Cover not available
Article published In:
The Conceptualization of ‘Beautiful’ and ‘Ugly’ across Languages and Cultures
Edited by Anna Gladkova and Jesús Romero-Trillo
[International Journal of Language and Culture 8:1] 2021
► pp. 14–34

Pæn, flot, dejlig, and lækker

A lexical anthropology of Danish folk aesthetics

 | Roskilde University
This paper examines the Danish language of aesthetics from the perspective of four untranslatable adjectives: pæn, flot, dejlig, and lækker. These words are frequent and salient in everyday discourses, and as such they shed light on Danish “folk” conceptions. From the perspective of Lexical Anthropology and NSM Semantics, each of the words are explored and explicated in order to shed light on the ways in which Danish discourse organize positive aesthetic experiences. Sensitive to polysemy, and the variety of lexicogrammatical frames in which the words occur, the paper provides a high-resolution analyses of the “something ADJ frame” which enables discourses of design, food, and art. Based on lexical semantic evidence, the paper locates two themes in Danish discourse: “aesthetic normality” and “ordinary hedonism” which seem to act as cognitive axes around which discourses revolve. The paper argues that words hold the key to understanding the diversity of aesthetic cultures, and that untranslatables in particular, allow for a deep emic understanding of how local configurations of seeing, feeling, touching, and thinking are constituted.
Keywords: folk aesthetics, lexical semantics, cultural semantics, Danish, natural semantic metalanguage (NSM), lexical anthropology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A handful of Danish untranslatables
  • 3.On the lexicogrammar of folk aesthetics
  • 4.The meaning of pæn and flot
  • 5.The meaning of dejlig and lækker
  • 6.On the lexical anthropology of folk aesthetics: Danish and general perspectives
  • 7.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.00033.lev
References (32)
References
Ahearn, L. (2011). Living Languages: An introduction to linguistic anthropology. London: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Billig, M. (2013). Learn to write badly: How to succeed in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gladkova, A., & Romero-Trillo, J. (2014). Ain’t it beautiful? The conceptualization of beauty from an ethnopragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 601, 140–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C. (2000). Polysemy: A problem of definition. In Y. Ravin & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 129–151.Google Scholar
(2011). Semantic Analysis: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2018a). Ten Lectures on Natural Semantic Metalanguage: Exploring language, thought and culture using simple translatable words. Amsterdam: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018b). Minimal English and how it can add to Global English. In C. Goddard (Ed.) Minimal English for a Global World: Improved communication using fewer words (pp. 5–27). London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C. & Wierzbicka, A. (2014). Words and Meanings: Lexical Semantics across Languages, Cultures, and Domains. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. & Ye, Z. (2015). Ethnopragmatics. In F. Sharifian (Ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture (pp. 66–83). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hamann, M. & Levisen, C. (2017). Talking about “life” in Golden Age Danish: Semantics, discourse and cultural models. In C. Levisen & S. Waters (eds.) Cultural Keywords in Discourse (pp. 107–129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levisen, C. (2012). Cultural Semantics and Social Cognition: A case study on the Danish universe of meaning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Postcolonial lexicography: Defining creole emotion words with the natural semantic metalanguage. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 109(2), 35–60.Google Scholar
(2017a). Personhood constructs in language and thought: new evidence from Danish. In Z. Ye (Ed.), The Semantics of Nouns, (pp. 120–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2017b). The social and sonic semantics of reggae: Language ideology and emergent socialities in postcolonial Vanuatu. Language and Communication 521, 102–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019a). Biases we live by: Anglocentrism in linguistics and cognitive sciences. Language Sciences. 761, 101173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019b). Laugher interjections: Contributions of a lexical anthropology of humor (with special reference to Danish). Scandinavian Studies in Language 10(1), 110–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019c). “Brightness” in color linguistics: New light from Danish visual semantics. In I. Raffaelli, D. Katunar, and B. Kerovec (Eds.), Lexicalization Patterns in Color Naming: a cross-linguistic perspective, (pp. 83–105). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019d). The Cultural Semantics of Untranslatables: Linguistic Worldview and the Danish language of laughter. In A. Glaz (ed.) Languages – Cultures – Worldviews: Focus on Translation, (pp. 319–346). London: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levisen, C. & Waters, S. (Eds). (2017). Cultural Keywords in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levisen, C., Priestley, C., Nicholls, S., Goldsthein, Y. (2017). The Semantics of Englishes and Creoles: Pacific and Australian Perspectives. In P. Bakker, F. Borchsenius, C. Levisen & E. Sippola (Eds.) Creole Studies: Phylogenetic Approaches (pp. Amsterdam: 345–368). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. & Espigares, T. (2012). The cognitive representation of natural landscapes in language. Pragmatics and Cognition 201, 168–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting the selection of landscapes in the Corpus of Language and Nature. Journal of Research Design and Statistics in Linguistics and Communication Science 21: 157–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. & Fuentes, V. (2017). What is pretty cannot be beautiful? A corpus-based analysis of the aesthetics of nature. In J. Blochowiak, C. Grisot, S. Durrleman-Tame, C. Laenzlinger (Eds.) Formal Models in the Study of Language (pp. 415–430). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Underhill, J. (2012). Ethnolinguistics and Cultural Concepts: Truth, Love, Hate, and War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tien, A. (2015). The Semantics of Chinese Music. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waters, S. (2017). Nice, a cultural keyword: the semantics behind Australian discourses of sociality’. In C. Levisen & S. Waters (eds.), Cultural Keywords in Discourse (pp. 25–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality. Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1996. Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wierbicka, A. 1997. Understanding Cultures through their Key Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2010). Experience, Evidence, Sense: The Hidden Cultural Legacy of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Imprisoned in English: The hazards of English as a default language. Oxford: Oxford. DOI logoGoogle Scholar