Cover not available
Part of
The Cultural Pragmatics of Danger: Cross-linguistic perspectives
Edited by Carsten Levisen and Zhengdao Ye
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 346] 2024
► pp. 217–235

Chapter 11
Security, Sicherheit, ānquán

Similar-but-different key concepts in English, German and Chinese

ORCID logo | Griffith University
 | Griffith University
ORCID logo | The Australian National University
In this chapter we first develop a semantic-conceptual analysis of the English word security, a key word in international geopolitical discourse, contrasting it with English safety. We then investigate the meanings of comparable words in German and in Chinese, i.e. Sicherheit and ānquán, respectively. Our method of lexical semantic description is the NSM (natural semantic metalanguage) approach, which is based on paraphrase into simple, cross-translatable words. The analysis is corpus-assisted. The results show that the meaning differences between “safety/security concepts” across languages are greater than many people would expect, and, furthermore, that these differences are culture-related. The implications for international “security discourse” are briefly explored.
Keywords: security concepts, lexical semantics, discourse of security, natural semantic metalanguage (NSM), German, Chinese
Article outline
  • 1.‘Security’: A global key word in international discourse
  • 2.English ‘safety’ vs. ‘security’
    • 2.1Safety
    • 2.2Security: Its uses and contexts
    • 2.3Security concepts involving ‘countries [m]’
  • 3.German Sicherheit
  • 4.Chinese ānquán
    • 4.1ānquán1 [Chinese]
    • 4.2ānquán2 [Chinese]
    • 4.3Uses of ānquán in international relations and public security contexts
  • 5.Implications for international “security discourse”
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Corpora
  • References
Published online: 15 August 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.346.11god
References (25)
Corpora
BCC Corpus (Beijing Language and Culture University) [[URL]]
CCL Corpus (Centre for Chinese Linguistics Corpus PKU) [[URL]]
WordBanks Online. [[URL]]
References
Bromhead, Helen. 2018. Landscape and Culture: Cross-linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buzan, Barry, Ole Waever, and Jaap de Wilde. 1998. Security. A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Carbaugh, Donal. 2007. “Cultural Discourse Analysis: Communication Practices and Intercultural Encounters.” Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 36 (3): 167–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2017. Handbook of Communication in Cross-Cultural Perspective (ICA Handbook series). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cramer, Rahel. 2015. “German Ordnung: A Semantic and Ethnopragmatic Analysis of a Core Cultural Value.” International Journal of Language and Culture 2 (2): 269–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Cliff (ed.). 2006. Ethnopragmatics: Understanding Discourse in Cultural Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Ten Lectures on Natural Semantic Metalanguage: Exploring Language, Thought and Culture Using Simple, Translatable Words. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “‘Country’, ‘Land’, ‘Nation’: Key Anglo English Words for Talking and Thinking about People in Places.” Journal of Postcolonial Linguistics 2: 8–27. [open access: [URL]]
(ed.) 2021. Minimal Languages in Action. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Cliff, and Anna Wierzbicka. (eds). 2002a. Meaning and Universal Grammar–Theory and Empirical Findings. Volume 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (eds). 2002b. Meaning and Universal Grammar–Theory and Empirical Findings. Volume 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Words and Meanings: Lexical semantics across domains, languages and cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Cliff, and Zhengdao Ye. (eds.). 2016. “Happiness” and “Pain” Across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Cliff, Anna Wierzbicka, and Zhengdao Ye. 2023. “The Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) Approach.” In Handbook of Cognitive Semantics, Vol I, ed. by Fuyin Thomas Li, 99–137. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Levisen, Carsten. 2024. Postcolonial Semantics: Meaning and Metalanguage in a Multipolar World. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levisen, Carsten, and Sophia Waters. (eds.). 2017. Cultural Keywords in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Derek B., and Lisa Rudnick. 2008. The Security Needs Assessment Protocol. Improving Operational Effectiveness through Community Security. New York/Geneva: United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research.Google Scholar
Romaniuk, Scott Nicholas. 2018. “Copenhagen School.” In The Sage Encyclopedia of Surveillance, Security, and Privacy, ed. by Bruce A. Arrigo, 224. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Emotions Across Languages and Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Imprisoned in English: The Hazards of English as the Default Language. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ye, Zhengdao (ed.). 2017. The Semantics of Nouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar