Semantics: a coursebook, second edition

U N I T   1
About semantics
11
(2) Can the English phrase aunts of mine (as in married to aunts 
of mine) be straightforwardly translated into French?
Yes / No
(3) Explain the di
fference between the two German sentences Können 
Sie mir das Salz reichen? and Kannst Du mir das Salz reichen?
..........................................................................................................................
(4) Can a similar nuance of meaning be straightforwardly 
conveyed in English?
Yes / No
Feedback
(1) No, French parent means something broader, translatable by English 
relative or kinsman. (2) No, mes tantes and plusieurs de mes tantes do not
quite translate the English aunts of mine exactly. (3) A speaker of the 
first
sentence would be on less intimate terms with his hearer than a speaker of
the second sentence. (4) No
Comment If we were to consider languages less closely related to English than French
and German, such as Eskimo, or an Australian aborigine language, or Navaho,
we would 
find many more such examples of differences between languages.
But interesting as such di
fferences may be as ‘collector’s items’, semantics
concentrates on the similarities between languages, rather than on the
di
fferences. Semantic theory is a part of a larger enterprise, linguistic theory,
which includes the study of syntax (grammar) and phonetics (pronunciation)
besides the study of meaning. It is a characteristic of Linguistics as a whole
that it concentrates on the similarities between languages.
It is not possible to talk precisely and simply about meaning without
using at least a small amount of the technical terminology developed by
semanticists for just this purpose. Working through this book, you should
learn to use some of these technical terms, and you should 
find, as you
progress, that you get better at making precise statements about various
aspects of meaning. Fortunately, the technical terminology of semantics,
especially at this elementary level, is nowhere near as pervasive and di
fficult
as the technical vocabulary of many scienti
fic subjects, such as chemistry,
biology, and mathematics. We try to avoid unnecessary jargon, and only
introduce a technical term when no everyday word quite suits our purpose.
No theory, be it chemical theory, phonetic theory, mathematical theory,
semantic theory, or whatever, is complete. That is, no matter how many facts
a theory actually succeeds in explaining or predicting, there are always
further facts in need of explanation, other facts about which the theory as yet
makes no prediction (or possibly about which it makes a false prediction),
and facts which do not seem to be readily describable in the terms provided
by the theory. Human knowledge grows cumulatively (with occasional drastic
leaps and revolutions).

PA RT   O N E
Basic ideas in semantics
12
Practice Look at Hecataeus’ map of the world below (after Grosser historischer
Weltatlas, ed. H. Bengston, 1972), originally drawn about 520 
; then answer
the questions.
(1) Is there enough similarity between this map and a modern
map to conclude that they are both attempts to represent
the same thing?
Yes / No
(2) In what areas would a modern map coincide most closely with this?
..........................................................................................................................
(3) In what areas would a modern map diverge most from this?
..........................................................................................................................
(4) Does it seem reasonable to assume that a modern map is 
generally a better representation of the actual geographical facts? Yes / No
(5) Is it conceivable that a modern map could be wrong in 
some respects?
Yes / No
(6) How must the correctness of a map ultimately be checked?
..........................................................................................................................
(7) Are climatic conditions or geological facts represented 
on a typical modern map?
Yes / No
(8) Are there new techniques, invented outside the immediate 
domain of the map-maker, available to the modern mapmaker,
but unavailable to the ancient mapmaker?
Yes / No

U N I T   1
About semantics
13
(9) Have the actual geographical facts changed in any way 
since 520 
?
Yes / No
Feedback
(1) Yes (2) in the central areas, around the shores of the Eastern 
Mediterranean (3) in the peripheral areas, West Africa, Africa south of the
Sahara, Northern Europe, the Far East, and the New World (4) We have no
alternative but to assume that our modern account of the facts is more
likely to be correct than the ancient one. (5) Yes (6) by comparing it with
factual data gathered from the site of the map itself (7) No, these
dimensions are usually absent, so even a modern map is far from
representing ‘all the facts’. (8) Yes, for instance, aerial photography,
photographs from satellites, etc. (9) Very slightly – the odd river might
have changed its course, and man-made objects, e.g. cities and canals, have
appeared and disappeared.
Comment The analogy between the development of semantics and the development of
other areas of knowledge can be pressed quite far. Aristotle can be regarded as
a forerunner of modern semantics, just as Hecataeus was a forerunner of
modern geography. Aristotle was clearly concerned with the same general
areas that concern modern semanticists. There are areas of meaning studied
by modern semanticists which were terra incognita (Latin for ‘unknown
territory’) to Aristotle. We must assume that our modern theories of meaning
(to the extent that they agree with one another) are in some sense superior to
Aristotle’s, i.e. that in some ways Aristotle ‘got it wrong’, and we, with the
bene
fit of more than 2,000 years’ further thought, are more likely to have ‘got
it right’. Semantic theories are justi
fied by reference to the actual semantic
facts that they are meant to account for. As the subject has developed, new
dimensions in the nature of meaning have begun to be described. And today’s
semanticists have at their disposal certain modern techniques (e.g. symbolic
logic, new theories of grammar such as cognitive and generative grammar,
and research in psychology and cognitive science, to name just a few) not
available to the ancients. As far as we can tell, although individual languages
have changed (Modern Greek is very di
fferent from Ancient Greek), the basic
ways in which language is used to convey meaning have not changed at all.
An analogy should not be pushed too far. Obviously there are also
di
fferences between semantics and a physical science, like geography.
It will be seen that the semanticist has certain advantages and certain
disadvantages in comparison to students of other subjects. He is spared the
physical labour and inconvenience of experiments or expeditions to ascertain
facts – he can do semantics from his armchair. (Of course he will need paper
and pencil to formulate his theories, and he will need to go to the library to
compare his ideas with those of other semanticists, but these are minimal

PA RT   O N E
Basic ideas in semantics
14
e
fforts.) Correspondingly, however, the mental labour, as with any theoretical
discipline, can be quite arduous. The semanticist needs to be able to think in
abstractions. Doing semantics is largely a matter of conceptual analysis,
exploring the nature of meaning in a careful and thoughtful way, using a
wide range of examples, many of which we can draw from our own
knowledge.
One thing we would recommend, as you proceed through this book, is that
you take a positively critical attitude to the ideas being put forward. If you
disagree with the ‘feedback’ to some exercises, try to work out why, and
discuss the problem with your instructors and fellow students. Semantics is
not cut-and-dried in its 
final state. You can contribute to its development by
active discussion of the ideas in this book, many of which may be as
imperfect as Hecataeus’ map.
Bon voyage!

tải về 1.74 Mb.

Chia sẻ với bạn bè của bạn: