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. 1–28

Chapter 1
Introduction

The frame-based approach to the typology of qualities

| HSE UniversityMoscow | Vinogradov Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences
| HSE UniversityMoscow
The chapter outlines the goals of our project, points out the aspects that distinguish the vocabulary of qualities from other lexical domains, when viewed from a typological perspective, and introduces the methods of data collection and analysis we use in this project and in other related studies. It goes on to discuss the semantic parameters that motivate the lexical oppositions in various qualitative domains.
Keywords: lexical typology, physical qualities, metaphor, frame, evaluation, perception
Article outline
  • 1.Subject of this book
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.Language samples
  • 4.Data selection
  • 5.Lexical oppositions in qualities
    • 5.1Taxonomy and mereology
    • 5.2Topology
    • 5.3Number of arguments
    • 5.4Evaluation
    • 5.5Type of perception
  • 6.Metaphoric shifts
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 May 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.133.01rak
References (89)
References
Ameka, F. K. & Levinson, S. C. (eds). 2007. The typology and semantics of locative predication: Posturals, positionals and other beasts [Special Issue]. Linguistics 45(5). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Apresjan, Ju. 1974. Leksičeskaja semantika [Lexical Semantics]. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
. 2000. Systematic Lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, J. & Plungian, V. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baroni, M., Bernardi, R. & Zamparelli, R. 2014. Frege in Space: A program for compositional distributional semantics. Linguistic Issues in Language Technologies 9: 5–110.Google Scholar
Berlin, B. & Kay, P. 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. 1967. Some semantic universals of German adjectival. Foundations of Language 3(1): 1–36.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. & Lang, E. 1989. Dimensional Adjectives: Grammatical Structure and Conceptual Interpretation. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Britsyn, V. M., Rakhilina, E. V., Reznikova, T. I. & Javorska, G. M. (eds). 2009. Koncept BOL’ v tipologičeskom osveščenii [The Concept of PAIN in a Typological Perspective]. Kiev: Dmitri Burago’s Publishing House.Google Scholar
Byrne, A. & Hilbert, D. (eds). 1997. Readings on Color. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect: an Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, M. & Wälchli, B. (eds). 2007. Parallel Texts. Using Translational Equivalents in Linguistic Typology. Theme Issue. Sprachtypologie & Universalienforschung (STUF) 60(2).Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M. & Majid, A. 2012. The semantic structure of sensory vocabulary in an African language. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, N. Miyake, D. Peebles & R. P. Cooper (eds), 300–305. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Driagina-Hasko, V. & Perelmutter, R. (eds). 2010. New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion [Studies in Language Companion Series 115]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, N. & Wilkins, D. P. 2000. In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76: 546–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. J. 1976. Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech, vol. 280: 20–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
François, A. 2008. Semantic maps and the typology of colexification: Intertwining polysemous networks across languages. In From Polysemy to Semantic Change, M. Vanhove (ed), 163–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gage, J. 1999. Colour and Meaning. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulos, Th. & Polis, S. 2018. The semantic map model: State of the art and future avenues for linguistic research. Language and Linguistics Compass 12(2): 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C. 2012. Semantic primes, semantic molecules, semantic templates: Key concepts in the NSM approach to lexical typology. Linguistics 50(3): 711–743. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hardin, C. L. & Maffi, L. (eds). 1997. Color Categories in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In The New Psychology of Language, vol. 2, M. Tomasello (ed), 211–242. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kashkin, E. V. 2010. Semantika glagolov razdelenija ob’’ekta na časti v èrzjanskom i komi-zyrjanskom jazykax (prjamye i perenosnye upotreblenija) [Semantics of verbs of cutting and breaking in Erzya and Komi-Zyryan (basic and derived meanings)]. Diploma paper, Moscow State University.Google Scholar
Kibrik, A. E. 1998. Does intragenetic typology make sense? In Sprache in Raum und Zeit: Beiträge zur empirischen Sprachwissenshaft, W. Boeder, Ch. Schroeder, K. H. Wagner & W. Wildgen (eds), 61–68. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2009. In defence of intragenetic typology: evidence from clause coordination in Daghestanian languages. In Eighth Biennial Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology. Abstracts. <[URL]> (26 March 2021).
Koch, P. 2008. Cognitive onomasiology and lexical change: around the eye. In From Polysemy to Semantic Change, M. Vanhove (ed), 107–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopecka, A. & Narasimhan, B. (eds). 2012. Events of Putting and Taking: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (ed). 2015. The Linguistics of Temperature. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., Divjak, D. & Rakhilina, E. 2010. Aquamotion verbs in Slavic and Germanic: A case study in lexical typology. In New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion, V. Driagina-Hasko & R. Perelmutter (eds), 315–341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. & Rakhilina, E. V. 1999. S samymi teplymi čuvstvami (po gorjačim sledam Stokgol’mskoj èkspedicii) [With warmest regards (hot on the heels of the field trip to Stockholm)]. In Tipologija i teorija jazyka. Ot opisanija k ob’’jasneniju. K 60-letiju A. E. Kibrika [Typology and Linguistic Theory. From Description to Explanation. For the 60th Birthday of A. E. Kibrik], E. V. Rakhilina & Ya. G. Testelets (eds), 462–487. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. & Rakhilina, E. 2006. «Some like it hot»: on semantics of temperature adjectives in Russian and Swedish. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 59(2): 253–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruglyakova, V. A. 2010. Semantika glagolov vraščenija v tipologičeskoj perspektive [Semantics of rotation verbs in a typological perspective]. Ph.D. dissertation, Russian State University for the Humanities.
Lander, Yu., Maisak, T. & Rakhilina, E. 2012. Verbs of aquamotion: semantic domains and lexical systems. In Motion Encoding in Language and Space, M. Vulchanova & E. van der Zee (eds), 67–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lang, E. 2002. Spatial dimension terms. In Language Typology and Language Universals, M. Haspelmath & E. König (eds), 1251–1275. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lehrer, A. 1974. Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2000. Yélî Dnye and the theory of basic color terms. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 10(1): 3–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. & Majid, A. 2014. Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language 29: 407–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luchina, E. S., Reznikova, T. I. & Stenin, I. A. 2013. Atributivy kak istočnik grammatikalizacii: ‘prjamoj’ i ‘rovnyj’ v russkom, nemeckom i finskom jazykah [Attributives as a source for grammaticalization: ‘straight’ and ‘even’ in Russin, German and Finnish]. In Tipología léxica, R. Guzmán Tirado & I. Votyakova (eds), 203–209. Granada: Jizo Ediciones.Google Scholar
Luchina, E. S. & Nanij, L. O. 2016. Puti grammatikalizacii leksem so značeniem ‘prjamoj’ [‘Straight’ and its synonyms: paths of grammaticalization in the attributive lexeme]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 12(1): 574–587.Google Scholar
MacLaury, R. E. 1997. Color and Cognition in Mesoamerica: Constructing Categories as Vantages. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
MacLaury, R. E., Paramei, G. V. & Dedrick, D. (eds). 2007. Anthropology of Color: Interdisciplinary Multilevel Modeling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maisak, T. A. & Rakhilina, E. V. (eds). 2007. Glagoly dviženija v vode: leksičeskaja tipologija [Verbs of AQUA-Motion: a Lexical Typology]. Moscow: Indrik.Google Scholar
Majid, A. 2015. Comparing lexicons cross-linguistically. In The Oxford Handbook of the Word, J. R. Taylor (ed), 364–379. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2021. Human Olfaction at the Intersection of Language, Culture, and Biology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 25(2): 111–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majid, A. & Bowerman, M. (eds). 2007. Cutting and breaking events: A crosslinguistic perspective [Special Issue]. Cognitive Linguistics 18(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majid, A. & Levinson, S. C. 2007. The language of vision I: colour. In Field Manual Volume 10, A. Majid (ed), 22–25. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
(eds). 2011. The senses in language and culture [Special Issue]. The Senses & Society 6(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., Senft, G. & Levinson, S. C. 2007. The language of olfaction. In Field Manual Volume 10, A. Majid (ed), 36–41. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Majid, A., Gullberg, M., van Staden, M. & Bowerman, M. 2007. How similar are semantic categories in closely related languages? A comparison of cutting and breaking in four Germanic languages. Cognitive Linguistics 18(2): 179–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, J. (ed). 1998. The Linguistics of Giving [Studies in Typological Linguistics 36]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed). 2002. The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing, and Lying [Studies in Typological Linguistics 51]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed). 2009. The Linguistics of Eating and Drinking [Studies in Typological Linguistics 84]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, B. 1995. Lexical semantics and compositionality. In An Invitation to Cognitive Science (Second Edition). Volume 1: Language, L. Gleitman & M. Liberman (eds), 311–360. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Peirsman, Y. & Geeraerts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics 17(3): 269–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In Metonymy in Language and Thought [Human Cognitive Processing 4], K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (eds), 17–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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
2007. Tipy metaforičeskix upotreblenij glagolov plavanija [Types of metaphorical uses of aqua-motion verbs]. In Glagoly dviženija v vode: leksičeskaja tipologija [Verbs of AQUA-Motion: a Lexical Typology], T. A. Maisak & E. V. Rakhilina (eds), 76–105. Moscow: Indrik.Google Scholar
Rakhilina, E. 2010. Verbs of rotation in Russian and Polish. In New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion, V. Driagina-Hasko & R. Perelmutter (eds), 291–316. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rakhilina, E. V. & Lemmens, M. 2003. Rusistika i tipologiya: leksičeskaja semantika glagolov so značeniem ‘sidet’’ v russkom i niderlandskom [Russian studies and typology: lexical semantics of verbs meaning ‘to sit’ in Russian and Dutch]. Russian Linguistics 27(3): 313–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rakhilina, E. V. & Reznikova, T. I. 2016. A Frame-based methodology for lexical typology. In The Lexical Typology of Semantic Shifts, P. Juvonen & M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), 95–129. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rakhilina, E. V., Reznikova, T. I., Ryzhova, D. A. (eds). 2020. Tipologija glagolov padenija [Typology of verbs of falling] [Special issue]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 16(1).Google Scholar
Reznikova, T., Rakhilina, E. & Bonch-Osmolovskaya, A. 2012. Towards a typology of pain predicates. Linguistics 50(3): 421–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryzhova, D., Rakhilina, E. & Kholkina, L. 2019. Approaching perceptual qualities: the case of heavy. In Perception Metaphors, L. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque & A. Majid (eds), 185–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shayan, S., Ozturk, O. & Sicoli, M. A. 2011. The thickness of pitch: Crossmodal metaphors in Farsi, Turkish, and Zapotec. The Senses and Society 6(1): 96–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speed, L. J., O’Meara, C., San Roque, L. & Majid, A. (eds). 2019. Perception Metaphors. 185–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
Vanhove, M. 2008. Semantic associations between sensory modalities, prehension and mental perceptions: A crosslinguistic perspective. In From Polysemy to Semantic Change, M. Vanhove (ed), 342–370. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viberg, Å. 1984. The verbs of perception: a typological study. In Explanations for Language Universals, B. Butterworth, B. Comrie & Ö. Dahl (eds), 123–162. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Riding, driving and traveling: Swedish verbs describing motion in a vehicle in crosslinguistic perspective. In Resourceful Language Technology: Festschrift in Honor of Anna Sågvall Hein, J. Nivre, M. Dahllöf & B. Megyesi (eds), 173–201. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
. 2013. Posture verbs: A multilingual contrastive study. Languages in Contrast 13(2): 139–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waag, A. 1901. Bedeutungsentwicklung unseres Wortschatzes. Auf Grund von Hermann Pauls “Deutschem Wörterbuch” in den Haupterscheinungen dargestellt. Lahr i.B.: M. Schauenburg.Google Scholar
Wälchli, B. & Cysouw, M. 2012. Lexical Typology through Similarity Semantics: Toward a semantic map of motion verbs. Linguistics 50(3): 671–710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1985. Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999. Emotions across Languages and Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Shape in Grammar revisited. Studies in Language 30(1): 115–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Bodies and their parts: an NSM approach to semantic typology. Language Sciences 29: 14–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, D. P. 1996. Natural tendencies of semantic change and the search for cognates. In The Comparative Method Reviewed. Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change, M. Durie & M. Ross (eds), 264–304. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zalizniak, Anna A. 2008. A Catalogue of Semantic Shifts: towards a Typology of Semantic Derivation. In From Polysemy to Semantic Change, M. Vanhove (ed), 217–232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zalizniak, Anna A., Bulakh, M., Ganenkov, D., Gruntov, I., Maisak, T. & Russo, M. 2012. The Catalogue of Semantic Shifts as a Database for Semantic Typology. Linguistics, 50(3): 633–669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar