Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 38:1 (2014) ► pp.80–127

Semantic fieldwork and lexical universals

| Griffith University, Australian National University
The main goal of paper is to show how NSM findings about lexical universals (semantic primes) can be applied to semantic analysis in little-described languages. It is argued that using lexical universals as a vocabulary for semantic analysis allows one to formulate meaning descriptions that are rigorous, cognitively authentic, maximally translatable, and free from Anglocentrism. A second goal is to shed light on methodological issues in semantic fieldwork by interrogating some controversial claims about the Dalabon and Pirahã languages. We argue that reductive paraphrase into lexical universals provides a practical procedure for arriving at coherent interpretations of unfamiliar lexical meanings. Other indigenous/endangered languages discussed include East Cree, Arrernte, Kayardild, Karuk, and Maori. We urge field linguists to take the NSM metalanguage, based on lexical universals, into the field with them, both as an aid to lexicogrammatical documentation and analysis and as a way to improve semantic communication with consultants.
Keywords: linguistic fieldwork, endangered languages, lexical semantics, Anglocentrism, NSM, reductive paraphrase
Published online: 25 April 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.1.03god
References (139)
Allan, Keith. 2001. Natural language semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Amberber, Megistu. 2008. Semantic primes in Amharic. In Cliff Goddard (ed.), Cross-linguistic semantics, 83-119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ameka, Felix. 1994. Ewe. In Cliff Goddard & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Semantic and lexical universals: Theory and empirical findings, 57-86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. ‘When I die, don’t cry’: The ethnopragmatics of “gratitude” in West African languages. In Cliff Goddard (ed.), Ethnopragmatics: Understanding discourse in cultural context, 231-266. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2009. Access rituals in West African communities: An ethnopragmatic perspective. In Gunther Senft & Ellen B. Basso (eds.), Ritual Communication, 127-152. New York: Berg.Google Scholar
Ameka, Felix K., Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.). 2006. Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asano-Cavanagh, Yuko. 2009. A semantic analysis of Japanese epistemic markers: chigainai and hazuda . Language Sciences 31(5). 837-852. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Semantic analysis of evidential markers in Japanese: rashii, yooda and sooda . Functions of Language 17 (2). 153-180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, Peter K. (ed.). 2003-2010. Language documentation and description, vols. 1-91. London: Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Project, School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen. 1998. Temporal reference from a radical pragmatics point of view. Why Yucatec Maya does not need to express ‘after’ and ‘before’. Cognitive Linguistics 9(3). 239-282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. NSM without the strong lexicalization hypothesis. Theoretical Linguistics 29(3). 223-226.Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2008. Linguistic fieldwork: A practical guide. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bromhead, Helen. 2009. The reign of truth and faith: Epistemic expressions in 16th and 17th century English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011a. Ethnogeographical categories in English and Pitjantjatjara/Yankunytjatjara. Language Sciences 33(1). 58-75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011b. The bush in Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 311. 445-471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brotherson, Anna. 2008. The ethnogeometry of Makasai (East Timor). In Cliff Goddard (ed.), Cross-linguistic semantics, 259-276. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bugenhagen, Robert D. 2001. Emotions and the nature of persons in Mbula. In Jean Harkins & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Emotions in crosslinguistic perspective, 69-114. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. The syntax of semantic primitives in Mangaaba-Mbula. In Cliff Goddard & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Meaning and universal grammar – Theory and empirical findings, vol. I1, 1-64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chappell, Hilary. 2002. The universal syntax of semantic primes in Mandarin Chinese. In Cliff Goddard & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Meaning and universal grammar – Theory and empirical findings, vol. I1, 243-322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & N. Smith. 1977. Lingua descriptive series questionnaire. Lingua 421. 1-72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crowley, Terry. 2007. Field linguistics: A beginner’s guide (edited and prepared for publication by Nick Thieberger). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W. & A.Y. Aikhenvald. 2002. Word: A typological framework. In R.M.W. Dixon & A.Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Word: A cross-linguistic typology, 1-41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Durst, Uwe. 1999. BAD as a semantic primitive: Evidence from Biblical Hebrew. Pragmatics & Cognition 7(2). 375-403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. 2002. Combinatoric properties of natural semantic metalanguge expressions in Lao. In Cliff Goddard & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Meaning and universal grammar –Theory and empirical findings, vol. II1, 145-256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Standing up your mind: Remembering in Dalabon. In Mengistu Amberber (ed.), The language of memory in a cross-linguistic perspective, 67-96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Semantic typology. In Jae-Jung Sung (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 504-533. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicolas, Francesca Merlin & Maggie Tukumba. 2004. A first dictionary of Dalabon (Ngalkbon). Maningrida: Maningrida Arts and Culture.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Hans-Jürgen Sasse. 2007. Searching for meaning in the Library of Babel: Field semantics and problems of digital archiving. In Peter K. Austin (ed.), Language description and documentation, vol. 41, 58-99. London: Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Project, School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
Everett, D.L. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Current Anthropology 461. 621-646. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Don’t sleep. There are snakes. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
. 2012. Understanding others requires adaptive thinking: Response to Wierzbicka. Pragmatics & Cognition 20(2). 417-428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A. 2003. Genre, register and language documentation in literate and preliterate communities. In Peter K. Austin (ed.), Language documentation and description, vol. 11, 85-98. London: Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Project, School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
Frank, Michael C., Daniel L. Everett, Evelina Fedorenko & Edward Gibson. 2008. Number as a cognitive technology: Evidence from Pirahã language and cognition. Cognition 1081. 819-824. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Furbee, N. Louanna. 2010. Language documentation: Theory and practice. In Lenore A. Grenoble & N. Louanna Furbee (eds.), Language documentation: Practice and values, 3-24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2010. Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gippert, Jost, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Ulrike Mosel (eds.). 2006. Essentials of language documentation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gladkova, Anna. 2007. Universal and language-specific aspects of “propositional attitudes”: Russian vs. English. In Andrea C. Schalley & Drew Khlentzos (eds.), Mental states: Volume 2: Language and cognitive structure, 61-83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Russkaja kul’turnaja semantika: ėmocii, cennosti, žiznennye ustanovki[Russian cultural semantics: Emotions, values, attitudes.] Moscow: Languages of Slavic Cultures.Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff. 1991. Testing the translatability of semantic primitives into an Australian Aboriginal language. Anthropological Linguistics 33(1). 31-56.Google Scholar
. 1994. Lexical primitives in Yankunytjatjara. In Cliff Goddard & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Semantic and lexical universals – Theory and empirical findings, 229-262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Polysemy: A problem of definition. In Yael Ravin & Claudia Leacock (eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches, 129-151. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2001a. Sabar, ikhlas, setia – patient, sincere, loyal? A contrastive semantic study of some “virtues” in Malay and English. Journal of Pragmatics 331. 653-681. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001b. Hati: A key word in the Malay vocabulary of emotion. In Jean Harkins & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Emotions in crosslinguistic perspective, 171-200. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001c. Lexico-semantic universals: a critical overview. Linguistic Typology 5(1). 1-66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Thinking across languages and cultures: Six dimensions of variation. Cognitive Linguistics 14(2-3). 109-140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Natural semantic metalanguage. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., 544-551. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. A “lexicographic portrait” of forgetting . In Mengistu Amberber (ed.), The language of memory in a cross-linguistic perspective, 119-137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Towards a systematic table of semantic elements. In Cliff Goddard (ed.), Cross-linguistic semantics, 59-81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Cultural scripts. In Gunter Senft, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds.), Culture and language use (Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 2), 68-80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010a. Semantic molecules and semantic complexity (with special reference to “environmental” molecules). Review of Cognitive Linguistics 8(1). 123-155.Google Scholar
. 2010b. The Natural Semantic Metalanguage approach. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.) The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 459-484. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2011a. Semantic analysis, Revised 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2011b. The lexical semantics of ‘language’ (with special reference to ‘words’). Language Sciences 33(1). 40-57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Semantic primes, semantic molecules, semantic templates: Key concepts in the NSM approach to lexical typology. Linguistics 50(3). 711-743. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2008. Cross-linguistic semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Cliff & Anna Wierzbicka. (eds.). 1994. Semantic and Lexical Universals — Theory and Empirical Findings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (eds.). 2002. Meaning and Universal Grammar — Theory and Empirical Findings. Vols I and II1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Semantic primes and cultural scripts in language teaching and intercultural communication. In Farzad Sharifian & Gary Palmer (eds.), Applied cultural linguistics: Implications for second language learning and intercultural communication, 105-124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. ‘Want’ is a semantic and conceptual universal (response to Khanina). Studies in Language 34(1). 108-123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Semantics and cognition. Wiley Interdiscipinary Reviews: Cognitive Science (WIREs Cognitive Science) 2(2). 125-135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Words and meanings: Lexical semantics across domains, languages, and cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter. 2004. Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science 3061. 496-499. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grenoble, Lenore A. & N. Louanna Furbee (eds.). 2010. Language documentation. Practice and values. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habib, Sandy. 2011a. Contrastive lexical conceptual analysis of folk religious concepts in English, Arabic and Hebrew: NSM approach. PhD thesis, University of New England.Google Scholar
. 2011b. Angels can cross cultural boundaries. RASK, International Journal of Language and Communication 341. 49-75.Google Scholar
Hanks, Patrick W. 2007. General introduction. In Patrick W. Hanks (ed.), Lexicology: Critical concepts in linguistics, vol. I1, 1–23. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harkins, Jean. 2001. Talking about anger in Central Australia. In Jean Harkins & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Emotions in crosslinguistic perspective, 201-220. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harkins, Jean & David P. Wilkins. 1994. Mparntwe Arrernte and the search for lexical universals. In Cliff Goddard & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Semantic and lexical universals – Theory and empirical findings, 285-310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasada, Rie. 2001. Meanings of Japanese sound-symbolic emotion words. In Jean Harkins & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Emotions in crosslinguistic perspective, 221-258. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Two virtuous emotions in Japanese: Nasake/joo and jihi . In Cliff Goddard (ed.), Cross-linguistic linguistics, 331-347. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hellwig, Birgit. 2010. Meaning and translation in linguistic fieldwork. Studies in Language 34(4). 802-831. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, Deborah. 1994. Longgu. In Cliff Goddard & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Semantic and lexical universals – Theory and empirical findings, 310-330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinton, Leanne. 2001a. Language revitalisation: An overview. In Leanne Hinton & Kenneth Hale (eds.), The green book of language revitalization in practice, 3-18. Boston: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001b. The Karuk language. In Leanne Hinton & Kenneth Hale (eds.), The green book of language revitalization in practice, 191-194. Boston: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Junker, Marie-Odile. 2003. A native American view of the “mind” as seen in the lexicon of cognition in East Cree. Cognitive Linguistics 14(2-3). 167-194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. The language of memory in East Cree. In Mengistu Amberber (ed.), The language of memory in a crosslinguistic perspective, 235-261. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Semantic primes and their grammar in a polysynthetic language: East Cree. In Cliff Goddard (ed.), Cross-linguistic linguistics, 163-204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Junker, Marie-Odile & Louise Blacksmith. 2006. Are there emotional universals? Evidence from the native American language East Cree. Culture & Psychology 12(3). 275-303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keesing, R. 1984. Rethinking mana. Journal of Anthropological Research 401. 137-156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knight, Emily. 2008. Hyperpolysemy in Bunuba, a polysynthetic language of the Kimberley, Western Australia. In Cliff Goddard (ed.), Cross-linguistic semantics, 205-223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leung, Helen Hue Lam. 2012. The semantics of the Cantonese utterance particle 'laa1'. In M. Ponsonnet, L. Dao & M. Bowler (eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd Australian Linguistic Society Conference – 2011 , Australian National University, Canberra ACT, 2-4 December 2011 (pp. 245-280).
Levisen, Carsten. 2012. Cultural semantics and social cognition. A case study on the Danish universe of meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. & Sergio Meira. 2003. ‘Natural’ concepts in the spatial topological domain — adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language 79(3). 485-516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian. 2002. Understanding semantics. London: Arnold Publications.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Monica. 2004. On the Karuk directional suffixes. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 30(2). [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majid, Asifa. 2012. A guide to stimulus-based elicitation for semantic categories. In Nicholas Thieberger (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic fieldwork, 54-71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Majid, Asifa & Melissa Bowerman (eds.). 2007. Cutting and breaking events across languages. Cognitive Linguistics 18(2) [Special issue].Google Scholar
Mason, Te Haunihiata. 2008. The incorporation of Mātauranga Māori or Māori knowledge into Te Mātāpuna, the first monolingual Māori dictionary for adults. In Rob Amery & J. Nash (eds.), Warra wiltaniappendi Strengthening languages: Proceedings of the Inaugural Indigenous Languages Conference (ILC) 2007 , 35-39. Adelaide: University of Adelaide SA.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2004. On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 701. 369-415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moorfield, John C. 2005. Te aka. Maori-English, English-Maori dictionary and index. Auckland: Pearson/Longman.Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike. 1994. Samoan. In Cliff Goddard & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Semantic and lexical universals – Theory and empirical findings, 331-360. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Grammaticography: The art and craft of writing grammars. In Felix Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing, 41-68. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2012. Morphosyntactic analysis in the field: A guide to the guides. In Nicholas Thieberger (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic fieldwork, 72-89. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. Lynne. 2010. Lexical meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myhill, John. 1996. Is BAD a semantic primitive? Evidence from Biblical Hebrew. Lexicology 2(2). 99-126.Google Scholar
Nicholls, Sophie. 2009. Referring expressions and referential practice in Roper Kriol (Northern Territory, Australia). University of New England dissertation. [URL].Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew. 1994. Kalam exponents of lexical and semantic primitives. In Cliff Goddard & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Semantic and lexical universals: Theory and empirical findings, 87-422. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peeters, Bert (ed.). 2006. Semantic primes and universal grammar: Empirical findings from the Romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. La métalangue sémantique naturelle: acquis et défis. In J. François (ed.), Grandes voies et chemins de traverse de la sémantique cognitive, 75-101. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Pica, P., C. Lemer, V. Izard & S. Dehaene. 2004. Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian indigene group. Science 3061. 499-503. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ponsonnet, Maïa. 2009. Aspects of the semantics of intellectual subjectivity in Dalabon (southwestern Arnhem Land). Australian Aboriginal Studies 2009(1). 16-28.Google Scholar
Priestley, Carol. 2002. Insides and emotion in Koromu. Pragmatics & Cognition 10(1/2). 243-270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. The semantics of “inalienable possession” in Koromu (PNG). In Cliff Goddard (ed.), Cross-linguistic semantics, 277-300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012a. Koromu temporal expressions: Semantic and cultural perspectives. In Luna Filipović & Kasia Jaszczolt (eds.), Space and time in languages and cultures: Language, culture and cognition, 143-165. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. The expression of potential event modality in the Papuan language of Koromu. In M. Ponsonnet, L. Dao & M. Bowler (eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd Australian Linguistic Society Conference – 2011 , Australian National University, Canberra ACT, 2-4 December 2011 (pp. 389-422).
Sakel, Jeanette & Everett, Daniel L. 2012. Linguistic fieldwork: A student guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shi-xu. 2000. To feel or not to feel, that is the question. Culture & Psychology 6(3). 375-383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stanwood, Ryo E. 1997. The primitive syntax of mental predicates in Hawaii Creole English: A text-based study. Language Sciences 19(3). 209-217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. On the Adequacy of Hawai’i Creole English. University of Hawai’i dissertation.Google Scholar
Thieberger, Nicholas (ed.). 2012. The Oxford handbook of linguistic fieldwork. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tien, Adrian. 2009. Semantic prime HAPPEN in Mandarin Chinese: In search of a viable exponent. Pragmatics & Cognition 17(2). 356-382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tong, Malindy, Michael Yell & Cliff Goddard. 1997. Semantic primitives of time and space in Hong Kong Cantonese. Language Sciences 19(3). 245-261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Travis, Catherine E. 2002. La Metalengua Semántica Natural: The natural semantic metalanguage of Spanish. In Cliff Goddard & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Meaning and universal grammar – Theory and empirical findings, vol. I1, 173-242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. The ethnopragmatics of the diminutive in conversational Colombian Spanish. Intercultural Pragmatics 1(2). 249-274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Travis, Catherine. 2006. The communicative realization of confianza and calor humano in Colombian Spanish. In Cliff Goddard (ed.), Ethnopragmatics: Understanding discourse in cultural context, 199-230. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vanhatalo, Ulla, Anna Idström & Heli Tissari. Forthcoming. The foundations of the Finnish based Natural Semantic Metalanguage.
Warner, Sam L. No'eau. 2001. The movement to revitalize Hawaiian language and culture. In Leanne Hinton & Kenneth Hale (eds.), The green book of language revitalization in practice, 133-44. Boston: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wakefield, John C. 2011. The English equivalents of Cantonese sentence-final particles: A contrastive analysis. Hong Kong Polytechnic University dissertation.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics: Primes and universals. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Semantic primes and universal grammar in Polish. In Cliff Goddard & Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), Meaning and universal grammar – Theory and empirical findings, Vol. II1, 65-144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. English: Meaning and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Is “remember” a universal human concept? “Memory: and culture. In Mengistu Amberber (ed.), The language of memory in a crosslinguistic perspective, 13-39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Case in NSM: A reanalysis of the polish dative. In Andrej Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of case, 151-169. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2009. The theory of the mental lexicon. In Sebastian Kempgen, Peter Kosta, Tilman Berger & Karl Gutschmidt (eds.), Die slavischen Sprachen/The slavic languages: Eine internationales Handbuch zu ihrer Struktur, ihrer Geschichte und ihrer Erforsching/An international handbook of their structure, their history and their investigation, 848-863. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2010a. Experience, evidence, and sense: The hidden cultural legacy of English. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. ‘Story’ – An English cultural keyword and a key interpretive tool of Anglo culture. Narrative Inquiry 20(1). 53-181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Understanding others requires shared concepts. Pragmatics & Cognition 20(2). 356-379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Imprisoned in English: The hazards of English as a default language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. in press. Two levels of verbal communication: Universal and culture-specific. In Louis de Saussure & Andrea Rocci (eds.), The handbooks of communication science, Volume 3: Verbal communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. Forthcoming. Back to 'mother' and 'father': Overcoming the Eurocentrism of kinship studies through eight universal semantic molecules.
Wilson, William H. & Kaijanoe Kamanā. 2001. “Mai Loko Mai O ka ‘I’ini: Proceeding from a dream”: The ‘Aha Pūnana Leo Connection in Hawaiian language revitalization. In L. Hinton & K. Hale (eds.), The green book of language revitalization in practice, 147-178. Boston: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong, Jock. 2005. “Why you so Singlish one?” A semantic and cultural interpretation of the Singapore English particle one . Language in Society 34(2). 239-275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. The triple articulation of language. Journal of Pragmatics 42(11). 2932-2944. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. in press. The Culture of Singapore English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo
Ye, Zhengdao. 2006. Why the ‘inscrutable’ Chinese face? Emotionality and facial expression in Chinese. In Cliff Goddard (ed.), Ethnopragmatics: Understanding discourse in cultural context, 127-169. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2007. ‘Memorisation’, learning and cultural cognition: The notion of bèi (‘auditory memorisation’) in the written Chinese tradition. In Mengistu Amberber (ed.), The language of memory in a crosslinguistic perspective, 127-169. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Eating and drinking in Mandarin and Shanghainese: A lexical-conceptual analysis. In E. Christensen, E. Schier & J. Sutton (eds.), ASCS09: Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the Australasian Society for Cognitive Science , 375-383. Sydney: Macquarie Centre for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Yoon, Kyung-Joo. 2006. Constructing a Korean Natural Semantic Metalanguage. Seoul: Hankook Publishing Co.Google Scholar
. 2007. Mental states reflected in cognitive lexemes related to memory: A case in Korean. In Andrea C. Schalley & Drew Khlentzos (eds.), Mental states: Volume 2: Language and cognitive structure, 85-108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (27)

Cited by 27 other publications

Soto, Gloria & Kerstin Tönsing
2024. Is there a ‘universal’ core? Using semantic primes to select vocabulary across languages in AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 40:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Britton, Emma R. & Theresa Y. Austin
2023. “Keeping Words in Context”: Language Policy and Social Identification in an Immigrant Job Training Program. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 22:2 ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
Hinrichs, Nicolás, Maryam Foradi, Tariq Yousef, Elisa Hartmann, Susanne Triesch, Jan Kaßel & Johannes Pein
2022. Embodied Metarepresentations. Frontiers in Neurorobotics 16 DOI logo
Roettger, Timo B.
2021. Preregistration in experimental linguistics: applications, challenges, and limitations. Linguistics 59:5 ► pp. 1227 ff. DOI logo
Forbes, Alexander
2020. Using Minimal English to Model a Parental Understanding of Autism. In Studies in Ethnopragmatics, Cultural Semantics, and Intercultural Communication, ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
Newman, John
2020. Our ordinary lives: Pathways to a more human-oriented linguistics. In Meaning, Life and Culture: In conversation with Anna Wierzbicka, ► pp. 319 ff. DOI logo
Holden, Josh
2019. Semantic Primes In Denesųłiné: In Search of Some Lexical “Universals”. International Journal of American Linguistics 85:1 ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
Wierzbicka, Anna & Cliff Goddard
2018. Talking about our Bodies and their Parts in Warlpiri. Australian Journal of Linguistics 38:1 ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo
Levisen, Carsten
2017. The social and sonic semantics of reggae: Language ideology and emergent socialities in postcolonial Vanuatu. Language & Communication 52 ► pp. 102 ff. DOI logo
Levisen, Carsten
2019. Biases we live by: Anglocentrism in linguistics and cognitive sciences. Language Sciences 76 ► pp. 101173 ff. DOI logo
Levisen, Carsten & Karime Aragón
2017. Chapter 14. Lexicalization patterns in core vocabulary. In Creole Studies – Phylogenetic Approaches, ► pp. 315 ff. DOI logo
Levisen, Carsten & Kristoffer Friis Bøegh
2017. Chapter 13. Cognitive creolistics and semantic primes. In Creole Studies – Phylogenetic Approaches, ► pp. 293 ff. DOI logo
Moravcsik, Edith A.
2017. Number. In The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology, ► pp. 440 ff. DOI logo
Goddard, Cliff & Anna Wierzbicka
2016. Explicating the English lexicon of ‘doing and happening’. Functions of Language 23:2 ► pp. 214 ff. DOI logo
Goddard, Cliff & Anna Wierzbicka
2016. ‘It's mine!’. Re-thinking the conceptual semantics of “possession” through NSM. Language Sciences 56 ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo
Goddard, Cliff & Anna Wierzbicka
2019. Reported speech as a pivotal human phenomenon: Commentary on Spronck and Nikitina. Linguistic Typology 23:1 ► pp. 167 ff. DOI logo
Goddard, Cliff & Anna Wierzbicka
2021. “We”: conceptual semantics, linguistic typology and social cognition. Language Sciences 83 ► pp. 101327 ff. DOI logo
van Lier, Eva
2016. Lexical flexibility in Oceanic languages. Linguistic Typology 20:2 ► pp. 197 ff. DOI logo
Goddard, Cliff
2015. The complex, language-specific semantics of “surprise”. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:2 ► pp. 291 ff. DOI logo
Goddard, Cliff
2017. Natural Semantic Metalanguage and lexicography. In International Handbook of Modern Lexis and Lexicography, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Wierzbicka, Anna
2015. A whole cloud of culture condensed into a drop of semantics. International Journal of Language and Culture 2:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Wierzbicka, Anna
2016. Overcoming the Eurocentrism in Psychological Anthropology with Lexical Universals: A Response to Naomi Quinn. Ethos 44:3 ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo
Wierzbicka, Anna
2016. Back to ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’: Overcoming the Eurocentrism of Kinship Studies through Eight Lexical Universals. Current Anthropology 57:4 ► pp. 408 ff. DOI logo
Wierzbicka, Anna
2016. Making sense of terms of address in European languages through the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM). Intercultural Pragmatics 13:4 ► pp. 499 ff. DOI logo
Goddard, Cliff, Anna Wierzbicka & Horacio Fabréga
2014. Evolutionary semantics: using NSM to model stages in human cognitive evolution. Language Sciences 42 ► pp. 60 ff. DOI logo
Goddard, Cliff & Zhengdao Ye
2014. Exploring “happiness” and “pain” across languages and cultures. International Journal of Language and Culture 1:2 ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo
Goddard, Cliff & Zhengdao Ye
2016. Exploring “happiness” and “pain” across languages and cultures. In "Happiness" and "Pain" across Languages and Cultures [Benjamins Current Topics, 84], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.