Semantics
semantics
Three stages of interpretation
Pragmatics is the study of utterance meaning. Semantics is the study of sentence meaning and word meaning. The first stage is a semantic one: literal meaning. The others are two kinds of pragmatic interpretation: explicature and implicature.
That was the last bus.
The literal meaning of a sentence is based on just the semantic information that you have from your knowledge of English. something salient (That) is equated, at an earlier time (was is a past tense form), to either the final (last) or the most recent (last) bus. That meaning is available without wondering who might say or write the words, when or where.
An explicature is a basic interpretation of an utterance, using contextual information and world knowledge to work out what is being referred to and which way to understand ambiguous expressions, such as the word last. Two possible contexts for using an utterance based on the sentence will be considered. They lead to different explicatures.
Firstly, Ann sends a text message to Bess: “missed 10 pm bus” and Bess responds “That was the last bus”. In this situation, Bess’s reply can probably be interpreted as meaning ‘that was the final bus on tonight’s schedule going to where I know you were intending to travel’. Secondly, Charley says to the driver of a bus about to pull out of a busy terminus: “Some of these buses go via Portobello; is this one of them?”
In working out an implicature, we go further and ask what is hinted at by an utterance in its particular context, what the sender’s “agenda” is.
Each stage is built on the previous one and we need to develop theories of all three: literal meaning – the semantics of sentences in the abstract; explicature – the pragmatics of reference and disambiguation; and implicature – the pragmatics of hints.
a. un(lock able) ‘not able to be locked’
b. (un lock)able ‘able to be unlocked’
The analysis indicated by the brackets in (a) could describe a locker with a broken hasp. The one in (b) could describe a locked locker for which the key has just been found. The brackets indicate the scope of the operations: which parts of the representation un- and –able operate on. In (a) un- operates on lockable, but -able operates only on lock. In (b) un- operates on just lock, and -able operates on unlock. The meaning differences based on scope differences are not a quirk of the word – or pair of words – unlockable. The same bracketing will yield corresponding meanings for unbendable, unstickable and a number of others.
Adjective meanings
Using language to give the meanings of words
(2.1) little – small, not big; not much
small – little in size
big – large in size
much – large in quantity
large – ample in extent
ample – large in extent
tiny – very small
short – 1. not long; 2. small in stature, not tall
All these words have something to do with size/quantity/extent; that little and small have closely similar meanings, as do large and big; that big is opposite in meaning to little; and so on. If the network can be anchored in a few places – if the meanings of some basic words are known – then it is a useful system.
Sense relations relevant to adjectives
Synonyms
Synonymy is equivalence of sense. The nouns mother, mom and mum are synonyms (of each other). When a single word in a sentence is replaced by a synonym – a word equivalent in sense – then the literal meaning of the sentence is not changed: My mother’s/mum’s/mom’s family name was Christie.
Sociolinguistic differences (such as the fact that mom and mum are informal, and that mom would typically be used by speakers of North American English while mum has currency in British English) are not relevant, because they do not affect literal meaning.
Sentences with the same meaning are called paraphrases. Sentences (2.2a, b) are paraphrases. They differ only by intersubstitution of the synonyms rich and wealthy.
(2.2) a. Tom is rich.
b. Tom is wealthy.
c. (2.2a ⇒2.2b) & (2.2b ⇒2.2a)
d. *Tom is dillegent but he isn’t wealthy
e. *Tom is smart but he isn’t rich.
Sentence (2.2a), if it is true, entails – ensure the truth of – sentence (2.2b), provided it is the same Tom at the same point in time. When (2.2a) is true, (2.2b) must also be true. To establish paraphrase we have to do more, however, than show that one sentence entails another: the entailment has to go both ways, (2.2a) entails (2.2b) and it is also the case that (2.2b) entails (2.2a), as summarised in (2.2c). In normal discourse, both (2.2d) and (2.2e) are oppositions, because entailments cannot be cancelled. When an entailed sentence is false, sentences that entail it cannot be true. Paraphrase between two sentences depends on entailment, since it is defined as a two-way entailment between the sentences.
Some other pairs of synonymous adjectives are listed in (2.4).
(2.4) silent noiseless
Brave courageous
Polite courteous
rich wealthy.
Complementaries are defined in terms of a pattern of entailment illustrated in
(2.7) a. Maude’s is the same as yours.
b. Maude’s is different from yours.
c. (2.7a ⇒ NOT 2.7b) & (NOT 2.7a ⇒ 2.7b) & (2.7b ⇒
NOT2.7a) & (NOT2.7b ⇒2.7a)
When (2.7a) is true, which is to say when Maude’s is the same as yours, then it must be true that Maude’s is not different from yours (represented in (2.7c) as ‘NOT2.7b’). When Maude’s is not the same as yours (NOT2.7a), then (2.7b) must be true: Maude’s is different from yours. When Maude’s is different from yours (2.7b), then Maude’s is not the same as yours (NOT2.7a); and when Maude’s is not different from yours (NOT2.7b), then Maude’s is the same as yours (2.7a).
If the two-way pair of entailments (2.7a ⇒ NOT2.7b) and (NOT2.7b ⇒ 2.7a) holds, then (2.7a) is a paraphrase of (NOT2.7b), which is to say that Maude’s is the same as yours paraphrases Maude’s is not different from yours. And if there is the mutual entailment summarised in (NOT2.7a ⇒ 2.7b) & (2.7b ⇒ NOT2.7a), then Maude’s is not the same as yours is a paraphrase of Maude’s is different from yours. Complementaries can be viewed as negative synonyms.
Antonyms
The term antonymy is sometimes employed to mean any kind of oppositeness. I follow the practice of most semanticists in applying it to one particular sort of opposition, exemplified by noisy and silent in (2.8).
(2.8) a. The street was noisy.
b. The street was silent.
c. (2.8a ⇒ NOT2.8b) & (2.8b ⇒ NOT2.8a)
d. (NOT2.8a ⇒ 2.8b) & (NOT 2.8b ⇒ 2.8a)
Antonymy is defined by a pattern of entailments such as the one in (2.8c): if we know that (2.8a) is true, then we can be sure that, with regard to the same (part of) the same street at the same time, (2.8b) is false, or equivalently that the negation of (2.8b) is true (2.8a ⇒NOT2.8b). And if we know that (2.8b) is true, it follows – again provided that we keep the place and time constant – that the street was not noisy (NOT2.8a).
Some other antonym pairs are listed in (2.9).
(2.9) thick thin
Rich poor (or, since wealthy is a synonym of rich: wealthy–poor)
polite rude (because of synonymy between courteous and polite, this is the same opposition as: courteous–rude/discourteous/impolite)
humble vain/proud/boastful
rare frequent/common
patient impatient
brave/courageous cowardly
early late
harsh/severe lenient
stubborn/obstinate compliant
happy sad
full empty
Converses
A general feature of the members of antonym pairs is that they have what grammarians term comparative forms, with the comparative suffix –er (thicker, poorer, humbler, for instance) or in the construction more + adjective (for example, more humble, more patient, more obstinate, with some words, like humble, forming the comparative by either method).. The pair {richer, poorer} is used as an illustration in (2.10).
(2.10) a. California is richer than some countries.
b. Some countries are poorer than California.
c. (2.10a ⇒2.10b) & (2.10b ⇒2.10a)
Converseness is found not only between comparative adjectives but also in other word classes. Some examples are noted in (2.11).
(2.11) parent of child of (nouns)
Precede follow (verbs)
Above below (prepositions)
The defining patterns of entailment for these four sense relations are recapitulated to make it easier to relate them to the entries in the table, with relevant example numbers given for the illustrative sentences used earlier.
(2.12) Synonyms: (2.2a ⇒ 2.2b) & (2.2b ⇒ 2.2a) (was 2.2c)
Complementaries: (2.7a ⇒ NOT2.7b) & (NOT2.7a ⇒ 2.7b) & (2.7b ⇒ NOT2.7a) & (NOT 2.7b ⇒ 2.7a) was 2.7c)
Antonyms: (2.8a ⇒ NOT2.8b) & (2.8b ⇒ NOT2.8a)(was 2.8c)
Converses: (2.10a ⇒2.10b) & (2.10b ⇒ 2.10a)(was 2.10c)
Three stages of interpretation
Pragmatics is the study of utterance meaning. Semantics is the study of sentence meaning and word meaning. The first stage is a semantic one: literal meaning. The others are two kinds of pragmatic interpretation: explicature and implicature.
That was the last bus.
The literal meaning of a sentence is based on just the semantic information that you have from your knowledge of English. something salient (That) is equated, at an earlier time (was is a past tense form), to either the final (last) or the most recent (last) bus. That meaning is available without wondering who might say or write the words, when or where.
An explicature is a basic interpretation of an utterance, using contextual information and world knowledge to work out what is being referred to and which way to understand ambiguous expressions, such as the word last. Two possible contexts for using an utterance based on the sentence will be considered. They lead to different explicatures.
Firstly, Ann sends a text message to Bess: “missed 10 pm bus” and Bess responds “That was the last bus”. In this situation, Bess’s reply can probably be interpreted as meaning ‘that was the final bus on tonight’s schedule going to where I know you were intending to travel’. Secondly, Charley says to the driver of a bus about to pull out of a busy terminus: “Some of these buses go via Portobello; is this one of them?”
In working out an implicature, we go further and ask what is hinted at by an utterance in its particular context, what the sender’s “agenda” is.
Each stage is built on the previous one and we need to develop theories of all three: literal meaning – the semantics of sentences in the abstract; explicature – the pragmatics of reference and disambiguation; and implicature – the pragmatics of hints.
a. un(lock able) ‘not able to be locked’
b. (un lock)able ‘able to be unlocked’
The analysis indicated by the brackets in (a) could describe a locker with a broken hasp. The one in (b) could describe a locked locker for which the key has just been found. The brackets indicate the scope of the operations: which parts of the representation un- and –able operate on. In (a) un- operates on lockable, but -able operates only on lock. In (b) un- operates on just lock, and -able operates on unlock. The meaning differences based on scope differences are not a quirk of the word – or pair of words – unlockable. The same bracketing will yield corresponding meanings for unbendable, unstickable and a number of others.
Adjective meanings
Using language to give the meanings of words
(2.1) little – small, not big; not much
small – little in size
big – large in size
much – large in quantity
large – ample in extent
ample – large in extent
tiny – very small
short – 1. not long; 2. small in stature, not tall
All these words have something to do with size/quantity/extent; that little and small have closely similar meanings, as do large and big; that big is opposite in meaning to little; and so on. If the network can be anchored in a few places – if the meanings of some basic words are known – then it is a useful system.
Sense relations relevant to adjectives
Synonyms
Synonymy is equivalence of sense. The nouns mother, mom and mum are synonyms (of each other). When a single word in a sentence is replaced by a synonym – a word equivalent in sense – then the literal meaning of the sentence is not changed: My mother’s/mum’s/mom’s family name was Christie.
Sociolinguistic differences (such as the fact that mom and mum are informal, and that mom would typically be used by speakers of North American English while mum has currency in British English) are not relevant, because they do not affect literal meaning.
Sentences with the same meaning are called paraphrases. Sentences (2.2a, b) are paraphrases. They differ only by intersubstitution of the synonyms rich and wealthy.
(2.2) a. Tom is rich.
b. Tom is wealthy.
c. (2.2a ⇒2.2b) & (2.2b ⇒2.2a)
d. *Tom is dillegent but he isn’t wealthy
e. *Tom is smart but he isn’t rich.
Sentence (2.2a), if it is true, entails – ensure the truth of – sentence (2.2b), provided it is the same Tom at the same point in time. When (2.2a) is true, (2.2b) must also be true. To establish paraphrase we have to do more, however, than show that one sentence entails another: the entailment has to go both ways, (2.2a) entails (2.2b) and it is also the case that (2.2b) entails (2.2a), as summarised in (2.2c). In normal discourse, both (2.2d) and (2.2e) are oppositions, because entailments cannot be cancelled. When an entailed sentence is false, sentences that entail it cannot be true. Paraphrase between two sentences depends on entailment, since it is defined as a two-way entailment between the sentences.
Some other pairs of synonymous adjectives are listed in (2.4).
(2.4) silent noiseless
Brave courageous
Polite courteous
rich wealthy.
Complementaries are defined in terms of a pattern of entailment illustrated in
(2.7) a. Maude’s is the same as yours.
b. Maude’s is different from yours.
c. (2.7a ⇒ NOT 2.7b) & (NOT 2.7a ⇒ 2.7b) & (2.7b ⇒
NOT2.7a) & (NOT2.7b ⇒2.7a)
When (2.7a) is true, which is to say when Maude’s is the same as yours, then it must be true that Maude’s is not different from yours (represented in (2.7c) as ‘NOT2.7b’). When Maude’s is not the same as yours (NOT2.7a), then (2.7b) must be true: Maude’s is different from yours. When Maude’s is different from yours (2.7b), then Maude’s is not the same as yours (NOT2.7a); and when Maude’s is not different from yours (NOT2.7b), then Maude’s is the same as yours (2.7a).
If the two-way pair of entailments (2.7a ⇒ NOT2.7b) and (NOT2.7b ⇒ 2.7a) holds, then (2.7a) is a paraphrase of (NOT2.7b), which is to say that Maude’s is the same as yours paraphrases Maude’s is not different from yours. And if there is the mutual entailment summarised in (NOT2.7a ⇒ 2.7b) & (2.7b ⇒ NOT2.7a), then Maude’s is not the same as yours is a paraphrase of Maude’s is different from yours. Complementaries can be viewed as negative synonyms.
Antonyms
The term antonymy is sometimes employed to mean any kind of oppositeness. I follow the practice of most semanticists in applying it to one particular sort of opposition, exemplified by noisy and silent in (2.8).
(2.8) a. The street was noisy.
b. The street was silent.
c. (2.8a ⇒ NOT2.8b) & (2.8b ⇒ NOT2.8a)
d. (NOT2.8a ⇒ 2.8b) & (NOT 2.8b ⇒ 2.8a)
Antonymy is defined by a pattern of entailments such as the one in (2.8c): if we know that (2.8a) is true, then we can be sure that, with regard to the same (part of) the same street at the same time, (2.8b) is false, or equivalently that the negation of (2.8b) is true (2.8a ⇒NOT2.8b). And if we know that (2.8b) is true, it follows – again provided that we keep the place and time constant – that the street was not noisy (NOT2.8a).
Some other antonym pairs are listed in (2.9).
(2.9) thick thin
Rich poor (or, since wealthy is a synonym of rich: wealthy–poor)
polite rude (because of synonymy between courteous and polite, this is the same opposition as: courteous–rude/discourteous/impolite)
humble vain/proud/boastful
rare frequent/common
patient impatient
brave/courageous cowardly
early late
harsh/severe lenient
stubborn/obstinate compliant
happy sad
full empty
Converses
A general feature of the members of antonym pairs is that they have what grammarians term comparative forms, with the comparative suffix –er (thicker, poorer, humbler, for instance) or in the construction more + adjective (for example, more humble, more patient, more obstinate, with some words, like humble, forming the comparative by either method).. The pair {richer, poorer} is used as an illustration in (2.10).
(2.10) a. California is richer than some countries.
b. Some countries are poorer than California.
c. (2.10a ⇒2.10b) & (2.10b ⇒2.10a)
Converseness is found not only between comparative adjectives but also in other word classes. Some examples are noted in (2.11).
(2.11) parent of child of (nouns)
Precede follow (verbs)
Above below (prepositions)
The defining patterns of entailment for these four sense relations are recapitulated to make it easier to relate them to the entries in the table, with relevant example numbers given for the illustrative sentences used earlier.
(2.12) Synonyms: (2.2a ⇒ 2.2b) & (2.2b ⇒ 2.2a) (was 2.2c)
Complementaries: (2.7a ⇒ NOT2.7b) & (NOT2.7a ⇒ 2.7b) & (2.7b ⇒ NOT2.7a) & (NOT 2.7b ⇒ 2.7a) was 2.7c)
Antonyms: (2.8a ⇒ NOT2.8b) & (2.8b ⇒ NOT2.8a)(was 2.8c)
Converses: (2.10a ⇒2.10b) & (2.10b ⇒ 2.10a)(was 2.10c)
Komentar
Posting Komentar