Jezikoslovlje

4.2 (2003): 161-186 █ 161

Članci – Articles - Artikel

UDC 81’37
Original scientific paper
Received on 27. 11. 2002.
Accepted for publication 29. 09. 2004.
Marija M. Brala
University of Trieste &
University of Rijeka

NSM within
the cognitive linguistics movement:
Bridging some gaps ∗

Ever since the Chomskyan views revolutionised the scientific study of

language, we have been expecting to see groundbreaking results relative to the
workings of the human language faculty. Unfortunately for the discipline, this
has not been the case. This paper is structured around one one-word question:
why? Departing from some general considerations about cognitive linguistics,
and some specific considerations about the Natural Semantic Metalanguage
(NSM), this paper attempts to: a. establish the common ground(s) shared by
most approaches currently being developed within the cognitive linguistic
paradigm; b. posit some key arguments supporting the thesis that semantic and
conceptual universals should corroborate most if not all theses relative to
linguistic conceptualisation; c. try and bridge some gaps between a number of
conceptual theories of language, arguing that quite a few divergences between
frameworks and interpretations are due to opacity of criteria, methodologies
and even just terminology; d. suggest that NSM has much to offer to
linguistics in terms of solving the above problems. It is argued that a more
tightly knit paradigm would allow for a more efficient interpretation of data
stemming from research in cognitive linguistics, and which is, as shown in the
paper, already yielding quite a few consistent patterns.

Key words: Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM). Cognitive linguistic

paradigm, semantic universals, conceptual primitives

∗
I wish to thank Keith Brown, Henriette Hendriks and Danijela Trenkic for many
‘unorthodox’ and stimulating conversations during which quite a few ideas expressed in this
paper were shaped, challenged and rethought, as well as two anonymous reviewers for
insightful comments and a number of helpful suggestions.
 Marija M. Brala:
█ 162 NSM within the cognitive linguistics movement

1. Introduction; The promising beginnings and the less promising

developments

Over the last thirty to forty years, linguistics has attracted interest and achieved
prestige that it had never dreamed of before. After brilliant scholars like Chomsky,
Lashley, and Miller, to mention but a few Goliaths, dismantled the colossal doctrine
of behaviourism, cognitive science – comprising also cognitive linguistics – started
to rise as one of the main intellectual developments of the second half of the
twentieth century1.

The idea that mental processes could be thought of as operations over rich
internal representations, and that both mental representations and operations could
be thoroughly studied and faithfully modelled, attracted a myriad of scholars from
very diverse disciplines, ranging from mathematics, electronics and computer
science on the one hand, via psychology and neurobiology, to linguistics,
philosophy, anthropology, and even literary criticism on the other hand. All
cognitivists have been primarily concerned with mental representations, but, as
Levinson (1998) points out, it soon became clear that linguists were blessed with an
advantage over the others: no cognitive science apart from linguistics had ready
access to one basic touchstone, namely deciding between human innate and acquired
abilities.

Departing from Chomsky’s (1957) hardly disputable observations relative to the

creativity and productivity of children’s language2, and subsequent appealing
interpretations, many linguists embraced his mathematically precise descriptions of
language and ventured down the ‘transformationalist’ avenue, or down its
derivatives, to find the ‘innate’ part of language. The search for the biologically
determined principles underlying language has been underway for almost half a
century now. And yet, there still seems to be serious lack of consensus among
scholars about the proper characterisation of even the most fundamental linguistic
phenomena.

Ever since the advent of Chomskyan views revolutionised the scientific study of
language, we have been expecting to see groundbreaking results relative to the

1
While it is true that when it comes to studies on language cognitive science has been
influenced primarily by generative linguistics and by experimental psycholinguistics, and
that many cognitive scientists are still only dimly aware of cognitive linguistics, it is also the
case that, finding after finding, cognitive linguistics has been gaining support and
prominence (the leading journal of the field is Cognitive Linguistics, and the movement is
organised around the International Cognitive Linguistics Association).
2
As is well known, Chomsky’s argument refers to children’s ability to derive structural
regularities of their native language (i.e. grammatical rules) from the utterances of their
parents, and then to extend them to create novel, original constructions, they have never
heard before.
 Jezikoslovlje
4.2 (2003): 161-186 █ 163

workings of the human brain, those that the consensus about the abandonment of
behaviourism was perhaps somewhat naively but most certainly expected to yield.
The consensus about some degree of language universality, representing a wide door
into the workings of the human language faculty, was justifiably expected to bring
about more and closer collaboration of the scientific community that had so
enthusiastically embraced the idea of the innate basis of language. Unfortunately for
the discipline, this has not been the case. This paper is structured around one one-
word question: why?

Simultaneously with increasing linguistic data undermining elements in the

Chomskyan extremely formal (and to many intelligible) apparatus, research in
psychology on the nature of human categorisation (e.g. Rosch 1973) provided
impetus for a birth of a new cognitive movement. Interestingly, this movement,
which in the early 80-s still did not have a name, has in the last decade grown to
become the most rapidly expanding linguistic paradigm, today known as Cognitive
Linguistics.

As we shall see in more detail in Section 2 of this paper, the ‘new cognitivists’
depart from the premise that language is part of human cognition. Having given up
on formal logic as an adequate way to represent conceptual systems, their new aim,
and method, is to integrate discoveries about conceptual systems stemming from
various sub-fields of cognitive science into the theory of language (which,
ultimately, should grow into a theory of mind). Most cognitive linguists namely
share the presupposition that mental representations, including the linguistic ones,
can be studied and described structurally.

Once again, however, the acceptance of some new key ideas by an academic
community failed to bring groundbreaking developments. The increasing interest in
the conceptual organisation of linguistic knowledge rather than strengthening the
new scientific movement became a point of proliferation for schools of thought, and
thus soon a source of fuzziness relative to theories, criteria and methods. This paper
has been written with the aim of pointing out to the fact that the number of sub-
disciplines, theories, frameworks, methodologies and even jargon items in Cognitive
Linguistics is probably far greater than would be useful, and thus needed, and that
rather than bringing us closer to some answers, this proliferation of frameworks
might actually be preventing us from collaborating more closely and serving the
field more efficiently.

Departing from some general considerations regarding the discipline of

Cognitive Linguistics, and the language – mind riddle - nowadays recognised by
most scholars as the key linguistic issue - in this paper we shall take a look at one
(borderline cognitive) theory about language, namely NSM, and then try to relate it
to some other theories and my own findings within the cognitive linguistic
framework. The ultimate goal is to try to show that there are a number of shared
 Marija M. Brala:
█ 164 NSM within the cognitive linguistics movement

ideas and elements which are, sadly and somewhat surprisingly, left to develop as
two parallel lines, never bound to intersect.

The paper is structured in the following way: in the next section we review the
common positions regarding the language - cognition interface shared by most
scholars working within the cognitive paradigm. Next (section 3), I argue that
Cognitive Linguistics has not addressed the issue of linguistic universals as centrally
as it should have. To show what is meant by this, in section 4 I turn to a framework
based on the notion of semantic and conceptual primitives, namely the Natural
Semantic Metalanguage (NSM), and suggest that the criteria proposed as central to
the NSM approach (‘defining power’, ‘universality’ and ‘constitutive potential’),
should not be ignored by anyone wishing to draw conclusive considerations relative
to the cognitive basis of language. The paper ends with a few general remarks
regarding the question: what makes a good (cognitive) theory. It is argued that a
more tightly knit paradigm would allow for a more efficient interpretation of data
stemming from research in Cognitive Linguistics, and which is, as I try to
demonstrate below, already yielding quite a few consistent patterns.

2. The Cognitive Linguistic Paradigm: What we agree on, or almost

As we briefly mentioned, language is within the paradigm of Cognitive Linguistics

considered and studied as an integral part of the human cognitive system. As such, it
is expected to reflect – both through structure and functioning – other cognitive
abilities. Albeit there being much disagreement to the modes and extent of the
‘shared’ between the ‘language specific’ and ‘the rest’ in the human brain, the
cognitive view is premised on the study of language within the overall human
cognitive system and does, as such, presuppose that at least to a minimal degree
language should reflect and point to structural elements and operational principles
that pertain to sub-systems of human cognition other than the language faculty.

This basic point of departure is reflected in a few common views on language

and cognition advocated by most of those working within the cognitive paradigm.
This consensus gives coherence to the framework, which otherwise, given the great
diversity with respect to perspectives, criteria, methodologies and evaluation tools
advocated by various cognitive linguists, we would hardly be justified tagging ‘a
paradigm’. In a nutshell, these common views - stemming from some basic findings
- could be stated as follows:

1) language is part of human cognition, intimately linked with other cognitive

domains and as such mirrors (the interplay between) various sub-domains of
the human cognitive system. We can understand language only if we study
it in the context of conceptualisation and mental processing, thus only in
relation to the whole system, and this calls for interdisciplinary research;
 Jezikoslovlje
4.2 (2003): 161-186 █ 165

2) linguistic structure depends on, and possibly to some degree influences,

conceptualisation. Conceptualisation, filtered through perception, reflects
the interaction of cultural, communicative, psychological, functional and
neuro-physiological considerations. The language-cognition relation is to be
investigated from both ends;

3) meaning is what drives language. Meaning is not constrained in the lexicon,

but ranges through the linguistic spectrum. Furthermore, many (but not all)
cognitive linguists view meaning as ‘embodied’, i.e. as having its ‘roots’ in
the shared human experience of bodily existence.
‘Access’ to meaning involves access and manipulation of knowledge
structures (labelled as ‘scenes’, ‘cognitive models’, ‘conceptual domains’,
‘image schemas’ etc.). The meaning of a linguistic unit is a conceptual
structure associated with it. Furthermore, it is also argued that individual
concepts are understood in the context of a complex structured experience
(called the semantic frame3).

4) at the surface level of language, the linguistic spectrum (see point 3 above)
is differently partitioned in or rather by different languages. We say that at
the cross-linguistic level languages differ in terms of their categorisation
patterns. This also means that large portions of cognitive linguistic research
need to involve the cross-linguistic level, where most or rather all results
should also be verified;

5) grammar is motivated by semantic considerations. This assumption is

however to be understood within another, broader consideration, which can
be asserted as follows: given the interaction between language and other
domains of cognition, as well as the interaction among language
subcomponents, the various autonomy theses proposed in the (traditional)
linguistic literature have to be abandoned; a strict separation of syntax,
morphology and lexicon is untenable. As pointed out in 3 above, meaning is
at the basis of all linguistic phenomena. Grammar - a set of principles
governing how the lexical elements can be combined – is viewed as
establishing the basic signallings of the semantico-syntactic relationships

3
However, Frame semantics is not an atomistic theory of meaning in the way NSM is.
Frames involve a specific choice of viewing a situation, i.e. they also a rather large slice of
the surrounding culture, and are as such one level 'higher' than the atomistic level that we are
focusing on in this paper. This does not mean that say Frame semantics and NSM (and other
atomistic paradigms) are not compatible. We are simply talking about two different levels at
which the human language faculty is realised: the atomistic level (the level of universality),
and the level of patterning (schematisation, complex meaning structures), i.e. a (language
specific) molecular level where universal elements are put to use in a language (possibly
even also speaker) specific way (see also section 4.2.).
 Marija M. Brala:
█ 166 NSM within the cognitive linguistics movement

accomplished in a given language, i.e. as determining the typological profile

of that language.

Data analyses and theoretical assumptions which to varying degrees reflect the
above points can at present be found in proposals advocated by e.g. René Dirven,
Gilles Fauconnier, Charles Fillmore, Mark Johnson, Ronald Langacker, George
Lakoff, Leonard Talmy, Mark Turner, and Anna Wierzbicka, to mention just some
of the leading researchers developing theories within the cognitive framework. The
scholars just mentioned are at the forefront of the ‘new cognitivist movement’,
currently establishing a research programme grounded in the premises stated above.
Yet, albeit departing from the shared considerations spelled out in 1 through 5
above, work by the scholars we just mentioned swiftly starts drifting away from
common grounds the moment these considerations are ‘put into practice’. Is there
any way this might need not be necessarily so?

3. In search of common grounds: Can the cognitive do without the

universal?

The basic cognitivist assumption that there are things that are shared between the
human language faculty and other subsystems of human cognition (for a thorough
examination of this point cf. e.g. Talmy 2000) translates into the following two way
equation: by examining language we should gain insight into the structure and
operational principles of the mind, just as by examining multifaceted aspects of
various cognitive processes taking place in the human brain we can gain insight into
the meanings expressed by linguistic forms.

Most cognitive linguists and psycholinguists take the first road and try to search
for answers about the language-mind riddle departing from language, i.e. linguistic
data, and posing the following hypothesis: if the human language faculty is
constrained in structural and operational terms (let us think about this as some kind
of ontological knowledge, or ‘pre-knowledge’) then it is quite likely that this same
ontology (or parts thereof) will be constraining other subsystems of human cognition
as well.

Generally speaking, cognitive linguists work from data toward theories, and
much more rarely in the other direction. This is not necessarily negative (else we
just might run the risk of ‘adjusting’ our data so as to fit the theory), but it does have
the fault of being simply descriptive, thus lacking the virtue that every ‘serious’
science should have: that of being predictive. Although some cognitive linguists
(e.g. Janda, Croft) try to justify this weakness by the fact that in language we have
too many variables, and that all the data is necessarily contaminated (and that thus
cognitive linguistics cannot subscribe to a strictly dualistic understanding of the
concepts ‘predictable’ vs. ‘arbitrary’, or ‘objective science’ vs. ‘subjective inter-
 Jezikoslovlje
4.2 (2003): 161-186 █ 167

pretation’, cf. Janda 2000), this might just not be a promising scientific reply to well
grounded criticism.

As specified in Section 2 above, cognitivists view meanings – the focal point of

their scholarly efforts - as involving access to and manipulation of conceptual or
knowledge structures. One immediate question follows: ‘Over precisely what kind
of information are computations in the brain carried out’ (cf. Jackendoff 1992). The
answer to the question might be found en-route to answers to another question:
which subsystems of human cognition are easily comparable with language and
what is universally shared between these systems and the way we talk about them.
We shall return to this question below, and the answer to it shall provide one of the
guiding principles for the suggestions put forward.

Now, since we are talking about the human brain, or, if one wishes, about its
‘contents’ i.e. the mind, we cannot dismiss the idea that there have to be some
elements to language which will be shared not just between the human language
faculty and other sub-systems of human cognition, but between all natural languages
of the world. Or, to put it into ‘historic’ or ‘developmental’ terms, if Chomskyan
cognitivist were after the syntactic universals, the new cognitivists, having
recognised the primacy of meaning over all other manifestations of language, might
perhaps be best off embarking on a search for semantic universals – the fundamental
elements of linguistic meaning (and structure), which are common to all languages.

The idea is by no means new. The search for core meanings i.e. semantically
primitive expressions which remain after a completely exhaustive semantic analysis
has been carried out, and which cannot be defined any further, has been around, as
an idea, since Old Greece. Methodologically, or empirically, it dates back to the
seventeenth century, when Pascal, Descartes, Arnauld and Leibnitz all saw the need
for semantic primitives.

I say it would be impossible to define every word. For in order to define a word it is
necessary to used other words designating the idea we want to connect to the word being
defined. And if we then wished to define the words used to explain that word, we would
need still others, and so on to infinity. Consequently, we necessarily have to stop at
primitive terms which are undefined. (Arnauld and Nicole 1996 [1662]: 64)

Leibnitz even undertook a programme of lexical investigation aimed at

discovering not only the primitive elements underlying words, but also the rules of
composition guiding the formation of complex notions and words (see review in
Ishiguro 1972). His studies were premised on the idea that ‘all expressions should be
reduced to those that are absolutely necessary for expressing the thoughts in our
minds’ (Leibnitz, 1973 [1679]: 281), since ‘if nothing is conceived and understood
through itself, nothing could be conceived and understood at all’ (ibid.: 430).
 Marija M. Brala:
█ 168 NSM within the cognitive linguistics movement

In modern times, the idea of semantic primitives (or ‘elementary meaning

components’, ‘atomic concepts’, ‘semantic primes’, ‘simples’ etc.) has been
advocated by many researchers (Sørenson 1958; Greimas 1966; Boguslawski 1965;
Benedix 1966; Katz & Postal 1964, Fillmore 1971; McCawley 1968; Greenberg
1978, Lakoff 1970; Jackendoff 1983, 1990; Wierzbicka 1972, 1996, 1997; Goddard
1998, 2001; Goddard & Wierzbicka (eds.) 1994, (eds.) 2002; Talmy 1996, 2000 and
many others).

Some of them work within the cognitive paradigm, others do not. Most, if not all
of them, have however been developing their own version of ‘semantic
primitiveness’, contributing to the creation of some sense of paradigmatic
inconsistency within (cognitive) linguistics. Yet, one of the proponents of semantic
universality stands out. Anna Wierzbicka, the main developer of the Natural
Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) has for the past thirty years been working on an
‘irreducible semantic core’, a ‘mini-language’ of the form of simple and further
indefinable meanings that can be found in every natural language of the world.
Departing from the idea that semantic primitives should correspond to actual words
in all natural languages, together wit her collaborators she has developed what is one
of the most exhaustive and yet simplest4 sets of semantic universals around. Yet,
albeit being positioned around the universals that have been empirically attested in
most if not all natural languages, Wierzbicka’s proposals have never gained centre
stage within the cognitive linguistic movement. The reasons underlying the fact that
NSM has not been adopted more enthusiastically by the cognitive linguistic
community are at least twofold. One reason lies in the fact that many cognitive
linguists are still wedded to the notion that meaning is ‘fuzzy’ and cannot be pinned
down in discrete prepositional terms (for some counterarguments see Section 4.1.
below). Secondly, the fact that in her writings Wierzbicka uses the terms ‘semantic’
and ‘conceptual’ more or less interchangeably - the idea being that semantic
primitives represent atomic elements of linguistic conceptualisation5 - is seen as
highly objectionable by some critics (see e.g. Croft 1998). Some scholars insist that
independent psycholinguistic evidence is required before one can make any
conceptual deductions from purely semantic analysis. Counterintuitive though it
may sound, this latter objection becomes, under the view advocated in this paper, a
strong argument in support of NSM. It is namely argued here that no
(psycho)linguistic paradigm has arguments against the validity of NSM’s data
(primitives) and that, more importantly, work by Wierzbicka and her colleagues6

4
Here, consider Lyons’ positions that ‘every formalism is parasitic upon the ordinary
everyday use of language, in that it must be understood intuitively on the basis of ordinary
language’ (Lyons 1977: 12).
5
This position is premised on the view (first advocated by Leibnitz) that semantic analysis is
by its nature a conceptual inquiry, because meanings are not external entities but, so to
speak, creations of the mind.
6
Anna Wierzbicka and her closest collaborator Cliff Goddard are part of a larger NSM
research community. NSM researchers work on diverse crosslinguistic projects which cover
 Jezikoslovlje
4.2 (2003): 161-186 █ 169

represents sound empirical basis for anyone wishing to speculate ‘deeper’ into the
theory of mind. Proposals relative to the workings of the human language faculty
(intended as part of the human cognitive system) simply CANNOT disregard the
surface elements attested in ALL natural languages, be it relative to form (i.e.
functional properties), or meaning (or, best, both, as most probably the two share an
interface and interact).

Notwithstanding the above criticisms, it would be mistaken to think that NSM is

altogether marginal within the cognitive linguistic paradigm. Many scholars already
cited in this paper have recognised the merits of NSM as a valued trend within
cognitive linguistics. What is being advocated here is not recognition, but rather a
more extended and fruitful integration of NSM within the cognitive linguistic
movement. The call is prompted by the following considerations:

a) NSM has much in common with many cognitive proposals that have been
put forward much after the advent of Wierzbicka’s efforts (without this fact
being duly recognised), and

b) NSM has much to offer to anyone wanting to see more light and coherence
within the cognitive movement itself.

Let us see what exactly is meant by these two claims, and what are the arguments
that could validate them.

4. NSM: The simple story, the rich parallelisms, and the far reaching
implications

As we have seen in section 3, many contemporary linguists are proposing that there
must be a set of universal semantic primitives underlying language. One of the most
persistent proponents advocating and searching for semantic atoms is Wierzbicka,
whose thirty years of research life have been devoted to the quest for universal
meanings which, according to her, must be embodied or rather realised in surface
expressions, most probably words (Wierzbicka 1972, 1996, Goddard 1998; Goddard
and Wierzbicka (eds.) 1994, (eds.) 2002).

Departing from a programme of trial and error investigations aimed at

explicating meanings of diverse types in several languages, Wierzbicka (e.g. 1972)
formed a hypothesis about a set of primitive concepts. The main criteria guiding the
empirical evidence were ‘defining power’ (what role does a concept play in defining
other concepts), and ‘universality’ (the range of languages in which a given concept

not just a wide number of languages, but also a variety of research topics (for an overview of
the programme and a substantial bibliography see the NSM Homepage at the following
URL: www.une.edu.au/arts/LCL/disciplines/linguistics/nsmoage.htm).
 Marija M. Brala:
█ 170 NSM within the cognitive linguistics movement

has been lexicalised). These two independent criteria yielded over time a set of
semantic primes which, at present, looks as follows:

Substantives: I, YOU, SOMEONE, PEOPLE/PERSON, (SOME)THING, BODY

Mental predicates: THINK, KNOW, WANT, FEEL, SEE, HEAR
Speech: SAY,WORD, TRUE
Actions, events: DO, HAPPEN, MOVE
Existence: THERE IS, HAVE
Life: LIVE, DIE
Determiners: THIS, THE SAME, OTHER
Quantifiers: ONE, TWO, SOME, ALL, MANY/MUCH
Evaluators: GOOD, BAD
Descriptors: BIG, SMALL, (LONG)
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, (TOUCHING)
Interclausal linkers: BECAUSE, IF
Clause operators: NOT, MAYBE
Metapredicate: CAN
Intensifiers: VERY, MORE
Taxonomy: KIND OF, PART OF
Similarity: LIKE

Table 1. Proposed semantic primitives (after Goddard and Wierzbicka 2002)

These primes, seen as being inherent in every human language, are interesting for
a myriad of reasons. Scholars working within the narrow NSM framework view
them as important because they are extremely useful and versatile in framing
explications and, on the other hand, are themselves resistant to (non-circular)
explications. Furthermore, the fact that these elements have a counterpart i.e. an
exact translation – either in the form of bound morphemes or fixed phrases - in most
if not all human languages, adds weight to the proposal.

As already pointed out, NSM research stops at the surface level, and does not
venture into speculations about the deep structure of the primes (simply equated
with concepts7), nor does it try to draw parallels between the proposed primitives
and elements that have been singled out as structural items in disciplines studying
other cognitive sub-domains (vision, hearing, motor control, manipulation of haptic
information etc). From the cognitive perspective, this is at least surprising, not to say
unacceptable, and has probably contributed to confining NSM research within the

7
Although Wierzbicka (1993) states: ‘It is clear that if we are to find truly universal human
concepts, we must look for them not in the world around us but in our own minds’ (ibid: 8).
 Jezikoslovlje
4.2 (2003): 161-186 █ 171

cognitive linguistics movement. Given this, it might be natural to wonder how is it

that a paper aimed at bridging some gaps within the Cognitive Linguistics paradigm,
has as its point of departure a framework with some such obvious weaknesses as far
as cognitive science is concerned.

The answer is quite straightforward: NSM was chosen not because there are
some indisputable arguments that would assert its primacy over other theories i.e.
cognitive accounts of language. As a matter of fact, proposals by e.g. Croft,
Fillmore, Fauconnier, Johnson, Langacker, Lakoff, or Talmy, to mention but the
most influential developers of cognitive theories about language, have been much
more central to the development and the current status of the Cognitive movement
than NSM. There are, however, two aspects of NSM that single it out with respect to
all current cognitive frameworks, and make its findings of particular interest for
cognitive science. We are talking about the simplicity of the NSM machinery, and,
much more importantly, about the basis (of ‘self-definability’ and ‘universality’)
that the approach is grounded in. Let us take a look at each of these two arguments.

4.1. Simplicity and conceptual primitiveness of NSM

Language, including also language about language, exists first and foremost to be
understood. True, weary of pressures from exact sciences like physics or
mathematics, linguists (especially the MIT branch) have worked hard on developing
complex symbolic devices and formalisms. Unfortunately, these machineries ended
up making the theories underlying them quite intelligible and accessible to just the
few specialist, without, and here lies the catch, providing much gain at the
explanatory level. None of the codes so far developed in linguistic science managed
to do much more than rendering what is being said – opaque. This is not what a
language, even less ‘language about language’, should be about.

As Lyons (1977: 12) has put it:

It is … a matter of considerable philosophical controversy whether we should take

ordinary language, with all its richness, complexities and alleged inconsistencies as
something basic and irreducible, or think of it as being, in some sense, derived (or
derivable) from a … kind of language with properties similar to those embodied in
formal languages.

Wierzbicka’s (1993: 36) position on the matter is quite clear:

Whether or not words such a person, this, think, say, want or do are absolutely
universal, they do have semantic equivalents in countless languages of the world, and
they differ in this respect from words such as animate, deictic, cognition, locutionary,
deontic and agency. Whether or not we can find a set of concepts which would be
truly clear, truly simple, and truly universal, if we want to understand and explain
 Marija M. Brala:
█ 172 NSM within the cognitive linguistics movement

what people say, and what they mean, we must establish a set of words which would
be maximally clear, maximally simple, and maximally universal.

I here argue against formalisms and for maximal simplicity in the context of
cognitive linguistics for two straightforward reasons. First, and this is quite a general
remark, simplicity of the NSM machinery is good in terms of its accessibility for
cognitive linguists working in other frameworks, who, as we shall below, in the case
of NSM can very easily attest whether the semantic and/or conceptual elements they
are proposing in their theories are ‘self-explanatory’ (which artificial elements never
are), and whether they are universal (which cognitively grounded elements cannot
but be). Secondly, and in this case perhaps more crucially, simple descriptions of
language are very valuable in terms of their high accessibility for people who are not
trained linguists - which is of highest importance for interdisciplinary work. And, as
has already been pointed out in Section 2, interdisciplinary studies are at the core of
cognitive science.

The other aspect of NSM which I wish to draw attention to, since I see it of
paramount relevance to the key premises of the Cognitive movement, relates to the
basis of the framework, i.e. the main criteria on which NSM corroborates empirical
evidence: ‘defining power’ of the semantic primes, and their ‘universality’. The
importance of these two parameters for cognitivists could be asserted as follows:

a) we cannot talk about the cognitive without talking about the primitive, self-
explanatory. In this context it should be noted that NSM’s ‘defining power’
is intrinsically linked to the ‘inherent in our cognitive systems’, to the
‘innate’, and to the ‘bodily basis of language’ i.e. the ‘embodied meaning’
advocated by many cognitivists, such as Lakoff and Johnson, who maintain
that meaning, thus language, is grounded in our shared human experience of
bodily existence8;

b) we cannot talk about the cognitive without talking about the cross-
linguistically universal. If there are some cognitive bases to language, they
have to be typical of the human species, and such they should be reflected in
all human languages. We could take this point a step further and ask
whether all the semantic features that have been proposed by cognitive
linguists could - in one way or another - be reduced (at the atomistic,
language universal level) to Wierzbicka’s semantic primitives.

8
This experience is, of course, filtered through perception, so we cannot expect concepts to
faithfully mirror all aspects of the real world. The idea is to explore and describe ways in
which meaning, largely based on the 'embodiment', is motivated by human perceptual and
conceptual capacities. It is because of this interplay between perception and conception that
Talmy (1996) coined ‘ception’ as an umbrella term.
 Jezikoslovlje
4.2 (2003): 161-186 █ 173

NSM is premised on the notions of ‘defining power’ and ‘universality’, these are
two basic criteria guiding empirical evidence within the framework. Thus, albeit not
making any claims about the mental structures of the concepts proposed as
primitives, NSM cannot be excluded from the analyses within the cognitive
framework. Neglecting evidence stemming from 30 years of empirical research on
semantic primitives and universals would not be just a terrible waste, but potentially
fatal for any conclusions which, without the assurance of representing the ‘atomic
level of language and human (linguistic) thought’, might be concealing the real
scientific truths. Namely if a only single semantic ‘molecule’ is left unanalysed and
is allowed to pass for a semantic ‘atom’, the relations between this ‘molecule’ and
most, if not all other lexical items – and thus the language web - will be necessarily
left unexplained. (cf. Wierzbicka 1992)

Notwithstanding all the insufficiencies of NSM with respect to the cognitive

paradigm, I think that all the above clearly explicates some of its merits, which are
of potentially paramount importance for all the scholars researching cognition.
Furthermore, some of these merits (simplicity, defining power, universality,
primitiveness) might be said to be dangerously absent, at least in part or to a degree,
from many other linguistic frameworks and theories currently being developed
within the cognitive paradigm.

Another virtue of NSM is that it readily lends itself to comparisons with findings
stemming from research carried out under the premises of various linguistic
approaches and sub-fields. This point is taken up in the next sub-section.

4.2. What is shared between NSM and some current (cognitive) linguistic
findings

In order to show what the abovementioned merits of NSM with respect to the
cognitive paradigm mean in practice, I shall now try and draw some parallels
between the primitive semantic elements representing the backbone of NSM’s
findings (see Table 1 above), and some frequently cited findings, interpretations and
proposals drawn here from some other frameworks that are very popular within
Cognitive Linguistics, as well as between NSM and finding from my own research
on language and space.

If we take a closer look at Table 1, i.e. at the concepts there posited as being
semantically primitive, we can observe that all elements in the table strikingly
reflect one or more aspects of language previously individuated as being some of the
defining aspects of (human) language. As we shall see below, Wierzbicka’s
primitives impressively mirror many linguistic ‘roles and rules’, well known from
other cognitive and/or traditional analyses.
 Marija M. Brala:
█ 174 NSM within the cognitive linguistics movement

Taking things one at the time, we shall start with some intuitive but very
immediate observations. Let us consider the first line of items in the table, i.e. the
substantives. I and you clearly reflect the distinction between ‘speaker’ and
‘addressee’, and someone can be seen as the primitive ‘justifying’ e.g. the
markedness of the 3rd person singular in English. Next, people vs. person, but also
the quantifiers one vs. two reflect the ‘primitiveness’ of the distinction between the
‘singular’ and the ‘plural’. In the group of quantifiers (one, two, and all vs. some),
we also find further support for the posited primitiveness of the notion of
‘definiteness’ (unique identifiability) vs. ‘indefiniteness’, usually expressed in
languages either with the system of definitive vs. indefinite articles, demonstratives
or others (cf. Lyons 1999, Trenkic 2001). Some and part of clearly tie into the
primitiveness of what is in the linguistic jargon known as ‘partitivity’ (as case or
construction), and like, more, very and the same bear strong relation to
‘comparativeness’ (as construction and inflection) in language. Other traditional
syntactic and pragmatic notions such as ‘modality’ (can, maybe), tenses (before,
now, after), and ‘durativity’ (for short/long time) also find ‘conceptual’ support in
NSM.

These and other ‘parallels’9 have, of course, been noted by NSM researchers. It
has, in fact, been argued that every semantic primitive is found as part of a
grammaticalised meaning in some of the world’s languages (cf. Goddard 1998: Ch.
11; Goddard and Wierzbicka 2002). A thorough analysis of the relationship between
semantic primes and typological categories can be found in Goddard (1998), and
Wierzbicka (2002).

It might be sensibly remarked at this point that the parallels drawn above are not
much other than intuitive and arbitrary observations; they might look sensible, but
offer little else from the cognitive perspective. My first reply is that the parallels
might be (somewhat) intuitive, but they are not arbitrary, in that all NSM primitives
can in some way be ‘reduced to the bodily’ i.e. to the our most essential experiences
of bodily beings living in and interacting with the real world surrounding us,
perceived via different senses (hearing, vision, motor control, force dynamics, sense
of touch etc10). We shall return to this point below.

9
Other grammatical phenomena and the primitives they involve include: switch reference
and obviation (THE SAME and OTHER), passives (HAPPEN and TO DO), imperatives
(WANT, YOU, DO), interrogatives (WANT, NOT, KNOW), adversative constructions
(HAPPEN, BAD), benefactives (HAPPEN, DO, GOOD).
10
The least physical items in Table 1 are the evaluators good and bad. Yet, if we think of
these two lexical items in evolutionary terms, in terms of the coevolution of language and
brain, we quickly realise that differentiating between e.g. sources of danger (bad) vs. non-
dangerous (good), or sources of food (good) vs. non-edible (bad) was of primary importance
and necessity, and if there was ever a need to talk, it was in order to differentiate between
these things (cf. Deacon, 1997).
 Jezikoslovlje
4.2 (2003): 161-186 █ 175

Should this still not be enough to serve as ‘hard evidence’ or at least as

convincing argument in support of the importance of NSM findings and methods
within the cognitive paradigm, let us move the next series of remarks which are
supposed to show that the parallels can be much less naïve, and much more
scientifically orthodox than the ones drawn above.

Let us begin by recalling a very influential paper by Landau & Jackendoff

(1993), in which the authors posit a clear distinction of the way our minds organise
conceptual content relative to (names of) object vs. that relative to their location, i.e.
between the ‘what’ and the ‘where’ cognitive domains. The subcategorisation in
NSM between ‘substantives’ and ‘space’ (where/place), nicely mirrors this proposal.
Furthermore, if we concentrate on ‘space’, an old time favourite of cognitive
science, we note that ‘NSM evidence’ for many elements that have been proposed
(by Lakoff, Langacker, Talmy and many others) as primitive conceptual features,
e.g. ‘boundedness’, ‘directionality’, ‘volume’ (interior), ‘surface’ or ‘orientation’
(cf. in Table 1: above vs. below, inside, side etc.). Other ‘basic spatial elements’
such as e.g. ‘circle’, frequently proposed as conceptually primitive (cf. Bowerman
1996: 401, Clark, 2001: 387-389), find no relation to any of the elements proposed
as primitives in NSM. This can either mean that NSM has not taken it into account
as a potential primitive (and which, given the evidence from other frameworks,
should be done), or other analyses have not been exhaustive enough, and have, in
the case of ‘circle’, stopped at a level higher than that of atomic meanings. Maybe,
after all, a ‘circle’ is just a ‘line’ with not ‘boundedness’.

The example of ‘circle’ just mentioned is interesting for two more reasons. First,
it is very curious to note that size seems to be quite prominent in NSM (big vs. small
feature as primitives), whereas shape does not. This is surprising because many
current psycholinguistic findings seem to suggest that both size and shape are
encoded across languages, having both also been shown to influence performance in
non - verbal categorisation tasks (cf. e.g. Levinson 1992; Bloom et al. passim).
Furthermore, in my own work (Brala 2000) the concept of ‘circle’ has been crucial
for explicating some categories of (crosslinguistic) usage of the spatial prepositions
‘in’ and ‘on’ (cf. also Brala 2002). Absence of any relevance of the notion of
‘circularity’ in NSM might be a warning sign indication reconsideration of some
aspects in either NSM of our own studies.

What has just been said with respect to ‘circle’ applies to a large degree to
‘contact’ (in the literature also referred to as ‘touching’). ‘Contact’ is another
element that has frequently been proposed as basic (primitive, atomic) both in
lexical (cf. Lindstromberg 1998) as well as in psycholinguistic studies (Bowerman
1996: 386, 393-398). However, since the 1970’s when the first NSM inventory of
primitives was compiled, until just very recently, ‘contact’ was - from the NSM
perspective - viewed as consisting of the co-location of parts. Yet, this turned out to
be unsatisfactory for a number of situations (cf. Goddard 2002a: 306-307), and
finally today ‘contact’ - termed ‘TOUCH’ (or ‘BE TOUCHING’) – is being
 Marija M. Brala:
█ 176 NSM within the cognitive linguistics movement

considered as a possible NSM prime. Goddard (2002 a) writes: ‘Whether or not this
notion proves to be directly expressible in all languages awaits comprehensive
testing, but initial indications are positive’ (ibid.: 307). These ‘initial indications’
would be even more positive if we also considered the fact that crosslinguistic
analyses of prepositional systems (covering a total of 36 languages – see review in
Brala 2000) have shown that the notion of ‘contact’ is a (conceptual) basis of
lexicalisation of prepositional meanings in all languages (which exploit this lexical
category), and, even more importantly, that in a number of languages presence/
absence of contact and even the ‘quality of contact’ can define lexical changes from
one preposition to another (and even changes between grammatical categories - for a
thorough treatment of these problems and of the primitive ‘contact’ from the
perspective of prepositional systems cross-linguistically see Brala 2002). It is
interesting to note that the main arguments put forward in support of the inclusion of
‘TOUCHING’ in the list of NSM primes are found in a recent analysis of the
English preposition ‘on’ by Goddard (2002b). It is however also important to note
that Goddard’s arguments would benefit a great deal from a grounding in a more
integrated framework of cognitive studies and theories (where the opposite view
holds as well, i.e. the inclusion of ‘touching’ into the list of NSM primes offers
further support to all those who have proposed ‘contact’ as a conceptual and/or
lexical primitive).

Finally, I would like to spend a few more words on ‘causativity’, known to be a

characteristic of linguistic expression and mirrored within NSM in the interclausal
linkers because and if, and in the particular distinction within the action/events items
(do, happen, move). While the interclausal linkers directly point to the ‘cause’, the
group of three verbs in the action/event category is particularly interesting, much
more so than might appear at the first glance. First, we note that the ‘threesome’ do,
move, and happen bears a particularly impressive relation to much work done on
space (both location and motion) within the cognitive paradigm (cf. Bloom et al.
1996, passim), and as such reinforces our conviction that more collaboration and
integration is needed between various frameworks. Even more interestingly and
more concretely, the distinction between do, happen and move becomes particularly
striking if one relates it to some recent psycholinguistic findings by e.g. Choi and
Bowerman (1991, cf. also Bowerman 1996). Choi and Bowerman (1991) have
shown that Korean makes a rigid distinction between the verbs for caused and
spontaneous motion (do + move vs. happen + move). It has furthermore been shown
that children show a very early sensitivity to this language specific trait, categorising
instances of caused and spontaneous motion according to their language specific
patterns as early as 17 months. Now, this latter finding is perfectly representative of
an important trend that has come to the fore within (psycho)linguistic studies over
the past decade - the emphasis on more language specific and even relativistic
models of linguistics, and linguistic semantics in particular (cf. Gumperz &
Levinson 1996, passim). Some might see this trend as being incompatible with
NSM. But this is a misguided conclusion. Language specificity and language
universality are incompatible only when observed, studied and interpreted at one and
 Jezikoslovlje
4.2 (2003): 161-186 █ 177

the same level (i.e. as belonging to the same level of analysis). The moment we start
viewing language universality (thus also NSM) at the deep, atomistic level of
linguistic analysis, and study language specificity at the surface level of linguistic
(lexical) patterning (some sort of ‘molecular’ level or Slobin’s (1996) on-line,
‘thinking for speaking’ level which sees the contents of our minds encountered in a
language specific way the moment they are being put to (linguistic) use), the two
apparently mutually exclusive views of language-universality vs. language-
specificity are bridged and become part of a single, but level-structured human
language faculty.

Before concluding this sub-section, two final things need to be addressed. First, it
should be noted that cognitivists ought to pay special attention to the semantico-
syntactic interface. As we have seen in Section 2 (point 3) of this paper, most
cognitive linguists agree on the primacy of meaning, but as many approaches
currently under development seem to suggest (see e.g. Langacker), that grammar i.e.
the regularities of syntax might simply be a reflection of meaning components (and
should also always be related to the working of the whole human cognitive system).
This is a complex and potentially far-reaching observation, which should not be
excluded from any serious dwellings on the human language faculty and, ultimately,
on the theory of mind.

On a related note, let us also observe here that it is, of course, not just entirely
possible but also quite likely, that in addition to a universal set of elementary
concepts there are also certain universal principles underlying and guiding the
(language specific) combination of semantic primes into more complex
(syntactically higher?) lexical units (cf. Brala in press). These atoms (cognitive
structural elements) and combinatorial principles would possibly form a closed set
and the basis for the ‘word-molecule’ formulae, also facilitating the acquisition of
language. Speculations about this point are, however, outside the scope and reach of
this paper.

4.3. Some implications and suggestions for further developments

One of the goals of NSM is to build some sort of metalanguage, which would be
maximally universal, maximally self-explanatory and intuitively intelligible. On its
own, this cannot be said to be a satisfactory goal of any cognitive linguistic
framework, but it most certainly more than a useful tool on our way toward a theory
of the human language faculty. As I have tried to show above, NSM can be useful
for our cognitive explications of both the compositional elements of language
(semantics, pragmatics), as well as that of its combinatorial principles i.e. rules
(syntax, pragmatics).

As already stated, this latter, explicative goal is hardly even set out, let alone
achieved by NSM. Interestingly, Wierzbicka does at some points in her writing (e.g.
 Marija M. Brala:
█ 178 NSM within the cognitive linguistics movement

1993: 39), make claims that in her cross-linguistic work she is comparing
conceptual systems. This statement, I think, is a bit far fetched, since what is
currently being done within NSM is the comparison of languages i.e. lexicons. No
attempt has been made to posit anything specific about the deep, conceptual
structure of NSM universals. How are they encoded and accessed, and how are they
related to other parts of language, as well as other sub-systems of human cognition?
This remark is not meant to be a criticism of the framework, but rather a pointer to
the need of empirically buttressing the existence of all proposed language universals
by making a rigorous comparison of these universals with respect to what is known
about the ‘conceptual systems’ embodied in other sub-domains of the human
cognitive system. This can, starting from within the linguistic science, be done in at
least the following four ways:

1) Probe the primitives against evidence from language acquisition, particularly

first, but possibly also second11. As far as one can tell from the current literature,
most of the proposed semantic primitives appear to be attested in early child
speech, and most certainly all appear to be well in evidence by the age of five
(cf. Bloom 1991; Carey 1985; Clancy 1985, Clark & Clark 1977, Ervin-Tripp
1970, Slobin 1985, Johnston 1985, Peterson 1990, Wirzbicka 1996). Much less
is known about the status of these universals with respect to findings stemming
from second language acquisition research.

2) Combine the research on semantic universality with research on syntactic

universality, i.e. extensively and systematically address the issue of universals in
relation to the semantico-syntactic interface. It needs to be pointed out that the
research into the universal syntactic properties of primes is already under way
(cf. Goddard and Wierzbicka 2002), and that the initial findings suggest that the
notion of a semantically – based universal grammar is not just plausible, but also
that the NSM approach seems very productive for characterising syntactic
universality in language. Namely, a number of descriptive-analytical projects
about universal syntactic properties of NSM primes have shown that the
meanings of language-specific grammatical categories and constructions can be
stated in clear and testable formulations using the same machinery that ‘works’
for lexical meanings (ibid., passim.). As Wierzbicka (1993, 1996) points out, the
criteria of ‘defining power’ and ‘universality’ should, in a thorough cognitive
linguistic analysis be complemented with that of the ‘building blocks’ (after
Leibnitz). This means that the simples should not be just clear, indefinable and
universally attested in all human languages, but should also be demonstrably
active as ‘building blocks’ in the construction of other concepts. What is
interesting here, is the ability of the primitives to generate other concepts and

11
The ‘unlearnability’ of certain linguistic traits of the first language (and the ‘learnability’
of others) is particularly interesting in this context. We always wish to ask ‘why’, and
universals might provide at least a few ‘because’.
 Jezikoslovlje
4.2 (2003): 161-186 █ 179

constructions12. It is exactly this aspect of the ‘potential’ of the primitives that

should thoroughly be investigated at the level of the semantico-syntactic
interface. In this context, it is particularly interesting to observe what happens
when a primitive is ‘shifted’ from one to another syntactic category. What is the
effect of the addition and removal of a certain concept from within a lexical
item. How does meaning change? Does a lexical item change syntactic
properties after addition/subtraction of a universal (cf. Levin & Pinker 1991)? A
framework such as NSM, that is crosslinguistically valid and intuitively
intelligible, submits itself to a very high standard of semantico-syntactic
verifiability (‘higher than any rival methods’ – cf. Goddard & Wierzbicka 2002:
11), and would as such appear ideal for testing the universality of linguistic
elements with respect to the semantico-syntactic interface.

3) Systematically probe universals at the interdisciplinary level. Some areas that

represent good points of departure, that especially psycholinguistic have already
worked at quite notably, are (language of) space and (language of) motion.
Findings (about universals) stemming from studies in these fields should be
compared with those resulting from research on e.g. vision, manipulation of
objects, motor control and outputs of other subsystems of human cognition.

4) Verify whether NSM can account for and explain (possibly also predict?)
various pluralism within the cognitive linguistic paradigm. Language is a bridge
between the individual (cognitive) and the social. As such, it would appear to be
an ideal tool for investigating and explicating the variability that (can) occur
between conceptualisation and culture. Exploring linguistic issues such as
polysemy and metaphor within the NSM framework might shed new light on
problems relative to the relationship between the cognitive and the cultural (e.g.
the issue of linguistic relativity, to mention but one example). It needs to be said
here that the NSM research programme has already undertaken some substantial
steps in the direction of the social, by exploring cultural scripts, i.e. descriptions
of cultural norms in terms of semantic primes, which, in turn, serve as building
block for a culturally grounded theory of inferential pragmatics (cf. Ameka
1999; Goddard 2000; Peeters 2000; Wierzbicka 1998).

To sum up this part of the treaty, let us just note that what has been proposed
above has as its main scope one clear objective; that of suggesting that NSM might
really be the ideal method for showing that conceiving, and talking about the
conceived, might be closer that long years of dismissal of the (relativism13 of the)
language-mind binomial had us believe.

12
Of particular interest here is the NSM notion of ‘compund valency’ (cf. Goddard 2002a:
310-312).
13
Of course, I am here referring to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
 Marija M. Brala:
█ 180 NSM within the cognitive linguistics movement

5. Conclusion: What makes a good (cognitive) theory

The discussion proposed in this paper has been motivated by some critical aspects of
the (incoherent) state of the art within the cognitive linguistics movement. But how
do we rate what is a good hypothesis, method or theoretical construct? How do we
judge if one is better than another? Albeit there not being a straightforward answer,
we are probably not mistaking if we state that linguistic premises and tools are best
evaluated in the light of the results they produce in actually describing and
explaining language, and predicting both language learning and acquisition
(supposing one allows that the two differ, else just the acquisition phenomenon).
And if language is essentially a vehicle for expressing meaning, than it is the nature
of meaning that should be the primary focus of our attention, and the successfulness
of its description and prediction the primary focus of our evaluation efforts.

Within the cognitive paradigm, the problem of meaning translates into the issue
of the mapping between concepts and lexical forms. For each cognitive
subdiscipline this means focusing on a different aspect of the language-mind
binomial: psycholinguists focus on child language and language impairment,
syntacticians on universals in grammatical structures, semanticists on cross-
linguistically recurrent units of meaning etc. What is inherently common to all the
approaches is the ‘universality’. As I have tried to emphasise throughout this paper,
the human mind cannot be studied and understood without constantly drawing into
the pool of ‘universality’. Having posited a potential set, all of the sub-specialists
should then unify findings in order to try and jointly verify the lexical and,
ultimately, conceptual primitiveness of the elements being considered.

In order for the cognitive linguistic paradigm to prove successful, this means that
linguistic universality needs to be attested at both the linguistic (surface or E-level)
and conceptual (deep or I-level). It is exactly around this problem that most
controversies arise, partly because linguists do not agree on the interpretation of
findings, but partly also because there is no consensus about many things that should
have by now been quite clearly attested by enough evidence. This has not been the
case simply because quite a lot of this evidence has not come together, mainly due to
methodological and terminological divides. Another serious and related problem is
clearly identified by Wierzbicka’s (1993: 24), who writes:

It is particularly important that the preeminence of English in the profession does not
result in a unified framework based on unconscious Anglocentric assumptions. …
What we need is a framework in which both the language specific and the language
independent aspects of meaning can be adequately described.

Much more is shared between various proposals currently being developed

within the cognitive linguistic framework than meets the eye. This is due to the
opacity of the many methodological, terminological and even criterial divides that
separate the various theories. This is harmful to the discipline and more should be
 Jezikoslovlje
4.2 (2003): 161-186 █ 181

done to try and bridge the unnecessary and even worse artificial gaps that have been
created among the various theories by virtue of lack of or insufficient cooperation
between the proponents of the various views.

Language production is one of the most complex cognitive linguistic and motor
skills14. Still, the mechanics of language is not what concerns us when we are
involved in communication. What we are conscious of, and very careful about, is
meaning; selecting information, planning utterances and packaging the whole
according to language specific principles. Having mastered the ‘simple’ bit, i.e. the
mechanics of language production (speech), time has come for linguists to face their
‘responsibilities in full’, i.e. tackle the more complex but also more revealing part of
studying language: its deep, mental mechanisms. Put in more straightforward terms
we might wish to conclude by saying that having understood the physiology of
language, linguists are now faced with its psychology or, rather, neurology. This
paper is an attempt to try and bridge some gaps between researchers working in this
latter vein, whose work has been intelligible or just uninteresting outside their own
‘currents’ mainly, in my view, due to disagreement regarding criteria and, even
more absurdly, terminology. This is very dangerous for the discipline since, as Blake
(1994: 68) remarks, for as long as we disagree about criteria, we cannot hope to
have consensus on the universal inventory of language.

My goal in this paper has been to point to quite a number of obvious

convergences between some leading, but distinct and distant schools of linguistic
thought, all in the light of hope that convergence will bring about increased scope
for dialogue and collaboration, thus bringing us closer to some conclusive answers
regarding the structural elements and organisational principles of the human
language faculty, within the overall context of the human cognitive system.
Speculations about this point, as I have tried to show above, cannot disregard criteria
of ‘defining power’, ‘universality’ and ‘combinatorial potential’, all advocated
within NSM. Departing from these criteria and the set of semantic primitives
proposed within NSM it might be interesting to see whether all the semantic features
that cognitive linguists have come up with so far can be reduced to Wierzbicka’s
semantic primitives.

It is true that interpretations of data in science vary, as they should. The

dynamism of our different readings of evidence is after all what propels our thoughts
and our understanding on the road toward new discoveries. Yet, it is important to
draw a distinction between healthy divergences and discussions on the one hand,
and redundant proliferation of (autistic) frameworks on the other. It seems to me that
Cognitive Linguistics is off to a very promising start, but that lack of collaboration
within the paradigm might be threatening to weaken, and eventually kill it, as has

14
If we consider speaking, we note that we make around fifteen speech sounds per second,
producing two or three words (Levelt, 1989, preface and p.2), and involving the co-ordinate
use of around a hundred muscles (ibid., p. 413).
 Marija M. Brala:
█ 182 NSM within the cognitive linguistics movement

been the case with a number of scientific movements before. This must not happen
in a field where data seems to continue yielding some consistent patterns, as I have
tried to indicate in this paper. What is being advocated here is not a static
framework, but a coherent one, or rather coherence among many, within a tightly
knit, clear and promising discipline of Cognitive Linguistics.

Author’s address:

Nikole Tesle 15
HR-51000 Rijeka
Croatia

References

Ameka, Felix (1994). Areal conversational routines and cross-cultural communication in a

multilingual society. Intercultural Communication, ed. by H. Purschel, 441-469. Bern:
Peter Lang.
Arnauld, Antoine & Nicole, Pierre. (1996) [1662]. Logic or the Art of Thinking. Transl. by
V. Buroker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Benedix, Edward H. (1966). Componential Analysis of General Vocabulary. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Blake, Barry (1994). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bloom, Louis (1991). Language Development from Two to Three. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bloom, Paul, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel, & Merrill F. Garrett, eds. (1996). Language
and Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bowerman, Melissa (1996). Learning how to structure space for language. Language and
Space, ed. by Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel, Lynn. & Merrill F. Garrett,
385-436. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bowerman, Melissa & Levinson, Stephen C. (eds.) (2001). Language Acquisition and
Conceptual Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brala, Marija M. (2000). English, Croatian and Italian prepositions from a cognitive
perspective. When ‘at’ is ‘on’ and ‘on’ is ‘in’. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Cambridge, U.K.
Brala, Marija M. (2002). Prepositions in UK Monolingual Learners’ Dictionaries: Expanding
on Lindstromberg’s Problems and Solutions. Applied Linguistics 23.1: 134-140.
Brala, Marija M. (in press). Understanding language specificity – causes and consequences.
Psychology of Language and Communication. Warsaw: Energeia Publishers.
Boguslawski, Andrzej (1965). Semantyczne pojecie licebnika. Warsaw: Ossolineum.
Carey, Susan (1985). Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
 Jezikoslovlje
4.2 (2003): 161-186 █ 183

Carruthers, Peter (2002). The cognitive functions of language. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences 25: 657-726.
Choi, Sonja & Melissa Bowerman (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and
Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition 41: 83-121.
Chomsky, Noam (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Clancy, Patricia (1985). The acquisition of Japanese. The Cross-Linguistic Study of
Language Acquisition, Vol. I: The Data, ed. by Dan Slobin, 373-524. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Clark, Eve (2001). Emergent categories in first language acquisition. Language Acquisition
and Conceptual Development, ed. by Bowerman, Melissa & Stephen C. Levinson, 379-
405. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, Herbert & Clark, Eve (1977). Psychology and Language. An Introduction to
Psycholinguistics. Orlando: HBC Press.
Croft, William (1998). Linguistic evidence and mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics
9.2: 151-173.
Deacon, Terrence (1997). The Symbolic Species. London: The Penguin Press.
Ervin-Tripp, Susan (1970). Discourse agreement: How children answer questions. Cognition
and the Development of Language, ed. by J.R. Hayes, 79-107. New York: Wiley.
Fillmore, Charles (1971). Types of lexical information. Semantics: An Interdisciplinary
Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, ed. by Danny Steinberg & Leon A.
Jakobovits, 370-392. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goddard, Cliff (1998). Semantic Analysis. A practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Goddard, Cliff (2000). Communicative style and cultural values. Cultural scripts of Malay.
Anthropological Linguistics 42.1: 81-106.
Goddard, Cliff (2001). Lexico-semantic universals: A critical overview. Linguistic Typology
5.1: 1-66.
Goddard, Cliff (2002a). The on-going developments of the NSM research program. Meaning
and Universal Grammar: Theory and Empirical Findings. Vol II., ed. by Cliff Goddard
& Anna Wierzbicka, 301-321. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goddard, Cliff (2002 b). On and on: Verbal explications for a polysemic network. Cognitive
Linguistics 13.3: 277-294.
Goddard, Cliff & Anna Wierzbicka, eds. (1994). Semantic and Lexical Universals: Theory
and Empirical Findings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goddard, Cliff & Anna Wierzbicka, eds. (2002). Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory
and Empirical Findings. Vol I & Vol II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Greenberg, John H. (1978). Universals in Human Language. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Greimas, Algirdas Julien (1966). Semantique Structurale. Paris: Larousse. Transl. as
Structural Semantics: An Attempt at a Method. (1983) Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Gumperz, John J. & Stephen Levinson, eds. (1986). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Ishiguro, Hide (1972). Leibnitz's Philosophy of Logic and Language. London: Duckwort.
 Marija M. Brala:
█ 184 NSM within the cognitive linguistics movement

Jackendoff, Ray (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray (1992). Languages of the Mind. Essays on Mental Representations.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Janda, Laura (2000). Cognitive Linguistics. Paper presented at the SLING2K Workshop.
Johnson, Mark (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
Johnston, Judith (1985). Cognitive prerequisites. The evidence from children learning
English. The Cross-linguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. II: Theoretical Issues,
ed. by Dan Slobin, 961–1004. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Katz, Jerrold, Paul M. Postal (1964). An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Lakoff, George (1970). Irregularity in Syntax. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the
Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Landau, Barbara, Ray Jackendoff (1993). ‘What’ and ‘where’ in spatial language and spatial
cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16: 217-265.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol I: Theoretical
Prerequisites. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Leibnitz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1973). Leibnitz: Philosophical Writings. ed. by G.H.R.
Parkinson. London: Dent.
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levin, Beth, Steve Pinker (1991). Lexical & Conceptual Semantics. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Science Publisher.
Levinson, Stephen C. (1992). Language and Cognition: The cognitive consequences of
Spatial description in Guugu Yimithirr. Cognitive Anthropology research group at the
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Working Paper No. 13.
Levinson, Stephen C. (1998). Studying spatial conceptualisation across cultures:
Anthropology and cognitive science. Ethos 26.1: 1-12.
Lindstromberg, Seth (1998). English Prepositions Explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lyons, Chris (1999), Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, John (1977). Semantics. Vol I and II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCawley, James (1968). The role of semantics in grammar. Universals in Linguistic
Theory, ed. by Emmon Bach & Robert Harms, 129-169. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Peeters, Bert (2002). ‘S’engager’ vs. ‘to show restraint’: Linguistic and cultural relativity in
discourse management. Evidence for Linguistic Relativity, ed. by Susanne Niemeier and
René Dirven, 193-222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Peterson, Carole (1990). The who, when and where in early narrative. Journal of Child
Language 17: 433-455.
Rosch, Eleanor (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive psychology 4: 328-50.
Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida, ed. (1993). Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
 Jezikoslovlje
4.2 (2003): 161-186 █ 185

Slobin, Dan (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. The Cross-
linguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. II: Theoretical Issues, ed. by Dan Slobin,
1157-1256. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Slobin, Dan (1996). From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. Rethinking
Linguistic Relativity, ed. by John J. Gumperz & Stephen C. Levinson, 70-96. Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.
Sørenson, Holger Steen (1958). Word-Classes in Modern English. Copenhagen: Gad.
Talmy, Leonard (1996). Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’. Language and Space, ed.
by Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel, & Merrill F. Garrett, 211-276.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, Leonard (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol I: Concept Structuring System,
& Vol. II: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Trenkic, Danijela (2001). Establishing the definiteness status of referents in dialogue.
Working Papers in English and Applied Linguistics 6, Cambridge: Research Centre for
English and Applied Linguistics, University of Cambridge.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1972). Semantic Primitives. Transl. by Anna Wierzbicka & J. Basemeres.
Frankfurt am Main: Athenaum.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1993). The alphabet of human thought. Conceptualization and Mental
Processing in Language, ed. by Geiger, Richard A. & Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 23-
51.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1996). Semantics - primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1997). Understanding Cultures Through Their Key Words. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, Anna (2002). Semantic primes and linguistic typology. Meaning and Universal
Grammar: Theory and Empirical Findings. Vol. I & Vol. II, ed. by Cliff Goddard &
Anna Wierzbicka, 257-300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1998). German ‘cultural scripts’. Public signs as a key to social attitudes
and cultural values. Discourse and Society 9.2: 241-282.

NSM (PRIRODNI SEMANTIČKI METAJEZIK)

UNUTAR OKVIRA KOGNITIVNE LINGVISTIKE:
KAKO PREMOSTITI RAZLIKE

Otkada su postavke Noama Chomskog revolucionirale znanstveno istraživanje jezika, u

iščekivanju smo otkrića i zaključaka koji bi rezultirali iz mentalističkog pristupa jeziku,
odnosno odgovora koja bi konačno pojasnili funkcioniranje ljudske jezične sposobnosti. Na
žalost, to se još nije dogodilo. Središnje pitanje ovog rada jest: zašto tog odgovora još nema?
U članku se najprije osvrćemo na neke osnovne i opće postavke paradigme kognitivne
lingvistike, a zatim i na konkretne postavke pristupa semantičkoj analizi koji je poznat kao
NSM (Natural Semantic Metalanguage odnosno prirodni semantički metajezik). Cilj je
 Marija M. Brala:
█ 186 NSM within the cognitive linguistics movement

utvrditi koje su postavke zajedničke NSM-u i ostalim pristupima (paradigmama) koje

teoretičari širom svijeta trenutno razvijaju unutar općeg okvira poznatog pod nazivom
kognitivna lingvistika. Dvije su osnovne teze zastupane u članku: a) ideja semantičkih
univerzalija kakvu razvijaju teoretičari NSM-a može doprinijeti boljoj povezanosti i boljem
razvoju čitave grane kognitivne lingvistike, b) upravo je problem pretjerane proliferacije i
netransparentnosti između pojedinih paradigmi s kognitivno lingvističkim predznakom,
jedan od osnovnih razloga koji su doveli do usporavanja razvoja kognitivnog pristupa
istraživanju jezika odnosno ljudske jezične sposobnosti.

Ključne riječi: NSM (prirodni semantički metajezik), kognitivna lingvistika, semantičke

univerzalije, konceptualni primitivni