The scope of diachronic onomasiology

Abstract

What could be a more fitting tribute to Oskar Reichmann than a contribution to diachronic onomasiology? The purpose of the present paper – brief though it is – is threefold: first, to chart the domain of onomasiology, determining its various subfields and their mutual relationships; second, to define the specific position of diachronic onomasiology in the context of this classification, and third, to situate my own recent contributions to onomasiological research against the backdrop of this overview of the state of the art. The first aspect expands and revises the suggestions about the internal constitution of the field of onomasiology that I made elsewhere (Geeraerts 1999a). Although I suspect that the classification that I will present here is still amenable to substantial improvement, I do feel that it is more balanced and comprehensive than my earlier attempt. I would also like to point out that the references to the literature that I will be giving are obviously not intended to be exhaustive. I hope, though, that they are representative of what is going on in contemporary onomasiology. Also, I will restrict my remarks to onomasiological research of a theoretical nature. Descriptive onomasiology as it exists in the form of the onomasiological dictionary will be left unmentioned – though not because I consider the topic

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 51 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.