THE SEMANTICS-PRAGMATICS INTERFACE: AN

EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
Submitted as a individual assignment in Pragmasemantics
Lecturer: Mrs. Dr. Tatu Siti Rohbiah, M. Hum

Compiled By:

Kholifatut Ta’ziah (211230119)

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND TEACHER TRAINING
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY
SULTAN MAULANA HASANUDDIN BANTEN
1445 H/2024 M
A. Title

“The Semantics-Pragmatics Interface: An Empirical Investigation”

B. Writers

Igor Douven and Karolina Krzyżanowska

C. Publisher

This article is published in book: Further Advances in Pragmatics and Philosophy, Vol.
2, 2018, Publisher: Springer, Editors: Alessandro Capone

D. Reasons the Author Took the Title

The author's reason for taking the title is to highlight the importance of understanding
how aspects of semantics and pragmatics interact with each other in the understanding and use
of everyday language. This research aims to bridge the traditional division between semantics
and pragmatics and highlight the complexity of the relationship between the two.

E. Objective

The purpose of this study is to examine whether laypeople can distinguish between the
truth and assertiveness of a sentence, as well as whether they distinguish between the
assertiveness and trustworthiness of a sentence.

f. Research Question

Whether laypeople distinguish between the truth and the assertability of a sentence?
and whether they distinguish between the assertability and the believability of a sentence?.

G. Method

In this article, researchers used empirical experimental methods to investigate the

Semantic-Pragmatic Interface. They conducted a series of experiments involving participants
from Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Participants were recruited
through CrowdFlower and tested using the Qualtrics platform.

H. Data

The data was collected through two experiments involving participants who were asked
to rate various sentences. The participants were asked to rate the truthfulness, trustworthiness,
and assertiveness of the sentences containing false implicatures. The rating data from the

1
participants were then analyzed to see if there were any differences in the ratings of the
truthfulness, trustworthiness, and decisiveness of the sentences.

I. Theory

In this study, there is the use of relevant linguistic and philosophical theories to
investigate the differences between semantics and pragmatics in the assessment of truth,
trustworthiness, and assertiveness of sentences. The following are some of the theories used in
this study:

1. Semantic Theory: Semantic theory is used to understand the literal meaning of

sentences based on grammatical structure and other linguistic components. Semantic
theory discusses how the meaning of a sentence can be determined directly from the
structure of the sentence itself without taking into account context or additional
assumptions.
2. Pragmatic Theory: Pragmatic theory discusses how the meaning of a sentence is also
influenced by the context, the purpose of communication, and the shared knowledge
between the speaker and the listener. Pragmatics considers implicature, presupposition,
and other aspects of communication that depend not only on sentence structure but also
on the context of communication.
3. Implicature: Implicature is information implied or expressed through a sentence other
than its literal meaning. Implicatures can be conventional (related to the rules of
language) or conversational (related to the context of communication).
4. Scalar Implicature: Scalar implicature occurs when speakers choose words with
different levels of force to convey additional information. For example, using "some"
rather than "all" to imply that not all are included.
5. Conventional Implicature: Conventional implicature occurs when additional meaning
is implied based on certain linguistic rules or language conventions.

J. Result and Discussion

Semantics

Semantics deals with the literal meaning or truth of a sentence based on its structure
and the words used. In this study, semantics is used to assess the truth or falsity of a sentence
based on its linguistic rules and sentence structure.

2
Pragmatics

Pragmatics deals with aspects of language use involving context, purpose of

communication, and possible implicatures. In this study, pragmatics is used to explore how
pragmatic aspects such as implicature can affect the judgment of the correctness or
assertiveness of a sentence.

Here are the items used in experiments 1 and 2:

1. Some patches are blue

2. Some roses are flowers.
3. Most patches are red
4. Most laptops are computers.
5. The tiger finds the boy’s cereal moderately sweet.
6. The female basketball player Margo Dydek (7 ft 2 in / 2.18 m) was tall for a woman.
7. Bill Gates is relatively rich.
8. On the North Pole, winter temperatures are somewhat cold.
9. In the UK, people over the age of 85 have the right to retire.
10. In principle, all American citizens over the age of 25 have the right to vote in federal
elections.
11. In the UK and the US, children under the age of 15 are prohibited from buying hard
drugs.
12. In the US, people who earn more than $200,000 a year are obliged to pay taxes.
13. Alfred Hitchcock made two movies.
14. President Obama has one daughter.
15. In the last Olympic games, the US won four medals.
16. At the height of its power, Great Britain owned 12 ships.
17. The tiger looks for the bread in the toaster and the boy puts a piece of bread into the
toaster.
18. Princess Diana died in a car accident and she divorced Prince Charles.
19. The man comes up with a bogus answer and the boy asks how the load limit on bridges
is determined.
20. Kate Middleton gave birth to a son and she married Prince William.
21. Although Prince William had fallen in love with Kate Middleton, the 2014 Winter
Olympics will be in Russia.

3
 22. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone was a box office hit, therefore Obama is the
president of the US.
23. Although Obama won a second term as president, dolphins are mammals.
24. Mitt Romney lost the 2012 presidential election, therefore U2 is a rock band.

The results from Experiment 1 showed that there were false implicatures in some of the
sentences tested. These implicatures arose due to incongruence with existing world knowledge
or due to the visual context provided by the experimenter. In addition, this experiment also
showed that it was difficult to make useful divisions among the participants based on how the
false implicatures affected their appreciation of the sentences that produced the implicatures.
However, the results of this experiment cannot replicate the results of a previous study
conducted by Spychalska, Kontinen, and Werning (2016) on existentially quantified sentences.

4
 In Experiment 2, which involved 363 participants, the results showed that there was no
main effect of the type of question used. This may be due to the use of the 2AFC task which
has less discriminating power than tasks that provide Likert scale responses. Nonetheless, this
experiment provides additional insights related to participants' judgment of sentences that
produce false implicatures. Furthermore, this experiment also shows that it is difficult to make
useful divisions among the participants based on how the false implicature affects their
appreciation of the sentences that generate the implicature.

In this study, two experiments were conducted to empirically answer the question of
semantic-pragmatic differences. The following are the results and discussion of the two
experiments:

Experiment 1:

1. The first experiment involved participants' judgments of sentences that, according to

standard semantics, qualified as true, but according to standard pragmatics, had false
implicatures.
2. There was no significant difference in the judgment of the correctness, trustworthiness,
or assertiveness of the sentences. This demonstrates the complexity of understanding
how false implicatures can affect participants' judgments.
3. There was no main effect of the type of question used in participants' ratings of the
sentences that generated false implicatures. This suggests that participants' responses to
false implicatures cannot be significantly differentiated based on the type of question
asked.
4. The false implicatures in the tested sentences may affect participants' appreciation of
the sentences, but it is difficult to make useful divisions among participants based on
the influence of the false implicatures.

Experiment 2:

1. The second experiment was conducted to repeat the first experiment using a Likert scale
response task.
2. The results of the second experiment were broadly similar to those of the first
experiment. There was no main effect of question type, but there was a significant
interaction between question type and implicature type.

5
 3. Individual differences in the judgment of the sentences that produced false implicatures
were also examined, but it was difficult to make useful divisions among the participants
based on the influence of the false implicatures.

Thus, the results and discussion of both experiments highlight the complexity of
understanding the interface between semantics and pragmatics in language assessment and
philosophy, as well as suggesting that the distinction between the two may not always be clearly
distinguishable.

The following are some explanations of the pragmatic and semantic meanings of the items
used in this study:

1. “Some patches are blue”

Semantics
Semantically, the sentence states the fact that there are some patches or blotches
that are blue in color. This semantic meaning focuses on the literal interpretation of the
words in the sentence, without taking into account any additional context or
assumptions.
Pragmatics
In terms of pragmatics, the sentence can be interpreted in several ways
depending on the context. For example:
 If said in the context of a painting or artwork, the sentence could be interpreted
as a visual description of the colors used in the painting.
 In the context of a description of clothing materials, the sentence might refer to
the fact that some parts of the clothing have a blue color.
 In more abstract contexts, the sentence might be used metaphorically, for
example to describe variations or differences within a group or situation.
 Pragmatics also considers how the sentence is understood by the listener or
reader in a particular context. For example, the use of the word "some" in the
sentence suggests that not all patches are blue, which might affect the way the
sentence is interpreted pragmatically.
So, the semantics of the sentence is a literal description of the color of the patch,
while the pragmatics involves the way the sentence is understood in a broader context
and how its interpretation is affected by assumptions or additional information.

6
2. “Some roses are flowers”
Semantics
 Semantically, the sentence conveys basic information about the classification
and relationship between two concepts: "roses" and "flowers". The semantics of
the sentence is that there is a subset of all flowers that fall under the category of
"roses". This is a statement about the relationship of each rose to the broader
category of "flowers".
 Literally, the sentence implies that "roses" are one type or subset of the larger
category, which is "flowers". This is a conceptual description based on the
structure of the language and the meaning of the words in the sentence.
Pragmatic
 From a pragmatic perspective, the meaning of the sentence may vary depending
on the context of the conversation or the situation in which it is used.
 In a general context, the sentence may be considered a clear statement and may
not provide much additional information since the whole "roses" is indeed a
type of "flower".
 However, in a more specialized context or in a debate about plant taxonomy,
the sentence might be used to emphasize the fact that "roses" are part of a
broader category, "flowers", perhaps in response to a particular argument or to
clarify understanding.
 Pragmatics can also include understanding that the sentence is not stating that
only "roses" belong to the category "flowers", but rather that some of the "roses"
belong to that category. This is an aspect of pragmatics that involves
understanding the implicit or hidden meanings that may be present in the
sentence.
So, the semantics of the sentence is a statement about the conceptual
relationship between "roses" and "flowers", while its pragmatics depends on its context
of use and a broader understanding of how the sentence is understood and used in
conversation.
3. “Most patches are red”
Semantic
 Semantically, the sentence states that the majority of the patches have a red
color. It is a statement about the predominant color in a group of patches.

7
  The semantics of this sentence focus on the literal or conceptual meaning of the
words in it, without taking into account any additional context or assumptions.
Pragmatic
In terms of pragmatics, the meaning of the sentence can depend on the context.
For example:
 If the sentence is uttered in the context of a discussion about design or art, then
it might be taken as a visual description of the colors often used in a design or
artwork.
 In another context, for example if the sentence comes up in a conversation about
clothing, it might be interpreted as a description that the majority of patches in
existence have the color red.
 Pragmatics can also involve understanding that the sentence is not claiming that
every patch is red, but the majority of them are. This can be important
information especially if the context requires a decision or action based on that
information.
 Pragmatics also considers how the listener or reader understands the meaning
of the sentence in the wider context, as well as how additional assumptions or
inferences may arise.
So, semantically, the sentence states a fact about the color of the majority of
patches, while its pragmatics depend on the broader context and interpretation of how
the sentence is understood and used in conversation.
4. “Most laptops are computers.”
Semantics
 Semantically, the sentence conveys the information that the majority of laptops
fall under the category of "computers". It is a statement about the classification
and conceptual relationship between "laptops" and "computers".
 Literally, the sentence implies that the vast majority (majority) of all laptops are
a type of computer. The semantics of this sentence is based on the meaning of
the words in the language used, without taking into account any additional
context or assumptions.
Pragmatics
 In terms of pragmatics, the meaning of the sentence can be influenced by
context and wider social understanding.

8
  In a general context, the sentence may be considered a clear statement and may
not provide much additional information, as laptops are indeed generally
considered to be a type of computer.
 However, in a more specific context, for example in a discussion about the
differences between laptops, tablets and desktop computers, the sentence might
be used to emphasize that laptops, while different from desktops, still fall under
the general category of "computers".
 Pragmatics can also include understanding that the sentence does not claim that
every laptop is a computer, but the majority of them are. This is an aspect of
pragmatics that involves understanding the implicit or hidden meanings that
may be present in the sentence.

So, semantically, the sentence states a fact about the conceptual relationship
between "laptop" and "computer", while its pragmatics depends on its context of use
and a broader understanding of how the sentence is understood and used in
conversation.

Meanwhile, in assessing the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and decisiveness of

sentences, the difference between semantics and pragmatics can be explained as follows:

"Some patches are blue"

1. Truth:
 Semantics: Focuses on the literal or conventional meaning of the sentence. In
this case, "Some patches are blue" can be considered true if there are indeed
some patches that are blue.
 Pragmatics: Emphasizes the context and communicative purpose of the
sentence. In certain contexts, for example if someone is talking about flag
design, this sentence can be considered true even though it is not literally
proven.
2. Truthfulness:
 Semantics: Related to the match between the statement and reality. If indeed
some patches are blue, this sentence is considered truthful.
 Pragmatics: Depends on the situation and communicative purpose. For
example, if someone uses this sentence to hide the fact that the majority of
patches are red, then their trustworthiness becomes questionable.

9
 3. Assertiveness:
 Semantics: Indicates the level of certainty or assertiveness in the statement
itself. This sentence is not very assertive because it uses the word "some" which
indicates uncertainty.
 Pragmatics: The assertiveness of this sentence can change depending on the
pronunciation, context, or body expression. For example, if spoken in a firm
tone, it can give the impression that this sentence is more definite than it actually
is.

Thus, while semantics is concerned with the literal meaning of a sentence, pragmatics
emphasizes the use of a sentence in a particular context of communication and how that
meaning is affected by that context.

K. Conclusion

From this article, it can be concluded that this research highlights several important
points including:

1. There is no significant difference in the judgment of correctness, trustworthiness, or

assertiveness of a sentence that is correct according to standard semantics but produces
a false implicature. This applies to all types of implicatures.
2. There was no main effect of the type of question used in participants' judgments of
sentences that produced false implicatures.
3. The false implicatures in the sentences tested may affect participants' appreciation of
the sentences, but it is difficult to make useful divisions among participants based on
the influence of the false implicatures.
4. The experimental results suggest that the distinction between semantics and pragmatics
in the context of judging the truth, trustworthiness, or assertiveness of a sentence may
be illusory or useless.

Thus, this study provides valuable insights related to the complexity of the interface
between semantics and pragmatics in language judgment and philosophy.

10