A Comparative Investigation of The Semantic Structure of Language

http://ccr.sagepub.
com
Cross-Cultural Research
DOI: 10.1177/106939710103500303
2001; 35; 303 Cross-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 Research Additional services and information for
http://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://ccr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/35/3/303 Citations
by Sorin Ciutacu on October 31, 2009 http://ccr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
A Comparative Investigation
of the Semantic Structure
of Language
Robert C. Hanson
Edward Rose
Zeke Little
University of Colorado, Boulder
The results of a semantic analysis of 20 languages established
quantitative parameters intended to describe the semantic struc-
ture of language in general. Representative languages were drawn
fromnine different language families, both literate and nonliterate
populations, ancient civilizations and contemporary nations and
ethnic groups. Randomsamples of 100 word and phrase units were
drawn from bilingual dictionaries. Each word was classified into
one of 34 semantic categories. A reference guide to categories with
codes 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 nature
agents (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 refer
to the things intheir natural and social environment that they talk
Cross-Cultural Research, Vol. 35 No. 3, August 2001 303-342
2001 Sage Publications
303
and communicate about. Such words and phrases are shared and
commonly understood among members of their group. They know
the things in the world referred to by the words. The vocabulary of
their language names and identifies all the commonly known
things intheir world, all things, material and nonmaterial, natural
and cultural. The words and their meanings are passed on to the
next 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 constantly
expanding. For example, astronomers have recently discovered
and 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 words
suchas mouse, menu, and cable. At the same time, the languages of
small ethnic groups around the earth disappear every year. The
worlds of these groups are lost forever.
We all know that when different languages and cultures come
into contact, a number of lexical acculturationprocesses that affect
the 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 existence
of lingua francas supporting such processes (C. H. Brown, 1999, pp.
158-162; see his extensive bibliography, pp. 221-238). Due to such
processes, some common old words are lost over time from an
304 Cross-Cultural Research / August 2001
Authors Note: Most of the data inthis article were first presentedunder the
title Common Understandings of Things in the World: A Semantic Analy-
sis of 20 Languages, Part 1, at the 28
th
Annual Meeting of 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 for
his helpful suggestions and critical comments throughout the preparation
of the research design and papers emanating fromthis project. His book on
language families and personal comments on the selection of representa-
tive languages have been especially valuable to me. In addition, special
thanks are due to Professor Paul A. Olson, who has supported this work
throughout with his important critical suggestions. Special thanks should
also be extended to the editor and anonymous reviewers of CCR who con-
tributed valuable criticisms and suggestions for the revision of the original
version of this article.
original language; new words are gained and become part of the
common 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 do
not pertain to the purpose of this article, which is to describe the
semantic 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 in
the attempt to explainthe discovered differences. The literature on
semantic 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 is
the meanings, the senses, of words and phrases, that is, the things
in the world that are the referents of the words. The objective of
this article is to respond to the challenge issued to semantics
researchers by Uriel Weinreich(1966) inhis paper, Onthe Seman-
tic Structure of Language, when he wrote:
What generalizations can be made about any vocabulary as a struc-
tured set . . . ? Can any over-all structural characteristics of a partic-
ular vocabulary be formulated, and if so, can the distribution of such
characteristics 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 STRUCTURE
IN THIS ARTICLE
Weinreichs use of the term semantic structure emphasizes
the distribution of overall structural characteristics of the particu-
lar vocabulary of any language in the world. Websters dictionary
definition of vocabulary is a list or collection of words or of words
and phrases, usually alphabetically arranged and explained or
defined; a dictionary or lexicon. The meaning of semantic struc-
ture inthis article conforms withWeinreichs use of the termas the
Hanson et al. / SEMANTIC STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE 305
distribution of overall structural characteristics of commonly
understood 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 in
some other contemporary studies of semantic structure (see below
for a discussion of some recent semantic research using the term).
Dictionaries do not represent the frequency of a words use, the full
range 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 roughly
equivalent methodologies, especially those made by persons
trainedinfieldlinguistics or people developedby the Wycliffe Bible
Translators. Most give the sort of information about the meanings
of words that allow and help a nonnative speaker gradually to
acquire proficiency in the use of the language. If, as Wittgenstein
(1972) suggests, a words meaning is its use, then dictionaries are
the 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 use
Wittgensteinagainthat a word has. Our procedure is designed to
reflect the world views of peoples that are captured by their lan-
guages as represented by the makers of dictionaries. It should be
observed that this represents roughly the possible common mean-
ings and referents in a languagenot all of them, not all of the
localisms and neologisms that fashion, or creolization, or the
spread 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 speech
and writing, of words and things, the meaning of meaning, and so
on. 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 others
that present views similar to our own assumptions. We assume
that words have both meaning and references and that dictionar-
ies represent both the systemof language and the objects to which
words refer.
SEMANTIC STRUCTURE IN SOME
RECENT SEMANTIC RESEARCH
An example of recent semantic research in which the term
semantic structure is restricted to a particular semantic domain
is that of Romney, Moore, and Rusch (1997). Fromtheir analysis of
the results of judged-similarity tasks givento small groups (30 plus)
of undergraduate students in California and Japan, the authors
conclude: The major finding of this paper is that English-speaking
and Japanese-speaking participants share a single model of the
semantic structure of emotion terms (p. 5489). The study involved
the 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, all
onthe same level of contrast . . . that refer to a single conceptual cate-
gory, suchas kinship terms, color terms, names of animals, or emotion
terms. The structure of a semantic domain derived fromjudged-sim-
ilarity tasks is defined as the arrangement of terms relative to each
other represented in Euclidian space. (p. 5489)
Thus, in a spatial representation, anger and hate are judged
similar or close to each other and dissimilar from happy.
Clearly, semantic structure here means a spatial representation
of a similarity dimension among a set of words taken froma single
domain of a vocabulary. As the authors state: It is assumed that
each individual has an internal cognitive representation of the
semantic structure in which the meaning of a termis defined by its
location relative to all the other terms (p. 5489). In our study, no
assumptions 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 transmitted
and 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 and
emotion 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.
Sweetsers (1990) study of metaphorical and cultural aspects of
semantic structure also is limitedto domainstructures, as evident
in 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) interpretation
of sentence conjunction. (pp. 147-148)
She proposes to explain domain-structure relatedness regularities
by 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 our
naming of distinctions that exist inthe world, but also onour meta-
phorical and metonymic structuring of our perceptions of the
world (p. 9).
Clearly, then, her study of semantic structure does not attempt
to respond to Weinreichs (1966) challenge to reachgeneralizations
about the overall structural characteristics of the commonly under-
stood comprehensive vocabulary of a language. In our study, for
example, polysemy structure is taken for granted: A child will eas-
ily learn the distinction between I see (as the natural physical
activity of looking) and I see (as understanding, a mental activity
of mind) without knowing anything about metaphors. In our study,
each meaning of see has an equal chance of being captured in our
sampling procedure; the classification category for each of the two
meanings 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.) Although
studies of the learning of first words are important to an under-
standing of howthe emergence of language occurs, they too are not
responsive 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,
a characterization of the meanings that have been expressed in
natural languages (p. 3) as opposed to the formal theory of the set
of meanings a language can express; (b) it is a study in lexical
semantics as opposed to sentential semantics, that is, it assumes
that words in isolation do have meaning; a sentence acquires its
meaning by virtue of the words that compose it and the manner of
their combination (p. 4) as distinguished from being concerned
with the meaning of statements as in sentential semantics.
The results presented in this article are purely descriptive, but
they 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 claimthat any sort of linguistic or psycholinguistic the-
ory is presented here, although the foundation for some later
sociocultural theories may reside in our results. If there is a claim
to 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 semantic
researchers. The results show how sorts of things in the world are
distributedamongthe commonlyunderstoodwords of vocabularies.
METHOD
ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
SEMANTIC STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE
There are four ideal criteria for the selectionof languages to rep-
resent language in general within a set of 20 languages. First, the
languages should cover a wide range of different language fami-
lies. Our set holds representatives from nine different language
families. Second, geographical regions from all over the earth
should 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 both
large, literate andsmall, 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 dictionaries shouldbe used, eachhaving
the goal of providing a comprehensive vocabulary of the trans-
lated, or target, language. Note that a comprehensive vocabulary
does 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, subcultures
of all sortshold words and meanings that do not appear in gen-
eral vocabulary, comprehensive dictionaries. Even among the best
available, however, the quality of the lexicography varies a great
deal. Some dictionaries have been produced by an expert staff of
lexicographers, whereas other vocabularies have been compiled by
anthropologists or missionaries working with small groups of
informants, perhaps a fewelders. It is impossible to knowwhether
any particular dictionary has includedall, most, or only some of the
common operative vocabulary of a language; we simply must
assume rough parity among the dictionaries used. Once the best
available dictionary has been selected, the investigator can try to
make 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 words
representing the total vocabulary.
Our procedure for determining randomness is based on the
space in a dictionary that is devoted to words and their definitions.
First, any random number table can be used to select a random
page 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, then the def-
inition of the word being illustrated or the nearest line that is part
or all of a definition).
Finally, the procedures guiding the classification of words into
the 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 Worded
Sorts 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 table
total columns and in Table 6 when used for statistical comparison
purposes.
A named code category is a set ideally holding member words
logically belonging to that set and to no other category set at that
level of contrast Thus, each major category reflects a middle-range
level of abstraction between its member referent words and still
higher levels of abstractions of things such as natural versus
cultural things, material versus nonmaterial things, or any-
thing. Think of all the things in the world that people refer to with
words whenthey talkor write. The categories are a classificationof
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 letter
inthe code is always the primary or basic classificationof the word;
the following letters further qualify the primary meaning. The >
sign means has to do with or relates to and provides a way to
further 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 reliable
and consistent. Coding should be stable over time and replicable
between different coders. (We have not yet systematically tested
these criteria. In our studies some changes have been made when
certain languages have been recoded at later dates. Meeting these
criteria depends primarily onthe clarity of the category definitions
and on the experience of the coder as he or she becomes familiar
with more and more examples of words and their meanings.) In
this article, category definitions of each tables column headings
are summarized and related to code names for reference in Figure
1. 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 by
family differs in minor respects from the classifications suggested
in 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, both
physically and mentally.
Text continued on p. 315
Code Name Definition
Exhibit 1: Agents in the World, Nature, and People
NATURE
XN Natural inorganic agents A collection of, or xN, members
of, the inorganic kingdom of
the earth and universe; ele-
ments and components of the
earths natural surface and
atmosphere: solids, liquids,
gases
X Inorganic
N Nature, natural
VN Vegetable agents A collection of, or vN, members
of, the vegetable kingdom of
plants, trees, etc.; includes
cultivated plants, VC and vC
V Vegetable
C Culture, cultural
BN Beast, animal, creature agents A collection of, or members of,
the animal kingdom, a beast,
an animal, a creature other
than a human being; the cate-
gory includes domesticated
creatures, BC and bC.
PEOPLE
P 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 name
of a group, community, gov-
ernmental unit such as a
town, county, state, nation.
Q,q Space, a particular place
p Person, personal A historical person, alive or
dead; personal in combina-
tion coding as in ap, personal
physical 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; the
person alone
O,o Nothing In combination coding o qualifies
a thing by itself, as in po,
oneself.
(continued)
Figure 1: Reference Guide for Table Category Codes, Names, and
Definitions
Exhibit 2: Activities in the World
NATURE
aN Activity of nature agents Activity or action of an agent of
nature; the category includes
axN, action of a natural inor-
ganic agent; avN, action of a
member of the vegetable
kingdom; abN, action of a
member of the animal kingdom.
A,a Action, an action
hN 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 activity
action or event or happening of any agent of
nature; the category includes
faxN, fhxN, favN, fhvN, fabN,
fhbN.
f Feature
PEOPLE, PHYSICAL
ap Action of a person, personal Cultural personal physical be-
behavior havior; the category includes
apN, 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 as
a sneeze.
fap Feature of personal physical Feature of personal physical be-
action or happening havior or happening; the cate-
gory includes fap, fhp, and
fapN, fhpN.
PEOPLE, MENTAL
aM Activity of mind, mental activity Thinking and feeling sorts of ac-
tivity in the mind, both cogni-
tive and emotional, affective
mental activity in ones head
Figure 1: Continued
(continued)
M Mind, mental
hM Mental happening Mental happening or event of
thought or emotion
faM Feature of a mental activity Feature of a mental activity or
or event event; the category includes
faM and fhM.
Exhibit 3: Products of Human Activity
PRODUCTS, MATERIAL
tC Cultural, material thing A cultural, man-made, material
thing, e.g., a cup; the category
includes 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 material
thing
S Sacred The sacred, a collection of sacred,
godly, or holy things.
PRODUCTS, MENTAL
L,l Logic, a logical thing The category includes: L, logical
practice, a logical network or
framework, any schematic ar-
rangement; l, a logical or for-
mal thing, and fL or fl, feature
of a logical thing
G,g Gloss, a remark The category includes G, a col-
lection of glosses or remarks,
an extended commentary, a
conversation, a document or
book; g, a gloss, a remark,
word, name, sign, and fG, fg,
features of these.
K,k Knowledge The category includes informa-
tive knowledge, thought, such
as a scientific or literary dis-
cipline; k, any idea, notion, or
thought transmitting infor-
mation; and fK, fk, features of
these. The category includes
KS, a religion; kS, a mystical,
spiritual, or religious belief;
kps, a god, spirit, mystical or
religious being.
Figure 1: Continued
(continued)
J,j Judgment, evaluation The category includes J, general
judgment, evaluation; j, a
particular judgment, value,
evaluation; and fJ, fj, features
of these.
Exhbit 4: Places and Features of Nature and People
NATURE
qN Natural place, location The category heading includes
fqN, feature of a natural place
or area.
fN Feature of a natural agent The category heading includes
fbN, material feature or part
of an animal; fvN, material
feature or part of a plant; fxN,
material feature or part of an
inorganic natural agent.
PEOPLE
qC 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 a
person, such as a thumb.
fpC Cultural feature of a person A nonmaterial cultural feature
of a person such as wise; the
category heading includes fp
(coded without the N), feature
of a person.
Exhibit 5: Rare References: Time, Situation, Relation, Anything
TIME
DN Natural time The category includes dN, a nat-
ural interval of time, such as
night, and fdN, feature of nat-
ural time.
D,d Duration, time An expanse of time, a moment
or interval of time
DC Cultural time The category includes dC, a cul-
tural interval of time, such as
hour, and fdC, feature of cul-
tural time.
Figure 1: Continued
(continued)
Under the general Nature heading, XNis the first column head-
ing and code name of the semantic category defined as a collection
of things in, or xN, a material thing in, the inorganic kingdomof the
earthand universeelements and components 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 so
forth; 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, a
creature other than a human being; the category includes BC and
bC, domesticated animals.
The heading in column 4 stands for total of the three Nature
categories.
SITUATION
EN Natural situation The category includes eN, a par-
ticular natural situation, and
feN, feature of a natural situ-
ation or circumstance.
E,e Environs, situation General conditions or circum-
stances, a particular situation
or circumstance
EC Cultural situation The category includes eC, a par-
ticular cultural situation, and
feC, feature of a cultural situ-
ation or circumstance.
RELATION
R,r Relation, relationship The r code always includes an
associated code letter of the
sort of category referenced by
the relation, as in rp, personal
relationship, rl, logical rela-
tion, or rq, spatial relation.
fR Feature of a relation
ANYTHING
I,I Anything A set of various unspecified
things, any thing, natural or
cultural, physical or mental,
material or nonmaterial
fi Feature of anything
Figure 1: Continued
The category heading of the 1st column of the four categories
listed under the general heading of People is P, defined as people, a
collection of persons, a group; also, the proper name of a group of
people. The category includes PC, a cultural status name of a
group, and PqC, a place name of a group, community, governmental
unit 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-European
Sanskrit 2 4 3 9 2 1 9 0 12 21
Greek 0 2 1 3 2 0 9 0 11 14
Latin 1 0 2 3 4 2 3 0 9 12
English 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 22
Egyptian 1 0 6 7 9 0 6 1 16 23
Altaic
Turkish 3 1 4 8 1 0 6 0 7 15
Dagur 3 1 3 7 2 0 5 0 7 14
Sino-Tibetan
Chinese 1 0 2 3 2 1 6 0 9 12
Boro 0 3 5 8 2 0 11 1 14 22
Austro-Tai
Thai 1 1 0 2 3 1 4 0 8 10
Santali 2 3 5 10 2 0 4 0 6 16
Malayo-Polynesian
Indonesian 1 1 2 4 5 0 7 0 12 16
Native Australian
Yir Yorunt 3 3 7 13 1 0 11 0 12 25
Amerind
Lakota 1 1 4 6 4 0 2 2 6 12
Chickasaw 0 5 1 6 2 0 2 0 4 10
Pipil 3 6 2 11 1 0 4 0 5 16
Quechua 0 6 3 9 1 0 8 1 10 19
Niger-Korofanian
Swahili 0 2 3 5 2 0 7 0 9 14
Total 26 53 55 134 51 6 124 3 184 318
Mean 1.3 2.6 2.75 6.7 2.55 0.3 6.1 0.15 9.2 15.9
Median 1 2 2 7 2 0 6 0 9 15
Range 0-3 0-7 0-7 2-13 1-9 0-2 2-11 0-2 4-16 10-25
The 2nd column heading under the People general heading is
the category heading p, defined as a historical person, alive or dead
(or personal in combination coding as in ap, personal physical
behavior).
The 3rd column heading under People is the category heading
pC, definedas a cultural status of a person, suchas 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 the
Nature andPeople references for the language namedinthat 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 from
the 100 random words from each language.) Thus, for example, in
Table 1, Agents in the World, the first row of numbers, from San-
skrit, shows that 2 words refer to natural inorganic agents, 4 refer
to 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 for
Sanskrit.
The four rows at the bottomof eachtable showthe 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 and relevance of these conclusions for
the semantic structure of language are discussedfollowing the pre-
sentation of Table 6.
Conclusions From Table 1. Agents in the World
(a) From the Total columns under Nature and People, observe that on
the average, as indicated by the mean and median statistics, there
are 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 show
more Nature than People agents; Boro and Quechua more People
than Nature agents).
(b) Looking at the range of variation in the counts of all Nature and
People Agents (bottom row, Total, and TOTAL columns), note that a
literate population, Thai, and nonliterate Chickasawshowthe low-
est count of all agents (10), whereas a small, nonliterate group, Yir
Yorunt, shows the high count of 25. Fully 25% of its referents are
various sorts of agents (13% Nature, 12% People). Ancient civiliza-
tion languages Egyptian (at 23) and Sanskrit (at 21) are both above
20% in Agent referents, especially People agents.
(c) Some languages showzero referents of sorts of agents in the world,
as in each of the Nature referent categories and in the historical
person (p) and oneself (po) categories. This finding does not imply,
however, that such languages have no agents of these sorts in their
total vocabularies. It means only that in a random selection of 100
words, other sorts of things, such as activities of various kinds,
occur as referents of words more frequently than do agents. Nor
should a zero or low count imply a low frequency of usage of an
agent term. An agent term such as oneself, I, occurs in conversa-
tions all the time. Also, some lexicographers may not list any histor-
ical persons, p, as a matter of editorial policy.
The distributions of sorts of natural andpeople agents inTable 1
demonstrate both similarities and probable significant differences
between comparison groups of languages. For example, almost all
languages showrelatively fewor no inorganic agent referents (XN)
compared with referents to the cultural status of persons (pC). As
noted above, it appears that literate populations reference more
People thanNature agents thannonliterate populations. Finally, it
should be pointed out that there are agents in the world other than
Nature and People agents as defined in this table. For example,
there are man-made machines, instruments, medicines, and so
forth, that movements and activity can be assigned or attributed
to. Such cultural, material things are classified as tC, the semantic
category for coding material, cultural things.
TABLE 2. ACTIVITIES IN THE WORLD
The activities of Nature agents are grouped under three major
headings: aN, which includes axN, activity of a natural inorganic
agent, avN, activity of a vegetable agent, and abN, activity of a nat-
ural animal or creature. The category hNincludes HN, a process, a
course of happenings over time of the natural agents, and hxN,
hvN, hbN, the happenings, events, of inorganic, vegetable, and
creature agents. The category faNincludes the features of anactiv-
ity or happening of any of the three natural agent categories.
The activities of People agents are classified under two general
headings: Physical behavior activities (ap) and happenings (hp) of
persons and their features (fap), and Mental activities (aM),
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 TOTAL
Indo-European
Sanskrit 1 3 0 4 17 8 5 30 1 0 1 2 36
Greek 1 6 1 8 23 6 6 35 4 1 2 7 50
Latin 0 6 1 7 23 10 2 35 2 1 4 7 49
English 3 2 2 7 17 7 2 26 2 1 1 4 37
Hamito-Semitic
Arabic 2 1 0 3 25 15 0 40 1 6 0 7 50
Galla 1 1 0 2 23 5 0 28 1 1 1 3 33
Egyptian 1 2 0 3 28 7 0 35 3 0 0 3 41
Altaic
Turkish 1 3 0 4 19 8 3 30 7 5 0 12 46
Dagur 2 2 0 4 11 10 2 23 5 1 0 6 33
Sino-Tibetan
Chinese 1 2 1 4 23 3 3 29 2 0 2 4 37
Boro 1 0 1 2 26 1 2 29 2 0 1 3 34
3
2
0

b
y

S
o
r
i
n

C
i
u
t
a
c
u

o
n

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

3
1
,

2
0
0
9

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
c
c
r
.
s
a
g
e
p
u
b
.
c
o
m
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Austro-Tai
Thai 0 1 0 1 34 5 2 41 5 1 2 8 50
Santali 6 2 1 9 23 3 3 29 3 0 1 4 42
Malayo-Polynesian
Indonesian 8 1 0 9 29 10 1 40 2 3 1 6 55
Native Australian
Yir Yorunt 5 0 0 5 20 11 2 33 2 0 0 2 40
Amerind
Lakota 0 4 1 5 41 6 3 50 1 3 1 5 60
Chickasaw 4 5 0 9 39 8 0 47 1 2 0 3 59
Pipil 3 1 0 4 30 11 1 42 0 1 0 1 47
Quechua 2 1 0 3 22 5 0 27 2 0 1 3 33
Niger-Korofanian
Swahili 0 1 0 1 23 14 3 40 2 2 0 4 45
Total 42 44 8 94 496 153 40 689 48 28 18 94 877
Mean 2.1 2.2 0.4 4.7 24.8 7.65 2.0 34.4 2.4 1.4 0.9 4.7 43.8
Median 1 2 0 4 23 7 2 34 2 1 1 4 45
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 33-60
3
2
1

b
y

S
o
r
i
n

C
i
u
t
a
c
u

o
n

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

3
1
,

2
0
0
9

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
c
c
r
.
s
a
g
e
p
u
b
.
c
o
m
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

including boththinking or cognitive sorts of activity and emotional
or feeling, affective, sorts of activity, and happenings (hM) and
their features (faM).
Conclusions From Table 2. Activities in the World
(a) The TOTAL (grand total) column shows that an average of almost
44%(43.85) and a medianof 45%of the vocabulary of languages ref-
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 far
more words, 34%, than either activities of natural agents or mental
activities 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 grand
TOTAL column and from 23% to 50% in the physical behavior Total
column, 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 material
things (T) or a material thing (t) not otherwise classified as natural
or 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 are
code letters standing for anything, whose abstract referent things
are 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 a
material 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 logical
network or framework, any schematic arrangement; l, a logical or
formal thing. G includes a collection of glosses or remarks, an
extended 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
mundane cultural things as in tS from tC, a sacred material cul-
ture thing from a mundane or secular material culture thing, and
nonmaterial sacred things from others, as in KS, a religion; kS, a
mystical or religious belief; apS, a religious or magical practice; pS,
TABLE 3
Products of Human Activity
Language
Product
by Family &
Material Mental
Representative tC ftC Total L G K J Total TOTAL
Indo-European
Sanskrit 1 3 4 2 5 6 1 14 18
Greek 4 4 8 1 8 1 0 10 18
Latin 2 2 4 12 7 1 1 21 25
English 15 3 18 1 8 0 0 9 27
Hamito-Semitic
Arabic 8 2 10 0 5 3 0 8 18
Galla 16 0 16 10 1 2 1 14 30
Egyptian 6 0 6 4 6 3 0 13 19
Altaic
Turkish 8 1 9 2 6 5 4 17 26
Dagur 10 1 11 8 1 1 2 12 23
Sino-Tibetan
Chinese 10 3 13 1 9 3 3 16 29
Boro 11 6 17 2 1 2 0 5 22
Austro-Tai
Thai 6 2 8 7 4 3 1 15 23
Santali 12 2 14 2 2 0 0 4 18
Malayo-Polynesian
Indonesian 6 2 8 6 5 2 0 13 21
Native Australian
Yir Yorunt 6 3 9 10 5 0 0 15 24
Amerind
Lakota 5 3 8 5 4 1 0 10 18
Chickasaw 6 2 8 2 4 0 0 6 14
Pipil 8 5 13 1 0 0 0 1 14
Quechua 11 3 14 4 6 2 0 12 26
Niger-Korofanian
Swahili 13 2 15 3 2 2 0 7 22
Total 164 49 213 83 89 37 13 222 435
Mean 8.2 2.45 10.65 4.15 4.45 1.85 0.65 11.1 21.75
Median 8 2 10 3 5 2 0 12 22
Range 1-16 0-6 4-18 0-12 0-9 0-6 0-4 1-21 14-30
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) Onthe average, languages reference mental products, ideas of vari-
ous sorts, only slightly more than material, man-made, cultural
things (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). Note
that 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) and Mental products
(1-21) is large, suggesting that significant differences betweencom-
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 the
nonliterate 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 showhowmuch vocabularies refer-
ence natural places and their features, qN, as compared with cul-
tural, man-made places and their features, qC. The code letter, or
siglum, Q, stands for space, an expanse of space; q, a particular
place, location, or space; qN, a natural place; qC, a cultural place or
location. 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, not
fpN, 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).
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 the same as for nonmaterial, cultural features of per-
sons (medians are 3 for both). Taken together, there are just more
than twice as many references to features of persons as features of
TABLE 4
Places and Features of Nature and People
Language Nature People
by Family &
Representative qN fN Total qC fpN fpC Total TOTAL
Indo-European
Sanskrit 1 9 10 2 1 4 7 17
Greek 0 4 4 1 3 4 8 12
Latin 1 1 2 1 0 8 9 11
English 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 11
Egyptian 0 1 1 1 1 3 5 6
Altaic
Turkish 0 1 1 1 0 3 4 5
Dagur 2 3 5 1 5 2 8 13
Sino-Tibetan
Chinese 0 1 1 3 5 5 13 14
Boro 1 5 6 4 6 3 13 19
Austro-Tai
Thai 1 1 2 1 4 1 6 8
Santali 0 5 5 4 3 3 10 15
Malayo-Polynesian
Indonesian 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 4
Native Australian
Yir Yorunt 0 3 3 0 1 6 7 10
Amerind
Lakota 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 6
Chickasaw 0 3 3 2 2 1 5 8
Pipil 1 9 10 2 7 0 9 19
Quechua 2 1 3 2 7 0 9 12
Niger-Korofanian
Swahili 1 6 7 0 6 3 9 16
Total 15 63 78 31 67 59 157 235
Mean 0.75 3.15 3.9 1.55 3.35 2.95 7.85 11.75
Median 1 3 3 2 3 3 8 12
Range 0-3 0-9 0-10 0-4 0-7 0-8 4-13 4-19
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 stable
things in the world as opposed to the dynamic, changing things
characterized by action and movements of all kinds. Observing the
lowfrequencies of words referencing structural characteristics and
the low ranges of variation in these categories, it appears unlikely
that significant differences between comparison groups of languages
are 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 the
things in their world devote about 9% of their vocabularies to dif-
ferentiate the sorts of people they deal with. They distinguish the
ways people behave physically with most words in their vocabular-
ies, approximately 34%, withnearly 5%of words for differentiating
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 human
activity, 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 active
agents 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 within
natural and social settings of time, place, and circumstances, and
in relations with each other. We have observed that with regard to
natural and cultural places differentiated by words, although
essential for communicating an understanding of the state of
affairs in their lives, such place distinctions take up only a small
portion of the words in a language. The same is true of the sets of
words devoted to differentiating time and circumstances of their
affairs, as shown in Table 5. Less than 1% of vocabulary words are
classified within these setting categories.
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, the
headings of the first two columns of Table 5. The code letter E
stands for environs, e for a situation or circumstance, natural, eN,
or cultural, eC, under the heading Situation. Another category
holding about 3% of words in vocabularies is designated by the
code letter Ror r, standing for relation, along with a column for fea-
tures of relations (fR). The particular sort of associated relation is
indicated by another code category letter following the r, as in rl, a
logical relation. Finally, under the general heading Any, are col-
umns headed by i and fi. About 2% of words in vocabularies are
abstract terms whose referent could be anything, natural or cul-
tural, physical or mental, material or nonmaterial, as indicated by
the 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 natural
and cultural place word frequencieswere shown in Table 4. Table
5 shows the distributions of words designating Time and Situation.
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 rare referents: Relation, R, with about
3% 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 languages
held 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 languages will be found based
on these categories.
TABLE 6. MATERIAL VERSUS NONMATERIAL THINGS
Table 6 brings together Total columns from previous tables
to show the distributions of all 100 words from each of the 20
representative languages. Four columns show the frequencies of
material referent things in the world: (a) fromTable 1, the totals of
the active agents, natural and human, summed under the column
heading N+P; (b) from Table 3, the man-made material culture
things under the column heading tC; (c) from Table 4, the sum of
the material features of natural and cultural places under the
TABLE 5
Rare 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-European
Sanskrit 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 4
Greek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 3
Latin 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0
English 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 1
Egyptian 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 1
Dagur 0 2 2 0 0 0 8 1 9 5 1 6
Sino-Tibetan
Chinese 2 3 5 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1
Boro 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Austro-Tai
Thai 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 3 3
Santali 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 2 5 1 2 3
Malayo-Polynesian
Indonesian 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
Amerind
Lakota 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0
Chickasaw 1 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 7 1 0 1
Pipil 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1
Quechua 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 3 3 6
Niger-Korofanian
Swahili 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 6 19 25 0 8 8 45 15 60 19 23 42
Mean 0.3 0.95 1.25 0 0.4 0.4 2.25 0.75 3.0 0.95 1.15 2.1
Median 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 1 1
Range 0-2 0-4 0-5 0 0-2 0-2 0-8 0-3 0-9 0-50-5 0-6
TABLE 6
Material Versus Nonmaterial Things
Language by
Material Nonmaterial
Family & AGT PROD Q N+P ACTS F MENT TIME SIT REL ANY
Representative N+P tC Q fN Total aN,ap fpC LGKJ dNdC eC R Total i TOTAL
Indo-European
Sanskrit 21 4 3 10 38 36 4 14 2 0 2 58 4 100
Greek 14 8 1 7 30 50 4 10 0 0 3 67 3 100
Latin 12 4 2 1 19 49 8 21 0 2 1 81 0 100
English 13 18 3 11 45 37 3 9 1 0 5 55 0 100
Hamito-Semitic
Arabic 12 10 0 6 28 50 6 8 0 1 6 71 1 100
Galla 22 16 5 5 48 33 1 14 2 0 1 51 1 100
Egyptian 23 6 1 2 32 41 3 13 1 0 4 62 6 100
Altaic
Turkish 15 9 1 1 26 46 3 17 4 1 2 73 1 100
Dagur 14 11 3 8 36 33 2 12 2 0 9 58 6 100
Sino-Tibetan
Chinese 12 13 3 6 34 37 5 16 5 1 1 65 1 100
Boro 22 17 5 11 55 34 3 5 1 0 0 43 2 100
Austro-Tai
Thai 10 8 2 5 25 50 1 15 2 0 4 72 3 100
Santali 16 14 4 8 42 42 3 4 0 1 5 55 3 100
Malayo-Polynesian
Indonesian 16 8 0 2 26 55 2 13 0 0 3 73 1 100
3
2
9
(continued)

b
y

S
o
r
i
n

C
i
u
t
a
c
u

o
n

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

3
1
,

2
0
0
9

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
c
c
r
.
s
a
g
e
p
u
b
.
c
o
m
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Native Australian
Yir Yorunt 25 9 0 4 38 40 6 15 0 0 0 61 1 100
Amerind
Lakota 12 8 3 2 25 60 1 10 0 0 4 75 0 100
Chickasaw 10 8 2 5 25 59 1 6 1 0 7 74 1 100
Pipil 16 13 3 16 48 47 0 1 0 1 2 51 1 100
Quechua 19 14 4 8 45 33 0 12 2 1 1 49 6 100
Niger-Korofanian
Swahili 14 15 1 12 42 45 3 7 2 0 0 57 1 100
Total 318 213 46 130 707 877 59 222 25 8 60 1251 42 2000
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 2.1
Median 15 10 2 6 36 45 3 12 1 0 3 62 1
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 0-6
NOTE: AGT=agent, PROD=product, Q=space, N+P=nature +people, ACT=activity, F=feature, MENT=mental, SIT=situation, REL=
relation, ANY = anything.
Table 6 Continued
Language by
Material Nonmaterial
Family & AGT PROD Q N+P ACTS F MENT TIME SIT REL ANY
Representative N+P tC Q fN Total aN,ap fpC LGKJ dNdC eC R Total i TOTAL
3
3
0

b
y

S
o
r
i
n

C
i
u
t
a
c
u

o
n

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

3
1
,

2
0
0
9

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
c
c
r
.
s
a
g
e
p
u
b
.
c
o
m
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

column heading Q; and (d) the natural, material features of per-
sons and nature agents summed under the column heading fN.
Six columns show the frequencies of referents classified in the
nonmaterial categories: (a) from Table 2, the sum of all physical
activity codes for nature and people agents plus the mental activi-
ties of persons and the features of these activities, all summed up
under the column heading, aN,ap; (b) from Table 4, the cultural,
nonmaterial traits of persons under the column heading fpC; (c)
fromTable 3, the sumof the various sorts of mental products under
the column heading LGKJ; and fromTable 5, (d) the relatively rare
time (under the dNdC column heading), (e) cultural situation
(under the eC heading), and (f) relation referents (under the R
heading). Both the Material and Nonmaterial sets show Total col-
umns. The final column preceding the grand TOTAL column is the
Anything category holding abstract terms whose referents cannot
be designated as either material or nonmaterial.
Conclusions From Table 6.
Material Versus Nonmaterial Things
(a) Almost 63% of the meanings of vocabulary words, that is, the com-
mon understandings of things in the world that are the referents of
these words, refer to things that are nonmaterial in character;
about 35% of words refer to material things in the world; about 2%
of words are abstract concepts with no particular sort of referent.
(b) People use words to distinguish, differentiate, and identify various
sorts of activities more than any other sort of thing (mean 43.85,
median 45). The summary semantic category holding the second
highest frequency of words is the set whose referents are the agents
who or which engage in these activities, both human and natural
(mean 15.9, median 15).
(c) About 22%of vocabulary words refer to products of human activity,
both the material, man-made things and the nonmaterial products
of thought and emotional activity. Words referring to nonmaterial
mental products occur slightly more frequently than words refer-
encing material products (means 11.1 to 10.65, medians 12 to 10).
(d) Except for the relatively rare referents inthe Time, Situation, Rela-
tion, and Anything categories, the ranges shown in the summary
columns suggest that significant differences between comparison
groups of languages will be discovered through further statistical
testing of similarities and differences in the semantic structure of
languages.
DISCUSSION
THE RELEVANCE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE FINDINGS
FOR THE SEMANTIC STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE
We believe that our research based on 20 representative lan-
guages from diverse language families, from both literate and
nonliterate populations, from both ancient and modern civiliza-
tions, establishes the basic parameters characterizing the seman-
tic structure of language when the term semantic structure
refers to the distribution of the sorts of things in the world that are
referencedindefinitions providedincomprehensive 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 are
quantitative, they are comparable among all languages, they are
testable, they invite further research from a number of different
directions to confirmor refute, to expand and refine, to test similar-
ities and significant differences between different comparison
groups of languages.
Just two examples of what expansion and refinement might
entail are mentioned here. First, with larger size samples, for
example, 1,000 random words, a category such as mental activity
could be divided into cognitive versus affective sorts of activity, the
thinking, intellectual, logical sort of mental activity versus the
emotional, feeling, expressive, affective sort of mental activity.
Conceivably, languages might differ significantly in the attention
or 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 distinction
between consumer sorts of immediate-consumption things versus
producer goods of the capital-equipment sort. Suchproducer-goods
referents 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
comprehensive dictionary is a candidate for inclusion in a compar-
ative study of the semantic structure of languages. Because our
mother language has been English, with bilingual dictionaries
that have translated the vocabularies of the target language into
English definitions, we encourage other semantic researchers whose
mother language is other than English and who have access to
bilingual 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 new
knowledge that should be generated by investigations comparing
the semantic structures of languages. For example, our comparison
between sets of languages drawn from literate versus nonliterate
populations within the same language families found that the
nonliterate 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 fromdifferent language fam-
ilies. This paper (Hanson, Rose, & Little, 1998) was presented at
the 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 should
be achieved with investigation of other comparison sets, for exam-
ple, ancient civilization versus modern civilization languages drawn
from diverse language families, perhaps comparisons within and
between 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, criminal
argot (suchas Eric Partridges, 1950, Dictionary of the Underworld,
suggested by Andrew Carlin) and other subculture language col-
lections. Significant research questions regarding the semantic
structure of such language specialization dictionaries have yet to
be formulated, but Roses previous work (1962) on innovations in
American culture based on the Americanisms dictionary suggests
their usefulness.
Finally, as suggested in our previous paper on ancient civiliza-
tion languages (Hanson, Rose, &Little, 1996), each language holds
within its vocabulary an implied but deep and underlying struc-
ture of relations among the different categories of things in the
world. Such relations have been displayed explicitly in our coded
meanings of words. For example, in our coding of the Chinese word
for slander (gJ>rp), the logical reading of the coding is evaluated
commentary that is related to personal relations. The implication
is that the primary category, g for the comment, is related directly
to 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 would
be complex and arduous, but the results may yield a significant
achievement: knowledge about common understandings of the rela-
tions amongthings inthe world, anatural sociologyof relationships.
Notes
1. Edward Rose developed his interest in and work with dictionaries as
a rich source of 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 and
an Americanisms dictionary to investigate innovations in cultural history
as producedby Americans. These long-termdictionary studies culminated
in four books on The World and were further followed by an unfinished
manuscript containing random samples of 80 words selected from each of
five languages (English, Latin, Chinese, Turkish, and Lakota) that he
classifiedusing the semantic category scheme first describedinhis ALeg-
end of Worded Sorts of Things as developed and contained in this unpub-
lished manuscript. The Legend portion of the manuscript contained the
names of Roses categories of Worded Things, their code letter symbols,
and their definitions. Following our first paper presented at a conference
of the International Society for the Comparative Study of Civilizations
(Hanson & Rose, 1995), which closely followed Roses original codes and
procedures, our subsequent papers (Hanson, Rose, & Little, 1996, 1998,
1999) used the code and coding procedures as somewhat revised by
Hansonand, withZeke Little, the coding was standardized for ease of com-
puter manipulation. Roses unpublished manuscripts have recently been
collected and organized by the Archives Department of the library at the
University of Colorado, Boulder. A bibliographic listing of these materials
has been prepared. Also, Andrew Carlin (1999) has published a list of 176
items of Roses work. See References for some of Roses relevant published
work.
2. Burton (1999) notes the continuing disagreement among scholars
attempting to classify languages into family categories. For example, he
does not use the Amerindcategory for some AmericanIndianlanguages as
we do.
APPENDIX A
Examples of Coded Words with Classification Logic Displayed
Code Language, Word, Definition Code Classification Logic
For Table 1.
Agents in the World
xNhxN Turkish 21. selenti: a small torrent caused by rain A natural, material inorganic agent > (relates to) a
natural happening of an inorganic agent
vN>apN Galla 44. godari: a lily, the farinaceous roots of A natural plant > natural personal physical behavior
which are boiled and eaten
bN Yir Yorunt 08. Ngar-palq: a riflefish A natural creature
bC Yir Yorunt 34. Minh-chuk: chicken A domesticated creature
P Egyptian 30. Hry w-sc: Beduins, literally 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 people
the ancestors
PqC Egyptian 20. Gsy: Kus, Apollonos polis, a town in The place name of a group of people
upper Egypt
p Latin 20. Postumius: name of a Gentile A historical person
pC>rp Boro 21. gawti: relative Cultural status of a person > personal relations
pC>ap Boro 27. komar: blacksmith Cultural status of a person >
personal physical behavior
pC>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
(continued)
3
3
5

b
y

S
o
r
i
n

C
i
u
t
a
c
u

o
n

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

3
1
,

2
0
0
9

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
c
c
r
.
s
a
g
e
p
u
b
.
c
o
m
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

For Table 2.
Activities in the World
aXN Santali 50. jari: to rain Activity of an inorganic agent
abNg 01. ee ee: cry of a young buffalo Vocal (g) behavior of a natural creature
hvN Latin 90. prodeo: of plants: to come forth, spring up Happening of a plant
HN Latin 53: fetus: growth A natural process
hxN Greek 66. skeptos: thunderbolt Happening of an inorganic agent
faxN English 03. breme: of the sea or wind: raging Feature of an inorganic agent activity
apo>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 activity
aM>J Thai 01. kladklum: to feel depressed Mental feeling > an evaluation
hM>eC Thai 71. kheechin: to be familiar (with), Mental happening > a cultural situation
accustomed to
faMJ Thai 81. romjen: to be peaceful, tranquil Feature of mental activity > an evaluation
For Table 3.
Products of Human
Activity
tC 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
equipment
fL Chinese 11. CHUI 1590-B: much Feature of a logical framework
gJ>rp Chinese 61. HUAI 2232-29: slander Evaluated commentary > personal relations
APPENDIX A Continued
3
3
6

b
y

S
o
r
i
n

C
i
u
t
a
c
u

o
n

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

3
1
,

2
0
0
9

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
c
c
r
.
s
a
g
e
p
u
b
.
c
o
m
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

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 Features
of Nature and People
qN Dagur 50. tale: steppe, uncultivated area, A natural place or area
wild outdoors
fqN Dagur 60. taibe: ravine Feature of a natural place
fbN Dagur 15. sake: ankle-bone of an animal Feature of an animal
qC>hPC Santali 83. mandhwa: temporary shed or booth A cultural place > a group cultural happening
created on the occasion of a marriage
fpN Boro 02. letaw: thumb Natural material feature of a person
fp>jM Sanskrit 43. vidu: intelligent, wise Cultural feature of a person > evaluation of mind
For Table 5.
Rare References:
Time, Situation,
Relation, Anything
dN Swahili 100. lela, leli: night A natural interval of time
dC Swahili 18. mwakani: the course of a year, A cultural interval of time
in a years time
ePC Arabic 30. salam am: general welfare, commonweal Group situation
rl Chickasaw 05. kenihmihma: for some reason, A logical relation
because something happened
rtC Chickasaw 32. ashiiyalhchi: to be tied into; Relation of material culture things
to have tied on
(continued
3
3
7

b
y

S
o
r
i
n

C
i
u
t
a
c
u

o
n

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

3
1
,

2
0
0
9

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
c
c
r
.
s
a
g
e
p
u
b
.
c
o
m
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

rq Chickasaw 39. ashaka, ashka, aashaka: A spatial relation
back (of the body); right in back of
frl Greek 82. anegklitos: III., Mathnot inclined, Feature of a logical relation
i.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
o
r
i
n

C
i
u
t
a
c
u

o
n

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

3
1
,

2
0
0
9

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
c
c
r
.
s
a
g
e
p
u
b
.
c
o
m
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

APPENDIX B
Reference Dictionaries (by order in the tables)
Sanskrit. Sir M. Monier-Williams. (1979 printing). A Sanskrit-English
dictionary. Etymologically and philologically arranged withspecial 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. AGreek-English lexicon (new9th ed.). (1940; 1966 printing). Com-
piled by H. G. Liddell & R. Scott: a new edition revised and augmented
throughout by Sir H. S. Jones, with the assistance of R. McKenzie and
other 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). Edited
by 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 by
J. 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 the
Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. London: Oxford Uni-
versity Press. xxxvi, 646 pp. (1st pub. 1927).
Turkish. H. C. Hony, withthe advice of Fahir Ir. (1957). ATurkish-English
dictionary (2
nd
ed.). Amen House, London: Oxford University Press. 416
pp.
Dagur. S. E. Martin. (1961). Dagur Mongolian grammar, texts, and lexicon
based on the speech of Peter Onon (Vol. 4). Indiana University Publica-
tions Uralic and Altaic Series. Bloomington: Indiana University; The
Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. 336 pp.
Chinese. R. H. Mathews. (1960). Mathews Chinese-English dictionary
(Rev. American ed.). A Chinese-English dictionary compiled for the
China Inland Mission. Shanghai: China Inland Mission and Presbyte-
rian Mission Press. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1,164
pp. (1931).
Boro. D. N. Shankara Bhat. (1968). Boro vocabulary (with a grammatical
sketch). Poona, India: DeccanCollege Postgraduate andResearchInsti-
tute. 177 pp.
Thai. M. R. Haas. (1964). Thai-English students dictionary. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press. 630 pp.
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-English
dictionary (3
rd
ed.). Revised and edited by J. U. Wolff &J. T. Collins, inco-
operation with H. Shadily. Ithaca and London: Cornell University
Press. 618 pp. (1961, 1963).
Yir-Yorunt. B. Alpher. (1991). Yir-Yorunt lexicon: sketch and dictionary of
anAustralianlanguage. Berlin, NewYork: Moutonde Gruyter. 795 pp.
Lakota. A dictionary of the Teton Dakota Sioux language: Lakota-Eng-
lish: English-Lakota. (1970). Considerations given to Yankton and
Santee by Rev. E. Buechel, S.J., edited by Rev. P. Manhart, S.J. Pine
Ridge, SD: Red Cloud Indian School. 606 pp. of Lakota-English defini-
tions.
Chickasaw. P. Munro & C. Willmond. (1994). Chickasaw: An analytical
dictionary. Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press. 539
pp.; 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: Abibliography. 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 the International Society for the Comparative Study of
Civilizations, Wright State University, Dayton, OH.
Hanson, R. C., Rose, E., & Little, Z. (1996). A comparative analysis of sorts
of things known in five ancient civilizations. Paper presented at the
June 1996 conference of the International Society for the Comparative
Study of Civilizations, Pomona, CA.
Hanson, R. C., Rose, E., &Little, Z. (1998). Wordedthings spokenby literate
and nonliterate populations. Paper presented at the June 1998 confer-
ence of the International Society for the 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. Paper
presented at the May 1999 conference of the International Society for
the Comparative Study of Civilizations, St. Louis, MO.
Hermann, D. J., & Raybeck, D. (1981). Similarities and differences in
meaning 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 and
Japanese. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94,
5489-5494.
Rose, E. (1962). The English record of a natural sociology. Decisions, values
and groups (Vol. 2). New York: Pergamon Press, 131-176. (Reprinted
from 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 presented at the Second 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 aspects of 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 University
Linguistics 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-
search monographs and articles in various social science journals and in
edited books. He received his Ph.D. in sociology and social institutions from
the University of California, Berkeley.
EdwardRose is anemeritus professor of sociology at the University of Colo-
rado. He was a founder of the sociology department and of the Institute of
Behavioral Science at the University of Colorado. He has written a half
dozen books and has recorded 853 tapes of his lectures.
Zeke Little is director of the Social Science Data Analysis Center, Institute
of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, where for 30 years he has
managed the statistical computing operations at the Institute. His BS and
MS degrees were in mathematics; he also pursued graduate work in the
mathematical sociology program at the University of Colorado.

A Comparative Investigation of The Semantic Structure of Language

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

A Comparative Investigation of The Semantic Structure of Language

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

http://ccr.sagepub.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai