Tag: (E) Father

(1989) Address forms and social cognition


Wierzbicka, Anna (1989). Prototypes in semantics and pragmatics: Explicating attitudinal meanings in terms of prototypes. Linguistics, 27(4), 731-769.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1989.27.4.731

Abstract:

This paper shows how pragmatic meanings encoded in different forms of address (such as titles, ‘polite’ pronouns, and personal names, including their expressive derivates) can be portrayed in a rigorous and illuminating way in NSM, and that such explications allow us to make the similarities and the differences between different pragmatic categories clear and explicit – both within a language and across language and culture boundaries.

It is argued that abstract features such as ‘solidarity’, ‘familiarity’, ‘(in)formality’, ‘distance’, ‘intimacy’, and so on do not provide adequate tools for the description and comparison of pragmatic meanings, because they are not self-explanatory and because they do not have any constant, language-independent value. (For example, the ‘distance’ implied by the English title Mr. is different from that implied by the French title Monsieur; and the ‘familiarity’ implied by Russian forms such as Misa or Vanja is quite different from that implied by English forms such as Mike or John.)

It is shown that many pragmatic meanings have a prototypical semantic structure: they present emotions and attitudes in terms of certain prototypical human relationships, rather than in terms of fully specified mental states and social relations. In particular, social and existential categories, such as children, women, and men, or people one knows well and people one does not know, provide important signposts in the universe of human relations encoded in language. The exact role such prototypes play in different pragmatic categories can be shown in a precise and illuminating way in verbal explications constructed in the proposed metalanguage.

Translations:

Into Polish:

Chapter 2 (pp. 49-81) of Wierzbicka, Anna (1999), Język – umysł – kultura [Language, mind, culture]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

More information:

More recent publications building on this one are:

Chapters 7 and 8 (pp. 225-307, 309-325) of Wierzbicka, Anna (1992), Semantics, culture, and cognition: Universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rating:


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

(1999) Religion, religious understanding


Wierzbicka, Anna (1999). What did Jesus mean? The Lord’s Prayer translated into universal human concepts. In Ralph Bisschops, & James Francis (Eds.), Metaphor, canon and community: Jewish, Christian and Islamic approaches (pp. 180-216). Canterbury: Peter Lang.

Abstract:

The aim of this paper is not to suggest that Bible translators around the globe should henceforth start translating the Lord’s Prayer into universal concepts, avoiding culture-specific images and metaphorical terms such as father, kingdom, or bread. Images and terms of this kind are part and parcel of Jesus’ teaching, and some equivalents for them must be forged in any language into which the Gospels are translated.

The intended meaning of these images and terms, however, can be further elucidated in a language so simple that even a child can understand it, and based on concepts that are universally available. It is also important to recognize that behind the use of imagery and metaphor lie very specific messages – messages that can be reconstructed in a largely non-metaphorical language, and in any case without any metaphors that are not universal.

More information:

An earlier version of this chapter was published in 1995 and reissued in 2011 (with different pagination) in the LAUD Working Papers, Series A, General and Theoretical Papers, 360.

Rating:


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

(2016) Semantic molecules – Kinship


Wierzbicka, Anna (2016). Back to ‘mother’ and ‘father’: Overcoming the eurocentrism of kinship studies through eight lexical universals. Current Anthropology, 57(4), 408-429. DOI: 10.1086/687360

This paper addresses one of the most controversial issues in cultural anthropology: the conceptual foundations of kinship and the apparent inevitability of ethnocentrism in kinship studies. The field of kinship studies has been in turmoil over the past few decades, repeatedly pronounced dead and then again rising from the ashes and being declared central to human affairs. As this paper argues, the conceptual confusion surrounding kinship is to a large extent due to the lack of a clear and rigorous methodology for discovering how speakers of the world’s different languages actually navigate their kinship systems.

Building on the author’s earlier work on kinship but taking the analysis much further, this paper seeks to demonstrate that such a methodology can be found in Natural Semantic Metalanguage theory (developed by the author and colleagues), which relies on 65 universal semantic primes and on a small number of universal “semantic molecules” including ‘mother’ and ‘father’. The paper offers a new model for the interpretation of kinship terminologies and opens new perspectives for the investigation of kinship systems across languages and cultures.

Comments by a number of scholars, including Felix Ameka, follow the paper.

See also:

Kotorova, Elizaveta (2018). Analysis of kinship terms using Natural Semantic Metalanguage: Anna Wierzbicka’s approach. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 22(3), 701-710.


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

(2015) Semantic molecules – Kinship


Wierzbicka, Anna (2015). New perspectives on kinship: Overcoming the Eurocentrism and scientism of kinship studies through lexical universals. In Nancy Bonvillain (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of linguistic anthropology (pp. 62-79). New York: Routledge.

Given a measure of mental discipline, effort and experience, unfamiliar concepts embodied in kinship terminologies can be explained to outsiders through ordinary language. To grasp them, one does not require a tutorial in kinship studies or in arcane formalisms of any kind. One does need, however, an explanation. If this explanation is free of any technical terminology, if it is couched in words that one can understand, and if one is prepared to make an effort to get out of one’s accustomed ways of thinking, then with the help of such an explanation, authentic understanding can be reached.

See also:

Kotorova, Elizaveta (2018). Analysis of kinship terms using Natural Semantic Metalanguage: Anna Wierzbicka’s approach. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 22(3), 701-710.

Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners