Specialist Vocabulary
255(present or future) item of computer hardware or software to be named,
will both have to be cognitively salient enough for language users to
establish a conceptual link between them. In other words, the greater the
distance between the role, operation, function, etc., of such computer
hardware/software from what may be extralinguistically perceived as
characteristic of a given profession/occupation, the lower the probability
of a lexical-semantic transfer from PROFESSIONS/OCCUPATIONS to
COMPUTER HARDWARE/SOFTWARE.
Last, but not least, the relevance of the PROFESSION/OCCUPATION Æ
COMPUTER HARDWARE/SOFTWARE directionality in lexical semantic
change could be addressed with respect to the languages other than
English. In the light of the extralinguistic considerations emphasized
above, it might be tempting to assume that the onomasiological path in
question would be equally productive not only in English. However, this
issue would require systematic contrastive analyses, since such an
assumption might be deceptive at least on two counts.
Firstly, despite the above-emphasized universal relevance of work to
human extralinguistic experience, the consequent abundance of
conceptually salient domains in the PROFESSIONS/OCCUPATIONS showing a
huge potential for becoming source domains in metaphorical
transformations does not have to translate into any onomasiological
application to COMPUTER HARDWARE/SOFTWARE, as the source concepts
may differ in the extralinguistic cultural backgrounds of particular
languages. Furthermore, even if the same target and source concepts exist
across cultures, they may be paired differently, producing different
metaphors, or may be paired in one language, but not necessarily in
another, as pointed out by Kövecses (2005: 70ff).
In this respect, Blank (2003: 43–44) utters a word of warning lest basic
cognitive concepts be “postulated on the grounds of poor linguistic data
and their cognitive relevance”, stressing that “one cannot, e.g., postulate
that body parts are basic cognitive concepts just because in English they
serve as a source of so many metaphors”^62 and that “[o]nly if these
metaphors prove to be recurrent in a greater sample of related and non-
related languages, can one hypothesize a common cognitive or
anthropological grounding” (ibid.) Likewise, Geeraerts (2010: 237)
emphasizes the problems in determining the possible patterns of lexical
semantic change universally applicable to different cultures, languages and
language families.
(^62) For example, arm of the law, head of the department, foot of the mountain, heart
of the city, etc. (Blank 2003: 44).