JPN494: Japanese Language and Linguistics JPN543: Advanced Japanese Language and Linguistics

1
JPN494 Japanese Language and LinguisticsJPN543
Advanced Japanese Language and Linguistics

• Semantics Pragmatics (1)

2
Semantics Pragmatics

• Semantics Pragmatics the subfields of
  linguistics that deal with meanings.
• Semantics (mainly) deals with literal meaning
  meaning intrinsic to linguistic expressions
• Pragmatics deals with a different kind of
  meaning, which results from the interaction
  between linguistic expressions and the context in
  which they are used.

3

• Ken doesnt eat meat.
• We are going to a steak house. Should we ask Ken
  too?
• What kind of pizza should we order?
• Is Ken health-conscious?
• In different situations, Ken doesnt eat meat
  has an
• invariable literal meaning (explicature) but
  conveys
• different messages (implicature)
• What is said vs. What is meant

4

• The boundary between semantics and
• pragmatics is not always clear.
• Ken stopped smoking (presupposition)
• KEN is a vegetarian vs. Ken is a VEGETARIAN
  (focus)
• This vase is expensive, that one is not (deixis)

5
Various approaches to linguistic meaning

• Meaning is a vague and abstract notion.
• What is the meaning of dog? Is it
• (i) objects that are called dog?
• (ii) the concept (that people have in their head)
  of dog-ness?
• What are the meanings of A dog barked, Fido is
  a dog, etc.?

6

• What are the meanings/functions of
• ? (as in ?????????)
• ? (as in ??????????)
• the (as in Joe broke the base)
• ?
• What are the differences between
• John left John has left
• Its Joe that Mary loves Mary loves JOE
• ?

7

• Dog has various connotations
• denotation domesticated canine
• connotation diligence, loyalty (positive)
  flattery, humbleness (negative)
• What are the social/historical/cultural
  backgrounds of such
• connotations?
• ??? (??????) vs. ????? (??????) vs. ??? (????)
• ?? (???) vs. ?? (????) vs. ???

8

• Even for expressions with concrete meanings,
  the exact formulation of their meanings is not a
  trivial matter.
• ? there is a certain consensus, however, as to
  how to precisely formulate the meanings of simple
  expressions
• To obtain deeper understanding of more subtle
  aspects of meanings (e.g. discourse-oriented
  meanings), it is often useful to use/extend the
  analytical tools that are proven to be useful for
  simpler cases.

9
Foundations of denotational semantics

• Freges (1892) proposal there are two types of
  meanings
• Sinn ( sense) informational content or concept
  associated with an expression
• Bedeutung ( reference) object designated by an
  expression
• References (denotations) of objects worldly
  objects that correspond to expressions
• E.g., the reference (denotation) of Ichiro Suzuki
  is Ichiro Suzuki.
• Ichiro Suzuki Ichiro Suzuki

10
Extensional Semantics

• What are the denotations of names like Ichiro
  Suzuki, Japan, Apollo 13 ?
• ? (specific) individuals
• What are the denotations of
• common nouns student, book, dog,
• adjectives nice, red, American,
• intransitive verbs sings, barks, snores,
• ? sets of individuals ( properties)

11

• Fido is a dog.
• Fido is nice.
• Fido barks.
• Universe of Discourse Chris, David, Evan, Fido,
  Goliath,
• Holly
• dog Fido, Goliath, Holly
• nice Chris, David, Evan, Fido, Holly
• barks Fido

12

• What are the denotations of
• relational nouns sibling, friend, supervisor,
• relational adjectives fond, jealous, nicer,
• transitive verbs likes, envies, admires,
• ? sets of pairs of individuals ( (2-place)
  relations)

13

• Fido is a sibling of Holly.
• Fido is nicer than Holly.
• Fido likes Holly.
• Universe of Discourse Chris, David, Evan, Fido,
  Goliath,
• Holly
• sibling , ltFido, Goliathgt, ltGoliath,
  Fidogt,
• nicer , ltFido, Hollygt, ltFido, Goliathgt,
  
• likes ltChris, Chrisgt, ltDavid, Davidgt,
  , ltFido, Hollygt,

14

• What are the denotations of sentences like
• Fido is a dog, Fido likes Holly?
• ? truth values (true or false 1 or 0)
• Fido is a dog 1
• Fido is nice 1
• Goliath is nice 0

15

• Fido is a dog 1
• Fido is nice 1
• Goliath is nice 0
• Fido is a dog and Goliath is nice
• Fido is nice and Goliath is nice
• Fido is a dog or Goliath is nice
• Fido is nice or Goliath is nice
• Chris saw an oculist/an eye doctor

16
Compositionality

• Principle of Compositionality of Meaning The
  meaning of the whole is determined by (i) the
  meanings of its parts and (ii) the way they are
  put together.
• Fido is a dog
• Fido likes Holly vs. Holly likes Fido

17

• mapping from syntactic representations to
  meanings
• meanings of individual expressions
• semantic rules for complex expressions (VP, S,
  etc.)

18

• S Fido VP is NP a dog
• 1.
• Fido Fido
• dog Fido, Goliath, Holly
• 2.
• SR1 a N N
• 3.
• SR2 is NP NP

19

• S Fido VP is NP a dog
• 4.
• SR3
• N VP 1 iff N ? VP
• N VP 0 otherwise

20
A possible application

• Customer I want a smart Pomeranian that can
  serve as a guard dog.
• Database
• Pomeranian Fido, Goliath, Tornado,
• barks Fido, Tornado,
• smart Fido, Holly,
• Is Fido is a Pomeranian true?
• Is Fido barks true?
• Is Fido is smart true?

21

• S Fido VP likes Holly
• Fido Fido
• Holly Holly
• likes ltChris, Chrisgt, ltChris, Fidogt,
  ltDavid, Davidgt, ltDavid, Goliathgt, ltEvan, Evangt,
  ltEvan, Goliathgt, ltFido, Fidogt, ltFido, Chrisgt,
  ltFido, Hollygt, ltHolly, Hollygt, ltGoliath,
  Goliathgt

22

• The meaning of a 1-place predicate can be
  represented as a set of individuals.
• The meaning of a 2-place predicate can be
  represented as a set of pairs of individuals.
• The meaning of a sentence with a 1-place
  predicate can be calculated in terms of the
  membership-relation between individuals and sets.
  
• The meaning of a sentence with a 2-place
  predicate is trickier one way to avoid the
  problem is to use functions instead of sets
  (keeping the basic idea).
• Semantic analyses in terms of sets are more
  intuitive semantic analyses in terms of
  functions are more flexible and technically
  easier to handle.

23
Properties/Relations as Functions

• A name denotes an individual
• A sentence denotes a truth value
• A 1-place predicate (e.g., dog, nice) denotes
• a characteristic function of a set of
  individuals

24

• Function a relation between two groups of
  entities (domain range)
• F(x) 2x 1
• F(x) ?x 2x 1
• ?x 2x 1 (3) 6 1 7

25

• F(x)(y) ?x ?y 2x2 3y 1
• ?x ?y 2x2 3y 1 (1) ?y 3y 3
• ?x ?y 2x2 3y 1(1)(2)
• ?y 3y 3 (2) 9

26

• A characteristic function of a set a function
  that yields value 1 when the argument (input) is
  a member of the set, and yield value 0 otherwise
• A property as a set
• dog Fido, Goliath, Holly
• A property as a function
• dog ?x dog (x) where
• ?x dog (x) (Chris) 0
• ?x dog (x) (David) 0
• ?x dog (x) (Evan) 0
• ?x dog (x) (Fido) 1
• ?x dog (x) (Goliath) 1
• ?x dog (x) (Holly) 1

27

• S Fido VP is NP a dog
• 1.
• Fido Fido
• dog ?x dog (x)
• 2.
• SR1 a N N
• 3.
• SR2 is NP NP

28

• S Fido VP is NP a dog
• 4.
• SR3
• N VP VP (N)
• 4.
• SR3
• N VP 1 iff N ? VP
• N VP 0 otherwise

29

• 1-place predicates denote functions from
  individuals to truth values
• ?x dog (x)
• 2-place predicates denote functions from
  individuals to functions from individuals to
  truth values.
• ?y ?x likes (y)(x)

30

• S Fido VP likes Holly
• 1
• Fido Fido
• Holly Holly
• likes ?y ?x likes (y)(x)

31

• S Fido VP likes Holly
• 2
• SR4
• V NP V (NP)
• 3
• SR3
• N VP VP (N)

32
Semantic Types

• individuals (entities) e
• truth values t
• functions from individuals to truth values lte,tgt
• functions from individuals to functions from
  individuals to truth values lte,lte,tgtgt

33
Quantificational NPs

• Some dog barks
• Every dog barks
• Most dogs bark
• No dogs bark
• dog Fido, Goliath, Holly
• barks Fido, Holly
• dog ?x dog (x)
• barks ?x barks (x)

34

• Some dog barks
• There is at least one individual that is a dog
  and that barks.
• in other words
• The intersection of the set of dogs and the set
  of barkers is not empty.
• in yet other words
• There is at least one individual a such that
• ?x dog (x) (a) ?x barks (x) (a) 1
• A quantificational determiner denotes a relation
  between two
• properties.

35

• Every dog barks
• All individuals that are dogs bark.
• in other words
• The set of dogs is a subset of the set of
  barkers.
• in yet other words
• For every individual a such that
• ?x dog (x) (a) 1, ?x barks (x) (a) 1

36

• Most dogs bark
• .5A gt A - B
• where A the number of dogs B the number of
  barkers
• No dogs bark
• The intersection of the set of dogs and the set
  of barkers is empty

37

• S NPSome dog VP barks
• 1
• dog ?x dog (x)
• barks ?x barks (x)
• some ?P ?Q SOME(P)(Q)
• a relation between properties a function from
  sets of
• individuals to functions from sets of individuals
  to truth
• values
• ltlte,tgt, ltlte,tgt, tgtgt

38

• S NPSome dog VP barks
• 2
• D N D (N)
• ?Q SOME(?x dog (x))(Q)
• 3
• NP VP NP (V)
• SOME(?x dog (x))(?x barks (x)) 1

39

• The dog barks
• The set of dogs (i) has only one member, and (ii)
  is a subset of the set of barkers.

40
not, and, or

• Some dog barks and Fido is a dog.
• Fido is a dog or Goliath likes Fido.
• ltt, ltt, tgtgt
• It is not the case that Fido is a dog.
• (Fido is not a dog)
• ltt, tgt

41
Intensional Semantics

• Limitations of extensional semantics
• Sentences can have only two meanings. (All true
  statements cannot be distinguished from each
  other.)
• Expressions that denote the same object cannot be
  distinguished.
• e.g. Even if all dogs are hairy and all hairy
  creatures are dogs, we would not consider hairy
  and dog synonyms.
• (cf. oculist - eye doctor, photocopier - Xerox
  machine)

42

• Fido will bark.
• Fido barked.
• Chris must be home by now.
• Chris may not come.
• Chris believes that Goliath barked.
• If Goliath was nice, then Chris would like it.

43
Current vs. Future/Past States of Affairs

• the current state of affairs
• universe c, d, e, f, g, h
• student c, d, e
• dog f, g, h
• nice c, d, e, f, h
• like ltc, cgt, , ltf, ggt,

44

• the state of affairs in one year
• student d, e
• dog f, g, h
• nice c, d, e, f
• like ltc, cgt,

45
A hypothetical state of affairs

• a hypothetical state of affairs
• student c, f
• dog f, g, h
• nice f, g, h
• like ltc, cgt,
• the actual state of affairs the actual world
• hypothetical states of affairs possible worlds

46
Extension vs. Intension

• Certain expressions make reference to future/past
  times hypothetical situations.
• ltw1, t1gt ltw2, t1gt ltw3, t1gt
• ltw1, t2gt ltw2, t2gt ltw3, t2gt
• ltw1, t3gt ltw2, t3gt ltw3, t3gt

47

• An expression has different denotations in
  different world/time pairs
• at ltw1, t1gt student c, d, e
• at ltw1, t2gt student c, d, e
• at ltw1, t3gt student d, e
• at ltw2, t1gt student c, d, e, f
• at ltw2, t2gt student c, d, e, f
• at ltw2, t3gt student d, e, f
• at ltw3, t1gt student c, d
• at ltw3, t2gt student d, e
• at ltw3, t3gt student e, f

48

• An expression has different denotations in
  different world/time pairs
• at ltw1, t1gt Chris is a student 1
• at ltw1, t2gt Chris is a student 1
• at ltw1, t3gt Chris is a student 0
• at ltw2, t1gt Chris is a student 1
• at ltw2, t2gt Chris is a student 1
• at ltw2, t3gt Chris is a student 0
• at ltw3, t1gt Chris is a student 1
• at ltw3, t2gt Chris is a student 0
• at ltw3, t3gt Chris is a student 0

49

• Extension the denotation of an expression in a
  given situation (a world/time pair).
• Intension a function from situations to
  extensions

50

• the extension of student at ltw1, t1gt
• student w1,t1 c, d, e
• the intension of student
• student the function F such that
• F (ltw1, t1gt) c, d, e
• F (ltw1, t2gt) c, d, e
• F (ltw1, t3gt) d, e
• F (ltw2, t1gt) c, d, e, f

51

• Two expressions may have the same extension in a
  certain situation, without having the same
  intension.
• dog w1,t1 f, g, h
• hairy w1,t1 f, g, h
• dog w2,t1 f, g, h
• hairy w2,t1 f, g

52

• Chris is a student w1,t1 1
• Fido is nice w1,t1 1
• Chris is a student w2,t1 1
• Fido is nice w2,t1 0
• the intension of a sentence a function from
• situations to truth values
• Chris is a student is true Chris is a
  student is true in this
• world, at this time

53

• Sense concept associated with an expression
• Reference object designated by an expression
• Denotational interpretation of Freges sense
• intension sense
• extension reference
• The definition of sense in more concrete terms.
  

54

• Fido will bark wn,tn 1 iff there is some
  time tm such that m gt n and Fido barks (is
  barking) wn,tm 1 otherwise 0
• Fido barked wn,tn 1 iff there is some time
  tm such that m lt n and Fido barks (is barking)
  wn,tm 1 otherwise 0
• ltw1, t1gt Fido is not barking
• ltw1, t2gt Fido is barking
• ltw1, t3gt Fido is not barking

55

• Chris must be home (by now) wn,tn
• 1 iff for most worlds wm that are similar to
  wn,
• Chris is home (by now) wm,tn 1
• 0, otherwise
• Chris may be home wn,tn
• 1 iff there is some world wm that is similar
  to wn and
• Chris is home wm,tn 1
• 0 otherwise

56

• If Goliath was nice, then Chris would like it
  wn,tn
• 1 iff for each world wm such that
• Goliath is nice wm,tn 1,
• Chris likes Goliath wm,tn 1
• 0 otherwise