1. Semantics Course: Linguistics Lecturer: Phoenix Xu

2. Table of Contents 5.1 Meanings of “meaning” 5.2 The referential theory 5.3 Sense relations 5.3.1 Synonymy 5.3.2 Antonymy 5.3.3 Hyponymy

3. 5.4 Componential analysis 5.5. Sentence meaning 5.5.1 An integrated theory 5.5.2 Logical semantics

4. SEMANTICS ( 语义学 ): the study of the meaning of linguistic units, words and sentences in particular.

5. 5.1 Meanings of “meaning” Ogden & Richards: 16 major categories of meaning, with 22 sub-categories

6. LeechLeech: 7 types of meaning

7. Conceptual meaning ( 概念意义 ) Connotative meaning ( 内涵意义 ) E.g. c.f. politician & statesman

8. C.f. Connotation & denotation in philosophy CONNOTATION ( 内涵 ) DENOTATION ( 外延 ) E.g. human

9. Thematic meaning ( 主题意义 )

10. Ex. DESK 1) to point to a desk directly; 2) to describe it as “a piece of furniture with a flat top and four legs, at which one reads and writes; 3) to paraphrase it as “a desk is a kind of table, which has drawers”; 4) to give the Chinese equivalent 书桌.

11. 5.2 The referential theory The referential theory ( 指称理论 ): the theory of meaning which relates the meaning of a word to the thing it refers to, or stands for

12. Problems: The concrete thing pointed at differs from the abstract concept behind the thing. The object pointed at does not directly correspond to the concept. CONCEPT

13. concept word thing semantic triangle

14. Ex. DESK 1) to point to a desk directly; 2) to describe it as “a piece of furniture with a flat top and four legs, at which one reads and writes; 3) to paraphrase it as “a desk is a kind of table, which has drawers”; 4) to give the Chinese equivalent 书桌.

15. C.f. Sense & reference 1) Sense ——— concept —— connotation Reference—— denotation 2) Every word has a sense, but not every word has a reference. E.g. grammatical words like but, if, and

16. 5.3 Sense relations Sense Reference

17. Three kinds of sense relations: sameness relation, oppositeness relation, and inclusiveness relation

18. 5.3.1 Synonymy SYNONYMY( 同义关系 ): the sameness relation Stylistic difference E.g. Little Tom ______ a toy bear. C.f. buy & purchase Connotative difference E.g. “I’m thrifty. You are economical. And he is stingy.” Dialectical difference E.g. c.f. autumn & fall

19. 5.3.2 Antonymy ANTONYMY( 反义关系 ): the oppositeness relation Ex. good: bad, long: short, big: small

20. (1)Gradable antonymy Gradable---comparative and superlative degree; lexicalization Ex. good: bad large: small: medium Graded against different norms---no absolute criterion Ex. c.f. a big car & a small plane One member of a pair, usually the term for the higher degree, serves as the cover term Ex. How old are you?

21. C.f. Unmarked & marked Unmarked ( 无标记的 ): the term is more often used Marked ( 有标记的 ): the term is less used, odd, or unusual

22. (2) Complementary antonymy Ex. alive: dead, male: female, present: absent, innocent: guilty, odd:even, pass:fail, hit: miss

23. Note: No comparative or superlative degrees are allowed. Ex. a. alive, dead, 半死不活 b. He is more dead than alive. c. *John is more dead than Mary. (C.f. John is more mad than stupid. )

24. C.f. Gradable and complementary 1. The difference between the gradable and the complementary is somewhat similar to that between the contrary ( 反对 ) and the contradictory ( 矛盾 ).

25. In logic, a proposition is the contrary of another if it is impossible for both to true, or false. E.g. a. The coffee is hot. b. The coffee is cold. A proposition is the contradictory of another if it is impossible for both to be true, or false. E.g. a. This is a male cat. b. This is a female cat.

26. gradable complementary a b a b

27. 2. The norm in complementary is absolute. It does not vary with the thing a word is applied to. Ex. male & female

28. 3. There is no cover term for the two members of a pair. E.g. a. Is it a boy or a girl? b. * How male is it? No adjective in this type can be modified by how. Exception: true & false (Pp 167)

29. (3) Converse antonymy Ex. buy: sell, lend: borrow, give: receive, parent: child, husband: wife, etc.

30. EX. X buys something from Y. Y sells something to X. X is the husband of Y. Y is the wife of X.

31. RELATIONAL OPPOSITES

32. Ex.a. ? He is a husband. b. He is her husband. c. ? He is a son. d. He is a child. e. He is a teacher.

33. Ex. f. bigger: smaller g. longer: shorter h. better: worse

34. 5.3.3 Hyponymy HYPONYMY SUPERORDINATE HYPONYMS CO-HYPONYMS

35. flower rose peony jasmine chrysanthemum tulip violet carnation

36. living plant animal bird fish insect animal human animal tiger lion elephant …

37. AUTO-HYPONMY

38. 5.4 Componential analysis SEMANTIC FEATURES/SEMANTIC COMPONENTS Ex. boy: HUMAN, YOUNG, MALE woman: HUMAN, ADULT, FEMALE

39. YOUNG: ～ ADULT FEMALE: ～ MALE

40. Ex. father = PARENT (x, y) & MALE (x) mother = PARENT (x, y) & ～ MALE (x) son = CHILD (x, y) & MALE (x) daughter = CHILD (x, y) & ～ MALE (x)

41. take = CAUSE (x, (HAVE (x, y))) give = CAUSE (x, ( ～ HAVE (x, y))) murder = INTEND (x, (CAUSE (x, (BECOME (y, ( ～ ALIVE (y)))))))

42.  Synonyms E.g. bachelor, unmarried man: HUMAN, ADULT, UNMARRIED  Antonyms E.g. man and woman, boy and girl  Hyponyms E.g. boy, girl and child: HUMAN, ～ ADULT

43. Ex. 5-1 a. * John killed Bill but Bill didn’t die. b. * John killed Bill but he was not the cause of Bill’s death. c. * John murdered Bill without intending to.

44. Entailment

45. Ex. 5-2, 3, and 4 2. a. John killed Bill. b. Bill died. 3. a. I saw a boy. b. I saw a child. 4. a. John is a bachelor. b. John is unmarried.

46. Difficulties:  The polysemous words will have different sets of semantic components.  The difference between the semantic components differs. C.f. MALE and FEMALE & ADULT and YOUNG (boy and man & girl and woman )

47.  There may be words whose semantic components are difficult to ascertain. And it is hard to explain the semantic features themselves. METALANGUAGE ( 原语言 ): a language used for talking about another language

48. 5.5. Sentence meaning Word meaning and sentence meaning  The sentence meaning, which is not merely a sum of word meaning, is related to word order. Ex. 5-5 a. The man chased the dog. b. The dog chased the man.

49.  Sentences have thematic meaning. Ex. 5-6 a. I ’ ve already seen that film. b. That film I ’ ve already seen.  The sentence meaning is connected with its syntactic structure. Ex. 5-7 The son of Pharaoh ’ s daughter is the daughter of Pharaoh ’ s son.

50. 5.5.1 An integrated theory Principle of COMPOSITIONALITY ( 组合 原则 ): the meaning of a sentence depends on the word order and the syntactic structure.

51. grammatical classification dictionary systematic semantic semantic information theory information idiosyncratic projection rules information

52. Dictionary: to provide the grammatical classification and semantic information of words.  Grammatical classification Grammatical markers/syntactic markers: Vtr for transitive verb, Nc for concrete noun

53.  Semantic information  Systematic information Semantic markers( 语义标记 ):(Male), (Female), (Human), (Animal)

54.  Idiosyncratic information Distinguishers( 辨义成分 ): E.g. bachelor a. [who has never married]; b. [young knight serving under the standard of another knight]; c. [who has the first or lowest academic degree]; d. [young fur seal when without a mate during the breeding time].

55. Projection rules: responsible for combining the meanings of words together

56. S NP VP Det N V NP the man hits Det NP the Adj N colorful ball

57. Selection restrictions (See Pp 176-178)

58. Problems  The distinction between semantic marker and distinguisher is not very clear. E.g. (Young)  The collocation of words may not be accounted for by grammatical markers, semantic markers or selection restrictions. Ex. He said hello to the nurse and she greeted back. My cousin is a male nurse. ? My cousin is a female nurse.  The use of semantic markers like (Human), (Male) and (Adult), is elements of an artificial meta- language.

59. 5.5.2 Logical semantics PREPOSITIONAL LOGIC ( 命题逻辑 )/ PROPOSITIONAL CALCULUS( 命题演算 )/ SENTENTIAL CALCULUS( 句子演算 ): Truth value: truth or false

60. Note: The truth value of a composite proposition( 复合命题 ) is the function of, or is determined by, the truth values of its component propositions and logical connectives( 逻辑连词 ) used in it.

61. A proposition p one-place connective: one proposition is involved negation ～ or ﹁ two-place connective: two propositions are involved conjunction ( 合取连词 )& disjunction ( 析取连词 ) ∨ implication ( 蕴涵连词 ) equivalence ( 等值连词 )≡ or

62. Truth table for the two-place connectives p qp & q p ∨ q p qp ≡ q T TTTTT T FFTFF F TFTTF F FFFTT

63.  Connective conjunction: similar to the English “ and ” When both conjuncts are true, the composite proposition will be true.  Connective disjunction: similar to the English “ or ” Only when and as long as one of the constituents is true, the composite proposition will be true.

64.  Connective implication/conditional implication: corresponds to the English “ if … then ”  Connective equivalence/ biconditional: corresponds to “ iff … then ”

65.  C.f. Negation & “ not ” With complementary antonyms, the denial of one is the assertion of the other. With gradable, that is not necessarily the case. E.g. John isn ’ t old. John is old.

66.  C.f. Conjunction & “ and ” Conjunction E.g. He missed the train and arrived late. “ And ” E.g. He arrived late and missed the train. *He missed the train and arrived late.

67.  C.f. Implication & “ if … then ” Implication E.g. If he is an Englishman, he speaks English. If snow is white, grass is green. Note: Even a false antecedent proposition may imply a true consequent proposition E.g. If snow is black, grass is green.

68. “ If … then ” : there must be some causal or similar relationship between the two constituent propositions. E.g.? If snow is white, grass is green. *If snow is black, grass is green.

69. In sum, propositional logic, concerned with the semantic relation between propositions, treats a simple proposition as an unanalyzed whole.

70. Question: How to analyze the valid inferences? Ex. 5-8 All men are rational. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is rational.

71. PREDICATE LOGIC( 谓词逻辑 )/ PREDICATE CALCCULUS( 谓词演算 )

72. Question: How to analyze Socrates is a man?

73. Argument( 主目 ) Predicate( 谓词 )

74. Socrates is the argument, and man is the predicate. Token: M(s)

75. Note: A simple proposition is seen as a function ( 函数 ) of its argument. The truth value of a proposition varies with the argument. M(s) =1, M(c) =0

76. E.g. John loves Mary. L (j, m) John gave Mary a book. G (j, m, b) kill: CAUSE (x, (BECOME (y, ( ～ ALIVE (y))))) C (x, (B (y, ( ～ A (y)))))

77. Universal quantifier and existential quantifier

78. R M MEC

79. C.f. analysis in terms of predicate logic & that in natural languages  Common nouns are treated in the way as adjectives and verbs.  There are more quantifiers in natural languages than all and some, such as, many, most, dozens of, several, a few in English.