Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
round 370 BCE, the Greek philosopher Plato sat down with members of
his academy for a special meeting. "I want us to figure out the meaning
of just one word: the word man, he told them. After a long and heated debate,
the gang found something that seemed to work. Man, they decided, means
a featherless biped. Imagine their consternation, then, when a rival philos
pher showed up at the Academy waving around a squirming, freshly plucked
chicken. "Behold, Plato's man!" chortled the cheeky fellow. Chastened, the
group went back to the drawing board, and eventually Plato found a new and
much better meaning for the word man, one that touches on the essence of
what it means to be human: man, he decided, is a being in seach of meaning.
Plato and his group were engaged in semantics: the study of how humans
search for and find meaning in language. And as the chicken incident shows,
semantics is a deep and challenging subject - so much so that 23 centuries
later people are still trying to understand how meaning works. Not only
linguists and philosophers but also psychologists, social theorists, literary
critics, mathematicians, and logicians all continue to look - from sometimes
radically different perspectives - for the meaning of meaning.
In this chapter we give you a rundown of some of the different linguistic
approaches to semantics. but we focus on an approach focused on truth and
reference to the world, called fomal semantics. This approach - pioneered
by Richard Montague and Barbara Partee in the 1970s - adopts a structural
account of meaning (based on syntx), where elements combine with each other
to form larger units of meaning. Formal semantics is not the only modern theoy
of meaning, but it is our personal favorite, and cetainly one of the most influen
tial moden approaches to meaning. It has lead to many discoveries about how
natural language "builds meaning," and we introduce you to some of them here.
1 18
"' Most linguists look for meaning in the connections between language
and the wold- the things, events, and facts that words refer to. This is
called a efeential appoach to meaning. Formal semanticists, the group
None of these approaches is best or more right - they just look at differ
ent aspects of meaning and try to understand different things. So before we
dive into formal semantics, we start with a whirlwind tour of the other main
approaches to meaning.
"dog"
Doo
Ia I
"dog"
igueJ-1:
OiHerent
linguistic
approaches
to finding
the meaning
of dog.
lei
..
1
dog"
'
)d)
The dictionaries that lexicographers create are sometimes called lexicons. But
the term lexicon can mean both a printed dictionay and the mental dictionay
of information that you store in your brain when you learn a new word. Lexical
semanticists study this mental dictionary, looking for underlying features
of meaning that items in the mental lexicon share, looking at connections
between them, and figuring out how this influences other parts of grammar.
1 19
7 20
Pat II: Tho Building Blocks of Language -to crate complx manings - for mple, in defining oman s [+human,
+female, +adult, they ty to show how word meanings cn e understd In terms
of combinations of thse features. Whichever approach you tke, there deinitely
s a mental comonent to meaning, and that's what thse linguists lok for. (ee
Chapter 16 for more info on language and cognition.)
Linguists use the term eferent to talk about the thing in the world that a word
or phrase represents. The word extension is sometimes used the same way.
Denotation can also be used for the referent, but it's sometimes used for
the concept or idea associated with the word. Connotation is used for the
feelings or other associations that go along with a word, in addition to its
basic literal meaning.
"
"
72 1
1 22
!I
7 23
7 24
figure7-:
A formal
semantics
model.
_;)
u
a, b
c, d
c
b, d
a,
have propey P
have property D
have property R
have property S
"
"
* Propeties = P, , R, and S
nold
eth
+b
Ch.
+c
eoe
+d
Because it's a made-up model, all we're doing is testing whether or not
It's plausible for the meaning of names to refer to individuals in the world.
(Which name goes with which Individual in the model is something we make
up for the test.)
Semanticists use a few different notations to mark that a word points o an el
ment in the model. They may use an arrow (Beth + b), as In the main text, or
they may use double brackets, like this: ((Beth J l =b.
Now, what about the verbs is smiling or is rowning? Semanticists Identiy the
meaning of a verb with a popey. Here, a popey Is something that holds (Is
true) or not for the Individuals in the world. With that understanding of prop
erty, each verb can be understood as picking out one of the properties in the
world. In our simplified model, the verbs have meanings like this:
7 25
1 26
Whee a sentence consiss of the elemens oun Veb, the meaning of the
sentence is tue ony ifthe Noun efers to one of the individuals with the
popey described by the Veb.
With the meanings assigned to the words in the previous section, this com
positional rule correctly and explicitly predicts a meaning - specifically, a
value of true or false, relative to any model - for all the possible sentences
in our language fragment. For example, the words in Anold is smiling are pre
dicted to be true in our model in Figure 7-2:
' Arnold refers to an individual a (we assigned this meaning to Anol).
' Is sming refers to the individuals with property P (we assigned this
meaning to is smiling).
' Anold Is sming is true only if a is one of the individuals a or b.
a obviously is one of the individuals a or b, so the sentence is predicted
to be true - relative to that model and with the word meanings as we've
assigned them.
727
1 28
And and or do more than combine two sentences into one, however. They can
also combine names s in Alice and Lucy ae smilig. Linguists have noticed
that there's another version of or, too, which they call exclusive or. xclusive
or is true only if one or the other (but not both) of the sentences are true. This
occurs in English sentences like You can have ries or you can have salad with
your oder- as anyone who goes to a restaurant knows, that doesn't mean
you can have both.
* Evey: Evey man is smiling is true only if the group of people to whom is
smiling refers contains the whole group of people that man refers to, as
in Figure 7-3a. Thus this sentence is correctly predicted to be false in the
model sketched out in Figure 7-2.
* At lest one: At least one man is smiling is true only if the group of
people who is smiling has an overlap greater than 0 with the group of
individuals that man refers to, as in the relation in Figure 7-3b. This is
predicted, again correctly, to be true in the model in Figure 7-2.
* No: No man is smiling is true only if the group of people is smiling refers
to is entirely distinct from the group of people that man refers to, as in
the relation in Figure 7-3c. Again, for the model in Figure 7-2, you get the
right prediction that it should be false.
Notice how this approach entirely avoids questions like, .What individual does
no man refer to? In formal semantics. no man (like evey man or at feast one
man) doesn't directly refer to any individual. Rather, in this approach, for sen
tences with quantified noun phrases, the relation is between two groups of indi
viduals - this sweeps away centuries of confusion (including yours, right?)!
When talking about a collection of individuals, linguists use the term set, as in
Mdug refers to a set."
1 29
7 30
Figue7-3:
Quantifiers
as set
relations.
is smiling
(a) Evey man is smiling.
" Introduce a set of moments of time Into the model. For example, assume
three moments, represented with little ts, and labeled wAY' row,
and nMOROW'
V Set the model up so that each sentence is true relative to each moment
of time, rather than (as in the simpler model) simply true or false for the
whole model. For example, Beth smiling may be true at INOw but false at
mAv and at mMoRow In this way, each sentence can have a differ
ent truth value at each moment of time.
V Pst tene enten If, in the model, Beth smiled yesterday, then the
sentence Beth was smiling is true at the moment of speech tNOw if the fol
lowing two points are true:
l' Fue teoe entencs: If, in the model, Beth will smile tomorrow, then
the sentence Beth will e smilig is true at the moment of speech w il
the following two points are true:
Even though we don't go into the details of semantic composition for tense,
formal semanticists using this approach always ensure that the meanings they
propose are compositional.
73 7