Tag: (E) Sir

(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

(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