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
Wierzbicka, Anna (1988). The semantics and lexicography of ‘natural kinds’. In Karl Hyldgaard-Jensen, & Arne Zettersten (Eds.), Symposium on Lexicography III (pp. 155-182). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Abstract:
The views advanced in the present paper can be summarized as follows:
- The names of animals (and of other ‘natural kinds’) can, and should, be defined.
- In defining such words (as any other words), scientific knowledge should be distinguished from meaning; the place for scientific knowledge is in an encyclopedia, the place for meaning is in a dictionary.
- In defining words for animals, the lexicographer should aim at capturing the ‘folk concept’. This means that the cultural stereotypes are just as important for a good definition as ‘objective’ information concerning the appearance or behaviour of the animal in question.
- Definitions should be couched in simple and generally understandable terms. The defining vocabulary should be very restricted and should be standardized; it should also be maximally culture-free and based, as far as possible, on lexical universals.
Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners
Tagged as: (E) cat, (E) tiger
