/

ffi
arL*1- 6!9 <rll-r...lL §rhlÂ
qiL*§t rglrltr ,t"txlt rnt:'
J§",t*l

LECTT]]i.ES ON SEMANTICS E PRAGMATTCS

2022-2O23
Sultc:n M oulag Slïrnææ Uniuer sity
Fc,eulty af Arts &llurnoinities
BeniMellal
Lectttres on Sernantics & Pro,gmatics
Sentester 6- Gz
2o22-2O23

I- An Introduction to Semantics:

The fieid of linguisticsis concerned with the study of meaninginianguage. Linguistic

semantics has been defined as the study of how languages organize and. express meanings.
The term semantics (from the Greek word for sign) was coined by French tinguist Michel
Bréal (r83z-r9r5), who is commonly regarded as a founder of modern semantics.

"Oddly,"saysR.L.Traskin KeyConceptsinLanguageand.Linguistics,"soîtteofthetnast
irnportrrmt uork in sernantrics roas being done.frorn the late Tgth eerrt:uîA
onzaards bg phîlosophers [rather than by linguists]." over the past so years,
however, "opproaches to sernqntics haue proliferated, olnd the subject is nou
one of theliueliest o;rea.s inlïnguisücs," (Trask tggg).

I-r- Lingrristic Sernantics and Grammar:

Linguistic semanücs looks not oniy at grammar and meaning but at language use and
language acquisition as a w-hole. The study of meaning can be undertaken in various ways.
Linguistic semantics is an attempt to explicate the knowledge of any speaker of a language
which allows that speaker to communicate facts, feelings, intentions and products of the
irnagination to other speakers and to understand what they communicate to him or her.

"Ean'ly in life euery hurnant acquires the essenfials of q lantguage-

s.uocsbulary o:nd thepranuncio:üon, use andtneantîng of eachiterninit. The
spealcer's knowledge is largelg irarplieît. The ünguîst atternpts to construet
fi grann rno:r, o:rt explieit descripüon of the language, the categories of the
language o:nd therulesbg lu.:.hich theg interaet, Sernornücs is one part of
grcnrnnar; phonologv r syrlrtax and" rnorphology are other por?tsr,, (Charles W.
Kreidler, I ntr o ducing Eng lish S emantics. Routledge, 19 9 B).

I-z- Senaaretics vs. Language Manipulation:

As David Crystal explains in the following excerpt, there is a difference between semantics
as linguistics describe it and semantics as the generai public describes it. "The technical term
for the study of meaning in language is semantics. But as soon as this term is used, a word of
warning is in order. Any scientific approach to semantics has to be clearly distinguished from
a pejorative sense of the term that has developed in popular use, when people talk about the
way that language can be manipulated in order to mislead the public."

"A newspaper headline might read,. 'Tsx incresses reduced. to sernanttics'-referring to

the way a government was tryrng to hide a proposed increase behind some carefully chosen

IL
\^rords. Or someone might say in an argument, 'Tlr.lat's just sernanttics,' implying that the
point is purely a verbal quibble, bearing no relationship to anything in the real world. This
kind of nuance is absent when we talk about semantics from the objective point of linguisüc
research. The linguistic approach studies the properties of meaning in a systematic and
objective way, with reference to as wide a range of utterances and languages as possible,n
(D avid Crystat IIo w Long uag e W orks. Overlook, 2 o o 6).

I-3- Cateeories of Semantics:

Nick Rimer, author of Introdueïng Setnanfics, goes into detail about the two categories
of semantics. "Bssed onthe disüneüonbetweentherneanings of uords andthe
rneanings of sentenees, u)e ean recognize tuo tnoiin diuisions in the studg of
sernanttîcs: lexical semmttîes and.phraso,l sernanües". Lexical semantics is the
study of word meaning, whereas phrasal semantics is the study of the principles which
govern the construction of the meaning of phrases and of sentence meaning out of
compositional combinatjons of indiüdual lexemes.

''The job ofsemantics is fo study the basic,literalmeanings of utords as considered

pincipally as parts of alanguage system, whereas pragmatics concentrates on the uaAs
in tohich these basic meanings are used in pracüce, including such topics as the ways in
which dffirent expressions are assigned referents in dffirent cantexts, and the dffiring
(ironic, metaphorical, etc.) uses ta which language is put," (Nick Riemer, Introducing
S emantics. Cambri dge University Press, z o ro).

I-4- The Scope of Sernantics:

Semantics is a broad topic with many layers and not all people that study it study these la1'ers
in the same v/ay. "[S]emantics is the srudA of the meanings of words and sentences. ... As
our original definiüon of sananücs zuggests, it is a uery broadfield of inquiry , and we find
scholarswriting onüerA dffirenttopics andusing quite differentmethads,thaughsharing
the general aim of describing semanüc knowledge. As a result, semantics is the most
diuerse fi"eld uithin linguistics. In adüüon, semanticists haue to haue at least a nodding
acquaintance uith other üsciplines,like philosophy andpsychology,u;hixh also inuestigate
the creaüon and transmission of meaning. Some of the quesüons raised in these
neighboring üseiplines haue important effects on the way linguists do semanfrcs, " (John I.
Saeed, Semantics, znd ed. Blaekwell,2oog).

Unfortunately, when countless scholars attempt to describe what they're studying, this
results in confusion that Stephen G. Pulman describes in more detail. "A perennial problem
in semantics is the delineation of its subject matter. The term meaning can be used in a
varieÿ of ways, and oniy some of these correspond to the usual understanding of the scope
of linguistic or computational semanties. \,ÿe shall take the scope of semantics to be restricted
to the literal interpretations of sentences in a context, ignoring phenomena
like irony, metaphor, or conversational implicature," (Stephen G. Pulman, "Bâsic Notions of
Semantics," Suruey of the State of the Art in Human Language Technology. Cambridge
Universiÿ Press, rggù.

t
I-5- Disciplines and paradigms in lingrristic semantics:
I- 5-l- Fortnsl s ernantües :
f'ormat semantics seeks to identifr domain-specific mental operations which speakers
perform w-hen they compute a sentence's meaning on the basis of its syntactic structure.
Theories of formal semantics are ÿpically floated on top of theories of syntax, such
as generative slzntax or combinatorycategorial grammar, andproüdedamodeltheorybased
on mathematical tools, such as lvped lambda calculi. The field's central ideas are rooted in
early twentieth century philosophical logic, as well as later ideas about linguistic s5mtax. It
emerged as its own subf,eld in the Lg7os after the pioneering work ofRichard
Montague and Barbara Partee and continues to be an adive area of research.
I - S - z - C oncep tual serno:nücs :
This theory is an effort to explain properties of argument structure. The assumption behind
this theory is that syntacüc properties of phrases reflect the meanings of the words that head
them. With this theory, linguists can better deal with the fact that subtle differences in word
meaning correlate with other differences in the syntactic structure that the word appears
in. The way this is gone about is by looking at the internal structure of words. These smail
parts that make up the internal structure of words are termed semantic primitiues.
I -S - S - C o gnitiu e s ernantücs :
Cognitive semantics approaches meaning from the perspective of cognitive linguisücs. In
this framework, language is explained via general human cognitive abilities rather than a
domain-specific language module. The techniques native to coguiüve semantics are ÿpical§
used in lexical studies such as those put forth by Leonard Ta1my. George Lakoff, Dirk
Geeraerts, and Bruce Wa]me Hawkins. Some cognitive semanüc frameworks, such as that
developedbyTalmy, take into account syntactic structures as well.
I -S- A- Lexical semantics.'
A linguistic theory that investigates word meaning. This theory understands that the
meaning of a word is fully reflected by its context. Here, the meaning of a word is consütuted
by its contextual relations. Therefore, a distinction between degrees of participation as well
as modes of parücipation are made.In order to accomplish this distinction, any part of a
sentence that bears a meaning and combines with the meanings of other consütuents is
labeled as a semantic consütuent. Semantic consütuents that cannot be broken down into
more elementary constituents are labeled minimal semantic constituents.
I -S -g- Closs-cu I tur al s ernantics.'
Various fields or disciplines have long been contributing to cross-cultural semantics. Are
word.s like loue, truth, andhate universals? Is even the word sense - so central to semantics
- a uni-,rersal, or a concept entrenched in a long-standing but culture-specific tradition?
These are the kind of crucial quesüons that are discussed in cross-cultural semantics.
Translation theory, ethnolinguistics, linguistic anthropolog, and cultural linguistics
specialize in the field of comparing, contrasting, and translating words, terms and meanings
from one language to another (see J. G. Herder. Wilheiun -von. Humboldt, Franz
Boas, Edward Sapir, and B. L. Whorf). Philosophy, sociologr, and anthropolog, have long
established traditions in contrasting the different nuances of the terms and concepts we use.
ûnline encyclopaedias such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophyand Wikipedia itseU
have greatly facilitated the possibilities of comparing the background and usages of key
cultural terms. In recent years, the question of whether key terms are translatable or
untranslatable has increasingly come to the fore of global discusstons, especially since the

3
publication of BarbaraCassin's Dictionary af Untranslatables: APhilosophicalLexicon,in
2074.
I - S - 6 - C ornputo,üanal sernanttîcs :
Computational semantics is focused on the processing of linguistic meaning. In order to do
this, concrete algorithms and architectures are described. Within this framework the
algorithms and architectures are also analyzed in terms of decidabilitv,time/space
complexitv, data structures that they require and communication protocols.

II- Semantic features :

A semantic feature is a component of the concept associated with a lexical item ('female'
+ 'performer' = 'actress'). More generally, it can also be a component of the concept
associated with any grammaücal unit, whether composed or not ('female' + 'performer' =
'the female performer' or 'the actress'). An individual semantic feature constitutes one
component of a word's intention, which is the inherent sense or concept evoked. Linguistic
meaning of a word is proposed to arise from contrasts and significant differences with other
words. Semantic features enable Iinguistics to explain howwords that share certain features
may be members of the same semantic domain. Correspondingly, the contrast in meanings
of words is explained by diverging semantic features. For example,father and son share the
common components of "human", "kinship", "male" and are thus part of a semantic domain
of male family relations. They differ in terms of "generation" and "aduithood", which is what
gives each its individual meaning.

II-r- Theoretical context:

The analysis of semantic features is utilized in the field of linguistic semantics, more
specifically the subfields of lexical semanücs, and lexicologn€ne aim of these subfields is to
explain the meaning of a word in terms of their relationships with other words. In order to
accomplisb ttris aim, one approach is to analyzethe internal semantic structure of a word as
composed of a number of disünct and minimal components of meaning. This approach is
cailed componenüal analysis, also known as semantic decomposition. Semantic
decomposition allows any given lexical item to be def,ned based on minimal elements of
meaning, which are called semantic features. The term semantic feature is usually used
interchangea'b'Iy with the terrn semantic component Additionally, semantic
features/semantic components are also often refemed to as semantic properLies.
The theory of componential analysis and semantic features is not the only approach to
analyzing the semantic structure of words. An alternative direction of research that contrasts
with componential analysis is proto§pe semantics.

fl-z- Notation:
The semantic features of a word can be notated using a binary feature notation common
to the framework of componential analysis. Asemantic properÿis specified in square
brackets and a plus or minus sign indicates the existence or non-existence of that properÿ.

. cat is ...
o [+animate],
o [+domesticated],
o [+feline]

h
. pum?is...
o [+animate],
o [-domesticated],
o [+feline]
. dog is ...
o [+animate],
o [+domesticated],
o [-feline]
. tuolf is ...
o [+animate],
o t-domesticatedl
o [-feline]
Intersecting semantic ciasses share the same features. Some features need not be specifÏcally
mentioned as their presence or absence is obvious from another feature. This is
a redundancy rule.

III- SEMAN]TIC FEATI.]RES:

In learning language, people someümes flnd new word that has similar meaning with other.
But, they often confuse when use it in their daily life. The context of the words is different,
but it looks same because people don't know it features deeply.
To know the idea or the feafures of the worcls is important to peopie, especialiy they lvho
iearn a new language. although a new word has a syrlonlm or other words has meaning that
simiiar with it, they can't used in a same sitilation. Some -rryords have deep meaning -*ith
others aithough it looks same. lVhen people r,vrite a scientific paper for nerr:spaper or studv,
they can't use word like in their daily life. They need word that has deeply content to
represent what they lrrant to saf in their paper. That's why to know other features of the
words is important.
One way to knou, a content or other meaning of a word is by analyze the sernantic features.
Semantic features sometimes meirtioned as semantic properties. There are some definition
of semantic features / semantic properties :
Semantic properties mean the pieces of information of the word upon which speakers of the
language agree. The meaning of all the "content $rords" and some of the "function l4,ords"
can at ieast partially be specified by such properlies.
Semantic properties or meaning properties are those aspects of a linguistic unit, such as a
morpheme, word, or sentences. that contribute to the meaning of that unit.
Semantie features is more basic concepts/ideas that cannot be "defined" any fuither;
primitive semantic elements.
Semantic features is one of a set of abstract elements, used systematically in various
combinations to define ind.ividuals meanings or a set of meanings"
From definitions above, we conclude that semantic features is a set of some linguistic uniL to
define individuals meanings.
Semantic features sometimes used to deseribe the semantic components of a word, such
asmon assuming that the referent ishuman, tnale, and adult, arfemalebeing a comnlon
component of girl, LDotnen, and acfress. In this sense, semantic properties ai:e used. *'-o
define the semantic field of a rlord or set of words.
We can obsene the semantic features bytake an example, làe csscissinuas stoppedbefare
he got to Mr. Adcrm.If the word assossin is in people mental dictionary, people know that it
wâs some person who was prevented frommut'dering some important
peî"son namedÀdam. People knowledge of the meaning of assassin tells them that it was not
an animal that tried to kill the man that Adam was not like§r to be a little oid man who owned
a tobacco shop. In other words, people knor.r,ledge of the meaning of assassin includes
knowing that the individual to whom the word refers is human, is a murderer, and is a killer
of important people. These pieces of information, then, are some of semantic properties of
the word upon rvhich speakers of the langr-rage agree. The rneaning of all nouns, verbs,
adjectives, and adverbs*the 'content words'*and even sôme of the 'function words' such as
with, or over can at least partially be specified by such properties.
The same semantic propei§ may be part of the meaning of many different words. 'Female'
is a semantic property that helps to deflne :

tigress hen ûctress maiden

doe mare debutante taidou
eLUe uixen girl u)oman
The words in the last two columns are also distinguished by the semantic properÿ'human'
which is also found in :
D o ctor, de an, pr ofe s s ar, b achelor, p ar ent, b aby, clild
The last two cf these words are aiso specified as 'young'. Thai is, part of the meaning of the
word baby and chiid is that they are'human' and'young'.
The meanings of words have other propeities. The r,vord father has the properties 'male' and
'adult', as do man andtrachelor; but father also has the proper:ÿ'parent', which distinguishes
it frorn the other tlvo worcis.
Mare, in addition to 'female' and 'animal', must also tienote a property of 'horseness'. Words
have general semantic properties such as 'human' or 'parent', as well as more specific
properties that give the word its particular rneaning.
The same semantic property may occur in rvords of different eategories. 'Female' is pafi of
the meaning of the noun mother, of the verb breast-feed, and of the adjective pregnant.
'Cause' is a verbal property of darken, liili, beautifi,', and so on.
darken cause to become dark
kiil cause to dail
beautifu cause to become beaut'tiul
Other sernantic properties ihat heip account for the meaning of verbs âre as follows:
Semantic trroper{y Verbs having it
motion bring, fal1, ploc1, walk, run...
contact hit, kiss, touch...
creation build, imagine, make...
sense see, hear, feel...
For the most part no two words have exactly the same meaning. Additional semanüc
properties make for finer and f,ler distinctions in meaning. Plod is distinguished from walk
by the property 'slow', and stalk from piod by the property such as 'purposeful'.
14re can then use this idea to describe part of the n'reaning of words as having either plus (+)
or mlnus (-) that particular feature. The feature that the noun boy has is o+ artirnate' (=
denotes am areiwrate bei.ng) and the feature that the noun hawl.-hztt.ger has is '*
arrirnate' (= denotes an inanirnate heing).
The above example is an illustration of a procedure for analyring rneaning in terms of
semantic t'eatures. Features such as '+ animate, - animate', '+ hurnan, - hurrran', '+
fernale, - fernale' for example, can be treated as the basic elements invoived in
differentiating the meaning of each word in a language from every other word.

6
 If we had to provide the crucial distinguishing features of the meaning of a set of English
words such as tcble,horse,boy,man,girl,wcman, we could begin with the following
diagram.
Table Horse Boy Man Girl \Moman

Animate + + + + +

fluman + + 1 +

Female + +

Adult + + +

From a feature analysis like this, we can say that at least part of the meaning of the
wardgirlin English involves the elements [+human, +female, -adu]t].
l{e can also characterize the feature that is crucialÿ required in a noun in order for it to
appear as the subject of a particuiar verb, supplementing the syïtactic analysis along with
semantic features.

The is reading the nervspaper.

N [+ human]
This approach gives us the abi§ly to predict i,vhich nouns make this sentence semantically
odd.
Some examples w-ouid betable,horseandhamburger, because none of them have the
required feature [+ human].
The approach just outlined is a start on analyzing the conceptual components of word
meaning, but it is not without problems.
For many words in a language it may not be easy to come up B.ith neat components of
meaning. If we try to think of the components or features, lve would use to differentiate the
nouns aduice, threat anduarning,fot example, vre wouid not be very successful.
\II. SEMAI{TIC ROLES :
A Semantic role, is a semantic argument of a predicate. It is the semantic dependency
assigned by the lexical head, such as agent, theme, patient, goal, source, etc (Stalm az, zoog),
So, as a result of describing the relationship between predicates and their arguments,
arguments stand in different semantic relationships with the verb (James, 2011).
There are certain roles that match certain grammaücal posiüons. Agents are always subjects
of the sentences, the theme and patients are always objects- Scholars devised what is called
the implicational hierarchy starting from the agent on the left side and ends with location on
the right side. For instance, the selection of the subjects of the sentences in relation to
semantic or thematic roles follows the following hierarchy:
AGBNT> EXPERIENCER> RECIPIENT> THEME/ PATIENT> INSTRT]MENT>
LOCArION.
This means that the lefmost elements are preferred to be subjects to those to the right side.
As semantic roles originate in word meaning, then if the sentence "Marvin purchased a pen
at the bookstore" contains an agent and a theme, it is because the verb "purchase" has the
ÿpe of meaning that implies an entiÿ that does the purchasing (agent) and an entiÿ that
gets purchased ( a theme). Similarÿ, the bookstore is taken to denote the location of the

+
action because of the meaning of the preposition at. The thematic rbteH$rlippe@8[he
meanings of lexical items are assigned to NPs based on their posiüoofiilrgnülctâc Bàp'ffirre,
with each NP receiüng a single role (Al_Thamery, 2oo7,p. 56) .
VI-r- THEMATIC ROLBS AND \IBRB PHRASES (VP):
The assumption that subjects originate internally within YP ties up in interesting ways with
traditional work in predicate logic which maintains that propositions, which can be taught
of as representing the substantive semantic contents of clauses, comprise a predicate (an
expression denoting an activiÿ or event), and an argument (an expression denoting a
participant in the relevant activity or event (Radford, 2oo4, p. 192).
The NP subject of a sentence and the arguments in the YP are semantically related in various
ways to the verb. The relations depend on the meaning of a particular verb. For example, the
NP "the boy" in the sentence:

The boy rolled a red ball

Is the "doer" of the rolling action also called the agent. The NP " a red ball" is the theme or
the " undergoer" of tle rolling action. The semantic roles express the kind of relation that
holds between the arguments of the verb and the ÿpe of situation that the verb describes.
A Further example is the sentence:

The boy threw the red ball to the girl*

The subject of threw is aiso an agent, so that in " the boy threw ttre red ball to the girl",
" tlte boy" performs tle action". The red bali is the theme, and the girl bears the thematic
role ofthe goal, that is, the endpoint ofa change in location or possession. The verb phrase
is interpreted to mean that the theme of throw ends up in the position of the goal. Other
semantic roles are source, where the action originates; instrument, the means used to
accomplish the action; and experiencer, one receiving sensory input (Fromkiî, 2oo7, p.
2o6).
To explain the eüdence that verbs seem to select semanücally appropriate phrases with
which they occur, linguists have proposed that these phrases, or arguments of a verb, are
assigned certain semantic roles, or thematic roles, by the verb. The relaüon between the
verb an«i its arguments is purely semantic; what is lacking, however, is the informaüon about
where each argument occurs in the sentence and the category of the argurnent itself as NP,
PP, and so on.
The syntactic informaüon which refers to the argument structure must be included
somewhere in our grammatical knowledge. Our knowledge of syntax and semantics includes
not only the semantic roles that a verb assigns but also principles and rules that determine
the s5mtactic categories and positions of those arguments (Denham, zoro, P. 337).

Semantic roles, also knor,vn as thematic roles, are one of the oldest classes of constructs in
linguistic theory. Semantic roles are used to indicate the role played by each enti§ in a
sentence and are ranging from very specific to very general. The entities that are labelled
should have participated in an event. Some of the domain-specific roles are from airport, to
airport, and depart time. Although there is no consensus on a definiüve list of semantic roles
some basic sernantic roles such as agent, instrument, etc. are followed by all.

V-S ernantic Relationships :

Semantic relaüonships are the associations that there exist between the mear+ings of

q
 words (semantic relaüonships at word level), between the meanirlggkiflp(Bae§Q8br
between the meanings of sentences (semanüc relationships at Snddogmirtêndapeûol).
Following is a description of such relationships.

V-r- Semantic Relationships at Word. Level:

At word level, we will study semantic relationships like the following: qmonymy,
antonymy, homonymy, polysemy and meton5.my.

Synonymy

Synonyrny is the semantic relationship that exists between two (or more) words that
have the same (or nearly the same) meaning and belong to the same part of speeeh, but
are spelled differently. In other words, we can say that slmonymy is the semanüc
equivalence between lexical items. The (pairs of) words that have this kind of semantic
relationship are called syrronyrns, or are saidto be synonymous. E.g.,

big = 1**. hide = conceal small = Iittle

couch = sofa to begin = to start kind = courteous
beginning = start to cease = to stop fast=quickÿ=rapidlÿ

Pairs of words that are synonymous are believed to share all (or almost ail) their se- mantie
features or properties. However. no two words have exact§ the same meaning in all the
contexts in which they can oceur. For exampie, the verbs employ and use are synonymous
in the expression We used/employed effecüue strategies to solue the problem; how- ever,
only use can be used in the following sentence: We used a jimmy bar to open the door.
If we used employ, the sentence would sound awkward "We employed a jimmy bar to
open the door.In short, we can say that there are no absolute synonyms, i.e., pairs of
words that have the same meaning (or share the same semantic features) in ali the
situational and syntactic contexts in which they can appear.

Antonymy

Antonyrny is the semantic relaüonship that exists between two (or more) words thathave
opposite meanings. The pairs of words which have opposite meanings are called anton5ms.
Antonymous pairs of words usuallybelong to the same grammaücal category (i.e., both
elements âre nouns, or both are adjeetives, or both are verbs, and so on). They are said to
share almost all their semantic features except one. The semantic feature that they do not
share is present in one member of the pair and absent in the other (cf. Fromkin &
Rodman, rgg8). E.g.,

I
 lnglés rV (B-zûû8)
Sr*l wornan Prof. Argenis A. Zapata

f+ animaià
| * nr*u, I

I + female I

| - rorrr* |

f+ adutt -/
There are three major types of anton5rms:
a. Complementary or contradictory antonyms. They are pairs of words in
whichone member has a certain semantic properÿ that the other member does not
have (cf. Ly-ons, tg7ù. Therefore, in the context(s) in which one member is true, the
other member cannot be true. E.g., male/female, married/unmarried,
complete/incomplete,aliue/dead,present/absent/ auake/asleep.It is said that these
pairs of antonyms exhibit at either/orkind of contrast in which there is no rniddle
ground..
b. Relational antonyms. They are pairs of words inwhich the presence of a certain
semantic property in one member implies the presence of another semantic property in
the other member. In other words, the existence of one of the terms implies the existence
of the other term. For example, ouer/under, buy/sell, doctorfpatient, teacher/pupil,
stop/ g o, employ er/ ernploy ee, taller / shorter, cheaper / more expensiue.
c. Gradable or scalar antorqrms. They are pairs of words that are contrasted with
respect to their degree of possession of a certain semantic properÿ. Each term represents
or stands for an end-poînt (or extreme) on a scale (e.g., of temperature, size, height,
beauÿ, etc.); between those end-points there are oiàer intermediate points (i.e., there
is some middle ground) (cf. Godby et al., r98z; Lyons, Lg77).8.g., hot/cold, big/small,
tall/ short, g ood/bad, strong /ueak, beautiful/ugly, happy / sad, fast/ slow.
AntonSrrns maybe (a) morphologically unrelated (i.e., one of the elements of the pair
does not derive from the other), e.g., goad/bad, hi.gh/low; ot (b) morlürologically
related (i.e., one of the members of a pair of anton5rms is derived from the other member
by the addition of a negaüve word or an affix), e.g., good/not goad,friendly/uffiendlg,
likely/unlîkely.
Morphologically related antonltns can be formed in the following \^Iays:
b.1. By using the word not; e.g., aliue/not aliue, happy/not hoppA, beautiful/not
beautiful.
b.2. By adding negative prefixes such as un-, im-, in- il-, ir-, non-, mis', dis-, a-.8,8.,
happy/unhappA,
do/undo,
lock/unlock,
entity/nonenüty,
c onformis t / no nænfo r mi st,

tolerant/intolerant,
decent/indecent,
please/displease,
like/üslike,
behaue/mishaue,
hear/mishear,
moral/amoral,

"rîn
 palitieal/apaliüeal, lnelés lV (8-2008)
-. [e- gavtTtegat, Prof. Argenio A. Zapata
lagical/illogical,
probable/irnprobable,
r ele:u ant / irr eleu ant.
By adding negative suffixes such as -less.
8.9., careful/ careless, j oyfull joyless.

/14
 lnglés lV (8-2008)
Prof. Argenis A. Zapata
Hornonymy

Homonymy is the relationship that exits between two (or more) words which belong to
the same grammatical category, have the same spelling, may or may not have the same
pronunciation, but have different meanings and origins (i.e., they are eÿmologically and
semantically unrelated). 8.g., to lie (= to rest, be, remain, be situated in a certain
position)and to lie (= not to tell the truth); to bear (= to gle birth to) and to bear (=
to tolerate);bank (= the ground near a river) aîdbank (= financial institution); lead
tli...dl (= the first place or position, an example behavior for others to copy) and leod [ed]
(= heavy metal); bass [bels] (= musical instrument) and bcss [bæs] (= edible fish). The
pairs of words that exhibit this kind of relationship are ealled homonSrms. Homonyms
usually have different entries in dictionaries, often indicated by superscripted little
numbers;
e.g., tiel , lie'.
In isolated spoken serttences, homophonic homonyms can also give rise to lexical am-
biguity. For example, in the following sentences it is almost impossible to know the in-
tended meanings of bank andbear. Noüce the following sentences.
John went to the [bæNk] (the financial institution or the ground by the river?)
Mary can't [bE'r] (have or tolerate?) children.

Hyponyrny

Hyponymy or inclusion is the semantic relationship that exists between two (or more)
words in such a way that the meaning of one word in- cludes (or contains) the meaaing of
other words(s). We say that the term whose meaning is included in the meaning of the
other term(s) is the general term; linguists usually refer to it as a superordinate or
hytrrernym. The term whose meaning includes the meaning of the other term is the
specific term; linguists usually refer to as a hyponym. If the meaning ofa
it
superordinate term is included in the meaning of several other more specific words,
theset of specificterms which arehypony,rns of the same superordinateterm and are called
co- hyponyms (cf. Crystal, r99r). Examples:

A
Sup»erordinate: vehicle animal move

/\'\ /\
Ilypongms us car lorry cats birds fish .walk run swim flv
\/
co-hgpongrns --y-
eo-hgpongms ea-hgTtottgrtts

Polysemy

Polysemy ([p"'lls'mi]) is the semanüc relationship that exists between a word and its
multiple conceptually and historical§ related meanings (cf. Crystal, r99r; Fromkin & Rod-
man, r99B; Richards et al., r99z). E.g.,
foot = 1.part ofbody; z.lower part of something
plain = r. clear; z. unadorned; 3. obvious.
nice = r. pleasant; z. kind; 3. friendly; etc.
The different meanings of aword are not interchangeable; in fact, they are context-specific.

/1fl/
 lnglés lV (8-2008)
- Metonymy Prof. Argenis A. Zapata

Metonymy is the semanüc relationship that exists between two words (or a word and
an expression) in which one of the words is metaphorically used in place of the other word
(or expression) in particular contexts to convey the same meaning (cf. Fromkin &
Rodman, r99B). E.g.,

brass = military offrcers jock = athlete

cops = policemen Moscow = Russian Government
CrOWn = monarchy Miraflores = Venezuelan Government

V-r- Semantic Relationships at Phrase or Sentence Level

At phrase or sentence level, we will study onlyparaphrase. Other relationships, such

as entailment and contradiction, will not be dealt with in this course.

Paraphrase

Paraphrase is the e>çression of the meaning of a word, phrase or sentence using other
words, phrases or sentences which have (almost) the same meaning (cf. Richards et al.,
Lgg2).Paraphrase involves a relation of semantic equivalence between syntacticaliy
differ- ent phrases or sentences (cf. Quirk et aI., 1985. 8.g.,
John wrote a ietter to Mary. A dog bit John.
John wrote Mary a leiter. John was bittenby a dog.
Like synonynny, paraphrase is never perfect; there are always differences in
emphasisor focus. There are two kinds of paraphrase:
1. Lexical paraphrase. It is the use of a semantically equivalent term in place of
an- other in a given context. This is also known as synonymy. E.9.,
John is happy. = John is cheerful.
to rejuvenate = to make someone or something appear or feel younger.
2. Structural paraphrase. It is the use of a phrase or sentence in place of another
phrase or sentence semantically equivalent to it, although they have different syrtacüc
structure. E.g.,
John showed the pictures to me. John showed me the pictures.

Ambiguity

Arnbiguity is the properÿ of having two or more distinct meanings or interpretations

(cf. Cipollone et al., 1998).Aword or sentence is ambiguous if it can be interpreted in
more than one way. Ambiguity can be caused by factors such as homonymy, polysemy,
lack of sufficient context, etc. In this class, we will consider four ÿtrres of ambiguity,
namely:

rb
 lnglés lV (8-2008)

1. Morphotogicat anrbiguity. rt is the ambiguiry that s&fJ'rfffâg'êSrËfrpfr,h%"

their internal structure can be analyzed and interpreted in more than one way. E.g., the
word unloe kable is morphologically ambiguous Notice its possible constituent structure
(and meanings).

1. 'that cannot be locked' z. 'tlat can be unlocked'

Itt
 unlockabl unlockghJl6s rV (8-2008)
ZaPata
?Pt4§ïT'
un- lockable unlock (v.)
(adj.)lac(G)-'- ableun-l\---leck (v.)
able

l)
 2. Structural (or grammatical) ambiguity. It is the ambiguitlif,!ËsffiBffirys
and sentences ex.hibit when their (constituent) syntactic structupç6ptÀÉfiNËil1âtdri"
morethanlone way. E.g., the sentence We need more intelligr"i[n-"aàîiiiËtüed;;Iv
arnbiguous.
3. Notice its possible consütuent structures (and meanings):

/b
1. 'We need leaders that are more 2' 'We need more 1çn$ælvtfBlociBF
intelligen Prof. Argenis A. Zapata
inteiligent"'

{T
Other examples of structurally ambiguous sentences are:Visiting lnglés lV (8-2008)
strangers can be dangerous. Prof. Argenis A. Zapata
Moving sidewalks can be useful.
3. Lexical ambiguity. It is the ambiguity that some sentences oiùibit when they
con- tain words that can be interpreted in more than one way (those words are either
homony- mous orpolysemous words). E.9.,

to be able to; to have the ability to do something

,-------
a. We can fish. can '
-
6t o*orryrn-y;=\-:=-
to preserve food, fruit, liquid, etc. by putting them
in a sealed can (i.e., a metal container)

alarge machine or deücewith along arm

which is used to lift and move heavy
weights at construction sites.

b.. The cranes are here. crane (polysemy)

a large bfud vdth long legs and a long

neck

(hornonymy) ----'\- )
a source of water

r{
 lngles lV {8-2008)
fi nanciat insti[t$o$rgenis A. Zapata

d.. John met his wife near abank. { -----t-'-\

(homonymy)
sloping ground near a river

4. Metaphorieal ambiguity. It is the ambiguity that some metaphorical or

idiomatic sentences exhibit because they may be interpreted in their literal meaning or in
thefu nonlit- eral meaning. 8.g., the following sentences are rnetaphorically
arnbiguous:

u. Dr.Jones is abutcher.
- Jones is the name of a physician who also slaughters animals and/or sells meats.
- Dr. Jones is a harmful, possibly murderous doctor, who likes to operate on people
un-necessarily.

b. Jolmis a snake în the g/rass.

- Joh:r is the name of a snake that is in the grass.
- John is a deceitful person who pretends to be a friend.

c. This cor îs alernon.

- This car is a miniature car carred out of or shaped like a lemon.
- This a newly purchased car that often breaks dorvn and needs constant repairs.

It is interesting to note that, in each case above, the second interpretation is more
common or likely than the first one.

- Disambiguation

Disambiguation is the process by which the ambiguity of a word or sentence is elimi-

nated. Generally, ambiguities are resolvedbyusingtheword or sentence in sufficient and
appropriate contexts (whether linguistic and/or social), and by means of the use of
emphatic pronunciation and intonaüon.

- Collocations

Collocations are combinaüons of two or more lt'ords that often occur together in speech
and writing. Among the possible combinations are oerbs + rlo:utts, adjectiues +
rtortrts, aduerbs + adjectiues, pîepositional phrases, rto:utt pht ases (i.e.,
preposiüons +noun phrases), similes (i.e., comparisons of some things to others) and
so on. Some idio- matic expressions are considered collocations, too. The order of the
constituent elements of collocations is somewhat fixed. AIso, the constituent words cannot
be replaced by other words. The following are some exampies of English collocations.

la
 lnglés lV (8-2008)
Argenis A' Zapata
fv- Difference Between Entailment and Presuppo"iffi*

4
\,Vhen we hear an utterance, we usually try to understand not only what the words mean, but
what the speaker of those words intends to convey. Entailment and presupposition are
two pragmatiS elements that help us in this. The key difference between entailment and
presupposition is that entailment is the relationship between two sentences whereas
presupposition is an assumpüon made by the speaker prior to making trn
rrtterance.

fV-r- What is an Entailment?

Entailment is the relationship between two sentences/proposiüons, where the truth of one
proposiüon implies the truth of the other since both of them are involved with the meaning of
words. It's the sentences, not speakers that have entailments. Entailments also depend on the
meaning of the sentence, not the meaning of the context.

For example:

1. The terrorists assassinated the king.

z. The king died.
3. The terrorists assassinated someone.

b) and c) are true because sentence a) is true. Thus, their truth depends on the meaning of the
utterance.

The trrrç$ar broke tle windw-

ru* *;rr.rol is brokea-

.What
VI-z- is a Presupposition?

A presupposition is something that the speaker assumes to be the case prior to making an
utterance. It's the speakers, not the sentences that have presuppositions.

For example, someone tells you, oJane's

if sister got maffied', there's an obvious
presupposition that Jane has a sister.

There are several types ofpresuppositions.

&
 - Existential Presupposiüon: tnglés tV (B-2OOB)
Prof' Argenis A' Zapata
The speaker presupposes the existence of the entiües.
Ex: Marie's house is new.

. Marie exists.
. Marie has a house.

- Factive Presupposition:

Certain verbs or constructions indicate that something is a fact.

Ex: I regret believing him.

. I believed him.
. I'm glad it's over.
. It's over.

- Lexical Presupposition:

The speaker can convey another meaning using one word

He called me again.

. He called mebefore.
. She gave up smoking.

. She usedto smoke.

- Structural Presupposiüon.'

Use of certain words and phrases makes some presuppositions.

When didyou call her?

. You called her.

Why did you buy this dress?

. Youboughtadress.

- Non- factive Presupposition:

Ceriain words indicate that some things are not trre.

I pretended to agree with her.

 . I did not agree with her. Inglés lV (8-2008)
Prof. Argenis A. Zapata
She dreamt she was rieh.

. She is not rich.

- Counterfachral Fresupposition:

It implies that what is presupposed is not true, and the eontrary is true.

If he hadn't been my friend, I wouldn't have helped him.

. He is myfriend.

What is the difference between Entailment and Fresupposition?

Meaning:

- Entailment: Entaihnent is the relation between sentences or propositions.

- Presupposition: Presupposiüon is an assumption a speaker makes prior io making an

utterance.

Speakers vs Sentences:

- Entailment: Sentences have entailments.

- Presuptrlosiüon: Speakers have presuppositions.

Truth:

Entailment: The negation of thefirst sentence will affect the truth of the second sentence.

L. The king was assassinated.

. The king died.

2. Negation: Thekingwas not assassinated.

. The king died. ---+ not true.

- Presupposition: The negation of the first utterance may not affect the second sentence.

1. Her car is new.

. Shehas a car.

z. Negation: Her earis new.

-w
 . She has a car.-+ presupposiüon is not changed. lnglés IV (8-2008)
Prof. Arsenis A. Zanata
Types of Meaning
Semantics as one of the branches of pure linguistics is simply defined as the study of meaning
in language. before going any further, first thing that you have to know is the word meaning
itself, which becomes the focus of this study. Ferdinand de Saussure, one of the
structuralism scholars introduces seven dichotomies in the effort to understand language, one
of them is signifiant and signifie dichotomy. The f,rst term refers to the form of language
which is involved in a collection of phonemes, or in other words signffiant is the acoustic
form of language or the basic form of phonoiogicai system of a language. Meanwhile, the
second term refers to the mental image of a language, mental image refers to the intended
meaning of it. De Saussure tried to tell us that in a language there must be s)rmbols and thing
that it's symbolized. The s5rmbol can be so vary, it can be written, oral, and image, and the
things represented by those sSmrbols are generally called meaning.
There are at least seven ÿpes of meaning (many linguists state their different categories
of rneaning) in semantic according Geoffrey Leech (tgZ4), those a-re:
1. Conceptual meani:eg: (logical, cognitive, or denotaüve content)
It refers to the dictionary meaning which indicates the concepts. In reading we can find many
different words have the same conceptual meanings. Take the word walk as an example, the
conceptual meaning or the primary dicüonary mganing is to move forward by placing one foot
in front of the other. There are aiso a few other words that, according to the dictionary, mean
to move forward on foot, etc.
z. Connotative meaning (what is communicated by virtue of what language refers to)
It refers to the associations that are connected to a certain word or the emotional suggestions
related to that word. The connotative meanings of a word. exist together with ihe denotative
meanings. The connotations for the word snake could include eüi or danger.
g. Social meaning (what is communicated of the social circumstances of language use)
It refers to the usage of language in and by socieÿ whieh has big proportions in determining
the meaning that certain speaker has to use and wants to convey, those factors inciude social
class of the speaker and hearer and the degree of formality. Only part of the social meaning of
a conversation is carried by words. Take saying hello or talking about the weather. Often such
talk has little dictionary meaning. It is a way of being friendly or polite.
4. Affective meaning (what is communicated of the feeling and attitudes of the
speaker/writer)
It refers to the speaker's feeiing / attitude towards the content or the ongoing context.It is
important to remember that each individ"ual will have a different affective meaning for a word.
As such, only the person using a word will be a\ rare of the particular affective meaning that
they hold with the word. For example, we can discuss the word winter further. The word winter
denotatively refers to a time period during which either the northern or southern hemisphere
is furthest away from the sun. Different use of stress and intonaüon also proüdes a striking
contrast in the feelings and attitudes communicated through an utterance.
5. Reflected meaning (what is communicated through association with another sense of the
same expression)
It refers to terms which have more than one meaning surfaces at the same time, so there is a
kind of ambiguity. It is as if one or more unintended meanings were inevitably thrown back
rather like light or sound reflected on a surface. For instance, if I use the med.ical expression
chronic bronchitis, it is üfficult for the more colioqüal emotive meaning of chronic, 'bad,' not
to intrude as weil. . . . Sometimes, such coincidental,'unwanted'meanings cause us to change
lexical item for another.
6. Collocative meaning (what is communicated through association with words which tend
 occur in the environment of another word)
It refers to the associations a word acquires on account of the meanings of words which
tend to occur in its environment. In other words, it is that part of the word-meaning suggested
by the words that go before or come after a word in question, for instance, heavy news (a piece
of sad news); heavy schedule (a very tight schedule); fast color (the color that does not fade);
fast friend (a reliable friend); fast \ryoman (a lady of easy virtue), etc.
7. Thematic meaning (what is communicated by the way in which the message is organized
in terms of order and emphasis). It relates to or constitutes a topic of discourse, the meaning
that the word conveys is that of something that is connected with the theme of something
Types z-6 are also categorized as associative meaning.
According to Charles Morris, there are three tytrres of meanings: referential meaning (the
relationship between signs and entities in the world), pragmatic meaning (the relationship
between signs and their users; it includes identificational meaning, expressive meaning,
associative meaning, social meaning, and imperative meaning), and intralingual meaning (the
relationship between different signs; it includes phonological meaning, graphemic meaning,
morphological or lexemic meaning, syntactic meaning, and discoursal or textual meaning).
Types of Meaningin Semantics

- What is Meaning?
II- Pragmatics
r- Introduction
IN CONTRAST TO SEMANTICS, UTHICH IS ABOTTT WORD N{EANING AND SENTENCE
MLANING, PRAGMATICS DEALS !\[TH UTIERANCE MEANING
(r) A:"Don't youthinkthat Billis apaininthe neck?" (said on a parÿ)
B: "1 like gour üe."
Sentence meaning: 'The speaker communicates that the addressee's üe meets his taste.'
Utterance meaning: 'Shut up, Bill is standing behind you.'
(z) "John Smith is afriendly student who is altaays taell dressed. He has neüer come late
and offired me a cigarette on uarious occasions." Qetter of reference addressed to
DAAD)
Utterance meaning: 'J. Smith's professional skills are \€ry poor and I do not consider
him a suitable candidate foryour exchange programme.'
Semantics Pragæaatics
context-invariant, speaker-independent context-sensiüve, speaker-dependent
meaning meaning
meaning potential concrete meaning in a given context
What does X mean? (conventional meaning, Whai does the speaker mean by uttering X?
what is said) (non-convenüonal meaning, what is meant)
Principles for describing meaning, meaning Principles for bridging the gap between what
relations and meaning combinations is said and what is meant

Table r: Pragmatics as complementing semantics (after Korknann: zz5)

- linguistic ('cotext')
- context
- non-linguistic ('context'in the narro\^r sense)

z. Deixis
. _Words, as opposed to entire utterances (cf. (t)-(z)) can also be context-dependent
(3) Note attached to my office door: I u:illbe here in to minutes.
 time (temporal deixis):Yesterday Iwentto themouies. lnglés lV (B:200g)
place (local deixis): Peter is here. prof. Argenis A. Zapata
persor (person deixis): You are my bestfriend.
. _origo = the centre of orientation (the speaker and. the time and place of utterance)
- the origo may be shifted: Whenyouread these lines,I'll already be gone.
. differences:
-cross-linguistic
(6) "Please give me lhir apple over there! (OK: fhat apple)
 lnglés IV (8-2008)
Prof. Argenis A. Zapata
 Further'non-central'deictic dimensions: social, discourse, manner apf,trçgipgdgffiËf
Exercise r: Give one example of each of these four §pes (&m. Ef$tfib 4irgpg,§ther
language).
. _deictic expressions mustbe distinguished from anaphora (the use of ,pro-forms'to refer
to an entiÿ that has already been introduced in the text/conversaüon)
t.Speech octs:
._Based on the assumption that ianguage use is not normally limited to exchanging
information, speech act theory (Austin 1962, Searl e tg6g) tries to classifu the different
functions that utterances can have in a communicative context.
3.t Comptonents of speechacts:
The form and (context-independent) meaning of the relevant sentence locution.
The function of an utterance (or: the speaker's communicative intention) in a given
situation:
illocution (the most important aspect of speech acts).
The intended or actual effects of a locutionary act: perlocution.
s.z TApes of sneech acts
Assertives: Madrid is the copital of Spain. (Sp represents a state of affairs. Assertives
commit speakers to the truth of the proposition)
Commissives: f promise to marry your sister/ (Sp commits him-/herself to the
performance of an action)
Directives: Pleqse cLose the door! (an attempt by Spfeaker] to get H[earer] to do sth.)
Expressives: Thank youfor the nice present! (Sp expresses a psychological state about
the situation or state of affairs denoted by the proposition)
Declaratives: I herebA pronounce Aou man and u:ife. (Sp brings about a change in the
worid by uttering a sentence. Declaratives must be tied to an institutional context in order
for the speech act to be effective)
. illocuüonary acts are defined in terms of felici§ conditions
- propositional content: e.g. you cannot promise sth. which has already happened
- preparatory condition: e.g. you cannot promise sth. which the hearer does not want
- sincerity condition: e.g. you cannot promise sth. which you cannot put into practice
- essenüal condition ('illocuüonary point'): constitutes the speech act, e.g. the essential
condition of a commisive is to commit the speaker to performing the action
described in the propositional content.
s$ Inürect speech acts:
An explicit speech act funcüons as a (different) implicit speech act:
(zr)Thereis adraughthere. (direct = assertive, indirect= request)
(zz) Could Aou pass me the pepper? (direct = question, illocuüon = request)
Indirect speech acts are standardized to different degrees:
(zg) There's a coffee machine around the corner. Do you happen to pass by?
(z+) Could you teil me the üme?
(zS) Could you tell me the üme, plcase!

II-a- The Cooperative Principle :

1. Grice's 'Co-operative Principle"'Make your conversational contribution such as is

required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose and direction of the
: exchange in which you are engaged." . Conversation works onlywiththe co-operation of
its participants. . Co-operation is built around a series of 'Gricean maxims': . Manner
. Relation. Quality. Quantity
z. Gi:icean Ma-xirnsr. Quaiity
u "Do not saywhat you believe to be f,alse."

. "Do nût saythat for which -vou lack evidence."

So... when someone speaks to us, we assume:
. that what they say is not knowingly untruthful;
' that the truthfulness of what they say does not need to be xnade stated.
3. Gricean Maximsz. Quanütv
' "Make your contribution as informative as is required."
. "Do not make your contribution more informative than is required."
So... when someone speaks to us, we assume:
. they do not purposefully hold baclc anything that is irnportant;
' they do not give rnore inforrnation than is asked.
4. Gricean Maxirns3. Manner
' 'oAvoid obscurity of exglressiotl""
*'oAvoid ambiguity."
* "Be brief."
o "Ee orderÏ.y."

So... rvhen someone speaks to us, we assume: . that what they say is being said as
straightforivardly as they can say it.
S. Gricean Maxims 4. Relevance
. t'Be relevant."
So... when someone speaks to tts , we assume:
. that what theSz say is relevant to the conversation.
6. 'The Gricean 1\{a-:rims'
' Be true " Be brief . Be ciear . Be relevant
'In short, these maxims specifi, what the participants have to do in order to converse
in a ma,ximally efEcient, rational, co-operaüve way: they should speak sincerely,
r:eLevantly and clearly whilst providing suffrcient inforrnation.' Levinson
(rqBa)
7. The rnaxims in action...
. "How do I get to Sainsbury's, station?"
" "Go straight ahead, turn right at the school, then left at the bus stop on the hi11."
Speaker A assu.mes that:
" B believes his directions tCI - the maxim of quality;
be genl.rine
. B believes the informatiom to be sufifficient - the maxim of quantiÿ;
. ]J believes the infbnrnation to be cXear - the maxim of manner;
. B believes his directions are to Sainsbury's - the maxirn of relaüon'
B. Ex: Husband: Where are the car keys?
Wife: They're on the table in the hall.
The wife has answered clearly (manner) and truthfutly (Quality), has given just the right
arnount of infonnation (Quantity) and has directly addressed her husband's goal in
 asking the question (Relation). She ahs said precisely what she meant, no more anci no

g. Not followine the maxims... Grice recognised that whilst we could choose not to
follow a maxim, such a choice would be conscious and consequential. A speaker can
choose to...
. 'üolate' a maxirn and be intentionally misleading.
. topt out'of a maxim and refuse to co-operate.
. d.eal with a 'clash' of maxims, for instance, between saying enough and
saying all that we knolv to be true.
. 'flont'a maxim and be intentionally ironic.
ro. Violating' a Maxim This means that we break the maxims so that other people do not
know. If we violate the maxim of quality, we lie. If we violate the maxim of quantiÿ by
not giving enough information,
rr. 'Violating' a Maxim Examples. "I don't know if this is relevant, but..." (relation) "I'm
not sure how to sa,l, this, but..." (manner) "I can't te1l you; I'm sworn to secrecy."
(quantity)
rz. 'Opting out'Here, Paxman asks the Prime Minister a question;the minister opts out
of the maxim of relation:
Pa;'man: "When wili war become inevitable?"
PM: "tr\'ell I lcnow you have to ask that question but it's the kind of question I cannot
anslt'er."
r3. Copins rvith a clash bet$/een maxims:
Another stuCent asks 5rou, Where does Professor Morgan live? and you answer,
Sornervhere in Providence. (You know that the student wants to ask about my house,
but 1'ou don't know exactly where Ilive.
To ai'oid violating the maxim of quaiity *providing information yo-,-i knorv to be untrue
-you üolate the maxim of quantity -providing less informationthan was asked for
-possibie impiicature is that you don't know exactly where I live.)
r4. Example. Carson is driving John to Meredith's house.
CARSON: Where does Meredith live?
JOHN: Nevada.
M axirn Violated: Quantiÿ.
Why,: There is clash between quantiÿ and quaiity. Carson is iooking for a street address,
but John gives a weaker, less informative statement (hence the quantiÿ violation). If
John really doesn't know anything more specific, however, he cannot give a more
inform ative statement r,vithout violating quality.
r5. Flouting" a maxirn (major violation) to create a conversational implicature. By
cleariy and obviously violating a rnaxim, you can imply something beyond what you say.
Examples.
1. JOHN: Where's Meredith?
2. ELIZABETH: The control room or the science lab.

Maxim Violated: Quantity; Elizabeth didn't give as much information as John

wanted (Meredith's exact location), but instead gave a weaker statement (giving two
possible options).
 impiication: Biizabeth doesn't know which of the two places Meredith is.

""utePiiillâ'fuïr,l^;#îl',
powerfui and creative \ray to get across a point. Why imply instead of just saying what
we mean? Wpll, implication can get across a great deal of meaning with relatively little
actual speech. thinking of what you want to get across, and interpreting what other
people have s-aid, seems to take much quicker than the relatively slow process of actually
verbalizing all the necessary sounds.
So saying a little, while irnplying a lot, is a way to avoid this "phonological
trottleneck" and communicate more effr ciently.
17. 'Conversational fmplicature' 'Gricean Piagmatics'- knowing what isn't said .
What Grice called'implicature'occurs when a speaker chooses to flout a maxim. . The
listener, assuming that the speaker still intends being cooperative, looks for meaning
other tàan that which is said. . The intended meaning will be arived at through the
speaker working out the pragmatic force of the utterance rather than its semantic sense.
rB. Irnplicature Flouting the maxim of quantity... A: I hear you went to the theatre
last night; what piay did you see? B: Well, I watched. a number of people stand on the
stage in Elizabethan costumes uttering series of sentences which corresponded closeÿ
with the script of Twelfth Night. Here, B's verbose answer, although it doesn't say
anything more than "I saw a performance of Twelfth Night," inütes A to infer that the
performers were doing a miserablybad job of acting.
r9. A: Where does C live? B: Somewhere in the South of France.
zo. IrnplicatureFlouting the maxim of qualityA: What are you baking? B: Be i are tee
aitch dee ay wye see ay kayee. (birthday cake) By answering obscureiy, B conveys to A
the implicature that the infonnation is to be kept secret from the young chiid who is in
the room u'ith them.
zr. ImplicatureFlouting the maxim of manner When discussing an essay with a
student, it is customary for a teacher to be polite and to find things to praise... "So let me
say straight away, James, that your essay is beautifully printed, the font has been
immaculately weil chosen and the positioning of those stapies is a work of sheer
genius..."
zz. Shall we eet somethine for the kids? B: Éut I veto I-C-E-C-R-E-A-M.
23. assignments Define the following terms briefly: (r) the Cooperative Principle (z)
conversational implicature II. What are the four maxims of the Cooperative Principle?
III. \,Vhich maxim does this speaker seem to be particularly careful about: Well, to be
quite honest, I don't think she is ill today.
24. !tr/hat Gricean maxirn does B flout. and what is the implicature that follows
from the flout? A: Do you like John and Kate? B: Kate is fun. Answer: B flouts the maxim
of quantiÿ by answering a question about two people as if it were a question about just
one of them. Because she says Kate is nice, but says nothing about John, we can infer
that B is implicating that John is not fun.
25. Two married universit-v lecturers are talking about who is going to get the
children from school What maxim does B flout and what implicature follows from it? A:
lVho is picking up the children today? B; I've got a meeting at 3.3o. Answer: Bflouts the
maxim of relation by not giüng the identity of the person asked about in in A's question.
The implicature is it ut g t pick up thl chiidràn because of the work comÀibnent,
"un
and is therefore suggesting, by extension, that A should
26. Youask a friend what he thinks of a lecturer who has a reputation for being
sarcastic.
What maxim is flouted, and what implicature is produced in the following reply? He's
not the politest person I've met.
Answer: This response flouts the maxim of manner because of the use of negatiou here.
Your friend could have expressed roughly the same content by using a positive
expression like 'He's rude'. The impiicature is that your friend thinks the person is rride
but doesn't want to say so directly for some reason (perhaps because he does not like
being impolite about others, perhaps because he is worried that someone may overhear
him etc).
27. Grice's Maxims and Irnplicature can be applied wellbeyond conversation...
. What maxims are being flouted here?
. What implicatures are being created?
- To what effect?
. For what purpose?
zB. POLITBNESS If we realiywant co-operation... ... we also need to be polite
29. Goffrnan's Face Co-operation is vital to conversation, but without politeness, all is
1ost.
. Erwing Goffman was intrigued by what iay behind everyday expressions such as 'iosing
face', 'saving face' and'being shamefaced'.
. He saw that without politeness, conversation didn't work and that the need for
politeness was rooted in 'saving face': '[face is...] the positive sociai value a person
effectiveiy claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a personai
contact'
. Goffman recognised that whenever \\'e ta1k, we need to feel 'liked'.
. As a consequence, conversations are sites for potential'Ioss of face' and that'face $'ol:k'
must, therefore, be a part of talk if 1oss of face'is to be avoided and co-operation is to be
maintained.
3o.'Negative' and.'Positive' Face'Negative'Face The desire to feei unimpeded, i.e. the
freedom from feeling imposed upon by the interaction. 'Posiüve' Face The desire to feel
approved of , i.e. to maintain a positive and consistent self-image during the interaction.
Brown and Levinson developed Goffrnan's ideas into the concepts of 'positive' and
'negative'face.
3r. 'Negative and Positive Face' . 'Face Threatening Acts' (FTAs)
. conversational turns that risk a'ioss of face'.
. Positive politeness 'face work'
. addresses 'positive face' concerns, by showing concern for the other's face.
. Negative politeness 'face work'
. addresses 'negative face' concerns, by acknowledging the other's face is threatened.
32. 'Face Threatening Acts' . 'Close yorir mouth when you eat, you fat swine'.
A bald F-IA
. 'You have such beautiful teeth. I wish I didn't see them when you eat.

7t\
 . 'I knowyou're very hungry and that steak is a bit tough, but I would appreciate it if you
would chew w-ith your mouth closed.'
Arr FTAusing negaüve politeness
. 'I wonder how far a person's lips can stretch yet remain closed when e4!ng?'
An'off record' or'indirect' I"IA
33. The 'Politeness Principle'. Geoffrey Leech proposed the need for 'politeness
maxims' as a prerequisite for conversational co-operation.
. In the absence of politeness, Leech suggested, it will be assumed that an attitude of
politeness is absent.
. Each maxim has two forms: positive and negative
.Each maxim has a lesser 'sub-rnaxim' that recognises the general law that negative
poiiteness - that we seek to minimise discord - is more important than positive
politeness - that we seek concord.
34. Leech's Politeness Maxims (r) . Tact: minimise the cost to ottrers ['sub-maxim':
maximise benefit to othersl
" Generosity: minimise benefit to self [maximise cost to selfl
. Approbation: minimise dispraise of others [maximise praise of other]

35. Leech's Politeness Maxims (z). Modesÿ: minimise praise of self [maximise
dispraise ofselfl
. Agreement: minimise disagreement between self and others [maximise agreement
betw'een self and other]
. S5.mpathy: minimise anüpathybetween self and others [maximise sympathybetween
self and otherl I

SpeechActTheory:

Introduction
Speech act theory is a technical term in linguistics and the philosophy of language. The
contemporaryuse of the term goes backto J. L. Ausün's doctrine of locutionary, illocutionary,
and perlocutionary acts. It is d.eveloped by the great philosopher J.L Austin in the r93os and
set forth in a series of lectures, which he gave at Harvard inr955. These were subsequently
developed in 196z as How to Do Things With Words. He founded the modern study of speech
acts.

The approach has been greatly developed since bythe philosopher J.R.SearIe (Austin's pupil).
The central insight of the speech act theory which is attributed to Austin, Searle and other
philosophers is that speech is action and language is used to perform things not only to describe
a state of affairs. Moreover, Austin pointed out that many utterances do not communicate
information, but are equivalent to actions. When someone Says, "I apologize." , "I promise" ,
or "I name this ship." the utterance immediately conveys a new psychological or social reality.

Many schoiars identifiz 'speech acts' with iiiocutionary aets, rather than locutionary or
perlocutionary acts. As with the notion of illocutionary acts, there are different opinions on the
nature of speech acts. The extension of speech acts is commonly taken to include such acts as
promising, ordering, greeting, warning, inüting someone and congratulating.

3q,
Definition of speech act with elaboration
A speech act is an act that a speaker performs when making an utterance.

To Jennifer Spenader, speech act theory is:

1. A theory where the effect of an utterance is analyzed in relationship to the

speaker and listener's behaviour.
z. Speech act theory can also help us examine utterances from the
perspective of their function, rather than their forrn.

Austin pointed out that when people use language, they are performing a kind of acüon. He
called these actions speech acts. Traditionally, philosophers have distinguished between
actions and speaking on thebasis that speaking about something is quite dissimilar from doing
it. Austin challenged this by demonstrating that utterances can be regarded as events in a
similar way to other actions.

The below lists are samples of speech acts which Austin reckoned that this sort of
list eould be extended further.

1. Statement "I live in Edinburg for five years"

2,. Order o'Pay this bill immediately"
3. Question "'[,Vhere are yon from?"
4. Prohibiüon "No rightturn"
*I{ello'
S. Greeting oHelp
6. Invitation yourself'
Z. Felicitation "Happy newyear"
8. (Srudging) apology "I hereby apologize as required by the magistuate'
(Griffiths, zoo6:r48)

We can say that each utterance on the right is based on single sentence and the sentence is the
level of language. Here, the language is used to accomplish actions as Austin stated. The above
sentences are not usedjust to say things, that is to say describe states of affairs, but rather
actively to do things. Further, one cannot assess such utLerances as true or false.

Moreover, most speech acts are not so offlcial but they reÿ on the speâker using an utterance
to signal his/her intension to achieve some action and üe hearer inferring that action from the
utterance. One can say that speech act cannot only be done in speaking but also in wriüng. The
ciue is the example number (Z) in which it would be equall-rr appropriate printed in a card or
spoken.

As a matter of fact, there are purposes behind any utterance.

Consider these examples

. A'somebodyhasbrokenmyleg.

In the above sentence, the following purpose appears

w
The first one is to describe things which are not the basic purpose and the second purpose is to
compiain which is the basic purpose as it doesn't describe things.

. B-I love you.

The purpose here is to please or to assure somebody.

. C-Watch out, üe gun is loaded.

The purpose is to \^/arn someone.

. D-She is a fool.

The purpose is to insult or to ease.

Thus, the gist idea of speech act theory is to do acts (things) and not simply to describe because
description is not the important function of language.

Dichotomies (constative and performative)

Many writers, in their books, define the dichotomy constative (descriptive) and performative
clearly.

Riemer in his bool«; introducing Semantics that an utterance is constative if it describes or

states facts atrout a situation. !!'hereas performative is one which does not describe or state
any facts, but which itself constitutes ttre performing of an action.

The foiiowing pair of exampies serve the above point

. A-I promise to visit tornorrow.

. B-She promised to visit tomorrow.

In the first example, you promise to visit but if you don't visit it, the person you said it can
complain thai you broke your promise. Sentences which perform actions are known as
performaüves r,vhile other sentences are called constatives.

Although constatives perform actions. The example (b) serves this point which performs the
action of repor[ing her promise. Thus, the difference between the two (constatives and
performatives) may not be as significant as the idea that all sentences can be used to perform
actions of various sorts.

Broadly speaking, all utterances are performative in the sense of constituting a form of acüon
rather than a matter of saying something about the world. IJltimately, a single utterance can
have both aspects constatives and performative elements; they are all sayings and doings
simultaneously.

Typical examples of performative verbs are ask, beg, beseech, command, congratulate, deny,
deplore, declare, implore and warn. Only certain forms of the verb count as performing the
speech act, mainly first person simple present active and third person present passive.
Furthermore, a performative verb in a performative use can §picaiiy be accompanied by
hereby.
See the following
Prof- ArBenis A- Zaoata
. A-r hereby declare the bridge open.
. B-I herebycommandyouto surrender.

While in the below instances using hereby is not possible with non-performative verbs
speaking.

. A-I hereby persuade you to aecompâny me.

. B-I hereby tell ttre tflith.

As we said earlier, the performative use of performative verbs is extremely restricted

grammaticaliy. They must be first person simple present active and third person present
passive.

Consider, first, active uses

. I hereby promise to pay you next week.

Not: I herby promised you pay him the following week.

Similar contrasts are possible with passive uses

r Passengers are hereby requested not to smoke.

Not: Passengers were hereby requested not to smoke.

. You are herebywarnedto leave immediately.

Not: They will be hereby warned to leave immediateiy.

. Characteristics of Performative verbs

1. The Tense of the verb is always present.

z. The subject is always first person (singular,plural)
B. Since performaüve verbs are not descripüons but actions they are not
subj ect to truth-value.
4. Inperforrnative serrtences the illocutionary act is explicit.
S. Performative verbs like (afErm, allege, assert, forecast, predict, arutounce,
insist, order, state, narrle, deelare, bet, agree).
6. For testing whether a verb is performative we can insert the word (hereby) .

The book entitled semantics and pragmatics by Dr. Misbah Mahmood gives exha ocamples
about the distinguishing between performatives and constatives.

. Performaüves vs Constaüves :

I prornise I willbe there. I \MiIl be there.

I warn you, the gun is loaded. Ttre gun is loaded.

7)
I thankyou. I am verygrateful.

I order you to read. You must read.

I requestyou to send me the book. Send me the book.

I apologize. I am sorry.

Are Performatives truth-evaluable?

Verschueren, in his book, enütled Understanding Pragmatics states that Austin drew a
distinction between constative and performative utterances.

In this dichotomy, constatives are utterances in whieh something is said which can be
evaluated along a d.imension of truth. Performatives, on the other hand, are utterances in
which something is done which cannot be said to be true or false but which can be evaluated
along a dimension of 'felicity'.

According to Austin's account, it is an essential characteristic of performative utterances that

they are neither true nor faise, that is, not truth-evaluable, instead when something is wrong
with them then they are feiicitous (happy) or infelicitous (unhappy). The uttering of a
performaüve is the doing of a certain kind of action , the performance would not normally be
described as just "saying" or "describing" something.

For example, when Tom says "I promise to do the dishes" in an appropriate context he does
not just describe what he is doing; rather, in making the utterance he performs the promise;
since promising is an illocutionary act, the utterance is thr:s a performaüve utterance.

If Tom utters the sentence without the intention to keep the promise, the sentence is not false:
it is rather "unhappy", or "infelicitous". In the absence of any such flaw, on the other hand, the
o'true".
utterance is to be assessed as "happy" or "feiicitous", rather tharl as

What Leech states is that "Constative utterances could be evaluated in traditional terms of
truth and falsehood, performatives were neither true nor false: instead they were to be
regarded as felicitous or non felicitous".

(Leech,rg8g:V6)

By feliciÿ and infelicity, as Yule points out, they can only be as appropriate that is the
performance of a speech act to be recognized as intended or inappropriate that is if the speaker
is not a specific person in a special eontext.

Briefly, felicity and infelicity are not subject to truth-value.

A sentence like I pronounce you man and wife, the performance, here, will be infelicitous on
condition that the speaker is not properly qualified.

Regarding feticity eondition (happiness condition), it can be grouped under three headings:
preparatory conditions, sincerity condiüons, and essential conditions.

lypes of Felicity Conditions:

?s
There are normaily condiüons which must be fulfllled before a speech act can be said to have
been properly performed. These are usually called feliciÿ conditions or happiness conditions.

. l-PreparatoryConditions

The preparatory conditions for a promise and warning are unlike. When I promise to do
something, two conditions appear: first, the eventwill not occurbyitself, and second, the event
will have abeneficial effect.

But when I utter a warning, it is not clear that the hearer knows the event will happen whilst
the speaker does think the event will occur, and the event will not have a beneficial effect.

. z-SincerityConditions

They require the speaker to be sincere. When one promises to do something must genuinely
intend to do it; someone congratulating somebody else must feel pleasure at that person's good
Luek"

e 3-BssentialConditions

By the act of uttering a promise, an obligation created to carry out tle action as promised. In
o*,Ier lvords, the utterance changes my state from non-obligation to obligation. When speaker
A warns speaker B, speaker A changes his state from non-informing of a bad future event to
informing.

Asoects of SpeechAets:
Austin found great difficulty in drawing a completely clear distinction between "performatives"
and "constatives"; he came to the conclusion that to state something is to perform an
iilocutionary act, which renders all constatives as performatives; Austin proposed that in
uttering a sentence speaker is involved in three different acts.

In other words, he isolates three basic senses in which in saying something one is doing
something, and thus, three kinds of acts that are simultaneously performed.

. r-Locutionary act.

Lots of writers define locutionary act. One of them is Leünson in the book Pragmatics.
Locutionary act is "the utterance of a sentence with determinate sense and reference".
(Levinson,rgBg:zg6)

Another definition is by Finch. "It refers simply to the act of saying something that makes sense
in the language; in other words, that foilows the grammatical rules of language".
(Finch,zooo:18o)

The last defînition said by Cruse, in his book, Meaning in Language in which Austin explained
as follows:

"the rrtterance of certain noises.. certain words in a certain construction, and the
utterance of them with a certain sense and a certain reference". (Cruse,2ooo:331)

v?
From the above definition, we conclude that l,ccutionary act is related to the inherent meaning
of the lexical item and it is the province of semantics. It is the act of expressing the basic, literal
meanings of the words chosen.

Besides, performing the act of saying something that makes sense in the language; in other
words, that follows the grammatical rules of language.

For more elaboration, see the below instances

For example, Tom is outside the room. In this sentence both words (Tom and the room) have
meaning and we should know what the words (Tom and the room) refer to.

In uttering the words, You will get your hands blown off, a speaker performs the locutionary
act of staüng that the hearer will get his hands blown off.

Suppose speakerAsays to hearer B

There is abear sneaking up behind you! (Fasold,zoo6:r6z)

Speaker A utters the word there and refers to the addressee with the word you.

. z-Illocuüonary act

Cruse, in his book, entitled A Glossry of Semantics and Pragmatics defined that illocutionary
act is "an act performed by a speaker in saying something (with an appropriate intention and
in an appropriate context), rather than by ürtue of haüng produced a particular effect by
saying something" (Cruse,zo o6:t67)

According to Finch illocutionary act is one which is performed through the

medium of language: stating, warning, wishing, tr»romising and so on.

Contexl can be seen in the definition and this leads to remind us the province of pragmatics. If
r /e come to talk about intention, which is also found in defining illocution, we can regard that
the intention is to inform, complain, thank, apologize, threaten, etc.

Consid.er tJ:e below instances

. Father: I will turn outyonrlight.

Here, the intention of father is to threaten her son. It is duty of pragmatics since the idea of
threatening doesn't relate to meaning but the context.

In the sentence like, There is a lion behind you, suppose that A is a speaker and B is a hearer.
At the illocutionary levei, A asserts a fact (that there is a lion behind B) and warns B üat he/she
is in danger. The speaker has the iilocutionary force of warning.

In short, context in which the sentence is uttered is crucial in interpreüng the illocutionary
force of a speech act.

3B
If someone I order you to leave now, the intention is ordering by ürtue of having uttered
says:
the words, whether or not the addressee acts in the desired way.

. 3-Prelocutionary act

Concerning prelocutionary Levinson states "the bringing about of effects on the audience by
means of uttering the sentence, such effects being special to the circumstances of utterance".

Whiie Fasold points that prelocutionary is an action which goes beyond communication such
as annoying, frightening, or tricking.

The contrasts between illocutionary and prelocutionary lies by lists of verbs

Illocutionary: report, request, suggest, announce, predict, order, propose, reprimand,

promise, thank, express, congratulate, admit, ask

Prelocutionary: persuad.e, deceive, encourage, irritate, frighten, amuse, inspire, distract,

impress, encourage embarrass.

Briefly, prelocutionary is the act of producing an effect in the hearer by means of the utterance.
It is outside the province of semanücs and pragmatics, because it involves many otler aspects
of the situatioiis.

It is not always intended by speaker, is not under his control, and is not evident until after the
utterance is made. The speaker tries to carry out a prelocutionary act for example to shock, to
amuse, and to annoy somebody.

The foliowing examples serÿe the above point

. A-Youwill getyourhandsblown off.

The above sentence might be to prevent the hearer from playing with a iighter and a stick of
dynamite, to frighten the hearer.

. B-John is inside the hall.

The prelocutionary act for the above sentence is perhaps to disappoint, shock or annoy.

To explicate more about the three §pes of speech acts, we take instances to apply the three
acts.

. A-There is a \^/asp in your left ear.

The first act: we know speaker and listener. (reference)

The second act: the intention is the act of warning.

The third act: The hearer is panic (afraid). The hearer rnay scream and scratch
his ears. Panic is not intended but the speaker tries to make the hearer panic.

56
B-Someone says Good night late at night in forest.

The first act: speaker and listener. (reference)

The second act: leave-taking, there is greeting purpose behind saying good bye.

The third act: to horriff orto frighten.

C-Father: I wiil turn out your light.

The first act: I refers to father, your refers to son's light, having meaning and
reference.

The second act: to intendttre act of threatening

The The father tries to frighten his son. It is

third act: to frighten ttre son to sleep.
not und.er the control of the speaker and it may not be intended of the speaker
that he wants to frighten his son.

Types of lllocutionary Acts

. Implieit and explicit illocutionary force

Implicit performatives are iàose which don't have performative verbs. For exampie when one
says I will turn offyour light, it is implicit since there is no performative verb and besides, the
force doesn't relate to the meaning of the words.

Another example "Be a\,r/are of the dog" meâns that "I warn you to beware of the dog". Whereas
explicit performatives are those which have performaüve verbs, that is, a verb which rulmes
the action being performed.

For example when I say I warn you that.., it is explicit as I am not describing or stating the
existence of any independent fact; I am, instead performing an act (act of warning).

. SpeechActClassificaüons

Searle (rgZ6) has set up the following classification of illocutionary speech acts that one can
perform in speaking. Daüd Crystal in his book, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language,
sheds light on five basic ÿpes.

r-Representatives: the speaker is committed, in varying degrees, to the truth of proposition.

For instance, affirm, believe, conclude, deny, and report. The foiiowing examples illustrate the
point.

. A-The earth is flat. B-Choms§ didn't write about peanuts.

. C-It was a warm sunny day.

In all the above instances, the speaker represents the world as he/she believes it is.

w
z-Directives: the speaker tries to get the hearer to do something. For exampie : request,
chailenge, insist, command, advise, and suggest.

. A-Could you open the door, please?

. B-I suggest you take a taxi.
. C-Don't go too far.

The above-mentioned examples illustrate that the speaker tries to make the world fit the words
through the hearer.

3-Cornrnissives: the speaker is committed, in varying degtees, to a certain course of action.

For example, promise, oath, refuse, pledge, threat, guarantee, vow, and sv/ear.

The instances, which shown below, point out that the speaker undertakes to make the world
adapt the words through the speaker.

. A-I will be back.

" B-\Me will not do that.

4-Expressives: the speaker expresses an attitude about a state of affairs. For instance,
congratulate, excuse, thanking, deplore, apologize, welcome, and thank.

o A-Congratulations!
. B-I am really sorry.

The sentences indicate the speaker makes words fit the world of feeiing.

5-Declaratives: the speaker aiters the external status or condition of an object or situation
solely by making the utterance. For example, resign, sack, appoint, name, christen, sentence
(in court), bid (at auction), declaring war, pronouncing someone husband and wife.

The below instances clarifies more about what we said.

. A-Priest: f now pronounce you husband. and wife.

. B-Referee: You are out.

One can say that the speaker changes the world via words.

Dir ect c:nd Inür ect Sp eech Acts :

It is obvious that we have three structural forms (declaraüve, interrogative, imperative) and
the three general communicative functions (statement, question, command/order)
respectively. The table below clarifles more about what we pointed out.

Whenever there is a direct relationship between a structure and a function, we have a direct
speech act. Furthermore, there is a match between sentence meaning and speaker meaning,
that is to say, the form of the utterance coincides with what a speaker is intending to convey.
But in case of having indirect relationship between the two which mentioned before we have
indirect speech act.
Therefore, when a declarative used to make a statement it is functioning as a direct speech act,
but when it used to make a request it is functioning as an indirect speech act.

Consider the following instances

. A-It is hot.
. B-I herebytell you aboutweather.
. C-I hereby request of you that you open the door.

It is clear that the sentence A is a declarative, the sentence B used as statement so, it is direct
speech act but the last sentence C used as command therefore; it is indirect speech act.

A speech act can be indirect where one illocutionary act is performed by another. \,Vell-known
examples are requests which are superficially question. We expect actions rather than answer.

A-Can you pass ttre sault?

B-Would.you rnind if I opened the door?

So, the above menüoned sentences superficially are interrogative and they are direct speech
act but if we look at them deeply they become request and in this case they are indirect speech
act.

It is quite true to say that different structures

used to attain the same funcüon. The examples
below show that the speaker wants the addressee not to stand in front of the TV.

A-Move out of theway!

B-Do you have to stand in front of the TV?

C-You are standing in front of ttre TV.

D-You'd rnake abetter doorthan awindow.

The basic function of all the utterances is a command. The first instance is direct speech act
because its structure is imperative. Whilst the rest of the sentences are indirect speech acts
because the interrogative structure is not used only as question and also the declarative
structures are not used only as statement.

Conclusion:
Needless to say, that conclusion shows the product of any turn paper, research and etc. In this
turn paper, a formal account of speech acts proüded. Throughout reading it, I infer that we
can extend what a speaker means by his/her words.

Thus, utterances are not uniqueiy used to describe states of affairs but rather they convey
speaker's intention to the addressee. Speech act comprises the notion of speaker meaning since
tlrough it the intentions of the speaker can be felt or found it.

Also, I conclude that speech act is one of the helpful factors for decoding those words that
uttered by a speaker. It is obvious that there is communication in speech act between speaker

+L
and hearer and this communication conveys not onlylinguisüc meanings but also expressing
aüitudes, and rmderslnarling is a matter of recognizingthe attitudes being expressed.

Another conclusion which is not to be forgotten is that if a sentence is interrogative, the same
sentence could be regarded as request if we look at it deeply. The sentence "Could you sign the
papers, please?" is our evidence. So, this case only occurred in speech act, one is direct andthe
other is indirect and the sentencehas two funetions question and request.

ttl