¡Descarga Semantics and Pragmatics: A Comprehensive Overview y más Apuntes en PDF de Semántica Formal solo en Docsity!
Semantics and Pragmatics
1. Introduction
Semantics and Pragmatics are the two main areas of Linguistics that study MEANING. However their main difference is: ● SEMANTICS: Meaning in LANGUAGE (what words/sentences mean) (what is SAID) ● PRAGMATICS: Meaning in CONTEXT (intended meaning by a speaker) (what is MEANT) Nevertheless,the distinction between semantics and pragmatics has been formulated in a variety of different ways.
1.1. Emergence
1.1.1. Of Semantics
● ANCIENT MODEL (Plato) ○ Cratylus: things have their names by nature (physis) ○ Hermogenes: things get their names by arbitrary convention (nomos) ● HISTORICAL-PHILOSOPHICAL MODEL (1830s – 1930s) – Michel Breal, Hermann Paul. Term “Semantics” first used by Breal (1883). Diachronic & comparative perspective of how meaning changes (e.g. Blue vs. Sad) ● STRUCTURALISM (1930s onwards) – Ferdinand de Saussure Synchronic perspective: relationships among words, what concepts words refer to. Language is a system; structure of language. ● GENERATIVISM (1950s) – Noam Chomsky, language as an innate ability. ● COGNITIVISM (1970s). (Birth of pragmatics) – Eleanor Rosch, Ronald Langacker, George Lakoff, etc. Interdisciplinarity: psychology, neurology, philosophy
1.1.2. Of Pragmatics
It is way narrower, in the 1960s we can find two influential works; Austin‟s “How to do Things with Words” and Searle‟s “Speech Acts”. In 1983 we come across the emergence of Pragmatics as a field (in Levinson‟s “Pragmatics”). From there on we find the Politeness Theory in Grice‟s Maxims (1975). By the 1990s Interlanguage Pragmatics was borned; pragmatic competence within models of communicative competence.
1.2. Linguistic meaning vs. speaker meaning
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, and semantics with sentence meaning.
1.3. Sentences vs. Utterances
Sentence: a syntactic and semantic linguistic unit. A string of words put together by the grammatical rules of a language. Utterance: a pragmatic unit, used in a concrete situation. Utterances are realizations of sentences.
1.4. Literal vs. Non-Literal Meaning
EXPLICATURE: interpretations based on the linguistic and the non-linguistic context. IMPLICATURE: speaker‟s intention.
1.5. The Role of Context
● In Semantics: disambiguation. e.g. They passed the port at midnight. (the sea port/the port wine). ● In Pragmatics: allows inference. e.g. There is a policeman at the door (a warning – hide! / conveying information). Many approaches to context have been proposed (Cutting 2002, Sperber and Wilson 1995, Levinson 2000, Hurford et al. 2007, among many others). E.g.: ● 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 linguistic context (or co-textual context): the linguistic material preceding and following a word or utterance.
1.6. Between Semantics and Pragmatics
● DEIXIS: Expressions that take some element of their meaning from the extralinguistic situation of the utterance. • E.g.: here, there, now, yesterday, tomorrow, this country... ● PRESUPPOSITIONS: Assumptions that something is the case when making an utterance.E.g.: • John went back to France. (P: John was to France at least once before.).
*Emergence of Pragmatics: 1960s.
2.1.1.3. Sense Relations
Synonymy can be “perfect” or “strict” synonyms if they can be substituted within the same context.
E.g. This unit is very important/relevant for the exam. However, it is more common when synonyms are partial; that is, when they have slight connotations. E.g. Euphemisms: jail / correctional facility.
Antonyms are opposites to at least one aspect of their meaning.
● Complementary antonyms (either/or): If A is true, then B cannot be true: legal/illegal, married/single ● Gradable antonyms (continuum): can be marked for comparative and superlative degrees: big/small, hot/cold, high/low, beautiful/ugly ● Converse antonyms: involve a change of perspective, and there is interdependence of meaning. Include relational and directional. (a) Relational (reciprocity): If A is B‟s, then B must be A‟s (wife/husband, above/below, teach/learn) (b) Directional (opposite directions of movement): rise/fall, arrive/depart
Homonymy refers to the existence of different words (“lexical items”) which have the same form (spoken or written) but
which differ in meaning. There are 2 types: ● HOMOPHONES: sound the same (but different spelling) tail tale [teiɫ] to too two [tu:] flour flower [flauwə] ● HOMOGRAPHS: identical written forms (normally same spelling and same pronunciation) bear (n.) animal / bear (v.) – to carry ● When homographs are pronounced differently, they are called HETERONYMS (=a subtype of homographs) Wind (noun) [wind] / wind (verb) [waind]
Polysemy (or “polysemia”) refers to the existence of multiple meanings within one lexeme. It arises when a word‟s meaning is
extended metaphorically.
Meronymy and holonimy stablish a part/whole relationship. Such as in arm and body respectively.
2.1.2. Meaning of Sentences
2.1.2.2.1. Sense relations among sentences
The study of what phrases, clauses and sentences mean, based on the Principle of Compositionality ; the meaning of a phrase or sentence is determined by the meaning of its component parts and the way they are combined structurally.
2.1.2.3. Sentence Interpretation
The syntactic structure of a sentence is relevant for its understanding. Sheila loves Mike more than Karen How can this sentence be disambiguated? By paraphrasing: Sheila loves Mike more than Karen loves Mike Sheila loves Mike more than she loves Karen
In order to get a better understanding of the semantics of a certain phrase we need to use presupposition. The main
characteristics of presuppositions are constantly under negation and questioning. The change of an affirmative clause into a negative clause (or vice versa) or an interrogative does not change its presuppositions. For example, the three examples below presuppose „John ate all the pudding before dinner‟: John regrets that he ate all the pudding before dinner. John does not regret that he ate all the pudding before dinner. Does John regret that he ate all the pudding?
2.2. Cognitive Semantics
It explains meaning in terms of categorization, therefore it assumes that meaning is linked to the way we group our perceptions in conceptual categories.
2.2.1. Categorizing words
2.2.1.2. Componential analysis
● Assumes that word meanings can be broken down into smaller units, so- called (semantic) distinctive features. ● Distinguishes between words in a semantic field via a set of binary features (+/ -) and kinship systems (>, <). ● Binary features can be common to a group of words (=common components), or differentiate words within a group (=diagnostic components).
Example: The word „boy‟ consists of binary features such as (+) human, which subsumes other binary features such as (+ Animate). Boy +HUMAN – ADULT +MALE Girl +HUMAN – ADULT – MALE Man +HUMAN +ADULT +MALE Woman +HUMAN +ADULT – MALE
Weaknesses of componential analysis:
lies in that, in metonymy, the two entities involved belong to the same cognitive domain, whereas in metaphor they belong to two different cognitive domains. E.g. mouth can be the source of both a metaphor and a metonymy: John has six mouths to feed. (metonymy: six persons). John is on the mouth of the river. (metaphor: source domain is „human being‟ and the target domain is „river‟).
Nevertheless, metaphor has traditionally been based on the notions „similarity‟ or „comparison‟ between the literal and the figurative meaning of an expression. The eye of heaven EYE is SUN. However, metonymy involves a relation of „contiguity‟ (i.e. nearness or neighbourhood) between what is denoted by the literal meaning of a word and its figurative counterpart
2.3. Cross-Cultural Semantics
2.3.1. Linguistic Relativity and Universalism
Two views of cross-cultural semantics (and overall linguistics) in contraposition. Firstly, universalism states that language shapes our mind, that language is innate and shapes the way we think., and that all languages have a common structural basis and a set of generalizations called linguistic universals.
On the other hand, linguistic relativism is supported on the opinion that mind comes first; that language learning results only from general cognitive abilities and the interaction between learners and their surrounding communities, and that there are very few specific grammatical categories and constructions present in all languages.
1. Linguistic Relativity
Differences in linguistic conceptualization play a central role in language and thought. In the 1690s, they started to point out differences across languages: ● Language-specific words, which have grown out of “the customs and manner of life” of the people (Locke, 1976) ● Differences in lexical/grammatical categories (e.g. countable/uncountable; tense and aspect) between European languages and languages of the New World. ● “Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis”(1929) = each language reflects a different worldview. ● 1956: Whorf coined the term linguistic relativity ● 1990s: Influence of language on categorisation
There is evidence that linguistic patterns really do influence people‟s patterns of attention and categorization: ● Experiments with children (Choi & Bowerman, 1991; Bowerman, 1996): English and Korean 2-year old children classified pieces in a puzzle and toys in a bag (among other aspects) differently. ● Experiments with adults (Lucy, 1992): speakers of English and Yucatec Maya process information about concrete objects. English classify them by number and shape; Yucatec by material.
2. Universalism
Differences in linguistic conceptualization are not relevant. Human thought is significantly similar across all cultures. Linguists started to explore similarities and differences across languages, through the semantic analysis of universal concepts (semantic primes). Nevertheless, the main problem when dealing with different languages is ethnocentrism. Meaning using our own semantic primes to use different languages. Most words don‟t have precise equivalents across languages. – E.g. in Russian there is no word for “hand”, just have a word for “arm” (ruka).
ii. Culture-specific words
Reflect historical and cultural experiences of the speech community. ● Culture-specific words. E.g. Japanese miai, US prom. ● Differences in lexical elaboration. E.g. Sami words for “snow”; in German, many types of “Kohl” (supermarket guys who didn‟t even know); European languages lots of words for measuring time. ● Cultural keywords: work, love and freedom in English culture.
iii. Culture-specific grammar
In any language there will be aspects of grammar which are strongly linked with culture. ➔ E.g. Italian syntactic reduplication (bella bella, adagio adagio, subito subito), to indicate intensity (equivalent in English “truly”). ➔ E.g. Italian absolute superlative: adjectives with – issimo (bellissimo), which involves an exaggeration. These reflect the expressiveness of the Italian language.
iv. Cultural scripts
Cultural scripts is the term used in order to identify the usage of semantic primes to explain cultural norms of communication (e.g. “directness”, “formality”, and “politeness”).
3.2. Pragmatic Principles
3.2.1. The Cooperation Principle
The Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975) is concerned with how the hearer decides what the speaker means and thus how successful conversation takes place. Grice explained how utterances get across from speaker to hearer. And established the concept of implicature; or what is suggested in an utterance. Implicatures represent conclusions drawn by the hearer due to the assumption that the speaker is cooperative. More particularly, 4 maxims are observed in interaction: ● Quantity: Give just the right amount of information – no more, no less. ● Quality: Tell the truth and have evidence for what you say ● Relation: Be relevant. ● Manner: Be brief, orderly, clear and unambiguous. Moreover, by their relationship to Grice‟s maxims we can find two kinds of implicature; conventional implicatures which maintain its “natural” meaning and conversational implicatures which meaning inferred from the context, which result from flouting maxims. Represent conclusions drawn by the hearer. Nevertheless, we can find some flaws and weaknesses within Grice‟s Cooperation Principle: ● Grice‟s maxims may apply to English, but not necessarily to other languages (they are culture-bound). ● The maxims often overlap. ● The maxims are not all equally important, and relevance seems to be inevitable. ● The hearer can not know which implicature(s) to infer. This flaws let the pragmatics field some chance in order to find a wider and more universal pragmatic theory.
3.2.2. The Politeness Principle
The concept, linguistically wise, is not concerned with social protocol. Linguistic politeness deals with face. It attempts to prevent hearer from losing face (Aparences, distinction) by embarrassing or offending them. We all have a certain self-image, what we call a face. If a speaker damages the hearer‟s face, we say a face-threatening act is being performed. These acts can be from criticism to bulgarity. However, a face-threatening act can be mitigated by a face- saving act. There is also two ways of considering this theory, discerning them by which side of the interlocutor‟s face they consider: ● Positive politeness which respects the positive face of the interlocutor (e.g. to feel liked, to feel accepted, to have freedom to say “no”) E.g. I understand you may be really busy now, but I was wondering whether you could bring my car to the garage. I‟ll pay you off. ● Negative politeness which shows consideration to the interlocutor‟s negative face (e.g. the need not to feel imposed on) E.g. Could you possibly bring my car to the garage?
Nevertheless, the Politeness Principle also has its flaws, since it is heavily influenced by: ● Degree of imposition (on the hearer‟s freedom) E.g. To a friend: “Pass me the salt, please.” is not the same degree of imposition than “I was wondering if you have a few minutes tomorrow to bring my car to the garage.” ● Closeness of relationship between interlocutors E.g. “Pass me the salt, please” (to a friend) “Could you please pass me the salt?” (to your boss, and to someone you don‟t know)
3.3. Pragmatics Across Languages and Cultures
Pragmatic competence involves 2 main aspects: ● Pragmalinguistics; or the linguistic resources that allow language users to communicate. In order to express the desired meaning and to engage in communication, L2 learners need to acquire the ability to choose the appropriate linguistic resources of the L2. ● Sociopragmatics; or knowledge of the cultural and social factors of the L2, which influence the appropriate use of linguistic forms. Therefore, cross-cultural pragmatics compares the pragmatic competence of different societies (i.e. languages/cultures). Hence it focuses on the L1 of each society. In other words, compares a specific pragmatic aspect in 2 or more societies.
3.3.1. Intercultural Pragmatics
This field of Pragmatics explores interactions in a lingua franca; i.e. a conversation between a non-native speaker (NNSs) and a non-native or native one (NS). It also focuses on miscommunication, misunderstandings, what we call “pragmatic failure”. Pragmatic failure can be: ● Pragmalinguistic. E.g. the NNS makes a request, but the NS interprets it as a command.
● Sociopragmatic. E.g. the NNS misunderstands the NS‟s social status and acts impolitely.
3.3.2. Interlanguage Pragmatics
This other field explores the way an L2 is learned. E.g. how Brazilians learn to apologise in L2 English. It includes synchronic (cross-sectional) and diachronic (longitudinal) studies. ● E.gs. cross-sectional: (1) comparing low-proficiency and high-proficiency learners of L2 English. (2) comparing how learners of different L1s learn to make invitations. ● E.g. longitudinal: (1) how a student learns to apologise in English during a semester abroad. (2) how a group of students learn to make compliments with instruction on pragmatic competence. Interlanguage pragmatics studies also explore the factors that may affect L2 learning, for instance; attitude, learners‟ beliefs, exposure to the L2 context, interaction with NSs, watching TV series, gender, age, proficiency, acculturation, identity, etc.
3.4. Pragmatic Markers
Pragmatic markers are short linguistic elements that do not convey particular semantic meanings but carry out significant pragmatic functions in conversation. Markers are key elements of communicative competence. Nevertheless, pragmatic markers are not easy to define, they are characterised by four main features that help delineate the term: ● Phonological and Lexical Features ; pragmatic markers are short elements (e.g., like, well) which are phonologically reduced (e.g., cos „because‟ or sorta „sort of‟) and have a separate tone group (e.g., well, you know, like). ● Syntactic Features ; pragmatic markers are sentenced at the beginning of a structure, outside the syntactic structure or loosely attached and they are syntactically optional. ● Semantic Features ; pragmatic markers have little or no propositional meaning. ● Sociolinguistic & Stylistic Features ; pragmatic markers are characterized by oral discourse & informality, relatively high frequency, being stylistically stigmatized & non-fluent, gender-specific (i.e., typical of women‟s speech) and closely associated with L2 learners‟ proficiency. Pragmatic markers are multifunctional; one may serve different functions according to the context in which it is uttered. Nevertheless, overall pragmatic markers have main functions: ● Textual PMs: contribute to the organization of the discourse, facilitating the interpretation to the interlocutor (e.g., however, anyway). ● Interpersonal PMs: manage the relationship between the speaker and the message (e.g. definitely, I think) and between the speaker and the hearer (e.g., listen, that‟s right).
