1 / 38

Chapter 6

Chapter 6. Lex ical Semantics. 1. Traditional semantics 2. Basic semantic relationships 3. Structural semantics 4. Semantic features 4.1 Feature analysis of nouns 4.2 Feature analysis of verbal predicates 4.3 Feature analysis of modals 4.4 Postscript on semantic features

argyle
Download Presentation

Chapter 6

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chapter 6 Lexical Semantics

  2. 1. Traditional semantics 2. Basic semantic relationships 3. Structural semantics 4. Semantic features 4.1 Feature analysis of nouns 4.2 Feature analysis of verbal predicates 4.3 Feature analysis of modals 4.4 Postscript on semantic features 5. Prototypes 6. Semantic anomaly 6.1 Selectional restrictions 6.2 Figurative language 7. Cognitive approaches to meaning

  3. Commentary Semantics: study of linguistic meaning •Lexical semantics: meaning properties of individual wors (lexical items) in isolation •Sentence semantics: study of meaning properties of a sentence, of the semantic relationships among the parts of sentence. •Discourse semantics: study of the meaning of extended discourse, semantic relationship among utterances used in context

  4. 1. Traditional semantics Preconceptions about meaning: prescriptive, attitudes toward dictionaries Meaning of a phrase or sentence consists of a sum of the meaning of its parts. Assumption1: There is one correct and accepted meaning for each word. There is no correct and accepted meaning for each word in the language. But, Individual variation. For example, “Brother-in-law.” Meaning changes over time. Ignores function of meaningful phonological features (stress, intonation); meaning of the grammatical structure of the utterence; significance of the communicative context (pragmatics) Assumption2: correspondence between a word and a thing is simple and direct. Relation between a word and the world may be quite complex: For example, “laid-back”

  5. Assumption3: Words name things or objects in the real world; meaning is always in reference to phenomena outside language. However, many words do not name things at all: function words, words denoting abstractions or nonentities. -Extension: the set of entities that a word denotes in the world -Intension: the set of properties shared by all the referents of a word (defining characteristics) Phrase: students in Hukuk 323 -extension: Doruk, Onur, Aynur, Merve, … (may change over time) -intension: whoever is in this classroom (does not change over time) Assumption4: it is possible to treat the meanings of individual words separately. However, words refer to things in the real world indirectly (by means of concepts existing in the mind, meanings internal to language (sense)), for example, “see” and “look.”

  6. 2. Basic semantic relationships • We already have the implicit understanding of the following concepts. 1.Paraphrase: the same meaning: Gul bought a car. Gul purchased an automobile. 2.Entailment (implication): one is logically necessary consequence of the other (one-way): Gülşah was born in Gaziantep.  Gulsah was born in Turkey. 3.Inclusion: one encompasses another (one-way). Faik loves fruit.  Faik loves grapes. 4.Contradiction: if one is true, the other must be false: Melis is behaving well this semester. XX Melis is too spoiled this semester. 5.Anomaly: meaningless: Ferhat ate the exam. (maybe figurative!) 6.Lexical Ambiguity: more than one meaning: “large bill”; he lost his head

  7. 7.Denotation VS Connotation: denotation: literal or referential meaning connotation: evoke feelings, attitudes, or opinions terrorist VS rebel 8.Polysemy: related meanings of a word: “bug” : ‘insect’, ‘enthusiast’, ‘electronic device for eavesdropping’, ‘design defect in a computer’; 9.Homonymy: sound the same, look the same, but totally different: swallow  kırlangıç swallow yutmak 10.Meronymy: a word denotes part of a whole: weekmonth;  'finger' is a meronym of 'hand' 11.Presupposition: things assumed beforehand, taken for granted: Gizem didn’t read the article. Factive expression: presupposed complement clauses: “it is tragic that it is not raining.” Nonfactive expression: not-presupposed complement clause: “I think it is raining.” Counter factive: event that has not occurred “He wishes that he were rich.”

  8. 3. Structural Semantics • John Lyons’ description • Synonymy: sameness in meaning

  9. Synonymy is context dependent: Pedigree (for animals) Ancestry, genealogy, lineage (for humans) Carcass (for animals) Corpse (for humans) Synonymous in one context, but not all:

  10. •Synonymy ignores connotations: Horse Steed Nag •Degree or intensity may differ: Rain, showers, sprinkles, downpour •ignores stylistic aspects, dialectical variation: Privy, loo, wc, bathroom, restroom, washroom, toilet

  11. Hyponymy: relation of inclusion and entailment. Superordinatered Hyponyms scarlet, crimson, vermilion, pink, maroon

  12. Oppositeness according to Lyons: 1.Complementarity, 2.Antonymy, 3.Converseness 1.Complementarity: denial of one term is the assertion of its complementary term. Works for incompatible extremes (not gradable): right = not wrong not right = wrong

  13. 2. Antonymy: For gradable concepts; in comparison to a norm. warm beer = 38° = cold coffee

  14. 3. Converseness: permitting reversal Sinem bought the car from Ozge  Ozge … Tugba ate the strawberries. 

  15. 4. Semantic features 4.1. Feature analysis of nouns [±COMMON] [±COUNT] [±CONCRETE] [±COLLECTIVE] [±ANIMATE] [±HUMAN] [±GROWN] [±MALE]

  16. 4.2. Feature analysis of verbal practices [STATIVE] [DURATIVE] [TELIC] [VOLUNTARY] Vendlor’s four situation types: • state • activity • accomplishment • achievement

  17. 4.3. Feature analysis of modals will, would can, could shall, should may, might must have to have got to ought to need to be supposed to be able to Features: [EPISTEMIC]: a matter of belief; inference; deduction; potentiality, possibility, probability, prediction, certainty. •Answers the question “How do you know?” •relates to the entire proposition [DEONTIC]: a matter of action; permission, duty, responsibility, obligation, command. •Answers the question “What should I do?” •subject-oriented Sentences with modals are either epistemic or deontic, or ambiguous.

  18. Sometimes distinction is obvious: I must leave now. [--EPISTEMIC], [+DEONTIC] I must be dreaming. [++EPISTEMIC], [--DEONTIC] Sometimes not: She will be home soon. [+EPISTEMIC], [--DEONTIC] I will marry you. [--EPISTEMIC], +[DEONTIC] Expressing obligation in the past: had to (not must) Ambiguous sentences: They must be married. You might have said something. A student whose file of essays is incomplete may not be considered for appeal. Frank may go out to buy a newspaper. She must not care. You may see him.

  19. 4.4. Postscript on semantic features

  20. 5. Prototypes -Core members -Peripheral members

  21. 6. Semantic Anomaly meaningless VS interpretable expressions 6.1 Selectional Restrictions Words co-occur only with those words that have certain features. • fly – requires [+WINGED] subject {The airplane, the bird, *the goat} flew north. • talk, think, dream – require [+HUMAN] subject (or possibly [+ANIMATE]) {The man, *the rock} is talking/thinking/dreaming. My dog is talking to me/thinking about his dinner/dreaming about cats. • admire – requires [+HUMAN] subject {Judy, *the goldfish} admires Mozart. • anger – requires [+ANIMATE] object Intruders anger {dogs, homeowners, *houses}. • shatter – requires [+SOLID] subject or object The hammer shattered {the rock, *the pudding}. The rock shattered. • tall – requires [+VERTICAL] object {The building, the person, *the road} is tall. • long – requires [+HORIZONTAL] object {The ribbon, *the tree} is long.

  22. 6.2 Figurative Language Figurative use of language (personification, metaphor, etc.) routinely violate selectional restrictions. However, we can interpret figurative language. Literal: “An intruder attacked me.” Metaphorical: “Envy attacked me.” Anomalous: “The rock attacked me.”

  23. Types of Figurative Language 1.oxymoron (paradox): explicit contradiction: living death, silent scream, soft rock 2.tautology: true by definition; an orphan is parentless child, new innovation, boys will be boys, free gift. 3.synesthesia: combining a word from one sensory domain with another: sweet sound, cold response, cool reception. For example, visual + emotional = blue mood, green with envy, red with anger. 4.synecdoche: referring to a thing by naming part of it or the material that composes it: a new face, new blood (=new person); a cork, an iron, a glass, plastic (=credit card)

  24. Types of Figurative Language (continued) • 5.metonymy: denoting a thing by naming something associated with it:

  25. Types of Figurative Language (continued) 6.personification: attributing human qualities to nonhumans or inanimate objects. The idea grabbed me. The vending machine ate my money.

  26. 7.metaphor: transferring a word from one conceptual domain to another. grasp the point get a joke wrestle with an idea translate (carry over) deduce (lead down) abstract (separated from material objects) explain (spread out on a flat surface) compose (place together) conceive (take and hold) affirm (make strong, make steady) understand () comprehend () a rat (for humans) wolf (for humans) snake (for humans) pit bull (for humans) tiger (for humans)

  27. Interpretation of metaphors: We interpret them by selecting only some, but not all of the features of a word. Selectional restrictions violated: Ralph is married to a gem. Juliet is the sun. Billboards are warts on the landscape. My car drinks gasoline. Craig ate up the compliments. Kevin is married to his work. The moonlight sleeps upon the bank. No apparent violation of selectional restrictions: They have swerved from the path. He bit off a larger bite than he could chew.

  28. 7. Cognitive approaches to meaning What is metaphorical is the cognitive processes. I won the argument. He retreated from his initial position. She buttressed her position with several examples. He shot down all my arguments. (ARGUMENT IS WAR) Source domains tend to relate to concrete and more immediate areas of human experience. Target domains are more abstract than the source domains.

  29. Concepts, cognitive mappings, and metaphorical expressions

  30. Mappings work in one direction.

  31. Metonymy, according to Lakoff and Johnson (1980) is also cognitive.Within a single domain, rather than across domains. • Conceptualizing a person by means of the object or place associated with that person. The stroller needs to get off at the next stop. The taxis are on a strike. He is a hired gun. The green car is driving too fast. High level talks are taking place between Washington and Beijing.

  32. Image Schema: Based on our physical experience, we form basic conceptual structures, which organize our thoughts. Then, we form more complex domains. -up-down -front-back -part-whole -inside-outside (container-contained) -force -path -balance -containment

  33. -path schema: LIFE IS A JOURNEY ON A PATH

More Related