CHAPTER TWO

2.1 Lexis in Linguistics

The significance of meaning can be associated with the vocabulary of a language or the so-called lexis.The meaning of a sentence or of an item does not equal the total sum of the meaning of its words, but it composes of the meaning of these vocabularies as well as the meaning that constructs the syntactic structure, which is inserted in these words. Consider the following words: cat, mouse and saw. These words have specific meanings. Thus, cat and mouse refer to things, while saw refers to an action in the real world. These meanings are called lexical meanings (Aziz,1990:39) . Moreover, these words have overtones, when they are used in certain linguistic contexts as in: (2.1) The cat saw the mouse. (2.2) The mouse saw the cat. Undoubtedly, the meaning of the sentence (2.1) differs from (2.2). Of course, the difference is due to the syntactic construction in which these words have been used. Cat in the first sentence is a subject, and the meaning of this
6

syntactic construction differs from that as an object in the second sentence. Yet, concerning the word mouse is vice versa. Concerning the definition of lexis, Hartmann and Stork (1972:129) present an interesting one. They define lexis as a name given by some linguists to that level of linguistic analysis which is neither phonological nor grammatical in nature. This usually comprises the vocabulary items of a language as well as their lexical or semantic meaning in specific context. From a linguistic viewpoint, Lepschy (1972:144) distinguishes between vocabulary and lexis. The term vocabulary has been defined by Lepschy as the list of the words used in a text, while the term lexis is the inventory of the words of a language, from which any text draws its particular vocabulary. Robins (1980:282) affirms that the term lexis refers to the lexical and linguistic aspect of language(s). In addition, he asserts that
Grammar and lexis are related to their phonic representation through phonology (i.e. the distinctive sound units and sound features of the language), and to their graphic representation through orthography (the alphabet and spelling rules of the language). On the other side the semantic function, or meanings, of grammatical and lexical

elements are stated in terms of contexts of situation abstracted by the linguist as descriptive and analytical frames within which to summarize the multiple relationships between linguistic forms and the world of human experience wherein they are meaningfully used.

It is possible to conclude that there are two important classes of meaning: lexical meaning and linguistic meaning. Therefore, the linguistic items have reference meanings referring to things in the world, as well as overtones suggested by the words themselves. Generally speaking, lexis are reckoned as words which, expressed as sounds, convey the thought of a thing, of a concept, from the mind of one person to the mind of another person, providing, of course, that these two people speak the same language. A question can be raised here whether an idiom or a morpheme is considered as a word or not? In order to answer such a question, let us consider the following: (2.3) Kick the bucket. (2.4) Unable. The phrase kick the bucket represents the idiomatic sense of dying, but if it is treated literally, definitely it will be entirely different. However, the bound morpheme un in unable cannot stand independently as a word. Thus, a unit of meaning may consist of more than one word (Poole,1999:9).

Words: Forms and Meanings 2.2

Words, generally are not reckoned as constrains of meaning; rather we can look at their performance of roles within the situation in a sentence. Bloomfield (1933:178) argues that a word, then, is a free form which does not consist entirely of (two or more) lesser free forms, in brief, a word is a minimum free form.On the other hand, Hockett suggests that a word is any segment of a sentence bounded by successive points at which pausing is possible (cited in Stageberg,1981:115). Generally speaking, many English words have different forms simultaneously. Let us examine the number of the words that have more than one form in the following sentence: (2.5) I am unhappy and she is anxious, so that we are in trouble. In the sentence above, ther are thirteen word-forms, each represents a different type. Different words have different forms. However, am, is and are represent three forms for the same word. On the other hand, eleven word-expressions compose the sentence above. The tokens of particular types of word-forms are different from the forms of particular expressions. One can say,for example, the sentence below: (2.6) The soil is ground differs from the ground coffee.

1 0

The fourth and eighth words or tokens (ground) are not forms of the same expression, but tokens of the same type (Lyons, 1981:41). In spite of the multiple forms of certain words, more than one meaning can be shared within these words. For instance, ground means the solid surface of the earth, and it has other meanings as fine powder, etc (Hornby, 1989:55051) . At this point of view it is possible to distinguish one meaning from another, and another point that the meanings of words are separated from each other(Lyons,1981:21). Each word has its own role. The words significance is determined by its fulfilness as an action or the description of the entities that come as a noun phrase after or before the action. Yule has identified three semantic roles of the noun phrase (which describes as things and human beings involved in action). These are agent, theme and instrument (Yule,1996a:116-7). Words, as we shall see later, have meanings. The words that share the same form, but differ in meaning are called homonyms, e.g. ground , bank, etc. One word that is repeated more than one time in an utterance and which has the same spelling, but different meaning in which is closely related, and is thus called polysemy, e.g. head, plain, etc., (Crystal,1997:185,297).

1 1

An illustration and exploration of these two terms (i.e. homonymy and polysemy) will be tackled in the following sections.

2.2.1 Meaning in Language (Abstract Meaning or Conventional Meaning)

From the semantic viewpoint, meaning in language or what is called abstract meaning is concerned with what a [morpheme], word, phrase, sentence, etc. could mean (for example the dictionary meanings of words or phrases) (Thomas, 1995:2). Broadly speaking though, words, have their own meanings that are taken from dictionaries, yet they may come in sentences to provide alternative abstract meanings. For example, in a picnic the utterance below has been said by someone: (2.7) That is the gill. Taken in the abstract the word gill which may refer the (opening on the side of a fishs head where it breathes), (small valley),(small river), and in a capital letter Gill may refer to (girl, mistress) (Balabak,1987:388). Thus, the difficulty lies in selecting the appropriate meaning. Yet, what the words actually meant on the occasion in question could only be determined in context (Thomas,1995:4). Insofar as syntax, the meaning of the example below: (2.8) Michael kills the snake. of course, totally differs from (2.9) The snake kills Michael.

1 2

because the word order in syntax, supplies different meanings in (2.8) and (2.9). The reason is due to the subject is Michael and the object is the snake in (2.8) become the object and the subject, respectively. So, syntax has a great impact on meanings of sentences. That is, for the meaning of the example aforementioned, in (2.8) the snake has died, whereas in(2.9)Michael has been died (Widdowson, 1996:53).

2.2.2 Utterance Meaning (Contextual Meaning)

In the actual use of elliptical sentences, the pragmatic context plays its crucial role throughout an inference process to obtain the necessary information which has been missed(Akmajian, et al. ,1984:316). Yet, the interpretation of a certain utterance / sentence which contains missing necessary data, can only be obtained by using inference process. This process may exclude the adequate lack of information that makes a perfect comprehension, through background knowledge, culture, assumptions, etc. The most common definitions of pragmatics at the very beginning of writing textbooks in 1980s, are: language in use or language in context. The terms contextual meaning and utterance meaning can be used interchangeably (Thomas, 1995:1,29). Thomas has pinpointed that there are two levels of speakers meaning: utterance meaning and force. Neglecting the abstract meaning, moving to what the speaker does

1 3

mean by certain words on his particular occasion, is called contextual meaning or utterance meaning. Utterance meaning has been defined as sentence-context pairing (Gazder 1979,quoted by Thomas, 1995:16). Moreover, the psychologist Miller (1974) pinpoints the significance of the force level, declaring that
most of our misunderstandings of other people are not due to any inability to hear them or parse their sentences or understand their words A far more important source of difficulty in communication is that we often fail to understand a speakers intention.

(cited in Ibid. :18) Thus, pragmatically force refers to the speakers intended meaning, which has done communicatively. Consider the example below: (2.10) Where is your boat? There are not ambiguities of sense or reference, because the meaning of the utterance is understood. Yet, the problem still concerns the understanding of the force behind the question. Does the speaker express astonishment? Does the speaker request a lift into river? Does the speaker try to tell the listener about a stolen boat? Any of these forces may be influential on the interpreter of the utterance. A note should be mentioned here that paralinguistic features (either prosodic such as intonation and tone of voice, or non-prosodic such as internal, i.e. emotional state, and external, i.e. facial expression) and non-linguistic

1 4

features (such as gesture) are considered out of the intended force. On the other hand, context can be mainly relied in deriving the intended force. Though utterance meaning and force - which are reckoned as two components of the speakers meaning are closely related, but not inseparable (Ibid. :21). Yule (1996a :127-8) comments on pragmatics defining it as the study of intended speaker meaning is called pragmatics, yet the notion of the speakers intended meaning is a crucial element in contexts.

2.2.3 Intended Meaning

The meaning in the competence (mind) of the speaker when he is framing his thought to be sent as a message, is called the speakers intended meaning. Leech(1974:24), asserts that the study of the speakers intended meaning concentrates on what use or misuse is made by the communication system itself (i.e. intention and interpretation of the message). He focuses on meaning as an important point, for linguistics, and points out that it
is neutral between speakers meaning and hearers meaning ; and this is surely justifiable, since only through knowing the natural potentialities of the medium of communication itself can we investigate differences between what a person intends to convey and what he actually conveys. (Ibid.)

1 5

The problem of the intended meaning, that has been coined by the producer of the speech through a message, may have to be interpreted in its appropriate meaning with specification to the requirements of effective communication. Individuals, on the other hand, are important in any communication. And since meaning comes not from language, but from the individuals interaction with his environment (including language), it is evident that his interpretation of a message is an internally determined event (Johnson,1974:42). Bach and Harnish (1979:149-50) elucidate that means has the sense intending :in saying something a person may mean (intend) to be doing such and such. Therefore, they consider the intended meaning of the speaker as one of the five varieties of speakers meaning, which are : serious or sincere about it, literal, intended, oppositive meaning and proper meaning. Excluding the speakers intended meaning, these types lie out of the scope of the current study. Consequently, Leech (1983:155-6) has reckoned what may be a part of the intended meaning, may not be a part of the conveyed meaning and vice versa [an attention should be paid] to the fact that linguistic communication depends hugely on the assumption that what s means is interpreted as such by h. Hence, the interference between intended meaning and conveyed meaning has been the core concerns of pragmatics.

1 6

2.3 The Relationship between Semantics and Pragmatics

At the very beginning, the term pragmatics had been coined by the pragmaticist philosopher Charles Peirce (1932), who had defined pragmatics as the study of indexical rules for relating linguistic form to a given context. Moreover, Peirce had presented a theory of semiotics in which only three kinds of signs are regarded to be basic. These kinds are: icons, indices, and symbols . Both of icons and symbols, which have been stressed by Silverstein (1973), can be represented into a semantic syntactic system, i.e. the interchangable relations between signs and their independent things (Cited in Bates,1996:2-3). However, Charles Morris (1946), had classified the linguistic science into three fields: syntactics (the relations holding among signs), semantics (the relations between signs and their references),and pragmatics (the relations between signs and their human users). Although this definition of pragmatics includes the relation between language and context, yet it misses the epistemological distinction between content and use, the psychological difference between objects and procedures (Ibid.). The gist is that there is no need for an actual context of use for icons and symbols. Rather indices, indeed, cannot be interpreted without an actual context of use. For example, smoke indexes the existence of fire by virtue of the fact that the two are part of the same phenomenon. An example that

1 7

indicates icons is a hieroglyphic picture of a pen, and for symbols is the word man which stands for the dualpedal mammals. Furthermore, pragmatics does not depart from the context of the linguistic indices. But it is interpretable only when the meaning of the linguistic indices accompanies its relating context. Since semantics and pragmatics deal with meaning, Leech (1980:3) makes a distinction between these two fields in terms of draw (ing) a line between meaning considered as an abstract property of sentences, and meaning considered as a function of the speech situation. Two different uses of the verb to mean, reckon the precise differences between semantics and pragmatics. Leech (1983:6) sets out that
semantics traditionally deals with meaning as a dyadic relation (1), as in [1], while pragmatics deals with meaning as a triadic relation (2),as in [2].Thus, meaning in pragmatics is defined relative to a speaker or user of the language, whereas meaning in semantics is defined purely as a property of expressions in a given language, in abstraction from particular situations, speakers, or hearers.

The following illustrative figure shows the relationship between semantics and pragmatics.

1 8

Semantics Pragmatics

Semantics Pragmatics

Semantics Pragmatics

Semanticism

Complementarism Pragmaticism

Figure (1):The Relationship between Semantics and Pragmatics (after Leech, 1983:6) Insofar as the term complementarism, Leech makes it as a solution to the dilemma between semantics and pragmatics. It seems natural at the point of distinguishing the ways of constructing the relationship between pragmatics and the nearest linguistic neighbor, semantics. He points out these ways as semanticism (pragmatics inside semantics), pragmaticism (semantics inside pragmatics) and complementarism (they both complete each other, but are otherwise independent areas of research) (Mey,1993:43). The features or the specifications of speech situations have been determined by Leech (Ibid. :13-5) as follows: addressers or addressees(3), the context, goals(4), illocutionary act, and utterance. Yet, these criteria or aspects of speech situation are specified, because pragmatics is distinguished from semantics in being concerned with meaning in relation to a speech situation.

1 9

Intuitively, in order to distinguish between semantics and pragmatics, it is necessarily to distinguish between the pursuit of semantics (sentence meaning) and the pursuit of pragmatics (utterance meaning). Saeed (1997:19) argues that it is very difficult to shake context out of language and that the structure of sentences minutely reveals that they are designed by their speakers to be uttered in specific contexts and with described effects. In a simplified way, Thakur (1999:7) remarks that the relation between semantics and pragmatics is to say that they are two distinct disciplines with a considerable area of overlap. Then he adds that
Pragmatics studies the use of language in social interaction . [for] semantics meaning is essentially a matter of usage. The meaning of a word is used in a certain context .[since] meaning has no separate and independent existence.It can only be understood as an attribute of language in use. (Ibid.)

Finch (2000:144-5) sets out that utterances are the most correct level of language: they are created by producing in spoken, or written, form, a string of words. Sentences, on the other hand, are abstract grammatical elements underlying utterances. Therefore, pragmatics has concentrated on contextualised meaning, and semantics has focused on decontextualised meaning .Here, Finch (Ibid) thinks that it is

2 0

not easy to draw the line of separation between semantics and pragmatics. In a more positive vein, the distinction between semantics and pragmatics has served to separate strictly linguistic facts about utterances from those that involve the actions, intentions and inferences of language users (i.e. speakershearers) (Kent Bach, The semantics pragmatics distinction:4 of 16) .

2.4 Semantics (Sentence Meaning)

Language without meaning is meaningless (Jakobson, quoted from Fromkin and Rodman, 1988:205). Whenever the term semantics is mentioned, it suggests the study of meaning. Semantics, according to Palmer (1981:1), has been defined as the technical term used to refer to the study of meaning, and, since meaning is part of language, semantics is part of linguistics. Robins (1980:14) affirms that since
meaning is an attribute not only of language but of all sign and symbol systems, therefore, embrace a wider range than language alone . In mans use as well as the central one, much of semantics and semantic theory is concerned with language and languages.

Semantics is the science that tackles the conventional meaning conveyed in using of words and sentences of a language rather than the intended meaning in language use.

2 1

Hence, it deals with the study of the meaning of words, phrases and sentences in language(Yule,1996a:114). A very clear and obvious definition has been given by Yule (1996a:134) who states that semantics is the study of the relationship between linguistic forms and entities in the world; that is, how words literally connect to things. According to Kearns (2000:1), semantics tackles
the literal meaning of words and the meaning of the way they are combined, which taken together from the core of meaning, the starting point from which the whole meaning of a particular utterance is constructed. Pragmatics deals with all the ways in which literal meaning must be refined, enriched or extended to arrive at an understanding of what a speaker meant in uttering a particular expression.

2.4.1 Words with More than One Meaning

One of the general characteristics of language is multiplicity of meaning. In the present study, the researcher tries to shed light on ambiguity, as well as lexical items, which have more than one meaning. These are polysemous words (lexical items)(5) and homonymous words (lexemes)(6).

2.4.1.1 Ambiguity
Ambiguity is one of language characteristics (Gleason,1965:461). It is a single entity (utterance) that has more than one meaning. Hartmann and Stork (1972:11)

2 2

illustrate that a construction is said to be ambiguous when more than one interpretation can be assigned to it. An ambiguous sentence has been defined as one that expresses two or more predications(7). The phenomena of ambiguity (which results from diversity of specific rules) and vagueness (which results from general rules inviting the reading in of indefinitely variable specific information), can be distinguished similarly in effect, and differently in theory(Leech,1974:89-90,221). An interesting commentary about ambiguity has been supplied by Leech (1974:79) who affirms that
ambiguities do occur and can cause mistakes of communication. A plausible example would be an instruction shouted to someone upstairs to PUT THE ELECTRIC BLANKET ON; the intended meaning might be that he should place it on the bed; the actual interpretation could be that he should switch the current on.

Corder (1981:39) has pinpointed that well formed sentences produced by native speakers are mostly ambiguous when taken out of context. It may well be argued that the ability to detect ambiguity is crucial in the communicative process, and successful communication can depend on both speaker and hearer recognizing the same meaning for potentially ambiguous words (Akmajian, et al. ,1984:247).

2 3

On the other hand, a sentence is said to be ambiguous if native speakers agree that there is more than one meaning or more than one distinct situation described by it(Grinder, 1972:8 cited in Ibrahim, 1986:11) . Comparatively, according to Thomas (1995:14,16) few ambiguous sentences are misleading through the context, as in this example: [The speaker is referring to the Swiss city of Geneva] (2.11) Its a city where the banks along the river. that has a different meaning from usual, because the speakers subject matter associates with (the money programme) during his utterance. Saeed (1997:60-2) has described a term which has a different sense in different uses as an ambiguous, and context will cause one of the senses to be selected. Deliberately, attractive ambiguity has been used, specially, by the writers of literature, advertisers, editors and politicians either to pay attention to their fascinating products (as they believe) or to hide the intended meaning as in the case of newspapers headlines, sub titles in magazines, etc. (Omar,2003:6).

2.4.1.1.2 Linguistic Ambiguity

Lyons (1977:398) asserts that linguistic ambiguity depends solely upon the structure of the language system. Many ways can be taken into consideration, which are compose on linguistic ambiguities. Three main forms of

2 4

ambiguity have been recognized by Ullmann (1962:156-91). These forms are: I) Phonetic Ambiguity: its occurrence (in spoken form) is attributed to the phonetic structure of sentences. Since aspiration is one of the acoustic phonetic features as well as phonological system, the following sentences are considerable: (2.14) They pronounce it wrongly. (2.15) They pronounce strongly. II) Syntactic Ambiguity: Allerton (1979:146) has supported the viewpoint of syntactic ambiguity. He attributes that word class that is found in the same kind of context is someone caused ambiguity according to the word class which it belongs to, as elucidates below: (2.16) They can fish. (v. or adj.) (2.17) Bow is a respect work. (v. or n.) Chomskys example (1965:21) : (2.18) Flying planes can be dangerous. states one of the most well known examples in English which is referred to syntactic ambiguity. According to Poole (1999:93), generally, a grouping of words constructs a sentence rather than just being a linar string of words. Thus abstract characteristics of sentences such as structural ambiguity are attributed to a theoretical property which is wordgrouping. III) Lexical Ambiguity: by far the most important type of ambiguity, and the only one with which the current study is

2 5

concerned, is that due to lexical factors. Various meanings have been reflected for a certain word. This variation may raise confusion and misunderstanding in some contexts. Many words may refer to this kind of ambiguity, such as bear, right, top, etc. On the other hand, tenses of verbs like put, cut, read, upset, are identical as the singular and plural forms of some words sheep, fish, etc. (Ibrahim,1986:35). Polysemy and homonymy indicate the lexical ambiguity. In the next sections of this chapter, these terms will be covered adequately.

2.4.1.1.1 Non- Linguistic Ambiguity

The phenomenon of ambiguity whether it is syntactic, morphological, phonological, lexical, etc., is involved in non linguistic and linguistic ambiguity. An ambiguity that emanates from factors other than those pertaining to grammatical and / or lexical factors is called non linguistic. As much as referential ambiguity is concerned, proper names, personal and demonstrative pronouns, or definite descriptions are relied on non linguistic factors, e.g, (2.12) Sundus and Istabraq went back home early. (2.13) They achieved the task. the exact referentiality or identity of the proper nounsSundus and Istabraq,or the personal noun they is ambiguous. This ambiguity may be attributed to the indefinite number of people. Moreover, Lyons describes non linguistic

2 6

ambiguities as that are introduced into utterance signals by channel-noise by deficiencies in the language users competence or performance or by the particular context in which the utterance occurs (Lyons, 1977:398). However, Ibrahim (1986:25) demonstrates that non linguistic ambiguity is attributed either to context (ambiguity of significance), or to the referentiality of certain words (referential ambiguity).

2.4.1.2 Vagueness
Language, in general, has its disposal that contains various means to convey vagueness. Kempson (1977:124134) uses vagueness to refer to generality. For example, the word vertebrate is more general than animal, and the word cousin is also general to distinct whether male or female cousin. That is, lack of specification is considered one of vagueness features. Broadly speaking, Kempson (Ibid.) has characterized four types of vagueness. They are: A. Referential vagueness, where the meaning of lexical item is in principle clear enough; but it may be hard to decide whether or not the item can be applied to certain objects, as in house and cottage, mountain and hill, city and town, ect.

2 7

B. Indeterminacy of meaning, where the meaning itself of an item seems indeterminate. Consider Jacks room, Fries book, she has good legs, he has good cars, etc. C. Lack of specification in the meaning of an item, where the meaning is clear but it is only generally specified. As in the item like neighbor which is unspecified for sex, matter, race, age, etc. D. Disjunction of different interpretations, where the meaning of an item involves an either or statement of different interpretation possibilities. That is, as in the example below, there is an interpretation in which both implications can be held simultaneously. (2.19) All competitors must either be male or wear a one piece swimming costume. Henry (1981:86) has described vagueness as a context dependent matter, and it seems quite reasonable to let the context determine what counts as adequate . Saeed (1997:60-2) has proposed that vague entity is one that shares the same sense in different uses, and the context which contains that entity can add information that is not specified in the sense. In the following example, the word typist is vague or unspecified in gender : (2.20) They hired a typist and so did we. it may refer to male or female. But the different sense of an ambiguous word cannot be chosen in such expressions. On that score, Crystal (1997:178) claims that vagueness permits an unspecifiable range of possible

2 8

interpretations (i.e. is unstateable in syntactic or phonological terms). A matter of vagueness is as follows: (2.21) He did not repair the car. this example cannot interprete specifically the number of various implicit structures (what did he repair? Did he do something else to the car?).

2.4.1.3 Disambiguation and Contexts Role

Disambiguation is a process by which an obscure and ambiguous meaning of a sentence can be eliminated by context (all the Knowledge that the speakers have about the world). For example, the sentence: (2.22) The bill is large. is an ambiguous one until it is disambiguated by (2.23) The bill is large, but need not be paid. or by modifying bill by another noun like parrot as in: (2.24) The parrots bill is large. (Palmer,1981:49,112) The term disambiguation is not only ungainly, but a misleading term, as the effect of context is to attach a certain probability to each sense (the complete ruling out of a sense being the limiting case of nil probability) (Leech, 1974:78). Crystal (1997:118) has supported an example as in: (2.25) It is too hot to eat. can be disambiguated by showing how it can be related to such sentences as: (2.26) The food is too hot to eat.

2 9

(2.27) The weather is too hot to allow eating. (2.28) The girl is too hot to eat anything.

Thus, the context is the most suitable solution for disambiguation. Consider the role of situational context in disambiguating the vagueness of the utterance below: (2.29) Cigarette. as a one word sentence or an elliptical sentence; such a sentence is vague because it indicates non specification whether it is a request (in a party), warning (in a gas station), or exclamation (in childs hand).

2.4.1.4 Polysemy
Semantically, the words that are related but distinct in meanings and have the identical forms are called polysemous words. Leech (1974:228-30) attests that polysemy is one word having two or more senses [ and it has] different uses of the same word. Relatedness of meanings of one word has been contended by Leech who articulates that the meaning of a certain word (i.e. polysemous word) is psychologically related. Moreover, polysemy has been elucidated by Leech as the existence of more than one semantic specification for the same lexical item. As a fact, different words have different meanings. But, also, one word has different meanings, this is polysemy according to Palmer (1981:100).

3 0

One of the two kinds of lexical ambiguity depends on polysemy, rather the other depends on homonymy. Concering polysemy the word top has multiple related meanings, for example the top of the hill means the highest point, and the top of the milk means the layer of cream floating on it ( Hornby,1989:1352). Polysemy is described by Poole (1999:30) as one lexeme with a variety of referents, on the other hand Finch (2000:173) elucidates that polysemy is a sense relation in which a word, or a lexeme, has acquired more than one meaning. Many nouns in English have acquired metaphoric meanings, for example, the nouns which are related to the body like foot, leg, hand, and eye, can be applied or conducted to bed, table, cloche, and needle.

2.4.1.5 Homonymy
The existence of more than one morphological specification sharing the same phonological or graphic form, is defined as homonymy (Leech,1974:230). Lyons (1977:550) explains that it is generally taken to be a sufficient, though not a necessary, condition of homonymy that the lexemes in question should be known to have developed from what were formally distinct lexemes in some earlier stage of the language. The example, which is cited in many books of semantics is
(2.30) ear1 (the organ of hearing) and ear2 (part of such cereal plants as wheat and barley) are treated as

3 1

homonymous lexemes by virtue of the etymological criterion (because the old English words from which they derive were formally distinct and the forms of these two lexemes merged in Middle English).

As regarding ambiguity, Lyons (Ibid. :569), says that partial homonymy creates ambiguity in sentences, it creates ambiguity that is both lexical and grammatical. Consider the example below: (2.31) He is putting the ball on the green. putting, here, is lexically (and perhaps grammatically) ambiguous. Due to putting is of either (put, puts, putting) or (putt, putts, putted, putting), therefore it constitutes ambiguity (Ibid. :563). Hurford and Heasly (1983:123) identify homonymy as one of an ambiguous word, whose different senses are far apart from each other and not obviously related to each other in any way. Cases of homonymy seem very definitely to be matters of mere accident or coincidence. Homonymy according to Crystal (1987:106), has been defined to refer to cases where two (or more) different lexemes have the same shape.He articulates homophones, which have the same pronunciation, but different spellings (e.g. threw vs. through). And homographs, which have the same spelling, but different pronunciations (e.g. wind air movement vs. bend). Yule (1996a:121) assures that the two or more unrelated meanings of a certain form (written or spoken) are described as homonymy. He argues that the attemptation is

3 2

to think that the two types of [e.g.] bank must be related in meaning, but on the contrary, they are not. Accordingly,different types of homonymy can be distinguished depending on their spellings and pronunciations. Let us consider these types with reference to their examples: A. Lexemes (words) which have different meanings, but identical spellings, and different pronunciations are called homographs, for example: (2.32) lead /led/ = the name of metal. (2.33) lead /li:d/ = to show the way. (2.34) tear /ti(r)/ = a drop of a salty water coming down from the eye. (2.35) tear /te (r)/ = pull something sharply to pieces. B. Lexemes (words) which are different in meanings and spellings, but they are identical in pronunciations are called homophones, for example: (2.36) right /rait/ = true or correct. (2.37) write /rait/ = make letters or other symbols on a surface. (2.38) hear /hi(r)/ = perceive sounds with the ears. (2.39) here /hi(r)/ = in this position or place. C. Lexemes (words) which have different meanings, but they are identical in both spellings and pronunciations are called homophones and homographs, for example: (2.40) lap /lp/ =circuit of a course. (2.41) lap /lp/ = part of body when sitting down. (2.42) left /left/ = past tense of leave. (2.43) left /left/ = opposite of right.

3 3

(Thakur, 1999:32-3) Concerning the lexemes in (c), purely, they are neither homophones nor homographs, but simultaneously emergent of both homophones and homographs. Thus, the researcher suggests to call such case of words as homographones(8).

2.4.1.6 The Distinction between Polysemy and Homonymy

Though the distinction between polysemy and homonymy is not clear cut, however, the major distinction between them is the relatedness vs. unrelatedness in meaning, in which it becomes of a considerable significance (Lyons, 1977:551). In this respect, in standard English dictionaries, polysemous lexical items are treated as single entries, whereas homonymous lexemes are treated as separate entries. For example, the polysemous item humble means (modest: not proud, low in rank: unimportant, not large or elaborate: poor), and the homonymous item bank1 means (land sloping up along each side of river or canal), bank2 means (establishment for keeping money), etc.

2.5 The Notion of Context

At the very beginning, Ogden and Richards have defined context, and said that it is a set of entities (things or events) which are related in a certain way; these entities have each a character such that other sets of entities occur having the

3 4

same characters and related by the same relations; and these occur nearly uniformly (Cited in Ullmann, 1957:63). Concerning context and background knowledge, Leech clarifies that anything precedes the utterance, has to be connected or related to the context that we happen to know about the state of the universe at the time that the linguistic expression under consideration was uttered. Semantic theories have concentrated on the study of context in terms of its conceptual meaning, rather than the particularities of context. Pragmatic oppositions have been cut across conceptual boundaries within the example given below, because the conventional meaning supply nothing to the accurate meaning. (2.44) I wish to attend the meeting. although wish, here, means my desire, but pragmatically means unable. It is expressed by wish, in virtue of politeness on the part of persons replying (Leech,1974:78-81). The notion of context is often invoked to explain how pragmatics complements semantics. It is a platitude that a sentence linguistic meaning generally does not determine what is said in its utterance and that the gap between linguistic meaning and what is said is filled by something called context. The intuitive idea behind this platitude is that there are different things that a speaker can mean, even when using his words in a thoroughly literal way(Katz, 1977:14). Lyons (1981:201-2) indicates the term context as a factor in the determination of the propositional context of

3 5

particular tokens of utterance inscriptions on different occasions of utterance. Thereupon, context can be determined in what is said, if an utterance actually has been uttered. Context, generally, is highly associated with the utterance- meaning. Consider the following example: (2.45) They passed the port at midnight. ambiguity has arisen, lexically, wherein context of the two homonymous port (harbor) or port (kind of fortified wine), and also in which sense the polysemous verb pass is used and intended respectively. However, the sense of the homonymous and polysemous words in context may differ from that one out of context. But actually, the appropriate context determines the precise sense of an utterance, which has been done. The set of premises used in interpreting an utterance (apart from the premise that the utterance in question has been produced) constitutes what is generally known as context. A context is a psychological contract, a subset of the hearers assumptions about the world. It is these assumptions, of course, rather than the actual state of the world that affect the interpretation of the utterance. A context in this sense is not limited to information about the immediate physical environment or the immediately preceding utterances, expectations about the future, scientific beliefs about the mental state of the speech, may all play a role in interpretation (Sperber and Willson,1986:15-6). Context is a dynamic, not static concept. It is to be understood as the surroundings, in the widest sense, that enable, the participants in the communication process to

3 6

interact, and that make the linguistic expressions to their interactions intelligible (Mey,1993:8).

Any contextual sense can result from an interaction through people who are engaged. Contextual sense means the sense in which the speaker / writer is using a word (Thomas,1995:5). Crystal (1997:87) defines context as a general term used in linguistics to refer to specific parts of an utterance (or text) near or adjacent to a unit which is the focus of attention. In other words, the term context is used very widely in linguistic, and generally it has the sense refers to that which comes before or after something (Finch,2000:212). Clearly, Finch adds that co-text or / and sometimes called verbal context are alike. So, for example: (2.46) Sonia has get married, she is pregnant now, it is known who is she referred to, attributes to the preceding proper name Sonia. Therefore, co-text means accompanying text, i.e. those sounds, words, phrases and so on, which accompany each other in the particular sentence or utterance (Ibid.). The upshot is that context is regarded as a particular situation, background, or environment to which a text (or part of a text) is related, for example, a social, cultural, and

3 7

historical setting, or genre (file:// A:\ English Glossary page. htm:6 of 34).

2.6 The Pioneers Contributions to Context

2.6.1 Malinowski
The founders of the school of ethnographic linguistics are Malinowski and Firth (it is known under the name of the contextual school). The anthropologist Bronislow Malinowski (1884-1942) gave a great deal to the problems of meaning, when he was studying the culture of the inhabitants of the Trobriand Islands of Popua. He sees that Trobriand utterances or expressions are meaningful, when they are translated as a word-by-word, if they are separated from their cultural context. However, culture, here, refers to the way of life of community, what people do and think ; it embraces occupations, religious and political organization, ceremonies, customs, table manners, habitual ways of thinking, beliefs, education, morals, humor, etc. (Simpson,1979:183). Malinowski is the first to call attention to the necessity of understanding context. He argued for the study of both what he called the context of situation and for seeing language as a human action rather than as abstract symbolic structure (Scollon, 1998:119). However, Malinowski insists that European go into a word-by-word translation, which will cause a

3 8

misunderstanding of the utterances. The utterances become comprehensible only in the context of the whole way of life of which they form part (Sampson,1980:225). The actual relevant features, i.e. cultural and physical, in a certain society in which the utterance occurred were reckoned the constitutions of Malinowskis context (Robins, 1980:33). Malinowski argues that utterances are meaningful only if they are seen in the used context. Therefore, the difficulties of translation of Trobriand Islands in the south Pacific which had been noted by Malinowski, had resulted from the differences between the nature of languages. Malinowskis context of situation has clarified as a bit of the social process which can be considered apart, but it was an accurate and satisfactory for Firth who saw the context of situation as part of the linguistic apparatus in the same way as are the grammatical categories that he uses (Palmer,1981:51-53). These categories, will be stated within Firths section. Furthermore, Malinowski and Firth said that for the language in order to be in a completed way, it should have some reference to the context of situation in which the language operated (Ibid. :56). However, language in action and meaning as use might be taken as twin slogans for this school of thought [i.e. Malinowski and Firths school] (Leech,1974:71).

3 9

The whole system of Malinowskis context is that the semantic system of a language, may be associated with a specific class of situations or contexts of use. A given situation type can represent the meaning potential in the form of sets of options (Davies,1977:11). Finally, Verschueren (1999:93) presents a quotation from (Malinowski, 1923:307), elucidates that the utterance has no meaning except in the context of situation. Verschueren adds that Malinowskis observation can be seen as one of the necessary pillars of any theory of pragmatics.

2.6.2 Firth
The main interest of Firths own theorizing was phonology and semantics. Firth accepted Malinowskis view of language, and indeed the two linguists probably each influenced the other in evolving what were ultimately very similar views. Sampson (1980:225-26) has stated that
Malinowski clarifies his idea of meaning by appealing to a notion of context of situation [where] Firths view (1966, p.220), meaning, or function in context, is to be interpreted as acceptability or appropriateness in the context: an utterance or part of an utterance is meaningful if, and only if, it can be used appropriately in some actual context.

Firth, who is considered by many linguists to be the founder of modern English linguistics, argues that voices are

4 0

important in order to support the utterance in a social context. That is, an implicit meaning should be regarded in modern spoken languages, with referent to typical participants in some context of situation (Firth,1957:226). Robins (1980:33) clarifies that Firths context of situation is an abstract set of related categories at the level of semantic analysis, which may be as varied in its composition as the semantic explanation of the material requires. Lyons (1977:572-3) mentions that many philosophers have said that context is a matter of pragmatics rather than semantics. Since Firth has insisted on the necessity of incorporating the notion of context within semantics ,he says that
a context of situation for linguistic work brings into relation the following categories: A- The relevant features of participants: person, personalities (1)The verbal action of the participants. (2)The non- verbal action of the participants. B- The relevant objects. C- The effect of the verbal action.

(Cited in Brown and Yule, 1983:37) What is cited in Lyons (1981:195) is about Firths assumption where he tells that any text can be regarded as a constituent of a context of situation. According to Firthian semantics, utterances are related to their context of situations. And he is more interested in the social and expressive functions of language than the descriptive and conative functions (Lyons,1977:608). Thus, meaning is to

4 1

be regarded as a complex of contextual relations, and phonetics, grammar, lexicology, and semantics each handles its own components of the complex in its appropriate context (Firth,1957:19). For Firth, language is meaningful only in its context of situation. He argues that the descriptive process begins with the collection of a set of contextually defined homogeneous texts and the aim of description is to explain how the sentences or utterances are meaningful in their context (Cited in Coulthard,1977:1). Firth and his followers emphasize that language utterances could not be interpreted otherwise than by contextualizing them in relation to a particular culture. The signification of the utterance itself is embedded in what J.R Firth has called a context of situation; and it may be important in deciding whether a metaphorical interpretation is probable or not, to know what the context of situation is. On the other hand, having decided that something is being conveyed over and above what has been said, the addressee has to infer what this is on the basis of contextual information shared by him and his interlocutor(Lyons, 1981:217).

2.6.3 Van Dijk

Van Dijk (1976:29) argues that a context is constructed as a complex event, viz as an ordered pair of events of which the first causes the second. It is obvious, that production of an utterance by the speaker relates to the first

4 2

event, and the interpretation of the utterance relates to the second by the hearer.

The structure of context has been deeply tackled by Van Dijk (1977:191-2). He says that there are, at least, two persons within a situation, viz speaker and hearer, respectively. They belong to a group (audience / listeners) of the same community of one language, and related conventions for interaction. The speaker sends his utterance during a certain period of time to the hearer, then the latter will reply and may become agent speaker to produce an utterance or he will make certain actions. Hence, a context is, according to Van Dijk, reckoned as a sequence of world states or a course of events. However, these situations are not static during a period of time, but change. Possible and actual contexts, should be taken into consideration. The possible context will be specified by a certain status, viz actual context, on the one hand. Whereas on the other hand, the actual context is defined by the setting, where the recognizable common activities of the participants of context are realized. Events, just like objects, properties and (static) relations, may be defined according to change or event descriptions, and they may have conventional names. The events may be either continuous or discontinuous. For instance, the event of crashing is considered to be a continuous event, because it is composed of moving and breaking. Whereas the event of thunder may be discontinuous, because there are temporal

4 3

gaps between the component events (during which other events may occur) (Van Dijk,1977:168-70). Concerning pragmatics, Van Dijk manifests that an empirical domain should be assigned within pragmatics consisting of conventional rules of language, and illustrations of these rules in the production and interpretation of utterances. The pragmatic interpretation of utterances, deals with utterance acts. These acts must be put in a situation, and it should be acceptable. Such a situation (i.e. situation of speech interaction) will take the technical term context. The term (appropriateness) is used to denote the pragmatic success. The internal structures of the speech participants will be part of contexts. For example, their (background knowledge, beliefs, purposes, intentions), as well as the acts themselves and their structures, a spatio temporal characterization of the context. It is possible to formulate appropriateness conditions only if we know the structure of communicative acts and of the contexts in which they are functioning (Ibid. :189-91).

2.6.4 Hymes
Hymes focuses on communicative competence- or the so called linguistic code in appropriate ways in social situations. A great deal of work in the ethnography of speaking is relevant to Hymes(Scherer and Giles, 1979:310). The major features of context mention by Hymes are: first, persons involved in speech event; second, topic, i.e. status of participants; third, setting which refers to time and

4 4

place. The minor features of context related to Hymes are: channel, code, message- form, event, key and purpose (Brown and Yule,1983:38-9). Davies (1977:13) affirms that the properties of situation have been summarized by Hymes as form and context, setting, participants, ends (intent and effect), Key, medium, and interactional norms. Speech event is a term used by Hymes to refer to a situation defined by the speech occurring in it, e.g. a conference (Wadensj, 1998:89). Various factors share in speaking are mentioned by Hymes (see figure-2-). He uses the word SPEAKING as an acronym for the various factors. These factors are: Setting and Scene (S), the Participants (P), End (E), Act sequence (A), Key (K), Instrumentalities (I), Norms (N) and Genre (G) (Cited in Wardhaugh, 1986:238). Communicative competence has been produced by Hymes in order to show the persons knowledge and ability of using the semantic systems available in a given sociocultural community. Therefore, knowledge of language system or linguistic competence reckoned as a part of communicative competence (Lyons:1977:573). Four questions have been raised by Hymes concerning language and forms of communication. The third question is relevant to the current study, which says whether (and to what degree) something is appropriate (adequate, happy, successful) in relation to a context in which it is used and evaluated (Ibid.).

4 5

Figure (2) :Hymes Components of Context (after Wardhaugh, 1986: 238-40; Thomas,1995:188)

4 6

Communicative competence can be illustrated as the ability to comprehend utterances in terms of the context in which they are encountered (Davies,1977:72). However, speakers can select their appropriate speech, to fulfil the needs of a certain social interaction and their cognitions concerning it. These needs have been done according to the sociolinguistic notion of a speech repertoire that is related to Hymes (Scherer and Giles,1979:360). Brown and Yule (1983:37) assert that the importance of an ethnographic view of communicative events within communities has been developed by Hymes in a series of articles. Hymes sees the role of context as that
the use of a linguistic form identifies a range of meaning . A context can support a range of meaning. When a form is used in a context it eliminates the meanings possible to that context other than those the form can signal: the context eliminates from consideration the meanings possible to the form other than those the context can support.

(Ibid. :37-8) Speech event has been pointed out by Hymes who stresses that
all genres have contexts or situations to which they are fitted and in which they are typically found. Some genres,

4 7

like conversation, can occur appropriately in a wide range of situations, some, like prayer, are highly restricted; however, it is a defining criterion of a genre that it is recognizable style and therefore can be used in inappropriate situations.

(Coulthard, 1977:39) 2.6.5 Leech The British pragmatician Geoffrey Leech describes the development of pragmatics as a process of colonization, by which certain settlers tried to expand their areas gradually. Mey (1993:20-21) mentions that Leech claims that colonization was only the last stage of a wave-by- wave expansion of linguistics from a narrow discipline dealing with the physical data of speech to a broad discipline taking in form, meaning and context. Leech sets out that meaning should be studied in terms of its situations, uses and contexts. He is cited in the philosopher Wittgensteins illustration, where the commentary is that in a limited context the meaning of a word can be understood simply from observing what is going on. Many linguistic forms of words , concerning states of mind , have no observable correlate , or sometimes there is not relation with the contemporary real world (Leech , 1974:71-2). Without the authentic clues of context, it is very difficult for the hearer / reader to find the precise meaning said / written by the speaker / writer, respectively. For instance, the utterance / expression (takeaway), may not be understandable by hearer/reader if it is written / uttered

4 8

alone. An ambiguous knowledge will occupy the minds comprehension of the hearer/ reader. But such an expression/utterance (i.e. takeaway) will be predictable if comes as an advertisement in a restaurant , or it will be familiar when comes during a certain speech between a speaker and a hearer or more (i.e, it will give a recognizable meaning according to the previous information relative to its situation).Another example cited with Leech, (Janet! Donkeys!), is an ambiguous utterance for hearer / reader unless it occurs with its situational context. Yet, Janet ! Donkeys! means a celebrated recurrent remark by the heros aunt Bestey Trotwood in Dickenss David Copperfield (the remark was an order to her maid to carry out a routine task of driving donkeys off the grass) (Ibid. : 77). The process of particularization of meaning could take in Leechs consideration of the context. He mentions three ways in order to specify the precise meaning: 1) Disambiguation of context: means that context deletes redundant meanings in the message (e.g. let us consider the word ground, in a given instance means a piece of land, rather produce something by cruching). 2) Deictic expressions are types of referents words that are involved in a context, like (this, that, here, there, now, etc.).A definite meaning can, also, be shown by other expressions as (David, you, I, he, it, the man, etc.). 3) Deleted information of a certain utterance can supply the message required to be informed by the speaker / writer. For instance, (Janet ! Donkeys !) means (Janet ! drive those

4 9

donkeys away ! rather any other of the theoretical probabilities) (Ibid. :77-8). Let us consider the example below: (2.47) Many of the delegates opposed the motion. such an ordinary reading of this sentence, suggests that many delegates voted for the motion, and some of them against. This is the normal interpretation that the sender wants the receiver to accept. But when adding an utterance like completes the sentence: (2.48) In fact, all of them did. It seems different from the first interpretation. The use of the word many instead of all indicates that the speaker tries to avoid the rigorous expression (such all or none) if, and only if, there was indeed a need for it (Mey, 1993:56-7). Leech (1974:346) argues that the recognition of presupposition [is] an important aspect of, or adjunct to, the meaning of utterances. He adds that presupposition is considered as a character of speech situation. And, he defines presupposition as a relation between two predictions. An illustration of the definition of presupposition is, for instance (2.49) A: The farm she bought was huge. (2.50) B: She bought a farm. It means that if the uttering of A is valid, B has to be true. And, if B is false, then the uttering of A is unvalid or void (Ibid.: 292)

2.6.6 Levinson

5 0

Levinson has stated a tentative presentation of some definitions of pragmatics (1983:12,15,19). He says, pragmatics is the study of all those aspects of meaning not captured in a semantic theory. This definition shows that Levinson concentrates on the non-semantic features in a language, i.e, those features are aspects of the context. He argues that the broader sense of meaning, of course that is unknown or disappeared in semantics, should be relevant to the following: the ironic, metaphoric and implicit communicative context of an utterance, and so it cannot be restricted to the conventional context of what is said. This indicates the connected sense of sentence-meaning with semantics, and utterance-meaning with pragmatics. Inference is one of the recent concepts tackled in the field of pragmatics. Inferences come throughout the understanding of utterances in a certain language, in order to connect what is said with the presumed before. Levinson has pinpointed a definition of pragmatics focusing on context as pragmatics is the study of the relations between language and context that are basic to an account of language understanding (Ibid.: 19,21). Ochs and Lyons argued that the understanding of context must not exclude the linguistic features, which invoke the relevant contextual assumptions. Alternatively, Van Dijk states that an ordered pair of events is constructed the context, i.e., the first event causes the second. The speaker produces an utterance, and this is the first event. While the hearer interpretates the utterance which is the second event. Essentially, context of utterance is a one way

5 1

that can encode the deixis in language, where the analysis of the context of utterance depends on the interpretation of the utterances (Livenson,1983:32 4,54). Throughout the utterance of the speaker directed to the hearer, Levinson (Ibid. :18) emphasizes that
How then is the full communicative intention to be recognized? By taking into account, not only the meaning of U(9(, but also the precise mechanisms (like irony, or general assumptions of a certain level of implicitness) which may cause a divergence between the meaning of U and what is communicated by the utterance of Uin a particular context.

According to Levinsons words, pragmatics is the study of those relations between language and context that are grammaticalized(10)or encoded in the structure of a language (Ibid.:9).

2.6.7 Yule
Brown and Yule (1983:25-6) deal with context and say that we have constantly referred to the environment, circumstances or context in which language is used. They assert that the contextual considerations, have been involved in linguistics, must be belonged to the area of pragmatic studies. Meanwhile the analytic approach in discourse involves doing syntax and semantics. A crucial element has been used by Yule (1996a:128) which is the notion of the speakers (writers) intended

5 2

meaning. Much of utterances have seemed to be opaque, because they lack accurate contexts, which convey them. But, when the context and its situations are available, certainly those utterances will be apparent. Clearly, the features of context had been presented by Brown and Yule (1983:36-46). Though the underlying features were regarded as: speaker and hearer (i.e. participants), place and time (i.e. setting or spatio-temporal co- ordinates). But the expanding clarification of these features, previously had been explained within the contributions of the linguists like Firth, Malinowski, Hymes, etc. At this point, an example had been cited in Yule (1996a :127) states the significance of pragmatics: the study of intended speaker meaning . Context, deixis, reference, anaphora and presupposition, are considered as complementary elements to each other. Context is one of the influential elements in pragmatics. Two main types of context have been mentioned by Yule. The first type is the linguistic context, also known as co-text. This type deals with a word and the set of other words, which are used in the same phrase or sentence, effecting on what we think the word means. Examples of such words are: bank, bat, pole, etc., these are called homographic words (of homonym). That is, the words just mentioned have multiple meanings. They can determine their precise meanings according to the disambiguated contexts have included them. Physical context, is the second type. This type is concerned with the

5 3

physical location that influences the reader / hearer interpretation (Ibid. :129).

2.7 Context and Metaphor

Metaphor itself is a device that is used sometimes in a certain context. It is considered so common in English. The transfer of a name or descriptive term to something to which it is not in strictness applicable. This name given by the transfer, is called metaphor. Concerning Scollon (1998:83) who has highlighted metaphor says
we must use our metaphor with caution, asking of each in turn not only what is being highlighted, but also what is being obscured. The metaphors of communication based upon messages(11), channels(12), and contexts tend to keep the focus on the message itself. That is, when context is used as a metaphor to mean what is around (but what is not in) the communication, our attention is diverted from the social aspects of communication.

Moreover, Lyons (1981:215), claims that some linguists ascribe the metaphorical interpretation interpret a metaphorical utterance in its literal meaning, because of utterance to pragmatics. Yet, one cannot it does not give the exact meaning, which is provided by the speaker, for example: (2.51) Walls have ears. (Fromkin and Rodman,1988:235)

5 4

Traditionally, if someone, for example, asks the meaning of a word like / ha:t /, then, of course, it is needed to have the context before the interpretation of such a word. Because / ha:t / in the context : (2.52) A hart eats all the grass in the farm, differs from / ha:t / in another context, as in: (2.53) She has captured my heart. In the first context, the sense of / ha:t / is an adult male (specially red) deer, stag. While , the sense of / ha:t / in the second context is the center of a persons thoughts and emotions, especially of love; ability to feel emotions (Hornby, 1989:570,578).Thereon, such compared words (i.e. hart, heart) consciously do not bear the literal meaning as in: (2.54) My / ha:t / has stolen my / ha:t /, the first / ha:t / hart means sweetheart or lover, and the second / ha:t / heart means emotions and feelings.

2.8 Context and Discourse

It seems clear from the presented discussion by Hurford and Heasly (1983:69), that the context of utterance is, really, part of the universe of discourse. And the occurrence (situation) of an utterance is a part of its context. They remark that a completed certainty can never be specified to the exact context of any utterance. Flexibility is connected with the notion of context (even somewhat vague).Note that facts about times and places very distinct from the time and place of utterance itself can be part of the context of that utterance, if the topic of conversation happens to be about these distant times and places. Thus, for example, facts

5 5

about certain people in Iraq could well be part of the context of a conversation in Canada five years later.

2.9 Context and Reference, Force, and Effect

What is related to context (i.e. meaning in context) is that the pragmatic aspects of meaning are reference, force, and effect. Let us consider the following example: (2.55) The military forces may capture him. By using the definite article the in the noun phrase The military forces indicate that the speaker and the hearer know those military forces, simultaneously. This noun phrase is reckoned as a reference. Throughout the utterance above, the speaker tends to provide the hearer with something expressing a proposition. This proposition, of course, does not refer to something only, but fulfils some kind of illocutionary force. Hence, the speaker may intend by saying the utterance above, as a threat, warning, taking a decision, etc. Such pragmatic possibilities have been inferred from the context of utterance. Perlocutionary effect of the first partys expression on the second one. That is to say, not only the intended meaning is provided by the first person to the second to be understood, but to persuade, frighten, impress, etc. , e.g. (The military forces may capture him Oh my God!) (Widdowson,1996:61-3) .

2.10 Pragmatics (Utterance Meaning)

5 6

Although utterance-meaning falls within the scope of pragmatics, which is defined as the study of actual utterances that postulates a part of meaning, that is, tackles language use rather than language meaning, and performance rather than competence (Lyons,1981:171). On the other side, Leech (1983:10), regards pragmatics as the study of the general conditions of the communicative use of language. There is not a general rule or law that governs the way that the speaker uses language in his actual life, but there are norms followed by the language users choice of utterance. For example, at funeral crack jokes are not allowed, though there is no law preventing that. Mey (1993:315) has identified his question what is pragmatics, then he answered it modestly as the societally necessary and consciously interactive dimension of the study of language. Pragmatics may make us semantically shocked, because, sometimes, language has been used in various unconventional ways. Since pragmatics is the wastebasket of semantics, so whenever you cannot explain a phenomenon in language using regular, accepted linguistic theories, then you must have recourse to something else, namely pragmatics. In other words, pragmatics is the study of language which is focused attention on the users and the context of language use rather than on reference, truth, or grammar (Fotion,1995:709).

5 7

The adopted definition by Bates (1996:3) of pragmatics has been intended by Peirce is that the study of indexical rules for relating linguistic form to a given context. The relatedness of the pragmatics definitions is associated differently with meaning. Yule (1996:127) states that pragmatics is the study of invisible meaning, or how we recognize what is meant even when it isnt actually said (or written). Aitchison (1999:9) has provided a hint shows how speakers use language in ways which cannot be predicted from linguistic knowledge alone, this is the case of pragmatics. Pragmatics is concerned with whatever information is relevant, over and above the linguistic properties of a sentence, to understand its utterance. Consider some examples involving pronouns. There is no semantic basis for interpreting the pronouns one way in : (2.56) Ann told sally that she wanted to borrow her car. And the opposite way in : (2.57) Ann told Sally that she could not borrow her car. The hearer relies on extra linguistic information to interpret one utterance one way and the other in the opposite way. (The Semantics Pragmatics Distinction: 8-9 of 16)

2.10.1 Context of Situation

For Firth, language is meaningful only in its situation. Although, he advocates linguists to study the total verbal process in its context of situation [,but] he did not do so himself (Coulthard,1977:1,3).

5 8

Joos (1957:25) and Gleason (1965:360) declare that all deleted or omitted unstressed words at the beginning of sentences, especially in rapid or informal spoken English, can often attribute their interpretations to the context of situation in which they occur. Such these words involve articles, pronouns, auxiliaries, and be. For example:
(2.58) A) Hot?

B) (Are you) hot? C) (It is) hot? (Ahmed,1987:21) Deictic expressions that are embodied in an utterance (spoken), and make reference to the situation in which takes place, is one of the features of context of situation. A certain utterance contains (a) deictic expression(s) may not be interpreted correctly without reference to the relevant features of the situation. Hence, the spatio temporal situation in which it [i.e. the context of utterance] occurs [and] the Knowledge shared by the speaker and hearer of what has been said earlier, are considered as a complementing each other to identify the context of utterance (Lyons,1968:413). The participants can recognize five types of situation according to the degree of formality. These are frozen, formal, consultative, casual, and intimate (Joos (1962), quoted in Lyons,1977 :580).

5 9

The context of situation to be understood by the hearer, Simpson (1979:182) has articulated a question with its account, wherein he sets out
It is the intention of the speaker or is it the reaction of the hearer? If it is the intention of the speaker, then the problem of eliciting intentions areas; if it is the reaction of the hearer, then misunderstanding may lead to a situation in which the reaction is not the one intended. This would requires to say that the speaker had no control over the meaning of his utterance. And indeed it is often the case that an intended meaning is misunderstood.

It is also worth noting that the meaning of an utterance includes both, the reference or denotation of individual words, and those that must be stated as belonging to the sentence, or even a series of sentences. On the other hand, what handled as headings of a context of situation are, or may be, differences of personal status, family and social relations, degrees of intimacy, relative ages, and other factors, irrelevant to the consideration of sentences as the expression of logical propositions (Robins,1980:22). As it is known, context, generally, is a main source of supplementary data. J.R. Firth announces that the basic assumption is that any text can be regarded as a constituent of a context of situation (Synopsis of linguistic theory)(13). In any discussion tackles context of situation, it is noted that utterance is embodied in it, and pragmatically, a metaphorical interpretation is probable within a context of situation. In spite of that, overtones have been conveyed in

6 0

addition to what has been said. The addressee infers these overtones throughout the contextual information share in the interaction between him and interlocutor(Lyons,1981:215, 217).

2.10.2 Particularization of Meaning

Many elements or features can characterize or surround meaning in general. These are: context, deixis, reference, anaphora and presupposition (see Leech, 1974:77, and Yule, 1996:129-32).

2.10.2.1 Context
Context has been elucidated appropriately enough in sections (2.5 and 2.10).

2.10.2.2 Deixis
A term, which has been taken from a Greek word that, refers to pointing or showing via language. Expressions such as this, that, here, those, now, tomorrow, you, etc., are regarded as deictic expressions (also sometimes called indexicals). In the example below: (2.59) Sir, well be there tonight. The deictic expressions, out of context, seem to be extremely vague (see Finch,2000:214, and Yule, 1996a:130). As a rule, Levinson (1983:68-94) has adopted five categories of deixis. These categories (or sometimes called dimensions) are in turn: person, time, place, discourse and social deixis.

6 1

A simplified outstanding, concerning these categories will be taken into consideration. A. Person Deixis: let us start with the following example: (2.60) I have sent you the parcel. First of all, the researcher has previously mentioned that indexicals out of context are extremely vague. Although this case is true, let us put it aside and turn back to person deixis. The three part-divisions have exemplified pronouns for first person I, we uses for the speaker, second person you uses for the addressee(s), and third person he, she, it uses for other(s) (i.e. neither the speaker nor the hearer), represent the roles of participants. Two person indexicals have been used in the example (2.60). The first pronoun I refers to the speaker or spokesman, and the second indicates the hearer or addressee (see Levinson, 1983:6873; Yule, 1996b: 10-12; Yule, 1996a: 129-130; Finch, 2000: 214-5). B. Time Deixis: the markers: then, now, tomorrow, yesterday, tonight, next week, etc., refer to time (temporal) deixis. All these expressions depend for their interpretation on knowing the relevant utterance time (Yule, 1996b:14). In the example below: (2.61) Free coffee tomorrow. If one does not know the utterance time of a sign or note on a coffee shop as in the example aforementioned it is possible always to claim that (deictically) he is one day early for the free drink (Yule,1996a:130).

6 2

So, time deixis (tomorrow) looks unclear enough to shed light on the utterance meaning precisely. The meaning of today, tonight, etc. , which may seem quite proximal comparing with the more distal next Monday, the coming holiday, etc. can be obscure, due to lacking knowledge time of the speaking. That is, it lacks the deictic context (Verschueren,1999:21-2). C. Place Deixis: adverbs of location which refer to objects such as here, there, near, etc. , can be used deictically as in: (2.62) Here or there, mother is the dear. Also, demonstratives that refer to closer point to the speaker are described as this, these, and the furthure away as that, those, have been postulated as place deixis as in: (2.63) These and that are related to the fair. Only actual context can calculate such deictic divisions use by the participants (Saeed,1997:173-4). D. Discourse Deixis: Levinson (1983:85) indicates that discourse deixis (textual deixis) refers to the use of expression within some utterance to refer to some portion of the discourse that contains that utterance. From Lyons (1977 :667) the following example elucidates discourse deixis: (2.64) a. Thats a rhinoceros. b. A what? Spell it for me.

6 3

it indicates the word rhinoceros, not the referent, i.e. not the beast itself. Thus, discourse deictic is a pronoun that refers to a linguistic expression itself. Discourse deixis and anaphora are frequently confusing. To make a distinction between discourse deixis and anaphora, let us consider the following example: (2.65) Lindas a ruler, shes so considerate. Linda and she are co-referential, that is, she is the referent to the prior linguistic expression Linda. This is anaphora (Levinson,1983:85-6) . E. Social Deixis: There are two major types of socially deictic information concerning languages around the world: relational, i.e. honorifics (expressions refer to higher status), and absolute, i.e. authorization as in My lord, Sir, Doctor, etc., (See Levinson,1983:87-94; Yule,1996b:10). The relationship or social identities of the participants in the conversation is called social deixis (Saeed,1997:179). On the other hand, Yule (1996:10-12) affirms that the honorifics forms which surround the distinctions of the participants are described as social deixis. Again, the usage of status or distinctions forms is extremely associated with relations like intimacy, formality, polite pronouns and titles of address.

2.10.2.3 Reference

6 4

In general reference involves reliance on context. The use of language words in terms of short-hands by the speaker which indicates things that enable the listener to infer throughout context is called reference. Bates (1996:10) states that reference describes the use of a word or phrase by a speaker to stand for an entity-event in the out side world, or an entity-event in his own imagined world. The researcher, once, overhears in winter in a grocery the utterance below: (2.66) Give me two kilos of black (i.e. egg-plant) immediately, the grocer identifies black through his getting of the intended meaning of the speaker, because inference of information is used by users of language to say something and mean another. Hence only (egg-plant) refers to black color. That is, what is meant by the speaker rather than said, or it is communicated more than what is said (Saeed,1997: 180-1).

2.10.2.4 Anaphora
Levinson (1983:85-6) has differentiated between discourse deixis and anaphora, he mentions anaphora as the use of (usually) a pronoun to refer to the same referent as some prior term. Akmajian et al. (1984:276) announce that the relation between pronouns (or noun phrase) and a set of antecedent noun phrase is called anaphoric relation. For example: (2.67) Joan sent a letter and she went out.

6 5

she (anaphoric pronoun) refers back to whatever Joan (antecedent) refers to, or Joan and she can be said to be co-referential, i.e. both pick out the same referent.

2.10.2.5 Presupposition
Presupposition is a double usage term in semantics and pragmatics that refers to implicit assumptions have been done by speaker and listener in order to obtain a correct interpretation, as in: (2.68) a. Susans house is in the countryside. b. Susan has a house. It is assumed by the speaker that a person called Susan is found in reality, and she has a house. The speaker tries to presuppose that Susan has only one house no more and it lies in the countryside. All of these presuppositions, according to the speaker, are true. Presupposition has the case of constancy under negation (as well as affirmation one). This case is a main difference between presupposition and entailment (something that logically follows from what is asserted in the utterance. Sentences, not speakers, have entailments)(Yule,1996:256). That is to say, the prior proposition of the statement (2.68 a) will still be true in the statement (2.68 b) even when that statement is negated, as in: (2.69) a. Susans house is not in the countryside. b. Susan has a house. It is worth noting that, out of context, presuppositions may be ambiguous. For instance, a man has been asked by a page if he wants a cup of coffee. Then, the replay is It will

6 6

keep me awake. The page assumes whether or not the man wants to keep awake. Thus, the background knowledge of a presupposition, i.e., context, is not adequate. That is, it lacks information about the situational context in which the utterance has taken place (Finch,2000:173-5).

1- it indicates the relationship between forms and referents (Crystal,1997:127). 2- it refers to the relationship namely between forms, referents and sense (Ibid.). 3- a crucial differentiation between a receiver and an addressee has been made by Lyons (1977:34) where a receiver (a person who receives and interprets the message) and an addressee (a person who is intended receiver of the message) (Quoted from Leech,1983:13). 4- the term goal is more neutral than intention, because it does not commit its user to deal with conscious volition or motivation, but can be used generally of goal oriented activities (Leech,1983:13-4).

6 7

5-lexical items: a bundle of lexical entries sharing the same morphological specification (Finch,2000:229). 6- lexemes: a bundle of lexical entries sharing the same morphological specification and the same syntactic specification (Ibid.). 7- Leech (1974:89-90) uses the term predications instead of assertions or propositions, and it can informally characterize as complete thought that a sentence expresses. 8- homographones: a coinage by the researcher by which he intends to refer to specific lexems that have both cases of homographs and homophones. That is, the lexemes that consist, at the same time, of, semantically different meanings, phonologically identical pronunciations, and grammatically the same spellings. 9- U: utterance of a linguistic token. 10- the process of grammaticalization being understood as the expression of pragmatic relations with the help of strictly linguistic means, such as the rules of grammar, operating on phonological, morphological and syntactic elements. 11- means either message form or message content. 12- means the linguistic channel. It divides into natural (biological) speech sounds and artificial. The artificial channel consists of: 1) Electronic Media: a- films, b- radio, c-

6 8

TV. 2) Media: a- magazines, b- books. 3) E mail. 4) Written: aprinting, b- hand writing. 5) Telephone (AL-Hamandi,2002: 62-3). 13- cited in (Lyons,1981:195).