INTRODUCTION TO SEMANTICS

A PAPER

Submitted as a Fullfillment of Linguistics in ELT Assignement

By:

Setyaning

Mega Suci Lestari

Lita Tri Lestari

MAGISTER PROGRAM OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY

SULTAN AGENG TIRTAYASA UNIVERSITY

2017
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Study

Studying semantics is important because semantics (as the study of
meaning) is central to the study of communication and as communication
becomes more and more a crucial factor in social organization, the need to
understand it becomes more and more pressing. Semantics is also at the centre of
the study of the human mind - thought processes, cognition, conceptualization -
all these are intricately bound up with the way in which we classify and convey
our experience of the world through language.
Because it is, in these two ways, a focal point in man's study of man,
semantics has been the meeting place of various cross-currents of thinking and
various disciplines of study. Philosophy, psychology, and linguistics all claim a
deep interest in the subject. Semantics has often seemed baffling because there are
many different approaches to it, and the ways in which they are related to one
another are rarely clear, even to writers on the subject. (Leech 1990: IX).
Semantics is a branch of linguistics, which is the study of language; it is an
area of study interacting with those of syntax and phonology. A person's linguistic
abilities are based on knowledge that they have. One of the insights of modern
linguistics is that speakers of a language have different types of linguistic
knowledge, including how to pronounce words, how to construct sentences, and
about the meaning of individual words and sentences. To reflect this, linguistic
description has different levels of analysis. So - phonology is the study of what
sounds combine to form words; syntax is the study of how words can be
combined into sentences; and semantics is the study of the meanings of words and
sentences.
1.2 Formulation of the Problem
Based on the background of study that has been explained above, the
writer idintifies the formulation of the problems that are devided into five points,
such as:
1) What is the definition of semantics?
2) What are the theories of semantics?
3) What are the kinds of meaning in semantics?
4) What is the systematic study of meaning?
5) What is the definition of reference and sense?

1.3 Objective of the Problem

Regarding to the fomluation of the problem that has been stated before, the
writer determine the objective of the study. The objectives are devided into five
points, those are:
1) To know the definition of semantics.
2) To know the theories of semantics.
3) To know the kinds of meaning in semantics.
4) To know the systematic study of meaning.
5) To know the definition of reference and sense.
 CHAPTER II
DISCUSSION

2.1 Definition of Semantics

If not most, at least, many introductions to semantics begin by asking the
following question: what is semantics? What does semantics actually study? This
seems like a sensible way to start a course on semantics, so we can begin by
looking at some of the answers that different authors provide. According to Lyons
(1977), Semantics is the study of meaning. Semantics is the study of meaning in
language Hurford & Heasley The (1983). Semantics is the study of meaning
communicated through language Saeed (2003). Semantics is the part of linguistics
that is concerned with meaning Lbner (2002). Linguistic semantics is the study
of how languages organize and express meanings (Kreidler, 1998). (Sutrisno,
2012).
Nowadays, there are two ways of approaching semantics. The formal
semantics approach connects with classical philosophical semantics, that is, logic.
It should not be forgotten that semantics was a part of philosophy for many
centuries. Formal semantics tries to describe the meaning of language using the
descriptive apparatus of formal logic. The goal is to describe natural language in a
formal, precise, unambiguous way. Related (though not identical) denominations
for this type of semantics are truth-conditional semantics, model-theoretic
semantics, logical semantics, etc.
The other approach to semantics we could call psychologically-oriented
semantics or cognitive semantics. This approach does not consider the logical
structure of language as important for the description of the meaning of language,
and tends to disregard notions such as truth-values or strict compositionality.
Cognitive semantics tries to explain semantic phenomena by appealing to
biological, psychological and even cultural issues. They are less concerned with
notions of reference and try to propose explanations that will fit with everything
that we know about cognition, including perception and the role of the body in the
structuring of meaning structures.
 So, we can conclude that 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.

2.1.1 Semantics Theoris

The task of explaining the main approaches to semantic theory in

contemporary philosophy of language might seem to face an in-principle
stumbling block. Given that no two languages have the same semantics no two
languages are comprised of just the same words, with just the same meanings it
may seem hard to say how we can say anything about different views about
semantics in general, as opposed to views about the semantics of this or that
language. This problem has a relatively straightforward solution. While it is of
course correct that the semantics for English is one thing and the semantics for
French something else, most assume that the various natural languages should all
have semantic theories of (in a sense to be explained) the same form. The aim of
what follows will, accordingly, is to introduce the reader to the main approaches
to natural language semantics the main views about the right form for semantics
for a natural language to take rather than a detailed examination of the various
views about the semantics of some particular expression. (For some of the latter,
see names, descriptions, propositional attitude reports, and natural kinds.)

One caveat before we get started: before a semantic theorist sets off to
explain the meanings of the expressions of some language, she needs a clear idea
of what she is supposed to explain the meaning of. This might not seem to present
much of a problem; aren't the bearers of meaning just the sentences of the relevant
language, and their parts? This is correct as far as it goes; but the task of
explaining what the semantically significant parts of a sentence are, and how those
parts combine to form the sentence, is an enterprise which is both far from trivial,
and has important consequences for semantic theory. Unfortunately, discussion of
theories of this sort, which attempt to explain the logical form, or syntax, of
natural language sentences, is well beyond the scope of this entry. As a result,
figures like Richard Montague, whose work on syntax and its connection to
semantics has been central to the development of semantic theory over the past
few decades, are passed over in what follows. (Montague's essays are collected in
Montague 1974; for a discussion of the importance of his work, see 3.3 of Soames
2010.)

Most philosophers of language these days think that the meaning of an

expression is a certain sort of entity, and that the job of semantics is to pair
expressions with the entities which are their meanings. For these philosophers, the
central question about the right form for a semantic theory concerns the nature of
these entities. Because the entity corresponding to a sentence is called a
proposition, I'll call these propositional semantic theories. However, not all
philosophers of language think that the meanings of sentences are propositions, or
even believe that there are such things. Accordingly, in what follows, I'll divide
the space of approaches to semantics into propositional and non-propositional
semantic theories.

2.1.2 The Kinds of Meaning in Semantics

A. Lexical meaning
Lexical is the meaning compatible with dictionary. It need to know that
dictionaries which not actually so to exist the other means not lexical like
figurative meaning.
Example:
I walked five kilos yesterday, and now my legs ache
The ache in my foot prevented me from running fast
B. Grammatical
A grammatical process will happen after covering grammatical process.
Example :
Clouth using a clouth
Horse Riding a horse
mis + understand + ing
misunderstanding
copy + able
copable
C. Contextual meaning
Contextual meaning is word avaible in the one context.
Example :
My brother felt by bike
She have fallen in the examination
He felt falling in love to my sister
If price had fallen we would have become bankrupt
D. Referencial and Non referencial meaning
The words have meaning is called referencial and havent meaning is
called non referencial. The words like horse, red, and picture (referencial) on the
contrary and, or, but and because (non referencial).
Deictic word is the words included pronoun like she/he, you, and I. the
words explain to room like here, there, those, adverb of time like now, tomorrow,
yesterday. The words called indicator like this and those.
Example :
A word I statement belong to reference its not same :
I met with Mr Ahmad Ani said Ali
E. Conceptual and Association meaning
Conceptual is the meaning of meaning by words have been free from the contex
or association and association is the meaning of meaning by word agree to there is
relation of word with there is something outside.
Conceptual meaning : horse is kind of animal and has four legs
horse is the habitually of human.
Association meaning: Red : kind of colour
 Brave
Corrupt
White : kind of colour
Sacred
Clean
Crocodile : kind of animal
Wicked
Crime
F. Denotative and connotative meaning
Denotative meaning is the orginal of meaning or the thruth of meaning so
denotative meaning same with lexical meaning. Connotative meaning is the other
of meaning additional to denotative meaning.
Example :
Pig : kind of animal
Group of people : group of people that gather be once of group.
G. Word and Term
Word is lexical meaning, denotative meaning, and conceptual meaning. Term is
the thurth of meaning, clean its not hurry although without context. Example :
Word : Match
Pig
Phiyzic
Term : Linguistics
Integral
IHSG
Manufacture

2.2 The systematic study of meaning

Linguistic semantics is an attempt to explicate the knowledge of any
speakers of a language which allows that speaker to communicate facts, feeling,
intentions and products of the imagination to other speakers and to understand
what they communicate to him or her.
 Three disciplines are concerned with the systematic study of meaning in
itself: psychology, philosophy, and linguistics. Psychologists, they are interested
in: how individual human learn, how they retain, recall, or lose information; how
they classify, make judgments and solve problems. In other words, how the human
mind seeks meanings, and works with them; Philosophers of language are
concerned with how we know, how any particular fact that we know or accept as
true is related to other possible facts In other words, what must be antecedent to
that fact and what is a likely consequence, or entailment of it; what statements are
mutually contradictory, which sentences express the same meaning in different
words, and which are unrelated; Linguists want to understand how language
works. Just what common knowledge do two people posses when they share a
language that makes it possible for them to give and get information, to express
their feelings and their intentions to another, and to be understood with a fair
degree of success.
According to Alsayed (2012) meaning covers a variety of aspects of
language, and there is no general agreement about the nature of meaning. Looking
at the word itself, the dictionary will suggest a number of different meanings of
the noun meaning and the verb mean. The word mean can be applied to
people who use language, i.e. to speakers, in the sense of intend. And it can be
applied to words and sentences in the sense of be equivalent to. To understand
what meaning is, one has to keep in mind whether we are talking about what
speakers mean or what words (or sentences) mean.
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. We hope to convince you that by careful thought about the language you speak
and the way it is used, definite conclusions can be arrived at concerning meaning.
Lewis Carroll had brilliant insights into the nature of meaning (and into the
foibles of people who theorize about it). In the passage above, he is playfully
suggesting that the meanings carried by words may be affected by a speakers
will. Lewis Carrolls aim was to amuse, and he could afford to be enigmatic and
even nonsensical. The aim of serious semanticists is to explain and clarify the
nature of meaning. (Hurford, Heasley and Smith, 2007)
Semantics deals with:

1. Words meaning
Language is used for communication. In communicating, speakers or writers
communicate meaning to listeners or readers. The nature of the meaning of a word
is its referent. The referent of a word can be an object, an event, a state, a process,
or an action here in this world. Word meaning can also said lexical meaning
(Lyons, 1985) : the meaning of lexemes depends upon the of sentences in which
they occur. (Sutrisno, 2012)
Examples :
a. hot is : [ a state of having a high temperature ]

b. to sew is : [ an action of working with a needle and thread

c. drizzling is : [ the process of raining in small drops ]

d. a party is : [ an event of the gathering of persons, by invitation, for

pleasure ]

2. Sentence meaning
According to Hurford, Heasley and Smith (2007), sentence meaning is what a
sentence means, i.e. what it counts as the equivalent of in the language concerned.
According to Lyons, (1985) as in Sutrisno (2012), the meaning of sentence is the
product of both lexical and grammatical meaning (the meaning of the constituent
of lexemes and of the grammatical constructions)
Examples :
1. This is a beautiful garden flower
2. This is a beautiful flower garden
In sentence (1) the focus is on flower, where as in sentence (2) the focus is on
garden. It is clear that the conceptual meaning of the sentence depends on the
reference and the structures of the words.
3. Utterance meaning
Speaker meaning is what a speaker means (i.e. intends to convey) when he
uses a piece of language. (Hurford, Heasley and Smith, 2007), In
communication, the meaning of an utterance is not only determined by the
conceptual meaning of the sentence but also by paralinguistic features such as
stress, pitch, intonation, juncture, body movements, head movements, hand
gestures, eye-contact, and the distance between the interlocutors.
Examples : Its one oclock, can be interpreted as Its really one oclock
or Its time to have lunch or Its time to stop the lecture. So the meaning does
not only depends the reference, conceptual sentence but also context, gestures,
intonations etc.

2.3 The definition of Sentence, Utterance and Preposition

A sentence is a grammatically complete string of words expressing a complete
thought. This very traditional definition is unfortunately vague, but it is hard to
arrive at a better one for our purposes. It is intended to exclude any string of
words that does not have a verb in it, as well as other string. Utterances of non-
sentences, e.g. short phrases, or single words, are used by people in
communication all the time. People do not converse wholly in (tokens of) well
formed sentences. But the abstract idea of a sentence is the basis for
understanding even those expressions which are not sentences. In the
overwhelming majority of cases, the meanings of non-sentences can best be
analyzed by considering them to be abbreviations, or incomplete versions, of
whole sentences. (Hurford, Heasley and Smith, 2007)
An utterance is any stretch of talk, by one person, before and after which there
is silence on the part of that person. An utterance is the USE by a particular
speaker, on a particular occasion, of a piece of language, such as a sequence of
sentences, or a single phrase, or even a single word.
Utterance may consist of a single word, a single phrase or a single sentence.
They may also consist of sequence of sentence. It is not unusual to find utterances
that consist of one or more grammatically incomplete sentence-fragments. In
short, there is no simple relation of correspondence between utterances and
sentences. Utterances are physical events. Events are ephemeral. Utterances die on
the wind. Linguistics deals with spoken language and we will have a lot to say
about utterances in this book. But we will concentrate even more on another
notion, that of sentences.
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. A
sentence can be thought of as the ideal string of words behind various realizations
in utterances and inscriptions. We have defined a sentence as a string of words. A
given sentence always consists of the same words, and in the same order. Any
change in the words or in their order makes a different sentence for our purposes.
It would make sense to say that an utterance was in a particular accent (i.e. a
particular way of pronouncing words). However, it would not make strict sense to
say that a sentence was in a particular accent, because a sentence itself is only
associated with phonetic characteristics such as accent and voice quality through a
speakers act of uttering it. Accent and voice quality belong strictly to the
utterance, not to the sentence uttered. Not all utterances are actually tokens of
sentences, but sometimes only of parts of sentences, e.g. phrases or single words.
A proposition is that part of the meaning of the utterance of a declarative
sentence which describes some state of affairs. The state of affairs typically
involves persons or things referred to by expressions in the sentence and the
situation or action they are involved in. In uttering a declarative sentence a
speaker typically asserts a proposition. In our definition of proposition we
explicitly mentioned declarative sentences, but propositions are clearly in the
meanings of other types of sentences, such as interrogatives, which are used to ask
questions, and imperatives, which are used to convey orders. Normally, when a
speaker utters a simple declarative sentence, he commits himself to the truth of the
corresponding proposition: i.e. he asserts the proposition. By uttering a simple
interrogative or imperative, a speaker can mention a particular proposition,
without asserting its truth.
 We shall have a lot to say in later units about utterances, sentences and
propositions, since these concepts are at the bottom of all talk about meaning. We
shall see that we have to be very careful, when talking about meaning, to make it
clear whether we are dealing with utterances or sentences. To this end we shall try
summarizing the relationship between these notions.
We shall use the term of proposition, sentence, and utterance inn such a
way that anything that can be said of propositions can also be said of sentences
can also be said of utterances, but not necessarily vice versa. We have already
seen an example of this when we said it was sensible to talk of sentence being in a
particular language, and also sensible top talk of an utterance being in a particular
language, although one cannot talk of proposition being in a particular language.
A proposition is an abstraction that can be grasped by the mind of an
individual person. In this sense, a proposition is an object of thought. Do not
equate propositions with thoughts, because thoughts are usually held to be private,
personal, mental processes, whereas propositions are public in the sense that the
same proposition is accessible to different persons: different individuals can grasp
the same proposition. Furthermore, a proposition is not a process, whereas a
thought can be seen as process going on in an individuals mind. Unfortunately, of
course the word thought may sometimes be used loosely in a way which includes
the notion of a proposition. For the instance, one may say, The same thought
came into both our heads at the same time. In this case, the word thought is being
used in a sense quite like that of the word proposition. The relationship between
mental processes (e.g. thoughts), abstract semantic entities (e.g. proposition),
linguistic entities (e.g. sentences) and action (e.g. utterances) is problematic and
complicated, and we will not go into the differences further here. (Hurford,
Heasley and Smith, 2007)

2.4 The definition of Reference and Sense

Sense and reference are two very distinct ways of talking about the meaning
of words and other expressions. Sense deals with the relationships inside the
language. The sense of an expression is its place in a system of semantic
relationships with other expressions in the language.
Examples :

1. The relationship between big and small is oppositeness of meaning

(antonymy).

2. The relationship between rich and wealthy is sameness of meaning

(synonymy). We will talk more about sense relations in a coming lecture.
In some cases, the same word-form can have more than one sense.

3. Look at the word-form bank in the following sentences:

I have an account at the bank.

We took the boat to the other bank of the river.
In these examples, bank has a different sense in each sentence.
Reference is a relationship between parts of a language (words and phrases)
and things outside the language (in the world). By reference a speaker indicates
which things and persons in the world are being talked about. E.g. My son is in
the house. My son here refers to a person in the world and the house refers to
a thing in the world.
To make the term reference clearer to you, hold a book in your hand and
describe it in a sentence. For example: This book is about Semantics.
The English expression this book is part of the language. This expression
can refer to any book. In the example, we used it to refer to part of the world
which is the book you are holding in your hand. Reference is the relationship
between the language expression and the real world object.
 CHAPTER III
CONCLUSION

Semantics is a branch of linguistics dealing with the meaning of words,

phrases and sentences, however, contrary to pragmatics it does not analyze the
intended speaker meaning, or what words denote on a given occasion, but the
objective, conventional meaning.
A sentence is a group of words that are put together to mean something. A
sentence is the basic unit of language which expresses a complete thought. It does
this by following the grammatical rules of syntax. An Utterance is any sound of
talk, that human produce. To differentiate utterance and sentence, we usually use
quotation mark (.) in written form of utterance. A Proposition is that part of
the meaning of the utterance of a declarative sentence which describes some state
of affairs. Besides declarative sentence, proposition also clearly involved in the
meaning of interrogatives and imperative sentences.
Reference is relation between piece of language and the things in the
world. A referent is concrete object or concept that is designated by a word or
expression. Sense : its place in a system of semantic relationships with other
expressions in the language. Sense consists of 'semantic properties'.
 REFERENCE

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

Huford, J. R. and B. Heasly (1983). Semantics: A Coursebook. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Saeed, John I. (2003). Semantics (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell.
Lbner, Sebastian. (2002). Understanding semantics. London: Arnold.
Kreidler, Charles W. (1998). Introducing English Semantics. London: Routledge.
Huford, J.R., B. Heasly and M. B. (2007). Semantics: A Coursebook (2nd Edn).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.