Chapter 5 Semantics

Chapter 5

Semantics: The Meaning of Language

5.1 What is semantics?

Generally,

semantics

is a branch of linguistics, which is concerned with the study of meaning

in language. As meaning plays a central part in human communication, semantics is at the center

of the study of communication. In human communication, utterances are produced because they

convey

meanin

g.

Semantics

studies

the

nature

of

meaning

and

why

particular

linguistic

expressions have the meanings they do.

Semantics

is said

to

be

a

discipline

that

has

fascinated

philosophers

since

the

beginning

of

Western

civilization.

Philosophers

are

mainly

interested

in

the

relation

between

linguistic

expressions, such

as the

words

of

a

language,

and

persons,

things,

and

events

in

the

world

to

which these words refer. Within the domain of linguistics, semantics is mainly concerned with the

analysis of meaning of words, phrases, or sentences and sometimes with the meaning of utterances

in discourse or the meaning of a whole text.

5.2 Approaches to meaning

Everyone who knows a language can understand what is said to him or her and can produce

strings

of

words

that

convey

meaning.

However,

the

definition

of

meaning

has

long

plagued

linguists and philosophers, because “meaning” covers a variety of aspects of

language and there is

no general agreement about the nature of meaning. V

arious different interpretations have thus far

arisen.

According

to

the

naming

view

,

language

might

be

thought

of

as

a communication

system

with on the one hand the signifier,

and on the other the signified. The signifier

is a word in the

language and the signified is the object in the world that it “stands for”, “refers to” or “denotes”.

Words,

that

is

to say,

are

“names”

or

“labels”

for

things.

The

naming

view

is

obviously

limited

because it seems to apply only to nouns (or nominal expressions in general). It is difficult, if not

impossible,

to

extend

the

theory

of

naming

to

include

these

other

parts

of speech.

Even

if

we

restrict this approach to nouns alone, some nouns, e.g.

unicorn

,

goblin

,

fairy

,

courage

,

nonsense

,

imagination

,

love

, do not refer to objects in the world at all.

Different

from

the

naming

view

which

relates

words

and

things

directly,

conceptualism

holds that words and objects are related through the mediation of concepts of the mind. Ogden

&

Richards (1923) were the first to develop what can be called

a “

referential

” theory of meaning

illustrated by the classic “

semiotic triangle

”, which looks upon the relation between words and

objects as a triangle:

Thought or reference

Symbol

Referent

The SYMBOL refers to the linguistic element (word, sentence, etc.), the REFERENT refers to the

object

in

the world

of

experience,

and

THOUGHT

or

REFERENCE

refers

to

the concept.

The

relation between the symbol and the referent is not direct. Rather, the symbol signifies the referent

by way of the thought or reference, the concept in the mind of the speaker of a language.

This

theory

has

taken

a

step

further

than

the

naming

view,

but

it

also

poses

a

difficult

question:

what

precisely

is

the

link

between

symbol

and concept?

Some

people

say

that

it

is

a

psychological one, that when we think of a name we think of the concept and vice versa. But what

exactly

is

meant

by

“thinking

of”

a

concept?

To

answer

this

question,

some

scholars

have

proposed the image theory of meaning. That is, language users have some kind of image of a chair

when they talk about chairs. But this is certainly false. A

word may evoke a certain image in our

mind, but it is not true that whenever we utter or hear a word we would visualize a certain image

in our mind. If this were a necessary part of talking, it would be impossible to communicate ideas

between

people

or

to

give

a

lecture

on

linguistics.

Moreover,

to

people

from

different

social-cultural

backgrounds,

the

same

word may call

up

different

images. If

so,

the

same word

would

be

said

to

have

different

meanings

and

communication

between

these

different

people

would be impossible. Worst of all, there are many words with which it is impossible to associate

any image at all

–

and

,

or

,

because

,

therefore

,

etc. Y

et they are by no means meaningless.

There are still other approaches to meaning which take into account the use of language or

the

context

in which

language

is

used.

The

behaviouristic

or

mechanistic

approach

of

the

American

structural

linguists

represented

by

Bloomfield

defines

meaning

by

using

the

behaviourist notions of “stimulus” and “response”, and thus the meaning of a linguistic sign is

“the situation

in which the speaker utters it and the response which it calls forth in the hearer”.

The contextual theory

of meaning associated with Wittgenstein and Firth defines meaning of a

word as its use in the language and argues that one can derive meaning from or reduce meaning

to observable contexts, and therefore it is useless to study the meaning of words in isolation of

their context of use.

5.3 Sense and reference

To

explicate

the

complicated

nature

of

meaning,

two

different

aspects

of meaning

can

be

proposed:

sense

and

reference

. Reference is the relationship between language and the world. It

deals

with

the

relationship

between

the

linguistic

elements,

words,

sentences,

etc.,

and

the

non- linguistic world of experience. Sense is the relationship inside the language. By the sense of a

word we mean its place in the system of relationships with other words in the vocabulary. In other

words,

sense

relates

to

the

complex

system

of

relationships

that

hold

between

the

linguistic

elements themselves (mostly the words); it is concerned only with intra-linguistic relations.

In the vocabularies of all languages, there are certain items that can be used to refer to the

physical world. When a sentence like

John is a teacher

is uttered, the speaker refers to a certain

individual

existent

in

the

situation

or

known

by

both

the speaker

and

hearer.

Although

not

all

words can

be

used

in

this

way,

it

is

fair

to

say

that words

are related

in

one

way

or

another.

Whether

a

word

has

reference

or

not, we can

ask whether

the word

has

meaning

in

a

certain

context. A

word can enter into paradigmatic relations with other words which can also occur in the

same context. A

word can also enter into syntagmatic relations with other units of the same level

in

a

linear

or

sequential

structure.

For

example,

in such contexts

as

a

…

of

milk

,

the word

pint

forms

paradigmatic

relations

with

such

other

words

as

bottle

,

cup

,

gallon

,

and

syntagmatic

relations with

a

,

of

and

milk

.

Thus,

in

discussing

meaning,

we may

relate

our

language

to

our

experience

or

talk

about

sense relations. To illustrate, let’s consider the words

ram

and

ewe.

These on the one hand refer to

particular kinds of animals and derive their meaning in this way. But they also belong to a pattern

in

English

that

includes

cow/bull

,

sow/boar

,

mare/stallion

,

etc.

But

there

are

other

kinds,

e.g.

duck/duckling

,

pig/piglet

(involving

adult

and

young),

or

father/son

,

uncle/nephew

(involving

family relationships), and these are not usually thought to be grammatical. They are rather a part

of the “semantic structure” of En

glish.

It is very difficult to make a clear-cut distinction between sense and reference. The categories

in language correspond, to some degree at least, to real-world distinctions. The fact that we have

ram/ewe

,

bull/cow

is part of the semantic structure of English, but it also relates to the fact that

there

are

male

and

female

sheep

and

cattle.

The

understanding

of

the

semantic

anomaly

of

a

sentence like

John

’

s printer has bad intentions

not only depends on the language user’s abil

ity to

interpret the sense relations within the sentence, but also the ability to relate the sentence to the

world of experience. However, we have to remember (1) that not all languages will make the same

distinctions,

(2)

that

there

is considerable

indeterminacy

in

the

categorisation

of

the

real

world:

some things (e.g. the mammals) fall into fairly natural classes, while others do not. It is because of

this

that

we can

distinguish

sense

and

reference,

yet must

allow

that

there

is

no

absolute

line

between them, between what is in the world and what is in language.

5.4 Word meaning

In

talking

about

word

meaning

,

we

are

actually

dealing

with

lexical

semantics, which

is

concerned with

the

meanings

of words

and

the

relations

between the

meanings

of words.

Word

meaning

is

made

up

of

various

components

which

are

interrelated

and

interdependent.

These

components are commonly described as types of meaning.

5.4.1 Grammatical meaning and lexical meaning

Generally speaking, word meaning can be classified into two broad types: grammatical and

lexical.

Grammatical

meaning

refers

to

that

part

of

the

word

meaning

which

indicates

grammatical

concepts

or

relationships

such

as

word-class,

gender,

number,

case,

tense

and

all

other grammatical forms known as inflectional paradigm. A

grammatical or inflectional

paradigm

is the set of grammatical forms of a word that indicates singular and plural meaning of nouns,

or

tense meanings of verbs, and so on.

Lexical meaning

is that part of the meaning of a word that remains constant in all forms of

one

and

the

same

word.

That

is

to

say,

for

the

same

word,

the

lexical

meaning

is

the

same

throughout

the

paradigm;

that

is,

all

the

word-forms

of

one

and

the same word

have the

same

lexical meaning. This is different from the grammatical meaning of the word, which varies from

one word-form to another. For example,

the word

walk

has the same lexical meaning no matter

what grammatical forms it may take.

5.4.2 Classification of lexical meaning

According

to

Leech

(1981),

lexical

meaning

falls

into

two

broad

categories:

conceptual

meaning

and

associative meaning

.

Conceptual

meaning

is

the meaning

given

in

the

dictionary

and forms the core of word meaning. Associative meaning is the secondary meaning beyond the

conceptual

meaning.

It

is

open-ended

and

indeterminate

as

it

is

liable

to

the

influences

of

such

factors as culture, experience, belief, background, education, etc. Associative meaning is a cover

term

for

connotative

meaning,

social

meaning,

affective

meaning,

reflected

meaning

and

collocative

meaning.

Leech

also

mentions

another

type

of

meaning

called

thematic

meaning,

which is related to the organization of the message in a sentence. Altogether, there are seven types

of lexical meaning.

Conceptual meaning

has been given various names such as denotation, cognitive meaning,

denotative

or

denotational

meaning.

It

refers

to

that

part

of

meaning

of

a

word

or

phrase

that

relates

it

to

phenomena

in the world.

Conceptual

meaning

is

used when the

emphasis

is

on

the

relationship

between

language,

on

the

one

hand,

and

the things,

events,

or

processes, which

are

external to the speaker and his language, on the other. For example, the conceptual meaning of the

English word

sun

is “a heavenly body which gives off light, heat, and energy”, a meaning which

is

understood by anyone who speaks English. Conceptual meaning is constant and relatively stable,

and as such, it forms the basis for linguistic communication simply because the same word has the

same conceptual meaning to all speakers of the same language.

Connotative

meaning

,

traditionally

known

as

connotation,

is

the

emotional

association

which a word or phrase suggests in one’s mind. It is the supplementary value which is added to the

purely denotative meaning of a word. For instance, the denotative meaning of the word

mother

is

“female parent”, but it generally connotes love, care, and tende

rness. Connotations associated with

a certain word can be different from culture to culture, or from person to person. For example, the

word

dog

is associated with

different overtones in Chinese and English. Even in the same culture

or community, the word

mother

will have different connotations for different people because of

their

individual

experiences.

For

most

people,

this

word

has

the connotations

of

love, care

and

tenderness, but for those other people whose mothers are strict or cruel, this word may have totally

different connotations.

S

ocial

or

stylistic

meaning

is

that

which

a

piece

of

language

conveys

about

the

social

circumstances of its use. Many words have social or stylistic features that make them appropriate

for certain contexts. We recognize some words or pronunciation as being dialectal, i.e. as telling us

something

of

the

geographical

or

social

origin

of

the

speaker;

other

features

of

language

tell

us

something of the social relationship between the speaker and the hearer. Because of socio-stylistic

variation,

it

is

not

surprising

that

we

rarely

find

words

which

have

both

the

same

conceptual

meaning

and

the

same

stylistic

meaning.

For

example,

horse

,

nag

,

gee- gee

and

steed

are

synonyms, and they have the same conceptual meaning, but the social meanings associated with

them differ:

horse

is a word for general use, while

nag

is a slang word,

gee-gee

is baby language,

and

steed

is used in poetry. Thus, in language use, we should choose words properly to fit different

contexts or situations.

Affective meaning

indicates the speaker’s feelings or attitudes towards the person or thing in

question. There are a small number of words in English (chiefly interjections, like

Aha! Alas!

and

Hurrah

!)

whose

main

function

is

to

express

emotion.

Some

words

explicitly

convey

emotive

meanings:

love,

hate,

boast,

gang,

niggardly

,

pleasure

,

good

,

bad

,

modest

,

honest

,

angel

. These

words, often called

purr

words

or

snarlwords

, are used not as a mere statement of fact, but to

express the speaker’s approval or disapproval of the person or thing

being talked about. Affective

meaning falls into two categories: the

appreciatory meaning

is expressed by the purr words, i.e.

words

of

positive

or

favourable

overtones,

showing

appreciation

or

attitude

of

approval;

the

derogatory

or

pejorative

meaning

is

expressed

by

the

snarlwords,

i.e.

words

of

negative

or

unfavourable associations, implying disapproval, contempt or criticism. This contrast of affective

meaning can be illustrated by the following words:

famous/notorious

,

black/nigger

,

slender/skinny

,

d etermined/pigheaded

,

statesman/politician

,

confidence/ complacency

. It is obvious that the

first

word in each pair is appreciatory while the second is derogatory

.

Reflected meaning

is that which is communicated through association with another sense of

the same expression. Reflected meaning arises in cases of multiple conceptual meaning, when one

sense

of

a

word

forms

part

of

our

response

to

another

sense.

People

generally

choose

to

use

euphemistic expressions

or avoid using

taboo words

to keep away from

the reflected meanings

associated

with

certain

words.

Thus

taboo

words

concerned

with

sex

or

parts

of

the

body

or

religion are seldom used simply because they usually conjure up uncomfortable associations. On

certain occasions, people tend to use mild, vague or indirect words or phrases in place of what is

required by truth or accuracy

. Thus

belly

is replaced by

abdomen

,

water- closet

by

wash- room

, and

so on.

Collocative

meaning

consists

of

the

associations

a

word

acquires

on

account

of

the

meanings

of

words which

tend

to

occur

in

its

environment.

Words

have

collocative

meanings

because they tend to co-occur with other words in the expression of meaning. This co-occurrence

or mutual expectancy of words, which is called collocation, is part of the meaning of a word. For

example,

pretty

and

handsome

share common

ground

in

the

meaning

“good

-

looking”,

but

they

have different collocative meanings,

as they are distinguished by the range of nouns with which

they are likely to collocate:

pretty

is usually used with

girl

, while

handsome

is usually used with

boy

. Further examples are quasi-synonymous verbs such as

wander

and

stroll

(

cows

may

wander

,

but may not

stroll

) or

tremble

and

quiver

(one

trembles

with

fear

,

but

quivers

with

excitement

).

Thematic meaning

refers to what is communicated by the way in which a speaker or writer

organizes the message, in terms of ordering, focus, and emphasis. For example, an active sentence

such as

The rain destroyed the crops

has a different meaning from its passive equivalent

The crops

were

destroyed

by

the

rain

,

although

in

conceptual

content

they

seem

to

be

the

same.

The

difference lies in the communicative values

because the two sentences suggest different contexts:

the active sentence seems to answer an implicit question

What did the rain do?

while the passive

sentence seems to answer an implicit question

What happened to the crops?

Thematic meaning is

mainly

a

matter

of

choice

between

alternative

grammatical

constructions

such

as

passive

and

active voices, inversion, cleft sentences, and so on.

5.4.3 Sense relations

Sense relation

is concerned with paradigmatic relations of words in language. Words can be

categorized

on

the

paradigmatic

axis

into

synonyms,

antonyms,

hyponyms

and

meronyms

according to the relationships between their senses, in terms of the semantic relations of similarity,

contrast, inclusion and part-whole relation. There are also sense relations in which the same word

may have a number of different meanings, or words having the same form but different meanings.

These are respectively called polysemy and homonymy.

5.4.3.1 Synonymy

Synonymy

is

used

to

mean

“sameness

of

meaning”.

A

synonym

is

a word which

has

the

same,

or

nearly

the

same,

meaning

as

another word. In

the

process

of

the

development

of

the

English language, its vocabulary has come from two different sources from Anglo-Saxon on the

one hand and from French, Latin and Greek on the other. As a result, English is rich in synonyms,

with

pairs

of,

even

triples

of

words

from

different

origins

expressing

the

same

meaning.

For

instance,

brotherly

and

fraternal

,

buy

and

purchase

,

world

and

universe

,

driver

and

chaufeur

,

kingly

,

royal

and

regal

, and many others.

There are few, if any,

absolute

or

complete synonyms

, and the so-called absolute synonyms

are

restricted

to

highly

specialized

vocabulary, such

as

scarlet-fever

and

scarlatina

in

medicine.

Strictly speaking, no two words have exactly the same meaning and most synonyms in the English

language are actually relative synonyms or near-synonyms. There are a number of ways in which

synonyms can be seen to differ.

First,

synonyms

may

embrace

different

shades

of

meaning,

and

thus

vary

in

the range

and

intensity of meaning. For example,

want

,

wish

,

desire

are synonymous, but differ in terms of range

and intensity. Of the three words,

want

is the most general and has the widest range of meaning

while

wish

and

desire

are narrower in sense but are stronger in intensity, and

desire

is the strongest

of all.

Secondly, synonyms may belong to different dialects of the language. People, depending on

where they live, will select different regional varieties in talking about the same thing. The most

obvious

example

is

the

difference

between

American

English

and

British

English.

American

people use

fall

while British people use

autumn

.

Thirdly, some synonyms have the same cognitive meaning but express different degrees of

formality. That is, they have different stylistic meanings. For instance,

gentleman

,

man

,

chap

have

the same cognitive meaning, but

gentleman

is formal,

man

is general, while

chap

is colloquial.

Fourthly,

synonyms

may

have

the

same

cognitive

meaning

but

different

emotive

or

evaluative

meanings.

A

ready

example

is

bravery

and

foolhardiness

,

of

which

bravery

implies

approval, while

foolhardiness

implies disapproval.

Fifthly,

synonymous words

may

collocate with

different

other words

in

their

actual

usage.

That

is,

some

synonyms

occur

in

different

environments

or

have

different

distributions.

For

example,

rancid

collocates with

bacon

or

butter

,

addled

with

eggs

or

brains

,

sour

with

milk

. For

“groups” of animals, we have synonyms occurring with different types of animals, such as

a flock

of sheep

,

a herd of cows

,

a shoal of fish

, and

a swarm of bees

.

5.4.3.2 Antonymy

Antonymy

is

used

for

“oppositeness

of

meaning”.

Words

having

opposite

meanings

are

antonyms

. Antonyms can be classified into three types on the basis of semantic opposition.

A. Contraries

Contraries

(or

contrary terms

) show a type of oppositeness of meaning, illustrated by such

pairs as

wide/narrow, old/young, big/small,

etc. They can be seen in terms of degrees of the quality

involved. Thus a road may be wide or very wide and may be wider than another. This shows that

the

semantic

polarity

in

contraries

is relative

and

the

opposition

is

gradual.

Contraries

are

also

known as graded antonyms. This means that contraries can be placed at both extremes of a scale,

between which

there

may

be

gradable

lexical

items.

For

example,

between

the

antonymic

pair

beautiful

─

ugly

,

there

may

be such

gradable

adjectives

as

pretty

─

good-looking

─

plain

.

One may also grade the intensity of feeling as in

love

─

attachment

─

liking

─

indifference

─

antipathy

─

hate

. It can be seen from above that contraries always imply comparison with

some norm. There is one thing that is particularly

interesting about contraries: one member of a

pair, usually the member for the positive degree, is more basic and frequent, and is thus unmarked.

Generally, we ask the age of a person, however young or old he is, by saying

How old are you?

instead

of

How

young

are

you?

The

latter

question

will

not

be

used

unless

we

deliberately

emphasize the point that the addressee is surprisingly young.

B. Complementaries

Also called

contradictory terms

,

complementaries

(or

complementary terms

) represent a

type of binary semantic contrast which admits of no gradability between the items, e.g.

male

─

female

,

boy

─

girl

,

single

─

married

,

etc.

Male

is said to be “the complementary of”

female

,

and vice versa. In such

a relationship, the assertion of one of the items implies the denial of the

other.

C. Conversives

Also called

relative terms

or

converse terms

,

conversives

display a type of oppositeness of

meaning,

illustrated

by

such

as

buy

—

sell

,

give

—

receive

,

parent

—

child

,

debtor

—

creditor

,

above

—

below

, etc.

Buy

is said to be “the converse of”

sell

and vice versa: If A

sells a

watch to B, B buys a watch from A. The same applies to the pair

above

─

below

: If A

is above B,

B

is below A. In such a relationship, found especially in the definition of reciprocal social roles,

spatial relationship and so on, there is an interdependence of meaning, such that one member of

the

pair

presupposes

the

other

me

mber.

In

this

respect,

“converseness”

contrasts

with

complementarity, where there is no such symmetry of dependence.

5.4.3.3 Hyponymy

Hyponymy

is a relationship between two words, in which the meaning of one of the words

includes the meaning of the other

word. For example, in English the words

animal

and

dog

are

related in such a way that

dog

refers to a

kind of

animal

, and

animal

is a general term. That is to

say, if any object is a

dog

, then it is necessarily an

animal

, so the meaning of

animal

is included in

the

meaning

of

dog

(note,

the class

membership

is

opposite

to

meaning

inclusion:

the

class

of

animals includes the class of dogs).

The specific term,

dog,

is called a

hyponym

, and the general

term,

animal

, is called a

superordinate

.

A

superordinate term can have many hyponyms. Hyponyms having the same sperordinate are

called

co- hyponyms

. For example:

vehicle

move

bus

car

lorry

van

walk

run

swim

fly

All hyponymy is transitive in the sense that there is a hierarchical relation between different

terms. If a relation holds between the superordinate X and the hyponym Y

, and

Y

in turn

is the

superordinate of Z, then X is also the superordinate of Z. For example:

livestock

ox

sheep

pig

ram

ewe

lamb

From this example we can see that one term may be a hyponym in one hierarchical relation

but a superordinate in another.

5.4.3.4 Meronymy

Meronymy

is a term from the Greek words

meros

(part) and

onoma

(name). It is a relation in

semantics that expresses the part-whole relation that lexical items may have. In this relation, the

part is called the

meronym

, and the whole is called the

holonym

. For example,

limb

is a meronym

of

tree

because a limb is part of a tree.

The same entity may be made up of different components, which means that a holonym can

have many meronyms. Words denoting parts of the same entity are

co- meronyms

, as in the case

of

tree

,

limb

,

root

,

where

limb

and

root

are

co-meronyms.

Similarly

palm

and

finger

are

co-meronyms of

hand

.

Meronymy is different from hyponymy in that the relation of meronymy captures the idea of

“

is part of

”

, while the relation of hyponymy captures the idea of

“

is a kind of

”

. For instance, a

ram

is a kind of

sheep

, but a

finger

is part of the

hand

.

5.4.3.5 Polysemy

Polysemy

refers to the phenomenon that the same word may have a set of different meanings.

For instance,

mouth

is a

polysemic word

, as it has several different meanings:

“organ

of body

”,

“

entrance of cave

”

, etc.

The meanings of a polysemic word are usually related in one way or another. There is usually

a

primary

meaning,

and

all

other

meanings

are

derived

from

it.

For

example,

the

word

face

originally means

“the front of the head”, and a number of derived meanings spring from this basic

meaning, such as “the expression of the countenance”, “a surface of a thing”, “the appearance”,

“dignity”,

etc.,

a

whole

bunch

of

meanings

you can

find

in

a

dictionary.

In

some cases,

a word

originally having an abstract meaning may be used to express a concrete meaning, and vice versa.

This can be illustrated by

credit

and

ear

in “The student is a

credit

to the university” and “She has

an

ear

for music”. In other cases, in the meanings of a poly

semic word, one meaning may be more

general or specific than other meanings. That is, a distinction is made between general meaning

and specific meaning. The word

case

, for example, is used in a general sense to mean “instance”

or

“example”,

but

it

is

also

used

in

a specific way to mean

“an

instance

of

disease”

or

“a

legal