SEMANTICS

IMPLICATURE, PRESUPPOSITION, SPEECH ACT, REFERENCE,

DEIXIS, DEFINITENESS AND INDEFINITNESS

The Lecturer: Sri Suci Suryawati, M.Pd

Group 10

Desma Rizki Ananda : 1611040261

Heni Susanti : 1611040262
Kartika Aprila Ulfa : 1611040043
Titik Nur Hasanah : 1611040268

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

TARBIYAH AND TEACHER TRAINING FACULTY
ISLAMIC STATE UNIVERSITY OF RADEN INTAN
LAMPUNG
2019
 BAB I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

Semantics is the study of meaning. It deals with the literal meaning

ofwords and the meaning of the way they are combined, which taken
together form core of meaning, or the starting point from which the whole
meaning of particular utterance is constructed (Kearns, 2011: 1). It is one
of the interesting subjects to discuss in linguistics. Language is abstract
and so is its meaning. The concrete one is the entities. People have
different terms in expressing one thing, So it becomes arbitrary. To
explain how people can relate the entities and its meaning has been
explained by Ogden & Richards’ theory in their book “The meaning of
meaning” (1945: 11) through semantic triangle. They classify the meaning
of thing into three, namely symbol, reference and referent. Symbol is the
representation of the entity, for example the word “cat”. Second is when
people listen or know about “cat” they build the concept of this thing, such
an animal, a mammal, four legs, furry, cute, and meow and it is known as
reference. And the rest the real entity in the real world which is known by
referent.There is no relevant relation between symbol and referent.
Semantics concerns with the meaning not only non sentences
meaning,Such as phrase and incomplete sentences, but also with the
meaning of whole sentences. The meaning of whole sentences involve
propositions, and the notion of proposition is central to semantics. A
proposition is that part of the meaning of utterance of a declarative
sentence which describes some state of affairs. Hurford et. all, 2007: 20).
Simple proposition or simple declarative sentence issemantic analysis
because it represents the propositions unambiguously. Representable by a
single predicator, drawn from the predicates in the language, and a number
 of arguments, drawn from the names in the language. Hurford et. all, 2007:
157). It also asserts the proposition where the assignmenttruth values
(true/false) is intuitively most straightforward in the case of simple
propositions (Hurford et. all, 2007: 20). Therefore the data in this research
are simple prepositions or simple declarative sentences since the thematic
roles is a logical analysis in which proposition must not be ambiguous.

B. Formulation of The Problem

1. What is Implicature ?
2. What is Presupposition ?
3. What is Speech Act ?
4. What is Reference ?
5. What is Deixis ?
6. What is Definiteness and Indefinites ?

C. Purpose

The purpose of this study is to know and increase the knowledge about the
definition of meaning and the nature of meaning itself.
 BAB II
DISCUSSION

A. Implicature

Total signification of an utterance

1).

what is said implicature

conventional nonconventional

conversational
nonconversational

generalized particularized

Of the above implicature types, Conventional implicature and the two

types of conversational implicature. Grice’s definitions of these terms along with
some of his examples. In the case of conventional implicature “the conventional
meaning of the words used will determine what is implicated, besides helping to
determine what is said” In Grice 1975=1989a only one example of conventional
implicature is given to conventionally implicate rather than literally say that the
man’s being brave follows fromConventionally implicate rather than literally say
that the man’s being brave follows fromhis being an Englishman:

2). He is an Englishman; he is, therefore, brave

Conversational implicature is triggered by “certain general features of
discourse” ratherthan by the conventional meaning of a specific word (Grice
1975: 26). These featuresare the following:
(i) Linguistic exchanges are governed by the COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE, the
content of which is detailed in the four MAXIMS OF CONVERSATION and
their submaxims.(ii) When one of the participants of the exchange seems not to
follow the Cooperative Principle,his or her partner(s) will nevertheless assume
that, contrary to appearances, the principle isobserved at some deeper level.

(3) The Cooperative Principle (Grice 1975: 26)

Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at
which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in
which you are engaged.

(4)The Maxims of Conversation (Grice 1975: 26-27):

QUALITY: Try to make your contribution one that is true.
1. Do not say what you believe to be false.
2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
QUANTITY:
1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes
of the exchange).
2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
RELATION: Be relevant
MANNER: Be perspicuous.
1. Avoid obscurity of expression.
2. Avoid ambiguity.
3. Be brief.
4. Be orderly.

(5) A participant P in a linguistic exchange, by literally making an assertion with

the propositional content x, conversationally implicates the proposition y if and
onlyif:
a. P is presumed to be observing the maxims
b. the supposition y is required to maintain (a)
c. P thinks that his partner will realize (b)
The distinction between PARTICULARIZED and GENERALIZED
CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATUREis characterized as follows. Instances of
particularized conversational implicature require“special features of the context”,
while in the case of generalized conversational implicature“the use of a certain
form of words in an utterance would normally (in the absence of
specialcircumstances) carry such-and-such an implicature” (Grice 1975=1989a:
37). Let us now consider two of Grice’s examples of particularized
conversational
implicature. In the exchange

(6) A: Smith doesn’t seem to have a girlfriend these days.

B: He has been paying a lot of visits to New York lately.
B seemingly fails to be cooperative. The implicature that Smith has, or
may have, a girlfriendin New York is necessary, Grice (1975: 32) argues, to
preserve the assumption that Bis observing the maxim of Relation. Similarly, the
professor’s letter of recommendation for one of his students applying for aposition
at a philosophy department

(7) Seems to breach the first maxim of Quantity:

Dear Sir, Mr. X’s command of English is excellent, and his attendance at
tutorials
has been regular.Yet, given that the professor has made the effort and has written
the letter, its recipient cannothelp assuming that he wanted to be cooperative, and
thus, informative. The implicature thatbridges the gap between what is literally
said in the letter and the requirement that such adocument inform the reader about
the candidate’s competence in the given subject is that thestudent in question is no
good at philosophy (Grice 1975: 33). Under the heading of generalized
conversational implicature, Grice (197: 37-38)lists a number of sentences
containing an indefinite noun phrase
(8) X is meeting a woman this evening.
(9) X went into a house yesterday and found a tortoise inside the front door.
Grice says that the utterance of (8) carries the implicature that the woman
that X is meeting isunknown to the recipient of (8). That is to say, she is
“someone other than X’s wife, mother,sister, or perhaps even close platonic
friend” (Grice 1975=1989a: 37). In a similar fashion, (9)normally implicates that
the house that X entered is not his or her own. The emergence of these
implicatures is explained in the following way: “When someone,by using the form
of expression an X, implicates that the X does not belong to or is nototherwise
closely connected with some identifiable person, the implicature is present
becausethe speaker has failed to be specific in a way in which he might have been
expected to bespecific, with the consequence that it is likely to be assumed that he
is not in a position to bespecific” (Grice 1975: 38). In other words, the assumption
that (8) and (9) onlyseemingly breach the first maxim of Quantity requires the
above suppositions.In connection with the discussion of generalized
conversational implicatures of the abovesort, Grice proposes that we accept a
principle, which he states as follows:

(10)Modified Occam’s Razor (Grice 1978: 47):

Senses are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.In other words, one
should only assign more than one conventional meaning to a constructionor posit
the existence of an additional word sense that putatively fits the pertinent
sententialenvironment, if “the supposition that there is such a sense does some
work, explains why ourunderstanding of a particular range of applications of the
word is so easy or so sure” (ibid.). One element of the theory of implicature is left
for us to recall here, namely the propertiesthat Grice (1975=1989a and
1978=1989b) attributes to conversational implicature. Theseproperties are the
following (cf. Grice 1975: 31 & 39-40):
 B. Presupposition

The concept of presupposition is often treated as the relationship between two

propositions. In the case below, we have a sentence that contains a proposition (p)
and another proposition (q), which is easily presupposed by any listener.
However, the speaker can produce a sentence by denying the proposition (p),
obtaining as a result the same presupposition (q). Debora's cat is cute (p) Debora
has a cat (q).

When I say that Debora' s cat is cute, this sentence presupposes that Debora
has a cat. InDebora' s cat is not cute.

The types of presupposition are:

Existential presupposition: it is the assumption of the existence of the entities

named by the speaker.For example, when a speaker says "Tom's car is new", we
can presuppose that Tom exists and that he has a car.

Factive presupposition: it is the assumption that something is true due to the

presence of some verbs such as "know" and "realize" and of phrases involving
glad, for example. Thus, when a speaker says that she didn't realize someone was
ill, we can presuppose that someone is ill. Also, when she says "I'm glad it's
over", we can presuppose that it's over.

Lexical presupposition: it is the assumption that, in using one word, the

speaker can act as if another meaning (word) will be understood. For instance:

Andrew stopped running. (He used to run.)

You are late again. (>> You were late before.)

In this case, the use of the expressions "stop" and "again" are taken to
presuppose another (unstated) concept.
 Structural presupposition: it is the assumption associated with the use of
certain words and phrases. For example, wh-question in English are
conventionally interpreted with the presupposition that the information after the
wh-form (e.g. when and where) is already known to be the case.

When did she travel to the USA? ( she traveled)

Where did you buy the book? ( you bought the book)

The listener perceives that the information presented is necessarily true rather
than just the presupposition of the person asking the question.

Non-factive presupposition: it is an assumption that something is not true. For

example, verbs like "dream", "imagine" and "pretend" are used with the
presupposition that what follows is not true.

I dreamed that I was rich. (>> I am not rich)

We imagined that we were in London. (>> We are not in London)

Counterfactual presupposition: it is the assumption that what is presupposed is

not only untrue, but is the opposite of what is true, or contrary to facts. For
instance, some conditional structures, generally called counterfactual
conditionals, presuppose that the information, in the if- clauses, is not true at the
time of utterance.

If you were my daughter, I would not allow you to do this. ( > you are not my
daughter)

When did she travel to the USA? ( >> she traveled)

Where did you buy the book? (>> you bought the book)

The listener perceives that the information presented is necessarily true rather
than just the presupposition of the person asking the question.
 Non-factive presupposition: it is an assumption that something is not true. For
example, verbs like "dream", "imagine" and "pretend" are used with the
presupposition that what follows is not true.

I dreamed that I was rich. (>> I am not rich)

We imagined that we were in London. (>> We are not in London)

Counterfactual presupposition: it is the assumption that what is presupposed is

not only untrue, but is the opposite of what is true, or contrary to facts. For
instance, some conditional structures, generally called counterfactual
conditionals, presuppose that the information, in the if- clauses, is not true at the
time of utterance.

C. Speech Act

Furthermore, according to Elite and Murxia speech act is usually performed

within a situation that provides contextual elements that help interpret thespeaker
intention. Speech-Act-Theoretic Semantics: The Basic PictureSpeech-act-
theoretic semantics identifies the meaning of an expression with the type of
speech act that the members of a community are disposed to perform with the
expression and interpret oth-ers as performing with it. This approach
encompasses approaches to several broad components of the study of linguistic
meaning, each of which breaks away from contemporary orthodoxy.

Metasemantics addresses the question: In virtue of what do expressions have

meaning for a group of speakers?The dominant answer to this question is that
expressions have meaning in vir-tue of the linguistic conventions in which
language-users participateThe two mainstream answers to this question are truth–
con-ditional semantics, on which sentences’ meanings are properties that fix their
truth conditions relative to contexts, and dynamic semantics, on which sentence
meanings are context-change po-tentials. From the kinds of different speech act
know how the utterance has different meaning. The actions that do by the hearer
is the impact from the utterance that state by the speaker. Speech acts can be
classified according to how they affect the social interaction between speaker and
hearer.

D. Reference
Reference is defined as a thing that speaker says or writes
that mentionssomething or somebody else (Oxford Advanced
Learner Dictionary, 8th Edition).Yule (1997) defined it as an action
in which communicator utilizes a linguistic formsin order to direct
listeners into identification of something. Sullivan (in Allan
&Jaszczolt, 2012) described it as the relation that obtains between
as use of linguisticexpression and what it stands for or denotes.
Russel (in Allan & Jaszczolt, 2012)differentiated between
reference and denotation. As reference is specific andmainstream
link between an expression, referent or role; referring is simply
labelling or tagging something. Meanwhile -according to him-
denotation is a unique linkbetween expression and something, with
a satisfying specific condition andsemantically well-expressed.
Strawson (1950) challenged this theory by emphasizingthat
referring is not done by the expression, but it is a thing that can be
utilized byhuman to do.
Reference is done by and depends on speakers’ goal,
inference is listeners’ task to discover the relationship between
expressed entities with the words (Yule,1997). It is also defined as
‘making assertion’ using what listener or reader catch from
speakers’ or writers’ linguistic expression, and accepted as truth
even it was clearly stated (Norvig, 2007). It is clearly a cognitive
process happening inside the human (listener/reader) mind,
transforming available and explicit information to create
understanding (Wills, 2017). One essential fact of inference is that
it transfers
 the original meaning or information, directing into something
which explicitly unstated (Chan & McDermott, 2006).

E. Deixis and types

The notion deixis has become one of the important topics that
merits our attention. Deixis is a semantics notion, which is
originally derived from a Greek word meaning pointing or
indicating via language. Any linguistic form used to accomplish this
pointing is called a deictic expression. The adjective deictic
(deikticos) has the sense of demonstrative. When we notice a
strange object and ask, "What's that?" we are using a deictic
expression (that) to indicate something in the immediate context.
Deictic expressions are also sometimes called indexical.
The notion of what deixis is relatively uncontroversial among
the linguists. Lyons (1977:637) offers the following definition of
deixis: "the location and identification of persons, objects, events,
processes and activities being talked about, or referred to, in relation
to the spatiotemporal context created and sustained by the act of
utterance and the participation in it, typically of a single speaker and
at least one addressee."
Similarly, Yule (1996:9) argues that deixis is a form of referring
that is tied to the speaker's context, with the most basic distinction
between deictic expressions being "near speaker" versus "away
from the speaker." If the referents being referred to are near the
speaker, the proximal terms such as this, here, now are used. By
contrast, the distal terms such as that, there,then are employed
provided that the referents are away from the speaker. Matthews
(1997:89) states that deixis is "they way in which the reference of
certain elements in a sentence is determined in relation to a specific
speaker and addressee and a specific time and place of utterance."
 From the three definitions given above, it can be inferred that the
notion deixis involves the pointing of certain referents that belong
primarily to the category of persons (objects), speaker-addressee
relationship, space, and time, context of utterance. Respectively,
this category is termed person deixis, social deixis, spatial deixis,
temporal deixis, and discourse deixis. We shall examine each of
these in detail.
1) Person Deixis
Person deixis basically operates on a three-part division,
exemplified by thepronouns for first person or the speaker (I),
second person or the addressee (you) andthird persons or other
participants (he, she, it). What is important to note here is that
thethird person singular forms encode gender, which is not deictic
by nature because it is notsensitive to aspects of the speech situation
(Cruse, 2000). Another point worth makingwith regard to the
person deixis is the use of plural pronouns, which can be in the
Reference, Anaphora, and Deixis: an Overview (Setiono
Sugiharto.
2) representative or true
If the pronoun we is spoken or written by asingle speaker or writer
to represent the group he or she refers to, it is the case
ofrepresentative use. On the other, if it used to refer to the speaker
and the group, thepronoun we is employed in its true sense. The
representative and true use of pronoun weare also called inclusive
and exclusivewe, respectively. The inclusive-exclusivedistinction is
explicable in the utterance Let's go (to some friends) and Let us go
(tosomeone who has captured the speaker and friends). The action
of going is inclusive inthe first, but exclusive in the second.

F. Definiteness and Indefinitness

 Kreidler (1998:143) argues that referring expression is definite
if the referentfrom the physical-social context is identifiable for
both speaker and hearer. The directive put the book on the table
contains definite referring expression the book and the
table.Moreover, ifthe speaker assumes that the addressee can make
the necessary implicatureto relate a new reference to a previous one,
this is also the case of referring expression.The utterance I bought a
new house in a quite neighborhood. The kitchen is very big has
adefinite expression the kitchen. We can also say that a referent is
definite is the referringexpression is fixed and therefore presumably
part of the addressee's general knowledge,like Mount Everest.
Finally, referring expression is definite if the referent has a unique
ornearly unique position in the more limited world of the speaker
and addressee. Forexample, the definite referring expression of this
type can be seen in the interrogativehave youreceived the reports
from the doctor?
The central idea of the indefinite referring expression is that the
identity ofreferent is not germane to the message, and that the
hearer has to make a choice from theextension of the noun
(Krediler, 1998; Cruse, 2000). It must be emphasized here
thatindefiniteness is not restricted to the indefinite article only. The
following sentences alsocontain indefinite expressions (Cruse,
2000:308):Come up and see me sometime. I expect he's hiding
somewhere.You'll manage somehow.Are you looking for
something?

Specific and Non-Specific Reference

In order to identify whether a referent has a specific or non
specific reference, itis of importance to understand the discourse
rather than the expression of the referent persei. It is the discourse
that determines the specificity or non-specificity of a
reference.Consider now the following sentence: Ex : Every evening
at six o'clock a heron flies over the chalet.
The indefinite noun phrase a heron in this sentence can, under
one interpretation,be understood to refer to a specific referent. It
refers to a particular heron that the speakerhas in mind. We can
further support the specificity of the reference by providing the
samecontext as follow:
Ex : It nests in the ground of the chateau.
The pronoun It in is co-referential with a heron in. Again let us
observe thesentence below:
Ex : I trust we can find answers to all your questions.
The referent answer in can be understood to refer to a non-
specific referencesince both speaker and hearer are not really sure
about the referent being spoken. Itshould be admitted, however, that
very often we cannot exactly tell whether an indefinite noun phrase
is being used with specific reference or not as it is dependent very
muchupon how the speaker/hearer interprets it. Hence, due to the
alleged ambiguity of theindefinite noun phrase in the sentence
below, it can be construed as being usedspecifically or non-
specifically:
Ex : I want to marry a girl with blue eyes.
Under one interpretation, the indefinite noun phrase is used
specifically if itimplies the existence of some individual who
satisfies the description of having blue eyes,and thus can be equated
to having the same sense as the definite noun phrase the girl withthe
blue eyes in the same context. On the other hand, it is used non-
specifically providedthat no presupposition or implication exists.
 BAB III
CONCLUSION

There are some implicature types, Conventional implicature and the two types
of conversational implicature. Grice’s definitions of these terms along with some
of his examples. In the case of conventional implicature “the conventional
meaning of the words used will determine what is implicated. The concept of
presupposition is often treated as the relationship between two propositions. In
the case below, we have a sentence that contains a proposition (p) and another
proposition (q), which is easily presupposed by any listener. speech act is usually
performed within a situation that provides contextual elements that help interpret
thespeaker intention. Speech-Act-Theoretic Semantic. Reference is defined as a
thing that speaker says or writes that mentions something or somebody else.
Deixis is a semantics notion, which is originally derived from a Greek word
meaning pointing or indicating via language. Kreidler (1998:143) argues that
referring expression is definite if the referent from the physical-social context is
identifiable for both speaker and hearer. The directive put the book on the table
contains definite referring expression the book and the table.
 REFERENCE

Sugiarto Setiono. 2004. Reference, Anaphora and Deixis: On Overview.

Daniel W. Harris. 2014. Speech Act Theoretic Semantic.