Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T18:12:47.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The post-fact world in a post-truth era: the productivity and emergent meanings of the prefix post- in contemporary English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2019

EWELINA PRAŻMO Open the ORCID record for EWELINA PRAŻMO [Opens in a new window]
EWELINA PRAŻMO*
Affiliation:
Humanities Department, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Pl. M. Curie-Skłodowskiej 5, 20-031Lublin, Poland, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article proposes a cognitive linguistic analysis of the prefix post- in contemporary English by looking into the possible motivations of the semantic changes which have led to the increasing applicability of the prefix. The prefix's productivity in combinations such as post-truth and post-fact calls for expanding its original definition. These recent combinations go beyond the main two established meanings of the prefix, namely the spatial and the temporal meaning. In order to explain this semantic extension a radial model of categorisation is proposed. Offering an analysis of contexts in which the prefix post- is used in British and American press coverage, especially in relation to the 2016 UK Brexit referendum and the 2016 US presidential campaign, the article claims that the appearance of the prefix in new combinations is motivated by the need to describe the changing reality (especially in political and media discourse).

Keywords

semantic changepolysemyprefixconceptual integrationemergent meanings
Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 393 - 412
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2003. The productivity of (non-)productive morphology. Rivista di Linguistica 15(1), 7–16.Google Scholar
Bennett, Samuel. 2019a (forthcoming). ‘Crisis’ as a discursive strategy in Brexit referendum campaigns. Discourse and Society 15.Google Scholar
Bennett, Samuel. 2019b (forthcoming). Standing up for ‘real people’: UKIP, the Brexit, and online discursive strategies on Twitter. In Zienkowski, Jan & Breeze, Ruth (eds.), Imagining the peoples of Europe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Blackburn, Simon. 2018. On truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brugman, Claudia & Lakoff, George. 1988. Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In Small, Steven L., Cottrell, Garrison W. & Tanenhaus, Michael K. (eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution, 477–508. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.10.1016/B978-0-08-051013-2.50022-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, Laura & Sitbon, Clara. 2016. Deception: Spies, lies and forgery. Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press.10.1163/9781848884106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark, 2016. Corpus of News on the Web (NOW). http://corpus.byu.edu/now/ (accessed 12 January 2019).Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Turner, Mark. 2003a. Conceptual blending, form and meaning. Recherches en Communication 19: Sémiotique cognitive – Cognitive Semiotics 19, 57–86.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Turner, Mark. 2003b. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. Reprint edition. New York: Basic Books.
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2008. Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2009. Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198700302.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamawand, Zeki. 2013. Prefixes of spatiality in English: A study in cognitive linguistics. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 3(5), 736–47.10.4304/tpls.3.5.736-747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsin, Jayson. 2015. Regimes of posttruth, postpolitics, and attention economies. Communication, Culture and Critique 8(2), 327–33.10.1111/cccr.12097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles Francis. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 203, 89–96.10.1038/scientificamerican0960-88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kester, Kevin. 2018. Postmodernism in post-truth times. Educational Philosophy and Theory 50(14), 1330–31.10.1080/00131857.2018.1461417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keyes, Ralph. 2004. The post-truth era: Dishonesty and deception in contemporary life. New York: St Martin's Press.Google Scholar
KhosraviNik, Majid. 2018. Social media techno-discursive design, affective communication and contemporary politics. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 11, 427–42.10.1007/s40647-018-0226-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2003. Constructional integration, grammaticization, and serial verb constructions. Language and Linguistics 4(2), 251–78.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, Adrienne. 1995. Prefixes in English word formation. Folia Linguistica 29, 133–48.10.1515/flin.1995.29.1-2.133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara. 2012. Polysemy, prototypes, and radial categories. In Geeraerts, Dirk & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 139–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nesset, Tore, Janda, Laura & Endresen, Anna. 2011. Two ways to get out: Radial category profiling and the Russian prefixes vy- and iz. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 56, 377–402.10.1524/slaw.2011.0039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papacharissi, Zizi. 2014. Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511841323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romer, Paul M. 2015. Mathiness in the theory of economic growth. American Economic Review 105(5), 89–93.10.1257/aer.p20151066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2003. Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar