Eng.

4103 + 4111

Section (A)

1. Semantics (1)

Semantics as a subfield of linguistics is the study of meaning in language. Semantics deals with the
meanings of words, and how the meanings of sentences are derived from them.

First, language meaning communicates information about the world around us: we can refer to
person, places and both (concrete) things and (abstract) ideas or concepts, and then assert that these things
have certain properties or stand in certain relationships to one another (such as the property ‘is asleep’ or
the relations ‘ is a brother of’, ‘is located at’, and ‘strongly dislikes’).

Second, meanings are also things that are grasped and produced in the mind of the speaker/hearer
as she uses language; meanings are therefore a cognitive and psychological phenomenon. When we ask
whether the meaning of a noun like bird is more like a dictionary definition, a mental image, or the concept
of the typical bird, we are asking about the cognitive aspect of meaning, not its reference (the coherent of
bird is an actual bird or birds, not something in the mind).

Third, language meaning is a social phenomenon, in that relationships between the speaker and
hearer come into play in all sorts of ways in determining what our utterances mean. Language doesn’t just
present present information independent of the context of an utterance.

Forth, meanings of words and sentences have a variety of important relationship among themselves.
It is important to realize that information content, cognitive meaning, and social (pragmatic) meaning are
complementary aspects of the general phenomenon of meaning (semantics).

2. Semantics (4)

Mental Images

If a word’s dictionary definition is not all there is to meaning, what else is there? One possibility is
that a word’s meaning is a mental image. This is an attractive idea in many ways because words often do
seem to conjure up particular mental images. Reading the words Mona Lisa, for example, may well cause an
image of Leonardo Da Vinci’s painting to appear in your mind.

One reason is that different people’s mental images may be very different from each other, without
the words really seeming to vary much in meaning from individual to individual. For a student, the word
Lecture will probably be associated with an image of one person standing in front of a blackboard and talking,
and may also include things like the backs of the heads of one’s fellow students. The image associated with
the word lecture in the mind of a teacher, however, is more likely to consist of an audience of students sitting
in rows facing forward, and may include things like the feel of chalk in one’s hand, and so on. A lecture as
seen from a teacher’s perspective is actually quite a bit different from a lecture as seen from a student’s
perspective. Even so, both the student and the teacher understand the word lecture as meaning more or
less the same thing, despite the different in mental images.

3. Semantic (5)

Meaning and Reference

Language is used to talk about things in the outside world, and many words seem to stand for (or
refer to) actual objects or relations in the world. It seems reasonable, then, to consider the actual thing a
word refers to, that is, its referent – as one aspect of the word’s meaning.

If meanings were defined as the actual things an expression refers to, what would we do about words
for things don’t exist? There is simply no actual thing that the words Santa Claus refer to, yet obviously these
words are not meaningless. (Note that this would not cause a problem for a theory of mental images, since
almost everyone has a clear mental image of Santa Claus.). Language can be used to talk about fiction,
fantasy, or speculation in addition to the real world, and any complete explanation of meaning must take
account of this fact.

Some sentences about the real world appear to present problems for the idea that an expression’s
meaning is just its referent. If meaning is the same as reference, then “two expressions refer to the same
thing they must mean the same thing. It follows that you should be able to substitute one for the other in
the sentence without changing the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

4. Semantic (7)

Meaning, Truth Conditions, and Truth Value

Sentence meaning even more than word meaning, may seem like a difficult concept to define; but
perhaps it can be understood more clearly if instead of asking, “What is sentence meaning?” We take an
indirect approach and ask, “What do you know when you know what a sentence mean?” Stop and think
about this for a moment, using a particular example, for instance, Bill Clinton is asleep.

Obviously, to know what is sentence means is not the same as to know that Bill Clinton is asleep,
since any English-speaking person knows what the sentence means, but relatively few people know at any
given time whether Bill Clinton is asleep or not.

You know, for example, that in order for the sentence Bill Clinton is asleep to be true, the individual
designated by the words Bill Clinton must be in the condition designated by the words is asleep.

Note that the truth conditions and truth value of a sentence relate it to the world but in a somewhat
different way than ordinary reference relates particular words or expressions to the world. Sentences about
Santa Claus have not real-world referent. Interestingly, it is less clear that sentences about Santa Claus have
truth value: is the sentence Santa Claus is asleep right now true or false? Many people have the intuition
that asking such a question is inappropriate the sentence is neither true nor false, since we know that Santa
Claus doesn’t exist, and giving either answer would seem to imply the he does not exist.

5. Syntax

The following sentences involve either a non-canonical complement or a non-canonical

subject. In each case, provide A Related Sentence with a non-canonical complement or subject.

By a non-canonical subject, a constituent functions as the subject of a predicate although it is not a

sister of the predicate.

1. Which school did she say she was going to attend?

I wonder {which school did she say she was going to attend}
In both case examples, the predicate say she was going to attend is not immediately preceded
by a subject. This is normally necessary as illustrates:
• You say she was going to attend.

The obvious explanation for the absence of the subject and the second sentence is that the
wh-word functions as the subject.

2. He is definitely sure to write a proposal for this project.

Here, the predicate “to write a proposal for this project” is not immediately preceded by a
subject. This is normally necessary as the following contrast illustrates:

They consider him to write a proposal for this project.

The obvious explanation for the absence of the subject to write a proposal for this project is
that He, the subject of “is definitely sure to write a proposal for this project, also functions as subject
of “to write a proposal for this project”.

3. It has often seemed to be likely that he will quit as manager of the company.
He seemed to quit as manager of the company.
The obvious explanation for the absence of the subject to be likely that he will quit as manager
of the company is that He, the subject of “to be likely that he will quit as manager of the company,
also functions as subject of “to write a proposal for this subject”. We have considered so far that we
have a related sentence with a canonical complement or a canonical subject.

6. Elaborate on the statement: “Many sentences involving a noncanonical complement” or “a

noncanonical subject” have related sentences with a canonical complements or subjects.

One important point to note about sentences of the kind that we are concerned with here is that in
many cases there are related sentences involving canonical complements or canonical subjects.
Related to (1) and the subordinate clause in (2), we have the following:

(20) Hobbs annoyed who?

(21) Hobbs annoyed someone.

(20) is what is known as an echo-question, a question which echoes someone’s statement. (21) might
be called an indefinite statement. Related to (7) is the following indefinite statement:

(22) Someone annoyed Rhodes.

Related to (9): and the subordinate clause in (10); we have the following:

(23) You think who annoyed Rhodes?

(24) You think someone annoyed Rhodes.

Related to (15); we have the following:

(25) It seemed that Hobbs was a fool.

Finally, related to (18); we have the following:

(26) Someone considered Rhodes to be a fool.

Thus, all the examples we have considered so far have a related sentence with a canonical complement or
a canonical subject. It is important to note, however, that this is not always the case.

We can look first at (27) and the bracketed subordinate clause in (28).

(27) Who the hell did Hobbs annoy?

(28) I wonder [who the hell Hobbs annoyed].

Neither of the following is possible:

(29) *Hobbs annoyed who the hell?

(30) *Hobbs annoyed someone the hell.

Here, then, there seems to be no related sentence with a canonical complement. The situation is similar with
the following:

(31) Hobbs is rumored to be a spy.

Here, the following is ungrammatical:

(32) * They rumor Hobbs to be a spy.

Here, then, there seems to be no related sentence with a canonical subject.

Finally, we can consider the following:

(33) Hobbs tends to annoy Rhodes.

Here, the following is ungrammatical:

(34) * It tends that Hobbs annoys Rhodes.

Again, then, there seems to be no related sentence with a canonical subject.

7. What problems might be encountered when the notions of subjects and objects are defined?

How might we define the notions of subject and object? In both cases, problem arise. We can look
first at subject.

We assumed in earlier discussion that subjects combine with predicates. So, we might propose the
following definition:

(1) A subject is an expression that combines with a predicate.

Of course, we would have to say what exactly we mean by “combines with” here. One might take it
to mean “is a sister of”. Given P & P assumptions, this would work with all the examples we have considered
so far. It would not work, however, given PSG assumptions. Recall that on these assumptions the italicized
strings in examples like the following are not clauses as they are on P & P assumptions but two separate
complements of the preceding verbs:

(2) Hobbs considers Tramper to be a genius.

(3) Hobbs considers Tramper a genius.

It follows that it is not just the subject Tramper in these examples that is a sister of the following
predicate but also the preceding verb. Thus, given PSG assumptions, sentences like (2) and (3) pose a
problem for (1). There are, however, more serious problems. Particularly important are verb-initial sentences.
A relevant example is the following English interrogative.

(4) Is Hobbs in town?

In English, only auxiliaries can appear before the subject. Other languages, however, are less
restrictive. In German, any verb can appear before the subject in an interrogative. (5) illustrates.

(5) Kennt er die Antwort?

Knows he the answer?
“Does he know the answer?”

We find similar examples in earlier forms of English; for example, the following in Shakespeare’s
Coriolanus.

(6) Spoke he of me?

Thus, problems arise when we try to define the notions of “object”.

 Section (B)

1. Written discourse

With written texts, some of the problems associated with spoken transcripts are absent: we do not
have to contend with people all speaking at once, the writer has usually had time to think about what to say
and how to say it, and the sentences are usually well formed in a way that the utterances of natural,
spontaneous talk are not. As with spoken discourse, if we do find such regularities, and if they can be shown
as elements that have different realizations in different languages, or that they may present problems for
learners in other ways, then the insights of written discourse analysis might be applicable, in specifiable
ways, to language teaching.

We shall consider some grammatical regularities observable in well-formed written texts, and how
the structuring of sentences has implications for units such as paragraphs, and for the progression of the
whole texts. We shall also look at how the grammar and sentences of text, otherwise known as cohesion.
Basically, most texts display links from sentence to sentence in terms of grammatical features such as
pronominalization ellipsis.

(1.23) If you’d to give someone a phone for Christmas, there are plenty to choose from. Whichever you go
for, if it’s to be used on the BT [British Telecom] network, make sure it’s approved – look for the label
with a green circle to confirm this. Phones labelled with a red triangle are prohibited.

(Which? December 1989: 599)

The italicized items are all interpretable in relation to items in previous sentences. Plenty is assumed
to mean ‘plenty of phones’; you in the first and second sentence are interpreted as the same ‘you’;
whichever is interpreted as ‘whichever telephone’; it is understood as the telephone, and this as ‘the
fact that it is approved’. These are features of grammatical cohesion, but there are lexical clues too:
go for is a synonym of choose, and there is lexical repetition of phone, and of label.

2. A Brief Historical Overview

Discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the relationship between language and the contexts
in which it is used. It grew out of work in different disciplines in the 1960s and early 1970s, including
linguistics, semiotics, psychology, anthropology, and sociology. Discourse analysts study language in use:
written texts of all kinds, and spoken data, from conversation to highly institutionalized forms of talk.

• Dell Hymes provided a sociological perspective with the study of speech in its social
setting (e.g. Hymes 1964)
• British discourse analysis was greatly influenced by M.A.K. Halliday’s functional
approach to language (e.g. Halliday 1973), which in turn has connections with the
 Prague School of linguists and Halliday’s framework emphasizes the social functions of
language and the thematic and informational structure of speech and writing.
• American discourse analysis has been dominated by work within the
ethnomethodological tradition, which emphasizes the research method of close
observation of groups of people communicating in natural settings and examines types
of speech event such as storytelling, greeting rituals and verbal duels in different
cultural and social settings (e.g. Gumperz and Hymes 1972). What is often called
conversation analysis.
• Discourse analysis has grown into a wide-ranging and heterogeneous discipline which
finds its unity in the description of language above the sentence and an interest in the
contexts and cultural influences which affects language in use.