Introduc)on to Language & Linguis)cs
SEMANTICS, Part 2
Maarten Lemmens ©
h6p://perso.univ-­‐lille3.fr/~mlemmens
Overview of this chapter
1. Lexical meaning:
– seman)c mul)plicity
– seman)c rela)onships between words
– representa)on of (lexical) meaning (seman)c features)
2. Meaning in context:
– contextuyal modula)on
– deic)c expressions
– meaning & intona)on
– meaning vs. pragma)cs
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
2
Seman)cs, so far
• sense vs. reference
• meaning relatedness (within a single word):
– homonymy
– polysemy
– vagueness
• seman)c rela)ons between words:
– synonymy
– antonymy
– meronymy
– hyperonymy & hyponymy
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
3
Meronymy vs. hyperonymy
• Meronymy: "PART OF" rela)on, e.g.
– car  wheel(s), clutch, steering wheel, windshield, etc.
– human body  head, neck, limbs, trunk, feet, hands, etc.
– human face  eyes, nose, mouth, lips, chin, etc.
• Hyperonymy: "KIND OF" rela)on, e.g.
– animal => dog => shepherd => German shepherd
– plant => tree => oak => Mediterranean oak
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
4
Meronymy vs. metonymy
• Meronymy is a rela)onship between words; metonymy refers to the use of a word in a given context to refer to something else that is associated with it, for which meronymy is one such associa)on
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
5
• Meronymy may give rise to metonymy (i.e. metonymical use of a term), hyperonymy (in principle) does not
– I see some new faces in the amphi today faces => people (part => whole)
– We have some clever heads in our team
heads => people (part => whole)
– There's a German shepherd on the grass
=> no metonymical reference to animal
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
6
Schema)cally:
faces
"people"
"faces"
Part-­‐Whole
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
7
Metonymy vs. metaphor
Both cases where X is used for Y, yet are fundamentally different:
• Metaphor: (conceived) similarity rela)on, where X is seen/understood as Y, e.g.
– love seen as fire or heat
– intelligence seen as light
– sadness seen as darkness
• Metonymy: (conceived) associa)on between two en))es, e.g.
– possessor -­‐ possessed
– container -­‐ contained © M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
8
Why care about these rela)onships?
• General insight into seman)c structure
• Metonymy & Metaphor are cogni)ve capaci)es
– cf. agnosia: people who recognising parts, but not the whole oaen cannot understand metonymies: interpret these literally
– cf. au)sm: oaen failure to understand metaphorical uses, plus a delayed metonymy comprehension
• Linguis)cs can reveal something about the individual mind
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
9
Why care about these rela)onships?
• Metonymy & Metaphor are also part of our culture, e.g. SADNESS/GRIEF
– physical processes (tears, drooping posture, etc.) may mo)vate metaphors
– cultural elements: dark colours (typically Western)
• Reveals something about the "cultural mind" (may be different in different socie)es)
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
10
Represen)ng meaning
• Most linguis)c theories will use some form of semanFc features (componenFal analysis), e.g.
woman
man
girl
boy
+animate
+animate
+animate
+animate
+human
+human
+human
+human
+adult
+adult
-adult
-adult
-male
+male
-male
+male
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
11
Feature analysis (or componen1al analysis)
• Every meaning of a lexical item can be characterized by its own set of seman)c features (a seman)c feature matrix)
• Matrix = set of primiFve or atomic features
• Only essenFal features are relevant, not accidental ones, e.g., [HAIR COLOUR] for human = not part of the linguis)c meaning, since accidental, i.e. relates to world knowledge, not linguis)c knowledge
• The name itself of the feature is not really relevant (e.g.,instead of [±MALE] we could use [±FEMALE]) since they represent abstract features; their names are just a handy short-­‐cut to characterize them
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
12
• Seman)c features capture seman)c rela)ons:
– boy and girl are seman)cally similar in that they both contain the feature [-­‐ADULT] which puts them in an antonymical rela)on with woman and man that have the feature [+ADULT]
– boy relates to girl in the same way that man relates to woman, since in both cases we have the antonymy [+MALE] vs. [-­‐MALE]
– boy, girl, woman and man all share the feature [+HUMAN] which puts them in opposi)on to living beings that are [-­‐HUMAN]
– all humans and animals in term share the feature [+animate] which dis)nguishes them from plants, for example.
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
13
Features allow you to formalize the seman)c rela)ons between words:
• Synonymy: two words that are synonymous will have the same feature matrix
• Antonymy: one word has a plus (+) for a feature where the other has a minus (-­‐) • SemanFc mulFplicity:
– Homonymy and polysemy: different set for each of the meanings; – Vagueness: only one set (e.g. child does not contain the feature [±MALE]
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
14
• Meronymy: words in meronymical rela)onship with word Y all contain feature [PART OF Y], e.g. face, hand, leg, etc. [+PART OF HUMAN BODY]
• Hyperonymy & hyponymy: lower level elements "inherit" features from higher level:
– boy, girl: feature [+HUMAN] inherited from higher level word human (being)
– stallion, mare: feature [+HORSE] from higher level word horse
– murder, slay, assassinate, …: feature KILL inherited from higher level
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
15
Selec)on restric)ons
• Features also allow you to explain selecFon restricFons, e.g.
– *The door loved the man
– *The bachelor's wife
• Oddity or unaccaptability explained by conflict of features:
– verb love requires an Agent [+HUMAN]
– bachelor has feature [-­‐MARRIED] whereas wife has feature [+MARRIED] => seman)c contradic)on
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
16
• Metaphors can thus be explained as (deliberate) viola)ons of the selec)on restric)ons, e.g. a broken heart or my heart is mel1ng heart does not contain feature [+BREAKABLE] or [+MELTABLE]
=> hence: reinterpreta)on as metaphor
• Further (psychological) evidence for seman)c features: speech errors, e.g., – I did it last year (intented: last week)
– I arrived early (intended: late)
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
17
Meaning in grammar
• so far: meaning of lexemes
• Also morphemes have meaning (cf. Chapter on morphology)
• Also grammar words have meaning
– a man vs. the man : ar)cles have meaning
– and, but, however : conjunc)ons have meaning
– I want to go home: meaning of to ?
=> grammar words have meaning, but of a more abstract type (i.e., have sense but no reference)
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
18
Overview of this chapter
1. Lexical meaning:
– seman)c mul)plicity
– seman)c rela)onships between words
– representa)on of (lexical) meaning (seman)c features)
2. Meaning in context:
– contextuyal modula)on
– deic)c expressions
– meaning & intona)on
– meaning vs. pragma)cs
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
19
Meaning in context
20
Meaning changes
• Meaning modulated by surrounding context, e.g.
– I washed my car
– I drove my car
– They serviced my car
=> different part of the car put into focus by the context, but intui)vely improbable as different meanings
pragmaFc differences rather than seman)c
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
21
Meaning changes
• Meaning of some items crucially depends on the speech context:
– I saw him today (vs. Bill saw John on 28/02/2003)
– She put it over there.
= deicFc expressions : linked with speech context of an u6erance (place, )me, social, etc.)
(cf. McGregor p. 144-­‐145)
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
22
Meaning changes
• Meaning changes through )me, e.g.
– Old English hund ("chien") > Mod. Eng. hound ("lévrier") (=specialisa)on)
Old English dogge ("dogue") > Mod. Eng. dog (=generalisa)on)
– go > going to (future marker)
– change of connota)on, e.g. • terribly hurt: nega)ve (cf. terror)
• terribly interes1ng : posi)ve (cf. also awesome, awful, terrific, etc.)
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
23
Sentence meaning
• Sentence seman)cs largely composi)onal, e.g.
– The dog chased the cat
=> Meaning: "event in the past which the dog was doing something (chasing) which affected the cat"
• Understanding sum of various elements: – lexical meaning (dog, cat, chase)
– meaning of gramma)cal items (the, -­‐ed morpheme)
– gramma)cal rela)ons (Subject, Object), themaFc roles (Agent, Pa)ent)
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
24
Seman)c roles
• Agent ("doer") vs. Pa)ent ("undergoer")
– The dog chased the cat
– The cat chased the dog
• Agent, Pa)ent, Instrument
– John broke the glass with a hammer
• Source, Goal, Loca)on
– I went from Paris to London
– I put the cup on the table
– I'm in London
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
25
Seman)c roles
• We understand the roles the different par)cipants play in the event; some)mes clear indicators (preposi)ons, cases, etc.), some)mes just sentence structure. • No)ce vagueness of preposi)ons, e.g. French
– Je suis à Paris (Loca)on)
Je vais à Paris (Goal)
– Le livre est sur la table (Loca)on, support)
Je vais sur Paris (Goal)
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
26
Form vs. meaning
• Same structure may not represent the same seman)c roles:
– The man (Agent) took the glass (Pa)ent)
=> The glass was taken by the man
– The man took a bath
=> *A bath was taken by the man
bath is a direct object (syntac)cally), but not a Pa)ent (seman)cally)
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
27
Meaning and intona)on
• Tones:
– Yes? (Rising or Fall-­‐rise)
– Yes. (Fall)
• Rhythm:
– I like linguis)cs a lot (more than just liking it)
– I like linguisFcs a lot (but not other classes)
– I like linguis)cs a lot (but not everyone does)
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
28
• Meaning arises from a complex interplay of:
– meaning of the parts (lexical & gramma)cal words)
– the sentence structure
– intona)on
– larger context
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
29
Contextual meaning
• Oaen sentences acquire extra meaning that goes beyond what can be computed :
A: Do you want a beer?
B: I'm driving. senten0al meaning of B = "I am doing something which makes the car move"
contextual meaning of B = "No"
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
30
Another (personal) example:
Professor Medieval Dutch Literature at end of (difficult) oral exam:
I have made things difficult for you, haven't I?
Maarten (in L1): It's quite warm in here.
sentence meaning is about temperature in the room; context meaning = "yes" (but no direct accusa)on)
= pragmaFc meaning, arrived at via reasoning (inferencing), contextually determined (dealt with in L2)
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
31
• Meaning is everywhere in the linguis)c system:
– morphemes & lexemes have meaning
– gramma)cal items convey meaning
– construc)ons convey meaning
– rhythm and intona)on (oaen) contribute to meaning
– the larger context (linguis)c and social) affects meaning
© M. Lemmens, Univ. Lille3
32
Introduc)on to Language & Linguis)cs
SEMANTICS
Maarten Lemmens ©
h6p://perso.univ-­‐lille3.fr/~mlemmens