Semantics

Semantics is the branch of linguistics concerned with the study of meaning in language. It explores how
words, phrases, and sentences convey meaning and how this meaning is interpreted by speakers.
Semantics delves into various aspects, including the relationships between words, the role of context,
and how truth conditions are determined. It is a fundamental field in understanding how language
functions and is used to communicate ideas, thoughts and information.

Semantics, from the Greek word "semantikos" meaning "significant," is the branch of linguistics that
deals with the study of meaning in language. It is concerned with understanding how words, phrases,
and sentences convey meaning and how this meaning is interpreted in communication. Semantics
explores the relationships between linguistic elements and the ways in which context influences
interpretation, making it a fundamental aspect of understanding language and communication.

Theory of Saussure:

Ferdinand de Saussure's theory is foundational to the background of semantics, particularly in

understanding the relationship between the sign, signifier, and signified. Here's a brief overview:

1. Sign: Saussure proposed that a "sign" is the basic unit of language. It is a combination of two
components—the signifier and the signified.

2. Signifier: The "signifier" is the physical form of the word, such as the sound or written word. It's the
material representation of a concept.

3. Signified: The "signified" is the concept or meaning associated with the signifier. It is the mental or
cognitive representation that a particular signifier evokes.

Saussure's key insight was that the relationship between the signifier and the signified is fundamentally
arbitrary. There's no inherent connection between the sound/word (signifier) and the concept it
represents (signified). This arbitrariness is a foundational concept in semantics and linguistics,
highlighting that meaning is constructed through social conventions and shared understanding rather
than any intrinsic qualities of the words themselves.

Saussure's work laid the groundwork for understanding how language functions in conveying meaning
and influenced later developments in the field of semantics. It emphasizes the importance of context,
structure, and the conventions of a linguistic community in shaping how meaning is created and
understood in language.

Signs and Symbols:

Signs and symbols are both means of communication, but they differ in their fundamental
characteristics:

1. Signs:
- Signs are a direct representation of something and have a clear, conventional, and usually
unambiguous connection to what they represent.

- They often have a natural or logical relationship with their referent.

- Signs are typically used in a straightforward, literal manner.

Example of signs:

- Red traffic light: It universally means "stop."

- No smoking sign: It clearly indicates that smoking is prohibited in the designated area.

2. Symbols:
- Symbols are more abstract and can represent something beyond their immediate, literal meaning.

- They rely on shared cultural, societal, or contextual interpretations to convey their intended
meaning.
 - Symbols can be open to various interpretations and can carry emotional or cultural significance.

Examples of symbols:
- The peace symbol (☮): Originally designed for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, it represents
peace and anti-war sentiments.

- The heart symbol (❤): Often symbolizes love and affection.

- National flags: Flags of different countries are symbols that represent their respective nations, and
they often incorporate various symbols and colors with specific meanings.

In summary, signs have a direct and often one-to-one relationship with what they represent, while
symbols are more open to interpretation and can carry additional cultural or emotional meanings
beyond their literal representation.

Language as the basic communication system:

Language can be viewed as a communication system that relates something to be communicated with
something that communicates a message on the one hand with a set of signs or symbols on the other.

Examples of communication systems, all of them no doubt much simpler than language, are numerous.

For instance, traffic lights use a system of colours and colour combinations to instruct drivers to go or to
stop (and also to warn that such instructions are about to be given).

Similarly, animals make noises to communicate. The gibbons, for instance, have a set of calls to indicate
the discovery of food, danger, friendly interest, desire for company, and they have one call that is
intended merely to establish position and so prevent the band from spreading too far apart.

Although it is reasonable to see language as basically a communication system, we must not push the
analogy with other systems too far, for several reasons.
  First, language does not always have a 'message' in any real sense, certainly not in the sense of a
piece of information; part of its function is concerned with social relationships, though this is
also true of the animal communication systems tog.

 Secondly, in language both the 'signs and the "messages' (the signifiers and the signified) are
themselves enormously complex and the relationship between them is of even greater
complexity. For this reason it has been convincingly argued that human language differs in kind
rather than in degree from other 'languages.

 Thirdly, in language it is extremely difficult, perhaps even impossible, to specify precisely what
the message is.

In other communication systems there is no problem because the message can be independently
identified in terms of language or, rather, of A language such as English, e.g. Red means 'stop!

For language in general we have no such easy solution, for we cannot define meaning (the 'message')
independently of language. We can only state one set of meanings in terms of another set, only describe
language in terms of language.

I have suggested that linguistics is the 'scientific study of language. One essential requirement is that it
should be empirical. If semantics is part of linguistics it too must be no less scientific.{ Precisely what
'scientific' or 'empirical' means is a matter of some debate, but one essential requirement of a scientific
study is that statements made within it must, in principle at least, be verifiable by observation. It is easy
enough to apply this to phonetics, for we can observe what is happening - we can listen to a person
speaking. We can, moreover, describe the operations of the vocal organs, or, with the aid of scientific
instruments, can measure precisely the physical characteristics of the sounds that are emitted. But there
is, un-fortunately, no similar, simple, way of dealing with semantics.

Furthermore, if linguistics is scientific, it must be concerned not with specific instances, but with
generalizations.

This point was made, though in a rather different conceptual framework, by de Saussure in his
distinction between LANGUAGE (langue) and SPEAKING (parole).

This distinction has reappeared in the works of Noam Chomsky and his followers as competence and
PERFORMANCE (Chomsky differs greatly from de Saussure on the nature of the linguistic system within
language or competence, but the theoretical distinction is the same.)

But for both de Saussure and Chomsky, language or competence is some kind of idealized system
without any clear empirical basis and I prefer to think rather in terms of generalizations.
Concepts of Saussure and Chomsky in detail:

Ferdinand de Saussure and Noam Chomsky introduced key concepts in linguistics related to form,
substance, competence, and performance. These concepts help us understand language structure and
its actual use.

Saussure's Form and Substance:

Form:
Saussure made a clear distinction between "form" (la langue) and "substance" (la parole) in language.
"Form" refers to the abstract, systematic structure of a language, the underlying grammar, and the rules
governing linguistic elements. It is the idealized structure that exists in the collective mind of language
users.

Substance:
"Substance" is the actual, concrete language use by individuals in real-life communication. It
encompasses the spoken or written words and expressions that people produce when using language.

Saussure emphasized that "form" is the primary focus of linguistics because it represents the stable,
rule-based system underlying language, while "substance" is more varied and individual.

Chomsky's Competence and Performance:

Competence:
Chomsky introduced the concept of "competence" to represent a speaker's implicit knowledge of their
native languages’ grammar and structure. It is the idealized, innate linguistic knowledge that native
speakers possess, allowing them to generate and understand sentences in their language.

Performance:
"Performance" refers to the actual use of language in practice, including speech and writing. It
encompasses the real-world, often messy application of language, including factors like memory
limitations, slip-ups, and contextual influences.

Chomsky's distinction helps differentiate between the innate, underlying linguistic knowledge
(competence) and the practical, sometimes imperfect use of that knowledge (performance).
Utterances and Sentences:

Utterance:
An utterance is a meaningful part of a language that reflects how language is used in real-world
communication. It carries context, tone, and may include non-grammatical elements like interjections or
pauses. Utterances are the tangible, context-rich expressions of language use, making them concrete
and meaningful.

Sentence:
A sentence, on the other hand, is an abstract linguistic construct, a grammatical entity with a subject
and predicate that follows the rules of a language. Sentences are more concerned with the formal
structure and syntax of language and may lack the specific context or nuances present in an utterance.

Sentences are fundamental in semantics as they form the basis for analyzing structured meaning.
Utterances, on the other hand, introduce pragmatics into the equation, considering context and speaker
intentions. Both play crucial roles in understanding the multifaceted nature of meaning in language.

The Spoken Language:

One important characteristic of the linguistic approach towards the study of language is that it is not
concerned merely with the written language, but also (and usually with greater emphasis) with the
spoken. There are at least four ways in which the spoken language is 'prior to', or more basic than, the
written:

1. The human race had speech long before it had writing and there are still many languages that
have no written form.
2. The child learns to speak long before he learns to write.
3. Written language can, to a large extent, be converted into speech without loss. But the converse
is not true; if we write down what is said we lose a great deal.
4. Speech plays a far greater role in our lives than writing. We spend far more time speaking than
writing or reading.

Furthermore, the author discusses differences between written and spoken language.
  Speech includes prosodic and paralinguistic features like intonation, stress, and non-linguistic
signs that convey meaning.
 Spoken language serves purposes beyond mere information, which is more common in written
language.
 These distinctions between written and spoken language should be considered in linguistic
analysis, affecting semantics.

Historical Semantics:

Frank Palmer, in his work on semantics, discusses historical semantics as a subfield of linguistics that
focuses on the study of how word meanings change over time. Historical semantics is concerned with
the evolution of word meanings, the factors that drive semantic change, and the impact of historical,
cultural, and social contexts on language.

Meaning of words changes from time to time, w.r.t different dimensions and regions, it might be slowly
and gradually of sometimes very quickly, sometime a word might get a narrower meaning than previous
sometimes the vice versa.

Moreover, the great American linguist Bloomfield noted a number of types to classify the kinds of
change that occurs in meanings:

Narrowing:

Narrowing is a semantic change in which a word's meaning becomes more specific over time. It typically
involves a term that originally had a broader or more general meaning but gradually comes to refer to a
more specific subset of that meaning. For example, "meat" used to refer to any kind of food but has
narrowed its meaning to specifically refer to animal flesh.

Widening:
Widening, also known as generalization, is the opposite of narrowing. It's a semantic change where a
word's meaning becomes broader or more general over time. The term begins by referring to a specific
concept but later extends its meaning to include a wider range of related concepts. For instance,
"holiday" initially meant a religious festival but has widened to encompass various days of celebration.
Metaphor:
Metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or concept to which it is
not literally applicable. In terms of meaning change, metaphor involves transferring the meaning of one
word to another through a figurative comparison. For example, saying "the world is a stage" involves
metaphorically equating the world with a stage to convey a specific meaning.

Metonymy:
Metonymy is a figure of speech in which one word or phrase is substituted with another word or phrase
that has a close association or relationship with it. It involves a change in meaning based on a shared
connection between the two concepts. For instance, using "The White House issued a statement"
employs metonymy, where "The White House" is used to represent the government.

Synecdoche:
Synecdoche is a figure of speech where a part of something is used to represent the whole, or vice
versa. In terms of meaning change, it involves using a specific part of a concept to represent the entire
concept, or conversely. An example is saying "all hands on deck," where "hands" represent the whole
crew.

Hyperbole:
Hyperbole is an exaggeration or overstatement used for emphasis. In terms of meaning change, it
involves magnifying the intensity or extent of a concept beyond its literal meaning. For instance, saying
"I'm so hungry I could eat a horse" uses hyperbole to emphasize extreme hunger.

Litotes:
Litotes is a figure of speech that employs understatement to emphasize a point or idea. It involves
expressing a concept by negating its opposite. In terms of meaning change, it often conveys meaning by
emphasizing the contrast between the negated statement and the intended concept. An example is
saying "not a bad idea" to indicate that something is a good idea.

These linguistic phenomena involve shifts in meaning that enhance language's expressiveness and
adaptability, enabling speakers to convey complex ideas and emotions.