A Corpora Study of English Dimension Adjectives

In Academic Speaking and Writing

Chen ShengweiInternational College

Zhejiang Forestry University

陈声威 浙江林学院国际教育学院

1. Adjectives

• Biber et al. (1999):

central adjectives

peripheral adjectives

color, size, dimension, time, etc

- descriptive, characterizing the referent of a nominal expression

2. What dimension adjectives in focus?

broad

deep

high

long

low

tall

wide

high vs. tall

Tsui (2001):

…high to be used in a metaphorical sense with more abstract nouns;

tall to be used more frequently with concrete nouns such as people, trees and buildings.

3. Research questions

(1) What is the relationship of dimension adjectives between literal and non-literal uses in academic English speaking and writing?

(2) What are the features of academic adjectives in their non-literal uses?

• Defining literal uses of dimension adjectives:

where they define the spatial extents of concrete and visible objects

4. The corpora

4.1 MICASE

- 1.7 millions words from 152 speech events recorded the University of Michigan 1997 – 2001

- lectures, colloquia, research group meetings, dissertation defense, faculty meetings, student study groups

- English Language Institute, The University of Michigan; Rita Simpson, John Swales

4. The Corpora

4.2 Hyland

- 1.3 million words

- 80 recent (by 2004) research articles, 10 each from eight fields

- Professor Ken Hyland of the Institute of Education of University of London

5. Data collected

Table 1: Percentage of literal use of the dimension adjectives (base form only)

MICASE Hyland

Total Literal % Total Literal %

1 tall 26 24 92 tall 5 4 80

2 deep 51 24 47 deep 60 14 23

3 high 662 112 17 broad 77 13 17

4 wide 62 10 16 wide 162 25 15

5 broad 60 9 15 long 439 41 9

6 low 286 17 6 high 1048 33 3

7 long 699 5 0.7 low 732 6 0.8

By “base form”, here it means the comparatives of the adjectives, e.g. higher, and highest, are not covered.

6. The findings

6.1 All have been used more or less in literal sense.

(1) tall: 24 out of 26 in M, 4 of 5 in H;

(2) Majority ranging between 10 – 50 %;

(3) Average: 27.7 for M, 21.3 for H.

6. The findings

The dimension adjectives are rather frequently used, and more frequently used in non-literal sense than literal sense, in both academic speaking and writing

Literal uses of tall vs. high regardingTsui (2001)

In this study: tall – 92% in M and 80% in H high – 17% in M and 3% in H

- Supporting Tsui (2001)

• In the situation when both are used in literal sense, authors or speakers tended to use high more frequently than tall.

high tall

MICASE 112 24

Hyland 33 4

6. The findings

6.2 deep, high, long, wide

positive in meaning, indicating “greatness” in value

thus more compatible in investigation

• The four dimension adjectives are used in non-literal sense 52% less frequently in speaking than in writing

(see Table 1)

Reason: to be explored

Incompatibility with Swales and Burke (2003):

Evaluative adjectives overall are 30% more frequent in the spoken data.

6. The findings

6.3 Non-literal uses of the four adjectives: their semantic features

(lexicographic implication)

(1) All describing human understanding, learning or exploration of the nature of something.

most frequent co-occurrence (collocation) – knowledge

• deep rationale, deep understanding, deep sense, a deep study, deep instinct;

• high learning, high awareness, a high estimate, high trust;

• wide thinking, wide vocabulary, wide sense, wide perspectives

(2) deep, high and wide are also common in describing the range and influence of human activities or natural phenomena.

e.g. deep scrutiny, deep encumbrance, deep impact, deep change, deep penetration, deep role, deep price reduction; high relation, high temperature, high association, high isolation, high responsiveness; wide search, wide expanses, wide involvement, wide assortment, wide circulation.

• More implications to be found …

Thank you!

Comments and suggestions are welcome.