Cover not available
Part of
The Typology of Physical Qualities
Edited by Ekaterina Rakhilina, Tatiana Reznikova and Daria Ryzhova
[Typological Studies in Language 133] 2022
► pp. 117–160

Chapter 5
Typology of dimensions

 | HSE UniversityMoscow | Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences
 | Leipzig University
The paper focuses on the lexical typology of dimensional terms such as English long, deep, wide, etc. Compared to other semantic fields, this one is relatively well-studied; however, the present study is the first to approach it from the modern typological point of view. We propose a semantic map of dimensional terms, which outlines the possible and impossible colexification patterns in the domain. However, other regularities appear likely to exist, which cannot be captured by the model of semantic mapping. We discuss the potential restrictions on colexifications, and suggest explanations for them.
Keywords: dimensional terms, lexical typology, semantic maps, spatial expressions
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The semantic map of dimension
    • 2.1Topological classification
    • 2.2The list of classes
    • 2.3Building a semantic map
  • 3.Patterns of lexicalization: Latus
  • 4.On categorization of penetrable layers
  • 5.Patterns of lexicalization: Altus
    • 5.1Ternary systems
    • 5.2Unifying systems
      • 5.2.1DH-merger
      • 5.2.2HL-merger
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1General remarks
    • 6.2M. Bierwisch and E. Lang: A componential analysis approach
    • 6.3Anna wierzbicka: Dimensional terms in the natural semantic metalanguage
    • 6.4Questions remaining
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 May 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.133.05koz
References (29)
References
Abaev, V. 1995. Izbrannye trudy. Tom II. Obščee i sravnitel’noe jazykoznanie [Selected Works. Volume II. General and Comparative Linguistics]. Vladikavkaz: Ir.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. & Lang, E. 1989. Dimensional Terms: Grammatical Structure and Conceptual Interpretation. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
Brown, D., Chumakina, M. & Corbett, G. G. (eds). 2013. Canonical Morphology and Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chirikba, V. 2008. The problem of the Caucasian Sprachbund. In From Linguistic Areas to Areal Linguistics, P. Muysken (ed), 25–94. Amsterdam, Philadlphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R. & Taylor, J. 1988. The conceptualisation of vertical space in English: the case of ‘‘tall’’. In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, B. Rudzka-Ostyn (ed), 207–229. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. J. 1978. On the organization of semantic information in the lexicon. In Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon, 148–173. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1966. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Language, J. H. Greenberg (ed), 73–113. Cambridge, Massachusets & London, England: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In New Psychology of Language, vol. 2, M. Tomasello (ed), 211–242. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(4): 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. & Landau, B. 1993. “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16: 217–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, S., Murphy, M. L., Paradis, C. & Willners, C. 2012. Antonyms in English: Construals, Constructions and Canonicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klimov, G. (ed). 1978. Strukturnye obščnosti kavkazskix jazykov [The Structural Affinities Between the Caucasian Languages]. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. & Miestamo, M. 2015. Antonyms and wordlevel negation. Paper presented at Diversity Linguistics: Retrospect and Prospect, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary anthropology, Leipzig, 2 May 2015.
Kukhto, A., Kozlov, A. & Privizentseva, M. 2016. O real’nosti semantičeskogo pol’a: lexiko-tipologičeskij podxod [On the reality of a semantic field: lexico-typological approach]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana XII (1): 522–533.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lang, E. 2001. Spatial dimension terms. In Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook, M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher & W. Raible (eds), 1251–1275. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1997. Language and cognition: The cognitive consequences of spatial description in Guugu Yimithirr. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 7(1): 98–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. The language of space in Yéli Dnye. In Grammars of Space. Explorations in Cognitive Diversity, S. C. Levinson, & D. Wilkins (eds), 157–203. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, M. L. 2003. Semantic Relations and the Lexicon: Antonymy, Synonymy, and other Paradigms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C., Willners, C. & Jones, S. 2009. Good and bad opposites: using textual and psycholinguistic techniques to measure antonym canonicity. The Mental Lexicon 4(3): 380–429. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pulvermüller, F. 2005. Brain Mechanisms Linking Language and Action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6: 576–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rakhilina, E. V. 2000. Kognitivnyj analiz predmentyx imen: semantika i sočetaemost’ [Cognitive Analysis of Concrete Nouns: Semantics and Combinability]. Moscow: Russkie slovari.Google Scholar
Redei, K. 1986. Uralisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Budapest: Akadémiai. Kiadó.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1983. How language structures space. In Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research and Application, H. L. Pick & L. P. Acredolo (eds), 225–282. New York: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E. & Rosch, E. 1991. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 2006. Shape in grammar revisited. Studies in Language 30(1): 115–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zaliznyak, A. A. 1985. Ot praslavyanskoy akcentuacii k russkoy. [From the Proto-Slavic Accent System towards the Russian one]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar