<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1126" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff background="">
<DIV><SPAN class=245085016-17032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>A
couple of weeks ago someone mentioned Wierzbicka's work on Natural Semantic
Metalanguage (NSM). (I was recovering from surgery at the time and not up to
responding.) One of the interesting things that has come out of this theory is
the view that "obvious" concepts like 'sun' or 'dog' can be described. Our
mental concepts for these sorts of things can be quite detailed. We can define
them by doing more than just pointing at the object and saying, "There. That's
the sun." Wierzbicka calls these ostensive definitions', definitions by
pointing. Her point is that we don't need to be limited to ostensive definitions
or ridiculous definitions like 'dog n. canis familiaris' or 'bull n. the male
counterpart of cow'. For 'dog' we first need to distinguish between
scientific information and our cultural conception. Biologists may point out
that dogs are more closely related to foxes than to cats, but that piece of
information is not part of our definition. Instead we form an image of a
prototypical dog, learn what is and isn't a dog, and accumulate a set of facts
about dogs, all of which taken together forms our notion of 'dog'. Each of the
idioms I listed (below) is based on one of the facts that everybody (in our
culture) knows about dogs and which forms our concept of what a dog is and what
is 'doggish' behavior. Dogs have pointed ears, at least the prototypical dog
does. When a dog hears a noise, his ears move, presumably moving up. We say,
"The dog pricked up its ears." We extend this to human behavior. So my American
Heritage Dictionary gives 'prick up one's ears. To listen with attentive
interest' as a subentry under 'prick'. The issue I was trying to raise in the
message quoted below is that this idiom is based on 'dog' semantically. I
believe John is right in saying that such metaphorical extensions belong under
the entry 'dog' as well as under 'prick' (Saussure's "expression"). This makes
sense if we fully explicate the meaning of 'dog': has pointed ears which it
raises when it hears something (prick up its ears), has a long tail which it
moves back and forth when it is happy (wag its tail), has long hairs along its
back that it raises when it is about to fight (bristle, raise its hackles),
turns in a circle trying to bite its tail (chase its tail), fights with its
teeth and claws (go at it tooth and nail), is friendly to people (puppy love),
people make small houses to shelter dogs (dog house), will hide in its dog house
when scolded (be in the dog house), lays around doing nothing for much of the
day (it's a dog's life), has a good sense of smell and sniffs around the ground
when it smells something (sniffing around), will follow the smell of a person or
animal that can no longer be seen (hot on the scent), has fleas (flee bitten),
etc. We could argue whether this is encyclopedic knowledge, cultural
view, or really part of our definition. But the more important
consideration is whether or not our description of 'dog' is complete without
noting our shared view of what makes a dog a dog and how this determines
patterns of collocation and linguistic expressions like idioms and
metaphors.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=245085016-17032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=245085016-17032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>We may
object to NSM's unnaturally limited vocabulary and syntax for popular dictionary
definitions (something NSM was not designed to do), but it is incredibly
powerful in clarifying semantics. I don't know for sure, but it sure seems like
Longman's Language Activator (learner's dictionary) is highly influenced by NSM.
They employ a defining vocabulary of 2222 words and many of their definitions
sound like NSM. I highly recommend this approach to definitions. Define complex
words using simple/common/general words. Carefully identify and describe each
component of the meaning. There are other aspects of NSM that I have come to
appreciate ( e.g. prototypical scenarios), but enough for
now.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=245085016-17032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=245085016-17032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Ron
Moe</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=245085016-17032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>SIL
Uganda</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> John Roberts
[mailto:dr_john_roberts@sil.org]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 17, 2004
3:35 AM<BR><B>To:</B> lexicographylist@yahoogroups.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[Lexicog] Criteria for example sentences<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>On Tuesday, March 16, 2004 12:52 AM Ron Moe
said:<BR><BR>> We've got lots of other nice expressions based on the
behavior of dogs: "He<BR>> bristled." "He pricked up his ears." "My tongue
was hanging out." "I'm<BR>> drooling at the thought." "Chasing your tail."
"The tail wagging the dog."<BR>> "Go at it tooth and nail." "Puppy love."
"I'm in the dog house." "It's a<BR>> dog's life." "Hot on the scent."
"Sniffing around." Although these are all<BR>> idioms, they are not so
frozen that they have lost their doggish flavor.<BR>> They still conjure up
images of dogs. So should they all be made subentries<BR>> under 'dog'? How
do we link related metaphors?<BR><BR>These metaphors are based on the concept
DOG as it is perceived in English speaking cultures. Svensén (1993) suggests
that a dictionary entry should be organised around the three parameters of the
linguistic sign (from Saussure) which are: <EM>expression</EM> (the form of
the linguistic sign), <EM>content</EM> (meaning of the linguistic sign) and
<EM>function</EM> (combination with other linguistic signs). So metaphorical
extensions from the concept DOG should go under the content
(meaning) part of the entry for the lexical item 'dog'.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>John Roberts</DIV>
<DIV><BR></FONT> </DIV>
<br>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> <tr> <td align=center><font face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12c3u2re7/M=267637.4673017.5833252.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1709195911:HM/EXP=1079632425/A=1945637/R=0/SIG=11t0jpd4l/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60178397&partid=4673017" alt=""><img src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ne/netflix/yhoo0104_b_300250a.gif" alt="click here" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td></tr></table> </td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1 src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=267637.4673017.5833252.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=:HM/A=1945637/rand=733798310"></td></tr>
</table>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<br>
<tt><hr width="500">
<b>Yahoo! Groups Links</b><br>
<ul>
<li>To visit your group on the web, go to:<br><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/</a><br>
<li>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<br><a href="mailto:lexicographylist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe">lexicographylist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br>
<li>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.
</ul>
</tt>
</br>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
</BODY></HTML>