1. 3 . . . TO SENSE
SENSE PROPERTIES
AND STEREOTYPES
UNIT 9

2. Introduction
 It is sometimes hard to distinguish a factual (or
‘ontological’) question from a semantic one.
 Agreeing on the meanings of the words
involved
  is necessary to be able to talk meaningfully
about anything
  As a result, effective and successful
93

3.  Quibbling over the meanings of everyday
words  may be used by a person wanting to
hinder or obstruct communication
 There might be disagreements about the fine
details of the meanings of words ‘around the
edges’,
  yet all words are understood by speakers as
having an indispensable hard core of
94

4. Sense
 The kind of meaning associated with words and
sentences by the language system
  Not the speaker meaning (i.e. the kind of
meaning specifically associated with utterances
made by speakers on particular occasions)
Definition (partial U3)
 The SENSE of an expression is its
indispensable hard core of meaning.

5. Sense
 This definition deliberately excludes
 any influence of context or situation of
utterance on the senses of expressions 
(Thus it is problematic to talk of the senses of
deictic words)
 The sense of an expression (the sum of) =
its sense properties + sense relations with
other expressions

6. Sense
Three important sense properties of
sentences:
 the property of being analytic
 the property of being synthetic
 the property of being contradictory

7. Definition
 An ANALYTIC sentence is one that is
necessarily TRUE, as a result of the senses
of the words in it. An analytic sentence,
therefore, reflects a tacit (unspoken)
agreement by speakers of the language
about the senses of the words in it.
 A SYNTHETIC sentence is one which is NOT
analytic, but may be either true or false,
depending on the way the world is.
 Example p95
95
96

8.  A CONTRADICTION is a sentence that is
necessarily FALSE, as a result of the
senses of the words in it. Thus a
contradiction is in a way the opposite of an
analytic sentence.
 Example p97
97

9. ANALYTIC vs. CONTRADICTION
SENTENCES
 The opposite of each other.
 Analytic sentences can be formed from
contradictions, and vice versa,
  by the insertion or removal, as
appropriate, of the negative particle word not.
 This animal is a vegetable  contradiction
 This animal is not a vegetable  analytic

10. The Figurative Use of Analytic
Sentences & Contradictions
 We pay no attention to it in our analysis here
That man is not a human
 Literally  a contradiction
 Figuratively  being a contradiction  gives it
power to communicate a strong emotional
judgement
  (stronger than the synthetic That man is very

11. Limitations of the Notions
Analytic, Synthetic, &
Contradiction
 These notions are defined in terms of truth
 Since imperative and interrogative sentences
cannot be true or false,
 they cannot be analytic or synthetic, because
‘synthetic’ only makes sense in contrast to the
notion ‘analytic’.
 Close the door.
 Is the door closed?

12. Part 2

13. Informativeness & Sense
Properties of Sentences
Synthetic
• potentially
informative in real-
world situations
• e.g. Alice is Ken’s
sister
Analytic &
Contradiction
• not informative to
anyone who
already knows the
meaning of the
words in them
• e.g. An avocado is
a vegetable

14. Semanticists are interested in the
foundations of everyday
communication
They concentrate attention
- on ordinary, everyday language (e.g. synthetic)
- on unusual sentences (e.g. analytic &
contradictions)
 People can only communicate meaningfully
about everyday matters, using informative
synthetic sentences,
  because they agree on the meanings of the
words in them.  This basic agreement on
meaning is reflected in analytic sentences &

15.  Analyticity, syntheticity, and contradiction are,
then, sense properties of sentences.
 Example p98
98

16. The Interdependence of Sense Relations
and Sense Properties
 Sense properties of sentences (e.g.
analyticity) depend on = the sense properties
of the words they contain + the sense relations
between the words they contain
 e.g. The sense relation between the predicates
man & human
  is hyponymy, a kind of sense inclusion
relationship between predicates
 E.g. The sense relation between the predicates
man and woman  is a kind of antonymy, or

17. The Interdependence of Sense Relations
and Sense Properties
 The sense structure of a language is like a
network
 in which the senses of all elements are, directly
or indirectly, related to the senses of all other
elements in these and other kinds of ways.
 E.g. Visual Thesaurus  visualizes some of
these sense relations

18. Limitation in the Idea of Sense
  quite parallel to a limitation in the idea of
extension
Reviewing the relationship between sense and
extension:
1- A speaker’s knowledge of the sense of a predicate
provides him with an idea of its extension i.e. the
sense of a predicate determines or ‘fixes’ the
extension of that predicate.
e.g. The ‘dictionary definition’ which the speaker
accepts for cat  can be used to decide what is a
cat, and what is not, thus defining, implicitly, the set

19. Limitation in the Idea of Sense
 A NECESSARY CONDITION on the sense of a
predicate is a condition (or criterion) which a
thing MUST meet  in order to qualify as
being correctly described by that predicate.
 A SUFFICIENT SET OF CONDITIONS on the
sense of a predicate is a set of conditions (or
criteria) which, if they are met by a thing, 
are enough in themselves to GUARANTEE
that the predicate correctly describes that
thing.
 Examples p99
99

20. Limitation in the Idea of
Sense
 Since we are stating conditions on
predicates in terms of other predicates in
the language  we will drop the quotation
marks & envisage necessary and sufficient
conditions as relationships between
predicates
 e.g. animal & cat  are semantically related
in such a way that the applicability of the
former is a necessary condition for the
applicability of the latter  Nothing can be
a cat without being an animal

21. Limitation in the Idea of
Sense
 It is possible to give complete definitions of
some predicates  in the form of a
‘necessary and sufficient list’ of other
predicates
 E.g. kinship predicates / shape predicates
100

22. Limitation in the Idea of
Sense
 The the idea of defining predicates by sets
of necessary and sufficient conditions 
can be evaluated from a practical point of view
  There is a close parallel with the
undecidability of extensions

23. The undecidability of
extensions
The existence of perfectly
clearly defined sets of
things in a large number of
cases
it is implausible to
postulate
e.g. the set of all tables
The idea of defining
predicates by sets of
necessary and
sufficient conditions
The idea that there could
be satisfactory definitions
in the form of sets of
necessary and sufficient
conditions for such
predicates
is clearly misguided
e.g. table

24. Arguments Against this
Definition
e.g. Ludwig Wittgenstein (game)
1- A set of necessary and sufficient
conditions for game to cover all
eventualities (including games played in the
past and games yet to be invented)  cannot
be given.
2- Some of the definitions offered by
dictionaries, while imperfect,  do cover a
large number of cases & are helpful.
100

25. Arguments Against this
Definition
 If there were a predicate for which we could
give no necessary or sufficient
condition,  we literally have no idea what
it meant.
 Complete definitions of the meanings of
predicates  cannot be given except in a
few cases
 For every predicate in a language, at least
some necessary and/or sufficient
ingredients in its meaning  is possible to
101

26. Stereotype
Speakers of a language have in their heads:
1- an idea of the bare sense of any given
predicate
2- a stereotype of it
 The STEREOTYPE of a predicate is a list of
the TYPICAL characteristics or features of
things to which the predicate may be applied.
 Example p 102
102

27. Stereotype
The stereotype of elephant is
a list of characteristics
which describes the
prototype
The stereotype of a
predicate may often specify
a range of possibilities (e.g.
the range of colours of
typical cats)
A speaker may know a
stereotype for some
predicate, e.g. ghost
Learnt about at second
hand, through
descriptions
Prototype
A prototype of elephant is
some actual elephant
An individual prototype of this
predicate will necessarily
take some particular place
within this range (e.g.
black)
but may not actually be
acquainted with any
prototypes of ghost
Learnt through direct
experience or ostensively

28. The Relationships Between
Stereotype, Prototype, Sense, and
Extension
Thing (or set
of
things)
specified
Abstract
specification
Pertaining to
all examples
EXTENSION SENSE
Pertaining to
typical
examples
PROTOTYPE STEREOTYPE