SEMANTIC AND PRAGMATIK

APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF SEMANTICS

Lecturer :
Yulan Puspita Rini, M.A
Class 4B

Group 4
Lecturer :
Sri Suci Suryawati. [Link]

Arranged by:
Group 04
Anisa Fitriyani 1711040019
Esi Mayasari 1711040051
Fani Fatma Hidayah 1711040055

TARBIYAH AND TEACHER TRAINING FACULTY

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
UIN RADEN INTAN LAMPUNG
ACADEMIC YEAR 2020

1
 PREFACE

Praise our thanks to Allah swt. who has given us her mercy and guidance, so we can
make this paper about semantic and pragmatics, and do not forget to say our thanks to:
• Mrs. Suci as the lecturer of the course who has given us the guidance, the
compiler of this paper.
• Friends who give support and enthusiasm.

With this paper, we hope that it will be useful for the readers. By not reducing respect to
our readers as compilers expecting constructive criticism and suggestion from the
readers, for the more complete perfection of this paper we compile.

Bandar Lampung, 25 Februari 2020

Authors

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER ...................................................................................................................1
PREFACE …………………………………………………………………….......…2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………………………………...………………3

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
A. Background of The Problem....................................................................
B. Identification of The Problem....................................................................1
C. Purpose .....................................................................................................1

CHAPTER II LITERATURE OF THEORY

A. Definition of Semantic..............................................................................
B. Approach to the study of semantic
C. Three general approach to semantics
CONCLUSION....................................................................................................
REFERENCES....................................................................................................

3
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Problem

Semantics is one branch that comes from linguistics, in this semantics usually learn
about meaning or meaning.1 where this semantics has a very broad understanding, in
this semantics discusses the relationships that exist in the elements that exist in a code,
symbol, and some are related to logic or psychology. as for an expert named Reisig
(1825) developed and also formed a new concept Grammatikal as (grammar) which
includes three main elements, namely etymology, the study of the origin of words
related to changes in form and meaning; syntax, sentence structure in semasiology, sign
(meaning).2
Semantics that are usually used as learning about meaning. and also this semantics is
often associated with two other aspects, namely syntax as the formation of complex
symbols from the symbol that were initially simpler, and pragmatics, namely the
practical use of symbols by communities in certain contexts. and for another
understanding of semantics is as a study of meaning that is usually used to interpret or
understand human expression through language.

B. Identification of the Problem

From the background above, we can identified the identification of the problem as
follows :
1. What are the approaches the study of semantics?
2. What are the three general approaches of semantics?

C. Purpose
The purpose of this paper are to know the approaches the study of semantics and
three general approaches of semantics itself.

1
Cruse, A. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Third
edition. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011),p. 9
2
Lyons, J. Semantics. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), p. 23

4
 CHAPTER II
LITERATURE OF THEORY

A. Definition of Semantic
Ferdinand De Saussure in many ways can be considered the founder of modern
structural linguistics.3 He was the first to ask for a structural approach to language; for
example. scientific description of language in terms of relationships between units,
regardless of any property that may be displayed by these units but which is not relevant
to the relationship or deducted from the relationship. The central thesis of structuralism
(Lyons 1977: 231-32) is that each language is a unique relational structure or system,
and that the units that we identify, or postulate as construct theories, are in analyzing
certain language sentences (sounds, words, meanings, etc.) derive both from their
essence and existence in their relationship with other units in the same language system.
We simultaneously identify units and their interrelationships.4
Semantics is a field of linguistics related to the study of meaning. Meaningful,
meaningful and meaningful in sentences for example, can be paraphrased as intention,
purpose and are significant and not really relate to language in any way 5. semantics is
one branch of linguistics, in semantics it usually discusses the meanings contained in
language, meanings and also codes or symbols. Semantics is usually associated with
two aspects, namely: syntax, complex symbol formation from simpler symbols, and
pragmatics, the practical use of symbols by people in certain contexts.
Language behaves in a non-linear fashion and we see this non-linearity in the
word formation and abstraction of the sacred words. Semantics is deeply related to the
mental representation for concepts, but sometimes this linear one-to-one matching
becomes distorted by the introduction of other phenomena, less susceptible to get
attention. This situation is best observed in the context where notions lose their
semantics and the core of meaning, leaving symbolic representation as the ideal form to
be retained in the heart of the religious world. Automaticity then influences the way we
think more than what was expected before this study. We showed how automaticity
3
De Saussure, F. Course in General Linguistics. (Glasgow: Fontana/Collins, 1977). P. 50
4
. Ibd. P.62
5
. Daniel Van Olmen Lancaster University 43 PUBLICATIONS   90 CITATIONS. See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:
[Link] Semantics. Chapter · January 2018 DOI:
10.1057/978-1-137-57185-4_9 p.9

5
begins to play with the notions, highlighting symbolic function. This is consistent with
the fact that religious concepts are hard to conceive and explain. One can talk about
physical shapes and instruments easier than far-fetched notions such as God and angels.
Thus, we can have a better, context related translation procedure, taking into
consideration the automatic abstraction of the sacred words. Moreover, the loss of
semantics shows that the mind also makes use of special mental instruments to remain
efficient, especially when it comes to the memory load.6
language is very important as a tool to communicate well. and language also
requires a good understanding because not everyone uses the same language so we must
understand the meaning and also the meaning so as not to make one of us feel
misunderstood with the sentence we say.
The most important communicative functions of language, according to I Leech
(1974, 1981 edn.: 40-42) are7:
1. the neutral informational function which everyone tends to assume.
2. an expressive function— language used to express its originator's feelings and
attitudes, swear words and exclamations being the most obvious instances.
3. the directive function whereby we aim to influence the behaviour or attitudes of
others, commands and requests being the most straightforward instances.
4. The phatic function, i.e. the function of keeping communication lines open, and
keeping social relationships in good repair; in British culture, talking about the
weather being a well-known example of this.
5. The aesthetic function, recognized in poetry, which can be defined as ’the use
of language for the sake of the linguistic artefact itself, and for no other ulterior
purpose’. Leech further correlates these functions with five essential features in
any communicative situation, namely (1) subjectmatter, (2) originator (i.e.
speaker or writer) (3) receiver (i.e. listener or reader), (4) the channel of
communication between them, and (5) the linguistic message itself.

Language that has its own meaning, and also language has a function to convey
meaning that will be conveyed to the recipient with good intentions. semantics is a very
6
. Rajdeep Singh. A Cognitive Approach to the Semantics in the Sacred Context: Semantic and
Symbolic Function of Sacred Words. Department of Linguistics, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
Correspondence: Rajdeep Singh Department of Linguistics, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran.
August 6, 2018. P.5
7
Ibid. p.8

6
broad part that includes symbols or signs in general because it also alludes to aspects of
the structure and function of language so that it can be connected with psychology,
philosophy and anthropology.

B. Approaches to the study of Semantic.

Semantic studies have evolved from time from time to time to the modern
period, giving it a historical view. That way, we can focus on four majors approach -
traditional, behavioral, structural and generative perspectives. 8 so we will study some of
the approaches available in semantics, and can be focused on four majors
approaches for example on:
- Traditional
- Behavioral
- Structural
- Generative

1. Traditional Semantics
Traditional semantics is associated with the works of great philosophers such as
Socrates, and Plato Aristotle as well as many others who came after them. Their main
focus is on the nature of humanity the language itself. Based on their views on the
nature of human language, these early philosophers divided into two - naturalists and
nurturi. For naturalists, language is given by God so that almost nothing can be done by
anyone understand language. Humans are not expected to make changes, but should
only think about themselves observe and explain the rules of language. Greek is felt as
chosen the language on which all other languages are based. Later, Latin became a
philosophical focus analysis. On the other hand, nurturists see language as a common
social property right for the language community.
Therefore language is felt as a human creation for the convenience of
communication. So, deep Apart from differences in language, the unifying point is that
they are all for communication. Traditional semantics also pay attention to the
relationship between form and meaning. That means of a word is considered as what is
8
Prof. Rajendran Sankaravelayuthan. An introductory course on semantics and pragmatics.
(Coimbatore, February 2018) .p.26

7
meant. This view has also been shared by Ogden and Richards (1923). Another main
view of traditional semantics is that the meaning of a word can be translated from the
form or sound. The words in this category are onomatopoeia. Main idea in Traditional
semantics are references, concepts, conditions of truth, etc.9

2. Behavioural Semantics
The external environment is considered as the main stimulus for all human speech.
The stimulus response scenario is identical to the cause and effect relationship in most
natural situations. Those who support a behavioral approach to semantics argue that by
reducing meaning observable entity, language, as an aspect favored by humans can
enable itself to be investigated. Them too argues that meaning is influenced by
reinforcement.
This theory emphasizes nurture rather than nature. So, the physical environment
is thought to contribute to meaning rather than internal thought processes. Although
behaviorism tends to provide useful experimental explanations, it has been criticized for
it rejection of introspection, concepts and ideas. Not everything in language can be
observed physically. Excessive dependence on reinforcement tends to show animal and
human behavior as identical.10

3. Structural Semantics
The father of structuralism is Ferdinand de Saussure. Structuralism as a
linguistic theory considers the structures and systems in language. Emphasis is on the
process of segmenting and classifying the features of utterances. Under structuralism,
emphasis is on the analysis of sense relations that connect words and meaning. Sense is
an expression of the system of semantic relationships a given word keeps with other
expressions in a given language. This relationship is usually paradigmatic in terms of
similarity and dissimilarity. The relationship of similarity occurs as synonymy, while
the relationship of dissimilarity is referred to as antonymy. Structural processes are
useful in lexical relations in the study of words.11

9
Ibid.26
10
Ibid.28
11
Lyons, J. Structural Semantics: An Analysis of Part of the Vocabulary of Plato. (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1963). P.41

8
 4. Generative Semantics
Noam Chomsky is the father of generative grammar. According to transformational
theory Generative grammar, language knowledge is produced in the mind. A language
user has a limited set the rules from which it can produce an unlimited number of
sentences. then in the theoretical aspects The Chomsky syntax (1965) shows that the
semantic component determines the rules needed for deep structural interpretation.
Structure in determining the original meaning of a sentence before applying the
transformation. There is a direct problem explaining the meaning of several paraphrases
from one depth structure. Thus, generative semantics will be related to the meaning and
interpretation of sentences. This will require the interpretation of functional roles in
sentences. This interpretation has been explained by Case theory as stated by Charles
Fillmore, and outlined further in Chomsky and Case theory Thematic theory.
The semantic component has been presented as being partially dependent on
syntax and at the same time distinct. This produces a composite relationship between
grammar and meaning. The deep structure is deemed to determine how sentence parts
combine to make meaning for the whole. The syntactic component is the generative
source of grammar. Thus, the output of syntax forms the input to the semantic
component. The semantic component is perceived to operate on the structural
description of sentences to provide a representation of the meaning of sentences.
Grammar as used here is the totality of the mechanism and rules of language
organization including meaning. As a result of the complexity of this theory, we shall
have a more elaborate discussion of its implication in another unit. Perhaps the
philosophical postulations of Aristotle provided impetus to critical thinking in
semantics. Based on the major areas of concern, there have been traditional semantics,
behavioural semantics, structural semantics and generative semantics. 12

C, Three general approaches to semantics

Three main general approaches to the study of semantics are :
1. The referential approach

12
Ibid.p.29

9
 Reference is act of relating a linguistic form to something that lies outside of
language, in the real world or an imaginary world. The phrase the steak is
termed the referring expression, the actual cut of beef the referent.
Reference may be definite or indefinite. With definite reference, the speaker
presumes that the hearer can identify the referent of the expression.
Example : The steak is delicious.13
For instance, it should be clear to the hearer from the situation that her
partner is talking about the meat that she is eating. There is more than one
way in which referents can be assumed to be identifiable.
With indefinite reference, the speaker presumes that the hearer is not able to
identify the referent of the expression. In English, this type of reference is
usually indicated by the article a(n) or a so-called zero article. Compare the
definite noun phrases in example below :
a. He showed us the room. She gave us the keys.
b. He showed us a room. She gave us keys.

The sentences in [a] to [b] are all about one or more individual instances of
some entity. In [b], for example, a room is used for a single unidentifiable
instance of a room and the keys for an un unspecified number of identifiable
and distinct keys. This type of reference is sometimes called individuative.

2. The Relational Approach

Sense is the term typically used for the aspect of meaning that distinguishes
Robin’s mentor from the Joker’s arch-enemy and for the content of words like
dangerous and must. The relational approach, based on insights from the so-called
structuralist linguist De Saussure (1977), regards a linguistic expression’s sense as
originating from its links with the other expressions in the language. The idea is that the
meaning of, say, ewe is defined by its relations to bleat, flock, ram, sheep and the like.
These relations come in two main types. The syntagmatic type concerns the links of an
expression to the expressions that it co-occurs with in a phrase or sentence. Certain
expressions are more compatible than others semantically. Boil in [a], for instance,

13
Saeed, J.I Semantics. Third edition. (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell,2009), p. 24

10
makes sense with eggs but sounds weird with cakes as its direct object, as in [b]. This
noun seems to go better with bake while steak, to give another example, fits best with
cook or grill.
Example : a. Kim is boiling eggs.
b. Kim is boiling cakes.
Syntagmatic relations are thus all about how coherent the meaning of a grammatical
combination of linguistic expressions is. The incoherence of [b] results from a clash
between the senses of the verb and the noun. Cakes are not prepared in water and
therefore do not meet the requirements to be an object of boil. Incoherence can also be
due to the fact that no extra information is offered. In female ewe, for example, the
adjective mentions a trait that is already present in the noun. Eggs in [a], by contrast,
adds information to boil and is a suitable object of the verb.

The paradigmatic type has to do with the links of an expression to the other
expressions that can occur in the same syntactic slot without rendering the sentence
meaningless. Consider eggs in [a] again. It is only one of the options that speakers have
to fill the slot of direct object. Possible substitutes are given in [a].
Example :
a. Kim is boiling broccoli / lobsters / milk.
b. Kim is boiling colorful.
These words are paradigmatically related to eggs. The ungrammaticality of [b] shows
that colorful, for one, is not.
Paradigmatic relations have a number of subtypes. The most well-known ones are
synonymy and opposition. Synonyms are often defined as expressions with identical
senses. This definition could be taken to suggest that we should always be able to
replace an expression with its synonym. Few words that are traditionally considered
synonymous pass this criterion, though. Remember the adjectives strong and powerful:
they are interchangeable when modifying the noun argument but not when modifying
coffee or engine.

3. Denotational Approach

11
 In a denotational approach to semantics, the sense of an expression is seen as
the defining properties that need to be fulfilled in any of its uses. For a
referring expression such as dog, for example, the meaning is essentially the
set of properties which characterizes its denotata or, in other words, the
whole range of its possible referents, from Great Danes to Chihuahuas.
The nature of these properties is a matter of debate. The traditional view is
that it is the set of characteristics that captures the essence of all potential
referents. The necessary conditions for an entity to be called, say, colt are
that it is a horse and that it is young and male. Any entity that does not meet
one or more of these requirements is not a referent of colt. Any entity that
satisfies all the conditions is one. It is irrelevant whether this entity has a
gray or white coat or whether it is tall or short. Such characteristics are not
essential to what it means to be a colt.
Together, the three properties mentioned first are sufficient conditions for
an entity to be a referent of colt.

One of the most influential ways of representing the necessary and sufficient conditions
of expressions is componential analysis (see Wierzbicka 1996 for an influential
example). It breaks down senses into the smallest possible pieces of meaning. These so-
called semantic features are often (but not always) binary and are used to distinguish
expressions from one another. The features [male] and [adult], for instance, can serve to
differentiate the senses of the equine terms. They apply to the words boy, man, woman
and girl too, of course. To set apart the latter group from the former, we need to
introduce at least one other feature, for which [human] seems a good candidate. 14

a. colt [+ male, - adult]

b. stallion [+ male, + adult]
c. mare [- male, + adult]
d. filly [- male, - adult]

14
Wierzbicka, A. Semantics: Primes and Universals. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996),
p.67
View publication

12
Componential analysis seeks to describe as much of the lexicon as possible in this
manner and with a limited number of semantic features. Some linguists argue that this
list of features corresponds to something real in the brain. They also take it to be
universal or, put differently, to underlie meaning in any language. Other scholars are
more skeptical. They wonder, for instance, whether an analysis like of man [+ male, +
adult], woman [- male, + adult], boy [+ male, - adult] and girl [- male, - adult] does
justice to the dissimilarities between the pairs man-woman and boy-girl. These pairs
differ in the value for [adult] but the relation between the words in each pair is
presumed to be the same otherwise, namely [± male]. Yet, the female humans that girl
denotes can be much older than the male humans that boy applies to. This peculiarity is
absent from woman versus man.15

REFERENCES

15
Rosch, E. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General 104 (3): 192–233.1975

13
Cruse, A. 2011. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics.

Third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Daniel Van Olmen Lancaster University 43 PUBLICATIONS   90 CITATIONS. See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:
[Link] Semantics. Chapter ·
January 2018 DOI: 10.1057/978-1-137-57185-4_9 p.9
De Saussure, F. 1977. Course in General Linguistics. Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.

Lyons, J. 1963. Structural Semantics: An Analysis of Part of the Vocabulary of Plato.

Oxford: Blackwell.
Lyons, J. Semantics. 1977. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prof. Rajendran Sankaravelayuthan. 2018. An introductory course on semantics and

pragmatics. Coimbatore, February.
Rajdeep Singh. 2018. A Cognitive Approach to the Semantics in the Sacred Context:
Semantic and Symbolic Function of Sacred Words. Department of Linguistics,
Payame Noor. University, Tehran, Iran Correspondence: Rajdeep Singh
Department of Linguistics, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran. August 6.
Rosch, E. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General.
Saeed, J.I. 2009. Semantics. Third edition. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Wierzbicka, A.1996. Semantics: Primes and Universals. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

14