Chapter 9 - Semantics PDF

9 Semantics The words Fire Department make it sound like they’re the ones who are starting fires, doesn’t it? It should be called the “Extinguishing Department.” We don’t call the police the “Crime Department.” Also, the “Bomb Squad” sounds like a terrorist gang. The same is true of wrinkle...

9 Semantics The words Fire Department make it sound like they’re the ones who are starting fires, doesn’t it? It should be called the “Extinguishing Department.” We don’t call the police the “Crime Department.” Also, the “Bomb Squad” sounds like a terrorist gang. The same is true of wrinkle cream. Doesn’t it sound like it causes wrinkles? And why would a doctor prescribe pain pills? I already have pain! I need relief pills! Carlin (1997) Semantics is the study of the meaning of words, phrases and sentences. In semantic analysis, there is always an attempt to focus on what the words conventionally mean, rather than on what an individual speaker (like George Carlin) might want them to mean on a particular occasion. This approach is concerned with objective or general meaning and avoids trying to account for subjective or local meaning. Doing semantics is attempting to spell out what it is we all know when we behave as if we share knowledge of the meaning of a word, a phrase, or a sentence in a language.  Semantics 113 Meaning While semantics is the study of meaning in language, there is more interest in certain aspects of meaning than in others. We have already ruled out special meanings that one individual might attach to words. We can go further and make a broad distinction between conceptual meaning and associative meaning. Conceptual meaning covers those basic, essential components of meaning that are conveyed by the literal use of a word. It is the type of meaning that dictionaries are designed to describe. Some of the basic components of a word like needle in English might include “thin, sharp, steel instrument.” These components would be part of the conceptual meaning of needle. However, different people might have different associations or connotations attached to a word like needle. They might associate it with “pain,” or “illness,” or “blood,” or “drugs,” or “thread,” or “knitting,” or “hard to find” (especially in a haystack), and these associations may differ from one person to the next. These types of associations are not treated as part of the word’s conceptual meaning. In a similar way, some people may associate the expression low-calorie, when used to describe a product, with “healthy,” but this is not part of the basic conceptual meaning of the expression (i.e. “producing a small amount of heat or energy”). Poets, song-writers, novelists, literary critics, advertisers and lovers may all be inter- ested in how words can evoke certain aspects of associative meaning, but in linguistic semantics we’re more concerned with trying to analyze conceptual meaning. Semantic features One way in which the study of basic conceptual meaning might be helpful would be as a means of accounting for the “oddness” we experience when we read sentences such as the following: The hamburger ate the boy. The table listens to the radio. The horse is reading the newspaper. We should first note that the oddness of these sentences does not derive from their syntactic structure. According to the basic syntactic rules for forming English senten- ces (as presented in Chapter 8), we have well-formed structures. NP V NP The hamburger ate the boy 114 The Study of Language This sentence is syntactically good, but semantically odd. Since the sentence The boy ate the hamburger is perfectly acceptable, we may be able to identify the source of the problem. The components of the conceptual meaning of the noun hamburger must be significantly different from those of the noun boy, thereby preventing one, and not the other, from being used as the subject of the verb ate. The kind of noun that can be the subject of the verb ate must denote an entity that is capable of “eating.” The noun hamburger does not have this property and the noun boy does. We can make this observation more generally applicable by trying to determine the crucial element or feature of meaning that any noun must have in order to be used as the subject of the verb ate. Such an element may be as general as “animate being.” We can then use this idea to describe part of the meaning of words as either having (+) or not having (−) that particular feature. So, the feature that the noun boy has is “+animate” (= denotes an animate being) and the feature that the noun hamburger has is “−animate” (= does not denote an animate being). This simple example is an illustration of a procedure for analyzing meaning in terms of semantic features. Features such as “+animate, −animate,” “+human, −human,” “+female, −female,” for example, can be treated as the basic elements involved in differ- entiating the meaning of each word in a language from every other word. If we had to provide the crucial distinguishing features of the meanings of a set of English words such as table, horse, boy, man, girl, woman, we could begin with the following diagram. table horse boy man girl woman animate − + + + + + human − − + + + + female − − − − + + adult − + − + − + From a feature analysis like this, we can say that at least part of the meaning of the word girl in English involves the elements [+human, +female, −adult]. We can also charac- terize the feature that is crucially required in a noun in order for it to appear as the subject of a particular verb, supplementing the syntactic analysis with semantic features. The _____________ is reading the newspaper. N [+human] This approach would give us the ability to predict which nouns make this sentence semantically odd. Some examples would be table, horse and hamburger, because none of them have the required feature [+human].  Semantics 115 The approach just outlined is a start on analyzing the conceptual components of word meaning, but it is not without problems. For many words in a language it may not be as easy to come up with neat components of meaning. If we try to think of the components or features we would use to differentiate the nouns advice, threat and warning, for example, we may not be very successful. Part of the problem seems to be that the approach involves a view of words in a language as some sort of “containers” that carry meaning components. There is clearly more to the meaning of words than these basic types of features. Semantic roles Instead of thinking of words as “containers” of meaning, we can look at the “roles” they fulfill within the situation described by a sentence. If the situation is a simple event, as in The boy kicked the ball, then the verb describes an action (kick). The noun phrases in the sentence describe the roles of entities, such as people and things, involved in the action. We can identify a small number of semantic roles (also called “thematic roles”) for these noun phrases. Agent and theme In our example sentence, one role is taken by the noun phrase The boy as “the entity that performs the action,” technically known as the agent. Another role is taken by the ball as “the entity that is involved in or affected by the action,” which is called the theme (or sometimes the “patient”). The theme can also be an entity (The ball) that is simply being described (i.e. not performing an action), as in The ball was red. Agents and themes are the most common semantic roles. Although agents are typically human (The boy), they can also be non-human entities that cause actions, as in noun phrases denoting a natural force (The wind), a machine (A car), or a creature (The dog), all of which affect the ball as theme. The boy kicked the ball. The wind blew the ball away. A car ran over the ball. The dog caught the ball. The theme is typically non-human, but can be human (the boy), as in The dog chased the boy. In fact, the same physical entity can appear in two different semantic roles in a sentence, as in The boy cut himself. Here The boy is agent and himself is theme. 116 The Study of Language Instrument and experiencer If an agent uses another entity in order to perform an action, that other entity fills the role of instrument. In the sentences The boy cut the rope with an old razor and He drew the picture with a crayon, the noun phrases an old razor and a crayon are being used in the semantic role of instrument. When a noun phrase is used to designate an entity as the person who has a feeling, perception or state, it fills the semantic role of experiencer. If we see, know or enjoy something, we’re not really performing an action (hence we are not agents). We are in the role of experiencer. In the sentence The boy feels sad, the experiencer (The boy) is the only semantic role. In the question, Did you hear that noise?, the experiencer is you and the theme is that noise. Location, source and goal A number of other semantic roles designate where an entity is in the description of an event. Where an entity is (on the table, in the room) fills the role of location. Where the entity moves from is the source (from Chicago) and where it moves to is the goal (to New Orleans), as in We drove from Chicago to New Orleans. When we talk about transferring money from savings to checking, the source is savings and the goal is checking. All these semantic roles are illustrated in the following scenario. Note that a single entity (e.g. George) can appear in several different semantic roles. Mary saw a fly on the wall. EXPERIENCER THEME LOCATION She borrowed a magazine from George. AGENT THEME SOURCE She squashed the bug with the magazine. AGENT THEME INSTRUMENT She handed the magazine back to George. AGENT THEME GOAL “Gee thanks,” said George. AGENT Lexical relations Not only can words be treated as “containers” of meaning, or as fulfilling “roles” in events, they can also have “relationships” with each other. In everyday talk, we often Semantics 117 explain the meanings of words in terms of their relationships. If we’re asked the meaning of the word conceal, for example, we might simply say, “It’s the same as hide,” or give the meaning of shallow as “the opposite of deep,” or the meaning of daffodil as “a kind of flower.” In doing so, we are characterizing the meaning of each word, not in terms of its component features, but in terms of its relationship to other words. This approach is used in the semantic description of language and treated as the analysis of lexical relations. The lexical relations we have just exemplified are syn- onymy (conceal/hide), antonymy (shallow/deep) and hyponymy (daffodil/flower). Synonymy Two or more words with very closely related meanings are called synonyms. They can often, though not always, be substituted for each other in sentences. In the appropriate circumstances, we can say, What was his answer? or What was his reply? with much the same meaning. Other common examples of synonyms are the pairs: almost/nearly, big/large, broad/wide, buy/purchase, cab/taxi, car/automobile, couch/sofa, freedom/ liberty. We should keep in mind that the idea of “sameness” of meaning used in discussing synonymy is not necessarily “total sameness.” There are many occasions when one word is appropriate in a sentence, but its synonym would be odd. For example, whereas the word answer fits in the sentence Sandy had only one answer correct on the test, the word reply would sound odd. Synonymous forms may also differ in terms of formal versus informal uses. The sentence My father purchased a large automobile has virtually the same meaning as My dad bought a big car, with four synonymous replacements, but the second version sounds much more casual or informal than the first. Antonymy Two forms with opposite meanings are called antonyms. Some common examples are the pairs: alive/dead, big/small, fast/slow, happy/sad, hot/cold, long/short, male/ female, married/single, old/new, rich/poor, true/false. Antonyms are usually divided into two main types, “gradable” (opposites along a scale) and “non-gradable” (direct opposites). Gradable antonyms, such as the pair big/ small, can be used in comparative constructions like I’m bigger than you and A pony is smaller than a horse. Also, the negative of one member of a gradable pair does not necessarily imply the other. For example, the sentence My car isn’t old, doesn’t neces- sarily mean My car is new. 118 The Study of Language With non-gradable antonyms (also called “complementary pairs”), comparative constructions are not normally used. We don’t typically describe someone as deader or more dead than another. Also, the negative of one member of a non-gradable pair does imply the other member. That is, My grandparents aren’t alive does indeed mean My grandparents are dead. Other non-gradable antonyms in the earlier list are the pairs: male/female, married/single and true/false. Although we can use the “negative test” to identify non-gradable antonyms in a language, we usually avoid describing one member of an antonymous pair as the negative of the other. For example, while undress can be treated as the opposite of dress, it doesn’t mean “not dress.” It actually means “do the reverse of dress.” Antonyms of this type are called reversives. Other common examples are enter/exit, pack/unpack, lengthen/shorten, raise/lower, tie/untie. Hyponymy When the meaning of one form is included in the meaning of another, the relationship is described as hyponymy. Examples are the pairs: animal/dog, dog/poodle, vegetable/ carrot, flower/rose, tree/banyan. The concept of “inclusion” involved in this relation- ship is the idea that if an object is a rose, then it is necessarily a flower, so the meaning of flower is included in the meaning of rose. Or, rose is a hyponym of flower. When we consider hyponymous connections, we are essentially looking at the meaning of words in some type of hierarchical relationship. We can represent the relationships between a set of words such as animal, ant, asp, banyan, carrot, living thing creature plant animal insect vegetable flower tree dog horse snake ant cockroach carrot rose banyan pine poodle asp Figure 9.1 Semantics 119 cockroach, creature, dog, flower, horse, insect, living thing, pine, plant, poodle, rose, snake, tree and vegetable as a hierarchical diagram. Looking at the diagram, we can say that “horse is a hyponym of animal” or “cockroach is a hyponym of insect.” In these two examples, animal and insect are called the superordinate (= higher-level) terms. We can also say that two or more words that share the same superordinate term are co-hyponyms. So, dog and horse are co-hyponyms and the superordinate term is animal. The relation of hyponymy captures the concept of “is a kind of,” as when we give the meaning of a word by saying, “an asp is a kind of snake.” Sometimes the only thing we know about the meaning of a word is that it is a hyponym of another term. That is, we may know nothing more about the meaning of the word asp other than that it is a kind of snake or that banyan is a kind of tree. It is worth emphasizing that it is not only words for “things” that are hyponyms. Words such as punch, shoot and stab, describing “actions,” can all be treated as co- hyponyms of the superordinate term injure. Prototypes While the words canary, cormorant, dove, duck, flamingo, parrot, pelican and robin are all equally co-hyponyms of the superordinate bird, they are not all considered to be equally good examples of the category “bird.” According to some researchers, the most characteristic instance of the category “bird” is robin. The idea of “the characteristic instance” of a category is known as the prototype. The concept of a prototype helps explain the meaning of certain words, like bird, not in terms of component features (e.g. “has feathers,” “has wings”), but in terms of resemblance to the clearest example. Thus, even native speakers of English might wonder if ostrich or penguin should be hyponyms of bird (technically they are), but have no trouble deciding about sparrow or pigeon. These last two are much closer to the prototype. Given the category label furniture, we are quick to recognize chair as a better example than bench or stool. Given clothing, people recognize shirts quicker than shoes, and given vegetable, they accept carrot before potato or tomato. It is clear that there is some general pattern to the categorization process involved in prototypes and that it determines our interpretation of word meaning. However, this is one area where individual experience can lead to substantial variation in interpretation and people may disagree over the categorization of a word like avocado or tomato as fruit or vegetable. These words seem to be treated as co-hyponyms of both fruit and vegetable in different contexts. 120 The Study of Language Homophones and homonyms When two or more different (written) forms have the same pronunciation, they are described as homophones. Common examples are bare/bear, meat/meet, flour/ flower, pail/pale, right/write, sew/so and to/too/two. We use the term homonyms when one form (written or spoken) has two or more unrelated meanings, as in these examples: bank (of a river) – bank (financial institution) bat (flying creature) – bat (used in sports) mole (on skin) – mole (small animal) pupil (at school) – pupil (in the eye) race (contest of speed) – race (ethnic group) The temptation is to think that the two types of bank must be related in meaning. They are not. Homonyms are words that have separate histories and meanings, but have accidentally come to have exactly the same form. Polysemy When we encounter two or more words with the same form and related meanings, we have what is technically known as polysemy. Polysemy can be defined as one form (written or spoken) having multiple meanings that are all related by extension. Examples are the word head, used to refer to the object on top of your body, froth on top of a glass of beer, person at the top of a company or department, and many other things. Other examples of polysemy are foot (of person, of bed, of mountain) or run (person does, water does, colors do). If we aren’t sure whether different uses of a single word are examples of homonymy or polysemy, we can check in a dictionary. If the word has multiple meanings (i.e. it’s polysemous), then there will be a single entry, with a numbered list of the different meanings of that word. If two words are treated as homonyms, they will typically have two separate entries. In most dictionaries, bank, mail, mole and sole are clearly treated as homonyms whereas face, foot, get, head and run are treated as examples of polysemy. Of course, it is possible for two forms to be distinguished via homonymy and for one of the forms also to have various uses via polysemy. The words date (= a thing we can eat) and date (= a point in time) are homonyms. However, the “point in time” kind of date is polysemous in terms of a particular day and month (= on a letter), an arranged meeting time (= an appointment), a social meeting (= with someone we like), and even a person (= that person we like). So the question How was your date? could have several different interpretations.  Semantics 121 Word play These last three lexical relations are the basis of a lot of word play, usually for humorous effect. In the nursery rhyme Mary had a little lamb, we think of a small animal, but in the comic version Mary had a little lamb, some rice and vegetables, we think of a small amount of meat. The polysemy of lamb allows the two interpretations. We make sense of the riddle Why are trees often mistaken for dogs? by recognizing the homonymy in the answer: Because of their bark. And if you are asked the following question: Why is 6 afraid of 7?, you can understand why the answer is funny (Because 789) by identifying the homophones. Metonymy The relatedness of meaning found in polysemy is essentially based on similarity. The head of a company is similar to the head of a person on top of and controlling the body. There is another type of relationship between words, based simply on a close connection in everyday experience. That close connection can be based on a container–contents relation (bottle/water, can/juice), a whole–part relation (car/wheels, house/roof) or a representative–symbol relationship (king/crown, the President/the White House). Using one of these words to refer to the other is an example of metonymy. It is our familiarity with metonymy that makes it possible for us to understand He drank the whole bottle, although it sounds absurd literally (i.e. he drank the liquid, not the glass object). We also accept The White House has announced … or Downing Street protested... without being puzzled that buildings appear to be talking. We use met- onymy when we talk about filling up the car, answering the door, boiling a kettle, giving someone a hand, or needing some wheels. Many examples of metonymy are highly conventionalized and easy to interpret. However, other examples depend on an ability to infer what the speaker has in mind. The metonymy in Get your butt over here is easier to understand if you are used to male talk in the United States, The strings are too quiet if you’re familiar with orchestral music, and I prefer cable if you have a choice in how you receive television programs (in the USA). Making sense of such expressions often depends on context, background knowledge and inference. These are all topics we’ll explore in the next chapter. Collocation One final aspect of our knowledge of words has nothing to do with any of the factors considered so far. We know which words tend to occur with other words. If you ask a 122 The Study of Language thousand people what they think of when you say hammer, more than half will say nail. If you say table, they’ll mostly say chair, and butter elicits bread, needle elicits thread and salt elicits pepper. One way we seem to organize our knowledge of words is simply on the basis of collocation, or frequently occurring together. In recent years, the study of which words occur together and their frequency of co- occurrence has received a lot more attention in corpus linguistics. A corpus is a large collection of texts, spoken or written, typically stored as a database in a computer. Those doing corpus linguistics can then use the database to find out how often specific words or phrases occur and what types of collocations are most common. One investigation looked at 84 occurrences of the phrase true feelings in a corpus (only a small sample is shown here). After looking at the types of verbs (e.g. deny, try to communicate) used with this phrase, the investigator noted that “English speakers use the phrase with true feelings when they want to give the meaning of reluctance to express deeply felt emotions” (Sinclair, 2003: 148). (1) more accustomed to denying our true feelings, avoiding reflection and self- … (2) We try to communicate our true feelings to those around us, and we are … (3) the ability to express our true feelings and creativity because we are … (4) we appease others, deny our true feelings, and conform, I suspected the … (5) more of us in there, of our true feelings, rather than just ranting on … This type of research provides more evidence that our understanding of what words and phrases mean is tied to the contexts in which they are typically used. We will look at other aspects of the role of context in the next chapter. Semantics 123 Study questions 1 How is the term “prototype” used in semantics? 2 Using semantic features, how would you explain the oddness of these sentences? (a) The television drank my water. (b) His dog writes poetry. 3 Identify the semantic roles of the seven noun phrases in this sentence. With her new golf club, Anne Marshall whacked the ball from the woods to the grassy area near the hole and she suddenly felt invincible. 4 What is the basic lexical relation between each pair of words listed here? (a) damp/moist (c) furniture/table (e) move/run (b) deep/shallow (d) married/single (f) peace/piece 5 Which of the following opposites are gradable, non-gradable, or reversive? (a) absent/present (c) fail/pass (e) fill it/empty it (b) appear/disappear (d) fair/unfair (f) high/low 6 Are these underlined words best described as examples of polysemy or metonymy? (a) The pen is mightier than the sword. (b) I had to park on the shoulder of the road. (c) Yes, I love those. I ate a whole box on Sunday! (d) The bookstore has some new titles in linguistics. (e) Computer chips created an important new technology. (f) I’m going to sue your ass! Tasks A What is the connection between an English doctor called Peter Mark Roget and the study of lexical relations? B In this chapter, we discussed metonymy, but not metaphor. What is the difference between these two ways of using words? C The adjective pairs listed here are antonyms with a marked and unmarked member in each pair. Can you list the unmarked members and explain your choices? big/small, empty/full, expensive/inexpensive, fast/slow, happy/unhappy, heavy/ light, old/young, possible/impossible, short/tall, strong/weak 124 The Study of Language D Which of these pairs of words are converses (also known as reciprocal antonyms)? above/below, asleep/awake, brother/sister, buy/sell, doctor/patient, dry/wet, enter/exit, follow/precede, husband/wife, older/younger, true/false E Another less common relation between word meanings is known as transferred epithet or hypallage. Why do we need to talk about this special type of meaning relation in the analysis of the meaning of the phrases listed here? Can you think of any other similar examples? a quiet cup of coffee, a sleepless night, a nude photo, one of my clever days F We can pour water into a glass and we can fill a glass with water, but we can’t *fill water into a glass or *pour a glass with water. Why not? (i) By focusing on the meaning of the verbs and their themes (“the affected objects”), try to find a semantic reason why some of the following sentences are ungrammatical. (1) (a) We loaded furniture into the van. (b) We loaded the van with furniture. (2) (a) They sprayed paint onto the wall. (b) They sprayed the wall with paint. (3) (a) I poured coffee into the cup. (b) *I poured the cup with coffee. (4) (a) *She filled tissues into her pocket. (b) She filled her pocket with tissues. (ii) Which of the following verbs can be used in both of the (a) and (b) structures illustrated in examples (1–4): attach, cram, glue, ladle, pack, paste, splash, spread? Discussion topics/projects I One way to analyze the semantic structure of sentences is to start with the verb as the central element and define the semantic roles required by that verb. (This is sometimes called “theta assignment.”) For example, a verb like kill requires an agent and a theme, as in The cat [agent] killed the mouse [theme]. A verb like give requires an agent, a theme and a goal, as in The girl [agent] gave the flowers [theme] to her mother [goal]. We can represent these observations in the following way: Semantics 125 KILL [ Agent __________ Theme] GIVE [Agent __________ Theme, Goal] How would you define the set of semantic roles for the following verbs, using the format illustrated? Are there required roles and optional roles? break, build, die, eat, fear, kiss, like, occupy, offer, open, put, receive, send, sneeze, steal, taste, teach, understand, want, write (For background reading, see chapter 10 of Brinton, 2000.) II The words in the following list are all related in terms of the superordinate form tableware. How would you go about determining what the prototype item of “tableware” must be? Is a hierarchical diagram illustrating hyponymous relations useful? Would it be helpful to list some (or all) of the words beside a scale from 5 (= “excellent example of tableware”) to 1 (= “not really an example of tableware”) and ask people to indicate their choices on the scale? Do you think that the word with the highest score would indicate the prototype? bowl flatware ladle soup spoon crockery fork mug spoon cup glass plate teaspoon cutlery glassware platter tumbler dish knife saucer wineglass (For background reading, see chapter 1 of Ungerer and Schmid, 2006.) Further reading Basic treatments Hurford, J., B. Heasley and M. Smith (2007) Semantics: A Coursebook (2nd edition) Cambridge University Press Radford, A., M. Atkinson, D. Britain, H. Clahsen and A. Spencer (2009) Linguistics: An Introduction (chapter 12) (2nd edition) Cambridge University Press More detailed treatments Cruse, A. (2004) Meaning in Language (2nd edition) Oxford University Press Saeed, J. (2003) Semantics (2nd edition) Blackwell Conceptual and associative meaning Aitchison, J. (2003) Words in the Mind (3rd edition) Blackwell Pinker, S. (2007) The Stuff of Thought (chapter 1) Viking 126 The Study of Language Semantic roles Kroeger, P. (2005) Analyzing Grammar (chapter 4) Cambridge University Press Lexical relations Murphy, M. (2003) Semantic Relations and the Lexicon Cambridge University Press Antonymy Jones, S. (2002) Antonymy Routledge Prototypes Taylor, J. (2003) Linguistic Categorization (3rd edition) Oxford University Press Collocation and corpus linguistics Meyer, C. (2002) English Corpus Linguistics Cambridge University Press Stubbs, M. (2001) Words and Phrases Blackwell Other references Brinton, L. (2000) The Structure of Modern English John Benjamins Sinclair, J. (2003) Reading Concordances Pearson Ungerer, F. and H-J. Schmid (2006) An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics (2nd edition) Pearson