LEXICAL MEANING (CONCLUSION); COMPOSITIONALITY; INTENSIONAL CONTEXTS Flashcards
SEMANTIC UNIVERSALS & LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis:
distinctions in structure of languages may influence the way speakers think about
the world
¡ Do languages differ so much?
¡ Do differences really influence how we think
SEMANTIC UNIVERSALS & LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY
Katz’ (1976:37) ‘strong effability’ hypothesis
Every proposition is the sense of some sentence in each
natural language
»Every NL can express any human thought
»Uniquely distinguishes human languages from animal communication
> Weaker notion of ‘translatability’
A. There is always a sentence in a language that can translate a proposition expressed in another
B. Vocabulary gaps are temporary
Are there meanings which are universally expressed as lexical items?
2. If not universal, are there constraints on what can be expressed as a lexical item?
“[t]here are vanishingly few universal notions, if any, that every language denotes with a simple expression”. (Levinson,
2003)
»> Levinson claims that some primes are not universal –e.g. ‘if’, contrary to Goddard (2001)
» More work needed
If a small set of lexical items is universal, what is the significance of this?
> > If not universal, are there constraints on what can be expressed as a lexical item?
IMPLICATIONAL SCALES
Mostly statistical tendencies
“If a causative morpheme in any language can express permissiveness, it can usually also express factitivity”
> All languages contain terms for white and black, and there is an implicational hierarchy (Berlin and Kay, 1969):
Black & whilte < red < {green, yellow} < blue < brown < {purple, pink, orange, grey}
COMPOSITIONALITY - our semantic competence
> Literal meaning is enriched by pragmatic meaning
We also use our knowledge of the world to interpret expressions
Lexical meaning suffers from vagueness, indeterminacy, ambiguity
Meaning can be extended in figurative uses
SEMANTIC COMPETENCE:
Our ability to make meaningful wholes from the sum of meaningful parts
In order to show how our competence works semanticists use models
Explicit model enables us to control for ambiguity, vagueness etc.
> Focus on the algorithms for combining word meanings
> Models test theories (iterative process)
Similar to model building in other areas
EG. physics
FREGE on Compositionality quote
It is astonishing what language accomplishes. With a few syllables it expresses a countless number of thoughts
[=propositions], and even for a thought grasped for the first time by a human it provides a clothing in which it can be
recognized by another to whom it is entirely new. This would not be possible if we could not distinguish parts in the
thought that correspond to parts of the sentence, so that the construction of the sentence can be taken to mirror the
construction of the thought… The question now arises how the construction of the thought proceeds, and by what means
the parts are put together so that the whole is something more than the isolated parts. (Frege, cited in Kroeger, 2018:220)
Principle of compositionality
The meaning of a complex expression is determined by the meanings of its constituent expressions and
the way in which they are combined
Jones is boring
> Jones refers to a specific individual in our Universe of Discourse (= situation)
> Is boring is a predicate denoting the set of all boring individuals/things..
DENOTATION SET of “is boring” in our Universe of Discourse
» Combination of Jones + is boring: proposition is T if Jones is a member of the denotation set of is boring
Generally: p = T if referent of subject NP is a member of the denotation set of the VP
Principle of compositionality at Level of NP
pink diamond
Intersection of set of pink things and diamonds in our Universe of Discourse (but see further discussion)
-> modelling in terms of relations between sets
Substitutivity principle
Two NPs which refer to the same thing can be substituted for each other in a sentence without changing
the truth value of the sentence
- The Prime Minister of Australia is giving a televised speech. T
- Mr Scott Morrison is giving a televised speech. T
- fails with propositional attitude verbs
Opaqueness
Lewis Carroll = the author of Alice in Wonderland
- Charles Dodgson might not have been the author of Alice in Wonderland: T
- Charles Dodgson might not have been Charles Dodgson: F
the use of MIGHT makes context OPAQUE: denotation NOT PREDICTABLE from denotation of constituent parts
Propositional attitudes verbs
think, believe, hope, want, know, expect…
» Take a proposition as argument
• Denote mental state/attitude of speaker
• Speaker holds a proposition in mind as a thought of a certain type (hope, belief, desire…)
• Mental content vs description of some situation in the world
• Complement clauses of these verbs referentially opaque: principle of substitutivity fails
• Quine’s (1987:187) example of opaque context
- ralph sees man in brown hat do questionable things > Ralph thinks he is a spy
- Ralph knows pillar of community is a grey haired man > sees him at the beach
- Ralph knows name of man at beach is Bernard J Orcutt
For Ralph, the man seen at the beach = Ortcutt is NOT a spy, therefore:
a. Bernard J. Ortcutt = the man seen at the beach – the man in the brown hat TRUE
b. Ralph believes [that Ortcutt is a spy]. FALSE
c. Ralph believes [that the man in the brown hat is a spy]. TRUE
d. Ralph believes [that the man seen at the beach is a spy]. FALSE
An intensional context
a context where the denotation of a complex expression depends on the
sense (intension) of one or more of its constituents. (Kroeger, 2018:275)
> E.g. world of Ralph’s beliefs, not the actual denotation of the propositional argument
> More technically relates to possible worlds
2 different ways to report someone’s beliefs as a result of intensional/opaque contexts
- According to the believer (in terms of what they would say): de dicto reading (‘of the words’) NONSPECIFIC
> Ralph believes that the man in the brown hat is a spy. - According to the identity of the referent using the speaker’s own terms: de re reading (‘of the thing’) SPECIFIC
> Ralph believes that the man seen at the beach is a spy
example of de re/de dicto - specific/non-specific ambiguity
indefinite descriptions
Max is looking for a house on sale
SPECIFIC (De Re)- there is a particular house on sale in this area and John is looking for it
NON-SPECIFIC (De Dicto)- John is looking for any house that happens to be on sale
French uses subjunctive for non-specific reading
