Semantics-pragmatics interface (2010)

The fields of semantics and pragmatics are devoted to the study of conventionalized and context- or use-dependent aspects of natural language meaning, respectively. The complexity of human language as a semiotic system has led to considerable debate about how the semantics/pragmatics distinction should be drawn, if at all. This debate largely reflects contrasting views of meaning as a property of linguistic expressions versus something that speakers do. The fact that both views of meaning are essential to a complete understanding of language has led to a variety of efforts over the last 40 years to develop better integrated and more comprehensive theories of language use and interpretation. The most important advances have included the adaptation of propositional analyses of declarative sentences to interrogative, imperative and exclamative forms; the emergence of dynamic, game theoretic, and multi-dimensional theories of meaning; and the development of various techniques for incorporating context-dependent aspects of content into representations of context-invariant content with the goal of handling phenomena such as vagueness resolution, metaphor, and metonymy. WIREs Cogn Sci 2013, 4:285–297. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1227For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Journal of Pragmatics, 2003

Semantics and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse (S & P henceforth) makes an ideal book for students and linguists whose interest is in semantics and the semantics-pragmatics interface. It is comprised of 17 chapters and the subjects covered range from word/sentence/speaker meaning to predicate logic, topic/ focus, deixis, and, furthermore, politeness and metaphor. This diversity makes S & P a comprehensive introduction to the study of meaning. S & P also contains, with critical comments, different approaches to meaning and theoretical debates. This makes S & P very useful for semanticists, pragmatists, cognitive scientists, philosophers and anyone who has a desire to explore this field. In the following, I will explain how S & P makes an ideal introduction to the issues in semantics and pragmatics. Some critical comments on it will follow. Dr. Jaszczolt's strength lies in her ability to incorporate under a specific subject, studies produced in different fields with different theoretical backgrounds, allowing many people to benefit from those studies. Anyone with an interdisciplinary purpose should be happy with this incorporation, but it requires a painstaking process, as one might imagine. Clearing the confusions caused by different senses of a term used, and explaining different points emphasised, Dr. Jaszczolt carves out an area in which the subject is discussed in an extended scope without any theoretical bias. Let us take one of those examples. In Chapter 8, which concerns topic and focus, topic is discussed, on the one hand, as discourse topic as understood by discourse analysts, and on the other hand, as sentence topic, which is explained in terms of the concept theme (originated in the Prague school and developed by Michael Halliday). Focus is defined as contrastive focus, i.e., new information in the information content, as discussed in functional theories, and also as a denotatum of a proposition that makes an assertion out of an utterance, as discussed in formal theories. Focus is also discussed in relation to presupposition and anaphora, which, according to the author, is one of the core themes in semantic research recently. S & P's strength also lies in the integration of the subjects included: various subjects are integrated so well that a discussion on each subject is given depth and S & P as a whole provides a consistent picture of meaning. This integration as well as its wider scope distinguishes S & P from other introductory books, which often makes us feel that a consistent picture of meaning is not provided since relations of subjects are not fully described, or a whole picture of meaning is not provided since only

2014

Semantics and Pragmatics, 2020

Meaning-making is at the center of all human communicative events. Communication is an exchange of meanings encoded in written or spoken words, non-verbal cues, signs, symbols, and so on. Creating, exchanging, and interpreting meaning is ingrained in human nature since prehistoric times. Language is the most sophisticated medium of communication. It is through language that we set meanings or in other words — refer, define, and signify the things in nature and the ideas in our mind. (Griffiths, 2017) The term ‘meaning of meaning’ was first coined by anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski in 1923. According to him meaning is related to multiple phenomena. It has various facets and these features are related to the external world (extra-linguistic factors) and the linguistic properties (phonetics, morphology, syntax, and semantics) The concept of meaning is vast and has many moving parts. Questing for the answer — ‘what is the meaning of meaning’ makes us take a multi-disciplinary approach; from linguistics, philosophy, neurology, to semiotics. In this essay, I will reflect on the meaning of ‘meaning’ from a multidisciplinary approach, discuss the challenges of doing meaning, and the role of context in understanding the meaning of words and sentences.

The Handbook of Pragmatics, 2006

In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2003), Semantics is defined as the study of the meanings of words and phrases in language and/or the meanings of words and phrases in a particular context. This definition involves the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development. In addition, the definition includes the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings. Oxford Dictionary (?) defines semantics as that branch of linguistics and logic that is concerned with meaning. At vocabulary.com (?) it is defined as the study of meaning in language. It can be applied to entire texts or to single words. For example, "destination" and "last stop" technically mean the same thing. Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics and semiotics that studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning. Pragmatics encompasses speech act theory, conversational implicature, talk in interaction and other approaches to language behavior in philosophy, sociology, linguistics and anthropology.[Mey 1993]. Unlike semantics, which examines meaning that is conventional or "coded" in a given language, pragmatics studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on structural and linguistic knowledge (e.g., grammar, lexicon, etc.) of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the utterance, any pre-existing knowledge about those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and other factors.[Shaozhong, 2009]. In this respect, pragmatics explains how language users are able to overcome apparent ambiguity, since meaning relies on the manner, place, time etc. of an utterance.[wikipedia]. The ability to understand another speaker's intended meaning is called pragmatic competence.. [Daejin et. al. 2002], [Masahiro 2008], [Dale 1989].

Non-Verbal Predication in Ancient Egyptian, 2017

The fields of semantics and pragmatics are devoted to the study of conventionalized and context-or use-dependent aspects of natural language meaning, respectively. The complexity of human language as a semiotic system has led to considerable debate about how the semantics/pragmatics distinction should be drawn, if at all. This debate largely reflects contrasting views of meaning as a property of linguistic expressions versus something that speakers do. The fact that both views of meaning are essential to a complete understanding of language has led to a variety of efforts over the last 40 years to develop better integrated and more comprehensive theories of language use and interpretation. The most important advances have included the adaptation of propositional analyses of declarative sentences to interrogative, imperative and exclamative forms; the emergence of dynamic, game theoretic, and multi-dimensional theories of meaning; and the development of various techniques for incorporating context-dependent aspects of content into representations of context-invariant content with the goal of handling phenomena such as vagueness resolution, metaphor, and metonymy. The fields of semantics and pragmatics are devoted to the study of the semiotics of language. The fact that two separate disciplines have developed for this purpose reflects the complexity of human language as a semiotic system, as well as the debate as to how it should be analyzed. This complexity is of at least four types. First, we use language not only to represent information (or thought) to ourselves and convey it to others, but also to act on and interact with others in ways that do not directly have to do with the transmission of information, such as greetings, exclamations or orders 1,2. Second, language is simultaneously highly systematic and flexible. On the one hand, interlocutors are under strong pressure to be consistent in their use of language to transmit messages; otherwise, communication would be more difficult and less reliable than it is. On the other, they continually innovate in using existing linguistic forms to convey new, and sometimes even radically different, messages via metaphor 3 , irony 4 , and other devices 5. Third, even if we assume a certain stability in the relation between linguistic form and what is communicated, the immediate context of use is Related Articles Article ID Article title COGSCI-086 Lexical Semantics COGSCI-106 Semantics, Acquisition of COGSCI-201 Discourse Processing

In this paper I discuss some general problems one is confronted with when trying to analyze the utterance of words within concrete conceptual and contextual settings and to go beyond the aspects of meaning typically investigated by a contrastive analysis of lexemes within the Katz-Fodor tradition of semantics. After emphasizing some important consequences of the traditional view, several phenomena are collected that seem to conflict with the theoretical settings made by it. Some extensions of the standard theory are outlined that take a broader view of language interpretation and claim to include pragmatic aspects of (utterance) meaning. The models critically considered include Bartsch's indexical theory of polysemy, Bierwisch's two-level semantics and Pustejovsky's generative lexicon. Finally, I argue in favor of a particular account of the division of labor between lexical semantics and pragmatics. This account combines the idea of (radical) semantic underspecification in the lexicon with a theory of pragmatic strengthening (based on conversational implicatures).

Journal of Linguistics, 1998

In this paper, we explore the interaction between lexical semantics and pragmatics. We argue that linguistic processing is informationally encapsulated and utilises relatively simple 'taxonomic' lexical semantic knowledge. On this basis, defeasible lexical generalisations deliver defeasible parts of logical form. In contrast, pragmatic inference is openended and involves arbitrary real-world knowledge. Two axioms specify when pragmatic defaults override lexical ones. We demonstrate that modeling this interaction allows us to achieve a more refined interpretation of words in a discourse context than either the lexicon or pragmatics could do on their own.

2003

The avowed aim of this first volume in the Current Research in the Semantics/ Pragmatics Interface series is, according to its editor, ''to begin to take some steps to reducing the heat of [.. .] discussions [relating to how linguistically-conveyed meaning should be defined, and therefore studied; M.T.] and to begin to increase the light that might profitably be shed on some of the problems of interdigitating content and context'' (p. 14). It is in the light of this pronouncement that the current review will assess the contribution made by the 15 articles of this volume to the ongoing debate regarding the boundary between semantics and pragmatics, and whether there should be any such. In the 'Introduction', Ken Turner prepares the ground for the volume, if not the entire series, by tracing the development from semantics to pragmatics (and back again). Carnap's distinction between ''pure'' and ''descriptive'' studies, Montague's model theoretic semantics, Gricean pragmatics, and finally current dynamic semantic approaches serve as intellectual milestones in this broad classification of modern approaches to linguistic meaning. The boundaries of the canvas are thus set out, while the details remain to be filled in. This is no small feat, given the introduction's intended brevity (implicit in the subtitle ''seven-inch version''), and it is accomplished in an informative, critical, and entertaining fashion. In Chapter 1, 'Discourse structure and the logic of conversation', Nicholas Asher picks up the discussion where the introduction left it, arguing for a way of potentially reconciling (Gricean) pragmatics and (dynamic) semantics. Discourse structure is the key to this, as it can provide evidence for modelling (agents'/systems') cognitive states, and vice versa, allowing us to re-cast Gricean maxims in Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (SDRT) terms. 1 Meaning construction is incremental, drawing on clues provided by different levels of interpretation: logical forms of sentences, discourse structure analysable in SDRT terms, and agents' cognitive states. While one may question the fact that one cannot know another's intention