Semantics and Pragmatics Meaning in the Emphirical Study of Language

Written by:

1. Anggraeni wulansari 2. Adi cahyono 3. Ferry kurniawan

10321077 10321079 10321080

English Teaching Department Letters and Arts Faculty of Education IKIP PGRI Madiun

A. Level of meaning

There are 2 two level of meaning: 1. Sentence meaning. 2. Utterance meaning. Sentence meaning is compositional meaning of the sentence as constructed out of the meanings of its individual component lexemes (word/ sentence).

The example of sentence meaning, we can see from the conversation between Brenda and Peter:

Conversation 1 Brenda: You are very tidy cook. I see. Peter: (hidden)

We know that the sentence meaning is built up from the meanings of the individual word of sentence. From the conversation 1, the sentence meaning is that Peter is a tidy cook. In other word, sentence meaning is about what they are say, it is what they are means. If we didnt speak English, we could discover the sentence meaning of the conversation by translate each word of You are very tidy cook. in our language.

This is the sentence meaning if we translated it into our language (Indonesian)

You (peter) + are + very (sangat) + tidy (rapi) + cook (memasak)

But there will be make a different meaning if there is an utterance meaning in that sentence. Utterance meaning is contrast with the sentence meaning. Utterance meaning is the meaning which the words have on a particular occasion of use in the particular context in which they occur (Nick Rimmer, 2010:19). In everyday talk we

regularly use words and expression ironically, metaphorically, insincerely and in other non-literal ways.

The example from utterance meaning we can take from conversation between Brenda and Peter.

Conversation 2 While cooking, Peter has just spilled a large quantity of spaghetti carbonara all over the kitchen floor. Hearing the commotion, Brenda comes into the kitchen, sees what happened and utters: Brenda: You are very tidy cook. I see. Peter: Im sorry. I dont know how I could have been so clumsy

From the second conversation above we can decide whether Brenda sentence has sentence meaning or utterance meaning. We can see in the Peter reply, Im sorry. I dont know how I could have been so clumsy. Peter reply will be strange and didnt appropriate with the context, why he apologize if he tidy as cook. People do not usually have to apologize for being tidy. The second conversation shows that it has utterance meaning not the sentence meaning. In that conversation Brenda is not give congratulation to Peter for his tidiness as a cook. Here, Brenda wants to say that peter is untidy as a cook by using ironically.

The summaries from level of meanings are: 1. Sentence meaning (we can find the meaning from each word) 2. Utterance meaning (we can find the meaning just if we know the context or in other word hidden meaning) B. Object Language and Metalanguage Semantics deals with the words, phase and sentences which human use to communicate. The core of semantics is the meaning of them. Meanings are things we understand. We need to experience in using and thinking about languageto know the meaning.

There are two things that we should distinguish when we want to reveal the meaning. The first is object language and the second is metalanguage. Object language is the language whose meanings we want to describe in. Besides the metalangugae is the language in which we describe these meanings. When we want to propose a metalanguage description of the meaning of an object expression, we are using metalanguage to explain into another kind, object language. Let us take an example of English as the metalanguage and Japanesse as the object language. Pay attention in to these following sentences! aishiteru i love u (Japanesse) (English)

From the example above, we want to explain the meaning of Japanesse word gomibako to an English speaker. One possible metalanguage based on the same definition of each word from different language is the word i love u. To tell someone that the meaning of iashiteru is dustbin is to make a statement about two meanings, and to say that these two meanings are the same. On hearing our explanation that the meaning of iashiteru is i love u, someone might easily object by pointing out that is explanation only shows an equivalence between two words in English and Japanesse. It will be easier to show the metalanguage of the object language by show the real object than explain too much. Explanation sometimes makes the person who want to know the meaning in metalanguage feels dissatisfied. Defining the meaning by giving explanation too much or giving the other meaning makes a case appears. It is called circular definition. The circular definition is a condition where someone doesnt succeed in telling us anthing new. For example is the word humorous in English. Consider someone who wants to find out the meaning of theword humorous would be droll. This definition would only be effective if the meaning of droll was already known. It could be explained as amusing or funny too. If the pwerson knows themeaning of funny as the metalanguage of homorous, we could stop explaining at this point. However, that cain words will not always go on in all of context. If the language learner did not know even what funny meant, we can imagine of giving up in frustation and saying, simpl, funny just means humorous. This case called the circular definition. Clearly, the circle of definiition is substituting on word or phrase as the definition of another. Meaning by remaining inside the definitional circle means that

we have to look outside language for answer. Try to understand the core meaning of the object language before we want to know the meaning of the metalanguage. Show the real object by pointing is better than giving the long explanation.

The main ways in which we normally reveal the meanings of linguistic expression is by describing them in language. Because of in the world there are many language, so we will difficulties in the finding the meaning of each word from the different language. In this situation, we must distinguish between the language whose meanings we want to describe (object language) and the language in which we describe these meanings (metalaguage).

We can use the meaning of the metalaguage expression to explain meaning of the object language expression.

The difference between object language and metalanguage is showed here: Object Language Dutch Groot (we want to describe) Metalanguage English Tall (describe)

Dirk is groot, maar Lou is klein.

Dirk is tall, but Lou is short.

Groot is Dutch word the meaning we Tall is the word we use to describe want to describe. Without describing groot in English, and we can know and Groot, we will not find the meaning of understand the meaning of groot. So Groot. So in this case Dutch is the in object language or source language. this case, English as the

metalanguage for Dutch.

C. Breaking the Circle Linguist in semnatic fields are in the situation of not knowing what they are talking about (Quine, 1961:47). Some possibilities for this situation are they cant explain the meaning clearly or they cant catch the real meaning and anly guessing of it. Based on that situation, we should have some intial ideas about meaning. It is really imprtant and useful for us as person who concerns with the field. Having the initial idea about the meaning is best tought to break the definitinal circle. Definitional circle is the way we give or explain themeaning only on explaining continously till make us frustating. This preliminary idea will help us to formulate the best set in our investigations meaning. a) Meaning as Referent/Denotation Role of Denotation as the main component of the meaning of linguistic expression is one of the way to break the definitional circle. Under this theory, metalanguage explanations of a meaning should be seen as names of referents of the object language term. Such as this example: In Sydney: The Bridge means the Harbour Bridge. The meaning of bridge seems to be suggesting, is the actual harbor bridge itself. Outside the narrow context of the sentence above, we could say the meaning of bridge in general is just it s denotation the class of all bridge. This identification of meaning and referent/denotation succeeds in breaking the circle because it identifies meaning with non-linguistic object in the world: the meaning of bridge on a particular instance of use is the real bolts and metal structure. The referent of expressions must be taken not as actual objects in the world but as representations in the world as projected by speaker. This means that in order to understand reference we already have to invoke the realm of speakers individual psychologies , the particular version of the world as projected by their psychology . The problem with the theory of meaning as reference is the fact that a single referent may often be referred to by a variety of different expressions. Thus, the expression in nthe two halves of (40a-d) each pick out just a single individual :

i.

The first country to adopt a law requiring parental leave ; the home country of IKEA. We have alternative ways of referring to Sweden.

ii.

The most frequently handed in, and the least frequently claimed, object on the Tokyo subway ; portable device with handle used for protection against rain. Of umbrel-las

iii.

The inventor of Chupa Chups : friend of Salvador dali and husband of Nuria Serra. Of the Spanish confectionery king Enric Bernat Fontlladosa.

iv.

Institution of lending money : institution for depositing money. The word bank. Yet we surely do not want to say that the meaning of these expressions

are the same. While the object refered to by the expressions institution for lending money and institution for depositing money have the same denotationbank- they clearly dont have the same sense. The fact that linguistic expression can be identical in reference but different in meaning leaves us no choice but to conclude that there is more to meaning than reference denotation. b) Meaning as Concept/Mental Representation The use of term concept in linguistics derives from philosophy, where it has very long history of discussion and controversy. Concept can be seen as a way of talking about the basic constituents of thought. In the word of Prinz (2002:1) without concept, there would be no thoughts. Concepts are the basic timber of our mental lives. On this view , our stock of concepts is built up from a stock of primitive concept, which cannot themselves be broken down into any constituent parts. If we imagine the process of thinking as a sort of internal conversation with ourselves, then concepts are the individual words and expressions of which this conversation consist. Concept are implicated in practically every

aspect of our mental lives. Concept are also needed to explain how we recognize objects in the world as themselves : For example : If I know when looking at a golf ball , that it is a golf ball. That full of grass, fresh and green . If I am studying semantics, I am progressively refining concepts like MEANING and REFERENCE. It is because of the visual image accords with my concept GOLF BALL. It is also because of the involvement of concepts that our taught has continuity. The hypothesis that meanings are concepts has considerable attraction. 1. It answer to the intuition that language is intimately connected with the rest of our mental lives. 2. The conceptual theory of meaning has often been taken to explain compositionality and relations between meaning. 3. The hypothesis that the meanings are concepts guarantees the genuineness of communication. Because meaning of words are

concepts, two people who talk, agree or disagree about something are doing more than playing with words they are talking and etc. It is therefore the level of concepts that guarantees that genuine communication between people can actually take place.

Mental representation are the fixed mental symbols the language of thought which are instantiated in our minds in some stable , finite medium and which our thought consist in. On the view concepts as mental representations, thinking and expressing meaning are both to be understood as the manipulation of mental symbols. In much same way that using language is the manipulation of a fixed series of linguistic symbols in the medium of air, paper or hand- signs. There are a number of reasons we should be cautions in the claim that meanings correspond to concepts:

1. Some words seem more naturally compatible than others with an interpretation of their meanings as concepts. The point here is not to role out the possibility that the meaning of all these words may in fact correspond to concepts, but simply to suggest that the initial intuitive plausibility o this is not as great. 2. Just like meaning, concepts cannot be seen or otherwise identified unambiguously. 3. Even if an expressions meaning can partly be identified with the concept it evokes , there must be more to it than that. c) Meaning as Brain States There are three levels in work of brain, they are intentional level of explanation, algorithmic level of explanation, and implementation level. 1. Intentional level of explanation In this level, meaning can be understood by the user. The user has understood about what they see directly. For example the user is seeing a cat. The user knows that it is cat directly. Although there are many kinds of cat such as Persia cat, etc, the user know it well that is cat directly. 2. Algorithmic level of explanation In this level the user can know well about something. For example they know an animal that it is mammals, domestic animal, have four legs, has smooth fur, and it is enemy of dog. The user directly knows what the animal is. It is certainly cat. 3. Implementation level Commonly, people know that cat is an animal. Cat in Indonesia is kucing. But people sometimes use the word kucing with their creation. People create kucing garong. Kucing garong is not a kinds of kucing such as kucing Persia, etc. Actually the mean of kucing garong is different with the mean cat(kucing) originally. d) Meaning and use In this occasion we explain about what for the word is used. Cat (kucing) is meant as an animal that is funny and has smooth fur. But there are people create a word as their creation about something or someone for

example kucing garong. Kucing garong is not a kind of kucing like kucing Persia, etc. Kucing garong is meant a man who play woman. That meant is opposite with the originally of kucing. Actually cat is only an animal, not a man. We can conclude that sometimes people use a word according the originally meaning but sometimes they create a word according of themselves to represent of something that they want.