The semantics-pragmatics distinction: What it is and why it matters (original) (raw)
Related papers
The semantics/pragmatics distinction
Synthese, 2008
The semantics/pragmatics distinction is one of the most discussed topics in the philosophy of language today. Several collections have been devoted specifically to it (e.g. Turner 1999; Bianchi 2005; Szabo 2006), and a number of important recently published works address issues that crucially hinge upon the relationship between semantics and pragmatics (e.g.
2014
Semantics and pragmatics overlap in their scope as they both deal with the meaning of linguistic expressions. Since semantics can be viewn as an abstraction from pragmatics, the question of what divides them thus becomes as well a question of what the scope of semantics should be. Traditionally, three features haven been suggested to define semantic content and delimit it from pragmatics: semantics content is truth-conditional, conventional, and constant. However there are only two cases in which the three criteria line up. Literal meaning is characterized by all of them, while conversational implicatures exhibits none. We then examine all other six possible combinations of the three features. This will lead to a typology of kinds of meaning which then raises then question of which of the features seems to be best suited to draw classify these eight kinds and draw the lines between semantics. I argue that a semantics based on conventions is both the conceptually the most reasonable ...
The semantics/pragmatics distinction (CSLI, Stanford, 2004)
2004
Pragmatics is a young discipline with an ancient and eminent traditionextending from Protagoras and Aristotle to present day research in cognitive science. 1 In addition, pragmatics is a discipline not easy to define 2 -for its often uncomfortable position on the boundaries of the philosophy of language, linguistics, sociology, psychology, rhetoric, and ethno-methodology. The Cinderella of syntax and semantics, long on the fringes of linguistics, pragmatics is nowadays enjoying an astonishing renaissance and intense development.
On the Tension Between Semantics and Pragmatics
Una tradizione plurisecolare ha quasi sempre perduto di vista che, in realtà, le forme linguistiche non hanno alcuna intrinseca capacità semantica: esse sono strumenti, espedienti, più o meno ingegnosi, senza vita e valore fuori delle mani dell'uomo, delle comunità storiche che ne facciano uso (De Mauro 1965). Abstract In this paper I offer my reflections on the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. I argue that semantics – the relatively stable and context-invariant meanings of the language – is necessarily amplified by pragmatics, which is a way of transcending the possibilities of semantics. Pragmatic layers, especially if they meet the cognitive needs of language users and represent culturally salient concepts, tend to become semanticized. The situation is complicated by the postulation of explicatures, which I argue are not cancellable and mimic the semantic resources of the language (very often I have claimed that explicatures are mainly cases in which a pragmatic inference does some work in rescuing a statement from otherwise insuperable logical problems). Like entailments they are not cancellable, but they share the features of all pragmatic inferences in that they are calculable. I propose that explicatures are loci of the tension between semantics and pragmatics, and given lack of cancellability they are strong candidates for inferences that become semanticized. In this paper, I see the tension between pragmatics and semantics exemplified by situations where an excessive weight is placed on the semantics (legal documents, such as laws) and situations where an excessive burden is placed on the pragmatics (pidgins like Tok Pisin). In this paper, I also argue that I would like to give thanks to Tullio De Mauro, who made me think of this topic by his stimulating considerations. I would also like to thank principles of language use tend to become semanticised in the form of discourse rules and I consider the praxis of language games and argue that discourse rules, unlike principles, have the advantage of being teachable and also of favoring the involvement of speakers in the communicative praxis (Lo Piparo F, Gramsci and Wittgenstein. An intriguing connection. In: Capone A (ed) Perspectives on language use and pragmatics. Lincom, Muenchen, pp 285–320, 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.
Semantics and Pragmatics: Some Central Issues
If you vary the context of utterance enough, i.e. vary the audience, the conversational context, the background knowledge, etc., you can get any sentence to communicate different propositions. One central task for those interested in the semantics–pragmatics distinction is to identify and classify such patterns of inter-contextual variability. Having identified such patterns, we develop models that can explain them. In what follows, I first present some versions of three important models: the Semantic Model, the Pragmatic Model , and the Index Model. In the second half of the chapter, I present what I take to be some of the most pressing challenges facing those working in this field. The goal is to present these issues and challenges, not to defend a theory. In particular, this is not a chapter meant as a defence of Cappelen and Lepore (2004). As this volume of essays clearly shows, the number of powerful objections and alternatives is now so large that responding to all of them would take a new book. This chapter is meant, rather, as a brief overview, written in the light of these criticisms, of how these issues are best structured, and so might serve to frame some of the debates triggered by the book. There is, however, one small point I will try to promote, at least indirectly: there's no such thing as the semantics–pragmatics distinction and looking for it is a waste of time. No such distinction will do any important explanatory work. You can, as I will below, label some level of content 'semantic content', but in so doing no interesting problem is solved and no puzzling data illuminated. To explain inter-contextual variability across different areas of discourse we will need an arsenal of explanatory models and data-gathering procedures. In the light of recent work in philosophy and linguistics, we should be sceptical of any suggestion to the effect that just a couple of such models will do all the work for us. Our bias, I suggest, should be in favour of
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