Swedish Dimensional Adjectives

ACTA UNIVERSITATIS STOCKHOLMIENSIS Stockholm Studies in Scandinavian Philology NEW SERIES ——————————————– 36 ——————————————– Swedish Dimensional Adjectives Anna Vogel Almqvist & Wiksell International Stockholm – Sweden ACTA UNIVERSITATIS STOCKHOLMIENSIS Stockholm Studies in Scandinavian Philology NEW SERIES ——————————————– 36 ——————————————– Swedish Dimensional Adjectives Anna Vogel Illustrations by Agnes Stenqvist Almqvist & Wiksell International Stockholm – Sweden Doctoral dissertation 2004 Department of Scandinavian Languages Stockholm University SE-106 91 STOCKHOLM Abstract Vogel, Anna. 2004. Swedish Dimensional Adjectives. (Svenska dimensionsadjektiv.) Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Stockholm Studies in Scandinavian Philology. New Series. 36. Almqvist & Wiksell International. 377 pp. The purpose of this study is to give a thorough and detailed account and analysis of the semantics of twelve Swedish dimensional adjectives: hög ‘high/tall’, låg ‘low’, bred ‘broad/wide’, smal ‘narrow/thin’, vid ‘broad’, trång ‘narrow’, tjock ‘thick’, tunn ‘thin’, djup ‘deep’, grund ‘narrow’, lång ‘long’ and kort ‘short’. Focus has been placed on their spatial, non-metaphorical sense. The study was written within the framework of cognitive linguistics, where lexical definitions may be given in terms of prototypical and peripheral uses. Four sources of data have been considered: a corpus, consisting of contemporary fiction, an elicitation test, designed for the purpose, dictionary articles on the pertinent adjectives, and the author’s own linguistic intuition as a native speaker. The methodology has involved categorisation of combinations of adjective and noun, based upon three major themes: orientation, function, and shape. In order to determine prototypical uses, precedence has been given to the outcome of the elicitation test over the corpus search. For both sources, frequency has played an important part. The ranking of senses as stated in the dictionary articles has also been considered. The results indicate that the dimensional adjectives differ quite markedly from each other, as opposed to a structural view where the adjectives traditionally have been regarded as forming a neat patchwork. Adjectives overlap each other for some uses (högt gräs ‘high grass’, långt gräs ‘long grass’ and even djupt gräs ‘deep grass’), while there are also situations in which no dimensional adjective can describe an object. Furthermore, adjectives forming pairs, such as djup – grund ‘deep – shallow’, do not exhibit full antonymy, despite the fact that dimensional adjectives are traditionally cited as examples par excellence concerning antonymy. Keywords: dimensional adjectives, semantics, cognitive linguistics, Swedish, spatial, antonymy, prototype theory, polysemy, corpus-based, elicitation test © 2004 Anna Vogel ISBN 91-22-02064-0 ISSN 0562-1097 Akademitryck AB, Edsbruk 2004 Acknowledgements Above all, two things have been essential for me in order to finish my dissertation. These are enthusiasm and persistence. Here, I would like to mention and thank some of the people who have helped with either, or with both. My supervisor Staffan Hellberg, Stockholm University, has more than anyone else fuelled my enthusiasm about semantics and my subject. Our discussions in his office, at the coffee machine, on public transport, at parties, and in cyber-space have formed the basis for my desire to dig deeper into my work. Thank you Staffan. Ron Langacker was my teacher and supervisor during my stay as a visiting student at the University of California San Diego. Ron inspired me with great enthusiasm, both through his lectures and through private conversations on cognitive semantics. Thank you Ron. I have also had the privilege of participating in stimulating discussions with a starting-point in earlier and later drafts of my dissertation. Thank you for valuable comments and suggestions to Yvonne Carlsson, Annika Johansson, Sven Lange, Magdalena Mikolajczyk, Karin Milles, Gunilla Persson, Hans Strand, Elżbieta Strzelecka, Anne Sumnicht, Jan Svanlund, Ewa Teodorovicz-Hellman, and especially to Ljuba Veselinova, who read a late draft and whose proposals contributed to considerable improvements. As a graduate student, I have taken part in various seminars, where I have benefited from a generous attitude which has promoted the intellectual level. Above all, Högre seminariet ‘the Higher seminar’ at the Department of Scandinavian Languages, Stockholm University, has been a source of inspiration and enthusiasm, but also Research Forum and various colloquia at the Department of Linguistics at University of California San Diego, as well as Allmän språkvetenskap-seminariet ‘the Seminar of linguistics’ at the Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University. Thank you to all the participants. While working on the final version of my dissertation, I have enjoyed the professionalism of illustrator Agnes Stenqvist and editorial assistant Pia Nordin. David Jones has read through the text, making suggestions leading to major improvements on various linguistic levels. Further, Niklas Tamm and Magdalena Mikolajczyk have translated foreign literature, while Masja Koptjevskaja Tamm and Elżbieta Strzelecka have proofread parts concerning Slavic terms. Thank you very much. Throughout my time as a graduate student, I have benefited from considerable amount of funding. Apart from the practical impact on my working situation, this has provided much appreciated encouragement. The main part has been covered by Vetenskapsrådet ‘the Swedish Research Council’, which financed the project Spatial orientering i svenskan ‘Spatial orientation in Swedish’, where I was employed as a graduate student. I have also been employed by Stockholm University during nine months. Other sources have been the American-Scandinavian Foundation, Carl Jönssons Understödsstiftelse ‘Carl Jönsson support foundation’, Fredrika Bremerförbundet ‘the Fredrika Bremer Association’, Helge Ax:son Johnssons stiftelse ‘the Helge Ax:son Johnsson Foundation’, Stiftelsen Emil och Lydia Kinanders fond ‘the Emil and Lydia Kinander Foundation’, Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien ‘The Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities’, Run-Jannestipendiet ‘the Run-Janne Scholarship’, Stiftelsen Konung Gustaf VI Adolfs fond för svensk kultur ‘King Gustaf VI Adolf’s Charitable Fund for Swedish Culture’, the Swedish Institute, Wallenbergsfonden ‘the Wallenberg Fund’, and Åke Wibergs Stiftelse ‘the Åke Wiberg Foundation’. Thank you for your generosity. My persistence has been regenerated and strengthened by colleagues, friends, and family. At times pre-set breaks with colleagues have enabled me to survive the working day, at others, more serious support has helped me keep on working. Among my colleagues, I wish to thank the following people especially: Anders, Anne, Jeanna, Karin, Kristina, Linda, Lotta, Maria, Milda, and Staffan. Thanks. Among my friends, Agnes, Larissa, Anna, Helena, Isabell, Kjersti, and Pauline have mainly provided support to help me cope with the everyday life that runs parallel with the dissertation. Thank you. My family has both engaged in invigorating discussions on my work, rekindling my enthusiasm, and offered practical help to facilitate my work. In babysitting, my mother Eva Ström was a tremendous help throughout the spring term of 2003, and the help from my father Helge Ström, my brother Jacob Ström, and my sister Karin Ström cannot be overrated. And finally, my husband Henrik has sustained my persistence with practical and mental support, showering his overwhelming belief upon me and boosting my enthusiasm for research and for life. Thank you. Stockholm, April 2004 Anna Vogel Contents 1 Background and purpose.......................................................................... 11 2 Previous related research.......................................................................... 13 3 Theoretical assumptions........................................................................... 23 4 Data and methodology ............................................................................. 32 4.1 Data ................................................................................................... 33 4.1.1 The corpus.................................................................................. 33 4.1.2 The elicitation test...................................................................... 43 4.1.3 The dictionaries.......................................................................... 43 4.1.4 Native speaker intuition ............................................................. 44 4.1.5 The interplay of the various sources .......................................... 44 4.2 Methodology ..................................................................................... 45 4.2.1 Suggesting prototypical uses...................................................... 45 4.2.2 Suggesting central cases............................................................. 46 4.2.3 Working with the corpus............................................................ 47 4.2.4 Marked and unmarked sense...................................................... 49 4.2.5 Combinations of adjectives........................................................ 51 5 The semantics of hög ‘high/tall’ and låg ‘low’........................................ 53 5.1 Hög ‘high/tall’ in the dictionaries ..................................................... 53 5.2 Related research in the past............................................................... 55 5.2.1 Related research in the past on HIGH/TALL................................. 55 5.2.2 Related research in the past on the vertical axis ........................ 61 5.3 Claims concerning hög ‘high/tall’..................................................... 62 5.4 Results and discussion on hög ‘high/tall’ ......................................... 63 5.4.1 Orientation.................................................................................. 63 5.4.2 The reference plane.................................................................... 66 5.4.3 The direction of the vertical extension....................................... 67 5.4.4 Hög ‘high/tall’ combines with nouns referring to objects with a canonical vertical orientation ......................................... 71 5.4.5 Hög ‘high/tall’ combines with nouns referring to objects located on the ground ................................................................ 72 5.4.6 Hög ‘high/tall’ combines with nouns referring to objects whose vertical dimension is the maximal one........................... 76 5.4.7 Hög ‘high/tall’ combines with nouns referring to objects that are as big as human beings or bigger ................................. 80 5.4.8 Hög ‘high/tall’ combines with nouns referring to objects profiled against their background.............................................. 82 5.4.9 Hög ‘high/tall’ combines with nouns referring to objects made of rigid material ............................................................... 84 5.4.10 Hög ‘high/tall’ combines with nouns referring to objects with a functional top.................................................................. 86 5.4.11 Positional uses.......................................................................... 88 5.4.12 Problematic cases..................................................................... 89 5.4.13 Less prototypical uses – the borders of hög ‘high/tall’ ........... 90 5.4.14 Prototypical uses of hög ‘high/tall’.......................................... 94 5.5 Låg ‘low’ as the antonym of hög ‘high/tall’..................................... 95 5.6 Låg ‘low’ in the dictionaries............................................................. 95 5.7 Related research in the past on LOW ................................................. 96 5.8 Claims concerning låg ‘low’............................................................. 97 5.9 Results and discussion on låg ‘low’.................................................. 98 5.9.1 Orientation ................................................................................. 98 5.9.2 The reference plane.................................................................... 99 5.9.3 The direction of the vertical axis ............................................... 99 5.9.4 Låg ‘low’ combines with nouns referring to objects with canonical vertical orientation .................................................. 103 5.9.5 Låg ‘low’ combines with nouns referring to objects located on the ground.............................................................. 105 5.9.6 Låg ‘low’ combines with nouns referring to objects, whose vertical dimension is not the maximal one. ................. 106 5.9.7 Låg ‘low’ combines with nouns that refer to objects made of rigid material....................................................................... 108 5.9.8 Låg ‘low’ combines with nouns that refer to objects with functional tops......................................................................... 108 5.9.9 Positional uses.......................................................................... 109 5.9.10 Prototypical and peripheral uses of låg ‘low’........................ 110 5.10 Summary of hög ‘high/tall’ and låg ‘low’.................................... 111 6 The semantics of bred ‘broad/wide’ ...................................................... 113 6.1 Bred ‘broad/wide’ in the dictionaries ............................................. 113 6.2 Related research in the past on BROAD/WIDE .................................. 114 6.3 Claims concerning bred ‘broad/wide’ ............................................ 122 6.4 Results and discussion on bred ‘broad/wide’ ................................. 123 6.4.1 Orientation ............................................................................... 123 6.4.2 Bred ‘broad/wide’ as referring to a dimension, extending to the sides............................................................................... 124 6.4.3 Canonical orientation and functional situation........................ 128 6.4.4 The actual functional situation................................................. 134 6.4.5 The (smaller) horizontal dimension......................................... 140 6.4.6 What objects are not described as bred ‘broad/wide’?............ 143 6.4.7 The relationship of the two systems ........................................ 148 6.5 Summary of bred ‘broad/wide’....................................................... 150 7 The semantics of vid ‘broad’.................................................................. 151 7.1 Vid ‘broad’ in the dictionaries......................................................... 151 7.2 Data ................................................................................................. 152 7.3 Claims concerning vid ‘broad’........................................................ 153 7.4 Results and discussion on vid ‘broad’............................................. 154 7.4.1 Exceeding a norm..................................................................... 154 7.4.2 The direction of the dimensions............................................... 154 7.4.3 The passage (central case)........................................................ 156 7.4.3.1 The number of dimensions involved in the passage (central case)...................................................................... 158 7.4.4 The surface............................................................................... 160 7.4.5 Vid ‘broad’ combines with a noun referring to an object with horizontal orientation ...................................................... 165 7.4.6 Vid ‘broad’ combines with a noun referring to an object with symmetrical dimensions.................................................. 166 7.4.7 Vid ‘broad’ combines with nouns referring to objects which may extend beyond the field of vision ......................... 167 7.5 Summary of vid ‘broad’ .................................................................. 169 8 The semantics of tjock ‘thick’................................................................ 170 8.1 Tjock ‘thick’ in the dictionaries....................................................... 170 8.1.1 What dimension is described according to the dictionaries?............................................................................. 171 8.1.2 Qualities of objects described as tjock ‘thick’, according to the dictionaries .................................................................... 171 8.2 Related research in the past on THICK ............................................. 172 8.3 Data ................................................................................................. 176 8.4 Claims concerning tjock ‘thick’ ...................................................... 177 8.5 Results and discussion on tjock ‘thick’........................................... 177 8.5.1 The minimal dimension(s) ....................................................... 177 8.5.2 The dimension is grasped by the user’s fingers, hands or arms ......................................................................................... 183 8.5.3 Resistance................................................................................. 190 8.5.4 The relationship of hög ‘high/tall’ and tjock ‘thick’................ 196 8.5.5 Embodiment thesis revisited .................................................... 198 8.5.6 A complex category ................................................................. 199 8.6 Summary of tjock ‘thick’ ................................................................ 202 9 The semantics of smal ‘narrow/thin’, tunn ‘thin’ and trång ‘narrow’..................................................................................................... 203 9.1 Smal ‘narrow/thin’ in the dictionaries............................................. 203 9.2 Tunn ‘thin’ in the dictionaries......................................................... 205 9.3 Trång ‘narrow’ in the dictionaries .................................................. 205 9.4 Related research in the past on NARROW/THIN ................................ 206 9.5 Data ................................................................................................. 208 9.6 Claims concerning smal ‘narrow/thin’............................................ 209 9.7 Results and discussion on smal ‘narrow/thin’ ................................ 209 9.7.1 A complex category ................................................................. 209 9.7.2 Function ................................................................................... 210 9.7.3 Shape........................................................................................ 213 9.7.4 Orientation ............................................................................... 217 9.7.5 Embodiment thesis revisited II ................................................ 220 9.8 Claims concerning tunn ‘thin’ ........................................................ 221 9.9 Results and discussion on tunn ‘thin’ ............................................. 222 9.9.1 The antonymous relation to tjock ‘thick’................................. 222 9.9.2 The minimal dimension ........................................................... 223 9.9.3 The dimension grasped by the fingers..................................... 224 9.9.4 Resistance................................................................................. 225 9.9.5 The relationship of tunn ‘thin’ and smal ‘thin’ for objects of streak-type........................................................................... 227 9.9.6 A complex category ................................................................. 230 9.10 Claims concerning trång ‘narrow’................................................ 231 9.11 Results and discussion on trång ‘narrow’..................................... 231 9.11.1 Function ................................................................................. 231 9.11.2 Number of dimensions........................................................... 234 9.11.3 The relationship of trång ‘narrow’ and smal ‘narrow/thin’............................................................................ 239 9.11.4 The relation of trång ‘narrow’ and vid ‘broad’ ..................... 241 9.12 Summary of smal ‘narrow/thin’, tunn ‘thin’ and trång ‘narrow’ .......................................................................................... 241 10 The semantics of djup ‘deep’ and grund ‘shallow’ ............................. 243 10.1 Djup ‘deep’ in the dictionaries...................................................... 243 10.2 Related research in the past........................................................... 244 10.2.1 Related research in the past on DEEP...................................... 244 10.2.2 Related research in the past on containment.......................... 250 10.3 Claims concerning djup ‘deep’ ..................................................... 253 10.4 Results and discussion on djup ‘deep’.......................................... 253 10.4.1 Dimensional and positional djup ‘deep’................................ 253 10.4.2 The container.......................................................................... 254 10.4.3 Orientation ............................................................................. 257 10.4.4 The inaccessibility of the container ....................................... 267 10.4.5 Traces..................................................................................... 273 10.4.6 Shape...................................................................................... 275 10.4.6.1 Loose solid substances..................................................... 285 10.4.6.2 Forests.............................................................................. 287 10.5 The relationship between djup ‘deep’ and hög ‘high/tall’............ 290 10.6 The antonyms of djup ‘deep’ ........................................................ 293 10.6.1 The antonyms of djup ‘deep’ in the dictionaries ................... 293 10.6.2 Related research in the past on SHALLOW .............................. 294 10.7 Claims concerning grund ‘shallow’.............................................. 296 10.7.1 Results and discussion on grund ‘shallow’............................ 296 10.7.1.1 Container.......................................................................... 297 10.7.1.2 Orientation ....................................................................... 298 10.7.1.3 Shape................................................................................ 301 10.7.1.4 Other antonyms of djup ‘deep’........................................ 304 10.8 Summary of djup ‘deep’ and grund ‘shallow’.............................. 309

Swedish Dimensional Adjectives

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support