DOCSLIB.ORG

Against Universal:Semantic

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Against Universal:Semantic DOCUBENT RESUME ED 140 617 FL 006 596 AUTHOR Rogers, Andy, Rd.; And Others TITLE Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions and Implicatures. INSTITUTION _Center for Applied Linguistics, Arlington, . PUB EATE 77 NOTE 183p.; Some .parts may be marginallylegib4 d small print of the original document AVAILABLE FROM Center for Applied LinguisticS, 1611 N.Kehi'S Arlington, Virginia 22209 ($9.95) EDRS PRICE ME-$0.83 HC-$10.03.Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS English; Generative Grammar; *Language; Language Classification; *Language,Usage; Lexicography; *Linguistic Theory; *Pragmatics; Semantics; Synta Verbs --aDENTIFIERS Generative Semantics; Illocutionary Act; Implicatures; Performatives (Language); Presupposition .,. ABSTRACT The ten papers inthlisvolume are largely revisions , of papers presented at the Texasconference, held march 22-24, 1973. The firt paper, "Against Universal:SemanticRepresentation,u bY Gilber,i Harman, argues against theneed for (and the possibiliti of) a'level of semantic representation in atheorY of languave. "ReMarks on the Lexicography ofPerfOrmative Verbs," by Japes Df..McCrawley, is primarily conCerned with a characterization ofpeiformativity. it4 ClassifiCaticn of Illocutionary Acts," by John R.Searle, .Seis 4 a '(' classificat4cn scheme in terms of illocutionaryacts, rather than illocutionalry verbs. The next two papers, "Where to DoThings 'with rWords," by 'John Robert Ross,.and "ASpects ofLinguistic.Pragmatics," by Jerrold ik.Sadock, concern themselves with the questionof'how to treat -cases in which what a sentence mightbe said to mean is not what the speaker might be said to .havemeant. "What You Can Do with Words: Politeness, Pragmatics andPerformatives,".by Robin Lakoff, ,xp/Ores politeness in language. "Pragmatit'sin Natural Logic," by eorge Lakoff, \shows how three pragmatic conerns(indexical elements, rformatives and implicatures) can be incorporatedinto a generative mantics tteory\ The final three papers'dealwith the.'problems of prsupposition: f,..Pragmatic Presuppositions," by-RobertStalnaker;' .. ci esupposition and Linguistic Context," by Lauri Karttunen;and "Where Pragmatics pits In," by Richard H.Thomason. Suggestions for fur her reading-are appended. (Author/RM) *************************************'**4***************************** DocUments acquired by ERIC include manyinforial unpdblished maerials pot available from'other sources. ERIC makes everyeffort * to btain the best .dopy available.' Nevertheless,items of marginal repoducibility are Often encountered and thisaffects the quality of the microfiche anc/.hardcopy reproductions ERICmakes available via he EBIC.Eocument 'Reproduction Service(EDRS) .EDRS is not. ,* respnsible for the quality of 'the original document:Reproductions * suppl"ed- by EDRS'are the best-that can be madeirom the original. ********************************************************************** PiOCEEDINGSOF THE TEXAS CONFER CE ONPERFORMATIVES, PRESUPPUSITINS, ANDIMPLICATURES OF HEALTH. U SDEPARTMENTWELFARE EDUCATIONINSTITUTE OF NATIONAL r-f EDUCATION REPRO- HAS BEEN REF,EiVE0 FROM THISDOCUMENTEXACTLY AS ORIGIN- DUCED ORGANIZAT,ON PERSDN OR VIEW OROPINIONS tHE POINTS OF REPRE- ATiNG IT NECESSARILYiNST/TOTE OF STATED DONOT NATIONALPOL ICY SENT OFFICIALPOSITION OR EDUCATION Edited by ANDY ROGE SI BOB WALL, ND JOHN P. MU\ PHY f) f CENTER FOR APPLIED LI GUISTICS COPYRIGH ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS "A.Classification of Illocutionary Acts," by John R. Searle, CoPyright 0 1973 by John R. Searle. Reprinted with his permiss:.on. "Where to DO Things with Words," by John Robert Poss. Copyright 0 1975 .by John Robert Ross. Reprinted with his permission from Peter Cole and Jerry I. Morgan, eds., Syntax and Semant!cs: Speech Acts. New York: Academic. Press, 1975. "Pragmat i.g.S.jri Natural Logic," by George Lakof. Copyright (..) 1973 by George Lakoff. Reprinted with his pet-Mission from E. Keenan, ed,, formal Semantics of Natural Languages. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1975. "Pragmatic Presuppositions," by Robert C..Stalnaker. Copyright 0 by Nem York University Press. Reprinted by permissionof New York University Press and Milton K. Munitz,from Milton K. Munitz -and Peter K. Ung.er, eds., Semantics and Philosophy. New York: New York University Press, 1974 "Presupposition and Linguistic. Context," by Lauri Karttunen. Copyright. 0 1974 by Walter de Gruyter and Company. Reprinted by thelr permis- sicin and by permission of,Kauri.Karttunen from Theoretical Linguistics' 1(1/2), 1974. June 1977. Copyright 0 1977 by the Center for Applied Linguistics 1611 North Kent Street Arlington, Virginia 22209 ISBN: 87281-063-1 : Library of Congress ,Catalog Card Number:_ 77-79322 Printed in the United States of America :3 Note of Appreciation This volume.. originates from a Conference on erformancev, Conversational Implicature,and Presuppositions, held MarfR/i 22-24, 1973 at the University of Texas at Austin. The conference was ponsored by the university'3 .College of Humanities, College of Soc 1 and Behavioral Sciences, and Comparative S71,dies Frogram; thc Celer foT Applied Linguistics; and tbe American Council of Learned.Sucie les. The organizers of the conference gratefully acknowledge the supp rt of these sponsors and would also like to express their appreciation o the Many people who helped make the cotn- ference possible, includin, /oug Browning, Bob Harms, and Rea'Keast, at:.: the time chairmen, respec ively, of the Philosophy, Lingiiistics, and English Departments; Ja 's McKie, Dean-of the College '.Social'and Behavioral Sciences; S anley N, Werbow, .Dean Of- the ColZege of Humanities; Elspeth Riistow,'Chairman.of the Comparative Studies Program; and especially Jim Kaufman, Associate Dean of the College of Humanitios, and Rudolph C. Troike, Director of the Center for Applied Lin!viistics, both of whose . assistance, support, and encouragement were instrumental -in bringing about ' the Conference. We.would also like to expreSS our appreciation to Emmen Bach and Stan Peters, without whose help and advice we would have, bad no idea of how to put together another in.the series of Texas conferences in linguistics. Finally., we wish to express our special appreciation to Marc) Taylor of the Publications Department of the Center. for Applied L,ngiiistics for her careful and painstaking help in the copy-editing of this volume.anc, in its final preparation for puhlic:ition:Her.patient and cheerful .help made our task much easier. Andy Rogers Bob Wall John.P. Murphy' iii Table of Contents to*" Note of Appreciation iii Introduction' vil Against Uniersal Semantic Representation, by Gilbert Harman 1. Remarks on the Lexicoaraphy of'Performative Verbsi by James P McCawley 4 -13 A Classification af Illocutionaru Acts, by John R. Searle 27 Where to'Do Things with Words, *by John Robert Ross 47 Aspects of Linguistic Pragmatic-,, by Jerrold M. Sadock 67 What You Can Do w:th ;o1itencss, Pr.2gmaticzi, and Performati'ves, 'by Robin Lakoff 79 Pragmatics in Natural Logic; by George Lakoff 07 Pragmatic PresupPosit2ons, by Robert Stalnaker .115 Presupposition .and Linguistic Contex't, by Lauri Karttunen 149 'Where Pragmatics Pitsrr,by Richmond H. Thomason 161 Suggestions.for Further Weading 167 V Introduction The papers in this.volume are largely revisions' of\Iapers presented at the Texas confernce. Altlylugh,.thenference was.oa the announced topics of performatives, conversat'ional implicatare, and presUp'position, as might have been expected the subjects dealt,with were more diVerse, including as wiill the question of universal semantCh representation, politeness in Ian-. guage, and indexicals. In spite of.the apparent diversity of questions raised and discussed, one generalization. emerged from the bulk of the papers nd discussion: that the study of pragmatics is essential to anycomplete and adequate theory of natural language. In the opening paper, "Against Universal Semantic Representation," Gilbert Harman-pr..)ses a theory of language which, while itis 4ntended to account for most fthe language phenomena which most semantlically-orinted contemporary linguists and.philosopehrS have argued must he (accounted for in a theory of language (such as implication; meaning relation among predicates, presuppositions, implicature, speech act'phenomena, and synyix.) differs significantly in several respects from current theories. \ First,. Harman's theory of language includest,that he calls a theory'of conceptual role. Harman claims that the meaning of a linguistic expression : depends in part on its rolt in a conceptual scheme; that, for example, the expression chemical substance does not mean the.sameithing to a modern chemist that it does to a'medieval alchemist, in part becuse_the-chemist and the alchemist have different concepts of chemistry. HarMan proposes that a theory of language should include a theory.of conceptual role to account for such facts, including the.connectionsbetWeen language and other language, language and observation, language and behavior, and Other similar phenomena. The connections between language and other language arc pa be described by im- plications-aMong expressions in the language which, !in Harman's system, arc cha-acterized by the interaction of grammar-asslgned logical formo.the logic, and the axioms of the language. -Under.the heading of the connections between language and observation, a theory-Of concoptual role should account for facts like a speaker's ability to apply-fh.g word red to perceived red objectS, which,"HarMan claims, is part, of the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Anaphoric Reference to Propositions
    ANAPHORIC REFERENCE TO PROPOSITIONS A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Todd Nathaniel Snider December 2017 c 2017 Todd Nathaniel Snider ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ANAPHORIC REFERENCE TO PROPOSITIONS Todd Nathaniel Snider, Ph.D. Cornell University 2017 Just as pronouns like she and he make anaphoric reference to individuals, English words like that and so can be used to refer anaphorically to a proposition introduced in a discourse: That’s true; She told me so. Much has been written about individual anaphora, but less attention has been paid to propositional anaphora. This dissertation is a com- prehensive examination of propositional anaphora, which I argue behaves like anaphora in other domains, is conditioned by semantic factors, and is not conditioned by purely syntactic factors nor by the at-issue status of a proposition. I begin by introducing the concepts of anaphora and propositions, and then I discuss the various words of English which can have this function: this, that, it, which, so, as, and the null complement anaphor. I then compare anaphora to propositions with anaphora in other domains, including individual, temporal, and modal anaphora. I show that the same features which are characteristic of these other domains are exhibited by proposi- tional anaphora as well. I then present data on a wide variety of syntactic constructions—including sub- clausal, monoclausal, multiclausal, and multisentential constructions—noting which li- cense anaphoric reference to propositions. On the basis of this expanded empirical do- main, I argue that anaphoric reference to a proposition is licensed not by any syntactic category or movement but rather by the operators which take propositions as arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • Sentential Negation and Negative Concord
    Sentential Negation and Negative Concord Published by LOT phone: +31.30.2536006 Trans 10 fax: +31.30.2536000 3512 JK Utrecht email: [email protected] The Netherlands http://wwwlot.let.uu.nl/ Cover illustration: Kasimir Malevitch: Black Square. State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia. ISBN 90-76864-68-3 NUR 632 Copyright © 2004 by Hedde Zeijlstra. All rights reserved. Sentential Negation and Negative Concord ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus Prof. Mr P.F. van der Heijden ten overstaan van een door het College voor Promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Aula der Universiteit op woensdag 15 december 2004, te 10:00 uur door HEDZER HUGO ZEIJLSTRA geboren te Rotterdam Promotiecommissie: Promotores: Prof. Dr H.J. Bennis Prof. Dr J.A.G. Groenendijk Copromotor: Dr J.B. den Besten Leden: Dr L.C.J. Barbiers (Meertens Instituut, Amsterdam) Dr P.J.E. Dekker Prof. Dr A.C.J. Hulk Prof. Dr A. von Stechow (Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen) Prof. Dr F.P. Weerman Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen Voor Petra Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................V 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................1 1.1 FOUR ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF NEGATION.......................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from Brill.Com09/28/2021 06:09:44PM Via Free Access 142 Bağrıaçık
    Journal of Greek Linguistics 17 (2017) 141–189 brill.com/jgl Representing discourse in clausal syntax The ki particle in Pharasiot Greek Metin Bağrıaçık* Ghent University [email protected] Abstract In Pharasiot Greek, an Asia Minor Greek dialect, a certain particle copied from Turkish, ki, is employed in a number of seemingly unrelated constructions. Close scrutiny, however, reveals that in each of these constructions, ki is employed as a device geared to influencing the interlocutor’s epistemic vigilance. Based on the Cartographic Approach which defends the syntactization of the interpretive domains, I propose that this unique semantics of ki should be represented in the clause structure. Following recent work which advocates the existence of a pragmatic field—Speech Act Phrase (sap) in particular—above the cp-layer, where discourse and pragmatic roles are mapped onto syntax, I propose that ki is the overt exponent of sa0 and is further endowed with a [+sentience] feature indexing the speaker as the sentient mind. The apparent differences between various construction types which involve ki—hence, in which sap projects—then reduce to whether the [+sentience] feature on sa0 is checked by an internally or externally merging category in Spec, sap. * I would like to thank Jan Casalicchio, Guglielmo Cinque, Federica Cognola, Lieven Danckaert, Liliane Haegeman, Aslı Göksel, Mark Janse, Io Manolessou, Anna Roussou, Ioanna Sitari- dou, the members of gist—Generative Initiatives in SyntacticTheory—and two anonymous reviewers for their various comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper. My deep- est gratitude is to Andreas Konstantinidis, his family and to Konstantinos Kalaitzidis for their hospitality, and to my informants who helped with the data with greater enthusiasm than mine: Despoina K.†, Kathina P., Anastasia I., Eirini P., Evlambia Ch., Georgios S., Georgios K., Leftheris K., Maria S., Nikos T., Prodromos K., Sophia K.†, Theodorakis K., Miranda M., and Maria A.
    [Show full text]
  • Meanings of Determiners Heading Non-Topic Dps to the Meanings of the Corresponding Topics
    Acknowledgements First of all, I would like to thank my teachers and supervisors Manfred Bierwisch and Reinhard Blutner. Without their sympathetic help in a personally very difficult situation, I would have been unable even to start writing this dissertation. Besides this, they patiently supported me with their advice and experience in every stage of my work. The people that inspired me with discussions and comments are so numerous that there is no hope to mention all of them. Among them are Kai Alter, Daniel Büring, Johannes Dölling, Bernhard Drubig, Hans Martin Gärtner, Edward Göbbel, Michael Herweg, Caroline Heycock, Helen de Hoop, Inga Kohlhof, Manfred Krifka, Annette Lessmöllmann, Christine Maaßen, André Meinunger, Marga Reis, Michal Starke, Markus Steinbach, Wolfgang Sternefeld, Anatoli Strigin, Hubert Truckenbrodt, Enric Vallduví, Ralf Vogel, Chris Wilder, Susanne Winkler, Werner Wolff, Henk Zeevat, and Ede Zimmermann. I am indebted to the "Max-Planck-Gesellschaft" for its financial support. Special thanks go to Elena Demke, Annette Lessmöllmann, Anatoli Strigin, and Chris Wilder for correcting my English. All remaining mistakes are of course subject to my own responsibility. Last but not least, I thank my parents and my brother for everything. Table of Contents 1 Introduction . 1 2 The Dynamic Framework . 5 2.1 Donkey Sentences and Cross-sentential Anaphora . 5 2.2 Montague Semantics and File Change Semantics: A Comparison . 7 2.2.1 Montague Semantics: The General Picture . 7 2.2.2 File Change Semantics: An Overview . 11 2.2.2.1 The Strategy . 11 2.2.2.2 Files . 13 2.2.2.3 LF-Construal . 13 2.2.2.4 The Interpretation of LF .
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 5. Formal Semantics and the Lexicon. Meaning Postulates And
    Topics in Formal Semantics, Lecture 5 Topics in Formal Semantics, Lecture 5 B.H. Partee, MGU, March 22, 2005 B.H. Partee, MGU, March 22, 2005 Lecture 5. Formal semantics and the lexicon. Ideally, this abstraction should mirror a “real” abstraction which our “language faculty” Meaning postulates and the lexicon. Adjective meanings. imposes on the real world, “natural language metaphysics” or “naïve picture of the world” (naivnaja kartina mira in the terminology of Moscow semantic school). We will discuss this later when considering the integration of formal and lexical semantics. 1. The Lexicon in Model-theoretic Semantics. .................................................................................................1 1.1. Languages, world, models. Axioms.............................................................................................................1 In Montague’s formal semantics the simple predicates of the language of intensional 1.2. Axioms and theories. ..................................................................................................................................2 logic (IL), like love, like, kiss, see, etc., are regarded as symbols (similar to the “labels” of 2. Integrating formal semantics, lexical semantics, natural language metaphysics ...............................................4 PC) which could have many possible interpretations in many different models, their “real 2.1. Formal semantics in the broader setting of natural language use. ...............................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Semantic and Metasemantic Notions of Analyticity
    Asian Social Science; Vol. 10, No. 22; 2014 ISSN 1911-2017 E-ISSN 1911-2025 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Semantic and Metasemantic Notions of Analyticity Artur Ravilevich Karimov1 & Valentina Alexandrovna Kazakova2 1 Kazan Federal University, Russian Federation 2 Kazan State University of Architecture and Engineering, Russian Federation Correspondence: Artur Ravilevich Karimov, Kazan Federal University, 420008, Kremlevskaya 18, Kazan, Russian Federation. E-mail: [email protected] Received: August 1, 2014 Accepted: August 18, 2014 Online Published: October 30, 2014 doi:10.5539/ass.v10n22p285 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n22p285 Abstract In this article the evolution of main conceptions of analyticity is analyzed. Kant’s criteria for analytic/synthetic distinction are discussed. Frege and Carnap notions of analyticity are set out. It is shown that Frege and Carnap shifted the criteria of analyticity to the justificatory status of judgments. The notion of truth in virtue of meaning and its criticism is exposed. Critical arguments against analyticity by W. V. O. Quine are discussed. Williamson’s arguments against traditional notions of analyticity are formulated. Williamson maintains that analytic truths are reduced to truths of other base classes-necessary, semantic or logical. It is shown that the stipulative definition of analyticity is vulnerable to Williamson’s argument. Russell’s conception of truth in virtue of reference determiner is exposed and evaluated. It is defended that the notion of truth in virtue of reference determiner is immune to many standard objections against analyticity. Keywords: analyticity, meaning, stipulation, reference 1. Introduction Analyticity is one the most controversial concepts in the history of analytic philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UCLA UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Heterogeneity and uniformity in the evidential domain Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/40m5f2f1 Author Korotkova, Natalia Publication Date 2016 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITYOF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Heterogeneity and uniformity in the evidential domain A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics by Natalia Korotkova 2016 © Copyright by Natalia Korotkova 2016 ABSTRACTOFTHE DISSERTATION Heterogeneity and uniformity in the evidential domain by Natalia Korotkova Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Los Angeles, 2016 Professor Dominique L. Sportiche, Co-chair Professor Yael Sharvit, Co-chair The dissertation is devoted to the formal mechanisms that govern the use of evidentials, expressions of natural language that denote the source of information for the proposition conveyed by a sentence. Specifically, I am concerned with putative cases of semantic variation in evidentiality and with its previously unnoticed semantic uniformity. An ongoing debate in this area concerns the relation between evidentiality and epistemic modality. According to one line of research, all evidentials are garden variety epistemic modals. According to another, evidentials across languages fall into two semantic classes: (i) modal evidentials; and (ii) illocutionary evidentials, which deal with the structure of speech acts. The dissertation provides a long-overdue discussion of analytical options proposed for evidentials, and shows that the debate is lacking formally-explicit tools that would differenti- ate between the two classes. Current theories, even though motivated by superficially different data, make in fact very similar predictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Interrogative Slifting in English
    Interrogative Slifting in English a, b c c William Haddican ∗,AndersHolmberg,HidekazuTanaka, George Tsoulas aDepartment of Linguistics and Communication Disorders, Queens College, CUNY, 65-30 Kissena Blvd. Queens, NY 11367-1597 USA bSchool of English Literature, Language and Linguistics Percy Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK cDepartment of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK Abstract This paper analyzes English “wh-slifting” sentences (for example, How old is she do you think). We argue that these sentences are not scope-marking constructions nor are they derived by simple clausal pied piping as an alternative to wh-extraction. We show that such sentences are akin to declarative slifting sentences, but more restricted than the latter particularly in the kinds of evidential predicates they co- occur with. We argue that the slifted question is not first merged as the complement of the main clause, but that the relationship between the two clauses is mediated by an by an evidential morpheme, which takes the do you think-clause as its speci- fier. This analysis, which explains several properties of wh-slifting that distinguish it from scope-marking constructions and Basque-type clausal pied-piping, partially rec- onciles wh-slifting questions with paratactic approaches to quotative constructions. Keywords: slifting, wh-movement, embedded root phenomena, pied-piping, scope marking, parenthetical, evidential 1. Introduction This paper presents an analysis of sentences like (1) and (2), discussed parenthet- ically in several sources, but not analysedextensivelyinanypublishedworkasfar as we are aware (Ross, 1973; Kayne, 1998; Lahiri, 2002; Reis, 2002; Horvath, 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • The Syntax and Semantics of As-Parentheticals
    CHRISTOPHER POTTS THE SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF AS-PARENTHETICALS ABSTRACT. This paper is a detailed investigation of the syntax and semantics of a single type of cross-linguistically common parenthetical expression, here dubbed As- parentheticals (e.g., Ames, as you know, was a spy). I show that a treatment of such clauses as adverbial modifiers combines with a motivated semantic analysis to account for a wide range of ambiguities concerning negation in particular, but also tense, modal, and adverbial operators. I provide a principled explanation for the impossibility of variable binding into, and extraction from, As-parentheticals, and argue that this construction yields novel support for the view (of Ladusaw 1992, and others) that negative DPs like no one are actually non-negated indefinites licensed by an abstract, clause-level negation. Overall, the analysis shows that parentheticals, in addition to being a rich source of puzzles in their own right, provide a useful probe into clause structure in general. 1. INTRODUCTION Parentheticals, ubiquitous though they be, and absolutely vital to com- munication at all registers, have been sorely neglected by linguists, both traditional and modern. There are exceptions, among them Ross’s (1973) work on what he dubbed slifting, Emonds’s (1976, §2.9) general investig- ation, Culicover’s (1980, 1992), Stowell’s (1987), and Lapointe’s (1991) work on the internal syntax of such clauses, and McCawley’s (1982, 1987, 1989) attempts to tackle the issue of how such constituents should be rep- resented, but little is currently known about the syntax and semantics of this class of constructions.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Approaches of Word Sentence Meaning in Translation of English Slang Word Into Indonesian in the Novel “The Adventure of Oliver Twist”
    THREE APPROACHES OF WORD SENTENCE MEANING IN TRANSLATION OF ENGLISH SLANG WORD INTO INDONESIAN IN THE NOVEL “THE ADVENTURE OF OLIVER TWIST” Ni Putu Wintia Sunny Kumara Sakti Villa Jln. Suweta Banjar Sambahan Ubud Phone: +62 361 437806 , Celular Phone: +62 89685689099 [email protected] ABSRACT The slang expression means coming to democratic atmosphere in language since the meaning embodied is not absolute. It depends upon who uses it, in which group the users belong to, and in what situation slang word occur. Having knowledge of slang, it means the user is bilingual, or even multilingual. The question emerged is how the user of slang employ slang in their daily communication. Their choice of certain slang replacing the standard may have a certain purposes. Therefore, it is really difficult to translate it in Indonesian. How to transfer the meaning of slang that contains senses about culture, habit, and identity of specific group of people is a complex undertaking. The form of English slang used in the novel "The Adventure of Oliver Twist” by Charles Dickens is generally in the form of primary slang. There were sixteen primary slang words uttered by the character in the novel. However, there was only four secondary slang words found in the novel. So the primary slang more common used by the character in novel. There are three approaches that can be used to find the conceptual meaning of word in the process of translation. There are reference theory, componential analysis, and meaning postulate. Keywords: slang word, reference theory, componential analysis, meaning postulate. ABSTRAK Kata Slang merupakan expresi demokratis dalam bahasa yang menganduk makna tidak mutlak.
    [Show full text]
  • Problems in the Representation of the Logical Form of Generics, Plurals, and Mass Nouns
    12 Problems in the Representation of the Logical Form of Generics, Plurals, and Mass Nouns LENHART K. SCHUBERT FRANCIS JEFFRY PELLETIER Department of Computing Science University of Alberta INTRODUCTION We wish to discuss some problems involved in representing the 'logical form' of sentences whose subjects are generics, (bare) plurals and mass terms. We shall not here have much to say about the syntax of such sentences, except occasionally to refer to such (arguably) syntactic features as [ ±stative]. We shall also not get embroiled in such issues as exactly what information should be counted as part of the 'logical form' of a sentence in general. We will, for example, remain agnostic on the question of the proper place for (Montague-style) meaning postulates, the proper place for Quantifier Raising, and the proper place for the representation of certain ambiguities involving quantifiers and other logical operations. Instead, om concern is with the final representation of certain natural language sentences, a represe11tation which is immediately correlated with the truth conditions of the original sentence. We take this to be more-or-less first­ order quantification theory augmented with certain operators, but feel free to bring in Montagovian intensional logic, expecial!y when discussing those 385 NEW DIREcnONS IN SEMANTICS Copyright© 1987. by Academic Press Inc. (London) Ltd. A I! ..;~1.•~ ~f ••~•...,.1.,.-.;~n ;" ~nv fn~ ••~•~, • .-1 386 L. K. Schubert and F. J~ Pelletier theorists who make it central in their account. To give a feel for what level our concerns lie at, consider (1) (a) Whales are mammals Now, there are many 'levels of representation' that different theorists have proposed for such a sentence.
    [Show full text]
  • Pseudo Wh-Copying As Wh-Slifting Introduction German Is Well-Known for Possessing Wh-Copying, Cf
    Andreas Pankau FU Berlin [email protected] Pseudo wh-copying as wh-slifting Introduction German is well-known for possessing wh-copying, cf. (1). (1) Wo glaubst du, wo Peter jetzt wohnt? where believe you where Peter now lives ‘Where do you think Peter now lives?’ In wh-copying, the target SpecCP-position contains the moved wh-phrase and the intermediate SpecCP- positions contain overtly realized “copies” of it; hence the name. There exists a variant of (1) where the finite verb of the embedded clause appears in second instead of its typical clause-final position, cf. (2). (2) Wo glaubst du, wo wohnt Peter jetzt? I will call this type pseudo wh-copying. The few sources mentioning it treat it as structurally similar to wh- copying (Reis 2000: 395). The aim of this talk is to show that pseudo wh-copying differs drastically from wh-copying. I will present a number of differences between the two types, argue on the basis of these for an analysis of pseudo wh-copying in terms of wh-slifting, and discuss some predictions of the analysis. Differences There are five differences between pseudo wh-copying and wh-copying. First, they differ prosodically. In wh-copying, the initial wh-phrase can bear stress and there can be a rise at the end of the sentence. In pseudo wh-copying, there is necessarily stress on both wh-phrases and a rise after each clause. (3) WO glaubst du ↑ WO wohnt er jetzt? ↑ Second, they differ pragmatically. In a context where one discusses that Peter constantly moves, one can use (1) but not (2).
    [Show full text]