Wierzbicka, Anna (1992). Back to definitions: Cognition, semantics, and lexicography. Lexicographica, 8, 146-174.
DOI: 10.1515/9783110244120.146
A more recent publication building on this one is chapter 8 (pp. 237-257) of:
Wierzbicka, Anna (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Abstract:
Different words mean different things; they make different contributions to the communicative acts humans engage in. The contributions made by different words can be compared if we have some standard of measure for describing their communicative potential (i.e., their meaning). As pointed out by Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, and others, such a common measure can be found in a set of words regarded as conceptual primes. We can single out in any language a group of words in terms of which the meaning (that is, the communicative potential) of all other words in that language can be described and compared. On this view of language, semantic description makes sense and will indeed be illuminating if it is anchored in a set of conceptual primes linked with lexical indefinables, that is, words (or morphemes, or expressions) whose meaning is relatively clear and intelligible, and in terms of which all the other words in the lexicon can be characterized revealingly and accurately.
This paper argues that the distinction between definable and indefinable concepts (and words) must be the cornerstone of any fruitful and linguistically relevant theory of definitions. It shows that meanings can be rigorously described and compared if they are recognized for what they are: unique and culture-specific configurations of universal semantic primitives.
Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners
