Semántica Del Inglés

Semántica del Inglés
Primer semestre
BLOQUE 1
1. Semantics as part of grammar

Noam Chomsky
The language faculty: mental ability/disposition which allows to acquire a language (native
language)
Competence / performance an act/ put to use the competence
State/knowledge which is based on genetic disposition to acquire a language
Language is a faculty, a type of 'knowledge' a speaker has about his/her language. A mental
property: it lays in human brains even when it is not being used.
Therefore, the theory must distinguish between that permanent knowledge (competence) and
the use we make of it in specific situations (performance).
The aim of this course is: the speaker's semantic competence
Semantic competence includes

• Word meaning (Lexicology)
• Sentence meaning (compositional semantics).
Saeed (1997 : 3) "Semantics is the study of meaning communicated through language".

• What is language?
• What is communication?
• What's the relation between the two?
• Is communication possible without language?
▪ Animal communication does not involve language.

▪ Pointing, gesturing, etc., do not involve language either.
These forms of communication have something in common: inference. As meaning is not
literally communicated, it has to be inferred.
Context-dependence. Inferences have to be based on contextual evidence. Example of lecturer
signaling students to enter the room cause the class is about to start.
But usually, human communication involves the use of language and inferential strategies
based upon contextual information.
So, one basic problem in the study of meaning is how to separate linguistic from non-linguistic
meaning.
Linguistic meaning is
• Conventional (unit whose meaning is shared by members of the same language
community)
• Stable
• Objective (it is not up to anybody to decide the meaning)
• Context-independent (each word has its own meaning, no matter the context it is
being used on)
Inferential meaning is
• Arbitrary (difference based on contextual information)
• Occasion-specific (depending on the context, the same word can acquire different
meanings)
1
Primer semestre
• Subjective
• Context-dependent
Obviously, the aim of this course (semantics) is the study of linguistic meaning. Pragmatics
takes care of inferential meaning.
But things are a bit more complicated.

A. John opened the window
B. John opened his mouth
C. John opened the book
D. John opened his briefcase
E. John opened the curtains
F. The carpenter opened the wall
G. The surgeon opened the wound
H. The sapper opened the dam
The meaning of open is slightly different in each use to the extent that it could be difficult to
provide a definition which covers all those uses.
For some, language is 'undetermined' and it is a mistake to separate it from the processes that
operate in communication.
The problem of integrating contextual and linguistic meaning in processing is evident in

artificial intelligence.
Consider categorization in Twitter.
Mathematical algorithms classify tweets into topics, which may be relevant to individual users.
But the classification involves a delicate integration of linguistic and non-linguistics knowledge.
2
Primer semestre
2. What is meaning?
Yesterday we concluded:
• Linguistics meaning should not be confused with pragmatic inferences.
• Linguistic meaning is a type of linguistic knowledge (competence)
• Separating linguistic from non-linguistic meaning is scientifically necessary.
So, what do we know when we know a language?

• Table the on / on the table
A women t1 came to see me [who sells seashells on the seashore]
Una mujer vino a verme que vende conchas junto al mar.
Semantic knowledge (see Saaed 1997: 4; Portner 2005: 6)

• A is below B and B is above A, describe the same situation (synonymy)
• Rome is the capital of Italy / Rome is not the capital of Italy (contradiction)
• I saw the main with the telescope (ambiguity)
• John Lennon was assassinated entails ‘John Lennon is dead’
• Where is the key? Presupposes ‘the key is somewhere’
Semantic knowledge (see Saaed 1997: 4; Portner 2005: 6)

# Colorless green ideas sleep furiously
* Ideas colorless furiously green sleep
# Happy cucumber
Important point: semantic rules are autonomous
Problems in semantic description:

• Defining language with language
• Circularity
• Language acquisition
• Bilingualism
• Whose semantic knowledge?

• ‘Whale’ (Saeed 1997: 6)
Are tomatoes fruits or vegetables?
• Contextual modulation: depending on the context, words have different

meanings.
Remember the case of open
Degree words and modifiers: too intelligent; a big ant/a big elephant
Compounds: marble museum, child psychology graduate
Seal break: we cannot do the meaning out of context
We are not allowed to stop for lunch breaks, but we are allowed to
stop for seal breaks.
Seal break: a stop on your way to watch seals.
Possible solutions:
• Defining language with language (avoids circularity)
Metalanguage
• Whose semantic knowledge? (Avoid individual differences)

We have to abstract away from individual users
3
Primer semestre
We have to assume that linguistic meaning is not in the head
• Contextual modulation
Separation of literal from non-literal meaning
But figurative language makes the task difficult:
I'm starving
I'd like to buy a Picasso
Indianapolis voted for independence
SEM 28/09
1. In the sentences below, the items in italics are to be interpreted differently from
their conventional meanings.
I don't believe it - they've appointed another Chomsky.

He is known as a political activist; depending on what you know about him, you could
have different interpretations on this sentence. Within context, we include general
knowledge. Proper nouns don't have literal meaning, denotational meaning; they
function as labels, but they have no meaning unless you give them one. Chomsky here is
functioning as a common noun, which by definition has meaning.
He did a Napoleon for the camera.
To pose with a hand inside the jacket. We need to be familiar not only with the
individual himself but with the fact that he used to pose that way. A very specific use of
general knowledge is needed, which is not linguistic knowledge, to make sense of this
sentence.
They have a lifestyle which is very San Francisco.
It is not a conventional meaning because it could have different meanings to different
people. You need to know the something about the city to understand this expression. It
is a meaning that is assigned depending on the use.
I'm not drinking tonight.
We understand that the person is not drinking alcohol, not any kind of liquid. We know
the meaning is that one because we find the word 'tonight' afterwards, which is
associated with parties and going out.
Churchill was a man.
It depends on what being a man involves or the reader. Otherwise, the expression is
entirely redundant.
That film made me sick.
In order to provide information, you need to know the pragmatic meaning of some
expressions like this one, which does not literally mean that the film made someone ill.
That book puts me to sleep.
The same that happened in the previous sentence happens in this one.
Explain the differences between the conventional and the occasional meanings of those
items and the problems this poses for a strict separation between linguistic and pragmatic
meaning.
Linguistic meaning is the objective meaning, that everyone knows.
Pragmatic meaning is the subjective meaning, that depends on the person.
4
Primer semestre
2. Consider the following tautological expression in the context of Britain's intention of

leaving the EU.
Brexit means Brexit.
How would you account for the fact that it is redundant and informative at the same time?
Can you think of similar expressions?
It is totally redundant, but it communicates something. In this particular context, the context
plays an important role. Some people wanted to go backwards with Brexit but this statement
makes it clear that once it is settled, there is no going back. If they leave the EU (as it
happened), there is no step back even if they wanted too.
General knowledge on the Brexit process is needed to understand this expression.
In communication we always work under the assumption that when we say sth, we work on
the assumption that it is going to be relevant.
It is linguistically redundant (A is A) but it is informative because in communication we always
work under the assumption that everything is relevant. It is informative due to pragmatics.
3. What might the second speaker mean in the following dialogues? Write a pragmatic
paraphrase in each case, and think about how you inferred this meaning:
A. Virginia: Do you like my new hat?

Mary: It's pink!
It is a yes/no question, so the answer given is not reasonable. It is difficult to
decide if it's a positive or negative answer because we know nothing about Mary,
so we don't know if she likes pink or not. In the absence of that additional context,
the answer may be a positive or negative reaction. Nevertheless, it is not a
conventional answer, we need sth else to try to guess what her answer really
means.
B. Maggie: Coffee?
James: It would keep me awake all night.
In that context, we would assume that the meaning of that expression is the
rejection of having a coffee. The meaning of the linguistic expression is constant,
but it changes depending on the context.
C. Linda: Have you finished the student evaluation forms and the reading lists?
Jean: I've done the reading lists.
She doesn't want to admit that she hasn't done the work, so she says that she has
done at least one part of it. It can have different meanings depending on what we
know about Linda and Jean.
D. Phil: Are you going to Steve's barbecue?

Terry: Well, Steve's got those dogs now.
This is another yes/no question to which we receive no answer. This could be
interpreted as a positive or negative answer, depending on Terry's love for dogs.
E. Annie: Was the dessert any good?

Mike: Annie, cherry pie is cherry pie.
Same as the previous example.
5
Primer semestre
4. Provide a paraphrase for the meaning of the following emojis which can cover all
their potential uses.
😉😏😬
1. "I got you", when you are flirting with someone
2. Jeje
3. Sth strange
5. Explain the following ambiguity and how it is solved in context of use.
"New US dietary guidelines include babies and toddlers for first time."
The interpretation in a pure linguistic analysis is that you have to eat the babies but obviously
we know that that interpretation that is purely linguistic doesn't match with the context, so we
have to look for another interpretation that is compatible with our world. The ambiguity is
solved with contextual information.
3. What is meaning? II
6
Primer semestre
So we've seen:
• Semantics is concerned with linguistic meaning only
• In communication linguistic meaning is enriched with extralinguistic information
(speaker's meaning).
• Meanings can be different across speakers (e.g. 'tomato')
Meanings are ideas of concepts. Meanings are concepts understood as mental

representations.
A believes that tomatoes are fruits

B believes that tomatoes are vegetables
B utters "We grow tomatoes here"
Question: Do A and B understand/mean different things? No.
A and B have different concepts of 'tomato'

In fact, we have different concepts for almost everything.
Consider my concept of DOG --> *picture of dog*
Concepts are necessarily different across speakers depending on personal and private
experiences. Note that this is not a matter of ‘ignorance’ as in the case of TOMATO (so, the
‘ideal speaker’ strategy cannot solve this). But in spite of these differences, we all use the word
‘dog’ to name the right entities. Therefore, concepts or ideas are not part of semantic
competence.
Two ways to save the ‘idea’ theory of meaning:

- Prototype theory
- Idealized concepts (i.e., concepts deprived of private and personal experience)
But the Twin Earth experiment shows this doesn’t work either:
Hilary Putnam (1975) The meaning of ‘meaning’.
Aim: prove that meanings are not mental concepts.
Same in every way expect H2O = XYZ
“water” refers to H2O in Earth
“water” refers to XYZ in Twin Earth
Identical twins on the two earths don’t mean the same thing by the word
‘water’, but they will have the same mental concepts.
Conclusions:
- Two people with the same concept (ideas) can mean different things (Twin
Earth experiment)
- Two people with different concepts (ideas) can mean the same thing (e.g.,
tomato, whale)
- Therefore, concepts are irrelevant in the description of linguistic meaning.
- The reason the word “dog” means the same thing for you and me is because
of our intention to apply the word to the same things out there (Portner
2005:9)
SEM 5/10
7
Primer semestre
1. Consider the following expressions and the context of use given and explain the
difference between sentence and speaker’s meaning.
Oh, that’s just great (upon discovering your bike has been stolen) → ironic statement
Linguistic meaning is what it is, in this context it has a negative connotation. The speaker’s
meaning is based upon the linguistic expression itself and on the basis of information that we
have based on the context of the situation.
She’s a real treasure.

Involves sth else apart of what it is encoded in the meaning.
Metonymical expression of the meaning of treasure.
Now provide an explanation of the notions irony and figurative (metaphor and metonymy).
Irony: lack of correspondence between sentence meaning and speaker’s meaning.
Difference between an ironic statement and a lie: intonation, contextual information.
2. The following expressions contain pronouns and adverbials. Explain how the context
determined their reference.
I am right and you are wrong.

Pronouns will always need to assign reference in context. Indexicals: outside context they
don’t mean anything.
Last week I played tennis with Chris.

Its interpretation depends on when it’s been said. Its meaning depends on the moment of
speaking.
John hit Bill / Arnold Schwarzenegger. He was severely injured.

John hit Bill. He was severely injured → ‘he’ refers to Bill.
John hit Arnold. He was severely injured → ‘he’ refers to Arnold because we have context
about Arnold due to his fame.
Pronouns are kind of linguistic instructions to the speaker.
3. How would you characterize the differences between the readings of the italicized
items in the following? Can you identify any metonymic or metaphorical relations
between them?
a. A volume of verse / a volume of 20 litres.
They both have a sense of weight, quantity. One property that is being exploited.
b. John ordered an omelette / the omelette wants more coffee.
The food / Waiters usually identify clients by their orders. Metonymic relation: a part
defines the whole in which context is relevant.
c. The turtle is swimming in the sea / I have just bought a wooden turtle.
The first is a living animal and in the second is an inanimate object. They are semantically
related but the adjective describing the second turtle changes the image we have of it. The
meaning of the sentence is constructed differently.
d. The school is going to close down / the whole school joined the protest march / that
school is always being vandalized.
The first sentence refers to the institution, the second one refers to the people attending
it, and the third one refers to the building itself → metonymy.
e. They led the prisoner away / they led the prisoner to believe he would be freed.
The first one refers to a physical movement, while the second one refers to a mental path.
Metaphorical extension of meaning, it is kind of analogy.
8
Primer semestre
4. Which of the following pieces of information are linguistic entailments which follow
from the expression given?
Michelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sixtine Chapel

a. The ceiling of the Sixtine Chapel is beautiful → no
b. Michelangelo is a famous painter → no
c. Michelangelo painted the entire ceiling of the Sixtine Chapel. →
presupposition: a reasonable interpretation.
Switzerland makes no great wines

a. Switzerland makes wines → no, it is not a logical deduction, it is a reasonable
assumptions.
b. Switzerland makes nothing → no,
c. Switzerland makes bad wines only → no, they are reasonable assumptions
Have you stopped smoking?

a. The speaker assumes that I used to smoke → yes, presupposition
b. The speaker assumes that I may not smoke anymore → yes, not literally
entailment
c. The speaker assumes that I need to stop smoking → no
She is sad she rejected the offer

a. She rejected the offer → yes
b. She is sad because she rejected the offer → yes
c. She would be happy if she had accepted the offer → no
I just bought a new apartment

a. The apartment is new → no
b. I own a new apartment → no
c. I did not have an apartment → no
4.Truth-conditional semantics
9
Primer semestre
In English Lexicology we talked about the referents of

Proper nouns (a particular individual)
Common nouns (extension)
But what about the complex expressions (sentences, phrases)?

The circle is inside the square
“Knowledge of meaning involves (at least) the knowledge of the conditions under which a
sentence is true and those under which it is false”. (Portner 2005:13)
‘Knowledge of meaning’ = semantic competence
Conditions = features, description

True: accurate description
False: inaccurate description
The notion of sth being true or not crucially depends on properties of the
external world (context)
Terminological issues:
- Truth-conditions have nothing to do with actual truth or falsehood (truth-
value: the value that we assign to a linguistic expression on the basis of …)
- The meaning of a sentence (its proposition: to mean the meaning of the
sentence) is a set of truth-conditions.
- Truth-conditions have to be evaluated against a world (or possible worlds)
- The extension of a complex expression is, then, the set of all possible worlds in
which it is true.
Possible worlds:
Background information Background information

Ps Pa
Speaking forms: Addressee constructs:

anticipates
intention interpretation
reconstructs
Linguistic expression
Speakers share a great deal of background information

We evaluate our addressee’s background information.
10
Primer semestre
If I start a conversation with: Will John come to the party?

I assume:
- There will be a party
- You and I know someone named John (i.e., John exists)
- He may or may not come to the party
So, worlds are necessary both in communication and sentence interpretation.
Advantages of truth-conditional semantics:

- Logical words: the circle is inside the square and the
circle is dark.
-
But:
John and Mary visited the country.
One more step and I’ll kill you.
A tall young man

A potential/alleged criminal
- Semantic relations: synonymy

The square is bigger than the circle (5)
The circle is smaller than the square (6)
Synonymy: two expressions with the same truth-conditions

P: the train tracks are under the bridge.
Q: the bridge is over the train tracks.
P: the glass is half full

Q: the glass is half empty
- Semantic relations: entailment

The circle is inside the square (9)
The square is bigger than the circle (10)
The man killed the rat. >> the rat is dead
If the preposition p is true, then all the truth conditions of p must also be
satisfied, i.e. all entailments of p must be true.
- Semantic relations: tautology (true in all possible worlds)

The teacher is the teacher
- Semantic relations: contradiction (empty set in all possible worlds)

The teacher of semantics is not the teacher of semantics.
Contradictory propositions
p: John Smith is alive.
Q: John Smith is dead.
Two expressions both cannot be true, nor can they both be false.
They are mutually opposed; one is the denial or negation of the other.
Semantic entailments and presuppositions:
Consider:
11
Primer semestre
I want to do it again >> ‘I did it before’

Have you stopped taking drugs? >> ‘You used to take drugs’
I regret that you left >> ‘You left’
These are not linguistic entailments…
Presuppositions are not cancelled even if the expression is negated.

I do not want to do it again >> ‘I did it before’
Haven’t you stopped taking drugs? >> ‘You used to take drugs’
I do not regret that you left >> ‘You left’
This is not the case with linguistic entailments…
This is not the case with linguistic entailments…

The man killed the rat >> the rat died
The man did not kill the rat >> *The rat died
5.Semantics vs Pragmatics
*more emphasis on this during second term*
12
Primer semestre
“Pragmatics has as its topic those aspects of the meaning of utterances which cannot be
accounted by straightforward reference to the truth conditions of the sentence uttered. Put
crudely: PRAGMATICS = MEANING – TRUTH CONDITIONS” (Gazdar, 1979:2)
Note: ‘utterances’, not ‘sentences’

Pragmatics is therefore concerned with meaning which arises in language use.
Principles of language use:

The Cooperative Principle (Grice 1975): “Make your conversational contribution such as is
required at the stage at which it occurs.”
- Human communication is a cooperative activity.
- Speakers coordinate to reach a common goal.
- Obviously, this cooperation is (generally) tacit.
Cooperative communication is guided by four maxims:
Quality:
Try to make your contribution one that is true.
Do not say what you believe to be false.
Do not say that for which you lack evidence.
A: Do you happen to know who won yesterday?
B: (Doesn’t know): a. No, I don’t
b. I bet Chelsea did
c. Chelsea did
Quantity:
make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes
of the exchange).
Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
A: Can you tell me the time, please?
B: Yes
Manner:
Be brief. Be orderly.
Avoid obscurity of expression
A: Am I being fired?
B: Let me put it this way. Your place in this film is no longer secure. We feel it isn’t fair
to keep you here when your prospects are limited.
Relevance: most important maxim

Be relevant!
We tend to assume that everything is relevant for the communicative exchange. We
tend to believe that everything that someone says is relevant in the conversation.
A: Did Boris Johnson win the election?
B: The paper is on the table.
For some [those in the Relevant Theory field], the maxim of relevance is the most
important one.
“Every utterance carries the assumption of its own relevance”. Sperber and Wilson
(1986) Every time you say sth everything is going to be relevant for the development of
one particular interaction. We are not really conscious about this, but that is the basic
principle in a conversation.
According to the Cooperative Principle speakers are expected to contribute faithfully to the
conversation. If they follow the maxims, much information may be left implicit. In particular,
13
Primer semestre
the maxim of relevance guides the identification of speaker’s communicative intentions. The
maxim of relevance is thus a cognitive principle guiding the extraction of information from the
context.
Implicatures: meaning which derives from the maxims (mostly relevance)

(A to B): you left the door of the fridge open
We understand the A wants B to know that they have to close the door of the fridge. If
somebody uses that expression is because it is relevant to that certain context. That is the way
we tend to interpret expressions. It’s on the basis of relevance that we understand the
sentence. A meaning that is not encoded on the sentence itself, but on the context.
A: How do you like my new hairstyle?
B: Let’s get going.
A question that demands a very specific answer. It is on the basis of the maxim of relevance
that you understand what B is trying to say, it makes sense due to that maxim.
Of course, implicatures are subjective and context-sensitive.
Depending on the context, the implicature that we get may be different.
6.Language, thought, and reality
14
Primer semestre
In truth-conditional semantics the relation between language and the world it described is
crucial. We say that (some) linguistic units ‘refer’ to entities in the world.
The following types of referential expressions can be found in English:
- Constant / variable reference: The Eiffel tower vs. I wrote to you
- Names: Noam Chomsky, Daniel
- Nouns and noun phrases: a/the book; the book on the table
- Quantifiers: some, few, any, no, every, etc.
Linguistic units refer through ‘senses’ (i.e., conditions in TC semantics). On the basis of
Portner’s chapter we concluded that ‘ideas’ (i.e., concepts) are irrelevant in semantic theory,
simply because they might be different to speakers. But we never denied that concepts may be
relevant in other cognitive processes, such as categorization, reasoning, and thinking. In
particular, the relation between language and thought has haunted philosophers and
linguistics alike for ages.
Does language shape the way we think?

Linguistic relativity / determinism (Sapir-Whorf hypothesis)
“We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do,
largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way – an
agreement that holds throughout our speech community and his codified in the
patters of our language.” Whorf (1940)
La cultura determina el lenguaje

The S-W Hypothesis consists of 2 paired principles:
a) Linguistic determinism: the language we use to some extent determines the way in
which we view and think about the world around us.
b) Linguistic relativity: people who speak different languages perceive and think about the
world quite differently from one another.
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (1922)

• Strong version: language determines thought
• Weak version: only influence thoughts and decisions
Language is not communication and language is not thought either. We can perform complex
activities without language.
And animals can reason too!

However, linguistic relativism maintains the opposite:
• The language we speak determines/influences the way we perceive the world.
• In other words, we classify reality on the basis of the semantic categories in our
language.
• This explains cultural and linguistic differences (e.g., Eskimo vocabulary)
But Linguistic Relativity is based upon wrong assumptions:

• Vocabulary differences across languages are irrelevant or simply false (the Eskimo hoax).
• This hypothesis poses severe methodological problems for language acquisition and
bilingualism.
15
Primer semestre
• We now have ‘colorful’ evidence that it is perception and general cognitive processes
that guide the acquisition of language.
Basic color terms in languages
• All languages have color terms for black and white or dark/light
• If a language has a color term later on the scale, it also has all the preceding ones
• No language has more than eleven basic color terms listed
This follows from general perception!!
Recent research, however, suggests that linguistic categories in our language influence the way
we see the world.
Thinking for speaking vs. general thought
• Inner speech gives evidence of thinking ‘in language’
“Process of leaning first language ‘sets’ the mind a particular way and sensitizes it to certain
distinctions while accustoming it to ignore other. Mastery of a second language therefore
requires sensitization to unfamiliar categories, and is correspondingly difficult.”
(Riemer 2010: 414)
An example of a language without numbers and other interesting properties: Piraha.

This is arguably a language whose structure and organization very much depends on the
properties of the speech community.
Boroditsky identifies the following domains:
• Color
• Numeracy
• Spatial orientation
• Gender systems
• Agency
These are very specific domains.
Conclusions
“The grammatical categories of a language must determine thinking for speaking. The
interesting question is whether they also determine general cognition. Research has found a
statistically very highly reliable correlation between the prevailing frame of spatial reference
used in a language and the types of response in non-linguistic cognitive tasks. This suggests a
limited influence of language on general cognition. There are many other domains, however,
where such an effect is not observed.”
Riemer (2010: 420-421)
16
Primer semestre
SEM 19/10
1. Which of the following are entailments from the sentence given? Identify them and justify
your answer.
The constable drove the fast car.
SEM TH (1): Agent

TH (2): Theme
SYNTAX COMPL (1): (NP / DP)

COMPL (2): (NP / DP)
The semantic information depends on the VERB, the reason why you get that
information is because it is in the sentence as well, it is a specified entity.
a. The constable drove

b. The constable drove something
c. Some law enforcement officer drove a fast car.
Between the meaning of constable and the meaning of law enforcement
officer, there is a lexical relation: synonymy/hyponymy.
d. Someone drove a fast car
If you are a constable, you are someone.
e. The fast car was driven by someone
In truth-conditional terms we can say they have the same conditions. The
active entails the passive sentence, and the other way round.
f. The constable did something
Driving is an action and doing involves an action.
g. The constable drove an automobile
If we assume the standard meaning of car, it is → (near) synonymy, but
hyponymy best describes their lexical relation.
h. Not everyone drove a fast car
Not everyone owns a car.
i. Some people drove a slow car
Nothing is said about other people driving slow cars.
j. The constable drove fast
The meaning of fast is included in the sentence, it should logically follow
entailment; however, the meaning of the sentence is obtained from two
sentences: meaning of lexemes and how syntactical items combine.
2.Which of the following pieces of information are presuppositions which follow from the
expressions given?
Note: the main difference between an entailment and a presupposition is that the latter are not
cancelled in negative contexts.
Michelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sixtine Chapel

a. The ceiling of the Sixtine Chapel is beautiful → yes
b. Michelangelo is a famous painter → yes
c. The Sixtine Chapel has a ceiling → yes
Switzerland makes great wines

d. Wines can be great → yes
e. Switzerland makes wines → yes
17
Primer semestre
f. One country makes great wines → no; it is an entailment.
Have you stopped smoking?

g. The speaker assumes that I used to smoke → yes
h. The speaker assumes that I may not smoke anymore → yes
i. The speaker assumes that I need to stop smoking → no
3.Explain the following contrasts:
John is a tall boy

Therefore: John is tall / John is a boy
Tall modifies boy = John is tall as a boy. Here, we modify John as a boy (always).
John is a lousy teacher → It necessarily follows that he is a teacher, but not that he is
lousy.
Therefore: John is a teacher
Therefore: # John is lousy
John is lousy as a teacher. We have same syntactic structure, but adjectives work differently.
Here, we modify the subject as a teacher only.
John is a former friend → It doesn’t really follow that he is my friend, the logical
implication is that someone is not my friend anymore.
Therefore: # John is a friend
Therefore: * John is former
Former modifies the friendship, not the friend as a person. We cannot conclude that John is a
friend, he was a friend in the past but not now.
John is an alleged criminal → It does not really follow that someone is a criminal.
Therefore: # John is a criminal / John is alleged
We cannot conclude that he is a criminal. The presence of the adjective modifies the name.
Fake gun/fake Picasso: the adjective cancels the meaning of the name.
Fake news: the adjective modifies the name.
18
Primer semestre
BLOQUE 2
7.The Fregean Programme

Gottlob Frege (1848-1925)
Before Frege, semantic theory was strictly referential.
Sense and reference (Sinn und Bedeutung)
Semantic puzzles
a. The morning star is the morning star
b. The morning star is the evening star
Same referent (Venus)
a. 4 x 2 = 4 x 2
b. 4 x 2 = 11 – 3
Same referent (8)
The same entity is determined or presented in different ways, so the ‘b’ expressions are NOT
tautologies.
Note that tautologies may be informative in communication, but this is a consequence of
relevance:
• Brexit means Brexit
• A man is a man
Additional problems for a referential theory:
• They had no food
• Nobody came
• People who live on Mars
Same referent (empty set), not same meaning
Basic properties of ‘senses’:

o Sense is the ‘mode of representation’ of a referent
o An expression is said to express its sense and denote or refer to its referent (but
terminology varies)
o Senses are ideal objects, not psychological entities
o All meaningful expressions have a sense
o Sense determines reference
o The referent of a definite expression (NP) is an entity in some (possible world)
o But, what about complex expressions (i.e., sentences)?
o For Frege, the sense of a complex expression is a ‘thought’. We now say ‘proposition’
o And the referent of a complex expression is truth-value
Truth is the basic notion in Frege’s semantic theory, through which both sense and reference
are to be explained. To know the sense of a sentence, or to have the thought expressed by the
sentence is, for Frege, to know how the sentence could be assigned a value as true or false: to
know what the conditions are that would make it true or false. These conditions are known as
the sentence’s truth conditions.
Riemer (2010: 92)
19
Primer semestre
Why is truth so important for Frege?

… truth is of the utmost importance to us. This is especially so in the context of practical
reasoning. When I reason my way towards a plan of action, and then act according to that plan,
my action will be prone to fail, or even to lead to disaster, if the factual beliefs underlying my
deliberation are false – even if my deliberation cannot be faulted in any other way.
Riemer (2010: 93)
 So, practical reasoning depends on the truth or falsity of ‘factual beliefs underlying’ our
deliberation
 Practical reasoning = argument
 Underlying factual beliefs = premises
 Arguments based upon premises and leading to a conclusion are called syllogisms
Modus Ponens (P → Q; P / Q)
If it rains (p), we’ll go to the cinema (q)
It is raining (p)
Therefore, we will go to the cinema (q)
This argument is valid and most importantly, all arguments of the same format are also valid
The conclusion is dependent upon the truth or falsity of the premises
It is raining (p)
Therefore, we will go to the cinema (q)
If p is true, then q will be true
p is true
Therefore, q will be true

p is not true (i.e., it is not raining)
Therefore, q is not (necessarily) true
Practical reasoning depends on the truth or falsity of premises
Modus Tollens (P → Q; -Q / -P)

We will not go to the cinema (-q)
Therefore, it is not raining (-p)
q is not true (i.e., we won’t go to the cinema)
Therefore, p is not true
In everyday conversation, premises may be hidden or presupposed.

A: She just found a job as a university teacher
B: Poor thing! She won’t be able to live on that
Hidden premise: University teachers are poorly paid
Part of our job in semantic analysis will be to reveal hidden premises to evaluate the validity or
arguments
20
Primer semestre
8. Sense and Reference

 Sense determines reference
 The referent of a complex linguistic expression is a truth-value
How do we determine the truth-value of a complex expression?

We have to check the truth-value of each condition the sense is composed of.
One basic property of human language is ‘recursion’.

In syntax this is what allows us to create potentially infinite linguistic expressions.
The man that killed the rat that ate the cheese that…
Similarly, language allows us to create linguistic expressions containing complex thoughts.

In semantics this is explained with the Principle of Compositionality
Principle of Compositionality
The meaning of a sentence is a function of the meaning of its parts and the mode of combination.
IMPORTANT: the principle is usually attributed to Frege, but he never formulated it.
consequently, several interpretations have arisen. As a mathematician, Frege made use of the
notion of function in semantic analysis. A function is a mathematical operation that give a single
result for an input.
SQUARE ROOT (4) = 2
MULT (2, 3) = 6
The numbers between parentheses are the arguments of the function.
Frege reduced predicated (lexemes) to functions.
The teacher is intelligent

I: intelligent function
t: the teacher individual
Representation: I(t) = T / F
Consider now the following expression:

The teacher is intelligent and handsome
Representation: I(t) & H(t) = T / F
The teacher is intelligent and handsome
From this sentence, it follows that if one of the properties is false, the truth value of the entire
sentence is also false.
Or, both conjuncts have to be true for the whole sentence to be true.
We can now check all possibilities by computing the values of each function.
Truth-tables
I(t) & H(t) = ?
T F =F
F T =F
F F =F
T T =T
21
Primer semestre
Determining the truth-value of a complex expression involves checking the truth value of its
inner conditions (understood as functions).
Note that functions may be constructed in different ways.
The man killed the rat
___ killed the dog KD (x)
The man killed ___ KM (x)
___ killed ___ K (x, y)
Reference
Referring is an action performed by speakers. This is obvious because speakers may decide to
use lexemes to refer to unexpected entities.
The appendicitis in room 14…

You are a star
Problem: sense determines reference…

We have to assume that those are not conventional uses.
Conditions for an act of reference:

1. There must exist one and only one object to which the speaker’s utterance of the
expression applies.
2. The hearer must be given sufficient means to identify the object from the speaker’s
utterance of the expression.
Each one of those means is an act of predication (a predicate, a function, a condition), a clue for
the identification of a referent.
Refereeing vs Nonreferring (predicating)
Marian is a professional harpist
The professional harpist was late to rehearsal
A professional harpist = predicative function
Compare:
Daniel es profesor
Daniel es el profesor
“A predicate defines a relation or property which is applied to one or more entities (arguments)”
We can see truth-conditions as clues/means provided by speakers to help addresses identify a

referent:
o The tall young man
o The tall man is young
o The young man that is tall
o The man that is tall and young
These expressions are truth-conditionally equivalent.

T(x) & Y(x) & M(x)
22
Primer semestre
And since the use of the noun phrase is an act of reference presupposes the existence of an
entity, we add the existential operator ‘Ǝ’
Ǝx T(x) & Y(x) & M(x)
This can now be paraphrased as: ‘there is an entity such that it has the property of being tall,
the property of being young and the property of being a man’.
Sense determines reference!!
Definite reference: the speaker assumes that the referent is known to the hearer (i.e., it exists)
Specific reference: the entity is known to the speaker, but not necessarily to the addressee
Generic reference: reference to a whole class (or, reference to the extension of a linguistic
expression)
Non-referential: the linguistic expression denotes a property/relation but does not identify a
particular individual or set of individual.
23
Primer semestre
SEM 26/10/2022
1.Some expressions in languages cannot be captured in a truth-conditional analysis as they
have no descriptive content. This applies to interjections (oops, ouch) and different types of
expression (expletives or swear words). Sometimes the same expression has both
denotative/descriptive and expressive meaning. Consider the following pairs and explain
their meaning differences:
The denotative meaning of a word is its main meaning, not including the feelings and ideas that people
may connect with that word. The descriptive meaning of an expression is that aspect of meaning which
only concerns the relationship between a given sign and its denotation.
Connotative meaning: an individual associates a word to a referent with the expressions an individual
uses or hears in a specific culture or region. The connotative meanings of a word vary according to
culture, historical periods, and experience of the individual.
a. Father / dad
Same denotative meaning
Father: biological sense. Neutral connotation
Dad: one particular context, attituding of meaning (meaning connected with speaker’s feelings
or emotions). Expressive and denotative meaning. Positive connotation.
b. Busy / bustling
busy is a kind of neutral and not necessarily positive. If the city is busy, it is not easy to live in.
bustling has a positive connotation. The speaker’s attitude is a positive view.
c. Alcohol / Booze
Alcohol: positive connotation
Booze: negative connotation
Now consider the use of diminutives (and other suffixes) in Spanish and explain the value of
their non-descriptive meanings.
a. Mujerzuela / hombrezuelo → Mujer/mujerzuela and hombre/hombrezuelo
denote the same entities. However, the suffix has a negative connotation.
Truth-conditional meaning is necessarily stable.
b. Niñito → meaning of attitutional nature, affective.
c. Danielito → proper names don’t have truth-conditional meanings. That means
that the suffix cannot say it is more than, it cannot be truth-conditional.
d. Igualito → it is not denotational. The difference between igual/igualito is
intensification. You intensify the property of the meaning.
e. Ahorita (Latin American Spanish) → there is no truth-conditional meaning in
the suffix, it does not intensify the meaning.
f. Flojillo →
g. Pajarraco → negative connotation
h. Blandengue → negative connotation
i. Hasta lueguín → interactional expressions, expressions used for social
purposes. They do not convey truth-conditional meaning.
Which diminutives are productive in present-day English?
-ish, -y, -o.
2.Provide a description of grammatical gender in both English and Spanish. Consider the
following issues:
What is the function of the gender system in the Spanish language?
Common nouns need to be inflected in language, because the function of other grammatical
markers is obvious. But why do we have gender systems in languages? Animate entities have
24
Primer semestre
sex and thus need to be inflected by gender. However, inanimate entities don’t have sex so
what is the function of gender in them? The subject of the sentence has to agree with the main
verb (hay concordancia de persona y número). El género sirve para establecer concordancia,
que sirve para dar cohesión, nos dice que el adjetivo en las casas bonitas, bonitas va con casas
porque da cohesión. El hablante no va a tener dificultad para modificar ese adjetivo porque
concuerda en género y número con el sujeto.
What does the anaphoric function of pronouns in English say about nominal gender in
the language?
3.Some psychologists e.g., Lera Boroditsky claim that languages with gender systems impose
a view on reality. Consider the following nouns in both English and Spanish and modify them
with adjectives. Are those adjectives typically associated with feminine and/or masculine
properties as Boroditsky claims?
If mesa is feminine in Spanish, we tend to use properties stereotypical feminine.
a. Puente / bridge
We tend to use properties stereotypical masculine to accompany these nouns, like largo,
grande.
b. Luna / moon
Properties stereotypical feminine, like misteriosa, cálida.
c. Sol / sun
Properties stereotypical masculine
d. Montaña / mountain
Neutral properties, like rocosa, even masculine properties.
Her claim does not work. La búsqueda que intentar casar o encontrar influencia de la sociedad
en el sistema gramatical de una lengua es una estrategia destinada al fracaso.
25
Primer semestre
9.Intension and extension
A purely referential theory of meaning makes the following prediction:

if two expressions have the same referent, they have the same meaning.
This implies that expressions with the same truth-conditions could replace one another with
no change in meaning.
This idea has been formulated in the Principle of Substitutability (identity under substitution)
Substitution of the definiens for the definiendum should be truth preserving in all contexts.
- Bachelor = married man

- Balance = keep in equilibrium
My uncle is a bachelor = My uncle is an unmarried man

I balanced the plank on my head = I kept in equilibrium the plank in my head.
I’ve never managed to balance the demands of work and play = I’ve never managed to
keep in equilibrium the demands of work and play.
However, the principle does not work in all contexts:

Charles dickens was the author of Oliver Twist
George Cruikshank claimed to be the author of Oliver Twist
# George Cruikshank claimed to be Charles Dickens → That is not what Cruikshank
claimed to be, he claimed to be one but not the other.
Predicated like ‘claim’, ‘believe’, ‘think’, ‘know’, ‘understand’ and others introduce opaque or
intensional contexts. There are called ‘propositional attitude’ predicates. They cannot be
evaluated in truth-conditional terms.
Note that intensional contexts depend on particular predicates:
Charles Dickens was the author of Oliver Twist.
George Cruikshank killed the author of Oliver Twist
George Cruikshank killed Charles Dickens.
Of course, Frege noted that the meaning of an expression involves more than its referent (i.e.,
the sense). In later literature the distinction between sense and reference was renamed as
intension and extension.
Some predicates introduce contexts in which linguistic expressions denote senses or intensions
and do not refer to entities. The difference can be seen in de re (referential interpretations) vs
de dicto (predicative interpretations) ambiguities:
I hope to meet with the Prime Minister next year
- De re (the current Prime Minister, a specific individual)
- De dicto (anyone who happens to be PM next year)
I think that your husband is a lucky man

- De re (a specific individual)
- De dicto (anyone who happens to be married to you)
Remember: acts of predication are necessary for the construction of referential expressions.
Intensional contexts are typically ‘world-creating’. They cannot be used to declare if something
is true or false because they create worlds that do not exist.
Sally dreamt that Brad Pritt kissed her on the lips
I wish I did not have to take the exam
26
Primer semestre
Modal adverbs and auxiliaries

Probably, John is at home
John might be at home
John is at home (T)

John might be at home (T/F)
Counterfactuals
They exploit our capacity to talk about how things could be in a different world
a. If Chris wins the lottery, he will be rich
b. If Chris were rich, he would probably not be here today
c. If Susan had been in class yesterday, she would have learned some French
The antecedent describes something which is not true in the real world.
Intersective adjectives
In logic, an expression such as ‘an old rich man’, which denotes the intersection () of three
predicates, received the following analysis:
x (Ox & Rx & Mx)
This nicely accounts for the following entailments:

Geoffrey is an old rich man
Therefore: Geoffrey is old / rich / a man
And the analysis is in accordance with the possibility of using them in
predicative expressions: he is rich / old / a man.
Subjective adjectives
Floyd is a skillful / lousy / experienced / typical surgeon
A ‘skillful surgeon’ is not someone who is both skillful and a surgeon, but
someone who is skillful as a surgeon.
Unlike intersective adjectives, the entailment Floyd is skillful does not follow
from the example.
Some modifiers may have both subsective and intersective readings.

John is a gay activist
a. John may be gay and an activist (intersective)
b. John may be an activist for gay rights (subsective)
Compare with the de re / de dicto ambiguities.

Reference vs property modification.
Non-subsective adjectives
The alleged murderer
A fake gun
A counterfeit Picasso
My former neighbor
These adjectives cancel the property they modify, but in different ways.
A ‘former neighbor’ was, but is no longer, your neighbor.
Adjectives of this type are called ‘privative’ because their extension is the empty set. An
‘alleged murderer’ may or may not be a murderer. The speaker does not commit to the truth
or appropriateness of the act of predication.
27
Primer semestre
How do we construct the meaning of these expressions? We have to combine properties (i.e,
senses), not referents. In fact, many common adjectives behave intensionally as well.
A big mouse / ant
An old friend
John is an old friend of mine (but he is not old)
Ratatouille is a big mouse
Ratatouille is a cook
?? Therefore, Ratatouille is a big cook
Gradable adjectives are vague and need some standard of comparison which is provided by
the context. E.g., ‘big for a mouse’
Subjunctive mood and intensionality

Explain the difference between these two sentences:
1. Busco a un profesor que enseña alemán
2. Busco a un profesor que enseñe alemán
Is preposition ‘a’ optional in any of the two?
Conclusion: subjunctive is used when the NP denotes a property and not a referent.
Explain the following contrasts:

Creo que María *venga/viene mañana
No creo que María venga/*viene mañana
Sé *si/que María vendrá mañana

No sé si/*que María vendrá mañana
I wish you *are/were here

Ojalá *estás/estuvieras aquí
28

Semántica Del Inglés

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Semántica Del Inglés

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Semántica del Inglés

1. Semantics as part of grammar

State/knowledge which is based on genetic disposition to acquire a language

The aim of this course is: the speaker's semantic competence

Semantic competence includes

Saeed (1997 : 3) "Semantics is the study of meaning communicated through language".

▪ Animal communication does not involve language.

But things are a bit more complicated.

The problem of integrating contextual and linguistic meaning in processing is evident in

So, what do we know when we know a language?

Semantic knowledge (see Saaed 1997: 4; Portner 2005: 6)

Semantic knowledge (see Saaed 1997: 4; Portner 2005: 6)

Problems in semantic description:

• Whose semantic knowledge?

Are tomatoes fruits or vegetables?

• Contextual modulation: depending on the context, words have different

• Whose semantic knowledge? (Avoid individual differences)

We have to assume that linguistic meaning is not in the head

I don't believe it - they've appointed another Chomsky.

2. Consider the following tautological expression in the context of Britain's intention of

Brexit means Brexit.

A. Virginia: Do you like my new hat?

D. Phil: Are you going to Steve's barbecue?

E. Annie: Was the dessert any good?

5. Explain the following ambiguity and how it is solved in context of use.

Meanings are ideas of concepts. Meanings are concepts understood as mental

A believes that tomatoes are fruits

B utters "We grow tomatoes here"

Question: Do A and B understand/mean different things? No.

A and B have different concepts of 'tomato'

Two ways to save the ‘idea’ theory of meaning:

She’s a real treasure.

I am right and you are wrong.

Last week I played tennis with Chris.

John hit Bill / Arnold Schwarzenegger. He was severely injured.

Michelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sixtine Chapel

Switzerland makes no great wines

Have you stopped smoking?

She is sad she rejected the offer

I just bought a new apartment

In English Lexicology we talked about the referents of

But what about the complex expressions (sentences, phrases)?

‘Knowledge of meaning’ = semantic competence

Conditions = features, description

Background information Background information

Speaking forms: Addressee constructs:

Speakers share a great deal of background information

If I start a conversation with: Will John come to the party?

So, worlds are necessary both in communication and sentence interpretation.

Advantages of truth-conditional semantics:

A tall young man

- Semantic relations: synonymy

Synonymy: two expressions with the same truth-conditions

P: the glass is half full

- Semantic relations: entailment

- Semantic relations: tautology (true in all possible worlds)

- Semantic relations: contradiction (empty set in all possible worlds)

I want to do it again >> ‘I did it before’

Presuppositions are not cancelled even if the expression is negated.

This is not the case with linguistic entailments…

Note: ‘utterances’, not ‘sentences’

Principles of language use:

Relevance: most important maxim