Browsing results for French

(2018) Ethnogeographical categories

Bromhead, Helen (2018). Landscape and culture – Cross-linguistic perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/clscc.9

This book is based, in part, on the author’s PhD thesis:

Bromhead, Helen (2013). Mountains, rivers, billabongs: Ethnogeographical categorization in cross-linguistic perspective. PhD thesis, Australian National University.

The relationship between landscape and culture seen through language is an exciting and increasingly explored area. This ground-breaking book contributes to the linguistic examination of both cross-cultural variation and unifying elements in geographical categorization.

The study focuses on the contrastive lexical semantics of certain landscape words in a number of languages. It presents landscape concepts as anchored in a human-centred perspective, based on our cognition, vision, and experience in places. The aim is to show how geographical vocabulary sheds light on the culturally and historically shaped ways people see and think about the land around them. Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) is used throughout, because it allows an analysis of meaning which is both fine-grained and transparent, and culturally sensitive.


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

(2018) French – Mental predicates

Jaworska, Anna (2018). NSM exponents of mental predicates in French: Translation, commentary, and lexical elaboration of THINK. Folio: A Students’ Journal, 4, 29-62. PDF (open access)

This paper is devoted to the NSM exponents of “mental predicates” in French. The aim of the study is to examine how NSM applies to French. The paper focuses on a French translation of 99 canonical sentences (formulated in English) and discusses major difficulties in translating those sentences (in the section “Mental Predicates”) into French.


Research carried out in consultation with or under the supervision of one or more experienced NSM practitioners

(2020) English, French – Laughing with others

Goddard, Cliff, & Kerry Mullan (2020). Explicating verbs for “laughing with other people” in French and English (and why it matters for humor studies). Humor, 33(1), 55-77.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2017-0114

Abstract:

This study undertakes a contrastive lexical-semantic analysis of a set of related verbs in English and French (English to joke and to kid, French rigoler and plaisanter), using the NSM approach to semantic analysis. We show that the semantic and conceptual differences between French and English are greater than commonly assumed. These differences, we argue, have significant implications for humor studies: first, they shed light on different cultural orientations towards “laughter talk” in Anglo and French linguacultures; second, they highlight the danger of conceptual Anglocentrism in relying on English-specific words as a theoretical vocabulary for humor studies.

Rating:


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

(2020) French — Humour

Waters, Sophia. (2020). The lexical semantics of blaguer: French ways of bringing people together through persuasion, deception and laughter. European Journal of Humour Research 8 (4) 31–47

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2020.8.4.Waters

Abstract

This study presents a lexical semantic analysis of the French verb blaguer and related expressions. This verb belongs to a suite of “French humour practices”, and French-English dictionaries translate it as ‘to joke’. However, Anglo-specific terminology such as “joke” does not match the conceptual semantics of blaguer and its related noun blague. Relying on Anglo- specific terms to categorise culture-specific practices perpetuates conceptual and terminological Anglocentrism. This study furthers the call to avoid the dangers of sustaining Anglocentrism in the theoretical vocabulary of humour studies (Goddard & Mullan 2020; Goddard 2018; Wierzbicka 2014a).
Working from the assumption that semantic categories reflect particular ways of speaking, thinking, and behaving, this study’s goal is to capture the insider perspective that French speakers have about the meaning of the verb blaguer and the noun blague. Making local understandings more obvious and accessible to cultural and linguistic outsiders will increase cross-cultural understanding and foster appreciation for the different ways that speakers construct and interpret their world with words (Levisen & Waters 2017).
The analytical tool for this study is the technique of semantic explication couched in the simple cross-translatable and culture-neutral words of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (Goddard & Wierzbicka 2014). Carefully chosen example sentences are drawn from Google searches (google.fr) of authentic language use of the verb blaguer and the noun blague. Comparative reference is made to the verb ‘to joke’ from Australian English to highlight the differences in the conversational humour cultures of French and English speakers (Goddard & Mullan 2020; Béal & Mullan 2013, 2017).

 


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

(2020) Humour

Goddard, Cliff. (2020). De-Anglicising humour studies. European Journal of Humour Research 8(4): 48–58

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2020.8.4.Goddard

 

Abstract:

This Commentary has two main aims. The first is to argue that systematic approaches to “humour” have been hampered and skewed by terminological Anglocentrism, i.e. by reliance on terms and categories which are English-specific, such as ‘amusing’, ‘joking’, ‘serious’, and ‘mock’, and even by the banner term ‘humour’ itself. Though some humour scholars have recognised this problem, I contend that they have under-estimated its severity. Anglocentric terminology not only interferes with effective communication within the field: it affects our research agendas, methodologies, and theoretical framings. Needless to say, humour studies is not alone in facing this predicament, which at its largest can be described as the global Anglicisation of humanities and social science discourse.

While calls to make humour studies more conceptually pluralistic are laudable, they cannot fully succeed while ‘full’ Anglo English remains the dominant scholarly lingua franca. The second aim of this paper is to argue that considerable progress can be made by “de- Anglicising English” from within, using a newly developed approach known as Minimal English. This allows re-thinking and re-framing humour terminology and agendas using a small vocabulary of simple cross-translatable English words, i.e. words which carry with them a minimum of Anglo conceptual baggage. For illustrative purposes, I will discuss how complex terms such as ‘wit, wittiness’ and ‘fantasy/absurd humour’ can be clarified and de- Anglicised using Minimal English.

 


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

(2020) Polish, English, French, German, Russian — Address terms, Religion

Wierzbicka, Anna. (2020). Addressing God in European languages: different meanings, different cultural attitudes. Russian Journal of Linguistics 24 (2). 259—293. DOI: 10.22363/2687-0088- 2020-24-2-259-293

Abstract

All European languages have a word for God, and this word means exactly the same in all of them. However, speakers of different European languages tend to relate to God in different ways. Each group has its own characteristic ways of addressing God, encoded in certain words, phrases and grammatical forms, which both reflect and shape the speakers’ habitual ways of thinking about God and relating to God. Often, they also reflect some other aspects of their cultural memory and historical experience. In this paper I will compare the meanings of the vocative expressions used for addressing God in several European languages, including “Gospodi” in Russian, “O God” in English, “Mon Dieu” in French, “Herr” in German, and “Boże” in Polish. But to compare those meanings, we need a common measure. I believe such a common measure is available in the “NSM” framework, from Natural Semantic Metalanguage (see e.g. Goddard and Wierzbicka, 2014; Wierzbicka 2014a and 2018a; Gladkova and Larina 2018a, b).
The data is taken mainly from well-known works of literature, such as Lev Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina and Boris Pasternak’s poem “V bol’nice” (“In Hospital”) for Russian, Charles Peguy’s Le mystère de la charité de Jeanne d’Arc and its English translation by Julien Green for French and English, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s prison poems and Heinrich Böll’s novel Billard um halbzehn for German. The results have shown that each European language offers its users a range of options for addressing God. Some of these options are shared, others appear to be unique to the language. All are underpinned by broader historical phenomena. The exact nature of all these links remains to be investigated.

Аннотация

Во всех европейских языках есть слово для обозначения Бога, и это слово имеет одинаковое значение. Тем не менее, носители разных европейских языков, как правило, обращаются к Богу по-разному. У каждой группы есть свои характерные способы обращения к Богу, зако- дированные в определенных словах, фразах и грамматических формах, которые отражают и формируют привычные способы мышления о Боге и отношение к Богу. Часто они также от- ражают некоторые другие аспекты культурной памяти и исторического опыта.Статья посвя- щена сопоставлению значений вокативных слов и фраз, используемых для обращения к Богу на нескольких европейских языках, включая «Господи» на русском языке, «O God» на ан- глийском языке, «Mon Dieu» на французском языке, «Herr» на немецком и «Boże» на поль- ском. Для сравнения этих значений необходимо единое измерение. Есть все основания пола- гать, что в качестве такого измерения может быть использован Естественный Семантическмй Метаязык (NSM) (см., например, Goddard and Wierzbicka, 2014; Wierzbicka 2014a и 2018a; Gladkova and Larina 2018a, b и др.). Материал для исследования был взят в основном из из- вестных литературных произведений, таких как роман Льва Толстого «Анна Каренина» и стихотворение Бориса Пастернака «В больнице» для русского языка, «Мистерия о милосер- дии Жанны Д’Арк» Шарля Пеги и ее английский перевод Жюльена Грина для французского и английского языков, тюремные стихи Дитриха Бонхеффера и роман Генриха Белля «Биль- ярд в половине десятого» для немецкого языка. Результаты показали, что каждый европей- ский язык предлагает своим пользователям различные варианты обращения к Богу. Некото- рые из них являются общими, другие представляются уникальными для того или иного языка. Все они обусловлены более широким историческим контекстом, конкретное влияние которого еще предстоит изучить.

 


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

(2021) English, French, Russian – Pedagogical scripts

Peeters, Bert (2021). From Cultural to Pedagogical Scripts: Speaking Out in English, French, and Russian. In Goddard, Cliff (ed.). Minimal Languages in Action. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan pp 171-193

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-64077-4_7

 


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

(2021) French, Italian, Spanish, Romanian, English — Pain, headaches, syntax

Sadow, Lauren, and Peeters, Bert. (2021). “J’ai mal à la tête” and analogous phrases in Romance languages and in English [« J’ai mal à la tête et expressions analogues dans les langues romanes et en anglais »], Cahiers de lexicologie, n° 119, 2021 – 2, Lexique et corps humain, p. 207-233

DOI : 10.48611/isbn.978-2-406-12812-0.p.0207

Written in English

Résumé

L’existence de constructions syntaxiques différentes pour des phrases ayant le un sens similaire n’est pas le fruit du hasard. Nous utiliserons la métalangue sémantique naturelle pour expliquer les différentes constructions des “expressions de céphalées” courantes en français, italien, espagnol, roumain et anglais. Les explications permettront de mieux comprendre comment les locuteurs conceptualisent leurs maux de tête au quotidien, et comment leur choix de syntaxe modifie le sens de l’expression.

Abstract

The existence of different syntactic configurations for phrases with similar meanings is not by chance. In this paper, we will use the natural semantic metalanguage to offer explications for the different syntactic constructions of common “headache phrases” in French, Italian, Spanish, Romanian, English. The explications will allow us to better understand how the speakers of each language conceptualize their day-to-day headaches, and how their choice of syntax changes the expression’s meaning.

 


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners