slides from 1-23-2023

pptx

School

University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

307

Subject

Linguistics

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

pptx

Pages

Uploaded by ElderSeaLion3284

The nature of this explanation • Our explanation of these examples was partly syntactic —  What are the structures these verbs can appear in?  Which elements of these structures are optional, and which are obligatory? • And partly semantic —  What is the interpretation of each element? • So our explanation of why Don’t sell the chicken! doesn’t mean “Don’t exchange anything for money with the chicken” is very different from our explanation for why Don’t serve the chicken! doesn’t mean “Don’t present anything to the chicken as a meal.” • For our current purposes, what is important to notice is that the explanation was stated completely in terms of the language — things a person would know as part of their knowledge of English — • not in terms of “human-chicken relations,” or other things which are independent of the English language.

Division of Labor Because some aspects of interpretation seem to require such a different kind of explanation from the other aspects of interpretation, we divide the theory of meaning into two more-or-less independent subfields: Semantics The theory of those aspects of interpretation which are determined by the “structural system” of a language. Pragmatics The theory of those aspects of interpretation which are determined by non -linguistic factors, such as general background knowledge or context of use. Caution: Not all theorists draw the semantics/pragmatics distinction in exactly this way, and some even deny that it is a legitimate distinction.

All utterances involve both semantics and pragmatics From our previous discussion, in which one example was used to illustrate pragmatic effects on interpretation, and a different example was used to illustrate semantic effects on interpretation… …it would be easy to get the impression that the idea is to explain some utterances semantically, and other utterances pragmatically. But this impression is incorrect . Both semantics and pragmatics play a role in explaining the interpretation of all utterances.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

All utterances involve both semantics and pragmatics In our example of the chef saying “Don’t serve the chicken,” our explanation of how one interpretation was selected from among the possible meanings of the sentence was pragmatic . But any explanation of why those meanings were possible meanings of that particular sentence in the first place would have to be semantic — would have to appeal to knowledge of the English language. Moral: Certain aspects of the interpretation of an utterance may be explained semantically, and others pragmatically. This does not mean that certain utterances or sentences are explained semantically, and others pragmatically.

There will often be a gap between what a semantic theory claims about what a sentence means, and how people actually interpret it. In some cases, this might be an indication that the semantic theory is wrong, but it might also just be a case where the semantic analysis needs to be augmented with a pragmatic analysis. It is always the semantic and pragmatic theories together which are supposed to account for real-life interpretation. If we divide things up this way, it means that neither a semantic theory by itself, nor a pragmatic theory by itself, will adequately account for the way people actually interpret each other’s utterances. What semantics gives us may not match intuitive interpretation

Sentence meaning and utterance meaning Because of the semantics/pragmatics distinction, we can draw a distinction between… what a sentence means by virtue of the structure of the language how it is interpreted (or intended to be interpreted) in context by actual people on a particular occasion. Call these sentence meaning and utterance meaning (or speaker meaning ) .

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Sentence meaning and utterance meaning No, we are just recognizing that both linguistic and non-linguistic factors are involved in actual usage and interpretation, and that a theory of just the linguistic factors cannot be expected to explain all the facts about how we interpret each other when we use language. what a sentence means by virtue of the structure of the language how it is interpreted (or intended to be interpreted) in context by actual people on a particular occasion. If we distinguish these, are we abandoning the idea that a linguistic theory should be a descriptive analysis of the principles underlying people’s actual linguistic usage, rather than a prescriptive recommendation of how the language ought to be used?

Sentence meaning and literal meaning That depends on exactly what we mean by “literal meaning.” Unfortunately, this term does not have a fully precise, standardized definition. what a sentence means by virtue of the structure of the language how it is interpreted (or intended to be interpreted) in context by actual people on a particular occasion. Is sentence meaning the same as “literal” meaning?

Sentence meaning and literal meaning But some metaphors are conventionalized to the point that we must consider them to be part of the language. what a sentence means by virtue of the structure of the language Often, “literal meaning” is contrasted with “figurative meaning” — including metaphorical meaning, sarcastic meaning, etc. For example, someone who says “Looking back to last year…” is using a metaphor: speaking of the past as though it were behind us in space.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Sentence meaning and literal meaning Some other languages employ the opposite metaphor, speaking of the past as though it were in front of us, and the future as though it were behind us. Aymara: qhipa marana “next year” (literally “behind year-at”) nayra mara “last year” (literally “front year”) This Aymara usage is based on the idea that you can “see” into the past (by virtue of memory), but not into the future. Since you can see ahead of you but not behind you, this places the past ahead of you and the future behind. The Aymara word mara “front” also means “eye” or “sight.” Aymara is spoken by about 3 million people in Bolivia, Peru and Chile. Last year Next year

Sentence meaning and literal meaning • So, the fact that the English word back , in reference to time, means into the past, and forward means into the future, is something that must be learned as part of learning English — it is a fact about the language. Hence, something to be accounted for in a semantic theory, despite being metaphorical. • But other metaphors might need to be figured out “on the fly,” rather than learned as part of the language. • If someone says to you: “You are a dumpling in the soup of my life,” just knowing the meanings of the English words and grammatical constructions of this sentence is probably not enough to tell you what the speaker meant (without any other background information or reasoning). • Explaining how a speaker can use such a sentence metaphorically to convey a meaning that is not about actual dumplings, and how a listener can figure out what is meant, is a task for pragmatic theory.

What else is pragmatic? So far we have seen two kinds of things which pragmatic theory should account for: • Disambiguation of ambiguous sentences in context, • Metaphorical (and other figurative) interpretations, if they are not conventionalized as part of the language. What else should a pragmatic theory explain?

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Deictic Anchoring What else should a pragmatic theory explain? Deictic Anchoring — figuring out who (or what) a speaker is referring to, in using a pronoun or similar expression. • Suppose Mary says “He is a fool!” • Understanding what she meant involves figuring out who she was referring to in using the pronoun he .

Deictic Anchoring • This is constrained by the language — by the conventions of English, he is normally only used to refer to males — • But it isn’t determined by it. Mary’s intentions seem to be what matters; listeners must guess at these, based on things like  who is salient in context,  who Mary has already been talking about,  general plausibility in light of what we know, etc. That is, they must use pragmatic information.

Conversational Implicature What else should a pragmatic theory explain? Conversational Implicature • Suppose Mary has run out of gas while driving, and is stuck by the side of the road. John arrives and asked her what is wrong. Mary explains her situation, and John says: • In this situation, John seems to be implying that the gas station is likely to be open, so that Mary can get gas there. I’m out of gas. There’s a gas station just around the corner.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Conversational Implicature • If we look just at the meanings of the words John uses, and the grammatical structure of the sentence, the sentence itself doesn’t seem to say anything about the gas station being open, or about the possibility of getting gas there. • If the sentence itself says nothing about the gas station being open, or about the possibility of getting gas there, why do we take John to be implying these things? I’m out of gas. There’s a gas station just around the corner.

Conversational Implicature • Because if he did not believe the gas station were probably open, and you could get gas there, the fact that it was located around the corner would be irrelevant to the problem at hand. • And we assume he is trying to be relevant. • That is, we make use of information about the situation at hand, and about speaker goals and strategies, in addition to information about what the sentence means. • How we do this is a matter for pragmatic theory to explain. I’m out of gas. There’s a gas station just around the corner.

Interim Summary We have two separate fields — semantics and pragmatics — because two different kinds of factor affect the interpretation of language. Semantics: The theory of meaning as determined by the language itself, viewed as a structural system, including at least: • The literal meanings of words, phrases and sentences, • Figurative meanings which are so conventionalized as to be learned as part of the language, rather than calculated “on the fly.” Pragmatics: The theory of how people bring additional information to bear in interpreting language use, including at least: • Disambiguation in context of ambiguous sentences, • Figurative interpretations which are not fully conventionalized, • Anchoring pronouns and other deictic expressions to their intended referents, • Understanding implicatures based on assumptions about speaker goals and strategies.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

What do we mean by the “structural system” of a language?  Semantics is the study of those aspects of interpretation which are determined by the “structural system” of a language, and  Pragmatics is the study of those aspects of interpretation which are determined by non-linguistics factors such as general background knowledge or context of use. If this distinction is going to be useful, we should get clear about what we mean by the “structural system” of a language… • and about how semantics fits in with other components of this system.

What do we mean by the “structural system” of a language? • Most linguists approach these questions as being about the knowledge of individual language users .  If you know a language, that means you have a certain body of knowledge, which is your knowledge of the language.  When we ask about the “structure of the language,” we are asking about that body of knowledge: what information is contains, how it is organized, and how it is represented in the mind.  This perspective on what the theory of linguistic structure is about was pioneered by Noam Chomsky, but is widely adopted even by linguists who reject other aspects of the Chomskyan approach.

What do we mean by the “structural system” of a language? • Most linguists approach these questions as being about the knowledge of individual language users .  Other approaches do exist — for example, we could take questions about linguistic structure as being about an abstract pattern which is only imperfectly represented in any one speaker’s mind; or as being about speaker behavior rather than speaker knowledge.  But let’s assume for now (keeping an open mind) that what we mean by “linguistic structure” is an organized body of knowledge in the mind of a language user.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

What do we mean by the “structural system” of a language? • From this perspective, we can approach the question of how a language is structured by asking… What does a user of the language know, by virtue of which they qualify as knowing the language? • For example: What do you have to know, to count as knowing English? (or Chinese, or Arabic, or Zuni, etc.) In this course, we are concerned specifically with knowledge of meaning , but let’s take some time to also consider how knowledge of meaning fits in with knowledge of other aspects of language.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Components of Grammar: Lexicon • One thing which users of a language must know is a stock vocabulary items — a lexicon . • The lexicon contains all the items in the language which must be learned individually, rather than constructed by general rules.  Mostly, it contains individual words .  However, some words may be used or understood even if they are not already part of a speaker’s vocabulary — for example, most English speakers could use or understand the word giraffiness , even if they have not encountered it before.  This is because it consists of three distinct parts, each of which most speakers are already familiar: giraffe , – y , and – ness .

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Components of Grammar: Lexicon • One thing which users of a language must know is a stock vocabulary items — a lexicon . • The lexicon contains all the items in the language which must be learned individually, rather than constructed by general rules. ◦ So we should recognize that in addition to whole words, the lexicon contains morphemes (recurrent parts of words) ◦ And that the lexicon does not need to contain words whose properties are completely predictable from the morphemes they are composed of.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Components of Grammar: Lexicon • One thing which users of a language must know is a stock vocabulary items — a lexicon . • The lexicon contains all the items in the language which must be learned individually, rather than constructed by general rules. ◦ The lexicon must also contain idioms — multi-word phrases whose meanings are not completely predictable from the meanings of their parts. ◦ For example, the phrase keep tabs on must be learned as a single vocabulary item. Its meaning is not predictable from the meanings of the individual parts keep , tab , – s , and on .

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Components of Grammar: Lexicon • For each lexical item (whether a word, morpheme or idiom), the language user must know several things. So we can think of each lexical item as having a “lexical entry” which specifies several kinds of information:  Most importantly for our purposes, the lexical entry of a vocabulary item must specify what the item means . The study of this aspect of language is lexical semantics , and will be a major topic of this course.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Components of Grammar: Lexicon • For each lexical item (whether a word, morpheme or idiom), the language user must know several things. So we can think of each lexical item as having a “lexical entry” which specifies several kinds of information:  In addition, it must specify how that item is pronounced — or at least, those aspects of its pronunciation which do not follow from general rule.  Aspects of pronunciation which are rule-governed — for example the fact that the p in pie is produced with aspiration — do not need to be represented in that item’s lexical entry.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version