Wierzbicka, Anna (1984). Cups and mugs: Lexicography and conceptual analysis. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 4(2), 205-255.
DOI: 10.1080/07268608408599326
A more recent publication building on this one is chapter 1 (pp. 10-103) of:
Wierzbicka, Anna (1985). Lexicography and conceptual analysis. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
Abstract:
In contrast to most other recent [1984] writings on the subject, this paper tries to demonstrate not only that it is possible to say what ordinary words mean, but also that both the process and the results of establishing these meanings can be exciting and illuminating. It tries to do this not by arguing theoretically that it is possible to define everyday words, but by actually defining them in practice. The focus is on names of simple artefacts, and in particular on the words cup and mug, which have acquired a special notoriety in the literature.
Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners
Tagged as: (E) blue, (E) cups, (E) devils, (E) handle, (E) mugs, (E) niebieski, (E) rather, (E) red
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: (E) animal, (E) apple, (E) apricot, (E) ask, (E) banana, (E) barrel, (E) bicycle, (E) bird, (E) blue, (E) bottle, (E) bucket, (E) cabbage, (E) car, (E) carafe, (E) cardigan, (E) carrot, (E) cat, (E) cauliflower, (E) cherry, (E) cow, (E) cucumber, (E) cup, (E) devil, (E) dog, (E) dress, (E) elephant, (E) fish, (E) flower, (E) fox, (E) fruit, (E) grape, (E) handle, (E) horse, (E) jacket, (E) jar, (E) jug, (E) jumper, (E) lemon, (E) lettuce, (E) lid, (E) lie, (E) lion, (E) mouse, (E) mug, (E) niebieski, (E) onion, (E) orange, (E) order, (E) peach, (E) pear, (E) pineapple, (E) plum, (E) potato, (E) pumpkin, (E) radish, (E) red, (E) saucer, (E) skirt, (E) spout, (E) squirrel, (E) strawberry, (E) tiger, (E) tomato, (E) tree, (E) trousers, (E) vegetables, (E) wolf