Noga, Daniele Clarise P.

ENG 702 – Structure of English

MA ENG 1 Dr. Vivian A. Perez

SEMANTICS
Objectives:

By the end of this report, the listeners will be able to:

1. Differentiate semantics from pragmatics;

2. Identify the components and subcomponents of semantics that are involved in studying
meaning; and
3. Explain the importance of semantics in studying language.

1.0 Introduction

We are already through with and we have already learned about the components of language
concerned with the smallest to biggest units of sounds and how they are pronounced (phonology),
how they are transcribed (phonetics), how words are formed (morphology) down to how words are
arranged to form a coherent statement (syntax). Now, we are about to learn what meanings are
associated with words, phrases, and sentences. This study is called semantics.

According to Yule (2017), semantics is a study primarily focused on what words, phrases, and
sentences mean. In semantic analysis, there is always an attempt to focus on what the words
conventionally mean, rather than on what an individual speaker might think they mean, or want
them to mean, on a particular occasion. In reality, there are two areas concerned with the study of
meaning—semantics and pragmatics. However, semantics is more concerned with the
conventional or literal meaning, basically what the dictionary is designed for. Pragmatics, on the
other hand, focuses on the use of language in contextual situations (School of English, n.d.).

In this sense, it is important to note that we are going to focus on the referential meaning
rather than the associative meaning of words. Referential meaning has something to do with the
conventional meaning of a word, whereas associative meaning has something to do with the
meaning that speakers assign to it (Yule, 2017).

For this matter, we may take the word “apple” as an example. For the referential components
of apple, we have “the round fruit of a tree of the rose family, which typically has thin red or green
skin and crisp flesh” (Oxford Dictionaries). On the other hand, other meanings associated with apple
may include “temptation, knowledge, immortality” and many others—and these associations “may
differ from one person to another” (Yule, 2017). Hence, these meanings cannot be included in the
referential meaning of the word apple.

2.0 Semantic Features

Another way to account for the referential meaning would be to determine the “oddness” of
sentences such as the following:

The flower smelled the woman.

The bone chewed the dog.
The poem wrote Maddie.
The tree cut the woodcutter.
The eagle shot the hunter.
 Take note that these examples are grammatically correct; but semantically, they are weird.
Why? It is because there is no way that a flower would be able to smell a woman nor a bone to
chew a dog! It would have been grammatically and semantically acceptable if it was the other way
around (i.e. the woman smelled the flower and the dog chewed the bone). So in this case, it is
important to remember that aside from the grammatical or syntactic structure of a sentence, we
must also consider the semantic components of the entities that we will arrange in the sentence
(Yule, 2017).

Going back to the examples, we must remember that a sentence must make sense in terms of
meaning. And for this to happen, the subject must be an entity that is able to perform or is capable
to carrying out the verb used in the sentence. In this case, we are going to look the way to ensure
this. Although this is not commonly talked about because arranging sentences should already be
in “common sense”, this method can still help an individual distinguish the features of words
especially nouns that will go along with the verb used in the sentence.

For this, a table will be needed to map out the semantic features of each entity.

Lexicon Human Animal Male Female Young Adult

Bee - + + + + +
Priest + - + - - +
Sheep - + + + - +
Fowl - + + + + -
Infant + - + + + -

In these examples, we can see that in order to map out the semantic features of each lexicon,
we assigned particular features under which each lexicon may have as a characteristic or a feature.
Take note that not only the ones given above can be used as semantic features for lexicons. We
may also use animate/inanimate since not all subject and verbs need an animate entity for the
sentence to be semantically acceptable. This is one way on how we can identify how nouns can go
with particular verbs when forming a semantically acceptable sentence. Take a look at this example
again:

The _______________ designed the cake.

N [+human]
The _______________ ran over the catwalk.
N [+animate]

*From the examples above, we can say that the verb used in the sentence require the semantic
features being asked under each blank. That is why whenever we are testing the semantic
acceptability of a sentence, it is necessary to identify the verb used in the sentence to do so.

However, it is again important to note that not all words are easy to assign a semantic feature
to. According to Yule (2017), “this approach may be too restrictive and very limited in terms of
practical use”. It is because we cannot always believe that each word is a container of definite
meaning, and that features will always apply to whichever word.

Example: faith, argument, point

 Lexicon Human Animal Male Female Young Adult

Faith
Argument
Point

Note that these lexicons are all nouns, but if we are going to assign them with the semantic
features that we just did earlier, then we may encounter a bit of a difficulty.

3.0 Semantic Roles [also called thematic roles or case roles]

Drawing from the constraints presented in semantic features, maybe the best thing to do is not
to always regard lexicons as “containers of meaning”, something by which semantic features can
be associated to. Instead, why not think of these lexicons as entities that fulfill a “role”, especially in
a sentential level? That way, it would be easier to point out which entities in a sentence should go
along with the verb to make the sentence grammatically correct and semantically acceptable as
well, especially in the case of those mentioned in the exception in semantic features.

There are a few easy steps to identify the roles played by each entity in the sentence. First is
to identify the verb in the sentence. Everything else will be much easier if you can identify the
verb in any given sentence. Next is to determine the syntactic properties of each phrase in the
sentence. Which is the subject, the direct object, the indirect object, and the prepositional phrase?
Identifying these will be able to help you greatly when you proceed to the next step.

Take a look at this example:

a. The truck driver gives treats to children in the neighborhood every day.
noun phrase/ [verb] direct indirect prepositional phrase [adverb of time]
subject object object

Finally, it will be easier for you identify the semantic roles that each syntactic property
plays. In this case, the rule is that there must be ONLY ONE role played by each entity in a given
sentence. Let us now identify the different semantic roles that noun phrases in a sentence play and
give each an example:

1. Agent – this refers to the entity that performs the action.

Example: The boy kicked the ball.

In this example, the noun phrase “the boy” acts as the agent in the sentence since he is the
one who performed the action in the sentence.

2. Theme (sometimes called “patient”) – this is the entity being affected by the action.

Example: The boy kicked the ball.

In the same example, “the ball” is the theme since it was the entity being affected by the action
done by the agent.

3. Experiencer – the entity that undergoes an emotion, a state of being, or a perception by the
verb.

Example: Aly knew something was up.

 For this example, we cannot say that Aly is an agent. Rather, she is an experiencer since the
verb used in the sentence entails a perception. Other than the verb “know”, verbs that pertain
to the sensory organs (i.e. see, hear, smell, feel, taste), emotions (i.e. feel/felt), and perceptions
(i.e. think/thought, believe/believed, etc.) all presupposes that the semantic role taken by the
subject (for active sentences) is as an experiencer.

4. Instrument – the entity through which the action is carried out.

Example: He cut the ribbon using a small pair of scissors.

The noun phrase “a small pair of scissors” here act as the instrument since this entity was the
one used to cut the theme or the direct object which is the ribbon.

5. Goal – the direction towards which the action is headed to.

Example: She quickly passed the ball to Mark.

In this example, it is clear that “Mark” acts as the goal in the sentence.

6. Source – the direction from which the action originates.

Example: Hannah got these pair of earrings for me from an online store.

In the example, we can tell that the entity acting as the source there was the prepositional
phrase “from the online store”.

7. Location – this is where the action in the sentence takes place.

Example: He did the marriage proposal in Paris.

In this example, “in Paris” acts as the location since the action (the proposal) was done there.

8. Benefactive – the entity that receives a concrete or abstract element as a result of the action in
the sentence.

Example: She baked these cookies for her sick brother.

In the example, we can say that “her brother” acts as the benefactive in the sentence because
he was the one who received the cookies that his sister baked.

Additional notes:

Agents are usually the subject of a transitive, ditransitive, or intransitive verb. Goals, source,
location, benefactive, and instruments are normally embedded in a prepositional phrase (Aronow
& Bannar, n.d.). Also, it does not necessarily mean that having several semantic roles means that
every sentence must have all the following semantic roles we identified.

4.0 Lexical Relations

Not only can words be containers of meaning and be assigned to roles, they also have
relationships with one another. If you are going to look at it, we often explain the meaning of a
particular word based on their relationship with another word.

Take these statements for example:

(1) “Mom what does hideous mean?”

(2) “Oh, it’s the same as ugly”.
 More often than not, we use words or lexicon that either have the same related meaning as the
lexicon in question to explain their definition. Sometimes, we use the opposite term to explain the
meaning of a word. For example, when a child asks what the the word worst means, we sometime
explain it as “worst is the opposite of best”. In other words, we characterize words not in terms of
their features but in terms of their relationship. This analysis is called lexical relations.

Let us look at the different lexical relations:

A. Synonymy – this refers to two or more words with closely related meanings; can, but not
always, be substituted for each other in sentences.

Example: answer, reply, reaction, response

*Note: There are synonyms in which you cannot just use interchangeably such as beautiful,
gorgeous, pretty, good-looking, pleasing to the eyes, breathtaking, cute since they are
believed to be used depending on the context (in most cases, according to the level of
beauty the speaker gives for the entity they see)

B. Antonymy – this refers to two forms with opposite meanings.

Example: beautiful/ugly
Hot/cold
Bitter/sweet

*Also, antonyms can be further classified into three: gradable, non-gradable, and
reversives.

Gradable antonyms are defined as antonyms that can be used in a comparative manner,
that having a degree of comparison. They can also be described as “opposites along a scale”
(Yule, 2017).
Example: small, smaller, smallest/ big, bigger, biggest
Safe, safer, safest/ dangerous, more dangerous, most dangerous

On the other hand, non-gradable antonyms or complementary pairs are antonyms that
are considered direct opposites and thus cannot be used for a comparative degree.
Example: alive/dead married/single male/female true/false

*One way to determine a non-gradable antonym is to do a “negative test”. Simply do it like

this. If you say “My dog is not alive anymore”, then one can get the idea that your dog is already
dead. Or when one exclaims “That is not true!” then those that hear it can automatically think
that whatever the speaker was referring to then is false. Of course, in non-gradable antonyms,
one cannot say true, truer, and truest or dead, deader and deadest as that would be absurd.

Finally, reversives are antonyms that are considered the reverse action of the other. This
type of anytonym cannot be described with neither a scale (such as is gradable antonyms) nor
a negative test (as that of non-gradable antonym. This is simply a literal reversal of something.
Example: follow/unfollow like/unlike enter/exit raise/lower

C. Hyponymy – this has something to do with the meaning of one form is included in the meaning
of another. Also, in hyponymy, connections are in a form of hierarchal relationship.
Example: animal-cat feline-tiger house-bungalow type

 Superordinates – are what are call the higher level term

Example:
 Image source: Google

 Co-hyponyms – these are the words sharing the same superordinate.

Referring to the example above, diamond, emerald, and ruby are the co-hyponyms for the
superordinate gemstones.

*Finally, hyponyms do not only include nouns, it may also be applied to verbs.
Example: sauté, fry, boil, and broil can be considered as the hyponyms of the superordinate
cook.

D. Prototypes – the idea of “characteristic instance” of a category.

Example: when asked to think of a car, you may think of Ford, Kia, Honda, and the likes.
But then what makes it a prototype is the image that you see in yourself and the one that you
associate the most characteristics of a car is what you call a prototype.

E. Homophones – these are different words with two or more spelling but the same pronunciation.
Example: eight/ate wait/weight meat/meet to/too/two
*Although they have different and distinct meanings of their own, they are pronounced the
same—same vowel length, same voiced/non-voiced consonant.

F. Homonyms – these are words that have the same spelling but different meaning
Example: bat (flying creature) – bat (an elongated rod used in softball/baseball)
mole (a mark on one’s face or body) – mole (an animal)
pen ( a writing instrument) – pen (an enclosed space)

*However much we think or believe that the abovementioned words are related to their
homonyms, no, they are not. Homonyms are “words that have separate histories and have
accidentally come to have the exact same form” (Yule, 2017).

G. Polysemy – this refers to words with the same form with related meanings. Also, polysemy is
defined as one form having multiple meanings that are all related by extension
Example: head – may refer to our head, head of an organization, head of a group, head of
a nail, head of an animal, etc.

*Note that there are words that can be classified under homonyms and/or polysemy as well.
Example: date (as in a calendar) or (an appointed day in the calendar)
Both polysemy
or (an arranged meeting agreed upon by two people, [i.e. romantic date])
homonym

H. Word Play – for this one, the last three types of lexical relations (homophones, homonyms,
and polysemy) are the basis for this. Word play is usually intended for humor (i.e. pun).
Example: "Your argument is sound, nothing but sound." – Benjamin Franklin
- in this example, we notice the use of the first word “sound” as having the
meaning of a logical and reasonable argument. But in the second use of
“sound” we know that this means the literal “sound” pertaining to a noise
that is just uttered to be heard, not listened to.

“My rooster could not make it to the cockfight. Maybe he chickened out.”
 - In this example, we know that rooster can also be considered as chicken
and chicken out as back out from something due to intimidation or fear.
Thus, the word play for “chicken”.

I. Metonymy – this lexical relation refers to using a part to refer to a whole.

Example: I like your wheels, it’s cool!
- Notice that in this example, the word wheels was used to refer to the car
as a whole. Not literally a wheel, but this part used to generalize the car as
a whole.

If you can save even one soul, then that’s all that I can ask for.

- Now in this example, it did not literally mean a soul or s spirit, but instead,
just like the previous example, the word “soul” was used to refer to a whole
individual, a whole person.

5.0 Collocations
Although this part may not be somewhat related to the previous ones that we have discussed,
have you ever wondered why there are certain words or entities that when they are mentioned,
people automatically think about another entity to exist with that entity that was just mentioned?

Take for example these pairs:

- Hammer/nail
- Bread/butter
- Salt/pepper

*Note that these are the usual entities that take place with each other. This may be explained
through the notion that we tend to organize our knowledge of words on the basis of collocation, or
basically occurring together.

6.0 Summary
Covering the entire subfield of semantics in one sitting will prove impossible so learning the
basics about it would be the best thing to do. Also, people may find these things as obvious and
common sense already, but it is still better to learn to look at things in a deeper sense in order to
explain why and how language is structured the way it is. And as simple and obvious meaning may
appear, the intricacies and interrelatedness the notions and theories within this concept may still
prove difficult in breaking down a language into “simpler” bits. Hence, it is a good thing that not only
sound patterns or word formation or sentence arrangement rules or analysis of meaning are being
studied in linguistics as of now. We must continue to expand the knowledge in and of language in
order to maybe one day discover the definite connection one language has to another language.
 REFERENCES

Aronow, R. & Bannar, K. (n.d.). Semantics: Thematic roles. LingNet.

https://www.linguisticsnetwork.com/semantics-thematic-roles/

School of English. (n.d.) What is pragmatics? https://all-about-linguistics.group.shef.ac.uk/branches-

of-linguistics/pragmatics/what-is-pragmatics/

Yule, G. (2017). Semantics. In The study of language (Sixth Edition). Cambridge University Press.