chapter 5 semantics(3)

7/24/2019 Chapter 5 Semantics(3)

1/71


2/71

Componential analysis is a way

proposed by the structural semanticists

to analyze word meaning. The approach

is based upon the belief that the meaningof a word can be dissected into meaning

components, called semantic features.


3/71

Plus and minus signs are used to

indicate whether a certain semantic

feature is present or absent in the

meaning of a word, and thesefeature symbols are usually written

in capitalized letters.


4/71

Man [+HM!",+!#$T,+M!$%&

'oman[+HM!"

+!#$T

(M!$%&

)oy[+HM!", (!#$T, +M!$%&

girl[+HM!",(!#$T,(M!$%&


5/71

This is parallel to the way a phoneme is

analyzed into smaller components calleddistincti*e features.

b [+P$-/%,+)$!)!$,+/C%#&

P[+P$-/%,+)$!)!$,(/C%#&


6/71

Componential analysis pro*ides

an insight into the meaning of

words and a way to study the

relationships between words that

are related in meaning.


7/71

! feature of 0belongingness1

distinguishes to return, when it ta2es an

ob3ect, from to take back, We took

Junior back to the zoo might refer to

letting him *isit the place again, but We

returned Junior to the zoocalls him an

inmate.


8/71

! feature 0enemy1

distinguished U-boatfrom the

neutral submarine in the 4irst

'orld 'ar.


9/71

Predications,!rguments and Predicates


10/71

)efore the analysis of sentence meaning

is discussed, two points should be madeclear.

4irst, the meaning of a sentence is not the

sum total of the meanings of all its

components. t cannot be wor2ed out byadding up all the meanings of its constituent

words.


11/71

-econd, there are two aspects tosentence meaning5 grammatical

meaning, which means the

grammaticality or grammatical well(formedness of a sentence, and

semantic meaning, which is

go*erned by selectionalrestrictions.


12/71

6rammaticality is go*erned by thegrammatical rules of the language

while -electional 7estrictions are

constraints on the combination of

words to ensure semantic well(

formedness. -ome sentences which are

grammatically well(formed may not be

semantically meaningful.


13/71

4or e8ample9

:The brown concept

3umps sympathetically.


14/71

The predication analysis,

proposed by $eech, is a waytoanalyze the meaning of

sentences. ! sentence,

composed of a sub3ect and

predicate, is a basic unit for

grammatical relation. The

basic unit for meaning

analysis is calledpredication, which is the

abstraction of the meaning

of a sentence.


15/71

The grammatical form of the sentence does

not affect the semantic predication of the

sentence, therefore the following forms ha*ethe same predication H%;


16/71

Consider the three sentences The

children ate their dinner, Did the

children eat their dinner? And Eat

your dinner, children!$ea*ing aside

differences of tense and pronouns,these sentences ha*e a common

content which can be e8pressed in a

2ind of Pidgin %nglish9 0Children eatdinner1. t is this type of structure

which are called predication,


17/71

! predication consists ofargument(s)and

predicate. !n argument is a logical participant

in a predication. t is generally identical with

the nominal element ;s= in a sentence. !

predicate is something that is said about anargument or it states the logical relation lin2ing

the arguments in a sentence.


18/71

!ccording to the number of argumentsin a predication, predication can be

di*ided into one(place predication,

two(place predication and no(placepredication.


19/71

4or e8ample9

Children li2e sweets. ;two(place predication=

CH$#7%", -'%%T;$?%=


20/71

0t is hot.1 is a meteorological utterance. t

is difficult to accept that the elemente8pressed by 0 it1 is an argument, since it

has no meaning independent of the

predicate. 0it1 is so predictable that onecannot construct a @uestion for which 0it1

is an appropriate answer, therefore it is a

no(place predication9

'hat is hot>

: tA


21/71

The predicate is the main element in a

predication, for it includes tense, modality,etc., determines the number and nature of

the arguments and go*erns the arguments.

Componential and predication analysestogether will enable us to represent the

greater part of the meaning of sentences.


22/71

My uncle owns This car


23/71

Could be bro2en down into two

arguments ; or 0logical

participants1=, 0my uncle1 and 0this car1, with a relational element

lin2ing them ;0owns1=. This lin2ing

element may be called, following

logical rather than grammatical

terminology, predicate.



24/71

7ather as sub3ect,*erb,

ob3ect, ad*erb, etc., are

constituents of sentences,so argument and

predicate are constituents

of the predicationse8pressed by sentences.


25/71

!rguments sometimes match syntactic

elements li2e sub3ect, *erb and ob3ect,and sometimes do not.



26/71

ne has to a*oid associating the

Bpredicate1 in this sense with the0predicate1 of traditional grammar.

! tall woman was in front of the car


27/71

!ssuming that all predications can bedi*ided up into arguments and

predicates, we ha*e to as2 how the

content of these units themsel*es canbe analyzed. The e8amples we ha*e

loo2ed at suggest that these units can

be analyzed componentially.


28/71

4or e8ample9

! tall woman9

Tall, +Human, +!dult, (male, +singular


29/71

! similar analysis, containing

features such as 0 pri*ate1,0motor1, and 0*ehicle1,could

be supplied for 0 the car1.


30/71

Predicates, too, can bebro2en down into

features. The predicate

0boiled ; in thesentence !dam boiled

an egg= might be

analyzed into three

components9 0coo21, 0in

water1, and 0past1.


31/71

0!dam boiled an egg1

entails

0 !dam coo2ed an egg.1

)oil9 [+coo2, +in water,+ past&


32/71

an front of b an front of b

)ut this does not go far enough. The

analysis of 0 in front of 0 fails to show itsrelation to the locati*e meanings, such as

0o*er1, 0under1, 0by1, 0on the left of1, etc.

4or this purpose, three semanticoppositions are needed9


33/71

#irections

#irections

#irectional

contrast

between 0 in

front of 0 and

0behind1, 0o*er1and 0under1, etc. =


34/71

+Horizontal 0horizontal1

(Horizontal 0*ertical1

+$ateral 0side(to(side1

($ateral 0front(to(bac21


35/71

The prepositions o*er, under, in

front of, behind, etc., may now be

defined9

;a= o*er

[ spatial&

direction(horizontal


36/71

;b= under

[ spatial&

direction

(horizontal


37/71

;c= in front of

[ spatial&

direction

[+horizontal&

(lateral


38/71

;d= behind

[ spatial&

direction

[+horizontal&

(lateral


39/71

;e= on the left

[ spatial&

direction

[+horizontal&

+ lateral


40/71

;f= on the right

[ spatial&

direction

[+horizontal&

+ lateral


41/71

;g= beside, by

[ spatial&

+ pro8imate

[+horizontal&

+ lateral


42/71

D=The shell e8ploded by thewing of the airplane.

E=Place the one coin by the

other.F=The red car was par2ed by the

green one.


43/71

n ;D=, bysimply means 0 in spatial

pro8imity to1. Here 0by1 could include

0o*er1 or 0under1.

D=The shell e8ploded by the

wing of the airplane.


44/71

n ;E=, the most li2ely sense is 0 near to

on a horizontal plane1(((that is,

e8cluding 0o*er1 and 0under1.

E= Place the one coin by the other.


45/71

n ;F= the meaning is e*en morespecific9 it is 0beside1, in contrast to

0 in front of1 or 0behind1.

F=The red car was par2ed by the

green one.


46/71

D=The shell e8ploded by the

wing of the airplane.

by ;D=spatial

+ pro8imate


47/71

E=Place the one coin by the

other.

by ;E=

[ spatial&

+pro8imate

+horizontal


48/71

F=The red car was par2ed by thegreen one.

by ;F=

[ spatial&

+pro8imate

+lateral

+horizontal


49/71

This discussion of spatial relations

has emphasized the point that

predicates, li2e arguments, can be

analyzed componentially. -o

arguments and predicates are

comparable units9 on the one hand

they are the elements ofpredications, and on the other they

consist of features.


50/71

Predications

!rguments,

predicates

features


51/71


52/71

The predicate is the ma3or element inthe sense that it determines ; in ways

that will shortly be made clear = the

number and nature of the arguments. nthe abo*e case, the relational meaning

of 0in front of1 re@uires the presence of

two arguments which can be placed in aspatial relationship5 without them, 0in

front of1 would not ma2e sense.


53/71

Three general types of predicateare distinguished9 two(place, one(

place and no(place.


54/71

t is doubtful whether there are

three( or four(place predications

because they usually turn out to be

combinations of two(place and one(

place predications.


55/71

0


56/71

%ntailment and nconsistency

n predication analysis, hyponymy and

incompatibility are treated as relationsbetween arguments and between predicates,

rather than between word(meanings.


57/71

!n entailment relation e8ists between two

propositions which differ only in that anargument of one is hyponymous to an

argument of the other. 4or e8ample, a is a

hyponym of b in9

;DI=

a b

0 saw a boy %ntails 0 saw a child


58/71

The hyponymy relation can also be between

predicates9

;DJ=

P K

0 Turpin stole a horse1 %ntails 0Turpin too2 a horse1


59/71

The following general rules for entailment

and inconsistency may now be stated9

G entails L if G and L are identical e8cept

that D. G contains an argument a and L

contains an argument b, and

E. a is a hyponym of b

a b

0 saw a boy1 %ntails 0 saw a child1


60/71

or D. G contains an argument a and L

contains an argument b, and

E. b is a hyponym of a

a

0Children are a nuisance.1

b entails

0)oys are a nuisance.1


61/71


62/71

G is inconsistent with L if G and L are

identical e8cept that

D.G contains a predicate P and L

contains a predicate K

E.P is incompatible with K

%ric2 disli2es wor2. %ric2 li2es wor2.

P K


63/71

The rules of entailment and

inconsistency apply cumulati*ely, in

the following ways9

;!=f G entails L and L entails ,then G entails ;i.e. entailment

is a transiti*e relation=

;)=f G entails L and L isinconsistent with , then G is

inconsistent with .


64/71

These two supplementary rules may be

illustrated by supposing G,L,and to bethe following9

;!=G9 )oys ran down the street

L9 )oys went down the street 9 Children went down the

street

;)=G9


65/71

Tautology arises, roughly spea2ing,

when information contained in anargument of a prediction includes the

information contained in the rest of the

predication.

n a one(place predication, this

means simply that the argument is

hyponymous to the predicate9


66/71

; a 9 P =

HM!"

!#$T(M!$% (M!$%

Nwho.$/%. youO

0The woman you lo*e is female1

The argument is hyponymous to the

predicate9

l di i l


67/71

n a two(place predication, a tautology

arises where*er a @ualifying predication in

one of its arguments semantically includesthe rest of the main predication.

; a .-%$$. food =

HM!"

M!$%

Nwho.-%$$.meatO

0 ! butcher sells food1


68/71

These rules can be stated more precisely in

linear notation9

7ules of tautology9

a= f a is hyponymous to P, ;a9P= is a

tautology9

This boy is male.


69/71

The third type of de*iation, semantic

anomaly arises when one of thearguments or the predicate of the main

predication is self(contradictory.

This orphans father drin2s hea*ily.

This programme is for themusic(lo*er who disli2es music.


70/71

Contradiction9

Contradiction arises when the

information contained in an

argument of a predication isincompatible with the information

contained in the predicate.

That man is female.


71/71

n a two(place predication, a

contradiction means the @ualifying

predication is inconsistent with the

rest of the main predication, e.g.

This orphan has a father.

chapter 5 semantics(3)

Documents