The first sentence of the title of this term paper - an abbreviated excerpt from a hallmark expression by the actor Neil Patrick Harris from the US American TV-series How I met your mother – hints towards the different perceptions of the adjective “awesome” that can be found in the English language. However, the same holds true for the adjective “awful” which results in the fact that there still are contrasting concepts of both adjectives within the English speaking community and therefore also the possible audience of this term paper. The goal of this term paper is to show that there is a connection between the change in meaning of the two adjectives whose conceptualization both changed somewhere in the mid-20th century.
For an explanation of the change, Rudi Keller’s theory of an Invisible Hand in linguistics is used. Keller’s theory was chosen for this analysis as it has received significant attention since its publication in 1990 and proven useful in explaining various phenomena of language change. In addition to that, the change in meaning for both “awful” and “awesome” happened in a rather short period of time. It therefore qualifies for an explanation that put language change on the basis of a set of similar individual circumstances, just as Keller does with his idea of phenomena of a third kind.
Firstly, the paper gives an introduction into Keller’s ideas, introduces the theoretical framework and also presents critical receptions of the Invisible Hand Theory. Secondly, the development of “awesome” and “awful” over time is presented and an explanation for a possible connection is given. This is done with the help of data Google n-gram and the Corpus of Contemporary American English as well as information from both the Oxford English Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. In the last part, this paper applies the theory of an Invisible Hand on the language change for “awesome” and “awful” by using three categories that were developed by Christa Dürscheid. The last part also answers questions about individual motives for actions that facilitate language change, explains a possible selection process as well as gives a definition for the newly emerged structure of this particular part of the English language.
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION
2 INVISIBLE HAND THEORY IN LINGUISTICS
PHENOMENA OF A THIRD KIND
APPLICATION ON LINGUISTICS
CRITIQUE ON KELLER’S APPROACH
3 THE DEVELOPMENT OF “AWESOME” OVER TIME
4 THE DEVELOPMENT OF “AWFUL” OVER TIME
5 AWESOME CONNECTION OR AWFULLY INTERTWINED?
6 AN EXPLANATION WITH THE HELP OF THE INVISIBLE HAND
7 CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK
Research Objectives and Themes
This term paper examines the historical semantic shift of the adjectives "awesome" and "awful" in the English language, exploring how their meanings have evolved and diverged since the mid-20th century. By applying Rudi Keller’s "Invisible Hand" theory, the research investigates whether these changes represent a linked evolutionary process driven by individual linguistic choices and socio-cultural influences.
- Theoretical application of the "Invisible Hand" in linguistics
- Diachronic analysis of semantic shifts in "awesome" and "awful"
- Influence of American English on global language usage
- The role of individual speaker motives in language evolution
- Statistical and corpus-based evidence of semantic change
Excerpt from the Book
Phenomena of a third kind
The theory of an Invisible hand in linguistics was developed by Rudi Keller and finds its first definition in 1990 in his book Sprachwandel. Von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache. Keller bases his theory on the assumption that, apart from natural and cultural phenomena, there are also phenomena which cannot be explained by the common antagonists like nature vs. art, instincts vs. reason or sentiment vs. logic. According to Keller, there is also a third kind of phenomena, a phenomenon of a third kind, as he calls it: results of human action but without human intention (cf. Keller 64).
Keller also gives some generic examples from everyday life that he connects to phenomena of a third kind. His main examples are a traffic jam or a dirt track on a lawn. According to Cf. Keller both the traffic jam, which might appear without any logical reason, accident or any other obvious cause, as well as the dirt track are results that appear, because at a certain point in time, a large number of individuals have the same intention (cf. Keller 89). These intentions, for example, getting as fast as possible from a point a to a point b, result in something, that was not intended ore sometimes even despised. However, even if neither a traffic jam nor a dirt track on a lawn is intended, they will appear anyway.
Summary of Chapters
1 INTRODUCTION: Outlines the research focus on the semantic evolution of "awesome" and "awful" and introduces the theoretical methodology based on Rudi Keller’s linguistic framework.
2 INVISIBLE HAND THEORY IN LINGUISTICS: Explains the core concept of phenomena of a third kind and details Keller's maxims for understanding spontaneous order in language change.
3 THE DEVELOPMENT OF “AWESOME” OVER TIME: Traces the semantic shift of "awesome" from its historical meaning of "full of awe" to its contemporary usage as an enthusiastic descriptor.
4 THE DEVELOPMENT OF “AWFUL” OVER TIME: Analyzes the weakening and eventual negative pejoration of "awful" through historical dictionary definitions and statistical usage data.
5 AWESOME CONNECTION OR AWFULLY INTERTWINED?: Explores the hypothesis that the semantic shifts of both terms are linked, potentially influenced by American English hegemony and generational differences.
6 AN EXPLANATION WITH THE HELP OF THE INVISIBLE HAND: Applies Christa Dürscheid’s methodological categories to explain the propagation of the new antonymous relationship between the two terms.
7 CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK: Summarizes findings regarding the semantic divergence of the terms and discusses limitations and possibilities for future statistical research.
Keywords
Invisible Hand, Language Change, Semantics, Awesome, Awful, Rudi Keller, Socio-cultural evolution, Linguistic innovation, Americanization, Corpus Linguistics, Lexical change, Semantic shift, Antonyms, Spontaneous order, Diachronic linguistics
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper investigates the historical semantic changes of the adjectives "awesome" and "awful" and how they have evolved into antonyms in contemporary English.
What are the primary thematic areas?
The study focuses on semantic variation, diachronic linguistics, the impact of American English on global vocabulary, and the application of evolutionary theory to language.
What is the main research goal?
The goal is to determine if the shifts in meaning for "awesome" and "awful" are connected and can be explained as a spontaneous, unintentional linguistic evolution.
Which scientific method is utilized?
The research uses Rudi Keller’s "Invisible Hand" theory alongside a methodology developed by Christa Dürscheid to analyze motives, selection processes, and structural outcomes of language change.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
It includes a theoretical framework of language evolution, a detailed history of the terms based on dictionaries and corpora, and an analytical application of dynamic maxims to explain the current usage.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Invisible Hand, semantic shift, language evolution, corpus linguistics, and diachronic analysis.
How does "awesome" differ from its original meaning?
Originally, "awesome" meant "full of awe" (often implying dread), but it has shifted to denote positive approval, such as "great" or "excellent," particularly within American English contexts.
What role does the "Invisible Hand" play in this language change?
It explains how individual speaker intentions—such as the desire to be understood or to use efficient expressions—lead to collective, unintentional changes in the language structure.
How did generational differences affect these terms?
Research, particularly the study by Justyna Robinson, suggests that older generations often retain traditional definitions (linking "awesome" to "terrible"), while younger generations have adopted the positive modern connotation.
Why are "awesome" and "awful" now considered antonyms?
Despite sharing a common etymological stem, historical semantic drifts have pushed "awesome" toward high positive valence and "awful" toward high negative valence, solidifying their status as functional antonyms.
- Quote paper
- Holger Weinreich (Author), 2016, Stop being sick and be awesome instead. An awful lot about the career of awesome over time, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/451334
