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.
Post on 16-Dec-2015
218 Views
Preview:
Transcript
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
top related