[Lexicog] Criteria for example sentences

[Ron Moe]

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.

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.

Ron Moe
SIL Uganda
  -----Original Message-----
  From: John Roberts [mailto:dr_john_roberts at sil.org]
  Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 3:35 AM
  To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Lexicog] Criteria for example sentences


  On Tuesday, March 16, 2004 12:52 AM Ron Moe said:

  > We've got lots of other nice expressions based on the behavior of dogs:
"He
  > bristled." "He pricked up his ears." "My tongue was hanging out." "I'm
  > drooling at the thought." "Chasing your tail." "The tail wagging the
dog."
  > "Go at it tooth and nail." "Puppy love." "I'm in the dog house." "It's a
  > dog's life." "Hot on the scent." "Sniffing around." Although these are
all
  > idioms, they are not so frozen that they have lost their doggish flavor.
  > They still conjure up images of dogs. So should they all be made
subentries
  > under 'dog'? How do we link related metaphors?

  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: expression (the form of the linguistic sign), content (meaning of
the linguistic sign) and function (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'.

  John Roberts




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/

    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20040317/207eb0eb/attachment.htm>