Slide 1

Albert GattIntroduction to SemanticsLecture 6Contemporary research: Numerical cognitionLinguistic Relativity: meaning and thought (From last week)The number senseSemantics -- LIN 1180Rationale:Suppose language L2 only distinguishes quantities in a very basic waye.g. one vs. many

Then, we can ask whether speakers of L2 are capable of abstract quantitative reasoning like other speakers.

If not, then there must be an influence of language over mathematical cognition.Peter Gordons workSemantics -- LIN 1180Gordon (2004):investigated these questions among the Piraha tribe in the AmazonPiraha distinguishes one, two and many.No terms for twenty, thirty-threeNo recursive devices for forming complex numbers (one hundred and one etc)

Some observations on PirahaSemantics -- LIN 1180The three words for one, two and many are used as prototypes:hi (one): typically for one objects, but often also used for a fewho (two): typically for 2 objects, but also for a relatively small quantity greater than hiaibaagi (many): for any number of objects which are a lotExperimental task (example)Semantics -- LIN 11807 participants in a matching task

Experimenter sits opposite participantplaces a linear array of objects on a tableparticipant has to match the array with his own objects(a kind of substitute for counting)

Matching task: resultsSemantics -- LIN 1180If the array consisted of between 1 and 3 objects, participants were reasonably accurate.

With greater numbers, performance became increasingly inaccurate.

Tendency became more pronounced with more complicated versions of the task.Gordons conclusionsSemantics -- LIN 1180The results of these studies show that the Pirahas impoverished counting system limits their ability to enumerate exact quantities when set sizes exceed two or three items. (2004, p. 498)

Some reflections on Gordon (2004) Semantics -- LIN 1180Gordons study was restricted to a small set of individuals.

Not very controlled environment.

It has sparked off a considerable debate about:whether all languages are equalwhether language has a conditioning effect on thought: Can we not think things which we cannot name?Some reflections on Gordon (2004)Semantics -- LIN 1180Gordons work goes beyond words:languages like English have simple number words (one, two)but also grammatical systems which allow these words to be combined (one hundred and one.)

If Gordons observations are correct, then grammar may have a role to play in thinking:grammar may be a way of combining simple concepts into complex ones.The domain of lexical semanticsPart 1Goals of this lectureBy now, we have introduced some of the major concepts and positions in semantic theory.This lecture begins our incursion into Lexical Semantics:Word meaningThe structure of the mental lexiconLexical relationsKnowledge of wordsWhat does it mean to know a word?Iltqajt ma ziti (I met my aunt) Iltqajt ma mara (I met a woman)Zija/Aunt entails woman/maraanni qatel lil Pietru (John murdered Peter) Pietru miet (Peter died)Qatel lil x / kill x entails x miet/x died

These entailment relations suggest that when we know a word, we also know several connections to other words.Part of the concern of lexical semantics is to characterise this knowledge.

Representing lexical knowledge(Reminder from previous lectures)

The word aunt is somehow related to the word woman:

Theory of necessary and sufficient conditions:WOMAN is part of the meaning of the definition of AUNT in our mental lexicon

Lexical taxonomies:There is a hierarchical relationship, where WOMAN is the superordinate of AUNT

The units of analysis: wordsIf were going to talk about word meaning, we need to identify what a word actually is...

Not as easy as it seems

Preliminary semantic definition:A word represents a unit of meaningDefinition of a word (I)Orthographic:Anything we write separated by whitespace

Phonological:Any string of sounds which has some internal structure that distinguishes it from other parts of a speech signalE.g. We often find pauses at word boundariesDefinition of a word (II)Grammatical definition:Words are the basic input to syntax. They are the minimum free form (Bloomfield 1933)Words can occur in isolation

They can differ according to their grammatical category and inflectional featureskiel eat-3MSg-Perf.kilt eat-1Sg-Perfkielet eat-3FSg-Perfkielueat-3Pl-Perf

In English, all these different forms would qualify as a single grammatical wordI/He/She/They ateDefinition of a word (III)An intuition:The words kilt/kiel/kielet etc are all different forms of a single semantic word, meaning the action of eatingBy convention, Maltese uses the 3rd Person Sg. Masc as citation form: kielEnglish uses the infinitive or ing form: to eat/eating

One way to capture the grammatical/semantic distinction is by distinguishing types and tokenskilt/kiel/kielet etc are tokens of the same type kiel, meaning EATProblems with identifying wordsSemantic definition is problematic:English puce = Maltese vjola arMaltese ngid = English I sayNot every semantic word in one language is a semantic word in another

Grammatical definition might be better but:There are things that dont occur in isolation which speakers still classify intuitively as words:Is the Maltese definite article a word? Il- is phonologically dependent on the noun (a clitic)

Were just going to assume that we know what a word is, but be mindful of the pitfalls!

Words, word senses and contextPart 2Word sensesConsider:I hurt my footbodypart the foot of the mountainbottom of high incline

Or:Kiser spalla minnhom (he broke a shoulder)bodypartGamlet sajjetta u faqqget spalla mis-sira(a lightning bolt broke off the main branch of a tree)main branch of a tree

These are different senses, but they are related: they both denote to the base of somethingAgain, related: the tree sense is derived from the bodypart sense.Word senses (II)Different senses of a word are semantically related

Grouped together in a traditional dictionary, in one lexical entry

Spalla n.f. (pl. spalel) 1. shoulder 2. one of the main branches in a tree(Aquilina, J. Concise Maltese-English Dictionary)

Foot n. (pl. feet) 1. part of the leg below the ankle. 2. base or bottom of something

Word Senses (III)Lexicographers make these entries using a number of conventions:Parts of the entry have the same grammatical category Senses in a lexical entry share a number of semantic properties.Different senses may be historically related.spalla (= tree branch) is derived from spalla (= shoulder)

Problems with pinning down sensesIts not always clear whether a word:has different senses, as in the case of foothas only one sense, but exhibits shades of meaning

Part of the problem is that word meanings have contextual dependencies

Context (I): CollocationContext can distinguish words with nearly identical meaning (near-synonyms)E.g. the adjectives big, large, great

A traditional dictionary (OED online):large adj. of considerable or relatively great size, extent, or capacity big adj. of considerable size, physical power, or extent great adj. of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above average

Context (I): CollocationTypical contexts of use for big:with concrete nouns: big man, big housewith descriptive adjectives: big black rat

Typical contexts of use for large:with abstract nouns: large number, large scale, large ratio, large amount

Typical contexts for great:great importance, great deal, great variety

NB: some of these contexts are shared. But some adjectives occur more frequently in some contexts.Context (I): CollocationWord combinations exhibit degrees of collocational strength

Often a result of frequency of usage.The adjective great became more strongly collocated with deal than large or big

This is a kind of fossilisation:Two words have (apparently) the same meaning, but their patterns of usage become fixed over time.

Context (II): Meaning shiftSometimes, the same word can display different shades of meaning in different contexts

Consider the patterns of occurrence of qawwi (strong or powerful)

Can you think of examples which show differences in meaning?Context (II): Meaning shiftThe word qawwi in different contexts:rael qawwi = big manbaar qawwi = rough seate qawwi = strong teainvestiment qawwi = a substantial investmentmaltemp qawwi = very stormy weatherebel tal-qawwi = a kind of limestone

These contexts seem to pull apart different meanings of the same word.

Context (II): meaning shiftThe 6 different uses of qawwi:Are these different semantic words?Are they five senses of the same word?(Aquilina lists 13 different senses)

Different uses have a lot in common:Qawwi always carries a notion of strength

Ambiguity and vaguenessPart 3AmbiguityA word is ambiguous if it has several distinct senses.

Example 1 (English):I built a run for my chickens.I go for a run before work.I hit a home run during the cricket match.

Example 2 (Maltese):Kibt id-dala tal-ktieb. (= I wrote the introduction to the book)Hemm dala fil-bajja. (= The bay has an inlet)Qed jirrestawraw id-dala tal-Birgu. (= Theyre restoring the entrance/city gate of Birgu)

2 & 3 both involve the physical act of running. Example 1 has a specialised meaning2 & 3 both denote some kind of entrance. Example 1 has a specialised meaning.Ambiguity vs. Vagueness (I)In context, a word can seem to have several distinct senses. Some may appear more related than others.

In our example:run1 = physical act of runningrun2 = place where fowl are kept

So run is 2-ways ambiguous (2 senses)

But run1 exhibits vagueness between a general sense of running, and the more specialised sense used in cricket.Ambiguity vs. vagueness (II)Similarly:

dala1 = entrance or inlet

dala2 = introduction to a text

2-ways ambiguous

dala1 is vague between the sense of entrance and that of inletAmbiguity vs. vagueness (III)...and for another example:

Theres a mole in my gardenmole1 = small, furry animal living underground

Theres a mole in the CIAmole2 = a spy

We can say that mole is 2-ways ambiguousAmbiguity vs. vagueness (IV)Ambiguity:In this case, the context will select one of the meanings/sensesWe often dont even notice ambiguity, because context clarifies the intended meaning.

Vagueness:Context adds information to the sense.Therefore the sense of the word itself doesnt contain all the information.It is underspecified.

Tests for ambiguity and vaguenessThere are some tests to decide whether meaning distinctions involve ambiguity or vagueness.

The do-so test of meaning identity

The synonymy or sense-relations testThe do-so test: preliminary exampleI ate a sandwich and Mary

The do-so construction is interpreted as identical to the preceding verb phraseSimilar constructions in Maltese:Kilt bia ob u anka MarijaKilt bia ob u Marija gamlet hekk ukoll.

did so toodid tooThe do-so test and meaning identityMain principle:if a particular sense is selected for a word in a verb phrase, it will also be the same sense in the do-so phrase

Therefore, very useful to test if two meanings are two distinct senses.

Do-so examplesLili gobitni d-dala u lil Jimmy wkoll(I liked the entrance/introduction and so did Jimmy)Suppose dala here = introductionIs it possible that I liked the introduction and Jimmy liked the entrance?If not, then these are two distinct senses or dala

I made a run and so did PriscillaIf I made a run = I ran, then Priscilla cannot have made a run for her chickens...So, again, these are two distinct senses of run.The sense relations testBasic principle:Words exhibit synonymy or similarity of meaning to other words. Therefore, if a word is ambiguous, we can substitute it for a similar word in the same context, and see if the meaning stays roughly the same.Sense relations examplesRecall:run1 = physical act of running (similar word: jog)run2 = a closed space for animals (similar word: enclosure)

Pete went for .

We cant substitute one set of words for another and still keep the same meaning. a run a jog*an enclosureSummaryStarted off with different definitions of a word: semantic, grammatical...Introduced the notion of a word senseDiscussed the notions of ambiguity (several word senses) and vagueness (single sense, with slight variations in context)Next lectureWe continue our investigation of lexical semantics by delving into lexical relations