Semantics vs Pragmatics

Abstract

Semantics and pragmatics overlap in their scope as they both deal with the meaning of linguistic expressions. Since semantics can be viewed as an abstraction from pragmatics, the question of what divides them thus becomes as well a question of what the scope of semantics should be. Traditionally, three features haven been suggested to define semantic content and delimit it from pragmatics: semantic content is truth conditional, conventional, and constant. However, there are only two cases in which the three criteria line up. Literal meaning is characterized by all of them, while conversational implicatures exhibit none. This contribution examines all other six possible combinations of the three features. This will lead to a typology of kinds of meaning that can be aligned with the different conceptions of semantics and pragmatics. It will be argued that a semantics based on conventions is conceptually the most reasonable choice for a defining feature and the line it draws between semantics and pragmatics that converges with the practice in theoretical and empirical linguistic research.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.