Sentence semantics

The set of semantics is a branch of semantics in general linguistics , which deals with the importance of larger syntactic units such as phrases, sentence elements, subsets and complete sentences.

Predications and Statements

Almost all communicatively expressed sentence contents consist of a statement content and an action content. In the content of statements something is said about objects or facts in reality to which one refers. Statements that are not meaningful would be, for example, “Hello”, “Hello!”, “Prosit!”. Statements are represented as follows, following the example of predicate logic: A predicator P forms the statement P (x, y) with “argument places” x, y. Example:

"And Helga _x spoke _P all these words _y ."

In the content of this sentence example it is stated about the reference objects “Helga _x ” and “Words _y ” that this x spoke this y.

Valence theory

The valence theory is a way of working out laws according to which words are put together to form groups of words or sentences. With their help one can recognize and also explain the structure of a language. Valence (linguistics) is the capacity of a word to require certain constituents in a sentence. Specifically related to the verb , this means that a verb needs certain additions. The following valences are to be used for the German verb “talk” : (The respective additions are expressed with E and supplemented by a superscript abbreviation letter for the method of addition: n = nominative, a = accusative, pr = prepositional addition, adv = adverb)

talk1 (monovalent): E ⁿ

z. B. She is talking.

talk2 (two-valued): E ⁿ + E ^a

z. B. He's talking nonsense. (E ^a : content of speech)

talking3 (two-valued): E ⁿ + E ^adv

z. B. He speaks loudly. (E ^adv : idiom)

talk4 (two-valued): E ⁿ + E ^pr

z. B. She spoke with charm. (E ^pr : way of speaking)

talk5 (two-valued): E ⁿ + E ^pr

z. B. He talks to everyone. (E ^pr : addressed)

talk6 (two-valued): E ⁿ + E ^pr

z. B. She was talking about literature. (E ^pr : topic of speech)

talk7 (three-valued): E ⁿ + E ^pr + E ^pr

z. B. He talked to everyone about God and the world.

However, these factors are not always meant or included in a certain communication act. Usually some of these factors are hidden, not in the sense of an omission in the sentence expression, but in the sense of irrelevance for the speaker.

Predicate expressions

Predicate expression through verbs

About half of all German verbs are two-valued, about one third are three-valued. The rest is divided into monovalent and a very small number of zero-valued verbs.

Null-valued verb for null-digit predicates : P; z. B. "It's raining _P " .
Single-valued verb for single-digit predicates: P (x); z. B. "Peter _{x is} sleeping _P " .
Two-valued verbs for two-digit predicates: P (x, y); z. B. "Peter _x kisses _P Maria _y " .
Three-valued verbs for three-digit predicates: P (x, y, z); z. B. "Peter _x gives _P Maria _y the book _z " .

Predicate expression through adjectives

There are adjectives that do not represent “type supplements” , but rather predicate expressions . This is made clear by phrases like “I'm cold” instead of “I'm cold” or “She is like him” instead of “She looks like him” . These adjectives are used in connection with s. G. "Copula verbs" for predicate expressions. Such verbs include: a .: stay, will, appear, count as etc.

The vast majority of adjectives are monovalent. Example: "It's sensational" .
But there are also two-valued adjectives for two-digit predicates: For example: “You want to be close to the crown” .
There are also a few three-valued adjectives: e.g. "Hans is superior to Anna in gymnastics" .

Predicate expression through nouns

As with adjectives, there are also variations between verbal and substantive predicate expressions. E.g .: “I don't smoke” as opposed to “I am a non-smoker” . As with the adjectives, there are "copula verbs" that form predicate expressions with the nouns. These verbs are u. a .: be, remain, become, be called, appear as, count as etc.

A two-valued noun , to which a predicate with two references corresponds, contains the following sentence: "... that he had a farmer's daughter for his mother" .
Trivalent and tetravalent nouns appear only in secondary, i.e. H. to give predicative nouns derived from word formation. For example, "Hans is Germany's ambassador to America" , "Nine is Thomas' answer to Anna's question" .

There are also noun-based predicate expressions that make no semantic difference between verb and noun predicate and only serve to split the verb and noun. E.g .: traveling / going on a trip, asking / asking a question, hinting / making a hint etc.

Reference and reference objects

The main problem of distinguishing between linguistic and “extra-linguistic” knowledge relevant to understanding results from the term reference . Reference is primarily not an abstract semantic relation , but a linguistic act. Whenever you make a statement, there has to be something about which the predicate says. There is no limit to what kind of reference objects you can refer to. The main types of reference are as follows:

Perception-dependent reference (pointing the finger, turning the head, direction of view, means of expression in the non-verbal area, place, time, gender).

Knowledge-dependent reference ( proper names , generic names ).

Predictive reference ( assertions (eg: "These opportunists do not belong in the Bundestag" , not only classifying, but also asserting), evaluations).

Referencesless pronouns / pseudo- pronouns (eg: "He chokes" , has no reference object and no reflective meaning, also with "confesses" and "surrenders" ).

Truth Conditions Semantics

The founder of this approach in semantics is Gottlob Frege . According to this view, in order to understand a sentence, one has to state whether a certain sentence is true or false in a given situation. Even Wittgenstein was representative of this view:

To understand a sentence is to know what is the case when it is true.

(So you can understand it without knowing whether it is true.)

(Ludwig Wittgenstein: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922)

Situations are referred to as possible worlds w (w1 - w3). The truth value (1 true, 0 false) of a sentence α is determined in possible worlds.

(1) It's snowing: [w1 → 1, w2 → 1, w3 → 0, ...]

Another assumption on which the truth condition semantics is based is the compositionality principle , also known as the Frege principle . This states that the meaning of a complex expression is a function of the meaning of its parts and the way in which they are syntactically arranged.

(2) a. Fritz is sleeping.

(2 B. [ _S [ _NP Fritz] [ _{VP is} sleeping]]

Sentence (2) is true if and only if Fritz is asleep, otherwise false. The meaning of Fritz is a specific male person. The meaning of asleep with the meaning of Fritz results in the meaning of Fritz asleep .

There are 2 persons (a) and (b) and 3 possible worlds w1 to w3, then sleep has the following meaning:

(3) sleeps: [a → [w1 → 1, w2 → 0, w3 → 1]]

(3) sleeps: [b → [w1 → 0, w2 → 1, w3 → 0]]

Under equivalence on the sentence level refers to when two propositions are true under exactly the same conditions.

(4) a. Hans goes by train.

(4) b. Hans goes by rail.

As implication is called whenever a situation (a) is true makes it even makes (b) true.

(5) a. Paul eats a carrot.

(5) b. Paul eats a vegetable.

The truth condition semantics is often used synonymously with model theoretical semantics. However, this does not have to be the case, since the truth-condition semantics can also work without models.

Possible problems of truth-condition semantics

It seems as if only meanings of statements (6a) can be described. However, (6b) poses the question of what truth value the sentence Susi comes tomorrow has in a given situation.

(6) a. Susi is coming tomorrow.

(6) b. Is Susi coming tomorrow?

Under ambiguity at the sentence level is understood as a set of two or more interpretations has. It can be true under one interpretation and false under the other.

(7) The petroleum dealer was unlucky.

Pitch can find both misfortune and asphalt mean.

Another type of ambiguity is structural ambiguity. A distinction is made between syntactic (8a) and scopus ambiguity (8b).

(8) a. Anna watched the man with the binoculars.

The sentence has two meanings:

Anna is watching the man, holding binoculars in her hand.
Anna watches the man who is holding binoculars in his hand.

Scopus ambiguity refers to quantifiers for which it is not clear how far their scope extends:

(8) b. All politicians are not corrupt.

This sentence also has two different readings:

For all politicians it is true that they are not corrupt.
It is not true that all politicians are corrupt.

The uncertainty (language) can also make it difficult to assign truth values clearly.

(9) Sandra is smart

It doesn't just depend on the situation whether the sentence is true, but also on when you classify a person as clever

It is difficult to assign a meaning to indexical expressions. Examples of indexical expressions are personal pronouns like me , you and he , temporal adverbs like yesterday and tomorrow , and local expressions like here and there . These depend on the speaking situation in which the utterance is made.

The truth-condition semantics often fail to express the connotations that make up a particular speaker attitude.

(10) a. My aunt passed away.

(10) b. My aunt bit the grass

Model theoretical semantics

The formal semantics includes the translation of the natural language ( object language ) into a formal language ( metalanguage ). In a further step, the metalanguage is interpreted in a model that specifies the truth conditions for the existing predicates on the way via sets of individuals who fulfill them. The following elements are also used:

Variables (x, y): stand for a possible individual in the world. They are interpreted with the help of a function that assigns an individual to a variable in specific contexts.

Junctures : combine partial statements, &, =, →, ....

Quantifiers : the existential quantifier (∃) and the universal quantifier (∀) bind variables in open sentences and thus convert open sentences into truthful statements.

Profound sentence content

Two verbs are relevant for sentence semantics: mean and mean . Mean refers to a relationship between a character and its contents, which my also on cognitive and communicative action the speaker refers. In addition, in many sentence contents there is something that is co-meaning and meant , which is not recognizable as the content of the utterance at first glance.

Example: "Everyone has the right to life and physical integrity".

Meaning: The masculine inflected pronoun everyone can either be related to all people without exception or only to male people.
Meant: In this case the pronoun everyone includes all people without distinction.
What is meant: It can of course be added that “physical integrity” means the opposite of “being injured by someone”.

literature

Busse, Dietrich (1997): Semantic knowledge and linguistic information. In: Inge Pohl: Methodological aspects of semantic research. Frankfurt am Main: Long.
Arnim v. Stechow, steps towards sentence semantics
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (2003): Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Logical-philosophical treatise . Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. ISBN 3-518-10012-2 .
Peter von Polenz : sentence semantics. Basic concepts of reading between the lines. De Gruyter (Göschen Collection), Berlin / New York 1985.

Web links

Individual evidence

↑ Hadumod Bußmann (ed.) With the assistance of Hartmut Lauffer: Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft. 4th, revised and bibliographically supplemented edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2008, ISBN 978-3-520-45204-7 .

↑ Introduction to Sentence Semantics, Humboldt University Berlin ( Memento of the original from June 22, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2
↑ Peter von Polenz : German sentence semantics. Basic concepts of reading between the lines . 3rd edition, Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2008; ISBN 978-3-11-020366-0

[1] Hadumod Bußmann (ed.) With the assistance of Hartmut Lauffer: Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft. 4th, revised and bibliographically supplemented edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2008, ISBN 978-3-520-45204-7 .