Phraseology and Culture in English

4. The Natural Semantic Metalanguage as a tool for the analysis of 
meaning 
To show that two complex meanings are related we need to decompose 
them both into their constituent parts and to demonstrate that there is some 
overlap between the two configurations. For example, to show that the 
meanings of assume, suppose and presume are related we need to show that 
each of them includes the element THINK. To show the semantic relations 
between these words more precisely we need to identify the exact configu-
ration of semantic elements encoded in each of them (cf. Wierzbicka in 
press a). 
The process of semantic decomposition of complex concepts into their 
constituent parts cannot be an ad hoc substitution of unknowns for un-

---

Reasonably well
55
knowns, but must depend on an independently established set of self-ex-
planatory “indefinables” – elementary concepts out of which all complex 
concepts appear to be built. The failure of dictionaries which attempt defi-
nitions without having a set of indefinables at their disposal is well illus-
trated by the circular definition of reasonable and fair adduced above. 
The analytical work done within the NSM semantic theory over the 
years (cf. e.g. Goddard and Wierzbicka eds. 1994, 2002; Wierzbicka 1996; 
Goddard 1998) has identified sixty or so conceptual elements which can be 
treated as elementary units of meaning and in terms of which all complex 
meanings can be represented. Empirical cross-linguistic investigations con-
ducted over the years by many scholars have shown that the same set of 
hypothetical elementary units of meaning can be identified within every 
language. In other words, it is possible to identify for every language a set 
of elementary units of meaning isomorphic with respect to analogous sets 
identified for other languages. For example, the set proposed for English in 
Table 1 below is matched by isomorphic sets proposed for a number of 
other languages (cf. Goddard and Wierzbicka eds. 2002). 
Table 1. List of universal semantic primes: English version 
Substantives:
I, YOU, SOMEONE (PERSON), SOMETHING (THING), PEO-
PLE, BODY 
Determiners:
THIS, THE SAME, OTHER 
Quantifiers:
ONE, TWO, SOME, MANY / MUCH, ALL 
Attributes:
GOOD, BAD, BIG, SMALL 
Mental predicates:
THINK, KNOW, WANT, FEEL, SEE, HEAR 
Speech:
SAY, WORDS, TRUE 
Actions, events, movements:
DO, HAPPEN, MOVE 
Existence, and possession: 
THERE IS, HAVE 
Life and death:
LIVE, DIE 
Logical concepts:
NOT, MAYBE, CAN, BECAUSE, IF 
Time:
WHEN (TIME), NOW, AFTER, BEFORE, A LONG TIME, A 
SHORT TIME, FOR SOME TIME
Space:
WHERE (PLACE), HERE, ABOVE, BELOW, FAR, NEAR, 
SIDE, INSIDE, TOUCHING (CONTACT) 
Intensifier:
VERY
Augmentor:
MORE
Taxonomy, partonomy:
KIND OF, PART OF 
Similarity:
LIKE (HOW, AS) 

---

56
Anna Wierzbicka 
* 
exponents of primes may be words, bound morphemes, or phrases 
* 
they can be formally, i.e. morphologically, complex 
* 
they can have different morphosyntactic properties (including word-class) 
in different languages 
* 
they can have combinatorial variants (allolexes) 
Since the elementary units of meaning set out in Table 1 and its coun-
terparts in other languages have their own syntax (i.e. their own combina-
tory characteristics) each table in effect represents the lexicon of a mini-
language. As numerous NSM publications have shown, each mini-language 
can be used to analyse any complex meanings in any given natural lan-
guage. Furthermore, since both the tables of elements and the rules of their 
combination match across language boundaries, the mini-languages epito-
mised by these tables match too, and can all be regarded as different vari-
ants of the same Natural Semantic Metalanguage. 
For example, to show how the different meanings of the English words 
reasonable and reasonably are related, we can rely on a simple formula 
constructed out of words like 
THINK
,
GOOD (WELL), SOMEONE
and 
SOME-
THING
. To show the meaning or meanings of the French words raison-
nable and raisonnablement we can rely on simple formulae constructed out 
of
PENSER, BON (BIEN), QUELQU’UN
and 
QUELQUE CHOSE
. Since the 
(relevant) meaning of 
THINK
can be identified with the (relevant) meaning 
of
PENSER
, that of 
GOOD (WELL)
with that of 
BON (BIEN),
and so on, the 
Natural Semantic Metalanguage in either its English or its French version 
can be used to identify both the similarities and the differences between the 
meanings of, for example, reasonably and raisonnablement.
The methodology of semantic analysis based on the use of the Natural 
Semantic Metalanguage has been set out in numerous publications by NSM 
researchers, and cannot be fully presented here (see in particular Goddard 
and Wierzbicka eds. 2002). The NSM methodology allows us to articulate 
accurately and intelligibly not only the meanings of words and phrases but 
also the “cultural scripts” reflected in and transmitted by them. 
Cultural scripts are representations of cultural norms which are widely 
held in a society and are reflected in its language. They constitute a certain 
“naïve axiology”, that is, a naïve set of assumptions about what is good and 
bad to do or say, and even to think and feel. Any given speech community 
has such shared assumptions, and although not everyone necessarily agrees 
with them, everyone is familiar with them because they are reflected in the 
language itself. 

---

Reasonably well
57
As noted by Strauss and Quinn (1997: 3), such assumptions can be rea-
sonably stable across generations. They can of course also change. But they 
do not change overnight, and when they do change, this also finds reflec-
tion in language. In any case, whether they stay the same for a long time or 
undergo a more or less rapid change, while they last they are real, and if 
they are encoded in language itself, they are familiar to everyone who 
speaks and understands that language. They constitute part of the shared 
cultural knowledge against which even counter-cultural currents have to 
define themselves. It is important, therefore, that they should be understood 
and articulated. The Natural Semantic Metalanguage gives us a means to do 
so. For example, it allows us not only to explicate the meanings of the 
words reasonable and reasonably and collocations based on them, but also 
to articulate the historically shaped assumptions (or “cultural ideology”) 
reflected in, and transmitted by, those meanings.