Monday, December 1, 2008

Semantics & Pragmatics

Hi all,


How's life…?

I'm very proud of you of being active in finding some examples of the morphological process happening to some words around us. Two thumbs up…

Please wait till next week for my review of your examples…


Now, since some of you ask about what to discuss in semantics & pragmatics, I am now giving you some points to consider.


Basically, it talks about meaning. So, please cover the following in our discussion:

  • Definition (what it studies)
  • Meaning:
    • Types of Meaning
    • Relation of Meaning: Synonymy, Antonym, Homonymy, etc.
    • Components of meaning



This discusses the real use of language as a means of communication. For our discussion, please talk about:

  • Definition
  • Focus and Contents of Pragmatics
    • Deixis
    • Presupposition
    • Cooperative Principles
    • Implicature

For reference, you can read: Jenny Thomas's Meaning in Interaction, Levinson's Pragmatics, Mey's Pragmatics: An Introduction. I believe you can find them all in the library.


OK… see you in the discussion.


dhianwidhi said...

I've tried over and over to get in to your blog, but your blog did not find. finally, this time I can come in...
i want to ask you,
what the different meaning between :
"I do hope"
"I hope"

"bring back it to me"
"bring it back to me"

is this case belong to Linguistic?
I'm sorry if my question out of your subject.

miss purple said...

Good morning, Sir...

Next Thursday,my group will present our presentation about semantics. I have a question, Sir... Could you please tell me what components of meaning are? We are still confused about it.


the hurricane dodik said...

I have some questions for you about pragmatics.
1, In learning pragmatics, should we look at the fact or situation outside the language to get better approach?
2, Could you please tell me the books or websites that can be used effectively to learn pragmatics?

Thank you sir....

dodik s

siti said...

Presupposition is something the speaker assumes to be the case prior to making an utterance (Yule, 1996: 27). It can be considered as a thing that is assumed to be true before it is proved by participants of speech event. Presupposition has to be owned by the speaker and the hearer in the same concept.
a. My computer is broken.
b. My computer is not broken.
c. I have a computer.
The sentence of example (c) is a presupposition of the sentence of example (a) and (b). Although the two sentences (a) and (b) have opposite meaning, the underlying presupposition “I have a car” remains true for both.

An implicature is anything that is inferred from an utterance but that is not a condition for the truth of the utterance.
“Some girls were wearing Kebaya at the Ceremony last Monday”. The sentence implicates in most contexts “Not all of the girls were at the ceremony”.
There are two kinds of Implicature:
a. Conventional Impicatures
are not based on the cooperative principle or the maxims, do not have to occur in conversation, do not depend on special contexts for the interpretation.
Two speakers are talking about Pragmatic lesson in a hospital, at the same time there is a doctor hearing their conversation but the he does not understand what they are talking about.
b. Conversational Implicature
Conversational Implicature classified into two:
- Generalized Conversational Implicature ; an implicature arises without any particular context or special scenario being necessary.
Ali : “Did you invite Bella and Mary?”
Eko : “I invite Bella.”
The implied meaning is that Eko did not like Mary.
- Particular Conversational implicature; an implicature needs a specific context.
Ida : “Coming to the Rina’s birthday?”
Lia : ”My mother is sick.”
Lia will spend her time to take care of her mother due to sick. Lia’s utterance implicates that Lia is not the Rina’s birthday.

Siti Nur Chasanah, C1307531

belleringer said...

Presupposition and implicature is elements of pragmatic. Both of them is study of relation between language and context that are basic to an account of language understanding ( Levinson: 1985-21 ).

a presupposition is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse.

Dewi regrets that she stopped doing linguistics before she left Cambridge
1.There is someone uniquely identifiable to speaker and addressee as Dewi.
2.Dewi stopped doing linguistics before he left Cambridge.
3.Dewi was doing linguistics before he left Cambridge.
4.Dewi left Cambridge.
5.Dewi had been at Cambridge.

implicature is unambiguous account of how it is possible to mean more than what is actually said.
The expression Some of the girls were at the party implicates in most contexts Not all of the girls were at the party.


gunzgunz said...

In the linguistic branch of pragmatics, a presupposition is the act of presupposing, an antecedent implication and presumption. A presupposition must be mutually known by the speaker and hearer for the utterance to be considered appropriate in context.

importantly, contradiction of an expression does not change its presuppositions,
1. I want to do it again
2. I don't want to do it again

Both presuppose that the subject has done it already one or more times.

The aspect of meaning that a speaker conveys, implies, or suggests without directly expressing. Implicature provides some explicit account of how it is possible to mean more than what is actually said.
1. Can you pass the sugar ?
Although the utterance “Can you pass the sugar?” is exactly a request for information about one's ability to pass sugar, the understood implicature is a request for sugar.

2. Ani: How is the condition of Tina's mother?
Andi: I saw a red flag on the way to her house now.
It seem that there is no relation between the question and the answer. Andi's utterance implicates that Tina's mother is died. If there is no mutual knowledge or the knowledge of world on both participants, the communication fails because it seems that Andi does not fulfill Grice's theory (cooperative principles of conversation) there are, the maxim of quality, maxim of quantity, maxim of relevance, maxim of manner. These maxims are not arbitrary conventions, but rather describe rational means for conducting cooperative exchanges.


elsilencio said...

Mr. Depe,

'd like to try give an explanation of implicature and presupposition..


implicature is anything that is inferred from an utterance but that is not a condition for the truth of the the other word implicature provide more meaning or different meaning.

Example:some people believe that junk food is dangerous..
In this case we can conclude that not everyone believe that junk food be dangerous..


Presupposition is a presupposition is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for fixed in speech

example:Deny no longer drinks alcohol after he married ..

a. Deny drinks alcohol for once
b. Deny is a alcoholic before he married
c. Deny is married

thank u very much

Adhitiya [C1306028]

lavida212 said...

Hi Mr. Depe
A presupposition is background belief, relating to an utterance, that Must be mutually known or assumed by the speaker and addressee for the utterance to be considered appropriate in context
Guffy no longer eat my mom’s shoes again after it smashed by broomstick.
Guffy is naughty dog.
Guffy eat my mom’s shoes.
Guffy smashed by broomstick.

Implicatures is the idea that meaning is not homogenous; i.e. that it can be divided into different layers, and that it involves the integration between different systems of rules, principles, turned out to be very useful in the formulation and description of meaning theories, and it has a long history.
Frege (1892) Example:

Napoleon, who recognized the danger to his right flank, himself led his guards against the enemy position.

According to Frege, this sentence expresses two thoughts, the thought that Napoleon recognized the danger to his right flanks, and the thought that Napoleon himself led his guards against the enemy position. The implication that the knowledge of the danger was the reason why Napoleon led the guards against the enemy, is probably
true also in cases where there is no causal connection between the two parts of sentence.

Oscar M.W