Solutions to the exercises

Chapter 2

(i)	e.g. "Pardon?"
(ii)	e.g. "You're welcome."
(iii)	e.g. "Hello?"
(iv)	e.g. "A happy new year!"

These expressions have exclusively social meaning.

Words are connected with certain concepts, their meanings. When a word is successfully communicated, i.e. if it is recognized by the addressee(s), it triggers in the mind of the addressees the concept it is connected with (provided there is a concept connected with it). (Cf. § 2.1.1)

The descriptive meaning of a content word is a concept that provides a mental description/representation of the potential referents of the word. Thereby, the descriptive meaning of a word determines what it can refer to, i.e. its potential of reference.
The descriptive meaning of a sentence is a concept that provides a mental description/representation of a situation. The sentence is true in a given CoU if in that CoU this kind of situation obtains. Thus, the descriptive meaning of a sentence determines its truth conditions. (Cf. §§ 2.2.1, 2.2.2)

In different CoUs, sentences, and parts of them, are interpreted as referring to different objects, facts etc. Thus, in context they are taken as conveying different information, since the information is related to different things in the world. For example, the sentence I'm tired. is taken to convey information about Tom if Tom says so, and about Judy if she does. (Cf. § 1.1.2 on expression meaning vs. utterance meaning.)

expression	descriptive meaning	social meaning	expressive meaning
Hi	-	informal greeting	_-
Velma	›person called Velma‹	informal address (by use of first name)
you are going to that ... lecture	›addressee is going to a certain lecture‹	-	-
... stupid ...	-	pejorative	-
Well, yes	-	conversational phrase: receipt plus hesitation	-
I'm sorry,	-	excuse
Sweety	›person‹	informal address	positive

The connotations are not part of the meaning. Word meaning determines the denotation, i.e. the category of pigs. Culture places pigs in certain contexts and attributes certain characteristics to them. These result in the connotations. (Cf. §2.5)

Chapter 3

see p. 41

nouns	red herring, big toe, white wine
intransitive verb	particle verbs: to give in, hold on etc. metaphorical expressions: to kick the bucket complex expressions: to cool down
transitive verb	particle verbs: to trace down etc. metaphorical expressions: to urge s.o. into a corner complex expressions: to make a fool of s.o.

Homonymy is a relation between different lexemes, polysemy is a property of single lexemes. (Cf. §§ 3.2.1, 3.2.2). Note that homonyms may each be polysemous (cf. the discussion of light p. 43).

fraud	polysemy (metonymical meaning link)
calf	homonymy (unrelated meanings)
sole	homonymy (unrelated meanings)
point	polysemy (similarity of potential referents)
character	homonymy (unrelated meanings; there is a historical connection, but it is not felt today)
palm	homonymy (unrelated meanings)
ring	homonymy (unrelated meanings)

The metaphorical meaning is a concept similar to the concept that constitutes the lexical meaning of the word, in that the metaphorical meaning contains certain elements of the literal meaning, but not all. Consequently the word in its metaphorical reading refers to things that are in certain respects similar to the things referred to with the word in its lexical meaning. (Cf. § 3.4.5)

The metonymical meaning of a word is a concept for things that belong to those things that are referred to with the word in its lexical meaning. (Cf. § 3.4.4)

contagion	metaphor
China (has escaped ...	metonymy (country for society)
fall	metaphor
... China (reform ...	metonymy (country for society)
crippled	metaphor

metaphor	step (act of stepping vs. action in a series of actions) head (part of the body vs. chief) thin (of objects vs. of stories etc.)
metonymy	paper (material vs. news paper) step (act of stepping vs. place for the foot when going from level to another) to go out (to leave a room vs. to mix in society)
differentiation	taste (taste vs. good taste) card (piece of stiff paper vs. postcard/name card) to move (to change position, to stir vs. to move house)

bean	metaphor (fruit > human body part)
paw	metaphor (animals > humans)
snotnose	metonymy (body part, in typical condition, for the whole person)

Both: Polysemy gives rise to ambiguities (disadvantage), but keeps the lexicon smaller (advantage).

Difference: Polysemy is a matter of lexical meaning, i.e. a phenomenon at the level of expression meaning. Polysemy is thus written into the lexicon. Meaning shifts concern utterance meaning: triggered by the context, the lexical meanings are shifted appropriately (guided by the Principle of Consistent Interpretation); the resulting readings are not written into the lexicon (otherwise shifts would be unnecessary). Similarity: The same kinds of conceptual relations (metaphor, metonymy, differentiation) relate the meaning variants of polysemous lexemes to each other and the lexical meanings of a word undergoing meaning shifts to the resulting shifted meaning. (Cf. § 3.6)

Cf. §§ 3.4, 3.5

Chapter 4

(a)	B. A is logically contrary: The sentence and A can both be false in the same CoU.
(b)	B. A is logically contrary: The sentence and A can both be false in the same CoU.
(c)	A. The sentence and B can both be true in the same CoU.
(d)	B. A is the negation of She is already here.

(a)	True: If A is true in all possible CoUs, then not-A is false in all possible CoUs.
(b)	False: If A is contingent, not-A is contingent, too: if A can be both true and false in appropriate CoUs, then not-A can be both false and true. Contingent sentences are neither logically true nor logically false.
(c)	True: Since A and not-A are logically contradictory, they are necessarily also contraries. (Contradiction implies contrariety.)
(d)	True: If A entails not-B, then A-true-not-B-false is impossible, i.e. A-true-B-true is ruled out. This is the same as not-A-false-B-true being impossible, which amounts to: B entails not-A. Or this way: If A entails not-B, then not-not-B entails not-A (cf. p. 65); since not-not-B is logically equivalent to B, B entails not-A.
(e)	False: A entails not-A iff it is impossible that A is true and not-A is false, i.e. iff it is impossible that A is true. This is the case if A is logically false. Logically false sentences entail their own negation, in fact they entail everything. (Cf. also case 3 p. 71.) Remark: This counter-intuitive result does not hold if A is contingent (or logically true). In this case, A can be true and then, obviously, not-A is false; thus there are CoUs with A true and not-A false.

A and B are logically equivalent iff A entails B and B entails A.

A and B are logically contrary iff A entails not-B (and/or B entails not-A).

A and B are logically contradictory iff A entails not-B and not-A entails B.

(a)

A entails B.

A	B
1	1	possible
1	0	impossible	In the same CoU, it must be the same book.
0	1	possible	Someone else sold the book to Mary.
0	0	possible

(b)

None of the relations obtains.

A	B
1	1	possible
1	0	possible	It may be light independently.
0	1	possible	It may be dark independently.
0	0	possible

(c)

A and B are incompatible.

A	B
1	1	impossible
1	0	possible	even necessary
0	1	possible
0	0	possible	Not many, but some, liked the show.

(d)

None of the relations obtains.

A	B
1	1	possible
1	0	possible	A is true even if all kids are sick.
0	1	possible	If none of the kids are sick: B may be true even if all kids are not sick.
0	0	impossible	Each kid must be either sick or not; hence, either A or B is true.

(e)

A and B are logically equivalent.

A	B
1	1	possible	even necessary
1	0	impossible	(Both sentences amount to the same.)
0	1	impossible	(Both sentences amount to the same.)
0	0	possible	even necessary

(a)	Bus is a subordinate of vehicle.
(b)	Bus is incompatible with train.
(c)	Married and unmarried are complementary.
(d)	Pleasant and unmarried are incompatible, but not complementary, since something may be neither pleasant nor unpleasant.
(e)	Buy is incompatible with sell: If x buys y, y cannot at the same time sell x.
(f)	Above and below are incompatible, but not complementary, since two objects may be at the same level.

Expressive and social meaning do not affect the truth conditions of a sentence (if the respective expressions appear in a sentence at all). Hence they cannot be captured by the logical method since all logical properties and relations depend exclusively on truth conditions. (Cf. § 4.6)

Cf. § 4.6.

Cf. §§ 4.5, 4.6. See also § 5.2.

Chapter 5

Meaning relations are relations between meanings as concepts (left corner of the semiotic triangle). Logical relations are relations in terms of truth conditions and denotations (right corner of the semiotic triangle).

If A is a hyponym of B, then (a) the meaning of B is part of the meaning of A, (b) the denotation of A is part/a subset of the denotation of B.

If A is a hyponym of B, then the denotation of A (as a whole set of cases) is part of the denotation of B. If A is a meronym of B, then every single potential referent of A is part of a single potential referent of B.

In a taxonomy, hyponyms must denote a sub-kind of what their hyperonym denotes.

(a)	Table and bed are heteronyms (within the lexical field of furniture terms).
(b)	Get on and get off are directional opposites with respect to time.
(c)	Top-down and bottom-up are directional opposites with respect to the direction of a process.
(d)	Before and after are directional opposites with respect to time; they are also converses, since x is before y iff y is after x.
(e)	Same and different are complementaries.
(f)	More and less are converses: x is more than y iff y is less than x.

little ›small‹ , antonym: big, great little ›young‹ , antonym: grown-up little ›a small amount‹ , antonym: much

Chapter 6

A predicate term is an expression (top element of the semiotic triangle), a predicate is a type of concept, i.e. the type of concept that predicate terms possess as meanings (left bottom element of the semiotic triangle). The meanings of predicate terms are predicates. An argument term is an expression that specifies an argument of a predicate. An argument is an object in the world (right bottom element of the semiotic triangle); it is one of the objects a predication is about.

Cf. § 6.2 in general, § 6.3.1 on complements of verbs, § 6.3.2 on referential arguments of verbs, § 6.4.1 on nouns, and § 6.4.2 on adjectives; see Table 6.2.

See pdf-file.

(a)	woman(x) & daughter(y,x) & frightened(y) & dentist(z) & take-to(x,y,z)
(b)	customers(x) & potato chips(y) & wooden(z) & toothpicks(z) & eat-with(x,y,z)

(a)	the woman: agent, the daughter: theme, the dentist: goal
(b)	the customers: agent, the potato chips: theme, the toothpicks: instrument

Note: It's the arguments, not the argument expressions, that fill the roles.

(a)	The NP a born loser is used predicatively in a copula construction; its argument is the referent(ial argument) of the subject NP of the copula is, i.e. the referent of Peter. (Cf. § 6.4.3)
(b)	Here, too, the NP a born loser is used predicatively. Its argument is the referent(ial argument) of the object NP of the verb call, i.e. the referent of him.
(c)	Here, the NP a born loser is what is called an apposition, to the preceding NP Peter. This use, too, is predicative; the appositional NP is taken as predicating about the referent(ial argument) of the preceding NP, i.e. the referent of Peter.

(a)	She dropped her bag no the floor. vs. The bag dropped onto the floor. In the first sentence, the verb drop is used as a transitive verb with an agent (she) specified by the subject NP, a theme (the bag) specified by the direct object NP, and a goal (the floor) specified by the PP on the floor. In the second sentence, the agent role is dropped, while the other two roles remain. In this intransitive use of drop, the subject NP specifies the theme, the goal is specified with a PP.
(b)	She broke the bottle. vs. The bottle was broken. In the first sentence, the transitive verb break has an agent argument, specified by the subject NP, an a theme argument, specified by the direct object NP. In the second sentence, the verb is used in the passive, which can be seen from the form of the verb (to be + past participle). The agent argument is dropped and the theme is specified in subject position.<i/>
(c)	She loaded the truck with bricks. vs. She loaded bricks onto the truck. In both constructions, the verb load has an agent argument specified in subject position. However, in the first type of use the theme, specified by the direct object NP the truck, is the truck, i.e. the vehicle or container that is to take the third argument. Thus, the action of loading is conceived of as primarily affecting the truck; the third argument is treated as an instrument. In the second sentence, the bricks are treated as primarily affected by the action of loading; they are treated as the theme of the predication. The truck here, appears as a goal argument.

(a)

To write can mean 'make letters or other symbols on a surface...'. In this case, the theme has to be (1) visible, (2) of some conventional form, (3) symbols representing language. However, the theme of the verb can also be the content of what is written (as in write a book). The selectional restriction then is that the theme be text. Note that under this reading the writers need not themselves produce letters. They may, e.g., dictate the text.

(b)

Something is expensive if it has a high price. The selectional restriction for the argument, hence, is that it be something that has a price.

(a)	The university lies in the eastern part of the town. The referent of the subject NP the university is the theme argument of the locational predication "lies in the eastern part off the town"; this predication can only apply to locatable entities; therefore, the meaning of university is shifted to something like ›university campus‹.
(b)	The university has closed down the faculty of agriculture. Being the agent argument of the predication "close(d) down the faculty of agriculture", the referent of university has to satisfy the selectional restriction of being something with the capacity (and competence) of undertaking this kind of action: it has to be a person or persons; whence the meaning is shifted to something like ›university management‹.
(c)	The university starts again on 15 April. Being the theme argument of the predication "starts again on 15 April", the referent of university has to satisfy the selectional restriction of being something going on in time. This triggers the meaning shift to something like ›university courses‹.

Chapter 7

Cf. § 7.1.

Cf. p. 128.

Cf. § 7.1.2 for syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations in general, and § 7.2.2 for syntagmatic and paradigmatic meaning relations.

A lexeme may consist of more than one morpheme. Morphemes cannot be divided into meaningful parts.

(a)	The noun univers-al-ity is derived from the adjective universal by attaching the suffix -ity. The same suffix occurs in celebrity, nationality and many other de-adjectival nouns. The adjective universal is derived from the noun universe by attaching the suffix -al. This suffix primarily takes nouns as its input and yields adjectives, cf. national, relational. But there are also cases such as approval, dismissal, where the suffix is used to derive a noun from a verb.
(b)	character-iz-ation The noun characterization is the result of attaching the suffix -ation to the verb characterize. This suffix takes verbs into nouns; other cases are organization, fixation. The verb characterize is formed by suffixing -iz(e) to the noun character; the suffix derives verbs from both nouns and adjectives (cf. denominal categorize, deadjectival nationalize).
(c)	un-believ-able The adjective unbelievable is derived by prefixing un- to the adjective believable; there are countless examples for this use of the prefix. With adjectives, the prefix un- yields an antonym or a complementary opposite (§§ 5.2.1, 5.2.3). It is also used with verbs (un-wrap, un-dress etc.), yielding a directional opposite (§ 5.2.2) The adjective believable is derived from the verb believe by attaching the very productive suffix -able which can be used on very many verbs (further examples: compar-able, debat-able)

Cf. §7.3.4, p. 138.

stative	inchoative	causative
x is at z	x goes to z	y sends x to z
x is broken	x breaks	y breaks x
x is dry	x dries	y dries x
x is better/good	x improves	y improves x
x is large(r)	x enlarges	y enlarges x
x is shrunk/small	x shrinks	y shrinks x
x knows z	x learns z	y teaches x z
x is married to z	x marries z	y marries x to z
x is liquid	x melts	y melts x
x is frozen	x freezes	y freezes x

Formula approaches allow for more complex and diverse patterns of decomposition. They allow for different kinds of meaning components and ways of composing them to complex meanings. For example, they can capture the meanings of predicate terms with more than one argument, conditions on other than the referential argument, implicit arguments etc.

See p. 148.

ALLGEMEINE SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT

Solutions to the exercises