Empirical Universals of Language as a Basis for the Study of Other Human Universals and as a Tool for Exploring Cross-Cultural Differences

Author: Anna Wierzbicka
Published in: ETHOS, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 256–291
Abstract:

Thesis Summary:
- Genuine universals of culture or cognition cannot be formulated without established universals of language.
- Generalizations about cross-cultural differences can be refined using language universals.
Structure:
1. Search for universal/culture-specific features in human cognition leads to generalizations.
2. Generalizations must be expressed in language.
3. Each language embodies peculiar ways of thinking.
4. Formulating universals in one language (e.g., English) risks distortion; this applies to cultural difference descriptions as well.
5. To avoid bias, the language of description needs to be universal, not tied to a specific culture/society.
Conclusion:
- Genuine universals can only be established with a universal language, enabling culture-independent generalizations.

Main Thesis:
- Genuine universals of cognition or culture require universal language as a tool for formulation.
- Language serves to sharpen generalizations regarding cultural differences.
Key Ideas Expanded:
- Seeking universal features means generating specific generalizations.
- Every language influences cognitive perspectives.
- Uncritical use of a single language risks imposing biases, distorting cultural interpretations.
- The conclusion affirms the necessity of a universal language for formulating generalizations globally and regarding different cultures.

Historical Context:
- Various attempts at constructing a universal language have failed (Eco 1995).
- Current status of English as a global lingua franca noted, yet it retains a culture-specific meaning universe.
Pitfalls in Using English:
- Concepts like "right/wrong" are culturally shaped and not universally applicable like "GOOD/BAD".
- The concept of "fairness" as a cultural construct illustrates the limitations of English in discussing universals.
Empirical Findings:
- Based on cross-linguistic research (Goddard and Wierzbicka, eds. 1994, 2002), the study indicates that there exist around sixty universal concepts like KNOW, THINK, WANT, etc.
The Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM):
- A practical tool developed to express universal and culture-specific forms of human thinking.

NSM Theory:
- Based on shared core human thought reflected in core language elements.
- It is a natural semantic metalanguage for describing and exploring universal and culture-specific thoughts.
- Each language has its NSM version based on universal language cores, maintaining meaning across diverse languages.
Comparison with Natural Languages:
- English NSM is practical for cross-cultural communication.

Danziger’s Study:
- Questions raised about cognitive variation across language due to linguistic differences in time and space understanding.
- Empirical research indicates that variability in human cognition exists but is foundationally anchored in universals.
Temporal Universals:
- Universals identified include WHEN, NOW, AFTER, FOR SOME TIME, etc.
Spatial Universals:
- Universals of spatial understanding including: WHERE, ABOVE, BELOW, SIDE, INSIDE, TOUCHING, etc.
- Research critiques the assumptions that spatial frameworks universally derived from English are incorrect.
Cultural Constructs in Lateral Spatial Relations:
- Differentiating between orientation-bound vs. orientation-free encoding of spatial relations.

Concept Variation:
- Cultural models support the notion that understandings of personhood exhibit both universal and culture-specific dimensions.
- Seven universal psychological predicates: KNOW, THINK, WANT, SAY, FEEL, SEE, HEAR.
- Extensions of this model can be categorized into existential, psychological, social, and moral aspects.
- Cross-cultural explorations of models of a person allow ethnophilosophy, ethics studies, and psychological anthropology.
Comparative Analysis:
- Avoiding emotional vocabularies, instead focusing on universal terms like FEEL and BODY to describe human experiences.

English Model:
- Dominated by body and mind dichotomy.
Korean Model:
- Features body (mom) and maum (closely associated with emotion rather than cognition).
Japanese Model:
- Body (karada) and kokoro (linked with feelings, empathy; distinct from cognitive understanding).
Russian Model:
- Similar to Korean but may include dusa as an invisible counterpart (often translated to soul).
Importance of Language and Emotion:
- Variations highlight the cultural specificity of emotional words that may become significant in understanding cultural identities.

Need for Integrative Approaches:
- Employing both rigorous semantic analysis and subjective accounts from bilingual individuals enhances cross-cultural understanding.
The Role of Language Migrants:
- Their experiences provide essential insights into how language shapes thought.

Misconceptions About Universality:
- Concepts positioned as universal (e.g., fairness) reveal deep cultural roots and restrict understanding cross-culturally.
Importance of Universal Framework:
- The concept of fairness can be explained using universal components that reflect relational and rule-based aspects of interactions.
- Summary of Fairness Concept:
- Doing something "not fair" entails negative actions affecting others, framing interactions within public consensus and rules.

Reiteration of Key Arguments:
- Empirical universals are crucial for identifying human universals through a universal language,
- Understanding need for empirical investigations supporting cross-cultural communication.
Future Directions:
- Suggested that fieldwork combined with universal concepts can enhance intercultural communication, educational endeavors, and perspectives on culture and human nature.
Reflection:
- Emphasize the value of diversity in cognition rooted in shared human conceptual frameworks, applicable to cultural identities.