Sei sulla pagina 1di 34

Week 10 *the symbols a, b and c *This does not hold for

Ch.5 palmer (individual constants),refer to opposite, which is symmetrical


5.1 Some simple logic specific individuals, while (if No. 21 is opposite No. 22,
1. Some of the relations are x, y, z INDIVIDUAL VARIABLES No. 22 is opposite No. 21), but
logical(or semi-logical kind), so refer to any individual * there not transitive. (the sense of
it is useful to formalize them is also the Universal quantifier used here is completely
by a simplified form of Ɐ ('for all'). different in grammar ).
predicate calculus. * Ɐ x (B(x) — > U(x)), *A relation is reflexive if it
Ex/John is a man Is read 'For all X, relates an argument to itself
PREDICATION of the individual if X is a bachelor, x is Ɐx (R(x,x)) can be exemplified
John that he has the property unmarried'. by equal or resemble {Four
of being a man. *to treat unmarried as 'not- equals four, John resembles
*M(a), married', can be done by using himself).
M stands for the predicate 'is a the sign for negation, ~: * (These words express
man' (Ɐx (B(x) — >~ M(x)) relations that are symmetric
and a refers to the individual M stands for 'married' and transitive too.)
'John'. *Where we have predicates *Relations that can never be
This symbolism can be with 2 or more arguments symmetric, transitive or
extended to deal with relations (2-and many-place predicates), reflexive are asymmetric,
where more than one we can regard the predicates intransitive and irreflexive.
individual is concerned. as expressing relations * A relation that is all three of
* Thus John loves Maty between the arguments. these is that of father of
may be symbolized as L(a,b), *With 2-place predicates the since :
L stands for the predicate loves relations may be characterised (1) if x is father of y,
a and b for 'John' and 'Mary'. in terms of being y cannot be father of x
*The difference between this Symmetric (2) if y is father of z,
and the previous formula is Transitive x cannot be father of z,
that we have 2 ARGUMENTS REFLEXIVE. (3) x cannot be father of x.
not one(a and b). * symmetric relation holds for *Notice however, that a
*the arguments are ordered, the arguments in both relation that is not symmetric,
since John loves Mary (L(a,b)) directions, i.e.: transitive or reflexive (e.g. like)
is not the same as Mary loves if for a relation R, it is the is not necessarily asymmetric,
John (h(b,a)). case that intransitive or irreflexive. For
* Other predicates may take Ɐx >Ɐy(R(X,y) —>~ R(y,x)). (i) if x likes y, y may (or may
even more arguments. Ex/(be married to) and cousin: not) like x,
Ex/ John gave Mary a book. if John is married to Mary, (2) if y likes z, x may (or may
Symbolized as G(a,b,c).to show Mary is married to John, and, if not) like z,
relations between sentences Bill is Fred's cousin, Fred is (3) x may (or may not) like x.
(or propositions). Bill's cousin. ……………………………………………….
Thus, when we say * A relation is transitive if, for3 5.2 Hyponymy
John is a bachelor, means he is arguments x,y and z, 1. hyponymy refers to the class
unmarried. the relation that holds both itself, and involves the notion
*B(a) → U(a) for x and y and for y and z, of inclusion in the sense that
→ indicates entailment also holds for x and z, e.g. tulip, rose are included in
B stands for 'bachelor' ⱯxⱯyⱯz(R(x,y)and(R(y,z)) —> flower.
U for 'unmarried' (R(x,z). lion and elephant in are
the whole formula says that *Many of the spatial terms are mammal (or animal).
John is a bachelor entails John transitive - if John is in Similarly scarlet is included in
is unmarried. front of Harry and Harry is in red.
*to discuss the relation front of Bill, John is also in * Inclusion is thus a matter of
between bachelor front of Bill. class membership. The 'upper'
and unmarried, being a *The same is true for behind, term is the superordinate and
bachelor entails being above, below, north of, south the 'lower' term the hyponym.
unmarried for any individual of and inside.
not only John.
*There is a similar situation chicken as the superordinate
*There is not always a with the word dog. term, though would not, I
superordinate term for The word sheep is used for all suspect, ever wish to refer to
hyponyms. creatures of a certain species; the male bird as a hen. In my
Lyons (1963: 70-1) observed it is the superordinate term of own native dialect there is no
that in Classical Greek there is ewe, lamb,ram, etc. problem.
a superordinate term to cover * There are similar terms pig - the superordinate term is
a variety of professions and for sow, boar, piglet and horse fowl.
crafts, 'carpenter', 'doctor', for stallion, mare, colt,etc. *hyponymy relations vary from
'flute', 'player', 'shoemaker,' *But the superordinate term l. to l.
etc., but none in English. for dogs is dog, though dog is Ex/ Greek has a superordinate
*The nearest possible term is also the hyponym as distinct term to include a variety of
craftsman, but that would not from bitch. occupations.
include doctor, flute player or *We can avoid the ambiguity Ex/ in German 'potato'
helmsman. of dog by using the term male', Kartoffel
* Similarly, and strangely, male dog would be the is not included among
there is no superordinate term hyponym to contrast with 'vegetables' Gemiise.
for all colour words, red, blue, bitch. *Hyponymy involves
green, white, etc. ; the term *We can also form entailment.
coloured usually excludes hyponymous sets where no *To say This is a tulip entails
black and white (and grey too), single-word hyponyms exist in This is a flower, and This is
or else (used to refer to race), English in a similar way, e.g. scarlet entails This is red.
means 'non-white.' giraffe, male giraffe, female *We can formalize the relation
*The same term may appear in giraffe, baby giraffe. between tulip Sind flower as
several places in the hierarchy. *The terms cattle and poultry V)c(T(x )—>F(x)), though such
This is, possible only if it is are a little odd in that, though a formula by itself will not
polysemic (several meanings) they are superordinate.‫رسمة‬ bring out the hierarchical
*in one of its meanings it may classification involved in
actually be superordinate to hyponymy, for since a tulip and
itself in another meaning a flower are also plants,
)though we should usually we can say
avoid using both terms in the Vx:(T(x^- )
same context). P(x)) and
*Thus animal may be used *they are used only for plural Vx(F(x) -^ P(x)), but it must not
(1) in contrast with vegetable reference (though, we need follow from this that tulip and
to include birds, fishes, insects the superordinate term quite flower are both co-hyponyms
as well as mamals. commonly for the plural). of plant.
(2)in the sense of 'mammal' to Thus, though we may say * We need further to specify
contrast with birds, fishes Those are cattle to include that flower is an immediate
and insects, to include both Those are cows. hyponym of plant and that
humans and beasts, Those are hulls, we have no tulip is an immediate hyponym
(3) in the sense of 'beast' to single term to put in the frame of flower.
contrast with human. That is a — . *This kind of analysis forms the
*Thus it occurs 3 times in the The most likely term here basis of Carnap's MEANING
hierarchical classification of would be cow. POSTULATES, where it is
nature. ‫رسمة‬ (We might find it difficult to suggested that the meaning
say That is a cow of a bull, but of lexical items can be stated in
would not be unhappy with terms of such entailments.
the definition of a bull as a *Thus, as we saw, x is a
male cow.) bachelor entails x is unmarried
With poultry the situation (Vx(B(x)
seems to vary according to ~ ^-M(x))).
interest and dialect. *In this sense, of course, being a
bachelor is hyponymous to being
The terms cock (or cockerel
unmarried. Meaning postulates thus
and, in America, rooster), hen
essentially treat hyponymy as the basic
and chick are available, but sense relation.
many people use hen or
5.3 Synonymy *They are especially interested
*SYNONYMY is used to mean moreover, even some of the in the words to do with
'sameness of meaning'. 'native' words may well have farming; depending where you
*It is obvious that for the been 'borrowed' from some live you will say
dictionary-maker many sets of other l. at some time in the cowshed, cowhouse or
words have the same meaning; more remote past. byre, haystack,
they are synonymous, or are * Unfortunately, there are hayrick or haymow.
synonyms of one another. often moves to remove the *Even the domestic tap is
*This makes it possible to 'foreign' element from l. either a faucet or a spigot in
define gala as festivity or *Frenchmen deplore'Franglais' most of the US.
mavis as thrush, though there (the E.words that are now It not a matter of semantics
is Uttle use in this method if common in colloquial French), but their status is similar to the
neither word is known to the while the Welsh spend time translation equivalents
reader, e.g. if hoatzin is and scholarship to find of,say,E. and French.
defined as stink-bird; or neve substitutes for the 'E.' words in * It is simply a matter of people
as fim. the l., though they are speaking different forms of the
Of course, dictionaries seldom quite happy to retain the l. having different vocabulary
rely solely on synonymy, but 'Latin' words that entered an items.
add descriptive details to earlier form of the l. at the Secondly, there is a similar but
enlighten the reader. time of the Roman Empire. a problematic situation, with
*We can, in fact,define …………………………………........... the words that are used in
synonymy as symmetric *Nevertheless, it is true that different styles.
hyponymy. there are pairs of 'native' and Ex/A nasty smell might be, in
*Thus, if mavis+ thrush are 'foreign' words. the appropriate setting, an
synonymous, we can say that brotherly and fraternal, obnoxious effluvium or an
all mavises are thrushes and all buy and purchase, 'orrible stink. The former is, of
thrushes are mavises world and universe, etc. course,jocularly very 'posh',
Vx(M(x) -> T(x)) and * The 'native'words are often and the latter colloquial.
Vx(T(x) — > M(x)), shorter and less learned; four- Similar trios though not with
But this does not solve the letter words (in the quite quite the same styhstic
many practical problems that literal sense) are mostly from characteristics, but differing
we must face. Anglo-Saxon. rather in degrees of formality)
*It has often been suggested *There are triples, one 'native', are gentleman, man
that English is particularly rich one from French,one directly and chap, pass away, die and
in synonyms for the historical from Latin - kingly, royal, regal. pop off.
reason that its vocabulary has Royal which is of a French These are more difficult
come from2 different sources, origin is more common. to deal with because there is a
from Anglo-Saxon on the *There are no real synonyms, far less clear distinction
one hand and from French, no 2 words have exactly the between the styles than
Latin and Greek on the other. same meaning. It is impossible between the geographically
*Since E. is considered to be a for 2 words with exactly defined dialects and, there is a
Germanic language from a the same meaning would both theoretical problem whether
historical point of view, with survive in a l. such stylistic differences should
Anglo-Saxon as an earlier stage *there are at least 5 ways in be regarded as within
of its development, the 'Anglo- which possible synonyms can semantics or treated as
Saxon' words are often be seen to differ. features of different 'l'.
considered to be 'native' while First, some sets of synonyms * Thirdly, some words may
those from French, Latin or belong to different dialects of differ only in their emotive or
Greek are 'foreign', 'borrowed' the l. evaluative meanings.
from these l. ex/the term fall is used in the The remainder of their
*But the terms' native' and US + in some western counties meaning, their 'cognitive'
'foreign' are misleading. For of Britain where others would meaning, remains the same.
whatever their origins, most of use autumn.
the words are an essential+ *The works of dialectologists
wholly natural part of the E. l.; are full of such synonyms.
* Some semanticists have c.we make all kinds of
made a great play with the judgments + do not merely *Dictionaries, unfortunately
emotive difference between judge in terms of 'good' and (except the very large ones),
politician+statesman 'bad'. tell us little about the precise
hide +conceal *We judge size+use the connections between words+
liberty+freedom, appropriate terms : their defining synonyms or
each implying approval or giant/ dwarf between the synonyms
disapproval. mountain/ hill, etc. themselves.
*The function of such words in *we make other kinds of *It would be useful if we had
l. is, of course, to influence judgments in our choice of some way of testing
attitudes. words. synonymy,such as substitution:
*There are far more subtle *The meaning of words is not substituting1word for another.
ways than saying sth. is good simply a matter of objective *It has been suggested that
or bad or even of choosing a facts; a great deal of it is true or total synonyms are
'good' or a 'bad' word. subjective and we can't clearly mutually interchangeable in all
*In politics particular words distinguish between the two. their environments.
are often chosen simply for the d.some words are *But there are no total
effect they are likely to have. collocationally restricted synonyms in this sense;
*Fascist no longer refers to a i.e. they occur only in *this would seem to be a
member of the fascist parties, conjunction with other words. corollary of the belief that no2
it is simply used to condemn *rancid occurs with bacon or words have exactly the same
and insult opponents. butter meaning.However,some words
* Words may have different addled with eggs or brains. are interchangeable in certain
emotive meanings in different *This does not seem to be a environments only.
societies. matter of their meaning,but of Ex/deep or profound may be
*liberal is a 'good' word in the company they keep. used with sympathy.
Great Britain - even used by *It could be argued that these but only deepwith water.
Winston Churchill of himself are true synonyms differing Ex/a road may be broad or
when he was politically a only in that they occur in wide
Conservative, different environments. but an accent only broad.
but it is a 'bad' word in South e. Many words are either close *But this will give us little
Africa and in some political in meaning, or their meanings measure of synonymy or of
circles in the US. overlap. similarity of meaning;
*Nevertheless, it is a mistake * There is, a loose sense of it will merely indicate the
to separate such emotive or synonymy. This is the kind of collocational possibilities, and
evaluative meaning from the synonymy that is exploited by these do not seem to be
'basic' 'cognitive' meaning of the dictionary-maker. always closely related to
words for 3 reasons: Ex/the adj. mature, has nearness of meaning.
a. it is not easy to establish possible synonyms: *Another possibility is to
precisely what cognitive adult, ripe,perfect, due. investigate the 'opposites' (the
meaning is, and certainly not Ex/govern may have : antonyms.
reasonable to define it in direct, control, determine, Ex/superficial is contrasted
terms of reference to physical require. with both deep + profound, but
properties, bcz most v.+adj Ex/while loose (adj.) shallow is contrasted only with
would have little or no Has a larger set: deep.
cognitive meaning. free, relaxed, vague, lax, *Perhaps the fact that 2 words
b.there are words in E. that are unbound, inattentive,slack,etc. appear to have the same
used purely for evaluative *the synonyms for each of antonyms is a reason to treat
purposes, most obviously the these words themselves, have them as synonyms.
adj. good + bad, a further set for each and shall *but the some words are
but it is not normally assumed get further and further away interchangeable in certain
that they have no cognitive from the meaning of the environments,
meaning. original word. Ex/it is precisely in the context
*Such words interest moral in which deep and profound
philosophers, but shouldn’t are interchangeable + have
have any special place in the antonym superficial.
linguistics.
*Synonyms often differ only in *There are two phenomena 5.4 Antonymy
their connotations. that are sometimes handled *it is used for 'oppositeness of
But This is not a very useful under synonymy . meaning;' words that are
term, why? The 1st is context-dependent opposite are antonyms.
a.Bcz It often refers to emotive synonymy: *Antonymy is often thought of
or evaluative meaning which is where two items appear to be as the opposite of synonymy,
not usefully distinguished from synonymous in a particular but the status of the 2 are very
cognitive meaning according to context. different.how?
Palmer's view. Ex/dog and bitch in * For l. have no real need of
b.It also refers to stylistic, My — has just had pups. true synonyms+ it is doubtful
dialectal differences, Ex/buy and get as in: whether any true synonyms
or even to the small I'll go to the shop and — some exist.
differences that are found in bread (Lyons 1968( *But antonymy is a regular+
near-synonyms. *But this an argument for the very natural feature of l. +can
c. It is sometimes suggested hyponymy of the words not be defined fairly precisely.
that words become associated synonymy. *Yet, surprisingly, it has been
with certain characteristics of Where one term is more neglected in books on
the items to which they refer. specific than the other. semantics + it is not even
Ex/woman *The context,however,supplies usually given a place in Dict.
has the connotation 'gentle' the specific information that is …………………………………………
*the connotation of pig is lacking in one of the ex.: *However, there are different
'dirty'. having pups indicates that the kinds of 'oppositeness'.
*Such connotations were the dog is female. *To begin with, E. abounds in
subject of Osgood's going to the shop suggests that pairs of words such as
investigation. the bread is to be bought. wicle/narrow, old/young,
*Strictly, however, this is not a * But this is not part of the big/ small, etc.
matter of the meaning of meaning: * These adj. have may be seen
words or even of meaning in The dog might not be female in terms of degrees of the
general. (remarkable though it would quality involved.
*It rather indicates that some be) *Thus a road may be wide or
people believe that women and I might steal the bread not very wide+
are gentle+pigs dirty. buy it. one road may be wider than
*they even It is change names *The fact that information can be another.
to avoid such connotations. gleaned from the context does not *So we have gradation of
*there is a natural process of affect the meaning of items: width, age, size, etc. indicated
Ex/the book + the red book. These
change with taboo words. by such adj.
could be contextually
*Bcz the word is associated *Sapir (1944 [1949]) argued
synonymous:
with a socially distasteful 1.(if we had already mentioned a that we should handle all these
subject, it becomes distasteful red book linguistically. words in terms of grading.
itself,+ another word, a 2. or, non-linguistically, if there *The comparative forms of the
'euphemism', takes its place. was one, red, book before us). Adj. (those ending in -er or
*But the process is unending *Yet we can't say that these have occurring with more) are
since it is essentially the object the same meaning. EXPLICITLY graded and placed
*The 2nd kind of'synonymy' is that
and not the word that is in a graded scale for
between bull and male adult bovine
unpleasant. animal. comparison since to say that
*Words even become taboo *The test of interchangeability would one road is wider than
when the distasteful obj. is rule these out completely as another, one boy is older than
synonymous, bcz one would hardly say
referred to by the word in a another or one book is bigger
that there is(a male adult bovine
different sense animal in the field) than another.
(whether it is homonymous or even though in some sense the two *Sapir also argued that although these
items seem to have the same meaning. comparative forms (er and more)
polysemous).
*But this is not a natural linguistic which are preceded linguistically by
Thus, intercourse is not used to the simple forms they precede them
phenomenon; it is created by the
mean social or commercial linguist or lexicographer for the logically in that wide, old + big can
relationships. purposes of definition and paraphrase. only be understood in terms of being
*Moreover, it is more related to wider, older, bigger than sth._some
For similar reasons, in America
componential analysis than to norm or other. Thus, they are
the male domestic fowl is a
synonymy. implicitly graded antonyms.
rooster.
*These adj. are not only *A further point is that in each *But there is a striking
gradable, but they are graded pair one of the terms is the difference between the2types.
against different norms MARKED term+the other *to say something is NOT the
according to the items being unmarked in that only one is one = is to say that it is the
discussed. used simply to ask about or other.
Ex/if we say that not many describe the degree of the Ex/If Peter is not married, he is
people were present, this gradable quality. single, and vice versa.
might mean 5 or 6 if we were Ex/We say How high is it? How *This results from the fact that
talking about an intimate wide is it? It is3 feet high, there are only 2 possibilities
party. It is 4 yards wide, (it would not be the same with
but perhaps as many as twenty with no implication that it is the multiple sets).
thousand if we were talking either high or wide. *With the gradable antonyms,
about the attendance at an *But the other term of the pair in contrast, although there are
important football match at is not so used - it is the marked only 2 terms, it is not the case
Wembley. term. Thus How low is it? How that to say sth. is not (for
*The norm is set by the object narrow is it? imply that the instance) wide = is to say that
being described. object in question actually is it is narrow,
Ex/A stripe on a dress may be low or narrow. or that to say it is not narrow is
wide if it is only 2 inches wide, *we would not say to say that it is wide.
but a road would have to be It is three feet low or *The possibility of being
many yards wide before it It is four yards narrow neither wide nor narrow is left
could be so described. only in jocular cases. open.
*This accounts for the *Notice also that the same *Antonyms+ complementaries
apparent paradox of : member of the pair is used to do not lend themselves
a small elephant being bigger form the n.( height + width) very easily to the kind of
than a big mouse. which are equally neutral as logical formalization.
for small means 'small as compared with lowness+ *For antonyms we wish to say
elephants go' narrowness. that if sth. is A it is not B (and
and big 'big as mice go'. *In the E. ex. it is the 'larger' vice versa),
*For most antonyms a set of term that is unmarked, but this for complementaries we have
relationships hold between the is not a universal feature. to say, in addition, that if it is
comparative forms. Ex/E. talks of a thickness not A it is B (and vice versa).
Ex/ gauge, *Thus for the antonyms wide+
The road is wider than the Japanese talks of a 'thinness narrow we have:
lane. gauge.' Ɐx(W(x)→~ N(x)) and
The lane is narrower than the *the pairs of the type Ɐx(N(x) → ~ W(x))
road. male/ female, married/ single, (though this follows
The road is less narrow than alive/ dead may be added. logically).
the lane. *Lyons (1968(treats them in *for the complementaries
The lane is less wide than the terms of complementarity, the male and female the
road. items being complementary to formulae are
All of these are mutually each other. Ɐx(M(x) →~ F(x)) and
implied + related both in terms *they belong to the set of Ɐx(~ M(x) → F(x))
of simple reversal with switch incompatible terms, Together with
of antonyms, + but with1specific characteristic Ɐx(F(x) → ~ M(x)) and
the 'more' and 'less' relation - that they are members of Ɐx(~ F(x) →M(x))
which also involves switch of two-term sets instead of the (which also follow from the
antonyms. multiple-term sets. first two).
*since antonyms are gradable, *But they are in some ways * But this is not sufficient to
there are often intermediate similar to gradable antonyms. characterise complementaries
terms. *Both exhibit incompatibility; and antonyms.
* Thus we have not just To say that sth. is wide is to say
hot/cold, that it is not narrow.
but hot/ warm/ cool/ cold. To say that someone is
The intermediate terms warm+ married is to say that he is not
cool form a pair of antonyms single.
themselves.
*In both cases we must also ii. Some pairs of antonyms are, 1. many of them indicate not only the
relationship, but the sex of the person
show that they belong to the in Sapir's terms,
concerned.
same semantic system or field. not 'symmetrically reversible'. Ex/father is the male parent, daughter
Why? The more+ less relationship a female child and.
*For, to take complementaries cannot be applied to them. *This blocks reversibility.
Ex/ John is Sam's father ≠Sam is John's
first, it is not true to say that, if Ex/ the pair brilliant + stupid,
Son, Sam could be his daughter.
sth. is not male, it is female, since more brilliant does not *We therefore have pairs indicating
since it could also be equal less stupid the same relationship but a different
inanimate. or more stupid, less brilliant. sex:
father/mother, son/ daughter,
*The complementarity of male *The terms, though gradable,
uncle/ aunt, nephew/niece.
+ female is restricted to the also have an absolute value at *There are also pairs of words that
discussion of animates. one of the 'ends' of the scale. would be symmetric were it not for
*Similarly, we should not ………………………………………………. their indication of sex.
Ex/brother and sister. It does not
regard simian + ferrous 5.5 Relational opposites
follow that if John is Sam's brother,
as antonyms, in spite of the 1* A quite different kind of 'opposite'
Sam is John's brother (she might be his
is found with pairs of words which
fact that if sth. is a monkey sister).
exhibit the reversal of a relationship
it is not iron (and vice versa). *Only a small number of terms in E. do
between items (or argument).
not indicate sex
*Moreover, with antonyms it is Ex/buy/ sell, husband/wife.
cousin (which is symmetric) and
not enough that the terms also If John sells to Fred, Fred buys from
parent,child,grandparent,grandchild
John;
belong to the same system. (which are not symmetric).
if Bill is Mary's husband, Mary is Bill's
Ex/equine and bovine are not *some terms avoid sex reference and
wife.
so are symmetric, but are mostly used
antonyms. *Lyons (1968) suggests the term
only by anthropologists
*The notion of gradability is converseness for these, but Palmer
spouse for husband/wife
suggests relational opposition since he
also essential. and sibling for brother/ sister.
is concerned to point out their
*A further interesting point is But there are no similar terms for
relational characteristics.
uncle/aunt,,nephew/niece.
that there is no absolute *There are several pairs in this way:
2.whether a term is symmetric or not
distinction between these2 1/V.
is a matter of the l.
buy/sell,lend/ borrow, rent/ let,
types. Thus be married to is symmetric in
own/ belong to, give/ receive.
We can treat male/female, E. bcz, like spouse, it does not indicate
2/N.: husband/ wife, fiance/ fiancee,
sex.
married/ single, alive/ dead as parent/child, debtor/creditor,
*But in many l. a different term is used
gradable antonyms on and, possibly, teacher/ pupil.
for husband+wife, quite often
3/terms referring to spatial position:
occasions. the active form of the v. for the
above/ below, in front of/ behind,
* Someone can be very male husband+ the passive term for the
north of/ south of, etc.
wife :
or more married + 4/ In grammar, too, active and
John 'marries' Mary but
certainly more dead than alive. Passive:
Mary 'is married' to John.
if Tom hits Harry,
…………………………………………….. *(In E. marry and be married to are
Harry is hit by Tom
*some gradable antonyms used for either partner, and so are
………………………………………………………...
both symmetric).
have some characteristics of *Terms involved in relational
*Similarly, many l. have no symmetric
the dichotomous pairs: opposition may be transitive,
term cousin; the sex has to be
Ex/above + below.
(i) There are some pairs of adj., indicated in these l., or the precise
If the picture is above the table
ex/honest/ dishonest, relationship of the parents.
and the table above the carpet, the
*Another complications:
obedient/ disobedient, picture is above the carpet.
The brother+sister relationship in
open/ shut * They cannot be symmetric, why?
some l. is bound up not only with the
symmetric relations are those in
those are gradable in terms of sex, but also the age of the child;
which, by definition, the same relation
more and less, thus if 2 girls are sisters,
holds between the arguments in both
one is the 'elder sister,'+
yet the denial of one is usually directions, so that only 1 term is
one the 'younger sister' of the other.
taken to assert the other. required and not 2.
*There are some terms that are not
*Whereas relational opposites involve
Thus though we may say : strictly related as relational opposites,
2 relations R and R'
Bill is more honest than John, but differ in spatial direction.
VxVv(R(x,3') -^ R'(v,x)),
Ex/come+ go +other pairs of related
Bill isn't honest implies that Bill symmetric relations involve only one,
words in similar ways:
is dishonest, VxV3;(R(x,3;) -^ K(y,x)).
ask expects reply
Ex of a symmetric relationship are
and offer expects accept.
married to, beside,meet.
Bill isn't dishonest implies that These are not examples of relational
*ex of relational opposites is Kinship
opposites,but of a temporal relation.
Bill is honest. These are terms.
explicitly gradable, but they Kinship terms are interesting for 2
reasons:
are not treated as implicitly
gradable.
Moreover the relationship between *The problem,however, is to decide *there are some homonyms +
the members of each pair is not the whether this represents a distinct homophones that are nearly antonyms
same. Ask and offer may meaning of eat. ex/cleave'part asunder'+
'expect' reply and accept, but the *an alternative solution is that the cleave 'unite'
'expectation' may be dis- meaning of eat merely overlaps the raise + raze.
appointed - there may be no reply or meaning of drink. *The problem, however, is to decide
acceptance (though, for offer, there is *but each meaning covers a wide when we have polysemy+when we
also the term refuse). semantic 'area', though a great deal of have homonymy.
* But reply+accept also'presuppose' which does not overlap. *when we have a written form with2
that there has been an act of asking or * If we decide, however, that there are meanings,will we say it is 1word with
giving this is a natural result of the 2 meanings of eat, we may then ask different meanings (polysemy)
temporal relationship. whether eating jelly is the same as Or 2different words with the same
*Finally, note that the 'true' gradable eating toffee(which involves chewing)+ shape (homonymy)?
antonyms can be handled in terms of eating sweets(which involves sucking). *There are a number of ways to
relational opposites. *Clearly we eat different types of food answer this question.
*wide can be seen as wider than the in different ways+if we are not careful, *1st, dictionaries usually base their
norm + that if a is wider than b, b is we shall decide that eat has a different decision upon etymology.
narrower than a. meaning with every type of food that *If it is known that identical forms
*The comparative forms wider+ we eat. have different origins they are
narrower;the explicitly gradable forms *so,we ought not to look for all treated as homonymous+given
are thus relational opposites+transitive possible differences of meaning, separate entries;
not symmetric or reflexive: but to look for sameness of meaning *if it is known that they have 1 origin,
if a is wider than b and b is wider than as far as we can.+ even if they have different meanings,
c, a is wider than c. and to accept that there is no clear they are treated as polysomic+ given a
*Notice, however, (that as wide as, as criterion of either difference or single entry in the dict.
narrow as, etc.) are symmetric, sameness. *This is, however, far from satisfactory
transitive+reflexive. …………………………………………………………. for the history of a language does not
…………………………………………………………… *A more practical problem is that if 1 always reflect accurately its present
form has several meanings, it is not state.
5.6 Polysemy and homonymy always clear whether this is an ex *ex/we should not usually relate pupil
*Sameness of meaning is not very easy of polysemy (one word with several (= student) with the pupil of the eye,
to deal with but there is nothing meanings) or or the sole of a shoe with the fish sole.
inherently difficult about difference of of HOMONYMY (several words with *Yet historically they are from the
meaning. the same shape). same origin,+as such are ex. of
*Not only different words have Ex/the dict. treats flight as a single polysemy.
different meanings; but also the same (polysemic) word. *Yet,in the l. of today they are pairs of
word may have a set of different *But it recognises no less than five unrelated words, i.e. homonyms.
meanings. This is polysemy and such a words (five homonyms) for mail: *On the other side we find that we
word is polysemic. 'armour', 'post', 'halfpenny', 'payment' speak of the hands+face of a clock, the
*Thus the dictionary will define the and 'spot' foot of a bed or of a mountain, the leg
word flight in at least the following (the meaning of halfpenny is shown as of a chair or table,the tongue of a shoe
ways: 'obsolete') the eye of a needle or a potato.
'passing through the air', and (payment and spot) are'Scottish'. *As well as using the same terms for
'power of flying' 'air journey' *the important point is that they are parts of the body, and similarly have
'unit of the Air Force' not shown as different meanings of the word ear used of the gar of corn.
'volley', 'digression' the same word). These seem to be ex. of metaphor+ so,
'series of steps'. *The dict. has to decide whether a of polysemy.
*Yet there are problems even with this particular item is to be handled in *Yet the etymologists tell us that the
apparently simple concept. terms of polysemy or homonymy, ear of corn is in no way related
First/we cannot clearly distinguish because (historically) to the ear of the body.
whether2 meanings are the same or a polysemic item will be treated as a *Historically, then, they are
different, therefore,we cannot single entry, homonyms.
determine exactly how many while a homonymous one will have a *But most people today would regard
meanings a word has. separate entry for each of the them as the same word with different
Bcz a meaning is not easily delimited+ homonyms. meanings, i.e. as ex. of polysemy.
distinguished from other meanings. *but this does not mean that we can *There are other ex -com (= grain)
Ex/The dict. will distinguish the v. eat decide between polysemy+homonymy +com on the foot,
in its 'literal' sense of taking food+the merely by consulting the dict. why? meal(= repast)+meal (= flour).
derived meanings of For we must question the reasons for *Each of which has a different
'use up' + 'corrode' the decisions made by the dictionary- etymology.
*perhaps, we should treat these as 3 maker +, in some cases, these seem to *But are they different words for us
different meanings. be quite arbitrary. today?History can be misleading.
*But we can also distinguish between *There is some complication in that *Curiously, a difference of spelling
eating meat(with a knife) + eating soup we do not make the same distinctions does not always indicate a difference
(with a spoon). in writing and speech.Ex/lead(metal) of origin.
*Moreover,we can talk about drinking +lead (dog's lead) are spelt in the same *Thus even what are today
soup as well as eating it.so in one of its way+pronounced homophones may be derived from the
senses, then, eat corresponds to drink. differently(homography),while site and same original form.
sight, rite and right(HOMOPHONY) Ex are metal and mettle, flour and
‫نفس اللفظ لكن االمالء مختلف‬ flower.
*These pose real problems for the *Thus many adj. may be used either *senses of sight+hearing have
semanticist. literally for the quality referred to or different v. to express these related
*For if he relies on his historical with the transferred meaning of being meanings:
knowledge, they are the same word, the source of the quality. see + look at,
merely ex. of polysemy, even though Ex/a person may be sad+a book may hear + listen to.
they are spelt differently.Yet this is be sad, while a coat may be warm in *Do we then decide that there are 2 v.
odd. the two senses (either it is of a certain taste?
*Can we consider words that are spelt degree of temperature or it keeps one ………………………………………………………..
differently to be the 'same' word? warm). *A 3rd + rather different way of
*Yet we find that difference of spelling *The l. recognises the difference of attempting to establish polysemy
does not guarantee difference of meaning in that we cannot say rather than homonymy is to look for a
origin. John is as sad as the book he was central meaning or a core of meaning.
*Does the dictionary-maker then treat reading. *This is possible where we have ex of
these as different words because they *This is similar to the traditional metaphor or of the 'transferred'
are spelt differently, or as the same grammarian's concept of ZEUGMA meanings we noted for sad+score.
word because they have a single (She was wearing a white dress and a *But in general it is very difficult to
origin? smile on her face), for in each case one decide whether there is any central or
*In practice he usually (but not always) word co-occurs with 2 other words+ core meaning.
allows the spelling difference to these two each require the first to *It is obvious enough why key is used
decide, because he needs to keep have a different meaning, and this is not only for key of the door,but also
words in their alphabetical position. not allowed in the l. for a translation or a keystone
*2nd, we may ask whether we can *Similarly, many n. have a concrete+ (one 'unlocks', the other 'locks'),
make any general remarks about an abstract sense. but it is by no means easy to see why it
difference of meaning. Ex/Thus we may compare: is used for the keys of a piano+
* Are regular types of difference found The score of the symphony is on the therefore, not at all clear that this is an
in the meaning of various words?For it table+ The score of the symphony is ex. of polysemy.
is reasonable to suggest that where difficult to follow. *Nor is there any obvious relation
the differences are regular+to some *Notice once again that we cannot say between air 'atmosphere' + the
degree predictable, we have polysemy The score is on the table and difficult meanings of 'manner' +'tune'.
rather than homonymy. to follow. *With v. the problem is often even
*One of the most familiar kinds of Similar contrasts are also: thesis, book, greater.
relationships between meanings is bible, etc. *Charge is used of electricity, of
that of metaphor where a word *However, it is not always easy to charging expenses, of a cavalry attack+
appears to have both a 'literal'meaning decide whether a relationship is of an accusation.
+one or more'transferred' meanings. regular or not. *These are quite far apart in their
Ex/the words for parts of the body, *E. has intransitive and transitive (in meanings.Can we discover a central or
hand, foot, face,leg, tongue, eye, etc. the grammatical not the logical sense) core meaning?
*our intuitions are supported by the uses of verbs such as: open and ring. *If we look at what has happened in
fact that the whole set of words The door opened, I opened the door. history we see why the problem has
applies only to the body; only some of The bell rang, I rang the bell. arisen.
them can be transferred to the *certain basic and causative forms are *Words change their meaning in quite
relevant object: slightly different: surprising ways.
the clock has no legs, the bed no march, walk, run *Thus arrive is derived from Latin ripa
hands, the chair no tongue, etc. He marched/,walked/ran a mile vs. 'a shore' + originally meant 'reach
*Metaphor is, however, fairly He marched them up to the top of the shore'
haphazard. hill,He walked the dog. He ran the while rival comes from Latin rivus
*It may seem obvious that foot is children to school. 'a stream', rivals originally being
appropriate to mountains, *So it seems reasonable: people who shared the same stream.
or eye to needles, not to recognise homonymous pairs *With such changes it is not surprising
but a glance at other l. shows that it is here + that meanings of charge should have
not. not, therefore, to say that there are 2 so diverged – its earlier meaning is
*In French,the needle does not have v. open, 2 v. march, etc. 'load', + it is related to car and even, in
an 'eye', and in many languages such *Yet the meaning relations are not a less direct fashion, to cargo.
as the Ethiopian l. or some of those of wholly regular: does walk the dog *4th, we can use the test of ambiguity
North America the mountain does not mean 'cause the dog to walk?' went to the bank seems to be clearly
have a 'foot'. + run the children does not mean ambiguous,since bank can mean either
*Moreover, in E. eye is used with a 'cause the children to run'. river bank or the place that deals with
variety of other meanings, e.g. the *Moreover, not all v. function in a money.
centre of a hurricane or a spring of similar way, we have no intransitive *But decisions are not always easy.
water, which are not so obviously ×The man wounded (and no causative) Ex/Kill is used to refer either to
related semantically to the organ of ×He swam them across the river. murdering or killing accidentally.
sight, yet it is not used for the centre *A less regular relationship is that *The commandment Thou shalt not kill
of a flower or an indentation, though found with : is to be understood in the first sense.
these might seem intuitively to be taste^ feel + smell, which may mean *but The motorist killed the child in
reasonable candidates for the either 'have the sensation' or 'act to the 2nd.
extension of the meaning. acquire the sensation' as in: *Yet we shouldn't say that
*There are some other kinds of tasted salt in the porridge + John killed Bill is ambiguous.
'transference' that are more regular. tasted the porridge. *Slightly,more difficult is:
I heard the girl crying.
*the 2 senses of cry('weep' + 'shout') *Nothing is gained by treating these 2 5.7 Components
make us conclude that there is uses of run as different lexical items. *Analysis in terms of components
ambiguity. *However, a word that is polysemic would seem a different approach.
…………………………………………………………… will have a variety of synonyms each *the total meaning of a word being
*one of the tests of ambiguity is the corresponding to one of its meanings. seen in terms of a number of distinct
'co-ordination test': *It will often also have a set of elements or components of meaning.
John + Bill went to the bank cannot be antonyms. *The notion of component is not a
taken to mean that 1 went to the river *Thus fair may be used with further kind of relation, rather it
and the other to the financial (i) hair, (2) skin, (3) weather, (4) sky, purports to offer a theoretical
institution. (5) judgment, (6) tackle. framework for handling all reltions.
*Similarly,the room+the furniture were *The obvious antonyms would seem to *The idea that semantics could be
light cannot be taken to mean that: be (i)dark, (2) dark, (3) foul, (4) cloudy, handled in terms of components, has
the room was bright and the furniture (5) unfair, (6) foul. been argued with the investigation of
not heavy. *(It is also used with work or kinship terms.
*A particular version of this is the 'do performance, but there it is a middle Ex/It was noted in Spanish,the sex of
so' test, term 'neither good nor bad'+has, thus, the people involved is clearly marked -
*the fact that we should not say no antonym). ending -0 for male –a for female as in
John went to the bank + so did Bill *It can be seen that fair with hair+fair (Lounsbury 1956: 158):
with the 2 meanings of bank. with skin have the same antonym tio 'uncle' tia 'aunt'
*But these tests do not help, for (dark)+ so do fair with weather + fair hijo 'son' hija 'daughter'
judgments about co-ordination with tackle (foul). abuelo 'grandfather' abuela
depend upon judgments about *We might be tempted to say that 'grandmother'
sameness of meaning, + the doubtful where the antonym is the same we hermano 'brother' hermana 'sister'
cases remain. have polysemy,+that difference of *E. has no markers of sex,though the
Ex/If we judge that Mary cried and so antonym implies homonymy. ending -ess occurs in:
did Ruth is acceptable in the sense that *But this will suggest that fair with baroness, tigress, lioness, duchess,etc.
Mary wept and Ruth shouted. weather is more like fair with tackle *But if we are concerned with
It will be because we do not regard cry than fair with sky. semantics that is not particularly
as ambiguous. *Intuitively,sky is more closely related relevant.There is no reason why we
*In any case,the coordination test will to weather and tackle to judgment, should not attempt to classify the E.
force us to make too many but the antonyms do not provide kinship terms with reference to
distinctions. evidence for this. categories such as sex, even if the l.
*There is sth. curious about: *There may be formal reasons for does not mark these terms in the form
John likes brunettes+marshmallows + recognising homonymy. of the words.
saw Helen and a football match this *The French word poli means polished *Sex therefore provides 1 set of
aftertnoon, but these would hardly either in the literal or the transferred components for kinship terms;
lead us to say that there are 2 v. like+ sense. generation differences + degrees of
v. see. *This would seem to be a clear ex of relationship provide 2 others.
*we cannot say: polysemy, but in the literal sense the *Thus for generation differences we
The score is on the table+difficult to word is linked with depolir need at least 5 generations which may
follow;yet this would(wrongly) suggest ('take polish off) + polissage be labelled g1, g2, g3, g4,g5.
2 distinct lexemes score. Cpohshing'), while in the other sense it *Then grandfather is g1,father, uncle,
*It is not even the case that ambiguity goes with impoli ('unpolished' or etc,.
itself is sufficient to establish 'impoHte') + politesse ('politeness'). g 2, brother,cousin, g3, son, niece g4
homonymy. *This seems to suggest that there are and grandson g5.
*Kempson (1977) considers: 2 different words that belong to 2 *On such a system the'ego'(the person
He ran the race for Hampshire, different related sets. for whom the relationships hold) is,
which may mean either that he was a *Notice,that multiplicity of meaning is obviously g3.
competitor or that he organised the not confined to the words of the dict. *Of course we would need others to
race. *It is also found with grammatical deal with great grandfather, etc.
*But since the 2 meanings of run here elements; the E. past tense has 2 *Degrees of relationship involve
are related in terms of causativity like different meanings. LINEALITY-DIRECT for grandfather,
those of walk + march, *So do some prefixes; in- usually father,COLINEAL for brother, uncle
it would be curious to suggest that we means 'not,' but this is not so in (but with different generation)+
have 2 lexical items. inflammable. ablineal for cousin.
*Ambiguity can result from (This word has led, through *Given these 3 sets of components all
grammatical as well as lexical misunderstanding resulting from the the E kinship terms can be handled.
differences. ambiguity of the prefix, to some Aunt is thus female,g2 + colineal,
Ex/They hit the ball is ambiguous unfortunate accidents, + on the advice cousin male or female, g3 + ablineal.
between present and past tense, while of Whorf it has become the practice in *However, although this kind of
Flying planes can be dangerous the USA to use the invented word approach to kinship has been
(Chomsky 1965: 21) is ambiguous flammable instead. important in the history of
Bcz flying planes has 2 possible *There is,as we have seen,similar components, there are considerable
grammatical structures with the ambiguity in syntax. doubts about its own 'reality' + about
meanings *Familiar ex. are: its relevance to the systems actually
*the act of flying planes' + The old men + women + Visiting found in l.
'planes that are flying'). relatives can be a nuisance.*Both can *We can most easily recognise
*The2meanings of run are of a semi- be analyzed differently in syntax with components where words can be set
grammatical kind, run being in1case accompanying difference of meaning. out in a diagrammatic form to
intransitive (though taking an 'internal Multiplicity of meaning is a very represent some kind of 'proportional'
obj.' like race)+in the other transitive. general characteristic of l. relationship.
*In E, + many l. there is a 3-fold *But what could be the names of the *In a straight hierarchical diagram this
division with many words that refer to components? is easily shown + is a natural
living creatures: *It is difficult to provide an answer, for consequence of the hierarchy.
man woman child bull cow calf they cannot be identified with features *In a componential analysis it still has
ram ewe lamb boar sow piglet that have any simple kind of physical to be stated, for it is necessary to rule
*Thus bull is to cow as ram is to ewe reality. out not only *pregnant ram but also
or in mathematical terms *We may,assume that all societies *pregnant table; the point here is that
bull: cow: : ram : ewe. distinguish between male + female + the component (-male) is restricted to
*In the light of relationships such as that thus (male) + (female) are those items which have (+ animate).
these we can abstract the components universal components of l. *Componential analysis therefore has
(male)+(female),(adult)+(non adult), *But the come, go, bring, take are ex to state that, only if sth. is animate,
plus (human),(bovine),(ovine)+ show that not all components are may it be male or female with a
(porcine). related to simple physical features formula such as (+ animate ±male).
*Strictly these ex. do not distinguish such as sex, + it becomes less plausible *so such 'redundancy rules'are simply
(male)+(female) in full conjunction to assume that they are universal. a disguised way of stating the
with (adult)+(non-adult). *A particular characteristic of hierarchical nature of the semantic
*since that would imply 4 possibilities componential analysis is that it distinctions.
+ we only have 3. attempts as far as possible to treat *Componential analysis can thus
*But all 4 are to be found in: components in terms of 'binary' handle all the relations we have
man woman boy girl opposites for ex between discussed, simply because it can be
*However, even with the other ex, it is (male)+(female),(animate)+(inanimate, made to do so, with the relevant
more plausible to make both (adult) + (non-adult). modifications.
distinctions than to say that there are *In this it clearly gives emphasis to the * But it seems not to clarify but to
simply 3 possibilities relation of complementarity. obscure their differences.
(male),(female) + (non-adult). Notationally there is an advantage in *The componential approach to
*Analysis of this kind (componential such binary terms in that we can semantics is basic to Katz& Fodor's
analysis) allows us to provide choose one only as the label+ 'The structure of a semantic theory'
definitions for all these words in terms distinguish this in terms of plusses+ (1963).
of a few components. minuses. *Katz modified his views,+ palmer has
*Thus boar is (porcine), (male), (adult) *Thus (male)+(female) are written as ( used them as the basis of the
+ so on. + male) + (-male) + so on. discussion.
*There are,gaps in the system *We can, moreover,refer to the lack of *katz+ fodor are concerned essentially
- there are no terms to distinguish a sex distinction as 'plus or minus' with with ambiguity, anomaly+paraphrase.
between the male, female + the young the symbol (±male). The arguments are, however, very
with giraffes or rhinoceroses. *But this works well only where there largely based upon ambiguity: upon
*Often the distinction is made by using is a clear distinction; often there is showing that a sentence may have two
a term taken from another set in indeterminacy,as with tar + porridge in readings.
conjunction with the generic one: relation to (solid)/(liquid). Ex/The bill is large
bull elephant, cow elephant + elephant *Rather it has been used to bring out is ambiguous until it is disambiguated
calf. the logical relations that are associated by. . . (but need not be paid).
*Badgers are similarly boars + sows with them. *Turning to the structure of
(though the young are presumably *Thus by marking man as + male vocabulary, they point out that a dict.
cubs); the male fox is a dog or dog-fox, And pregnant as -male, we can rule would distinguish between 4 meanings
but the female has a specific term out *pregnant man. of the word bachelor
vixen. *Similarly by marking boy as ( + male) (i) a man who has never married
*In many cases there is an appropriate (-adult) ( + human) + child as (-adult)+ (2) a young knight serving under the
word in the l. to label the component. ( + human), we can establish that banner of another
Male + female are obvious ex. There were 2 boys entails There were2 (3) someone with a first degree
*But it would be a mistake to suppose children + Children are a nuisance (4) a young male unmated fur seal
that if we use such terms to define a entails Boys are a nuisance (though the during the mating season.
common word that the resultant rules of entailment are obviously fairly *These 4 meanings can, moreover, be
phrase is semantically identical with it. complex. partly differentiated by what they call
*Thus boar is not the same as male *Yet componential analysis does not 'markers', shown in round brackets,
adult porcine animal; it is important to handle all semantic components,but in e.g. (human) (animal) and (male),
note that in the vocabulary of E. we a different 'direction'; together with some specific
have words such as boar + bull, but by introducing 'direction' into characteristics which are called
whereas with giraffe we can only use components we are, in effect, *distinguishers' + placed in square
the phrase adult male giraffe; the admitting that they brackets:
difference is relevant to the semantic ARE relational + not simply 'atomic' e.g. [first degree] in the case of the
structure of E. components of meaning. academic.
*Such labels are not, however, always *Secondly, the componential analysis *The semantics of bachelor can thus
readily available. cannot remove the hierarchical be set out in a tree diagram (Figure 6).
*We have noted the semantic characteristic of hyponymy. *An important question, however, is
relationship: * For the distinction (+male)/(-male) 'How do we establish which precisely
come go bring take applies only to living (animate) things. are the markers?'
We noted that come is to go as bring is * Distinction in terms of these *The answer is that they are those
to take + we could therefore components, e.g. between ram + ewe, features that allow us to disambiguate
distinguish components X and Y and A will hold only for items that are also a sentence.
+ B such that come is XA and go XB, marked as (+ animate).
bring YA + take YB.
*An illustration provided by the *A weaker claim is that each l. uses *Is our experience like it is because:
authors is: only some of the features in the total that is( what the world is like), or
The old bachelor finally died. inventory. because (that is how our minds
*This cannot refer to the fur seal, bcz *The 1st answer seems highly interpret it?)
such bachelors are by definition young. implausible in view of the obvious *Nevertheless, we can sometimes
*therefore, (young) must be a marker differences in l.; it can work only by distinguish between physical reality+
for the fur seal + that it must now arguing that all the semantic features psychological reality.
appear not among the distinguishers can be exhibited somehow in each l., *The sex distinctions in 'male'/'female'
as in Figure 6, but as a marker‫رسمة‬. though some will be more central. have an objective,(physical basis)
(This is tantamount to saying that if as do the differences indicated by cow,
sth. can be said in one l., it can be said horse, elephant,etc. , whereas if it is
in another.) true that different people make
*The 2nd answer seems more plausible: (roughly) the same colour distinctions,
all l. have 'male', 'female', 'black', these do not 'exist' in physical terms
'white', etc., but many other features but are part of the psychology of
are found only in some l. perception (+the same is certainly true
*But neither this view nor the stronger of our perception of speech sounds.
view makes a verifiable claim unless a (It is very important to recognise that
finite inventory of features is some kind of physical reality does not
*The theory has 1 major drawback + produced. necessarily make it the basis of a
no limit to the number of markers that *For let us suppose that we discover a semantic analysis. Kinship terminology
can be established. l. which have features that have never is a good ex.
*For any piece of information can be been noted before. *Since most societies have fairly strict
used to disambiguate + can function as If simply added to the inventory, the rules of'kindred+affinity' (as the Book
a marker. claim about the universality of the of Common Prayer calls them), kinship
Ex/The bachelor wagged his flippers inventory becomes quite trivial. relations can usually be stated wholly
is hardly ambiguous; it must refer to *The claim cannot be disproved, even in terms of a family tree which
the fur seal. Whereas: in principle, if every counter-ex. can be depends on the parent-child+ the
The bachelor got his hair wet,cannot dealt with in this way. husband-wife relationships.
refer to the fur seal, though it might *A still weaker claim is that only some *But there are2 objections to the type
refer to any of the other 3. features are universal, while the rest of componential analysis.
*If we use the disambiguation test we are characteristics of individual l. *First, there are alternative, equally
have, for the fur seal, the markers *This may well be true, though it may plausible, analyses of the same
(having flippers)+(not having hair) + not even be that the' universal' relationships.
the list is endless. features are exactly the same in each l. *Secondly, +more importantly, in
* Katz (1966(dropped the distinction *This seems to be the case with the some l. the linguistic system bears very
between marker and distinguisher, but colour terms+ categories. little resemblance to any of these
the difficulty remains. *We do not find identity, but only analyses.
*However, we shall be faced with an close similarity. *Thus in Pawnee the term that we
infinite set of components, bcz in ............................................................... might translate as 'father' is used of all
principle any piece of information may *if we accept the weakest universalist the males whose relationship is
be used to disambiguate a sentence. claim: that l. share some semantic traceable through the father,
………………………………………………………….. features then What kind of while 'uncle' is used of the males
5.8 The problem of universals explanation can we give? traceable through the mother,
*there is a question about the *There are at least 5 answers: *and conversely, all the females
universality of semantic features 1/ The world is like that'. traceable through the mother are
whether they must occur in all l. 2/The structure of the minds of all 'mother' and all the females traceable
*At one extreme there is the Sapir- people is basically the same. through the father are 'aunt'.
Whorf hypothesis, which suggests that 3/The cultural needs of different *The rules for 'son', 'daughter',
each l. may 'create' its own world + so societies are similar. 'nephew', 'niece' are the converse of
its own semantics. 4/There has been contact between these.(Lounsbury 1956).
*At the other it could be argued that different societies with different l. *We must not ignore the influence of
components like (male)+(female)+ 5/The l. of the world all have a cultures upon the linguistic systems,+
many others are found in all l. common origin. it is likely that kinship terminology, for
Ex/the basic colours&kinship relations *There may be some truth in these ex., will be much more a reflection of
………………………………………………………… answers,+it is not easy to separate them than of the actual objective
*The simplest form of the universalist them. relationships.
view is that: *The first two replies (in terms of the *But it will not always be easy, or even
there is a universal inventory of world+mind) raise the philosophical possible, to distinguish between
semantic features (components). problem of objective + subjective cultural reality+physical or
*But what is the relation between this reality. psychological reality.
inventory and the set of features *In the case of colour terminology,too,
found in individual languages? there may be 3 factors at work.
*The strongest claim would be that all *First, there are some objective
l. make use of the whole inventory+ so features:
have the same features. The green of living plants
the red of blood
the blue of the sky.
*Secondly, it may be that there is
some psychological reality to the foci.
Thirdly, cultural considerations may
make certain colour distinctions
important, as was shown for Navaho.
*Finally, some apparent universals are
no more than an accident of the
history of l. in either of the 2 ways
indicated by the last 2 replies.
*It would appear that the modern
Welsh system of colour is now much
more like that of English, as a result of
increasing bilingualism.
*We cannot be sure how far similar
contacts have brought other linguistic
systems closer.
*Certainly it is the case that in most
semantic areas (certainly in colour
systems) the l. of Europe have much in
common.
*Nor can we be sure about the
historical relationship of l.
*For the l.families for which we take
evidence, a few thousand years go, + it
could be that all the extant l. of the
world have a common ancestor(+that
need not make any assumptions about
the origin of l. itself).
*If so, some, at least, of the universal-
like features of l. may simply be
accidental in the sense that our
languages could also have developed
in quite different ways + from quite
different origins.
Week7/ ‫النقوصات‬ Quantifying determiners 10*Some determiners,
7.4 Different ways of referring answer quantifiers, express the
1*3 kinds of referring exp.: ('how much?' or ‘how many?’). amount or quantity of the
proper names Indefinite determiners entity denoted by the n.
Which have unique reference (a/an, some, any+ zero) do not *Cardinal numbers are specific
ex/Lake Ontario or Barbara identify. quantifiers: one day, 5 people,
Collins. Definite D :the is used when and 76 trombones.
pronouns identity can be taken for *General quantifiers:
such as she, he, they. granted. some eggs, a little milk, a few
Anaphora+NPs The demonstrative D : problems, much traffic, several
have n. with variable reference this that (plural these and accidents.
as the head, preceded by a those) indicate, that the 11*If a countable Np expresses
determiner+ possibly followed referent is near or not near the a total, it may be:
by one or more complements: speaker’s location. collective (all donkeys) or
D head C C Ex/We’ll use this table + those distributive (every donkey)
a cat chairs (over there). 12*Demonstrative, possessive
that broom in the corner *They also identify present or + quantifying determiners can
your home future events versus past be combined, in which case
some questions 2b answered events. the possessive word follows
the plate that is broken that Ex/We’re going to see the n.:
u mentioned ‘Madame Butterfly’ These 4 books, that idea of
2*Some complements can be tonight.We’ve been waiting for yours, several friends of mine.
reduced and become modifiers this performance for a long ………………………………………………
in prehead position. time. 3 other kinds of referemce:
D modifier head C Ex/We saw ‘Rigoletto’ last 7.4.1 Generic + non-generic
the broken plate that u month.That was a great reference
mentioned performance. 1*the same referring exp. may
3*Complements+modifiers, if 8*During the 20th century this have quite different kinds of
present, provide part of the has acquired a use, among reference:
identity of the referent: some speakers of E, which is 5a/ A dog makes a fine pet.
they answer the question not demonstrative but 5b/ Dogs make fine pets.
'which?,’ which broom, which equivalent to the indefinite &
plate. a/an, as in 6a/ A dog is lying in the middle
4*Determiners have a more I was driving down the street of the street.
complex role in identifying when suddenly this big, black 6b/ Dogs are lying in the
referents. car pulled out in front of me. middle of the street.
*In a discussion of reference, *The usage began as an *In 5a, a dog has generic
complements+modifiers are of attempt to make the narration reference; the sentence is not
little importance, but more dramatic by putting the about a particular dog but
determiners are all-important. referent(the car)—‘right on the about the class of dogs as a
5*Referring exp. with fixed scene.’ whole, dogs in general.
reference, like Lake Ontario, But extensive use weakens *In 5b, We can express the
do not require complements, whatever dramatic effects same meaning of
modifiers or determiners since there may have been. generalization.
their uniqueness makes the 9*So-called possessive D refer *You may agree with these
question ‘which?’ superfluous. to an entity in its relation to sentences without committing
6*There are various another referent, but yourself to the belief that all
determiners, including zero ‘possession’ is a term for dogs make fine pets.
that is, no overt determiner various kinds of relation; *Neither sentence is an
my necktie=ownership answer to ‘Which dog(s)?’,
Ex/We’re counting money;
my brother expresses kinship my
We’re counting coins. for the question is not
friend+my employer,
7*there are several kinds of other associations; relevant.
Vivaldi’s ‘Four Seasons’= *in 6a a dog does not have generic
determiners:
authorship;Ex/Donna’s picture may reference; it does not refer to the
Demonstrative+possessive D whole class of dogs.
refer to a picture of Donna or to 1
are different ways of drawn or photographed by Donna. *6b produces quite a different
identifying:answering ‘which?’. message.
*5a+5b are equivalent; 6a+6b 7.4.3 Definite + indefinite * presence+absence of the
are not. reference with a name yields 2 different
*6a+6b do not answer ‘Which 1*Demonstrative, possessive,+ referring exp.: the Mississippi
dog(s)’? but the question is quantitative determiners is not the same as Mississippi.
relevant. identify a referent in a fairly *Family names used in the
2*Some semanticists would precise way. plural occur with the:
prefer to say that reference 2*The definite determiner the the Johnsons; while other
can only be specific. + rather occurs in: personal names do not.
than ‘generic reference’,they a referring exp. when the 4/The referent, while not
would prefer the term speaker assumes that the unique in the way that Lake
‘generic use of referring exp.'. hearer can identify the Ontario is unique, has a unique
3*Generic reference in E can referent (I’ve got the tickets)or or nearly unique position in
be expressed in several ways when identification is made the more limited world of the
which are more or less part of the referring exp. speaker + addressee.
interchangeable. (I’ve got the tickets that u 12/Careful! You might wake
7a/ The dog was man’s first wanted). the baby.
domestic animal=. 3*Indefinite determiners: 13/Have you received the
7b/Dogs were man’s first a/an/some/zero, indicate that reports from the doctor?
domestic animal. the referent is part of a larger Referring exp. like these are
*these 2 have generic entity. much the same as names.
reference bcz the change from 4*When the referring exp. is *Names like Richard +Barbara
singular to plural, or vice versa, definite, the speaker assumes are definite and specific as
does not make a difference. that the referent can be referring exp. even though
*man also has generic identified by the addressee for there are numerous people so
reference here; it is equivalent one of four reasons. named, just as there are
to ‘humans’,a general class. *If none of these reasons numerous babies, reports+
………………………………………………. applies, the speaker provides doctors.
7.4.2 Specific + non-specific the identification. *Exp. like the baby+Richard
reference 1/The speaker assumes that have unique status within a
8a We have a dog. the hearer can identify the certain group of people during
8b We’d like to have a dog. referent from the physical- a particular period of time.
9a I’m sure there are answers social context(a form of deixis). *The Mayor + the president
to all your questions. Ex/Take the cups off the table have unique status for a larger
9b I trust we can find answers and put them in the cabinet. group of people, presumably,
to all your questions. 2/The speaker assumes that than the baby.
1* in 8a,a dog refers to a the addressee can make the *The uniqueness of these exp.
specific dog.The reference necessary implicature to relate may be temporary:
is to a particular animal, + a new reference to a previous the baby grows older
we could insert the word one. we change doctors
certain before dog without Ex/ This was the site of the old Richard moves out of our lives.
changing the meaning. Stanwick Theater. The stage *If none of these conditions
*8b/a dog is non-specific in was over here and the lobby obtains, then the referent is
reference: was over there. specified by the speaker
‘some dog,not any particular 3/The reference is fixed+ through some complement or
one’, therefore part of the modifier in the referring exp.
Though it could mean ‘a addressee’s general —with the presumption that
certain particular dog.’ knowledge, like Lake Ontario. the complement or modifier
*in 9a answers has specific *A referring exp. with fixed makes the referent clear to the
reference (not in 9b). reference is always definite+ addressee.
2*Whether a referring exp. has some(not all) of them contain 14a The salesman who came
a specific referent or not, is the determiner the here yesterday was back again
determined by the larger *(A referring exp. with variable today.
context not from the exp.itself. reference may be definite or 14b I’d like to look at the gold
indefinite.) ring with a small ruby on the
*some exp. with +without the are top shelf of that display case.
equivalent: the Argentine= Argentina/
the Ukraine has become Ukraine.
5*When the referring exp. is 2* The meaning of any lexeme
indefinite, the hearer has to depends to some extent on the *they has a generalized,non-
make a choice from the context in which it occurs, but deictic reference to people in
extension of the n., he has to deictic elements can only be general, especially those in
decide (which of all possible interpreted through their charge of some endeavor or
referents+ what part of the contexts. other, as in “They say that an
extension) is intended. E. ex. of deictic words include: ounce of prevention is worth a
6*Frequently, a topic is (1) pronouns pound of cure,” “They don’t
introduced as an indefinite * I,you and we: ‘point’ to the make good cider the way
referring exp. participants in any speech act. they used to”.
(new information) + *he, she, it and they: refer to
subsequent mention of the others in the environment.
topic is made with 1 or more (2) locative expressions
definite referring exp. *here and there: designate
(given information). space close to the speaker or
………………………………………… farther away.
7*A definite NP presupposes *this/these and that/those :
the existence of its referent+ indicate entities close to or
an indefinite NP presupposes removed from the speaker.
the existence of more than its (3) temporal expressions
referent, a class of referents to now, then, yesterday, today,
which this one belongs tomorrow, last week, next
………………………………………………. month,etc.
7.5 Deixis These are all relative to the
1*The most primitive way of time when they are used.
referring to sth is to point to it. 3*Words which can be deictic
*this kind of reference can are not always so.
only be accomplished with Ex/Today+ tomorrow are
people + concrete things in deictic in
one’s immediate environment. “We can’t go today but
*On a less primitive level, tomorrow will be fine.”
every l. has deictic words They are not deictic in
which ‘point’ to ‘things’ in the “Today’s costly apartment
physical-social context of the buildings may be tomorrow’s
speaker + addressee(s)+ whose slums.”
referents can only be *Yet the relation between the2
determined by knowing the words is analogous.
context in which they are used. *here + there are deictic in
Ex/when we encounter a “James hasn’t been here yet. Is
message on paper or on an he there with you?”.
electronic recording: They are not deictic in “The
15/I was disappointed that you children were running here
didn’t come this afternoon. and there.”
I hope you’ll join us tomorrow. *The pronoun you is not
*we wouldn’t be able to deictic when used with the
identify the referents of: meaning
I, you, us, this afternoon or ‘one; any person or persons,’
tomorrow, though we as in“You can lead a horse to
understand how the first three water but you can’t make him
+ the last two are related to drink.”
one another; because we know
E, we know,for example, that
the referent of I is part of the
referent of us+we know the
time sequence of this
afternoon + tomorrow.
Semantic roles week 8 6*The referring exps.Tom, Dick and Harry
A window broke have the role of agent, which can be defined
Tom broke a window as the part played by a referring exp. Tells
1* Every simple sentence,every who or what:
proposition, has 1 predicate and different 1. instigates the action of the verb.
referring exp., or arguments. 2.causes the affect of this action the
2*We can determine the predicate's affected.
meaning by: Different predicates;v., adj., prep. can be
1.how many arguments it may have described according to:
2.what role those arguments have 1. The number of (referring exps. Or
Ex. a window arguments) that can occur with them
A rope broke 2. and the roles these arguments have.
a plate …………………………………………………………………..
all contain the verb break and a single Valency of the predicate is a theory
argument. concerned with the description of the
number and types of arguments that a
3*the breaking of: a window,a rope,a
predicate has.
plate are not identical events.
Ex. The Predicate break, have variable
and a language might possibly have
valency:
different verbs to express the coming
1. A valency of one in (A window broke).
apart of these. But English (break) can be
2. And a valency of two in Tom broke a
used with the names of all these things.
window.
4*What a particular lexeme, such as Ex. It is snowing.
break, can mean depends on: My brother snores.
1. the lexemes it co-occurs with Chris is making an omelet.
2. and the relation it has with them. Agnes is writing her mother a letter.
The referring exps.(a window,rope,a plate) Here one sentence is longer than the one
have the same role, the same relation to before because it has more arguments.
the verb break. Snow….zero valency
5*Syntactically this function can be called Sleep…..1
the S. but semantically it is too general. Make…..2
This role is called [the affected]. Write…..3
A referring exp. in the role of affected and each of them is typical of a whole group
tells: of predicates.
1.what undergoes the action indicated by …………………………………………………………………….
the verb. Valency zero 4.2.1
2. what is changed or affected by this It is snowing
action. v./snow,s./ it, but it doesn’t name anything,
Ex. Tom broke a window though it is a complete sentence.
Dick broke a rope English requires a subject, but this subject
Harry broke a plate does not correspond to anything in the
The same fate for window,rope and plate. proposition.therefore snow is a zero-
Those NPs are syntactically the objs, of the argument verb.
v., semantically they still have the role of Other zero-argument verbs are
affected. It’s raining
It sleeted (yesterday
It has been thundering (in the west)
English requires the presence of it with The structure of this group:
weather verbs like rain,snow, sleet, Arg/ affected/grandfather,volcano,cake
thunder, but it does not refer to anything. Predicate/event/die, erupt, fail.
These verbs do not require some referent …………………………………………………………………
to be named in the sentence. Table 4.2:semantic roles:
Tense and aspect must be expressed 1. actor:
(rains, rained; is snowing, has been The role of an arg. that performs some
snowing). action without affecting any other entity.
indications of time and place can be added Ex/ Sylvia died.
(yesterday, in the west, etc.) 2. affected:
Here are similar sentences with a few The role of an arg. that undergoes a change
weather adjectives as predicates: due to some event or is affected by some
It’s windy (today). other entity.
It was rainy (all last month). Ex/ a window broke.
the propositions in which an inflection is Tom broke a window.
not part of a proposition can be Betty likes opera.
exemplified in: weather event….it is Opera delights betty.
snowing. 3. agent:
Weather condition….it is windy. The role of arg. that by its action affects
…………………………………………………………………. some other entity.
Valency one Ex/tom broke a window.
My brother snores. 4. associate:
v/snore, S/ my brother. Tells the status or identity of another arg.,
Snore is an intransitive verb that has a the theme
subject but no object. Ex/ roger is a student.
It is called here one-argument predicates: 5. effect:
The dog is sleeping Comes into existence through the action of
Larry laughed the predicate.
The earth rotates (on its axis) Ex/ Tillie baked a pie.
Other examples: 6. place:
giggle hum shiver weep whistle work Names the location in which the action of
Now let’s consider the role or roles that the predicate occurs.
the arguments have. Ex/ the fireman climbed a ladder.
the predicates sleep, laugh and rotate 7. theme:
express actions. It is the role of an arg. that is the topic of the
Ex. Sleep tells what the dog is doing. So the predicate that does not express action- a
dog is an actor that performs an action. stative predicate.
Argument/actor/dog/larry/actor. Ex/Audrey is a computer expert.
Predicate/action/sleep/laugh/rotate. …………………………………………………………………
The other group is: *One-argument adj. are numerous. Some of
Grandfather died (last week) them are used in the sentences that follow.
A volcano erupted 22.This soup is cold.
The cake fell 23.Terry is impatient.
We can say that those arguments 24.Henrietta was rather reckless.
(Grandfather/volcano/cake) did sth. 25.The bottle is empty.
The predicates(died/erupted/fell) tell what In this group the predicates are adj.phrases
they did in an event tell. a change in the which describe the entities named by their
condition of the entity named by the subjects.
Argument which undergoes this change, *In 24 the reckless may well be an
is affected by it. evaluation of Henrietta because of how she
acted.
*In 25, if the bottle is empty, that is likely * Similarly, a referring exp. occurring after a
to be the result of a change, becoming .form of be is a one-argument predicate
empty; but none of these predicates 26.This man is a carpenter.
express action or change, which are 27.Dextrose and fructose are sugars.
dynamic processes;they simply describe 28.Eddy Eckstein is the village idiot.
existing states. 29.Cora and Willis are the class leaders
*We might make a distinction here: Each sentence in here has a referring exp. as
cold, empty, tall, heavy, blond + other predicate.
adj. are objective terms; *The predicate in some way provides an
people will agree whether any of them is identity for the entity named by the s., as 1
applied accurately to a specific entity at a or more of a kind (a carpenter, sugars)
specific time. or as the only one or ones of the kind (the
*Impatient, careless, clever, thoughtful, village idiot, the class leaders). Structure:
pretty, tiresome + others involve arg./theme/man/dextrose+fructose/eddy
subjective evaluations; they are used when Eckstein/Cora and Willis.
people ascribe qualities or characteristics Predicate/identity/carpenter/sugars/ village
to entities, + other people may or may not idiot/class leaders.
agree. *Sentences 28 +29 are equational
*The S.of each sentence is simply the topic propositions.
or theme of what is said. The structure: Theme+identity can be reversed to create
Arg/theme/soup/terry/henrietta/bottle sentences that differ only in focus:
Predicate/description/cold/impatient/ Ex/The village idiot is Eddy Eckstein, The
reckless/ empty. class leaders are Cora and Willis.
*In some instances it is difficult to say
whether a particular sentence has the
structure Agent+Action or Affected+Event,
though the distinction is quite clear on the
whole.
*But the difference between the structures
Theme+Description and Theme+Identity is
not at all clear.
How much difference is there, really,
between these two?
30a Boris is Russian.
30b Boris is a Russian.
Week 3 ‫نقوصات‬ that the denotatum of 'red' is a *This use of 'denotation' to cover
7.4. Denotation/Lyons. particular property (viz. the colour both extension+ intension allows for
1*the term'denotation' is employed by red),+ the adoption of a neutral position on
many authors for reference; conversely, that its denotata are red objects the question whether the predicate
others used 'reference' as denotation. or, using the plural of 'denotatum' calculus+class logic are equally
2*Part of the reason for this now quite differently, various appropriate for the formalization of
terminological confusion, as Geach has subdivisions of the property (viz. descriptive semantics.
emphasized, is the failure of many authors various shades of red). *It is compatible with, though it
to distinguish clearly "between the 10*There are all sorts of important neither implies nor depends upon,
relations of a name to the thing named logical+philosophical distinctions the view that there is a fundamental
+of a predicate to what it is true of" (1962: lurking behind this liberal+ semantic difference between typical
6). grammatically convenient use of adj. like 'red'+typical common n. like
3*It might be argued that what Geach the singular+plural of'denotatum'. 'cow' (cf. Strawson, 1959: 168).
calls "a sad tale of confusion" has already 11*The status of the relationship *How does denotation differ from
gone too far+that, as he proposes, "so between denotation+reference, + reference?
battered + defaced a coin" as 'denotation' Denotation+sense,is not affected It was stressed that reference is an
should be "withdrawn from philosophical by our failure to draw these utterance-bound relation+does not
currency" (1962: 55). distinctions;+ hold of lexemes as such, but of
4*But it seems to be impossible to find an we couldn’t do so without expressions in context.
alternative which is not equally battered philosophical commitment,except *Denotation, on the other hand, like
or defaced. at the cost of introducing a sense, is a relation that applies in the
5*The usage adopted here is close to, or further set of technical terms. first instance to lexemes+holds
identical with, that of such writers as Lewis 12*just 1 such philosophical independently of particular occasions
(1943; cf. Carnap, 1956: 45), Quine (i960: distinction: between the intension of utterance.
9cm), Martin (1958) and Alston (1964; cf. + extension of an exp. Ex/a word like 'cow' in E.
Lehrer & Lehrer, 1970: 25). *Many philosophers like Carnap, Phrases like 'the cow', 'John's cow', or
6*However,the treatment of denotation (1956: 233)would say that the 'those three cows over there' may be
given here is intended 2b philosophically extension of 'red' is the class of used to refer to individuals, whether
neutral. all red objects+ singly or in groups, but the word
*No more should be read into the term That its intension is the property 'cow' alone cannot.
'denotation' than it is definitely said to of being red. *the reference of exp. like 'the cow' is
imply. *The relationship between classes context-dependent. +
7*There are many important differences in + properties (+ the possibility of the reference of phrases containing
the ways in which 'denotation' is defined defining one in terms of the 'cow' is determined, in part, by the
by the various authors referred to above. other) is controversial. denotation of 'cow'.
8*(+in the 1st instance: the notion of *Carnap regards his distinction of *ex/the phrase 'this cow' may, in
denotation in relation to lexemes), extension + intension as1 among certain circumstances, be understood
denotation of a lexeme means: a number of possible by the hearer to mean:
the relationship that holds between that interpretations of Frege's "the object near us which belongs to
lexeme + persons, things, places, distinction of reference + sense. the class of objects which the lexeme
properties, processes + activities external *Our use of 'denotation', it must 'cow' denotes".
to the language-system. be emphasized, is neutral as *How the hearer knows that the word
9*Lyons used the term denotatum* for the between extension+intension. 'cow' denotes, or is applicable to, a
class of objects, properties, etc., to which Ex/we will normally say that 'dog' particular class of objects is a
the exp. correctly applies. denotes the class of dogs separate issue;
*for grammatical convenience, he (or perhaps some typical member, there may or may not be some
construed 'denotatum' indifferently as a or exemplar, of the class), but that unique+determinate intensional
mass n., a collective n., or a countable n. Canine' denotes the property, if definition that a speaker of E. is
as the occasion demands. there is such a property, the intuitively aware of.
Ex/the denotatum of 'cow' is a particular possession of which is a condition *The point is:E. common n. like 'cow' are not
class of animals+that the individual of the correct application of the normally used as referring exp.+this is true for
most other lexemes in the E. vocabulary.
animals are its 'denotata'; exp.
*If they have denotation, it will determine *Unless the user of the dict. is a The distinction of denotation+
their reference when they are employed in foreign zoologist who knew the sense
referring exp. But they do not have meaning of 'bovine', but not 'cow', *the relationship between 2 lexemes,
reference as lexemes. he would probably not be very like 'cow'+ 'animal', is distinguished
*To say that there is a distinction between much helped by such an attempt from the relationship between the
denotation+reference does not imply that to explain to him the denotation lexeme bears + the class of objects it
they are unconnected. of 'cow'. denotes: the relationship between a
*Whatever may be referred to in a given l. *We should be better off trying to linguistic entity + sth. outside the l.-
is generally within the denotation of teach the denotation of 'cow' to system.
several lexemes in that l. most non-E. speakers by means of *The question is whether 1 of these two
Ex/cows may be referred to in a variety of some denotational equivalent in kinds of relationship is derivable from the
ways; +the various classes to which they their own l. if existed or other+ theoretically dispensable.
Attempts have been made to relate sense
belong are denoted, not only by 'cow', but by confronting them with a few
+ denotation on the basis of the
also by 'animal', mammal',etc. specimens (or pictures of them)
traditional notion of signification* or
*Many would claim that whatever may be and perhaps drawing their some modern (e.g., behaviourist) version
referred to in 1 language may be referred attention to 1 or 2 salient features of it.
to in any other l. + even that it will be (the horns, the udders, etc.). *But there are serious objections to
denoted by 1 or more lexemes in all l. , *The point being made is simply: making (either sense or denotation) basic
though in some instances perhaps only at there may be no single correct + in terms of the traditional triangle of
the most general level of the vocabulary. practical way of specifying the signification.
*However it may be clear that reference+ denotation of a lexeme. *It is assumed that the relationship of
denotation is logically + psychologically
denotation both depend in the same way Nor is it clear, in the present state
basic so that:
upon what the axiom of existence: of theoretical semantics, that
Ex/ we know that 'cow'+'animal' are
whatever is denoted by a lexeme must there is in principle any way of related in sense in a certain way bcz of
exist, just as "whatever is referred to must handling denotation in a uniform our prior knowledge that the denotatum
exist" (Searle, 1969: 77). manner. of 'cow' is properly included in the
*It also seems evident that denotation+ *We could adopt the positivist denotatum of 'animal')
reference are closely connected in the approach favoured by Bloomfield *but if we assume so, we have to face the
acquisition of l. + others. But this would introduce problem of how we can know the sense
*How is the denotation of a lexeme to be unnecessary + irrelevant criteria of words, such as 'unicorn', which have
no denotation.
specified by the descriptive linguist? into semantics.why?
*The fact that 'There is no such animal as
The short, practical answer is: in any way For if there is 1 thing that seems
a unicorn' is a perfectly normal+
that is likely to be successful. to be clear in this whole area, then comprehensible sentence of E.(which may
Ex/the specification of the denotation of it would be: be used to make what is probably a true
'walrus',is cast in the form of a typical dict. the denotation of lexemes is not statement), whereas
definition: "either of 2 species generally determined by what 'There is no such book as a unicorn'
(Odolenus rosmarus+Odolenus divergens) Bloomfleld called a is semantically odd, depends upon the
of large, seal-like Arctic mammals, with " scientifically accurate" fact that 'unicorn'+'animal' (like 'cow'
flippers + long tusks". description of the denotata. +'animal') are related in sense, whereas
'unicorn'+'book' are not; speakers of E.
*Anyone knows the meaning of the other Nor the denotation of most
are aware of these sense-relations.
words in it, would probably acquire as lexemes is determined solely, or *it can be argued that, although 'Unicorn' has
good an understanding of the denotation principally, by the physical no primary denotation, it has what might be
of 'walrus' as most other speakers of E.+ properties of their denotata. called a secondary denotation (cf. Goodman,
he might therefore use the word in *Much more important point is the role or 1952) ; We can draw a picture+ pointing
function of the objects, properties, to the picture, say This is a unicorn;
referring+ predicative exp.,otherwise, in
activities, processes +events in the life+
such a way that we should be justified in culture of the society using the l.
*speakers of E. may agree or disagree
saying that he knew its meaning. *Until we have a satisfactory theory of that what we have said is true, as
Ex/a similar dict. definition of 'cow': "a culture, in the construction of which they may agree or disagree about an
sociology,cognitive + social psychology, alleged picture of a cow.
mature female bovine animal (of the
have played their part, it is idle to speculate
genus Bos)". further about the possibility of constructing
anything more than a rather ad hoc
practical account of denotation of lexemes.
*But their ability to recognize our picture *One further point in connexion *It would be a mistake to say that no
of a mythical animal (if it is not directly with words which lack or may lack lexemes have denotation, or that
dependent upon their having seen denotation. denotation is irrelevant in linguistic
pictures of unicorns before) rests upon *Much of the philosophical semantics, or that all lexemes must
their understanding of the sense of discussion of this question has have denotation.
'unicorn'+ in particular upon their been directed towards the *But denotation is just one part of a
knowledge of its relations with such words analysis of the meaning of such wider+ more complex relationship
as 'horse', 'horn , etc. + their ability to words as * unicorn'. which holds between l. + the world
identify the denotata of these words. *The fact that 'unicorn', etc., have (or between l. + the set of possible
*because we know the sense of 'unicorn , no extension in the actual world Worlds)
we know what kind of object it would can be treated as irrelevant within *We live in the world + we are part of
apply to, if there were anything in the any theory of semantics which it +we use l, not only to describe the
world for it to apply to. allows for the relativization of persons, things+ situations in the
*we interpreted this as a definition of the truth +denotation to possible physical world+ the world of social
denotation of walrus. worlds. activity with which we interact in our
*But in order to apply it, we need to know *But it is perhaps more instructive daily life, but also to control+ adjust
the sense of many of the component to consider a word like 'intelligent' to them in a variety of ways.
lexemes in the definition+ we can learn (or 'honest', or 'beautiful'). *The descriptive function of l. is
the sense of 'walrus (its relationship with *Does 'intelligent' denote some important but it is not the sole
such words as 'seal +'mammal ) without real property or attribute of function of l.
knowing whether it has a denotation or persons (+perhaps animals+ *If we use the term applicability* for
not. Sense, then, in some cases at least is machines) as, we may assume, the admittedly rather ill-defined
epistemologically prior to denotation. 'red-haired' does? Is it not wider relationship that holds between
*We might therefore consider the possible that the word 'intelligent' l.+ the external world we can say that
alternative method of reduction: is used by speakers of E. in a a particular lexeme (or exp. or whole
that of taking sense to be basic in all variety of circumstances, among utterance) is applicable* (i.e. may be
instances + treating denotation as a which we can perhaps discern correctly applied) in a certain context,
derivative relation. certain family resemblances situational or linguistic + that it is
*But there are problems here too. (Wittgenstein1953) applicable to individuals or
* We first learn the use of many words in but which have no common properties of individuals.
relation to the persons+objects around us; defining property? *We may use the term 'applicability',
+ we learn the denotation of some of *It is certainly the case that there are l. in fact, for any relation that can be
these words, it seems clear, before we can in which there is no satisfactory established between elements or
relate them in sense to other words in the translation equivalent to the E. units of l. (including the prosodic*+
'intelligent'.
vocabulary. paralinguistic* features of utterances)
Ex/In Plato's Greek,the nearest
*It is not more correct to say that denotation is + entities in, or aspects of, the world
equivalents are:
wholly dependent upon sense than it is to say in which the language operates.
' sophos' which is much wider +
that sense is wholly dependent upon *If we consider the applicability of a
' eumathes'; which is somewhat
denotation.
narrower, in application (Lyons, 1963). lexeme with respect to the question
*Not everyone will agree with about the
*adj. such as 'dangerous', regardless whether it is true of the entity to
necessity of taking sense + denotation to be
of whether it is readily translatable which it is applied, we are concerned
interdependent, but equally basic, relations.
into all l. or not, can hardly be said to with its denotation.
*Should it prove possible, within some
denote an inherent property of the *If we consider the applicability of an
philosophical theory of meaning, to derive the
objects or situations to which it is
one satisfactorily from the other or both from exp. with respect to the question
applied. *The linguist, whether he is
some more basic notion, it is at least whether it is intended to identify
working as a theoretical or descriptive
terminologically convenient for the linguist to some entity or group of entities
semanticist, need not be concerned to
distinguish these 2 aspects of the meaning of about which sth. is being said, or
answer the question whether
lexemes.
'intelligent' +other lexemes denote some question is being asked, etc.,
*He can use the 2 terms to avoid commitment
some identifiable property or not. But on some particular occasion, we are
on the philosophical+psychological issues
if there are problems involved in concerned with its reference.
involved in the controversy between
assuming that they do.
nominalism+realism.
*But words may be correctly + incorrectly *The answer in both cases is the *Personal+ demonstrative pronouns,
applied to persons + things + other same; or, the denotation of like proper names, are used as
features of the external world, for all sorts '(be) a crook' is the intension of referring exp; they differ from proper
of reasons, some of which have nothing to the class whose extension is the names + exp like 'the Morning Star'+
do with their denotation. denotatum of 'crook'. many titles in that their reference is
…………………………………………………………… *Subject to the existence of the more obviously utterance dependent.
*Denotation is also clearly relevant to correlated property or class *But it would be rather odd to talk of
certain exp. which may be substituted for (under some appropriate the denotation of 'he' or the pronoun
single lexemes in sentences+ may be interpretation of 'existence'), 'this' (+still more so of ' I ' or 'you') in
denotationally equivalent to, or complex predicative exp. like '(be) E. as sth. distinct from their reference,
denotationally narrower or wider than, the the first man to climb Mount since the conditions of correct
lexemes for which they are substituted. Everest' or 'break the bank at application would be referential
Ex/'dark red' is denotationally narrower Monte Carlo' can also be said to conditions.
than 'red' have a denotation. *The class of individuals to which 'he'
as 'red book' is narrower in denotation *It is less clear that referring exp. may be correctly applied is the class
than either 'red' or 'book'. have denotation in the sense in of individuals that may be referred to
A traditional Ex/'Featherless biped' which we are using the term (whether deictically* or anaphorically,
+'rational animal' are perhaps 'denotation'. by means of 'he' which is not true of
denotationally equivalent+ each of them *Proper names, when they are these individuals.
is perhaps denotationally equivalent to employed as referring exp,identify *The third main class of referring exp.
'human being' (or 'man' in its wider their referents, not by describing is that of descriptive NPs+
sense). them in terms of some relevant philosophers have often said that
Ex/'Deciduous tree' is denotationally wider property or properties which the referring exp of this kind have, or
than 'oak', 'beech' or 'sycamore'. name denotes, but by utilizing the subject to the axiom of existence, a
*The denotation of such exp. such can unique+ arbitrary association denotation.
generally be accounted for in terms of the which holds between a name and *For Russell, a definite descripton was
logical conjunction or disjunction of the its bearer. said to denote an individual if that
denotations of their constituent lexemes+ *We could say that the denotatum individual fitted the description
formalized in terms of the logic of classes. of a name is the class of uniquely.
*the term 'denotation' has been employed individuals to which the name is *Donnellan (1966) adopts Russell's
with respect to lexemes+ exp. considered correctly applied. definition of denotation (without
independently of their function in *We could also say that to be however accepting the condition of
sentences or utterances. called such-and- such is to have a uniqueness)+ uses it to draw a
*The question is whether it can be certain property just as being of a distinction that Russell did not draw
consistently+ usefully extended to both certain size, shape, etc. between reference+ denotation.
predicative+ referring exp. *or having been involved in *Donnellan maintains that an exp.
*As far as predicative exp. are concerned, certain processes,actions, states- may be used successfully to refer to
this extension seems 2b straightforward. of-affairs, etc., is to have a certain an individual even though there is no
For denotation +predication are closely property (in the rather liberal individual that fits the description+
related notions. sense of the term 'property'). conversely that an individual may fit a
*When we ascribe a property to an *This would enable us to account definite description+ be denoted,
individual, we do so in the simplest cases naturally for the parallelism though not necessarily referred to, by
by predicating of the individual a lexeme between: it.
or exp. denoting the property in question. 'There are 12 chairs in this room'+ *In standard cases, however, an exp.
Ex/when we utter the sentence 'There are12Horaces in this room'. like 'the man drinking a martini', if it
'The man drinking a martini is a crook' *But this would tend to obscure is used to refer, will refer to the
to make an assertion about a particular important differences between individual (or one of the individuals)
individual we are predicating of him the denotation +other kinds of that it denotes.
lexeme 'crook'+we can just ask what is applicability: a name is not true of *the principal points made by Donnellan in
terms of his distinction of reference+
the denotation of the exp '(be) a crook' as its bearer.
denotation are valid,but the question remains
we can what does 'crook' denote. whether the definite NP can be said to have a
denotation.
*It seems preferable, on our interpretation
of denotation, to say that it is the complex
predicative exp.
' (be) a man drinking a martini' which has
denotation +that its denotation is a
function of the denotation of the exp
'(be) a man' + ' (be) drinking a martini');+
that the use of the definite NP to refer to
an individual implies or presupposes that
the complex predicative exp is true of the
individual in question.
*We can choose to define 'denotation' in
the one way or the other. But, if we decide
to use the term as we have been doing
throughout this section, we cannot
consistently apply it to referring exp.
*It goes without saying, however, that
many philosophers, if they use the term
'denotation' at all, would probably prefer
to link it more closely to 'reference'.
Saeed/week2 *Or the concepts may be different, *The problem is:
2.4.2 concepts reflecting the fact that items in a child’s which of these is necessary?
1*If we adopt the hypothesis that the world may have different salience than The first obviously.
meaning of, say, a n. is a combination of its for an adult. But the rest are more problematic.
denotation+ a conceptual element, then from ……………………………………………………………….. If we find in a herd of zebra, one that
the point of view of a linguist,2 basic 2.4.3 Necessary+ sufficient conditions is pure white or black, we might still
questions about the conceptual element are: *One traditional approach to describing want to call it a zebra.
1.What form can we assign to concepts? concepts is to define them by using sets *Or if by some birth defect, a three-
2.How do children acquire them, along with of necessary + sufficient conditions. legged zebra came into the world, it
their linguistic labels? *This approach comes from thinking would still be a zebra.
In our discussion we will concentrate on about concepts as follows: *Similarly, if a single zebra got bored
concepts that correspond to a single word, A concept like WOMAN, must contain with a grass diet+ started to include
that is, they are lexicalized. the information necessary to decide a few insects, would it cease to be a
*not all concepts are like this: when sth. in the world is a woman or not zebra?
some concepts are described by phrases, as *How can this information be organized? *These, you might think, are rather
with the underlined concept in: Perhaps as a set of characteristics or whimsical questions+ perhaps
ex/On the shopping channel, I saw a tool for attributes, that is: problems for philosophers rather
compacting dead leaves into garden statuary. x is a woman if + only if L . than linguists.
where L is a list of attributes, like: *zebra example is just a version of
*the reason why some concepts are x is human; Saul Kripke’s ex about tigers (Kripke
lexicalized + others not is utility. x is adult; 1980), or Putnam’s fantasy about cats
*If we refer to sth. enough it will become x is female, etc. (1962).
lexicalized. *One can see these attributes as *If we suddenly discovered that cats
*Possibly somebody once said sth. like: conditions: had always been automata rather
Ex/We’re designing a device for cooking food 1.necessary conditions: than animals, would the meaning of
by microwaves. If sth. must have them to be a woman. the word cat be different?
*describing sth. that was given 2-word label 2.sufficient conditions: * such Questions have important
microwave oven, but is now usually called a If we can find the right set, so that just consequences for our ideas about
microwave. that set is enough to define a woman. concepts:
*Presumably if every home ends up having a *we have identified the right amount of if we cannot establish a mutual
tool to turn leaves into statues, a name for it information for the concept. definition of a concept, how can we
will be invented and catch on. ………………………………………………………. use its linguistic label?
*We see this process happening all the time *So this theory views concepts as lists of …………………………………………………………
as new concepts are invented +new words or bits of knowledge: *Another argument against necessary
new senses of old words given to them. the necessary+sufficient conditions for +sufficient conditions as the basis for
Ex of such a recent introduction is selfie: sth. to be an example of that concept. linguistic concepts is Putnam’s (1975)
a self-portrait photograph+ ……………………………………………………….. observations about ignorance.
a notion brought to prominence by the *One major problem with this approach: *Speakers often use words to refer
ubiquity of smartphones(which is also a new that it seems to assume that if speakers despite knowing very little+
word in E). share the same concept they will agree sometimes nothing, about the
*in children acquiring concepts we have to on the necessary+ sufficient conditions: identifying characteristics of the
recognize that their cocepts may differ from if sth. has them, it is an X; if not, it is not. referent.
the concepts of adults. *But it has proved difficult to set these *Putnam’s ex include the tree names
*Work in developmental psychology has up even for n. which identify concrete+ Beech+ elm:
shown that children may operate with natural kinds like dog or cat. *like Putnam,many E speakers cannot
concepts that are quite different: Ex/ with the N. zebra, we might agree on distinguish between these 2 trees yet
Students of child l. describe children both some attributes: use the words regularly.
underextending concepts. is an animal, *Such a speaker would presumably
Ex/ a child dog can only be used for their pet, has four legs, be understood+be speaking
not the one next door. is striped, truthfully, if she said:
*overextending: he uses daddy for every is a herbivore, etc. In the 1970s Dutch elm disease killed
male adult,or cat for cats,rabbits+other pets. a huge number of British elms.
*Perhaps as Putnam suggests, we rely on a 2.4.4 Prototypes *This abstraction might be a set of
belief that somewhere there are experts *Because of problems with necessary+ characteristic features, to which we
who do have such knowledge + can tell the sufficient conditions, or definitions, compare real items.
difference between different species of tree. several more sophisticated theories of *These characteristic features of BIRD
*It seems, as with other natural kind terms concepts have been proposed. might describe a kind of average
like gold or platinum, we can use the words *One influential proposal is due to bird:
without knowing very much about the Eleanor Rosch+her co-workers (Rosch small perhaps, with wings,feathers,
referent. 1973) who have suggested the notion of the ability to fly + so on, but of no
*It seems unlikely then that a word is prototypes. particular species.
referring to a concept composed of a set of *A model of concepts which views them …………………………………………………….
necessary+ sufficient conditions, or what as structured so that there are central or *Other researchers have proposed
amounts to the same thing, a definition. typical members of a category, such as that we organize our categories by
*This approach is often termed the BIRD or FURNITURE, exemplars, memories of actual
definitional theory of concepts. but then a shading off into less typical or typical birds, say sparrows, pigeons+
*This is reminiscent of the use of names: peripheral members. hawks+ we compute the likelihood of
one of the advantages claimed for the causal Ex/ chair is a more central member of sth we meet as a bird on the basis of
theory of names over the description theory the category FURNITURE than lamp. comparison with these memories of
is that it allows for speaker ignorance: Ex/ sparrow a more typical member of real birds.
we can use a name for a person or place the category BIRD than penguin. *There is another approach to
knowing little or nothing about the referent. *This approach have been supported by typicality effects from within
*This parallel is overtly recognized by writers: Rosch’s experimental evidence: linguistics, which is interesting bcz of
Putnam (1975)+ Kripke (1980). *speakers tend to agree more readily on the light it sheds on the relationship
*they have proposed that the causal theory typical members than on less typical between linguistic knowledge +
be extended to natural kind terms. members; they come to mind more encyclopedic knowledge.
*The idea is that natural kind terms, like quickly, and so on. *Charles Fillmore (1982)+
names, are originally fixed by contact with ex *Another result of this + similar work George Lakoff (1987) make similar
of the kind. (Labov 1973) is that: claims that speakers have folk
*Thereafter, speakers may receive or borrow the boundaries between concepts can theories about the world, based on
the word without being exposed to the real seem to speakers uncertain, or“fuzzy,” their experience+ rooted in their
thing, or knowing very much about its rather than clearly defined. culture.
characteristics. *This approach allows for borderline *These theories are called frames by
*As we have seen, philosophers like to use ex uncertainty: an item in the world might Fillmore + idealized cognitive models
of metals like gold or silver. bear some resemblance to 2 different (ICMs) by Lakoff.
*Any inability to identify correctly or define prototypes. *They are not scientific theories or
the substance silver does not prevent one Ex/ an English speaker is able to use the logically consistent definitions, but
from using the word silver. word whale, but unsure about whether a collections of cultural views.
*We assume that someone once had the whale is a mammal or a fish : Ex/Fillmore gives an example of how
ability or need to recognize the individual 1. In the prototype theory of concepts, these folk theories might work by
metal + this might be explained by the fact that using the word bachelor:
*that somewhere there are experts who can whales are not typical of the category some bachelors are more
identify it empirically.(Putnam’s“division of MAMMAL , being far from the central prototypical than others
labor” in a speech community): prototype. with the Pope, for example, being far
between “expert” +“folk” uses of a term. 2. At the same time, whales resemble from prototypical.
*Only the expert or scientific uses of a word prototypical fish in some characteristic *Fillmore+ Lakoff in his discussion of
would ever be rigorous enough to support features: they live underwater in the the same point,suggest that there is a
necessary +sufficient conditions, but oceans, have fins, and so on. division of our knowledge about the
*speakers happily go on using the word. *There are interpretations of these word bachelor:
typicality effects in the psychology 1.part is a dict-type definition
literature: (perhaps simply “an unmarried man”)
some researchers have argued that the which is called linguistic or semantic
central prototype is an abstraction. knowledge.
for example Gelman and
2. and part is an encyclopedia-type entry of ex/ in a conceptual hierarchy for living *This model has proved to be very
cultural knowledge about things the concept BIRD will have robust in the psychological literature,
bachelorhood+marriage) the frame or ICM). such attributes as: though the simple picture presented
Which is called real world or general has wings, can fly,has feathers, lays eggs, here needs some modifications.
knowledge. has a beak. *It seems that the relationship
*Their point is we only apply the word *It does not have to specify attributes between the basic level+ the
bachelor within a typical marriage ICM: such as living organism, has senses, bcz intermediate term might vary from
a monogamous union between eligible it will inherit these from a higher domain to domain:
people, typically involving romantic love, and concept in the hierarchy, ANIMAL . 1.man-made categories like
so on. *Concepts lower in the hierarchy such as FURNITURE differ somewhat from
*the idealized model, a form of general ROBIN + EAGLE need not specify any of 2.natural kind terms, and the
knowledge, governs our use of the word these attributes. relationship may vary depending on
bachelor+ restrains us from applying it to *The concept PENGUIN however will the person’s experience of the
celibate priests, or people living in isolation specify cannot fly. categories.
like Robinson Crusoe on his island, or Tarzan *Such hierarchical conceptual structure *So a person’s expert knowledge of a
living among apes in the jungle. allows individuals to perceive entities as domain might influence the
*so In this view, using a word involves ex of types + relationship between the basic+
combining semantic knowledge+ to make predictions about their nature+ subordinate levels.
encyclopedic knowledge, +this interaction behavior without direct observation. Ex/Tanaka+ Taylor (1991)
may result in typicality effects. *If the attributes in this model are taken for a study suggesting that experts
*Prototype theory, 8 frame+ ICMs are just a to be the equivalent of the necessary+ on dogs +birds might have a
few of the large number of proposals for sufficient conditions, then it suffers from different, richer structure at
conceptual structure. the disadvantages of that approach. subordinate levels for these
……………………………………………………………………. *Proponents of prototype theory, for ex categories from the average
2.4.5 Relations between concepts Rosch et al(1976),have also investigated person.
* it is reasonable to assume that conceptual conceptual hierarchies+ have proposed …………………………………………………………..
structures are similarly linked. that such hierarchies contain 3 levels of 2.4.6 Acquiring concepts
Ex/ if all you know about peccary is that it is generality: a superordinate level, a basic *How do we acquire concepts?
a kind of wild pig + level, and a subordinate level. One simple + intuitively satisfying
of pecorino that it is a kind of Italian cheese, *The idea is that the levels differ in their theory is that we do it by ostensive
then your knowledge of these concepts balance between informativeness+ definition.
“inherits” knowledge you have about pigs+ usefulness. *This is the idea that children+adults
cheese. Ex/ from Rosch et al. : acquire concepts by being directed
*This has implications of how much Furniture: to examples in the world.
knowledge a speaker has to have in order to 1.the superordinate level is FURNITURE , *So if you are walking with a child+
use a word. 2.has relatively few characteristic you see a dog, you say That’s a dog
*It suggests that the crucial element is not Features or Look at the doggie!
the amount of knowledge but its integration 3.the basic level would include concepts and the child begins to acquire the
into existing knowledge. like CHAIR , which has more features, concept DOG , which is filled out by
*Thus, knowing that a peccary is a kind of 4.the subordinate level would include subsequent experience of dogs.
pig, together with what you know about pigs, concepts like ARMCHAIR , DINING ………………………………………………………
is perhaps enough to begin to understand CHAIR + so on, which have still more *This common-sense picture cannot be the
whole story, however.
the meaning of sentences containing the features+ are thus more specific again.
*The philosopher W. V. O. Quine (1960) has
word + thereby to start to gain extra …………………………………………………………. pointed out that ostension (defining by
knowledge about the concept. *The basic level is identified as cognitively example) is usually couched in l.
*Such relations between concepts have been important: *his ex/when walking with someone whose l.
1.it is the level that is most used in everyday you do not know who+ when a rabbit runs
used to motivate models of conceptual
life past, says Gavagai.
hierarchies in the cognitive psychology
2. it is acquired first by children You do not know whether it is a
literature.
3. in experiments it is the level at which warning or instruction, or what the
*Research has shown the importance of such adults spontaneously name objects; such content might be:
hierarchies in reasoning+ learning. objects are recognized more quickly in tests; “They are a menace,” “They are good to eat,”
and so on. “Wow, that scared me,” and so on.
*To understand that you are given a name *Speakers seem to recognize that at the *Logicians commonly use formulae for
you need to know sth about the l. that the level of the sentence these kinds of propositions in which
ostension takes place in. information are not important, and so the v. is viewed as a function+
its subject + any objects as arguments of
Ex/So in E, a sentence frame like “It’s a” discard them.
the function.
tells you this. *So we can look at sentences:
*Such formulae often delete verb
*Similarly, you cannot even tell what is being from the speaker's point of view, where endings, articles+ other grammatical
pointed to without some linguistic support: they are abstract elements to be made elements, so that
is it the whole rabbit, its tail, or the way it is real by uttering them. corresponding to 5+6 we would get 7+8:
running? or from the hearer’s point of view, 7. invade (caesar, gaul)
*The point is that even ostensive definition where they are abstract elements 8. end (war)
depends on prior knowledge of some word reached by filtering out certain kinds of *Some semanticists have borrowed from
meanings. information from utterances. logicians both:
this notion of proposition+
*Where do these come from? Are we forced *One further step of abstraction is
the use of logical formulae.
to admit that we may be born with certain possible for special purposes: to identify
*Some linguists employ this notion of
basic concepts innately within us? propositions. proposition in their semantic analysis,
we can merely point out that the acquisition *In trying to establish rules of valid often to identify a description of an event
of concepts must be a more complicated deduction, logicians discovered that or situation that might be a shared
process than simple ostension. certain elements of grammatical element in different sentences.
…………………………………………………………………… information in sentences were irrelevant. Ex/ the statement:
1. 2.6 Utterances, sentences + propositions Ex/ the difference between active+ Joan made the sorbet
*These three terms are used to describe passive sentences: the question:
Did Joan make the sorbet?
different levels of language. 1.Caesar invaded Gaul.
the command:
*utterance: 2.Gaul was invaded by Caesar.
Joan, make the sorbet!
1.is the most concrete. From a logician’s perspective, these share a propositional element:
2.created by speaking (or writing) a piece of sentences are equivalent, for whenever 1 JOAN MAKE THE SORBET.
language. is true, so is 2. *In this view, these different sentences
3.If I say: *Thus the grammatical differences allow the speaker to do different things
Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. between them will never be significant in with the same proposition:
this is one utterance. a chain of reasoning + can be ignored. to assert it as a past event
4.If another person in the same room also *Other irrelevant information(for these to question it
or to request someone to bring it about.
says Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, then purposes) includes what is called
*Propositions then can be away of
we would be dealing with two utterances. information structure,
capturing part of the meaning of
*Sentences: Ex/ the difference between: sentences.
1.are abstract grammatical elements obtained 1.It was Gaul that Caesar invaded. *They are more abstract than sentences
from utterances. 2.It was Caesar that invaded Gaul. because the same proposition can be
2.abstract because if a 3rd + 4th person in the 3.What Caesar invaded was Gaul. represented by several different
room also say 4.The one who invaded Gaul was Caesar. statements. *Moreover, in non-
Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny These sentences seem to share a statements like questions, orders, etc.,
with the same intonation, then they are four description of the same state of affairs. they cannot be the complete meaning.
Why?
utterances of the same sentence. *Once again,if one is true all are true+
Since such sentences include an
3.sentences are abstracted, or generalized, if one is false then all are false.
indication of the speaker’s attitude to the
from actual l. use. *To capture this fact, logicians identify a proposition.To sum up: utterances are
4.ex/ direct quotation. common proposition that can be real pieces of speech.
If someone reports He said “Ontogeny represented in various special ways to 1. By filtering out certain types of
recapitulates phylogeny,” she is unlikely to mimic avoid confusion with the various (especially phonetic) information we can
the original speaker exactly. get to abstract grammatical elements,
sentences that represent it.
*she will use her normal voice+ thus filter out sentences.
Ex/by using capitals:
certain types of information: 2. By going on to filter out certain types
a.the difference in pitch levels between men, 5. CAESAR INVADED GAUL.
of grammatical information, we can get
women+ children. *the proposition underlying the
to propositions, which are descriptions of
b.perhaps some accent differences due to regional The war ended might be written:
states of affairs and which some writers
or social variation. c. certainly those phonetic details 6. THE WAR ENDED. see as a basic element of sentence
which identify individual speakers.
meaning.
Palmer/ word & sentence‫نقوصات‬ *Bloomfield (1933: 178) offered a *There are not 2 entries for love+
2.4/ The word solution by suggesting that the word = loved, but one only.
*Dict are concerned with stating the the 'minimum free form' *+ this may even include the n. love
meanings of words+ it is, therefore, the smallest form that may occur in as well as the v. though we may not
reasonable to assume that the word is one of isolation. wish to extend the term lexeme in a
the basic units of semantics. *But this all depends on what is meant similar way.
*Yet there are difficulties. by 'in isolation'. *If we proceed on these lines we can
*First, not all words have the same kind of Ex/we shall not normally say the, is, by talk about the meaning of words
meaning as others; some seem to have little in isolation. (lexemes)+ independently of the
or none. *We might produce these 'words' in meaning of grammatical elements
Ex/Boys like to play. reply to a question such as What is the such as plural or past tense.
it is easy enough to consider what might be 2nd word here? Or *Instead of treating loved as the 2
the meaning of(boys, like+play) but what is Did you say 'a' or 'the'? morphemes love- + -d, we shall
the meaning of to? *But this just begs the question. analyse it in terms of the lexeme love
*It has been argued that meaning implies *We learn to utter in isolation just those +the grammatical category of tense.
choice +that while we can replace(boys, like items that we have learnt to recognise as *This solution leaves us with the word
+play) by words. (defined as the lexeme) as the unit
(girls, hate +fight), to cannot be replaced by *Bloomfield also suggested that we for our dict. + completely avoids the
anything, but it is wholly predictable in this should look for an element smaller than problem of identifying the separate
environment+has no meaning at all. the word, a unit of meaning; elements of took.
*The 19th century E. grammarian, Henry Sweet the morpheme: *But we are still left with the status of
(1891: 22) drew a distinction between 'full' ex/ -berry in blackberry or -y in Johnny. compounds.
words +'form' words. *Later linguists were more interested in *Even if we can identify elements
*full words =tree, sing, blue, gently. the status of such words as loved where within the word without actually
*form words =it, the, of, and. they could identify the morphemes segmenting the word itself, there are
*only the full words have the kind of love- + -d. still problems about stating the
meaning that we would expect to find in a *Here the 2 elements seem clearly to meaning of the elements.
dictionary. have the distinct meanings of: *The grammatical elements, like the
*The form words belong rather to the 'adore'+'past'. grammatical words considered
grammar+ have only 'grammatical' meaning. *But problems soon arose with words earlier, often seem to have little or no
*Such meaning cannot be stated in isolation, such as took, which appears to be both meaning.
but only in relation to other words+ even 'take'+'past', yet cannot be segmented *In some cases the meaning seems
sometimes to the whole sentence. in any obvious way into 2 parts each to be fairly simple + independent:
*The word, moreover, is not a clearly defined with its own meaning. more than one' for plural; yet even
linguistic unit. *The best way to handle this is not in this is not entirely true, while gender
*It is to some degree purely conventional, terms of morphemes is often only superficially related to
defined in terms of the spaces in the written (i.e. parts of words), but rather by sex.
text. redefining the term word in a different, *other grammatical elements are
*This spacing is not wholly arbitrary+ there though not unfamiliar way. almost devoid of any recognisable
are several sound reasons why we make the *We have been using this term in the meaning: in Latin, which for the most
divisions as we do. sense that love+loved are different part simply indicate grammatical
*One signal in the spoken l. is stress, in that words. relations within the sentence - the
one word seems to allow only one main *But we could also say that they are subject, the object, etc.
stress+ we can, for that reason, treat forms of the same word: the v. 'to love' *There are even some elements
blackbird =1 word which, oddly enough, we identify by within words that aren’t grammatical
black bird= 2. using 2 words, to+love). yet equally have little or no meaning.
*But there is no complete correlation *A technical term for the word in this 2nd *Bloomfield was particularly
between the spoken+ the written form sense is LEXEME. concerned about the status of
Ex/The White House *It is lexemes that usually provide dict. cran- in cranberry, which have no
or by compounds: shoeblack, shohorn + headings. independent meaning+ does not
shoe polish, all with a single stress. occur in any other words.
*He might well have been concerned with *Semantically, idioms are single units,
straw- + goose- in strawberry+gooseberry, *to see this as an indication of 4 distinct but they are not single grammatical
which have nothing to do with straw or elements of meaning in the same word. units like words, for there is no past
geese. *This point is related to the distinction tense ^kick the bucketed.
*In contrast black- in blackberry can be made by Ullmann (1962) between *Sometimes semantic division seems
related both in form+ in meaning to the 1st TRANSPARENT+OPAQUE words. to 'override' word division.
elements of blackbird + blackboard. *Transparent words are those whose Ex/heavy smoker + good singer.
*An interesting trio is greenfinch, bullfinch meaning can be determined from the *Semantically these are not heavy +
and chaffinch =names of finches. meaning of their parts, opaque words smoker (a smoker who is heavy)
*In greenfinch, green- =its colour those for which this is not possible. Good singer (a singer who is good).
in bullfinch the first element can be Ex/chopper+ doorman are transparent, *The meaning is one who smokes
identified, but has little connection with bulls. but axe + porter are opaque. heavily or sings well.
*while the 1st element of chaffinch seems to *Comparison with other l, German in *if we divide, it will be between heavy
have no meaning at all. particular, is interesting. smok- + -er, good sing- + -er, if we
*Even more striking there are many words in In E: thimble, glove +linguistics are want to retain the parallelism
E. that are called PHONAESTHETic, in which1 opaque between the form + the meaning.
part, often the initial cluster of consonants, (the same is true of the equivalent *An alternative solution would be in
gives an indication of meaning of a rather French words) terms of deep structure, which allows
special kind. in German the corresponding words are the statement of the meaning of
*Thus many words beginning with si- are all transparent: heavy smoker in terms of X smokes
'slippery' in some way : Fingerhut ('finger-hat'), Handschuh heavily.
slide, slip, slither, slush, sluice, sludge, etc., ('hand-shoe'), Sprachwissenschaft *But this might not be so easy with
*or else they are merely pejorative : ('language-science'). ex like : artificial florist+
slattern, slut, slang, sly, sloppy,slovenly, etc. *But there are degrees of transparency+ criminal lawyer.
*The sk- words refer to surfaces or opacity. *All these considerations suggest that
superficiality: Ex/A chopper may indeed be an we should abandon the idea that the
skate, skimp, skid, skim, skin, etc. instrument that chops, but does a word is a natural unit for semantics,
*The reader may consider also the meaning screwdriver actually DRIVE screws? however useful it may be for the
of words beginning with sn-, str-, sw-, tw,-etc. *What are we to say of dictionary maker.
*An amusing set is that which ends in -ump; spanner+hammer }The -er ending looks *Bazell 1966 commented:
almost all refer to some kind of roundish as if it is the indication of an instrument, 'To seek a semantic unit within the
mass: plump, chump, rump,hump, lump, but (a spanner spans) only in a now boundaries of the word simply
bump, stump + even perhaps dump+mumps. obsolete sense of span ('wind up') because these boundaries are clearer
*But we cannot generalise too far. Not every while a hammer does not 'ham' at all. than others is like looking for a lost
word with these phonological characteristics *Similar comments can be made about ball on the lawn simply because the
will have the meaning suggested,moreover, the -herry + -finch words. thicket provides poor ground for
we cannot separate this part+ state the *We can, then, hardly use transparent such a search.'
meaning of the remainder. words to decide what are the semantic *But we cannot proceed without
Ex/the meaning of -ide in slide or elements within opaque ones; we should some kind of lexical unit+ the lexeme
-ate in skate. not wish to argue for the analysis of seems the most obvious one, even if
*There is no consistency about the number of thimble on the basis of Fingerhut. its definition may on occasions be
semantic units we may recognise within a *Finally, IDIOMS are some whole groups arbitrary+ if the meaning of
word. of words that must be taken together to sequences of words is not always
*Although we have ram/ ewe, stallion/ mare, establish meaning. (wholly) predictable from the lexemes
we have no similar pairs for giraffe or *Idioms are sequences of words whose contained in them.
elephant. We have to say male giraffe, female meaning cannot be predicted from the
giraffe, or if we know the correct term bull meanings of the words themselves.
elephant and cow elephant. Ex/kick the bucket, fly off the handle,
*Such considerations, together with the fact spill the beans,red herring.
that we have the words cow+ calf, may lead *we can't say kick the table, fly off the
us to define bull as male adult bovine animal. roof, spill the coffee, red fish.
2.5 The sentence *All are devices for not repeating *1st a great deal of meaning in the
*Apart from all the problems concerning the everything that has already been spoken l. is carried by the prosodic+
word itself, the question is whether the basic established in the discourse. paralinguistic features of l. :
unit of meaning is not the word, but the Ex/John saw Mary+spoke to her. intonation, stress, rhythm, loudness,
sentence. John is omitted,while Mary is replaced etc., as well as such features as facial
*For with sentences we communicate+ this is by her in the second half of the exp. + gestures (which are often
reflected in the traditional definition of the sentence. called 'paralinguistic' in a wide sense
sentence as 'the exp. of a complete thought'. *Not all sentence fragments, however, of the term).
*If words have meaning, it is derived from are linked to the previous discourse. Ex/ by the appropriate use of
their function as parts of sentences. *Coming? or Coming! intonation, be sarcastic, so
*Even if referential meaning is established by may be used instead of: That's very clever means
ostensive definition, such definition is Are you coming? or Tm coming! 'That's not very clever'.
achieved only by sentences of the kind This is *Moreover, in actual speech we often fail *We can also imply what is not said.
a . . ., and such meaning, therefore, is simply through lapse of memory or Ex/ I don't like coffee with a fall-rise
ultimately statable only in terms of the inattention to produce complete or intonation may well imply
sentence. grammatical sentences. 'I like tea'+ She's very clever may
*The sentence is essentially a grammatical *We break off, we forget how we began, suggest 'She's rather ugly'.
unit; indeed it is the function of syntax to we confuse 2 or more constructions, etc. *Or we can indicate that what we are
describe the structure of the sentence+ *Nevertheless, the interpretation of all of saying is not really true, but is just
thereby to define it. these depends upon their relation to the meant to tease, by winking or even
*E. sentences will consist minimally of a sentences of the grammar. by simply smiling.
subject NP + a VP as its predicate or *We can only recognise sentence *2nd we can by various devices,
complement. fragments, or incomplete or including intonation, indicate what is
*Each of these may be a single word as in ungrammatical sentences, if we know important, contrastive or new.
Birds fly. what a complete grammatical sentence *The difference between:
*The syntax will determine much more is. I saw John this mornings
complex structures than this, of course. *In spite of the remarks, it is useful to I saw John this morning +
*However, we do not always produce think of both words and sentences as I saw John this morning does not
complete sentences even of this minimal having meaning. concern the information itself, but
kind. *Moreover, the meaning of a sentence the relation between that information
*It is simple enough to envisage a situation in can be predicted from the meaning of + previous information known to
which someone might simply say Horses. the words it contains, or, more strictly, speaker+hearer.
*This could be in reply to a question such as from these words qua lexemes + *The choice of an active or passive
What are those animals in that field? the grammatical features with which sentence.
*Although some scholars have talked of they are associated. *The car hit the child or
'one word sentences' in describing such exp. (But there has been some debate The child was hit by the car,
*It seems more helpful to treat Horses as a whether the meaning is to be related to may relate to what it is that we are
sentence fragment and as an incomplete the actual SURFACE STRUCTURE or talking about + we can draw
version of they are horses; certainly we some more abstract deep structures. attention to items by change of word
should need to reconstruct the complete *So each sentence will have a meaning order as in:
sentence in this way to talk about its (a 'literal' meaning), or, if it is ambiguous That one I don't like as opposed to I
meaning. like / went to the bank, two or more don't like that one.
*Most fragments are closely linked to their meanings. *3RD there is a variety of what are
linguistic context + handled in terms of *However, there are other kinds of today called 'speech acts'.
ellipsis (the omission of parts of the meaning that are not directly related to *We warn, we threaten, we promise,
sentences). grammatical + lexical structure. though often without giving any
*Ellipsis in turn is related to the feature of *There is more to the problem of overt indication that we are doing so.
*pro-formation' (the use of pronouns+similar meaning than saying that: Ex/There is a bull in the field, which
forms that replace v. + other parts of speech). The cat sat on the mat means could be meant as a warning, not
'The cat sat on the mat.' simply as a piece of information.
*4th (and this is a more general point). *It is not intended to transmit Ex/If I say 'It's a fine day', although a
*we can 'say' one thing + 'mean' another. information, but is simply part of the single utterance, it is interesting only
Ex/To say of a professional athlete or a leader social activity. as an instance of the sentence:
of industry He is a nice man may well be *As W. S. Gilbert said (Patience): It is a fine day.
meant to suggest that he is not really very The meaning doesn't matter If it's only *Indeed an utterance cannot even be
good at his profession. idle chatter Of a transcendental kind. recognized (though it can be stored
*In general, giving irrelevant information *Lyons (1977: 643) has suggested that on a tape) without being presented
suggests that more relevant information we should draw a distinction between in sentence form.
would be unfavorable. sentence meaning+ utterance meaning. *What Lyons means by utterance
*5th there is a problem associated with *sentence meaning being directly meaning:
sentences like: predictable from the grammatical+ It is the part of the meaning of a
Have you stopped beating your wife? lexical features of the sentence. sentence that is not directly related to
It is impossible to answer Yes or No without *utterance meaning includes all the the grammatical+ lexical features, but
admitting that you have beaten her in the various types of meaning discussed. is obtained either from associated
past. *The distinction is useful, but there are 2 prosodic+ paralinguistic features or
*For the question implies or presupposes that reservations: from the context, linguistic+ non-
you did, though it does not actually say so. 1. we cannot always clearly decide what linguistic, in which it occurs.
*Similarly, it has been argued that: is sentence meaning+what is utterance *But he is still generalising. He is not
The King of France is bald meaning. concerned with a particular utterance
presupposes that there is a King of France, *In principle it could be argued that the 'There is a bull in the field'
though it does not assert his existence‫ز‬ intonation of a sentence is part of its which was uttered as a warning at a
*while: grammatical form+ particular time by a particular person,
I regret that she came + that intonation signals sentence but with
I don't regret that she came meaning, not utterance meaning, a There is a bull in the field, or at
presuppose that she came. sarcastic intonation having the same least with the class of utterances that
*Finally, l. is often deeply concerned with a function as a negative. can be identified in terms of the
variety of social relations. *Yet in practice the prosodic+ sentence There is a bull in the field+
*Being rude or polite depends upon the paralinguistic features are so varied + so are used as a warning.
social relationship with the person to whom variable in what they signal that it is *With these reservations the
we are speaking. advisable not to attempt to include distinction is a useful one+ PALMER
Ex/we may ask for silence with: them within the grammatical analysis. used the title 'Utterance meaning'.
Shut up^ Be quiet. *Equally presuppositional meaning could …………………………………………………………
Would you please be quiet? be contained in the lexical +grammatical *For some scholars it is not the
Would you keep your voice down a little characteristics of the sentence: sentence but the proposition that is
please? EX/ stop includes in its meaning that the the basic unit of semantics, why?
*The choice depends on whether we wish to activity was being carried on previously, Bcz of the belief that semantics must
be rude or not + this relates to the status of EX/ while any NP like The King of France, be truth-conditional+ that
the person addressed. indicates that the item referred to exists. propositions, unlike sentences, can
*Some parts of l. are wholly social +carry no 2. The term 'utterance' is a little always be characterised as true or
information (even if we include giving orders, misleading. false.
etc., within information) at all. Utterances are usually taken to be *One argument in favour of the
Ex/ Good morning , How are you? + unique speech events+ distinction is that a sentence such as:
all the Englishman's remarks about the no 2 utterances are the same. I was there yesterday.
weather. *But the linguist is concerned with may be uttered at different times +
*In some societies replies +questions are making generalisations about them+ different places by different people+
often about the family, but no real shouldn't be misled by Herachtus' may, for instance, assert that:
information is being sought- the speaker dictum: Bill Smith was in London on 18
does not want to know about the health of 'You can't step into the same river twice.' January 1980
the family of the man he is talking to, but is *When he generalises, he talks about or that
making social contact. sentences. Mary Brown was in Bristol on 18
* Even a great deal of'small talk' at parties. August 1981.
*This sentence cannot, therefore, be said to *Even the argument concerning
be true or false, but the various propositions I was there yesterday can be turned on ‫ من بالمر‬32+31 ‫نقص ص‬
that it states (concerning Bill Smith + Mary its head+ used against the notion of *In recent years some linguists have
Brown) can be. proposition, for there are very serious attempted to limit semantics, both in
*Logic, which is truth-conditional, is not doubts whether sentences containing theory+ in practice, to sense relations.
Ex/(Katz& Fodor 1963: 176) in their article
concerned with the grammatical+ lexical words such as:
where we read:
forms of the sentence, but essentially with its I, there + yesterday (deictics) which take
'A semantic theory describes+ explains
propositional meaning. their meaning from the context, can ever the interpretive ability of speakers;
Ex/Every boy loves some girl be accurately stated in propositional By accounting for their performance in
is grammatically unambiguous, but for the terms. determining the number of readings of a
logician it expresses 2 quite distinct *If that is so, semantics restricted to sentence;
propositions: propositions will be extraordinarily by detecting semantic anomalies;
1. every boy loves a different girl limited, for ordinary L. is full of such by deciding upon paraphrase relations
2. or every boy loves the same girl. deictic terms. between sentences; +
by marking every other semantic
*This is important bcz different logical *Finally, when we wish to refer to
property or relation that plays a role in
inferences can be drawn from these distinct propositions we normally do so in terms
this ability.'
propositions. of sentences. *There is explicit reference only to
*It has also been pointed out that we *Even if logical formulae are used, they ambiguity ('the number of readings'),
distinguish between sentences +propositions are no more than translations of anomaly+ paraphrase, but, later work,
in the distinction between direct+ indirect sentences into a logical 'language'. Katz1972 lists no less than 15 such
speech. *This should make us wonder whether relations.
Ex/ John said I'll come on Tuesday' propositions are either necessary or
is true only if 'I'll come on Tuesday' were his justified.
actual words, while *The only real advantage they offer is *The speaker's ability does not, however,
John said he would come on Tuesday is true that they may avoid some ambiguities, include his ability to relate the sentences
to the world of experience+ indeed Katz
if the information is correct. but that can be done no less easily by
& Fodor explicitly exclude from a
*John may have said 'I'll be there on Tuesday' talking about 'sentences with a particular
semantic theory any reference to the
or he may have spoken in French. interpretation', by recognising,+ settings of sentences.
The v. say is thus ambiguous: it may refer indicating precisely, those ambiguities *It is not always possible to distinguish
either to the actual words that were spoken that may be troublesome. clearly between sense and reference,
(which will be shown in quotation marks) or …………………………………………………………….. why?

DONE
to the propositional content of the words for the simple reason that the categories
uttered (usually introduced by that). of our l. correspond, to some degree to
………………………………………………………………………. real- world distinctions.
*Whether l. determines the shape of the
*There are, however, grave difficulties in
world or vice versa is probably a
restricting semantics to propositions:
'chicken + egg' problem.
1.All the kinds of utterance meaning that we *The fact that we have ram/ewe,bull/ cow
have discussed will be outside semantics. is part of the semantic structure of E, but
More seriously, we shall be restricted to it also relates to the fact that there are
statements, while questions +commands are male+ female sheep+cattle. *But we have
excluded even though, in actual l. questions+ to remember:
commands are just as important as (1) that not all l. will make the same
statements. distinctions
(2) that there is considerable
*L. is not simply concerned with providing
indeterminacy in the categorisation of the
information.
real world (some things, EX/
*We should have nothing to say, moreover, the mammals) fall into fairly natural
concerning modality - the judgments we classes, others do not.
make about possible states of affairs: *It is because of this that we can
ex/John may be in his office. distinguish sense + reference, yet must
indicates the speaker's attitude towards the allow that there is no absolute line
probability of John being in his office. between them, between what is in the
world and what is in language.