Semantics and Theories of Semantics Essay Example for Free

Semantics and Theories of Semantics EssaySemantics is the study of intend in speech. We know that quarrel is employ to express nitty-grittys which can be undersas welld by reverses. But centres exist in our minds and we can express what is in our minds by the spoken and create verbally forms of language (as well as through gestures, accomplishment etc. ). The sound patterns of language ar studied at the direct of phonology and the organisation of wrangling and reproves is studied at the level of morphology and syntax. These ar in turn organised in much(prenominal) a representation that we can convey purposeful messages or receive and under booth messages.How is language organised in order to be messageful? This is the question we ask and attempt to answer at the level of semantics. Semantics is that level of linguistic analysis where mean is give issued. It is the most abstract level of linguistic analysis, since we cannot see or attain centre as we can observe and record sounds. implication is related very closely to the human beings capacity to think reasonablely and to understand. So when we try to analyse centre, we be trying to analyse our own capacity to think and understand, our own ability to create content.Semantics concerns itself with giving a systematic account of the nature of meat (Leech). Difficulties in the Study of Meaning The caper of sum is quite problematical, it is beca workout of its toughness that some linguists went on to the extent of excluding semantics from linguistics. A well-known structuralist do the astonishing statement that linguistic system of a languagedoes not include the semantics. The system is abstract, it is a manifestationing system, and as soon as we study semantics we atomic number 18 no longer studying language just the semantic system associated with language.The structralists were of the opinion that it is only the form of language which can be studied, and not the abstr act functions. Both these are mis creationions. Recently a knockout interest has been taken in the various problems of semantics. And semantics is being studied not only by the linguists solely withal by philosophers, psychologists, scientists, anthropologists and sociologists. Scholars be halt long puzzle everywhere what address mean or what they represent, or how they are related to in truthity. They view at times wondered whether invents are more(prenominal) than real than aspirations, and they have striven to find the essential implications of news programs.It whitethorn be interesting to ask whether scripts do have essential meaning. For example, difficulties whitethorn arise in finding out the essential meaning of the word table in water table, dining table, table amendment, and the table of 9. An abstract word like commodity creates rase more problems. Nobody can exactly tell what good really means, and how a verbaliser of English ever learns to use the wor d correctly. So the main trouble is to account facts some essential meanings, multiple meanings, and word conditions.The connotating use of words adds further complications to any theorizations about meaning, extraly their uses in metaphor and poetic language. in a higher place all is the question where does meaning exist in the speaker or the listener or in both, or in the context or short letter ? Words are in general convenient units to state meaning. But words have meanings by virtue of their employment in prison terms, most of which cease more than one word. The meaning of a sentence, though largely dependent on the meaning of its component words taken individually, is also affected by prosodic features.The question whether word may be semantically described or in isolation, is more a matter of degree than of a ingenuous answer yes or no. It is impossible to describe meaning adequately any other way except by saying how words are typically utilise as part of longer se ntences and how these sentences are used. The meanings of sentences and their components are better dealt with in linguistics in turns of how they function than exclusively in cost of what they put forwardence to. Words are tools they become important by the function they perform, the job they do, the way they are used in certain sentences.In appurtenance to reference and function, scholars have also attached import talkie to popular historical considerations, especially etymology, while studying word-meanings. Undobtedly the meaning of any word is nonchalantly the product of continuous interchanges in its antecedent meanings or uses, and in many an(prenominal) object lessons it is the collective product of generations of cultural history. Dictionaries often deal with this sort of information if it is available, except in so ding they are passing beyond the bounds of synchronic statement to the separate linguistic realm of historical explanation.Different answers have been attached to the questions related to meaning. Psychologists have tried to assess the availability of certain kinds of responses to objects, to experiences, and to words themselves. Philosophers have proposed a variety of systems and theories to account for the data that interest them. communicating scientists have developed information hypothesis so that they can use mathematical models to explain exactly what is predictable and what is not predictable when messages are channeled through various kinds of communication ne devilrks.From burn downes like these a complex array of conceptions of meaning emerges. Lexical and Grammatical Meaning When we talk about meaning, we are talking about the ability of human beings to understand one another when they speak. This ability is to some extent connected with grammar. No one could understand hat one the but red green on bought tried Rameez. while Rameez tried on the red had but bought the green one causes no difficulties. Yet there are numerous sentences which are perfectly grammatical, but meaningless. The most famous example is Chomskys sentence Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.Similar other examples are * The tree ate the elephant. * The pregnant bachelor gave birth to six girls tomorrow. * The table sneezed. In a sentence such as Did you understand the rudiments of linguistics? A linguist has to take into account at least two different typefaces of meaning lexical meaning and grammatical meaning. Full words have some kind of intrinsic meaning. They refer to objects, actions and qualities that can be identified in the external world, such as table, banana, sleep, eat, red. Such words are said to have lexical meaning.Empty words have short(p) or no intrinsic meaning. They exist because of their grammatical function in the sentence. For example, and is used to join occurrences, or indicates alternative, of sometimes indicates possession. These words have grammatical meaning. Grammatical meaning refers mainly to the meaning of grammatical specifics as did, which, ed. Grammatical meaning may also cover notions such as subject and object, sentence types as interrogative, imperative etc. Because of its complexity, grammatical meaning is extremely difficult to study.As yet, no theory of semantics has been able to handle it portly. But the study of lexical items is more manageable. What is Meaning? Philosophers have puzzled over this question for over 2000 years. Their thinking begins from the question of the relationship between words and the objects which words represent. For example, we may ask What is the meaning of the word scare? One answer would be that it refers to an living organism who has certain properties, that detach it from other animals, who are called by other names.Where do these names come from and why does the word cow mean only that particular animal and none other? Some thinkers say that there is no essential connection between the word cow and the animal ind icated by the word, but we have established this connection by convention and thence it continues to be so. Others would say that there are some essential attributes of that animal which we perceive in our minds and our concept of that animal is created for which we create a corresponding word.According to this idea, there is an essential correspondence between the sounds of words and their meanings, e. g. , the word buzz re bring abouts the sound make by a bee. It is easy to understand this, but not so easy to understand how cow can mean a four-legged bovinethere is no intimacy in the sound of the word cow to indicate that, (Children often invent words that illustrate the correspondence between sound and meaning they may call a cow moo-moo because they hear it making that kind of sound. )The above idea that words in a language correspond to or stand for the actual objects in the world is found in Platos dialogue CratyIus. However, it applies only to some words and not to others, f or example, words that do not refer to objects, e. g. love, hate. This fact gives rise to the view held by later thinkers, that the meaning of a word is not the object it refers to, but the concept of the object that exists in the mind. Moreover, as de de Saussure pointed out, the relation between the word ( supportifier) and the concept (signified) is an arbitrary one, i.e. the word does not resemble the concept.Also, when we try to define the meaning of a word we do so by using other words. So, if We try to explain the meaning of table we need to use other words such as four, legs, and wood and these words in turn can be explained only by means of other words. In their book, The Meaning of Meaning, L. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards made an attempt to define meaning. When we use the word mean, we use it in different ship canal. I mean to do this is a way of expressing our intention.The red signal means stop is a way of indicating what the red signal signifies. Since all language consi sts of signs, we can say that every word is a sign indicating something ordinarily a sign indicates other signs. Ogden and Richards give the following list of some definitions of meaning. Meaning can be any of the following 1. An intrinsic airplane propeller of some thing 2. Other words related to that word in a dictionary 3. The connotations of a word (that is discussed below)4. The thing to which the speaker of that word refers 5. The thing to which the speaker of that word should refer6. The thing to which the speaker of that word believes himself to be referring 7. The thing to which the listener of that word believes is being referred to. These definitions refer to many different ways in which meaning is unsounded.One reason for the range of definitions of meaning is that words (or signs) in a language are of different types. Some signs indicate meaning in a direct manner, e. g. an arrow (? ) indicates direction. Some signs are representative of the thing indicated, e. g. on omatopoeic wards such as buzz. tinkle ring even cough.slam, rustle have onomatopoeic qualities. Some signs do not have any resemblance to the thing they refer to, but as they stand for that thins, they are symbolic. Taking up some of the above definitions of meaning, we can discuss the different aspects of meaning o a word as follows (i) The sensible or denotative meaning. This is the literal meaning of a word indicating the idea or concept to which it refers. concept is a minimal unit of meaning which could be called a sememe in the aforesaid(prenominal) way as the unit of sound is called a phoneme and is like the morpheme h Is grammatical construction and organisation.Just as the phoneme /b/ may be defined as a bilatial + voiced + plosive, the word man may be defined as a concept consisting of a structure of meaning human + male + adult expressed through the basic morphological unit m + ? + n. All the three qualities are logical attributes of which the concept man is made. The y are the minimal qualities that the concept must possess in order to be a distinguishable concept, e. g. if any of these changes, the concept too changes. So human + female + adult would not be the concept referred to by the word man, since it is a different concept.(ii) The connotative meaning. This is the additional meaning that a concept carries. It is defined as the communicative value an expression has by virtue of what it refers to over and above its purely conceptual content (Leech, 1981). That is, aside from its logical or essential attributes, there is a further meaning attached to a word, which comes from its reference to other things in the real world. In the real world, such a word may be associated with some other features or attributes. For example, the logical or denotative meaning of the word woman is the concept, human + female + adult.To it may be added the concept of weaker sex or frailty. These were the connotations or values associated with the concept of woman . frankincense connotative meaning consists of the attributes associated with a concept. As we know, these associations come into use over a period of time in a particular culture and can change with change in time. While denotative meaning remains stable since it defines the essential attributes of a concept, connotative meaning changes as it is based on associations made to the concept these associations may change.(iii) The social meaning This is the meaning that a word or a diction conveys about the circumstances of its use. That is, the meaning of a word is tacit according to the different style and situation in which the word is used, e. g. though the words domicile, residence, abode, home all refer to the similar thing (i. e. their denotative meaning is the same), each word belongs to a particular situation of usedomicile is used in an official context, residence in a established context, abode is a poetic use and home is an ordinary use. Where one is used, the other is no t seen as appropriate.Social meaning derives from an cognizance of the style in which something is written and spoken and of the relationship between speaker and hearerwhether that relationship is formal, official, casual, polite, or friendly. (iv) The thematic meaning This is the meaning which is communicated by the way in which a speaker or writer organises the message in terms of ordering, focus and emphasis. It is often felt, for example, that an active sentence has a different meaning from its passive equivalent although its conceptual meaning seems to be the same. In the sentences Mrs.Smith donated the first prize The first prize was donated by Mrs. Smith the thematic meaning is different. In the first sentence it appears that we know who Mrs. Smith is, so the new information on which the emphasis is laid is the first prize. In the sulfur sentence, however, the emphasis is laid on Mrs. Smith. It is sometimes difficult to demarcate all these categories of meaning. For example , it may be difficult to distinguish between conceptual meaning and social meaning in the following sentences He stuck the key in his pocket. He sick the key in his pocket.We could argue that these two sentences are conceptually alike, but different in social meaningthe first one adopts a casual or informal style, the second adopts a neutral style. However, we could also say that the two verbs are conceptually different stuck meaning put carelessly and quickly, which is a more precise meaning than simply put. Of course, it is a matter of choice which word the speaker wishes to use, a more precise one or a neutral one. Some Terms and Distinctions in Semantics (a) Lexical and grammatical meaning Lexical or word meaning is the meaning of individual lexical items.These are of two types the open mob lexical items, such as nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs, and the close class items such as prepositions, conjunctions and deter-miners. The open class items have independent meanings, w hich are defined in the dictionary. The closed class items have meaning only in relation to other words in a sentence this is called grammatical meaning, which can be understood from a consideration of the structure of the sentence and its relation with other sentences. For example, in the sentence The tiger killed the elephant, there are three open class items tiger, kill, elephant.Out of these, two are nouns and one is a verb. There is one closed class tern thewhich occurs before each noun. It has no independent reference of its own and can have meaning only when placed before the nouns. This distinction may help in understanding ambiguity. Thus, if there is ambiguity in a sentence, this can be a lexical ambiguity or a grammatical ambiguity. For example, in the sentence I saw him near the shore, there is lexical ambiguity, since the item bank can mean (a) the financial institution or (b) the bank of a river.However, in the case of The parents of the bride and the groom were waiti ng there is grammatical ambiguity as the sentence structure can be interpreted in two ways (a) the two separate noun phrases being the parents of the bride, and the groom or (b) the single noun phrase the parents within which there is the prepositional phrase of the bride and the groom containing two nouns. The first type of coordination gives us the meaning that the deal who were waiting were the parents of the bride and the groom himself.The second type of coordination gives us the meaning that the people who were waiting were the parents of the bride and the parents of the groom. The meaning of a sentence is the product of both lexical and grammatical meanings. This becomes clear if we compare a brace of sentences such as the following The dog bit the postman. The postman bit the dog. These two sentences differ in meaning. But the difference in meaning is not due to the difference in the meaning of the lexical items postman and dog, but in the grammatical relationship between t he two.In one casedog is the subject and postman is the object, in the other case the grammatical roles are reversed. There is also the relationship of these nouns with the verb bit. In the first sentence, the action is performed by the dog, which conforms to our knowledge about dogs, but in the second sentence, the action is performed by the postman which does not match with our knowledge about what postmen do, so there is a sense of incongruity about the second sentence. Only in some exceptional circumstance could we expect it to be comprehensible. (b) Sense and Reference.It has been explained earlier that signs refer to concepts as well as to other signs. A sign is a symbol that indicates a concept. This concept is the reference, which refers in turn to some object in the real world, called the referent. The relationship between linguistic items (e. g. words, sentences) and the non-linguistic world of experience is a relationship of reference. It can be understood by the followin g diagram given by Ogden and Richards The objects in the real world are referents, the concept which we have of them in our minds is the reference and the symbol we use to refer to them is the word, or linguistic item.As we have seen, we can explain the meaning of a linguistic item by using other words. The relation of a word with another word is a sense-relation. Therefore, sense is the complex system of relationships that holds between the linguistic items themselves. Sense is concerned with the intra-linguistic relations, i. e. relations within the system of the language itself, such as law of similarity between words, opposition, inclusion, and pre-supposition. Sense relations include homonymy, polysemy, synonymy and antonymy.Homonyms are different items (lexical items or structure words) with the same phonetic form. They differ only in meaning, e. g. the item ear meaning organ of hearing is a homonym of the item ear meaning a stem of wheat. Homonymy may be classified as (a) Hom ography a phenomenon of two or more words having the same spellings but different pronunciation or meaning, e. g. lead /led/ = metal lead/lid/ = verb. (b) Homophony a phenomenon of two or more words having the same pronunciation but different meanings or spellings, e. g.sea/see, knew/new, some/ sum, sun/son.It is difficult to distinguish between homonymy and polysemy as in polysemy, the same lexical item has different meanings, e. g. bank*, face* Two lexical items can be considered as synonyms if they have the same denotative, connotative and social meaning and can replace each other in all contexts of occurrence. Only then can they be absolutely synonymous. For example, radio and wireless co-existed for a while as synonyms, being used as alternatives by speakers of British English. But now, wireless is not used frequently.What we consider as synonyms in a language are usually near-equivalent items, or descriptive items. For example, lavatory, toilet, WC, washroom are descriptive or near-equivalent synonyms in English. Antonyms are lexical items which are different both in form as well as meaning. An antonym of a lexical item conveys the opposite sense, e. g. single-married, good-bad. But this gives rise to questions of what is an opposite or blooded meaning. For example, the opposite of woman could be man or girl since the denotation of both is different from that of woman.Thus we need to modify our definition of antonymy. We can say that some items are less compatible than other items. There can be nearness of contrast or remoteness of contrast. Thus man or girl is contrasted to woman but less contrasted than woman and tree. In this sense, woman and man are related, just as girl and boy are related, in spite of being contrasted. Other meaning-relations of a similar nature are mare/stallion, cow/bull, ram/ewe etc. , all based on gender distinctions. Another set of meaning relations can be of age and family relationship receive/son, uncle/nephew, aunt/ niece .In this, too, there are differences in the structures of different languages. In Urdu, for instance, gender distinction or contrast may be marked by a change in the ending of the noun (e. g. /gho? a/gho? i/ for horse and mare respectively) or, in some cases, by a different word (e. g. /gae/bael/ for cow and bull respectively). In English, there are usually different words to mark contrast in gender except in a few cases (e. g. elephant, giraffe). The evolution of a complex system of sense relations is dependent on the way in which the objects of the world and the environment are perceived andconceptualized by the people who make that language. For example, Eskimos have many words related in meaning to snow because snow in different forms is a part o their environment. In English, there are only two snow and ice, while in Urdu there is only one baraf. This reflects the greatness that a particular object or phenomena may have for a certain community. Another kind of sense-relationsh ip is hyponymy. Hyponymy is the relation that holds between a more general and more specific lexical item. For example, flower is a more general item, and rose, lily, etc.are more specific. The more specific item is considered a hyponym of the more general itemrose is a hyponym of flower. The specific item includes the meaning of the general. When we say rose, the meaning of flower is included in its meaning. Rose is also hyponymous to plant and living thing as these are the most general categories. The combination of words to produce a single unit of meaning is also a part of sense-relations in a language. Compounds are made, which often do not mean the same as the separate words which they consist of.Thus, while black bird can be understood to mean a bird which is black, hemangioma simplex cannot be understood to mean a berry made of straw. Similarly, struggleer can be considered to be a noun made up of the morphemes fight + er, but hammer cannot be considered as made up of ham + er. Phrasal verbs and idioms are also a case of such sense relations. The verbs face up to, see through, look upon, etc. have a composite meaning. Collocations such as heavy smoker and good utterer are not mere combinations of heavy + smoker meaning the smoker is heavy or good + singer.They mean one who smokes heavily or one who sings well. The collocated unit has a meaning which is a composite of both that is why we cannot say good smoker and heavy singer. All these sense-relations are peculiar to a language and every language develops its own system of sense-relations. (c) Sentence-meaning and Utterance-meaning A distinction may be drawn between, sentence-meaning and utterance-meaning. This is because a speaker may use a sentence to mean something other than what is normally stated in the sentence itself.As discussed earlier, sentence meaning is a combination of lexical and grammatical meaning. In addition to this, intonation may also affect sentence meaning. For example, I do nt like drinking chocolate means that the speaker does not like drinking chocolate, but may like some other drink I dont like coffee means that the speaker doesnt like coffee but someone else does. Speakers can use intonation to change the emphasis and thus the meaning of the sentence. Further, a sentence may be used by a speaker to perform some act, such as the act of questioning, warning, promising, threatening, etc.Thus, a sentence such as Its cold in here could be used as an order or request to someone to shut the window, even though it is a declarative sentence. Similarly, an interrogative sentence such as Could you shut the door? can be used to perform the act of requesting or bossy rather than that of questioning (The speaker is not asking whether the hearer is able to shut the door, but is requesting the hearer to actually do the action). Usually such use of sentences is so conventional that we do not stop to think of the literal sentence meaning, we respond to the speak ers act of requesting, etc., which is the utterance meaning.This is the meaning that a sentence has when a speaker utters it to perform some act, in particular appropriate circumstances. (d) Entailment and Presupposition One sentence may entail other sentencethat is, include the meaning of other sentence in its meaning, just as hyponymy includes the meaning of other word. For example, the sentence The earth goes round the sun entails (includes) the meaning The earth moves. A sentence may presuppose other sentences, e. g. the sentence Shamims son is named Rahat presupposes the sentence Shamim has a son.Presupposition is the previously known meaning which is implied in the sentence. While entailment is a logical meaning inherent in the sentence, presupposition may depend on the knowledge of the facts, shared by the speaker and the hearer. Theories of Semantics a) Traditional progress We have noted earlier that meaning was always a central concern with thinkers. This has been the root of much divergent opinions and definitions of meaning. However, there was little doubt that there are two sides of the issue symbolic realization, whether in utterance or in writing, and the thing symbolised.Platos Cratylus clearly lays down that word is the signifier (in the language) and the signified is the object (in the world). Words are, therefore, names, labels that denote or stand for. Initially, a child learns to know his world, and his language in this manner. He is pointed out the objects and people names are given to them, and in his mind link or association between the names and the external world is established. Children have always been taught their language in this manner. This is also perhaps the way the earliest thinkers tried to understand the world through linguistic medium.That could be the reason why William Labov was prompted to say, In many ways, the child is a perfect historian of the language. This simple view of the relationship between name and things i s diagrammatically shown below. However, this is an extremely simplistic theory and it would be wrong to say the child simply learns the names of things. Gradually, and simultaneously, he learns to handle the complexities of experience along with the complexities of language. b) Analytical/Referential Approach Between the symbol and the object/thing there is an intervening phenomenon which is recognized as the mediation of concepts of the mind.De Saussure and I. A. Richards and C. K. Ogden are the best-known scholars to hold this view. The Swiss linguist de Saussure postulated the link, a psychological associative bond, between the sound image and the concept. Ogden and Richards viewed this in the shape of a triangle. The linguistic symbol or image, realized as a word or sentence and the referent, the external entities are mediated by thought or reference. There is no direct relation between the sign and the object but our interpretation of any sign is our psychological reaction to it (Ogden).The meaning of a word in the most important sense of the word is that part of a total reaction to the word which constitutes the thought about what the word is intended for and what it symbolizes. Thus thought (the reference) constitutes the symbolic or referential meaning of a word (YevgenyBasin 32-33). Linguistics, in the opinion of de Saussure, operates on the borderland where the elements of sound and thought combine their combination produces a form, not a substance. When we see an object, a bird, for example, we call it referent its recollection is its image. It is through this image that the sign is linked to the referent.The symbol is manifested in the phonetic form and the reference is the information the hearer is conveyed. This exploit thus established, makes meaning a reciprocal and reversible relation between name and sense. One can start with the name and arrive at the meaning or one can start with the meaning and arrive at the name/s. The referential or analytical approach, as it is also known, tries to avoid the operable domain of language, and seeks rather to understand meaning by identifying its primary components. This approach is the descendant of the ancient philosophical world-view, and carries its limitations.It ignores the relatively different positions at which the speaker and the hearer are situated. Their positions make a reciprocal and reversible relationship between name and sense (Ullmann). This approach also overlooks other psychological, non-physical processes which donot depend upon the linguistic symbol, the reply of the sound waves for recognising the meaning of the object/thing. A word usually has multiple meaning and is also associated with other words. Which of the meanings will be received depends upon the situations. (c) Functional Approach In the year 1953 L.Wittgensteins work Philosophical Investigation was published. Around this time Malinowski and J. R. Firth were working to formulate the operational character of scientific concepts like distance, time or energy they tried to grasp the meaning of a word by observing the uses to which it is put instead of what is said about it. They approached the problem by including all that is relevant in establishing the meaning the hearers, their commonly shared knowledge and information, external objecs, and events, the contexts of earlier exchange and so on, and not by excluding them.This approach can directly be linked to the concept of the Context of situation being developed by the London group which viewed social processes as crucial factor in explaining a speech event. While the referential approach took an idealist position, dealing, as someone said, with meaning in language, the functional theory or the operational theory took a realistic stand, taking speech as it actually occurred. Words are considered tools and whole utterances are considered.Meaning is thus seen to involve a set of multiple and various relations between the u tterances and its segments and the relevant components of environment (Robins). In placing special emphasis on language as a form of behaviour as something that we perform, the functional approach shares a lot with systemic linguistics. Language is a form a behaviour which is functional, something that we do with a purpose, or more often, in fact, with more than one purpose.It is viewed as a form of functional behaviour which is related to the social situation in which it occurs as something that we do purposefully in a particular social setting (Margaret Berry). The systemic organization of a language is sought to be understood through its relations with the social situations of language. According to this theory, meaning is classified into two broad categories, Contextual Meaning and Formal Meaning. Contextual meaning relates a formal item or pattern to an element of situation.