Home Literary Studies Conceptual relations in the semantic domain of Swedish dimensional adjectives
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Conceptual relations in the semantic domain of Swedish dimensional adjectives

  • Misuzu Shimotori EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: October 6, 2016
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Author Information Explore this Subject
European Journal of Scandinavian Studies
From the journal European Journal of Scandinavian Studies Volume 46 Issue 2

Abstract

In the conventional study of lexical semantics, adjectives are not considered likely to have a hierarchical relation, such as a meronymic (part-whole) relation, to each other. The most possible lexical relations among adjectives are antonymy and synonymy. In this study, however, I assume that meronomic relations between internal members of dimensional adjectives (e. g. big, long, deep) are conceptually possible from an ontological point of view. By using a semantic task, i. e. anaphora resolution, I draw the following conclusion: dimensional adjectives themselves have no meronymic relation to each other. However, restricting our discussion to the usage of Swedish dimensional adjectives in modifying concrete entities, the conceptual relations between the general term, e. g. BIG,1[1] and specific terms, e. g. LONG, DEEP, are mentally organized in a part-whole relation and thus in a meronomic structure. When applied to the whole expression which is a concept of a big entity, such as BIG CUP, there are meronomic relations between concepts of the big entity and its parts, e. g. BIG CUP – DEEP CUP.

References

Berlin, Brent and Kay, Paul 1969: Basic colour terms. Their universality and Evolution. University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cruse, D. Alan 1986: Lexical Semantics. Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. Cambridge.Search in Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert M. W. 1982: ‘Where Have All the Adjectives Gone?’ and other essays. semantics and syntax. Berlin.10.1515/9783110822939Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1982: “Frame semantics”. In: The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.): Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Selected Papers from SICOL-1981. Seoul. 111–137.10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00424-7Search in Google Scholar

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria/Ekaterina V. Rakhilina 2006: “‘Some like it hot’: On the semantics of temperature adjectives in Russian and Swedish”. In: Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 59, 3. 253–269.10.1524/stuf.2006.59.3.253Search in Google Scholar

Mihatsch, Wiltrud 2007: “Taxonomic and meronomic superordinates with nominal coding”. In: Schalley, Andrea C./Dietmar Zaefferer (eds.): Ontolinguistics. How Ontological Status Shapes the Linguistic Coding of Concepts. Berlin/New York. 359–378.Search in Google Scholar

Miller, Katherine 1998: “Modifiers in WordNet”. In: Fellbaum, Christiane: WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Mitkov, Ruslan 2002: Anaphora Resolution. New York.Search in Google Scholar

Murphy, Gregory L. 1988: “Comprehending complex concepts”. In: Cognitive Science 12. 529–562.10.1207/s15516709cog1204_2Search in Google Scholar

Murphy, Gregory L. 1990: “Noun phrase interpretation and conceptual combination”. In: Journal of Memory and Language 29. 259–288.10.1016/0749-596X(90)90001-GSearch in Google Scholar

Murphy, Gregory L. 2004: The big book of concept. MIT Press. Massachusetts.Search in Google Scholar

Murphy, Lynne M. 2003: Semantic Relations and the Lexicon. Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511486494Search in Google Scholar

Nickles, Matthias et al. 2007: “Ontologies across disciplines”. In: Schalley, Andrea C./Dietmar Zaefferer (Eds.): Ontolinguistics. How Ontological Status Shapes the Linguistic Coding of Concepts. Berlin/New York. 23–66.Search in Google Scholar

Schalley, Andrea C./Dietmar Zaefferer 2007: “Ontolinguistics – An outline”. In: Schalley, Andrea C./Dietmar Zaefferer (Eds.): Ontolinguistics. How Ontological Status Shapes the Linguistic Coding of Concepts. Berlin/New York. 3–22.10.1515/9783110197792.1.3Search in Google Scholar

Schwarz-Friesel, Monika 2007: “Indirect anaphora in text. A cognitive account”. In: Schwarz-Friesel, Monika et al. (Eds.): Anaphors in Text: Cognitive, formal and applied approached to anaphoric reference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. 3–20.10.1075/slcs.86.04schSearch in Google Scholar

Shimotori, Misuzu 2013: Conceptual Contrasts: A comparative semantic study of dimensional adjectives in Japanese and Swedish. (= Umeå Studies in Language and Literature 17). Umeå.Search in Google Scholar

Smith, Edward E./Daniel N. Osherson 1984: “Conceptual combination with prototype concepts”. In: Cognitive Science 8. 357–361.10.1016/B978-1-4832-1446-7.50029-7Search in Google Scholar

Smith, Edward E. et al. 1988: “Combining Prototypes: A Selective Modification Model”. In: Cognitive Science 12. 485–527.10.1207/s15516709cog1204_1Search in Google Scholar

Wienold, Götz/Ulrich Rohmer 1997: “On Implications in Lexicalizations for Dimensional Expressions”. In: Yamanaka, Kei/Toshio Ohori (Eds.): The locus of meaning. Papers in honor of Yoshihiko Ikegami. Tokyo. 143–185.Search in Google Scholar

Winston, Morton E. et al. 1987: “A Taxonomy of Part-Whole Relations”. In: Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal 11:4. 417–444.10.1207/s15516709cog1104_2Search in Google Scholar

Zaefferer, Dietmar 2002: “Polysemy, polyvalence, and linking mismatches. The concept of RAIN and its codings in English, German, Italian, and Spanish”. In: DELTA – Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 18 (spe.). Special Issue: Polysemy. 27–56.10.1590/S0102-44502002000300004Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2016-10-6
Published in Print: 2016-10-1

© 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Articles
  3. Die Trollfrau als kultureller Katalysator in der Illuga saga Gríðarfóstra
  4. Telling True Lies. Metanarration, Intertextuality and (Un)reliability in Holberg’s Iter subterraneum
  5. Ingvar Ambjørnsens hytte-noir
  6. Trollism, Reality Hunger, and Vulnerability. Trolls in film and literature in the 2000’s
  7. Conceptual relations in the semantic domain of Swedish dimensional adjectives
  8. Reviews
  9. Karl G. Johansson/Else Mundal (Hg.):Riddarasǫgur. The Translation of European Court Culture in Medieval Scandinavia
  10. Wolfgang Krause:Schriften zur Runologie und Sprachwissenschaft
  11. Ellen Rees:Ibsen‘s Peer Gynt and the Production of Meaning
  12. Christian Berrenberg:„Es ist deine Pflicht zu benutzen, was du weißt!“ Literatur und literarische Praktiken in der norwegischen Arbeiterbewegung 1900–1931
  13. John Ole Askedal et al. (Hg.):Norsk grammatikk. Riksmål og moderat bokmål
https://doi.org/10.1515/ejss-2016-0023

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Articles
  3. Die Trollfrau als kultureller Katalysator in der Illuga saga Gríðarfóstra
  4. Telling True Lies. Metanarration, Intertextuality and (Un)reliability in Holberg’s Iter subterraneum
  5. Ingvar Ambjørnsens hytte-noir
  6. Trollism, Reality Hunger, and Vulnerability. Trolls in film and literature in the 2000’s
  7. Conceptual relations in the semantic domain of Swedish dimensional adjectives
  8. Reviews
  9. Karl G. Johansson/Else Mundal (Hg.):Riddarasǫgur. The Translation of European Court Culture in Medieval Scandinavia
  10. Wolfgang Krause:Schriften zur Runologie und Sprachwissenschaft
  11. Ellen Rees:Ibsen‘s Peer Gynt and the Production of Meaning
  12. Christian Berrenberg:„Es ist deine Pflicht zu benutzen, was du weißt!“ Literatur und literarische Praktiken in der norwegischen Arbeiterbewegung 1900–1931
  13. John Ole Askedal et al. (Hg.):Norsk grammatikk. Riksmål og moderat bokmål
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2026 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 2.3.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/ejss-2016-0023/html
Scroll to top button