Semantics and Discourse Analysis (5666)

Q.1 What is semantics and what is pragmatics what are the main
differences between two?
Answer:
Semantics
Semantics is a sub discipline of linguistics which focuses on the study of meaning. Semantics
tries to understand what meaning is as an element of language and how it is constructed by
language as well as interpreted, obscured and negotiated by speakers and listeners of language.[1]
Semantics is closely linked with another sub discipline of linguistics, pragmatics, which is also,
broadly speaking, the study of meaning. However, unlike pragmatics, semantics is a highly
theoretical research perspective, and looks at meaning in language in isolation, in the language
itself, whereas pragmatics is a more practical subject and is interested in meaning in language in
use.
Semantics is the study of meaning, but what do we mean by 'meaning'?

Meaning has been given different definitions in the past.

Meaning = Connotation?
Is meaning simply the set of associations that a word evokes, is the meaning of a word defined
by the images that its users connect to it?
So 'winter' might mean 'snow', 'sledging' and 'mulled wine'. But what about someone living in the
amazon? Their 'winter' is still wet and hot, so its original meaning is lost. Because the
associations of a word don't always apply, it was decided that this couldn't be the whole story.
Meaning = Denotation?
It has also been suggested that the meaning of a word is simply the entity in the World which that
word refers to. This makes perfect sense for proper nouns like 'New York' and 'the Eiffel Tower',
but there are lots of words like 'sing' and 'altruism' that don't have a solid thing in the world that
they are connected to. So meaning cannot be entirely denotation either.
Meaning = Extension and Intention
So meaning, in semantics, is defined as being Extension: The thing in the world that the
word/phrase refers to, plus Intention: The concepts/mental images that the word/phrase evokes

What is Pragmatics?

Definition[1]
the study of the practical aspects of human action and thought.
the study of the use of linguistic signs, (words and sentences), in actual
situations.
Pragmatics outlines the study of meaning in the interactional context
It looks beyond the literal meaning of an utterance and considers how meaning is
constructed as well as focusing on implied meanings. It considers language as an
instrument of interaction, what people mean when they use language and how we
communicate and understand each other.
Jenny Thomas says that pragmatics considers:
the negotiation of meaning between speaker and listener.
the context of the utterance.
the meaning potential of an utterance.
This may be best presented in an example:
Speaker: 'Are you putting the kettle on?'
Listener knows the speaker is hinting that they would like a hot drink.
OR
Speaker: 'What time do you call this?'
Listener interprets it as 'Why are you so late?' and knows it is not appropriate to
reply with the literal time.
The context of the interaction and our everyday experiences allow us to construct
and interpret layers of meaning beyond what is literally suggested. For similar
theories and ideas, see What is Conversation
Analysis?, Psycholinguistics, Sociolinguistics, Discourse Analysis and Semantics.

The main differences:

Pragmatics is the study of the ability of natural language speakers to communicate
more than that which is explicitly stated. The ability to understand another
speaker's intended meaning is called pragmatic competence. An utterance
describing pragmatic function is described as metapragmatics. Another
perspective is that pragmatics deals with the ways we reach our goal in
communication. Suppose, a person wanted to ask someone else to stop smoking.
This can be achieved by using several utterances. The person could simply say,
'Stop smoking, please!' which is direct and with clear semantic meaning;
alternatively, the person could say, 'Whew, this room could use an air purifier'
which implies a similar meaning but is indirect and therefore requires pragmatic
inference to derive the intended meaning . Pragmatics is regarded as one of the
most challenging aspects for language learners to grasp, and can only truly be
learned with experience. Language meaning can be analyzed at several levels. It
has a direct connection with semantics and pragmatics.
While Semantics concentrates on the meaning that comes from linguistic
knowledge, Pragmatics concentrates on those aspects of meaning that cannot be
predicted by Linguistic knowledge alone and takes into account our knowledge
about the physical and the social world. The focus of pragmatic analysis is on the
meaning of speakers' utterances rather than on the meaning of words or sentences.
Utterances need not consist of complete the focus of pragmatic analysis is on the
meaning of speakers' utterances rather than on the meaning of words or sentences.
Utterances need not consist of complete sentences. Each utterance is a unique
physical event created at a particular point in time for a particular communicative
purpose. In our point of view, pragmatics helps the translator or the interpreter in
finding clues in the utterances the speakers make which leads him to find the
appropriate equivalent in the target language. Finally, the question of how
semantics relates to pragmatically oriented theories is, Smith & Wilson (ibid.,
p34) say, "Wide open." For them, semantics deals with those aspects of meaning
that remain constant whenever a given expression is uttered: Semantics covers
what expressions mean, while pragmatics covers what speakers mean in using the
expressions. To summarize: Pragmatics involves how speakers use language in
contextualized social interactions, how they do things with words, as Leech(1974,
p.64) would say. Semantics invites a focus on meaning and truth conditions
without regard to communication and context. This study have been made useful
for who are majored in the field of translation, as well as to make the distinction
between pragmatics and semantics. In relation to the role that semantics and

pragmatics play in language aspects and in the process of learning and teaching
EFL, no study has undertaken the task of investigating the effect of semantic and
pragmatic distinction on students achievement in English text.
We have clearly noticed how the subject matter of the distinction between
semantics and pragmatics overlap to some extent . In fact, this relatively new and
fast expanding topic has connections with the various branches of Linguistics
which link Language with the external world and they are so hard to define clearly
. Hence, the researchers tackle the subject matter of "the distinction between
semantics and pragmatics" empirically. A cloze test has been chosen by the
researchers which considers as example of semantic and pragmatic Language
testing procedures. The test consists of a text of approximately 400 words in
length. It is usually constructed by omitting every ninth word in a continuous
passage of discourse. The students are expected to read the text carefully, filling in
all the omitted words according to their projections of evolving meaning, this tests
their knowledge of many aspects of the Language in a context of a meaningful
discourse.
After conducting such tests the teachers can assess the performance of the
students in the competence of pragmatics and semantics.
Q.3 Distinguish between these three terms: Meaning, Form, Function.
In the language classroom, teachers should strive to balance form, meaning, and
use or function. Students should understand not only the mechanics of the
language, but also the hows, whys, and wheres a particular structure, word, or
phrase gets used.
For example, in a lesson on the past perfect tense, students need to learn the
sentence structure. The teacher first drills past participles on a variety of verbs (eat
/ eaten, swim / swum, buy / bought). He then plugs the past participles into the
grammar structure, with students then further practicing the material via example
sentences and more drills.
However, the class also needs to learn that the past perfect places actions or events
in order for the listener or reader. The grammar serves as a marker of when events
happened. This is especially needed when the speaker forgets some information
and has to backtrack in the story. This is also important when information needs
further clarification.

Let's look at the following in more detail, which will also clarify the concepts of
form, meaning, and use.
Form: This refers to the mechanics of the language, either in terms of grammar or
vocabulary. With regards to grammar, students must understand the sentence
structure of a specific grammar rule. In the above example on the past perfect
tense, this would be:
subject | had | past participle | object/complement
So whenever students want to use the past perfect tense, they have to follow this
specific structure.
With regards to vocabulary, students must understand the pronunciation of a word.
If in a written text, then students must know how to spell a word. Prefixes,
suffixes, and roots are also important, especially at the intermediate and advanced
levels. Students should be able to breakdown the components of a word to guess
at the meaning. Take the following prefixes:
biannual - "bi" means twice, so the new meaning is "twice a year"
distrust - "dis" means not, so the new meaning is "not to trust"
submarine - "sub" means under, so the new meaning is "under water"
With an understanding of prefixes and suffices, students don't always have to
scurry for a dictionary every time they encounter an unknown word. However,
students should also learn to readily recognize that the word may be a noun, verb,
adjective, or adverb. This is becomes possible by devoting a portion of the lesson
to form.
Meaning: This is the mental image/comprehension that is generated by the
grammar or vocabulary. Students connect the grammar structure with the
meaning. For example, the past tense signals events in the past, the past perfect
signals earlier actions/events in a narrative. Once the teacher has presented the
structure, he should talk about the meaning too.
When vocabulary is the focus of the lesson, students connect the form of the word
with its meaning. This occurs both at the micro- and macro-levels. At the microlevel, the word stands alone. Students understand the image triggered by a specific
word. However, at the macro-level, a word may have a different meaning because
of the sentence in which it appears. There is often nuance or some other concept
generated. In addition, when someone uses a word, there may be other associated

word choices selected or triggered.

Function: Last comes how the grammar or vocabulary gets used this is called
function. For example, the past perfect tense isn't used in every sentence but rather
in conjunction with the past tense. One sentence appears in the past perfect to
order events, and then subsequent sentences appear in the simple past. Take the
following short narrative:
Ali had studied English for ten years. As a result, he got a great job in England
last year.
However, use also takes into consideration phrases or certain structures that might
appear more conversational, others more formal, and yet even more than a few
used only in very specific industries or situations.
Vocabulary follows the same concept, as some words are more often used in
writing. Others are more often used in speaking. And many words have specific
uses and appear in written communication like academic essays or business
correspondence. Students must understand these points for effective vocabulary
use, especially at the higher-levels when they acquire words with less concrete
meanings. In addition, students must also realize what words or types of words are
commonly associated with the vocabulary.
Of course, if the teacher tried to cover form, meaning, and use in every lesson,
ensuring that students know all the ins and outs of a grammar structure or word,
then not much would get done. What's more, the class would likely be quite
boring. Consider the following ideas for effectively covering form, meaning, and
use in the classroom:
1: Keep the explanations brief. A simple comment that the past tense refers to
events in the past serves as an adequate explanation. The same holds true of a few
comments on the past perfect, or any other structure. A visual diagram and several
examples also further highlight the target language.
2: Limit the explanation to the task/lesson at hand. There may be several
exceptions to the rule. There may be times when the language isn't used for some
situation or with some medium. Yet this is all extraneous information. The teacher
wants to provide just enough explanation for the students to practice the language
correctly and purposefully.
3: Consider devoting several lessons to a specific grammar or language point.

This allows the teacher to address and practice the rules and exceptions, yet not
overwhelm the class with too much information. The teacher can also practice
different skills/mediums, yet return to the same language point.
4: Address grammar and vocabulary again and again. The teacher should
provide several opportunities to acquire the target language during a course of
study. Just because students have studied the target material once doesn't mean
they can use it well. By revisiting the target structures, then students who grasped
the form have a second chance to grasp the meaning and use of the target
structure. Students who grasped the meaning have a second chance for the form
and use

Q. 5 What is discourse analysis ? Differentiate between written and spoken discourse.

Discourse analysis is sometimes defined as the analysis of language 'beyond

the sentence'. This contrasts with types of analysis more typical of modern
linguistics, which are chiefly concerned with the study of grammar: the study of
smaller bits of language, such as sounds (phonetics and phonology), parts of
words (morphology), meaning (semantics), and the order of words in sentences
(syntax). Discourse analysts study larger chunks of language as they flow
together.
Some discourse analysts consider the larger discourse context in order to
understand how it affects the meaning of the sentence. For example, Charles
Fillmore points out that two sentences taken together as a single discourse can
have meanings different from each one taken separately. To illustrate, he asks you
to imagine two independent signs at a swimming pool: "Please use the toilet, not
the pool," says one. The other announces, "Pool for members only." If you regard
each sign independently, they seem quite reasonable. But taking them together as
a single discourse makes you go back and revise your interpretation of the first
sentence after you've read the second.
Discourse and Frames
'Reframing' is a way to talk about going back and re-interpreting the meaning of
the first sentence. Frame analysis is a type of discourse analysis that asks, What

activity are speakers engaged in when they say this? What do they think they are
doing by talking in this way at this time? Consider how hard it is to make sense of
what you are hearing or reading if you don't know who's talking or what the
general topic is. When you read a newspaper, you need to know whether you are
reading a news story, an editorial, or an advertisement in order to properly
interpret the text you are reading. Years ago, when Orson Welles' radio play "The
War of the Worlds" was broadcast, some listeners who tuned in late panicked,
thinking they were hearing the actual end of the world. They mistook the frame
for news instead of drama.

Discourse Markers
'Discourse markers' is the term linguists give to the little words like 'well', 'oh',
'but', and 'and' that break our speech up into parts and show the relation between
parts. 'Oh' prepares the hearer for a surprising or just-remembered item, and 'but'
indicates that sentence to follow is in opposition to the one before. However, these
markers don't necessarily mean what the dictionary says they mean. Some people
use 'and' just to start a new thought, and some people put 'but' at the end of their
sentences, as a way of trailing off gently. Realizing that these words can function
as discourse markers is important to prevent the frustration that can be
experienced if you expect every word to have its dictionary meaning every time
it's used.

Speech Acts
Speech act analysis asks not what form the utterance takes but what it does.
Saying "I now pronounce you man and wife" enacts a marriage. Studying speech
acts such as complimenting allows discourse analysts to ask what counts as a
compliment, who gives compliments to whom, and what other function they can
serve. For example, linguists have observed that women are more likely both to
give compliments and to get them. There are also cultural differences; in India,
politeness requires that if someone compliments one of your possessions, you
should offer to give the item as a gift, so complimenting can be a way of asking
for things. An Indian woman who had just met her son's American wife was
shocked to hear her new daughter-in-law praise her beautiful saris. She
commented, "What kind of girl did he marry? She wants everything!" By

comparing how people in different cultures use language, discourse analysts hope
to make a contribution to improving cross-cultural understanding.
ORAL VERSUS WRITTEN STYLE
Differences between oral and written language have specific applicability to
many types of practical linguistic works. For example, in comparing cohesion and
coherence of a language, one cannot use both oral and written style
simultaneously. This will lead him to different conclusions. Each style has its own
characteristics; they are different text types and consequently different discourses.
Therefore, it is not wise to choose both of them sporadically in researches. Biber
(1988) suggests that written and spoken discourses in English do not have single
absolute differences. These variations are as a result of different texts and genres.
They can be mixed with each other in settings where spoken language occurs in
the form of written language in emails or informal letters.
Bartsch (1997) have issued the most common observable differences between oral
and written texts which have the same genre. According to Dooley and Levinsohn
(2001), these differences can be revealed by comparing oral and written versions
of a narrative or by comparing recorded and printed versions of a lecture. In a
given language with its specific culture, many texts can have recognizable types;
for example, a business letter and a brief greeting exchange between two busy
people. Genres are considered as "types of texts that are combinations of textual
properties in pursuit of a particular cultural and social goal"(Bakhtin, 1986;
Eggins & Martin, 1997, p.236). Comparisons between oral texts of one genre and
written texts of another may mislead us (Chafe, 1985) because according to
Bartsch (1997, p.45) different genres have different features, and it is not helpful
to compare oranges to apples. Therefore, as Longacre believes, the linguist who
ignores discourse typology can only come to grief (1996, p.7).
Paralinguistic Signals
Aaron (1998, p.3) mentions that spoken language relies heavily on prosody (pitch, pause,
tempo, voice quality, rhythm, etc.) and body language for deixis, respect, interpropositional
relations, and so on. But written language relies on punctuation and description to convey
similar effects (Bartsch, 1997). In addition, some deictics, like indefinite this in English (such
as in I woke up with this headache), may also be restricted to oral texts only (Chafe, 1985,
p.115).

Preciseness
Even if one carefully plans an oral material, still it is the written text that benefits from more
careful word choice, because writers have more time to think of the right word (Biber, 1988).
However, spoken language often uses hedges like "sort of" and "kind of" (Lakoff, 1972). The
English lexicon includes three kinds of items (Chafe, 1985) as: - Colloquial vocabulary which is
often used in speaking (like: guy, stuff, scary, etc.), - Literacy vocabulary which is often used in
writing (like: display, heed, etc.), and - Neutral vocabulary which is neutral equivalents of the
above words (like: man, material, frightening, show, pay attention to).

Organization
Written style is more concise, better organized, and mentions new information at a faster pace
(Chafe, 1992). And the oral version had extra explanatory material. Also in writing, groupings of
sentences tend to be longer than in oral one, i.e. written material tends to be organized into larger
groupings (Levinsohn, 2000).

Deviations from Default/Unmarked Orders

This property is more frequent in oral material. Such variations are possibly less acceptable in
written texts. For instance, this English sentence is used only in oral style: - Never been to a
wedding dance. Neither of us.

Lexical Density
Here, lexical density concerns a proportional relation regarding the ratio of content words over
grammatical word within a given clause. Content words are nouns and verbs, while grammatical
words refer to article, pronouns and prepositions (Biber, 1988). In spoken form, content words
have a tendency to be extended over different clauses. But, they are packed tightly into
individual clauses in written language, that is to say here content words have a higher frequency
than grammatical words (Paltridge, 2006). This means that written language is lexically denser
than spoken form (Halliday, 1989).

Grammatical Intricacy
Halliday (1989) suggests that spoken form is not less highly organized than written discourse; it
has grammatical intricacy and also has its own complexities, e.g. English clauses in spoken form
are more extended than that of written forms. Paltridge (2006) states that as to written discourse,
written mode is more complex and has lots of elaborations. However, Halliday (1989) claims
that it is not always the case. Sometimes, spoken forms have a more spread out sets of clauses
which form more complex relations than written forms.

Nominalization

By nominalization, Paltridge (2006) means the actions or events that are presented in the form of
nouns instead of verbs. Nominalization has a low frequency in spoken language and also they
have shorter noun groups while written discourse contains longer noun groups. This makes
written language to have a more tightly packed way of presenting information in which the
information are packed into less spread out clauses and fewer words.

Explicitness
According to Paltridge (ibid.) explicitness is not absolute. When speaking or writing, individuals
may say something directly or they may infer it. So, they can decide how much they say
something directly or indirectly. Therefore, as Biber (1988) suggest, depending on what the
speakers want their hearers to understand, both of these modes can be explicit. However, writing
is more explicit because it is more pre-planned.
To conclude , it can be said that there are marked differences between oral and written discourse
of language. It is a critical thing in language to learn oral and written differences to communicate
effectively.

Q.6 Define the following terms and illustrate your answer

with examples.
Illocutionary act, Illocutionary force, Speech act,
Perlocutionary act.
Definition:
In linguistics, an utterance defined in terms of a speaker's intention and the effect it has on a
listener.
Speech-act theory, as introduced by Oxford philosopher J.L. Austin (How to Do Things With
Words, 1962) and further developed by American philosopher J.R. Searle, considers the types of
acts that utterances can be said to perform:

Locutionary Acts

Illocutionary Acts

Perlocutionary Acts

Locutionary, Illocutionary, and Perlocutionary Acts

John: "Darling, do you want to go out to the show tonight?"
Laura: "I'm feeling ill."
John: "That's ok. You stay there and I'll make soup."
Notice how Laura didn't respond to John's question by saying, "No, I don't want to go out to the
show tonight." What she actually said her locutionary act was "I'm feeling ill."
An illocutionary act is what a person does in saying something else. Locution is speech. Inlocution (in speaking) becomes il-locution through phonetic assimilation. In saying that she feels
ill, Laura was telling John that she doesn't want go out.
Beyond communicating the state of her health and the answer to Jamshaid's question, Maria
accomplished one more thing through saying "I'm feeling ill." She got John to make her some
soup. A perlocutionary act (per-locutionary, through speaking) is focused on the response others
have to a speech act.
These terms from J.L. Austin's 1962 book How to Do Things with Words are used extensively in
philosophical literature today. And in fiction, having a character who is deaf to the illocutionary
force of language is always good comedy.
Illocutionary force
Several speech act theorists, including Austin himself, make use of the notion of an illocutionary
force. In Austin's original account, the notion remains rather unclear. Some followers of Austin,
such as David Holdcroft, view illocutionary force as the property of an utterance to be made with
the intention to perform a certain illocutionary act -- rather than as the successful performance of
the act (which is supposed to further require the appropriateness of certain circumstances).
According to this conception, the utterance of "I bet you five pounds that it will rain" may well
have an illocutionary force even if the addressee doesn't hear it. However, Bach and Harnish
assume illocutionary force just in case this or that illocutionary act is actually (successfully)
performed. According to this conception, the addressee must have heard and understood that the
speaker intends to make a bet with them in order for the utterance to have 'illocutionary force'.
If we adopt the notion of illocutionary force as an aspect of meaning, then it appears that the
(intended) 'force' of certain sentences, or utterances, is not quite obvious. If someone says, "It
sure is cold in here", there are several different illocutionary acts that might be aimed at by the
utterance. The utterer might intend to describe the room, in which case the illocutionary force
would be that of 'describing'. But she might also intend to criticise someone who should have
kept the room warm. Or it might be meant as a request to someone to close the window. These

forces may be interrelated: it may be by way of stating that the temperature is too cold that one
criticises someone else. Such a performance of an illocutionary act by means of the performance
of another is referred to as an indirect speech act.

What is meant by utterance?

Definition:
In linguistics, a smallest unit of speech. In phonetic terms, a stretch of spoken language that is
preceded by silence and followed by silence or a change of speaker. (Phonemes, morphemes, and
words are all considered "segments" of the stream of speech sounds that constitute an utterance.)
In orthographic terms, a syntactic unit that begins with a capital letter and ends in a period,
question mark, or exclamation point.
Utterances can either be grammatical or ungrammatical and loud or quiet. A sentence is a string
of words put together by the grammatical rules of a language (Hurford 1007: 17). Because a
sentence is neither a physical event nor a physical object, it is an abstract element and can only
be conceived abstractly. Speakers make real sentences by uttering them and sentences reach
hearers when they filter out certain kinds of information such as the difference in pitch levels;
some accent differences; and some phonetic details, from utterances.
The claim by such linguists as Saussure (followed by Chomsky, of course) that the single
sentence, with all its individuality and creativity, can be regarded as a completely free
combination of forms of language, is not, Bakhtin (1986, p.81) feels, true of utterances. Actual
utterances must take into account the (already linguistically shaped) context into which they are
directed. Thus for him:
Any concrete utterance is a link in the chain of speech communication of a
particular sphere. The very boundaries of the utterance are determined by a
change of speech subjects. Utterances are not indifferent to one another, and are
not self-sufficient; they are aware of and mutually reflect one another... Every
utterance must be regarded as primarily a response to preceding utterances of the
given sphere (we understand the word response here in the broadest sense). Each
utterance refutes affirms, supplements, and relies upon the others, presupposes
them to be known, and somehow takes them into account... Therefore, each kind
of utterance is filled with various kinds of responsive reactions to other utterances
of the given sphere of speech communication (Bakhtin, 1986, p.91).
In other words, an utterance has at least these four basic properties: 1) boundaries; 2)
responsivity or dialogicality; 3) finalization; and 4) generic form.
What is meant by the first two properties 1) and 2) is obvious from the quote. Number
three 3) finalization is made clear in the following quote:

This change [of speaking subjects] can only take place because the speaker has
said (or written) everything he wishes to say at a particular moment or under
particular circumstances. When hearing or reading, we clearly sense the end of the
utterance, as if we hear the speakers concluding dixi. This finalization is specific
and is determined by specific criteria (1986, p.76).
The final property is described further in the next section. The choice of speech genre is
determined by the specific nature of the given sphere of speech communication, semantic
(thematic) considerations, the concrete situation of the speech communication, the personal
composition of its participants, and so on (1986, p.78).

Examples :

"We use the term 'utterance' to refer to complete communicative units, which may
consist of single words, phrases, clauses and clause combinations spoken in context, in
contrast to the term 'sentence,' which we reserve for units consisting of at least one main
clause and any accompanying subordinate clauses, and marked by punctuation (capital
letters and full stops) in writing."
(Ronald Carter and Michael McCarthy, Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge
Univ. Press, 2006)

"For I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth,

Action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech,
To stir men's blood: I only speak right on."
(Mark Antony in William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Act 3, scene 2)

"The problem of meaning can be posed as follows: How does the mind impose
Intentionality on entities that are not intrinsically Intentional, on entities such as sounds
and marks that are, construed in one way, just physical phenomena in the world like any
other? An utterance can have Intentionality, just as a belief has Intentionality, but
whereas the Intentionality of the belief is intrinsic the Intentionality of the utterance is
derived. The question then is: How does it derive its Intentionality?"
(John R. Searle, Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge Univ.
Press, 1983)

Q .2 How would you distinguish between speaker

meaning and sentence meaning?
Answer:

BASIC NOTIONS IN SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATICS

Semantics and pragmatics are both concerned with the study of meaning; we have to distinguish
between speaker meaning and sentence meaning.
Speaker meaning: is what a speaker means (intends to convey) when he uses a piece of
language. Speaker meaning is concerned with Pragmatics.
Sentence meaning: (or word meaning) is what a sentence (or word) means.
There is often a divergence between the meaning of the linguistic expression a speaker uses and
the meaning he intends to communicate by using it. What hearers are interested in is what the
speaker means, and that leads him to ignore the fact that the speaker's words mean something
else. Sentence meaning is concerned with Semantics.
Example
"A" came from a long vacation and "B" meets him on his returning "B" immediatly ask:
"B":well,in paris,eh?did you enjoy it? "A":it was absolutely full: _Did or did not "A" answer the
question? _How? _What did he mean? (with relating the answer to the idea of sentence meaning
and speakers meaning)
It was absolutely full
SENTENCE MEANING:
Processes involved:
1. Linguistic decoding:
X was absolutely full of Y
2. Interpreting the explicatures (X and Y) of the sentence. This is done by inferencing processes
which I will not explicit; you may do it yourself.
X must refer to Paris
Y must refer to people / tourists
Final sentence meaning:
Paris was full of people

SPEAKER'S MEANING:

One arrives at it by inferencing processes only.

This meaning may not be directly depending of the sentence meaning. In this case, it depends on
your knowledge of the speaker. If you know that he hates people and loves tranquility you will
interpret his utterance as:
No, it was horrible!
But if you know that he loves crowded cities with lots of lively atmosphere, music, dancing,
drinking and whatnot, then you may interpret his meaning as:
Yes, indeed! It was smashing!!
As you see, the speaker's meaning has very little in common with what he says explicitely.
Therefore, we call this process of inferencing: recovering the implicatures of an expression.

Keeping two senses of meaning apart

The first sense of to mean, which Grice calls natural meaning , is the sort of meaning at issue
in statements like Those spots mean measles. Let me mention as an aside that the term speakers
meaning was also introduced by C. S. Lewis who uses it in almost the same sense as Grice, albeit
without an explication, nor a reference to Grice. Both men were fellows at Oxford University for
many years; Lewis of Magdalen College from 1925 to 1954, Grice at St. Johns from 1939 to
1967. For almost twenty years Grice was a university lecturer as well which meant that, in
addition to the teaching at his college, he gave lectures which were open to all members of
Oxford University. The recent budget means that we shall have a hard year.
The second sense he dubbed non-natural meaning . As examples for this sense
of the word, he offers: The three rings of the bell (of the bus) mean that the bus is full.
That remark Smith couldnt get on without his struggle and strife meant that Smith
found his wife indispensable. There are, as Grice notes, other uses of to mean. An example
would be.He did not mean to insult you by calling you a pooka. So the natural/nonnatural
distinction is not supposed to be exhaustive of the senses of the word to mean. Grice
mentions five features in respect of which the two senses
differ. Here are four of them: (i) to mean that in the non-natural sense is a not a factive
phrase, i.e., if used in this sense, x means that p does not entail p, but (ii) it entails that
something is meant by x, and, somewhat more specifically, (iii) that it is somebody, a person,
who means that p. In contrast, if to mean that is used in the natural sense, x means that
p does entail that p, and the two conclusions just mentioned cannot be drawn. He
furthermore mentions a sort of orthographic difference: (iv) Only in some of the non-natural
uses of mean it is appropriate to specify what is meant with the aid of quotation marks.
Whereas the first example for meaningNN above can be restated as
The three rings of the bell (of the bus) mean: The bus is full,

the sentence Those spots mean measles cannot be reformulated as

Those spots mean: measles.
This fourth distinguishing feature may appear to be nothing but a subtle fortuity of
sufficiently highly developed languages, but Grice holds it to be semantically important
(1989: 118) and puts emphasis on it in his later and even last writings (1989: 291, 349).
3
Stephen Schiffer and Wayne Davis suggest that the use of quote signs points to a special species
of meaning. Hence the kind of meaning at issue in reports of the sort By x S meant p differs
from the kind which is at issue in By doing x, S meant that p. The first sort may be called
speakers instrument meaning (since it has to do with the meaning of the 'instrument', x, as used
by the speaker), the second speakers action meaning.