Wierzbicka, Anna (1967). On the semantics of the verbal aspect in Polish. In Robert Abernathy et al. (Eds.), To honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday. Vol. 3 (pp. 2231-2249). The Hague: Mouton.
(1971) English – Comparative
Wierzbicka, Anna (1971). The deep or semantic structure of the comparative. Linguistische Berichte, 16, 39-45.
(1971) English – Space notions
Wierzbicka, Anna (1971). The semantic structure of space notions. In Arnim von Stechow (Ed.), Beiträge zur generativen Grammatik (pp. 283-291). Braunschweig: Vieweg.
(1972) Semantic primitives [BOOK]
Wierzbicka, Anna (1972). Semantic primitives. Frankfurt: Athenäum.
No abstract available.
(1973) Emotions
Wierzbicka, Anna (1973). The semantic structure of words for emotions. In Roman Jakobson, C. H. van Schooneveld, & Dean S. Worth (Eds.), Slavic poetics: Essays in honor of Kiril Taranovsky (pp. 499-505). The Hague: Mouton.
(1973) Problems of expression
Wierzbicka, Anna (1973). *Problems of expression: Their place in the semantic theory. In Josette Rey-Debove (Ed.), Recherches sur les systèmes signifiants (pp.146-164). The Hague: Mouton.
(1973) Time, space
Wierzbicka, Anna (1973). *In search of a semantic model of time and space. In Ferenc Kiefer, & Nicolas Ruwet (Eds.), Generative grammar in Europe (pp. 616-628).
(1974) English – Direct, indirect, free indirect discourse
Wierzbicka, Anna (1974). The semantics of direct and indirect discourse. Papers in Linguistics, 7, 267-307. DOI: 10.1080/08351817409370375
The claim that every utterance contains in its deep structure the component “I say to you” has been referred to as the performative hypothesis. I do not accept that every utterance contains the component “I say to you”, but I do adhere to a weaker version, i.e. I believe that every utterance contains in its deep structure the component “I say”. In this paper, I argue that, in light of the semantics of direct, indirect, and so-called free indirect discourse, it looks stronger and more resilient than ever. Direct discourse does underlie indirect discourse (a view questioned by some), but the relation between the two is not as straightforward as it appears: direct discourse is “show” as well as speech, indirect discourse is speech only. Moreover, it is an essential aspect of the meaning of both direct and indirect discourse (as well as of all the transitional forms between the two) that they involve an act of imagination. I suggest that “imagine” is an indispensable element in human thinking as well as in semantic analysis, in other words, it is a semantic primitive (alongside with “say”, “you”, “I” and ten others). An investigation of the semantics of different forms of reported speech seems to corroborate this hypothesis.
Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners
(1975) Action sentences
Wierzbicka, Anna (1975). Why “kill” does not mean “cause to die”: The semantics of action sentences. Foundations of Language, 13(4), 491-528. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25000935
No abstract available.
(1975) Kinship
Wierzbicka, Anna (1975). *For the umpteenth time – kinship. Language Sciences, 34, 1-4.
(1975) Topic, focus, deep structure
Wierzbicka, Anna (1975). Topic, focus, and deep structure. Papers in Linguistics, 8(1/2), 59-87. DOI: 10.1080/08351817509370390
The interpretation of the phenomena associated with the terms “topic” and “focus” which will be proposed here forms a part of a general semantic theory, the main assumption of which is that the semantic representation of an utterance should be its “explication”, i.e. its paraphrase in natural
language which would employ only indefinable expressions. It is claimed that the indefinable expressions be found in any natural language correspond to a universal set of elementary semantic units.
(1976) Book review (Leon Zawadowski, Inductive semantics and syntax)
Wierzbicka, Anna (1976). *Review of Leon Zawadowski, Inductive semantics and syntax: Foundations of empirical linguistics. International Review of Slavic Linguistics, 1(2/3), 385-395.
(1976) English
Wierzbicka, Anna (1976). Mind and body. In James McCawley (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 7. Notes from the linguistic underground (pp. 129-157). New York: Academic Press.
Abstract:
The underlying idea of this paper, the first draft of which was written five years before the publication of the author’s Semantic primitives, is that every natural language contains a subdomain that can be used as the language of semantic representation for the natural language in question. This subdomain reflects in an isomorphic way the universal and non-arbitrary lingua mentalis – the language of human thought. Sets of indefinable expressions, found in every natural language, correspond to universal ‘semantic primitives’ (1970s terminology for what is now known as semantic primes) that can be thought of as lexical items of the mental language, or ‘atoms of thought’. Proper semantic representation consists in paraphrase into these indefinable expressions drawn from natural language; no artificial symbols, features, markers, abstract elements, labels, or indices are acceptable.
(1976) NSM primes – I, YOU
Wierzbicka, Anna (1976). In defense of YOU and ME. In Wolfgang Girke, & Helmut Jachnow (Eds.), Theoretische Linguistik in Osteuropa: Originalbeiträge und Erstübersetzungen (pp. 1-21). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
In 1976 terminology, I and YOU are “semantic primitives”; in more recent times, they have been referred to as semantic primes. They cannot be defined away in terms of other primes and they cannot be dispensed with in favour of some arbitrary indices, such as those used in the artificial languages of symbolic logic. Their status as semantic primes can be confirmed on the basis of empirical semantic studies.
(1976) Particles
Wierzbicka, Anna (1976). Particles and linguistic relativity. International Review of Slavic Linguistics, 1(2/3), 327-367.
(1976) Rejoinder to Sullivan
Wierzbicka, Anna (1976). *A rejoinder to Sullivan. Language Sciences, 40, 24-26.
(1977) Mental language and semantic primitives
Wierzbicka, Anna (1977). *Mental language and semantic primitives. Communication and Cognition, 10(3/4), 155-179.
Reviews the history of the concept of a universal mental language that is distinct from particular native languages. 13 fundamental concepts of mental languages are proposed, and examples of the use of these elements are described. The importance of viewing linguistics as a science of the mind is stressed.
(1977) Speech acts (ignorative)
Wierzbicka, Anna (1977). *The ignorative: The semantics of speech acts. International Review of Slavic Linguistics, 2(2/3), 251-313.
(1978) Syntax vs. semantics
Wierzbicka, Anna (1978). *Syntax vs. semantics. Theoretical Linguistics, 5(1), 115-133. DOI: 10.1515/thli.1978.5.1-3.115
(1979) Ethnosyntax
Wierzbicka, Anna (1979). Ethno-syntax and the philosophy of grammar. Studies in Language, 3(3), 313-383.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.3.3.03wie
Abstract:
It is a commonplace to say that every language embodies in its very structure a certain world-view, a certain philosophy. To prove it in a rigorous and verifiable way, however, is quite a different matter. Scholars tend to treat the Humboldtian
(or Whorfian) thesis — despite its compelling intuitive appeal — with suspicion and embarrassment. One suspects that this is precisely because, while being “obviously true”, it is at the same time notoriously difficult to prove.
This paper seeks to explore one way in which insight and rigour might be achieved in this intriguing area. The essence of this approach is signaled by the first word of the title: ethno-syntax. Since the syntactic constructions of a language embody and codify certain language-specific meanings and ways of thinking, the syntax of a language must determine to a considerable extent this language’s cognitive profile. It is true that lexical items also embody language-specific ways of thinking. But the semantic analysis of an entire lexicon is a gigantic and practically unfeasible task; and a cognitive description of a language that confines itself to selected lexical items is usually open to the charge of being arbitrary and therefore inconclusive. In the case of syntactic constructions, on the other hand, there is more hope of surveying the entire
relevant areas. Moreover, syntactic constructions have on the whole a higher frequency of occurrence in speech than most categories of lexical items; they are also more stable, more resistant to change, less dependent on extra-linguistic
factors. For all these reasons it appears that a rigorous syntactic analysis of language-specific syntactic categories should provide an especially valuable source of insight into the common ways of thinking characteristic of a given speech community.
Translated into Polish as chapter 10 of:
Wierzbicka, Anna (1999). Język – umysł – kultura [Language, mind, culture]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
No abstract available.
Rating:
Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners
