Metalinguage Theory - Case Study Example

1.0 Introduction The first part of this discussion deals with the tenets, criticism and appraisal of the natural semantic metalinguage theory. The second part is the explication of Swahili interjections while the last section explicates the English emotion expression is disgusted with. 1.1 Claims of the natural semantic metalanguage (NSM) The theory of natural semantic metalanguage (NSM), postulated by Wierzbicka and her co-researchers, posits the lexicalization of a set of semantic primes the in all natural languages. As such, each primitive has an exponential equivalence in every language. The following table exemplifies this concept with English, French or Slovene primes. EXPONENTS PRIMITIVES English French Slovene SOMEONE someone quelqu’un nekdo SOMETHING something quelque chose nekav WANT want Vouloir hoteti Wierzbicka (1996, 110) estimates the number of semantic primes at one hundred. The current entries are 65 (see Appendix 1). These words, according to the proponents of NSM, are translatable into every language without loss or addition of meaning. Wierzbicka (1996, 19) further explains that these primes can combine to form canonical sentences with basic syntactic structures. These constructions are not only the product of universal syntactic rules but also, importantly, the result of verifiable intuitive patterns for combining primitive concepts. In her view, lingua mentalis, “the language of the human mind” is the real originator of syntactic and semantic structures. In a nutshell, the basic core of the natural semantic metalanguage (NSM) lies in identifying semantic primes and combining them within basic syntactic frames (canonical sentences) useful in defining all words in a language. Natural semantic metalanguage (NSM) is useful in cross-cultural translation. According to Wierzbicka (1996, 137), words are the best expression of a society’s cultural values and assumptions. She, however, finds lexicographical definitions inaccurate, classical decomposition of meanings restrictive and the prototype approach inadequate. She, therefore, proposes the natural semantic metalanguage (NSM) as an effective device for identifying ethnosyntactic phenomena useful in cross-cultural translation. Culturally-specific words are translatable through the universal semantic primes. This approach, it is argued, eliminates residual effects and deficits in translation of words. Some widely cited semantic explications done through this approach include the ones for a Japanese word of emotion, amae, and the Polish word szczęśliwy which this approach proves to be more intense than its English equivalence, happy (Wierzbicka 1996, 215, 239). 1.2 Nick Riemer’s Critique of the NSM Riemer (2006) puts to question both methodological and theoretical constructs of NSM. The NSM’s principle that a definition must be simpler and more intelligible than the utterance being defined is dismissed as a misrepresentation of the nature of semantic explanation. This criticism is unfounded. The theorists’ position should be upheld; the only rider should be that there could be exceptions but NSM has provided for semantic molecules to suffice when the primes are ineffective. Canonical sentences or contexts as a means of semantic explication are another tenet of NSM that attracts criticism. Riemer finds some of the primes listed such as move, feel et cetera ambiguous and questions the sense of the words that warrants their inclusion. Multiple ambiguities are resolvable by disambiguation through definition but this would nullify one of NSM’s maxims that some words must remain indefinable. This criticism is valid. The theorists should provide a more conclusive criterion for selecting primes other than translatability and indefinability. The other aspects of NSM theory critiqued have to do with substitution and polysemy. Riemer applies the substitutability test to validate the extent to which NSM’s paraphrases are identical to the terms defined. The attempts by the NSM theorists to arrive at the sense-for-sense meaning of words by paraphrases are an enterprise in futility. This is because, by nature, utterances are complex and constrained by ethnocentrism and culture-dependency among other functions. It is apparently true that the question of polysemy is inconclusively addressed by NSM. It is imperative for NSM to design paraphrasing formulae that accommodate all shades of polysemy and ensure a sense-for-sense substitution. Lastly, the theorists’ own disconfirmation of their theory leads Riemer to criticize NSM’s strong universality claims. Goddard’s (2006, 6) suggestion that their theory works well but not in all respects occasions this reaction: if the metalanguage cannot work everywhere, why should it be relied upon anywhere? Reimer’s argument here stands and falls. The universality claim should stand but all areas in which NSM is inapplicable should be well stated and alternative methods for explication given by the NSM proponents. 1.3 Dronnak: The Merits and Shortcomings of NSM Drobnak (2009) consolidates linguists’ criticism of NSM drawing from them the merits and shortcomings of the theory in the domain of cross-cultural translation. The NSM theorists are commended for the incisive and in-depth descriptions of grammars and culture-specifics of various speech communities. The critics also acknowledge, as groundbreaking, the notion of universality and empirical viability of the lexicalization of semantic primes in natural languages. The universal and indivisible character of the conceptual primitives make them useful building blocks for culture-free semantic definitions with wider acceptability than circular synonyms and quasi-synonyms. These views seem accurate and should be upheld. The theorists’ observation that the lexicon is as indicative of a society’s culture as much as the grammatical categories and structure is a positive direction for modern contemporary linguistics. In fact, it has been noted that NSM approach has a useful role in cross-cultural research. It is true that the NSM may revolutionize modern translation studies. Linguists, anthropologists and philologists spurn NSM for its insistence that the sole authentic basis for linguistic and ethnographic analysis should be at the level of the primitive semantic corpus (Endefield 2002:5). Not all indefinable lexemes translatable to all natural languages are useful in building blocks for definitions. Neither can all words be satisfactorily defined by paraphrases. It has been argued that proper names like Socrates or John and natural kind terms like cat or water cannot be adequately paraphrased. Subsequently, the proponents’ position that indecomposable lexemes make up the conceptual primitives (the means by which we categorize the world around us) is found to be harsh. Wierzbicka (1972:21) acknowledges this deficit and provides tentative explication thus: (1) The man called John as “The man thinking of whom we say ‘John’” (2) A cat as “An animal thinking of which one would say ‘cat’” The words John and cat are not semantic primes yet they have been used in the paraphrase in violation of the NSM paradigms. This criticism of NSM holds and the theorists, as earlier stated, should make selection criteria for primes beyond reproof since NSM stands or falls on the account of the notion of primes. Finally, Drobnak (2009) also holds the opinion that this NSM’s theoretical assumptions can neither be verified nor disproved empirically since human inquiry cannot access the conceptual universe or the lingua mentalis. This is a valid ground for rejecting this theory; nevertheless, the inadequacy of the current tools to investigate mental activity cannot render all theoretical assumptions based on it untenable. 1.4 Conclusion A number of NSM critics consider it an incomplete theory of meaning while others question its viability. They find its claim for superiority over other theories of meaning faulty. It has failed to submit an irreducible, irreversible and comprehensive set of primes and this opens to question its validity, reliability and methodological parameters. The criticism of NSM reveals both strengths and weaknesses of the theory. Very valid questions have been raised with regard to identification, description and use of semantic primes in the understanding lexicon characteristics and meaning. The dichotomous classification of lexemes into primes and non-primes and the subsequent assertion that all words in a language can effectively and exclusively be defined by the primes is, to say the least, falsifiable. It has also been correctly pointed out that the basic premise of NSM – conceptual primitives, being innate objects, are only accessible through intuition and cannot be subjected to empirical and scientific inquiry: a requisite prequalification for any theory. In spite of NSM’s shortcomings, the critics concur that Wierzbicka and her co-researchers have opened a new front for understanding language structure, meaning and culture. Their theory has also illuminated the deficiencies of other methods of definition especially the circular nature. The NSM explication should therefore be used complementarily with other methods aimed at achieving definition success. The aspects of the word that cannot be effectively revealed by lexicographical definitions, classical decomposition or the prototype approach could be described by NSM’s paraphrases and vice versa. 2.0 Explications for Kiswahili interjections Salale and kumbe are among the commonest Kiswahili interjections. Interjections are important for expressing emotions (feelings), volition (wishes), cognition (thoughts) and for performing illocutionary functions such as calling attention discourse filling, denoting new or old information and intensifying or repairing an utterance. The explications for these two Swahili interjections will reveal these shades of meaning where applicable. 2.1 Explications for SALALE! and KUMBE! (3) Salale! Maji yamekwisha New York. ‘Salale! New York has run out of water.’ In this context, the interjectory statement is made by someone who never expected that New York can ever run out of water. The interjection is explicated thus: Salale! a) Something very new [M] has happened. b) I did not know that this kind of thing can happen. c) I feel like laughing [M]because of this. Or d) Maybe I should cry [M] because of this. The explications (d) and (e) alternate and are determinable by the emotional states evoked by the occurrence. While one speaker finds this situation surprising situation laughable, another may choose to lament it. Kumbe is another interjection that can be used to express surprise but in a very different sense from that expressed by salale. (4) Kumbe Mchungaji Jakobo anawezaiba. ‘Kumbe Pastor Jacob can steal!’ In this situation Jacob has done something that is never expected of him. Explicated, the interjection can be rendered as follows: Kumbe! a) I have just known something now. b) I have not this known before. c) For I did not think it can happen. d) But it has happened a moment before. e) Now, I know (it is true) it can happen. It is emerging that the two Swahili interjections can be paraphrased for new unexpected information. But in the case of kumbe, the unexpected new information must also be a discovery (it was not known to exist). The newness expressed by salale is, however, restricted to the unexpectedness of the fact (it was known that it could not happen) and not that ‘it was unknown before’. Subsequently, interchanging the interjections will be ridiculous. “Kumbe New York has run out of water!” will not make any semantic sense since the interjectory situation is not a ‘discovery’ in Kumbe’s sense. It would, however, be sensible to say: (5) Kumbe New York can run out of water! This implies that this fact, as much as it is surprising, was not known until this statement was made. 3.0 Explications for IS DISGUSTED WITH ­­­ This section presents the semantic explication for the emotions described by the English adjective disgusted in the string Someone X is disgusted with (someone) at this time . The sentences for explication are sampled from the Collins Wordbanks Online which is reputable for authentic language use corpus from more than five varieties or English. The Macmillan Dictionary defines disgusted as ‘feeling angry and upset about something that you do not approve of’ and ‘feeling physically ill because something is extremely unpleasant to see, smell, or taste.’ The synonyms for the first sense include angry, annoyed, upset, cross, irritated, fed up, put out, displeased, mad, belligerent. In the second sense the synonyms are ill, frail, unfit, worse, fragile, unfit, unhealthy, failing, unwell, sick. The string Someone X is disgusted with (someone Y) can only accommodate the first sense hence the explications in this section will bring it out. Consider sentences (6) and (7) below. (6) He is disgusted with the music industry. To capture the actual sense in which this utterance is made the whole sentence, the entire sentence can be stated: Singh told his friends he is disgusted with the music industry, and is planning to retire. The explication can follow thus: is disgusted with a) Someone feels very bad with something. b) This happens because this something is very bad to this someone. c) Because this someone feels very bad with this something, this someone thinks not to do things with this something. d) This someone feels not to be somewhere this something is. Sentence context (6) signals the most intense emotions associated with disgust namely mad, upset, irritated, belligerent, fed up, cross, angry, annoyed. This comes out very well when the meaning in sentence (6) is compared to the one in sentence (7) below. (7)The Manchester Union Leader is disgusted with the choice. The full context of the text reads: The Manchester Union Leader is disgusted with the choice and calls it a last straw. The emotions expressed by disgusted in sentence can be explicated as follows: is disgusted with a) Someone feels very bad with something. b) This someone cannot see something good in this something. c) This someone thinks there is something very bad in this something. Explications in (7) bring out the less intense emotions expressed by disgust: loathing, displeasing and annoyed. From the two explications, X is disgusted with Y can be paraphrased to bring out the same meaning as a ‘very bad feeling’ towards something or someone. When intense, it leads one not to ‘be somewhere’ or ‘do something’ with the one who makes it happen. When mild, the ‘very bad feeling’ makes one to ‘fail to see good’ or ‘to think of something very bad’ in what makes it happen. Not all very bad feelings can be expressed by X is disgusted with Y. Consider the following context. (8) Miriam is disgusted with her sister for getting injured in the accident. Though the context calls for ‘feeling very bad with somebody’ that somebody cannot be ‘her sister’. The context can be altered thus: (9) Miriam is disgusted with the careless driver. References Drobnakm, F.T. 2009. ‘On the Merits and Shortcomings of Semantic Primes and Natural Semantic Metalanguage in Cross-Cultural Translation’ English Language Overseas Perspectives and Enquiries. Vol. VI/1-2, pp29-41. Endelman, G. M. 1992. Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of Mind. New York: Basic Books. Enfield, N. J., ed. 2002. Ethnosyntax Explorations in Grammar and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goddard C 2006 ‘Natural Semantic Metalanguage’ Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics 2nd edition Keith Brown (ed.) Oxford Elsevier: 544–551. HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. 2008. Collins Wordbanks Online. < http://wordbanks.harpercollins.co.uk/auth/?module=changepass> Retrieved on: 10th Jan, 2014. Macmillan Online Dictionary. Retrieved on: 12th Jan, 2014. Reimer, Nick. 2006. Reductive paraphrase and meaning: A critique of Wierzbickan semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy. Vol29, 3. pp 247-261. Wierzbicka, A. 1972. Semantic Primitives. Linguistische Forschungen 22. Frankfurt: Athenäum. Wierzbicka, Anna: 1996, Semantics. Primes and Universals. New York: OUP. Appendix I Semantic primes—English exponents Substantives: I, YOU, SOMEONE, SOMETHING/THING, PEOPLE, BODY Relational substantives: KIND, PART Determiners: THIS, THE SAME, OTHER/ELSE Quantifiers: ONE, TWO, MUCH/MANY, SOME, ALL Evaluators: GOOD, BAD Descriptors: BIG, SMALL Mental predicates: THINK, KNOW, WANT, FEEL, SEE, HEAR Speech: SAY, WORDS, TRUE Action, events, movement, contact: DO, HAPPEN, MOVE, TOUCH Location, existence, possession, specification:BE (SOMEWHERE), THERE IS/EXIST, HAVE, BE (SOMEONE/SOMETHING) Life and death: LIVE, DIE Time: WHEN/TIME, NOW, BEFORE, AFTER, A LONG TIME, A SHORT TIME, FOR SOME TIME, MOMENT Space: WHERE/PLACE, HERE, ABOVE, BELOW, FAR, NEAR, SIDE, INSIDE Logical concepts: NOT, MAYBE, CAN, BECAUSE, IF Augmentor, intensifier: VERY, MORE Similarity: LIKE/AS Read More

The other aspects of NSM theory critiqued have to do with substitution and polysemy. Riemer applies the substitutability test to validate the extent to which NSM’s paraphrases are identical to the terms defined. The attempts by the NSM theorists to arrive at the sense-for-sense meaning of words by paraphrases are an enterprise in futility. This is because, by nature, utterances are complex and constrained by ethnocentrism and culture-dependency among other functions. It is apparently true that the question of polysemy is inconclusively addressed by NSM.

It is imperative for NSM to design paraphrasing formulae that accommodate all shades of polysemy and ensure a sense-for-sense substitution. Lastly, the theorists’ own disconfirmation of their theory leads Riemer to criticize NSM’s strong universality claims. Goddard’s (2006, 6) suggestion that their theory works well but not in all respects occasions this reaction: if the metalanguage cannot work everywhere, why should it be relied upon anywhere? Reimer’s argument here stands and falls.

The universality claim should stand but all areas in which NSM is inapplicable should be well stated and alternative methods for explication given by the NSM proponents. 1.3 Dronnak: The Merits and Shortcomings of NSM Drobnak (2009) consolidates linguists’ criticism of NSM drawing from them the merits and shortcomings of the theory in the domain of cross-cultural translation. The NSM theorists are commended for the incisive and in-depth descriptions of grammars and culture-specifics of various speech communities.

The critics also acknowledge, as groundbreaking, the notion of universality and empirical viability of the lexicalization of semantic primes in natural languages. The universal and indivisible character of the conceptual primitives make them useful building blocks for culture-free semantic definitions with wider acceptability than circular synonyms and quasi-synonyms. These views seem accurate and should be upheld. The theorists’ observation that the lexicon is as indicative of a society’s culture as much as the grammatical categories and structure is a positive direction for modern contemporary linguistics.

In fact, it has been noted that NSM approach has a useful role in cross-cultural research. It is true that the NSM may revolutionize modern translation studies. Linguists, anthropologists and philologists spurn NSM for its insistence that the sole authentic basis for linguistic and ethnographic analysis should be at the level of the primitive semantic corpus (Endefield 2002:5). Not all indefinable lexemes translatable to all natural languages are useful in building blocks for definitions. Neither can all words be satisfactorily defined by paraphrases.

It has been argued that proper names like Socrates or John and natural kind terms like cat or water cannot be adequately paraphrased. Subsequently, the proponents’ position that indecomposable lexemes make up the conceptual primitives (the means by which we categorize the world around us) is found to be harsh. Wierzbicka (1972:21) acknowledges this deficit and provides tentative explication thus: (1) The man called John as “The man thinking of whom we say ‘John’” (2) A cat as “An animal thinking of which one would say ‘cat’” The words John and cat are not semantic primes yet they have been used in the paraphrase in violation of the NSM paradigms.

This criticism of NSM holds and the theorists, as earlier stated, should make selection criteria for primes beyond reproof since NSM stands or falls on the account of the notion of primes. Finally, Drobnak (2009) also holds the opinion that this NSM’s theoretical assumptions can neither be verified nor disproved empirically since human inquiry cannot access the conceptual universe or the lingua mentalis. This is a valid ground for rejecting this theory; nevertheless, the inadequacy of the current tools to investigate mental activity cannot render all theoretical assumptions based on it untenable. 1.

Read More