Unit 1:

Linguistics has 3 main branches:

●​ Syntax: is the study of grammar (consisting of phonology, morphology,
syntax, and textual grammar)
●​ Semantics: is the study of meaning in language (i.e., what language means)
●​ Pragmatics: is concerned with meaning in context (i.e., what people mean by
the language they use)
●​ Semantic meaning is context-free, whereas pragmatic meaning is
context-dependent.

E.g:
A: "Would you like a piece of cake?"
B: "I'm on a diet."
Semantic meaning: "I want to lose weight by eating food that is not rich in
fat, sugar, etc."
Pragmatic meaning: "I don't want any piece of cake. I'm afraid I have to
refuse your invitation."

Tom: "Do you like the wine I picked out?" +-+-

Gina: "It's Italian, isn't it?"
Semantic meaning: "Is it right that the wine is made in Italy?"
Pragmatic meaning: "I don't like the wine you picked out."

Unit 2:
Speaker meaning vs sentence meaning
●​ Speaker meaning is what the speaker means when he uses a piece of
language.
●​ Sentence meaning (or word meaning) is what a sentence (or word)
means, i.e., what it counts as the equivalent of in the language
concerned.
Semantic features
●​ Semantic feature = semantic component = semantic property (nét
nghĩa).
●​ A semantic feature is the basic unit of meaning in a word.
●​ We identify the meaning of a word by its semantic features.
E.g.: "father"
●​ [+ human]
●​ [+ male]
●​ [+ mature]
●​ [+ parental]

Characteristics
1. Some semantic features need not be specifically mentioned
For example, if a word is [+human], it is automatically [+ animal]
can be expressed as a redundancy rule.
2. Different words may share the same semantic feature
Eg: doctor, engineer, teacher, physicist, chemist, tailor, hairdresser, etc.:
[professional]
3. The same semantic feature can occur in words of different parts of speech.
Eg: [+female] is part of the meaning of the noun mother, the verb
breast-feed, and the adjective pregnant.
[+educational]: school, teacher, textbook, teach, educate, instruct, etc.
●​ Semantics is a technical term used to refer to the study of meaning,
and since meaning is a part of language, semantics is part of
linguistics.

Three main aspects in semantics:

●​ Word meaning (= lexical meaning)
●​ Sentence meaning
●​ Utterance meaning
'Remarried' was analysed in the three different levels:
●​ Word level: is a set of the four following semantic features: [+human],
[male], [+used to be married], and [+married again].
●​ Sentence level: "She is not remarried": only the fourth semantic feature
[+married again], is informative, (is part of the statement).
●​ Utterance level: "How is the pastor?" " He's remarried."
The word helps the utterance presuppose that the pastors are allowed by rule
to get married and implies that the pastor was once married.
 Utterances
●​ An utterance is any stretch of talk, by one person, before and after
which there is silence on the part of that person.
●​ An utterance is the use by a particular speaker, on a particular
occasion, of a piece of language, such as a sequence of sentences, or a
single phrase, or even a single word.
●​ Utterances are physical events. Events are ephemeral. Utterances die
on the wind.

Sentences
●​ A sentence is a string of words put together by the grammatical rules
of a language, expressing a complete thought.
●​ A sentence can be thought of as the ideal string of words behind
various realizations in utterances and inscriptions.
Examples
Jane: "Coffee?" ("Would you like some coffee?")
Steve: "Sure!" ("I'm sure to love it")
Jane: "White? ("Would you like (black coffee or) white coffee?")
Steve: "Black" ("I'd like black coffee, please.")

Proposition
(mệnh đề, nghĩa của câu)
●​ A proposition is that part of the meaning of the utterance of a
declarative sentence which describes some state of affairs
●​ The state of affairs typically involves persons or things referred to by
expressions in the sentence, and the situation or action they are
involved in
●​ In uttering a declarative sentence, a speaker typically asserts a
proposition.
 Characteristics
●​ The notion of TRUTH can be used to decide whether two sentences
express different propositions. In any circumstances, one sentence is
TRUE, the other is FALSE.
=> they express different propositions.
●​ True propositions correspond to facts. False propositions do not
correspond to facts.
●​ Propositions, unlike sentences, cannot be said to belong to any
particular language.
●​ Sentences in different languages can correspond to the same
proposition if the two sentences are perfect translations of each other.

Utterances Sentences Propositions

Can be loud or + - -
quiet

Can be + + -
grammatical or
not

Can be true or + + +
false

In a particular + - -
regional accent

In a particular + + -
language

A proposition is an abstraction that can be grasped by the mind of an

individual person.
A proposition is an object of thought.
●​ Thoughts => mental processes
●​ Propositions => abstract semantics entities
●​ Sentences => linguistic entities
●​ Utterances => actions
Normally, when a speaker utters a simple declarative sentence, he asserts the
proposition.
By uttering a simple interrogative or imperative, a speaker can mention a
particular proposition without asserting its truth.
E.g:
"John can go." => asserts the proposition that John can go.
"Can John go?" => mentions the same proposition but merely questions its
truth.
●​ A single proposition could be expressed by using several different
sentences, and each of these sentences could be uttered an infinite
number of times.
E.g.:
Prince William will inherit the throne.

Unit 3:
Sense properties of sentences
●​ The notions analytic, synthetic, and contradiction each apply to
individual sentences. Analyticity, syntheticity, and contradiction are,
then, sense properties of sentences.
●​ The sense of an expression is its indispensable hard core of meaning.
●​ The sense of an expression can be thought of as the sum of its sense
properties and sense relations with other expressions.

Sense properties: definition

●​ An analytic sentence is one that is necessarily true, as a result of the
senses of the words in it.
●​ A synthetic sentence is one that is not analytic, but may be either true
or false, depending on the way the world is. e.g.: John is from Ireland is
a synthetic sentence
●​ A contradiction is a sentence that is necessarily false, as a result of the
senses of the words in it. Thus, a contradiction is in a way the opposite
of an analytic sentence.
 Referent, Reference, and Sense
●​ Sense deals with relationships inside the language.
●​ Reference deals with relationships between language and the world.
●​ By means of reference, a speaker indicates which things/persons in
the world are being talked about.
●​ Referent: the referent of an expression is often a thing or a person in
the world.
E.g: this page.
●​ Reference: the relationships between language and the world.
E.g: Peter's house —---- The house that belongs to Peter.

Types of reference
●​ Variable reference: when one linguistic expression refers to different
referents.
●​ Constant reference: when one linguistic expression refers to the same
referent.
E.g: the sun, the moon, Halley's comet, the People's Republic of China,
Angola, the United Nations, UNESCO, etc.
●​ Co-reference: when two or more linguistic expressions share the same
referent.
E.g: in a conversation about Britain, the Prime Minister and the leader of the
Conservative Party share the same referent: Mrs. Thatcher
The Morning Star and the Evening Star (both refer to the planet Venus)

Sense - relationship inside the language

●​ The sense of a word shows the internal relationship between that word
and others in the vocabulary of a language.
Eg: bachelors: unmarried men
The teacher and student have the sense relationship
●​ Of the former is the one who gives a lesson and
●​ The latter is the one who has the lesson given by the former

Relationship between reference and sense

Eg: The King of Vietnam is bald.
=> has some sense.
=> has no reference (the King of Vietnam does not exist nowadays).
●​ The sense of an expression is its place in a system of semantic
relationships with other expressions in the language.
●​ An act of referring is the picking out of a particular referent by a
speaker in the course of a particular utterance.
●​ The words meaning, means, mean, meant, etc., are sometimes used to
indicate reference and sometimes to indicate sense.

Denotation vs Connotation
●​ The denotation (= denotative meaning = referential meaning) of a
word is the core or central meaning of the word found in the
dictionary.
●​ The connotation (= connotative meaning) of a word is the additional
meaning that the word has beyond its denotative meaning. It shows
people's emotions and/or attitudes towards what the word refers to.
Example:
"Child"

Denotative Connotative

[+ human] [+ affectionate]

[- mature] [+ innocent]

[+-male] [+ noisy]

"Woman"

Denotative Connotative

[+ human] [+ devoted]

[+ mature] [+ patient]

[+ female] [+ wicked]
 [+ talkative]
Example: "fox"
Almost always has a connotation in English.
Is associated with any person who is cunning and deceitful.

Types of Connotations
●​ Positive connotations (+)
●​ Neutral connotations (Ø)
●​ Negative connotation (-)
Eg:
mother (+), woman (Ø), witch (-)
Slender (+), thin (Ø), skinny (-)
Die (Ø), pass away (+), kick the bucket (-)

Unit 4:
Referring expression
●​ A referring expression is any expression used in an utterance to refer
to sth or s.o, i.e., used with a particular referent in mind (ngữ đoạn có
sở chỉ, biểu thức quy chiếu).
Eg:
"Fred hit me."
●​ The speaker has a particular person in mind.
●​ Fred is a referring expression.
"There's no Fred at this address."
●​ Not a referring expression.
●​ The speaker would not have a particular person in mind when uttering
the word.
The same expression can be a referring expression or not, depending on the
context. This is true of indefinite noun phrases (i.e., indefinite noun phrases
can be referring expressions)
Whether an expression is a referring expression is heavily dependent on
linguistic context and on the circumstances of utterance.
Example:
'Nancy married a Norwegian.'
"Nancy wants to marry a Norwegian.'
●​ Add the word certain to resolve ambiguities.

Definite noun phrases

●​ Definite noun phrases of various kinds, proper names, personal
pronouns, and longer descriptive expressions can all be used as
referring expressions.
●​ However, there are examples in which they are not (or not clearly)
referring expressions.
Eg: 'Smith's murderer must be insane.'

Equative sentence
●​ An equative sentence is one which is used to assert the identity of the
referents of two referring expressions, i.e., to assert that two referring
expressions have the same referent.
E.g.: Tony Blair is the Prime Minister.
That woman over there is my daughter's teacher.
●​ The order of the two referring expressions can be reversed without
loss of acceptability.
E.g.: The largest city in Africa is Cairo.
Cairo is the largest city in Africa.
●​ However, the 'reversal test' applied here is not a perfect diagnostic for
equative sentences.
"What I need is a pint of Guinness."
=> 'a pint of Guinness' is not a referring expression, though the sentence is
reversible.
"That is the man who kidnapped my boss."
"The man who kidnapped my boss is that" is unacceptable
=> This sentence is equative, but is not reversible.
●​ Equative sentences can be false:
E.g.: Henry the Eighth is the current President of the USA.
●​ Equative sentences: câu đồng nhất (Ha noi is the capital of Vietnam)
●​ Ambiguous sentences: câu lưỡng nghĩa (Visiting relatives can be
boring)
 ●​ Generic sentence: câu chung (The whale is a mammal. Dogs are
animals)
Unit 5:
Predicates
●​ A predicate is any word (or sequence of words) that (in a given single
sense) can function as the predicator of a sentence.
E.g.: hungry, in, crook, asleep, hit, show, bottle => are all predicates.
And, or, but, not => are not predicates.
E.g.: Cairo is in Africa.
Cairo is dusty.
Cairo is a large city.
=> in, dusty, city are predicates.

Referring expression
●​ A referring expression is any expression used in an utterance to refer
to sth or someone, i.e., used with a particular referent in mind.

Eg: Fred hit me.

=> The speaker has a particular person in mind.
●​ Any expression that can be used to refer to any entity in the real world
or in any imaginary world will be called a referring expression.

E.g.: God, Moses, that unicorn.

The distinction between referring expressions and predicates is absolute:
●​ There is not a continuum running from proper names at one end to
verbs and prepositions at the other.

E.g.: My dog bit the postman.

Mrs. Wraith is waiting for the downtown bus.
=> Contain one or more referring expressions.
=> Plus some other words that do not form part of any of the referring
expressions.
 Predicator (vị tố)
●​ The predicator of a simple declarative sentence is the word or group of
words that does not belong to any of the referring expressions and
which, of the remainder, makes the most specific contribution to the
meaning of the sentence.
●​ The predicator describes the state or process in which the referring
expressions are involved.

E.g.: Mummy is asleep

=> asleep: predicator, describes the state Mummy is in.

E.g.: The white man loves the Indian maiden.

=> loves: predicator, describes the process in which the two referring
expressions are involved.

E.g.: Jimmy was waiting for the downtown bus.

=> wait for: predicator, describes the process..... involving Jimmy and the
downtown bus.

The predicators can be of various parts of speech:

=> Adjectives
=> Verbs
=> Prepositions
=> Nouns
●​ Semantically, they all share the property of being able to function as
the predicators of sentences.
●​ Words of other parts of speech (conjunctions, articles) cannot serve as
predicators in sentences.

The semantic analysis of simple declarative sentences reveals two major

semantic roles played by different subparts of the sentence:
●​ The role of predicator (vị tố, vị tố của câu nói là phần còn lại sau khi
loại bỏ các biểu thức quy chiếu).
●​ The role of arguments, played by the referring expression(s) (tham thể).
 Note: two parenthesized conditions
1.​ ‘(or sequence of words)’: is for examples like wait for, in front of:
longer than one word, but seems sensible to analyse as a single
predicate.
2.​ '(in a given single sense)': illustrates a degree of abstractness in the
notion of a predicate.
=> A word can be ambiguous
=> The term 'predicate' does not allow a predicate to be ambiguous.
=> A predicate can have only one sense.

Predicate and Predicator

●​ The term ‘predicate’ identifies elements in the language system,
independently of particular example sentences.
●​ The term ‘predicator’ identifies the semantic role played by a
particular word (or group of words) in a particular sentence. In this
way, it is similar to the grammatical term 'subject'.
●​
Example
"A beautiful young woman left a baby."
=> Beautiful is a predicate.
=> Young is a predicate.
=> Woman is a predicate.
=> Baby is a predicate.
=> Leave is a predicator.
Alice is beautiful.
=> Beautiful is a predicator.
Alice is young.
=> Young is a predicator.
Alice is a woman.
=> Woman is a predicator.
It is a baby.
=> Baby is a predicator.
!!! In a sentence, there is only a predicator. In other sentences, a predicator
may be predicates.

Predicator and Argument

Eg: "Alice visited the pagoda."
=> Alice is an argument. (referring expression).
=> Visit is a predicator.
=> Pagoda is an argument (referring expression).

Eg: A tall, handsome stranger entered the saloon.

●​ One predicator: ENTER.
●​ Predicates: TALL, HANDSOME, STRANGER, SALOON.
=> These predicates can function as predicators in other sentences ( John is
tall, He is handsome, He is a stranger, That ramshackle building is a saloon).

Eg: Martin Luther King is a patriot.

●​ When we talk about Martin Luther King, we have his image in our
minds. So Martin Luther King is a referring expression.
●​ When we pronounce patriot, we have no image in our minds, although
it makes sense.
=> Patriot is called a predicator.

Eg: He yawns.
=> ‘He’ is a referring expression. ‘Yawn’ is called a predicator. It makes sense.
Eg: Alice is in the classroom.
=> ‘Alice’, ‘the classroom’ is a referring expression. ‘In’ is a predicator.
E.g.: He is a Japanese.
=> ‘He’ is a referring expression. ‘Japanese’ is a predicator.
●​ In a sentence, there are two major semantic roles: a referring
expression and a predicator.
●​ A predicator may be an adjective, a verb, a preposition, or a noun, but
it must not be a referring expression.
●​ In a sentence, there must be a predicator.
 The degree of predicates
●​ The degree of a predicate is a number indicating the number of
arguments (tham thể) it is normally understood to have in simple
sentences.
E.g.: asleep (He falls asleep)
=> degree one, one-place predicate.
E.g.: love ( John loves Anna)
=> degree two, two-place predicate.
Three-place predicates
●​ There are a few three-place predicates; the verb ‘give’ is the best
example.
E.g.: Herod gave Salome a nice present.
=> There are 3 referring expressions in this sentence.

Summary of predicate and predicator

●​ The predicates of a language have a completely different function from
the referring expressions.
●​ The roles of these two kinds of meaning-bearing elements cannot be
exchanged.
E.g.: John is a bachelor. Makes good sense.
Bachelor is a John. Makes no sense at all.
●​ Language is used to talk about the real world, and can be used to talk
about an infinite variety of abstractions, and even of entities in an
imaginary, unreal world.
●​ Predicates do not refer, but they can be used by a hearer when
contained in the meaning of a referring expression, to identify the
referent of that expression.

Unit 6:
Generic sentence
●​ A generic sentence is a sentence in which some statement is made
about a whole unrestricted class of individuals as opposed to any
particular individual.
Eg: The whale is a mammal.
=> Generic sentence
That whale over there is a mammal.
=> Not a generic sentence.
●​ Language is used for talking about things in the real world.
●​ Language can also create unreal worlds and allows us to talk about
non-existent things.
●​ Reference is a relationship between part of an utterance and a thing in
the world.
●​ There exists a relationship exactly like reference between a part of an
utterance and non-existent things. Eg: unicorn
●​ Semantics is concerned with the meanings of words and sentences.
●​ To avoid insoluble disagreements between atheists and theist
semanticists, a broad interpretation of the notion of referring
expression is adopted.
=> So that any expression that can be used to refer to any entity in the real
world or in any imaginary world will be called a referring expression.
●​ Reference => physical objects: John, my chair, the cat, Cairo.
●​ Referring expression: tomorrow, the British national anthem, eleven
hundred, the distance between the Earth and the Sun, etc.
=> These things are not physical objects, but language treats these
expressions as referring expressions.

Universe of discourse (thế giới diễn ngôn)

Universe of discourse is defined for any utterance as the particular world,
real or imaginary (or part real, part imaginary), that the speaker assumes he
is talking about at the time.
E.g: 'The Earth revolves around the Sun'.
=> The universe of discourse is the real world.
‘The dragon sets fire to the woods with his hot breath’.
=> The universe of discourse is not the real world but a fictitious world.
●​ Speakers use referring expressions to refer to entities which may be
concrete or abstract, real or fictitious.
●​ Semantics is not concerned with the factual status of things in the
world but with meaning in language.
Same and different universes of discourse (khác thế giới diễn ngôn)
Time traveller from the eighteenth century:
"Is the King of France on good terms with the Tsar of Russia?"
Twenty-first-century person: "Huh?"

Summary of the universe of discourse

●​ Speakers use referring expressions to refer to entities which may be
concrete or abstract, real or fictitious.
●​ The predicate embedded in a referring expression helps the hearer to
identify its referent.
●​ Semantics is not concerned with the factual status of things in the
world but with meaning in language.
●​ The notion universe of discourse accounts for the way in which
language allows us to refer to non-existent things.

Unit 7:
Deictic words (từ trực chỉ)
●​ A deictic word is one which takes some elements of its meaning from
the context or situation i.e., the speaker, the addressee, the time and
the place) of the utterance in which it is used.
E.g.: Ben Heasley says "I've lost the contract" → refers to Ben Heasley.
●​ In addition to deictic words ( such as here, now, come, bring), there are
certain grammatical devices called tenses for indicating past, present,
and future time, which must also be regarded as deictic
E.g.: I first met my wife in the year 1993 → the date of the utterance is after
1993.
●​ The truth of a sentence containing a deictic expression can only be
considered in relation to some hypothetical situation of utterance.
●​ Deictic expressions are those that take some element of their meaning
directly from the immediate situation of the utterance in which they
are used
Examples: 1, You, here, now, come.
Context: Definition
The context of an utterance is:
 -​ a small subpart of the universe of discourse shared by speaker and
hearer, and
-​ includes facts about the topic of the conversation in which the
utterance occurs, and also
-​ facts about the situation in which the conversation itself takes place.

Definiteness
●​ Definiteness is a feature of a noun phrase selected by a speaker to
convey his assumption that the hearer will be able to identify the
referent of the noun phrase, usually it is the only thing of its kind in
the context of the utterance, or because it is unique in the universe of
discourse.
E.g., That book (is definite, it can only appropriately be used when the
speaker assumes the hearer can tell which book is being referred to)
The Earth is definite.
●​ Definiteness is a feature of a noun phrase selected by a speaker to
convey his assumption that the hearer will be able to identify the
referent of the noun phrase, usually it is the only thing of its kind in
the context of the utterance, or because it is unique in the universe of
discourse.

Unit 8:
Extension and Prototypes
●​ The extension of a one-place predicate is the set of all individuals to
which that predicate can truthfully be applied.
E.g.: The extension of 'window ' is the set of all windows in the universe.
The extension of 'red' is the set of all red things.
Extension: nghĩa rộng.
Prototype: nguyên mẫu, điển dạng.
●​ Extension and prototype in certain ways bridge the conceptual and
theoretical gap between sense and reference.
Ex: How the notions of sense and reference are related to each other in
determining the meaning of a linguistic expression.
 Extension
●​ An extension is the set of physical objects.
●​ Extension contrasts with sense, since a sense is not a set of anything.
●​ Extension contrasts with referent, since a referent is normally an
individual thing, not a set of things.
●​ Besides these contrasts, the notion of extension has similarities to that
of sense, on the one hand, and to that of reference, on the other hand.
●​ Extension is like sense, and unlike reference, in that it is independent
of any particular occasion of utterance.
●​ On the other hand, extension is like reference and unlike sense, in that
it
●​ connects a linguistic unit (word/expression) to sth non-linguistic
(outside language).
bang
●​ Extensions are relative to all times, past, present and future. The
extension of the window includes all past Windows, all present
Windows and all future Windows.
●​ Predicates are tenseless, i.e., unspecified for past, present, or future.
●​ In actual use, predicates are almost always accompanied in sentences
by a marker of tense (past, present or future).
●​ These have the effect of restricting the extensions of the predicate they
modify.
Eg: the extension of the phrase is dead could be said to be the set of all things
which are dead at the time of utterance.
Eg: MAN
=> A man of medium height, average build, 30-50 years old, brownish hair...
=> could be a prototype of the predicate man in certain areas of the world.
=> A dwarf → cannot be a prototype of the predicate man.

Referent, Extension, Prototype

●​ The referent of a referring expression is the thing picked out by the use
of that expression on a particular occasion of utterance.
 ●​ The extension of a predicate is the complete set of all things which
could potentially (i.e. in any possible utterance) be the referent of a
referring expression whose head constituent is that predicate.
●​ A prototype of a predicate is a typical member of its extension.
●​ Reference, extension, and prototype all focus attention on the
relationship between words and things.
●​ In many cases, denotation can be thought of as equivalent to extension.
●​ Extension and prototype in certain ways bridge the conceptual and
theoretical gap between sense and reference.
Sense Extension Reference

Involves a set - + -

Independent of + + -
particular
occasions or
utterance

Connects - + +
language to the
world

Prototype and Stereotype

●​ The two terms are often used interchangeably.
●​ More to be introduced in the next unit.
●​
Summary
●​ Reference, extension and prototype all focus attention on the
relationship between words and things.
●​ Language does not exist in a vacuum.
●​ It is used to make statements about the world outside.
●​ These three notions are used to analyse how the relationship between
language and the world works.
●​
Unit 10:
True synonymy vs. Partial synonymy
●​ True synonymy = perfect synonymy = absolute synonymy
Ex:
Conceal/hide
Purchase/buy
Profound/deep
Wide/broad

Paraphrases (câu mô phỏng)

●​ A sentence which expresses the same proposition as another sentence
is a paraphrase of that sentence.
●​ Sentences are paraphrases if they have the same meaning (except
possibly for minor differences in emphases).
●​ A sentence which expresses the same proposition as another sentence
is a paraphrase of that sentence.
●​ Paraphrase is to SENTENCES (on individual interpretations) as
SYNONYMY is to PREDICATES.
E.g: Bachelors prefer red-haired girls is a paraphrase of Girls with red hair
are preferred by unmarried men.
●​ Change both individual words and sentence structure.
Cats drink cream → The liquid fat of milk is drunk by domestic felines.

Possible ways to paraphrase a sentence

1. Change individual words.
2. Change sentence structure.
3. Change both individual words and sentence structure.

Change individual words

●​ Using synonyms:
Cats drink cream → domestic felines consume the liquid fat of milk.
●​ Using relational antonyms:
I lent that book to Jim → Jim borrowed that book from me.
 SYNONYMY
●​ Synonymy is a sense relation in which various words have different
(written and sound) forms but have the same or nearly the same
meaning.
Eg.: hide = conceal = keep sb/sth from being seen or known about
Kind = type = sort = refer to a group having similar characteristics.
●​ Synonymy is a sense relation in which various words have different
(written and sound) forms but have the same or nearly the same
meaning.
Eg.: hide = conceal = keep sb/sth from being seen or known about.

HYPONYMY
●​ Hyponymy is a sense relation in which the sense of a word is included
in the sense of another word.
●​ In other words, hyponymy is the relationship between each of the
hyponyms (the "lower" word) and its superordinate (the "higher" word).
E.g: rose - flower
Scarlet - red (scarlet is a kind of red)
Red: superordinate term
Scarlet: a hyponym of red

Hyponyms and Superordinates

A hyponym (=subordinate) is a word whose sense is included in the sense of
another word.
A superordinate (= hypernym) is a word whose sense covers all the senses of
its hyponyms.

Entailment (quan hệ kéo theo)

●​ Entailment is a relationship that applies between two sentences, where
the truth of one implies the truth of the other because of the meaning
of the words involved.
E.g.: This is a tulip entails This is a flower.
●​ This is scarlet entails This is red.
 ●​ Entailment applies cumulatively. Thus if X entails Y and Y entails Z,
then X entails Z.
E.g.: X, Some boys RAN down the street entails Y, some kids RAN down the
street.
Y, Some kids RAN down the street entails Z,
Some kids WENT down the street.
Therefore:
X, Some boys RAN down the street entails Z.
Some kids RAN down the street.
●​ A proposition X entails a proposition Y if the truth of Y follows
necessarily from the truth of X.
●​ A sentence expressing proposition X entails a sentence expressing
proposition Y if the truth of Y follows necessarily from the truth of X.
E.g.: John killed Bill (X) entails Bill died (Y).
John ate all the kippers (X) entails Someone ate something (Y).

Two types of entailment

1. Two-way entailment / symmetrical entailment (quan hệ kéo theo hai chiều/
quan hệ kéo theo đối xứng)
2. One-way entailment / asymmetrical entailment
(Quan hệ kéo theo một chiều/ quan hệ kéo theo không đối xứng)

One-way entailment/ asymmetrical entailment

●​ Note that hyponymy involves one-way entailment
E.g.: Afred saw a bear asymmetrical entails
Afred saw an animal.
●​ If Afred saw a bear then he necessarily saw an animal; but if Afred saw
an animal, he could have seen a bear but not necessarily. It could be a
lion, for example.
E.g.: Mary ate the pizza entails asymmetrically entails Mary did something to
the pizza
 Two-way entailment / symmetrical entailment
●​ The entailments between a pair of sentences are mutual since the truth
of either sentence guarantees the truth of the other
E.g.:
Paul borrowed a car from Sue, which symmetrically entails Sue lent a car to
Paul.
The police chased the burglar.
The burglar was chased by the police.

Unit 11:
Multiple Incompatibility
●​ Multiple incompatibility is definable in terms of negation and
entailment.
Eg.: red and blue are incompatible → if sth is red, it is not blue and vice versa.
It is a cat, entails it's not a dog. It's a carnation, entails it's not a rose.

Summary
●​ Hyponymy and synonymy are sense relations between predicates. The
latter is a special, symmetric case of the former.
●​ Entailment and paraphrase are sense relations between sentences. The
latter is a special, symmetric case of the former.
●​ Synonymy can be seen as a special case of hyponymy..i.e.
SYMMETRICAL HYPONYMY.
●​ rule: if X is a hyponym of Y and if Y is also a hyponym of X, then X and
Y are synonymous.
Two sentences may be said to be paraphrases of each other if and only if:
> they have exactly the same set of ENTAILMENTS; or, if and only if
> they mutually entail each other so that whenever one is true the other must
also be true.
●​ The relationship between entailment and paraphrase is parallel to the
relationship between hyponymy and synonymy.
●​ Just as synonymy is symmetric (i.e. two-way) hyponymy, paraphrase is
symmetric (i.e. two-way) entailment.
 Notes
●​ Paraphrases are two-way entailments
●​ Pairs of relational antonyms such as sell-buy, lend-borrow,
own-belong to etc do contribute to two-way entailments.
●​ Two sentences may be said to be paraphrases of each other if and only
if they have exactly the same set of entailments, or if and only if they
mutually entail each other so that whenever one is true the other must
also be true.
E.g, John and Mary are twins entails Mary and John are twins.

Relational Antonymy
●​ Relational antonymy: Two members of a pair of relational antonyms
(converses) display symmetry in their meaning.
Eg.:
buy - sell
teach - learn
parent - child
lend - borrow
Relational antonyms belong to various word classes
1. Verbs:
buy - sell; send - receive; lend - borrow; import - export; own - belong to;
teach - learn; etc.
2. Nouns:
employer - employee; grandparent
- grandchild; father - son; mother - daughter; fiancé - fiancée; professor -
student; teacher - pupil; doctor - patient; debtor - creditor;
landlord/landlady - tenant; husband - wife; host/hostess - guest; customer -
supplier; etc.
3. Comparative adjectives:
thinner - fatter; wider - narrower; cheaper - more expensive; etc.
4. Comparative adverbs:
more efficiently - less efficiently; faster - more slowly; etc.
5. Preposition:
above - below; over - under; in front of - behind; before - after; north of -
south of; etc.
●​ The "if ... then..." formula can be used to test and identify relational
antonyms.
●​ If Mr. Brown is Jack's employer then Jack is Mr. Brown's employee.
●​ If Jenny is thinner than Mary then Mary is fatter than Jenny.
●​ If John bought a car from Fred then Fred sold a car to John

Converse
●​ If a predicate describes a relationship between two things or people
and some other predicate describes the same relationship when the
two things or people are mentioned in the opposite order, then the two
predicates are CONVERSES of each other.
E.g.:
below - above
greater than - less than
own - belong to

Relational Antonyms
Ex:
doctor - patient
servant - master
landlord - tenant
seller - buyer
●​ A predicate is a binary antonym of another predicate if it entails the
negative of the other predicate.
Eg:
True and false are binary antonyms.
If a sentence is true, it cannot be false.
If sth is true, this entails that it is not false. If it is false, this entails it is not
true.
 Antonymy (Semantic Incompatibility)
1. Binary antonymy (complementarity) (trái nghĩa nhị phân, trái nghĩa loại
trừ)
Eg: true - false
2. Relational antonymy (converses) (quan hệ trái nghĩa nghịch đảo)
Eg: below - above
3. Gradable antonymy (quan hệ trái nghĩa có thang độ) (
Eg: hot - cold (between hot and cold is a continuous scale of values)

Binary Antonymy
●​ Binary antonymy is a sense relation in which two members of a pair of
antonyms:
(a) Are mutually exclusive: not alive=dead.
(b) Cannot be used in a comparative or superlative sense.
Eg.: He is more single/more married than his brother.
(c) Cannot be used in questions with How to ask about degrees.
Eg.: How single/How married is he?
Examples of binary antonymy
sleep - awake
war - peace
sunrise - sunset
increase - decrease
present - absent
interior exterior
fantasy - reality
mortal - immortal
exit - entrance
occupied - vacant

Gradable Antonymy
●​ Gradable antonymy is a sense relation in which two members of a pair
of antonyms:
(a) Are gradable:
hot - warm - tepid/lukewarm - cool - cold.
(b) Can be used in a comparative or superlative:
sense: wider = less narrow; more difficult = less easy.
(c) Can be used in questions:
How to ask about degrees
●​ Two predicates are gradable antonyms if they are at the opposite ends
of a continuous scale of values.
E.g.: hot and cold
=> Between hot and cold is a continuous scale of values, such as warm, cool,
tepid
●​ A good test for gradability, i.e., having a value on some continuous
scale, is to see whether a word can combine with very, very much, how,
how much?
E.g.: How tall is he?
Examples of gradable antonyms
good - bad
high -low
hot - cold
heavy -light
dark - light

Semantic Field
●​ In binary antonymy and converseness, the antonyms come in pairs.
Between them, the members of a pair of binary antonyms fully fill the
area to which they can be applied.
●​ Such area can be thought of as miniature semantic system, sometimes
known as 'semantic field'.
E.g.: male and female between them constitute the English sex system
True and false: member of truth system
What these systems have in common is that:
●​ All the terms in a given system are mutually incompatible, and
●​ Together, the members of a system cover all the relevant areas.
●​ These systems are called systems of multiple incompatibility (tính
không tương thích đa chiều).
 ●​ There are large numbers of open-ended systems of multiple
incompatibilities.

Contradiction
●​ A sentence contradicts another sentence if it entails the negation of the
other sentence.
E.g.: This beetle is alive is a contradiction of This beetle is dead.

Contradictory Sentences
●​ Given two sentences, both identical except that:
> One contains a word X where the other contains a word Y, and
> X is an antonym of Y.
●​ Then the two sentences are contradictories of each other.
E.g.: This cat is male.
This cat is female.

Ambiguity
●​ A word or sentence is ambiguous when it has more than one sense.
●​ A sentence is ambiguous if it has two or more paraphrases that are not
themselves paraphrases of each other.
E.g.: ​ We saw her duck.
We saw her lower her head.
We saw the duck belonging to her.
●​ In the case of words and phrases, a word or phrase is ambiguous if it
has two (or more) SYNONYMS that are not themselves synonyms of
each other.
E.g:​ Trunk
Elephant's proboscis,
Chest
Coach
Trainer
Charabanc/bus.
 Review
●​ Referent: things referred to on a particular occasion of utterance.
●​ Extension: a set of things that could be referred to using a particular
predicate.
●​ Prototype: a thing typically referred to using a particular predicate.

Sense properties of sentences

●​ The notions analytic, synthetic, and contradiction each apply to
individual sentences. Analyticity, syntheticity, and contradiction are,
then, sense properties of sentences.
●​ The sense of an expression is its indispensable hard core of meaning.
●​ The sense of an expression can be thought of as the sum of its sense
properties and sense relations with other expressions.

Sense properties: Definition

●​ An analytic sentence is one that is necessarily true, as a result of the
senses of the words in it.
E.g.: ​ All elephants are animals is an analytic sentence.
●​ A synthetic sentence is one that is not analytic, but may be either true
or false, depending on the way the world is.
E.g.: John is from Ireland is a synthetic sentence.
●​ A contradiction is a sentence that is necessarily false, as a result of the
senses of the words in it. Thus, a contradiction is in a way the opposite
of an analytic sentence.
E.g.: This animal is a vegetable.
●​ Both of John's parents are married to aunts of mine.

Sense properties: Characteristics

●​ The analyticity of That man is human depends on some crucial way on
a semantic relationship between the sense of man and that of human.
The sense of man includes the sense of human: if one thing includes
another, the second thing is part of the first.
●​ Analytic sentences can be formed from contradictions, and vice versa,
by the insertion or removal of the negative particle word not.
 ●​ There is a limitation in the notion of analytic, synthetic, and
contradiction.
●​ These notions are defined in terms of truth.
●​ Imperative and interrogative sentences cannot be true or false, and so
they cannot be analytic (because they cannot be true), or synthetic,
because 'synthetic' only makes sense in contrast to the notion 'analytic'.
●​ Synthetic sentences are potentially informative in real-world
situations, whereas analytic sentences and contradictions are not
informative to anyone who already knows the meaning of the words in
them.

Anomaly
●​ An anomaly is "a violation of semantic rules to create nonsense."
E.g.: ​ That bachelor is pregnant.
Bachelor is [+male].
Pregnant is [+female].
My brother is the only child in the family.
=> contradiction.

Anomaly vs. Contradiction

●​ Anomaly involves us in the notion of contradiction in the sense that
semantically anomalous sentences constitute a type of contradictory
sentences.
Ex: John killed Bill, who remained alive for many years after.
=> Semantically anomalous because it represents a contradiction.

Stereotype (khuôn mẫu)

●​ The stereotype of a predicate is a list of the typical characteristics or
features of things to which the predicate may be applied.
E.g.: the stereotype of CAT: quadruped, domesticated, either black or white,
or grey, or tortoise-shell, or marmalade in colour, or some combination of
these colours, adult specimens about 50 cm long from nose to tip of tail,
furry, with sharp retractable claws, etc., etc.
 Summary
●​ The sense of an expression can be thought of as the sum of its sense
properties and sense relations.
●​ Sense properties of sentences include those of being analytic,
synthetic, and a contradiction.
●​ Stereotypes defined in terms of typical characteristics account for the
fact that people usually agree on the meaning of the words they use.

Homonymy
●​ Homonyms are different words that are pronounced the same but may
or may not be spelled the same.
Eg.: ​ to, two, too
know, no
well (healthy); well (a deep hole in the ground from which people take
water)

True homonymy, Homophony, Homography

●​ True homonymy: different words are pronounced and spelled the same
but have different meanings (đồng âm đồng tự).
E.g:​ Bear (n) : con gấu
Bear (v): give birth to
Bear (v): tolerate: chịu đựng
Sole, wind, figure, plane, crop, pen, mug, bank, bark, well, sage, long,
sack, fast, flat.

Homophony
●​ Homophony: different words are pronounced the same, but are not
spelled the same and have different meanings (đồng âm dị tự).
Eg.: ​ hour, our
place, plaice (a type of fish, cá bơn sao)
sight - site
feat - feet
flour - flower
know - no
 Homography
●​ Homography: different words are spelled the same but are not
pronounced the same and have different meanings (đồng tự).
Eg.: ​ lead (v) /li:d/
Lead (n) /led/
Read /ri:d/ - read /red/

Polysemy
●​ Polysemy is a sense relation in which a single word has two or more
slightly different but closely related meanings (quan hệ đa nghĩa).
Eg.: ​ chip (n) has 3 meanings:
(i) a small piece of some hard substance which has been broken off
from sth larger.
(ii) A small cut piece of potatoes which is fried for eating.
(iii) A small but vital piece of a computer.
=> The three meanings are closely related because they all contain the
semantic feature [+small piece].
Break:
He broke that cup
My watch is broken
Both contain the semantic feature [+can no longer be used].

Structurally/Grammatically ambiguous
●​ A sentence is ambiguous because its words relate to each other in
different ways, even though none of the individual words are
ambiguous.
E.g.: The chicken is ready to eat
The chicken is ready to be eaten.
The chicken is ready to eat some food.

Lexical ambiguity
●​ Any ambiguity resulting from ambiguity of a word.
E.g.: ​ The captain corrected the list
 The captain corrected the inventory
The captain corrected the tilt e.g.: They were waiting at the bank
That robot is bright (bright is a polysemous word which has two
slightly different but closely related meanings: shining and intelligent)
●​ Thus both polysemy and true homonymy contribute to lexical
ambiguity.
●​ Lexical ambiguity depends on homonymy (senses not related) and
polysemy (sense related).

Summary
●​ Binary antonymy, converseness, and gradable antonymy are sense
relations between predicates which fit a simple pretheoretical notion
of oppositeness of meaning'.
●​ Contradictoriness is a sense relation between sentences and
proposition related in a complicated way to the sense relations
mentioned above.

Summary for all types

●​ Hyponymy
Hyponym = subordinate.
Hypernym = superordinate.
●​ Synonymy
True synonymy
Partial synonymy
●​ Entailment
Symmetrical = two-way entailment
=> A borrowed sth from B=B lent sth to A
Asymmetrical = one-way entailment
●​ Paraphrase
Symmetrical entailment (two-way entailment) is parẩphrase
●​ Antonymy
Binary (True/False; dead/alive; right/wrong)
Relational (= converse): if/then
Gradable
 -​ Are gradable
-​ Comparative/superlative
-​ How +
●​ Homonymy
True homonymy (bear, sole, wind, bank, well)
Homophony (hour/our; no/know)
Homography (lead, read)
●​ Polysemy
Different but closely related meaning
Chip (small piece)
Break - broken (can no longer be used)
Ceiling (highest boundery)
●​ Ambiguity
Words in sentence are related in different ways
Lexical ambiguity
Polysemy
True homonymy
Structural ambiguity

Unit 17:
Meaning Postulate
●​ A meaning postulate is a formula expressing some aspect of the sense
of a predicate. It can be read as a proposition necessarily true by virtue
of the meaning of the particular predicates involved.
E.g.: ​ xMAN1=xHUMAN BEING
'man' in sense1 is a synonym of 'human being'
●​ Bachelors are unmarried => xBACHELOR -> xUNMARRIED
●​ Mothers are female => xMOTHERS → xFEMALE
●​ Doctors are human => xDOCTORS → xHUMAN
Two hyponymy relations between predicates are directly presented. A
further hyponymy relation, and not directly presented, may be deduced.

METAL xMETAL —> xMINERAL

 MINERAL xMINERAL —> xSUBSTANCE

=> xMETAL —> xSUBSTANCE

Contradiction
●​ Definition: Contradiction is most centrally a logical term. The basic
form of a logical contradiction is p&~p.
John is here & John is not here is a contradiction.

Anomaly
●​ Anomaly is semantic oddness that can be traced to the meanings of the
predicates in the sentence concerned.
E.g.: ​ Christopher is killing phonemes
=> Anomalous because the meaning of the predicate kill and phoneme
cannot be combined in this way.
●​ Anomaly is "a violation of semantic rules to create nonsense."
E.g.: ​ That bachelor is pregnant.
​ Bachelor is [+male].
​ Pregnant is [female].
My brother is the only child in the family → contradiction

Summary
●​ Meaning postulates play a central part in the traditional approach to
constructing a semantic dictionary.
●​ Meaning postulates can be used to deduce information about.
-​ Sense relations, including hyponymy and antonymy.
-​ Selectional restriction and anomaly.

Unit 18:
Properties of predicates
●​ Sense properties of predicates: information about the meanings of
predicates that makes no mention of other predicates.
Six sense properties, three groups:
Symmetry
 Reflexivity
Transitivity
All of these properties are properties of two-place predicates.

Symmetric predicate
●​ Definition: Given a two-place predicate P, if, for any pair of referring
expressions X and Y, the sentence XPY ENTAILS the sentence YPX, then
Pis symmetric.
Eg: for any X and Y, X is the same as Y entails Y is the same as X
→ same is a symmetric predicate.

Asymmetric predicate
●​ Definition: Given a two-place predicate P, if the sentence XPY is a
contradictory of YPX, then P is an asymmetric predicate.
Eg: John is taller than Bill is a contradictory of Bill is taller than John → taller
than is an asymmetric predicate.

Reflexivity
●​ Definition: Given a two-place predicate P, if for any single referring
expression X (or for any pair of referring expression X and Y which
have the same referent, eg. John and himself, the sentence XPX or the
sentence XPY is ANALYTIC, then P is a reflexive predicate.
Eg: John is as tall as himself.

Irreflexive predicate
●​ Definition: Given a two-place predicate P, if for any single referring
expression X or for any pair of referring expression X and Y which have
the same referent, eg. John and himself, the sentence XPX (or the
sentence XPY is a CONTRADICTION, then P is a irreflexive predicate.
Eg: John is taller than himself.
=> The predicate is taller than is IRREFLEXIVE, because any sentence X is
taller than Y, where X and Y have the same referent, is bound to be a
contradiction.
 Transitive
●​ Definition: Given a two-place predicate P, if for any trio of referring
expressions X, Y and Z the compound sentence XPY and YPZ ENTAILS
the sentence XPZ, the P is TRANSITIVE.
Eg: The King is in his counting house and his counting house is in his castle
entails The King is in his castle. → the predicate in is transitive.

Intransitive
●​ Definition: Given a two-place predicate P, if for any trio of referring
expressions X, Y and Z the compound sentence XPY and YPZ is a
CONTRADICTORY of the sentence XPZ, the P is INTRANSITIVE.
Eg: John is the father of Bill and Bill is the father of Sue is incompatible with
John is the father of Sue, so father of is intransitive.

Definition Definition Definition

involves one involves two involves three
sentence sentences sentences

Definition reflexive symmetric transitive

involves a
necessary truth

Definition irreflexive asymmetric intransitive

involves a
necessary
falsehood

Equivalence Relation
●​ Any relation expressed by a predicate that is reflexive, symmetric, and
transitive is called an equivalence relation.
Eg:​ same as expresses an equivalence expression
different from does not
Unit 19:
Derivation (phái sinh hình thái)
●​ Derivation is the process of forming new words according to a regular
pattern on the basis of pre-existing words.
●​ New words may be formed by combining existing words with
meaningful units smaller than words or with other existing words.
1. Instrument for making things blunt => Blunter
2. The property of being easy to please => Pleasability
3. The process of making sth transparent => Transparentization
4. Having to do with giraffes => Giraffish, giraafy

Morpheme
●​ A morpheme is a minimal unit of word building that combines a
minimal unit of meaning with a minimal linguistic form that carries
this meaning.
E.g.: build, -er, builder, re-, play, replay

Root word: build

Suffix: -er
Derived word: builder

Root word: play

Prefix: re-
Derived word: replay

Compound words
●​ A derived word formed by combining two pre-existing words in a
language is called a compound word.
E.g: bluebird, spaceship, babysit, bittersweet.

Processes of derivation
●​ A morphological process: changing the shape of an existing word by
adding a prefix or suffix morpheme to an existing root morpheme.
●​ A syntactic process: changing the part of speech of a word.
 ●​ A semantic process: producing a new sense.
Morphological Syntactic Semantic
process process process

Laugh: laughter Add suffix-ter Change verb to Produce word

noun denoting an act
of an activity

Teach: teacher Add suffix -er Change verb to Produce word

noun denoting an
agent

Red: redness Add suffix -ness Change adj to Produce word

noun denoting a
property

Zero-derivation
●​ Cook (v) - cook (agent noun) → there is a lexical gap → zero derivation.
●​ Processes of derivation can be "invisible", because no morphological
process is involved.
Open (adj) denotes a state.
Open (the derived intransitive verb) denotes an action.
●​ The difference btwn states and actions is the difference in meaning, a
semantic difference.
●​ It is simply a difference that is not reflected in a morphological change
in the root word.

Inchoative form
●​ Definition: An inchoative form denotes the beginning, or coming into
existence, of some state.
Eg: ​ Dark (adj): denotes a state.
Darken (vt): is the corresponding inchoative form, because it denotes
the beginning of a state of darkness'.
 Productivity of derivational process
●​ Definition: A derivational process is completely productive if it can be
used to produce an existing derived word from EVERY appropriate
source word.
Eg: pierce - pierced: resultative derivational process → Is more productive
than the inchoative derivational process.

Suppletion
●​ Definition: suppletion is a process whereby, in irregular and
idiosyncratic cases, substitution of a MORPHOLOGICALLY
UNRELATED form is associated with the specific semantic and/or
syntactic processes normally accompanying a morphological process.

Summary
Derivation
Morphological, syntactic, semantic components
Productivity
Inchoative form
Causative form
Resultative form
Comparative form
Suppletion

Unit 20:
Participant roles
John opened the door with the key
The key opened the door
The door opened
Participant objects: door, key
People: John
John: AGENT
The door: AFFECTED
The key: INSTRUMENT
 Agent
●​ The AGENT of a sentence is the person deliberately carrying out the
action described, e.g. John in John opened the door.

Affected
●​ The AFFECTED participant is the thing (not usually a person) upon
which the action is carried out, in many cases the thing changed by the
action in the most obvious way. (the door) (also called PATIENT by
other semanticists).

Instrument
●​ The INSTRUMENT is the thing (hardly ever a person) by means of
which the action is carried out (the key).

Keith gave Gill a replica of the Venus de Milo

Keith: AGENT
Gill: BENEFICIARY
a replica of the Venus de Milo: AFFECTED

Location
●​ Definition: the role of LOCATION is played by any expression referring
to the place where the action described by a sentence takes place.
Eg: ​ Caesar was assassinated in Rome
Caesar: AFFECTED
Rome: LOCATION

Experiencer
●​ The EXPERIENCER is typically a person who is mentally aware of,
perceives, or experiences the action or state described by the sentence,
but who is not in control of the situation.

Theme
●​ The THEME participant is a thing or person whose location is
described, or a thing or person that is perceived by an Experiencer.
 The children heard the loud noise.
Children: EXPERIENCER
The loud noise: THEME

Unit 21:
Speech acts
●​ "Actions speak louder than words" (proverb)
●​ Speech is action
●​ Language can actually be used to do things
E.g: "Would you like a cup of coffee?" → act of offering
"You can play outside for half an hour" → Act of giving peẻmission
●​ When a speaker makes an utterance containing a referring expression
→ he carries out an act of referring → referring is a linguistic act
●​ Is it possible to carry out all sorts of other acts using language?

Stating/asserting
●​ An act of assertion is carried out when a speaker utters a declarative
sentence (which can be either true or false), and undertakes a certain
responsibility, or commitment, to the hearer that, a particular state of
affairs, or situation, exists in the world.
Eg: "Simon is in the kitchen" → Asserting that in the real world a situation
exists in which a person named Simon is in a room identified by the referring
expression the kitchen.

Descriptive fallacy
●​ Definition: the descriptive fallacy is the view that the sole purpose of
making assertions is to describe some state of affairs.
●​ The descriptive fallacy refers to the reasoning which treats a speech
act as a logical proposition, which would be mistaken when the
meaning of the statement is not based on its truth condition.
●​ Assertive utterances do not merely describe some state of affairs, but
also carry out acts.
●​ This is the distinction between performative utterances (and
sentences) and constative utterances (and sentences).
 Performative utterances (phát ngôn mang tính hành ngôn)
●​ A performative utterance is one that actually describes the act that it
performs, i.e. it performs some act and simultaneously describes that
act.
Eg: ​ "I promise to repay you tomorrow" → The utterance both describes and
is a promise.
Warn you not to come any closer.
I admit that I took 50p from the coffee money.
"John promised to repay me tomorrow"
→ Although it describes a promise, it is not itself a promise.
→ Does not simultaneously do what it describes & not a perfẻomative.

Constative utterances (phát ngôn mang tính nhận định)

●​ A constative utterance is one which makes an assertion (i.e. it is often
the utterance of a declarative sentence) but is NOT performative.
"I'm trying to get this box open with a screwdriver". → It makes an assertion
(đưa ra một lời nhận định) about a particular state of affairs (về một sự tình
nào đó).

Performative verbs
●​ A performative verb is one which, when used in a simple positive
present tense sentence, with a 1st person singular subject, can make
the utterance of that sentence performative.
●​ These are verb which describes speech acts.
●​ The most reliable test to determine whether an utterance is
performative is to insert the adverbial word hereby immediately before
the verb and see if the modified utterance is acceptable.

Summary
●​ Words and sentences when uttered are used to do things, to carry out
social significant acts, in addition to merely describing aspects of the
world.
Unit 22:
Perlocution (hành động xuyên ngôn)
●​ Definition: the perlocution act carried out by a speaker making an
utterance is the act of causing a certain effect on the hearer.
E.g.: "There's a hornet in your left ear". → Cause the hearer to panic, scream,
scratch wildly at his/her ear.

Illocution (hành động tại ngôn)

●​ Definition: the illocution act carried out by a speaker making an
utterance reflects the intention of the speaker in making the utterance
in the first place.
"I'm very grateful to you for all you have done for me" → Performs the
illocution act of thanking.
●​ Illocutions are acts defined by social conventions, acts such as
accosting (bắt chuyện), accusing, admitting, apologizing, challenging,
complaining, condoling, congratulating, declining, deploring (đau
buồn, ân hận), giving permission, giving way, greeting, leavetaking,
mocking, naming, offering, praising, promising, proposing marriage,
protesting, recommending, surrending, thanking, toasting.

Unit 23:
Felicity conditions
●​ The fecility conditions of an illocutionary act are conditions that must
be fulfilled in the situation in which the act is carried out if the act is to
be said to be carried out properly, or felicitously.
●​ Illocutionary act of accusing felicity condition the deed or property
attributed to the accused is wrong in some way.
Eg: ​ theft, murder → can be felicitously accused
Helping an old lady to cross the road → infelicitously accused

Truth conditions vs. Felicitous Conditions

●​ Truth conditions are conditions that must be satisfied by the world if
an utterance is true.
Eg: "There is a cat on the table"==> true if in the world at the time of the
utterance, there actually is a table with a cat on it.
●​ Felicity conditions are conditions that must be satisfied by the world if
an illocutionary act is feliticious (or appropriate).
●​ Only declarative sentences may be true or false.
●​ All types of sentence, declarative, interrogative, imperative can be
uttered to carry out illocutionary acts that may be felicitous or
infelicitous.

Sincerity Conditions
●​ Sincerity condition is a particular subtype of felicity condition.
●​ A sincerity condition on an illocutionary act is a condition that must be
fulfilled if the act is said to be carried out sincerely, but failure to meet
such a condition does not prevent the carrying out of the act
altogether.
Eg: act of apologizing sincerity condition the apologizer believes that the
thing apologized for is wrong in some way.

Direct and Indirect illocutions

●​ The direct illocution of an utterance is the illocution most directly
indicated by a literal reading of the grammatical form and vocabulary
of the sentence uttered.
●​ The indirect illocution of an utterance is any further illocution the
utterance may have.
"Can you pass the salt?"
→ Direct illocution: is an enquiry about the hearer's ability to pass the salt.
→Indirect illocution: is a request that the hearer pass the salt.
●​ A directive act is any illocutionary act which essentially involves the
speaker trying to get the hearer to behave in some required way.
Eg: Ordering and suggesting (Apologizing and promising are not directive
acts).
●​ A commissive act is any illocutionary act which essentially involves the
speaker committing himself to behave in some required way.
Eg: Promising and swearing are commissive acts.
 Summary
●​ Distinction between direct and indirect illocutions.
●​ Methods by which speakers and hearers can identify the direct and
indirect illocutions of utterances.
●​ Two major types of illocutions: directives and commissives.

Unit 24+25
Propositions and illocutions conversational implicature
●​ The propositional content of a directive illocution can be expressed by
a declarative sentence describing the action that the speaker requires
of the hearer.
●​ One way of carrying out an indirect directive is to assert that the
hearer will carry out the action required.
"I'd like you to feed my cat while i holiday"
●​ The propositional content of a commissive illocution can be expressed
by a declarative sentence describing the action which the speaker
undertakes to perform.
Father promising to buy his son a rubber dinghy when he can swim.
→"I will buy you a rubber dinghy when you can swim".

Conversational implicature (hàm ngôn hội thoại)

●​ Unlike presuppositions and entailments, implicatures are inferences
that cannot be made in isolated utterances. They are dependent on the
context of the utterance and shared knowledge between the speaker
and the hearer.
A: You looked very pleased with yourself.
B: l've done the reading list.
Implicature: B is pleased with himself.
●​ Conversational implicature promises to bridge the gap between what is
literally said and what is conveyed.
A: Coffee?
B: It would keep me awake all night
Conversational implicature can be suspended or denied.
 ●​ Since conversational implicature is part of what is communicated and
not said, the speaker can explicitly suspend or deny that he/she
intended to communicate such meaning in different ways.
●​ An implicature of one part of an utterance is said to be CANCELLED
when another part of the utterance or a following utterance explicitly
contradicts it.
a) You have won five dollars.
b) You have at least won five dollars.
c) You have won five dollars; in fact, you've won ten.
d) You have won five dollars; that is four more than one.
●​ The speaker can suspend the implicature that the hearer only won five
dollars by using the expression at least, as in b); the speaker can deny
the implicature by either adding information (in fact" as in c); or
reinforcing the implicature with additional info as in d)).
●​ Conversational implicatures are conclusions drawn from utterances on
particular occasions and not from isolated sentences.
●​ In this respect the problem of implicature resembles the problem of
how a hearer arrives at the indirect illocutions of utterances.
●​ Conversational implicature is a form of reasonable inference.
●​ An inference is any conclusion that one is reasonably entitled to draw
from a sentence or an utterance.
●​ Implicature which is a notion entailment of utterance meaning
contrasts with which is a notion of sentence meaning.
●​ The idea of implicature, which links logic and conversation, was
developed by the philosopher Paul Grice.

Grice's co-operative principle and its four maxims

●​ Grice has proposed a way of analysing conversational implicature
based on the cooperative principle and its four basic maxims.
> The maxim of Quality
> The maxim of Relevance
> The maxim of Informativeness (or of Quantity
> The maxim of Clarity (or of Brevity)
The maxim of Quality: make your contribution one that is true, i.e., do not
say what you believe is false.
The maxim of Relevance: keep to the topic of the conversation.
The maxim of Informativeness (or of Quantity): tell the hearer just what he
needs to know, no more and no less.
The maxim of Clarity (or of Brevity): speak in a way that the hearer will
understand.

Conventional implicature (hàm ngôn ước định)

●​ don't have to occur in conversation.
●​ don't depend on special contexts for their interpretation.
●​ are associated with specific words and result in additional conveyed.
●​ meanings when those words are used. Among these words are and,
but, even, and yet.

Unit 26:
FIGURES OF SPEECH
●​ A figure of speech is a word or phrase that is used for special effect and
that does not have its usual or literal meaning.

Non-literal meaning: idioms, metaphor and metonymy

●​ Idiomatic expressions (IDIOMS) are
> multi-word phrases,
› overall meanings are idiosyncratic and unpredictable,
> reflecting speaker meanings,
> not derivable by combining the literal senses of the individual words in
each phrase.

Literal meaning vs. Figurative meaning

●​ Literal meaning: the basic or usual meaning of a words.
Eg.: wing:
> The two wings of an airplane
> The east/west wing of a house
> The left wing of his car was damaged in the collision
> The radical wing of the Labour Party
●​ Figurative meaning of a word creates vivid mental images to readers or
listeners.
Eg: wing
> We hope college life will help him to spread his wings a bit. (= extend his
activities and interests)
> Having a new baby to look after has clipped her wings a bit (= has
prevented her from achieving her ambition)
> She immediately took the new arrivals under her wing. (= looked after the
new arrivals)
> He retires as chairman next year, his successor is waiting in the wings. (= is
ready to replace him)

Simile (ty dụ) and metaphor (ẩn dụ)

●​ Simile is the use of comparison of one thing with another.
eg. ​ As brave as a lion, a face like a mask
●​ Metaphor: is the use of a word or phrase to indicate sth different from
the literal meaning.
E.g.: ​ I'll make him eat his words
She has a heart of stone

Distinction between simile and metaphor

●​ Simile: Is an explicit or direct comparison in which sth is compared to
sth else by the use of a function word such as like or as.
E.g.: My hands are as cold as ice
Tom eats like a horse
●​ Metaphor: Is an implicit or indirect comparison in which no function
word is used.
E.g.: she has a heart of stone (= She has a pitiless and unfeeling nature
I'll make him eat his word = I'll make him admit that what he's said is wrong
 Personification (phép nhân cách hóa)
●​ Personification is a special kind of metaphor in which some human
characteristic is attributed to an inanimate object or an abstract
notion.
Eg: pitiless cold, cruel heat, a treacherous calm, a sullen sky, a frowning rock,
the thirsty ground, the laughing harvest, the childhood of the world, the
anger of the tempest, the deceitfulness of riches, etc.

Metonymy (hoán dụ)

●​ Metonymy is the substitution of the name of one thing for that of
another to which it is related/ with which it is associated.
●​ In Greek, meta- means 'substitution' and onyma means 'name'.
a. A sign substitutes for the person or the object it signifies or symbolizes
Eg: He succeeded to the crown (=the royal office)
She is a fighter against red tape (=bureaucracy, office routine)
Can you protect your children from the cradle to the grave? (= from
childhood to death
b. An instrument substitutes for an agent.
Eg: The pen = the writer) has more influence than the sword (=the soldier)
Sceptre and crown (kings)
c. A container substitutes for the thing contained.
Eg: The kettle (= the water in the kettle) is boiling.
He drank the cup (= the coffee, the tea, the chocolate, etc. in the cup)
He is too fond of the bottle (= the liquor in the bottle)
The conquerors smote the city (= the inhabitants of the city)
d. The concrete, like an organ of the human body, substitutes for the
abstract, such as love, hatred, sincerity, a mental ability, a natural talent,
etc.
Eg: She has an ear for music. (= possesses a remarkable talent for learning,
imitating appreciating, etc. music)
She has a good head of business (= she is gifted in/ is clever at dealing with
business.
e. The abstract substitutes for the concrete.
His Majesty (= the King) died a year ago.
His Holiness (= the Pope) has just come back to Rome.
The authorities (= the group of people who have the power to give orders or
take action) put an end to the riot.
f. The material substitutes for the thing made.
The marble (= the marble statue) speaks.
All our glass (= vessels and articles made of glass) is kept in the cupboard.
g. An author/ a producer/ a place where goods are made substitutes for his
works)/ its products).
I have never read Keat (= Keat's poems)
Have you ever read Homer (= the Works of Homer)?
I love old china (= crockery made in china).

Metaphor vs. Metonymy

●​ Metaphor is based on the associated similarity shared by the two
things being implicitly compared.
●​ Metonymy does not depend on such similarity.

Synecdoche (phép cải dung, phép đổi sức chứa)

●​ Synecdoche is a special kind of metonymy in which a part or aspect of
a person, object, etc. is meant to refer to the whole person, object, etc.
●​ Synecdoche also involves a whole or genus used to substitute for a part
or species:
> vessel for ship;
> the smiling year for the smiling season of the year, especially the spring;
> the Christian world for the Christian Church as a whole, etc.
Eg: They organised a fleet of fifty sails. (= ships).
He is a man of seventy winters. (= years of age)
He managed to earn his bread (= necessaries).
This is a village of only more than one hundred souls. (= people)
Grey hairs (= old or elderly people) should be respected.

Metonymy vs. Synecdoche

The princess captures the hearts of the nation.
The hearts: [concrete] → love;[+abstract] → metonymy
He has a kind heart.
A heart: [+part] → a person: [+whole] → synecdoche
Spare the rod and spoil the child.
The rod: [concrete] -> the punishment:
[+abstract] → metonymy
All hands on deck did help.
Hands: (+part) → people:[+whole]→ synecdoche

Hyperbole (ngoa dụ, phép nói khoa trương)

●​ Hyperbole (or overstatement) is the use of exaggerated statements that
is made for special effect and is not meant to be taken literally.
Eg:​ l've invited millions of people to my party.
She shed floods of tears whenever she is upset.
Don't live in such a sea of doubt! (Don't be too suspicious!)
Never in a million years will he admit defeat.
I haven't seen you for ages.

Litotes (khiêm dụ, phép nói giảm)

●​ Litotes (also called meiosis) is the use of deliberately gentler, milder or
weaker statements to express something in a controlled way.
Eg:​ I don't think I would agree with you.
I am afraid that no passenger is allowed to smoke in here.
●​ Quite often, an expression of litotes is an ironical understatement,
especially using a negative to emphazise the contrary.
Eg:​ It's not bad (=it's fine)
It wasn't easy. (= It was very difficult)
Always remember that she is no fool (= she is worldly-wise, in fact)
Jim was rather upset when he again failed in the final exam. (=very
upset)

Irony (biếm dụ, phép nói mỉa, phép nói châm biếm)
●​ Irony is the expression of one's meaning by saying the direct opposite
of one's thoughts in order to be emphatic, amusing, sarcastic, etc.
Eg:​ What a lovely day it was! Everything I had went wrong.
 He is so intelligent that no examiner has agreed to pass him so far.
He is lucky to have such an ugly and awkward wife.
Your plan is really tricky. The other team will figure it out in about one
play.

Euphemism (uyển dụ, phép nói khéo)

●​ Euphemism is the use of pleasant, mild or indirect words or phrases in
place of more accurate or direct ones.
Eg:​ Pass away is a euphemism for die
He was his Majesty's guest for two years is a euphemism for He was in
jail for two years.

Distinction between a taboo word and a euphemism

●​ A taboo word (tu kiêng ky.), a dirty word, is the word or the linguistic
expression that refers to a taboo act or behaviour in a society, a culture
or a speech community while a euphemism is the word or linguistic
expression that replaces a taboo word or serves to avoid a frightening
or unpleasant subject.
●​ It is crucial to recognize that a taboo word and its euphemism share
the same denotative meaning but they differ in their connotative
meanings: the taboo word has a negative connotation whereas its
euphemism has a positive connotation.

FIgures of speech summary (phép tu từ, biện pháp tu từ, mỹ từ

pháp)
1. Simile: tỷ dụ
2. Metaphor: ẩn dụ
3. Personification: nhân cách hóa
4. Metonymy: hoán dụ
5. Synecdoche: phép cải dung, đổi sức chứa
6. Hyperbole: ngoa dụ (=overstatement)
7. Litotes = Meiosis : khiêm dụ, phép nói giảm
8. Euphemism: uyển dụ, phép nói khéo