Tag: (E) tycka

(2004) English, Swedish – ‘Think’

Goddard, Cliff, & Karlsson, Susanna (2004). Re-thinking THINK: Contrastive semantics of Swedish and English. In Christo Moskovsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. PDF (open access)

A more recent publication building on this one is:

Goddard, Cliff, & Karlsson, Susanna (2008). Re-thinking THINK in contrastive perspective: Swedish vs. English. In Cliff Goddard (Ed.), Cross-linguistic semantics (pp. 225-240). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/slcs.102.14god

The Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) framework originated by Anna Wierzbicka has long postulated THINK as a semantic prime, and a large body of cross-linguistic research demonstrates that lexical exponents of THINK can be identified in a diversity of languages. This result is challenged, however, by the apparent existence in Swedish and other Scandinavian languages of several basic-level “verbs of thinking”. In this study it is argued that the primary senses of Swedish tänka and English think are in fact semantically identical, and correspond to the semantic prime THINK as proposed in NSM theory. Semantic explications are proposed and justified for Swedish tro and tycka, and for the use of I think in English as an epistemic formula. In the process previous NSM assumptions about the semantic prime THINK are shown to have been incorrectly influenced by language-specific properties of English think. Likewise, the widely held Vendlerian view of the relation between thinking about and thinking that is challenged.

Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

Tagged as: , , ,

(2007) English, Korean, Malay, Swedish – Mental states

Goddard, Cliff (2007). A culture-neutral metalanguage for mental state concepts. In Andrea C. Schalley, & Drew Khlentzos (Eds.), Mental states: Vol. 2. Language and cognitive structure (pp. 11-35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.93.04god

Abstract:

In contemporary cognitive science, mental state concepts from diverse cultures are typically described via English-specific words for emotions, cognitive processes, and the like. This is terminological ethnocentrism, which produces inaccurate representations of indigenous meanings. The problem can be overcome by employing a metalanguage of conceptual analysis based on simple meanings such as KNOW, THINK, WANT and FEEL. Cross-linguistic semantic research suggests that these and other semantic primes are shared across all languages and cultures. After summarizing this research, the chapter shows how complex mental state concepts from English, Malay, Swedish, and Korean can be revealingly analysed into terms that are simple, clear and transposable across languages.

Rating:


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

Tagged as: , , , , , , , , , ,

(2008) English, Swedish – ‘Think’

Goddard, Cliff, & Karlsson, Susanna (2008). Re-thinking THINK in contrastive perspective: Swedish vs. English. In Cliff Goddard (Ed.), Cross-linguistic semantics (pp. 225-240). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/slcs.102.14god

This chapter builds on:

Goddard, Cliff, & Karlsson, Susanna (2004). Re-thinking THINK: Contrastive semantics of Swedish and English. In Christo Moskovsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2003.html

Swedish and English differ in interesting ways in relation to how they express the semantic prime THINK and related concepts. At first, it is not even obvious that there is a good Swedish exponent of THINK, because many uses of English think correspond not with Swedish tänka ‘think’, but with either tro (roughly) ‘be of the opinion that’ or tycka (very roughly) ‘feel that’. It is shown that, in fact, English think and Swedish tänka are precise semantic equivalents in canonical NSM contexts, and that tro and tycka, termed “epistemic verbs”, can be explicated in terms of the semantic prime THINK (TÄNKA) and other elements. Similarly, English think has certain complex, i.e. non-primitive uses, namely the “opinion” frame (e.g. She thinks that – –) and the conversational formula I think, and these English-specific constructions can be explicated. All the explications are presented in parallel English and Swedish versions. The contrastive exercise makes it clear that in universal grammar THINK can take a propositional complement (i.e. ‘think that – –’) only when it depicts an “occurrent thought” anchored to a particular time.


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

Tagged as: , , , , , , , , ,