Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Utterance vs Sentence 8
It follows from this that semanticists will not be (and cannot really ever
be) concerned w the meaning of utterances but only with the meaning of
sentences.
[AM: however, surely they can consider the social context in which the
sentence was uttered!]
With a noun we can often draw a picture of the object denoted. But this is
difficult, if not impossible, with verbs.
even nouns like goblin, unicorn, fairy etc - for objects that don't exist
Consider the verb "run", and an attempt to illustrate what it denotes with a
picture of running (maybe a moving picture). Difficulty: picture has a boy,
and has him running - hard to distinguish the boy and "what he is doing". 19
meaning != denotation 20
even when names are limited to visible objects, they may represent a whole
lot of rather different objects.
"In the world of experience, objects are not clearly grouped together ready,
so to speak, to be labelled with a single word.
Realist view: all things called by the name have some common property
Nominalist: nothing is common except for the name. [this radical view is of
course false, chairs can't be called mountains]
Eskimo: have four words for "snow" (1911:20): "snow on the ground", "falling
snow", "drifting snow", and "snowdrift". (Boas 1911, Intro to Hbk of
Am Ind Lgs :20)
Hopi: only one word for "flier" - be it insect or aeroplane (Whorf 1956:210)
p.21
Some words refer to objects and are learned as labels, while others are
learned as definitions based on them - OSTENSIVE DEFINITIONS.
(Russell 1940 An inq into meaning and truth:25,66 repr. 1962:23,63). p.22
The child does not simply learn labels - else he would not be able to handle
all these complexities.
We shall not solve problems of semantics by looking at a child learning
lg, for an understanding of what he does raises precisely the same
problems as those of understanding what adults do in their normal
speech. 23
Concepts 24
nothing is gained by moving meaning one step back to the brain - the ghost in
the machine / homunculus argument. 27
Wittgenstein (1953:31):
for a large class of words... the meaning of a word is its use in lg.'
not a very helpful remark, since "use in lg" is just as unclear. But still,
has value; we can now investigate "use". 29
Bierwisch (1970:167) says that a semantic theory must explain sentences like:
Notably, the list of abilities (in later work, Katz:1972 has fifteen such
relations), does not include the ability to relate the sentences to the world
of experience; and indeed K&F explicitly exclude from a semantic theory any
reference to the context.
Henry Sweet 1891, distinguished "full" words (tree, sing, blue, gently) from
"form" words (the, of, and). The form words are not normal dictionary words
and have only grammatical meaning.
LEXEME: love and loved are under the same dictionary heading; unit
e.g. many words with "sl-" are "slippery" in some sense - slide, slip,
slither, slush, sluice, sludge etc. often pejorative - slatterns, slut,
slang, sly, sloppy, slovenly. 35
ending in -ump often refers to roundish mass : plump, chump, rump hump lump
bump stump, perhaps even dump and mumps. 35
Propositional semantics 42
basic unit of semantics is not the sentence but the proposition. but
sentence semantics is conditional, whereas propositional semantics is either
T or F. e.g. "I was there yesterday" depends on I, there, yesterday and has
no fixed T/F value. Also, same grammatical structure - e.g. "every boy loves
a girl", may have two propositions, with differing T/F consequences.
Also, indexicals (or deictics) may not be resolvable logically - i.e. without
invoking semantics itself.
3 Context and Reference 44
Linguistic relativity 44
how we see the world depends to some extent on the lg we use.
Malinowski: to the native the world appears mostly "undifferentiated". They
have names for only those things that stand out - those that are relevant to
them. 44
Sapir [1929/1940:160]:
[the world we live in] is to a large extent unconsciously built up on te
lg habits of the group. 45
expanded by Whorf : we are unaware of the bkgd character of our lg, just as
we are unaware of the presence of air until we begin to choke. comparing
lgs leads us to realize that we "dissect nature along lines laid down by
our native languages". This led him to a "new principle of relativity
which holds that All observers are not led by the same physical evidence
to the same picture of the universe, unless their linguistic backgrounds
are similar or in some way can be calibrated." [1956:214, article "Science
and linguistics"]
Hopi lg does not have tenses, only what is subjective and objective, so Whorf
claimed that the Hopi have no notion of time. ... It can be argued that
English has only two tenses, pres & past, with everything else involving aux
verbs - was loving, will love, etc. Also, "past" tense, defined this ay is
not limited to past time, but also for unreality, as in "I wish I went there
every day." Joos 1964 suggests that Engl doesn't really have a past tense,
but only one "remote" tense, rather similar to the Hopi.
Hence if Engl had been an Am Indian lg, it could have been used
as an example of a lg in which time relations are not distinguished. 47
In spite of objections, the S-W hypothesis serves a useful reminder that the
categories employ do not simply "exist" in experience. e.g. calf, heifer,
cow, intermed stage terms : heiver, steer, colt, filly, teg (also, infant,
toddler, child, teenager, adult, senior)
Bierwisch: My typewriter has bad intentions 50/51 - may have many meanings,
e.g. astronomer's glasses
But the knowlege needed for these is no different than with "bill". p.50
Situational context 51
Bloomfield: the only useful generalizations abt language are the 'inductive'
generalizations.
meaning of a linguistic form: "the situation iin which the speaker utters it
and the response it calls forth in the hearer."
e.g. Jill is hungry, and asks Jack to get an apple that's visible.
If there was no Jack, the sight of the apple would have induced Jill to get
it (S-->R). But since Jack is there, the R is linguistic and not action, so
that we now have S-->R'(lang)...[Jack hears]S' --> R.
Thus meaning, for Bloomfield, consists of the relation between speech (shown
as R'...S') and the events S and R which bracket it.
Bloomfield took great pains to contrast this mechanistic, observable theory
to "mentalistic" theories that posited thoughts, concepts, images, feelings,
etc. While he despised mentalists, his own argument involved "predisposing
factors" which depended on the entire life histories of the agents (is Jack
well-disposed towards Jill?) - which is just as circular an argument.
early learning has behaviourist elements - baby makes noise, milk comes. But
the child rapidly outgrows this explanation for language.
deictics
In Malagasy the terms ety and aty may be glossed as 'here' and 'there':
Ety/Aty ny tranony: His house is here/there. But the distinction depends on
whether or not the house is visible to the speaker [Keenan:1971:45]
It is, or should be, clear that the study of semantics is not advanced by
being 'reduced' to logic. 113