2 - The Meaning Within The Sentences - Sentence Semantics

03/05/2023, 10:17 The meaning within the sentences: Sentence Semantics
The meaning within the sentences: Sentence Semantics

Professor Diego Candido Abreu
Description
Theoretical overview of the area of Sentence Semantics and its main concepts, with a focus on the notions
of paraphrase, scope relations, ambiguity and figurative language.
Purpose
Understanding different types of relationships among words and phrases within the sentence level, as well
as the rules that govern the linking of those elements, is key for the student to be able to convey his/her
ideas in a coherent and economical way. Understanding the underlying semantic processes that make the
production of sentences possible will aid learners on their way to proficiency.
Preparation
Before starting this Unit, make sure you have a good dictionary at hand. Among other great options, we
recommend both Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries.
https://stecine.azureedge.net/repositorio/00212hu/04588/index.html# 1/36
Goals
Section 1
Semantic phenomena: paraphrase and ambiguity

To identify semantic phenomena such as paraphrase and ambiguity and their roles in hindering or aiding
communication.
Section 2
Semantic conflicts: scope relations and figurative language

To recognize the roles of scope relations and figurative language in meaning-making processes.
meeting_room
Warm up
(1)
I woke up on that day at six o’clock in the morning. Horses are a great company if you feed them well.
Economics is the science that studies the production, transference and distribution of wealth. Eleven plus ten
equals twenty-one. However, I swim in the swimming pool of love.
The piece of text presented above is correct in its grammatical structure. All verbs are correctly conjugated,
the words have the right spelling and there are no punctuation mistakes. However, although grammatically
flawless, the text looks like a scribble of nonsense. That impression is accurate because the different
sentences that compose the text have no graspable semantic link among each other.
Being able to spot the senselessness of the text above is not a skill that should be taken for granted. It
requires a sharp capacity for semantic analysis as well as a deep understanding of the different types of
meaning relationships among words. If you were able to automatically grasp the awkwardness of the
aforementioned text, you certainly have linguistic skills in English that many language learners yearn for.
The main goal of this Unit is to work on your already existing skills in semantic analysis. This pedagogical
resource will give you theoretical and analytical knowledge that will make you aware of the rules and
organizational principles that govern the relationship among words within a sentence. At the end of our
journey here, you will be able not only to say whether a text is meaningful or not but also to explain the rules
and features that make it semantically proper.
1 - Semantic phenomena: paraphrase and ambiguity

By the end of this section, you will be able to identify semantic phenomena such as
paraphrase and ambiguity and their roles in hindering or aiding communication.
Paraphrase
While Lexical Semantics is the study of word meaning, Sentence Semantics looks towards the principles and
rules that govern the construction of meaning within a sentence through the articulation of the elements that
compose phrases and sentences. Numerous semantic phenomena organize the meaning within the
sentence. In this first sub-section, our object of interest is the notion of paraphrase. In the following lines, we
will define this concept and discuss its main theoretical features.
The first step in the journey of understanding the phenomenon of paraphrase is presenting a preliminary
definition for it. The classic view of paraphrase conceives this notion as the reconstruction of a certain
message or idea with different wording. It therefore stands for the sameness of meaning in distinct linguistic
structures (RIEMER, 2015). Take a look at some examples of paraphrase below:
(2)
Your speech was incomprehensible.
Your talk was impossible to understand.
His technique was almost unbearable.

His way of playing was hard to take.
Presented the concept, we can now talk a little bit about some of its main properties. Paraphrase, although
not necessarily, tends to be an appropriation of someone else’s ideas and discourse. Usually, paraphrasing
happens when one wants to convey the same ideas expressed previously by another person but wants to do
it with his/her own style and words.
In this sense, a paraphrase can occur in an explicit way (almost as a quotation) or in an implicit form. When
expressed explicitly, the identity of the original coiner of the ideas paraphrased is mentioned within the text
of the paraphrase, as we can see in the examples below:
(3)
My dad always told me to keep my head up and my walking straight.
The great linguist Ferdinand de Saussure defined language as a system of signs.
When expressed implicitly, the message being paraphrased is deprived of the presence of its original creator,
demanding a common ground of knowledge between the interlocutors of the interaction to make the
paraphrase acknowledged by them. Read the examples below:
(4)
Considering that man is a political animal, one may not talk about society without touching the topic of
politics.
Comments
The sentence above contains an implicit paraphrase of the classic definition of man coined by Aristotle. If
both interactants are familiar with the ideas of the ancient master, the paraphrastic feature of the sentence
will be crystal clear. However, in case of the interlocutor of the message not being acquainted with Aristotle’s
thinking, the paraphrase may become cloudy, and the highlighted assumption may seem to have been
created by the utterer of the sentence.
Although it may be impossible to list exhaustively all the functions performed by a certain linguistic
phenomenon, in the case of paraphrase, one may stress roughly three main functions that are usually
realized by paraphrastic texts.
The first of them is the recognition of someone else’s “ownership” over the message being uttered.
group
In many cases, one paraphrases explicitly another person due to the need of giving legitimate credit to the
creator of a certain idea.
group
In other situations, the objective is less noble: instead of giving credit to him/her, the goal of the paraphrase
is to “borrow” the original creator of the idea’s authority and prestige.
Take a look at the sentences below:
(5)
Newton was the first to state in mathematical terms that every action creates a reaction.
As the great sociolinguist Labov used to say, language variation is the rule, not the exception.
In 5, we see examples of paraphrases that recognize the author of the original idea being restated. This
recognition may be due either to an elegant urge to give credit to others or an attempt to endorse the views
presented with the prestige of important intellectuals.
Another important function of paraphrases is to organize, clarify and summarize a message in order to make
it fit better in a specific discursive context. In face of a construction that seems too complex, a teacher may
paraphrase it in order to make it more didactic; a lecturer may summarize a certain set of assumptions in
order to make it shorter; and one may paraphrase someone else’s idea in order to make it more coherent.
Finally, paraphrases may be used to change the level of abstraction of a certain line of thought. One’s
reflection about the economic problems of a country may be paraphrased in order to highlight how those
issues are faced at the family business level; one’s personal observations about the weather or the nature in
his/her neighborhood may be enlarged to the level of the underlying principles that determine the biological
organization of life.
Paraphrase, polysemy and polyphony
Paraphrase and polysemy

The definition of paraphrase as the sameness of meaning in different linguistic structures is simple and
straightforward. However, things get more complicated when we dig deeper into this notion through the
lenses of two other notions:
looks_one
Polysemy
looks_two
Polyphony
The concept of polysemy stands for the presence of multiple different meanings within a certain word or
linguistic expression (RIEMER, 2015). It is forged to break the assumption of a one-to-one correspondence
between meaning and word. Just like homologous meanings may be expressed by different words
(synonymy), the same linguistic form may carry a set of related but not completely homologous meanings.
Therefore, since words that seem equivalent may be polysemic and through polysemy express different
ideas, the notion of paraphrase as a “mirroring” of another meaning becomes problematic. Let’s read the pair
of sentences below:
(6)
Nightly birds are fit to fly in the darkness.
Nocturnal birds are biologically prepared to perform their displacement in low-visibility conditions.
In 6, we can see a pair of sentences that, through an orthodox linguistic classification, would tend to be seen
as a perfect paraphrase. “Nightly” can convey the same meaning as “nocturnal”; and the same is true with
the pairs “fit”-“biologically prepared”, “fly”-“perform their displacement” and “darkness”-“low-visibility
conditions”. However, when we take a closer look, important semantic differences can be seen among the
pairs of words highlighted. The “homologous” words presented in the second sentence are clearly more
technical and scientific than the constructions in the first sentence. Although understandable by people that
master this type of genre, the second sentence may be somehow unclear to some people, not so acquainted
with this type of vocabulary. On the other hand, the first sentence may appear generic and loose to
ornithologists, who would expect a more precise way of conveying the behavior of nocturnal birds.
Paraphrase and polyphony

While the notion of polysemy relativizes the concept of paraphrase by showing that seemingly synonymous
words may have different polysemic meanings, polyphony poses a different threat to this theoretical
framework.
Studied by the Russian thinker Mikhail Bakhtin, the notion of polyphony, in a nutshell, can be seen as the
ever-existing presence of multiple voices and discourses in a certain utterance.
Polyphony is the integration of a certain piece of discourse in a chain of related

voicings and ideas: it is the historicization of language.
The notion of polyphony raises doubt over the main assumption that sustains paraphrase. If all utterances
dialogue and trace back to previous voices and discourses, every piece of linguistic construction is, in this
sense, paraphrastic.
Comments
Polyphony invites us to think about paraphrase in a gradual and relative way, which differs from the absolute
view imposed by canonic Linguistics. Instead of seeing a sentence as paraphrastic or not, polyphonic
thinking urges us to grade utterances in different levels of paraphrase: from an explicit and deliberate
reconstruction of one’s previous utterance to a piece of discourse that vaguely and unconsciously brings
about other ideas and voices.
Defining ambiguity
As previously stated, polysemy refers to multiple meanings a word or phrase may have. Does that mean that
language is ambiguous? To put it another way: is polysemy the same as ambiguity? To set matters straight
and avoid possible misunderstandings, let’s check the definition for ambiguity!
Ambiguity can be defined as the presence of more than one conventional meaning
in the same word or linguistic form, hindering or creating hurdles to the
understanding of the message (RIEMER, 2015).
The different ways of grasping a certain linguistic item are called readings in the field of Linguistics.
Therefore, the most important criteria for establishing the existence of ambiguity are the presence of more
than one reading in a specific language unity as well as the existence of communicative problems caused by
those multiple readings.
Although coming from a technical and scientific vocabulary, the term ambiguity became popular in ordinary
language, usually referring to any type of vagueness, confusion or duality of interpretation of a certain piece
of discourse. Therefore, to outline thoroughly the concept of ambiguity, besides presenting its theoretical
definition, we also have to distinguish it from similar ideas.
Ambiguity x Polysemy
The main difference between ambiguity and polysemy is that the semantic plurality in the latter is seen as a
natural feature of language while, in ambiguity, it is understood as a linguistic problem, causing confusion
and disturbing communication. Thus, in an ambiguous stretch of utterance, the readings of a certain
word/expression must be competing instead of complementary or supplementary. They must pollute and
curb objectively and effectively the interaction.
In a nutshell, ambiguity and polysemy are concepts of different natures. Let's check their main differences
below:
Ambiguity
A vice in language use, caused either by the conventionalization of shocking meanings within the same
word/expression or by unclear syntactic constructions.
close
Polysemy
One of the semantic properties of words and linguistic structures: the coexistence of numerous
meanings within the same linguistic unity.
Check the following examples which clarify this distinction:
(7a)
The band was missing one of its founding members.
(7b)
Iron Maiden is my favorite metal band.
(8)
Metal bands are rare in my region.
In 7, we have a pair of sentences that contains a classic example of polysemy. The word band, although
referring specifically to a certain type of social group (musicians that gather to play as a Unit), has within its
semantic array different meaning facets. Therefore, the highlighted term in (7) can either represent the
abstract institution formed by the gathering of the musicians (the brand and the symbol) or the real group of
individuals that, in some specific situations, play songs together in certain venues. Those two possible
readings are variations that fall within the conventional meaning of band, in most of the cases, not raising
any sort of ambiguity.
Conversely, in (8), we have a sentence that can become ambiguous when abstracted from its social context
of utterance. What does the interlocutor mean by metal bands? Is he/she talking about groups of musicians
that play the type of Rock genre called Heavy Metal or a metal strip used to hold things together? Without
proper clarification about the context of the utterance, the sentence becomes ambiguous, hindering the
understanding of its intended meaning.
Therefore, in (7), we have a case of polysemic use of the same word while, in (8), we have a classic case of
ambiguity.
Ambiguity x vagueness
Vagueness is itself a vague term. In the sense it is meant here, it could be replaced by terms such as
imprecision or indefiniteness.
Talking or writing vaguely means being unable to specify or clarify the real meaning of the information that is
being conveyed. In this sense, a vague message paves the way for different forms of interpretation of the
same utterance, being this the reason why ambiguity and vagueness tend to be used as interchangeable
concepts by some people.
However, there are important differences between both notions. While ambiguity
refers to a specific type of linguistic phenomenon, vagueness is just a general
expression that can be applied in a myriad of situations, describing a lack of
precision in a certain utterance without any effort to specify the source of unclarity.
Ambiguous sentences can also be somehow vague and vague sentences can also be ambiguous. We are
talking about two concepts that dwell in two different dimensions: ambiguity is a technical notion applied to
areas of science while vagueness is a commonsensical adjective that describes a feeling towards some
forms of language.
Types of ambiguity
As communicative vices resulting from the possibility of multiple readings for the same utterance, ambiguity
can be caused by the interplay of many different linguistic variables. Roughly, there are four main types of
ambiguity:
forum
Lexical
forum
Syntactic
forum
Semantic
forum
Pragmatic
Those four different kinds of ambiguity, as well as their subtypes, will be covered shortly.
Lexical ambiguity
Lexical ambiguity happens when the plurality of meanings conveyed by the same word/expression somehow
hinders the grasping of the message, establishing a situation of vagueness, imprecision or confusion within
the sentence. Lexical ambiguity can be either polysemic or homonymic. In polysemic ambiguity, this
phenomenon is due to the presence in a sentence of a polysemic term, whose meaning is unclear. Take a
look at an example:
(9)
The events of that night destroyed the football club.
Without any extra information regarding the nature of the mentioned events, the sentence in (9) becomes
ambiguous because one cannot tell whether the term football club is referring to the institution (that
participates in football leagues) or the physical place (where people can get together to play the sport).
In homonymic cases, on the other hand, ambiguity results from the presence of a word that has a
homonymic pair in a context that makes it uncertain which of the pairs is being employed. The meanings
being confused, in this case, differ in terms of reference: they refer to different things in the world. read the
sentence below:
(10)
The golf club was destroyed by your father.
In (10), we can see a sentence whose organization allows the possibility of two ambiguous interpretations
that point to completely different referents. Golf club, in this case, can either be the place where people
practice the sport or the object used to play the game.
Syntactic ambiguity
This type of ambiguity occurs in utterances formed by complex and somehow ill-composed syntactic
structures. In sentences constructed with many phrases and syntactic elements, the link among those items
can become fuzzy, creating a sense of ambiguity within the message.
Syntactic ambiguity can be divided into two categories:
looks_one
Attachment ambiguity
looks_two
Coordination ambiguity
Take a look at the following sentence:
(11)
The man saw his wife with the telescope.
In (11), we have a classic example of attachment ambiguity. This type of ambiguous construction results
from a poor attachment of a clause or a phrase to the entire structure of the sentence, allowing for multiple
and confusing interpretations about the utterance’s meaning.
Another type of syntactic ambiguity occurs with the use of coordinators, especially and/or. This kind of
ambiguous structure usually consists of a confusing or cumbersome interaction between both clauses
coordinated within one sentence. Read the following example:
(12)
She never watched a romantic movie and didn’t cry.
In (12), we have a sentence in which the same subject (she) has two actions negated by the terms never and
not (didn’t). Those two “unpracticed” actions are coordinated by the word and. This combination of double
negation and coordinated clauses paves the way for the rising of multiple and confusing interpretations of
the sentence.
Semantic ambiguity
Semantic ambiguity occurs when the meaning of a word, phrase, clause or sentence gets blurred by
confusion caused by an unclear reference within the sentence. This type of ambiguity can be divided into:
looks_one
Scope ambiguity
looks_two
Anaphoric ambiguity
As it will be discussed later, scope relations are semantic relations in which the interpretation of a term
depends on the interpretation of another. Scope ambiguity, by its turn, occurs when this “meaning
transmission” faces problems due to a lack of clarity within the sentence. An example of scope ambiguity is
presented below:
(13)
Many students ate a lot of sandwiches.
In (13), the presence of two scope-taking terms (many and a lot) makes the sentence confusing in terms of
how both generalizers will interact with each other. In section two you will learn more about scope relations!
Anaphoric ambiguity is also a semantic problem in the interplay of references within a sentence. In this case,
however, the confusion happens because of the impossibility to determine which of the previous words is
the correct reference of the anaphoric term. Take a look at the sentence below:
(14)
Mary and her sister talked about her vacation.
In (14), the anaphoric pronoun her has its reference blurred by the existence of two previous elements that
can be candidates for this anaphoric relation: Mary and her sister.
Pragmatic ambiguity
Pragmatic ambiguity occurs when the literal meaning of the sentence is changed by the context in which it
occurs. In many cases, this tension between literal meaning and contextualized meaning is resolved by
common sense and intuition. However, depending on the interlocutor and the situation, the utterance can
become ambiguous. A good example of this type of ambiguity is presented below:
(15)
Can you please pass me the salt?
In most occasions in which this type of construction is produced, the meaning aimed by the speaker is not
the literal meaning of the sentence (asking a question), but a contextually meaningful variation of it: asking
politely someone to do something for you.
video_library
Paraphrase and ambiguity
In this video, Professor Erika Coachman will discuss two semantic phenomena: paraphrase and ambiguity.
You are very close to reaching your goals.
Let’s practice!
Question 1
Since both ambiguity and polysemy occur in situations of multiple meanings within a linguistic
expression, they can sometimes be confused. However, ambiguity is a semantic phenomenon that
defines a problem in communication, while polysemy is a feature of natural languages. Based on this
assertion, read the sentences below and mark the one that presents a case of ambiguity:
A I lost my senses after drinking too much wine.
B Great clubs of soccer are playing in this year’s league.
C They entered the dark room and found a bat on the floor.
D Pigs and rats are seen as dirty animals.
E Minority groups were oppressed throughout the history.
Parabéns! A alternativa C está correta.
The only example of ambiguity is C, in which one cannot tell whether the bat is the animal or the piece of
wood used to play sports.
Question 2
Many are the discursive functions performed by paraphrase: from making ideas more didactic to
making thought more abstract. Based on the different roles played by paraphrase, read the pair of
sentences below:
a) Vagarious insects tend to be devoured by predators.

b) Slow bugs are easily eaten by other animals.
Considering b as a paraphrase of a, which of the discursive functions below is performed by the

paraphrastic sentence?
A Recognition
B Clarification
C Summarizing
D Making ideas more abstract
E Making ideas more concrete
Parabéns! A alternativa B está correta.
Since the first sentence is using more technical and scientific language, b paraphrases it in different
terms, using more commonly used vocabulary, in order to make it more understandable. Therefore, the
function of this paraphrase is clarification.
2 - Semantic conflicts: scope relations and figurative

language
By the end of this section, you will be able to recognize the roles of scope relations and
figurative language in meaning-making processes.
Scope relations
When communicating either in our mother tongue or in an additional language, meaning may get lost.
Ambiguity, as previously stated, may be one of the causes for that. In this section, we will study phenomena
that may hinder understanding somehow, when not properly manipulated: scope relations and figurative
language. Even though these phenomena are quite distinct, both may result in misinterpretation.
Interpretation, therefore, in both cases is dependent upon interdependence relations among the constituents
of a sentence or phrase (as is the case of scope relations), or on whether literal or non-literal meaning is
intended (as with figurative language).
Let’s understand some underlying semantic processes that may either enable or hinder communication!
Defining scope relations

Scope relations are traditionally defined as types of semantic relations in which the interpretation of a
specific element of the utterance relies on the interpretation given to another element (RIEMER, 2015).
Scope relations, therefore, establish a relationship of interdependence among two or more constituents
within a sentence.
(16)
Each student used two uniforms.
In (16), there are two possible interpretations for the message conveyed:
(16a) each student used two different uniforms that were exclusive to each student.
(16b) each student used the same two uniforms.
As denoted above, the way the order of distribution between student and uniforms is organized affects the
overall meaning of the sentence.
The notion of scope relations is closely linked with the wider idea of semantic
scope: the semantic object influenced or modified by a certain semantic operation.
Read the example below:
(17)
My mother does not eat meat, but she does eat eggs.
In (17), the scope of the negation conveyed by the item not comprises the construction eat meat. On the
other hand, the structure does eat eggs is not affected by the negation, thus, not belonging to its scope.
One key characteristic of scope relations is that, since they presuppose the existence of more than one
possible interpretation of the same item, they tend to be mingled with the notion of ambiguity. Scope
ambiguity is the type of ambiguity caused by the interpretative interdependence that characterizes scope
relations.
Types of scope relations
Since scope relations are a product of a situation of meaning interdependence generated within the
semantic and syntactic structure of each specific language, it is not any wonder that each language may
have its own ways of manifesting this phenomenon. However, some types of linguistic items tend to foster
certain kinds of scope relations across different languages.
Quantifiers may be the most common and prolific source of scope relations in English. This is due to their
tendency of generating scope ambiguity, especially when more than one quantifier is used in the same
sentence. Take a look at the example below:
(18)
Six girls have eaten ten apple pies.
Here we have a classic example of scope relation with two quantifiers in the same sentence. The
interpretation of how many apple pies each girl has eaten depends on the way we understand the meaning
of the quantifier ten.
Through a distributive view, each specific girl has eaten ten apple pies, summing up a total of sixty dishes.
On the other hand, through a generalizing perspective, all girls together have eaten the total of ten apple pies,
not being clear then how many pies each girl has devoured.
Negation is another common source of scope relations in English. In most of the cases, the interdependence
of meaning lies in the fact that it is unclear which of the elements being negated falls within the scope of the
negative item. Let us take a look at the example below:
(19)
All students in my class were not approved.
In (19), the interpretation of the sentence demands a clarification about the scope of the negation or, more
precisely, whether the phrase not approved modifies the phrase all students in an integrative way (the entire
class failed) or in an excluding way (all students in my class were not approved because some of them
failed). As highlighted before, if the interpretation of a certain element depends on the clarification of
another item (in this case, the negation), there is a scope relation being realized.
Modals are also well-known for establishing scope relations among items within a sentence. The principle
here is the same as in the previous types of scope relation: the interpretation of the meaning of the sentence
relies on the understanding of the scope of the modal element. Read the example below:
(20)
In this game, he may win or lose.
In (20), two different interpretations fror the sentence are possible depending on whether we see the modal
may modifying the following elements in an alternative (he may win or he may lose) or in an integrative way
(this is a game in which he may just win or lose, and other options, like a tie, are ruled out).
Finally, let us talk about generalizers: another classic example of structure that fosters scope relations. Read
the following sentence:
(21)
All kids have won all the medals.
There are two possible interpretations to (21) according to the way we interpret both generalizers in the
sentence.
(21a)
All kids together have won the totality of medals.
(21b)
Each specific kid has won all medals available.
The only way of sorting out which of those interpretations is correct is determining the scope of the
generalizer all in the sentence, clarifying the kind of scope relation it performs.
Figurative language
Figurative language stands for any use of language in which the literal and conventional meaning of the
word/expression is replaced by a non-literal reading. Many are the functions of figurative language: from
making an utterance more aesthetically appealing to conveying ideas in a smooth way.
Figurative language usually manifests in real discourse in three different forms:
looks_one
The combination of different words into an expression that has a non-literal meaning (sayings, proverbs,
idioms and formulaic expressions).
looks_two
The articulation of different ideas in one sentence (simile and metaphor).
looks_3
The formation of compound words whose meaning may be more or less unattached from the individual
words’ meaning (binomials and phrasal verbs).
Let’s check these different ways of conceiving figurative language!
Sayings, proverbs, tournure idioms and formulaic

expressions
In this sub-section, we will talk about the figurative language that is produced by the combination of words
whose meaning gets abstracted from its original sense through convention. Those expressions can either
become semantically independent from their composing parts by tradition, by technical use in a certain area
or by popularization through media or any other form of social discourse. In the following lines, some
examples of this type of figurative language will be discussed.
Sayings
Sayings are sentences or groups of sentences that shed supposedly wise ideas on any aspect of human life
and human experience in the world. Therefore, sayings are understood as messages of knowledge that are
shared in a condensate form. Sometimes, the greatness of a saying may also be due to its stylistic form,
portraying in a memorable way a bit of wisdom.
Some examples of sayings are presented below:
(22a)
Beggars can’t be choosers.
(22b)
Blood is thicker than water.
(22c)
Better safe than sorry.
(22d)
All that glitters is not gold.
All the different sayings expressed in (22) comprise rich messages regarding the way society and people
work.
Comments
Their bits of life wisdom are expressed in a way that is, at the same time, memorable (due to its concise
form) and dense (due to the volume of reflections condensed in it).
Proverbs
In its essence, proverbs could be seen as specific types of saying – or the other way around. They are both
short discursive units of wisdom about human life presented in a memorable style. The main difference
between both forms of figurative language lies in the cultural profoundness and embodiment of the
proverbs.
Sayings
Common to many different languages and cultures, not having a deep link with one specific cultural
background (some of the sayings in 22 can be seen in other languages).
close
Proverbs
Organically integrated into one specific people and culture. Many proverbs are inspired by religious
allegories or old tales or myths that are meaningful to particular social groups.
Proverbs are linguistic expressions of a certain ethnos.

In a nutshell, sayings are general pieces of wisdom regarding life in general while proverbs are
religious/cultural frameworks regarding the way that specific people, culture or faith understands some
elements of life and the world.
Take a look at the following examples of proverbs:
(23a)
A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step (Chinese proverb)
(23b)
There is no hand to catch time (Indian proverb)
Despite being cells of traditional wisdom about life, both proverbs are deeply rooted in the cultures and
religious way of approaching human experience, representing, respectively, the Chinese and the Indian way
of proposing these reflections.
Tournure idioms
In order to understand the concept of tournure idioms, firstly, we have to become familiar with the notion of
idioms in general. Idioms are:
A string of two or more words for which meaning is not derived from the meaning of
the individual words comprising that string.
(SWINNEY; CUTLER, 1979, p. 523)
Tournure idioms, therefore, are a specific kind of idioms, composed of a particular kind of repeating
structure. Grammatically, tournure idioms work as verbs, expressing a certain type of action or state of
things. Their default form is “to X a/the Y” in which X stands for the verb and Y for the object of this verb.
Some examples of tournure idioms, inspired by Makkai (1972), are presented below:
(24a)
To do a guy/girl (to have a quick love affair with someone).
(24b)
To sweat bullets (to be extremely nervous or angry about something).
Although the most common structure of the tournure idioms is represented in 24, variations of this basic
form are possible, as we can see below:
(25a)
To build castles in the air (to make impossible plans).
To + verb + object + prepositional phrase
(25b)
To dance on air (to be extremely happy).
To + verb + prepositional phrase
Comments
In all examples presented, we can see a meaning unity whose meaning is not the sum of the individual
meanings of the elements that compose it, but a metaphorical meaning derived figuratively from it.
Formulaic expressions
Formulaic expressions are crystalized forms whose meaning and unity are not a product of individual
spontaneous combinations. Formulaic expressions make up a traditional piece of discourse within a
community, therefore having its structure turned into canon.
As highlighted by Pinker (1995), formulaic expressions share some important properties.
First of all, formulaic expressions present a non-literal meaning, derived metaphorically from
the elements comprising it.
Secondly, this type of linguistic structure usually projects intrinsically a certain type of attitude
or emotional stance, being, in this sense, different from spontaneous constructions.
Finally, formulaic expressions have a determined and unchangeable internal coherence and
semantic color. Their lexical order is fixed and their prosodic pronunciation tends to be
t d di d
standardized.
Read the following examples of formulaic expressions:
(26a)
Let’s call it a day.
(26b)
I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes.
Similes and metaphors

Metaphors and similes can be seen as mental operations of analogy that manifest in language through the
construction of semantic links between elements more or less unrelated. In the following topics of this sub-
section, both notions will be covered in more detail.
Metaphors
Hurford, Heasley and Smith (2007, p. 331) define metaphors as “conceptual operations reflected in human
language that enable speakers to structure and construe areas of knowledge and experience in more
concrete and experimental terms”.
Metaphors are, thus, analogies inscribed in language.
Their function may be to ease the understanding of a phenomenon of the world by equating it to a known
element or to establish a non-literal and poetic connection among different elements.
Take a look at the following examples of metaphoric constructions:
(27a)
Dr. Brandon is a butcher.
(27b)
Working here is an eternal vacation.
Both sentences presented in (27) construct an interface between different notions based on their belonging
to similar semantic dimensions. In (27a), the work of a doctor can be associated with the work of a butcher
when it is poorly executed, possibly killing someone due to its lack of care or accuracy. In (27b), the ideas of
work and vacation can be seen almost as an antithesis. However, in the highlighted sentence, they are
presented within a relationship of identity (working here = vacation).
Many are the tentative models used to typify metaphors based on a variety of criteria: from the type of
cognitive skill used to produce it to the semantic nature of the verbs employed in the metaphorical utterance.
The most meaningful of those typologies is the one founded on the linguistic structure of metaphors. Based
on this framework, there are three different types of metaphor:
looks_one
Standard
looks_two
Implied
looks_3
Mixed
Standard metaphor occurs when the basic metaphorical structure (notion + is + notion) is maintained.
Below, there is an example of a standard metaphor:
(28)
My girlfriend is a flower.
Implied metaphor takes place when a metaphorical relationship between two heterogeneous notions is
established, but the canonical structure is somehow violated. In (29), we have an example of an implied
metaphor:
(29)
The wind roared in my corridor.
Mixed metaphor happens when more than one metaphorical relationship is coined within the same
sentence. Read the following example:
(30)
She dived with her soul through the walls of fire.
Similes
Similes could easily be confused with a particular kind of metaphor. The main difference, though, between
both concepts lies in the following:
Attention
While metaphors establish a figurative relationship of identity or belonging between unlike terms, similes
project a comparison between the same type of elements.
Therefore, the existence of the phenomenon of simile depends on the use within the utterance of certain
comparison-making words, such as like and as. In (31), we have two examples of simile:
(31a)
Her eyes were shining like the sun.
(31b)
The weather today is as dry as a desert.
Binomials and phrasal verbs

Let’s study now forms of figurative language that are composed of a short sequence of words that convey a
non-literal meaning, usually more or less unattached from the original meanings of its components.
Binomials
Traditional definition of binomials traces back to Malkiel (1959, p. 113), understanding this phenomenon as
“a sequence of two words pertaining to the same form-class, placed on an identical level of syntactic
hierarchy, and ordinarily connected by some kind of lexical link”. The canonic form of the binomials is X + X,
in which two similar words are bound by a conjugative element (usually, the conjunction and or the
preposition to).
Binomials can be of two types:

looks_one
Fixed binomials
looks_two
Varying binomials
Fixed binomials are compound expressions whose meaning and use became crystalized, being odd to try to
make changes to the original structure. We have some examples of fixed binomials below:
(32a)
Face to face
(32b)
Head to toes
(32c)
Odds and ends
It is easy to see that the attempt to make personal variations of the conventional binomial would create odd
structures (head to feet / countenance to countenance).
Variant binomials, on the other hand, are compound expressions that become popular and commonly used
in a certain discourse community, but whose structure is still vulnerable to suffer eventual changes during
the interaction. Some examples of variant binomials are presented below:
(33a)
Tears for fears
(33b)
Scream and shout
Although identified with some specific referents and contexts of production, it would not be impossible to
form constructions like fears for tears or scream and cry. Therefore, variant binomials, although produced in
the same way, are still open to restructuring.
Phrasal verbs
Phrasal verbs are compound terms formed by combinations of verb-particle in which the meaning of the
compound is not the literal sum of its elements. This is the figurative nature of the phrasal verb, since its
meaning is a non-literal production of the encounter of a group of words.
In many cases, the meaning of the phrasal verb is similar to the meaning of the main verb in the unity, as in
the examples below:
(34a)
Slow down
(34b)
Make up
It is clear that the meaning of the phrasal verb slow down is relatively alike the original sense of slow. By the
same token, make up resembles the sense of making something. However, the semantic features of the
particles down and up are not integrated into the resulting meaning of the phrasal verb: make up and slow
down have nothing to do with the movements or directions up and down.
In some cases, however, the phrasal verb has few or no resemblance whatsoever with any of its original
constitutive elements, as we can see in the examples below:
(35a)
Beef up
(35b)
Clam up
In (35a), we can see a phrasal verb whose meaning is almost random when compared with the meaning of
its parts: to improve something has nothing to do with the meaning of beef or the movement upwards. In
(35b), we have a phrasal verb whose semantic connection with the verb that constitutes it is highly
metaphorical: be quiet and the biological design of a clam.
Although, in most of cases, phrasal verbs are formed by a combination of a verb + a particle (usually a
preposition or an adverb), phrasal verbs can also contain two particles. Some examples of these three-part
phrasal verbs are presented below:
(36a)
Look forward to
(36b)
Put up with
(36c)
Come up with
video_library
Figurative Language and Scope relations
What is figurative language? And what are scope relations? Watch this video to find out!
You are very close to reaching your goals.
Let’s practice!
Question 1
Metaphors are figurative pieces of discourse formed by the linguistic materialization of analogies. They
can assume many different forms depending on their structure. Read the sentences below and mark the
one that presents an example of an implied metaphor:
A Her strong steps shook the entire block.
B Life is a quick breath.
C Her blue eyes shined like the summer sky.
D Education is pure gold.
E Look after the elderly and they take care of you.
Parabéns! A alternativa A está correta.
The only alternative that presents an example of an implied metaphor, that creates an analogical link
among elements without the X is Y structure, is A. The others either refer to similes or standard
metaphors.
Question 2
Scope relations occur when the interpretation of an item within the sentence or the entire sentence
depends on the interpretation of the scope of another element of the utterance. Bearing this definition in
mind, read the example below:
Based on the exams analyzed, the course of her disease may be progressive or stable.
What is the type of scope relation presented in the sentence above?
A Modal
B Quantifier
C Generalizer
D Negation
E Indefinite
Parabéns! A alternativa A está correta.
Modal scope relations tend to open two different lines of interpretation to the modal element of the
sentence, an alternative one and a generalizing one. This is the case of the highlighted sentence since
the modal ‘may’ can be modifying the elements in an alternative way (the disease may progress or may
stabilize) or in a generalizing way: this is an exam that rules out other possibilities such as the disease
being in a regressive state, meaning that only two alternatives can be perceptible in this exam.
Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Final issues
Throughout this Unit, we have discussed some of the key concepts and ideas that constitute the theoretical
framework of Sentence Semantics, characterizing their most relevant features and grammatical properties.
Founding notions like paraphrase, scope, ambiguity, metaphor, idioms, sayings, phrasal verbs and many
others were presented and analyzed, by highlighting not only their grammatical constitution but their
possible use in our daily operation with language.
Understanding in depth the way the components of the phrase and the sentence establish semantic
relationships among each other can enhance our knowledge regarding the structure and organization of
language, as well as our capacity of communicating in English. On top of that, being able to grasp the
different types of semantic phenomena that comprise the phrases in English can make you more proficient
in the language since you will be capable of seeing the linguistic tools presented in this Unit as new
instruments to make meaning in the world.
headset
Podcast
Let's revise the main topics of the Unit!
References
HURFORD, H. J.; HEASLEY, B.; SMITH, B. M. Semantics: a coursebook. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2007.
MAKKAI, A. Idiom structure in English. The Hague: Mouton, 1972.
MALKIEL, Y. 1959. Studies in irreversible binomials. Lingua, 8, 1959. p. 113-60. Accessed: 7 October 2022.
PINKER, S. The language instinct. New York: Harper Collins, 1995.
RIEMER, N. The Routledge handbook of Semantics. London: Routledge, 2015.
SWINNEY, D.; CUTLER, A. The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of verbal learning
and verbal behavior. V. 18, n. 1, 1979. p. 523-534. Accessed: 7 October 2022.
Go Further
To proceed with your studies in the field of Sentence Semantics, read the chapter Phrasal Semantics, written
by Ray Jackendoff. In this text, the author draws a theoretical panorama concerning the entire conceptual
framework of the area, highlights the main discussions of the field, as well as its most important tenets.
JACKENDOFF, R. Phrasal Semantics. In: JACKENDOFF, R. Foundations of language: brain, meaning,

grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford Academic, 2007.

2 - The Meaning Within The Sentences - Sentence Semantics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 - The Meaning Within The Sentences - Sentence Semantics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

03/05/2023, 10:17 The meaning within the sentences: Sentence Semantics

The meaning within the sentences: Sentence Semantics

Semantic phenomena: paraphrase and ambiguity

Semantic conflicts: scope relations and figurative language

1 - Semantic phenomena: paraphrase and ambiguity

His technique was almost unbearable.

Take a look at the sentences below:

presented with the prestige of important intellectuals.

Paraphrase, polysemy and polyphony

Paraphrase and polysemy

Paraphrase and polyphony

Polyphony is the integration of a certain piece of discourse in a chain of related

Check the following examples which clarify this distinction:

Syntactic ambiguity can be divided into two categories:

You are very close to reaching your goals.

A I lost my senses after drinking too much wine.

B Great clubs of soccer are playing in this year’s league.

D Pigs and rats are seen as dirty animals.

E Minority groups were oppressed throughout the history.

Parabéns! A alternativa C está correta.

a) Vagarious insects tend to be devoured by predators.

Considering b as a paraphrase of a, which of the discursive functions below is performed by the

D Making ideas more abstract

E Making ideas more concrete

Parabéns! A alternativa B está correta.

2 - Semantic conflicts: scope relations and figurative

Defining scope relations

(16b) each student used the same two uniforms.

Read the example below:

Types of scope relations

Figurative language usually manifests in real discourse in three different forms:

Let’s check these different ways of conceiving figurative language!

Sayings, proverbs, tournure idioms and formulaic

Some examples of sayings are presented below:

Proverbs are linguistic expressions of a certain ethnos.

Take a look at the following examples of proverbs:

(SWINNEY; CUTLER, 1979, p. 523)

As highlighted by Pinker (1995), formulaic expressions share some important properties.

Read the following examples of formulaic expressions:

Similes and metaphors

Metaphors are, thus, analogies inscribed in language.

Take a look at the following examples of metaphoric constructions:

Binomials and phrasal verbs

Binomials can be of two types:

You are very close to reaching your goals.

A Her strong steps shook the entire block.

B Life is a quick breath.

C Her blue eyes shined like the summer sky.

D Education is pure gold.

E Look after the elderly and they take care of you.

Parabéns! A alternativa A está correta.

What is the type of scope relation presented in the sentence above?

Parabéns! A alternativa A está correta.

Let's revise the main topics of the Unit!

MAKKAI, A. Idiom structure in English. The Hague: Mouton, 1972.

PINKER, S. The language instinct. New York: Harper Collins, 1995.

RIEMER, N. The Routledge handbook of Semantics. London: Routledge, 2015.

JACKENDOFF, R. Phrasal Semantics. In: JACKENDOFF, R. Foundations of language: brain, meaning,

You might also like