What do you think?
Rate this book
Semantics: Primes and Universals
Conceptual primitives and semantic universals are the cornerstones of a semantic theory which Anna Wierzbicka has been developing for many years. 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.
- GenresLinguisticsLanguage
512 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
9 people are currently reading
95 people want to read
About the author
Anna Wierzbicka
44 books25 followersAnna Wierzbicka is Professor of Linguistics at Australian National University. Her many books include Semantics: Primes and Universals (OUP 1996), Emotions across Languages and Cultures (CUP 1999), and Experience, Evidence & Sense: The hidden cultural legacy of English (OUP 2010). Professors Goddard and Wierzbicka are co-editors of two collective volumes: Semantic and Lexical Universals and Meaning and Universal Grammar (John Benjamins, 1994 and 2002).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 7, 2018
When people see this, they can think something like this:
These are words that Anna wrote.
When you see them, you can know what Anna wants you to think about.
This is about a few words. If you use these few words you can say many things.
All people know these few words.
If X existed a short time before now, and X did not exist a long time before now, X knows these few words.
If you want to know about a word, you can see what Anna says about that word using these few words.
----
I've been thinking about how to build up a dictionary how you would if you were trapped on a desert island with someone who didn't speak your language and you wanted to teach it to them from scratch. This book by Anna Wierzbicka talks about the very first words you would use to start such a project. The "semantic primes" are around 40 words that she takes as undefinable but from which a much larger number of words can be defined. She says that these words are special because every human language has a word (or a sense of a word) that is a direct translation of each of these 40 words, and that they are among the first concepts that children learn to express. She also talks a little about a simplified grammar that lets you combine these words.
learnthesewordsfirst.com is an online dictionary/lesson plan that builds up English in this way. It starts with
61 semantic primes, defined mainly by pictures and examples. Using only these 61 words, it defines
300 "semantic molecules." Using only these semantic molecules, it defines
2000 words used in the Longman Defining Vocabulary. These words are used to define
230,000 words in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.
Now imagine that you found a way to program the meaning of these 61 words into a robot, and programmed in the ability to read a sentence using these 61 words and derive the meaning of a new word from that. You could build up to the meaning of all the words in the dictionary this way. Programming those first 61 words and the grammar would be challenging, but I don't think impossible.
I don't think this would be sufficient to understand everything about those concepts. Suppose I gave the definition "an arc-shaped fruit, around 6-12 inches long, with soft white flesh and a skin that is green when unripe, yellow when ripe, and soft and brown when overripe, and grows in bunches." This would be enough to pick out a banana from any other food in the supermarket, but it wouldn't tell you much about what a banana really looks like. You wouldn't be able to recognize a banana split from such a definition. A good definition generally tells you just enough to distinguish the item from any potential confusers. But it would be an excellent start that you could begin to flesh out with other capabilities.
Overall I think her approach is very interesting and useful. A lot of other linguists and semanticists have emphasized word similarity and inter-relatedness, disparaging definitions and claiming that it is essentially impossible to define anything in a satisfactory way. But this book provides convincing arguments and simple definitions for many of these same terms.
I do think she goes too far when she tries to define colors. You can't just say "things like this" and point to a bunch of red things. The fact that we see color as particularly salient is not enough to hang a definition on. At some point you really do need to bring in some qualia to ground your definitions.
I think a definition of "color" on her terms could go something like this (I'll use a slightly less restricted vocabulary)
X is all the same color:
If you look at any two flat, smooth parts of X in the same light closely, so that you are not thinking about the shape of the part but just its appearance at that part, and the two flat parts always look nearly the same, you can say X is all the same color.
X is the same color as Y:
If X is all the same color and Y is all the same color, you can do this:
If you look at X and Y at the same time, in the same light, and you look closely at any smooth, flat part of X and of Y, so that you are not thinking about the shape of the part but how it looks at that place, and the two flat parts look nearly the same, you can say X is the same color as Y.
X is red:
X is the same color as something else that is red, like blood, or the inside of your lips, or ripe strawberries.
I have a lot other thoughts about the book. It made me think on every page. Her definitions are a kind of poetry, operating under this very severe constraint of using only 40 words. She also used a lot of Biblical references, partly because the Bible was written with a relatively small vocabulary, but also because she just likes it. I have a suspicion she included "word" among the primes just so that John 1:1 would translate nicely.
These are words that Anna wrote.
When you see them, you can know what Anna wants you to think about.
This is about a few words. If you use these few words you can say many things.
All people know these few words.
If X existed a short time before now, and X did not exist a long time before now, X knows these few words.
If you want to know about a word, you can see what Anna says about that word using these few words.
----
I've been thinking about how to build up a dictionary how you would if you were trapped on a desert island with someone who didn't speak your language and you wanted to teach it to them from scratch. This book by Anna Wierzbicka talks about the very first words you would use to start such a project. The "semantic primes" are around 40 words that she takes as undefinable but from which a much larger number of words can be defined. She says that these words are special because every human language has a word (or a sense of a word) that is a direct translation of each of these 40 words, and that they are among the first concepts that children learn to express. She also talks a little about a simplified grammar that lets you combine these words.
learnthesewordsfirst.com is an online dictionary/lesson plan that builds up English in this way. It starts with
61 semantic primes, defined mainly by pictures and examples. Using only these 61 words, it defines
300 "semantic molecules." Using only these semantic molecules, it defines
2000 words used in the Longman Defining Vocabulary. These words are used to define
230,000 words in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.
Now imagine that you found a way to program the meaning of these 61 words into a robot, and programmed in the ability to read a sentence using these 61 words and derive the meaning of a new word from that. You could build up to the meaning of all the words in the dictionary this way. Programming those first 61 words and the grammar would be challenging, but I don't think impossible.
I don't think this would be sufficient to understand everything about those concepts. Suppose I gave the definition "an arc-shaped fruit, around 6-12 inches long, with soft white flesh and a skin that is green when unripe, yellow when ripe, and soft and brown when overripe, and grows in bunches." This would be enough to pick out a banana from any other food in the supermarket, but it wouldn't tell you much about what a banana really looks like. You wouldn't be able to recognize a banana split from such a definition. A good definition generally tells you just enough to distinguish the item from any potential confusers. But it would be an excellent start that you could begin to flesh out with other capabilities.
Overall I think her approach is very interesting and useful. A lot of other linguists and semanticists have emphasized word similarity and inter-relatedness, disparaging definitions and claiming that it is essentially impossible to define anything in a satisfactory way. But this book provides convincing arguments and simple definitions for many of these same terms.
I do think she goes too far when she tries to define colors. You can't just say "things like this" and point to a bunch of red things. The fact that we see color as particularly salient is not enough to hang a definition on. At some point you really do need to bring in some qualia to ground your definitions.
I think a definition of "color" on her terms could go something like this (I'll use a slightly less restricted vocabulary)
X is all the same color:
If you look at any two flat, smooth parts of X in the same light closely, so that you are not thinking about the shape of the part but just its appearance at that part, and the two flat parts always look nearly the same, you can say X is all the same color.
X is the same color as Y:
If X is all the same color and Y is all the same color, you can do this:
If you look at X and Y at the same time, in the same light, and you look closely at any smooth, flat part of X and of Y, so that you are not thinking about the shape of the part but how it looks at that place, and the two flat parts look nearly the same, you can say X is the same color as Y.
X is red:
X is the same color as something else that is red, like blood, or the inside of your lips, or ripe strawberries.
I have a lot other thoughts about the book. It made me think on every page. Her definitions are a kind of poetry, operating under this very severe constraint of using only 40 words. She also used a lot of Biblical references, partly because the Bible was written with a relatively small vocabulary, but also because she just likes it. I have a suspicion she included "word" among the primes just so that John 1:1 would translate nicely.
September 13, 2024
A fab overview of NSM theory with extensive justification and explanation for the semantic primes that is both readable and detailed. Main drawback is the fact that NSM theory has moved on somewhat in the twenty years since.
January 28, 2020
Beautiful
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews