ELS 402 - Semantics: Comprehensive Course Notes

Course Description:
Semantics is the fascinating field dedicated to the study of meaning in language. It explores how
words, phrases, and sentences convey meaning, and delves into the various layers and types of
meaning. This course will cover key semantic theories, including:
●​ Behaviorist theory: Focuses on how meaning is learned through stimulus-response
associations.
●​ Mentalist theory: Emphasizes the cognitive processes involved in understanding
meaning.
●​ Nominal theory: Posits that words are simply names for things.
●​ Componential analysis: Breaks down word meanings into smaller, universal semantic
features.
●​ Lexical and sentential meaning: Distinguishes between the meaning of individual words
and the meaning of entire sentences.
●​ Pragmatics: Explores how context influences meaning, and the relationship between
speakers and their interpretations.
The course will also examine the relationship between semantics and related disciplines like
syntax, morphology, and phonology. A significant aspect will be the exploration of how meaning
is organized in the lexicon (vocabulary) and how variations in lexical meaning contribute to
utterance meaning. Ultimately, the scope of semantics extends to all linguistic levels and their
interplay in creating meaning.

1. General Background to Semantics

This section lays the groundwork for understanding semantics as a discipline.
●​ i. The Meaning of Meaning: This delves into the philosophical and linguistic questions
surrounding what "meaning" actually entails. It's not as straightforward as it seems;
meaning can be referential (what a word points to in the real world), conceptual (the
mental image or idea associated with a word), social (how meaning is shaped by social
context), or even affective (the emotional impact of a word). This initial inquiry sets the
stage for exploring the multifaceted nature of meaning.
●​ ii. Types/Levels of Meaning – Denotation, Connotation, Collocational, Reflective
etc.: Understanding these different levels is crucial for a nuanced appreciation of how
language conveys information.
○​ Denotation: The literal, dictionary definition of a word. It's the core, objective
meaning, devoid of emotional or cultural associations.
■​ Example: "Dog" denotes a domesticated canine mammal.
○​ Connotation: The associated or implied meaning of a word, often carrying
emotional, cultural, or social overtones beyond its literal definition. These
associations can be positive, negative, or neutral.
■​ Example: "Dog" can connote loyalty or companionship ("man's best friend"),
but also something negative like "dog-eat-dog world" or "lazy dog."
○​ Collocational Meaning: Meaning derived from the words that typically occur
together (collocations). The meaning of a word can be influenced and sometimes
determined by its habitual linguistic partners.
■​ Example: "Heavy smoker" (meaning someone who smokes a lot) vs. "heavy
 rain" (meaning intense rain). The meaning of "heavy" shifts depending on its
collocation.
○​ Reflective Meaning: Occurs when one sense of a word influences or rubs off on
another sense, especially when the senses are close in form (phonologically
similar) but distant in meaning. This often happens unconsciously.
■​ Example: The word "hostess" might reflect a polite and attentive image due to
its association with "host," even in contexts where it simply means a female
host or flight attendant.

2. Some Theories of Meaning (Semantic Theories)

These theories offer different frameworks for analyzing and understanding how meaning is
constructed and perceived. Each provides a unique lens through which to examine the complex
relationship between language and the concepts it represents.
●​ i. Mentalist theory: This theory posits that meaning resides primarily in the mind of the
speaker and hearer. It emphasizes the cognitive processes, concepts, and mental
representations that individuals associate with words and sentences. From this
perspective, understanding meaning involves accessing and manipulating these internal
mental structures. It's about what goes on in our heads when we comprehend or produce
language, suggesting that meaning is an internal, psychological phenomenon.
●​ ii. Behaviourist theory: In stark contrast to the mentalist approach, behaviorist theory
views meaning as a product of observable behaviors and environmental stimuli. It
suggests that meaning is learned through associations between words (as stimuli) and
the responses (actions, thoughts, or further verbalizations) they elicit. This perspective
largely disregards internal mental states, focusing instead on the external, measurable
aspects of language use. Meaning, here, is seen as a pattern of observable linguistic
behavior in response to external conditions.
●​ iii. Nominal Theory (Nomenclaturist Theory): This is one of the oldest and most
intuitive theories of meaning. The Nominal Theory, often associated with ancient Greek
philosophers, proposes that words are simply names or labels for things (objects, ideas,
qualities) in the real world. In its simplest form, it suggests a one-to-one correspondence
between a word and the entity it refers to. The meaning of a word is therefore the thing it
stands for.
○​ Core Idea: Language functions like a vast system of labels for pre-existing entities.
○​ Implication: If a word has meaning, it must refer to something. Conversely, if
something exists, it must have a name.
○​ Limitations: This theory struggles significantly with abstract concepts (e.g., "love,"
"justice"), non-existent entities (e.g., "unicorn," "Santa Claus"), and words that don't
refer to specific physical things (e.g., "and," "but," "if"). It also doesn't adequately
account for phenomena like polysemy (one word, multiple related meanings) or
synonymy (multiple words, one meaning for a given context).
○​ Example 1: The word "table" refers directly to the object we sit at.
○​ Example 2: The word "tree" is the name for the plant with a trunk and branches.
○​ Example 3: The word "blue" is the label for a specific color.
○​ Example 4: The word "run" is the name for the action of moving quickly on foot.
○​ Example 5: The word "dog" is simply the name for the animal.
●​ iv. Others – Componential Analysis, Use Theory, Truth-Conditional Semantics etc.:
○​ Componential Analysis: This approach breaks down the meaning of words into a
 set of binary (presence/absence) semantic features or components. These features
are often represented with plus (+) or minus (-) signs to indicate the presence or
absence of a particular semantic property. This allows for a systematic comparison
and contrast of word meanings by identifying shared and differentiating features,
providing a more structured way to describe lexical meaning.
■​ Example 1: For "man": [+HUMAN], [+MALE], [+ADULT]
■​ Example 2: For "woman": [+HUMAN], [-MALE], [+ADULT]
■​ Example 3: For "boy": [+HUMAN], [+MALE], [-ADULT]
■​ Example 4: For "girl": [+HUMAN], [-MALE], [-ADULT]
■​ Example 5: For "chicken" (the animal): [+ANIMAL], [+BIRD], [-WILD],
[+DOMESTICATED]
○​ Use Theory (Meaning as Use): Developed by philosophers like Ludwig
Wittgenstein, this theory argues that the meaning of a word is not an inherent
property or a static mental construct, but rather determined by how it is used in a
particular language game or context. The famous dictum is: "Don't ask for the
meaning, ask for the use." Meaning is therefore dynamic, context-dependent, and
emerges from the way speakers actually employ language in communicative
situations.
○​ Truth-Conditional Semantics: This theory focuses on the conditions under which
a sentence is true. The meaning of a declarative sentence is considered to be its
truth conditions – that is, what the world must be like for that sentence to be
considered true. This approach is particularly strong in formal semantics and logic,
aiming for precise and verifiable definitions of meaning based on propositional logic
and the relationships between propositions.
■​ Example: The sentence "The cat is on the mat" is true if and only if there
exists a cat, there exists a mat, and the cat's location is on the mat.

3. Semantic Relations
This crucial section explores the various ways in which word meanings relate to each other,
forming the intricate web of a language's lexicon.
●​ i. Lexical Semantics – synonymy, antonymy, homonymy, polysemy etc.
(sub-categorization and strict categorization, selectional restriction):
○​ Synonymy: Words that have the same or very similar meanings. While perfect
synonyms (words interchangeable in all contexts) are rare, words can be
synonymous in specific contexts or share core meanings.
1.​ Example: "Big" and "Large"
2.​ Example: "Happy" and "Joyful"
3.​ Example: "Fast" and "Quick"
4.​ Example: "Buy" and "Purchase"
5.​ Example: "Begin" and "Start"
○​ Antonymy: Words that have opposite meanings. There are different types of
antonyms:
■​ Gradable Antonyms: Represent opposite ends of a scale, allowing for
degrees (e.g., hot/cold, big/small).
■​ Complementary Antonyms: Opposites where the assertion of one implies the
denial of the other, forming a binary pair (e.g., alive/dead, true/false).
■​ Relational Antonyms: Express a reciprocal relationship between two entities
 from opposing viewpoints (e.g., buy/sell, teacher/student).
1.​ Example (Gradable): "Hot" and "Cold"
2.​ Example (Complementary): "Alive" and "Dead"
3.​ Example (Relational): "Teacher" and "Student"
4.​ Example (Gradable): "Rich" and "Poor"
5.​ Example (Complementary): "Open" and "Closed"
○​ Homonymy: Words that are spelled and/or pronounced the same but have
completely unrelated meanings. Their similarity is purely coincidental.
1.​ Example: "Bank" (river bank) and "Bank" (financial institution)
2.​ Example: "Bat" (flying mammal) and "Bat" (baseball equipment)
3.​ Example: "File" (tool) and "File" (document folder)
4.​ Example: "Match" (to pair or be equal to) and "Match" (a fire starter)
5.​ Example: "Right" (correct) and "Right" (direction)
○​ Polysemy: A single word having multiple related meanings. The meanings usually
share some common conceptual core or originate from the same historical root.
1.​ Example: "Foot" (part of body), "Foot" (of a mountain), "Foot" (of a page) - all
relate to a base or bottom part.
2.​ Example: "Bright" (shining) and "Bright" (intelligent) - both suggest a positive
quality of light/understanding.
3.​ Example: "Head" (part of body), "Head" (leader), "Head" (of a bed) - all relate
to a top or leading part.
4.​ Example: "Run" (to move quickly), "Run" (a business), "Run" (a liquid) - all
relate to a continuous movement or operation.
5.​ Example: "Book" (a reading material) and "Book" (to make a reservation) -
both involve recording or arranging something.
○​ Hyponymy/Hypernymy (Sub-categorization and Strict Categorization): This
relationship describes a hierarchical structure of meaning.
■​ Hyponymy: A word whose meaning is included within the meaning of
another more general word. It's a "kind of" relationship. (e.g., "dog" is a kind
of "animal").
■​ Hypernymy: A more general word whose meaning encompasses the
meanings of more specific words (its hyponyms). (e.g., "animal" is a
hypernym of "dog").
1.​ Example: "Dog" is a hyponym of "Animal." "Animal" is the hypernym.
2.​ Example: "Carrot" is a hyponym of "Vegetable." "Vegetable" is the hypernym.
3.​ Example: "Chair" is a hyponym of "Furniture." "Furniture" is the hypernym.
4.​ Example: "Rose" is a hyponym of "Flower." "Flower" is the hypernym.
5.​ Example: "Laptop" is a hyponym of "Computer." "Computer" is the hypernym.
○​ Selectional Restriction: Semantic constraints that a word imposes on the words it
can combine with. These constraints are based on semantic features and ensure
that the resulting phrase or sentence makes sense in a meaningful way. Violations
often lead to anomalous sentences.
1.​ Example: "The table ate the bread." (Violates selectional restriction: "eat"
requires an animate/living subject.)
2.​ Example: "The idea whispered softly." (Violates selectional restriction:
"whisper" requires an animate subject capable of sound production.)
3.​ Example: "The stone thought deeply." (Violates selectional restriction: "think"
requires a cognitive subject.)
 4.​ Example: "The tree smiled broadly." (Violates selectional restriction: "smile"
requires an animate subject with facial muscles.)
5.​ Example: "The number slept soundly." (Violates selectional restriction: "sleep"
requires an animate subject.)
●​ ii. Sentence semantics – ambiguity, paraphrase, redundancy, tautology, anomaly,
entailment, presupposition etc.:
○​ Ambiguity: A sentence having more than one possible meaning or interpretation.
This can be lexical (word-level) or structural (sentence-level).
1.​ Example: "I saw the man with the telescope." (Structural ambiguity: Who has
the telescope – "I" or "the man"?)
2.​ Example: "She is wearing a new watch." (Lexical ambiguity: Is "watch" a
timepiece or an act of observing?)
3.​ Example: "Flying planes can be dangerous." (Structural ambiguity: Are
planes that are flying dangerous, or is the act of flying planes dangerous?)
4.​ Example: "The chicken is ready to eat." (Structural ambiguity: Is the chicken
cooked and ready to be eaten, or is the chicken hungry and ready to eat?)
5.​ Example: "He hit the man with a book." (Structural ambiguity: Did he use a
book to hit the man, or did he hit the man who had a book?)
○​ Paraphrase: Two or more sentences that have the same meaning or propositional
content, even if their structure or choice of words differs. They are semantically
equivalent.
1.​ Example: "The boy kicked the ball." and "The ball was kicked by the boy."
2.​ Example: "She is extremely happy." and "She is very joyful."
3.​ Example: "The car is too expensive for me to buy." and "I cannot afford the
car because it is too expensive."
4.​ Example: "He closed the door." and "The door was closed by him."
5.​ Example: "It is probable that he will come." and "He will probably come."
○​ Redundancy: Information in a sentence that is repeated or unnecessary for its core
meaning. It often involves using two words that convey the same semantic
information.
1.​ Example: "He repeated the same words again." ("again" is redundant if
"repeated" implies repetition.)
2.​ Example: "The final outcome was positive." ("final" is often redundant with
"outcome," as an outcome is typically final.)
3.​ Example: "It was a joint collaboration." ("joint" and "collaboration" convey
similar meaning.)
4.​ Example: "He returned back to his home." ("back" is redundant with
"returned.")
5.​ Example: "They went on a free gift giveaway." ("free" is redundant with "gift"
in this context, as gifts are by definition free.)
○​ Tautology: A statement that is true by definition or always true, regardless of
external circumstances. Its truth is guaranteed by its logical structure or the
meaning of its words.
1.​ Example: "A bachelor is an unmarried man."
2.​ Example: "It is either raining or not raining."
3.​ Example: "All bachelors are male."
4.​ Example: "If it's red, then it's colored."
5.​ Example: "This is what it is."
 ○​ Anomaly: A sentence that is grammatically well-formed (syntactically correct) but
semantically nonsensical or violates semantic rules (e.g., selectional restrictions).
1.​ Example: "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." (Chomsky's famous
example)
2.​ Example: "The table ran away."
3.​ Example: "My car dreamt of flying."
4.​ Example: "The square circle is blue."
5.​ Example: "Truth speaks loudly."
○​ Entailment: A relationship between two sentences (P and Q) where the truth of the
first sentence (P) logically guarantees the truth of the second sentence (Q). If P is
true, Q must also be true.
1.​ Example: "John killed the cat." entails "The cat is dead."
2.​ Example: "Mary is a woman." entails "Mary is human."
3.​ Example: "All dogs are mammals." entails "My dog is a mammal."
4.​ Example: "The cat is black." entails "The cat has a color."
5.​ Example: "He is a father." entails "He has a child."
○​ Presupposition: An underlying assumption or belief that is taken for granted in a
statement. If the statement is true, the presupposition must also be true. Unlike
entailment, a presupposition often remains true even when the main assertion of
the sentence is negated or questioned.
1.​ Example: "John stopped smoking." Presupposes: "John used to smoke." (If
John didn't stop smoking, it's still implied he used to smoke.)
2.​ Example: "The king of France is bald." Presupposes: "There is a king of
France." (This presupposition fails if there's no king.)
3.​ Example: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Presupposes: "You used to
beat your wife." (A notorious example to illustrate the persistence of
presupposition.)
4.​ Example: "I regret telling him the secret." Presupposes: "I told him the
secret."
5.​ Example: "It was John who broke the window." Presupposes: "Someone
broke the window."

4. The Concept of Context in Semantics

Context is paramount in semantics, as it significantly influences how meaning is interpreted.
Meaning is not solely inherent in words themselves but emerges from their use in specific
situations.
●​ i. Meaning: Context provides the surrounding information that helps to disambiguate
words and sentences, resolve ambiguous references, and understand the speaker's
intention or the broader communicative purpose. Without context, many utterances would
be unclear, have multiple possible meanings, or be misinterpreted. It allows for efficiency
in communication by providing shared background knowledge.
●​ ii. Types of Context:
○​ a. Linguistic Context (Co-text): Refers to the surrounding words, phrases, and
sentences within the same text or conversation. The linguistic environment of an
utterance provides crucial clues for its interpretation.
■​ Example: In "He banked the plane sharply," the word "plane" tells us that
"banked" refers to tilting an aircraft, not performing a financial transaction.
 ■​ Example: The meaning of "read" in "I read the book yesterday" is distinct from
"I will read the book tomorrow" due to the surrounding linguistic elements.
○​ b. Physical (Situational) Context: Refers to the immediate physical environment
or actual situation in which an utterance is made. This includes objects present,
actions being performed, the physical location of speakers and listeners, and even
facial expressions or gestures.
■​ Example: Pointing to a specific dog and saying "That dog is cute" clarifies
which dog is being referred to.
■​ Example: If someone says "It's cold in here," while shivering and looking at
an open window, the physical context helps interpret "cold" as a complaint or
request to close the window.
○​ c. Cultural Context (Socio-cultural Context) etc.: Encompasses the shared
knowledge, beliefs, values, social norms, and customs of a particular community or
society. Cultural context heavily influences the connotations, pragmatic implications,
and even the denotations of language. What is appropriate or understood in one
culture might differ significantly in another.
■​ Example: The meaning of "table" might vary slightly in different cultures (e.g.,
associated with specific dining rituals or social hierarchy).
■​ Example: The phrase "breaking a leg" means "good luck" in theatre culture,
but its literal meaning would be inappropriate in other contexts.
●​ iii. Context and Reference: Context plays a crucial role in determining what linguistic
expressions refer to in the real world or within the discourse itself.
○​ Deixis – person, temporal, spatial: Words or expressions whose meaning
(specifically their referent) depends directly on the context of utterance – specifically
who is speaking, when, and where the utterance is made. They are "pointing"
words.
■​ Person Deixis: "I," "you," "he/she/it," "we," "they" (referents depend on who is
the speaker, addressee, or third party at the time of utterance).
■​ Temporal Deixis: "Now," "then," "today," "yesterday," "tomorrow," "next week"
(referents depend on the time of utterance).
■​ Spatial Deixis: "Here," "there," "this," "that," "these," "those" (referents depend
on the location of the speaker relative to the object/place).
○​ Reference – anaphora, cataphora: Mechanisms by which linguistic expressions
establish links to entities that have been previously mentioned or will be mentioned
in the discourse.
■​ Anaphora: A linguistic expression (often a pronoun) that refers back to an
entity already mentioned in the preceding discourse.
■​ Example: "John arrived. He was late." ("He" refers back to "John").
■​ Cataphora: A linguistic expression (often a pronoun) that refers forward to an
entity that will be mentioned later in the discourse.
■​ Example: "Although he was tired, John continued to work." ("He" refers
forward to "John").

5. Semantics-Semiotics Interface
This section explores the overlap and interaction between semantics (meaning in language) and
semiotics (the broader study of signs and symbols in general). Semiotics provides a framework
for understanding how meaning is created and interpreted not just through words, but through
any sign system.
●​ Foundations of Semiotics: Icons, indexes, symbols, shapes, colour etc.
○​ Icons: Signs that resemble what they represent; there is a perceptual similarity
between the signifier and the signified (e.g., a picture of a cat for a cat,
onomatopoeic words like "meow").
○​ Indexes: Signs that have a direct, causal, or existential link to what they represent;
they point to or indicate something (e.g., smoke as an index of fire, a pointing finger,
a fever as an index of illness).
○​ Symbols: Signs whose relationship to what they represent is arbitrary and
conventional, based on shared cultural understanding and agreement; the
connection must be learned (e.g., the word "cat" for the animal, traffic lights,
national flags). This interface highlights how linguistic meaning (primarily symbolic)
often relies on these broader semiotic principles, and how non-linguistic signs
contribute to the overall meaning-making process in communication.

6. Semantic-Pragmatic Interface (reductionism vs complementarity,

context-independent vs context-dependent meaning)
This section tackles the crucial boundary between semantics (literal, context-independent
meaning) and pragmatics (context-dependent meaning and language use). It explores whether
one can be reduced to the other or if they are complementary.
●​ i. The Cooperative Principle – the Maxims: Introduced by philosopher H.P. Grice, this
principle suggests that participants in a conversation implicitly cooperate with each other
to achieve effective communication. This cooperation is guided by four fundamental
maxims:
○​ Maxim of Quality: Be truthful. (Do not say what you believe to be false or that for
which you lack adequate evidence.)
○​ Maxim of Quantity: Be as informative as required for the current conversational
purposes, but no more and no less.
○​ Maxim of Relation (Relevance): Be relevant. (Ensure your contributions are
pertinent to the ongoing conversation.)
○​ Maxim of Manner: Be clear, brief, and orderly. Avoid obscurity of expression and
ambiguity.
●​ ii. Implicature: What is implied or hinted at by an utterance, beyond its literal (semantic)
meaning. Implicatures arise when speakers intentionally "flout" (openly disregard) or
adhere to the Cooperative Principle's maxims, expecting the listener to infer the unstated
meaning.
○​ Example: If someone asks "Are you hungry?" and you reply "I just ate a whole
pizza," you're implying you're not hungry (flouting the Maxim of Quantity by being
overly informative, to convey a relevant meaning).
●​ iii. The Speech Act Theory: Developed by philosophers J.L. Austin and J.R. Searle, this
theory proposes that utterances are not just statements but also actions. When we speak,
we perform "speech acts." These acts have three layers:
○​ Locutionary Act: The literal act of saying something; the phonetic, phatic, and
rhetic acts (uttering sounds, words, and sentences with specific meaning).
○​ Illocutionary Act: The speaker's intended meaning or purpose in making the
utterance; the force of the utterance (e.g., a promise, a request, a warning, an
 assertion). This is "doing something in saying something."
○​ Perlocutionary Act: The actual effect achieved on the listener or the audience as a
result of the utterance (e.g., persuading, annoying, informing, frightening). This is
"doing something by saying something."

7. Semantic-Syntax Interface
This section explores how meaning interacts with grammatical structure. Syntax (the rules
governing sentence structure) and semantics are deeply intertwined, as the arrangement of
words often determines or influences their interpretation.
●​ The Speech Act Theory: (Reiterated here due to its significant implications for how
syntactic structures can encode different speech acts.) The way a sentence is
syntactically structured often signals its semantic function or the type of speech act being
performed. For instance:
○​ An interrogative sentence structure ("Are you going?") typically signals a question
(illocutionary act of asking).
○​ An imperative sentence structure ("Go home!") typically signals a command or
request (illocutionary act of ordering).
○​ A declarative sentence structure ("He is here.") typically signals an assertion
(illocutionary act of stating). This demonstrates that grammatical form is often a
strong indicator of semantic intent and pragmatic function.

8. Semantics and the use of English in Nigeria.

This section is crucial for understanding the practical application of semantic principles within
your local context. It examines how global semantic theories manifest and sometimes diverge in
Nigerian English. This could involve:
●​ Lexical variations: How certain English words have developed unique or specialized
meanings, connotations, or extensions of meaning in Nigerian English due to cultural
influence or specific local contexts.
●​ Pragmatic norms: Differences in how Gricean maxims are applied, adhered to, or flouted
in Nigerian conversational contexts, leading to distinct patterns of implicature and
politeness strategies.
●​ Cultural influences: How Nigerian cultural practices, beliefs, and worldviews shape the
semantic interpretation of English expressions, including idioms, proverbs, and figures of
speech.
●​ Code-switching and code-mixing: The semantic implications of blending English with
indigenous Nigerian languages, and how this affects meaning generation and
understanding in multilingual interactions.
●​ Figurative language: The unique use and interpretation of metaphors, similes, proverbs,
and idioms in Nigerian English, and their underlying semantic structures.
●​ Register and style: How semantic choices contribute to different registers and styles of
English used across various domains in Nigeria (e.g., formal vs. informal, academic vs.
marketplace).
Compiled by:
Onuche Victor Unekwu
09123050042