1. Introduction to SEMANTICS

2. Frank R. Palmer – Chapter II
THE SCOPE OF SEMANTICS
2.1 NAMING (denotation, reference,...)
2.2 CONCEPTS
2.3 SENSE AND REFERENCE
2.4 THE WORD
2.5 THE SENTENCE

3. 2.1 NAMING
Starting point: Language = a communication system with on the one hand the signifier, on the other the signified. SIGNIFIED (the object in the world) SIGNIFIER (the word in the language) PROBLEM: How to establish the nature and relationship of these two? ( to be dealt with in Subchapter 2.2)

4. 2.1 NAMING – terminology
WORD vs. EXPRESSION (i.e., a sequence of words)
DENOTATION vs. REFERENCE
_____ indicates a class of persons, things, etc.
_____ indicates the actual persons, things, etc.
(no consistency in use among scholars...)

5. Theory of naming Noun = ‘the name of a person of thing‘
(traditional grammar) X
Impossible to extended the theory to other parts of speech, e.g., adjetives, verbs or prepositions.
Colours as names – OK...
How to regard relevant, useful, or difficult as names ?
Verbs – run illustrated by a picture of a running boy..
(difficult to identify what is denoted by the verb )

6. Theory of naming applied to nouns
Proper nouns – attractive approach... (Paris, Monday)
Used to refer to particular people, places, times, etc. X
Do they have any denotation? Do they have meaning?
*What does John Smith mean?
*What is the meaning of Paris?

7. Theory of naming applied to nouns
PROBLEMS:
1. non existent entities (unicorn, goblin, fairy)
 do not denote objects in the world
2. abstract terms (reference to imaginary items)
inspiration, hate, or nonsense
 no physical objects to be named by  called ‘abstract THINGS‘
– because they have NOUNS corresponding to them
 circular definition ‘things are what are named by nouns‘

8. Theory of naming applied to nouns
3. different expressions  different meanings X the same denotation Both evening star and morning star denote Venus.

9. ‘Realist‘ and ‘nominalist‘ views
Words denote a whole set of rather different objects
(When is a hill a hill and not a mountain?)
Dividing line between the items denoted by one word is VAGUE; overlapping.
REALIST VIEW: all things called by the same name have some common property
NOMINALIST VIEW: all things called by the same name have nothing in common but the name

10. Question: Are realist and nominalist views of naming valid approaches?
Why (not)?

11. Answer:
No.
Nominalist – objects named e.g., hill or chair, do have something in common.
Realist – there are no clearly defined ‘natural‘ classes of objects. The classification differs from language to language.

12. Example: crosslinguistic comparison
According to Palmer, there are no precise equivalents of such English words as stool, chair, arm-chair, couch, sofa in other languages.
EN X FR arm-chair ≠ fauteuil (presence of arms not necessary)
Colour systems – reflect the interests of people who speak a language

13. Example: crosslinguistic comparison
Eskimo – 4 words for snow
(snow on the ground, falling snow, drifting snow, and snowdrift)
Hopi – only 1 word to denote ‘a flier‘
(a plane, an insect, a pilot)
Culture is relevant X cultural reality is NOT categorized independently of language

14. Ordinary language vs. Scientific language
Scientific classifications are NOT typical of everyday experience
Ordinary language – terms are not clearly defined, classes not rigorously established
Scientific language:
Salt = sodium chloride = NaCl
Ordinary language:
Salt = belongs with pepper, appears on the table

15. Object word vs. Dictionary word
Russell (1940s)
Object words:
learned ostensibly (by POINTING AT objects)
 have OSTENSIVE DEFINITIONS
Dictionary words:
Have to be defined in terms of object words
OSTENSIVE DEFINITION – not that easy (what exactly am I pointing at? A chair? Its leg? The wood it is made of?)

16. Naming theory for sentences
The strongest view: relating the meaning of a sentence to things and events in the world
 There is a horse on the lawn. – usable only if there is a horse on the lawn
X lies, mistakes...
The weaker view: seeing meaning in terms of conditions under which the sentence would be true
 (a certain animal being at a particular time on a specially prepared are of grass)

17. 2.2 Concepts View relating words and things directly X
Relating words and things through the mediation of concepts of the mind
The best known theories:
De Saussure – ‘sign‘ theory
Ogden & Rochards – ‘semiotic triangle‘

18. De Saussure – ‘sign theory‘
Linguistic sign consists of a signifier and a signified.
More strictly:
Signifier = sound image
Signified = concept
---linked by a psychological
‘associative‘ bond---

19. Ogden & Richards - ‘semiotic triangle‘
Symbol = word
Thought or referrence = concept
Referent = object

20. ‘Semiotic triangle‘

21. Problem:
Q: What precisely is the ‘associative bond‘ of de Saussure or the link between Ogden and Richard‘s symbol and concept?
A1: When we think of a name we think of the concept and vice versa.
Q: What is meant by thinking of a concept?
A: Having an image of a chair when we talk about chairs.
 Palmer: I do not visualise a chair in my mind‘s eye every time I utter the word chair!

22. Problem:
Q: What precisely is the ‘associative bond‘ of de Saussure or the link between Ogden and Richard‘s symbol and concept?
A2: Permanent association stored in the mind or in the brain.
 Palmer: we cannot look into ourminds to recognize them; Introducing concepts = setting up, in some inaccessibe place, entities that are by definition mirror images of the words that they are supposed to explain  circuar definition of meaning

23. Palmer‘s view of concepts:
Concepts explain nothing at all
It is like former scholars‘ attempt to explain fire by positing the existence of the substance ‘phlogiston‘ (cannot be disproved but nothing is gained...)
Philosophical tradition in the English-speaking world – mostly EMPIRICIST (based on experience and evidence) X
many linguist accept a CONCEPTUALIST view of meaning

24. 2.2 CONCEPTS
Ideas:
Intuition and introspection must play a large part in our investigation of language
Seeing meaning in terms of the mental entities called concepts

25. Palmer‘s arguments against concepts:
1 There is no parallel between neurons in theoretical physics and concepts in the mind of an individual
Neurons – exist, necessary for predicting, explaining X
Concepts – have no claim to existence

26. Palmer‘s arguments against concepts:
2 Concepts are inaccessible to anyone but the individual  totally subjective views  I can never know what your meanings are.

27. Palmer‘s arguments against concepts:
3 Arguments about intuition and introspection are irrelevant.
We can introspect butwe merely produce for ourselves some more examples of our language. X
We need to establish phonological or grammatical rules or structures  we need to investigate a lot of data

28. Dualism
= the view of language that sees meaning as part of the signified/ signifier relation
Encouraged by the statement that words and sentences have meaning... X
It does not follow from that that there is an entity that IS meaning!

29. Meaning and semantics
For a word to MEAN something is similar to a notion that a signpost POINTS somewhere.
It doesn‘t make sense to ask ‘what is it that words mean‘ or ‘what is it that signposts point to‘.
It is sense only to ask IN PARTICULAR (not in general):
‘What does THIS word mean?‘

30. Meaning and semantics The aim of semantics:
NOT to search for the entity called ‘meaning‘
but
To understand HOW IT IS that words and sentences can ‘mean‘ at all.
Wittgenstein: ‘for a large class of words ... the meaning of a word is its use in the language‘.

31. 2.3 SENSE and REFERENCE Reference vs. Denotation (discussed above)
Now: Reference vs. Sense
Both sense and reference = aspects of meaning
REFERENCE = relationship between linguistic and extralinguistic realities.
SENSE = relationships between linguistic elements themselves (intralinguistic relations)

32. Semantics: both sense and reference matter
Consider the words ram and ewe:
Reference: ram and ewe refer to particular animals ( derive their meanings in this way)
Sense: ram and ewe belong to the pattern cow/bull, sow/ boar, mare/ stallion --- relation to sex and gender  traditionally treated as a part of grammar.

33. What kind of sense relations are there between these words?
1 duck/ duckling; pig/ piglet
2 father/ son; uncle/ nephew
3 narrow/ wide; dead/ alive; buy/ sell

34. Dictionary – relations of sense or reference?
Complete:
The ultimate aim of the dictionary is to supply its user with _______ (sense/ referential) meaning. It does so by relating, via_______ (sense/ referential) relations, a word whose meaning is unknown to a word or words whose _______ (sense/ reference) is already understood.

35. Two kinds of semantics:
1 Semantics related to NON-LINGUISTIC entities (relationship of ______ (sense/reference)) 2 Semantics related to LINGUISTIC entities (relationship of ______ (sense/reference))

36. Sentence meaning (and its relation to word meaning)
What kind of sentences are the following ones?
Match the sentences with their meanings:
A. the first implies/ presupposes the second
B. Anomalous
C. Ambiguous
D. Paraphrase or synonymous
E. Contradictory
F. One follows from the other

37. Match the sentences with their meaning:
His typewriter has bad intentions.
A. the first implies/ presupposes the second
B. Anomalous
C. Ambiguous
D. Paraphrase or synonymous
E. Contradictory
F. One follows from the other

38. Match the sentences with their meaning:
My unmarried sister is married to a bachelor.
A. the first implies/ presupposes the second
B. Anomalous
C. Ambiguous
D. Paraphrase or synonymous
E. Contradictory
F. One follows from the other

39. Match the sentences with their meaning:
John was looking for the glasses.
A. the first implies/ presupposes the second
B. Anomalous
C. Ambiguous
D. Paraphrase or synonymous
E. Contradictory
F. One follows from the other

40. Match the sentences with their meaning:
The needle is too short.
The needle is not long enough.
A. the first implies/ presupposes the second
B. Anomalous
C. Ambiguous
D. Paraphrase or synonymous
E. Contradictory
F. One follows from the other

41. Match the sentences with their meaning:
Many of the students were unable to answer your question.
Only a few students grasped your question.
A. the first implies/ presupposes the second
B. Anomalous
C. Ambiguous
D. Paraphrase or synonymous
E. Contradictory
F. One follows from the other

42. Match the sentences with their meaning:
How long did Archibald remain in Monte Carlo?
Archibald remained in Monte Carlo for some time.
A. the first implies/ presupposes the second
B. Anomalous
C. Ambiguous
D. Paraphrase or synonymous
E. Contradictory
F. One follows from the other

43. Defining semantics (attempts)
In 1960s – tendencies to limit semantics to sense relations (Fodor, Katz).
‘A semantic theory explains the interpretive ability of speakers.‘ – determining number of readings of a sentence
The speaker‘s ability does not include his ability to relate to the world of experience (!).

44. Remember:
It is not always possible to distinguish between sense and reference because the categories of our language correspond (to some degree) to real-world distinctions.
Not all languages make the same distinctions
Indeterminacy in the categorization of the real world

45. 2.4 The word Reasonable assumption:
WORD = one of the basic units of semantics X
PROBLEMS:

46. 1 Words have different kinds of meaning
‘full‘ words and ‘form‘ words
Henry Sweet
Boys like to play. – which word is a ‘form‘ word?
The meaning of ‘form‘ words can only be
stated in relation to other words.

47. 2 The word is not a clearly defined unit
Decision about spacing based on the main stress
(‘blackbird X ‘black ‘bird) BUT ‘shoe polish – 1 stress
Bloomfield: word = the minimum free form, the smallest form that can occur in isolation

48. 2 The word is not a clearly defined unit
Bloomfield – suggestion:
the MORPHEME = a unit of meaning
e.g., -berry in blackberry
e.g., loved = love + d (adore + past) X took?
 need to redefine the word: LEXEME
LOVE, LOVED = 2 forms of the same word

49. 2 The word is not a clearly defined unit
LEXEMES – dictionary headings
 we can talk about meaning of words (lexemes) + meaning of grammatical elements (e.g., past tense)
Word defined as lexeme

50. 2 The word is not a clearly defined unit
COMPOUNDS (e.g., rainbow, pancake, cowboy)
- problems with stating the meaning of the elements (grammatical words, elements of case in Latin, elements within words that are not grammatical yet have little/ no meaning:
Cran- in cranberry – no independent meaning)
Cf. also: strawberry, gooseberry

51. 2 The word is not a clearly defined unit
COMPOUNDS
Greenfinch – bullfinch – chaffinch
Which morphemes help you guess the meaning of the word?

52. Greenfinch – bullfinch – chaffinch

53. Phonaestetic words Words beginning with sl- are ‘slippery‘
Slide, slip, slush, sludge,
...or ‘pejorative‘ : Slattern, slut, sloppy
sk- – surfaces or superficiality – any examples?
-ump – some kind of roundish mass
We cannot separate the initial/ final cluster and state the meaning of the remainder (sl-ide)

54. TRANSPARENT & OPAQUE words
Transparent words: meaning can be determined from the meaning of their parts X
Opaque words
T: doorman
O: axe

55. TRANSPARENT & OPAQUE words in different languages
EN : thimble --- GER: Fingrhut (finger-hat)
EN: glove --- GER: Handschuh (hand-shoe)
EN: linguistics --- GER: Sprachwissenshaft (language-science)
A degree of transparency and opacity
(chopper – can be an instrument that chops; does a screwdriver actually drive screws?; hammer - *an instrument that ‘hams‘.)

56. IDIOMS
Their meaning cannot be predicted from the meanings of individual words
Semantically single units X not single grammatical units
Kick the bucket; fly off the handle; spill the beans
X kick the table; fly off the roof; spill the coffee

57. What does it mean...? Heavy smoker; good singer
A smoker who is heavy? (heavy smok+er)
A singer who is good? (good sing+er)
Sometimes semantic division overrides word division
A smoker who smokes heavily
A singer who sings well
Alternative solution in terms of DEEP STRUCTURE
Consider also: an artificial florist, a criminal lawyer

58. 2.5 THE SENTENCE Possible view: sentence = basic unit of meaning
Traditionally: sentence = expression of a complete thought
Sentence = essentially a grammatical unit
Syntax – describes the structure of the sentence
Subject + verb (predicate)
Incomplete sentences (ellipsis) – answers; links to previous discourse (Coming? Coming!)

59. 2.5 THE SENTENCE Both words and sentences have meaning.
The meaning of the sentence can be predicted from the meaning of the words it contains.
Meaning of the sentence is influenced by many factors:

60. Meaning of the sentence
1 PROSODIC AND PARALINGUISTIC FEATURES
2DEVICES INDICATING WHAT IS IMPORTANT, INTERESTING, OR NEW (intonation, active/ passive, word order)
3 SPEECH ACTS
4 SAYING ONE THING, MEANING ANOTHER THING
5 PRESUPPOSITION
6 SOCIAL RELATIONS

61. Sentence meaning & utterance meaning
Sentence meaning is directly predictable from the grammatical and lexical features of the sentence
Utterance meaning includes all various types of meaning discussed above (1-6)

62. Thank you for your attention!