CC BY
83
M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm
Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm University
LINGUISTICS OF TEMPERATURE AND LEXICAL TYPOLOGY
Temperature phenomena are universal, relatively easily perceptible by humans and crucial for them1. Their conceptualization, however, involves a complex interplay between external reality, bodily experience and evaluation of the relevant properties with regard to their functions in the human life in a particular cultural setting. Therefore the ways in which languages deal with the temperature domain (linguistics of temperature) constitute an ideal and fascinating object for lexical typological research. In my view (cf. [Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2008; Koptjevskaja-Tamm et al. 2008]), lexical typology is a cross-linguistic and typological dimension of lexicology, where typology is “the study of linguistics patterns that are found cross-linguistically, in particular, patterns that can be discovered solely by cross-linguistic comparison” [Croft 1990: 1] and lexicology deals with “the characterization of words and vocabularies, both as unitary wholes and as units displaying internal structure with respect both to form and content” [Cruse et al. 2002, 2005: viii—ix].
I suggest that linguistics of temperature can have at least the following three main groups of questions (foci, perspectives) in accordance with Koptjevskaja-Tamm et al.’s [2008] view of the three major foci in semantically oriented lexical typology in general:
Focus 1 (onomasiological perspective): What temperature concepts are encoded as words across languages, what distinctions are made in the systems of temperature terms and what factors underlie them?
Focus 2 (lexicon-grammar interaction): How are temperature concepts lexicalized across languages in terms of word classes? What
1 The paper reports on the on-going project “Hot and cold—universal or language specific?” and on the workshop “Temperature in Language and Cognition”, Stockholm, March 2010, (http://ling-asv.ling.su.se/mediawiki/ index.php/Main_Page), both funded by the Swedish Research Council.
syntactic constructions are used for talking about temperature perception?
Focus 3 (semasiological perspective): What are the possible extensions of temperature terms to other domains? Where from do the temperature terms come? How can their meanings change?
Languages differ as to how many temperature terms they have and how these categorize the temperature domain in general. While English, Russian and Swedish have six or even more fairly frequent temperature adjectives (hot, warm, lukewarm, tepid, cool, chilly, cold), as well as several more marginal adjectives (e. g. scorching, icy) and verbs (freeze), other languages may have only two or three temperature expressions. For instance, the Benue-Kongo language Igbo (within the Niger-Kongo stock) and the Chadic language Kilba (within the Afro-Asiatic stock) have only two temperature terms each - oku ‘hot/warm’ vs. oji ‘cold/cool’ in Igbo and kwakwadu ‘hot/warm’ vs. shishi'u ‘cold/cool’ in Kilba, while their relatives Yoruba (Benue-Kongo) and Hausa (Chadic) have three temperature terms (gbona ‘hot/warm’ vs. lowooro ‘tepid’ vs. tutu ‘cold/cool’ in Yoruba, and zaafii ‘hot/warm’ vs. dumii ‘tepid’ vs. sanyii ‘cold/cool’ in Hausa) [Firsching 2009].
The main dimensions in the organization of the linguistic temperature domain across languages are TEMPERATURE VALUES, KINDS OF TEMPERATURE EVALUATION and classes of ENTITIES whose “temperature” (properties, state or experience) is being evaluated. These are the parameters according to which languages may cut up the temperature domain among their different expressions, both lexical means and morphosyntactic patterns. A striking fact about linguistic temperature systems across languages is their internal heterogeneity in that their different parts behave differently. For instance, languages can have different lexical and constructional repertoires for encoding ‘hot’ vs. ‘cold’ temperatures, for encoding PERSONAL FEELING TEMPERATURES, or for talking about the temperature of water.
Temperature terms can belong to different word classes, even within one and the same language. Word-class attribution of temperature expressions and their possible syntactic constructions are sensitive to their semantics.
Temperature meanings are often semantically related to other meanings, either synchronically (within a polysemantic lexeme) or
diachronically. For instance, temperature concepts often serve as source domains for various metaphors and are extended to other perceptional modalities (‘hot spices’). Temperature meanings can also develop from others, e. g., ‘burn, fire’>‘hot’, ‘boil’>‘hot’, or ’ice’>‘cold’. Finally, the meanings of temperature terms can also change within the temperature domain itself. While some languages show extensive semantic derivation from the temperature domain, others lack it or use it to a limited degree. Languages vary as to which temperature term has predominantly positive associations in its extended use, partly due to the different climatic conditions.
References
Croft W. Typology and universals [Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics]. ist_2nd edition. Cambridge, 1990/2003.
Cruse A., Hundsnurscher F., Job M., Lutzeier P. R. (eds.). Lexicology. An international handbook on the nature and structure of words and vocabularies. Vols. 1-2. Berlin/NY, 2002, 2005.
Firsching H. Temperaturtermini in afrikanischen Sprachen. Magisterarbeit, Universität Bayreuth, 2009.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm M. Approaching lexical typology // Vanhove M. (ed.). From polysemy to semantic change: a typology of lexical semantic associations. Amsterdam, 2008.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm M., Vanhove M., Koch P. Typological approaches to lexical semantics // Linguistic Typology 11(1), 2007.
