Module: Semantics and Pragmatics

Professor: Abdennour Kharraki

Academic year: 2020

Lecture 7

SENTENCE RELATIONS AND TRUTH

1. Introduction
Sentence meaning has some properties that differentiate it from word meaning. First, unlike
words, sentences are semantically subject to truth conditions (or logical truth); that is,
sentences can either be true or possible, or else false or impossible in the real world. The truth
or falsity of sentences is based on the semantic structure of such sentences, that is, on the
system of characteristics and relations that underline the meaning of these sentences. Thus,
the (a) sentence below is true, whereas the (b) sentence is false:

(1)
a. Ahmed is married.
b. *Ahmed is married and unmarried.

Such a semantic analysis of sentences does not take into account contexts of use where the
(b) sentence in question can be attributed a possible interpretation (e.g., achieving irony or
sarcasm).
The truth characteristics of sentences can also involve truth relations between these
sentences. Two such relations are extensively investigated in the literature, namely
entailment and presupposition, which must be explained within a semantic relation. They
are oftentimes identified as semantic relations that are not easy to distinguish. We now start
by considering entailment.

2. Entailment
Entailment refers to a logical relationship between two sentences, where the truth of one
implies the other owing to the meanings of the constitutive words involved. A sentence entails
another sentence if whenever the first sentence is true the other sentence is also true. For
example, the (a) in the following pair entails its (b) counterpart:
 a. Qatar managed to develop its system of education.
b. Qatar developed its system of education.

Since if (a) is true, so is (b). The relation between these two sentences is symmetric or
reversible. That is, (a) entails (b) and (b) entails (a). This is referred to by semanticists as
logical equivalence, which is close to broad synonymy between sentences. But, entailment
cannot be always reversible, such as in the following examples:

a. John ate fruits.

b. John ate an apple.

The fact that John ate fruits entails that John ate an apple. But the latter sentence does not
entail that John necessarily ate an apple. He might eat oranges or bananas, instead. There is, in
fact, a semantic relation of hyponymy held between the two sentences, since apple is a
hyponym of fruits.

Another example of hyponymy involves verbs like kill and die in sentences like:

a. They killed Martin Luther King in 1968.

b. Martin Luther King died in 1968.

We notice here that the sources of entailment is lexical. The lexical source is embodied
in the relationship of entailment between (a) and (b) deriving from the lexical relationship
between kill and die. The meaning of die is included in the meaning of kill.

On the other hand, synonymy can also be expressed as entailment in terms of truth
relations like in the following example :

a. Fatima owns this big house.

b. This big house belongs to Fatima.

Sentence (a) is synonymous with sentence (b), which means the same as (a) entails (b)
and (b) entails (a). In addition, the truth value of (a) and (a) is the same. If the proposition of
(a) is true, then (b) counterpart is also true.

The relationship of entailment gives details on paraphrase like in (3) and (4). Those
sentences have the same set of entailments or they mutually entail each other (Saeed, 2009).

This leads us to debate aother source for entailment which is syntactic, in which
sentences can be in active or passive versions of the same proposition. Below are examples
depicting such a syntactic source for the entailment :
 a. The virus damaged the computer.
b. The computer was damaged by the virus.

c. A pious Muslim gave money to the beggar.

d. A pious Muslim gave the beggar money

e. He is able to sort out the problem.

f. He has the ability to sort out the problem.

g. He is permitted to attend the ceremony.

h. He has permission.

Contradiction is also the semantic relation that can be defined in terms of entailment. It
is a negative entailment. That is the truth of one sentence implies the falseness of another
sentence. For example,

a. No one managed to read Chomsky’s books.

b. Someone managed to read Chomsky’s books.

From the examples above, whenever (a) is true, (b) must be false, and whenever (b) is
true, (a) must be false.

3. Presupposition
Presupposition is another truth relation. If someone tells you your wife has just arrived,, there
is an obvious presupposition that you have a wife and that you are no longer a bachelor. If you
are asked when will you stop smoking cigarettes?, there is a presupposition that you are still
smoking cigarettes. Many semanticists consider presupposition as part of entailment. That is a
given sentence (a) presupposes a sentence (b) if whenever (a) is either true or false, sentence
(b) is true. Let us consider the following sentences for illustration.

a. Aicha cooked very delicious vegetable soup.

b. Aicha cooked vegetable soup.

Sentence (a) presupposes sentence (b). Whether Aicha cooked delicious food or not,
there is a constant presupposition that Aicha cooked potatoes anyway. The constancy under
negation test for presupposition is usually used to check for the presuppositions underlying
sentences. When we say Aicha cooked very vegetable soup and Aicha did not cook very
delicious vegetable soup entail the fact that Aicha really cooked vegetable soup.
4. Conclusion
We examined the scope of semantics and reviewed two important approaches to semantics,
namely referential approach and representational approach. We then discussed sense relations
and truth conditions. However, we do not assume to have covered all the key concepts of
semantics. But, we hope in a future edition to extend this chapter so that it investigates more
semantic issues.