Introduction to Linguistics:
Semantics & Pragmatics
Masoud Jasbi
LIN001
Week 6
Types of Meaning
Lexical Meaning
single vs. married
Compositional Meaning
break a leg!
Use Meaning
Do you want to stop being annoying?
Social Meaning
pop vs. soda
The Role of Context
We can study the meaning of words, phrases, and sentences within a specific context or independent of context.
Semantics is the study of context-independent aspects of meaning.
Pragmatics studies the effect of context and language use in creating meaning.
Semantics
Subareas of Semantics
Semantics has two main subareas:
Lexical Semantics
Dictionary Theory of Meaning
Do dictionaries provide the meaning of words?
Is it possible for a robot to learn the meaning of words in a language using a dictionary?
What is missing from a dictionary?
Reference
The referent of an expression is the entity that the expression (currently) refers to.
Joe Biden →
Jill Biden’s husband →
46th president of the US →
The US president →
Sense
The sense of an expression is the abstract concept associated with the set of possible referents for that expression.
Joe Biden
Jill Biden’s husband
44th president of the US
The US president
Compositional Semantics
Sentence Meaning
The meaning of a sentence is called a proposition.
A proposition describes a state of affairs.
A proposition can be true or false.
What is truth?
Truth Conditions
To know the meaning of a sentence (i.e proposition), one must know (among other things) the conditions under which it is true.
Which of these are true?
Everyone here is sitting.
Everyone here is a nice person.
13 is a prime number.
How could you know?
Sentence Meaning
The meaning of a sentence (i.e proposition), is (at least) its truth conditions.
“Everyone here is sitting” is true iff …
“Everyone here is a nice person” is true iff …
“13 is a prime number” is true iff …
Tautologies and Contradictions
A tautology is a proposition that is always true.
A dollar is a dollar.
Everything either is or is not a taco.
Two propositions are contradictory if they can’t be true at the same time and at least one has to be true.
Remy is a rat.
Remy is not a rat.
Entailment
“P entails Q” means that if P is true, then Q must necessarily be also true.
P = “Remy is a rat.”
Q = “Remy is an animal.”
P ⇒ Q
How about the other way round?
Q ⇏ P
Q
P
Exercise
Determine which propositions entail/contradict each other.
A= Every UCD student has an UCD ID number.
B= Everyone with a UCD ID number is a UCD student.
C= Every LIN1 student has a UCD ID number.
D= Not every UCD student has a UCD ID number.
E= Some UCD students have UCD ID numbers.
F= Most of those with UCD ID numbers are UCD students.
Principle of Compositionality
The meaning of an expression is a function of the meaning of its parts and their mode of combination.
round metal objects
Joe runs
tall meerkats
fake guns
Verb Meaning
We defined the meaning of a proper name as the entity it refers to.
Joe Biden →
We defined the meaning of a sentence as its truth conditions.
“Joe Biden runs” = T/F
What do verbs like run mean?
Verb Meaning
N
Joe
V
runs
Joe runs
S
= T
Joe → T
Abe → F
Bob → F
Barack → T
...
{Joe, Barack...}
Verb Meaning
N
Joe
V
likes
Joe likes Barack
S
= T
Joe → [Joe →T, Abe →F...]
Abe → [Joe →T, Abe →T...]
Bob → [Joe→T, Abe →F...]
...
N
Barack
Joe → T
Barack → T
Abe → F
Bob → F
...
VP
likes Barack
{<Joe, Joe>, <Joe, Barack>, ...}
{Joe, Barack, ...}
Exercise
“Abe” → 😎 “Cleo” → 👸
“Bo” → 👻 “Dana” → 💃
“laughs” → {👻,😎}
“dances” → {👸, 👻, 💃}
“likes” → {<😎,👸>, <😎,👻>,<😎,💃>}
“Emails” → {<😎,👸>,<👸,👻>, <👻,💃>, <💃,😎>}
“Abe laughs.”
“Dana dances.”
“Cleo laughs.”
“Abe likes Bo.”
“Bo emails Dana.”
“Dana emails Bo.”
“Abe likes everyone”
Given the definitions on the left, are the sentences on the right true?
Types of Adjectives
Intersective Adjectives
An adjective ADJ is intersective iff for all N, ⟦ADJ N⟧ = ⟦ADJ⟧∩⟦N⟧.
In other words when something is [ADJ N], it is both [ADJ] and [N].
Examples: red
Is a [red chair] red?
Is a [red chair] a chair?
Any other examples of intersective adjectives?
red things
chairs
red chairs
Subsective Adjectives
An adjective ADJ is subsective iff, for all N, ⟦ADJ N⟧ ⊆ ⟦N⟧.
Example: skillful
A [skillful violinist] is only skillful as a violinist.
Not for example a surgeon!
Can you think of more examples?
skillful
violinist
Non-subsective Adjectives
An adjective ADJ is non-subsective if there is at least one N such that, ⟦ADJ N⟧ ⊈ ⟦N⟧
Example: alleged
Is an [alleged fraud] an alleged thing?
Is an [alleged fraud] a fraud?
Any other examples?
Privative Adjectives
An ADJ is privative iff for all N, ⟦ADJ N⟧ ∩⟦N⟧ = ∅
Example: fake
Is a [fake gun] a fake thing?
Is a [fake gun] a gun?
Is a [fake ID] fake?
Is a [fake ID] an ID?
Can you think of other examples?
Pragmatics
Types of Meaning
At-issue (ordinary) Entailments
Presupposition
Conversational Implicatures
Presupposition
The of meaning that is assumed or presupposed.
Did you stop smoking?
If the unicorn visits me today, I’ll let you know.
If a unicorn visits me today, I’ll let you know.
Did you see the unicorn?
Did you see a unicorn?
Conversational Implicatures
Conversational Implicatures are meanings that are the result of our reasoning about:
the rules of the conversation
why speakers said what they said
In order to better understand conversational implicatures, we need to know a bit about philosophy of language in mid 20th century.
Formalists vs. Informalist Philosophy
A central question in 20th Century Philosophy was “Is language logical”?
Bob bought beer or wine.
Have some beer or wine!
If you give me the money, I will let you go.
Formalists argued that there are divergences between language and logic. Language is illogical, unsystematic, and unsuitable for science.
Informalists argued there is still value in understanding language. Many types of valid argumentation are only captured by language.
Logic and Conversation
Philosopher Paul Grice argued:
“I wish, rather, to maintain that the common assumption of the contestants that the divergences [between language and logic] do in fact exist is (broadly speaking) a common mistake, and the mistake arises from inadequate attention to the nature and importance of the conditions governing conversation.”
Paul Grice
Philosopher, UC Berkeley
1931-1988
The Rules of Conversation
Grice argued that linguistic communication follows similar rules to that of rational social interaction generally.
Conversational participants follow the cooperative principle:
“Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.”
Paul Grice
Philosopher, UC Berkeley
1931-1988
Gricean Maxims
Maxim of Quality: Try to make your contribution one that is true. Do not say what you believe to be false. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. things for which you lack evidence.
Maxim of Quantity: Make your contribution as informative as required. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
Maxim of Relation: Be relevant.
Maxim of Manner: Be perspicuous. Avoid obscurity of expression. Avoid ambiguity. Be brief. Be orderly.
Gricean Reasoning
The cooperative principle and its maxims can be violated or flouted.
They are violated when a speaker simply refuses to abide by them.
They are flouted, when they seem to have been violated, but with additional implications, we can still consider the conversation to have followed them.
These additional implications are called conversational implicatures.
Example
A: Did you buy beer and wine for the party?
B: I bought beer.
A: Why didn’t you buy wine?
Gricean Reasoning
Example
A: Did you buy beer and wine for the party?
B: I bought beer.
A: Why didn’t you buy wine?
B: I didn’t say I didn’t buy wine.
A: You said you bought beer.
B: Yes. I bought beer.
A: Did you buy wine?
B: Yes.
Example
A: I feel hungry.
B: There is pizza in the fridge.
→ “.. and you can eat the pizza.”
A: It won’t be there for too long.
→ “... because I will eat the pizza.”
B: I’m sure some of it will stay there.
→ “... because you are not allowed to finish it all.”
Example
A: Do you like your car?
B: It’s a car.
Is B cooperative?
If no, what maxim is violated?
If yes, what maxim is flouted? What implicature is generated?
Example
A: I went to bed and brushed my teeth.
→ I first went to bed, then brushed my teeth.
B: In that order?
A: Of course not.
Back to Logical Words
A: I want beer or wine.
Gricean Pragmatics
The cooperative principle and its maxims are like conversational expectations that if flouted, result in inferences on why did the speaker do so.
The addressee comes up with possible reasons and picks the best explanation.
This is in essence abductive reasoning or inference to the best explanation.
An important part of this reasoning is the consideration of what the speaker could have said (alternatives).
Scalar Implicature
How does “some” imply “some but not all”?
Example: some of the students in this class are going to pass.
Implicature: not all are going to pass.
Scalar Implicature
The speaker said “some of the students are going to pass.”
The speaker could have said the stronger alternative “all of the students are going to pass.”
Why didn’t s/he?
→ S/he does not believe all students are going to pass.
Speech Act Theory
Language as Action
Language is a type of action. Saying things is doing things!
assert, question, order, promise, advise, suggest, request, …
In some cases, called performative speech acts, language is the main action.
I throw the ball. (not an act of ball throwing)
I promise to throw the ball. (an act of promising)
Many verbs, called performative verbs, encode such performative acts.
declare, promise, advise, order, …
Felicity Conditions
A speech act is felicitous if it is uttered in the context where the right conditions are met.
To declare two people husband/wife you need to have the right authority.
A promise should be made by the speaker with the intention to keep it.
# My friend hereby promises to give me his car.
Declaring Bankruptcy
Sentence Types
Declarative
This is a class. You should follow the rules. I wonder why.
Interrogative
Is this a class? Should you follow the rules? I wonder why?
Imperative
Be a class! Follow the rules! Wonder why!
Exclamative
What a class! Such terrible rules! Wonderful students!
Speech Act Terminology
The act of saying something is called the locutionary act.
The illocutionary act or the illocution is the intention of the locutionary act.
The perlocution is the actual effect of utterance on the addressee.
Persuading, convincing, scaring, enlightening, inspiring, or otherwise getting someone to do or realize something, whether intended or not (Austin 1962)
Classes of Illocutionary Acts (Searle 1975)
Assertives: commit a speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition
Directives: cause the hearer to take a particular action, e.g. requests, commands and advice
Commissives: commit a speaker to some future action, e.g. promises and oaths
Expressives: express on the speaker's attitudes and emotions towards the proposition, e.g. congratulations, excuses and thanks
Declarations: speech acts that change the reality in accord with the proposition of the declaration, e.g. baptisms, pronouncing someone guilty or pronouncing someone husband and wife
Sentence Type vs. Illocutionary Force
from Chris Potts’ course LING 106A