Semantics and Pragmatics: Presupposition, Entailment, Implicature

Implied Meanings: Presupposition and Entailment

Semantics vs. Pragmatics

Semantics

• Study of words and their meaning in a language.
• Focuses on meaning.
• Language internal.
• Studies what expressions mean.
• Studies what is said.

Pragmatics

• Study of words and their meaning in a language in context.
• Focuses on use.
• Language external.
• Studies what speakers mean.
• Studies what is implied.

Presuppositions and Entailment

A presupposition is information assumed to be true by the speaker of an utterance prior to its production. Presuppositions form part of the background of an assertion; they are not asserted information.

An entailment is something that logically follows from what is asserted in the utterance. Entailments are part of the assertion, what is stated explicitly in an utterance. If a sentence A entails a sentence B, sentence A cannot be true without B being true as well.

Speakers (not sentences) have presuppositions. Sentences (not speakers) have entailments.

Presupposition and Proposition

Presuppositions can be written out as propositions (which are not said explicitly):

Mary’s dog is cute (=p)

Mary has a dog (=q)

p >> q (>>= presupposes)

What if we negate p? Does the relation between propositions change?

Types of Presupposition and Their Triggers

• Existential – Mary’s brother bought two horses. Triggers: definite NPs, genitives, possessives…
• Factive – I regret not studying harder. Triggers: factive verbs (know, realize, regret,…), verb to be + aware, sorry, happy, glad.
• Lexical – I have never managed to juggle four balls at once. Triggers: words that imply a previous step like: manage, stop, start, again, keep…
• Structural – Where did you find my watch? Triggers: wh- questions, clefts, and negation.
• Non-factive – Can you imagine 2020 hadn’t existed? Trigger: non-factive verbs like: imagine, dream, or pretend.
• Counterfactual – If I were a boy…: conditionals, some modal verbs.

The Projection Problem

The meanings of sentences are compositional: the combination of the meaning of its parts. However, the meaning of some presuppositions (‘parts’) doesn’t survive to become the meaning of some complex sentence (‘wholes’).

The chief arrested three men.

• There is a chief.
• There were three men.

Cancellability / Defeasibility of Presuppositions

One of the peculiar things about presuppositions is that they are liable to evaporate in certain contexts, either the immediate linguistic context or the less immediate discourse context, or circumstances where contrary assumptions are made.

Suspension of Presuppositions

Presuppositions cannot only be canceled in context, but also suspended → The speaker removes a previously implied commitment to a presupposition without the denial of it.

Presupposition and Persuasion

E.g.: How do you like the organization of this course?

Presupposition can persuade people to take something for granted which is actually open to debate.

Implicature

Grice observed that we normally communicate on the assumption that we are co-operating.

Conventional Implicatures

Conventional implicatures are associated with specific words and result in additional conveyed meanings when those words are used.

• Some of these are: but, even, therefore, and, yet,…
• Examples:
  • She put on her clothes, and left the house → After she had put on her clothes, she left the house.
  • She was happy and ready to work → she was both happy and ready to work.
  • Denis isn’t here yet. → Denis is expected to be here later.
  • Even Mary came to the party → contrary to what was expected, Mary came to the party.

Within Conversational Implicature, Grice made a distinction between particularized conversational implicatures (PCIs) and generalized conversational implicatures (GCIs).

• Particularized conversational implicatures: the implicature is entirely context dependent.
• Generalized conversational implicatures: the implicature is more predictable and less context dependent.

Generalized CI: Scalar CI

• Scalar Implicatures: they are given rise by the use of certain scales of value. The use of one expression indicates one point on the scale and cancels the other expressions indicating higher points on the scale:
  • All, most, some, few
  • Always, often, sometimes
  • Certain, probable, possible
  • Do badly, progress, do well

The Cooperative Principle

The Cooperative Principle is articulated in four maxims:

• Quality: Tell the truth.
• Quantity: Give sufficient, neither more nor less information.
• Relevance: Be relevant.
• Manner: Avoid ambiguity and obscurity.

Violating/Flouting Maxims

Violating maxims: When a speaker deliberately fails to observe one or more maxims with the result of causing deceit in the interlocutor. In this case, there is no implicature, no added pragmatic meaning, since the interlocutor will assume that the speaker is observing the maxims.

Violating a maxim means the speaker knows the hearer will NOT understand the surface meaning of the words, intentionally generating a misleading implicature. The speaker deliberately supplies insufficient information, says something insincere, irrelevant, or ambiguous, and the hearer wrongly assumes that they are cooperating.

If violating a maxim, it is not obvious at the time of the utterance that the speaker has deliberately lied. These violations might hamper communication and do not lead to implicatures.

When flouting a maxim, it is obvious to the hearer at the time of the utterance that the speaker has deliberately failed to observe one or more maxims. The speaker’s intention is not to deceive or mislead but he wishes to prompt the speaker to look for a different meaning to the expressed one. He calls this additional meaning conversational implicature.

Flouting: Speaker fails to observe a maxim with DELIBERATE INTENTION on generating implicature.

Example: Teacher to a student who arrives more than ten minutes late to class:

T: “Wow! Welcome to the class! You’re such a punctual fellow!”

S: “Sorry Sir! It won’t happen again.”

Violating: Speaker quietly and unostentatiously violates a maxim WITH INTENTION to mislead.

Example: The boy has been playing games for hours when her mother asks:

M: “Did you study all day long?”

S: “Yes, I’ve been studying till now.”

Infringing a Maxim

A speaker who, with no intention of generating an implicature and with no intention of deceiving, fails to observe a maxim is said to ‘infringe’ the maxim.

• This type of non-observance could occur because of:
  • An imperfect command of the language (a young child or a foreign learner).
  • The speaker’s performance is impaired due to nervousness, drunkenness, excitement…
  • A cognitive impairment.
  • A speaker’s inherent incapability of speaking clearly, to the point, etc.

Limitations of Conversational Implicature

• Although Grice’s Cooperative Principle and maxims contributed enormously to the understanding of how pragmatic meaning arises, it has some limitations.
• There is no way of determining how many implicatures may arise from an utterance.
• Some implicatures are inferred even when they were not intended by the speaker.
• More than one maxim can be flouted or violated at the same time, and some of the maxims seem to overlap.
  • Example: quantity & manner:
    • Ann: How is it going with Tom?
    • Susan: One of us thinks it´s OK.
  • Example: Quantity and relevance:
    • Ann: Are you going to the party?
    • Susan: I have an exam.
• The Cooperative Principle does not account for cross-cultural variation.
  • Example:
    • A: How are you?
    • B: (American): Fine! (expected answer)
    • B: (other cultures) I’ve had a really good/bad day because….

Later Developments of Pragmatic Theories

• Other pragmatic theories take as a point of departure Grice’s work in order to develop more complex models of pragmatic meaning and indirectness:
  • Austin and Searle were contemporaries of Grice and develop Speech Act Theory, which distinguishes between direct speech acts (with no implicatures) and indirect speech acts (with implicatures).
  • Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson) develops a whole theory on the Principle of Relevance.
  • Politeness Theory (Brown and Levinson) explores the reasons why people are indirect in social situations.

Properties of Conversational Implicatures

Non-detachability

Implicatures are still present even if the linguistic expression which creates it is paraphrased, as long as the basic semantic meaning is retained:

A: Where’s Bill?

B: There is a yellow Volkswagen/a car outside Sue’s house/in front of Sue’s door.

Cancellability

Implicatures have a pragmatic meaning, and consequently, they can be canceled by speakers in conversations:

A: Did you get your velvet jacket back from the cleaner’s?

B: You’re not borrowing it.

Presuppositions are created before saying the utterance (knowledge assumed to be true before saying something). Implicatures arise after the utterance has been said (they arise in the context of the conversation). Presuppositions are tied to Surface structure and triggered by lexical or grammatical triggers (lexis and grammar). Implicatures are not activated by lexical or grammatical triggers.

Meaning Relations in the Mental Lexicon: Introduction

Syntagmatic Relations

Relations between a word and others that precede and follow it in the linear order of the sentence or proposition. Syntagmatic relations are syntactic and semantic between words and others:

E.g.: My child goes to a bilingual school.

• Syntactically, child is a noun premodified by the determiner my. It is the head of the Noun Phrase, Subject of the sentence. It is followed by the main verb goes.
• Semantically, child is an animate noun, so it requires an adequate verb such as goes.

Paradigmatic Relations

Relations between a word or expression and other words or expressions which can occupy that place in a sentence or proposition. Paradigmatic relations are semantic: Child is a noun which contrasts with other nouns which could occupy that position in the sentence and which have a related meaning, such as daughter, son, kid. Paradigmatic relations determine the choice of one lexical item over another.

Meaning Relations 1: Paradigmatic Relations

Paradigmatic Sense Relations

Of inclusion and identity – Synonymy, Hyponymy/Hyperonymy, Taxonomy and Meronymy.

Of exclusion and opposition – Antonymy.

Other Lexical Relations

• Homonymy and Polysemy
• Lexical/Semantic fields

Context also has an influence on how word meanings are related. Are you an ______ or an owl?

Paradigmatic Relations: Synonymy

The relation between two words or expressions that have the same meaning.

Sense-Synonymy

• The synonym of some, but not all, the senses of the word.
• Pupil and Student.
  • Yes: “person being instructed by a teacher”
  • No: “center of the eye” sense

Word-Synonymy

• The synonym of all the senses of two words.
• Caecitis and Typhlitis. “Inflammation of the blind gut”

Paradigmatic Relations: Hyponymy

It’s a hierarchical relationship in which the meaning of a more specific lexeme (the hyponym) is included in the meaning of another more general lexeme (the hyperonym or superordinate). E.g.: Tulip is a hyponymy of flower if every tulip is necessarily a flower, but not every flower is necessarily a tulip.

Hyponymy is typically presented in semantic studies by means of a vertical organization or taxonomic tree.

Hyperonymy is the less frequent counterpart of hyponymy, which makes reference to the same relation but from the other point of view. Hyponymy and Hyperonymy are the prototypical taxonomic relations. They are closely connected to one of our most relevant cognitive abilities: the categorization. Hyponymy and Hyperonymy are also relevant in communication.

Paradigmatic Relations: Taxonomy

Taxonomy is a strict hierarchy-defining, class-inclusion relation. The class-inclusion categories that taxonomy defines are stable and distinct. X is a taxonym of Y if it’s natural to say An X is a kind/type of Y.

• A beagle is a kind of dog ~ TAXONOMY
• Gold is a type of metal ~ TAXONOMY
• A stallion is a kind of horse ~ HYPONYMY
• Sunday is a kind of day of the week ~ HYPONYMY

Put it this way:

• HYPONYMY: A is a B (broad sense)
• TAXONOMY: A is a kind of B (stricter sense)

Paradigmatic Relations: Meronymy

A meronymy is a pair of words expressing a part-whole relationship. The word naming the part is called the meronym.

Meronyms: Holonyms:

Hand             Arm

Linguists Isolate Four Different Types of Meronymy in English

• The relation of the functional component to its whole: brake-car.
• The relation of a segment to a preexisting whole: slice-cake.
• The relation of a member to a collection or an element to a set: sheep-flock.
• The relation they call subset-set: fruit-food (this would normally be considered an example of hyponymy).

Paradigmatic Relations: Antonymy

Antonymy is part of a wider family of relations, that of opposites. Opposites are words that are similar in most respects, but differ in just one respect, which makes them contrast with each other. Antonymy is more complex than synonymy.

There are four types of opposites:

• Gradable – big / small: words which are at opposite ends of a continuous scale of values.
• Non-gradable – male / female: words which mutually exclude each other.
• Converse/ reciprocals – parent / child: words or expressions that express the same relationship in opposite orders.
• Reversive – build / demolish: words that describe a process of change between two states, they describe one direction or the other.

Other Lexical Relations: Polysemy

Polysemy is a case where a word has several very closely related senses. Think of the word “mouth”:

• human
• river

Other Lexical Relations: Homonymy

Homonymy is a case of an ambiguous word whose different senses are far apart from each other and not obviously related to each other in any way.

Are the two senses related?

• Mug 1: a tall cup for drinking.
• Mug 2: stupid person, easy to deceive.

Polysemy vs. Homonymy

• Etymological information – homonymous words should have different etymologies.
  • Key 1: instrument for opening locks.
  • Key 2: low island.
• Problem – polysemous links can be lost and turn polysemy into homonymy. Homonymy and Polysemy are cognitively processed in different ways.

Other Lexical Relations: Semantic Fields

A lexical field is a group of lexemes that belong to a particular area of knowledge or activity.

Syntagmatic Relations

Syntagmatic relations are those that a unit contracts by a virtue of its co-occurrence with similar units. A red door and green door. -> Red and green are in a paradigmatic relation to each other, while each is in a syntagmatic relation with door.

• a) Collocation – refers to the attraction between lexical items. Learn English.
• b) Colligation – refers to the attraction between grammatical items (or between lexical and grammatical items). Why people should learn English.

Syntagmatic Relations: Collocation

Collocation is the tendency of words to co-occur (to be placed with each other within a short distance) with other words in spoken language and in written texts. Expressions that cannot be translated word by word.

Idiomaticization (Idioms): Idioms themselves are very inflexible and they are losing their compositional meanings. E.G.: Kick the bucket – has nothing to do with kicking or a bucket.

Corpora:

• COBUILD: Collection of text from all varieties of English (millions of words). Allow to extract numerous patterns of occurrence of words (concordances). It enables users of a language to check word meaning based on the frequency of use of a word with other words in discourse.
• Large corpora: – The British National Corpus (NBC)
• Specific corpora: – Corpus Oral de Español como Lengua Extranjera (ELE)

Introspection and Experimentation

Introspection: The judgment of a native speaker of a language as to what words mean, what sentences are meaningless or ungrammatical, which words or phrases mean the same thing, which contradict each other, and so forth. Corpus linguistics often contradicts native speaker intuitions. The intuitive method and the corpus method complement each other.

Experimentation: Psycholinguistic experiments that help to reveal the nature of the mental lexicon and of the meanings stored in the mind. William Labov’s experiment on types of vessels. Lexical priming experiments. Planning, executing, and interpreting psycholinguistic experiments is not easy: you are working with people.

Syntagmatic Relations: Colligation

Colligation refers to the preference for specific grammatical configurations of words and their collocates and the interrelation of grammatical categories in syntactical structure.

Law and order:

• Collocation: ‘law’ collocates with ‘and order’
• Colligation: the colligates of law are: +coord.+NP

Lexicology and Lexicography

Lexicology – the science of the study of words, provides the theoretical basis for lexicography.

Lexicography – the writing of the word in some concrete form in the form of a dictionary or other lexicographic bases or tools. Lexicographers are language specialists who compile and edit dictionary entries.

Deixis

Indexical expressions are a particular kind of referential expressions where the reference is not just baldly semantic, but includes a reference to the particular context with which the semantics is put to work. Indexical expressions are basically pragmatically determined.” We use deictic expressions or indexicals to signal a referent and relate that referent to common ground shared by the speaker and the addressee. →They situate the speaker and the addressee in relation to each other and the world around them. “A DEICTIC word is one which takes some element of its meaning from the context or situation (i.e. the speaker, the addressee, the time and the place) of the utterance in which it is used” (Hudford et al 2007).

Types of Referents

• Nominal Referents (Proper nouns (or unique reference), definite and indefinite NPs, especially with articles, demonstratives, etc.)
• Deictics (indexicals, shifters or pointers, typically grammatical words which have a stable grammatical meaning and a variable pragmatic meaning: I, you, this, that, here, now, tomorrow)

Types of Deixis

• Person deixis
  • The role of participants
  • 1st person, 2nd person, 3rd person (WE inclusive or exclusive)
• Spatial/Place deixis
  • Spatial locations relative to the location
  • Proximal/Distal
• Temporal/Time deixis
  • Temporal points and spans relative to the time
  • Coding time
• Discourse deixis
  • The text referring expression
  • This/that
• Social deixis
  • Relative social distinction to participant-roles
  • Honorific ‘those aspects of language structure that encode the social identities of participants (properly, incumbents of participant-roles) or the social relationship between them,

Discourse Deixis

Discourse deictics can be used to point to elements in the preceding or following discourse (this that).

Deictic Projection

Deictic projection refers to how speakers are able to project themselves into other locations, time or shift person reference. We do this via dramatic performances, when using direct speech to represent the person, location and feelings of someone else.

Reference

Reference is the relation between a part of an utterance and an individual or set of individuals that it identified.” Reference is commonly construed as an act in which a speaker, or writer, uses linguistic forms to enable a listener, or reader, to identify something. In other words, reference is concerned with designating entities in the world by linguistic means.

Endophoric Reference: Anaphora & Cataphora

• Anaphora refers to an antecedent (something previously mentioned).
• Cataphora is the use of an expression that depends upon a postcedent expression (the reverse order).

Referential vs. Non-Referential

Non-Referential Uses

The referent does not single out a specific entity. Ex: Cars are useful.

Referential Uses / Attributive Use

The referent singles out a specific entity in context: Ex: This car is mine.

Referential Use = there is a concrete referent.

Attributive Use= ‘any’=whoever fits the description.

Lexicology: The branch of linguistics that studies the vocabulary of a language, including the structure, meaning, and development of words.

Lexicography: The practice and theory of compiling dictionaries, involving the selection, definition, and arrangement of words.

Lexical Semantics: A subfield of semantics focusing on the meaning of words and the relationships between them, including how word meanings combine in phrases and sentences.

Word: The smallest linguistic unit that can be used independently to convey meaning, typically consisting of one or more morphemes and functioning as a principal carrier of meaning in a language. It is a distinct entity, recognized by its structure, function, and usage within a linguistic system, though its exact definition varies based on the approach: (orthographic/phonological/semantic/grammatical)

A domain refers to a conceptual space or knowledge area related to a word’s meaning.

A frame is a structured mental representation of related concepts or experiences. Frames provide context that helps us understand language.

Example: For the word restaurant, the frame includes concepts like menus, waiters, tables, ordering food, and paying bills.

Frames and domains help us interpret meaning beyond individual words by providing context.

They are crucial for understanding polysemy (words with multiple meanings) and metaphors.

Categorization – the action or process of placing into classes or groups.Paradigmatic relations – relations between a word or expression and other words or expressions which can occupy that place in a sentence or proposition.Prototypes – a cognitive reference point, the proto-image of all representatives of the meaning of a word or of a category. Syntagmatic relations – relations between a word and others that precede and follow it in the linear order of the sentence or proposition. Encyclopedic knowledge – a model for the system of conceptual knowledge on which linguistic meaning is based. Mental lexicon – a mental dictionary that contains information regarding a word, such as its meaning, pronunciation, and syntactic characteristics. Metonymy – figure of speech in which the name of an object or concept is replaced with a word closely related to or suggested by the original. Example: as “crown” to mean “king” = The power of the crown was mortally weakened. Corpora – is a collection of linguistic material that can be searched, usually using specialized computer software. Conceptual metaphor – is a metaphor or figurative comparison in which one idea or conceptual domain is understood in terms of another. Frames – any knowledge structure that is relevant to the characterization of a certain meaning.

LEXICAL SEMANTICS RELATIONSHIP: 1)Wors that share the same form but means different things (homonyms/polysemes) 2)Words that evoke similar meanings but have different forms (synonyms: good/ bad// hyponyms animal/ cat) 3) Words that have different forms/meanings and are semantically related through opposition (antonym). 1) 2 types of contextual variants: Arbitrary: referred to homonyms: are unrelated and just happen to sound and look the same in contemporary speech. Motivated: referred to polysemes: evoke meaning which are related through some kind of resemblance, metaphorization or contigent conceptual associations.

Theories of Lexical Semantics:

Historical-Philological: Focuses on the historical development and changes in word meanings over time, emphasizing the etymology and evolution of words.

Structuralist: Analyzes the relationships between words within a language system, viewing meaning as derived from the differences and oppositions between words.

Cognitive: Studies how word meanings are represented and processed in the human mind, emphasizing the connection between linguistic knowledge and general cognitive abilities.

3. Importance of Studying Language (Linguistics):

Lorena Pérez’s article “El poder invisible del lenguaje” discusses the profound impact language has on our perception of reality and social interactions. Key points include:

Shaping Thought: Language influences how we categorize and interpret the world around us.

Identity Formation: Names and linguistic expressions contribute to individual and group identities.

Social Interaction: Language facilitates communication, allowing for the expression of ideas, emotions, and intentions.

Cultural Transmission: Through language, cultural knowledge, values, and traditions are passed down generations.

Cognitive Development: Linguistic abilities are closely linked to cognitive processes, affecting learning and problem-solving skills

4. Main issues in lexical semantics:

Polysemy: How a single word can have multiple related meanings.

Homonymy: How different words can have the same form but unrelated meanings.

Synonymy: The existence of different words with similar meanings.

Antonymy: The relationship between words with opposite meanings.

Hyponymy and Hypernymy: The hierarchical relationships between more specific and more general terms.

Metaphor and Metonymy: How meanings can be extended through figurative language.

Prototype Theory: How certain members of a category are more central than others.

Frame Semantics: How word meanings are understood in relation to structured background knowledge.

5.Relativity and Universalist Approaches

Relativity Approach

The relativity approach argues that language shapes how people perceive and experience the world.

It is linked to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (Linguistic Relativity), which claims that the structure of a language affects its speakers’ cognition and worldview.

Example: Languages with no past tense might lead speakers to view time differently than languages with explicit tense markers.

Universalist Approach

The universalist perspective states that all humans share the same cognitive structures, and any differences in language are superficial.

According to this approach, meaning arises from shared human experiences and is not dictated solely by language. All people in the world basically think the same way, from a common set of universal concepts •But, each language chooses its own set: • ‘simple ideas’ (Pascal, Descartes, Arnauld, Leibniz) • ‘semantic primes’, ‘atoms . are basic, universal concepts that are present in all human languages. They represent the simplest building blocks of meaning that cannot be broken down further into smaller components. 

example: The universal concept of “mother” exists across languages even if expressed with different words or nuances.

Which one do you support? Why?

This answer depends on your perspective. For instance: If you agree that culture and language significantly influence perception, you might support the relativity approach.If you believe that fundamental human experiences are universal regardless of language, you might lean toward the universalist approach.

 6.Culture-Specific Words and Scripts 

Culture-Specific Words: These are words that carry meanings tied to specific cultural practices or experiences, which may lack direct translation in other languages.Examples:Saudade (Portuguese): A deep emotional state of nostalgic longing for something or someone.Hygge (Danish): The feeling of coziness and contentment in simple pleasures.

Culture-Specific Scripts: These refer to cultural norms and expectations about how people should behave or communicate in particular contexts.Examples:Japanese keigo (formal speech) reflects hierarchical relationships.Arabic scripts for greetings include inquiring about someone’s family, reflecting hospitality norms.

7. Category:Part of the meaning of a word is identified with its denotation, that is, the class of things it refers back to, or a category. It is the result of grouping together the similarities and differences we notice when we interact with entities of the world.  We can ascribe any characteristic typical of the TYPE (the category) to the TOKEN (the concrete exemplar). Categories are not clear-cut because entities are inherently multifaceted. Each categorization foregrounds some aspects while backgrounds some others. Depending on our purpose, some characteristics of the item may be more or less important for their categorization.

Categorization: The Classical View Since Aristotle, categories were seen as ‘containers’ where you can put things ‘in’ or ‘out’. Example: Table – Non-table → True/False Binary understanding of “categories”: Rule – in order to be in that container, something needs to have certain features (or ‘checks’). If it does not, it falls out of the container (category). Example: A bachelor is somebody who. Facts that were assumed when “categorizing categories” in the classical view: – There is a fixed set of necessary and sufficient conditions defining the membership to each category. – All members of a category have equal status. – All non-members of a category have equal status. – All necessary and sufficient features defining a category have equal status. – Categories have clear and well defined boundaries.

Categorization: The Cognitive View This clear-cut intuitive view was soon called into question by philosophers, sociolinguistics and psychologists, such as Wittgenstein. Overlapping similarities → “family resemblances” William Labov experiments on the categorization of two similar and contiguous categories: CUPS and MUGS. Berlin and Kay: experiments on color categories: – They studied the names of colors and their categorization in 98 languages. They concluded that we rely on 11 focal colors or basic color terms, and that there is a natural progression in the presence of colors in languages, depending on how many terms for colors there are. – There is agreement on focal colors among different speakers and across languages. For example: a “good” or typical red, or a “good” or typical yellow. Cognitive approach, on the other hand, accepts the fact that natural categories tend to be fuzzy at their boundaries and inconsistent in the status of their constituent members. Category members do not all share the same features (attributes) but maybe linked by family resemblances. There are categories in which some members are better examples of the category than others. There are categories in which the boundaries of membership are not clear-cut.

Prototype Theory: Eleanor Rosch Another scholar, Eleanor Rosch showed that we do not necessarily classify things into categories by checking whether they strictly follow the list of criteria. She carried out several experiments to test the “exemplarity” or the “goodness” of items within the same category.Rosch’s experiments and findings and findings: – Focal colors are more salient than non-focal, in particular those on the left of Berlin and Kay’s hierarchy: black and white. – Focal colors are remembered more easily and produced more rapidly: black vs scarlet. – Children learning a language were more attentive to focal colors than to non-focal colors.

Existing interpretations of prototype – It is the most prominent (central) representative of a category. – Set of typical properties (do not confuse with necessary and sufficient conditions) of a category. – Family resemblance: certain feature has to be shared by at least two members of the category (not all of them): AB-BC-CD…

Prototype effect Order of mention – when subjects are asked to list the members of a category the order of listing correlates with GOE (goodness of exemplar) ratings. The prototypical member normally appears early in the list. Overall frequency – the frequency of mention also correlates with GOE score. Order of acquisition – prototypical members of categories tend to be acquired first, the order of acquisition correlates with GOE rating. Vocabulary learning – children at later stages of language acquisition learn new words more readily if they are provided with definitions that focus on prototypical instantiations than if they are given an abstract definition that more accurately reflects the total range of the words’ meaning. Speed of verification – in psycholinguistic experiments in which subjects are required to respond as quickly as possible to a categorization task, they produce faster responses if the task involves a prototypical member. Priming – the presentation of a category name has the greatest speeding up effect on the prototype of a category, and the effect is proportionately less as we move away from the center of the category.

Frames and Gestalt’s psychology Words get their meaning by activating one of the frames, and then focusing on some part of it. This is what happens in figure/ground perception (whenever we perceive something, we impose this figure/ground organization). This is what happens with our stored categories and activation of one schema/frame or another, each time we use a word, certain parts of this information are activated, depending on context. Example: Which domains can the concept ‘piano’ belong to?

Ad-hoc categories Finally, another useful distinction given by Barsalou is that of ad-hoc categories: – They are not well established in long-term memory (as conventional ones). – They are created on-line for a specific purpose (‘goal directed categories’). – They tend to hold members that would have little in common. – Examples: · Ways to escape being killed by the mafia. · Things to put in a suitcase for a one-week stay at the beach. · Things that you would take out of your house in case of fire.

iconicity: quantity principle: formal complexity corresponds to conceptual complexity, more sound = more meaning: English ladder> ladders, Hopi saaqua> saa-saqa, Malay pohon‘tree’> pohonpohon‘wood’ • uninformative information is reducedand important contents increased: The man drank and then the man fell asleep There wouldn’t I suppose be any chance of you being able to pass me the water for just a second, would there? (politeness, euphemism, language manipulation, etc..) 

iconicity:proximity principle: conceptual distance or proximity tends to match with linguistic distance 

 semantic categories: encyclopaedic (cultural domain, frame, schema…): provide background knowledge against which lexical concepts are understood and used • access points to vast repositories of shared and individual knowledge (universes) related to a particular concept 

Metaphor VS Simile A metaphor establishes a comparison by using the formula A is B, explicitly (John is a pig / You are my sunshine) or implicitly (A sea of troubles). Metaphor = A is B. A simile

How is it organised the ML: The fact that a speaker can mentally find the word that he/she wants in less than 200 milliseconds, and in certain cases, even before it is heard, is proof that the mental lexicon is ordered in such a way as to facilitate access and retrieval .“ The large number of words known by humans, and the speed with which they can be located, point to the existence of a highly organized mental lexicon

NEIGHBOUR EFFECT: ‘Slip of the Tongue’: a speech error, commonly referred to as a slip of the tongue, is a deviation from the apparently intended form of an utterance.