Semantics & Pragmatics notes

Semantics are concerned with truthfulness conditions and Pragmatics are concerned with
appropriateness conditions.
Semantics: Three disciplines are concerned with the systematic study of ‘meaning’ in itself:
psychology, philosophy and linguistics.
Semantics is the systematic study of meaning, and linguistic semantics is the study of how
languages organize and express meanings.
For communication to succeed, we have to share semantic meaning. Semantics is concerned
with simple meaning and basic knowledge.
Language and the individual

Demonstrating semantic knowledge

How can we explain the speaker’s knowledge of meaning?
10 aspects of semantic meaning:
-Synonymy: Speakers generally agree when two words have essentially the same meaning in
a given context.
-Anomaly: Speakers know whether something is or is not meaningful in their language.
-Paraphrasing: Speakers of a language generally agree as to when two sentences have
essentially the same meaning and when they do not.
-Contradiction: Speakers recognize when the meaning of one sentence contradicts another
sentence. If one is true the other must be false.
-Antonymy: Speakers generally agree when two words have opposite meanings in a given
context.
-Semantic feature: Synonyms and antonyms have to have some common element of meaning
in order to be the same or different. Words can have some element of meaning without being
synonymous or antonymous.
-Ambiguity: Some sentences have double meanings (i.e., they can be interpreted in two
ways; e.g. jokes). (Structural; Lexical/homonymy)
-Adjacency pairs: Speakers know how language is used when people interact (asking a
question or making a remark).
-Entailment: Speakers are aware that two statements may be related in such a way that if one
is true, the other must also be true.
-Presupposition: Speakers know that the message conveyed in one sentence may presuppose
other pieces of knowledge that may also be accepted as true.
Practice:
Below are ten pairs of sentences. In each pair assume that the first sentence is true. Then
decide what we know about the second sentence, which has the same topic(s). If the first is
true, must the second also be true (T)? Or if the first is true, must the second be false (F)? Or
does the truth of the first tell us nothing about the truth of the second (X)?

1a Rose is married to Tom.

1b Rose is Tom’s wife.
2a David is an unmarried adult male.
2b David is a bachelor.
3a This knife is too dull to cut the rope.
3b This knife isn’t sharp enough to cut the
rope.
4a Victoria likes to sing.
4b Victoria doesn’t sing.
5a Harold has been here for an hour.
5b Harold is tired of waiting.

7 Types of meaning
Conceptual: Also called ‘denotative’ or
‘cognitive’ meaning. Refers to logical,
cognitive or denotative content. Concerned with the relationship between a word and the
thing it denotes, or refers to.
Connotative: The communicative value an expression has by virtue of what it refers to, over
and above its purely conceptual content. A multitude of additional, non-criterial properties,
including not only physical characteristics but also psychological and social properties, as
well as typical features. Involving the ‘real world’ experience one associates with an
expression when one uses or hears it.
Unstable: they vary considerably according to culture, historical period, and the experience
of the individual.
Social: What a piece of language conveys about the social circumstances of its use.
Dialect: the language of a geographical region or of a social class.
Time: the language of the 18th c., etc.
Province: language of law, of science, of advertising, etc.
Status: polite, colloquial, slang, etc.
Modality: language of memoranda, lectures, jokes, etc.
Singularity: the style of Dickens, etc.

Affective: Reflecting the personal feelings of the speaker, including his attitude to the
listener, or his attitude to something he is talking about.
You’re a vicious tyrant and a villainous reprobate, and I hate you for it!

Colorful meaning – Childish/Childlike ; Slender/Skinny$

Reflected: Arises in cases of multiple conceptual meaning, when one sense of a word forms
part of our response to another sense. (taboo)

Collocative: The associations a word acquires on account of the meanings of words which
tend to occur in its environment.

Thematic: What is communicated by the way in which a speaker or writer organizes the
message, in terms of ordering, focus, and emphasis.

Mrs Bessie Smith donated the first prize.

The first prize was donated by Mrs Bessie Smith.
Sense Relations (6)
Sense: The meaning that a word has.
Sense relation is the relationship between words and predicates.
Synonymy does not exist!
- Synonymy: The relationship between words that have the same sense. This is a strict
definition of synonymy – the identity of sense. Some linguists, however, consider
synonymy a similarity of meaning.
- Polysemy: Product of metaphorical extension. A polysemous lexeme has several
(apparently) related meanings. The noun head, for instance, seems to have related
meanings when we speak of the head of a person, the head of a company, head of a
table or bed, a head of lettuce or cabbage. If we take the anatomical referent as the
basic one, the other meanings can be seen as derived from the basic one, either
reflecting the general shape of the human head or, more abstractly, the relation of the
head to the rest of the body.
- Paraphrase: A paraphrase is to a sentence what a synonym is to a lexeme.
- Hyponymy: Hyponymy is a sense relation between lexemes such that the meaning of
one lexeme is included in the meaning of the other. (Hyperonym/hyponym) Like
flower, tulip.
- Antonymy: Opposition of sense.
Binary Antonymy: If one is applicable, the other cannot be, and vice versa.
Converseness: If a lexeme describes a relationship between two things (or people) and
some other lexeme describes the same relationship when the two things are mentioned
in the opposite order, then the two lexemes are CONVERSES of each other
Gradable Antonyms: Two lexemes are GRADABLE antonyms if they are at opposite
ends of a continuous scale of values (a scale which typically varies according to the
context of use).
Contradiction: At the sentence level.
- Homonymy: words that have different meanings but are pronounced the same or
spelled the same or both. (Homographs; live/live – Homophones; right/write)
 - Meronymy: A word that denotes part of the whole thing. (Finger/nail)

Reference and sense

Relationship between word and object in the real world.

Componential Analysis: The approach that analyzes word meaning by decomposing it into
its atomic features. (Does not work for abstract words)
Semantic change processes
Metaphor: A metaphor transfers an image schematic structure from one domain to another.
Head as a body part of a human has a certain relational structure – it is on top.
The head of a nail in on top
The head of an organization is at the top
The head of a class

Metonymy: metonymy is the use of a single characteristic or name of an object to identify

an entire object or related object. (White house/Government or president)
Narrowing: Semantic narrowing is the process by which a word’s meaning becomes less
generalized (in other words more specific) over time. This means that the new meaning
derives directly from the original meaning. Example “hound” used to refer to any type of
dog, over the centuries the meaning was narrowed until it was only used when discussing
dogs used when hunting.
Broadening: is the process in which the meaning of a word becomes more generalized over
time. In other words, the word can be used in more contexts than it could originally. It is the
opposite of narrowing. Example “business” was only used to refer to being busy. However,
over the years the meaning of the word has broadened to refer to any type of work or job.
Hyperboles: Using a word with a more exaggerated meaning than you might expect in the
context. If a word that is very specific in meaning is used often, it could lose some of its
earlier intensity.
Intensifiers: awfully, awesome…
Starve used to mean ‘die of hunger’

Shift in connotation: (it is our judgement) Amelioration

Amelioration is a term that refers to when a word acquires a more positive meaning over
time. It may also be referred to as semantic amelioration or semantic elevation. Typically
this process occurs due to different extra linguistic reasons, such as cultural and worldview
changes occurring. The word 'nice' is possibly the most well-known example of amelioration.
In the 1300s, the word originally meant that a person was foolish or silly. However, by the
1800s, the process of amelioration had changed this, and the word came to mean that
someone was kind and thoughtful. From this, we can see that amelioration is a process that
can take centuries to occur.
Pejoration
Pejoration is a term used to describe the process where a word that once had a positive
meaning acquires a negative one. It is sometimes also referred to as semantic deterioration.
This type of semantic change usually occurs due to extra linguistic causes. This can include a
word becoming taboo, or being linked with a taboo within the culture. The word, 'silly', is a
common example of pejoration, In Old and Middle English, the term was used to mean that
someone was happy or spiritually blessed. However, over the centuries, this changed and
by the 1500s, the word became associated with acting foolishly - as it is today!

Semantic roles

In syntax: a sequence of words (verb, subject) that form an idea. The semantic content shared
by the three expressions is a proposition.
We walk in the park.
Different composition, same proposition
Our walk in the park.
For us to walk in the park. ( semantic content)

In systematic analysis, every proposition contains a predicate and arguments.

Valancy: The number of arguments a verb can take.
- Valancy zero: weather verbs
- Valancy one: Intransitive verbs (only one arg.)
- Valancy two: Two arg.
- Valancy three: Three arguments
Practice: For each sentence here decide if it has
the semantic structure Actor+Action or
Affected+Event. Does the subject name something
that is acting or something that is affected?
(a) My head aches.
(b) All animals breathe.
(c) Denis is (always) complaining.
(d) Fanny fainted.
(e) The pond froze (last night).
(f) The woman frowned.
(g) They gossip (a lot).
(h) Arnold hurried.
(i) The lock has rusted.
(j) You were snoring.

The form of sentences and the purpose of utterances

“A sentence is an abstract entity”
Sentences are traditionally designated declarative if they tell something, interrogative if they
ask, or imperative if they request action, but this classification is based on the forms of
sentences. Actual utterances can have various functions that are independent of form.
As we all know, a person can ask a question without truly seeking information (“Did you
really like that silly book?”)—the so-called rhetorical question—and can make a statement
that is intended as a request (“It’s very warm in here with that window closed”) or produce a
command that is not meant to elicit action from the addressee (“Have a good time”). “Did
you know it’s raining?” can be a way of informing, and the person who says “I suppose
you’ll be going away for the holiday” may well be soliciting information.

Practice: 1 A question that begins with a question word carries a certain

presupposition. “Who brought the paper in?” presupposes that
someone brought the paper in. What do the following questions
presuppose?
(a) How many people came to the party?
(b) Why didn’t you tell me the truth?
(c) Which one of the programs is better?
(d) When will the film be shown?
(e) Where will the film be shown?
2 Affirmative and negative statements with the same topic and
the same predicate are contradictory. If one is true, the other
must be false.
Ellen is a brunette. Ellen is not a brunette.
Commands can also be affirmative or negative. Affirmative and
negative commands with the same lexical content are contradictory
in the sense that no one can obey both such commands at the
same time.
Close the window. Don’t close the window.
But affirmative and negative questions with the same lexical
content cannot be called contradictory. What is the difference
between pairs of questions like these?
Did you enjoy the show?; Didn’t you enjoy the show?
Why should I believe that?; Why shouldn’t I believe that?

Pragmatics: In many ways, pragmatics is the study of 'invisible' meaning, or how we

recognize what is meant even when it isn't actually said (or written). In order for that to
happen, speakers (and writers) must be able to depend on a lot of shared assumptions and
expectations.

There are, of course, different kinds of context to be considered:

- Linguistics context: The co-text of a word is the set of other words used in the same
phrase or sentence. This surrounding co-text has a strong effect on what we think the
word means.
 - Physical context: If you see the word BANK on the wall of a building in a city, the
'physical' location will influence your interpretation. Our understanding of much of
what we read and hear is tied to the physical context, particularly the time and place,
in which we encounter linguistic expressions
- Temporal context: Based on time (saying good morning in the afternoon as mockery)
- Psychological context: Relationship with a person.

Deixis: There are some words in the language that cannot be interpreted at all unless the
physical context, especially the physical context of the speaker, is known. These are words
like here, there, this, that, now, then, yesterday, as
Well as most pronouns, such as I, you, him, her, them. Some sentences of English are
virtually impossible to understand if we don't know who is speaking, about whom, where
and when. For example: You'll have to bring that back tomorrow, because they aren't here
now.
Person , place, time deixis: All these deictic expressions have to be interpreted in terms of
what person, place or time the speaker has in mind. They show that the interpretation of
some linguistic expressions is vague if we do not take context into consideration.

Speech acts
“The meeting is called to order,” “This court is now in session,” “I nominate Patrick P.
Pillsbury for secretary-treasurer” are not intended to be statements. Utterances like these are
intended to ‘make things happen.’ We should not ask whether they are true or not but
whether they work or not in accomplishing their purpose—in Austin’s terms, whether they
are felicitous or not. And then, to generalize, what are the conditions that make different
kinds of utterances felicitous?
Felicity conditions: What makes an utterance appropriate or possible. (not in the right
context)
In every speech act we can distinguish three things, following Austin (1962). What is said,
the utterance, can be called the locution. What the speaker intends to communicate to the
addressee is the illocution. The message that the addressee gets, his interpretation of what
the speaker says, is the perlocution. If communication is successful, the illocution and the
perlocution are alike or nearly alike.

Such communication is guided by four factors, which Grice (1975, 1978) called maxims: the
maxims of quantity, relevance, manner and quality. (cooperative principle)
The maxim of quantity requires the speaker to give as much information as the addressee
needs but no more. Accordingly, the speaker must have some sense of what the addressee
knows and needs to know. The addressee, being aware of this maxim, assumes that the
speaker is not withholding information and is not saying more than necessary—unless there
is reason to believe otherwise.
The maxim of relevance requires us, as speakers, to make our utterances relative to the
discourse going on and the contexts in which they occur. Correspondingly, as addressees we
expect that what we hear has such relevance. If you offer to help in some project and are
told, “Do so only at your own risk,” you will have to decide whether involvement in the
project is really risky or the locution was meant as a joke. If, instead, you are told “Too many
cooks spoil the broth,” you will probably recognize a proverb (certainly so if the making of
broth is not part of the context) and know that the speaker feels the project is already
sufficiently staffed. Thus when locutions are apparently irrelevant, they are likely to be
successful only when the interlocutors share the same cultural information and/ or when
they know one another well. Note that in some cultures— Arabic-speaking societies are a
good example—the use of proverbs figures large in every conversation: there seems to be a
ready-made saying for almost any possible need.
The maxim of manner is to be orderly and clear and to avoid ambiguity. If you ask someone
a question and the reply you receive seems strangely obscure, your interlocutor is either a
disorganized individual or is deliberately avoiding a straight answer.
The maxim of quality is to say only what one believes to be true. Questions and requests
cannot be either true or false, so this maxim applies only to the giving of information, in the
kind of speech act that we call assertives.
Grice distinguished between violating the maxims and flouting them. If a speaker
deliberately lies, expecting the addressee to believe what he says, he is violating the maxim
of quality. If he exaggerates, expecting the addressee to recognize the exaggeration, he is
flouting the maxim. “Dozens of people came to the party,” said when only a few people
attended, is either an outright lie or an instance of hyperbole, depending on what the speaker
intends the addressee to understand, which in turn depends on the speaker’s knowledge of
the addressee.
An utterance has a purpose. In order to achieve that purpose— to be appropriate to that
purpose—several conditions are necessary: the lexical content of the utterance must be
appropriate, the social situation in which it occurs must be appropriate, the speaker must be
sincere in what he says, and the hearer(s) accept the utterance as having that purpose.

7 kinds of speech acts

- Assertive utterances: In the assertive function speakers and writers use language to
tell
what they know or believe; assertive language is concerned with facts. The purpose is to
inform.
I voted for Aaronson in the last election.
Most plastics are made from soy beans.
Cape Ann Lighthouse is a mile from the beach.
The above sentences are indirect assertives. Direct assertive utterances start with I or we and
an assertive verb:
I say that I voted for Aaronson in the last election,
We declare that most plastics are made from soy beans.
I can now announce that Cape Ann Lighthouse is ten miles from the beach.
- Performative utterances:
I bid three no-trump.
We accept your offer.
I declare this meeting adjourned.
Speech acts that bring about the state of affairs they name are called performative: bids,
blessings, firings, baptisms, arrests, marrying, declaring a mistrial. Performative utterances
are valid if spoken by someone whose right to make them is accepted and in circumstances
which are accepted as appropriate. The verbs include bet, declare, baptize, name, nominate,
pronounce.
Naturally there are strong limitations on what can be a performative utterance. First, the
subject of the sentence must be I or we; “He declares this meeting adjourned” is not a
performative utterance, as the term is used here. However, we need to distinguish between
explicit and implicit performatives. “I declare this meeting adjourned” is an explicit
performative; “This meeting is adjourned,” if spoken by the same person, is an implicit one.
Second, the verb must be in the present tense. And, perhaps most important, the speaker
must be recognized as having the authority to make the statement and the circumstances
must be appropriate. “I pronounce you man and wife” and “I declare this a mistrial” are valid
only if spoken by an appropriate person in socially determined situations. Thus, many
performatives take place in formal settings and are concerned with official acts.
- Verdictive utterance: (judgment)
I accuse you of putting on airs.
I congratulate you for performing so well.
The Mayor blamed the media for not accurately reporting his accomplishments.
The first 2 sentences above are verdictive utterances. Sentence 3 is the report of a verdictive
utterance. Verdictives are speech acts in which the speaker makes an assessment or
judgement about the acts of another, usually the addressee. These include ranking, assessing,
appraising, condoning. Verdictive verbs include accuse, charge, excuse, thank in the explicit
frame I ____ you of/for _____-ing. Since these utterances present the speaker’s assessment
of the addressee’s previous action(s) or of what has befallen the addressee, they are
retrospective(past).
- Expressive utterances: (emotions, opinions)
I acknowledge that I didn’t do what I should have done.
We admit that we were mistaken.
I apologize for having disturbed you.
Whereas a verdictive utterance is about what the addressee has previously done, an
expressive utterance springs from the previous actions—or failure to act—of the speaker, or
perhaps the present result of those actions or failures. Expressive utterances are thus
retrospective and
speaker-involved. The most common expressive verbs (in this sense of ‘expressive’) are:
acknowledge, admit, confess, deny, apologize
- Directive utterances:
Directive utterances are those in which the speaker tries to get the addressee to perform some
act or refrain from performing an act. Thus a directive utterance has the pronoun you as
actor, whether that word is actually present in the utterance or not:
(You) wait here.
Turn to page 164.
Don’t (any of you) miss this opportunity to save.
A directive utterance is prospective(future); one cannot tell other people to do something in
the past. Like other kinds of utterances, a directive utterance presupposes certain conditions
in the addressee and in the context of situation.
Types: commands, requests, suggestions.
Felicity conditions include the feasibility of the act and the ability of the addressee. For a
command to be felicitous the addressee must accept the speaker’s authority; for a request, the
speaker’s wishes, and for a suggestion, the speaker’s judgement.

- Commissive utterances: (Make promises/Prospective)

Speech acts that commit a speaker to a course of action are called commissive utterances.
These include promises, pledges, threats and vows. Commissive verbs are illustrated by
agree, ask, offer, refuse, swear, all with following infinitives. They are prospective and
concerned
with the speaker’s commitment to future action.
I promise to be on time.
We volunteer to put up the decorations for the dance.
A commissive predicate is one that can be used to commit oneself (or refuse to commit
oneself) to some future action. The subject of the sentence is therefore most likely to be I or
we.
In a commissive utterance the subject is I or we. Felicity conditions: the speaker is capable of
the act and intends to perform it; the addressee has faith in the speaker’s ability and
intention.

- Phatic Utterances: No one is likely to think that questions like “How are you?,”
“How’re you doing?” are really meant to get information. We don’t assume that statements
such as “I’m glad to meet you” or “So nice to see you again” are necessarily expressions of
deep feeling on the part of the speaker. The purpose of utterances like these, phatic
utterances,
is to establish rapport between members of the same society. Phatic language has a less
obvious function than the six types discussed above but it is no less important. Phatic
utterances include greetings, farewells, polite formulas such as “Thank you,” “You’re
welcome,” “Excuse me” when these are not really verdictive or expressive. They also
include all sorts of comments on the weather, asking about one’s health, and whatever is
usual, and therefore expected, in a particular society. Stereotyped phrases are common for
conveying good wishes to someone starting to eat a meal, beginning a voyage, undertaking a
new venture, or celebrating a personal or social holiday.
Felicity conditions are met when speaker and addressee share the same social customs and
recognize phatic utterances for what they are.
Implicature
When a maxim is violated, meanings are affected. IMPLICATURE