Transcript Semantics & Pragmatics
Semantics & Pragmatics
What does this mean?
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?
Meaning
Semantics
: meaning as encoded by words and sentences
Pragmatics
instances ◦ : speakers’ intended meaning; ‘what they meant’ in particular and what hearers’ infer
Approaches to Meaning
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
Goals
“that which is expressed by Ss, utterances, & their components” “the content conveyed in communication by language” Waaay too simplistic but whaddya do?
Meaning
The real or imaginary ‘things’ we refer to = reference Sense = referent.
the "cognitive significance" of the
Meaning: Reference & Sense
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…’
Meaning:
Sense
= value + _____
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
Sense
&
Connotations
Literal component lexical and grammatical signs ◦ = the sense encoded by its ‘kick the bucket’ Figurative = an extension of literal mng Rhetoric extension; 3 of which are: ◦ ◦ Metaphor codifies many types of meaning Metonymy ◦ Synedoche
Literal
vs.
Figurative
Meaning
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: Metaphor
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: Metonymy
Synedoche ◦ Sense is extended via a part-whole relation ◦ ‘wheels’ ◦ ‘the denver omelet’ ◦ ‘the radiator job’ Figurative Mng: Synedoche
Contrasting the two is literally not so easy Cognitive Linguistics : metaphor central role in language & thought, & is pervasive in ordinary language has a
Lit-
fig
:
dis
tinc
tion
Contrasting the two is literally not so easy Cognitive Linguistics : metaphor central role in language & thought, & is pervasive in ordinary language has a Metaphor is seen as a cognitive strategy allowing us to
understand one experiential domain in terms of another
Lit-
fig
:
dis
tinc
tion
Metaphor allowing us to understand one experiential domain is seen as a cognitive strategy in terms of another
Cognitive Linguistics
Metaphor allowing us to understand one experiential domain is seen as a cognitive strategy 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
Cognitive Linguistics
Sentence phrases, gr relns) and their mngs ◦ Mng = combine signs (morphs, The car - broke down - yesterday ◦ Actor-------event----temporal location
Sentence
vs Utterance Mng
Sentence phrases, gr relns) and their mngs ◦ Mng = combine signs (morphs, 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
Sentence
vs Utterance Mng
Is the sem-prag division real?...
Some linguists reject the division or are dubious about the ‘division of labor’ b/w the two
More to come…
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
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
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 – issues
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: concerns
Polysemy bank ◦ Few of us see semantic reln b/w ‘ridge’ & ‘$’ ◦ Dictionaries tend to treat them separately
Semantics:
polysemy
bank on that you can
Polysemy bank ◦ Few of us see semantic reln b/w ‘ridge’ & ‘$’ ◦ 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: polysemy bank on that you can
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: concerns
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
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: concerns
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
transitivity
in the notion of
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 Meronymy is transitive is not.
Semantics: lex sem relns
Hyponymy is transitive Meronymy is not.
These are lexical networks – not network relations in the ‘real world’
Semantics: lex sem relns
Hyponymy is transitive Meronymy is not.
These are lexical networks – not network relations in the ‘real world’ Folk conceptualizations vs. science Whale = 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
Semantics: lex sem relns
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: utterance mng
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
Pragmatics
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
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: Speech Acts: performatives
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: direct 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: IN direct sp acts
‘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)
Prag: Sp Acts: felicity conditions
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 utterance Pron: 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 utterance Pron: 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 utterance Pron: 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: reference
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 grammar rules) maxims , we do so to achieve an end (& thus they differ from
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 it Maxim 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 it Maxim of Relevance = the Answer shd be relevant Thus against all odds, such Q&A succeeds due to aspects of the cooperative principle
Pragmatics: The coop princ.
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