forms are
used, but with different meanings; thus _hemelen_, ‘the heavens;’ but
_hemels_, ‘canopies of a bed:’ _letteren_, ‘letters,’ or ‘literature;’
_letters_, ‘letters of the alphabet;’ etc. From the Danish, we may cite
_skatte_, ‘treasures;’ _skatter_, ‘taxes;’ _vaaben_, ‘weapons;’
_vaabener_, ‘armorial bearings.’ From Italian, we may instance
_braccia_, ‘the two arms of the body;’ _bracci_, ‘arms of the sea;’
_membra_, ‘the members of the body;’ _membri_, ‘the members of an
association.’ Similarly, in Spanish the neuter of the second declension
takes in many cases a feminine form in the plural; and in Portuguese
this manner of differentiation is more common than in any other European
language: cf. _serra_, ‘saw,’ ‘mountain ridge;’ _serro_, ‘a high
mountain;’ etc. In Russian, _synovya_ means ‘descendants’; _synui_,
‘sons;’ etc. The words _(to) purvey_ and _(to) provide_ have arisen from
the same original form, as have _respect_ and _respite_; _deploy_ and
_display_; _separate_ and _sever_.
The word _as_, like _also_, took its rise from the A.S. _ealswâ_; it is
simply a short form of _also_; and an intermediate form exists in O.E.
_alse_ and _als_. In Maundeville, p. 153, we find the two forms used
convertibly: _As foule as thei ben_, _als evele thei ben_ = _so evil
they are_; and again, _als longe as here vitaylles lasten, thei may
abide there_, p. 130.
_Than_ and _thanne_ were used in Chaucer’s time where we should use
_then_: _Now thanne, put thyn hond down at my bak_ (Chaucer, Cant.
Tales, 7721); and in comparisons _then_ was used where we should employ
_than_, as: ‘I am greater _then_ (i.e. _than_) you.’
In German, the word _verdorben_ means ‘spoiled’ in a material sense:
_verderbt_ is employed in a moral sense only. It is the same with
_bewegt_, ‘moved,’ and _bewogen_, ‘induced.’ In English we employ _aged_
mostly as a participle proper, but _agèd_ as an adjective; cf. also
_molten_ and _melted_.
The words formed with the suffixes _-hood_, _-ness_, _-dom_ generally
cover the same ground in English as in Anglo-Saxon. There are, however,
here also, a few cases in which differentiation seems to have set in.
Such are _hardihood_ and _hardiness_; _humble-hede_, _humble-ness_,
_humility_: _young-hede_, _youth_. In German, _kleinheit_ and _neuheit_
were used convertibly with _kleinigkeit_ and _neuigkeit_: now the former
= _smallness_, _newness_, the latter = _trifle_, _novelty_.
In the case of adjectives, we may see the same process in _mobile_,
_movable_: and in German, in _ernstlich_ and _ernsthaft_ which were once
used convertibly, but are now differentiated.
Sometimes a word originally of a different meaning encroaches on the
domain of another word, and gradually arrogates the latter’s meaning to
itself. Thus, in French, the meaning of _en_, the form taken in French
for the Latin _in_, has been encroached upon by the preposition _à_, and
by the adverb _dans_ (O.Fr. _denz_ = _de intus_), and _dans_ has
completely ousted the prepositional meaning of _dedans_. Molière could
still write _dedans ma poche_ = ‘in my pocket.’ _Böse_, in German, is
now almost restricted to the sense of ‘morally bad’ by the encroachments
of _schlecht_ (originally ‘smooth,’ ‘straight’) English _slight_. The
English word _sick_, once the general word for _ill_, has been
restricted in meaning by the encroachments of the latter word.
Sometimes a newly formed word encroaches on the domain of meaning
covered by a word in existence, as _to utilise_ on _to use_;
_serviceable_ upon _useful_; _gentlemanly_ upon _genteel_ and _gentle_;
_magnificence_ on _munificence_:[143] _mainly_ is encroached upon by
_chiefly_, _pursuer_ by _persecutor_ and _prosecutor_: and sometimes it
practically ousts it from its previous meaning, as in the case of
_methodist_, _naturalist_, _purist_, etc.
The above examples may serve to show us some of the main factors in the
differentiation of meaning, and with how little conscious design on the
part of the speakers they were carried out.