Semántica y Pragmática I

Unit 1. Session 1

Grado en Estudios Ingleses

Universidad de Córdoba

Prof. Olga Blanco Carrión

olgablanco@uco.es
UNIT 1: Some fundamental concepts in
classical semantics
Session 1.1. The notion of meaning and semantics
What is semantics?

Some definitions…

Valenzuela (2017)
 Semantics is the study of meaning Lyons (1977)
Hurford & Heasley
Semantics is the study of meaning in language (1983)
Semantics is the study of meaning communicated Saeed (1997, 2016)
throught language

Semantics is the part of linguistics that is concerned Lobner (2002)

with meaning
Linguistic semantics is the study of how languages Kreidler (1998)
organize and express meanings

Frawley (1992)
Linguistic semantics is the study of literal, decontextualized
grammatical meaning
Semantics is the study of the meanings of words and sentences (vs.
phonology or syntax) (Saed 2016)
 What is MEANING?

That “something” that was at first in the speaker’s mind and now is also
in the hearer’s mind (after getting the speakers’s utterance in a language
(spoken or gestured) and a process of successful joint attention) is what
we call meaning.

(adapted from Valenzuela 2017:3, info. in italics added)

(joint attention: concept from psychology, used by linguists, e.g. Talmy 2018)
What can that “sth” we call meaning be?

Anything from:
- entities (table, justice, unicorn)

- events (conferences, weddings, a door closing)

- states or locations

- properties of objects, feelings, emotions, intentions, locations…

 Brief history of semantics
Aristotle and Panini (4th century BC): semantics central for linguistic study.

The importance of meaning in linguistic theory is approached differently

by different theories. e.g.

-> banned from linguistics by American structuralism (e.g. Bloomfield): not

"observable".

-> Chomskyan generativism: semantics not a central part of linguistic

analysis.
 
• 
-> For most of the 20th c. semantics was banned from
linguistic studies (especially in American circles).

-> Mid 1970’s some scholars revolt against this SoAs (e.g
Fillmore, Lakoff, Langacker, Talmy)
Meaning is what language is all about; the analyst who ignores
it to concentrate solely on matters of form severely
impoverishes the natutal and necessary subject matter of the
discipline and ultimately distorts the character of the
phenomena described
(Langacker 1987:12)
 Contemporary theories of meaning
Two approaches:

1) Formal semantics (classical philosophical semantics, i.e., logic.). (a.k.a. truth-

conditional semantics, model-theoretic semantics, logica semantics)
e.g. All men are mortal
Nicolas is a man
= > Nicolas is ….

and follows Frege's principie of compositionality: the meaning of the whole is a

function of the meaning of the parts. Syntax has a primary role in it (connected to
Chomskyan linguistics)
2) Cognitive semantics - > disregards the importance of truth-values
and strict compositionality.
May we come in?

(Fillmore, 1971)
Let’s assume that this sentence is used by a native speaker of
English with rising intonation and stressing the last word…

There are two main possible ways to use this sentence:

1. Request on the part of a speaker to a speaker that must perform a

permission-granting act

2. An enquiry as to whether the speaker and co. already have

permission to do sth. (less likely one)
 Let’s consider the first interpretation…

Would you agree we know all this about the meaning of this sentence?

1. There is some kind of “enclosed area” (evoked by word……)

2. That the speaker and companion are outside the enclosure (how do we know this?)

3. That the hearer is inside the enclosed area.

4. That the speaker and companion want to / need to access the area.

5. That the speaker believes the hearer to hold some kind of authority status with regards to
the speaker and companion and, therefore his/her permission is required to enter.
How did we arrive at this interpretation of
“May we come in?”

knowledge of the meaning of each word

+
knowledge of the Request Construction “May I/we… do sth.?”
+
knowledge of the type of situation in which this type of construction is
used
Regarding the meaning of each word:
MAY
What’s its meaning? (oh, the modal verb “may”… Hmmm… “modal” verb… What is that?)
About the addresser, be polite, asking for permission

WE
Who does “we” refer to? You and I?, or Can “we” basically be anybody?
What are the requirements for “we” to be meaningful to an addressee?

COME
Come: why not GO? What is the difference in meaning between May we come in and May we go in?

IN
What information does “in” add to the sentence?
 May we come in?
What meaning can we extract from grammatical “categories” such as:

Tense (present/past/future), and

Aspect (progressive/non-progressive)?
Regarding the type of construction instantiated in May we
come in?
“?” -> The speaker requires an answer he does not know. In this case:
“do you grant me permission to come in”.

The “request for permission” meaning is facilitated by “May we” and

the fact that the speaker is producing this utterance in a real situation
under certain conditions “C”

C = the speaker believes the hearer to have some authority that the
former needs in order to perform an action.
Summing up…
MAY- Modal verb to ask/grant permission (in Question-type sentences)

WE – Pronoun that is used to mean the speaker and his/her companion (3rd
person as in the example) or the speaker and the hearer.
-> How do we know in this example it refers to a 3rd person and not the hearer?

COME- spatial motion verb indicating someone moves towards whom?

IN- preposition indicating …?

Regarding the type of information discussed

What information do you think belong to the field commonly known as

Semantics.

What information do you think belong to the field commonly known as

Pragmatics?
 Problems we face…

What is COFFEE?
• Coffee is a drink, made of some plant beans, that is black, has a particular smell, a
strong taste, that we put sugar in it, that it has a particular effect, that can be taken hot
or cold, with cultural variants, e.g. café con hielo, Greek Frappuccino, that we can take
it in other forms (ice-cream, cakes),

• we know how to prepare coffee in different ways, the devices you use to prepare coffee
(the normal household coffee-pot, the professional cafeteria espresso-maker, the filter-
version, etc.), the type of container to pour it when it’s ready (a cup, a mug, a jug, etc.),

• when you take coffee or how many times a day (at breakfast and after lunch are the
most typical, but also there is the mid-morning coffee; sometimes after dinner, but only
when you go out),

• the varieties of forms (in Spain: solo, cortado, bombón, con leche, manchado, largo,
corto, americano, belmonte, asiático, carajillo, irlandés, apart from granizados and
blanco y negro),
• you know how expensive it is (depending on whether you buy it in a
shop, in a café, in a hotel, in an airport, etc.), where they sell it, which
companies sell it (Nescafé, Marcilla, Bonka, Saimaza), the varieties in
shops (in Spain we have mezcla, torrefacto, and natural, and then
"normal" or decaffeinated, for machine or instant);

• you know it's produced in countries like Brazil and Colombia, the type
of shops where they sell coffee so you can prepare it yourself
(supermarkets) or the beverage ready to be drank (cafés), you know
the difference between a café and a cafetería (like at university),

• you know the social occasions in which coffee is the typical drink
(think of the expression “go out for some coffee", which implies talk,
possibly about informal or personal matters. In Spain, is the occasion to
make social relations; typical situations. e.g. exam prep.)
• you know that too much is bad for your health, that smokers feel
compelled to smoke when they drink coffee, that you must store it in
a dry and fresh place, that in planes the option is either tea or coffee,
how you take coffee in a plane (you're supposed to put the cup on a
tray),

• that the substance which coffee has that makes you nervous is called
caffeine, that other related beverages with caffeine are colas,

• that "lovers" of coffee take it black and with no sugar, other national
varieties of coffees such as English-American, Turkish-Greek, Italian-
Espresso,

• that stains from coffee are difficult to clean,

• that there is a "coffee" hour, or "coffee break" during which you stop
your work and have a coffee (or something else: you can have "tea" at
a coffee-break, or an apple)

This list could go on almost indefinitely…

We could have more "personal" information, things that belong to the private
sphere (associate coffee with family member or state of affairs) or the associations to
one’s own culture, hobbies or personal routines (relax and “unplug” from everything
and everybody)

Given a relevant context, e.g. one is studying for exams having some coffee and
during a break while still seated on one’s desk the cigarette lits up their Semantics
notes, what is coffee then? (as good as water)
COFFEE BREAK!!
After our coffee break we are back…
We get a feel of the problems involved when doing semantic analysis…

What part of knowledge (remember our coffee example) should linguistic

semantics account for?

Is all that info relevant for language use?

Can we draw a line between the dictionary and the encyclopedia?

What is the part of the concept which remains relevant in all contexts?
How do we transfer our ideas to sb. else’s
mind?
Signs
 Icon

Similar to the reality they convey

Sssshhhhhhh
Roar

Syntactic tree
Family tree
 Index

Conceptual contiguity (in space or time)

between the sign and its meaning (e.g. cause-effect)

Physiological effects of emotion -> emotion

Symbol