Tag: (E) kiss

(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 primitivesis 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.

(1995) Nonverbal communication


Wierzbicka, Anna (1995). Kisses, handshakes, bows: The semantics of nonverbal communication. Semiotica, 103(3/4), 207-252. DOI: 10.1515/semi.1995.103.3-4.207

Gestures, and other forms of meaningful bodily behaviour, differ from culture to culture: the Japanese bow, Anglos shake hands, Russians kiss and embrace, the Tikopia press noses, and so on. However, although in different societies different types of bodily behaviour are favoured, the meaning expressed by at least some of them may be the same everywhere. In fact, it is only when we assume sameness of meaning that we can explain why certain universally interpretable gestures are favoured or avoided in some societies but not others (for example, why Anglos avoid, and the Japanese favour, bowing).

Of course, not all forms of bodily behaviour are universal or universally interpretable. Some are based on local conventions, and although these too are more likely to be partly iconic or indexical in nature than to be totally arbitrary, they may nonetheless be totally incomprehensible to outsiders. But many gestures, postures, facial expressions, and so on can be assigned ‘universal meanings’; and this applies even to those forms of behaviour that are not universally attested.

The same level of extended body parts (whether noses or hands) appears to suggest sameness, and, by implication, equality of the two people. The contact of the corresponding body parts (nose-to-nose, hand-to-hand, mouth-to-mouth) appears to suggest expected, assumed, or desired sameness of feelings. Voluntary bodily contact (if it is not of the kind that would cause the addressee to feel ‘something bad’, in particular pain) implies ‘good feelings toward the addressee’. And so on.

Clearly, much further research is needed before the exact meaning of gestures, postures, and facial expressions can be stated with certainty and precision; and before the universal aspects of nonverbal communication can be identified and distinguished from those that are culture-specific. It is important to recognize, however, that, universal or not, the meanings of gestures, postures, and facial expressions can be described in a rigorous and yet illuminating manner; and that they can be described in the same framework as arbitrary, ‘local’ gestures (such as, for example, clapping), and indeed, as vocal symbols (that is, speech). Smiles, kisses, interjections, and articulated utterances carry messages of the same kind. To understand human communicative behaviour, we need an integrated description of verbal and nonverbal communication. The ‘Natural Semantic Metalanguage’ based on universal semantic primitives provides a tool with the help of which such an integration can be achieved.


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners