空间维度形容词“THICK/THIN”的词汇类型学研究

Abstract

Drawing on the theoretical framework and methodology of the Moscow Lexical Typology Group (MLexT), this paper examines the usage of the basic meanings of the spatial dimensional adjectives “THICK/THIN” in thirteen languages. Our conclusions are as follows: Among the thirteen languages investigated, the basic meanings of “THICK/THIN” in all Asian and European languages can indicate the distance between the upper and lower surfaces of a flat object, including “the upper and lower surfaces of a flat, solid object”, “the upper and lower surfaces of liquid”, “the irregular upper and lower surfaces of gas”, and “the upper and lower surfaces of a flat body part”. This reflects the cognitive commonality of different countries from different regions and cultures. For most Asian languages, “THICK/THIN” can only be used to describe the upper and lower surfaces of flat objects. For most European languages, “thick/thin” can describe flat as well as cylindrical and linear objects, which reflects cognitive characteristics of each country in different regions. Even within Asia, “THICK/THIN” are used in very different ways in Korean, Thai, Vietnamese, and Indonesian. In Korean, “THICK/THIN” can describe not only flat objects but also “linear objects on a flat surface”, while Vietnamese can describe not only flat objects but also “linear objects”, “linear objects on a flat surface”, and “cross-sections of cylindrical objects”. These two languages expand the semantic range of “THICK/THIN” in Asian languages. As with European languages, Indonesian and Thai use “thick/thin” for flat objects as well as cylindrical objects. However, “THICK/THIN” in Indonesian cannot describe the “cross-section of a cylindrical body part”. It is possible in Thai, but one cannot use “THICK/THIN” to describe the four limbs. Among European languages, French is an exception. “THICK/THIN” cannot describe a linear object placed in a three-dimensional space and not on a flat surface. We have thereby demonstrated cross-linguistic semantic commonalities and verified the feasibility and applicability of the MLexT theory in lexical typology. Meanwhile, the differences between different languages in different regions and in the same region also reveal the differences in the socio-cultural context of human cognition.