The difference between a sentence and an utterance is that while a sentence conveys a complete meaning through a combination of clauses, an utterance conveys a meaning through a few words that may not even make a complete clause. To understand an utterance, we need to distinguish between what the words mean and what are meant by the words. In the case of telling sentence versus utterance meaning apart, the differences are purely pragmatic rather than semantic. Pragmatics analyzes the meaning of words in relation to the context. Utterances are context dependent. In order to evaluate an utterance you should know the time and place of utterances as well as who is speaking and what they are talking about. However, sentences are typically involved with the meaning of words without understanding the context in which it occurs. Sentence meaning refers to the semantic content of a sentence, denoting that the meaning of the sentence is derived from the words themselves rather than the context. Sentences are typically in both written and spoken languages while utterances are used in spoken language. However, utterances may be represented in the written form. Several instances come into play when picking apart an utterance, whether it be change in tone, facial expressions, stress, or intonation. The hearer, using these implicated social cues, will be able to pick up on what the speaker is intending on saying. But, behind a screen you may not catch this. What you say may not be what you intend to mean. In Olivia Rodrigo’s popular song, “Good For You,” she appears to be taking a hit on her former love interest who has moved on very quickly from their relationship. Her lyrics are full of sarcastic remarks, implying that “good for you” doesn’t really mean “good for you.” Several remarks in the song point out that she isn’t actually happy for him, rather bitter about how her past love interest acted after the breakup. In my research, I will be using a questionnaire to asses the difference between sentence and utterance meanings. I want to be able to decipher instances in which people use the same phrase but in different contexts- sincere and sarcasm. 

At most family dinners it is common for someone to bring up a topic that not everyone shares the same opinions on. Guest (A) brings up a controversial topic, one that if someone responded could cause an issue or doesn’t want to get involved in the conversation at hand. For example, Guest (A) may be bringing up politics at the table, which is notably a touchy subject for some. Guest (B) can intentionally disobey a maxim as long as he or she provides enough context indicators for the hearer to notice. This is called flouting a maxim and is used to indirectly express information. The maxim that Guest (B) violates is the maxim of relation. Guest (B) could say “The stuffing is great!”By saying something like such, it allows us to avoid confrontation directly and imply something (such as getting off topic) without having to keep going at a potentially argumentative conversation.

The topic that I am interested in exploring is the elements of meaning; word meaning, sentence meaning, and utterance meaning. I find this topic to be extremely interesting because you can connect your perception to those of others and see the boundary of differences in what one may consider a sarcastic or sincere response versus what someone else may believe. Not only this but I think this topic is open for a wide range of discussion with the variables in consideration.

I will make a clear distinction between sentence versus utterance meaning. Sentences convey meaning through clauses while utterances convey meaning through few words that may not even be a complete clause. Although sentence meaning overall is the same, utterance meaning os completely different (for example “good for you’ said either sincerely or sarcastically).

I think I want to conduct both my own research as well as use research from various internet sources. What I would want to do in my research is ask people some words/phrases that they find can be said both sincerely and sarcastically. I would ask them to mark instances that these could be used in as well as why they may think people can use the words in either context. I think I may break it up into people who have taken linguistics versus those who haven’t to see how responses differ. 

I think this topic could be extremely reflective on the way language influences the way we think. It conveys the difference between sentence and utterance meanings and how our interpretations are distorted in a way. Im not entirely sure about how I will break up paragraphs but I will make sure all the information I want to convey is there. As for another big point of discussion for this topic I’m not entirely sure of what to dive into, but for now this is just my rough outline of what I want to discuss!

Simple Antonyms

Innocent/guilty

The man is deemed innocent

The man is deemed guilty 

When these words are used in sentences, the sentences turn to be contradictory (one sentence must be true and the other must be false). There is also no middle ground, meaning the referent has to be either one or the other, it can’t be both, and it can’t be neither. Therefore, innocent/guilty are simple antonyms.

Gradable Antonyms

Friendly/unfriendly

Sam is friendly 

Sam is unfriendly 

Typically belong to the same semantic domain but name opposite ends of the scale. These sentences are contrary, meaning they both can’t be true but both may be false or one may be true and the other is false. Sam can either be friendly or unfriendly, or neither. This reflects that friendly/unfriendly are gradable antonyms.

Reverse Pairs

Forward/backward

Go forward 2 spaces

Go backward 2 spaces

These are words that denote motion or change direction. In these sentences “forward” and ‘backward” demonstrate that they are in fact reverse pairs.

Converse Pairs

Teacher/student

James is my teacher

I am James’ student

Converse pairs represent an asymmetric relation between two entities. They have relation but their arguments are reversed.

Taxonomic Sisters

Flamingo/Peacock

Flamingo and peacock are taxonomic sisters.  They are hyponyms (“when two words stand in a generic-specific relationship we refer to the more specific term as the hyponym and the more generic term as the hypernym) of birds. When we say “An X is a kind of Y” there is a taxonomic relationship between X and Y. Therefore, flamingo and peacock are taxonomic sisters.

1a entails 1b

1a. The president was assassinated

1b. The president is dead 

 

2a presupposes 2b

2a. Sam regretted eating the banana

2b. Sam ate the banana

Sentence 2a presupposes sentence 2b in which the presupposition is that she ate the banana.

The presupposition trigger is regretted.

 

3a presupposes 3b 

3a. Tyler stopped turning into a werewolf every full moon

3b. Tyler used to turn into a werewolf every full moon

Sentence 3a presupposes sentence 3b in which the presupposition is that Tyler was a werewolf.

The presupposition trigger is stopped.

The pair of words that I chose that have the same denotation but different expressive meaning is “childish” and “childlike.” The words “childish” and “childlike” relate to qualities associated with a child. Using these adjectives, “childlike” is typically used in a more positive way while “childish” is not. Being childish directly correlates to when a grown up show acts of immaturity. When used in sentences, “childish” is  usually used to describe the behavior of someone. Having childish qualities as an adult is seen as an embarrassment or inappropriate. It also reflects behavior that they should outgrow. Childlike, on the other hand, can refer to having innocence. It does not mean that someone is acting like a child or inappropriately. While “childish” refers to the outside qualities of an individual, “childlike” refers to the inner qualities an individual possesses. Sometimes, the word “childlike” can be used when giving a compliment since they posses good qualities a child may have.