Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2214-3157
  • E-ISSN: 2214-3165
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The paper explores the meaning and use of in English. The study is based on corpus data from Cobuild Wordbanks Online and investigates the polysemy and the spheres of application of the concept. Through corpus analysis methodology, we investigate the most common collocations and the pragmatic and contextual uses of the term. Based on this analysis, our study proposes semantic explications of in universal human concepts within the theoretical framework of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM). We also analyze the most common collocations with the word and classify them into several meaning-based categories. A comparison between and reveals that they are not identical in their distribution, which suggests different cognitive salience of the concepts. We also note the special role of ‘people’ and ‘nature’ in conceptualization and use of and that of ‘human actions’ in .


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adorno, T. W.
    ([1970] 2013) Aesthetic Theory. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anonymous
    Anonymous (2007) Ugly. The Ecologist37(8), 42–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Apresjan, J.
    (1992) Lexical Semantics: user’s guide to contemporary Russian vocabulary. [Translation ofApresjan, J. (1974) Leksičeskaja semantika: sinonimičeskie sredstva jazyka.]. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cobuild Wordbanks Online [CWO]
  5. Cunningham, M., Roberts, A., Barbee, A., Druen, P. & Wu, C-H.
    (1995) Their Ideas of Beauty Are, on the Whole, the Same as Ours. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology68(2), 261–279. 10.1037/0022‑3514.68.2.261
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.261 [Google Scholar]
  6. D’Andrade, R.
    (1987) A folk model of the mind. InHolland, D. & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural Models in Language and Thought (pp.112–148). New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511607660.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607660.006 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dutton, D.
    (2009) The Art Instinct. Beauty, Pleasure and Human Evolution. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Eco, U.
    (2004) History of Beauty. New York: Rizzoli.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (2007) On Ugliness. London: Harvill Secker.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fenko, A., Otten, J. & H. Schifferstein
    (2010) Describing product experience in different languages: The role of sensory modalities. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3314–3327. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fraenkel, T. & Y. Schul
    (2008) The meaning of negated adjectives. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(4), 517–540. 10.1515/IPRG.2008.025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2008.025 [Google Scholar]
  12. Geeraerts, D.
    (1993) Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(3), 223–272. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.223
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.223 [Google Scholar]
  13. (1994) Polysemy. InAsher, R. (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp.3227–3228). Oxford: Pergamon.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gladkova, A.
    (2020a) The semantics of verbs of visual aesthetic appreciation in Russian. InBromhead, H. and Z. Ye (Eds), Meaning, Life and Culture: In Conversation with Anna Wierzbicka. ANU Press: Canberra.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2020b) When Value Words Cross Cultural Borders: English Tolerant vs. Russian Tolerantnyj. InSadow, L. (Eds.), Studies in Ethnopragmatics, Cultural Semantics and Intercultural Communication (pp.73–93). Singapore: Springer Nature. 10.1007/978‑981‑32‑9979‑5_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9979-5_5 [Google Scholar]
  16. (this issue). “What is beauty?” Cultural semantics of the Russian folk aesthetics.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gladkova, A. & J. Romero-Trillo
    (2014) Ain’t it beautiful? The conceptualization of beauty from an ethnopragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 140–159. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gladkova, A. & Romero-Trillo, J.
    (this issue). The linguistic conceptualization in folk aesthetics.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gladkova, A., Vanhatalo, U. & C. Goddard
    (2016) The semantics of interjections: An experimental study with Natural Semantic Metalanguage. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 841–865. 10.1017/S0142716415000260
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716415000260 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goddard, C.
    (2000) Polysemy: a problem of definition. InRavin, Y. & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches (pp.129–151). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Goddard, Cliff
    (2014) On “Disgust”. InBaider, Fabienne & Georgeta Cislaru (eds.), Linguistic Approaches to Emotions in Context, 73–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.241.06god
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.241.06god [Google Scholar]
  22. Goddard, C.
    (2018) Ten Lectures on Natural Semantic Metalanguage: Exploring language, thought and culture using simple translatable words. Amsterdam: Brill. 10.1163/9789004357723
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004357723 [Google Scholar]
  23. Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A.
    (2014) Words and Meanings: Lexical Semantics across Domains, Languages & Cultures. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Goddard, C. & A. Wierzbicka
    (Eds.) (2002) Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and Empirical Findings, 2vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Guyer, P.
    (2005) Values of Beauty: Historical Essays in Aesthetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511840876
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840876 [Google Scholar]
  26. Henderson, G.
    (2015) Ugliness: A Cultural History. London: Reaktion Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Herrmann, D., Chaffin, R., Contin, G., Peters, D. & P. Robbins
    (1979) Comprehension of antonymy and the generality of categorization models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 585–597.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Jones, S., Murphy, L., Paradis, C. & C. Willners
    (2012) Antonyms in English: Construals, constructions and canonicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139032384
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139032384 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kolnai, A.
    (2004) On Disgust. Chicago: Open Court.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Leech, G. N.
    (2014) The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Levisen, C.
    (this issue). Pæn, Flot, Dejlig, and Lækker: A Lexical Anthropology of Danish Folk Aesthetics.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lizardo, O.
    (2012) The conceptual bases of metaphors of dirt and cleanliness in moral and non-moral reasoning. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(2), 367–393. 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0011 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lyons, J.
    (1977) Semantics. Vol.1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Majid, A. & S. Levinson
    (Eds.) (2011) The senses in language and culture [Special Issue]. Senses and Society, 6(1). 10.2752/174589311X12893982233551
    https://doi.org/10.2752/174589311X12893982233551 [Google Scholar]
  35. Menninghaus, W.
    (2003) Disgust: The Theory and History of a Strong Sensation. [Translated from German byH. Eiland and J. Golb.] Albany: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mey, J.
    (2014) Horace, Colors, and Pragmatics. InRomero-Trillo, J. (Ed.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics: New empirical and theoretical paradigms (pp.99–121). Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Nussbaum, M.
    (2006) Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Ozyumenko, V. & Larina, T.
    (2018) Understanding Social Values and Attitudes through Cultural Semantics: tolerance vs. tolerantnost’. INTCESS18 Proceedings. 5th International conference on education and social sciences, 5–7February 2018, Istanbul, Turkey, 589–595.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Paradis, C., Willners, C., & Jones, S.
    (2009) Good and bad opposites: Using textual and experimental techniques to measure antonym canonicity. The Mental Lexicon, 4(3), 380–429. 10.1075/ml.4.3.04par
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.4.3.04par [Google Scholar]
  40. Pop, A. & Mechtild, W.
    (2014) Ugliness: The Non-beautiful in Art and Theory. London: I.B. Tauris Publishers. 10.5040/9780755603565
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9780755603565 [Google Scholar]
  41. Romero-Trillo, J.
    (Ed.) (2008) Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics: A Mutualistic Entente. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199024 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2017) Editorial. Corpus Pragmatics1, 1–2. 10.1007/s41701‑017‑0005‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-017-0005-z [Google Scholar]
  43. Romero-Trillo, J. & Espigares, T.
    (2012) The cognitive representation of natural landscapes in language. Pragmatics and Cognition, 20, 168–185. 10.1075/pc.20.1.07rom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.20.1.07rom [Google Scholar]
  44. (2015) Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting the selection of landscapes in the Corpus of Language and Nature. Journal of Research Design and Statistics in Linguistics and Communication Science, 2, 157–159. 10.1558/jrds.v2i2.28952
    https://doi.org/10.1558/jrds.v2i2.28952 [Google Scholar]
  45. Romero-Trillo, J. & Fuentes, V.
    (2017) What is pretty cannot be beautiful? A corpus-based analysis of the aesthetics of nature. InBlochowiak, J., Grisot, C., Durrleman, S., & C. Laenzlinger (Eds.), Formal models in the study of language (pp.415–430). Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑48832‑5_22
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48832-5_22 [Google Scholar]
  46. Romero-Trillo, J. & Maguire, L.
    (2011) Adaptive Context, the fourth element of meaning. International Review of Pragmatics, 3, 228–241. 10.1163/187731011X597523
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187731011X597523 [Google Scholar]
  47. Rosenkranz, K.
    (1853) Aesthetik des Hässlichen. Königsberg.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Sapir, E.
    (1944) On grading: a study in semantics. Philosophy of Science2, 93–116. 10.1086/286828
    https://doi.org/10.1086/286828 [Google Scholar]
  49. Sartwell, C.
    (2004) Six Names of Beauty. New York and London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Sorokowski, P., Kościński, K., & Sorokowska, A.
    (2013) Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder but Ugliness Culturally Universal? Facial preferences of Polish and Yali (Papua) People. Evolutionary Psychology, 11(4), 907–925. 10.1177/147470491301100414
    https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491301100414 [Google Scholar]
  51. Taboada, M., Trnavac, R., & Goddard, C.
    (2017) On Being Negative. Corpus Pragmatics, 1, 57–76. 10.1007/s41701‑017‑0006‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-017-0006-y [Google Scholar]
  52. Tayebi, T.
    (this issue). Conceptualisations of ugly and beautiful: An analysis of im/politeness metapragmatic markers in Persian.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Trier, J.
    (1931) Der Deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes. Heidelberg: Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Zangwill, N.
    (2001) The Metaphysics of Beauty. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 10.7591/9781501711350
    https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501711350 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error