1. A Corpora Study of English Dimension Adjectives In Academic Speaking and Writing Chen Shengwei International College Zhejiang Forestry University 陈声威 浙江林学院国际教育学院

2. 1. Adjectives Biber et al. (1999): central adjectives peripheral adjectives color, size, dimension, time, etc - descriptive, characterizing the referent of a nominal expression

3. 2. What dimension adjectives in focus? broad deep high long low tall wide

4. 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.

5. 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?

6. Defining literal uses of dimension adjectives: where they define the spatial extents of concrete and visible objects

7. 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

8. 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

9. 5. Data collected

10. Table 1: Percentage of literal use of the dimension adjectives (base form only) MICASEHyland TotalLiteral%TotalLiteral% 1tall262492tall5480 2deep512447deep601423 3high66211217broad771317 4wide621016wide1622515 5broad60915long439419 6low286176high1048333 7long69950.7low73260.8 By “base form”, here it means the comparatives of the adjectives, e.g. higher, and highest, are not covered.

11. 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.

12. 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

13. Literal uses of tall vs. high regarding Tsui (2001) In this study: tall – 92% in M and 80% in H high – 17% in M and 3% in H - Supporting Tsui (2001)

14. In the situation when both are used in literal sense, authors or speakers tended to use high more frequently than tall. hightall MICASE11224 Hyland334

15. 6. The findings 6.2 deep, high, long, wide positive in meaning, indicating “greatness” in value thus more compatible in investigation

16. 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

17. Incompatibility with Swales and Burke (2003): Evaluative adjectives overall are 30% more frequent in the spoken data.

18. 6. The findings 6.3 Non-literal uses of the four adjectives: their semantic features (lexicographic implication)

19. (1) All describing human understanding, learning or exploration of the nature of something. most frequent co-occurrence (collocation) – knowledge

20. 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

21. (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.

22. More implications to be found …

23. Thank you! Comments and suggestions are welcome.