@article{oai:nagoya.repo.nii.ac.jp:00028096,
 author = {前田, 満 and Maeda, Mitsuru},
 journal = {IVY},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {As Bradley (1955 [1904] :209) puts it, there are cases of semantic change where a word's "original meaning has been actually reversed." In such cases, since the original meaning of a word is reversed, I will refer to this type of change as "antonymization." The most cerebrated examples of this in the history of English are silly and nice. The former derives from OE sǣlig (cf. OHG sâlig) 'happy, blessed good,' a word of high value. In Present-day English, silly only means 'foolish' and it shows no trace of this positive meaning. This pattern of change is generally called "pejoration." By contrast, nice stems from a loanword with a very negative meaning, i.e. Latin nescius 'ignorant' or French nice 'stupid.' In the course of history, its negative value disappeared and it gained a positive one as it has today. This pattern of change is the reversal of pejoration, and is usually called "amelioration." The patterns shown by silly and nice, then, are symmetric to each other, which might seem to one to be very regular and orderly because of this symmetry. The primary purpose of this paper is to explain why the reversal of meanings occurs at all, by analyzing and reconstructing the developmental courses of silly and some others. I cannot treat the nice-type antonymization for the limitation of space, and I have to relegate it to my future study. Therefore, this brief study should be understood as a partial attempt at explaining the symmetrical development of silly and nice. My contention is that the developmental course of silly is a result of the interaction of various extralinguistic factors, of which politeness is the most important. In this paper, I will adopt Rudi Keller's (1984, 1994 1995, 1997) Invisible-hand Theory as an explanatory framework. I have chosen this theory, not because it enables us to construct an elegant theorizing of the phenomenon, but because it permits us to cast a light on the role of speakers in language change. As Milroy (1992) argues, the actuation problem, i.e. a question of why a particular change occurred, cannot be solved without taking the activities of speakers into account. In this spirit, I attempt to construct a speaker-oriented, invisible-hand explanation of the silly-type antonymization.},
 pages = {43--66},
 title = {反義化と語義堕落},
 volume = {42},
 year = {2010}
}