戴语言学5-semantics

5. Semantics5.1 What is semantics?Semantics can be simply defined as the study of meaning. This definition naturally leads to the question: what is meaning? Meaning is central to the study of communication, but the question of what meaning really is is difficult to answer. Even linguists do not agree among themselves as to what meaning is. And what makes the matter even more complicated is th at philosophers, psychologists, and sociologists all claim a deep interest in the study of meaning, although they differ in their focus of interest. The philosophers are interested in understanding the relations between linguistic expressions and what they refer to in the real world, and in evaluating the truth value of linguistic expressions. The psychologists focus their interest on understanding the workings of the human mind through language. This is why it is not surprising to find ten books all bearing the title "Semantics" but talking about different things. In our discussion, we will limit ourselves to the study of meaning from a linguistic point of view.5.2 Some views concerning the study of meaning5.2.1 The naming theoryOne of the oldest notions concerning meaning, and also the most primitive one, was the naming theory proposed by the ancient Greek scholar Plato. According to this theory, the linguistic forms or symbols, in other words, the words used in a language are simply labels of the objects they stand for. So words are just names or labels for things.The limitations of this theory are obvious. First of all, this theory seems applicable to nouns only, but verbs, adjectives, and adverbs such as "think", "hard", "slowly" are definitely not labels of objects. Besides, within the category of nouns, there are nouns which denote things that do not exist in the real world at all such as "ghost", "dragon", and "unicorn", and also nouns that do not refer to physical objects, but abstract notions such as "j o y", "im pulse ".5.2.2 The conceptualist viewA more sophisticated and seemingly more plausible view than naming is one that relates words and things through the mediation of concepts of the mind. This conceptualist view has been held by some philosophers and linguists from ancient times. This view holds that there is no direct link between a linguistic form and what it refers to (i.e. , between language and the real world); rather, in the interpretation of meaning they are linked through the mediation of concepts in the mind. This is best illustrated by the classic semantic triangle or triangle of significance suggested by Ogden and Richards:THOUGHT/REFERENCESYMBOL/FORM-REFERENT(直线表示两者之间有直接联系，虚线表示两者之间无直接联系。

)In the diagram, the SYMBOL or FORM refers to the linguistic elements (words,phrases), the REFERENT refers to the object in the world of experience, and THOUGHT or REFERENCE refers to concept. For example, The word "dog" is directly associated with a certain concept in our mind, i.e., what a "dog" is like, but it is not directly linked to that particular dog mentioned in the sentence "The dog over there looks unfriendly", i.e., the referent in this particular case. Thus, the symbol or a word signifies "things" by virtue of the concept associated with the form of the word in the minds of the speaker of the language; and the concept looked at from this point of view is the meaning of the word.This theory avoids many of the problems the naming theory has encountered, but it also raises a completely new problem of its own. For what is precisely the link between the symbol and the concept remains unclarified. Some scholars have suggested that the link is simply a psychological one — when we t h i n k of a name, we think of a concept. But this does not answer the question satisfactorily, for it is not clear what exactly is meant by "thinking of a concept. " People do not actually try to see the image of something in their mind's eye every time they come across a linguistic symbol.5.2.3 ContextualismDuring the period roughly from 1930 to 1960, linguists gave preeminence to the empirical or observable aspect instead of the theoretical aspect in their scientific investigation of meaning. This tendency manifested itself in an attempt to base meaning on context. It has attracted those linguists who have been working toward the ideal of scientific objectivity. They hold that meaning should be studied in terms of situation, use, context —elements closely linked with language behaviour. A representative of this approach was J.R.Firth, the leading British linguist of the period. He held the view that 'We shall know a word by the company it keeps,' and that 'By regarding words as acts, events, habits, we limit our inquiry to what is objective in the group life of our fellows." Firth had been influenced by the works of Malinowski, a Polish anthropologist and of Wittgenstein, a German philosopher. They believed respectively that "language should be treated as a mode of action, not an instrument of reflection" and that "For a large class of cases ... the meaning of a word is its use in the language."The contextualist view of meaning is based on the presumption that one can derive meaning from or reduce meaning to observable contexts. Two kinds of context are recognized: the situational context and the linguistic context.Every utterance occurs in a particular spatiotemporal situation, the main components of which include, apart from the place and time of the utterance, the speaker and the hearer, the actions they are performing at the time, the various objects and events existent in the situation. The linguistic context, sometimes known as co-text, is concerned with the probability of a word's co-occurrence or collocation with another word, which forms part of the "meaning" of the word, and also with the part of text that precedes and follows a particular utterance.For example, the meaning of the word "black" differs in the two collocations of "black hair" and " black coffee". And the meaning of the word "seal" in the sentence "The seal could not be found" cannot be determined unless the context in which thesentence occurs is restored.5.2.4 BehaviorismThe contextualist view was further strengthened by Bloomfield, who drew on behaviorist psychology when trying to define the meaning of linguistic forms. Behaviorists attempted to define the meaning of a language form as the "situation in which the speaker utters it and the response it calls forth in the hearer. " (Bloomfield, 1933) This theory, somewhat close to contextualism, is linked with psychological interest. This view of meaning proposed by Bloomfield is illustrated by his story about Jack and Jill, represented by the figure below. Bloomfield argued that meaning consists in the relation between speech indicated by the small letters r •••••• s and the practical events represented by the capitalized letters S and R that precede and follow them respectively:Jill JackS_________________ r •••••• s___________________RWhen Jill sees an apple and wants to have it, she has a physical stimulus, (represented by the capital letter S), which gives rise to a verbal response ( r ) to Jill. For instance, she might say to Jack "I'm thirsty". What she says results in a verbal stimulus to Jack (represented by the small letter s ). This stimulus, in its turn, leads to a non-verbal response from Jack, such as picking the apple for her.5.3 Lexical meaning5.3.1 Sense and referenceSense and reference are two terms often encountered in the study of word meaning. They are two related but different aspects of meaning.Sense is concerned with the inherent meaning of the linguistic form. It is the collection of all the features of the linguistic form; it is abstract and de-contextualized. It is the aspect of meaning dictionary compilers are interested in. For example, the word "dog" is given the definition " a domesticated canine mammal, occurring in many breeds that show a great variety in size and form". (Collins Dictionary of the English Language, 1979) This does not refer to any particular dog that exists in the real world, but applies to any animal that meets the features described in the definition. So this is the sense of the word "dog".(Sense refers to the meaning of a Noun Prase which determines its referent)Reference means what a linguistic form refers to in the real, physical world; it deals with the relationship between the linguistic element and the non-linguistic world of experience. If we say "The dog is barking", we must be talking about a certain dog existent in the situation; the word "dog" refers to a dog known to both the speaker and the hearer. This is the reference of the word "dog" in this particular situation.(Reference refers to that part of a Noun Prase which is its referent)Obviously, linguistic forms having the same sense may have different references in different situations. On the other hand, there are also occasions, when linguistic forms with the same reference might differ in sense. A very good example is the twoexpressions "morning star" and "evening star". These two differ in sense but as a matter of f a c t, what they refer to is the same: the very same star that we see in the sky.5.3.2 Major sense relations (5种)5.3.2.1 Synonymy (two words, same meaning)Synonymy refers to the sameness or close similarity of meaning. Words that are close in meaning are called synonyms.English is rich in synonyms for historical reasons. In the English vocabulary there are two categories of words: native words and borrowed (loan) words. The native words are those that were originally used in the speech of the native inhabitants of the British Isles, i.e., the Anglo-Saxons, although they were actually migrants from the northern part of Europe. Then in its long history of development, the English language has taken in a large number of words from other languages, mostly European languages, such as French, Latin, Greek, Italian, and German. Most of the borrowed words have been naturalized. Therefore, we often find in English pairs, or triplets of words bearing more or less the same meaning. But because of their different origins, there are often subtle differences between these synonyms. Complete synonyms, i.e. synonyms that are mutually substitutable under all circumstances, are rare. According to the way they differ, synonyms can be divided into the following groups:i. Dialectal synonyms — synonyms used in different regional dialectsThese are words with more or less the same meaning used in different regional dialects. British English and American English are the two major geographical varieties of the English language. It is not difficult to find examples of saying the same thing by using different words in the two dialects:British English American English British English American English Autumn fall Windscreen windshieldLift elevator Torch flashlight Luggage baggage Picture MovieLorry truck Ill SickPetrol gasoline Engine MotorFlat apartment Post Mail Then dialectal synonyms can also be found within British English, or American English itself. For example, "girl" is called "lass" or "lassie" in Scottish dialect, and "liquor" is called "whiskey" in Irish dialect.ii. Stylistic synonyms — synonyms differing in styleWords having the same meaning may differ in style, or degree of formality. In other words, some words tend to be more formal, others casual, and still others neutral in style. Here are some examples:old man, daddy, dad, father, male parentstart, begin, commencekid, child, offspringkick the bucket, pop off, die, pass away, deceaseask, question, interrogatefear, terror, trepidationgee-gee, horse, steediii. Synonyms that differ in their emotive or evaluative meaningThese are words that bear the same meaning but express different emotions of the user, indicating the attitude or bias of the user toward what he is talking about. For example, the two words "collaborator" and "accomplice" are synonymous in that they share the meaning of " a person who helps another", but they differ in that a collaborator helps another in doing something good, while an accomplice helps another in a criminal act. So which word you would use depends on your evaluation of the nature of the activity the person concerned helps in.iv. Collocational synonymsSome synonyms differ in their collocation, i.e., in the words they go together with. This is a matter of usage. For example, when we want to say that someone has done something wrong or even criminal, we can use "accuse", "charge", "rebuke", but they are followed by different prepositions —accuse ... of, charge ... with, rebuke ... for. Another example is the word we use to describe food that has gone bad and is not f it for eating. Different adjectives are used for different kinds of food, e.g. rotten tomatoes, addled eggs, rancid bacon or butter, sour milk. (A flock of sheep, A pack of wolves, A herd of cows, A swarm of bees, A school of whales)v. Semantically different synonymsThese are synonyms that differ slightly in what they mean. For example, the two words "amaze" and "astound" are very close in meaning to the word "surprise", but have very subtle differences. While "amaze" suggests confusion and bewilderment, "astound" suggests difficulty in believing. (For example, rage, fury, indignation and wrath are synonymous to anger in denoting the emotional excitement induced by intense displeasure. "Rage" often implies a loss of self-control; " fury”, the strongest word in the group, suggests a rage so violent that it may approach madness; “indignation” implies anger because of moral reasons.)5.3.2.2 Polysemy (one word, different meaning)While different words may have the same or similar meaning, the same one word may have more than one meaning. This is what we call polysemy, and such a word is called a polysemic word. There are many polysemic words in English. The fact is the more commonly used a word is, the more likely it has acquired more than one meaning. Take the word "table" for example. It is a very common word in English. If we look it up in any dictionary, we will find that it has at least the following seven meanings:(1) a piece of furniture(2) all the people seated at a table(3) the food that is put on a table(4) a thin flat piece of stone, metal, wood, etc.(5) orderly arrangement of facts, figures, etc.(6) part of a machine-tool on which the work is put to be operated on(7) a level area, a plateauHistorically speaking, polysemy can be understood as the growth and development of or change in the meaning of words. We assume that at first the form "table" had only one meaning; very likely it referred to a thin piece of stone, or wood. This is called its primary meaning. Later on it gradually came to acquire the other meanings it now represents.5.3.2.3 Homonymy (different words, same sound/spelling)Homonymy refers to the phenomenon that words having different meanings have the same form, i.e., different words are identical in sound or spelling, or in both.When two words are identical in sound, they are homophones. When two words are identical in spelling, they are homographs. When two words are identical in both sound and spelling, they are complete homonyms. Below are examples of each kind:Homophones: rain/reign night/knight piece/peace leak/leekHomographs: bow v. /bow n. tear v. / tear n. lead v. / lead n wind v. /wind n.Complete homonyms : fast adj. /fast v. scale n. /scale v.At this stage a question that readily comes to mind is that when two forms are identical both in sound and spelling, how can we tell whether they are two meanings of the same polysemic word, or two complete homonyms? This is an interesting question but difficult to answer. What we can depend on is the etymology of the words in question. A polysemic word is the result of the evolution of the primary meaning of the word. The various meanings of the word are related to some degree, as we have seen in the case of "table" above. Complete homonyms are often brought into being by coincidence. For instance, "ball " meaning "a round object used in games" and "ball" meaning "a large formal social event at which people dance" are complete homonyms. The word "ball" bearing the first meaning is a native English word. It originally existed in the language. It so happened that in French there existed a word, spelt in the same way, bearing the second meaning. And this word somehow found its way into the English language. The result is that in English today we have the two complete homonyms "ball" and "ball."(Usually there are three principles to distinguish between polysemy and homonymy. Etymologically, a polysemic word is the result of the evolution of the primary meaning of the word. Complete homonyms are not etymologically related. They happen to be identical in forms. They are different words. Semantically, the meanings of a polysemic word are related, but the meanings of complete homonyms are not related at all.)5.3.2.4 HyponymyHyponymy refers to the sense relation between a more general, more inclusive word and a more specific word. The word which is more general in meaning is called the superordinate(upper terms), and the more specific words are called its hyponyms(subordinate/lower terms). Hyponyms of the same superordinate are co-hyponyms to each other, e.g.Superordinate: flowerHyponyms: rose, tulip, carnation, lily, morning glory ...Superordinate: animalHyponyms: dog, cat, tiger, lion, wolf, elephant, fox, bear ...Superordinate: furnitureHyponyms: bed, table, desk, dresser, wardrobe, settee ...Hyponymy is a relation of inclusion; in terms of meaning, the superordinate includes all its hyponyms.5.3.2.5 Antonymy (3种)The term antonymy is used for oppositeness of meaning; words that are opposite in meaning are antonyms. We should not be misled into thinking that words contrast each other only on a single dimension; in fact, oppositeness can be found on different dimensions and different kinds of antonyms have been recognized.i. Gradable (scalar) antonymsSome antonyms are gradable because there are often intermediate forms between the two members of a pair(they show different degrees of a given quality). So it is a matter of degree. For example, "old" and "young" are immediately recognized as antonyms, but they stand for two extremes, between which there exist intermediate forms representing differing degrees of being old or young, such as "middle-aged, mature, elderly". Similarly between "hot" and "cold" there exist varying qualities of being neither "hot" nor "cold", such as " cool", "warm" and "lukewarm".(rich→well-to-do→moderately wealthy→hard up→poor)ii. Complementary antonymsA pair of complementary antonyms is characterized by the feature that the denial of one member of the pair implies the assertion of the other. In other words, it is not a matter of degree between two extremes, but a matter of either one or the other. For example, a person can be either "alive" or "dead", either "male" or "female"; there is no third possibility. Therefore, "alive" and "dead" are a pair of complementary antonyms, and so are "male" and "female".iii. Relational oppositesPairs of words that exhibit the reversal of a relationship between the two items are called relational opposites. For example, if A is the husband of B, then B is the wife of A. So "husband" and "wife" are a pair of relational opposites. Similar relation is found between "father" and "son", "teacher" and "pupil ", "doctor" and "patient", "buy" and "sell", "let" and "rent", "above" and "below".5.4 Sense relations between sentencesAs there are certain relations between lexical items, so are there certain relations between sentences and also between constituents of the same sentence. Below are the major ones of such relations, and they are analyzed in terms of truth conditions.i. X is synonymous with Y.e. g. X: He was a bachelor all his life. Y: He never married all his life.X: The boy killed the dog. Y: The dog was killed by the boy.In terms of truth condition, if X is true, Y is true, and if X is false, Y is false.ii. X is inconsistent with Y.e.g. X: John is married. Y: John is a bachelor.X:This is my first visit to your country. Y: I have been to your country before. In terms of truth condition, if X is true, Y is false, and if X is false, Y is true.iii. X entails Y. (Y is an entailment of X.)e.g. X: John married a blond heiress. Y: John married a blond.X: He has been to France. Y: He has been to Europe.X: I am an orphan. Y: I have no father.Entailment is a relation of inclusion. If X entails Y, then the meaning of X is included in Y.Analyzing the relation of entailment in terms of truth condition, we come to the following conclusions:If X is true, Y is necessarily true, e. g. If he has been to France, he must have been to Europe.If X is false, Y may be true or false, e.g. If he has not been to France, he may have been to Europe or he has not been to Europe.(If Y is true, X may be true or false; If Y is false, X is false.)iv. X presupposes Y. (Y is a prerequisite of X.)e. g. X: John's bike needs repairing. Y: John has a bike.X: The queen of England is old. Y: England has a queen.Analyzing the relation of presupposition in terms of truth condition, we can conclude:If X is true, Y must be true, e.g. If John's bike needs repairing, John must have a bike.If X is false, Y is still true, e.g. If John's bike does not need repairing, John still has a bike.(If Y is true, X is either true or false. If Y is false, no truth value can be said about X.)v. X is a contradiction.When X is a contradiction, it is invariably false, e.g. My unmarried sister is married to a bachelor.vi. X is semantically anomalouse.g. The table has bad intentions.The orphan’s mother lives in New York..When X is semantically anomalous, it is absurd in the sense that it presupposes a contradiction. The sentence above presupposes " A table can have intentions", which is obviously absurd.5.5 Analysis of meaning5.5.1 Componential analysis --a way to analyze lexical meaningComponential analysis is a way proposed by the structural semanticists to analyzeword meaning. The approach is based upon the belief that the meaning of a word can be dissected into meaning components, called semantic features. This is parallel to the way a phoneme is analyzed into smaller components called distinctive features. Plus and minus signs are used to indicate whether a certain semantic feature is present or absent in the meaning of a word, and these feature symbols are usually written in capitalized letters. For example, the word "man" is analyzed as comprising the features of + HUMAN, + ADULT, + ANIMATE, +MALE.One advantage of componential analysis is that by specifying the semantic features of certain words, it will be possible to show how these words are related in meaning. For example, the two words "man" and "woman" share the features of + HUMAN, + ADULT, and + ANIMATE, but differ in the feature of MALE. And the words "man" and "boy" share the features of + HUMAN, + ANIMATE, and + MALE, but differ in the feature of ADULT.Componential analysis provides an insight into the meaning of words and a way to study the relationships between words that are related in meaning.5.5. 2 Predication analysis —a way to analyze sentence meaningBefore looking at the analysis of sentence meaning, two points about sentence meaning need be clarified.First, the meaning of a sentence is not the sum total of the meanings of all its components, that is, the meaning of a sentence is not to be worked out by adding up all the meanings of its constituent words. For example, the two sentences:" The dog bit the man" and "The man bit the dog", though consisting of exactly the same words, differ widely in what they mean. In this respect, a sentence is different from a word, the meaning of which is the sum total of all its components, i.e., its semantic features.The second thing about sentence meaning is that there are two aspects to sentence meaning: grammatical meaning and semantic meaning.The grammatical meaning of a sentence refers to its grammaticality, i.e., its grammatical well-formedness. The grammaticality of a sentence is governed by the grammatical rules of the language. With our knowledge of English grammar, we can easily tell that the following sentences are not grammatically well-formed: * The dog are chasing the cat.* He gave the book me.* We will went to Beijing tomorrow.A certain grammar rule is violated in each of the sentences.Then whether a sentence is semantically meaningful is governed by rules called selectional restrictions, i.e.,constraints on what lexical items can go with what others. Some sentences may be grammatically well-formed, i.e., they comply perfectly with the grammar rules of the language, yet they may not be semantically meaningful. The reason is that they contain words which are not supposed to go together, thus violating the selectional restrictions, e.g.* Green clouds are sleeping furiously.* Sincerity shook hands with the black apple.The two sentences are, grammatically speaking, perfect. They have all the necessary grammatical components of a sentence, and there is no mistake in agreement or tense. But the problem with the first sentence is that no one has ever seen any green clouds, and clouds never sleep, still less, sleep furiously. The problem with the second sentence is that sincerity, being an abstract notion, can not perform the action of shaking hands, and no one ever shakes hands with an apple, still less, a black apple. So in both sentences some selectional restrictions have been violated. This has led to semantic ill-formedness of the sentences.Linguists have proposed different ways to analyze the meaning of sentences. They might differ in their framework of analysis, but they share the aim to abstract the meaning of sentences. What we are going to introduce briefly is the predication analysis proposed by the British linguist G. Leech. In his framework of analysis, the basic unit is called predication, which is the abstraction of the meaning of a sentence. This applies to all forms of sentence, including statements, imperative and interrogative forms. A predication consists of argument(s) and predicate. An argument is a logical participant in a predication, largely identical with the nominal element(s) in a sentence. A predicate is something said about an argument or it states the logical relation linking the arguments in a sentence. For example, the predication of the sentence "Tom smokes" is said to consist of the argument "TOM" and the predicate "SMOKE", and the predication can be written as TOM (SMOKE). As the grammatical form of the sentence does not affect the semantic predication of the sentence, all the following sentences are said to have the same predication:T om smokes.Tom is smoking.Tom has been smoking.Tom, smoke!Does Tom smoke?Tom does not smoke.They can all be regarded as the various grammatical realizations of the same semantic predication: TOM (SMOKE).Then some sentences contain more than one argument. For example, the sentence "Kids like apples" has two nominal elements "kids" and "apples", so its predication can be written as KID, APPLE (LIKE). And then in some sentences there is no argument at all, such as those English sentences containing the impersonal "it", e.g. "It is hot". "It" in this sentence cannot be considered as an argument, and (BE HOT) is the predicate of the predication. According to the number of arguments contained in a predication, we classify the predications into two-place predication (containing two arguments), one-place predication (containing one argument), and no-place predication (containing no argument).Although predicate and argument are the same kind of unit in terms of the componential make-up of a sentence, they have different roles in the predication. The predicate can be regarded as the main element, for it includes tense, modality, etc. and it may also be said to govern the arguments for it determines the number and nature of the arguments.。