Misplaced Pages

Semantic primes: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:53, 2 September 2022 editRodw (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers774,147 editsm Disambiguating links to Set (link removed) using DisamAssist.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:49, 6 September 2023 edit undoFelix QW (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,573 edits Precise target, r with historyTags: Redirect target changed 2017 wikitext editor 
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
⚫ #REDIRECT ]
{{Short description|Innate semantic concepts}}

{{multiple issues|
{{Rcat shell|
{{essay-like|date=November 2009}}
{{R to related topic}}
{{duplication|dupe=Natural_semantic_metalanguage|date=March 2013}}
{{R with history}}
}} }}

'''Semantic primes''' or '''semantic primitives''' are a set of semantic concepts<ref name="Words and Meanings"/> that are argued to be innately understood by all people but impossible to express in simpler terms. They represent words or phrases that are learned through practice but cannot be defined concretely. For example, although the meaning of "touching" is readily understood, a dictionary might define "touch" as "to make contact" and "contact" as "touching", providing no information if neither of these words is understood. The concept of universal semantic primes was largely introduced by ]'s book, ''Semantics: Primes and Universals''.

==List of semantic primes==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Category !! Primes
|-
| ]s || I, you, someone, people, something/thing, body
|-
| Relational substantives || Kind, part
|-
| ] || This, the same, other~else~another
|-
| ] || One, two, some, all, much/many, little/few
|-
| Evaluators || Good, bad
|-
| Descriptors || Big, small
|-
| Mental ]s || Think, know, want, don't want, feel, see, hear
|-
| ] || Say, words, true
|-
| ], ], ] || Do, happen, move
|-
| ], ] || Be (somewhere), there is, be (someone/something), (is) mine
|-
| 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, touch (contact)
|-
| Logical concepts || Not, maybe, can, because, if
|-
| ], augmentor || Very, more
|-
| Similarity || Like/as/way
|}
Table adapted from Levisen and Waters 2017<ref name="Cultural Keywords">{{Cite book|title=Cultural Keywords in Discourse|last=Carsten Levisen|first=Sophia Waters|publisher=John Benjamins Publishing Company|year=2017|isbn=9789027256829}}</ref> and Goddard and Wierzbicka 2014.<ref name="Words and Meanings">{{Cite book|title=Words and Meanings: Lexical Semantics across Domains, Languages and Cultures|last=Cliff Goddard|first=Anna Wierzbicka|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2014|isbn=978-0-19-966843-4|location=Oxford}}</ref>

==A universal ''syntax'' of meaning==
Semantic primes represent universally meaningful ''concepts'', but to have meaningful ''messages'', or ''statements'', such concepts must combine in a way that they themselves convey meaning. Such meaningful combinations, in their simplest form as sentences, constitute the ''syntax'' of the language. Wierzbicka provides evidence that just as all languages use the same set of semantic primes, they also use the same or very similar syntax. She states: "I am also positing certain innate and universal rules of syntax – not in the sense of some intuitively unverifiable formal syntax à la Chomsky, but in the sense of intuitively verifiable patterns determining possible combinations of primitive concepts (Wierzbicka, 1996)." She gives one example comparing the English sentence, "I want to do this", with its equivalent in Russian. Although she notes certain formal differences between the two sentence structures, their semantic equivalence emerges from the "....equivalence of the primitives themselves and of the rules for their combination."

<blockquote>This work has led to a set of highly concrete proposals about a hypothesized irreducible core of all human languages. This universal core is believed to have a fully ‘language-like’ character in the sense that it consists of a lexicon of semantic primitives together with a syntax governing how the primitives can be combined (Goddard, 1998).</blockquote>

It may not be surprising that all humans today possess a common language core of semantic primes and a more or less universal syntax since there is substantial evidence that all humans today descended from a common speech-enabled ] and ] ''Homo sapiens'' ancestor. {{citation needed|date=December 2019}} Linguist ] traces ''Homo sapiens'' language origin as far back as 130,000 years ago, perhaps only 65,000 years after the earliest ''Homo sapiens'' fossil finds (Adler, 2000). Philosopher G. J. Whitrow expresses it:

<blockquote>....despite the great diversity of existing languages and dialect, the capacity for language appears to be identical in all races. Consequently, we can conclude that man's linguistic ability existed before racial diversification occurred (Whitrow, 1988).</blockquote>

==Natural semantic metalanguage==
{{main|Natural semantic metalanguage}}

In effect, the combination of a set of semantic primes each representing a different basic concept, residing in minds with a propensity to acquire certain basic concepts, and a common set of rules for combining those concepts into meaningful messages, constitutes a natural semantic prime language, or ]. In English, the natural semantic metalanguage reduces language to a core that enables full development of the English language. A new word can be added as a shorthand substitute for a 'text' in the natural semantic metalanguage, a 'text' that can convey what English speakers mean by ''lie'', by ''what a person does when he says something not true because he wants someone to think it true''. Any English word can be described (defined) with a text using a primitive lexicon of about 60 words (concepts) in the English natural semantic metalanguage. {{citation needed|date=December 2019}} Likewise can any complex semantic sentence in English be paraphrased reductively to the core words and syntax of the natural semantic metalanguage. {{citation needed|date=December 2019}} The texts can make subtle distinctions English-speakers make between ''happy'', ''glad'', ''joyful'', ''ecstatic'', etc., and can supply those distinctions to those who want to know them.

Given the universal nature of the list of semantic primes among languages, and of the grammar, every language has essentially the same natural semantic metalanguage, though each semantic prime sounds different among languages and the appearance of the syntax may differ. Wierzbicka and colleagues refer to all the natural semantic metalanguages as 'isomorphic' with each other. {{citation needed|date=December 2019}} Conceivably, if the dictionary of meaning descriptions of each language was reductively paraphrased in the text of its natural semantic metalanguage, and that natural semantic metalanguage was translated to a common natural semantic metalanguage for all natural languages, it would greatly reduce language barriers.

== See also ==
* ]
* ]
⚫ * ]
* ]

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

==References==
{{refbegin}}
*{{Citizendium}}
*Adler R. (2000) ''New Scientist'', 26 February.
*Goddard C. (1998) Bad arguments against semantic primitives. ''Theoretical Linguistics'' 24:129-156.
*Goddard C. (2002) The search for the shared semantic core of all languages. In Cliff Goddard and Anna Wierzbicka (eds). ''Meaning and Universal Grammar - Theory and Empirical Findings''. Volume I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp.&nbsp;5–40.
*Goddard C., Wierzbicka A. (eds.) (1994) ''Semantic and Lexical Universals: Theory and Empirical Findings''. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
*Whitrow GJ. (1988) ''Time in History: The evolution of our general awareness of time and temporal perspective.'' Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|0-19-215361-7}}. p.&nbsp;11.
*Wierzbicka A. (1996) Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|0-19-870002-4}}.
{{refend}}

==External links==
*. PDF
* In Cliff Goddard and Anna Wierzbicka (eds). ''Meaning and Universal Grammar - Theory and Empirical Findings''. Volume I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp.&nbsp;5–40.
*

]
]

Latest revision as of 08:49, 6 September 2023

Redirect to:

This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
  • To a related topic: This is a redirect to an article about a similar topic.
    • Redirects from related topics are different than redirects from related words, because a related topic is more likely to warrant a full and detailed description in the target article. If this redirect's subject is notable, then also tag it with {{R with possibilities}} and {{R printworthy}}.
  • With history: This is a redirect from a page containing substantive page history. This page is kept as a redirect to preserve its former content and attributions. Please do not remove the tag that generates this text (unless the need to recreate content on this page has been demonstrated), nor delete this page.
    • This template should not be used for redirects having some edit history but no meaningful content in their previous versions, nor for redirects created as a result of a page merge (use {{R from merge}} instead), nor for redirects from a title that forms a historic part of Misplaced Pages (use {{R with old history}} instead).
When appropriate, protection levels are automatically sensed, described and categorized.
Semantic primes: Difference between revisions Add topic