Semantics & Pragmatics

What does this mean?

Meaning

From the lowly phone through the morph, the phrase, and the clause: ◦NPs & VPs label meaning at a very general

level; ◦grammatical relations (Actor/Undergoer, S/O,

Theme) address it more subtly; ◦morphs are full of it; ◦& even some phones may correlate with

meaning (cf. phonoaesthesia)SO WHAT IS IT?

Approaches to Meaning

Semantics: meaning as encoded by words and sentences

Pragmatics: speakers’ intended meaning; ‘what they meant’ in particular instances◦and what hearers’ infer

Goals

Contrast literal & figurative meaning

Contrast sentence & utterance meaning

Lexical Semantics: words’ sem relns

Goals

X-cultural diffs in Lex Sem

Speech acts, Reference, Presuppositions, & Co-operative Principle

NB ‘Context’ in utterance mng

Meaning

“that which is expressed by Ss, utterances, & their components”

“the content conveyed in communication by language”

Waaay too simplistic but whaddya do?

Meaning: Reference & Sense

The real or imaginary ‘things’ we refer to = reference

Sense = the "cognitive significance" of the referent.

Meaning: Sense = value…

The sense of a linguistic sign derives part of its essence from the greater system of inter-sign relations in which in resides◦The sense of ‘hand’ is defined in part by its reln

to ‘arm’◦The idea of ‘plural noun’ gets its sense partly

due to the notion ‘singular noun’ (vs. Jap & Skt)

This contrast = value

Meaning: Sense=value+_____

‘defining properties that must be understood in any application of a linguistic item’ … intension

E.g. sheep = ‘animal, mammal, grazes, ruminant, quadruped, even-toed ungulates…’

Sense & Connotations

Connotations◦Unstable meaning associations e.g. emotional

overtones which are not always present (vs. sense, which is essential)

◦Differ by attitudes (e.g. a mathematical way of thinking about…)

◦NB language acquisition & change; connotation becomes part of sense

Literal vs. Figurative Meaning

Literal = the sense encoded by its component lexical and grammatical signs◦‘kick the bucket’

Figurative = an extension of literal mng

Rhetoric codifies many types of meaning extension; 3 of which are:◦Metaphor◦Metonymy◦Synedoche

Figurative Mng: Metaphor

Metaphor◦Sense is extended to another concept based on

resemblance

◦‘Belgian drivers are cowboys’

◦…they tend to invoke notion of a cowboy

◦(the hearer then decides the basis for comparison)

Figurative Mng: Metonymy

Metonymy◦Sense extended to another concept due to a

typical or habitual association

◦‘go to the university’

◦‘likes the bottle’

◦‘Washington is in talks with the Kremlin)

Figurative Mng: Synedoche

Synedoche◦Sense is extended via a part-whole relation

◦‘wheels’

◦‘the denver omelet’

◦‘the radiator job’

Lit-fig: distinction

Contrasting the two is literally not so easy

Cognitive Linguistics: metaphor has a central role in language & thought, & is pervasive in ordinary language

Lit-fig: distinction

Contrasting the two is literally not so easy

Cognitive Linguistics: metaphor has a central role in language & thought, & is pervasive in ordinary language

Metaphor is seen as a cognitive strategy allowing us to understand one experiential domain in terms of another

Cognitive Linguistics

Metaphor is seen as a cognitive strategy allowing us to understand one experiential domain in terms of another

Cognitive Linguistics

Metaphor is seen as a cognitive strategy allowing us to understand one experiential domain in terms of another

NB many domains are understood in terms of space, and are expressed linguistically via spatial relations: ◦‘cat at me’

Hence Lit-Fig distinction is iffy

Sentence vs Utterance Mng

Sentence Mng = combine signs (morphs, phrases, gr relns) and their mngs◦The car - broke down - yesterday◦Actor-------event----temporal location

Sentence vs Utterance Mng

Sentence Mng = combine signs (morphs, phrases, gr relns) and their mngs◦The car - broke down - yesterday◦Actor-------event----temporal location

But context alters that ‘same conceptual event’◦Thus its utterance meaning varies

Sentence vs Utterance Mng

Sentence Semantics ◦Meaning in isolation; meaning as it is within the

‘system of language’

Sentence vs Utterance Mng

Sentence Semantics ◦Meaning in isolation; meaning as it is within the

‘system of language’

Utterance Pragmatics◦Meaning in actual language use; meaning as

conveyed by an expression in real speech; patterns in speech (outside grammar/lexicon) – re: reln b/w speaker & hearer

More to come…

Is the sem-prag division real?...

Some linguists reject the division or are dubious about the ‘division of labor’ b/w the two

P 134 ◦Students: note fig 6.1 – try to ‘read’ it; it’s

worthwhile. However, I think the first sentence below the figure shd be ‘value and INtension…’ – not EX- look above the two people and you’ll see a rectangle w/ value and intension in it. At the top is a tree diagram: the metaphorical EXtension

Semantics

Re: the semantics of lexical items which must be listed separately in the lexicon.

These are signs and we will focus on their senses

Semantics – issues

3 interrelated key issues in Lex Sem:◦Pinning down & identifying the meanings of

lexical items

◦Relns amongst lexical items’ meanings

◦The specification of the meaning of items

The value of a sign depends on its contrasts with the rest of the language system

Semantics: concerns

Homophony

◦2 different lexemes share the same phonological form (port, bank, bouy/boy)

Semantics: concerns

Homophony

◦2 different lexemes share the same phonological form (port, bank, bouy/boy)

Partial homophones: ‘bear’ (N & V) – shares same phonological form in some inflected forms but not all:◦Bear, bears◦Bear, bears; bore; born

Semantics: concerns

Polysemy◦Identical forms have related meanings

◦‘ear’ = hearing organ; attention; ability; favorable disposition; etc

Semantics: concerns

Polysemy◦Identical forms have related meanings

◦‘ear’ = hearing organ; attention; ability; favorable disposition; etc

Dictionaries tend to separate homophones but not polysemous terms; however distinction is not always easy

Semantics: concerns

Polysemy Cf. ear:

◦Above e.g.s are easy to relate◦But ‘ear of corn’ (though usually listed

separately in dictionaries) is often imagined to resemble the above ‘ear’

◦Lexicographers go beyond folk etymology (usually) and look into OE & ME

Semantics: polysemy that you can bank on

Polysemy bank

◦Few of us see semantic reln b/w ‘ridge’ & ‘$’

◦Dictionaries tend to treat them separately

Semantics: polysemy that you can bank on

Polysemy bank

◦Few of us see semantic reln b/w ‘ridge’ & ‘$’

◦Dictionaries tend to treat them separately

◦Both originate from *bangk in Proto-Germanic (offshoot of Proto I-E <4m BC> & parent of English, German, Dutch, Nor, Swed, Dk, Ic)

Semantics: concerns

Polysemy ◦*bangk in Proto-Germanic = ‘ridge, mound,

bordering slope’

Semantics: concerns

Polysemy ◦*bangk in Proto-Germanic = ‘ridge, mound,

bordering slope’

◦Ridge>bench>moneylender’s counter>money lender’s shop>financial institution

Semantics: concerns

Polysemy ◦*bangk in Proto-Germanic = ‘ridge, mound,

bordering slope’

◦Ridge>bench>moneylender’s counter>money lender’s shop>financial institution

◦Ridge>slope>side of watercourse

Semantics: concerns

Polysemy ◦*bangk in Proto-Germanic = ‘ridge, mound,

bordering slope’

◦Ridge>bench>moneylender’s counter>money lender’s shop>financial institution

◦Ridge>slope>side of watercourse

◦…typical semantic extension

Semantics

Vagueness◦A lack of specificity of meaning

◦Recall ‘ear’ = ‘hearing organ’ ‘in your ear’

Semantics

Vagueness◦A lack of specificity of meaning

◦Recall ‘ear’ = ‘hearing organ’ ‘in your ear’

◦But also: ‘pull your ear’ & ‘scratch its ear’

Semantics

Vagueness◦A lack of specificity of meaning

◦Recall ‘ear’ = ‘hearing organ’ ‘in your ear’

◦But also: ‘pull your ear’ & ‘scratch its ear’

◦The mental concepts invoked in each differ

Semantics: concerns

Vagueness ‘in your ear’

◦Ear as an orifice

Semantics: concerns

Vagueness ‘in your ear’

◦Ear as an orifice

‘pull your ear’◦Ear as an appendage of human head

Semantics: concerns

Vagueness ‘in your ear’

◦Ear as an orifice

‘pull your ear’◦Ear as an appendage of human head

‘scratch its ear’◦Ear as appendage of dog’s head

Semantics: concerns

Vagueness◦We don’t usually think of these as polysemies

of ear – because they’re so closely related

Semantics: concerns

Vagueness◦We don’t usually think of these as polysemies

of ear – because they’re so closely related

See also ‘wrong’◦Depending on its sentence, the meaning gets

narrowed

Semantics: concerns

Vagueness◦‘wrong…

to speak w/ your mouth full’ (improper) to take Indian kids from their moms’ (immmoral) to attribute that quote to Saussure’ (incorrect)

Semantics: concerns

Vagueness◦‘wrong…

to speak w/ your mouth full’ (improper) to take Indian kids from their moms’ (immmoral) to attribute that quote to Saussure’ (incorrect)

◦A general sense covers these but the sentential context narrows the meaning down

Semantics: concerns

These are: contextual meanings◦They aren’t fixed (vs. sense of a lexeme)

Semantics: concerns

These are: contextual meanings◦They aren’t fixed (vs. sense of a lexeme)

◦Cf. ‘it was wrong for the govt to have taken the Indian children’ This doesn’t necessarily invoke a moral comment

Semantics: concerns

These are: contextual meanings◦They aren’t fixed (vs. sense of a lexeme)

◦Cf. ‘it was wrong for the govt to have taken the Indian children’ This doesn’t necessarily invoke a moral comment

Vagueness-polysemy =

Semantics: concerns

These are: contextual meanings◦They aren’t fixed (vs. sense of a lexeme)

◦Cf. ‘it was wrong for the govt to have taken the Indian children’ This doesn’t necessarily invoke a moral comment

Vagueness-polysemy = variations on degrees of abstraction

Semantics: Lex Sem relns

Lexemes relate to each other semantically in various ways, & form a highly structured system

Semantics: Lex Sem relns

Lexemes relate to each other semantically in various ways, & form a highly structured system

As a huge network vs. a mere listing

Semantics: Lex Sem relns

Lexemes relate to each other semantically in various ways, & form a highly structured system

As a huge network vs. a mere listing

4 types of sem reln: synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, & meronymy

Semantics: lex sem relns

Synonymy ◦Reln of sameness/similarity (p 137)

Exact synonyms are rare (impossible?)

Often differentiate registers/dialects

May differ in their collocations

Semantics: lex sem relns

Antonyms

◦Gradable Allow intermediate degrees: used w/ comparatives Its negation doesn’t imply its opposite

◦Non-gradable: polaric

Semantics: lex sem relns

Hyponymy ◦One lexeme includes another

◦Tool: hammer, saw, chisel, screwdriver…

Hypernym: tool Hyponyms: saw, hammer,…

◦Common in some semantic domains: Kinship, colors, plants/animals

Semantics: lex sem relns

Meronymy ◦Part-whole reln

◦Door & window are meronyms of room◦Wheel & pedal are meronyms of bicycle

Semantics: lex sem relns

Meronymy ◦Part-whole reln

◦Door & window are meronyms of room◦Wheel & pedal are meronyms of bicycle

differs from hyponymy in the notion of transitivity

Semantics: lex sem relns

Difference in transitivity b/w meronyms & hyponyms◦Alsatian>dog>animal (hyponyms)

Semantics: lex sem relns

Difference in transitivity b/w meronyms & hyponyms◦Alsatian>dog>animal (hyponyms)◦Nostril>nose (meronym)◦Nose>face (meronym)

Semantics: lex sem relns

Difference in transitivity b/w meronyms & hyponyms◦Alsatian>dog>animal (hyponyms)◦Nostril>nose (meronym)◦Nose>face (meronym)◦But nostril>face (not meronym)

We don’t say a nostril is part of a face (we could but we don’t normally conceptualize it as such)

Semantics: lex sem relns

Hyponymy is transitiveMeronymy is not.

Semantics: lex sem relns

Hyponymy is transitiveMeronymy is not.

These are lexical networks – not network relations in the ‘real world’

Semantics: lex sem relns

Hyponymy is transitiveMeronymy is not.

These are lexical networks – not network relations in the ‘real world’

Folk conceptualizations vs. scienceWhale = mammal? fish?

Semantics: lex sem relns

To pin down the sense of a word…◦(e.g. ‘mother’)◦Decide if diff mngs belong to diff lex items

sharing the same form◦Or are polysemies◦Or are separate contextual mngs

One technique is componential analysis

Semantics: lex sem relns

Componential analysis ◦A lexeme’s semantic mng is decomposed

◦Identifies features that differentiate words

◦E.g. +/- animate

Semantics: lex sem relns

Componential analysis

◦Criticized by prototype theory for its intensional definitions

◦Component features are more technical than the term they describe

Pragmatics: utterance mng

Semantics = mng as encoded in Lx form

Pragmatics: utterance mng

Semantics = mng as encoded in Lx form

But there’s more to meaning-making than this

Pragmatics: utterance mng

Semantics = mng as encoded in Lx form

But there’s more to meaning-making than this

The sounds that make up speech merely outline mng; listeners then fill in/extrapolates

Pragmatics

We excel at ‘reading into’ things (+/-)

Pragmatics

We excel at ‘reading into’ things (+/-)

2 types of mng we fill in:

◦What the spkr intends to do with the utterance –why they spoke it in the first place - & how its inferred

Pragmatics

We excel at ‘reading into’ things (+/-)

2 types of mng we fill in:

◦What the spkr intends to do with the utterance –why they spoke it in the first place - & how its inferred

◦Reference or referential meaning

Prag: Speech Acts

Speech is a social act – it’s for doing stuff

Prag: Speech Acts

Speech is a social act – it’s for doing stuff

Informing, promising, requesting, questioning, commanding, warning, preaching, congratulating, betting, swearing, exclaiming….are speech acts

Prag: Speech Acts

Speech is a social act – it’s for doing stuff

Informing, promising, requesting, questioning, commanding, warning, preaching, congratulating, betting, swearing, exclaiming….are speech acts

Type of action performed by speaking = its illocutionary force

Prag: Speech Acts: performatives

Sentences which make explicit their illocutionary force by a speech act verb = performatives

Prag: Speech Acts: performatives

Sentences which make explicit their illocutionary force by a speech act verb = performatives◦I bet you…◦I resign.◦I apologize.◦I dare you…◦I pronounce you man & wife.◦I order you to…

Prag: Sp Acts: direct sp acts

Most sp acts are not so obvious◦Cf. ‘the car broke down yesterday’ as a statement or a request/refusal

Prag: Sp Acts: direct sp acts

Most sp acts are not so obvious◦Cf. ‘the car broke down yesterday’ as a statement or a request/refusal

Direct speech acts ◦Naturally associated with form

Grammatically specified (table 6.1) Lexically specified (performatives)

Prag: Sp Acts: INdirect sp acts

When a syntactic form is used with an atypical illocutionary force: indirect speech act◦‘can you pass the salt?’

Question? Command? Request?

often used for politeness

Prag: Sp Acts: felicity conditions

‘I pronounce you man & wife’ only works if the speaker is authorized

Prag: Sp Acts: felicity conditions

‘I pronounce you man & wife’ only works if the speaker is authorized

‘Where are my glasses’ & ‘Please give me my glasses’ only achieve their intended purposes

Prag: Sp Acts: felicity conditions

‘I pronounce you man & wife’ only works if the speaker is authorized

‘Where are my glasses’ & ‘Please give me my glasses’ only achieve their intended purposes when the spkr doesn’t know where his/her glasses are & when spkr doesn’t have the glasses (respectively)

Pragmatics: reference

The link b/w utterances & people, things, places, & times that are being referred to

Pragmatics: reference

The link b/w utterances & people, things, places, & times that are being referred to

Different from sense -it is not what is inherently assoc’d with linguistic forms

Pragmatics: reference

The link b/w utterances & people, things, places, & times that are being referred to

Different from sense -it is not what is inherently assoc’d with linguistic forms

Words don’t refer, our usage of them does◦E.g. NP tokens refer

Pragmatics: reference

All languages have wds/morphs we use to help pin down reference ◦Proper nouns

Noam Chomsky

Pragmatics: reference

All languages have wds/morphs we use to help pin down reference ◦Proper nouns

Noam Chomsky◦Articles

The, a/an

Pragmatics: reference

All languages have wds/morphs we use to help pin down reference ◦Proper nouns

Noam Chomsky◦Articles

The, a/an◦Deictics

Pronouns, demonstratives, space & time adverbs

Pragmatics: reference

Deictics ◦Identify things by relating them to the social,

linguistic, spatial, or temporal context of an utterance

◦Their reference varies with each utterance

Pragmatics: reference

Deictics ◦Identify things by relating them to the social,

linguistic, spatial, or temporal context of an utterance

◦Their reference varies with each utterancePron: I, you, s/he, we…

Pragmatics: reference

Deictics ◦Identify things by relating them to the social,

linguistic, spatial, or temporal context of an utterance

◦Their reference varies with each utterancePron: I, you, s/he, we…Demon: this,that (spatial deixis)Adv: here,there (spatial deixis)

Pragmatics: reference

Deictics ◦Identify things by relating them to the social,

linguistic, spatial, or temporal context of an utterance

◦Their reference varies with each utterancePron: I, you, s/he, we…Demon: this,that (spatial deixis)Adv: here,there (spatial deixis)Today, tomorrow, now, then (temp deixis)

Pragmatics: reference

Caveat:

◦The above deictics, though specifying referents, also have senses.

Pragmatics: reference

Caveat:

◦The above deictics, though specifying referents, also have senses.

◦E.g. pronouns are ‘encoded’ for person, number, case, gender.

Pragmatics: reference

Caveat:

◦The above deictics, though specifying referents, also have senses.

◦E.g. pronouns are ‘encoded’ for person, number, case, gender.

◦Yet their full mng comes only when uttered ‘he’ then takes on the mng of ‘that guy’

Pragmatics: The coop princ.

A principle of interpretation & inferencing shared by spkrs & hearers, permitting the utterance mng intended by a spkr to be reliably inferred by the hearer

Pragmatics: The coop princ.

This interpretive procedure is constituted by four component maxims:◦Quantity: make your contribution as informative

as req’d (non more or less)

Pragmatics: The coop princ.

This interpretive procedure is constituted by four component maxims:◦Quantity: make your contribution as informative

as req’d (non more or less)◦Quality: don’t lie

Pragmatics: The coop princ.

This interpretive procedure is constituted by four component maxims:◦Quantity: make your contribution as informative

as req’d (non more or less)◦Quality: don’t lie◦Relevance: don’t be irrelevant

Pragmatics: The coop princ.

This interpretive procedure is constituted by four component maxims:◦Quantity: make your contribution as informative

as req’d (non more or less)◦Quality: don’t lie◦Relevance: don’t be irrelevant◦Manner: be perspicuous – avoid ambiguity,

prolixity, disorderliness & obscurity

Pragmatics: The coop princ.

These are principles governing the inferences we draw – they’re not rules

Pragmatics: The coop princ.

These are principles governing the inferences we draw – they’re not rules

When we flout these maxims, we do so to achieve an end (& thus they differ from grammar rules)

Pragmatics: The coop princ.

These are principles governing the inferences we draw – they’re not rules

When we flout these maxims, we do so to achieve an end (& thus they differ from grammar rules)

We don’t break grammar rules for effect

Pragmatics: The coop princ.

Q. Are you ready?A. Is the pope Catholic?

Pragmatics: The coop princ.

Q. Are you ready?A. Is the pope Catholic?

A Y/N Q is interpreted as a response to itMaxim of Relevance = the Answer shd be relevant

Pragmatics: The coop princ.

Q. Are you ready?A. Is the pope Catholic?

A Y/N Q is interpreted as a response to itMaxim of Relevance = the Answer shd be relevant

Thus against all odds, such Q&A succeeds due to aspects of the cooperative principle

Pragmatics: presuppositions

Implicit assumptions invoked by certain sentences as required truths in order for utterance of the sentence to be appropriate or reasonable

6-13 6-16 (p 147)

Allows more efficient discourse

Pragmatics: presuppositions