Swedish Dimensional Adjectives

383 Pages·2017·5.25 MB·English

by  Anna Vogel

ACTA UNIVERSITATIS STOCKHOLMIENSIS
Stockholm Studies in Scandinavian Philology
NEW SERIES
——————————————– 36 ——————————————–

Swedish Dimensional Adjectives

Anna Vogel

Almqvist & Wiksell International
Stockholm – Sweden
ACTA UNIVERSITATIS STOCKHOLMIENSIS
Stockholm Studies in Scandinavian Philology
NEW SERIES
——————————————– 36 ——————————————–

Swedish Dimensional Adjectives

Anna Vogel

Illustrations by Agnes Stenqvist

Almqvist & Wiksell International
Stockholm – Sweden
Doctoral dissertation 2004
Department of Scandinavian Languages
Stockholm University
SE-106 91 STOCKHOLM

Abstract

Vogel, Anna. 2004. Swedish Dimensional Adjectives. (Svenska dimensionsadjektiv.) Acta
Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Stockholm Studies in Scandinavian Philology. New Series.
36. Almqvist & Wiksell International. 377 pp.

The purpose of this study is to give a thorough and detailed account and analysis of the
semantics of twelve Swedish dimensional adjectives: hög ‘high/tall’, låg ‘low’, bred
‘broad/wide’, smal ‘narrow/thin’, vid ‘broad’, trång ‘narrow’, tjock ‘thick’, tunn ‘thin’,
djup ‘deep’, grund ‘narrow’, lång ‘long’ and kort ‘short’. Focus has been placed on their
spatial, non-metaphorical sense. The study was written within the framework of cognitive
linguistics, where lexical definitions may be given in terms of prototypical and peripheral
uses. Four sources of data have been considered: a corpus, consisting of contemporary
fiction, an elicitation test, designed for the purpose, dictionary articles on the pertinent
adjectives, and the author’s own linguistic intuition as a native speaker. The methodology
has involved categorisation of combinations of adjective and noun, based upon three
major themes: orientation, function, and shape. In order to determine prototypical uses,
precedence has been given to the outcome of the elicitation test over the corpus search.
For both sources, frequency has played an important part. The ranking of senses as stated
in the dictionary articles has also been considered.
The results indicate that the dimensional adjectives differ quite markedly from each
other, as opposed to a structural view where the adjectives traditionally have been
regarded as forming a neat patchwork. Adjectives overlap each other for some uses (högt
gräs ‘high grass’, långt gräs ‘long grass’ and even djupt gräs ‘deep grass’), while there
are also situations in which no dimensional adjective can describe an object. Furthermore,
adjectives forming pairs, such as djup – grund ‘deep – shallow’, do not exhibit full
antonymy, despite the fact that dimensional adjectives are traditionally cited as examples
par excellence concerning antonymy.

Keywords: dimensional adjectives, semantics, cognitive linguistics, Swedish, spatial,
antonymy, prototype theory, polysemy, corpus-based, elicitation test

© 2004 Anna Vogel
ISBN 91-22-02064-0
ISSN 0562-1097
Akademitryck AB, Edsbruk 2004
Acknowledgements
Above all, two things have been essential for me in order to finish my
dissertation. These are enthusiasm and persistence. Here, I would like to
mention and thank some of the people who have helped with either, or with
both.
My supervisor Staffan Hellberg, Stockholm University, has more than
anyone else fuelled my enthusiasm about semantics and my subject. Our
discussions in his office, at the coffee machine, on public transport, at
parties, and in cyber-space have formed the basis for my desire to dig
deeper into my work. Thank you Staffan.
Ron Langacker was my teacher and supervisor during my stay as a
visiting student at the University of California San Diego. Ron inspired me
with great enthusiasm, both through his lectures and through private
conversations on cognitive semantics. Thank you Ron.
I have also had the privilege of participating in stimulating discussions
with a starting-point in earlier and later drafts of my dissertation. Thank you
for valuable comments and suggestions to Yvonne Carlsson, Annika
Johansson, Sven Lange, Magdalena Mikolajczyk, Karin Milles, Gunilla
Persson, Hans Strand, Elżbieta Strzelecka, Anne Sumnicht, Jan Svanlund,
Ewa Teodorovicz-Hellman, and especially to Ljuba Veselinova, who read a
late draft and whose proposals contributed to considerable improvements.
As a graduate student, I have taken part in various seminars, where I have
benefited from a generous attitude which has promoted the intellectual
level. Above all, Högre seminariet ‘the Higher seminar’ at the Department
of Scandinavian Languages, Stockholm University, has been a source of
inspiration and enthusiasm, but also Research Forum and various colloquia
at the Department of Linguistics at University of California San Diego, as
well as Allmän språkvetenskap-seminariet ‘the Seminar of linguistics’ at the
Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University. Thank you to all the
participants.
While working on the final version of my dissertation, I have enjoyed the
professionalism of illustrator Agnes Stenqvist and editorial assistant Pia
Nordin. David Jones has read through the text, making suggestions leading
to major improvements on various linguistic levels. Further, Niklas Tamm
and Magdalena Mikolajczyk have translated foreign literature, while Masja
Koptjevskaja Tamm and Elżbieta Strzelecka have proofread parts con-
cerning Slavic terms. Thank you very much.
Throughout my time as a graduate student, I have benefited from con-
siderable amount of funding. Apart from the practical impact on my
working situation, this has provided much appreciated encouragement. The
main part has been covered by Vetenskapsrådet ‘the Swedish Research
Council’, which financed the project Spatial orientering i svenskan ‘Spatial
orientation in Swedish’, where I was employed as a graduate student. I have
also been employed by Stockholm University during nine months. Other
sources have been the American-Scandinavian Foundation, Carl Jönssons
Understödsstiftelse ‘Carl Jönsson support foundation’, Fredrika Bremer-
förbundet ‘the Fredrika Bremer Association’, Helge Ax:son Johnssons
stiftelse ‘the Helge Ax:son Johnsson Foundation’, Stiftelsen Emil och Lydia
Kinanders fond ‘the Emil and Lydia Kinander Foundation’, Kungliga
Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien ‘The Royal Academy of
Letters, History and Antiquities’, Run-Jannestipendiet ‘the Run-Janne
Scholarship’, Stiftelsen Konung Gustaf VI Adolfs fond för svensk kultur
‘King Gustaf VI Adolf’s Charitable Fund for Swedish Culture’, the
Swedish Institute, Wallenbergsfonden ‘the Wallenberg Fund’, and Åke
Wibergs Stiftelse ‘the Åke Wiberg Foundation’. Thank you for your
generosity.
My persistence has been regenerated and strengthened by colleagues,
friends, and family. At times pre-set breaks with colleagues have enabled
me to survive the working day, at others, more serious support has helped
me keep on working. Among my colleagues, I wish to thank the following
people especially: Anders, Anne, Jeanna, Karin, Kristina, Linda, Lotta,
Maria, Milda, and Staffan. Thanks. Among my friends, Agnes, Larissa,
Anna, Helena, Isabell, Kjersti, and Pauline have mainly provided support to
help me cope with the everyday life that runs parallel with the dissertation.
Thank you. My family has both engaged in invigorating discussions on my
work, rekindling my enthusiasm, and offered practical help to facilitate my
work. In babysitting, my mother Eva Ström was a tremendous help
throughout the spring term of 2003, and the help from my father Helge
Ström, my brother Jacob Ström, and my sister Karin Ström cannot be
overrated. And finally, my husband Henrik has sustained my persistence
with practical and mental support, showering his overwhelming belief upon
me and boosting my enthusiasm for research and for life. Thank you.

Stockholm, April 2004
Anna Vogel
Contents
1 Background and purpose..........................................................................11
2 Previous related research..........................................................................13
3 Theoretical assumptions...........................................................................23
4 Data and methodology .............................................................................32
4.1 Data ...................................................................................................33
4.1.1 The corpus..................................................................................33
4.1.2 The elicitation test......................................................................43
4.1.3 The dictionaries..........................................................................43
4.1.4 Native speaker intuition.............................................................44
4.1.5 The interplay of the various sources..........................................44
4.2 Methodology.....................................................................................45
4.2.1 Suggesting prototypical uses......................................................45
4.2.2 Suggesting central cases.............................................................46
4.2.3 Working with the corpus............................................................47
4.2.4 Marked and unmarked sense......................................................49
4.2.5 Combinations of adjectives........................................................51
5 The semantics of hög ‘high/tall’ and låg ‘low’........................................53
5.1 Hög ‘high/tall’ in the dictionaries.....................................................53
5.2 Related research in the past...............................................................55
5.2.1 Related research in the past on HIGH/TALL.................................55
5.2.2 Related research in the past on the vertical axis........................61
5.3 Claims concerning hög ‘high/tall’.....................................................62
5.4 Results and discussion on hög ‘high/tall’ .........................................63
5.4.1 Orientation..................................................................................63
5.4.2 The reference plane....................................................................66
5.4.3 The direction of the vertical extension.......................................67
5.4.4 Hög ‘high/tall’ combines with nouns referring to objects
with a canonical vertical orientation .........................................71
5.4.5 Hög ‘high/tall’ combines with nouns referring to objects
located on the ground................................................................72
5.4.6 Hög ‘high/tall’ combines with nouns referring to objects
whose vertical dimension is the maximal one...........................76
5.4.7 Hög ‘high/tall’ combines with nouns referring to objects
that are as big as human beings or bigger.................................80
5.4.8 Hög ‘high/tall’ combines with nouns referring to objects
profiled against their background..............................................82
5.4.9 Hög ‘high/tall’ combines with nouns referring to objects
made of rigid material...............................................................84
5.4.10 Hög ‘high/tall’ combines with nouns referring to objects
with a functional top..................................................................86
5.4.11 Positional uses..........................................................................88
5.4.12 Problematic cases.....................................................................89
5.4.13 Less prototypical uses – the borders of hög ‘high/tall’ ...........90
5.4.14 Prototypical uses of hög ‘high/tall’..........................................94
5.5 Låg ‘low’ as the antonym of hög ‘high/tall’.....................................95
5.6 Låg ‘low’ in the dictionaries.............................................................95
5.7 Related research in the past on LOW .................................................96
5.8 Claims concerning låg ‘low’.............................................................97
5.9 Results and discussion on låg ‘low’..................................................98
5.9.1 Orientation .................................................................................98
5.9.2 The reference plane....................................................................99
5.9.3 The direction of the vertical axis ...............................................99
5.9.4 Låg ‘low’ combines with nouns referring to objects with
canonical vertical orientation..................................................103
5.9.5 Låg ‘low’ combines with nouns referring to objects
located on the ground..............................................................105
5.9.6 Låg ‘low’ combines with nouns referring to objects,
whose vertical dimension is not the maximal one..................106
5.9.7 Låg ‘low’ combines with nouns that refer to objects made
of rigid material.......................................................................108
5.9.8 Låg ‘low’ combines with nouns that refer to objects with
functional tops.........................................................................108
5.9.9 Positional uses..........................................................................109
5.9.10 Prototypical and peripheral uses of låg ‘low’........................110
5.10 Summary of hög ‘high/tall’ and låg ‘low’....................................111
6 The semantics of bred ‘broad/wide’......................................................113
6.1 Bred ‘broad/wide’ in the dictionaries .............................................113
6.2 Related research in the past on BROAD/WIDE..................................114
6.3 Claims concerning bred ‘broad/wide’ ............................................122
6.4 Results and discussion on bred ‘broad/wide’.................................123
6.4.1 Orientation ...............................................................................123
6.4.2 Bred ‘broad/wide’ as referring to a dimension, extending
to the sides...............................................................................124
6.4.3 Canonical orientation and functional situation........................128
6.4.4 The actual functional situation.................................................134
6.4.5 The (smaller) horizontal dimension.........................................140
6.4.6 What objects are not described as bred ‘broad/wide’?............143
6.4.7 The relationship of the two systems ........................................148
6.5 Summary of bred ‘broad/wide’.......................................................150
7 The semantics of vid ‘broad’..................................................................151
7.1 Vid ‘broad’ in the dictionaries.........................................................151
7.2 Data .................................................................................................152
7.3 Claims concerning vid ‘broad’........................................................153
7.4 Results and discussion on vid ‘broad’.............................................154
7.4.1 Exceeding a norm.....................................................................154
7.4.2 The direction of the dimensions...............................................154
7.4.3 The passage (central case)........................................................156
7.4.3.1 The number of dimensions involved in the passage
(central case)......................................................................158
7.4.4 The surface...............................................................................160
7.4.5 Vid ‘broad’ combines with a noun referring to an object
with horizontal orientation......................................................165
7.4.6 Vid ‘broad’ combines with a noun referring to an object
with symmetrical dimensions..................................................166
7.4.7 Vid ‘broad’ combines with nouns referring to objects
which may extend beyond the field of vision .........................167
7.5 Summary of vid ‘broad’..................................................................169
8 The semantics of tjock ‘thick’................................................................170
8.1 Tjock ‘thick’ in the dictionaries.......................................................170
8.1.1 What dimension is described according to the
dictionaries?.............................................................................171
8.1.2 Qualities of objects described as tjock ‘thick’, according
to the dictionaries ....................................................................171
8.2 Related research in the past on THICK.............................................172
8.3 Data .................................................................................................176
8.4 Claims concerning tjock ‘thick’......................................................177
8.5 Results and discussion on tjock ‘thick’...........................................177
8.5.1 The minimal dimension(s).......................................................177
8.5.2 The dimension is grasped by the user’s fingers, hands or
arms .........................................................................................183
8.5.3 Resistance.................................................................................190
8.5.4 The relationship of hög ‘high/tall’ and tjock ‘thick’................196
8.5.5 Embodiment thesis revisited....................................................198
8.5.6 A complex category.................................................................199
8.6 Summary of tjock ‘thick’ ................................................................202
9 The semantics of smal ‘narrow/thin’, tunn ‘thin’ and trång
‘narrow’.....................................................................................................203
9.1 Smal ‘narrow/thin’ in the dictionaries.............................................203
9.2 Tunn ‘thin’ in the dictionaries.........................................................205
9.3 Trång ‘narrow’ in the dictionaries..................................................205
9.4 Related research in the past on NARROW/THIN................................206
9.5 Data .................................................................................................208
9.6 Claims concerning smal ‘narrow/thin’............................................209
9.7 Results and discussion on smal ‘narrow/thin’................................209
9.7.1 A complex category.................................................................209
9.7.2 Function ...................................................................................210
9.7.3 Shape........................................................................................213
9.7.4 Orientation ...............................................................................217
9.7.5 Embodiment thesis revisited II................................................220
9.8 Claims concerning tunn ‘thin’ ........................................................221
9.9 Results and discussion on tunn ‘thin’.............................................222
9.9.1 The antonymous relation to tjock ‘thick’.................................222
9.9.2 The minimal dimension...........................................................223
9.9.3 The dimension grasped by the fingers.....................................224
9.9.4 Resistance.................................................................................225
9.9.5 The relationship of tunn ‘thin’ and smal ‘thin’ for objects
of streak-type...........................................................................227
9.9.6 A complex category.................................................................230
9.10 Claims concerning trång ‘narrow’................................................231
9.11 Results and discussion on trång ‘narrow’.....................................231
9.11.1 Function .................................................................................231
9.11.2 Number of dimensions...........................................................234
9.11.3 The relationship of trång ‘narrow’ and smal
‘narrow/thin’............................................................................239
9.11.4 The relation of trång ‘narrow’ and vid ‘broad’ .....................241
9.12 Summary of smal ‘narrow/thin’, tunn ‘thin’ and trång
‘narrow’..........................................................................................241
10 The semantics of djup ‘deep’ and grund ‘shallow’.............................243
10.1 Djup ‘deep’ in the dictionaries......................................................243
10.2 Related research in the past...........................................................244
10.2.1 Related research in the past on DEEP......................................244
10.2.2 Related research in the past on containment..........................250
10.3 Claims concerning djup ‘deep’.....................................................253
10.4 Results and discussion on djup ‘deep’..........................................253
10.4.1 Dimensional and positional djup ‘deep’................................253
10.4.2 The container..........................................................................254
10.4.3 Orientation .............................................................................257
10.4.4 The inaccessibility of the container.......................................267
10.4.5 Traces.....................................................................................273
10.4.6 Shape......................................................................................275
10.4.6.1 Loose solid substances.....................................................285
10.4.6.2 Forests..............................................................................287
10.5 The relationship between djup ‘deep’ and hög ‘high/tall’............290
10.6 The antonyms of djup ‘deep’........................................................293
10.6.1 The antonyms of djup ‘deep’ in the dictionaries...................293
10.6.2 Related research in the past on SHALLOW..............................294
10.7 Claims concerning grund ‘shallow’..............................................296
10.7.1 Results and discussion on grund ‘shallow’............................296
10.7.1.1 Container..........................................................................297
10.7.1.2 Orientation.......................................................................298
10.7.1.3 Shape................................................................................301
10.7.1.4 Other antonyms of djup ‘deep’........................................304
10.8 Summary of djup ‘deep’ and grund ‘shallow’..............................309
11 The semantics of lång ‘long’ and kort ‘short’......................................312
11.1 Lång ‘long’ in the dictionaries......................................................312
11.2 Related research in the past on LONG............................................314
11.3 Claims concerning lång ‘long’......................................................323
11.4 Results and discussion on lång ‘long’...........................................323
11.4.1 Function..................................................................................324
11.4.2 Shape......................................................................................324
11.4.3 Orientation..............................................................................336
11.4.3.1 The relationship of lång ‘long’ and hög ‘high/tall’.........337
11.4.3.2 The relationship of lång ‘long’ and djup ‘deep’..............339
11.4.3.3 The relationship of lång ‘long’ and bred
‘broad/wide’.......................................................................340
11.4.3.4 Lång ‘long’ and the front-back axis ................................342
11.4.4 Spatial and temporal use........................................................343
11.5 Kort ‘short’ as the antonym of lång ‘long’...................................346
11.6 Kort ‘short’ in the dictionaries......................................................346
11.7 Related research in the past on SHORT ..........................................347
11.8 Claims concerning kort ‘short’......................................................348
11.9 Results and discussion on kort ‘short’..........................................348
11.9.1 Shape......................................................................................348
11.9.2 Orientation..............................................................................351
11.10 Summary of lång ‘long’ and kort ‘short’....................................352
12 Concluding remarks.............................................................................353
13 Sammanfattning ...................................................................................360
Bibliography..............................................................................................366
Appendix...................................................................................................372
Index..........................................................................................................374