a comparative investigation of the semantic structure of language

8/12/2019 A Comparative Investigation of the Semantic Structure of Language

1/41

http://ccr.sagepub.com

Cross-Cultural Research

DOI: 10.1177/106939710103500303

2001; 35; 303Cross-Cultural Research Robert C. Hanson, Edward Rose and Zeke Little

A Comparative Investigation of the Semantic Structure of Language

http://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/3/303 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: Society for Cross-Cultural Research

can be found at:Cross-Cultural ResearchAdditional services and information for

http://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ccr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/35/3/303Citations

by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009http://ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://www.sccr.org/http://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ccr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ccr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/35/3/303http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/35/3/303http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://ccr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sccr.org/


2/41

A Comparative Investigationof the Semantic Structureof Language

Robert C. HansonEdward RoseZeke LittleUniversity of Colorado, Boulder

The results of a semantic analysis of 20 languages establishedquantitative parameters intended to describe the semantic struc-ture of language in general. Representative languages were drawn

from nine different language families, both literate and nonliterate populations, ancient civilizations and contemporary nations and ethnic groups. Random samples of 100 word and phrase units weredrawn from bilingual dictionaries. Each word was classified intoone of 34 semantic categories. A reference guide to categories withcodes and definitions and examples of coded words with the classi-

fication logic displayed are provided. Some major results are: (a)Words referring to activities of all sorts occur with the highest fre-quency in vocabularies (44%), mostly human activities (39%, 34%

physical, 5% mental). (b) Various sorts of people (9%) and natureagents (7%) are involved in these activities. (c) The products of hu-man activities (22%) are about equally divided between nonmate-rial mental products and man-made material things.

The distinctive vocal utterances and written signs of humans referto the things in their natural andsocial environment that they talk

Cross-Cultural Research, Vol. 35 No. 3, August 2001 303-342 2001 Sage Publications

303

http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/


3/41

and communicate about. Such words and phrases are shared andcommonly understood among members of their group. They knowthe things in the world referred to by the words. The vocabulary of their language names and identifies all the commonly knownthings in their world,all things, material andnonmaterial,naturaland cultural. The words and their meanings are passed on to thenext generation. Still unknown parts of the natural or social envi-ronment are not yet part of or in their world.

But discoveries and inventions are named and added to lan-guages all the time. Our world of known things is constantlyexpanding. For example, astronomers have recently discoveredand named new moons around Jupiter. The information age has

added many new words to refer to new things, such as e-mail,modem, and fax, and introduced different meanings to old wordssuch as mouse,menu, andcable. At thesame time,the languagesof small ethnic groups around the earth disappear every year. Theworlds of these groups are lost forever.

We all know that when different languages and cultures comeinto contact,a numberof lexical acculturation processes that affectthe content and structure of vocabularies are set into motion.These processes include, among others, bilingualism influencing loaning and borrowing of terms, diffusion of terms across lan-guages belonging to the same genetic grouping, and the existenceof lingua francas supporting such processes (C. H.Brown,1999,pp.158-162; see his extensive bibliography, pp. 221-238). Due to suchprocesses, some common old words are lost over time from an

304 Cross-Cultural Research / August 2001

AuthorsNote: Mostof the data in this articlewere first presentedunder thetitle CommonUnderstandingsof Things in the World: A Semantic Analy-sisof 20 Languages, Part1,at the28 th Annual Meetingof the International

Society for the Comparative Study of Civilizations, St. Louis, Missouri, May 20-23, 1999. I personally wish to thank Professor Roger W. Wescott forhis helpful suggestions and critical comments throughout the preparationof the research design and papers emanating from this project.His book onlanguage families and personal comments on the selection of representa-tive languages have been especially valuable to me. In addition, specialthanks are due to Professor Paul A. Olson, who has supported this workthroughout with his important critical suggestions. Special thanks shouldalso be extended to the editor and anonymous reviewers of CCR who con-tributed valuablecriticisms andsuggestionsfor the revision of the originalversion of this article.



4/41

original language; new words are gained and become part of thecommon vocabulary of the later time.

This article examines vocabularies as found by English lexicog-raphers during the particular time period when they were compil-ing their comprehensive bilingual dictionaries of 20 different lan-guages (see Appendix B, Reference Dictionaries). Thus, effects of lexical acculturation processes are taken for granted here and donot pertain to the purpose of this article, which is to describe thesemantic structure of vocabularies as found in these dictionaries.In a follow-up article, which deals with systematic differences dis-covered between the semantic structures of sets of nonliterate ver-sus literate languages drawn from the same genetic families, the

various lexical acculturation processes become very important intheattempt to explain the discovered differences. Theliterature onsemantic universals and lexical evolution, such as the works of C.H. Brown and others, will be discussed in that article.

Semantics is a subdiscipline in the field of linguistics. Its topic isthe meanings, the senses, of words and phrases, that is, the thingsin the world that are the referents of the words. The objective of this article is to respond to the challenge issued to semanticsresearchers by Uriel Weinreich (1966) in his paper, Onthe Seman-tic Structure of Language, when he wrote:

What generalizations can be made about any vocabulary as a struc-tured set . . . ? Can anyover-all structural characteristics of a partic-

ular vocabulary be formulated,and if so, can the distributionof suchcharacteristics in the languages of the world be studied? (p. 143)

The results of our research establish quantitative parameters de-scribing the semantic structure of language in general.

THE MEANING OF SEMANTIC STRUCTUREIN THIS ARTICLE

Weinreichs use of the term semantic structure emphasizesthe distribution of overall structural characteristics of the particu-lar vocabulary of any language in the world. Websters dictionarydefinition of vocabulary is a list or collection of words or of wordsand phrases, usually alphabetically arranged and explained ordefined; a dictionary or lexicon. The meaning of semantic struc-ture in this article conforms with Weinreichs use of the term as the

Hanson et al. / SEMANTIC STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE 305



5/41

distribution of overall structural characteristics of commonlyunderstood words and phrases of vocabularies as defined and pub-lished in standard, comprehensive, bilingual dictionaries. Seman-tic structure in this sense does not refer to separate parts or partic-ular domains of a total vocabulary but to the structure of a

vocabulary as a whole.Obviously, our understanding of semantic structure repre-

sented by bilingual dictionaries is not identical with that found insome other contemporary studies of semantic structure (see belowfor a discussion of some recent semantic research using the term).Dictionaries do not represent the frequency of a words use, the fullrange of its metaphorical and literal equivalents, or the precise

limits on its usage in specialized situations. On the other hand,most modern bilingual dictionaries are constructed using roughlyequivalent methodologies, especially those made by personstrainedin field linguistics or peopledevelopedby theWycliffe BibleTranslators. Most give the sort of information about the meaningsof words that allow and help a nonnative speaker gradually toacquire proficiency in the use of the language. If, as Wittgenstein(1972) suggests, a words meaning is its use, then dictionaries arethe gateway to semantic usage in this, that, or the other language.Furthermore, because dictionaries generally list an array of mean-ings that a word may have, they represent the more obvious, com-mon, and stable members of the family of meanings to useWittgenstein againthat a word has. Our procedure is designed toreflect the world views of peoples that are captured by their lan-guages as represented by the makers of dictionaries. It should beobserved that this represents roughly the possible common mean-ings and referents in a languagenot all of them, not all of thelocalisms and neologisms that fashion, or creolization, or thespread of the media, or colonialism may create.

This article is not the place to enter into a discussion of the phi-losophy or psychology of language, of the relations between speechand writing, of words and things, the meaning of meaning, and soon. We recognize that some recent theoreticians of language (e.g.,Derrida, 1976) conceive of words and referents and the whole sys-tem of language differently from Roger Brown (1958) and othersthat present views similar to our own assumptions. We assumethat words have both meaning and references and that dictionar-ies represent both the system of language and the objects to whichwords refer.




6/41

SEMANTIC STRUCTURE IN SOMERECENT SEMANTIC RESEARCH

An example of recent semantic research in which the termsemantic structure is restricted to a particular semantic domainis that of Romney, Moore, and Rusch (1997). From their analysis of the resultsof judged-similarity tasks given to small groups (30 plus)of undergraduate students in California and Japan, the authorsconclude:The major finding of this paper is that English-speaking and Japanese-speaking participants share a single model of thesemantic structure of emotion terms(p. 5489).The study involvedthe use of 15 emotion terms in English and corresponding Japa-nese, such as anger, disgust, envy, fear, hate, love, sad. This set of terms is called a semantic domain:

A semantic domain may be defined as an organized set of words, allonthe same levelof contrast. . . that refer toa singleconceptual cate-gory, such as kinship terms, color terms, names of animals,or emotionterms.The structureof a semanticdomain derived fromjudged-sim-ilarity tasks is defined as the arrangement of terms relative to eachother represented in Euclidian space. (p. 5489)

Thus, in a spatial representation, anger and hate are judgedsimilar or close to each other and dissimilar from happy.

Clearly, semantic structure here meansa spatial representationof a similarity dimension among a set of words taken from a singledomain of a vocabulary. As the authors state: It is assumed thateach individual has an internal cognitive representation of thesemantic structure in which the meaning of a term is defined by itslocation relative to all the other terms (p. 5489). In our study, noassumptions concerning internal cognitive structures of individu-als are made or needed; we assume that the common understand-ings of words in a vocabulary are socially learned and transmittedand that is enough to investigate the semantic structure of a

vocabulary. A similar earlier study (Hermann & Raybeck, 1981) using mul-

tidimensional scaling on two domains of words, animal terms andemotion terms, found consistency across six cultures (Spain, Viet-

nam, Hong Kong, Haiti, Greece, and students from three U.S. col-leges) in two dimensions of animal (e.g., size) and emotion (e.g.,pleasant-unpleasant) terms.




7/41

Sweetsers (1990) study of metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure also is limited to domain structures,as evidentin this concluding statement:

This study has argued for the necessity of metaphorically structur-ing domains in terms of each other. And, most crucially, I have pre-sented evidence to suggest that some of the same basic domain-structures can give a consistent and illuminating account of previ-ously puzzling phenomena in the apparently disparate areas of (a) semantic change; (b) polysemy structure; and (c) interpretationof sentence conjunction. (pp. 147-148)

She proposes to explain domain-structure relatedness regularitiesby developing a cognitively based theory which takes not the ob-

jective real world, but human perception and understanding of the world to be the basis for the structure of human language (p. 2).In her view: Linguistic categorization depends not just on ournaming of distinctions that existin the world,but also on our meta-phorical and metonymic structuring of our perceptions of theworld (p. 9).

Clearly, then, her study of semantic structure does not attemptto respond to Weinreichs (1966) challenge to reach generalizationsabout the overall structural characteristics of the commonly under-stood comprehensive vocabulary of a language. In our study, forexample,polysemy structure is taken for granted: A child will eas-

ily learn the distinction between I see (as the natural physicalactivity of looking) and I see (as understanding,a mental activityof mind) without knowing anything about metaphors. In our study,each meaning of see has an equal chance of being captured in oursampling procedure; the classification category for each of the twomeanings would be different in our coding (apN vs. aM).

The literature on language acquisition introduces the study of additional structural linkages in language studies, including link-age of auditory, articulatory, and conceptual systems or structures.(See the bibliography in MacWhinney, 1998, pp. 222-227.) Althoughstudies of the learning of first words are important to an under-standing of how the emergence of language occurs, they too are notresponsive to Weinreichs (1966) challenge to semantic researchers

as stated above.Using George Millers (1999) distinctions between sorts of seman-

tic studies, our study may be described as follows: (a) It is part of linguistic as opposed to logical semantics, that is, it is descriptive,




8/41

a characterization of the meanings that have been expressed innatural languages (p. 3) as opposed to the formal theory of the setof meanings a language can express; (b) it is a study in lexicalsemantics as opposed to sentential semantics, that is, it assumesthat words in isolation do have meaning; a sentence acquires itsmeaning by virtue of the words that compose it and the manner of their combination (p. 4) as distinguished from being concernedwith the meaning of statements as in sentential semantics.

The results presented in this article are purely descriptive, butthey are nevertheless generalizations about semantic structure,that is, generalizations concerning the distribution of sorts of meanings that are found in any common vocabulary of a language.

There is no claim that any sort of linguistic or psycholinguistic the-ory is presented here, although the foundation for some latersociocultural theories may reside in our results. If there is a claimto be made it is that Roses classification categories and coding sys-tem provide a useful tool for the study of the semantic structure of language as called for in Weinreichs (1966) challenge to semanticresearchers. The results show how sorts of things in the world aredistributedamong thecommonly understoodwords of vocabularies.

METHOD

ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE

SEMANTIC STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE

There are four ideal criteria for theselection of languages to rep-resent language in general within a set of 20 languages. First, thelanguages should cover a wide range of different language fami-lies. Our set holds representatives from nine different languagefamilies. Second, geographical regions from all over the earthshould be represented. Third, languages from both ancient civili-zations and modern national states should be included. Our set of 20 includes 4 ancient civilizations but, it should be noted, 3 belong to the same Indo-European family. Finally, languages from bothlarge, literate and small,nonliterate groups shouldbe represented.Our set includes 9 nonliterate populations, some of which are very

small ethnic groups.Several criteria governing the selection of vocabulary words

representing any particular language should be considered. First,the best available bilingual dictionariesshould be used, each having




9/41

the goal of providing a comprehensive vocabulary of the trans-lated, or target, language. Note that a comprehensive vocabularydoes not include every word in the language. Sidney I. Landau(1989,p. 17 ff.) points out that there are more than 6 million chemi-cal compounds registered with Chemical Abstracts . Language spe-cializations of many kindsdisciplinary, professional, subculturesof all sortshold words and meanings that do not appear in gen-eral vocabulary, comprehensive dictionaries. Even among the bestavailable, however, the quality of the lexicography varies a greatdeal. Some dictionaries have been produced by an expert staff of lexicographers, whereas other vocabularies have been compiled byanthropologists or missionaries working with small groups of

informants,perhaps a few elders. It is impossible to know whetheranyparticular dictionary has included all, most,or onlysome of thecommon operative vocabulary of a language; we simply mustassume rough parity among the dictionaries used. Once the bestavailable dictionary has been selected, the investigator can try tomake sure the definitions of representative words of the vocabu-lary are chosen at random, that is, each definition of a word in the

vocabulary has an equal chance of appearing in the set of wordsrepresenting the total vocabulary.

Our procedure for determining randomness is based on thespace in a dictionary that is devoted to words and their definitions.First, any random number table can be used to select a randompage within the range of pages holding definitions. Second, a ran-dom column is selected, if more than one. Third, within the deter-mined range of lines per column, select a random line. Fourth,select the word being defined on that line and that particular defi-nition (or, if the line is blank,or part of an illustration,thenthe def-inition of the word being illustrated or the nearest line that is partor all of a definition).

Finally, the procedures guiding the classification of words intothe set of semantic categories should be clear and explicit. First,the set of categories must be inclusive; that is, any word appearing in any dictionary must have a logical placement within one cate-gory of the set of semantic categories. Roses A Legend of WordedSorts of Things, 1 (as revised) is presented here as the set of catego-ries heading the columns of the first five tables of this article.These 34 categories, with codes allowing variation for subcatego-ries, may be logically collapsed into summary totals, as in tabletotal columns and in Table 6 when used for statistical comparisonpurposes.




10/41

A named code category is a set ideally holding member wordslogically belonging to that set and to no other category set at thatlevel of contrast Thus, each major category reflects a middle-rangelevel of abstraction between its member referent words and stillhigher levels of abstractions of things such as natural versuscultural things, material versus nonmaterial things, or any-thing. Think of all the things in the world that people refer to withwords when they talk or write.The categories area classification of the sorts of things words refer to. The code letters are signs or indi-cators of the meaning of words of a particular sort: The first letterin the code is always the primary or basicclassification of the word;the following letters further qualify the primary meaning. The >

sign means has to do with or relates to and provides a way tofurther delimit the meaning of a classified word.Finally, the act of classifying or coding, that is, assigning a word

or phrase to its logically appropriate category, should be reliableand consistent. Coding should be stable over time and replicablebetween different coders. (We have not yet systematically testedthese criteria. In our studies some changes have been made whencertain languages have been recoded at later dates. Meeting thesecriteria depends primarily on the clarity of thecategory definitionsand on the experience of the coder as he or she becomes familiarwith more and more examples of words and their meanings.) Inthis article, category definitions of each tables column headingsare summarized and related to code names for reference in Figure1. Example words, with the logic for their classification displayed,are provided in Appendix A. Examples are drawn from all 20 lan-guages. We note that our classification of certain languages byfamily differs in minor respects from the classifications suggestedin a recent paper by Burton. 2

RESULTS

TABLE 1. AGENTS IN THE WORLD

Agents are natural material things in the world to which move-ment or activity can be attributed: A river flows, a plant flowers, a

dog barks; people are agents who act in many sorts of ways, bothphysically and mentally.


Text continued on p. 315



11/41


Code Name Definition

Exhibit 1: Agents in the World, Nature, and PeopleNATURE

XN Natural inorganic agents A collection of, or xN, membersof, the inorganic kingdom of the earth and universe; ele-ments and components of theearths natural surface andatmosphere: solids, liquids,gases

X InorganicN Nature, natural

VN Vegetable agents A collection of, or vN, membersof, the vegetable kingdom of

plants, trees, etc.; includescultivated plants, VC and vC

V VegetableC Culture, culturalBN Beast, animal, creature agents A collection of, or members of,

the animal kingdom, a beast,an animal, a creature otherthan a human being; the cate-gory includes domesticatedcreatures, BC and bC.

PEOPLEP People, a group A collection of persons; also, the

proper name of a group of people, e.g., Beduins; the cate-gory includes PC = cultural

status name of a group, e.g.,assembly; PqC = place nameof a group, community, gov-ernmental unit such as atown, county, state, nation.

Q,q Space, a particular placep Person, personal A historical person, alive or

dead; personal in combina-tion coding as in ap, personalphysical activity or behavior

pC Cultural status of a person A cultural status name of a per-son, e.g., relative, blacksmith

po Oneself, self, a person alone The self, oneself, myself, I; theperson alone

O,o Nothing In combination coding o qualifiesa thing by itself, as in po,oneself.

(continued)

Figure 1: Reference Guide for Table Category Codes , Names, andDefinitions



12/41


Exhibit 2: Activities in the WorldNATUREaN Activity of nature agents Activity or action of an agent of

nature; the category includesaxN, action of a natural inor-ganic agent; avN, action of amember of the vegetablekingdom; abN, action of amember of the animal kingdom.

A,a Action, an actionhN A happening of a natural agent A happening or event of an

agent of nature; the category

includes HN, a natural process,a course of events over time;

hxN, hvN, hbN, happenings of members of the inorganic,veg-etable,or animal kingdoms.

h,H happening, event; a process,course of events

faN feature of a natural agent Feature of the natural activityaction or event or happening of any agent of

nature; the category includesfaxN, fhxN, favN, fhvN, fabN,fhbN.

f FeaturePEOPLE, PHYSICALap Action of a person, personal Cultural personal physical be-

behavior havior; the category includesapN, a natural physical ac-tion, such as to sneeze.

hp Happening of a person, physical Cultural personal physical hap-action event pening or event; the category

includes hpN, a natural phys-ical event of a person, such asa sneeze.

fap Feature of personal physical Feature of personal physical be-action or happening havior or happening; the cate-

gory includes fap, fhp, andfapN, fhpN.

PEOPLE, MENTALaM Activity of mind, mental activity Thinking and feeling sorts of ac-

tivity in the mind, both cogni-tive and emotional, affectivemental activity in ones head

Figure 1: Continued

(continued)




13/41


M Mind, mentalhM Mental happening Mental happening or event of

thought or emotionfaM Feature of a mental activity Feature of a mental activity or

or event event; the category includesfaM and fhM.

Exhibit 3: Products of Human ActivityPRODUCTS, MATERIALtC Cultural, material thing A cultural, man-made, material

thing, e.g., a cup; the categoryincludes tS, a sacred material

culture thing.t A material thing A material thing not otherwise

classified as a nature or peo-ple agent

ftC Feature of a cultural materialthing

S Sacred The sacred, a collection of sacred,godly, or holy things.

PRODUCTS, MENTALL,l Logic, a logical thing The category includes: L, logical

practice, a logical network orframework, any schematic ar-rangement; l, a logical or for-mal thing, and fL or fl, featureof a logical thing

G,g Gloss, a remark The category includes G, a col-lection of glosses or remarks,an extended commentary, aconversation, a document orbook; g, a gloss, a remark,word, name, sign, and fG, fg,features of these.

K,k Knowledge The category includes informa-tive knowledge, thought, suchas a scientific or literary dis-cipline; k, any idea, notion, orthought transmitting infor-mation; and fK, fk, features of these. The category includesKS, a religion; kS, a mystical,spiritual, or religious belief;kps, a god, spirit, mystical orreligious being.

Figure 1: Continued


(continued)



14/41


J,j Judgment, evaluation The category includes J, general judgment, evaluation; j, aparticular judgment, value,evaluation; and fJ, fj, featuresof these.

Exhbit 4: Places and Features of Nature and PeopleNATUREqN Natural place, location The category heading includes

fqN, feature of a natural placeor area.

fN Feature of a natural agent The category heading includes

fbN, material feature or partof an animal; fvN, materialfeature or part of a plant; fxN,material feature or part of aninorganic natural agent.

PEOPLEqC Cultural place Man-made, cultural places or lo-

cations; the category heading includes fqC, feature of a cul-tural place.

fpN Natural feature of a person A material part or feature of aperson, such as a thumb.

fpC Cultural feature of a person A nonmaterial cultural featureof a person such as wise; thecategory heading includes fp

(coded without the N), featureof a person.

Exhibit 5: Rare References: Time, Situation, Relation, Anything TIMEDN Natural time The category includes dN, a nat-

ural interval of time, such asnight, and fdN, feature of nat-ural time.

D,d Duration, time An expanse of time, a momentor interval of time

DC Cultural time The category includes dC, a cul-tural interval of time, such ashour, and fdC, feature of cul-tural time.

Figure 1: Continued


(continued)



15/41

Under the general Nature heading,XN is the first column head-ing and code name of the semantic category defined as a collectionof things in, or xN, a material thingin,the inorganickingdom of theearth and universeelements andcomponents of the earths natu-ral surface and atmosphere: solids, liquids, gases.

The column 2 category heading, VN, is defined as a collection of,or vN, a member of, the vegetable kingdomplants, trees, and soforth; the category includes VC and vC, cultivated vegetables,plants, and so on.

The column 3 category heading, BN, is defined as a collection of,or bN, a member of, the animal kingdoma beast, an animal, acreature other than a human being; the category includes BC andbC, domesticated animals.

The heading in column 4 stands for total of the three Naturecategories.


SITUATIONEN Natural situation The category includes eN, a par-

ticular natural situation, andfeN, feature of a natural situ-ation or circumstance.

E,e Environs, situation General conditions or circum-stances, a particular situationor circumstance

EC Cultural situation The category includes eC, a par-ticular cultural situation, andfeC, feature of a cultural situ-ation or circumstance.

RELATIONR,r Relation, relationship The r code always includes an

associated code letter of thesort of category referenced bythe relation, as in rp, personalrelationship, rl, logical rela-tion, or rq, spatial relation.

fR Feature of a relation ANYTHINGI,I Anything A set of various unspecified

things, any thing, natural orcultural, physical or mental,material or nonmaterial

fi Feature of anything

Figure 1: Continued




16/41

The category heading of the 1st column of the four categorieslisted under the general heading of People is P, defined as people, acollection of persons, a group; also, the proper name of a group of people. The category includes PC, a cultural status name of agroup, andPqC, a place name of a group, community, governmentalunit such as a town, county, state, nation.


TABLE 1 Agents in the World

Language by Family &

Nature People

Representative XN VN BN Total P p pC po Total TOTAL

Indo-EuropeanSanskrit 2 4 3 9 2 1 9 0 12 21Greek 0 2 1 3 2 0 9 0 11 14Latin 1 0 2 3 4 2 3 0 9 12English 1 5 1 7 1 1 4 0 6 13

Hamito-Semitic Arabic 0 2 0 2 3 0 7 0 10 12

Galla 3 7 1 11 2 0 9 0 11 22Egyptian 1 0 6 7 9 0 6 1 16 23 Altaic

Turkish 3 1 4 8 1 0 6 0 7 15Dagur 3 1 3 7 2 0 5 0 7 14

Sino-TibetanChinese 1 0 2 3 2 1 6 0 9 12Boro 0 3 5 8 2 0 11 1 14 22

Austro-TaiThai 1 1 0 2 3 1 4 0 8 10Santali 2 3 5 10 2 0 4 0 6 16

Malayo-PolynesianIndonesian 1 1 2 4 5 0 7 0 12 16

Native Australian Yir Yorunt 3 3 7 13 1 0 11 0 12 25

AmerindLakota 1 1 4 6 4 0 2 2 6 12Chickasaw 0 5 1 6 2 0 2 0 4 10Pipil 3 6 2 11 1 0 4 0 5 16Quechua 0 6 3 9 1 0 8 1 10 19

Niger-KorofanianSwahili 0 2 3 5 2 0 7 0 9 14

Total 26 53 55 134 51 6 124 3 184 318Mean 1.3 2.6 2.75 6.7 2.55 0.3 6.1 0.15 9.2 15.9Median 1 2 2 7 2 0 6 0 9 15Range 0-3 0-7 0-7 2-13 1-9 0-2 2-11 0-2 4-16 10-25



17/41

The 2nd column heading under the People general heading isthe category heading p,defined as a historical person, alive or dead(or personal in combination coding as in ap, personal physicalbehavior).

The 3rd column heading under People is the category heading pC, defined as a cultural statusof a person, such as father, teacher.

The 4th and final heading under People is the category po,defined as the self, oneself.

The final column heading, TOTAL , stands for the sum of theNatureandPeople references forthe language named in that row.

The rows of a table show the counts from each of the 20 lan-guages of the members of the column-heading categories. (The

numbers also represent percentages, as the counts are drawn fromthe 100 random words from each language.) Thus, for example, inTable 1, Agents in the World, the first row of numbers, from San-skrit, shows that 2 words refer to natural inorganic agents, 4 referto vegetable agents, and 3 refer to animal agents, a total of 9 words,or 9% of the 100 random sample of words from Sanskrit. That 9%compares with the 12% total of the four People categories forSanskrit.

The four rows at the bottom ofeachtable show the summary sta-tistics for all 20 languages for each column in the table.These sum-mary statistics reveal our findings on the semantic structure of language. Conclusions are presented as straightforward quantita-tive results.The significance andrelevanceof these conclusions forthesemantic structureof language arediscussedfollowing thepre-sentation of Table 6.

Conclusions From Table 1. Agents in the World

(a) From the Total columns under Nature and People, observe that onthe average, as indicated by the mean and median statistics, thereare somewhat more references to People than to Nature agents(means 9.2 to 6.7,medians 9 to 7). There appears to be a strong ten-dency for literate populations more than nonliterate groups to ref-erence more variation among People than among Nature agents,but there are exceptions in both (e.g., English and Turkish showmore Nature than People agents; Boro and Quechua more Peoplethan Nature agents).

(b) Looking at the range of variation in the counts of all Nature andPeople Agents (bottom row, Total, and TOTAL columns), note that aliterate population,Thai, and nonliterate Chickasaw show the low-est count of all agents (10), whereas a small, nonliterate group,Yir




18/41


19/41

TABLE 2 Activities in the World

Language by Nature

People

Family & Physical Mental

Representative aN hN faN Total ap hp fap Total aM hM faM Total

Indo-EuropeanSanskrit 1 3 0 4 17 8 5 30 1 0 1 Greek 1 6 1 8 23 6 6 35 4 1 2 Latin 0 6 1 7 23 10 2 35 2 1 4 English 3 2 2 7 17 7 2 26 2 1 1

Hamito-Semitic Arabic 2 1 0 3 25 15 0 40 1 6 0 Galla 1 1 0 2 23 5 0 28 1 1 1 Egyptian 1 2 0 3 28 7 0 35 3 0 0

AltaicTurkish 1 3 0 4 19 8 3 30 7 5 0 Dagur 2 2 0 4 11 10 2 23 5 1 0

Sino-TibetanChinese 1 2 1 4 23 3 3 29 2 0 2 Boro 1 0 1 2 26 1 2 29 2 0 1

3 2 0

b y S or i n

C i u

t a c u on

O c t o b er

3 1

,2

0 0 9

h t t p: / / c

c r . s a g e p u b . c

om

D ownl o

a d e d f r om
http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/


20/41

Austro-TaiThai 0 1 0 1 34 5 2 41 5 1 2 Santali 6 2 1 9 23 3 3 29 3 0 1

Malayo-PolynesianIndonesian 8 1 0 9 29 10 1 40 2 3 1

Native Australian Yir Yorunt 5 0 0 5 20 11 2 33 2 0 0

AmerindLakota 0 4 1 5 41 6 3 50 1 3 1 Chickasaw 4 5 0 9 39 8 0 47 1 2 0 Pipil 3 1 0 4 30 11 1 42 0 1 0 Quechua 2 1 0 3 22 5 0 27 2 0 1

Niger-KorofanianSwahili 0 1 0 1 23 14 3 40 2 2 0

Total 42 44 8 94 496 153 40 689 48 28 18 94Mean 2.1 2.2 0.4 4.7 24.8 7.65 2.0 34.4 2.4 1.4 0.9 4.7Median 1 2 0 4 23 7 2 34 2 1 1 Range 0-8 0-6 0-2 1-9 11-41 1-15 0-9 23-50 0-5 1-4 0-4 1-12

3 2 1

b y S or i n

C i u

t a c u on

O c t o b er

3 1

,2

0 0 9

h t t p: / / c


om

D ownl o

a d e d f r om


21/41

including both thinking or cognitive sorts of activity and emotionalor feeling, affective, sorts of activity, and happenings (hM) andtheir features (faM).

Conclusions From Table 2. Activities in the World

(a) The TOTAL (grand total) column shows that an average of almost44%(43.85) anda median of45%of thevocabularyof languagesref-erence natural and human activities, by far the largest of the vari-ous major categories of semantic structure.

(b) The physical behavior activities of people are the referents of farmore words, 34%, than eitheractivities of natural agents or mentalactivities of persons, which both average close to 5% (4.7) with

medians at 4%.(c) The ranges across languages demonstrate a great deal of variabil-

ity of activity referents, for example, from 33% to 60% in the grandTOTAL column and from 23% to 50% in the physical behavior Totalcolumn, suggesting that significant differences between compari-son groups of languages are likely to be found.

TABLE 3. PRODUCTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY

The code letters, or sigla, T and t, stand for a set of materialthings (T)or a material thing (t)not otherwise classified as naturalor people agents. Nonmaterial things such as actions, relations,and various sorts of mental activity products are defined as sepa-

rate categories, as below for mental activity products. I and i arecode letters standing for anything, whose abstract referent thingsare not identified as either material or nonmaterial.

Products of human activity are divided into two general sets:Material and Mental products. The column heading tC signifies amaterial culture thing. The Mental products categories (including features of these) include L for logic, G for gloss, K for knowledge,and J for judgment. Logical, L, includes logical practice, a logicalnetwork or framework, any schematic arrangement; l, a logical orformal thing. G includes a collection of glosses or remarks, anextended commentary, a conversation, a document or book; g stands for a gloss, a word, a name, a sign. K includes informa-tive knowledge, thought;k, anyidea, notion, or thought transmitting information. J includes judgment, evaluation; j, an evaluation, a

judgment, a value.The code letter S stands for sacred. The category provides a

means for separating sacred, spiritual, godly, or holy things from




22/41

mundane cultural things as in tS from tC, a sacred material cul-ture thing from a mundane or secular material culture thing, andnonmaterial sacred things from others, as in KS, a religion; kS, amystical or religious belief; apS, a religious or magical practice;pS,


TABLE 3Products of Human Activity

Language Product

by Family & Material Mental

Representative tC ftC Total L G K J Total TOTAL

Indo-EuropeanSanskrit 1 3 4 2 5 6 1 14 18Greek 4 4 8 1 8 1 0 10 18Latin 2 2 4 12 7 1 1 21 25English 15 3 18 1 8 0 0 9 27

Hamito-Semitic Arabic 8 2 10 0 5 3 0 8 18Galla 16 0 16 10 1 2 1 14 30Egyptian 6 0 6 4 6 3 0 13 19

AltaicTurkish 8 1 9 2 6 5 4 17 26Dagur 10 1 11 8 1 1 2 12 23

Sino-TibetanChinese 10 3 13 1 9 3 3 16 29Boro 11 6 17 2 1 2 0 5 22

Austro-TaiThai 6 2 8 7 4 3 1 15 23Santali 12 2 14 2 2 0 0 4 18

Malayo-PolynesianIndonesian 6 2 8 6 5 2 0 13 21

Native Australian Yir Yorunt 6 3 9 10 5 0 0 15 24

AmerindLakota 5 3 8 5 4 1 0 10 18Chickasaw 6 2 8 2 4 0 0 6 14Pipil 8 5 13 1 0 0 0 1 14Quechua 11 3 14 4 6 2 0 12 26

Niger-KorofanianSwahili 13 2 15 3 2 2 0 7 22

Total 164 49 213 83 89 37 13 222 435Mean 8.2 2.45 10.65 4.15 4.45 1.85 0.65 11.1 21.75Median 8 2 10 3 5 2 0 12 22Range 1-16 0-6 4-18 0-12 0-9 0-6 0-4 1-21 14-30



23/41

a human minister, priest, medicine man or woman; kpS, a god,spirit, a mystical, spiritual, or religious being.

Conclusions From Table 3. Products of Human Activity

(a) On theaverage,languages reference mental products, ideas of vari-ous sorts, only slightly more than material, man-made, culturalthings (11.1% to 10.65%; medians 12% to 10%).

(b) English shows the highest percentage of material culture referents(18), Latin the highest in the mental products categories (21). Notethat Latin, along with Sanskrit, shows the lowest percentage of material culture referents (4). Given the common reputation of Romans as being a very militaristic and materialistic society, this

finding is interesting and somewhat surprising.(c) The range of variation in both Material (4-18) andMental products(1-21) is large, suggesting thatsignificant differences between com-parison groups should occur. There appears,for example, to be gen-erally more idea referents among literate populations than among nonliterate groups, more material culture referents among thenonliterate than literate populations, but there are obvious excep-tions (e.g., English and Yir Yorunt).

TABLE 4. PLACES AND FEATURES OF NATURE AND PEOPLE

The distributions in Table 4 show how much vocabularies refer-ence natural places and their features, qN, as compared with cul-

tural, man-made places and their features, qC. The code letter, orsiglum, Q, stands for space, an expanse of space; q, a particularplace,location, or space; qN, a natural place; qC, a cultural place orlocation.In addition,references to features of People,both natural,material features (column under fpN), such as thumb, and non-material features (column under fpC), such as wise, can be com-pared with features of Nature agents (inorganic, vegetable, ani-mal) (column under fN).

Note that natural features of Nature (fN) and People (fpN)relate to material things, whereas words classified as fp, or fpC,notfpN, relate to nonmaterial traits and attributes of persons.

Table 4 Conclusions:

Places and Features of Nature and People(a) Cultural places are referenced in language lexicons about twice as

frequently as natural places (means 1.55 to 0.75, medians 2 to 1).




24/41


Words referencing differentiated places do not receive the atten-tion in vocabularies that other sorts of things do.

(b) In general, languages differentiate natural, material features of persons about thesameas fornonmaterial,culturalfeaturesof per-sons (medians are 3 for both). Taken together, there are just morethan twice as many references to features of persons as features of

TABLE 4Places and Features of Nature and People

Language Nature Peopleby Family &

Representative qN fN Total qC fpN fpC Total TOTAL

Indo-EuropeanSanskrit 1 9 10 2 1 4 7 17Greek 0 4 4 1 3 4 8 12Latin 1 1 2 1 0 8 9 11English 1 6 7 2 5 3 10 17

Hamito-Semitic Arabic 0 2 2 0 4 6 10 12

Galla 3 1 4 2 4 1 7 11Egyptian 0 1 1 1 1 3 5 6 Altaic

Turkish 0 1 1 1 0 3 4 5Dagur 2 3 5 1 5 2 8 13

Sino-TibetanChinese 0 1 1 3 5 5 13 14Boro 1 5 6 4 6 3 13 19

Austro-TaiThai 1 1 2 1 4 1 6 8Santali 0 5 5 4 3 3 10 15

Malayo-PolynesianIndonesian 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 4

Native Australian Yir Yorunt 0 3 3 0 1 6 7 10

AmerindLakota 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 6Chickasaw 0 3 3 2 2 1 5 8Pipil 1 9 10 2 7 0 9 19Quechua 2 1 3 2 7 0 9 12

Niger-KorofanianSwahili 1 6 7 0 6 3 9 16

Total 15 63 78 31 67 59 157 235Mean 0.75 3.15 3.9 1.55 3.35 2.95 7.85 11.75Median 1 3 3 2 3 3 8 12Range 0-3 0-9 0-10 0-4 0-7 0-8 4-13 4-19



25/41


natural agents such as plants and animals (means 6.3 to 3.1, medi-ans 6 to 3).

(c) Both places and features point to structural, relatively stablethings in the world as opposed to the dynamic, changing thingscharacterized by action and movements of all kinds. Observing thelow frequencies of words referencing structural characteristics andthe low ranges of variation in these categories, it appears unlikelythat significant differences between comparison groups of languagesare likely to occur based on structural categories such as these.

SUMMARY

Thus far, we have seen that the people who have created the lan-guage with which they communicate with each other about thethings in their world devote about 9% of their vocabularies to dif-ferentiate the sorts of people they deal with. They distinguish theways people behave physically with most words in their vocabular-ies, approximately 34%, with nearly 5% of words fordifferentiating sorts of mental activity. Another 6% of words distinguish among sorts of features of persons, their traits and attributes. Finally,about 22%of words differentiate among sorts of products of humanactivity, nearly 11% for distinctive sorts of material things pro-duced, and a little more than 11% for various sorts of mental prod-ucts, different kinds of ideas.

In addition, about 7% of vocabulary words identify other activeagents in their natural environment, the animals, plants, rivers,and so on that they deal with, including about 3% of words for dif-ferentiating features of such agents. Nearly 5% of words differenti-ate sorts of activities associated with such natural agents.

The activities of people and other natural agents occur withinnatural and social settings of time, place, and circumstances, andin relations with each other. We have observed that with regard tonatural and cultural places differentiated by words, althoughessential for communicating an understanding of the state of affairs in their lives, such place distinctions take up only a smallportion of the words in a language. The same is true of the sets of words devoted to differentiating time and circumstances of theiraffairs, as shown in Table 5. Less than 1% of vocabulary words are

classified within these setting categories.



26/41

TABLE 5. RARE REFERENTS:TIME, SITUATION, RELATION, ANYTHING

The code letter D stands for duration, time, an expanse of time;d, a moment, an interval of time, natural, DN, or cultural, DC, theheadings of the first two columns of Table 5. The code letter Estands for environs, e for a situation or circumstance, natural, eN,or cultural, eC, under the heading Situation. Another categoryholding about 3% of words in vocabularies is designated by thecode letter R or r, standing for relation,along with a column for fea-tures of relations (fR). The particular sort of associated relation isindicated by another code category letter following the r, as in rl, alogical relation. Finally, under the general heading Any, are col-umns headed by i and fi. About 2% of words in vocabularies areabstract terms whose referent could be anything, natural or cul-tural, physical or mental, material or nonmaterial, as indicated bythe code letters I or i, and features of these (fi).

Table 5 Conclusions: Rare Referents:Time, Situation, Relation, Anything

(a) Human affairs occur and are discussed among persons in terms of natural and social environmental settings, which include where,when, and in what circumstance or situation. Wherethe naturaland cultural place word frequencieswere shown in Table 4.Table5 shows thedistributions of words designating Time andSituation.

Both categories hold less than 1% of vocabulary words.(b) Table 5 also shows the distribution of words classified in two other

categories holding relatively rarereferents:Relation,R, with about3% of vocabulary words, and Anything, i, with about 2% of vocabu-lary words.

(c) Given that many of the 100 word samples from the 20 languagesheld no referents in these categories at all, and also their low fre-quencies and ranges, it seems unlikely that any significant differ-ences between comparison groups of languageswill be found basedon these categories.

TABLE 6. MATERIAL VERSUS NONMATERIAL THINGS

Table 6 brings together Total columns from previous tablesto show the distributions of all 100 words from each of the 20




27/41

representative languages. Four columns show the frequencies of material referent things in the world:(a) from Table 1,the totals of the active agents, natural and human, summed under the columnheading N+P; (b) from Table 3, the man-made material culturethings under the column heading tC; (c) from Table 4, the sum of the material features of natural and cultural places under the


TABLE 5Rare References: Time, Situation, Relation, Anything

Language by Family &

Time Situation Relation Any

Representative DN DC Total EN EC Total R fR Total i fi Total

Indo-EuropeanSanskrit 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 4Greek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 3Latin 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0English 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0

Hamito-Semitic Arabic 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 1 6 1 0 1

Galla 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1Egyptian 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 4 1 5 6 Altaic

Turkish 0 4 4 0 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 1Dagur 0 2 2 0 0 0 8 1 9 5 1 6

Sino-TibetanChinese 2 3 5 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1Boro 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

Austro-TaiThai 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 3 3Santali 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 2 5 1 2 3

Malayo-PolynesianIndonesian 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 1

Native Australian Yir Yorunt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

AmerindLakota 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0Chickasaw 1 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 7 1 0 1Pipil 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1Quechua 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 3 3 6

Niger-KorofanianSwahili 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Total 6 19 25 0 8 8 45 15 60 19 23 42Mean 0.3 0.95 1.25 0 0.4 0.4 2.25 0.75 3.0 0.95 1 .15 2.1Median 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 1 1Range 0-2 0-4 0-5 0 0-2 0-2 0-8 0-3 0-9 0-5 0-5 0-6



28/41

TABLE 6Material Versus Nonmaterial Things

Language by Material Nonmaterial

Family & AGT PROD Q N+P ACTS F MENT TIME SIT REL AN Representative N+P tC Q fN Total aN,ap fpC LGKJ dNdC eC R Total i

Indo-EuropeanSanskrit 21 4 3 10 38 36 4 14 2 0 2 58 Greek 14 8 1 7 30 50 4 10 0 0 3 67 Latin 12 4 2 1 19 49 8 21 0 2 1 81 English 13 18 3 11 45 37 3 9 1 0 5 55

Hamito-Semitic

Arabic 12 10 0 6 28 50 6 8 0 1 6 71 Galla 22 16 5 5 48 33 1 14 2 0 1 51 Egyptian 23 6 1 2 32 41 3 13 1 0 4 62

AltaicTurkish 15 9 1 1 26 46 3 17 4 1 2 73 Dagur 14 11 3 8 36 33 2 12 2 0 9 58

Sino-TibetanChinese 12 13 3 6 34 37 5 16 5 1 1 65 Boro 22 17 5 11 55 34 3 5 1 0 0 43

Austro-TaiThai 10 8 2 5 25 50 1 15 2 0 4 72 Santali 16 14 4 8 42 42 3 4 0 1 5 55

Malayo-PolynesianIndonesian 16 8 0 2 26 55 2 13 0 0 3 73

3 2 9

b y S or i n

C i u

t a c u on

O c t o b er

3 1

,2

0 0 9

h t t p: / / c


om

D ownl o

a d e d f r om


29/41

Native Australian Yir Yorunt 25 9 0 4 38 40 6 15 0 0 0 61

AmerindLakota 12 8 3 2 25 60 1 10 0 0 4 75 Chickasaw 10 8 2 5 25 59 1 6 1 0 7 74 Pipil 16 13 3 16 48 47 0 1 0 1 2 51 Quechua 19 14 4 8 45 33 0 12 2 1 1 49

Niger-KorofanianSwahili 14 15 1 12 42 45 3 7 2 0 0 57

Total 318 213 46 130 707 877 59 222 25 8 60 1251 Mean 15.9 10.6 2.3 6.5 35.3 43.8 2.95 11.1 1.25 0.4 3.0 62.5 Median 15 10 2 6 36 45 3 12 1 0 3 62 Range 10-25 4-18 0-5 1-16 19-55 33-60 0-8 1-21 0-5 0-2 0-9 43-81

NOTE:AGT= agent,PROD = product,Q = space, N+P= nature + people, ACT= activity,F = feature,MENT= mental, SIT= situation, RELrelation, ANY = anything.

Table 6 Continued

Language by Material Nonmaterial

Family & AGT PROD Q N+P ACTS F MENT TIME SIT REL AN Representative N+P tC Q fN Total aN,ap fpC LGKJ dNdC eC R Total i

3 3 0

b y S or i n

C i u

t a c u on

O c t o b er

3 1

,2

0 0 9

h t t p: / / c


om

D ownl o

a d e d f r om


30/41


31/41

DISCUSSION

THE RELEVANCE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE FINDINGSFOR THE SEMANTIC STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE

We believe that our research based on 20 representative lan-guages from diverse language families, from both literate andnonliterate populations, from both ancient and modern civiliza-tions, establishes the basic parameters characterizing the seman-tic structure of language when the term semantic structurerefers to the distribution of the sorts of things in the world that arereferencedin definitionsprovided in comprehensive dictionaries of the commonly understood words of the vocabulary of a language.The results display the qualities called for by Weinreichs (1966)challenge to semantic researchers to reach high-level generaliza-tions about the semantic properties of language: The findings arequantitative, they are comparable among all languages, they aretestable, they invite further research from a number of differentdirections to confirm or refute, to expandandrefine, to test similar-ities and significant differences between different comparisongroups of languages.

Just two examples of what expansion and refinement mightentail are mentioned here. First, with larger size samples, forexample, 1,000 random words, a category such as mental activitycould be divided into cognitive versus affective sorts of activity, the

thinking, intellectual, logical sort of mental activity versus theemotional, feeling, expressive, affective sort of mental activity.Conceivably, languages might differ significantly in the attentionor emphasis given to differentiating such thought processes. Simi-larly, the large, collapsed, material culture things category, tC,might be usefully subdivided to demonstrate significant differ-ences between languages in their differentiations of sorts of mate-rial things produced. One possibility might be the distinctionbetween consumer sorts of immediate-consumption things versusproducer goods of the capital-equipment sort.Such producer-goodsreferents may be relatively rare in small, nonliterate group vocab-ularies as compared with civilization vocabularies.

FURTHER SEMANTIC RESEARCH PROJECTS

A rich base of data is readily available for semantic research. Any language whose vocabulary has been compiled into a




32/41

comprehensive dictionary is a candidate for inclusion in a compar-ative study of the semantic structure of languages. Because ourmother language has been English, with bilingual dictionariesthat have translated the vocabularies of the target language intoEnglish definitions,we encourage other semantic researchers whosemother language is other than English and who have access tobilingual dictionaries in their own language to set out to confirm,refute, refine, and improve on our conclusions regarding the seman-tic structure of language.

Our previous papers have already suggested the sort of newknowledge that should be generated by investigations comparing the semantic structures of languages.Forexample,our comparison

between sets of languages drawn from literate versus nonliteratepopulations within the same language families found that thenonliterate groups displayed common semantic properties in their

vocabularies across the different language families, whereas lan-guages of literate populations demonstrated significant differ-ences in such properties when drawn from different language fam-ilies. This paper (Hanson, Rose, & Little, 1998) was presented atthe annual meeting of the International Society for the Compara-tive Study of Civilizations held that year at Reitaku University,Japan.

Further insights into the semantic structure of language shouldbe achieved with investigation of other comparison sets, for exam-ple, ancient civilization versus modern civilization languages drawnfrom diverse language families, perhaps comparisons within andbetween different sorts of geographical areas, and so on.

As noted previously, a rich base of cultural data is held in the varied language specialization dictionaries. These include disci-plinary, professional and occupational, regional, slang, criminalargot(suchas EricPartridges, 1950, Dictionaryof the Underworld ,suggested by Andrew Carlin) and other subculture language col-lections. Significant research questions regarding the semanticstructure of such language specialization dictionaries have yet tobe formulated, but Roses previous work (1962) on innovations in

American culture based on the Americanisms dictionary suggeststheir usefulness.

Finally, as suggested in our previous paper on ancient civiliza-tion languages (Hanson, Rose,& Little, 1996),each language holdswithin its vocabulary an implied but deep and underlying struc-ture of relations among the different categories of things in theworld. Such relations have been displayed explicitly in our coded




33/41

meanings of words.For example,in our coding of the Chinese wordfor slander (gJ>rp), the logical reading of the coding is evaluatedcommentary that is related to personal relations.The implicationis that the primary category, g for the comment, is related directlyto J, evaluation, and indirectly to r (relation), p (person or per-sonal), and to the combination, rp, personal relations. Obviously,the study of such deep, built-into-the-language relationships wouldbe complex and arduous, but the results may yield a significantachievement: knowledge about common understandings of the rela-tions among things in theworld,a naturalsociology of relationships.

Notes

1.Edward Rose developed his interest in andwork with dictionaries asa rich sourceof social and cultural data throughout his career as a sociolo-gist and ethnographer. Early articles were based on the use of the Oxford

English Dictionary to elicit the English record of a natural sociology andan Americanisms dictionary to investigate innovations in cultural historyas producedby Americans. These long-termdictionarystudiesculminatedin four books on The World and were further followed by an unfinishedmanuscript containing random samples of 80 words selected from each of five languages (English, Latin, Chinese, Turkish, and Lakota) that heclassifiedusing the semanticcategoryschemefirst describedin his A Leg-end of Worded Sorts of Things as developed and contained in this unpub-lished manuscript. The Legend portion of the manuscript contained thenames of Roses categories of Worded Things, their code letter symbols,and their definitions. Following our first paper presented at a conferenceof the International Society for the Comparative Study of Civilizations(Hanson & Rose, 1995), which closely followed Roses original codes andprocedures, our subsequent papers (Hanson, Rose, & Little, 1996, 1998,1999) used the code and coding procedures as somewhat revised byHansonand,withZekeLittle, thecoding was standardizedfor ease of com-puter manipulation. Roses unpublished manuscripts have recently beencollected and organized by the Archives Department of the library at theUniversity of Colorado, Boulder. A bibliographic listing of these materialshas been prepared. Also, Andrew Carlin (1999) has published a list of 176items of Roses work.See References for some of Roses relevant publishedwork.

2. Burton (1999) notes the continuing disagreement among scholarsattempting to classify languages into family categories. For example, hedoes not usethe Amerind category forsomeAmerican Indianlanguages aswe do.




34/41

APPENDIX A Examples of Coded Words with Classification Logic Displayed

Code Language, Word, Definition Code Classification Logic

For Table 1. Agents in the WorldxNhxN Turkish 21. selenti: a small torrent caused by rain A natural, material inorganic agent > (relates to) a

natural happening of an inorganic vN>apN Galla 44. godari: a lily, the farinaceous roots of A natural plant > natural personal physical behavio

which are boiled and eatenbN Yir Yorunt 08. Ngar-palq: a riflefish A natural creaturebC Yir Yorunt 34. Minh-chuk: chicken A domesticated creature

P Egyptian 30. Hry w-sc: Beduins, l iterally those upon The proper name of a group of people.the sand

PC Egyptian 08. Tpy w-c: those of former times, A cultural status name of a group of peoplethe ancestors

PqC Egyptian 20. Gsy: Kus, Apollonos polis, a town in The place name of a group of peopleupper Egypt

p Latin 20. Postumius: name of a Gentile A historical personpC>rp Boro 21. gawti: relative Cultural status of a person > personal relatiopC>ap Boro 27. komar: blacksmith Cultural status of a person >

personal physical behaviorpC>fpN Boro 51. bambu: one with a big belly Cultural status of a person >

natural, personal feature.po Quechua 45. naqalana: I by myself Oneself

3 3 5

b y S or i n

C i u

t a c u on

O c t o b er

3 1

,2

0 0 9

h t t p: / / c


om

D ownl o

a d e d f r om


35/41

For Table 2. Activities in the World

aXN Santali 50. jari: to rain Activity of an inorganic agentabNg 01. ee ee: cry of a young buffalo Vocal (g) behavior of a natural creaturehvN Latin 90. prodeo: of plants: to come forth, spring up Happening of a plantHN Latin 53: fetus: growth A natural processhxN Greek 66. skeptos: thunderbolt Happening of an inorganic agentfaxN English 03. breme: of the sea or wind: raging Feature of an inorganic agent activityapo>t Lakota 57. ijo kigmaka: to put in ones own mouth Self physical behavior > a material thing.hPC Lakota 63. kituhknaha: a pastime for boys Cultural group happening fap Lakota 68. katke: briskly Feature of personal physical activityaM>J Thai 01. kladklum: to feel depressed Mental feeling > an evaluationhM>eC Thai 71. kheechin: to be familiar (with), Mental happening > a cultural situation

accustomed tofaMJ Thai 81. romjen: to be peaceful, tranquil Feature of mental activity > an evaluation

For Table 3.Products of Human

ActivitytC English 34.a frache: a metal tray holding glassware A material culture thing ftC English 73. smoke-detecting: as in smoke-detecting Feature of a material culture thing

equipmentfL Chinese 11. CHUI 1590-B: much Feature of a logical frameworkgJ>rp Chinese 61. HUAI 2232-29: slander Evaluated commentary > personal relations

APPENDIX A Continued


3 3 6

b y S or i n

C i u

t a c u on

O c t o b er

3 1

,2

0 0 9

h t t p: / / c


om

D ownl o

a d e d f r om


36/41

K>P Chinese 86. HSIN.SIN 2735-103: applied psychology Knowledge > people j>i Chinese 43. JO 3126-C1: good or bad An evaluation > anything.For Table 4.

Places and Featuresof Nature and People

qN Dagur 50. tale: steppe, uncultivated area, A natural place or areawild outdoors

fqN Dagur 60. taibe: ravine Feature of a natural placefbN Dagur 15. sake: ankle-bone of an animal Feature of an animalqC>hPC Santali 83. mandhwa: temporary shed or booth A cultural place > a group cultural happening

created on the occasion of a marriagefpN Boro 02. letaw: thumb Natural material feature of a personfp>jM Sanskrit 43. vidu: intelligent, wise Cultural feature of a person > evaluation of mi

For Table 5.Rare References:Time, Situation,Relation, Anything

dN Swahili 100. lela, leli: night A natural interval of timedC Swahili 18. mwakani: the course of a year, A cultural interval of time

in a years timeePC Arabic 30. salam am: general welfare, commonweal Group situationrl Chickasaw 05. kenihmihma: for some reason, A logical relation

because something happenedrtC Chickasaw 32. ashiiyalhchi: to be tied into; Relation of material culture things

to have tied on

3 3 7

b y S or i n

C i u

t a c u on

O c t o b er

3 1

,2

0 0 9

h t t p: / / c


om

D ownl o

a d e d f r om


37/41

rq Chickasaw 39. ashaka, ashka, aashaka: A spatial relationback (of the body); right in back of

frl Greek 82. anegklitos: III., Mathnot inclined, Feature of a logical relationi.e., at right angles

I Arabic 34. natri...: sundries, miscellany A set of various unspecified things.fi Sanskrit 18. yatha-vidha: of whatever kind or sort Feature of anything

NOTE: Numbers following language = order found in random selection process.

APPENDIX A Continued


3 3 8

b y S or i n

C i u

t a c u on

O c t o b er

3 1

,2

0 0 9

h t t p: / / c


om

D ownl o

a d e d f r om


38/41

APPENDIX BReference Dictionaries (by order in the tables)

Sanskrit . Sir M. Monier-Williams. (1979 printing). A Sanskrit-Englishdictionary .Etymologicallyand philologically arrangedwith special ref-erence to cognate Indo-European languages. New edition, greatly en-larged and improved. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. 1,308 pp. (1st ed.1899).

Greek . A Greek-English lexicon (new 9th ed.). (1940;1966 printing). Com-piled by H. G. Liddell & R. Scott: a new edition revised and augmentedthroughout by Sir H. S. Jones, with the assistance of R. McKenzie andother scholars. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. xlvii, 2,042 pp. (1st ed.1843).

Latin . A Latin dictionary for schools . (1964 printing). Edited by C. T.Lewis. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1,178 pp. (1889).

English . The Oxford English dictionary (2 nd ed.,Vols. 1-20).(1989).Editedby J. A. Simpson & W. E. Weiner. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Approx.20,000 pp.

Arabic . H. Wehr. (1961). A dictionary of modern written Arabic . Edited byJ. M. Cowan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 1,110 pp.

Galla . E. C.Foot. (1913). A Galla-English English-Galla dictionary . Cam-bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 118 pp.

Egyptian . Sir A. Gardiner. (1973). Egyptian grammar (3 rd ed., rev.). Being an introduction to the study of hieroglyphs. Published on behalf of theGriffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. London: Oxford Uni-

versity Press. xxxvi, 646 pp. (1st pub. 1927).

Turkish .H.C.Hony, with theadvice of Fahir Ir. (1957). A Turkish-Englishdictionary (2 nd ed.). Amen House, London:Oxford University Press. 416pp.

Dagur . S.E. Martin. (1961). Dagur Mongoliangrammar, texts, and lexiconbased on the speech of Peter Onon (Vol. 4). Indiana University Publica-tions Uralic and Altaic Series. Bloomington: Indiana University; TheHague, Netherlands: Mouton. 336 pp.

Chinese . R. H. Mathews. (1960). Mathews Chinese-English dictionary(Rev. American ed.). A Chinese-English dictionary compiled for theChina Inland Mission. Shanghai: China Inland Mission and Presbyte-rian Mission Press. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1,164pp. (1931).

Boro . D.N. Shankara Bhat. (1968). Boro vocabulary (with a grammaticalsketch).Poona,India:DeccanCollege Postgraduate and ResearchInsti-

tute. 177 pp.Thai . M.R. Haas.(1964). Thai-English students dictionary . Stanford,CA:

Stanford University Press. 630 pp.




39/41

Santali . R. M. Macphail (Ed.). (1988). Campbells Santali-English dictio-nary (3 rd ed. rep.). Calcutta, India: Firma KLM Ltd. 816 pp.

Indonesian . J. M. Echols & H. Shadily. (1989). An Indonesian-Englishdictionary (3 rd ed.).Revisedand editedby J. U. Wolff & J.T. Collins,in co-operation with H. Shadily. Ithaca and London: Cornell UniversityPress. 618 pp. (1961, 1963).

Yir-Yorunt . B.Alpher. (1991). Yir-Yorunt lexicon: sketch and dictionary of an Australian language .Berlin,New York:Mouton de Gruyter. 795pp.

Lakota . A dictionary of the Teton Dakota Sioux language: Lakota-Eng-lish: English-Lakota . (1970). Considerations given to Yankton andSantee by Rev. E. Buechel, S.J., edited by Rev. P. Manhart, S.J. PineRidge, SD: Red Cloud Indian School. 606 pp. of Lakota-English defini-tions.

Chickasaw . P. Munro & C. Willmond. (1994). Chickasaw: An analyticaldictionary . Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press. 539pp.; Chickasaw-English, 3-363.

Pipil . L. Campbell (1985). The Pipil language of El Salvador . New York:Mouton. 975 pp.

Quechua . G. J. Parker. (1969). Ayacucho Quechua grammar and dictio-nary . The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. 226 pp.

Swahili . C.W. Rechenbach. (1968). Swahili-English dictionary . Washing-ton, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. 641 pp.

References

Brown,C. H. (1999). Lexical acculturation in Native American languages .New York: Oxford University Press.

Brown, R. (1958). Words and things . New York: Free Press.Burton, M. L. (1999). Language and region codes for the standard cross-

cultural sample. Cross-Cultural Research , 33 , 63-83.Carlin,A. (1999).The works of Edward Rose:A bibliography. Ethnographic

Studies , 4, 61-77.Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology (1st American ed., G. C. Spivak,

Trans.). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Hanson, R. C., & Rose,E. (1995). Knowledge in the world: First results of a

comparative, historical investigation . Paper presented at the 24 th An-nual Meeting of theInternational Society forthe Comparative Study of Civilizations, Wright State University, Dayton, OH.

Hanson, R. C., Rose,E.,& Little, Z. (1996). A comparative analysis of sortsof things known in five ancient civilizations . Paper presented at theJune 1996 conference of the International Society for the ComparativeStudy of Civilizations, Pomona, CA.




40/41

Hanson, R.C.,Rose,E.,& Little, Z.(1998). Wordedthings spoken by literateand nonliterate populations . Paper presented at the June 1998 confer-ence of theInternational Society forthe Comparative Study of Civiliza-tions, Reitaku University, Japan.

Hanson, R. C., Rose, E., & Little, Z. (1999). Common understandings of things in the world: A semantic analysis of 20 languages, Part 1 . Paperpresented at the May 1999 conference of the International Society forthe Comparative Study of Civilizations, St. Louis, MO.

Hermann, D. J., & Raybeck, D. (1981). Similarities and differences inmeaning in six cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 12 ,194-206.

Landau, S. I. (1989). Dictionaries: The art and craft of lexicography . Cam-bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

MacWhinney, B. (1998). Models of the emergence of language. Annual Re-view of Psychology , 49 , 199-227.

Miller, G.A. (1999). On knowing a word. Annual Review of Psychology , 50 ,1-19.

Partridge, E. (1950). Dictionary of the underworld . London: Routledge &Kegan Paul.

Romney, A. K., Moore, C. C., & Rusch, C. D. (1997). Cultural universals:Measuring the semantic structure of emotion terms in English andJapanese. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 94 ,5489-5494.

Rose,E. (1962). TheEnglish record of a natural sociology. Decisions, valuesand groups (Vol. 2). New York: Pergamon Press, 131-176. (Reprintedfrom American Sociology Review , 25 (2), 193-208, April 1960.

Rose, E. (1962). Uniformities in culture: Ideas with histories. Decisions,values and groups (Vol.2), 131-176.(First presentedat theSecond Con-ference on Behavioral Science, University of New Mexico.)

Rose, E. (1992). The Werald . Greeley, CO: The Waiting Room Press.

Rose, E. (1993). The Worulde . Greeley, CO: The Waiting Room Press.Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics.Metaphorical and cul-

tural aspectsof semantic structure .Cambridge,UK:Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Weinreich, U. (1966). On the semantic structure of language. In J. H.Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language (2 nd ed., pp. 142-216). Cam-bridge, MA: MIT. Press.

Wescott, R. W. (1986). Language families. In D. A. Dinnsen (Ed.), Innova-tions in linguistic education series. Bloomington: Indiana UniversityLinguistics Club.

Wittgenstein, L. (1972). Philosophical investigations (G.E.M. Anscombe,Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Robert C. Hanson is professor of sociology (emeritus) at the University of

Colorado, Boulder, where he was also director of the Research Program on Social Processes at the Institute of Behavioral Science. He is a coauthor of Society, Personality, and Deviant Behavior: A Study of a Tri-Ethnic Com-munity (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968) and has authored published re-




41/41

search monographs and articles in various social science journals and in edited books.

a comparative investigation of the semantic structure of language

Documents