lOMoARcPSD|1460510

Chapter 1 - Resumen Semantics

Semántica Inglesa (UNED)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Jon Manero (jonalonsomanero@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|1460510

PART 1: PRELIMINARIES
CHAPTER 1: Semantics in Linguistics

Main points:

• Definition of Semantics: study of meaning communicated through language

(p. 3) à Interdependence MEANING-COMMUNICATION- LANGUAGE
• Relations Semantics – other disciplines (Semiotics, Pragmatics)
• Scope of Semantics: Difference linguistics vs. encyclopedic knowledge.
• Semantics Analysis
• Model of Grammarà basic aspects in Semantics
ü Different levels of analysisà as a continuum. •
ü Word vs. sentence meaningà recursivity; compositionality. •
ü Reference / sense •
ü Levels of languageà utterance, sentence and proposition (p. 13)
ü Literal vs. Non-literal meaning (figurative)à continuing process (p. 14)

1.1 Introduction

Semantics is the study of meaning communicated through language and it is a

sub-field of Linguistics. The speaker of a language has different types of linguistic
knowledge (how to pronounce, construct sentences, knowing the meaning of words
and sentences) and to reflect this, Linguistic description has different levels of analysis
(phonology, syntax, semantics). Semantics is the study of the meanings of words and
sentences.

Since Linguistic description is an attempt to reflect a speaker’s knowledge, the

semanticist is committed to describing (semantic) knowledge: contradiction, ambiguous
sentences, entailment…

Entailment means a relationship between sentences so that if a sentence A entails

(implica) a sentence B, then if we know A we automatically know B.

1.6. Henry murdered his bank manager

1.7. Henr’s bank manager is dead.

Semantics is a very broad field of study within linguistics. In addition, philosophy

and psychology also investigate the creation and transmission of meaning.

1.2 Semantics and Semiotics

Linguistic meaning is a special subset of the more general human ability to use
signs.
1.8. Those vultures mean there’s a dead animal up ahead.
1.9. His high temperatura mau mean he has a virus
1.10. The red flag means it’s dangerous to swim
1.11. Those stripes on his uniform mean that he is a sergeant.

2016/17 A.I.
Downloaded by Jon Manero (jonalonsomanero@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|1460510

The verb mean is being put in several uses here.

These uses reflect the all-pervasive human habit of identifying and creating sign
(symbols*): Signification.

A *symbol is one thing (an object or a concept) that represents, stands for or suggests
another (idea, visual image, belief, action or material entity).

Scholars like Ferdinand de Saussure (1974) have stressed that the study of
linguistic meaning is a part of this general study of the use of sign systems, called
semiotics (study if the use of sign system). Semioticians investigate the types of
relationship that may hold between a sign and the object it represents (or in Saussure’s
terminology between signifier and its signified). One basic distinction, due to Peirce,
is between icon, index and symbol.

– An icon is where there is a similarity between a sign and what it

represents, as for example between a portrait and its real life subject, or a
diagram of an engine and the real engine.

– An index (indicio) is where the sign is closely associated with its

signified, often in a causal relationship; thus smoke is an index of fire.

– A symbol is where there is only a conventional link between the sign and
its signified, as in the use of insignia to denote military ranks.

1.3 Three Challenges in doing semantics

Definitions theory: (from word definition to sentence meaning) This theory would
simply state that to give the meaning of linguistic expressions we should establish
definitions of the meanings of words; which, by combination, form phrase and sentence
definitions according to grammatical rules.

ü First is the problem of circularity. How can we state the meaning of a word,
except in other words, either in the same or a different language? Can we
ever step outside language in order to describe it, or are we forever involved
in circular definitions? To understand the definition of a word, we must
understand the words in the definition.
ü Second, how to make sure our definitions of word meanings are exact? If
we ask where the meanings of words exist, the answer must be: in the
minds of native speakers of the language. Thus meaning is a kind of
knowledge. Does our linguistic knowledge differ from encyclopedic
knowledge?

Kinds of knowledge:

- Linguistic knowledge: meaning of words.

- Encyclopedic knowledge: the way the world is.

2016/17 A.I.
Downloaded by Jon Manero (jonalonsomanero@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|1460510

But... taking the example in Saeed (p.6)àDifferent Enciclopedic knowledge,

but the same linguistic knowledge.

"I dreamt I was swallowed by a whale"

it is a fish
it is a mamal

Different linguistic knowledge but the same encyclopedic knowledge: Speakers of

a language may differ in their understanding of what a word means.

Speakers may differ in their understanding of what a word means. There are also
experts, who master a particular jargon.

An idiolect, the technical term for an individual’s particular language.

ü Third; contributing of context to meaning. If features of context are part of an

utterance’s meaning, how can we include in our definitions the number of
possible situations, and therefore of interpretations?

The same utterance in a different context might mean a different thing.

These three issues: circularity; the question of whether linguistic knowledge is

different from general knowledge; and the problem of the contribution of context to
meaning, show that our definitions theory is too simple.

1.4 Meeting the challenges

All linguistic theories seem to agree that linguistic analysis is incomplete without
semantics. We need to establish a semantic component in our theories. How can we
meet the three challenges outlined in the last section? Clearly we have to replace a
simple theory of definitions with a theory that successfully solves these problems.

To cope with the problem of circularity, one solution is to design a semantic

metalanguage with which to describe the semantic units and rules of all languages
(tool of decription). An ideal metalanguage would be neutral with respect to any natural
languages; and it should satisfy scientific criteria of clarity, economy, consistency, and
so on.

2016/17 A.I.
Downloaded by Jon Manero (jonalonsomanero@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|1460510

The knowledge a speaker has of the meaning of words is often compared to a

mental lexicon or dictionary.

In tackling the third problem, of context, one traditional solution has been to
assume a split in an expression's meaning between conventional (the local contextual
effects) or literal (a context-free element) meaning. The other side of such an approach
is to investigate the role of contextual information in communication, and try to establish
theories of how speakers amalgamate knowledge of context with linguistic knowledge.
It seems that speakers and hearers cooperate in using various types of contextual
information. Listeners have a very active role, using what has been said, together with
background knowledge, to make inferences about what the speaker meant. The study
of these processes and the role in them of context, is often assigned to a special area
of study called pragmatics.

1.5 Semantics in a Model of Grammar

Another way of describing the different level of analysis, is to say that linguistic
knowledge forms distinct modules, or is modularized. As a result, many linguistic
theories are themselves modularized, having something like our boxes in figure 1.1.

What kind of module is semantics? The answer varies from theory to theory.

Some writers believe that meaning cannot be identified as a separate level,

autonomous from the study of other levels of grammar; meaning being a product of all
linguistic levels. Furthermore it is impossible to separate linguistic knowledge from
extra-linguistic knowledge (a continuum), according to Cognitive Grammar.

However, many other linguists do see some utility in maintaining both types of
distinction: between linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge; and within linguistic
knowledge, identifying distinct modules for knowledge about pronunciation, grammar,
and meaning.

Word meaning and sentence meaning

Knowing a language, especially one’s native language, involves knowing

thousands of words. Some linguists call the mental store of these words a lexicon, a
large, but finite body of knowledge, not completely static (we are continually learning
and forgetting).

Phrases and sentences also have meaning of course, but an important

difference between word meaning and phrase and sentence meaning concerns
productivity (we are able to create infinite sentences, but new words are an infrequent
occurrence in sentences).

2016/17 A.I.
Downloaded by Jon Manero (jonalonsomanero@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|1460510

One of generative grammar's most important insights (Chomsky): a relatively

small number of combinatory rules may allow speakers to use a finite set of words to
create a very large, perhaps infinite, number of sentences. To allow this the rules for
sentence formation must be recursive, allowing repetitive embedding or coordination
of syntactic categories.

The meanings of sentences cannot be listed in a lexicon like the meanings of

words: they must be created by rules of combination too. Semanticists often describe
this by saying that sentence meaning is compositional. This term means that the
meaning of an expression is determined by the meaning of its component parts and the
way in which they are combined.

Semantic rules have to be compositional too.

1.6 Some Important Assumptions

Reference and sense

Nominals refer to specific entities in the world (a dog, she, Francisco) The
relationship by which language hooks onto the world is usually called reference. The
semantic links between elements within the vocabulary system is an aspect of their
sense, or meaning.

Words stand in a relationship to the world, or our mental classification of it: they
allow us to identify parts of the world, and make statements about them.

Utterances, sentences, and propositions: different levels of language.

A word: minimal permutable element, separated by silence (spoken) or spaces

(written). It is a dictionary entry

An utterance is created by
speaking (or writing) any piece of
language; real pieces of speech, by
filtering out certain types of phonetic
information we can abstract
grammatical elements. Actual language
use.

Sentences, on the other hand,

are abstract grammatical elements
obtained from utterances.

One further step of abstraction is

possible for special purposes: to identify
propositions: descriptions of states of
affairs and which some writers see as a basic element of sentence meaning. Logicians
commonly use formulae for propositions in which the verb is viewed as a function, and
its subject and any objects as arguments of the function.

2016/17 A.I.
Downloaded by Jon Manero (jonalonsomanero@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|1460510

Literal and non-literal meaning

We distinguish between instances where the speaker speaks in a neutral,

factually accurate way (literal meaning), and instances where the speaker deliberately
describes something in untrue or impossible (or poetical, satirical) terms in order to
achieve special effects (non-literal meaning).

Non-literal uses of language are traditionally called figurative and are described
by a host of rhetorical terms including metaphor, irony, metonymy, synecdoche,
hyperbole, litotes, etc.

It proves difficult to draw a firm line between literal and non-literal uses of
language.

Metaphorical extension, where some new idea is depicted in terms of something

more familiar. After a while such expressions become fossilized and their metaphorical
quality is no longer apparent to speakers. A faded or dead metaphor becomes part of
normal literal language.

Some scholars see metaphor as an integral part of human categorization: a basic

way of organizing our thoughts about the world.

Whole semantic fields are systematically organized around central metaphors

such as time is money.

In what we can call the literal language theory, metaphors, and other non-literal
uses of language require a different processing strategy than literal language. One view
is that hearers recognize non-literal uses as semantically odd that is factually
nonsensical, like “eating a horse”, but then are motivated to give them some
interpretation by an assumption that speakers generally are trying to make sense. The
hearer then makes inferences in order to make sense out of a non-literal utterance.

Semantics and pragmatics

A similarly difficult distinction is between semantics and pragmatics. These

terms denote related and complementary fields of study, both concerning the
transmission of meaning through language.

2016/17 A.I.
Downloaded by Jon Manero (jonalonsomanero@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|1460510

Semantics is concerned with sentence meaning and pragmatics with speaker

meaning. This suggests that words and sentences have a meaning independently of
any particular use, which meaning is then incorporated by a speaker into the particular
meaning she wants to convey at any one time (context).

The basic idea is that semantics deals with conventional meaning, that is to say,
with those aspects of meaning which do not vary much from context to context, while
pragmatics deals with aspects of individual usage and context-dependent meaning.

We can say there are certain overlappings between Semantics and pragmatics.

Pragmatics as the study of the speaker's/hearer's interpretation of language, as

suggested by Rudolph Carnap. If we abstract from the user of the language and
analyse only the expressions, we are in the field of semantics.

EXERCISES

1.1 We made the claim that meaning is compositional, that is that the meaning
of complex linguistic expressions is built up from the meaning of their constituent parts.

However, there are a number of areas where compositionality is restricted and

one of these is compound words. Below is a list of English compound nouns. One very
common pattern is for the second element to identify the type of thing the compound is,
while the first is some kind of qualifier. The qualification can identify a subtype, be what
the thing is used for, what the thing is made of, where or when the thing happens, etc.
So a teacup is a cup used for tea. Divide the list below into two types: one where the
meaning is predictable from the meaning of the two parts and a second type where the
meaning is not predictable in this way. For the first type, which shows a certain
compositionality, how would you characterize the type of qualification made by the first
part of the compound? Check your explanations against a dictionary's entries.

agony aunt flea market monkey taste bud

business
eye candy human being doormat
sunglasses
houseboat speed limit hotdog
climate change
shopping list businessman redhead
greenhouse
blackmail foxhound video game
mousetrap
firsthand mailbox
sweatshop
housewife spin doctor
daydream
software bus stop
horseshoe
boyfriend gravy train
nightmare

2016/17 A.I.
Downloaded by Jon Manero (jonalonsomanero@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|1460510

1.2 We raised the issue of a speaker's linguistic and encyclopedic knowledge.

Most English speakers will have encountered the words below, which we partly define
below by their part of speech and some indication of context of use. Try to give an
exact definition of their meanings, as if you were writing your own dictionary:

• sabre (noun: a weapon)

• yew (noun: a tree)
• copper (noun: a metal)
• vodka (noun: a drink)
• hay (noun: farming product)

How would you distinguish between the following pairs, using your original
definitions as a basis?

• sabre/rapier yew/oak copper/bronze vodka/gin hay/straw

When you have done this exercise, you may like to compare your definitions
against a dictionary.

1.3 We used the term reference for the use of nominal (noun phrases and
names) and pronouns to identify or pick out individuals in the world. For each of the
following, imagine the sentence being spoken in an average kind of situation. Discuss
which elements would be used to refer in your situation.

a. This schedule is crazy.

b. She enjoyed herself at the party.
c. There's a policeman looking at your car.
d. The script calls for a short fat guy.
e. You asked for a ham sandwich; this is a ham sandwich.

1.4 Discuss the importance of contextual information in understanding an

utterance of the following sentences:

a. Take another shot.

b. The Tigers beat the Bulldogs again.
c. Isabel is tall.
d. It's too hot in here.
e. Everyone has gone home.

1.5 Discuss the use of figurative language in the following newspaper headlines:

a. Women still face a glass ceiling.

b. UK faces debt time bomb from ageing population.
c. One last push and a pointless bill is born, to no joy but to the relief of all
involved. [On the passage of a bill of law through the Irish parliament]
d. US report puts Indian IT in the dock.

2016/17 A.I.

Downloaded by Jon Manero (jonalonsomanero@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|1460510

e. Spain thrown lifeline by Brussels with extra year to cut deficit.

SOLUTIONS

1.1 We can divide the compounds into two groups:

Semantically transparent Semantically nontransparent

businessman agony aunt

bus stop blackmail
climate change boyfriend
daydream eye candy
doormat firsthand
foxhound flea market
horseshoe gravy train
houseboat greenhouse
human being hotdog
mailbox housewife
mousetrap monkey business
shopping list nightmare
speed limit redhead
sunglasses software
video game spin doctor
sweatshop
taste bud

You may not agree with this division: it depends on your own judgment. One important
issue is whether the compound is being used literally or not. For example doormat can
be use literally for a mat at the door, where it seems transparent, or figuratively for a
passive person, where it does not.

For the transparent group, we can suggest a couple of structures: one is of qualifier-
head, Y–X, where the compound is a type of X used for/as Y. So houseboat is a type of
boat used like a house, for living in. Mailbox is a type of box for mail. This pattern also
seems to apply to bus stop, doormat, foxhound, horseshoe, mousetrap, shopping list,
and sunglasses. Another similar pattern is where the qualifier Y assigns an attribute to
X that subdivides X, i.e. an X that is Y.

This seems to fit compounds like human being, climate change, daydream, speed limit,
and video game, which we could say identify specific types of the head noun. This
leaves businessman, which is a part of an occupational group with businesswoman,
postman, policeman, etc., which does not quite fit either of these two suggested
patterns. These compounds, where both Y and X are nouns, have three main patterns:
(a) where X works in or controls Y (businessman, fireman, gasman, postman); (b)
where X sells, delivers or makes Y (milkman, newspaperman); and (c) where X
belongs to a professional group named by Y (policeman, seaman, clergyman). These
are part of a larger and very old system of English compounds ending in –man; see
2016/17 A.I.

Downloaded by Jon Manero (jonalonsomanero@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|1460510

Peitsara (2006) for more details.

1.2 This exercise just asks you to provide a definition for each word. My definition for
sabre, for example, would simply be a kind of sword. This wouldn't help me distinguish
between it and the other type of sword, rapier. To do any better I would have to use a
dictionary. This might tell me that a sabre is a heavy sword with a curved blade, while a
rapier is a sword with a long slender blade. Similarly my definitions of yew “darkgreen
evergreen tree” and oak “large deciduous tree,” based on local species, are not very
informative. My definition of copper is an orange-colored metal and bronze is an alloy
that contains copper, though I would need to look up the other metal(s) involved. Vodka
and gin are separated in my personal knowledge base by the juniper used to flavor gin
and associations with different countries. Hay is used for feeding animals and straw for
bedding or flooring but their plant origins are rather a mystery to me, as an urban
dweller. The conclusion we might draw is that speakers may use words without having
much encyclopedic knowledge about their extensions.

1.3 a. This schedule is crazy: when this sentence is uttered, the nominal this schedule
would typically be a referring expression, because the speaker would be identifying a
specific schedule. The referring expressions in b are she, herself and the party. In c: a
policeman, your car. In d: the script. In e: you, this.

1.4

a. Context is required to select the intended sense of shot, which among its senses
could relate to firing a gun, a scoring attempt in a sport like soccer or golf, a view
from a specific camera angle, a small glass of strong alcoholic drink, etc. The
selected sense of shot determines the meaning of take. So contextual knowledge
is required to disambiguate the words.
b. Although in print the capital letters give a clue that Tigers and Bulldogs are
names, this would not be evident in speech. Even so, situational knowledge is
needed to identify the referents of these expressions, such as college football
teams.
c. As with the last example, contextual knowledge is needed to determine who the
name Isabel is being used to identify. In addition tall is a gradable adjective that
needs some kind of contextual scale to be evaluated: is Isabel tall for a child or
an adult basketball player?
d. Contextual knowledge is needed to determine the location identified by the
adverb here. The expression too hot, containing the gradable adjective hot, has
to be evaluated against a contextually assumed purpose. This could simply be
“too hot to be comfortable” but could be any assumed activity.
e. As with gradable adjective, quantifiers need some contextual modification based
on the knowledge of the participants. Everyone is clearly not intended to mean
everyone in the world and so must be understood relative to a group known to
the speaker and audience.

2016/17 A.I.

Downloaded by Jon Manero (jonalonsomanero@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|1460510

1.5 Each of these examples involves a metaphorical use of language.

a. The expression glass ceiling is a metaphorical way of referring to covert barriers

to promotion or advancement, introduced originally with reference to women but
used subsequently for other groups. The metaphor has been used since the
1970s so is relatively conventionalized.
b. Metaphors characterizing economic issues as war are frequent (for example
trade wars). Here a future economic crisis is metaphorically viewed as a bomb,
specifically a time bomb, suggesting the threat is already present and inexorable.
The metaphor sets up a chronological parallel between the aging process and
the bomb's timing device.
c. Here the metaphor creates an analogy between the passage of a parliamentary
bill and childbirth. The choice of metaphor is given an extra dimension by the fact
that the bill related to laws governing abortion in Ireland.
d. In the dock is an idiomatic way of describing being on trial in (an English-style)
court. It is a conventional metaphor for being subject to critical scrutiny.
e. The nautical metaphor throw a lifeline is conventionalized for helping someone.
In chapter 11 we discuss the idea that metaphors can become conventionalized
to the point that they lose their figurative value and become dead metaphors.
This example also includes metonymy, where the European Commission is
identified by its location, Brussels, and Spain is used for the Spanish
government.

2016/17 A.I.

Downloaded by Jon Manero (jonalonsomanero@gmail.com)