NOTE TO THE STUDENT

This module is a semi-detailed guide of the contents to be learned in this course. The use of other resources
such as books and credible online materials is encouraged. There are learning exercises to be completed at the end of
each chapter. The quality of your outputs will have a bearing on your grades for this subject.

Acquiring a passing grade is your responsibility. Questions regarding the lessons and this subject in general
are welcome and should be communicated to your subject teacher within this term.

Please take note the following schedule of exams for this semester. Schedules will be set for specific year
levels, so please check the official Facebook Groups and Pages regularly for advisory.

COURSE OUTLINE

ENGLISH 36: SEMANTICS OF ENGLISH

COURSE DESCRIPTION:
This course focuses on the study of semantics, the branch of linguistics that focuses on the meaning of
words, phrases, and sentences in the English language. Students will explore the principles and theories underlying
semantic analysis, examining how meaning is constructed and communicated through language. Through a
combination of theoretical exploration and practical exercises, students will develop a deeper understanding of the
intricacies of English semantics, including word meaning, lexical relations, sentence structure and discourse
analysis. By analyzing real-world examples and engaging in critical discussions, students will enhance their ability
to interpret and produce meaning in various linguistic contexts. This course aims to foster a comprehensive
understanding of the semantic dimensions of English, equipping students with valuable skills in language
interpretation, communication, and analysis.

COURSE OUTCOMES:
At the end of this course, the students are expected to:
a. Analyze and interpret the meaning of words, phrases, and sentences in the English language, applying
foundational principles and theories of semantics.
b. Identify and analyze the various semantic relations and structures that underlie English language usage, including
synonymy, hyponymy, polysemy, and entailment.
c. Apply knowledge of English semantics to analyze and evaluate discourse patterns, pragmatic implications and the
impact of context on meaning in real-world linguistic interactions.
Course Topics:

WEEK LESSONS

1 Chapter 1: Introduction to Semantics

a. Overview of semantics and its role in language understanding
b. Types of meaning: lexical, conceptual and grammatical
c. Theories ad approaches in semantic analysis

1
 2 Chapter 2: Word Meaning and Semantic Relations
a. Lexical semantics: sense, reference, and denotation
b. Semantic relations: synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy
polysemy, homonymy and homophony
3 Chapter 3: Sentence Meaning and Semantic Analysis
a. Propositional meaning and truth conditions
b. Semantic roles and thematic relations
c. Quantifiers and scope ambiguity
4 Chapter 4: Meaning in Context: Pragmatics and Discourse
a. Contextual effects on meaning
b. Speech acts and implicatures
c. Coherence and coherence relations
5 Chapter 5: Lexical Semantics: Word Formation and Composition
a. Morphology and word formation processes
b. Derivational morphology and semantic changes
c. Compounding and semantic composition
6 Chapter 6: Cognitive Semantics: Prototypes and Categorization
a. Prototype theory and categorization
b. Metaphor and metonymy
c. Frame semantics and conceptual domains
7 Chapter 7: Event Semantics: Tense, Aspect and Modality
a. Temporal semantics: tense and aspect
b. Modal verbs and their semantic interpretations
c. Adverbial phrases and event structure
8 Chapter 8: Cross-linguistic Semantics: Language Variation and Typology
a. Semantics across different languages
b. Semantic universals and linguistic typology
c. Semantic variation and cultural influences
9 Chapter 9: Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Analysis
a. Cohesion and coherence in discourse
b. Speech acts and politeness strategies
c. Intertextuality and meaning negotiation
10 Chapter 10: Review and Application
a. Recap of key concepts and theories
b. Application of semantic analysis to authentic language data
c. Course review and final assessment preparation

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction to Semantics and Meaning

Overview:

2
 This provides comprehensive learning and in depth theoretical discussion of semantics of the language
of English. It also allows the readers/ students to evaluate meanings of isolated and individualized words based on
their functions as well as their contextual meaning on sentences which will further be subject to deviations of
theories for further research. Moreover, this module presents inclusive discussions of theories and approaches
in semantics which will further empower the understanding of students on the meaning of different yet traditional
discourses as well as sentences and words.

Learning Objectives:

At the end of this chapter, you are expected to:

a. define semantics

b. explain how semantics developed over time

c. discuss other related disciplines on semantics

d. describe linguistic meaning

Semantics is the study of meaning. Seen by Breal, in the late 19th century, as an emerging science (French,
„semantique‟) opposed to phonetics („phonetique‟) as a science of sounds: similarly for Bloomfield in 1930, it was a
field covering, as one account of meaningful forms, and the lexicon. Also seen more narrowly, in a traditional
lasting into the 1960s, as the study of meaning in the lexicon alone, including changes in word meaning. Later, in
accounts in which the study of distribution was divorced from that of meanings, opposed either to grammar in
general; or, within grammar and especially within a generative grammar from the 1960s onwards, to syntax
specifically. Of the uses current at the beginning of the 21st century, many restrict semantics to the study of meaning
is abstraction from the contexts in which words and sentences are uttered: in opposition, therefore, to pragmatics.
Others include pragmatics as one of its branches. In others its scope is in practice very narrow: thus one handbook of
„contemporary semantic theory‟, in the mid-1990s deals almost solely with problems in formal semantics, even the
meanings of lexical units being neglected.

Semantics is the study of meaning in language. We know that language is used to express meanings which
can be understood by others. But meanings exist in our minds and we can express what is in our minds through the
spoken and written forms of language (as well as through gestures, action etc.). The sound patterns of language are
studied at the level of phonology and the organization of words and sentences is studied at the level of morphology
and syntax. These are in turn organized in such a way that we can convey meaningful messages or receive and
understand messages. „How is language organized in order to be meaningful?‟ This is the question we ask and
attempt to answer at the level of semantics. Semantics is that level of linguistic analysis where meaning is analyzed.
It is the most abstract level of linguistic analysis, since we cannot see or observe meaning as we can observe and
record sounds. Meaning is related very closely to the human capacity to think logically and to understand. So when
we try to analyze meaning, we are trying to analyze our own capacity to think and understand our own ability to
create meaning.

WEEK ONE
Lesson 1: Overview of Semantics & its role in language understanding
The term gained much wider currency with the publication of Essai de sémantique: Science de
significations (Bréal 1897) translated as Semantics: Studies in the Science of Meaning (Bréal 1900). He regarded

3
semantics as an essential but neglected part of linguistic study. A hearer ‘goes straight to the thought behind a word’
modulating the sense (decontextualized meaning) so as to capture the intention of the speaker (ibid. 107).
Bréal agreed with William Whitney (1875: 87) that speakers understand language without recourse to
etymology; so, the search for mythical ‘true meaning’ gave way to a search for the patterns and causes of
semantic change. Words are signs of thoughts, and meanings change in line with speakers’ needs to
communicate; cf. Whitney (1867: 20). For Bréal, semantic change has to be studied with an eye to the contexts and
uses of terms in former times.

Variety of studies in Semantics

There are various kinds of studies in semantics in various fields. For instance, in linguistics and philosophy of
language, the general natures of meaning are discussed and, in mathematical logic, the formal structures of
semantical concepts are developed. Other disciplines, such as computer science and psychology, also address
semantics, depending on the interests of the studies.

Linguistics and philosophy of language

In linguistics and philosophy of language, semantics is the subfield that is devoted to the study of
meanings of various kinds of linguistic units, which ranges from smaller linguistic units, such as words, phrases, or
sentences, to larger units of discourse, generically referred to as texts.

2 Aspects of Meaning

1. Extensional (or denotational) aspect of meaning

It is concerned about the relation between linguistic expression and the objects that the linguistic expression refers
to, often referred to as denotations or referents. For instance, the expression “two” and the expression “the
smallest prime number” refers to the same object, i.e. the number two (2). Thus, these expressions are considered as
extensionally indistinguishable.

 two (expression) & the smallest prime number (expression)= two (object)

2. Intensional (or connotative).

This concerns the relation between linguistic expressions and the aspects of the associated meanings that are
not captured by the extensional aspect of meaning, which are often referred to as "concepts." The expression
“two” and the expression “the smallest prime number” refers to the same object, but they do so through different
concept.

One tradition in studying these aspects of meaning is compositional theories of meaning. In theories of this kind, the
meanings of linguistic expressions are considered in such a way that the meanings of the simplest linguistic units,
say, words, are first given and those of more complex expressions, (phrases, sentences etc.) are explained in
terms of those of the simplest components of the expressions. Another tradition is to consider linguistic
expressions as having independent established meanings of their own and to study the relations between
different linguistic expressions in terms of the similarities in meaning. This includes homonymy, synonymy,
antonymy, polysemy, paronyms, hypernymy, hyponymy, meronymy, metonymy, and others.

Lesson 2: What is meaning? The nature of linguistic meaning & Types of meaning

4
 In semantics and pragmatics, meaning is the message conveyed by words, sentences, and symbols in
a context. Also called lexical meaning or semantic meaning. In The Evolution of Language (2010), W. Tecumseh
Fitch points out that semantics is "the branch of language study that consistently rubs shoulders with philosophy.
This is because the study of meaning raises a host of deep problems that are the traditional stomping grounds
for philosophers."

Nature and Types of Linguistic Meaning

Communication and Information

Communication- intentional transfer of information is the primary function of language

- meaning includes choice: possibility of choice is a necessary condition of meaningfulness

“communicative”- meaning for the sender

“informative”- meaning for the receiver

Information can refer to:

a) signal information: physical characteristics of the signal (acoustic and visual information)

b) semantic information: meaning of the signal

3 Basic Functions of Language

1. descriptive- Explicitly confirmed or denied

(referential/ cognitive/ propositional)

2. social- maintaining social relationships

3. expressive- self-expression

NATURE OF MEANING

 Two-way approach to meaning:

sign = language (form) + content

 Three-way approach to meaning:

sign=language (form) + thought + reality
 Ogden & Richards says meaning is a process which goes on by the interaction of the mental picture
with reality.

Types of Linguistic Meaning: Conceptual/Primary/Basic Vs Secondary Types

Conceptual Meaning - dictionary or literal meaning of a word

5
 - core meaning

- relatively (not absolutely) constant & stable

- changes in time

e.g. definition of woman certain aspects are fixed = it is always human, adult, female

Secondary Types of Meaning

1. Stylistics – communication based on social circumstances - Features of words

e.g. home/residence/abode/domicile

small/ tiny/ diminutive/wee

throw/ cast/ chuck

2. Affective - type of meaning which conveys emotions and attitudes of a language user

e.g. You’re a viscious tyrant and I hate you for it!

I’m terribly sorry to interrupt you, but would you be so kind enough to lower your voice?

3. Reflected- communicated through the association with another sense of the same expression.

e.g. taboo words-traditionally stigmatized (sex erection intercourse stigmatized (sex, erection, intercourse)

When a word acquires taboo meaning, primary meaning gradually disappears

4. Collocative - communicated through the association with words which tend to occur in the environment of
another word.

- that part of the word m suggested by the part of the word m. suggested by the words that go before or come after it

e.g j . Ad +N

pretty+girl, (gorgeous)

pretty+boy (handsome)

LESSON 3: Theories and approaches in semantic analysis

The term “theory of meaning” has figured, in one way or another, in a great number of philosophical disputes
over the last century. Unfortunately, this term has also been used to mean a great number of different things. In this
entry, the focus is on two sorts of “theory of meaning”. The first sort of theory—a semantic theory—is a theory
which assigns semantic contents to expressions of a language. The second sort of theory—a foundational theory of
meaning—is a theory which states the facts in virtue of which expressions have the semantic contents that they have.

In “General Semantics”, David Lewis wrote

6
 I distinguish two topics: first, the description of possible languages or grammars as abstract
semantic systems whereby symbols are associated with aspects of the world; and, second, the description of
the psychological and sociological facts whereby a particular one of these abstract semantic systems is the
one used by a person or population. Only confusion comes of mixing these two topics. (Lewis 1970: 19)

One sort of theory of meaning—a semantic theory—is a specification of the meanings of the words and
sentences of some symbol system. Semantic theories thus answer the question, “What is the meaning of this or that
expression?” A distinct sort of theory—a foundational theory of meaning—tries to explain what about some person
or group gives the symbols of their language the meanings that they have. To be sure, the shape of a correct
semantic theory places constraints on the correct foundational theory of meaning, and vice versa; but that does not
change the fact that semantic theories and foundational theories are simply different sorts of theories, designed to
answer different questions.

To see the distinction between semantic theories and foundational theories of meaning, it may help to
consider an analogous one. Imagine an anthropologist specializing in table manners sent out to observe a distant
tribe. One task the anthropologist clearly might undertake is to simply describe the table manners of that tribe—to
describe the different categories into which members of the tribe place actions at the table, and to say which sorts of
actions fall into which categories. This would be analogous to the task of the philosopher of language interested in
semantics; her job is say what different sorts of meanings expressions of a given language have, and which
expressions have which meanings.

Our anthropologist would then have embarked upon the analogue of the construction of a foundational
theory of meaning: he would then be interested, not in which etiquette-related properties particular action types have
in a certain group, but rather the question of how action-types can, in any group, come to acquire properties of this
sort.[1] Our anthropologist might well be interested in both sorts of questions about table manners; but they are,
pretty clearly, different questions. Just so, semantic theories and foundational theories of meaning are, pretty clearly,
different sorts of theories.

The term “theory of meaning” has, in the recent history of philosophy, been used to stand for both semantic
theories and foundational theories of meaning. As this has obvious potential to mislead, in what follows I’ll avoid
the term which this article is meant to define and stick instead to the more specific “semantic theory” and
“foundational theory of meaning”. “Theory of meaning” simpliciter can be understood as ambiguous between these
two interpretations.

The task of explaining the main approaches to semantic theory in contemporary philosophy of language
might seem to face an in-principle stumbling block. Given that no two languages have the same semantics—no two
languages are comprised of just the same words, with just the same meanings—it may seem hard to see how we can
say anything about different views about semantics in general, as opposed to views about the semantics of this or
that language. This problem has a relatively straightforward solution. While it is of course correct that the semantics
for English is one thing and the semantics for French something else, most assume that the various natural languages
should all have semantic theories of (in a sense to be explained) the same form. The aim of what follows will,
accordingly, be to introduce the reader to the main approaches to natural language semantics—the main views about
the right form for a semantics for a natural language to take—rather than to provide a detailed examination of the
various views about the semantics of some particular expression. (For an overview, see the entry on word meaning.
For discussion of issues involving particular expression types, see the entries on names, quantifiers and
quantification, descriptions, propositional attitude reports, and natural kinds.)

One caveat before we get started: before a semantic theorist sets off to explain the meanings of the expressions of
some language, she needs a clear idea of what she is supposed to explain the meaning of. This might not seem to

7
present much of a problem; aren’t the bearers of meaning just the sentences of the relevant language, and their parts?
This is correct as far as it goes. But the task of explaining what the semantically significant parts of a sentence are,
and how those parts combine to form the sentence, is as complex as semantics itself, and has important
consequences for semantic theory. Indeed, most disputes about the right semantic treatment of some class of
expressions are intertwined with questions about the syntactic form of sentences in which those expressions figure.
Unfortunately, discussion of theories of this sort, which attempt to explain the syntax, or logical form, of natural
language sentences, is well beyond the scope of this entry. As a result, figures like Richard Montague, whose work
on syntax and its connection to semantics has been central to the development of semantic theory over the past few
decades, are passed over in what follows. (Montague’s essays are collected in Montague 1974.) For an excellent
introduction to the connections between syntax and semantics, see Heim & Kratzer (1998); for an overview of the
relations between philosophy of language and several branches of linguistics, see Moss (2012).

Prototype Theory

Another set of concepts related to fuzziness in semantics is based on Prototype theory. The work of
Eleanor Rosch and George Lakoff in the 1970s led to a view that natural categories are not characterizable in
terms of necessary and sufficient conditions, but are graded (fuzzy at their boundaries) and inconsistent as to
the status of their constituent members.

Systems of categories are not objectively "out there" in the world, but are rooted in people's
experience. These categories evolve as learned concepts of the world—that is, meaning is not an objective truth, but
a subjective construct, learned from experience, and language arises out of the "grounding of our conceptual systems
in shared embodiment and bodily experience"

A corollary of this is that the conceptual categories (i.e. the lexicon) will not be identical for
different cultures, or indeed, for every individual in the same culture. This leads to another debate discussed
by the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis.

Assessment: Learning Exercises

Exercise No.1A. Answer the following questions and answer each in not less than three (3) sentences and not more
than five (5) sentences. (Each item merits 10 points)

8
1. Explain the role of semantics in our day-to-day discourses and conversation. How important for
communicators/ speakers to clarify their language both in context and use of words?

2. Give at least 10 reasons why semantics serves as a vital part of grammar and communication based on the
discussions of the module.

Exercise No.1B. Make a drama presentation highlighting the three (3) basic functions of language. (50 points)

CHAPTER TWO

Word Meaning and Semantic Relations

Overview:

In this chapter, you will learn more on the semantic analysis and in the first part of our module we
described these particular topics as individual subjects and traditional terms but this time we are already
associating and branding them as “meaning relations”, believing that the way how we select and use these words
affect their meaning in sentences.

Learning Objectives:

9
 At the end of this chapter, you are expected to:

a. identify types of meaning relations

c. differentiate traditional and contemporary approaches to componential analysis of semantics

d. categorize prototypes and schemas in semantics

LESSON 1: Lexical semantics: sense, reference and denotation

What is semantics?

Lexical semantics (also known as lexicosemantics), as a subfield of linguistic semantics, is the study of
word meanings. It includes the study of how words structure their meaning, how they act in grammar and
compositionality, and the relationships between the distinct senses and uses of a word.

Sense, reference and denotation are three aspects of what is commonly conveyed by the loose term
‘meaning’. A fourth, very important aspect of meaning is connotation. Connotation names those aspects of meaning
which do not affect a word’s sense, reference or denotation, but which have to do with secondary factors such as its
emotional force, its level of formality, its character as a euphemism, etc. ‘Police officer’ and ‘cop’, for example,
have very different
connotations, but similar denotations.
The sense of a lexeme may be defined as the general meaning or the concept underlying the word. As a first
approximation, we can describe this as what we usually think of as contained in a dictionary entry for the word in
question, although we will see later that this characterization needs significant modification. A word’s referent is the
object which it stands for on a specific occasion of use. A word’s referent, then, is the particular thing, person, place,
etc, which an expression stands for on a particular occasion of use, and it changes each time the word is applied to a
different object or situation in the world. By contrast, a word’s sense does not change every time the word takes on a
new referent.

Reference deals with the relationship between the linguistic elements, words, sentences, etc., and the non-linguistic
world of experience. Sense relates to the complex system of relationships that hold between the linguistic elements
themselves (mostly the words); it is concerned only with intra-linguistic relations. The dictionary is usually
concerned with sense relations, with relating words to words, though most dictionaries state such relations in a most
unsystematic way. The sense of an expression may be defined as the set, or network, of senserelations that hold
between it and other expressions of the same language.

Ogden and Richards called the bond between word and concept an ‘association,’ the bond between concept and
object ‘reference,’ and the bond between object and word ‘meaning.’ When we hear or read a word, we often form a
mental picture of what the word represents, and so we are apt to equate ‘concept’ with a mental picture. Reference is
the relation between a language expression such as this door, both doors, the dog, another dog and whatever the
expression pertains to in a particular situation of language use, including what a speaker may imagine. Denotation is
the potential of a word like door or dog to enter into such language expressions. Reference is the way speakers and
hearers use an expression successfully; denotation is the knowledge they have that makes their use successful. The
trouble with a mentalistic theory of meaning is, first, that not all words can be associated with mental images and
some words have a range of meaning greater than any single association. The bigger problem with a mentalistic
theory is that we have no access to other people’s minds. How can we ever know that we all have the same mental

10
images? If semantics is a science, it cannot operate scientifically by starting with things that are not observable and
not comparable. Words are not the only semantic units. Meanings are expressed by units that may be smaller than
words—morphemes. Furthermore, meaning is more than denotation. People not only talk and write to describe
things and events and characteristics; they also express their opinions, favorable and unfavorable. Language
furnishes the means for expressing a wide range of attitudes; this aspect of meaning is called connotation. Another
aspect is sense relations: the meaning of any expression varies with context, what other expressions it occurs with
and what expressions it contrasts with.

LESSON 2: Semantic relations: synonymy, antonymy and hyponymy

Semantic relationships are the associations that there exist between the meanings of words (semantic relationships at
word level), between the meanings of phrases, or between the meanings of sentences (semantic relationships at
phrase or sentence level).

Semantic Relationships at Word Level

At word level, we will study semantic relationships like the following: synonymy, antonymy, homonymy,
polysemy and metonymy.

Synonymy

Synonymy is the semantic relationship that exists between two (or more) words that have the same (or
nearly the same) meaning and belong to the same part of speech, but are spelled differently. In other
words, we can say that synonymy is the semantic equivalence between lexical items. The (pairs of) words
that have this kind of semantic relationship are called synonyms, or are said to be synonymous.

For example:

big = large hide = conceal small = little couch = sofa

to begin = to start kind = courteous beginning = start

to cease = to stop fast = quickly = rapidly

Pairs of words that are synonymous are believed to share all (or almost all) their semantic features or properties.
However, no two words have exactly the same meaning in all the contexts in which they can occur.

For example, the verbs employ and use are synonymous in the expression:

We used/employed effective strategies to solve the problem.

However, only use can be used in the following sentence:

We used a jimmy bar to open the door.

11
If we used employ, the sentence would sound awkward

*We employed a jimmy bar to open the door.

In short, we can say that there are no absolute synonyms, i.e., pairs of words that have the same meaning (or
share the same semantic features) in all the situational and syntactic contexts in which they can appear.

Antonymy

Antonymy is the semantic relationship that exists between two (or more) words that have opposite
meanings. The pairs of words which have opposite meanings are called antonyms. Antonymous pairs of words
usually belong to the same grammatical category (i.e., both elements are nouns, or both are adjectives, or both are
verbs, and so on). They are said to share almost all their semantic features except one.

Antonyms may be

(a) morphologically unrelated (i.e., one of the elements of the pair does not derive from the other), e.g.
good/bad, high/low

(b) morphologically related (i.e., one of the members of a pair of antonyms is derived from the other
member by the addition of a negative word or an affix),

e.g., good/not good, friendly/unfriendly, likely/unlikely

Morphologically related antonyms can be formed in the following ways:

b.1. By using the word not; e.g.,

alive/not alive, happy/not happy, beautiful/not beautiful.

b.2. By adding negative prefixes such as un-, im-, in- il-, ir-, non-, mis-, dis-,

happy/unhappy, do/undo, lock/unlock, entity/nonentity, conformist

/nonconformist, tolerant/intolerant, decent/indecent, please/displease,

like /dislike, behave/mishave, hear/mishear, moral/amoral, political/apolitical, legal/illegal, logical/illogical,

probable/improbable, relevant/irrelevant.

b.3. By adding negative suffixes such as –less.

E.g., careful/careless, joyful/ joyless.

Homonymy

Homonymy is the relationship that exits between two (or more) words which belong to the same
grammatical category, have the same spelling, may or may not have the same pronunciation, but have
different meanings and origins (i.e., they are etymologically and semantically unrelated).

E.g,

to lie (= to rest, be, remain, be situated in a certain position)

12
 to lie (= not to tell the truth); to bear (= to give birth to)

to bear (= to tolerate);

bank (= the ground near a river)

bank (= financial institution)

lead [li…d] (= the first place or position, an example behavior for others to copy) and lead [led] (= heavy
metal)

bass [beIs] (= musical instrument) and bass [bœs] (= edible fish).

The pairs of words that exhibit this kind of relationship are called homonyms. Homonyms usually have
different entries in dictionaries, often indicated by superscripted little numbers; e.g., lie1 , lie2 .

In isolated spoken sentences, homophonic homonyms can also give rise to lexical ambiguity. For example, in
the following sentences it is almost impossible to know the intended meanings of bank and bear. Notice the
following sentences.

 John went to the [bœNk] (the financial institution or the ground by the river?)
 Mary can’t [bE´r] (have or tolerate?) children

Hyponymy

Hyponymy or inclusion is the semantic relationship that exists between two (or more) words in such
a way that the meaning of one word includes (or contains) the meaning of other words(s).

We say that the term whose meaning is included in the meaning of the other term(s) is the general
term; linguists usually refer to it as a superordinate or hypernym. The term whose meaning includes the
meaning of the other term is the specific term; linguists usually refer to it as a hyponym. If the meaning of a
superordinate term is included in the meaning of several other more specific words, the set of specific terms which
are hyponyms of the same superordinate term and are called cohyponyms (cf. Crystal, 1991).

Polysemy

Polysemy is the semantic relationship that exists between a word and its multiple conceptually and
historically related meanings (cf. Crystal, 1991; Fromkin & Rodman, 1998; Richards et al., 1992).

E.g.,

foot = 1. part of body; 2. lower part of something

plain = 1. clear; 2. unadorned; 3. obvious.

nice = 1. pleasant; 2. kind; 3. friendly; etc.

The different meanings of a word are not interchangeable; in fact, they are context-specific.

13
Metonymy

Metonymy is the semantic relationship that exists between two words (or a word and an expression) in
which one of the words is metaphorically used in place of the other word (or expression) in particular
contexts to convey the same meaning (cf. Fromkin & Rodman, 1998).

E.g.,

brass = military officers jock = athlete cops = policemen

Moscow = Russian Government crown = monarchy

Miraflores = Venezuelan Government

Semantic Relationships at Phrase or Sentence Level

At phrase or sentence level, we will study only paraphrase. Other relationships, such as entailment and
contradiction, will not be dealt with in this course.

Paraphrase

Paraphrase is the expression of the meaning of a word, phrase or sentence using other words, phrases or
sentences which have (almost) the same meaning (cf. Richards et al., 1992). Paraphrase involves a relation of
semantic equivalence between syntactically different phrases or sentences (cf. Quirk et al., 1985. E.g.,

John wrote a letter to Mary.

A dog bit John.
John wrote Mary a letter.
John was bitten by a dog.

14
 Like synonymy, paraphrase is
never perfect; there are always
differences in emphasis or
focus.
 John wrote a letter to Mary.
 A dog bit John. John wrote Mary a letter.
 John was bitten by a dog.

Like synonymy, paraphrase is never perfect; there are always differences in emphasis or focus.

Two kinds of paraphrase:

1. Lexical paraphrase. It is the use of a semantically equivalent term in place of another in a given context. This is
also known as synonymy.

E.g., John is happy. = John is cheerful.

to rejuvenate = to make someone or something appear or feel younger.

2. Structural paraphrase. It is the use of a phrase or sentence in place of another phrase or sentence semantically
equivalent to it, although they have different syntactic structure. E.g.,

 John showed the pictures to me.

 John showed me the pictures.

Assessment: Learning Exercises

Answer the following questions and answer each in not less than three (3) sentences and not more than five (5)
sentences. (Each item merits 10 points)

1. Why is it important to understand meaning relations at word level and sentence level in understanding the
meaning of texts/ sentences/ statements?

2. How is the selection for proper words be important in addressing the right meaning?

3. How does the idea of the triangle of meaning connected to semantic memory?

4. Explain the contribution of prototype in semantic category.

15
CHAPTER THREE

Sentence meaning and semantic

analysis
Overview:

This module will discuss the influence of lexemes in semantics, concepts in antonymy, introduction to
cognitive semantics, and the notion of prototype and its relevance for meaning categorization.

Learning Objectives:

16
 At the end of this chapter, you are expected to:

a. categorize the different lexemes in semantics,

b. analyze the organization of the paradigmatic,

c. differentiate semantics and lexical fields,

Lesson 1: Semantically related lexemes: Organization on the Paradigmatic Level

“A lexeme is a minimal semantic unit having an identifiable form. It does not necessarily
relate directly to morphological units such as roots, stems, affixes, or morphological words, nor to
phonological words or phrases. The formal shape of a lexeme may be any of these. The identifying
features, however, of a lexeme semantically defined within the context of its relationship to the cognitive,
grammatical, and phonological networks is a functional rather than a formal unit” (Newell, 1995).

In semantics, lexemes may either be monosemous or polysemous (Andreou, 2019). Names

of zodiac signs such as Taurus have only one meaning which makes it monosemous. The lexeme bear is
polysemous because it has more than one meaning. Lexemes may be categorized into five – pronunciation, part of
speech, inflection, etymology, and basic meaning.

Pronunciation is the way in which a word or letter is being uttered or said. Part of speech in the English
language are noun, pronoun, adjective, determiner, verb, adverb, preposition, conjunction, and interjection.

Inflection is a word formation process in which items such as affixes are added to the base form and/or
root word to express grammatical meaning.

Etymology studies the origin of words. Basic meaning refers to the simplest meaning of a lexical item.

Lexemes differ in meaning but may be alike given the circumstance that the base forms have
the same spelling like lead, sight, ball, bar, etc. They also differ when it comes to pronunciation,
inflection, and part-of-speech membership. Svensén (2008) stated that “(t)he problem is to decide whether the
lexemes of a given pair should be regarded as belonging to the same lemma or not. In other words:

a. Are the lexemes to be regarded as representing different meanings of the ‘same’ word? If so, there is a
relationship of polysemy between them.

b. Are the lexemes to be regarded as two ‘different’ words? If so, there is a relationship of homonymy between
them.”

The base forms of two given lexical items may be identical in various respects. If the two
forms are identical as regards spelling, there is a relationship of homography between them (i.e. they are
homographs): lead [led] ‘a metal’ lead [li:d] ‘go in front’

If the two forms are identical as regards pronunciation, there is a relationship of

homophony between them (i.e. they are homophones): sight [saιt] ‘seeing’ site [saιt] ‘place’

Homography and homophony can obviously occur together: ball ['bόl] ‘round object’ ball ['bόl]
‘dance’

17
 Two lexical items where the base form are identical as regards spelling and pronunciation may
also be identical or different as regards other characteristics, for example inflection and part-of-speech
membership. In the case of ball, both are the same:

ball n. –s ‘round object’

ball n. –s ‘dance’

In the following case, there is identity as to part of speech but not as to inflection:

weave vb. wove woven ‘interlace’

weave vb. weaved ‘dodge’

If the two items differ as regards part of speech, they probably differ as to inflection as
well:

bear n. –s ‘an animal’

bear vb. bore borne ‘carry’

A paradigm is the complete set of related word-forms associated with a given lexeme. There are two paradigms
– inflectional and derivational paradigms.

Derivational paradigm is a set of related words which have the same root but different stems. Examples:

1. nature, natural, naturally

2. unnatural, unnaturally

3. naturalist, naturalistic, naturalistically

4. naturalize, naturalization

Inflectional paradigm is a set of related words consisting of the same stem to which different inflectional suffixes
have been added.

Examples:

1. brighten, brightens, brightening, brightened

2. great, greater, greatest

3. boy, boys

The stem of a word is the part of the word which remains when the inflectional suffix is removed. Other
linguists call it the base of the word. There are three types of stems:

1. Simple stems- are identical to the root.

Example: run, tree, table

18
2. Derived stems- consist of a root and one or more derivational suffixes.

Example: fatherhood, brotherhood, fascism

3. Compound stems- consist of two or more roots

Example: blueberry, strawberry, classroom

Lesson 2: Semantics roles and thematic relations

In lexicography (the study of dictionary-making), a semantic field and a lexical field both
relate to the way words can be organized and/or classified. The term lexical field refers to vocabulary that is
related by topic or theme. Classification or grouping into semantic fields, on the other hand, takes into account
meaning rather than topic.

There is a great deal of overlap and confusion in the use of these two terms because the term
“semantic field” is somewhat elastic. Thus we could say that ANIMALS and PLANTS are two different semantic
fields, or we could group them together into a single larger field called LIVING THINGS.

Antonymy

When we hear the word ‘antonym’, we recognise the notion that it pertains to
‘oppositeness’. However, that is not always the case because some words have no real opposites. Cruse
(1986) stated that antonyms share the following characteristics:

➢ they are fully gradable (most are adjectives; a few are verbs)

➢ members of a pair denote degrees of some variable property such as length, speed, weight, accuracy, etc.

➢ when more strongly intensified, the members of a pair as it were, in opposite directions along the scale
representing degrees of the relevant variable property Thus, very heavy and very light, for instance, are more widely
separated on scale of weight than fairly heavy and fairly light.

➢ the terms of a pair do not strictly bisect a domain: there a range of values of the variable property,
lying between covered by the opposed terms, which cannot be properly referred to by either term, as a
result, a statement.

Containing one member of an antonym pair stands in a relation of contrariety with the parallel statement
containing the other term, Thus, It's long and It's short are contrary, not contradictory, statements.

Complementary antonymy

This relationship is sometimes called ‘contradiction’. The rather small group of adjectives with
complementary antonyms have no comparative or superlative forms, since the state they denote is not
relative: you can’t be slightly alive or rather dead. Complementary antonym rule of thumb: If it isn’t X then it must
be Y, and vice versa.

If
19
X
then not
Y
and if
Y
then not
X
If
alive
then not
dead
and if
dead
then not
alive
20
If
blind
then not
sighted
and if
sighted
then not
blind
If
hit
then not
miss
and if
miss
then not
21
hit
Polar antonymy

This relationship is similar to, but more complex than, complementarity. If X then not Y and if Y
then not X holds good here as well, but is not enough. There is a gradient between X and Y in polar antonymy. X
and Y are at the poles of this gradient, but in between there is an indeterminate area, where more X and
less Y are found. Something is not necessarily good because it is not bad, a surface can be smoother or rougher
than another surface, and so on. Polar antonymy rule of thumb: If it’s X then it can’t be Y, and vice versa,
but it can be somewhere in between.

Directional antonymy

Directional antonyms include various subtypes: some denote contrary movement or position,
for instance, pairs of words representing opposing ‘poles’ along a shared axis. Directional antonyms are
solid material for lexicographers who need to add antonyms to a dictionary entry: here are nouns, verbs,
adjectives, and adverbs in abundance, their number greatly increased by the negating prefixes un-, dis-, and so
on.

Directions Antipodals
North ≠ top ≠ bottom
South up ≠ zenith ≠
down nadir start ≠
forward ≠ finish cradle
backward
≠ grave attic

≠ cellar

Reversives
Counterparts
appear ≠ disappear
male ≠ female
tie ≠ untie
convex ≠
pack ≠ unpack
concave yin ≠
widen ≠ narrow
yang
heat ≠ cool

22
 Taxonomy (Saeed, 2016) Saeed (2016) defined taxonomy as “hierarchical classification
systems.” For example, is the color adjectives in English, below is a selection at one level of the taxonomy:

red orange blue yellow green purple brown.

We can say that the words red and blue are sister-members of the same taxonomy and
therefore incompatible with each other. Hence one can say:

His car isn’t red, it’s blue.

Other taxonomies might include the days of the week: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and so
on, or any of the taxonomies we use to describe the natural world, like types of dog: poodle, setter, bulldog, and
so on. Some taxonomies are closed, like days of the week: we can’t easily add another day, without changing
the whole system. Others are open, like the flavors of ice cream sold in an ice cream parlor: someone can always
come up with a new flavor and extend the taxonomy.

Hyponymy (Saeed, 2016)

Hyponymy is a relation of inclusion. A hyponym includes the meaning of a more general word,
for example:

dog and cat are hyponyms of animal

sister and mother are hyponyms of woman

The more general term is called the superordinate or hypernym (alternatively hyperonym). Much of the
vocabulary is linked by such systems of inclusion, and the resulting semantic networks form the hierarchical
taxonomies. Some taxonomies reflect the natural world where we only expand a single line of the network:
Here kestrel is a hyponym of hawk, and hawk a hyponym of bird. We assume the relationship is transitive
so that kestrel is a hyponym of bird.

Hyponymy is a vertical relationship in a taxonomy, thus, saw is a hyponym of tool (as shown
above), while taxonomic sisters are in a horizontal relationship, so hacksaw and jigsaw are sisters in this taxonomy
with other types of saw. Another lexical relation that seems like a special sub-case of taxonomy is the ADULT–
YOUNG relation, as shown in the following examples:

 dog puppy
 cat kitten
 cow calf
 pig piglet
 duck duckling
 swan cygnet

23
If semantic approach is applied in a synchronic contemporary dictionary, the word form match, with its
compounds and derivatives, might be treated in the following way:

1match n. (-es) game, competition

2match n. (-es) one who is (somebody’s) equal
3match n. (-es) something that combines well
4match n. (-es) possible wife/husband; marriage
5match n. (-es) wooden stick for making fire 6match vb. (-ed, -ing, -es) cause to compete 7match vb. (-ed, -
ing, -es) be (somebody’s) equal
8match vb. (-ed, -ing, -es) combine well matchbox n. box of wooden sticks for making fire matching adj.
combining well
matchless adj. unequalled
1matchmaker n. one who attempts to arrange a marriage
2matchmaker n. one who arranges competitions
3matchmaker n. manufacturer of wooden sticks for making fire
1matchmaking n. attempt to arrange a marriage
2matchamking n. arrangement of competitions
3matchmaking n. manufacture of wooden sticks for making fire
match point n. decisive situation in game
matchwood n. wood used for manufacture of sticks for making fire

Here, it should be noted that all the match lexemes, as well as all the matchmaker and matchmaking
lexemes, despite their formal likeness, have been presented as homonyms because of their semantic
differences, and there are no instances of polysemy.

Learning Exercise :

24
CHAPTER FOUR

Meaning in Context: Pragmatics and

Discourse
Overview:

The study of context has been gaining popularity in recent years, either in linguistics itself or in many other
interdisciplinary subjects such as semantics, pragmatics, and discourse analysis as well. However, context theories
are not formed overnight. They involve a long process of development, during which comparative linguistics,
structural linguistics and transformational-generative linguistics all contributed to the theoretical foundations of
context theories.

Learning Objectives:

At the end of this chapter, you are expected to:

a. Discuss the relationship of pragmatics and discourse

b. explain how pragmatic works in dealing with meaning

c. discuss coherence and coherence relations

Lesson 1: Contextual effects on meaning

Definition of context

Different linguists seek to define context from different point of view in order to answer questions
encountered in their own fields, and to support their own ideas and theories. H. G. Widdowson, when focusing his
study on language meaning, thought “context” as “those aspects of the circumstance of actual language use which
are taken as relevant to meaning.” He further pointed out, “in other words, context is a schematic construct... the
achievement of pragmatic meaning is a matter of matching up the linguistic elements of the code with the schematic

25
elements of the context.” (H.G. Widdowson, 2000, p.126) When Guy Cook was studying the relationship between
discourse and literature, he took “context” into consideration as well. In his definition, context is just a form of
knowledge the world and “the term „context‟ can be used in a broad and narrow sense. In the narrow sense, it refers
to (knowledge of) factors outside the text under consideration. In the broad sense, it refers to (knowledge of) these
factors and to (knowledge of) other parts of the text under consideration, sometimes referred to as „co-text‟.” (Guy
Cook, 1999, p. 24) When studying reference and inference, George Yule also took “context” into account. He
provided us with a somewhat general definition, “Context is the physical environment in which a word is used.”
(George Yule, 2000, 128) Although they are viewed from different perspectives for different purposes, these
definitions have an important point in common: one main point of the context is the environment (circumstances or
factors by some other scholars) in which a discourse occurs.

Classification of context

Opinions on how to classify context vary from one to another. Some linguists divide context into two groups, while
some insist on discussing context from three, four, or even six dimensions. According to different circumstances mentioned in the
above definitions, I would like to divide context into linguistic context, situational context and cultural context.

A. Linguistic Context Linguistic context refers to the context within the discourse, that is, the relationship between the words,
phrases, sentences and even paragraphs. Take the word “bachelor” as an example. We can’t understand the exact meaning of the
sentence “He is a bachelor.” without the linguistic context to make clear the exact meaning of this word. Linguistic context can
be explored from three aspects: deictic, co-text, and collocation. In a language event, the participants must know where they are
in space and time, and these features relate directly to the deictic context, by which we refer to the deictic expressions like the
time expressions now, then, etc., the spatial expressions here, there, etc., and the person expressions I, you, etc... Deictic
expressions help to establish deictic roles which derive from the fact that in normal language behavior the speaker addresses his
utterance to another person and may refer to himself, to a certain place, or to a time.

B. Situational Context Situational context, or context of situation, refers to the environment, time and place, etc. in which the
discourse occurs, and also the relationship between the participants. This theory is traditionally approached through the concept
of register, which helps to clarify the interrelationship of language with context by handling it under three basic headings: field,
tenor, and mode. Field of discourse refers to the ongoing activity. We may say field is the linguistic reflection of the purposive
role of language user in the situation in which a text has occurred. Tenor refers to the kind of social relationship enacted in or by
the discourse. The notion of tenor, therefore, highlights the way in which linguistic choices are affected not just by the topic or
subject of communication but also by the kind of social relationship within which communication is taking place. Mode is the
linguistic reflection of the relationship the language user has to medium of transmission. The principal distinction within mode is
between those channels of communication that entail immediate contact and those that allow for deferred contact between
participants.

C. Cultural Context Cultural context refers to the culture, customs and background of epoch in language communities in
which the speakers participate. Language is a social phenomenon, and it is closely tied up with the social structure and value
system of society. Therefore, language can not avoid being influenced by all these factors like social role, social status, sex and
age, etc. Social roles are culture-specific functions, institutionalized in a society and recognized by its members. By social status,
we mean the relative social standing of the participants. Each participant in the language event must know, or make assumptions
about his or her status in relation to the other, and in many situations, status will also be an important factor in the determination
of who should initiate the conversation. Sex and age are often determinants of, or interact with, social status. The terms of
address employed by a person of one sex speaking to an older person, may differ from those which would be employed in
otherwise similar situations by people of the same sex or of the same age.

Lesson 2: Speech acts and implicatures

26
 An implicature is a proposition being conveyed "between the lines" in an utterance context. A speech act is
an event, an action being performed by an utterance.

Implicature” denotes either (i) the act of meaning or implying one thing by saying something else, or (ii)
the object of that act. Implicatures can be determined by sentence meaning or by conversational context, and can be
conventional (in different senses) or unconventional. Figures of speech such as metaphor and irony provide familiar
examples, as do loose use and damning with faint praise. Implicature serves a variety of goals: communication,
maintaining good social relations, misleading without lying, style, and verbal efficiency. Knowledge of common
forms of implicature is acquired along with one’s native language.

Conversational implicatures have become one of the principal subjects of pragmatics. An important
conceptual and methodological issue in semantics is how to distinguish senses and entailments from generalized
conversational implicatures. A related issue is the degree to which sentence meaning determines what is said.
Historical linguistics traces the evolution of conversational implicatures into idioms.

If this was a typical exchange, Barb meant that she is not going to Paul’s party by saying that she has to
work. She did not say that she is not going to Paul’s party, and the sentence she uttered does not mean that. Grice
introduced the technical terms implicate and implicature for the case in which what the speaker said is distinct from
what the speaker thereby meant or implied. [1] Thus Barb implicated that she is not going; that she is not going was
her implicature.

It is not possible to fully understand speakers without knowing what they have implicated as well as what
they have said. Unless we know what Barb meant by saying that she has to work, we will not know that she has
answered Alan’s question. Unless Carla knows what Don meant by saying that the weather is lovely, she might
mistakenly infer that he will arrive on time. The difference between saying and implicating also affects how we
evaluate speakers. If Barb knew she did not have to work, then she was lying in dialogue (1). If she knew she was
going to Paul’s party, she might be guilty of misleading Alan, but not of lying or making a false statement. [5] In
court, witnesses are typically required to answer questions directly. They cannot avoid perjury by implicating a
falsehood rather than saying it.

What someone implicates is not given to us directly. We have to infer it from evidence. We would typically
infer in (1) that Barb meant she is not going from what she said, what Alan asked, and our assumption that Barb was
responding to Alan’s question. An implicature can be characterized as an inference (“something inferred”), but
implicating is not itself inferring. To implicate something is to express a belief in a particular way. To infer
something is to acquire or possess a belief in a particular way. Hearers have to infer what speakers implicate. This is
not what makes implicating an indirect speech act. Implicature is indirect because to implicate something is to mean
it by saying something else. Even though it requires an inference, our recognition of what is meant is commonly
automatic and effortless, whether it is said or implicated. In (1), for example, competent speakers will grasp
immediately that Barb meant both that she has to work and that she is not going to Paul’s party. All speech acts have
to be inferred from contextual evidence, including what was said and what words were uttered. Whether there is any
significant difference in the kind of inference required to recognize an implicature is a matter of some debate, and
may depend on the type of implicature.

Lesson 3: Coherence and coherence relations

When it comes to planned, non-spontaneous texts including written discourse and speeches, the manner in
which the text is put together can be explained by elements of coherence and cohesion. While spontaneous discourse

27
will also display coherence and cohesion, it is emphasized in planned texts because there is a greater deal of thought
and intention behind the use of cohesive ties and devices of coherence.

They can however often be difficult concepts to grasp. For starters, it is essential to understand the
difference between the two terms.

Coherence is defined as the quality of being logical, consistent and able to be understood. Imagine coherence as a
building (It’s an analogy, go with it).

Cohesion on the other hand refers to the act of forming a whole unit. It is effectively a subset of coherence. Picture
cohesion as the bricks and cement which make up the building.

Bricks and cement can be put together to create any form of structure. However, it is only when they are laid
together properly that they form a building. Similarly, a text will be cohesive if cohesive ties are used however it
will only be coherent if the cohesive ties are used appropriately to create meaning. You can have cohesion without
coherence but you cannot have coherence without cohesion. The picture does not make sense unless the correct
pieces are placed in the correct order, even if certain pieces may be the same size and shape.

“I bought some hummus to eat with celery. Green vegetables can boost your metabolism. The
Australian Greens is a political party. I couldn’t decide what to wear to the new year’s party.”

In the example above, there are lexical links from one sentence to the next; cohesive ties are used to join
the sentences. There is evidence of lexical repetition, ‘green’ ‘party’ and collocations, ‘new years’.

However, this string of sentences do not make any sense; there is no binding semantic link. This is an
example of cohesion without coherence.

Cohesive devices effectively help the discourse flow. They include collocations, lexical repetition, linking
adverbials, substitution, ellipsis, conjunctions, synonymy/antonymy, hypernyms/hyponyms and referencing
(anaphoric, cataphoric, deictic). These devices create physical links between the words in a discourse.

Coherence which we previously defined as understanding can be achieved through devices such as
cohesive ties, formatting techniques, inference, logical ordering of information, semantic patterning and consistency.
These all enhance the ability of a text to be successfully interpreted and understood. Recipes, terms and condition
documents, informative brochures all make use of formatting in the form of headings, bolding, underlines etc. to
emphasis certain aspects of the text and draw audience attention to the most important elements. The focus of
coherence factors is determined by the social purpose of the text. Is the text made to entertain? Inform? Persuade?
Celebrate? If so, why? What is the overarching intention of the text? Answering such questions can help explain the
purpose of coherence factors and cohesive devices within a discourse.

This is effectively what you are aiming to do in your analytical commentaries and short answer questions in
the exam. Identify the social purposes of the text and use them to explain the role of coherence and cohesion within
the discourse.

The other major factor of consideration is the intended audience of the text. Is the text aimed at teenagers?
the Australian public? Or specifically to “bogan” Australians? The language choices and ideas implied in the text
will reflect the intended audience. If a text is aimed at Victorian’s it may include lexemes such as “Mornington
Peninsula” or “Shepparton” which Victorian’s can infer as locations within Victoria, however these terms would
need to be further explained to those who reside outside this state. Lexical choices which require outside inference

28
would be included if it can be reasonably interpreted that the intended audience would be aware of their meaning.
Finding examples of inference in texts can be useful in identifying the social purpose of the text.

Learning Exercise

CHAPTER FIVE

Lexical Semantics: Word Formation and

Composition
Overview:

Lexical semantics is the study of both word meaning and the manner in which words mediate between our concepts
and linguistic form. Words are not mere bundles of semantic features but, rather, are structured and active
participants in the grammatical and compositional operations inherent in language. The principal areas of concern to
this end are ambiguity and polysemy, the semantic relation between words and the types they denote, and the
mapping to syntax from semantic forms. Lexical semantics is both the interface between conceptualization and
language and the building block for compositional semantics.

Learning Objectives:

At the end of this chapter, you are expected to:

a. define morphology

b. discuss derivational morphology and semantic changes

Lesson 1: Morphology and word formation processes

29
 Lexical semantics is the branch of linguistics which is concerned with the systematic study of word
meanings. Probably the two most fundamental questions addressed by lexical semanticists are: (a) how to describe
the meanings of words, and (b) how to account for the variability of meaning from context to context. These two are
necessarily connected, since an adequate description of meaning must be able to support our account of variation
and our ability to interpret it. The study of contextual variation leads in two directions: on the one hand, to the
processes of selection from a range of permanently available possibilities; and on the other hand, to the creation of
new meanings from old, by such means as metaphor and metonymy, in response to contextual pressure. An
understanding of synchronic variation of meaning (variation observable at any one time in a language) is essential to
an understanding of diachronic change (change over time).

What is Word Formation?

Word formation process is subject of morphology where we learn how new words are formed. In
linguistics, word formation process is the creation of a new word by making changes in existing words or by
creating new words. In other words, it refers to the ways in which new words are made on the basis of other words.

Different Forms of Word Formation

Word Formation process is achieved by different ways to create a new word that includes; coinage,
compounding, borrowing, blending, acronym, clipping, contraction, backformation, affixation and conversion.

Compounding
Compounding is a type of word formation where we join two words side by side to create a new word. It is
very common type of word formation in a language. Some time we write a compound word with a hyphen between
two words and some time we keep a space and sometime we write them jointly. All these three forms are common
in all languages.

Common examples of word compounding are:

· Part + time = part-time
· Book + case = bookcase
· Low + paid = low-paid

Borrowing
In word formation process, borrowing is the process by which a word from one language is adapted for use
in another language. The word that is borrowed is called a borrowing, a loanword, or a borrowed word. It is also
known as lexical borrowing. It is the most common source of new words in all languages.

Common Examples of borrowed words in English language are:

· Dope (Dutch)
· Croissant (French)
· Zebra (Bantu)
· Lilac (Persian)
· Pretzel (German)
· Yogurt (Turkish)
· Piano (Italian)
· Sofa (Arabic)
· Tattoo (Tahitian)
· Tycoon (Japanese)

30
Blending
Blending is the combination of two separate words to form a single new word. It is different from compounding
where we add two words side by side to make a new word but in blending we do not use both words in complete
sense but new/derived word has part of both words e.g. word smog and fog are different words and when we blend
them to make a new word, we use a part of each word to make a new word that is smog. We took first two letters
from first word (sm) from smoke and last two (og) from fog to derive a new word smog.

Some more examples of blending are:

· Smoke + murk=smurk
· Smoke + haze= smaze
· Motel (hotel + motor)
· Brunch (breakfast + lunch )
· Infotainment ( information + entertainment)
· Franglais ( French + English)
· Spanglish (Spanish + English )

Abbreviations

Abbreviation is a process where we create a new word by making a change in lexical form of a word keeping same
meaning. There are three main types of abbreviations.

1. Clipping / Shortening / Truncation

2. Acronyms / Initialism
3. Contraction

Lesson 2: Derivational morphology and semantic changes

Derivational morphology is a type of word formation that creates new lexemes, either by changing
syntactic category or by adding substantial new meaning (or both) to a free or bound base. Derivation may be
contrasted with inflection on the one hand or with compounding on the other. The distinctions between derivation
and inflection and between derivation and compounding, however, are not always clear-cut. New words may be
derived by a variety of formal means including affixation, reduplication, internal modification of various sorts,
subtraction, and conversion. Affixation is best attested cross-linguistically, especially prefixation and suffixation.
Reduplication is also widely found, with various internal changes like ablaut and root and pattern derivation less
common. Derived words may fit into a number of semantic categories. For nouns, event and result, personal and
participant, collective and abstract noun are frequent. For verbs, causative and applicative categories are well-
attested, as are relational and qualitative derivations for adjectives. Languages frequently also have ways of deriving
negatives, relational words, and evaluations. Most languages have derivation of some sort, although there are
languages that rely more heavily on compounding than on derivation to build their lexical stock. A number of topics
have dominated the theoretical literature on derivation, including productivity (the extent to which new words can be
created with a given affix or morphological process), the principles that determine the ordering of affixes, and the
place of derivational morphology with respect to other components of the grammar. The study of derivation has also
been important in a number of psycholinguistic debates concerning the perception and production of language.

31
Defining Derivation
Derivational morphology is defined as morphology that creates new lexemes, either by changing the
syntactic category (part of speech) of a base or by adding substantial, non-grammatical meaning or both. On the one
hand, derivation may be distinguished from inflectional morphology, which typically does not change category but
rather modifies lexemes to fit into various syntactic contexts; inflection typically expresses distinctions like number,
case, tense, aspect, person, among others. On the other hand, derivation may be distinguished from compounding,
which also creates new lexemes, but by combining two or more bases rather than by affixation, reduplication,
subtraction, or internal modification of various sorts. Although the distinctions are generally useful, in practice
applying them is not always easy.

Derivation Versus Inflection

Either derivation or inflection may be effected by formal means like affixation, reduplication, internal
modification of bases, and other morphological processes. But derivation serves to create new lexemes while
inflection prototypically serves to modify lexemes to fit different grammatical contexts. In the clearest cases,
derivation changes category, for example taking a verb like employ and making it a noun (employment, employer,
employee) or an adjective (employable), or taking a noun like union and making it a verb (unionize) or an adjective
(unionish, unionesque). Derivation need not change category, however. For example, the creation of abstract nouns
from concrete ones in English (king ~ kingdom; child ~ childhood) is a matter of derivation, as is the creation of
names for trees (poirier ‘pear tree’) from the corresponding fruit (poire ‘pear’) in French, even though neither
process changes category. Derivational prefixation in English tends not to change category, but it does add
substantial new meaning, for example creating negatives (unhappy, inconsequential), various quantitative or
relational forms (tricycle, preschool, submarine) or evaluatives (megastore, miniskirt). Inflection typically adds
grammatical information about number (singular, dual, plural), person (first, second, third), tense (past, future),
aspect (perfective, imperfective, habitual), and case (nominative, accusative), among other grammatical categories
that languages might mark.

Nevertheless, there are instances that are difficult to categorize, or that seem to fall somewhere between
derivation and inflection. Many of the difficult cases hinge on determining the necessary and sufficient criteria in
defining derivation. Certainly, category change is not necessary, as there are many obvious cases of derivation that
do not involve category change.

Derivation Versus Compounding

The distinction between derivation and compounding, unlike that between derivation and inflection, is a
formal rather than a functional one. Both derivation and compounding may be involved in lexeme formation. Both
are typically binary-branching and both may be recursive. Compounding, however, involves the combination of two
or more lexemes, which in the prototypical case are free bases. Derivation involves modification of bases, either by
affixation, reduplication, or internal changes of various sorts.

Lesson 3: Compounding and semantic composition

According to Geoffrey Leech “words can be analyzed and described in terms of their semantic
components, which usually come in pairs called semantic oppositions”: "Up" and "Down," for example, are

32
related in that they both describe vertical directions, one in one direction (call it "plus") and the other in the other
(call it "minus").

There are several variations on these pairs, depending on how they related to each other and how they
can be used with other words. There are also sets of words that are variations on a single semantic theme, such as
penny, nickel, dime, quarter, etc. Linguists have devised a number of ways to represent these components.
Here is a version of the one designed by the linguist Geoffrey Leech:

Binary taxonomy
+LIVE = alive
-LIVE = dead
Multiple taxonomy
*METAL = gold
#METAL = silver
@METAL = copper
etc.
Polarity
^SIZE = large
vSIZE = small
Relation
>PARENT = is the parent of
33
<PARENT = is the child of
(also bidirectional, such as
sibling)
Hierarchy
1LENGTH = inch
2LENGTH = foot
3LENGTH = yard
etc.
Inverse opposition
{POSSIBLE = possible
}POSSIBLE = necessary
(also all/some, allow/compel,
etc.)
Examples:

father = +MALE >PARENT

daughter = -MALE <PARENT

brother = +MALE <>SIBLING

grandfather = +MALE >PARENT >PARENT

34
or +MALE >LINEAL

2GENERATIONS

cousin = <PARENT...<>SIBLING...>PARENT

or <LINEAL <>SIBLING >LINEAL

Xth cousin Y-removed = <LINEAL <>SIBLING >LINEAL

iGENERATIONS jGENERATIONS

or <>COUSIN xDISTANCE yREMOVE

where x is the lesser of i and j and y is the difference between i and j

Componential analysis assumes that words do not have unitary (individual) meanings but are complexes
of components. Componential analysis aims at discovering and organizing the semantic components of the
words. So, in layman’s term, componential analysis is a process of breaking down the sense of a word into its
minimal components.

Leech (1981:89) preliminarily cites, as an example, the words-man, woman, boy, girl and other
related words which belong to the semantic field the human race. The relations % between them ' may be
represented by a two dimensional field diagram'.

The diagram shows two dimensions: that of sex and that of adulthood; a third dimension is
presupposed by the isolation of the field as a whole: that between human and non-human species. The examples
above is already the final interpretation of what Leech (1989) is what trying to say regarding the use of
Componential analysis to semantics.

35
Learning Exercise

CHAPTER SIX

Cognitive Semantics: Prototypes and Categorization

Overview:

Prototype theory, as developed by Rosch, has had repercussions in two main areas of linguistics: lexical
semantics and syntax. Word meanings are the names of categories, and the meanings of many words display
characteristic prototype effects (fuzziness of category boundaries, degrees of representativity of category members).
Further areas of application have been semantic change, and the structure of polysemy networks. The prototype
approach does, however, encounter problems in connection with theories of semantic compositionality. Linguistic
constructs, such as syntactic and lexical categories, also display prototype effects. The application of prototype
theory to the study of parts of speech and syntactic constructions has been especially fruitful.

Learning Objectives:

At the end of this chapter, you are expected to:

a. categorize the different lexemes in semantics,

b. analyze the organization of the paradigmatic,

c. differentiate metaphor and metonymy

Lesson 1: Prototype theory and categorization

Prototype effects not only emerge in the non-linguistic conception, but also appear in all strata of linguistic
conception, including the categorization of the tense system. It is argued that teaching tense systems in other

36
languages can be difficult, as the categorization differs and may not be easily understood by the learner. It is
therefore advisable for instructors to gain a clearer understanding of the categorization of the tense system, to help
them explain it more clearly. The 46 study of the tense system is, in principle, no different from the study of any
other component of linguistic structure. On the theoretical basis of prototype theory, this research is conducted to
meet the questions: 1) What is the prototype of category TENSE? 2) What are the cognitive features of category
TENSE? 3) What are the cognitive mechanisms in the categorization of the system and how do they work in the
categorization? These questions are addressed in Section 3, 4 and 5 respectively. It is hypothesized that category
TENSE, starting from the prototype of simple present tense, extends in the way of concatenation like linked chains
and expands in the way of radiation like sunrays, with vague boundaries. This vagueness in the boundary of
category TENSE helps the conceptual construction of the category. Family resemblances among different members
of the tense system provide experiential bases for the interaction between metonymic and metaphoric mechanisms.
Chained metonymies and metaphoric mechanism work as the cognitive tools, which together contribute in the
construction of the tense category. This paper will provide arguments to support these hypotheses.

Categorization and prototype

The world consists of an infinite variety of objects with different substances, shapes and colors. We
sometimes feel confused when trying to translate this variety into manageable word meanings since no clear-cut
distinctions seem to be available. However, this is not always the case in our rapidly changing world. In spite of the
vagueness among different types of entities, we have the impression that boundaries do exist in reality. These
boundaries, provided by reality, seem to force classification upon us. Classification, as the basic property of human
language, is considered as a kind of mental process, which is made possible by the resemblance among the varieties
in the world.

Basic-level category

Prototype theory also provides an account of levels of categorization. The information the world provides
for us is not completely in a mess and disorder, and there do exist some regularities and orders. There is a level of
categorization, which is cognitively and linguistically more salient than others. This is the “basic level” of
categorization. In the course of categorization, the objects with salient and prominent properties constitute the basic-
level category. Above the basiclevel category, there exists the superordinate category, while under it is the
subordinate category. It is at this very basic level of categorization that people conceptualize things as perceptual
and functional gestalts (Rosch et al, 1976). These categories enable us to acquire the maximum information at the
expense of minimum effort. Starting from the prototype, human beings understand all the reference of the semantic
category on the basis of family resemblance, in which metonymy and metaphor work as cognitive tools.

Similarities between lexical category and tense category

Prototype effects exist both in the cognition of non-linguistic conceptual structures and linguistic
conceptual structures. The two conceptual structures share no differences in nature in that they are constructed
through the same cognitive mechanisms. When peripheral members are sharing family resemblance with prototype,
the phenomenon of polysemy occurs in the lexical categories. Polysemy is generally regarded as a property of
lexical categories, but polysemy is not a property of words alone (Taylor, 2001). In Taylor’s opinion, other
categories of linguistic structures, e.g. morphosyntactic categories of tense and aspect, syntactic categories of
sentence types, morphological categories of number and case, prosodic categories of intonation contour, etc. also
exhibit a cluster of related meanings, and must count as instances of polysemy.

37
 Lesson 2: Metaphor and metonymy
So far we've looked at how the meanings of words can be extended, both by adult speakers and by babies
learning the language, in ways that make them more or less general. In this section we'll consider two other general
kinds of conceptual relations that permit word meanings to be extended: similarity and various kinds of close
association.

First consider the situation that arose when computers were first outfitted with pointing devices to be manipulated in
one hand by moving them across a pad and pushing one of their buttons. The noun that came to be used for these
devices, mouse, was based on the resemblance of the devices to the animal: the general size and shape and the tail-
like cable. Thus the meaning of the word mouse was extended on the basis of the physical similarity between one
category (the animal) and another (the pointing device). Extension of a word's meaning on the basis of similarity is
known as metaphoric extension.

Metaphoric Extension from Concrete to Abstract

One frequent use of metaphor is the application of a word referring to an object category to a more abstract
semantic category, something not physical at all. Consider the structure of taxonomies as in this example from the
last section. If we turn the figure illustrating the taxonomy over, it resembles a tree, with the most general category
as the root and the most specific categories the leaves. This is in fact how cognitive scientists refer to structures like
this; tree is applied to the whole structure, root is applied to the point where all of the branches begin, and leaf is
applied to the point beyond which there are no more branches. Note that a taxonomy is not a physical thing at all, so
with metaphoric extension we have now taken common nouns such as tree and leaf outside of the realm of the
physical entirely.

This example also illustrates how metaphor often operates on two entire domains, each with its own
elements and internal structure. The source domain is the one that is being used to understand the (usually more
complex) target domain. In this example, the source domain is tree, the target domain taxonomy. The metaphor is
based on multiple similarities between the domains: correspondences (or mappings) between the elements (leaves
and specific concepts, for example) and the relations between the elements (branches join the root to the leaves;
generalization links join the most general concept to the more specific ones).

Metonymy

The word for 'language' may be related to other, less abstract words, for example, the word for 'tongue' (as
in Spanish), the word for 'mouth' (as in Oromo), the word for 'voice' (as in Tzeltal). Assuming that the 'language'
sense is an extension of the more basic sense in each case, what's the basis of this extension.

A somewhat more complicated possibility for extending a word meaning is based on a quite different
conceptual relation, not similarity between the instances of the two categories but a strong association between
them. This is referred to as metonymic extension. Consider the association between an organization (an abstract
concept), such as a sports team or a government, and its base location. While we can refer to the organization
directly using its name, we often find it convenient to use the name of the location to refer to the organization.

1. Dallas won yesterday's game.

38
 2. No one is sure what Moscow's response will be.

Another conceptual relation that permits metonymy is that between a document and the content of the document.
Thus the word book refers to a physical object: a collection of sheets with printing or pictures on them that is bound
together. But we can also use the word to refer to the informational content of the physical book. Compare the uses
of the word in these two sentences.

3. This book is almost too heavy to lift.

4. I don't understand this book at all.

In the first example, the speaker is clearly referring to the physical object, in the second example to the information
contained in the physical object. In a case like this, metonymic extension allows a noun referring to a physical object
to refer to something more abstract.

Lesson 3: Frame semantics and conceptual domains

Dok, wla po akong mahanap na source ani nga topic.

Learning Exercise

CHAPTER SEVEN

Event Semantics: Tense, Aspect and Modality

Overview:

39
 Research in generative syntax has focused on describing the morphosyntactic encoding of features related
to temporal meaning, and on accounting for the general properties of tenses that occur in natural language. The tense
section outlines empirical generalizations and their generative syntactic description. The term 'aspect' refers to two
different layers of temporal information in the predicate phrase: the classification of events according to their
temporal properties (stative/non-stative, punctual/durative, telic/atelic); and grammatical aspect, a temporal
framework within which the event is located or described. Modality and mood are relational categories that express
a mode by which a proposition is anchored to the external context of evaluation.

Learning Objectives:

At the end of this chapter, you are expected to:

a. discuss temporal semantic;,

b. analyze the adverbial phrases and event structure

c. differentiate tense and aspect

Lesson 1: Temporal semantics: tense and aspect

What is TAM (Tense, Aspect, and Modality)?

TENSE and ASPECT are about how situations (events and states) are placed in time, and MODALITY
concerns whether something is possible or necessary. These are SEMANTIC categories rather than
MORPHOLOGICAL. By semantic categories, we mean that they have to do with the meaning of the sentence rather
than morphological which has to do with linguistic forms. For example, we can talk about the -ed suffix in English
as a certain form (morphology) with a particular meaning (semantics). These two categories often only partially
overlap in languages: something like the -ed suffix may map onto the semantic category of tense only incompletely.
In this vein, we must distinguish between the meaning contribution of a particular form (or MORPHEME) in a given
language and the notional semantic categories that allow us to describe the potential interpretations of that form.

Tense

Tense is a relationship between the interval of time being talked about and the time of speaking. A crucial
notion here is the REFERENCE TIME (RT), which is the interval of time being talked about. The RT can be before,
during, or after the SPEECH TIME (ST), and these correspond to past, present, and future. Past tense, then, means
that there is an interval of time we are talking about (RT) that precedes the time of speaking (ST).

(Alternate labels for Speech Time, Reference Time, and Event Time (discussed below) are given by Klein 1994 as
the Time of Utterance (TU), Topic Time (TT), and Time of Situation (TSit). You will find both in the literature, and
Biblingo users will recognize the latter terms, but they essentially amount to the same thing.)

Let’s take an example like Did John turn off the light? This question is not asking whether there was any point in the
past that John turned off the light. It is asking whether John turned off the light at a specific time in the past,
whatever time we might happen to be discussing (or referring to) in the context. So tense is a relationship between
the speech time and the time we are discussing, i.e. the RT.

40
The implication of this is that tense is not a relationship between the ST and the EVENT TIME (ET). Let’s go back
to our example to see what would happen if this were the case. This would mean that Did John turn off the
light? would be interpreted as something like Did John turn off the light at any point prior to now? but that is clearly
not what is being asked. Rather, the question assumes there is a specific time (the RT) prior to the ST that we are
discussing. If we are talking about what happened this past Tuesday before John left the house, we cannot respond
with Yes, he turned off the light in 1974, though if tense were a simple relationship between the ST and the ET, we
actually could truthfully respond with such an answer. This would be the case since all we would need would be one
instance of John turning off the light (the ET) prior to the ST rather than how we actually understand the sentence as
whether that event took place within a specific RT we are discussing, in this case last Tuesday.

Aspect (or Grammatical Aspect)

So we have established that tense is a relationship between the ST and the RT, but what is aspect? Aspect has to do
with how the event relates to the time we are discussing. In other words, it is the relationship between the RT and
the ET. This is often described as how the speaker chooses to portray the event, since he or she may choose to
discuss only part of the event or the entire event, for example. There are three main aspects often discussed:
PERFECTIVE, IMPERFECTIVE, and PERFECT.

Perfective

Perfective aspect is when the speaker is referring to the entire event. Since we have already established that the
speaker is normally referring to a specific interval of time (called the RT), this means that the time of the event has
to be entirely included in the RT. In other words, both the beginning and end of the event are included within the
time being discussed. An example of this is something like John ate dinner, which normally means that John both
started and ended his dinner in the time we are discussing. So in a sequence of statements like John finished work.
He ate dinner. He left. we normally interpret each of the events happening in succession because we present each
whole event right after another.

Modality

MODALITY deals with what is possible or necessary and not the “here and now”. It is a semantic category that is
not unique to verbs. Adjectives like imaginary, for example, are also modal since it deals with something that is
possible. Auxiliary verbs like might and must are modal as well, the former encoding that something is possible and
the latter that something is necessary (e.g. compare John might be washing the dishes to John must be washing the
dishes). The category of modality is used to analyze things like habituals, future, the subjunctive, etc. within verbal
systems.

Lesson 2: Modal verbs and their semantic interpretations

Propositions in the world may be an assertion that concerns truth of the real world based on the factual
proposition. However, sometimes it is very hard to assert some proposition based on the background of the
knowledge either it is true or not. In order to express this kind of situation, people use the concept modality.
Assertion deals with factual propositions based on the real knowledge of the worlds, while modality focuses on the
necessities and possibilities of the proposition. Modality is an important semantic category that attracts many
scholars’ interest. Many expressions in our lives are related to modality. Modality often deals with possibility and
necessity. In general, scholars divide modality into two major subcategories, viz., epistemic modality and deontic
modality, and modal verbs are the main carriers to show modality. This article will focus on some of the major
issues of modality.

41
 Since modal auxiliary verbs have been proved to be one of the most troublesome grammatical structures in
English, the researchers of this study decided to do an analysis on the ways in which advanced EFL Iranian students
use modal auxiliaries focusing specially on nine modals' semantic functions. Consequently, was conducted based on
the following object: To investigate the semantic functions depicted by modals used by advanced adult EFL learners
of English. To do this, a learner-corpus was constructed with 136 compositions written by our learners and then
Wordsmith Tool was used to analyze this computerized data. The results of this study show that some meanings are
overly used (like "ability" meaning of can) and some of them are not really used by our learners like the "possibility"
meanings of can and could. At the end, some pedagogical suggestions have been made to improve this situation.

MAO RA PUD NI DOK 

CHAPTER EIGHT

Cross-linguistic Semantics: Language Variation and Typology

Overview:

Semantic typology is the crosslinguistic study of semantic categorization. When we speak, we select
aspects of the idea we are aiming to communicate and subsume these under the semantic categories expressed by the
words and phrases of the language we use. Languages vary considerably in these categories.

Learning Objectives:

At the end of this chapter, you are expected to:

a. discuss language variation;,

b. analyze the semantic variation and cultural influences;

Lesson 1: Semantics across different language

Do all languages convey semantic knowledge in the same way? If language simply mirrors the structure of
the world, the answer should be a qualified “yes”. If, however, languages impose structure as much as reflecting it,
then even ostensibly the “same” word in different languages may mean quite different things. We provide a first
pass at a large-scale quantification of cross-linguistic semantic alignment of approximately 1000 meanings in 55
languages. We find that the translation equivalents in some domains (e.g., Time, Quantity, and Kinship) exhibit high
alignment across languages while the structure of other domains (e.g., Politics, Food, Emotions, and Animals)
exhibits substantial crosslinguistic variability. Our measure of semantic alignment correlates with known
phylogenetic distances between languages: more phylogenetically distant languages have less semantic alignment.
We also find semantic alignment to correlate with cultural distances between societies speaking the languages,
suggesting a rich co-adaptation of language and culture even in domains of experience that appear most constrained
by the natural world.

42
English speakers call them “chairs”, Spanish-speakers, “sillas”, and Turkish speakers “sandalye”. Despite their
varying phonology, these words would seem to denote the very same objects in the world—namely chairs. But is the
meaning of words even as seemingly straightforward as “chair” the same across languages? How can we know? In
this work we present one of the first large-scale quantitative examinations of semantic structure across languages
(see Youn et al., 2016 for an alternate approach). We examine the extent to which supposed translation equivalents
such as “chair”-“silla” have the same meanings, as assessed by analyses of distributional semantics. We use these
results to quantify cross-linguistic alignment in various semantic domains, and examine how this measure of
similarity relates to cultural and historical distance.

Similarity and Diversity of Word Meanings

Embedding Models As our primary data we use wordembedding models trained on Wikipedia in different
languages (Bojanowski et al., 2016). These models were trained using the Skipgram technique (Mikolov et al.,
2013), which positions words in a semantic vector space based primarily on collocation patterns. From these models
we construct semantic networks by computing the cosine distance between embeddings for all pairs of relevant
concepts. We are of course aware that Wikipedia datasets in some languages (e.g., Spanish and Portuguese) are
more similar in content to one another than between other languages (e.g., English and Russian). We conduct
extensive modeling of these similarities (to be presented elsewhere) to ensure that the results we report below cannot
be explained by the specific content contained in Wikipedia.

Semantic Domains For semantic domains we used the chapters of Intercontinental Dictionary Series (IDS)
project (Key & Comrie, 2015). These domains include Kinship, Time, Quantity, Religion and Belief, and Food &
Drink. From these chapters, we were able to tag semantic domain for roughly half of the NEL concepts (~600). This
subset was large enough to impute a semantic domain for the remaining NEL concepts, using multi-class regression
on the embeddings, with around 70% accuracy. We compare these rankings to Wordnet classifications of each word
(details presented elsewhere)

Combined Data The intersection of these datasets contains the languages present in both the embedding
models and the NEL data. The concepts in the data are limited to those which are given parallel wordforms by NEL
and vectors by the embeddings models. After combining data, our primary dataset consists of 46,089 wordforms
across 55 languages (1485 unique language pairs). This allows us to make 1,012,330 unique comparisons of a
concept’s network structure between language pairs

Lesson 2: Semantics universals and linguistic typology

Language universals and typology

At the time of the Dobbs Ferry conference on Language Universals (1961), which culminated in the
publication of Universals of Language (Greenberg, 1963/1966), American linguistics was in the midst of a transition
from a strongly empiricist stance to the more rationalist approach characteristic of generative grammar and various
subsequent developments. Perhaps the most influential statement of the empiricist view of the preceding decades is
embodied in Bloomfield’s (1933) Language.

43
NAANA UNTA KO NAKITA NA SOURCE

DOK, PERO DLI PWD MA COPY.

44
CHAPTER NINE

Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Analysis

Overview:

Semantics, Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis are related aspects of semiotic studies. They all aim at
establishing meaning of statements communicated through language; this means that they are properties of our
social relationship.

Learning Objectives:

At the end of this chapter, you are expected to:

a. discuss discourse analysis

b. analyze intertextuality and meaning negotiation

Lesson 1: Cohesion and coherence in discourse

What is the difference between coherence and cohesion?

Broadly speaking, coherence and cohesion refer to the way a text is organized so that it can hold together.
In a coherent text, ideas flow meaningfully and logically by using grammatical and lexical cohesive devices.

What Is Coherence?

Coherence is what makes a text semantically meaningful. In a coherent text, ideas are logically connected
to produce meaning. It is what makes the ideas in a discourse logical and consistent. It should be noted that
coherence is closely related to cohesion.

What Is Cohesion?

Cohesion refers to the formal and semantic features of a text. In other words, it is the grammatical and
lexical linking that holds a text together and gives it meaning.

The cohesion word is derived from the word cohere, which means “to stick together”. So while framing the
sentences and phrases, cohesion is how you have put your ideas and views collectively together while framing your
sentences while coherence is the superset of cohesion which includes cohesive sentences as well as other properties
like consistency and understandability of the content and how using logically connected and related sentences while
representing your ideas and transiting from one idea to another.

Lesson 2: Speech acts and politeness strategies

Positive Politeness Strategies

45
 Positive politeness strategies are intended to avoid giving offense by highlighting friendliness. These
strategies include juxtaposing criticism with compliments, establishing common ground, and using
jokes, nicknames, honorifics, tag questions, special discourse markers (please), and in-group jargon and slang.

For instance, a popular (if sometimes controversial) feedback strategy is the feedback sandwich: a positive comment
before and after a criticism. The reason this strategy is often criticized in management circles is because it is, in fact,
more of a politeness strategy than a useful feedback strategy.

Negative Politeness Strategies

Negative political strategies are intended to avoid giving offense by showing deference. These strategies
include questioning, hedging, and presenting disagreements as opinions.

A high-stakes historical example of negative politeness strategies occurred in 1546, when Catherine Parr, the sixth
and final wife of Henry VIII, was nearly arrested for her outspoken religious views. She managed to deflect the
king's anger through deference and presenting her disagreements as mere opinions that she had offered up so that he
could be distracted from his painful health problems.

The Face Saving Theory of Politeness

The theory has several segments and corollaries, but it all revolves around the concept of "face," or social
value, both to one's self and to others. Social interactions require all participants to cooperate in order to maintain
everyone's face - that is, to maintain everyone's simultaneous wants of being liked and being autonomous (and being
seen as such). Thus, politeness strategies develop to negotiate these interactions and achieve the most favorable
outcomes.

Orienting to Different Kinds of Politeness

"People who grow up in communities that are more oriented to negative face wants and negative politeness
may find that they are perceived as aloof or cold if they move somewhere where positive politeness is emphasized
more. They may also mistake some of the conventionalized positive politeness routines as being expressions of
'genuine' friendship or closeness . . .. Conversely, people accustomed to paying attention to positive face wants and
using positive politeness strategies may find that they come across as unsophisticated or vulgar if they find
themselves in a community that is more oriented to negative face wants."

Lesson 3: Intertextuality and meaning negotiation

What is intertextuality?

Providing an accurate and all-inclusive definition of 'intertextuality' may be a challenging task due to its
multi-faceted nature. In his discussion of intertextuality Graham Allen (2000: 2) states that it is a 'one of the most
commonly used and misused terms in the contemporary critical vocabulary' (my italics). Originally proposed in the
field of critical theory, it surpassed its boundaries and has been occasionally employed by linguists as well. If one
examines different theorists' proposals, one notices that intertextuality has been defined so variously that, as Irwin

46
(2004) points out, it has acquired almost as many meanings as users. As we will see below, Kristeva's broad
conception of the term differs significantly from views restricting its use to the domain of belles letters (e.g. Broich
and Pfister, 1985; Plett, 1985; Worton and Still, 1990). While this diversity and lack of agreed meaning might cause
confusion, it highlights the need for a notion which will account for some key ideas that have been present in the
field. More specifically, I believe that one of the main reasons intertextuality has attracted so much attention was
that it has offered critics a new means of talking about both the nature of textuality and influence. Despite the fact
that there is no commonly agreed upon approach to the term, the overall discussion has given rise to many appealing
ideas, some of which will be discussed in greater detail in the following section.

Intertextuality and literary criticism

Intertextuality is a concept that emerged from Julia Kristeva's writings in the 1960s and has remained
influential in the field of literary and cultural studies ever since. Emerging from the tradition of post-structuralism, it
originally aimed at destabilizing cultural values and conventional categories of interpretation. Kristeva in her essay
'The Bounded Text' states that any text is actually 'a permutation of texts, an intertextuality in a space of a given
text', in which 'several utterances, taken from other texts, intersect and neutralize one another' (1980: 36).
Consequently, as Allen notes, texts are seen as 'lacking in any kind of independent meaning' (2000: i).

WLA N APUD LAIN DOK.

CHAPTER TEN

Review and Application

Overview:

Learning Objectives:

Lesson 1: Recap of key concepts

47
 Lesson 2: Application of semantic analysis to authentic language data

What is a Corpus?

In modern linguistics a corpus can be defined as a body naturally occurring language, though
strictly speaking:

It should be added that computer corpora are rarely haphazard collections of textual
material: They are generally assembled with particular purposes in mind, and are often assembled to be
(informally speaking) representative of some language or text type.

A corpus is a collection of written texts, especially the entire works of a particular author or a
body of writing on a particular subject. It is also a collection of pieces of language that are selected and
ordered according to explicit linguistic criteria in order to be used as a sample of the language. It is a collection of
written or spoken material stored on a computer and used to find out how language is used:

The linguistic criteria which are external to the text themselves and dependent upon the
intended use for the corpus are used to select and put together these texts in a principled way. Thus, a
corpus is different from a random collection of texts or an archive whose components are unlikely to have

48
been assembled with such goals in mind. Rather the term corpus as used in the modern linguistics can be best
defined as a collection of sampled texts, written or spoken, in machine-readable for which may be annotated
with various forms of linguistic information.

There are many ways to define corpus, but there is an increasing consensus that a corpus is a
collection of (1) machine-readable, (2) authentic text (including transcripts of spoken & (3) representative of
a particular language or language variety.

Why use computers to study Language?

It is clear from the previous section that the essential qualities of a corpus include machine-
readability, authenticity, and representativeness. Corpus linguistics is an approach to the study of language
that relies on the use of computer-assisted techniques to analyze large, principled databases of naturally
occurring language (corpora). Corpus-based analysis is interested in the language actually used in naturally
occurring texts rather than in what is theoretically possible. To obtain descriptions of language use that
represent the way language behaves in real life, corpus linguists base their analysis on large collections of texts
stored on a computer.

What Should a Corpus Look Like?

First, a corpus should be large. If it is too small, it will not include enough examples of the
feature you are trying to study. How large is large enough depends on the targeted linguistic features and
on the goals of the analysis. Size, however, isn't everything. A corpus must be representative of the language
variety (i.e., its genre, register, and dialect) that it is supposed to describe. For example, a corpus of research
articles would not be suitable for the study of the use of tag questions in casual conversation.

Corpora in Research

One of the best known uses of corpora in Research is concordance. A concordance is simply a
computer program that searches a corpus for a selected word or phrase. The program then presents every
instance of that word or phrase occurring in the corpus in key-word-in-context (KWIC) format--that is, in
the center of the screen, surrounded by the words that come before and after the searched word. By looking
at corpus instances of the searched word or phrase in the form of concordance lines, you can observe
patterns of use that would go unnoticed otherwise. An excellent introduction to this method can be found in
Reading Concordances.

REFERENCES:

49
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/289860/intension-and-extension [Accessed 30.05.2020]
http://cmgm.stanford.edu/~lkozar/punctuation.html [Accessed 30.05.2020]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compositionality/#1 [Accessed 30.05.2020

50