This topic covers the following areas and is intended to review the basics of Semantics in order to help define Pragmatics in relation to Semantics:
If you've studied semantics, you may have encountered the question of "What does a sentence mean?" and the answer may have surprised you. Consider (1) and (2):
(1) Mary likes cappuccino.
(2) Elephants are insects.
In order to understand (1) and (2), you need to know what the individual words mean and how they combine to describe a particular situation or state. That knowledge is then used to compose the meaning. Semanticists identify compositional meaning from sentences like (1) and (2) by considering what the individual component parts mean and how they combine. Let's say that what it takes to know the meaning of (1) and (2) is all the real-world knowledge and linguistic knowledge that allows you to decide whether each sentence, once the meaning of the words and expressions have been appropriately combined, is true or false.
PROPOSAL: The proposition denoted by a sentence is the set of circumstances under which it is true.
Under this interpretation of sentence meaning, a given sentence can either be assigned a value of TRUE or FALSE. Its truth or falsehood is established by checking whether it is true in a particular world, usually the one we inhabit. So for (1), if there is a relevant person Mary in our world and she does indeed like cappuccino, then (1) is true. Otherwise, if we're in some other possible world where the relevant Mary does not like cappuccino, then (1) is false. Since sentence (2) is not true in any (normal) world, it is always assigned the truth conditional value of FALSE.
For each sentence, there are two possibilities for the truth value of its proposition p:
p
1
0
By convention, the value 1 is taken to indicate TRUE and the value 0 is taken to indicate FALSE.
The semantic meaning of a sentence is made up of its truth conditions-in other words, the conditions of the world that would need to be met in order for the sentence to be true. Compositional semantics therefore defines the meaning of complex sentences in terms of the meanings of their parts and the way they are put together. This can be restated as defining the truth conditions of complex sentences in terms of the truth conditions of their parts and the way they are put together.
As a preview of what will be explained in the following sections and in upcoming web readings, the meaning of a sentence can be established using a range of semantic and pragmatic approaches. These include the notions of entailment, presupposition, and implicature. At a purely semantic level, understanding the meaning of a proposition p requires consideration of the meanings that are entailed by that proposition--i.e., propositions whose truth is guaranteed by the truth of p. For example, the proposition expressed by the sentence in (3) entails the proposition in (4) that JFK is dead. Whenever (3) is true, (4) must also be true.
(3) JFK was assassinated.
(4) JFK is dead.
p entails q ⇔ p being true guarantees that q is true.
Some sentences contain words or constructions that link the meaning of that sentence to other propositions, without a direct semantic entailment holding between the propositions. For example, the sentence in (5) presupposes (6).
(5) Mary no longer lives in LA.
(6) Mary once lived in LA.
p presupposes q ⇔ p has no truth value unless q is true.
There is additional meaning that can be calculated via pragmatic reasoning. For example, (7) implicates (8).
(7) John ate some of the cake.
(8) John did not eat all of the cake.
Use of sentence p by speaker S implicates q ⇔ S's use of p would violate the Maxims of Conversation unless S's intention is to convey q.
KEY POINT: The progression from entailment, to presupposition, to implicature ranges from the domain of semantics to the realm of pragmatics.
In talking about the meaning of sentences in semantics, we use propositional logic. This allows us to use notions such as negation, conjunction, and disjunction in a formal way.
Negation is indicated with the symbol ¬ such that ¬p is read as "it is not the case that p". If (9) conveys the proposition p, then (10) would convey ¬p.
(9) Pragmatics meets on Thursday.
(10) Pragmatics does not meet on Thursday.
At the level of truth conditions, negation is represented with the truth table below. As shown in the table, a proposition that receives a truth value of 1 (in a particular world) receives a truth value of 0 when it is negated. A proposition that is already false (value 0) is true when negated (value 1).
| p | ¬p |
|---|---|
| 1 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 |
Conjunction is indicated with the symbol ∧ such that p∧q is read as "p and q". Sentence (11) conveys a proposition composed of two individual propositions.
(11) Pragmatics meets on Thursday and LingCirle is on Thursday.
At the level of truth conditions, conjunction is represented with the truth table below. As shown in the table, the proposition created by conjoining two propositions is true only when both conjoined propositions are themselves true (value 1). Otherwise, the conjunction is false (value 0).
| p | q | p ∧ q |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Lastly disjunction is indicated with the symbol ∨ such that p∨q is read as "p or q". Sentence (12) conveys a proposition that is a disjunction of two other propositions. If (12) seems awkward out of the blue, consider a context where it is the response to a question "Why did Hannah come to university today?"
(12) Pragmatics meets on Thursday or LingCirle is on Thursday.
Disjunction is represented with the truth table below. As shown in the table, the proposition created by disjoining two propositions is true whenever either one or both propositions are themselves true (value 1). Otherwise, the disjunction is false (value 0).
| p | q | p ∧ q |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
KEY POINT: Under a semantic approach, the meaning of the whole expression is determined by the combination of propositional variables (p, q) and a set of functions (not, and, or). Crucially, meaning is independent of context.
To go on to section 2.2 on "Entailment", click here.