Prepara tus exámenes y mejora tus resultados gracias a la gran cantidad de recursos disponibles en Docsity
Gana puntos ayudando a otros estudiantes o consíguelos activando un Plan Premium
Prepara tus exámenes
Prepara tus exámenes y mejora tus resultados gracias a la gran cantidad de recursos disponibles en Docsity
Prepara tus exámenes con los documentos que comparten otros estudiantes como tú en Docsity
Encuentra los documentos específicos para los exámenes de tu universidad
Estudia con lecciones y exámenes resueltos basados en los programas académicos de las mejores universidades
Responde a preguntas de exámenes reales y pon a prueba tu preparación
Consigue puntos base para descargar
Gana puntos ayudando a otros estudiantes o consíguelos activando un Plan Premium
Comunidad
Pide ayuda a la comunidad y resuelve tus dudas de estudio
Ebooks gratuitos
Descarga nuestras guías gratuitas sobre técnicas de estudio, métodos para controlar la ansiedad y consejos para la tesis preparadas por los tutores de Docsity
Asignatura: Semántica y pragmática en lengua inglesa, Profesor: Marta Carretero Lapeire, Carrera: Filología Inglesa, Universidad: UCM
Tipo: Apuntes
1 / 146
Esta página no es visible en la vista previa
¡No te pierdas las partes importantes!
Marta Carretero [email protected] Departamento de Filología Inglesa I Facultad de Filología Universidad Complutense de Madrid 2014
This manual covers the basic contents of Semántica y pragmática del inglés (‘English semantics and pragmatics’), an optional subject in the Degree in English Studies at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. This course will enable students to familizarize themselves with a number of phenomena of semantics and pragmatics applied to English, and to analyze these phenomena in authentic linguistic expressions and connected spoken and written language, independently of context or in different communicative situations.
The contents of the manual comprise the semantic and pragmatic phenomena under study. The approach presented here is based on critical readings of key references as well as observations and reflections that stem from my lecturing experience. In the areas of most disagreement in the literature, I have included a brief discussion of different positions and a reasoned proposal of a concrete position to be adopted. These issues, as well as a number of issues that easily lead to confusion and a number of observations have been signalled with thick discontinuous lines and the heading ‘Note(s)’, with the aim that students pay extra attention to them. Students are encouraged to think critically on these and other topics, and to present their own viewpoints in classroom sessions or course papers.
The contents are presented in units, in the order in which they figure out in the programme. The topics are presented in an accesible way, and are geared at avoiding or diminishing frequent students’ errors that have come across during my lecturing experience. All the units include practical exercises, many of which are based on authentic texts. The key to the answers is provided at the end of the book. The answers should not always be considered as an end in themselves, but might well give way to discussions.
This manual is to be complemented by discussions in class about concrete points of the contents, as well as further references, some obligatory and others optional (not part of the course; only for those students who are
interested in knowing more about concrete areas), which are indicated at the end of each unit.
My thanks are due to all those persons who have helped me in different ways to write this manual. The list of persons who have contributed to shape my present knowledge and thoughts about the contents are endless. For reasons of space, and with the risk of being quite far from completely fair, I am obliged to mention only a few.
On the academic side, my thanks go to: -Angela Downing, to whom I owe most gratitude for her mentoring and counseling for many years and, most importantly, for the influence she will always have on my views of linguistics; -Julia Lavid and Juana I. Marín-Arrese, professors of my Department, to whose work I invariably resort as food for thought; -Many colleagues, most remarkably Jorge Arús-Hita and Carmen Maíz-Arévalo, with whom I have had fruitful discussions on a substantial part of the contents of this subject; -My husband, José Luis Sancho Bermejo, an expert in classical Latin and Greek, always available whenever I ask him about problematic issues; -Last but not least, my students over all my years of lecturing, who, with their suggestions and comments, and also with their errors, have contributed to the improvement of both my vision of the topics concerned and the pedagogical adequacy of the materials. Needless to say, the remaining shortcomings and inconsistencies of the manual are my only responsibility.
On the affective side, my thanks go again to José Luis, and also to my son, Miguel, and my parents, Julio and Esther, for providing me with a good family environment, and also for putting up with my absent-mindedness, due to untimely intrusions of problems of linguistics into my mind.
-Semantics and pragmatics study how languages organize and express meanings. Semantics concerns the meaning of linguistic expressions independently of the context in which they occur. Pragmatics is meaning in use / context. -The difference between semantics and pragmatics is clearly expressed in Rühlemann (2010: 288): “The question underlying semantics is: ‘What does X mean?’ The question underlying pragmatics is, ‘What does a speaker mean by X?’ Hence, pragmatics deals with speaker meaning rather than sentence meaning.” -Compare: What does serendipity mean? (asking about the semantic sense) What do you mean by saying he’s too sociable? (asking about the pragmatic meaning).
-The difference between semantics and pragmatics can be illustrated by the following example: The boss is coming now. Semantic (context-independent) meanings: Definite article + superior at work + move towards the speaker + present progressive + time of speaking Pragmatic (context-dependent) meanings: This sentence may function as a warning (‘you’d better resume work’), a promise (‘as I told you, you can ask her about a salary increase’), etc., depending on the context.
-The difference between semantics and pragmatics is reflected in the difference between sentences and utterances : the sentence is a syntactic and semantic linguistic unit, and the utterance is a pragmatic unit used in a concrete situation. Utterances are realizations of sentences.
What do you think is ‘the context’?
-Many approaches to context have been proposed (Cutting 2002, Sperber and Wilson 1995, Levinson 2000, Hurford et al. 2007, among many others). In this approach, context includes the following four dimensions: -The linguistic context: the linguistic material preceding and following a word or utterance; -The situational context: the situation in which an utterance takes place (time, place, participants in the conversation); -The background knowledge context: the set of background assumptions (i.e. knowledge of the world) necessary for an utterance to be intelligible (or to understand it well). These assumptions change in different situations: it is not the same to talk to a friend or to a stranger; -The context of culture. It is not the same to talk to a person from your country or to a foreign person who knows little about your country.
-The context is not static, but dynamic: it constantly changes as discourse goes on. The linguistic material increases continuously, and so does the set of background assumptions. The situation may change (for example, a participant leaves or a new participant comes in), time moves slowly, and place may change too (during a trip). The context of culture usually moves more slowly, with some exceptions, as when someone from a different country speaks about habits of their country so as to give the addressee a rough idea about how life in that country is.
-Sentences such as the following need the context in order to be interpreted: Go ahead. For sale. / To let.
-Most approaches to modality treat these two uses as different meanings of must. Each of them occurs in a large number of contexts, and zeugma (ellipsis in two neighbouring class) provokes an effect of oddness: ! John must come here at once and have green eyes. -However, let us consider the use I must have made a mistake when the speaker knows that s/he has made a mistake. This use could be included in ‘supposition’; however, the real motivation for its use is not lack of total certainty, but a wish to save face, since the information communicated is unfavourable to the speaker. This face-saving use of must depends highly on the context, so that it could be considered to be a pragmatic use of must. -An intermediate case, lying in between semantics and pragmatics, might be the frequent use of must for mock-suppositions about the addressee, such as You must be joking / crazy… -However, for most scholars following a Relevance Theory approach to pragmatics, all the issues of must explained here, including the distinction between obligation or supposition, belong to pragmatics, since the interpretation of one or the other depends on the context.
-Lexical semantics concerns the meanings of morphemes, words and lexical expressions consisting of more than one word, such as idioms. Examples of phenomena studied in lexical semantics: -Semantic fields (furniture, colours, etc.); -Lexical relations: synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, meronymy.
-Phrasal and clausal semantics concern the meanings of linguistic units consisting of more than one word and expression, linked among themselves by syntactic relationships. -Phrasal semantics concerns the semantics of the phrase, and clausal semantics, the semantics of the clause. For example, phrasal semantics explains why pairs such as the following do not have the same meaning, even if they consist of the same words: the books under the box
the box under the books -Clausal semantics explains, for example, why the meanings of the following pairs of clauses are not identical, even if they consist of the same words: The dog hit the cat / The cat hit the dog. Peter gave John the book / John gave Peter the book.
Discuss the meaning differences between the following stretches of language. Are they a question of phrasal semantics, clausal semantics or both? the rapid industrialization of Russia in the twentieth century Russia rapidly became industrialized in the twentieth century.
-Syntactic, semantic and pragmatic anomalies are different. Some examples of each kind of ambiguity are the following:
-Some examples of the influence of pragmatics on grammar are the following: A) The use of who or of which to refer to animals, depending on the affection felt towards them. B) The use of and in logic and in everyday language. In logic, and always expresses addition. In everyday language, however, chronology and causality do make a difference.
-Reference is the concept that mediates between a word or expression and an entity that the word or expression stands for in a concrete utterance.
-Examples of expressions that refer to objects in the classroom: the door, the ceiling, the window, the blackboard, my bag, names of students … If we were in another classroom, the objects signalled by these referring expressions would be different.
-Referring expressions are those that, in a given context, enable a listener or reader to identify someone or something. The same expression may be referring or non-referring: We need another typist for our Seville office (non-referring) We have hired another typist for our Seville office. (referring)
-Some expressions can be used as referring expressions. Others cannot, such as: -Verbs and verb phrases; -Prepositions; -Conjunctions; -Adverbs of manner, etc.
-The following devices express indefinite reference in Nominal Groups: -The indefinite article, with countable nouns: I saw a squirrel in the park.
-Indefinite reference may be specific, when it refers to a given entity or entities, or non-specific, when it occurs within the scope of an expression of frequency and refers to different entities for each individual situation: Peter married a Spanish woman. (specific) Yesterday we visited some friends. (specific) Every week, my neighbour gives me a chocolate cake. (non-specific) I’d like to have some scones. (non-specific) -In certain cases, it is not known whether indefinite reference is specific or non- specific. This is a case of indeterminacy. Every morning, a sparrow sings by my window.
Yesterday I went to the library with my aunt. (the addressee, due to his/ her knowledge of the world, infers that the speaker has an aunt; there is no need of previous introduction by an utterance such as 'I have an aunt').
The use of definite reference to mention unexpected entities for the first time is pragmatically inadequate; it may even create humouristic effects. If a stranger that you have just met accidentally tells you I’d better go home because I must feed my cat. you would not be surprised. But imagine your reaction if a stranger tells you I’d better go home because I must feed my snake.
-The following devices express definite reference in Nominal Groups: -the definite article the : Look at the window! -demonstrative and possessive determiners; - s’ genitive: That girl can run very fast. John’s girlfriend is twenty-seven. -personal pronouns; -proper names. -Definite reference may also be expressed with nominal relative clauses: Don’t worry; I know what you want.
-Plural definite reference may be: -Distributive: These two candidates have a PhD. (each of them) -Collective: My three brothers own a bookshop. (one bookshop for them all)
-Definite reference may be specific (when it refers to a specific entity or entities) or non-specific. The following are cases of non-specific reference: Every day I listen to the weather forecast. Smith's murderer is insane. (in the interpretation: 'whoever killed Smith').
Whenever John has problems, he goes to the doctor. (it need not be always the same doctor)
-A non-referring expression can be the antecedent of a definite NG; this NG indicates that the entity has been conceptualized as if it existed (hypothetical entity); therefore, it is considered as a non-specific generic expression: We need to hire a secretary (non-referring) for our Seville office. She (referring) would be in charge of foreign customers.
-Equatives are sentences consisting of two definite referring expressions equated by a copula. Equatives assert that the two referents refer to the same entity: My boss is that tall man over there. Dr Jekyll is Mr Hyde. -One of the referents may be a Nominal Group in which the head is modified by a superlative Adjectival Group: Jane Wexford is the best student in this class. -The corresponding negative clauses also have two referring expressions, but they are not equatives: My boss is not that tall man over there. -Appositions that include two definite NGs function like equatives. The two referring expressions are separated only by a pause in spoken language and a comma in written language: My boss , that man over there , wants me to work until 7 pm today. -Equative sentences are reversible: if the order of the two referring expressions is changed, the sentence would still be grammatical: That tall man over there is my boss. Mr Hyde is Dr Jekyll.
However, the positions of the two referents are not always pragmatically interchangeable. The expression that transmits the new information for the addressee should occur in second position. If I am with a friend walking by the street and the person in question emerges within sight, it is better to say
-Example of a pun with an invented sense of a word, from a speech by Glenda Jackson, MP (Thomas 1995:15): They call it a “classless society”. And it is classless. There are no classes for the children turned away for the lack of a qualified teacher.
-Certain expressions may stand for the same referent and have different senses: Napoleon Bonaparte , the victor of Jena, the loser of Waterloo. -Vagueness plays a role in this versatility of referring expressions: the same entity might be referred to as the hill or the mountain.
-Sense may give way to ambiguity and indeterminacy. In everyday language, ambiguity created by senses tends to be solved by the context: They passed the port at midnight. (ambiguity) Mary had a child last week. (indeterminacy: boy or girl)
Choose real or fictional persons, and refer to them by as many referring expressions with different senses as you can think.
-Semantic ambiguity of sentences may be caused by
Examples: the sun, the moon, Spain, Mars… -Exceptions can be found with expressions normally associated with constant reference: The moon looks real in this painting. (representation) In my life, you’re the sun !!! (metaphor) The students will have the opportunity to see a different Spain. (metonymy: a different part / side of Spain)
-Expressions that refer to different entities, depending on the context, have variable reference. Most referring expressions are in this category: the house, my friend, that book over there…
-Many expressions have high referential versatility, i.e. capacity to refer to very different entities, depending on the context. The relation between the referent and the sense of the referring expression may be loose. For example, one waiter to another may say: The apple pie left without paying.
(In Spanish, this kind of versatility seems less frequent, because there is the construction ‘El del pastel de manzana se marchó sin pagar’, which has just one syllable more than the literal translation of the English original.)
-Referring expressions in reported discourse may be transferred de dicto or de re. Reports de dicto are faithful to both the referring expression and the referent; reports de re use a different referring expression to refer to the same entity as the original speech; that is, they are faithful to the referent, but not to the expression. -Example: -A customer says: I’d like to see Mr Jones. -The employee may report this information using a referring expression: -de dicto: She says she would like to see Mr Jones. -de re: She would like to see that idiot.
