John I Saeed - Semantics

Part I : PRELIMINARIES = CHAPTERS 1 AND 2 : the place of semantics in linguistics, and the relationship
to philosophy and psychology, which also try to deal with the creation and transmission of meaning.
[philosophy: e.g.
[psychology: e.g. Rohrschach tests; word association tests]

Part II : SEMANTIC DESCRIPTION = analysis of word meaning and sentence meaning

Part III : THEORETICAL APPROACHES = 3 important semantic theories: componential theory

formal semantics
cognitive semantics

------------------------------------------------------------------------- -

Part I - Preliminaries
1 Semantics in Linguistics
1.1 Introduction
semantics = study of meaning communicated through language
* A person's linguistic abilities are based on knowledge that they have

Speakers have different types of linguistic knowledge: how to pronounce words, how to construct
sentences, the meaning of words and sentences. So linguistic description has different LEVELS OF
ANALYSIS:
PHONOLOGY - the sounds of a language, how they combine to form words SYNTAX - how to combine words
to form sentences
SEMANTICS - the meaning of words and sentences

A speaker's semantic knowledge:

identity/similarity: x is above y, y is below x CONTRADICTION: x is y, x is not y
AMBIGUITY: x is y or z
ENTAILMENT: x entails y: if we know x, we automatically know y

: we cannot assert x and deny y

1.2 Semantics and Semiotics

Semiotics: how do people communicate meanings (with signs)? Semantics: how do people communicate
meanings with pieces of language?

Linguistic meaning is a subset of human ability to use signs.

(e.g. vultures > dead body; temperature > illness; red flag > danger; stripes on uniform > sergeant; these involve
using inferences based on cause and effect, and arbitrary symbols used in public signs).
Pervasive human habit of identifying and creating signs: making one thing stand for another = SIGNIFICATION =
creating and interpreting symbols. General study of the use of sign systems = SEMIOTICS.
The types of relationship between sign and the object it represents: between
SIGNIFIER and SIGNIFIED.

Distinction between
ICON: similarity between sign and object (e.g. portrait > person;
diagram > machine) [fn 2: iconic elements in language, e.g. onomatopeia, like
tick-tock, cuckoo, sizzle, etc.]
INDEX: sign closely associated with signified, oft. causally (smoke > fire)
SYMBOL: only a conventional link (e.g. military insignia and rank; black for
mourning in some cultures, white in others). Words can be regarded as verbal
symbols.

Language is man's most sophisticated use of signs.

1.3 Three Challenges in Doing Semantics

Let us adopt the DEFINITIONS THEORY: to give meanings of linguistic

expressions, we should establish definitions of the meanings of words, i.e.
when speakers
combine words to form sentences according to grammatical rules, we could
say
that the word definitions combine to form the phrase and sentence definitions.

[cf HUDSON pp 69-73: "ever, never, neither" + exercise]

A. CIRCULARITY: how can we state the meanings of words except in other

words? Can we ever step outside language in order to describe it, or are we
forever involved in circular definitions?

SAEED's example: take dict def for "ferret", then substitute dict defs for
each
word in the def of "ferret".

B. Exactness: how to make sure the definitions are exact?

Meanings of words are in the minds of native speakers. So meaning is a kind
of knowledge. Is this different from other kinds of knowledge? In particular,
can we distinguish between LINGUISTIC KNOWLEDGE (what words mean)
and ENCYCLOPEDIC KNOWLEDGE (the way the world is)?

SAEED's example: whale: x thinks it's a fish, y thinks it's a mammal, but does it
hinder their communication?

If speakers have different understanding of what a word means, whose

knowledge
should we pick? If we picked just one speaker, we would only describe an
IDIOLECT. If we identified 'experts' and used their knowledge, we would move
away from ordinary speakers and towards a scientific definition for words,
so semantics would beome equivalent to all of science.
BUT we can actually talk about animals without needing to be zoologists.

C. Context: The same utterances can have different meanings in different

contexts. If features of context are part of a word's meaning, how can we
include them in our definitions? The number of possible
contexts/situations
(and therefore the number of interpretations) is enormous. We couldn't fit
all the information into our definitions.
So, the DEFINITIONS THEORY is too simple.

1.4 Meeting the Challenges

Semantic analysis is an important part of most current linguistic theories.

Opinions on the exact relationship between semantics, phonology, syntax, etc
may vary.

How can we provide a theory that meets the problems raised by the
definitions
theory?

Circularity: one strategy is to design a METALANGUAGE to describe the

semantic
units and rules of all languages. Metalanguage = the tool of description.

[more on metalanguage in chapts 9 and 10]

e.g. a grammar of Arabic written in French: Arabic is the 'object language',

French is the 'metalanguage'. Our metalanguage cannot be one of the object
languages, and must be neutral, not biased towards any object language. The
metalanguage also has to satisfy scientific criteria: clarity, economy,
consistency, etc. Some would still object: if words are symbols, what are they
symbols of? We need to provide non-linguistic grounds. Do words signify
real objects or thoughts?

[more on this in chapt 2]

Exactness: Metalanguage might also help us to distinguish linguistic

knowledge
from encyclopedic knowledge. BUT we would still have the problem of
deciding which elements of knowledge should be included.

Speakers' knowledge of meanings of words is like a mental LEXICON. How

much knowledge does a speaker need to use a word?
[This is close to psychology: representation of concepts and categories: more
on this in chapts 2,3, and 7]

Context: Can we assume a split in meaning between contextual meaning and

context-free (CONVENTIONAL/LITERAL) meaning? Can we limit ourselves
to
the literal meaning, and deal with context separately? [more in chapt 3]

[NB cf quantitative approach of corpus/computational linguistics: the more

frequent contexts indicate the more common meanings]

But it is difficult to isolate context. Can we look at context in

communication
and establish how speakers combine context and linguistic knowledge?
Speakers
and hearers cooperate in using contextual information.
[more in chapt 7]

Hearers have an active role: not simply 'decoding a coded message'. Study of
these processes and the role of context is PRAGMATICS.

1.5 Semantics in a Model of Grammar

1.5.1 Introduction

Aim of doing semantics is to set up a component of the grammar to

parallel
other components like phonology and syntax.

Linguistic knowledge forms distinct MODULES, or is 'modularized'. So

linguistic
theories are also modularized.

What kind of module is semantics?

All linguistic levels serve to communicate meaning. So meaning is a product

of all linguistic levels. [cf last week's exercises: changing one sound, one
letter, or one word - or the exact sequence of any of these - changes the
meaning]

So some linguists believe that meaning cannot be identified as a separate level.

Esp. COGNITIVE GRAMMAR (Ronald Langacker): ' a strict separation of syntax,
morphology and lexicon is untenable; it is impossible to separate linguistic
knowledge from extra-linguistic knowledge'.

1.5.2 Word meaning and sentence meaning

If we do regard semantics as a separate linguistic component, we need to

look
at the relationship between word meaning and sentence meaning.

Knowing a language involves knowing thousands of words. Mental LEXICON.

This is large, but finite.
[cf Zechmeister et al]
Part of this knowledge must be semantic. The lexicon is not static: we learn
new words and forget some old ones.

We rarely create new words.

[cf last week's list of new words: there are many one-offs in novels, in our
conversations, etc - but very few make it into the general lexicon]

We often create phrases and sentences that we have

never heard or used before. Phrase and sentence meaning involves
PRODUCTIVITY.
[CHOMSKY]
A small number of combinatory rules allows us to use a finite set of words in
an almost infinite number of sentences. To do this, the rules for sentence
formation have to be RECURSIVE, allowing repeated embedding or
coordination
of syntactic categories.: e.g. S -> [s S (and S)*] or NP -> [np NP (and NP)*]

If we can make up new sentences and be understood, they must obey the
semantic
rules of the language. So the meanings of sentences cannot be listed in a
lexicon like the meanings of words, because sentences are created by word
meanings + the way in which the words are combined (by the rules of
combination), i.e. sentence meaning is COMPOSITIONAL.

So how can we connect word meanings with sentence meanings?

Compositional aspect can be dealt with by the syntactic/phrase structure rules
(Katz and
Fodor, Chomsky). [more in chapt 9]

SEE FIG 1.2 CHOMSKY MODEL OF GRAMMAR

It is the syntactic rules, applying *EN BLOC*, which are the
compositional engine
and the bridge between word meaning and sentence meaning.

[** cf fn 6, p.21: MONTAGUE Logic: a different solution: semantics

incorporated
within each rule: Rule n: <SYNTACTIC Rule n: SEMANTIC Rule n>]

1.6 Some Important Assumptions

1.6.1 Reference and Sense.

Saussure: meaning of a linguistic expression derives from a) the language it is

part of b) the world it describes

[cf Skt debates on "the horns of a hare"]

REFERENCE: "He/Paul/a dog" = identify, pick out, or REFER to specific

entities
in the world.

SENSE: words also derivevalue from their position within a language

system:
semantic links between elements within the vocabulary system.

[Fig 1.3 > sheep-mutton / mouton; Different language systems, so

different ranges.

The meaning of a word derives BOTH from a) what it can be used to refer to
in the real world and b) the way its semantic scope is defined by related
words.

The meaning of "chair" is partly defined by the existence of other words like
"stool".
The scope of "red" is defined by other terms in the colour system:
"brown, orange,
yellow, etc".

[cf LEECH and others: kinship terms; colour terms]

Same is true of grammar: "plural" does not mean the same in all
languages:
Sanskrit also has DUAL forms, so plural = three or more. French :
plural = two or more.

1.6.2 Utterances, Senences, and Propositions

These 3 terms describe different levels of language:

UTTERANCE: `concrete', created by speaking/writing a piece of language [cf

TOKEN]

SENTENCE: abstract grammatical elements obtained from utterances (e.g.

for
example, phonetics is eliminated), so we can have 4 utterances of the same
sentence.
[cf TYPE]
e.g. when we quote what someone else said, we don't use the same
intonation,
accent, etc so we are quoting their SENTENCE, not their UTTERANCE.

From speaker's point of view, SENTENCE = the abstract elements which are to
be made real by uttering them.
From hearer's point of view, SENTENCE = the abstract elements filtered out
of someone's utterance.

PROPOSITION: logical entity, even more abstract, a) grammatical elements are

also irrelevant [e.g. phonology AND syntax are eliminated], so active and
passive sentences are equivalent. b) information structure is also irrelevant:
[SAEED egs 1.19-1.22]
These 4 sentences describe the same state of affairs.
Propositions are usually written in CAPITALS.
[cf. LEMMA]

[fn 10: propositions need not even be complete sentences: in answer to the
question `What's the longest river in Africa', answer can be `The Nile is the
longest river in Africa', `The Nile is', or `The Nile'. But all 3 of these
express the same PROPOSITION.]

Logicians use formulae: verb = FUNCTION, subject/objects = ARGUMENTS.

Propositions only capture PART of the meaning: e.g. as above, the same
proposition can be represented by different statements. Also, propositions
do not indicate/contain/encode the speaker's attitude to the proposition. [cf
more in chapt 8]

1.6.3 Literal and Non-literal meaning

This distinction is assumed in many semantics books, but proves very

difficult
when you try to define the difference: SAEED egs 1.27-1.30

Non-literal = FIGURATIVE (metaphor, irony, metonymy, synecdoche,

hyperbole,
litotes)

BUT language change often causes metaphorical extensions of meaning,

which
become fossilized, and speakers may be unaware of this: e.g. glass ceiling,
surfing the internet are current metaphors; some people may already not
think
of computer "mouse", "toy boy", or "junk bond" as metaphors; certainly few
people on a shuttle train or plane will think of a weaving machine.

[cf "pylon" was the entrance to an Egyptian temple; modern electricity

pylons
are shaped similarly, but who thinks of Egyptian temples nowadays?]
[test them on "surge": how many come up with `water/waves'?]

Some linguists, e.g. LAKOFF, claim that metaphor is not isolated stylistic
device,
but systematic strategy, integral way of categorizing concepts: time =
money, etc.
[SAEED egs 1.31]
[cf more on Lakoff and COGNITIVE SEMANTICS in chapt 11]

Others talk of "faded/dead metaphors".

LITERAL LANGUAGE THEORY suggests that metaphors are actually processed

differently: hearers recognize "semantic oddity" and try to interpret it,
assuming speaker wants to convey meaning, to make sense. Hearers make
inferences.
[more in chapt 7 on hearer's assumptions]

1.6.4 Semantics and Pragmatics

Both deal with the transmission of meaning through language.

MORRIS:
SYNTAX = formal relation of signs to each other
SEMANTICS = relations of signs to objects to which the signs are
applicable
PRAGMATICS = relation of signs to their interpreters

If we limit "signs" to "linguistic signs",

PRAGMATICS = study of speaker/hearer's interpretation of language. =
Sentence Meaning + Speaker Meaning, e.g. "He is asleep" raises the
question of who is "he" -> encyclopedic knowledge/knowledge of the world.

Difficult to draw the line between semantics and pragmatics.

Difficult to eliminate context.

[NB context and cotext]

[Looking Up: meaning is totally context dependent;
words have "potential meanings"]

SEMINAR: - do OHP of exercises in SAEED

Ex 1.1 = dictionary definitions [circularity: cf "ethnic, racial,

tribal"]
Ex 1.2 = reference (which bits of given sentences "refer"?)
Ex 1.3 = literal/figurative in Economist article

-----------------

Chapter 3 of Saeed
Entailment
Grammatical Categories
Lexeme
Lexical Field
Homonyms
Polysemy
Synonyms, Antonyms, Superordinates, Hyponyms
Meronymy
Causative Verb
Agentive Noun