PART ONE

INTRODUCTION
A. The meaning of language 1. Language is a purely human and non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotion, and desires by means of a system of voluntarily produced symbols. (Edward Sapir, 1921) 2. Language is a system arbitrary vocal symbols used for human communication. (Wardaugh 1977 : 3) 3. Bahasa adalah sistem lambang arbiter yang dipergunakan suatu masyarakat untuk bekerjasama, berinteraksi, dan mengidentifikasi diri. (Kridalaksana in Aminuddin 2001:28) Study the language diagram below: Sign (word/lexeme) Language (as a tool of communication) Object (concept) Example: they have no directly relation ( reference )

plant ( not animal, why ? )

books ( not pens, why ? )

From the definitions above it is clear that language operates as a vehicle of meaning. The vehicle (or the tool ) is the form of voluntarily produced symbols or, stated differently, arbitrary vocal symbols. The meaning of language is found in the communication performed by the speaker. Such meaning can be ideas, emotions, and desires. 1

Then, as a system, language has some components arranged hierarchically. Some linguists proposed some models of analysis as follows: Model 1. LANGUAGE

Form

Meaning

Model 2. LANGUAGE

Phonology Model 3.

Syntax

Semantics

LANGUAGE

Pronunciation

Syntax

Semantics

Phonetics

Phonology

Model 4. M.A.K. Halliday (1961) LANGUAGE

Substance

Inter-levels

Form

Inter-levels Context /Seman tics

Situation (Extra
Linguistics)

Phonetics

Phonology

Grammar

Lexis

Model 5. Crystal (1993) LANGUAGE

Structure Medium Grammar

Pragmatics Meaning

Use

Phonetics

Phonology

Morphology

Syntax

Lexicon

Discourse

B. Linguistics Linguistics is the science of language. (A.S. Hornby 1981:494) Ferdinand de Saussure, 1916 LINGUISTICS

Langue (language as a system )

Langage (language as a human character)

Parole (accent, utterance, pronunciation,,etc.)

More abstract

Most abstract 3

Concrete object (data/text)

C. Branches of linguistics : 1. Phonology & Phonetics: The study of sound systems of individual languages and of the nature of such systems generally 2. Morphology: The study of the grammatical structure of words and the categories realized by them. 3. Syntax: The study of grammatical relations between words and other units within the sentence 4. Lexicology: Branch of linguistics concerned with the semantic structure of the lexicon: hence e.g. with *semantic field and *sense relation. 5. Semantics: The study of meaning in language _________________________________________________ micro ling 6. Psycholinguistics: Any study of language in or from the viewpoint of psychology 7. Socio-linguistics: Any study of language in relation to society 8. Pragmatics: The study of how language is used in communication 9. Philology: 1. The study of the development of language, or a particular language(A.S. Hornby) 2. Used in English both of scholarly study of literary text (e.g. classical philology, modern philology) and in the same sense as historical linguistics) (Peter Mathews) 10. Dialectology: The study of geographical dialects -------------------------------------------------------------------------- macro linguistics THE TERMS OF SEMANTICS A. Definitions: 1. Semantics is a branch of linguistics concerned with studying the meaning of word(s) and sentences. (AS. Hornby 1981 : 774 ) 2. Semantics is the study of meaning communicated through language. (Saeed 2000 : 3) 3. Semantics is the study of meaning in the language. (Hurford and Heasley 1994 : 1)

4. . Oleh karena itu, kata semantik dapat diartikan sebagai ilmu tentang makna atau tentang arti, yaitu salah satu dari tiga tataran analisis bahasa: fonologi, gramatika, dan semantik. (Abdul Chaer 2002 : 2)

Semantics

Analysis

Culture

English fish

Indonesian ikan

Cat (for all animals like the cat in shape: lion, tiger) rice brother, sister good morning good evening

kucing (not including lion and tiger)

Javanese iwak (daging yg digunakan juga sebg. Lauk, teman pemakan nasi; iwak ayam, iwak wedus atau ikan ayam, ikan kambing (betawi) _

nasi, bubur, beras atau gabah kakak lebih tua, adik (lebih mudah) Selamat siang (Pk. 11.00 WIB.) selamat malam (Pk. 01.00 WIB.)

_ _

It is in fact that in analyzing a meaning the signifier and signified have no one to one relation, it means that each linguistic sign has no just one meaning. However, sometimes such relation includes one to two meaning or more, or can be two or more to one. These relation can be seen in the following diagram: 1) O O O 2) O O wife istri a pen is a thing to write something bini

3) O O O 5

zero nol ough

B. Meaning and sense In linguistics, the meaning of a word can be denotative and connotative. Denotative meaning is the objective signification of a word, and, therefore, straightforward in nature. In the sentence Joan is a small girl basically means However, the sentence Joan is my girl the word girl has another meaning. Speaking about the sense of words is basically concerned only with intralinguistic relations (Palmer, 1981:29). The word istri, for instance, is more pleasing than bini though both mean wife. In addition, words might also be neutral, derogatory, or hortatory. Focus on the examples below : *derogatory words : prostitute and hooker are more derogatory than sex worker. Gelandangam (Ind.) is more derogatory than tunawisma. *Hortatory words : a salesclerk is happier to be called pramuniaga in Indonesian than pelayan toko though basically she does the same job. *Neutral words : usually those words are ones which can be observed or experienced objectively, such as rumah (Ind.) is a dwelling place. It may seem to you that meaning is so vague, insubstantial, and elusive that it is impossible to come to any clear, concrete, or tangible conclusions about it. Therefore, the aim of serious semanticist is to explain and clarify the nature of meaning. Try hard to understand the followings: (1) Do the following two English sentences mean (approximately) the same thing? Ill be back later and I will return after some time. (2) Is the answer to the previous question obvious to a normal speaker of English? (3) In the light of your reply to (2), if I ask What did John mean when he said hed be back later?, would you be giving the helpful kind of answer that I probably want if you said He meant that he would return after some time? (4) In asking What did John mean when he said hed be back later? is the questioner primarily asking (a) what the SENTENCE Ill be back later means, or (b) what JOHN meant in saying it? 6

(5) A dictionary can be thought of as a list of the meanings of words, or of what words mean, Could one make a list of what speakers (e.g. John, you or I) mean? (6) Do you understand this question?

Practice 1 Say whether the pairs of words in the curely brackets in the sentences below have the same meaning (S) or a different meaning (D). 1. I almost nearly likely probable fell over.S

2. It is

that Raymond will be here tomorrow.S

3. Your gatepost doesnt seem to be quite

vertical Upright

4. he painted the fireplace 5. Ill see you on

aquamarine vermilion Wednesday Thirsday

Practice 2 1. Write down two sentences bringing out clearly the two different meanings of The chicken is ready to eat. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. Write down two sentences bringing out clearly the two different senses of He greeted the girl with a smile. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3. Do likewise for he turned over the field . --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Practice 3

1. When you look up the meaning of word in a dictionary, what do you find there, its referent, or an expression with the same sense? 2. Is a dictionary full of words or full of things, like a box or sack? 3. Could a foreigner learn the meanings of his very first words of English by having their typical referents pointed out to him ? 4. Could a foreigner learn the meanings of his very first words of English by looking them up in an English dictionary? C. History of Semantics 1. Aristotle (384-322 B.C); Term of meaning: word is the smallest unit dealing with meaning, and the word meaning can be contrasted between the present meaning of the word itself independently and the present meaning of word which is resulted by grammatical association. 2. Plato (429-347 B.C); in his Cratylus said that language vocal sounds implicitly have certain meanings. At that time, however, the boundary between etymology and study of meaning or word meaning had not been clear. 3. C. Chr. Reisig, Germany (1825); his new concept about grammar is that it involves three primary elements, semasiology (study of sign), syntax (study of word arrangement into sentence), and etymology (study of the word origin). In this period the term of semantics might not be used though the study of it was performed. Therefore, Ullman called this period as the first growth with his term underground period. 4. Michel Breal, French (1883); his article Les lois Intellectuelles du langage marked the second growth period of semantics. Semantics study in this period was more related to the extra language elements, i.e. the distinctive form of meaning, the distinctive meaning background, the relation between the distinctive meaning and logic, psychology or a number of other criteria. Breal viewed that semantics was still a new field. Like Reisig, Breal called semantics as a pure historical science. 5. Gustaf Stern, Sweden philologist with Meaning and Change of Meaning, with Special Reference to the English language (1931) marked the third growth period of semantics. Through his study, Stern studied meaning empirically in one language base, English.

Note that before the Sterns work presented, the collection of materials for a lecture written by the outstanding language teacher had been published in Geneva. It was Ferdinand de Saussures book of Courese de Linguistique Generale (1916) which would make certain about the following linguistic development. OBJECT OF STUDY The object of study of semantics is the meaning of language: words, phrases, clauses, clauses, sentences and discourse)
Function

(zero semantics)

Syntax

Category

Role

Grammar S e m a n t I c s Morphology Phonology (phonemics Phonetics Lexicon (has a meaning) lexical semantics

Grammatical semantics

(zero semantics, but each phoneme has function as distinctive feature)

( Adopted from Verhaar 1978 : 386 ) notes : a. Function S P O Ad

b. Category

c. Role (agentive, patient, object, locative, etc.) 9

( Adopted from Chaer 1994 : 9 ) PART TWO

THE SCOPE OF SEMANTICS

1.Naming Names can be objects, concepts, activities or events. If a names is equal to a symbol (signifier) and an object (signified), this is that naming is arbitrary_ there is no direct relationship between them. According to de Saussure a language as a system co nsists of signifier (a word in the language) and signified (the object in the world). Signifier (a word in the language) Language as a communication system Signified (object in the world) names Words Labels of things learnt by child through his parents by a process of naming

*Problem with this view, to begin with it seems to apply only to nouns. But it is difficult to extend the theory of naming to include adjective, verb, preposition, pronoun or conjunction. *Nouns mean (in traditional grammar) the names of person or thing, such as Ali, book, etc. *Adjectives (early, attractive, true, relevant, traditional, difficult): how many of these could be used as a label to identify something that they denote? *Verb (e.g. a boy running): 1. we are not presented separately with a boy and with running. It is far more difficult to identify precisely. And 2. what are the essential characteristics of what is denoted by the verb than what is denoted by the noun. Real world Words The world of fairy stories *Words which do not refer to physical objects; love, hate, inspiration, nonsense, etc. *The classification of objects in terms of the words used to denote them differ from language to language. 10

*Ordinary language differs from scientific language precisely in the fact that its terms are not clearly defined and its classes not rigorously established. *Bertrand Russell: there are two kinds of word; object word (learnt ostensively by pointing at objects) and dictionary word (defined in terms of the object words) *A naming theory for sentences is not more satisfactory than one for words. We cannot directly relate the meaning of a sentence to things and even in the world. 2. Concept The view that relates words and things through mediation of concept of the mind: 1. de Saussure, linguistic sign consists of a signifier and a signified. 2. Ogden and Richards saw the relationship as triangle:
Thought or Reference (concept)

Symbol (linguistic element: word, sentence)

Referent (the object, etc. in the world of experience)

In contras to this theory said that to see meaning in term of the mental entities are: a. overwhelming b. subjective c. the arguments about intuition and introspection are irrelevant *The problem of semantics is now the words and sentences can be meaningful. Wittgenstein said, Dont look for the meaning of word, look for its uses. 3. Sense and reference a. Reference: a speaker indicates which things in the world (including persons) are talked about. Example: My son is in the beach tree. identifies person identifies thing

11

Reference deals with the relationship between the linguistic elements, words, sentences, etc., and the non-linguistic world of experience. b. Sense relates to the complex system of relationship that hold between the linguistic elements themselves (mostly the words); it is concerned only with intra-linguistic relation, i.e. father/son, uncle/nephew (involving family relationship), and

narrow/wide, male/female, buy/sell (involving the opposite meaning) c. Two kind of semantics: semantic structure (intra-linguistics), and meaning of the world (non-linguistic entities) a semantic theory (Katz and Fodor, describes and explains ambiguity, anomaly and paraphrase) and practical semantics. Semantic Theory must explain such sentences as (1) His typewriter has bad intention -------- anomalous sentence (2) My unmarried sister is married to a bachelor ----- contradictory sentence (3) John was looking for the glasses ----- ambiguous sentence (4) - The needle is too short. - The needle is not long enough.
Paraphrase or synonymous Sentence One sentence follow from The other The first implies or pre supposes thesecond

(5) - Many of students were unable to answer. - Only a few students grasped your question.

(6) - How long did Archibald remain in Monte Carlo. - Archibald remained in Monte Carlo for some time 4.Kinds of Meaning a. cognitive, ideational, denotational or prepositional meaning b. inter-personal or social meaning (relating ourselves to others)

Why language is not simply a matter of providing factual information are: a. we do not merely make statetement, we also ask question and give orders b. there are a variety of what today are called speech act: we use language, that is to say, to influence other people in many different ways. c. Much of what we say is not a stetement of fact but an evaluation. e.g. politician and statesmen
each implying approval or disapproval. These

12

hide and conceal liberty and freedom -

words function is to influence attitudes.

Words may have different emotive meaning in different societies, e.g. liberal is good word in great Britain, but it is bad word in south Africa and in some political circles in the United States.

d. *Language is often deeply concerned with variety of social relation. The language we will use depends upon the social relationship with the person to whom we are speaking. Thus we may ask for silence with: - Shut up - Be quiet - Would you please be quiet? - Would you keep your voice down a little please?

*The choice is to be rude or polite. e. We need not mean what we say: We can by the appropriate use of intonation be sarcastic or with the appropriate intonation imply what is not said. e.g. Thats very clever means thats not very clever. I dont like coffee (with a fall-rise intonation) means I like tea. Shes very clever (with a fall-rise intonation) suggests she is rather ugly. f. There is the kind of meaning in the notorious When did you stop beating your wife? For this presupposes that you once beat her, though it nowhere states that you did. 5.The word as a Semantic Unit The word (like in the dictionary) is, in some sense at least, one of the basic units of semantics. Yet there are some difficulties: a. not all words seem to have the same kind of meaning. Henry Sweet (English Grammarian) said, A very familiar distinction of words are full words (tree, sing, blue, gently) and from words (it, the, of, and) b. It is not at all clear that the word is a clearly defined unit, except as a conventional one resulting from the rules for writing that we all have learnt at school. -definite article in written as part of the word (in Arabic) but in English it is not. -greenhouse (one word) and White House (two words)

13

c. There is a problem with what have been called TRANSPARENT and OPAQUE words (Ullman, 1962) Oransparent words are those whose meaning can be determined from the meaning of their parts. Opaque words are those for which this is not possible. Example: Chopper and doorman are transparent. Axe and porter are Opaque. d. There are many words in English that are called PHONESTETIC, in which one part, often the initial cluster of consonant, gives an indication of meaning of a rather special kind. Prefix sl : slippery, slide, slither, slush, sluice, sludge, etc. Sk (surface or superficiality) skate, skin, skid, skim, etc. e. Semantic division seems to override word division. e.g. heavy smoker semantically it is not: heavy + smoker. (but the meaning is one who smokes heavily) good singer semantically it is not: good + singer. (but the meaning is: One who sings well.) f. Although we have ram/ewe, stallion/mere, we have no similar pairs for giraffe or elephant. g. We have the problem of idiom. Idiom is meant a sequence of words whose meaning cannot be predicted from the meaning of the words themselves. Semantically, idioms are single units.

14

SEMANTICS AND OTHER DISCIPLINES

Language is not only necessary for the formulation of thought but is part of the thinking itself. (W.D. Whitney) To study linguistics through psychology, namely the study of language learning process, either receptively or productively. The study of language as the social and cultural phenomena. The study of the relationship between social-cultural phenomena can be studied in the discussion of sosio-semantics)

Philosophy S E M A N T I C S

Psychology

Anthropology/ Sociology

Literary

To make sense of semantics is as early knowledge in attempt to understand the text of literature. Since the end of 20-th century the study of stylistics could not have been separated from semantics. (Ullman 1977 : 9 )

Linguistics

The theory of Transformative-generative developed by chomsky (1965) and his followers, Katz and Fodor (1963) firmly included semantic component in a part of both phonology and syntax. The view point was based on the idea that meaning was present far before the presence of surface structure or expression. In other word, meaning had existed in the deep structure associated with the component of representation of semantics

15

Part II SENTENCE, UTTERANCE AND PROPOSITION

Definitions: 1. 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 peace of language, such as a sequence of sentence, or a single phrase, or event a single word. In addition, utterance is physical events. Events are ephemeral. Utterances die on the wind. 2. A SENTENCE is neither a physical event or a physical object. It is, conceived abstractly, a string of words put together by the grammatical rules of a language. A sentence can be thought of as the IDEAL string of words behind various realizations in utterances and inscriptions. Example: Help represents an utterance. The postillions have been struck by lightning represents a sentence. John represents a word conceived as part of a sentence.

Practice

(1) For each of the following label it as an utterance (U) or sentence (S), as appropriate, by circling your choice. (a) The train now arriving at platform one is the 11.15 from Kings cross U /S (b) The pelican ignores the linguist U / S (2) Given our conventions, say what is wrong with the following : (a) John announced Marys here in his squeakiest voice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(b) Mary thought how nice John was 16

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additions : 1. Not all utterances are actually tokens sentences, but sometimes only of parts of sentences, e.g. phrases or single words. 2. A sentence is a grammatically complete string of words expressing a complete thought.

Practice

Given below are some sample conversations. In each case the second utterance is not a token of a sentence. Write out a full sentence expressing the intended meaning more fully. (1) Magnus : When did Goethe die? Fred : In 1832 ________________________________________ (2) Hostess : Would you like tea or coffee? Guest : Coffee, please ___________________________________ (3) A B : Who won the battle of Waterloo? : Weelington _____________________________________

3. A PROPOSITION is that part of the meaning of the utterance of declarative sentence which describe some state of affairs. The state of affairs typically involves persons or things referred to by expressions in the sentence. In uttering a declarative sentence a speaker typically asserts a proposition. (Rule : The notion of truth can be used to decide whether two sentences express different propositions. Thus if there is any conceivable set of circumstances in which one sentence is true, while the other is false, we can be sure that they express different proposition).

Practice

Consider the following pairs of sentences. In each case, say whether there are any circumstances of which one member of the pair could be true and the

17

other false (assuming in each case that the same name, e.g. Harry, refers to the same person). (1) Harry took out the garbage Harry took the garbage out (2) John gave Mary a book Mary was given a book by John (3) Isobel loves Tony Tony loves Isobel (4) George danced with Ethel George didnt dance with Ethel (5) Dr Findlay killed Janet Dr Findlay caused Janet to die Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aminuddin, Drs., M.Pd. Semantik: Pengantar Studi Tentang Makna. Bandung: Sinar Baru Algensindo, 2001. Chair, Abdul, Drs. Pengantar Semantik Bahasa Indonesia.Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 2002. Dewi, Novita, Editor. In Search of Meaning. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University Press, 2000. Hornby, A.S. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English. London: OxfordUniversity Press, 1984. Hurford, James R., and Brendan Heasley. Semantics: Coursebook. Great Britain: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1994. Mathews, Peter. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1997. Palmer, F.R. Semantics, An Outline. Great Britain: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1979. Saeed, John I. Semantics. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers, 2000.

18

Verhaar, J.W.M. Asas-Asas Linguitik Umum. Yogyakarta: Gajah Mada University Press, 1996. Yusuf, Suhendra, Drs., MA. Fonetik dan Fonology. Jakarta: P.T. Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 1998.

PART ONE THE SCOPE OF SEMANTICS

I. Naming
In earlier section it was suggested language might be thought of as a communication system with on the one hand the signifier, the other the signified, One of the oldest views, found in Platos dialogue Cratylus, is that the signifier is a word in the lan guage and the signified is the object in the world that it stand for, refers to, or denotes. Words, that is to say, are names or labels for things or names after all are labels for people, places, etc, and often seem to have little other meaning. This is, prima facie, an attractive view for it is surely true that the child learns many of his/her words precisely by a process of naming. He/she is often given names of objects by his/her parents and his/her first attempt at language will include saying da da when he/she sees his/her father or in producing his/her name for train, bus, cat, etc, on seeing the relevant objects in real life or in a book. There are, however, many difficulties with this view, to begin with it seems to apply only to nouns; indeed traditional grammar often defines the noun, as distinct from the adjectives, verb, preposition, etc, as the name of a person or thing. It is difficult, if not impossible, to extend the theory of naming to include these other parts of speech. It is possible, no doubt, to label colors, as is done in colors charts, and thus it may be that the colors words (adjectives) can be regarded as names. But this is not at all plausible for most of the other adjectives. For instance; early, attractive, true, relevant, traditional, difficult, and plausible. How many of these could be used as label to identify something that they denote?. The point is even more obvious with verbs. It is virtually impossible to identify what is named by a verb. Even if we take a verb like run and attempt to illustrate it with a boy running (either in a still or moving picture), there is no obvious way in which we can isolate the running 19

part of it. With a noun, we can often draw a picture of the object that is denoted, but it is difficult, if not impossible, with verbs. For let us consider the verb run and an attempt to illustrate what it denotes with a picture of a boy running. There are two difficulties that arise (even if we have a moving picture). Firstly, we are not presented separately with a boy and with running. We need a fairly sophisticated method of separating the two. Secondly, even in so far as we can distinguish the boy and what he is doing, it is far more difficult to identify precisely what are the essential characteristic of what is denoted by the verb than what is denoted by the noun. Can we, however, retain the theory of naming, but apply it to nouns alone? An obvious problem, to begin with, is that some nouns e.g. unicorn, goblin, fairy relate to creatures that do not exist; they do not, therefore, denote objects in the world. One way out of this difficulty is to distinguish two kinds of world, the real world and the world of fairy stories. Moreover, there are other nouns that, while not referring to imaginary items, do not refer to physical objects at all. Thus, we cannot identify the objects to be named by love, hate, inspiration, nonsense. Even where there are physical objects that are identifiable, it is by no means the case that the meaning is the same as its denotation (the object it stands for or refers to). Another difficulty is the fact that even if we restrict our attention to words that are linked with visible objects in the world around us, they often seem to denote a whole set of rather different objects. Chairs, for instance, come in all shapes and sizes, but precisely what is it that makes each one a chair rather than a settee or a stool ? Often the dividing line between the items referred to by one word and those referred to by another is vague and there may be overlap. For when is a hill, a hill and not a mountain? Or a stream a river? In the world of experience objects are not clearly grouped together ready, so to speak, to be labeled with a single word. This is a problem that has bothered philosophers from the time of Plato. There are two extreme, but clearly unhelpful, explanations. One is the realist view that all things called by the same name have some common property, that there are some kind of reality that establishes what is a chair, a hill, a house. The second, the nominalist view, is that they have nothing in common but the name. The second view is obviously 20

false because we do not use chair or hill for objects that are completely different. The objects so named have something in common, but the first view is no less invalid. For there are no clearly defined natural natural classes, of object in the world around us, simply waiting for a label to be applied to them; part of the problem of semantics is to establish what classes they are. The words of a language often reflect not so much the reality of the world, but the interests of the people who speak it. This is clear enough we look at cultures different from our own. The anthropologist Malinowski noted that the Trobriand Islanders had names for the things that were useful to them in their daily life that did not correspond to words in English. Another anthropologist , B.L. Whorf, points out that the Eskimos have three words for snow depending on whether it was falling, lying, on the ground or use for igloos, but the Hopi use only one word to refer to flier, be it an aeroplane, a pilot or an insect.

II. Concepts
Concept is an opinion, idea, or general nation. Wherever we have a word there will be a conceptand the concept will be the meaning of that word. This is obviously, a completely circular definition of meaning. According to the Saussure, as we have seen, the linguistic sign consist of a signifier and signified; these are, however, more strictly a sound image and a concept, both linked by a psychological associative bond. Both the noises we make, that is to say, and the objects of the world that we talk about are mirrored in some way by conceptual entities. Ogden and Richards saw the relationship as triangle. Pict.1 The symbol is, of course, the linguistic element the word, semantic, etc, and the reference the object, etc. In the world of experience, while thought or reference is concept. According to the theory there is no direct link between symbol and referent (between language and the word) the link is via thought or reference, the concepts of our minds. When we think about the name, we think of the concept and vice versa.

From point of view of a linguist, two basic questions about the conceptual element are: 21

1. 2.

What form can we assign to concept? How do children acquire them, along with their linguistic label?

In our discussion, I will concentrate on concepts that correspond to a single word, i.e. that are lexicalized. Of course not all concepts are like this: some concepts are describes by phrases, as in the underlined concept below:

a. On the shopping channel, I saw a tool for compacting dead leaves into garden statuary.

We can speculate that the reason why some concepts are lexicalized others not is utility. If we refer to something enough, it will become lexicalized. Possibly, someone once again said Like below:

b. We are designing a device for cooking food by microwaves.

Presumably, if every home ends having a tool to turn leaves into statues, a name for it will be invented and catch on. We see this process happening all the time, of course, as a new concept are invented and new words or new senses of old words given to them, An example of such a new word is Phreaking, now to be found in print with its colloquial meaning gaining unauthorized access into telecommunications system, for example to avoid paying telephone call charges.

When we talk about children acquiring concepts, we have to recognize that their concepts may differ from the concepts of adults. Students of child language describes children both underexstanding concepts, as when for a child Dog can only be used for their pet, not the one next door; and overextending concepts where a child use Daddy for every male adult, or cat for cats, rabbits and other pets. Or the concept maybe different, reflecting the fact that item in a childs world may have different salience than for an adult.

Necessary and Sufficient conditions

22

One traditional approach to describing concepts is to define them by using sets of necessary and Sufficient conditions. This approach comes from thinking about concepts are follows. If we have concepts like WOMAN, it must contain the information necessary to decide when something in the world is a woman or not. c.

x is a woman if and only if L

Where L is a list of attributes, like:

d.

x is human; x is adult; x is female, etc.

One can see that these attributes as conditions: If something must have them to be a

woman, then they can be called necessary conditions. In additions, if we can find the right set, so that just that set enough to define a woman, then they can be called sufficient conditions. If the speakers share the same concept they will agree on the necessary and sufficient conditions.

IF something has them, it is an X; if not, not. But it has proved difficult to set these it up even for nouns which identify concrete and natural kind like Dogs and Cat. Lets take an example the noun Zebra. We might agree on some attributes:

e.

is an animal; has four legs; is striped; is a herbivore, etc.

The problem we face though is: which of these are necessary? The first obviously; but the rest are problematic. If we find in a herd of Zebra one that is pure white or black, we

23

might still want to call it Zebra. Or if by some birth-defect, a three-legged zebra comes into the world, it would still be a Zebra. Similarly, if a single got bored with a grass diet and started to include a few insects, would it cease to be a Zebra? This zebra example is just a version of Saul Kripkes example about tigers (Kripke 1980: 119-21).

Relations between concepts

Relations between concepts have been used to motivate models of conceptual hierarchies in the cognitive psychology literature. A model based on defining attributes was proposed by Collins and Quillian (1969). In this model, concepts are represented by nodes in a network, to which attributes can be attached and between which there are links. One such links is inclusion so that a subordinate node inherits attributes from a superordinate node. An example of such a network is in figure 2.1 . Here we can see that CANARY inherits the attributes breathes, eats has skins, has wings, can fly, has feathers. We can see too that the Collins and Quillian model has the ability to block in heritance, so that for example OSTRICH does not inherit can fly from the bird.

Figure 2.1 Conceptual networks

Acquiring Concepts
Our second basic issue was : how do we acquire concepts? On simple and intuitively satisfying is that we do it by ostentive definition. This is the idea that children (and adults) acquire concepts by being directed to examples in the world. So if you are walking with a child, and you see a dog, you say Thats a dog or look at the doggie!. And the child begins to acquire the concept DOG, which is filled out by subsequent experience of dogs. The Philosopher W. V. O Quine has pointed out the ostension (defining by example) is usually couched in language. Quines famous example is of walking with someone whose language you do not know, who, when a rabbit runs fast, says Gavagai. You do not know whether it is a warning or an instruction. Similarly, you cannot even tell what is being pointed to without some linguistic support. The point is that even ostentive

24

definitions depends on prior knowledge of some word meanings. The acquisition concepts must be a more complicated process than simple ostension. Knowing the meaning of a word means that we can do a number of things we can use it properly, we can explain it to others in terms of paraphrases or synonym.

III. Sense and reference

One important point made by the linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1974), whose ideas have been so influential in the development of modern linguistics, is that the meaning of linguistic expressions derives from two sources; the language they are part of and the world they describe. Picure 1 Ferdinand de Saussure (1974) used the diagram above to show this patterning. Each oval is a word, having its own capacity for reference, but each is also liked to other words in the same language, like a cell in a network. His discussion of this point is excellent and we cannot really do it justice here, except to recommend the reader to the original. Thus, the meaning of a word derives both from what it can be used to refer to and from the way its semantic scope is defined by related words. So the meaning of chair in English is partly defined by the existence of other words like stool. Similarly, the scope of red is defined by the other terms in the colors system: brown, orange, yellow,etc. the same point can be made of grammatical systems: De saussure pointed out that plural doesnt mean the same in French, where it is opposed to singular, as it does in Sanskrit or Arabic, languages which, in addition to singular, have dual forms, for exactly two entities. In the French system, plural is two or more; in the other systems, three or more. The relationship by which language hooks onto the world is usually called reference. The semantic links between elements within the vocabulary system are an aspect of their sense, or meaning.( Jhon l. Saeed:1997:12) Reference deals with the relationship between the linguistic elements, words, sentences, etc, and non-linguistic world of experience. Sense relates to the complex system of relationship that holds between the linguistic elements themselves (mostly the words); it 25

is concerned only with intra-linguistic relations. It might seem reasonable to argue that semantics is concerned only with the way, we relate our language to our experience and so to say that reference is the essential element of semantics. Yet sense relationships have formed an important part of the study language. The dictionary is usually concerned with sense relations, with relating words to words, though most dictionaries state such relations in a most un- systematic way. It could be argue, though, that the ultimate aim of the dictionary is to supply its user with referential meaning, and that it does so by relating a word whose meaning is unknown to a word or words whose reference is already understood. In recent years, some linguists have attempted to limit semantics, both in theory and in practice, to sense relations. For example are J.J. Katz and J.A. Fodor entitled, the structure of a semantic theory They state, A semantic theory describes and expl ain the interpretive ability of speakers: by accounting for their performance in determining the number of readings of a sentence; by detecting semantic anomalies; by deciding upon paraphrase relations between sentences; and by making every other semantic property or relation that plays a role in this ability. Katz and Fodor quite specifically exclude from a semantic theory any reference to the setting of sentences. Semantics is not, or cannot be, concerned with the way words and sentences are used in relation to the world around us. Some scholars have been very concerned by the fact that if we deal with meaning in terms of the world, then semantics must include the sum total of human knowledge and for this reason have restricted their attention to sense. There are two kinds of semantics, one that deals with semantic structure and the other that deals with meaning in terms of our experience outside language. There are some further difficulties. It is not always possible to distinguish clearly between sense and reference for the simple reason that the categories of our language correspond, to some degree at least, to real- world distinctions. For consider the words ram and ewe. These on the one hand refer to particular kinds of animals and derive their meaning in this way, other examples, like cow/Bull, sow/boar, etc. The fact that ram/ewe, bull/cow may be part of the semantic structure of English, but it also clearly relates to the fact that there are male and female sheep and cattle. 26

IV. Kinds of meaning

There are several distinguishable and more or less well-known philosophical, theories of meaning; theories which seek to provide an answer to the question What is meaning? Among them, one might mention the following: the referential (or denotation) theory (the meaning of an expression is what it refers to (or denotes), or stands for e.g., Fido means Fido, dog means either the general class of dogs or the essential property which they all share); the ideational, or mentalistic, theory (the meaning of an expression is the idea, or concept, associated with it in the mind of anyone who knows and understands the expression); the behaviorists theory (the meaning of expression is either the stimulus that evokes it or the response that it evokes, or a combination of both, on particular occasions of utterance); the meaning-is-use theory (the meaning of expression is determined by, if not identical with, its use in the language); the verificationist theory (the meaning of expression, if it has one, is determined by the verifiability of the sentences, or propositions, containing it); the truth-conditional theory (the meaning of an expression is its contribution to the truth-conditions of the sentences containing it). (John Lyons, Linguistic Semantics 1996, hlm.40) A great deal of our meaning is not ideational at all, but is inter-personal or social, relating ourselves to others. There are a number of ways (not all distinct) in which we can see that language is not simply a matter of providing factual information. First, we do not merely make statements; we also ask questions and give orderswhat is grammatically a statement can be semantically an order, e.g. you are coming tomorrow. It seems easy enough to handle questions in terms of information, since they are obviously requests for information; they can thus, in part, have an ideational meaning.

27

Secondly, there is a variety of what today are called speech acts. We persuade, we warm, we insinuate; we use language, that is to say, to influence other people in many different ways. This is the first aspect of language that a child learns, they discovers that by using his cries he can attract attention and then that the appropriated speech will manipulated adults into giving him food , playing with him,etc. Thirdly, much of what we say is not a statement of fact but an evaluation. The function of such words in language is, of course, to influence attitudes. Fascist no longer refers to a member of the fascist parties, it is simply used to condemn and insult opponents. Indeed, there are not many words that the dictionary has to mark with such labels as derog. But there are many other words for which part of the meaning is good or bad, such as palace, hovel, hero, villain, and of course the words good and bad themselves do not indicate fact but are indication of evaluation. Fourthly, language is often deeply concerned with a variety of social relations. The choice depends on whether we wish to be rude or not and this related to the status of the person addressed. Some parts of language are wholly social and carry no information (even if we include giving orders, etc., within information) at all. Examples are good morning, how are you?, and all the Englishmans remarks about the weather. Fifthly, as we have already noted, we need not mean what we say. The moral of this is that semantics cannot fully succeed without an investigation of the prosodic and paralinguistic features of language. Sixthly, there is kind of meaning found in the notorious when did you stop beating your wife?For this presupposes that you want beat her, though it `nowhere state that you did. Presupposition is thus distinct from assertion.

V. The word as a semantic unit

It is normally assumed that dictionaries are concerned with words and that therefore the word is, in some sense at least, one of the basic units of semantics. Yet there are some difficulties. Firstly, not all words seem to have the same kind of meaning. A very familiar distinction is that made by the English grammarian, Henry Sweet, between full words and 28

form words. Only full words seem to have meaning of the kind we have been interested in so far. The form words seem to belong grammar rather than to semantics; more strictly they belong to grammar rather than lexicon. They can still be said to have meaning of a grammatical meaning. Secondly, it is not at all clear that the word is a clearly define unit. Words as we know them are written items between which we have learn to put spaces. Bloomfield offered a solution by suggesting that the word is the minimum free form, the smallest form that may occur in isolation. Bloomfield went on to identify an element smaller than the word, a unit of meaning the morpheme. The purely grammatical status of such words is not our concern, but we must recognize that there are two independent bits of meaning. The best way to handle this is not in terms of morphemes, but rather by redefining the term word in a different, though not unfamiliar way. A technical term for the word in this second sense is lexeme. It is lexemes that usually provide dictionary headings. Instead of treating loved as the two morphemes love- and d, we shall analyze it in terms of the lexeme love and the grammatical category of tense.

Thirdly, there is a problem with what have been called transparent and opaque words (Ullman,1962). Transparent words are those whose meaning can be determined from the meaning of their parts, opaque words those for which this is not possible. Fourthly, there are many words in English that are called phonothetic, in which one part, often the initial cluster of consonants, gives an indication of meaning of a rather special kind. Not every word with these phonological characteristics will have the meaning suggested, and, moreover, we cannot separate this part and state the meaning of the remainder. Fifthly, semantic division seems to override word division.if we want to retain the parallelism between the form and the meaning. Further amusing examples that we have been suggested are artifical florist and criminal lawyer. Sixthly, together with the fact that we have the words cow and calf, may lead us to define bull as male adult bovine animal and to see this as an indication of four distinct elements of meaning in the same word. 29

Finally the problem of idioms. By an idiom is mean a sequence of words whose meaning cannot be predicted from the meanings of the words themselves. Semantically, idioms are single units. But they are not single grammatical units like words, for there is not past tense *kikc the bucketed. All these considerations may lead us to abandon the idea that the word is a natural unit for semantics, however useful it may be for the dictionary maker. Yet we must careful. We must not conclude from all this that we can simply ignore the words of the language and instead look for independent meanings, for semantic entities, that is to say, that are totally unrelated to words. For throughout we have been establishing meaning by comparison of linguistic forms, almost always involving words. Idioms are notable only because they consist of several words but function like one, while in discussing morphemes, transparent words, phonaestherics and all the rest we were nearly always comparing words with words.

REFERENCES
Djajasudarma, T. Fatimah. 1999: Semantik 1 (Pengantar ke Arah Makna). Bandung. Refika Aditama. Fromkin, Victoria and Friends. 2003: An Introduction to Language (seventh Edition). United States. Thomson Heinle. Palmer, F.R. 1976: Semantics (A New Outline). Great Britain. University Press. Cambridge. Parera, J.D. 2004: Teori Semantik (Second Edition). Jakarta. Erlangga.

Saeed, John I. 2003: Semantics (Second Edition). United Kingdom. MPG Books Ltd. Bodmin. Corwall.

30

PART THREE SEMANTICS: BASIC IDEAS IN SEMANTICS (SENTENCE, UTTERANCE, AND PROPOSITION)
I. INTRODUCTION Linguistics is a scientific study of language. Linguistics encompasses a number of subfields. An important topical division is between the study of language structure (grammar) and the study of meaning (semantics and pragmatics). Grammar encompasses morphology (the formation and composition of words), syntax (the rules that determine how words combine into phrases and sentences) and phonology (the study of sound systems and abstract sound units).Semantics is also a component of linguistics of the same kind as grammar. It encompasses the meaning of words, sentences, and utterances; pragmatics studies the way in which context contributes to meaning of the speaker. In this paper, we will discuss about basic ideas of semantics such as sentence, utterance, and proposition. We are studying what is known as semantics: how words have individual meaning, and can be used to refer to entities in the external world (reference).

II. BASIC IDEAS IN SEMANTICS A. ABOUT SEMANTICS Semantics is the study of the meaning in language.1 The word "semantics" itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language to denote a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection
1

Harimurti, Kridalaksana. Pesona Bahasa: Langkah Awal Memahami Linguistik . Jakarta: Gramedia. 2005. Hal. 114

31

or connotation. This problem of understanding has been the subject of many formal inquiries, over a long period of time, most notably in the field of formal semantics. In linguistics, it is the study of interpretation of signs or symbols as used by agents or communities within particular circumstances and contexts. Within this view, sounds, facial expressions, body language, have semantic (meaningful) content, and each has several branches of study. In written language, such things as paragraph, structure and punctuation have semantic content; in other forms of language, there is other semantic content. The formal study of semantics intersects with many other fields of inquiry, including lexicon, syntax, pragmatics, etymology and others, although semantics is a welldefined field in its own right, often with synthetic properties. In philosophy of language, semantics and reference are related fields. Further related fields include philology, communication, and semiotics. The formal study of semantics is therefore complex. Semantics is sometimes contrasted with syntax, the study of the symbols of a language (without reference to their meaning), and pragmatics, the study of the relationships between the symbols of a language, their meaning, and the users of the language. In linguistics, semantics is the subfield dealing with the study of meaning, as inherent at the levels of words, phrases, sentences, and larger units of discourse (referred to as texts). The basic area of study is the meaning of signs, and the study of relations between different linguistic units: homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, polysemy, paronyms, hypernymy, and hyponymy. A key concern is how meaning attaches to larger chunks of text, possibly as a result of the composition from smaller units of meaning. Traditionally, semantics has included the study of sense and denotative reference, truth conditions, 32

argument structure, thematic roles, discourse analysis, and the linkage of all of these to syntax.2 B. SENTENCE A sentence is neither a physical event nor a physical object. It is, conceived abstractly, a string of words put together by the grammatical rules of a language.3 A sentence can be thought of as the ideal string of words behind various realizations in utterances and inscriptions or a string of words satisfying the grammatical rules of a language for example "he always spoke in grammatical sentences". In linguistics, a sentence is a grammatical unit of one or more words, bearing minimal syntactic relation to the words that precede or follow it, often preceded and followed in speech by pauses, having one of a small number of characteristic intonation patterns, and typically expressing an independent statement, question, request, command, etc.Sentences are generally characterized in most languages by the presence of a finite verb, e.g. "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog". According to James R. Hurford, sentence definition is a grammatically complete string of words expressing a complete thought. For example, we are going to learn about English. We are going to is not a sentences. C. UTTERANCE In this part, we will focus on both spoken language and written language. It is important to define one of the basic ideas in semantics, the utterance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics James, Hurford. Semantics: A Coursebook. Cambridge: Cambride University Press, 1994. Pg. 16

33

An utterance is any stretch of talk, by one person, before and after which there is silence on the part of that person.4 An utterance is the use by particular speaker on a particular occasion of a piece of language, such a sequence of sentences, or a single phrase, or even a single word. Let us check some examples out below: 1) The plane now arriving is Garuda Airlines. 2) Horses 3) Hummmpfh 4) Pxdgytguaargh It is clear that we call the first sentence as utterance because it is a kind of sentence uses by a person on a particular occasion. It is an utterance spoken by an airport officer. Admittedly utterance sometimes consists of single word, such as in example (2). It is simply enough to imagine a situation in which someone say Horses. But even in such cases it is reasonable to treat this utterance as a sentence, but as incomplete sentence (some grammarians refer to them as minor sentence). Give them a context, so they can be completed. Thus horses may be a replay to What are those animals? and thus seen as an incomplete version of They are Horses. In example (3) we also call it as utterance because from it we can understand that it describes somebodys feeling of tiredness. But we cannot say that example no. (4) as an utterance because this string of sounds is not from any language. Utterances are physical events. Events are ephemeral, which means lasting for a very short time. So that, utterances die on the wind.

Ibid, Pg. 15

34

Besides, many people mistakenly think that complete sentences are the norm in both speech and writing.5 However, as Carter and Cornbleet (2003:3) correctly observe, We do not set out to speak in sentences in fact, in informal speech we rarely do that rather, we set out to achieve a purpose which may or may not require full, accurate sentences. To illustrate this point, consider the short excerpt below taken from an actual conversation: Speaker A: Lots of people are rolling skating, lots of people do rollerblade Speaker B: Just running around the city Speaker A: Mainly in Golden GatePark Speaker As first turn contains two grammatical sentences: constructions consisting of a subject (lots of people in both sentences) and a finite verb (are and do, respectively). In contrast, Speaker Bs turn and Speaker As second turn do not contain sentences: Bs turn contains a construction centered on the verbal element running; As turn is the prepositional phrase. But while these turns do not contain complete sentences, they are meaningful. Implied in Bs turn, for instance, is that who are roller skating running around the city and in As turn that they are skating mainly in Golden GatePark. Therefore, in when discussing utterance in semantics, a category that includes not just sentence but any construction that is meaningful in the context in which it occurs. To differentiate utterance and sentence we usually use quotation mark () in written form of utterance. D. PROPOSITION Proposition is that part of meaning of the utterance of a declarative sentence which describe some state of affairs.The state of affairs typically involves or things referred to by expressions in the sentence. Beside declarative sentence, proposition also clearly involved

Charles F, Mayer. Introducing English Linguistics.Cambridge: CambrideUniversity Press. 2009. Pg. 49

35

in the meaning of interrogatives and imperatives sentences. In uttering declarative sentence a speaker typically asserts a proposition, for example, Could you mind to close the door, please?, Close the door now!. In these two sentences, the speaker asserted proposition. The relation among sentences, utterances and proposition is not direct as sense and meaning, but there is a similarity. Both referring and uttering are acts performed by particular occasion. A proposition is something abstract but meaningful. It consists of something we discussed and some explanations or facts about an argument. It can be expressed in different sentences and in parts of sentences, perhaps with differences of focus but always with the same basic meaning. Look at the example below.

Sentence Jacks girl friend, Jane, who is a nurse, likes oranges.

Proposition (1) Jack has a girl friend. (2) Her name is Jane. (3) Jane is a nurse. (4) Jane likes oranges.

From the example above, a sentence can has many meanings. There are some facts which we can get from a sentence. In short, any sentences can be expressed in different utterances, produced by different people at different times and in different places. Proposition

sentence utterance utterance

sentence utterance utterance 36

sentence utterance utterance

III. CONCLUSION We shall use the term proposition, sentence, and utterance in such a way that anything that can be said of propositions can also be said of utterances, but not necessarily vice versa, and anything that can be said of sentences can also be said utterances, but not only necessarily vice versa. We have already seen an example of this when we said it was sensible to talk of a sentence being in a particular language, and also sensible to talk of an utterance being in a particular language, although one cannot talk of a proposition being in a particular language. According to some explanations above, we can simplify that sentence, utterance, and proposition can be differentiated based on some characteristics below :6 Characteristics Can be loud or quiet Can be grammatical or not Can be true or false In a particular regional accent In a particular language Utterances + + + + + Sentences + + + Propositions + -

REFERENCES
Hurford, James, et al. Semantics: A Coursebook. Cambridge: Cambride University Press, 1994. Kridalaksana,Harimurti. Pesona Bahasa: Langkah Awal Memahami Linguistik. Jakarta: Gramedia. 2005. Lyons, Jhon. Linguistics Semantics: An Introduction.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
6

Op.cit, Pg. 22

37

Meyer, Charles W. Introducing English Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Palmer, F.R. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

PART FOUR SENSE AND REFERENCE

A. Sense Sense is the more interesting part meaning. Sense refers to how we see an object or the amount of information given about an object. The classic example cited showing the distinction is the planet Venus. As a planet it has reference arbitrarily given the name Venus. It is often called the morning star when seen in the morning, and the evening star when seen in the evening. Thus, it has two senses, depending on the time of day the object is seen. The planet itself is the referent; the morning star is one sense, the evening star the other sense. It could have other senses.

(batas baca)
In another example suppose John has two sons, Bill and Henry; one nephew, Pete; and one grandson, Dave. When we refer to John as such, there is no sense. John is the arbitrary name given to the referent. Consider the following phrases: Bill's father Henry's father Pete's uncle Dave's grandfather.

38

Each phrase either refers to John (X's father), or it may refer to John: Pete may have more than one uncle and Dave has a second grandfather. In these cases the addressee does not know which of the possible referents is the intended referent except when clear from the context. The four phrases listed above represent a different sense of the intended referent. Virtually every object can have several senses. Names are referential. They have little or no sense. Lexical nouns each denote a sense. The term father refers to anyone who is a male parent (another sense). As a rule all dictionary definitions define sense, not reference. Only names in a dictionary reference and no sense. Technically, this is not a definition. Verbs, like nouns, have sense, not reference. Events rarely have names, though it is possible: the Holocaust, World War II, the Big Bang, and so forth. B. Reference Reference is a part of meaning. Assume that there are three trees in a field. Each tree has a unique reference. Each branch on each tree has a unique reference. And each leaf and the field have a unique reference. There are two ways we can look at reference. The first is physical in that each atom and electron has reference whether it can be seen or not. The second is perceptual: this means how we see objects--do we see them as an object or not? We will take the latter approach. Reference also includes imaginary objects: unicorns, leprechauns, Santa Claus, Hades, elves, eternal bliss, and so forth. This would also include objects which currently do not exist but could exist: a King of France, dinosaurs, a five-cent ice-cream cone, and so forth. Knowing the meaning of certain noun phrase means knowing how to discover what objects the noun phrases refer to. For example the sentence: The mason put the red brick on the wall

39

Knowing the meaning of the noun phrase the red brick enables us to identity the object. A blind folded person would also comprehend the meaning. The object pointed to in such a noun phrase is called its referent, and the noun phrase is said to have reference. For many noun phrase there is more to meaning than just reference. For example, the noun phrase the red brick and the first brick from the right may refer to the same object, that is, may be conferential. Nevertheless, we would be reluctant to say the two expressions have the same meaning because they have the same reference. Same additional meaning is present. It is often termed sense. Thus a noun phrase may have sense and reference, which together comprise its meaning. Knowing the sense of noun phrase allows you to identity its referent. Sometimes the term extension is used for reference, and intension for sense. Certain proper names appear to have only reference. In fact, there is very little constancy of reference in language. In every day discourse almost all of the fixing of reference comes from the context in which expressions are used. Two different expressions can have the same referent. The classic example is the morning star and the evening star, both of which normally refer to the planet Venus. To turn from reference to sense, the sense of an expression is its place in a system of semantic relationships with other expression in the language. The first of these semantic relationships that we will mention is sameness of meaning, an intuitive concept when we will illustrate by example. We will deal the sense of words in context.

C. Sense Relation
Look the statements below a) The chicken is ready to eat b) He greeted the girl with a smile c) He turned over the field On those sentences, we can see that one sentence can have different senses. In sentence (a) it can mean the chicken is ready to be eaten, beside it the chicken is ready to eat something. In sentence (b) it can mean he greeted the girl, beside it he greeted the smiling girl. In

40

sentence (c) it can mean he changed direction over the field, beside that it can mean he turned the field over. On the relationship between sense and reference: the referent of an expression is often a thing or a person in the world. Whereas the sense of an expression is not a thing at all. In fact, it is difficult to say what sort of entity the sense of expression is. It is much easier to say whether or not two expressions have the same sense. Like being able to say that two people are in the same place without being able to say where they are. The sense of an expression is an abstraction that can be entertained in the mind of a language user. When a person understands fully what is said to him, it is reasonable to say that he grasps the sense of the expressions he hears. Words between which there is naturally a rhetorical or grammatical pause should not be joined. To connect words whose sense relation is not close gives a combination which is not suggestive. Two words may so constantly recur together that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred they would be easily and properly joined; yet in some rare instances those words, though one immediately succeeds the other, may be so separated in sense relation as to require a separation of their written signs. Thus it is not is a very common and, in general, an unobjectionable phrase; yet the sentence I said that it is, not that it was, would be very perplexing to the reader if not were joined to it is, immediately proceeding. So the phrase in this is ordinarily unimpeachable; yet in the sentence, the vessel came in this morning, the words in this could not properly be written as a phrase. But, there are some words that have a same meaning but it is not same for example word bank. For example: a. I have an account at the bank of Scotland b. We steered the raft to the other bank of the river. We use the term word here in the sense of word-form. That is, we find it conferment to treat anything spelled with the same sequence of phonemes in a standard dialect as being the same word. Thus, for example, we treat bank in the practice above as a single word with many sense, this is the way most non-semanticists use the term word. We mention this because some semanticists, including almost all compilers Of dictionaries would regard ban, for example, as several different words. In an ordinary dictionary there are several different entries for the word bank, sometimes distinguished 41

by a subscript, eg. Bank1, bank2, etc. no confusion will arise from our relativity nontechnical use of the term word. This matter will be taken up again in a later unit, when we discuss homonymy and polysemy. The words of a phrase should join each other easily and fluently; otherwise no time is saved by joining. "Awkward joining, however closely the words may be related, are to be avoided." If the phrase is one in which the hand must pause as it passes from word to word, it is better to lift the pen, because such phrases waste time, instead of saving it. There are many cases in which the tyro loses time by joining, or undertaking to join, words which might much better be written separately. Defining generally the characteristics of a bad junction, it may be said that either it is non-facile (on account of clumsily-joined outlines, forced hooks, etc.,) or, while manually easy of execution, it leads to ambiguity or difficulty in reading. From the fact that some of the letters of the alphabet do not so easily and gracefully connect as others, bad or indifferent junctions in the writing of single words are sometimes unavoidable; but such junctions are generally avoidable when they occur between two words in the midst of a phrase. 1Polysemy Polysemy refers to the phenomenon in which one and the same word has more than one meaning. 1.1 Two approaches to polysemy 1) Diachronic approach: Polysemy is described as the result of the historical development of the semantic features of one and the same word. 2) Synchronic approach: Polysemy is viewed as the co-existence of various meanings of the same word at a particular point in time. 1.2 Two processes of development

42

1) Radiation: It is the semantic process in which the primary meaning stands at the centre and the secondary meaning radiates out of it. Though the secondary meanings are independent of one another, they can all be traced back to the primary meaning. 2)Concatenation: It is the semantic process in which the meaning of a word moves gradually away from its primary meaning in succession so that the present meaning seems to have no connection to the primary meaning. 2. Homonymy There are many pairs or groups of words, which, though different in meaning, are pronounced alike or spelled alike, or both. Such words are called homonyms. kata-kata seperti itu disebut homonyms. 1.1 Types of homonyms 1) Perfect homonyms: They are different words identical both in sound and spelling, though different in meaning. 2) Homographs: Homographs are different words identical in spelling, but different in sound and meaning. 3) Homophones:They are different words identical in sound but different in spelling and meaning. 2.2 origins of homonyms Origins of homonyms are change in sound and spelling, borrowing and shortening. 3Synonymy Synonymy refers to the relationship of similarity or identity in meaning.Synonyms are the words which have the same or very nearly the same essential meaning.

43

1.1 Sources of synonyms 1) borrowing 2) dialects and regional English 3) figurative and euphemistic use of words 1.2 Discrimination of synonyms 1) Difference in denotation 2) Difference in the degree of a given quality 3) Differences in associative meanings 4) Differences in use

4. Antonymy

Antonymy is used for oppositeness of meaning; words that are opposite are antonyms.

4.1 Types of antonyms 1) Contraries Contraries display a type of semantic contrast, illustrated by such pairs as rich and poor. Contraries are gradable, and the semantic contrast in a contrary pair is relative; is there are often intermediate terms between the two opposites. So the negation of one does not necessarily mean the assertion of the other.

2) Contradictory terms Contradictory terms are also called complementarities. The meanings of these terms are mutually exclusive and no possibilities are allowed between them. the assertion of one is the negation of the other.

4) Relative terms They show a reciprocal social relationship and a contrast of direction. One of the two presupposes the other of the two.

44

4.2 Some characteristics of antonyms 1) Antonyms are classified on the basis of meaning. 2) A polysemy word may have more than one antonym. 3) Antonyms can be analyzed in terms of markedness. The meaning of one of the pair may be more general and more semantically inclusive than the meaning of the other of the two. 4.3 The use of antonyms 1) Antonyms can be used to define meanings of words. 2) Antonyms can be used for efficient expression of an opposite idea, etc. 3) Antonyms can be used for emphatic effect. 5. Hyponymy Hyponymy refers to the relationship of semantic inclusion. Words with more specific meaning or narrower meaning are hyponyms, while words with more inclusive or general meanings are superordinate terms. The status either as superordinate or subordinate is only relative.

D. Sense Properties and Stereotypes

The sense of an expression is its indispensable hard core of meaning. In semantic, a semantic property consists of the components of meaning of a word. The component female is a semantic property of girl , woman , actress etc. This definition deliberately excludes any influence of context or situation of utterance on the senses of expression.

45

The sense of an expression can be thought of as the sum of its sense properties and sense relations with other expression. There are 3 important sense properties of sentence, the properties of being analytic, of being synthetic, and of being contradictory. 1. An analytic sentence is one that is necessarily TRUE, as a result of the sense of the words in it. An analytic sentence, therefore, reflect a tacit a agreement by speakers of the language about the sense of the words in it. Example: All elephants are animals (the truth of the sentence follows from the sense of elephant and animal) 2. A synthetic sentence is one which is not analytic, but maybe either true or false, depending on the way the world is. Example: John is from Ireland (there is nothing in the sense of John or Ireland or from which makes this necessarily true or false) 3. A contradiction is a sentence that is necessarily FALSE, as a result of the sense of the words in it. Thus a contradiction is in a way that opposite of an analytic sentence. Example: This animal is vegetable (this is a contradiction, this must be false because the sense of animal and vegetable) Analytic sentence are always true (necessarily so, by virtue of the sense of the words in them), whereas synthetic sentences can be sometimes true, sometimes false, depending on the circumstances. Sense properties depend on the sense properties of e.g. analyticity), and the sense relations between, the words they contain. The sense relation between the predicates man and human is known as hyponymy. The sense relation between predicates man and woman is a kind of antonymy. The sense structure of a language is like a network, in which the senses of all elements are, directly or indirectly, related to the sense of all of other elements.

E. Referring Expression

46

Referring expression is any expression used in an utterance to refer to something or someone (or a clearly delimited collection of things or people); i.e. used with a particular referent in mind. Example: a. Fred hit me The name Fred in an utterance such as the statement above, where the speaker has a particular person in mind when he says Fred, is referring expression. b. Theres no Fred at this address In this sentence Fred is not a person who is particularly known. So, this is not a referring expression, because in this case a speaker would not have a particularly person in mind in uttering the word. The words below can be included as referring expression, if we know to whom or what the words refer to: a) John b) My uncle c) The girl sitting on the wall by the bus stop d) A man e) My parents f) Harry But these words below could not be counted as referring expression: a) And b) Then c) When d) Since Nevertheless, the same expression can be a referring expression or not (or as some would put it, may or may not have a referring interpretation) depending on the context. This is true of indefinite noun phrases. For example: 47

a) A man was in here looking for you last night b) The first sign of the monsoon is a cloud on the horizon no bigger than a mans hand. The first sentence (a) is referring expression, but (b) is not referring expression. It is because in sentence (a) man refers to a particular man in real. But in sentence (b) man cant refer to a certain particular man in real. This is what we call referring expression. If we find a context suitable with the reality. Look other examples below: a) Forty buses have been withdrawn from service by the Liverpool Corporation. b) This engine has the power of forty buses. The first sentence (a) is referring expression, but (b) is not referring expression. It is because bus on a statement (a) has 40 specific buses in mind. Meanwhile bus on a statement (b), has no specific referent in mind.

48

PART FIVE WORD MEANING (ABOUT DICTIONARIES, MEANING POSTULATES, DERIVATION AND INFLECTION)
I. INTRODUCTION For thousands of years philosophers have pondered the meaning of meaning, yet speakers of a language can understand what is said to them and can produce strings of words that are meaningful to other speakers. To understand language we need to know the meaning of words and of the morphemes that compose them. We also must know how the meanings of words combine into phrase and sentence meanings. Finally, we must consider context when determining meaning. The study of the linguistic meaning of morphemes, words, phrases, and sentences is called semantics. Subfields of semantics are lexical semantics, which is concerned with the meanings of words, and the meaning relationships among words; and phrasal, or sentential, semantics, which is concerned with the meaning of syntactic units larger than the word7. Semantics is a branch linguistics devoted to the study of meaning, especially the meaning of words, phrases, sentences, and text. It is concerned with describing how the user of a language represents the meaning of a word, or linguistic forms above or below a
7

Victoria Fromkin, Robert Rodman, and Nina Hyams, An Introduction to Language (Los Angeles: University of Carolina, 2003), p.173

49

word in his mind and how he uses this representation in constructing sentences.8 In this paper, we will explain about word meaning; such as about dictionaries, meaning postulates, derivation and inflection. II. DEVELOPMENT a. Word Meaning Word meaning is what a sentence (or word) means.9 The meanings available in the dictionaries have been based on the relationship between the references and denotations; and between utterances and the world outside. They are taken and adopted from the language users experiences which vary from one individual to the other individuals during all their lives. So, word meanings are derived from the convention among a societys community which happened naturally and unconsciously. Some factors that have a great influence towards the words meanings are personal experiences, grammatical structure, reference, and denotation. Mostly, in their early ages children learn the meaning of words by hearing sentences other people in their nearest environment that is a family, and latter from their community. Then they practice such utterances themselves subject to the correction of others and they learn which expression is appropriately used to convey the meanings to the others. If the persons to whom they talked understand and catch their intended meanings, they must acquire those meanings and extend their vocabulary mastery. The process goes on all their lives, and they learn new words and increase their knowledge of the words, as they hear and see them in fresh utterances and used slightly differently from the ways which they are

8 9

Muhammad Farkhan, An Introduction to Linguistics (Jakarta: UIN Jakarta Press, 2006), p.97 James R. Hurford, Semantics: A Coursebook (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 3

50

accustomed to. The meaning of word, therefore, may be considered as the way it is used and understood as a part of different sentences. He meaning of word may be partially indicated by the grammatical structure and certain phonological features such as word form, word order, or intonation. The word teach, for example, may mean to transfer the knowledge or skills to the other; but when this verb is changed into other word form by attaching suffix er to be teacher, its meaning will be different. It means the doer of transferring the knowledge or skills to the other. This shows that the meaning of a word form may be indicated by the other word form. Not different from the word form, the word order in sentences may also indicate a part of a word meaning. Consider the following examples: 1) The teacher is reading the exercise for the students in the class room. 2) The students greet the teacher before the class begins.

The meaning of the teacherin the first sentence is partly different from the teacher in the second sentence. The difference lies on that the first is as the subject of the verb is reading, and the second is as the object of the verb greet. As the subject of the verb, the teacher is having active role, while as the object the teacher is having passive one. This difference is of course indicated by the word order. Word order, therefore, can be considered as a factor that indicates the part of word meaning. Reference and denotation are clearly a part of the meaning of many words in all languages. Reference is an extra-linguistic notion, the entities or states of affairs in the external world referred to by a linguistic expression. By the use in sentences of certain words one is able to pick out from the environment particular items, features, processes, 51

and qualities, or elicit further information about them, make them the objects of action or speculation, and most importantly, recall them from past experience and anticipate them in the future. These are the words whose meanings may, in part, be learned by pointing. The relationship between the word and that to which it may be said to refer is not a simple one. Proper names refer to individuals as single individuals. John in John goes to school every day refers to the single person whose name is John known by the speaker. Jakarta in they have been in Jakarta refers to the city located in the western area of Java in Indonesia. The father in the father is watching TV with his children refers to the actual father known by the speaker. The other examples are the words climb, fly, swim, and walk, refer to four different types of bodily movement in space. As a part of words meaning, the denotation means the class of person, things, etc. that is generally represented by an expression. The denotation of the father in the previous sentence is the set of people who are picked out by the word father; or all people who have the property +animate, +adult, and +male. Some words may have only the reference. Most of the proper nouns have only the references; the words Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Bill Gates, and Monica Lewinsky refer to single entity in the world. Some words may have only the denotation, like adjectives, adverbs, or verbs have the abstract concepts of meanings. The words read, speak, hot, big, beautifully, philosophically, and slowly do not have any references but they denote certain activities or states. Read denotes the activity of obtaining the information from the printed graphic symbols or textual content.

52

Speak denotes the activity of producing speech sounds used to convey the meanings or messages to the other. Hot denotes the state or condition of having higher degree of heat. Big denotes the state or condition of having large number in size or shape. Beautifully denotes the manner of doing something characterized by having beauty properties. Philosophically denotes the manner of doing something characterized by having beauty properties. Slowly denotes the manner of doing something characterized by having slowness properties. Some words may have the denotation and reference including most of the common nouns. The words girl, table, and newspaper will have their denotation or reference according to the context they appear. Girl denotes to set of people who are picked out by the word girl; and refers to the actual girl being talked about by the speaker. Table denotes the set of things are picked out by the word table. Newspaper denotes the set of things are picked out by the word newspaper, and refers to the actual newspaper being talked about the speaker.10 b. ABOUT DICTIONARIES A dictionary or wordbook is a collection of words in one or more specific languages, often listed alphabetically, with usage information, definitions, etymologies, phonetics,

10

Ibid, p. 101-104

53

pronunciations, and other information, or a book of words in one language with their equivalents in another, also known as a lexicon.11 A dictionary is central part of the description of any language. A dictionary is a central part of the description of any language. A good ordinary household dictionary typically gives three kinds information about word, phonological information about how the word is pronounced, grammatical information about its part of speech and inflection and semantic information about the words meaning. The aim of this dictionary is to present in alphabetical series the words which have formed the English vocabulary from the time of the earliest record down to the present day, with all the relevant fact concerning their form, sense history, pronunciation, and etymology. It embraces not only the standard language of literature and conversation, whether current at the moment or obsolete, or archaic, but also the main technical vocabulary, and a large measure dialectal usage and slang.12 A good ordinary household dictionary typically gives (at least) three kinds of information about words, phonological information about how the word is pronounced, grammatical (syntactical and morphological) information about its part of speech e.g. noun, verb) and inflection (e.g. for plural number of past tense), and semantic information about the words meaning.13 Examples: Cow /ka /,noun. 1 large female animal kept on farm to produce milk or beef

11 12

Webster New World Collage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 2002 Virginia P Clark and Paul A.Eschholsz Alfred F., Language Introductory Readings (New York: University of Vermont. St. martins press 1972), p. 102 13 James R. Hurford, Semantic : A course book (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1983), p.177

54

2 female of the elephant, while and some other large animal Dragon/dr n/,noun. 1 in stories large animal with wings and claws, able to breathe out fire Expedition /eksp d n/,noun. 1organized journey for a purpose, an exploration / people who go on an expedition Eat /i:t /,verb. 1 put food into your mouth and swallow it 1 come or go after some body 1of, in from a country that is not your own 1covering or affecting the whole world 1 having the colour of grass 1 of or belonging to man; that is a man or consist of men 2 Of man as opp. to god 3 Having or showing the qualities distinctive of man as opp. to animal, machines, mere objects, etc Note: Cow is given two separate senses here (numbered 1 and 2) and human is given three sense (3, 4 and 5). c. MEANING POSTULATES A meaning postulate is a formula expressing some aspect of the sense of predicate. It can be read as a proposition necessarily true by virtue of the meaning of the particular predicates involved. Example: x MAN1 = x HUMAN BEING 55

Follow /f lo /,verb. Foreign /f r n/,adj. Global / l bl;/,adj. Green / ri n/,adj. Human /hju m n/noun.

A meaning postulate also need a logical connectives to express the various sense relations that occur in language. The negative connective can be used to account for relations of binary antonimy. Example: ASLEEP: +x ASLEEP -x AWAKE Contradiction is most centrally a logical term. The basis form of a logical contradiction is p & -p. Anything that is clearly an instance of this basis logical contradiction. Example: John is here, and John is not here, can be called a contradiction. Anomaly is semantic oddness that can be traced to the meaning of the predicates in the sentence concerned. Example: Christopher is killing phonemes. The Example is anomalous because the meanings of the predicates kill and phoneme can not be combined in this way. Anomaly involves the violation of a selectional restriction. The meaning postulates have involved one place predicates. Hyponymy relations between two-place predicates can also be expressed by meaning postulates. Example: x FATHER y = x PARENT y This is paraphraseable as: if X is Ys father, then X is Ys parent. The cases of binary antonymy between two-place predicates can also be handled. The converse relationship can also be expressed in terms of meaning postulates. The important thing when formulating meaning postulates involving two-place predicates is to remember that in our notation the variable x conventionally stands in subject position and y stands in object position. In the case of three place predicates, we use z to indicate the third position. Meaning Postulates also explain about semantic properties. 56

Pay attention the word assassin includes knowing that the individual to whom that word refers is human, a murderer, and a killer of important people. These pieces of information, then, are some of the semantic properties of the word on which speakers of the language agree. The meaning of all nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverb are the content words and even some of the function words such as with and over can at least partially be specified by such properties. Female is the semantic property that help to define: tigress, doe, ewe, hen, mare, vixen, aunt, debutante, girl, maiden, widow, woman. Human is also the semantic property that help to define: doctor, bachelor, dean, parent, professor, baby, child. The meaning of baby and child have the semantic properties human and young. The semantic properties describe the linguistic meaning of a word should not be confused with other nonlinguistic properties, such as physical properties.14 One way of representing semantic properties is by use of semantic features. Semantic features are a formal or notational device that indicates the presence or absence of semantic properties by pluses and minuses. Examples: Son: + male + child + human being - adult Bachelor: + Adult + man + human - young Baby: + young + human + cute - adult

14

Victoria Fromkin, Robert Rodman, and Nina Hyams, An Introduction to Language (Los Angeles:

University of Carolina, 2003), p. 175-176

57

- animal Tigress: + animal + female + wild - male - Human

- animal mother: + female + adult + human - male - animal

- animal Doctor: + human + adult + female + male - Animal

d. DERIVATION AND INFLECTION 1. DERIVATION Although ordinary dictionary writers do not take the risk of actually predicting or anticipating new forms before they are attested, it is clear that there exist certain quite clear process by which new words are born from old ones. These processes are called Derivational processes or derivation is the process of forming new words according to a (fairly) regular pattern on the basis of pre-existing word. Derivational morphemes are any affixes that are used to produce new word of a different grammatical category from the stem. This process is named class-changing derivations. Some examples of class-changing English derivational are: adjective to noun adjective to verb noun to adjective noun to verb verb to adjective verb to noun : -ness, e.g. slow-slowness, happy-happiness : -ize, e.g. modern-modernize, minimum-minimize : -al, e.g. recreation-recreational, option-optional : -fy, e.g. glory-glorify, beauty-beautify : -able, e.g. drink-drinkable, read-readable : -ance, e.g. deliver-deliverance, assistant-assistance

58

To analyze the process of derivation in more detail by noting that step in a derivation is usually not one process, but three simultaneous processes, namely:

A morphological process is changing the shape of a word by adding a prefix or suffix.

A syntactic process is changing the part of speech of a word, e.g. from verb-tonoun.

A semantic process is the producing a new sense. Morphological Syntactic process Semantic process process

Walk : walker

Add suffix -er

Change verb to Produce word denoting an noun agent

Drive : driver

Add suffix -er

Change verb to Produce word denoting an noun agent

Teach : teacher Add suffix -er

Change verb to Produce word denoting an noun agent

Murder : murderer

Add suffix -er

Change verb to Produce word denoting an noun agent

Deliver : deliverer

Add suffix -er

Change verb to Produce word denoting an noun agent

Kick : kicker

Add suffix -er

Change verb to Produce word denoting an noun agent

59

Laugh : laughter

Add suffix -ter Change verb to Produce word denoting an noun act and an activity

Dry

: dryness

Add suffix - Change adjective Produce word denoting a ness to noun property

Happy : happiness

Add suffix - Change adjective Produce word denoting a ness to noun property

Lazy : laziness

Add suffix - Change adjective Produce word denoting a ness to noun property

All the conceivable syntactic changes involving the three major parts of speech (noun, verb, adjective) actually occur. But some derivational morpheme do not change the grammatical category of the attached morpheme or word, they only change in semantic process. This is named as class-maintaining derivations. Thus, the addition of the derivational morpheme dis- does not change the verb to other word classes, but it only adds a negative meaning to the verb dislike meaning not like. Some examples of these derivational morphemes are: noun to noun verb to verb : -hood, e.g man-manhood : -mis, e.g. understand-misunderstand

adjective to adjective : -im, e.g. possible-impossible Morphological Syntactic process Whale : whaler process to Produce word denoting Semantic process

Add suffix -er Noun

60

noun Toast : toaster Add suffix -er Noun noun Brother : brotherhood Add suffix - Noun hood Child : childhood noun

an agent to Produce word denoting an agent to Produce word denoting a property to Produce word denoting a property

Add suffix - Noun hood noun

But there is some example of derivation involving no morphological process at all, or it is some called 'zero-derivation'. Such cook (agent noun) is derived from cook (transitive verb) just as painter (agent noun) is derived from paint (transitive verb). Just happen not to have a word cooker, meaning a person who cooks, in English. Cook (noun) is an example of zero-derivation. Such that examples show that processes of derivation can often be 'invisible' because no morphological process is involved. When what is apparently the same word is used in two different parts of speech, as in theses example, there is usually a semantic process is involved as well, a change of sense of some sort. Thus, for example, open (the adjective) denotes state, whereas open (the derived intransitive verb) denotes an action. The difference between states and actions is a difference in meaning, a semantic difference. Just as derivation can sometimes involve both semantic an syntactic process, but no morphological process, cases also occur of morphological and semantic process without accompanying syntactic process, i.e. without a change in part of speech. A comparative 61

adjective, such as larger, is derived by adding from the adjective large. The differences that we have just illustrated between large and larger than are found quite generally between gradable adjective and their comparative adjective. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to describe differences in meaning between derived words and their sources in as clear terms as we could in the case of comparative adjectives derived from gradable adjectives. As a steep towards developing a full account of theses meaning differences, semanticists have invented a number of classificatory labels for the various kinds of derivation languages. Theses labels include such terms as inchoative, causative, and resultative. Inchoative that from denotes the beginning, or coming into existence, of some state. Such dark (adjective) denotes a state. Darken (intransitive verb), as in the sky darkened, is the corresponding inchoative form, because it denotes the beginning of state of darkness. And another example, flat (adjective) as denotes a state, flatten (intransitive verb) is inchoative form, and flatness, as denotes the beginning of a state. Causative from denotes an action which causes something to happen. For example, open (transitive verb) is the causative form corresponding to open (intransitive verb). If one open the door, for example, one causes it to open (in the sense of open). In English zeroderivation is the commonest device for producing causative form. Resultative from denotes a state resulting from some action. For example broken (used as an adjective ) is the resultative form corresponding to break (transitive verb). The state of being broken result from the action of breaking. We can identify a relationship between an adjective describing a state, e.g. wide as in the road wide, a verb describing a beginning or change of state, e.g. widen as in the road 62

widened, and a verb describing the cause of thus change state, .e.g. widen, as in the city council widened the road. These three semantic choices can described as a state, change of state (or inchoative and causative). This relationship id marked in the English lexicon in number of different ways. There may be no difference in the shape of the word between all three uses as in: the gates are open; the gates open at nine;the porters open the gates. Despite having the same shape, these three words are grammatically distinct: an adjective, an intransitive verb and a transitive verb, respectively. In other cases the inchoative and causative verbs are morphologically derived from the adjectives, as in : the apples are ripe; the apples are ripening; the sun is ripening the apples. Often there are gaps in this relation: for example we can say the soil is rich (state) and the gardener enriched the soil (causative), but it sounds odd to use an inchoative: the soil is enriching. For a state adjective like hungry, there is no colloquial inchoative or causative; we have getting hungry as in Im getting hungry; or make hungry as in all this talk of food is making me hungry. Another element in this relation can be an adjective describing the state which is a result of the process. This resultative adjective is usually in the form of a past participle. Thus we find examples like: closed, broken, tired, lifted. We can see a full set of these relations in: hot (state adjective)-heat (inchoative verb)-heat (causative verb)-heated (resultative adjective).

63

The notions inchoative, causative, and resultative take one round in a circle, from words denoting states, through words denoting process, through words denoting actions, and back to words denoting states. This relationship is shown diagrammatically below.15

2. INFLECTION Inflection is the modification of a word to express different grammatical categories; such as tense, mood, voice, aspect, person, number, gender, and case in grammar. Inflectional morphemes are any affixes that are used to produce new words in a language, but do not change the class of the word. They are mostly used to indicate aspects of the grammatical function of a word. So, the edition of the inflectional morpheme s shows that the verb reads is used for the third singular person.16 Some other examples of English inflectional morphemes are: 1. Possessive Pronoun a. Singular: -'s the boy's pen

15

James R. Hurford, Semantics: A Coursebook (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 206-212 A. Poedadji,Morfologi Bahasa Inggris Sederhana(Jakarta: IKIP. 1986), p.9-10

16

64

b. Plural: 2. Plural Noun

-s' the boys' pen

-s/-es cats, cities, pencils, mangoes, etc. 3. Third Person Singular Present Tense a) s after verb that ended by consonant, such as: sweep sweeps sob sobs get gets lead leads look - looks beg - begs bring - brings blow blows

s after verb that ended by vowel 'e', such as: like likes arrive - arrives b) es after vowel 'o', likes in the verb: go goes do does es after verb that ended by double letters 'ss' and 'tch', such as: kiss kisses catch - catches 4. Progressive Participle '-ing', such as: ask asking give - giving 5. Past Tense a) ed, after verb that ended by consonant or 'y', included changing word spell if 'y' preceded by consonant, such as: 65

ask asked nod nodded

carry - carried play played

b) d, after verb that ended by letter 'e', such as: like liked save - saved c) en, after verb, such as: choose chosen write written get gotten (American English) 6. Comparative 'er', such as: high higher big - bigger 7. Superlative 'est', such as: high highest big - biggest 8. Adverb 'ly', such as: high highly great - greatly17 III. CONCLUSION

17

AndrewCarstairs-McCarthy, An Introduction to English Morphology: Words and Their Structure (Great Britain: EidenburghUniversity Press, 2002), p. 28-40

66

Semantics concerns not only with the meaning of the larger level of the language, named as text, but also with the meaning of the lower level of the language named as a morphemes. Morphemes are meaningful, for example: the derivational prefix pre- means before, so a prefix means something fixed before; unfixed means not fixed; and re-fixed means fixed again. Even, the inflectional morphemes are meaningful too. Speak and spoke are different. Speaks signal present, and spoke signals past tense. Semantics is also necessarily implicated in syntactical levels. Consider the two sentences below People in Bogor go to the farm. People go to the farm in Bogor. Similarly, both sentences contain the same lexical contents. However, they have different meaning as a result of the different word orders. The first has the meaning stressing on the people who stay in Bogor; while, the second stresses on the location of the farm. The examples above also indicate the importance of meaning. Meaning can be defined as the information in the head of the speaker of a language that allows him or her to identify the set of individuals which the word denotes. Thus the meaning of happy in English is the information in the head of the speaker that allows him to identify people who are happy; that is to know when it is correct to say that someone is happy. The meaning of ripe in English is the information in the head of speaker that allows him to identify fruit which are ripe. The meaning of horse in English is the information in the head of speaker that allows him to identify the horse from other animal; that is to know when it is correct to differentiate the horse from other animals. Therefore, it can be understood that the meaning

67

is all information in the head of the user of a language that allows him to identify what the word denotes. Such information can be understood as the characteristics, properties, or components that belong to the word by which it is different from the others. The word happy, for example, has the whole properties of happiness, such as showing pleasure, and well suited to the situation. The meaning of ripe includes all properties of the ripeness such as having a good smell, becoming softer and redder. The meaning of horse, of course, covers all properties of horseness including all characteristics of animal, animate, four-legged, and so on.

REFERENCE Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 2002. An Introduction to English Morphology: Words and Their Structure. Great Britain: EidenburghUniversity Press. Clark, P. Virginia and Paul A. Eschholsz. 1972. Language Introductory Readings. New York: University of Vermont. St. Martins Press. Farkhan, Muhammad. 2006. An Introduction to Linguistics. Jakarta: UIN Jakarta. Fromkin, Victoria. 2003. An Introduction to Language: Seventh Edition. USA: Boston. Poedadji, A. 1986. Morfologi Bahasa Inggris Sederhana. Jakarta: IKIP. R. Hurford, James. 1983. Semantics: A Coursebook.USA: CambridgeUniversity Press. Webster New World Collage Dictionary, Fourth Edition. 2002.

68

PART SIX Utterance Meaning : Spoken Language, Topic-Comment and Presupposition

A. Introductional Background After we learned meaning, continued by studying the concept of sentence and utterance, now its our turn to discuss utterance meaning. It is the meaning of an utterance. This topics have a great place in semantics as John Lyons said in his very popular books, Linguistic Semantics. According this popular semanticist, Semantics as a science has three most important field to be discussed. First, it is about lexical meaning. Second it is on sentence meaning. The last one is about what will be discussed here, that is, utterance meaning. Utterance is part of spoken language. Therefore, we will learn every aspect of spoken language meaning. 18

B. Discussing Spoken Language, Topic-Comment and Presupposition

1. Spoken language If we are talking about utterance meaning, we are talking too about spoken language. Utterance is spoken language. There are at least four ways in which the spoken language is priorto, or more basic than , the written19 : (i) The human race had speech long before it had writing and there are still many language that have no written form. (ii) (iii) The child learns to speak long before he learns to write. Written language can, to a large extent, be converted into speech without loss . But the converse is not true; if we write down what is said we lose a great deal.

18 19

Lyons, John, Linguistic Semantics (Cambridge: Cambridge university press.page, 1995) pg VII-IX See also and compare to Michael McCarthy, Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) pg 26-27 and 47

69

(iv)

Speech plays a far greater role in our lives than writing or reading.

The third point needs some explanation. There are a few features of the written form that are not easily ( or not at all ) represented in speech. For instance, the use of italics in this book to refer to example would not be indicated if it were read aloud. Nor would the paragraphs, though that might not be great loss. But the spoken language has far more striking characteristics that cannot be easily shown in the written form. In particular it has what are known as PROSODIC and PARALINGUISTIC features. The prosodic features include primarily what is usually handled under intonation and stress. We have already noted the use of a fall rise intonation and stress. We have already noted the use of a fallrise intonation to suggest but. . ., and any speaker of English can easily become aware of the great use made of intonation for a whole variety of purposes, largely of an attitudinal kind. The term STRESS is used for several phenomena including the differences between e.g the verb convict and the noun convict,but for our purpose the most interesting use is that which is sometimes referred to as ACCENT ( NOT in the sense of the different accents, i.e dialect features that people may have in different parts of a country ), in which the accent may fall on various words in a sentence. Consider, for example, Is Mary going to wear that hat ? The accent may fall on any word (except, perhaps, to ) with varying implication on wear it might suggest that she should eat it instead! This kind of accent could, of course, be indicated in the writing by italics or by underlying, but we seldom resirt to these devices and,in any case , the use of accent is not quire as simple as this example would suggest. The semantics of intonation and stess is a major subject in its own light. But meaning is also carried by paralinguistic features such as rhythm, tempo, loudness ( shoutinng and whispering are very meaningful). In addition when we are talking we use may non-linguistic signs ( the term paralingistic is sometimes used for these too )- a small or a wink maybe as good and indication that we do not really mean what we say as a sarcastic intonation tune. Even apart from the prosodic and paralingistic features, we have to recognise that the form of spoken language and the purposees for which it is used are very different from those of the written. Concentration on the written language has misled grammarians-they have often

70

failed to see that the spoken language is different from the written and have, misleadingly, attempted to describe the spoken language in terms appropriate to the written. It has been even more misleading for semanticists. For the written language is largely narration or the presentation of factual informations or arguments. This has led to the assumption that the meaning is largely concerned with information, with what philosophers have called propositions.But the main function of language, especially the spoken language, is not to inform. It performs other and quite different functions.20 2. Topic and comment A topic is what a discourse, a discourse fragment, or a sentence is about. 21 Czech linguists ( notably J.Firbas ) have distinguished in the sentence between THEME and RHEME, or what has in most other schools of linguistics been called TOPIC and COMMENT. This stems from the idea that we can distinguish between what we are talking about ( the topic ) and what we are saying about it ( the comment).22 (2A) The New York Yankees won The New York Yankees here is its topic and won as its comment. (2B) A: Did you see the Yankees-Sox game yesterday? B: Yeah, who would have thought that the Yankees would win. The Yankees-Sox Game is the topic. The concepts topic and comment often lead to confusion as the distinction between these and related concepts remains unclear. First among those other concepts is the concept set theme-rheme. A theme is that which is under discussion in a given situation; often it is the subject of a sentence. The rheme is that which is said about the theme; usually this is the predicate of a sentence. In (2A) the theme-rheme distinction runs parallel to the topiccomment division, but this is not necessarily always true. As the concepts theme-rheme are more or less synonymous with the subject and the predicate, these terms have passed out of use. A sentence topic is not necessarily the subject of the sentence; see As utterance in (2B) where the topic is the object.
20 21

FR Palmer, Semantics : A New Outline (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976) pg 9-11 Jan Renkema, Discourse Studies : An Introductory Textbook (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1993) pg 62-63 22 FR Palmer, Semantics : A New Outline, pg 43

71

Second, there is the concept set presupposition-assertion. A presupposition is a special kind of implicit information that can be derived from a sentence. In (2A), for example, it is the information that there is a group named the New York Yankees. The assertion is that which is explicitly stated. A topic can sometimes coincide with a part of the presupposition (here New York Yankees), but is always explicitly present. Third, there is the concept set given-new. As the topic is that which is dealt with in the sentence and is therefore usually known, topic and given are often used interchangeably. Yet, there is a distinction. Below is an example; pay careful attention to Bs utterance. 3. (A, B, and C are participants in a meeting) A: Shall, we discuss the minutes now? B: I didnt receive a copy. C: Mine is unreadable. In Bs utterance, I is the topic and the comment is that a copy has not been received. In the comment there is, however, a word which owing to the question about As minutes is already given: the word copy. The new element in the comment is that it has not been received. Fourth, there is the concept set foreground-background information. Since the topic is that which the sentence is about, it usually does not contain the most important information in a sentence. Often the topic is more in the background. But this is not always the case, as can be seen in the following example. In Bs utterance the element about the neighbor can be seen as the topic, even though this information is in the foreground. 4. A: I had coffee at Marys yesterday.

B: Say, did you hear that her neighbor wants to get a divorce? The concept topic thus deals with something which is discussed in a sentence or discourse. And that something can alternatively be defined as background, foreground, give, new, etc.23 3. Presupposition

23

Jan Renkema, Discourse Studies, pg 63-66

72

In ordinary language, of course, to presuppose something means to assume it, and the narrower technical use in semantics is related to this. In the following examples the a sentence is said to presuppose the b sentence24 : a. Hes stopped turning into a werewolf every full moon. b. He used to turn into a werewolf every full moon.

a. Her husband is a fool. b. She has a husband. a. I dont regret leaving London. b. I left London.

a. The Prime Minister of Malaysia is in Dublin this week. b. Malaysia has a prime minister.

a. I do regret leaving London. b. I left London. More can be derived from discourse than is explicitly stated.25 Consider the example below. 1. It took John seven years to complete his studies. The following information can be derived from this sentence. 1a. There is a person named John. 2a. John was a student. 3a. John was not a brilliant student. The information that there is an individual named John is not stated explicitly in (1), but can be derived from the fact. That a person is mentioned who is called by that name. The fact that John was a student is likewise not stated explicitly, but this can be derived from the statement that he took seven years to finish his studies. Depending on the concrete
24

Saeed, John I, Semantics second edition (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1997), p. 101 See also Ronald, Wardhaugh, Introduction to Linguistics (United States of America: McGraw-Hill, Inc, 1972), p. 154
25

73

situation, more information could be derived. Sentence (1) could contain (1c) as implicit information, if it had just been stated that the program John was in usually takes four years to complete. The term presupposition originated in the philosophy of logic, where it is used to denote a special type of implicit information. Information which is explicitly stated referred to as a claim or an assertion. The example above makes it clear that all kinds of information can be derived from a sentence. The term presupposition is reserved for a proposition which must be true for the sentence in question to have a truth value, that is to say, for the sentence to be true or false. A sentence such as I have stopped smoking can only to be true or false if the person saying it in fact used to smoke. The presupposition of this sentence is thus I used to smoke. Put another way: a presupposition is the only type of information that is unaffected by denying the original sentence. Look at the following examples. 2. John is (not) opening the window. 2a. The window is closed. 3. Democracy must (not) be restored in Surinam. 3a. Surinam was once a democracy. The a-sentences given here are presuppositions because they are also true if (2) and (3) are denied. Of course, the whole sentence has to be denied, and not just one or more constituents, for its presuppositions to be maintained. Note that a negative sentence can be denied; the result is then a positive sentence. In a more formal notation, the presupposition is written out as follows. 4. B is a presuppositions of A if and only (A The symbol B) and ( A B)

is the implication sign if then and the symbol is the symbol for

negation. The definition given in (4) is known as the negation test.26 A presupposition is thus the implicit information which must be true for the sentence to be either true or false and which is not affected by a negation. The implicit information can be
26

Ruth M Kempson, Semantic Theory (New York: Cambridge University Press.1977), pp. 23-26

74

derived from different elements in a sentence. In (2) and (3) it is derived from the meaning of the words. In (2), use of the verb to open suggests the window is now closed, and in (3) the word restored can lead to the conclusion that at one point or another there was a democracy in Surinam. Presuppositions can be prompted by the words themselves or by the sentence structure: 5. Carl has the flu again. 5a. Carl has had the flu before. 6. Carl is a better linguist than Pete. 6a. Pete is a linguist. Presupposition (5a) can be derived from the word again in (6) the comparison implies that Pete has the same profession as Carl. Emphasis also plays an important role in deriving presuppositions. Sometimes the emphasis is already clear owing to the syntactical structure as in cleft construction. For example, one in which x is doing y is given the structure it is x who is doing y (see also section 13.1). this puts extra emphasis on x, as in the following example. 7. It was Pete who pointed out the problem to me. 7a. Somebody pointed out the problem to me. In the following sentence there are four possibilities, depending on which word receives extra stress. 8. Pete sells paintings to museums. 8a. (Pete) Pete, and no one else. 8b. (Sells) Pete does not give them away. 8c. (Paintings) Pete does not sell sculptures. 8d. (Museums) Pete does not sell paintings to individuals. Similarly, a certain presupposition can be prompted by a specific emphasis in (6) and (7). If in (6) linguist is stressed, then this implies (6b) below. If in (7) pointed out is heavily stressed, then (7b) is a more obvious presupposition than (7a). Presupposition can,

75

therefore, be prompted not only by lexical and syntactical elements but also by intonation phenomena.27

C. Conclusion Because of its status as the part of spoken language, utterance has some different meaning with lexical and sentence meaning. As explained by Palmer, spoken language has different features that called paralinguistics or prosody. Therefore, the lexical meaning in some cases will be different with utterance meaning, and the sentence meaning so. Prosody includes the stress, intonation, pauses, the gesture of speaker etc that really determine the meaning. Therefore, the subject of topic-comment (topicalisation) And presupposition is part of utterance meaning.

References

Kempson, Ruth M, Semantic Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.1977 Lyons, John, Linguistic Semantics.Cambridge: Cambridge university press.page, 1995 McCarthy, Michael, Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003 Palmer,FR, Semantics: A New Outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976 Renkema, Jan, Discourse Studies : An Introductory Textbook Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1993) Saeed, John I, Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1997 Wardhaugh, Ronald, Introduction to Linguistics. United States of America: McGraw-Hill, Inc, 1972

27

Jan Renkema, Discourse Studies, pg 154-161

76

PART SEVEN INTERPERSONAL MEANING

INTRODUCTION We use language for many purposes. We tell others what we know or think we know express our feelings, ask question, make a request, protest and etc. Language seems to have as many different functions as there are occasions for using language, but for all the apparent diversity the basic uses language are rather limited. In this paper we recognize seven different kinds of speech acts classified according to their general purposes, there facets of speech act, and then direct and indirect speech act, a theory of language use: Pragmatic, the last we talk about performative and constantive utterance.

A. Kind of Speech Act The problem of speech acts was pioneered by another American language philosopher J.L. Austin. His observations were delivered at Harvard University in 1955 as the William James Lectures which were posthumously published in his famous book How to Do Things with Words. It is Austin who introduces basic terms and areas to study and distinguishes locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts. Speech act differ in their purpose, whether they deal with real or potential facts, prospective or retrospective in the role of speaker or addresses in this facts, and of course in felicity conditions, 1. Assertive Utterance In the assertive function speakers and writers use language to tell what they know or believe; assertive language is concerned is with facts. The purpose is to inform. Example: - Anna bought vegetable in supermarket yesterday - Jakarta is central city of Indonesian Above sentences are indirect assertive, and if you make direct assertive utterance start with I or we and an assertive verb. Example: - I say that Anna bought vegetable in supermarket yesterday - We declare Jakarta is central city of Indonesian

77

Reported assertive utterance are include assertive verb are: announce, agree, report, remind, predict and protest. Furthermore, class of utterances or class of verbs which introduce information are: Focus on information : Announce declare disclose Mention proclaim relate Focus on truth-value and of utterance : explain report express indicate

Affirm allege assert certify concede Guarantee swear attest bet claim Focus on speakers commitment or involvement in what is reported Confide deny profess Focus on manner of communicating : Emphasize hint imply Focus on the nature of the messages : protest28 intimate stress

contend

Dictate (a spoken message, written by another person) Narrate recount (the utterance is a unified series of events) Preach (the utterance has moral or ethical content) Focus on aspects

Predict (the utterance is about possible future events) Recall (the utterance is about previous events) 2. Performative Utterance Speech act that bring about the state of affairs they name called performative : bid, blessing, firing, baptisms, arrest, marrying, declaring a mistrial. Peformative utterances are valid if spoken someone whos right to make them is accepted and in circumstances which are accepted as appropriate. The verbs include: bet, declare, baptize, name, nominate, pronounce. Example: I declare this meeting adjourned We accept your offer

3. Verdictive Utterances

28

Kreidler, Charles W. Introducing English Semantics. New York. 1998. P.183-194

78

Verdictive are speech act in which the speaker makes an assessment or judgment about the acts or another, usually the addressee. These include ranking, assessing, apprising, condoning. Verdictive verbs include accuse, charge, excuse. Example: - I congratulate you for performing so well - I accuse you of putting airs 4. Expressive Utterances An expressive utterance springs from the previous actions or failure to act of the speaker or perhaps the present result of those actions or failures. Expressive utterances are thus retrospective and speaker involved. Expressive verbs are: Acknowledge admit confess deny Example: - I apologize for having disturbed you - We admit that we were mistaken29 apologize

5. Directive Utterances Directive utterances are those in which the speaker tries get the addresses to perform some act or refrain from performing an act. It has the pronoun you as actor, whether that word is actually present in the utterance or not: Example : - (you) wait here - Turn to page 164

Three kinds of directive utterance can be recognized: A command A command is effective only if the speaker has some degree of control over the actions of the addresses. Example: - I am telling you not to waste your time on that. - You must appear in court next Monday at 10 a.m.

A request A Request is an expression of what the speaker wants the addresses to do or refrain from doing. A request does not assume the speakers control over the person addressed. Example: - I appeal to you to help as much as you can - We beg you to stay out of the way

29

Ibid. P. 185-187

79

Suggestions Suggestions are the utterance we make to other person to give our opinions as to what they should or not should do. Positive expressions: advice, counsel, recommend. And negative expressions: caution and warn. Example: - I advise you to be prompt; I warn you not to be late - We suggest you (should) pay more attention to what youre doing 6. Commissive Utterances Speech act that commit a speaker to a course of action are called commissive utterance. These include promises, pledges, threats and vows. Commissive verbs are illustrated by agree, ask, offer, refuse, swear, all with following infinitive. They are prospective and concern with the speakers commitment to future action. Example: - I promise to be on time - We volunteer to put up the decorations for the dance30 7. Phatic Utterances Phatic utterances is to establish report between members of the same society. Phatic language has a less obvious function than six types discussed above out it is no less important. Phatic utterances include greeting, farewells, polite formula such as thank you.31

A. Three facets of a speech act The central insight of speech act is that we use language to do things, that describing is only one of the things we do: we also use language to promise, to insult, to agree, to criticize, etc. According to Austin that in uttering a sentence, a speaker is generally involved in three different acts.32 1) Locutionary act The locutionary act is the act of uttering a sentence with a certain meaning. The speaker may have intended his utterance to constitute an act of praise, critism, agreement, etc. For example: the utterance of the sentence Ill turn your light off.
30 31

Ibid. P. 189-192 Ibid. P. 194 32 Kempson M. Ruth, Semantic Theory, USA : Cambridge University Press.1977. p. 50

80

2) Perlocutionary act The perlocutionary act is uttering sentence that have been uttered by the speaker to achieve a certain consequent response from his hearer, for example to frighten the hearer, to amuse him, to get him to do something. For example: in the condition when the speakers child is refusing to lie down and go to sleep and then the speaker say to his child Ill turn your light off. 3) Illocutionary act The illocutionary act is the utterance that is interpreted as a threat. The example is the consequent behavior by the speakers child that he intended to follow from the speakers utterance, namely that the child be frightened into silence and sleep. Here is another example of the three aspect of speech act:33 Locution : Nangis kono, ana cullik. (This is a very common utterance said by a mother when a son or a daughter keeps on crying in Javanese, which more or less means Keep crying, there is a kidnapper. Illocution Perlocution : an act of ordering a son or a daughter to stop crying. : the child stops crying.

The distinction between the illocutionary act and the perlocutionary act is; the perlocutionary act is the consequent effect on the hearer which the speaker intends should follow from his utterance. But illocutionary act is not the consequence of the uttering Ill turn your light off that it constitutes a threat, it is an integral part of the speakers utterance; it is the intended meaning of the utterance. The three-fold distinction can then be referred to in the following way: a speaker utters sentences with a particular meaning (locutionary act), and with a particular force (illocutionary act), in order to achieve a certain effect on the hearer (perlocutionary act).

B. Direct and Indirect Speech Act As Austin observed, the content of a locutionary act (what is said) is not always determined by what is meant by the sentence being uttered. Ambiguous words or phrases
33

Adisutrisno, wagiman. Semantics: An Introduction to the Basic Concepts. 2008. Yogyakarta: Andi Offset. p. 53

81

need to be disambiguated and the references of indexical and other context-sensitive expressions need to be fixed in order for what is said to be determined fully. Moreover, what is said does not determine the illocutionary acts being performed. We can perform a speech act (1) directly or indirectly, by way of performing another speech act, (2) literally or nonliterally, depending on how we are using our words, and (3) explicitly or inexplicitly, depending on whether we fully spell out what we mean.34 These three contrasts are distinct and should not be confused. The first two concerns the relation between the utterance and the speech act thereby performed. In indirection a single utterance is the performance of one illocutionary act by way of performing another. For example, we can make a request or give permission by way of making a statement, say by uttering 'I am getting thirsty' or 'It doesn't matter to me', and we can make a statement or give an order by way of asking a question, such as 'Will the sun rise tomorrow?' or 'Can you clean up your room?' When an illocutionary act is performed indirectly, it is performed by way of performing some other one directly. One common way of performing speech acts is to use an expression which indicates one speech act, and indeed performs this act, but also performs a further speech act, which is indirect.35 One may, for instance, say, "Peter, can you open the window?", thereby asking Peter whether he will be able to open the window, but also requesting that he do so. Since the request is performed indirectly, by means of (directly) performing a question, it counts as an indirect speech act. Indirect speech acts are commonly used to reject proposals and to make requests. For example, a speaker asks, "Would you like to meet me for coffee?" and another replies, "I have class." The second speaker used an indirect speech act to reject the proposal. This is indirect because the literal meaning of "I have class" does not entail any sort of rejection.

34 35

http://online.sfsu.edu/~kbach/spchacts.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act

82

To recognize the indirect act, the speakers do indeed have access to both: the direct use the literal use of the speech act and the indirect, the non-literal use. According to Searle the following examples, all of the sentences can be request, butnone of which have the form of imperative, but instead are interrogatives and declaratives: a. Can you pass the salt? b. Please pass the salt. a. I wish you wouldnt do that. b. Please dont do that. The direct speech act is the conventionally expected function and the indirect speech act is termed by the extra actual function.36 See the following examples: Utterance Would you mind passing me the ashtray? Why dont you finish your drink and leave? I must ask you to leave my house Leave me and Ill jump in river Direct act Question Question Statement Order and statement Indirect act Request Request Order/request Threat

C. Felicity Conditions In order to "do things with words", certain things must be true of the context in which speech acts areuttered. In other words, a sentence must not only be grammatical (and not only make sense) to becorrectly performed, it must also be felicitous. Three types of felicity conditions: 1) Preparatory conditions: the person performing the speech act has the authority to do sothe participants are in the correct state to have that act performed on them,etc.: I now pronounce you man and wife.

2) Conditions on the manner of execution of the speech act, e.g. touching the new knight on both shoulders with the flat blade of a sword (a) orpointing in the appropriate direction (b):
36

Saeed, I. John. Semantics. 2003. United Kingdom: Blackwell publishing. P. 230

83

a) I hereby dub thee Sir Galahad. b) He went thataway! 3) Sincerity conditions are obviously necessary in the case of verbs like apologize and promise. That is, youhave to mean it, or at least be pretending that mean it, in order for an utterance involving such verbs to befelicitous. Some of the felicity conditions on questions and requests as speech acts can be described as follows,where "S" = speaker; "H" = hearer; "P" = some state of affairs; and "A" = some action. A. S questions H about P. 1. S does not know the truth about P. 2. S wants to know the truth about P. 3. S believes that H may be able to supply the information about P that S wants. B. S orders H to do A (or requests that he do it). 1. S believes A has not yet been done. 2. S believes that H is able to do A. 3. S believes that H is willing to do A-type things for S. 4. S wants A to be done.

D. A theory of Language Use: pragmatics That an account of the nature of the speech act does not provide a solution to the problem of meaning should come as no surprise to a speech act theorist, for such a theory was not originally intended (by Austin) to provide an analyses of sentences are put.
1

the

question we now have to pose is what is the precise nature of the relation between a semantic interpretation of the words and sentences of a language given, say, by a truthconditional semantics, and a theory of language use? Where do Austins insights into the nature of the speech act fit in? One solution which is currently being discussed id the setting up of a theory of communication separate from but dependent on a previously stated account of semantics a theory of pragmatics. The main aim of such a theory is expected to be the explanation of how it is that speakers of any language can use the sentences of that 84

language to convey messages which do not bear any necessary relation to the linguistic content of the sentence used. This type of theory would also have to explain the relation between the use of a sentence and the linguistic act (illocutionary act) which that sentence is used to perform. One such account has been made by Grice (Grice 1975), who has suggested the following explanation. In all communication there is a general agreement of co-operation between a speaker and a hearer, to be called the Co-operative Principle. Under this general heading, a number of general maxims can be isolated which specify the convention which participant in conversation should and normally do obey. These are as follows: Quantify (1) Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purpose of the exchange). (2) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. Quality: try to make your contribution one that is true. (1) Do not say what you believe to be false. (2) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. Relation: be relevant. Manner: this maxim has an over-all instruction Be perspicuous. Grice sub divides this general instruction into four further maxims: (1) Avoid obscurity. (2) Avoid ambiguity (3) Be brief (4) Be orderly. The following is an example of a conversation in which the participants follow the conversational maxims: Arthur : Prices have increased very steeply lately. Gerald : I agree. Do you know the causes?

85

Arthur : Im not quite sure. Im not an economist. But there have been demonstrations to demand price reductions. Gerald : Do you think the government will succeed in reducing prices? Arthur : Well, if there are price reductions, they wont be quite substantial. Price increases have always been more drastic than price reductions. Gerald : I think so too. In the conversation above, both participants contribute information that is true, not too long, relevant, and clear.37 The meaning of the utterances can be easily understood from the words and structures which are produced by the speakers. In conversations, participants may come from the same or different social structures and they can be the same or different degrees of solidarity. In addition the co-operative principles described by Grice participants apply the Principle of Politeness. The main purpose of the use of the Principle of Politeness is to avoid offence among the speakers. No speaker will be hurt or embarrassed in the process of conversing. The linguist Robin Lakoff (1973) formulated the Politeness Principle into the following conversational maxims: Dont impose. Give options. Make your receiver feel good. Expressions using Im sorry, would you mind, could you possibly, may I ask you to, Im sorry to bother you, but, etc., are expressions that reduce the possibility of causing the hearers to feel offended.

REFERENCES Adisutrisno, wagiman. Semantics: An Introduction to the Basic Concepts. Yogyakarta: Andi Offset.2008.

37

Adisutrisno, wagiman. Semantics: An Introduction to the Basic Concepts. Yogyakarta: Andi Offset. 2008. p. 55

86

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act http://online.sfsu.edu/~kbach/spchacts.html Hurford, James and Breaudan Heasley. Semantics: a Coursebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1983. Kempson M. Ruth, Semantic Theory, USA : Cambridge University Press.1977. Kreidler, Charles W. Introducing English Semantics. New York. 1998. Palmer, F. R. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1981. Saeed, I. John. Semantics. United Kingdom: Blackwell publishing. 2003. Sundayana, Wahyu and E. Aminuddin Aziz. Semantics: Buku Materi Pokok Modul 1-6. Jakarta: Universitas Terbuka. 2007.

PART EIGHT

87

LINGUISTIC CONTEXT Semantic Field, Color System, Idiom and Collocation, Componential Analysis
I. INTRODUCTION Semantics is the study of meaning in language. It is the fact that meaning is a part of language, but this definition has not been clearly delineated and given fair treatment in the study of language until very recently. In previous presentation, we have learned about speech act, perlocution and illocution, and now, our group will present about linguistic context that consist of semantics field, color system, collocation and idiom, compositional analysis. Semantic Fields are conceptual regions shared out amongst a number of words. Each field is viewed as a partial region of the whole expanse of ideas that is covered by the vocabulary of a language. Such areas are referred to by groups of semantically related words, i.e. the Semantic Fields. Internally to each field, a word meaning is determined by the network of relations established with other words. There exists a strong correspondence among Semantic Fields of different languages, while such a strong correspondence cannot be established among the terms themselves. Idiom and collocation conclude into a matter of lexical semantic, over the past few decades, since the 1960s, English idioms have been receiving constant attention, both from the point of view of their meaning and also of their form. However, many scholars agree that vocabulary and the particular field of idioms have been neglected in all aspects (Bilkova, 2000). Color system; it is talked about identifying color, such as the absence in Latin of lexemes for brown and grey. It is suggests that modern English has eleven basic color lexemes - white, black, red, green, yellow, blue, brown, purple, pink, orange and grey. The last is componential analysis, it is not of course restricted to kinship terms, but it can be applied in many areas of the vocabulary.

88

II.

DEVELOPMENT A. Semantic Field Semantic field is a set of words with an identifiable semantic affinity38. The following

set is also a semantic field; all of words refer to emotional states: angry, sad, happy, exuberant, depressed, and afraid. The concept of semantic fields is that a class or a group of words divide the semantic39. The words that divide the semantic field of a word are mutually exclusive, which mean that every word that belongs to the class or the group has its own meaning which cannot be used to substitute for the meaning of the other words in the group. It is the study of how the lexicon is organized and how the lexical meanings of lexical items are interrelated, and its principal goal is to build a model for the structure of the lexicon by categorizing the types of relationships between words. Such as, in family kinship, father, mother, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, grandfather, grandmother make a certain semantic field. In the same case of color, like white, blue, green, yellow, red, black can be grouped into semantic field that associated with colors. A semantic field is a set of lexemes which cover a certain conceptual domains and which beer certain specifiable relations to one another. An example of semantic field would be the conceptual domain of cooking, which in English is divided up into the lexemes boil, bake, fry, roast, etc.40 Another examples are: Semantic Field Walk A class of mutually exclusive words 1. Walk 2. Wade mud
38 39

: to move forward by putting each foot in turn : walk with an effort such as through water or

Edward Finegan, Language: Its Structure and Us (Thompson Higher Education, USA: 2008), p. 180 Wagiman Adisutrisno, Semantics An Introduction To The Basic Concept (Yogyakarta: 2008), p. 22 40 Jacek Fisiak, Historical Semantik, Historical Word Formation, (Mouton:1985), p.283

89

3. Waddle 4. Dash 5. Stroll

: walk with slow steps and a sideways roll : move forward violently : walk quietly and unhurriedly

Eat

1. Eat 2. Dine 3. Consume 4. Gulp 5. Bolt

: take food into the mouth and swallow it : have dinner : eat : swallow food greedily : swallow food quickly

Weep

1. Weep 2. Cry 3. Bawl 4. Blubber 5. Mewl

: cry, let tears fall from the eyes : weep, shed tears : cry loudly : weep noisily : cry feebly, as a baby does

B. Color System Color symbolism can dramatically between various cultures around the world that perceive colors completely different. For example, unlike Western cultures, the Chinese use white instead of black during funerals. This is due to the fact that they associate white with the winter time in which nature is dead. Color is also associated with different religious and spiritual meanings in various cultures. Thus, this article will mostly cover the meaning of colors in the Western world however, if it is possible, a note will be made of its meaning in different cultures. Colors can be broken into three different categories: neutrals, warms and cools: Neutral colors

Black, white, gray, beige, brown Warm colors

Red, orange, yellow, yellow-green, purple Cool colors 90

Blue, violet, turquoise, sea-green, green Color means many different things to different people and cultures. We all have our own favorite colors. People like different colors like they like different foods. Color also represents feelings, people, countries, cultures, and symbolism. In the western world, the color red is seen frequently of symbolizing anger or aggression. Some car insurance companies charge more for red cars because some of the owners of red cars are more aggressive or take more risks. 1. Red Excitement, energy, passion, desire, movement, speed, strength, health, good fortune, vigor, power, heat, love, all things intense and passionate. Negative: aggression, danger, fire, blood, war, violence, lust, stop, revolution, overwhelming and agitated. Some Cultures: China - symbol of celebration and luck, used in many cultural ceremonies that range from funerals to weddings. India - color of purity (used in wedding outfits). United States - Christmas color when combined with green, Valentines Day when combined with pink, indicates stop (danger) at traffic lights. Eastern cultures - signifies joy when combined with white.41 2. Yellow Joy, happiness, optimism, idealism, imagination, hope, sunshine, summer, cheerful, laughter gold, philosophy, caution, brightness, intelligence, knowledge, learning, concentration, persuasion, organization and Spring time. Negative: dishonesty, cowardice, betrayal, jealousy, covetousness, deceit, illness, hazard, criticism, laziness, or cynicism. charm, confidence, creativity, happiness,

41

Smita Jain Narang. Designing Websites: According to the Ancient Science of Directions, (New Delhi: 2006) p.97

91

*Note: said that too much causes babies to cry and tempers to flare. Also, speeds up metabolism and creativity increases sales. Some Cultures : Asia - sacred, imperial. Western cultures - joy, happiness. 3. Blue Peace, tranquility, calm, devotion, sincerity, honor, steadfast, dependable, loyal, productive, stability, harmony, unity, trust, truth, confidence, spirituality, intuition, inspiration, conservatism, security, cleanliness, order, loyalty, sky, water, ice, coolness, technology, appetite suppressant, love, acceptance, patience, understanding,

cooperation, comfort and loyalty. *Pale blue (baby blue) stands for an infant boy. Negative: depression, obscenity, fear, coldness, and passivity. Some Cultures : China - associated with immortality. Colombia - associated with soap. Hindus - the color of Krishna. Jews - holiness. Middle East - protective color. * Note: Blue is often considered to be the safest global color. 4. Orange Balance, encouragement, warmth, enthusiasm, vibrant, expansive, flamboyant, demanding of attention, steadfastness, courage, confidence, friendliness, cheerfulness, warmth, excitement, energy fun times, plenty, kindness, adaptability, stimulation, attraction, happy energetic days and ambition. Negative: Ignorance, inferiority, warning, danger, fire, sluggishness and superiority. Some Cultures : Ireland - religious significance (Protestant). United States - inexpensive goods, Halloween (with black). 5. Green 92

Nature, environment, healthy, masculine, calming, good luck, prosperity, vitality, renewal, youth, vigor, spring, generosity, fertility, money, food, go, grass, hope, growth, charity, wealth, freshness, youth, soothing, sharing and responsiveness. Negative: jealousy, inexperience, envy, misfortune, greed, constriction, guilt, and disorder. Some Cultures : China - studies indicate this is not a good color choice for packaging, green hats mean a man's wife is cheating on him. France - studies indicate this is not a good color choice for packaging. India - the color of Islam. Ireland - religious significance (Catholic). Some tropical countries - associated with danger United States - indicates go (safe) at traffic lights, environmental awareness, St. Patrick's Day, Christmas color (red and green). 6. Purple Royalty, piety, sanctity, sentimentality, spirituality, nobility, ceremony, power, mysterious, transformation, wisdom, enlightenment, sophistication, respect and religion. Negative: cruelty, tension, arrogance, mourning, bruised or foreboding. Some Cultures : Western cultures - royalty. 7. Gray Security, reliability, balance, neutrality, intelligence, staid, modesty, practical, dignity, maturity, timeless, solid, conservative. Negative: old age, sadness, boring, death, canceling, depression, and loss of direction. 8. Brown Earth, hearth, home, outdoors, friendship, reliability, comfort, Earth, grounding, endurance, stability, simplicity and comfort. Negative: mourning Cultures : 93

Colombia - discourages sales. 9. White{this color is used since background color is white} Reverence, purity, simplicity, cleanliness, peace, truth, glory, cleansing, healing, protection, humility, precision, innocence, youth, birth, winter, snow, good, marriage (Western cultures), cold, clinical, sterile, the full moon, healing, peace, spiritual strength, exorcism, consecration, meditation, divination. Negative: Blind, winter, unimaginative, surrender, cold, sterility, distant, death (Eastern cultures). Some Cultures : Eastern cultures - mourning, death. Japan - white carnations signify death. United States - purity (used in weddings). China- it symbolizes age, autumn, death, misfortune, virginity and purity. 10. Black Dramatic, classy, committed, serious, power, authority, sexuality, sophistication, formality, elegance, wealth, depth, style, absence of color, good technical color Negative: mystery, fear, evil, anonymity, unhappiness, sadness, remorse, anger, mourning, ignorance, coldness, unconscious, underground, satanic rituals, darkness, death (Western cultures). Some Cultures : Western cultures - mourning, death. 11. Pink Friendship, unconditional love, conviviality, affections, unselfish emotions, spiritual healing, emotional love. * pale pink stands for an infant girl. 12. Silver Purity, the moon, treasure, values, female energy, the unconscious mind. 13. Gold The sun, male energy, wealth, financial wisdom, security, understanding, luck, conscious mind, attracting happiness, activity, intelligence. 94

C. Idiom and Collocation Idiom An idiom is an expression, word, or phrase that has a figurativemeaning that is comprehended in regard to a common use of that expression that is separate from the literal meaning or definition of the words of which it is made42. An idiom is the assigning of a new meaning to a group of words which already have their own meaning (Makkai, Boatner and Gates, 1995). Cermak (1982) gives his definition of an idiom as a unit of phraseology/ idiomatic (which) can be characterized as a conventionalized combination of at least two forms ( morpheme, lexemes, collocations, sentences) which is in various ways anomalous from the formal, collocation and semantic aspects and a unit of an immediately higher level. In linguistics, idioms are usually presumed to be figures of speech contradicting the principle of compositionality; yet the matter remains debated. John Saeed defines an idiom as words collocated that became affixed to each other until metamorphosing into a fossilised term. This words commonly used in a group and each component word in the word-group and becomes an idiomatic expressions. Idiomatic expression are pervasive in everyday language. This means that we very often use idiomatic expressions in everyday conversation. Idiomatic expressions in particular are usually very difficult to interpret. This is primarily because we are aware that they are motivated by metaphorical thinking. Makkai (1995) sees the following criteria decisive for characteristization of idioms : 1. The term idiom is a unit realized at least two words. 2. The meaning of an idiom is not predictable from its components parts, which are empty of their usual senses. 3. Idioms display a high degree of disinformation potential, their parts are polysemous and therefore can be misinterpreted by the listener.

42

Tom Mc. Arthur, Rioshan Mc. Arthur, The oxford companion to the English language (1992) p.495-496.

95

4. Idioms are institutionalized, they are conventionalized expressions whose conventionalization is the result of initially ad hoc expression. Kind of idioms: Based on the idiom simplicity Based on the idiom simplicity, idioms can be classified into lexemic idioms, phraseological idioms and proverbial idioms ( Makkai, Boatner and Gates, 1995 ). a) Lexemic idioms are the idioms which correlate with the familiar part of speech such as get away with, get up, work out, and turn in. b) Phraseological idioms are idioms which require a paraphrase longer than a word such as, to kick the bucket, to fly off the handle and to be up thecreek. c) Proverbial idioms are idioms which are established sayings and proverbs such as, dont count your chickens before theyre hatched. Based on the grammatical form Based on the grammatical form, idioms can be classified into Noun phrase idioms, Verb phrase idioms, and Adjective phrase idioms. a) Noun phrase Example: Another cup of tea (something or someone very different from that which has been discussed / encountered previously). - I wasnt talking about Jeremy. I meant is brother. Ah, now Rodneys way ofdoing business is quite another cup of tea. - Tony becomes another cup of tea when he meets his friend today after hewent home from abroad two days ago. b) Verb phrase Example: Ask someone in (invite someone to come into ones house). - Dont leave Mrs. Parker standing in the cold, John. Ask her in! - Could you ask your friends in tonight! We really need them.

96

c) Adjective phrase Example: Bargaining counter (A special position or advantage in politics, business or a private dispute with which one can bargain and thus weaken the position of ones opponent). - The students protest against the new matriculation regulation wasineffective, because they had no real bargaining counter. - Mr. Smith had bargaining counter in the general election, therefore hebecomes a president now. Based on idiomatic pairs Based on idiomatic pairs, idioms can be classified into pairs of adjectives, pairs of nouns, pairs of adverb, pairs of verbs, identical pairs. a) Pairs of adjectives Example: alive and kicking (well and active) - I had a letter from Rod. Hes still very much alive and kicking, working onan Australian sheep farm. - When I met John yesterday, he was still alive and kicking in his business. b) Pairs of nouns Example: aches and pains (small health complaints). - I meet Hilary yesterday. She talked about her aches and pains all the time. - Diana came to the doctor two days ago, she complained her aches andpains to him. c) Pairs of adverb Example: by and large (taken as a whole, generally speaking) - By and large, its been a pretty good year for the local team. - By and large, George is a handsome boy. d) Pairs of verbs Example: give and take (make compromises) - If Barbara were prepared to give and take a little more, our relationshipwould be much smoother. 97

- The war between two villages has been reduced because both of them wantto give and take. e) Identical pairs Example: again and again (repeatedly). - Ive told Hendry again and again that he shouldnt smoke so much. He hasa dreadful cough. - Although Hendry has been advised again and again, he still does thesame. Idioms with preposition

Example: after a fashion (in an unsatisfactory manner, not devoting much time or care). - Has Richard finished his French essay? Well, yes, hes done it after afashion. - Finally, Mark finished in making his thesis after a fashion in two months. Verbal idioms

Example: argue the toss (argue/ discuss vigorously, often about something that cannot be changed). - Theres no point arguing the toss now. It has already been decided that - Jones will be sent to represent the company at Tokyo, not you. - There will be arguing the toss in our class because everyone defends hisopinion Idioms with key words from special categories Based on idioms with key words from special categories, idioms into idiom animal form, colors form, number form, size form, measurement form. a) Animals Example: a busy bee (a busy, active person who moves quickly from task to task) - Jennys a real busy bee today. Shes been rushing around all morning. - Bob feels tired today after he was a busy bee yesterday. b) Colors Black Example: a black day (an unhappy day when something bad or sad happens).

98

- The day of the channel ferry disaster was certainly a black day for all thefamilies concerned. - Today becomes a black day for Michael; he got a sadly accident in themorning. Blue Example: blue blood (be royal or aristocratic in origin) - Scott is trying to trace his ancestry. His mother told him that generationsago there was blue blood in the family - Everyone in the village like Mr. Dave, he is blue blood man. Green Example; a green belt (an area of field and woodlands around a town) - The planning committee is firmly opposed to any building in the greenbelt. - A green belt will reduce the air pollution if we always take care of it. Grey Example: grey matter (ones brain, intelligence, power of reasoning etc) - Ive got a mathematical problem for you to use your grey matter on. - Einstein had amazing grey matter, therefore he became a great scientist. Red Example: a red letter day (an important or joyful occasion which one looks forward to or remembers with pleasure) - The day we move into our newly built house was a red letter day for thewhole family. - Albert assumes that this is his a red letter day after he finished his workwell. White Example: white coffee (coffee with milk or cream) - For breakfast I always have two slices of toast and a white coffee. - White coffee is the best coffee that I like. c) Number, Size, Measurement. Number

99

Example: one by one (individually, one at a time, each one separately) - First he addressed the applicants as a group, than he spoke to them one byone. - Dont be rush! You must take it one by one. Size Example: thats about the size of it (thats fair description of the situation, problem, matter etc) - So thats about the size of it. Now Ive told you what the problem is,perhaps, you can help us. - Stephen has already told the truth, he convinces the audience thats aboutthe size of it. Measurement Example: talk a mile a minute (chatter continuously and rapidly) - Most men would say that women talk a lot, but Harry beats the lot. He cantalk a mile a minute. - Andrew says that he cannot talk a mile a minute in the stage. d) Part of body Example: in cold blood (in a calculated and deliberate way; calmly and without feeling) - How can I remain her friend after she lied to me like that in cold blood? - He is a very bad man, he always kills someone in cold blood Idioms with comparisons

a) Comparisons with as..as Example: as brown as a berry (having brown skin from being in the sun) - She always plays with her friends in the evening until she gets as brown asberry. - Mark said to me that he wants to have as brown as berry skin, therefore healways stay under the sun in a long time. b) Comparisons with like Example: be out like a light (fall quickly into a deep sleep)

100

- Billy was so tired after the birthday party. When I put him to bed he wasout like a light in no time. - Nick has a plan to be out like a light tonight because he will be busytomorrow.

Collocation Collocation is an expression consisting of two or more words that correspond to some conventional way of saying things. Or in the words of Firth (1957: 181): Collocations of a given word are statements of the habitual or customary places of that word. Collocations include noun phrases like strong tea and weapons of mass destruction, phrasal verbs like to make up, and other stock phrases like the rich and powerful. Particularly interesting are the subtle and not-easily-explainable patterns of word usage that native speakers all know: for example, exceptional in the sentence of an exceptional weatherwhich means abnormal, but an exceptional child is not an abnormal child. Exceptional being used for greater than usual ability and abnormal to relate some kind of defect (though, oddly, for euphemistic reasons, exceptional is now being used by some people, especially in America, in place of abnormal). 43 Meaning by collocation is an abstraction at the syntagmatic level and is not directly concerned with the conceptual or idea approach to the meaning of words. One of the meanings of night is its collocability with dark, and, of dark, of course, collocation with night (Firth 1957:196).44 The term collocation will be used to refer to sequences of lexical which habitually co- occur, but which are nonetheless fully transparent in the sense that each lexical constituent is also a semantic constituent45. It has been argued that all collocations are determined by the meaning of the words, though this point of view seems rather perverse. Thus it might be said that pretty means handsome in female (or feminine) way, and that for this reason we can say a pretty child to mean a pretty girl and not a handsome boy. This is a little implausible and it is eve n less plausible to say that rancid means rotten in the way that brains or eggs can be. For there are no obvious qualities of being rancid or addled that distinguish them from any other kind or
43 44

F.R. Palmer, Semantics a New Outline, (Cambridge University Press:1976), p. 96 Alan Partington, Pattern and Meanings, (Amsterdam; 1998), p.15 45 D.A Curse, Lexical Semantics, (Cambridge University Press: 1986 ), p. 40

101

rottenness. to say rotten (of butter), rotten (of eggs) is not then establishing a specific meaning for rancid or addled; it is merely indicating that these are the words to refer to rottenness when used butter and eggs. Collocation usually refer to words that tend to appear together or words that tend to keep company. Frequent examples of collocation are onomatopoeic words, that is, words which are formed by imitating the sounds associated with the thing concerned. Some examples are: A cat mews/ meows A cock crows A cow moose A dog barks A elephant trumpets Types of collocation There are several different types of collocation made from combinations of verb, noun, adjective etc. Some of the most common types are:

Adverb + Adjective : completely satisfied Adjective + Noun Noun + Noun Noun + Verb Verb + Noun : excruciating pain : a surge of anger : lions roar : commit suicide

Verb + Expression With Preposition: burst into tears Verb + Adverb : wave frantically

The Difference an idiom and a collocation Compositionality Collocations are characterized by limited compositionality. We call a natural language expression compositional if the meaning of the expression can be predicted from the meaning of the parts. Collocations are not fully compositional in that there is usually an element of meaning added to the combination. In the case of strong tea, strong has acquired the meaning rich in some active agent which is 102

closely related, but slightly different from the basic sense having great physical strength. Idioms are the most extreme examples of non-compositionality. Idioms like to kick the bucket or to hearit through the grapevine only have an indirect historical relationship to the meanings of the parts of the expression. We are not talking about buckets or grapevines literally when we use these idioms. Most collocations exhibit milder forms of non-compositionality, like the expression international bestpractice that we used as an example earlier in this book. It is very nearly a systematic composition of its parts, but still has an element of added meaning. Interpretation of meaning There is a big difference between a collocation and an idiom. A collocation is the way words combine in a language to produce natural speech and writing. For example when you say "pay attention", it could be "give attention, or put attention" but it is not, it is pay attention because it is the natural way in which native speakers express that. An idiom is a sequence of words which has different meaning as a group from the meaning they would have if you understood them separately. For example, when you say "it's raining cats and dogs" you do not really mean that cats and dogs are falling down from the sky but that there is a heavy rain.

D. Componential Analysis Componential analysis is semantic theory, which has developed from a technique for the analysis of kinship vocabulary46. It claims that all lexical items can be analyzed using a finite set of components (or semantics features) which may, it is felt, be universal. Several set of lexical items exist to show the strengths of the approach. Componential analysis explained that each word or its meaning lexeme formed of several elements or components, as the word father in English contain component of meaning such as: animate, adult, married, human, male and etc. whereas , the word mother have component of meaning : animate, adult, married, human and female and etc. Table. 1
46

David crystal, In A Dictionary Of Linguistics And Phonetics (1997), p.77

103

Component of Meaning 1. Animate 2. Adult 3. Married 4. Human 5. Male

Mother + + + + -

Father + + + + +

Table. 2

Notes: the sign (+) means that the word has component of meaning and vice versa with the sign (-). Based on the table 1, above, the word father and mother have different componential analysis. Father is [+Human] [+Animate] [+Male] [+Married] [+Adult] and mother [+Human] [+Animate] [-Male] [+Married] [+Adult]. We can say that father and mother have different on the meaning. The word father has the meaning male and the word mother has not the meaning male. Such componential analysis is not of course restricted to kinship terms, but it can be applied in many areas of the vocabulary. For example, the distinction between murder and kill can be stated explicitly and economically if the word murder is representing intension, causation, and the death, and the word kill is representing only causation and death. By this means, de Saussure has concept of velour characterizing the relationship which a word holds to other words in the different language.

104

John Lyons (1979), componential analysis is a associated with conceptualism, the sense component point, and the sense of particular lexeme as molecular concepts, for example the sense of (man) might be held to combine the atomic concepts (male), (adult), and (human), and the sense of (woman) might be held to differ from that of (man). Solely in that it combines (female) (or not male), rather than male with adult and human.47

III. CONCLUSION Based on explained in part of development, we can take conclusion that Semantic field is a set of words with an identifiable semantic affinity. The following set is also a semantic field; all of words refer to emotional states: angry, sad, happy, exuberant, depressed, and afraid. Whereas Color means many different things to different people and cultures. We all have our own favorite colors. People like different colors like they like different foods. Color also represents feelings, people, countries, cultures, and symbolism. In the western world, the color red is seen frequently of symbolizing anger or aggression. An idiom is an expression, word, or phrase that has a figurativemeaning that is comprehended in regard to a common use of that expression that is separate from the literal meaning or definition of the words of which it is made. And Collocations of a given word are statements of the habitual or customary places of that word. Collocations include noun phrases like strong tea and weapons of mass destruction, phrasal verbs like to make up, and other stock phrases like the rich and powerful. And the last Componential analysis is semantic theory, which has developed from a technique for the analysis of kinship vocabulary. It claims that all lexical items can be analyzed using a finite set of components (or semantics features) which may, it is felt, be universal. Several set of lexical items exist to show the strengths of the approach.

47

John Lyons, Semantik1, (Cambridge, University Press: 1979), p. 317

105

References

Alan, partington.1998. Pattern and Meanings. Amsterdam : Prentice-Hall Chair, Abdul. 2007. Linguistic umum. Jakarta : Rineka Cipta. Cruse, D.A. 1995. Lexical semantic. New York : Cambridge university press. David, crystal. 1997. In A Dictionary Of Linguistics And Phonetics. Edward, finegan.2008. Language: Its Structure and Use.USA: Thompson Higher Education. F.R. palmer. 1976. Semantics a New Outline.Melbourne:Cambridge University Press. Fromklin , V.A (ed). 2002. An introduction to language. Los Angeles : University of California. Hurford,R. James and Heasley, Brendan. 1994. Semantics a course book. Melbourne : Cambridge university press. Jaeck, Fisiak. 1985. Historical Semantik, Historical Word Formation.The Hague: Mouton Smita, Jain Narang. 2006. Designing Websites: According to the Ancient Science of Directions. New Delhi: Sundayana, wahyu. 2007. Semantics. Jakarta : Universitas terbuka. Tom, Mc. Arthur and Rioshan Mc. Arthur. 1992. The oxford companion to the English Language. London: the oxford Wagiman, Adisutrisno. 2008. Semantics An Introduction To The Basic Concept . Yogyakarta: pusaka nusantara.

106

PART NINE SENSE RELATION: Synonymy, Polysemy, Homonymy, Incompatibility, Hyponymy, Antonymy, Relational Opposites, Components S

Introduction
Semantics is the study of meaning. It is a wide subject within the general study of language. An understanding of semantics is essential to the study of language acquisition (how language users acquire a sense of meaning, as speakers and writers, listeners and readers) and of language change (how meanings alter over time). It is important for understanding language in social contexts, as these are likely to affect meaning, and for understanding varieties of English and effects of style. It is thus one of the most fundamental concepts in linguistics. The study of semantics includes the study of how meaning is constructed, interpreted, clarified, obscured, illustrated, simplified negotiated, contradicted and paraphrased.48 In our study of the meaning of words we can focus on the ways in which the senses of two or more lexemes are related to each other.We can recognize some major types of such sense relations: synonymy, polysemy, homonymy, incompatibility, hyponymy, antonymy, relational opposite, and components.

A. Sense Relation
Sense relation is a relation between two or more words that concerns their meaning.49In analyzing the meaning properties, it is very possible to find that some words have the same number of properties as the other words; so their meanings are not absolutely different. This of course creates some confusion and difficulty to arrive at a very clear description of the word meaning. They seem to have a certain close relation by which a word may be a part of the others; contradictory to other; or has several meanings. Such

48 49

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics Accessed May 10, 2010 http://www.novalearn.com/grammar-glossary/sense-relation.htm Accessed: May 16, 2010

107

relation is usually named as lexical relation or sense relation. The types of sense relation which are usually appealed to are defined and exemplified in following sections.50

B. Synonyms
Synonymy is a word with the same meaning or nearly the same meaning as another word in the same language.51 Synonymy are two or more forms with very closely related meaning, which are often, but not always intersubstitutable in sentences. It should be noted that idea of meaning is not necessarily total sameness. There are some occasions when one word is appropriate in a sentence, but its synonymy would be odd.52 Synonymy can be distinguished in several ways, such as the aspect of formality or intensity. Some words are more 'professional' than their synonymy; some only belong to written language, while other terms are more colloquial than others or are considered to be 'slang' or even 'taboo slang' words. Some synonymy just belong to different dialects. Synonymy can also be distinguished by special contexts in which one member of a synonymy pair is used, but the other not. Although a pair of synonymy may be similar in terms of style, intensity and dialect they still are not necessarily intersubstitutable because they sometimes are different in terms of connotation. Some examples in English are: Abduct Abhor Above Abridge Abroad Abrogate Abstain Accord Admit Adversary
50 51

Kidnap Detest Over Shorten Overseas Cancel Refrain Agreement Confess Opponent

Leery Legacy Legible Licentious Listen Lithe Little Livid loathe Lofty

Cautious Bequest Readable Lewd Hear Supple Small Enraged Abhor High

Muhammad Farkhan, An Introduction to Linguistics.Jakarta: (UIN Jakarta Press, 2006) p. 107 A S Hornby, Oxford Advance Learners Dictionary of Current English. (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2000) p. 1373 52 George Yule, The Study of Language. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1985) p. 100

108

Affable Aggravate Agree Air Akin Alive Allocate Allow Also ameliorate Amount Annul Answer appease Arraign Ask assembly Assent Attire Avarice Baby Bad Badger Beg Begin behaviour Belief benevolent Berate Big Bilk Blamed Blank Bliss Bottom Brave Brawn Bright Broad Brook Bucolic

Friendly Worsen Consent Discuss Related Lively Distribute Permit Too Improve Quantity Cancel Response Pacify Indict Inquire, request Gathering Agree Dress Greed Infant Evil Pester Implore Commence Conduct Opinion Kind Scold Large Swindle Accused Empty Happiness Foot daring, bold Strength Shinning Wide Tolerate Rustic

Logo Look loquacious Lost loving Loyal lucrative ludicrous luminous Lure luster luxuriant macabre Mad maelstrom magnitude malice margin meager Mean messy middle misshapen moral morsel mundane Name narrate Near nefarious negate negligible nepotism New Noisy noted Obey obstinate odyssey Often Old

Symbol See talkative misplaced fond True profitable absurd bright entice gloss lush gruesome insane whirlpool size spite edge scanty cruel untidy center deformed ethical piece ordinary title tell close evil cancel insignificant favouritism unused, modern rowdy well-known submit stubborn journey frequently ancient

109

Build Busy Buy calamity Canon capitulate Careen Careful Careful castigate catastrophic Catch caucus Cavort Cede celestial Centre champion change Cheat Chide choose chubby circumspect clemency clergyman Close Clothes Clout coagulate Coddle coercion collusion commend commodity compulsory concise Concur Confer conversant converse

Construct Active Purchase Disaster Rule Surrender Swerve Cautious Cautious Criticize Disastrous Capture Meeting Frolic Relinquish Heavenly Middle Winner Alter Deceive Scold Select Plump Cautious Forgiveness Minister Near Dress Influence Thicken Pamper Force Conspiracy Praise Product Obligatory Brief Agree Bestow Familiar Opposite

Omen omnipotent omniscient oppress opulence Oral orator outset outside ovation pacify Paltry pandemic paranormal parcel Part patent paucity peddle Pen perhaps perilous perish persevere pertinent Pick Pious placate plentiful policeman Polite Poor Port portion praise prank pretty protect Pull purloin Push

sign all-powerful all-knowing persecute wealth verbal speaker beginning exterior applause appease scarce widespread supernatural package portion obvious scarcity sell write maybe dangerous die persist relevant choose devout appease abundant constable courteous destitute harbour piece compliment joke beautiful,attractive guard drag steal thrust

110

Copy Cordial Correct courtesan Covert Crave Culvert cunning Cure Curtail Damp dangerous Deadly Dear Dearth debilitate deceive decimate decipher decrease deduce deleterious Delude demeanour demise demobilize demoralize denigrate denounce Depart deplete Deride desecrate desiccate Despot destitute Detain detrimental Devise Devout diabolical

Imitate Friendly Accurate Prostitute Secret Desire Drain Sly Remedy Shorten Moist Risky Fatal Expensive Scarcity Weaken Trick Destroy Decode Reduce Conclude Harmful Deceive Behavior Death Disband Dishearten Defame Condemn Leave Exhaust Ridicule Profane Dehydrate Tyrant Poor Confine Harmful Plan Pious Devilish

putrefy quack qualms Quay queen queue Quick Quiet Quill Quip Rare rarely Rash Read ready Real Reap rebuke receptacle reckless recollect rectify Recur Red Reek Regal Rein rejoice Relic remain remedial remember remnant remorse renown replenish Retain revenue Rich Rift Riot

decay charlatan misgivings wharf empress line rapid peaceful feather joke scarce seldom hasty peruse alert genuine harvest reprimand container rash remember correct repeat ruddy smell royal curb celebrate antique stay corrective recollect residue guilt fame refill keep income wealthy split revolt

111

diffident discernible discreet disease disfigure Dismal disorder dispatch disperse disseminate distend distract diversity divulge Dodder Dull Dumb Duress eatable Ebb eccentric Edifice efficacious egocentric electorate elucidate Elude Empty End Enemy enough ensnare enterprise Entice Entreat Envoy ephemeral Epoch equitable Error Escape

Shy Visible Prudent Sickness Mar Gloomy Chaos Send Scatter Distribute Swell Divert Variety Disclose Tremble Gloomy Mute Coercion Edible Recede odd, weird Building Effective self-centered Voters Explain Evade Vacant Conclusion Foe Sufficient trap, lure Undertaking Lure Plead Messenger short-lived Era Fair Mistake Elude

Roam robust rostrum rough round Rude Rue Rule Ruse Rustic Sack Sad Safe Saga sanction saturate savour Scant scared scatter schism Scion Scorn Sear secede seclusion seduce seldom semblance separate serene Sham sheen Short shorten Show Shun sibling Sick Siege Silent

wander vigorous podium coarse circular impolite regret govern trick rural pillage unhappy secure story approval soak relish inadequate frightened disperse rift offspring disdain burn withdraw solitude lure rarely likeness sever peaceful pretense luster brief abbreviate exhibit avoid brother/sister ill blockage quiet

112

exorbitant exorcise Fable Fall False fantasy Far feather Feign Fertile Fidelity Fierce Fight Filch Find First Fiscal flagellate Float Force Foretell Free Friend friend funny furtive gain game gargantuan garrulous gather gay general genesis ghastly give glad glaring gnarl gory guest

Expensive Expel Myth Drop untrue, wrong Daydream Distant Plume Pretend Fruitful Loyalty Ferocious Battle Steal Discover Initial Monetary Whip Drift Compel Predict Release companion, ally Ally Amusing Stealthy Profit Recreation Large Talkative Collect Cheerful Common Beginning Horrible Donate Happy Dazzling Deform Bloody Visitor

Silly simple sinister Site skeptical Slay sleepy Slim Sloth smart Smell Smite Snare Snub sovereign specimen squalid squander Static Steed Stern Stick Stifle stimulate stingy Stop strange Strife Strive strong student studious Style subdue submit subside succulent superb surmount surprise surrender

foolish easy evil location doubtful kill drowsy slender laziness intelligent scent strike trap ignore monarch sample filthy waste inactive horse strict adhere suppress excite miserly halt odd conflict endeavour powerful pupil diligent fashion conquer yield diminish juicy excellent overcome astonishment yield

113

guffaw habit habituate hale hallucination hamper hapless harangue hard hate haven height help herald hew hide hideous high home hone horde hue hug huge humane hygienic hyperbole idiosyncrasy illicit illimitable illustrious imbibe imitate immaterial immense impale impasse impassive impeccable impede impending

Laughter Custom Accustom Healthy Delusion Obstruct Unlucky Tirade Difficult Detest Refuge Altitude Assist Harbinger Cut Conceal Horrible Tall Residence Sharpen Group Colour Embrace Enormous Compassionate Sanitary Exaggeration Peculiarity Unlawful Limitless Famous Drink Copy Irrelevant Huge Pierce Deadlock Calm Faultless Hinder Imminent

surround susceptible sustenance swamp Taint Talk Talon tangible tarnish Taut Teach teacher tedious tempest tempo tempt Tenet Tepid Terse tested Thief Thin Thrive throng titillate titular Toil Top Trail tranquilize transient transitory traverse Trek Trick Trite Trust Try Twain tyrannical ubiquitous

encircle vulnerable food marsh pollute conversation claw touchable taint tight educate instructor boring storm speed entice doctrine lukewarm concise tried burglar lean prosper crowd arouse figurehead drudgery summit path calm, anesthetize temporary fleeting cross journey hoax commonplace believe attempt two dictatorial omnipresent

114

imperil implicate implore inculcate incursion indelible indigent indiscriminate indolent industrious inexorable infamous infamy infer infirmity influx infraction infuriate inhibit iniquitous initiate inkling innate innocuous innuendo inordinate inquisitive inscribe inside insignia insolvent instigate inter interesting intrepid intricate intrigue intrinsic inundate involve irate

Endanger Incriminate Entreat Instill Raid Permanent Poor Random Lazy Hardworking Relentless Notorious Shame Conclude Ailment Inflow Violation Enrage Restrain Unjust Begin Hint Inborn Harmless Insinuation Excessive Curious Engrave Interior Emblems Bankrupt Incite Bury Fascinating Fearless Complex Plot Inherent Flood Implicate Angry

ulterior unassuming uncanny under undermine underscore understand unduly unison usually Utter vacant vacillate Vain valiant Value vanish vanquish vehement vendetta venom venue verbose verdict Veto Vex vicious victory Vie Vilify Virile Vital vocation vogue volatile vulgarity vulnerable wager wages Waive wallow

hidden, covert modest mysterious beneath weaken emphasize comprehend excessive together generally complete empty waver unsuccessful brave worth disappear conquer adamant feud poison location wordy decision reject annoy evil, cruel triumph compete defame manly, strong necessary occupation fashion unstable obscenity susceptible bet salary forgo indulge

115

irrational jeer jest jocular join jostle judicious jump just kudos last lazy least leave

Illogical Mock Joke Humorous Connect Push Prudent Leap Fair Acclaim Final Indolent Minimum Abandon

Want watch Weak Wet Whet whole Wither Wonder Woo Wrath Wrest Writ Yearly Young

need look feeble damp stimulate entire shrivel amazement court anger, fury snatch summons annually youthful

C. Polysemy
Polysemy is the capacity for one form to have multiple meanings which are all related by extension; a word which has several very closely related senses. 53 Polysemy also is the term for the phenomenon of one word having two or more separate, but still traceably related meanings. It is sometimes not easy to distinguish between polysemy and homonymy, as the polysemy of a word is caused by extension of a word's primary meaning. Some examples in English are: Aggregation = coming together : result of coming together; those who come together Assembly = coming together : result of coming together; those who come together Bank = keep secure : place where things are kept secure Bed = something sleepers lie upon : what a stream lies on Book = a bound collection of pages : text distributed as a book Capitalist = person who owns a business : supporter of capitalism; person who owns a business

53

H. G. Widdowson, Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 58

116

Congregation = coming together : result of coming together; those who come together Court = seek favor : assembly of those seeking favor; the president of the court ("judge") Delegation = granting authority to another : those to whom authority has been granted Head = part of the body above neck : person in charge of an organization Hospital = activity or place for lodging guests : place for treating the ill Hunt = seeking something, especially game animals, to kill or capture : those engaged in a search and taking March = moving together on foot : those who move together on foot Milk = activity of extracting milk : result of the extraction Militia = military or defense activity : those engaged in or subject to being required to engage in defense activity Ministry = serving the needs of others : those engaged in serving the needs of others Mole = a small burrowing mammal : someone who burrows for information hoping to go undetected Movement = motion, change in position : result of motion or change; those who move or change Nurse = serving the needs of others : someone engaged in serving the needs of others Police = make orderly (lawful) : law enforcers Service = doing for others : those who serve (especially military) Viking = raiding : those who raid (especially of Scandinavian origin) Wedding = joining a couple in matrimony : those engaged in joining a couple in matrimony; time or place of doing so Wood = a piece of a tree : a geographical area with many trees

D. Homonymy
117

The word homonymy comes from the conjunction of the Greek prefix homo-, meaning same, and suffix -nymos, meaning name. Thus, it refers to two or more distinct concepts sharing the same name or signifier. The term homonymy is used for words, which happen to appear in the same shape, although their meanings are unrelated and they have different etymologies. Homonyms do not only differ in meaning, but sometimes also belong to different word classes, so it is possible to keep them apart by their syntactic differences. As the English language has a non-phonetic writing system it is also possible to distinguish between homographs, which appear to have the same spelling, but not necessarily the same pronunciation, and homophones, which are pronounced equally, but are not necessarily spelt the same; of course both phenomena can occur together. In linguistics, a homonymy is, in the strict sense, one of a group of words that share the same spelling and the same pronunciation but have different meanings (in other words, are both homographs and homophones), usually as a result of the two words having different origins. The state of being a homonym is called homonymy. Examples of pairs of homonymy are stalk (part of a plant) and stalk (follow/harass a person), and left (opposite of right) and left (past tense of leave). In a looser non-technical sense, the term homonymy can be used to refer to words that share the same spelling irrespective of pronunciation, or share the same pronunciation irrespective of spelling in other words, they are homographs or homophones.54In this sense, pairs such as row (propel with oars) and row (argument), and read (peruse) and reed (waterside plant), would also be homonyms. A distinction may be made between true" homonyms, which are unrelated in origin, such as skate (glide on ice) and skate (the fish), and polysemous homonyms, or

54

homonym,Random House Unabridged Dictionary at dictionary.com. Accessed: Mei 16, 2010

118

polysemes, which have a shared origin, such as mouth (of a river) and mouth (of an animal).55

ERelated terms

Venn diagram showing the relationships between homonyms (between blue and yellow) and related linguistic concepts.

Several similar linguistic concepts are related to homonymy. These include: 1. Homographs (literally "same writing") are usually defined as words that share the same spelling, regardless of how they are pronounced.56 If they are pronounced the same then they are also homophones (and homonyms) for example, bark (the sound of a dog) and bark (the skin of a tree). If they are pronounced differently then they are also heteronyms for example, bow (the front of a ship) and bow (a type of knot). 2. Homophones (literally "same sound") are usually defined as words that share the same pronunciation, regardless of how they are spelled.57 If they are spelled the same then they are also homographs (and homonyms); if they are spelled differently then they are also heterographs (literally "different writing"). Homographic
55

James R. Hurford and Brendan Heasley, Semantics: a coursebook, (Cambridge University Press, 1983) p.123
56

Some sources restrict the term "homograph" to words that have the same spelling but different pronunciations. See, for example (Wiley-Blackwell,The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems, 1999, p. 215) and The Encyclopedia Britannica (14th Edition) (entry for "homograph").
57

Some sources restrict the term "homophone" to words that have the same pronunciation but different spellings. See, for example(Wiley-Blackwell, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems, 1999, p. 215) and The Encyclopedia Britannica (14th Edition) (entry for "homograph").

119

examples include rose (flower) and rose (past tense of rise). Heterographic examples include to, too, two, and there, their, theyre. 3. Heteronyms (literally "different name") are the subset of homographs (words that share the same spelling) that have different pronunciations (and meanings).58 That is, they are homographs which are not homophones. Such words include desert (to abandon) and desert (arid region); row (to argue or an argument) and row (as in to row a boat or a row of seats). Note that the latter meaning also constitutes a pair of homophones. Heteronyms are also sometimes called heterophones (literally "different sound").

E. Incompatibility
Incompatibility (or co-hyponymy) is the most general type of semantic relation between lexical items, the meaning of which entails exclusion. Such items fall under a superordinate term or concept and denote sets which have no members in common (e.g. animal: dog-cat-mouse-lion-sheep; example from Cruse 2004). Traditionally, these have been of interest to lexical semanticists for the description of the structure of the lexicon. However, incompatibility is not just a relation that signifies a difference of meaning. The relation of incompatibility is the most general type of semantic relation among lexical items, the meaning of which entails exclusion59 (e.g. Lyons 1977, Cruse 1986). According to the theoretical approach, lexical units exhibiting a specific sense hold a relation of incompatibility if they fall under a common single superordinate. Alternatively, following a construction-based approach, concepts that are denoted by lexemes or constructions enter a relation of incompatibility if they fall under a hyperonymous concept/notion. Hence, incompatibles are lexical items which denote classes that have no

58

Some sources do not require that heteronyms have different pronunciations. See, for example, the archived Encarta dictionary entry (which states that heteronyms "often" differ in pronunciation) and the "Fun with Words" website (which states that heteronyms "sometimes" have different pronunciations).
59

Lyons, J. (1977) Semantics. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

120

members in common. They refer to mutual exclusiveness within the same superordinate category such as the following three examples: animal: dog cat mouse lion sheep (example from Cruse 2004) fruit: banana apple pear orange economic values: mobility flexibility efficiency adaptability know-how. These are also called co-hyponyms or sister terms60. The basic characteristic of the items in these classes is their incompatibility. Moreover, they are unordered; that is to say there is no natural way, as far as their meaning is concerned, of arranging them any kind of order and if we wanted to list them we should, therefore, probably do so in alphabetic order. Admittedly, the scientist will have a framework for the classification of metals or mammals, but that is a different matter; there is no way in which, in the terms of an obvious meaning characteristic, we arrange elephant, giraffe, rhinoceros. But there are some groups of words that seem to have some order. The days of the week and the months of the year form sets of incompatible items since we cannot say This month is November and it is also March. But they also have sequential relations such that Sunday comes immediately before MondaySunday is the day before Monday, etc. (F.R. Palmer, 1981: 73-74)

F. Hyponymy
Hyponymy are words whose meanings are included in the meaning of the other. Such sense relation is commonly described as hyponymy. The word supposed to be more general and to include the meanings of the others is called superordinate; and the other, the more particular instances included within it is called its subordinate term or hyponymy. In some cases, thy hyponymy may become superordinate term, when they contain more specific terms. Some examples in English are: a. Superordinate: Walk Hyponymy: March, Amble, Stroll, Tramp, Stride. b. Superordinate: Animal
60

Cruse, A. (2004) Meaning in Language. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

121

Hyponymy: Mammal, Reptile. c. Superordinate: Mammal Hyponymy: Rodent, Ruminant. d. Superordinate: Rodent Hyponymy: Mouse, Rat, Porcupine. e. Superordinate: Living Hyponymy: Creature, Plant. f. Superordinate: Creature Hyponymy: Animal, Insect.
The relation between superordinate terms and their hyponyms will be clearly described through the following illustration.

122

G. Antonyms
The sense relationship of 'oppositeness of meaning' is called antonymy . This is the general term applied to the sense relation involving oppositeness in meaning.61 Although antonymy is typical of the adjective word class, it is not restricted to this class and can also be found in the word classes of nouns, verbs, adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions. Antonyms can be wether morphologically unrelated or built by affixation, that means by addition of negative or antonymous prefixes or antonymous suffixes. Still adjectives of the same stem with antonymous suffixes do not necessarily have to be antonyms, for instance 'hopeful' and 'hopeless' (Jackson 1993: 98). Some other examples in English are: Above Abroad Absent Absent Accept Active Add Admit Adult Alive All Allow Always Arrive Asleep Back Backwards Bad Barren Beautiful Before Begin Bent
61

Below Home Present Present Refuse Passive Subtract Deny Child Dead None Refuse Never Depart Awake Front Forward Good Fertile Ugly After End Straight

Hill Humble Husband In include increase increase indifferent Inner Inside Insult interested interesting Joy Junior Kind Kind knowledge Lazy Lead Least Leave Lend

Valley Proud Wife Out Exclude Decrease Decrease Interested Outer Outside Praise Bored Dull Sorrow Senior Cruel Cruel Ignorance Industrious Follow Greatest Arrive Borrow

Loreto Todd, An Introduction to Linguistics (Edinburg gate: Pearson Education Limited, 1987) p.82

123

Best Better Big Black Blameless Bless Blunt Bold Bold Boss Bravery Break Bridge Bright Broad Busy Buy Capture Catch Cheap City Clean Clever Cloudy Clumsy Coarse Cold Come Comedy Comfort Common Common Contract Cool Coward Cowardly Create Cry Daily Danger Dark

Worst Worse Small White Guilty Curse Sharp Timid Timid Employee Cowardice Repair Tunnel Dull Narrow Idle Sell Release Throw Dear Country Dirty Foolish Clear Graceful Fine Hot Go Tragedy Disturb Rare Unusual Expand Warm Hero Bold Destroy Laugh Nightly Safety Bright

Level Life Liquid Long Loss Loud Love majority Many masculine master Mean Miser modern Most motorist mountain natural Near Never Niece Noise Noisy normal North Notice Obey Obtain Often Old Omit Open Order overlook pardon Part Past Peace Plural Polite Polite

Steep Death Solid Short Gain Soft Hate Minority Few Feminine Servant Kind Spendthrift Ancient Least Pedestrian Valley Artificial Far Always Nephew Silence Quiet Abnormal South Ignore Command Give Seldom new include shut/close chaos notice punish whole future war singular rude rude

124

Dawn Day Deep Depth Die Difficult Dim Discourteous Divide Doctor Drunk Dry Dwarf Early East Easy Ebb Empty Enemy Enjoy Entrance Evening Ever Everybody Everywhere Exit Fact Failure Fair Famous Fancy Far Fat Fat Few Find Finish First Flatter Foe Foolish

Dusk Night Shallow Height Live Easy Bright Polite Multiply Patient Sober Wet Giant Late West Difficult Flow Full Friend Dislike Exit Morning Never Nobody Nowhere Entrance Fiction Success Dark Unknown Plain Near Thin Skinny Many Lose Start Last Insult Friend Wise

Poor powerful Praise Public Public punish Pupil purchase Push question Quick Raw Raw Real Right Rise Rough Sad Safe Safe Same separate several Silly similar Slim Smile Smile straight straight strange Strong summer Sweet Sweet Talk Tall Tame Teach teacher These

Rich Weak Blame private private reward teacher Sell Pull answer Slow cooked cooked imaginary Left Fall smooth cheerful dangerous dangerous different Join Few serious different Fat Frown Frown crooked crooked familiar Weak winter Sour Sour Listen Short Wild Learn student Those

125

Foreign Forget Found Freeze Fresh Fresh Friend Full Future generous Give Give graceful Guilty Guilty Happy Happy Hard Hard Head Heavy Hell Help Here Hide High

Local Remember Lost Thaw Stale Stale Enemy Vacant Past Selfish Receive Take Awkward Innocent Innocent Sad Sad Easy Soft Tail Light Heaven Hinder There Show Low

Thick This Tight Tiny Top True Trust Truth Under unusual Up Upset vacant vacant valuable victory Villain War Wide Win Wise Within Work Wrong Yes Young

Thin That Loose Huge bottom False Doubt Lie Over Ordinary Down Comfort Occupied Occupied Worthless Defeat Hero Peace Narrow Lose Foolish Without Rest Right No Old

Antonyms (un-) Arm Certain comfortable common conscious Dress Equal Fair Fold friendly Happy healthy Unarm Uncertain Uncomfortable Uncommon Unconscious Undress Unequal Unfair Unfold Unfriendly Unhappy Unhealthy Like Lock necessary popular Safe Screw Seen Selfish Steady suitable Tidy Tie Unlike Unlock unnecessary unpopular Unsafe Unscrew Unseen Unselfish Unsteady unsuitable Untidy Untie

126

Just Kind Known

Unjust Unkind Unknown

True Willing Wise

Untrue Unwilling Unwise

Antonyms (dis-) Agree Allow Appear Arm arrange Believe connect Disagree Disallow Disappear Disarm Disarrange Disbelieve Disconnect continue Honest Like Loyal Obey Order Trust discontinue dishonest Dislike Disloyal Disobey Disorder Distrust

Antonyms (in-) accurate Active adequate admissible attentive Correct Inaccurate Inactive Inadequate Inadmissible Inattentive Incorrect

Antonyms (im-) Mature Mobile Moral Mortal movable Patient Perfect Polite possible probable Proper Pure Immature Immobile Immoral Immortal Immovable Impatient Imperfect Impolite Impossible Improbable Improper Impure

Antonyms (mis-)

127

Handle Judge Spell Understand Use

Mishandle Misjudge Misspell Misunderstand Misuse

Antonyms (-less) Careful Harmful Helpful Hopeful Painful Pitiful Powerful Shameful Useful Careless Harmless Helpless Hopeless Painless Pitiless Powerless Shameless Useless

There are two types of antonymy to be distinguished, namely gradable and nongradable antonymy, whereby the latter can be differentiated into complementary and converse antonyms. Gradable antonymy Gradable antonyms (typically adjectives or adverbs) are pairs of words that can be used in comparative construction; and the negative of one member does not necessarily imply the other. These are antonyms or opposites that are measure adjectives (Kreidler Charles: 1998:100). Examples of gradable antonyms are, tall and short, long and short, high and low, hot and cold, big and small etc. Someone may say, the water is hot or the water is cold. In these two cases, hot or cold suggests the notion of measurement. A thermometer could be used to measure the degree of hotness or coldness of the water.Some other examples in English are: Good and bad Wide and narrow young and old smart and stupid

128

Happy and sad Complementary antonymy

far and near

Complementary antonymys are pairs of words that can not be used in comparative construction; and the denial of one member does not necessarily implies the assertion of the other. Some other examples in English are: Food X drink Male X Female Transitive X Intransitive Converse antonymy Converse antonymys (H.G Widdowson, 1996: 58) are pairs of words that show a relation of reciprocal implication. If someone he sells books to John, it must imply that John buys book from him. Some other examples in English are: land X sea alive X dead

Parent X Child Push X Pull Send X Reply

Above X Below Command X Serve Ask X Answer

H. Relational Opposites
A quite different kind of opposites is found with pairs of words which exhibit the reversal of a relationship between items. Examples, buy/sell, husband/wife. If A sells to B, B buys to A; if A is B husband, B is As wife. Lyons suggests the term converseness for

129

these, but Palmer is more concerned to point out their essentially relational characteristics, and would thus prefer relational opposition. There are several words that are pairs in this way: buy/sell, lend/borrow, rent/let, own/belong to, give/receive, husband/wife, fiance/fiancee, parent/child, debtor/creditor, teacher/pupil, above/below, in front of/behind, north of/south of, etc. Relations are often characterised by logicians in terms of symmetry, transitivity, and reflexivity.62 A relation is symmetric if it holds for the arguments (the related items) in both directions. If we have arguments a and b and a relation R, then a R b entails b R a. Example, cousin, if Bill is Freds cousin, Fred is Bills cousin. A relation is transitive if a R b and b R c entail a R c. Thus many of the spatial terms are transitive if John is in front of Harry, Harry is in front of Bill, John is also in front of Bill.The same is true for behind, above, below,etc. A relation is reflexive if it relates an argument to itself, a R a. It can be exemplified by equal or resemble. For examples, four equals four, John resembles himself. Kinship terms are especially interesting in a discussion of relational opposites for two reasons. In the first place many of them indicate not only the relationship, but the sex of the person concerned. Thus father is male parent, daughter the female child and so on. For to say that Johnis Sams father does not entail that Sam is Johns son. Sam could be his daughter. There are also pairs of words that would be symmetrical were it not for their indication of sex. Only small number of terms in English do not indicate sex cousin (which s symmetrical) and parent and child (together with with grandparent and grandchild). According to Walter Dolen, opposition is the relationship of two concepts on a common axis and equidistant from a midpoint on that axis. An opposite may be absolute or relative.63 1. An absolute opposite has an absolute midpoint.

62 63

F.R. Palmer, Semantics 2nd. Ed.(Cambridge: Cambridge. University Press, 1981).p.82-83 http://walterdolen.com/ accessed May 19, 2010.

130

e.g. Three is the absolute opposite of minus three. (zero being considered an absolute midpoint) -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 An inward spiral is absolutely opposite in motion to an outward spiral. (zero motion being considered an absolute midpoint) 2. A relative opposite has an arbitrary midpoint. e.g. France is opposite Germany relative to the Rhine River. Some concepts lack logical opposites that can be describedin terms of any special word; colors are a good example: the logical opposite of red is not red. Such concepts may form relational antonyms, however, through symbolic systems of thinking. For instance, in Cold War thinking, the relational opposite of American is Russian; in current US politics, the relational opposite of Democrat is Republican.

I. Components
A semantic component is a potentially contrastive part of the meaning of a lexical unit. A lexical unit is a form-meaning composite that represents a lexical form, and single meaningof a lexeme.64 For example, the focal semantic component of execute is put to death. Here is a table that describes some kinds of semantic components: Semantic Component Contrastive Also known as: diagnostic, distinctive, essential Description Distinguishes one lexical unit from another Example Male is the contrastive semantic component distinguishing man from woman, and boy from girl.

64

http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsASemanticComponent.htm. accessed June 2, 2010

131

Shared Also known as: common

Occurs in each

Human is a shared

member of a group of component for man, lexical units woman,boy, and girl.

References A.S. Hornby, Oxford Advance Learners Dictionary of Current English. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) Cruse, A. Meaning in Language. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). Farkhan, Muhammad. An Introduction to Linguistics. Jakarta: (UIN Jakarta Press, 2006) H. G. Widdowson, Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996) Jackson, Howard. Words, meaning and vocabulary: an introduction to modern lexicology , (London 2000) James R. Hurford and Brendan Heasley, Semantics: a coursebook, (Cambridge University Press, 1983) Kreidler ,C. W. Introducing English Semantics, (London: Routledge, 1998) Lyons, J. Semantics. 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977). Palmer ,F.R Semantics 2nd. Ed.(Cambridge: Cambridge. University Press, 1981) Todd, Loreto. An Introduction to Linguistics (Edinburg gate: Pearson Education Limited, 1987) Wiley-Blackwell, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems, 1999) Yule, George. The Study of Language. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1985)

Websites: http://www.novalearn.com/grammar-glossary/sense-relation.htm access: May 16, 2010

132

homonym, Random House Unabridged Dictionary at dictionary.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics Accessed May 10, 2010

133

PART TEN ABOUT SPEECH ACT, PERLOCUTION, ILLOCUTION, FELICITY CONDITION, AND CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE

INTRODUCTION Semantics views meaning from the compositional perspective: the meaning of a sentence is built up from the meanings of its part. The smallest parts get their meaning from the lexicon. And then these meanings get put together according to rules which pay attention to the grammatical structure of the sentence. However, not all aspects of meaning can be explained by this compositional bottom up approach, and a complementary topdown view of meaning has focused on the intentions of language users. More pric ely, when A say something to B, A intends to be affected in a certain way. If A says Its raining, for example, A may intend for B to believe that its raining (and perhaps to open an umbrella or come inside). This perspective helps us understand many aspects of speakers meaning. We need to learn how to ask questions, make suggestions, greet and thank other speakers. In other words, we need to learn the uses the which utterances are conventionally put in the new language community and how these uses are signalled, if we are to use the language in a realistic way. Similarly, as hearers, part of understanding the meaning of an utterance is knowing whether we have been ask question, invited to do something,etc.

134

DEVELOPMENT
I. SPEECH ACT Action speaks louder than words is well-known proverb. But in this paper will show the distinguish between acts and speech is misleading oversimplification and will show how to a large extent, speech is action, and that language can actually be used to do things. When a Speaker, in appropriate circumstances, makes an utterance containing a referring expression, he carries out a certain act, an act of referring. Referring is typically a linguistic act, but we shall see that it is possible to carry out all sorts of other acts using language. We will start with another obviously linguistic act, that of stating or asserting. An ACT of ASSERTION is carried out when a speaker utters a declarative sentence and undertakes a certain responsibility, or commitment, to the hearer, that a particular state of affair, or situation, exists in the world. Example, if I say, Simon is in the kitchen, I assert to my hearer that in the real world a situation exist in which a person name Simon is in a room identified by the referring expression the kitchen.65 You can use language to do things. You can use language to make promises. Lay bets, issue warnings, place name in nomination, offer congratulation, or testimony. The theory of speech act describe hoe this is done. By saying I warn that there is a sheepdog in the closet, you not only say something, and you warn someone. Verbs like bet, promise, warn, and so on are performative verbs. Using them in a sentence does something extra over and above the statement. There are hundreds of performative verbs in every language. The following sentences illustrate their usage: I bet you five pounds the Gunners win. I challenge you to a match I dare you to step over this line I nominate Batman for mayor of Gotham City
65

James R. Hurford, Semantics: A Coursebook ( Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1983) p.232- 233

135

I promise to improve I resign! I pronounce you husband and wife In all these sentences, the speaker is the subject (that is the sentences are in first person) who by uttering this sentence is accomplishing some additional action

SPEECH ACT is the action or intent that a speaker accomplishes when using language in context, the meaning of which is inferred by hearers. 66 Example, There is a bear behind you may be intended as a warning in certain contexts, or may in other context merely be a statement of fact. Certain action we take, someone argued, are designed to get our audience to do thing of their basis of their understanding of what we mean. Suppose he speaks to his son, and he responds, are follows: His request of him Please pass the horseradish he says okay and passes it. He asks him what are you doing he answers Getting ready to leave He tells him That book is very terrific. He believes me and starts reading it. He warns him Bruno is coming He believes me and gets frightened. For the examples above, His son complies with his request, answer his questions, comes to believes what He assert, follows his advice, and get scared, all based on his understanding of what he meant.

II.
66

PERLOCUTION AND ILLOCUTION

Victoria Fromkin , Robert Rodman, and Nina Hyams,An Introduction to Language ( Los Angles: University of California, 2003)p.595

136

Perlocution Perlocutionary Act (or just simply the Perlocution) carried out by a speaker making an utterance is the act of causing a certain effect on the hearer and others. 67 Perlocutionary (Adj) is Pertaining to or describing an utterance having a specific effect on anothers feelings, thoughts, or behaviour, including statements that sympathize, ridicule, persuade, frighten, etc.68 Example, If I say Theres a hornet in your left ear, it may well cause you to panic, scream and scratch widely at your ear. Causing these emotions and action s of yours is the perlocution of my utterance, or the perlocutionary act I perform by making that utterance. Some act which is spoken by somebody sometimes has a perlucutionary force or the effect to the hearer. The effect can be incidentally created or not. The speech act which is aimed to influence someone is called perlocution, this act is also called The Act of Affecting Someone. For more clear explanation, see the examples below a. His home is far away b. I was very busy yesterday c. His television is 20 inches

If the sentence E is performed by someone to the chief of group, so the illocutions are indirectly informs that the one who is spoken about cannot be too active in that group. Then the perlocutionary force may consider that the chief is not to give him too many tasks. Then if the sentence F is said by someone who could not attended some meeting invitation to the one who invites him, so this sentence is an illocution for forgiving a forgiveness, and perlocution which is expected to the one who invites him to understand. And then if sentence G is showed by someone to his friend while the boxing match will be begun, this sentence is not only consist of locution, but also illocution, which is an invitation to watch that match, and with perlocution of object to agree with Perlocutions arent part of understanding itself. The act of getting the audience to recognize the speakers meaning Austin called an Illocutionary act and the recognition itself comes to
67 68

James R. Hurford, Semantics: A Coursebook ( Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1983) p. 243 David Grambs, Words about Words. ( Mc Graw-Hill book company ) p.276

137

be called an illocutionary effect. The request, question, assertion and warning are illocutionary acts, and my sons understanding of them are illocutionary effects.69 Illocution

Illocutionary is pertaining to or describing an utterance that, reflecting the speakers emotions, convey more or something other than its literal meaning, such as a question implying dissatisfaction.70 Illocutionary Act (or simply the Illocution) carried out by a speaker making an utterance is the act viewed in terms of the utterances significance within a conventional system of social interaction. Illocution are acts defined by social convention., acts such as accosting, accusing, admitting apologizing, challenging, complaining, condoling, congratulating, declining, deploring, giving permission, giving way, greeting, leavetaking, mocking, naming, offering, praising, promising, proposing marriage, protesting, recommending, serrending, thanking, toasting. Example, Saying: Im very glad to you for all you have done for me performs the illocutionary act of thanking.71 Types of illocutionary acts Illocutionary acts come in many types. They include telling, asserting, requesting, ordering, asking, promising, apologizing, thanking, firing and baptizing. Is there any order behind these acts, John Searle argued there is. The primary way they differ is in what he called their illocutionary point, their publicly intended perlocutionary effect. For some illocutionary acts, the point is to get listeners to do things, and so on. Scarle used this notion to divide illocutionary acts into five main categories: 1. Assertive. The point of an assertive is to get the audience to form, or to attend to, the believe that the speaker is committed to a certain belief. When Sam told you, Its raining out, he was trying to get him to think he believed it was raining out. Th e prototypical assertive is assertion, but the category also includes diagnoses, predictions, notifications, confessions, denials, disputations, retorts, conjectures, supposition and

69 70

Herbert H. Clark, Using Language. ( Cambridge University : 2008 ) p133 David Grambs, Words about Words. ( Mc Graw-Hill book company ) p.182 71 James R. Hurford, Semantics: A Coursebook ( Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1983) p. 244

138

many others. It is also called Representatives, statement that convey a belief or disbelief in some proposition.72 2. Directives. The point of a sirective is to get the audience to do things. When you ask your friend, Please pass the way, you were trying to get him to pass you the way. Directives falls into two major classes: request for action (as with most commands and suggestions), and request for information (as with most questions). With questions, what are you doing? You were asking your friend for information. Directive vary in how forceful they are from mild hints to stern commands and in other ways too. 3. Commissives. The point of commissive is committing the speaker to a future action. The prototype is promise, as when George says to Jane Ill get some coffee, committing himself to Jane to getting some coffee. One subtype is the conditional promise, or offer, as when George says to Jane, Can I get you some coffee? committing himself to getting her coffee if she wants it. 4. Expressives. The point of expressive like thanking, apologizing, congratulating, and greeting is to express certain feelings toward the audience. When Verona said to Wilfred, Sorry, Im late . She takes for granted that she came late and tries to get Wilfred to believe she regrets it. Next come illocutionary acts Searle called declaration. Declarations are those kind s of speech acts that change the world via their utterance.73 These rely on confide conventions of institutions such as the law, the church, and organized games. Within these institutions, speaker can do certain things by virtue of the privilege of the institution grants them because of the role as judge, priest, referee, or whatever. Declarations devise into two main subcategories. 5. A Effictives. The point of an effective is to change an institutional state of affairs, In industry, a boss may fire, promote, or appoint someone. In court, a judge may indict, a pardon at sentence someone. In football, a referee may start the game and call time outs. In Church, a minister may baptize, marry, or bless someone. In each case, the speaker has the institutional power to change things merely by saying, Youre fired,
72 73

J.D. Parera, Teori Semantik.( Jakarta : Erlangga, 2004) p. 271 J.D. Parera, Teori Semantik.( Jakarta : Erlangga, 2004) p. 271

139

You are hereby sentenced to three years in jail, or Time out in appropriate circumstances. 5. b Verdictives. With verdictives, the point is to determine what is to be the case within the institution. In baseball, umpires have to judge whether a ball that has been pitched has passed through the strike zone, whether it has crossed the plate between the batters shoulders and knees. The umpires may try to be accurate, but when he say strike, his verdict is law from then on regardless of whether the ball actually passed through the strike zone. And the pitch was strike. Verdictives also occur when a jury finds a prisoner innocent or guilty, when the presiding officer in a meeting rules a motion out of order, and when a journal editor accepts to rejects a paper for publication.

Illocutionary act Assertive Directives Commissive Expressives Effectives Verdictives

Illocutionary point To get the addressee to form or attend to belief To get the addressee to do something To commit the speaker to doing something To express a feeling toward the addressee To change an institutional state of affairs To determine what is the case in an institution

Scarles scheme, as summarized here, has many problems. One is that it doesnt generate all potential illocutionary acts. We can invent new rituals, new games, new social customs, each with its own special illocutionary acts, but the scheme has no principles to say what is allowed, and what isnt. Another problem is that every illocutionary act is assumed to belong to one and only one category. But consider a generals order to a sergeant. Under military regulations, that order changes an institutional state of affairs just as surely as a judges sentencing does, the sergeant could be court martialed for not obeying and that takes it an effective. Yet it is also surely a directive. The same goes for other illocutionary acts. Despite its problems, the

140

scheme is useful as a gross classification and its widely accepted nomenclature. I shall use it for both.

Illucotionary acts and their recognition How do speakers get their addressees to recognize the illocutionary act they are performing? The classical answer is that they do so by their choice of sentence modality. In English, there are five modalities: Modality Declarative Yes/no interrogative WH-Interrogative Imperative Exclamatory Examples That book is awful. It is raining out. Is it raining out? What are you doing? Pass the way. What a beautiful day! Is it ever hot out!

To assert something, you choose a declarative, to ask a question, an interrogative, to make a request or command, an imperative and for an exclamation, an exclamatory. Your partners, by nothing your choice of modality, can immediately recognize the illocutionary act you are performing. This view is inadequate from the very start ( Levinson, 1983). With only five modalities, we should be able to distinguish only five types of illocutionary acts, but we easily distinguish scores. The imperative, for example, can be used for at least these illocutions ( Shaddock and Zwicky, 1985: Sperber and Wilson, 1986, p.250 ) Illocutionary act Commands Requests Promises Threats Warnings To the rear, march Please pass the horseradish Mow the lawn and Ill shoot Stop or Ill shoot Watch out! Example

141

Offers Well wishing Advice Curses Exclamations Exhortations

Have some cake Have a good trip For a dry martini, mix six parts gin with one part vermouth Go to hell Well, look at you! Fly American airlines

Worse, these illucotionary acts range over four of Scarles five main categories. There is much the same variation for declarative and interrogative modalities.74

III.

FELICITY CONDITIONS

Have you ever done some mistake when youre speaking in the language you master well?. In fact the fault is a normal thing that may be happened because of physical condition of someone who performs it (such as, a tired of emotion and unstable emotion), the disturbing condition (heavy sound), et cetera. That fault may be occurred in word uttering, sentence performing, and even the speech act. The fault in speech act is misleading in performing the speech act which is not relevant with the situation or situationally inappropriate. For instance, the example is quoted from Bissantz and Johnson (1985:184). There are 2 drunk people at a club in England who asking the bartender to marry them. Incidentally the bartender was a church-worker and still remember what must be done to marry people. Then the bartender performs the marriage of those two people in the front of the club visitors, and he ends that ceremony with speech of I hereby pronounce you husband and wife In your opinion, do you think that the marriage is legal? That marriage has totally no legal law, not only because the brides are drunk, but because of the bartender has no right to make the people married. Therefore, the statement of that

74

Herbert H. Clark , Using Language . ( Cambridge University : 2008 ) p. 134-137

142

marriage is not appropriate situationally. In this case, speech act which is used is infleccitious or does not complete the felicity conditions.

The Felicity Condition of an Illocutionary act are conditions that must be fulfilled in the situation in which the act is carried out if the acts is to be said to be carried out properly, or felicity. Examples, one of the felicity conditions for the illocutionary act of ordering is that the speaker must be superior to, or in authority over, the hearer. Thus, if a servant says to the Queen Open the window, there is a certain incongruity, or anomalousness, or infelicity in the act ( of ordering) carried out, but if the Queen says Open the Window to the servant, there is no infelicity. A felicity condition for the illocutionary act of accusing is theft the deed or property attributed to the accused is wrong in some way. Thus one can felicitously accuse someone theft or murder, but normally only infelicitously of say, being a nice guy, or of helping an old lady to cross the road. Felicity conditions are conditions that must be satisfied by the world if an Illocutionary act concerned. A good way of discovering the felicity conditions of an illocutionary act is to imagine a situation in which a speaker carries out such as act, or attempts to, but something in the situation makes the act misfire or nor come off appropriately. For example, in someone who offer the cigarette to someone who smoking, the speaker is definitely carrying out an act of offering a cigarette, but there is something odd, or infelicitous about the offer, as the hearer already has the cigarette. This shows that one of the felicity conditions for the act of offering is that the hearer must not already have thing offered. The case of particular subtype of felicity condition, namely sincerity condition. Sincerity Condition on an Illocutionary act is 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 of the act together. Example, A sincerity condition on apologizing is that the apologizer believes the thing apologized for is wrong in some way. Thus if john enters a room at a certain time, believed that to do is wrong in some way (e.g. impolite, tactless, sacrilegious) and he says 143

 Im sorry to come in here at this moment, then he has apologized sincerely. But if he does not believe that what he has done is wrong in anyway, then he has still apologized, but insincerely.75

So, every speech act must have the felicity condition so that the speech act is performed honestly and exactly. Here are the principles of the felicity condition for not asking and requesting (adopted from Bissantz and Johnson, 1985:184) A. Speaker (S) asking to the hearer (H) about some condition (C) 1. S does not know the fact/ truth about C. 2. S wants to know the fact/truth about C 3. S is sure that H may be able to give some information about C

B. Speaker (S) requesting the hearer (H) to do some action (A) 1. S is sure that A has not yet done 2. S is sure that H can perform A 3. S is sure that H wants to do A for S 4. S wants A to be done

In order to make a appropriate with the situation, the conditions above must be completed. So there must be a balance between H, S, and C (in asking) and between H, S, and A (in requesting). For requesting speech act, in normal situation it may not be natural if someone asks to a dog about a serious problem, such a succession and it breaks the principle of A3. Then, normally we do not ask something we have known what the answer is. If it so we will break the principle of A1 and A2. Of course there is some exception (can be accepted), such a teacher who asks to his student at the class, when the teacher has known the answer. So, we are able to ask the question which considered to the purpose and social context.
75

James R. Hurford, Semantics: A Coursebook ( Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1983) p. 251-256

144

Direct and Indirect Illocutions

The main problem we will concentrate on this part is that of trying to discover some systematic way of telling from the form of an uttered sentence what illocutionary act is performed in uttering it. There must be some such system, because language users are able to tell with great (though not total) reliability from the form of an uttered sentence what illocutionary.

According to the conventions of everyday usage could the utterance, in normal situation, of would you like a cup of coffee? be an act of offering, enquiring, questioning.

English speakers generally agree about facts such as these. The interesting question is: how do English speakers extract from the specific word used in would you like a cup of coffee?, the information that utterance definitely is an act of offering, enquiring, and asking, and that it is not an act of thanking, warning, or apologizing? We pursue this question below, but one reservation should be mentioned straight away. This is that the facts are not always as clear as in the example just given. Look at this following example: : Ill come back and see this machine tomorrow. : is that a threat or a promise?

Factory inspector Foreman

145

The situations indicate a unclear understanding on the part of both participants of what illocutionary acts. It is not clear to the hearer whether the illocution of the first utterance is a threat or a promise.

Despite the existence of such unclear cases, in which there may be doubt about what illocutionary act actually is carried out in an utterance, we shall concentrate on the clear case as far as possible. Note that one utterance may have several illocutions at the same time. Example: Can you pass the salt?

It can be understood as asking and requesting. Now that we have seen that an utterance can have more than one illocution, it is useful to introduce the distinction between direct and indirect illocutions.

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. While the Indirect illocution of an utterance is any further illocution the utterance may have.76 The direct illocution of Can you pass the salt? is an enquiry about the hearers ability to pass the salt. The indirect illocutions is request that the hearer pass the salt. Another example: I must ask you to leave Direct illocution Indirect illocution : Asserting that speaker is obligated to ask hearer to leave. : Asking hearer to leave.

The difference between direct and indirect illocutions is seen through the fact that a pedantic or deliberately unhelpful reply can be given to an utterance which has both kinds of illocutions. For example, in reply to I must ask you to leave one might say, thwarting the intentions of the first speaker: Must you?, another reply might be helpful: Yes, I will leave.

76

Semantics: a course book.James Hurford. Cambridge University Press. 1983. pg. 259.

146

The notion of speaker being helpful in conversations is important. The systematic relationship between the form of an uttered sentence and the illocution carried out in uttering it, it I clear that for direct illocutions the relationship is quite straightforward. This follows from our definition of direct illocution.

Searle argues that speakers do indeed have access to both; he terms : direct use the literal use of the speech act and the indirect , the non-literal use. He gives as example the sentences below, all of which can be request, but none of which have the form of imperatives in the (b) versions, but instead are interrogatives and declarative. Example: 1. a. can you pass the salt? b. Please pass the salt. 2. a. I wish you wouldnt do that. b. please dont do that. 3. a. arent you going to eat your cereal? b. please eat your cereal.

Searle argues that in the cases above two speech acts are available to the hearer: the literal act is backgrounded or secondary while the non-literal act is primary when one of these sentences is uttered with the primary illocutionary point of a directive, the literal illocutionary act is also performed. The question he raise is: how is it that these but not all non literal acts will work, i.e. why is it that stating Salt is made of sodium chloride will not work as request like can you pass the salt?. Searles solution relies on the system of felicity conditions. The conditions for making request include the following:

Conditions for requesting: Where S = speaker, H = hearer, A = the future action. a. Preparatory condition: H is able to perform A. 147

b. Sincerity condition: S wants H to do A. c. Prepositional condition: S predicates a future act A of H. d. Essential condition: counts as an attempt by S to get H to do A. Searles argued that other sentence type can only work as indirect request when they address one of the conditions for requests. Thus sentences Can you pass the salt? Addresses the preparatory condition. This example shows that an indirect request can be made by asking whether (or stating that) a preparatory condition holds. This sentence I wish you wouldnt do that, forms an indirect request by addressing another felicity condition: it states that the sincerity condition holds. Searles third example, Arent you going to eat your cereal? Works by asking whether the propositional content condition holds. Perhaps we can add another example: if a teacher uses an imperative as a directive to a student: Return that book to the library, the propositional content involves predicating the future act: you will return that book to the library. Searles point is that a corresponding indirect directive can be made by questioning this, i.e. Arent you going to return that book to the library? Or are you going to return that book to the library?

So in this view. Indirect speech acts work because they are systematically related to the structure of the associated direct act: they are tied to one or another of the acts felicity conditions. This still leaves the question of how the hearer works out which of the two acts, the backgrounded direct acts or the primary indirect act, is meant. 77 The question Can you pass the salt? overtly draws attention to one of the felicity conditions to one of the felicity conditions of the act of requesting. It is as if the speaker goes about getting the salt passed to him by carefully ensuring that the necessary

77

Semantics. John L.Saeed. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. 1997. pg. 232.

148

preconditions for having request granted are fulfilled. From this example we can state the following approximate rule about direct and indirect illocutions. Where the direct illocution of an utterance is deliberately infelicitous, the indirect illocution is an act to which the hearers attention is drawn by mentioning one of its felicity conditions.

This rule merely a suggestive beginning. It is by no means the whole story. For the rest of this unit, we will investigate in greater detail the possible methods by which speakers recognize the indirect illocutions of utterances. For this purpose, it has been found useful to classify all illocutionary acts into different categories, depending on the type of interaction between speaker and hearer that they bring about. Two classes of illocutionary acts that we shall mention are directives and commissives.

A declarative act is any illocutionary act which essentially involves the speaker trying to get the hearer to behave in some required way. Ordering and suggesting are directive acts. Apologizing and promising are not. A commissive act is any illocutionary act which essentially involves the speaker committing himself to behave in some required way. Promising and swearing (in one sense are commissive acts. Ordering and thanking are not.78 The term direct and directive mean quite different kinds of things. The term direct denotes how an illocution is carried out, i.e. whether directly or indirectly. The directive denotes the kind of act carried out, i.e. getting (directing) someone to do something. Thus there can be direct directives (e.g. Pass the salt) and indirect directives (e.g. can you pass the salt?). Look at this following diagram.

Directive

Commissive

78

Ibid 262

149

Direct indirect 1. Can I help you? (offering) 2. I could do with a drink 3. Stop 4. I promise to be there promptly 5. Go away

3,5 2,6

4 1,7

6. I would appreciate it if you went away 7. if you need me at any time, just call

A proposition is a sentence expressing something true or false. In philosophy, particularly in logic, a proposition is identified ontologically as an idea, concept, or abstraction whose token instances are patterns of symbols, marks, sounds, or strings of words. Propositions are considered to be syntactic entities and also truthbearers. The existence of propositions in the abstract sense, as well as the existence of "meanings", is disputed by some philosophers. Where the concept of a "meaning" is admitted, its nature is controversial. In earlier texts writers have not always made it sufficiently clear whether they are using the term proposition in sense of the words or the "meaning" expressed by the words. To avoid the controversies and ontological implications, the term sentence is often now used instead of proposition to refer to just those strings of symbols that are truthbearers, being either true or false under an interpretation. Strawson advocated the use of the term "statement", and this is the current usage in mathematical logic. Proposition is said to be expressed by both of the sentences uttered by the speakers, and can be thought of as the information content of the sentences The proposition is taken to be the thing that is

150

in the first instance true or false. A declarative sentence is true or false derivatively, in virtue of expressing a true or false proposition. Or a proposition is that part of the meaning of a clause or sentence that is constant, despite changes in such things as the voice or illocutionary force of the clause. A proposition may be related to other units of its kind through interpropositional relations, such as temporal relations and logical relations. The meaning of the term proposition is extended by some analysts to include the meaning content of units within the clause. Example: The tall, stately building fell is said to express propositions corresponding to the following: "The building is tall." "The building is stately." "The building fell."

The common content of each of the following utterance is a proposition: Alec ate the banana. The banana was eaten by Alec. Did Alec eat the banana? Alec, eat the banana.

All these utterances may be analyzed as consisting of a predicate naming an event or state and one or more arguments naming referents that participate in that event or state. The activity is eat. The agent is Alec. The patient is a banana.

151

Illocutionary act is a term in linguistics introduced by John L. Austin in investigations concerning what he calls 'performative and 'constative utterances': an utterance is "performative" just in case it is issued in the course of the "doing of an action" (1975, 5), by which, again, Austin means the performance of an illocutionary act (Austin 1975, 6 n2, 133). According to Austin's original exposition in How to Do Things With Words, an illocutionary act is an act (1) for the performance of which I must make it clear to some other person that the act is performed (Austin speaks of the 'securing of uptake'), and (2) the performance of which involves the production of what Austin calls 'conventional consequences' as, e.g., rights, commitments, or obligations (Austin 1975, 116f., 121, 139). Thus, for example, in order to successfully perform a promise I must make clear to my audience that the act I am performing is a promise, and in the performance of the act I will be undertaking an obligation to do the promised thing: so promising is an illocutionary act in the present sense. After Austin's death, the term has been defined by various authors, either unconsciously or deliberately, in a number of more or less different ways. The illocutionary force of an utterance is the speaker's intention in producing that utterance. An illocutionary act is an instance of a culturally-defined speech act type, characterized by a particular illocutionary force; for example, promising, advising, warning, .. Conversational Implicature

Implicature is a concept of utterance meaning as opposed to sentence meaning, but is parallel in many ways to the sense relation (i.e. sentence meaning concept ) of entailment. 79

The idea that meaning is based in the intentions of speaker is most clearly revealed in H.P. Grices theory of conversational implicature. Very often, when someone says something, he or she does not mean exactly what the words literally mean. That is, the (speakers) meaning differs from the semantic meaning. For example, the semantic meaning of
79

Semantics: a Course Book. James Hurford. Cambridge University Press. 1983. pg. 278.

152

Theres a bear sneaking up behind you! does not involve the concept of warning; it just reports a fact. However, it is quite likely that a warning is part of what the speaker means. This extra meaning which goes beyond what the words literally say is an implicature of the sentence. Grice explained how speakers meaning can be determined in such cases by positing a Cooperative Principle that all speakers and hearers assume when speaking to each other. Cooperative Principle: speakers meaning can be calculated on the basis of semantic meaning and the assumption that speakers are behaving rationally and cooperatively. 80 Gricess so-called conversational implicatures have aroused far more attention in linguistics than have his conventional implicatures. We are concerned, not solely with conversations, but with all kinds of social interaction involving either spoken or writing language. The basic idea is that language activity, most typically, is a kind of rational (and purposes) social interaction governed by the principle of co-operation. In what may now be regarded as his classic formulation of this principle.81

Grice broke this general principle into four conversational maxims to explain what rationality and cooperatively.

a. The maxim of quality: make your contribution one that is true rather than false b. The maxim of quantity: provide the information that is required for the purposes of the conversation, but no more. c. The maxim of relevance/ relation: make your contributions relevant. d. The maxim of Manner: be clear and orderly in your talk. Lets take the maxim of quantity. This may be formulated as follows:

80 81

An Introduction to Language and Linguistics. Ralph Fasold. Cambridge University Press. 2006. pg. 160. Linguistic semantics. John Lyons. Cambridge university Press. 1995. pg. 277.

153

a. Say as much as, and no more than, is required (in the present context and for present purposes). Other formulation will be found in the literature, most of which (including Grices) employ the expression be as informative as or make your contribution as informative as. I have deliberately employed a slightly more general formulation, and one which explicitly mentions context. But (a) is faithful to the spirit of Grices original and points the way to subsequent developments in what may be referred to as neo-Gricean pragmatics. For the present, however, (a) may interpreted as being equivalent to:

b. give as much information as, and no more than, is required (in the present context and for present purposes).

Now, by appealing to (a) or (b), we can account for the fat that, if (x) asks (y) x: have you done the washing-up and put everything away? y: I have done the washing up.

y may be held implied, in most contexts, that he or she has not put everything away. This implication, or implicature, derives from Ys presumably deliberately failure to say yes or its equivalent to the composite proposition which is expressed in Xs utterance and is put to y for acceptance or rejection. This simple proposition I have done the washing up is less informative than I have done the washing up and I have put everything away. On the assumption that y is being duly co-operative and is being sufficiently (but not excessively) informative, x can reasonably infer that y is not able truthfully to assert I have put everything away. Xs assumption (in default of any evidence to the contrary) that y is being truthful depends upon Xs assumption that y. being cooperative, is obeying the maxim of quality.

c. Tell the truth, and do not say anything for which you have insufficient evidence. 154

Once again, this information differs, in working though not in spirit, from Grices original formulation. We shall come back to the maxim of quality presently. Meanwhile, let us not that truthfulness- i.e., telling the truth (and nothing but the truth, though not necessarily the whole truth) is closely allied to sincerity (which has played an important role in the theory of speech acts). It is also important to note that to tell the truth is not the same as to say what is true (i.e. to assert a set of one or more true propositions). One can say what is true whilst believing it to be false or not knowing that it is true. One can also say what is true with the intention to deceive, saying what one says in such a context or in such a manner, that one knows or believes that the addressee will take it to be false. It is the violational, or moral, concepts truthfulness and sincerity which underpin Grices view of communication. These are regulated, differently in different culture sand in different social contexts, not only by sufficiency of evidence, but also by a variety of social constraints, including those imposed by the accepted, culture dependent, and norms of politeness. Grices maxim of relevance has associated with it the single maxim: d. be relevant.

By appealing to (d), we can impose an interpretation on the following dialogue: x: the clock is slow. y: there was a power cut this morning. In doing so, we assume that the propositional content of Ys statement bears some relation to that of Xs : in particular, that y is, or might be, supplying an explanation for what x asserts to be the case. Of course, our assumption that Ys utterance is relevant to Xs in this way depends not only upon our background knowledge about electric clocks, but also upon the further assumption that y shares this background knowledge and knows that the clock in question is, or night be, operated by electricity directly supplied from the mains. It is easy to see that such everyday conversational exchanges as the above may depend for their cohesion and coherence for the property of connectedness in virtue of which we classify 155

them readily enough as texts upon a whole set of assumptions of this kind, specific to particular cultures and to particular groups.

The maxim of manner was explicated by Grice as follow:

e. Be perspicuous, by (i) avoiding obscurity of expression, (ii) avoiding ambiguity, (iii) being brief (avoiding unnecessary prolixity), and 9iv) being orderly.

It will be seen immediately that there is likely to be a correlation, on the one hand, between being brief and giving no more information that is required, and, on the other, between being relevant and being orderly. The fact that there are, at least intuitively, such correlations suggests that Grices four maxims can be modified and reduced in number. And this is what has happened in so-called neoGricean pragmatics. These maxims are not rules to be followed in the sense that traffic laws are. Rather, they are assumptions which we use to try to make sense of what people say. That is, we assume that people follow the four maxims when they talk and this help us figure out what they mean. For example:

There are three students in the class, Mary, Bob, Dan Jill. A: which students passed the exam? B: Marry and Bob. In this conversation, in addition to concluding that Mary and Bob passed the exam, A is likely to infer that Jill didnt. However, B never said that Jill did not pass the exam. By assuming that B is following the four maxims, A can figure that B gave as much true information as we required and relevant (maxims of quality, quantity, and relevance). Since it would be relevant to say that Jill passed if she actually had passed, A can infer that B did not include Jill in the list of people who passed because B does not think that Jill passed (so long as other assumptions hold, such as that Bb knows Jill in the class). Moreover, B knows that A would figure this way, and so said Mary and Bob: with understanding that A would conclude that Jill did not pass. In this way, the idea that Jill did not pass becomes 156

part of the speakers meaning of Bs utterance. That is, B uses the cooperative Principle and maxims to implicate that Jill did not pass. Another example of implicature :

Elvis Presley made a peanut butter sandwich and sat down beside the pool.

This sentence seems to mean that Elvis made the peanut butter sandwich before going to the pool. This before meaning is not part of the semantic meaning of and (as given by truth conditions); it is an implicature. According to Grices maxims of manner, we should present information in an orderly way, and in most case that includes mentioning events in the order in which they occurred. Therefore, a hearer can conclude that the speaker means to say that Elvis made the sandwich before sitting down by the pool. Because the Gricean maxims are not rigid rules, like rules of law, but are rather flexible assumptions about how speaker behave, they can be broken, or flouted, to implicate further meanings. Flouting a maxim occurs when a speaker uses language in a way which appears, in an obvious way, to violate a maxim. For example, if you ask me whether I think your new shirt is attractive, and I say it was probably inexpensive, my reply seems to violate the maxims of relevance- I did not answer your question. However, because you assume that, despite appearances, I am conforming to relevance, you try to figure out how what I said could be relevant. Since my utterance avoided answering your question by mentioning a reason why you might have bought an unattractive shirt, you will infer that I dont like the skirt. This inference can become an implicature of the sentence, that is, part of my speakers meaning. Speakers create implicatures into two main ways. The first is by direct appeal to the maxims. Take this invented exchange: Burton : how many children do you have? Connie : I have two children. All Connie has said is that she has two children, which would be literally true even if she had three or four or twelve. Yet, by the maxim of quantity, Burton can assume she has been as informative as she needs to be for the current purpose of this exchange. And because he 157

was asking for the total number of children, she must be giving him the total. Contrast that exchange with this one: Burton : do you have two quarters I could borrow for the pay phone? Connie : yes, I have two quarters. Has in total, but merely whether she has two quarters he could borrow. She may have there, four, or twelve quarters, but she is being as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange by saying that she has two quarters. In these contrasting circumstances I have two children implicates and no more than two children, whereas I have two quarters does not implicate and no more than two quarters. These are meanings Connie expects Burton to work out. The other maxims apply directly in similar ways.

158

REFERENCES
Hurford, James R. Semantics: A Coursebook ( Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1983) Fromkin, Victoria. An Introduction to Language ( Los Angles: University of California, 2003) Grambs, David. Words about Words. ( Mc Graw-Hill book company ) Clark, Hebert H. Using Language . ( Cambridge University : 2008 ) Sundayana. Wahyu ,Aziz. Aminuddin, Semantics (Jakarta: Universitas Terbuka, 2007) Lyon. John,Linguistic semantics.( Cambridge University Press. 1995.) Fasold. Ralph .An Introduction to Language and Linguistics.. (Cambridge University Press. 2006). Saeed. John L.. Semantics. (Malden: Blackwell Publishing. 1997) J.D. Parera, Teori Semantik.( Jakarta : Erlangga, 2004) David Grambs, Words about Words. ( Mc Graw-Hill book company )

159