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. 79–116

Chapter 4
Quality as a two-place predicate

The typology of full and empty

| Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences
| Independent researcher
This chapter presents a typological description of the semantic domains empty and full. While the majority of other predicates of physical qualities have a single argument (the qualified object), the situations of fullness and emptiness imply two arguments – the container and the contents. Such argument structure influences the syntax of the predicates of fullness and emptiness and, to some extent, the oppositions within these domains. In this paper, empty and full are examined in relation to clean, bare, solid and several other adjacent semantic domains, with particular attention being given to metaphors and semantic extensions.
Keywords: qualitative adjectives, full, empty, container, lexical typology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Empty
    • 2.1The main (physical) sense
    • 2.2Adjacent domains
      • 2.2.1‘Bare’
      • 2.2.2‘Clean’
      • 2.2.3Possession
    • 2.3Semantic extensions
  • 3.full
    • 3.1The main (physical) sense
      • 3.1.1Container and quantity
      • 3.1.2‘Full’ vs. ‘not hollow’
    • 3.2Adjacent domains
      • 3.2.1Possession
      • 3.2.2‘Full’ and ‘complete’
    • 3.3Semantic extensions
      • 3.3.1Container metaphors
      • 3.3.2Large quantity
      • 3.3.3Intensifiers
  • 4.Conclusion: Semantic maps
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 25 May 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.133.04pan
References (36)
References
Bhat, D. N. S. 1999. Intransitive / adjectival predication (review article). Linguistic Typology 3(1): 111–125.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. 1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science 22(2): 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. The Way We Think. New York: Basic Books.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
Grady, J. 2007. Metaphor. In D. Geeraerts, H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics: 187–213. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B. 1997. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herskovits, A. 1986. Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kustova, G. I. 2006. Valentnosti i konstrukcii prilagatel’nyx [Arguments and constructions of adjectives]. In Komp’juternaja lingvistika i intellektual’nye tehnologii. Trudy meždunarodnoj konferencii “Dialog-2006” [Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies. Papers from the International Conference “Dialog-2006”], 323–328. Moscow: RGGU.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rakhilina, E. V. 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: Lexical Typology], T. A. Maisak & E. V. Rakhilina (eds), 76–105. Moscow: Indrik.Google Scholar
Tagabileva, M. & Kholkina, L. 2010. Kačestvennye priznaki ‘pustoj’ i ‘polnyj’ v tipologičeskom osveščenii [Qualities ‘full’ and ‘empty’ in typological perspective]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 4(3): 167–169.Google Scholar
Tagabileva, M., Kholkina, L. & Kiryanov, D. 2013. Semantic domains ‘full’ and ‘empty’: a cross-linguistic study. In Association for Linguistic Typology. The 10th Biennal Conference (Leipzig, 2013 August 15–18). Abstracts, 178–179. <[URL]>
Taylor, J. 1989. Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Tolstaya, S. M. 2008. Prostranstvo slova. Leksičeskaja semantika v obščeslavjanskoj perspektive [Extent of a Word. Lexical Semantics in a General Slavic Perspective]. Moscow: Indrik.Google Scholar
Vandeloise, C. 1991. Spatial Prepositions: A Case Study from French. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago.Google Scholar
1994. Methodology and analyses of the preposition. Cognitive Linguistics 5(2): 157–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sources
BCCWJ – The Balanced Corpus of Contemporary Written Japanese, <[URL]>
BCS – Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian. A Textbook. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2010.Google Scholar
CCL – Peking University CCL Online Corpus, <[URL]>
CE – Corpus del español, <[URL]>
Collins – Collins Spanish-English Dictionary, <[URL]>
CREA - Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual, <[URL]>
Diccionario Salamanca de la lengua española [The Salamanca Dictionary of Spanish]. Barcelona: Santillana, 1996.Google Scholar
EsTenTen18 – Spanish Web Corpus on the Sketch Engine Platform, <[URL]>
Glosbe_ES – the multilingual online dictionary and translation memory. Spanish – English, <[URL]>
Glosbe_SR – the multilingual online dictionary and translation memory. Serbian – English, <[URL]>
Kenkyusha – Kenkyusha’s New Japanese-English Dictionary. 5th edition. Tokyo: Kenkyūsha, 2003.Google Scholar
Korean-English Dictionary. Seoul: YBM/Si-sa, 2006.Google Scholar
Narumov B. P. Ispansko-russkij slovar’ [Spanish-Russian Dictionary]. Moscow: Russkij jazyk, 1988.Google Scholar
Naver Korean-English Dictionary, <[URL]>
Park Hyeng Gyu. Korean-Russian dictionary. Seoul: Korean-Russian Cultural center, 2006.Google Scholar
RNC – Russian National Corpus, <[URL]>
Sejong – The Sejong Corpus, <[URL]>
Turover G. Ja. Bol’šoj russko-ispanskij slovar’ [Unabridged Russian-Spanish Dictionary]. Moscow: Russkij jazyk, 2003Google Scholar
Xiàndài Hànyǔ cídiǎn [Dictionary of Modern Chinese]. 6th edition. Běijīng: Shāngwù yìnshū guǎn, 2012Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

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 5 july 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.