Understanding Cultures through Their Key Words: English, ...

Book Description:
In this groundbreaking book, Wierzbicka demonstrates that every language has its "key concepts" and that these key concepts reflect the core values of the culture. Further, she argues that within a culture-independent analytical framework one can study, compare, and even explain cultures to outsiders through their key concepts. The framework Wierzbicka proposes is the well-known "natural semantic metalanguage" that she developed with her colleagues. For this study, Wierzbicka focuses on four languages and cultures: Japanese, Australian English, Polish, and Russian. She identifies "culture laden" words in each of these languages; these words are, in a sense, "untranslatable." She shows, however, that the words can be "explained" by means of the semantic metalanguage's hypothetical semantic primitives such as someone, something, do, happen, want, say, know, think, good, bad, etc.

Fascinating stuff.:
Contrary to the previous reviewer's opinion, I found this book fascinating. I don't have a Ph.D. in linguistics either. Her claim is *not* that one cannot understand the key words of a culture without being immersed in the culture, only that one cannot understnad the key words of a culture by means of simplistic translations or definitions. She attempts to provide careful and precise definitions, given in what she calls the "Natural Semantic Metalanguage" -- an extremely restricted vocabulary consisting of words that, as far as she has been able to tell via research, have equivalents in every natural language. I don't buy all of her "Natural Semantic Metalanguage" theories (for which see her other book _Semantics: Primes and Universals_) but it sure is a useful tool for the job she's doing here.

Wierzbicka's academic fluff chokes meanings.:
I read this book for an athropology class at a western private university. I have to say that while Wierzbicka's domination of different languages is impressive, her "fluffy" explanations of the key words in the book tend to bore the reader, thus leaving him/her more confused about the meanings of the key words than before. Furthermore, her findings tend to undermine her own premise that a culture's key words cannot be understood except by understanding the culture itself. No one person can claim to explain--as she does--what certain words mean within their cultural realm without having been immmersed totally in that culture (usually born and raised). Thus, one is lead to believe that even she doesn't understand the "key words" totally, and her credibility is therefore undermined. I wouldn't recommend the book to anyone with less than a Ph.D. in Linguistics.