Tag: (E) animal

(1985) Lexicography and conceptual analysis [BOOK]

Wierzbicka, Anna (1985). Lexicography and conceptual analysis. Ann Arbor: Karoma.

Abstract:

This book is about the meaning of words – simple everyday words, such as bottle or jar; trousers or skirt; tree, flower or bird. Stating the meaning of such words is infinitely more difficult and challenging than might be expected. However, the book proves that everyday words are definable; it does so not just by reasoning (which can always turn out to be fallacious) but by way of demonstration ad oculos. The definitions provide evidence towards resolving the much debated issue of dictionaries vs. encyclopedias.

At the same time, the book is an attempt to narrow the gap between lexicography and semantics. The latter has an obligation to provide theoretical foundations for the former. But it will never be able to do so if it doesn’t come down from its speculative heights and engage in the humble task of actually trying to define something. Serious analysis of concrete lexical data requires a well thought-out theoretical framework; but a theoretical framework cannot be well thought-out if it is not grounded on a solid empirical basis. What is needed is a union of the two, lexicography and semantics, and this is the goal to which the present book aspires. Both the definitions and the discussion are free of any technical items, and can be followed by the intelligent layperson.


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

Reviews:

Peeters, Bert (1989). Journal of English Linguistics, 22(2), 249-250.
DOI: 10.1177/007542428902200209

Tagged as: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(2009) Componential analysis

Goddard, Cliff (2009). Componential analysis. In Gunter Senft, Jan-Ola Östman, & Jef Verschueren (Eds.), Culture and language use (pp. 58-67). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/hoph.2.06god

Previously issued as:

Goddard, Cliff (2005). Componential analysis. In Jan-Ola Östman, & Jef Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics 2003-2005 (12 pages). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/hop.m.comm1

The 2005 text is a heavily revised version of:

Goddard, Cliff (1995). Componential analysis. In Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, & Jan Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics: Manual (pp. 147-153). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Abstract:

Componential analysis (CA) in the broadest sense, also known as ‘lexical decomposition’, is any attempt to formalize and standardize procedures for the analysis of word meanings. CA often aspires to represent the cognitive or psychological reality of the speakers, and to shed light on correlations between language and culture.

The idea that word meanings may be broken down into combinations of simpler components is an ancient one, supported by a range of facts. These include the efficacy of paraphrase, the intuitively felt relationships (such as antonymy, hyponymy, partonymy) between word meanings, the fact that sentences may be tautologous, contradictory or odd due to the interplay of the meanings of their constituent words. The assumption of decomposability underlies the definitional side of traditional lexicography. For expository purposes, methods in CA may be described under four headings: the structuralist tradition, linguistic anthropology, generative and typological studies, and paraphrase semantics (1995) / Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) (2005/2009). Some other trends and problems are briefly discussed.

Explications included in the 1995 version relate to the emotion term indignant, the speech act verb suggest, the interjection Wow! and the kinship term mother.

Explications included in the 2005 and 2009 versions relate to the emotion term sad, the social category friend, the performative verbs threaten and warn, and the semantic molecule animal.


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

Tagged as: , , , , , , , ,