This course explores how the meanings of words combine in often complex ways to give rise to the meanings of utterances. After developing a set of tools for characterising word meaning, it addresses the relationship between semantics and syntax, and to what extent each is necessary for characterising the grammar of a language. Since utterances are used to convey more than just literal content, and since context is essential for resolving the reference of pronouns and other ambiguous expressions, the course explores the possibility that semantics and pragmatics can be treated a single integrated framework for understanding communication. Prosody represents a parallel aspect of meaning and is explored in depth. Overall, students will learn to approach the notion of meaning from different viewpoints, and to carry out precise analysis that best fits with the phenomenon and language involved.
-
Year Taken: AY 20/21, Sem 1
10% Class Participation
10% In-Class Essay
30% Class Discussion
20% Final Quiz
30% Final PaperThe approach for this class is very different from HG2002 Semantics & Pragmatics, since Dr. Francesco is a historical linguist. Although there are some readings on semantic theories seen in HG2002, I feel that there is a strong focus on lexicography, historical semantics and place names. The readings are not necessary, but they can provide ideas for the final paper.
While the in-class essay and the final paper are free topics, I feel that it is important to talk about diachronic semantic changes. I feel that some of my peers discuss synchronic semantic stuff such as componential analysis, and this is missing the point of the course in my opinion. I discussed how prehistoric humans conceptualized the world around them and how the words they created for these concepts changed in meanings.
My group was the only group that did not do well for the Class Discussion. We got the Week 9 paper on the Appellative of Shu. I have no idea what went wrong and everybody agreed that this was the toughest paper among all the other possible options for Class Discussion. Some pointers would be to summarize the content of the paper and made sure that there were a lot of interactions and discussions with the class on the content of the papers. It’s not necessary to provide critical insights, since my group did not do well even though we summarized the paper PLUS provided our critical thoughts.
For the Final Quiz, we only needed to study the Class Discussion papers (total of 5 papers).
This review was published with the kind permission of aLMSstudent. Originally published at https://ntulmsmods.wordpress.com/2020/11/18/ntu-lms-year-4-semester-1/
June 30, 2021
