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. 29–56

Chapter 2
Methodology at work

Semantic fields sharp and blunt

 | University of Surrey
 | Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences | Philipps-Universität Marburg
 | HSE UniversityMoscow
The chapter illustrates the frame-based methodology of lexical typological analysis through the comparison of the qualities sharp and blunt in 21 languages. We show that these qualities tend to be asymmetrical, with bluntness being negatively defined through sharpness. The two main oppositions found in the field are (1) the shape of a sharp object, and (2) the sense through which the quality is primarily experienced. The first opposition divides all objects into bladed (knives, etc.) and pointed (needles, etc.) ones; the second opposition contrasts touch with vision, and it further translates to the juxtaposition of function (sharp/blunt instruments, etc.) vs. shape (pointed/rounded features, etc.). We also find that these oppositions determine the semantic shifts developed by words denoting sharpness or bluntness and that the metaphoric patterns are consistent across languages.
Keywords: lexical typology, frame-based approach, semantic maps, metaphors, physical qualities, sharp, blunt
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Defining the boundaries of the field and constructing a questionnaire
    • 1.1The starting point: Russian data
    • 1.2Intragenetic typology
    • 1.3The “Shuttle” method and the core contexts
  • 2.Revealing the frame structure
  • 3.Constructing a semantic map
    • 3.1Types of the sharp systems
    • 3.2Intermediate cases
  • 4.Metaphorical extensions
  • 5.Semantic field blunt
  • 6.Discussion: Comparison to previous studies
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 25 May 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.133.02kyu
References (27)
References
van der Auwera, J. & Plungian, V. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2(1): 79–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. & Dahl, Ö. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13: 51–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, M., Haspelmath, M. & Malchukov, A. L. 2010. Introduction to the special issue « Semantic maps: Methods and applications ». Linguistic Discovery 8 (1): 1–3. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
François, A. 2008. Semantic maps and the typology of colexification: Intertwining polysemous networks across languages. In From Polysemy to Semantic change: Towards a Typology of Lexical Semantic Associations, M. Vanhove (ed), 163–215. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fritz, G. 1995. Metonymische Muster und Metaphernfamilien. Bemerkungen zur Struktur und Geschichte der Verwendungsweisen von “scharf”. In Der Gebrauch der Sprache. Festschrift für Franz Hundsnurscher zum 60. Geburtstag, H. v. G. Hindelang, E. Rolf & W. Zillig (eds), 77–107. Münster: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. & Grondelaers, S. 1995. Looking back at anger: Cultural traditions and metaphorical patterns. In Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World, J. R. Taylor & R. E. MacLaury (eds), 153–180. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulos, T., Werning, D. A., Hartlieb, J., Kitazumi, T., Peut, L. E. van de, Sundermeyer, A. & Chantrain, G. 2016. The meaning of ancient words for ‘earth’: An exercise in visualizing colexification on a semantic map. ETopoi. Journal for Ancient Studies 6: 418–452.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulos, T. & 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
Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon 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. NJ: Mahwah.Google 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. Hasko & R. Perelmutter (eds), 315–341. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., Rakhilina, E. & Vanhove, M. 2016. The semantics of lexical typology. In The Routledge Handbook of Semantics, N. Riemer (ed), 434–455. Oxon/NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lazard, G. 1981. La quête des universaux sémantiques en linguistique. Le Bulletin du groupe de recherces sémio-linguistiques 19: 26–37.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. & Wilkins, D. (eds). 2006. Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maisak, T. & Rakhilina, E. (eds). 2007. Glagoly dviženija v vode: Leksičeskaja tipologija [Verbs of AQUA-Motion: Lexical Typology]. Moscow: Indrik.Google Scholar
Majid, A. & Levinson, S. 2011. The senses in language and culture. The Senses & Society 6(1): 5–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., Gullberg, M., Staden, M. van & 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
Majid, A., Jordan, F. & Dunn, M. 2015. Semantic systems in closely related languages. Language Sciences 49: 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parina, E. 2016. The polysemy of llym in Middle Welsh. Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 63: 129–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rakhilina, E. 2010. Verbs of rotation in Russian and Polish. In New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion, V. Hasko & R. Perelmutter (eds), 291–314. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Kognitivnyj analiz predmetnyx imen: semantika i sočetaemost’ [Cognitive Analysis of Concrete Nouns: Semantics and Combinability]. Moscow: Azbukovnik.Google Scholar
Rakhilina, E. & Reznikova, T. 2016. A Frame-based methodology for lexical typology. In Lexico-Typological Approaches to Semantic Shifts and Motivation Patterns in the Lexicon, M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm & P. Juvonen (eds), 95–130. Berlin, Boston: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sahlgren, M. 2008. The distributional hypothesis. Italian Journal of Linguistics 20: 33–53.Google Scholar
Spiridonova, N. 2002. Prilagatel’nye funkcional’noj semantiki: ostryj i typoj [Adjectives with functional semantics: sharp and blunt]. In Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies. International Conference « Dialogue 2002 » Proceedings, 494–499. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Vejdemo, S. 2007. Sharp, vass och skarp: Semantiska relationer mellan tre perceptionsadjektiv. MA thesis. Stockholms universitet. Institutionen för lingvistik.
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria, Matti Miestamo & Carl Börstell
2024. A cross-linguistic study of lexical and derived antonymy. Linguistics DOI logo
Ryzhova, Daria, Ekaterina Rakhilina, Tatiana Reznikova & Yulia Badryzlova
2024. Lexical systems with systematic gaps: verbs of falling. Folia Linguistica 58:1 ► pp. 191 ff. DOI logo
Rakhilina, Ekaterina, Daria Ryzhova & Yulia Badryzlova
2022. Lexical typology and semantic maps: Perspectives and challenges. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 41:1 ► pp. 231 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.