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. 189–214

Chapter 7
A new approach to old studies

| HSE University , Moscow
| HSE University , Moscow | Vinogradov Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences
| HSE University , Moscow

This chapter gives a description of the old terms typology across 78 world languages. The sample size in the research is relatively big, as compared to the other studies in this volume, which is attributable to two main reasons: the semantics of old terms has already been thoroughly described for at least two languages – English and Russian – and the lexemes with this meaning are in most cases featured by bilingual dictionaries. On the basis of the dictionary data supported by additional expertise we propose a semantic map of the OLD domain. The paper also outlines some cross-linguistically recurrent colexification patterns and addresses the specificity of homonymous combinations of old attributes with different semantic classes of nouns.

Keywords: qualitative adjectives, semantics of oldness, lexical typology, semantic maps
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Semantics of old
  • 3.Data
  • 4.Typological results
  • 5.Dominant systems
    • 5.1Polysemy across frames
    • 5.2Dominant lexeme and its quasi-synonyms
  • 6.Subframes
    • 6.1‘Old person’: Oldness as a gradual property
    • 6.2‘Old person’: Gender opposition
    • 6.3‘Old person’: Speaking of children
    • 6.4‘Old person’ vs. ‘old oak’
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 25 May 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.133.07vyr
References
Beard, R.
1991 Decompositional composition: the semantics of scope ambiguities and ‘bracketing paradoxes’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 195–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G.
2013 Sex-based and Non-sex-based Gender Systems. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, [URL]> (6 April 2020).
Croft, W.
2001 Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ö.
1970 On sets and prepositional functions in grammar. Scando-Slavica 16: 75–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. B.
1912 Maidu texts. Publications of the American Ethnological Society 4. Leiden: Brill Publishers.Google Scholar
Elbert, S. H. & Pukui, M. K.
1986 Hawaiian Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.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.
2003 The geometry of grammatical meaning: semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In The New Psychology of Language, M. Tomasello (ed), 211–242. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hellinger, M. & Bussmann, H.
(eds) 2001 Gender Across Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maisak, T. & Rakhilina, E.
(eds) 2007 Glagoly dviženija v vode: leksičeskaja tipologija. [Verbs of Aqua-Motion: Lexical Typology]. Moskva: Indrik.Google Scholar
[OED]: Simpson, J. A. & Weiner, E. S. C.
(eds) 1989 The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rakhilina, E.
1999 Aspectual classification of nouns: A case study of Russian. In Tense-aspect, transitivity and causativity, A. Werner & L. Kulikov (eds), 341–350. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rakhilina, E. & Reznikova, T.
2016 A Frame-based methodology for lexical typology. In The Lexical Typology of Semantic Shifts, P. Juvonen & M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), 95–130. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rakhilina, E. V., Ryzhova, D. A. & Badryzlova, Yu. G.
In press. Lexical typology and semantic maps: perspectives and challenges. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft.
Taylor, J. R.
1992 Old problems: adjectives in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 3: 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar