GRAMMAR MEANING DISCOURSE I (MIDTERM TEST

)

Presented by : Endang Maharani 08429616 6N

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ART EDUCATION IKIP PGRI SEMARANG 2011

but on the other hand. How do you distinguish between speaker meaning and sentence meaning? Is there any similarity or not? Explain it! Answer: A Definition  A sentence is a grammatically complete string of words expressing a complete thought. The same sentence are used by different speakers on different occasion to mean is more difficult than to draw or describe a noun (speaker meaning) different thing  Sentence meaning and speaker meaning are both important. People can not communicate each other if they do not understand the meaning of the words that they are using. ( e. so that everybody able to understand what the meaning of the word. ( Alice) : That words mean what they mean independently of the will of their users. A noun can be described or drawn. To draw verb or sense (abstract noun). One must not equate meaningfulness with information’s in nap now sense.(James R. Many sentences do carry information in a straight for ware way.1. but systematic study processed more easily if one carefully distinguishes the two and for the most .g intends to convey ) when he uses a price of language. and an important component of a general account of linguistic meaning.e what it counts as the equivalent of in the language concerned. specially noun. it is also true that many sentences are used by speakers to give information at all but to keeps the social wheels turning smoothly. The distinguish is useful in analyzing the various kinds of communication between people made possible y language. Hanford and (Brendan Heasly). it would be foolish to dismiss entirely humpty dumpty’s enigmatic final remark sentence meaning (or word meaning) is what a sentence (or word) means. i. Every word has special meaning.  Speaker Meaning is what a speaker means.

have the same reference 1) Sunlight Light from the sun Sunshine 2) The most highest mount Mount Everest The mount in mountain of Himalaya b. ( James R Hanford. and sense? Answer: Reference: is a speaker indicater which things in the world (including persons) are being talked about. is the questioner primarly asking what the sentence “I’ll be back later” means or what Campred meant in saying it? Answer: He’d be back later has meaning: He will come back later in next time.part. Brendan Heasly) a. have different referent . denotation. In asking “What did Campred mean when he said he’d be back later?”. Difference expresson. I’ll be back later has meaning: He wants people who hear in this sentence for waiting him. 3. Same expression. What are the differences between reference. gives prior concideration to sentence meaning andthose aspects of meaning generally which are determined by the language system. ratherthan those which refbes the will of individual speakers and the circumstances of use on particular occasion. 2.

In talking of sense we deal with relationships inside the language. some utterances. and also that while John is the subject of is (a). but also of longer expressions such as phrases and sentences. the same word can have more than one sense. Both syntagmatic and paradigmatic in the study of sentence meaning can also be used to explain meaning relation in sentence rank not word.” What does the statement mean? Give examples! Answer: As was noted in an earlier chapter. we need deep structure to suggest John is eager (John please _ ) 5. John is eager to please b. How do you analyze two sentences below! a. “What makes the sentence unacceptable. E. We can talk about the sense. not only of words. actual or potential. I make a plate in a book 4. In cases . John is easy to please Answer : The deep strucures will have to indicate that (a) John is the ‘deep’ subject of please and (b) the object of please.g I put a plate on the table. are both grammatical and meaningful. is the fact that the speaker appears to be calling attention to his or her own irrationality and this is an odd thing to do in most normal circumstance. the subject of is is’ _ please John’ in (b). in most contexts. others are ungrammatical and meaningless. Very roughly. and yet .The tiger tail is very long : the part of animal’s body The tail of Mandala airlines was break : the back side of plan/ the part of plane Sense.

At the very least one must be sensitive to the different senses in which one can interpret the phrase 'can be said' (or 'can be uttered'). For example.6). as we shall see later. Some of them. there might be a taboo. To say that an utterance (more precisely. unacceptable (1. I will come back to this point in Part 4. are. for various reasons. upon the use of the verb 'die'. There are many such culture-dependent dimensions of acceptability. the fully grammatical and meaningful utterance (1) His father died last night might be fully acceptable. which is often taken for granted by semanticists. that the same utterance with. one must be sceptical about the validity of the general principle. though fully grammatical and perhaps also meaningful. are encoded in the grammar and the vocabulary of particular languages. in respect of members of the speaker's or hearer's immediate family. For example. (3) I believe that it happened because it is impossible . it might be unacceptable for a social inferior to address a social superior with a second-person pronoun (meaning "you"). (2) My father died last night Or again.others. in a certain English-speaking society. It follows. that whatever can be said in one language can be said in another. but not the equally grammatical and (in one sense of 'meaningful') equally meaningful utterance. the same meaning would be acceptable in some contexts but not in others. Somewhat different are those dimensions of acceptability which have to do with rationality and logical coherence. arguably. rather than some euphemism such as 'pass away'. that one of its tokens is unutterable) in all normal contexts other than those involving metalinguistic reference to them. For this reason and others. Many such utterances are unacceptable for socio-cultural reasons. whereas it would be perfectly acceptable for a superior to address an inferior or an equal with the pronoun in question: this is the case (though the sociolinguistic conditions are often more complex than I have indicated here) in many cultures. an utterance-type) is unacceptable is to imply that it is unutterable (more precisely. Thus. in some cultures.

if uttered. by definition. in most contexts is the fact that the speakers appears to be calling attention to his or her own irrationality. that the proposition it expresses is necessarily false. rather than being devoid of meaning or contradictory). they might well be regarded by most of those who are competent in the language in question as fully acceptable. in contrast with sentences. Do all grammatical utterances fully come to the acceptability and meaningfulness? Your explanation is needed. In any event. But what do we mean by 'meaningfulness? . Sentences however may be either meaningful (semantically well-formed) or meaningless (semantically ill-formed). as we saw in the preceding section of this chapter. Utterances. Answer: Sentences are. and this is an odd thing to do in most normal circumstances.might be regarded as unacceptable from this point of view. grammaticality must not be identified with acceptability. Many of the utterances which are produced in normal everyday circumstances are ungrammatical in various respects. and. one should not too readily concede. Indeed. (3) might well provoke the response: (4) That doesn't make sense » (though it is paradoxical. as some semanticists would. What makes (3) unacceptable. therefore. alternatively. More generally (if I may now invoke the distinction between sentences and utterances). of sentences is not something that can be decided independently of the context in which they might or might not be uttered. or interpretability. as an ungrammatical sentence. Indeed. 6. either that the sentence in question is uninterpretable or meaningless or. There is no such thing. may be either grammatical or ungrammatical. As we saw in Chapter 1. even such utterances may be fully acceptable in certain contexts. acceptability must not be identified with meaningfulness. grammatically well-formed. one should not take too restrictive a view of the meaningfulness of uncontextualized (or decontextualized) sentences: the semantic acceptability. However. Some of these are interpretable without difficulty in the context in which they occur.

as far as Standard English is concerned. it would probably be construed. utterances which we can classify. There are other. they are wrong. rather than of semantics. There are many utterances whose unacceptability is quite definitely a matter of grammar. As we shall see in due course. not only refused the proffered correction. no less readily grammatical. we should simply have to tell them that. and more especially by its native speakers. If (5) were produced by a foreigner.is not clear-cut in all instances is not to say that it is never clear-cut at all. we are taking it to be. to say that the distinction between grammatical and semantic wellformedness . And many languages. such famous examples as (7) Colourless green ideas sleep furiously (Noam Chomsky) . and therefore understood. but insisted that it meant something different from the corrected version. for the moment.In the preceding section we were careful to relate the notion of acceptability to utterances. having uttered (5). The distinction between grammatical and semantic well-formedness is not as sharp as. For example. Among them. At this point we will restrict our attention to what would generally be regarded as sentences and we will continue to operate with the assumption that the sentences of a language are readily identifiable as such by those who are competent in it. we can list. We can classify their utterance.and consequently between grammar and semantics . as an incorrect version of (6). If someone. (5) I want that he come is definitely ungrammatical in Standard English in contrast with (6) I want him to come. actual or potential. but meaningless. Nevertheless. There is nothing in what appears to be the intended meaning of (5) which makes it ungrammatical. with their authors. would translate (6) into something which is grammatically comparable with (5). this assumption must be qualified. including French. unhesitatingly as ungrammatical.

Making sense of functional grammar. lexical meaning by means of such traditionally recognized rhetorical principles as metaphor. Australia: Gerd Stabler. none of these is uninterpretable. .(8) Quadruplicity drinks procrastination (Bertrand Russell) (9) Thursday is in bed with Friday (Gilbert Ryle). Linda and Peter Wignell. or literal. Of course. metonymy or synecdoche. if it is appropriately contextualized and the meaning of one or more of its component expressions is extended beyond its normal. 1994. BIBLIOGRAPHY Gerot.

John. Contemporary Linguistics. USA: Cambridge University Press. Pragmatic. 1983. Discourse and Language Education. United Kingdom: Longman. O’Grady. Evelyn. Australia: Cambridge University Press. . 1994.Hatch. Lyon. William. dkk. Linguistic Semantics an Introduction. Levinson. Stephen. 1996. 1995. USA: Cambridge University Press.