What can and cannot be expressed in the metalanguage of Anna Wierzbicka?

The article proposes a general semiotic approach to the theoretical and practical understanding of the possibilities and limits of the semantic metalanguage of Anna Wierzbicka (MW). According to the author, this approach allows, on the one hand, using MW more effectively, and, on the other hand, clarifying the semiotic nature of linguistic and speech units described through MW. For this purpose, firstly, the possibilities of MW are discussed: it is shown that it can be successfully used and is already used in linguistic research when describing unique (non-equivalent, nationally specific) units, when developing practical recommendations (manuals, guidelines) on etiquette, etc. Secondly, three main obstacles to the use of MW for describing linguistic and speech phenomena are identified: (1) in different languages, the oppositions of marked and unmarked units do not coincide; (2) words and expressions that are not semantic primitives according to Wierzbicka are used as semantic primitives in the formulations; (3) sign phenomena of different semiotic natures, related to different types of sign systems, are found among linguistic and especially speech/text units. MW, which has proven itself well in interpreting some types of signs, turns out to be fundamentally incompatible with others (for example, formal codes like mathematical ones). Discussing the applicability of MW to signs and sign systems in Abraham Solomonik's classification (five types/stages), the author comes to the conclusion that signs of the second, third and fourth types of systems can be described through MW, but the first and fifth cannot. The situation is more complicated with the fourth type: on the one hand, written texts are often "translated" into MW; on the other hand, the actual rules of writing cannot be described in MW. The author declares no conflicts of interests.

Keywords

Authors

References