Introduction to Linguistics

Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

Dr. Jakob Horsch | [email protected]
 Session 6: Semantics and Pragmatics
1. Semantics
2. Pragmatics

2 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 1 Semantics

3 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Semantics – basics
This is how many people think languages are related to reality:

Florian SCHLEBURG (U of Regensburg) 2016

4 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Semantics – basics
This is how languages are in fact related to reality:

Florian SCHLEBURG (U of Regensburg) 2016

5 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Semantics – basics
Example: Colors
Extralinguistic reality

Russian синий голубой [gap] зеленый

English blue [gap] green

Korean 푸르다 (pureu-da)

Jalé siŋ ‘dark’ hóló ‘light’

6 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 What is semantics?

7 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 What is semantics?
̶ Scientific study of the meaning of linguistic expressions
̶ This includes: words, phrases, sentences
̶ Our focus: word meaning (lexical semantics)
➢the meaning side of linguistic signs

signified
(concept)
reciprocal
relationship
signifier /ˈæpl/
(sound sequence)
8 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics
 Concept  referent!
̶ Cf. OGDEN and RICHARDS’ semiotic triangle:

THOUGHT

SYMBOL no direct link REFERENT

from PALMER
1981:24
9 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics
Saussure’s sign
 Aspects of meaning
̶ grammatical vs. lexical
̶ semasiology vs. onomasiology
̶ sense vs. reference
• denotation vs. connotation
• intension vs. extension

10 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Grammatical vs. lexical meaning
̶ Grammatical semantics: grammatical meaning
(function words, inflectional affixes, word order)
e.g. may have been sunk, he lives, [John]S [likes]V [dogs.]O

̶ Lexical semantics: lexical meaning

(content words, derivational afffixes)
e.g. unicorn, unfriendly

11 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Semasiology vs. onomasiology
̶ Semasiology: “What is the meaning of word X?”
starting point: signifier/sound sequence
→ dictionary entry

̶ Onomasiology: “Which linguistic forms express meaning Y?”

starting point: referent
→ thesaurus

➢In semantics, we usually follow the semasiological approach

12 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Defining word meaning
̶ cf. OGDEN and RICHARDS
̶ Sense (language internal):
descriptive meaning, independent of particular utterance or
situational context
̶ Reference (language external):
relation between entities/referent in the extra-linguistic world and
lexemes which refer to them

13 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Defining word meaning

14 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Defining word meaning
̶ Denotation: objective meaning of an expression
e.g. Wikipedia cow:

→ set of all cows

15 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Defining word meaning
̶ Connotation: “secondary meanings” – culture-dependent
e.g. “You’re a stupid cow,” Anna said to her sister.
→ stupid person
̶ Referent: a cow in the real world

16 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Defining word meaning
̶ Intension (language-internal):
Set of semantic properties that define an expression
e.g. dog triggers language-internal definitions like “animate”, “non-
human”
̶ Extension (language-external):
class of objects to which a linguistic expression is applied, i.e.
potential referents (referent is always part of the class of objects
that constitutes the word’s extension

17 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Paradigmatic vs. syntagmatic semantics
̶ Paradigmatic approach:
words with similar meaning can be substituted:
The king was killed.
The king was assassinated.
The king was murdered.

̶ Syntagmatic approach (‘the company a word keeps’):

meaning of words → which other words can co-occur?
red wine - white wine - *yellow wine - *black wine

18 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Syntagmatic semantics
̶ Collocations (‘the company a word keeps’), e.g. blond hair;
rancid butter, addled eggs, sour milk; a flock of sheep, a herd of
cows, a school of whales, a pack of wolves, a pride of lions; to get
old, to go crazy, to fall ill, to turn pale
̶ Selection restrictions: In extreme cases, certain lexemes can
only be combined with certain other lexemes
e.g. There was a dead body swimming down the river.

19 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Syntagmatic semantics
̶ Principle of compositionality: the meaning of a phrase/sentence
is determined by the meaning of its component parts and the
syntactic relations between those parts (FREGE’s Principle)
e.g. The cat drank milk. = ‘A furry feline consumed a dairy
product.’

→ idioms pose a problem to this principle!

e.g. He kicked the bucket. = ‘He died.’
e.g. He kicked the bucket.  ‘He kicked a container.’

20 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Paradigmatic semantics
̶ Semantic feature theory
̶ Lexical field theory
̶ Semantic relations
• synonymy vs. antonymy
• hyponymy vs. meronymy

21 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Paradigmatic semantics
̶ Semantic feature theory:
➢describing semantic similarities and differences between
members of a lexical field
➢meaning of a lexeme as a bundle of semantic features/semes
➢features = binary (presence or absence can be determined easily)
➢semantic features are supposed to be general building blocks of
the semantic universe of a language

22 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Paradigmatic semantics
̶ Semantic feature theory: Meaning is ‘atomized’ into binary
oppositions

boy [+human], [-female], [-adult]

girl [+human], [+female], [-adult]
person [+human], [+adult]
man [+human], [-female], [+adult]
woman [+human], [+female], [+adult]
child [+human], [-adult]

23 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Paradigmatic semantics
̶ Semantic feature theory: Meaning is ‘atomized’ into binary
oppositions

24 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Paradigmatic semantics
̶ NOTE on Semantic feature theory:
➢works better with concrete than with abstract terms
➢debatable whether there is a limited, universally valid inventory of
semantic features relevant to the analysis of word meaning and
whether semantic features are cognitively real

25 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Paradigmatic semantics
̶ NOTE on Semantic feature theory:
̶ e.g. cat = [+CONCRETE, +ANIMATE, -HUMAN, +/-ADULT, +/-MALE]
➢could also be a pig, monkey …

➢then [+FUR], [+4 LEGS], [+TAIL] etc.?

➢what about naked, three-legged/tailless cats?
➢simply [+CAT]?

26 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Paradigmatic semantics
̶ Lexical field theory:
➢groups of words which cover different or partly overlapping areas
within the same extralinguistic domain (example: verbs of asking
ask, inquire, interrogate, question, wonder, etc.)
➢structuring the information stored in our mental lexicon

27 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Paradigmatic semantics
̶ Lexical field theory:
➢infinite number of lexical fields
➢semantic change within a lexical field can affect all members as
well as relations between them
➢componential analysis (feature analysis) has proved to be useful
for describing semantic similarities and differences between
members of a lexical field

28 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Semantic relations
̶ Hyponymy: ‘type-of’ relationship (inclusion/subordination) hyperonym
e.g. apple – fruit, car – vehicle, dog – animal hyponym
̶ Meronymy: part-whole relationship holonym
e.g. hand – finger, car – engine, university – lecture hall meronym
̶ Synonymy: same meaning
e.g. brave – courageous, freedom – liberty, eat – consume
(careful: many word pairs are actually only partial synonyms)

29 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Hyponymy vs. Meronymy
̶ hyponymy is always a transitive relationship:
➢if A is a hyponym of B, and B a hyponym of C
➢then A is always a hyponym of C
e.g. A = poodle, B = dog, C = animal
̶ not necessarily the case for meronymy
e.g. A = hole, B = button, C = shirt
➢while hyponymy involves a relationship of inclusion between
classes, the hierarchical relationship involved in meronymy
relates to individual referents of meronymic terms

30 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 A note on synonymy
̶ ‘total’ synonymy is extremely rare (e.g. SK rajčina – paradajka)
➢uneconomic, inefficient
̶ usually, only partial synonymy:

̶ truck vs. lorry: AmE vs. BrE (different varieties/dialects)

̶ begin vs. commence: different styles/levels of formality
̶ crowd vs. mob: different connotations
̶ dry wine vs. *dehydrated wine: collocational restrictions

31 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Semantic relations
̶ Antonymy: semantic opposites
• complementary: male – female, asleep – awake (also: binary)
➢ ‘either-or’ relationship, the negative of one word is synonymous
with the other
• gradable/contrary: hot – cold, old – young
➢ ‘more-less’ relationship, continuum; the negative of one word is
not necessarily synonymous with the other
• relational opposites: teacher – pupil, buy – sell (→ perspective)
➢ converse relationship
• directional opposites: open – shut, push – pull, rise – fall
32 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics
 Lexical ambiguity
‘One signifier, two (or more) signifieds’
̶ Polysemy
̶ one lexeme, several historically/semantically related meanings
̶ typically, one of the senses has developed from the other sense
via metaphorical or metonymic processes
̶ different but related meanings, e.g.
mouth1 ‘part of the body’ – mouth2 ‘river mouth, cave entry’
foot1 ‘part of the body’ – foot2 ‘lowest part of a hill’

33 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Lexical ambiguity
‘One signifier, two (or more) signifieds’
̶ Homonymy: two or more lexemes have same form but unrelated
meanings, e.g.
race1 ‘competition of speed’ – race2 ‘human categorization’
• homophone: same sound, different spelling e.g. see – sea
• homograph: same spelling, different sound
e.g. lead (SK viesť) – lead (SK olovo)

34 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Cognitive semantics
How can we categorize words according to their meanings?

̶ Aristotelian (‘classical’) approach:

̶ Categories defined in terms of necessary and sufficient features
̶ Clear-cut boundaries
̶ All category members have equal status

35 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Cognitive semantics
How can we categorize words according to their meanings?

̶ Cognitive (‘prototype’) approach:

̶ Members are assigned to categories based on their properties
̶ At the center of a category, there is a prototype
̶ Other category members are centered around this prototype
according to how many properties they share with it
➢This explains why a three-legged, toothless albino tiger is still
considered a tiger, though certainly not the most typical
representative of his class
36 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics
 Aristotelian vs. prototype approach
How would you define BIRD?

37 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Aristotelian vs. prototype approach
How would you define BIRD?

38 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Prototype theory
̶ Idea: not all categories have clear-cut boundaries, their members
can be divided into typical and marginal representatives
➢‘fuzzy concepts’
̶ Prototype: reference point against which the entities to be
categorized are compared
̶ Meaning not in terms of features but in terms of resemblance to
the most typical example

39 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Cognitive semantics
̶ Conceptual metaphor
➢transfer of characteristics from a source (‘vehicle’) to a tenor
(‘target’)
➢Tertium Comparationis: Similarities involved in metaphorical
mappings
➢e.g. Jim is a pig. Our teacher has a soft voice. The foot of the
mountain.

40 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Cognitive semantics
̶ Conceptual metaphor

source domain target domain source domain target domain

LIGHT KNOWLEDGE HUMAN NON-HUMAN
a bright person, a clear argument, an leg of a table, arm/mouth of a river,
illuminating idea hands of a clock, foot of a mountain
source domain target domain source domain target domain
WAR ARGUMENT MONEY LANGUAGE
shoot down an argument, attack a coin new words, owe someone an
claim, kill a discussion answer, richness in expressions
41 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics
 Cognitive semantics
̶ Conceptual metonymy
➢based on relationship of contiguity (one phenomenon stands for
another)
➢does not involve a transfer from one cognitive domain to
another
➢e.g. He owns a Picasso. The university will close during the
Christmas holidays. There is a new face in our class.

42 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Cognitive semantics
̶ Conceptual metonymy
➢PRODUCER FOR PRODUCT: Can I borrow your Shakespeare?
➢PARS PRO TOTO: There is a new face in my class.
➢PLACE FOR INSTITUTION: Berlin has announced an embargo.

43 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 2 Pragmatics

44 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 What is pragmatics?

45 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Pragmatics vs. semantics
Gosh, it’s freezing in here!

̶ Semantics: The temperature is low. It’s cold.

➢“What does X mean?”
➢‘objective’ meaning
➢speaker-independent
➢context-invariant

46 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Pragmatics vs. semantics
Gosh, it’s freezing in here!

̶ Pragmatics: I’m freezing, close the window (please)!

➢“What does the speaker mean/want to achieve in this particular
situation by using expression X?”
➢‘subjective’ meaning
➢speaker-dependent
➢context-sensitive

47 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Examples
(1) A: Waiter, what is that fly doing in my soup?
B: Looks like back stroke, sir.
(2) A: Can you tell me the time?
B: Yes.
(3) A: Do you like pizza?
B: Is the Pope Catholic?
(4) A: Boy, it’s cold in here.
B: [Gets up and closes window.]

48 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Semantic and Pragmatic paraphrase
̶ For any utterance a semantic paraphrase (SP) and a pragmatic
paraphrase (PP) can be provided:

(1) The Queen and her butler, James, are in the drawing room.
The window is open. The Queen says: “It’s cold in here.”
➢SP: ‘The temperature in this place is frigid.’
➢PP: ‘James, shut the window.’

49 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Semantic and Pragmatic paraphrase
(2) Mike and Annie are in the living room. Mike asks Annie
whether she’d like to eat dinner in the living room or the
kitchen. Annie replies: “It’s cold in here.”
➢SP: ‘The temperature in this place is frigid.’
➢PP: ‘Let’s eat in the kitchen.’

➢In both (1) and (2), the SP is the same, whereas the PP is
different

50 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 What is pragmatics?
Pragmatics assumes that...
̶ communication is more than just the exchange of abstract
meaning
̶ speakers act by using language
̶ communication is meaning in interaction
̶ cf. Greek pragma = ‘deed’, ‘act’

51 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Deixis /ˈdaɪks ɪs/
Deictic expressions allow speakers to refer to aspects of immediate
contexts (Ancient Greek δεῖξις = ‘display, demonstration, reference’)
➢deictic dimensions:
• place deixis: here/there, this/that, near/far, right/left, come/go ...
• time deixis: now, soon, then, present, current, former ...
• social deixis: T-V distinction (not in English!), royal we (pluralis
maiestatis), your highness, your excellency
• discourse deixis: in the following, in the last chapter, therefore

52 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Deixis
Deictic expressions allow speakers to refer to aspects of immediate
contexts (Ancient Greek δεῖξις = ‘display, demonstration, reference’)
̶ deictic center: the reference point for deictic expression
(speaker’s location; time and place of the utterance)
→ can be shifted (e.g. When you read this today, I’ll be long gone.)

53 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Deixis
Special uses
̶ anaphoric use: referral to preceding context
e.g. The host opened the door. He then welcomed the guests.
̶ cataphoric use: referral to following context
e.g. She is the world’s biggest pop star. She is Madonna.
̶ non-referral: no concrete referent
e.g. These days, you can buy anything on the internet.
→ Deictic expressions can be used ‘non-deictically’.

54 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Deixis

55 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Speech Act Theory (AUSTIN & SEARLE)
AUSTIN 1975: Every linguistic utterance constitutes a speech act.
e.g. Boy, it’s hot in here!
̶ locution: pure content
‘the room is hot’
̶ illocution: communicative intention of the speaker
→ speaker’s request to open window
̶ perlocution: (possibly successful) effect on the listener
→ hearer feels obliged to open window
56 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics
 Speech Act Theory (AUSTIN & SEARLE)
SEARLE 1969: Classification of illocutionary acts
̶ representatives/assertives: describe the world (TRUE/FALSE)
(e.g. assertions, conclusions)
̶ directives: ask the listener to perform an action
(e.g. requests, questions)
̶ commissives: commit the speaker to an action
(e.g. promises, threats)

57 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Speech Act Theory (AUSTIN & SEARLE)
SEARLE 1969: Classification of illocutionary acts
̶ expressives: express emotional states
(e.g. thanking, welcoming)
̶ declarations: directly change the state of affairs in the real world
(e.g. declaration of war, christening of ships)

→ Directives, commissives, expressives, and declarations are rated

according to whether they are successful/unsuccessful.

58 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Speech Act Theory (AUSTIN & SEARLE)
SEARLE 1969: Classification of illocutionary acts
̶ representatives/assertives:
John reads me the news every morning.
̶ directives:
John, read me the news! John, can you read me the news?
̶ commissives: commit the speaker to an action
John: I promise I will read you the news tomorrow morning.

59 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Speech Act Theory (AUSTIN & SEARLE)
SEARLE 1969: Classification of illocutionary acts
̶ expressives: express emotional states
Thanks, John, for reading me the news.
̶ declarations: directly change the state of affairs in the real world
I now declare you husband and wife.

60 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Speech Act Theory (AUSTIN & SEARLE)
We distinguish between direct and indirect speech acts
➢direct speech acts:
sentence types prototypically associated with speech acts
locution: imperative sentence → illocution: command
locution: interrogative sentence → illocution: question
locution: declarative sentence → illocution: statement

61 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Speech Act Theory (AUSTIN & SEARLE)
We distinguish between direct and indirect speech acts
➢indirect speech acts:
unprototypical sentence type for speech act, e.g.
It’s cold in here. → command to close window
Won’t you close the door? → command to close door
...

62 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Speech Act Theory (AUSTIN & SEARLE)
Felicity conditions
Conventionally fixed conditions on which the success of speech
acts depends (e.g. speaker must be sincere, have the power
to do something...)

e.g. A: I now declare you husband and wife.

→ Only possible if A is a priest (or captain in international waters)

63 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Cooperation and inferences
GRICE (1975): maxims of conversation
̶ quality:
• do not say anything which you know is false
• do not say anything for which you have no evidence
̶ quantity:
• make your contribution as informative as necessary
• do not make it more informative than necessary

64 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Cooperation and inferences
GRICE (1975): maxims of conversation
̶ relation:
• be relevant
̶ manner:
• avoid obscurity and ambiguity
• be brief, be orderly

65 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Cooperation and inferences
Hearers can make different kinds of inferences to interpret
utterances:

̶ Implications/entailments
̶ Presuppositions/conventional implicatures
̶ Pragmatic inferences/conversational implicatures

Also, speakers seem to be cooperative in general.

66 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Cooperation and inferences
GRICE (1975): the co-operative principle
̶ language use is co-operative behavior, i.e., our speech acts are
guided by maxims of conversation
̶ the co-operative principle as ‘hyper-maxim’ demands from
speakers that they make contributions to the conversation ‘as
required’

67 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Cooperation and inferences
GRICE’s cooperative principle: maxims of conversation...
... can be violated (speaker has to break maxim):
A: Where is Sue?
B: Somewhere in America.
... can be flouted (speaker chooses to break maxim)
A: Do you want dessert?
B: Is the Pope Catholic?

68 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Cooperation and inferences
GRICE’s cooperative principle:
hedges: metalinguistic expressions that indicate the speaker is
at risk of violating a maxim
I’m not sure whether it’s true that... (quality)
To put it in a nutshell... (quantity)
This may not be relevant, but... (relevance)

69 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Cooperation and inferences
̶ Inferences: allow listeners to ‘read between the lines’
i.e., interpret utterances successfully
• semantic implication/entailment
- context-independent (lexical meaning of words)
- cannot be cancelled (e.g. John killed the fly, but it didn’t die.)
- negating one part results in a logical contradiction

70 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Cooperation and inferences
̶ Example: (a) There is a penguin in the room.
(b) There is a bird in the room.

→ we say that sentence (a) semantically entails (implies)

sentence (b)
Note we cannot negate (b) without causing a logical contradiction.

71 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Cooperation and inferences
̶ Inferences: allow listeners to ‘read between the lines’
i.e., interpret utterances successfully
• presuppositions/conventional implicatures
- remain constant under negation

72 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Cooperation and inferences
̶ Example: (a) Pat managed to open/didn’t manage to open the door.
(b) Pat tried to open the door.
→ we say that sentence (a) presupposes (implies) sentence (b)
→ Note that (a) can be negated and (b) still retains its meaning

73 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Cooperation and inferences
̶ Inferences: allow listeners to ‘read between the lines’
i.e., interpret utterances successfully
• pragmatic inferences/conversational implicatures
- do not just depend on conventional meaning
- also involves pragmatic knowledge (context/speaker intention)

74 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Cooperation and inferences
̶ Example: (a) What time is it?
(b) The evening news just started.
→ B indirectly gives the time (news begin at 7 pm)

75 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Conclusion
̶ Hearers can interpret utterances and guess speakers’ intentions
because of semantic and pragmatic inferences
̶ Pragmatic inference is possible because people are cooperative
(Principle of Cooperation and its Maxims)
̶ But: hearers also aware of the fact that Maxims are sometimes
violated or flouted
̶ Other pragmatic principles influencing interpretation: politeness,
face, ...

76 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics

 Summary
The two meanings of meaning:

Semantics Pragmatics
potential meaning of an element within the actual meaning of an utterance in a given
system context
fixed, conventional meaning fuzzy meaning, to be negotiated

meaning independent of context and users meaning dependent on context and users

What does the word/sentence mean? What does the speaker mean?
(= denote) (= want to communicate)

77 Session 6 | Semantics and Pragmatics