Sentences and sentence meaning

There are three basic conceptions of a sentence: syntactic, semantic and pragmatic (Stainton,
2000). According to the syntactic conception, a sentence is an expression with certain
grammatical properties, as specified in a grammar. According to the semantic conception, a
sentence is an expression with a certain type of meaning, for instance a sentence expressing a
proposition, something that is true or false (with respect to the actual world). According to
the pragmatic conception, a sentence is an expression with a certain kind of use, typically that
of making a speech act.

These three conceptions are naturally enough pretty well correlated. Speakers of natural
languages typically use sentences in the grammatical sense for making speech acts and
expressing propositional thoughts by means of the sentence meaning. Nevertheless, in many
cases they come apart. On the one hand, speakers often use sub-sentential expressions, such
as ‘Reserved for tonight’, pointing to a chair (Stainton, 2000, p. 446), for making a speech
act.

On the other hand, very often, what is a grammatical sentence does not have a meaning that is
simply a propositional content in an ordinary sense. This can happen for a variety of reasons,
such as indexicality, presupposition, conventional implicature, discourse phenomena,
interrogative mood.

In this chapter, we shall be concerned with sentences in the syntactic sense, and we shall look
at how semantic theories of various types model sentence meaning. In some cases we will
also consider their philosophical motivations. The topic will be delimited in certain ways. We
shall only discuss declarative sentences (see Dekker et al., Chapter 19, and Portner, Chapter
20 for chapters on non-declaratives). We shall also not cover dynamic phenomena in
discourse semantics (see Asher, Chapter 4). We are also not going to discuss presupposition
and similar phenomena in the semantic/pragmatics interface (see Schlenker, Chapter 22). We
shall be concerned with semantic context dependence and related phenomena.

One of the key features of the syntactic conception of a sentence is that sentences are
syntactically (or morphosyntactically) complex. Since they result from combining linguistic
elements, there is a question of how the meaning of the sentence is related to the meanings of
its parts and the way they are combined.

UNIT 3 ASPECTS OF SENTENTIAL MEANING CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Paraphrase
3.2 Ambiguity
3.3 Vagueness
3.4 Tautology
3.5 Presupposition
3.6 Entailment
3.7 Anomaly
3.8 Contradiction
3.9 Analyticity
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment
7.0 References/Further Reading

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Sense or lexical relations are concerned with the meaning of individual words. However, as
we observed in the unit on semantic theories, the function of theories of meaning includes the
explication of sentences. A great deal of the problems of communication derives from the
confusion at the level of sentences. It is, therefore, important that you explore sources of
these problems. We do not communicate with isolated words. Indeed, knowledge of language
and the art of communication depend on our ability to combine words in a systematic way.
When words are confined, we achieve sentential meaning. The study of semantics is also
expected to explore meaning at this level. This is the purpose of this unit.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
At the end of this unit, you should be able to:
• identify different issues related to the meaning of the sentence
• explain major concepts in the meaning of English sentences
• demonstrate the ability to apply these concepts in real language situation.

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 Paraphrase
In the study of meaning processes in the sentence, we shall discuss these concepts in the
sections that follow.
Paraphrase is to the sentence what synonymy is to words. This means that the paraphrase
explains a situation in which two or more sentences have one meaning. Indeed, a sentence
can have many paraphrases. There are two types of paraphrases: lexical and structural
paraphrases. In lexical paraphrases, we have two or more sentences giving the same
interpretation as a result of the replacement of one word or phrase by another. The following
are examples.
(i) The chef hired a bachelor
(ii) The chef hired an unmarried man
In the two sentences above, the change in their structure is as a result of the substitution of a
bachelor for an unmarried man. Both a bachelor and unmarried man are phrases. Consider
further the following sentences.
(i) The man was agitated
(ii) The man was anxious
We have achieved the paraphrase by the substitution of the word “agitated” for another,
“anxious.”
Structural paraphrase is achieved when we alter the arrangements of the sentences through
transformations. The following are examples:
(i) They bought a new apartment (Basic –subject + Verb+ object)
(ii) It was a new apartment that they bought (Cleft)
(iii) What they bought was a new apartment (Pseudo cleft)
(iv) A new apartment was what they bought (topicalised)

3.2 Ambiguity
When an expression can be given more than one interpretation ambiguity arises. Therefore,
why polysemy relates to words, ambiguity is concerned with sentences. We have two types of
ambiguity – lexical and structural.
Lexical ambiguity occurs when the presence of just a specific word leads to multiple
interpretations. Consider the following examples.
(i) The team has many goals
(ii) She prepared tables

INTRODUCTION TO SEMANTICS
It should be noted that “goals” and “tables” can be interpreted in different easy based on the
contexts. Structural ambiguity is achieved by the organisation of the elements of the sentence.
It is possible to interpret these elements in different ways. Consider these examples.
(i) They promoted all English teachers
(ii) Boiling water can be dangerous

The ambiguity in the second sentence drives from the possibility of

reading the sentence as:
(i) Water that is boiling (i.e. hot) can be dangerous
(ii) The act of boiling water can be dangerous

The first interpretation makes boiling water as the subject noun phrase
whereas in the second interpretations, boiling water is the complement.

3.3 Vagueness
Asentence is vague when it has no definite meaning. This lack of meaning may derive from
the incompatibility of the semantic properties of some of the words. Sometimes, a vague
expression may be grammatically well formed, yet its meaning may be farfetched. Consider
the following classical example taken from Chomsky (1965).
(i) Colourless green ideas sleep furiously together
It should be noted that many of what we describe as literary language would have been vague
except that we understand the background as literary. Consider further the following
example.
(ii) The stones consoled her
This expression is clearly a personification since stones which are inanimate have been
endued with the characteristics of consoling.

3.4 Tautology
A situation of tautology arises when we have unnecessary repetition of elements in
communication. There is undue emphasis without necessarily making meaning any clearer.
Tautology is closely associated with redundancy, which is the introduction of linguistic units,
which do not affect the status, or meaning of the larger construction.
The following are examples of tautology.
(i) This bachelor has not been married
(ii) The congregation are members of a church
Other instances of tautology are:
• circumnavigate around
• unlawful theft
• can be able

3.5 Presupposition
In presupposition, there is usually a piece of information, which the speaker assumes the
hearer already knows. This assumption is based on some shared background knowledge
between the speaker and the hearers. An outsider in the circle of communication may be at a
loss.
Let us illustrate this situation with the following sentences.
(i) John: Are you able to bring Harry along?
(ii) Peter: That will be splendid. On our way, we shall pick up the drinks.

The presupposition in this conversation is that both John and Peter know who Harry is. They
both have an idea of the drinks, and the source from where to bring them.

3.6 Entailment
In entailment, there is usually a pair of sentences and the truth of one derives from the truth
of other. Consider the following sentences.
(i) Tracy is a spinster
(ii) Tracy is a female
Sentence (i) derives from the meaning of sentence (ii). This means that if sentence (i) entails
sentence (ii) then, sentence (ii) is necessarily the implication of sentence (i).

3.7 Anomaly
Anomaly results from the combination of two semantic features that are not compatible in
describing a phenomenon. Words attract specific selectional restrictions. For instance, trees
are vertical while rulers, ropes and snakes are horizontal. For vertical items, we describe them
in terms of tall, while for the horizontal ones we talk of long. Thus, we can have tall trees, tall
buildings, tall people, but long ropes, long snakes, long rulers, and so on. It will therefore be
anomalous to have:
• a long man
• a tall snake

3.8 Contradiction
Contradictory expressions present two opposing proposition at the same time. Thus, a person
cannot be dead and alive at the same time. Other examples of anomaly are:
(i) That circular house is rectarectangul
(ii) The drains are flooded because there are no rains
(iii)
3.9 Analyticity
We talk about analyticity when we have sentences in the grammatical forms and lexical
meanings of their proposition, which make them necessarily true. Consider the following
examples.
(i) Churches are usually attended by Christians
(ii) Unmarried ladies are spinsters

4.0 CONCLUSION
A great deal of the problems of communication derives from the misinterpretation of the
meaning of the sentence. It is always profitable to explore the full range of meaning,
potentials in the sentence.
5.0 SUMMARY
We have studied in this unit, different area of emphasis in the mechanisms for deriving the
meaning of sentences. We have focused attention on paraphrase, ambiguity, vagueness,
tautology, presupposition, entailment, anomaly, and analyticity.
REFERENCES
Huford, J.R. & Heasley, B. (1983). Semantics: A Course Book. London: Cambridge
University Press.
Kempson, R. (1977). Semantic Theory. London: Cambridge University Press.
Ndimele, O.M. (1998). Semantics and Frontiers of Communication. Port Harcourt:
University of Port Harcourt Press.
Ogbulogo, C. (2005). Concepts in Semantics. Lagos: Sam Iroanusi Publication.