Asc Page 29 – nsm-approach.net

(1995) German, Polish, Russian – Cultural key words

Wierzbicka, Anna (1995). Lexicon as a key to history, culture, and society: “Homeland” and “fatherland” in German, Polish and Russian. In René Dirven, & Johan Vanparys (Eds.), Current approaches to the lexicon (pp. 103-155). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Abstract:

Since many languages, especially European languages, have words denoting ‘native country’, the concepts embodied in these words may be assumed to transcend language boundaries. In fact, words that appear to match in this way are laden with historical and cultural significance, and often differ from one another in particularly telling ways, offering valuable insight into different national traditions and historical experiences. This general proposition is illustrated here through an analysis and comparison of three cultural key words of modern German and Polish: Heimat, Vaterland, and ojczyzna. A cursory discussion of the Russian word rodina is also included.

In addition to universals, the explications rely on the words country, born, and child. These words (referred to in later work as semantic molecules) can be defined in terms of the universals, but to do so within the explications of such complex cultural concepts as Heimat, Vaterland, ojczyzna, and rodina would be confusing and counterproductive.

Translations:

Into Polish:

Chapter 12 (pp. 450-489) of Wierzbicka, Anna (1999), Język – umysł – kultura [Language, mind, culture]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

More information:

A more recent publication building on this one is:

Chapter 4 (pp. 156-197) of Wierzbicka, Anna (1997), Understanding cultures through their key words: English, Russian, Polish, German, Japanese. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rating:


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

See also: , , ,

(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

See also: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(1995) English (Australia) – Australian culture

Wierzbicka, Anna (1995). *In defence of Australian culture. Quadrant, 39(11), 17-22.

In the current debate on culture many have challenged the notion of culture itself. Eric R. Wolf recently described it as a “perilous idea” and emphasised instead “the heterogeneity and … interconnectedness of cultures”.

(1995) Various languages – Emotions

Wierzbicka, Anna (1995). Everyday conceptions of emotion: A semantic perspective. In James A. Russell, José-Miguel Fernández-Dols, Antony S. R. Manstead, & J. C. Wellenkamp (Eds.), Everyday conceptions of emotion: An introduction to the psychology, anthropology and linguistics of emotion (pp. 17-47). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

The most important controversy in the study of emotions is that between “universalists” like Spiro and “culturalists” like Lutz. This paper argues that both sides in the debate are defending an important aspect of the truth; but that they both err in taking a partial truth for the whole truth, and that this is where their conflict arises. The important truth that Spiro (among many others) is defending is that of the “psychic unity of humankind”. The important truth that Lutz (among many others) is defending is that “universal human nature” must not be identified, unwittingly, with Anglo culture reflected in the English language.

The emotional intensity of the “Spiro-Lutz” controversy stems no doubt from the fact that both sides feel they are defending an important truth. And so they are. But Spiro errs when he thinks that to defend the “universal human nature” he must defend the universality of concepts such as ‘anger’ or ‘sadness’ (or, for that matter, ’emotion’), and Lutz errs when she thinks that to combat ethnocentrism she must question the validity of concepts such as FEEL or THINK as basic conceptual tools in describing and comparing cultures; and also, when she implies that psychology is doomed to remaining, for ever, an “ethnopsychology” since there are no universals in which a genuinely culture-independent psychology could find a foothold.

Any meaningful comparison presupposes the existence of a tertium comparationis. Different cultures reflect and promote different conceptions of ’emotion’ (that is, of those aspects of human life that are defined with reference to the concept FEEL); but all these different conceptions can all be meaningfully compared in terms of human universals encoded in all human languages.


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

See also:

(1995) Semantics of the human face

Wierzbicka, Anna (1995). Emotion and facial expression: A semantic perspective. Culture and Psychology, 1, 227-258. DOI: 10.1177/1354067×9512005

This paper addresses some basic conceptual issues that must be clarified before the real controversies about the nature and universality of emotions and their expression can be clearly stated. To begin with, it argues that interpretative categories such as ‘anger’, ‘fear’, ‘disgust’, ‘sadness’ and ‘enjoyment’ are language-specific and culture-specific, and cannot identify any human universals in the area of emotions (even if such universals did exist). Furthermore, the paper shows how different emotions can be identified in terms of cognitive scenarios associated with them and how cognitive scenarios can be phrased in terms of universal human concepts. It also shows how clearly identifiable “facial components” or configurations of “facial components” (i.e. aspects of facial behaviour) can be linked with cognitive components (and with feelings identifiable through such components). Finally, it puts forward and illustrates a hypothesis about an iconic basis of the “semantics of the human face”.

Throughout the paper, the author tries to demonstrate that the use of conceptual primitives allows us to explore human emotions from a universal, language-independent perspective. Since every language imposes its own classification upon human emotional experience, English words such as anger or sadness are cultural artefacts of the English language, not culture-free analytical tools. On the other hand, conceptual primitives such as GOOD and BAD, or WANT, KNOW, SAY and THINK are not cultural artefacts of the English language but belong to the universal “alphabet of human thoughts” apparently lexicalized in all languages of the world. The author argues that basing our analysis on lexical universals we can free ourselves from the bias of our own language and reach a universal, culture-independent perspective on human cognition in general and on human emotions in particular.


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

See also: ,

(1995) Dictionaries vs. encyclopedias

Wierzbicka, Anna (1995). Dictionaries vs. encyclopaedias: How to draw the line. In Philip W. Davis (Ed.), Alternative linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical modes (pp. 289-315). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

DOI: 10.1075/cilt.102.09wie

A more recent publication building on this one is chapter 11 (pp. 335-350) of:

Wierzbicka, Anna (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Abstract:

If by analysing language we find evidence suggesting that ‘linguistic knowledge’ differs somehow from ‘non-linguistic knowledge’, and that a distinction between the two can be drawn in a non-arbitrary way, this would support the view that the mind itself draws a distinction between a ‘mental dictionary’ and a ‘mental encyclopaedia’. This paper argues that this indeed is the case, and that by examining linguistic evidence we can indeed learn how to draw the line between ‘meaning’ and ‘knowledge’, or between ‘linguistic knowledge’ and ‘encyclopaedic knowledge’.


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

See also: , , , , ,

(1995) German, Russian, Polish – Dictionaries and ideologies

Wierzbicka, Anna (1995). Dictionaries and ideologies: Three examples from Eastern Europe. In Braj B. Kachru, & Henry Kahane (Eds.), Cultures, ideologies and the dictionary: Studies in honor of Ladislav Zgusta (pp. 181-195). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

This paper considers three lexicographic definitions from three Eastern European dictionaries, produced under communist rule. In each case, the word under discussion presents ideological difficulties for the dictionary’s editors — either because its meaning is politically incorrect, i.e. reflects an outlook incompatible with the official communist ideology, or because it is politically sensitive, and can be used as a potent ideological tool in both desirable and undesirable political contexts.

Each of the three definitions concerns a keyword, that is, a word especially important in the life of the society in question and reflecting this society’s experience and values. The three keywords discussed are the German word Vaterland (roughly, ‘fatherland’), the Russian word smirenie (roughly, ‘humility’, ‘resignation’) and the Polish word bezpieka (roughly, ‘state security’).


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

See also: , ,

(1995) Adjectives vs. verbs

Wierzbicka, Anna (1995). *Adjectives vs. verbs: The iconicity of part-of-speech membership. In Marge E. Landsberg (Ed.), Syntactic iconicity and linguistic freezes (pp. 223-245). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110882926.223

(1996) Logical concepts\

Wierzbicka, Anna (1996). The semantics of logical concepts. The Moscow Linguistics Journal, 2, 104-129.

(1996) Japanese – Cultural scripts

Wierzbicka, Anna (1996). Japanese cultural scripts: Cultural psychology and “cultural grammar”. Ethos, 24(3), 527-555.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/eth.1996.24.3.02a00060

Abstract:

To describe a language we need to describe, first of all, its vocabulary and its grammar. The task of describing a culture can be approached in many different ways; one useful and illuminating way of doing so is through linguistics, by describing a society’s ‘key words’ (embodying key cultural concepts) and its ‘cultural grammar’, that is, a set of subconscious rules that shape a people’s ways of thinking, feeling, speaking, and interacting. This paper focuses more specifically on Japanese cultural rules.

Translations:

Into Russian:

Chapter 14 (pp. 653-681) of Вежбицкая, Анна (1999), Семантические универсалии и описание языков [Semantic universals and the description of languages]. Москва [Moscow]: Языки русской культуры [Languages of Russian Culture].

Chapter 3 (pp. 123-158) of Вежбицкая, Анна (2001), Сопоставление культур через посредство лексики и прагматики [Comparison of cultures through vocabulary and pragmatics]. Москва [Moscow]: Языки Славянской Культуры [Languages of Slavic Culture].

Rating:


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

See also: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(1996) English, Chinese – Cultural scripts

Wierzbicka, Anna (1996). *Contrastive sociolinguistics and the theory of “cultural scripts”: Chinese vs English. In Marlis Hellinger, & Ulrich Ammon (Eds.), Contrastive sociolinguistics (pp. 313-344). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110811551.313

(1996) Semantics: Primes and universals [BOOK]

Wierzbicka, Anna (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Abstract:

Conceptual primitives and semantic universals are the cornerstones of a semantic theory that Anna Wierzbicka has been developing for many years. Semantics: Primes and universals is a major synthesis of her work, presenting a full and systematic exposition of that theory in a non-technical and readable way. It delineates a full set of universal concepts, as they have emerged from large-scale investigations across a wide range of languages undertaken by the author and her colleagues. On the basis of empirical cross-linguistic studies it vindicates the old notion of the ‘psychic unity of mankind’, while at the same time offering a framework for the rigorous description of different languages and cultures.

Despite the promise held out by the cognitive revolution in the human sciences in general and by the ‘Chomskyan revolution’ in linguistics, meaning – not the meaning of the logician, but the meaning that underlies and informs human cognition, communication, and culture – remains for many linguists an intractable problem, and ‘the weak point of language study’ (Bloomfield). This book demonstrates clearly and conclusively that it does not have to be so.

Table of contents:

I. GENERAL ISSUES

1. Introduction
2. A survey of semantic primitives
3. Universal grammar: The syntax of universal semantic primitives
4. Prototypes and invariants
5. Semantic primitives and semantic fields
6. Semantics and “primitive thought”
7. Semantic complexity and the role of ostension in the acquisition of concepts

II. LEXICAL SEMANTICS

8. Against “Against definitions”
9. Semantics and lexicography
10. The meaning of colour terms and the universals of seeing
11. The semantics of natural kinds
12. Semantics and ethnobiology

III. THE SEMANTICS OF GRAMMAR

13. Semantic rules in grammar
14. A semantic basis for grammatical description and typology: Transitivity and reflexives
15. Comparing grammatical categories across languages: The semantics of evidentials

Translations:

Into Russian (Chapters 1 and 14 only):

Chapters 1 (pp. 3-43) and 2 (pp. 44-76) of Вежбицкая, Анна (1999), Семантические универсалии и описание языков [Semantic universals and the description of languages]. Москва [Moscow]: Языки русской культуры [Languages of Russian Culture]

Into Russian (Chapters 1, 4 and 14):

Chapters 1 (pp. 19-53), 3 (pp. 91-124) and 5 (pp. 135-170) of Вежбицкая, Анна (2011), Семантические универсалии и базисные концепты [Semantic universals and basic concepts]. Москва [Moscow]: Языки славянских культуры [Languages of Slavic Culture].

Into Polish:

Wierzbicka, Anna (2010). Semantyka: Jednostki elementarne i uniwersalne. Lublin: UMCS.

Into Czech:

Wierzbicka, Anna (2014). Sémantika: Elementární a univerzální sémantické jednotky. Praha: Karolinum.

More information:

Chapter 4 builds on: ‘Prototypes save’: On the uses and abuses of the notion of ‘prototype’ in linguistics and related fields (1990)
Chapter 5 builds on: Semantic primitives and semantic fields (1992)
Chapter 6 builds on: Semantic universals and primitive thought? The question of the psychic unity of humankind (1994)
Chapter 7 builds on: Semantic complexity: Conceptual primitives and the principle of substitutability (1991); Ostensive definitions and verbal definitions: Innate conceptual primitives and the acquisition of concepts (1991)
Chapter 8 builds on: Back to definitions: Cognition, semantics, and lexicography (1992)
Chapter 9 builds on: What are the uses of theoretical lexicography? (1992-3)
Chapter 10 builds on: The meaning of color terms: Semantics, culture, and cognition (1990)
Chapter 11 builds on: Dictionaries versus encyclopaedias: How to draw the line (1995)
Chapter 12 builds on: What is a life form? Conceptual issues in ethnobiology (1992)
Chapter 14 builds on: A semantic basis for grammatical typology (1995)
Chapter 15 builds on: Semantics and epistemology: The meaning of ‘evidentials’ in a cross-linguistic perspective (1994)

Rating:


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

Tags remain to be supplied.

(1997) Conditionals, counterfactuals

Wierzbicka, Anna (1997). Conditionals and counterfactuals: Conceptual primitives and linguistic universals. In Angeliki Athanasiadou, & René Dirven (Eds.), On conditionals again (pp. 15-59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cilt.143.04wie

I claim that the concept of IF (as used in natural language) is a conceptual primitive, which cannot be defined in terms of any other concepts. I also claim that this concept is a lexicogrammatical universal, and that claims that, for example, some languages do not have lexicogrammatical resources to distinguish IF from WHEN, are incorrect.

Furthermore, I suggest that the category of “counterfactuals” is also a semantic primitive, which probably cannot be defined in terms of IF, KNOW, negation, and any other hypothetical semantic ingredients. I argue that the “hard core” of this category includes doubly negative sentences with a past reference and I try to explain (with reference to other known linguistic facts) why this should be the case. I question the view that there is some “continuum of hypotheticality”, differently cut in different languages, and I postulate the existence of two discrete semantic concepts, lexicalized in English most clearly as if and if…(pluperfect) would.

The difference between conditionals and counterfactuals can, in a sense, be described as follows: conditionals allow us to imagine that something happens that we think can happen, whereas counterfactuals allow us to imagine that something happens that we think cannot happen. But a description of this kind cannot be regarded as semantic decomposition, because it assumes I think incorrectly that the concept of “imagine” is more basic than either IF or the (counterfactual) IF…WOULD.

In earlier work I proposed that “imagine” was indeed a universal semantic primitive , and I assumed that
both conditionals and counterfactuals could be somehow analyzed via “imagine”. With time, however, it became apparent that this assumption was not consistent with crosslinguistic evidence: it emerged that many languages do not have a word corresponding to imagine, and so “imagine” had to be crossed out from the list of universal semantic primitives. Currently, the growing body of crosslinguistic evidence appears to suggest that while “imagine” was indeed an ill-chosen candidate for this status, “if” and the
counterfactual “if…would” may be true lexicogrammatical universals. If it continues to be confirmed by further evidence, this finding will add considerable support to the hypothesis that both “if” and the counterfactual “if…would” are conceptual primitives.

(1997) Religion, religious understanding

Wierzbicka, Anna (1997). Peter Singer and Christian ethics. Quadrant, 41(4), 27-31.

Abstract:

“Is there still anything to live for?” asks Peter Singer in the first sentence of his 1995 book How are we to live? Ethics in an age of self-interest. For most people, at least in the West, he replies, life is the pursuit of a narrowly conceived self-interest. Singer argues that this kind of life is neither fulfilling nor worthwhile, and he proposes an alternative, namely, “living ethically”.

This paper critically discusses Singer’s views and, in the process, formulates some of Jesus’ teachings as well as a number of ethical scripts for various forms of self-interest in the universal and semantically simple terms used in the NSM approach (which is not named as such in the paper).

Rating:


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

See also: ,

(1997) Understanding cultures through their key words [BOOK]

Wierzbicka, Anna (1997). Understanding cultures through their key words: English, Russian, Polish, German, Japanese. New York: Oxford University Press.

Abstract:

This book develops the dual themes that languages can differ widely in their vocabularies, and are sensitive indices to the cultures to which they belong. The author seeks to demonstrate that every language has key concepts, expressed in (cultural) key words, which reflect the core values of a given culture. She shows that cultures can be revealingly studied, compared, and explained to outsiders through their key concepts, and that NSM provides the analytical framework necessary for this purpose. The book demonstrates that cultural patterns can be studied in a verifiable, rigorous, and non-speculative way, on the basis of empirical evidence and in a coherent theoretical framework.

Table of contents:

  1. Introduction
  2. Lexicon as a key to ethno-sociology and cultural psychology: Patterns of “friendship” across cultures
  3. Lexicon as a key to ethno-philosophy, history, and politics: “Freedom” in Latin, English, Russian, and Polish
  4. Lexicon as a key to history, nation, and society: “Homeland” and “fatherland” in German, Polish, and Russian
  5. Australian key words and core cultural values
  6. Japanese key words and core cultural values

Translations:

Into Polish:

(Chapter 3 only) Wierzbicka, Anna (1999). Język – umysł – kultura [Language, mind, culture]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Wierzbicka, Anna (2007). Słowa klucze: Różne języki – różne kultury. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.

Into Russian (Chapters 1, 2 and 3 only):

Chapters 7 (pp. 263-305), 8 (pp. 306-433) and 9 (pp. 434-484) of Вежбицкая, Анна (1999), Семантические универсалии и описание языков [Semantic universals and the description of languages]. Москва [Moscow]: Языки русской культуры [Languages of Russian Culture].

Вежбицкая, Анна (2001). Понимание культур через посредство ключевых слов. Москва [Moscow]: Языки славянской культуры [Languages of Slavic Culture].

Into Japanese:

アンナ・ヴィエルジュビツカ著 [Anna Wierzbicka] (2009). キーワードによる異文化理解: 英語・ロシア語・ポーランド語・ 日本語の場合 . 東京 [Tokyo]: 而立書房 [Jiritsu Shobō].

More information:

Chapter 4 builds on: Lexicon as a key to history, culture, and society: “Homeland” and “fatherland” in German, Polish and Russian (1995)

Chapter 5, section 2 builds on: Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction (1991), chapter 5

Chapter 5, section 3 builds on: Australian b-words (bloody, bastard, bugger, bullshit): An expression of Australian culture and national character (1992)

Chapter 6 builds on: Japanese key words and core cultural values (1991)

Reviewed by:

Peeters, Bert (2000). Word, 51(3), 443-449. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2000.11432505 / Open access

This review includes several suggestions for improvements to the explications in the book, as well as a revised explication of the Russian word друг drug.

Rating:


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

The tags mentioned below are limited to those not listed in work on which this book is based.

See also: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(1998) Russian – Emotions

Wierzbicka, Anna (1998). Russian emotional expression. Ethos, 26(4), 456-483. DOI: 10.1525/eth.1998.26.4.456

Translated into Russian as:

Вежбицкая, А. [Wierzbicka, Anna] (1999). Выражение эмоций в русском языке: заметки по поводу «Русско-английского словаря коллокаций, относящихся к человеческому телу». In Вежбицкая, А. [Wierzbicka, Anna], Семантические универсалии и описание языков, под ред. Татьяна В. Булыгиной [Semantic universals and the description of languages, ed. Tatyana V. Bulygina] (pp. 526-546). Москва [Moscow]: Языки русской культуры [Languages of Russian Culture].

This article examines Russian “emotional ideology” as reflected in the Russian language, and especially in the Russian collocational system. Colloquial collocations involving the human body, seen as an organ of emotional expression, are the focusfor comparingfolk models of the body and emotion in Russian and Anglo cultures. A theory of “cultural scripts” forms the basis of generalizations from the linguistic evidence.

(1998) English – Causative constructions

Wierzbicka, Anna (1998). The semantics of English causative constructions in a universal-typological perspective. In Michael Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure: Vol. 1 (pp. 113-153). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Reissued as:

Wierzbicka, Anna (2014). The semantics of English causative constructions in a universal-typological perspective. In Michael Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure: Vol. 1 (pp. 105-142). London: Psychology Press.

Translated into Russian as:

Вежбицкая, А. [Wierzbicka, Anna] (1999). Семантика английских каузативных конструкций в универсально-типологической перспективе. In Вежбицкая, А. [Wierzbicka, Anna], Семантические универсалии и описание языков, под ред. Татьяна В. Булыгиной [Semantic universals and the description of languages, ed. Tatyana V. Bulygina] (pp. 171-223). Москва [Moscow]: Языки русской культуры [Languages of Russian Culture].

(Modified) excerpt:

This chapter seeks to elucidate the differences in meaning between different causative verbs like to cause, to force, to make, to get, to let, and so on and to analyse the complex interplay between different relevant factors (the category to which the causer belongs, the category to which the causee belongs, the category to which the predicate of the complement clause belongs, the causative verb chosen in a given sentence, and so on). To do so successfully, we do not need any formidable technical formalisms. Nor do we need to endlessly concern ourselves with the perennially contested issue of how (or even if) syntax can be combined with semantics. Rather, what we need is an analytical framework in which syntax and lexical semantics are integrated from the very beginning.

The overall picture produced by an analysis that pays attention to all the relevant factors is, admittedly, complex and intricate much more so than one that operates only with tree diagrams and other similar formalisms; but it is, I believe, the only kind of analysis that can achieve descriptive adequacy and explanatory power. It is language itself that is immensely complex. At the same time, if we allow that all languages may have a relatively simple irreducible core, we can use this irreducible core of all languages as a basis for an understanding of the immensely complex and diverse systems that all human languages are.

Syntactic typology that deliberately closes its eyes to the semantic dimensions of formal diversity of languages is, ultimately, sterile and unilluminating. Opening typology to semantics may involve difficulties, but rather than avoiding them, it is surely more fruitful to sharpen our analytical tools and to develop safeguards of various kinds. Above all, we need a semantic metalanguage for a cross-cultural comparison of meanings, whether they are encoded in the lexicon or in grammar. As, I hope, this chapter illustrates, the “Natural Semantic Metalanguage” based on empirically established universal concepts can meet this need.

(1998) Religion, religious understanding

Wierzbicka, Anna (1998). The meaning of Jesus’ parables: A semantic approach to the Gospels. In Benjamin Biebuyck, René Dirven, & John Ries (Eds.), Faith and fiction: Interdisciplinary studies on the interplay between metaphor and religion (pp. 17-55). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

No abstract available.

Translations:

Into Russian:

Chapter 16 (pp. 730-774) of Вежбицкая, Анна (1999), Семантические универсалии и описание языков [Semantic universals and the description of languages]. Москва [Moscow]: Языки русской культуры [Languages of Russian Culture].

Chapter 5 (pp. 218-272) of Вежбицкая, Анна (2001), Сопоставление культур через посредство лексики и прагматики [Comparison of cultures through vocabulary and pragmatics]. Москва [Moscow]: Языки Славянской Культуры [Languages of Slavic Culture].

Chapter 13 (pp. 501-547) of Вежбицкая, Анна (2011), Семантические универсалии и базисные концепты [Semantic universals and basic concepts]. Москва [Moscow]: Языки славянских культуры [Languages of Slavic Culture].

Rating:


Research carried out by one or more experienced NSM practitioners

(1998) NSM primes (THINK)

Wierzbicka, Anna (1998). THINK – A universal human concept and a conceptual primitive. In Jacek Juliusz Jadacki, & Witold Strawiński (Eds.), In the world of signs: Essays in honour of professor Jerzy Pelc (pp. 297-308). Amsterdam: Rodopi.